University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Creating changemakers: integrating social innovation and service-learning to empower student voice and bolster college, career, and civic readiness

(USC Thesis Other)

Creating changemakers: integrating social innovation and service-learning to empower student voice and bolster college, career, and civic readiness

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: CHANGEMAKERS 1

Creating Changemakers: Integrating Social Innovation and Service-learning to Empower Student
Voice and Bolster College, Career, and Civic Readiness
Jasmine A. Coleman

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2018

Copyright 2018 Jasmine A. Coleman
CHANGEMAKERS 2

DEDICATION
To God be the glory. It is because of your grace and mercy that I have not only survived
– I have thrived!
To my Evergreen, my mother, Jewelle Roberta Jolley Hazel: Thank you for lending me
your voice, your tenacity, and your zest for learning throughout this process. I know that if life
worked out differently for you, you would have pursued the pinnacle of scholarship, for which I
continue to strive in your name. Heaven is blessed to have you, mom – just I have been blessed
by your presence along every step of this journey.
To my Aunt-Mommy, Jocelyn Maria Jolley: What would I do without you, girl? Thank
you for taking care of yourself so that you could be here to take care of me during my journey to
“Dr. JB” and beyond. I love you.
To Zachary Cornelius Coleman II, my husband and friend, and Zachary Cornelius
Coleman III, my 7-month-old son who was (literally) right there by mommy’s side throughout
much of this journey: I love you both dearly. Thanks for being my rocks. Thanks for being my
reasons why.

Today, we are ALL Dr. Coleman!
CHANGEMAKERS 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I could not have been gifted a more perfect dissertation chair! Dr. Monique Datta, thank
you! You have been as formidable as you have been kind; as pragmatic as you have been
encouraging; and as rigorous as you have been inspiring. You, Monique, are a force to be
reckoned with -- the perfect blend of talent, power, and love. I am so grateful to have had your
guidance along this dissertation journey, and even more grateful to have crossed paths with you
in this life.
To Dr. Anthony Maddox, my very first professor in my very first class as a USC doctoral
student, thank you for challenging me to disrupt. If I ever truly become what anyone would deem
a successful innovator, it will in part be the result of a seed that you have planted. Nearly three
years and an entire dissertation later, and I’m still playing “lucky duck”!
To Dr. Lawrence O. Picus, thank you so much for serving on my dissertation committee.
Your unique blend of wit and wisdom proved both encouraging and essential from my proposal
defense to my dissertation defense. Also, you may not have known it before now, but you even
managed to get a reluctant liberal arts academic like me to... somewhat appreciate economics. If
you tell anyone this, however, I may deny it!
Finally, to my phenomenal cohort members -- wow!! What a cornerstone of support you
have been! The USC Rossier School of Education got it 100% correct when they elected to
establish a cohort model, and God got it 100% right when he elected to place me in with you all!
Tammy Stevens and JP Alferos, you have been two of my special blessings along this journey.
From the bottom of my heart, thank you!

CHANGEMAKERS 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Introduction 8
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 8
Background of the Problem 9
Importance of Addressing Problem 11
Organizational Context and Mission 12
Description of Stakeholder Groups 13
Stakeholder Group of Study 15
Organizational Performance Goals 17
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 17
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 18
Definition of Terms 19
Organization of the Study 21

Chapter Two: Review of Relevant Literature 22
Introduction and Research Themes 23
Review of Relevant Literature 23
Knowledge, Motivational, and Organizational Influences 45
Knowledge and Motivational Implications 46
Organizational Implications 55

Chapter Three: Methodology 59
Introduction 59
Conceptual Framework 60
Assessment of Performance Influences 63
Sampling 68
Data Collection 70
Data Analysis 73
Credibility and Trustworthiness of the Data 74
Role of the Lead Investigator 75
Limitations and Delimitations 76
Summary 78

Chapter Four: Results and Findings 79
Introduction 79
Summary of Data Collection Strategies 80
Participating Stakeholders 81
Validation Criteria 82
Findings 83
Research Question One 86
CHANGEMAKERS 5
Research Question Two 101
Summary 107

Chapter 5: Recommendations 110
Introduction 110
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 110
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 119
Delimitations and Limitations of the Study 136
Future Research 137
Conclusion 138

References 140

Appendices 152
Appendix A: Interview Invitation and Consent Form 152
Appendix B: Interview Protocol and Questions 155
Appendix C: CtS Symposium Post-Assessment and Evaluation Survey 157
Appendix D: Supportive School Visit Qualitative Questionnaire 161
Appendix E: Supportive School Visit Follow-Up Survey 162

CHANGEMAKERS 6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Organizational Stakeholder Performance Goals 17
Table 2. Assumed Knowledge and Motivational Influences 54
Table 3. Assumed Organizational Influences 58
Table 4. Assumed Knowledge Influences and Assessment Measures 64
Table 5. Assumed Motivational Influences and Assessment Measures 66
Table 6. Assumed Organizational Influences and Assessment Measures 67
Table 7. Stakeholder Participants 82
Table 8. KMO Validation Criteria 83
Table 9. Research Themes and Correlating KMO Influences 84
Table 10. Principles of Changemaking and Best Practices of Service-Learning 87
Table 11. Assumed Influence Validation Results 108
Table 12. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 112
Table 13. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 115
Table 14. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 116
Table 15. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 122
Table 16. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 124
Table 17. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 126
Table 18. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 130
Table 19. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 132
Table 20. Yearly Data Analysis Reporting Methods 134

CHANGEMAKERS 7
ABSTRACT
While researchers agree that service-learning can be a substantial academic and socio-emotional
benefit to students, scholars and practitioners also agree on at least one major caveat: the yielded
benefits of service-learning activities are largely dependent upon the quality and effectiveness of
the programs and projects through which they are conducted. Literature reviewed in this study
revealed that service-learning experiences are not only optimized, but are also positioned to
boost college, career, and civic readiness, when they empower student voice, prioritize student
choice, and incorporate student talents and skills. Key components of social innovation, social
entrepreneurship, and particularly a concept entitled changemaking, align with mobilizing
choice, talents, and skills to better the human experience. Thus, the purpose of this study was to
determine what knowledge, motivational, and organizational (KMO) influences could support or
hinder high school educators’ optimal facilitation of quality, socially innovative service-learning
experiences. This study conducted a qualitative methodological analysis through document
analysis and interviews administered within a Maryland K-12 public school district. Participants
included eight high school Specialty Program Educators (SPEs) who influence both
programmatic and curricular implementation of service-learning projects facilitated with
students. Data were coded and categorized, resulting in the validation of declarative knowledge,
procedural knowledge, and organizational influences. Results allowed the researcher to provide
evidence-based recommendations to address knowledge and organizational needs that SPEs need
to facilitate quality, socially innovative service-learning projects. Research and
recommendations presented may help K-12 district leaders determine how to best support
educators in facilitating and optimizing student benefits from service experiences.

CHANGEMAKERS 8
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
While researchers agree that service-learning can be a substantial academic and socio-
emotional benefit to students (Deba, 2014; Hart, Donnely, Youniss & Atkins, 2014; Wilson,
2011), scholars and practitioners also agree on at least one major caveat: the benefits that
service-learning activities yield are largely dependent upon the quality and effectiveness of the
programs and projects through which they are conducted (Ohn & Wade, 2009; Zaff & Lerner,
2010). Moreover, programs that are not meticulously designed to ensure that service-learning is
effectively used as a meaningful instructional tool that empowers student voice and fosters
community growth can actually decrease the potential for youth and young adult civic
engagement (Clabaugh, 1999; Helms, 2013). This potential decrease in engagement is a stark
contrast to the transformational effect that service-learning proponents claim the strategy stands
to produce amongst participants (Zaff & Lerner, 2010).
As relevant literature also presents a correlation between mandatory service-learning
requirements and a diminished service-learning experience over time (Clabaugh, 1999; Helms,
2013), K-12 school districts in states with such mandatory service-learning requirements must be
exceptionally vigilant about inciting student engagement and facilitating quality service
experiences within their service-learning programs. Wade County Public Schools (WCPS), a
pseudonym for a Maryland K-12 school district with a state mandated service-learning program,
has an implementation system that, according to relevant literature and the Maryland State
Department of Education (MSDE) recommendations, is not entirely conducive of facilitating
quality service-learning experiences, (MSDE, 2017; Ohn & Wade, 2009; Zaff & Lerner, 2010).
WCPS has a service-learning program design that incorporates pre-structured service-learning
experiences into grade-level and course curriculum. While this curriculum-embedded system
CHANGEMAKERS 9
does theoretically ensure that all students within WCPS meet service-learning graduation
requirements mandated by MSDE, it has also fostered misguided organizational contentment and
widespread belief that the district service-learning program can manage itself. By result, WCPS
has not provided consistent professional development to ensure that educators have the tools to
facilitate meaningful service-learning projects; its project tracking system does not consistently
hold teachers and students accountable for completing quality service-learning projects; and it
does not support or recognize student engagement in independent, student-driven service
projects. Thus, in this district, which could already be at a disadvantage based upon its mandated
status (Clabaugh, 1999; Helms, 2013), there is minimal pressure and support for educators or
students to engage in a quality service-learning experiences, particularly those that encourage the
students to mobilize their personal passions and talents to affect change in their communities.
Background of the Problem

In response to critics of American individualism, or the notion that pursuing self-interest
intuitively contributes to the common interest (Grabb, Baer, & Curtis, 1999), and its potential to
disrupt civic responsibility and engagement within a democratic society (Barber, 1992; Bellah,
Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler & Tipton, 1985), a series of legislation was passed in the early 1990’s
to support the implementation of service-learning programs in K-12 and postsecondary schools.
The purpose of these programs was to instill a sense of community and civic engagement into the
youth of America (Kraft, 1996). This legislation, which included the 1990 National and
Community Service Act and the National Service Trust Act of 1993, was influenced by the
widespread support of then Presidential candidate George H. W. Bush’s 1987 Points of Light
Campaign, and the hundreds of school systems and colleges across the nation who began
designing and advocating for service-learning programs throughout the 1980s (Kraft, 1996). At
CHANGEMAKERS 10
the core of this increased interest in service-learning at local, state, and national levels was a
decline in volunteerism on college campuses (Astin, 1998). The movement was also bolstered
by research that supported community service as the key to bridging the gap between the
individualistic sense of self and the sought-after sense of community, arguably needed to
increase civic responsibility and promote participation in the democratic process (Barber, 1992;
Bellah et.al., 1985; Tocqueville, 1969).
A pioneer in the service-learning field, the state of Maryland partnered with the Maryland
Student Service Alliance (MSSA) in 1998 in effort to design and implement creative avenues for
educators and students to serve their local communities through curricular inclusion and
community partnerships (MSDE, 2003). The establishment of this partnership yielded
commendable results, such as the 1995 production of Maryland’s Best Practices: An
Improvement for School-Based Service-learning in Maryland, which ultimately influenced the
2008 National K-12 Service-learning Quality Practice. The partnership also fostered the
development of a solid infrastructure, which positioned district-level service-learning
representatives in all its 24 local educational agencies (LEAs) and provided opportunities for
teachers to become “Service-Learning Fellows”, or master teachers and service-learning
representatives within their districts. Moreover, the resulting initiative sought to engage students
through the establishment of a Service Stars and Rising Service Stars distinction to honor high
school and middle school students, respectively, who engaged in significant amounts of service-
learning (MSDE, 2003). Still, the partnership between MSSA and the Maryland State
Department of Education did produce one result that sparked widespread criticism: the 1992
adoption of a statewide mandate that would, by 1997, require all students from kindergarten to
12th grade to earn 75 hours of service-learning credits before graduating high school. This
CHANGEMAKERS 11
decree received much resistance from LEAs and student organizations, and it was followed by
several attempts to overturn the mandate between 1993 and 1997.
As these attempts were unsuccessful, Maryland districts were required to design local
service-learning programs, and many, including WCPS, chose to embed the required hours into
their curriculum, rather than having to mobilize resources to track and manage student
engagement in independent, student-selected service opportunities. This method, though
possibly more manageable for LEAs who were responding cautiously to a new state mandate,
has been criticized by proponents of service-learning. These proponents argue that school-based
service-learning should foster student voice and empower them to shape their service
experiences according to their passions and skills, an approach which has the most potential to
incite empathy and long-term community engagement (Deba, 2014; Hart et al., 2014; Ohn &
Wade, 2009; Wilson, 2011; Zaff & Lerner, 2010). Moreover, proponents criticized the statewide
graduation requirement itself, asserting that such mandates create “Involuntary Volunteerism”, a
phrase coined by Helms (2003) that characterizes mandatory service-learning as forced and
counterproductive. Other critics concurred that the mandates could counter some of the benefits
of service-learning, arguing that as more students and educators view service as an obligation,
the more clouded the vision of service-learning as a positive tool to bolster community
awareness and civic engagement stands to become (Clabaugh, 1999; Helms, 2013). This history
and interwoven research, has several implications for the design and current effectiveness for the
service-learning program implementation of Wade County Public Schools.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
It is imperative that WCPS address the lack accountability for quality service-learning
experiences as well as the lack of support for educators to facilitate quality, student-driven
CHANGEMAKERS 12
service projects not only because of necessary alignment to MSDE requirements, but also
because of the stakes and opportunities that such experiences present for students. Research,
such as the Montgomery College – Takoma Park/Montgomery County Public Schools Research
Collaborative (2011), shows a direct correlation between student engagement in service-learning
and increased school attendance and overall academic engagement. The study also evidences a
connection between student engagement in service-learning and a decrease in suspension and
dropout rates. Research on college student participation in service-learning has produced
comparable results, and has also evidenced an added bonus of facilitating student exposure to
diverse global and cultural perspectives; understanding of their personal responsibility in the
world beyond academics; and development of empathy and compassion for humanity (Astin,
Vogelgesang, Ikeda & Yee, 2000; Wilson, 2011). If WCPS continues to implement a service-
learning program design that does not adequately provide the support and accountability that its
stakeholders need, the district risks curtailing the programmatic positives associated with
service-learning and, instead, increases the likelihood of dissatisfactory learning experiences and
long-term student apathy toward volunteerism and community service.
Organizational Context and Mission
Wade County Public Schools (WCPS) is one of the largest public school systems in the
state of Maryland (WCPS, 2015). Its mission is encapsulated by its slogan: “Erasing
Achievement and Opportunity Gaps” (WCPS, 2015), and the district has a wealth of programs
positioned to support the attainment of this goal. The WCPS Office of service-learning (OSL)
provides one such program as it aims to equip teachers and students with the means to utilize
service-learning as a tool to incite personal growth, scholarly understanding, and community
engagement. The program has, more recently, evolved its mission to include “fostering social
CHANGEMAKERS 13
entrepreneurship and empowering students to be changemakers through service to the global
community” (WCPS, 2015). The addition of the terms social entrepreneurship, which relates to
creating social value through developing and applying creative solutions (Peredo & McClean,
2006), and changemaker, or one who mobilizes passions, skills and resources to incite change
(Ashoka, 2016), to the mission statement implies that the department is shifting its focus to
cultivate and acknowledge student engagement in independent projects that extend beyond
classroom instruction. However, the current WCPS service-learning programmatic design and
implementation does not align with the shift in the OSL mission statement. Based upon Code of
Maryland Regulation (COMAR) 13A.03.02.06, the WCPS service-learning program is designed
to uphold the 75-hour service-learning graduation requirement by ensuring that all service-
learning initiatives are either embedded into specific courses or developed through prescribed
school-wide, interdisciplinary projects at the elementary and middle school levels. According the
OSL website, student hours, which are tracked and reported by individual teachers, are delegated
by grade level. At present, with the exception of projects completed by high school transfer
students, any independent service-learning projects that students complete are not counted
toward the 75-hour graduation requirement (WCPS, 2015), nor are they honored or recognized
through OSL.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
According to MSDE (2017), a quality service-learning program has several stakeholders
that are critical to its implementation. In WCPS, those stakeholder groups are as follows:

CHANGEMAKERS 14
Students
Students are key consumers of the learning components of the WCPS service-learning
program. They are also the vessel through which service projects are completed for the benefit
of the local to global community.
Educators
Another group essential to the WCPS service-learning program is school-based
educators. For the service-learning program to be successful, teachers and program facilitators
should understand and effectively teach the three phases of service-learning, which include
preparation, action, and reflection, and three types of actionable service, which include direct
service, indirect service, and advocacy (MSDE, 2003). They should also effectively facilitate
student engagement with projects within their classrooms and within the local to global
community. Educators in WCPS predominantly facilitate service-learning in three arenas:
● Curriculum-based classroom projects
● Program facilitated projects and co-curricular experiences
● Club sponsored activities and experiences
School-Based Administrators
Akin to the teachers, school-based administrators also have a major influence over the
students within their buildings. Their role in helping shift attitudes regarding service-learning is
twofold: they must foster a school culture and environment that encourages service and
community development, and they must hold teachers accountable for facilitating robust
instruction in service-learning lessons.

CHANGEMAKERS 15

District-Level Administrators
This group of stakeholders holds the power to change curriculum, policies, and funding
allocation for service-learning. Their role in transforming the service-learning landscape from
one of mandate to one of choice and incentive is clear:
● Compose and approve quality curriculum;
● Develop and approve unique ways to honor students for service beyond the
classroom as well as an avenue to track the service-learning engagement of all
students; and
● Hold all teachers in identified schools and content areas accountable for
completing required service-learning projects, while encouraging all others to
incorporate service within their lessons.
Community Partners and Organizations
The final group of stakeholders that are essential to facilitating a quality WCPS service-
learning program is community partners. Their organizations benefit from the contributions of
the students and staff to their causes, and their engagement is a key factor in creating
opportunities for students to serve their communities. Moreover, their vocal and visible support
is integral in soliciting educator and district-level support for robust service-learning experiences.
Stakeholder Group for This Study
As school-based educators have the most direct influence on the design and facilitation of
student service-learning projects within classroom instruction, the perspectives and experiences
of this stakeholder group are explored throughout this study. More specifically, a subset of
school-based educators, Specialty Program Educators (SPEs) have been selected for their unique
CHANGEMAKERS 16
professional role that allows them to directly affect curriculum design, student learning
experiences, and classroom instruction. The nature of the SPE role also creates a potential for an
influence on school-wide programming and culture.
High School Specialty Program Educators
Within the WCPS school district, A Specialty is defined as an educational and career-
based program with a specified theme around which curriculum, co-curricular activities, and
college and career connections are developed (WCPS, 2015). The district boasts Specialty
programs at all its high schools that are uniquely themed based upon surrounding community
resources and learning opportunities. For example, one of the high schools is in a rural, farming
area, so it has an Agriculture and Technology theme; another is surrounded by a hub of
technological and media research facilities, so its theme is Social Enterprise. Specialty Program
Educators (SPEs) are defined as educators who coordinate programming and partnerships to
support the Specialty program, instruct courses within the Specialty program, or serve in both
roles. The Specialty programs of WCPS were selected as a focal point for this initial qualitative
study because of their programmatic, instructional, and school wide influence. While the core
leadership and enrollment in Specialty program courses are small enough to yield a purposeful
sample for ideal qualitative data collection, the goal of each program to provide meaningful,
thematic post-secondary readiness experiences for the entire school community of each high
school has implications for wide-ranging influence upon future socially innovative service-
learning experiences. Specific performance goals for this stakeholder group are detailed in Table
1.

CHANGEMAKERS 17
Table 1
Organizational Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
Mission of WCPS (WCPS, 2015): “Erasing Achievement and Opportunity Gaps” through
rigorous curriculum, diversified academic and co-curricular programming, and equitable access
to exposure and opportunity for all students.

Vision of the WCPS Office of service-learning (WCPS, 2015): Students in Wade County
Public Schools organize and engage in robust service-learning experiences that – through
authentic, meaningful preparation, action, and reflection – prepare them to be active citizens and
contributors to the global community.

Mission of the WCPS Office of Service-learning (WCPS, 2015): Service-learning programs in
Wade County Public Schools are cohesive, collaborative initiatives aimed to support student
college, career, and civic readiness by:

● exposing students to diverse cultural and scholarly experiences.
● prioritizing student voice, choice, and ownership within service experiences.
● fostering social entrepreneurship and empowering students to be changemakers through
service to the global community.
● facilitating a district-wide culture of service that emphasizes global citizenship and
community development.

Organizational Performance Goal (Office of Service-Learning)
By the end of the 2019-2020 academic year, 100% of graduating high school students will have
earned 75 hours of service-learning credit by engaging in quality service projects, as determined
by MSDE service-learning standards.
Specialty Program Educator Performance Goal
By June 2020, 100% of Specialty Program Educators at all high schools in WCPS will have
facilitated at least one independent or program-led service project that is student-driven and
integrates changemaking and the components of quality service-learning.

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to determine what knowledge, motivational, and
organizational (KMO) influences (Clark & Estes, 2008) could support or hinder high school
CHANGEMAKERS 18
educators’ optimal facilitation of quality, socially innovative service-learning experiences.
Literature reviewed in this study revealed that service-learning experiences are not only
optimized, but also boost college, career, and civic readiness, when they empower student voice,
prioritize student choice, and incorporate student talents and skills. Key components of social
innovation, social entrepreneurship, and particularly a concept entitled changemaking, align with
mobilizing choice, talents, and skills to better the human experience. Thus, this study aimed to
explore the tools and KMO components that educators who practice service-learning need to
integrate the concept of changemaking into the structure of the service experiences they provide
for students. Throughout the study, the phrase “socially innovative” is used as a descriptor for
the principles of social entrepreneurship and changemaking that the WCPS Office of service-
learning aims to integrate within the district service-learning programmatic design.
The focal points of the study will be guided by the following research questions:
1. What are high school Specialty Program Educators’ levels of knowledge and
motivation in relation to successfully facilitating quality, socially innovative service-
learning projects?
2. How do high school Specialty Program Educators’ knowledge and motivation interact
with the organizational support of the district to shape educators’ ability to facilitate
quality, socially innovative service-learning projects?
3. What are the recommendations and/or proposed solutions for how these knowledge,
motivational, and organizational needs might be addressed?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The framework and structure of this study was shaped by the research and KMO model
developed by Clark and Estes (2008). The model asserts that the process of organizational
CHANGEMAKERS 19
change is directly influenced by the systemic analysis and solution-oriented response to the
knowledge, skills, motivation, and allocation of resources among stakeholders within an
organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Based upon this model, the preliminary research and
literature review conducted within the study aimed to ascertain the implications of the following
phenomena onto the learning experiences and college and career readiness of students in grades
9 through 12:
1. High school program and teacher facilitated service projects that meet research-based
standards of quality service-learning and emphasize the mobilization of student voice,
choice, passions, and skills within their service experiences.
2. Independent student service-learning projects that integrate student voice, choice,
passions, and skills within their service experiences.
3. Service-learning experiences that integrate the principles of social innovation, social
entrepreneurship, also referred to as changemaking.
The conceptual framework, and subsequent data collection and analysis conducted, within the
study aimed to determine the support high school educators in WCPS will need to navigate
knowledge, motivational, and organizational barriers (Clark & Estes, 2008) to integrating
changemaking into service experiences and facilitating opportunities for independent service-
learning projects.
Definition of Terms
Acronyms and Jargon in Education
Akin to many professional fields, education has several acronyms and professional jargon
used to reference policies, initiatives, and concepts applicable to its professional field. The
CHANGEMAKERS 20
following section explains the educational terms and acronyms that are utilized throughout the
study:
CCR. College and Career Readiness.
Changemaking. An application of social innovation and social entrepreneurship which is
characterized by people who are “intentional about solving a social or environmental
problem, motivated to act and creative” (Ashoka, 2016). This term was coined by the
Ashoka non-profit, which created a changemaking model that triangulates passions,
skills, and resources to creatively address a social issue. Individuals who engage in such
processes are deemed changemakers. Given the universality of the changemaking
definition and model, the term will be used within this study to encapsulate components
of social innovation as integrated into service-learning experiences.
OSL. Office of Service Learning.
MSDE. Maryland State Department of Service Learning.
Service-learning. An experiential learning strategy that facilitates opportunities for
students to apply what they learn in school and in life to serve and solve real-world
problems within their communities (MSDE, 2017).
Specialty Program. In WCPS, Specialty Programs are educational and career-based
programs with a specified theme around which curriculum and co-curricular activities are
developed (WCPS, 2015). Specialty programs have varying themes at each of the
district’s high schools, and they are determined based upon the unique community
resources in the surrounding areas of each school.
Social Innovation. “innovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal of
meeting a social need” (Mulgan, 2006).
CHANGEMAKERS 21
Social Entrepreneurship. A phenomenon that occurs when a person or group of persons
“aim either exclusively or in some prominent way to create social value of some kind”
and do so through assessing social problem or issues, assessing risk, discovering and
applying creative solutions, and “declining to accept limitations in available resources”
(Peredo & McClean, 2006).
SPE. Specialty Program Educator.
WCPS. Wade County Public Schools.
Organization of the Study
The study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One delineates the problem, the
historical and organizational context of the problem, and the purpose of the study. Chapter Two
reviews relevant literature related to the implications of the service-learning instructional
strategy on college and career readiness. It also explores themes connected to the influence of
independent, student-driven service-learning projects versus mandated, institution-selected
service projects. Finally, Chapter Two offers a research-based venture into the world of social
entrepreneurship, social innovation, and changemaking, and it concludes with a culminating
discussion of how these research themes interact with assumed KMO influences (Clark & Estes,
2008) on educator facilitation of service-learning experiences. Chapter Three discusses the
methodology of the study and outlines data collection and analysis approaches. Chapter Four
reviews and analyzes all data collected and communicates results, while chapter Five provides
evidence-based solutions, recommendations, and an implementation plan to address the
organizational problem of practice.

