Running head: CURRICULUM 1CURRICULUM 2

Curriculum: Case Study ThreeJonathan MerrillLoyola University Chicago

The purpose of this paper is to analyze and reflect upon five service-learning programs at different institutions of higher education. In doing so, themes and trends found in program structure will be articulated and connections to relevant literature will be made. In general, there were no institutional criteria used in selecting programs from different institutions. However, priority was given to programs that clearly articulated their mission statement and values. The following section will both describe the five chosen programs as well as evaluate them using Howard's (1993) Principles of Good Practice for Service-Learning Pedagogy and other academic literature. Program Description and EvaluationThe first service-learning program researched was the University of Michigan's Ginsberg Center for Community Service and Learning. The overarching mission at the Ginsberg Center is to " engage students, faculty, and community members in learning together through community service and civic participation in a diverse democratic society" (Our Mission, 2015). As indicated by the name, service-learning is only one of the many opportunities that is offered by this center. Specifically, this center focuses on assisting faculty in incorporating service-learning into their academic curricula or campus programs. This is accomplished through connecting faculty with community organizations for potential partnerships; facilitating workshops with students on how best to enter and exit communities; conducting peer facilitation trainings for student leaders; syllabus design; and providing opportunities guest lectures on social justice and social identities that may impact how students interact with specific communities (Our Mission, 2015). Howards (1993) principle of intentionality in service-placements and preparation of students is demonstrated by this office. According to Howard, "faculty who are deliberate about establishing criteria for selecting community service placements will find that students are able to extract more relevant learning from their respective service experiences (p. 2). Although the specific criteria used to select sites is not specified, there is a clear conversation that is facilitated by the center to appropriately match faculty with potential sites - suggesting the use of some type of criteria. Additionally, the center offers opportunities for students to become more prepared for their service-learning through workshops and facilitation trainings. Through these trainings, students become prepared to learn from their communities and make meaning of their experiences. The University of Marylands Office of Leadership and Community Service-Learning (LCSL) was the second program researched. The overarching mission of this office is simply to "promote positive social change through transformative learning and community engagement" (Mission and Vision, 2015). Similarly to the Ginsberg Center, this office organizes their efforts into service, leadership, and academic opportunities. Service-learning is housed primarily in the academic opportunities offered. Unlike the Ginsberg Center, which seemed to take a very active role in working with staff to create impactful service-learning experiences, LCSL takes a more distant approach when working with faculty. The LCSLs handbook for service-learning borrows from Howard's (1993) principle of good practice in order to guide faculty in designing quality service-learning courses (Mission and Vision, 2015). Specifically, LCSL focuses on the principles of setting clear learning objectives; academic credit focused on learning instead of service; non-compromised academic rigor; and preparation for uncertainty and variation in student learning outcomes (Howard, 1993). For each of these principles, the website offers an existing course as an example. In addition to this online element, the program offers an opportunity to partner with a select few faculty members to train them in creating effective service-learning components in their courses. The LCSL also creates co-curricular service-learning opportunities for students in the form of Alternative Breaks. Unlike academic service-learning experiences, these alternative breaks are not tied closely to academic courses. Ideally, through reflection, education, and service, Alternative Breaks develops mutually beneficial community partnerships, critical thinking and leadership skills to create a social just world (Mission and Vision, 2015). The reciprocal nature that is stated in this mission is key; it resonates with literature that states that mutual partnership is a foundational principle of service-learning experiences (Furco, 1996; Jacoby, 1996). The third service-learning program examined was the Pennsylvania State Universitys Center for Service Learning and Community-Based Research. As the name entails, this office focuses primarily on service-learning and community-based research. Borrowing from external resources, the center defines service-learning as teaching and learning strategies that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities (About the Center, 2015). Although they articulate the key components of service-learning - including an emphasis on reflection and engaging people for the common good - it is unclear how these components are actually incorporated in their service-learning opportunities. This is reinforced by the purpose statement of the center: "to provide opportunities for students to develop research skills, to apply what they learn in the class to real-world problems, and to effectively communicate their finding" (About the Center, 2015). This statement correlates more closely with Furco's (1996) definition of field education where the focus is on enhancing students' understanding of a field of study, while also providing substantial emphasis on the service being provided (p. 5). While an impactful experience in its own right, it fails to create a reciprocal relationship between both stakeholders. Similarly to the previous two institutions, one of the main functions of this office is assisting faculty in developing service-learning components within their courses. However, in contrast to what has been previously seen, this center tries to match interested faculty with community organizations' needs (About the Center, 2015). This suggests that there is low amount of communication between faculty and the community about their needs - a disconnect that could potentially impact how much students are learning within the experience. The fourth program examined was Indiana Universitys Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning (CITL). The mission of this center is to "promote service-learning as an integral and enriching aspect of a student's education and to foster university engagement with the larger community that furthers the academic and public purposes of the university" (Center for Innovative Teaching, 2015). Overall, this program is structured very similarly to those previously examined. The office, in addition to service learning, offers support for a wide range of areas in teaching and learning. The service-learning program specifically works with academic