Community Engaged Learning (CEL) has proliferated in both secondary and post-secondary education over the past two decades, taking form within institutions of higher education as study abroad programs, interdisciplinary courses infused with community components, incentives for faculty engagement and curriculum development, and student service-learning (Talburt, 2009). At the University of British Columbia, CEL has been written into the 2018-authored strategic plan, Shaping UBC’s Next Century, as a strategy entitled “Practical Learning: Expand experiential, work-integrated and extended learning opportunities for students, faculty, staff and alumni” in which the university speaks directly to strengthening community relationships and connections, broadly. The purpose of this toolkit is to not only provide evidentiary support as to why CEL remains an effective teaching and learning practice for both teachers and students, but also to offer examples of engagement that are, indeed, aligned with this goal. However, we would be remiss if we did not mention that there is a growing set of scholarship and critical interventions that speak to ethical community engagement, imposed ways of thinking, deficit-thinking and the overall politics of community learning and critical service learning (see Crabtree, 2013, Kahne & Westheimer, 1996, Illich, 1968, among many others). We view this conversation as at the very core of community-engaged learning, and urge those interested in undertaking CEL to seriously consider what it means to engage with community on community’s terms, in ways that allow for mutual growth, continued relation, and in hopes of imagining social justice oriented-futures. We hope that this brief overview of CEL in Canadian institutions of higher education might provide some grounding as educators consider this teaching practice.
CANADA AND CEL
CEL in Canada has historically been implemented but has often lacked the oversight and necessary provisions to guide it to its relevant learning outcomes. University of Waterloo professor Steven D. Brown (2007) examines the current realm of service learning across schools in Canadian territories. Brown identifies that Canadian education is divided by territory and not governed by a larger body as it is in the United States, thus resulting in a wide range of programs that include a diverse volume of service-learning in particular courses, depending on the provincial territory. Brown has found the pattern that faith-based and private schools generally did more service-learning than public schools, and that IB programs required the minimum amount of service learning to graduate (20 hours).
When it comes to British Columbia in particular, the research is a bit unclear due to the implementation of how service learning hours are spent, thus, no guidelines are in place at the moment to shape a cohesive learning experience for students aside from those set by an institution. According to Brown, schools in British Columbia are, in general, more focused on job and learning outcomes than actual service. At the level of BC specific research on CEL, Brown is one of the few major scholars in the area at this time. Brown concludes that Canadian service learning has a more difficult time in implementation due to the lack of importance placed on it by the provincial government, thus it remains underfunded and under studied past a general unclear requirement of minimum hours (without any specification for how those hours must be spent).
Tania S. Smith (2012), a faculty member at the University of Calgary with experience in CEL identifies that Canadian CEL practices have been largely based off of American Service Learning but differ significantly beyond this primary stipulation. Canadian CEL is: taught in multiple languages, taught at all educational levels not just up to secondary education, focuses on equality and provincial issues rather than democracy and citizenship the way American CEL does (likely due to the issue identified by Brown in which regulations are provincially governed). As Brown points out, Canadian CEL is based off of the American Service Learning model, but Smith makes it clear that past that, the implementation of any CEL curriculum in Canada is guided solely by the institution in charge rather than any central authority. Smith identifies The Canadian Alliance for Community Service Learning (CACSL) as a recognized national institution that supports community service learning in Canada. In conversation with what Brown mentions regarding a lack of government importance, it is likely that even organizations like CACSL struggle to implement CEL practices in ways that are ideal for both educators and students.
MODELS
University of Alberta faculty member Sara Dorow (2011) has identified the 2 different models of community service learning that have begun to gain traction. One form is “academic and discipline based” and the other is “context driven and interdisciplinary.” Dorow describes the need for CEL and the benefits it could produce in a liberal arts program, as well as the tangible skills that may be derived from a well-run CEL component in the later form (context driven and interdisciplinary). Saint Mary’s University faculty members Gemmel & Clayton (2009) outline how CEL is best implemented within a Canadian framework by suggesting that the focus should lie in three key factors: students, institutions, and communities. For students, a basis must be set with the government expectations on learning outcomes; for community, the focus should rely on the tandem interaction between the community and the other two bodies in ways that create a combined knowledge is the ideal, as well as the move away from temporary change to more permanent lasting solutions; for institutions, CEL should enhance their reputation as a globally engaged and reputable institution, as well as the ability to provide a better education model for both current and future students. Dorow’s model is just that, her own, but it shows that a well built CEL curriculum has the ability to fit the needs of any institution and its students rather than having to be a mandatory project with arbitrary rules- but with it comes the difficulty of not having a cohesive, unobstructive, blueprint to work from.
Through use of both Dorow and Gemmel & Clayton’s suggested models as well as with the guidelines of ethical boundaries stated by Mikesell et al., CEL has the potential to thrive in the Canadian context despite the loose government oversight regarding the program.
ISSUES AND STUDENT BENEFITS
Universities around Canada as well as around the world have implemented many CEL components into their learning environments to strengthen the understanding of educational goals in applied contexts. Notably, the majority of case studies have found that the biggest practical issue at hand is time constraints whereas the biggest ideological issue at hand is often students’ misconceptions of their roles in their participation of CEL.
Ibrahim et al. (2016) identified that CEL is useful in all cultural contexts as was identified from their tandem research project in both the United States and Egypt, as well as that identifying issues and exposing them helped make them relevant. Furthermore, this study also found that long term engagement over the course of 1 year was more beneficial to students than short term experiences. This benefit from exposure over a longer period of time was useful in developing relationships that helped students identify the importance of their assignments in CEL components (Ibrahim et al., Mitchell, T. D., 2017, & Schamber, J. F., & Mahoney, S. L., 2008). Largely in terms of practical (as opposed to ideological) issues in the effective implementation of CEL, the majority of the literature such as case studies from Garroute (2018), Donaldson & Daughtery (2011), Gillis & Mac Lellan (2010), Stewart (2012), Smith (2012) and Mitchell (2008), have identified that time constraints are the primary practical issue that exist as a barrier to CEL’s success. As these case studies suggest, it is vital that faculty set out and adhere to a schedule in which as many factors that can be accounted for prior to extraneous variables appearing, can be properly assessed and dealt with. Researchers Schamber & Mahoney (2008) actually ran multiple studies on CEL groups in which they found statistically significant evidence that CEL helps students improve their social and political awareness. In an example of students volunteering at a soup kitchen, their approach was not to teach students its operation, but rather looking at the root cause in order to rid the need for the soup kitchen all together. In a study by Garoute & McCarthy-Gilmore, a first year Sociology course using a CEL component that focused on using the existing resources from within the community helped the very approach of getting rid of the need for handouts, much like Schamber & Mahoney’s findings. Similar to other CEL cases, Schamber & Mahoney identified time constraints as the greatest barrier in CEL programs, but as many scholars point out, we simply need to make CEL a priority rather than assuming it will fit into our courses the way they are now (Donaldson & Daughtery, 2011, Garroute 2018, and many more). When it comes to the implementation of CEL, Molee et al. found that using a DEAL (Describe, Examine, Articulate Learning) self reflection method, may help students (especially those at the higher level) to enhance their depth of learning, civic engagement, and personal growth (2011). DEAL differs from simple diaries in the way that it tends to ask students specific guiding questions rather than simply allowing students to reflect freely. To sweeten the pot, Bringle et al. found that students participating in CEL components during their first year at university were significantly more likely to remain at the institution and to want to graduate from it as well (2010).
Authors Mikesell et al. (2013) have investigated the research ethics involved in Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR). The complexity of the issue remains in the fact that Canadian guidelines mention the relevant areas where ethical practices should exist, but fail to mention specific ways in which nuanced issues as well as relevant grey areas should be dealt with. Essentially, research ethics is an aspect of CEL that has yet to have been properly addressed, as the area does not have proper guidelines that students and community members are made to abide by. This is very similar to Brown’s insight of how regulations exist for CEL, but specifics do not. Unfortunately for students, this opens them up to ethical ambiguities in which they may misconceive their role in CEL. Hart & Akhurst (2017) discuss the problem of power and hierarchies involved, which if not handled correctly can turn into a sort of “voyeurism” in which students become more focused on their own development at the expense of the people whom they believe they are helping. Similarly, Butin (2007) identified the issue of students thinking they were “working for” rather than “working with” the community in which they were engaged. This issue has been highlighted throughout the literature, and notably, Garroute & Gilmore (2014) found that teaching students to find solutions from the existing infrastructure within the community (both physical items and skills from individuals within the target community) was one way in which students saw their role as that of a restructuring program rather than as an implementation of new (unsustainable) solutions. Garroute & Gilmore (2014) found that by involving the community in the process with the students, as well as using those community members’ unique skills, helped students recognize the inherent meaning in CEL rather than allowing them to view it as a charitable work.
