The Service Learning Movement in Higher Education: An Academic Response to Troubled Times*

Sam Marullo

Department of Sociology
Georgetown University
Washington, D.C. 20057




University service learning programs are described as an academic social movement response to severe social problems. Service learning refers to programs in which students participate in organized service activity for academic credit that meets identified community needs, and reflect on that service so that it furthers their understanding of course material. The article analyzes service learning movement frames, resource mobilization, and the emergence of the movement. Particular programs are described to illustrate the frames and the role of sociology is examined in the movement's mobilization and emergence. Potential barriers and backlash are seen to reside in various institutional and disciplinary forces. If implemented properly, however, service learning programs should be critical of the status quo, challenge unjust structures and oppressive institutional operations, and provide an opportunity for institutionalizing social justice activism on college campuses.


Service learning programs are one type of university response to the severe social problems confronting the United States. As a post-industrial, urban society, the increasing globalization of the economy has exacerbated the problems of economic inequality, which we did so little to ameliorate during times of relative economic prosperity, and has intensified the difficult challenges of diversity. In this article, I examine service learning as a new social movement (of sorts) that is emerging as an academic response to these problems. I use the qualifier "of sorts" because thus far it is a "safe" movement in that its critical, even revolutionary, potential has not been well developed or articulated. Seen from the established status quo, service learning is widely perceived as "charity work" or "volunteerism" and hardly poses a threat. However, I will argue that service learning programs, if implemented properly, should be critical of the status quo and should ultimately challenge unjust structures and oppressive institutional operations. In this sense, service learning provides an opportunity for institutionalizing activism committed to social justice on college campuses.

Sociology has a crucial role to play in the development of service learning programs. As the university "discovers" its role in addressing social problems and teaching students how to understand them, we sociologists have to share our expertise with our colleagues in order to educate them about the complexities of this challenge. Our courses dealing with social problems, stratification, inequality, urban sociology, social movements, political sociology, and social change, to name just a few, may not only provide the core of service learning programs, but our theory and research in these areas should be used to educate our colleagues and contribute to the structuring of these programs. Non-sociology faculty may quickly defer to sociology as being a critical discipline in pioneering service learning, so we must step up to the challenge and show that we have valuable contributions to offer. However, we must return the challenge to our colleagues, inspiring them to reconsider how their own disciplines can add to the students' understandings of a complex, problem-filled reality.

Service learning is the term used to describe efforts to link community service to the academic curriculum. It is a broad, nebulously defined term, at times including academic endeavors such as internships, needs assessments, and participatory action research. I will use the term more narrowly, in the manner in which its advocates promote its use, to refer to the process through which students participate in organized service activity for academic credit that meets identified community needs, and reflect on that service so that it furthers their understanding of course material (Bringle and Hatcher 1994: 5). Furthermore, service learning activity, when done properly, should provide students with an increased awareness of civic responsibility, promote their moral development, and help them to analyze and explain the causes and consequences of social problems (Honnet and Poulsen 1989, Levison 1990).

The key elements in this definition are that the students' service activities in the community are integrated into coursework as an academic, curricular endeavor; that the needs and attempted remedies are defined by a partnership among university and community actors in order to benefit the less advantaged; and that students undertake a process of observation, action, analysis, and reflection that demonstrates educational development. Service learning asserts that universities have a role to play in solving the problems of the community and society around them, and that service (not just pure research or classroom education) is an appropriate method for universities to fulfill that obligation. From an institutional perspective, the success of a university's service learning program is measured by effecting positive changes in the community.

Dewey's critique of the American education system was that it did not connect the students' learning in schools with what they did outside of school. The university system that developed from a feudal political-economic system had not evolved along with the industrial, and now post-industrial political economy, thereby producing passive learners without the knowledge acquiring skills to succeed in a modern, rapidly changing society.1 Service learning programs attempt to address this problem by fostering active learning in which the student's service work becomes the "clinical component of an undergraduate liberal arts education" (Shulman 1991). It is a pedagogy that bridges theory and practice, offering a crucible for learning that enables students to test theories with life experiences, and forces upon them an evaluation of their knowledge and understanding grounded in their service experience.

In service learning programs, it is not the service itself that is evaluated; rather, it is the analytic and reflective components through which students provide evidence of their ability to learn from their service that constitute the basis for academic credit. By way of analogy, in natural science laboratory exercises, we do not evaluate and reward students for the conducting of "experiments," but instead evaluate their understanding of principles as demonstrated in their analysis of the results. To be sure, a failed experiment is likely to result in a poor written analysis which will be reflected in the grade. On the other hand, merely following proper procedures to achieve a "successful" experiment does not necessarily indicate that the student understands the principles underlying the experimental outcome. The student's lab report serves as the basis for evaluation, demonstrating that the student understands both the theory and practice. Such a conceptualization of service learning, Shulman observes, can make a public service component a much-needed, powerful integrative force in the undergraduate curriculum (Shulman 1991).

Having acknowledged this service obligation, universities must enter into partnerships with their surrounding communities, or with communities more broadly defined, to help identify the problems and determine methods for addressing them. I emphasize the term partnership because it is crucial for the community to be involved in defining the problems and priorities, and for determining appropriate methods for intervention. Attempts to impose solutions from the outside are doomed to have little impact in actually solving problems. Worse yet, such efforts to impose solutions are likely to set off greater animosity between "town and gown" and be perceived as cultural imperialism or attempts at social control.

