Service-learning

Abstract

This chapter defines service-learning and reviews the evidence regarding its academic, civic, personal, and other learning outcomes. Although service-learning produces positive outcomes in many areas, the pedagogy's most significant outcome may be the transformative learning that can result for all participants.

Full text

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING, no. 128, Winter 2011 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/tl.470
8
Service-Learning
Peter Felten, Patti H. Clayton
Institutions of higher education institutions in the United States have
always had public as well as academic purposes. The earliest colleges aimed
to prepare religious and civic leaders for colonial communities. Thomas
Jefferson and others conceived of universities as cultivating capacities for
self-governance. The 1862 Morrill Act created land-grant colleges to make
higher education widely accessible and thereby enhance the nation’s eco-
nomic, technological, and civic development. This theme echoes in con-
temporary calls for institutions of higher education to become more
engaged with broader communities and to focus on the education of young
people as citizens (Boyer, 1996; Bringle, Games, and Malloy, 1999; Colby
and others, 2003; Saltmarsh and Hartley, 2011).
The question of how best to fulfi ll the academy’s role in civic life ani-
mates many discussions about the identity and function of higher educa-
tion in the twenty-fi rst century. Service-learning is emerging as a central
component of efforts to connect both disciplinary learning and general
education with this historic and increasingly salient commitment to public
purposes. Educating Citizens: Preparing America’s Undergraduates for Lives of
Moral and Civic Responsibility (2003) by Colby and others and “How Civic
Engagement Is Reframing Liberal Education” (2003) by Rhoads are but two
infl uential calls for conceptualizing teaching and learning in ways that con-
nect campus with community. Building on this renewed emphasis, in 2006,
the Carnegie Foundation launched an elective “Community Engagement”
classifi cation that highlights curricular integration of civic with academic
learning.
75
This chapter defi nes service-learning and reviews the evidence
regarding its academic, civic, personal, and other learning outcomes.
Although service-learning produces positive outcomes in many
areas, the pedagogy’s most signifi cant outcome may be the transfor-
mative learning that can result for all participants.

76 EVIDENCE-BASED TEACHING
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl
Service-learning is embraced as both a mechanism for community
engagement and high-impact pedagogy across institution types and disci-
plines and at undergraduate and graduate levels. For example, the Series on
Service-Learning in the Disciplines includes volumes for over twenty fi elds.
Recent years have also seen growth in research on service-learning, includ-
ing the establishment of the peer-reviewed Michigan Journal for Community
Service Learning in 1994 and of the annual International Research Confer-
ence on Service-Learning and Community Engagement in 2000. The evi-
dence base on the impact of service-learning, and on the design variables
that shape its outcomes, continues to expand and deepen.
Defi ning, Designing, and Implementing Service-Learning
Since Sigmon’s foundational article “Service-Learning: Three Principles”
(1979) formalized the pedagogy, numerous defi nitions of service-learning
have emerged. Ehrlich (1996) provided a general framework:
Service-learning is the various pedagogies that link community service and
academic study so that each strengthens the other. The basic theory of ser-
vice-learning is Dewey’s: the interaction of knowledge and skills with experi-
ence is key to learning. (p. xi)
Bringle, Hatcher, and McIntosh (2006) offered perhaps the most cited
operational defi nition:
Service-learning is a course-based, credit-bearing educational experience in
which students (a) participate in an organized service activity that meets
identifi ed community needs and (b) refl ect on the service activity in such a
way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader apprecia-
tion of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of personal values and civic
responsibility. (p. 12)
As the fi eld has matured, the range of defi nitions has converged on
several core characteristics. Service-learning experiences:
• Advance learning goals (academic and civic) and community purposes
• Involve reciprocal collaboration among students, faculty/staff, commu-
nity members, community organizations, and educational institutions to
fulfi ll shared objectives and build capacity among all partners
• Include critical refl ection and assessment processes that are intentionally
designed and facilitated to produce and document meaningful learning
and service outcomes
Within these parameters, service-learning experiences vary based on
local context and the objectives and constraints of those involved. Service-
learning courses range across the curriculum, from fi rst-year surveys to

