Root, Susan; Callahan, Jane; & Billig, Shelley H. (Eds.). (2005). Improving Service-Learning Practice: Research on Models to Enhance Impacts. Reviewed by Beronda Montgomery, Michigan State University

Root, Susan; Callahan, Jane; & Billig, Shelley H. (Eds.). (2005). Improving Service-Learning Practice: Research on Models to Enhance Impacts. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Pp. xii + 234 $69.95 (Hardcover)     ISBN 1-59311-458-3 Reviewed by Beronda Montgomery Michigan State University September 8, 2006 One of the most constructive changes I’ve made in my teaching over the past five years has been the adoption and implementation of service-learning activities in my courses. Service learning is “a form of experiential education in which students engage in activities that address human and community needs together with structured opportunities intentionally designed to promote student learning and development” (Jacoby, 1996, p. 5). In my own science courses, the use of service learning has lead to improved student learning, motivation and civic engagement (Montgomery 2003, 2004). This personal success with service-learning led to my interest and involvement in service-learning as a pedagogy a number of years ago. One of the primary venues for emerging work on service-learning education and related pedagogical research is the Annual International K-H Service-Learning Research Conference. Based on research presentations at the 4th Annual International K-H Service-Learning Research Conference, “Improving Service-Learning Practice: Research on Models to Enhance Impacts (Advances in Service-Learning)” is so much more than a conference summary. This informative research-based text presents the latest results on service-learning research and practice and contains many discussions on the impact of service-learning on students, teachers and the communities served. The fact that the book addresses the issue of service-learning education from such a broad range of perspectives sets this text apart from many other recently published editions such as “The Measure of Service Learning: Research Scales to Assess Student Experiences” (Bringle, Phillips and Hudson, 2004) that focus primarily on students participating in service-learning courses. “Improving Service-Learning Practice” covers three major areas including teacher education issues, implementation, and methodological models. Each of the areas addresses specific issues in service-learning research and implementation. Service learning and teacher education In the first chapter of the text entitled “The National Service-Learning and Teacher Education Partnership: A Research Retrospective”, Susan Root explores the 6-year-old National Service-Learning and Teacher Education Partnership (NSLTEP) project. This project was designed to investigate the incorporation of service-learning in teacher education. The project evolved to include examining the consequences of service-learning in teacher education. These evaluative studies uncovered numerous benefits of the inclusion of service-learning endeavors in teacher training. These benefits include the connection of service-learning participants to the community, increased sensitivity to diversity and improved social and personal development of participants (p. 7). The challenges associated with the introduction of service learning in teacher training were similar to those previously reported for other service-learning initiatives, i.e. institutional barriers and faculty implementation barriers (Jordan, Gunsolus, Becker and White, 2002). The wide-ranging work of NSLTEP developed into an International Center for Service-Learning in Teacher Education (ICSLTE) when funding for NSLTEP ceased. ICSLTE continues to work on improving the use and efficacy of service-learning in teacher preparation and training. In “The Institutionalization of Service-Learning in Preservice Teacher Education”, authors Jeffrey Anderson and Jane Callahan explore the institutionalization of five teacher education programs. As institutionalization is one of the key bottlenecks in the utilization of innovating pedagogies such as service learning, assessing successful methods for institutionalizing service-learning-based teacher education programs is an important objective. Anderson and Callahan utilized a broad, systematic approach to assessing institutionalization through the use of a published rubric for analyzing service-learning institutionalization. The reported findings specify that one of the largest indicators of success in institutionalizing service-learning is having a good fit between institutional mission and service-learning outcomes. Those institutions whose missions could clearly be achieved through the utilization of service-learning were successful at having faculty members involved in service-learning, as well as having service-learning ideology become a part of the institutional fabric. What is crystal clear is that service-learning most often becomes institutionalized by having a local cheerleader or champion who is actively involved in service-learning and able to relay in a logical manner the usefulness of the service learning for achieving institution-wide goals. What is clear from this extended discussion on institutionalization is that service-learning in still in its infancy in terms of being a widely accepted pedagogy. While many other teaching methods have taken up residence in institutions from coast to coast, service-learning as a pedagogy is still gaining acceptance and firm footing. Jean Gonsier-Gerdin and Joanna Royce-Davis present a case study that illuminates the use of service learning for student teacher development in the chapter “Developing Advocates and Leaders Through Service-Learning in Preservice and Inservice Special Education Programs”. This chapter gets at the usefulness of service learning for improving student social and professional development in innovative ways. While focusing on the development of advocates in special education, the overarching themes are far-reaching and can be applied more generally to student development across disciplines. Discreet outcomes of service-learning reported in this chapter included increased student awareness of social justice issues, leadership skills and confidence in these skills, commitment to advocacy and professional development. The use of service-learning to cultivate discipline-appropriate competencies, skills and knowledge are possible in many disciplines. Service-learning implementation In the chapter “College Students’ Preferred Approaches to Community Service: Charity and Social Change Paradigms”, Barbara Moely and Devi Miron explore student preference in community service work. They report that students are predisposed to charity-type service, in which students give to the community with no expectations of receiving anything in return. The implications of this student predisposition to the implementation of service-learning, which is fully reciprocal service, is discussed. The primary suggestion is to draw on charity-based student interest as a starting point for involvement in service and to then build on this interest to form a deeper concern in students for both impacting change through offered assistance, as well as active involvement in which the service rendered changes the participant as well as the recipient. In “The Job Characteristics Model and Placement Quality” Marcy H. Schnitzer explores the link between community service placement and student motivation and commitment. In earlier work, Eyler and Giles (1999) reported that meaningful placements in which students make substantial contributions rather than simply becoming involved in “busy” work results in more positive service experiences. Schnitzer systematically explores the link between quality of service placement and student outcomes by applying the Job Characteristics Model. She purports that the model measures the motivational theory of work and provides evidence that placement quality is closely linked to student motivation and job commitment. These types of findings provide a defined framework for assessing service-learning experiences and redeveloping activities to maximize student outcomes. “The Relationship between the Quality Indicators of Service-Learning and Student Outcomes: Testing Professional Wisdom” is a chapter in which Shelly Billing, Susan Root and Dan Jesse present findings from a study on service-learning and civic engagement amongst high school students. Using data from a large study that included over 1,000 students, these authors report that service-learning involvement is linked with academic enjoyment and civic engagement in regards to students’ intention to vote. Notably, no specific discipline fared better than others in terms of the boost to academic enjoyment due to involvement in service-learning activities. Short-term experiences were found to impart high academic impacts, while longer semester projects had greater influence on civic outcomes. Civic outcomes, in turn, were affected by quality of the service-learning placement. These findings have clear implications on the planning of service-learning activities depending on the goal of improving academic and/or civic productivity of students. Methodological models for service-learning research This section focuses on the need for more regular and systematic evaluation of service-learning interventions using stringent theoretical and conceptual methods. Much of the documented literature on service-learning is correlative, qualitative work. The authors of the chapters contained within this section make the valid argument that more rigorous, systematic documentation of service-learning outcomes is needed to strengthen the reach, implementation and impact of the field. In “Reciprocal Validity: Description and Outcomes of a Hybrid Approach of Triangulated Qualitative Analysis in the Research of Civic Engagement”, authors Marshall Welch, Peter Miller and Kirsten Davies provide a methodological intervention for studying the effect of service-learning on civic engagement in studies. They propose the hybrid approach of reciprocal validity, which depends upon using multiple methods of data collection to assess experiences. A salient component of this approach is the inclusion of participant feedback to construct critical descriptions of the experience of participants. Summarily, “reciprocal validity means that researchers are seeking the expertise and viewpoint of practitioners and/or clients to validate their theoretical work” (p. 127). The authors propose that the value of including practitioners, clients and service-learning participants in assessments is “to be more inclusive as the outcomes of the reciprocal validity present a more complete and comprehensive set of skills than any one constituency alone could articulate” (p. 136). Keith R. Aronson et al. present an alternative method for assessment of service-learning projects in the chapter “Using Randomized Control Field Trials in Service-Learning Research.” The authors propose that expanded use of the randomized control field trial (RCFT) technique in the field will provide good measures of both internal and external validity. As described herein in randomized control trials “the research attempts to control or eliminate contaminating conditions so that one can strongly infer that the independent variable caused difference between experimental and control groups on the dependent variable(s)” (pp. 144-145). RCFT may be difficult to implement in many service-learning courses for a number of reasons including those cited by the authors, i.e. service-learning participation is often self-selected by students rather than randomized and environmental controls may be impossible to establish in classroom or community service environments. However, where feasible, the use of methods such as RCFT may provide novel perspectives not accessed by employing more commonly used evaluative interventions. In “Using Principles of Research to Discover Multiple Levels of Connection and Engagement: A Civic Engagement Audit”, authors Robert Shumer and Susan Spring Shumer examine research methods for examining connections between multiple stakeholders in service-learning education including higher education institutions, faculty, students and the community served. The primary method described is a civic engagement audit. The authors assert that “measuring civic engagement is the act of determining how a university community connects to its citizen, cities, and civic affairs” (p. 169). Though the chapter focuses on a case study investigation at a single university, implications of the survey-based research are broad. The study, which focused on student responses, university staff and faculty engagement, and institution-wide assessment, demonstrates the breadth of involvement in civic engagement at the university level. Thorough assessment at all of these levels is needed to gain an accurate depiction of civic engagement and its entrenchment at an institution. It must be noted that the faculty and staff at the university studied are more involved in community affairs (75%) according to self reports than the general public (44%), thus the findings of this study may not be directly applicable to all institutions engaged in service learning. Summarily, this chapter brings attention to the need to document the impact(s) of service learning and civic engagement at multiple levels in the institutions in which they are actively used. “In Their Own Voices: A Mixed Methods Approach to Studying Outcomes of Intercultural Service-Learning with College Students” is a chapter by Peggy Fitch that focuses on the assessment of the impact of the duration of service-learning experiences and design of intercultural service-learning experiences “to promote intercultural development and improve racial understanding” (p. 188). Fitch reports on three mixed-methods studies conducted on small student groups. Assessment measures included the frequently used techniques of administering questionnaires and conducting interviews with students. Notably, short-term service-learning experiences were found to be as effective as semester-long experiencing for improving student intercultural development. Fitch also stresses “the need for optimal training before and during intercultural contact” to impart the greatest impact on student participants (p. 209). A significant number of challenges are presented in this text in regards to ways to improve service-learning research. Many of these challenges have only been identified through thorough research on the impact(s) of service-learning participation. Additional research will be needed to identify the most effective tools for addressing the challenges faced. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches are adding immensely to our understanding of the impact of service-learning, the most effective service-learning interventions and challenges still to be addressed. The impact of service-learning research has been greatly assisted by the formation and convening of the annual service-learning conference. Not only has the conference provided a forum for in-depth research discussion and exchanges, it has resulted in the compilation of useful texts such as this one, which provide additional insight and knowledge to those interested and/or actively participating in the field. The book concludes with a section on future directions that contains a detailed plan for initiating a formal service-learning research association by Shelley Billig. Billig reiterates the importance of having a forum such as the conference during which all of the research contained in this book was originally presented. Billing asserts that the conference originated from very salient objectives – i.e. “the need to raise the credibility of the field, provide a place where people could learn about and comment on each other’s research, initiate another peer-reviewed forum for publication, and promote research agendas that nurtured more and better research in service-learning” (p. 216). These goals are still very much relevant today, in a time when service-learning instruction is becoming more widespread, but is still in its infancy in many ways. Billig argues that the formation of a formal, nonprofit professional association that is membership based is a logical next step for formally reinforcing service-learning as a valid teaching and learning tool in current academic circles. She reasons that the society will serve to establish commonly accepted standard practices, provide expert educational advice and professional development, and produce standard service-learning publications among other benefits. Books like “Improving Service-Learning Practice: Research on Models to Enhance Impacts” provide very powerful insight into this pedagogy and provide salient evidence of the impact this pedagogy can have while outlining future needs and strategies for addressing those needs that will continue to champion the importance of this efficacious teaching intervention. References Bringle, R. G., Phillips, M. A., & Hudson, M. (2004). The measure of service learning: Research scales to assess student experiences. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-learning in today’s higher education. In Barbara Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. (pp. 3-25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Jordan, N., Gunsolus, J., Becker, R., & White, S. (2002). Public scholarship—linking weed science with public work. Weed Science, 50(5), 547-554. Montgomery, B. L. (2003). Teaching the principles of biotechnology transfer: A service-learning approach. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 6(1), 13-15. Montgomery, B.L. (2004). Teaching the Nature of Biotechnology Using Service-Learning Instruction. Bioscience Education Electronic Journal, http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol4/beej-4-4.htm. About the Reviewer Dr. Beronda Montgomery teaches in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Michigan State University. Dr. Montgomery uses service-learning in her courses and studies the impact of service-learning pedagogy on student learning and civic engagement in the life sciences. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.