A Research Agenda for K-12 School-based Service-Learning: Academic Achievement and School Success

Abstract coming soon

Service-Learning and School-to-Work: Making the Connections

Recently, much attention has been focused on two federal initiatives that encourage students to explore learning opportunities outside the classroom. The National and Community Service Trust Act and the School to Work Opportunities Act provide states with assistance to develop and implement school programs in which elementary, secondary, and post-secondary students are engaged in learning experiences that are hands-on, meaningful, and connected to the real world. Although the acts differ on their intended educational purposes, both are based on similar educational philosophies, principles, and pedagogies. These fundamental similarities suggest that the two reforms can work synergistically to establish powerful and exciting school programs. This paper describes the tenets of each reform act, lists the ways the two acts are complementary, and provides examples of how school sites and districts have found ways to connect the two reforms in effective and creative ways

A conceptual framework for the institutionalization of youth service programs in primary and secondary education

Founded upon three principles, the paper presents a conceptual framework that lays out the important philosophical, structural, and programmatic foundations upon which K-12 service programs may be built. The philosophical principle is based on results from service program studies that have focused on the educational outcomes of students engaged in service. The structural principle is presented through a comprehensive rubric that identifies nine possible ways to structure K-12 service programs. The programmatic principle is based on 12 important issues that should be addressed to ensure program institutionalization

School-sponsored Service Programs and the Educational Development of High School Students

Currently, a growing number of our nation\u27s school districts are encouraging students to perform community service. Vermont, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, for example, all include community service activities as part of their K-12 education plans. Maryland requires all high school students to complete 60 hours of community service prior to graduation. And as part of California\u27s Challenge Initiative, it is expected that by the Year 2004, every student in California will engage in at least one community service or service-learning experience prior to graduation (1996, California Department of Education)

Is Service-Learning Really Better Than Community Service? A Study of High School Service Program Outcomes

In their 1981 study, the Experiential Education Evaluation Project, Dan Conrad and Diane Hedin investigated the impact of a range of experiential education programs on secondary school students. The study, which involved more than 1000 secondary school students, compared the effects of five different types of experiential education programs-community service, internships, political action, community study, and adventure education on students\u27 psychological, social, and intellectual development. The study found that the various programmatic forms of experiential education showed significant, positive effects in all three student outcome areas. It also revealed that certain programmatic features, such as clearly articulated program goals and well-delineated program structures, create the conditions under which the student outcomes are manifested

The Use of Grand Assessments in K-12 Service-Learning Research

Findings from most studies on the impacts of service-learning on K-12 students tend to be based on one assessment too/focusing on one construct (e.g., self-esteem, civic participation, etc.). While conventional research wisdom tells us that this approach is more statistically stable, it does not seem to be adequate for studying service-learning programs. Both service-learning and experiential education researchers face several dilemmas in determining the effects of service-learning activities on students\u27 educational development. The idiosyncratic nature of the program activities, the lack of well-tested assessment instruments, the confounding influences on students learning, etc., make service-learning research a challenging and difficult endeavor. Several researchers are grappling with these dilemmas by inventing new assessment tools and creative practices that attempt to get at the core issues of service-learning in K-12 education. An increasing number of researchers are relying on grand assessments, using a selective collection of methodologies and assessment instruments, to capture the full range of potential outcomes. Here are reports of two such research studies

Evaluating Service-Learning Programs

What we know about service-learning programs regarding impacts on students, communities, institutions: • little systematic data analysis has been done; • most existing findings are anecdotal; • findings that exist are narrow in scope and are typically nongeneralizeable to other programs; • most studies on service-learning have focused on the impact of service on student (service provider) development; • there are a growing number of service-learning evaluations that are assessing the impacts of service on communities (service recipients); • assessments of the impacts of service-learning on institutions are negligible • regarding impacts on students, we know that service can impact students in six domains: academic achievement, career development, social development, personal development, civic responsibility, and ethical development (See Kendall et al, Eds.; 1990; Williams, 1990; Conrad & Hedin, 1987)

Service-Learning: A Balanced Approach to Experiential Education

For over a quarter of a century, education researchers and practitioners have struggled to determine how to best characterize service-learning. In 1979, Robert Sigmon defined service-learning as an experiential education approach that is premised on reciprocal learning (Sigmon, 1979). He suggested that because learning flows from service activities, both those who provide service and those who receive it learn from the experience. In Sigmon\u27s view, service-learning occurs only when both the providers and recipients of service benefit from the activities

Self-Assessment Rubric for the Institutionalization of Service-Learning in Higher Education

The Self-Assessment Rubric for the Institutionalization of Service-Learning in Higher Education was designed to assist members of the higher education community in gauging the progress of their service-learning institutionalization efforts on their campus. The rubric is structured by five dimensions that are considered by most service-learning experts to be key factors for higher education service-learning institutionalization. Each dimension is comprised of several components that characterize the dimension. For each component, a threestage continuum of development has been established. Progression from Stage One: Critical Mass Building to Stage Three: Sustained Institutionalization suggests that the institution is moving closer to fully institutionalizing service-learning on its campus. The conceptual framework for the rubric is based largely on a benchmark worksheet that was developed by Kevin Kecskes and Julie Muyllaert of the Western Region Campus Compact Consortium\u27s Continuums of Service program. The three-stage developmental continuum and most of the self-assessment rubric\u27s institutionalization dimensions were derived from the Kecskes/Mullyaert Continuums of Service benchmark worksheet. 1 The other dimensions of the rubric were derived from various literature sources that discuss the critical elements for institutionalizing service-learning in higher education. In particular, the work of the following individuals provided important foundational information for the development of the rubric: Edward Zlotkowski of Bentley College and the American Association for Higher Education: Rob Serow, Diane C. Calleson, and Lani Parker of North Carolina State University; Leigh Morgan of the North Carolina Commission on National and Community Service; Amy Driscoll of California State University, Monterey Bay; Donna Dengel and Roger Yerke of Portland, Oregon; and Gail Robinson of the American Association of Community Colleges.

Evaluation System for Experiential Education Programs: Evaluation Guide

This guide contains: ESEE Description;Timeline; Program Goal & Objectives Forms; Student Pre-Test (designed for each institution); Journal Questions: Faculty Guide & Student Handouts; Student Field Placement Form; Student Focus Group Interview Protocol; Faculty Focus Group Interview Protocol; Community Agency Focus Group Interview Protocol; Community Agency Survey (designed for each institution); Student Post-Test (designed for each institution); and ESEE Checklist