APPLICATION OF ASTIN’S THEORY OF STUDENTS ... OF ASTIN’S THEORY OF STUDENTS’... 233 education. The results of the study will provide new understanding to researchers in higher

Man In India, 96 (1-2) : 231-245 © Serials Publications

1Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia*E-mail: [email protected]

APPLICATION OF ASTIN’S THEORY OF STUDENTS’INVOLVEMENT IN SERVICE LEARNING AT HIGHEREDUCATION

Iqbal Ahmad1* and Hamdan Said1

Service-learning is gaining high popularity all over the world. It is believed to effectively promotestudents’ learning and development. This paper examines how service-learning links serviceexperience to students’ learning by applying Astin’s theory of involvement in higher education.Much research exists on theory of involvement in other fields. However, little research hashighlighted the multidimensional applications of this theory in service-learning field especiallyin higher education. This paper reviews Astin’s theory of involvement that how it applies tostudents’ learning and development in higher education. Theoretically, the paper contributes toservice-learning literature in two ways: first it highlights the role of service-learning for students’active learning in higher education and second, it explains Astin’s theory of involvement as amodel of service-learning in higher education. This paper provides some insights about using thetheory of involvement for making effective student development interventions in higher educationthrough service-learning programmes.

Keywords: service-learning, student learning, higher education, theory of involvement

Introduction

Today’s higher education is characterized by two important trends: volunteerismand service activities (Butin, 2010). These two trends are increasing in highereducation all over the world (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). Consequently, universitiesand other organizations are found to be working together for the development ofstudents through curricular and co-curricular programmes. In these programmes,students, teachers and community members are seen to be actively involved. Despitethis, the process of involvement is not clear so far as students’ learning is concerned(Butin, 2006; O’Grady, 2014). Research reveals that many volunteerism activitiesdo not focus on students’ learning. Their main objective is to promote communitygoals and needs (Kezar & Rhoads, 2001). This situation has created a gap betweenhigher education institutions and community expectations from higher educationinstitutions to produce active citizens (Tinto, 2003). There are evidences thatstudents graduating from higher education institutions lack in essential life skillssuch as communication, leadership and problem solving and so on (Butin, 2006;Marullo, 1996). Writers have highlighted these problems long ago (Batchelder &Root, 1994). Even current research also provides rich examples about the soft orlife skills deficiencies among students (Amerson, 2010; van Dinther, Dochy, &Segers, 2011). On the other hand, research has highlighted about the critical role

232 MAN IN INDIA

of service-learning in enhancing learning of students (Ryan & Ryan, 2013).Researchers argue that higher education institutions must focus on life skilldevelopment of students and prepare them for the present competitive society(Hamner, Wilder, Avery, & Byrd, 2002). Theorists like Dewey, Boyer and othershave also stressed on the change aspect of education. They say that the main aimof education is to produce participative and active citizens. Such citizens must beable to solve the problems of the society. These aims are also in line with theprogressive philosophy of education which also stresses on students’ empowermentand life skill development (Bringle & Hatcher, 2000; Kezar & Rhoads, 2001).Dewey explains that education produces active citizens for the society andeducational institutions must promote and train future citizens in citizenship (Giles& Eyler, 1994; Stanton, Giles Jr, & Cruz, 1999). In late middle 80s, Astin’s theoryof involvement became very popular. However, there are less evidences of itsimplementation at higher education level in a developing country context. Allprevious studies have been conducted in the developed world (Kreber, 2009;Kenworthy-U’Ren & Peterson, 2005). Little research exists on the application ofthis theory in higher education. Hence, the major aims of this paper are to examinethe relationship between service-learning and students’ learning, and to investigatethe application of Astins’ theory of involvement in higher education and itsimplication for students’ learning and development.

Higher education and service-learning

Service-learning is an experiential pedagogy (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). Theapplication of service theory and its effectiveness for higher education institutionsand communities is being recognised (Heffernan, 2011). It promotes the goals ofcommunity development through higher education (Jacoby, 2009; Kezar & Rhoads,2001). Various service-learning models have been used to achieve the targets ofhigher education, but majority of the models have not been useful to gain thesegoals (Butin, 2005). The existing models use traditional ways of community servicesuch as volunteerism, social work or community service. This view focuses on thecommunity interests and neglects the learning aspect. It also overlooks the ‘learninggoal’ of service-learning which is the major aim of higher education (Driscoll,Holland, Gelmon, & Kerrigan, 1996; Zlotkowski, 1998). The other issue in highereducation is the partial integration of service-learning (Bringle & Hatcher, 2000).In many educational institutions service-learning is integrated as curricularprogramme. It is overlooked by both community and universities (Butin, 2005,2006; Jacoby, 2009; O’Grady, 2014). This is the second gap in the service-learningliterature (Butin, 2005; Jacoby, 2009). Little is known on the comparativeeffectiveness of curricular and co-curricular service-learning programmes in highereducation (Jacoby, 2013). This study attempts to highlight the integration of Astins’involvement theory as a model of community and academic development in higher

