Education and Urban Society Education and Urban ...

Educationhttp://eus.sagepub.com/ and Urban Society

What We Know about Service Learning Robert Shumer Shumer and and Brad Robert Brad Belbas Belbas Education and and Urban Society Society 1996 1996 28: 208 Education DOI: 10.1177/0013124596028002006 DOI: 10.1177/0013124596028002006

The online online version this article article can can be be found found at: at: The version of of this http://eus.sagepub.com/content/28/2/208 http://eus.sagepub.comicontent/28/2/208 Published by: Published

SAGE

http://www.sagepublications.com http://www.sagepublications.com

and Urban Urban Society Society can can be found at: Additional services and information for Education and Email Alerts: http://eus.sagepub.comicgiialerts http://eus.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://eus.sagepub.comisubscriptions http://eus.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nay http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.comijournalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://eus.sagepub.comicontent/28/2/208.refs.html http://eus.sagepub.com/content/28/2/208.refs.html

» Version of Record - Feb 1, 1996 >> What is This?

Downloaded Downloaded from from eus.sagepub.com eus.sagepub.com at at Bethel Bethel Univ Univ Libraries Libraries on on November November 6, 6, 2014 2014

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT SERVICE LEARNING ROBERT SHUMER BRAD BELBAS National Service-Learning Clearinghouse

What is service learning and what do we know about it? These questions posed a dilemma for the Commission on National and Community Service in the early 1990s (National and Community Service Act, 1990) when it was charged by Congress to develop and promote service-learning programs across the country. In response to that challenge, a request for a proposal was issued to develop a national clearinghouse that would answer these questions and develop a new, centralized system to collect information about service learning and then use it to help students, teachers, community members, governmental agencies, and the public to implement high-quality programs.

ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE FOR SERVICE LEARNING In response to the request, the National Youth Leadership Council and the University of Minnesota Department of Vocational and Technical Education proposed a cooperative system that connected community-based organizations with major universities. The original design created a system both to collect information about service learning and to disseminate it to interested parties through applications of that knowledge. The 15 organizations that formed the first cooperative, including the Universities of Minnesota, Massachusetts, Clemson, and Stanford, and community organizations such as the Constitutional Rights Foundation (Los Angeles, CA), the Community-Service Learning Center (Springfield, MA), the Pennsylvania Institute for Environmental and Community Service-Learning (Philadelphia, PA), Project Service Leadership (Vancouver, WA), the Arkansas Departments of Education and Volunteerism (Little Rock, AK), the East Bay Conservation Corps (Oakland, EDUCATION AND URBAN sociEry, Vol. 28 No. 2, February 1996 208-223 1996 Sage Publications, Inc.

208

from All eus.sagepub.com Rights Reserved. Downloaded from at Bethel Univ Libraries f r o m the the SAGE S A G E Social S o c i a l Science S c i e n c e Collections. CalgiiibigiMArbleigiglabOtgWfrYOBethel Libraries on on November 6, 2014

Shumer, Bans I WHAT WE KNOW 2 0 9

CA), the National Indian Youth Leadership Project (Gallop, NM), the Michigan K-12 Service-Learning Center (Fast Lansing, MI), and the Close Up Foundation (Alexandria, VA), all joined forces to pool information, resources, and experience to create a national structure for the service-learning movement. Many other organizations were invited to participate, representing interests of the volunteer and service communities. Paralleling developments within the Corporation for National and Community Service (later to be called the Corporation for National Service), which established a national infrastructure through state education agencies and state systems, the cooperative operated from eight geographic regions, each responsible for coordinating activities for states assigned to the area. Linkages were established with state learn and serve coordinators. Regional conferences and effective communication were highly encouraged. Regional partners brought networks of expertise to the cooperative. East Bay Conservation Corps was connected to the conservation and service corps community; Clemson was the lead agency in the national dropout prevention network; Close Up and Constitutional Rights Foundation were leaders in the K-12 world of civics and social studies education; the Arkansas Division of Volunteerism housed the largest library on volunteer centers and volunteerism; and the Community-Service Learning Center, Project Service Leadership, and the National Youth Leadership Council all were leaders in municipal and state initiatives for service learning. These networks, or interlocking webs of information collection and dissemination, were a central factor in creating a national information system. The varied expertise, backgrounds, and foci of the partners mirrored the complexity of the field and the task of organizing and disseminating information. Service learning is not a monolith; it is many things to many people. The literature suggests, indeed, that service learning is both a philosophy and a methodology (Giles, Porter Honnet, & Migliore, 1991; Stanton, 1987, p. 7). Like an earlier movement in the 1970s involving use of the community for academic, career development, and community service, people have used community-based programs for a variety of purposes, each based on the goals and outcomes desired (Farrar, Cohen, & deSanctis, 1980) Similarly, research on service learning suggests that it, too, is "complex and multifaceted," with many forms of programs described by researchers and practitioners (Shumer, Berkas, & Murphy, 1993). The Shumer et al. (1993) Delphi study on service learning revealed that there were at least 11 forms of school-based service learning, and 15 forms of community-based systems. Thus understanding what service learning was and developing a unified knowledge base was not an easy feat.

Downloaded Downloaded from from eus.sagepub.com ous.sagepub.com at al Bethel Bethel Univ Univ Libraries Libraries on on November November 6, 6, 2014 2014

210 E D U C AT I O N AND URBAN SOCIETY / February 1996

Besides the complexity of the concept, developing an information base was hampered by the state of knowledge in education. Specifically, the challenge was to create not an isolated information system but rather one compatible with the existing educational world, namely the Educational Resource and Information Clearinghouse (ERIC) system. Thus knowledge developed for the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse had to be matched with the ERIC subjects and categories. To accomplish this task, the clearinghouse hired a librarian/information specialist to develop the strategy and structure to make the systems interface. That process, although still being developed, is evolving as the issues of electronic databases and Internet concerns are addressed. Currently, the data system contains information on more than 900 programs and 900 articles, books, and other written and visual media. It is being catalogued and entered into a FoxPro data system that allows the information to be accessed through a toll-free number (with human operator) or through the National Information Center (University of Minnesota) Gopher on the Internet. The collection of information is being directed by an information specialist hired by the clearinghouse to be the liaison between the cooperative partners—the Corporation for National Service and the service-learning field in general. The challenge for this job has been the scattered sources of information, the reluctance on the part of practitioners to share information with a national system, and the general lack of practice on the part of program operators to submit information to a central agency. Progress is being made. The university partners in the clearinghouse are all responsible for collecting regional data and forwarding them to the central database at the University of Minnesota. The data they are collecting, on programs, organizations, calendar events, peer consultants, and media materials, is increasing substantially. Stanford has been responsible for gathering information, partly through Youth Service California (a partner in the cooperative during Years 2 and 3), on several hundred programs. Similarly, the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, has collected information on many programs, including those in Puerto Rico and the entire southern section of the country. Clemson, which has been a partner for purposes of coordination and training, has recently been engaged in providing regional information as well. They will be adding information about southern programs and people to the database. Thus a national information system is now in place to address the questions concerning what we know about service learning. As new initiatives, such as Learn and Serve America, add people and programs to the field, the initial answer to the question will continue to grow and expand—we know


Shmner, Baas/WHAT WE KNOW 2 1 1

more each day. Continued cooperation from the field, and continued willingness to use a central information system to develop and expand the knowledge base, will make service learning a legitimate subject area, one able to stand alongside the traditional areas of focus found in schools of education and in educational and volunteer literature.

WHAT WE KNOW FROM THE DATABASE Having established a system for compiling data about Learn and Serve programs, as well as about other initiatives around the country, analysis of the data reveals important information about the state of service learning in 1995. The National Service-Learning Clearinghouse database has information on programs, organizations, people, calendar events, and literature/ multimedia materials. The information is collected using standardized forms and the data entered via microcomputer, using FoxPro software. Once the data is entered, information specialists perform queries and create reports to fill information requests. People access the information by calling a toll-free number and speaking with an information specialist or by telecommunicating through the Internet using a Gopher server. Despite the current popularity of the Internet, a majority of those who access clearinghouse information services use the toll-free number. The program information form has sections for contact information, program description, funding, history, participant information, beneficiary information, program format, activities, benefits to service providers, and program subject focus. The program description section is a short narrative, and the rest of the survey uses check boxes or a fill-in-the-blank format. Many of the terms in the subject focus category come from ERIC descriptors associated with service-learning literature; the remaining sections and terms correspond with the program report forms from the former Commission on National and Community Service. Practitioners, coordinators, and administrators are frequently the people who complete the forms. On other occasions, National Service-Learning Clearinghouse staff have completed the forms using existing program documentation from state grant-making agencies. For the following analysis, information on activities, participant benefits, and primary subject focus was analyzed in two stages: (a) as a single group comprising all programs currently in the database and (b) as a comparison of those identifying themselves as either urban, suburban, or rural. Of the 938 programs in the database at the time of this analysis, 566 identified themselves in one of the three distinct settings (211 as urban, 170 as suburban, and


212 EDUCATION AND URBAN SOCIETY / February 1996

10

20

30

40

Education Human Service ci Urban • Rural ta Suburban

• Community o• i m p r o v e m e n t Conservation and ▪ E n v . a) c

Public Safety

• Disaster Response Other Average Rank figure 1: Average Rank for General Activity Categories (scale: 142) NOTE: The shorter the bar, the more times items in the category were selected.

185 as rural). The remaining programs identified either no setting (213) or more than one (159), and were not included in the setting comparisons (Figures 1-3).

Acrwrrus In the Activities section, respondents selected terms that described the major program activities of the service providers. On the form, the 42 activities were divided into seven general categories (Figure 1). After urban, suburban, and rural programs were separated, activities were counted and then ranked from most selected (1) to least selected (42). The activities for each setting (urban, suburban, rural) were assigned to their respective general category, and the ranks within each category were averaged to create the average rank (Figure 1). The 10 most frequently selected activities (using all 938 programs) are listed in Table 1. Of the 938 respondents, each selected an average of 5.92 activities. The 10 most commonly selected activities represent more than 46% of the total number of items selected in this category of the database.


Shumer, Belbas / WHAT WE KNOW 2 1 3

0

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

4 0

4 5

Psychosocial Development Participation-Action

co 0

cD

Community Improvement

°Urban •Suburban el Rural

Educational Strategy Skills Development

I M : 11 = 11 : = 2 7 Z 1111 M I C I Z :

cr) Vocational a)

Target Population Program Type Program Dev./ Improvement Academics

Average Rank Figure 2: Average Rank for General Subject Focus Categories (scale: 1-64) NOTE: The shorter the bar, the more times items in the category were selected.

0 2

4

6

8

1 0 12 14 16 18

Participant Development Vocational Education ip Urban •Suburban

Basic Education

Et Rural

Life Skills

Gener Average Rank

Figure 3: Average Rank for General Participant Benefits Categories (scale: 1-23) NOTE: The shorter the bar, the more times items in the category were selected.


214 E D U C AT I O N AND URBAN SOCIETY / February 1996 TABLE 1

10 Most Frequently Selected Activities Activity Type

Survey Total

Mentoring Cross-age tutoring Academic instruction Hospitals, nursing homes, hospices Social service Neighborhood improvement Intergenerational Peer tutoring Peer mentoring Food bank, food drive, soup kitchen

332 324 314 258 249 246 225 208 204 203

General Activity Category

Education Education Education H u m a n service H u m a n service C o m m u n i t y improvement Education Education Education H u m a n service

PROGRAM SUBJECT FOCUS Respondents to the program database form were asked to describe the major subject foci of their program by selecting from 64 terms. Although the terms were not divided into general categories on the survey form, they were analyzed to identify commonly occurring themes. Ten were identified that for purposes of this analysis became 10 general subject focus categories (Figure 2). Using the same method as with activities, urban, suburban, and rural data were separated. Subject focus terms were counted, ranked from most selected (1) to least selected (64), and assigned to their respective general subject focus category; then, their ranks were averaged (Figure 2). When calculating average ranks, terms that applied to more than one theme were used, in total, for each related general category. Of the 938 respondents, each selected an average of 15.39 subject focus terms. The 10 most commonly selected terms are found in Table 2.

BENEFITS FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS For this section of the survey, respondents selected the terms that best described the major program benefits for those who provide service. On the form, the 23 benefit terms were divided into 4 general categories: basic education, vocational education, participant development, and life skills. An


Shumer, Belbas /WHAT WE KNOW 2 1 5

TABLE 2

10 Most Frequently Selected Subject Focus Terms 10 Most Common Foci Service learning Community service Self-esteem Student participation Student development Community involvement Social responsibility Student volunteers School-community programs School-community relationship

Total G e n e r a l Subject Focus Category 481 E d u c a t i o n strategy 432 C o m m u n i t y improvement 420 P s y c h o s o c i a l development 406 Participation-action 378 S k i l l developmentipsychosocia development 368 C o m m u n i t y improvement 339 P s y c h o s o c i a l development 331 T a r g e t population 327 P r o g r a m type 316 C o m n m n i t y improvement

average rank for each general category was calculated using the same procedure as the activity and subject focus categories.

SUMMARY OF DATABASE FINDINGS According to subject focus and participant benefit data, service learning is most commonly perceived as a methodology for enhancing the personal growth of the service providers, especially in areas of self-esteem and social responsibility. Although the activity base for many programs was educational or instructional (Figure 1), academic and subject content learning ranked low as both a benefit to service providers (Figure 3) and as a program subject focus (Figure 2), suggesting that service learning is perceived less commonly as a means of enhancing academic learning. None of the "academics" general subject focus category terms (Figure 2) ranked in the top 10 (Table 2), and the term academic achievement ranked 25th out of the 64 terms. Urban, suburban, and rural programs were similar in most respects, especially regarding benefits to service providers; however, there were several notable differences in the activities. Human services activities were more common in urban and suburban settings than in rural ones. Conservation and environmental activities were more common in rural and suburban settings than in urban ones. The activity and subject focus data suggest that urban programs are distinguished from the others by their focus on target populations and



multicultural issues (Figure 2), their emphasis on educational activities (Figure 1), and, as with other program settings, their focus on personal development (Table 2). Urban programs reported up to a 42% greater focus on disadvantaged youth than did suburban and rural programs. Also, urban programs reported up to a 38% greater focus on high-risk students than did suburban and rural programs. Urban respondents also reported up to 40% more literacy training activities than did suburban and rural programs and reported the highest percentage of education activities of the three settings (Figure 1). This analysis helps us answer the original question, "What do we know about service learning?" It shows that there are some differences between urban, suburban, and rural programs (Figures 1-3), and that the primary focus is on mostly personal and interpersonal knowledge and least of all on academic or subject matter learning (Figure 2, Table 2). Armed with this knowledge, we can work constructively to make service learning a more integral part of schooling.

WHAT WE KNOW FROM RESEARCH Review of research articles and books in the database suggest we know a lot about service learning, and we know a great deal about what constitutes good practice. Much of the best research in the field has been done on experiential learning programs, on school-to-work transition efforts, and on career and vocational development programs. What follows is a synthesis of the past 20 years of work that highlights the body of available servicelearning knowledge. Studies on service activities have been done through both quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative reports tend to explain affects and effects of service along certain dimensions of learning, whereas qualitative work has focused more on explaining how programs operate and what needs to be done to make them effective. Research will be reported here in both areas. Some quantitative studies report that service learning has had an impact on psychological, social, and academic development of youth. Studies done on career education programs in the 1970s indicate that students in experientially based, career development programs made good academic progress (Owens & Owen, 1979; Spotts & Evenson, 1976). Others found that such programs were actually superior to classroom-based programs in areas of academic learning, career development, and development of personal respon-


Shtuner, Belbas / WHAT WE KNOW 2 1 7

sibility. Students made significantly greater gains than did comparable groups (Bucknam & Brand, 1983). This observation was supported by a national study conducted by Conrad and Hedin (1982) on various experiential/service-learning programs. They studied 30 experiential education programs, including adventure education, volunteer community service, career internships, and community study/ political action. Interviews and case studies reinforced quantitative findings that students felt they learned more in experiential programs and that such programs were better than classroom programs alone in promoting feelings of improved self-worth. Both quantitative and qualitative data supported the notion that more effective programs tended to be longer in duration and more intense (more than an hour per day). The authors also noted that programs with reflective seminars helped students to learn more than programs without such opportunities to process the community experiences. Studies conducted in the 1970s on career education programs revealed a great deal about how students processed community-based settings. Experience-Based Career Education (EBCE) programs were the servicelearning fad of the decade. These programs connected students with people and situations in the community to learn about careers and to learn about basic, academic, and life skills. Many of the programs included servicelearning activities, with students working in hospitals, schools, day-care centers, and many social agencies. Four major research laboratories developed model programs and disseminated them throughout the country. Anthropological studies were conducted to learn how these programs functioned and how closely programs followed the models developed (Anderson & Drucker, 1976a, 1976b; Durgin, 1976; Smith & Theophano, 1976). The studies followed students and staff as they implemented the programs connecting students with community-based learning. Investigators found that student learning in the community did not go as planned. The two models called for structured activities at off-campus sites— one via a Project Plan and the other through an Activity Sheet. Students did not use these planning devices appropriately; in fact, they saw them as obstacles. Many learning plans were written after the fact, instead of before, and student planning often depended on the strength of the work-site supervisor. School site personnel responsible for supervising these planning documents were often concerned more with the quantity of activities than with the quality (Anderson & Drucker, 1976b). They would check things off in a perfunctory manner and avoid the opportunity to discuss these activities with the student to measure the learning. In another study using ethnographic methods, Moore (1982) described observations made during a 3-year project at an experientially based high


218 E D U C AT I O N AND URBAN SOCIETY/February 1996

school in an urban setting. The school set up internships in field settings and students spent most of their time (4 days per week) learning at the off-campus sites Like the EBCE programs, many of these community sites provided opportunity for service learning; in fact, many o f the settings were in hospitals, museums, schools, and other settings that allowed students to do service as they earned their credit and completed their work. The study reported that experiential learning revolved around tasks. Students learned about organizations and about applications of knowledge by performing various tasks, or jobs, at the sites. Moore (1982) analyzed the task episodes as to how they were learned and how the tasks fit into the structure and purpose of the organization. Discussion focused on the process of setting up the tasks, getting information from the environment, and defining criteria for judging performance. The research team discovered that reflection—thinking about experiences in broader terms—occurred occasionally in the community settings but not as often as desired. School programs had to add elements that assured that the reflective process took place. Moore (1982) said: Reflection rarely occurs as a natural component of work experience; that it has to be added on by educators. Our observations suggest that opportunities for reflection actually turn up in the real world more often than one might expect, although clearly not enough to satisfy us as educators. Both feedback and reflection may be regarded to some extent as corrective processes l o c a t i n g and understanding naturally-occurring opportunities for reflection strike us as important goals for experiential educators since this might streamline and enhance the educational potential of our programs. (p. 9)

Thus reflective practices need to be important and intentional elements of sound educational programs. Another study of experiential programs (Hamilton, 1981) described important elements of community-based learning. The overall work highlighted the different outcomes of community-learning models based on their program design and what students do in the learning process. Depending on whether youth work with adults or other youth, they learn different things. Different students have different agendas for what they want to get out of a program. They also have different kinds of experiences depending on how they interact with people at the site, so the predictability of what is to be learned is greatly reduced in experiential programs. Hamilton (1981) also noted that staff roles differed depending on program design and program goals. In some programs, staff worked more as counselors or mentors, providing guidance and feedback to students. In others, they


Shumer, Babas / WHAT WE KNOW 2 1 9

worked more like regular teachers, closely directing learning activities. Hamilton (1981) also commented on the wide variation of experiences found in community-based learning programs. This variation places great challenges to those who must evaluate such programs, especially when concerned about examining the internal changes in each student for areas such as affect and cognition. He suggests that "only long-term longitudinal studies following participants and comparable non-participants into adulthood and assessing career achievements and citizenship activities could demonstrate these kinds of effects" (p. 31). Various themes raised by Hamilton (1981) were explored in a 6-month study of a magnet high school program in a large urban area. Shumer (1987) studied the role of school staff in operating a community-based learning program, as well as how high-quality learning experiences were developed and monitored. He found that the quality of learning could be enhanced by school staff who invested time and energy at community sites. By working with site supervisors, learning activities could be developed that captured the potential of the site. It was also found that the quality of learning at the site depended on the level of responsibility given to students. However, in this study, it was discovered that the level of responsibility was actually earned by the interest, attitude, and behavior of the student—as perceived by the site staff. Tasks, as Moore (1982) referred to them, were assigned based on what the site supervisor thought of the student during the first few visits. Thus student behavior and attitude had some bearing on the quality of the learning. It was also noted that curriculum developed for the community sites was best implemented by the site staff actually involved in writing the material. All the sites in this program had curriculum developed by school staff, the researcher, and by site staff collaboratively. However, only in sites where the community staff both developed the material and worked on it with students was there more effective implementation of the educational activities. At sites where the curriculum was transmitted by someone else, the quality level of learning (specifically related to the academic content outlined) was lower. Students would be as likely to be doing some nonacademic activity or something unrelated to the objectives of the site. There was even a noticeable difference i n how site staff checked on student attendance, with those involved in writing the curriculum supervising the students more than those who did not produce the materials. A study conducted on an experiential/service-learning program designed for potential dropouts produced important information about the value of community experiences for student retention and school success (Shumer,



1990, 1994). Conducted at a K-12 magnet school in a large city, quantitative and qualitative data were collected on student attendance and grades, as well as on program components that were valued by students. Several case studies were conducted on students in the experimental and comparison programs. Interviews and observations were collected over a period of 4 months. Whereas the focus of the program was on community-based learning, many of the experiences of the students were through service-learning activities conducted in such settings as schools, hospitals, and nonprofit community agencies. Results of the study indicated that students in the community-learning program made significant improvement in attendance and grade averages, as reported by both quantitative data and by interviews and observations. Students, who also rank ordered program components, reported that it was the community experiences, related to careers and to service, that kept them in school. They felt that such experiences help provide meaning and context for their learning, allowing them to connect classroom activities with learning about life, careers, and citizenship. The most important influence on their learning came from the college students who taught and tutored them in various subjects. Students reported they were more comfortable with these tutors who were closer in age than their official teachers; it was more like "working with a friend than a real teacher." College students also helped teachers to individualize instruction and to provide extra assistance in the classroom, promoting the community-based components of the program. An examination of exemplary practices in service learning was conducted at the Center for Experiential Education and Service-Learning at the University of Minnesota's Department of Vocational and Technical Education. Five studies were conducted on a K-8 open school, 9-12 comprehensive high school, two Girl Scout troops, and a teacher development program (Gorak, Huang, & Shumer, 1993; Huang & Shumer, 1993; Maland & Bericas, 1993; McPeak & Shumer, 1993, Shumer, 1993). The studies revealed that all programs were initiated by individuals who valued the use of the community for learning. Teachers and/or administrators started the school-based programs, whereas interested leaders began the Girl Scout efforts. Besides being started by individuals who believe in the principles of service learning, exemplary programs demonstrate good communication between all parties, especially between the school personnel and the community sponsors. Such communication involves regular dialogue between the two groups and a willingness to talk through problems as they arise. Another finding was that youth participate in service-learning programs because they are fun. The motivational aspects o f service learning, the


Shumer, Belbas / WHAT WE KNOW 2 2 1

enjoyment and pleasure, seem to be essential elements of these supposedly exemplary programs. Still another theme of these studies was that service learning (and experiential learning) is holistic. When students described what they learned from the service experience, it was always more than just about subject matter—it was about many things. They learned about themselves and their skills and abilities; they came to know the world of adults and adult behaviors; they learned about careers and about occupations; and they saw how subjects are applied in real-world settings.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION What do we know about service learning? The previous discussion hopefully shows we know much more than people usually describe when they talk about service programs. By creating a central clearinghouse on the subject, people are now able to contribute information about programs, organizations, conferences, consultants, and articles and publications, and to receive information about such topics. The creation of an electronic communication system now allows individuals to share information instantaneously with anyone in the country (or world) and enables people to read and retrieve data on people and programs without human assistance. Whatever we know about service learning is now available to anyone and everyone who has access to a phone or a computer. Having this central system allows us to begin a new line of inquiry into the field: What is really going on with service learning? From California to Maine, from Oregon to Florida, people are sharing their stories about the practice of service learning. And they are contributing to a new database and information system that never existed before. That database is revealing new understandings about who is doing service and why and how programs are developing and expanding. This is important information for the field—and for education in general. We know service learning has a rich history of evaluation and research. Tied to other areas, such as vocational education or community-based learning, we know it contributes significantly to development of self-esteem, to career awareness, and to academic connections between classroom and community. It is based primarily around tasks and is best practiced when experiences are processed on a regular basis. Although we know a lot about service learning, there is still much more to learn about service and its affect on learning. The creation of a national



information system has moved the field one giant step closer to its rightful place as a legitimate subject of inquiry and practice.

REFERENCES Anderson, S., & Drucker, C. B. (1976a). Experience-based career education in Charleston, West Virginia. An anthropological perspective (External evaluator's final report on EBCE programs, Vol. 2). Berkeley, CA: Educational Testing Service. Anderson, S., & Drucker, C. B. (1976b). Experience-based career education in Oakkvid, California: An anthropological perspective (External evaluator's final report on EBCE programs, Vol. 3). Berkeley, CA: Educational Testing Service. Buclmam, I t B., & Brand, S. G. (1983). EBCE really works. Educational Leadership, 40(6), 66-71. Conrad, D., & Hedin, D. (1982). The impact of experiential education on adolescent development. Child and Youth Services, 4(3/4), 57-76. Haworth. Durgin, E. C. (1976). An ethnographic account of (CE)12: EBCE in llgard, Oregon (External evaluator's final report on EBCE programs, Vol. 5). Berkeley, CA: Educational Testing Service. Farrar, E., Cohen, D., & deSanctis, J. (1980). The lawn party: The evolution of federal programs in local settings. Phi Delta Kappan, 62(3), 167-171. Giles, D., Porter Honnet, E., & Nfigliore, S. (Eds). (1991). Research agenda for combining service and learning in the 1990s. Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education. Gorak, K., Huang, G., & Shumer, R. (1993). Exemplary practices in service-learning at an open school in an urban setting. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Center for Experiential Education and Service-Learning, Department of Vocational and Technical Education. Hamilton, S. F. (1981). Adolescents in community settings: What is to be learned? Theory and Research in Social Education, 9(2), 23-38. Huang, G., & Shumer, R. (1993). A service-learning program. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Center for Experiential Education and Service-Learning, Department of Vocational and Technical Education. Maland, J., & Berkas, T. (1993). Excellence in action: The Community Service-Learning Program. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Generator Center, Department of Vocational and Technical Education. McPeak, G., & Shumer, R. (1993). Exemplary practices of service-learning in two Girl Scout troops. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Center for Experiential Education and ServiceLearning, Department of Vocational and Technical Education. Moore, D. T. (1982). Students at work: Identifying learning in internship settings (Occasional Paper No. 5). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education. National and Community Service Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-610. Owens, T. R., & Owen, S. IC (1979). Enhancing the quality of community learning experiences. Alternative Higher Felocation: The Journal of Nontraditional Studies, 4(2), 103-112. Shumer, R. (1987). Learning in the workplace—An ethnographic study of the relationship between schools and experience-based educational programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.


Shumer, Belbas I WHAT WE KNOW 2 2 3

Shumer, R. (1990). Community-based learning: an evaluation of a drop out prevention program (Report submitted to the City of Los Angeles Community Development Department). Los Angeles: UCLA, Field Studies Development. Shumer, R. (1993). A report from the field: Teachers talk about service-learning. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Center for Experiential Education and Service-Learning, Department of Vocational and Technical Education. Shmner, R. (1994). Community-based learning: humanizing education. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 357-367. Shumer, R., Bedcas, T., &Muiphy, N. (1993). Describing service-learning: A DeOhi study. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Department of Vocational and Technical Education. Smith, D., & 'rheophano, J. (1976). The academy for career education: An ethnographic evaluation (External evaluator's final report on EBCE programs, Vol. 4). Berkeley, CA: Educational Testing Service. Spotts, R., &Evenson, J. (1976). Experience-based career education—Final evahtation report— FY 1976. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. Stanton, T. (1987). Service-learning: Groping toward a definition. In J. C. Kendall & Associates (Eds.), Combining service and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 65-67). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education.
