research paper about service learning

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Hypothesis and theory article, a theoretical framework on reflection in service learning: deepening reflection through identity development.

• College of Sport and Health Science, Ritsumeikan University, Kusatsu, Japan

In higher education, well-designed service learning combines service activities and academic knowledge in reflection, generating essential learning outcomes: academic enhancement, personal growth, and civic engagement. As research on reflection in service learning has shown, the process of reflection deepens through description of service experiences, examination of those experiences and articulation of learning. This article provides a theoretical explanation of deepening the reflection process by incorporating reflection theory and identity theory of college student development, professional development, and general identity development. Expanding the theoretical explanation of the reflective process clarifies the conditions of the deepening student reflection process in service learning in the following ways. First, it focuses on concrete experience then-and-there at that moment rather than abstract impressions by paying attention to personal dissonance in the experience. In addition, it finds discrepancies from differences of views, perspectives, and backgrounds between those of students and others. It connects outward exploration of those differences and inward exploration to construct internal voices toward self-authorship. The deep reflection process requires confronting contradictions through dialogical interplays among the I-positions of their own and others. It bridges discontinuities between past, present, and future selves by expanding the time perspective retrospectively and prospectively, and solving contradictions embedding in their prejudice. Furthermore, it activates plurality in social norms and values. The above conditions should be design principles for deepening critical and dialogical reflection in high-impact service learning. Through deepening reflection in service learning, it can be expected to activate mutuality and support generativity toward solidarity against hostility.

Background and Purpose

Research findings on service learning have shown that in higher education it has improved student learning outcomes ( Eyler and Giles Jr, 1999 ; Astin et al., 2000 ; Conway et al., 2009 ; Celio et al., 2011 ). In particular, service learning promotes civic engagement and enhances civic attitude, thus playing a role in civic learning in higher education ( Bringle and Clayton, 2012 ; Bringle et al., 2015 ; Gelmon et al., 2018 ). Service learning has been established as one of the high impact educational practices in higher education ( Kuh, 2008 ; McCormick et al., 2013 ).

Research has clarified the learning outcomes that service learning produces, as well as the developmental process that generates those outcomes. One of the central components of this process is reflection, which is defined as “intentional consideration of an experience in light of particular learning objectives” ( Hatcher and Bringle, 1997 , p. 153). Through reflection, students learn from their social experiences in the community and connect them to academic knowledge ( Ash and Clayton, 2009 ; Kawai and Kimura, 2014 ).

This paper will expand the theoretical explanation of the relationship between student reflection and outcomes, incorporating reflection theory and identity theory in the broader contexts. It will first provide the review of students' reflection in service learning research, focusing on the model which explains the process for how reflection can generate learning outcomes. It then moves outside the service learning research, to incorporate developmental theory in higher education and professional education. The former, student development theory in college ( Evans et al., 2009a ; Patton et al., 2016 ), includes cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal development. Using these theoretical resources enables reinterpretation of the reflection process in service learning and can offer new ways to guide practice and research. Professional education has established the framework of the process of becoming a professional (e.g., teacher, nurse, designer, engineer, lawyer). Research in these areas ( Schön, 1983 ; Korthagen et al., 2001 ; Benner et al., 2009 ) recognized these continuous process as making professional identity. Furthermore, based on identity development theory ( Schwartz et al., 2011 ; Côté and Levine, 2014 ), this article will explain how reflection processes deepen and generate several outcomes and leads to a reinterpretation of the broader relevance of service learning to student development. After focusing on student learning and development, the analysis will discuss the generative character of service learning in relation to society.

How Does Reflection Work: Student Reflection From Service Learning Research

The DEAL model for critical reflection consists of three steps with prompts: detailed Description of the service experiences; Examination of those experiences in light of specific educational objectives; and the Articulation of Learning to set goals for improved future action by reexamining the source and contexts of practice ( Ash and Clayton, 2009 ; Whitney and Clayton, 2011 ; Jameson et al., 2013 ; Whitley, 2014 ). This model focuses on critical reflection, which is a reflective process guided by critical thinking standards ( Paul and Elder, 2001 ). The DEAL model promotes reflective writing and connects service experience with academic knowledge, civic learning, and personal growth. The third step, articulation, expands students' future perspectives, generating personal values, and enhancing civic awareness. Critical reflection examines and questions the contexts surrounding an experience. Contexts are usually taken for granted but they are the stage and matrix from which experiences can emerge ( Bateson, 2000 ). In critical reflection, students confront a series of questions. They specify students' experiences through description and examination: What was the scene? Who was involved? What did he or she think? Why did it happen? Why did he or she do that?

The phase of examining service experience in the model requires students to relate their experiences to educational objectives ( Ash et al., 2009 ). On personal growth, prompts ask students to clarify their strength and weakness. In terms of civic engagement, students examine what they accomplished and alternative ways of approaching their civic activities (e.g., compare and contrast, propose alternative actions, evaluate consequences). For academic enhancement, they reconsider the relevance of and application of academic concepts to their community-based experiences and reinterpret them.

This model uses revised Bloom's taxonomy based on constructive view of learning ( Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001 ) to have students probe the meaning of their experiences. Prompts are designed to orient them to higher order cognitive examination, namely meta cognitive process. Based on description and examination, the articulation of learning inquires into the background of experience, asking how contexts influence events and experience, what kind of factors cause people's behavior or ways of thinking, what values and beliefs enables or constrain their thoughts and behaviors. Engaging service experiences and deepening description and examination on them facilitates students' meaningful articulation of their learning.

Research based on this model with prompts has revealed what kinds of components function in students' reflection through service-learning and how well-instructors facilitate them ( Ash et al., 2009 ; Ash and Clayton, 2009 ). This model is helpful for designing courses and writing assignments focused on academic learning, civic learning, and personal growth, and for assessing students' reflection. Another study revealed that reflection in service learning not only connects academic learning and service experiences, but also bridges the relationship between curricular or co-curricular learning and extra-curricular experience ( Kawai, 2012 ). It also suggested that reflection can expand beyond the service learning program creating such bridge learning to other disciplinary knowledge, extra-curricular experiences and future purposes ( Kawai and Mizokami, 2013 ; Kawai and Kimura, 2014 ; Kawai and Moran, 2017 ). Theoretical explanations on the reflection process need to describe how to deepen this process and generate learning outcomes from the wider perspectives. For this purpose, this article weaves together three threads of theory focusing on reflection and identifies the elements of reflective practice in each of the theories connecting to be intrinsic to service-learning practice: student development theory, professional development theory and identity development theory.

Deepening Reflection From Developmental Theory In Higher Education

Student development theory in college has been expanded, covering multiple domains such as cognitive and epistemological development, ethical development on values and beliefs, social and interpersonal development, and social identity development related to class, race, ethnicity and gender ( Evans et al., 2009a ; Patton et al., 2016 ). Fundamental dimensions of student development consists of three dimensions: cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal development. In cognitive development, students shift from the dualism where knowledge is right or wrong to a multiplicity of knowledge that accepts diverse opinions and reasons. They then develop an understanding of relativism and commit to relating diverse knowledge from their own perspective and making decisions based on this multiplicity ( Perry, 1968 ; Evans et al., 2009b ). In the intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions, students inquire about their beliefs, values and purposes in life and build relationships of trust with diverse others by broadening their social interactions. Student development theory has conceptualized intrapersonal and interpersonal development as identity development ( Chickering and Reisser, 1993 ). Through differentiating and integrating them in daily experience, students form their identities, which function as a foundation for their daily activities and future orientations ( Bronk, 2013 ; Jones and Abes, 2013 ; Kawai and Moran, 2017 ).

The comprehensive perspective on student development has been established as a kind of self-authorship development that synthesizes cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions. Student self-authorship means becoming the authors of their own lives and “the internal capacity to define one's beliefs, identity and social relations” ( Baxter Magolda, 2001 , p. 269). Self-authorship corresponds to essential learning outcomes ( AAC U (Association of American Colleges Universities)., 2007 ; Baxter Magolda, 2007 ), which has become embedded in many universities' missions, especially regarding the intellectual development into self-directed learners, self-regulated learners, life-long learners, and critical thinkers ( Baxter Magolda, 2001 ; Ambrose et al., 2010 ; Nilson, 2013 ). The development of self-authorship is also related to civic outcomes based on civic engagement toward the betterment of society ( Love and Guthrie, 1999 ; Baxter Magolda and Boes, 2017 ).

Student development theory of self-authorship is grounded at the junction of the theories of epistemological and intellectual development ( Baxter-Magolda, 1992 ; King and Kitchener, 1994 , 2004 ), and constructive developmental theory elaborated by Kegan (1982) . Developmental theory of self-authorship becomes a holistic view of student development by incorporating constructive developmental theory. From the constructive developmental perspective, the central feature of the developmental process is making meaning, i.e., the way people organize and interpret experiences. For the developmental process, it is not events themselves that are significant but how people make sense of them. The evolution of meaning-making unfolds over time and emerges in more a complex form in three major dimensions: cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal ( Kegan, 1982 , 1994 ). These three dimensions of development relate to their respective questions: How do I know, who am I, and how do I want to construct relationships with others. Theory on self-authorship expands beyond cognitive development such as reflective judgment and epistemological reflection to intrapersonal and interpersonal development ( Baxter Magolda, 2001 , 2004 ). Constructive developmental theory focuses on the subject-object relationship as a key factor for developmental force (Kegan 1982, 1994). The subject represents elements that people cannot sufficiently reflect on, have control over, or be responsible for; if people can do so, this element is an object. The self-authoring mind requires the movement of subject to object by generating internal judgment and personal authority ( Kegan and Lahey, 2009 ).

A large-scale longitudinal interview survey has revealed the multi-faceted phases of the transition toward self-authorship ( Baxter Magolda, 2009 ; Baxter Magolda and King, 2012 ). The first phase is “following formulas”: students follow authority as source of right answers and define their beliefs, values and relationships externally. In this phase, they move from trusting authority to facing tensions with this uncritical trust and recognizing the shortcomings of depending on external authority. Dissonance pushes students to the second phase of “crossroads” where they question external authority, are aware of the need for their internal voices, and further explore ways of constructing them. The process of leaving these crossroads includes listening and cultivating internal voices, and gradually differentiating perspectives of their own and others. In the third phase of “self-authorship,” students trust their internal voices, build their internal foundation and secure internal commitments although only a small group of survey participants reach this self-authorship phase.

For diverse students, there are three dimensions of self-authorship development, i.e., cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions, but there is no consequential sequence to the development of these dimensions and it is not clear which ones trigger development. One illustration describes how dissonance with other students' views in cognitive dimension and interpersonal dimensions provokes intrapersonal exploration for constructing an internal voice ( Baxter Magolda, 2004 ; Baxter Magolda and King, 2012 ).

The subsequent research provides explanations for several important moments in the shift from external dependent status to internal independent status ( Pizzolato, 2007 ; Barber and King, 2014 ). Tensions with the external authority one depends upon emerge through contact with new ideas and opinions from other people. The difference brought by other people produces instability and uncertainty into the perspective dependent on external authority. From the viewpoint of the subject-object relationship, the movement from depending on external authority to recognizing the insufficiency of this stance is a shift in formula from subject to object. Although the external orientation as a predominant source of defining one's beliefs, identity and relationships is superseded by internal capacity, the external orientation does not disappear but is concomitant and balanced with internal orientation for making meaning. When students who depend on external authority experience discomfort and dissonance persistently, they tend to resolve them by exploring effective resources and support, thus engage in action for constructing internal voices. To rebalance the external and internal orientations, students struggle to reexamine their own prejudices and assumptions.

In the phase of proceeding to self-authorship, students explore and construct their internal voice while continuing their outward exploration. As they question the absoluteness of external authority in entering the crossroads, they probe their assumptions, values, and self-identities in the phase of leaving crossroads and self-authorship. They do not uncritically receive definitions and interpretations of themselves, but critically examine their underlying assumptions, leading to the reconstruction of these interpretations. In the process of constructing their internal voices, students unfold and articulate them gradually: in the earlier phase, an internal voice or sense of self is undifferentiated from themselves; in the later phase, these voices are differentiated into several self-identities and thus take a role of internal foundation for persistent action and commitment. The intrapersonal and interpersonal developmental dimensions connect to the cognitive dimensions such that personal agency from intrapersonal and interpersonal development can function as the foundation for self-directed learning with higher order thinking and self-regulation. Therefore, the phase of self-authorship achieves desirable learning outcomes in higher education.

Deepening Reflection From Developmental Theory In Professional Education

The second theory relevant to improving the reflection process is derived from research in teacher education, which is a prominent research area in professional development alongside nursing research. Teacher education includes the topics of expertise, pedagogy, pedagogical content knowledge, teaching teacher, curriculum, reform, and policy ( Loughran and Hamilton, 2016 ). In teacher training programs, research highlights how identity as a teacher develops ( Korthagen et al., 2001 ; Olsen, 2008 ).

Identity development has external aspects of life experience, relationships and contexts, and internal aspects to the individual such as emotion. Self and identity share evolving processes over time, with the self as meaning maker and identity as meaning made ( Rodgers and Scott, 2008 ). For professional development as teachers, their identity is continuously constructed through their lives as teachers and is central to their reflective practice of teaching ( Korthagen, 2004 ).

Recently, assessment research on teacher identity has been started even though it is correlational analysis ( Hanna et al., 2019 , 2020 ). It revealed that the central factor of teacher identity was categorized as motivation, which has broad meanings including the intrinsic career value to teaching, satisfaction with teaching, self-evaluation of their work, and the desire to become a teacher. The theoretical framework of this survey research is the idea of identity-based motivation ( Oyserman, 2008 ), wherein the motivation for becoming a teacher consists of the desire to become one and the possible selves theory ( Hamman et al., 2010 ) wherein the extent to which one imagines being a teacher in the near future as the ideal self or future perspective influences the motivation for becoming a teacher ( Zhang et al., 2016 ). A sense of identity involves continuity as accumulation of ongoing life experience and time perspectives on past, present and future.

Reflection assumes a key role in teacher identity development ( Korthagen et al., 2001 ; Beauchamp and Thomas, 2009 ) and functions not only at the level of behavior and competencies but also at the level of identity and mission where they see why they are becoming teachers ( Korthagen, 2004 ). In teacher development, the model of reflection process is called the ALACT model and it tells supervisors (teacher-in-training instructors) how to intervene ( Korthagen et al., 2001 ). The first phase of reflection is Action and supervisors help find useful experiences. Phase 2 is to Look back on that action, Phase 3 is to be Aware of the essential aspects of events and experiences, and Phase 4 is to Create alternative methods of action. Through these phases, supervisors support practitioners as follows: using acceptance and empathy, showing genuineness, focusing on concreteness of events, confronting discrepancy or contradiction between practitioners' thoughts and actions, generalizing beyond specific experiences, utilizing here-and-now experiences, and making things explicit. The final phase is Trial and supervisors help to continue the learning process.

This teacher reflection model works to deepen reflection acquiring core quality, which involves teachers' identity and mission ( Korthagen and Vasalos, 2005 ). Without tapping into their identity, teachers slip into superficial and technical considerations about their teaching. The core reflection process sticks to clarifying what problems they encounter and contrasting present issues with their desired situations. The following phases is that teachers become aware of ideal situations, limitedness, and core qualities in looking back on experiences. Core reflection identifies external obstacles in contexts and environments, but also examines how one constructs oneself internally ( Korthagen, 2014 ). It answers what one wants to achieve or create, how one prevents oneself (i.e., one's behavior, feeling, images and beliefs) from achieving them, and what core quality is needed to realize the ideal situation and overcome the limitations. After teachers embed themselves into situations, they move on to new situations and induce alternative methods from these reflections that mobilize their core qualities. Supervisors trust students' autonomy in the core reflection process and support their becoming aware of internal potential ( Meijer et al., 2009 ).

This teacher reflection model probes the core reflection process involving teachers' selves, identities, and missions. Further research is needed to attempt to explain theoretically how the self relates to and develops in this process. Progress has been made by research from the theoretical perspective of the dialogical self ( Hermans et al., 1992 ; Hermans and Hermans-Konopka, 2010 ; Akkerman and Meijer, 2011 ; Hermans and Gieser, 2011 ). Teacher identity development is an ongoing and dialogical process of negotiating, interrelating, and reconciling multiple selves through narrating ( Akkerman and Meijer, 2011 ). Dialogical self-theory has established the multiplicity of self, which means the self as constituted by multiple I-positions. Each I-position has a voice with its own viewpoint and conducts story-telling. A student, for example, could have the I who intends to socialize out of class, the I who struggles to get good grades in class, and the I who wants to build a professional career at work. The multiplicity of the self implies that an I-position cannot completely overwhelm and conquer other I-positions, but each I-position interplays at their juxtapositions. Through narrating and re-narrating ( Clandinin and Rosiek, 2007 ) with supervisors' appropriate intervention, students can shift from conflictive confrontation, with contradiction and discontinuity, to harmonious reconciliation.

Teacher identity development involves resolving tensions between multiple beliefs from childhood, schooldays, and the workplace ( Alsup, 2006 ). As suggested by this teacher reflection model, teachers strive to look back on their experiences and make sense of them by taking their students' perspectives and asking: what do they want, what do they do and think, and how they feel ( Korthagen and Vasalos, 2005 ; Korthagen, 2014 ). There is discontinuity in teachers' identity development when they face the gap between their ideals and actual problems. Confronting problematic situations, the question of what is ideal facilitates their reflection, interrogates who they are at that moment, and illuminates what an ideal self as teacher would do. Core reflection scrutinizes both external situations and contexts and inward internal potentials and alternatives. Core reflection confronts the problem that previous I-positions were unaware of the source of conflict and that there was a discrepancy between the experienced self and the ideal self. In the ongoing process of daily teaching practice and narrating their experiences, teachers can reconcile the discrepancies in their continuous narrative by making or renewing I-positions in some cases, or through clarifying the limits and obstacles of previous I-positions and teaching experiences. Based on these reconciliations, they can generalize lessons or beliefs from their experiences and try alternative methods of action.

Research based on the teacher reflection model confirms that the reflective process relates to a sense of identity by posing the question of who I am at that moment. Teacher identity development associated with dialogical self-theory sheds new light on this reflective process. As the constitutive developmental theory including self-authorship development explained above, the process of deepening reflection is the movement of subject to object. A subject is unaware of its I-position but after a new I-position is differentiated, the subject becomes an object. Through daily practice, confronting dissonance or contradiction invokes reflection and interplay between multiple I-positions. Reconciling them does not dispose of previous I-positions but creates co-existence at their juxtaposition with a resilient continuity and “the agency of self” ( Hermans, 2011 ) for future practice.

Deepening Reflection From Identity Development Theory

The third thread of theory is identity development theory. The discussion so far inquires how the reflection process reaches holistic identity development. This section examines comprehensive identity theory itself. Beyond the dichotomy of the personal and social dimensions of identity ( Vignoles et al., 2011 ; Vignoles, 2018 ), recent identity theory synthesizes a model of triadic development grounded on both psychology and sociology ( Côté and Levine, 2014 ; Côté, 2019 ).

Psychological theorization of identity consists of three levels of social, personal, and ego identity, four junctures between the levels and three principles of integration, differentiation, and continuity corresponding to each level. Social identity works in social structural contexts based on integration into the community and the broader society around it. Personal identity functions in the interaction that differentiates between the self and the other. Ego identity synthesizes the continuous experience of the personality process. These three levels identity do not work independently but are interconnected. The first juncture from social identity to personal identity is validation and challenge regarding to socialization, where social structure influences daily practice. The juncture from personal identity to ego identity is interpretation on one's identity which works as ego synthesis. Through this interpretation, meanings are internalized into the continuity of selves such as a personality. The juncture from ego identity to personal identity is strategic intentions for action which function as ego executives. This is self-presentation to daily interaction and is involved in action and practice. Finally, the juncture from personal identity to social identity is identity displays as collective activities which have, to some extent, effects on social structure contexts.

Sociological theory takes account of the contexts of identity development and cultural and historical conditions. Late-modern society influences the individualized life course, in which one develops one's self as an “individual,” dissociating from collective supports and values ( Giddens, 1991 ; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002 ). Youth development in the school to work transition has been influenced by this individualization and youth follow paths in the continuum between the default and developmental individualization ( Côté and Levine, 2015 ).

