Research on K-12 School-Based Service-Learning - the Evidence Builds

Practitioners and policy makers are curious about service-learning and its effects. Ms. Billig details for Kappan readers what research tells us about service-learning today and suggests the kinds of questions that still need to be answered. NEARLY a decade ago, Dan Conrad and Diane Hedin wrote a synthesis of the research in service-learning. They cited a growing trend toward the adoption of service-learning in K-12 schools because of two perceived needs: the reform of youth and the reform of education. At that time, young people seemed to be growing increasingly alienated from their communities and from society as a whole. They were less likely than other age groups to vote or to volunteer, and their top goal was to be well off financially. Test scores were said to be declining in schools, and the U.S. education system was said to be less competitive internationally. Service-learning offered a powerful pedagogical alternative that allowed students to gain a greater understanding of concepts while they contributed to their communities. Service-learning, though, was still an 'unproven' educational approach. Reviewing the research on the impact of service-learning, Conrad and Hedin concluded that 'the case for community service as a legitimate educational practice receives provisional support from quantitative, quasi-experimental studies and even more consistent affirmation from the reports and testimony of participants and practitioners.'1 Advocacy for service-learning has grown in the past decade, but many of the issues raised by Conrad and Hedin remain current. As service-learning has become more popular, both its advocates and its detractors have begun to ask difficult and serious questions. Just what is service-learning? Is it a model, a program, a pedagogy, or a philosophy? What key elements need to be in place for a program to claim to be service-learning? What does 'best practice' look like? What are the effects and impacts of service-learning? Do the characteristics (for example, grade level, age, socioeconomic status) of the participants matter? Do the characteristics of and relationships with the service recipients influence outcomes? Do school characteristics matter? Does the sponsorship or the service target make a difference? Ten years of research and practice can shed some light on many of these questions. Prevalence of Service-Learning In the past decade, service-learning has grown by leaps and bounds. From 1984 through 1997, the number of K-12 students involved in service programs rose from 900,000 to 12,605,740, and the percentage of high school students participating in service-learning nationwide increased from 2% to 25%. In 1984, 27% of all high schools in the U.S. offered some type of service program, and 9% offered service-learning.2 According to a report issued by the National Center for Educational Statistics in 1999, 64% of all public schools and 83% of public high schools now organize some form of community service for their students.3 Nearly a third of all schools and half of public high schools provide service-learning programs. This nationally representative survey also found that elementary schools are more likely to have schoolwide or gradewide service-learning programs, while middle and high schools are more likely to have individual classes or electives in service-learning. The most common reasons cited for the adoption of service-learning included helping students to become more active members of the community, increasing student knowledge and understanding of the community, meeting real community needs, and encouraging students' altruism and caring for others. Service-learning programs exist in every state in the Union. Many states, such as California and Maryland, have established service-learning goals for all students, and several cities, such as Chicago and Philadelphia, either strongly encourage or actually mandate service-learning for their students. …