Service learning is distinguished from an internship program in part by the nature of and motivation for the work done by the students. Internships are likely to be pre-professional experiences in which students prepare for or test out their career interests. In service learning courses, students either provide direct services to the needy, less-privileged, oppressed, marginalized, underrepresented, or otherwise disadvantaged; work with non-profit organizations, community organizing, or advocacy groups on behalf of such disadvantaged groups or communities;2 or provide support services to such efforts through research, education, outreach, and evaluation. Service learning is one type of experiential learning which, while producing the same benefits of learning analytic skills such as critical thinking and problem solving, differs in that the needs and goals of others or the community at large help to set the priorities for what is done.

Finally, the reflection component includes the analytical work required to connect the service with an academic understanding of the problem's causes, operations, and consequences, and it should promote civic and moral development. Unlike the extra-curricular activity of volunteer community service, service learning is part of the curriculum in the sense that students, faculty, and community partners are forced to go beyond providing a service, but also to analyze it, reflect on it, and critically evaluate it (Moore 1990). It is this analytical component that gives service learning its revolutionary potential because it is precisely these activities that will reveal the systemic, social nature of inequality, injustice, and oppression. It is also revolutionary to the extent that it creates a partnership for change among community and university actors. Once the sources of these problems are revealed to reside in the social and political systems that so lavishly reward the few at the expense of the many, it becomes obvious that such social systems require change. It is in this next step, advocating for change and assisting students to acquire the knowledge and skills to become agents of change, that the revolutionary potential becomes both real and problematic. The potential becomes real through the identification and critical examination of root causes which lead to advocacy for change. It becomes problematic in that it can create a backlash to sustain the status quo, with opponents targeting service learning programs. I shall return to this promising yet undeveloped potential, and its likelihood of generating backlash, in the section on potential barriers and in the conclusion.

Before placing service learning in this larger political context, however, I would like to discuss service learning as a social movement in terms of its framing, resources, and emergence. In the framing section that follows, I offer examples of specific service learning programs so that the reader can acquire a better understanding of what is already working across the United States. In the section on resources, I note the roles that sociologists and sociology can play in the development of service learning. In the emergence section, I offer a brief history of service learning at the national level. In the final sections of the paper, I use the social movement perspective to help us examine some of the barriers that either have emerged or are likely to emerge, impeding further development of service learning.

back to contents


In order for social movements to take off, they must capture sufficient portions of the public's interest and resources. They do so by defining a problem and prescribing a solution that will mobilize resources behind its definition, inspiring adherents of their message to take action directed toward social change. Frames are the articulation of problems by movement actors that serve to define the social problem, explain its causes, and present an agenda for action to solve the problem (Snow et al. 1986, Snow and Benford 1988). The following six frames comprise the major descriptive, prescriptive, and advocacy frames offered on behalf of service learning. For each of the frames, I have selected a program that emphasizes that frame and provided a brief description of some element of their program.

Values education

Adherents claim that values formation and moral development of students is enhanced when they are forced to confront social problems (Fullinwider 1990, Kirby et al. 1991). Such moral development occurs through a series of steps, largely following Kohlberg's model of moral reasoning (1975). Service learning programs take adolescents who may have never been exposed to social problems--and who may have experienced few challenges to having their own needs and desires fulfilled--and expose them to such challenges (Delve, Mintz, and Stewart 1990). Well structured programs provide support, encouragement, and explanations to student volunteers, through which they begin to identify the needs and challenges faced by others, explore various explanations of such problems, and begin to empathize with the victims of structured inequities. Ultimately this moral development leads to internalized values regarding social justice (Eisenberg, Lennon, and Roth 1983; Keen 1990; Stanley 1993).

Two long-standing programs that epitomize this approach to service learning are the University of Notre Dame's Center for Social Concerns and Boston College's PULSE program. In 1983, the Center for Social Concerns grew out of Notre Dame's Center for Experiential Learning, the Institute for Pastoral and Social Ministries, and the Volunteer Service Office, and has provided "educational experiences in social concerns inspired by Gospel values and Catholic social teachings. Central to this process is enhancing the spiritual and intellectual awareness of students, faculty, staff, and alumni/ae about today's complex social realities, calling us all to service and action for a more just and humane world" (Center for Social Concerns 1994:1). The Center sponsors programs and events designed to raise student's social awareness of the poor, oppressed, or those suffering other types of injustice, and to model efforts to confront their needs. It also helps to coordinate and encourage the faculty in teaching service learning courses throughout the curriculum which place students in the community to respond to immediate needs and/or promote long term social transformation (Center for Social Concerns 1994: 14-15).

The PULSE program at Boston College is housed within the Philosophy and Theology Departments and fulfills the core requirements in these two disciplines for roughly 200 students per year. For the past 25 years, students have engaged in roughly four hours per week of community service which is then incorporated into coursework through writing assignments, journals, and classroom discussions. Students are enabled to integrate the big questions posed by classical philosophers and theologians into their own lives, becoming contemplatives in action. They are forced to do a values clarification, deciding for themselves what is most important and how their own talents and abilities can be best used in service to others (Byrne 1990: 83). Although universities with a religious tradition may be better suited to promote this values education frame, public universities can make similar claims in terms of preparing citizens to contribute to the public good, as we note for the Rutgers University Citizenship and Service Education program discussed below.

Cognitive skills development

Service learning advocates claim that several cognitive skills, such as critical thinking, problem solving, leadership, and conflict resolution are learned better through real life experiences rather than simply reading about them or simulating them in the classroom. The argument is based on evidence from experiential learning that finds greater cognitive skills development when these programs are compared to traditional classroom learning (Fullinwider 1990, Stanton 1990). Critical thinking skills are enhanced because students are forced to confront simplistic and individualistic explanations of social problems with the complex realities they see in their volunteer work. Readings, class discussions, faculty-student dialogue and community partner-student interactions force them to see institutional and structural factors contributing to the problems they see.

