This file was prepared for electronic distribution by the inforM staff.
Questions or comments should be directed to inform-editor@umail.umd.edu.


            CHAPTER 1: Reflections and Formulations


               WOMEN THINKING TOGETHER: THE NWSA 
                  SERVICE LEARNING INSTITUTE

                     Barbara Hillyer Davis

We met in a convent. As we arrived at the imposing marble entrance
of the National Mercy Center, a serene rural retreat house in
Potomac, Maryland, each of us wondered just what we had applied and
been accepted for. As we learned, it really was a retreat--a time
of meditation and intensive thought about community and learning,
about the engagement of women's studies students in social change.

Fifteen women had been chosen to participate in the NWSA Service
Learning Institute. We had in common a particular interest in the
relationship of feminist education to "experiential learning": in
other respects, we were very different from one another. On the
first evening we introduced ourselves and our reasons for
participating in the week-long seminar. One woman commented on the
variety of dress and physical appearance; it was a group of
individuals who were quite comfortable being themselves. We
didn't, as groups often do, begin to look more alike as the week
went on. We grew closer by learning to understand our diversity, to
foresee each other's concerns. It was, like other less academic
retreats, an illuminating experience.

The fifteen official participants came from women's studies
programs, professional schools, large universities and state
colleges, small liberal arts colleges, urban centers, rural
communities, hill country and plains, midwest, west, east, and
south. We were students and professors, between 20 and 50 years in
age, athletic and sedentary. All of us had administered some kind
of educational program for women. Most were directly involved in
service learning, practicum, or internship programs.

In "the convent"--a location which encouraged us to reexamine our
ideas about sisterhood--we were able to focus for a week on a
single subject, an unusual experience for all of us. A number of
others joined us for parts of the Institute; for their shorter
visits they, too, were focused on the one subject, the relationship
of service learning to feminist education. The resource people were
interested in one or the other of these--or both--but we were the
practitioners, we discovered, who had the collective experience to
connect their disparate insights. It was the first time that
feminist educators in service learning had come together
specifically and only to think through what we are doing.

Because of our own "field experience," our thinking was concrete,
based on realistic assessment of what is possible and what is not.
This was a "think tank" in a retreat setting, but not an ivory
tower. For five days, we met with resource people who presented us
with their perspectives on experiential education. Jerilyn Fisher
and Elaine Reuben, administrators of the NWSA Service Learning
Project, described its pragmatic structure and goals and raised
philosophical questions about service, about learning, about
women's studies--about feminist service learning. These questions,
increasingly emphasizing the word "feminist," preoccupied us during
the week.

The first group of speakers were people whose primary professional
work is in the field of experiential education, service learning,
or other intern/practicum experience. Morris Keeton from the
Council for the Advancement of Experiential Learning, Alana Smart
from the National Center for Service Learning, and a panel, Debbie
Dana, Marcy Devine and Clare Guimondfrom the Washington Center for
Learning Alternatives, provided a variety of materials, descriptions 
of their projects' goals and activities, and their own ideas about 
how their work relates to women's studies. The illumination came, for us, 
in the discussion periods after their presentations and in 
our own working groups in which we compared our experience to theirs 
and began to understand both similarities and differences.

A second group of resource people described for us their own field
experience of women studies service learning. A panel of field
supervisors of women's studies interns one evening was followed the
next morning by a panel of students who described their experience
of the same situation. Sharon Rubin, Director of Experiential
Learning Programs, University of Maryland, presented varieties of
the service learning teaching component, which could be used as a
forum to discuss and coordinate students and site supervisors
observations. These three presentations were less "inspirational,"
more focused on problems, than the first group of presentations had
been. Again, the discussion surrounding the sessions was where the
experience came together for us. The separate panels enabled us to
connect for ourselves from the three different perspectives what
students do and don't learn in field placements. The intersection
of the learning goals of teacher, student and site supervisor was
examined in terms of our experience as well as the panelists'. We
integrated our understanding of the complex process over lunch and
dinner and a heated discussion of a film on "women and careers"
which reflected a more conservative view of what workplace learning
is about.

