Service-learning: Thinking outside the box - SAGE Journals

Article

Service-learning: Thinking outside the box

Active Learning in Higher Education 11(1) 43–53 © The Author 2010 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermission.nav DOI: 10.1177/1469787409355870 http://alh.sagepub.com

Susan J. Deeley

University of Glasgow, UK

Abstract Service-learning is a form of experiential learning that combines academic coursework with voluntary service in the community. There is a dearth of critical analysis of the effects of service-learning. To address this issue, this practitioner research aimed to explore and understand its effects. An inductive approach, using qualitative and grounded theory methods, was used. Twelve semi-structured, in-depth individual interviews and two focus groups, one held at the beginning and the other at the end of the students’ service placement, were conducted. Sequential and comparative analysis was made of the data gathered from various sources related to the course.The study demonstrates how intellectual and personal development can occur through service-learning. It also highlights potentially negative effects, but suggests that, overall, service-learning is potentially conducive to students’ transformation.

Keywords critical reflection, experiential learning, service-learning, transformation, voluntary service

Service-learning Service-learning has been described in various broad terms as a pedagogy, a philosophy, a programme and an experience (Anderson, 1998; Kenworthy-U’Ren, 2003; Mendel-Reyes, 1998). It is a form of experiential learning that combines academic coursework with voluntary service in the community. Essential requirements of service-learning are that the service is connected with the coursework and that, through critical reflection, students make the connections between their service experiences and the abstract concepts of the coursework. Other requirements are that the coursework is assessed (but not the service per se) and that the service meets community needs (Bringle and Hatcher, 1996; Butin, 2003 ; Pritchard, 2001; Weigert, 1998). In sum, civic engagement, or active and positive contributions to the community, and academic learning are broad but key factors in service-learning (Billig and Welch, 2004). What is unique about service-learning is that its aim is to benefit students and the recipients of their service in the community (Deeley, 2004, 2006; Mendel-Reyes, 1998). It is, therefore, unlike other forms of experiential learning that aim to benefit the student only, such as internships, work placements, field education or vocational training. Similarly, it is also unlike volunteerism, which aims to benefit the recipient of the voluntary activity and does not include structured learning. Corresponding author: Susan J. Deeley, Department of Urban Studies, University of Glasgow, 25–29 Bute Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RS, UK. Email: [email protected]

44

Active Learning in Higher Education 11(1)

By increasing civic responsibility through community engagement and academic learning, service-learning has been referred to as a ‘pedagogy for citizenship’ (Mendel-Reyes, 1998: 34). A major incentive for its introduction in higher education, however, is the claim that it enhances students’ intellectual skills (Batchelder and Root, 1994; Bringle and Hatcher, 1996; Mendel-Reyes, 1998; Tonkin, 2004). One of the key elements of enhanced intellectual skills is the development of critical thinking (Batchelder and Root, 1994; Giles and Eyler, 1998). Critical reflection, which is a form of critical thinking, is an intrinsic aspect of service-learning. In this context, new meanings and understanding may result from critical reflection on experience (Schön, 1987) and its connections with academic coursework. Furthermore, questioning that which is implicit, and challenging assumptions, are key factors in this process (Boud et al., 1985; Brockbank and McGill, 2007; Brookfield, 1990; Dewey, 1933; Mezirow, 1991). It is unclear in the service-learning literature, however, how enhanced intellectual skills are achieved. Nevertheless, studies do suggest that service-learning has a positive impact on problem solving and analysis (Eyler, 2000; Kearney, 2004). Others claim that service-learning contributes to development in writing and oral skills (Astin et al., 2000; Lisman, 1998; Howard, 2003; Mendel-Reyes, 1998). Butin (2005: vii) states that service-learning combines ‘the cognitive with the affective’, which is an aspect that may also contribute to students’ personal development (Astin et al., 2000; Billig, 2000; Driscoll et al., 1996; Eyler, 2000; Kearney, 2004; Mendel-Reyes, 1998). Eyler (2000), for example, believes that service-learning has a positive impact on interpersonal skills. It can also enhance the effectiveness of students’ ‘communication . . . social interaction, (and) decisionmaking’ (Kearney, 2004: 9). Furthermore, students may gain personal confidence and increased social awareness (Batchelder and Root, 1994). Lisman (1998) claims that service-learning is also conducive to increasing students’ self-esteem and personal confidence. It also helps to develop their interpersonal skills and team work. He believes that leadership skills can be nurtured through service-learning, a view reiterated by Howard (2003). There are further claims that service-learning results in personal transformation (Mendel-Reyes, 1998; Quiroga, 2004). Jones (2002), however, challenges the notion that service-learning is always beneficial. Jones et al. (2005) offer a refreshingly honest account of how students do not unfailingly benefit from service-learning, and explain it in terms of student resistance. They claim that negativity is largely the result of students’ inability to make connections between service and their learning, which leads to frustration and misunderstanding. The cause of resistance is attributed to students’ developmental unreadiness. Service-learning might be more appropriate, therefore, for final-year students who are more likely to be at higher levels of cognitive functioning (Perry, 1999). There are thus various claims to the effects of service-learning. There is, however, a paucity of critical analysis in the literature of how these effects occur, with an overriding assumption that service-learning invariably results in positive outcomes. Overall, there is a lack of convincing evidence concerning its impact (Eyler, 2002). The following study modestly attempts to address this omission.

