Blouin-Perry-Whom Does Service Learning Really Serve

7/30/2019 Blouin-Perry-Whom Does Service Learning Really Serve

1/17

Whom Does Service Learning Really Serve? Community-Based Organizations' Perspectives onService LearningAuthor(s): David D. Blouin and Evelyn M. PerryReviewed work(s):Source: Teaching Sociology, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Apr., 2009), pp. 120-135Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25593983 .

Accessed: 10/01/2013 23:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Teaching Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:00:41 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25593983?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25593983?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa


2/17

_Articles_WHOM DOES SERVICE LEARNING REALLY SERVE?COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS'PERSPECTIVES ON SERVICE LEARNING*

One of the major selling points of service-learning courses is their potential tomutually benefit communities, universities, and students. Although a greatdeal of research reports numerous pedagogical and personal benefits for students?from improved grades and increased civic engagement to increasedunderstanding and appreciation of diversity?there is relatively little researchon the impact of service learning on the community. To understand when andhow service-learning courses benefit the community, we conducted in-depthinterviews with representatives of local community-based organizations thathave worked with service learners. We report on the primary benefits andcosts associated with service-learning courses. We identify three types ofobstacles to successful service-learning courses: issues related to studentconduct poor fit between course and organizational objectives, and lack ofcommunication between instructors and organizations. We develop practicalguidelines for addressing these obstacles and for ensuring that service learningfulfills teaching and learning goals and provides valuable service to community-based organizations.

David D. BlouinIndiana University-South Bend

In a recent American Sociological Association (ASA) reporton learning in the soci*Authors are listed in alphabetical order to

signify equal authorship. An earlier version ofthis paper was presented at the annual meetingof the North Central Sociological Association,Indianapolis, March 2006. We are grateful forcomments and assistance from Emily Bowman,Mari Dagaz, Brent Harger, Jay Howard, Claire

King, Bernice Pescosolido, Brian Powell, RobRobinson, Nicholas Rowland, Nicole Schonemann, and the anonymous reviewers. The research was financed by an Indiana UniversityScholarship of Teaching and Learning Grantawarded to Bernice Pescosolido and the coauthors. Please direct correspondence to DavidBlouin, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Indiana University South Bend,Wiekamp Hall 2285, 1700Mishawaka Avenue,South Bend, IN 46634; e-mail:[email protected] or Evelyn Perry, Departmentof Sociology, Indiana University, BallantineHall 744, 1020 E. Kirkwood Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405; e-mail: [email protected]'s note: The reviewers were, in alphabetical order, Catherine Mobley, Anne Nurse,and Shireen Rajaram.

Evelyn M. PerryIndiana University

ology major, a task force of leading scholars made 16 recommendations for undergraduate education (McKinney et al. 2004).Three of these recommendations advocatedactive teaching strategies that involve student engagement outside of the classroom.1The task force cited community-basedlearning experiences such as servicelearning courses as a preferred option tomeet these active learning goals.

Service-learning courses have becomeincreasingly popular in college classrooms

'Selected recommendations from LiberalLearning and theSociology Major Updated, byMcKinney et al. (2004), page iii: Recommendation 11: Departments should encourage diversepedagogies, including active learning experiences, to increase student engagement. Recommendation 12: Departments should offer community and classroom based learning experiences that develop students' critical thinkingskills and prepare them for lives of civic engagement. Recommendation 13: Departmentsshould offer and encourage student involvementin out-of-class (co- and extra-curricular) learning opportunities.

Teaching Sociology,Vol. 37, 2009 (April:120-135) 120


3/17

PERSPECTIVES ON SERVICE LEARNING_121across the country. Campus Compact, anational organization supporting collaborations between community organizations anduniversities, reports that 98 percent of theirnearly 1,100 member colleges and universities offer service-learning courses (CampusCompact 2008). They also report thatoverthe last five years member institutionshaveincreased their service participation by 60percent (Campus Compact 2008).

As service-learning courses become moreprevalent, it is increasingly important toensure that they are mutually beneficial toboth universities and communities (Lewis2004). One of themajor selling points ofservice-learning courses has been an implicit assumption that they enhance studentlearning and provide service to the widercommunity. As Bushouse (2005) writes,service learning is often championed as a"win-win-win situation for the university,students, and community" (p. 32). Indeed,a great deal of research reports numerouspedagogical and personal benefits for students. These include improved grades andlearning, increased civic engagement, enhanced job skills, and greater appreciationfor diversity (see Mooney and Edwards2001, for a review and sources).While the benefits for students are welldocumented, little systematic research hasinvestigated the impact on community-basedorganizations (hereafter called CBOs) (Cruzand Giles 2000). However, in order forservice-learning courses to meet their intended goals?addressing community needswhile giving students hands-on practicalexperience and encouraging civic responsibility?we must consider the evaluativecounterpart:Does service learning offer realbenefits toCBOs?To begin to address this issue, we conducted in-depth interviews with representatives of CBOs about their experiences withservice learning. In this paper, we presentour findings on the benefits and costs ofservice learning for CBOs and highlightthree common obstacles to successful service-learning courses. We conclude by de

scribing practical guidelines for designingand implementing service-learning coursesthatmaximize benefits for CBOs.SERVICE LEARNING AND SOCIOLOGYAlthough research on service learning applies to instructors of all disciplines, webelieve it is particularly relevant for teaching and learning in sociology. First, asmentioned above, disciplinary leaders haveexplicitly advocated the use of activelearning pedagogies, such as service learning. Second, well-designed service-learningpartnerships can achieve public sociologygoals by extending or producing accessibleand useful sociological knowledge. As Michael Burawoy (2005) noted in his 2004ASA Presidential Address, "Service learning is the prototype: as they learn, studentsbecome ambassadors of sociology to thewider world just as they bring back to theclassroom their engagement with diversepublics. As teachers we are all potentialpublic sociologists" (p. 10). Service-learning partnerships thus have the potential toserve both pedagogical and public goals ofthe discipline. Third, many of the CBOsthat partner with service-learning courseshave missions that include the service ofdisadvantaged groups and the ameliorationof social problems. Sociology as a discipline is well positioned to provide relevantknowledge and conceptual and theoreticaltools forunderstanding both social problemsand the experiences ofmarginalized populations. Finally, service learning is an excellentway to introduce students to sociological concepts, such as the sociological imagination, and to encourage students to applythese concepts to real life situations (Breeseand Richmond 2002; Fritz 2002; Mobley2007). As Fritz (2002) writes, "sociologyand service learning seem to have beenmade for each other. Sociologists look forcreative ways to introduce students, whatever their majors, to the world aroundthem, and service learning provides thatopportunity" (p. 67).

