This file was prepared for electronic distribution by the inforM staff. Questions or comments should be directed to email@example.com. 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: ù "Classroom-based experiential education" in the form of simulations, games, programmed instruction, computerized learning packages, group process techniques, and library-based independent study; ù "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; ù "Outward Bound" programs and their counterparts using outdoor and wilderness settings for growth and learning; ù "Cooperative education", an example of the vocational programs placing students primarily in "for profit" settings; ù Adult self-initiated learning exercises sustained without the aid of educational institutions or professional teachers; ù 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 : ù Describe one or more situations in which each has been an "acquirer" of a service; ù Describe one or more situations in which has been a "recipient" of a service; ù 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"?); ù Discuss these experiences with a partner or a small group; ù List the key themes noted in the descriptions of services; ù Examine these themes alongside the three service-learning principles, or the Greenleaf definition of service, or within the "acquirer"-"recipient" framework; ù 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.