CHANGEMAKERS 22

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
Exploring the historical, socio-political, and educational influences on the current
challenges in service-learning programming in the state of Maryland and Wade Public Schools
(WCPS), this chapter is organized into four sections. The first section initially provides a
historical understanding of the role service and civic responsibility in the discussion of education
and educational reform in the United States of America. It also provides current definitions of
service-learning; explore the elements that determine a “quality” service-learning project;
provide a legislative context for community service as a national priority in the U.S.; and discuss
the emergence of Maryland as the sole state in the U.S. with a mandated service-learning
graduation requirement. It then discusses the educational implications of this statewide mandate
and contrasts them with literature that emphasizes the educational implications of student-driven,
independent service projects. The next section provides a historical and socio-political context
for modern College and Career Readiness (CCR) platform. It also explores literature that
emphasizes service-learning as an avenue for Civic Readiness and as an instructional tool that
can be used to bolster CCR among student participants. The third section discusses the
definitions and components of social innovation, social entrepreneurship, and changemaking. It
ultimately explores literature that assesses their potential to be incorporated into service-learning
programming in order to emphasize student voice, choice, ownership, and lifelong active
citizenry. Based upon the implications of the literature, the culminating section discusses the
knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors that could influence educator integration of
social entrepreneurship into quality service-learning programming and instruction in order to
bolster CCR.
CHANGEMAKERS 23
As the literature within these sections is explored, the discussion is thematically guided
by recurring motifs discovered within the research process. The five themes that guide the
discussion are as follows:
1. The advantage of service-learning to historical and modern aims of College, Career, and
Civic Readiness for students across the United States in supporting community
consciousness well-roundedness and in student development;
2. the backfiring of service-learning mandates, which aimed to incite a lifelong youth
commitment to service, but has arguably had the opposite effect;
3. the importance of emphasizing student voice, choice, and ownership when implementing
service projects to maximize student engagement;
4. the potential of integrating social innovation and social entrepreneurship, or
changemaking, into service-learning programmatic structure as an avenue to channel
such student engagement; and
5. the implications of secondary educators’, specifically Specialty Program Educators’
(SPEs), knowledge, motivation, and organizational support on the facilitation of these
structures within WCPS.
What is Service-learning?
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), an arm of AmeriCorps,
has defined service-learning as a hands-on educational experience that facilitates learning
through discovering and meeting community needs; curricular connections; real-word contexts;
and active reflection (Spring, Grimm & Dietz, 2008). The National and Community Service Act
of 1990 captured the concept as “a method” during which participants “learn and develop
through active participation in thoughtfully organized service experiences that meet actual
CHANGEMAKERS 24
community needs” (Leader, 1991, p. 72). The Act goes on to identify reflection through
thinking, talking, or writing; the application of skills acquired to independent community
projects; and the “development of a sense of caring for others, good citizenship, and civic
responsibility” (p. 72). In essence, service-learning provides an authentic aspect to educational
programming by allowing participants to mobilize what they learn in the classroom toward
meeting a need within their global community. Evidence of connections between classroom and
community learning has had a historical presence in educational research and practice
(McConnell, 1947; Remmers & Gage, 1949; Trow, 1961; Warren, 2001) that has helped to shape
the modern concept of service-learning and widely accepted methods of its implementation
within curriculum, instruction, and programming (Kraft, 1996; Megyeri 1997; Saltmarsh, 2005;
Warren, 2001).
Historical Contexts of Service and Civic Responsibility in U.S. Education
Long before service-learning became a standard term in public education, researchers and
leaders in the field valued the emphasis of civic responsibility and community service within
educational programming (Ehrlich, 2000; Trow, 1961; Warren, 2001). In fact, the role of
education in teaching civic responsibility to pupils has been evident in the United States since the
Puritans dominated the U.S. colonial sphere in the 1600s. Though not met without careful
concern for prioritizing community over individuality, Puritan leadership agreed that it was the
responsibility of the educational program to somehow instill the importance of civic engagement
and moral servitude within students (Warren, 2001). The connection of civic responsibility and
U.S. education continued into the American Revolutionary period, where founding fathers,
including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, grappled with the notion of gatekeeping in
American education. While many agreed that education should emphasize civic responsibility,
CHANGEMAKERS 25
they still struggled with whom, amidst a fledgling society with a growing population of
immigrants, should benefit from this education (Warren, 2001). By the 19th century, this was no
longer a debate: public education would be available across the country and it would emphasize
civic engagement (Tyack & Hansot, 1982). According to Warren (2001), these newly established
institutions of public education were primarily purposed to “harmonize a diverse people, soften
their antagonisms, and equip them to function as citizens in a changing society” (p. 245). Other
significant topics such as reading, writing, and, basic mathematics and economics were also
primary subjects, but many educational leaders and politicians such as Horace Mann (1870)
argued that the exploration of these subjects were primarily purposed to ensure that all
individuals were equipped with the tools necessary to make informed decisions within the civic
and democratic process. Mann argued that existence of a safe, thriving nation was dependent
upon not only the avoidance of “ignorant voters” (1870, p. 843), but also educational
programming with complex lessons that “probe the character and wisdom of potential leaders,
analyze social problems, and weigh the effects of policies on the present and future generations”
(Warren, 2001, p. 246). Mann (1870) went on to argue that social and civic status should be
determined not by wealth or class, but it should be determined by the frequency and quality of a
person’s acts of public service. Though some of his positions were considered hyperbole by his
contemporaries, other pioneers in education, such as Henry Barnard and John Dewey, endorsed
his beliefs on the necessity of education as an avenue to emphasize civic responsibility and
service (Erlich, 2000; Lannie, 1974; Warren 1974).
As the late 19th and early 20th century brought the age of industrialism, two world wars,
and a country that was well over a century beyond its infancy, the focus of the public education
system began to shift beyond the preservation of democracy and toward the scholarly
CHANGEMAKERS 26
advancement of a rapidly growing nation (Trow, 1961). The spirit of civic responsibility and
community service was still present in public education, however it began to take a backseat to a
focus on core curriculum areas, such as literacy, mathematics, and science, that educators and
politicians alike felt would make U.S. students, and ultimately the nation, more competitive with
citizens and countries around the world (Bracey, 1996; Trow, 1961). Still, educational
progressives, such as John Dewey and G. Stanley Hall, published works that stressed the
importance of “learning by doing” (Trow, 1961, p. 149); instruction that focused more on the
learner than the subject; and instructional programming that supported democracy and
citizenship (Cremlin,1955; Trow, 1961). The effect of the prevailing views of educational and
political figures who supported a focus on core subjects in order to progress the academic
prowess of the United States and educational progressives and researchers who supported
applied learning and authentic educational experiences that immerse students into their
communities, resulted in an public educational system in which service-based learning and civic
engagement was a subset of academia, but no longer its driving force (Skinner, 1984; Trow,
1961).
Though the prioritization of core subjects over civic and service-based education would
thrive in the United States in the 40 years following WWII, the late 1980’s and early 1990’s
would bring a revolutionary refocusing on the importance of utilizing educational programming
as a vehicle to promote community values and awareness among students (Barber, 1992; Bellah,
et al., 1985; Grabb, Baer, & Curtis, 1999). As detailed in Chapter One, this tone shift among
educational researchers was an amalgamated response to both the rise of American individualism
the political climate created by President George H. W. Bush, whose “Points of Light” campaign
supported a reigniting of volunteerism and community service across the United States (Kraft,
CHANGEMAKERS 27
1996). The legislation, and subsequent government funding, that followed President Bush’s
political prioritization of community and civic engagement led to the birth of service-learning as
an instructional strategy that became prevalent in schools across the country (Astin, 1998; Kraft,
1996; Leader, 1991).
Current Definitions, Standards, and Guidelines for Service-Learning
As service-learning became a more prevalent and multifaceted instructional strategy
within the U.S. educational system, so did the variances in its definition and standards of
implementation. While a wealth of financial and human resources were catapulted toward
national and state service-learning opportunities and curricular integration in the 1990’s, there
was still a significant variance in the definitions, standards, and implementation procedures of
service-learning throughout the K-12 public education system (Kraft, 1996; Megyeri 1997).
Ironically, as funding for service-learning think tanks and educational programming began to
decrease with the establishment of the shifting political and educational platforms of the 2000s,
including President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind and President Barack Obama’s
Race to the Top, modern definitions and standards for service-learning became more universally
accepted (Astin et al., 2000; Billig, 2000; Howe, Coleman, Hamshaw, & Westdijk, 2014;
Saltmarsh, 2005).
Definitions and Methods of Implementation. The National Youth Leadership Council
(NYLC), a highly resourced organization in the field of service-learning, defines the concept as
“an approach to teaching and learning in which students use academic knowledge and skills to
address genuine community needs” (2016, Para. 1). The organization goes on to assert that it
works best as a multi-layered educational process that is geared toward meeting specific
community needs and curricular goals (NYLC, 2016). The Corporation for National and
CHANGEMAKERS 28
Community Service, another highly regarded service-learning repository, defines service-
learning as “curriculum-based community service that integrates classroom instruction with
community service activities” (Spring et al., 2008, p. 13). The organization also acknowledges
multiple acceptable avenues through which service-learning can be practiced, both within and
beyond instruction. These avenues include: curriculum-infused service-learning that is integrated
into an academic course; co-curricular activities that allow students to direct their service
experiences based upon their mastery of course concepts and their personal passions; and
independent service activities during which students, still drawing from concepts they learn in
school seek to serve their communities and document their service through active preparation,
action, critical thinking, and reflection (Spring, Grimm, & Dietz, 2008). Another widely
regarded definition of service-learning has been established by the Maryland State Department of
Education (MSDE), which serves as the K-12 public education authority in a state that
recognized as a pioneer in service-learning since the early 1990’s (Megyeri, 1997). MSDE
defines service-learning as an instructional strategy that allows students to apply what they learn
in the classroom to real world situations and community issues (2017).
National Standards and Maryland Standards. In addition to the national and state
definitions toward which K-12 public educational organizations widely subscribe, there are also
specific standards toward which institutions and organizations that practice service-learning use
as a guideline and assessment measure for practicing the strategy. MSDE, which initially
established its Maryland 7 Best Practices for Service-Learning standards for high quality
service-learning experiences in 1995 (2017) served as an inspiration for NYLC to establish the
National K-12 Service-Learning Standards for Quality Practice (2008), which now serve as the
CHANGEMAKERS 29
guideline for practicing service-learning in educational programs across the United States.
Figure 1 depicts how the Maryland State standards and National K-12 Standards align.

Figure 1: Alignment of Maryland’s Best 7 Best Practices and NYLC National K-12 Service-Learning Standards for
Quality of Practice. Reprinted from the Maryland State Department of Education (2017).

Critical Issues with Service-learning
While much of the literature exploring service-learning discusses the benefits of the
instructional strategy, particularly when it is correctly implemented (Ohn & Wade, 2009; Zaff &
Lerner, 2010), the literature also reveals significant criticisms surrounding the concept
CHANGEMAKERS 30
(Clabaugh, 1999; Helms 2013). In fact, evidence of professional and research-based critiques of
service-learning have been a prevalent presence since it grew in popularity and socio-political
influence in the United States and in pioneering states, such as Maryland (Megyeri, 1997). The
most prominent critiques of service-learning reveal concern about a lack of merited research
supporting the benefits of the instructional strategy (Furco, 2013), uncertainty about district to
school-based implementation within public school systems, and disdain for service-learning
programs and activities that are presented as a mandate as opposed to service opportunities that
facilitate student voice, choice, and ownership regarding whom and how they serve (Clabaugh,
1999; Helms, 2013).
Criticism of Service-Learning in Maryland
Of all states, Maryland was the only state to pass regulation that mandated students to
complete a number of service-learning hours as a graduation requirement (Education
Commission of the States, 2014; Helms, 2013; Megyeri, 1997). This was celebrated among
several service-learning advocates as a considerable victory for Maryland, but it was not
accomplished without critique (Megyeri, 1997). Pressure placed on the districts by the Maryland
service-learning mandate led to several of the districts implementing programs poised to satisfy
only the bare minimum requirements presented by MSDE (Megyeri, 1997). What is more, as
service-learning, and civic engagement in its entirety, has been widely excluded from the
College and Career Readiness dialogue, there has been a lack of funding and district
accountability to ensure fidelity to service-learning programming for the betterment of students.
Cascading down from the district approach to minimally satisfying state requirements, many
educators support the bare minimum approach to service-learning because it lessens their often
burdensome workload. Additionally, curriculum-embedded projects that are predetermined by
CHANGEMAKERS 31
educators and curriculum writers, and often require an entire class to work on the similar
projects, quench student choice, voice and ownership over their service projects.
This lack of state, district, and school-based support and accountability, coupled with the absence
of student voice and choice, has the potential to lead to what Helms has deemed the phenomenon
of “Involuntary Volunteers” (Helms, 2013).
Mandated Service vs. Student-Driven Service Experiences
Clabaugh (1999) deems mandated service-learning programs as “forced service” that is
“prone to miscarry” (p. 165). He supports this assertion as he warns educators and legislators not
to succumb to the hot-button topic that was service-learning in 1999, but to consider the fact that
when students are forced to engage in blanketed service projects, it has the potential to
undermine any benefits that the service-learning experience had the potential to yield (Clabaugh,
1999). Coining the term “Involuntary Volunteers”, Helms (2013) conducted a study that
evidenced Clabaugh’s conjectures: the Maryland mandate reduced the likelihood of independent
volunteering among high school students. Helm’s study (2013) concluded that while the
Maryland service-learning mandate did contribute to an increased level of student volunteering at
the eighth grade level, it was also correlated with a significantly decreased level of student
volunteering at the 12th grade level. The conclusion of this study contrasts the conjectures of
service-learning proponents who claim that high school student engagement in service-learning
not only exposes students to diverse community issues and in-depth self-reflection about their
role and responsibility to the world around them, but that it also establishes a culture of
volunteering that is likely to remain ingrained in the students into adulthood (Deba, 2014; Hart et
al., 2014; Wilson, 2011). Helms offers a psychological explanation for this evidential
disconnect, asserting that when students are mandated to engage in service-learning, they are
CHANGEMAKERS 32
subject to the effects of what social psychologists deem “reactance theory”, which asserts that
“when individuals are forced to do something, the actual or perceived loss of freedom leads to a
negative reaction” (Brehm, 1996; Helms, 2013, p. 307). Both the assertions of Clabaugh and the
conclusions of Helms suggest that a possible antidote to the “involuntary volunteers” (Helms,
2013) conundrum could include presenting high school students with rational justifications for
service engagement; allowing the students to choose community issues based upon their skills
and passions; and fostering student ability to drive and direct their service experiences by
utilizing creativity and problem-solving skills. Choosing the mandated option, according to
Helms (2013) and Clabaugh (1999), is likely to continue to produce effects opposite of those to
which service-learning advocates aim.
Service-learning and College and Career Readiness
Though the emergence of new curriculum and assessments in recent years has made
“College and Career Readiness” a popular term, postsecondary preparedness has been a pertinent
issue for compulsory and higher education institutions for years. As K-12 education has
continued to adapt to the modern economic, technological, and socio-political climate of an
increasingly global society (ACT, 2015; Carnevale, Smith, & Strohl, 2010), College and Career
Readiness has become a premiere term within the field. More recently arguments for placing
value on “Civic Readiness” have also surfaced within relevant literature (Boyle-Baise et al.,
2006; Carpini, 2000; Flanagan & Levine, 2010). Dialogue yielded from these publications has
uncovered correlative implications of student engagement in service-learning and potential
benefits to postsecondary readiness.

CHANGEMAKERS 33
Historical Contexts of College and Career Readiness
In addition to the implications of the post WWII literature and contemporary arguments
for strengthening educational programming and prowess among American schools and students,
a number of historical events have influenced the College and Career Readiness position
(Garber, 2017; National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; U.S. Department of
Education, 2016). These events have also helped to shift the post-secondary readiness dialogue
away from civic engagement (Conley, 2007; Levy & Murmane, 2006; Rothman, 2012).
Prominently cited among these events is the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik, the first artificial
space satellite in the world (Garber, 2017). Following the launch in 1957, the National Defense
Education Act (NDEA) funded the public education system in effort to increase curricular within
the K-12 system to prepare students to study core subjects – particularly science and math – at a
higher level (Barnes & Slate, 2013). Despite years of national efforts and NDEA funding, the
famous A Nation at Risk report published by National Commission on Excellence in Education
(1983) nearly 30 years after Sputnik raised much alarm regarding the dissatisfactory state of
education. Continuing to seek reform almost 20 years after, the administration of President
George W. Bush developed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002), which reauthorized the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, that focused on ensuring that “achievement gaps”
among all students were eliminated and traditionally underserved populations were given
targeted assessments to ensure their mastery of basic skills (U.S. Department of Education,
2016). This focus on basic skills, however, began to concern educators, researchers, and
policymakers about student mastery of advanced skills, and the term “College and Career
Readiness” was coined as the discussion of academic college preparation began to resurface
(Conley, 2007).
CHANGEMAKERS 34
Modern Manifestations of College and Career Readiness
Birthed out of the most recent initiative aimed to position American students and
educational programs as competitive and elite among all countries throughout the global
community, the term “College and Career Readiness” (CCR) was developed largely because of
evidence-based findings that students were not graduating from K-12 institutions with the
concept mastery and skill necessary to attain optimal success in higher education and vocation
(Conley, 2007; Levy & Murnane, 2004). The rise of technology in the information age caused
workplace needs began to shift from routine processes and skill sets to problem-solving
processes and skill sets (Carnevale et al., 2010; Levy & Murnane, 2004;). Researchers predicted
that by 2018, 62 % of jobs would require post-secondary education versus the 28% that did so in
1973 (Carnevale et al., 2010; Rothman, 2012). U.S. college graduation rates, however, were
only 49% in 2009 (an increase of just 7% since 2000), and ACT findings showed that in 2011,
only 1 in four students were ready to excel in college-level English, Science, Reading, or Math
(ACT, 2015). Moreover, in 2011, nearly 40% of first year college students were required to take
remedial courses, which have been correlated with a lower percentage of overall degree
completion (Rothman, 2012).
It was in response to the educational climate of the early 2000s and the concerning results
yielded from the educational research of the time that birthed the Common Core Curriculum,
which was grounded in CCR and focused more on core subjects and placed less emphasis on
civic development (Conley, 2007; Levy & Murmane, 2006; Rothman, 2012.) A primary
catalyst for this emphasis is rooted in the same issue that shifted U.S. educational foci in the
1950’s: international comparison. In 2011, America ranked 15th out of 20 first-world countries
in the number of adults ages 25–34 with baccalaureate degrees (Rothman, 2012). What is more,
CHANGEMAKERS 35
America was the sole member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
in which the college-completion rate is lower among young adults than older adults
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2011 cited in Rothman, 2012).
America’s ranking among educational systems throughout the global community has had
consistent effects on domestic educational programming from national to local levels (Bracey,
2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2008), and research-based comparisons to students in other
countries has led to an increased focus on literacy, mathematics, science, and engineering.
Critiques of CCR. Representing yet another major shift in the course of American
education, the College and Career Readiness dialogue, and the associated standards and
assessments, did not unfold without critique. Bill Tucker (2011) criticized the dialogue for being
too “farsighted”, asserting that Common Core Standards are “based on an imaginary college
candidate or job applicant” and not focused enough on age-appropriate standards (p. 116).
Barnes & Slate (2013) criticized the CCR dialogue and Common Core State Standards for
adopting what they deemed a “one-size-fits-all” (p. 1) approach -- one that presumed that all
successful students demonstrate college and career readiness in the same manner. Several
organizations and researchers also criticized the CCR dialogue not for what it included, but for
what it excluded: Civic Readiness (MDCCC Connects, 2015).
The Civic Readiness Argument. Literature trends surrounding the meaning, necessity,
and application of civic engagement within service-learning programming and education reveal a
decline in civic engagement among youth and young adults (Boyle-Baise et al., 2006; Carpini,
2000; Flanagan & Levine, 2010). The literature also highlighted a need for civic activities to
become more prominent and consistent within educational programming, and evidence of a
CHANGEMAKERS 36
correlation between quality service-learning programming and an increase in civic engagement
among students (Theiss-morse & Hibbing, 2005).
Akin to the historical manifestations of CCR in America, connections to civic
responsibility have also been prevalent. McConnell (1947) composed a culminating report,
shape by the ideas of five committees of educators at the 1946 Conference on The Education of
Youth in America that issued one of the first reports that highlighted a need to redesign a
universal American educational system that immersed all students in rigorous academic and
vocational studies, regardless of whether they were college or vocationally bound. According to
McConnell and the task force, which he represented, broad exposure to academia and the arts
accompanied by early exposure to vocations of interest were essential to ensuring that the
American Society, just two years removed from WWII, could thrive in a “peacetime economy”
(p. 208).
While this report from McConnell and his Harvard task force has been cited as a
historical precedent for the modern College and Career Readiness argument (Moore et al., 2010;
Remmers & Gage, 1949; Schrum, 2007), he actually places a significant emphasis on active
citizenry and democratic engagement as the foundation of all education. In fact, McConnell and
the task force spend the first half of the report presenting a civically based educational system as
the hallmark of democracy while arguing that the secondary program of study must immerse
students in the social issues of the world around them, citing that "a program of high school
education...must be based...on a clear recognition of the fact that education for a developing
society must grow out of, and be directly relevant to, the characteristics and problems of the
modern world” (p. 206). Only after spending half of the report supporting this central argument
does McConnell and the task force begin to discuss the “scholarly pursuits” of literacy, math,
CHANGEMAKERS 37
science, and technology that would ultimately become a foundational historical reference for the
post-secondary readiness argument. Thus, McConnell’s does not merely set a precedent for
College and Career Readiness, but it actually asserts civic readiness as the focal point around
which a College and Career ready educational program must be shaped.
A number of modern researchers and professionals have expressed a similar value on the
importance of civic responsibility as a critical component of postsecondary readiness. Michael X.
Delli Carpini (2000) argues that students have become progressively more disengaged with their
communities and their country between 1970 and 2000. He goes on to assert that a dialogue
about civic engagement and its inclusion within the educational and social media frameworks
must be commenced in order to combat this issue. According to Carpini (2000), contributing
factors to the increasing civic disengagement are: a decrease of trust in fellow citizens (Rahn &
Transue, 1998); a growing disinterest in politics and public affairs (Sax, Astin, Korn, &
Mahoney, 1997); and a growing decrease in the likelihood of young Americans to feel “pride or
obligation in association with American citizenship” (p. 341). In support of the need for the civic
engagement to be more frequently integrated into K-12 education, Uslaner and Brown (2005)
identify volunteerism and democratic participation as dependent upon class and socioeconomic
status. They go on to discuss a correlation between volunteerism and inequality, citing that
marginalized communities are less likely to volunteer or engage civically. As public education is
available to all Americans, regardless of class or color, it is an avenue to establish a foundation
of civic engagement within students from a young age.
Service-learning and Postsecondary Readiness
Dialogue surrounding the importance of civic readiness has presented another significant
component to the College and Career Readiness culture: the implications of service-learning on
CHANGEMAKERS 38
helping to prepare students for success after high school. The research highlights correlations
between participation in quality service-learning experiences during K-12 academic years and
potential benefits to academic performance, civic engagement, and employability within
postsecondary experiences (Andolina, Jenkins, Zukin, & Keeter, 2003; Furco, 2003; Weiler,
Lagoy, Crane, & Rovner, 1998).
Civic Readiness. Subscribing to the primacy principle, which evidences a correlation
between early socialization and lifelong behavioral models, Andolina et al. (2003) suggest that
early exposure and experience with service-learning and civic-related activities can boost
lifelong civic engagement. Findings of their study revealed that while the most influential
indicator of civic engagement is its prevalence within early socialization in the home and
domestic sphere, it is also greatly augmented by volunteering and service-learning activities
within schools. Andolina et al. (2003) report that 75% of high school students within their study
indicated that their schools facilitated their service activities. They also note that only 21%
reported the volunteer work as connected with a graduation requirement. The research team also
assert that “classroom discussions can play a critical role in youth involvement” (p. 278),
insinuating that students are far more likely to continue volunteering if they encouraged to share
their experience with others; this aligns with the MSDE meaningful service component,
reflection. Boyle-Base et al. argue that instead of simply being used as a tool for learning core
content, service-learning is best done when it is fostered as an exploration of civic participation
and community development. By engaging in service projects, students can develop civic
understanding and knowledge of the democratic process while actively establishing their dutiful
role within the global community.
CHANGEMAKERS 39
College Readiness. Akin to civic readiness, the literature supports a correlation between
the student engagement in quality service-learning projects and an increased opportunity for
academic success beyond high school (Furco, 2013; Klute & Billig, 2002; Melchior & Bailis,
2002; Weiler et al., 1998). Additionally, researchers have noted a connection between K-12
student engagement in service-learning and enhanced performance in the core subject foci of the
Common Core curriculum, which is specifically structured to bolster college readiness (Conley,
2007). For instance, Weiler et al. (1998) conducted a quantitative study that explored the
differences in literacy proficiencies among K-12 students in classrooms that engaged in quality
service-learning projects compared to classrooms in which service-learning projects were not
conducted. The study uncovered a substantial difference in the performance of the two groups,
asserting that students who engaged in service-learning experiences outperformed the control
group on state standardized literacy tests and indicated an overall increased mastery of reading,
writing, and language arts application skills (Weiler et al., 1998). Comparable studies uncover
similar results in the Common Core emphasized areas of science (Klute & Billig, 2002) as well
as mathematics (Melchior & Bailis, 2002), indicating that students who engage in quality
service-learning projects could have the potential to perform better in these areas that, according
to recent research, deems students more inclined to perform academically beyond high school. It
is worthy to note, however, that Furco (2013) concludes that more inquiry-based research must
be conducted on this subject in order to support generalizable correlations between student
participation in service-learning and college readiness.
Career Readiness. Comparable to college readiness, the literature supports a correlation
between engaging in meaningful service experiences and a smoother school to workforce
transition (Deba, Jabor, & Buntat, 2014). Deba et al. (2014) suggest a connection between
CHANGEMAKERS 40
student engagement in quality service-learning experiences and their development of the
interpersonal and 21st century skill necessary to thrive in the workplace. The literature also
indicates that employers do value academia, but they ultimately wish to hire and retain students
who have a cross-curricular perspective and an impressive range of 21st century skills. In order
for this expectation to be universally upheld by recent graduates, they must be exposed to applied
learning experiences, both within and beyond the classroom. As researchers and proponents of
CCR embrace this conclusion and encourage educators to shift away from lecture, they
simultaneously encourage colleges to embrace project-based learning and applied project
approaches (Astin et al., 2000; Barr & Tagg, 1995; Wilson, 2011; Zeichner, 2010). Much of
these approaches are based in pedagogical designs that also aid in the high school to
postsecondary transition process (Astin et al., 2000). Highlighting the notable workforce value
offered by applied projects, employers in two studies, one sponsored by the American
Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) and another by the Chronicle of Higher
Education studies reported being more likely, up to 87% in some cases, to hire graduates who
have had experience with applied projects, such as service-learning experiences, a senior
capstone project, or other collaborative integrated learning projects (Chronicle of Higher
Education, 2012; Hart Research Associates 2015). Scholars have also identified a correlation
between participation in applied projects and increased academic performance along with the
development of skills that yield success in the workforce (Knouse, Tanner, & Harris, 1999). The
references to applied projects includes participation in service-learning experiences, which made
potential employees up to 69% more attractive to hiring teams (Hart Research Associates, 2015).
Moreover, the research shows that employers recognize service-learning as a project-based
instructional tool that facilitates both metacognitive growth and reflective practice through
CHANGEMAKERS 41
participation in acts of service (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2012). The instructional strategy
also provides an added bonus of facilitating student exposure to diverse global and cultural
perspectives; understanding of their personal responsibility in the world beyond academics; and
development of empathy and compassion for humanity (Astin, Volgesang, Ikeda & Yee, 2000;
Deba et al., 2014; Wilson, 2011). All of which are skills and concepts that employers indicated
as factors that make prospective employees more attractive (Chronicle of Higher Education
2012; Hart Research Associates, 2015).

