服務式學習研究dissertation-Service Learning

服務式學習
 

一個部門的教師怎樣在一個學期讓學生社區服務達到一萬兩千個小時？下面是實質上的分析關于教師在一個部門的對話，最近要求全體學生都參與進來的服務式學習。校園是一個有著多民族學生的城市綜合大學。大約有十五位教師接受了關于這項調查的采訪，雖然大多數被采訪的老師已經把服務式學習包含在了他們的教學課程里，但與那些抵制或者拒絕把服務式學習融合進課程的教師們進行采訪溝通也能更好地明白各種教師對于服務式學習的態度。
 

背景
 

接著學校校園贊助的參與，服務式學習對各專業的要求是建立在研究之上的并于2002年秋季加以施行。所有的教師都被鼓勵在他們的課程上加以服務式學習。在2012年一月一項服務式學習的培訓是一個部門的核心，為了發展與社區代理更親近的關系,
 

這個部門在接下來的秋季學期舉行了一個午餐伙伴關系研究。
 

Service Learning

 

How did a departmental faculty generated 12,000 hours of student community service in one semester? The following is a qualitative analysis of conversations with faculty members in a department that recently instituted a service learning requirement for all student majors. The campus is a large urban comprehensive university with a multi-ethnic student body. Approximately fifteen faculty members were interviewed for this study. While most of those interviewed included service learning components in their courses, interviews with faculty members who resisted or refused to incorporate service learning were conducted as well in order to understand varying faculty attitudes towards service learning. 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Following participation in an Engaged Department Institute sponsored by Campus Compact, a service-learning requirement was instituted for all majors in the department studied beginning Fall 2002. All faculty were encouraged to incorporate service-learning in their courses. A training session on service-learning was the centerpiece of a departmental retreat in January 2002. In order to develop closer relationships with community agencies, the department hosted a faculty-partnership luncheon the following fall semester. Potential community partners were invited to meet with faculty in an effort to forge new relationships with the University. In order to institutionalize service-learning, all recruitment advertisements specifically mention service-learning and all new hires are expected to include service-learning components in their courses. As a consequence of these efforts, this department has gone from teaching only a few courses with service-learning components to offering twenty five different classes (thirteen courses) by Fall 2002.#p#分頁標題#e#

 

A number of facilitators helped this department achieve these accomplishments. Mini-grants available on campus funded the faculty-partnership luncheon. In addition, four faculty members were awarded mini-grants to develop service-learning components in their courses. Departmental leadership has been a very strong advocate for service-learning. Recognition from discipline enhanced the image of this department on campus when the discipline newsletter highlighted the advances in service-learning in the department. The Office of Community Service-learning was helpful in training and assisting faculty interested in developing service-learning components in their courses. The campus generally recognizes service-learning and provides awards for those involved in service-learning. Two such campus awards have been given to members of the department studied. 
 

Challenges have been encountered while implementing this requirement. For example, many faculty members do not live in the area and have no knowledge of the local community and its resources and thus have had difficulty developing community partnerships. The faculty-partnership luncheon was intended as an effort to overcome this barrier and make it easier for faculty to develop relationships with community members and find a way to include service-learning in their courses. Unfortunately, many faculty members continue to see service-learning as extra work for them. 

 

Assessment of the departmental service-learning requirement is needed following more than a year of implementation. The impact of this requirement on students, faculty, classes and the department in general is not fully understood. The purpose of this research is to gain an understanding of faculty members’ perspectives, motivations, concerns and attitudes on issues related to their experiences teaching a service-learning course. 

 

調查方法——RESEARCH METHODS

 

In order to assess the community service-learning offerings as well as the requirement instituted in the CSUF Sociology Department, faculty members who have incorporated community service in their courses were interviewed. In addition, two faculty who refused to include service components in their course offerings were interviewed, bringing the total to 13 interviewees. The project was reviewed and approved by the campus Institutional Review Board; all participants seigned an informed consent form. 

The Faculty Interview Protocol (Gelmon, 2001) was the basis of this interview. The following questions from this protocol were:

 

1. Describe the conditions and needs of the community where the service-learning 

experience took place.
 

2. Describe any new information you have learned about your community in the 

process of offering your community-based learning course.#p#分頁標題#e#
 

3. After teaching your community-based learning course how, how would you describe 

your own learning experience?
 

4. As you taught your community-based learning course, what were your concerns? 

How did you address them?
 

5. Describe the preparation and coordination that this community-based learning 

course required.
 

6. Was this a successful teaching and learning experience? How did you know?
 

7. Were the student learning outcomes different in this course from those in 

courses without a community experience?
 

8. Do you think that your teaching changed as a result of having a community 

dimension in your course? Why or Why not?
 

9. Based on this experience, when you teach another community-based learning 

course, how will you approach it?
 

10. Has your community-based learning experience influenced your other scholarly 

activities? Will it do so in the future?
 

11. Is there any other information you would like to share?

 

Each of the interviewees knew that Service learning is a degree requirement for the majors and all used it in at least one of their courses. Notes from faculty interviews were transcribed and analyzed. Key words and themes were identified, coded on the transcripts and then further organized into patterns of responses. The identified patterns served as the basis for this research report. In addition to interviewing faculty who incorporated service-learning in their courses, faculty who chose not to use this pedagogy were interviewed in order to make comparisons between the two groups. 

 

發現——FINDINGS
 

1. Describe the conditions and needs of the community where the service-learning experience took place.

 

When asked about the community where the service leaning experience of the students took place, the faculty saw students as “filling” in for positions lost due to budget reductions. Not all faculty were familiar with the service region of the university and several were unaware of particular needs. That said, the faculty tended to focus on the needs of the poor, at risk children in need of tutoring and mentoring and the isolated elderly.

 

2. Describe any new information you have learned about your community in the process of offering your community-based learning course.
 

Did faculty learn any more about the community because the students were engaged in assignments in it? Most did. Faculty members said that they became more acutely aware of the need for community volunteers. It was noted by several that there was an openness and desire on the part of community agencies to have student volunteers and that most agencies provided training programs for students. It appears that faculty are getting a better understanding of non-profits in the community. In addition, some reported that their students received paying jobs because their service learning experience. #p#分頁標題#e#

 

On the other hand, two faculty members said they had some difficulty establishing contact with appropriate sites. It should be noted that these particular faculty members might have been teaching courses that do not lend themselves to a good service learning fit. The subjects dealt with, death and dying and politics. Non-Profits may not be plentiful in these areas and hence more difficulty in finding service learning opportunities might be expected in these areas. Our campus-based Office of Community Service learning did not have listings that were “natural fits” for these courses and was not able to assist these faculty members.

 

3. After teaching your community-based learning course how, how would you describe your own learning experience?

 

When asked to describe his own learning experiences, one faculty member described the service learning experience as an “academic epiphany”. Others noted that the experience raised questions about the effectiveness of more conventional teaching methods. Not only does service learning make course material less abstract for students, it does the same for the faculty by providing them with examples for the classroom. One faculty member expressed the desire to do some community service himself in order to have greater firsthand knowledge about course materials. The linkage to theories stands out in these conversations. Several faculty note the need to “do more theory,” i.e. explain and discuss theory, and do it earlier in the semester was noted. As a consequence of this realization, some faculty report making modifications in all courses, not just those that included service learning. 

 

One faculty member found the experience helpful in learning about her own students. For example, some students came from non-English speaking homes and the faculty member was sensitized to the students’ unique needs. In this particular case, students were assigned to tutor recent immigrants to the US in the English language and to assist these immigrants with preparations for their citizenship test. As it turned out, non-native English speaking students were asked to teach English to immigrants. 

Furthermore, non-citizen students were preparing non-citizen clients for the citizenship test. A potential consequence of service learning is its mutual benefits to all involved. 

 

4. As you taught your community-based learning course, what were your concerns? How did you address them?

 

Some faculty members worried about not being able to find course-appropriate sites and expressed concern that the requirement not be a “waste of student time.” A related concern was for the potential exploitation of students, e.g. that students might be expected to do clerical work that would not advance their education. All interviewed expressed the view that community service assignments must be relevant to course work and academically justifiable. One faculty addressed this concern by discussing with students how they might be used in the community agency and preparing them for assignments appropriate for the curriculum. #p#分頁標題#e#

 

Safety of students and their legal protections were mentioned as concerns by several faculty members. However, one faculty member with over 25 years of community learning experience indicated that, unlike others, she experienced no worries about student safety in the community, since in 150 semesters, this issue never raised itself.

Faculty members learned that some students who resisted and were negative in their response to community service at the beginning of the semester, changed their minds and defined service learning as a positive experience by the end of the semester. These students went from defining the requirement as a burden to enjoying the learning experience.

 

Untenured and tenured faculty alike expressed the concern that service learning is not recognized or rewarded in the RTP process and not rewarded generally by the University. Despite claims to the contrary, the University may not adequately support this option at the classroom level. 

 

5. Describe the preparation and coordination that this community-based learning course required.

 

It is very important to note that every faculty member felt the inclusion of Service learning component into their curriculum increased their own workload. This is true even for those who have been doing service learning since the department introduced it. Faculty reported that the service-learning component requires considerable paperwork and bureaucratic responsibility, e.g. liability releases, syllabi revision and coordination with campus units such as the campus Office of Community Service Learning. This campus office assisted faculty with the continuing need to keep track of students and maintain communication with the community service sites. Since few faculty visit the community sites to be sure the experiences are relevant to course work, faculty must coordinate with the Office of Community Service learning as well as with students. To do this right, this has to be done each semester for each course, which has a service-learning component. Such coordination takes more time than would be devoted to a course with no service component. One faculty member complained that the excessive bureaucratization of the service learning process, including the requirements of risk management, have dampened his enthusiasm. Pre-placement activities are defined as hurdles rather than facilitative.

 

Clearly, the majority of faculty were appreciative of the assistance provided by the Office of Community Service Learning, which involved certifying sites and providing online registration capability. However, three faculty members were less than satisfied with that office. One was frustrated by the “perpetual need to certify sites each semester.” Another teaches a course where there may not be many service learning opportunities for students. A third had made arrangements for placements in a project that was cancelled due to funding difficulties and expressed her disappointment that the Office had no backup ready to assist her and her students. It must be noted that just prior to these interviews the Office of Community Service learning experienced significant budget cuts resulting in a lack of continuality of its operation, i.e. the office was closed over the summer and sites were not cultivated and certified. When the office reopened, there was much delay and scrambling to get ready for fall semester, affecting the Office’s ability to provide services at the beginning of the semester when they are most needed.#p#分頁標題#e#

 

6. Was this a successful teaching and learning experience? How did you know?
 

Overall, faculty do report having successful teaching and learning experiences in their service learning classes. Most claim that students apply course theories and concepts to the community experience. This success is made evident in class discussions where students involved in service learning contribute more and there is a significantly higher quality of student interaction. 

 

Furthermore, students are more likely to understand the practical application of abstraction course material. Faculty report that service learning gave a deeper level of insight and understanding to course work. Students learned more about themselves, their career interest and volunteer opportunities in the community. 

There were some faculty who hesitated to provide such a positive evaluation. One faculty member noted that the students enjoyed their work in the community but questioned whether this necessarily leads to an increase in learning. Another faculty member had so few students participate (3 out of 115) that he could not say one whether the experience was successful for those students.

 

7. Were the student learning outcomes different in this course from those in courses without a community experience?

 

As noted above, most faculty member report an enriched personal experience, and an immersion in the community resulting in a greater depth of understanding. The “product is richer” in Service learning courses. That said, some colleagues might achieve the same learning outcomes using methods other than service learning in their courses.

 

 

8. Do you think that your teaching changed as a result of having a community dimension in your course? Why or Why not?

 

The faculty is divided on whether their teaching changed as a result of having a community dimension. One colleague sees himself as incorporating more real life examples into his entire curriculum. Another uses more theory and provides opportunities for student reflection in non-service learning courses, too. Since students have more to offer, more time is provided for discussion. In general, however, most faculty report that class proceeds in the same way and that lecture topics and assignments have not changed much since incorporating service learning..

 

9. Based on this experience, when you teach another community-based learning course, how will you approach it?

 

When asked about their plans for service learning, faculty were generally positive and looking forward to offering such courses again. Some indicated that they wanted to plan better and to provide guidelines for students that are clearer. More information about navigating the bureaucracy will be sought. Sites will be told immediately of any problems students are encountering. Some of those who required service learning in their courses will make it into an option. In order to assure a more successful student learning outcome, some plan to time the service learning experience later in the semester, after students have been exposed to more of the curriculum. #p#分頁標題#e#

 

10. Has your community-based learning experience influenced your other scholarly activities? Will it do so in the future?

 

The overwhelming majority say “no,” that having service learning in a course does not influence their research agenda. Some looked at the research on service learning and others went to conferences. However, service learning is viewed as a pedagogical tool and of little research relevance. Tangentially, a graduate advisor is working with a graduate student on her MA thesis which used data from her service learning site. No one other than the author’s of this paper is doing Service learning research.

 

教師抵制者——FACULTY “RESISTORS”

 

Two faculty members consistently chose not to include service learning opportunities in any of their courses. Two others have done so and remain quite skeptical about the benefits of service learning, especially as related to student learning outcomes. The former, the total non-participants, focus on wanting to be sure the curriculum is covered. They believe service learning is a passing fad and that is a distraction from the course curriculum. To them, service learning is an unproven, trendy technique with nothing to contribute to student learning. One resistor said that he found research showing service learning to have a beneficial effect on students to be methodologically flawed. He considers “such learning experiences to be mentor-type requiring close involvement and interaction between student and teacher,” and states that in service learning classes “this appears not to be the case as a general rule.” However, he adds, “I fully and strongly support the existence of such things for the sake of academic freedom, student opportunities, and the simple fact that may be dead wrong.”

The other two participants both have courses where service learning placements were problematic. One of these faculty members regrets making service learning required of all students and believes the requirement caused student resistance and unhappiness. She has stated that if she incorporates service learning into her courses, she will make it an option available to students rather than a requirement.

 

討論——DISCUSSION

 

The addition of service learning has forced departmental conversations about curriculum, volunteering and regional needs. Requiring majors to have a service learning experience has enriched the curriculum, as many faculty have noted in this project. The irony is that some faculty see service learning as atheoretical whereas in its operation it can heighten theoretical sophistication. 

 

One question that this research raises is where service learning should be in the curriculum. The department studied mandates a service learning experience for the major but does not specify in which courses. As a result, the department offers many courses with service learning components. In some, service learning is mandatory while in others it is an option. While this has resulted in thousands of hours of service to the community, it has raised some concerns over when the student would profit the most from his/her service learning experience. It has been suggested that putting first semester freshman in the field with only a few hours (literally) of exposure to course content may not be best since those students may lack the academic tools to connect their service experiences to the curriculum. On the other hand, an upper division student who has already successfully completed several of the core courses of the major might be better able to integrate curriculum and field work. It may be that this student would learn more from the experience and be of greater assistance to the community agency. #p#分頁標題#e#

Perhaps the greatest education benefit of service learning would occur after the students have completed some introductory courses but early enough in their college life so they can benefit from their community learning experience in rest of their academic career. Several interviewees suggested that the service learning requirement might fit best in the departmental theory course which is typically taken after introductory courses; it was noted that students would benefit most from service learning in such an abstract course. In general, the faculty in this survey tend to believe that the students will profit regardless of when or where the student is exposed to service learning. 

 

One problem with the current research is that those who surveyed may present a self-selection bias. Those faculty interviewed about their experiences with service learning chose to offer courses with these components. Some may have done so willingly because they have an affinity to community-based assignments. Other may have incorporated service learning in their classes due to pressure to comply with the departmental requirement for majors. Regardless of their motives, faculty members may have felt the need to justify the decision they made to incorporate service learning in their classes with positive comments about their experiences. That said, once the service learning requirement was approved, a majority of faculty decided to participate resulting in the 12,000 hours of community service performed in one semester.