Literature review – Service-learning
2.6 Service-learning outcomes for students
2.6.3 Complex perspectives
Qualitative case study research has allowed more complex accounts of students’
experiences and outcomes to emerge. Jones and Abes (2004) interviewed students who had done service-learning two to four years earlier. Their research revealed the nuanced
experiences of the participants, particularly in respect to their identity development, and that through the process, students had interacted with people different from themselves, which raised questions of economic and educational privilege.
Kiely (2004) explored the experiences of 22 students who participated in an international service-learning experience. He reported a number of ways in which students’ perspectives were challenged (along moral, political, intellectual, cultural, personal and spiritual
dimensions). This transformation was, however, not unproblematic, and Kiely (2004) reported a “chameleon complex” (p.14) where students struggled to maintain their new perspectives upon returning home to dominant norms and the beliefs and reactions of those close to them. He therefore concluded that linear developmental models do not adequately capture the complexities of the students’ experiences.
Clayton and Ash (2004) described a developmental process that they perceived their service-learning students went through. The first phase is a period of excitement, hope and confidence as the students embrace this new way of learning. Following this comes a phase of uncertainty and confusion as they encounter the challenges of the real world, and of their responsibility for their own learning. In the third phase, a lack of apparent outcomes in their service, a lack of community involvement and confusion about the learning process result in frustration and uncertainty. They state that if students can successfully negotiate this phase (through reflection activities), they can move into a final phase characterised by openness to challenge, creativity, self-awareness and a sense of responsibility and community. Clayton
and Ash (2004, p. 61) state “our task is thus to see – and to help our students see – uncertainty, confusion, insecurity, and frustration as normal, acceptable, and even beneficial dimensions of learning – as signs, in fact, that learning and growth are taking place.”
In his master’s thesis, Bursaw (2012), reporting on the Australian context, also explored the complexities of students’ experiences. He argued that the categorical organisation of
outcomes (as per some of the more positivist studies reported above) did not represent the student experiences which were more interrelated and holistic. He developed the figure below (Figure 2.5) to try to capture the perspective shifts the students went through – from catalytic encounters where the students experienced difference and dissonance, through examinations of the dilemmas and ambiguities these experiences raised, to processes of integration and resolution.
Figure 2.5: Experiencing perspective shifting through service-learning framework.
Adapted from Bursaw, 2012, p. 133
Gemignani’s (2013) account of his students’ experiences is particularly germane to the current study. He examined the psychological challenges his students encountered in a community psychology programme where the students worked with recently-arrived refugees. He found the students experienced compassion, fatigue, responsibility and an identification process which were both beneficial and challenging to the students. He claimed that the reflection process resulted in “responsibilisation” (p. 3) which was characterised by the students’ progression towards adopting responsibility and accepting their agency.
Catalyst encounters of difference and
dissonance
Stimulated examinations of
dilemmas and ambiguities
Engaging processes of integration and
resolution
Gemignani (2013) identified three main dynamics in the students’ experiences:
• The use of psychology – where the students realised they could apply psychology in the context in which they were working. He claims that this enabled students to identify “as agents of change and to start seeing themselves as capable helpers” (Gemignani, 2013, p. 6). This recognition also resulted in anxiety as students realised their responsibility in working with a perceived vulnerable population. This sense of responsibility was further entrenched by the students’ association with the university and the psychology
department.
• Building of a practitioner identity – where he claims the service-learning enabled students to envision themselves as future practitioners or professionals. Using a post- structuralist lens, he argues that ‘identity’ is that which is constituted through its
performance in specific contexts of power, through particular discourses, and regimes of truth. Thus, the students’ work in these contexts allowed them to construct expressions of themselves that confirmed their views of themselves as future professionals.
• Recognising the effectiveness of service and its relevance for one’s identity – where the service-learning experience became part of the students’ identity and affected students’
relationships. In addition, the narration of the service-learning experience (through reflection) positioned the students in particular ways, for example, as helpers, as
opposed to those who are in need. When challenged about these paternalistic positions, and the associated responsibilities and power games, Gemignani’s students became distressed and disappointed in themselves.
The issues of identity and subjectivity; power, positioning and responsibility; and their construction through the service-learning experience, and reflection on it, were thus foregrounded in Gemignani’s (2013) work. He concluded:
Rather than seeing the students’ engagement in their community service as an obstacle to effective service-learning, I argue that experiences of
compassion and identification can be constructive tools and occasions for critical reflection, engagement with the field, self-knowledge, and
understanding of the limits of power and responsibility in community service.
(Gemignani, 2013, p. 1)
Canadian academic Butterwick (2015) also provided food for thought when she promoted an ecology of knowledges for service-learning. She cited the work of Andreotti, Ahenakew and Cooper (2011, cited in Butterwick, 2015) who argued that students need to be
encouraged to move beyond “mono-epistemicism” (p. 46) and the kind of dialectical thinking which requires them to choose between different perspectives, and rather to be equipped to hold two or more perspectives in tension.
The results from these qualitative, non-categorical approaches therefore provide insight into the complex processes of students’ experiences and therefore outcomes. Instead of accepting and adopting binaries, these authors describe the ways in which challenges and dilemmas can both be problematic and beneficial. They also propose more nuanced and ecological ways of thinking about student outcomes. Having said that, the next section will move back into binaries and mostly positivistic thinking, as it reports on the literature and research with regard to citizenship outcomes in service-learning.