This chapter defines service-learning and highlights the differences between service-learning and other related experiences. It includes service-learning's fundamental principles, theoretical foundations, and an overview of its history, benefits, and current scope and practices. This basic information is designed to be useful for those new to service-learning as well as for those with substantial service-learning experience. Colleagues who are immersed in the myriad details of service-learning often tell me that they find it refreshing and inspiring to periodically review its underlying concepts, theoretical underpinnings, and guiding principles. I wholeheartedly agree with them.

1.1 What is service-learning?

Is Civic Engagement the New Service-Learning?

Although there are multiple definitions of service-learning in use today, I define service-learning as a form of experiential education in which students engage in activities that address human and community needs, together with structured opportunities for reflection designed to achieve desired learning outcomes (Jacoby, 1996c). The hyphen in service-learning symbolizes reflection and depicts the symbiotic relationship between service and learning. Some definitions clearly state that service-learning must be part of the formal academic curriculum (Clayton, Bringle, & Hatcher, 2013). The definition that I prefer, however, offers a broader umbrella that intentionally includes experiences facilitated by student affairs professionals, campus ministers, community partners, and student leaders, as long as those experiences incorporate the fundamental elements of service-learning, reflection, and reciprocity.

I find it helpful to use Andrew Furco's (1996) often-cited model to highlight the uniqueness of service-learning and how it is distinct from other forms of community-based work and experiential learning. Furco characterizes each program type by its intended benefit and its degree of focus on learning and service.

Volunteerism and community service, on the left side of the model, focus on and are intended to benefit the individual, organization, or community served. Volunteerism, on the bottom rung of the model, is a form of charity. It is about providing service, with no intentional link to reflection or learning. While volunteer activities can be ongoing, they often occur on a one-time or sporadic basis. Many service-learning advocates view volunteerism as a one-way, rather paternalistic kind of “feel good” concept that infers the perpetuation of the status quo and dependency.

Moving up a rung, community service programs engage students in activities designed to meet human and community needs. Such programs may be more structured and more sustained than volunteering, thus providing greater benefits to the recipients of the service. Community service does not necessarily include reflection and may lack academic credibility. In addition, the term often refers to a court-imposed sanction.

On the right side of the model, the primary intended beneficiary of internships and fieldwork is the provider, or student, and the main focus is on learning. Internships are experiences in which students engage to learn more about their area of study and to gain practical experience in a potential career field. They may or may not be connected to academic courses or involve reflection. Field work, or field education, is generally connected to the curriculum, often in one of the professions, such as teaching, social services, health, or law. While field work provides benefits to the recipients of the students' service, the focus of field work is on enhancing students' learning in their field of study. Reflection may be part of the experience. Both internships and field work may address human and community needs, but they do not necessarily do so.

Located in the center of the model, service-learning intentionally seeks to strike a balance between student learning and community outcomes. One of the foundational principles of service-learning is “Service, combined with learning, adds value to each and transforms both” (Porter-Honnet & Poulsen, 1990, p. 40). Service-learning is based on the assumption that learning does not necessarily occur as a result of experience itself, but rather as a result of reflection designed to achieve specific learning outcomes. In this sense, service-learning expands on the concepts of community service and volunteerism (Furco, 1996).

In service-learning, opportunities for learning and reflection are integrated into the structure of the program or course. Service-learning is explicitly designed to promote learning about the historical, sociological, cultural, economic, and political contexts that underlie the needs or issues the students address. Different programs or courses emphasize different types and combinations of learning goals: intellectual, social, civic, ethical, moral, spiritual, intercultural, career, or personal. Additional learning outcomes can include, but are certainly not limited to, deepening understanding of academic content, applying theory to practice, increasing awareness of the strengths and limitations of using a discipline's knowledge base to address social issues, understanding human difference and commonality, exploring options for future individual and collective action to solve community problems, and developing a wide range of practical skills.

