Running head: CASE STUDY #2

Case Study #2:

Service-Learning Programs in Higher Education
Candice Germany
Loyola University Chicago

CASE STUDY #2

Service-Learning has been perceived to have many different meanings. Even the way
Service-Learning is written down can have different meanings. If referred to as Service-learning,
it means the service aspect of the program is more important and the opposite if written viceversa. Students in higher education are being told that these programs they are entering are
Service-Learning programs, but this may not always be the case. This reflection examines five
different university Service-Learning programs. These five universities are Indiana University
Bloomington, Duke University, Fayetteville State University, Northwestern University, and
Kalamazoo College. All of these universities have programs labelled Service-Learning programs,
but they are not necessarily meeting the criteria of that designation.
The first thing that can be distinguished between the different websites for learning is
how they refer to their programs. Furco (1996) describes several different ways to define service
learning typology. There are two very important designs that Furco mentions. The first is service
learning, which is when service and learning goals are completely separate, and ServiceLearning, which is when both areas hold even weight. When defining their programs and writing
descriptions, most institutions do not differentiate between the two or use any of the typology.
The institutions are not defining what they find important in their Service-Learning by using
typology. For example, Fayetteville State Universitys website refers to the definition of Service
Learning but then through the rest of the description refers to Service learning and service
learning. There is serious inconstancies. Staff benchmarking their process or students looking at
the website would not know which one was more important to the institution.
There were several universities who did use the typology that Furco (1996) mentioned.
The typical use of the term was Service-Learning on these websites, such as Indiana University
Bloomington, Duke University, and Northwestern University. This is the best way to describe the

CASE STUDY #2

programs, by far. The programs should have a balance between the service, whatever that may
be, and the learning that happened because of the experience. These two have to coexist together
to make a Service-Learning program worth a students time.
Only one program had an introduction class to participate in the Service-Learning
program. Northwestern University required their students to take an Introduction to Career
Development course, which is an interesting choice of topic to make a requirement. Since the
career center handles most of the Service-Learning needs at this institution, it almost makes
sense to have this as a required course. I do not believe the program was created the same way
some other programs are. This program seems to be created to give the student an opportunity to
further their career. The website even says that the Service-Learning program must be directly
related to the students academic major or career goals. This is not Service Learning in the sense
that it supposed to be service learning. This program is not meeting any of the principals set forth
by Howard (2001). It does not prepare students for learning from a community or learning how
to reflect on those processes. There is no community that is considered to be a part of the
program. This is strictly an internship process, which is not considered Service-Learning.
Internship processes, such as Northwestern Universitys Service-Learning program, are
considered high-impact learning or the broader experiential learning, rather than service learning.
Internships, first year seminars, senior capstones, and learning communities are all high impact,
experiential courses. They are not service learning, because they are not integrating students with
the surrounding community (Furco, 1996). Northwestern University needs to make this known
on their website. To have this labelled as a Service-Learning process is a disservice to its
students.

CASE STUDY #2

These programs not at all bad programs though. They are just mislabeled programs. High
impact learning is extremely beneficial to all students in higher education (Kuh, 2008). ServiceLearning is part of high impact, experiential learning. This is why area that oversee these
programs may get them confused. These mislabeled experiences have started to be intertwined
together and it is hard to pick out, if there is no education on the subject, exactly what is
considered high impact learning and what is considered the sub-category of high impact learning.
These differentiations are important. It is not considered service learning if there is no service to
the community and that needs to be a hard line that needs to be drawn with these programs.
The description of the programs are very telling of what the university think the students
are supposed to get out of the service learning program, which may differ from the reflection
based need of the program. Fayetteville State Universitys description of their program sounds
like it had come straight from Furco (1996) article. They placed all the right words in there to
explain that this program will connect with what the students are trying to learn but it will be
focused on building a relationship with the community. This should be considered an excellent
description of what this institution is providing for its students. On the other hand, Kalamazoo
College website states that the students are doing projects outside of courses, which may seem
like a good thing, but, in reality, Service-Learning courses are meant to provide learning for
course credit. If the students are not doing the work through a credit bearing course, they will not
be able to do the reflective part of a service learning program (Furco, 1996). This program is
Service-learning, not Service-Learning. The institution relies heavily on service and doing
something in the community rather than taking away learning outcomes from an experience. If
they added a reflection component to their program, it could be considered a decent program.

CASE STUDY #2

Only two of the Service-Learning programs mentioned any learning outcomes of the
general program. Kalamazoo College is one of the only higher education Service-Learning
program that lists set learning outcomes for the students that are involved in the program.
Learning outcomes provide a structure to observe learning in a program (Fink, 2013). Learning
outcomes are deeply important. They are valued to the point where they are developed for a
single class. A program that is developed to enhance a learning process and a set program should
have learning outcomes. It will also help the staff evaluate how their Service-Learning program
is enhancing students learning and the areas that may need work.
There are some very noticeable problems with Service-Learning programs that are in
existence. Many of these programs are mislabeled. They do not tell the reader what is most
important in a service learning program. Many programs are not actual Service-Learning
programs. They are either missing the service or credit bearing class in their structure. Without
these two components, it is not a service learning program. Universities need to set a precedence
where they are aligning their programs with current research. If they are not doing this, they are
just providing an injustice to their students. Service-Learning programs cannot be confused with
other high-impact, experiential programs that exist. These names and programs need to be
streamlined into one set area, otherwise, students are not learning. Learning from experiences is
the most important part of college and badly formed Service-Learning programs are only doing a
disservice to an institutions community.

CASE STUDY #2

6
References

Duke University. Service-Learning. http://servicelearning.duke.edu.

Fayetteville State University. Service Learning.
http://www.uncfsu.edu/civic-engagement/service-learning.
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to
designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Furco, A. (1996). Service-learning: a balanced approach to experiential education. In Taylor, B.
and Corporation for National Service (Eds.), Expanding Boundaries: Serving and
Learning (pp. 2-6). Washington, DC: Corporation for National Service.
Howard, J. (2001). Principles of good practice for service-learning pedagogy. Michigan Journal
of Community Service-Learning, Summer 2001, 16-19.
Indiana University-Bloomington. Service-Learning Program.
http://citl.indiana.edu/programs/serviceLearning.
Kalamazoo College. Civic Engagement & Service-Learning.
http://www.kzoo.edu/servicelearning/
Kuh, G. D. (2008). Excerpt from high-impact educational practices: What they are, who has
access to them, and why they matter. Assoc. of Am. Colleges and Univ., Washington,
DC.
Northwestern University. Service Learning. https://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/career.