As they begin to try to help the clients they are serving, students invariably confront problems and constraints. Often these are due to bureaucratic regulations, limited resources, or disempowering situational contexts; conditions that are likely to be less familiar to college students. These real world problems and constraints help students to develop their problem solving skills as well as acquiring a greater understanding of how social forces influence individuals behavior.

Students' conflict resolution skills are developed because the situations in which they operate are rife with conflict. Social welfare bureaucracies and nonprofit service agencies never have sufficient resources to address the needs confronting them, which leads to conflicting interests and demands between and among staff and clients. Students empathize with their clients and possibly become agents on their behalf. Students then face the challenge of resolving such conflicts and develop methods to do so.

At Stanford University, the Haas Center for Public Service coordinates and promotes the university's efforts related to students' voluntary service work; coordinates service learning activities; administers government internship programs; and operates students' service fellowship programs. A multi-million dollar gift from the Haas family in 1989 enabled Stanford to build a large center to administer the many service related programs already in place at Stanford as well as to endow a Professorship in Public Service. In its mission statement, the first goal of the Haas Center for Public Service is to "provide opportunities for Stanford students to expand their understanding of social issues and develop the knowledge, skills, and commitment requisite for effective participation in public and community service" (Haas Center 1993:1). A student leadership organization, Learning by INtegrating Curriculum and Service, (LINCS), formed in order to promote service learning on campus and develop an ethos of serious commitment to service grounded in community based problem solving (Haas Center 1993:19, 21). Roughly 40 service organizations take over 2500 Stanford students into the community each year to address real needs of the residents and in the process acquire problem solving, critical thinking, and conflict resolutions skills (Haas Center 1993:2, 57).

Conceptual and theoretical understanding

Another set of service learning claims is that theories and concepts about social interactions, human relationships, and institutional operations are understood better when they are observed firsthand (Chesler 1993, Miller 1994). In contrast to the natural sciences, the social sciences and humanities have no formal educational methodology for applying their claims or findings to "real life" circumstances. The laboratory for applying, testing, and evaluating claims about human nature and social relations is the larger society. Service learning assignments enable students to take the claims they learn in their liberal arts courses and test them against the reality they observe in their service site. This experience not only enables them to understand better the material they are learning, but also helps them to place their own life experience in a broader context by providing a comparative base of a different reality. Especially for the typically more affluent students at a private liberal arts college, but also for university students in general, exposure to the living conditions of the poor is a very educational experience.3

The Civic Education and Community Service Program at Rutgers University operates to coordinate students' community service activities. It sponsors a service learning program, Citizenship and Service Education (CASE), that has a special focus on citizenship. CASE service learning courses typically require 40 hours per semester of students' community service work, transforming a three credit hour course into a four credit hour course. Many faculty members are recruited into the CASE program through a competitive curriculum development program which selects among faculty proposals to transform already existing courses or create new courses that will integrate students' community service. In calling for such proposals, CASE director Michael Shafer challenges faculty colleagues to consider transforming their courses into a CASE course for the following reason:

First, CASE adds a critical active-learning dimension to a course. CASE placements are, in effect, field work placements, and offer the same benefits. Furthermore, we all know that students who are forced to use what they are learning learn it better and retain it longer (Shafer 1994).

As the faculty director of the CASE service learning program, his "sales pitch" to his colleagues is that, simply stated, students learn the course content better by undertaking active learning rather than passive learning found in a lecture class.


Most educational institutions have made a commitment to educating about and for a culturally diverse society and world. Service learning advocates claim that differences among people, across class, race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual preference, religion, and other social criteria are better understood and appreciated when introduced within the supportive context of service learning programs (Berry 1990, Permaul 1993). Like most Americans, college students grow up in fairly homogeneous neighborhoods--typically segregated by race with little class variation. Service learning experiences are likely to expose students to a wide range of class, race and ethnic, and other social statuses with whom they have had little previous contact. Working toward a common goal is the best way to create mutually respectful and egalitarian views (Barber 1991). Furthermore, most college students are still experiencing the challenge of discovering and defining their own identity, so exposure to different types of people helps in this identity formation as well as to teach respect for others. From the university's point of view, having students and faculty working with community partners is an effective mechanism for minimizing the town-gown split and creating friends in the community.

The core curriculum at Lafayette College contains first year interdisciplinary seminars designed to promote students' understanding of community and diversity. One of these seminars is "Challenging Differences: Building Community in a Diverse Society," which requires students to undertake two hours per week of community service. Although all of the first year seminars are designed to challenge stereotypes and promote intellectual community building, the service learning seminar provides students with the real opportunity and challenge to do so (Cha, Rothman, and Smith 1994: 47-48).


An individual's obligation to the community and to the nation is learned by working for and with others toward a collective good. Proponents of explicit civic education see service learning as a vehicle for teaching the skills and perspectives needed for a responsible citizenry in a democracy (Newmann 1990, O'Neil 1990). According to Barber, service learning fulfills these needs by promoting collective activity that is empowering. Students must work in groups or teams to achieve their goals, and they must have some input into the decision-making about what is to be done (Barber 1991). Furthermore, such activity cannot be defined or set up as altruism or charity work, but rather it should be conceived as promoting the greater public interest (Barber 1991:51). This means that the students are serving a greater public good that is also their own, rather than serving merely their own or another's interests.

Public universities are more likely to rely on the goal of citizenship development as their rationale for promoting service learning--it is their obligation to produce committed and active citizens in exchange for the support they receive from the public treasuries. The CASE program at Rutgers, noted above, explicitly defines its mission as citizenship development, to counteract the students' "selfish pursuit of their own narrow self-interest and their disengagement from the community" (Shafer 1994:1). The University of Pennsylvania's WEPIC program (West Philadelphia Improvement Corps) is a university-community partnership program built around the schools in West Philadelphia. Students at the university work with community organizations on service, education, health care, and development projects based in the schools. The fiber of the community is strengthened by such associations and the university students learn the skills needed to be effective community members (WEPIC 1994:2). Such efforts are not entirely altruistic, as University Vice President for Community Affairs Ira Harkavy is quick to point out, because West Philadelphia is the neighborhood in which the university is located. In addition to being a good neighbor, the university is also protecting its interests by helping maintain the surrounding neighborhood and making the university an attractive place in which students will want to matriculate.


Universities have asserted their unique role in providing service to the community through utilizing their ability to create new knowledge and in training the future leaders of communities and the nation. Service learning is an extension of the university's service commitment in two ways: it provides services directly to those who are most in need, and it evaluates and assesses the efficacy of service delivery alternatives. The university as a corporate entity, in exchange for the benefits it receives from the community, should provide tangible services that it is especially well qualified to offer.4 This can include mobilizing intellectual or knowledge based resources, skilled professionals, and their students in the process of delivering services. Further, the ability to assess and evaluate how effectively the services are being provided is a specialized service that the university can offer. However, a lesson that participatory action researchers have learned must be kept in mind here--namely, that the community partner must play a role in the evaluation process and their perspective needs a voice in validating the results of such research.

The Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis mission statement explicitly acknowledges its service obligation to the the community:

IUPUI seeks to develop and apply knowledge to ever-changing issues of health, economic and social well-being through teaching, research, and service. IUPUI seeks to serve as a model for collaboration and interdisciplinary work through partnerships among Indiana University and Purdue University and the community... (Center for Public Service 1993:1)

IUPUI's recently created Center for Public Service embodies this commitment by combining the university's service activities under one structure and bringing to these activities a curriculum component needed to maintain the quality of the service work and a faculty commitment needed to anchor the partnership. The Center describes itself as combining Purdue University's land grant tradition and Indiana University's professional service orientation. Practice based education in health, education, law, journalism, engineering, business, and other professions provide the model through which students' education takes them into the community to provide direct services while learning their profession. This model is extended to the undergraduate arts and science curriculum by students engaging in service learning through applied research, practica, and internships (Center for Public Service 1993:2).

At Georgetown University, the Jesuit tradition and mission statement provide the most direct call for the university to engage in service for the sake of helping those in greatest need and as a means to social justice. One of the Jesuit callings summarizes this mission concisely as "producing men and women for others." As the recent 34th General Congregation of the Society of Jesus makes clear, each Jesuit university should promote justice in one or more of the following ways: a) direct service and accompaniment of the poor; b) developing awareness of the demands of justice and the social responsibility to achieve it; and c) participating in social mobilization for the creation of a more just social order (General Congregation 1995:7).

In addition to developing intensive service learning courses, typically requiring 100 or more hours per semester of student's community service, Georgetown utilizes a Fourth Credit Option that can be attached to nearly any course (with the consent of the professor), that requires a 40 hour per semester service commitment. A Volunteer and Public Service Center helps administer the field placements by maintaining community contacts and arranging transportation. Faculty members are encouraged and supported to integrate service learning into their courses by attending a week-long curriculum development workshop in the summer.

back to contents


As the previous examples illustrate, service learning programs require resources to grow. The social movements literature informs us that these resources can be internal, controlled by the university itself, or external resources that are cooptable toward movement ends. In this section, I note where sociology can be particularly helpful in supporting service learning. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, but suggestive of the most likely sources of support for service learning.

Internal Resources

Free space: Universities can provide the context for free spaces to emerge, which encourage creative thinking and innovative actions (Evans and Boyte 1986). Such spaces are supported by a subculture of tolerance and values of academic freedom. Various service learning initiatives can be developed, tested, and modified within a supportive environment. The values of the larger society, stressing short term profits, "bottom lines," and detailed accountability of time are not strong elements of the university's operating ethos. Much as the campuses played a critical role of the social movement cycles of the 1960s (Tarrow 1994), they retain this potential for development of service learning programs in the 1990s.5

Students: Students' energy, time, enthusiasm, and experience are a readily cooptable resource. A large number of students enter college having done volunteer work in high school and many continue volunteering as an extra curricular activity. This ongoing engagement of a good number of students in community service generates demand and support for service learning programs. Students believe that their community service not only accomplishes good in the community, but also that such experiences make them feel good about themselves, look good on their resume, and that graduate programs and employers value such activities. Service learning programs should be designed to tap students' interests and meet their needs, including development of career and vocational opportunities for service.

Faculty: Faculty are a potentially powerful and necessary resource required for implementing service learning programs. Their skills, knowledge, autonomy, and time flexibility enable them to provide support for and adopt service learning pedagogies in their courses. Many participate in community service, so service learning is an extension of their own identity. It also provides them with the opportunity to integrate and consolidate some of their activities. Service learning enables the faculty to fulfill what may be defined to themselves as a personal commitment to their own communities by integrating it with their professional life. In the process, it also fulfills the lesser third of their professional obligations (after teaching and scholarship) to do service. Further, if service learning sites can also serve as the location for undertaking research--whether it be evaluation research on programs, or ethnographic or field studies of human interaction--then faculty members can fulfill all of their professional responsibilities through service learning.

Because of the nature of our discipline, sociologists are particularly well-suited to see the value of service learning. Dating back to the earliest Chicago School studies, the city and the community have served as the laboratory for our research. For as long as there has been a discipline, sociology faculty have sent students into the field to do ethnographies and participant research, so the service learning pedagogical claim that "the real world is a crucible to test our theories" is second-nature to us. Evaluation studies, community power studies, organizational studies, and studies of social movements and community organizing--with their large bodies of knowledge and longstanding research traditions--can be carried over directly to service learning initiatives.

Volunteer centers: Many universities and communities have volunteer coordination centers. In some instances, volunteer activities are coordinated through the university chaplain's office. These offices provide the knowledge of and contact with community organizations that can serve as service learning sites. However, it is important that service learning programs be housed in academic units and have academically credentialed directors to ensure academic integrity and legitimacy.

University development and public relations offices: Service learning activities can be the source of additional fundraising for the university, used to acquire new administrative positions, student support, or academic/research positions. Development officials can be coopted to assist in grant writing and fundraising that will be used to develop service learning. Segments of the university's alumni may be especially responsive to fundraising appeals or capital campaign initiatives to raise funds for the university's service to the community. Public relations officials can see the potential for the university to gain symbolic rewards and perhaps political favors from the community in exchange for its "good works."

Faculty and curriculum development: Pockets of money and faculty release time are typically budgeted to support faculty research and development, to create new courses, or to undertake curriculum reform. These can be used to develop service learning initiatives. At Georgetown University, we have organized an annual curriculum development workshop for faculty members in which they commit to develop service learning exercises, courses, or programs.6 Through the workshop, outside experts are brought in to advise the faculty on how they can implement service learning programs, offer models, and share experiences. Faculty are introduced to community, university, and student resources available to assist them in implementing their service learning courses.7

External Resources

Community members: Service learning programs depend on the time, energy, knowledge, and material support of community leaders in order to maintain the sites in which they operate. In addition to these resources directly supporting service learning, community leaders can also apply indirect pressures and incentives to encourage universities' involvement. Universities are susceptible to public opinion pressures because they wish to be seen as responsible "citizens" in the community. Furthermore, they often need political support from local, state, or national legislatures to undertake or implement their other initiatives; for example, seeking favorable zoning rulings for new construction, public financing for building, and funding for students' financial aid. As a result, community and political leaders can be encouraged to exert pressures on the university to be a "good neighbor" and give back to the community.

Professional educational associations: A number of professional education associations have been promoting service learning by offering educational workshops and conferences, developing materials and doing advocacy work regarding service learning. Foremost among these is Campus Compact, a consortium of over 500 institutions of higher education organized to promote and support national and community service activities among its members and to recruit additional members (Cha, Rothman and Smith 1994). Other organizations have also devoted considerable resources to promoting service learning, including the American Association for Higher Education, the National Society for Experiential Education, the American Association of University Professors, the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, and the National Association of Student Program Administrators. The Campus Opportunity Outreach League (COOL) and the U.S. Students Association promote service learning among university student organizations. The "Invisible College"--a project of the Campus Compact and the Education Commission for the States--provides a support and advocacy network among university faculty engaged in service learning.

Professional associations such as the American Sociological Association, the American Political Science Association, and the Modern Language Association have provided more discipline specific support. In sociology, for example, the ASA and the regional associations have provided free spaces for the emergence and development of service learning pedagogy. At national and regional meetings, paper presentations, roundtables, and entire sessions have been devoted to service learning. These forums provide the presenter with legitimacy for their academic work and a means of networking with similarly interested colleagues on other campuses. In addition, the ASA's Teaching Resources Center is assembling a "Resources Guide" on service learning and has been a longtime organizational affiliate of the National Society for Experiential Education. The ASA's journal, Teaching Sociology, has published a few articles in which the authors have discussed service learning pedagogy (Cohen 1995, Hondagneu-Sotelo and Raskoff 1994, and Porter and Schwartz 1993). Although these represent quite modest changes, they are the necessary first steps toward larger disciplinary change.

Local, state and federal government agencies: From city hall officials to the federal Corporation on National and Community Service, government agencies are looking to support community service. For some, it is merely a way to stretch their limited resources through the use of volunteers. Others, however, are supportive and committed to the principles of service learning, including the Americorps and Serve and Learn programs, the Department of Education literacy program, and the state education departments in Minnesota and New Jersey.

Foundations and private donors: Several national foundations (e.g. Pew, Rockefeller, Lilly) as well as smaller community-based foundations are looking to support innovative service learning projects. They provide grants for funding start up costs, faculty development and curriculum review. Previously noted was Stanford University's Haas Center for Public Service, which, through the gift of the Haas family, transformed a number of good programs into arguably the premiere public service and service learning program in the nation. Even more dramatically, however, is the phenomenal growth over the last three years of Providence College's Feinstein Institute for Public Service. With the assistance of a $6 million gift from the Feinstein Foundation, Providence College has transformed a fairly small, campus-ministry run community service program into a sizable academic service learning program that now supports a major and minor in community service and dozens of students' community service programs (Feinstein Institute, 1994). Nationally, General Motors, Tylenol, J.W. Saxe, and the Swearer Foundation have created service awards and scholarship programs to honor students for their leadership in community service.

back to contents


A substantial portion of the growth in service learning can be attributed to the promotional and support activities of the Campus Compact. This organization was formed in 1985 by the presidents of Brown, Georgetown, and Stanford Universities and now includes more than 500 institutional members. Membership commitments are made by university presidents and require substantial fees (to support the national office), which ensure an active commitment from the top at member institutions. Campus Compact has provided start-up support and funding for 16 state Compact offices and three regional Mentoring Resources Centers (Cha, Rothman and Smith 1994:10-11). Over the past five years, the national Campus Compact has sponsored week-long workshops on integrating community service into the curriculum in which 75 universities have participated, during which they devised strategic plans for changing their institutions. In addition, they have raised over $1 million in grants which they have passed on to 168 member institutions to institutionalize service learning.

A number of other national organizations have supported the growth of service learning as well, as noted above. One of these is the Corporation for National Service's program, Learn and Serve America. It's goals are (1) to promote service learning programs in higher education that "meet unmet community needs, while enhancing [students'] academic study, civic skills, and sense of social responsibility, and (2) to build capacity and infrastructure within and across institutions of higher education, in partnership with community agencies" (Corporation for National Service 1994:4). In fiscal year 1994, Learn and Serve America awarded $9 million in grants to 116 programs. Their explicit intention is to fund programs that will be sustainable after the initial awards run out after 2-3 years and that will provide support or additional leverage to generate further program development in the future (Corporation for National Service 1994:4).

Of course, these national organizations did not create the concept of service learning or invent service learning programs in universities. Service learning programs, although not always called by that name, have been promoted by NSEE since its founding in 1971 as the National Center for Public Service Internship Programs. Many universities around the nation have had community service offices operating for more than twenty years, during which time they have occasionally integrated service activities into particular courses. This is typical for social movements in the sense that they are not created of whole cloth, but rather emerge from efforts underway and are energized by some event that provides a spark and gives them impetus in a particular direction. The legislative debate over mandatory national service during the mid-1980s contributed to the interest in community service (Gorham 1992, Moskos 1988). President Bush's conceptualization of addressing social problems through "points of light" programs which were voluntary, largely non-governmental, and oriented toward direct services crystallized the resurgence in community service and was enacted into law in the 1990 National and Community Service Act. President Clinton added his own spin to the Bush legacy when, in 1993 the legislation he sponsored led to the creation of 20,000 AmeriCorps positions and a dramatic expansion of the Learn and Serve America programs in higher education. However, as is the case with social movements, the attention cycle of the media, the public at large, and the funders is quite limited (Hilgartner and Bosk 1988). Given the conservative, budget-cutting bent of the 104th congress and their initial attempts to decimate the AmeriCorps program, it is quite likely that the movement has already reached a turning point in the level of support it is likely to attain from public sources.

back to contents


There are a number of potential constraints and barriers that might limit the growth of the service learning movement. Mobilizing sufficient resources is one of the more obvious potential constraints, but this can be overcome as enthusiastic adherents and supporters focus their energies and resources toward building a service learning program. There are, however, several other potential barriers that should be considered.

University and departmental politics

Trying to change the curriculum necessarily requires changing the distribution of resources within the university. Potential resource losers will resist change, regardless of the merits of the initiative. Tactically, this suggests the wisdom in recruiting as broad a base of support as possible in creating service learning programs, cutting across departmental and program boundaries, to defuse potential bloc opposition. Apart from the resource issue, some colleagues will be skeptical of service learning, equating it with students' independent community service, and opposing the "granting of credit for extra curricular activities." Peer education is needed to distinguish service learning from community service and to promote widespread development of appropriate service learning opportunities across the curriculum.

Institutional Rewards

A critical question for faculty members considering adopting service learning pedagogy is how it will be evaluated by the university. Presently, service is the least significant component in the tenure and promotion processes. It is necessary for university officials, rank and tenure committees, and departmental guidelines to specify how service learning efforts will be considered in the review processes. Although service learning has the potential for enabling greater faculty integration of teaching, research and service, this will not always be possible and, at best, is likely to require years to establish. Developing a portfolio system to document the teaching and learning objectives of service learning courses might be an effective method for documenting the enriched teaching outcomes.

Discipline rewards

Parallel to institutional rewards, it is necessary for the disciplines to find ways to grant symbolic and actual rewards for service learning activities. We can see this process beginning in some disciplines, as their professional associations provide space at meetings and in journals for presentations and articles based on service learning teaching and research. The Campus Compact's "Invisible College" is designed to offer professional development support for its members, paralleling more traditional discipline paths. The Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning was created to provide a peer-reviewed forum for publishing articles on service learning research and pedagogy. Receiving grants for developing service learning programs and/or community based participatory research should be evaluated positively by both institutional and disciplinary reward systems.

Institutional backlash and community skepticism

If the service learning program is effective in creating students who think critically and who are empowered to act as agents of change, they are bound to upset those who benefit from the status quo. Whether they become advocates for the poor who confront unjust institutional practices, profit maximizing corporations or landlords, or disaffected bureaucrats and policy makers, these establishment targets will mobilize against such efforts for change if they begin to feel threatened. Other faculty or administrators, anticipating such confrontations, may attempt to undermine service learning programs in order to prevent such challenges and/or responses. From the point of view of the community, there is likely to be skepticism about the commitment of the university as it reaches out to become its partner. Such skepticism may be based on past experiences of the university's indifference (or worse) toward the community or simply a perception of the university as part of the "enemy" camp. Service learning advocates will understand that these two types of societal pressures will always be in opposition to each other: the more effective the program is in serving the social justice interests of the disadvantaged, the more opposition it is likely to generate from the elite actors of the current system.