SERVICE-LEARNING 77
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl
graduate seminars. Service-learning experiences include short-term mod-
ules, semester-long activities, and multiyear as well as multicourse projects.
The service may be direct or indirect, may involve low or high levels of
responsibility, and may have a research component. “Community” may be
construed as on-campus, in the local neighborhood, in a nearby municipal-
ity, in another state or country, or online. The term may refer to one or
more partners, from small grassroots initiatives to large nonprofi t or for-
profi t organizations. Reciprocity is essential to the collaboration between
community and campus, creating a strong connection between the aca-
demic context and public concerns. Refl ection enables and reinforces this
linkage. Refl ection may take written and/or oral forms, may be undertaken
individually and/or collaboratively, and may occur with varying degrees
of frequency and feedback. Critical refl ection is the component of service-
learning that generates, deepens, and documents learning (Ash and
Clayton, 2009a, 2009b).
Service-learning experiences can be understood and designed through
the lens of a simple conceptual framework shown in Figure 1. As this
model illustrates, service-learning aims to develop academic knowledge/
skills/dispositions as well as civic learning and personal growth—either of
which may be defi ned to include such widely valued outcomes as intercul-
tural competence and teamwork. Developing critical-thinking skills is often
an explicit goal, as is learning at the intersections of the categories.
The interdependence of learning processes and outcomes with com-
munity processes and outcomes not only renders service-learning powerful
as a vehicle for learning and social change, but also makes it challenging to
implement effectively. As one example of this complexity, community orga-
nizations are not mere learning laboratories but rather realms of signifi cant
problem solving and human interaction, which means that much more
than student learning is at stake. With its interdisciplinary, experiential,
refl ective, nonhierarchical, and unpredictable nature, service-learning is
among the most “counternormative” of pedagogies, by design deviating in
significant ways from traditional teaching and learning strategies with
which students and faculty alike may well be more familiar (Clayton and
Ash, 2004; Howard, 1998). Among other implications, the range and
nature of evidence regarding its impact—and how we go about generating
and documenting that evidence—is in some ways familiar and in other
ways nontraditional.
Review of the Empirical Evidence
As summarized by Eyler (2010), “A good deal is now known about the
impact of service learning on students’ outcomes and on the particular
characteristics of service learning that affect specifi c types of results” (p.
225). Her review of research to date confi rms “a fairly consistent pattern of
small but signifi cant impact . . . on college students’ personal, academic,

78 EVIDENCE-BASED TEACHING
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl
and social outcomes . . . and growing evidence of . . . impact on behavior
and civic engagement” (p. 225).
In 2008, the Association of American Colleges and Universities pub-
lished Kuh’s report on High-Impact Educational Practices. This analysis drew
on years of data collected through the National Survey of Student Engage-
ment (NSSE), supplemented by other research, to identify educational
practices that “are correlated with positive educational results for students
from widely varying backgrounds” (p. 1). NSEE relies on students’ reports
of their experiences and takes as a reasonable proxy for learning various
well-established indicators of “engagement,” such as close faculty–student
interaction (Carini, Kuh, and Klein, 2006). Service-learning correlates
strongly with deep learning and personal development for both fi rst-year
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for Service-Learning
academic
learning
civic
learning
personal
growth
critical
reflection
Components of Service-Learning
Learning Goal Categories of
material
academic
service
relevant
Service-Learning
(critical thinking in all)
Partners in Service-Learning
students
community
members
faculty/
staff
Source: Reprinted with permission from Ash and Clayton, 2009b.

SERVICE-LEARNING 79
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl
and senior-level undergraduates (the populations targeted by NSSE). Sig-
nifi cantly, “historically underserved students tend to benefi t more” from
engaged pedagogies, like service-learning, than majority students do,
although these practices are “high-impact” for all types of students (Kuh,
2008, p. 17).
A frequently cited investigation of service-learning’s outcomes (Astin,
Vogelgesang, Ikeda, and Yee, 2000) included a mix of quantitative and
qualitative methods to generate longitudinal data from over 22,000 under-
graduates on campuses across the United States. Some students partici-
pated in service-learning, some in community service, and some in neither.
The authors examined the impacts of community service and service-
learning in several areas including academic performance, values, self-
effi cacy, leadership, career plans, and intention to engage in service after
graduation. Participation in community service was correlated with signifi -
cant positive results in all areas examined, with service-learning outcomes
further enhanced on all measures except self-effi cacy and leadership. The
strongest service-learning outcomes appeared in the category of academic
performance, and the most signifi cant factors infl uencing academic out-
comes were student preparation for service, refl ection, and subject-matter
interest, which the authors suggested indicates the value of using the peda-
gogy in major courses. The authors concluded that in well-designed ser-
vice-learning activities, students are prompted to evaluate differing
perspectives and complex situations, which can lead to development of
their capacity to think critically and to understand social issues.
In another infl uential study, Eyler and Giles (1999) used pre– and
post–problem-solving interviews to gather evidence about various aspects
of student reasoning, including the application of knowledge in new situa-
tions. This study revealed that “participation in well-integrated and highly
refl ective service-learning courses was a predictor of increased complexity
in analysis of both causes and solutions to social problems” (p. 75). Draw-
ing on cognitive theory to help explain the pedagogy’s ability to promote
intellectual growth, the authors suggested that service-learning encourages
students to consider perspectives other than their own and helps them cul-
tivate capacities for making informed judgments.
Researchers have found it more challenging to authentically assess
specifi c disciplinary learning associated with the pedagogy. Eyler and Giles
(1999) contended that traditional measurements, especially of factual
knowledge and other lower-level learning goals, might not adequately cap-
ture service-learning’s most signifi cant contributions to students’ academic
development. Direct comparisons of student learning in service-learning
and non–service-learning courses in fi elds as disparate as child develop-
ment (Strage, 2000), composition (Wurr, 2002), and rehabilitation services
(Mpufo, 2007) demonstrate consistent patterns. Service-learning did not
appear to enhance factual knowledge as measured, for example, by stan-
dard exams—students in service-learning sections performed comparably

80 EVIDENCE-BASED TEACHING
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl
to their traditionally taught peers on those measures. However, on higher-
order thinking tasks, such as analytical essays and case-based assignments,
students in service-learning sections consistently performed better than
their peers. Reviewing these and other studies, Jameson, Clayton, and Ash
(forthcoming) noted that service-learning appears to contribute to equiva-
lent basic knowledge acquisition but enhanced critical thinking within dis-
ciplinary contexts. They also explored and called for research on the
pedagogy’s role in cultivating student capacities to think from disciplinary
and interdisciplinary perspectives.
Ash, Clayton, and Atkinson (2005) reinforced the emerging consensus
that service-learning is particularly well suited to cultivate higher-order
reasoning and critical thinking with a study that examined iterations across
time of student refl ection products. The curricular context for the study
included careful guidance of student refl ection to support the integration of
service-learning experiences with academic (and other) learning objectives.
The level of students’ reasoning about disciplinary concepts as measured
with two rubrics—one based on Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy and the other
on Paul and Elder’s (2006) standards of critical thinking—increased over
time, although not so signifi cantly as their thinking in the categories of
civic learning and personal growth. This study confi rmed the central role
of well-integrated critical reflection and suggested that students may
require scaffolding and guided practice to move beyond application of
course concepts to, for example, critical evaluation of those concepts. Stu-
dents often may need to learn how to learn through critical refl ection, and
doing so helps develop their capacities for higher-order reasoning and criti-
cal thinking.
Evidence for service-learning’s civic learning outcomes is compelling.
A large study (Astin and others, 2006) following students at more than 200
institutions from their fi rst year in college to six years after graduation
demonstrated that service-learning and other community-based experi-
ences contribute to long-term student political and community involve-
ment, especially when supported by faculty-led refl ection. Eyler (2010)
summarized the fi ndings of several major studies comparing students who
participated in service-learning with those who did not, reporting that ser-
vice-learning contributed to political interest and effi cacy, a sense of con-
nectedness to community, social responsibility, future intent to participate
in community life, and life skills. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) claimed
the evidence is “conclusive” (p. 304) that service-learning contributes to
enhanced civic engagement.
More than two decades of research also provides consistent evidence
that “service-learning has a positive effect on student personal develop-
ment” (Eyler, Giles, Stenson, and Gray, 2001, p. 1). As summarized by
Brandenberger (forthcoming), personal growth outcomes that have been
investigated include sense of effi cacy, spiritual development, identity for-
mation, self-authorship, moral development, agency, career development,

