1. Enhancing Community Impact:
Strengthening Reciprocal and Transformative Learning Cultures
between Higher Education Service-Learning Programs
and Community Partners
Annette Cowart | August 13, 2014 | SIT Graduate Institute
Advisor: Prof. Jennifer Collins-Foley | Reviewer: Dr. Preeti Shroff-Mehta
Masters of Sustainable Development, International Policy and Management
CAPSTONE PRESENTATION
2. Introduction
APPROACH:
1. Critical Service-Learning Theory
2. Research Studies/Review Articles/Interviews/
Sec.Qual.Data
3. Application Analysis in U.S. Comparative Case Study
a. DePaul University – Chicago, Illinois
b. University of Illinois – C-U
Country Focus: United States
3. Thesis/ToC
IF higher education service-learning programs and their community partners implement
co-learning,
co-monitoring and evaluation &
co-governance practices,
THEN overall community impact will be enhanced and more sustainable
BECAUSE the participatory learning cultures will become more reciprocal and transformative.
Left: DePaul U. Advocates (Steans Ctr. Ann. Rpt- 2010.) Right: U. of I. LINC at COVE Alliance -Kapeeka, Ug.
4. Overview
1. Key Terms
2. Background
3. Literature Review
4. Central Analysis
5. University Profiles & Best Practices
6. SLP Recommendations
5. Key Terms
1. Traditional Service-Learning
2. Principle of Reciprocity
1. Critical Service-Learning
2. Principle of Transformation
1. Participatory Learning Culture
6. Background on Service-Learning
INITIALIMPETUS
• Demand for ‘Real
Life’ Experiences
• Higher Ed.
Institutional
Response
• CSO/NGO
Symbiotic
Resource/Service
Gaps
SUSTAINABILTIYTREND
• Sustainability
• Environment
• 21C Skills
GAPS
• Pedagogy = depth
of social inquiry+
analysis+action
• Community
Partner =
participation and
feedback
• Governance =
academia
dominance
7. Literature Review
Eyler & Giles 1999
Mitchell 2008
Cruz & Giles 2000
Schutz 2006; Mitchell
2008, 2012, 2014
Sandy & Holland 2006;
Clayton et al. 2010
Critical Service-Learning
1. Social change
orientation
2. Working to redistribute
power
3. Developing authentic
relationships
Pedagogical
Value
Community
Value
Critiques
CSL
Framework
Community
Perspectives
8. HDI & IHDI 2013
Source: (UNDP:HDR)
Census Bureau & Bureau
of Labor Statistics 2014
U.S. Socio-Economic Context
Upward-trending HDI since 1980
HDI Ranking 5/187
IHDI: .755 – General
.830 – Education
.609 – Income
* 3rd worst!!
Nearly 1/3 pop in poverty 2 mos.
2009-11
Pop in Chronic Poverty 2009-11
o 6.2 % white
o 31% African-American
Unemployment Rate (July)
o General = 6.1%
o Whites = 5.3%
o Hispanics = 7.8%
o African-Amercians = 10.7%
9. Central Analysis for Effective SL:
Participatory
Learning
Culture
Co-learning
Co-
governance
Co-
monitoring
&
evaluation
Limitations:
1. Messy
1. Time-Consuming
2. Can encourage, not
force
3. Not applicable to all
types of SL
11. Service-Learning Programs, Approaches & Best Practices
DePaul - Est. 1998 U. of I. - Est. 2010
• Fully Funded 2001
• Steans Center for Community-
Based Learning
• Part of School of Engineering
• Learning in Community (LINC)
500 community partner database
(mostly local)
12-20 partnerships per year
(75% local/natl; 25% intl)
• 150+ SL credit course/yr
• Across disciplines
• 3,500 students/yr
• Single SL course - section/partner
• Applied mgmt course - Proj. Mgrs.
• 400-450 students/yr
10-wk quarters – 5-25 hrs/qtr
Community Service Studies Minor
Social Justice Approach/Faculty
15 wk semesters/qtr – 9 hrs/wk
Leadership Studies Minor
Professional Consultant-Client
Approach/Student Cap-Blding
Types: direct service, project-based,
research-based, advocacy-based
Types: mostly project and research
based – problem-solution scenarios
12. Steans Center: DePaul University 2006-14 (Unpublished Raw Data)
Top 12 Partner Dissatisfaction Themes
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
33%
25%
12%
12%
10%
8%
Schedule
Communication
Accountability
^Service Hours
Lack of
Initiative/Motivation
Lack of
Preparation/Trainin
g
6 Overarching Themes:
Best Practices
Supportive Data 1
16. References
Chambers, R. (2007) Who counts? The quiet revolution of participation and numbers. In Institute of Development Studies,
Brighton, UK: December 2007.
Clayton, P. et al. (2010). Differentiating and assessing relationships in service-learning and civic engagement: Exploitative,
transactional, or transformational. In Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Spring 2010, pp. 5-22.
Cruz, N. and Giles, D. (2000). Where is the community in service-learning research? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning.
Fall 2000, pp.28-34.
Eyler, J. & Giles, D. (1999) Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Fung, Archon. (2003) Deliberative democracy, Chicago style: Grass-roots governance in policing and public education. In Deepening Democracy. London:
Verso, pp. 111-143.
Mitchell, T.D. (2014) Interview, 8/4/14.
Mitchell, T. D., Donahue, D. M. & Young-Law, C. (2012). Service learning as a pedagogy of whiteness. In Equity and Excellence
in Education, 45(4), pp. 612-629.
Mitchell, T. D. (2008) Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. In Michigan
Journal of Community Service Learning, Spring 2008, pp. 50-65.
Rosing, Howard. (2014) (Several conversations, Interviews between April – August 2014).
• Sandy, M. and Holland, B. (2006). Different worlds and common ground: community partner perspectives on campus-
community partnerships. In Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Fall 2006, pp. 30-43.
Schutz, A. (2006) Home is a prison in the global city: The tragic failure of school-based community engagement strategies. In
Review of Educational Research. Winter 2006. Vol. 76, No. 4, pp. 691-743.
Steans Center for Community Based Learning, for DePaul University Unpublished Raw Data. Community Partner Dissatisfaction Raw Data: Data
Permission from DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois IRB: Office of General Council Requested and pending. Received on 7/1/14.
Werpetinski, Valeri (2014). Interview 8/4/14.
