Best Practices For Implementing Academic Service-Learning Within The Online Environment
Concurrent Session 3
Brief Abstract
This study was conducted to better understand how academic service-learning components were reconfigured from the face-to-face learning environment to online formats in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Results indicate that best practices for the online teaching were centered around four primary service-learning models used among faculty members in higher education.
Presenters
Extended Abstract
This study was conducted to better understand how academic service-learning components were reconfigured from the face-to-face learning environment to online formats in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Results indicate that best practices for the online teaching were centered around four primary service-learning models used among faculty members in higher education.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to obtain a better understanding of the factors that contributed to educators’ implementation of academic service-learning (AS-L) by exploring if and how AS-L components were successfully reconfigured from the face-to-face (F2F) learning environment to online formats in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Two research questions were posed. The first research question explored how different faculty members adjusted their AS-L teaching pedagogy to an online model? The second research question explored best practices on how to convert/adjust an onsite AS-L project to an online setting. Answers to these questions enabled the authors of this study to collect more information on the various online (or e-service) models of the academic service-learning teaching pedagogy that are incorporated within institutions of higher education. From these pedagogical models, a series of case studies outlining best practices for implementing AS-L within the online and/or hybrid course formats were developed.
Theoretical Framework
Viewed through the lens of program theory, this study focused on best practices in developing e-service learning opportunities on a course-by-course basis and how these were weaved together into effective policies for improved programmatic evaluation and student achievement. The values in developing a program theory for online academic service-learning within higher education is that it provides a framework for practitioners to evaluate their online AS-L programs and improve upon the desired learning outcomes (Chen & Rossi, 1989; Sindani & Sechrest, 2011).
Methods
A mixed methods approach was employed for the collection of case studies using an online survey delivered via Google Forms. Upon completion of the online survey, participants were asked if they would like to participate in an interview. All interviews were conducted online via Skype, Google Hangouts, and WebEx and all interviews were voluntary. The participants recruited for this study were faculty members teaching at higher education institutions who use academic service-learning as a component within their online courses. Recruitment for this study began by contacting faculty members the authors of this study personally new from their respective university who were successful in continuing with their academic service-learning projects during the spring 2020 semester despite institutional shutdown. The, faculty members the authors of this paper personally knew from outside of their respective university were contacted and asked to participate. In order to increase the number of participants for this study, the researchers also deployed their survey via LinkedIn.
Each survey was coded with a unique three digit number “001” “002” “003” etc. and then organized into four different subgroups which began to emerge during data collection. The four different subgroups were labeled “A” “B” “C” “D.” So, for example if research participant #001 was categorized under subgroup “D” then this participant was labeled as “001D.” If this same research participant agreed to participant in an online interview, the recording was then assigned with the same three-digit number, the appropriate letter designation and the word “interview” such as “001D-Interview.”
Conclusions
The conceptual foundation for this study is couched within the fact that the mission of a private and Catholic university located within New York City defines itself as having a strong focus on service. With the events of COVID-19 many faculty members, with AS-L as a required component within their syllabi, were forced mid-semester to reconceptualize course delivery within the online environment. With an institutional mandate to continue teaching all classes within the online learning environment the question became, how do we salvage this? For many faculty members teaching within the more traditional face-to-face environment the service requirement had to be removed from their courses. However, a few faculty members were able to continue with the AS-L component of their courses despite the institutional shutdown. Within this context, four main themes emerged:
A – Faculty continued with AS-L but scaled the project down
B – Faculty reconceptualized their AS-L projects from an onsite to an online model
C – Faculty reconfigured their AS-L assessments
D – Faculty made no changes as they have always taught online AS-L
References
Baldwin, C., Hutchinson, S., & Magnuson, D. (2004). Program theory: A framework for theory-driven programming and evaluation. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 38(1), 16-31.
Chen, H.-T., & Rossi, P. H. (1989). Issues in the theory-driven perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(4), 299–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(89)90046-3
Hagan, L. (2012). Fostering experiential learning and service through client projects in graduate business courses offered online. American Journal of Business Education, 5(5), 623-632.
Ledoux, M., Wilhite, S., & Silver, P. (2011). Civic engagement and service learning in a metropolitan university : Multiple approaches and perspectives (Education in a competitive and globalizing world). New York: Nova Science.
Leviton, L. (1994). Program theory and evaluation theory in community-based programs. Evaluation Practice, 15(1), 89-92. doi:10.1016/0886-1633(94)90065-5
Maddrell, J. (2014). Service-learning instructional design considerations. Journal of Computing in Higher Education : Research & Integration of Instructional Technology, 26(3), 213-226. doi:10.1007/s12528-014-9085-y
Norris, J. (2006). The issue: The why (and how) of assessing student learning outcomes in college foreign language programs. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 576-583.
Renger, R. (2010). Constructing and verifying program theory using source documentation. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 25(1), 51-67.
Salam, M., Awang Iskandar, D., Ibrahim, D., & Farooq, M. (2019). Service learning in higher education: A systematic literature review. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(4), 573-593. doi:10.1007/s12564-019-09580-6
Sidani, S. & Sechrest, L. (1999). Putting program theory into operation. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(2), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1098-2140(99)00022-3