A default individualization is produced by lack of engagement in deliberative decision making for action and a superficial perspective for the future. In the triadic model of identity development, it doesn't function at the level of ego identity, i.e., ego syntheses and ego executives, instead confusing or diffusing identities. Unless they engage intentionally in identity formation, continuity, the third principle of identity, promises nothing but default individualization. Conversely, people who pursue developmental individualization are involved in a proactive approach for identity formation. They engage in exploration and taking deliberate action for possible selves while broadening future perspectives and purposes. Continuity sets the space where time perspective extends from past to present and future through retrospective and prospective reflection. It also unfolds the movement of subject to object and dialogical interplays among I-positions. Purpose consists of present engagement and future life perspectives including these extending time perspectives, and so consolidates them and creates the function of agency ( Emirbayer and Mische, 1998 ; Damon, 2008 ). Therefore, the triadic identity formation with integration, differentiation, and continuity can provide an individual's self-regulated agency based on intrapersonal dynamics, as discussed above, which is named identity-based agency ( Côté and Levine, 2014 , 2015 ; Côté, 2019 ).

Identity development provides the function of continuity to reflective practice, in addition to integration and differentiation. Reflective practice unfolds at the level of interaction related to personal identity. If reflective practice sticks to this level and does not involve the level of ego identity, it deadlocks and remains superficial. The triadic model of identity theory explains the conditions of deepening reflective practice by means of outward and inward exploration. Outward exploration is grounded upon integration in various social structures such as the community and the workplace. It also connects prosocial behavior with various others and empathic understanding of others' backgrounds. When outward exploration activates reciprocal inward exploration, reflection can deepen. Inward exploration accompanies the activation of purpose, which enriches future perspectives and fosters engagement with deliberate plans. This active exploration inward creates a proactive approach to identity development and identity-based agency at the three level of life course, interaction, and personality process. To deepen reflection is a continuous exercise of outward and inward identity-based agency at all three level of identity, resulting in developmental individualization for negotiating the transition from school to work.

Revisiting How To Deepen The Reflective Process In Service Learning

Making the best use of service learning's potential, teachers can deepen students' critical reflection and promote identity development. Well-designed service learning as a high impact educational practice provides opportunities of interaction with diverse others including other students, community residents, and workers in the community service ( Bringle et al., 2009 ). This is an opportunity in which students can encounter new ideas, views, backgrounds, intercultural diversities, and various social identities such as race, ethnicity, class, and gender. Thus, it is an opportunity for social experiences in which they can recognize the differences between suffering individuals and themselves, and also those between the professionals who are role models for students and themselves. Well-designed service learning can encourage civic identity development ( Bringle et al., 2015 ). In service activities, there are ill-structured problems which lack a single right answer from an absolute external authority. These problems orient students to be aware of the deficiency of depending on external formula and help them find their internal voices toward self-authorship. Exposing new and different ideas from service experience in the community builds multiplicity and relativism in their intellectual development, leading to self-authorship ( Egart and Healy, 2004 ; Baxter Magolda and Boes, 2017 ). To contribute to the outcomes of service activities, each student needs to make their own ideas or take their roles collaboratively, questioning what they can do and who they are. Effective service learning, as survey research revealed ( Astin et al., 2000 ; Celio et al., 2011 ), can generate cognitive and emotional outcomes only when students engage in service activities and deepen reflection on the experiences from these opportunities.

Not all reflection reaches the level of deep reflection to generate several outcomes. The theoretical explanation of the reflective process, as reviewed above, clarifies several conditions of deepening reflection, which help to elaborate the reflection models from service learning research. These conditions are also design principles for instructors to structure and facilitate students' deep reflection.

The first condition is to start with students' dissonances in service activities. Without specifying the experiences, their reflections produce vague, unfocused, and superficial descriptions. Dissonance is an effective starting point for reflection on concrete experience because it helps to remember the scene, behavior, thinking and feeling then-and-there. Focusing on concreteness is a guideline for describing experiences implied by the tearcher reflection model ( Korthagen and Vasalos, 2005 ; Korthagen, 2017 ) as well as the reflection model in service learning ( Ash and Clayton, 2009 ). Unless students describe what happens, reflection tends to remain abstract, and hence superficial. Reflection cannot deepen by investigating why something happens without describing what students experience.

The second condition of deepening reflection is to examine discrepancies emerging while describing dissonance in the concrete situations. Instructors should facilitate students' inquiries into discrepancies between actual situations and ideal ones by asking prompts which the reflection models adopt, rather than by providing an instructor's answer. Instructors should push students to reflect on service experience specifically, shifting meaning from uncertain to certain; in other words, they encourage movement from subject to object ( Baxter Magolda and Boes, 2017 ). In this way, students can leave the phase of following external authority and head for constructing internal voices toward self-authorship ( Baxter Magolda and King, 2012 ). Encouragement, however, does not guarantee realizing this movement or establishing an internal foundation for self-authorship. To deepen reflection and make sense of situations, students must engage in inward and outward exploration.

It is essential for deepening reflection to involve in inward exploration through dialogical interplays among I-positions indicated by the dialogical self theory ( Hermans and Hermans-Konopka, 2010 ; Hermans, 2011 ). Students cannot pursue these dialogues only by imagining them. A single voice in several positions generates only monolog. Only when each position has a voice would these multi-voiced dialogues begin. Even when multiple stakeholders collaborate effectively in service learning, students face practical, technical or ethical contradictions in the middle of solving problems and achieving goals. From the viewpoints of students, the I-position as a student hesitates to invest more time and effort than expected to get a good grade, but the I-position as a worker in community service feels irritated by the insufficient contribution of other co-workers. Students cannot necessarily solve and reconcile contradictions among I-positions by themselves. They may oversee potential I-positions for activating dialogue among I-positions. Instructors must force students to confront contradictions among their I-positions and encourage their reconciliation.

Outward exploration in the interpersonal dimension is required to activate dialogical interplays among I-positions through inward exploration in the intrapersonal dimension. Well-designed service learning with multiple partnerships prepares an opportunity for interaction with diverse others expanding students' empathy ( Hoffman, 2010 ; Bringle, 2017 ). To learn fully from these interactions, students should be reflective meaning-makers and engage in further outward exploration. Through it, they must find and identify other people's multiple I-positions just as they are discovering the multiplicity of their own selves. For example, a community worker may have not only a worker I-position but also a parent I-position, a husband I-position, and a immigrant I-position; furthermore, each position has its own voice. It is essential for students to recognize that a person does not have a united monologuing voice, but multiple voices, and perhaps contradictions among his or her I-positions. Therefore, the third requirement of deepening reflection is to confront and reconcile contradictions among I-positions by dialogical interplays and juxtapositions of multiple I-positions from both sides of students' own and others' I-positions.

Instructors should teach students to recognize others' multiplicity as well as the multiplicity among their own I-positions by asking questions with an appropriate balance of support and challenge. The questions include who they are at that moment, what they feel and think then-and-there, what other people do then-and-there, and how they interpret those experiences from the perspective of now-and-here. These questions as prompts facilitate describing their own selves in the situations. Instructors push students to be aware of ideal situations, behavior, and thinking by making use of previous students' or professionals' experiences. These ideals are not the only right answers but alternatives for students' interpretation toward betterment and future action. In this way, skilled instructors should confront students with these contradictions in the process of differentiating the voice of each I-position, making new I-positions sometimes, and reconciling them through the dialogue of their different voices.

Meeting the three conditions above enriches the description of experience and dialogical spaces. Thus, students can examine their experience more critically and deeply compared with the case of superficial descriptions. It expands time perspectives both retrospectively and prospectively. Retrospective expansion of reflection inquires beyond what happened to why it happened. It's the movement of here-and-now to then-and-there. The inquiry investigates not only situations but also students themselves by asking why they did so, felt so, said so, thought so and so on. When they reflect beyond who they were at that moment to why they were so, retrospective inquiry digs back before the experience emerged. Through it, students should confront their prejudice, misunderstanding and patronization by asking how they obstructed themselves and how they constructed themselves. It means finding the discontinuity between the previous, present, and future I-positions and the discrepancies between the actual selves, ideal selves and possible selves. Students often brought their prejudices into service activities, producing unpleasant experience for themselves and stakeholders. They cannot necessarily recognize and solve this problem by themselves. Instructors must make students aware of what and why it happened and ask them to reflect on their prejudices. Because service and learning are a recursive process, skilled instructors should guide students to connect future trial action prospectively in the relationship with the same stakeholders in the same community. Furthermore, from the theorization that active engagement activates purpose in life for the future ( Damon, 2008 ; Bronk, 2013 ), instructors should encourage students to connect their experience in service learning to reconstruct life purpose.

Students can enhance the quality of deep reflection by persisting in the process of service and learning. One-time-only reflection cannot deepen; the accumulation of making meaning is a necessary condition of deepening reflection. The teacher reflection model showed that technical or practical problem experienced by students can be solved by means of alternative approaches based on the awareness of multiple aspects of experiences and situations ( Korthagen et al., 2001 ; Korthagen, 2017 ). Likewise, ethical contradictions generate discontinuity between the previous, present, and future I-positions. Reconciling contradictions requires changing the configuration of I-positions with perspective transformation. This reconciling process is a transformative learning process ( Mezirow, 1991 , 2018 ; Taylor, 2017 ). It means that transforming self-identity is identity development. In this way, well-designed service learning provides these continuous processes that sustains the proactive approach for identity formation, which involves future purpose in life and action with exploration of possible self and identities ( Côté and Levine, 2014 ; Kawai and Moran, 2017 ; Côté, 2019 ). Reconciling those contradictions can be realized by extending the dialogical space with multi-voiced juxtapositions of I-positions and expanding the time perspective both retrospectively and prospectively. Thus, it creates agency of self ( Hermans, 2011 ) and identity-based agency ( Côté and Levine, 2014 , 2015 ; Côté, 2019 ).

This process also does not necessarily occur. The fourth condition of deepening reflection is to expand its time perspective retrospectively and prospectively, thereby bridging the discontinuities in several relationships. Those are relationships between service experiences and academic knowledge, between past, present, and future selves, and between individuals and society. Instructors must accompany students' persistent reflection and intervene continuously, retracing their past reflection for accumulated meaning making. Therefore, journal writing is an effective way of deepening reflection for students and instructors as the DEAL and the ALACT models emphasize ( Ash and Clayton, 2009 ; Korthagen, 2017 ). Because writing functions as an applied meta cognition ( Hacker et al., 2009 ), writing with reply to the above questions should be expected to facilitate movement from subject to object of experience toward self-authorship, to foster the juxtapositions of their own and others' differentiated I-positions, and to expand time perspective retrospectively and prospectively.

Instructors' feedback on reflective writing and inquiry in conversation should confront students with the questions discussed above. Instructors should also require students to apply academic concepts in the context of service activities so that the shifts occur from uncritical acceptance of academic concepts to critical understanding bridged their own experiences ( Kawai, 2012 ; Kawai and Mizokami, 2013 ; Kawai and Kimura, 2014 ). Critical understanding of academic concepts means being aware of their limits. This academic enhancement in the cognitive dimension promotes students' interpersonal development from the relationships with familiar others such as friends to relationships with distant others, i.e., those with different backgrounds and cultures, groups which they have not met, and society as a whole. Furthermore, when critical examination on the source of their own prejudice in intrapersonal dimension connects to this academic enhancement, it moves forward to probe the influence of social structure critically, such as social norms and social assumptions which are taken for granted. Instructors must encourage students to think about the effects of social structures as objects and reinterpret the plurality of social norms and values, finding possible alternatives. Seeing social structures as objects and executing identity-based agency enables, if necessary, resisting the oppression of such contexts. When students achieve deep recognition of themselves and social contexts and acquire capabilities for civic engagement, they can contribute to social action. In some cases, they can even construct social entrepreneurship actions such as collective activities, which are a contribution to constitution of society. By making the best use of the educational benefits of service learning, students can transform from passive receptors supported by multiple stakeholders to active constructors engaging civically in collective activities to influence the constitution of society.

Expanding perspectives from individual development to the relationship among individuals, the community and society activates mutuality between them, which is a central principle of sense of identity formulated by Erikson (1968) . He wrote about mutuality between a family and infant, “A family can bring up a baby only by being brought up by him [ sic ]” ( Erikson, 1968 , p. 96). Mutuality means reciprocal relationships, which is core character of service learning ( Bringle and Clayton, 2012 ). His insights expand that mutuality to several relationships: individual and community, and individual and society. Community and society can recognize students' identity and provide energy for their identity formation only by being recognized for their civic engagement. He named the mutual relationship between preceding and succeeding generations as generativity. Mutuality works in generativity in the relationship between preceding and succeeding generations, which is a typical partnership in community service learning. Regarding youth development, the generativity supports inter-generational activation and, for a democratic society, mutual involvement through generativity must resist fragmenting into individualism ( Côté, 2019 ). Therefore, contemporary society requires generative collaboration and solidarity against discrepancy and oppression. Service learning, as civic-minded graduate models show ( Bringle, 2017 ; Bringle et al., 2019 ; Bringle and Wall, 2020 ), requires students to care about diverse others and pursue social interests through deliberative democratic dialogue toward ethical generativity. It is essential for individual development to sustain inward and outward dialogue in the three dimensions of cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal. For the relationships among citizens, communities, and society, deliberative democratic dialogue is indispensable to mutual activation of ethical generativity with solidarity against intolerance and hostility.

Service learning research has revealed that well-designed service learning generates academic, civic, and personal outcomes through reflection. This paper is based on these findings and provides an expanded theoretical explanation regarding how to deepen reflection, incorporating student development theory, professional development theory, and identity development theory. It reveals the conditions for deepening the student reflection process in service learning. Instructors guide students to focus on dissonance in concrete experiences and to find and describe discrepancies in differences of views or backgrounds between those of students and others. It is not until deep reflection is achieved that students engage in outward exploration of those differences and inward exploration that leads to the construction of internal voices toward self-authorship. Instructors must also resist stopping at a superficial understanding of contradictions from these explorations. Instead, they should force students to confront contradictions through dialogical interplays among their I-positions and those of others in order to understand their multiplicity and complexity. This confrontation also means that students should become aware of contradictions embedded in their prejudices and discontinuities between their past, present, and future selves through the expansion of the time perspective both retrospectively and prospectively. Furthermore, instructors must encourage students to reconcile contradictions and bridge these discontinuities by appreciating the multiplicity and plurality in others' views and social norms. Deepening reflection in service learning can activate mutuality between students and community, and generativity between preceding and succeeding generations toward solidarity.

This theoretical explanation of deepening reflection contributes to the understanding of the potentials of service learning. However, this explanation is based on selected sources from three theoretical threads. Further theoretical work should incorporate other competing theories in service learning. It also requires investigation into the factors that cause reflection to remain superficial and the conditions that cause reflection to enforce students' prejudices. These investigations should involve empirical research and generate evidence. Theoretical explanations provide ideas and frameworks for this kind of empirical research focusing on specific factors such as dissonance in students' experience, discrepancies between differences, and dialogue for the reconciliation of the contradictions.

Author Contributions

TK: conception, design of study, and writing a paper.

This work was supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research, JAPAN, 18K13198.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to R. G. Bringle for advice on this research.

AAC and U (Association of American Colleges and Universities). (2007). College Learning for the New Global Century: A Report from the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America's Promise . Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Google Scholar

Akkerman, S. F., and Meijer, P. C. (2011). A dialogical approach to conceptualizing teacher identity. Teach. Teach. Educ. 27, 308–319. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher Identity Discourses: Negotiating Personal and Professional Spaces . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., and Norman, M. K. (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching . San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Anderson, L. W., and Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing . New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Longman.

Ash, S. L., Clayton, P. H., and Moses, M. G. (2009). Learning through Critical Reflection: A Tutorial for Service-Learning Students . Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Ash, S. L., and Clayton, P. H. (2009). Generating, deepening, and documenting learning: the power of critical reflection in applied learning. J. Appl. Learn. High. Educ. 1, 25–48.

Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., and Yee, J. A. (2000). How Service Learning Affects Students . Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Barber, J. P., and King, P. M. (2014). Pathways toward self-authorship: student responses to the demands of developmentally effective experiences. J. Coll. Stud. Dev . 55, 433–450. doi: 10.1353/csd.2014.0047

Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making Their Own Way: Narratives for Transforming Higher Education to Promote Self-Development . Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Evolution of a constructivist conceptualization of epistemological reflection. Educational Psychologist 39, 31–42. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3901_4

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2007). Self-authorship: The foundation for twenty-first-century education. New Dir. Teach. Learn . 109, 69–83. doi: 10.1002/tl.266

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2009). Authoring your Life: Developing an Internal Voice to Navigate Life's Challenges . Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M. B., and Boes, L. M. (2017). “Educational theory and student civic outcomes,” in Research on Student Civic Outcomes in Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Methods , eds. J. A. Hatcher, R. G. Bringle, and T. W. Hahan (Sterling, VA: Stylus), 115–133.

Baxter Magolda, M. B., and King, P. M., (eds.). (2012). Assessing meaning making and self-authorship: theory, research, and application. ASHE Higher Educ. Rep . 38, 1–138. doi: 10.1002/aehe.v38.3

Baxter-Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and Reasoning in College: Gender-Related Patterns in Students' Intellectual Development . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Beauchamp, C., and Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues in the literature and implications for teacher education. Camb. J. Educ. 39, 175–189. doi: 10.1080/03057640902902252

Beck, U., and Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences . London: Sage Publications.

Benner, P., Tanner, C., and Chesla, C., (eds.). (2009). Expertise in Nursing Practice: Caring, Clinical Judgment, and Ethics, 2nd Edn. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

Bringle, R. G., Clayton, P. H., and Price, M. (2009). Partnerships in service learning and civic engagement. Partnerships J. Serv. Learn. Civic Engag. 1, 1–12.

Bringle, R. G. (2017). “Social psychology and student civic outcomes,” in Research on Student Civic Outcomes in Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Methods , eds J. A. Hatcher, R. G. Bringle, and T. W. Hahan (Sterling, VA: Stylus), 69–89.

Bringle, R. G., Clayton, P. H., and Bringle, K. E. (2015). From teaching democratic thinking to developing democratic civic identity. Partnerships J. Serv. Learn. Civic Engag. 6, 51–76.

Bringle, R. G., Hahn, T. W., and Hatcher, J. A. (2019). Civic-minded graduate: additional evidence II. Int. J. Research on Serv. Learn. Commun. Engage. 7:3. doi: 10.37333/001c.11481

Bringle, R. G., and Clayton, P. H. (2012). “Civic education through service learning: what, how, and why?,” in Higher Education and Civic Engagement , eds. L. McIlrath, A. Lyons, and R. Munck (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan), 101–124.

Bringle, R. G., and Wall, E. (2020). Civic-minded graduate: additional evidence. Michigan J. Community Serv. Learn. 26, 1–18. doi: 10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0026.101

Bronk, K. C. (2013). Purpose in Life: A Critical Component of Optimal Youth Development . New York, NY: Springer.

Côté, J. E. (2019). Youth Development in Identity Societies: Paradoxes of Purpose . New York, NY: Routledge.

Côté, J. E., and Levine, C. G. (2014). Identity, Formation, Agency, and Culture: A Social Psychological Synthesis . New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Côté, J. E., and Levine, C. (2015). Identity Formation, Youth, and Development: A Simplified Approach . New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Celio, C. I., Durlak, J., and Dymnicki, A. (2011). A meta-analysis of the impact of service-learning on students. J. Exp. Edu. 34, 164–181. doi: 10.5193/JEE34.2.164

Chickering, A. W., and Reisser, L. (1993). Education and Identity. The Jossey-Bass Higher and adult Education series . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Clandinin, D. J., and Rosiek, J. (2007). “Mapping a landscape of narrative inquiry,” in Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a Methodology , ed D. J. Clandinin (Sage Publications), 35–75.

Conway, J. M., Amel, E. L., and Gerwien, D. P. (2009). Teaching and learning in the social context: a meta-analysis of service learning's effects on academic, personal, social, and citizenship outcomes. Teach. Psychol. 26, 233–245. doi: 10.1080/00986280903172969

Damon, W. (2008). The Path to Purpose: Helping our Children Find their Calling in Life . New York, NY: Free Press.

Egart, K., and Healy, M. P. (2004). “An urban leadership internship program,” in Learning Partnerships: Theory and Models of Practice to Educate for Self-Authorship , eds M. B. Baxter Magolda and P. M. King (Sterling, VA: Stylus), 125–150.

Emirbayer, M., and Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? Am. J. Sociol. 103, 962–1023. doi: 10.1086/231294

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis . New York, NY: Norton.

Evans, N., Forney, D., Guido, F., Patton, L., and Renn, K. (2009a). Student Development in College: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd Edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Evans, N., Forney, D., Guido, F., Patton, L., and Renn, K. (2009b). Perry's Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development. Student Development in College: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd Edn . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 82–98.

Eyler, J., and Giles, D. E. Jr (1999). Where's the Learning in Service-Learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gelmon, S. B., Holland, B. A., and Spring, A. (2018). Assessing Service-Learning and Civic Engagement: Principles and Techniques . Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age . Stanford, CA: Stanford university press.