On the third day of the Institute we had dinner with the Advisory
Board of the NWSA project. Here the "vision" of the project
connected with our realistic experience with students, colleges,
agencies and supervisors. As we talked about the Institute and what
women's studies and service learning are "really" like, we began to
see ourselves as the people who best know this new field--and the
Advisory Board members as those who understood the significance of
our getting together before we did.

Another series of Institute sessions focused on the practical
development of the field experience. There were sessions on
evaluation by Ruth Ekstrom of Educational Testing Service and by
our own work groups; on student-centered counseling by Georgia
Sassen of the Field Study Program of Hampshire College; on women as
workers, especially in feminist or sexist work sites, by Kathryn
Girard of the Women's Educational Equity Project of the University
of Massachusetts; and on coping strategies for women interns by
Judy Sorum of the Department of Labor. Here, especially in the
sessions with Girard and Sorum, we learned by identifying with the
student in the placement--and remembering our own working
experience--to consolidate our understanding ofwhat is different
about feminist service learning. A Friday morning visit to three
Washington, D. C. work sites was less effective in its goal of
enabling us to see the experience from the student's perspective
than were the sessions which called on us to remember our own
experiences in feminist organizations and in male-dominated
workplaces.

While all of these sessions were going on, and between and around
them, the creative work of the Institute was taking place in our
minds and the conversations among us. Small group working sessions
were scattered through the agenda, each followed by a lively
report-back session. We consumed large quantities of newsprint and
magic markers, to say nothing of coffee and ice water and healthy
convent food, as we integrated, evaluated, thought and rethought
the issues before us. On Thursday night we reviewed our
relationship to the NWSA Service Learning Project. On Saturday
morning, evaluating the Institute, we found ourselves arguing that
we, who came to learn from others, knew more than those others
about what we had come to learn. Somehow the process of learning
together had changed us.

The evidence was an extraordinarily productive group of work
sessions on Saturday afternoon in which we developed practical
plans for future activities of the NWSA project. The diverse group
which had met for the first time less than a week before was
thinking together in a way that seemed almost magic, with ideas
flowing so easily between minds that they were genuinely
collective, belonging to no single individual. These plans, for
NWSA conference sessions, for regional workshops, and for this
handbook, all included the high value we placed on our own group
process and its potential as a model for the expansion of knowledge
about feminist education in service learning.

We learned from our retreat how much we already know about the
relationship between women's studies and service learning. And we
found that that knowledge lies not just in what we are individually
doing but especially in what happens when we think about it
together.

My own experience in the Institute illustrates the effect of this
group dynamic. The women's studies program which I coordinate does
not have a service learning course. Since I knew that many programs
consider field placement essential, we intended to institute a
service learning component assoon as possible. I came to the
Institute to learn how, believing myself to be an amateur with no
experience relevant to this goal.

Our Institute group was very practical, so that I did indeed learn
a lot about how to do it, but something else happened there as
well. Like many groups that live together, we became friends, but
the intimacy was much less personal and more idea-oriented than in
other groups I have known. Only occasionally was our conversation
not about women's studies or service learning; even our play (a
game called "feminist charades") focused on feminist thought. The
persistence of our shared interest enabled us to anticipate each
others' perspectives on new ideas and to think out of each
others'characteristic concerns.

As I saw the remarkable work the other group members were doing
with students and businesses and women's organizations, and
understood how difficult and sophisticated and rewarding that work
is when it is done as well as we agreed it should be done, I was
both inspired by their example and appalled by costs .

Everyone at the Institute who was involved with a women's studies
service learning course was doing it on a temporary or part time or
over-load basis (and in some cases all of the above). The actual
psychological costs and the potential monetary costs are very high.
As a program administrator, I became much more cautious about
implementing service learning than I had been before the Institute,
even though I was much more fully persuaded of its importance.
Because of the way the group worked, however, this discovery did
not reduce my commitment. Rather, it increased my interest in
thinking through with the group the importance of developing
adequate monetary and social support. These concerns informed many
of our discussions.

As we explored the issue I recognized certain aspects of my
experience that were closely connected to service learning whose
relevance had not been immediately obvious: I have been a "site
supervisor" for human relations interns and journalism interns;
students in my women's studies courses are often social work or
human relations interns and bring their field experience, good and
bad, into the classroom. Almost inadvertently I have been supplying
a women's studies component to these internship experiences.

At the end of the Institute I was not perceiving these things--my
administrative concerns about resources and my experience with
student interns--as "my" contributions to the Institute. Indeed,
looking back on the experience, I am able only with difficulty to
separate them from the experiences of all the other participants.
I do so because they illustrate an important fact about our
thinking together: it was very practical, involving a clear concept
of what is involved in the work of feminist service learning,of how
to do it, and what it costs. Sharing the details of our experiences
in co-seminars and other classes, in feminist or sexist workplaces,
in university administration and in lunch room conversations made
our "think tank" quite concrete.

To our rural retreat, we brought much experience of the world. We
were not "best friends" but intimate co-workers. Our learning, like
that we plan for students, was practical, realistic, experiential,
intellectual, and feminist. It certainly was a nice change from our
various male-dominated workplaces.


                       NOTES

1. The fifteen participants are Nancy Ashton, Women's Studies,   
Stockton State College, New Jersey; Marti Bombyk, Women's Studies,
University of Michigan; Barbara Hillyer Davis, Women's Studies,
University of Oklahoma; Patty Gibbs, Social Work, University of
West Virginia; Betsy Jameson, Women's Studies, Loretto Heights
College, Colorado; Miriam King, Women's Studies, Michigan State
University; Heather Paul Kurent, Women's Studies, University of
Maryland; Pat Miller, Women's Studies, University of Connecticut;
Connie Noschese, National Congress of Neighborhood Women, New York;
Phyllis Palmer, Women's Studies, George Washington University, D.
C.; Deborah Pearlman, Goddard College, Massachusetts; Stephanie
Riger, Lake Forest College, Illinois; Nancy Schniedewind, State
University of New York New Paltz; Ann Simon, Cooperate Education
Program, Antioch College, Ohio; and Carolyn Shrewsbury, Women's
Studies, Mankato State University, Minnesota.

2. Field Supervisor panelists were Elayne Clift, National Women's
Health Network; Gigi Goldfrank, D.C. Feminist Law Collective; Sara
Jane Kinoy, Women's Equity Action League; and Claudia Schecter,
Women's Legal Defense Fund. The student panel was moderated by Lise
Blaes, intern, University of Maryland, and included Barbara
Schnipper, intern, National Women's Health Network; Nancy Marucci,
intern, D.C. Feminist Law Collective; and Stacey Zlotnick, intern,
Prince George's County Sexual Assault Center.


            SERVICE LEARNING: THREE PRINCIPLES

                     Robert Sigmon

(This essay originally appeared in `Synergist', the Journal of
ACTION's National Student Volunteer Program, Spring 1979, Vol. 8, 
No. 1, and is reprinted by permission.)

Service-learning terminology has emerged in the past 10 years,
and--as in the case of many traditional Christmas carols--the
authors are unknown. The great carols belong to the public, a
product of folk traditions at their best. Service-learning
represents the coming together of many hearts and minds seeking to
express compassion for others and to enable a learning style to
grow out of service.

The term service-learning is now used to describe numerous
voluntary action and experiential education programs. Federal laws
now use the phrase. Its diffusion suggests that several meanings
now are attributed to service-learning. If we are to establish
clear goals and work efficiently to meet them, we need to move
toward a precise definition.

The following notes indicate three fundamental principles of
service-learning and several tools for practitioners who are
involved with service delivery and learning programs.

My first contact with service-learning was in the late 1940's when
the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB)--using federal
dollars--popularized a service-learning internship model.
Service-learning at that time was defined as the integration of the
accomplishment of a public task with conscious educational growth.
A typical service-learning activity was a 10- to 15-week full-time
experience in which students carried out work tasks in communities
while also receiving academic credit and/or financial remuneration.

Voluntary action and experiential education programs have grown
steadily in this country during the past decade. Service-learning
rarely has been examined carefully as a style and has been much
overshadowed by more popular program styles. These, in brief, are:

 "Classroom-based experiential education" in the form of
simulations, games, programmed instruction, computerized learning
packages, group process techniques, and library-based independent
study;

 "Career exposure and life-style planning programs", part of the
massive career education movement that has-been--popularized by the
writings of such people as Richard Bolles;

 "Outward Bound" programs and their counterparts using outdoor and
wilderness settings for growth and learning;

 "Cooperative education", an example of the vocational programs
placing students primarily in "for profit" settings;

 Adult self-initiated learning exercises sustained without the aid
of educational institutions or professional teachers;

 Programs rooted in public need settings, including voluntary
action programs, public service internships, academically based
field practica, and some work-study programs.

All six styles have in common an emphasis on individual
development. Programs based in public need settings add service to
others as a major dimension. The service-learning style is best
understood in this type of program, for it focuses on both those
being served and those serving.

Based on my work designing, managing, and evaluating programs with
service and learning dimensions, and with a spirit of inquiry about
how any of us serve well and are served well by our actions? I
suggest the following three principles for those in similar
positions.

Principle One: Those being served control the service(s) provided.

Principle Two: Those being served become better able to serve and
be served by their own actions.

Principle Three: Those who serve also are learners and have
significant control over what is expected to be learned.

Robert Greenleaf, author of "Servant Leadership, A Journey into the
Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness" (1) defines service as it
is used in this service-learning formulation.

      One who serves takes care to make sure that other          
      people's highest priority needs are being served. 
      The best test, and difficult to administer, is: do 
      those served grow as persons; do they while being 
      served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more auto-
      nomous, more likely them selves to become servants? 
      And, what is the effect on the least privileged in 
      society, will they benefit, or, at least, will they 
      not be further deprived?

Learning flows from the service task(s). To serve in the spirit of
the Greenleaf definition requires attentive inquiry with those
served and careful examination of what is needed in order to serve
well. As a result, learning objectives are formed in the context of
what needs to be done to serve others.

Unfortunately learning objectives may be superimposed upon rather
than derived from the service task even in programs that strive to
adopt the service-learning style. In the SREB service-learning
internship model of the 1960's, for example, the hyphen between
service and learning was highlighted because it illustrated the 
link between the two. Unfortunately, the nature of the service
received limited attention; the focus was on the learning outcomes
sought. The proper emphasis in service-learning, in my view, is not
on the link between the two, but on the distinctiveness of a
service situation as a learning setting.

Over the years I have been exposed to people who teach and develop
tools that aid individuals and institutions in planning for and
carrying out service-learning activities in accordance with these
three principles.

An awareness-building exercise for prospective servers helps assure
that principles one and two are taken into account. The exercise is
a simple process of using guided questions based on a distinction
between "acquirers" and "recipients" of services. To be an
"acquirer" suggests active involvement in the request for and
control of a service. As an "acquirer" an individual or institution
is involved in some self-analysis of the situation and is active in
selecting the type of service and provider. To be a "recipient"
connotes limited, if any, active participation in seeking
assistance, treatment, or help.

To understand the distinctions between "acquirers" and "recipients"
and to plan activities, students can :

 Describe one or more situations in which each has been an
"acquirer" of a service;

 Describe one or more situations in which has been a "recipient"
of a service;

 Describe one or more situations in which each has been a direct
service provider to an individual, organization (Were those served
viewed as "acquirers"or recipients"?);

 Discuss these experiences with a partner or a small group;

 List the key themes noted in the descriptions of services;

 Examine these themes alongside the three service-learning
principles, or the Greenleaf definition of service, or within the
"acquirer"-"recipient" framework;

 Move into various phases of discussion and planning for a
service-learning activity.

An analytical tool for looking at four basic constituencies in
service delivery situations has been helpful to me. The first
constituency is made up of those who acquire services; the second,
service providers; the third, technology developers (those who
budget, plan, manage, develop curricula, design, monitor and
generally run things); and the fourth, those who provide resources,
the policy makers .

Service learning projects can have as the "acquirer" of service any
of these four constituencies. The central question is: Does the
service being provided make any sense to those expected to benefit
from the services delivered? Will they be better able to serve
themselves and others because of it? Closely related is the
question of who are the individuals who fill the roles in any
service delivery activity. And how do they relate to one another?

The accompanying Service Task Check List is a practical tool for
examining program elements and actors in most voluntary action or
public service-oriented internships. Seven participants are listed
along the horizontal axis, and 10 program functions associated with
student projects are listed on the vertical axis.

The Check List can be used in several ways. The list across the top
introduces major categories of actors in a service-learning
activity and their distinctive expectations, roles, and
relationship patterns. The questions down the left side relate to
the development and implementation of a service project and can be
guides for planning an activity. Participants should be required to
be specific in the responses and encouraged to examine closely the
implications of who controls the services to be rendered.

A faculty member, an agency supervisor, and the student involved
can use the list to examine a student's service-learning activity.
Two avenues of analysis are possible: What are the similarities and
differences in perspective among the three participants, and who in
fact is in control of the services being provided? As a planning
tool for individual projects, the Check List canprovide a similar
overview of who will be in charge and how each participant views
the control issues in a proposed activity.

   (page 15 table appears here)

In order to review a departmental or institution-wide
service-oriented education program either being planned or in
existence, different constituencies can complete the check list and
then note and discuss comparisons and contrasts. These profiles
also can be checked out against the Greenleaf service definition or
the three principles outlined earlier.

A project or service plan work sheet is another tool for helping
discover responses to "Who is to be served by this activity?" and
"How are those to be served involved in stating the issue and
carrying out the project?" Proposed categories for a model
worksheet are:

-Summary of situation to be influenced;

-Key individuals, organizations, and institutions involved in the
situation (the direct providers, technology developers, and policy
makers concerned about the dilemma);

-Proposed specific service objectives;

-Experiences (activities, resources, settings, methods, and the
like) to be used in conducting activity;

-Criteria for assessing service outcomes;

-Specific citizens and/or institutions to be served.

Providing services, in situations where "acquirers" speak in other
tongues--or speak from cultural perspectives unfamiliar to us--is
no easy task. There is a great need for the invention of tools and
exercises that help potential servers engage those to be served.
The chief tool for most of us will most likely be one we invent for
the unique situations we face.

Principle three--those who serve are also learners and have
significant control over what is expected to be learned--can have
many varieties of expression.

Since SREB days, I have viewed all the active partners in a
service-learning experience as learners. Not only the student, but
also the faculty counselor, the agency or community supervisor, and
those being served. This expectation strongly suggests that
mutuality is an important dimension in learning.

In a service-learning activity, the service situation allows ample
room for the coordinator to define some learning objectives (e.g.,
what skills andknowledge does the task require, what skills and
knowledge does the student possess, what still needs to be learned
for the students to have some of their own learning expectations,
for the program sponsoring the activity to have stated learning
outcomes, and for the acquirers of services to have learning
expectations. The critical task is making sure the services to be
rendered are not overwhelmed by the learning tasks. It is my
conviction that once an appropriate service activity is formulated
and checked out, learning potential becomes apparent.

Even in well planned service-learning programs with clearly defined
learning objectives, however, significant unplanned learning will
occur. Often it will challenge value assumptions and will require
thoughtful reflection and sharing with others.

A major need in service-learning is for educational researchers to
examine the distinctive learning outcomes associated with service
delivery. Where does service end and learning begin in a
service-learning setting? How is service delivery aided or
handicapped by learning expectations? Do the service-learning
principles stated here make any difference to the quality of
service and learning acquired?

Service-learning is called a utopian vision by some and too
demanding and impractical by others. Service-learning, as discussed
herein, is rooted in the belief that all persons are of unique
worth, that all persons have gifts for sharing with others, that
persons have the right to understand and act on their own
situations, and that our mutual survival on the planet Earth
depends on the more able and the less able serving one another.

Service-learning as formulated here is a partial corrective to the
self-deception many of us service providers practice. We spread
around our talents and knowledge because we have it to use and
enjoy sharing. We do research incommunities to justify our
positions or test a promising methodology. We do group-oriented
work because we are trained in group processes. We want clients to
come to us. We advocate for the handicapped, poor, young, elderly,
and minorities because we want to serve without realizing that they
may not be impressed.

As providers, our degree of control over services and service
systems is excessive in most instances. If we are to be measured by
the Greenleaf criterion of those served growing as persons,
becoming healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely
themselves to become servants, then we are called to invent ways to
engage those to be served, and that primarily has to be on their
turf and terms.

My hope for these notes is that they will stimulate dialogue on
what service-learning principles say to those using major
experiential education styles mentioned earlier.

A constant challenge those of us face who provide learning
opportunities for people in service settings is to be what
Greenleaf calls "servant leaders." "Servant leaders" are people who
formulate visions, arrange the structures, and manage the action
within the spirit of the service-learning principles. Green-leaf
pushes me and, I hope, many others to invent the distinctive ways
in which we all can better serve and be served.


                         
                           NOTES


1. Servant Leadership, by Robert K. Greenleaf, Paulist Press, New
York, 1977 (330 pages, $10.95).

In the 1920's Greenleaf finished college and became a
groundman--post-hole digger--for the American Telephone and
Telegraph Company. In 1964 he retired as the company's director of
management research. Since then he has been active as a management
consultant to businesses, educational institutions, and social
service groups.

His concept of the servant as leader was developed over the years
and crystallized when he read Herman Hesse's Journey to the East,
a story that shows how a group disintegrates with the disappearance
of the servant who had sustained the members with his spirit as
well as his menial labor. Greenleaf contends that great leaders
are those who are servants first, i.e., who lead because of a
desire to serve rather than to gain power or personal
gratification.

Greenleaf cites historical examples of servant leaders, including
Thomas Jefferson, and predicts that in the next 30 years leaders
will come from the "dark skinned and the deprived and the alienated
of the world" rather than from elite groups who have not learned to
listen and respond to the problems of those to be served .

In his chapter on "Servant Leadership in Education," Greenleaf
returns to his theme of the need for secondary and post-secondary
schools to prepare the poor "to return to their roots and become
leaders among the disadvantaged." He states that the goal of a
college education should be to "prepare students to serve, and be
served by the current society."

Greenleaf also devotes chapters to "The Institution as Servant,"
"Trusteesas Servants," "Servant Leadership in Business," "Servant
Leadership in Foundations," "Servant Leadership in Churches,"
"Servant Leaders" (profiles of Abraham Joshua Heschel and Donald
John Cowling), "Servant Responsibility in a Bureaucratic Society,"
and "America and World Leadership."

Greenleaf shows a way of putting together two overworked words
(service and leadership) into a fresh perspective. In Servant
Leadership he offers experiential learning managers a holistic
framework for understanding the significance of service-center
learning for individuals and institutions.


               REFLECTIONS ON A TYPOLOGY FOR
                   EXPERIENTIAL EDUCATION

                     Thomas R. Haugsby

 (This essay originally appeared in `Experiential Education: A
Publication of the National Society for Internships in Experiential
Education', Vol. 5, No. 3 (May-June 1980) and is reprinted by
permission.)

I was asked to develop or refine a new or existing typology of
experiential education. What follows is an effort to improve the
language and modestly expand the typology explained in the existing
literature and, later, to suggest another typology based on a
different construct.

A typology of programs was developed at the 1973 state-of-the-art
conference of the Society for Field Experience Education and later
in the CAEL handbook, `College Sponsored Experiential Learning'
(Duley & Gordon, 1977). With only modest revisions the eleven types
of programs are as follows:

Cross Cultural - "A student involves him or herself in another
culture or sub-culture of his or her own society in a deep and
significant way, either as a temporary member of a family, a worker
in that society, or a volunteer in a social agency, with the
intention, as a participant observer, of learning as much as
possible about the culture and his or her own." (Duley & Gordon,
pp. v-vi).

Cooperative Education - The basic features of the traditional
cooperative education model are:

1. There are multiple work and study experiences which are
alternating or "parallel" and which are part of the degree or
program requirements.

2. Work experiences are related to the educational and career
objectives of the student.

3. Students are paid if they are doing work for which regular
employees are paid.

4. Life experiences, field trips, recreational experiences,
independent surveys, and travel are not appropriate.

Pre-Professional Training - Putting into practice the body of
knowledge so as to fuse the informational and practical aspects of
the profession--the practice of the profession having to do with
what knowledge is appropriate and how it may be applied. Such
practice is carried out under careful professional supervision most
often in the institutional settings organized as the professional
practice base, i.e. education-school, law-court/firm,
medicine-hospital. The purpose of such programs is as often to
familiarize a student with the institutional setting established as
the guardians of the profession in society as it is to develop
professional practice skill.

Institutional Analysis - A student has a temporary period of
supervised work that provides opportunities to develop skills, test
abilities and career interests, and systematically examine
institutional cultures in light of the central theoretical notions
in an academic field of study. (Zanderer, 1973,p. l)

Service-Learning - Service-learning has been defined (Sigmon,
`Synergist', Spring 1979, p. 9) as "the integration of the
accomplishment of a task which meets human need with
conscious-educational growth." A typical service-learning activity
is a 10-15 week full-time experience in which students carry out
work tasks in communities while receiving academic credit and/or
financial remuneration. The term is now used to describe numerous
voluntary action and experiential education programs. Principles of
responsible service-learning are that: (1) those being served
control the services(s) provided and become better able to serve
and be served by their own actions; and (2) those who serve also
are learners and have significant control over what is expected to
be learned.(Sigmon, 1979)

Social-Political Action - Students work under faculty sponsorship
for social change via community organizing, political research or
action projects, or work with groups seeking a reorganization of
societal structures or a response to social problems. Some form of
regular and consultative supervision usually occurs with faculty
and/or citizens.

Personal Growth and Development - A student engages in an
experience which is designed to enhance his/her individual growth
and development in programs such as Outward Bound, intentional
communities, or a mental health program. Although personal growth
and development may not be the intended outcomes of every field
experience program, research indicates students typically rate this
outcome high on the list of achievements (i.e. self-confidence,
self-reliance, emerging adult roles). This is true even in programs
which do not specifically promote personal growth and development.
In programs with this intended outcome the expectation often is for
some movement along a developmental continuum. The steps along this
line commonly include:

1. Increased sense of oneself as an active choice maker--a cause
rather than an effect--with a capacity for empathy and an
internalized responsibility for one's own actions.

2. Increased ability to tolerate the paradox and contradiction of
life; awareness of differences in process and outcome.

3. Greater awareness of interdependency and the autonomy of others;
the ability to conceive of actions governed by broad ideals.
(Loevinger, 1976, Chickering, 1969, Heath, 1968)

Field Research - A student or group of students engages in a
research project involving the application of the methods of
inquiry of an academic discipline and its body of knowledge on
traditional subjects of that discipline (i.e. geology-rock
formations, sociology-family structure).

Career Exploration - Occurs in a "supervised placement in a
business, government, industry, service organization, or profession
in order to provide a useful service, to analyze the career
possibilities of that placement, and to develop skills related to
employment. The educational institution provides the means of
structured reflection, analysis, and self-evaluation. The agency
supervisor provides an evaluation of the student's work and career
potential." (Duley, Gordon, 1977, p. vii)

Academic Discipline/Career Integration - "A student is employed in
a business, government, industry, service organization, or
profession prior to entry into the educational institution. The
faculty members and the educational institution provide the means
of structural analysis and evaluation based on the academic
discipline involved, integrating theory and practice and
heightening the student's awareness and understanding of the world
and his/her career in a conscious systematic fashion" (Cummins,
1974). This type of program may include adult degree completion
programs, assessment of prior learning, and portfolio programs.

Career or Occupational Development - A multiple, often alternating
sequence of work experiences which function in concert with
classroom instruction to advance a student toward a vocation or
career goal. Experiences are sorted and sequenced to move a student
through predictable stages of skill development related to a
specific career. This is particularly common in vocational or
technical programs.

The above eleven types of programs, although often overlapping,
help to distinguish those program goals pertinent to education
based in and sponsored by schools, colleges and universities. Yet
we know the history of experiential learning is found in the early
guilds through apprenticeships and on-the-job training. In an
effort to expand the boundaries of our conception of field
experience education, I suggest we consider the following partial
list of programs which exist outside the established educational
arena, yet share common goals with the approaches listed above.

On-the-Job-Training - A mixture of experiential and non-
experiential learning, these programs include the intentional
instruction and/or guidance given at the work site by experts to
learners in context. The provision of this guidance is an expected
part of the supervisor's overall responsibility. Examples include
a foreman showing and aiding the learner/worker to develop
proficiency in a task, professional post-schooling education such
as residency programs in hospitals, or military service wherein
soldiers are given training, instruction, and guidance "at the
workbench." In some cases this education is augmented by seminars,
classes or in-service programs.

Apprentice Programs - Commonly found in skilled labor organizations
which sponsor their own alternation or interaction of classroom and
job site, apprentice programs are wholly different from the
traditional structure of Cooperative Education except that they
occur outside the educational institution.

Career Pathing - An employee is routed systematically through a
variety of jobs requiring the on-site appreciation/understanding,
if not the acquisition of the skills and attitudes needed in
various department areas, professions, or wings of an organization.
This may be used by the organization to broaden the horizons of
narrowly prepared employees for more "managerial" responsibilities
in the future, to allow for a fluid work force, to promote
individual growth,or to make employees more aware of their
contributions to the overall effort.

Exchange Program - These encourage the cross-fertilization of
employees in different organizations. Examples are a professor who
spends a year in private industry or government service to expand
the understanding between theory and practice and an executive
loaned to a social service or public agency.

It may be time to stop. The temptation is to go on to
self-sponsored experiential learning such as the homemaker who
volunteers in an agency before deciding the merits of going back to
school or the self-taught hobbiest who seeks the advice and
assistance of others with similar interests. The expansion of this
typology to include self-sponsored learning should be debated
within the profession. It is my intent to begin that debate with
this article.

It may be useful to suggest, in conclusion, a typology different
from the above--one that focuses more specifically on the kind of
learning to be fostered by the experiential education program. This
model is a reorganization of the expanded Duley/Gordon model into
families according to the learning goal rather than the learning
strategy. This typology is not restricted in its point or origin to
an educational institution. The learning goals could be divided as
follows:

1. To put theory into practice, principally by learning ways to
apply, integrate, and/or evaluate the body of knowledge and the
method of inquiry of a discipline or field.

2. To acquire knowledge specific to a profession, occupation,
social institution, or organization.

3. To acquire and develop specific skills, competencies, and
attitudes pertinent to problem-solving, interpersonal interaction,
group process, inter-intercultural experience, lifestyle, and/or
coping.

4. To develop the competence of learning in a self-directed fashion
by using experiential learning theory or methods of inquiry.

5. To develop and use an ethical perspective or stance; to develop
moral reasoning or judgment, especially in using the concepts of
empathy or role-playing and a concept of justice.

6. To test careers by exploration or confirmation of career choices
leading to self-understanding and the use of career assessment
skills.

7. To become responsible citizens of the community by understanding
the political system and its variations, identifying issues of
social concern and developing skills for citizen participation.