ERIC EJ852918: Toward a Social Approach to Learning in Community Service Learning

2004·0.06 MB·English

by  ERIC

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning Spring 2004,pp. 44-56
Toward a Social Approach to Learning in Community Service Learning
Leda Cooks,Erica Scharrer,andMari Castañeda Paredes
University of Massachusetts,Amherst
The authors describe a social approach to learning in community service learning that extends the con-
tributions of three theoretical bodies of scholarship on learning:social constructionism,critical peda-
gogy,and community service learning. Building on the assumptions about learning described in each of
these areas,engagement,identity,and community are key concepts through which learning can be ques-
tioned and evaluated. The authors offer assessment concepts based on the social approach,such as priv-
ileging the absent, engaging resistance, and terms for identity and practice. Techniques for assessing
learning are also included,such as using videotape and cross-group focus groups.
E
ducation reformers, policy makers, teachers, ing,and persuasive communication as skills essen-
scholars, and citizens have become concerned tial to problem-solving in a democracy. Public
about what they perceive to be the disconnection judgment and imagination acts as a kind of moral
between schools and society. Recent efforts to compass,helping students to locate themselves and
bridge the chasms between academe and commu- reposition their understandings of others. Service-
nity,students and schooling,and citizens and gov- learning can also encourage creativity through
ernment (among other social, cultural, and eco- working cooperatively with members of the com-
nomic chasms) have begun to look closely at munity toward new solutions.
efforts to engage students as citizens and leaders in Battistoni’s (1997) framework importantly brings
a democratic community. At the forefront of these communication into the mix. Other scholars empha-
efforts in systems of higher education is communi- size engagement in their research,such as Schensul,
ty service learning (CSL), or learning that com- Berg and Brase (2002), and Toole (2002).
bines service to the community with classroom or Specifically,the role of communication in establish-
academic learning. ing the basis for learning all skills for engagement in
Scholars in economics, nursing, and communica- society is emphasized in this paper. Yet, as the
tion have put forward designs for teaching and learn- authors increasingly acknowledge a world where cul-
ing with/in a CSL format. Civic engagement is a cen- tures and identities are constantly in a state of
tral theme among several CSL scholars, who argue encounter,negotiation,and flux,we also must recog-
that CSL should promote and extend students’par- nize the very situatedness of learning itself. As ser-
ticipation in democracy and community. Common vice-learning educators attempt to understand how,
among these discussions of engagement is the notion when,what,and where students learn,we must also
of CSL as the acquisition of skill sets that will help account for the ever-shifting social, relational, and
students participate, problem solve, and become cultural meanings which construct our own (as peda-
civic-minded leaders. Battistoni (1997),for example, gogues, practitioners, and scholars), our students’,
attempting to summarize most of his and others’ and our communities’frames for making meaning of
efforts to develop students as “engaged citizens,” education and the educational process.
identifies three essential areas that should guide prac- Following from this point and important for the
tical skill development of service-learners:intellectu- purposes in this paper, the authors posit the idea
al understanding,communication and problem-solv- that communication is not only the outcome of
ing, and public judgment and imagination. learning an individual skill (through which one’s
Intellectual understanding develops students’cogni- competence in society can be measured) but is also
tive abilities to make connections between theories central to the process of learning, and key to con-
and application,and think critically about their expe- structing engaged participation in a civil society. If
riences and assumptions about people and society. individuals make meaning of themselves and soci-
Communication and problem-solving skills allow ety through communicative processes,then partici-
people to participate productively in any civil soci- pation is itself defined in and through communica-
ety. Battistoni identifies speech, argument, listen- tion; without communication,participation in soci-
44
Toward a Social Approach to Learning in Community Service Learning
ety would be impossible. As scholars who focus constructionist theory. This body of theory shares
primarily on communicative processes, we are with CSL its focus on engagement and context,but
interested in a learning approach that embraces challenges notions of learning based in individual
skill sets as important to competent communica- cognition and of knowledge separate from the
tion, but situates those skills within their cultural social world. The final section reviews concerns
and relational frameworks; in other words,as skills identified in the previous literatures on learning in
which have a variety of meanings, occasioned in democratic society—to discuss what each con-
specific circumstances and contexts, and assessed tributes to a social approach to learning in CSL. We
accordingly. The goal of this paper is to develop then suggest a variety of applications of this
theoretical concepts that point to the ways CSL approach to learning and assessment of CSL.
enhances understanding of learning as communal, For Dewey (1915), a philosopher whose prag-
relational, cultural, and critical, while providing a matic approaches to learning are central to all three
context for applying and challenging course con- bodies of scholarship drawn upon in this paper,
cepts and curricula. education cannot be simply about the proper trans-
Borrowing from social constructionist theory,the fer of information. Education must take into con-
authors view society as constructed through com- sideration humans’ accountability as social and
municative action and view participation in society cultural learners. Taking Dewey’s point further, if
as relationally- and culturally-created and inter- power/knowledge is viewed as relational and
preted. Communicative action is defined here as social, then communication is the central process
the conjoint activity of meaning-making (symbol- creative of, and created through, learning. CSL
ic) that is mutually negotiated,although not neces- scholars who place interaction at the center of the
sarily mutually understood. Actions are coordinat- process of meaning-making are well situated to
ed among people in conjunction with their coher- make the connections between learning as an indi-
ence to a larger system of values and beliefs. From vidual skill, a relational process, and structurally-
this view, the perspective that students become
and ideologically-wedded to the political and cul-
engaged citizens through CSL says much about the
tural institutions that maintain social hierarchies.