Creating Changemakers: Social Innovation, Social Entrepreneurship, and Service-
Learning
Social Innovation
Geoff Mulgan (2006) defines social innovation as “innovative activities and services that
are motivated by the goal of meeting a social need” (p. 146). In a latter publication, Mulgan and
a team of co-authors describes the phenomenon as “new ideas that work to meet pressing unmet
needs and improve people’s lives” (Mulgan, Tucker, Ali, & Sanders, 2007, p. 7). The authors go
on to characterize social innovation as multifaceted, manifesting in movements, organizational
efforts, programmatic aims, and individual pursuits. The team also elucidates social innovation
by ascribing it three different dimensions: combinations of extant components to create new
products or programs; intersections of private, public, and grassroots sectors; and novel
partnerships that become cultural byproducts of such combinations and intersections (Mulgan et
al., 2007). Author Rito Heiscala acknowledges the breadth or social innovation application,
while also pinpointing its distinct qualities: “Social innovations are changes in the cultural,
normative or regulative structures [or classes] of the society which enhance its collective power
resources and improve its economic and social performance (Heiscala, 2007, p. 59). This
CHANGEMAKERS 42
specific focus on improving economic and social performance within a society, according to
Heiscala (2007), is what distinguishes social innovation from other styles of innovation, such as
technological, regulative, or cultural. Pol and Ville (2009) explore varying definitions of social
innovation and classify the term using several conceptualizations. They assert that, according to
relevant literature up to 2009, social innovation is an avenue for institutional change; its focus is
social improvement for the “public good” (p.880); and it can support, but does not aim for fiscal
or market growth. The authors go on to assert that social innovations can often overlap with
business innovations, creating a phenomenon that they deem “bifocal innovations” (Pol & Ville,
2009, p. 878). This extant overlap is often seen in another specialized term related to social
innovation: social entrepreneurship.
Social Entrepreneurship
Though contemporarily deemed a specialized manifestation of social innovation
(Maclean, Harvey & Gordon, 2013), the term social entrepreneurship was first used in 1972 by
British sociologist J.A. Banks, who used it to differentiate between those he deemed “social
engineers”, or entrepreneurs whose ventures had “social implications”, and those he deemed
“social entrepreneurs”, or entrepreneurs who endeavored to use their leadership skills
specifically for social development (Banks, 1972, p. 53). Banks asserted that social
entrepreneurs had the skill sets and the drive to create a “new social order” (p. 1972). Differing
slightly from social innovation, yet still arguably classifiable under its umbrella, social
entrepreneurship focuses on the individual or collective striving to garner resources (which could
be human, political, or fiscal), to address a social concern or create some kind of social value
(Peredo & McClean, 2006). Non-profit and social entrepreneurship pioneer Ashoka describes the
concept as a phenomenon that emphasizes the utilization of empathy, problem-solving, passions,
CHANGEMAKERS 43
talents, and skills in order to mobilize community resources and address social challenges.
Barensden and Gardner (2004) describe social entrepreneurs as individuals who “approach a
problem with entrepreneurial spirit and business acumen” (p. 44). To explain, the authors denote
business entrepreneurs as creators of businesses and social entrepreneurs as creators of change.
Kramer (2005) defines a social entrepreneur as “one who has created and leads an organization,
whether for-profit or not, that is aimed at creating large-scale, lasting, and systemic change
through the introduction of new ideas, methodologies, and changes in attitude” (p. 6). Dees and
Anderson (2003) expound upon this definition by asserting that social entrepreneurship, akin to
social innovation, “is not about generating earned income or even about incremental innovations
in the social sector. It is about innovations that have the potential for major societal impact (p.
46). The researchers also highlight that the phenomenon focuses on “addressing the root causes
of a social problem, reducing particular social needs, and preventing undesirable outcomes”
(Dees & Anderson, 2003, p.46).
Changemaking
Ashoka, a nonprofit that has proliferated social entrepreneurship and coined the term
changemakers to describe social entrepreneurs, defines the concept of changemaking as
“creating innovative solutions to society’s most pressing social problems” (Ashoka, para 1). The
non-profit presents changemaking as an application of social innovation and social
entrepreneurship which is practiced by people who are “intentional about solving a social or
environmental problem, [people who are] motivated to act, and [people who are] creative”
(Ashoka, 2016). The Ashoka non-profit ultimately created a changemaking model that
triangulates passions, skills, and resources to creatively address a social issue. Individuals who
engage in such processes are deemed changemakers. According to William Drayton (2006), the
CHANGEMAKERS 44
term changemaker humanizes the concept of social entrepreneurship, as it focuses on the human,
or citizen, capacity to practice social entrepreneurship. In fact, a core Ashoka phrase “Everyone
a Changemaker,” is utilized for the same purpose: to centralize the macro-concept of social
entrepreneurship and make it accessible for all individuals, regardless of age, socioeconomic
status, country of origin, or any other classification (Ashoka, 2016; Drayton, 2006). Given the
universality of the changemaking definition, model, and human application, the term will be used
within this study to encapsulate components of social innovation and entrepreneurship as
integrated into service-learning experiences.
Implications of Social Innovation Integrations into Student Service Experiences
In addition to highlighting quality service-learning as a tool to increase civic engagement,
research suggests that student engagement in service-learning also has the power to increase the
prevalence of social innovation and social entrepreneurship (Jones, Warner & Kiser, 2012;
Litzky, Godshalk, & Walton-Bongers, 2010). Reciprocally, the integration of the concept of
social innovation into service-learning is also an avenue to make student service experiences
more robust while increasing their ownership over their service activities (Jones et al., 2012).
Emergence as an educational strategy. Despite its inception in the realm of sociology,
the concept of social entrepreneurship is widely researched under the business and higher
education umbrella (Jones et al., 2012). It is also widely supported and championed by non-
profits such as Ashoka, the Schwabb Foundation, and the Kaufmann foundation. Beginning in
the 1990’s prominent institutions of higher education, such as Berkley, Standford, and Columbia,
began offering courses in social entrepreneurship (Brock, Steiner & Kim, 2008). Seeing the
natural connection between social entrepreneurship and service-learning, colleges and
universities began establishing partnerships and integrated approaches between the two
CHANGEMAKERS 45
initiatives in the late 90’s and early 2000’s. As programs began to yield more success for
students and communities, non-profits began to explore avenues to establish social
entrepreneurship programs and experiences at the K-12 educational level (Brock et al., 2008).
One such program is the “Youth Ventures” initiative established by Ashoka. The program, which
emphasizes that a changemaker in youth is a changemaker for life (Ashoka, 2016), utilizes its
“Dream it, Do it” curriculum as a framework to train K-12 educators and help students find the
changemakers within themselves (Ashoka, 2016).
Benefits. Astin et al. (2000) assert that “The single most important factor associated with
a positive service-learning experience appears to be the student’s degree of interest in the subject
matter” (p.5). As Social entrepreneurship emphasizes, and ultimately capitalizes upon, students’
passions as drivers of civic change, it naturally garners student interest (Jones et al., 2012). Jones
et al. (2012) identify service-learning and social entrepreneurship as isolated, yet closely related
entities. They assert that “the two initiatives might complement and support one another’s work”,
commenting that “students and communities would benefit from the potential synergies created
by the two approaches working together” (p. 2). They also highlight the integration of social
entrepreneurship into service-learning as an avenue to bring the educational concept of service-
learning into harmony with the civic sector. Finally, the authors contend that service-learning
and social entrepreneurship initiatives can strengthen one another through emphasizing their
shared focuses on positive impact and community development, while capitalizing on the social
entrepreneurship focus on using individual passions to innovate change (Jones et al., 2012).
Knowledge, Motivational, and Organizational Influences

Aiming to understand what specific supports K-12 educators in WCPS need to facilitate
quality, student-driven service-learning projects, this study utilized a gap analysis framework
CHANGEMAKERS 46
developed by Clark and Estes (2008). The framework emphasizes identifying root causes of
organizational problems in order to develop practical solutions and aid in the achievement of
performance goals. To do this, Clark and Estes outline a gap analysis technique that requires
researchers to examine the knowledge, motivational, and organizational (KMO) factors that
contribute to a problem of practice, citing these three factors as critical to closing performance
gaps. Aligning with this framework and remaining grounded in the purpose of the study, this
section examines the assumed knowledge, motivational, and organizational (KMO) factors that
have contributed the inadequate programmatic structure and facilitation of service-learning in
WCPS. It also discusses these KMO elements as factors that could influence educator integration
of social entrepreneurship into quality, student-driven service-learning experiences.
Knowledge and Motivational Implications
In order to accomplish the performance goal of exposing or engaging students in at least
one quality, student-driven service-learning project that integrates social innovation by the end of
the 2019-2020 academic year, Specialty Program Educators (SPEs) will need to understand the
meaning, function, and role of quality service-learning and changemaking. In essence, they must
develop a sound understanding of what each component is, how it works, how it can be
implemented, and how its practice helps actualize civic engagement and college and career
readiness, particularly when it is student-driven and embedded with opportunities for social
innovation. In addition, they must maintain a healthy motivation to begin and persist through the
workload and resource limitation issues that often accompany the facilitation of independent and
co-curricular learning experiences. As researchers agree that the yielded benefits of service-
learning are often dependent upon educator (and ultimately student) awareness and engagement
before, during, and after the actionable service process (Deba, 2014; Hart et al., 2014; Ohn &
CHANGEMAKERS 47
Wade, 2009; Wilson, 2011; Zaff & Lerner, 2010), this section reviews literature that is relevant
to the knowledge and motivational and influences that could lead educators toward emphasizing
meaningful, student-driven service experiences within their programs and instruction.
Knowledge Types and Influences
A number of researchers assert that systematic improvement is largely dependent upon
stakeholder knowledge, or what Mayer (2011) deems a mental representation of information
form which learners can make inferences. Within the context of organizational structure,
inferences could include what elements comprise the respective organization, initiative, or
project; understanding of how the organization, initiative, or project functions; and awareness of
how stakeholder knowledge can is being developed in order to accomplish organizational goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Rueda (2011) asserts that knowledge development is a key
ingredient to the learning process as it ultimately produces a transformation in the learner and
produces a foundation for the learner to process and classify new experiences. In their revision of
the revered Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956), Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) classify the
components of knowledge development into four knowledge types: declarative (or factual
knowledge); procedural (or functional knowledge); conceptual (or complex, correlative
understanding); and metacognitive knowledge (or awareness about how individual knowledge is
being developed) (Krathwohl, 2002). The grasping and application of all four of these
knowledge types are paramount for WCPS Specialty Program Educators to maximize their
service-learning and changemaking understanding as they prepare to facilitate opportunities for
student engagement in student-driven, socially innovative service projects.
Declarative-procedural knowledge: the purpose and function of service-learning.
Described by Bandura as a “Dual Knowledge System” (2005, p. 9), declarative and procedural
CHANGEMAKERS 48
knowledge can work together to help individuals and teams make decisions and solve problems
(Anderson, 1980; Bandura, 2005). As service-learning provides an avenue for students to address
local to global community issues through civic engagement (Kraft, 1996; Montgomery College
& MCPS, 2011), educators must have a practical handle of these two learning types so that they
can mobilize them to influence their instruction. Additionally, for the purposes of this study and
the ultimate emphasis on quality service-learning, changemaking, and college and career
readiness, educators must have a firm grasp of the meaning of each of these three key concepts
as they begin to make connections regarding their application and benefit to K-12 educational
programming and the students whom it serves.
Conceptual knowledge: the correlation between service-learning, social innovation
and entrepreneurship, and college and career readiness. In addition to basic declarative and
procedural understanding, Clark and Estes (2008) assert that organizational change is influenced
by a complex, conceptual understanding of the key priorities within an organization’s mission
and goals. Krathwohl (2002) describes this type of knowledge as “knowledge of categories,
classifications, principles, generalizations, theories, models, or structures pertinent to a particular
area” (p. 28). The conceptual knowledge framework that Krathwohl outlines is basically the
ability to classify declarative knowledge within the realm of academia and the individualized
learning process. As strengthening college, career, and civic readiness among adolescents is not
only a national need, but also a characteristic result of an effective service-learning program, it is
important for educators to grasp the correlative benefits between the two phenomena. The
attainment of the stakeholder performance goals is also dependent upon educators grasping the
connection between emphasizing social innovation and a more robust, student-driven service
experience for students. Ultimately, SPEs will need to have a conceptual understanding of how
CHANGEMAKERS 49
the emphasis of civic engagement and the integration of changemaking can be intertwined to
maximize the educational impact of service-learning projects and bolster college and career
readiness among students.
Metacognitive knowledge: meaningful reflection. SPEs’ in-depth conceptual
understanding of the potential implications of an integration of quality service-learning and the
concepts of social innovation has the potential to be enhanced by a consistent awareness of how
they are learning and processing. This process is widely known as metacognition. Cognitive
researchers have found evidence that there is a correlation between metacognition and overall
successful cognitive performance (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999; Flavell, 1976; 1979).
Baker (2009) lauds metacognition for the reciprocal effect that it creates within the learning
process, citing that as metacognition improves, learning improves as well. As learning improves,
the potential for improved metacognitive processing increases (Baker, 2009). This deep level of
processing, which, per Schön’s (1983) theories of reflective practice, can be gained and practiced
in part through what active reflection in- and on-action, is a crucial influence to educator
knowledge development and meaningful practice of service-learning in WCPS. In essence, the
more educators reflect on their understanding of the meaning and conceptual intertwining of
service-learning, social innovation, and CCR, the more likely they are to successfully apply these
concepts to the facilitation of quality, socially innovative service experiences.
Motivation: Expectancy-Value Theory
In addition to developing a sound knowledge base, the attainment of WCPS service-
learning stakeholder goals is highly dependent upon educator motivation to grasp and apply
knowledge of service-learning and social innovation to class and school service projects. It is
also dependent upon educators’ ability to engage and persist through mastering and processing
CHANGEMAKERS 50
novel information, determining how to apply this information to their programs or classes, and
reshaping lessons and student experiences in order to align with the novel concepts. As Mayer
(2011) and Rueda (2011) explain, learning produces in change in the learner, and that change is
caused by knowledge development. However, this change is dictated by the learner’s experiences
while developing knowledge. Thus, motivation and depth of engagement are just as crucial as
knowledge development within the learning process (Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). As researchers
have indicated that this level of learning and meaningful engagement is exceptionally difficult to
attain among youth within a mandated service program (Clabaugh, 1999; Helms, 2013), the
literature surrounding the effective implementation of service-learning suggests that SPEs could
overcome motivation obstacles if they are able to understand the universal benefits of facilitating
quality service-learning projects that mindfully create experiences in which student choice,
voice, and ownership is paramount (Ohn & Wade, 2009; Zaff & Lerner, 2010). Thus, this section
reviews literature relevant to expectancy-value theory with a particular focus on intrinsic,
attainment, and utility value.
Expectancy-value theory. Characterized by Wigfield (1994) as “one of the most
important views on the nature of achievement motivation” (p. 2) expectancy-value theory asserts
that an individual’s motivation is tied to their belief that they can accomplish a goal as it
correlates with the individual’s success expectancy and the value that he or she attributes to it
(Eccles, 2006; Wigfield, 1994). Wigfield goes on to comment that as people age, their
expectancy value becomes progressively more negative – implicating that either age and
maturity allow them to make more accurate self-assessments of their probable achievement, or
that the external influences of the school and work environment negatively affect their
expectancy (1994). Eccles (2006) supports this assertion, and he also emphasizes that as people
CHANGEMAKERS 51
age, their desire to accomplish a task as associated with the value they place on the task becomes
increasingly prioritized. These findings imply that the WCPS office of Service-Learning must
consider expectancy-value theory, with a specific focus on value, as motivational influences on
SPEs’ facilitation of quality, socially innovative service projects.
Intrinsic value. In order for students to meaningfully engage in service-learning,
educators must unequivocally understand the value that it presents to their learning, growth, and
success beyond high school. One such value is intrinsic in nature. According to the research, this
internally driven value is far more likely than external factors, such as prizes or awards, to
motivate individuals to complete a task or goal (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003; Shraw & Lehman,
2009). One aspect of internal drive is influenced by interest and the opportunity for choice
(Shraw & Lehman, 2009). Eccles (2006) expounds upon this deduction, adding that intrinsic
value is highest when tasks are meaningful, engaging on a personal level, appropriately
challenging, and driven by curiosity. When these components are effectively combined in a
professional task, individuals are more likely to embrace it and, ultimately, display higher levels
of engagement (Eccles, 2006). Thus, in WCPS it is important for educators to be given voice,
choice, and opportunity for ownership over the way they design service projects and how they
incorporate the elements of social innovation into these projects in order to increase educator
interest in service projects and boost intrinsic value.
Utility value. Another component that is crucial to SPEs’ motivation to design and
facilitate quality, socially innovative service projects is utility value, or what Eccles describes as
the correlation between completing a task and accomplishing short or long-term goals (2006). To
this end, SPEs should be explicitly introduced to the immediate pedagogical benefits and the
post-secondary benefits of engaging in meaningful service-learning and increasing the potential
CHANGEMAKERS 52
for student success beyond high school. Regarding pedagogical benefits, SPEs must understand
how integrating elements of social innovation into quality, student-driven service projects can
help to strengthen their programs, curriculum, or instruction. They must also grasp how this
integration can help propel them toward the attainment of their strategic programmatic,
curricular, or instructional goals as determined by the WCPS district. In essence, the initial
burden of WCPS and the Office of Service-Learning is to establish shared goals between the
facilitation of socially innovative service-learning and SPE programmatic aims.
Once shared goals are established, SPEs must grasp the extended short-term value that
socially innovative service experiences can potentially have for their students. They must
understand the value that colleges and prospective employers place on accepting and hiring well-
rounded individuals who not only excel academically, but who also have a background of
independent and community service endeavors. For instance, two recent studies – one conducted
by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU), in conjunction with Hart
Research Associates, (2015) and the Chronicle of Higher Education (2012) reported employers
being more likely, up to 69% in some cases, to hire recent graduates who have had service-
learning experiences, particularly those that were student-driven and inclusive of the pedagogical
elements of independent applied learning projects. Educators must also be shown evidence of the
practical and problem-solving skill sets that student-driven, socially innovative service projects
provide. Moreover, they must ultimately understand that these skills make their students more
attractive candidates for post-secondary opportunities. These findings suggest that active
engagement with quality service-learning projects, especially when conducted in a student-
driven capacity, could make students more marketable and aligned with collegiate and employer
professional expectations. Akin to an increase in intrinsic motivation, SPE belief that service-
CHANGEMAKERS 53
learning engagement could potentially strengthen preparation for college and the workforce
could serve as a strong motivational influence on educator facilitation of quality service
experiences for students.
Attainment value. In addition to utility value, which emphasizes the short-term
implications of actions, SPEs need to embrace the long-term correlation between facilitating
student engagement in quality, student-driven service projects and increasing student potential to
not only thrive in college and careers, but also to simply be better citizens and people. The
correlative link between engaging in meaningful service and college and career readiness also
aligns closely to the conceptual knowledge of civic readiness, which is a crucial component of
the service-learning mission in WCPS. It also resonates even more with Eccles’s (2006)
description of attainment value, which is classified as the link between tasks and an individual’s
personality, self-identity, and personal preference. In essence, attainment value motivates
stakeholders by helping them to understand how completing a particular task aligns with their
personal development toward what they classify as a “good person.” As the concept of Civic
Readiness is closely tied to being a better citizen and individual, SPEs will also need to subscribe
to the inherent connection between meaningful service experiences and student Civic Readiness.
Beneficial to the stakeholder goal, quality, socially innovative service experiences have the
potential to yield a significant attainment value, as it has been linked to increased levels of
empathy (Wilson, 2011). Research also highlights a connection between service-learning and
strengthened leadership skills, bolstered self-efficacy, increased commitment to moral values,
and a higher likelihood to embrace and understand the cultural models of those from different
upbringings or racial groups (Astin et al., 2000). Hence, akin to intrinsic value, SPEs must access
and embrace the attainment value yielded by quality service experiences so that it may influence
CHANGEMAKERS 54
their buy-in and designation of meaningful, student-driven service projects for their classes and
programs.
Table 2 delineates the assumed knowledge and motivational elements that could
influence whether educators in WCPS will successfully integrate quality, socially innovative
service projects into their programs and lessons.
Table 2
Assumed Knowledge and Motivational Influences
Organizational Performance Goal (Office of service-learning)
By the end of the 2019-2020 academic year, 100% of graduating high school students will have
earned 75 hours of service-learning credit by engaging in quality service projects, as determined
by MSDE service-learning standards.
Specialty Program Educator Performance Goal
By June 2020, 100% of Specialty Program Educators (SPEs) at all 12 high schools in WCPS
will have facilitated at least one independent or program-led service project that is student-
driven and integrates changemaking and the components of quality service-learning.
Assumed Knowledge Influences Related Literature
Declarative Knowledge
SPEs need to know the definition of
service-learning and the key components of
a quality service-learning experience (as
defined by the state educational department
of the district in question)

SPEs need to know the meanings of social
innovation and social entrepreneurship
(changemaking)
Anderson, 1980
Bloom, 1956
Bandura, 2005
Kraft, 1996
Mayer, 2011

Procedural Knowledge
SPEs need to know how to execute the
steps of integrating the principles of
changemaking and effective service-
learning in order to create a quality,
socially innovative service project
Anderson, 1980
Bandura, 2005
Kraft, 1996
Rueda, 2011

Conceptual Knowledge Baker, 2006
Bransford et al., 1999
CHANGEMAKERS 55
SPEs need to know the link between
quality, socially innovative service-learning
projects, increased civic engagement, and
College and Career readiness.
Flavell, 1976

Metacognitive Knowledge
SPEs need to be prompted to reflect upon
how these understandings and applications
to instruction and programming can
augment the student service and learning
experience.
Flavell, 1979
Krathwohl, 2002
Schön, 1983
Assumed Motivational Influences Related Literature
Intrinsic Value
SPEs need to be given the opportunity to
choose how they will integrate quality
service-learning and social innovation into
their programs and instruction.

Clabaugh, 1999
Eccles, 2006
Helms, 2013
Mayer, 2011
Ohn & Wade, 2009
Pintrich, 2003
Shaw & Lehman, 2009
Rueda, 2011
Zaff & Lerner, 2010
Utility Value
SPEs need to understand how integrating
social innovation into service projects can
help propel their programs toward the
attainment of their strategic programmatic,
curricular, or instructional goals as
determined by the district in question.
AACU, 2015
Eccles, 2006
Wigfield, 1994
Attainment Value
SPEs need to understand how
changemaking and quality service-learning
incite civic, college, and career readiness
among students.
Astin et al., 2000
AACU, 2015
Eccles, 2006
Wilson, 2011

Organizational Implications
The third key component to the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model considers
organizational influences on stakeholder performance and subsequent problems of practice.
Similar to the knowledge and motivational influences analysis, this section briefly reviews
CHANGEMAKERS 56
relevant theory and discusses assumed organizational correlations to the stakeholder goal of
educators integrating quality, socially innovative elements into service-learning projects.
Organizational change and culture. In his book, Organizational Culture and
Leadership (2004), Edgar H. Schein emphasizes a strong correlation between understanding
organizational culture and inciting organizational change. He asserts that understanding culture is
the key to understanding why individuals behave and respond to stimuli (novel or ongoing
initiatives, events, practices, etc.) in certain ways. He goes on to claim that if organizational
leaders fail to understand the culture of their employees and organization, desired organizational
change will not be feasible.
Culture, per Schein, can be explained as:
a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of
external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be
considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to
perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (p. 17).
Schein correlates understanding others’ culture with understanding the self, rationalizing the
influence of socialization and experiences on others’ behavior, and determining the influence of
environment on others’ behavior. The latter two assertions describe two classifying concepts
that researchers (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda 2011) have deemed cultural model and
cultural setting.
Cultural model. Rueda (2011) describes the cultural model as an internal barometer that
helps individuals to identify “normal” and rational behaviors and practices (p. 57). Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2001) conclude that these indicators of behavioral normalcy are shaped by early
socialization, personal experiences, and shared practices that are amassed by individuals as they
CHANGEMAKERS 57
progress through life. In essence, the cultural model is the standard and determinant for how
individuals will respond to change and what behaviors, whether within teams or among
leadership, they deem acceptable. One such implication of cultural model that WCPS Office of
Service-learning representatives will have to overcome is educator trust in the longevity of new
initiatives. As politics and legislative funding are often more imposing influencers on public
education than systematic and evaluative developmental research, novel initiatives and
organizational change in education is often reflective of a pendulum swing that is catalyzed by
the most cutting-edge research fads (Slavin, 2002). As there is a dearth of research, in
comparison to the wealth of literature on literacy and mathematics, that correlates benefits of
civic engagement and social innovation with post-secondary readiness (Blakey, Theriot, Cazzell
& Sattler, 2015; Howe et al., 2014), educators in WCPS will not only need to subscribe to the
significance of these concepts, but they will also have to believe that the energy they channel
into this novel initiative will not fall victim to the proverbial pendulum swing.
Cultural setting. As the cultural model reflects the standard and expectation of behavior
within individuals and cultural subsets, the cultural setting reflects the standard and expectation
of behavior as dictated by the environment with which individuals and cultural subsets interact.
As depicted by the cultural model of distrust in novel initiatives amongst WCPS educators,
cultural models can be shaped and influenced by the cultural setting (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2011). According to Rueda (2011), who describes the cultural setting as the “who, what, where,
and why of the routines that shape everyday life” (p. 57), cultural models can also shape the
cultural setting. As educators, akin to most professionals, can view novel initiatives as a threat
their work-life balance and current formula for optimizing performance, it is assumed that WCPS
service-learning representatives will need to populate the cultural setting with consistent
CHANGEMAKERS 58
practices that support educator mastery, emphasize the retention of their professional identity,
and established shared goals in order to maintain the authenticity of their professional purpose
(Moran & Brightman, 2000). The specifics of this anticipated organizational support are detailed
within Table 3.
Table 3
Assumed Organizational Influences
Organizational Performance Goal (Office of service-learning)
By the end of the 2019-2020 academic year, 100% of graduating high school students will have
earned 75 hours of service-learning credit by engaging in quality service projects, as determined
by MSDE service-learning standards.
Specialty Program Educator Performance Goal
By June 2020, 100% of Specialty Program Educators (SPEs) at all 12 high schools in WCPS
will have facilitated at least one independent or program-led service project that is student-
driven and integrates social innovation and the components of quality service-learning.
Assumed Organizational Influences Related Literature
Cultural Model
SPEs need ongoing, supportive leadership from the
Office of Service Learning and WCPS Executive
Team that emphasizes quality, socially innovative
service-learning (changemaking) as a district-wide
priority.

