Service Learning Module Guide (CSL123) – Vocabulary Flashcards

Page 1

  • Title page for CSL123: Community Service Learning Module Guide – UFS (University of the Free State) in multiple languages; file header information only.

Page 2

  • Purpose and provenance: This study guide was compiled by Mrs. Elize Janse van Rensburg (Department of Occupational Therapy, UFS).

  • Purpose: To provide a adaptable, theoretically grounded background for service learning for students in a service learning module.

  • Adaptability: Lecturers may modify the guide to suit module goals; boxed fields are examples; italics indicate introductory text; Bold box should be retained to acknowledge original authorship.

  • Copyright: UFS retains copyright; no reproduction without author consent.

Page 3

  • Table of Contents laid out: Theme 1 through Theme 6, with outcomes, outlines, assignments, and additional reading; themes cover Introduction to Community Engagement, Conceptualisation of Service Learning, Partnership Development, Reflection and Assessment, Logistics/Risk/Ethics, Celebration and Evaluation, plus Addenda A/B.

Page 4

  • Continuation of Theme 3 and Theme 4 structure; emphasis on: Basic Principles of Partnership Formation, Partnership Development Applied, Reflection & Assessment, and Logistics/Risk/Ethics with associated assignments and readings.

Page 5

  • Continuation: Theme 6 (Celebration and Evaluation), with sections on planning evaluation, instruments for evaluation, challenges, future decisions, and conclusion; Addenda A (Risk Management Guidelines) and Addendum B (Module Evaluation Instruments).

Page 6

  • Theme 1: INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SERVICE LEARNING

  • Theme outcomes listed: ability to explain role of community engagement in SA higher education; discuss scholarship of engagement; distinguish community engagement vs service learning; identify guiding policies; identify policy directives relevant to the profession (e.g., Occupational Therapy).

  • Key subsections: 1.1 Orientation, 1.2 Higher Education Transformation & Community Engagement, 1.3 Community Engagement & Service Learning, 1.4 Policy Directives.

Page 7

  • 1.1 Orientation (example given from Occupational Therapy):

    • OT core idea: promoting health and participation in life through engagement in occupation (AOTA 2008:1).

    • Emphasis on clients as individuals, groups, and communities; professional identity as fellow humans first, then therapists.

    • Purpose of the OT example: show how HEIs in SA contribute to transformation and community engagement; policies will be highlighted; orientation to community engagement as part of OT preparation.

Page 8

  • 1.2 Higher Education, Transformation and Community Engagement

  • Key points:

    • Debate about HEI roles in society (Bawa 2003; Newman; Humboldt model).

    • Transformation is ongoing and context-driven; in SA it means rethinking practices for the new era (Education White Paper 3, DoE 1997; cited 2008).

    • HEIs historically contributed to the common good; current issues include poverty, HIV/AIDS, violence, social injustice, environmental destruction.

    • Universities must engage with communities to become partners of change; integrate teaching/learning, research, and community engagement (Boyer 1996; CHE-HEQC 2006).

Page 9

  • 1.3 Community Engagement and Service Learning

  • Central claim: community engagement requires active participation by communities themselves (Bawa 2003).

  • Communities should be active co-creators of knowledge (Lazarus et al. references); engaging with service sector partners strengthens viability and sustainability.

  • Model in Figure 1.2 (adapted from Bringle) shows various modes of scholarly community engagement; service learning is a practical entry point to community engagement for HEIs (Lazarus, Erasmus, Hendricks, Nduna & Slamat, 2008).

Page 10

  • Definition and framing of service learning:

    • Service learning (aka community service learning) defined as a programme-based, credit-bearing learning experience in which students participate in organized service activities addressing identified community needs; students reflect to connect curriculum with community experience (Fourie 2003; UFS 2006).

    • UFS defines service learning as a curriculum-based, credit-bearing educational approach involving well-structured service activities addressing community needs, with reflection to connect curriculum and community dynamics; requires mutual learning partnerships (lecturers, students, communities, service sector) (UFS 2006).

    • Service learning aims to empower both students and communities (CHE-HEQC 2006).

    • Note: Theme 2 will address service learning in more detail.

Page 11

  • 1.4 Policy Directives for Community Engagement and Service Learning

  • Short outline of guiding constitutional, policy, and professional directives (CHE-HEQC 2006):

    • Green Paper on Higher Education Transformation (DoE 1996): calls for responsive programs and increased participation.

    • Education White Paper 3 (DoE 1997): promote social responsibility and community service; support development of community service.

    • Founding document of HEQC (2001): core functions include teaching, research, and community service; quality assurance.

    • HEQC Audit Framework/Criteria (2004): integrate community engagement with teaching & research; policies and resources required.

    • HEQC Criteria for Programme Accreditation (2004): integrate service learning into institutional planning; enabling mechanisms for service learning.

    • JET Education Services surveys (1997, 1998) and JET-CHESP (1999) initiatives.

    • Vice-Chancellor’s Meeting (2000): roles in HEIs; citizenship and scholarship of engagement.

    • UFS Community Service Policy (2002, 2006): service learning as core function; aim to have at least one compulsory SL module per programme.

Page 12

  • Policy Directives continued; emphasis on integration of national/institutional directives with local program specifics.

Page 13

  • Field-specific policy/example (Occupational Therapy):

    • Exit Level Outcomes (ELOs) for OT require inclusion of community engagement (service learning) in pre-graduate curricula.

    • ELO 1: demonstrate competence to meet occupational needs of communities in SA context (Professional Board for OT, 2006).

    • Emphasis that community engagement is essential for empowering OT graduates to facilitate health and participation in life through occupation (AOTA 2008).

    • Connects to Theme 3 for more on ELOs and Module Outcomes.

Page 14

  • Assignment: Reflect on the need for community engagement via service learning in HEIs, in your field, and its relevance to SA context; benefits to you and communities; propose nature of partnerships; prepare for class debate.

  • Additional Reading list (web/resources): Boyer 1996; Lazarus et al. 2008; UFS 2006 Community Service Policy; etc.

Page 15

  • Theme 2: CONCEPTUALISATION OF SERVICE LEARNING AS AN EDUCATIONAL APPROACH

  • Theme outcomes: discuss paradigm shift to Mode 2 society; describe experiential learning framework; define service learning as pedagogy with learning theories; differentiate from related approaches; reflect on value of service learning.

  • Subsections: 2.1 Introduction, 2.2 Service Learning in a Mode 2 society, 2.3 Theoretical Frameworks (Dewey; Kolb), 2.4 Value of Service Learning.

Page 16

  • 2.1 Introduction: link service learning to HEI integration of community engagement; HEQC’s support for service learning as integrating community engagement.

Page 17

  • 2.2 Service Learning in Higher Education in a Mode 2 Society

    • Mode 2 knowledge production (Gibbons 2000): more socially accountable, transdisciplinary, context-sensitive, with collaboration across HEIs/government/industry/communities (the triple-helix).

    • Teaching and learning also fall under Mode 2; SA context questions preparing graduates to participate in Mode 2 society.

    • Service learning viewed as effective pedagogy to develop social responsibility; connects academic learning to public spaces where knowledge is produced with community and triple-helix partners (Erasmus 2005).

Page 18

  • 2.3 Theoretical Frameworks Supported by Service Learning

    • Roots in constructivism and experiential learning (Kolb & Fry); experience plus reflection equals learning (Dewey).

    • Dewey’s five areas linking education to experience: connect theory to practice; democratic community; social service; reflective inquiry; education for social transformation.

    • Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle: concrete experience → reflection → conceptualization → active experimentation; entry point can be at any stage; cycles vary by learner/context.

Page 19

  • 2.3.2 Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle (summarized): practical experience leads to reflection, conceptualization, and testing; service learning leans on this cycle; entry can be at any stage; multiple cycles can occur concurrently.

Page 20

  • 2.4 The Value of Service Learning as an Educational Approach

    • Two knowledge domains: Academic/Professional + General/Socially Oriented.

    • Table 2.1 compares Dewey’s liberal knowledge vs. Durkheim’s sacred/profane knowledge, Bernstein’s vertical vs horizontal discourse, and the integration of theory with community knowledge.

    • Service learning blends academic/professional with community knowledge, supporting social responsibility and critical cross-field outcomes.

    • Furco’s model (Figure 2.2) distinguishes service learning and shows its potential to fuse knowledge domains; Keily (2005) asserts transformational learning through service learning (Mezirow-based model).

    • Keily’s Transformational Service-Learning Process Model (five elements: Contextual border crossing, Dissonance, Personalising, Processing, Connecting).

    • Bringle & Hatcher (1996) summarize: service learning positively impacts personal, attitudinal, moral, social, and cognitive outcomes; multiple scholars affirm civic responsibility and enhanced academic learning.

Page 21

  • Keily’s five-stage model elaborated: contextual border crossing (influences from personal/structural/history/program), dissonance (framing incongruences as learning triggers), personalising (emotional re-framing), processing (reflection-driven analysis/solutions), connecting (empathic understanding and relationships with community).

  • Bringle & Hatcher, Hay, Bawa cited to support that service learning enhances learning, development, and civic responsibility; transformational view emphasizes empowerment and accountability.

Page 22

  • Assignment: After studying Theme 2, argue for the value of service learning relative to traditional education; reflect on personal expectations of the module.

  • Additional Reading list: Bawa 2003; Bringle & Hatcher 1996; Erasmus 2005; Hay 2003; Keily 2005; McMillan 2002; Furco 1996.

Page 23

  • Theme 3: PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT, MODULE OUTCOMES AND COMMUNITY GOALS

  • Theme outcomes: discuss service learning purpose for all parties; identify principles of community development; interrogate unequal power relations; apply collaborative partnership concepts; argue alignment of module outcomes with community/service sector goals.

  • Subsections: 3.1 Purpose of 'Service' in Service Learning; 3.2 Becoming Effective Agents of Change; 3.3 Basic Principles of Partnership Formation (3.3.1 Partnership/Partners; 3.3.2 Stages & Principles); 3.4 Partnership Development Applied.

Page 24

  • 3.1 Purpose of 'Service' in SL

  • Conceptual model (Furco 1996 in CHE-HEQC 2006) adapted to Figure 3.1: Balancing aims for community and student to achieve desired outcomes. Emphasizes mutual benefit and the scholarship of engagement.

  • Community aims: Sustainable community development; solidarity and agency; empowerment through self-help, felt needs, participation.

  • The model places balance in the center; strategies to achieve balance discussed under becoming effective change agents.

Page 25

  • 3.2 Becoming Effective Agents of Change

  • Acknowledges that stability is also needed for sustainability; change is not the only goal.

  • Bhattacharyya (2004) outlines principles: Self-help, Felt needs, Participation.

  • Gilbert (1997) notes three possible outcomes when different knowledge systems meet: alienation, dying focus, or formation of a new sustainable community if engagement is effective.

  • Service learning should be reciprocal and mutual, aligning student learning with community goals; avoid imposing external development aims; knowledge as co-created by communities.

Page 26

  • 3.3 Basic Principles of Partnership Development

  • A partnership = collaborative effort to address shared goals; Gelmon & Holland define partnership as knowledge-based collaboration with mutual learning.

  • UFS policy defines partnership as collaboration among university, community, and service sector.

  • CHESP tripartite partnership model (community, HEI, service sector) helps diffuse power dynamics; indicators for partnership include commitment to transformation, shared philosophy/vision, trust, reciprocity, sustainability, etc.

  • Emphasizes that all stakeholders must commit to these indicators.

Page 27

  • 3.3.2 Stages and Principles of Partnership Development

  • Four stages of partnership development (Butterfoss, Goodman & Wandersman): Formation, Implementation, Maintenance, Outcome.

  • Key principles: equity, reciprocity, alignment of HEI module outcomes with community goals, clear communication, collaborative decision-making, change management.

  • Emphasis on regular feedback and capacity building across partners.

Page 28

  • 3.3.2 Stages and Principles (continued) – Implementation and Maintenance details:

  • Implementation: formalize through contracts; ensure equity and reciprocity; establish and communicate rules; needs assessment; develop communication procedures.

  • Maintenance: monitor and sustain; regular feedback; capacity building (communication, cultural competency, management).

  • Outcome: identify and celebrate impact; outcomes can be material, solidaristic, or purposive; emphasize contributions of all partners; sustains equity/reciprocity.

Page 29

  • 3.4 Partnership Development Applied

  • Apply principles to OT module; includes a practical example (anonymized) of forming a partnership: Play School Crèche (community partner), NDH OT Department (service sector partner); alignment of goals and ELOs; details on community needs and partner expectations.

  • Examples of module outcomes across four areas: academic course outcomes, community outcomes, personal growth outcomes, and social responsibility outcomes.

  • Vision/Mission statements for the partnership included; emphasizes ownership and sustainability of community empowerment.

Page 30

  • 3.4.2 Implementation Stage (contracting and formalization):

  • Outline of contract content: roles, responsibilities, intended outcomes; SL contract between student, community partner; emphasis on equity/reciprocity; communication and decision-making processes; change management.

  • 3.4.3 Maintenance Stage: Monitoring, feedback, capacity building; continue communication; on-site reflective talks.

  • 3.4.4 Outcome Stage: Identify and celebrate outcomes; transfer of responsibility; decisions about future partnerships; consider sustainability and future plans.

Page 31

  • 3.4 Partnership Development Applied (visual reference to Figure 3.2 CHESP Triad Partnership Model): community, HEI, service sector partners with distinct roles; governance through mutual aims and reciprocal learning.

  • Emphasizes that partner indicators (commitment to change, shared philosophy, trust, reciprocity, collaboration, communication, equality, sustainability) guide sustainable partnerships.

Page 32

  • 3.4.4 Practical OT example continued: outlines how to document and reflect on formation, implementation, maintenance, and outcomes; emphasizes the need for students to illustrate how principles are applied in their module.

Page 33

  • Example sections in OT module outcomes aligned with community goals: detailed lists of academic, personal growth, social responsibility outcomes; includes sample phrasing like:

    • Contextual and individual factors influencing occupational performance.

    • Community infrastructure/resources relevant to OT services.

    • Awareness of occupational injustice and deprivation in the community.

    • Skills to interact across cultures and develop group dynamics; resource utilization; ethical practice.

    • Personal growth and self-reflection indicators.

    • Social responsibility and reciprocity in community engagements.

  • Includes a sample vision/mission for the partnership:

    • Vision: An excellent CSL program integrated into OT curriculum, contributing to sustainable community development.

    • Mission/Objectives: Accessible, high-quality OT services; promoting OT awareness; ensuring community access to services; supervision and quality assurance; sustainability; student learning opportunities; community empowerment.

Page 34

  • Continuation of OT-specific partnership documents: more on mission/vision; emphasis on ownership and community empowerment and sustainability.

Page 35

  • 3.4.2 Implementation: further details on formal contracts, SL agreements, and example alignment of HEI/module outcomes with community goals.

  • 3.4.3 Maintenance: more detail on monitoring, feedback, and capacity-building activities; 3.4.4 Outcome: more on identifying, celebrating and transferring know-how; ensuring equity/reciprocity continues.

Page 36

  • Assignment for Theme 3: Focus on principles of community development, becoming agents of change, and partnership development; discuss implications for the service learning endeavour.

  • Add Reading list: Bhattacharyya 2004; Bridger & Aler 2006; CHE-HEQC (Chapter 5); Fourie 2003; Gilbert 1997; etc.

Page 37

  • Theme 4: REFLECTION AND ASSESSMENT IN A SERVICE LEARNING MODULE

  • Theme outcomes: describe reflection/assessment practices; argue the role of reflection; utilize critical reflection; identify reflection/assessment methods; integrate reflection with service activities.

  • Subsections: 4.1 Introduction, 4.2 Reflection (What is reflection? Why important? The six Cs of reflection; When/Where does reflection take place?), 4.3 Assessment, 4.4 Integrated Reflection and Assessment Plan, 4.5 Conclusion.

Page 38

  • 4.1 Introduction: Reiterates Dewey-Kolb roots; reflection as learning tool and assessment method; alignment with learning outcomes.

Page 39

  • 4.2 Reflection in Service Learning

    • 4.2.1 What is reflection? Various definitions; view here as transformative, focused, critical analysis of experiences tied to outcomes; structured reflection challenges and guides students; connects service to module content; develops social responsibility and ethical skills; personal relevance.

    • 4.2.2 Why reflection is important: not just recounting events; reconstruct experiences; monitors progress; bridge between service and learning; enhances learning; Eyler evidence linking reflection to cognitive development.

    • Quote: Dewey: