Community Voice: Community Partners Reflect on Service Learning

Jo Anna Tauscher Birdsall, Ed.D., Director, Career & Employment Services, Butte
College, Oroville, California

Introduction
Service learning benefits educational institutions, students, and the community.
Researchers, educators, and community members often inquire why more institutions of
higher education are not implementing and institutionalizing this valuable program.
Many college mission statements include a commitment to serve the community through
providing service-learning opportunities (Berson, 1994). Additionally, these statements
reflect a commitment from the colleges to include the community in addressing
educational needs, outcomes, as well as the needs of the community that are viewed as
vital through service learning. What is missing from this commitment is the
community’s reflection on the impact of service learning on the community. This paper
explores the impact of service learning on the community from a community partner
perspective.
Evaluation, as a shared collaborative process and reflection on service brings
about the sense of a learning community (Smith, 2002). Through learning communities,
participants have the opportunity to talk about ideas and challenges. As a sense of a
learning community is felt within the community, the relationship with other
organizations and educational institutions becomes more amiable for the growth and
development for all those involved in service learning. Community input is vital in
measuring the true value and impact of service on the community. Service learning
programs are increasing as the benefits to students, academics, and other partnerships
come to fruition.
In service learning, a limited number of research studies involving community
participation exist (Boyle-Baise, Epler, & McCoy, 2001). The community is clearly a
part of the service learning equation in terms of goals and objectives (McCarthy, Tucker,
& Dean, 2002). Geschwind, Ondaatje, and Gray (1997, p. 107) added, “the community’s
perception of the campus is key to ensuring the success of service learning programs.” A
growing need exists to continue research in the arena of service learning. Jones (2003, p.
156) stated, “the research on service learning has largely focused on student-learning

1
outcomes and university benefits, with much less attention to the nature and outcomes of
partnerships from the community agency perspective.” Ward and Wolf-Wendel (2000)
claimed that the missing link in the literature includes community roles, and the intended
outcomes and benefits of service learning. Community partners are the key link to
service learning, and they need to be included from assessment to implementation of
service learning projects.
The main focus of assessment in service learning with students, faculty, and in the
community is reflection. National Helpers Network, Inc. (1998, p. 103) stated,
“reflection is the critical element in the service learning program.” Reflection is equally
as important as assessment and implementation of the service activity. The authors
concluded, “the value of effective reflection cannot be overemphasized” (p. 103).
Reflection is an opportunity for all participants to obtain and receive feedback (Jacoby,
1998). Building communities is an important partnership for educational institutions,
businesses, and organizations. Partnership is an important part of the outreach in
building communities (American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, 1988).
Mutual learning and growth (Swick, 2001) can be achieved when higher education,
students, and the community work together. Lisman (1998) added that service learning
programs provide avenues for building valuable relations between school and
community. By providing opportunities for community partners to engage in activities
together, community members gain a sense of trust with other community partners and
the institutions of higher education. This leads to further assessment of needs,
implementation of projects, and overall improvement or impact in the community
(Lisman, 1998).

Research Study
The main focus of the research conducted in March 2003 was to determine the
impact of service learning on the community. Mixed methods of this research allowed
for both qualitative and quantitative data analyses. The use of the Service-Learning
Impact Survey, in conjunction with three focus groups, provided a balance for gathering,
interpreting, and reporting the data. The impact of service learning was measured
utilizing data based on a Likert scale, and was presented for further reflection to

2
participants in focus groups so that they could discuss benefits, challenges, and
recommendations for further action.
Representatives from community organizations were asked to rate 16 items on the
Service-Learning Impact Survey. Twelve of the 16 survey items were recorded on a
Likert scale of 1-5, where 5=Always, 4=Often, 3=Sometimes, 2=Rarely, and 1=Never.
Two of the survey items were recorded on a Likert scale of 1-5, where 5=Very Satisified,
4=Satisfied, 3=Neutral, 2=Dissatisfied, and 1=Very Dissatisfied with the service
experience. Sixteen representatives completed the survey; however, not all
representatives answered each survey item. The following identifies the results of the
survey items.

Table 1
Rating of Impact of Service-Learning on the Community

M SD n
Coordination 3.92 1.04 13
Input and Planning 3.86 1.03 14
Goals Set 2.93 1.54 14
Set Goals With Community Partners 2.38 1.12 13
Community Goals Explained 4.09 1.30 11
Student Objectives Explained 3.85 1.46 13
Volunteers Trained 3.36 1.36 11
Ongoing Training Provided 3.50 1.45 12
Students Supervised 3.38 1.50 13
Goals and Objectives Met 4.10 0.74 10
Evaluation Conducted 3.40 1.51 10
Reflection Conducted 2.80 1.32 10
Effectiveness of Partnership 3.50 1.40 14
Effectiveness of Networking 3.08 1.04 13

Community organization representatives were asked to rate their satisfaction with

services received through the service learning program, and the impact of service
learning on the organization. The results are illustrated below.

Table 2
Satisfaction of Services and Overall Impact of Service

M SD n

3
Satisfaction of Services Received 4.00 0.91 13
Impact of Service 4.15 0.90 13

Qualitative data items were drawn from the comments and open-ended survey
items to which the community representatives responded on the Service-Learning Impact
Survey, and from the three focus groups. The written comments received from the
surveys and focus group discussions were aggregated, analyzed, and placed into the
following categories: Networking and Relationships Within The Community;
Networking and Relationships With The College; Service-Learning Components
(Coordination and Coordinators, Input, Planning, Assessment, and Goal Setting,
Orientation and Training, Placement of Volunteers, Service Projects or Activities, and
Reflection and Evaluation); Volunteers; Impact of Service-Learning; and Additional
Comments.

Networking and Relationships within the Community

One component identified was the networking and relationships within the
community. Group networking and board participation, public relations, and networking
through non-service learning (board) opportunities were identified as the three most
valuable components. The building of strong relationships, sharing of program resources,
exploring of other potential resources, partnering as a tool for networking, public
relations, and the opportunity to be proactive were identified throughout the comments of
the community partners.
Community partners addressed the challenges with networking and relationships
within the community. These comments were categorized into three main areas: lack of
communication and understanding about service learning, cutbacks, and inconsistent
goals and processes. Two community partners indicated that networking and
relationships within the community does not occur. Community partners provided
recommendations for improving networking and relations within the community. The
two primary recommendations made by the community partners included the need for
contact and communication, and the need to create opportunities for partnership.

Networking and Relationships with the College

4
 Relationships, connections, faculty buy-in, and support for projects were common
themes noted through the data in this category. Community partners identified two
primary challenges: lack of involvement in networking with the college, and the gap in
the support needed between the college and the community. Community partners made
two recommendations for improving networking and relationships with the college:
Communication needs to be improved, and opportunities for connections need to occur as
a result of service learning.

Service learning Components

Six service learning components were identified by community partners: (a)
coordination and coordinators, (b) input, planning, assessment, and goal setting, (c)
training and orientation, (d) placement of volunteers, (e) service projects or activities, and
(f) reflection and evaluation.

Coordination and Coordinators

Community partners identified connections to service and coordinator attributes
as the primary strengths of coordinating service learning programs. Coordination was
viewed as the connection to service. This connection was viewed as being important
from initial contact to organizing to evaluating the completed project. The community
partners identified three main categories of challenges: connecting and following-up,
obtaining administration and faculty buy-in, and meeting community needs. The overall
recommendation made for improving coordination of service learning programs involved
continued coordination. This continued coordination encompassed all areas of service
learning.

Input, Planning, Assessment, and Goal Setting

Communication is an important part of input, planning, assessing, and goal setting
in all programs, including service learning. The community partners valued the
communication as an opportunity to provide input in the planning process. The primary
challenges involved lack of communication and follow-through. Four community
partners indicated that input, planning, assessing, and goal setting does not occur.

5
Community partners are willing to participate in the planning process. They identified
focus on the purpose, clearer goals, better communication, identification of the need, and
bringing all partners together as the primary recommendations.

Training and Orientation

Community partners reported that both training and orientation were positive
aspects of service learning programs. Training of students occurs, according to the
community partners, prior to students beginning service or while students were working
with the community partners during service. Orientation was also viewed by the
community partners as being important to beginning the service learning experience.
Community partners identified two main challenges concerning training and orientation:
coordination of the program and time constraints. Due to the limited time for the college,
the student, and the community organization, training becomes difficult to manage.
Involving community partners in the process was the primary recommendation for
training and orientation in service learning. The community partners indicated that they
had ideas, and they were willing to participate in this process.

Placement of Student Volunteers

The challenges associated with placement of student volunteers fell into two
categories: coordinating placements, and identifying project needs. Community partners
felt that the coordinating of placements was challenging due to communication barriers,
time constraints, and coordination issues. Community partners also felt that the project
needs were organized, according to the needs of the student or the project to be
accomplished. They recommended the need for more involvement and program needs.
The second recommendation was based on program needs centered on contacts and
communication, and capacities for student volunteer placement.

Service Projects or Activities

Community partners were asked to reflect on projects and activities offered
through service learning. The positive aspects of projects and activities were related to

6
supervising projects and activities, and program activity type. The challenges related to
service learning projects and activities were discussed. The main challenge centered on
the lack of consistency of the service learning program. This included follow-up,
supervision, and components of service learning. One recommendation was made in
relationship to service learning projects and activities: the community partners want a
better description of projects and orientation times.

Reflection and Evaluation

Community partners made comments about the reflection and evaluation
components of service learning. The responses focused on the evaluation process, the
reflection process, and the difference between evaluation and reflection. The primary
challenged faced by the community partners was the fact that reflection and evaluation
did not occur as part of the service learning process. The recommendations provided
were in the areas of structure and follow-up.

Student Volunteers
Community partners reflected on the positive aspects the student volunteers bring
to their organization. Common threads noted as positive aspects were student volunteer
attributes, connections between education and the community, and benefits to the
community. The connections that the student volunteers make between their education
and the community were noted as a valuable component of service learning. These
connections, community partners implied, prepare the student volunteers for further
community involvement. With the connections, the community benefits from the service
the student volunteers provide. The community partners viewed this relationship as a
win-win situation. The challenges that community partners identified were related to
working with student volunteers. They included the lack of goals and clear expectations,
the lack of connection to service and community need, and time conflicts. The
community partners provided recommendations to facilitate student volunteer
development. These recommendations included the need for program structure, more
follow-up, the need for students to commit to service, and communicating more
effectively.

7
Impact of Service learning
The impact of service learning has been noted in several areas. Community
partners discussed the overall impact, organizational impact, and the impact that service
learning had on families. Community partners addressed the challenges in the area of the
impact of service learning, but did not make any recommendations.

Additional Comments
Additional comments by community partners were affiliated with service
learning. These responses were related to defining service learning, organizing, and
identifying services, reflecting, and clarifying how the organization is involved with
service learning.
The findings that have surfaced as a result of this research study are addressed in
the following areas: definition of service learning, connections, process and consistency,
the stakeholders, the volunteers, and the impact of service learning. Enos and Morton
(2003, p. 20) concluded that “in our view, campus and community partners must come to
understand that they are part of the same community, with common problems, common
interests, common resources, and a common capacity to shape one another in profound
ways.”

Definition of Service Learning

Based upon the Service Learning Impact Survey and the discussions from the
three focus groups, the results illustrate the need to more clearly and consistently define
service learning. The definition(s) of service learning was unclear to the community
partners. Community partners defined and categorized service learning to mean
community service, and often used these two terms interchangeably (Chapin, 1998).
Community partners also were unfamiliar with the term, service learning, and were
unaware of their own participation in service learning activities.