SERVICE-LEARNING 81
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl
leadership, and well-being. Service-learning often exposes students to peo-
ple and experiences that are new to them, potentially leading to openness
to diverse perspectives and ways of being (Fitch, 2005; Jones and Abes,
2004) as well as enhanced empathy (Lundy, 2007). For example, multiple
studies (Astin and others, 2000; Kahne and Westheimer, 2006; Stewart,
2009) suggested that service-learning contributes to signifi cant gains in
self-effi cacy, although Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) posit that service-
learning experiences may prompt students to understand more fully the
true complexity of social problems and thereby cause them to lose previ-
ously held, often naïve, confi dence in their individual capacity to effect
systematic change.
Key to many of these outcomes is the way in which service-learning
evokes integrated cognitive and affective responses. In service-learning,
students often come face-to-face with troubling social realities, making
connections between emotion and learning, a particularly salient consider-
ation for this pedagogy. Building on Dewey’s ([1933], 1997) theorizing
about the central role of dissonance in learning, service-learning practitioner-
scholars have begun to explore the positive roles emotion can play in learn-
ing, emphasizing how the emotional dimensions of experience can
contribute to developmental outcomes, including enhanced motivation,
empathy, and persistence (Felten, Gilchrist, and Darby, 2006).
Conclusion: Service-Learning’s Transformative Potential
Generic conclusions regarding the effectiveness of service-learning or any
other pedagogy are less meaningful than critical determination of the con-
ditions under which it is effective in producing specifi ed types of outcomes.
Our synthesis of the research suggests that service-learning is most effective
at generating signifi cant educational outcomes in these cases:
• Learning and service goals are appropriate and integrated.
• Student work is designed so that goals, experiences in the community
and in the classroom, refl ection activities, and assessment are aligned
and complementary.
• The community partnership is collaborative throughout, from initial
planning to completion.
• The experience is integrative, bridging what students do in and out of
class and connecting perspectives and knowledge from the full range of
participants.
• The pedagogy is intentionally designed yet fl exible enough to accommo-
date dynamic situations and to respond to capacity-building needs and
opportunities for everyone involved.
Underlying these design characteristics is a set of epistemological
commitments that give service-learning its unique power to cultivate

82 EVIDENCE-BASED TEACHING
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl
wide-ranging and deep outcomes. Fundamentally, service-learning chal-
lenges the traditional identities and roles of students and calls on them not
only to consume knowledge but also to produce it. Given the associated
radical shifts it evokes, well-designed service-learning can facilitate signifi -
cant transformation of student perspectives and practices (Clayton and
Ash, 2004), providing what Eyler and Giles (1999) called a “new set of
lenses for seeing the world” (p. 129) and new ways of being in it. Such
“transformative learning” (Cranton, 2006; Mezirow and Associates, 2000)
occurs when learners change their frames of reference by critically refl ect-
ing on their assumptions, beliefs, and understanding of the world.
Service-learning also holds the potential for such transformational out-
comes because it fosters what Vandenberg (1991) referred to as the capacity
to engage with others “as ‘cobeings’ and not as objects” (p. 1281). Recipro-
cal, authentic relationships—such as those that underlie service-learning at
its best—provide conditions well suited to transformative learning. Several
practitioner-scholars (e.g., Jameson, Clayton, and Jaeger, 2010; Saltmarsh,
Hartley, and Clayton, 2009) posit that service-learning’s potential is maxi-
mized when it positions students, faculty, and community members as co-
learners, coeducators, and cogenerators of knowledge. Thus, unlike much
other pedagogy, the defi ning learning outcomes of service-learning tran-
scend students to encompass learning and development for everyone
involved. The claim of former service-learning student leaders that “ulti-
mately, students best undertake [service-learning as] a developmental jour-
ney when those who support and mentor them are also striving for growth
through the same process” (Whitney, McClure, Respet,
and Clayton, 2007, p. 195) is a powerful argument for intentionally culti-
vating the full range of learning outcomes across all partners and for
gathering evidence based on service-learning’s mutually transformative
potential.
References
Ash, S. L., and Clayton, P. H. “Generating, Deepening, and Documenting Learning: The
Power of Critical Refl ection for Applied Learning.” Journal of Applied Learning in
Higher Education, 2009a, 1, 25–48.
Ash, S. L., and Clayton, P. H. Learning through Critical Refl ection: A Tutorial for Students
in Service-Learning (Instructor Version). Raleigh, N.C.: Authors, 2009b.
Ash, S. L., Clayton, P. H., and Atkinson, M. P. “Integrating Refl ection and Assessment to
Capture and Improve Student Learning.” Michigan Journal of Community Service
Learning, 2005, 11, 49–60.
Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., and Yee, J. A. How Service Learning Affects
Students. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA, 2000.
Astin, A. W., and others. Understanding the Effects of Service-Learning: A Study of Students
and Faculty. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA, 2006.
Bloom, B. S. (ed.). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain.
New York: David McKay, 1956.
Boyer, E. L. “The Scholarship of Engagement.” Journal of Public Service and Outreach,
1996, 1, 1.

SERVICE-LEARNING 83
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl
Brandenberger, J. “Research on the Personal Development of Students in Service
Learning.” In P. Clayton, J. Hatcher, and R. Bringle (eds.), Research on
Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Assessment (Vol. 2). IUPUI Series on
Service Learning Research. Sterling, Va.: Stylus, forthcoming.
Bringle, R., Games, R., and Malloy, E. A. “Colleges and Universities as Citizens:
Reflections.” In R. Bringle, R. Games, and E. A. Malloy (eds.), Colleges and
Universities as Citizens (pp. 193–204). Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon,
1999.
Bringle, R., Hatcher, J., and McIntosh, R. “Analyzing Morton’s Typology of Service
Paradigms and Integrity.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2006, 13,
5–15.
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., and Klein, S. P. “Student Engagement and Student Learning:
Testing the Linkages.” Research in Higher Education, 2006, 47, 1–32.
Clayton, P. H., and Ash, S. L. “Shifts in Perspective: Capitalizing on the Counter-
Normative Nature of Service-Learning.” Michigan Journal of Community Service
Learning, 2004, 11, 59–70.
Colby, A., and others. Educating Citizens: Preparing America’s Undergraduates for Lives of
Moral and Civic Responsibility. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.
Cranton, P. “Fostering Authentic Relationships in the Transformative Classroom.” New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2006, 109, 5–13.
Dewey, J. How We Think. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover, 1997. (Originally published 1933.)
Ehrlich, T. Foreword. In B. Jacoby and Associates, Service-Learning in Higher Education:
Concepts and Practices (pp. xi-xvi). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.
Eyler, J. “What International Service Learning Research Can Learn from Research on
Service Learning.” In R. G. Bringle, J. A. Hatcher, and S. G. Jones (eds.), International
Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Research (Vol. 2, pp. 225–242). IUPUI
Series on Service Learning Research. Sterling, Va.: Stylus, 2010.
Eyler, J., and Giles, D. E., Jr. Where’s the Learning in Service-Learning? San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1999.
Eyler, J. S., Giles, D. E., Jr., Stenson, C. M., and Gray, C. J. At a Glance: What We Know
about the Effects of Service-Learning on College Students, Faculty, Institutions and
Communities, 1993–2000. (3rd ed.) Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt University Press,
2001.
Felten, P., Gilchrist, L. Z., and Darby, A. “Emotion and Learning: Feeling Our Way
Toward a New Theory of Reflection in Service-Learning.” Michigan Journal of
Community Service Learning, 2006, 12, 28–46.
Fitch, P. “In Their Own Voices: A Mixed-Methods Approach to Studying Intercultural
Service-Learning with College Students.” In S. Root, J. Callahan, and S. H. Billig
(eds.), Improving Service-Learning Practice: Research on Models to Enhance Impacts (pp.
187–211). Greenwich, Conn.: Information Age, 2005.
Howard, J. “Academic Service Learning: A Counter Normative Pedagogy.” New
Directions in Teaching and Learning, 1998, 73, 21–29.
Jameson, J., Clayton, P., and Ash, S. “Research on the Academic Learning of Students in
Service-Learning.” In P. Clayton, J. Hatcher, and R. Bringle (eds.), Research on Service
Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Assessment (Vol. 2). IUPUI Series on Service
Learning Research. Sterling, Va.: Stylus, forthcoming.
Jameson, J., Clayton, P., and Jaeger, A. “Community Engaged Scholarship as Mutually
Transformative Partnerships.” In L. Harter, J. Hamel-Lambert, and J. Millesen (eds.),
Participatory Partnerships for Social Action and Research (pp. 259–277). Dubuque,
Iowa: Kendall Hunt, 2010.
Jones, S. R., and Abes, E. S. “Enduring Influences of Service-Learning on College
Students’ Identity Development.” Journal of College Student Development, 2004, 45,
149–166.