way that ideas are constructed about engagement
Critical pedagogy is uniquely poised to describe
and citizenship (e.g., what are the moral obliga-
the social practices and social agencies that con-
tions of engagement? who are/are not engaged cit-
tribute to “educating,” while scholars in CSL are
izens?). Beyond analyzing the dimensions of
positioned to offer possibilities in describing the
engagement, the authors promote the process of
concrete practices that connect learners, citizens,
participating in CSL as important to developing
and the mechanisms of democracy.
certain affordances (Cronen, 1995) or as opening
ways of connecting and engaging with others as Community Service Learning’s
moral and relational beings. Perspective on Learning
In this paper, the authors introduce an approach
to thinking about and assessing learning in CSL CSL scholarship cuts across disciplines and
that places social interaction and social construc- draws from a variety of perspectives on the mean-
tion at the center. In so doing, we bring together ing of the CSL experience; however,there are sev-
three perspectives on learning:the aforementioned eral commonalities across most published work on
social constructionist position that places the act of the topic of learning,engagement,and democracy.
communicating as fundamental to the construction Much of the CSL scholarship can be characterized
of civic learning; the philosophical and theoretical by its focus on establishing and strengthening con-
concerns of critical pedagogical scholarship; and nection among students, teachers, university, and
the scholarship on CSL that addresses learning. the community, and developing students’ “skills
Scholarship on learning within the CSL literature is needed to participate actively in the public sphere
examined first. Next,we move to the structural and upon graduation” (Rimmerman, 1997, p. 18).
ideological critiques of learning and education Whereas most of the work in this area concerns
developed within the scholarship of critical peda- itself with addressing the disconnection between
gogy. Critical pedagogy shares with CSL a com- educational institutions and the community, none
mitment to students’ development as part of an of the scholarship reviewed for this paper builds a
informed and active citizenry,and with learning as theoretical basis for critiquing existing democracy
part of a dialogical process. Our third theoretical or education. Along these lines, Kahne,
contribution to a social approach is developed Westheimer and Rogers (2000) argue that,
through discussion of the situated, developmental, “although questions about citizenship and democ-
and relationalnature of learning put forth in social racy have long been of interest to philosophers,
45
Cooks,Scharrer,and Paredes
political theorists and educators, the literature on many fruitful similarities,including most central to
service-learning currently lacks the conceptual the present focus, the opportunity for CSL to shift
complexity associated with those disciplinary attention from individual learners to a community
inquiries”(p. 44). or culture of learners.
While Kahne and colleagues (2000) are interest- The theoretical contributions of Cone and Harris
ed in deepening the conceptualization of service (1996) offer a fairly close parallel to those
associated with citizenship and democracy, our advanced in this paper. Cone and Harris discuss the
emphases are on the ways that learning is defined, concepts of critical pedagogy as they pertain to
expressed,and assessed in these contexts. The con- CSL, applying the ideas of David Moore (1990).
ceptualization of learning in CSL necessarily Moore advocates for examining power relation-
frames the ways the relationships between service, ships in communities and educational institutions,
citizenship,and course content are understood and and understanding the politics and power behind
expressed. The authors believe that the flexibility the making of meaning. Cone and Harris also
and openness of CSL scholarship and the overarch- explore the contributions of Paolo Freire (1990),
ing CSL objective—to produce engaged and who argues against education as solving students’
knowledgeable citizens through education in and inadequacies. Freire contends that education as it
with the community—lends itself to a variety of has typically been defined undermines the validity
philosophical and theoretical conceptualizations of students’ lived experiences. Cone and Harris
that should strengthen claims for learning. introduce their own CSL model combining theory
Many of the learning approaches in prior CSL and practice, envisioning students not as “blank
scholarship, and the assessment of that learning, slates but as individuals with different learning
emphasize the importance of individual students as styles, skills, histories, philosophies of life, atti-
they reflect upon their experiences in the commu- tudes, values, expectations, and perspectives” (p.
nity (Gelmon, Holland, Driscoll, Spring, & 46), and emphasizing a critical understanding of
Kerrigan, 2001). Thus, the theoretical foundation perspective in the interpretation of meaning.