Long Term Commitment

The principles outlined above indicate that a long term commitment on the part of faculty is required. There will have to be support mechanisms developed to provide education, nurturance, and relief for fulfilling these commitments. Overcoming the barriers enumerated above is nothing short of revolutionary change in academia. Anything but a long term perspective on achieving institutional, even societal change, is likely to lead to frustration and burnout.

back to contents


I believe this analysis of service learning as a social movement reveals its potential as a revolutionary force, not only in academia but for the society at large. Service learning programs will fundamentally alter the university-community relationship. No longer will the university be seen as sitting atop the hill, with its ivy-covered walls separating its members from the larger community. Instead, the university will be seen as a partner, committed to the well-being of its surrounding neighbors and the larger community. It will also be revolutionary internally for the university's operations, as pedagogy, curriculum, rank and tenure procedures, and resource allocations are fundamentally changed. Faculty life has the potential for fundamental change as well, as service learning may enable individual faculty members to fully integrate their research, teaching and service commitments and link them to their immediate community.

Even larger than this is the revolutionary potential of service learning as a means of educating our youth in preparation for how they will interact with the larger society. This potential goes beyond the mere provision of services by young, talented, and energetic college students to communities that need them desperately. Rather, it is in the critical thinking skills that they will acquire as they are forced to confront the question of why these problems persist. It is in the empowerment they will acquire as they learn how to challenge dysfunctional institutional operations. It is in the lifelong commitments that they will be creating for themselves to be engaged civic actors. And finally, this revolutionary potential resides in the discrediting of the political economy that results from students discovering that it is the overt operations of market forces, aided by the political-economic system designed to generate inequality, that is responsible for the misery they see. All this revolutionary potential can only be realized, however, if we establish service learning programs that are truly challenging of the status quo and to which we are sufficiently committed to overcoming potential barriers.

back to contents


* The author would like to thank the following for their helpful comments and suggestions on this article: Christopher Koliba, Patricia O'Connor, Penny Rue, Keith Morton, Lee Williams, and Randy Stoecker.

1. For historical summary and applications, see Dewey (1915), Benson and Harkavy (1991), Taylor (1992), and Boyer (1990).

2. This includes efforts toward challenging or changing existing social structures to the ultimate benefit of a disadvantaged group.

3. It also poses a new challenge, to move the student beyond the initial shock, anger, and guilt reactions they are likely to experience in observing such desperate conditions, and to move them to a point where they believe they can become agents of change.

4. As a result of their nonprofit status, universities pay lower or no property and sales taxes, receive tax support directly and indirectly through federal, state and locally funded programs, and are subsidized through federal and state tuition assistance programs.

5. Larger structural differences of the 1990s versus the 1960s mitigate against this free space potential in that students are receiving less financial aid and are more likely to be working more hours, universities are receiving less financial support from the federal government, and they have been undergoing "restructuring" to reduce internal overhead which could serve as cooptable resources for service learning movement mobilization.

6. The faculty are awarded stipends to attend and must apply through a loosely competitive process. Funding is provided by several academic deans, the university president and vice president's offices, the dean of students, and the chaplain's office. This program is described in Donahue, Marullo, O'Connor, and Rue (1995). Also see Stanton (1994) and Fischer (1993).

7. Similar to "writing-across-the-curriculum" efforts, service learning courses can be developed across the curriculum, including the university's core curriculum courses. Given our context, we believe that this "infiltration from the grassroots" approach is a more effective curriculum reform strategy than directly challenging the composition of the core curriculum.

back to contents


Barber, Benjamin. 1991. "A Mandate for Liberty: Requiring Education-Based Community Service." The Responsive Community 1 (Spring):46-55.

Benson, Lee and Ira Harkavy. 1991. "Progressing Beyond the Welfare State," Universities and Community Schools 2 (Spring): 2-28.

Berry, Howard. 1990. "Service-Learning in International and Intercultural Settings." Pp. 311-313 in Jane Kendall and Associates, Combining Service and Learning. (Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education).

Boyer, Ernest. 1990 "Service: Linking School to Life." Pp. 99-104 in Jane Kendall and Associates, Combining Service and Learning. (Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education).

Bringle, Robert and Julie Hatcher. 1994. "Implementing Service Learning at Metropolitan Universities." Unpublished manuscript.

Byrne, Patrick. 1990. "The PULSE Program at Boston College." The Catholic World (March/April): 80-85.

Center for Public Service. 1993. "Proposal to Establish the Center for Public Service at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis." (Indianapolis, IN: IUPUI).

Center for Social Concerns. 1994. "Center for Social Concerns Strategic Planning Report." (Notre Dame, IN: The University of Notre Dame, Center for Social Concerns).

Cha, Stephen, Michael Rothman, and Melissa Smith. 1994. Service Matters: A Sourcebook for Community Service in Higher Education. (Providence, RI: Education Commission for the States and The Campus Compact).

Chesler, Mark. 1993. "Community Service Learning as Innovation in the University." Pp. 27-40 in J. Howard, (ed.), Praxis I: A Faculty Casebook on Community Service Learning. (Ann Arbor, MI: OCSL Press, University of Michigan).

Cohen, Lorrain. 1995. "Facilitating the Critique of Racism and Classism: An Experiential Model for Euro-American Middle-Class Students." Teaching Sociology 23:87-93.

Corporation for National Service. 1994. Learn and Serve America: Higher Education. Program Summary 1994. (Washington, D.C.: Corporation for National Service).

Delve, Cecelia, Suzanne Mintz, and Greig Stewart. 1990. "Promoting Values Development Through Community Service: A Design." Pp. 7-30 in C. Delve, S. Mintz, G. Stewart (eds.), Community Service as Values Education. (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, New Directions for Student Services, number 50).

Dewey, John. 1915. The School and Society. (Chicago: University of Chicago).

Donahue, James, Sam Marullo, Patricia O'Connor, and Penny Rue. 1994. "The Service Learning Institute: A Faculty Development Workshop Model for Service Learning." (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University, unpublished manuscript).

Eisenberg, N., R. Lennon, and K. Roth. 1983. "Prosocial Development: A Longitudinal Study." Developmental Psychology 19:846-855.

Evans, Sara, and Harry Boyte. 1986. Free Spaces: The Sources of Democratic Change in America. (New York: Harper and Row).

Feinstein Institute. 1994. "Feinstein Institute for Public Service." (Providence, RI: Providence College, Feinstein Institute).

Fisher, Irene. 1993. "Lessons Learned: Confronting Barriers and Developing Rewards for Faculty Involvement in Service Learning at the University of Utah." Pp. 107-112 in T. Kupiec (editor), Rethinking Tradition. (Providence, RI: Education Commission for the States and The Campus Compact).

Fullinwider, Robert. 1990. "Learning Morality." Pp. 405-406 in Jane Kendall and Associates, Combining Service and Learning. (Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education).

General Congregation. 1995. "Documents of General Congregation 34." National Jesuit News (April).

Gorham, Eric. 1992. National Service, Citizenship, and Political Education. (Albany, NY: SUNY Press).

Haas Center. 1993. "Haas Center for Public Service, Annual Report 1992-93." (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, Haas Center for Public Service).

Hilgartner, Stephen, and Charles Bosk. 1988. "The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model." American Journal of Sociology 94:53-78.

Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette, and Sally Raskoff. 1994. "Community Service-
Learning: Promises and Problems." Teaching Sociology 22:248-254.

Honnet, Ellen P., and Susan J. Poulsen. 1989. "Principles of Good Practice for Combining Service and Learning." (Racine, WI: Wingspread Special Report).

Keen, Cheryl. 1990. "Effects of a Public Issues Program on Adolescents' Moral and Intellectual Development." Pp. 393-404 in Jane Kendall and Associates, Combining Service and Learning. (Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education).

Kirby, Donald, et al., Ambitious Dreams: The Values Program at LeMoyne College. (Sheed & Ward, 1991).

Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1975. "The Cognitive-Developmental Approach to Moral Education." Phi Delta Kappan 56:670-677.

Levison, Lee. 1990. "Choose Engagement over Exposure." Pp. 68-75 in Jane Kendall and Associates, Combining Service and Learning. (Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education).

Miller, Jerry. 1994. "Linking Traditional and Service-Learning Courses: Outcome Evaluations Utilizing Two Pedagogically Distinct Models." Michingan Journal of University Service Learning 1 (Fall): 29-36.

Moore, David T. 1990. "Experiential Education as Critical Discourse." Pp. 272-283 in Jane Kendall and Associates, Combining Service and Learning. (Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education).

Moskos, Charles. 1988. A Call to Civic Service: National Service for Country and Community. (New York: Free Press).

Newmann, Fred. 1990. "Learning Citizenship Through Practice." Pp. 234-236 in Jane Kendall and Associates, Combining Service and Learning. (Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education).

O'Neil, Edward. 1990. "The Liberal Tradition of Civic Education." Pp. 190-
200 in Jane Kendall and Associates, Combining Service and Learning. (Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education).

Permaul, Jane. S. 1993. "Community Service and Intercultural Education." Pp. 83-88 in T. Kupiec (editor), Rethinking Tradition. (Providence, RI: Education Commission for the States and The Campus Compact).

Porter, Judith, and Lisa Schwartz. 1993. "Experiential Service-Based Learning: An Integrated HIV/AIDS Education Model for College Campuses." Teaching Sociology 21:409-415.

Shafer, D. Michael. 1994. "Dear Colleague." (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, recruitment letter to colleagues).

Shulman, Lee. 1991. "Professing the Liberal Arts." Lecture given at the 1991 Institute on Integrating Service with Academic Study. Stanford University.

Snow, David and Robert Benford. 1988. "Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization." International Social Movements Research 1:197-217.

Snow, David, E. Burke Rochford, Steven Worden and Robert Benford. 1986. "Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation." American Sociological Review. 51:464-481.

Stanley, Mary. 1993. "Community Service and Citizenship: Social Control and Social Justice." Pp. 59-62 in T. Kupiec (editor), Rethinking Tradition. (Providence, RI: Education Commission for the States and The Campus Compact).

Stanton, Tim. 1994. "The Experience of Faculty Partiicpants in an Instructional Seminar on Service Learning." Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 1 (Fall):7-20.

_____. 1990. "Liberal Arts, Experiential Learning, and Public Service: Necessary Ingredients for Socially Responsible Undergraduate Education." Pp. 175-189 in Jane Kendall and Associates, Combining Service and Learning. (Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education).

Tarrow, Sidney. 1994. Power in Movement. (New York: Cambridge).

Taylor, Henry Louis, Jr. 1992. "Redefining the Relationship: The Urban Univeristy and the City in the 21st Century," Universities and Community Schools 3 (Fall):17-22.

WEPIC (West Philadelphia Improvement Corps). 1994. "A Partnership for the Future." (Philadelphia, PA: WEPIC).

back to contents