2doWORLD

PrinterEmail

Although individuals have been studying service-learning for decades, most would agree that research in  service-learning is still in its infancy. Many fine evaluations of servicelearning have been conducted, such as those by Melchior (1999), Furco (2002), and Eyler and Giles (1999). Several summaries of studies have been compiled, such as those by Conrad and Hedin (1991); Billig (2000); and Eyler, Giles, Stenson, and Gray (2000).
Volumes of collected research have begun to appear, such as those by Furco and Billig (2002), Waterman (1997), and Anderson, Swick, and Yff (2001). Those efforts to gather and disseminate what is known about service-learning are important first steps. They represent efforts to understand the basis for the passion that
many educators feel for the practice of service-learning. These works collectively provide glimpses into the factors that help build the quality of service-learning practice. They begin to identify key variables needed to maximize desired outcomes and the effects of various contexts on the impacts that participation in service-learning may have on different stakeholders.
Given the prevalence of service-learning, however, it is surprising to see so little actual research. Service-learning has been estimated as being performed in nearly onethird of all public K–12 schools and one-half of all high schools (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999) and up to 88% of all private schools (Genzer, 1998). Participation in service-learning for faculty and students in higher education is equally strong (Eyler & Giles, 1999). Yet the vast majority of published studies on servicelearning are of program evaluations or anecdotal descriptions, not research (Billig, 2000; Eyler, Giles, & Gray, 2000). Having a body of evidence comprised primarily of evaluation studies severely limits the ability to make generalizations about servicelearning impacts and restricts the ways in which the studies can be used to improve practice. Furthermore, program evaluations are less likely to be built on strong theoretical foundations. This means that their explanatory value is also restricted. Finally, the definitions of service-learning being used, the program designs being studied, and the populations of students and community members being examined vary so broadly that the discussion of service-learning research must always occur in the midst of multiple qualifying statements.

Shelley H.Billig and Alan S.Waterman