The 10 Key Principles of Service-Learning

Now that we have spent some time on the definitions of Service-Learning in the previous posts, I would like to spend the next two posts sharing the 10 principles for good Service-Learning as suggested in the Service-Learning Course Design Workbook (2001), published by the Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, and edited by Jeffrey Howard.

Those who integrate these principals into their instructional design will in all likelihood meet the Furco definition of SERVICE-LEARNING presented in yesterday's blog post. The first five principals are as follows:

1. Academic Credit is for Learning, Not for Service

Students are learning from the community much the same way they do from the textbook, homework assignments, and so forth. As such, students should not get assessed and/or evaluated simply for doing a “service.” They should be assessed or evaluated depending upon what they learned as a result of doing the “service.”

2. Do Not Compromise Academic Rigor

Service learning is not “soft.” In many respects it is more difficult, challenging and rewarding than the traditional way in which courses are taught. Not only do the students have to satisfy the objectives of both the academic and civic learning objectives. More importantly, SL projects are often times unpredictable and students are forced to bring order out of chaos which makes for an intellectual challenge that constitutes typical academic rigor standards and expectations.

3. Establish Learning Objectives

Faculty cannot simply throw the students out into the community to “learn” from the experience. As is the case in the traditional classroom, the students need to be pointed in the right direction and told the learning objectives they are expected to accomplish; they should also know how the objectives will be assessed and/or evaluated by the instructor. Unless there is structure to the learning that is to take place while the students are participating in the service project there is no way of ensuring whether or not things went as planned.

4. Establish Criteria for Selection of Service Placements

Faculties differ on this principle. There are some that leave the selection of the community partner up to the student. In some respects, this decision is tantamount to a professor telling the student to read any text or supplemental readings they liked when taking a course. Because the service should be tied to the academic content of the course the students should be given a range of acceptable “partners,” a limitation on the scope of the project, stipulate the duration of the service so that it is substantive but not overwhelming, and have the students work on projects that will make a difference in the community.

5. Provide Educationally-Sound Learning Strategies to Harvest Community Learning and Realize Course Objectives

Having the students keep a journal to record their thoughts, feelings, and attitudes toward the service is insufficient for proper academic rigor. There should be meaningful and substantial means by which the students can share what they learned as a result of doing the service with peers and faculty members. Of course, pertinent assignments that have sufficient academic rigor should have been established that adhere to Principle 3.

I will share the next five principles with those in our learning community tomorrow.