Hacker, D. J., Keener, M. C., and Kircher, J. C. (2009). “Writing is applied metacognition,” in Handbook of Metacognition in Education , eds. D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A. C. Graesser (New York, NY: Routledge), 154–172.

Hamman, D., Gosselin, K., Romano, J., and Bunuan, R. (2010). Using possible-selves theory to understand the identity development of new teachers. Teach. Teach. Educ. 26, 1349–1361. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.03.005

Hanna, F., Oostdam, R., Severiens, S. E., and Zijlstra, B. J. (2019). Domains of teacher identity: a review of quantitative measurement instruments. Educ. Res. Rev. 27, 15–27. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2019.01.003

Hanna, F., Oostdam, R., Severiens, S. E., and Zijlstra, B. J. (2020). Assessing the professional identity of primary student teachers: design and validation of the teacher identity measurement scale. Stud. Educ. Eval . 64:100822. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.100822

Hatcher, J. A., and Bringle, R. G. (1997). Reflection: bridging the gap between service and learning. Coll. Teach . 45, 153–158. doi: 10.1080/87567559709596221

Hermans, H., and Hermans-Konopka, A. (2010). Dialogical Self Theory: Positioning and Counter-Positioning in a Globalizing Society . Cambridge University Press.

Hermans, H. J., Kempen, H. J., and Van Loon, R. J. (1992). The dialogical self: beyond individualism and rationalism. Am. Psychol. 47, 23–33. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.47.1.23

Hermans, H. J. M. (2011). “The dialogical self: a process of positioning in space and time,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Self , ed S. Gallagher (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 654–680.

Hermans, H. J. M., and Gieser, T., (eds.). (2011). Handbook of Dialogical Self Theory . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press

Hoffman, M. L. (2010). “Empathy and prosocial behavior,” in Handbook of Emotions, 3rd Edn , eds. M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, and L. F. Barrett (New York, NY: Guilford Press), 440–455.

Jameson, J. K., Clayton, P. H., and Ash, S. L. (2013). “Conceptualizing, assessing, and investigating academic learning in service learning,” in Research on Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Assessment, Vol. 2A , eds P. H. Clayton, R. G. Bringle, and J. A. Hatcher (Sterling, VA: Stylus), 85–110.

Jones, S. R., and Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity Development of College Students: Advancing Frameworks for Multiple Dimensions of Identity . San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Kawai, T. (2012). The impact of participation in out-of-class communities of practice and bridge learning on student learning and development. Educ. Tech. Res. 35, 135–144. doi: 10.15077/etr.KJ00008327918

Kawai, T., and Kimura, M. (2014). A study on the role of reflection and bridge learning in service-learning: through the survey of the “community service learning” course at ritsumeikan university. Educ. Tech. Res. 37, 15–23. doi: 10.1002/cc.20089

Kawai, T., and Mizokami, S. (2013). Analysis of bridge learning: focus on the relationship between bridge learning, approaches to learning, and the connection of present and future life. Educ. Tech. Res . 36, 23–31. doi: 10.15077/etr.KJ00008877023

Kawai, T., and Moran, S. (2017). How do future life perspective and present action work in Japanese youth development? J. Moral. Educ. 46, 323–336. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2017.1350150

Kegan, R. (1982). The Evolving Self . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kegan, R. (1994). In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kegan, R., and Lahey, L. (2009). Immunity to Change: How to Overcome it and Unlock Potential in Yourself and Your Organization . Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

King, P. M., and Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

King, P. M., and Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective judgment: theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educ. Psychol. 39, 5–18. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3901_2

Korthagen, F., and Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: Core reflection as a means to enhance professional growth. Teach. Teach. Theory Pract. 11, 47–71. doi: 10.1080/1354060042000337093

Korthagen, F. A. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 20, 77–97. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2003.10.002

Korthagen, F. A. (2014). “Promoting core reflection in teacher education: deepening professional growth,” in International Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies , eds. L. Orland-Barak, and C. J. Craig (Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited), 73–89.

Korthagen, F. A. (2017). “A foundation for effective teacher education: teacher education pedagogy based on situated learning,” in The SAGE Handbook of Research on Teacher Education , eds. D. J. Clandinin, and J. Husu (Los Angeles, CA: Sage), 528–544.

Korthagen, F. A., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., and Wubbels, T. (2001). Linking Practice and Theory: The Pedagogy of Realistic Teacher Education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who has Access to Them, and Why they Matter . Washington, DC: AAC.

Loughran, J., and Hamilton, M. L., (eds.). (2016). “Developing an understanding of teacher education,” in International Handbook of Teacher Education , eds J. Loughran, and M. L. Hamilton (New York, NY: Springer).

Love, P. G., and Guthrie, V. L. (1999). Understanding and applying cognitive development theory: new directions for student services. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

McCormick, A. C., Kinzie, J., and Gonyea, R. M. (2013). “Student engagement: Bridging research and practice to improve the quality of undergraduate education,” in Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research , ed M. B. Paulsen (Dordrecht: Springer), 47–92.

Meijer, P. C., Korthagen, F. A., and Vasalos, A. (2009). Supporting presence in teacher education: The connection between the personal and professional aspects of teaching. Teach. Teach. Educ . 25, 297–308. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.013

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (2018). “Transformative learning theory,” in Contemporary Theories of Learning , ed K. Illeris (Routledge), 114–128.

Nilson, L. (2013). Creating Self-Regulated Learners: Strategies to Strengthen Students? Self-Awareness and Learning Skills . (Sterling, VA: Stylus).

Olsen, B. (2008). Teaching What They Learn, Learning What They Live: How Teachers' Personal Histories Shape their Professional Development . Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Oyserman, D. (2008). Identity-based motivation and consumer behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 19, 276–279. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2009.06.001

Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido, F. M., and Quaye, S. J. (2016). Student Development in College: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3rd Edn. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Paul, R., and Elder, L. (2001). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools . Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Perry, W.G. Jr. (1968). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme . New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Pizzolato, J. E. (2007). Assessing self-authorship. New Dir. Teach. Learn . 109, 31–42. doi: 10.1002/tl.263

Rodgers, C. R., and Scott, K. H. (2008).” The development of the personal self and professional identity in learning to teach,” in Handbook of Research on Teacher Education: Enduring Questions in Changing Contexts , eds. M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, and K. E. Demers (New York, NY: Routledge), 732–755.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, NY: Basic books.

Schwartz, S. J., Luyckx, K., and Vignoles, V. L., (eds.). (2011). Handbook of Identity Theory and Research . New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.

Taylor, E. W. (2017). “Transformative learning theory,” in International Issues in Adult Education: Transformative Learning Meets Bildung , eds. A. Laros, T. Fuhr, and E. W. Taylor (Boston, MA: Sense Publishing), 17–29.

Vignoles, V. L. (2018). “Identity: personal and social,” in Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, 2nd Edn , eds. K. Deaux and M. Snyder. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press), 289–315.

Vignoles, V. L., Schwartz, S. J., and Luyckx, K. (2011). “Introduction: toward an integrative view of identity,” in Handbook of Identity Theory and Research , eds. S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, and V. L. Vignoles (New York, NY: Springer), 1–27.

Whitley, M. A. (2014). A draft conceptual framework of relevant theories to inform future rigorous research on student service-learning outcomes. Michigan J. Commun. Serv. Learn. 20, 19–40. Available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0020.202

Whitney, B. C., and Clayton, P. H. (2011). “Research on and through reflection in international service learning,” in International Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Research , eds. R. G. Bringle, J. A. Hatcher, and S. G. Jones (Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing), 145–187.

Zhang, Y., Hawk, S. T., Zhang, X., and Zhao, H. (2016). Chinese preservice teachers' professional identity links with education program performance: the roles of task value belief and learning motivations. Front. Psychol. 7:573. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00573

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Keywords: reflection, DEAL model, self-authorship, ALACT model, dialogical self theory, identity development

Citation: Kawai T (2021) A Theoretical Framework on Reflection in Service Learning: Deepening Reflection Through Identity Development. Front. Educ. 5:604997. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2020.604997

Received: 11 September 2020; Accepted: 30 November 2020; Published: 07 January 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Kawai. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Toru Kawai, kawai-t@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp

This article is part of the Research Topic

Service Learning, Educational Innovation and Social Transformation

Service Learning

An Innovative Pedagogy for the Psychology Curriculum

• Living reference work entry
• Later version available View entry history
• First Online: 10 December 2021
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Robert G. Bringle 5 ,
• Roger N. Reeb 6 ,
• Luzelle Naudé 7 ,
• Ana I. Ruiz 8 &
• Faith Ong 9  

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

82 Accesses

1 Citations

Service learning (SL) is a high-impact pedagogy that integrates academic material, relevant community-based service activities, and critical reflection to achieve academic, social responsibility, and personal learning objectives in order to develop psychologically literate citizens. SL enhances knowledge and fosters social responsibility in students to democratically address challenges in diverse societies. SL rests on the sound pedagogical principles of active and experiential learning. This chapter focuses on the undergraduate psychology major; however, similar principles can be applied to other educational levels. Reaching educational goals is contingent on applying 11 essential elements to SL course design, implementation, and assessment, from establishing partnerships with the community to designing student reflection activities and celebrating their learning. This chapter highlights themes and issues in research, core findings, and trends, as well as challenges, lessons learned, and implications for learning, teaching, and community engagement. Finally, key resources are identified for SL.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Akhurst, J. (2017). Student experiences of community-based service learning during masters’ level training, as related to critical community psychology practice. Journal for New Generation Sciences, 15 , 1–20.

Google Scholar  

Altman, I. (1996). Higher education and psychology in the millennium. American Psychologist, 51 , 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.4.371 .

Article   Google Scholar  

American Psychological Association. (2007). APA Guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major . Author.

American Psychological Association. (2013). APA guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major: Version 2.0 . https://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/undergrad/index.aspx

American Psychological Association. (2018). APA citizen psychologist. https://www.apa.org/about/governance/citizen-psychologist

Aramburuzabala, P., McIlrath, L., & Opazo, H. (2019). Embedding service learning in European higher education . London, UK: Routledge.

Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Generating, deepening, and documenting learning: The power of critical reflection for applied learning. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 1 , 25–48.

Ash, S. L., Clayton, P. H., & Atkinson, M. P. (2005). Integrating reflection and assessment to improve and capture student learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11 (2), 49–60.

Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation. Journal of College Student Development, 39 , 251–263.

Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Misa, K., Anderson, J., Denson, N., Jayakumar, J., Saenz, V., & Yamamura, E. (2006). Understanding the effects of service-learning: A study of students and faculty. . Report to the Atlantic Philanthropies.

Australian Psychological Society. (2015). Australian curriculum: Psychological science . https://www.psychology.org.au/Training-and-careers/psychological-science/

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1997). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Billig, S., Root, S., & Jesse, D. (2005). The impact of participation in service learning on high school students’ civic engagement. Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, Working Paper No. 33.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: Cognitive domain . New York, NY: David McCay.

Bobo, B., & Akhurst, J. (2019). ‘Most importantly, it’s like the partner takes more interest in us’: Using Ubuntu as a fundamental ethic of community engagement partnerships at Rhodes University. Alternation, 27 , 88–110. https://doi.org/10.29086/2519-5476/2019/sp27a4 .

Bowman, N. A. (2011). Promoting participation in a diverse democracy: A meta-analysis of college diversity experiences and civic engagement. Review of Educational Research, 81 (1), 29–68.

Boyle-Baise, M. (2002). Multicultural service learning: Educating teachers in diverse communities . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Bringle, R. G. (2003). Enhancing theory-based research on service-learning. In S. H. Billig & J. S. Eyler (Eds.), Deconstructing service-learning: Research exploring context, participation, and impacts (pp. 3–21). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Bringle, R. G. (2017a). Hybrid high-impact pedagogies: Integrating service-learning with three other high-impact pedagogies. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 24 (1), 49–63.

Bringle, R. G. (2017b). Social psychology and civic outcomes. In J. A. Hatcher, R. G. Bringle, & T. W. Hahn (Eds.), Research on student civic outcomes in service learning: Conceptual frameworks and methods (pp. 69–89). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Bringle, R. G., & Clayton, P. H. (2012). Civic education through service-learning: What, how, and why? In L. McIlrath, A. Lyons, & R. Munck (Eds.), Higher education and civic engagement: Comparative perspectives (pp. 101–124). New York, NY: Palgrave.

Bringle, R. G., & Clayton, P. H. (2020). Integrating service learning and digital technologies: Examining the challenge and the promise. Revista Iberoamerican de Education a Distancia, 23 (1), 43–65.

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 67 , 221–239.

Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Hahn, T. W. (2019). Practical wisdom for conducting research: An introduction. In J. A. Hatcher, R. G. Bringle, & T. W. Hahn (Eds.), Practical wisdom for conducting research on service learning: Quality and purpose (pp. 3–24). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Jones, S. G. (Eds.). (2011). International service learning: Conceptual frameworks and research . Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Bringle, R. G., Phillips, M. A., & Hudson, M. (2004). The measure of service learning: Research scales to assess student experiences . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bringle, R. G., Reeb, R. N., Brown, M. A., & Ruiz, A. I. (2016). Service learning and psychology: Enhancing undergraduate education for the public good . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Brown, M. A. (2011a). The power of generosity to change views on social power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47 , 1285–1290.

Brown, M. A. (2011b). Learning from service: The effect of helping on helpers’ social dominance orientation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41 , 850–871.

Brown, M. A., Wymer, J. D., & Cooper, C. S. (2016). The counter-normative effects of service-learning: Fostering attitudes toward social equality through contact and autonomy. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 23 (1), 37–44.

Case, L., Schram, B., Jung, J., Leung, W., & Yun, J. (2020). A meta-analysis of the effect of adapted physical activity service-learning programs on college student attitudes toward people with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation , 1–13.

Cayuela, A., Alonso, M., Ballesteros, C., & Aramburuzabala, P. (2020). 2019 Annual report of the European Observatory of Service-Learning in Higher Education . https://www.eoslhe.eu/

Celio, C. I., Durlak, J., & Dymnicki, A. (2011). A meta-analysis of the impact of service-learning on students. Journal of Experiential Education, 34 , 164–181.

Centro Latinoamericano de Aprendizaje y Servicio Solidario (CLAYSS). (n.d.). What is “service learning”? http://www.clayss.org/english/servicelearning_school.html

Chapdelaine, A., Ruiz, A., Warchal, J., & Wells, C. (2005). Service-learning code of ethics . Bolton, MA: Anker.

Choo, J., Kong, T. Y., Ong, F., Shiuan, T. S., Nair, S., Ong, J., & Chan, A. (2019). What works in service-learning? Achieving civic outcomes, academic connection, career preparation and personal growth in students at Ngee Ann Polytechnic. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 25 (2), 95–132.

Christens, B., & Perkins, D. D. (2008). Transdisciplinary, multilevel action research to enhance ecological and psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 36 ( 2 ), 214–231.

Clayton, P. H., & Ash, S. L. (2004). Shifts in perspective: Capitalizing on the counter-normative nature of service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11 , 59–70.

Clayton, P. H., Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (Eds.). (2013a). Research on service learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessment (Students and faculty) (Vol. 2A). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Clayton, P. H., Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (Eds.). (2013b). Research on service learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessment (Communities, institutions, and partnerships) (Vol. 2B). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Conway, J. M., Amel, E. L., & Gerwien, D. P. (2009). Teaching and learning in the social context: A meta-analysis of service learning’s effects on academic, personal, social, and citizenship outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 36 , 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280903172969 .

Council of Europe. (2016). Competences for democratic culture: Living together as equals in culturally diverse democratic societies . Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.

Council of Europe. (2017). Council of Europe reference framework of competences for democratic culture (CDC) (Guidance for implementation. 2. CDC and pedagogy) (Vol. 3 ). Sttrasbourg, France: Council of Europe.

Cranney, J., & Dunn, D. (Eds.). (2011). The psychologically literate citizen: Foundations and global perspectives . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Dahan, T. A. (2016). Revisiting pedagogical variations in service-learning and student outcomes. International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, 4 (1).

Europe Engage. (n.d.). Our definition of service-learning . https://europeengage.org/our-definition-of-service-learning/

EuroPsy. (2014). Tuning-EuroPsy: Reference points for the design and delivery of degree programmes in psychology . https://www.efpa.eu/professional-development/tuning-europsy-_-tuning-educational-structures-in-europe

Eyler, J. S., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fleck, B., Hussey, H. D., & Rutledge-Ellison, L. (2017). Linking class and community: An investigation of SL. Teaching of Psychology, 44 , 232–239.

Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the oppressed . New York, NY: The Seabury Press.

Furco, A., & Matthews, P. H. (2018, July). Using a new, research-based tool to assess the quality of planning and implementation of service-learning courses. Paper presented at the conference of the International Association for Research on Service Learning and Community Engagement, New Orleans, LA.

Furco, A., & Norvell, K. (2019). What is service learning? Making sense of the pedagogy and practice. In P. Aramburuzabala, L. McIlrath, & H. Opazo (Eds.), Embedding service learning in European higher education: Developing a culture of civic engagement (pp. 13–35). Routledge.

Guo, F., Yao, M., Wang, C., Yan, W., & Zong, Z. (2016). The effects of SL on student problem solving: The mediating role of classroom engagement. Teaching of Psychology, 43 , 16–21.

Halpern, D. F. (Ed.). (2010). Undergraduate education in psychology: A blueprint for the future of the discipline . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hamner, J. B., Wilder, B., & Byrd, L. (2007). Lessons learned: Integrating a service learning community-based partnership into the curriculum. Nursing Outlook, 55 (2), 106–110.

Harkavy, I., & Hartley, M. (2010). Pursuing Franklin’s dream: Philosophical and historical roots of service-learning. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46 , 418–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9341-x .

Hatcher, J. A., Bringle, R. G., & Muthiah, R. (2004). Designing effective reflection: What matters to service learning? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11 (1), 38–46.

Holsapple, M. A. (2012). Service-learning and student diversity outcomes: Existing evidence and directions for future research. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 18 (2), 5–18.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2019). Summary for policy makers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming. https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/

International Association of Applied Psychology. (2016). International declaration on core competences in professional psychology. https://iaapsy.org/policies-initiatives/ipcp-documents/

Jacoby, B. (2015). Service-learning essentials: Questions, answers, and lessons learned . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kazdin, A. E. (1998). Research design in clinical psychology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kerrigan, S. (2005). College graduates’ perspectives on the effect of capstone service-learning courses. In M. Martinez, P. A. Pasque, & N. Bowman (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on higher education for the public good (pp. 49–65). National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good. Ann Arbor, MI.

Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter . Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Markus, G. B., Howard, J. P. F., & King, D. C. (1993). Integrating community service and classroom instruction enhances learning: Results from an experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15 , 410–419.

Mezirow, J. (2009). Transformative learning theory. In J. Mezirow & E. W. Taylor (Eds.), Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community (pp. 18–31). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Miller, K. K., & Yen, S. (2005). Group differences in academic achievement: Service learning in a child psychology course. Psychology of Teaching, 32 , 56–58.

Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2003). Community-based participatory research for health . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Minkler, M., & Freudenberg, N. (2010). From community-based participatory research to policy changes. In H. Fitzgerald, K. Burack, & S. Seifer (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary landscapes, future directions: Volume 2: Community-campus partnerships (pp. 275–294). Lansing MI: Michigan State University Press.

Mitchell, T. D. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14 (1), 50–65.

Moely, B. E., & Ilustre, V. (2014). The impact of service-learning course characteristics on university students’ learning outcomes. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 21 (1), 5–16.

Morgan, W., & Streb, M. (2001). Building citizenship: How student voice in service-learning develops civic values. Social Science Quarterly, 82 (1), 154–169.

Niehaus, E., & Crain, L. K. (2013). Act local or global?: Comparing student experiences in domestic and international service-learning programs. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 20 , 31–40.

Novak, J. M., Markey, V., & Allen, M. (2007). Evaluating cognitive outcomes of service learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports, 24 (2), 149–157.

Pacho, T. (2019). Service-learning: An innovative approach to education in Africa. In J. K. Mugo, P. Namubiru-Ssentamu, & M. Njihia (Eds.), The good education and Africa’s future: Concepts, issues and options (pp. 232–259). Nairobi, Kenya: Pauline’s Publications Africa.

Pascarella, E. T., Martin, G. L., Hanson, J. M., Trolian, T. L., Gillig, B., & Blaich, C. (2014). Effects of diversity experiences on critical thinking skills over 4 years of college. Journal of College Student Development, 95 (1), 86–92.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification . Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.

Preece, J. (2016). Negotiating service learning through community engagement: Adaptive leadership, knowledge, dialogue and power. Education as Change, 20 , 104–125. https://doi.org/10.17159/1947-9417/2016/562 .

Prilleltensky, I. (2008). The role of power in wellness, oppression, and liberation: The promise of psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 36 , 116–136.

Reeb, R. N., & Folger, S. F. (2013). Community outcomes in service learning: Research and practice from a systems perspective. In P. H. Clayton, R. G. Bringle, & J. A. Hatcher (Eds.), Research on service-learning: Conceptual models and assessment (Vol. 2B, pp. 389–418). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Reeb, R. N., Sammon, J. A., & Isackson, N. L. (1999). Clinical application of the service-learning model in psychology: Evidence of educational and clinical benefits. Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 18 , 65–82.

Reeb, R. N., Snow-Hill, N., Folger, S. F., Steel, A. L., Stayton, L., Hunt, C., O’Koon, B., & Glendening, Z. (2017). Psycho-ecological systems model: A systems approach to planning and gauging the community impact of engaged scholarship and service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 24 , 6–22.

Regina, C., & Ferrara, C. (2017). Service-learning in Central and Eastern Europe: Handbook for engaged teachers and students. CLAYSS. Centro Latinoamericano de Aprendizaje y Servicio Solidario.

Reich, J. N., & Nelson, P. D. (2010). Engaged scholarship: Perspectives from psychology. In H. E. Fitzgerald, C. Burack, & S. D. Seifer (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary landscapes, future directions. Volume 2: Community-campus partnerships (pp. 131–147). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Rich, G., Padilla-López, A., Souza, L., Zinkiewicz, L., Taylor, J., & Jaafar, J. (2018). Teaching psychology around the world (Vol. 4). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars.

Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (Eds.). (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (Vol. 1). London, UK: Academic.

Ruiz, A., & Warchal, J. (2013). Long-term impact of service-learning on alumni volunteer service activities. In P. Lin & M. Wiegand (Eds.), Service-learning in higher education: Connecting the global to the local (pp. 255–264). Indianapolis, IN: University of Indianapolis Press.

Ruiz, A., Warchal, J., Chapdelaine, A., & Wells, C. (2011). International service-learning: Who benefits? In P. Lin (Ed.), Service-learning in higher education: National and international connections (pp. 13–25). Indianapolis, IN: University of Indianapolis Press.

Saltmarsh, J., Hartley, M., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Democratic engagement white paper . Boston, MA: New England Resource Center for Higher Education.

Schneller, A. J. (2008). Environmental service learning: Outcomes of innovative pedagogy in Baja California Sur, Mexico. Environmental Education Research, 14 (3), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802192418 .

Singh, K. (2016). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education . Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Human Rights Council.

Steinberg, K., Bringle, R. G., & McGuire, L. E. (2013). Attributes of quality research in service learning. In P. H. Clayton, R. G. Bringle, & J. A. Hatcher (Eds.), Research on service learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessment. Vol. 2A: Students and faculty (pp. 27–53). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Stokamer, S. T., & Clayton, P. H. (2017). Student civic learning through service learning. In J. A. Hatcher, R. G. Bringle, & T. W. Hahn (Eds.), Research on student civic outcomes in service learning: Conceptual frameworks and methods (pp. 45–65). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Strand, K. J., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R., Marullo, S., & Donohue, P. (2003). Community-based research and higher education: Principles and practices . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tapia, M. N. (2012). Academic excellence and community engagement: Reflections on the Latin American experience. In L. McIlrath, A. Lyons, & R. Munck (Eds.), Higher education and civic engagement: Comparative perspectives (pp. 187–203). New York, NY: Palgrave.

Thomson, A. M., Smith-Tolken, A. R., Naidoo, A. V., & Bringle, R. G. (2011). Service learning and community engagement: A comparison of three national contexts. Voluntas, 22 , 214–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-010-9133-9 .

Ti, C., Tang, J., & Bringle, R. G. (2020). Initiating and extending institutionalization of SL. Unpublished manuscript, Center for Service and Learning, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

Toole, J., & Toole, P. (1998). The essential elements of service-learning practice . St. Paul, MN: National Youth Leadership Council.

United Nations. (2020). Sustainable development goals. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/

Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists (3rd ed.). (2008). https://www.iupsys.net/about/governance/universal-declaration-of-ethical-principles-for-psychologists.html

Waldner, L. S., McGorry, S. Y., & Widener, M. C. (2012). E-service-learning: The evolution of service-learning to engage a growing online student population. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 16 (2), 123–150.

Walvoord, B. E., & Anderson, V. J. (1998). Effective grading: A tool for learning and assessment in college . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Warren, J. L. (2012). Does service-learning increase student learning?: A meta-analysis. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Spring , 56–61.

Wilkenfeld, B., Lauckhardt, J., & Torney-Purta, J. (2010). The relation between developmental theory and measures of civic engagement in research on adolescents. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 193–219). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Xing, J., & Ma, C. (Eds.). (2010). Service-learning in Asia: Curricular models and practices . Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Yorio, P. L., & Ye, F. (2012). A meta-analysis on the effects of service-learning on the social, personal, and cognitive outcomes of learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11 (1), 9–27.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA

Robert G. Bringle

University of Dayton, Dayton, OH, USA

Roger N. Reeb

University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa

Luzelle Naudé

Alvernia University, Reading, PA, USA

Ana I. Ruiz

Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Singapore, Singapore

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert G. Bringle .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Education, Univ of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

Joerg Zumbach

Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Bonita Springs, FL, USA

Douglas Bernstein

Psychology Learning & Instruction, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Sachsen, Germany

Susanne Narciss

DISUFF, University of Salerno, Salerno, Salerno, Italy

Giuseppina Marsico

Section Editor information

University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

Psychologie des Lehrens und Lernens, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland

Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

Douglas A. Bernstein

Department of Human, Philosophic, and Education Sciences, University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Bringle, R.G., Reeb, R.N., Naudé, L., Ruiz, A.I., Ong, F. (2022). Service Learning. In: Zumbach, J., Bernstein, D., Narciss, S., Marsico, G. (eds) International Handbook of Psychology Learning and Teaching. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26248-8_61-2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26248-8_61-2

Received : 21 August 2020

Accepted : 01 September 2020

Published : 10 December 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-26248-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-26248-8

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26248-8_61-3

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26248-8_61-2

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26248-8_61-1

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

How Students’ Motivation and Learning Experience Affect Their Service-Learning Outcomes: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis

Kenneth w. k. lo.

1 Service-Learning and Leadership Office, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China

2 Department of Computing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China

Stephen C. F. Chan

Kam-por kwan, associated data.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Guided by the expectancy-value theory of motivation in learning, we explored the causal relationship between students’ learning experiences, motivation, and cognitive learning outcome in academic service-learning. Based on a sample of 2,056 college students from a university in Hong Kong, the findings affirm that learning experiences and motivation are key factors determining cognitive learning outcome, affording a better understanding of student learning behavior and the impact in service-learning. This research provides an insight into the impact of motivation and learning experiences on students’ cognitive learning outcome while engaging in academic service-learning. This not only can discover the intermediate factors of the learning process but also provides insights to educators on how to enhance their teaching pedagogy.

Introduction

The application of motivation theories in learning has been much discussed in the past decades ( Credé and Phillips, 2011 ; Gopalan et al., 2017 ) and applied in different types of context areas and target populations, such as vocational training students ( Expósito-López et al., 2021 ), middle school students ( Hayenga and Corpus, 2010 ) and pedagogies, including experiential learning and service learning ( Li et al., 2016 ). Motivation is defined in learning as an internal condition to arouse, direct and maintain people’s learning behaviors ( Woolfolk, 2019 ). Based on the self-determination theory, motivation is categorized as intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation ( Ryan and Deci, 2017 ). Intrinsically motivated learners are those who can always “reach within themselves” to find a motive and intensity to accomplish even highly challenging tasks without the need for incentives or pressure. In contrast, extrinsically motivated behaviors are motivated by external expectation other than their inherent satisfactions ( Ryan and Deci, 2020 ). To conceptualize student motivation, Eccles et al. (1983) proposed the expectancy-value model of motivation with two components: (a) expectancy, which captures students’ beliefs about their ability to complete the task and their perception that they are responsible for their own performance, and (b) value, which captures students’ beliefs about their interest in and perceived importance of the task. In general, research suggests that students who believe they are capable of completing the task (expectancy) and find the associated activities meaningful or interesting (value) are more likely to persist at a task and have better academic performance ( Fincham and Cain, 1986 ; Paris and Okab, 1986 ; Kaplan and Maehr, 1999 ).

Since then, expectancy-value theory has focused on understanding and enhancing student motivation, especially in core academic subjects ( Wigfield and Eccles, 2000 ; Liem and Chua, 2013 ). Many empirical studies demonstrate that the expectancy-value theory helps understand achievement-related behaviors and performance in key academic subjects in the school curriculum. Studies report that the expectancy and value components are positively related to students’ academic performance. For example Joo et al. (2015) conducted a study on 963 college students enrolled in a computer application course and found that the expectancy component and value component had statistically significant direct effects on academic achievement. Puzziferro (2008) found significant positive correlations between students’ self-efficacy for online technologies and self-regulated learning with the final grade and level of satisfaction in online undergraduate-level courses. Trautwein et al. (2012) conducted a study for 2,508 German high-school students and found that self-efficacy, intrinsic value, utility value and cost can predict academic performance in Mathematics and English. Schnettler et al. (2020) applied expectancy-value theory to study the relationship between motivation and dropout intention. A total of 326 undergraduate students of law and mathematics were studied, and findings showed that low intrinsic and attainment value was substantially related to high dropout intention. These studies argue that the expectancy component, value component and other student experiential variables such as self-regulated learning may positively relate to academic achievement. Recently, this theory has been applied to experiential learning, such as civic education ( Liem and Chua, 2013 ; Li et al., 2016 ). Results showed that higher expectancy and value beliefs could enhance students’ appreciation and engagement in civic activities, and finally promote the development of targeted civic qualities. This suggests that if expectancy-value theory is applied to service-learning, it would be expected that if students perceive that they are capable of completing the service project (expectancy component) or find the project meaningful (value component), they have higher motivation to engage in the project, and therefore, attain higher learning outcomes.

Students’ motivation in learning can be affected by different factors. These include their emotional, expressive and affective experiences ( Pintrich and De Groot, 1990 ; Deci, 2014 ), previous learning experiences and culturally rooted socialization, such as gender and ethnic identity ( Wigfield and Eccles, 2000 ). For example, Yair (2000) conducted a study to investigate the effects of instructions on students’ learning experiences. The result showed that structured instructions are better able to improve the learning experiences, which leads to higher motivation of the students. In short, research suggests that students’ motivation affect the academic performance, and motivation itself is impacted by other factors.

Despite all these studies, there has been limited work that applies the expectancy-value theory to study the learning process and understand how the different variables affect students’ motivation and learning outcomes, especially in service-learning. Service-learning is a type of experiential learning that provides a rich set of learning outcomes through applying academic knowledge to engage in community activities that address human and community needs and structured reflection ( Jacoby, 1996 ). Bringle and Hatcher defined academic service-learning as:

a credit bearing educational experience in which students participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs and reflect on the service activity to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility ( Bringle and Hatcher, 1996 , p. 5).

This pedagogy helps students translate theory into practice, understand issues facing their communities, and enhance personal development ( Eyler and Giles, 1999 ; Hardy and Schaen, 2000 ). Previous studies on the benefit of service-learning showed that service-learning could be an effective pedagogy to achieve a wide range of cognitive and affective outcomes, especially on their academic ( Giles and Eyler, 1994 ; Lundy, 2007 ), social ( Weber and Glyptis, 2000 ), personal ( Yates and Youniss, 1996 ; Billig and Furco, 2002 ), and civic outcomes ( Bringle et al., 2011 ; Mann et al., 2015 ). Service-learning is recognized as a high-impact educational practice ( Anderson et al., 2019 ) and it promote positive educational results for students from widely varying backgrounds ( Kuh and Schneider, 2008 ). It is increasingly adopted in universities across the world ( Furco et al., 2016 ; Wang et al., 2020 ; Sotelino-Losada et al., 2021 ) and has received significant attention from both academics and researchers in different academic disciplines ( Yorio and Ye, 2012 ; Geller et al., 2016 ; Rutti et al., 2016 ), and an increasing number of institutions have formally designated service-learning courses as part of the curriculum ( Nejmeh, 2012 ; Campus Compact, 2016 ).

Academic service-learning requires students to learn an academic content that is related to a social issue, and then apply their classroom-learned knowledge and skills in a service project that serves the community. In other words, students’ cognitive and intellectual learning is augmented via a mechanism that allows them practice of said knowledge and skills ( Novak et al., 2007 ). An example would be learning about energy poverty and solar electricity, and then conduct a service project installing green energy solutions for rural communities in developing countries. Another example is learning about the impact of eye health on academic study, and conducting eye screenings for primary school students. To prepare the students, lectures and training workshops teach students about the academic concepts to equip them with the necessary skills to deal with complex issues in the service setting, and prepare them to reflect on their experience to develop their empathy and build up a strong sense of civic responsibility. The objective is to develop socially responsible and civic-minded professionals and citizens. Therefore, the linkage between academic content, students’ learning and meaningful service activity is critical, as the classroom theory, in a sense, is experienced, practiced and tested in a real-world setting.

Yorio and Ye (2012) suggest that tackling real-life community problems in service-learning leads to increased motivation that can also result in increased cognitive development. However, similar to other educational areas, not much effort has been paid to the “process” by these learning gains are imparted to students. To reveal the mechanism of the learning behavior and provide suggestions for improving the effectiveness of students’ learning, researchers need to investigate the dynamic processes and the influencing factors on how students learn during service-learning. Students do not automatically learn from just engaging in service-learning activities. Instead, how and what students learn depends on different factors. Fitch et al. (2012) suggested using structural equation modeling to develop a predictive model to investigate how students’ initial levels of cognitive processes and intellectual development may interact with the quality of service-learning experiences, and therefore predict cognitive outcomes and self-regulated learning.

Since then, a few studies have been conducted to discover the factors that affect the learning outcomes in service-learning, such as the quality of students’ learning experiences ( Ngai et al., 2018 ), students’ motivation ( Li et al., 2016 ) and students’ disciplinary backgrounds ( Lo et al., 2019 ). Also, Moely and Ilustre (2014) found that the academic learning outcomes were strongly predicted by the perceived value of the service. If students have a clear understanding of the value of the service and acknowledge the benefits to the community, their motivation will increase, which ultimately improves their cognitive learning.

Despite the accumulating evidence suggesting that students’ motivation is an important factor affecting study outcomes, and other research showing that service-learning has positive impacts on students, several research gaps are present. First, there has not been much research using the expectancy-value theory of motivation in service-learning to examine how motivation affects students’ learning from service-learning. Li et al. (2016) explored the effect of subjective task value on student engagement during service-learning and found that the subjective task value of the service played an essential role in their engagement and, therefore, affected their learning. However, this study only focused on the value component of motivation and how this dimension affected students’ engagement, which is correlated to student learning outcomes, but it did not directly study the impact on the learning outcomes. Service-learning, being an experiential learning pedagogy, requires students to actively engage in and reflect on the learning experiences and community needs, then plan and conduct a service project by applying their knowledge ( Kolb, 1984 ). During the project, students interact with the service recipients and instructors to reflect on the assumptions, identifying connections or inconsistencies between their experiences and prior knowledge. This clarification of values and assumptions generate new understandings of the issue, which may lead to changes in the design and execution of the service project. This learning cycle involves a very different set of learning experiences compared to conventional classroom teaching, and thus may impact students differently. This leads us to the second point. As researchers and educators, we must ask how learning occurs and what conditions foster the development. In other words, it is important to examine not only if , but also how , service-learning affects students’ academic outcomes. Although studies have been conducted to understand the factors influencing students’ learning outcomes, results are far from conclusive.

This study aims to fill in these gaps. Grounded on the expectancy-value theory of motivation in learning, the research question would be, “How do students’ learning experiences and motivation affect their cognitive learning outcomes from service-learning?” The hypothesized model is presented in Figure 1 , which includes four elements (i) initial level of cognitive knowledge, (ii) the learning experiences, (iii) students’ motivation on the service-learning course, and (iv) the cognitive learning outcome. It posits that students’ cognitive learning outcomes from service-learning are affected by their initial ability, the learning experience, and also mediated by their motivational beliefs about the expectancy component and value component in completing the service-learning tasks. In the service-learning context, if a student perceives that the service project has a high chance of success (expectancy component) and they do find the associated activities meaningful or interesting (value component), then they have higher motivation to engage in the project and thus achieve a higher cognitive learning outcome. In addition, the model hypothesizes that students’ motivation is affected by their learning experiences and their initial level of cognitive knowledge.

Hypothesized model.

To answer the research question, three hypotheses are defined:

• 1. Based on the preceding literature review, we hypothesize that students’ motivation, both the expectancy and value components, can be impacted by their learning experiences. Also, the initial level of cognitive knowledge of students may have an impact on the motivation (Hypothesis 1).
• 2. Based on the theoretical framework of the expectancy-value theory of motivation in learning, we expect that students’ motivation, both the expectancy and value components, can positively predict the learning outcomes (Hypothesis 2).
• 3. Based on the existing literature, we hypothesize that both the students’ learning experiences and their motivation, both the expectancy and value components, directly affect students’ cognitive learning outcome, and motivation can further act as a mediating factor between learning experiences and cognitive outcomes (Hypothesis 3).

Methodology

The study was conducted at a university in Hong Kong in which service-learning is a mandatory graduation requirement for all full-time undergraduate students. Students have choices over when and which subject to take to meet the requirement. Most of the courses are open-to-all general education type courses, while others are discipline-related subjects restricted to students from particular disciplinary backgrounds or major students. Our study covers 132 of these service-learning subjects offered by 30 academic departments during the 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 academic years. All of the academic service-learning subjects involved in this study carried three credits and followed an overall framework with common learning outcomes standardized by the university, which includes (a) applying classroom-learned knowledge and skills to deal with complex issues in the service setting; (b) reflecting on the role and responsibilities both as a professional and as a responsible citizen; (c) demonstrating empathy for people in need and a strong sense of civic responsibility; and (d) demonstrating an understanding of the linkage between service-learning and the academic content of the subject. All subjects required roughly 130 h of student study effort and were standardized to three main components: (a) 60 h of classroom teaching and project preparation; (b) a supervised and assessed service project comprising of at least 40 h of direct services to the community and which is closely linked to the academic focus of the subject, and (c) 30 h of structured reflective activities. Students’ performance and learning were assessed according to a letter-grade system. The nature of the service projects varied, including language and STEM instruction, public health promotion, vision screening, speech therapy and engineering infrastructure construction. Those projects also covered a diverse range of service beneficiaries, including primary and secondary school children, elderly, households in urban deprived areas, ethnic minorities, and rural communities. Approval for this study was granted by the university’s “Human Subjects Ethics Sub-Committee.”

The study employed several quantitative self-report measures to assess students’ learning experiences, learning outcomes, and motivation as described below and shown in Supplementary Appendix 1 . Also, hypothesized model with measures was present in Figure 2 .

Hypothesized model with measures.

(1) Students’ learning experiences was measured by their self-reported experiences regarding the (a) pedagogical features of the course, and (b) design features of the service-learning project. A 13-item instrument was developed in the same university under a rigorous scale development procedure, and students were asked to indicate their experiences after completing the service-learning subject, on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = neutral; 7 = strongly agree). All items were written and reviewed by a panel of experts, then a large-scale validation through EFA and CFA was undertaken.

The Pedagogical Features dimension included seven items to measure the extent to which students perceived how well they are facilitated and supported in their learning process. This relates to the teachers’ skills in preparing the students for the services, nurturing the team dynamic and assisting the students in reflecting upon the service activities.

The Project Design Features dimension included six items to measure to the extent to which students perceived positive experiences during the service project, which is a unique and necessary component of academic service-learning. These features are designed and positioned by the teaching team. Examples include the level of collaboration with the NGO/service recipients and the opportunities for the students to try new things. These experiences are all part of the project design, which, as it is linked to the academic concept covered in the classroom, is controlled by the teacher.

In terms of the construct validity, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted with a sample of 11,185 students who completed the service-learning subjects between 2014/2015 and 2018/2019, which yielded a two-factor structure with an 0.81 average factor loading for both aspects without cross-loading at the threshold of 0.30. The reported Cronbach’s α value was 0.90 and 0.89 for pedagogical features and project design features, respectively. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted in this study, and the results showed a good model fit for the two-factor model of learning experiences (χ 2 = 232.33, df = 52, CFI = 0.96, NFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.08).

