Emi Ruff-Wilkinson Sociology Internship 26 August 2011 Bridging the Gap between Community Service and Service Learning:

A Case Study I: Introduction Over the past 20 years, service learning has become an increasingly popular educational trend (Eyler 2002:517). Courses are now broadly available at the college level, and more students are taking advantage of them (Eyler 2002:518). However, the research on service learning and its best implementation has not been as thorough or meticulous as necessary, leaving educators with an insufficient framework (Ash and Clayton 2004, Eyler 2002, Giles and Eyler 1994). The consequence, then, is that service learning may run the risk of becoming a buzzword rather than an accepted pedagogy. Perhaps the biggest question that remains is how to make service into a learning experience without sacrificing the quality of the service or the learning (Ash and Clayton 2004, Eyler 2002). For my summer internship, I worked at Summer in the City (SITC), a community service organization in Detroit. This summeer, SITC added a new component, Reflection and Dialogue (R&D), with the purpose of making SITC a service learning experience, rather than just volunteering. However, R&D ended up unintentionally demonstrating how difficult it is to bridge the gap between service and service learning. It showed how difficult reflection can be to implement, and how some service experiences, while valuable in other ways, may just not be conducive to service learning. This paper examines these problems, both in a theoretical context and the specific case of SITC.

Ruff-Wilkinson 2 II: The Theoretical Roots of Community Service Learning Although service-learning is a relatively new educational trend, its roots are in John Deweys ideas on experiential education (Giles and Eyler 1994, Bringle and Hatcher 1999). Experiential learning is focused on making theory and abstract concepts into something tangible and exciting for students by basing education in experiences from which theory can be understood (Bringle and Hatcher 1999:112). In addition to providing a better education on a theoretical level, Dewey also believed that the inquiry that came from experiences was the means in which students could become informed and engaged citizens in their communities (Giles and Eyler 1994:81). Combining these two aspects of Deweys work, we find the roots of modern service learning (Giles and Eyler 1994:82). The model of experiential education is explained through Deweys Five Phases or Aspects of Reflective Thought. An experience provides a suggestion, or a situation where the student must stop and think about what is happening here. The student then intellectualizes the problem, defining and questioning it. She then develops a hypothesis, building upon previous knowledge and to respond to the experience. She then reasons, further developing her hypothesis with new information and considering new links and pathways. She then tests the hypothesis in action, experimenting and observing the solution to her problem. (Giles and Eyler 1994:80). Experiential education also draws important parallels to the sociological theory of Symbolic Interactionism1. Very briefly, Symbolic Interactionism, as stated by Blumer

This paper works with Symbolic Interactionism as Blumer represented it. While there is a larger discussion of whether Blumers nominalist pragmatism (which he shared with Dewey) was in line with Meads original, more realist, thinking on social behaviorism, Symbolic Interactionism has largely grown as a theory based on Blumers work. (For a further discussion of this, see Lewis 1976.)

Ruff-Wilkinson 3 (1969) holds that objects (which can include ideas) do not have meaning for people until people assign meaning to them. Meaning can only be discovered and defined through interacting with the object, which is an inherently social process (366). Experiential education is based on the idea that ideas are not best learned in a lecture hall, but instead through the grappling that comes from experiencing the idea in action. Meads four steps of the act (which, as a term, also encompasses the process of thought) are also quite similar to Deweys Five Phases or Aspects; they both follow the steps of suggestion by stimulation, perceiving and responding to the situation through thought, and then action to respond to the initial problem (Ritzer 2008:220-2). Service learning is a very specific application of the experiential education model, where both the service and the lessons are tailored to an educational objective (Bringle and Hatcher 1999:111). A classic service-learning experience is where students in a class on poverty volunteer at a homeless shelter; the students learn about the causes and effects of poverty through interactions with actual people, gaining deeper knowledge of the issues as well as compassion for others than can make them more motivated to solve the problem of poverty (Yates and Youniss 1998:501). The important question for service learning is how to bridge that gap between service and the educational objectives. Without any guidance, students may come away from a service learning experience with the wrong ideas about a topic, and their initial assumptions may go unchallenged (Ash and Clayton 2004:139). Rigorous guided reflection, then, is an important part of the process.

Ruff-Wilkinson 4 III: The Role of Reflection Reflection, according to Bringle and Hatcher (1999), is the intentional consideration of an experience in light of particular learning objectives (112). It follows Deweys thoughts on what a teacher should do in experiential learning, which is to provide the materials and conditions by which organic curiosity will be directed into investigations that have an aim and produce results in the way of increase of knowledge (qtd in Giles and Eyler 1994:79). There is no one accepted model of how to do reflection (Bringle and Hatcher 1999:113). Ash and Clayton (2004) identify a basic model in which students describe their experience objectively, analyze it in relation to their educational objectives and articulate what they have learned (140). Again, there are clear parallels to Deweys and Meads respective models of reflective thought and the act. Students must experience something that creates a problem or triggers a need for response; then think through the situation in relation to their knowledge; and then attempt to put their solution into action. Bringle and Hatcher (1999) identify five criteria on which to judge reflective activity: (1) it must provide a clear link between the service and the learning objectives; (2) it must be structured in terms of description and expectations for the criteria; (3) it must occur consistently so that students can deepen their ability to reflect; (4) it must involve feedback from the instructor so that students can assess their abilities to critically analyze their experience; and (5) it must allow students to explore and alter their values (114). The actual research on reflection is weaker than perhaps it should be, but we do know that reflection, when it works, is necessary for service learning (Eyler 2002:519).

Ruff-Wilkinson 5 Reflection can have benefits beyond the basic linking of service with learning. When done properly, Ash and Clayton (2004) identified that students can gain increased ability to think critically, solve problems and challenge their own beliefs in subjects beyond the ones being studied in the service experience (140). Again, these are the benefits that extend to reflective thinking in all experiential education (Giles and Eyler 1994:80), not just service learning.

IV: Summer in the Citys Reflection and Dialogue This summer, SITC decided to incorporate a service learning component into the program through Reflection and Dialogue, or R&D. The initial purpose was for SITC, in its tenth summer, to identify the larger purpose of our service, and to use that purpose to make the crew members more engaged leaders. R&D was led by a woman named Miriam, who had extensive experience with intergroup dialogue. although she had never worked for SITC for any considerable period of time. She created a curriculum based on social justice that would examine our experiences in terms of our own identity and how we relate to the communities in which we work. However well-intentioned this curriculum may have been, it was not an effective use of reflection for the entire crew, and it had the unintended consequence of driving a wedge between those who supported it and those who found it useless. There were serious problems with how R&D was structured, but there were also larger problems at play. Reflection and service learning are more than catchphrases and buzzwords that can be thrown into any service experience. As shown above, service learning is type of education with a legitimate theoretical and pedagogical background

Ruff-Wilkinson 6 and a growing body of research for how to best utilize it. Trying to bridge the gap between service and service learning requires that both the service and the learning be structured to play off each other; simply throwing learning on top of any service will not automatically create an enlightening experience. In the next section, I will demonstrate how SITCs methods of reflection did not create a service learning experience, how the service it does may not always be conducive to service learning, and as how the program may be able to glean a larger meaning from its work through different methods.

V: The Problems of Making SITC into Service Learning a. Structural Problems The first problem of SITCs R&D was to assume that the entire crew had the same experience to reflect upon. If the role of reflection in service learning is to take an experience and guide ones thinking of it, then the experiences of a group in discussion must be at least somewhat similar. The crew may all be doing Summer in the City, but we come away from each day with wildly different experiences. Both in the types of labor used and the outcome of the project, there is little common ground between us. This is not an inherent problem in the structure of SITC, but instead with R&D. SITC benefits from having such a diverse selection of projects, because we can attract more volunteers than if we specialized in one type. But R&D needs to reflect that diversity. The second problem was the structure of reflection. The group was too large, sometimes between 30 and 40, so people had to wait for a long time to speak, and many people took opportunity of the size to not talk at all. It can be hard for meaningful conversations to come from groups that large because there isnt an easy way to get a

Ruff-Wilkinson 7 back and forth dialogue going between participants when so many others are waiting their turn to speak. Another problem is the content of the reflection. After doing whatever exercise Miriam had selected for the day, we would be asked to comment on it. However, whenever someone ventured an observation, Miriams follow-up would more often than not be some variation on how do you feel about that? I was taken aback by this structure. Reflection needs to be rigorous, paying close attention to the experience and the educational objectives and guiding a students thoughts on both (Ash and Clayton 2004, Eyler 2002). Asking about a students feelings doesnt do much in terms of guidance. Furthermore, the issue of trust was largely ignored. Miriam structured R&D so that we often had to answer very personal questions about our past, identity and experiences. While these types of experiences are important to talk about in effective reflection, it was unwise to ask the crew to come forward in a large group where we were not particularly familiar with each other. While some people may be willing to talk about their personal lives in this kind of setting, others (myself included) are not. The best R&D that I experienced at SITC wasnt led by Miriam, but was smallgroup discussions led by other crew members. Being in a smaller group allowed everyone to open up about their experiences, and even though I didnt know everyone in my group, we all had the opportunity to talk so we got to know each other by the end of the session. The conversation also didnt focus on personal topics, but instead on how our experiences fit into the larger issues at play in Detroits redevelopment. b. Using Social Justice as the Objective

Ruff-Wilkinson 8 Part of service learning and reflection involves having a clear learning objective; without one, the experience can be haphazard and weak (Ash and Clayton 2004:139). The learning objective for SITCs reflection was social justice. The first problem with this objective is that it was poorly-defined. Social justice is an abstract term that, in line with Symbolic Interactionist thinking, has no inherent meaning; its meaning is instead created through interaction with the concept and others (Blumer 1969:312). The R&D curriculum seemed to start with the assumption that we not only had a definition of social justice, but that we all had the same one. The second problem with the objective is that it did not organically rise from our experience. In six years with SITC, Ive never really considered what I do as social justice. Instead, I see it as more of an experience of community and civic engagement, and the questions Ive come away with are more rooted in the problems of Detroit and what can be done to fix them. Not that social justice has been an irrelevant question, but it has been more of an element in the larger issues of community development. The consequence is that R&D felt as though it wanted the reflection to shape the experience, rather than the experience shaping the reflection. This is simply not an effective way to utilize service learning. There may also be larger consequences. Ash and Clayton (2004) note that reflection that doesnt take students experiences and challenge them in meaningful ways may end up creating students who are less likely to question their experience at all, and instead become content with the status quo (139). Or, to put it in Deweys terms, the experience can be mis-educative (qtd. in Giles and Eyler 1994:79). c. The Applicability of our Service to Learning

Ruff-Wilkinson 9 As Bringle and Hatcher (1999) note, not every type of service experience is necessarily conducive to service learning. These types of service may have other benefits, but the ability to draw educational objectives from them may not be one (111). This divide became particularly apparent when SITC tried to fuse all three projects into one cohesive service learning experience. The biggest divide was between youth and paint. For youth enrichment, the issues of social justice were easy to incorporate into their experience. They were constantly wrestling with the problems of inequality in Detroits education system. Many youth enrichment crew members I spoke to felt that R&D was worthwhile and meaningful for them. Paint, however, is not really an exercise in social justice. There may be some vague connections; for instance, there are benefits to growing up in a neighborhood thats aesthetically pleasing rather than run-down and covered in graffiti. But overall, paint is more about community development, and the conversations we had amongst ourselves as paint crew about what we were doing for the community were far more meaningful than any conversation we had in R&D. There is a larger issue at play in this divide, however. About halfway through the summer, paint crew got into an argument with Ben, one of the founders of SITC, about our work and what we were doing. At the end of it, we came away with the understanding that Ben was focused on the process of volunteering, while we were focused on the product that we created, or the actual murals. This isnt to say that we didnt care about the volunteers experiencewe talked with them, made sure they knew where we were painting and why we were doing itbut at the end of the day, the most

Ruff-Wilkinson 10 important part was leaving with a mural that was beautiful and added something to the neighborhood. Consequentially, paint may just not be the kind of volunteering experience that can easily be translated into service learning. This is not to say that what we were doing is any less valuable; the act of creating something tangible and beneficial can leave volunteers with a sense of pride and fulfillment, and the overall benefit for the community should not be overlooked. However, it is not the sort of experience that is focused on learning objectives and education.

VI: Conclusion To say that SITC is not necessarily an experience conducive to service learning is not to say that it has no higher value. As Youniss and McLellan (1997) identified, community service can play a significant role in establishing ones civic identity, or their sense of social agency, responsibility for society, and political-moral awareness (620). From my own experience, I know that volunteering with SITC for six summers has made me much more engaged in Detroit, and that without SITC, I would probably not be as concerned for the citys future. Rather than focusing on a curriculum-based reflection, there may be potential for another type of R&D in SITC. If R&D was more focused on taking our experiences and fitting them into the larger, albeit less specific, framework of Detroits reinvention, then it might prove to be more useful to the crew members. It would, of course, not be a true reflection in the service learning sense of the word, but instead an opportunity for the crew to talk about what we do and why we do it.

Ruff-Wilkinson 11 VII: Works Cited Ash, Sarah L. and Patti H. Clayton. 2004. The Articulated Learning: An Approach to Guided Learning and Assessment. Innovative Higher Education. 29(2):137-154 Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism. Pp. 304-321 Bringle, Robert and Julie Hatcher. 1999. Reflection in Service Learning: Making Meaning of an Experience. Introduction to Service-Learning Toolkit: 111-117 Giles, Dwight E. and Janet Eyler. 1994. The Theoretical Roots of Service-Learning in John Dewey: Toward a Theory of Service-Learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 1(1):77-85 Lewis, David J. 1976. The Classic American Pragmatists as Forerunners to Symbolic Interactionism. The Sociological Quarterly 17(3):347-359. Ritzer, George. 2008. Symbolic Interactionism. Pp. 213-253 in Modern Sociological Theory 7th ed. New York, NY:McGraw Hill. Yates, Miranda and James Youniss. 1998. Community Service and Political Identity Development in Adolescence. Journal of Social Issues 54(3):495-512 Youniss, James, Jeffrey A. McLellan, Miranda Yates. 1997. What We Know About Engendering Civic Identity. American Behavioral Scientist 40(5):620-631