partners to create more engaging classes for students. This is in comparison to other programs that provided co-curricular opportunities for service learning in addition to academic courses. In contrast to the previous three institutions, the focus of this center does not seem to be on the faculty. Although there are resources provided for faculty to create service-learning opportunities in their curriculum, the focus of this center seems to be increasing student's participation in service-learning experiences. As such, the website for CITL provides more information regarding different service-learning courses that are offered. Overall, due to the lack of description about what goes into creating a service-learning experience, it was difficult to identify how this program correlated with the principles that Howard (1993) emphasized. The final program examined was The George Washington University's Center for Civic Engagement and Public Service. Academic service-learning is one of four services that this center offers. A consistent trend throughout all programs examined thus far, this center also provides services to support student leaders and faculty who are in the process of planning service-learning experiences. This center established seven criteria for academic service-learning courses: "This is a credit-bearing undergraduate, graduate, or professional studies course, the service addresses a community need through direct or indirect service or community-based research; the service follows processes that are mutually agreed upon by partner agencies and the instructor and/or students; there are planned benefits for the community and students; this course integrates service and academic course content that enhance and inform each other; the course actively guides and supports students in critical reflection through assignments and in-class activities that integrate student service and course content; and finally, student course assessment and credit are based upon evidence of students learning, including critical reflection." (About our Center, 2015) In comparison to previous programs, this one excels in articulating their expectations of these service-learning courses while simultaneously incorporating several of Howard's (1993) principles. Based on these criteria, it is clear that there is an emphasis on Howards principles of academic credit for learning, providing educationally-sound learning strategies in the experience, and student preparation for the experience. Furthermore, this is the first program that incorporated critical reflection - or clearly articulated it - into their service-learning experience. Critical reflection contributes to continuous personal growth, improvement in the quality of the service, and continuous academic learning. Overall, this program has put effort into emphasizing both learning and service components of service-learning experiences. SynthesisIn reflection, I found that the most difficult part of looking across these different programs was determining the extent to which they qualified as service-learning. As articulated by Furco (1996), the service-learning paradigm is a spectrum and courses fall in different categories depending on their primary focus. Experiences that focused primarily on the service were labeled volunteerism. On the opposite end of the spectrum, learning focused experiences were categorized as internships. As these two foci reached equity, the spectrum also included community service and field education. Finally, service-learning was when both the service and learning components were equally integrated. However, especially with the information that was provided or lack thereof, it was difficult to classify some of the experiences that programs provided as service-learning. For example, the Ginsberg Center put effort into intentionally working to connect faculty with partnerships where both communities would benefit. This reciprocal nature, as previously mentioned, is one of the foundational principles described by Jacoby (1996). However, Jacoby also described the importance that reflection has on the learning process. The emphasis on reflection was not articulated by the Ginsberg Center. Assuming that there is a lack of reflection occurring - can these experiences really be called service-learning? Furthermore, I struggled with finding programs that fulfilled all of the principles that Howard (1993) elaborated. For example, the LCSL specifically focused on implementing and articulating four of Howard's principles when advising faculty in creating their service-learning experiences. Although I recognize that these principles are not criteria for being considered a service-learning experience, the principles that were not emphasized carry equal weight and failing to incorporate them lessens the overall student experience and learning. Due to these issues, I struggled to qualify each of the experiences that were articulated by these programs as service-learning. The experiences being described by specific programs offered aligned more with community service or field education. In reviewing George Washington University's Center for Civic Engagement and Public service, I think that they did an excellent job of incorporating multiple principles of good practice for service-learning pedagogy, including both reflection and reciprocity, and balancing the learning and service pieces. I think it is important to develop specific criteria for distinguishing between the five activities that Jacoby (1996) mentioned. In his article he begins to break down the difference between community service, field education, and service-learning, but based off this assignment I feel like the line between these three can sometimes be blurred. The danger in this is that staff and faculty are providing these high-impact 'service-learning' experiences which is really just glorified community service. This also raises questions on how do we evaluate these experiences when they are labeled as service-learning, but are actually more aligned with community service or field education.

ReferencesAbout The Center. (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2015, from http://www.bk.psu.edu/Academics/33423.htmAbout Our Center. (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2015, from http://serve.gwu.edu/about-our-centerCenter for Innovative Teaching and Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2015, from http://citl.indiana.edu/programs/serviceLearning/Furco, Andrew. "Service-Learning: A Balanced Approach to Experiential Education." Expanding Boundaries: Service and Learning. Washington DC: Corporation for National Service, 1996. 2-6.Howard, J. (1993).Community service learning in the curriculum. In J. Howard (Ed.), Praxis I: A faculty casebook on community service learning. (pp. 3-12). Ann Arbor: OCSL Press.Jacoby, B. & Associates. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and Practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Mission and Vision. (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2015, from http://thestamp.umd.edu/leadership_community_service-learning/about_lcsl/mission_and_visionOur Mission & Philosophy. (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2015, from http://ginsberg.umich.edu/about/mission