(2) Students’ motivation was measured by items taken from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire ( Pintrich and De Groot, 1990 ), which included 44 items measuring two main dimensions, (a) Motivational Beliefs (22 items) and (b) Self-Regulated Learning Strategies (22 items). Under motivational beliefs, three sub-dimensions were defined, including intrinsic value, self-efficacy, and text anxiety. Intrinsic value and self-efficacy were corresponding to the value component and expectancy component, respectively, under the expectancy-value model of motivation proposed by Eccles et al. (1983) . To align with the institutional service-learning context, an expert review was conducted to select and modify the items. Test anxiety was removed since tests or examinations were not part of the assessment criteria in the service-learning context. One item, “I often choose paper topics I will learn something from even if they require more work,” under the intrinsic value sub-dimension was removed, as the service-learning courses that we are studying require direct services which are connected to tangible community needs and “paper topics” would not be encountered in our context. Wordings from five items were modified to specifically refer to the context for better understanding of students. For example, “class” was changed to “service-learning class” and “class work” was changed to “service project.” The self-regulated learning strategies construct was not included as this study focuses on the causal relationship between learning experiences, students’ motivation, and cognitive learning outcome for engaging in academic service-learning.

After modification, 17 items were selected with eight items from the intrinsic value sub-dimension (value component) to measure the subjective task value of the service-learning subject to the students and nine items from the self-efficacy sub-dimension (expectancy component) to measure the competence belief or expectancy for success in completing the project. Pintrich and De Groot (1990) reported a reliability coefficient of 0.87 and 0.89 for the intrinsic value and self-efficacy, respectively. In this study, a CFA was conducted to ensure the construct validity and a good model fit for the two-factor structure of motivation was found (χ 2 = 329.05, df = 88, CFI = 0.97, NFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.08). The average factor loading of intrinsic value was 0.77 and self-efficacy was 0.73.

(3) Cognitive Learning outcomes from service-learning was measured by a four-item scale adopted by the Service-Learning Outcomes Measurement Scale instrument (S-LOMS) developed by Snell and Lau (2019) . This scale was developed and validated under a cross-institutional research project in Hong Kong. With the localization of the items, the scale contains four dimensions with 11 sub-domains. Students are required to respond to the items on a 10-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree).

Knowledge application is one of the dimensions that comprise a single cognominal domain to measures the extent to which students are able to understand the knowledge learnt in the service-learning course and apply it to real-life situations. Following the standard approach employed in academic research, the instrument was first developed through review by a panel of experts and focus groups of students. Then, the psychometric properties, including underlying dimensionality and internal consistency, were tested via EFA and CFA with a sample of 400 university students from four Hong Kong institutions ( Snell and Lau, 2020 ), reporting a strong internal consistency with a Cronbach’s α value of 0.96. Then, the scale was validated again with another group of students, this time from Singapore ( Lau and Snell, 2021 ). To ensure the construct validity could be maintained, an EFA was conducted for both pre-experience and post-experience data, and the results confirmed a single-factor model with factor loadings over 0.82.

Participants and Administration

Our survey was administered to all students enrolled in any credit-bearing service-learning subject offered by the institution of study during the 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 academic years. Students were asked to complete a survey both at the beginning and end of the subject. This generally corresponds to the beginning and end of the semester; some subjects ran over multiple semesters. The pre-experience survey was comprised of the cognitive learning outcome (knowledge application) scale while the post-experience survey consisted of items related to their leaning experiences (pedagogical features and project design features), motivation (intrinsic value and self-efficacy) and cognitive learning outcome (knowledge application). Only the pre-experience survey in the fall semester of 2019/2020 was administered via paper-based questionnaires. For the rest of the offerings, both pre-experience and post-experience surveys were administered via the university online survey platform. To conduct the survey in pen-and-paper format, the course instructors or teaching assistants visited the class to distribute the questionnaires within the first 4 weeks of the semester. For the electronic format, the pre-experience survey was sent to the students by the lecturers within the first 4 weeks of the semester and the post-experience survey was conducted at the end of the subject. For both surveys, email invitations were sent at least twice to follow up with non-respondents to urge them to complete the questionnaire. The collated data was analyzed with the statistical analysis software programs IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 26) and IBM AMOS (Version 26).

Data Analysis Method

Our data analysis went through the following steps to examine the relationship between students’ learning experiences, motivation and learning outcomes in service-learning, and established the causal effect of the exogenous and endogenous variables.

Means and standard deviations were computed for the data obtained. The reliability of the measures was estimated by the Cronbach’s α values ( Cronbach, 1951 ). Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to describe the linear association between students’ learning experiences, motivation and learning outcome.

Path analysis in structural equation modeling (SEM) was then employed to examine the effect of initial level of cognitive knowledge, learning experiences and students’ motivation toward learning outcomes using SPSS AMOS 26. SEM is a collection of tools for analyzing connections between various factors and developing a model by empirical data to describe a phenomenon ( Afthanorhan and Ahmad, 2014 ). Path analysis is a special problem in SEM where its model describes causal relations among measured variables in the form of multiple linear regressions. The hypothesized model studied the direct or indirect effects of students’ learning experiences and motivation on their learning outcome. Therefore, the dependent variable was the cognitive learning outcome from service-learning, and the independent variables were their motivation (intrinsic value and self-efficacy) and learning experiences (pedagogical features and projects design features).

The path analysis was conducted through the following steps:

• 1. Multivariate kurtosis value was computed to confirm the multivariate normality ( Kline, 2015 );
• 2. Mahalanobis distances were calculated to determine the outliners ( Westfall and Henning, 2013 );
• 3. Goodness of fit of the hypothesized model was tested ( Shek and Yu, 2014 );
• 4. R-square ( R 2 ) were computed to illustrate the explained variation; and
• 5. Standard estimate coefficients (β) of the significant paths were calculated to quantify the “magnitude” of the effect of one variable on another.

The survey was administered to 8,271 students in the 132 credit-bear service-learning subjects offered during 2019/2020 and 2020/2021. A total of 5,216 and 3,102 responses were received in the pre and post-experience surveys, respectively, making up a response rate of 63.06 and 37.50%. For the paper-based responses, casewise deletion was applied for handling the missing value. For the electronic-based responses, the survey platform would ensures there would not be any missing values. 2,116 (25.58%) valid matched-pair responses were finally obtained and included in the study. A detailed analysis of the respondents’ demographic information reveals that 883 (41.73%) were female and 1,233 (58.28%) were male. Almost half of the students, 988 (46.69%), were from junior years, while 1,128 (53.31%) were from senior years. In terms of the disciplinary background, 608 (28.73%) were from engineering, 530 (25.05%) students from business and hotel management, 475 (22.45%) were studying health sciences, 254 (12.00%) were in hard sciences, and the remaining 249 (11.77%) were in humanities, social sciences, or design. Of the 132 subjects, 46 (34.85%) were from the discipline of health sciences, 31 (23.48%) were from engineering, 27 (20.45%) from humanities and social sciences, 14 (10.61%) from hard sciences, and the remaining 14 subjects (10.61%) were from the business, hotel or design disciplines.

Descriptive Statistics and Reliability of the Measures

The scale scores were computed by taking the arithmetic mean of the items purported to be measuring the respective constructs. Table 1 presented the minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation for each measure.

Descriptive statistics and reliabilities.

Generally, students gave medium to high scores on their learning experiences and motivation. The mean scores on their learning experiences with respect to the project design and pedagogical features were 5.49 and 5.53, respectively. For their motivation measures, the means and standard deviations were 5.42 and 0.85 for intrinsic value and 5.34 and 0.86 for self-efficacy. For the knowledge application learning outcome, students reported mean scores of 6.95 and 7.48, respectively, in the pre- and post-experience survey.

Cronbach’s α estimates were computed for the six measures included in the study to check for internal consistency. The results were also shown in Table 1 . The alpha values for the scales on learning outcomes and motivation were over 0.93, which would be classified as having excellent reliability ( Kline, 2000 ). On the other hand, the alpha values of the learning experience measures were 0.88 and 0.91, suggesting good to excellent reliability of these two scales.

Correlations

The Pearson’s product-moment correlations between the measures were presented in Table 2 . All correlations were positive at the 0.01 level, which indicated that the measures change in the same direction: when one increased, the others also tended to increase. In other words, students’ motivation and cognitive learning outcome increased when they had a better learning experience. In general, all scales had a medium to strong association except for the initial cognitive learning scale, which had weak to medium associations with other scales.

Correlation between motivation, learning experiences, and learning outcomes.

N = 2,116. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Students’ ratings on the project design features were significantly related to the two motivational belief measures, with r = 0.74 and 0.64 for intrinsic value and self-efficacy, respectively. Their ratings on the project design features were also significantly related to their initial level of cognitive knowledge ( r = 0.30) and post-cognitive learning outcome ( r = 0.64) measures. Similar results were observed for the pedagogical features, where the correlation coefficient with the post-experience cognitive outcome score was 0.65, suggesting a highly correlated relationship. However, the correlation coefficient with the pre-experience score was 0.32, suggesting a rather medium level of association between the two. Significant correlations were found between pedagogical features and intrinsic value ( r = 0.76) and self-efficacy ( r = 0.61).

Regarding the correlations between motivation and learning outcomes, a medium association was found between motivation and the initial level of cognitive knowledge with reported correlation coefficients of 0.35 (intrinsic value) and 0.36 (self-efficacy). Significant and high correlations were found between motivation and post-experience cognitive learning outcome, with coefficients of 0.68 (intrinsic value) and 0.61 (self-efficacy).

Path Analysis in Structural Equation Modeling

A path analysis was conducted to determine the causal effects among learning experiences, students’ motivation and learning outcomes. The models were tested using the maximum likelihood method, which required multivariate normality.

Multivariate kurtosis value of the observed variables was examined with results ranging from 0.15 to 1.22, suggesting that the variables had a multivariate normal distribution ( Kline, 2015 ). Then, Mahalanobis distances were calculated in AMOS to determine the outliers ( Westfall and Henning, 2013 ), and 60 responses were identified as outliers with a significance level at p < 0.001. These responses were therefore excluded from the data. As a result, only 2,056 data points were included in the path analysis. The resulting model was shown in Figure 3 , which was consistent with our original conceptual model from Figure 1 . The paths shown in the figure were statistically significant at the 0.001 level, and the standardized regression coefficients (β) and explained variation ( R 2 ) were also presented. A chi-square test showed that the estimated model has an acceptable level of goodness of fit [χ 2 (2, N = 2,056) = 225.05, p < 0.001]. Table 3 showed the values of goodness-of-fit indices. The CFI, NFI, and GFI values all met the respective criterion for goodness of fit.

Path diagram between the initial level of cognitive knowledge, learning experiences, students’ motivation, and the cognitive learning outcome.

Outliers and goodness-of-fit statistics.

*CFI, comparative fit index; NFI, normed fit index; GFI, Goodness of Fit. Evaluation criteria are determined according to Bentler and Bonett (1980) , Bollen and Long (1993) , Schumacker and Lomax (2004) , and Kline (2015) .

The results of the path analysis were consistent with our hypotheses:

• Hypothesis 1: Students’ learning experience and previous cognitive knowledge had a direct effect on motivation. Intrinsic value was positively predicted by the initial level of cognitive knowledge (β = 0.12, p < 0.001), the project design (β = 0.36, p < 0.001), and pedagogical (β = 0.45, p < 0.001) features of the service-learning subjects as experienced by the students, with a 60% of variation explained. Similarly, self-efficacy was positively affected by the initial level of cognitive knowledge (β = 0.15, p < 0.001), the project design (β = 0.39, p < 0.001), and pedagogical (β = 0.27, p < 0.001) features. These factors explained 42% of the variation of self-efficacy. However, the direct effect of the initial level of cognitive knowledge was much less than the direct effect of the two dimensions of learning experiences.
• Hypothesis 2: Students’ motivation had a positive direct effect on their learning outcome. Students’ post-experience knowledge application ability is positively predicted by their ratings on intrinsic value (β = 0.25, p < 0.001) and self-efficacy (β = 0.18, p < 0.001) in completing the service-learning subject.
• Hypothesis 3: Students’ learning experience had a direct effect and an indirect effect mediated by motivation on their learning outcomes. The total effect (E Total = E Direct + E Indirect ) of the project design features on cognitive learning outcome was 0.32, with a direct effect (β) of 0.16 and an indirect effect of 0.16 through intrinsic value (E Indirect = 0.09) and self-efficacy (E Indirect = 0.07). For pedagogical features, the total effect was 0.33 with a direct effect (β) of 0.17 and an indirect effect of 0.16 through intrinsic value (E Indirect = 0.11) and self-efficacy (E Indirect = 0.05). In total, 50% of the variation in students’ cognitive learning outcomes could be explained by their previous level of knowledge, learning experiences and motivation.

Previous research in academic service-learning in higher education tend to focus on its benefits and impact to students. A number of studies have shown that service-learning is an effective pedagogy for improving cognitive learning outcomes; however, most of these studies were outcome-based rather than process-based ( Li et al., 2016 ). Since the outcome of service-learning has been established, we argue that it is now necessary to examine the dynamic processes and understand the underlying factors that produce these positive learning outcomes. These insights not only provide suggestions for improving the effectiveness of service-learning, but also complete the theoretical framework for understanding the learning behavior in service-learning. Levering on the theoretical support of the expectancy-value theory in motivation, we hypothesized that the expectancy component and value component of students’ motivation play an important role in affecting the cognitive outcome and act as a mediator between the learning experiences and academic outcome.

In line with the research focus, this study aimed to explore the causal relationship between learning experiences, learning motivation, and learning outcomes in the context of academic service-learning. Using a validated, quantitative instrument and analyzing the responses with structural equation modeling showed that in the context of academic service-learning, significant direct and indirect effects were found between initial level of cognitive knowledge, students’ learning experience, motivation and cognitive learning outcomes.

According to the expectancy-value theory introduced by Eccles et al. (1983) , motivation is affected by multi-layered factors, including individuals’ perceptions of their own previous experiences, culturally rooted socialization (i.e., gender roles or ethnic identity), and self-schemata (i.e., self-concept of one’s ability or perceptions of task demands). Recent research also found that students’ motivation increases when they gain insight into their values and goals ( Brody and Wright, 2004 ; Duffy and Raque-Bogdan, 2010 ). This has also been found to be the case in academic service-learning ( Darby et al., 2013 ). Our results demonstrated similar findings in which students’ learning experiences in academic service-learning were a significant determinant of their learning motivation.

From the path analysis, significant direct effects to students’ motivation were identified from students’ initial level of cognitive knowledge and both aspects of learning experiences. These factors positively associated to intrinsic value and self-efficacy, explaining 60 and 42% of the variation, respectively. The effect of the learning experiences were much higher than the effect of the initial level of cognitive knowledge. This indicated that students who had positive learning experiences, regardless of whether the experiences were project- or pedagogically related, were more motivated to learn and were more likely to believe they had the ability to complete the subject. Also, pedagogically related experiences had a slightly larger effect than project design-related experiences on both motivation measures, which implied that preparation and feedback from teachers were more critical with respect to improving students’ motivation than the design of the service project.

Our results suggest that “student motivation” is not static, but could be learned and improved, and the learning experiences played an important role. If educators want better-motivated students, they need to have good interaction with the students, offer necessary support and provide insightful feedback in reflective activities. In the context of academic service-learning, the subject teachers or teaching assistants would achieve best results by working side-by-side with the students throughout the course, including the service project, instead of delegating this component to outside agencies. During the lectures, instructors have to prepare the students appropriately, such as guiding students to understand the linkage between the academic concept and service objective and equipping the students with necessary professional or technical skills. Educators should also regularly conduct reflective activities to cover different aspects of the service-learning course, such as team dynamics, service preparation, community impacts, or personal learning.

On the other hand, even if slightly less critical, the project design features also played an important part. The service project should be designed to be challenging and allow students to have ample direct interaction with the community. Well-prepared students would be more likely to feel competent and confident of success in their project, and challenging but valuable projects that benefit the community and gain the appreciation of the service targets convince students that what they were doing was important and had value. Taking the example of an engineering service project, teachers should allow a certain level of autonomy to the students and challenge them to interact with the collaborating agency or service recipients, understand the needs, and design a tailored solution, rather than asking students to simply replicate a previously designed solution, which may discourage students from engaging in the services, which then leads to a decrease in motivation.

In terms of cognitive outcome, the results of the path analysis indicated that the outcome was affected in three ways, (i) directly through the learning experiences; (ii) directly through the students’ motivation, and (iii) indirectly through the learning experiences with motivation as a mediating factor.

Academic service-learning programs are intentionally designed to have a strong linkage between academic content and service activities. It is known that students do not automatically learn from engaging in service-learning activities. Instead, how and what students learn depends on the quality of their learning experiences ( Ngai et al., 2018 ). Other research has highlighted the importance of the learning experience ( Billig, 2007 ; Taylor and Mark Pancer, 2007 ; Chan et al., 2019 ), and showed that they are positively correlated with the learning outcomes ( Eyler and Giles, 1999 ; Joo et al., 2015 ).

Results of the path analyses showed that the both the pedagogical and project design aspects of the learning experience have similar direct effects and total effects on the cognitive learning outcome, as well as an indirect effect on the outcome through motivation. These findings were consistent with prior studies ( Liem and Chua, 2013 ; Li et al., 2016 ; Lo et al., 2019 ) and illustrate the causal relationship between learning experiences, motivations and learning outcomes, which demonstrated the cognitive processes of learning. The standardized beta coefficients further show that the magnitude of the indirect effect was slightly larger than the direct effect, suggesting that the larger impact from the learning experiences is via motivation as a mediating factor.

These findings have implications on service-learning practice. One of the differences between academic service-learning and traditional classroom learning is that in service-learning, students need to step outside the classroom and conduct a project to meet identified community needs in real life. Some service projects are delinked from the course material. Sometimes, students are sent out to do piece-meal service or charity work without preparation. Some service projects are over-conceptualized or over-abstracted, for example, having students work primarily on data analysis or reporting. Service-learning teachers should note that both pedagogical and project experiences are equally important. Students needed to understand and relate to the community and individuals they serve, including their needs and their challenges, and to build relationship and empathy with them. Students need also to be equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills for designing and implementing the service, which needs to meet genuine identified needs of the community. Only then do they learn. For example, if students are tackling a challenging project, but they perceive the values and benefits of the services and are well prepared and supported by teachers, and feel connected to and appreciated by the community, they are more likely to recognize the importance of their efforts (value component) and believe that they have the ability to complete the project (expectancy component). This strengthens their engagement and thus they are better able to reflect on their experience and performance. This process positively affects their understanding of the academic content, and therefore, increases their ability to apply knowledge and skills to tackle social issues in real-life service settings.

We study the causal relationship between learning experiences, students’ motivation, and the cognitive learning outcome in academic service-learning. Decades of research have demonstrated the positive impacts of service-learning on students’ learning, but there has been limited efforts on studying the process and understanding the intermediate factors. Our findings highlight the fact that learning experiences and motivation are key determining factors toward the learning outcome. Motivation in particular is dependent upon the learning experiences, which have not only a direct effect on the outcomes but also indirect influence through motivation as a mediating factor. By applying the expectancy-value theory, this study makes a unique contribution to understanding students’ learning behaviors in academic service-learning. Results show that positive learning experiences can increase the level of expectancy for success and increase the personal value of the project. These can enhance the students’ motivation and engagement in the learning activities, and finally, promote the development of academic learning outcomes.

There are some implications for teachers and practitioners of service-learning. First, students’ motivation can and does change. Second, the learning experience has a strong impact on students’ motivation. Hence, effort should be paid to designing the service project and pedagogical elements. In terms of project design, students need to be intentionally educated, via interactions with service recipients and other means of observing or evaluating the impact brought about by their project, the contribution and value of their project to the community. It is also important to expand students’ boundaries with challenging service activities that allow a certain level of autonomy. For example, students conducting public health tests can be tasked with studying the income level and dietary availabilities within the community, and to design some healthy eating menus to share with their community recipients in addition to going through the standardized health test protocol. This challenges students to consolidate and apply their knowledge and allows them some degree of self-directing the design of the projects. In terms of the pedagogical features, teachers and practitioners need to schedule regular – and structured – reflection activities, and make space for good quality interactions with students and ensure that they receive help and support when needed.

It should be stressed that the subjective task-value and expectancy of success are important factors and should be treated with respect. Educators should intentionally design classroom or project activities to highlight these aspects, such as guiding students to reflect on what service-learning and positive citizenship means to them, and how their efforts can contribute to the lives of the underserved in community. These can increase students’ efforts, attention, and persistence in service-learning tasks, which eventually improves their motivation, which can bring positive effects to the learning outcome.

Limitations and Future Studies

This study has applied expectancy-value theory in understanding the effect of students’ motivation and learning experiences in academic service-learning and shed light on the role of expectancy and value beliefs in the learning outcomes. However, several potential limitations need to be considered when interpreting findings. They also provide directions for future research.

First, the data analyzed in this study were mainly derived from self-report surveys. Although the use of the self-report method may affect the strength of inter-factor relationships examined in this study, we minimize this potential method bias by applying the structural equation analytic technique with a large sample size that purges the measurement of its errors. In future research, additional data sources should be utilized, such as observation from teachers and structured reflective essays, and using different methodological paradigms such as structured interviews or observation. Second, all the data came from one single university in Hong Kong, and the students were enrolled in credit-bearing service-learning subjects within the same curricular framework. The cross-sectional nature of the study is also a limitation. Hence, generalizability of the findings should be viewed with caution. Additionally, after showing that learning experiences are significant predictors to motivation, it would be helpful to understand what particular learning experiences have a larger effect on motivation, and whether there are other factors that influence it. Therefore, a future research direction might expand the dimensions of learning experiences to look for causal relationships with students’ motivation. We will also consider other potential variables, such as student demographic data, learning style, personality, or service nature, to enrich our model.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Human Subjects Ethics Sub-Committee, Research and Innovation Office (RIO) The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

KL performed the data collection, statistical analysis, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study and manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

This project was partially financially supported by Grant 15600219 from the Hong Kong Research Grants Council.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.825902/full#supplementary-material

• Afthanorhan W. M. A. B. W., Ahmad S. (2014). Path analysis in covariance-based structural equation modeling with amos 18.0. Eur. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 3 59–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson K. L., Boyd M., Ariemma Marin K., McNamara K. (2019). Reimagining service-learning: deepening the impact of this high-impact practice. J. Exp. Educ. 42 229–248. 10.1177/1053825919837735 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bentler P. M., Bonett D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 88 588–606. 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Billig S. H. (2007). “ Unpacking what works in service-learning: promising research-based practices to improve student outcomes ,” in Growing Greatness , eds Kielsmeier J., Neal M., Schultz N. (Saint Paul, MN: National Youth Leadership Council; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Billig S., Furco A. (2002). Service-Learning Through a Multidisciplinary Lens. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bollen K. A., Long J. S. (1993). Testing Structural Equation Models , Vol. 154 . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bringle R. G., Hatcher J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. J. High. Educ. 67 : 221 . 10.2307/2943981 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bringle R. G., Hatcher J., Jones S. G. (2011). International Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Research. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brody S. M., Wright S. C. (2004). Expanding the self through service-learning. Mich. J. Community Serv. Learn. 11 12–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Campus Compact (2016). Campus Compact Annual Survey. Available online at: https://compact.org/resource-posts/2016-affinity-report-all-public/ (accessed February 25, 2022). [ Google Scholar ]
• Chan S. C., Ngai G., Kwan K. (2019). Mandatory service learning at university: do less-inclined students learn from it? Act. Learn. High. Educ. 20 189–202. 10.1177/1469787417742019 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Credé M., Phillips L. A. (2011). A meta-analytic review of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Learn. Individ. Differ. 21 337–346. 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.03.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cronbach L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16 297–334. 10.1007/BF02310555 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Darby A., Longmire-Avital B., Chenault J., Haglund M. (2013). Students’ motivation in academic service-learning over the course of the semester. Coll. Stud. J. 47 185–191. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deci E. L. (2014). “ The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: a self-determination theory perspective ,” in The Role of Interest in Learning and Development , eds Ann Renninger K., Hidi S., Krapp A. (East Sussex: Psychology Press; ), 57–84. 10.4324/9781315807430-12 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duffy R. D., Raque-Bogdan T. L. (2010). The motivation to serve others: exploring relations to career development. J. Career Assess. 18 250–265. 10.1177/1069072710364791 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eccles J., Adler T. F., Futterman R., Goff S. B., Kaczala C. M., Meece J. L., et al. (1983). “ Expectancies, values and academic behaviors ,” in Achievement and Achievement Motives: Psychological and Sociological Approaches , ed. Spence J. T. (San Francisco, CA: Free man; ), 75–146. [ Google Scholar ]
• Expósito-López J., Romero-Díaz de la Guardia J. J., Olmedo-Moreno E. M., Pistón Rodríguez M. D., Chacón-Cuberos R. (2021). Adaptation of the Educational motivation scale into a short form with multigroup analysis in a vocational training and baccalaureate setting. Front. Psychol. 12 : 663834 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.663834 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eyler J., Giles D. E., Jr. (1999). Where’s the Learning in Service Learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fincham F. D., Cain K. M. (1986). Learned helplessness in humans: a developmental analysis. Dev. Rev. 6 301–333. 10.1016/0273-2297(86)90016-X [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fitch P., Steinke P., Hudson T. D. (2012). “ Research and theoretical perspectives on cognitive outcomes of service learning ,” in Research on Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Assessment , eds Clayton P. H., Bringle R. G., Hatcher J. A. (Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing; ), 57–84. [ Google Scholar ]
• Furco A., Jones-White D., Huesman R., Gorny L. S. (2016). “ Modeling the influence of service-learning on academic and sociocultural gains: findings from a multi-institutional study ,” in In Civic Engagement and Community Service at Research Universities , eds Soria K., Mitchell T. (London: Palgrave Macmillan; ), 143–163. 10.1057/978-1-137-55312-6_8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geller J. D., Zuckerman N., Seidel A. (2016). Service-learning as a catalyst for community development. Educ. Urban Soc. 48 151–175. 10.1177/0013124513514773 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giles D. E., Eyler J. (1994). The impact of a college community service laboratory on students’ personal, social, and cognitive outcomes. J. Adolesc. 17 327–339. 10.1006/jado.1994.1030 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gopalan V., Bakar J. A. A., Zulkifli A. N., Alwi A., Mat R. C. (2017). A review of the motivation theories in learning. AIP Conf. Proc. 1891 : 020043 . 10.1063/1.5005376 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hardy M. S., Schaen E. B. (2000). Integrating the classroom and community service: everyone benefits. Teach. Psychol. 27 47–49. 10.1207/S15328023TOP2701_11 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayenga A. O., Corpus J. H. (2010). Profiles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: a person-centered approach to motivation and achievement in middle school. Motiv. Emot. 34 371–383. 10.1007/s11031-010-9181-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacoby B. (1996). “ Service-learning in today’s higher education ,” in Service-Learning in Higher Education: Concepts and Practices , ed. Jacoby B. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; ), 3–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Joo Y. J., Oh E., Kim S. M. (2015). Motivation, instructional design, flow, and academic achievement at a Korean online university: a structural equation modeling study. J. Comput. High. Educ. 27 28–46. 10.1007/s12528-015-9090-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaplan A., Maehr M. L. (1999). Achievement goals and student well-being. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 24 330–358. 10.1006/ceps.1999.0993 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kline P. (2000). The Handbook of Psychological Testing. London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kline R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling , 4th Edn. New York, NY: Guilford Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolb D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development , Vol. 1984 . Hoboken, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc, 20–38. 10.1016/B978-0-7506-7223-8.50017-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuh G. D., Schneider C. G. (2008). High-Impact Educational Practices?: What They are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lau K. H., Snell R. S. (2021). Validation of S-LOMS and comparison between Hong Kong and Singapore of student developmental outcomes after service-learning experience. Mich. J. Community Serv. Learn. 27 77–106. 10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0027.204 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li Y., Guo F., Yao M., Wang C., Yan W. (2016). The role of subjective task value in service-learning engagement among Chinese college students. Front. Psychol. 7 : 954 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00954 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liem G. A. D., Chua B. L. (2013). An expectancy-value perspective of civic education motivation, learning and desirable outcomes. Educ. Psychol. 33 283–313. 10.1080/01443410.2013.776934 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo K. W. K., Ngai G., Chan S. C. F., Kwan K. (2019). “ A computational approach to analyzing associations between students’ learning gains and learning experience in service-learning ,” in Proceedings of the International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement , Albuquerque, NM. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lundy B. L. (2007). Service learning in life-span developmental psychology: higher exam scores and increased empathy. Teach. Psychol. 34 23–27. 10.1080/00986280709336644 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mann J. A., Dymond S. K., Bonati M. L., Neeper L. S. (2015). Restrictive citizenship: civic-oriented service-learning opportunities for all students. J. Exp. Educ. 38 56–72. 10.1177/1053825913514731 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moely B. E., Ilustre V. (2014). The impact of service-learning course characteristics on university students’ learning outcomes. Mich. J. Community Serv. Learn. 21 5–16. 10.1186/s12913-016-1423-5 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nejmeh B. A. (ed.) (2012). Service-Learning in the Computer and Information Sciences. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 10.1002/9781118319130 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ngai G., Chan S. C. F., Kwan K. P. (2018). Challenge, meaning, interest, and preparation: critical success factors influencing student learning outcomes from service-learning. J. High. Educ. Outreach Engagem. 22 55–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Novak J. M., Markey V., Allen M. (2007). Evaluating cognitive outcomes of service learning in higher education: a meta-analysis. Commun. Res. Rep. 24 149–157. 10.1080/08824090701304881 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paris S. G., Okab E. R. (1986). Children’s reading strategies, metacognition, and motivation. Dev. Rev. 6 25–56. 10.1016/0273-2297(86)90002-X [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pintrich P. R., De Groot E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. J. Educ. Psychol. 82 33–40. 10.1007/BF02338175 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Puzziferro M. (2008). Online technologies self-efficacy and self-regulated learning as predictors of final grade and satisfaction in college-level online courses. Am. J. Distance Educ. 22 72–89. 10.1080/08923640802039024 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rutti R. M., LaBonte J., Helms M. M., Hervani A. A., Sarkarat S. (2016). The service learning projects: stakeholder benefits and potential class topics. Educ. Train. 58 422–438. 10.1108/ET-06-2015-0050 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan R. M., Deci E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan R. M., Deci E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 61 : 101860 . 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schnettler T., Bobe J., Scheunemann A., Fries S., Grunschel C. (2020). Is it still worth it? Applying expectancy-value theory to investigate the intraindividual motivational process of forming intentions to drop out from university. Motiv. Emot. 44 491–507. 10.1007/s11031-020-09822-w [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schumacker R. E., Lomax R. G. (2004). A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. London: Taylor & Francis. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shek D. T. L., Yu L. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS: a demonstration. Int. J. Disabil. Hum. Dev. 13 191–204. 10.1515/ijdhd-2014-0305 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Snell R. S., Lau K. H. (2019). “ Developing a measurement instrument to assess student learning outcomes after service-learning experience ,” in Proceedings of the 7th Asia-Pacific Regional Conference on Service-Learning , (Singapore: Singapore University of Social Sciences; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Snell R. S., Lau K. H. (2020). The development of a service-learning outcomes measurement scale (S-LOMS). Metrop. Univ. 31 44–77. 10.18060/23258 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sotelino-Losada A., Arbués-Radigales E., García-Docampo L., González-Geraldo J. L. (2021). Service-learning in Europe. Dimensions and understanding from academic publication. Front. Educ. 6 : 604825 . 10.3389/feduc.2021.604825 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor T. P., Mark Pancer S. (2007). Community service experiences and commitment to volunteering. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 37 320–345. 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2007.00162.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., Marsh H. W., Nagengast B., Lüdtke O., Nagy G., Jonkmann K. (2012). Probing for the multiplicative term in modern expectancy–value theory: a latent interaction modeling study. J. Educ. Psychol. 104 763–777. 10.1037/a0027470 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang C., Yan W., Guo F., Li Y., Yao M. (2020). Service-learning and Chinese college students’ knowledge transfer development. Front. Psychol. 11 : 606334 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.606334 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weber J., Glyptis S. M. (2000). Measuring the impact of a business ethics course and community service experience on students’ values and opinions. Teach. Bus. Ethics 4 341–358. 10.1023/A:1009862806641 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Westfall P., Henning K. S. S. (2013). Understanding Advanced Statistical Methods. London: Taylor & Francis. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wigfield A., Eccles J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25 68–81. 10.1006/ceps.1999.1015 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Woolfolk A. (2019). Educational Psychology , 14th Edn. London: Pearson. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yair G. (2000). Reforming Motivation: how the structure of instruction affects students’ learning experiences. Br. Educ. Res. J. 26 191–210. 10.1080/01411920050000944 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yates M., Youniss J. (1996). A developmental perspective on community service in adolescence. Social Development 5 85–111. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.1996.tb00073.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yorio P. L., Ye F. (2012). A meta-analysis on the effects of service-learning on the social, personal, and cognitive outcomes of learning. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 11 9–27. 10.5465/amle.2010.0072 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Skip to main content
• Skip to search
• Skip to footer

Center for Engaged Learning

Service-learning.

Service-learning was one of the ten experiences listed as a high-impact practice (HIP) when such practices were first identified by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) in 2007. Given the many benefits that service-learning experiences offer students (Jacoby, 2015), it is not surprising that it was one of the ten identified as a HIP in the AACU’s report,  College Learning for a New Global Century.  Before discussing what makes service-learning a HIP, it is important to define service-learning and describe aspects of the definition in detail.

Every course has a list of objectives that students are expected to reach, and all instructors have to consider how students will achieve those objectives. When course objectives can be reached by doing work for and with community partners, service-learning pedagogy is an option. Bringle and Hatcher (1995) define service-learning as

a credit-bearing, educational experience in which students participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs and reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility. (p. 112)

Each part of this definition is significant and will be described in more depth.

Service-learning is Credit-Bearing

Service-learning is part of a course – a “credit-bearing educational experience” (Bringle & Hatch, 1995, p. 112). This distinguishes service-learning from volunteerism. While volunteers offer service in the community, the service is generally not associated with a course, nor are the volunteers asked to reflect on the service activity. Service-learning is designed as a means for students to learn the content of a course through the process of carrying out service. The service and the learning are intertwined.

An example is helpful here. Volunteers can help hand out blankets to homeless people and drive them to shelters on cold evenings. This act contributes to the public good, yet the volunteers may or may not learn much from the experience. Students in a service-learning sociology course about social issues and local problems can also hand out blankets and drive homeless individuals to shelters, but to meet the objectives of the course, they will do more. The students could help a city to determine if there are enough beds in shelters for the number of homeless individuals in the city. They could gather information on the conditions in shelters as they are handing out blankets. An assignment in the course could be to write a report that city officials use to help determine funding for homeless individuals. The students in this sociology course would have a meaningful  educational  experience as they provide important and needed work in the community that contributes to the public good.

Meeting an Identified Community Need

Service-learning is intended to meet “identified community needs” (Bringle & Hatcher, 1995, p. 112). Sometimes the learning that university students accomplish in the community is not associated with a service-learning course and is not necessarily focused on a need that community members have stated. For example, schools of education generally have education majors spend time learning and teaching in public elementary, middle, and high schools. These practicum and student teaching experiences are designed for education majors to meet national and state standards as they work toward obtaining teaching licenses. In this instance, the public schools in the community are partnering with the university, but not to meet an identified community need. Rather, the public schools are helping the university to meet the needs of the schools of education for educating teacher candidates. This is the distinction between service-learning and community engagement.

To qualify as an identified community need, a community member must state the particular service that is needed. Service-learning honors the wisdom of individuals who run community organizations and work daily in the community. These are the people who know what type of service is needed and how it should be carried out. Should a college professor approach a leader of a community organization by telling her the work that her students will accomplish for the organization, without understanding the particular needs of the community organization, this would not qualify as service-learning. The college instructor needs to approach the organization by asking the leader to share the particular needs for service the organization has identified. The instructor can then see if any of these needs are related to objectives in her course. When there is a close match between a service need stated by a community member and one or more course objectives, the prospects for service-learning are greatly improved.

There are basically three ways that the service component of a service-learning course can be conducted. The first is by providing community-based service, generally in partnership with a community organization. Again, a leader in the organization would stipulate the specific service need that students would help fulfill on-site in the community. The second way is with a class-based service. Working in the college classroom, students provide a product or service that the community partner has requested. Examples of class-based service include website development, video production, or research for a non-profit organization. Generally with class-based service, the community partner visits the class and explains the service or product needed. Often students are encouraged or even required to visit the community organization at least once during the semester. At the end of the semester, the leader of the community organization might visit the class to see the final product or to discuss the result of the students’ service. The final way that service can be incorporated into a course is a combination of community- and class-based service. Regardless of which of the three types are used, it is critical that the community partner identify the need to be met through service.

Service-learning can also take place in study abroad courses. Instructors make arrangements before arriving at the destination abroad to determine which identified community need the students will be addressing. Often the service-learning experiences are the most meaningful part of the study abroad course because of the interactions students will experience while conducting the service. One professor said of her service-learning course in Africa, “Without the service work, we are simply staring out the bus windows and trying to interpret from our Western lens. The sunsets are magnificent, the elephants awe-inspiring, but it is the interactions in working with the people that are transformative.”

Reflection on Service

Students in service-learning courses are asked to reflect on their service and how it integrates with course content. Frequently students write reflections on their service in the community and participate in class discussions that make connections between course readings and the service activities. Again, this is different from volunteering. Concerns can arise when service is conducted without a reflective component. Negative stereotypes may be reinforced, complex problems may be viewed in superficial ways, and analysis of underlying structural inequalities in society left unconsidered (Jones, 2002). Instructors of service-learning courses work to include thoughtful reflection in class discussions and written assignments. Depending on course content and the particular service-experience, negative stereotypes can be examined and discredited, layers of complexity related to the societal problem can be uncovered, or larger societal issues related to inequality can be studied. Reflection is a central and essential component of service-learning courses.

Understanding of Course Content

Since service-learning is arranged to simultaneously meet an identified community need and one or more course objectives, students’ service experiences will relate to the content of the course they are taking. As students read texts for the course, participate in class discussions and carry out written assignments, they can make connections with their service-learning experiences. Students will sometimes say that their service experiences “bring the course to life.” By this they mean that at least some of the concepts, theories, and principles being taught in the course are learned in a dynamic way with the service. Students are given the opportunity to apply their knowledge in service-learning courses.

Consider two options for how an instructor of a computer course might design her pedagogy. The first option is to teach the course without service-learning. Students will have required readings and written assignments and, as a culminating activity, design a website for an imaginary client. The students will likely enjoy this experience and learn from it, but it is very different in nature from the instructor’s second option for how to teach the course.

The computer course instructor who chooses to use service-learning has required readings and written assignments and also arranges a service project with the director of a local non-profit agency who is requesting a new website for the agency. The director attends a class session to describe the mission of the agency, its clients, and how the new website should function. Prior to designing the website, the students are asked to spend a few hours at the agency to learn more about it. As students work on constructing the website, they keep in contact with the agency director and people employed there to ensure that expectations for the final product are met. Students are highly motivated to create a website that meets with the agency director’s specifications, and they work diligently to produce a high quality product. They know that people who work at the non-profit agency are depending on them and that the clients need an up-to-date website with new and important functions. Focusing on every detail, the students put a significant amount of thought and energy into creating the best possible product possible.

While students in the computer course without service-learning learn how to design a website through the exercise of making one for an imaginary client, the students in the service-learning course have the experience of creating a website for an actual client. They know what it means to meet, and perhaps, even exceed the client’s expectations. They understand the significance of their work and the value of listening carefully to clients in a way that students in the course without service-learning have yet to experience. The students in the service-learning course develop a deep understanding of the course content as they carry out the service associated with the course.

A Broader Appreciation of the Discipline

While not all students in a service-learning course are going to gain a broader appreciation of the discipline, some students will take away deep learning and a greater understanding of the discipline. In a multi-institutional study conducted with 261 engineering students, a survey was used to learn how the students perceived service as a source of learning technical and professional skills relative to traditional course work. Students’ responses indicated that 45% of what they learned about technical skills and 62% of what they learned about professional skills was through service (Carberry, Lee & Swan, 2013). Clearly, these engineering students’ gain a greater understanding of their discipline through their service experiences.

In another study, with a smaller sample of 37 students across sections of a non-profit marketing course, the students compared their learning from a variety of pedagogical tools, including case studies, lectures, reading assignments, guest speakers, exams, textbooks, and service-learning experiences in local chapters of national organizations and non-profit organizations. Students responded with a 5-point Likert scale indicating the degree to which each pedagogical tool helped them to meet the specific objectives of the course. Students rated the service-learning project higher than all of the other pedagogical tools as contributing to their learning in all course objectives (Mottner, 2010). Additionally, the course instructor saw that service-learning was not only effective for supporting students’ learning of the course objectives, but also proved helpful for students in determining their future careers, gaining confidence in interacting with clients, and understanding people from another culture (p. 243).

