Traditional vs. Critical Service-Learning: Engaging the Literature to Differentiate Two Models

There is an emerging body of literature advocating a "critical" approach to community service learning with an explicit social justice aim. A social change orientation, working to redistribute power, and developing authentic relationships are most often cited in the literature as points of departure from traditional service-learning. This literature review unpacks these distinguishing elements. ********** A growing segment of the service-learning literature in higher education assumes that community service linked to classroom learning is inherently connected to concerns of social justice (Delve, Mintz, & Stewart, 1990; Jacoby, 1996; Rosenberger, 2000; Wade, 2000; 2001; Warren, 1998). At the same time, there is an emerging body of literature arguing that the traditional service-learning approach is not enough (Brown, 2001; Butin, 2005; Cipolle, 2004; Marullo, 1999; Robinson 2000a, 2000b; Walker, 2000). This literature advocates a "critical" approach to community service learning with an explicit aim toward social justice. Referencing the service-learning literature, I unpack the elements that distinguish a critical service-learning pedagogy. In reviewing the literature, I was challenged by an unspoken debate that seemed to divide service-learning into two camps--a traditional approach that emphasizes service without attention to systems of inequality, and a critical approach that is unapologetic in its aim to dismantle structures of injustice. The three elements most often cited in the literature as points of departure in the two approaches are working to redistribute power amongst all participants in the service-learning relationship, developing authentic relationships in the classroom and in the community, and working from a social change perspective. I wanted to understand and make clear the differences in these approaches and what they might look like in practice. How might the curriculum, experiences, and outcomes of a critical service-learning course differ from a traditional service-learning course? The critical approach re-imagines the roles of community members, students, and faculty in the service-learning experience. The goal, ultimately, is to deconstruct systems of power so the need for service and the inequalities that create and sustain them are dismantled. This article uses perspectives from the literature to uncover and explicate the meaning of a critical service-learning view. In discussing each of the three distinguishing elements of the critical service-learning approach, I examine the classroom and community components. Traditional vs. Critical Service-Learning Community service learning "serves as a vehicle for connecting students and institutions to their communities and the larger social good, while at the same time instilling in students the values of community and social responsibility" (Neururer & Rhoads, 1998, p. 321). Because service-learning as a pedagogy and practice varies greatly across educators and institutions, it is difficult to create a definition that elicits consensus amongst practitioners (Bickford & Reynolds, 2002; Butin, 2005; Kendall, 1990; Liu, 1995; Varlotta, 1997a). However, I use the terms service-learning and community service learning to define a community service action tied to learning goals and ongoing reflection about the experience (Jacoby, 1996). The learning in service-learning results from the connections students make between their community experiences and course themes (Zivi, 1997). Through their community service, students become active learners, bringing skills and information from community work and integrating them with the theory and curriculum of the classroom to produce new knowledge. At the same time, students' classroom learning informs their service in the community. Research heralds traditional service-learning programs for their transformative nature--producing students who are more tolerant, altruistic, and culturally aware; who have stronger leadership and communication skills; and who (albeit marginally) earn higher grade point averages and have stronger critical thinking skills than their non-service-learning counterparts (Astin & Sax, 1998; Densmore, 2000; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Kezar, 2002; Markus, Howard, & King, 1993). …