Clark & Estes, 2008
Blakey et al., 2015
Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001
Howe et al., 2014
Moran & Brightman, 2000
Rueda, 2011
Schein, 2004
Slavin, 2002
Cultural Setting
SPEs need ongoing resources from the WCPS
service-learning office and district leadership
throughout the planning and implementation
process.
Clark & Estes, 2008;
Blakey et al., 2015
Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001
Howe et al., 2014
Moran & Brightman, 2000
Rueda, 2011
Schein, 2004
Slavin, 2002

CHANGEMAKERS 59
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
As introduced in Chapter One, this study aimed to explore the academic, civic, and
vocational benefits of emphasizing social innovation within quality service-learning instruction,
implementation, and programmatic structure. The study also aimed to determine what
knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences may support or deter Specialty Program
Educators (SPEs) from integrating quality, student-driven, socially innovative service-related
projects into their programs, curriculum, and instruction. The research conducted throughout the
study was guided by the following questions:
1. What are high school Specialty Program Educators’ (SPEs) levels of knowledge and
motivation in relation to successfully facilitating quality curriculum-based opportunities
and integrating quality, student-driven, socially innovative service-learning projects?
2. How do high school SPEs knowledge and motivation interact with the organizational
support of the district to shape educators’ ability to facilitate quality curriculum-based
service opportunities and quality, student-driven, socially innovative service-learning
projects?
3. What are the recommendations and/or proposed solutions for how these knowledge,
motivational, and organizational needs might be addressed?
These research questions aimed to guide researchers in understanding what educators must
possess, understand, and accept in order to successfully integrate two potentially transformative
concepts. Thus, inquiry guidelines suggested that the primary researcher take a qualitative
approach. The open-ended, descriptive nature of the research questions also implied that a theory
would not be tested and potentially evidenced through a related study as it would be in a
CHANGEMAKERS 60
quantitative study, but that a theory would potentially be discovered through the research
gathered within the study. This suggested inductive reasoning, which is a cornerstone
characteristic of qualitative research. Finally, in line with another key component of qualitative
research, this study utilized a relatively small sample size of eight of the 12 SPEs in WCPS.
This chapter details the methodology that was used to explore the research question and
ultimately achieve the purpose of the study. It commences with a discussion of the conceptual
framework of the study, which is based upon a knowledge, motivational, and organizational gap
analysis approach influenced by the organizational change model published by Clark and Estes
(2008). An overview of this framework is included in Figure 2.
Figure 2: The Gap Analysis Process (Clark & Estes, 2008)

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
Organizational Context
Scholars have proclaimed the conceptual framework as the foundation upon which an
entire research study is built (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Maxwell (2013)
CHANGEMAKERS 61
specifically defines it as a representation of the “ideas and beliefs that you hold about the
phenomena studied” (pp. 39-40) and Anfara and Mertz (2015) classify it as “any empirical or
quasi-empirical theory of social and/ or psychological processes, at a variety of levels (e.g.,
grand, midrange, explanatory), that can be applied to the understanding of phenomena” (p.
xv). Based upon these explanations, the purpose of the conceptual framework is to delineate,
the researcher’s experiential worldview, how the key entities of a study interact in correlation
with the problem of practice and research questions. For the purposes of this study and its
incorporation of the KMO research model (Clark & Estes, 2008), the key entities were SPEs
who have the power to integrate social innovation practices into quality, student-driven
service-learning experiences within their programming and instruction, the WCPS district
leaders who support and oversee such integrations, and the State Department of Education
which regulates how service-learning must be implemented in all public school districts
throughout the state. While these entities have been discussed in isolation, with a specific
focus on the assumed KMO influences, this section will discuss the how all three stakeholder
groups interact to influence educators’ integration of social innovation into service- learning
implementation in WCPS.
The conceptual framework of this project, as illustrated by Figure 3, delineates the
interaction between the service-learning structures in WCPS and their potential contribution to
the integration of social innovation into quality service-learning experiences for students. The
state, which regulates the service-learning graduation requirement for all students in Maryland
(COMAR 13A.03.02.06), also facilitates the integration of College and Career Readiness
(CCR) standards into core courses and experiences in all Maryland school districts. WCPS, a
Maryland school district, integrates Maryland CCR standards into its curriculum and
CHANGEMAKERS 62
emphasizes the elimination of achievement and opportunity gaps as a part of its academic and
organizational culture.

At the WCPS District Level, the Office of service-learning (OSL), is specifically
focused on eliminating passive service projects, or projects that are dictated to students rather
than driven and directed by students. According to its mission statement (WCPS, 2015), OSL is
also committed to integrating social innovation, particularly the concept of changemaking, into
student service-learning projects throughout the district. In fact, the department hosted a
changemaking through Service symposium to expose SPEs and other educators to the concept
of social innovation, its benefits for students, and the implications of integrating the concept
into student service experiences. Ultimately, OSL not only has a responsibility to provide
quality service-learning experiences to all students in WCPS, it also must ensure that its aims
align with WCPS district-wide goals while still ensuring that the MSDE state requirement is
Organizational and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Figure 3. Conceptual Framework: Social Innovation and service-learning in WCPS

CHANGEMAKERS 63
met by all graduating students. The aim of the conceptual framework for this study is to
provide an in-depth visualization of how these three overarching organizational structures
interact and an exploration of how they might support or hinder educator integration of social
innovation into quality, student-driven service-learning experiences for students.
Assessment of Performance Influences
Clark and Estes (2008) assert that using systematic analysis to consistently assess and
increase knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) support among employees is
essential to the success of any organization. Following the Gap Analysis Process depicted in
Figure 1, this study has discussed the current performance goals and performance status of the
WCPS Office of service-learning in Chapter One, and it has utilized literature and theory in
Chapter Two to discern potential KMO elements and gaps that could influence stakeholder
performance. This section of Chapter Three reviews the KMO assumed influences discussed in
Chapter Two. It also details how each influence was assessed within the data collection process
as researchers gathered evidence to help determine which of the assumed influences will impact
SPE integration of quality, socially innovative service projects within their programs and
instruction.
Knowledge Assessment
As theoretical literature revealed five possible knowledge influences to the successful
stakeholder integration of quality, socially innovative service-learning projects into high school
Specialty programming and instruction in WCPS (Kraft, 1996; Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011;
Rueda, 2011), Table 4 depicts each assumed knowledge influence and briefly discusses how it
was assessed within the data collection process of the study. Two influences represent
declarative, or factual, knowledge, one represents procedural knowledge, one conceptual, and
CHANGEMAKERS 64
one metacognitive knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). These assumed influences were assessed
through the analysis of eight Changemaking Implementation Plan documents developed by
participants in 2016, as detailed within the chart, in order to uncover evidence of understandings
that Specialty Program Educators either have or need in order to integrate quality, socially
innovative service projects. The knowledge influences were also assessed through interview
questions that will ask participants to describe their understanding of essential terms such as
quality service-learning and social innovation. Additionally, participants were asked questions
that assess procedural, conceptual and metacognitive knowledge, with topics including: the
elements of a quality service-learning process; the link between socially innovative service
experiences and civic engagement; and the processes of reflection taken during and after service
project implementation.
Table 4
Assumed Knowledge Influences and Assessment Measures
Assumed Knowledge Influences Assessment Measures

Factual Knowledge
SPEs need to know the definition of
service-learning and the key components of
a quality service-learning experience (as
defined by the state educational department
of the district in question)

SPEs need to know the meanings of social
innovation and social entrepreneurship
(changemaking)

Document Analysis
2016 Changemaking Implementation Plans

Interview Questions
What kinds of service-learning experiences does
your program implement (if any)?

Can you describe the structure and function of
these service experiences?

What qualities do you think students must
practice in order to become social
innovators/entrepreneurs (changemakers)?

Procedural Knowledge
SPEs need to understand and know how to
execute the steps of integrating the
Document Analysis
2016 Changemaking Implementation Plans

CHANGEMAKERS 65
principles of changemaking and effective
service-learning in order to create a quality,
socially innovative service project
Interview Questions
What amount of value do you place on students
planning and leading their own service projects?

Once a service-learning project and community
need is identified, what are the steps that you
take (or would take) to implement the project?

Describe the steps you’ve taken to integrate the
concept of social innovation, also referred to in
this district as changemaking, into your
students’ service and/or Specialty program
experiences.
Conceptual Knowledge
SPEs must know the link between quality,
socially innovative service-learning
projects, increased civic engagement, and
College and Career readiness.

Document Analysis
2016 Changemaking Implementation Plans

Interview Questions
What amount of value do you place on students
planning and leading their own service projects?

Describe the connection, if one exists, between
students engaging in quality, socially
innovative service-learning projects and
preparation for life beyond high school, also
referred to in this district as “College, Career,
and Civic Readiness”?

Describe the possible outcomes (consequences,
benefits, drawbacks, etc.) of a student’s
engagement with a quality service-learning
project that incorporates elements of social
innovation and entrepreneurship, referred to in
this district as changemaking.

Metacognitive Knowledge
SPEs need to consistently reflect upon how
these understandings and applications to
instruction and programming can augment
the student service and learning experience.
Document Analysis
2016 Changemaking Implementation Plans

Interview Questions
Describe the possible outcomes (consequences,
benefits, drawbacks, etc.) of a student’s
engagement with a quality service-learning
project that incorporates elements of social
CHANGEMAKERS 66
innovation and entrepreneurship, referred to in
this district as changemaking.

Motivation Assessment
Akin to the knowledge influences and assessments, assessment measures of the five
motivation elements revealed by the literature (Clabaugh, 1999; Eccles, 2006; Helms, 2013;
Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011) include a document analysis of the essential documents discussed in
the previous section, along with interview questions and conclusions to triangulate the data. In
this section, the interview questions explored three elements of expectancy-value theory (Eccles,
2006; Wigfield, 1994) to evidence educator motivational influences related to intrinsic, utility,
and attainment value. Table 5 lists each assumed motivational influence and identifies how it
was assessed within the data collection process of the study.
Table 5
Assumed Motivational Influences and Assessment Measures
Assumed Motivational Influences Assessment Measures
Intrinsic Value and Interest
SPEs need to be given the opportunity to
choose how they will integrate quality
service-learning and social innovation into
their programs and instruction.

Document Analysis
2016 Changemaking Implementation Plans

Interview Questions
Describe the level of choice, if any, that you have
over the type of service-learning experience your
Specialty Program facilitates.

If given the opportunity to choose, what areas of
your program/instruction would you ideally
integrate socially innovative service-learning
projects?
Utility Value
SPEs need to understand how integrating
social innovation into service projects can
help propel their programs toward the
attainment of their strategic programmatic,
Document Analysis
2016 Changemaking Implementation Plans

Interview Questions
Describe how, if at all, any of these steps have
aligned with your program’s goals (programmatic,
CHANGEMAKERS 67
curricular, or instructional goals as
determined by the district in question.

curricular, or instructional) or helped you and your
team to achieve them.
Attainment Value
SPEs need to understand how
changemaking and quality service-
learning incite civic, college, and career
readiness among students.
Document Analysis
2016 Changemaking Implementation Plans

Interview Questions
Describe the connection, if one exists, between
students engaging in quality, socially innovative
service-learning projects and preparation for life
beyond high school, also referred to in this
district as “College, Career, and Civic
Readiness”?

Organizational Culture and Context Assessment
This section assesses the influences of cultural models and cultural settings on SPE
facilitation of quality, socially innovative service projects through interview questions that
explore the programmatic and instructional benefits of such projects, along with topics that
inquire about the organizational supports and resources that SPEs will need to implement them.
Assessments were partially triangulated through conclusions drawn from the document analysis
of Specialty Program Changemaking Implementation Plans that prompt SPEs to communicate
the resources needed for their programs to facilitate quality, socially innovative service projects.
Table 6 outlines each assumed organizational influence and lists how it was assessed within the
data collection process of the study.
Table 6
Assumed Organizational Influences and Assessment Measures
Assumed Organizational Influences Assessment Measures
Cultural Model
SPEs need ongoing, supportive leadership from the
Office of Service Learning and WCPS Executive
Team that emphasizes quality, socially innovative
Document Analysis
2016 Changemaking Implementation
Plans

CHANGEMAKERS 68
service-learning (changemaking) as a district-wide
priority.

Interview Questions
What kinds of WCPS resources have
been consistently available to you to
support you in integrating socially
innovative, service-learning
(changemaking) projects into your
program or instruction?

Cultural Setting
SPEs need ongoing resources from the WCPS
service-learning office and district leadership
throughout the planning and implementation
process.
In addition to the ones you shared,
what kinds of resources would you
need to assist you in facilitating
socially innovative, service-learning
(changemaking) into your program or
instruction?

Sampling
Participating Stakeholders
As detailed in Chapter One, the focal stakeholder group of this study is Specialty
Program Educators (SPEs). SPEs facilitate the Specialty Programs at their assigned high school
and they also teach courses within the program. The Specialty programs of WCPS were selected
as a focal point for this initial qualitative study because of their potential for school wide
influence and for the SPEs’ unique ability to influence both programmatic and instructional
components of their Specialties. Preliminary research for this study indicates that Specialty
programs not only have the potential to establish shared goals, including postsecondary
readiness, with the Office of service-learning (OSL), but they also have the jurisdiction to
facilitate service opportunities that are open to all students within a high school. While the core
leadership and enrollment in Specialty program courses are small enough to yield a purposeful
sample for ideal qualitative data collection, the goal of each program to provide meaningful,
thematic post-secondary readiness experiences for the entire school community of each high
CHANGEMAKERS 69
school has implications for wide-ranging influence upon future social innovation and service-
learning experiences.
Sampling Criteria and Recruitment Rationale
In effort to triangulate the qualitative data collected, a strategic document analysis was
conducted along with interviews that will evidence stakeholders’ perspectives regarding assumed
KMO and supports needed to increase the implementation of quality, socially innovative service
projects in WCPS. The criteria listed below details the data collection strategy for each data type.
Document Analysis Criterion. Per the research questions and stakeholder goal of this
study, documents were strategically selected for analysis based upon the following criteria:
Criterion 1. Documents must have potentially helped the researcher to understand
the theme of the Specialty Program and identify shared goals between the Specialty
Program and the WCPS Office of service-learning (OSL).
Criterion 2. Documents must have potentially helped the researcher identify
opportunities for improvement and social innovation integration.
Criterion 3. Documents must have evidenced and potentially helped the
researcher to further gauge KMO influences and needs of stakeholders with regard to
implementing quality, socially innovative service experiences for their students.
Interview Criterion.
Criterion 1. Per the research questions and stakeholder goal of this study,
participants must have been full-time employees of WCPS.
Criterion 2. In alignment with another key focal point of the study, participants
must also have been classified as Specialty Program Educators (SPEs).
CHANGEMAKERS 70
Criterion 3. SPEs selected for the study must have had a direct influence over the
programmatic, curricular, and instructional components of their Specialty Program.
Interview Recruitment Rationale. In accordance with justifiable qualitative data
collection, purposeful, non-probability sampling was utilized for recruiting participants for
interviews within this study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As the interview sampling included
additional criterion item of participant autonomy with regard to service-project implementation,
this sampling structure did not aim for maximum variation, but adopted a more unique focus
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This slight criterion shift was determined in order to yield
meaningful interview data that will exemplify the KMO influences (Clark & Estes, 2008)
inquired by the research questions and detailed within the conceptual framework of this study.
In accordance with the knowledge, motivational and organizational focused questions
that were posed within the semi-structured interviews, this study targeted solely Specialty
Program educators (SPEs). Specifically, 12 (100%) of SPEs were targeted, with the aim of
interviewing at least 8 (66%) of the 12 SPEs for the study.
Data Collection
Data collected during this study has been approved by the University of Southern
California International Review Board (IRB) and the appropriate executive staff representatives
within the Wade County Public School System (WCPS). As the research questions and
subsequent conceptual framework that drive this study were optimally explored from a
descriptive, inductive perspective (Locke, Silverman, & Spirduso, 2010), qualitative data
collection methods were utilized throughout the data collection process. Data collection, akin to
all sections of the study, functioned to explore and further understand the assumed KMO
educator needs (Clark & Estes, 2008) regarding the integration of social innovation elements into
CHANGEMAKERS 71
quality, student-driven service experiences. To ensure data triangulation and trustworthiness, a
strategic document analysis was conducted to complement stakeholder interviews. The document
analysis aimed to allow researchers to evidence the assumed KMO influences, which were
revealed by the literature, within authentic WCPS program documents. The interviews invited
stakeholders to self-report their specific understandings and experiences in relation to the
assumed KMO influences revealed by the literature. Ultimately, evidence yielded by both
avenues of data collection were contrasted, analyzed, and communicated within the results
chapter of this study.
Document Analysis
Documents for the strategic document analysis were collected through the WCPS Office
of Service-learning (OSL) and the Specialty Program Office. Once the study was approved by
WCPS, the lead investigator communicated with leads in the appropriate offices to obtain and
analyze the Changemaking through Service integration plans created by SPFs in the 2016-2017
school year. Eight Changemaking through Service (CtS) documents submitted by each interview
participant were analyzed. Each document required SPEs to determine a primary goal for
integrating changemaking into service-learning projects within their program and identify
secondary goals or possibilities of integration. The CtS document also prompted SPEs to identify
the number of involved students, school-based and community partners, and other opportunities
for school and community support. Finally, the CtS document prompted SPEs to collaborate with
an Office of Service Learning (OSL) representative to determine the specific principles of
changemaking and quality service-learning that were present within the primary and secondary
goals of CtS integration. Analysis of these documents aimed to identify evidence of knowledge,
CHANGEMAKERS 72
motivational, and organizational factors that influence SPEs’ ability to implement quality,
socially innovative service projects in their schools, programs, and instruction.
Interviews
All stakeholders who agreed to participate in the study engaged in a semi-formal, semi-
structured, face-to-face interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In effort to maximize participant
comfort level while also maximizing the information yielded during each session, the interviews
were structured in a manner that combined guided and conversational approaches (Patton, 2002).
The interviews were also conducted in a realm most comfortable for participants, with locations
including the school Specialty Program office, a classroom, or another location of the
participant’s choosing. If scheduling or school-based protocol did not permit in-person
interviewing, interviews were conducted using a mobile or web-based platform. In addition to
interview location, interviews were guided by the protocols included in Appendix B: Interview
Protocol and Questions, which assures and delineates anonymity measures, assures that
participant information will be kept secure, and acquires their permission for the interview to be
documents via researcher notes and a recording device.
Each interview remained within a 60-minute timeframe and consisted of 10 questions,
strategically composed with associated probing questions (Patton, 2002). These questions
encouraged participants to share robust details regarding their knowledge, motivational, and
organizational needs in order to successfully integrate socially innovative service-learning
experiences within their Specialty Programs. Questions during the interview were designed to
focus on knowledge, motivational, and organizational supports needed within each educator’s
planning and implementation process for integrating the key concepts of the study. They also
explored the educators’ beliefs about the usefulness of each concept to their students’ academic
CHANGEMAKERS 73
development. Additionally, they explored SPE motivation for actively engaging with the WCPS
Office of Service-Learning (OSL) changemaking initiative. To support a non-threatening
conversational exchange, the interview questions were sequenced in a manner that begins with
inquiry about familiar program and instructional practices for SPEs (Patton, 2002). Questions
about concepts specific to the study, which could have been novel to interviewees, followed, but
they were worded in a manner that probed description through the lens of the participant, rather
than the identification of a “correct” answer. The design, content, and structure of these
interview questions not only served to increase participant trust and comfort level, but they also
served to address the research questions and illuminate the conceptual framework of this study.
Data Analysis
During and after the data collection period, the researcher utilized a number of qualitative
inquiry techniques to analyze the data reported within the interview and document analysis
process. The results of this analysis process are discussed in Chapter Four of the study.
Interviews
To analyze the interviews conducted during the data collection phase of the study, the
researcher used a multi-faceted data analysis process that included field notes, analytic memos,
and a detailed qualitative coding process. Interviews were recorded, with the permission of
participants, and transcribed by the researcher in preparation for analysis within 24 hours of each
interview. Both a priori coding, constructed based upon research questions and KMO influences,
and empirical coding, gathered and constructed during the research process, was conducted for
each interview response. The researcher completed coding within 48 to 72 hours of each
interview to increase data collection to analysis proximity for the benefit of the study. In
addition to frequency of data transcription and coding, the researcher utilized field notes and
CHANGEMAKERS 74
analytic memos to document immediate reactions, observations, and conclusions drawn during
each interview. During the data collection and coding process, all coded interviews were
aggregated into axial codes that revealed themes and patterns within the data. Identified themes
addressed the research questions of the study and revealed the validation or invalidation of the
KMO influences discussed in Chapters Two and Three of this study. Influences were deemed
validated or invalidated based upon the frequency of their occurrence within the interview
dialogue among participants, along with any corroboration that the document analysis process
yields.
Document Analysis
The purpose of the document analysis process was twofold. This process foremost
assisted in triangulating the data collection and analysis process by providing an additional
avenue through which the researcher evidenced the validation or invalidation of assumed KMO
influences (Clark & Estes 2008). Additionally, the document analysis process served as a cross-
reference and more concrete accompaniment to the self-reported data brought forth during
participant interviews. Following a qualitative analysis pattern similar the interview procedures,
all documents were coded using a priori codes, and findings were ultimately categorized using
axial coding yielded patterns and themes that were communicated as results in chapter Four.
Empirical coding was not utilized within the document analysis because documents were
previously completed, making the analysis more static than the fluid, dynamic interviewing
process.
Credibility and Trustworthiness of Data
As the credibility of qualitative research is highly dependent upon the credibility of both
the research and the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), the credibility of this study was
CHANGEMAKERS 75
shaped by the triangulation and collection methods of the data. Data was collected in a manner
that establishes ongoing trust between the researcher and participants, ensuring that interview
locations are conducted in safe spaces for participants, and maintaining ethical decisions
throughout the construction and administration of all data collection methods (Patton, 2005).
Additionally, participants will be repeatedly assured of personal and professional anonymity
throughout the interview process, and checking techniques, including question probes and
rephrasing were included as the interview is being conducted. These measures were taken to
decrease the potential for prevalent participant reactivity and increase the likelihood of
transparent responses to interview questions.
In addition to making strategic decisions that consider the comfort level of participants
and validity of self-reported data, the study also relied on the additional data collection modality
of document analysis to triangulate and further solidify credibility of the data. The document
analysis process aimed to not only substantiate self-reported claims made by participants during
interviews, but it also served as a cross-reference for evidence of the KMOs within foundational
and instructional documents that stakeholders use to shape the service-learning experiences they
facilitate for students.
Role of the Lead Investigator
While the lead investigator of this study is an employee of WCPS and representative of
the Office of Service-Learning (OSL), none of the participants recruited for this study can be
classified as the investigator’s subordinates. Moreover, the investigator has no supervisory
connection with the professional performance rating or program auditing of any potential
participant within the study. Still, the lead investigator is considered to be a district-level
representative and leader within the WCPS organizational, so several steps were taken to avoid
CHANGEMAKERS 76
participant reactivity and to increase participant comfort level with regard to providing authentic
responses to interview questions.
The foremost step in ensuring participant comfort with the study required the lead
investigator to establish clear boundaries between her professional role and her scholarly role.
The researcher emphasized that, though given permission by the WCPS organization, all data
would be collected strictly for the purposes of research. It was also made clear that, within the
confines of this study, the lead investigator would simply serve as the researcher, and not the
lead representative within OSL. Additionally, the lead investigator repeatedly iterated the
function of participant anonymity within the study through conversation, within the participant
consent document, and within the interview protocols. Participants were informed that though
their professional roles were included as a part of the study, their professional roles would never
be associated with their names or the names of their schools. The lead investigator also stressed
the voluntary nature of participation, ensuring that participants were aware that their
participation had no bearing on their professional roles or responsibilities. Finally, the
participants were not offered any incentive in order to minimize any appearance of coercion or
professional pressure to participate within the study.
Limitations and Delimitations
This section will briefly discuss the aspects of the data collection and analysis process
that either present shortcomings beyond the lead investigator’s control or represent choices that
the lead investigator can make to increase the generalizability of the results.
Limitations
As the terms social innovation, social entrepreneurship, and changemaking are relatively
new terms (Barensden & Gardner, 2004; Dees & Anderson, 2003), the finite selection of
CHANGEMAKERS 77
literature on the topic, and particularly its interaction with service-learning, presents a limitation
for the study. While the assertions and deductions discussed in chapters One and Two are
research-based, the results yielded were predominantly based on theory as there are not many
longitudinal studies that directly evidence a correlation between student engagement in socially
innovative service projects and proven success in college and vocations beyond high school.
Limited sample size and district educator representation presented another limitation to the
study. Though the goal for each Specialty Program is to promote and realize a school-wide
influence for all programmatic themes and opportunities, SPEs still only represent a microcosm
of high school educators in WCPS, and many instructional experiences led by SPEs
predominantly service student who enroll in Specialty program courses. In addition to the
limitations within the available research and sample size of the study, participant self-reporting
during the interview process and the role of the lead investigator as a district representative of
WCPS also presented limitations.
Delimitations
Despite study limitations, there are several choices that the lead investigator made to
maximize the generalizability of the project and external validity of the project design. One
choice included the strategic sampling and recruiting of high school educators across the WCPS
school system. The study aimed to interview at least 8 of the 12 SPEs in WCPS, which creates a
majority representation of the Specialty Programs in the district. While this study will not
represent a complete gap analysis, which would also explore the KMO influences of students and
district to school-based leadership, the data was collected, analyzed, and reported in a manner
that discusses the potential impact of the study on programmatic success and student success in
WCPS and beyond.
CHANGEMAKERS 78
Summary
Chapter Three has delineated a methodological approach for assessing the assumed
knowledge, motivational, and organizational (KMO) influences on Specialty Program Educators
in WCPS facilitating quality, student-driven, socially innovative service projects in their
programs and instruction. The study was conducted using a qualitative research design, and it
followed a KMO Gap Analysis framework established by Clark and Estes (2008). The study
was also shaped by a conceptual framework that explores how state guidelines for service-
learning interact with the WCPS district-level implementation of service-learning, which
ultimately affects the way SPEs facilitate service-learning within their programs, classes, and
schools. In order to explore the KMOs for the proposed stakeholder group in an in-depth,
inductive manner, the researcher collected data utilizing document analysis and structured
interviews. The results of each phase of data collection were coded using a priori and empirical
coding techniques, and they were categorized and thematically classified using axial coding. In
Chapter Four, the results of the KMO analysis will be detailed, and in Chapter Five evidence-
based recommendations for WCPS and SPE facilitation of quality, socially innovative service-
learning projects will be explored and presented.

CHANGEMAKERS 79
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to explore the knowledge, motivational, and organizational
(KMO) factors that could influence Specialty Program Educators’ (SPEs) facilitation of quality,
socially innovative service-learning experiences for their students with the Wade County Public
School district. For the purposes of this study, quality and socially innovative service-learning
experiences were aligned with a concept that the review of relevant literature revealed as
changemaking (Ashoka, 2016). SPEs were selected, as opposed to the general population of
secondary educators, as the focal stakeholder group for this study because of their unique
professional ability to directly affect programmatic, curricular, and instructional changes within
their specialty programs and throughout the high schools where their programs operate. This
study specifically analyzed the KMO factors that research identified as possible contributors to
educators facilitating subpar service-learning projects, or not facilitating the projects at all,
within WCPS, a Maryland K-12 public school district operating under a statewide service-
learning graduation mandate.
This chapter offers evidence that reveals the validation, or invalidation, of the assumed
influences revealed within the literature review and presented in chapters two and three using the
Clark and Estes (2008) KMO framework. Data for this chapter were collected using a qualitative
approach that included interviews and a document analysis of Changemaking through Service
implementation plans completed by interview participants in the academic year prior to the data
collection process for this study. Data were collected to specifically validate or invalidate
assumed KMO influences as contributors to a service-learning project performance gap amongst
secondary educators within the WCPS K-12 Public School district.
CHANGEMAKERS 80
Research questions used to guide this study were as follows:
1. What are high school Specialty Program Educators’ levels of knowledge and
motivation in relation to successfully facilitating quality, socially innovative service-
learning projects?
2. How do high school Specialty Program Educators’ knowledge and motivation interact
with the organizational support of the district to shape educators’ ability to facilitate
quality, socially innovative service-learning projects?
3. What are the recommendations and/or proposed solutions for how these knowledge,
motivational, and organizational needs might be addressed?
Research questions one and two are addressed within this chapter. Research question
three will be explored within Chapter Five of this study, which will present recommendations
based upon the KMO findings presented and analyzed within this chapter.
Summary of Data Collection Strategies
Prior to interviews, a document analysis of the Changemaking through Service
implementation plan that each Specialty Program Educator (SPE) completed within the 2016-
2017 academic year was conducted. SPEs were required to complete these implementation plans
as a follow-up to a Changemaking symposium conducted in WCPS at the beginning of the 2016-
2017 school year, and the purpose of the plans was to have SPEs identify at least one area of
their program’s structure, curricular, or instruction where a changemaking service project could
be authentically integrated. Once the area was identified, SPEs were tasked to identify a specific
Changemaking through Service initiative or project that they could feasibly facilitate with
students in their program and/or high school at some point within the school year. The
documents also prompt SPEs to identify the elements of changemaking and quality service-
CHANGEMAKERS 81
learning, based upon MSDE criteria, along with organizational resources that they may need to
accomplish their identified Changemaking through Service initiative or project. These
documents were chosen for analysis because they not only capture elements of SPE knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influences and understandings immediately following a 2016-
2017 training, but they also provided the researcher with a baseline upon which to determine the
transference of these KMO factors into current SPE practice and understandings. As the
document analysis occurred prior to the interviews, the process also informed the structure and
approach of probing questions asked by the researcher during each interview session.
Interviews for the study consisted of 10 baseline questions aligned with KMO influences
presented in chapters Two and Three. Interviews also included up to 10 probing questions,
depending on interviewee responses. All interviews were conducted in person, and interview
locations were chosen by participants, with most interviews taking place within the SPEs’ offices
within their schools. Each interview session began with a review of the research purpose and
protocols for this study; a reminder that all information shared would be kept entirely
confidential and would in no way be connected with professional performance or ratings; and a
prompt for participants to complete a consent form. Interview sessions ranged in length from 45
to 65 minutes, and all were recorded, transcribed, and ultimately coded with a priori, empirical,
and axial codes during the data analysis process.
Participating Stakeholders
As predicted in Chapter Three of this study, eight of the 12 SPEs in WCPS agreed to
participate within interview sessions. Thus, while the expected participation was 100%
actualized for this study, only 66% of the SPEs within the WCPS district participated in the
study. As previously discussed, Specialty Program Educators facilitate community-based
CHANGEMAKERS 82
programs within 12 WCPS district high schools that are themed based upon the community
resources closest in proximity to each high school. SPEs were selected as the focal stakeholder
group for this study because the community-based nature of Specialty Programs naturally
provides avenues for college, civic, and career readiness, and also because they have a unique
ability to impact programmatic, curricular, and instructional experiences for students within their
programs and throughout the entire school wide population where they serve. Table 7 includes
the pseudonyms used to reference each SPE stakeholder participant, along with a program
identifier for each Specialty.
Table 7
Stakeholder Participants
SPE High School Program Theme
Regina Abernathy Global Industrialism
Cassi Denmark Civic Engagement
Anna Grady Green Technologies
Jewelle Quantico Community Development
Zari Alfred Taylor Wellness
Terra Potomac Social Enterprise
Lexy Carrington Agriculture and Technology

Validation Criteria
Within the data analysis process, assumed influences were deemed validated if a majority
(at least 62.5%, or 5 of the 8) of participant responses yielded evidence of KMO gaps from one
or both methods of data collection, document analysis or interviews. Specifically, validation
qualifications included gaps in SPE knowledge of quality service learning or elements of
CHANGEMAKERS 83
changemaking; motivation to engage students in quality, socially innovative (changemaking)
service experiences; or organizational support or resources to engage students in such service
experiences. Assumed influences were deemed invalidated if a majority (at least 62.5%, or 5 of
the 8) of participant responses revealed that participants possessed the knowledge, motivational,
and organizational resources necessary to facilitate quality, socially innovative (changemaking)
service-learning projects with their students within their Specialty Program and throughout their
high school. Specific validation stipulations are listed within Table 8. As interviews were
conducted over one year after Changemaking through Service documents were completed, SPE
interview responses are considered the most current and reliable validators of assumed KMO
influences. Thus, as the table reveals, validation evidenced in interview responses can override
validation evidenced in the document analysis process.
Table 8
KMO Validation Criteria
Assumed Influences Evidenced by
Majority in
Document Analysis?
Evidenced by
Majority in
Interviews?
Validation Status
K, M or O Yes No Invalidated
K, M or O No Yes Validated
K, M or O Yes Yes Validated

Findings
Findings within this chapter will be presented by knowledge, motivational, or
organizational classification in the Clark and Estes framework (2008). As supported by relevant
theoretical literature (Anderson, 1980; Bandura, 2005; Bloom, 1956; Krathwohl, 2002), this
study considered declarative, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge types.
Research for this study also revealed a primary motivational application of expectancy-value
CHANGEMAKERS 84
theory (Eccles 2006; Wigfield, 1994); thus, findings are presented through the lens of intrinsic,
utility, and attainment value. Finally, the presentation of influences and findings within this study
are also shaped by theoretical and empirical organizational research (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001; Rueda, 2011; Schein, 2004;) and presented through the lens of cultural models and cultural
settings. Within each KMO classification category, findings from interviews and findings from
the document analysis will be discussed.
Findings are organized by each research question, which are structured based upon the
KMO Framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), and by the five themes that unfolded during the data
collection and analysis process. Table 9, lists each theme, along with the KMO influences that
each theme directly correlates with.
Table 9
Research Themes and Correlating KMO Influences
Research
Theme
Number
Research Theme Description Correlating KMO Influences
1 Specialty Program Educators
(SPEs) understand the premise of
service-learning and changemaking,
but they do not explicitly
demonstrate knowledge of the key
functioning components of either
concept.
Assumed Knowledge Influence #1:
Declarative
SPEs need to know the definition of
service-learning and the key practices of a
quality service-learning experience (as
defined by the state educational
department of the district in question).

SPEs need to know the meanings and
principles of social innovation and social
entrepreneurship (changemaking).
2 SPEs’ procedural execution and
intentionality when integrating
principles and practices of quality,
socially innovative service
learning is questionable given
their limited declarative
knowledge of these elements.
Assumed Knowledge Influence #2:
Procedural
SPEs need to know how to execute the
steps of integrating the principles of
changemaking and effective service-
learning in order to create a quality,
socially innovative service project
CHANGEMAKERS 85
3 SPEs do understand and reflect
upon how quality, socially
innovative service experiences
benefit student learning, motivate
students to serve, and help to
bolster college, career, and civic
readiness.
Assumed Knowledge Influence #3:
Conceptual
SPEs need to know the link between
quality, socially innovative service-
learning projects, increased civic
engagement, and College and Career
readiness.

Assumed Knowledge Influence #4:
Metacognitive
SPEs need to consistently reflect upon
how these understandings and
applications to instruction and
programming can augment the student
service and learning experience.
4 SPEs are motivated, within the
realm of expectancy-value theory
(Eccles 2006; Pintrich, 2003), to
facilitate quality, socially
innovative service-learning with
students within their programs and
schools.

Assumed Motivational Influence #1:
Intrinsic Value
SPEs need to be given the opportunity to
choose how they will integrate quality
service-learning and social innovation
into their programs and instruction.

Assumed Motivational Influence #2:
Utility Value
SPEs need to understand how integrating
social innovation into service projects can
help propel their programs toward the
attainment of their strategic
programmatic, curricular, or instructional
goals as determined by the district in
question.

Assumed Motivational Influence #3:
Attainment Value
SPEs need to understand how
changemaking and quality service-
learning incite civic, college, and career
readiness among students.
5 SPEs indicated the most
significant need for organizational
support in the form of ongoing
commitment and prioritization
from WCPS and OSL leadership,
along with ample resources to
Assumed Organizational Influence #1:
Cultural Model
SPEs need ongoing, supportive
leadership from the Office of Service
Learning and WCPS Executive Team
that emphasizes quality, socially
CHANGEMAKERS 86
support quality, socially
innovative service-learning
experiences for students (cultural
model and cultural setting)
innovative service-learning
(changemaking) as a district-wide
priority.

Assumed Organizational Influence #2:
Cultural Setting
SPEs need ongoing resources from the
WCPS service-learning office and
district leadership throughout the
planning and implementation process.

Research Question One
The first research question within this study inquires about the knowledge and
motivational factors that influence participating stakeholders: what are high school Specialty
Program Educators’ levels of knowledge and motivation in relation to successfully facilitating
quality, socially innovative service-learning projects? This research question was explored
within the interview and document analysis phases of the data collection and analysis process,
which yielded four out of the five research themes identified within this chapter and listed in
Table 9. Findings related to research question one are organized by research theme, and
subsequent discussion includes correlating KMO influences and the validation status of each
influence as uncovered by interviews and document analysis. Following a thematic discussion of
findings, this section will conclude with a synoptic response, or answer, to research question one.
SPEs seem to grasp the premise of quality service-learning and changemaking, but they do
not demonstrate mastery of the specific components of each concept.
The first theme revealed by the data collection process evidenced that Specialty Program
Educators (SPEs) understand the premise of service-learning and changemaking, but they do not
explicitly demonstrate knowledge of the key functioning components of either concept. This
research theme is a direct response to the knowledge influence inquiry within research question
CHANGEMAKERS 87
one and to the assumed knowledge influence #1 of the study, which focuses on declarative
knowledge: SPEs need to know the definition of service-learning and the key components of a
quality service-learning experience (as defined by the state educational department of the district
in question), and SPEs need to know the meanings and principles of social innovation and social
entrepreneurship (changemaking). This influence was validated as participant responses within
interviews and articulation within the document analysis revealed a consistent lack of mastery
regarding the principles of changemaking and the practices of quality service-learning.
Findings from the Interviews. Three interview questions were crafted to assess SPE
declarative knowledge. They are as follows:
● What kinds of service-learning experiences does your program implement (if any)?
● What qualities do you think students must practice in order to become social
innovators/entrepreneurs (changemakers)?
● What amount of value do you place on students planning and leading their own service
projects?
The language used in each question aimed to prompt SPEs to demonstrate their command and
understanding of the principles of changemaking (Ashoka, 2016) and the best practices for
quality service-learning (MSDE, 2017). Table 10 includes each principle and best practice.
Table 10
Principles of Changemaking and Best Practices of Service-Learning
Core Concept Principles and Practices
Five Changemaking Principles 1. Creativity
2. Empathy
3. Leadership
4. Problem-Solving
5. Teamwork
Service-Learning Best Practices:
Three Project Phases
1. Preparation
2. Action (3 Types)
CHANGEMAKERS 88
a. Direct
b. Indirect
c. Advocacy
3. Reflection
Service-Learning Best Practices:
Seven Project Components
1. Meet a Need in the Community
2. Link to Curriculum
3. Reflect throughout the Service
Experience
4. Emphasize Youth Voice & Choice
5. Integrate Community Partnerships
6. Emphasize Diversity
7. Establish sufficient project duration
and intensity to meet community
needs

Participant responses included remnants of conceptual understanding, yet validated a gap in
declarative mastery of the principles and best practices of changemaking and quality service-
learning. For instance, Jewelle from Quantico high school focused on confidence and
emphasizing organizational skills as paramount qualities of changemakers and quality service-
learning, as she stated: “I think [students] need confidence. Our kids have the potential to change
the world, and they don’t believe that they can. They need to know how to organize and how to
plan as well”. While these are arguably qualities and skills that students need to be successful,
they do not align with the principles and practices of changemaking and quality service-learning.
While Jewelle’s response aligned with the of the five SPEs whose responses failed to address the
majority of the changemaking and service-learning principles and practices, Cassi was one of
two SPEs whose responses demonstrated an understanding of the changemaking principles, but
not the quality service-learning practices: “I really think the independence and the critical
thinking is what sets them apart. That is a skill in and of itself, and it brings all of those things
together -- the problem solving, critical thinking, empathy, teamwork.” As an outlier compared
CHANGEMAKERS 89
to the qualitative data yielded in the responses of her other SPE colleagues, Regina’s response
highlighted principles and practices that included empathy (Ashoka, 2016), student voice, and all
three service-learning project-phases (MSDE, 2017): While she did not discuss all components,
her responses were closest to indicated declarative command of both the language and practices
of changemaking and quality service-learning: “When these kinds of engagements are done well,
meaning that there is pre-activity beforehand, there’s something happening during, and there’s
reflection happing afterward, and educators are engaging with students throughout those
processes, and there’s student voice and choice...there’s empathy.” Regina went on to describe
the significance of empathy, which is a key principle of changemaking, and the correlation
between empathy and community problem-solving: “In order to create a solution that actually
meets the needs of people in the community where you are doing that work, you have to
empathize with the community, and you can’t empathize with that community unless you
connect with that community”. Despite Regina’s evidential understanding of the core
components of service-learning and changemaking, the declarative knowledge influence was still
validated as seven out of eight SPEs demonstrated a gap in factual mastery.
Findings from the Document Analysis. Based upon the changemaking and service-
learning integration approaches and project details displayed within the Changemaking through
Service integration plans, SPEs have a general understanding of the principles of changemaking
and best practices of service-learning that should be integrated into quality, socially innovative
learning experiences. However, the SPEs do not consistently display an understanding of all of
the principles and practices. While they may use related language, they do not consistently utilize
the language of the principles and practices to articulate programmatic and instructional goals
related to service-learning and changemaking integration. Analysis of inconsistencies in
CHANGEMAKERS 90
understanding and articulation revealed that SPEs need more support in grasping the language
and components of changemaking and quality service-learning in order to intentionally apply the
principles within their programs, curriculum, instruction, and student service experiences. Thus,
the declarative knowledge gap hypothesized by this study has been validated by the document
analysis.
SPEs procedural execution and intentionality is questionable given their limited declarative
knowledge of these elements. The second theme revealed by the data collection process
substantiated a Clark and Estes (2008) assertion that procedural application and transferability
between training and practice are a direct result of declarative knowledge. While, akin to the first
research theme, SPEs indicated some conceptual understandings of changemaking and quality
service-learning within their responses, their minimal command of the principles and practices of
each phenomenon limited their ability to articulate intentionality in procedural applications. This
research theme is a direct response to the assumed knowledge influence #2 of the study, which
focuses on procedural knowledge: SPEs need to learn how to execute the steps of integrating the
principles of changemaking and effective service-learning in order to create a quality, socially
innovative service project. This influence was partially validated as participant responses within
interviews and articulation within the document analysis indicated some conceptual
understanding through their articulated procedural application of changemaking and service-
learning, yet a limited grasp of the declarative knowledge needed to demonstrate intentional
transferability between factual knowledge to procedural application.

CHANGEMAKERS 91

Findings from the Interviews. Three interview questions were crafted to assess SPE
procedural knowledge. They are as follows:
● In what ways, if any, do you think socially innovative service-learning (changemaking)
projects could align with your program’s approach to increasing the success and district
rating of your Specialty Program?
● Once a service-learning project and community need is identified, what are the steps that
you take (or would take) to implement the project?
● Describe the steps you’ve taken to integrate the concept of social innovation, also
referred to in this district as changemaking, into your students’ service and/or Specialty
program experiences.

Cassi from Denmark High School directed her responses to these questions to emphasis
of an area where her school has implemented changemaking, yet overlooked the importance of
the service-learning elements of project facilitation: “Changemaking is an action...Kids have
these great ideas, but I also think that through the process of teaching them how to be
changemakers, we have to teach them how to serve.” Cassi went on to express her dissatisfaction
with her school leadership’s decision to emphasize changemaking, yet overlook how the concept
interacts with service-learning. Denmark High School, according to Cassi, once prioritized
service-learning, but the school got so excited about the concept of changemaking that the
leadership, faculty, and students lost sight of the service aspects that once highlighted the school
culture.
Zara of Taylor High School solely mentioned securing business partners as the major step
to be taken to facilitate quality, socially innovative service-learning, while Terra, Devin, and
CHANGEMAKERS 92
Anna communicated student collaboration, research, goal-setting, and project planning as key
procedural steps. Jewelle of Quantico High School suggested that students must “first back map.
Determine the goal first, determine the talents and skills of the class, and then determine what
resources you need to create the change.” She also, however, included the importance of
reflection, which is a major project component of quality service-learning: “once you’re done,
you need to reflect back on what worked well and what needs to be improved in the project. That
reflection piece is so important because if you we just move on the next thing, then we don’t
work smarter.” Devin’s response also indicated a prioritization of student reflection throughout
the project facilitation process.
Findings from the Document Analysis. As theorists and practitioners indicate, there is a
direct correlation between a learner’s declarative knowledge and his or her ability to effectively
execute the steps required to accomplish a task or performance goal (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Mayer, 2011). SPEs are not exempt from this deduction, as their limited declarative grasp and
use of the language principles of changemaking and practices of quality service-learning is also
indicated within their delineation of the steps they planned to take to actualize their
changemaking and service-learning goals. For instance, Regina’s integration goal was to
collaborate with targeted students, within her Specialty Program and other student programs or
clubs, in order to design a student-centered service projects based upon issues that student clubs
value throughout NCHS. Though she did not utilize the language of the principles of
changemaking and practices of quality service-learning, her project plan did reflect all elements
of these principles and practices. Thus, while further follow-up training will need to be
conducted and implemented to bolster Regina’s declarative knowledge and ensure intentionality
within procedural applications, there was not enough evidence within Regina’s Changemaking
CHANGEMAKERS 93
through Service integration plan to validate a gap in procedural knowledge. Findings regarding
Regina’s procedural knowledge were consistent those from the majority of SPEs. Five out of
eight Changemaking through Service integration plans evidenced all principles and practices of
changemaking and quality service-learning. In addition, all eight plans evidenced at least three of
four changemaking principles and five of seven best practices for quality service learning.
SPEs do understand the academic, motivational, and post-secondary benefits of quality,
socially innovative service-learning experiences.
The third theme revealed by the data collection process provided evidence of substantial
SPE conceptual and metacognitive knowledge with regard to understanding and reflecting upon
the benefits of quality, socially innovative service projects. Specifically, they demonstrated
understanding and evidence of reflection upon how quality, socially innovative service
experiences benefit student learning, motivate students to continue to serve outside of the scope
of school projects, and help to bolster college, career, and civic readiness. This research theme is
a direct response to assumed knowledge influence #3 of the study, which asserts: SPEs need to
know the link between quality, socially innovative service-learning projects, increased civic
engagement, and College and Career readiness. It is also a response to assumed knowledge
influence #4, which states: SPEs need to consistently reflect upon how these understandings and
applications to instruction and programming can augment the student service and learning
experience. Neither influence was validated as participant responses demonstrated
understanding and reflection regarding the benefits yielded by engaging students in quality,
socially innovative service-learning experiences.
Findings from the Interviews. Two interview questions were crafted to assess SPE
conceptual and metacognitive knowledge. They are as follows:
CHANGEMAKERS 94
● Describe the connection, if one exists, between students engaging in quality, socially
innovative service-learning projects and preparation for life beyond high school, also
referred to in this district as “College, Career, and Civic Readiness”?
● Describe the possible outcomes (consequences, benefits, drawbacks, etc.) of a student’s
engagement with a quality service-learning project that incorporates elements of social
innovation and entrepreneurship, referred to in this district as changemaking.

All SPE responses evidenced understanding of the link between engagement in quality,
socially innovative service-learning experiences and increased exposure to college, career, and
civic readiness skills. For instance, Terra suggested that students gain problem-solving and
teamwork skills that “they take that with them to college, jobs, and their community”, and Lexy
asserted that quality, socially innovative service-learning projects “emulate the kinds of projects
that professionals engage in all the time within industry” and ultimately give student participant
“the skills to make themselves more marketable for school and for careers”. Regina compared
academic experiences and socially innovative service-learning applications to scientific lab
work versus fieldwork: “What you can control for in the lab is much more than you can control
for in the field. So, it’s important that you have experience in both of those spaces. And so, I
think that actually should be the natural ebb and flow of an educational cycle.” She went on to
clarify this analogy by asserting that “this ebb and flow cycle” is a part of the service-learning
process “when it is done right.” Regina also made a connection between the “lab work” and
“field work” analogy and the structure of college courses and professional experiences,
suggesting a correlation between engagement in quality service-learning experiences and
College and Career Readiness. Jewelle’s response also aligned with Regina’s and their six other
participating SPE colleagues: “There is absolutely a connection. That’s what the real world is
CHANGEMAKERS 95
about. Almost every career deals with service and projects on some kind of scale, and think it’s
what a lot of our kids are missing. They don’t get enough of these opportunities.”
In addition to the link to college, career, and civic readiness, SPE interview responses
supported their reflection upon other benefits yielded from facilitating quality, socially
innovative service-learning projects with students. Zara asserted that these kinds of projects
give students a healthy experience with success: “Like with any other project, they can see
either a win after they finish it and it’s done. Or they receive positive feedback from educators,
mentors, or their community that they are servicing.” Additionally, Zara noted that engaging in
quality, socially innovative service-learning projects also provides students with a safe space in
which to experience failure, which is also essential for success in college and careers. She
stated, “they could see that they failed, and while that’s a momentary failure, if they reflect
upon it and learn from it, it ends up not being a failure. It might lead them to another project
that is more successful.” Joining her colleagues, Terra highlighted both quantitative and
anecdotal student benefits, highlighting that integrating service-learning helped students in her
Specialty Program earn almost two million dollars in collective scholarship money. She went
on to share that “the most positive thing for the students that I see is that [service-learning]
actually helps [students’] self-esteem and their confidence ...It makes them feel so empowered
and good about themselves. It’s such a positive feeling for them to have accomplished this...and
they can carry it with them for their whole lives.” Jewelle, Anna, and three other SPEs also
shared positive effects on school culture and climate, increased student well-roundedness, and
increased student academic engagement and performance as additional benefits to facilitating
quality, socially innovative service-learning with students.
CHANGEMAKERS 96
Findings from the Document Analysis. The documents analyzed did not prompt any
findings regarding the SPEs level of reflection or conceptual understanding of the benefits and
potential link between service-learning and college, career, and civic readiness.
SPEs are motivated to facilitate quality, socially innovative service-learning with students
within their programs and schools.
The fourth theme revealed by the data collection process evidenced unanimous
motivation amongst SPEs, through the lens of expectancy-value theory (Eccles 2006; Pintrich,
2003), to facilitate quality, socially innovative service-learning projects with their students. This
research theme is a direct response to the motivation influence inquiry within research question
one and to the assumed motivational influence #1 of the study, which focuses on intrinsic value:
SPEs need to be given the opportunity to choose how they will integrate quality service-learning
and social innovation into their programs and instruction. The theme also addresses assumed
motivational influence #2, utility value: SPEs need to understand how
integrating social innovation into service projects can help propel their programs toward the
attainment of their strategic programmatic, curricular, or instructional goals. Additionally, the
research theme addresses the final assumed motivational influence of this study, which focuses
on attainment value: SPEs need to understand how changemaking and quality service-learning
incite civic, college, and career readiness among students. None of the three assumed
motivational influences were validated within the data collection and analysis process as
participant responses provided ample support for SPE intrinsic, utility, and attainment value
related to facilitating quality, socially innovative service-learning experiences with their students.
CHANGEMAKERS 97
Findings from the Interviews. Four interview questions yielded responses that
evidenced levels of SPE motivation, within the realm of expectancy-value theory (Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003). They are as follows:
● Describe the level of choice, if any, that you have over the type of service-learning
experience your Specialty Program facilitates.
● In what ways, if any, do you think socially innovative service-learning (changemaking)
projects could align with your program’s approach to increasing the success and district
rating of your Specialty Program?
● Describe the possible outcomes (consequences, benefits, drawbacks, etc.) of a student’s
engagement with a quality service-learning project that incorporates elements of social
innovation and entrepreneurship, referred to in this district as changemaking.
● Describe the connection, if one exists, between students engaging in quality, socially
innovative service-learning projects and preparation for life beyond high school, also
referred to in this district as “College, Career, and Civic Readiness”?