84 EVIDENCE-BASED TEACHING
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl
Kahne, J., and Westheimer, J. “The Limits of Political Effi cacy: Educating Citizens for a
Democratic Society.” PS: Political Science and Politics, 2006, 39, 289–296.
Kuh, G. High-Impact Educational Practices. Washington, D.C.: Association of American
Colleges and Universities, 2008.
Lundy, B. L. “Service Learning in Life-Span Developmental Psychology: Higher Exam
Scores and Increased Empathy.” Teaching of Psychology, 2007, 34, 23–27.
Mezirow, J., and Associates. Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory
in Progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
Mpofu, E. “Service Learning Effects on the Academic Learning of Rehabilitation Services
Students.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2007, 14, 46–52.
Pascarella, E. T., and Terenzini, P. T. How College Affects Students: Vol. 2. A Third Decade
of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
Paul, R., and Elder, L. Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and
Your Life. (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2006.
Rhoads, R. “How Civic Engagement Is Reframing Liberal Education.” Peer Review,
2003, 5, 25–28.
Saltmarsh, J., and Hartley, M. (eds.). “To Serve a Larger Purpose”: Engagement for
Democracy and the Transformation of Higher Education. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 2011.
Saltmarsh, J., Hartley, M., and Clayton, P. Democratic Engagement White Paper. Boston:
New England Resource Center for Higher Education, 2009.
Sigmon, R. “Service-Learning: Three Principles.” Synergist, 1979, 8(10), 9–11.
Stewart, T. “Community Collaboration for Underserved Schools: A First-Year Honors
Service-Learning Seminar Approach.” Journal for Civic Commitment, 2009, 13, 1–16.
Strage, A. A. “Service Learning: Enhancing Student Learning Outcomes in a College-
Level Lecture Course.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2000, 7,
5–13.
Vandenberg, B. “Is Epistemology Enough? An Existential Consideration of
Development.” American Psychologist, 1991, 46, 1278–1286.
Whitney, B. C., McClure, J. D., Respet, A. J., and Clayton, P. H. “Service-Learning as a
Shared Developmental Journey: Tapping the Potential of the Pedagogy.” In L.
McIlrath and I. MacLabhrainn (eds.), Higher Education and Civic Engagement:
International Perspectives (pp. 185–196). Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2007.
Wurr, A. J. “Service Learning and Student Writing.” In S. H. Billig and A. Furco (eds.),
Service Learning Through a Multidisciplinary Lens (pp. 103–121). Greenwich, Conn.:
Information Age, 2002.
PETER FELTEN is assistant provost for teaching and learning at Elon University
and president (2010–2011) of the Professional and Organizational Development
Network in Higher Education.
PATTI H. CLAYTON is an independent consultant (PHC Ventures: www
.curricularengagement.com) and a senior scholar with the Center for Service
and Learning at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis.

Copyright of New Directions for Teaching & Learning is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.