The other key element of service-learning is reciprocity. Reciprocity means that we, as service-learning educators, relate to the community in the spirit of partnership, viewing the institution and the community in terms of both assets and needs. Participants in reciprocal service-learning relationships seek to avoid what Thea Hillman refers to as the “provider-recipient split” that is all too clear in volunteerism and community service (1999, p.123). Robert Sigmon, one of the early leaders of service-learning, emphasized that “each participant is server and served, care giver and care acquirer, contributor and contributed to. Learning and teaching in a service-learning arrangement is also a task for each of the partners in the relationship … each of the parties views the other as contributor and beneficiary” (1996, p. 4). Reciprocity implies that the community is not a learning laboratory and that service-learning should be designed with the community to meet needs identified by the community. Service-learning activities can take place at or away from the community site and may or may not engage students in interacting with community organization leaders or clients.

The terms and concepts of service-learning and civic engagement are often confounded. Civic engagement is the broader term and can be defined as acting upon a heightened sense of responsibility to one's communities through both political and non-political means (Jacoby, 2009a). It is often described as active citizenship or democratic participation. Civic engagement thus comprises a wider range of activities than has traditionally been associated with service-learning, such as enacting ways to alter public policy, ranging from petitioning to protest and engaging at various levels in the political process. I have often been asked whether the terms service-learning and civic engagement are interchangeable and whether civic engagement is the new term for service-learning. Some of the confusion regarding terminology arises because both service-learning and civic engagement share the desired outcomes of addressing the root causes of the issues that underlie the need for service as well as motivating students to engage in future civic and political action. Further, Peter Levine, the director of the Center for Research and Information on Civic Learning and Engagement, muses that civic engagement's lack of definition may to some extent account for its current popularity: “It is a Rorschach blot within which anyone can find her own priorities” (2007, p. 1).

Another confounding definitional issue is that the term service-learning is used to name it as a program, a pedagogy, and a philosophy. As a program, service-learning is an initiative or set of initiatives that provides opportunities for students to accomplish tasks that meet human and community needs in combination with reflection structured to achieve desired learning outcomes. In curricular programs, service-learning can enable students to achieve discipline-based outcomes or general learning goals, such as critical thinking, information literacy, and collaborative problem solving. Cocurricular programs may have different goals, such as leadership, spirituality, or intercultural competency.

As a pedagogy, service-learning is education that is grounded in experience as a basis for learning and on the centrality of critical reflection intentionally designed to enable learning to occur. As discussed in 4.1, faculty members select service experiences, as they would select texts or other learning activities, that they believe will be most effective in enabling students to learn and apply course content. Reflection in service-learning stimulates learners to integrate experience and observations with existing knowledge, to examine theory in practice, and to analyze and question their a priori assumptions and beliefs.

Service-learning is also a philosophy of “human growth and purpose, a social vision, an approach to community, and a way of knowing” (Kendall, 1990, p. 23). It is a philosophy of reciprocity, which is based on moving from charity to justice, from service to the elimination of need. Service-learning as philosophy is “an expression of values—service to others, community development and empowerment, reciprocal learning—which determines the purpose, nature, and process of social and educational exchange between learners (students) and the people they serve” (Stanton, 1990, p. 67).

Sources of additional information

1. Campus Compact. (2003). Definitions and principles. Introduction to Service-Learning Toolkit: Readings and Resources for Faculty (2nd ed.). Providence, RI: Campus Compact.
2. Ikeda, E.K., Sandy, M.G., & Donahue, D.M. (2010). Navigating the sea of definitions. In B. Jacoby & P. Mutascio (Eds.), Looking In Reaching Out: A Reflective Guide for Community Service-Learning Professionals. Boston, MA: Campus Compact.
3. Kendall, J.C. (Ed.). (1990). Combining Service and Learning: A Resource Book for Community and Public Service (Vol. 1). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education (now National Society for Experiential Education).

1.2 What are the theoretical foundations of service-learning?

Most service-learning scholars believe that the theoretical roots of service-learning are found in the work of John Dewey, particularly Democracy and Education (1916), How We Think (1933), and Experience and Education (1938). Often viewed as the father of experiential education, Dewey sought to understand how experiences can be educative. He observed: “The belief that all genuine education comes about through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative. Experience and education cannot be directly equated to each other. For some experiences are mis-educative” (1938, p. 25). Learning for Dewey was situational, and he proposed that learning from experience occurs through reflective thinking. Based on Dewey's proposition, reflection has become one of the core elements of service-learning.

Grounded in the work of Dewey, Jean Piaget, and Kurt Lewin, David Kolb's Experiential Learning Model also serves as one of service-learning's theoretical foundations. The model consists of four elements: concrete experience, observation of and reflection on that experience, formation and synthesis of abstract concepts based upon the reflection, and active experimentation that tests the concepts in new situations. These four elements form a cycle, or spiral, of learning. Individuals can enter the cycle at any point, but service-learning and other forms of experiential education are often designed to begin with concrete experience. Learning occurs when the cycle is repeated as learners test their newly developed concepts in concrete experience and continue through the other elements (Kolb, 1984). Service-learning engages students in concrete experience followed by critical reflection on the service experiences and, in curricular service-learning, with academic content. Reflection is designed with the intention of leading to deeper understanding of the root causes of the need for service and the complexity of the salient social issues, as well as potential future actions within the context of the service-learning experience and beyond. The four learning styles that Kolb describes are discussed in 5.2.

The Principles of Good Practice in Combining Service and Learning (Porter-Honnet & Poulsen, 1990), commonly known as the Wingspread principles, have served as indispensable guides to the development of service-learning initiatives since the 1990s. The Wingspread principles were created through a process initiated and coordinated by the National Society for Experiential Education. It involved consultation with more than seventy organizations and the convening of a working group at the Johnson Foundation's Wingspread conference center in Racine, Wisconsin, in 1989. The principles, which are reproduced in Exhibit 1.1, emphasize structured reflection, clear goals and responsibilities for all participants, careful program design, and sustainability. They provide the foundation for much of the advice offered in this book.

Robert L. Sigmon's Service and Learning Typology is a frequent companion to the Wingspread principles. Sigmon proposes that there are four variations, depending on the primacy of service in relation to learning: service-LEARNING, which implies that learning goals are primary and service outcomes secondary; SERVICE-learning, in which the service agenda is central and the learning secondary; service learning, in which the absence of the hyphen indicates that the two are essentially separate from each other; and SERVICE-LEARNING, in which the service and learning goals are of equal weight and each enhances the other (1994).

Two conceptual foundations that undergird the principles and practices of service-learning partnerships (see Chapter 3) are the asset-based community development approach of John P. Kretzmann and John L. McKnight (1993) and the paradigms of service-learning proposed by Keith Morton (1995). According to Kretzmann and McKnight, institutions seeking to develop service-learning partnerships should ensure that they build on community assets and meet community needs as defined by the community. The first principle they put forth is that community development starts with what is present in the community and the capacities of its residents and workers, rather than what is absent or problematic. Secondly, they state that community development is internally focused, and thus should concentrate on the problem-solving capacities of local residents and institutions. The role of external forces, such as colleges and universities, is not minimized, but should complement the primacy of local definition, control, creativity, and hope. If a community development approach is to be asset-based and internally focused, it also needs to be relationship-driven. Therefore, it is essential to continually be in the process of building and rebuilding relationships among local residents, organizations, and institutions (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993).

While service-learning is often viewed as a continuum from a lesser to a greater degree of duration, intensity, and commitment to social justice, Morton suggests that there also exists a series of related but distinct paradigms of service-learning—charity, project, and social change—each with its own logic, strengths, limitations, and vision (1995). He argues that each paradigm contains a world view, a problem statement, and an agenda for change. In addition, each has “thin” versions that are hollow and disempowering, as well as “thick” versions that are sustaining and “suggest a vision of what a transformed world might look like” (Morton, 1995, p. 28). In “thin” charity, or volunteerism, the control of the service and decisions affecting the distribution of resources rest with the provider of the service. The service is generally limited in time, sometimes one-time or episodic, and the individuals providing the service generally make little attempt to understand or affect the structural causes of the problem or issue their service seeks to address. There are situations, however, in which charity is critically needed, such as in times of natural disaster. And it can be done in a “thick” way if it is grounded in a coherent world view, which is often spiritual in the sense of the Jewish concept of tikkun olam, or healing the world, that engenders long-term commitment and is based on belief in the worth of other persons.