Overall, many sources have recognized that CEL is a mechanism that can both help students engage with the community and help create sustainable solutions, while of course having its drawbacks if not handled responsibly within the classroom. Many of these case studies show us that CEL is an imperfect tool: therein lies an inability to account for many factors and its inability to manage time due to its unpredictable nature. That being said, CEL also has the potential to have meaningful and transformative impact on students’ personal and professional lives. Its effects of deep learning, community-university relations, and enrichment of the classroom community as a whole are an incredibly worthy cause for the effort.
References
Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Muthiah, R. N. (2010). The role of service-learning on the retention of first-year students to second year. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(2), 38.
Brown, S. D. (2007). Community service and service learning in Canada: A profile of programming across the country. Imagine Canada, Knowledge Development Centre.
Butin, D. W. (2007). Justice-learning: Service-learning as justice-oriented education.Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(2), 177-183. doi:10.1080/10665680701246492
Crabtree, R. D. (2013). The intended and unintended consequences of international service-learning. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 17(2), 43-66.
Donaldson, L. P., & Daughtery, L. (2011). Introducing asset-based models of social justice into service learning: A social work approach. Journal of Community Practice, 19(1), 80-99. doi:10.1080/10705422.2011.550262
Dorow, S. (2011). The arts, community-service learning, and social justice. Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences blog. Retrieved from https://www.idees-ideas.ca/blog/arts-community-service-learning-and-social-justice
Garoutte, L., & McCarthy-Gilmore, K. (2014). Preparing students for community-based learning using an asset-based approach.Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(5), 48. doi:10.14434/5060
Gemmel, L. J., Clayton, P. H. (2009). A comprehensive framework for community service-learning in canada. Canadian Alliance for Community Service-Learning.
Gillis, A., & Mac Lellan, M. (2010). Service learning with vulnerable populations: Review of the literature.International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 7(1) doi:10.2202/1548-923X.2041
Hart, A., & Akhurst, J. (2017). Community-based learning and critical community psychology practice: Conducive and corrosive aspects: CBL and critical community psychology.Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 27(1), 3-15. doi:10.1002/casp.2287
Ibrahim, M. M., Rosenheim, M. R., Amer, M. M., & Larson, H. A. (2016). From minnesota to cairo: Student perceptions of community-based learning.Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 11(3), 258-273. doi:10.1177/1746197916653583
Ilich, I. (1968). To hell with good intentions. Conference on InterAmerican Student Projects (CIASP). Cuernavaca, Mexico. Retrieved from https://www.uvm.edu/~jashman/CDAE195_ESCI375/To%20Hell%20with%20Good%20Intentions.pdf
Kahne, J. & Westheimer, J. (1996). In the service of what? The politics of service learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(9), 592-599.
Mikesell, L., Bromley, E., & Khodyakov, D. (2013). Ethical community-engaged research: A literature review. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12), E7-E14. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301605
Mitchell, T. D. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2), 50.
Mitchell, T. D. (2017). Teaching community on and off campus: An intersectional approach to community engagement. New Directions for Student Services 157, 35-44.
Molee, L. M., Henry, M. E., Sessa, V. I., & Mckinney-Prupis, E. R. (2011). Assessing learning in service-learning courses through critical reflection. Journal of Experiential Education, 33(3), 239-257.
Schamber, J. F., & Mahoney, S. L. (2008). The development of political awareness and social justice citizenship through community-based learning in a first-year general education seminar.The Journal of General Education, 57(2), 75-99. doi:10.1353/jge.0.0016
Smith, T. S. (2012). Rhetorical strategies of the postsecondary community service-learning movement in Canada. Partnerships (Elon, N.C.), https://doi.org/10.7253/partj.v0i0.422
Stewart, T. (2012). Honours service-learning and civic responsibility. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 3(1), 49-60. doi:10.5204/intjfyhe.v3i1.99
Talburt, S. (2009). International Travel and Implication. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 25(2), 104-118.
University of British Columbia (2018). Shaping UBC’s next century: strategic plan 2018-2028. Vancouver. Retrieved from https://strategicplan.ubc.ca/