underlying the various learning approaches and Well-known pedagogical activities that have
assessment builds from an assumption of the indi- attempted to address and alleviate critiques of CSL
vidual as the basis of development and unit of have some common elements on which a theoreti-
analysis,rather than suggesting that meaning-mak- cal CSL contribution can be formulated, such as
ing resides in relational or social units of analysis. goal setting, critical reflection, detailed activities,
Within the early CSL literature, the focus has also student-teacher connections, protracted experi-
been placed more on experiential possibilities of ences, and community empowerment. Therefore,
the community partnership,and less on the theoret- for CSL to succeed, educators must first identify:
ical and pedagogical benefits of service-learning. the goals of CSL; their students’ backgrounds,
In response to the need to further understanding skills,and learning styles; and the teaching modes
of the relationship between democratic participa- that will best develop those particular goals and
tion, educational experiences, and social analysis, skills. Further, educators cannot promote student
some CSL scholars have advocated the need to engagement with the communities they serve,or a
reconceptualize foundational factors: primacy of commitment to democratic values, unless they
analytical thinking in educational settings acknowledge the historical conditions and greater
(Clinchy, 1989), conventional models of learning social and educational contexts that shape students’
and teaching (Stewart, 1990), and intersections lives,values,and knowledges.
between knowledge and experience (Cone & Morse (1992), noting the need for students to
Harris, 1996). Clinchy, for instance, points to the define for themselves what they mean by democra-
notion of “connected knowing” as a means of cy and have a college curriculum to develop those
learning. She describes the process of connected skills, discusses several approaches to citizenship
knowing as a layering of individual perspectives in education: learning by doing, talking, practicing,
which learners commenting on a topic after anoth- and through intellectual preparation. Learning by
er, operate from a stance of looking for common doing (the public service component) means that
ground in their perspectives. In other words,learn- students should be involved in hands-on communi-
ers consider other’s point of view and the reasons ty service experiences outside their college cam-
for that point of view,framing their participation in puses. Learning by talking (acquiring deliberative
the discussion by looking for agreement (rather skills) is learning how to deliberate in public. This
than disagreement, as is common when emphasiz- enhances students’ participation in public debate,
ing “critical thinking”). Stewart applies Kolb’s therefore contributing to democracy. Learning by
(1984) experiential learning model to CSL,finding practicing (democratizing the campus) is for stu-
46
Toward a Social Approach to Learning in Community Service Learning
dents to transform the campus into an egalitarian, Thus,while democratic methods of teaching and
participatory community—“citizenship has to be listening to students and community members are
practiced in order to be learned” (p. 6). Learning common themes in the CSL literature,it is uncom-
through intellectual preparation (learning by learn- mon to read critiques of the models of banking
ing) is the classic academic model. education (Dewey, 1913; Freire, 1970) that can be
Of the four approaches,CSL is most often charac- perpetuated in CSL classrooms. Seldom,too,is the
terized by the first, learning through doing. maintenance of sometimes authoritarian and often
Rimmerman (1997) suggests that CSL is an opportu- hierarchical relationships among students, teach-
nity to connect the first and the fourth type of learn- ers, administrators, and community often found
ing,and discusses the need for students to “connect within educational systems and institutions ques-
ideas that they confront in the classroom with their tioned. Howard (1998) provides a rare exception.
service experiences in the surrounding community. Still, relative to critical approaches to education
The goal,then,is to ask students to bring together the that often theorize empowerment in the abstract,
intellectual with the experiential”(p. 21). CSL does offer an experiential opening to empow-
Yet, as CSL critics note, learning through doing erment. CSL provides the concrete social interac-
does not necessarily provide the foundations for tion and application of theory that have the poten-
advocacy and sustained change, a condition neces- tial to better probe ideological critiques of educa-
sary to being a citizen in a functioning democracy. tion brought forth by critical pedagogues.
Some critics observe that service alone cannot
Critical Pedagogy’s Perspective on Learning
achieve all it is supposed to because students fail to
make the connection between micro events in their
Critical pedagogy is a broad body of theory that
service experiences and the larger structural frame-
conceptualizes education as inherently ideological
works that perpetuate inequalities. Boyte (1991)
and problematic in its positioning of objectivity as
voices this critique,describing CSL as:
the means to discovering knowledge and under-
standing. In other words,traditional educative prac-
...a conceptual framework that distinguished
between personal life and the public world. tices have emphasized separating the knower from
This therapeutic approach, with its focus on that which is known, obscuring the processes
the individual, cannot begin to deal with the through which power (via knowledge) is distributed
inequalities that structure the relationship and maintained. Critical pedagogy can be identified
between the so-called servers and the served. by its central goal:to critically examine the system
In the end, then, service activity is devoid of of education and work toward the transformation of
politics, and, as a result, is an empty way of
dominant social and cultural values. Critical peda-
tackling complex structures that arise out of
gogy offers a strong (and quite diverse) set of theo-
the conditions that prompt service activity in
retical approaches to understanding and researching
the first place. (p. 766)
how educational systems have reinforced the status
Other scholars feel that CSL supports the social quo, and limited or neglected opportunities for
and structural inequalities that characterize rethinking the process of learning and the goals of
American society and reinforces claims of clien- educational institutions in a changing democratic
telism (Rimmerman,1997). society. This body of scholarship has much to offer
Indeed, CSL scholars draw from Freire and the scholar and/or practitioner of CSL regarding the
Dewey (Battistoni, 1997; Reeher & Cammarano, purposes of education,where and how learning can
1997; and Rimmerman, 1997) to discuss the need occur, and emphasizing citizenship as central to
among CSL teachers to expand beyond a superfi- teaching and learning.
