CASE STUDY A 3challenging, applicable, and meaningful work to influence community development (Eyler &Giles, 1999). Cherrington (2011) reported that these projects promoted
situations in communities that required strong problem solving, communication, teamwork and
critical thinking” (p. 9).
Consequently, in addition to gaining content knowledge, students mayhave developed personally, cognitively, and interpersonally (Eyler & Giles, 1999).Through the integration of coursework, applicable situations, interactions with diverseothers, and potential development, students may have a better understanding of their content areaand may be more likely to apply this learning in future situations. Similar to Eyler and Giles(1999), quality service-learning projects promote better understanding and application.
However, without more information about the specific aspects of Cherrington’s (2011) service
-learning programs, one cannot identify whether her program is of high quality.
One aspect lacking in Cherrington’s (2011) description of the servi
ce-learning programswas how students made meaning of the experience. She reported that studios bridge the gapbetween in class work and the community, but she failed to mention whether any reflectionoccurred in the studios. She also reported that students completed a summative PowerPointpresentation to detail the process of participating in the experience, but she gave very little detailof the studen
ts’ reported outcomes. Additionally, as mention
ed above, she suggested thatstudents developed personally, cognitively, and interpersonally, but she omitted how she came tothe conclusion.Furthermore, Cherrington (2011) discussed her course expectation andfeedback/evaluation surveys which were completed by the students. Yet, these surveys were for
the “author’s research” (p. 8), rather than a tool for reflection
. The surveys also focused moreclosely on what students would receive, instead of what they would develop. Consequently, had