Running head: SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

Service-Learning Programs in Higher Education

Hiram Ramirez
Loyola University Chicago

SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

Service-Learning Programs in Higher Education

Institutions of higher education are constantly facing new challenges. Recently,
institutions have been admitting more students with different backgrounds and educational
experience. This diversity has transformed college campuses and opened up new ways of
looking at academia. One of these new ways of exploring education is service-learning. There
are a multitude of ways in which service-learning can be engaged and used as a way to enhance
learning for students. This paper will analyze five institutions service-learning programs at
different institutions by highlighting components of the programs and generating themes.
Program Overview
The service-learning programs researched included Florida State University, the
University of South Florida, the University of San Francisco, the University of Central Florida
and the University of Georgia. All of the service-learning programs at each of the institutions
had both curricular and cocurricular programs. Like Jacoby (1996) shares, service-learning is
both curricular and cocurricular, because all learning does not occur in the classroom (p. 6).
And each of the programs also ensured academic rigor was maintained in the service-learning
experiences, which is an important factor in developing strong service-learning curriculum
(Howard, 1993). The programs were able to keep the rigor in service-learning by intentional
reaching out and developing partnerships with faculty members. Though each institutions level
of engagement with faculty seemed to vary, there was a presence of faculty involvement at each
of the programs. Every service-learning program had their own way of engaging their campus
and community.
The Center for Leadership and Social Change at Florida State University had a large
focus on student development around their identity development and leadership education (The

SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

Center for Leadership and Social Justice, 2015). Their mission statement also expressed an
interest in engaging the community, but there seemed to be less of a focus in this area. The
Center for Leadership and Social Change had a portal for community members to promote
upcoming service opportunities. This portal allows community members to address the needs
of the community as determined by the members, but it seemed that it would be hard for
students to immerse themselves in the community (Jacoby, 1997, p. 7). This type of exchange is
more transactional than developmental, and it does not allow for a strong relationship to be built
between the Center for Leadership and Social Change and the community organization. But
through these collaborative relationships with community members, students are able to engage
in various programs. Some of the programs housed in this office were Community Ambassadors
Program, Social Justice Living-Learning Community, Florida State Alternative Breaks, and
many more (The Center for Leadership and Social Justice, 2015). Each of these programs
allowed students the opportunity to not only connect with the community but also process their
learning.
The Center for Leadership and Civic Engagement at the University of South Florida is
another service-learning program. The mission for this office focused on leadership and service
experiences, which is how they connected students to service-learning. Some of the programs
are Bulls Alternative Breaks, Emerging Leaders Institute, Day of Service, and so forth (Center
for Leadership and Civic Engagement, 2015). The cocurricular experiences have a balance of
both leadership and service opportunities for students, but the curricular component is different.
The Center for Leadership and Civic Engagement coordinates the leadership studies minor, so
they focus on leadership education. Though service is infused in some of the courses, the

SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS
coursework focuses on leadership theory and models. There are also no other service-learning
courses listed in this office, outside of the leadership studies minor.
At the University of San Francisco the Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and
the Common Good is the institutions office of service-learning. The mission for this office
shows a focus on not only educating students but also cultivating relationships with community
partners (Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and Common Good, 2015). This
institutions service-learning office is also very academically focused. Most of its programs are
fellowships like the Global Service-Learning Fellowship program, Robert Holstein Memorial
Scholarship, and so forth (Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and Common Good,
2015). This office also has two masters programs and a minor for undergraduate students. The
masters programs are public affairs and urban affairs. The minor is in public services and
community engagement. All of the courses for each program pays close attention on engaging
the community and resolving issues with them. But since the focus in this office is on the
academic component, there are few cocurricular opportunities for students to engage in servicelearning. In this way, there is less balance in this service-learning offices programming.
The fourth service-learning office was from the Office of Experiential Learning at the
University of Central Florida. This offices mission statement shared that they support students
development of competency, academic study, and they support the community (Office of
Experiential Learning, 2015). This office executes this mission through a service-learning
certificate program, cooperative education, and internships. There seems to be few cocurricular
experiences for students through this office, but there is a focus on academic opportunities for
students. Even the service-learning certificate is a collection of academic courses students take
to complete the certificate, no cocurricular pieces are embedded in this certificate (Office of

SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

Experiential Learning, 2015). But out of the five institutions reviewed, it had the most extensive
list of service-learning courses throughout the institution.
The last institution reviewed was the University of Georgia. At this university, the Office
of Service-Learnings mission incorporates educating students both inside and outside of the
classroom. The mission statement also discussed the importance of promoting research and the
mutual benefits of community partnerships (The Office of Service-Learning, 2015). This office
had some cocurricular programs like Campus Kitchen at UGA, Get Engaged, Project Hope, and
many more (The Office of Service-Learning, 2015). There were also curricular courses listed
across different disciplines, international service-learning and graduate service-learning (The
Office of Service-Learning, 2015). This service-learning office had a balance between curricular
and cocurricular experiences for students.
Trends and Themes
Throughout the analysis of the five service-learning programs, themes and trends
surfaced. The first trend was that each of the institutions emphasized academic experiences for
students. Each of the institutions had some courses housed within their office. But two
institutions in particular, The Center for Leadership and Social Change and the Center for
Leadership and Civic Engagement, focused on leadership courses. While most of the other
institutions had courses from other disciplines and departments promoted through their office.
Another trend that surfaced was the level of support for faculty around service-learning.
Each of the service-learning offices offered to support faculty in infusing service-learning into
their curriculum. But the level of support and engagement varied. For example, the University
of South Florida was willing to meet one-on-one with faculty. But at the University of San
Francisco, they had a Faculty Service-Learning Seminar. This course was structured to help

SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

educate faculty on how to incorporate service-learning into their courses (Leo T. Center for
Public Service and the Common Good, 2015). The intentionality behind this program not only
helps to develop a faculty members skills in the area but also helps to build a community around
service-learning at the college.
The third trend was that three out of the five institutions reported directly to academic
affairs. While the other two institutions, Florida State University and the University of South
Florida, reported to student affairs. But at both of these institutions, the Vice President of
Student Affairs reported to the Vice President of Academic Affairs. So ultimately all of the
offices fell under academic affairs. But the three service-learning offices that had a more direct
connection with academic affairs had a stronger academic focus in their mission and programs.
While Florida State University and the University of South Florida had a greater emphasis on
cocurricular opportunities for students.
Throughout the review of the service-learning programs, there were many similarities but
a few differences also surfaced. The first difference was in the staffing of each office. For
example, three of the five service-learning programs had a faculty member in their office. These
offices were the Center for Leadership and Social Change, Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public
Service and the Common Good, and the Office of Service-Learning. These three offices also had
more staffing than the other two offices. The Center for Leadership and Social Change had the
highest number of employees with twenty-three staff and one faculty member. All of the other
offices had less than twelve employees. The difference in the number of staff reflects the number
of programs each service-learning office could perform. Another difference between offices was
their cocurricular opportunities. For example, the University of San Francisco focused more on
internships and fellowships. Each of these experiences focused more on benefiting the student

SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

and their learning than service. For these experiences to be service-learning, there would have to
be a balance between both service and learning (Furco, 1996). Many of the other servicelearning programs had a better balance with their cocurricular programs. Like the University of
South Florida, which had many cocurricular programs like USF Big Brothers and Sisters, Days
of Service, Civic Engagement Board, and so forth. These experiences allowed students short and
long term opportunities to engage in service-learning. It also gave students more time to engage
in critical reflection. Structured opportunities are needed for student to engage in critical
reflection so that they can develop a habit of critical reflection (Honnet & Poulsen, 1998, p. 2).
The last difference was that each of the offices infused diversity in different ways. For example,
Florida State University had intentional programs that engaged students in discussing diversity.
There were no programs specifically dedicated to conversations about diversity at any of the
other service-learning programs. In all of these ways, each of the service-learning programs had
various differences and similarities.
Conclusion
The five service-learning programs illustrate service-learning in many ways. Each of the
offices focused on service-learning based on the resources at their disposal and their specific
missions at their respective institutions. Each of the service-learning programs had both
curricular and cocurricular experiences for students, but the emphasis in each area varied by
institution. Many of the offices also found ways to include faculty members throughout their
institutions. Some of the ways faculty were incorporated was through hosting workshops,
connecting with faculty one-on-one, and promoting all of service-learning courses at the
institution. In this way, each of the programs helped to promote service-learning at their
institutions.

SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

Each of the service-learning programs also showed some differences. Some of the
offices had a faculty member as a part of the office while others did not. There was also servicelearning offices that had more employees than other offices, which had implications on the type
and number of programs they could perform. There was also no dedicated program around
discussing diversity at four of the five institutions. All of these various differences, illustrate the
multitude of ways that service-learning can be enacted. With that in mind, institutions must
continue to push the envelope and find new ways of engaging students in service-learning.

SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

9
References

Florida State University (2015). The Center for Leadership and Social Justice. Retrieved from
http://thecenter.fsu.edu/
Furco, Andrew. "Service-Learning: A Balanced Approach to Experiential Education."
Expanding Boundaries: Service and Learning. Washington DC: Corporation for National
Service, 1996. 2-6.
Honnet, E.P. & Poulsen, S.J. (1998) Principles of Good Practice for Combining Service and
Learning, The Johnson Foundation.
Howard, J. (1993).Community service learning in the curriculum. In J. Howard (Ed.), Praxis I: A
faculty casebook on community service learning. (pp. 3-12). Ann Arbor: OCSL Press.
Jacoby, B. & Associates. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and Practices.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
University of Central Florida (2015). Office of Experiential Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.explearning.ucf.edu/index.php
University of Georgia (2015). The Office of Service-Learning. Retrieved from
http://servicelearning.uga.edu/
University of San Francisco (2015). Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and the
Common Good. Retrieved from http://www.usfca.edu/centers/mccarthy/
University of South Florida (2015). Center for Leadership and Civic Engagement. Retrieved
from http://leadandserve.usf.edu/default.php