cial understanding of experience. Yet,this literature Critical pedagogy builds on the Marxist assump-
rarely offers a challenge to the hierarchical nature tion that education is one of many public institu-
of the teacher/student/learning relationship or to tions in a capitalistic society that is in the business
the institution of education itself that critical peda- of creating private identities. Schools, as institu-
gogy provides. Although mention is made of dif- tionalized (and institutionalizing) systems, offer
ferent service experiences based on one’s location few opportunities to think and learn outside of
in the social structure (e.g.,the importance African socially prescribed and predictable areas. This
Americans assign to serving their own community, “institutional knowledge” reflects the capitalistic
or the need for some students to work versus vol- and modernist tendencies of society in general:
unteer),CSL scholarship does not seem to express- educators and students alike view the system as one
ly advance the goals of critical pedagogy; namely, that produces consumers through the reproduction
a concern with the ways the schooling experience of existing identities (Apple, 1982; Aronowitz,
sustains hierarchies found in daily social life. 1981). The experiences of those on the margins of
47
Cooks,Scharrer,and Paredes
the cultural paradigm, those not reflected in the dynamics by including students in curriculum
hegemonic ideology of the institution, become design organized around their own problems and
worthless—or worse,invisible. experiences. However, many critical pedagogues
Democracy is a central theme of much of the warn that critical pedagogy, itself an ideology that
research on critical pedagogy (see, for example, critiques dominant ideologies, may become an
Ellsworth,1992; Freire,1970,1998; Giroux,1981, impediment to learning because of student resis-
1988; Lather,1991; Shor,1980,1992). Democracy, tance and/or student compliance with what stu-
for these scholars,is both an object of critique and dents perceive to be the teacher’s agenda. Rather
goal for transformative and/or empowering educa- than dismiss students’ resistance as “false con-
tion. For many critical pedagogues, any hope for sciousness,” as do some critical pedagogues (e.g.,
education lies in a transformed understanding of Aronowitz, 1981; Aronowitz & Giroux, 1985;
democracy and citizenship, through developing Giroux, 1988), Patti Lather (1991) expresses how
and enhancing communal knowledge and the cri- resistance makes educators reflect on their own
tique of social inequality and injustice. “imposition tendency”and how resistance “honors
Most of the literature in critical pedagogy views the complexity of the interplay between the
learning as a process of both engagement (between empowering and the impositional at work in the
and among teachers, students, and community, as liberatory classroom”(p. 76).
part of a larger citizenry) and a critique of the terms While most critical pedagogy scholars critique
on which such interactions have been grounded. In formal models of learning as limiting the creativity
Empowering Education, Ira Shor (1992) raises the and complexity of learning processes and imposing
concerns of Bettelheim (1950) and Piaget (1979) a hierarchy of intelligence that obscures social,
with regard to the gap between learning about life economic, and cultural differences, Lather (1991)
(socialization) and learning the “three Rs.” Both puts her theoretical perspective and concerns about
Bettelheim and Piaget argued that children needed learning in more concrete terms. Her model (per-
to learn the process of critical thinking to adapt and haps the only existing model in this scholarship)
function well in the social environment. attempts to address learning in the context of
While Shor (1992) and others (e.g., Ellsworth, unlearningoppressive knowledge and developing a
1992) have focused on the lack of attention paid to critique of systems of inequality (see Figure 1).
the process of growing and adapting to institution- In Lather’s (1991) model, oppositional knowl-
al structures imposed by society, much remains to edge refers to information and experiences that
be done to move beyond the critique to the actual may directly contrast the education, beliefs, and
practice of teaching and learning. For Shor, this values with which students are comfortable.
move to practice means an active agenda of Students may accept this new knowledge (for
unlearning socialization, of actively learning to instance, of White, male privilege) or reject it. If
recognize and critique how social hierarchy, they choose to reject, avoid, or deny this new
inequality,and injustice are embedded in everyday knowledge,the process ends. If the student accepts
schooling practices. The implications for CSL are this knowledge, the process can be burdensome,
numerous and compelling,as its goals,too,address lead to hopelessness or fear,or can possibly be lib-
the gap between perceived legitimacy of personal erating, making students angry and inspiring them
experience compared to formal education, as well to take action toward change. While Lather’s model
as between issues from “the real world” versus can be criticized for overly simplifying the learning
those raised in schools. process,it was the first model to offer a snapshot of
Shor (1992) states that when faced with a uncomfortable knowledge, incorporating the
teacher’s unilateral authority and power, students processes of resistance and acceptance as well as
often resist by “playing dumb” (p. 137) and “get- mind and body in a feminist pedagogic framework.
ting by” (p. 138), suggesting teachers should Although Lather’s (1991) model is designed for
democratize curriculum design and classroom the feminist classroom, placing it in any context
Figure 1
Lather’s (1991) Model
Stages of Feminist Consciousness Raising
Ignorance/Oppositional knowledge liberating/anger/action
➝ ➝
Reject Accept ➝➝➝
burdensome/hopelessness/fear
48
Toward a Social Approach to Learning in Community Service Learning
dealing with oppression and social inequalities interaction among social and cultural beings. From
helps to acknowledge the relationship between the this view,units of analysis are located in social and
learner and what Lather calls “uncomfortable” cultural processes that construct individuals’ inter-
information. Lather’s discussion, from which this pretations and identities. Theorists who advocate
model is drawn,also emphasizes the importance of social constructionist approaches to learning (e.g.,
“self-reflexivity” (p. 79) on the part of teachers/ Cronen, 1995; Lannamann, 1991, 1992; Leeds-
scholars. She believes that educators need to exam- Hurwitz, 1992, 1995; Sigman, 1992) have argued
ine their value systems and frameworks of under- that communication must be viewed in social and
standing to develop “the skills of self-critiques, of cultural patterns that influence both intentions and
a reflexivity which will keep us from becoming consequences of interaction, rather than as an indi-
impositional and reifiers ourselves” (p. 80). vidual process of sending and receiving information.
Ellsworth (1992) also stresses the importance of About learning and knowing,Shotter and Gergen
reflexivity and challenges critical pedagogues to (1994) observe:
examine the contradiction that when they set out to
We are not speaking here of a theoretical kind
“emancipate” their students, they often leave the
of knowledge specifiable ahead of time in
teacher and students’unequal power untouched.
rules,maxims or other forms,but of a practical
Scholars interested in critical and feminist peda- skill differentially realized in different, con-
gogy from a communication perspective have crete contexts. But it is not simply a form of
offered alternatives to the traditional conceptual- individual skill either—in the sense that an
izations of student learning (and resistance to individual can master and apply alone—for its
learning) in the classroom as behavioral matters. proper use depends upon the judgment of the
Where the focus in traditional education research others around one at the time of its applica-
tion…This knowledge,embodied in our collec-
has been on cognitive and behavioral indicators of
tive practices,is thus of a special “third kind,”
learning,critical theorists have countered with their
neither simply theoretical nor practical-techni-
own theories of resistance as power from post-
cal. It is a form of knowledge from within a
structural (Ellsworth,1992; Lather,1991),critical,
relationship,in which,in its articulation,others
or postmodern standpoints (Althusser, 1977; around us continually exert a morally coercive
Giroux, 1988). Feminist theorists such as Lather, force to be persons of a particular kind, to
Ellsworth, and Kelly (1997), following Foucault assume a particular kind of identity, and to
(1980) and Gramsci (1971),assume that the social exhibit a particular kind of sensibility. (p. 6)
is an integral part of the constitution of the subject.
This “third kind” of practical knowledge, which
Nonetheless,their analyses often close down possi-
Shotter (1993) calls knowing from within,is knowl-
bilities for meaning-making located in people’s
edge of a moral kind, “for it depends upon the
interactions (as opposed to people and communica-
judgments of others as to whether its expression or
tion technologies, people and texts, institutions,
its use is ethically proper or not—one cannot just
and so forth). Shor (1992) and others, such as
have it or express it on one’s own,or wholly with-
Giroux (1994,1998),McLaren,(1991) and Lather,
in oneself” (p. 7). Moral/practical knowledge is
do not include or theorize actual interaction as part
present in any discourse,but emerges as a primary
of their conceptualization of classroom power and
concern in discussions of learning in the classroom
resistance.
and community.
These concerns raise important implications for
Implicit in all the literatures reviewed for this
learning that happens as meanings are confronted
paper is the assumption that education should lead
and negotiated in interaction. Placing learning in con-
to participation (if not leadership) as an engaged cit-
text also means displacing culturally- and socially-
izen in a democratic community. Even more evident
embedded beliefs and practices. It is this understand-
in the scholarship on critical pedagogy and CSL is
ing of the struggle over the “nature”of learning and
the assumption that learning (in the classroom and
of knowledges that are always partial and incom-
community) should make students better citizens,
plete,that social constructionist thought shares with
and empower them to transform and change unjust
many (if not all) critical pedagogical scholars.
practices and institutions. The “shoulds”of learning
Social Constructionist’s Perspective direct attention toward the moral imperatives of
communicating and—as Shotter (1993) notes—a
on Learning
moral other for whom such actions are presented as
Research on learning from a social construction- moral or immoral. Empowerment in this context
ist perspective essentially equates learning with the occurs when a student/citizen recognizes her
process of communication, putting primacy on responsibility and ability to critique and change pre-
49
Cooks,Scharrer,and Paredes
viously taken-for-granted or previously avoided or Central to the authors’social approach are three
ignored social relations. concepts: engagement, identity, and community,
Social constructionist scholars such as each outlined briefly for our purposes here. The
Lannamann (1991) and McNamee (1988) empha- first concept, engagement, is emphasized in CSL
size learning as it occurs in the details of commu- scholarship,but is expanded and extended through
nicative situations. McNamee uses Bahktin’s the critical pedagogical and social constructionist
(1981) notion of dialogism to argue for the analy- perspectives discussed above. Thus, borrowing
sis of interactions in understanding learning,rather from a social constructionist perspective, engage-
than working to assess individual cognitive states. ment can be obligatory, given the rules of interac-
Lannamann (1991) is interested in how everyday tion and roles one is assumed to play in the service-
interactions are sustained through larger ideologi- learning context. Engagement can also emerge in
cal and institutional (here, schooling) practices. the coordination of meaning within particular inter-
From this perspective, the unspoken rules for actions. Building from a critical pedagogy perspec-
teachers, students, and classroom interaction tive, engagement in service-learning can be naïve
should be examined both for their connections to (e.g., unaware of the ways one’s participation in
dominant social structures as well as for how they CSL may be perpetuating inequalities in the social
create new possibilities for engagement with com- system) or critical (aware of systemic inequities
munity issues and concerns. Communities should and focused on potentials for redistributing or
be examined as they organize and order their prac- changing the flow of power).
tices to coordinate meaning among participants. Engagement does not ignore students’ potential
Learning thus occurs at sites of connection, which resistance to knowledge that conflicts with preexist-
can both imply coordination and conflict,relation- ing beliefs. At times in CSL courses or projects,stu-
ships,and resistance. dents may challenge the service agency’s role in
Taking into consideration the concerns voiced by providing a means for social change. These students
may resist their part in what they see as a process
Cronen (1995), Lannamann (1991, 1992), Leeds-
that perpetuates the alienation or marginalization of
Hurwitz (1992), Shotter (1993) and others, social
some citizens through social programs. At other
constructionist research could make an important
times,students may be engaged in a project and yet
contribution to the theoretical foci on learning
resist connecting with those who are culturally dif-
advanced in critical pedagogy and CSL. A social
ferent, out of fear of changing long-held values or
approach to learning that combines these three per-
beliefs. In this manner,engagement can encompass
spectives can provide a fresh approach to studying
both opposition to, and the embracing of, new
human action and agency that addresses learning,
learning experiences. Because engagement is
both in the immediate context and as part of the
viewed as relational and cultural knowledge, all
larger social structure. With attention to notions of
social interaction produces knowledges that may or
identity and moral knowledge as part and parcel of
may not produce the outcomes educators desire.
social action,CSL research from a social construc-
The second concept,identity,is also important to
tionist and critical perspective can emphasize the
the authors’social approach and influenced both by
intimate details of interacting subjects as framed
social constructionist and critical pedagogy
within the ideological and hegemonic practices of
approaches to learning. Using a social approach to
the larger social structure.
learning, identity always stands in relation to oth-
A Social Approach to Learning in ers,and is thus only understood in and through our
Community Service Learning interactions with others. In a CSL context,we learn
about ourselves and others through use of language
Given the contributions and limitations highlight- and the stories we tell about what we are doing.
ed in the approaches to learning posed above, it is Yet,the social approach also includes a critical per-
helpful to introduce an approach to learning that spective on identity that assumes identities are cre-
brings together contributions from each area of ated and given meaning through ideological dis-
scholarship to a relational mode of learning in the courses and corresponding structures in society.
classroom and community context. From each Community, the third key concept in the social
approach, we can build an understanding of learn- approach to learning, emphasizes the ways mean-
ing as a process of engagement with and in a diverse ings for groups of people are created within and
community of people,as negotiated among individ- through interaction. The term “community” can
uals positioned in and through social and cultural invoke, for example, nostalgia, envy, fear, loneli-
meanings, and as imperative to producing social ness, or responsibility. Being part of a community
change in existing democracy. may be a choice for some,an obligation for others,
50
Toward a Social Approach to Learning in Community Service Learning
and a system of oppression for those on the margins dents in a qualitative methods class to discuss the
of society. So what,then,does the term “communi- agency’s parenting program and parenting practices
ty”mean in discussions of CSL? The roles assigned with homeless parents,and describe (importantly,not
to ourselves and others within community narra- assess or evaluate) their stories with regard to the
tives tell us a good deal about social positioning and local community and services available to them.
the implied morality of such discourses. Utilizing a social constructionist framework,the stu-
Each of the three concepts and the social dents reflected on the following questions: What is
approach itself might be visualized as a kind of the relationship between my understanding of home
web, where meanings are entangled with and and that of the parents I am working with? What
informed by each of the perspectives on learning assumptions about home and identity are embedded
(CSL, critical pedagogy, and social construction- in the meaning and use we make of the terms home-
ist). In this manner, all learning occurs as connec- less or homelessness? What are the shoulds of my
tion,as social and cultural processes organized into and others’ knowledges about parenting present in
daily life. In bringing together the pragmatic our conversations and assessments? What new
(learning through doing) and democratic (students knowledges/meanings arise from our negotiations
as citizens) objectives of CSL,the theoretical focus and coordination of meaning over these terms?2
of critical pedagogy on the ideological functions of Building on these questions,if we return to crit-
education and democracy, and the emphasis on ical pedagogy and Lather’s (1991) model described
learning as negotiated in and through interaction above, we can also extend a critical and feminist
from social constructionism, educators can framework to a social approach. Importantly for
strengthen each body of scholarship and contribute CSL students and scholars,acceptance or rejection
to our understanding of learning in the social and of uncomfortable knowledges and possible conse-
cultural context of school and community. In short, quences is theorized in Lather’s model; this process
we can begin to ask different questions about the could be utilized as structure for students’journals.
Using the example above, students could not only
“nature” of learning and test our assumptions in
look self-reflexively and critically at their own
interaction with others in community contexts.