Project work focuses on defining problems and solutions and implementing well-conceived plans for achieving one or more of those solutions. In the “thin” version, project work may address an immediate problem, such as building or renovating homes and making them available to those who might not otherwise be able to afford a home. Done in a “thick” manner, this project would engage individuals from the college or university as well as in the neighborhood in both building the homes and in tackling the root causes of the problem, such as inequity in the housing market and runaway gentrification.

The third paradigm, social change, may be “thin” if the relationships among the individuals who come together for the purpose of bringing about positive change lack depth and integrity. Based in the principles of Kretzmann and McKnight, “thick” social change work focuses on building relationships with and among the individuals most affected by the problem or issue and empowering those individuals to be advocates on their own behalf and partners in effecting the needed changes. This paradigm focuses on directly addressing the root causes of community problems, which are usually deeply embedded in social systems and structures (1995).

More recently, critical service-learning, as discussed in 8.5, is based on the work of Paolo Freire, as well as other approaches such as critical race theory and feminist theory. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), Freire articulates an educational theory that emphasizes the need to critique oppressive structures within schools and throughout society and focuses on the action-reflection dialectic of praxis. There is an emerging body of literature advocating a critical view of service-learning with an explicit goal of social justice. This social justice orientation focuses on the redistribution of power among all the participants in service-learning, developing authentic relationships in the classroom and in the community and, ultimately, deconstructing the systems of power and privilege so that the inequities that sustain the need for service are dismantled (Mitchell, 2008).

Sources of additional information

1. Giles, D.E., & Eyler, J. (1994). The theoretical roots of service-learning in John Dewey: Toward a theory of service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 1(1), 77–85.
2. Hammerlinck, J., & Plaut, J. (Eds.). (2014). Asset-Based Community Engagement in Higher Education. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Campus Compact.
3. Kretzmann, J.P., & McKnight, J.L. (1993). Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets. Evanston, IL: Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern University.
4. Morton, K. (1995). The irony of service: Charity, project and social change in service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2, 19–32.

1.3 What else can we call service-learning if that term does not work for us?

There is neither a single definition of service-learning nor a single term for denoting the work of combining service with learning. Some service-learning practitioners have challenged the use of the word service, because it seems contrary to the fundamental principle of reciprocity by implying inequality among participants in service-learning, with one individual or group doing something to or for another individual or group. For some African Americans and others who have experienced oppression, service still connotes involuntary servitude (Jacoby, 1996c).

Others suggest that service-learning is not a broad enough term to encompass all the knowledge, skills, and habits that would come under the umbrella of civic engagement or education for democracy. Some institutions use various forms of the term citizenship, although I would offer that it also refers to a government-determined legal status and bears an exclusionary connotation. Still others have turned to community-based learning and, more recently, community-engaged learning, to emphasize engagement with the community, rather than viewing the community as a base or setting in which learning occurs. The University of Pennsylvania calls its work academically based community service, while at the University of Maryland, we use community service-learning, so that the name reflects the centrality of our community partners to our practice.

In Service-Learning in Higher Education (1996c), I agreed with service-learning pioneers Jane Kendall (1990) and Howard Berry (1994) that, despite concerns about the word service, service-learning is the most common and accessible term to use. I maintain that position today. Other service-learning advocates, such as Edward Zlotkowski, agree: “The fact is that ‘service-learning' has become the ‘koine,' the common dialect, of the civic engagement movement in its teaching-learning form, and in doing so has shown itself capable of considerable adaptability” (2011, p. 224).

The most important lesson I have learned in this regard is that each institution should choose the term and approach that best suits its unique history, mission, culture, and traditions. Too much debate over terminology can stall action. On the other hand, engaging in dialogue about terminology can deepen our individual and collective understanding of the complexity of this work and what high-quality service-learning really means for all who are involved.