Regarding intrinsic motivation, eight out of eight SPEs confirmed that they have voice
and choice related to what kings of service-learning projects they could implement. Intrinsic
value theory, in turn, asserts that internally driven decisions that are considered meaningful and
personally engaging by the decision-maker are more likely to motivate the decision-maker to
accomplish a related task or goal (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003; Shraw & Lehman, 2009). SPE
responses either indicated complete or majority autonomy over which projects, including
service-learning, their program facilitates.
In addition to evidencing elements of intrinsic value, six out of eight SPE responses
indicated utility value through the articulation of shared goals between OSL and their Specialty
CHANGEMAKERS 98
Programs. More specifically, SPEs identified correlations between engaging students in quality,
socially innovative service-learning and propelling their specialty programs toward the
attainment of their strategic programmatic, curricular, or instructional goals. Regina indicated
an underlying connection between the concepts students explore in socially innovative service-
learning experiences and the concepts they must understand to excel in her Specialty program,
which has a theme of Global Industrialism: “I see alignment in the social responsibility that
business and corporations have to their consumers. So, helping young people see that industries
must take an additional role in protecting, preserving, and supporting the communities in which
they are working.” Regina went on to assert that working in an international industry requires
customer service skills, and there is a direct correlation between effective customer service and
empathy, which is core principle of changemaking. Thus, Regina’s response evidences that she
has established shared goals between engaging students in socially innovative service-learning,
or changemaking, and reinforcing theme of her Specialty program, which is Global
Industrialism. Jewelle asserted that changemaking and service-learning present a direct
correlation to the learning goals of her program and the WCPS district performance
requirements for all Specialty Programs: "Our program is centered on change. We emphasize
that students can make a change in themselves... and ultimately globally. It’s really a direct link
in all specialties because we are charged to expose students to industry and community
opportunities.” Both Regina and Jewelle, along with four more of their SPE colleagues clearly
communicated shared goals, or utility value, between facilitating quality, socially innovative
service-learning experiences and attaining the programmatic and instructional goals of their
Specialty Programs.
CHANGEMAKERS 99
It is notable to discuss that while six SPEs communicated a correlation between
engaging students in quality, socially innovative service-learning experiences and
simultaneously helping their Specialty Programs attain learning and performance goals, two
SPEs, Zara and Devin did not identify any shared goals. Devin of Hartford high school made a
strong statement when asked about potential shared goals: “Aside from possibly helping me
increase teacher support for the program, I see zero connection between service-learning and
my Specialty. I see benefits to service-learning and changemaking, but it seems like a forced
integration into Specialties.” Zara and Devin’s responses, however, only represented 25% of
participant responses, so, according to the KMO validation criteria of this study as outlined in
Table 8, the assumed motivational influence related to utility value was not validated.
In line with responses related to intrinsic and utility value, the majority of SPEs
responses, seven of eight, were reflective of attainment value in their understanding of the
lifelong benefits of service-learning to their students. Terra suggested that quality, socially
innovative service experiences help students learn to increase utility value for potential
community and business partners whom they may encounter in academics or careers: “Social
entrepreneurship in service not only teaches them about networking and business connections,
it teaches them that they can leverage other people's causes to connect with their cause and
accomplish more to help others.” Lexy suggests the practice as avenue for internships and
capstone projects, as she shared: “These kinds of projects also present opportunities to create
and implement service projects based on interest...through the Specialty, we have a culminating
project where students can either do an internship or choose a capstone service project to
address a community need.” Anna asserted that changemaking integrated service-learning
shows students “what it’s like to go forth in the world and be a part of something that’s more
CHANGEMAKERS 100
than just their microcosmic views and experiences,” and Jewelle suggested that engagement in
hands-on, socially innovative service-learning experiences could incite lifelong change agency
within student participants: they realize that they actually can accomplish these things. It’s that
light bulb moment that shows how powerful service can be... once they get that taste of success,
they will be lifelong change agents.” Based upon SPE interview responses, no assumed
motivational influences within this study were validated.
Findings from the Document Analysis. As the Changemaking through Service
documents were a required professional task, they do not provide any analytical insight into SPE
motivation to integrate quality, socially innovative service-learning projects into their school,
program, curriculum, or instruction.
Synoptic Response: Research Question One
In response to research question one, which inquires about the knowledge and
motivational factors that influence SPE facilitation of quality, socially innovative service-
learning projects, findings validated gaps and partial gaps in SPE declarative and procedural
knowledge related to the principles and practices of changemaking and service-learning. SPEs
demonstrated some knowledge of each concept, but they did not articulate the principles of
changemaking and practices of service-learning at a frequency that would justify mastery or
ability to intentionally to apply each concept to practice. Interview responses, however,
unanimously evidenced significant levels of intrinsic value, utility value, and attainment value
amongst SPEs. Thus, this study revealed no motivational gaps, according to expectancy-value
theory, or hindrances to SPE facilitation of quality, socially innovative service-learning
experiences within their schools, programs, or instruction. Ultimately, none of the assumed
motivational influences were validated.
CHANGEMAKERS 101
Research Question Two
The second research question within this study inquires about the organizational factors
that influence participating stakeholders, as it asks: how do high school Specialty Program
Educators’ knowledge and motivation interact with the organizational support of the district to
shape educators’ ability to facilitate quality, socially innovative service-learning projects? Akin
to the first research question, research question two was also explored within the interview and
document analysis phases of the data collection and analysis process, which yielded the final
research theme identified within this chapter and listed in Table 9. Findings related to research
question two follow the same organizational pattern as those related to research question one: the
research theme is addressed, and then the validation status of correlating KMO influences are
also addressed. This section also concludes with a synoptic response to research question two.
SPEs have a significant need for organizational support and resources to support quality,
socially innovative service-learning experiences for students.
The fifth and final theme revealed by the data collection and analysis process evidenced
that the most substantial gap that potentially hinders SPEs from engaging quality, socially
innovative service-learning experiences lies within organizational support and resources. SPEs
indicated the most significant need for organizational support in the form of ongoing
commitment and prioritization from WCPS and OSL leadership, along with ample resources to
support quality, socially innovative service-learning experiences for students. This research
theme is a direct response to the organizational influence inquiry within research question two
and to the assumed organizational influence #1 of the study, which focuses on the concept of
cultural models (Rueda, 2011; Schein, 2004): SPEs need ongoing, supportive leadership from the
Office of Service Learning and WCPS Executive Team that emphasizes quality, socially
CHANGEMAKERS 102
innovative service-learning (changemaking) as a district-wide priority. It also addresses assumed
organizational influence #2, which focuses on cultural setting (Rueda, 2011; Schein, 2004): SPEs
need ongoing resources from the WCPS service-learning office and district leadership
throughout the planning and implementation process. Both influences were validated, as
participant responses within interviews and articulation within the document analysis were
consistent with a need for commitment and prioritization on behalf of WCPS and OSL
leadership, along with a need for ample resources to support the integration of changemaking
into quality service-learning experiences.
Findings from the Interviews. Two interview questions were crafted to assess SPE
organizational influences. They are as follows:
● What kinds of WCPS resources have been consistently available to you to support you in
integrating socially innovative, service-learning (changemaking) projects into your
program or instruction?
● In addition to the ones you shared, what kinds of resources or other support from
leadership, if any, would you need to assist you in facilitating socially innovative,
service-learning (changemaking) into your program or instruction?
Ongoing commitment and prioritization from WCPS executive leaders, Office of Service
Learning (OSL) leaders, and school-based leaders comprised a major component of the empirical
theme of organizational support that unfolded within the data analysis process. Regina’s
interview response indicated an evolution of organizational support, but an ongoing need for that
support to be more universal: “At my first school [in 2005], service-learning...existed in some
curriculums at some of the time, and if you happened to teach that curriculum at a particular
time, you would pass through that unit.” She went on to share that she was never given training
CHANGEMAKERS 103
on facilitating quality service-learning as a new teacher: “it was not communicated to me: here’s
what service-learning is, here’s why it’s important, and here are the resources...it was just like,
‘oh we’re doing this thing. We did it! It’s done.” Ultimately, Regina did share that there has
been a renewed interest in service-learning within WCPS in the past few years, and she hopes the
district continues to move in this direction. Despite her brief optimistic commentary, however,
Regina also indicated a lack of confidence in whether WCPS leadership will continue to
maintain interest in supporting quality, socially innovative service-learning projects: “I think
there is a renewed interest in it, but I think there’s this question mark. Will leadership sustain
interest in this, or will there be something that will be a distraction from it per usual?” Five other
SPEs indicated a similar lack of confidence in leadership demonstrating an ongoing commitment
to prioritizing and supporting quality, socially innovative service-learning. Zara offered specific
solutions that could address ongoing prioritization amongst leadership, including explicit
connections to school and district strategic plans and making civic engagement and service-
learning a priority in high schools throughout WCPS. She expressed, “if [leaders and faculty]
own it as a value and understand that it is a space that can be explored and engaged with, rather
than the obligation, it will increase teacher buy-in and participation.” Zara also shared that
quality service-learning should be “shared by everyone. It shouldn’t be dictatorial, but it should
be adaptive framework that people can use and resources that come with that framework is
important…and it has to be connected with district-wide messaging.”
Differing from Regina and Zara’s responses, Devin’s response presented a contrasting
effect of the gap in organizational commitment and prioritization, as she stated: “It’s really
discouraging. I did not implement a changemaking integration project because I knew the
leadership would shift its focus soon enough...and here we are. One year later and no one is even
CHANGEMAKERS 104
talking about changemaking anymore.” Akin to their communicated need for organizational
support in the form of leadership commitment, SPEs also indicated a significant need for
resources, particularly in the form of time, funding, and staffing, to support implementation of
quality, socially innovative service projects. Cassi shared, “we just don’t have enough manpower
or time to really help these kids and to really guide them. I know one of the goals of
changemaking is to find an outside mentor, but the fact is, that’s really difficult.” Anna echoed a
need for support in finding community partners, as she stated, “we just need adults who are
willing to work with the students, so we continually need the mentors and people willing to help
guide our students through project.”
Other SPEs communicated a desire for more training, more lesson planning resources,
and more opportunities for collaborative planning time. Zara stated that she truly experienced
“buy-in” regarding changemaking integration into service-learning, but she needs more training
and resources to support this integration: “It’d be really helpful in having a lot of value for
service-learning within the county, and to have more professional development. I mean we had
one PD for two days. And then what? Where’s the follow-up, where’s the next phase?”
Becky emphasized a need for time and collaborative planning in her response: “Teachers
shouldn't have to take away from curriculum and instructional time to plan and implement these
projects. I think we need more networking as well to share project ideas. We need a place to
share partnership contacts as well.” Terra and Lexy suggested that while some resources from
OSL, such as the Changemaking through Service symposium the office held, were helpful,
project funding for students and staffing presents a barrier to completing socially innovative
service-learning projects. Lexy shared: “We need service-learning coordinators at the school
level. Every high school should have a service-learning specialist. Find some money to pay them
CHANGEMAKERS 105
as a club advisor or just give them a stipend. I just don’t have enough time in my day.” Interview
responses from the majority of SPEs, eight out of eight for leadership and six out of eight for
resources, validated assumed organizational gaps that affect SPE integration of quality, socially
innovative service-learning.
Findings from the Document Analysis. When prompted in the Changemaking through
Service integration plans to indicate additional support or resources needed to successfully
accomplish performance goals, six out of eight SPEs requested some form of ongoing training,
professional development, or support from WCPS leadership. For example, Regina requested
“Continued partnership in attending CtS events and communicating with partners, as needed”;
Anna requested “follow up discussions from OSL to help process and plan for upcoming project
implementations”; and Lexy requested “support for SPEs with changemaking questions.”
Language within the majority of the integration plans was consistent with these requests for
ongoing communication and availability of WCPS and OSL leadership. Hence, overall analysis
of these documents validates an organizational need for supportive leadership in order for SPEs
to accomplish the performance goal for the 2019 - 2020 school year.
Akin to findings related to support from organizational leadership, the majority of the
Changemaking through Service integration plans also indicate a need for ongoing resources.
Terra requested monetary resources in the form of an ongoing stipend for an additional school
educator to support student service-learning projects, and she also indicated a need for training
for school leadership and targeted teachers before the commencement of the 2019 - 2020 school
year. Jewelle suggested that additional planning time for developing curriculum and meaningful
lessons to support quality, socially innovative service-projects would be useful, and Devin
requested an additional Specialty Program instructor position to support the newly established
CHANGEMAKERS 106
performance goal. Resources in the form of time, funding, templates, and exemplars were
suggested in six out of eight Changemaking through Service integration plans that were
analyzed. The “additional resources” section of the plan was optional, and two of the plans left
the section blank. Findings within the document analysis are consistent with findings from
interview responses: organizational influences in the form of ongoing leadership support and
resources are validated as a hindrance to SPE facilitation of quality, socially innovative service-
learning projects.
Synoptic Response: Research Question Two
Findings related to research question two, which inquires about how SPEs’ knowledge
and motivation interact with the organizational support of the district to facilitate quality, socially
innovative service-learning projects, were unanimously conclusive. The most significant
hindrance to SPE facilitation of quality, socially innovative service-learning projects is
organizational support through leadership and resources. SPEs feel that service-learning and
changemaking are not consistently implemented in a quality manner because WCPS executive
and leadership does not prioritize nor demonstrate consistent commitment to supporting service-
learning. They also indicated that they need ample resources, such as funding for student
projects, planning time, and additional staffing to support school-wide efforts. Gaps in
organizational support affect SPEs’ ability to demonstrate declarative mastery of the principles
and practices of changemaking and quality service-learning because gaps in organizational
support often result in a lack of follow-up on training and other forms of professional
development (Clark & Estes, 2008). There is also a direct correlation between attaining
declarative knowledge and then applying that declarative knowledge to practice (Clark & Estes,
2008) so SPE levels of procedural knowledge have the potential to be negatively affected by
CHANGEMAKERS 107
gaps in organizational support as well. Findings related to SPE motivation, however, have
yielded results that suggest a need for further research: there appears to be no correlation
between organizational support and SPE motivation to engage students in quality, socially
innovative service-learning projects. Through the lens of expectancy-value theory (Eccles 2006;
Pintrich, 2003), SPE participants demonstrated high levels of intrinsic, utility, and attainment
value with regard to the importance of students’ engagement in changemaking and quality
service-learning. They also evidenced understanding of the potential for shared goals between
engaging students in such experiences and simultaneously strengthening their Specialty
Programs, along with the correlation between quality, socially innovative service-learning
experience and college, career, and civic readiness. Thus, this study revealed a notable
interaction between significant organizational gaps and stakeholder declarative and procedural
knowledge, yet it uncovered no interaction between organizational gaps and stakeholder
motivation.
Summary
The overarching finding of the entire data analysis process was that the majority of SPEs
in WCPS have minimal gaps in declarative and procedural knowledge, and they indicated no
gaps in motivation, through the lens of expectancy-value theory, that would hinder the
facilitating quality, socially innovative service-learning projects. Their responses did, however,
demonstrate a unanimous need for increased organizational support through leadership and
resources, and the gaps in organizational support influenced SPE mastery of declarative
knowledge and application of procedural knowledge. Table 11 delineates the validation status of
all assumed knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences as deduced from the data
analysis process of the study.
CHANGEMAKERS 108
Table 11
Assumed Influence Validation Results
Assumed Knowledge Influences Validation Status
Declarative Knowledge
SPEs need to know the definition of service-learning and the key
components of a quality service-learning experience (as defined by the
state educational department of the district in question)

SPEs need to know the meanings and principles of social innovation
and social entrepreneurship (changemaking)
Validated
Procedural Knowledge
SPEs need to know how to execute the steps of integrating the
principles of changemaking and effective service-learning in order to
create a quality, socially innovative service project
Partially Validated
Conceptual Knowledge
SPEs need to know the link between quality, socially innovative
service-learning projects, increased civic engagement, and College and
Career readiness.
Not Validated
Metacognitive Knowledge
SPEs need to know to consistently reflect upon how these
understandings and applications to instruction and programming can
augment the student service and learning experience.
Not Validated

Assumed Motivational Influences Validation Status
Intrinsic Value
SPEs need to be given the opportunity to choose how they will
integrate quality service-learning and social innovation into their
programs and instruction.

Not Validated

Utility Value
SPEs need to understand how integrating social innovation into service
projects can help propel their programs toward the attainment of their
strategic programmatic, curricular, or instructional goals as determined
by the district in question.

Not Validated
CHANGEMAKERS 109
Attainment Value
SPEs need to understand how changemaking and quality service-
learning incite civic, college, and career readiness among students.

Not Validated
Assumed Organizational Influences Validation Status
Cultural Model
SPEs need ongoing, supportive leadership from the Office of Service
Learning and WCPS Executive Team that emphasizes quality,
socially innovative service-learning (changemaking) as a district-wide
priority.

Validated
Cultural Setting
SPEs need ongoing resources from the WCPS service-learning office
and district leadership throughout the planning and implementation
process.

Validated

These findings are based upon a cohort of educators who influence programmatic,
curricular, and instructional structure. Further research and additional data would need to be
collected with a larger sample size to determine if conclusions gathered within this study could
be transferable to more traditional classroom educator roles. The next and final chapter of this
study will explore the final research question, which inquires about the knowledge, motivational,
and organizational recommendations and solutions based upon assumed organizational
influences. All recommendations and proposed solutions were directly informed findings
explored within this chapter.
CHANGEMAKERS 110
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
Chapter Five of this study outlines specific organizational recommendations for the Wade
County Public School (WCPS) district, its Office of Service Learning (OSL), and the
participating stakeholder group comprised of Specialty Program Educators (SPEs).
Recommendations directly correlate with the knowledge and organizational influences on SPE
facilitation of quality, socially innovative service-learning projects within their schools and
programs that were validated through the data collection and analysis process. As Chapter Four
articulated findings and conclusions related to research questions one and two of this study,
Chapter Five expounds upon evidence to support research question three, which asks: what are
the recommendations and/or proposed solutions for how these knowledge, motivational, and
organizational needs might be addressed? This question will be specifically addressed utilizing
the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) to inform recommended
solutions and evaluation strategies.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
In this study, eight Specialty Program Educators (SPEs) within the Wade County Public
Schools (WCPS) district were interviewed about their understandings and reflections regarding
social innovation and social entrepreneurship, which are referred to in this study as
changemaking, and service-learning. Changemaking through Service integration documents
completed by participants were also analyzed. Research sought to uncover the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational factors that might either support or hinder SPEs from
facilitating quality, socially innovative service-learning experiences with student in their schools,
programs, or Specialty courses. Of the nine assumed KMO influences explored in the data
CHANGEMAKERS 111
collection and data analysis process, two assumed knowledge influences were either validated or
partially validated; two assumed organizational influences were validated; and no assumed
motivational influences were validated. This chapter provides research-based recommendations
to address the knowledge and organizational gaps revealed by the data analysis process of this
study.
Knowledge Recommendations.
Data revealed that SPEs have gaps in declarative and procedural knowledge that could
hinder their facilitation of quality, socially innovative service projects with their students. Table
12 provides a streamlined presentation of knowledge factors, organized based upon Krathwohl’s
(2002) four knowledge types, along with context-specific recommendations for addressing
knowledge influences based upon the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework and other
theoretical principles from relevant literature.

CHANGEMAKERS 112
Table 12
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Validated?

Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Declarative
Knowledge
SPEs must learn
the definition
of service-
learning and the
key components
of a quality
service-learning
experience (as
defined by the
state educational
department of
the district in
question)

SPEs must learn
the meanings of
social innovation
and social
entrepreneurship
(changemaking)

V Procedural knowledge
increases when
declarative knowledge
required to perform the
skill is available or
known. (Clark & Estes,
2008).

Integrating auditory and
visual information
maximizes working
memory capacity
(Mayer,
2011).

Increasing germane
cognitive load by
engaging the learner in
meaningful
learning and schema
construction
facilitates
effective learning
(Grossman & Salas,
2011).
Once the prior learning activity is
completed, provide the following
key definitions and terms:

1. Maryland State Department
of Education (MSDE)
definitions and 7 Best
Practices of Service-
Learning.
2. Definition of Social
Innovation
3. Ashoka definition of social
entrepreneurship and
principles of changemaking

Accompany definitions with simple
visuals that bolster connections to
prior learning. Incorporate
conversational language, concrete
examples, relevant connections,
questioning, and reflecting into
training.

Provide access to worked examples
of quality, socially innovative
service-learning lesson plans
Procedural
Knowledge
SPEs need to
learn how to
execute the steps
of integrating the
principles of
changemaking
and effective
service-learning
in order to create
a quality,
Partially
Validated

Modeling to-be-learned
strategies or behaviors
improves self-efficacy,
learning, and
performance (Denler,
Wolters, & Benzon,
2009).

Effective observational
learning is achieved by
first organizing and
rehearsing modeled
Once declarative information has
been presented and model the
strategies for integrating the
principles of changemaking and
effective service-learning into
service-learning project
development.

Reinforce modeling and allow
educators to apply newly attained
declarative knowledge by guiding
CHANGEMAKERS 113
socially
innovative
service project
(P)

behaviors, then enacting
them overtly (Mayer,
2011)
them through the scaffolded
development of their own service
project utilizing best practices of
changemaking and service-
learning.
This procedural application may be
conducted in teams.
Conceptual
Knowledge
SPEs need to
know the link
between quality,
socially
innovative
service-learning
projects,
increased civic
engagement, and
College and
Career readiness.
N

Not Validated

Not a Priority
Metacognitive
Knowledge
SPEs need to be
prompted to
reflect upon how
these
understandings
and applications
to instruction and
programming
can augment the
student service
and learning
experience.
N Not Validated

Not a Priority

Knowledge recommendations. According to results yielded by this study, SPEs have
limitations in declarative and procedural knowledge that could hinder them from successfully
integrating quality, socially innovative service-learning projects into their programs and
CHANGEMAKERS 114
facilitating them with their students. Validated KMO research suggests that if SPEs are to be
successful with the established performance goal, they must understand the practices of quality
service-learning experiences (as defined by MSDE), and they must also grasp the meaning and
intended function of social innovation and social entrepreneurship (also referred to as
changemaking). Clark and Estes (2008) affirm this influence as they assert that people are more
likely to grasp the steps needed perform the function of a duty (procedural knowledge) if they
first understand, or at least have access to, the declarative knowledge related to the duty. Mayer
(2011) emphasizes that declarative knowledge must not only be accessible, but also optimized by
a delivery that minimizes extraneous cognitive load in order to facilitate the transference of
working memory to long-term memory (Grossman & Salas, 2011). It is, therefore,
recommended that SPFs be presented with the straight-forward, written 7 Best Practices of
Service-Learning (MSDE, 2017) and the principles of changemaking (Ashoka, 2016) without the
accompaniment of visuals, such as a PowerPoint or infographics, which could overload working
memory capacity (Mayer, 2011). It is also recommended that concrete worked examples of
quality, socially innovative service-learning lesson plans be provided for SPEs in order to
increase germane cognitive load, which contributes directly to the learning process (Grossman &
Salas, 2011).
A study conducted by van Gog, Paas, and van Merriënboer (2004) concluded that worked
examples provided to learners in conjunction with process-oriented information, or the
procedural steps required to execute declarative functions, actually enhances germane cognitive
load, and ultimate the transfer of learning to performance. Therefore, it is also recommended that
worked examples be accompanied by step-by-step modeling. Denler, Wolters, and Benzon
(2006) assert that modeling desired strategies and behaviors is linked to increased performance
CHANGEMAKERS 115
amongst learners. Based upon these theories and the conclusions drawn during the data
collection period, it is recommended that SPEs both engage in concept attainment activities to
prompt prior knowledge connections before encountering service-learning and changemaking
concepts, and engage in reflective journaling and collaborative or individual project debriefs.
Motivation Recommendations
Using expectancy-value theory as a guide, literature reviewed for this study yielded three
assumed motivational influences that could support or hinder SPE facilitation of quality, socially
innovative service-learning experiences with their students. As revealed through data analysis
and validated delineated in Table 13, no motivational influences upon SPE stakeholders were
validated within this study.
Table 13
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation Influence

Validated?

Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Intrinsic Value
SPEs must be given the
opportunity to choose how they
will integrate quality service-
learning and social innovation
into their programs and
instruction.
N Not Validated

Not a Priority
Utility Value
SPEs must come to understand
how
integrating social innovation into
service projects can help propel
their programs toward the
attainment of their strategic
programmatic, curricular, or
instructional goals as determined
by the district in question.
N Not Validated

Not a Priority
Attainment Value
SPEs must internalize how
changemaking and quality service-
learning incite civic, college, and
N Not Validated

Not a Priority
CHANGEMAKERS 116
career readiness among students.

Organizational Recommendations
Introduction. As a culminating accompaniment to knowledge and motivational factors,
the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model deems organizational influences on stakeholder
performance a third key consideration in facilitating organizational change. This section will
briefly recount assumed organizational influences amongst SPEs in WCPS, review relevant
theory that addresses these influences, and then utilize theoretical and empirical evidence, along
with the findings gathered within this study to provide contextually relevant recommendations to
address the influences. Table 14, also details the influences, literature, and resulting
recommendations to support attaining the stakeholder goal of SPEs integrating quality, socially
innovative elements into program and course service-learning experiences.
Table 14
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence
Validated

Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model

SPEs need ongoing,
supportive
leadership from the
Office of Service
Learning and
WCPS Executive
Team that
emphasizes quality,
socially innovative
service-learning
(changemaking) as
a district-wide
priority.

V To support
organizational change,
leaders need to
populate the cultural
setting with consistent
practices that support
educator mastery,
emphasize the
retention of their
professional identity,
and established shared
goals in order to
maintain the
authenticity of their
professional purpose
(Moran & Brightman,
2000).
In training, emphasize a long-
term commitment to
integrating changemaking
into quality service-learning
projects throughout the
WCPS school district.

OSL Leader (as supported
by the WCPS Executive
Team) should provide
ongoing guidance through
site visits, observations,
supportive conversations,
and simple inquiry about
what resources SPEs need to
be successful.

CHANGEMAKERS 117

Cultural Setting
SPEs need ongoing
resources from the
WCPS service-
learning office and
district leadership
throughout the
planning and
implementation
process.
V Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc.)
needed to do their job,
and that if there are
resource shortages,
then resources are
aligned with
organizational
priorities (Clark and
Estes, 2002)
Throughout the year, OSL
should provide planning
reference materials for
changemaking projects;
help facilitate financial
support for student projects
when necessary; connect
SPEs to community
partners who can support
student projects; and help
SPEs find creative
solutions for project
planning time.

Cultural Model and Setting. Relevant literature revealed two potential organizational
influences on SPE facilitation of quality, socially innovative service projects with students, and
each assumed influence is shaped by one of the two major components of organizational culture
and change: cultural model and cultural setting (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2011; Rueda, 2011;
Schein, 2004). According to Rueda (2011), a cultural model is a core behavior or practice that
helps establish a barometer for what is considered normal, rational, and acceptable within a
group or organization. Cultural setting, in turn, consists of behaviors and practices that are
reflective of the routines accepted and established within the daily environment of a group or
organization.
For SPEs to be successful in implementing service-learning projects that incorporate the
principles of changemaking, they need to know that the cultural model and cultural setting of
WCPS will be conducive to this work. Specifically, SPEs need supportive leadership who
prioritizes changemaking and ongoing resources from the WCPS office of service-learning and
executive leadership throughout the planning and implementation process. The cultural model
reflects the ongoing support and prioritization from WCPS leadership, as opposed to providing a
CHANGEMAKERS 118
simple training with little to no reflection or follow-up before expecting subordinates to move on
and prioritize a new initiative. The cultural setting reflects ample resources provided to SPEs
throughout the planning and implementation process to ensure that the educators, and ultimately
students, have the tools they need to implement successful projects.
Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that effective organizational change not only ensures that
all members have adequate resources to accomplish established goals, but that the resources and
goals themselves be directly aligned with organizational priorities. Therefore, it is recommended
that the WCPS Strategic Plan, along with all training and subsequent follow up with SPEs,
emphasizes a long-term commitment to integrating changemaking into quality service-learning
projects throughout the WCPS school district. This emphasis in core district documents and
training should be fortified by the actions of OSL leaders in the months following the initial
training. Actions should include site visits to each high school to provide support for SPE
changemaking operations; informal observations of instructional introductions to service-
learning and changemaking; supportive conversations with SPEs before and after observations;
and simple inquiry regarding the resources SPEs need to be successful in integrating the
principles of changemaking into quality service-learning instruction. Additionally, available
resources to support SPE service-learning goals should be explicitly stated in training, and SPEs
should be unequivocally clear about how to find and access these resources. Resources should
include human resources in the form of supportive leadership and community partners; planning
reference materials for changemaking projects; financial support for student projects when
necessary; and creative solutions for project planning time.

CHANGEMAKERS 119
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
This study adopted the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) to inform the evaluation
strategies and recommended solutions to address knowledge, motivational, and organizational
gaps validated by WCPS educators. The Kirkpatrick Partners (2018) describe The New World
Kirkpatrick Model as an updated, clarifying representation of the company’s original Four
Levels of Training and Evaluation (2018). The original levels include: Level 1: Reaction; Level
2: Learning; Level 3: Behavior; Level 4: Results. The New World Kirkpatrick order is also
broken down into the same four levels; however, it incorporates nuanced training considerations
of participant engagement, content relevance, motivational processes and systems, and formative
indicators of favorable training results. While the four levels are often introduced and explained
in order from levels 1 to 4, The New World Kirkpatrick Model emphasizes the importance of
starting with level 4 and either working in reverse toward level 1 when planning organizational
change initiatives, or taking a blended evaluation approach that allows leaders to collect data to
inform multiple levels at once. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), beginning with
the results, or outcomes, in mind is paramount to any organizational change effort because it
reinforces the viability of an initiative. If leaders have difficulty identifying clear internal and
external outcomes that will be yielded by a particular training or intervention, then it is not a
worthy candidate for a detailed evaluation plan (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Overall, this
New World Model not only offers practitioners a guide to planning and implementing effective
training, but it also provides an avenue for practitioners to evaluate the relevance, transfer, and
usefulness of potential trainings prior to implementation.

CHANGEMAKERS 120
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
The Mission of Wade County Public Schools (WCPS) is to Erase Achievement and
Opportunity Gaps (WCPS, 2015), and the mission of the Office of Service Learning (OSL)
within this K-12 school district is to equip teachers and students with the means to utilize
service-learning as a tool to incite personal growth, scholarly understanding, and community
engagement. OSL has also evolved its mission within the past year to include “fostering social
entrepreneurship and empowering students to be changemakers through service to the global
community” (WCPS, 2015). Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) service-learning
mandates and the subsequent WCPS approach of creating linear, curriculum-embedded service-
learning for students has not successfully fostered an instructional culture that supports quality,
socially innovative service experiences that promote student voice and choice. Relevant
literature, however, asserts that students who engage in service-learning experiences that do not
align with evidence-based best practices; fail to prioritize student passions and skills; and fail to
incite students’ intrinsic motivation are not likely to continue engaging in service experiences
beyond a mandated timeframe (Clabaugh, 1999; Helms, 2013). In short, participation in service-
learning programs that are not meticulously designed to incorporate quality, research-proven
project components, such as the MSDE 7 Best Practices for Quality of Service-Learning (2017),
can decrease the potential for youth and young adult civic engagement over time (Zaff & Lerner,
2010). To ameliorate the effects of the current WCPS approach to service-learning, the Office of
Service-Learning (OSL) opted to emphasize changemaking, which is an application of social
innovation and social entrepreneurship which is characterized by people who are “intentional
about solving a social or environmental problem, motivated to act, and creative” (Ashoka, 2016).
Research on the design and benefit of quality service-learning experiences (Ohn & Wade, 2009;
CHANGEMAKERS 121
Zaff & Lerner, 2010) indicates that designing and implementing service projects that integrate
the principles of changemaking (Ashoka, 2016) and the MSDE 7 Best Practices (MSDE, 2017)
could not only increase student engagement, but also bolster college, career, and civic readiness.
Based upon the research, the mission and vision of the district, and the current state of service-
learning in WCPS, the Office of Service Learning established the following stakeholder
performance goal for Specialty Program Educators (SPEs): by June 2020, 100% of Specialty
Program Educators at all high schools in WCPS will have facilitated at least one independent or
program-led service project that is student-driven and integrates changemaking and the
components of quality service-learning. The expectation is that SPEs develop a firm
understanding of changemaking and the components of quality service-learning; SPEs manifest
this within elements of their programmatic, curricular, and instructional structure; SPEs
introduce and engage students, within their programs and school-wide, into these quality,
socially innovative service projects; and students ultimately benefit from engaging in service
projects that prioritize their voice, choice, passions, and skills.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 15 delineates the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2018) in the form of outcomes, metrics and methods for external outcomes and
internal outcomes for SPEs. If internal outcomes are met, external outcomes should manifest in
the larger scope of the WCPS school district.

CHANGEMAKERS 122
Table 15
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
External Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Increased Community
Partner support of
student service-learning
projects
Number of community partners
from business, non-profits, and
other organizations who offer
time, consult, and/or resources
to support class and student
projects

WCPS Community Partner
Repository
Increased likelihood that
students will engage in
service and social
innovation beyond
projects initiated in
school
Number of students who
complete and report independent
service-learning projects that are
quality and socially innovative
WCPS Service-Learning Portal
Surveys administered by the Office
of Service Learning (OSL)
amongst upperclassmen. Results
would compare experiences of
those students who did not
experience quality, socially
innovative service-learning as
underclassmen to those who did.
Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Increased SPE mastery
of the principles of
changemaking and
components of quality
service-learning and
incorporate it into
programmatic,
curricular, and
instructional structures.
Articulation and practice of
changemaking principles and
service-learning components
curriculum and instruction
Changemaking through Service
Implementation Plans

Specialty Course Instruction
Increased quality and
integration of
changemaking within
service-learning
experiences.
Number of quality, socially
innovative service projects in
which students engage
Specialty course lesson plans

School-wide student advisory
lesson plans
Increased and ongoing
commitment of
leadership and resources
in support of
changemaking
integration within
Commitment of WCPS
leadership to engaging students
in quality, socially innovative
service-learning experiences
articulated in the district
strategic plan, and subsequently
WCPS Strategic Plan

School Improvement Plans in all
district high schools
CHANGEMAKERS 123
quality service-learning
experiences for students
within school improvement
plans

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors and Required Drivers. Four critical behaviors will evidence
Specialty Program Educators’ (SPEs) ability to transfer knowledge acquired in training to
instructional and programmatic practices that produce desired organizational outcomes
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The first critical behavior involves SPEs integrating quality
service-learning practices with the principles of changemaking within student service-learning
lessons and experiences. The second critical behavior demonstrates SPE emphasis of the benefits
and significance of student engagement in service and social innovation. This behavior is
purposed to increase student understanding of what quality, socially innovative service learning
offers individuals and communities. It is also purposed to incite motivation for students to
engage in quality, socially innovative service-learning experiences. The third critical behavior
involves SPE facilitation of quality, socially innovative service experiences with students
throughout the school year. The final critical behavior involves SPEs utilizing internal and
external resources to attaining the performance goal of leading students to completing at least
one quality, socially innovative service project by the conclusion of the 2018-2019 academic
school year. Table 16 provides a detailed delineation of the metrics, methods, and recommended
implementation timing of each critical behavior.

CHANGEMAKERS 124
Table 16
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
SPEs design and
facilitate service-
learning lessons
based upon
quality best
practices
established by
MSDE and the
principles of
changemaking
established by
Ashoka
Range and frequency
of identifiable MSDE
7 Best Service-
Learning practices
and principles of
changemaking within
curriculum,
instruction, and any
school-wide lesson
plans designed by the
Specialty Program
Changemaking through
Service Implementation
Plans

Written and verbal
content of Service-
Learning lessons
developed and
facilitated by each
specialty.

Lesson plans designed,
written, revised and
finalized in the Spring
and Summer prior to
introduction and
facilitation with
students (which will
occur in the following
academic year).

Lesson plans facilitated
with students beginning
in the Fall and
continued throughout
the academic year.
SPEs emphasize
the significance of
service-learning
and social
innovation within
introductory
lessons with
students, while
also guiding
students to
identifying their
passions, talents,
and skills.
Number of
introductory lessons,
events, or other
student experiences
that establish a
foundation and
catalyst for students to
engage in service and
changemaking
experiences.

Written and verbal
content of Service-
Learning lessons
developed and
facilitated by each
specialty.
Within the first month
of the academic year.
SPEs collaborate
with students to
develop service
project goals for
the year that
incorporate and/or
complement their
passions, talents,
and skills.
Number of Class
and/or Student Project
Goals Outlines
completed by each
Specialty and/or high
school (depending on
whether SPEs take a
programmatic or
school-wide
approach)
Written and verbal
content of Service-
Learning lessons
developed and
facilitated by each
specialty.

Changemaking through
Service Implementation
Plans

Changemaking through
Service Class or Student
Project Goals Outline

Within the second
month of the academic
year.
CHANGEMAKERS 125
SPEs utilize
resources
provided by the
district and those
within the
community to
guide students
through the
completion of at
least one quality,
socially
innovative service
experience within
by the end of the
school year.
Number of monetary,
written, and/or human
resources requested
and utilized to support
student completion of
quality, socially
innovative service
projects.

Number of quality,
socially innovative
service projects
facilitated by SPEs
and completed by
high school students
at the conclusion of
the school year.

Changemaking through
Service Implementation
Plans

Changemaking through
Service Class or Student
Project Goals Outline

Changemaking through
Service reporting and
feedback forms
(collected electronically
at the conclusion of
each school year and
formatted to allow SPEs
to report resources
utilized and projects
completed)

Written and verbal
content of Service-
Learning lessons
developed and
facilitated by each
specialty.

WCPS Community
Partner Repository
Project(s) facilitated
and resources utilized
throughout months
three through eight of
the academic year.

Projects completed by
the final month (month
nine) of the academic
year.

In support of each of the critical stakeholder behaviors delineated in Table 16, Table 17
outlines the required organizational drivers for each desired behavior through reinforcing,
encouraging, rewarding, and monitoring (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

CHANGEMAKERS 126
Table 17
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3, or 4
Reinforcing
WCPS and OSL Leadership will include language
in the district strategic plan and OSL mission and
vision that clearly displays a commitment to
engaging students in quality, socially innovative
service experiences.

School Principals will be encouraged to include this
language within their School Improvement Plans as
well.

Prior to the start of the
academic year, with
ongoing revisions as
necessary.
4
The following learning and planning resources will
be made available for SPEs via the WCPS Intranet:
● MSDE 7 Best Practices for quality service-
learning
● Introduction and overview of the principles
of changemaking
● Changemaking lesson planning toolkit and
template
● Changemaking through Service
Implementation Plans
● Changemaking through Service Class or
Student Project Goals Outline
● Media resources that exemplify
changemaking in action
● Exemplars of quality, socially innovative
service projects
● Access to the WCPS Community
Partnerships Repository
Resources will be made
available in the Spring
and Summer prior to
introduction and
facilitation with students
(which will occur in the
following academic year).

Resources will continue to
be compiled throughout
the school year as
necessary.

1, 2, 3, 4
OSL will organize at least four professional
development sessions throughout the academic year
to continue to support knowledge growth and to
provide SPEs with the time, space, and resources to
collaborate, reflect, and plan.
Each marking period 1,2,3,4,
Encouraging
OSL representatives assigned to a caseload of SPEs
in order to conduct supportive school visits and to
address SPE questions and concerns throughout the
lesson planning and project facilitation process.
Prior to the start of the
academic year and
ongoing
1, 2, 3, 4
CHANGEMAKERS 127

Organizational support. Per the data collected and synthesized in this study, SPEs need
ongoing leadership commitment to quality, socially innovative service experiences for students,
and they also need plentiful resources from the school district in order to accomplish stakeholder
performance goals. To provide this support, WCPS and OSL leadership should include language
in the district strategic plan and OSL mission and vision that clearly displays a commitment to
engaging students in quality, socially innovative service experiences. School Principals should
be encouraged to include this language within their School Improvement Plans as well. Monetary
resources within the OSL budget should be allocated to support student service-learning projects
at each high school, and professional development and supplemental collaborative planning and
reflection time should be provided for SPEs at least once per marking period. To support lesson
planning and instructional facilitation, an array of changemaking and service-learning written
and media resources should be compiled on the WCPS Intranet throughout the academic year.
Additionally, WCPS should give SPEs access to a Community Partner Repository comprised of
Feedback from OSL and school leadership
regarding SPE and student progress
At least once per semester 1, 2, 3, 4
Rewarding
Posting Changemaker of the Month on the OSL
website and WCPS social media platforms that
highlight student projects and SPE facilitation.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Monitoring
Including Changemaking through Service element
within the Specialty Program yearly audit
Prior to the start of the
academic year, with SPE
follow-up during yearly
audits conducted by the
conclusion of the school
year

1, 2, 3, 4
OSL representatives assigned to a caseload of SPEs
in order to review service-learning lesson plans,
observe related instruction, and provide
constructive feedback.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
CHANGEMAKERS 128
representatives from businesses, nonprofits, and other local organizations who can help support
student service projects.
Level 2: Learning
Following the completion of the recommendations listed above, Specialty Program
Educators (SPEs) should be able to:
1. Understand and articulate the principles of changemaking and the best practices of
quality service-learning, in accordance with MSDE (2017) and Ashoka (2016) standards
(Declarative Knowledge).
2. Apply understanding of the principles and practices of quality, socially innovative
service-learning to developing lessons and designing service-learning experiences for
students (Procedural Knowledge)
3. Mobilize district and school-wide support from leadership, along with human, monetary,
community, and instructional resources, to support student engagement in quality,
socially innovative service-learning experiences (Cultural Model and Setting)
Program. The learning goals outlined above should be achieved within a year-long
training and evaluation program for SPEs that should include a four-part Changemaking
through Service (CtS) symposium and ongoing support from the Office of Service Learning
(OSL) through program visits, informal observations, and resource inquiry. The four
symposiums should occur at the beginning of each marking period, and they should each
incorporate four core components that address validated knowledge and organizational gaps
(Clark & Estes, 2008), and support demonstration of critical behaviors and actualization of
internal and external outcomes, as presented in Table 15 and Table 16, respectively.
CHANGEMAKERS 129
The first core component that each quarterly CtS symposium should incorporate is a
comprehensive review and/or in-depth exploration of the principles and practices of
changemaking and service-learning. This will address gaps in declarative knowledge, and it will
allow SPEs to master the articulation of these practices and principles within dialogue with
leadership; instruction; and lesson planning. Each symposium should also incorporate exemplars
and results of quality, socially innovative service-learning experiences conducted by SPEs, other
WCPS educators, and educators around the world. Exposure to these exemplars creates an
element of modeling, which has been linked to increased stakeholder performance (Denler et al.,
2006). In addition to core concept reviews and exemplars, each CtS symposium should include
scaffolded opportunities for SPEs to apply novel information to the procedural application of
developing Changemaking through Service integration and lesson plans, along with designing
respective service experiences. Conducting these scaffolded applications in supportive training
environments will increase the likelihood that SPEs will transfer newly developed knowledge to
practice (Grossman & Salas, 2011). The final core component that should be incorporated into
each CtS and time for SPEs to review and share resources; ask questions; conduct collaborative
planning; and reflect upon successes, failures needs, and next steps for implementation. This
culminating component is critical as it directly addresses SPE concerns about planning time and
available resources to effectively facilitate quality, socially innovative service-learning projects.
It also prompts metacognitive processing that will give SPEs the opportunity to explore what has
worked and what may be in need of improvement within their school, program and/or course
implementation.
Evaluation of the Components of learning. To achieve learning outcomes, SPEs must
demonstrate the ability to process declarative knowledge in preparation to apply it through
CHANGEMAKERS 130
procedural execution. Table 18 outlines how the declarative and procedural learning within the
training program can be assessed in support of SPEs transferring what they learn in training to
their daily practice within their programs and schools.
Table 18
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Methods and Activities Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Formative knowledge checks through group
“thumbs up, down, middle” indications
During CtS symposiums

Formative knowledge checks through peer
discussion

During CtS symposiums

Formative knowledge checks through
individual written reflection

During CtS symposiums

Formative knowledge checks through pre-
and post- evaluation surveys

Before and after CtS symposiums

Formative knowledge checks through
dialogue between assigned OSL
representatives and SPEs

During supportive school and program visits
throughout the year, and as desired or prompted
by SPEs throughout the year

Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Engagement in concept attainment and
scaffolded application activities

During CtS symposiums
Completion of the CtS Gap Analysis Model During the first CtS symposium of the school
year
Completion CtS Integration Plans During and immediately following the first CtS
symposium of the school year

Revision of CtS Gap Analysis Model and
Integration Plans

Ongoing throughout the school year
Development of CtS Lesson Plans During CtS Symposiums and throughout the
school year
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Pre- and Post- Survey (will include brief
knowledge assessments and attitudinal
evaluations)
Before and after CtS symposiums
CHANGEMAKERS 131

Ongoing dialogue between assigned OSL
representatives and SPEs
During supportive school and program visits
throughout the year, and as desired or prompted
by SPEs throughout the year
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Pre- and Post- Survey (will include brief
knowledge assessments and attitudinal
evaluations)
Before and after CtS symposiums
Ongoing dialogue between assigned OSL
representatives and SPEs
During supportive school and program visits
throughout the year, and as desired or prompted
by SPEs throughout the year

Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Pre- and Post- Survey (will include brief
knowledge assessments and attitudinal
evaluations)
Before and after CtS symposiums
Completion and Revision of CtS Integration
Plans
During CtS Symposiums and throughout the
school year

Facilitation of CtS lesson plans and quality,
socially innovative service-learning
experiences with students
Ongoing throughout the school year

Level 1: Reaction
In addition to evaluating learning goals, it is also imperative that WCPS and OSL
leadership collect and review feedback from participants regarding the value and effectiveness of
each CtS Symposium and supportive school visit conducted by OSL. Table 19 lists the
recommended methods that should be utilized to ascertain the components of Level 1 of New
World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), which considers levels of
engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction during and after a training.

CHANGEMAKERS 132
Table 19
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Methods or Tools Timing
Engagement
Formative observations conducted by OSL
trainers and other office representatives
During CtS Symposiums, during supportive
school, and during program visits as desired or
prompted by SPEs
Maximized attendance at all symposiums and
supportive visits
During CtS Symposiums, during supportive
school, and during program visits as desired or
prompted by SPEs

Sustained participation in CtS Symposium
activities and dialogue with assigned OSL
representatives during supportive school visits.
During CtS Symposiums, during supportive
school, and during program visits as desired or
prompted by SPEs

Symposium Post-Surveys (will include
program evaluations)

Immediately following CtS Symposiums
Relevance
Dialogue with assigned OSL representatives
during supportive school visits
During supportive school and program visits
throughout the year, and as desired or
prompted by SPEs throughout the year

Symposium Post-Surveys (will include
program evaluations)

Immediately following CtS Symposiums
Completion and Revision of CtS Integration
Plans
During the first CtS Symposium and ongoing
throughout the school year

Customer Satisfaction
Symposium Post-Surveys (will include
program evaluations)
Immediately following CtS Symposiums

Brief Follow-Up Surveys Conducted immediately after supportive
school and program visits throughout the year

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. During each CtS Symposium,
OSL trainers and other office representatives assisting with the symposium should observe SPE
levels of engagement and demonstrations of understanding within peer dialogue, brief written
CHANGEMAKERS 133
reflections, and questions posed within group activities and collaborative planning time. This
observational data should be coupled with formative declarative and procedural knowledge
checks to empirically inform the structure of evaluation surveys that should be administered to
SPEs and all CtS symposium participants. The culmination evaluation survey will prompt SPEs
to demonstrate declarative and procedural knowledge through brief written reflection within the
post-symposium evaluation surveys, and it will also allow SPEs and participants to evaluate
levels of engagement, relevance, and organizational support throughout each symposium. Data
collected will provide insight into Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) level 1, reaction, and level
2, learning.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016) emphasize the importance of not only assessing participant learning (and allowing them
to evaluate the quality of the program) immediately after a training, but also assessing participant
learning once they have had time to apply their learning to practice. This assertion indicates that
completion of a delayed assessment and evaluation tool provides an additional layer of accuracy
in informing learning goals, critical behaviors, and outcomes. To increase likelihood of an
accurate assessment of declarative and procedural knowledge, OSL should email a link to a
delayed evaluation survey to all participants. In addition, SPEs will be asked strategic questions
that assess declarative and procedural knowledge by assigned OSL representatives during
supportive school visits. Finally, SPEs will be given the opportunity to complete brief follow-up
surveys, with no more than three questions, that inform engagement, relevance, and customer
satisfaction with supportive school visits. Delayed assessment and evaluation tools are included
in Appendices C, D, and E.
Data Analysis and Reporting
CHANGEMAKERS 134
In effort to assess the effectiveness of CtS Symposiums and OSL supportive school visits,
data collected in the form of observations, integration plans, and surveys will be coded and
communicated using a mixed methods approach. Table 20 outlines data reporting methods in
conjunction with internal outcomes and learning goals (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), along
with the correlative knowledge and organizational influences (Clark & Estes, 2008) that were
validated within this study.
Table 20
Yearly Data Analysis Reporting Methods
Internal
Outcomes
(Level 4)
Learning
Outcomes
(Level 2)
Correlated
KMO
Influence
Metric

Method of
Representation
Increased SPE
mastery of the
principles of
changemaking
and
components of
quality
service-
learning and
incorporate it
into
programmatic,
curricular, and
instructional
structures.
SPEs will
understand and
articulate the
principles of
changemaking
and the best
practices of
quality service-
learning, in
accordance with
MSDE (2017)
and Ashoka
(2016) standards
Declarative
Knowledge
Articulation and
practice of
changemaking
principles and
service-learning
components in
post-symposium
surveys,
curriculum, and
instruction
Year-end mixed methods
report that includes:
● A bar graph that
depicts SPE
responses on Likert
scale items from
post-symposium
evaluation surveys
● A qualitative
analysis of follow-up
surveys from
supportive school
visits
Increased
quality and
integration of
changemaking
within service-
learning
experiences.
SPEs will Apply
understanding
of the principles
and practices of
quality, socially
innovative
service-learning
to developing
lessons and
designing
service-learning
experiences for
students
Procedural
Knowledge
Number of
quality, socially
innovative
service projects
in which students
engage
A table with year to year
metric data
CHANGEMAKERS 135
(Procedural
Knowledge)
Increased and
ongoing
commitment of
leadership and
resources in
support of
changemaking
integration
within quality
service-
learning
experiences for
students
Mobilize district
and school-wide
support from
leadership,
along with
human,
monetary,
community, and
instructional
resources, to
support student
engagement in
quality, socially
innovative
service-learning
experiences
Organization
al: Cultural
Model and
Setting
Commitment of
WCPS
leadership to
engaging
students in
quality, socially
innovative
service-learning
experiences
articulated in the
district strategic
plan, and
subsequently
within school
improvement
plans
A Year-end mixed
methods report that
includes:
● A bar graph that
depicts SPE
responses on Likert
scale items from
post-symposium
evaluation surveys
● A qualitative
analysis of follow-up
surveys from
supportive school
visits

Summary
This study used the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) to shape the evaluation
strategies and recommended solutions to address knowledge, organizational gaps validated by
Specialty Program Educators (SPEs) in the Wade County Public Schools (WCPS) district. By
result, recommendations incorporated training evaluation considerations of participant
engagement, content relevance, participant satisfaction, while also including the traditional
Kirkpatrick model elements of internal and external outcomes; critical behaviors; learning goals;
and participant reactions (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Overall, the New World Model was
particularly effective in not only serving as a guide for training development, but also providing
a framework for evaluating the relevance, transfer, and usefulness of trainings before, during,
and after implementation.

CHANGEMAKERS 136
Delimitations and Limitations of the Study
In effort to ensure consistency of results and support an in-depth qualitative analysis,
delimitations were established for this study. Though all levels of students are capable of
engaging in quality, socially innovative service-learning experiences, this study focused on high
school SPEs for three reasons: diverse SPE realm of influence, increased likelihood of student
engagement, and limited sample size. SPEs were selected as stakeholders for this study because
of their unique ability to influence school wide programming, programmatic structure for their
Specialties, curriculum for their Specialty Programs, and instruction within their Specialty
courses. Thus, results yielded could inform potential KMO influences that could affect educators
who serve in only one or two of these capacities as well. The diverse SPE realm of influence,
which ranges from school-wide to Specialty courses, also increases the likelihood of student
engagement as it presents opportunities for entire school populations and surrounding
communities to experience the benefits of quality, socially innovative service learning. There are
also only 12 SPEs in WCPS, so targeting this stakeholder group meant targeting a relatively
small qualitative sample size. While the study purposely targeted a limited sample size, it is
worthy to note that eight out of the 12 SPEs elected to participate in the study. Thus,
representatives of two thirds of all high schools in WCPS were open to exploring the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational factors that could allow them to successfully facilitate socially
innovative service-learning experiences within their programs and schools. The level of SPE
engagement in this study has significant implications on the possibilities of successful WCPS
service-learning implementation in the upcoming school year. In addition to sample sizing, the
selection of WCPS, a K-12 district, for organizational analysis presented another delimitation to
the study.
CHANGEMAKERS 137
Delimitations established by the study also contributed to limitations revealed
throughout the study. Employing a qualitative methodological approach, this study used
document analysis and interview responses from eight Specialty Program Educators in the
WCPS school district. While the SPE response rate was highly successful and their documents
and interview responses yielded informative results, gender representation within the sample size
could have presented a limitation to the study, as all eight SPEs who elected to participate were
women. It is worthy to note, however, that there were only two male SPEs in WCPS at the time
of data collection. In addition to gender demographic, elements of data triangulation could also
present a limitation to this study. The lead investigator of the study initially aimed to conduct
observations during at least one monthly SPE meeting, however by the time of data collection,
the WCPS district, and subsequently Specialty Program department had shifted performance
prioritization away from facilitating quality, socially innovative service learning experiences
with students. Thus, a meeting observation would not have yielded relevant results. Finally, the
sole usage of Expectancy-Value Theory (Eccles, 2006; Wigfield, 1994) to shape assumed
motivational influences presented a limitation to the study. While relevant research suggested a
correlation between educator value and educator motivation, and Expectancy-Value theory does
incorporate several motivational concepts, such as behaviorism (McGhee & Johnson, 2015) and
efficacy (Denler et al., 2006), the fact that no motivational influences were validated in this study
implies a potential need for further research in this area.
Future Research
While the potential for high school students across Wade County Public Schools to
engage in quality, socially innovative service experiences is commendable, research shows that
all levels of students stand to benefit from these opportunities. Thus, the validated knowledge
CHANGEMAKERS 138
and organizational influences, and subsequent recommendations, imply that a larger sample size
and mixed methods approach would be beneficial. A study of this nature could target all school
teachers in a public K-12 school district like WCPS, and perhaps consider having all middle and
high school teachers taking a survey, and then inviting middle and high school teachers who
teach courses with service-learning components to engage in interviews. Additionally, an
exploration of the specific levels of integration in which educators are willing to facilitate
quality, socially innovative service experiences with student might be considered for future
research. This study explored KMO influences on any level of integration, including school-
wide, programmatic, and within Specialty course classes. However, if the ultimate goal of a
public school district is to ensure that all students engage in this caliber of service experiences,
implications for future research suggests that KMO influences for school-wide integration should
be specifically explored. Finally, as no assumed motivational influences explored in this study
were validated, additional aspects of motivational theory beyond expectancy-value theory should
be considered in future research.
Conclusion
If service-learning projects do not create dynamic, informative, empowering experiences
for students, they often fall short of what the instructional phenomenon was intended to
accomplish (Ohn & Wade, 2009; Zaff & Lerner, 2010). Done right, service-learning has the
potential to offer significant academic and social-emotional benefits to not only student
participants, but also the communities that they serve (Deba, 2014; Hart et al., 2014; Wilson,
2011). Research also highlights a correlation between engagement in quality service-learning
experiences and increased college, career, and civic readiness (Andolina et al., 2003; Furco,
2003; Weiler et al., 1998). However, executed incorrectly, particularly in a manner that
CHANGEMAKERS 139
mandates student participation without inciting student motivation, service-learning also has the
potential to create a phenomenon deemed “involuntary volunteers” (Helms, 2013) that could
deter students from ever engaging in service-learning beyond what is required of them in school
(Clabaugh, 1999; Helms, 2013; Zaff & Lerner, 2010).
As the principles of social innovation and changemaking naturally emphasize and
mobilize student passions, talents, and skills toward the bettering the local to global community
(Ashoka, 2016), this study explored the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences
(Clark & Estes, 2008) that could help or hinder Specialty Program Educators’ integration of
quality, socially innovative service-learning experiences into their schools, programs, curricula,
and course instruction. Findings yielded by this study support that regardless of favorable levels
of educator motivation, gaps in educator knowledge and organizational support could serve as a
significant barrier to educators engaging students in quality, socially innovative service-learning
experiences. Recommendation, implementation, and evaluation measures outlined, however,
present a unique opportunity for WCPS, and other K-12 public school districts in the State of
Maryland and beyond. It offers the opportunity to facilitate service-learning in a manner that not
only engages students, and not only prepares them to excel academically, civically, and
professionally in the world beyond grade school, but also makes the world around these students
a better place than it was before they transformed into changemakers.

CHANGEMAKERS 140
References

Abel, J. R., Deitz, R., & Sue, Y. (2014). Are recent college graduates finding good jobs?
Current Issues in Economics and Finance, 20(1), 1-8.
Andolina, M. W., Jenkins, K., Zukin, C., & Keeter, S. (2016). Habits from home, lessons from
school: Influences on youth civic engagement. American Political Science Association
Stable, 36(2), 275–280.
Anfara, V., & Mertz, N. (2015). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research. Los Angeles,
CA & London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Ashoka. (2016). Changemaker skills. Retrieved August 23, 2017, from
https://www.ashoka.org/en/collection/changemaker-skills
Astin, A. W. (1998). The changing American college student: Thirty-year trends, 1966-1996.
The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 115-135.
Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., & Yee, J. A. (2000). How service-learning affects
students. University of California, Los Angeles. Higher Education Research Institute.
Baker, L. (2008). Metacognition in comprehension construction. In Comprehension Instruction,
Second Edition: Research-Based Best Practices (pp. 65-79). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science. 75–78
Banks, J.A. (1972). The sociology of social movements. London: Macmillan Press.
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning - a new paradigm for undergraduate
education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27 (6).
Barber, B. (1992). An aristocracy of everyone. New York: Ballantine.
CHANGEMAKERS 141
Barensden, L., & Gardner, H. (2004). Is the social entrepreneur a new type of leader? Leader to
Leader, 34, 43–50.
Barnes, W., & Slate, J. R. (2013). College-readiness is not one-size-fits-all. Current Issues in
Education, 16(1), 1–13.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1994). Post-college experiences and epistemology. The review of higher
education, 19(3), 283-304.
Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. (1985). Habits of the heart.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Billig, S. T. (2000). Research on K-12 school-based service-learning. Phi Delta Kappan,
658–664.
Blakey, J. M., Theriot, S., Cazzell, M., & Sattler, M. (2015). Is service-learning worth it?: A
mixed-methods study of faculty’s service-learning experiences. The International
Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement,3(1).
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain.
New York: David McKay Co Inc.
Boyle-Baise, M., Brown, R., Hsu, M.-C., Jones, D., Prakash, A., Rausch, M., Wahlquist, Z.
(2006). Learning service or service learning: Enabling the civic. International Journal of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 17–26.
Bracey, G. W. (2012). International comparisons and the condition of American education.
Educational Researcher, 25(1), 5–11. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176722
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
CHANGEMAKERS 142
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
Brock, D. D., Steiner, S., & Kim, M. (2008). Social entrepreneurship in education: Is it achieving
the desired aims? Usabe, 832–846.
Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2010). Help wanted: Projections of job and education
requirements through 2018. Lumina Foundation.
Carpini, M. X. D. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information
environment. Political Communication, 4, 341–349.
Clabaugh, G. (1999). Service learning: The right thing for the wrong reasons? Educational
Horizons, 77(4), 163-165.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Commission on National and Community Service. (1993). What you can do for your country.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Conley, D. T. (2007). Redefining college readiness. Educational Policy Improvement Center.
Oregon: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Cremin, L. (1955). The revolution in American secondary education, 1893-1918. Teachers
College Record. 56 (6), 303.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Deba, A. A., Jabor, M. K., & Buntat, Y. (2014, November 21). Potential of
service-learning on students’ interpersonal skills development in technical and
vocational education. Asian Social Science, 1-9.
Dees, J.G., Anderson, B.B. (2003). Sector-bending: Blurring lines between nonprofit and
CHANGEMAKERS 143
for-profit. Society, 16-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-003-1014-z
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
Drayton, W. (2006). Everyone a changemaker: Social entrepreneurship’s ultimate goal.
Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(1), 388-401.
doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808395.025
Education Commission of the States. (2014). High school graduation requirement or credit
toward graduation — service-learning/community service. Denver. Retrieved from
http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbquest3RTE?Rep=SL1301
Ehrlich, T. (2000). Civic responsibility and higher education. American council on education.
Westport, Connecticut: Bowman & Littlefield. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2002.0030.
Eyler, J., & Giles Jr., D. (2013). The importance of program quality in service-learning. In A.
Waterman, Service-learning: applications from the research (pp. 57-76). New York:
Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Flanagan, C., & Levine, P. (2010). Civic engagement and the transition to adulthood. The Future
of Children, 20(1), 159–179.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The
Nature of Intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist. 906–911.
Furco, A. (2013). A research agenda for K-12 school-based service-learning: Academic
achievement and school success. The International Journal of Research on Service-
Learning and Community Engagement, 1(1).
CHANGEMAKERS 144
Garber, S. (2017, October 10). Sputnik and the dawn of the space age. Retrieved August
19, 2017, from https://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103-120.
Gabnor, M. (2014, March). New college degree in hand: now what? Monthly Labor Review.
Green, F. B., & Williamson, J. (2000). Creating a college and business partnership that works:
Simulation in a manufacturing environment. Journal of Education for Business, 75(3),
164-168.
Hart Research Associates. (2015). Falling Short? College Learning and Career Success.
Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Helms, S. E. (2013). Involuntary volunteering: The impact of mandated service in public
schools. Economics of Education Review, 36, 295-310.
Heiscala, R., 2007. Social innovations: structural and power perspectives. In:
Hamalainen, T.J., Heiskala, R. (Eds.), Social Innovations, Institutional Change and
Economic Performance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 52–79.
Hettich, P. (2000). Transition Process from College to Career. Barat College. American
Psychological Association.
Hodkinson, P. (2005). Reconceptualising the relations between college-based and workplace
learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(8), 521-532.
Howe, C. W., Coleman, K., Hamshaw, K., & Westdijk, K. (2014). Student development and
service-learning: A three-phased model for course design. The International Journal
of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, 2(1).
CHANGEMAKERS 145
Johnson, J., Carlson, S., Kastl, J., & Kastl, R. (1992). Developing conceptual thinking: The
concept attainment model. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,
Issues and Ideas, 66(2), 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.1992.9955947
Jones, A. L., Warner, B., & Kiser, P. (2012). Service-learning and social entrepreneurship: From
strangers to allies. Partnerships: A Journal of Service-Learning and Civic Engagement.
Keen, C., & Kelly, H. (2009). Engaging with difference matters: Longitudinal student outcomes
of co-curricular service-learning programs. The Journal of Higher Education. 59-79.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kirkpatrick Partners. (2018). The New World Kirkpatrick Model. Retrieved March 10, 2018,
From
https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/Our-Philosophy/The-New-World-Kirkpatrick-
Model
Klute, M. M., & Billig, S. H. (2002). The impact of service-learning on MEAP: A large-scale
study of Michigan Learn and Serve grantees. Denver, CO: RMC Research Corporation.
Knouse, S. B., Tanner, J. R., & Harris, E. W. (1999, March). The relation of college internships,
college performance, and subsequent job opportunity. Journal of Employment
Counseling, 36(1), 35-43.
Kraft, R. J. (1996, February). service-learning: An introduction to its theory, practice, and
effects. Education and Urban Society, 28(2), 131-159.
Kramer, M. (2005). Measuring innovation: Evaluation in the field of social entrepreneurship.
Boston, MA: Foundation Strategy Group.
CHANGEMAKERS 146
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice.
212–218.
Lannie, V.P. (Ed.). (1974). Henry Barnard: American educator. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Leader, T. V. (1991). the National and Community Service Act of 1990. 32(1), 1,3.
Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2006). Why the changing American economy calls for twenty-first
century learning: Answers to educators' questions. New Directions for Youth
Development, 110, 53-62.
Litzky, B. E., Godshalk, V. M., & Walton-Bongers, C. (2010). Social entrepreneurship and
community leadership. Journal of Management Education, 34(1), 142–162.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562909338038
Locke, L.F., Silverman, S.J., and Spirduso, W.W. (2010). Reading and understanding
research. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Maclean, M., Harvey, C., & Gordon, J. (2013). Social innovation, social entrepreneurship and
the practice of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy. International Small Business
Journal, 31(7), 747–763. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242612443376
Mann, H. (1870). Oration delivered before the authorities of the city of Boston, July 4, 1842.
American Journal of Education, 19, 837-850. (Originally published in Boston, 1842).
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the Science of Learning. MA: Pearson Education.
McConnell, T. R. (1947). A comprehensive nation-wide program of education for secondary
and post-secondary schools.
CHANGEMAKERS 147
McGee, H. M., & Johnson, D. A. (2015). Performance motivation as the behaviorist views it.
Performance Improvement, 54(4), 15-21.
MDCCC Connects. (2015). College, career, and civic readiness through civic
engagement (pp. 1-24, Publication). Frederick, MD: MD-DC Campus Compact.
Megyeri, K. (1997, Summer). History of the service-learning requirement in Maryland. NSEE
Quarterly, 10-21.
Melchior, A. (1995). National evaluation of Serve-America: Final report. Waltham, MA.: Center
for Human Resources, Brandeis University.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Montgomery College - Takoma, Montgomery County Public Schools. (2011). Summary results
of Montgomery Community College - Takoma/MCPS partnership program at
Montgomery Blair High School. Rockville: Office of Shared Accountability.
MSDE. (2003). History of service-learning. Retrieved January 27, 2016, from Maryland State
Department of Education:
http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/msde/programs/servicelearning/History-of-
Service_Learning.htm
MSDE. (2017). Service-learning in Maryland. Retrieved August 22, 2017, from
http://marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/Service-Learning/index.aspx
Mulgan, G. (2006). The process of social innovation. Innovations. Retrieved from
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/itgg.2006.1.2.145
Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., & Sanders, B. (2007). Social innovation: what it is, why it
matters and how it can Be Accelerated.Oxford. Retrieved from
CHANGEMAKERS 148
http://eureka.sbs.ox.ac.uk/761/1/Social_Innovation.pdf
National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at risk. (1983). Washington, D.C.
National Youth Leadership Council. (2008). K-12 Service-learning standards for quality
practice. Retrieved August 22, 2017, from https://nylc.org/standards/
National Youth Leadership Council (Ed.). (2016, December 07). What is service-learning?
Retrieved August 22, 2017, from https://nylc.org/service-learning/
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
Ohn, J., & Wade, R. (2009). Community service-learning as a group inquiry project:
Elementary and middle school civic connections teachers' practices of integrating
historical inquiry in community Service-Learning. Social Studies, 100(5), 200-211.
Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept.
Journal of World Business, 41(1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.10.007
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. California EU: Sage
Publications Inc. Chapter 7; pp.339-348
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of educational Psychology. 667-686.
Pol, E., & Ville, S. (2009). Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? The Journal of
Socio-Economics, 38, 878–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2009.02.011
Rahn, W., & Transue, J. (1998). Social trust and value change: The decline of social capital in
American youth, 1976-1995. Political Psychology, 19(3), 545-565. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3792177
Remmers, H. H., & Gage, N. L. (1949). Reshaping educational policy. Review of Educational
Research, 19(1), 77–89. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1168382
CHANGEMAKERS 149
Robinson Kurpius, S.E., & Stafford, M.E. (2006). Testing and measurement: A user-friendly
guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Rothman, R. (2012). A common core of readiness ready or (Mostly) not. Educational
Leadership, 69(7).
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (Microsoft Excel
2016). Sage Publications
Saltmarsh, J. (2005). What is it that we would want a civically educated student to know?
Liberal Education, 50–55.
Sax, Linda J., Astin, A., Korn, W., & Mahoney, K. (1997). The American freshman: National
norms for Fall 1997. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, Graduate
School of Education and Information Studies, UCLA.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:
Basic Books.
Shraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). Interest. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/interest/
Spreen, T. L. (2013, February). Recent college graduates in the U.S. labor force: data from the
Current Population Survey. Monthly Labor Review.
Spring, K., Grimm, R., & Dietz, N. (2008). Community service and service-learning in
America's Schools. Corporation for National and Community Service, 1-44.
Skinner, B. F. (1984). The shame of American education. American Psychologist, 39(9),
947–954.
CHANGEMAKERS 150
Teske, N. (1997). Beyond Altruism: Identity-construction as moral motive in political
explanation. Political Psychology, 18 (1), 71-91.
The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2012). The role of higher education in career
development: employer perceptions. American Public Media.
Theiss-morse, E., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Citizenship and civic engagement. The Future of
Children, 20(1).
Tocqueville, A. d. (1969). Democracy in America. New York: Doubleday.
Trow, M. (1961). The second transformation of American secondary education. International
Journal of Comparative Sociology. https://doi.org/10.1163/156854261X00156
Tucker, B. (2011). The dream deferred: How college and career readiness looks from below.
English Journal, 1003, 115–116.
Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1982). Managers of virtue: Public school leadership in America,
1820-1980. New York: Basic Books.
Ulinski, M., & O'Callaghan, S. (2002). A comparison of MBA students and employers'
perceptions of the value of oral communication skills for employment. Journal of
Education for Business, 77(4), 193-197.
Uslaner, E. M., & Brown, M. (2005). Inequality, trust, and civic engagement, American Politics
Research. 33(6), 868–894.
United States Department of Education. (2016, July 06). Fact sheet: Education department
releases proposed regulations to encourage better and fairer tests, reduce burden of
testing. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-education-
department-releases-proposed-regulations-encourage-better-and-fairer-tests-reduce-
burden-testing
CHANGEMAKERS 151
van Gog, T., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004). Process-oriented worked examples:
improving transfer performance through enhanced understanding. Instructional Science,
32(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021810.70784.b0
Warren, D. (2001). Original intents: public schools as civic education. Theory Into Practice,
27(4), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405848809543360
Warren, D.R. (1974). To enforce education: A history of the founding years of the United States
Office of Education.
Weiler, D., LaGoy, A., Crane, E. & Rovner, A. (1998). An evaluation of K-12 service-learning in
California: Phase II final report. Emeryville, CA: RPP International with the Search
Institute.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A Developmental
Perspective. 49-61.
Wilson, J. C. (2011). Service-learning and the development of empathy in US college students.
Education and Training, 53(2-3), 207-217.
WCPS. (2015). Wade County Public Schools. Maryland: WCPS.
Zaff, J., & Lerner, R. M. (2010). Service Learning promotes positive youth development in high
school. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(5).
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field
experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 89-99.
CHANGEMAKERS 152
APPENDIX A
Interview Invitation and Consent Form
Participant Introduction and Consent
You have been invited to participate in this research study, conducted by Lead
Investigator Jasmine A. Coleman, because you are a Specialty Program educator. Your
participation in this study is voluntary, and you are encouraged to carefully review each section
of this form before confirming your consent to participate. You are encouraged to ask questions
and you are welcome to dialogue with anyone you deem appropriate before agreeing to
participate in the study. Prior to beginning the interview, you will be asked to sign this consent
form. You will also be given a copy of this form for your continued reference.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to understand what knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences might affect Specialty Program educators’ optimal facilitation of
quality, student-centered, socially innovative service-learning experiences. The study will result
in recommendations for educator support in facilitating these service experiences for high school
students.
Interview Procedures
Participation in this study will involve engaging in a 30 to 45 minute interview. During
the interview, we will converse about your possible experiences with service-learning and social
innovation within the realm of your Specialty Program, class instruction, or school. If there is
any question posed to which you do not wish to respond, you may simply decline to answer. The
interview will be taped for transcription purposes only. Your identity and your school will be
kept confidential. More details about the protection of your personal information are detailed in
the “Confidentiality” section.
Potential Benefits to Participants
Potential benefits for this study include the opportunity for participants to reflect on
pedagogical practice and implementation, which could positive implications for Specialty
program development, instruction, and schoolwide influence. As the results for this study will be
made available to participants once it is finalized and approved by the University of Southern
California, participants could also benefit from gaining insight into what SPEs need to know and
believe in order to successfully engage students in quality, socially innovative service
experiences. Additionally, this study will yield information about the organizational supports
needed to facilitate such opportunities for students.

Confidentiality
CHANGEMAKERS 153
While your responses or professional title will not be kept confidential, they will not be
associated with your name or personal demographics. Additionally, pseudonyms will be used for
the school district and each high school, so your responses will also not be associated with your
work location. With your permission, this interview will be recorded so that researchers will be
able to revisit your answers during the data analysis process to ensure clarity and authentic
reporting of your responses. This recorded information will be kept on a password protected
laptop that is not associated with your school or school district. For information accuracy
purposes, individuals who do not wish to be tape recorded will be unable to participate in the
interview. Should you have any questions about confidentiality at any time, you are welcome to
contact the researchers utilizing the e-mail or phone information listed at the bottom of this
consent form.
Participation and Withdrawal
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. This study is not sponsored by your
school district and is in no way connected to your professional responsibilities. Your
participation may be discontinued at any time without penalty, and you will not be asked to
waive any legal or privacy rights in order to participate in the study.

Potential Risks
There are no known risks for any Specialty Program educators who elect to be a part of
this study. Pseudonyms will be used to replace the names of schools and participants. Program
themes are also not a significant part of the study, so this information will not be volunteered by
the lead investigator.

Payment/Compensation for Participation
There will be no compensation for participation in the interviews for this study.
Contact Information: Lead Investigator
Should any participant have inquiries or concerns, all are welcome to contact Lead
Investigator Jasmine A. Coleman via e-mail at jacolema@usc.edu or at 240.893.0374. As this
study is entirely isolated from any professional position or responsibility, participants are asked
not to contact the Lead Investigator on her business e-mail or telephone regarding this study.

Rights of Research Participants - IRB Contact Information
If, at any time, participants have inquiries, comments, or concerns about this study and
are unable to contact the Lead Investigator, it is well within the participant’s right to contact the
University of Southern California University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB).
Participants may also contact UPIRB if they simply wish to speak to someone other than the
CHANGEMAKERS 154
Lead Investigator about the study. Contact information for the UPIRB is as follows:
upirb@usc.edu, (213) 821-5272.

Informed Consent Verification
With my Signature below, I am confirming that I consent to participate in this study and that I
have carefully reviewed all sections of this informed consent form.
Participant Name (Please Print): _________________________________________________
Participant Specialty: __________________________________________________________
Date: __________________________________________ Time: ________________________

CHANGEMAKERS 155
APPENDIX B
Interview Protocol and Questions
Welcome and Introduction Protocol:
1. Thank participant for his or her time and engagement
2. Review the Informed Consent Form, emphasizing:
a. The purpose of the study
b. Confidentiality and anonymity
c. Potential Risks
d. Participant Rights
e. and Informed Consent
3. Reiterate that you are collecting this information as an independent scholar and not as
district representative of the Office of service-learning
4. Confirm that Informed Consent Form has been signed

Confidential Questions
Participant Reminder: the purpose of these questions is solely to assist researchers in classifying
the data; they will not be published as a part of the study.

A. What is your Name?
B. At Which School do you work?
C. Describe your current professional role: What are your responsibilities?
D. Describe the theme of your Specialty program.
a. What are the specific goals of your Specialty program?

Non-Confidential (And KMO) Questions: Participant Reminder: questions asked at this point
will be published as a part of the study.

1. What kinds of service-learning experiences does your program implement (if any)?
a. Probing Question: Can you describe the structure and function of these service
experiences?
i. Who within your program/classroom generally determines the service-
learning project and/or community need that the service project will
address?
ii. How long are they?
iii. When and where do they take place?
iv. Who are the communities being served?
v. What kind, if any, student assignments are associated with the service
experiences?
b. If you have not, what has deterred you?

2. What qualities do you think students must practice in order to become social
innovators/entrepreneurs (changemakers)?
CHANGEMAKERS 156
3. In what ways, if any, do you think socially innovative service-learning (changemaking)
projects could align with your program’s approach to increasing the success and district
rating of your Specialty program?

4. What amount of value do you place on students planning and leading their own service
projects?
a. Probing Question: How do you practice this with your students?

5. Once a service-learning project and community need is identified, what are the steps that
you take (or would take) to implement the project?

6. Describe the steps you’ve taken to integrate the concept of social innovation, also
referred to in this district as changemaking, into your students’ service and/or Specialty
program experiences.
a. Probing Question: Describe how, if at all, any of these steps have aligned with
your program’s goals (programmatic, curricular, or instructional) or helped you
and your team to achieve them.

7. Describe the level of choice, if any, that you have over the type of service-learning
experience your Specialty Program facilitates.
a. Probing Question: If given the opportunity to choose, what areas of your
program/instruction would you ideally integrate socially innovative service-
learning (changemaking) projects? Can you explain why chose this area?

8. Describe the possible outcomes (consequences, benefits, drawbacks, etc.) of a student’s
engagement with a quality service-learning project that incorporates elements of social
innovation and entrepreneurship, referred to in this district as Changemaking.

9. Describe the connection, if one exists, between students engaging in quality, socially
innovative service-learning projects and preparation for life beyond high school, also
referred to in this district as “College, Career, and Civic Readiness”?

10. What kinds of WCPS resources have been consistently available to you to support you in
integrating socially innovative, service-learning (changemaking) projects into your
program or instruction?
a. In addition to the ones you shared, what kinds of resources would you need to
assist you in facilitating socially innovative, service-learning (changemaking)
into your program or instruction.

CHANGEMAKERS 157
APPENDIX C
CtS Symposium Post-Assessment and Evaluation Survey
CHANGEMAKERS 158

CHANGEMAKERS 159

CHANGEMAKERS 160

CHANGEMAKERS 161
APPENDIX D
Supportive School Visit Qualitative Questionnaire
OSL office representatives are encouraged to ask, and document responses, to the following
questions during each supportive school visit in order to assess declarative and procedural
knowledge needs, along with organizational resource needs.

1. What kinds of Changemaking through Service (CtS) experiences have you facilitated, or
are working toward facilitating, with your students?

2. What principles of changemaking and practices of quality service-learning have informed
your lesson plan and project design?

3. What specific steps have you taken, or do you plan to take, when implementing these
projects?

4. How can I, and OSL, continue to be supportive of you? What resources do you still need?

CHANGEMAKERS 162
APPENDIX E
Supportive School Visit Follow-Up Survey

Abstract (if available)

Abstract While researchers agree that service-learning can be a substantial academic and socio-emotional benefit to students, scholars and practitioners also agree on at least one major caveat: the yielded benefits of service-learning activities are largely dependent upon the quality and effectiveness of the programs and projects through which they are conducted. Literature reviewed in this study revealed that service-learning experiences are not only optimized, but are also positioned to boost college, career, and civic readiness, when they empower student voice, prioritize student choice, and incorporate student talents and skills. Key components of social innovation, social entrepreneurship, and particularly a concept entitled changemaking, align with mobilizing choice, talents, and skills to better the human experience. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine what knowledge, motivational, and organizational (KMO) influences could support or hinder high school educators’ optimal facilitation of quality, socially innovative service-learning experiences. This study conducted a qualitative methodological analysis through document analysis and interviews administered within a Maryland K-12 public school district. Participants included eight high school Specialty Program Educators (SPEs) who influence both programmatic and curricular implementation of service-learning projects facilitated with students. Data were coded and categorized, resulting in the validation of declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and organizational influences. Results allowed the researcher to provide evidence-based recommendations to address knowledge and organizational needs that SPEs need to facilitate quality, socially innovative service-learning projects. Research and recommendations presented may help K-12 district leaders determine how to best support educators in facilitating and optimizing student benefits from service experiences.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Equitable schooling for African American students: an evaluation study

PDF

Online graduate-level student learning and engagement: developing critical competencies for future leadership roles: an evaluation study

PDF

How service-learning educators help students learn: master teachers’ perspectives

PDF

The Bridge Program and underrepresented Latino students: an evaluation study

PDF

Creating the conditions for change readiness in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Modern corporate learning requires a modern design methodology: an innovation study

PDF

Effective services provided to community college student-athletes: a gap analysis

PDF

Preparing student affairs administrators to support college students of color with mental health needs

PDF

College and career readiness through independent study: an innovation study

PDF

Student engagement in online education: an evaluation study

PDF

Civic learning program policy compliance by a state department of higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Managing successful organizational change for faculty in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Innovative parental involvement: Utilizing information and communication technologies to increase parental involvement

PDF

Factors related to transfer and graduation in Latinx community college students

PDF

Creating effective online educational content: an evaluation study of the influences affecting course developers’ abilities to create online content with engaging learning strategies

PDF

IEP stakeholder communication and collaboration and its effects on student placement

PDF

Leveraging social-emotional learning to improve school climate, mental health, and student achievement in K-12 student populations

PDF

Equity and access: the under-identification of African American students in gifted programs

PDF

Organizational onboarding and socialization of adjunct clinical faculty in nursing education

PDF

Partnerships and nonprofit leadership: the influence of nonprofit managers on community partnerships

Asset Metadata

Creator Coleman, Jasmine Antoinette (author)

Core Title Creating changemakers: integrating social innovation and service-learning to empower student voice and bolster college, career, and civic readiness

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 08/15/2018

Defense Date 08/15/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag career,changemaker,changemaking,college,OAI-PMH Harvest,readiness,Service,service-learning,Social Innovation,student voice

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Datta, Monique (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member)

Creator Email jasmine.coleman@usc.edu,jasminecolemaneducates@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-70276

Unique identifier UC11671505

Identifier etd-ColemanJas-6758.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-70276 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ColemanJas-6758.pdf

Dmrecord 70276

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Coleman, Jasmine Antoinette

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA