Running head: BRIEF ANALYSIS OF SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

Brief Analysis of Service-Learning Programs across Five Colleges and Universities

Megan Segoshi
Loyola University Chicago

BRIEF ANALYSIS OF SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

Brief Analysis of Service-Learning Programs across Five Colleges and Universities

This paper presents and analyzes the service-learning offices at five different colleges and
universities. Before beginning, it is important to note that each school calls its service-learning
program a different name; some prefer the term civic engagement, while others use
terminology like engaged learning. They have all been selected for this paper because of their
general adherence to the definition presented by Jacoby (1996), who defines service-learning as
a form of experiential education in which students engage in activities that address human and
community needs together with structured opportunities intentionally designed to promote
student learning and development (p. 5). I also intentionally sought out different types of
colleges and universities to compare the ways in which different schools engage their
communities. This paper analyzes the service-learning programs of Amherst College (Amherst),
Cornell University (Cornell), Fordham University (Fordham), The University of Massachusetts
at Amherst (UMass), and The University of Georgia (UGA).
The Service-Learning Programs
Amherst College, a small, elite, private college, has perhaps the most comprehensive
service-learning program examined in this paper. Their Center for Community Engagement
offers a number of student- and faculty-led opportunities for students to engage with their
community. Their mission is very clearly laid out, and touches on various important components
of service-learning, such as fostering reciprocal relationships between students and community
organizations, building students leadership skills, and supporting faculty to engage with
community through their courses, research, and artistic production (Center for Community
Engagement, n.d.; Jacoby, 1996). While many other universities have partnerships with
organizations through student organizations or faculty, it appears that Amhersts office is more

BRIEF ANALYSIS OF SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

directly involved with public outreach to local organizations. For example, they have a program
called the Equity Project, which is a partnership with the local school district. Through this
program, Amherst students engage with the students in the K-12 schools to address issues of
racial climate (Center for Community Engagement, n.d.). Another unique aspect of Amhersts
service-learning office is that they have a partnership with their Athletics Department, in which
they make a conscious effort to engage student athletes with the local community. Although I
believe student athlete community engagement is common practice at many schools, they are
typically run independently of the civic engagement or service-learning office, making this
partnership interesting and unique. Undoubtedly, Amhersts small undergraduate population
allows for the office to reach more students and faculty than would be possible at a larger
institution.
Cornell University is a private, Ivy League school in upstate New York, with a campus in
New York City. Their service-learning office is called the Engaged Learning and Research
Community Engagement Program. Because Cornell has a strong research component to its
educational mission, it is not surprising that it includes research as a core value of this office.
They name the learning goals of involvement with their office as critical thinking, self-directed
learning, engagement in the process of discovery, multicultural competence, and civic
engagement (EL+R Community Engagement Program, n.d.). While it is typical of servicelearning offices to encompass both community service student organizations and academic
service-learning initiatives, Cornells office also houses a conference in partnership with the
Clinton Global Initiative, as well as a speaker series.
Fordham Universitys service-learning office is directly connected to its identity as a
Jesuit institution. Fordham is a mid-size private university located in the heart of New York

BRIEF ANALYSIS OF SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

City, where there are undoubtedly a huge number of community engagement opportunities.
Interestingly, other universities service-learning and community engagement offices were
housed within their divisions of student affairs, but Fordhams is considered a part of the
Universitys Ministry, within the subdivision of Faith and Service. Perhaps there is cross-over
with student affairs here, but the fact that it is affiliated with this terminology speaks to its Jesuit
identity very strongly, rooting its commitment to service in its religious commitment. Although
all service-learning programs in this paper talk about student learning in the community and
reciprocal relationships, Fordhams definition is expanded to assert that service-learning happens
particularly in service to underrepresented or marginalized people (Service Learning Program,
n.d.).
UMass Amherst is the first large public university on this list. Their office of Civic
Engagement and Service-Learning used to only be affiliated with the Honors College, but
thankfully that has changed since my time there as an undergraduate student. The core values of
their office are social justice, learning, leadership, engaged citizenship, and community
partnership (UMass CESL, n.d.). Their service-learning happens within four core focus areas,
which are education, health, technology, and sustainability. Interwoven throughout these foci is
leadership, which is a desired outcome for all student participants. Three unique aspects of
UMass office of Civic Engagement and Service-Learning are its living and learning community
for first year students, their academic Certificate in Civic Engagement and Public Service, and
CivX, which is a build-your-own-major in which students work with the office to incorporate
service-learning into their major track (UMass CESL, n.d.).
The final university examined in this paper is The University of Georgia, a very large
public, land-grant university. UGA defines service-learning as the application of academic

BRIEF ANALYSIS OF SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

skills to address a community need, issue, or problem and to enhance student learning (Office
of Service Learing, n.d.). Unlike some of the other programs, UGA explicitly differentiates
service-learning from community engagement, acknowledging that service-learning is associated
with an academic component while community engagement is more likened to volunteering.
There are a few student organizations affiliated with UGAs Office of Service Learning,
including Campus Kitchen UGA and Get Engaged!. Although there are some student
organizations under this offices umbrella, there are a number of other student volunteer
organizations that are housed within the Center for Student Activities, including VolunteerUGA
and Alternative Spring Break. It is unclear why some organizations are housed where they are,
but at an institution as large as UGA it is likely due to the various capacities of those offices to
support their organizations. A unique aspect of UGAs Office of Service Learning is its specific
learning modules on supporting engagement with Latino communities (Office of Service
Learning, n.d.). Because Georgia has a very quickly growing Latino population, this component
of the office is very relevant; however, it is unclear who the intended audience of these modules
is.
Analysis
All of the service-learning programs analyzed in this paper reference their link to their
respective universitys mission. For example, UGA ties its goals to the universitys broader
goals to teach and to serve (Office of Service Learning, n.d.). Fordhams service-learning is
explicitly tied to its Jesuit identity, and the other schools also identified parts of their
universities missions that supported their offices and programs. Although few programs
provide details on their history, it appears that their conception of service-learning, as opposed to
simply volunteerism, are relatively recent and a reflection of the evolution of service-learning in

BRIEF ANALYSIS OF SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

higher education as a whole (Jacoby, 1996). Given the evolution of service-learning from
notions of volunteering, interning, community service, and field education, there is a wide
variety of different language being used by the various universities analyzed here, as well as
others (Furco, 1996). There is an implied distinction between service-learning and civic
engagement or volunteerism by adding an academic component to the experience.
One troubling aspect of my analysis of these service-learning offices is that they appear
to be written from a privileged perspective. For example, Fordhams statement that servicelearning is done with underrepresented and marginalized groups serves to other those groups
while failing to acknowledge that many of their own students are probably part of those groups
(Service Learning Program, n.d.). Although the incorporation of social justice is still
emphasized, in many of these offices it is not clear how it is built into the learning part of
service-learning. Presumably through partnering and benefitting a community there is some
element of justice involved, but the reflection component on the students end should be
emphasized to acknowledge the ways privilege, power, and oppression are impacting their
service experience, and their life more generally. Only one school, Amherst College, explicitly
named a partnership with a social justice organization, which was their multicultural office. I am
interested in learning more about how service-learning office staff members conceptualize social
justice and implement it into the curricula of their courses and programs, so they are actually
walking the walk and not just talking the talk.
Conclusion
It is clear that service-learning is becoming an increasingly important part of the
curriculum in higher education. In many cases these offices and programs are bragging points
for the schools that house them. They are a real, tangible example of how students can put their

BRIEF ANALYSIS OF SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

learning into action, all for the benefit of the surrounding communities. Given that a large
number of large, wealthy universities are located in poor communities (i.e. Fordham University
being located in The Bronx, The University of Chicago located in Chicagos south side, or Yale
University in New Haven, Connecticut), I am curious as to the measured impact on these areas.
Although I am confident that colleges and universities service learning initiatives are having
positive impacts on their surrounding communities, I am interested in seeing to what extent they
are affecting change and in which domains. Future research in this area should focus on these
questions and attempt to measure the impact on the community, to truly speak to the component
of social justice that is so heavily referenced in these programs.

BRIEF ANALYSIS OF SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

References
Amherst College. (n.d.). Center for community engagement. Retrieved from
https://www.amherst.edu/academiclife/cce
Cornell University. (n.d.). EL+R community engagement program. Retrieved from
http://www.elr.cornell.edu/
Fordham University. (n.d.). Service learning program. Retrieved from
http://www.fordham.edu/info/20168/service_learning_program
Furco, Andrew. (1996). "Service-Learning: A Balanced Approach to Experiential Education."
Expanding Boundaries: Service and Learning. Washington DC: Corporation for National
Service.
Jacoby, B. & Associates. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and Practices.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
University of Georgia. (n.d.). The office of service learning. Retrieved from
http://servicelearning.uga.edu/
University of Massachusetts at Amherst. (n.d.). Civic engagement and service-learning.
Retrieved from http://cesl.umass.edu/