1.4 What are the benefits of service-learning?

I feel as strongly today as I did in 1996 when I wrote in the Preface to Service-Learning in Higher Education: Concepts and Practices that service-learning has tremendous potential as a vehicle through which colleges and universities can meet their goals for student learning while making unique contributions to addressing unmet local, national, and global needs. Indeed, it is distinctive in “its potential to create a win-win-win situation for the university, students, and community” (Bushouse, 2005, p. 32).

Service-learning is one of the high-impact educational practices that have been widely tested and shown to be beneficial to students from many backgrounds. High-impact practices increase the odds that students will invest time and effort; participate in active, challenging learning experiences; experience diversity; interact with faculty and peers about substantive matters; receive more frequent feedback; and discover the relevance of their learning through real-world experiences (Kuh, 2008).

Students who participate in high-quality service-learning have the opportunity to see and act on the problems individuals and communities face, engage in dialogue and problem solving with the people most affected, and observe firsthand the effects of racism, sexism, poverty, and oppression. When we engage students in reflection related to their experiences, they can see the relevance of course content to real-world issues, the interdisciplinary nature of problems and solutions, the complexity of the social fabric, and how they can choose to become part of the solution rather than part of the problem. A student once told me that service-learning enabled her to test out theories in real time, in real places, with real people, and with real consequences. Students can come to understand the difference between helping someone through direct service and becoming involved in public policy and political work that can foster change.

Well-documented student benefits of service-learning include personal growth and development, academic learning, interpersonal outcomes, and outcomes related to the college experience. Among students' personal outcomes that are enhanced by service-learning are moral development, spiritual growth, empathy, efficacy, sense of personal and social responsibility, and commitment to service during and after college. Service-learning has been shown to increase retention and understanding of course content, the ability to apply theory to practice, and a range of outcomes related to critical thinking, writing, problem analysis, and cognitive development. Interpersonally, student participants in service-learning are more likely than non-participants to work harder and be more engaged in their courses and to gain skills in communication, leadership, and collaboration that are both civic and workplace skills. They gain a deeper understanding of the complexity of social issues and are more connected to their communities. Students who participate in service-learning are more likely to choose careers that are related to service and to be more confident in their career choices. There is also strong evidence that service-learning facilitates cultural and racial understanding and reduces stereotyped thinking. Service-learners report greater satisfaction with their college education and are more likely to persist to graduation and to continue with service post-college (Celio, Durlack, & Dymnicki, 2011; Eyler, Giles, Stenson, & Gray, 2001; Warren, 2012). Further, recent research indicates that students who engage in civic or community activities are more likely to flourish. Flourishing, in this context, includes dimensions of social and psychological well-being that are particularly relevant to success in college (Low, 2010).

Although far less thoroughly documented than student benefits, service-learning's benefits to communities include new energy and assistance to broaden delivery of existing services or to begin new ones; fresh approaches to problem solving; enhanced capacity to conduct and use research; access to institutional resources; and opportunities to participate in the teaching and learning process. Additional research findings indicate that service-learning, particularly through community-based research, can provide data to leverage grants and other funding, strengthen linkages and networking among community organizations, allow budgetary savings, advance the overall goals of the organization, contribute to the visibility of the organization, provide better service to clients, and educate students about the community and the organization's issues and population (Cruz & Giles, 2000). Community organization staff and clients gain the opportunity to work with students who are motivated to learn and eager to share their insights, knowledge, and perspectives. Community partners can enrich their own roles while they cultivate future generations of engaged citizens. Service-learning also can serve to demystify complex higher education institutions and open the door to new opportunities and partnerships with colleges and universities.

Service-learning benefits faculty members by offering new ways to teach familiar material and to engage students more deeply in learning, thus invigorating teaching. It stimulates professional development by encouraging faculty to explore other high-impact pedagogies: “Service learning [is] an active learning strategy that provides both a rich set of potential learning outcomes and opportunities for educators to explore teaching and learning in ways that have implications for all pedagogies” (Bringle, Clayton, & Hatcher, 2013, p. 3). It also provides opportunities to orient teaching and research in community settings and helps identify current issues and trends that might inform research. In this regard, service-learning reminds many why they chose college teaching as a profession—to bring their discipline's knowledge base to bear on addressing the biggest issues facing our society. Service-learning faculty enjoy interactions with colleagues across disciplines as they explore the possibilities that the pedagogy offers. As service-learning and engaged scholarship are becoming more valued in the disciplinary associations and in the appointment, promotion, and tenure process, faculty members also gain additional opportunities for research, advancement, and professional recognition. By its very nature, service-learning engages faculty members in deeper, more meaningful relationships with students.

Student affairs professionals and other staff members also benefit from the opportunities that service-learning presents to engage more deeply with students around issues of substance. They enjoy interacting in meaningful ways with community members and mentoring student leaders who organize and facilitate service-learning experiences for their peers. As Chapter Five indicates, student affairs staff across functional areas find that service-learning enables the students they work with to achieve a wide range of desired learning outcomes.

Benefits of service-learning to colleges and universities include improved town-gown relationships, additional experiential learning settings for students, and enhanced opportunities for research and teaching. Institutions also benefit as students become more engaged in learning, better prepared for the job market, more satisfied with their college experience, and more likely to graduate. Service-learning supports, and is supported by, institutional priorities such as recruitment, retention, international education, diversity and inclusion, sustainability, and fundraising. Service-learning provides some of the most concrete evidence that the institution is engaged in activities that address the assertions found in virtually every mission statement regarding educating students for social responsibility and global citizenship. Further, service-learning can serve as the catalyst for institutions to achieve their public purposes by engaging more broadly and deeply with local and global communities and contributing significantly to economic development.

Sources of additional information

1. Celio, C.I., Durlak, J., & Dymnicki, A. (2011). A meta-analysis of the impact of service-learning on students. Journal of Experiential Education, 34(2), 164–181.
2. Clayton, P.H., Bringle, R.G., & Hatcher, J.A. (Eds.). (2013). Research on Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Assessment (2 vols.). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
3. Eyler, J.S., & Giles, D.E. Where's the Learning in Service-Learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4. Simonet, D. (2008). Service-Learning and Academic Success: The Links to Retention Research. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Campus Compact. http://compact.org/wp-content/uploads/resources/downloads/MN-SL_and_academic_success.pdf.
5. Eyler, J.S., Giles, D.E., Stenson, C.M., & Gray, C.J. (2001). At a Glance: What We Know About the Effects of Service-Learning on College Students, Faculty, Institutions, and Communities 1993–2000: Third Edition. http://ewucommunityengagement.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/62951195/aag.pdf.
6. Vernon, A., & Ward, K. (1999). Campus and community partnerships: Assessing impacts and strengthening connections. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 6, 30–37.
7. Warren, J.L. (2012). Does service-learning increase student learning? A meta-analysis. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 18(2), 56–61.

1.5 What is the history of service-learning?

Sources of additional information

1. Bok, D. (1982). Beyond the Ivory Tower: Social Responsibilities of the Modern University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Bringle, R.G., Games, R., & Malloy, E.A. (Eds.). (1999). Colleges and Universities as Citizens. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
3. Ehrlich, T. (Ed.). (2000). Civic Responsibility and Higher Education. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.
4. Kendall, J.C. (1990). Combining service and learning: An introduction. In J.C. Kendall (Ed.), Combining Service and Learning: A Resource Book for Community and Public Service, Vol. 1. Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education (now National Society for Experiential Education).
5. Stanton, T.K., Giles, D.E., Jr., & Cruz, N.I. (1999). Service-Learning: A Movement's Pioneers Reflect on Its Origins, Practice, and Future. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

1.6 How widespread is service-learning?

Sources of additional information

1. Campus Compact. (2013c, December). Creating a Culture of Assessment: 2012 Annual Membership Survey. www.compact.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Campus-Compact-2012-Statistics.pdf.
2. Moore, J.E. (1994). Learning through service: More than a fad. Liberal Education, 80(1), 54.

1.7 What should an institution offer in the way of service-learning?

Colleges and universities should offer a wide range of service-learning experiences intentionally designed for students at different stages in their education and at various levels of development. In responding to this frequently asked question, I believe it is important to note that the spectrum of service-learning experiences I describe in this section does not emerge within institutions of higher education as a whole, fully formed. Rather, service-learning educators and administrators should prioritize and develop these experiences intentionally over time, according to student interest, institutional priorities, community needs, and available resources.

Service-learning experiences are often categorized based on modes proposed by Cecilia I. Delve, Suzanné D. Mintz, and Greig M. Stewart: direct, nondirect, and indirect (1990). Direct service involves face-to-face interaction with the client population at the service site or elsewhere. Such activities include tutoring, serving food to residents of a homeless shelter, engaging senior citizens in stress-relieving exercises, and coaching a basketball team in a low-income neighborhood. Nondirect experiences occur at the community site, but the service-learners do not come in contact with the population being served. These behind-the-scenes activities include sorting items in a food bank, creating a library in a nursing home, and removing invasive species from a community park. In indirect service, students are physically distant from the service site and the population being served. These experiences include developing a website or business plan for a community organization, advocating for legislation that benefits community members, and writing a grant proposal or conducting fundraising activities for a community organization. Service-learning can also occur on campus, involving service-learners with other members of the campus community, such as helping employees prepare for the English for Speakers of Other Languages tests or planting and maintaining green roofs on campus buildings. It important to note here that the definitions of nondirect and indirect modes are sometimes reversed in the service-learning literature and materials produced by individual institutions.

Community-based research, which is further discussed in Chapter Four, is sometimes added to the three types of service proposed by Delve, Mintz, and Stewart (1990) as a fourth category of service-learning activity. Community-based research can be defined as a collaborative research partnership that engages community agents, including staff of nonprofit community organizations or government agencies and community association leaders and members, together with higher education partners, including undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, and staff, in research projects that address community-identified questions or issues (Paul, 2009).

In addition to the modes of service activities, service-learning experiences can be course-based or cocurricular. While it is essential to offer a variety of both types of experiences, it is even more important that all experiences offered involve a balance of service and learning, as well as the fundamental practices of reflection and reciprocity.

Service-learning that is an integral part of an academic course benefits from the structures afforded by the curriculum, such as required class meetings and assignments, credits, and grades. It is more likely to have learning outcomes that are clearly defined and assessed, to meet standards of academic rigor, to tie the service experiences to the discipline's knowledge base, to offer the opportunity to apply theory to practice, and to engage students in objective, often written, critical reflection that is tied to course content.

When service-learning occurs outside the formal curriculum, it may be more flexible in terms of students' schedules and more likely to benefit from student leadership. As opposed to academic service-learning, cocurricular service-learning is more often based on student development theory, which includes cognitive and moral development, psychosocial development, social identity development, and integrative developmental frameworks. Cocurricular service-learning also often has an intentional focus on diversity and multicultural awareness. Reflection is usually subjective, focusing on understanding oneself in relation to others, examining one's values, and challenging one's stereotypes and a priori assumptions.

Both curricular and cocurricular service-learning experiences should be offered at different levels of frequency and duration and along a continuum of intensity or level of commitment. Frequency refers to how often a student engages in the activity, while duration addresses the length of time the student is involved. Intensity is about the source and depth of the student's commitment to both the service experience and the reflection, as well as the level of commitment to addressing the root causes of the need for service and to social justice.

At the lowest levels of frequency, duration, and commitment are experiences designed for students who are new to service-learning at the college level. Such students are often excited about new opportunities, naïve about the depth and complexities of the issues that underlie the need for their service, and want to “help” or “give back.” Experiences that are appropriate for them include first-year seminars that introduce the concept and practice of service-learning and one-time service days. Generally, these one-time or short-term experiences do not engage students in direct contact with the client population at a community site and include clear expectations and a high degree of structure.

Discipline-based or interdisciplinary service-learning courses and ongoing cocurricular experiences may offer a higher level of frequency, duration, and intensity. In service-learning courses, students can engage regularly with clients at a community site, do additional work at or away from the site, or complete a project at the request of a community organization. Alternative breaks, usually during spring break week but increasingly at other times, such as January or summer, engage students in service and reflection at a high level of frequency and intensity but of short duration. They may be or may not be embedded in the curriculum.

Opportunities for students who are ready for more intense commitment and duration include community-based research as part of a course, as an independent study, or with a faculty member; serving as an alternative break trip leader, liaison with a community organization, or teaching assistant in a service-learning course; and capstone courses that involve students in professional-level projects with community organizations. Multiple examples of all types of service-learning experiences are included in the subsequent chapters of this volume.

Sources of additional information

1. Delve, C.I., Mintz, S.D., & Stewart, G.M. (Eds.). (1990). Community Service as Values Education: New Directions for Student Services (no. 50). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
2. Jacoby, B. (Ed.). (1996c). Service-Learning in Higher Education: Concepts and Practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3. Jacoby, B., & Mutascio, P. (Eds.). (2010). Looking In, Reaching Out: A Reflective Guide for Community Service-Learning Professionals. Boston, MA: Campus Compact.

1.8 How does service-learning vary by institutional type?

Different types of institutions have distinctly different missions and traditions and, therefore, may take different approaches to service-learning. Most community colleges are closely linked to the communities in which they reside and view themselves as of rather than merely in the community. Their missions are grounded in service to the community. Because they focus primarily on teaching rather than research, service-learning is often valued as a pedagogy that enhances learning of academic content through work in the communities of which the students are a part.

The mission of land-grant and other large public research universities embraces teaching, research, and outreach and technical assistance to local communities and global society. More land-grant universities as well as other research universities are seeking to ground their service-learning work in the broader context of community engagement. However, it is much less likely that the term “social justice” will be used at research institutions, particularly at public ones. While the land-grant mission lends itself well to service-learning, a challenge that large research universities face is their focus on extensive grant-funded research. As a result, faculty members may be reluctant to create and teach service-learning courses that are not related to their research priorities.

Liberal arts institutions promote liberal education as a philosophy of education that prepares and empowers individuals to deal with complexity, change, and diversity. Liberal education offers students broad knowledge of science, culture, and society, as well as in-depth study in a particular area of focus. Rather than emphasizing applied study or professional training, liberal arts colleges educate students for social responsibility as well as develop strong and transferable intellectual and practical skills, such as communication, problem solving, and creativity. Many liberal arts institutions embrace service-learning together with other high-impact educational practices to enable students to meet the desired outcomes of liberal education.

Historically black colleges and universities were founded to provide a college education for underrepresented students and to create a community of well-educated African Americans who can contribute, in turn, to the welfare and vitality of the black and broader communities. This historical mission is a solid foundation upon which service-learning courses and programs can be built. Service-learning in historically black institutions also builds on the African-American tradition of community service, which is rooted in the African legacy of connectedness and intergenerational obligation.

Faith-based institutions generally focus on students' spiritual growth and integrate moral issues across the curriculum. Their missions often explicitly articulate service to others and advancing social justice as fundamental. Service-learning in many religiously affiliated colleges and universities has both academic and spiritual purposes and desired outcomes.

Tribal colleges and universities have a tripartite mission to promote Native American students' self-determination, to maintain and strengthen tribal culture, and to provide much-needed resources to Native-American communities. Because most students at tribal colleges live at home and hold jobs outside of school, it is often challenging for them to engage in service-learning. Nonetheless, the institutions' strong tradition of serving their communities is conducive to the development of service-learning that is congruent with tribal culture, and traditions.

Conclusion

This chapter offers an introduction to the basic principles, practices, and theoretical foundations of service-learning; grounds us in its history; and places service-learning in the context of today's higher education. It provides an overview of the benefits of service-learning and the experiences an institution should offer. The chapters that follow explore service-learning's fundamental elements of reflection and reciprocity, describe how it looks in practice in both the curriculum and the cocurriculum, address multiple issues related to assessment and administration, pose challenging questions about its very purpose and value, and offer recommendations for securing its future.