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


4/17

122_TEACHING SOCIOLOGYSERVICE learningAND COMMUNITY IMPACTS

Existing research on community impactsfocuses on the costs and benefits of servicelearning toCBOs and their clients.

Benefits of Service Learning for CommunityBased Organizations (CBOs)Nearly all research on the community perspective reports some benefits for CBOsand generally indicates that benefits outweigh costs (Driscoll et al.1996; Ferrariand Worrall 2000; Gelmon et al.1998;Ward and Vernon 1999). Community agencies value the skills, commitment, freshperspectives and energy of student servicelearners (Edwards, Mooney, and Heald2001; Ferrari and Worrall 2000; Gelmon etal. 1998; Vernon and Foster 2002; Vernonand Ward 1999). Highly motivated andcreative students inspire staff, offer newideas to improve organizational operations,and provide additional human resources thathelp community agencies expand their services. Additionally, CBOs report benefitingfrom campus resources such as faculty expertise, potential board members (e.g., faculty, administrators), grant opportunities,and libraries and other facilities (Leidermanet al. 2003). Perhaps most importantly,existing studies describe importantbenefits forthe clients of CBOs and the advancement oftheir missions (Leiderman et al. 2003,Schmidt and Robby 2002; Vernon and Foster 2002). As a case in point, Schmidt andRobby's (2002) evaluation of a youth tutoring program indicated that elementary students' math and spelling scores increased asa result of the tutoring provided by servicelearning students. In a separate interviewstudy, community representatives of youthservices organizations reported that collegeservice-learning students often connectedwell with theiryoung clients, acting as important rolemodels, and helping to improvethe youth's grades and self-esteem (Vernonand Foster 2002).

Costs of Service Learning for CBOsExisting research also indicates that CBOsexperience predictable sources of dissatisfaction with service-learning courses andstudents. The most common are complaintsof students' unreliability and lack ofmotivation and commitment (Gelmon et al. 1998;Vernon and Foster 2002; Vernon andWard1999). In one study, community representatives viewed the lack of commitment asparticularly problematic because of the disappointment this caused theiryoung clients,who depended on the university students(Vernon and Foster 2002). Additional challenges reported by CBOs include frustrations with short term commitments, scheduling hassles, unprepared volunteers, andthe time needed for training (Vernon andFoster 2002; Vernon andWard 1999).

RESEARCH GOALSService-learning courses, which combinecommunity involvement with classroominstruction, originate from a long and richtradition of experiential learning practicesdesigned to encourage public scholarshipand civic responsibility (Boyer 1990;Dewey 1938). From its inception, servicelearning was intended to address the needsof both students and the wider community(Sigmon 1979). Yet, in practice the focushas most often been on the interests of theuniversity and students (Cruz and Giles2000). Too little is known about how service learning impacts CBOs and the widercommunity. We argue, along with others,that it is paramount for service-learningcourses and the research on this pedagogy"to reflect both the original goals of serviceand learning" (Vernon andWard 1999:30).While there has been increased scholarship on service learning in recent years,research on community impacts remainssparse and limited. The voice of CBOs islargely absent in the service-learning literature. Those studies that do incorporate theCBO perspective generally investigate only



5/17

PERSPECTIVES ON SERVICE LEARNING_123_specific types of service learning or an individual course or program. For example,Bushouse (2005) conducted phone interviews with 11CBOs about theirexperienceswith three sessions of a single graduatecourse. Similarly, Edwards, Mooney, andHeald (2001) collected 39 surveys of CBOsthat had experiences with a single studentvolunteer program and Schmidt and Robby(2002) evaluated a single, although extensive, youth tutoring program. While thesestudies are insightful, the scope of servicelearning courses at universities is muchbroader, encompassing activities as diverseas collaborative research projects, specialprogram creation and implementation,grantwriting, and program evaluations, offeredacross multiple disciplines and courses. In acritique of service-learning research, Furco(2003) argues that thefield has been limitedby its inability to contend with this diversity. He therefore advocates conductingmulti-site, multi-program studies that capture a range of service-learning impacts:"By gathering the same or similar information from various sites, researchers may bebetter able to observe and analyze impactpatterns across a wide range of situations orprograms" (p. 24).Our own research seeks to address theselimitations by collecting and analyzing perspectives from a diverse array of CBOswith diverse missions and whose experiences include many different servicelearning courses across differentdisciplines.Our main goal is to continue to advance thisimportant, but nascent line of inquiry, investigating CBOs' experiences with a variety of service-learning initiatives. Whileresearching the general experience of community-based organizations, we solicitedpractical advice on measures instructorscantake to better serve CBOs. In sum, the following questions guide our research:1.What types of experiences (positiveand negative) do CBOs have with ser

vice-learning courses and students?2. How does service learning benefitCBOs? What are thecosts forCBOs?3. What common challenges do CBOs

encounter in working with servicelearners?4. Ultimately, what can instructorsdo tomore effectively serveCBOs?RESEARCH METHOD

The data for this study consist of in-depthinterviews with representatives of 20 different community-based organizations locatedinMonroe County, Indiana. All of the organizations had past and present experienceswith service-learning courses and studentsfrom Indiana University, a large public university, located inBloomington, a small cityin South Central Indiana.Sample SelectionThe director of theOffice of Service Learning at Indiana University assisted us in selecting the organizations for the study.First, we identified local organizations thatwere currently and historically the mostinvolvedwith service-learning courses. Second, to create a diverse sample, we selectedorganizations thataddress a variety of issuesand populations and avoided choosing multiple organizations that focus on the samegeneral issues.We contacted the Executive Director ofeach organization firstvia phone, and whennecessary by email. All organizations contacted agreed toparticipate in the study.Weselected interview respondents based on theExecutive Director's assessment ofwho hadthemost experience and interactionwith theservice-learning students. We interviewed13 executive directors, four volunteer coordinators and three program directors. Weconducted all interviews from February toJuly of 2006. Interviews ranged in lengthfrom 30 minutes to two hours and averagedabout 50 minutes.For this study,we broadly define servicelearning as a pedagogy that combines service and learning objectives. We asked respondents to talk to us about their experiences with students who are involved intheir organization through service-learningclasses. Many of our respondents were



6/17

124_TEACHING SOCIOLOGYquite knowledgeable about service-learningpedagogy. For those requiring clarification,we defined service learners as those whoprovide service to theirorganization to fulfill a requirement for a particular course.We eliminated internships and projects thatclearly lacked a service component from thesample.There is considerable variation in thedefinitions of service learning in scholarshipand in practice. We decided to employ abroad definition for several reasons. First,CBOs do not necessarily know what goeson in the classroom, nor are they alwaysprivy to the service and learning goals ofclasses. Second, academic service-learningdefinitions are often normative in that theyincorporate best practices (e.g., servicelearning requires opportunities for structured reflection (Nurse and Krain 2006) or"successful" outcomes (e.g., service learning aims to produce a more just society(Marullo 1996)). Since we were interestedinhow service learning is carried out in thecommunity and how it affects local organizations, we thought it counterproductive tolimit our interviews only to those coursesthatmeet stringentacademic guidelines andfollow best practices. Our findings, therefore, point out potential problems with bothpoorly-executed and well-executed servicelearning courses.2

The SampleOur sample consists of representatives from20 CBOs (See Table 1). These organizations serve a diverse array of client populations, including disabled children andadults, low-income families, victims/survivors of domestic violence, non-native

English speakers, school-age children andyouth, the elderly, the infirm, domesticanimals, and thegeneral public. The organizations also vary greatly in size. The smallest organization has only two paid employees, and the largest, a hospital, over 2000.Organizations also vary in terms of thenumber of volunteers and service-learningstudents they employ. Organizations reported partnering with anywhere from 1 to100 service-learning students at any giventime. The broad range of service-learningactivities the organizations are involved inincludes mentoring, tutoring, food preparation, program development and assessment,event planning, marketing, and survey research, among others. Courses were affiliated with many differentdisciplines including sociology, law, marketing, computerscience, and education, to name a few.

AnalysisInterviewswere transcribed and entered intoATLAS.ti, a qualitative analysis softwarepackage which facilitates the creation andstorage of notes, memos, and codes. Weused both inductive and deductive analytictechniques. Interviewswere coded based onfindings from previous research and basedon emergent themes. In the following review of findings we report on the mostprevalent and consistent themes.

FINDINGSCBOs' Experiences with Service LearningIn this section we discuss our findings inthree key areas: the primary benefits andcosts of service learning forCBOs and thecommon challenges CBOs encounter in

Employing a broad definition also reflectscurrent institutional practices at Indiana University. In educational materials for communitypartners, theOffice of Service Learning (OSL)offers a similar definition of service-learning"students will help provide a service for yourorganization as part of an academiccourse" (IndianaUniversityOSL 2008)-that isseparate from a discussion of the elements ofsuccessful service-learning classes. And, al

though OSL staff offer expert guidance on service-learning course design, the university doesnot require instructors of courses with officialservice-learning designation to consult with orgain approval from the Office of Service Learning. Further, there are instructors of courseswith service-learning components who do notapply for the official designation. It is verylikely, therefore, that not all service learningcourses fit strict definitions.



7/17

PERSPECTIVES ON SERVICE LEARNING_125Table 1. Community Organizations Sample CharacteristicsNature of Community Organization Number of Service Learners Each SemesterAcademic services for children with disabilities 1-2Family resource center 2Hospital 2Homeless shelter 2-3Therapeutic horseback riding 2-10Food pantry 3Low income childcare 6Support services for people with disabilities 7-10Low income legal services 10Transitional housing for victims of domestic violence 15-20Animal care and control 18Animal welfare advocacy 20-30Boys and girls after school club 20-30Youth tutoring and mentoring 20-35Community recreation center 23Low income pre-school 30Family resource center 40-50Homeless shelter 40-50Parks and recreation 100

working with service learners.Benefits for CBOs. According to ourparticipants, the principal advantage toworking with service learners is the assistance theyprovide in the form of labor andresources. This extra help translates into arange of benefits. Service learners often fillvolunteer slots needed to keep programsrunning. One organization director notes,"We wouldn't be able to have our programswithout them.We simplywould not be abletodo what we do without them.That's trulythebottom line."The extra help can increase thenumber ofpeople organizations can serve and enhancethe quality of services. For example, thedirector of an organization that serves children emphasizes the importance of increasing theadult-children ratio in the classroom:

In child care, the more bodies the better, ingeneral, as long as they've got a clue aboutwhat they are doing. Because individual attention in classrooms is gold.

The assistance provided by service learnerscan freeup stafftime to attend to important,

less immediate, aspects of their work orcreate opportunities topursue new projects.When they're [service learners] good, they'relike unpaid staff. ... So it can be very beneficial in that way more man hours and thingslike that to get things done. . . .They can alsodo projects that I don't have time for, which isa verybig benefitespeciallywhen Iwas tryingtodo it all bymyself.

In doing the work of paid staff, servicelearners also free up organizational resources to be used in any number of productive ways. This is particularly importantfor small non-profit organizations withsmall budgets or unsteady funding streams.A lot of times we're scrambling around to getsome more money so we can run some moreprograms, but what service learners do is theyeliminate theneed topay qualified people todo all of these things 'cause service learnersare very qualified people and they're availablebecause most of them don't have families. Wewould have to pay a huge amount of money toget that kind of semi-professional work to runa program. So they just multiply grant moneya hundredfold.



8/17

126_TEACHING SOCIOLOGYMany of our participants noted that even

short-term partnerships can have long-termbenefits. For example, some students continue their service to the organization beyond the course requirements as regularvolunteers, interns or staff.

A lot of our service learners stay after they'redone with service learning, which is reallyexciting, you know, because they obviouslyare getting something from it.And so the goodones that we get that aren't just doing it for aclass, but they really enjoy the experience anddo stay.

In some cases, students assist in recruitmentby encouraging other students to volunteer.Service learners may also become organizational advocates who educate others aboutthe mission of the organization, enhancepublic awareness about related social issuesand generally increase publicity about theorganization.CBOs appreciate that service learnersbring fresh, outsider perspectives and newideas to theorganization.We love the way that young minds think. Andyou know we sit at our computer and ... wejust don't have the time or the energy to stopand be creative and think of new ideas. Andby integrating service learners into what we'redoing as a department, they bring that.

In some cases, service learning helpsbridge the "town-gown" divide. Studentslearn about the community beyond the university's walls, and community membersdiscover that not all college students fitnegative stereotypes (e.g., self-absorbed,disconnected from the community, apathetic).

I think it benefits the community because thecommunity has an idea that the students allthey want to do is party. They go downtown.

They get drunk. I mean it's so stupid...butthat's such a small percentage of the studentswho are here. And to have service learnerswalking around in this town and to have people talk about what they're doing and havingthem interact with families and kids shows awhole different side of the university to thecommunity.

Finally, these partnerships can provideorganizations access to university resources(e.g., technical expertise, connections tofaculty with shared research/occupationalinterests) and open the door to other typesof beneficial collaborations.Costs for CBOs. As has been reported inprevious research, service-learning partnerships may also have substantial costs forCBOs. In our interviews with communityrepresentatives, costs generally fell into twocategories: risks to the organization andinvestments of resources that do not yieldtangible returns for theorganization.CBOs working with vulnerable populations are particularly concerned with protecting those they serve from harm. A fewparticipants shared examples of poorlyprepared service learners failing to treatclients with respect or breaching confidentiality agreements. Some organizations serveclients that require continuity and trust inrelationships. When unreliable students failto show up or follow through, they potentiallydo serious harm.

Imean we honestly have kids here thatwait bythe door because they know it's 3:45 and soand so comes at 4:00 and they're freaking out15 minutes beforehand "Oh my gosh he's nothere yet, he's not here yet," and you're justpraying, "Oh please walk through that door ontime." And usually they do but there's a lot ofthem that do not and they do not realize theharm that they're inflicting on the kids.

Another participant voices a similar complaint:

Here our kids are crushed when people stopcoming and . . .we're working with a population exclusively of kids who've witnessed andexperienced family violence. Their sense ofrejection is so heightened. So when volunteerssay, "Well I'm done with my hours ... I

won't be back." That can be really hard fora

kid.Some CBOs have strict licensing requirements or confidentiality conditions tied totheir funding. If service learners do notcomply with agency policies, they put theorganization at risk of losingmuch-neededresources. Participants also shared concerns



9/17

PERSPECTIVES ON SERVICE LEARNING_127_about another risk toCBOs: misrepresentation. Some service-learning projects includea public presentation inwhich students assume the role of organizational representatives. Inaccurate portrayals of programs,procedures, staffor clients can damage anagency's reputation or undercut theirbroader mission.

If they're turning in a final project that they'representing to the class, we'd just like tomakesure that they're not disclosing identifyinginformation. A number of times we've hadstudents who have written articles in the IDS[Indiana Daily Student (newspaper)]...There've been some really, really wonderfulones and we appreciate the exposure. Therehave also been some that are just filled withmisstatements or mistruths about the thingsthat are going on.

Partnering with service-learning courses caninterferewith the ability of CBOs to carryout their missions. Although respondentscited relatively few instances of severe damage, it is important to recognize thatCBOsmust manage riskswhen working with service learners.All of our respondents described a secondset of costs: the draining of organizationalresources. They shared frustrationwith service-learning partnerships that require investments of their time, energy or otherresources that do not pay off. As one com

munity partner reported:It doesn't necessarily save you a lot of work. Imean it's good for them because they'll get theexperience, but itmay actually be more taxingfor you.

Staff devote considerable time to orientations, trainings, preparation of job tasks,and service-learner supervision and support.Organization staffare also asked to deliverpresentations to classes or provide regularinput on service-learning projects. Timeinvestments are not viewed as problematicif there is sufficientpayoff for theorganization; however, when not mutually beneficial, service learning is a drain on community agencies' limited resources.

If there's no exchange, no benefit to the nonprofit other than getting just overrun by students, it's more of a hindrance than anythingelse.

When do the costs of service learningoutweigh the benefits? Our respondentsindicated a number of common problemsthat lead to "costly" experiences. Thoughthere are a wide range of problems thatoccur at various stages of service learning,theyall lead to one or both of the two typesof costs detailed above: risks to the organization and resource drain. We groupedthese challenges into three general areas:student conduct and commitment, courseorganization fit,and communication.

Challenges: Student conduct and commitment. Although respondents emphasizedthatmost service learners turn out to beassets to theirorganizations, they also identifiedcommon concerns about working withthese students. A significant challenge inworking with service learners is a lack ofprofessionalism. CBO representatives expressed frustration with service learnerswho do not have a strongwork ethic. Almost all described experiences with studentswho were unwilling towork hard, unable totake initiative or seemed unconcerned withproducing quality results. Several organizations shared concerns about unprofessionalcommunication; they described studentswho would aggressively pursue contact,demand accommodation on short notice, orattempt to contact clients directly withoutthe organization's consent.

I've also had students that had certain thingsthat I thought were very rude or insulting bythe way that they've done something orphrased something or demanded something ofme in order for them to get their project done.

Several of theCBOs thatwork with people who have very different life experiencesthan typical Indiana University studentsfound that some service learners were notprepared to confront issues related to poverty, race, mental illness, substance abuse,or homelessness. This lack of awareness or



10/17

128_TEACHING SOCIOLOGYinsensitivity to clients' experiences createdchallenges for some of our respondents.Organizations are willing to help studentslearn about these issues, but they proposethat additional preparation in the classroomcould prevent the offensive and sometimeshurtful behavior theyhave witnessed.

It's always a nice thing to be able to go to theclass and explain to them before they choose[our organization] what we do here and whatthe kids are like. ... I don't sugarcoat thingswhen I go in there. I let them know that it'sgoing to be difficult sometimes. And that'sreally helpful I thinkfor the students nd forus because then they know what they're getting into a little bit more.

Almost all of the respondents strugglewith unreliable students who do not showup for shifts,miss appointments, or fail tofollow throughon tasks or projects. In someinstances, this ismerely an inconvenience.This becomes a more serious issue, however, when clients are disappointed or importantwork isnot completed.

I would say the biggest annoyance is the service learners that are inconsistent. They needit for a class but then they don't show up orthey're flaky and we're counting on them.And I don't do something myself or I have itall laid out and they don't show up and I'mscrambling to do it. . . .So that's probably mybiggest complaint is if they're irresponsibleand don't follow through. . . .Last semester ithappened all the time.

Another participant observes:We see people who come to volunteer whomaybe lack the commitment that our volunteers who come out of that really un-tetheredsense of volunteer duty. We've had some frustration with people who are not as committed,they don't show up regularly for their shifts,they're late all the time, and I think that's it.This is not a meaningful issue for them.

Like many representatives of CBOs we interviewed, this respondent questions servicelearners' level of commitment and motivation. Because service is driven by require

ments and isnot necessarily tied topersonalgoals, students sometimes seem less invested in the organization or its broader

mission than volunteers. Several respondents linked shallow commitment to reliability and accountability issues.

Challenges: Course-CBO fit. Organizations vary considerably in size, mission,goals, services provided, and types of service recipients. It is not surprising, then,that they also vary considerably in theirneeds. When service-learning goals do notcomplement agency needs, organizations'investments of time and energy are lesslikely topay off. For our respondents, these"poor fit" partnerships are another significant challenge in service learning.We identified two general types of service-learningneeds: program-oriented and projectoriented. CBOs with program-orientedneeds tend to have established programsthat need positions filled. They prefer toincorporate service learners into theireveryday routines (e.g., after-school tutoring,meal preparation, and client intakes) and arethus able to accommodate those studentsneeding to complete a set number of servicehours. CBOs with project-oriented needstend to have specific, one-time projects thatneed to be completed rather than ongoing,defined needs. They might need assistancewith event-planning, grant-writing, advertising, or administering special projects. Notall organizations inour study fell neatly intothese categories; some had both types ofneeds.3

3Aprevious studyby Bushouse (2005) foundthat CBOs prefer "transactional" over"transformational" service-learning partnershipsbecause they have lower economic costs andhigher benefits. These distinctions are based ona continuum of university-community partnerships developed by Enos andMorton (2003).Transactional partnerships involve a fairly superficial level of interaction, such as one-timeevents and short term projects or appointments.Transformational partnerships are longer term,involve greater interdependence, and eventually"invite the possibility that their ointwork islikely to transform them both" (Enos and Morton 2003:30: As quoted in Bushouse 2005).



11/17

PERSPECTIVES ON SERVICE LEARNING_129_Almost all respondents mentioned struggling to accommodate poor fit partnershipsthat rarely produce mutually-beneficial results. Sometimes service learners approach

organizations with specific project objectives thatmay or may not correspond withorganizational form or needs.

You've got people coming with different agendas and different goals that don't really matchup with what your mission is ... . But thebiggest disadvantage is getting the point acrossthat you don't have all needs at all times, thatyou have evolving needs that one semester youmight be focused more on one area of yournon-profit and there's no room for that in thecurrent program.Poor fit sometimes has less todo with the

type of need and more to do with the duration of service. Many of the servicelearning classes at Indiana University require a minimum number of service hours.This creates problems for CBOs when, aftercompleting theirmandatory hours in thefirst several weeks of the semester, studentsend their relationships with the organizations. CBOs seem tohave adjusted toworking with the academic calendar and mostemphasize that they prefer semester-longcommitments. This clearly relates to concerns about making sure thatorganizationalinvestments in service learners pay off. Respondents also wanted to ensure that students were with the organization longenough to fulfill the learning objectives ofthe course and get a broader sense of thecommunity partner's mission and operation.

Are they here enough to really be able tograsp what's going on? Are they here enoughthat I'm not gonna have to spend too muchtime showing them things over and overagain? Is it going to be worth it? . . .Are they

here enough that they feel a part of it or dotheyfeel like theyust come and do theirthingand it's like going to another class or something ike that?Some partners believed that longer-termcommitments produced service learnerswhowere better able to support theorganization.Several respondents mentioned the importance of semester-long service for develop

ing service learners' comfort with thework,the clients, and theorganizational culture.Well first of all service learners are only herefor . . . you know a certain period of timefifteen hours or whatever is the requirementfor the class. And so that makes it difficult todevelop the relationship, you know, the abilityto work on your own. They're just finallyfeeling comfortable with itwhen they leave.They become more reliable and effective as avolunteer if they stay longer than their time.

Concerns about time commitment are alsolinked to the desire to educate studentsabout thenature of community engagement,emphasizing that it is a relationship ratherthana single act or finite experience.

Challenges: Communication. During ourinterviews,we repeatedly heard versions ofthe following stories:Usually what happens is we have people whoare volunteering with our programs, we don'teven know they're part of a class, and thenthey bring us a sheet and they say "Can yousign off and say I've done my twenty hours?"

And:That's why I'd like to see it in writing aheadof time because students will come in andthey'll misunderstand maybe the goal, they'llskew itmaybe, or they just won't even thinkto tell you...They have to think about the factthat we get contacts from people totally out ofcontext. We have no idea what class they're inor what's going on. I almost never know thecourse number and only about a third of thetime do I know the professor's name.

These descriptions are indicators of aserious potential obstacle to successful ser

Like Bushouse, we find that certain organizations, with specific programs already in placetend to prefer "transactional" relationships withservice learners. However, unlike Bushouse, wealso identify "project-oriented" CBOs that arebetter equipped to deal with and tend to prefermore "transformative" service-learning partnerships.



12/17

130 TEACHING SOCIOLOGYvice-learning courses; CBO representativeswe spoke with often have little to no communication with instructors.Many of thechallenges service learning poses to CBOsare tied to the instructor's inaccurate assumptions or lack of information about anorganization's culture, basic operation, orneeds.If service-learning course instructors donot have a clear sense of what their studentswill encounter at a particular organization,fail to clearly communicate service-learningtermsand goals to students and/orCBOs, orrely on students as the sole conduit of information between the instructor nd theCBO,they are unable to adequately prepare thestudents for service. CBO representativesbrought up a number of issues related tostudent preparedness. In most cases wherereadiness is an issue, organizations encounter students with inaccurate or nebulousexpectations. Several organizations withyouth-directed programs recalled studentswho assumed their service entailed playingwith children and were disappointed or evenperturbed when they learned the organizationwas assigning them to other, less "fun"tasks. Some service learners are unable toarticulate what they want to do with theorganization or lack a clear sense of thegoals of service learning (i.e., why they arethere). Many of our respondents sharedrelated frustrations:

Why is there a service-learning component inthis class? In other words, what do they wanttheir students to get from it? So that when thestudents come here, I'm clear, they're clear,and maybe we can accomplish something. Youknow I've had students come?like the students who come and say "I don't care. I'll doanything." . . .What is the point of them beinghere?Clear and consistent communication isnot

only important for sharing crucial information about the organization. If they understand thegeneral goals of the course and thespecific objectives of the service-learningcomponent, CBOs are better equipped tosupport students' academic and civic development.

You know I really like tomeet the instructorbefore I start getting phone calls from studentswanting to do projects. If I know what theinstructor wants their students to get out of theexperience and I know what the course isabout I can provide a better learning experience for the students and be more prepared.You know this whole thing is about reciprocity. . . .1 feel a certain obligation to be a professional mentor for students.

Some partners expressed the desire tohave a more formal role in evaluating students. This would, they propose, increaseservice learners' sense of obligation or willingness to accept responsibility. Since muchof the service-learning process takes placebeyond the classroom, partners are able togive instructors a more holistic picture ofstudents' efforts and accomplishments.In some cases, CBOs find it useful tocontinue communication with instructorsbeyond the completion of the servicelearning experience. They can provide instructorswith potentially valuable evaluations of the course and suggestions for future projects. A few CBO representativesalso expressed a desire for feedback fromthe instructor.They wanted to know if thegoals of service learning are achieved, andifnot, how they could better facilitate student learning.4

I never hear from instructors whether they'vefelt the activities met their course objectives...It just would be nice to know whether theythought what happened was beneficial or ifthey thought that would be something theywould want to do again in the future or if theythought that if so and so such and such wastweaked you know itmight be more useful.

Service learning is a joint venture. Successful partnerships requiremuch more thangood intentions; they require true collaboration. In descriptions of what constitutes asolid foundation for service-learning rela

4It is important to note that a few respondentsacknowledged that, although they embrace theidea of co-teaching, the reality of doing their jobwith limited resources makes it difficult to invest the required time and energy.



13/17

PERSPECTIVES ON SERVICE LEARNING_131_tionships, respondents returned time andtime again to the importance of communicationwith course instructors.

I think just understanding overall what wewant, what we expect is very important so thatthey can relay that to their class and kids don'tjust show up at the organization completelyblind. . . . If the professor knew what we wereabout, once again it just kinda makes that relationship much better and then maybe they'regoing tobeef itup a littlebit as a student fthey know that their professor is vested in theorganization.

RECOMMENDATIONS FORMAXIMIZING SERVICE INSERVICE LEARNINGWhile our study findings?and thereforeourrecommendations?focus on logistics, thechallenges CBOs commonly encountermight reflect incompatibilities between institutional research and teaching models andservice-learning practices that support positive outcomes for CBOs. Research universities, like Indiana University, are rooted inthe traditional models of researcher as professional expert (Reardon 1998; Whyte,Greenwood and Lazes 1989) and teacher asknowledge expert (Howard 1998). Thesemodels center power and control in thehands of the academic/instructor. In contrast, service-learning pedagogies increasingly incorporate features of participatoryresearch and teaching approaches, includingcollaborative design, shared decision making, reciprocity, and non-academic expertise (Reardon 1998; Stoecker 1999; Whyte,Greenwood and Lazes 1989). Such approaches emphasize shared power andshared control. These conflicting conceptions of appropriate power relations areperhaps underlying many of the challengeswe discuss above. Our respondents' experiences indicate that service-learning courseinstructors that treat CBOs as partnersrather than subjects or recipients tend toproduce better community outcomes. Thisechoes recent research that identifies relationship parity as central to successful uni

versity-community partnerships (Leidermanet al. 2003). We thereforeoffer recommendations for instructors that lay a foundationfor greater parity and true reciprocity.Wefocus on practical recommendations, basedon respondents' suggestions, to address thechallenges discussed above.1.Partner with CBOs toDevelop the Service Component of Courses5Recent research consistently highlights theimportance of collaborative planning (e.g.,Leiderman et al. 2003; Rajaram 2007). Ourfindings indicate that this essential guidelinebears repeating. Instructors should partnerwith CBOs to develop the service component of courses.6 Visiting the communityorganization and establishing open communication well before the course begins isessential. Early contact should involve instructors' attempts to get a sense of the organization and incorporate its needs andcapacities into course design. According toour respondents, instructors' inadequateknowledge of their organization leads tounhelpful and even costly service-learningpartnerships. The service component shouldbe mutually beneficial, maximizing studentlearning and community service. Pay special attention to issues of "fit" discussed inthe challenges section above. Our findingssuggest thatCBOs often have a strongpreference for either "program-oriented" or"project-oriented" service (see also footnote#3). Most CBOs in our study also preferregular, semester-long commitments. Finally, ask about past experiences with ser

50ur recommendations contribute to and attimes echo those made by researchers who incorporate the community perspective. For example, see also Rajaram (2007), for steps fordeveloping service learning projects and Leiderman et al. (2003), for suggestions for developingmutually beneficial partnerships.6If your institution has an office dedicated toorganizing and implementing universitycommunity partnerships, we recommend contacting it in the early stages of course design.These offices are excellent resources for integrating a service component into a course andidentifying potential community partners.



14/17

132_TEACHING SOCIOLOGYvice learners (good and bad) and explorethe potential risks of the project to the organization.

2. Share Course Objectives and DefineCBOs Role in CourseInstructors should share the goals, objectives, and teachingmethods of their courseswith the CBO. Plans to include course requirements thatmight affect CBOs or involve them directly or indirectly, such aspublic presentations or newspaper articlesabout theCBO or student experiences at theCBO, should be approved by theCBO beforehand.7 Additionally, discuss ways theCBO may want to be involved in the classroom. We were surprised at how deeplyinvestedmost of our respondents are in ensuring the learning goals of the courses aremet. Many CBOs view themselves (andwant to be viewed) as co-instructors. Theyhave ideas for in-class discussion and service reflection. Some CBO representativesmight appreciate the opportunity to visitclassrooms to familiarize studentswith theirorganization and the population they serveand discuss the connection between theirmission and broader social issues. To increase student accountability, instructorsshould invite CBO involvement in assessment by, for example, asking CBO staff tofill out structured student or team evaluations (Hollis 2002). These should be designed to assess student learning (Weigert1998) and both students and communitypartners should be made aware of evaluation criteria at thebeginning of the course.3. Clarify Expectations and Goals inWritingWritten communication thatclearly explainsstudent requirements and how service learning is connected to the goals of the courselays a solid foundation for the partnership.

We recommend completing a memorandumof understanding (MOU), signed by both7In the event that service-learning course ac

tivities involve the collection of research, IRBapproval may be required. Please see your institution's IRB for specific requirements and procedures.

the instructorand community organization.The MOU should include a copy of the syllabus and communicate the roles and responsibilities of theCBO, the students, andthe instructor,goals of the course, and details of the commitment (e.g., time commit

ment, timeline, deliverables, and expectations for communication). Lack of studentreliability and professionalism is a primarychallenge forCBOs. The MOU, therefore,should detail a protocol for addressing problems, clearly indicatingwhom to contact ifproblems with service learners arise (forexample see: http: //www. indiana. edu/~ cops 1/download/MemoOfUnderstanding.pdf).It is equally essential that instructorsclearly and effectively communicate educational goals as well as service goals andresponsibilities to students. Course readingsand in-class discussion of these importantissues should be reinforced with writtenguidelines that include atminimum: servicegoals and their relevance to course objectives, specific expectations for professionalconduct (e.g., standards for communicationwith staff and clients, confidentiality, publicCBO representation, and timelywork completion), and evaluation criteria. Instructorsmay write these guidelines or work withstudents to incorporate them into individualor group service project plans. Ideally theseguidelines will support student-CBO communication and bolster student accountability nd professionalism.

CONCLUSIONIn this paper we have addressed an understudied aspect of an increasingly prevalentpedagogy. Service-learning courses havebecome popular, in part, because they areassumed to both enhance student learningand to provide a service to thewider community. The benefits to students are welldocumented, but thevalue to the communityis less clear. Based on interviews withCBOs we find thatalthough service-learningpartnerships are generally a net positive,there are common challenges and predict



15/17

PERSPECTIVES ON SERVICE LEARNING_133_able impediments to creating mutuallybeneficial relationships. We identify threemajor obstacles to successful servicelearning courses: poor student conduct,

poor fit between course and organizationalobjectives, and lack of communication between instructors and organizations. Theremay be no way to guarantee the perfectpartnership; however, our research suggeststhat instructors have significant influenceover the impact of their courses. Communication and preparation are paramount. Instructors who know, understand, and communicate with community partners, whoclearly communicate goals and responsibilities to students, and who integrate coursegoals with student service activities andcommunity partners' organizational missions, can all but ensure that that servicelearning courses will be beneficial for allinvolved.

Instead of limiting our focus to thosecourses that are well-designed and wellexecuted, we attempted to capture much ofthediversity of service-learning courses anduniversity-community partnerships. Althoughwe believe this is a strengthof theproject, such breadth also produces limitations. In practice, service learning takesmany forms, is employed in a broad rangeof disciplines, and involves partnershipswith many different types of CBOs (e.g.,for profit corporations, public social serviceagencies, and non-profit organizations).Although we note important patterns inCBOs' experiences with service learning,we are unable to generalize about the impact of specific types of service-learningcourses. We therefore encourage ongoingconversation between research on specificservice-learning courses and teaching practices (e.g., Lewis 2004; Mobley 2007;

Mooney and Edwards 2001, Nurse andKrain 2006, Rajaram 2007) and multi-site,multi-program studies that investigate arange of service-learning impacts. Mostimportantly,we recommend a continuingemphasis on the "community perspective"in service-learning research. Although ourpaper is focused on community impacts,

efforts to enhance community benefits willlikely also benefit students. Scholarship onthe learning outcomes of service learningemphasizes the importance of facilitatingconnections between the academic materialand the service experience (e.g., Alexanderet al. 2000; Howard 1993). Rather thaninvestigate either student or communityperspectives, future research on servicelearning pedagogy should evaluate the relationships between service and learning outcomes.

REFERENCESAlexander, Astin W., Lori J. Vogelgesang,Elaine K. Ikeda, and Jennifer A. Yee. 2000.

How Service-Learning Affects Students. LosAngeles, CA: Higher Education ResearchInstitute, UCLA.

Boyer, Ernest. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered:Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ:The Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancementof Teaching.Breese, Jeffrey R. and David Richmond. 2002."Applied Sociology and ServiceLearning: The

Marriage of Two Movements." SociologicalPractice 4(1):5-13.Burawoy, Michael. 2005. "For Public Sociol

ogy." American Sociological Review 70(1 ):428.Bushouse, Brenda K. 2005. "Community Non

profit Organizations and Service-Learning:Resource Constraints to Building Partnershipswith Universities." Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 12:32-40.Campus Compact. 2008. "About Us." Providence, RI: Campus Compact National Office.Retrieved January 3, 2008 (http://www. compact. org/about/).

Cruz, Nadine I. and Dwight E. Giles, Jr. 2000."Where's the Community in Service-LearningResearch?" Michigan Journal of CommunityService Learning 7:28-34.Dewey, John. 1938. Experience and Education.New York: Collier Books.Driscoll, Amy, Barbara A. Holland, Sherril B.Gelmon, and Seanna Kerrigan. 1996. "AnAssessment Model for Service-Learning:

Comprehensive Case Studies of Impact onFaculty, Students, Community and Institutions." Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 3:66-7'.

Edwards, Bob, Linda Mooney, and Carl Heald.



16/17

134_TEACHING SOCIOLOGY2001. "Who is Being Served? The ImpactofStudent Volunteering on Local CommunityOrganizations." Nonprofit and Voluntary SectorQuarterly30(3):444-61.

Enos, Sandra and Keith. Morton. 2003."Developing a Theory and Practice of Campus

Community Partnerships." Pp. 20-41 inBuilding Partnerships for Service-Learning, editedby B. Jacoby and Associates. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ferrari, Joseph R. and Laurie Worrall. 2000."Assessmentsby CommunityAgencies: How'the Other Side' Sees Service-Learning."Michigan Journal of Community ServiceLearning 7:35-40.

Fritz, JanM. 2002. "A Little Bit of Sugar: Integrated Service-Learning Courses." Sociological Practice: A Journal of Applied Sociology 4(l):67-77.

Furco, Andrew. 2003. "Issues of Definition andProgram Diversity in the Study of ServiceLearning." Pp. 13-34 in Studying ServiceLearning: Innovations in Education ResearchMethodology, edited by S.H. Billig and A.S.Waterman. Malwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumPublishers.

Gelmon, Sherril B., Barbara A. Holland, SarenaD. Seifer, Anu Shinnamon, and Kara Connors. 1998. "Community-University Partnerships for Mutual Learning." Michigan Journalof Community Service Learning 5:97-107.Hollis, ShirleyA. 2002. "Capturing theExperience: Transforming Community Service intoService Learning." Teaching Sociology 30(2):200-13.

Howard, Jeffrey. 1993. "Community ServiceLearning in the Curriculum." Pp. 3-12 inPraxis I: A Faculty Casebook on CommunityService Learning, edited by J. Howard. AnnArbor, MI: OSCL Press.

_. 1998. "Academic Service Learning: ACounternormative Pedagogy." New Directionsfor Teaching and Learning 73:21-9.Indiana University Office of Service Learning.2008. "FrequentlyAsked Questions fromtheCommunity."Retrieved July10, 2008 (http://www.indiana.edu/ ~ copsl/faq_community. shtml).

Leiderman, Sally, Andrew Furco, Jennifer Zapf,and Megan Goss. 2003. "Building Partnerships with College Campuses: CommunityPerspectives." Washington, DC: Council ofIndependent Colleges. Retrieved January 3,2008 (http: //depts. Washington. edu/ccph/pdffiles/engagingmonograph. pdf).

Lewis, Tammy L. 2004. "Service Learning for

Social Change." Teaching Sociology 32(1):94108.Marullo, Sam. 1996. "The Service-LearningMovement inHigher Education: An Academic

Response to Troubled Times." SociologicalImagination33(2): 117-37.

McKinney, Kathleen, Carla B. Howery, Kerry J.Strand, Edward L. Kain, and Catherine WhiteBerheide. 2004. Liberal Learning and theSociologyMajor Updated: Meeting the Challenge of Teaching Sociology in the TwentyFirst Century. Washington, DC: AmericanSociological Association.

Mobley, Catherine. 2007. "Breaking Ground:Engaging Undergraduates in Social ChangeThrough Service Learning." Teaching Sociology 35(2): 125-37.

Mooney, Linda A. and Bob Edwards. 2001."Experiential Learning in Sociology: ServiceLearning and Other Community-Based Learning Initiatives."Teaching Sociology 29(2): 18194.

Nurse, Anne M. and Mathew Krain. 2006."Mask Making: Incorporating Service Learning into Criminology and Deviance Courses."Teaching Sociology 34(3):278-85.

Rajaram, Shireen S. 2007. "An Action-ResearchProject: Community Lead Poisoning Prevention"Teaching Sociology 35(2): 138-50.Reardon, Kenneth M. 1998. "Participatory Action Research as Service Learning." New Directions for Teaching and Learning 73:57-64.Schmidt, Adeny and Mattew A. Robby. 2002."What's the Value of Service-Learning to theCommunity?"Michigan JournalofCommunityService Learning 9:27-33.Sigmon, Robert. 1979. "Service-Learning:Three Principles." Synergist 8(1):9-11.Stoecker, Randy. 1999. "Are Academics Irrelevant? Roles for Scholars in Participatory Research." The American Behavioral Scientist 42

(5): 840-54.Vernon, Andrea and Kelly Ward. 1999.

"Campus and Community Partnerships: Assessing Impacts and Strengthening Connections." Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 6:30-7.

Vernon, Andrea and Lenoar Foster. 2002."CommunityAgency Perspectives inHigherEducation: Service-Learning and Volunteerism." Pp. 153-75 in Service-Learning throughaMultidisciplinaryLens, editedby S.H. Billigand A. Furco. Greenwich, CT: Information

Age Publishing, Inc.Ward, Kelly and Andrea Vernon. 1999.

"Community Perspectives on Student Volun



17/17

PERSPECTIVES ON SERVICE LEARNING_135_teerism and Service Learning." Paper presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education,San Antonio, TX.

Weigert, Kathleen Maas. 1998. "Academic Service Learning: Its Meaning and Relevance."New Directions for Teaching and Learning73:3-10.Whyte, William F., Davydd J. Greenwood, andPeter Lazes. 1989. "Participatory Action Research." American Behavioral Scientist 32

(5):513-51.

David D. Blouin is an assistant professor of sociology at Indiana University South Bend. He teaches

courses in introductory sociology, statistics, and culture. His current research interests are in the areas ofculture, inequality, human-animal relations, and thescholarship of teaching and learning. His recentlycompleted dissertation, which is a multi-method studyof the role of animals inAmerican families, examinesthe cultural, demographic, and biographical bases ofrelationships between people and theirpets.

Evelyn M. Perry is a PhD candidate in theDepartment of Sociology at Indiana University. She teachescourses in community and urban sociology and qualitative research methods. Her research interests are in theareas of culture, urban sociology, inequality and thescholarship of teaching and learning. She is currentlyconducting a multi-method study of the neighborhoodlevel relationship between residential racial integrationand substantive social integration.

Documents

Blouin-Perry-Whom Does Service Learning Really Serve