University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Centering diverse funds of knowledge toward reciprocally beneficial practices

(USC Thesis Other)

Centering diverse funds of knowledge toward reciprocally beneficial practices

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Centering Diverse Funds of Knowledge Toward Reciprocally Beneficial Practices:
Peer-Practitioners Engage in Collaborative Action Research to Design a
Critical Service-Learning Framework for an Elementary School
by
Francesca Cecchi

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2022

© Copyright by Francesca Cecchi 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Francesca Cecchi certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Darline Robles
Alyssa Fraser
Lawrence Picus, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
Service-learning is defined and applied in myriad ways across the world. While the roots of this
pedagogy lie in the well-intentioned acts of addressing unmet social needs and, in general,
helping people, this has not always been the outcome of the interactions. In many cases,
engaging in service-learning has led to harmful reproductions of post-colonialism dynamics,
saviorism and disempowerment of the service recipients. Throughout the last decades, social and
pedagogical movements such as multiculturalism, culturally relevant and sustaining pedagogy,
and social justice education have led to the evolution of service-learning, towards a more
reciprocally beneficial practice among all service partners. At the heart of this evolving
pedagogy is building authentic relationships that reveal funds of knowledge, practicing ongoing
critical reflection, and engaging in reciprocally beneficial practices where both parties are co-
constructing a project. In addition, this researcher believes in order to design a critically-minded,
service-learning framework that fits a unique organizational context, the organization itself needs
to apply those concepts in their design process. This researcher believes collaborative action
research is the means that can align content concepts to the design process. While research exists
on service-learning and on designing frameworks, research that explores the intersection of
designing a critical service-learning framework on the developmental level of elementary aged
students is very limited. This study was guided by the following research question: How do
teachers design a reciprocally beneficial service-learning framework for an elementary school?
Data for this research was gathered through peer-practitioners’ (PP) reflections after every
session, audio-recording of each session totalling 18 hours, and the PP exit interviews. The six
PP met for six sessions, between October 2021 and February 2022. The analysis of the data
resulted in the following six findings: (a) The role of andragogy; (b) the role of collaborative

v
action research; (c) funds of knowledge; (d) leadership impact; (e) organizational context; and (f)
environmental factors.
Keywords: service-learning, critical service-learning, collaborative action research,
collaborative inquiry, action research, funds of knowledge.

vi
Acknowledgements
While my name is the one on the official dissertation, this work was a village effort. I am
so grateful and fortunate to know these very special people.
To (ISA): it is because of your dedication to every type of learning that I was able to
pursue this dream of mine. Your scholarship and support are proof of your words. I hope I can
contribute to making our school an even better place to learn for all.
Thank you, Larry, Darline and Alyssa—my thoughtful and supportive chairs! To Larry:
you believed in me and accepted my challenges. Thank you for encouraging me all the way and
thinking out of the box—it has made all the difference. Alyssa, our early morning hikes have
been therapeutic, entertaining and calorie-burning. You have been a model for me as a trailblazer
in your field. I have truly appreciated our friendship. To Darline: thank you for your openness
and your thoughtful questions.
Shabari, Gynelle, Christine, Ying, Shuna, and Amy: this program has taught me so much.
I am most grateful to it for introducing us. Thank you for being my thinking partners all
throughout this process but especially throughout the hard parts.
To Blue, Indigo, Green, Orange, Yellow and Violet: without you, there would be no color
in my words. Thank you for your time and thoughtful presence. You have been my teachers.
Jaitoon Kamsar, my teaching partner at school—your care, flexibility and partnership has
meant so much to me. I cannot thank you enough for helping me with the enormous endeavor
that is helping to raise a bunch of seven year-olds.
Kristen, Jen, Mekala, Lee, Adrienne and Tzung-Mei: there are parts of you all throughout
this research. Maybe you have not been named but you are present in the ways you have shaped
my thinking, the strategy in my arguments and the way I empathetically relate to others. I thank

vii
you for all couch and Dunkin-Donuts, French countryside and virtual dance parties, classroom
and new territories, Twins & library, MacRitchie and Natureland conversations, rain or shine. I
am so grateful for each of our unique friendships. You all mean so much to me.
Nonna Severa, Zia Paola, Zio Riccardo—siete sempre con me. Grazie per le vostre voci e
incoraggiamenti da altri mondi.
Stella and Mario: prima condividete con me la vostra vita; poi mi aiutate a rimuovere i
confini nella mia. Per questo non ci sono parole. Siete l’energia dietro il mio compasso. E
Arianna: ti sento vicino con ogni passo. La tua curiosita’ e saggezza sono contaggiose. Sei
un’ispirazione.
Gaia and Sasha, thank you for making fun of me when it seemed all I did was type. Being
the butt of your jokes is what I truly needed. Thank you for making me laugh. Being an example
of seeking who we want to become was encouraging me all along the way. You are our future! I
love you both, endlessly.
And to my Adam. Here are jobs I would add to your next resume: dumb action movie
partner, riding the peaks and valleys through COVID-19 partner, getting drenched hiking in the
early mornings with five hours of sleep partner, remover of glasses when I am asleep partner,
okay watching half hour shows in ten-minutes intervals partner, toothbrush preparer, 24 hour
tech support, personalized news anchor, hot-tub therapist, and also my editor in chief, I am so
grateful to your understanding, patience, humor and unlimited love. I love you with all of me.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ xi
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... xii
List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. xiv
Chapter One: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ...................................................................................................... 5
Methodology .................................................................................................................. 6
The Importance of the Study .......................................................................................... 7
Limitation, Delimitations and Assumptions .................................................................. 8
Proposed Conceptual Framework Based on Secondary Research ............................... 11
Definitions .................................................................................................................... 23
Organization of the Study ............................................................................................ 26
Chapter Two: Literature Review ............................................................................................. 28
Current Context of ISA ................................................................................................ 28
What is Service-Learning? ........................................................................................... 38
The Benefits and Challenges of Service-Learning ...................................................... 60
Movements That Have Shaped Service-Learning ....................................................... 73
Critique of Potential Harmful Effects of Social Justice Education in Elementary
School Classrooms ....................................................................................................... 88
Critical Service-Learning: A Promising New Generation of Service-Learning
Pedagogy ...................................................................................................................... 93
Designing a Framework Alongside Peer-Practitioners ................................................ 98
A Summary of the Literature ..................................................................................... 108

ix
Chapter Three: Methodology ................................................................................................. 110
Action Research: A Short History ............................................................................. 112
Site Selection ............................................................................................................. 114
Participant Selection .................................................................................................. 114
Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 116
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 118
Ethics .......................................................................................................................... 128
Chapter Four: Findings .......................................................................................................... 132
Collaborative Action Research Outcomes ................................................................. 132
Findings ..................................................................................................................... 138
Evolved Conceptual Framework ................................................................................ 160
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 164
Chapter Five: Discussion ....................................................................................................... 165
Research Findings ...................................................................................................... 165
Research Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................... 166
Service-Learning Think Tank Conclusions ............................................................... 171
Service-Learning Think Tank Recommendations ..................................................... 173
Limitations ................................................................................................................. 174
Self-Reflection ........................................................................................................... 176
Implication for My Future Leadership ....................................................................... 178
References .............................................................................................................................. 181
Appendix A: K–12 NYLC Service Learning Standards (2008) ............................................ 206
Appendix B: Social Justice Standards by Learning for Justice (2021) .................................. 210
Appendix C: Interest Screener ............................................................................................... 213
Appendix D: Peer Practitioner Exit Interview ....................................................................... 216

x
Appendix E: My Final Reflection (Shared With PP via Email) ............................................ 219

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Codes ........................................................................................................116
Table 2: Summary of Coding Methods .....................................................................................119
Table 3: Summary of Action Research Sessions and Outcomes ..............................................133
Table 4: Summary of Findings and Subthemes ........................................................................140
Table 5: Range of Leadership Presence ....................................................................................149

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework (Based on Secondary Research) ...........................................12
Figure 2: The Self (Portion of the Conceptual Framework) ......................................................13
Figure 3: Ecological Systems Theory .........................................................................................16
Figure 4: The Bridge (Portion of the Conceptual Framework) ..................................................18
Figure 5: The Community (Portion of the Conceptual Framework) .........................................22
Figure 6: ISA Students’ Nationalities .........................................................................................30
Figure 7: ISA’s Identity Graphic ................................................................................................33
Figure 8: ISA’s Community Impact Statement ..........................................................................34
Figure 9: Distinctions Among Service Programs .......................................................................41
Figure 10: Continuum of Participant’s Caring Journey ..............................................................42
Figure 11: Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation ...............................................................44
Figure 12: David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model ..............................................................54
Figure 13: Summary Timeline of Important Historical Dates for Service-Learning ..................58
Figure 14: Alignment of Service-learning Paradigms and Multicultural Education ..................78
Figure 15: Susan Cipolle’s Roadmap to Critical Consciousness and Essential Elements ..........84
Figure 16: How Service-learning Aligns With the Stages of White Critical Consciousness .....85
Figure 17: Adaptive Schools Framework for Creating Collaborative Groups..........................100
Figure 18: Continuum and Implications of Positionality ..........................................................121
Figure 19: Think Tank Definition of Service-Learning at ISA ................................................135
Figure 20: Excerpt of ISA’s Service-Learning Domains and Principles ..................................136
Figure 21: Excerpt of Developmentally Appropriate Reflection Questions .............................137
Figure 22: Excerpt of ISA’s Service-learning Framework for Elementary School ..................138

xiii
Figure 23: Original Conceptual Framework Based on Secondary Research ...........................160
Figure 24: Revised Conceptual Framework with Highlighted Revisions ................................161
Figure 25: Revised Conceptual Framework Based on Primary Research ................................163
Figure A: K–12 NYLC Service Learning Standards (2008).....................................................206
Figure B: Social Justice Standards by Learning for Justice (2021) .........................................210

xiv
List of Abbreviations

AR Action research
CAR Collaborative action research
CSL Critical service-learning
CI Collaborative inquiry
ME Multicultural education
PP Peer-practitioners
PLC Professional learning community
SJE Social justice education
SL Service-learning

1

Chapter One: Introduction
Our world is shrinking and melting as we speak. Innovations in transportation and
communication technology are exponentially decreasing the distances between people in real-
time. Human interactions create possibilities that lead to both lifesaving revolutions and vast
destruction. Skills such as empathizing, communicating, initiating, collaborating, imagining, and
recognizing the potential in the globe’s diversity of people, among many others, are not only
skills or issues of social justice but also factors that might determine the survival of our species.
And it all must begin with our youngest future citizens (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Kirshner et
al., 2005; Maybach, 1996; Mitra, 2005; Mitra & Serriere, 2015; Noddings, 1992).
Service-learning in elementary schools can lay a foundation for young citizens to better
understand themselves (Coomey & Coomey, 2007; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Kezar & Rhoads, 2001;
Maybach, 1996; Melchior, 1999), and to critically engage with the world and feel empowered to
improve their local and global communities (Astin & Sax, 1998; Boyle-Baise, 2002; Cipolle,
2010; Curwin, 1993; Einfeld & Collins, 2008; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Jones & Hill, 2001; Marullo,
1998; Melchior, 1999; Mitra & Serriere, 2015; Monard-Weissman, 2003). In the process of
connecting, caring, and learning to value their communities, young volunteers also empower
these communities to perceive themselves as part of change-making processes, exponentially
benefiting the results (Cipolle, 2010; McReynolds, 2015; Melchoir, 1999; Youniss et al., 1997).
But what complexities arise from the dynamics of helping and being helped? Researchers and
academics have sought to define what it means to help, and whether helping is always
appropriate or mutually beneficial (Aaronson, 2017; Baumgartner et al., 2019; Brown, 2001;
Butin, 2007; Cann & McCloskey, 2017; Cipolle, 2010; Eby, 1998; Green, 2003; Koliba, 2004;
Kahne & Westheimer, 1996; Marullo & Edwards, 2000; Morton, 1995; Robinson, 2000;
2

Stoecker, 2009; Tryon et al., 2008; Vernon & Ward, 1999; Wade, 2000; Ward & Wolf-Wendel,
2000). Researchers and academics have also debated how the dynamics between the
communities are impacted when the helping population reflects an economically privileged
population and the helped population reflects an economically underprivileged one (Adriaanse,
2015; Boyle-Baise, 1998; Boyle-Baise & Sleeter, 1998; Cann & McCloskey, 2017; Cipolle,
2010; Cooks, Scharrer & Paredes, 2004; Cruz, 1990; Eby, 1998; Forbes et al., 1999; Furco,
2013; Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002; Green, 2003; Guttentag, 2009; Latta et al, 2018;
Levinson, 1990; Martin & Pirbhai-Illich, 2015; Maybach, 1996; McBride et al., 2006; Palacios,
2010; Pompa, 2002; Sharp, 2009; Sleeter, 2000; Vernon & Ward, 1999; Wade, 2001, 2007;
Weah et al., 2000; Werner et al., 2002; Windholz, 2017). The primary focus of my problem of
practice is centered around this tension.
My secondary problem of practice is rooted in the continuum of teachers as learners and
the practice of professional inquiry in schools. As a result of increased incentives and pressure to
perform well on standardized assessments, the focus of school-centered education has prioritized
test-taking skills at the sacrifice of instructional practices that we know to be more effective for
learners (Flores, 2007; Lake & Jones, 2012; Picower, 2012; Wade, 2007). Instructional practices
such as experiential learning, greater student choice and voice in the curriculum, differentiation,
and a wider range of mediums for sharing one’s learning take time and, unfortunately, are often
pushed aside in favor of mastering test-taking skills and memorizing content specific to
standardized tests. School leaders and teachers feel they cannot afford to engage in these
promising practices unless the practices directly improve test scores, and low test scores lead to
decreased trust in schools to provide an adequate education (Stiggins, 1999). Stiggins adds, “If
scores trend upward, then the American educational system is doing well, if not, stinging
3

indictments of school quality pour forth from all sides” (p. 192). Additionally, federal laws such
as No Child Left Behind (2002), which have increased the practice of high-stakes testing, have
also indirectly promoted the “deskilling of teachers” by investing in private companies to design
“teacher-proof curricula” (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 22). As a result of such political pressure,
school leaders struggle to remain knowledgeable about andragogy and to invest in learning to
lead adult learners. Only in the last few decades, have leaders recognized the multitude of
benefits in creating a learning culture within their organizations in which teachers take on
inquiry-as-stance and where the complex expertise of teachers is recognized (Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 1999; Cunningham, 2011; Elmore, 2002; Giroux, 1999; hooks, 1994; Kincheloe, 1991,
2004; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1993; Love, 2009; Merriam & Bierema, 2013). When learning
organizations become safe spaces where the learning is centered for every stakeholder and every
voice, then the potential exists for every voice beyond the school to be respected as well. There
is a connection between a learning culture that exists between stakeholders within a school and
the culture created between the school and organizations beyond its walls. The more equity
exists between student, teacher, and leadership voices within a school, the more community
voices will be equitably respected in service-learning projects. My problem of practice focuses
on the process of peer-practitioners designing a service-learning framework that utilizes
experiential learning to empower students and their community. My study aims to explore how
peer-practitioners collaborate to design such possibilities in the early childhood and elementary
school context.
Statement of the Problem
Caring is a capacity that requires cultivation. It takes time. (Noddings, 1992, p. 114)
4

The International School in Asia (ISA) recently revised its strategic focus which
highlights the school’s dedication to connecting with the local community. This newly designed
plan, expiring in 2027, has three main areas of focus: achieving excellence, achieving
extraordinary care and achieving possibilities. Cultural competence is one of the learning
aspirations stated as part of the achieving excellence goal. Its presence symbolizes the
importance the school gives to educating their students in this particular competence. This
aspiration connects to service-learning because it guides faculty to including engaging with
culturally diverse people as a skill to teach their students. Genuinely connecting with a diverse
community is also indirectly mentioned in the achieving extraordinary care goal, where the
diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) mission statement and goals are stated. In this section, a
student, parent, faculty or other stakeholder could assume that if the school values a DEI mindset
within the school community, transferring those values to the community beyond our walls
would also be expected. Finally, service-learning is more directly mentioned in the third strategic
focus goal of achieving possibilities. Part of this goal is the second possibility which states “to
enrich international and cross-cultural perspectives.” As examples, this possibility includes
developing and nurturing partnerships in the city and beyond for service-related experiences.
This goal clarifies ISA’s priorities and intentions to connect to its surrounding world and leads to
the first challenge driving this research. While it is clear ISA’s strategic plan includes respectful
engagement with its community, at this point no systematic, vertical framework exists to ensure
ISA’s goals will be achieved.
A second challenge is that the majority of the literature addressed service-learning in the
context of secondary schools and higher education institutions. In the current research (as of
2015), literature on service-learning approaches for early childhood educators is very
5

inconsistent (Lake & Jones, 2012). Yet creating a strong foundation for building respectful
relationships with community members is work that needs to begin when learners are young
(Maybach, 1996). Furthermore, searches targeting critical service-learning—the most evolved
state of service-learning—produced almost no literature applicable to the early childhood or
elementary school setting. The texts intersecting critical service-learning and early childhood and
elementary grades suggests a significant gap on this topic, and presents an opportunity ripe for
exploration.
A final challenge is that there exists an additional gap in the literature describing the
process of peer-practitioner collaboration in the creation of a service-learning framework. While
there is scholarship on the factors necessary for peer-practitioners to engage in professional
inquiry (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Coghlan, 2019; Herr & Anderson, 2005; Kemmis, 1982;
Kemmis & Di Chiro, 1987; McTaggart, 1987; Love, 2009; McCutcheon & Jung, 1990; Mertler,
2012; McKernan, 1988; Schmuck, 2006; Wiley, 2019), the how on peer-practitioners
collaboration and decision-making is difficult to locate. Furthermore, literature specifically
focused on professional collaborative inquiry in the creation of a service-learning framework
could not be found.
I hope my question to pursue the design of a developmentally appropriate, vertically-
aligned service-learning framework in early childhood and elementary school can begin to fill
these gaps.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of my study is two-fold. The primary purpose is to attempt to create a
vertically aligned and developmentally appropriate service-learning framework in the early
6

childhood and elementary setting that is mutually beneficial to all service-learning partners
(volunteers and recipients).
The secondary purpose is to examine how such a framework is designed among a group
of peer-practitioners who are insiders within their organization.
My research question is as follows: How do Kindergarten to Grade 5 teachers in a large
international school in Asia design a service-learning framework that is reciprocally beneficial to
all service partners?
Methodology
The methodology I chose to answer my research question is qualitative. Specifically, I
chose collaborative action research as a qualitative approach. In August 2021, I emailed a survey
to gather names of elementary school teachers who would be interested in participating in my
collaborative action research. In September 2021, the list of candidates was finalized to six
individuals (including myself). Following their consent, six collaborative action research sessions
took place between October 2021 and February 2022. Each session was between two to four
hours in length and took place at ISA. During these sessions my role varied from being the
principal facilitator, a participant and the researcher to co-sharing the facilitator role and being a
participant and researcher. Data was collected in three ways: first, through observations of the
sessions and transcriptions of audio recordings. Second, data was collected through artifacts
produced in the sessions, including researcher and participants’ reflections, agendas, and our
outcomes which included the first draft of the framework. Finally, a neutral critical friend
conducted exit interviews with each participant to specifically inquire about the collaborative
design process. I used elemental, affective and cumulative coding to analyze the data and
extrapolate larger themes important to service-learning and the process of action research.
7

The Importance of the Study
This study aims to contribute to both local knowledge as well as public knowledge
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Herr & Anderson, 2005). This section describes how the study
will have an impact at ISA and beyond its walls.
This study will benefit the International School in Asia (ISA) in several ways. First, ISA
will have the beginning foundation for a vertically aligned service-learning framework to
consider in order to move forward in their strategic focus of engaging with the wider community
in the elementary school. Another benefit to ISA will be the contribution towards a collaborative
and empowering professional school culture. The framework that emerges from the foundations
established within the research will be an outcome of a collaborative, peer-practitioner effort,
therefore will exemplify ISA’s commitment to the practice of professional learning communities.
While implementing the framework is beyond the scope of this study, recommendations on such
implementation will be included in Chapter 5.
Choosing collaborative action research to design a framework or curriculum (in this case
a service-learning framework) can become a guide to various stakeholders in the educational
system because it offers two benefits. First, aligning a project’s goals to the process of how that
project evolves leads to greater integrity in the process which in turn leads to greater trust in the
outcome. For example, if educators are teaching a unit on empowerment, the learning
experiences for students should include collaboration and student voice; in this way, the process
of learning includes experiencing the content first hand. A second example is if the unit aims for
students to learn a new skill or content, the process of planning for teaching the new skill needs
to include opportunities for the educators to experience the new skill themselves. This alignment
is important because when the intended skills and concepts are echoed through the planning,
8

designing, testing and teaching of the project, the project has greater integrity. The second reason
the process of design should reflect the aims of the unit is so that educators are aware of the
learner-facing challenges. When educators experience first-hand the intended skills and content,
prerequisite skills are revealed so they can be included in the unit plan/framework.
Policymakers would also benefit from reading my research. The literature review reminds
policymakers of the importance of acknowledging and celebrating our communities as well as
developing critical skills along the way. Grounded in experiential learning, service-learning
offers enormous benefits—from the personal level to the mutually beneficial relationship
between school and community, to raising change-makers who will care for our earth—and thus
deserves to be part of our curricular programs in schools at every age level.
This research will also benefit research institutions such as the National Youth
Leadership Council, Learn and Serve America, the Corporation for National and Community
Service, Americorps, and Peacecorps. The study will contribute to the service-learning field in
terms of new theories and possibilities.
Limitation, Delimitations and Assumptions
Limitations
The research faced several limitations. One was the result of my chosen methodology:
action research with others, or collaborative action research (Coghlan, 2019). Because it includes
action research with others, I was exposed to complications that arose in the lives of a group of
people over a 6-month period. Complications included inconsistent attendance by one individual
during sessions, and unpredictable changes in session dates due to the pandemic. The benefits of
the approach outweigh these limitations but I recognize the added vulnerability that resulted
from depending on others.
9

Another limitation of my collaborative action research was my dual-role in the design
project: as a participant as well as the researcher. Collaborative action research ideally involves a
democratic decision making process. As a participant, meeting this action research tenet was not
problematic. However, due to my interest in the group’s outcomes as part of my dissertation, I
needed to cover some background information before reaching the design process. As a result, I
was the one to conceive of the need for the think tank, choose the main research question, plan
for our initial two session agendas (out of six), and to select and gather the source of material to
analyze and discuss. Decisions made during these initial sessions were still collaborative,
however the content and process were determined solely by me. Once the initial phase of
building a consistent language and historical understanding was completed, de-centering myself
as the sole facilitator was a priority in order to meet my democratic validity criteria.
The pandemic presented a third limitation aside from the aforementioned scheduling
changes. Because action research is an opportunity to include diverse voices, the design of my
framework would ideally have included some of the city’s community members. Unfortunately,
due to time and site restrictions, and the current restraints imposed by, inviting community
members to the collaborative process was not an option.
A fourth limitation arose from an intention to maximize the ethnic mix of the group in
order to include diverse perspectives. However, such diversity depended on the demographics of
the faculty in the Early Learning Center and elementary school and who volunteered. In my case,
the ethnic makeup of the design group was somewhat limited since it included two Caucasian-
Americans, one Caucasian-Italian, two Korean-Americans and one from the country where the
school is located/ the local community. As a result, my priority was to ensure these individuals at
least represented a variety of grade levels, experiences, and teaching roles.
10

A final limitation might have been the transferability of my findings with the greater
research community. Herr and Anderson (2005) refer to this as public knowledge. Because
action research as an insider is context-specific, many researchers believe its benefits are limited
to that context. However, I believe the findings and recommendations regarding the collaborative
inquiry process are applicable to any organization interested in empowering their faculty.
Additionally, the resulting outcomes of my collaborative inquiry process, the definition, domains
and principles, the reflection continuum and the framework, can be used as guidelines for
designing a service-learning framework that is aligned to that unique organization’s mission.
Delimitations
My research also included deliberate delimitations. One delimitation that I imposed is the
length of time the collaborative action research project could take. Action research is a cyclical
process and, therefore, could be extended over a period of several months and years. In my case,
the end of our sixth session did not completely answer the questions that drove our think tank.
Although we designed several useful documents towards a vertically aligned service-learning
program, the framework was drafted but not completed. However, at that point, I needed to end
the data collection process in order to allow sufficient time to thoroughly code and extrapolate
themes from the research. As it turned out, there was significant momentum to continue the work
and present the think tank’s outcomes to the leadership. Therefore, while I stopped collecting
data, I continued to work closely with one member in particular to present our work. This phase
is currently taking place as of April 2022.
Another delimitation I chose to impose was the size of the group. The initial interest
screener collected names of nine potential volunteers who matched my population of interest
(Kindergarten to Grade 5 teachers). Based on those responses, I selected five individuals (I was
11

the sixth) that I thought would be able to create an emotionally safe and trusting environment.
Malloy (2011) states the importance of assembling the right group of people, so the specific
individuals needed to be chosen carefully. The right team meant prioritizing interest for the
topic, diverse experience and diverse grades represented.
Assumptions
It is important to be cognizant of assumptions I make throughout my process. One such
assumption I must interrogate is that I am gathering a group of individuals to discuss how to
improve a specific practice in our school, and hence that the practice needs improvement.
Another assumption is that the school is interested in improving this practice. I must be careful
that this presents a sensitive topic for the school and must remain open to considering the current
practices as potentially good enough, and not in need of improvement. A third assumption the
peer-practitioner group might make is that the design of our framework is an improvement on the
current service-learning approach. To address this assumption, the group needed to review and
reflect critically on the design, and then present it to relevant stakeholders looking for critiques
and areas for further improvement before proposing a pilot study.
Proposed Conceptual Framework Based on Secondary Research
My conceptual framework (Figure 1) illustrates my “tentative theory of the phenomenon”
that I am investigating where I define “concepts...theories” and how they interact (Maxwell,
2013, p. 39). It provides an “underlying structure” to my study and is “derived from my
orientation and stance” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 85). In addition, “a theoretical research is
impossible” (Schwandt, 1993, p. 7), therefore my conceptual framework is grounded in the
existing literature. Finally, I am very aware of the flexibility my framework will need to have in
12

order to include theories of my participants, especially since we will embark on action research
together (Maxwell, 2013).

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework Based on Secondary Research

13

This framework is made up of three distinct and interconnected parts: the self (Figure 2),
the bridge (Figure 4), and the community (Figure 5). It illustrates that the problem of practice is
grounded in each individual.

Figure 2
The Self (Portion of the Conceptual Framework)

14

Beginning with the image on the left, the self, the head represents any participant all
along the service-learning continuum, teachers, institutional leaders, community members,
community agencies and students. It is in their mind that the roots of our identity and attitudes
are conceived. From ourselves stem three main strands of hair: the centered strand, represents the
individual’s epistemology, the western strand, represents the connection and attitudes between
the self and others, and the eastern strand, represents the individual’s agency and action. The
epistemology strand is the acknowledgement of the life experiences which have shaped us, the
passions that drive us and conscious and unconscious biases we tacitly hold. Kimberle Crenshaw
(1991) examines what intersectionality exists within our identity that provides us with privilege
or prejudice? Paulo Freire (1968, 1994) questions our level of critical consciousness, our
cognition towards the power roles and opportunities we and others hold in society. Antonio
Gramsci (1971) interrogates how we see ourselves as part of the historic process, locate
ourselves on the societal hierarchy, recognize in ourselves the potential to oppress or be
oppressed, and our potential to be change makers towards a more equitable life for all.
The constructive developmental theory describes orientations or ways of knowing. The
four stages describe our cognitive, affective, interpersonal, and intrapersonal capacities (Drago-
Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). The goal of becoming consciously aware of one’s stage is
to move towards becoming self-transforming. This means the individual recognizes that co-
constructing meaning with others enriches our thinking and knowledge-making. The centered
strand is what makes us, uniquely us and keeps us centered, navigating ourselves back to who we
are in challenging times. The way educators understand themselves is an essential first step to
establishing a pathway towards personal growth (Cipolle, 2010; Cochran-Smith, 2004; Drago-
Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017; Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Escudero, 2019;
15

Goleman, 2004; Mezirow, 2000; Palmer, 1999; Pope et al., 2004; Slayton & Mathis, 2010;
Takacs, 2003). Our “positionality impacts (our) epistemology” therefore understanding the role
we play and influence we hold in society is essential to understanding how we build knowledge
and weave together our worldview (Takacs, 2003, p. 28). Understanding oneself is a critical
piece that contributes to our desire to connect with others, determines how we would connect to
others, and defines the quality of those interactions.
The western, or “self and others” strand, describes how we interact with people
intimately connected to us, and how we relate to strangers and the wider world. Along this strand
is where one intersects with political ideologies, social justice and, my focus, service-learning
pedagogy. Bronfenbrenner’s (1992) ecological systems theory, illustrates the various systems in
our environment that influence our identity. In our microsystem, is ourselves, our demographics
and our closest others, our family, groups with whom we interact (Figure 3). In our exosystem is
our community, neighbors and societal organizations. Here is where service-learning becomes an
opportunity to connect with this system in a supported and reflective way. The macrosystem
describes our culture’s values which also influences our actions within our society towards our
agency in becoming change makers.

16

Figure 3
Ecological Systems Theory

Note. Adapted from Ecological Systems Theory, by U. Bronfenbrenner, 1992, Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.

Vygotsky’s (1934) socio-cultural constructivist theory describes how because learning is
a social process, one’s identity development is inseparable from their social context. It is through
interacting with others, and across various social systems, that who we are continues to evolve.
In addition, this strand represents the influence of multicultural pedagogy (Banks, 1997, 2004,
2019; Boyle-Baise, 2002; Cipolle, 2010; Einfeld & Collins, 2008; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1997;
Nieto, 1992; Rosado, 1996; Sleeter, 1996), culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 2014;
Paris & Alim, 2014), social justice education (Belle, 2019; Burke-Hengen & Smith, 2000;
Cipolle, 2010; Cochran-Smith, 2004; Colby et al., 2002; Picower, 2012; Wade, 2001, 2007), and
critical service-learning pedagogy (Cipolle, 2010; Johnson et al., 2018; Masucci & Renner, 2001;
17

Maybach, 1996; Mitchell, 2008; Pompa, 2002). It is through service-learning that students have
the direct opportunity to begin to understand local issues from a multitude of individual, societal
and systematic perspectives.
The eastern strand, on the right, refers to agency and action. It is the inertia fueled by our
beliefs and self-conceptualizations that determine how our selves connect to others—based on
our personal attitudes and beliefs (center strand), will we reach out to others with our curiosity,
avoid others with our fear, or observe in admiration and respect? Depending on one’s level of
critical consciousness, how motivated is the individual to question their beliefs and take action
towards those beliefs? To be an advocate for a cause? To initiate and take action towards
critiquing an oppressive situation? To advocate or take direct action on injustices? Or simply, to
have enough confidence in oneself to feel empowered to act, however that action may look?
Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2006; Pajares, 1996), determines the extent of the action one
will take towards living up to one’s beliefs, especially when those beliefs involve making
changes to oneself and one’s environment. The action one initiates is based on one’s agency or
self-efficacy. Without this essential strand, the energy needed for one’s continuous evolution
ends at awareness. As individuals we need to be conscious that our action depends on us
choosing to act, action is within our control. Service-learning is the opportunity to take action, if
one has the agency to do so.
The final concept present on the individual level of my framework, the self, is the
momentum that initiates the strands to intersect and together to form one braid. This momentum
is the practice of reflection. Reflection, which can take many forms, is the ability that allows us
to make meaning from our experiences. “We don’t learn from experience, we learn from
reflecting on that experience” (Dewey, 1933, p. 9). There is significant research that supports the
18

role of reflection and new knowledge being created through the transformation of understanding
an experience (Brookfield, 2017; Dewey, 1933; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Kaye, 2010; Kolb, 1984;
Lake & Jones, 2012; Pelco, 2014; Schon, 1983; Toole & Toole, 1995; Coomey & Wilczenski,
2010). As will be discussed in Chapter 2, reflection is the hyphen in service-learning, it is what
connects an act of service to the potential learning for all the parties involved. Without reflection,
not only is learning about oneself and society a missed opportunity, but the act of service can
reproduce harmful patterns and perpetuate hegemonic dynamics amongst the participants.

Figure 4
The Bridge (Portion of the Conceptual Framework)

19

My conceptual map also includes a bridge. The bridge represents the service-learning
framework that figuratively and literally connects the individual to the community. This bridge is
made up of several elements, each playing an essential role: andragogy, pedagogy, leadership,
collaborative action research, and funds of knowledge. Each element is a particular structural
part of the bridge: andragogy and pedagogy are its pillars, leadership is the suspension tower and
beams which provide essential balance and support, and funds of knowledge is the road that
physically connects the self to the community. All the elements are essential to the stability and
longevity of the bridge.
Andragogy is the study of adult learning. The ability to empower teachers to take on an
inquiry stance towards their work (Argyris et al., 1985; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Giroux,
1999; Gramsci, 1971; hooks, 1994; Kincheloe, 1991, 2004; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1993),
improves not only the responsiveness of instructional practices to learners’ needs, the frequency
of inner reflection on one’s professional actions (Brookfield, 2010, 2017; Corey, 1954; Freire,
1968, 1994; Milner, 2003; Rodgers, 2002; Schon, 1983, 1987; Tillman, 2003), the design of
context-specific curriculum, but also helps to build a professional culture where learning is at the
heart of one’s purpose (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Giroux, 1999; Gramsci, 1971; hooks,
1994; Kincheloe, 1991, 2004; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1993).
Pedagogy is the science of teaching young learners. This pillar also stands for the content
knowledge of student-centered pedagogies (Freire, 1968; hooks, 1994), experiential pedagogy
(Dewey, 1938; Freire 1968; Kolb, 1984, 2014; Piaget, 1936, 1972; Malaguzzi, 1998; Vygotsky,
1934), and developmentally appropriate practices (Piaget, 1936, 1972; Wood, 2007). This pillar
is important because the design of the service-learning framework depends on who its
participants are and since the participants span the greatest developmentally diverse age groups,
20

in order for the framework to be successful, the teacher-practitioners must keep this information
in the fore-front of the planning process.
Leadership is one of the structural supports of the framework, without the organization’s
leaders behind the initiative, whether the framework will even happen may be questionable.
Bolman and Deal (1991) describe leadership as having the political, the human resource, the
symbolic, and the structural frames. All four of these are needed in designing the peer-
practitioner framework. The political frame or lens allows for leaders to connect with a
community’s organizations in order to partner most appropriately with the school’s various age
groups. This lens also reminds a leader to reach out and communicate with similar schools and
learn from each other’s most promising practices. The human resource lens emphasizes the
importance for leaders to know their employees as individuals, all with their own strengths,
interests and motivations. Being aware of one’s team allows a leader to build the best team for
the challenge ahead (Achor, 2018). The symbolic lens describes the opportunity the leader has to
affect the modus operandi of the organization. In the service-learning context, the leader has the
responsibility of setting the expectation that the community with which the school is connected is
valuable and needs to be considered a partner in educating the students. In addition, a leader sets
the tone for teachers to be researchers and take on a stance of inquiry (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1999; Giroux, 1999; Gramsci, 1971; hooks, 1994; Kincheloe, 2004; Kincheloe & Steinberg,
1993; Merriam & Bierema, 2013). Through the structural lens, the leader can reflect with the
inquiry-as-stance mindset by creating time during the curricular program for teachers to research,
collaborate, revise or design instruction that best matches their students’ needs.
Collaborative action research is the second structural support of the framework. While the
bridge might not need a second support tower, many bridges only have one like many schools
21

only rely on leadership to make decisions, by deliberately including this second tower the
strength of the bridge is exponentially increased. As previously explained, collaborative action
research is a process through which school faculty would collaborate on a project to address a
localized need in a cyclical manner through critical reflection and action (Coghlan, 2019;
Kemmis, 1982; Herr & Anderson, 2005; McNiff & Whitehead, 2011; Wiley, 2019), thereby
increasing the changes of its success because it is designed to function in a specific context
(Malloy, 2011). When the leadership respects their faculty’s ways of knowing and chooses to
empower them by legitimizing their proposed solution to a contextual challenge, greater trust is
sown, mutual respect is woven. When collaborative action research is the process utilized to
design the framework for connecting to the community, the benefits of the result are not just in
the connection created between school and community, rather, the result impacts the very nature
of the school culture itself.
The last essential element of the bridge is the road itself, bridging the space of
opportunity between the self and the community. It represents the concept of funds of knowledge
(Greenberg, 1989; Moll et al., 1992; Tapia, 1991; Velez-Ibanez, 1988). Funds of knowledge are
defined as “historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills
essential for individual functioning and well-being” (Moll et al., 1992, p. 133). In my framework,
the funds of knowledge represent not only the knowledge held by the community, but also the
knowledge held by the school's faculty and students. More than the body of knowledge itself, the
bridge’s road symbolizes the mindset of the depth of respect the self needs to be motivated to
connect to others’ ways of knowing. This mindset needs to be our foundation for crossing
borders and adventuring into a shared and respectful space of commonality and reciprocity
(Giroux & Kincheloe, 1992; hooks, 1994).
22

Figure 5
The Community (Portion of the Conceptual Framework)

Finally, my conceptual map exhibits an image of the community. Connecting the self
with the community is the purpose for building the bridge. This image illustrates that every
member in the community wears a different braid. As in the image of the self, the braid
represents one’s positionality, connection to others, sense of agency, and depth of reflection.
While every individual is part of the community, every individual is also their unique self. This
uniqueness adds to the richness and diversity of perspectives within the community. From the
framework’s perspective, the school invests its resources in designing and implementing a
mutually beneficial service-learning framework in order to create open access between a
23

community’s and the students’ funds of knowledge (Greenberg, 1989; Moll et al., 1992; Tapia,
1991; Velez-Ibanez, 1988). The body of knowledge referred to in this part of the framework is
specific to the community. When asset-based lenses are applied to teaching and learning, where
the students realize the skills and knowledge that their community has and the vice versa, all
parties benefit (Cipolle, 2010; Coomey & Wilczenski, 2010; McReynolds, 2015; Youniss et al.,
1997). Consequently, the community becomes a supporter of the school (Melchoir, 1999).
While the conceptual map illustrates the essential elements of my problem of practice,
my dissertation question focuses solely on how the framework is built, therefore just the bridge.
Definitions
Action research is a “systematic inquiry that is collective, collaborative, self-reflective,
critical and undertaken by the participants of the inquiry” (McCutcheon & Jung, 1990, p. 148).
Action research also “improves the rationality and justice of (the research-practitioners’) own
social and educational practices (through) critically examining action of the individual group
members” (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1987, p. 6).
Community service is the engagement of students in service activities which benefit
recipients in the short-run, rather than developing student skills. Community service is charity-
based and is considered more structured than volunteerism (Furco, 1996). Reflection and
reciprocity are not tenets of this approach.
Critical consciousness is the process of developing a more accurate understanding of the
world. The four elements of critical consciousness are: developing a deeper sense of self,
developing a deeper awareness and broader perspective of others, developing a deeper awareness
and broader perspective of social issues, and seeing one’s potential to make change (Cipolle,
2010).
24

Critical pedagogy: a teaching practice that is rooted in the process of interrogating the
intentions of oneself, one’s organizations, one’s culture and the systems functioning within their
culture. According to critical pedagogy, it is society’s values which emerge from schools, not
schools which replicate society’s values - this is why education is critical (Giroux & Kincheloe;
1992). Because of this fundamental sequential connection, teachers and schools have the
responsibility to take a stand against oppression and model democratic action.
Critical service-learning includes developing authentic relationships from classrooms to
community, redistributing decision-making power between recipients and providers, and
working from a social change perspective which focuses on societal structures (Mitchell, 2008).
CSL invites youth to examine issues of power, privilege and oppression, to then take action to
improve inequitable social and economic systems (Cipolle, 2010; Johnson et al., 2018; Maybach,
1996; Mitchell, 2008). CSL is built on a strength based approach (Saleeby, 1996), and assumes
that individuals and communities have abilities and various funds of knowledge (Moll, 2006).
Culturally relevant pedagogy is “a philosophical outlook that... ensures students engage
in academically rigorous curriculum and learning, feel affirmed in their identities and
experiences and develop the knowledge and skills to engage the world and others critically”
(Escudero, 2019, para. 6). Gloria Ladson-Billings states that it “empowers students to maintain
their cultural integrity while succeeding academically” (Ladson-Billings, 1995, p. 160).
Field education programs are opportunities that provide students with service
opportunities in their field of interests, although the program is not fully integrated into the
student’s academic study (Furco, 1996). Field education is student-centered and designed for the
purpose of deepening the student’s skills or content knowledge. For example, student-teachers
25

shadowing a mentor teacher in a classroom are getting field experience by learning directly in
the context of that profession.
Internships provide students with experience in various fields of work. Unlike
volunteerism and community service, students gain a more measurable benefit from this aspect
of service learning. Students are the primary intended beneficiaries of the relationship (Furco,
1996).
Multicultural education broadens curriculum to include multiple perspectives, places the
student at the center of the learning process, and advances policies that create an inclusive,
equitable environment where all students are valued and can achieve academic success.
Multicultural education requires examining one’s beliefs, one’s attitudes and the biases and
assumptions that permeate society, in order to promote justice and end discrimination (Cipolle,
2010).
Service-learning is a pedagogy where students have leadership roles in thoughtfully
organized service experiences that meet real needs in the community. The service is integrated
into the students’ academic studies with structured time to research, reflect, discuss and connect
their experiences to their learning and worldview (Cipolle, 2010). The hyphen between the
service and learning represents the inclusion of the reflective process to interrogate one’s
understanding and opinions in order to reveal hidden biases, address misconceptions and change
behavior (Coomey & Wilczenski, 2010; Dewey, 1933; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Kaye, 2010; Kolb,
1984; Lake & Jones, 2012; Maybach, 1996; Pelco, 2014; Toole & Toole, 1995. The hyphenated
service-learning experience also describes “service and learning goals of equal weight and each
enhances the other for all participants” (Furco, 1996, p.10).
26

Social justice education is an approach to education as an act of social justice. From “the
choice of curriculum, to the instructional strategies, to discipline policies, testing, tracking, to
who receives funding” (Cipolle, 2010, p. 8), all play a role in working towards or against racial
justice. The mission of social justice education is to “contribute to social change and public
policies that increase gender and racial equality, end discrimination...and reduce the stark income
inequalities that characterize (the United States) and most of the world” (Cipolle, 2010, p. 157).
Volunteerism is an act of service performed out of free will without expectation of pay.
The main beneficiaries, on a materialistic level, are the service recipients (Furco, 1996; Toole &
Toole, 1995).
Organization of the Study
Chapter 2 of the research reviews the literature on historical perspectives, theoretical
roots, benefits and critiques of service-learning. Chapter 2 also describes the evolution of the
service-learning pedagogy as a result of the influence of various educational movements
(multicultural education, culturally relevant pedagogy, and social justice education). Finally, this
chapter describes the factors necessary for a group of peer-practitioners to learn together.
Chapter 3 of the research narrates the journey of the study. It describes the methodology utilized
in the research, and a detailed description of data collection and analysis processes. Additionally,
Chapter 3 lists the potential credibility and trustworthiness threats that might face my particular
study, strategies for addressing those threats, and evidence of how they were addressed. Chapter
4 begins with a description of the collaborative action research sessions and its outcomes. It then
offers a detailed description of the findings of the research. Finally, Chapter 5 lists the
implications of my findings, and recommendations for future steps for both collaborative teams
27

as well as service-learning projects at ISA. It also includes a reflection of my engagement in the
collaborative inquiry process and lessons learned about myself as a leader.

28

Chapter Two: Literature Review
My research focuses on the process in which a group of elementary school teachers will
engage to design a service-learning framework that reflects the educational goals of the school
as well as reciprocally benefits both students and the community involved.
This literature review will first describe the setting, the mission and values of ISA
connected to service-learning, and the current approach of ISA towards the teaching of service-
learning. Next, the review will introduce the origins of service-learning, its definition, and its
current application and popularity in the United States. Third, the review will summarize the
multitude of benefits that service-learning offers as well as the most prevalent existing critiques.
The next section will tell the story of the pedagogical journey of movements which have
impacted the evolution of service learning and became catalysts for its evolution. This section
will be followed by an examination of methods for designing collaborative frameworks
alongside professional peers.
Current Context of ISA
Welcome to the International School in Asia (ISA). The story of this unique educational
institution begins in 1956, when the American Association of Malaysia opened ISA with 98
students. This effort was initiated in order to provide executives and diplomats from the United
States an alternative to the British colonialist approach of sending school-age children to
boarding schools back in their home countries.
ISA is situated on a 36-acre campus, making the school one of the largest single campus
K–12 school in the world (organization’s website). With over 4,000 students from three year olds
to seniors in high school, this is also a school with one of the largest student enrollment numbers
29

in the world (organization’s website). ISA is non-profit, independent, co-educational day school
(organization’s Wikipedia site).
Because service learning is the focus of this dissertation, it is also significant to note the
ethnicities of the students at ISA, since this is a significant factor observable by the community
with which ISA volunteers interact. While the school does not provide demographics on racial
indicators, it does collect information on the countries from which our students hold passports.
Figure 6 shows that 60% of ISA students hold American, Canadian, or Australian passports. It is
important to note that this doesn’t suggest those students are necessarily Caucasian.

30

Figure 6
ISA Students’ Nationalities

Note. Adapted from organization’s website.

However, the local population with whom the students engage in service learning (SL)
opportunities is 76% Chinese, 15% Malay (considered indigenous population), 7% Tamil, and
about 3% Eurasian (“Demographics of Country”, 2019).
Focusing on institution and community relations, it is also significant to note that the
local community’s staff directly hired by ISA was 196 individuals as of 2019: ten of whom are
faculty and 94 are instructional assistants. Additionally, the local community’s staff indirectly
hired by ISA comprises over 799 individuals, including security, custodial, food and service
31

professionals. A further example of ISA’s dedication to building community relations is the
statement found on the ISA website of the various contributions the private institution makes to
the local community; the total financial contributions directly or indirectly given by ISA to the
local country in 2014 was about 14 million US Dollars.
Espoused Values
Noting an organization’s espoused values is an important starting point to understanding
the priorities of the organization (Senge, 2006). ISA publishes on their website their efforts to
build, maintain and celebrate their connection to the country which hosts them. An important
document to highlight here is the school’s new strategic plan, which was just recently released on
March 15, 2021. This section will first describe the new espoused values of the school and then
will describe potential trends regarding service learning which have changed since the last
strategic plan.
ISA mission statement is “ISA is dedicated to providing each student with an exemplary
American educational experience within an international perspective” and its vision statement is
“ISA is a leader in education, raising exceptional thinkers, prepared for a world of the future”
(organization’s website).
The mission connects to service learning when it distinguishes American experience and
international perspective. Therefore a student, parent, faculty or other stakeholder could infer
that there will be some, yet-to-be defined interactions between school, local and international
communities. The vision also indirectly suggests the importance of building community relations
in the interpretations of both “exceptional thinkers” and “prepared for the future.” In both of
these phrases one could imagine how respect, cultural competence, collaboration, flexibility in
mindset and recognizing the enrichment of all diversity might be part of their definitions.
32

Another espoused value of ISA connecting the organization to their wider community is
the core values. The core values that most directly connect with concepts of service learning are
responsibility, compassion, respect and fairness. These core values embody the mindset of
considering other perspectives and realities (compassion), taking action towards a need with
which we can help (responsibility), respect and fairness, the latter of which I am interpreting
more as equality, both point towards the attitude we have when engaging with people other than
ourselves.
A third published document which espouses ISA’s dedication to connecting with ISA’s
local community is the strategic plan. This newly designed plan, expiring in 2027, has three main
areas of focus: achieving excellence, achieving extraordinary care and achieving possibilities
(see Figure 7). Cultural competence is one of the learning aspirations stated as part of the
achieving excellence goal. Although it is yet-to-be defined officially by the school, naming
cultural competence symbolizes the importance the school gives this aspiration. In the past,
cultural competence has been defined as: “I can function effectively with people of different
cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. I can build awareness of my own cultural worldview,
develop cross-cultural skills, and a positive attitude toward cultural differences”. This aspiration
connects to service learning because it guides us to how we should engage with people who
belong to different cultures than our own, and students at ISA, an American institution existing
in a foreign country, therefore need to develop this skill. Although building relationships with
local communities is not explicitly stated as an instructional practice, it is implied as a valuable
educational experience. Genuinely connecting with a diverse community is also indirectly
mentioned in the achieving extraordinary care goal, where the diversity, equity and inclusion
mission statement and goals are stated. In this section, a student, parent, faculty or other
33

stakeholder could assume that if the school values a DEI mindset within the school community,
transferring those values to the community beyond our walls would also be expected. Finally,
service learning is more directly mentioned in the third strategic focus goal of achieving
possibilities. Part of this goal is Possibility Two which states: to enrich international and cross-
cultural perspectives. As examples, this includes that, in the next six years, the school will
develop and nurture partnerships with the local community and beyond for service experiences,
expand service opportunities within the local country, and revise existing experiential learning
opportunities to increase cross-cultural learning in the local country. This goal of possibilities
opens the door of ISA to the outside world.

Figure 7
ISA’s Identity Graphic

Note. Adapted from organization’s website.
34

A fourth published document which espouses ISA’s dedication to connecting with the
local community is the community impact statement. This statement shares the importance for
ISA to be represented as having a strong beneficial economic impact on the local community
(see Figure 8), and includes examples of partnering with the community, becoming an
environmental and academic leader in the country, generously contributing to the country’s
economy and government, and a multitude of examples of service learning within the country
and beyond.

Figure 8
ISA’s Community Impact Statement

Note. Adapted from organization’s website.

35

One of the notable change in the new strategic plan with regard to service learning
opportunities is a greater weight on cross-cultural experiences present in both indirect and direct
ways across all three strategic goals. In the previous plan, service learning was explicitly
mentioned only as one example of experiential learning under impactful instructional practices.
According to this change, the school is moving in the direction of developing a more consistent
and systematic approach for connecting to the community for all students.
Alignment and Opportunities for Improvement
ISA is a progressive educational institution and because of its ongoing mission toward
self-improvement, it continuously strives to ameliorate its practices. One approach to
highlighting the areas in need is by comparing the espoused theories to the current practices that
may or may not support ISA’s goals (Senge, 2006).
There are several ways ISA’s espoused values align with its theories in use. These
include SL taking place in some way across all three divisions of the school, the effort in hiring
local professionals in the school, the inclusion of cultural competence as one of the learning
aspirations, and the significant financial contributions made to the local country directly or
indirectly by ISA through its employees.
As with every organization, ISA also has opportunities for improving its practices to be
better aligned with its values. One such area is the current approach to service learning across the
school. Not considering the 2019-2021 academic years due to the pandemic, the greatest
representation of service learning action was in the HS, with 65 service learning clubs, six
projects, which are a combination of service and fundraisers (school website). In the middle
school there were about six service learning clubs (Educator 1, personal communication,
3/15/21) and in the elementary school six initiatives (Educator 2, Educator 3, Educator 4,
36

Educator 5, Educator 6, Educator 7, Educator 8, personal communication, 5/21-24/21). If we
consider charity-based initiatives, the total number for MS and ES combined grows to 13
(Educator 9, Educator 2, Educator 3, Educator 4, Educator 5, Educator 6, Educator 7, Educator 8,
5/21-24/21). This points to the fact that while service initiatives exist in the school, there is little
consistency across divisions. There is also a greater number of charity-based initiatives than
service learning initiatives and some grades only engage in either service learning or charity-
based events.
Another opportunity for improvement is the role of the directly hired local staff. While
ISA hired 196 individuals, only 10 were hired as faculty. This was also the highest professional
title a local individual was able to hold. The other 94 individuals were all assistants. All school
administrators and leadership team members are foreign hires.
While it is clear ISA’s strategic plan includes respectful engagement with its community,
at this point no systematic, vertical framework exists that develops relationships with the local
community so that ISA’s goals will be achieved.
A Historical Summary of Service-Learning Initiatives at ISA
So, what does service learning look like at ISA? While experiential learning is part of the
ISA’s DNA, as mentioned by the director of student life (Educator 12, personal communication,
3/5/21), and service learning is mentioned as a school-wide commitment, there is no vertical
school-wide framework that exists for service-learning. Rather, every division is in charge of
designing its own approach. In elementary school, initiatives connecting the school to the
community have ranged from single event charity-based projects to short term engagements with
some local communities. Initiatives have been spearheaded mostly by individual teachers who
have connections or interest in the relationship or topic, and while there was a time when
37

connecting with the community took place systematically, across all the grades and all the
classrooms, this is no longer the case. For example, in Grade 2, the service-learning engagement
depends on one teacher’s connection to a school and the project is offered as an optional activity
to other Grade 2 teachers; this past year, six out of eleven teachers opted to join (Educator 10,
personal communication, 3/3/2021). In addition, the extent of the learning and/or reflecting
involved in the service-learning initiatives that have taken place varies greatly. In the middle
school, service earning shows up in a few after school clubs, out of 50–55 total clubs 6–8 are
focused on service, which are all optional (Educator 1, personal communication, 5/24/21). There
is one elective service-learning trip per year where students and faculty visit a group of schools
called Caring For Cambodia during a long weekend, however it is offered only to 30 middle
school students and their focus is mostly service. A third opportunity for service learning in
middle school is during TRI-time, a period of three weeks, twice per year where students design
their own research project, execute it and present their learning (Educator 11, personal
communication, 2/26/21). However, the service learning opportunity depends on whether the
student chooses to design a project around community relationships, so it is completely optional
and fully dependent on the student to choose it.
In high school, service-learning has a more structured presence, although not
systematically across the division. The high school has an executive service learning council
which is run by six students, supported by an experienced faculty member, whose mission is to
lead over 60 service related clubs on campus that involve 70% of high school students each year
(Educator 13, personal communication, 3/10/21).
The one expectation consistent for all high school students regarding SL is that as a
graduation requirement a student needs to choose one of their four interim trips to be focused on
38

service. Interim trips are one week-long trips that a small group of 8–15 students take with two
faculty members which can range from being in the local country to anywhere else in the world.
Students have about 60 choices of trips and trips can either focus on service, eco-adventure or
global studies. Out of about 60 trips, 20% of the trips have a service focus. Due to its short-term
nature and lack of relationship with the recipient community, this type of service focuses mostly
on charity and volunteerism (Educator 14, personal communication, 3/15/21).
A note on vocabulary: Please note in this dissertation the terms service-volunteers,
service providers or simply providers refer to the same individuals. The terms service-hosts, host
community or service recipients are also synonymous. The term service partners refers to both
volunteers and recipients. Additionally, the terms action research with others and collaborative
action research or collaborative inquiry are also synonymous.
What is Service-Learning?
Definition
The term service-learning was first coined in 1967 in the United States, by The Southern
Regional Education Board (SREB; Sigmon, 1979). The SREB was founded by legislators and
politicians in 1948 in response to acknowledging the connection between the country’s
educational systems and economic potential (Southern Regional Education Board, 2020). The
SREB has been operating a service learning program since 1967 and its goals included providing
opportunities for students to participate in the solution of social and economic problems and to
expose students to careers in public service (SREB, 2021). After an educational period of
perceived self-centeredness in high school and college students, school administrators and higher
education faculty catapulted the popularity of the practice called service learning (Hutchinson,
39

2002). However, it was not until much later that the government gave the term a clear definition
(see Corporation for National and Community Service definition).
In an effort to more deeply explore this new instructional practice, Robert Sigmon
articulated that service learning occurs when there is a balance between learning goals and
service outcomes (Sigmon, 1979). In Sigmon’s seminal work, written in a time where service
learning was still being defined in different ways, he proposed three principles that all service
learning projects should have: principle one is that those being served control the service
provided; principle two is that those being served become better able to serve and be served by
their own actions, therefore the service learning interaction is empowering to those being served;
and principle three is that those who serve are also learners and have significant control over
what is expected to be learned (Sigmon, 1979). Principle three refers to learning by all the
providers involved in the project, which include not only the students, but also faculty,
counselors, community agencies, and those being served, suggesting “mutuality as an important
dimension of the learning” (Sigmon, 1979, p. 11). In addition, Sigmon forewarns to be cognizant
of making sure the services provided do not overshadow the learning tasks - the focus should still
be the learning for all. Finally, he mentions that too often the control over the service project by
the hands of the providers is too often excessive, which directly challenges opportunities for
mutual learning empowerment. Through these principles reciprocal learning is at the heart of a
service learning definition.
In 1990, the Corporation for National and Community Service, the government agency
designed to develop service learning in the United States, relying on the scholarly research done
up to that time, defined service-learning as:
40

A method under which students learn and develop through active participation in
thoughtfully organized service experiences that meet actual community needs, that are
integrated into the students’ academic curriculum, that provide structured time for
reflection and exchange what is being taught in school by extending student learning
beyond the classroom into the community. (Corporation for National and Community
Service, 1990)
However, the definition continued to evolve as the dynamics of service recipient and provider
became better understood.
In 1994, Robert Sigmon came up with the following four typologies to describe this
continuum of focus (Sigmon, 1994):
● Typology 1: service-learning: The learning goals are the primary focus and service
outcomes are a secondary focus.
● Typology 2: service-learning: The service outcomes are the primary focus and
learning goals are a secondary focus.
● Typology 3: service learning: The service and learning goals are completely separate.
● Typology 4: service-learning: The service and learning goals are of equal weight and
each enhances the other for all participants.
According to Sigmon’s definition, true service-learning occurred when a balance existed
between learning goals and service outcomes (Furco, 1996), and it was recognizing where along
this spectrum the benefits mostly lied, whether with the recipients or providers. Andrew Furco
further applies the concept of the beneficiary continuum to common service-type experiences in
order to tease out the differences between approaches to service. In Figure 9, Furco labeled
where common service approaches lie along the continuum, keeping a note that “experiential
41

education is never static, therefore throughout its life it is likely to move to some degree along
the continuum” (p. 6). For definitions of these approaches to service, see Chapter 1.

Figure 9
Distinctions Among Service Programs

Note. Adapted from Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education, by A.
Furco, 1996. (p. 3). https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slceslgen/128/

42

In summarizing this figure, it is evident that in Sigmon’s view service-learning is defined
by a balance of learning (for the providers) and service (for the recipients) and the mutually
beneficial practices for both providers and recipients.
Through her research on service-learning and marginalized youth, Maybach (1996)
proposes a continuum of caring through service. This continuum, an adapted illustration seen in
Figure 10, helps guide the progression of service participants’ potential inner journeys during the
service learning project. It is notable that her goal is also to ensure respect for all and for all
parties to play an equally empowering role in the design and outcome of the project.

Figure 10
Continuum of Participant’s Caring Journey

Note. Adapted from “Investigating urban community needs: Service learning from a social
justice perspective” by C. Maybach, 1996, Education and Urban Society, 28(2), 224–236.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124596028002007

43

Following an evolution of beneficial reciprocity between providers and recipients, more
recent versions of service learning describe relationships between providers and recipients that
are not hierarchical, but rather collaborative (Bringle & Duffy, 1998; Coomey & Wilczenski,
2007; Follman as cited by Kaye, 2010; Furco, 2013; Maybach, 1996; Powell, & Takayoshi,
2003; Werner et al., 2002). Echoing the concept of beneficial reciprocity and adding a layer of
decision-making, Arnstein (1969) designed the ladder of citizen participation (Figure 11). The
symbolic ladder reveals the true power dynamics between parties. The ladder’s lowest level of
citizen power or, in the case of service learning, the recipient’s agency, is manipulation where
decisions are almost all made by the government or the service providers. The goal is to reach a
level of partnership in which the service providers and recipients - volunteers and hosts - truly
become partners in agency.

44

Figure 11
Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation

Note. Adapted from “A ladder of citizen participation” by S. R. Arnstein, 1969, 2019, Journal of
the American Planning Association, p. 189.

Other major features that service-learning definitions have in common are the
developmental appropriateness of this pedagogy to any age group, its integration enhancing a
school’s academic program, and the inclusion of reflection (Corporation for National and
Community Service, 1990). In addition, Cathryn Berger Kaye mentions that the element of self-
discovery, before service engagement begins, is also essential in order to build a foundation for
shared humanity between the student and community (Kaye, 2010, Noddings, 1992).
Three Service-Learning Paradigms
Other service learning advocates and educators define paradigms that accompany various
types of service-learning projects. Every “paradigm represents a different worldview” (Boyle-
45

Baise, 2002, p. 20). Marilynne Boyle-Baise describes three distinct paradigms: charity (Chesler
& Scalera, 2000; Harper, 1999; Kahne & Westheimer, 1996; Morton, 1995), civic education
(Battsioni, 2000; Ehrlich, 1997; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Gabelnick, 1997; Vadeboncoeur et al.,
1996; Wade & Yarbrough, 1997), and community building which she divides into
communitarianism and social justice (Chesler, 1995; Chesler & Scalera, 2000; Harper, 1999;
Kahne & Westheimer, 1996; Morton, 1995; Rhoads, 1997; Rosenberger, 2000; Sleeter, 2000;
Woodson, 1998; Varlotta, 1997).
There are three service-learning paradigms (Boyle-Baise, 2002):
● Charity: represents one of the most popular paradigms for service-learning projects. It
is based on a “moral sense of giving. Justified as a responsive civic duty which does
not challenge the status quo. It maintains a sense of distance between provider and
recipient” (Boyle-Baise, 2002, p. 21).
● Civic education: aims to develop an understanding of citizenship through service-
learning projects which emphasize “collaboration with the community, the
importance of reflection, active (experiential) learning, and the development of
empathy” (Boyle-Baise, 2002, p. 23).
● Community building (two types):
• Communitarianism: In this paradigm service-learning participants become
partners, foster reciprocity, develop mutual interest, and invite conflict to
challenge narrow view of themselves and others.
• Social justice-change: This paradigm includes the themes of communitarianism
and adds the exploration of “root causes of injustice, views oppressed people as
having assets and skills to act on their own behalf” (Boyle-Baise, 2002, p. 27).
46

Depending on the organization’s mission and goals, being purposeful about which paradigm the
organization is endorsing communicates the organization’s priorities.
Four Approaches to Service-Learning
In addition, the National Service Learning Clearinghouse, founded after the signing of the
1993 National and Community Service Trust Act, defined four ways to engage in service
learning experiences: through direct-service, indirect service, advocacy and research (University
of Central Arkansas, 2021; “National Youth Leadership Council,” 2021). Direct service includes
experiences which are face to face, such as interacting with a senior citizen organization, or
connecting with another school and together planning ways to address certain needs. Indirect
service includes experiences which are broader in scope, or more project focused such as
removing invasive plants or cleaning up litter from a beach. Research based service learning
focuses on gathering information and then presenting the learning in brochures or giving a
presentation. Finally, advocacy service learning aims to educate others and create awareness
around a topic of need; examples include writing letters to elected officials and creating
brochures around a certain topic of need.
Five Stages of a Service-Learning Project
Service learning advocates and educators further described each service learning project
in a classroom as cycling through five stages: investigation, preparation, action, reflection and
demonstration (Kaye, 2010; Lake & Jones, 2012). These phases may take place simultaneously
and are always linked together.
1. Investigation refers to investigating into the interests of the students, their resources and
skills. This is also a phase of investigating possible community needs.
47

2. Preparation refers to students learning more about the topic by researching in texts,
internet, through interviews and by going on fieldtrips. Students learn about the
underlying problems and use their skills, interests and talents to design the service
learning project.
3. Action refers to the students carrying out the project from beginning to end. This may
take from one day to an entire academic year. During this stage students apply their skills
to authentic situations and learn more skills as needed by the project. During this phase
students will also ask questions and reflect about their observations, wonderings and new
understandings.
4. Reflection is a vital and ongoing process which integrates the experiences from the
project to a student’s positionality and world view. Reflection is the time students can
“assess their skills, grow their empathy for others and understand the impact of their
actions on themselves and others” (Kaye, 2010, p. 17). Students move beyond reporting
events to comparing experiences, questioning observations and discussing new
understanding. This phase can also include reflections from community members and
adults needs to model reflecting in order to support students through this process.
5. Demonstration - Refers to when students make their learning explicit by teaching others
about their process, their changes and acknowledging to themselves their growth. “They
synthesize and integrate their learning through the process of the demonstration” (Kaye,
2010, p. 18).
In summary, service learning is an experiential learning opportunity where learners of all
ages engage in a relationship between themselves and the community around them. The learning
comes through the reflective process. Engagement in service-learning projects can take on a
48

variety of models and its overall goal is to create mutual respect and understanding among
heterogeneously diverse people (diversity based on racial, ableness, gender, sexual orientation,
economic, cultural, age, cognitive).
Theoretical Underpinnings
The roots of service learning are found in the writings of several well-known educational
philosophers. In this section, seminal foundational theorists are discussed as well as theorists
who helped service learning evolve into service-learning.
John Dewey was an American philosopher and psychologist who greatly influenced the
evolution of how we understand education. Through his seminal texts Democracy and Education
(1916) and Experience and Education (1938), Dewey declared that “education is not preparation
for life, but life itself” (1916, p. 239). Therefore, it is the responsibility of schools to bring life
into the classrooms or take the learning beyond the walls of the school. Service-learning is a
logical extension to Dewey’s philosophy on learning.
Jean Piaget was a French developmental psychologist who noted that abstract thought
developed and evolved as a result of interactions with one’s environment. Therefore, learning
takes place in developmental stages, where experiencing new situations first hand leads to
constructing new knowledge and creating new theories about the world (Piaget, 1936, 1972).
This is very similar to the dilemma of contrasting information as described by Piaget’s
predecessor, Dewey, or the “disorienting dilemma” described by Jack Mezirow (1991), or the
definition of learning as a “cultural transformation,” as reconstructing what we know as
described by Freire (1968). Piaget led a new movement of educational theorists called
constructivists, whose ideas about education and learning were grounded in experiencing
situations in first person, not just listening about those experiences second-hand.
49

Another seminal constructivist, a Russian psychologist named Lev Vygotsky, focused on
the influences one’s culture and community have on one’s development; one’s development is
inseparable from their social context. Learning is a social process. Vygotsky named his theory
sociocultural constructivism (1934). Service learning is defined by the learning that results from
collaborative interactions between participants.
In 1941, Lawrence Holt and Kurt Hanh founded the Outward Bound schools. The
mission of the schools is to foster a person’s social emotional growth and their social skills with
others through engaging in challenging outdoor experiences. In the schools, community service
has always been an integral part of the learning, although not as focused on the reciprocal benefit
of the exchange, rather on the selfless support of others in need.
In an effort to explain the roots of prejudice, Allport et al. (1954) state that lack of
exposure to people different from oneself led to judgments and biased actions against those
others. It is genuine interactions, building relationships, and most importantly “intergroup
friendships” with members of an identity group different from one’s own that lead to decreased
anxiety and increased understanding, empathy, and even forgiveness (Pettigrew et al., 2011).
Service learning provides the opportunity for intergroup exposure, exchanges, and, through
reflection, revising one’s potential bias and prejudice towards others.
Loris Malaguzzi founded the Reggio Emilia schools in post-World War II Italy. The early
childhood centers follow the constructivist tradition and believe children to be capable
individuals who, by leading their own learning, construct their own knowledge. In Malaguzzi’s
(1998) educational philosophy parents and the community are an integral part of a young
person’s learning journey. Parents are highly respected as a child’s first teacher and therefore
expected to frequently volunteer in the school, bringing family strengths into the classroom.
50

Children are also thought of as “the collective responsibility of the local community,” therefore
opportunities to connect with the community are strongly encouraged (Malaguzzi, 1998).
In the 1980s, two American researchers, Carol Gilligan and Grant Wiggins defined two
dimensions that influence a child’s understanding of themselves in relation to others: inequality
and care. The dimension of inequality is about experiencing the binary dynamic of feeling
helpless or powerless versus aiming to become independent. The dimension of care is about
developing attachment relationships, recognizing one’s actions can affect others and allowing
oneself to be helped. Service learning exemplifies both of these dimensions, where a service
learning initiative becomes an opportunity to treat others, different from you, fairly and help
others in need.
Nel Noddings is a feminist theorist who discussed the fundamental role of caring for
others in the moral development of young learners. In Caring: A Feminist Approach to Ethics
and Moral Education, Noddings (1984) proposed the term disposabilite’ and engrossment.
Disposabilite’ means the service learner is “making themselves available” to the service host,
sending the message that I care enough to make this commitment to support you. Engrossment is
about the level on the spectrum beyond understanding someone else’s perspective; it is about
inhabiting that person’s feelings as your own and feeling alongside that individual. Noddings
(1992) suggested students need to be given frequent opportunities to care for others, whether
human, animal or environmental and that those opportunities begin when the learner is very
young since “caring takes time to cultivate” (p. 114). Noddings adds, “caring is a way of being in
relation (towards others), not a specific set of behaviors” (p. 17). It is these mutual connections
genuinely found in service-learning relationships that allow learners to deepen their ethic of care.
Service-learning becomes an organic actualization of this idea.
51

David Kolb is an American social theorist. He was heavily influenced by Dewey and
Piaget before him and developed the experiential learning theory in 1984. The theory describes
the meaning-making process through which an individual travels in a direct experience. Kolb
(1984, 2014) defined the four phases of the learning process as the concrete experience, a period
of reflective observation, which leads to an abstract conceptualization, and finally the application
of new understanding in the phase called active experimentation (Figure 12). Kolb also stated
that experiential learning requires the learner to be self-motivated and they need to be able to rely
on the following abilities: the ability to reflect on the experience, the analytical skills to
conceptualize the experience, and possess problem solving skills in order to apply the new
conceptualized ideas to a new experience.
Henry Giroux is an American and Canadian scholar and was one of the founding theorists
of critical pedagogy in the United States. In Border Crossings (Giroux and Kincheloe, 1992),
Giroux distinguishes Dewey’s theory of the role of schools as reproducing society’s values and,
instead in Giroux’s view, society’s values emerging from schools. Because of this fundamental
difference, teachers and schools have the responsibility to take a stand against oppression and
model democratic action, since it is through them that society’s values are born. Through a
pedagogy such as service learning, schools have an opportunity to redefine their involvement
with the community and collaboratively work towards improvement of every community
member’s life.
Transformative Reflection
As service learning has evolved, most definitions of this practice included an essential
skill: reflection. The practice of reflection symbolizes a landmark moment in the evolution of
service learning. Reflection is defined as “the use of creative and critical thinking skills to help
52

prepare students to succeed in and to learn from their service experience, and to examine the
larger picture and context in which the service occurs” (Toole & Toole, 1995, p. 100). For
reflection to be effective, it must link back to the learning objectives, needs to be guided, occur
regularly, allow for feedback and assessment, and include clarification of personal values
(Hatcher & Bringle, 1997). It is due to this defining application to one’s experience that the
separate terms of service and learning become hyphenated into a new term: service-learning
(Coomey & Wilczenski, 2007; Dewey, 1933; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Kaye, 2010; Kolb, 1984;
Lake & Jones, 2012; Maybach, 1996; Pelco, 2014; Toole & Toole, 1995). From this moment on
in this dissertation, please note that the term service-learning will substitute service learning,
since reflection—as symbolized by the hyphen—is an integral part of this pedagogy.
Reflection as part of the educational process also begins with John Dewey. Dewey (1993)
states “the function of reflective thought is to transform a situation in which there’s conflict, to a
situation where there’s clarity” (Dewey, 1933, p. 100). Dewey further identifies five phases of
reflection:
• Perplexity: acknowledging more than one way to respond in a situation
• Elaboration: deepening understanding of the problem and brainstorming a variety
of possible solutions
• Hypotheses: assessing a situation based on observations, knowledge and thinking
• Comparing hypotheses: comparing competing hypotheses
• Taking action: experimenting with the best hypothesis towards resolving or
evolving a situation
It is important to note that while these are “indispensable traits of reflective thinking...the
sequence of these phases is not fixed” (Dewey, 1933, pp. 115–116), and can therefore overlap
53

with each other as the situation requires. Furthermore, Carol Rodgers summarizes Dewey’s
essence of reflection by revealing four criteria that should be utilized when engaging in this
practice: it is a meaning-making process towards the improvement of society, needs to be
rigorous and systematic, take place with others in addition to oneself, and it needs the thinker to
adopt an attitude of “valuing intellectual growth” (Rodgers, 2002, p. 845). In Dewey’s words,
“we do not learn from experience...rather from reflecting on that experience” (Dewey, 1933, p.
9).
The work of David Kolb was also instrumental in deepening the understanding of the role
of reflection in learning. “Knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (Kolb,
1984, p. 38). Kolb explains that learning is a process which is grounded in experience, where
one’s mind needs to address opposing ways of dealing with the world. Learning is a holistic
process, made of thoughts, feelings, perceptions and behaviors, and it constantly involves
transactions between humans and their environment (Kolb, 1984).

54

Figure 12
David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model

Note. Adapted from Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development, by D. Kolb, 1984, Prentice-Hall.

Dewey also inspired Schon (1983), whose seminal text The Reflective Practitioner,
describes the difference and importance of reflection-on-action and reflection-in-action.
Reflection-on-action is a hindsight approach in which the practitioner describes the events, and
articulates which actions were successful, which were not, and potential causes. Then the
practitioner makes a plan for what they would do differently. Reflection-in-action is when the
practitioner is conscious of their thinking process throughout the experience. They consciously
rely on best practices learned in real time. For Schon, professional growth begins when the
practitioner is able to view their thinking process through a critical lens and doubt it.
Borton (1970) wrote Reach, Touch and Teach, in which he coined a reflective cycle
adopted by many. These were three essential questions: What? So what? What next? Borton
55

influenced theorists such as Gary Rolfe and his colleagues (2001), and Ash and Clayton (2009),
where they expanded and clarified Borton’s critical reflection questions.
Another seminal scholar in the field of reflection is Stephen Brookfield. He talked about
the importance for adults to be reflecting in parallel to their students in order to support their
students’ process (Brookfield, 1998). He also defined four lenses of reflection we can apply to
ourselves: the lens of autobiography, the lens of our learners' eyes, the lens of colleagues'
experiences, and the lens of theoretical, philosophical and research literature.
The Research Making Change Corporation (RMC, 2003) identifies three phases of
reflection during a service-learning experience. Reflection happens pre-service—as students
examine their beliefs and attitudes about the service in which they are about to embark, during
the service—as they ask questions, get feedback, solve problems collaboratively, and post-
service—once they can revisit their pre-service beliefs and articulate how their thinking has
changed.
Finally, Coomey and Wilczenski (2007) remind teachers that reflection needs to offer a
variety of entrances. Reflection can include oral presentations (such as singing, teaching,
debating), be shared in written form (such as journal entries, poetry, brochure, riddles, petitions),
be presented visually (such as with photos, skits, charades, murals), or logically (such as using
predictions, graphs, maps, surveys).
Service-Learning Standards
In 1983, Dr. Jim Kleismeier, a youth organizer and activist who later advised both the
Clinton and Obama administrations, founded the National Youth Leadership Council (NYLC).
In 1989, the council began hosting the annual National Service-learning Conference and in 1993,
the organization became the official training body for the Corporation for National Service. In
56

2008, the National Youth Leadership Council, presented their list of standards for ensuring a
high quality of exchange between the service-learning participants, both students and community
members (see Appendix A). The existence of standards provided both clarity for the purpose of
service learning in schools, as well as an opportunity for responsibility of schools to ensure their
students meet certain outcomes (National Center on Educational Outcomes, 2016). While service
learning standards now exist, it is important to state they are not part of the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) and are therefore optional for schools to adopt. These included the importance
of designing a meaningful service experience, of linking the experiential learning to curricular
standards, the inclusion of frequent opportunities for reflection, the promotion of recognizing the
benefits of diversity of all kinds, empowering student voice, reciprocal partnerships among all
members, systematically monitoring process and progress, and being cognizant of investing
enough time into each exchange to meet the goals.
Historical Context
In 1973, the U.S. government passed the Domestic Volunteer Service Act, which later
became the National and Community Service Act of 1990. In 1993, the U.S. government passed
the National and Community Service Trust Act. Its mission was to reauthorize, revise, and
reorganize national and community service and domestic volunteer programs and provide
expanded opportunities for national service and educational awards for participants. This federal
act generated the National Service Learning Clearinghouse which defined the four ways to
engage in service-learning experiences mentioned above: direct-service, indirect service,
advocacy and research (for definitions, please refer to p. 46). The National and Community
Service Trust Act was then revised as the Serve America Act of 2009, where among the purposes
listed was:
57

To meet the unmet human, educational, environmental and public safety needs of the US
without displacing works, to renew the ethic of civic responsibility, to reward individuals
who participate in the national service, to provide tangible benefits to the communities
receiving the service, and to expand and strengthen the programs through year-round
opportunities. (Serve America Act, 2009, Public Law 111–13)
The Serve America Act increased volunteers from 75,000 to 250,000, increased volunteering
opportunities and ensured funding for the Pell Grant, a national grant awarded to individuals who
chose social service careers (Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, 2021). In addition, No
Child Left Behind (2001) offered federal funding to schools which included a character education
element, present in service learning (No Child Left Behind Act, 2021).
In 2011, however, when the House of Representatives came under Republican control,
the US government made substantial cuts in the budget of the Serve America Act. Under the
Budget Control Act of 2011, citing economic recovery from the recession many non-defense
department agencies received budget cuts (Budget Control Act, 2011, Public Law 112–25) which
continued into 2013. These cuts affected service learning acts, eliminated funding for research,
training, and financial support. The Corporation of National and Community Service (CNCS)
received minor increases in their annual budget from 2014 to 2016 until Donald Trump became
the U.S. president. Interrupting a long-standing presidential tradition, President Trump attempted
to eliminate the budget of AmeriCorps every year of his presidency, which would result in the
abolition of all its services and programs (Green, 2017; Khatami, 2019). However, due to a
strong bipartisan support from Congress, every year of the Trump presidency CNCS saw a minor
increase in its budget, as of 2019 at $1.08 billion per fiscal year (Khatami, 2019), a $60 million
decrease from 2009 (Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, 2021). Figure 13 shows a visual
58

timeline with the significant legislative acts that have affected service learning in the United
States.

Figure 13
Summary Timeline of Important Historical Dates for Service-Learning

59

Historical and Current Trends in Service-Learning: A U.S. Public School and
International School Perspective
Schools across the world have initiated various ways to apply service-learning pedagogy
to building skills, to deepen understanding of one’s connection to others, and to civic
engagement. After a period of perceived self-centeredness in high school and college students,
US school administrators and higher education faculty catapulted the popularity of service-
learning in the 1980s (Hutchinson, 2002). As of 1999, the U.S. government had invested $1.035
billion into service-learning programs, 64% of public elementary schools and 83% of public high
schools incorporated service-learning into its curricular program (National Center for Education
Statistics, 1999). Overall, participation rates are highest in secondary schools and lowest in
elementary schools (Coomey & Wilczenski, 2007; National Center for Education Statistics,
1999). In the early 1990’s, Maryland and the District of Columbia went as far as adopting
service-learning requirements to their high school graduates. Since then, many more states have
allowed students to gain graduation credits for engaging in service learning initiatives (Education
Commission of the States, 2014). The last report on US elementary and secondary public schools
and the extent of their engagement with service-learning was in September of 1999 (National
Center for Education Statistics, 1999).
Service-learning is an important part of many international schools as well. While
research on the inclusion of service-learning in curricular programs across all international
schools is challenging to find, the International Baccalaureate (IB) program in international
schools considers service-learning as an integral part of its academic program. As of 2017, there
were 3,300 IB schools across 141 countries (Billig, 2017). As of May 2021, IB statistics show
there are 5,500 schools engaged in 7,400 service-learning projects for students 3 to 19 years old,
60

across 159 countries, (International Baccalaureate Organization, 2021). Even if only IB schools
are considered, there has been an increase of 66% in four years of schools where service-learning
is a fundamental part of their mission. Service-learning is certainly rising in popularity across the
world.
The Benefits and Challenges of Service-Learning
The Benefits of Service-Learning
There are innumerable benefits to including service-learning as part of a curricular
program. Here are some of the most impactful frequently mentioned in the literature.
Service-Learning Supports a Learner’s Social Emotional Development
Service-learning is a genuine opportunity to benefit from the “healing power” of altruism
(Curwin, 1993). These real world applications of experiential learning connected to others allow
students to increase their own self-knowledge and can contribute to personal social emotional
growth (Brewster, 2018; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Melchior et al., 1999). School psychologists
Wilczenski and Coomey (2007) researched ways to engage their students in developing their
self-esteem through building confidence in caring for others and growing their empathy
(Brewster, 2018). They found service-learning to be the best opportunity to support this personal
growth in an indirect way, through the caring of others. In their research, service-learning
opportunities were especially meaningful for more vulnerable students, who were already
displaying social and emotional problems (Coomey & Wilczenski, 2007). In addition, they
emphasized that because SL is a strength based learning approach, it can be particularly
successful in reaching disenfranchised students since it’s sending the message that the
community needs them and the community trusts them to help in a time of difficulty. In these
situations, the more vulnerable students are given opportunities to serve, and this is having an
61

enormous impact on how capable they think they are (Maybach, 1996). Hopefully, over time,
these disenfranchised or vulnerable students can begin to substitute feelings of anger and
inadequacy for feelings of care, and feelings of low self-esteem for feelings of self-worth
(Coomey & Wilczenski, 2007; Kezar & Rhoads, 2001).
Reduces Risk-Taking Behaviors
As a result of the previous point, where the asset or strength based lenses are used in the
learning process, research has further supported the finding that when a school includes service
learning as part of their curricular program, the students’ risk-taking behaviors reduce
significantly (Allen et al., 1994; Curwin, 1993; Yates & Youniss, 1996). Risk-taking behavior
includes truancy, in-school violence and even class disruptions. This benefit was observed
mainly in middle and high school settings where students were more likely to express their anger
in more visible and publicly disruptive ways.
Reduces Negative Stereotypes and Increases Understanding of Diversity
Another benefit of including service-learning experiences in a school’s curricular
program is that when reflection and discussion regularly take place, such experiences directly
reduce negative stereotypes, assumptions, and promote racial understandings (Astin & Sax,
1998; Einfeld & Collins, 2008; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Jones & Hill, 2001; Marullo, 1998). These
benefits are the result of direct experiences with diverse people, where young volunteers might
for the first time have a conversation with someone of a different identity marker. This is also
where the further step of reflecting and discussing biases, prejudices, or previous ignorance now
begins to impact and change the students’ thinking.
62

Increases Student Engagement
Service-learning is an example of experiential learning and therefore offers all the
researched benefits that come from learning through the first person exploration of life. One of
the most immediate benefits of service-learning is increased student engagement (Kaye, 2010;
Melchior et al., 1999; Shumer, 1994). Learners of every age recognize the direct applicability of
their thinking and learning when they need to carry their ideas out with other people, especially
strangers. There is a real world purpose to their choices and actions. In addition, the student’s
plans and actions don’t just require higher engagement because they will be tested with
strangers, but also because they are meant to help that stranger. This individual needs the student
to put in their best effort towards resolving or supporting a challenge. Simply put, service-
learning gives purpose to each learner, and purpose results in greater engagement.
Increases Student Agency
Engaging in service-learning also has an impact on a learner’s sense of agency (Mitra &
Serriere, 2015). Agency is “the human capability to exert influence over one's functioning and
the course of events by one's actions” (Bandura, 2006, p. 8). Any type of service-learning act in
which one chooses to engage (where indirect, direct, advocacy or research) will go from idea, to
plan, to action, which eventually will reveal opportunities towards more ideas and the cycle will
continue. This sequence reinforces an individual’s sense of empowerment in themselves and
their capabilities. Every time an idea becomes a type of action, it confirms for the student that
they have the ability to make a difference. These lessons about oneself are practice for active
democratic citizenship and help kids develop an identity as change makers (Mitra & Serriere,
2015). Examples of democratic citizenship include connecting with a community and dedicating
oneself to supporting a cause. Taking part in these actions have been shown to improve the lives
63

of young learners and gain a source of control and empowerment towards seeing oneself as part
of the solution. Outcomes of increased agency in a learner include self-confidence, social
responsibility, civic mindedness and self-efficacy (Kezar & Rhoads, 2001).
Improves Academic Performance
The improvement of academic performance is another benefit of service-learning being a
type of experiential learning experience (Civic Literacy Project, 2000; Scales et al., 2000).
Service-learning encompasses many skills and with its real-world purpose, increases a student’s
engagement in their learning. Kaye (2010) states that when students engage in service-learning,
they will need to transfer their academic, personal and social skills to a real-world context;
question; research; analyze; compare; synthesize; reflect on themselves; gain respect for peers
and their community; increase their civic participation; gain a deeper understanding of society;
develop as leaders who know how to see needs, take initiative and plan for solving problems;
develop collaborative skills and experience success no matter what their academic level (Ender
et al., 2000; Hilgendorf, 2009; Kaye, 2010; Krain & Nurse, 2004; Lansverk, 2004; Mooney &
Edwards, 2001; Myers-Lipton, 1998; Parker-Gwin & Mabry, 1998). These are all skills that
when reapplied back into a classroom will support the students in deepening their academic
understanding and result in higher academic performance.
Improves School Culture
Another benefit of including service-learning in a school’s curricular program is that it
improves the overall culture of the school (Weiler et al., 1998). This positive consequence is a
result of the increased knowledge of oneself, greater respect for others, higher level of agency,
lower risk-taking and disruptive behavior, and general higher self-esteem in oneself. When a
school communicates to its students that their actions matter and their unique identities can be
64

helpful to our society, students will feel more empowered to help others and intervene against
harmful incidents among peers. Caring for our communities has a direct impact towards caring
for each other in other contexts, such as school.
Develops Stronger Connections Between School and Community
Several scholars highlight an indirect advantage to a school designing opportunities to
connect with different communities. While the focus of a service-learning project is the benefits
to both providers and recipients, there is an additional dynamic that is being reinforced: the
relationship between schools and communities. By cultivating these relationships, there is a
greater understanding of the strengths, not only of the needs, that a community has to offer, as
well as a greater appreciation of the school’s values (Cipolle, 2010; McReynolds, 2015; Youniss
et al., 1997). Certainly, the fact that a school invests their students’ and teachers’ time and energy
in developing a relationship with its community sends the message that a community is
important to the school. Consequently, this investment engenders community support for school,
which opens possibilities for future collaboration or support from the community (Melchoir,
1999).
Democratic Citizenship and Activism
Finally, one of the most impactful benefits of engaging in service-learning projects from
a young age is the understanding of what it means to be a democratic citizen. Through building
relationships with others in a context of mutual respect and mutual support, service-learning has
the potential to plant lifelong habits for active citizenship, for recognizing injustices and
intervening on various levels to interrupt harmful practices (Cipolle, 2010). When service-
learning has a focus on developing a student’s agency towards being a change-maker, it also
cultivates a personal dedication towards fighting discrimination and a personal dedication
65

towards a commitment to social justice (Bickford & Reynolds, 2002; Boyle-Baise, 2002; Mitra
& Serriere, 2015; Monard-Weissman, 2003). Furthermore, participating in volunteer service-
learning at a young age promoted increased commitment in helping others not only as part of
schooling, but also exposing students to careers in the social service fields and even the potential
for working for a non-profit organization (Astin & Sax, 1998; Melchior et al., 1999).
The Critiques of Service-Learning
Anybody can serve, you don’t need a college degree, … only a heart full of grace
(Martin Luther King, Jr. as cited by Eby, 1998, p. 3)
The evil that is in the world always comes from ignorance. Good intentions may
do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding.
(Camus, 1972, p. 124)
While there is significant literature and research that encourages service learning and
names its many benefits, several dissenting opinions have also surfaced in more recent years.
Because one of the main goals of SL is to develop mutually beneficial relationships in
communities, it becomes essential to examine the nature of the exchange to ensure reciprocity
exists. If the initiative created in the name of service-learning is focused on charity rather than
building reciprocal, equitable relationships, then damaging mindsets can be subconsciously and
unintentionally developed. It turns out M.L.K. Jr. unknowingly planted a seed for
oversimplifying this practice for many future participants. Service-learning should not stigmatize
or impose a burden on the community in any way (Quinn et al., 2001).
A noticeable gap in the literature that needs to be mentioned is that very few of the
research found explored the intersection of elementary age learners and asymmetrical power
dynamics. This is fundamental to acknowledge since SL is commonly used in elementary
66

schools, which pride themselves in supporting their local communities. If the volunteers were
elementary age learners, they might be even more susceptible to certain unstated dynamics, if
those dynamics were not openly explored. The following sections address the main harmful
effects facing a service learner, regardless of age. The discussion in the gap in literature
specifically focusing on elementary students will take place in the conclusion.
Short Term Nature of Service-Learning Engagement
One critique of service-learning projects has been the short term nature of the
engagement. Short-lived exchange may reproduce traumatic patterns of fragmented relationships
between young recipients and older service learners, damaging the younger recipient’s ability to
build trust (Baumgartner et al., 2019; Eby, 1998; Mills, 2012; Stoecker, 2009; Tryon et al., 2008;
Vernon & Ward, 1999; Wade, 2000). The short-term and sporadic nature of the service learner’s
schedule has also been raised as problematic. Although the schedules are due to the school or
university’s schedule, this becomes another example of how the interaction is really mostly
focused on benefiting the volunteer, not the recipient (Tryon et al., 2008; Vernon & Ward, 1999).
Consequences of Charity-Focused Service
Another well researched critique is service with a charity focus, rather than a more
reciprocal exchange. In Is Charity Bad? by Cipolle (2010), Cipolle shares that the charity-justice
debate is a major tension with service-learning advocates. Initiatives are often led by people who
“do not see social barriers to equality and look for ways to peacefully integrate people into the
existing structures. Their service-learning programs partner with agencies that cooperate with
power holders” (Cipolle, 2010, p. 44). Most K–16 service-learning programs are charity-based,
with the primary focus being on student learning rather than reciprocal benefits (Cipolle, 2010;
Koliba, 2004; Robinson, 2000). In addition, if the volunteers come from a higher socioeconomic
67

class and the recipients are from a lower socioeconomic class, then the relationship could
reproduce and reenforce harmful stereotypes (Aaronson, 2017; Boyle-Baise, 2002; Brown, 2001;
Butin, 2007; Cann & McCloskey, 2017; Cipolle, 2004, 2010; Kahne & Westheimer, 1996;
Marullo & Edwards, 2000; Morton, 1995; O'Grady, 2000; Rhoads, 1997; Sleeter, 2000; Wade,
2001; Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2000). One final point regarding charity is if a school’s approach
to SL is only through charity, there is not much opportunity to learn about the larger systematic
structures that influence the social-economic position of the hosts. By avoiding an opportunity
for deeper research, this type of approach essentially maintains the status quo of unequal
positions in society as well as the students’ potential biases.
Burden of Training Students is on the Recipient Community
A third critique shared by the service recipients is that students engage in the SL project
while lacking sufficient skill to carry out the agreed-upon tasks. Perhaps due to an unstated
message that recipients should be grateful for getting some bodies to serve for free, it most often
falls on the recipient agencies to organize the trainings. This results in the service recipients
investing additional time as part of the project to ensure all student volunteers are trained to
perform the high quality of work needed rather than just be satisfied with any quality of work
they can receive (Cann & McCloskey, 2017; Guttentag, 2009; Forbes et al., 1999; Palacios,
2010; Vernon & Ward, 1999; Tryon et al., 2008).
The Dynamics of Power
Another critique of poorly executed service-learning experiences sheds light on the
delicate dynamics of power between service provider and recipient. The tension of power in this
relationship is defined by the party who makes decisions about the SL activity, the attitudes of
the providers towards the recipients and who evaluates the experience in the end. Unfortunately,
68

it is often the case that service recipients may not be given a voice to define their needs in the
first place, therefore they are forced to prioritize the service providers’ needs over their own
more pressing needs. Removing the recipient voice from any part of the decision-making process
disempowers the recipient, who often are part of the already marginalized community, further
reproducing harmful patterns (Boyle-Baise & Sleeter, 1998; Cooks et al., 2004; Cruz, 1990;
Forbes et al., 1999; Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002; Guttentag, 2009; Kendall, 1990; Levinson,
1990; Masucci & Renner, 2001; Maybach, 1996; McBride et al., 2006; Pompa, 2002; Sleeter,
2000; Vernon & Ward, 1999; Werner et al., 2002). Pompa (2002) explains:
Unless facilitated with great care and consciousness, “service” can unwittingly become
an exercise in patronization. In a society replete with hierarchical structures and
patriarchal philosophies, service-learning’s potential danger is for it to become the very
thing it seeks to eschew. (p. 68)
Echoing this idea, Wade (2007), professor and prolific scholar on the topic, eloquently notes,
“without a critical analysis of the conditions that promote poverty, it is too easy for the provider
of help to blame the recipient for their condition” (p. 158). Without a deliberate exploration of
the causal complexities, a young child may unintentionally internalize these unequal power
dynamics as logical and justify unequal treatment of others. Furthermore, “poorly designed
service-learning experiences may actually reinforce stereotypes and exacerbate power
differentials between social and cultural groups” (Furco, 2013; Latta et al., 2018, p. 37).
In this section, two well-researched power dynamics are explored: the legacy of
colonialism and saviorism.
69

Colonialism and Its Legacy
Palacios (2010) states, “western intention of helping underlying the development aid goal
is humanitarian as much as it is colonialist...it tends to reproduce the same global patterns of
inequality and poverty” (p. 864). In this statement Palacios recognizes the altruistic nature of the
helping act, as well as adds a critical lens that the more economically privileged group has an
interest in maintaining a relationship of dependency with regard to the less economically
privileged group. The sense of dependency is more beneficial to the wealthier group than
investing resources in addressing the root problem of the poverty and working towards solving it
for good. This dependency is not only financial and resource-based, but also psychological.
Colonial dependence is harmful both because the service recipients might internalize their
inability to solve their own problems but also internalize that wealth is the only tool that can
solve problems; so as long as they are less economically advantaged, they lack the strengths or
assets to help themselves.
Sharp (2009), as cited by Martin and Pirbhai-Illich (2015), makes a distinction between
post-colonial with a hyphen and postcolonial without a hyphen. She explains the term post-
colonial refers to the period of a country’s history after being colonized, at which point the
country gained independence. Postcolonialism, with no hyphen, is a theory developed by those
newly independent countries where they acknowledge some political and economic
independence exists, yet the legacy of colonialism still echoes in the relationships between
peoples. A decolonization of the mind, where service-learners and service hosts engage in truly
reciprocal exchanges, where service hosts are viewed in an asset-based light rather than deficits,
and where the amount of wealth does not symbolize superiority has yet to take place in the mind
of all parties (Martin & Pirbhai-Illich, 2015; Sharp, 2009).
70

While an elementary age student might not consciously impose postcolonialist ideologies
while engaging in service-learning, they might certainly internalize the patterns in roles that
service-providers often take on when engaging with service-recipients. Furthermore, because it
takes a particularly reflective and critically minded educator to present SL in a way that fosters
equity and respect towards the service recipients, mutually beneficial projects are difficult to
come by (Butin, 2015).
Saviorism
The term saviorism is borrowed from White Savior. This section explores the roots of
white saviorism and connects them to the saviorism terminology that better matches our
institution’s context.
The term White Savior was first identified as an interpretation of the 1899 poem by
Rudyard Kipling called White Man’s Burden. The poem describes the role of Americans in the
Philippine islands after the Spanish empire left. The United States purchased the Philippine
islands, Guam and Puerto Rico for twenty million dollars and, in doing so, expanded the
American geopolitical presence in both hemispheres. In the poem, Kipling suggests that it is the
responsibility of the white colonialists (in this case, the Americans) to carry the burden of
civilizing the “local savages” through colonialist and imperialist ideologies. This poem
originated the idea of white colonialists as “saviors” of the local indigenous communities.
The next context where the concept of White Savior is described is as a tool of the
cinematic craft. The trope of a White Savior is utilized in many successful films, primarily
successful with white audiences, where a racially white character (RWC) saves a group of
racially brown individuals from their own circumstances, implying they can’t solve the problem
71

on their own. Often, the RWC learns something about themselves along their journey to rescue
the helpless.
Teju Cole evolved the concept in 2012 when he coined the term: White Savior Industrial
Complex. In an article he wrote for the Atlantic in response to a documentary called Kony 2012
(Cole, 2012), Cole presents the harmful dynamic of Caucasian people who aim to create an
overwhelming emotional experience resulting from acts of charity or activism. The White
Saviors are empowered from rescuing the oppressed people of color while disregarding the need
to analyze and publicize the larger systematic structures of oppression that exist in many nations,
including systems which may be perpetuated by the United States.
The White Savior complex is applicable to the service-learning context as well, wherein
the racial and political demographics of the volunteers and host community are often different,
thus reproducing the damaging savior and victim dynamic (Adriaanse, 2015; Boyle-Baise, 1998;
Cann & McCloskey, 2017; Cipolle, 2010; Sleeter, 2000; Wade, 2001; Weah et al., 2000;
Windholz, 2017).

Resentment Resulting From Forced Volunteerism
This critique highlights the tension between providing free labor and ensuring quality of
the labor. When service learners are forced to engage in SL initiatives as a high school or college
graduation requirement, both schools and the service-recipients have raised the issue of low
quality in the service provided (Tryon et al., 2008). At times, and for some volunteers, they may
be resistant and feel resentment towards their service project if they are forced into it rather than
seeking out the engagement by themselves. It has been observed that if the volunteer is
participating in the service project just to get credit, the right motivation to ensure maximum
effort towards high quality is not present (Cipolle, 2010).
72

Lack of Cultural Sensitivity
Another critique mainly regarding university students and young adults has been voiced
by the service recipients. It has been reported that some young adults may lack the cultural
understanding and experience to behave in culturally sensitive ways, which results in
unintentionally disrespecting the host community (Proyrungroj, 2015). Examples range from the
type of clothing worn during the service experience, to public displays of affection, which may
be too personal for certain host communities, to the direct interactions providers have with
recipient communities.
Blaming the Individual, Overlooking Systemic Issues
When lacking a critical lens and a deeper analysis of the situation of need, a service-
learning experience which only involves the direct action of service might lead students to
blaming the individual recipients for their situations (Eby, 1998; Maybach, 1996; Wade, 2000).
This lack of analysis further damages the service recipients since the providers may erroneously
believe that the recipient’s situation is caused by the choices of the recipient. Instead, every
service opportunity is a chance to learn about our society and the more systemic ways it
acknowledges and addresses various issues. Asking questions such as what happens if someone
is not well enough to go to work? How many days can one be absent from work before being
fired? How does a family get food and shelter if no one in the home has an income? These
become opportunities for students to learn more about society’s safety nets and areas for
improvement.
Diverting Attention From Gaps in Social Policy
This critique sheds light on how the government interprets and uses service-learning
actions. While celebrating an increase of SL across the country, some scholars have recognized
73

that this celebrated increase might come at the cost of some more systemic benefits (Eby, 1998;
Cipolle, 2004). Is the increasing number of service-learning programs diverting attention from
much needed focus on redesigning social policy? Are service-learning programs a way of
patching up social needs with volunteerism, rather than addressing gaps at the root? A service-
learning program is by far not a substitute for the creation of structures in society that support
our vulnerable citizens.
Literature Gap in Recipient Community Perspective
Finally, a noticeable gap exists in the literature of the benefits of service-learning from
the perspective of community agencies (the host or recipient agencies). There seems to be a “bias
in focus towards student outcomes” (Stoecker & Tryon, 2009, p. 4), rather than community
impact (Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2000). After conducting an action research on the topic, Stoecker
and Tryon (2009), summarize the big themes learned once the unheard community voices were
given attention (the research focused on community impact with college students). In addition to
those mentioned in the above paragraph, the researchers added the lack of communication
between the institution and the community agency to be a significant challenge as well as the
painful unequal relationship between the community and the academy (Jones, 2003; Stoecker &
Tryon, 2009). Frequently, the dialogic pattern between the community and the institution is that
the service-learning project is initiated by the institution, however, falls disproportionately on the
community to host, train and guide students (Jones, 2003).
Movements That Have Shaped Service-Learning
Multicultural Education
The multicultural education (ME) movement originated from the civil rights and human
rights movement of the 1960s (Banks, 1989; Cipolle, 2010). It was the product of the intersection
74

between movements for social change and the recognition of the educational system in
contributing to the systemic discrimination present in society. Multicultural education is:
A system of beliefs and behaviors that recognizes and respects the presence of all diverse
groups in an organization or society, acknowledges and values their social-cultural
differences, and encourages and enables their continues contribution within an inclusive
cultural context which empowers all within the organization or society. (Rosado, 1996, p.
2)
Current day scholar and educator Boyle-Baise (2002) adds that ME is a philosophy, a
methodology, a stance of critique and an effort for empowerment. It is a philosophy in that its
goal is attaining cultural, lingual and ethnic pluralism; it is a methodology which focuses on five
dimensions: content integration, knowledge construction, prejudice reduction, equity pedagogy,
and empowerment of school culture and the social structure of society (Banks, 1997, 2004, 2019;
Cipolle, 2010); it is a stance of critique in that it looks to understand the systemic causes that
lead to unequal experiences; and it is an effort for empowerment since it is interpreted as a tool
towards social change (Boyle-Baise, 2002; Sleeter, 1996). Multicultural education starts with the
awareness and examination of oneself (Pope et al., 2004).
One of the pioneers of multicultural education was Banks (1981, 1989, 1995, 2004, 2008,
2019). According to Banks, schools should aim to create educational equity for all students and
educational equity begins with recognizing students’ identities, in all their assets, funds of
knowledge (Moll, 2006), as well as needs. Banks stated that in order to create and maintain a
multicultural environment, the policies, teachers’ attitudes, resources, curriculum, assessment
methods, pedagogies of a school all needed to be examined.
75

Multicultural education continued to evolve in the 1980s and 1990s. Kincheloe and
Steinberg (1997) designed a taxonomy of multicultural education. The taxonomy defined five
types of multiculturalism: conservative/monocultural, liberal, pluralist, left-essentialist, and
critical multiculturalism. When a school exemplifies conservative or monocultural
multiculturalism, it is not aware of whiteness being an invisible barometer of the dominant
culture, non-white ethnic groups are expected to melt into the great American melting pot and
there is an assumption that the existing social order of the society is just and fair for everyone.
When a school exemplifies liberal multiculturalism, the inequality exists because of a lack of
opportunity and all humans can succeed if given the chance. In this version of multiculturalism,
individuals are free agents responsible for their own futures, and they all begin from the same
starting line; various ethnic history months are considered positive ways of honoring cultural
groups, therefore multiculturalism becomes an add-on; whiteness is viewed as non-ethnic norm
and highlighting discrimination is viewed as divisive. The discourse of pluralist multiculturalism
has “served as the mainstream articulation of multicultural education over the last 20 years”
(Easton Country Day School, n.d., Pluralist Multiculturalism section, para. 1). In this version of
ME, the curriculum involves learning about others, their knowledge and beliefs; often ignores
the role of socio-economic class and race is seen as a private matter that holds little connection to
larger structures of injustice; acknowledges that while laws prohibit discrimination, this behavior
still exists and schools play a critical role in addressing it; education is focused on differences
between cultures, rather than similarities, therefore often the society will be segregated by
cultural groups. When a school exemplifies left-essentialist multiculturalism, it focuses on
cultural differences and characteristics of ethnic groups. These characteristics are often
generalized, reflecting a kind of static reality to the culture. Finally, when a school exemplifies
76

critical multiculturalism, the “multicultural curriculum becomes part of a larger effort to
transform the societal structures that perpetuate oppression” (Easton Country Day School, n.d.,
Critical Multiculturalism section, para. 2), there is an understanding that a community is not built
on consensus rather it is built on unity in diversity and that there is solidarity in difference. In
such a version of ME, “it is essential to make a commitment to recognizing multiple traditions of
knowledge” (Easton Country Day School, n.d., Critical Multiculturalism section, para. 9), to
critically examine whiteness as an ethnicity and that there are many ways of seeing.
In Affirming Diversity, Nieto (1992), another well-known multicultural education scholar
and professor, echoes Banks’ definition that multiculturalism permeates school curriculum and
instructional strategies. In addition, she states that because multicultural education uses critical
pedagogy as its underlying theory, therefore the questioning stance of focusing on power
dynamics and discriminatory systems, promotes the democratic principle of social justice. In
Moving Beyond Tolerance, Nieto (1992) presents a model for instituting ME where she identifies
five possible levels: monoculturalism, tolerance, acceptance, respect and affirmation, solidarity
and critique (Nieto, 1992). At each level of the model, she describes structural issues of
addressing bilingualism, tracking, professional development for teachers, and issues of school
culture in how diversity is not only acknowledged but celebrated equally across all cultures
represented in the school.
Cipolle (2010) brings greater clarity to the pedagogy of multicultural education by
offering the analogy of a three-legged stool, each leg symbolizing a tenet of ME. For Cipolle,
multicultural education has three tenets which are content, learning strategies and climate. The
three legs refer to relationships and policies existing in classrooms and the school community.
Finally, Boyle-Baise (2002) aligns service-learning paradigms described above to multicultural
77

education. Here is a visual breakdown of these paradigms and how they connect to multicultural
education (see Figure 14).

78

Figure 14
Alignment of Service-Learning Paradigms and Multicultural Education

Note. Adapted from Multicultural service learning: Educating teachers in diverse communities (pp. 18–19), by M. Boyle-Baise, 2002,
Teachers College Press.
78

79

Today several different models and frameworks exist for multicultural education, ranging
from opposite ends of the Kincheloe and Steinberg’s taxonomy. Proponents of ME describe the
United States not as a “melting pot,” which describes a homogenous culture where groups of
people give up their cultural identities to join this new American identity. The preferred and
more appropriate analogy which embodies multicultural ideals is of the US as a “Stew Pot,”
where individual cultures can both maintain their distinctive flavors and can contribute to a
multicultural, multiethnic and multilingual society (Rosado, 1996). And how does multicultural
education influence service-learning? At the heart of service-learning is a recognition and
appreciation of others’ perspectives, a mutual respect for the other, and a drive to improve life
for everyone in the community. Multicultural education guides the development of this mutually
beneficial relationship between providers and recipients. For ME, service-learning is the
experiential learning extension that makes multiculturalism applicable, relevant and purposeful.
It is through service-learning that students have the direct opportunity to begin to understand
local issues from a multitude of perspectives (Boyle-Baise, 2002; Einfeld & Collins, 2008).
Multicultural education is one way to ensure that relationships avoid reproducing harmful
dynamics on both ends of the service-learning spectrum.
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy
The term culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) was coined by Gloria Ladson-Billings in her
seminal article “Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy” in 1995. Ladson-Billings
(1995) shifted the focus on what might be wrong with the learners with what might be wrong
within the classroom. Ladson-Billings was primarily concerned with developing teachers who
would focus on their students’ assets, rather than deficits. The pedagogy identified three major
domains important to a successful classroom: academic success, or intellectual growth learners
80

make during the year; cultural competence, increasing students’ knowledge of other cultures
especially of the culture of their origin; and sociopolitical consciousness, which is the application
of the skills learned in the classroom to the outside world to solve real-community problems.
Service-learning benefits from all three domains but it is particularly connected to the
sociopolitical consciousness, serving as its praxis.
Between 1995 and the present, CRP has undergone an evolution as well, mainly because
its interpretations have varied greatly across schools and the natural consequences of being in a
marketplace of ideas. The marketplace of practices is a double-edged sword which publicly
shares a new idea with many people, but then is also susceptible to many peoples’ simplification
and reinterpretation of it; at times driving it significantly away from its original intended
purpose. Interpretations of CRP may have become simple add-ons, such as celebrating certain
holidays, and have avoided questioning societal and school structures. Important ideas at the
heart of this evolving pedagogy’s definition of successful teaching is not about what teachers do
(or add-ons) but rather, how they think about and connect to their students, and how they
critically examine their school’s systems and structures. Duncan-Andrade and Morrell (2008)
refer to academic success as “above the ground development,” metaphorizing learners as having
strong trunks and branches but no roots. CRP dictates that teachers not merely guide their
students toward academic success, but also help them develop their roots by knowing
themselves, their culture and ethnicity, and finding inspiration in their own history (Duncan-
Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Escudero, 2019). In 2014, Gloria Ladson-Billings published the
Remix 2.0 of CRP wherein she states that innovation is the true meaning of scholarship, and
therefore an evolution of that idea is vital to its survival (Ladson-Billings, 2014). In that spirit,
Paris and Alim (2014), introduced their updated version of CRP which they named culturally
81

sustaining pedagogy (CSP). CSP offers three “loving critiques:” the need to extend asset
pedagogies by demanding pluralist outcomes, such as multiethnic, multicultural, and
multilingual stances in the school culture; resist static notions of culture and race, so that they are
frozen in time and not evolving; and finally, interrogate the -isms that newer generations may
introduce as part of a movement of empowerment. Discrimination of any kind is discrimination
against us all. Another iteration of CRP is presented by McCarty and Lee (2014) as culturally
revitalizing pedagogy. In this version, they recognize CRP is also a way to revitalize traditional
ways, customs and an ancient language.
And how has culturally relevant pedagogy affected service-learning? In addition to the
examination of the self which includes celebrating one’s cultural heritage and therefore
recognizing the cultural heritage that others possess, CRP centers around an asset-based
pedagogy. As teachers, classmates, providers and recipients we all need to listen for, recognize
and celebrate the strengths of our communities and cultures. At times, being at both ends of the
service-learning spectrum might highlight a group’s deficiencies. Yet, a robust SL framework
which holds CRP tenets close to its mission ensures the community’s funds of knowledge (Moll,
2006) are recognized and questions potential systematic injustice rather than blame the
individual. CRP is the key to addressing many of the critiques of the service-learning
engagements.
Social Justice Education
Social justice education (SJE) has its roots during the 1960s, in the heart of the civil
rights period in the United States and by the movement of Freedom Schools. Freedom Schools
were proposed by Charles Cobb, an activist with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating
Committee (SNCC), to the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO) in the summer of 1963.
82

COFO was an umbrella organization including the SNCC, Congress of Racial Equality (CORE),
the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). The schools had the mission to raise change makers in
the society. Their instructional practices involved becoming a critical thinker, questioning
everything, decentering the teacher as the authority so that the curricular program was truly
student-centered and differentiated. In this movement, social justice education was born with the
aim to collaboratively build a society “in which all members have their needs met...where they
are physically and psychologically safe and secure, able to develop their full capabilities and
interact with others democratically” (Wade, 2007, p. 2). Social justice education “is a
contribution to social change and public policies that increase gender and racial equality, end
discrimination of various kinds and reduce the stark income inequalities that characterize most of
the world” (Colby et al., 2003, p. 65). It involves “democracy, activism, self-awareness,
imagination, opening public space, and participating in history” (Ayers & Quinn, cited in Wade,
2007, p. ix).
When educators begin to apply social justice education to their classrooms and schools,
two concepts center their work: care and fairness (Wade, 2007). Care comes from having enough
experiences with others to feel connected to them, even if they are not family. It is this level of
awareness of our neighbors’ lives that motivates learners to protect their neighbors and support
them in case they are in need (Burke-Hengen & Smith, 2000). Fairness is an essential concept to
analyze in any age classroom. Specifically, at the beginning of every year, classroom
communities explore the difference between equity and equality helping students understand the
purpose of differentiation. In other words, even young children can recognize that everyone has
different needs and that everyone is entitled to have an equal opportunity to learn. In Social
83

Studies for Social Justice, Wade (2007) states, we can “teach about social justice and for social
justice” (p. 8). The former describes the movement of social justice and the current struggles that
exist, and the latter describes the skills and attitudes involved in taking action towards human
rights. Wade (2007) also defines five characteristics of social justice education: social justice
education is student-centered, collaborative, experiential, intellectual and critical. While all
characteristics that are integral to this educational approach are applicable to service-learning,
the most relevant are “experiential and collaborative.” Because learning is a constructivist
(Piaget, 1936), and social process, students must “engage with social justice themes
experientially” (Vygotsky, 1934, p. 10), and with others.
Service-learning allows an opportunity to experience social justice issues on a personal
human to human level. When students “interact with the people they are serving, they hear
people telling their own stories...and putting a face on poverty (or some kind of need) helps to
break down stereotypes” (Cipolle, 2010, p. 11). In Service Learning and Social Justice, Cipolle
proposes a “roadmap to critical consciousness” (p. 10), where she describes the developmental
levels a person can move across when engaging in service, which can take place at any age. The
continuum begins with charity, to caring and finally social justice in service. Once the person
reaches critical consciousness there are four essential elements of this development (see Figure
15).

84

Figure 15
Susan Cipolle’s Roadmap to Critical Consciousness and Essential Elements

Note. Adapted from Service-learning and social justice: Engaging students in social change (p.
10), by S. B. Cipolle, 2010, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Cipolle (2010) adds that the service that should be taking place as students develop across
the continuum is with agencies which offer direct service opportunity or social-change advocacy.
In addition, teachers need to be learning about their critical awareness in parallel to students in
order to better guide them (Cipolle, 2010). For more examples of how the stages of white critical
consciousness overlap with service-learning projects, please see Figure 16.
85

Figure 16
How Service-learning Aligns With the Stages of White Critical Consciousness

Note. Adapted from Service-learning and social justice: Engaging students in social change (p.
51), by S. B. Cipolle, 2010, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Furthermore, the organization Human Rights Careers states social justice in education
takes place on a systematic level by examining equality in the educational system and as the
instructional practices being implemented within classrooms (Human Rights Careers, 2021). The
86

curriculum and the dynamic between teachers and students are all opportunities to include social
justice ideals in the classroom (Human Rights Careers, 2021).
Belle (2019), a scholar and director of the teacher education program at Rutgers
University, states social justice education means “teachers see their students for who they are”
(para. 1); teachers see students for the valuable contributions students are capable of making in
their own unique ways. This pedagogy is “centered in democracy… and allows everyone to
exercise their full humanity” (Belle, 2019, para. 2). Belle’s model for social justice education
includes the following five strategies: acknowledging who is in the room allows students to be
seen for who they are and where they come from; starting with the knowledge your students have
allows teachers to celebrate student assets as well as allows the instruction to begin where the
students’ knowledge ends; creating unit plans and maps for the entire year allows a backwards-
design framework to ensure equity and inclusivity is included throughout the year; being honest
with oneself about one’s own interests, passions as well as biases helps a teacher to be cognizant
of prejudices which would get in the way of genuinely connecting with students; encouraging
students to question everything including your teaching empowers students to shape their
opinions and become more thoughtful citizens of society, skilled at respectfully standing up for
injustices in society.
Another significant step toward legitimizing this approach to education was the design of
social justice standards by the Learning for Justice (LFJ) organization, formally known as
Teaching Tolerance (Teaching Tolerance, 2019). These standards are divided into four
outcomes: identity, diversity, justice, and action. These are further articulated in developmental
stages for grades K–2, 3–5, 6–8 and 9–12 (see Appendix B).
87

In summary, when social justice education is applied to service-learning, it addresses
many concerns held by critics of SL. Social justice education is grounded in developing an
awareness of one’s identity (Cipolle, 2010; Cochran-Smith, 2004; Learning For Justice, 2019;
Wade, 2007), of acknowledging how one’s life experiences and heritage determine what one
thinks they know. The deeper we know ourselves, the more we understand how our actions
depend on these experiences and are conscious of our own epistemology. We are then better
equipped to interpret other’s actions, to be sensitive to the complexity of other’s perspectives or
needs, resulting in a greater empathy towards others.
Social justice education supports the need to know oneself “as a product of the historic
process” (Gramsci, 1971, p. 73). Recognizing one’s place in our history guides the learner to
recognize their responsibility in historical events and empowers them to take action for the
future. Young people have choices and their choices matter. Choosing to take action toward
connecting with one’s community, listening, supporting, celebrating, collaborating and becoming
equal partners is service-learning, the experiential part of taking action. Service-learning can also
enhance a student’s commitment to social justice (Warren, 1998). The stronger relationship one
builds with one’s community, the more they realize their actions have consequences and
therefore the stronger the relationship between learner and community member, the more likely
the learner will be to invest their time to support the community member’s idea for a project.
Social justice education also provides opportunities for learners of all ages to critically explore
their school’s policies and societal structures for equitable inclusion of all voices. It empowers
young people to develop the skills to research, organize and galvanize action towards improving
their world, and this directly affects their communities (Belle, 2019; Blake, 2015; Carlisle et al.,
2006; Cipolle, 2010; Learning For Justice, 2019; Lynch, 2019; Picower, 2012; Wade, 2001,
88

2007). Finally, the stance of a social justice educator is that education is an act of justice. “From
the curriculum choice to the delivery of instruction, policies regarding discipline, testing,
tracking, funding and who has power in the school community” (Cipolle, 2010, p. 8), these are
all deliberate choices made by powerful people, from school leaders to classroom teachers. If an
educator does not make these decisions deliberately, the choice not to pursue an unfair practice
still “counts” as the chosen preference.
Critique of Potential Harmful Effects of Social Justice Education
in Elementary School Classrooms
This section explores critiques of incorporating social justice education in elementary
classrooms.
Separation Between Public Education and a Political Agenda
Although some might insist that the institution of education can be politically neutral, it is
critical to note that many disagree (Belle, 2019; Blake, 2015; Carlisle et al., 2006; Cipolle, 2010;
Learning For Justice, 2019; Lynch, 2019; Malaguzzi, 1998; O’Grady, 2000; Picower, 2012; Van
Dijk, 2006, as cited by Martin & Pirbhai-Illich, 2015; Wade, 2001, 2007). From the curriculum
chosen, to the instructional practices utilized, to the invested resources, to protocols regarding
defiance, to what is celebrated, to the approach to teaching English Language Learners, there are
myriad of examples of how every decision made in a school reflects a school leader’s and their
professional culture’s beliefs, values and covert biases. Service-learning, as an example of a
frequently utilized experiential practice, is as politically-laden as any other educational approach.
Some scholars and educators fear that social justice education leads to the indoctrination of
students rather than allowing them to discover their opinions on their own (Rochester, 2017). In
Social Justice Education in our Schools, Rochester (2017) makes the case that “schools should
89

stick to what they are uniquely entrusted to do, teach the 3Rs...they should not be social work
agencies. In an already overcrowded school day, social justice training can be a huge distraction”
(para. 5). Young students who are a “captive audience” eager to please, may feel peer pressured
to adopt a particular interpretation of democracy: one where a citizen needs to take action when
injustice occurs. Rochester reminds us, not every citizen interprets their democratic
responsibility in this same way.
Critics of Rochester’s ideas explain that teachers bring who they are and their beliefs in
the classroom, but “there is a difference between having an agenda and pushing an agenda”
(Cipolle, 2010, p. 8). An educational agenda includes the school mission, the teacher’s personal
philosophy of education. However, in a democratic classroom, “students must be at the center of
the learning experience, allowed the space to develop their own opinions, theories about the
world and be allowed to question and debate diverse ideas” (Cipolle, 2010, p. 9). Teachers who
choose to be social justice educators have a profound respect for their students, therefore asking
them to have opinions will be expected, but choosing opinions for them is antidemocratic. Other
critics point out that if a teacher does not discuss economic and racial privilege in a
developmentally appropriate way for their students, what is deliberately left out also
communicates a message: the classroom is not the place where we can safely discuss sensitive
and difficult topics we observe in real life. In addition, by not acknowledging privilege, students
may develop a simplified view that poverty is the fault of the individual. Without addressing
these topics in a classroom, there is no opportunity to reflect and revise one’s understanding of
this complex phenomena. Still others who defy the concept of education as apolitical highlight
the role of educators as experts of their field and therefore the most qualified to make educational
policy decisions (Kincheloe, 2004).
90

Educator Assumptions About Developmental Appropriateness of Social Justice Education
A second considerable challenge specifically faced by elementary schools is the teachers
themselves. Kelly and Brooks (2009) share that out of the twelve subjects in their study,
“roughly half believed that younger children are relatively uninterested in the events of the day,
are incapable of forming nuanced opinions, and are unable to analyze political issues” (p. 204).
Kelly and Brooks added that some teachers “wanted to protect the childhood innocence” (p.
207), and therefore, unless the students raised the issue of racism themselves, there should be no
need to bring such issues up to them. Teachers’ assumptions about kids’ interests and
romanticizing childhood are prohibiting teachers from exposing their young learners to
fundamental humanistic principles which have their roots in playground rules. Not connecting
the playground and wider community contexts becomes a missed opportunity to address injustice
and potential discrimination at their inception.
A key point is not whether social justice education is appropriate but rather how it can be
taught so that it feels relevant and meaningful to a young mind. There is a direct connection
between social justice education and building a welcoming community to all its members even in
the youngest of classrooms. Basic ideas such as who we are (stories of our name, who are the
members in our family, our favorite things), what we need to help us feel safe, happy and
productive are the same ideas that are echoed in the larger society through a social justice lens.
Yet this is also where a gap in the literature exists. While there are texts that discuss
social justice education in elementary schools, these are by far in the minority. In the literature
review I have conducted I have not found one social justice education framework that lays out a
vertical continuum of how this work might look from pre-K to grade 12. The vast majority of the
literature are opinions in defining social justice education, establishing its impact on raising
91

responsible democratic citizens, or examples on how it has been done in high school, college and
pre-service teacher education classes. While scholars discuss the importance of starting early in
order to developmentally plant a seed for genuine, rather than forced, student initiatives in social
justice and service-learning actions (Cipolle, 2010; Hylard, 2010; Noddings, 1992; Picower,
2012; Wade, 2007), it seems, due to the few numbers of articles and books published on actual
examples, social justice education in an elementary school context is still an area needing further
exploration and publishing.
Knowledge Gaps in Service-Learning for Educators and School Leaders
Another critique of incorporating social justice education in elementary classrooms is that
educators and school leaders lack the knowledge and skills to carry out such an instructional
approach (Cook-Sather, 2002; Mitra, 2005; Mitra & Serriere, 2015; Zeldon et al., 2005). Due to
the heightened media attention on social justice issues and the delicate nature of diverse views on
social injustices taking place in current events, educators and school leaders recognize the
importance of addressing these issues strategically. Social justice instructional practices are their
own set of skills and philosophy, therefore are a separate and additional area to develop. If
school leaders do not invest the time and finances to develop these skills, it is understandable
that educators won’t feel confident enough to teach social justice education. Hopefully, school
leaders recognize not only the benefit teaching these skills will have on an inclusive school
culture, but also the skills’ connectedness to current social emotional practices that might already
be taking place in the school. Therefore, instead of looking at social justice education practices
as additional, they would become opportunities for deepening understanding of already
established school values and beliefs.
92

School Structures
A final obstacle exposed by the literature is that social justice educators faced extreme
limitations as a result of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which led schools to adopt a
culture of highly controlled mandated curricula which focuses on teaching towards standardized
tests (Flores, 2007; Lake & Jones, 2012; Picower, 2012; Wade, 2007). Lake and Jones (2012)
point out that “with NCLB, the (instructional) pendulum has swung away from active, hands-on
learning towards more traditional approaches” (p. 12). Since schools now face greater pressure to
meet expectations of standardized testing, they may return to more traditional practices that teach
to the test and sacrifice opportunities for experiential learning. The NCLB legislation, therefore,
has unintentionally discouraged schools from making time for service-learning opportunities. In
their hopeful guide, Lake and Jones lay the groundwork for how service-learning can meet both
goals of succeeding on standardized assessments as well as using best practices. Flores (2007)
states in her research that in order to integrate social justice education, new educators needed to
“engage in agency, resistance, compromise and subversion” (p. 401). Picower (2012) echoes
these themes in her research and names this essential skill as “camouflaging (teachers’) critical
pedagogy by integrating it into the mandated curriculum” (p. 1123). Even if, for now,
standardized testing is the language of school success, schools should be trusted to choose their
best educational approach for achieving high test scores. If standardized tests value deep
analysis, genuine critical thinking, and well-articulated arguments, schools should offer the
opportunity for faculty to engage with those skills, and be therefore allowed to utilize more
experientially driven instructional practices to meet those testing expectations.

93

Critical Service-Learning: A Promising New Generation of Service-Learning Pedagogy
As summarized above, from the inception of the service-learning pedagogy, through the
influence of various progressive movements, service-learning has evolved significantly. In
between the lines of their work (cited throughout this chapter), scholars have communicated that
while “helping another human being might sound like a simple process…it is one of the hardest
things anyone can be called to do...because when service-learning is done without proper
selection of students, without appropriate training, orientation and reflection, it can support
ineffective and harmful kinds of service” (Brewster, 2018; Keith-Lucas 1972 as cited by Eby,
1998). In reexamining the service experience, “individuals who serve with good intentions,
without exploring the consequent effects of the service on the service recipient, are perpetuating
an oppressive situation in society whether they are cognizant of the oppression or not”
(Maybach, 1996, p. 226). It is important to acknowledge that these individuals do not purposely
intend to oppress through their actions of service-learning. Oppression can be active or passive
(Maybach, 1996). Oppression is passive when the “well-intentioned servers operating within a
paradigm of service in which the design, process and effectiveness of the service is determined
solely by the servers (are) silencing the voices” (p. 230), of the recipients. The unequal
relationship is evidence of the passive oppression in the experience. Finally, Pompa (2002), a
previously referenced scholar, explains:
Unless facilitated with great care and consciousness, “service” can unwittingly become
an exercise in patronization. In a society replete with hierarchical structures and
patriarchal philosophies, service-learning’s potential danger is for it to become the very
thing it seeks to eschew. (p. 68)
94

Service-learning has continued to evolve in order to address the damaging patterns that have
arisen throughout its practice. This newly evolved phase of service-learning which includes
developing authentic relationships from classroom to community, redistributing decision-making
power in the relationship between recipients and providers, and working from a social change
perspective which focuses on societal structures is called critical service-learning (CSL)
(Mitchell, 2008).
Before defining the philosophical and instructional components of critical service-
learning, revealing its historical roots is meaningful to understanding its purpose. John Dewey is
considered by many to be the father of service-learning, due to his emphasis on experience in
knowledge construction, his “progressive political vision between the individual and society,”
his focus on reflection and action and his student-centered learning theory (Deans, 1999; Dewey,
1916, 1933, 1938). For Dewey, schools are also “the most appropriate agents of change for
democratic education” but he assumed a “largely benevolent social order” (Deans, 1999, p. 20);
his philosophy “was aimed at the enhancement of democratic education and his conception of
democracy was cultural, not political” (Saltmarsh, 1996, p. 19). For Dewey, service played a
fundamental role of connecting the individual to the society and through action and reflection,
service could bring about a transformational experience for the individual. However, critical
service-learning diverges from service-learning in the deliberate examination of the dynamics of
political power and societal structures that support or interrogate privilege and oppression. This
is the influence of a different father: Paulo Freire. Paulo Freire was a Brazilian literacy educator
whose ideas were shaped by neo-Marxism, liberation theology, phenomenology - the study of
experience and consciousness, and his work with indigenous people (Deans, 1999). For Freire
(1968, 1994), political power and dynamics are in the foreground of democracy therefore as a
95

citizen one owns the responsibility to critique oppressive structures of both schools and society.
For him “education is politics” (Deans, 1999, p. 20). Deans also describes action, reflection
which influences future action as the means for an individual to reach critical consciousness.
Freire differs from Dewey also in how he refers to students; since it is they who bring the factors
of class, race and gender into the classroom, they must be acknowledged in order to determine
their needs, their knowledge, and their struggle. Service-learning for Freire is not only a
transformative tool towards understanding oneself, taking action as a citizen, and analyzing
societal structures first-hand, but also becomes a tool to empower all communities involved
through sharing their own stories as equals.
The term critical service-learning was coined by Masucci and Renner (2001). Their
definition is grounded in both cultural studies and critical pedagogy. CSL invites youth to
become self-aware of how their identity affects their relationship with the community and
examine issues of power, privilege and oppression, to then take action to improve inequitable
social and economic systems (Cipolle, 2010; Johnson et al., 2018; Kinefuchi, 2010; Maybach,
1996; Mitchell, 2008). In addition to examining structural roles of inequality, Critical service-
learning projects aim to build “authentic relationships and use collaboration to create equality at
the interpersonal level” (Kinefuchi, 2010, p. 79). CSL is built on a strength based approach
(Saleeby, 1996), and assumes that individuals and communities have abilities and various funds
of knowledge (Moll, 2006). All participants involved in a service-learning relationship can be
providers, supporters as well as recipients of the service. As described by Maybach (1996),
certain service-learning programs make progress in marginalized communities by designing
opportunities for the marginalized participants to serve, not just be served. Maybach (1996) and
Johnson et al. (2018) state that by including the marginalized individuals as providers as well,
96

the service interaction empowers the marginalized partner. Empowerment is the opportunity to
see oneself in a new role, which “increases the individual understanding of one’s personal
strengths and potential, and the changes they are capable of initiating” (Fabricant, 1988, p. 50).
Empowerment can be thought of as the process of “expanding the range of possible social
identities people may become” (Ellsworth, 1992, p. 99), and can therefore be transformational
especially for at-promise youth (Swadener, 2010). Reciprocal service-learning, or critical
service-learning, is a means by which parties empower each other. One final point about the
potential imbalance of power in a service-learning relationship is highlighted when Maybach
(1996) discusses the importance of language. She challenges the terminology of the parties
involved in a SL relationship: service provider and service recipient. Since provider means giver
of the service and recipient means taker of the service, the terms “are problematic because they
(by definition) perpetuate the hegemonic, one-sided view of service provision” (Maybach, 1996,
p. 231). Because the new empowering paradigm is about reciprocity and mutual benefit, a more
appropriate term would be partners in service. This term emphasizes the acknowledgement of
strengths of both partners as well as offers a mutual respect for the unique perspectives that both
parties bring to the relationship.
Critical service-learning involves three key elements: “working to redistribute power
across all service-learning relationships, developing and sustaining meaningful authentic
relationships between all participants, and working from a social change perspective” (Mitchell,
2008, p. 50). Because CSL is designed to improve the quality of life for everyone in society, and
empowering youth to be engaged citizens, it is by nature, a political practice. Masucci and
Renner (2001) offer a CSL framework which incorporates the following four steps: pre-
reflection, theory, action and reflection. Pre-reflection is the focus one spends on their inner
97

selves in an effort to understand one’s preconceptions and potential prejudice before the service-
learning engagement. Theory is the focus the group spends in educating themselves about their
role as change makers and their identity as organic intellectuals, or thinkers and experts of their
own experiences (Giroux, 1999; Gramsci, 1971; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1993). Action refers to
the dialogue the group engages in during the service-learning experience in order to ensure a true
reciprocally beneficial partnership. Critical reflection gives “the opportunity to integrate and
personally contextualize the experience” (Masucci & Renner, 2001, p. 41). In this final phase,
the instructor and peers play fundamental roles in supporting the thinking process. Cipolle (2010,
2017) expands on the notion of critical reflection by echoing Brookfield’s definition of critical.
Brookfield described critical reflection as examining power relations inherent in the context,
questioning underlying assumptions of race, gender, class, and comprehending its connection to
dominant and normative ideology.
Finally, specifically grounded in working with at-promise youth, social work professors,
Johnson et al. (2018) define critical service-learning as having three essential components: social
and emotional learning (SEL), positive youth development (PYD), and strength-based
perspective (SBP). SEL helps students gain the skills to build strong relationships with their
selves and others (Johnson et al., 2018). SEL skills include self-awareness, self-management,
social awareness, relationships skills, responsible decision-making (CASEL, 2005, 2014).
Positive youth development (PYD) stems from developmental systems theory (Lerner et al.,
2007), which builds on strengths and assets and a youth’s potential to contribute to society
(Johnson et al., 2018; Lerner et al., 2007). Similarly to PYD, the strength-based approach
(Saleeby, 1996), focuses on an individual’s and the community’s strengths and “seeks
to...activate internalized resources” (Johnson et al., 2018, p. 10).
98

Critical service-learning is the most progressive version of this powerful, experiential
pedagogy which began in the 1970s. Its essential elements are to establish reciprocally beneficial
relationships, interrogate power dynamics in society and examine root causes for a community’s
challenges. Because its purpose is to improve the lives of everyone in a society, it is political by
nature.
Designing a Framework Alongside Peer-Practitioners
Designing a framework for any concept can take place in many ways. While literature
was lacking in the description of a process for how schools have designed their service-learning
frameworks, there exists a significant scholarly discussion on what makes successful teams of
designers. Questions that should be considered include: How can the process of designing the
framework reflect the fundamental concepts of service-learning, such as reciprocal benefits and
equal voice to all participants? What factors must be present for the peer-practitioner-
collaborative to feel respected, listened to, and safe enough to share their unique and diverse
views? The following section explores promising approaches to collaboratively designing
frameworks.
Leading Groups and Building Professional Learning Communities
In the adaptive schools framework for developing collaborative groups, Garmston and
Wellman (2016) define adaptivity as “changing forms in concert with clarifying one’s identity”
(p. 4). Therefore, as an organization evolves their identity, redefines who they want to be, the
structures and protocols will change with it. Adaptivity in schools “consists of informed inquiry
leading to flexible responses interacting with changing environmental conditions” (p. 5).
Garmston and Wellman (2016) describe that the collaborative work begins with a shared
purpose. Then the team agrees to the seven norms of collaboration. They are:
99

• Pausing
• Paraphrasing
• Posing questions
• Placing ideas on the table
• Providing data
• Paying attention to self and others
• Presuming positive intentions
Every member in the group is aware and takes on the following four roles of shared
leadership: facilitating, presenting, consulting and coaching. The group becomes cognizant of
and focuses on developing the following critical skills: consciousness, craftsmanship,
interdependence, flexibility and efficacy. Every meeting should begin with an inclusive activity,
incorporate reflection on the process and end with a closing activity. For a visual map of the
adaptive schools concepts and how they relate to each other see Figure 17.
100

Figure 17
Adaptive Schools Framework for Creating Collaborative Groups

Note. Adapted from The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing collaborative groups (p.
31), by R. J. Garmston, & B. M. Wellman (2016), Rowman & Littlefield.
101

Professional Learning Communities
There exist a variety of names for structures which offer a space (and time) for a team of
educators to come together to learn. Such names include professional learning groups,
communities of practice, collaborative learning communities and professional learning
communities, also known as PLCs. Professional learning communities are groups of
professionals who meet regularly and use student work as evidence and reflection for improving
instruction (DuFour, 2004, 2013). DuFour’s PLC model is founded on three big ideas: ensuring
focus is on student learning, that there exists a culture of systematic collaboration, and that
results are prioritized. DuFour’s PLC cycle revolves around four questions:
1. What do we expect our students to learn?
2. How will we know if they have learned it?
3. How can we respond if some students don’t learn?
4. How can we extend the learning for students who are already proficient?
The PLC continues moving collaboratively through this cycle throughout the year. The DuFour’s
structure for PLCs is one type of action research that is already present at ISA, therefore provides
a great starting point for my methodology. In the next paragraph, action research is defined more
extensively.
Action Research
Action research (AR) is a:
Systematic inquiry that is collective, collaborative, self-reflective, critical and undertaken
by the participants of the inquiry. The goals of such research are the understanding of
practice and the articulation of a rationale or philosophy of practice in order to improve
102

practice. (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Love, 2009; McCutcheon & Jung, 1990, p. 148;
McKerman, 1988)
Kemmis and McTaggart (1987) add that in addition to being “a form of collective, self-reflective
enquiry” (p. 6), action research:
Also examines social situations to improve the rationality and justice of (the research-
practitioners’) own social and educational practices...It can include any member with a
shared concern...the action research of the group is achieved through the collaborative,
critically examined action of the individual group members. (p. 6)
The most important feature of action research with others is “the shift in locus of control...from
academic researchers to those who have been traditionally called the subjects of research” (Herr
& Anderson, 2005, p. 3).
In its essential definition, action research includes a cyclical spiral of action and
reflection, which leads to creating a plan for more action and reflection, which leads to a new
plan of improved action and reflection, and on and on (Coghlan, 2019; Herr & Anderson, 2005;
Kemmis, 1982; McNiff & Whitehead, 2011; Wiley, 2019). In addition to planning, action,
reflection, the inquiry cycle can also include evaluation. These four phases may take place in
every meeting or the group may save the evaluation until after an action is completed (Kindon et
al., 2007; Pain et al., 2010). In the planning phase of action research cycles, the scholar-
practitioners may review the current research on the topic and access multiple perspectives
around the topic. In the action phase, scholar-practitioners can try out practices in their
classrooms, collecting student evidence along the way to bring back to the group for reflection
and discussion. Documenting the process of the group’s learning over time is essential to the
process since practitioners face a double burden: the learning is both on the research (creating
103

valid knowledge about practice) and on the action (improvement of practice) (Cunningham,
2011; Herr & Anderson, 2005). In action research, it is essential that attempts are made to
decenter authority through collaborative decision-making and systematic reflection on the
content and the process.
Action research includes three voices first, second and third person (Reason & Bradbury,
2001). First person is the I, and it represents the research done on oneself. Second person inquiry
is the work with others on a mutual concern, through face-to-face dialogue, conversation and
joint-action (Coghlan, 2019). The quality of the second person inquiry as collaborative and
democratic is paramount. Third person inquiry aims at reporting findings to others and
publishing to the public. In Reason and Marshall’s terms, action research is for them, for us, for
me (Marshall, 1987; Reason & Marshall, 2001).
Finally, AR is also defined by three essential forms of reflection (Mezirow, 1991):
• Content reflection: focuses on the issues
• Process reflection: focuses on the strategies and procedures
• Premise reflection: focuses on critiquing the individual’s underlying assumptions and
perspectives
In Moving Beyond Data: Practitioner-Led Inquiry Fosters Change, professor Malloy
(2011), describes this type of inquiry as “any systematic process for uncovering data that can
lead to new information” (p. 3). Malloy argues that when “educators craft unique, locally driven
inquiry projects...better decisions about (school) programs, interventions and policies can result”
(p. 4), and that we need to “build the capacity of practitioners to initiate, lead their own inquiry
processes and create cultures that embrace and reward” (p. 4), such initiatives. Malloy shares ten
steps to creating an effective practitioner-led inquiry:
104

1. Enlist the right people: Ensure the people who are chosen have the experience and
skills you are looking for. Consider a variety of stakeholders if possible.
2. Clarify your goals: Ensure all participant-practitioners are clear on the goals of the
inquiry.
3. Consult the literature: Review the current literature about both the content and the
process of collaborating and designing together.
4. Formulate your inquiry questions: Collectively identify the goals the group wants to
research together.
5. Determine what data are needed: Using the questions and goals, discuss which data
could help the group answer the questions (planning documents, student work,
observations).
6. Collect data: Should be sensitive and simple so the group does not lose momentum.
7. Analyze data: should also stay simple, using the goals and questions to guide the
summary of the data.
8. Interpret the results: Apply the data analysis to answering the questions and
potentially planning a next step.
9. Use or present the results: Share the findings and next steps with other stakeholders
and decision makers in order to turn the research and plan into action.
10. Evaluate the process and the effect of the inquiry: This is an essential step to take in
order to learn from the process. This stage serves as a catalyst to another inquiry.
There are many types of action research depending on their different purposes,
epistemologies, and social contexts origins (Herr & Anderson, 2005). The essential common
105

tenets of practitioner-scholar action research are that it is critical, reflective, action-oriented and
done within a local context.
Lessons From Andragogy
There are several notable skills that scholars describe as playing pivotal roles in the
success for collaborating with others. This section explores these valuable concepts: the
importance of knowing thyself, consistent reflection, inquiry as stance, relying on data, and
building capacity.
The Importance of Knowing Thyself
The way educators understand themselves, also known as self-awareness or positionality,
is an essential first step to establishing a pathway towards personal growth (Drago-Severson &
Blum-DeStefano, 2017; Goleman, 2004; Mezirow, 2000; Palmer, 1999; Slayton & Mathis, 2010;
Takacs, 2003). Reflecting upon one’s own traits, how their experiences have led to their values
and the development of their worldviews allows one to empathize with others’ life stories as well
as reveal areas that need improvement within oneself. Then progress can begin. In the modern
day context of working with and for diverse people, Eleanor Drago-Severson and Jessica Blum-
DeStefano have designed the constructive developmental theory, which names four ways of
knowing thyself with the goal of becoming self-transforming. Self-transforming knowers are
continually seeking to use reflection to broaden their thinking. For such a knower, plurality of
ideas is key. As peer practitioners designing together, the individuals need to invest time in
recognizing the positionalities they bring to the work because their “positionality can bias their
epistemology,” or how they build knowledge (Takacs, 2003, p. 28).
106

Systematic Critical Reflection
The practice of reflection can be a catalyst for an individual’s transformational growth
(Brookfield, 2010, 2017; Freire, 1968, 1994; Milner, 2003; Rodgers, 2002; Schon, 1983, 1987;
Tillman, 2003). Brookfield (2010, 2017) states that incorporating reflection in one’s professional
life not only when something goes wrong but as part of a regular instructional practice, leads to
emotional and pedagogic clarity. Reflection helps us know why we believe what we believe,
helps us develop a rationale for our practice, helps us avoid blame and instead focus on
understanding, and it keeps us engaged as learners. Brookfield also describes four lenses we can
use to push our reflection: autobiographical, seeing through our students’ eyes, interpreting our
actions through our colleagues’ perspectives, and through the literature. With these lenses in
hand, a team of educators collaborating together can include various perspectives to their work;
relying on Brookfield’s lenses, not only should the colleagues share their ideas, but also consider
approaches and experiences that will be engaging for their students, include what current
literature says, and consider supports educators may need in order to carry out the chosen
framework. Milner (2003) and Freire (1994) encourage creating a safe climate to openly explore,
examine and discuss different life experiences in order to address potential biases and ignorance.
In the case where colleagues are designing a framework that deals with the delicate dynamics of
diversity and power, investing time in critically reflecting on ourselves seems to be an essential
step.
Inquiry As Stance
The way educators see themselves in a learning organization has a significant impact on
the quality and flexibility of instructional practices they implement in the classroom. Cochran-
Smith and Lytle (1999) describe what it means for teachers to have an inquiry as stance. In their
107

article they describe three types of teacher knowledge: knowledge for practice, knowledge in
practice, and knowledge of practice. Knowledge for practice refers to the knowledge needed to
do one’s job and in this scenario teachers are users rather than generators of information.
Knowledge in practice refers to learning that teachers do as a result of their direct teaching
experiences; reflection and small group conversations among teachers is especially helpful to
access this level of knowledge. Knowledge of practice refers to learning as one’s job where
teachers recognize knowledge should always be interrogated and considered open to discussion.
In other words, teachers are co-constructors of knowledge, knowledge generators, and should not
be seen just as transmitters of knowledge. Engaging in systematic and collaborative inquiry
within one’s context produces local and public knowledge (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993). Their
practice is a path towards empowerment to be change agents, since they are the experts of the
classroom (Kincheloe, 1991). In their article, Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) recommend
systemic, intentional inquiry in a learning organization so teachers recognize their own
experience as valuable and learn to use their own observations to affect instruction. Furthermore,
Kincheloe (2004) expands on an educator’s learning stance by establishing a critical complex
vision. In this vision, teachers are scholars, highly experienced in their field and highly respectful
of their peers and students’ local knowledge, and therefore teachers are the most qualified
individuals to be policymakers for improving schools (Giroux, 1999; Gramsci, 1971; hooks,
1994; Kincheloe, 2004; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1993).
Building Capacity
In Bridging the Gap Between Standards and Achievement , Elmore (2002) makes the case
for building capacity in schools by differentiating organizational roles. Our school may be full of
untapped expertise and leaders need to develop structures where educators support fellow
108

educators. When these structures are taking place through professional learning communities,
coaching, collaborative inquiry, educators will not only be able to benefit students, but also
change the “culture of passivity and helplessness” in their organizations and witness what effect
empowerment has on learning (Elmore, 2002, p. 28). Building not only capacity in individuals
but also in “communities of practice” leads to “shared histories of learning” where “mastery does
not reside in (one) master rather in the community of which the master is part” (Merriam &
Bierema, 2013, p. 122). Therefore, supporting structures where peer practitioners come together
to design a needed product empowers those educators with trust in their knowledge and skills to
be the ones best equipped to make changes in their professional environments.
A Summary of the Literature
Service-learning is an impactful pedagogical practice that represents “transformative
learning at its best” (Pompa, 2002, p. 75). When service volunteers engage in meaningful
service-learning projects, significant benefits result such as supporting social-emotional
development, decreasing negative stereotypes and risk-taking behaviors, increasing student
agency, academic performance and democratic citizenship. However, when SL projects are
charity-focused or prioritize the volunteer benefits, colonialist and saviorist mindsets may be
reproduced which are harmful to both volunteers and recipients. Hence the goal for the service-
learning projects needs to be reciprocally beneficial to all partners, volunteers as well as
recipients. Since the term was first coined in the United States in 1967, service-learning has
benefited from the influence of a variety of social movements including multicultural education,
culturally relevant education and social justice education. The result is an evolved version of the
practice called critical service-learning.
109

The creation of a service-learning framework will require support of leadership, expertise
in working with teams and familiarity with how best to support adult learners. However, for the
design of the framework to reflect the service-learning tenets of critical reflection and
reciprocity, the framework should employ the methodology of collaborative action research.
This approach will maximize opportunities for systematic reflection and a decentralized
decision-making process where practitioners share authority and responsibility.
Finally, it is important to note that the majority of articles addressed service-learning in
the contexts of secondary schools and higher education institutions. In the current research (as
of 2015), literature on the service-learning approaches for early childhood educators is very
inconsistent (Lake & Jones, 2012), suggesting a significant gap in the intersectionality of
critical service-learning and early childhood and elementary school age students. My study aims
to study how a group of peer-practitioners design a developmentally appropriate, vertically
aligned (critical) service-learning framework for an elementary school.

110

Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter outlines the methodology, study population, instrumentation, data analysis
plan, credibility and trustworthiness strategies I used in my research. My research focuses on
how a group of scholar-practitioners design a service-learning framework for early childhood
and elementary school that is mutually beneficial to all service partners involved in the project.
The methodology I chose to answer my research question is qualitative. The qualitative approach
I focused on is collaborative action research (CAR).
Action research is a “systematic inquiry that is collective, collaborative, self-reflective,
critical and undertaken by the participants of the inquiry. The goals of such research are the
understanding of practice and the articulation of a rationale of practice in order to improve
practice” (McCutcheon & Jung, 1990, p. 148). Kemmis and McTaggart (1987) add that in
addition to being collective, self-reflective inquiry, action research also examines “social
situations to improve the rationality and justice of (the research-practitioners’) own social and
educational practices” (p. 6). The most important feature of action research with others is “the
shift in locus of control...from academic researchers to those who have been traditionally called
the subjects of research” (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 3).
As a world citizen, parent and educator, I strive to align my actions to my beliefs
(Steinber& Kincheloe, 1998; Masucci & Renner, 2001; Picower 2012; Rector-Aranda, 2019;
Rosenthal, 2000). Rector-Aranda (2019) echoes this sentiment when she states “like other critical
scholars working toward transformative social justice, aligning my means and my ends has been
an imperative” (p. 481). I was looking for ways to extend my sense of integrity and reflect my
beliefs about empowerment and democratic process to my praxis. Rector-Aranda (2019) states,
“prioritizing the humanity should be at the center of knowledge building” (p. 492), and that a
111

tenet of action research is inquiry done by and with insiders; never to them. These words
beautifully articulate my reasons for choosing this particular type of qualitative methodology.
There are several additional reasons why action research is such a promising approach.
For one, it questions traditional expectations that an organization can change only when outside
experts are hired to solve context-specific problems (Herr & Anderson, 2005). Action research
dissertations are important contributions to a field’s knowledge base because they “contain local
perspectives that few traditional (external) researchers are able to provide” (Herr & Anderson,
2005, p. 10). Such research directly benefit their unique contexts (local knowledge), as well as
can contribute to the wider knowledge community (public knowledge) (Coghlan, 2019; Herr &
Anderson, 2005). Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993) built on Geertz’s (1983) work in
anthropology on the value of local knowledge, and highlighted action research’s celebration of a
school’s local knowledge and potential for public knowledge. Local knowledge refers to what
“teachers come to learn about themselves and their knowledge through the research as well as
what they come to learn collaboratively” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993, p. 45). It is this utility
of knowledge generated by the collaborative research unique to that context that represents one
of its major strengths. In addition, the local knowledge that results from the research can also be
transferred to a scenario facing similar issues and the act of sharing makes the knowledge public,
thereby increasing its external validity (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). The local knowledge can
also become public by generating a new theory to explain a certain phenomenon potentially
found in similar contexts (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, 2009). Thirdly, local perspectives carry
an advantage of possessing a deep level of tacit knowledge. This knowledge illustrates not only
the visible practices of the institution, observable even to an external consultant, but also the
more subtle dynamics of the locus of influence, such as how to maximize the success of the
112

desired change. There is also convenience in conducting research at a site where the researcher
understands the unstated workings of the organization; because the researcher is an invested
member of that organization, the motivation behind making a meaningful contribution
significantly increases (Polanyi, 1958). Finally, collaborative action research offers an
unparalleled benefit: by empowering local (educator) knowledge with solving authentic
challenges, the professional culture of the organization shifts towards an increased capacity in
various professional skills and a greater respect for its faculty. When an organization empowers
its employees to address authentic challenges (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003), invests in their
skills and recognizes their contributions (Achor, 2018; Clark & Estes, 2008; Pajares, 2006), all
stakeholders, especially students, benefit.
Action research is still seen by many as “the new kid on the block” (Herr & Anderson,
2005, p. 2), of methodological approaches but it’s gaining more and more momentum across
learning organizations and teacher education programs making it a promising methodological
approach for the future.
Action Research: A Short History
The late 19th and early 20th century were ripe for the “movement for the scientific study
of education” (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 17) and teachers were on the front line of data-
gathering (McKernan, 1988). In their scientific studies, university researchers viewed teachers as
the collectors of information, and the notion of the teachers themselves being [emphasis added]
researchers was never normalized in practice (Herr & Anderson, 2005). In the early 1950s,
Corey (1954) promoted action research by stating “teachers would likely find the results of their
own research more useful than that of outsiders” (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 18). The movement
didn’t succeed due to a perceived lack of transferability of context-specific results to other
113

environments and lack of formal teacher training in data collection (Foshay, 1993; Herr &
Anderson, 2005). In the heavily positivistic environment that teachers faced at that time, the
action research movement was even ridiculed by the American Educational Research
Association (Foshay, 1993; Herr & Anderson, 2005).
Eventually in the 1980s, teachers began researching and writing about their findings from
an insider’s perspective (Atwell, 1982; Goswami & Stillman, 1987; Graves, 1981). University
education programs started to emphasize teacher research (Gore & Zeichner, 1991; Liston &
Zeichner, 1991; Noffke & Brennan, 1991). School restructuring movement of the 1980s began to
propose and recommend nurturing teachers’ inquiry and reflection (Glickman, 1993; Rogoff et
al., 2001). This revival echoed the more activist-oriented roots of action research present in
Paulo Freire’s work in the 1960s and 1970s. In Freire’s (1968) view, education has a dual
purpose: to help participants acquire content and to help them engage in social critique that
results in social action. In the context of a modern learning organization, the purpose of AR is to
commit to learning as a means of empowerment and improvement.
Further fueled by a movement of “dissemination of teacher-proof curricula” (Herr &
Anderson, 2005, p. 22), works such as The Reflective Practitioner (Schon, 1983) inspired the
profession and ignited energy towards “re-professionalizing teaching and reclaim teachers’
knowledge about practice as valid” (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 21). However, in the wake of No
Child Left Behind legislation (signed by George W. Bush on Jan 8, 2002) which promotes
deskilling of the teaching profession, policy makers and researchers are once again questioning
the neutrality of educators in the process of inquiry (McNeil, 2000). The law’s “social
engineering tendencies, obsession with testing, and narrow forms of accountability have
decreased professional autonomy for teachers and administrators” (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p.
114

21). As long as there is a pulpit for the standardization of education, the action research
community will stand on the opposite side of the debate stage, not because student learning is
their priority, but rather, because student and teacher learning should be the goal.
Action research resulted from academic researchers who broke with the then-scientific,
positivistic tradition and became involved with their research participants to a greater extent than
had been previously done. These researchers wanted to study their own positions in order for
their actions to have immediate applicability and a greater chance of success because the
modification was specifically designed for that context. The theoretical foundations of Dewey
(1933, 1938), critical activist spirit of Freire (1968), reflective interrogation of Schon (1983), and
collaborative possibilities make action research an effective and empowering tool with
exponential benefits beyond the single classroom.
Site Selection
The International School in Asia (ISA), pseudonym, is a private international school.
There are 1,690 students and 77 classroom teachers in the elementary school, kindergarten to
Grade 5. There are between 10 and 14 classes per grade in the elementary school, each with a
maximum of 22 students. There are over 4,000 total students in the school, from the Early
Learning Center to Grade 12. The school is set in a city of approximately six million people.
Participant Selection
As part of the collaborative action research, a small group of elementary school teachers
and I worked together to design a framework for service-learning in the elementary school which
benefits all service-learning partners (students and the community). Malloy (2011) states one
needs to “choose the right people.” This requirement could be defined in potentially harmful
ways and, therefore, it was essential to articulate what qualities the ideal candidates held. In this
115

research, I chose to define the “right people” as those who had significant experience with
service-learning conveyed an open-mindedness as learners, and were cognizant of the space they
occupy within conversations. Additionally, I needed to deliberate the size of the group, knowing
that some people would be more comfortable tackling sensitive topics in a more intimate, smaller
group environment. One potential challenge in selecting the think tank members was addressing
any potential personal bias I might have had towards the applicants since I knew each individual.
It was essential that the criteria focus on the factors most helpful to a productive and respectful
collaboration. Following approval from the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB) in August
2021, I emailed an interest screener to all early childhood and elementary educators, introduced
my research and asked for interested volunteers. The interest screener included data on years of
experience, grades taught, and general views on service-learning (see Appendix C). I selected the
participants based on diverse grade levels and perspectives. Once volunteers shared their interest,
I met with a selected smaller group in person and explained in greater detail the data collection
plan (personal reflections), the consent process (each participant always has the choice to opt out,
or not share their reflections) and asked for their consent if they were still interested. As an
incentive to participate, our professional learning office agreed to find a substitute to cover the
teachers for the three half day sessions.
I was able to recruit six teachers, including me, who worked in the elementary school.
The Service-learning Think Tank, our name, included one Grade 2 teacher, one Grade 3 teacher,
two Grade 4 teachers, one Grade 5 instructional assistant and a technology coach who works
with Grade 4 and Grade 5 teachers. The experience of teachers ranged from 12 years to 44 years
of experience. Five out of six teachers were educated in the United States and lived
internationally for several years, and one teacher was educated in Singapore. Out of the six
116

participants, four entered ISA in the last four years (three entered at the same time) therefore
making the experience of the longer-term members all the more valuable.

Table 1
Participant Codes
Participant
code
Role at ISA Years
at ISA
Years
teaching
Demographic Professional
educational training
Orange

Grade 4 teacher,
Roots and Shoots
leader,
XSProject
ES/HS sponsor
24 30 Caucasian-
American

Washington State
University BA
SUNY Masters in
Curriculum
(USA)
Yellow Grade 4 teacher 4 16 Korean-
American
James Madison
University (USA)
Blue Grade 5
Instructional
assistant
2 25 Chinese -
Malaysian
University of
Science
(Malaysia)
Violet Grade 3 teacher,
Caring for
Cambodia
liason,
XSProject
ES/HS sponsor
16 44 Caucasian-
American

University of
Northern
Colorado,
University of
Minnesota (USA)
Indigo

Technology
coach
4 12 Korean-
American
California State
University of
Fullerton (USA)
Green Grade 2 teacher 4 23 Caucasian-
Italian
NYU and Columbia
University (USA)

117

Data Collection
Collaborative action research takes place over time and, in my case, the research was
conducted from October 2021 to February 2022 at ISA. We engaged in six sessions, and each
session transpired either over two hours after school or four hours during the school day (which
was covered by the school). Observations, artifacts and interviews comprised my data collection
methods. During the sessions, I took on a variety of roles: as facilitator, participant, and
researcher. I was the facilitator as I prepared for each session and, during the first two sessions,
served as main facilitator throughout the sessions as well. However, this role decreased
significantly across the last four sessions, when we co-facilitated together. I also served as a
participant in every session. Finally, I acted as researcher in my analysis of the sessions and
artifacts.
The collected artifacts include my facilitator reflective journals and my participant
reflective journals. Reason and Bradbury (2001) state that keeping reflective journals is a
primary rule in action research because one must be aware of the reasons why choices are made,
to acknowledge those choices, and to analyze their consequences. Journals can be a record of
personal thoughts, they can chronicle the research decisions, and they can document a
participant’s increased understanding of new knowledge (Reason & Bradbury, 2001). As
mentioned earlier, we reflected through the following three lenses: content, process and premise
(Mezirow, 1991). The reflective journals were shared through the participants’ preferred system,
Google Docs. Additional artifacts included session agendas, our designed definition of critical
service-learning at ISA, a description of domains and principles for service-learning, and an
initial draft of the framework for elementary school. The session agendas were in Google Doc
format so all participants could add items as well.
118

Finally, the five exit interviews with each participant were conducted by a critical friend,
ensuring a level of anonymity in order to increase honesty and credibility (see Appendix D;
Anderson et al., 1994).
Data Analysis
The data analysis process took place in different phases, after each session and again after
the completion of the participants’ exit interviews. Audio data was collected with a Yeti Blue
microphone (www.bluemic.com/en-us/products/yeti) and Garageband software on a Macbook
computers, transcribed using SimonSays software (www.simonsays.ai), and the resulting text
transferred into Microsoft OneNote, upon which I began the first coding cycle. Next, I copied the
raw data into Google Sheets where I organized the data and my coding into three columns: raw
data, coding cycle one, and coding cycle two (Liamputtong & Ezzy, 2005).
Following in the tradition of action research and the myriad of data it produces, data
reduction is the first step (Smink & Duckenfield, 1998). Two of the most common methods of
data reduction are coding and thematic analysis (Smink & Duckenfield, 1998), “whereby the
practitioner-scholars identify broad, emergent themes” (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017, p. 245).
Saldana (2021) states that the “first coding cycle is analysis - taking things apart, while the
“second coding cycle is synthesis - (combining things) into new assemblages of meaning” (p. 6).
In the first coding cycle, I utilized both elemental and affective coding methodologies, towards
an inductive theory tradition (Saldana, 2021). Coding is “a heuristic” process and therefore it was
critical to begin with the participants’ voices and language (Saldana, 2021). The In Vivo coding
method was best suited for this priority. I then copied the In Vivo phrases as my raw data
evidence in the first column of the Google Sheet and assigned descriptive coding in the second
119

column. When listening closely to the participants’ messages, the affective coding method of
emotion captured the essence of the message well, so I included it as part of the first cycle.
In order to synthesize the data from cycle one to cycle two, I relied on the cumulative
coding method, specifically the pattern methodology. This approach allowed me to “lump” the
data—also known as macro-coding—to synthesize it into larger themes (Saldana, 2021). Finally,
Auerbach and Silverstein (2003) recommend that a researcher’s conceptual framework be close
by to help guide the terminology chosen. While I did not begin coding with the conceptual
framework in mind, I began to consider it as I entered the second coding cycle. It was by
overlaying the first cycle’s emerging inductive themes and the second cycle’s pattern coding that
revealed gaps in my initial conceptual framework. These gaps later led to the revised conceptual
framework based on my primary research, described in Chapter 4. A summary of the coding
methods utilized in both coding cycles is included in Table 2.

Table 2
Summary of Coding Methods
Cycle one coding methods Cycle two coding methods
Elemental Coding
In Vivo
Descriptive

Affective Coding
Emotion
Cumulative Coding
Pattern

120

Positionality, Credibility and Trustworthiness
“Like all forms of inquiry, action research is value laden” (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 4).
Therefore, like all research, the researcher must reflect on their role in filtering and interpreting
meaning. Habermas (1971) declared that knowledge production is never neutral since it relies on
the learner’s tools as meaning-building blocks, and Ratcliffe (1983) adds “data do not speak for
themselves; there is always an interpreter or translator” (p. 149). Because in qualitative
methodology the researcher is the instrument, this means I will influence all the data I collect
because I am the one who chooses the questions to be asked, records the responses, and it will be
my lenses through which participants’ messages will be interpreted through the coding process
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This is why
transparency about my positionality with respect to this topic, to the school, and to each
participant is an essential consideration. For detailed description of the continuum and
implications of our positionality, see Figure 18.
121

Figure 18
Continuum and Implications of Positionality

Note. Adapted from Studying your own school: An educator’s guide to qualitative practitioner
research (p. 31), by Herr & Anderson, 2005, Corwin Press.
122

Maxwell (2013) states that two factors that might threaten the credibility of the research
are my own biases, or subjectivity, and my reactivity to my context and participants with whom I
engage. Maxwell states, “The goal is not to eliminate these influences, rather to understand them
and to use them productively” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 125). Fred Hess (as cited by Maxwell, 2013, p.
124) states that checking for validity is the result of integrity, therefore honesty, openness and
disclosure about one’s subjectivity results in greater reader trust of the researcher.
Positionality
Subjectivity is inevitable...Like a garment that cannot be removed.
(Peshkin, 1988, p. 17)
Meaning is a wild chameleon, roaming unbounded, constantly changing its colors
depending on the identities and experiences of its creators.
(Brookfield, 2017, p. 80)
My very research idea derives from my personal bias. It is because I have strong feelings
for justice and inclusion, an attraction to the subjectivity of “normal” and repulsion of hegemonic
inequity that this topic materialized in my mind. “The positionality of the researcher is viewed as
a central and vital part of the inquiry itself” (Ravitch & Carl, 2019, p. 41), and I am fully
embracing it both as a potential challenge as well as a guiding ally.
When I reflect on my life story, I recognize those experiences that have amplified my
focus on these issues. I can cite growing up in a low income community outside of Turin, Italy,
very aware of having fewer materials than others but never feeling I was missing anything; or
identifying as a third culture kid and questioning the definition of normal from an early age,
which clearly led to my love of travel, pursuit of anthropology, and enjoyment of redefining
normal everywhere I went. My positionality also stems from classroom situations where
123

discrimination between students took place and I missed the opportunity for a teachable moment
because I was not ready to use the most productive words; the frustration of working with peer
teachers who did not recognize the damage they were indirectly inflicting on a host community
and our own students by portraying a population suffering from food insecurity as helpless; the
hypocrisy of working in schools where the tacit and public theories around community relations
did not match.
My life story also includes my identity at ISA, the site of my research. According to the
continuum of implications of positionality, I find myself as an “insider in collaboration with
other insiders” (Herr & Anderson, 2005). In my own professional context, my participants might
know me personally and/or professionally, which will present other challenges including greater
reactivity or influence I may have on the participants’ way of thinking (Maxwell, 2013).
Knowing me personally may be an asset as well as a hindrance. My title as a fellow teacher, on
the other hand, will hopefully garner greater trust within the group since I will be viewed as a
peer. Whether I will be disappointed, surprised or impressed by the framework we design will
depend also on my expectations of my peers because I know them. I will need to exert a high
level of self-awareness to ensure that my personal feelings do not pose an obstacle in our
progress. In addition to my teacher title, my peer-researchers will also know my status as a
doctoral student, which, for some, carries unstated authority. I must reflect on whether and how
this aspect of my identity might influence the participants; perhaps pressure some group
members to participate in inauthentic ways or intimidate others. I do recognize the sheer fact that
I am conducting a doctoral dissertation may place an imbalance of power or pressure on the PP
to feel they need to perform. Furthermore, it will be my responsibility to ask questions such as:
How has the group decided that service-learning is a gap at ISA? Who defines what
124

improvement of the current service-learning approach looks like? How can the framework we
design be objectively critiqued?
In order to remind myself that my life story influences how I interpret and understand
events, I choose to approach my positionality by naming my subjectivities (Peshkin, 1988). In
Search of Subjectivity (1988), Peshkin discusses the importance of being consciously aware of
one’s subjectivity throughout the research process. In reflecting on my biases, I identify two
subjectivities of which to be cautious: a “justice-seeking I,” and an “oversimplification I.” The
“justice-seeking I” is activated when I feel an unfair statement has been made about or unfair
action has been taken towards someone, in particular someone who is marginalized in some way.
It can stem from a lack of effort to understand the perspective of the target person, or straight out
judging them as lazy, selfish or disrespectful without knowing the person well. When my
“justice-seeking I” is activated, I recognize that my emotions are heightened and I am more
easily protective of the topic at hand. This internal higher emotional temperature might alter the
tone of the conversation to be more defensive and therefore challenge the constructive nature of
the exchange. Similarly aligned is my “oversimplification I.” The “oversimplification I” is
activated when my peers might give a simple answer to a complex issue. For example: “why are
my students doing poorly on tests? It must be because they’re lazy, don’t care, just can’t do well”
or, “many parents of my low income students do not come for parent-teacher conferences—it’s a
cultural thing, or it must be because they don’t care about their child, me or education.” This is a
challenging subjectivity to flag because often the way we speak to our younger students requires
us to oversimplify a concept to some extent. However, when teachers oversimplify complex
behaviors to the point of not seeing critical factors that might help address those behaviors, I
realize my “oversimplification I” leads me to judge others’ opinions. Once I have a negative
125

opinion of someone else, my emotional resentment towards that person might hijack the
constructiveness of the conversation. In a few words, rather than concentrating on how can I be
open to this perspective and help my peer to see another perspective I might get stuck in I can’t
believe my peer feels this way! Being aware of my potential subjective I’s throughout the
research process will better guide me in navigating constructive conversation.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
In addition to one’s positionality, Herr and Anderson (2005), also describe validity
threats to be considered specifically when conducting collaborative action research. In qualitative
research, validity is also known as trustworthiness and credibility (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Herr
and Anderson (2005) further break validity down into internal validity, also known as
trustworthiness, and external validity, also known as credibility. Herr and Anderson (2005) name
five types of validity criteria: outcome, process, democratic, catalytic, and dialogic.
● Outcome validity refers to the extent to which actions occur that lead to resolution of
the problem. In my case, whether the group creates a framework meets this criterion.
There are several examples of the success of this validity criterion in the research.
These are all the outcomes the think tank was able to design which include a service-
learning definition, a set of domains and principles based on the definition that will
guide each project, a continuum of developmentally appropriate reflection questions,
and finally a first draft of a service-learning framework for ISA’s elementary school.
● Process validity is how problems are framed and solved that permits ongoing learning
of the individuals. This criteria can also include triangulation of other data or
information such as surveys or interviews which would then be presented back to the
group for future action. Process validity also speaks to the inclusion of multiple
126

voices and perspectives, so taking note of how many different people speak during
the collaborative sessions is important. An example of process validity in my research
was when participant Indigo shared this in his first reflection: “I feel I spoke more
than the other members. I need to make sure I pause to see if others have anything to
say before speaking again.” A second example was one of the stated agreements the
think tank chose: stepping up and stepping back. This agreement describes the
importance of our own awareness in the conversation, then choosing to present an
idea or wait for others to share first.
● Democratic validity refers to the dialogue that takes place with all parties who have a
stake in the problem being investigated - in my case, the group of teachers but,
unfortunately, not the local agencies. This is also called ecological validity. Several
methodologists comment on the relationality that builds between researchers and
participants as an advantage, and not a threat to validity (Bronfenbrenner, 1992;
Chavis et al., 1983). In the research, this criterion was met as a result of the think tank
members: they were all teachers, from a variety of grades across the elementary
school, and professionally trained in different countries, including the local country’s
school system.
● Catalytic validity refers to “the education of both participant and researcher and the
degree to which the research process transforms learning” (Lather, 1986, p. 272). It is
the new content knowledge that participants develop.
● Dialogic validity refers to the importance of peer review. As part of a collaborative
process, steps must be taken to ensure there is a fair representation of the participants’
views and action depends on consensus. In the research, dialogic validity was met as
127

evidenced by the frequent opportunities, where the group designed the following
session’s agenda, mainly in sessions two through six.
Methods for Addressing Credibility and Trustworthiness Threats. In order to
increase my credibility and trustworthiness, it was paramount that I be transparent with my peer-
practitioners about the multiple roles I would play in the collaborative inquiry. The strategies for
addressing bias and reactivity that I utilized throughout this process are:
● A bracketing interview with a trained, non-participant peer which helped reveal my
positionality regarding my views and biases (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Being open
with someone else about my thinking helped reveal other biases I held and helped me
brainstorm ideas for how to address them.
● Ongoing and a final reflection on the researcher’s (my own) reflexivity (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). As my positionality continues to shift as my learning deepens, and as a
result of the group dynamics, my ability to recognize my state of mind and changing
attitudes was imperative in order to recognize how my meaning-making process was
influenced and to address the learning climate.
● Ongoing reflections and an exit interview of the participants’ learning process greatly
helped triangulate findings since the reflections were evidence of participants’
agreements and/or alternate views of the actions we needed to take. The interviews
were conducted by a neutral critical friend in order to increase anonymity and safety
for the participants (Creswell, 2009; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
● Respondent validation, or member checking, after the meetings was important to
ensure the participants’ perspectives were recorded correctly (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;
128

Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This will be done by sharing the minutes
with the team after each session.
● Finally, a critical friend proved a significant asset to the process so the researcher
could debrief and collaboratively process various challenges resulting from the group
(Anderson et al., 1994).
When a researcher acknowledges their positionality and clearly identifies the credibility
and trustworthiness threats presented to their study, they are taking steps towards greater
integrity of the research and respect towards their readers and participants.
Ethics
Culturally neutral terrains do not exist (Oakes, 2018). Ethics need to be considered all
throughout the research process (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Ethics begins with the Belmont Report (National Commission for the Protection of
Human Subjects of Biomedical, & Behavioral Research, 1978). The Belmont report was drafted
by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral
Research on September 30, 1978. Its three tenets are:
1. Respect for persons: This refers to the confidentiality that is ensured to each
participant when engaging in the study, the transparency of intentions, and choice in
participating or not without repercussions.
2. Beneficence: This refers to the notion “to do no harm and to maximize possible
benefits (of the research) while minimizing possible harms” (Tisdell, 2003, p. 22).
3. Justice: This refers to ensuring that the research is non-exploitative, administered
fairly to all participants and that benefits are distributed equally.
129

In my action research project, these three expectations do not change simply because the
research is taking place within my own context or with peers. Being in-context may, in fact,
present unique complications towards some of the tenets. In this section, I describe what those
challenges are and how I will address them.
In action research, “the researcher and the researched are in a relationship together where
they hold each other to an ethical stance and way of being together that is co-constructed rather
than externally regulated” (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 111). I view meeting high ethics
expectations as part of the fabric of action research. It is because the group of people have built
trust, feel safe enough to engage in conflict, and are passionate about what they are doing, that
they become each other’s check and balances. While not all ethical issues will be addressed by
the simple fact that no decision is made by a single individual, I am confident greater
considerations are revealed as a result of the inclusion of multiple perspectives. In the following
section, I address ethical considerations throughout the research process as recommended by
Lochmiller and Lester (2017). The following are the ethical considerations I undertook during
the planning and designing of the research:
● I obtained participants’ consent to take part in the research after being fully
transparent about the time commitment, my role as researcher, part-time facilitator
and participant, and potential repercussions of participating.
● I communicated to participants their option to decline or withdraw participation at
any time with no repercussion.
● We collaboratively drafted norms in order to ensure the participants create the “best”
space for their learning. One of those norms included the right to share the lessons,
130

but not the stories which protects participants from the exposure of personal
anecdotes to the outside group.
● I ensured confidentiality of participants. In addition to using a pseudonym for the
school, I used a general description for the teachers, rather than identifying the grades
they teach. Furthermore, I explained that the documentation collected throughout the
learning process (videos of the sessions and reflective journals) will be destroyed
after three years.
● I was transparent about the participants’ anonymity changing when the framework is
shared within the organization. Within the organization, a collaborative design
process results in greater community buy-in, rather than an individual’s personal
design; therefore, knowing the framework was designed by a group of teachers
representing a variety of grades and experiences would help legitimize the outcomes
with the school community.
During the data collection process:
● I protected the confidentiality and storage of the data and videos.
● I monitored the dynamic nature of relationships that might develop between the
researcher and the participants. This could present a conflict on some level if
participants may disagree on how the collaborative time is spent. I see how being
both a participant and researcher might lead to conflicting moments throughout the
process.
During the dissemination of findings:
● I ensured the appropriate credit has been given as preferred by the peer-practitioners.
131

● I ensured the further protection of the participants’ private journal reflections and the
videos of the sessions; these will be destroyed after three years.
Agee (2009) reminds us that “inquiries into other people’s lives are always an exercise in
ethics” (p. 440) and in my research, I analyzed an environment in which a group of people
inquired into each other’s lives. This collaborative act was both empowering as well as
emotionally sensitive. By creating a clear plan addressing ethical issues, I hope to have created a
safe, supportive, learning environment where peer-practitioners critically interrogated and
confidently designed together.

132

Chapter Four: Findings
This section presents the findings of the research question: “How do Kindergarten to
Grade 5 teachers in a large international school in Asia design a service-learning framework that
is reciprocally beneficial to all service partners?” The question was examined through the
creation of a service-learning think tank comprised of six volunteer teachers, hereafter referred to
as peer-practitioners (PP), who met for six sessions from October 2021 to February 2022. Data
from these meetings included participant reflections following each session (a total of 33
reflections), audio taped collaborative inquiry sessions (totaling 18 hours), and an exit interview
for each participant (a total of five interviews).
This chapter includes the following sections:
• Collaborative action research outcomes
• Findings
• Evolved conceptual framework
• Conclusion
Collaborative Action Research Outcomes
As a result of the Service-learning Think Tank, the six peer-practitioners accomplished
several goals. Table 1 describes the coded participants, their demographics, roles at the
organization, and professional educational training. This section briefly describes each outcome
which will be shared with ISA’s leadership in the near future.
Before sharing the outcomes, it is helpful to understand how the sessions were organized.
The first two collaborative inquiry sessions focused on building the foundation of our work:
understanding historical background, ensuring a common language, sharing an update on similar
schools’ promising practices, and familiarizing ourselves deeply with our context to see the
133

connection between ISA’s goals and service-learning. The agenda of the remaining four sessions
were co-designed as a group. In these sessions, the focus was to define our definition of service-
learning, to draft domains and principles to guide our SL projects, to draft a continuum of
reflection with examples of how to developmentally deepen our understanding of ourselves, and
finally, an initial draft of a service-learning framework uniquely for the elementary school at
ISA. Table 3 provides a summary of the sessions and outcomes.

Table 3
Summary of Action Research Sessions and Outcomes
Session Main topic covered Outcomes
One: October 27, 2021
(4 hours)
Introduction – my role
Community Agreements
Who We Are
Collaborative Inquiry Process
Reflection
Jigsaw: Historical Context of SL
ISA’s Context
Closing
Reflection
Focus was to create safe
learning environment
Two: Nov. 15, 2021
(2 hours)
Review process and agreements
Synthesis of historical movements
toward 1
st
draft of D. & P.
Jigsaw-more landmark literature
SL Definition
Design agenda for session 3
Closing
• 1st Draft of SL definition
• 1
st
Draft of Domains &
Principles

Three: Nov. 19, 2021
(4 hours)
Change in leadership roles
Review community agreements
Addressing issues raised in
reflections
Review Domains and Principles
Explore resources and choose what
to work on
Design agenda for session 4

Revise Domains and
Principles
134

Session Main topic covered Outcomes
Four: Nov. 22, 2021
(2 hours)
Review Malloy Process
Review Domains & Principles
Begin to brainstorm framework
possibilities
Design agenda for session 5
• 1
st
Draft of SL ES Framework
Revise Domains and
Principles
Five: January 26, 2022
(4 hours)
Review co-facilitation roles
Finalize SL definition
Share info from UWC
Progress in framework
Begin reflection continuum
Design agenda for session 6
• Finalize SL definition
• Revise SL ES Framework
1
st
Draft of Reflection
Continuum
Six: February 7, 2022
(2 hours)
Review Malloy Process
Choice of projects to work on
Finalize Framework as much as
possible
Beyond the think tank: Discuss next
steps
Revise SL ES Framework

The first outcome was creating a definition of service-learning that incorporated our new
combined understanding of critical service-learning and ISA’s values (see Figure 19). The
definition highlights the central concepts to critical service-learning: relationships, empathy,
reflection, learning and teaching and action. In addition, it outlines three lenses through which
those concepts exist: within ourselves, between each other and with nature.

135

Figure 19
Think Tank Definition of Service-Learning at ISA

Beginning with posters we created in session one that summarized our learning from the
various historical movements that influenced the evolution of the service-learning pedagogy, one
of the peer-practitioners synthesized the posters and drafted our first version of domains and
principles for a service-learning project. This list was a fundamental step in articulating the
requirements for an ISA aligned service-learning project (see Figure 20 for an excerpt). Echoing
themes in the definition, the guiding document turns the central concepts of SL into domains and
further defines and identifies examples for each concept.

136

Figure 20
Excerpt of ISA’s Service-Learning Domains and Principles

Because reflection is a central concept to critical service-learning and it is a new practice
for the elementary school, the think tank decided to draft a bank of reflection questions to match
three developmental stages: Kindergarten & Grade 1, Grade 2–3, and Grade 4–5 (see Figure 21).

137

Figure 21
Excerpt of Developmentally Appropriate Reflection Questions

Finally, while we did not have enough time to complete it, the think tank was able to
establish the beginning draft of a service-learning framework for ISA’s elementary school (see
Figure 22 for an excerpt). One notable component is the various contexts in which SL projects
may exist: between students and their families, among students in a classroom, among students
across the school community, between ISA students and the environment, between ISA students
and the local community (beyond the school walls), and between ISA students and the global
community. Another notable component is that because the focus of critical service-learning is
relationships, not every project must include direct action; rather, increased self-awareness may
also be an acceptable form of action. Finally, the framework is a vertically aligned document that
recommends a minimum of three service-learning opportunities able to be embedded in units in
every grade.
138

Figure 22
Excerpt of ISA’s Service-learning Framework for Elementary School

Although the think tank was not able to complete the framework, the outcomes that
resulted from our collaboration represent a strong foundation and clear guidance in the future of
service-learning at ISA.
Findings
The action research resulted in several findings, categorized under the following six
themes:
• Andragogy
• Funds of knowledge
• Action research/collaborative inquiry
• Leadership
• Organizational context
139

• Environmental factors (COVID-19)
Each theme is further composed of several subthemes which are explored in this section.
Please see Table 4 for an overview of the identified findings and subthemes. Following the table
is a detailed explanation of each subtheme revealed through the coding process.

140

Table 4
Summary of Findings and Subthemes
Findings
Andragogy Funds of
knowledge
Collaborative
action
research
Leadership Organizational
context
Environmental
factors
Subthemes to each finding
Shared
language

Quality of
Resources

Physical
space

Cognitive
Safety

PGA

Learning
Strategies

Synthesis

Purpose
Process

Episte-
mology

Reflection

Amplify SL
Connections

Starts with
ISA

Clarification
of
facilitator
role

Research
literature
and similar
schools

Agenda and
prioritizing

Equity of
voices

Choosing the
right team

Alignment of
process and
content

CAR
Challenges
Organizational
level

Within think
tank
ISA identity
docs

ISA initiatives

ISA teachers

Limitations on
SL
initiatives

Meeting times

State of mind

141

Andragogy
Andragogy is the study of how adults learn and the factors they need in order to be
successful learners (Kapp, 1833). Creating an environment where adult learners—the peer-
practitioners—can be the most productive learners they can be is essential for action research. In
this case, the primary research revealed several subthemes that proved necessary for strong
andragogical practice to take place. These subthemes arose out of the reflections and exit
interviews of each peer practitioner. They are:
• Shared language
• Quality of resources
• Physical space: The third teacher
• Cognitive safety
• PGA: Positive, grateful attitude
• Variety of learning strategies
• Synthesis
• Purpose and forward planning
• Process transparency
• Epistemology
• Reflection
In this section I explore in greater detail each subtheme under the broader finding of
Andragogy.
Shared Language
One of the most commonly mentioned subthemes is the importance of having spent time
as a peer-practitioner group building shared background knowledge of the concept (service-
142

learning). Background knowledge refers to the history of the concept (service-learning), as well
as how it has evolved into critical service-learning. In particular, this frequently mentioned
subtheme allowed the PP to compare their understanding pre- and post-exposure and revise their
thinking towards a newly-evolved definition. The background knowledge also allowed PP to
understand the catalyst of the evolution of service-learning as a result of the influence of various
political and social movements (social justice education, culturally relevant pedagogy,
multicultural education, and critical service-learning). In addition, PP mentioned that relying on
shared language with which to converse about service-learning ensured clarity and consistency,
regardless of previous professional and personal experiences.
Quality of Resources
Together with shared language, peer-practitioners also mentioned the impact that the
resources themselves had on their motivation and learning. Reflections referred to the resources
as “engaging” and “meaningful,” and “there was (helpful, historical) connection between
resources and the topic.” Types of resources mentioned were the collection of texts, summaries
of landmark literature, organization-specific data, and service-learning data of similar
organizations. The diverse collection of information piqued the PP’ interest and fuelled
continued focus on the topic.
Physical Space: The Third Teacher
Another subtheme highlighted in the exit interviews is the role of the physical layout of
the meeting space and its impact on the conversation. PP mentioned sitting in arrangements
where people faced each other in a semicircle, or circle encouraged conversation and led to an
increased feeling of safety and openness to explore ideas. They also mentioned that the space
allowed charts to be hung and with ample board space where visual thinking could take place.
143

This facilitated the differentiated expression of ideas to be exchanged and therefore increased the
frequency of participation.
Cognitive Safety
The subtheme of cognitive safety was also frequently mentioned across reflections and
exit interviews and observed frequently during each session. This subtheme refers to the ability
for the PP to publicly name the challenges they were having, to openly share a need for
clarification, to question or disagree with a comment/decision/definition, to offer an alternative
idea, or to initiate humor throughout the session. The high levels of frequency of these types of
comments confirms that participants felt safe within the action research group.
Positive, Grateful Attitude (PGA)
It was pleasantly surprising to read the frequency with which PP included PGA in their
reflections, including statements such as, “continues to be well thought-through, thank you FC!”
(Reflection 2, Orange), “thanks for your leadership, you were so right, FC!” (Reflections 2, 3,
Violet), “the hours spent together were meaningful and fruitful, I love the people!” (Reflections
1, 2, Blue). Publicizing this positivity is not only beneficial as an impact on others but it also
plants a constructive and secure foundation on which to build more safety. In addition, a protocol
called “appreciative pause” was incorporated at the end of each session to recognize and amplify
the helpful exchanges the PP had during the session. This protocol’s purpose was to encourage
cognitive safety as well as set a constructive tone for subsequent sessions.
Variety of Learning Strategies
Another popular subtheme, highlighted mainly in the reflections and the exit interviews,
is the variety of learning strategies used throughout the sessions. Learning strategies ranged from
discussion, to partner reading, to charting learning as partners on a poster, to writing
144

independently. These also included more individual experiences such as thinking time, written
reflections, and making documents and agendas available before a next session in order to help
the PP feel ready to participate. There were also examples of the PP picking up writing tools
during conversations and visually charting their understanding. This initiative demonstrates
ownership that those PP felt over the space and the discussion. The different strategies celebrated
a variety of learning styles and simultaneously increased cognitive safety since there was no one
right way of learning.
Synthesis
The process of synthesizing our learning is a critical subtheme within many exit
interviews as well as a few reflections. A pivot moment came when Indigo offered to take our
posters which synthesized our newly-learned information from the session, and code it for most
common themes, further clarifying the essence of the topic. The result of Indigo’s efforts was the
domains and principles of service-learning at ISA, which proved to serve as an anchor for the
think tank’s creation of our definition and framework of service-learning. The process of
synthesizing our learning in every session became an essential step in order to progress towards
our goal.
Purpose
Another frequent subtheme that led to constructive action was the sense of purpose the
PP felt in our sessions. Purpose was discussed in terms of how our work would beneficially
impact ISA, how this topic was a significant area for improvement at ISA, how the think tank
would communicate our learning to the leadership and, finally, what possible next steps would
be necessary in order to support ISA in its growth. I think purpose was the single most impactful
motivator that PP needed in order to attend the sessions with energy. Even the one peer-
145

practitioner who expressed disappointment in the outcome of our work due to their thinking we
had not met our expectations joined primarily because they believed in the purpose of the think
tank.
Process Transparency
While not the most frequently mentioned subtheme, understanding that there is a process
to our collaboration, and referring back to our advancement in that process, was very grounding
for one particular member. I had allotted a dedicated time in the first session for presenting Dr.
Courtney Malloy’s work on collaborative inquiry. I then discussed how we could adapt it to fit
the unique ISA needs and timeline. I ensured that at the beginning of every session, we reviewed
the step of the process on which we were starting. Reflections of this individual directly
acknowledged the importance of this step in their understanding of the big picture of our work.
Epistemology
In our first session, we dedicated time to epistemology, the science of knowledge or
understanding where our knowledge comes from. As mentioned in Chapter 1, “understanding
oneself is a critical piece that...connects us to others, determines how we connect, and defines the
quality of those interactions.” In the learning experience during session one, we each wrote “I
Am From poems,” choosing to share poignant moments from our life stories that describe what
has influenced our system of beliefs and values. We then connected how our epistemologies
might inform our perceptions of service-learning. Every reflection following this session spoke
about this experience in terms of importance in learning about each other and importance of the
physical act of hearing each other’s voices. One participant described the connection between
hearing about others’ lives and recognizing the funds of knowledge that every one of us
individually holds (Reflection 1, Green).
146

Reflection
Reflection was both a part of our process following each session, as well as an integral
part of our definition of service-learning. Due to the frequency in the literature noted by the PP
and the benefit we recognized in our own process with it, reflection became one of the four
indicators in our domains and principles document that would guide all future service-learning
engagements. In particular, participants mentioned students undertaking this as well as teachers,
the progression of reflection prompts across developmental age groups, and the role of reflection
in leading the individual to a disorienting dilemma as fundamental parts of the critical service-
learning pedagogy (Mezirow, 2000).
Funds of Knowledge
Funds of knowledge (FOK) is defined as “historically accumulated and culturally
developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for individual functioning and well-being”
(Moll et al., 1992, p. 133). The concept of funds of knowledge is an essential starting point from
which to construct truly respectful dialogue between service partners. During my action research,
there existed parallel levels of funds of knowledge: the school’s expectation of the community’s
FOK, the school’s expectation of its teachers’ FOK, and finally, the peer-practitioners’
expectation of each other’s FOK. Throughout the research, while the peer-practitioners were
designing service-learning opportunities guided by the community’s FOK, this positive
expectation became an essential factor for the design of the framework. This asset-lens through
which the peer-practitioners conversed was an element that led to cognitive safety and an
outcome of which the think tank was proud. The theme of funds of knowledge held the following
subthemes:
• Amplify past and present service-learning connections
147

• Starts with ISA
In this section I explore in greater detail each subtheme under the broader finding of
funds of knowledge.
Amplify Past and Present Service-Learning Connections
During our third session, after the PP had reviewed the literature, we began to brainstorm
how we wanted to proceed. In that process, two of the PP, who are also the longest-serving
members of the school, shared the history of how service-learning had been conducted at ISA in
the past. Through this exchange, the group learned how initiatives were born, many of which
were the inception of just one or two passionate individuals. Listening to the stories that helped
build the socially and environmentally-minded culture of our school was a source of pride
(Reflections; Violet, Blue, Orange, Indigo, Green). In a reflection, one participant stated that she
was energized by the grass-roots initiatives of past individuals. The same two PP also discussed
current service-oriented initiatives actively taking place, which was a surprise to the rest of us.
According to the two individuals, the initiatives take place after school, once per week, and only
for a select group of students (called “Roots and Shoots Club”). They also mentioned initiatives
that occurred once per year in non-COVID-19 times, which involved select students and a small
group of teachers who traveled to a specific country and supported a local organization in
particular ways. Finally, they added the multitude of charity or fund-raising initiatives that often
took place before COVID-19 (many item collection events and various “-athons”). Both during
the session and throughout reflections, it was apparent that knowing this about our two heavily
involved individuals was encouraging, since we all realized there were significant resources
already in place at ISA. Recognizing the knowledge that already existed at our school and within
our very own group was refreshing and built momentum for future possibilities.
148

Starts With ISA
A strong subtheme addressing the presence of funds of knowledge is how it must exist on
different levels of the organization as well as between various stakeholders. In my original
conceptual framework, I envisioned FOK playing a foundational role and, therefore, I assigned it
the role of the bridge road. The primary research articulated the presence and need for FOK on
more levels than simply from ISA towards the local community. Throughout the sessions, it also
became apparent that in order for the think tank to exist, ISA would need to expect FOK of its
teachers. Assuming their faculty holds various knowledge worth ISA’s time, the school should
allow teachers to meet during school hours for half the sessions. Additionally, FOK need to be
expected between peer-practitioners themselves and time in the sessions should be dedicated to
this discovery and celebration. This mindset allows for the cognitive safety necessary to
participate fully in the sessions and contribute meaningfully to the framework design. It is my
conclusion that adopting an expectation of FOK for ISA leads to future possibilities of action
research, wherein many curriculums and frameworks are designed by peer-practitioners. Without
an asset-based mindset, the action research process would not be possible.
Collaborative Action Research
Collaborative action research (CAR) proved uniquely empowering as well as time
consuming and challenging. In this section I discuss the process of conducting action research
and the effects it had on the group. In a later section, I will discuss in greater detail the
challenges and benefits we experienced from using this approach. During the think tank’s six
sessions, the leadership presence ranged from one main leadership presence to co-facilitation
(see Table 5).

149

Table 5
The Range of Leadership Presence Throughout the Sessions
Session and
time
Leadership spectrum Overview of the goals of the session
1: 4 hr in a.m. Mostly 1 leader,
minimal co-
creation/facilitation/design
(strong leadership presence)
Get to know PP
Give historical background and definition of
Service-learning
Introduce action research process
ISA data: teacher survey and identity
documents
2:
2 hr after
school
Mostly 1 leader,
minimal co-
creation/facilitation/design
(strong leadership presence)
Share practices of similar schools
Service-learning standards and other related
information
Draft a collaborative definition of service-
learning
3:
4 hr in a.m.
4:
2 hr in p.m.
5:
4 hr in a.m.
6:
2 hr in p.m.
Mostly all co-
creation/facilitation/design
(collaborative action research,
very little
single-leader presence)
Draft the domains and principles, derived
from our definition
Draft a service-learning framework for ES
that is driven by our definition

Clarification of the Facilitator Role
The first subtheme of action research mentioned in reflections and addressed in the
sessions is clarification of the facilitator/leader role. Since this was the biggest difference
between our think tank’s experience and any other professional development event, it was
essential that the group understand exactly why and how the facilitator dynamic would change
across the sessions. From the reflections, this was a source of excitement for most of the PP, at
least before session three. This is later explained under the challenges section.
150

Reviewing Literature and Practices of Similar Schools
One of the steps for collaborative inquiry, as defined by Dr. Courtney Malloy, was a
review of the literature. At this point, we made our first revision of the process and added a
review of practices by similar schools. This became the foundation of our thinking and shared
language. All PP mentioned how the historical perspective proved helpful in understanding how
the service-learning movement has evolved and the direction in which it continues to do so.
Additionally, in reflections and during the sessions, PP mentioned comparing how different
schools incorporated service-learning into their curriculums was essential towards finding
possibilities in our own contexts.
Co-Creation of Agenda Design
Another subtheme that arose in reflections, and to which time was dedicated in every
session, is co-creation of the following meeting’s agenda and the revision of each agenda as
needed. This act symbolized the equal role of the PP and required a continuous reflection of what
the group needed and hoped for. Consensus was used to decide every decision. In addition, my
hope for this co-decision was also to help the PP feel the difference in responsibility of being a
participant versus a co-facilitator. This difference was crucial in the level of contribution that PP
might feel pressured to offer; my hope being that the more they co-facilitated, the less they
would allow themselves to sit back and disengage in the discussions. As I later describe in the
challenges section, this was not necessarily what transpired.
Equity of Voices
One frequently mentioned subtheme was the pleasure in hearing many voices in our
sessions. While in the first two sessions, the ratio was consistent, with one main voice and the
others equally represented, throughout sessions three to six, the frequency of how all voices were
151

heard became less equal. Certain voices were heard more often and others were seldom heard. In
two of the reflections, PP specifically mentioned aiming not to dominate conversations and
attempting not to speak first so as to give wait time and a sense of safety in the conversations.
This way, quieter participants didn’t come to expect a pattern of the same people always
contributing first. The aspect of thinking about the role one plays in the conversation is evidence
that the practitioners were sensitive to the equity of contribution within our group. This is one of
the major goals of action research. Finally, making decisions through consensus, rather than
majority, is another element employed to equalize the roles among all group members.
Choosing the Right Team
As Dr. Malloy described, in collaborative inquiry, one must put together the right team. I
applied this concept to my research by distributing a survey to the entire elementary school
faculty, including out of classroom teachers and instructional assistants. The survey put forth
specific questions about level and reasons for interest, rating benefits of service-learning, and
experience in service-learning projects. In addition, I relied on my personal knowledge of the
applicants to gauge their role in conversations: how aware are they of the space they take up in
conversation? What is their balance between contributing and listening to ideas? Because
collaborative action research depends on equity of voices, this awareness became a priority in
my criteria. Eight individuals applied for five available spots (I was the 6th member of the
group). Out of these nine, I knew two of them to have a tendency to monopolize conversations
and another to not be very reliable in keeping appointments. I researched the other five to
envisage their levels of participation in our sessions. Our final group comprised teachers from
Grade 2 to Grade 5 classrooms with a multitude of experience in service-learning and equity
work, a tech coach, and an instructional facilitator with a local background and perspective.
152

While I did not have access to everyone in the ES, my goal was to create a healthy dynamic
while respecting this as a volunteer commitment. I began our sessions confident in my choice. In
a later section, I describe my learning about choosing the right team after completing the sessions
and reading the exit interviews.
Alignment of Process and Content
Most of the insight in the effects of aligning the process and content of the study was
gathered from my notes, from PP reflections, and confirmed in the exit interviews. My original
intent was grounded in the idea that if I wanted the group to explore and truly understand the
benefits of service-learning concepts such as equity, funds of knowledge and co-design, then the
group needed to experience them too. This is why I chose collaborative action research as our
process, since it is a “collaborative, critically examined action of the individual group members”
(Kemmis & McTaggart, 1987, p. 6), where its most important feature is “the shift in locus of
control... from academic researchers (or external consultants) to those who have been
traditionally called the subjects of research (the teachers in the context)” (Herr & Anderson,
2005, p. 3). I incorporated mandatory reflections after every session in order to acknowledge the
individual’s learning as well as metacognitive experience of the process: how did co-facilitating
affect you and your learning? PP exit interviews confirmed the powerful role of this alignment as
described by several statements: “led to greater authenticity” (Exit Interview, Blue), “led to
greater safety and contributions” (Exit Interview, Indigo), “it was a mutually beneficial
experience, where one person didn’t hold all the power and we were collaborating towards
mutual goals” (Exit Interview, Violet).
153

Collaborative Action Research Challenges
Evidence from personal reflections and exit interviews revealed some important
challenges to our sessions. Therefore, there are several lessons I would apply in the future in
order to increase the success of the collaborative inquiry.
Intensity of Time and Cognitive Focus. First, collaborative action research requires a
certain intensity of time and cognitive focus. Due to added individual responsibility, the PP need
to acknowledge and be ready for added responsibility they may feel during this process. This
experience is significantly different from being a participant in a workshop in which few
decisions need be made and a “committee leader” determines an agenda and application of the
work. Action research does not leave much space for flying by, sitting back, or checking out
from the process. In addition, when challenges are encountered, whether an individual disagrees
with something, the group is unsure how to proceed, or the group is overwhelmed, the outcomes
of action research are still completely dependent on every participant. This adds to a sense of
pressure to every participant. One uncomfortable situation that took place in our think tank was
that one of the participants stopped participating and did not initiate steps to address their block.
This could be interpreted as unfair to the other participants who relied on that individual’s
perspective to push the group’s thinking. Consequently, this led to added pressure on each
remaining contributing participant. For such reasons, in the future, I would conduct a mini-
training pre-collaboration to brainstorm strategies for addressing similar challenges before they
arise. Just introducing the process and “selling it as empowering” is not enough to guide the
group when facing difficulty.
Significant Time Investment Prior to Launching the CAR. Another challenge
encountered in the action research process is that the initiator, me, still faced a significant time
154

investment in preparing all the background information needed for the group to be as efficient as
possible. In my case, prior to the think tank sessions, I interviewed five individuals from
different schools about their respective institution’s service-learning approach and reviewed
hundreds of texts. In addition, as the lead facilitator, I planned out the first agendas and
facilitated them. I recognize that in a more traditional collaborative inquiry process, the group
would delegate, through volunteering, research to various individuals, however, that would have
added a prohibitive amount of time to our timetable.
Choosing the Right Team. Complexity of choosing the right team, as described by Dr.
Malloy, posed a third challenge. Through my interest survey and informal investigation on
potential candidates, I was confident I had assembled a fairly strong team. I had considered
experience, interest, and participation dynamic and I expected that to be sufficient for our six
sessions. However, we encountered challenges to our work affecting two participants. These
individuals contributed less and less throughout the last four sessions (the more co-facilitated
sessions). In my reflections of the possible factors that led to this result with one particular
participant, I considered that a professional culture might have been a factor. After all, five
participants were educationally raised in the USA, and the individual in question was raised
professionally in the local community. For example, much of our work, especially in the latter 4
sessions, relied on creating original material, coming up with our own design, questioning
people’s ideas, and pushing back on other ideas. I recognized that not in all professional cultures
are these approaches to collaboration viewed in a positive way or encouraged. Designing
original material takes practice and time, and is therefore a skill to be developed. I recognize that
tension exists between questioning ideas for the purpose of brainstorming and questioning ideas
potentially coming across as disrespectful. Thus, while extremely supportive of our work,
155

encouraging of our efforts, and collaborative in the first two sessions, participant Blue
contributed little in the latter sessions. The second individual in question missed the last three
sessions. They also did not complete reflections for these sessions (recordings of which they
could have viewed). This individual’s struggle became clear only through their exit interview. I
felt extremely grateful that I had asked a neutral third person to conduct the exit interview in
order to support the PP in their honesty and constructive feedback. In this session, the neutral
interviewer reported that the individual reached an emotional moment when they broke down in
tears. In recognition of the personal bias I bring to the situation and the complex feelings
associated with the absence of this individual, rather than attempt to interpret this individual’s
internal emotions and thought processes which guided their lack of participation, the
following four excerpts from the exit interview serve to reveal in their own words the
elements of their experience that led to their absence from the sessions:
I’m a bit frustrated with myself for not voicing my hesitations earlier. We spent many,
many days of discussion. I think clear goals and outcomes have to be present when
you’re asking so much of people’s time.
I think once again, it was just taking us too long to reach a purposeful goal. It sounds so
negative, it just...I’m so sorry to...to sound like this.
I know the facilitator had a clear purpose in mind. But opening it up to several
facilitators, the think tank lost its direction. It became fragmented. I don’t think that we
would have lost our voice or input in the project had one facilitator led us to where we
needed to be.
Building upon each other’s strengths was valuable. However, it kept us talking and
talking and maybe not enough doing.
156

The individual mentioned being “frustrated...in not voicing my hesitations earlier,” the
group “taking too...long to reach a purposeful goal,” the think tank becoming “fragmented” and
seemingly to have “lost its direction” when co-facilitated, and that while “building upon each
other’s strengths was valuable...it kept us talking...and not enough doing.” In my view, these are
all important points that would have enriched the group’s discussion. I do feel regret having
played a role in creating a situation where an individual’s unique experiences and perspectives
were not able to be heard.
In reflecting on how to avoid these issues in future collaborative inquiries, I realize the
process of finding the right team is more complex than I expected and that collaborative team
training is a necessity. While I thought I had maximized the opportunities for feedback, through
private reflection, in the think tank’s session, or through emailing or connecting in person, these
avenues nevertheless failed to provide this participant with a comfort level sufficient to share
their challenges. If an organization is interested in engaging collaborative inquiry, more effort
must be invested to in this part of the process.
Comfort Level With Co-Leadership. Finally, through all the data points, it was clear
that a tension built when the leadership presence moved toward the co-facilitator end of the
continuum. Half of the PP noted that in the last sessions, when there was “no leader” and the
work remained challenging, they felt time was lost and the design construction began to lose
momentum. Some mentioned that they questioned whether we had met our goal. This sense of
“fragmentation” (Exit Interview, Yellow), also led to disempowerment and stagnation. Because
of this finding, I would reconsider the co-facilitator-end-of-the-continuum always to be the ideal.
The leadership presence continuum could be shared with the group and the group would
157

collaboratively decide when various guidance is needed, when to move the leadership needle
towards more or less co-facilitation.
The Role of Leadership
Leadership played an essential role in the collaborative action research think tank on two
levels: on a larger organizational level and within the think tank dynamic.
Organizational Level
On the broader perspective, it was ISA’s leadership that approved the topic of the
research and allowed for three critical half days for the think tank to work together during the
school day. Without the support of the leadership team, the action research would probably not
have been a possibility. In addition, the group will present to the leadership our outcomes later in
the year and will be instrumental in deciding ISA’s next steps in service-learning.
Within Think Tank
Leadership was also a frequently mentioned topic in the reflections and exit interviews, in
reference to the leadership dynamic within the think tank. Reflections from the first and second
sessions stated how grateful the PP were to have my leadership to guide our process. All
comments also supported the action research approach to our work once the first two
(background) sessions completed. The exit interviews however, introduced a new perspective.
After working through 12 hours in authentic action research mode, one interviewee spoke of
“without one leader, our direction felt fragmented” (Exit Interview, Yellow). Others talked about
the significant investment of time required during the co-facilitation phase rather than the single
leader phase (Exit Interview, Orange and Violet). The “lack of single-person leadership” proved
challenging for the group, especially as we reached moments of uncertainty which, some felt,
required external guidance. Reflecting on this unexpected finding helped me recognize that
158

deciding one’s own direction is a skill to be practiced. Collaborative action research is a
continuous evolution of democratic or consensual decision-making and, therefore, if individuals
are not skilled in handling these responsibilities, this can be an uncomfortable and discouraging
phase in the process.
Organizational Context
Another finding resulting from the primary research is that of the role of understanding
the organizational context. As I prepared a case for why service-learning was a worthy topic of
analysis, I realized the evidence would be found in who the organization claimed to be and
aimed to become. This future vision was evident through ISA’s identity documents published on
its website. It was encouraging to find all the spaces in which ISA wished to increase our
interactions and connections with the local community. It was also significant to restate all the
initiatives the ISA is currently adopting, which revealed how complimentary service-learning
would be to many adopted initiatives.
Additionally, it is critical to recognize the hopes of ISA’s teachers, and their ideas for
how to bridge the current gaps between what we are doing and what we would like to do
regarding service-learning. This data is supported by the faculty survey that was completed prior
to the think tank’s first session. Finally, thinking about our fellow teachers and their needs was
instrumental in the teacher-friendly design of our framework. While consideration of the teachers
drove the design of the framework, reviewing the identity documents and current initiatives gave
our think tank purpose for the work we were doing. After reviewing all the identity documents
and teacher survey data, the think tank felt confident that ISA was in need of a service-learning
framework in elementary school.
159

Environmental Factors
Finally, a new theme that significantly impacted the action research was the pandemic.
This environmental factor affected the primary research in three main ways: opportunities, time,
and mindset.
Opportunities
The pandemic directly eliminated our students’ ability to engage in service-learning
initiatives outside the school. For two years and counting, each class has been subdivided into
groups of five students who are prohibited from intermingling even within the same classroom,
much less with strangers. Thus, meeting with groups outside of school proved impossible. The
design of our framework needed to take into consideration this limitation and leave room for
possibilities in a less restricted atmosphere.
Time
The pandemic also affected time. Our first session was originally scheduled for
September 27, but then postponed until October 27, since the school shifted to online learning
and I felt strongly that the first session should be conducted in person. A second example is that
the first four sessions took place in a span of less than four weeks due to one of the PP having a
family emergency and needing to fly home three weeks earlier than scheduled. This was both an
advantage as well as a challenge, since it meant a certain intensity for our sessions, with less time
for processing.
Emotional and Cognitive Mindset
Finally, impacted our states of mind. In the words of one peer-practitioner, “my
bandwidth has reached its limit, but not because of this think tank. It’s living and surviving while
in a pandemic” (Exit Interview, Violet). While this was articulated by a single practitioner, it is
160

important to acknowledge that for teachers living internationally, away from their home
countries, the pandemic has carried a heavy weight in many of our lives. While a quantifiable
impact is not possible to identify through my research, I realize all PP were balancing this
unprecedented challenge and it is very probable that it affected our productivity. Overall,
acknowledging environmental factors affecting people’s lives is important and can have a direct
impact on the outcomes of the collaboration.
Evolved Conceptual Framework
The secondary research and my thinking at that time helped me design an initial version
of my conceptual framework (see Figure 23, and a detailed description of the framework in
Chapter 1).

Figure 23
Original Conceptual Framework Based on Secondary Research

161

However, following my primary research and having experienced the collaborative action
research sessions, my conceptual framework evolved. Figures 24 and 25 demonstrate a newly
proposed conceptual framework reflecting my findings.

Figure 24
Revised Conceptual Framework with Highlighted Revisions

162

Based on reflections, collaborative action research sessions, exit interviews, and current
thinking, my findings introduced two more factors that impacted our think tank: organizational
context and environmental factors. These impacted the time intensity as well as gave purpose to
our highly contextualized work. In addition, the factor of pedagogy included in the original
framework, did not play a significant role in the findings, and therefore I removed it. While I still
believe this is an important factor generally in the creation of a framework, simply because it
was missing from many conversations does not mean it was not included in other subthemes. For
example, the PP had several ongoing conversations about the subtheme of reflection and the
importance of recognizing the developmental continuum of this skill. Developmental
appropriateness would be considered under the pedagogical umbrella. In addition, one of the PP
questioned how we could include more student-voice in our process. Student-voice would also
be considered under the pedagogical umbrella. It is also a pedagogical consideration to increase
experiential learning at ISA, which would be listed as an “impactful instructional strategy,”
categorized under the organizational context finding. As part of our framework, we may present
our work to students to get their perspectives on it, to be included in the action research theme, or
ask older students to lead initiatives guided by our domains, which would be included under the
leadership theme. At this point, I see pedagogy being included as a consideration under all the
findings themes of my evolving framework.

163

Figure 25
Revised Conceptual Framework Based on Primary Research

164

Conclusion
In this chapter, I presented the findings resulting from primary research and three data
points: thirty-three reflections, six action research sessions (totalling 18 hours), and five exit
interviews. The findings confirmed some of the factors originally described in my conceptual
framework and introduced two new themes: the impact of the organizational context and
consideration of environmental factors present at the time. Most importantly, the primary
research enabled me to articulate the multitude of reasons why these factors play a role in how a
group of peer practitioners design a framework. The primary research allowed me to name the
difference between knowing that andragogy plays a role in the design sessions and naming
precisely how andragogy plays a role—through shared language, quality of resources, the role of
physical space, the presence of cognitive safety, positive grateful attitude, relying on a variety of
learning strategies, synthesizing our thinking, being guided by purpose, knowing our phase in the
process, acknowledging and respecting various epistemologies, and the importance of being
reflective about our thinking and learning. Conducting this has been a deeply fascinating and
personally fruitful experience.

165

Chapter Five: Discussion
The first chapter of this study presented an introduction to the problem of practice, the gap in
the research and the proposed conceptual framework. Chapter two was a literature review that
outlined the historical movements that have influenced the evolution of service-learning and an
introduction to the approach of collaborative inquiry, a type of action research conducted in
partnership with others. Chapter three described the methodological approach in detail as well as
the role of positionality, trustworthiness and credibility. Finally, chapter four shared the findings
of the research, and presented an evolved conceptual framework based on primary research. This
final chapter explores the following areas:
• Research findings
• Research conclusions and recommendations
• Service-learning think tank conclusions
• Service-learning think tank recommendations
• Limitations
• Self-reflection
• Implication for my future leadership
Research Findings
In September of 2021, I distributed a survey to the approximately 90 teachers of the ISA
elementary school to gather interest in joining a think tank to better understand service-learning
in our community’s context. My goal was to examine the question: How do Kindergarten to
Grade 5 teachers in a large international school in Asia design a service-learning framework
that is reciprocally beneficial to all service partners? This survey ultimately resulted in six
individuals, among which I acted as researcher, participant and sometimes facilitator, meeting
166

together across six sessions from October 2021 to February 2022, for a total of 18 hours. The
think tank engaged in a collaborative inquiry process to answer the above question. In addition to
attending the sessions, each peer-practitioner shared a written reflection following each session
and participated in an exit interview administered by a neutral research assistant to share
perspectives on our collaborative inquiry process.
Findings from the data revealed six main themes: the importance of strong andragogical
practices, the impact of using collaborative action research (CAR) as the process, the role of
leadership (on various levels), centering funds of knowledge as a foundation, the importance of
being familiar with the organizational context, and acknowledging the influence of
environmental factors such as the pandemic (see Table 3).
Research Conclusions and Recommendations
In order for Kindergarten to Grade 5 teachers in a large international school in Asia to
design a service-learning framework that is reciprocally beneficial to all service partners, I
believe an organization must deliberately select a process which reflects the driving principles of
the topic to be designed. At the heart of service-learning are authentic relationships grounded in
funds of knowledge towards all stakeholders involved, which lead to co-decision-making and co-
construction of a project. Because of this, my research relied on collaborative inquiry (action
research) to align a design-process to our service-learning principles. All PP mentioned in their
reflections and exit interviews the impact of the connection of these two factors. In addition,
critical service-learning—the most evolved state of service-learning—requires that individuals
be aware of themselves in terms of power dynamics. Collaborative action research allows
participants to overtly acknowledge the power dynamics within a group, equalize them, and
regularly reflect on those dynamics. Although aligning content principles to process led to an
167

authentic, uniquely designed outcome with significant benefits, the process did not lack
important challenges. As mentioned in chapter four, these challenges included intensity of time
and cognitive focus, complexity of choosing the right team, and tension of the leadership-co-
facilitation spectrum.
If an organization aims to empower its faculty in designing organizational artifacts, I
recommend the following considerations moving forward:
• strong andragogical practices
• consider adopting a collaborative inquiry approach which includes:
• investment in selecting the right team
• strategic use of time
• training in collaborative group dynamics
• purposeful and flexible leadership
Strong Andragogical Practices
Any initiative in working with adults requires a thoughtful, intentional plan for how the
participants will learn, how they will process and, ultimately, express their learning. My research
highlights particular themes that greatly support the experience of the adult learners. One such
theme involves an environment that provides a high level of cognitive safety which in turn
allows for risk-taking and sharing of diverse, new thinking. We also increased cognitive safety
by including a variety of learning strategies so that access to content and subsequent discussion
and engagement increased. Learning strategies included partner reading, charting learning,
hearing many voices, writing independently, reflecting out loud as well as privately, sharing
resources ahead of the sessions to increase processing time, and also synthesizing our learning.
This strategy led to the creation of a document which we used as a guide for the rest of our work
168

together, titled The Service-Learning Domains and Principles (Figure 20, p. 135). Another
fundamental theme is that of the work being purposeful: adult learners are deeply motivated by a
sense of control over their environment and purposeful focus which leads to a desire to positively
impact their circumstance (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). Shared language among the group was
also frequently mentioned as an important factor such that when the foundation is shared,
common important background information will exist, and fewer misinterpretations based on
language will arise. PP also mentioned appreciation for a high quality of resources leading to
thoughtful discussions and potential disorienting dilemmas (Mezirow, 2000). The disruptive
nature of resources can represent a symbolic interruption of one’s thinking towards new
awareness and different actions. PP also mentioned the role that layout of the physical space
played: consideration of wall space, seating arrangement, writing tools, and opportunities for
visualizing ideas all supported the thinking, facilitated the flow of conversations, as well as
symbolized the equity of roles among all participants. Another important theme is understanding
the process we were adopting, the rationale for the process and where in the process we were
during every session. This awareness was crucial for the PP to understand our design phase and
feel a sense of purpose in the work. Epistemology, or the understanding of where our knowledge
and value system originates, was also raised as an impactful part of the collaborative process. PP
seemed to deeply appreciate hearing the life stories of other participants and what landmark
experiences brought these individuals around our table. Furthermore, connecting how our
epistemologies influence our work brings greater understanding to our actions as well as greater
empathy towards the perspectives and actions of other people. Finally, the practice of reflection
helped me as a researcher understand connections people were making, gaps experienced, or
needs they required. While the depth of the reflections varied greatly for people and across time,
169

I do think pushing ourselves to acknowledge our thinking and feeling throughout the experience
influences how we approach future interactions.
Consider Adopting a Collaborative Inquiry Approach
As previously mentioned in chapter three, collaborative action research (CAR) decenters
authority through collaborative decision-making and relies on systematic reflection in order to
reveal hidden biases and misconceptions. The most important feature of CAR is “the shift in
locus of control...from academic researchers to those who have been traditionally called the
subjects of research” (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 3). In ISA’s case, this allows the teachers to be
in charge of their own inquiry, process, findings and applying those highly contextualized
discoveries to their unique student-bodies for a maximum impact. Dr. Courtney Malloy (2011)
argues that when “educators craft unique, locally driven inquiry projects...better decisions about
(school) programs, interventions and policies can result” (p. 4) and that we need to “build the
capacity of practitioners to initiate, lead their own inquiry processes and create cultures that
embrace and reward” such initiatives (p. 4). When the teachers are empowered with such
responsibility, they become agents of their own change process. If an organization is looking to
communicate trust in its members, respect in their praxis, and an opportunity to strengthen
professional culture, collaborative action research is a very promising means.
If an organization subscribes to the impactful practice of collaborative action research as
the means to design outcomes, I recommend the following considerations moving forward: (a)
invest in the right team, (b) be strategic about time, (c) provide training in collaborative group
dynamics, (d) consider flexibility in the role of leaders in the collaborative action research
process.
170

Invest in Gathering the Right Team
As previously mentioned in chapter four, action research is dependent on each member of
the team to actively participate. If this does not happen, not only does the group miss out on that
individual’s perspective, but the lack of input could also lead to group instability. If an
organization chooses such an approach, it must ensure that members are prepared both in their
professional experience as well as in their character. It is advisable that interested candidates be
interviewed, and not merely surveyed, with a focus on motivation and experience but also on
group dynamics (the ability to step back or step up) and the willingness to share challenges or
frustrations. My primary research revealed it is the latter two traits that play a significant role in
the outcome of the collaboration and yet are hardest to survey.
Be Strategic About Time
If an organization chooses collaborative inquiry as its approach to designing
organizational documents, then time should be thoughtfully considered. This approach is not best
suited for hourly sessions carried out monthly, nor for four straight days of intense collaboration.
Because of the nature of research required, potential interviews, trials, and simply time to
process information, the sessions must be planned out in alignment with agenda goals. I would
also recommend that each session run between two and four hours. In my experience, strategic
allotment of time is an integral factor in the success of the CAR process.
Provide Training in Collaborative Group Dynamics
Because it is not common practice for schools to rely on their own faculty to design
important artifacts for the school, collaboratively designing something that affects the school-
wide community is not a skill that teachers often practice. However, because this approach
completely depends on participants’ level of skill in collaborating, designing and debating ideas,
171

some training in developing this skill is recommended. How does the group navigate their lack of
expertise? How would the group handle lack of participation? What about how to support an
individual struggling between disagreement and fear of hurting people’s feelings? These are all
common scenarios in group dynamics that might harm the progress if not responsibly foreseen
and addressed through training.
Purposeful and Flexible Leadership
The last recommendation for an organization that endorses this approach is to maintain
flexibility on the leadership spectrum. Although the goal of the collaborative inquiry is to
empower those who traditionally must follow others’ directives (often designed by external
parties who are not familiar with the unique context), this does not mean there is no instance in
which one individual takes on a greater responsibility. The role of leadership in collaborative
inquiry is a dynamic one; an individual might be needed to handle logistics, gather background
information, and even guide the group in a certain direction when no direction is apparent. At the
same time, the group should be cognizant of the point when the leadership needle needs to point
back in the direction of co-facilitation and consensus. I would recommend this be an explicit
conversation during every session so that expectations are clear and true needs are addressed.
Service-Learning Think Tank Conclusions
The 18 hours the think tank spent together learning and designing led to a range of
emotions—from energetic productivity to designer’s block and uncertainty. While the first two
sessions mainly focused on utilizing strong andragogical practices to learn new content, the
remaining four co-facilitated sessions saw a mixture of proposals, thinking out loud, sharing past
practices, envisioning possibilities, revising those possibilities, hitting a plateau, feeling unsure,
and questioning ourselves, which often helped us discover new pathways. Our journey was
172

unpaved, yet the atmosphere was always supportive and constructive. In the end, the think tank
designed four foundational documents:
• Think Tank Definition of Service-Learning at ISA (Figure 19, p. 135)
• Domains and Principles for Service-Learning at ISA (Figure 20, p. 136)
• Bank of Developmentally Appropriate Reflection Questions (Figure 21, p. 137)
• ISA’s Service-Learning Framework for Elementary School (Figure 22, p. 138)
While some of the PP questioned in their exit interviews whether we had met our goal, it was
important to reflect back on the accomplishments we had made. I realized that the question
which guided us hid several unstated prerequisites we needed to meet in order to attempt a
framework. We could not have drafted the framework without a common language to define our
priorities. Our service-learning definition and domains and principles documents served as the
foundation that enabled us to build a potential structure for the elementary school.
In my final reflection, I touched upon the challenge of experiencing a stuck, unfinished
state of mind. Since I knew I was not the only one to feel this way, I decided to share my final
reflection with my peer-practitioners. Building on the supportive atmosphere we had created in
our sessions, I wanted to guide them towards a more constructive and positive mindset about our
time together (see Appendix E for full reflection). Based on the feedback I received from this last
reflection, most of the PP were grateful for my openness and our partnership, stating that they
learned much about service-learning and themselves as educators. It was particularly interesting
that, being the passionate and engaged teachers they are, most felt a need to take concrete action,
and that designing a pathway to that action was not sufficient. Perhaps not surprising, the biggest
support for the action research process came from the designer of the group, who verbalized how
familiar they were with the time-consuming and challenging nature of the work. Moving
173

forward, in putting together the right team—passionate and experienced individuals—might not
be the best mentally prepared individuals for the process. Collaborative inquiry, in my view,
requires a balance of perspectives, experiences and skills to move forward.
Service-Learning Think Tank Recommendations
As a result of the think tank’s collaboration, we drafted a list of recommendations for
ISA. The recommendations were presented to part of ISA’s leadership team and to members of
the school’s diversity, equity and inclusion team. They included launching a pilot program with
volunteer teachers, incorporating a local perspective as part of a feedback cycle, and hiring a
part-time service-learning leader.
Launching a Pilot Program
One of the advantages of including teachers as part of the think tank is that seeds were
planted for service-learning possibilities in the future. While creating a framework for the ES,
some of the PP got excited about applying some of the practices we had designed within their
classrooms the following school year. While it would not be possible to implement the newly
proposed framework systematically across the entire ES, a potential next step would be to offer it
to volunteer teachers to test out. The pilot would entail meeting as a cohort throughout the year
to apply the service-learning lens to at least one curricular unit and one school-wide context,
collaboratively choosing the reflection prompts, and giving ongoing feedback. The school would
need to allow for such meeting times to be scheduled during the school day.
Including a Local Perspective
One of the limitations of the research and the think tank is the role of various recipient
organizations on the framework design. If the service-learning interaction is to be reciprocally
beneficial to all service partners, the perspective of all service partners must be heard. While the
174

recipient organizations may agree with the framework in the end, there must be an opportunity
for their voices to be heard. Although effort was made to gather this perspective, not enough
insight was learned to affect our framework. Therefore, another recommendation is once the
framework is designed—yet before the implementation of the pilot program—ISA shares the
framework with some of the hopeful partner organization. The objective would be to ensure the
organization’s perspective is heard, to collect ideas for filling the gaps, and include the
organization’s feedback at the end of a service-learning interaction to reflect on strengths and
areas for future improvement.
Service-Learning Leader Position
The think tank also recommends hiring a part-time service-learning leader for the first
year, with the opportunity to become a full-time position thereafter. Specific responsibilities
would entail support of the pilot cohort during the first year, laying the foundation for future
work with local organizations, finalization of the framework for a systematic rollout across the
ES in the future, and expansion of the service-learning vision vertically to other divisions.
Limitations
While the research was rich with outcomes, it is important to recognize the limitations as
well. This section outlines the limitations I encountered.
The Local Perspective
At the heart of service-learning are reciprocally beneficial relationships. To ensure that
each interaction is beneficial to all parties, all participants must have a voice in the interaction.
While literature was used to learn about the recipient perspective, albeit limited as stated in
chapter two, and one of the peer practitioners in our group represented a local perspective, I
nevertheless felt that in an ideal scenario we would have included one or two representatives
175

from a local organization as part of the think tank. I was able to reach out to a local organization
with which ISA had worked in the past, but they responded to my questions in a general,
formulaic way, so the responses were not specific enough to glean new learning. This indicated
that there needs to be a trusting environment even when inquiring about general goals and hopes.
However, now that the sessions are complete but the framework is not, it is not too late to gather
local perspectives in order to finetune future interactions. In fact, as mentioned in the previous
section, as a next step, I would reach out to potential interested local organizations and make a
connection in person to inquire about goals they may have for interactions with schools in order
to ensure our framework represents their voice.
Time
As mentioned earlier, the collaborative action research required an intense amount of
time. This was due in part to the necessity for a shared foundation in the topic we analyzed,
which included learning the historical perspective and grounding our work in our specific ISA
context. In addition, what are the prerequisites for designing a framework? When the framework
became our goal, we realized how many conversations, agreements, and documents we needed to
draft even before we could commence the framework design. As one of the PP mentioned in an
exit interview, frameworks take many people a lot of time to design; therefore, they knew a small
group of teachers meeting for six sessions would not be able to complete this task, but rather
create the foundation on which we could begin to build it. Moving forward, we would need more
people with design expertise as well as more time to allot to this part of the process.
Training
The research was rich with insight and productive for the school. One of the insights that
it revealed were the gaps we experienced after the completed sessions. The specific challenges
176

we encountered could be categorized as training gaps: one gap in how to move forward in the
collaborative inquiry process during challenging moments and a second gap in framework-
design. The former gap arose when, as a think tank, we weren’t sure how to proceed, or moving
forward seemed to be an overwhelming task. Even if our goal is to equalize voices, it would have
been helpful to know that this did not mean we could not reach out and ask for help outside the
group. Another option would have been to elect someone to take a temporary lead to garner
support. The tension between aiming to do it all ourselves and following a recommended
protocol was definitely evident. The latter gap could have been addressed by one of the PP
having expertise in framework-design or by reaching out beyond the think tank and, again,
asking for support in this specific skill.
Self-Reflection
Choosing collaborative inquiry as my research approach was a deeply personal
experience for me. Aside from the continuous thinking I dedicated to it—feeling like another
child at times—and the fascinating challenges that it presented, the process led me to learn more
about myself. First, the very reason why I chose this approach—its purposeful nature and
connection to people—also led to its biggest challenges. I yearn to empower others, but what
happens when others are not ready to be empowered, or when empowering means coming into
conflict with their upbringing or personality? What happens when empowerment leads to
frustration and stress? Knowing that I put so much of myself into each session and that it resulted
in someone breaking down emotionally over their internal struggle and others’ questioning their
contributions, was painful. Although I know such results are not personal, and the positive
grateful attitude data was plentiful even in the exit interviews, it was still difficult for me to
separate myself from how participants experienced the process. Perhaps this was challenging
177

because their difficulty suggested that the process might not be as strong as I believed, or
perhaps because rejecting the process in some way symbolized a rejection of me. Empathy, I
have come to realize, is both my superpower as an educator as well as a weakness. In response to
the discovery of one of my peer’s challenge after reading all the exit interviews, I decided to take
excerpts of my final reflection and turn them into an email to my think tank (see Appendix E). I
hoped my letter offered the participants some comfort and shared a reminder of the purpose of
our work—that when ISA is ready to implement reciprocally beneficial practices through critical
service-learning between our students and the community, ISA will not have to start from
scratch. Because of our think tank, a strong foundation already exists. It was encouraging to
receive supportive responses to my reflection email.
Overall, I found this methodology deeply meaningful; it was enriching in learning about
myself as a leader, about the nature of collaboration and its dynamics, and about human nature.
Personally, this collaborative inquiry was an emotional journey with many more peaks than
valleys.
A final word about choosing action research as a methodology in an educational
doctorate dissertation. As mentioned in the previous sections, the action research sessions were
time intensive and cognitively demanding. However, the amount of planning for the sessions—
researching literature, interviewing resources, prepping materials, booking the spaces and even
food preparation—was all in addition to leading or co-facilitating in the live sessions. At times,
this felt like a part-time job. A critical addition to consider is the continuation of the work, past
the research phase. Because the outcomes of the research are contextualized, filling this gap was
a true need in our organization. The think tank demanded significant time from the participants,
and they deserved an opportunity to present their outcomes to the leadership. This research
178

approach does not end with the sessions, but rather gives authentic momentum to continuing the
effort. At this moment in time, three months after the end of the research, Indigo and I have
continued the process by presenting our work to leadership, planning for potential next steps in
our organization, and designing a professional learning session that describes the collaborative
inquiry process. While I am thoroughly grateful for having chosen this methodology, I recognize
it is not for every researcher. I would recommend for the chairs of future researchers to present
both the benefits and challenges that will accompany this meaningful approach.
Implication for My Future Leadership
I have absolutely loved conducting my research. Carrying out a collaborative action
research project has comprised a combination of intense time commitment, preparation,
emotional and creative highs and lows, and has been deeply purposeful. I feel proud that our
group of dedicated teachers can offer ISA a substantive solution towards addressing this
important need. This process over the last twelve months has also taught me important lessons
about myself as a leader. This section explores this insight.
First, the type of leader I want to be is someone who sees others—a leader who people
feel wants to understand them—and one who makes them feel valued. For this to happen, I must
consciously adopt a funds of knowledge mindset. This mindset allows me to view every stranger
as a potential teacher, regardless of age, educational credential, or any other demographic
indicator. I will aim to welcome each conversation as an opportunity to learn. In line with this
mindset, I want to be the kind of leader who empowers their colleagues and builds capacity
within the organization. This requires investing time in getting to know colleagues and listening
to their hopes and goals. An organization in which individuals are known and encouraged
179

represents a place where people feel empowered to make the best decisions for their students and
are dedicated to ongoing improvement of the organization.
Conducting research through an action research approach has confirmed for me that
process matters. If the focus is only an outcome, and that outcome is the result of unsupported
conversations or of a process not aligned with the organization’s beliefs, then the outcome will
lack support, trust and buy-in. In my particular case, if I individually tried to design a service-
learning framework, knowing that service-learning is fundamentally rooted in respectful
relationships between people, I would have relied on a process that does not support these ideals,
and would therefore lack authenticity and validity. Choosing this approach to create a framework
for ISA allowed teachers to “be the agents of their own change process” (Lincoln, 1993, cited in
Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 123), and celebrated “local (educator) knowledge,” rather than
endorsing external consultants as experts.
Choosing volunteer, experienced teachers also sent a message that the faculty is
professionally respected. Finally, it allowed for the outcome to be uniquely designed with ISA’s
strategic goals in mind, thereby maximizing the applicability of the framework.
On a personal note, this experience has also confirmed for me how being a learner is an
integral part of who I am. The energy I felt when interviewing service-learning experts at other
schools, brainstorming together, charting, and revising with the think tank —all towards a
concrete and purposeful goal—was electrifying. No matter what type of role I will find myself in
in the future, I know I will be observing, testing theories, and sharing new learning in the name
of evolving our practice and raising future citizens. The action research experience also forced
me to recognize that I need to grow some thicker skin. While I think of myself as a confident,
thoughtful, dedicated learner, I was surprised at how disappointed I felt when I knew one of the
180

PP was struggling. I became emotional and began to question every action I took, every word I
said, and email I wrote. The thought that I could have been the source of someone’s emotional
struggle was hurtful. Yet leadership might often lead to someone’s frustration or disappointment.
Leadership aims for win-win-win for each stakeholder; however, in many, if not most, cases,
compromises must be made. In those situations, I should remind myself of other leadership
lessons: being thoughtful and reflective about each decision, genuinely listening to a variety of
perspectives, and being transparent about my rationale. I believe this will lead to greater trust and
acceptance from my colleagues. After all, there is no leader without followers. Realizing how the
complex relationship between professional colleagues is woven is not very different from critical
service-learning. A reciprocally beneficial relationship among partners, grounded in the authentic
respect of the others’ funds of knowledge. If I welcome each new relationship as a learning
opportunity, there will be space for unexpected possibilities. These are the relationships I will
strive to build in my future.

181

References
Achor, S. (2018). Big potential: How transforming the pursuit of success raises our achievement,
happiness, and well-being. Currency.
Adriaanse, M. L. (2015). Saving those who cannot save themselves: The narrative of saviorism,
otherness, and humanitarianism in Kony 2012. Academia.
https://www.academia.edu/27641940/Saving_Those_Who_Cannot_Save_Themselves_T
he_Narrative_of_Saviorism_Otherness_and_Humanitarianism_in_Kony_2012
Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(4), 431–447.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390902736512
Aguilar, E. (2016). The art of coaching teams: Building resilient communities that transform
schools. John Wiley & Sons.
Allport, G. W., Clark, K., & Pettigrew, T. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
Anderson, G. L., & Jones, F. (2000). Knowledge generation in educational administration from
the inside out: The promise and perils of site-based, administrator research. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 36(3), 428–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610021969056
Anderson, G., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. (1994). Studying your own school: An educator’s guide to
qualitative practitioner research. Corwin Press.
Argyris, C., Putman, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action science (Vol. 13). Jossey-Bass.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969, 2019). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 85(1), 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2018.1559388
Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation.
Journal of College Student Development, 39(3), 251–263.
182

Atwell, C. A. (1982). Reexamining community services in the community college: Toward
consensus and commitment. ERIC.
Auerbach, C., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and
analysis (Vol. 21). NYU press.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 1(2), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
Banks, J. A. (1981). Education in the 80s: Multiethnic education. National Education
Association.
Banks, J. A. (1995). Multicultural education: Its effects on students’ racial and gender role
attitudes. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED382729
Banks, J. A. (1997). Educating citizens in a multicultural society. Teachers College Press.
Banks, J. A. (2008, 2014, 2019). An introduction to multicultural education. Pearson.
Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. (1989). Multicultural education. Routledge.
Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (2004). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (5th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bass, B.M., & Riggio, R.E. (2005). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.
Baumgartner, J., DiCarlo, C., & Casbergue, R. (2019). Service learning and early childhood
education: Intersection of developmentally appropriate practice and P.A.R.E. Journal of
Early Childhood Teacher Education, 41(2), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2019.1570400
Belle, C. (2019). What is social justice education anyway. Education Week, 38(19), 18–19.
183

Bickford, D.M., Reynolds, N. (2002). Activism and service-learning: Reframing volunteerism as
acts of dissent. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language,
Culture, and Composition, 2(2), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-2-2-229
Billig, S. H. (2017). Service and service-learning in International Baccalaureate High Schools:
An international comparison of outcomes and moderators. International Journal of
Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, 5(1).
https://doi.org/10.37333/001c.29755
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (4th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Boyle-Baise, M. (2002). Multicultural service learning: Educating teachers in diverse
communities. Teachers College Press.
Boyle-Baise, M., & Sleeter, C. E. (1998). Community service learning for multicultural Teacher
Education. ERIC.
Brewster, K. R. (2018). Transformative and transformed: Examining the critical potential of
service learner positional identities. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51(3–4), 347–361.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2018.1546152
Bringle, R. G., Duffy, D. K. (1998). With service in mind: Concepts and models for service-
learning in psychology. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Brookfield, S. (1998). Critically reflective practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the
Health Professions, 18(4), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.1340180402
Brookfield, S. (2010). Critical reflection as an adult learning process. In Handbook of reflection
and reflective inquiry (pp. 215–236). Springer.
184

Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. John Wiley & Sons.
Budget Control Act, 2011, Public Law 112-25. Retrieved from
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-
bill/365?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22PUBLIC+LAW+112%5Cu201325%22%5
D%7D&s=3&r=1
Burke-Hengen, M., & Smith, G. (2000). Teaching for justice in the social studies classroom:
Millions of intricate moves. Heinemann.
Butin, D. (2015). Dreaming of justice: Critical service-learning and the need to wake up. Theory
into Practice, 54(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2015.977646
Butin, D. W. (2007). Justice-Learning: Service-Learning as justice-oriented education. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 40(2), 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680701246492
Camus, A. (1972). The plague. Vintage.
Cann, C., & McCloskey, E. (2017). The poverty pimpin’ project: How whiteness profits from
black and brown bodies in community service programs. Race, Ethnicity and
Education, 20(1), 72–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2015.1096769
Chavis, D., Stucky, P., & Wandersman, A. (1983). Returning basic research to the community: A
relationship between scientist and citizen. The American Psychologist, 38(4), 424–434.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.424
Chesler, M. (1995). Service, service-learning, and changemaking. Praxis iii: Voices in dialogue,
137–142.
Chesler, M., & Scalera, C. V. (2000). Race and gender issues related to service-learning
research. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 1, 19–20.
185

Cipolle, S. (2004). Service-Learning as a counter-hegemonic practice evidence pro and con.
Multicultural Education, 11(3), 12–23.
Cipolle, S. B. (2010). Service-learning and social justice: Engaging students in social change.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Pub Inc.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (2009). Teacher research as stance. In The SAGE handbook of
educational action research (pp. 39–49). SAGE Publications Ltd,
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9780857021021
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S.L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1167272
Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher
education. Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (Eds.). (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and
knowledge. Teachers College Press.
Coghlan, D. (2019). Doing action research in your own organization. Sage.
Colby, A., Beaumont, E., Ehrlich, T., & Stephens, J. (2003). Educating citizens: Preparing
America's undergraduates for lives of moral and civic responsibility (Vol. 6). John Wiley
& Sons.
Cole, T. (2012, March 21). The white-savior industrial complex. The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-white-savior-industrial-
complex/254843/
186

Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change
in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3–14.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x031004003
Coomey, S., Wilczenski, F. (2007). A practical guide to service learning: Strategies for positive
development in schools. Springer.
Corey, S. M. (1954). Action research in education. The journal of educational research, 47(5),
375–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1954.10882121
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. (3rd ed.). Sage.
Cruz, N. (1990). A challenge to the notion of service. National Society for Internships and
Experiential Education.
Cunningham, D. (2011). Improving teaching with collaborative action research: An ASCD
action tool. ASCD.
Deans, T. (1999). Service-learning in two keys: Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy in relation to
John Dewey’s pragmatism. Michigan Publishing.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Project Gutenberg.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of reflective thinking to the educative process.
Heath.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Touchstone.
187

Drago-Severson, E., & Blum-Destefano, J. (2017). The self in social justice: A developmental
lens on race, identity, and transformation. Harvard Educational Review, 87(4), 457–481.
https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-87.4.457
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a "professional learning community?” Educational
leadership, 61(8), 6–11.
DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. (2013). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning
communities at work TM. Solution Tree Press.
Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for
moving from theory to practice in urban schools (Vol. 285). Peter Lang.
Eby, J. (1998). Why service-learning is bad. University of Omaha.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Education.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy- value-motivational-theory/
Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. A. (2002). Community programs to promote youth
development. National Academy Press.
Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. (2021, March 28). In Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._Kennedy_Serve_America_Act
Edwards, B., Mooney, L., & Heald, C. (2001). Who is being served? The impact of student
volunteering on local community organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 30(3), 444–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764001303003
Easton Country Day School (n.d.). Kincheloe and Steinberg’s taxonomy of multicultural
education. K12academics. https://www.k12academics.com/education-
issues/multicultural-education/kincheloe-steinbergs-taxonomy-multicultural-education.
188

Ehrlich, T. (1997). Civic learning:" Democracy and education" revisited. Educational
Record, 78(3–4), 56–65.
Einfeld, A., & Collins, D. (2008). The relationships between service-learning, social justice,
multicultural competence, and civic engagement. Journal of College Student
Development, 49(2), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2008.0017
Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths
of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297–325.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.59.3.058342114k266250
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED475871
Ender, M. G., Martin, L., Cotter, D. A., Kowalewski, B. M., & Defiore, J. (2000). Given an
opportunity to reach out: Heterogeneous participation in optional service-learning
projects. Teaching Sociology, 28(3), 206–219. https://doi.org/10.2307/1318990
Escudero, B. (2019). How to practice culturally relevant pedagogy. Teachforamerica.
https://www.teachforamerica.org/stories/how-to-engage-culturally-relevant-pedagogy
Eyler, J., & Giles Jr, D. E. (1999). Where's the learning in service-learning? Jossey-Bass.
Fabricant, M. (1988). Beyond bed and board: Teaching about homelessness. Journal of Teaching
in Social Work, 2(2), 113–130.
Flores, M. (2007). Navigating contradictory communities of practice in learning to teach for
social justice. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(4), 380–404.
https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2007.38.4.380
Forbes, K., Garber, L., Kensinger, L., & Slagter, J. T. (1999). Punishing pedagogy: The failings
of forced volunteerism. Women's Studies Quarterly, 27(3/4), 158–168.
189

Foshay, A. W. (1993). Action research: An early history in the US. Curriculum History.
Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogía del oprimido. Servicioskoinonia.
https://www.servicioskoinonia.org/biblioteca/general/FreirePedagogiadelOprimido.pdf
Freire, P., Maria, A., & Barr, R. R. (1994). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the
oppressed. Bloomsbury Academic.
Furco, A. (1996). Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education.
Digitalcommons. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slceslgen/128/
Furco, A. (2013). A research agenda for K–12 school-based service-learning: Academic
achievement and school success. International Journal of Research on Service-Learning
and Community Engagement, 1(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.37333/001c.001001004
Gabelnick, F. (1997). Educating a committed citizenry. Change: The Magazine of Higher
Learning, 29(1), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091389709603111
Garmston, R. J., & Wellman, B. M. (2016). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing
collaborative groups. Rowman & Littlefield.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. BasicBooks.
Ginwright, S., & Cammarota, J. (2002). New terrain in youth development: The promise of a
social justice approach. Social Justice, 29(4), 82–95.
Giroux, H. A. (1999). Schools for sale: Public education, corporate culture, and the citizen-
consumer. The Educational Forum, 63(2), 140–149.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131729908984404
Giroux, H., & Kincheloe, J. L. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of
education. Journal of Education, 174(1), 130–135.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002205749217400110
190

Glickman, C. D. (1993). Restructuring policy for America’s Schools. NASSP Bulletin, 77(549),
87–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659307754913
Goleman, D. (2004, January). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2004/01/what-makes-a-leader
Gore, J. M., & Zeichner, K. M. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice
teacher education: A case study from the United States. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 7(2), 119–136.
Goswami, D., & Stillman, P. R. (1987). Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an
agency for change. Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.
Gramsci, A., Hoare, Q., & Nowell-Smith, G. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of
Antonio Gramsci. International Publishers.
Graves, D. H. (1981). Research update: Where have all the teachers gone? Language Arts, 58(4),
492–497. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ245653
Green, A. E. (2003). Difficult stories: Service-learning, race, class, and whiteness. College
Composition and Communication, 55(2), 276–301. https://doi.org/10.2307/3594218
Green, E. L. (2017, May 25). Trump’s budget, breaking tradition, seeks cuts to service programs.
The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/us/politics/trump-budget-
americorps-peace-corps-service.html
Greenberg, J. B. (1989, April). Funds of knowledge: Historical constitution, social distribution,
and transmission. In annual meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Santa Fe,
NM.
Habermas, J. (1972). Toward a rational society: Student protest, science, and politics (Vol. 404).
Beacon Press.
191

Harper, N. (1999). Urban churches, vital signs: Beyond charity toward justice. W.B. Eerdmans.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. (2005). The action research dissertation a guide for students and
faculty. SAGE Publications.
hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress. Routledge.
Human Rights Careers. (2021). Home. https://www.humanrightscareers.com/
Hutchinson Jr, G. C. (2002). Writing toward democracy: Service-learning and composition.
Digitalcommons.
International Baccalaureate Organization (2021, May). Facts about IB programmes and schools.
https://www.ibo.org/about-the-ib/facts-and-figures/
Johnson, A., McKay-Jackson, C., & Grumbach, G. (2018). Critical service learning toolkit:
Social work strategies for promoting healthy youth development. Oxford University
Press.
Jones, P. S. (2003). Urban regeneration’s poisoned chalice: Is there an impasse in (community)
participation-based policy? Urban Studies, 40(3), 581–601.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098032000053932
Jones, S. R., & Hill, K. (2001). Crossing High Street: Understanding diversity through
community service-learning. Journal of College Student Development 42(3), 204–216.
Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (1996). In the service of what. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(9), 592–599.
Kaye, C. B. (2010). The complete guide to service learning: Proven, practical ways to engage
students in civic responsibility, academic curriculum, & social action. Free Spirit
Publishing.
192

Kelly, D., & Brooks, M. (2009). How young is too young? Exploring beginning teachers’
assumptions about young children and teaching for social justice. Equity & Excellence in
Education, 42(2), 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680902739683
Kemmis, S. (1982). The action research reader. Deakin University Press.
Kemmis, S., & Di Chiro, G. (1987). Emerging and evolving issues of action research praxis: An
Australian perspective. Peabody Journal of Education, 64(3), 101–130.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01619568709538561
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, P. (1987). Critical reflection. Staff development for school
improvement, 73–90.
Kendall, J. C. (1990). Combining service and learning: A resource book for community and
public service (Vol. 2). National Society for Internships and Experiential Education.
Kezar, A., & Rhoads, R. A. (2001). The dynamic tensions of service learning in higher
education: A philosophical perspective. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 148–
171. https://doi.org/10.2307/2649320
Khatami, E. (2019, March 13). Trump seeks to get rid of service programs like AmeriCorp,
SeniorCorp in budget proposal. Thinkprogress. https://archive.thinkprogress.org/trump-
white-house-2020-budget-scraps-americorps-senior-corps-799fd69177e0/
Kincheloe, J. (2004). The knowledges of teacher education: Developing a critical complex
epistemology. Teacher Education Quarterly (Claremont, Calif.), 31(1), 49–66.
Kincheloe, J. L. (1991). Teachers as researchers: qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment.
Routledge.
Kincheloe, J. L., & Steinberg, S. R. (1997). Changing multiculturalism. Open University Press.
193

Kincheloe, J., & Steinberg, S. (1993). A tentative description of post-formal thinking: The
critical confrontation with cognitive theory. Harvard Educational Review, 63(3), 296–
321. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.63.3.h423221226v18648
Kinefuchi, E. (2010). Critical consciousness and critical service-learning at the intersection of
the personal and the structural. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 2, 77–
93.
Kipling, R. (1899, February 4) White-man’s burden: the United States and the Philippine Island.
The Times (London).
Kirshner, B., O’Donoghue, J., & McLaughlin, M. (2005). Youth-adult research collaborations:
Bringing youth voice to the research process. In J. Mahoney, R. Larson, & J. Eccles
(Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after-
school and community programs, (pp. 131 –156). Psychology Press.
Kolb, D. (1984, 2014). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and
development. Prentice-Hall.
Koliba, C. J. (2004). Service-learning and the downsizing of democracy: Learning our way
out. Michigan journal of community service learning, 10(2), 57–68.
Krain, M., & Nurse, A. M. (2004). Teaching human rights through service learning. Human
Rights Quarterly, 26(1), 189–207.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A. K. A. the remix. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
educational research journal, 32(3), 465–491.
194

Lake, V. E., & Jones, I. (2012). Service learning in the PreK–3 classroom: The what, why, and
how-to guide for every teacher. Free Spirit Publishing.
Lansverk, M. (2004). An apologie for service learning. The Montana Professor, 14(2).
Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 257–277.
Latta, M., Kruger, T. M., Payne, L., Weaver, L., & VanSickle, J. L. (2018). Approaching critical
service-learning: A model for reflection on positionality and possibility. Journal of
Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 22(2), 31–55.
Learning for Justice. (2021). Learning justice standards.
https://www.learningforjustice.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/TT-Social-Justice-
Standards-June-2019.pdf
Lerner, R. M., Alberts, A. E., Bobek, D. L., (2007). Thriving youth, flourishing civil society:
How positively developing young people may contribute to democracy and social justice.
Bertelsmann Foundation.
Levinson, S., & White, J. B. (1990). Conversing about justice. The Yale Law Journal, 100(6),
1855. https://doi.org/10.2307/796789
Liamputtong, P., & Ezzy, D. (2005). Qualitative research methods (Vol. 2). Melbourne: Oxford
university press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Validity trustworthiness and rigor: Quality and the idea of
qualitative research. Methodological Issues in Nursing Research, 304–310.
Lipton, L., & Wellman, B. M. (2011). Leading groups: Effective strategies for building
professional community. Miavia.
Liston, D., & Zeichner, K. (1991). Research for teaching and teacher education. D. LISTON,
118–153.
195

Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An Introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage.
Love, N. (2009). Using data to improve learning for all: A collaborative inquiry approach.
Corwin Press.
Malaguzzi, L. (1998). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach--
advanced reflections (2nd ed.). Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Malloy, C. (2011). Moving beyond data: Practitioner-led inquiry fosters change. Edge, (6), 4.
Martin, F., & Pirbhai-Illich, F. (2015). Service learning as post-colonial discourse: Active global
citizenship. In Contesting and constructing international perspectives in global
education (pp. 133–150). Brill Sense.
Marullo, S. (1998). Bringing home diversity: A service-learning approach to teaching race and
ethnic relations. Teaching Sociology, 26(4), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.2307/1318767
Marullo, S., & Edwards, B. (2000). From charity to justice: The potential of university-
community collaboration for social change. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 895–
912. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027640021955540
Masucci, M., & Renner, A. (2001). The evolution of critical service learning for education: Four
problematics. University of Tennessee.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.) Sage.
Maybach, C. (1996). Investigating urban community needs: Service learning from a social
justice perspective. Education and Urban Society, 28(2), 224–236.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124596028002007
196

McBride, A. M., Brav, J., Menon, N., & Sherraden, M. (2006). Limitations of civic service:
Critical perspectives. Community Development Journal, 41(3), 307–320.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsl010
McCarty, T., & Lee, T. (2014). Critical culturally sustaining/revitalizing pedagogy and
indigenous education sovereignty. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 101–124.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.q83746nl5pj34216
McCutcheon, G., & Jung, B. (1990). Alternative perspectives on action research. Theory into
Practice, 29(3), 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849009543447
McKernan, J. (1988). Teacher as researcher: Paradigm and praxis. Contemporary Education,
59(3), 154–158.
McNeil, L. L. (2000). Childcare and experiential knowledge: Expanding definitions of childcare
[Doctoral dissertation]. Western Michigan University.
McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2011). All you need to know about action research. Sage
Publications.
McTaggart, R. (1987). Pedagogical principles for aboriginal teacher education. The Aboriginal
Child at School, 15(4), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0310582200015029
Melchior, A., Frees, J., Lacava, L., Kingsley, C., Nahas, J., Power, J., Baker, G., Blomquist, J.,
George, A., Hebert, S., Jastrzab, J., & Helfer, C. (1999). Summary report: National
evaluation of learn and serve America. Digitalcommons.
https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=slceeval
Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. John
Wiley & Sons.
197

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mertler, C.A. (2012). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators (3rd ed).
SAGE.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2000). The transformative power of learning. Jossey-Bass.
Mills, S. (2012). The four furies: Primary tensions between service-learners and host agencies.
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 19(1), 33–43.
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0019.103
Milner, H. R. (2003). Reflection, racial competence, and critical pedagogy: How do we prepare
pre-service teachers to pose tough questions? Race, Ethnicity and Education, 6(2), 193–
208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320308200
Mitchell, T. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to
differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2), 50–
65
Mitra, D. L. (2005). Adults advising youth: Leading while getting out of the way. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 520–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x04269620
Mitra, D., & Serriere, S. C. (2015). Civic education in the elementary grades: Promoting student
engagement in an era of accountability. Teachers College Press.
Moll, L. (2006). Reflections and possibilities. In Funds of Knowledge (pp. 287–300). Routledge.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into
practice, 31(2), 132–141.
198

Moll, L.C., González, N., & Amanti, C. (2006). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in
households, communities, and classrooms. Routledge.
Monard-Weissman, K. (2003). Fostering a sense of justice through international service-learning.
Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7(2), 164–169.
Morton, K. (1995). The irony of service: Charity, project and social change in service-learning.
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2(1), 19–32.
Myers-Lipton, S. J. (1998). Effect of a comprehensive service-learning program on college
students’ civic responsibility. Teaching Sociology, 26(4), 243–258.
National Center for Education Statistics (1999, September). Service-learning and community
service in K–12 public schools. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999043.pdf
National Center on Educational Outcomes (2016). Standards and accountability.
https://nceo.info/standardsandaccountability
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical, & Behavioral
Research. (1978). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the
protection of human subjects of research (Vol. 2). The Commission.
National Youth Leadership Council. (2021). In Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Youth_Leadership_Council
National Youth Leadership Council. (2021). K-12 Service-learning standards.
https://www.nylc.org/page/standards
Nieto, S. (1992). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (3rd
ed.). Longman.
No Child Left Behind Act. (2021, June 5). In Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act
199

Noddings N. (1984). A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. University of
California Press.
Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: an alternative approach to education.
Teachers College Press.
Oakes, L. E. (2018). In search of the canary tree: The story of a scientist, a cypress, and a
changing world. Hachette UK.
O’Grady, C.R. (2000). Integrating service learning and multicultural education in colleges and
universities. Routledge.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,
66(4), 543–578. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Education.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Palacios, C. (2010). Service-Learning in theory and practice: The future of community
engagement in higher education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 42(1), 79–80.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1492.2010.01113.x
Palmer, P. J. (1999). Let your life speak: Listening for the voice of vocation. John Wiley & Sons.
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining
pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77
Parker-Gwin, R., & Mabry, J. B. (1998). Service learning as pedagogy and civic education:
Comparing outcomes for three models. Teaching Sociology, 26(4), 276–291.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1318768
200

Pelco, L. E. (2014). Reflection: The hyphen between service & learning. Virginia
Commonwealth University.
Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity—one’s own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17–21.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x017007017
Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup
contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 271–280.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001
Piaget, J. (1936). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press.
Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development,
15(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1159/000271225
Picower, B. (2012). Resisting compliance: Learning to teach for social justice in a neoliberal
context. Teachers College Record, 113(5), 1105–1134.
https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v14i1.484
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. The Tacit Dimension.
Pompa, L. (2002). Service-learning as crucible: reflections on immersion, context, power, and
transformation. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(1), 67–75.
Pope, R., Reynolds, A., & Mueller, J. (2004). Multicultural competence in student affairs.
Jossey-Bass.
Proyrungroj, R. (2015). The attitudes of Thai hosts towards western volunteer tourists. European
Journal of Tourism Research, 11, 102–124. https://doi.org/10.54055/ejtr.v11i.197
201

Ratcliffe, J. W. (1983). Notions of validity in qualitative research methodology. Knowledge,
5(2), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554708300500201
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2019). Chapter 2: Conceptual frameworks in research. In
Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. (2nd ed.,
pp. 32–61). Sage.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative
inquiry and practice. Sage Publications.
Rector-Aranda, A. (2019). The function of freedom. The Wiley Handbook of Action Research in
Education, 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119399490.ch22
Rhoads, R. (1997). Community service and higher learning: Explorations of the caring self.
State University of New York Press.
Robinson, T. (2000). Dare the school build a new social order? Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning, 7(1).
Rochester, J. M. (2017). Social justice miseducation in our schools. St. Louis Post‐Dispatch.

Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking.
Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00181
Rogoff, B., Turkanis, C. G., & Bartlett, L. (2001). Learning together: Children and adults in a
school community. Oxford University Press.
Rosado, C. (1996). Toward a definition of multiculturalism. Rosado consulting for change in
human systems.
Rosenberger, C. (2000). Beyond empathy: Developing critical consciousness through service
learning. In C. R. O’Grady (Ed.), Integrating service learning and multicultural
202

education in colleges and universities (pp. 39–60). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606051-9
Rosenthal, R. (2000). Feminists in action: How to practice what we teach. In I. Shor., & C. Pari.
(Eds.), Education is politics: Critical teaching across differences, postsecondary. (107–
123). Boynton/Cook.
Saavedra, E. (1996). Teachers study groups: Contexts for transformative learning and
action. Theory into Practice, 35(4), 271–277.
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Saleeby, D. (1996). The strengths based perspective in social work: Extensions and
cautions. Social Work, 41(3), 296–305.
Saltmarsh, J. (1996). Education for critical citizenship: John Dewey’s contribution to the
pedagogy of community service learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service
Learning, 3(1), 13–21.
Schmuck, R. A. (2006). Practical action research for change. Corwin Press.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. Temple Smith.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass Publisher.
Sigmon, R. L. (1979). Service-learning: Three principles. Synergist, 8(1), 9–11.
Sigmon, R. L. (1994). Serving to learn, learning to serve. Linking service with learning. Council
for Independent Colleges Report.
Slayton, J., & Mathis, J. (2010). Building the leaders we need: The role of presence, learning
conditions, and andragogy in developing leaders who can change the face of public Pre-K
through 12 education. Global perspectives on educational leadership reform: The
203

development and preparation of leaders of learning and learners of leadership, 23–45.
https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-3660(2010)0000011005
Sleeter, C. (2000). Strengthening multicultural education with community-based service
learning. In Integrating Service Learning and Multicultural Education in Colleges and
Universities (pp. 279–292). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606051-24
Sleeter, C. E. (1996). Multicultural education as social activism. SUNY Press.
Smink, J., Duckenfield, E., & Marty, E. (1998). Making the case for service-learning. Action
research & evaluation guidebook for teachers. ED, 430, 141–142.
Steinberg, S. R., & Kincheloe, J. L. (1998). Students as researchers: Creating classrooms that
matter. Falmer Press.
Stiggins, R. J. (1999). Assessment, student confidence, and school success. Phi Delta Kappan,
81(3), 191–198.
Stoecker, R., & Tryon, E. (2009). The unheard voices: Community organizations and service
learning. Temple University Press.
Swadener, B. B. (2010). "At risk" or "at promise"? From deficit constructions of the "other
childhood" to possibilities for authentic alliances with children and families.
International Critical Childhood Policy Studies, 3, 7–29.
Takacs, D. (2003). How does your positionality bias your epistemology? Thought &
Action, 19(1), 27–38.
Tapia, J. C. (1991). Cultural reproduction: Funds of knowledge as survival strategies in the
Mexican-American community. The University of Arizona.
https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/185619
204

Tillman, L. C. (2003). Mentoring, reflection, and reciprocal journaling. Theory into Practice,
42(3), 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4203_9
Tisdell, E. J. (2003). Exploring spirituality and culture in adult and higher education. John
Wiley & Sons.
Toole, J., & Toole, P. (1995). Reflection as a tool for turning service experiences into learning
experiences. In C. Kinsley and K. MacPherson (Eds.), Enriching the curriculum through
service-learning (99–114). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
University of Central Arkansas. (2021). Service-learning. https://uca.edu/servicelearning/types/
Vadeboncoeur, J. A., Rahm, J., Aguilera, D., & Lecompte, M. D. (1996). Building democratic
character through community experiences in teacher education. Education and Urban
Society, 28(2), 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124596028002005
Varlotta, L. E. (1997). A critique of service-learning’s definitions, continuums, and paradigms: A
move towards a discourse-praxis community. Educational Foundations, 11(3), 53–85.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The
collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1), problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285).
Plenum Press.
Wade, R. C. (2000). From a distance: Service-learning and social justice. In C. R. O’Grady (Ed),
Integrating service learning and multicultural education in colleges and universities (pp.
93–111). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606051-9
Wade, R. C. (2001). Social action in the social studies: From the ideal to the real. Theory into
Practice, 40(1), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4001_4
Wade, R. C. (2007). Social studies for social justice: Teaching strategies for the elementary
classroom. Teaching for Social Justice.
205

Wade, R. C., & Yarbrough, D. B. (1997). Community service learning in student teaching:
Toward the development of an active citizenry. Michigan Journal of Community Service
Learning, 4, 42–55.
Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2000). Community-centered service learning: Moving from
doing for to doing with. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 767–780.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00027640021955586
Windholz, A. (2017, June 27). Unpacking white saviorism. Medium.
https://anniewindholz.medium.com/unpacking-white-saviorism-7d7b659dcbb3
Wood, C. (2007). Yardsticks: Children in the classroom, ages 4-14 (3rd ed.). Center For
Responsive Schools, Inc.
Woodson, R. L. (1998). The triumphs of Joseph: How today's community healers are reviving
our streets and neighborhoods. Simon and Schuster.

206

Appendix A: K–12 NYLC Service Learning Standards (2008)
Figure A
K-12 Service-Learning Standards

207

208

209

Note. National Youth Leadership Council. (2021). K-12 Service-learning standards.
https://www.nylc.org/page/standards

210

Appendix B: Social Justice Standards
Figure B
Social Justice Standards (2021)

211

212

Note. Learning for Justice. (2021). Learning justice standards.
https://www.learningforjustice.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/TT-Social-Justice-Standards-June-
2019.pdf

213

Appendix C: Interest Screener
Hello! Thank you for agreeing to participate in this short interest survey. The purpose of
this interest survey is to inform you about a service-learning planning opportunity and invite
your participation to be part of this think tank. The goal of the think tank is for a group of
teachers to design a service-learning framework for our elementary school. Upon completion, the
think tank will then present our framework to the Social Studies Review Committee and
leadership.
If this is not your thing, then no need to keep reading. Have a good day!
If this opportunity still sounds interesting, kindly read the details below and complete the interest
survey by Friday.
• The think tank will be made up of 4–6 early childhood or elementary school teachers
(out of classroom, specialty and support teachers are welcome).
• Meetings will focus on reviewing current research and practices in service-learning
and designing a service-learning approach that matches our school’s needs and goals.
• There will be up to six meetings between September 2021 and February 2022.
• 3 meetings will take place during the school day (half day coverage) and 3 meetings
will take place after school at an agreed upon time by the group (the afterschool
meetings will be 2 hr in duration).
• Once the framework has been completed, each participant will be interviewed
regarding the collaborative design process.
• Each participant will receive a gift card at the end of the collaboration.
Finally, thank you for considering to be part of this initiative!

214

1. How many years have you worked as an
educator? (counting years before ISA)
1 or less ___
2–5 years ___
6–10 years ___
11–15 years ___
16 or more years___
2. What grade do you currently teach?
Pre-K: class___ out of class___
Kindergarten: class___ out of class___
G1: class___ out of class___
G2: class___ out of class___
G3: class___ out of class___
G4: class___ out of class___
G5: class___ out of class___
3. Here are some key takeaways that may
come out of a service-learning project.
Please rank them in importance, from
least important (1) to most important
(5).
Please mark each item with an
importance rank, ranging 1 to 5.
Students develop empathy ___

Students learn about cultural / ability /
cognitive / age / gender diversity ___

Students learn about the strengths of their
community ___
The community connects with students
___
Through reflection and discussion,
students face possible biases and
misconceptions ___
Students gain a sense of responsibility to
help others ___
Students build new relationships ___
The community is empowered to solve its
own challenges ___
Students practice collaborative skills with
each other and community members ___
Students enjoy themselves___
4. In a typical year, do you think every
classroom should be involved in at least
1 service-learning project across the
academic year? (not considering
pandemic-like situations)
Yes ___

No ___

No Sure ___
5. What improvements would you make to
our current approach to service-learning
in the elementary school? (bullet points
welcome)
Open Response
6. Anything you want to share about
previous service-learning experience?
Open Response
215

7. How would you rate you interest in
joining this collaborative design
opportunity?
1: somewhat interested
5: I’ve been dreaming about such an
opportunity! Thank you!

1
2
3
4
5
8. Anything else you would like to know
from me?

Open Response

I’ll reach out after Friday with next steps.

Thank you for your time!

Francesca Cecchi

216

Appendix D: Peer Practitioner Exit Interview
Interviewer: Research assistant
Interviewee: Individual exit interviews with each peer practitioner
Research Assistant: Hello. Here is a message from the Principal Investigator, Francesca:
Thank you for having taken part in my collaborative action research study. I have learned so
much from our discussions and am really proud of our outcomes. I have asked our colleague, to
conduct this interview so that you may feel more comfortable in being completely honest about
your experience. Please know that although I am aware of the identity of the five peer
practitioners, your specific answers will be coded for me, so I will not be able to match any
responses to particular practitioners. I deeply appreciate your thoughtful contributions in our
sessions and the time that you have set aside to respond to this exit interview.
As your PI mentioned earlier, this exit interview should take about 20 minutes. Does that
still work for you? In addition, your PI wants you to know that she will keep the confidential
interviews in a password protected computer.
The goal of this exit interview is to understand your experience as part of the
collaborative action research process. Do you have any questions for me regarding the study or
your participation in this interview?
I would like to remind you that this conversation will be audio recorded and then
transcribed as text, so that your identity will be protected.

1. Overall, how would you rate your
experience in the collaborative action
research group?

1–5.
1: Disappointing
2: Somewhat disappointing
3: Neutral
4: Enjoyable
5: Very enjoyable – I got so much out
of it!
217

2. Please describe why you chose this
rating.

Open Response
3. What, if any, might be some lessons you
learned about service-learning by being
part of this think tank?

4. In what ways did the layout of the
physical space affect your learning, if at
all?

5. The first two sessions were designed to
be different from the following 4
sessions in that Francesca moved from
facilitator to co-facilitator. How did your
experience change from the first 2
sessions to the last four sessions, if at all?
(expand as needed)
6. How did this affect your participation, if
at all?

7. Take a minute to think about a
meaningful moment you experienced in
one of the sessions. Please describe the
moment. Why was this moment
meaningful for you?

8. What were the biggest challenges of
being part of this think tank? (more than
1)

9. What might have helped address the
challenges that were encountered?

10. The concept of funds of knowledge was
central to designing the ISA service-
learning framework. This concept
describes the understanding that
everyone has knowledge that can be
shared, and that knowledge takes on
many forms – not only academic. This is
evident in the crucial role that
“relationships” play in the framework.
11. Please describe how your own funds of
knowledge was considered throughout
the sessions, if at all.

12. What experiences that resulted from
being part of this group would you
recommend for future think tanks, if
any?

218

13. What connections might exist between
service-learning ideas and how we
designed our think tank?

14. After having experienced this think tank,
what do you feel are factors adult
learners need in order to design a project
for their organization?

Closing Comments:
Thank you so much for sharing your experiences with me and the PI today.

219

Appendix E: My Final Reflection (Shared With PP via Email)
It’s hard for me to believe that we have come to the end of our sessions together. I will be
honest and during our last session, I felt a bit beat up. I felt there is still more to do and I wish we
could have been able to wrap up our outcomes in a neat bow and present them as a gift to ISA.
The work felt hard at the end. After a week lingering in this mindset, I have reflected on this not-
so-helpful feeling and have come up with 3 points that I want to share with you all in the hopes
that they might bring you some comfort (if you need it) as they did for me.
First of all, reflecting on and recognizing what we have accomplished is critical. In our
time together, we learned about the evolution of service-learning, built shared understanding,
defined service-learning for ISA, synthesized domains and principles from our understanding
that will guide future work, and we have begun a framework for the school. The most important
part of these outcomes is that we’ve designed them through collaboration and mutual respect for
each other. This is pretty huge and deserves lots of kudos.
After debriefing with some trusted people, the second point that I realized is that the
creation of a framework is an enormous undertaking involving hundreds of hours and many more
adults. The truth is I think we need teachers to explore how to apply these domains to units. We
can’t presume to be experts of an entire grade’s curriculum. It is simply not a realistic goal, nor a
fair one, to create the whole framework, down to how our vision would fit in each unit, without
the collaboration of other voices. The end of our sessions are not the end of the work for ISA if it
wants to actualize service-learning at our school. I have to accept that.
Finally, the process of action research and the role of facilitators is a complicated one.
While it is meant to be empowering, and throughout most of the sessions this approach led to
tangible outcomes, going through it has revealed that there are moments where a facilitator in
220

charge may have been helpful. Or at least, that, as a group, asking for help could be part of the
process - just because you reach out to other knowledgeable individuals, doesn’t mean you’re not
doing action research or democratizing our voices—as long as it’s the group who agrees on
reaching out, and not a single group member deciding.
In answering my research question, now I can say that a group of peers design a
framework by ensuring they have a shared understanding, by collaborating on a shared definition
unique to their context, by synthesizing domains and principles which will guide their work, and
by being in tune with their emotional state so as to take it in stride, reflect on it regularly, and
take collaborative actions to address the struggle. In some moments, this may mean to reach out
and ask others for guidance. In that regard, I feel guilty about setting our expectations too high
by saying we hope to build a framework since I now recognize how much cognitive and
emotional energy it takes to get as far as we have while collaborating all along the way. I feel we
could give Courtney Malloy (the author of the process we adapted) some tips on including
smaller landmark goals that can be checked off along the way, so that we may keep our goals in
perspective and our encouragement going. This is the work I have to do with myself to separate
the learning of the process from my individual role as just another learner, not expert, in our
group. As we all know, learning is a risky business.
So, in this spirit, let us recognize and celebrate the strong (and beautifully worded)
definition we have set as a foundation for future work, the principles we designed which will
guide us, and the framework which we have begun. I am very proud of what we have
accomplished and am so grateful for your energy, time, collaboration, understanding and
honesty.

221

In deep gratitude,
Francesca.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Full title: Centering diverse funds of knowledge toward reciprocally beneficial practices: peer-practitioners engage in collaborative action research to design a critical service-learning framework for an elementary school. Service-learning is defined and applied in myriad ways across the world. While the roots of this pedagogy lie in the well-intentioned acts of addressing unmet social needs and, in general, helping people, this has not always been the outcome of the interactions. In many cases, engaging in service-learning has led to harmful reproductions of post-colonialism dynamics, saviorism and disempowerment of the service recipients. Throughout the last decades, social and pedagogical movements such as multiculturalism, culturally relevant and sustaining pedagogy, and social justice education have led to the evolution of service-learning, towards a more reciprocally beneficial practice among all service partners. At the heart of this evolving pedagogy is building authentic relationships that reveal funds of knowledge, practicing ongoing critical reflection, and engaging in reciprocally beneficial practices where both parties are co-constructing a project. In addition, this researcher believes in order to design a critically-minded, service-learning framework that fits a unique organizational context, the organization itself needs to apply those concepts in their design process. This researcher believes collaborative action research is the means that can align content concepts to the design process. While research exists on service-learning and on designing frameworks, research that explores the intersection of designing a critical service-learning framework on the developmental level of elementary aged students is very limited. This study was guided by the following research question: How do teachers design a reciprocally beneficial service-learning framework for an elementary school? Data for this research was gathered through peer-practitioners’ (PP) reflections after every session, audio-recording of each session totalling 18 hours, and the PP exit interviews. The six PP met for six sessions, between October 2021 and February 2022. The analysis of the data resulted in the following six findings: (a) The role of andragogy; (b) the role of collaborative action research; (c) funds of knowledge; (d) leadership impact; (e) organizational context; and (f) environmental factors.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Collaboration among interdisciplinary teaching teams: a gap analysis

PDF

The enactment of equitable mathematics teaching practices: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

Noticing identity: a critically reflective cycle to leverage student mathematical funds of knowledge and identity

PDF

4th space teaching: incorporating teachers' funds of knowledge, students' funds of knowledge, and school knowledge in multi-centric teaching

PDF

Technology integration and self-efficacy of in-service secondary teachers in an international school

PDF

How does working in an ILE at ISSA influence teacher practice?

PDF

Incorporation of culturally relevant pedagogy to improve my practice and address the opportunity gap

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

Integrating project-based learning and work-based learning into a coherent program: is the sum worth more than its parts?

PDF

Cultivating seeds of support: growing the capacity of educators to create meaningful learning opportunities in math

PDF

Teachers assumptions on the importance of executive function: a gap analysis evaluation study

PDF

Turning toward practice: establishing group reflective practice among upper elementary educators

PDF

Cultivating a community of practice: an action research study on cultivating a community of practice that engages in trauma-informed dialogue and critical reflection

PDF

Developing standards-based Chinese curricula in international schools: a gap analysis for Eagle American School

PDF

The use of students funds of knowledge to increase college success among low-income and first-generation students

PDF

Critical hope for culturally responsive education: an improvement study

PDF

Exploring culturally relevant pedagogy in a Chinese immersion program: a gap analysis

PDF

Critical pedagogy for music education: cultivating teachers’ critical consciousness through critically reflective inquiry

PDF

Reflecting Asian American students in our social studies curriculum through culturally relevant pedagogy: a gap analysis

PDF

Cultural intelligence and self-efficacy of trip leaders on short-term international educational programs

Asset Metadata

Creator Cecchi, Francesca (author)

Core Title Centering diverse funds of knowledge toward reciprocally beneficial practices

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 08/05/2022

Defense Date 04/27/2022

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

Tag action research,collaborative action research,collaborative inquiry,critical service-learning,funds of knowledge,OAI-PMH Harvest,service-learning

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence (committee chair), Fraser, Alyssa (committee member), Robles, Darline (committee member)

Creator Email fcecchi@usc.edu,francesca.cecchi@outlook.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111376145

Unique identifier UC111376145

Legacy Identifier etd-CecchiFran-11107

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Cecchi, Francesca

Type texts

Source 20220805-usctheses-batch-970 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu