Abstract
Service-learning has been a topic of discussion since the late 1970s (see Furco, 1996) in particular with the definition and structure for the field. Furco (1996) draws on Sigmon’s (1979) attempt to develop a service-learning definition within a structure by examining five kinds of learning and service interactions that demonstrate the tension between learning and service. The spectrum moves from volunteerism, with little focus on learning occurring by the volunteers towards community service, service-learning, field experience and internships (Furco, 1996). Service-learning has a balance between the benefits experienced by the community partner and the learning experience by the service providers. Furco (1996) argues there must be an academic focus with service-learning. In more recent years, researchers Brownell and Swaner (2010) draw on Jacoby’s (1996) definition for service-learning, “Service-learning is a form of experiential education in which students engage in activities that address human, and community needs [that are addressed together] with structured opportunities intentionally designed to promote student learning and development” (p. 5). Greater specificity is given by Davis, et. al. (2019, cite Torres & Stinton, 2000).
“students [learn] how to apply new knowledge to action that addresses real problems in the …communities. Students [are] assigned challenging community tasks, which consider the community’s assessment of its own needs, strengths, and resources to be leveraged. Students receive academic credit for demonstrated knowledge in connecting their service experience with course content” (p. 147).
In this paper, I show how I designed service-learning into a mathematics course for elementary preservice teachers (PSTs).
Background
Classroom practice has advanced in the last thirty years for mathematics education teaching due to the work of the National Council of Mathematics Teachers (NCTM) publications, Principles and Standards (1989, 2000). Mathematics Teacher Educators (MTEs) are encouraged to foster conceptual understanding of the K-12 content first and then move towards fluency. PSTs in their programs engage in student teaching, but as Furco (2003) explains, this is not service-learning, because the “primary focus is still on the student teacher’s learning and overall benefit” (p. 5). Integrating service-learning into the course allowed me to perform a post analysis on the different types of service-learning which align best with the students and the community partner.
Hefferman (2001) identifies six different types of service-learning: Pure Service-Learning, Discipline Based Service-Learning Courses, Problem-Based Learning, Capstone Courses, Service Internships and Undergraduate Community Based Action Research. Pure Service-Learning has courses that are not within one discipline. Students serve but the notion is that service to the community is seen as being an engaged citizen. Discipline Based Service-Learning courses, like Pure Service-Learning, have the course content be the foundation for their analysis and understanding. Problem-Based Service-Learning students act as consultants to address community needs. Capstone Courses join the students’ knowledge within a discipline with the aim of exploring a new topic or gaining a deeper understanding about the discipline. Service Internships are like traditional internships, but the outcome is to produce a product that is of value to the community or community organization. Undergraduate Community Based Action Research joins together research methodology on pressing community needs or issues.
Yet, service-learning has been challenged over the last few decades because it “perpetuates the idea that higher education institutions have the answers and solutions and that communities are passive beneficiaries of these remedies (Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2012), that promotes a deficit model (Mitchell, 2007 cites Forbes, Garber, Kensinger, & Slagter, 1999; Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002). Other researchers contend (Mitchell, 2015, cites Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda, & Yee, 2000; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Neururer & Rhodes, 1998) that service-learning bolsters students’ cultural consciousness, leadership, and communication skills. We agree that traditional service-learning has its advantages, and we contend that inequities can develop in the traditional service-learning relationship. Critical Service-Learning is “attentive to social change, works to redistribute power and strives to develop authentic relationships” (Mitchell, 2015, p. 22-23). In addition, preparing for a productive and enjoyable experience for all stakeholders, I drew on Community-Academic Partnerships (CAPS) to inform my thinking. CAPS is “characterized by equitable control, a cause that is primarily relevant to the community of interest, and specific aims to achieve a goal(s) and involves community members (representative or agencies) that have knowledge of the cause, as well as academic researchers” (Drahota, et al. (2016, p 192). Mine is not a research collaboration, but it brings again to the forefront the notion of respecting the community partner as partners (Ward, & Wolf-Wendel, 2012). Likewise, a recent research project (Cotrupi, Morehead, & Mistele, 2022) focused on barriers between higher education institutions (HEI) and community-based partners (CBO) within my region. One major barrier identified by the community-based organizations was poor student behavior, which may suggest a lack of respect for the community partner by the students. To mitigate poor student behavior, I embraced the four phased planned approach offered by Sargent and Waters (2004), which promotes open dialogue between the partners to create an authentic relationship.
Sargent and Waters (2004) study long-term research projects to determine the mechanisms that produce successful and effective teams. From their research addressing large research projects with other HEIs and non-HEIs, they “buil[t] a process framework and explain[ed] the nature of the relationships between collaboration phases…” p.310). Although this case study is not based on a research project, their notions about collaborations hold true, even for less involved projects. Their framework includes four phases: initiation, clarification, implementation, and completion. Next, the phases are described and addressed in terms of the relationship between literacy non-profit staff and the math instructor.
Phase 1: Initiation is typically associated with previous experiences with a partner in which instrumental reasons are prompting the relationship (e.g. disseminations requirements, promotion, etc.) and intrinsic reasons (e.g. enjoy working together, enjoying the topic). These are present in successful partnerships. In this situation, there was no prior working relationship between the literacy staff and the Math 312 instructor.
Phase 2: Clarification focuses on the nature of collaboration. That is, the scope, timeline, goals. Figure 2 will summarize these outcomes linked to the clarification process.
Phase 3: Implementation relates to the fluidity of roles. That is, roles may be clearly stated at the onset, but they can change during the life cycle of the collaboration. In addition, time can prove problematic. The most successful collaborations practiced strong management skills (e.g. regular meetings with minutes, revisiting roles and responsibilities, deadlines). Although the collaboration in this article is less unwieldy and shorter in duration than a large-scale research project, we maintained regular meetings that included notes.
Phase 4: Completion is the point where evaluation occurs. Sargent and Waters (2004) identified objective outcomes (e.g. project met goals), subjective outcomes (e.g. articles published) and learning (e.g. improved research skills). At our last meeting, we reviewed the outcomes over the previous seven weeks.
These notions discussed above brought forth a new hybrid service-learning model: Critical Disciplined Base Service-Learning. This type of service-learning is grounded in a discipline while equally devoted to mutual respect and equality in the partnership to create an authentic productive working relationship.
The aim of this article is to share a case study about a service-learning experience between a non-profit community literacy organization and preservice teachers (PSTs) enrolled in a mathematics course offered in a mid-size university located in a rural community within a mid-Atlantic state.
Community Partnership
The small literacy non-profit is grounded in the notion that literacy is fundamental to success in all areas of life. They support adults in our region, who want greater independence through literacy. Their vision is to create “a community where every adult has the literacy skills they need to achieve their goals and participate fully in society. We believe that by empowering individuals through literacy, we can create a more just and equitable world” (https://www.literacynrv.org/about).
The literacy non-profit has several initiatives: English Language learning, GED preparation, US citizenship preparation, basic computer skills, Family READS, Reading, Writing and Math, Online English classes and Driver’s License and Professional certifications. The PSTs participated in the Family READS initiative where adults improve their English, reading, or writing skills while their children engage in fun, educational activities (e.g. Math activities, games, reading).
Mathematics Course and Preservice Teachers
The mathematics course, Math 312 Math for Social Analysis, is designed for PSTs. It is the last of three required mathematics courses taught, two out of the mathematics department and this is one of the two. The mathematical content includes algebra, probability, and statistics for grades K-8. Mathematics lessons also addressed social issues such as water quality and endangered species using real world data.
There are two overarching course goals: teaching conceptual understanding and addressing social concerns. Teaching conceptual understanding requires the PSTs to learn the math content with a deep understanding and use reformed pedagogical practices. The PSTs learn math from a teaching perspective that requires a deep and robust conceptual understanding of mathematical content based on Bruner’s (1966) concrete-pictorial-abstract pathway. In addition, they learn how to create mathematical activities to support conceptual understanding, re-enforcement, or fluency. Social issues were also addressed through the Semester Project: Research or Service-Learning. Other course requirements included eight online mathematics word problem sets, three in-class tests, the in-class final exam and attendance.
Semester Project Options
The class had 13 students ranging from freshman to juniors. The PSTs majors included: elementary education, middle school education, special education, and high school education. The students were free to choose between the Research option and the Service-Learning option for their semester project. Three PSTs chose the Research option; the Research Option provides access for students to deeply engage with a pressing social issue of their choice using mathematics for those who work full time. After they researched the topic, they created a mathematics activity about a social issue (e.g. Bullying using Statistics; Livable Wage using Algebra). At the end of the semester, they present their social issue topic and their mathematics activity in a gallery format.
Ten PSTs chose the service-learning option. They worked with a non-profit literacy organization to support their Family READS initiative. The components for each semester project option are detailed in Table 1. (See appendix A and B for the Student Handbooks that detail the expectations and provide templates for each semester project option).
Table 1. Semester Project Options
Research Option – See Appendix A | Service-Learning Option – See Appendix B |
1. Identify Social Issue | 1. Read Children’s Books chosen by non-profit |
2. Research Topic | 2. Choose Grade Band and math contentbased on Children’s Book. |
3. Weekly Discussion Board Engagementbased on a prompt. | 3. Attend bi-weekly sessions at the local library. |
4. Create a math activity to include:-Learning Objective-Virginia Standard of Learning Objective-Cognitive Demand Level (Stein, et al,2009) | 4. Create a math activity to include:-Learning Objective-Virginia Standard of Learning Objective-Cognitive Demand Level (Stein, et al, 2009) |
5. Semester Project Package – Due ExamDay | 5. Semester Project Package – Due Exam Day |
Service-Learning Experience
The Family READS initiative meets one evening each week in the local City library community room. The parents bring their children, which eliminates childcare concerns. The literacy staff, in partnership with the local public library, select books for children ages 3 to 8. The connection between mathematics and literacy is supported by research within the mathematics education community (Moje, 2007; Draper, 2002; Van De Walle, 2007; NCTM, 2000) and within the literacy community (e.g. Shannahan, et al, 2019).The children have varying levels of English language proficiency, and most of the school aged children are more fluent in English than their parents. Strengthening the parent’s English language skills helps these parents with employment, navigating their life in the community, and allows them to better support their children in and out of school.
There were seven weekly sessions located at the local Library that is close to the university. PSTs can walk to the library or use the city transit with their university ID cards. They met from 5:15 pm to 7:45 pm each Tuesday evening. The weekly sessions include full group time, parents with their children, and time when the parents and children are separated for specific activities. Each session opened with a potluck dinner which the PSTs were invited to attend. This was an asset for the PSTs since many students on our campus are food insecure. After dinner, the literacy staff read the selected book aloud to the full group. After the reading, the parents and the children split into separate groups. The parents are tutored in English reading, speaking, and writing by the staff. The children engage with the PSTs math activities based on the children’s book used each week. The book selection is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 1. Children’s Books Chosen by the non-profit
(2108). There was an Old Lady who Swallowed a Fly |
Call, D. & Balducci, M. (2022). Too Many Pigs and One Big Bad Wolf |
Citro, A. (N.D.). Pigeon Math |
Dewdney, A., (2007). Llama Llama Mad at Mama |
Keats, E. J., (1976). The Snowy Day |
Piper, W. (1989). The Little Engine that Could |
Rash, A. (2023. Eclipse |
The 10 PSTs volunteering to participate in the project was more than needed by the non-profit organization each week. Therefore, the PSTs were split into two groups of five. The groups alternated weeks: Group 1 attended weeks 1, 3, 5, 7 and Group 2 attended weeks 2, 4, 6, 7. Week 7 was a final celebratory meeting for the families, PSTs, and the literacy staff. Each PST group created a math activity for each grade band: PreK, K – 2, 3 – 5, and 6 – 8 that aligned with the attending children’s’ ages, 3 – 13. During the semester, some class time was dedicated to the semester projects, but most of the planning occurred outside of class. The group members would collaborate and help each other create engaging math activities for each grade band, knowing that not all activities would be enacted as this was not a requirement for the semester project. Class time was devoted to the mathematics that PSTs would use when creating their math activities for each grade band.
Reflecting
This section addresses the results of the service-learning experience from three perspectives: 1) course design, 2) community partnership process, and 3) students’ experiences.
Course Design Reflecting
The course design reflection is assessed using Furco, Brooks, Lopez, Matthews, Hirt, Schulzetenberg and Anderson (2023) Service-Learning Quality Assessment Tool (SLQAT). The 10 dimensions include: service-learning in the syllabus, reflection, diverse perspectives, assessment of student performance, flexibility in course design implementation, mutual benefit, feedback, risk management, use of resources and support for service-learning, and planning an articulation of service activity. Table 2 below shows the dimensions with a statement about the type of evidence required. The last column shows the self-assessment made by the instructor, which at this time indicates if the dimension was present or absent; quality of the dimension will be addressed in a future study. See appendix C for a full discussion about SLQAT. The results show 80% of the dimensions were addressed in this case study.
Table 2. Service-Learning Quality Assessment Tool (Furco, et al., 2023)
Dimension | Evidence Description | Assessment |
Syllabus | Is there evidence in the syllabus of a service-learning experience within the course design and/or course expectations? | Yes, see syllabus (Appendix D) |
Reflection | Is there evidence of activities that engage students in reflection on the service-learning experience? | Yes, end of semester reflection. |
Diverse Perspectives | Is there evidence that the course incorporates learning about diverse perspectives related to the service-learning experience? | No documented evidence. |
Assessment of Student Performance | Is there evidence that student performance related to the service-learning experience is assessed? | Yes, see the syllabus and the Service-Learning Handbook |
Flexibility in Course Design Implementation | Is there evidence of flexibility in the course if circumstances require changes to the service-learning experience or course expectations? | Yes, some. The main flexibility is that not all students may have the opportunity to engage with the children using their activity. |
Mutual Benefit | Is there evidence that that the service-learning experience is designed to provide benefit to the stakeholders? | Yes, informal notes/email communicating with the community partner. |
Feedback | Is there evidence that feedback on the service-learning experience is sought or included in the course? | Yes, student reflections, and zoom meeting with community partner.Informal from PSTs shared in class. |
Risk Management | Is there evidence that potential risks involved in the service-learning experience have been considered and addressed? | No, this was not considered. |
Use of Resources and Support for Service-Learning | Is there evidence that available institutional or external resources and support have been provided? | Yes, instructor provided copies of the children’s books to the PSTs as they prepared their math activity.Community partner provided dinner for the students. |
Planning and Articulation of Service Activity | Is there evidence of information provided to the students on what their course service activity entails? | Yes, see Service-Learning handbook |
Partnership Reflecting
Sargent and Waters (2004) created a four-phase framework: initiation, clarification, implementation, and completion. Each of these phases are assessed by the non-profit literacy staff, the Math 312 course instructor, and the PSTs.
Phase 1: As described above most partnerships begin with previous experiences. In this situation, there was no prior working relationship between the non-profit literacy organization and the Math 312 course instructor. The relationship was initiated by the non-profit organization when they contacted me in my part-time role as the Director of the Citizen Leader Program at my university. The previous semester, fall 2023, I notified the students in the Citizen Leader Program about an opportunity to earn volunteer hours with the non-profit. One student responded. The non-profit director, through an email, thanked me for providing such an outstanding student. This opened the door for me to ask if they would like to have PSTs from my Math course participate in their Family READS program. Although Sargent and Waters (2004) do not address situations in which no prior collaboration occurred, we can see the seeds were sown, to potentially fulfill phase 1 when I was contacted serving in an administration role.
Phase 2: Clarification focuses on the scope, timeline, goals. We met over zoom. A summary of our discussion is displayed in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2. Clarification Process
Non-Profit | Math Course | |
Scope | Support parents who are ELL in the local City | Preparing preservice teachers for K-8 teaching profession |
Timeline | 7 weeks | |
Goal | Assist in full group time and ensure theparents’ children are engaged in activities; Foster positive relationships with the children; Keep the childrenengaged. | Ensure the non-profit is meeting their goals. Experience creating appropriate mathematics activities based on the children’s book; Experience working with a culture that differs from your own |
Phase 3: Implementation relates to the fluidity of roles. Although the collaboration in this article is less unwieldy and shorter in duration than a large-scale research project, we maintained regular meetings. We met four times, twice before the Family READS initiative began, once during the service-learning experience, and once after the service-learning experience.
The one scheduled meeting during the service-learning experience occurred after each group had at least two site visits. At this meeting, the literacy staff shared their two concerns. One, some of the PSTs needed to be proactive when engaging with the children. There were times when the literacy staff noticed a child sitting alone away from the group and the PSTs did not ask the staff for strategies to engage the child. Two, a couple of the PSTs failed to notify the staff when they were ill and could not attend the Family READS scheduled meeting. I discussed the concerns expressed by the literacy staff with the PSTs during class on many occasions. Specifically, we discussed self-advocacy —asking for help and the importance of professionalism —proactively contacting the non-profit staff when they cannot attend. Likewise, I shared with the literacy staff that enacting every PSTs math activity is not a requirement for the course.
Phase 4: Completion entails evaluation. Sargent and Waters (2004) identified objective outcomes (e.g. project met goals), subjective outcomes (e.g. articles published) and learning (e.g. improved research skills). At our last meeting, we reviewed the outcomes over the previous seven weeks. According to these components, it shows that the objective outcomes or project goals were met on both sides. From our community partner’s perspective, the PSTs successfully assisted the staff during whole group sessions, they fostered positive relationships with the children, and for the most part kept the children engaged during the math activity time. From the instructor’s perspective the objective outcomes were met as the PSTs supported the non-profit to meet their goals, they produced math activities, and they learned from and about a culture that differs from their own.
PSTs Reflecting
The preservice teachers’ perspectives are found in their final course reflections and through some personal conversation I had with them before class. In conversations, one PST shared “I like how they treated us as equals.” This shows that the PSTs were feeling like full members in this diverse community. In a following conversation I had with a few PSTs before class they shared the stark difference between the children’s strong English-speaking skills when compared to their parents. This shows that the experience opened their eyes to diversity in a way they had not considered previously that will alter their expectations about ELL parents’ abilities to support their children with schoolwork when they become teachers. From their final written reflections about their experience, we learn that some PSTs said the experience will help them become more effective teachers.
“This experience I got from being around [the children] will stay with me forever. This was a lot of fun and very interesting and [it is] an important project that will help me teach in the future” PST 1
“Overall, I do feel like this was a valuable experience. From collaborations with other future educators to working with families and kids from different backgrounds, it was all a truly fun learning experience…This experience has given me some perspective to what it is like….” PST 2
“Teaching at the library …showed me that I want to have a good connection with my [future classroom] children” PST 3
Other PSTs valued the opportunity to experience diversity from a teacher’s perspective and when teaching math.
“This helped me get a better understanding of each student’s unique cultural background and [how to] adapt the teaching approach to better connect with them. I feel more confident in being able to meet the diverse needs of my future students, and [this] helped me to become a better educator” PST 4
“I have learned a lot about teaching math with this project this semester and I was able to use what I learned to curate the lessons for the children at the library. If it wasn’t for this experience, I wouldn’t have a feel for what teaching [to] ELL [children] is like” PST 5
Course Instructor Reflecting
Lastly, as the instructor, I share my experience with my literacy partner. The project allowed the PSTs to learn, or experience something more deeply through mathematics. Specifically, the PSTs grappled with designing sound and engaging mathematics activities linked to literacy. This was challenging because the PSTs did not choose the children’s book, which required the PSTs to be creative and flexible. In addition, the PSTs experienced an identify shift from student to teacher. Several could now see themselves as teachers and others saw themselves as more effective teachers. A major strength was the non-profit staff. They were patient and gracious with the PSTs, and willing to promote their learning. A challenge for me in the classroom was the tension between the time dedicated to teaching content and time required to teach the PSTs how to create reformed mathematics activities and preparing them for each week’s Family READS night. Another challenge was assessing each PST while they were on site by the literacy staff. At the first meeting, I presented them with the rubric, which they modified, and I accepted. However, in the end, they did not fill out the form, other than noting each PSTs attendance. They said they felt uncomfortable filling out the form because the staff were unable to observe the PSTs during the split time because they were working with the parents.
A post hoc analysis about the definitions and structure of service-learning suggests that the service-learning experience is best described with the new hybrid model, Critical Disciplined-Based Service-Learning that joins disciplined-based service-learning with critical service-learning. The discipline is math for future K-8 teachers that is joined with a critical lens that is focused on social change, where the parents were gaining greater independence in the Family READS initiative and the PSTs experienced a social shift about these parents, which will inform their future teaching practice.
Conclusion
The relationship between the staff and the course instructor was rewarding because we could speak openly about the progress to meet both of our goals. Course design assessment, SLQAT (Furco, et. al, 2023) for the service-learning option shows 80% compliance with the 10 dimensions. This provides a good beginning to strengthen the semester-learning project option through a course redesign. The four-phase partner process (Sargent & Waters, 2004) facilitated the authentic relationship throughout the semester among all stakeholders. The literacy staff claimed the PSTs helped them meet their goal, which is one of the major benchmarks indicating success (Davia .et al 2019). They said the PSTs were kind to the children, and helpful during whole group time. There are two areas for future improvement for the PSTs: professionalism —the PST failure to notify them when they cannot attend, and self-advocacy—asking for help to engage children sitting alone during math activity time. From the instructor’s perspective, the PST’s met the requirements for the service-learning semester project option by ensuring the community-based partner met their goals. Overall, I was pleased with the PSTs preparation each week and learning from people who differ from themselves.
Future research projects will integrate SLQAT, the phase process, consider other reflection formats, and enhance data triangulation. The goal is to find an implementation process that produces useful data on a classroom level, which can be aggregated when researching SL on a program level across multiple classrooms or sites while ensuring the balance between the stakeholders.
References
Brownell, J. E. & Swaner, L. E. (2010). Five High-Impact Practices: Research on Learning Outcomes, Completions, and Quality. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Cotrupi, C., Morehead, H., & Mistele, J. (2022, March). Exploring Challenges Between Higher Education Institutions and Community Based Partners, 2022 Community Engagement Forum. Pittsburg, PA.
Drahota, A, Meza, R.D., Britkho, B., Naaf, M., Stahmer, A.C., & Aarons, G.A. (2016). Community-academic partnerships: A systematic review of the state of the literature and recommendations for future research, The Milbank Quarterly, 94(1), 163-214.
Davis, J., Cronley, C., Beamon, K., & Madden, E. (2019). Voices from the field: A qualitative exploration of community partners’ definitions of service-learning, Partnerships: A Journal of Service-Learning and Civic Engagement, 10(1), 146-155.
Draper, R. J. (2002). School mathematics reform, constructivism, and literacy: A case for literacy instruction in the reform-oriented math classroom, Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(6), 520-529.
Furco, A., Brooks, S. O., Lopez, I., Matthews, P. H., Hirt, L. E., Schulzetenberg, A., & Anderson, B. N. (2023). Service-learning quality assessment tool (SLQAT), Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 3, 2164-8212.
Furco, A. (2003). Issues of definition and program diversity in the study of service-learning. In S. H. Billig & A. S. Waterman (Eds.), Studying Service-Learning: Innovations in Education Research Methodology (pp. 11-28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Heffernan, K. (2001). Service-learning in higher education, Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, 119(1), 2 – 8
Mitchell, T, D., (2015). Using a critical service-learning approach to facilitate civic identity development, Theory into Practice, 54, 20-28.
Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching, Review of Research in Education, 31,1-44.
NCTM. (2014). Principles to Action: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All. Reston, VA.: NCTM.
Sargent, L., & Waters, L. (2004). Careers and academic research collaborations: An inductive process framework for understanding successful collaborations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 308- 319.
Ward, K. & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2012). Community-centered service-learning: Moving from doing for to doing with. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5). 767-780.