(dis)comfort, but also toward the consequences of
Assessing the Social Approach: this knowledge. In other words, acceptance or
Asking the “So What” Questions rejection does not stop the learning process.
Examples of the course instructor’s questions
After arguing for and explicating a more complex
used to extend the critical framework to this CSL
theoretical approach to learning in CSL,it is appropri-
project were:What is or might be the relationship
ate to ask “so what?”What does the social approach between learning and resistance expressed by stu-
offer that will result in a different understanding of dents with regard to interacting with homeless pop-
learning,and what is the impact of such an approach? ulations? How might or did they respond to their
More to the point, what is enhanced, changed, and discomfort in confronting knowledge and people
improved as a result of using this approach? who might have previously been invisible to them?
In what follows, the authors use ongoing CSL What about their schooling has helped to conceal
projects as examples of the social approach’s knowledge of social inequalities? What happened
assessment potential. In our work with this that allowed them to continue their work? What
approach over the years,1 several of the tech- hindered their relationships?
niques—including analysis of videotapes,surveys, Applying critical and feminist pedagogy also
focus groups, and guided journal entries—have demands self-reflexivity on the instructor’s part. In
been structured to include questions asking stu- this example,the instructor examined the situated-
dents to describe their engagement with the project, ness of her own social positions by keeping a jour-
other students,community members,and concepts nal of her interactions with community representa-
such as participation, community, and service. tives, agency members, constituents, and students.
Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to Positioning herself meant questioning her own
detail the various implementations of our assess- areas of resistance and biases about homelessness
ment approach, we hope to provide a glimpse of as well as assumptions about what could and
the ways CSL projects exemplify the possibilities shouldbe learned—and by whom.
for a social approach to the learning process. In another ongoing CSL project, the authors held
One potential application of this approach to a focus groups and interviews with community mem-
CSL project is based on one of the author’s work to bers and video recorded interactions among under-
structure student reflections in a project on home- graduate students and community members. In the
less parenting. A local agency asked graduate stu- focus groups,project participants (in this case,sixth-
51
Cooks,Scharrer,and Paredes
graders) were asked about the relationships they had assess what and who is absent (or invisible) in our
formed with the college students, as well as about process, in the project, and in the knowledge we
what they liked or would have done differently with bring to bear on the topic. For instance, early in a
the project. Backing up their comments, recordings media literacy program,the students assumed race
provided multiple layers in which to assess their rela- was not an issue due to the lack of student racial
tionships,as well as the complexities of social posi- diversity. After discussion of who and what was
tions and roles played in the project. made invisible in this discourse, students decided
Each of the “so what?” questions posed above to make Whiteness a part of the curriculum.
reflects the theoretical contributions of social con-
Engaging Resistance (Journaling and Class
structionism and critical pedagogy. At the center of
Discussion)
this approach is engagement. Students must be moti-
As discussed earlier, acceptance or rejection of
vated and excited, self- and socially-reflective, as
uncomfortable knowledges or one’s own complici-
well as critical of the CSL experience to undergo the ty in maintaining privilege and the status quo is
type of personal and social growth that CSL promis- part of the process of a social approach. Through
es. Assessment of the social learning introduced here focusing on how meanings for normalcy and
should also reflect the different and varied goals of deviancy,visibility and invisibility,etc. are negoti-
CSL courses. Assessment can be used to determine ated,students can be moved toward an examination
whether and to what degree students,as individuals of their learning that does not blame them, but
and part of other social groups and contexts, are rather involves them in a critique and raises
engaged. It can also be used to help outline peda- accountability for the consequences of discursive
gogical and larger (societal,critical,relational,etc.) and nondiscursive actions that maintain status quo.
goals associated with the CSL course and measure
Role Negotiation (Journaling,Multi-Level Focus
progress toward reaching them.
Groups,Class Discussion)
Asking theoretical and pragmatic questions that
Building from social constructionist theory, stu-
reflect the concept of engagement and building
dents and community members are asked what they
techniques for evaluation around that concept can
thought their role was prior to interacting with each
help structure and organize the ways in which
other and how (if at all) they felt their roles shifted
learning is assessed. Assessment models and tech-
as they worked through the process. The emphasis
niques for CSL (Batenburg & Pope,1997; Bringle
here is on the ways individuals understand their
& Hatcher, 1996; Driscoll, Holland, Gelmon, &
own and others’social roles,and how roles are con-
Kerrigan, 1996; Gelmon et al., 2001; Giles &
tinually structured and restructured in negotiation
Eyler, 1999; Levin, 2000; Renner & Bush, 1997)
with others in the community project.
do not always assign an explicit role to the notion
of civic and social engagement,although it is often Terms for Identity and Practice (Class Exercises,
an implied element in the outcomes tested. In an Journaling,Class Discussion,Focus Groups)
exception to that rule, Astin, Vogelsgang, Ikeda, Again,using social constructionism as a theoret-
ical basis, students are asked to identify prominent
and Yee (2000) studied open-ended student feed-
terms used for being (who they think they are—a
back responses specifically for signs of engage-
leader, conservative, problem solver) and for local
ment in the CSL course. Others, however, do not
practices (what it is they do—help people transition
necessarily specify how they looked for signs of
into society,“fix”people’s problems) by communi-
engagement in students’ feedback measures (e.g.,
ty workers,clients,in their academic reading for the
surveys, interviews, focus groups, or written jour-
course,and among themselves. They then examine
nal or other assignments), yet it was presumably
these concepts across groups to discuss social and
among the outcomes examined.
cultural assumptions embedded in their own and
In placing engagement at the center of CSL plan-
others’ use of these terms, and how their under-
ning, execution, and assessment, the authors have
standings of the terms are reconstructed through
applied a number of assessment concepts and
relationships with others in the community.
assessment techniques, all of which stem from the
reflection process that characterizes CSL. Assessment Techniques
Assessment Concepts
Videotaping
Privileging the Absent (Journaling and Class As mentioned above, the authors used video to
Discussion) record interactions within and among all groups
Building from the work of feminist and critical involved in our projects,from the planning through
pedagogy scholars, the authors use this process to implementation and assessment of the CSL project.
52
Toward a Social Approach to Learning in Community Service Learning
Video provides an assessment of process and per- for raising questions that place communication and
formance of learning and resistance that reflects interaction as central to learning and situate CSL
both critical pedagogy and the social construction- participants and projects in their social, political,
ist perspective. In addition,video provides a check cultural,and moral contexts.
on the validity of self-reports of learning and under- CSL is neither atheoretical nor apolitical; howev-
scores the complexity of contexts in and through er, few scholars have fully addressed the political
which meanings (for community, service, and the implications for this type of learning and the risks
project) are negotiated. that such learning involves. The social approach to
learning and its application explicated in this paper
Cross-Group Focus Groups
begins to explore the perception of risk involved
In developing a richer context for discussing and
with implementing CSL that teachers and students
reflecting on learning, the authors used focus
have expressed,and that often leads to resistance to
groups comprised of the various populations
participating in the CSL project or class. Students
involved in the project (instructors, students, com-
may attempt engagement and then reject the poten-
munity members).
tial for change/growth because they fear their own
Additionally,the authors used assessment strate-
knowledges may be altered. In attempting to set
gies that utilize quantitative and qualitative means
forth a social approach,the authors hope to demon-
of measuring students’ and participating faculty
strate that engaged learning is a process encom-
and community members’levels of engagement on
passing all forms of response,because reactions to
multiple levels: with the course overall, the CSL
experience are constructed, inherently social,
aspect of the course that entails involvement and
dynamic,and transformative. The idea that engage-
participation in the community setting,and the idea
ment encompasses and draws from experiences of
of service and cooperative learning, etc. In other
acceptance as well as rejection of “uncomfortable”
work related to the social approach detailed here
experiences and knowledge in our social approach
(Cooks & Scharrer,in progress; Scharrer,Cooks,&
model differs from the treatment of resistance in
Paredes,2002; Scharrer,Paredes,& Cooks,2003),
both the traditional and critical literatures on learn-
the authors have described and assessed a triangu-
ing in an educational setting, which imply that
lated approach to data from an ongoing media liter-
rejection of knowledge does not qualify as learning.
acy and violence prevention partnership. We have
In working toward a social approach to learning
also built a curriculum around the social approach
that emphasizes communicative processes in ser-
that provides a foundation for students to raise the
vice-learning and other contexts, the authors’goal
“so what?” questions discussed above and offers a
is that teachers and scholars interested in CSL can
basis for reflective inquiry around those questions
embrace the messiness of meaning-making in a
(Cooks & Scharrer,in progress).
complex society. We also hope to have illustrated
some of the reasons why locating meaning solely as
Conclusions
occurring within individuals obscures the civic,
This paper has brought together a variety of dis- cultural, moral, and social dimensions of this
courses on learning to move toward creating a dynamic. Scholars/teachers trying to make connec-
social approach to learning in CSL contexts. While tions between classroom learning and community
there is no shortage of research detailing modes and contexts can begin to see the locations where mean-
styles of learning in a variety of contexts, there is ing is embraced or opposed as part of a process of
little work that attempts to combine critical theories risk,change,and acceptance,rather than simply as
of learning and education with approaches that skills acquired or outcomes achieved. CSL is
view learning as a process of communication and poised to be at the forefront of an international
engagement. The focus in this paper has been on effort to bring together classroom and community,
CSL as a key context in which relational or and we believe that placing communication at the
engaged learning occurs,and the need for more the- center of learning will contribute to this movement.
ory-driven work that looks at the possibilities and Indeed, it is the discovery of multiple layers of
constraints that learning in the community presents. complexities, rather than a neat simplicity, that
The authors have worked to build connections exemplifies the beauty of CSL praxis.
between epistemology, theory, methodology, and
Notes
application to provide a structure that addresses the
call for more complex approaches to learning
1 The authors have utilized this approach in a variety
raised by CSL scholars (e.g., Clark, 2002; Kahne,
of projects that are beyond the scope of this paper. Here,
Weshelmer, & Rogers, 2000; Warter & Grossman, our assessment strategies are based on our work with stu-
2002). In doing so,we have provided a foundation dents and community members participating in a collab-
53