8
Connections
The ability to network and connect within the community was noted as a valuable
resource for the community partners. This research suggested that community
involvement is needed and wanted in all aspects of service learning. Further connections
and open communication are vital. Through open communication, clarification regarding
the community partner’s connection to service learning would be further defined. As
noted by Lisman (1998), connections bring community members together, resulting in
further planning, implementation, and improvements within the community. Jacoby
(1999) further observed the new energy, a broadening of service available within the
community, problem solving opportunities, institutional resources, and opportunities for
expanding teaching and learning are among the community benefits for service learning.
These opportunities connect the educational institution, the students, and the community
together.

Process and Consistency

Responses from community partners indicated an inconsistency in the service
learning process (e.g., assessment, planning, orientation, training, placement, project
implementation, evaluation, and reflection). Many of the responses from the Service-
Learning Impact Survey ranged from rarely to often, indicating that not all processes of
service learning are consistent across program models. The need for members of the
community to participate as key partners in service learning, in establishing goals and
objectives, is critically needed (McCarthy, Tucker, & Dean, 2002). This will have an
impact on consistency in assessing and planning for service learning activities. This
research illustrated the need for consistent contact and communication between all
stakeholders. The service learning process belongs to all partners involved (Riley &
Wofford, 2000). The involvement of all stakeholders in the process will lead toward
consistency in the service learning process, and will assist in meeting the unmet needs of
the community. Evaluation of the service learning process, including the activities, will
aid in strengthening the service learning program.

9
Stakeholders
The stakeholders identified their need to contribute to the service learning
process. Although Geschwind, Ondaatje, and Gray (1997, p. 107) stated, “the
community’s perception of the campus is key to ensuring the success of service learning
programs,” the community partners, as stakeholders, valued service learning, and wanted
to participate in service learning activities with the colleges. This is consistent with the
recommendation by Riley and Wofford (2000) for service learning programs to allow all
of the partners to contribute to the process.
The community partners, according to this research, identified improved
communication, program consistency, and buy-in from administration and college faculty
as primary areas for consideration and improvement. The college service learning
programs with coordinators were identified, by community partners, as a critical need for
the success of service learning programs. As noted by Harkavy and Romer (1999), the
colleges offer a unique opportunity for addressing and solving the community’s needs.
For the university and community partners, reciprocity is achieved when partnerships are
equally formed (Gugerty & Swezey, 1996).

Student Volunteers
Community partner responses indicated that service learning serves as a
preparation for students to engage in further community involvement. The community
partners also viewed service learning as an opportunity for students to gain employment.
Consistency and structure, however, are needed in terms of student time, schedules, and
programmatic structure. Service learning needs to be part of the student’s overall
experience, rather than an add-on. When service learning becomes part of the student’s
overall experience, educational objectives and community outcomes become more clear
(Liu, 1995).

Impact of Service Learning

One of the impacts of service learning is related to community needs. Although
quantitative and qualitative data overall suggested that community needs were being met,

10
some participants were concerned that deep community needs were not being met. These
deep community needs may include, but are not limited to, homelessness, illiteracy, food
shortages, and housing issues. Community partners also expressed the need for service
projects and activities to be organized and collaborative. Ongoing community service
projects are critical to the unmet needs of the community. In order to determine the
impact that service learning has on the community, reports of impacts made and follow-
up are needed. The meeting of community needs gives the community a voice—a
valuable need expressed by the community partners.

Summary
Gelmon (2003, p. 46) stated that “a partnership is not only an entity; it is a
process.” From evaluation and reflection, action for change can be created. Evaluation
and reflection in service learning also lead to assessment and identification of additional
community needs. The evaluation, reflection, and assessment lead to all partners
identifying strengths and challenges within communities (McCaleb, 1994).
Research on the impact of service learning and sustainability are critical in
today’s political and economic climates. With budget restrictions at local, regional, and
national levels, evaluative research demonstrating impacts is critical. The impacts and
implications based on today’s political and economic climate are noted with three main
partnerships in service learning. The community will benefit from service learning,
particularly in times of budget reductions when community partners have limited
resources. Research at the local level will aid in sustainability of programs within the
community. The sustainability of the community programs is critical for growth and
development of future programs. Educational programs will also flourish in that the
learning students encounter in the classroom will be magnified through their hands-on
experiences in the community. For students, service learning provides an avenue for
career exploration. Continued service within the community will lead toward stronger
future leadership. Service learning opportunities for students will also strengthen the
community as students continue their service past the classroom into building
communities.

11
References
American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. (1988). Building
communities: A vision for a new century. Washington, DC: National
Center for Higher Education.

Berson, J.S. (1994, June/July). “A marriage made in heaven: Community colleges and
service learning.” Community College Journal, 14-19.

Boyle-Baise, M., Epler, B., & McCoy, W. (2001). Shared control: Community voices in
multicultural service learning. The Educational Forum, 65(4), 344-353.

Chapin, J.R. (1998). Is service learning a good idea? Data from the National
Longitudinal Study of 1988. The Social Studies, 89(5), 205-211.

Enos, S. & Morton, K. (2003). Developing a theory and practice of campus community
partnerships. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Building partnerships for service-
learning (pp. 20-41). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gelmon, S.B. (2003). Assessment as a means of building service-learning partnerships.

In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Building partnerships for service-learning
(pp. 42-63). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Geschwind, S.A., Ondaatje, E.H., & Gray, M.J. (1997). Reflecting on campus
community relations. In Corporation for National Service (Eds.), Expanding
boundaries: Building civic responsibility within higher education (pp. 107-111).
Washington, DC: Corporation for National Service.

Gugerty, C.R., & Swezey, E.D. (1996). Developing campus-community relationships.

In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Service learning in higher education:
Concepts and practices (pp. 92-107). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Harkavy, I., & Romer, D. (1999, Summer). Service learning as an integrated strategy.
Liberal Education, 85(3), 14.

Liu, G. (1995). What national and community service means for higher education. In
C.D. Lisman (1998), Toward a civil society: Civic literacy and service
learning. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Jacoby, B. (1998). Service-learning in today’s higher education. In F. McGuicken (Ed.),

Volunteerism (pp. 14-28). New York: H.W. Wilson.

Jacoby, B. (1999). Partnerships for service learning. New directions for student services,
87, 18-35.

Jones, S.R. (2003). Principles and profiles of exemplary partnerships with community
agencies. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Building partnerships for service-

12
 learning (pp. 151-173). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lisman, C.D. (1998). Toward a civil society: Civic literacy and service learning.
Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

McCaleb, S.P. (1994). Building communities of learners: Collaboration among

teachers, students, families, and community. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

McCarthy, A.M., Tucker, M.L., & Dean, K.L. (2002). Service-learning: Creating
community. In C. Wankel & R. DeFillippi (Eds.), Rethinking management
education for the 21st century (pp. 63-86). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

National Commission on Service-Learning (2002). Learning in deed: The power

of service-learning for American schools. Washington, DC: National
Commission on Service-Learning.

National Helpers Network, Inc. (1998). Reflection: The key to service learning. New
York: National Helpers Network.

Riley, R.W., & Wofford, H. (2000, May). The reaffirmation of the declaration of
principles. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(9), 670-672.

Smith, P. (2002). A reflection on reflection. Primary Voices K-6, 10(4), 31.

Swick, K.J. (2001, May/June). Service-learning in teacher education: Building learning

communities. The Clearing House, 74(5), 261-264.

Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2000). Community-centered service learning. The

American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 767-780.

About the Author

Dr. Jo Anna Tauscher Birdsall is the Director of Career & Employment Services
with Butte College in Oroville, CA. She is also a Faculty/Facilitator with Fielding
Graduate University in Santa Barbara, CA. Dr. Birdsall completed her doctorate in
Educational Leadership & Change from Fielding Graduate University in 2003 where her
dissertation emphasis was on the impact of service learning on the community. You can
reach Dr. Tauscher Birdsall at: Director of Career & Employment Services, 3536 Butte
Campus Drive, Oroville, CA 95965; Email [email protected]; Telephone (530) 895-
2340.

13