The course In 2006, a service-learning honours course was introduced into the curriculum of the Public Policy undergraduate degree programme in the Department of Urban Studies, at the University of Glasgow, Scotland. The overall aim of the course was to combine theoretical aspects of citizenship and civil society with analysis of the practical effects of public policy on welfare provision. The integration of service-learning into a Public Policy degree programme was highly appropriate in that its overall intended learning outcomes included students being able to critically analyse theory

Deeley

45

and practice in the field of public policy, and analyse the implications of active citizenship and civic responsibility, through students’ voluntary service in the community. A total of 14 third- and fourth-year students were enrolled on the course. In the first semester the students were required to attend a one-hour lecture, followed by a one-hour seminar, every week. The topics included: civil society and civic virtues; citizenship; education for citizenship policy; service-learning; approaches to learning; and seminal texts by Dewey (1938) and Freire (1970) were also closely examined. In the second semester, students completed six hours of voluntary service a week from January to March. The work of the agencies included providing: education for children with special needs; after-school hours recreation for children from a deprived area; social day care for frail and elderly people; citizens’ advice; welfare advice to a racial minority group; advice for the housing needs of ethnic minority groups and asylum seekers; job training skills for the long-term unemployed. During the period that students were involved in voluntary work, they also attended a weekly one-hour tutorial, where they reflected on their service experience. Seven students attended each tutorial, and tutorials were structured using the theme of a ‘hero’s journey’ (Chisholm, 2000). Additionally, there was a one-hour weekly seminar attended by all 14 students. Here, they discussed specific literature to facilitate connections between their service experience and the coursework of the first semester. The aim of the research was to explore and understand the effects of service-learning on students in higher education. The overarching questions addressed in the study concerned the effects of service-learning and how they occurred.

Research design Methods All 14 students on the course participated in the study, although two students were not interviewed because of their absence from class. They were all invited to attend two focus groups. One semistructured focus group of seven students was held at the beginning of the students’ placement period. This focus group was essentially exploratory, with the main aim to discover students’ expectations of the placement and likely areas that could be discussed in more depth in the individual interviews. The second semi-structured focus group of seven students was held at the end of the course in March 2007. Four of the seven students in this group had attended the first focus group. Some of the preliminary findings were presented to this group for their comments and validation of the researcher’s interpretation and understanding of the data. Further comments from the students were gathered in this focus group that reinforced the themes already established from the data collection. During the interim period between focus groups, 12 semi-structured qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted. The focus groups and all the interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The average length of time of each interview was 45 minutes. To maintain the anonymity of two male respondents, all references to the students were feminized. Further data were also collected. A ‘Personal Social Values’ questionnaire (Mabry, cited in Bringle et al., 2004: 59–61) was administered before students went on placement and again at the end of the course. The aim was to gauge whether the course had had any effects on the students’ views about the importance they attached to: influencing social values; finding a suitable career that would allow them to help others; and helping others who are less able. The questionnaire also asked students to rate themselves, compared with others of their own age, on their commitment to serving the community. Although the sample of students was too small for this element of quantitative data

46


to be significant, it offered valuable insight into some of the effects of the course. Other data included students’ personal statements outlining the reasons why they had enrolled for the course and a brief written tutorial exercise that identified their expectations of the placement. Students were required to complete ‘critical incident’ reports during their placement to aid their reflection. This material, plus the students’ assessed reflective journals, written examination scripts, researcher/ educator’s reflections on the tutorials written in a fieldwork diary, students’ anonymous comments in two course evaluations, and students’ self evaluations, were also used as data.

Analysis of the data Initial coding of the data began after the first focus group. In the coding process, each line of the transcript was scrutinized. Key themes emerged through the identification of recurrent ideas, words and phrases. This influenced and shaped the structure of the first individual interview, which was then similarly analysed and coded. This process of sequential analysis continued until all the interviews were completed. All the transcripts and other data sets were reviewed and open coding (Bryman, 2004) was undertaken, whereby significant ideas and issues were identified. The data were therefore analysed for meaning through a process of constant and sequential comparison and analysis (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), echoing that of grounded theory (Cresswell, 1998). Essential themes, or ‘core categories’, were thus grounded in and emerged from the data. Each of these core categories was then subdivided into further categories, which were each characterized by its properties. Properties of each category were often connected to, or shared with, those of other categories. Subsequently, to clarify the emerging theoretical ideas and to refine the process further, axial coding of the data was conducted. This involved a process of making new connections between categories, following which several revisions of the various categories and properties were made. The final core categories or themes consisted of: intellectual development; personal transformation; citizenship; motivation; and the ‘downside’. Each of these core categories consisted of various further subcategories. This article focuses on the first two themes as these were the most salient.

Ethical issues Ethical approval was given by the University of Glasgow. Written information about the study, with assurances of anonymity and confidentiality, and consent forms were distributed to the students. They were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time without question or prejudice. All the students agreed to participate. Only one student refused consent to the use of her examination paper in the research. All data were kept confidentially and securely, and on completion of the study were destroyed.

Findings Although several themes emerged from this study, the focus of this article is on students’ intellectual and personal development. These encompass both positive and negative effects.

Intellectual development Throughout the course, students were encouraged to challenge their assumptions, particularly concerning discrimination and oppression. Students claimed that this ‘changes the way you think’. They said that it had encouraged them to ‘think about things more, in greater depth’; ‘question

Deeley

47

things rather than just accept’; ‘look at things differently’; and ‘(listen) to people a lot more closely’. After being on placement, some of them also questioned the effectiveness of public policies. The students had spent their previous two or three undergraduate years studying theoretical aspects of Public Policy. In this course, they were also experiencing policy in practice and discovering the extent of its efficacy. It was evident that intellectual skills were enhanced through the combination of several factors. These factors involved: taught coursework; placement; dialogue within small groups; critical reflection; critical analysis of readings; and journal writing. A valuable insight was highlighted by a student who said that ‘in this course you’re relating to you and how you see things’. This highlights the holistic dimension of the experiential learning process. It involves the whole self (Butin, 2005), and this is perhaps one of the reasons why service-learning can be such a ‘powerful learning experience’ (Anderson, 1998: 4). To gain a clearer understanding of how the students developed intellectually, it is useful to examine the key factors of the course. These were experiential learning, critical reflection, and small classes.

Experiential learning Most of the students attributed their intellectual development to the course being a holistic experience. As one student explained, ‘I would apply my learning in class or placement to my day to day living, to the way I think and the way I feel about things’. Many students claimed that servicelearning encouraged deeper learning; as one student said, it ‘makes it clearer . . . stays with you (and helps you) to remember it’. Their understanding of public policy also broadened as they perceived the links between theory and practice. One student explained, ‘it’s the academic part that I can relate to in my experience that makes me learn’. This echoes the notion of non-dualism: between the material world and the abstract world of thought. Learning was on a very personal level which made students feel more in control of their learning: ‘you weren’t being instructed (but instead) guided . . . encouraged to find out things yourself’. For some, however, this was initially perceived in a negative light, as it was accompanied by a feeling of insecurity. Nevertheless, many of the students believed that ‘traditional’ teaching and learning methods were less effective. These methods involve a ‘conveyor-belt attitude to education . . . (which) is not about discovery, but the dutiful repetition of precisely what you have been told’ (Russell, 2007: 33). This is the ‘banking concept’ of education with ‘bank-clerk educators’ (Freire, 1970: 57) who make deposits of information in students’ minds. As a result of this process, some students adopted strategic methods whereby they learned only what they needed to know to write essays and to pass examinations. One student admitted that she had learned how to do this effectively, being good at ‘jumping through hoops . . . rather than necessarily being clever’.

Critical reflection Critical reflection is vital to service-learning in that it provides the connection between academic coursework and the students’ experience on placement. Unfortunately there is little in the servicelearning literature to indicate what critical reflection entails. Exploration of the various levels and complexities of critical thinking is evident, however, in other fields of literature (King, 2000; King and Kitchener, 1994; Mezirow et al., 1990; Moon, 1999). From the beginning of the tutorials it was clear that guidance on critical reflection was necessary for students to be able to progress through an experiential learning cycle (Kolb, 1984). Students were encouraged to explore assumptions arising from their experiences by identifying ‘critical incidents’ (Brookfield, 1990; Conrad and Hedin, 1987). This was congruent with the academic coursework that focused on conscientization, or the

48


raising of awareness (Freire, 1970). One student described it as ‘thinking outside the box’, and another said that they engaged in more ‘structured thinking’ in this course. It was clear that critical reflection became a newly acquired tool or skill for most of the students. Its effects were prodigious, but not always positive. It could be rewarding, as many said that it ‘just opened my eyes’. Elements of the ‘downside’ of service-learning, and its unpredictability, soon became apparent as a result of critical reflection. One student exclaimed, ‘it turns your world upside down’ and another described it as ‘daunting . . . frightening’. There were two main reasons for this. Firstly, some students were challenging their own values and beliefs, which caused them discomfort. Secondly, some could not control their newly acquired skill and found that they were continually reflecting critically on many aspects of their life. Consequently, they felt this was very time consuming. Moreover, it had an immobilizing effect. A student said, ‘I just need my mind to stop . . . it scares you, it kind of throws you off balance’. Bulpitt and Martin (2005: 213) acknowledge the problems that may arise through critical reflection and recommend that ‘students be taught to disengage with reflection’. Strategies for dealing with this problem were discussed with the students. Some of them said that keeping a reflective journal and discussing issues with each other after class helped to alleviate their discomfort.

Small classes A class contract was made in which students agreed to: be respectful of other people’s opinions; create a friendly atmosphere; encourage and support each other; participate fully in the coursework; be punctual and have good manners. This was to ‘(create) a classroom climate of trust and respect (which) is an essential element in fostering reflective practice among students’ (Bringle and Hatcher, 1999: 185). It helped to nurture an effective learning environment where friendships were also fostered. The students shared their experiences and offered each other encouragement and support. They identified this as having a therapeutic effect, calling it ‘a wee counselling group’. The small classes enabled the students in the study to discuss their experiences with ease and were significant in terms of their personal and intellectual development. The reciprocity and cooperation between the students was a positive and contributory factor to their learning (Taylor, 2000). It was through lively class discussions that most students learned to listen more closely to, and consider, each other’s comments. One student illustrated this, saying, ‘it surprises you sometimes when people think differently from the way you do, and that helps you learn as well’. Another student explained that it was through listening to others’ experience on placement that she learned to understand her own experiences more clearly. One student said that, without a convivial atmosphere in the class, ‘I don’t think personally I would connect . . . to be able to link theories with personal experiences’. These factors made learning ‘easier’, broadened their understanding, and improved their learning ‘without feeling that boxes have been ticked’. The effects of this were that the students’ confidence increased. This resonates with the literature on the benefits of small classes to student learning (Cartney and Rouse, 2006; Gillies and Ashman, 2003; Jacques, 2000). It appears, therefore, that several factors inherent in service-learning contribute to intellectual development. Similarly, it is these factors which can also lead to personal change, or transformation.

Personal transformation All the students claimed that service-learning had changed them. Most of the students regarded the course and its effects as part of a process, indeed as part of their own life ‘journey’. This suggests that they were predisposed to participate in the course and were receptive to its effects, rather than resisting or rejecting them.

Deeley

49

For some students, their intellectual and personal development, or transformation, occurred over a period of time, while other students’ experience was sudden. Some described the change as occurring ‘in small ways’, whereas others experienced life-changing effects. To exemplify this, one student said, ‘I think it’s changed me as a whole person’. Another claimed that at the end of the course ‘you realise that you’re a totally different person in the space of a couple of months. It’s amazing.’ A few students felt that they had experienced Friere’s (1970) stages of consciousness, with one student describing it as ‘ongoing conscientization’. One student said, ‘it’s . . . just started the process . . . (which) . . . I think I’ll continue for the rest of my life’. The findings in this study largely reiterated explanations of transformative change described in the literature (Brookfield, 1990; Cranton, 1994; Mezirow, 1991, 2000; Rogers, 1969). Among the causes of transformative change were the challenges in the course.

Challenges Challenges arose through: the placement; the amount of time spent on the course; critical reflection; examining assumptions. In the first part of the course, the challenges were mainly intellectual and involved the concepts in the coursework which contributed to the students’ conscientization. One student explained that, ‘the course does challenge you to think about your assumptions and people’s assumptions about yourself’. Although the course was the source of many challenges to students, it also provided the resources to overcome those challenges. When the placements began, these challenges became more complex and intense as the students reflected on theory and practice, in addition to reflecting on their own personal experiences. The challenges were made explicit through critical reflection and then explored through dialogue within the small groups. At times this was difficult, intense and emotionally draining for some students as they began to challenge their personal values and beliefs. To the discomfort of a few students, a shift in meaning perspectives and meaning schemes occurred (Mezirow, 1991). Consequently, two of them considered leaving the course. The therapeutic effect of the tutorials, however, helped to alleviate students’ discomfort (Rogers, 1969) and contributed to their transformation. This process was not easy.

Discomfort The process of transformation resulted from some students facing their ‘own demons’. This echoes Rogers’ belief (1969) that a dilemma may trigger learning. The dilemma may be fraught with negative emotions, including fear. Indeed, students described the effects as scary, frightening and, at times, overwhelming. This also resonates with Brookfield’s view (1990). A student thought that the course was a ‘trigger’, or catalyst, to promote change. She likened it to a traumatic event, like ‘one of those things where you’re in a car crash and . . . you question just what it is in life you’re doing’. All aspects of the course appeared to contribute to its ‘trigger’ effects. To some extent, discomfort and fear could be perceived as the ‘downside’ of service-learning. These negative feelings were not anticipated. They were transitory, however, being symptoms or characteristics of transformation. Despite this negativity, students invariably became more confident as they faced the challenges and overcame their feelings of discomfort.

Confidence Students’ confidence was conducive to their transformation. Mezirow (1978: 107) explains that, ‘self confidence for perspective transformation is often gained through an increased sense of competency

50


and through a supportive social climate’. Service-learning increased students’ confidence in various ways. For some, they felt more competent in their studies. For others, it gave them a more assured sense of self. They became more open and assertive with others. Their confidence also grew in self-expression. This was the result of being on placement and participating in the small classes. The effects of increased confidence led some students to perceive and challenge oppression in their life. Others said that they would be more prepared to take action to address a social issue. This resonates with the notion of critical beings (Barnett, 1997).

Discussion Many of the claims about service-learning in the literature are based on quantitative studies attempting to measure its effects. This qualitative study, however, has sought to explore and understand the effects of service-learning on students from their perspective. In this study, the greatest effects were evident in the students’ intellectual and personal development. Both of these aspects resulted from a combination of experiential learning, critical reflection and small group work. A large body of the literature extols the virtues of service-learning with, ironically, low levels of criticality. Service-learning has the potential to produce the benefits that are claimed in the literature, but there is no guarantee that these will occur. An omission in the literature is the thorny issue of the unpredictability of service-learning. This study investigates the effects of service-learning and highlights their unpredictability. Unpredictability was perceived as a negative aspect because it was a cause of anxiety. Many aspects of the course were unpredictable. Over half of the students expressed some fear of, and subsequent resistance to, them. This was perhaps a natural reaction, as what is seen to be threatening tends also to be resisted (Rogers, 1969). Many students found themselves outside their ‘comfort zone’ and said they felt lost along their ‘journey’, especially at the beginning of the placement. They expressed this in terms of ‘stepping alone into the unknown’, which resulted in feelings of uncertainty and confusion. It is important to acknowledge that service-learning constitutes a variety of components that may contribute to effective learning. Its success, therefore, depends on the sum and interrelation of its parts. In this study, for example, critical reflection served to enhance intellectual development, but it also contributed to the students’ personal growth because they applied critical thinking skills outside the classroom. Small-group work encouraged students to engage intellectually with the coursework, but it also had a social benefit. Within these groups, students also gained emotional support from each other. Small classes had therapeutic effects and thus encouraged personal growth, in addition to fostering friendships. Essentially, it was an effective learning community. It is acknowledged, however, that in other circumstances small groups are not necessarily required for effective learning communities. Through making connections between the academic coursework and the experiences gained on placement, students developed both intellectually and personally. There is no satisfactory explanation in the service-learning literature of how students’ transformation occurs. In this study, transformation occurred through students challenging their belief systems and assumptions, which led to perspective change (Mezirow, 1991). Students were supported in this process through critical reflection in small groups. Service-learning, in combining academic theory with experiential learning, is a powerful learning tool, through which the process of consciousness raising can be nurtured. This is difficult, if not impossible, to measure, and the outcome cannot be predicted. Transformation may result from service-learning, but it cannot be guaranteed. Service-learning may affect students in varying degrees, in different ways, and at different times, perhaps also after the course has ended.

Deeley

51

In summary, service-learning involves a combination of cognitive, affective and practical aspects which are connected and drawn together through critical reflection. This study has been an example of a course that involved: challenging assumptions; raising consciousness; participating in critical discourse; sharing experiences; and nurturing trust in the ‘learning community’ of small classes. This experience led to transformation for a number of students. This transformation followed varying levels of discomfort and for some, catharsis. It was through the occurrence of transformation that an aspect of the ‘downside’ of, and resistance to, service-learning was evident. This negativity, however, was short-lived and led to the students’ intellectual and personal growth. The effects of this course have been evidenced by the students’ experience. Nevertheless, the findings may not necessarily be generalizable, as the study was small. It was also limited by time, which did not allow for a reconstruction of meaning that might occur through time. There was a risk that the findings and their interpretation could be biased because the researcher was also the author and teacher of the course. A ‘halo or Hawthorn effect’ (Kember, 2003: 92) may also have been induced, whereby enthusiasm may have impacted on the effects of the course. Further qualitative research would be beneficial to good practice in the pedagogy of service-learning, in addition to highlighting potential problems that may be alleviated or prevented. This would serve to advocate its viability in higher education, in addition to enhancing its credibility as a potentially ‘transformative pedagogy’ (hooks, 1994). Overall, this study indicates that service-learning has the potential to positively affect students intellectually and emotionally, to the extent of transformation. As Mezirow (1978: 109) claims, ‘there is no higher priority for adult education than to develop its potentialities for perspective transformation’. From this study, it is evident that to nurture students’ critical thinking, or to facilitate their ‘thinking outside the box’, it is worthwhile for educators to consider alternatives to the ‘banking’ concept of education (Freire, 1970). Acknowledgement This article has been adapted from a dissertation for an MEd in Academic Practice.

References Anderson, J. (1998) ‘Service-learning and Teacher Education’, ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education, Washington DC: http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/files/service2.html [accessed 4 April 2007]. Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K. & Yee, J. A. (2000) How Service Learning Affects Students, Executive Summary. University of California: Higher Education Research Institute. Barnett, R. (1997) Higher Education: A Critical Business. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University. Batchelder, T. H. & Root, S. (1994) ‘Effects of an Undergraduate Program to Integrate Academic Learning and Service: Cognitive, Prosocial Cognitive, and Identity Outcomes’, Journal of Adolescence 17: 341–55. Billig, S. H. (2000) ‘Research on K-12 School-Based Service-Learning’, Phi Delta Kappan May: 658–64. Billig, S. H. & Welch, M. (2004) ‘Service-Learning as Civically Engaged Scholarship’, in M. Welch & S. H. Billig (eds) New Perspectives in Service Learning, pp. 221–41. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page. Bringle, R. G. & Hatcher, J. A. (1996) ‘Implementing Service Learning in Higher Education’, Journal of Higher Education 67(2): 221–39. Bringle, R. G. & Hatcher, J. A. (1999) ‘Reflection in Service Learning: Making Meaning of Experience’, Educational Horizons 77(4): 179–85. Bringle, R. G., Phillips, M. A. & Hudson, M., eds (2004) The Measure of Service-Learning: Research Scales to Assess Student Experiences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

52


Brockbank, A. & McGill, I. (2007) Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education. Maidenhead: Open University Press/SRHE. Brookfield, S. (1990) ‘Using Critical Incidents to Explore Learners’ Assumptions’, in J. Mezirow & Associates (eds) Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood: A Guide to Transformative and Emancipatory Learning, pp. 177–93. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bryman, A. (2004) Social Research Methods, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bulpitt, H. & Martin, P. J. (2005) ‘Learning about Reflection from the Student’, Active Learning in Higher Education 6(3): 207–17. Butin, D. W. (2003) ‘Of What Use Is it? Multiple Conceptualizations of Service-Learning Within Education’, Teachers College Record 105(9): 1674–92. Butin, D. W. (2005) ‘Preface: Disturbing Normalizations of Service-Learning’, in D. W. Butin (ed.) ServiceLearning in Higher Education: Critical Issues and Directions, pp. vii–xx. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Cartney, P. & Rouse, A. (2006) ‘The Emotional Impact of Learning in Small Groups: Highlighting the Impact on Student Progression and Retention’, Teaching in Higher Education 11(1): 79–91. Chisholm, L. A. (2000) Charting a Hero’s Journey. New York: International Partnership for Service-Learning and Leadership. Conrad, D. & Hedin, D. (1987) Youth Service: A Guidebook for Developing and Operating Effective Programmes. Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education. Cranton, P. (1994) Understanding and Promoting Transformative Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cresswell, J. W. (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. London: SAGE. Deeley, S. J. (2004) ‘The Impact of Experience: A Comparative Study of the Effects of International Partnership for Service-Learning Students within Welfare Agencies in Scotland and Jamaica’, in Tonkin, H. (ed.) Service-Learning Across Cultures: Promise and Achievement, pp. 197–232. New York: International Partnership for Service-Learning and Leadership. Deeley, S. J. (2006) ‘Contextualising Service-Learning: A Critical Review’, unpublished paper for MEd (Academic Practice), University of Glasgow. Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education. London: Macmillan. Driscoll, A., Holland, B., Gelmon, S. & Kerrigan, S. (1996) ‘An Assessment Model for Service-Learning: Comprehensive Case Studies of Impact on Faculty, Students, Community, and Institution’, Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 3: 66–71. Eyler, J. S. (2000) ‘What Do We Most Need to Know About the Impact of Service- Learning on Student Learning?’, Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 7: 11–17. Eyler, J. (2002) ‘Stretching to Meet the Challenge Improving the Quality of Research to Improve the Quality of Service-Learning’, in S. H. Billig & A. Furco (eds) Service-Learning Through a Multidisciplinary Lens, pp. 3–13. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin. Giles, D. E. & Eyler, J. (1998) ‘A Service Learning Research Agenda for the Next Five years’, New Directions for Teaching and Learning 73: 65–72. Gillies, R. M. & Ashman, A. F., eds (2003) Co-operative Learning: The Social and Intellectual Outcomes of Learning in Groups. London: Routledge. Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Howard, J. (2003) ‘Service-Learning Research: Foundational Issues’, in S. H. Billig & A. S. Waterman (eds) Studying Service-Learning: Innovations in Education Research Methodology, pp. 1–12. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. London: Routledge. Jacques, D. (2000) Learning in Groups, 3rd edn. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Jones, S. R. (2002) ‘The Underside of Service Learning’, About Campus 7(4): 10–15.

Deeley

53

Jones, S., Gilbride-Brown, J. & Gasiorski, A. (2005) ‘Getting Inside the “Underside” of Service-Learning: Student Resistance and Possibilities’, in D. W. Butin (ed.) Service-Learning in Higher Education: Critical Issues and Directions, pp. 3–24. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kearney, K. R. (2004) ‘Students’ Self-Assessment of Learning through Service-Learning’, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 68(1): 1–13. Kember, D. (2003) ‘To Control or Not to Control: The Question of Whether Experimental Designs Are Appropriate for Evaluating Teaching Innovations in Higher Education’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 28(1): 89–101. Kenworthy-U’Ren (2003) ‘Teaching Ideas: Service-Learning and Negotiation: Engaging Students in Real World Projects That Make a Difference’, Negotiation Journal 19(1): 51–63. King, P. M. (2000) ‘Learning to Make Reflective Judgments’, in M. B. Baxter Magolda (ed.) Teaching to Promote Intellectual and Personal Maturity: Incorporating Students’ Worldviews and Identities into the Learning Process, pp. 15–26. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. King, P. M. & Kitchener, K. S. (1994) Developing Reflective Judgment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lisman, C. D. (1998) Toward a Civil Society. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Mendel-Reyes, M. (1998) ‘A Pedagogy for Citizenship: Service Learning and Democratic Education’, New Directions for Teaching and Learning 73: 31–8. Mezirow, J. (1978) ‘Perspective Transformation’, Adult Education 28(2): 100–10. Mezirow, J. (1991) Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. (2000) Learning as Transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. & Associates, eds (1990) Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood; A Guide to Transformative and Emancipatory Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Moon, J. A. (1999) Reflection in Learning and Professional Development London: Kogan Page. Perry, W. G. Jr (1999) Forms of Ethical and Intellectual Development in the College Years. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pritchard, I. A. (2001) ‘Community Service and Service-Learning in America: The State of the Art’, in A. Furco & S. H. Billig (eds) Service-Learning: The Essence of the Pedagogy, pp. 3–21. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Quiroga, D. (2004) ‘Beyond the Comfort Zone’, in H. Tonkin (ed.) Service-Learning Across Cultures: Promise and Achievement, pp. 131–45. New York: International Partnership for Service-Learning and Leadership. Rogers, C. R. (1969) Freedom to Learn. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. Russell, J. (2007) ‘Box-Ticking Education Lays Waste to Talent and Potential’, The Guardian 17 May. Schön, D. A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Taylor, S. A. (2000) ‘An Experiment in Reciprocal Experiential Learning’, Active Learning in Higher Education 1(1): 60–78. Tonkin, H., ed. (2004) Service-Learning Across Cultures: Promise and Achievement. New York: International Partnership for Service-Learning and Leadership. Weigert, K. M. (1998) ‘Academic Service Learning: Its Meaning and Relevance’, New Directions for Teaching and Learning 73: 3–10.

Biographical note Susan J. Deeley is a university teacher in the department of Urban Studies at the University of Glasgow. She is the director of the Public Policy undergraduate degree programme and an adviser of studies. Her research interests include: international service-learning in higher education; sexuality and disabled people; children and young people as carers. Address: Department of Urban Studies, University of Glasgow, 25–29 Bute Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RS, UK. [Email: [email protected]]