APPLICATION OF ASTIN’S THEORY OF STUDENTS’... 233

education. The results of the study will provide new understanding to researchersin higher education about the feasibility of using this theory as model for partnership.

Research on service-learning in higher education shows that reciprocity hasbeen neglected in the process of traditional service programme (Porter & Monard,2001). This has narrowed down the larger aims of higher education to merelyproviding social service to the community at the expense of academic development(Butin, 2010). Service-learning breeds genuine partnership between highereducation and the community on one side, teacher student and student communityon the other side. This triangle relationship is the foundation for making thepartnership successful between higher education and community. In this way, boththe community and higher education work together and grow together which isone of the major aims of service-learning (Bringle & Hatcher, 1999; Butin, 2006).Although higher education responds to the national aspirations on service andvolunteerism, higher education needs to look at the developmental model or viewof service delivery. This is essential for the changing needs of the community andsocieties. It is necessary to integrate service-learning as a curricular programme(Cruz & Giles, 2000; Kenworthy-U’Ren & Peterson, 2005). Literature reveals thatservice-learning has a strong element of academic role to play in promoting students’learning apart from promoting student-faculty relations and the needs of community(Abes, Jackson, & Jones, 2002). Service-learning engages students in such activitieswhere they not only address human needs but also find wider structuredopportunities for their own academic development (Mooney & Edwards, 2001).Reflection and reciprocity are the two important elements of service-learning(Jacoby, 1999).

Service-learning equally benefits all partners: students, faculty, university andthe community (Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2000). As higher education institutionsattempt to engage students in education, it is essential to ensure that all partnersare equally represented and their needs are satisfied. So the service-learningprogrammes must be designed that provide better opportunity to all the partners(Butin, 2006; Jacoby, 1999). This aspect plays a key role in making the service-learning sustainable and successful. The involvement theory of Astin assimilatesthese aspects. The theory is based on mutual partnership where stakeholders aregiven opportunity to grow fully. The theory focuses students’ involvement as thebasic element due to the fact that students are going to be future citizens (Astin,Vogelgesang, Ikeda, & Yee, 2000; Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). Currently there is agrowing interest among higher educational institutions in promoting communityand students’ needs focusing this model. This theory provides an excellentopportunity for putting theory into practice for successfully implementing service-learning programme (Avalos, Sax, & Astin, 1999; Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000).

Service-learning benefits are reciprocal in nature. Both students and communityget the ultimate fruits from the platform of higher education (Vogelgesang & Astin,

234 MAN IN INDIA

2000). During service-learning activity students share, discuss and reflect on theissues at broader level more deeply. This develops the critical thinking skills ofstudents. Researchers from Brandeis University found that students who participatedin the service-learning programmes received better grades, showed morecommitments to their communities, and demonstrated more openness to culturaldiversity (Murano & Knight, 1999). Jacoby (1996) found similar results regardingthe outcomes of service-learning. Jacoby further narrates that students participatingin the service-learning programme gained more knowledge and are prepared forcitizenship, showed better democratic participation and developed more betterappreciation of human diversity, differences and respect people from other races,genders, physical and mental abilities, religious groups, classes and sexualorientations and so on.

Service-learning models serve as the intellectual challenges for the universityfaculty (McKay & Rozee, 2004). These models guide how to connect academiclearning with much debated social change in the society. Service-learningprogrammes are a source for better student-faculty interactions (Howard, 2003;Weigert, 1998). Faculty often sees students as an apathetic but service-learning isan empowering tool for helping bringing young people into the mainstreamacademic world. This helps the higher education institutions to achieve the socialpurpose and sense of personal growth in the process of education (Abes et al.,2002; Bringle & Hatcher, 1995). The aim of higher education institutions is tobuild positive teacher-student relationships (Kezar & Rhoads, 2001). Service-learning also provides wider avenue for staff members to engage in research. Inthis regard, faculty may develop some new research projects focusing on the needof creating avenues for interaction between students and staff members (McCarthy,2010). Optimistically service-learning will continue to grow as the positive effectsare exposed to everyone involved in the process (Pribbenow, 2005). Theimplementation of service-learning model at the higher education level providesmore learning opportunities to students, faculty and the community respectively(Bringle & Hatcher, 2000). It is low cost way to involve and educate students incitizenship and to better prepare them for the change and challenges of life asactive members of the society. This will also help in developing and promotingdeeper and meaningful relations and interactions between student and faculty anduniversity and community (McKay & Estrella, 2008).

Service as goal of higher education

Universities contribute to the general good by preparing skilful manpower to thesociety (Astin, 1996; Cantor, 1997). In 1984, for the first time, college studentswere engaged in a missionary activity of providing service to the communities.The Campus Compact Opportunity League (COOL) was established in UnitedStates (Antonio, Astin, & Cress, 2000). Later on, the Campus Compact was used


to extent the opportunities for public and community service through highereducation. These activities aimed to promote civic responsibility in students’learning and their social and citizenship skills development. These programmeswere further strengthened by the ‘Learn and Serve America’ initiative undertakenin late mid 1990s (Bringle & Hatcher, 2000; Jacoby, 2003). Ironically, even in thepresence of all these programmes, a drastic decline has been found in thecommitments of higher education towards the completion of their service missionin the world generally and United States specifically (Seifer, 1998). An earlierresearch has also provided some evidences that the commitment of higher educationtowards community engagement has decreased over the years (Ferrari & Worrall,2000). Instead, service has never been the main priority of universities and collegesaround the world. Rather discussions on promotions and tenure dominated as themain priorities. This situation has further estranging higher education fromcommunities (Morgan & Streb, 2001).

To overcome this development, universities can get into seriously engagementin order to help satisfy the civic needs of the nation and help the people in copingwith the social problems (Kreber, 2009). In this regard, Boyer terms thisassociation between community and higher education ‘Scholarship ofEngagement’. It means that there is a need to create meaningful connectionsbetween colleges, universities and communities to help solve pressing social,civic and ethical problems faced by the society and the people. Universities needto develop strong connection with civic cultures and create such climates inwhich the academic and civic domains could connect, come together and worktogether (Hatcher & Bringle, 1997). Astin (1984) has highlighted the serviceaspect of higher education which helps in understanding the genre of relationshipbetween higher education, student development and the community (Gerstenblatt& Gilbert, 2014). He argues that there is a strong correlation between studentcommunity participation and volunteer work. He calls this social activism. Highereducation institutions ensure that service aspect fully promoted through socialactivism, leadership, participation in campus demonstrations and activities andconducting tutoring programmes around for the community and students (Kahne& Westheimer, 1996). He argues that there is a strong correlation between studentsocial development, leadership development and civic growth and volunteer inthe community. By integrating the concept of service in the curriculum, the highereducation institutions may achieve this goal easily. He further claims that serviceaspect of education may have a positive effect on the higher education institutionsmission and practice. This commitment promotes permanent bond betweencommunity, universities, explaining the meaningful philosophy of life,understanding and clarity of objectives in implementing the service programmessuccessfully (Astin, 1993; Bringle & Hatcher, 2000; Gray, Ondaatje, Fricker, &Geschwind, 2000).

236 MAN IN INDIA

Moreover, Astin has suggested that community participation increases the gradepoints of university students’ academic results, retention, self-concept and timedevoted to study, aspirations for educational degrees, discipline and knowledge(Astin & Sax, 1998). Their study further revealed that participating in the serviceprogramme enhanced the students’ general community awareness, understandingof different culture, diversity attitude, attitude towards other races and cultures,community problems, national and international issues and social problems in thesociety. The students after participating in the service programme reflected ontheir service activity which enhanced their reflective skills, ability to work incooperation with others, conflict resolution, leadership skills and increased socialself-confidence (Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000). The concept of service-learning isfounded in the philosophy of Dewey (Giles & Eyler, 1994). He believed thateducation needs to be a part of community life. He also highlighted the socialpurpose of education. For achieving this aim, he emphasized on experience. Heargues that experience is the foundation of learning. Social experience is importantfor students to become active citizens and useful members of the society (Saltmarsh,1996). Students need to be exposed to real life experiences for developing theminto mature and effective citizens. For this purpose, students must be allowed tointeract with community members (Deans, 1999). This creates in them communityawareness and sense of civic responsibility which are important elements of activecitizenship (Carver, 1997). Learning in real life contexts have significant effect onstudents critical thinking, problem solving and leadership skills (Kezar & Rhoads,2001). These scholars further found that students’ out of class experiences weremore important than inside classroom experiences for their social, and criticalskills development. The results of some other studies support the findings of Astin’stheory that students’ outside experiences are important for their academicdevelopment during the college period (Keen & Hall, 2009). Astin also shows theimportance of participation in different real life activities during the universityperiod such as volunteer works, social work or community service. So his theoryis mainly focuses the volunteer work (Astin et al., 2000). However, service-learningis a different activity than volunteerism and community service (Avalos et al.,1999).

Community service is spreading in the world in university campuses, universitymanagement should not only be satisfied with mere community work or hands-onwork alone (Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000). Similarly, service-learning is differentand it goes beyond community service. Basically, service-learning facilitatesstudents to apply their new learning to real world problems by becoming moreinvolved in the community around the campuses (Jacoby, 1999; Sax, 2004).Contrarily, Astin et al. (2000) have a different view that service-learning is aneffective approach and strategy for involving students in co-curricular process thatacademic learning and out of class experiences through service work. So service-


learning can also be considered an effective example of student involvement theory,because, it also encourages critical skill development of students. During service-learning, students discuss, share and reflect by thinking more deeply about theworld around them (Saltmarsh, 2005; Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000). Reflection isone of the important elements of service-learning (Bringle & Hatcher, 1999).Students reflect on their service action or experience during and after the serviceactivity. In view of many critics, students actually do not learn during the service-learning. However, they learn through the experience and reflection after the service.Freirian philosophy (1979, 1997) of praxis provides further clarification thateducation people can change the world by the process of praxis, i.e. the practice ofaction and reflection. He argues that for learning, only action and service is notenough, rather reflection must occur before learning outcome (Ash, Clayton, &Atkinson, 2005). Reflection is intentional consideration of an experience in thelight of some specific objectives (Hatcher & Bringle, 1997).

Reflection is a central concept in service-learning. It connects the concreteaction to the abstraction (Eyler, 2002). Reflective as a component in the lessonwould be difficult as during the service-learning programmes students are takenout of their classrooms (Hatcher & Bringle, 1997). They find it difficult andchallenging to participate in the reflective process or write reflections. However,inside the classrooms lessons, reflective components are intentionally included inthe service-learning courses. But students find it hard to write reflective notes or totalk about the service experience outside of the classrooms (Scheuermann, 1996).In many cases, students see reflection as time consuming activity than otherclassroom activities such as class work, employment or volunteer work (McClam,Diambra, Burton, Fuss, & Fudge, 2008). This belief on the part of students causesthem not to take time for reflecting on some experience. Teachers must know thatreflection is not just an afterthought. It is a compulsory step for learning. Therefore,students need to know the importance of reflection as an essential step in learning,the experience involved in it and its benefits for their learning (Bringle & Hatcher,1999; McClam et al., 2008). For effective learning students need to participate inthe process of learning actively through discussions, sharing their feelings,experiences about issues and the need for the service (Stanton et al., 1999).

To achieve this goal, teachers need to encourage their students to reflect ontheir service experiences. There are different techniques of reflections such asgroup and individual reflection, group discussions, writing journals, answer specificquestions prepared for reflection and so on (Felten, Gilchrist, & Darby, 2006).Other techniques may also be employed for reflections including viewing a videoand connecting it to service-learning activity, reflecting on certain questions, doingrole plays, using one word for describing the experience and sharing reasons forusing that specific word (Li & Lal, 2005). Additionally, electronic mail discussion,personal narratives and writing short stories may also be used as forms of reflection

238 MAN IN INDIA

in service-learning. All these techniques help in linking service to learning (Hatcher& Bringle, 1997). Another important principle of service-learning is reciprocity(Donahue, 2011). During service activity, students learn through interactions andhelping others in the community. In this way, they learn on one side and provideservice on the other. This process is called reciprocity in service-learning field.This process makes service-learning a distinct method from other methods such ascommunity service, volunteerism or social work (Donahue, Bowyer, & Rosenberg,2003). The major difference between service-learning and these methods is thatall these methods are used to provide service not necessarily learning. In service-learning, both the community and students benefit together from the service activity.The community gets service and students find an opportunity for learning. Thisprepares them for their educational course (Porter & Monard, 2001). Highereducation focuses the development of useful social capital (Gray et al., 2000). Itemphasizes on active learning approaches such as service-learning (Delve, Mintz,& Stewart, 1990). Higher education institutions strive to achieve this goal (Delve& Rice, 1990).

Service-learning models and higher education

Service-learning is integrated in higher education rapidly than before in the world(Butin, 2006). There are different models and many ways to realize this goal ofhigher education. Service-learning may be implemented both as curricular or co-curricular programme levels (Butin, 2010; Jacoby, 2009). In this regard,Scheuermann (1996) prefers to integrate it at co-curricular level only and proposessix steps to develop and implement a service-learning programme in highereducation: (1) developing the community site, (2) assisting the student ororganization in choosing the site, (3) getting student or the organization to make acommitment to the proposed service site, (4) preparing the student or organizationfor service, (5) engaging the student or organization in the reflection, and (6)evaluating the service programme outcomes.

Another model was developed and implemented by Delve, Mintz and Steward(1990). They considered service-learning activity an essential approach for studentdevelopment. They proposed a five phased model of service-learning. This fivestage model includes (1) exploration, (2) clarification, (3) realization, (4) activation,and (5) internalization. They explain that in the exploration stage students aresupposed and guided to explore new opportunities and to get involved. This stagehas no psychological connection to the project that is understudy. In the clarificationstage, students are allowed to interact with the community members and amongthemselves by looking at the aims and goals of the project under study. Theyunderstand the importance of the project for them and for the organization. Theyparticipate in the service-learning programme. In the realization stage, the studentsfind an ‘a ha’ moment when they accomplish the task assigned to them. They feel


excited and empowered when they complete the project. In this stage studentsrealize the importance of working in teams. In the activation stage, the studentsfeel a sense of commitment, devotion and association with the community andgroups with whom they worked during the service activity. This increases theirsense of self-efficacy and sense of empowerment. In the internalization stage, thestudents show their future intentions and decide to fully integrate the commitmentof working with communities for the rest of their lives. This indicates their futureintentions as community workers and active citizens.

Application of Astin’s theory in higher education

Astin’s theory explains student’ involvement in higher education in five differentways: academic involvement, peer involvement, work involvement, facultyinvolvement and other involvement (Astin et al., 2000; Vogelgesang & Astin,2000). The theory of involvement describes that students go through severalprocesses of academic and non-academic activities during college and universityeducation. In his theory, he argues that the greater the students are involved inuniversity activities, the more they will get chances for their learning and personaldevelopment (Astin & Sax, 1998). This theory helps understand three importantdimensions of students’ university life: how students go through differentexperiences during their university life and how these experiences are planned andenhanced by the educational institutions and how students get affected by theseexperiences (Antonio et al., 2000). He identified the facets of service-learninginvolvement: academic involvement, faculty involvement, peer involvement,involvement in work and other forms of involvement (Astin et al., 2000; Avalos etal., 1999).

In the involvement theory of Astin, involvement is described in different ways(Astin, 1996). For example, the academic involvement includes academic activitiessuch as preparation for courses, classes, examination and so on. Faculty involvementincludes interaction with teachers inside or outside of class, helping teachers inresearch or participating in other social programmes. Peer involvement includessocializing with friends and classmates, association in student organization, workingin projects, tutoring others as well as participating in different academic and non-academic activities in the campus. Involvement in work means working for pay oncampus or off campus in terms of hours in week or month. The other forms ofinvolvement includes taking part in games, sports, volunteer work, religious parties,exercise clubs, literacy circles and so on (Astin, 1993). Service-learning is aneffective tool for providing academic experiences to students. The devices of criticalthinking are very important. The teachers must incorporate critical thinking activities(Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000). San Francisco State University has successfullyincorporated and implemented service-learning programme that includes 50 classeswhich require students to participate in a service work and reflect on the work they

240 MAN IN INDIA

performed. This will be useful for students’ learning (Antonio et al., 2000). Theinteraction of the students with faculty and staff at wider level is important forstudent development. This helps in promoting trust and friendly links betweenfaculty and students which is one of the goals of higher education. For thispurpose, this aspect is included in the service-learning curriculum. This createsmany co-curricular service-learning programmes and promotes service-learningexperiences of students (Avalos et al., 1999). Astin advises that universityadministrators must lead not only the projects but also facilitate students to reflecton the interactions (Saltmarsh, 1996; Vogelgesang & Astin, 2000). This modelserves as an intellectual challenge by providing ways for greater student-facultyinteractions (Butin, 2003). At the peer interaction level, when the service-learningactivities are designed and implemented, students are considered a part of a largerstudent community (Rockquemore & Harwell Schaffer, 2000). This larger studentgroup or community is supposed to work in collaborations for the general goodor betterment of all who are involved in the process of service-learning (Battistoni,Longo, & Jayanandhan, 2009). This larger community provides opportunities tostudents for meaningful interactions to find learning venues (Myers-Lipton, 1996).During the entire service-learning process such as from the hands on servicedelivery to the discussions and reflections, students constantly interact amongthemselves (Astin et al., 2000; Bringle, Studer, Wilson, Clayton, & Steinberg,2011).

Conclusion and suggestions

There are different ways for integrating service-learning in higher education. Thisgoal can be realized by introducing service-learning programme both at curricularor co-curricular levels. To achieve this goal, students, faculty, administration andcommunity should work together in close collaboration. The success of theprogramme is dependent on the interest of all the stakeholders involved in theprocess of service-learning. This paper concludes that university administratorsshould provide strong support by making required sources available for service-learning activities such as new course development, developing plans to addressissues in the community and in the campus, ensuring community developmentgrants and academic credits to those students who participate in the service-learningprogrammes. The university faculty must also explain the importance, value andnecessity of service-learning to the academic and community partners. Also,students must be guided, encouraged. For better student involvement educatorsand administrators must develop learning programmes and encourage students toparticipate in these programmes.

This review recommends that students must be helped and guided through thecritical stages of service-learning activity and to actively take part in the serviceactivity. For this purpose, a variety learning opportunities may be provided to


them. For this, the university management must also ensure the maximumparticipation and involvement of students and faculty. This will help students tohave more time and chances to interact with their peers, faculty and the communities.Finally, it is suggested in the light of Astin theory that students’ development andlearning can be effective if the university management provides variousopportunities for student involvement. For this purpose, they may direct and advisethe campus members and colleagues to muster support for successfulimplementation of the service-learning programmes in the campus.

References

Abes, E. S., Jackson, G., & Jones, S. R. (2002). Factors that motivate and deter faculty use ofservice-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(1), 5-17.

Amerson, R. (2010). The impact of service-learning on cultural competence. Nursing EducationPerspectives, 31(1), 18-22.

Antonio, A. L., Astin, H. S., & Cress, C. M. (2000). Community service in higher education: Alook at the nation’s faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 23(4), 373-397.

Ash, S. L., Clayton, P. H., & Atkinson, M. P. (2005). Integrating reflection and assessment tocapture and improve student learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,11(2), 49-60.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass

Astin, A. W. (1996). The role of service in higher education. About Campus, 1(1), 14-19.

Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation.Journal of College Student Development, 39(3), 251-263.

Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., & Yee, J. A. (2000). How service learning affectsstudents. Higher Education Research Institute, University of California Los Angeles, CA.

Avalos, J., Sax, L. J., & Astin, A. W. (1999). Long-term effects of volunteerism during theundergraduate years. The Review of Higher Education, 22(2), 187-202.

Batchelder, T. H., & Root, S. (1994). Effects of an undergraduate program to integrate academiclearning and service: Cognitive, prosocial cognitive, and identity outcomes. Journal ofAdolescence, 17(4), 341-355.

Battistoni, R. M., Longo, N. V., & Jayanandhan, S. R. (2009). Acting locally in a flat world:Global citizenship and the democratic practice of service-learning. Journal of HigherEducation Outreach and Engagement, 13(2), 89-108.

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1995). A service-learning curriculum for faculty. MichiganJournal of Community Service Learning, 2(1), 112-122.

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. TheJournal of Higher Education, 67(2), 221-239.

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1999). Reflection in service learning: Making meaning ofexperience. Educational Horizons, 77(4), 179-185.

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2000). Institutionalization of service learning in higher education.The Journal of Higher Education, 71(3), 273-290.

242 MAN IN INDIA

Bringle, R. G., Studer, M., Wilson, J., Clayton, P. H., & Steinberg, K. S. (2011). Designingprograms with a purpose: To promote civic engagement for life. Journal of Academic Ethics,9(2), 149-164.

Butin, D. (2003). Of what use is it? Multiple conceptualizations of service learning withineducation. The Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1674-1692.

Butin, D. W. (2005). Service-learning in higher education: Critical issues and directions. NewYork, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Butin, D. W. (2006). The limits of service-learning in higher education. The Review of HigherEducation, 29(4), 473-498.

Butin, D. W. (2010). Service-learning in theory and practice: The future of community engagementin higher education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cantor, J. A. (1997). Experiential learning in higher education: Linking classroom and community.ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7.

Carver, R. L. (1997). Theoretical underpinnings of service learning. Theory into Practice, 36(3),143-149.

Cruz, N. I., & Giles, D. (2000). Where’s the community in service-learning research. MichiganJournal of Community Service Learning, 7(1), 28-34.

Deans, T. (1999). Service-learning in two keys: Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy in relation toJohn Dewey’s pragmatism. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 6(1), 15-29.

Delve, C. I., Mintz, S. D., & Stewart, G. M. (1990). Promoting values development throughcommunity service: A design. New Directions for Student Services, 1990(50), 7-29.

Delve, C. I., & Rice, K. L. (1990). The integration of service learning into leadership and campusactivities. New Directions for Student Services, 1990(50), 55-64.

Donahue, D. M. (2011). Disciplinary knowldge, service-learning and citizenship. In C.M. Cress& D.M. Donahue & Associates (Eds.), Democratic Dilemmas of Teaching Service-learning:Curricular Strategies for Success (pp. 131-138). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Donahue, D. M., Bowyer, J., & Rosenberg, D. (2003). Learning with and learning from:Reciprocity in service learning in teacher education. Equity & Excellence in Education,36(1), 15-27.

Driscoll, A., Holland, B., Gelmon, S., & Kerrigan, S. (1996). An assessment model for service-learning: Comprehensive case studies of impact on faculty, students, community, andinstitution. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3(1), 66-71.

Eyler. (2002). Reflection: Linking service and learning—Linking students and communities.Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 517-534.

Felten, P., Gilchrist, L. Z., & Darby, A. (2006). Emotion and learning: Feeling our way towarda new theory of reflection in service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community ServiceLearning, 12(2), 38-46.

Ferrari, J. R., & Worrall, L. (2000). Assessments by community agencies: How “the other side”sees service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7(1), 35-40.

Gerstenblatt, P., & Gilbert, D. J. (2014). Framing service learning in social work: Aninterdisciplinary elective course embedded within a university–community partnership.Social Work Education, 1-17.


Giles, D. E., & Eyler, J. (1994). The theoretical roots of service-learning in John Dewey: Towarda theory of service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 1(1), 77-85.

Gray, M. J., Ondaatje, H. E., Fricker, R. D., & Geschwind, S. A. (2000). Assessing service-learning: Results from a survey of “Learn and Serve America, Higher Education”. Change:The Magazine of Higher Learning, 32(2), 30-39.

Hamner, J. B., Wilder, B., Avery, G., & Byrd, L. (2002). Community-based service learning inthe engaged university. Nursing Outlook, 50(2), 67-71.

Hatcher, J. A., & Bringle, R. G. (1997). Reflection: Bridging the gap between service and learning.College Teaching, 45(4), 153-158.

Heffernan, K. (2011). Service-learning in higher education. Journal of Contemporary WaterResearch and Education, 119(1), 2-8.

Howard, J. (2003). Service-learning research: Foundational issues. In S. H. Billig & A. S.Waterman (eds.), Studying service-learning: Innovations in Education ResearchMethodology (pp. 1-12). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jacoby, B. (1999). Partnerships for service learning. New Directions for Student Services,1999(87), 19-35.

Jacoby, B. (2003). Building partnerships for service-learning. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley& Sons.

Jacoby, B. (2009). Civic engagement in today’s higher education. In B. Jacoby & Associates(Eds.), Civic engagement in higher education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Jacoby, B. (2013). Democratic dilemmas of teaching service-learning: Curricular strategies forsuccess by Christine M. Cress & David M. Donohue (review). Journal of College StudentDevelopment, 54(3), 336-338.

Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (1996). In the service of what? The politics of service learning. PhiDelta Kappan, 77(9), 592-599.

Keen, C., & Hall, K. (2009). Engaging with difference matters: Longitudinal student outcomesof co-curricular service-learning programs. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(1), 59-79.

Kenworthy-U’Ren, A. L., & Peterson, T. O. (2005). Service-learning and management education:Introducing the “WE CARE” approach. Academy of Management Learning & Education,4(3), 272-277.

Kezar, A., & Rhoads, R. A. (2001). The dynamic tensions of service learning in higher education:A philosophical perspective. Journal of Higher Education,72(2), 148-171.

Kreber, C. (2009). Different perspectives on internationalization in higher education. NewDirections for Teaching and Learning, 2009(118), 1-14.

Li, X. & Lal, S. (2005). Critical reflective thinking through service learning in multiculturalteacher education. Intercultural Education, 16(3), 217-234.

Marullo, S. (1996). The service learning movement in higher education: An academic responseto troubled times. Sociological Imagination, 33(2), 117-137.

McCarthy, M. (2010). Experiential learning theory: From theory to practice. Journal of Business& Economics Research, 8(5), 131-139.

244 MAN IN INDIA

McClam, T., Diambra, J. F., Burton, B., Fuss, A., & Fudge, D. L. (2008). An analysis of aservice-learning project: Students’ expectations, concerns, and reflections. Journal ofExperiential Education, 30(3), 236-249.

McKay, V. C., & Estrella, J. (2008). First-generation student success: The role of faculty interactionin service learning courses. Communication Education, 57(3), 356-372.

McKay, V. C., & Rozee, P. D. (2004). Characteristics of faculty who adopt community servicelearning pedagogy. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10(2), 21-33.

Mooney, L. A., & Edwards, B. (2001). Experiential learning in sociology: Service learning andother community-based learning initiatives. Teaching Sociology, 29(2), 181-194.

Morgan, W., & Streb, M. (2001). Building citizenship: How student voice in service learningdevelops civic values. Social Science Quarterly, 82(1), 154-169.

Murano, P. S., & Knight, T. D. (1999). Determination of learning styles in an introductory foodscience course. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(4), 410-419.

Myers-Lipton, S. J. (1996). Effect of a comprehensive service-learning program on collegestudents’ level of modern racism. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3(1),47-54.

O’Grady, C. R. (2014). Integrating service learning and multicultural education: An overview.In C. R. (Eds.), Integrating service-learning and multicultural education in colleges anduniversities (pp. 1-21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbarum.

Porter, M., & Monard, K. (2001). “Ayni” in the global village: Building relationships of reciprocitythrough international service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,8(1), 5-17.

Pribbenow, D. A. (2005). The impact of service-learning pedagogy on faculty teaching andlearning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11(2), 25-38.

Rockquemore, K. A., & Harwell Schaffer, R. (2000). Toward a theory of engagement: A cognitivemapping of service-learning experiences. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,7(1), 14-25.

Ryan, M., & Ryan, M. (2013). Theorising a model for teaching and assessing reflective learningin higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(2), 244-257.

Saltmarsh, J. (1996). Education for critical citizenship: John Dewey’s contribution to the pedagogyof community service learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3(1),13-21.

Saltmarsh, J. (2005). The civic promise of service learning. Liberal Education, 91(2), 50-55.

Sax, L. J. (2004). Citizenship development and the American college student. New Directionsfor Institutional Research, 2004(122), 65-80.

Scheuermann, C. D. (1996). Ongoing cocurricular service-learning. In B. Jacoby & Associates(Eds.), Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices (pp. 135-155). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Seifer, S. D. (1998). Service-learning: Community-campus partnerships for health professionseducation. Academic Medicine, 73(3), 273-277.

Stanton, T. K., Giles Jr, D. E., & Cruz, N. I. (1999). Service-learning: A movement’s pioneersreflect on its origins, practice, and future. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


Tinto, V. (2003). Learning better together: The impact of learning communities on student success.In Promoting student success in college, Higher Education Monograph Series (pp. 1-8).Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.

van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., & Segers, M. (2011). Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy inhigher education. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 95-108.

Vogelgesang, L. J., & Astin, A. W. (2000). Comparing the effects of community service andservice-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7(1), 25-34.

Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2000). Community-centered service learning moving from doingfor to doing with. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 767-780.

Weigert, K. M. (1998). Academic service learning: Its meaning and relevance. New Directionsfor Teaching and Learning, 1998(73), 3-10.

Zlotkowski, E. (1998). Successful service-learning programs: New models of excellence in highereducation. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Documents

APPLICATION OF ASTIN’S THEORY OF STUDENTS ... OF ASTIN’S THEORY OF STUDENTS’... 233 education. The results of the study will provide new understanding to researchers in higher