With the opportunity to apply newly learned skills in a service-learning project, students learn more about the discipline they are studying, and depending on the service-learning setting, they may learn about the lives of people in the community who have fewer resources than they do while also learning about the underlying and systemic reasons for particular circumstances.

Enhanced Sense of Civic Responsibility

The final aspect of Bringle and Hatcher’s (1995) definition of service-learning maintains that students can gain an enhanced sense of civic responsibility by conducting and reflecting on service. Through the process of conducting meaningful service in the community, students can learn the importance of engaging in the community to make positive contributions; that is, they can learn to be civic-minded.

Cress (2013) explains that being civic-minded involves both knowing and doing. College students and graduates may know about and even analyze community problems yet feel overwhelmed and do little or nothing to remedy them. This is knowing without doing. Just as harmful, are individuals who carry out service without substantial knowledge about the issue. This is doing without knowing. Cress calls for community-based educational experiences that increase knowledge and skills to address civic issues. In other words, combining knowing and doing in such a way that civic action is carried out responsibly.

Service-learning offers the initial opportunity for college students to learn how to be civic-minded by combining knowledge gained in the university classroom with skills acquired in community settings so that responsible and respectful service is provided. “Civic-minded graduates will make important contributions to their communities through their capacity to generate citizen-driven solutions” (Moore & Mendez, 2014, p. 33).

Bringle and Hatcher’s (1995) definition of service-learning, quoted and described in detail here, illustrates the multifaceted aspects of this pedagogy. Just tacking on service to an existing course does not make it a service-learning course. The service experience and reflection upon it is integrated with the course. Successes, frustrations, and troubleshooting are discussed in the classroom. Instructors support students in making links between their service experience and the curriculum of the course. Instructors may also support students in analyzing the specific circumstances experienced in service-learning so they develop an understanding of the underlying structural inequalities in the broader society that impact those circumstances. Service-learning pedagogy, when conducted in a thorough and thoughtful manner, has the potential for deepening students’ learning and even offering the prospect of transformative learning (Felten & Clayton, 2011).

With such impressive outcomes, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (2007) rightly included service-learning on the list of high-impact practices. The next section addresses the question, “What makes service-learning a high-impact practice?”

Back to Top

What makes it a high-impact practice?

Calling for “implementation quality,” in high-impact practices, Kuh (2013, p. 7) outlined eight key elements of high-impact practices. According to Kuh, these elements can be useful in determining the quality of a practice for advancing student accomplishment. The eight key elements are listed below.

• Performance expectations set at appropriately high levels
• Significant investment of time and effort by students over an extended period of time
• Interactions with faculty and peers about substantive matters
• Experiences with diversity wherein students are exposed to and must contend with people and circumstances that differ from those with which students are familiar
• Frequent, timely, and constructive feedback
• Periodic, structured opportunities to reflect and integrate learning
• Opportunities to discover relevance of learning through real-world applications
• Public demonstration of competence (p. 10)

In this section, service-learning will be discussed as it relates to each of the key elements of high-impact practices.

High Performance Expectations

From the first day of class, it is important for instructors of service-learning courses to communicate the high expectations they have for students’ service. The quality of the service should influence grading, as this is a way to immediately communicate the centrality of service to students. The leader of the community organization where the service will be performed should be invited to speak to the class about their expectations for service. This leader can share how both high- and low-quality service impact the organization and people in the community. Generally, service does come with some challenges as Cress (2013) points out service-learning involves relationships, and these can go awry. “Personality conflicts can arise, students may lack the ability to deal with others who are different from themselves, community partners may not follow through on their commitments, and group members may not meet their responsibilities” (p. 16). Students who are working to meet high performance expectations will likely need to overcome obstacles that can interfere with performing the service at a peak level. How the students cope with and overcome obstacles is part of the learning in service-learning, and it is a significant aspect of how students demonstrate a high level of performance in the course.

Investment of Significant Time and Effort

When students carry out service, they will likely learn that careful planning, a thoughtful approach, and meaningful analysis of the circumstances takes time, energy, and effort on their part. The old adage that “You only get out of something what you put into it,” most certainly applies to service-learning. Often students arrive at college having learned to focus on academic achievement and to view community service as less important or secondary. With service-learning pedagogy, the service is woven into students’ academic achievement, and, accordingly, students need to focus a significant amount of their time and efforts on providing high quality service in order to meet expectations.

Interactions with Faculty and Peers about Substantive Matters

In order to plan and carry out meaningful service-learning, students will need to work closely with the faculty member teaching the course and their peers who are taking the course alongside them. Consider the example presented earlier of the instructor of a computer course who had the option of having students design a website for an imaginary client or an actual client of a non-profit agency. Students who are designing the website for an imaginary client, even if working in groups, will not have the same types of interactions with faculty and peers as those who are creating a website for an agency in the community. Simply put, more is at stake when designing a product for an actual client. When that client is meeting a specific need in the community, the website must communicate that clearly and allow for clients and donors to have easy access to various parts of the site. Students carrying out this type of service-learning will find that substantive interactions with faculty, peers, and the community leader become necessary in order to successfully complete the project.

Experiences with Diversity

While college campuses can offer students some experience with a range of diversity for race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, socio-economic class, sexual orientation, and age, it is likely that the differences between college students and people living in the local community are greater. Life can look quite different for people living as close as a couple of miles from a university as compared to life on campus.

Students performing service in the community or during study abroad courses can learn about individuals who are living in poverty, struggling to meet basic needs, and who often do without. Students can learn about the impact of discrimination from individuals who have experienced it first-hand. For some students, the disparity between the life experiences of people they meet during service-learning and their own life circumstances makes them realize the privilege they have lived with all of their lives.

Jacoby (2015) explains that when students conduct service without multicultural education, negative stereotypes can be reinforced and perpetuated (p. 232). Jacoby notes that by integrating multicultural education with service-learning, students are helped to “expand their emotional comfort zones in dealing with difference, gain an increasing ability to view the world from multiple perspectives, and reflect on their own social positions in relations to others” (p. 233). Often these goals are among those that faculty hope to achieve when choosing to use service-learning pedagogy.

Frequent, Timely, and Constructive Feedback

Meeting frequently with the faculty member teaching a service-learning course to receive suggestions, learn how to make progress, solve problems, and increase the quality of service will greatly benefit the students who are carrying out the service. The faculty member can provide the timely and constructive feedback that allows students to make improvements in how they conduct the service and develop a more profound understanding of the circumstances that give rise to the need for the services.

Although the leaders of community organizations hosting students for their service-learning courses are generally incredibly busy people, they may be able to arrange brief meetings with students to provide feedback on the service they are conducting. With support from both faculty and leaders in the community, students can refine their service and deepen their understanding. Students often have a greater appreciation of the complexity involved in providing service to meet an identified need as they spend more time within an organization. Frequent and timely feedback affords students the guidance needed to meet the high expectations for service-learning experiences.

Opportunities to Reflect

As noted earlier, reflection is integral to service-learning. In fact, without reflection, a service experience becomes volunteering. The instructor of a service-learning course is responsible for providing periodic, structured opportunities to reflect on the service and integrate the learning from service with course content.

Campus Compact, a source of support for universities implementing service-learning, outlines four ways to structure the reflection process (“Structuring”). The first is that reflection should connect service with other coursework. Second, faculty need to coach students on how to reflect. Third, the reflection process should offer both challenge and support to students. Fourth, the reflection should be continuous; reflection needs to happen before, during and after service-learning experiences. Faculty utilizing this framework will help students to gain insights through the reflection process.

Real-World Applications

Service-learning by definition provides opportunities for students to discover relevance of disciplinary knowledge through real-world application. Students in an educational psychology course will provide service in high-poverty schools; students in human service study course will provide service in a domestic violence shelter; students in a research course will provide service in the form of program assessment for a non-profit organization; students in a marketing course will provide service supporting women in a developing country who are starting a cooperative to sell handmade goods. The needs in most communities outweigh the resources, which makes service-learning a welcome addition in the community, while also providing the chance for university students to make connections between their studies and real-world applications.

Public Demonstration of Competence

Kuh’s (2013) final key element of HIP is for students to publicly demonstrate the competency they gained, in this case, during the service-learning course. While the work of community organizations is ongoing, students’ service is often completed as the semester ends. A culminating project that is presented to stakeholders offers students the opportunity to consider the outcomes of their learning, make connections between course content and the service they provided, and to contemplate on the larger societal issues related to inequality. The culminating project may be an oral presentation or a report given to the community partner. In some cases the culminating project is one of the main goals of the service. Students who exhibit a high level of competence with their culminating project can articulate how the service-learning experience was a HIP for them.

Service-learning is a HIP, and, as such, has the power to impact students’ lives in meaningful, perhaps even transformative ways (Felten & Clayton, 2011). Every key element of HIP, as outlined by Kuh (2013) for the Association of American Colleges and Universities, are met in service-learning. Those students who excel in service-learning have the potential to become civic-minded graduates who bring good to their communities, a goal universities surely find worthy.

Research-Informed Practices

The following best practices in service-learning are adapted from Reitenaure, Spring, Kecskes, Kerrigan, Cress, and Collier (2005) and Howard (1993), who focus on two different sides of service-learning. Reitenaure et al. (2005) focus on the community partnership side of service-learning results in a list centered on establishing strong and productive relationships among the parties involved in service-learning: students, faculty, and community members. Howard’s (1993) focus on the academic side of service-learning results in a list centered on maintaining academic rigor and making space for deep student learning through community praxis. Collectively, their work leads to the following practices for high-quality service-learning:

• Establish shared goals and values
• Focus on academic learning  through  service
• Provide supports for student learning and reflection
• Be prepared for uncertainty and variation in student learning outcomes
• Build mutual trust, respect, authenticity, and commitment between the student and community partner
• Identify existing strengths and areas for improvement among all partners
• Work to balance power and share resources
• Communicate openly and accessibly
• Commit to the time it will require
• Seek feedback for improvement

(adapted from Reitenaure et al., 2005, and Howard, 1993)

Overall, these recommendations focus on two broad goals of service-learning: establish a strong and reciprocal relationship, and structure and support student learning. These goals happen through frequent and open communication among all involved and facilitated space in and out of the classroom for student reflection and integration of their learning. Each of the model programs described below enact these good practices in similar ways.

Embedded and Emerging Questions for Research, Practice, and Theory

While service-learning is one of the more heavily researched high impact practices, additional areas of study remain. For example, the distinction between service-learning and community engagement warrants additional focus and research. Does this variation in framing equate to differential impacts on student learning? Service-learning also varies in length and intensity, and research is needed to parse out the differential impacts on student learning of short term versus long term service-learning experiences. Recent research has begun to examine the differential impacts on service-learning for underrepresented minority (URM) students and suggests service-learning has strong academic success impacts for URMs, but service-learning is less closely linked to retention and four-year graduation for URMs than it is for highly represented students (Song, Furco, Lopez, & Maruyama, 2017). Additional research is needed to understand why this may be the case and how service-learning experiences might be facilitated to support more equitable student impacts.

Finally, perhaps the greatest avenues for effective community partnerships in the coming years exist in community colleges and distinctive two-year institutions. Community colleges have a great opportunity to contribute to social research surrounding challenges, missions and strengths of community partnerships. Since students are usually still embedded within the surrounding community, the opportunity to develop community partnerships is promising (Brukhardt et al., 2004). Two-year institutions are also on the front-line of accepting students from diverse financial, racial, and experiential backgrounds. These expansions and alterations to the ‘typical’ college student population will continue to present themselves in the coming years. Community colleges have the opportunity to create policies and service-learning opportunities that engage and enrich the lives of diverse student populations, which places two-year institutions above other, more traditional, colleges that may be more delayed in response to such changes. As Butin (2006) describes, current service-learning and engagement is only focused towards “full-time single, non-indebted, and childless students pursuing a liberal arts degree” (p.482). As a result, colleges and universities who adapt to the future trends that break out of such barriers will be more successful with engaged learning in the years to come.

Key Scholarship

Ash, Sarah L., and Patti H. Clayton. 2004. “The Articulated Learning: An approach to Guided Reflection and Assessment.” Innovative Higher Education 29 (2): 137-154.

About this Journal Article:

Reflection is an integral aspect of service-learning, but it does not simply happen by telling students to reflect. This paper describes the risks involved in poor quality reflection and explains the results of rigorous reflection. A rigorous reflection framework is introduced that involves objectively describing an experience, analyzing the experience, and then articulating learning outcomes according to guiding questions.

Celio, Christine I., Joseph Durlak, and Allison Dymnicki. 2011. “A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Service-Learning on Students.” Journal of Experiential Education 34 (2): 164-181.

For those seeking empirical data regarding the value of service-learning, this meta-analysis provides considerable evidence. Representing data from 11,837 students, this meta-analysis of 62 studies identified five areas of gain for students who took service-learning courses as compared to control groups who did not. The students in service-learning courses demonstrated significant gains in their self-esteem and self-efficacy, educational engagement, altruism, cultural proficiency, and academic achievement. Studies of service-learning courses that implemented best practices (e.g., supporting students in connecting curriculum with the service, incorporating the voice of students in the service-learning project, welcoming community involvement in the project, and requiring reflection) had higher effect sizes.

Cress, Christine M., Peter J. Collier, Vicki L. Reitenauer, and Associates, eds. 2013. Learning through Service: A Student Guidebook for Service-Learning and Civic Engagement across Academic Disciplines and Cultural Communities, 2nd ed. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

About this Edited Book:

Although written for students to promote an understanding of their community service through reflection and their personal development as citizens who share expertise with compassion, this text is also useful for faculty. Among the many topics addressed, it provides descriptions of service-learning and civic engagement, explains how to establish and deepen community partnerships, and challenges students to navigate difference in ways that unpack privilege and analyze power dynamics that often surface in service-learning and civic engagement. Written in an accessible style, it is good first text for learning about service-learning and civic engagement.

Delano-Oriaran, Omobolade, Marguerite W Penick-Parks, and Suzanne Fondrie, eds. 2015. The SAGE Sourcebook of Service-Learning and Civic Engagement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

This tome contains 58 chapters on a variety of aspects related to service-learning and civic engagement. The intended audience is faculty in higher education and faculty in P-12 schools, as well as directors of service-learning or civic engagement centers in universities or school districts. The SAGE Sourcebook of Service-Learning and Civic Engagement outlines several theoretical models on the themes of service-learning and civic engagement, provides guides that faculty can employ when developing service-learning projects, shares ideas for program development, and offers numerous resources that faculty can use. Parts I – IV of the sourcebook are directed toward general information about service-learning and civic engagement, including aspects of implementation; parts V – VIII describe programs and issues related to the use of service-learning or civic engagement within disciplines or divisions; part IX addresses international service-learning; and part X discusses sustainability.

Felten, Peter, and Patti H. Clayton. 2011. “Service-Learning.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 128: 75-84. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/tl.470 .

Felten and Clayton define service-learning, describe its essential aspects, and review the empirical evidence supporting this pedagogy. Both affective and cognitive aspects of growth are examined in their review. The authors conclude that effectively designed service-learning has considerable potential to promote transformation for all involved, including those who mentor students during the service-learning experience.

Jacoby, Barbara. 2015. Service-learning essentials: Questions, answers and lessons learned. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

About this Book:

Arranged as a series of questions and answers about service-learning, this text shares research and the author’s personal wisdom gathered over decades of experience in service-learning. Faculty members who are new to service-learning will learn the basics of this pedagogy. Those with experience will discover ways to refine and improve their implementation of service-learning. All aspects of service-learning are clearly explained in this accessible text, including advise for overcoming obstacles.

Jones, Susan R. 2002. “The Underside of Service-Learning.” About Campus 7 (4): 10-15.

Although an older publication, this article is not outdated. Jones describes how some students resist examining assumptions and refuse to see how their beliefs perpetuate negative stereotypes. These students challenge both the faculty member teaching the service-learning course and classmates. Jones discusses the need for faculty to anticipate how to respond to students’ racist or homophobic comments in a way that acknowledges where the students are developmentally, while also honoring the complexity involved. Additionally, the author recommends that faculty examine their own background and level of development relative to issues of privilege and power that can arise in service-learning pedagogy.

McDonald, James, and Lynn Dominguez. 2015. “Developing University and Community Partnerships: A Critical Piece of Successful Service Learning.” Journal of College Science Teaching 44 (3): 52-56.

Developing a positive partnership with a community organization is a critical aspect service-learning. McDonald and Dominguez discuss best practice for service-learning and explain a framework for developing a successful partnership in the community. Faculty need to

• Identify the objectives of the course that will be met through service,
• Identify the community organization whose mission or self-identified need can be address with service-learning,
• Define the purpose of the project, the roles, responsibilities and benefits of individuals involved,
• Maintain regular communication with the community partner, and
• Invite the community partner to the culminating student presentation on their service-learning.

Two service-learning projects, one for an environmental course and another for an elementary methods science course, are described along with the positive outcomes for students and community partners.

Warner, Beth, and Judy Esposito. 2009. “What’s Not in the Syllabus: Faculty Transformation, Role Modeling and Role Conflict in Immersion Service-Learning Courses.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 20 (3): 510-517.

This article describes immersive learning in the context of international service learning (or domestic service learning that happens away from the local community surrounding an institution) where students and faculty live and work together in a deeply immersive environment. The article is careful to articulate the difference in international or away service learning, where the immersion is constant, with localized experiences where the service learning experience is socketed into a student’s day. The article also discusses the value and need of the instructor working in close proximity to students as a facilitative guide to the learning experience.  

See all Service-Learning entries

Model Programs

The following model programs are drawn from recommendations by service-learning professionals across the United States. All of these selected programs also meet the  Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement.  Carnegie defines community engagement as:

The partnership of college and university knowledge and resources with those of the public and private sectors to enrich scholarship, research and creative activity; enhance curriculum, teaching and learning; prepare educated, engaged citizens; strengthen democratic values and civic responsibility; address critical societal issues; and contribute to the public good. (“Defining Community Engagement,” 2018, para. 2)

This voluntary classification requires schools to collect data and provide evidence of alignment across mission and commitments; this evidence is then reviewed by a national review panel before an institution is selected for inclusion on the list. While community engagement is not always service-learning, the two are closely related and many campus centers offer more expansive definitions to include both service learning and community engagement.

Drake University’s Office of Community Engaged Learning and Service  emphasizes models of service learning focused on project completion rather than hours served. They have seven models for service-learning: project or problem based, multiple course projects, placement based, community education and advocacy, action research, one-time group service project, and service internships. Descriptions of each model can be found  here . All of these models must meet their four main attributes for community engaged learning. They must have 1) learning outcomes, 2) application and integration, 3) reciprocity, and 4) reflection and assessment. 

Elon University’s Kernodle Center for Service Learning and Community Engagement  has existed since 1995 and aims, “in partnership with local and global communities, to advance student learning, leadership, and citizenship to prepare students for lives of active community engagement within a complex and changing world.” Elon University has several interdisciplinary minors which include service learning as an explicit component of their educative goals. The University also includes service learning as a way students may fulfill one of their experiential learning requirements (ELR) through enrollment in an associated service learning course or through 15 days of service along with mentored research and reflection experiences. 

James Madison University’s Center for Community Service-Learning  offers a range of service options for students, but is especially intentional about facilitating course-based service-learning. They support student placement with community partners as is relevant to the course, offer one-on-one faculty consultations, and share  reflection resources  to support students’ integration of their service-learning with course goals and broader learning goals. JMU’s focus on reflection as a core component of service-learning is evident throughout their center, including their definition of service-learning: “[Service-learning] cultivates positive social change through mutually beneficial service partnerships, critical reflection, and the development of engaged citizens.” Their  seven tenets  of service-learning (humility, intentionality, equity, accountability, service, relationships, and learning) can help guide faculty development of mutually supportive goals with community partners.

Marquette University’s Service Learning Program  is housed within their Center for Teaching and Learning separate from their Center for Community Service. The program is intentional about distinguishing between community service, internships, and service-learning, and focuses their work around five models of service-learning: placement model, presentation model, presentation-plus model, product model, and project model. They offer descriptions and examples of each model  here . Marquette structures service-learning as a “philosophy of education.” Their program also offers numerous resources around service-learning course design. 

Rollins College’s Center for Leadership and Community Service  uses the language of community engagement, but is firm in the standard that for a course to be considered a community engagement course, it must meet a community-identified need. Community partners at Rollins are considered co-educators, and Rollins’  course guidelines  emphasize reciprocity in the community-course partnership. The culture surrounding these ideals is so strong that “over 74% of all Rollins faculty have been involved in at least one aspect of community engagement through service-learning, community-based research, professional development, immersion, or campus/community partnership. In addition, over the last seven years every major at Rollins has offered at least one academic course with a community experience” (“ Faculty Resources “).

Related Blog Posts

Facilitating integration of and reflection on engaged and experiential learning.

Since 2019, I’ve been working with my colleague Paul Miller to create an institutional toolkit for fostering both students’ self-reflection and their mentoring conversations with peers, staff, and faculty in order to deepen students’ educational experiences. Our institution, Elon University,…

Incorporating Multiple Dimensions in the First-Year Experience

60-Second SoTL – Episode 49 This episode features on open-access article on service-learning and leadership development in first-year seminars: Krsmanovic, Masha. 2022. “Fostering Service-Learning and Leadership Development through First-Year Seminar Courses.” Journal of Service-Learning in Higher Education 15: 54–70. View a…

Integrating ePortfolios in Work-Integrated Learning Experiences

Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) refers to the integration of practical work experiences with academic learning. Experiences falling under this umbrella provide students with opportunities to apply their knowledge to professional work environments, research, and service learning. There are many benefits of…

View All Related Blog Posts

Featured Resources

Teaching service-learning online or in hybrid/flex models.

In response to shifts to online learning due to COVID-19 in spring 2020 and in anticipation of alternate models for higher education in fall 2020 and beyond, we have curated publications and online resources that can help inform programmatic and…

• Association of American Colleges and Universities (2007)  College learning for a new global century , Association of American Colleges and Universities. Washington, DC.  http://www.aacu.org/advocacy/leap/documents/GlobalCentury_final.pdf
• Bringle, R., & Hatcher, J. (1995). A service learning curriculum for faculty.  The   Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 2 (1), 112-122.
• Brukardt, M. H., Holland, B., Percy, S. L., Simpher, N., on behalf of Wingspread Conference Participants. (2004).  Wingspread Statement: Calling the question: Is higher education ready to commit to community engagement.  Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
• Butin, D. W. (2006). The limits of service-learning in higher education.  The Review of Higher Education, 29 (4), 473-498.
• Campus Compact (n.d.),  Structuring the reflection process . Retrieved August 2017 from http://compact.org/disciplines/reflection/structuring/
• Carberry, A., Lee, H., & Swan, C. (2013). Student perceptions of engineering service experiences as a source of learning technical and professional skills,  International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, 8 (1), 1-17.
• Cress, C. M. (2013). What are service-learning and community engagement? In Cress, C. M., Collier, P. J., Reitenauer, V. L., and Associates,  Learning through serving 2 nd  ed. , pp. 9-18. Richmond, VA: Stylus Publishing LLC.
• Felten, P., & Clayton, P. H. (2011). Service-learning. Evidence-based teaching.  New Directions for Teaching and Learning , 128, 75-84.
• Howard, J. (1993).  Praxis I: A faculty casebook on community service learning.  Ann Arbor, MI: Office of Community Service Learning Press, University of Michigan.
• Jacoby, B. (2015).  Service-learning essentials: Questions, answers, and lessons learned . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Jones, S. R. (2002). The underside of service-learning,  About Campus , 7(4), 10-15.
• Kuh, G. D. (2013). Taking HIPs to the next level. In G. D. Kuh & K. O’Donnell (Eds.) pp. 1-14,  Ensuring quality and taking high-impact practices to scale . Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
• Moore, T. L., & Mendez, J. P. (2014). Civic engagement and organizational learning strategies for student success. In P. L. Eddy (Ed.),  Connecting learning across the institution  (New Directions in Higher Education No. 165 ,  pp. 31-40). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Mottner, S. (2010). Service-learning in a nonprofit marketing course: A comparative case of pedagogical tools.  Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22 (3), 231-245.
• Reitenaure, V. L., Spring, A., Kecskes, K., Kerrigan, S.A., Cress, C. M., & Collier, P. J. (2005). Chapter 2: Building and maintaining community partnerships. In Cress, C. M., Collier, P. J., Reitenaure, V. L., & Associates (Eds.)  Learning through service: A student guidebook for service-learning and civic engagement across academic disciplines and cultural communities  (17-31). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
• Song, W., Furco, A., Lopez, I., & Maruyama, G. (2017). Examining the relationship between service-learning participation and the educational success of underrepresented students.  Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 24 (1) 23-37.

The Center thanks Mary Knight-McKenna for contributing the initial content for this resource. The Center’s 2018-2020 graduate apprentice, Sophia Abbot, extended the content, with additional contributions from Elon Masters of Higher Education students Caroline Dean, Jillian Epperson, Tobin Finizio, Sierra Smith, and Taylor Swan.

An Exploratory Study of the Community Impacts of Service-Learning

• Ka Hing Lau Lingnan University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7255-186X
• Maureen Yin Lee Chan The Education University of Hong Kong
• Cynthia Lok Sum Yeung Lingnan University
• Robin Stanley Snell The Hang Seng University of Hong Kong

Research on community impacts from service-learning has been scarce, yet this area is worth exploring in order to understand how and why service-learning can make a difference. The current research sought to validate a conceptual framework (Lau & Snell, 2020), which categorizes the impacts of service-learning on community partner organizations (CPOs) and on end-beneficiaries. Under the framework, impacts on end-beneficiaries can arise directly from service-learning interventions, but can also arise indirectly as a result of impacts on CPOs. For the research, semi-structured, one-to-one or focus group interviews were conducted with 13 CPO representatives, seeking their perceptions of positive and negative impacts of service-learning. Most described impacts were positive, including, for CPOs: achieving project goals to further the CPO’s mission; augmenting resources of the CPO; and gaining knowledge, insights, ideas and techniques. These positive impacts for CPOs appear to reflect three factors: alignment between service-learning project goals and the CPO’s mission; mutual recognition of students’ potential for transferring knowledge from universities to CPOs; and mutual understanding of students’ status as semi-outsiders, free to challenge existing practices or systems. Further studies can explore impacts from the end-beneficiary's perspective, and adopt longitudinal and action research approaches.

Author Biographies

Ka hing lau, lingnan university.

Ka Hing Lau was a Senior Project Officer in the Office of Service-Learning of Lingnan University (currently a Project Associate in the Service-Learning and Leadership Office of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University). He has a MPhil in Psychology and has years of experience conducting both academic and business research. His current research interests include developing measurement instruments for assessing impacts arising from service-learning, faculty engagement in service-learning, e-service-learning, training and development, and work-from-home.

Maureen Yin Lee Chan, The Education University of Hong Kong

Maureen Yin Lee Chan is engaging in research work in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction of The Education University of Hong Kong and previously worked at Lingnan University in the capacity of senior project consultant. She has professional experience in training and human resource development.  Her research interests are student learning and development, service-learning and leadership. Her teaching interests include human resource management, organizational behavior and management. She received her PhD from Lancaster University and her work appears in journals such as Journal of Management Education, Leadership & Organization Development Journal and Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning .

Cynthia Lok Sum Yeung, Lingnan University

Cynthia Lok Sum Yeung is a graduating student at Lingnan University, majoring in translation, with research interests in intangible cultural heritage, construction training and service-learning. She has developed great interest in service-learning when she took service-learning courses in her first year of study. Since then, she has served as a research assistant and service-learning teaching assistant for the Office of Service-Learning at Lingnan University.

Robin Stanley Snell, The Hang Seng University of Hong Kong

Robin Stanley Snell is currently a Visiting Professor in the Department of Management at The Hang Seng University of Hong Kong. Before retiring from Lingnan University, he had served there as Head of the Management Department, Director of Business Programmes, Director of Teaching and Learning, and Director of Service-Learning. His research and teaching interests include service-learning, managerial and organizational learning, leadership and strategic management, and business ethics.

Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., & Yee, J. A. (2000). How service-learning affects students. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slcehighered/144 .

Barrientos, P. (2010). Community service-learning and its impact on community agencies: An assessment study. CA: Institute for Civic and Community Engagement.

Billig, S.H. (2007). Unpacking what works in Service-Learning: Promising research-based practices to improve student outcomes. In J. Kielsmeier, M. Neal, and N. Schultz (Eds.), Growing to greatness 2007: The state of service-learning. Saint Paul, MN: National Youth Leadership Council.

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 221-239

Bringle, R. G., Philips, M. A., & Hudson, M. (2004). The measure of service-learning: research scales to access student experiences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Chun Tie, Y., Birks, M., & Francis, K. (2019). Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers. SAGE Open Medicine, 7, 205031211882292. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118822927

Clarke, M. M. (2003). Finding the community in service-learning research: The 3-"I" model. In S. H. Billing & J. Eyler (Eds.), Deconstructing service-learning (pp. 3-21). Nashville: Information Age Publishing.

Cruz, N., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (2000). Where’s the community in service-learning research? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7(1), 28–34.

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., & Giles, D. E. (1999). Where's the learning in service learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Eyler, J. S., Giles, D. E., Stenson, C. M., and 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. (3rd ed.) Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt University Press.

Farahmandpour, H., & Shodjaee-Zrudlo, I. (2015) Redefining Service-Learning for the Purpose of Social Change within Education. In Bola Delano-Oriaran, Marguerite W. Penick-Parks, & Suzanne Fondrie (Eds.) The SAGE sourcebook of service-learning and civic engagement, Chapter 7. CA: SAGE.

Felten, P., & Clayton, P. H. (2011). Service-Learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 128, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.470

Gelmon. S. B. (2003). Assessment as a means of building service-learning partnerships. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.). Building partnerships for service-learning (pp. 42-64). San Francisco: Wiley.

Giles, D. E., & Eyler, J. (1998). 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. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0001.109

Holland, B. A. & Gelmon, S. B. (1998). The state of the “England Campus”: What have we learned about building and sustaining university-community partnerships. AAHE Bulletin, 51, 3-6.

Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-Learning in higher education: concepts and practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jettner, J. F., Pelco, L. E., & Elliott, K. L. (2017). Service-Learning Community Partner Impact Assessment Report. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.

Kellogg, W. (1999). Toward more transformative service-learning: Experiences from an urban environmental problem-solving class. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 6(1), 63-73.

Kindred, J. (2020). Nonprofit partners’ perceptions of organizational and community impact based on a long-term academic service-learning partnership. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 13(1), Article 8.

Lau, K. H., & Snell, R. S. (2020). Assessing community impact after service-learning: A conceptual framework. Presented at the 6th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’20), Valencia, Spain, 2020.

Lau, K. H., & Snell, R. S. (2021). Community impact feedback questionnaire (CIFQ): The user manual. Hong Kong: Office of Service-Learning, Lingnan University. doi: https://doi.org/10.14793/9789887522218

Ma, C. (2018). Service-learning development in higher education in Hong Kong. In T. W. Lim & W. X. Li (Eds), Studying Hong Kong: 20 years of political, economic and social developments (pp. 43–61). New Jersey: World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813223554_0004

Mattessich, P. W., & Monsey, B. R. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work. A review of research literature on factor influencing successful collaboration. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

Max-Neef, M. A. (1991). Human scale development: Conception, application and further reflections. New York, NY: Apex Press.

Ngai, S. S. (2006). Service-learning, personal development, and social commitment: A case study of university students in Hong Kong. Adolescence, 41, 165–176. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16689448

Ngai, S. S. (2009). The effects of program characteristics and psychological engagement on service-learning outcomes: A study of university students in Hong Kong. Adolescence, 44, 375–389. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19764273

Shek, D. & Chan, S. (2013) Service-learning from the views of university teachers: a qualitative study based on focus groups. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 25(4), 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2013-0036

Shumer, R., Stanton, T. K. and Giles D. E., Jr. (2017), History and precursors of service-learning theory, development and research. In Robert Shumer (Ed.) Where’s the wisdom in service-learning? NC: Information Age Publishing.

Snell, R. S., Chan, M. Y. L., Ma, C. H. K., & Chan, C. K. M. (2015a). Developing civic-mindedness in undergraduate business students through service-learning projects for civic engagement and service leadership practices for civic improvement. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 4(1), 73–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-015-0044-0

Snell, R. S., Chan, M. Y. L., Ma, C. H. K., & Chan, C. K. M. (2015b). A road map for empowering undergraduates to practice service leadership through service-learning in teams. Journal of Management Education, 39(3), 372–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562914545631

Snell, R. S. & Lau, K. H. (2020). The Development of a Service-learning Outcomes Measurement Scale (S-LOMS). Metropolitan Universities, 31(1), 44-77. https://doi.org/10.18060/23258

Toncar, M. F., Reid, J. S., Burns, D. J., Anderson, C. E., & Nguyen, H. P. (2006). Uniform assessment of the benefits of service learning: the development, evaluation, and implementation of the SELEB scale. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14(3), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.2753/mtp1069-6679140304

University of Minnesota Center for Community-Engaged Learning (2011). Direct, indirect, research, and advocacy engagement. Retrieved from http://ccel-app.umn.edu/cesp/programdetails/engagement_types.html

Wade, R. C. (1997). Community service-learning: A guide to including service in the public school curriculum. NY: State University of New York Press.

Copyright (c) 2021 Ka Hing Lau, Yin Lee Maureen Chan, Cynthia Lok Sum Yeung, Robin Stanley Snell

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

Developed By

Information.

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Metropolitan Universities journal is the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities ’ (CUMU) quarterly online journal. Founded in 1990, the journal disseminates scholarship and research relevant to urban and metropolitan universities. Articles amplify the mission of CUMU by reinforcing the value of place-based institutions and illuminating our collective work of supporting the changing needs of our students, institutions, and cities.

If you would like to receive updates about the journal or CUMU,  sign up to receive email communications .

Center for Teaching

• What is Service Learning or Community Engagement?

• Benefits of Community Engagement

Models of Community Engagement Teaching

Ways to integrate community engagement into an existing course.

Community engagement pedagogies, often called “service learning,” are ones that combine learning goals and community service in ways that can enhance both student growth and the common good.  In the words of the National Service Learning Clearinghouse , it is “a teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities.”  Or, to quote Vanderbilt University’s Janet S. Eyler (winner of the 2003 Thomas Ehrlich Faculty Award for Service Learning) and Dwight E. Giles, Jr., it is

“a form of experiential education where learning occurs through a cycle of action and reflection as students. . . seek to achieve real objectives for the community and deeper understanding and skills for themselves. In the process, students link personal and social development with academic and cognitive development. . . experience enhances understanding; understanding leads to more effective action.”

Typically, community engagement is incorporated into a course or series of courses by way of a project that has both learning and community action goals.  This project is designed via collaboration between faculty and community partners, such as non-governmental organizations or government agencies.  The project asks students to apply course content to community-based activities.  This gives students experiential opportunities to learn in real world contexts and develop skills of community engagement, while affording community partners opportunities to address significant needs. Vanderbilt University’s Sharon Shields has argued that service learning is “one of the most significant teaching methodologies gaining momentum on many campuses.” Indeed, when done well, teaching through community engagement benefits students, faculty, communities, and institutions of higher education. Below are some of the benefits that education researchers and practitioners have associated with community engaged teaching.

Student Benefits of Community Engagement

Learning outcomes.

• Positive impact on students’ academic learning
• Improves students’ ability to apply what they have learned in “the real world”
• Positive impact on academic outcomes such as demonstrated complexity of understanding, problem analysis, problem-solving, critical thinking, and cognitive development
• Improved ability to understand complexity and ambiguity

Personal Outcomes

• Greater sense of personal efficacy, personal identity, spiritual growth, and moral development
• Greater interpersonal development, particularly the ability to work well with others, and build leadership and communication skills

Social Outcomes

• Reduced stereotypes and greater inter-cultural understanding
• Improved social responsibility and citizenship skills
• Greater involvement in community service after graduation

Career Development

• Connections with professionals and community members for learning and career opportunities
• Greater academic learning, leadership skills, and personal efficacy can lead to greater opportunity

Relationship with the Institution

• Stronger relationships with faculty
• Greater satisfaction with college
• Improved graduation rates

Faculty Benefits of Community Engagement

• Satisfaction with the quality of student learning
• New avenues for research and publication via new relationships between faculty and community
• Providing networking opportunities with engaged faculty in other disciplines or institutions
• A stronger commitment to one’s research

College and University Benefits of Community Engagement

• Improved institutional commitment to the curriculum
• Improved student retention
• Enhanced community relations

Community Benefits of Community Engagement

• Satisfaction with student participation
• Valuable human resources needed to achieve community goals
• New energy, enthusiasm and perspectives applied to community work
• Enhanced community-university relations

Discipline-Based

Discipline-based model.

In this model, students are expected to have a presence in the community throughout the semester and reflect on their experiences regularly.  In these reflections, they use course content as a basis for their analysis and understanding of the key theoretical, methodological and applied issues at hand.

Problem-Based

Problem-based model.

Students relate to the community much as “consultants” working for a “client.” Students work with community members to understand a particular community problem or need.  This model presumes that the students have or will develop capacities with which to help communities solve a problem.  For example: architecture students might design a park; business students might develop a web site; botany students might identify non-native plants and suggest eradication methods.

Capstone Course

Capstone course model.

These courses are generally designed for majors and minors in a given discipline and are offered almost exclusively to students in their final year. Capstone courses ask students to draw upon the knowledge they have obtained throughout their course work and combine it with relevant service work in the community. The goal of capstone courses is usually either exploring a new topic or synthesizing students’ understanding of their discipline.

Service Internship

Service internship model.

This approach asks students to work as many as 10 to 20 hours a week in a community setting. As in traditional internships, students are charged with producing a body of work that is of value to the community or site. However, unlike traditional internships, service internships have on-going faculty-guided reflection to challenge the students to analyze their new experiences using discipline-based theories.  Service internships focus on reciprocity: the idea that the community and the student benefit equally from the experience.

Undergrad Community-Based Action Research

Action research model.

Community-based action research is similar to an independent study option for the student who is highly experienced in community work.  This approach can be effective with small classes or groups of students.  In this model, students work closely with faculty members to learn research methodology while serving as advocates for communities.  This model assumes that students are or can be trained to be competent in time management and can negotiate diverse communities.

Directed Study Extra Credit

Directed study additional/extra credit model.

Students can register for up to three additional/extra credits in a course by making special arrangements with the instructor to complete an added community-based project.  The course instructor serves as the advisor for the directed study option.  Such arrangements require departmental approval and formal student registration.

There are many ways to integrate community engagement into an existing course, depending on the learning goals, the size of the class, the academic preparation of the students, and the community partnership or project type. Below are some general tips to consider as you begin:

• One-time group service projects: Some course objectives can be met when the entire class is involved in a one-time service project. Arrangements for service projects can be made prior to the semester and included in the syllabus. This model affords the opportunity for faculty and peer interaction because a common service experience is shared. One-time projects have different learning outcomes than ongoing service activities.
• Option within a course: Many faculty begin community engagement with a pilot project. In this design, students have the option to become involved in the community-based project.  A portion of the normal coursework is substituted by the community-based component.  For example, a traditional research paper or group project can be replaced with an experiential research paper or personal journal that documents learning from the service experience.
• Required within a course: In this case, all students are involved in service as an integrated aspect of the course. This expectation must be clearly stated at the first class meeting, on the syllabus, with a clear rationale provided to students as to why the service component is required. Exceptions can be arranged on an individual basis or students can transfer to another class. If all students are involved in service, it is easier to design coursework (i.e., class discussions, writing assignments, exam questions) that integrates the service experience with course objectives. Class sessions can involve agency personnel and site visits. Faculty report that it is easier to build community partnerships if a consistent number of students are involved each semester.
• Action research projects: This type of class involves students in research within the community. The results of the research are communicated to the agency so that it can be used to address community needs. Action research and participatory action research take a significant amount of time to build relationships of trust in the community and identify common research agendas; however, community research projects can support the ongoing research of faculty. Extending this type of research beyond the confines of a semester may be best for all involved.
• Disciplinary capstone projects: Community engagement is an excellent way to build upon students’ cumulative knowledge in a specific discipline and to demonstrate the integration of that knowledge with real life issues. Upper class students can explore ways their disciplinary expertise and competencies translate into addressing community needs. Other community-based classes within the department can prepare the student for this more extensive community-based class.
• Multiple course projects :  Community engagement projects with one or more partners may span different courses in the same semester or multiple courses over a year or longer.  These projects must be broad enough to meet the learning goals of multiple courses over time, and because of this they may have a cumulative impact on both student learning and community development that is robust.  Such projects may be particularly suited to course clusters or learning communities within or across disciplines, or course sequences, say, within a major, that build student capacity towards advanced learning and community action goals.

Other CFT Guides About Community Engagement Pedagogies

• A Word on Nomenclature
• Best Practices in Community Engaged Teaching
• Community Engaged Teaching Step by Step
• Challenges and Opportunities of Community Engaged Teaching
• Additional Resources

Teaching Guides

• Online Course Development Resources
• Principles & Frameworks
• Pedagogies & Strategies
• Reflecting & Assessing
• Challenges & Opportunities
• Populations & Contexts

Quick Links

• Services for Departments and Schools
• Examples of Online Instructional Modules