university's curriculum.
Although self-discovery and learning from
others is beneficial, we believe a more deliberate,
organized, and centralized approach to faculty
development will yield more tangible results more
quickly. We assume that planned faculty development is important to the implementation and
institutionalization of service-learning courses
for at least four reasons:
1. Common Vocabulary. Structured faculty
development provides a means for establishing, within the institution, a common definition for service-learning. Although faculty
may assume that they understand the nature
of service-learning, our experience is that
some faculty have misconceptions. For example, faculty sometimes confuse servicelearning with volunteerism or with other
types of experiential learning (e.g., internships, practica, coperative education, preservice training). Faculty development provides a means for establishing a common
vocabulary and understanding about the pedagogy of service-learning.
2. Academic Integrity. Service-learning can be
conducted in ways that are rewarding to all
constituencies: faculty find their teaching is
more enjoyable, students discover their learning is enhanced, communities benefit from
the resource of students and faculty, and
institutions develop additional ways to fulfill
their mission. On the other hand, servicelearning courses that are poorly designed and
inadequately managed can result in counterproductive results for all. If faculty receive
adequate education in the pedagogy, then it
increases the likelihood that the promise of
service-learning will be realized. Effective
faculty development introduces a form of
quality control at the beginning of curriculum revision and increases the likelihood
that the academic integrity of service-learning will be maintained. These academic
successes, in turn, may attract other faculty
to service-learning.
3.Increase Support and Confidence. As
Kendall, Duley, Little, Permaul, and Rubin
(1990, p. 143) note, service- learning is a new
pedagogy for many faculty. As such, they
are not familiar with the theory and knowledge that support the pedagogy, the nuts
A Service-Learning Curriculum for Faculty
and-bolts of how to do it, and alternative
techniques for assessing experiential learning that occurs outside the classroom. Occasions for faculty development provide forums in which faculty can explore, listen,
consider, imagine, and talk about the nature
of a new pedagogy. And, perhaps most
important, they can learn from the experiences of colleagues, learn about university
resources that support curriculum reform
and professional development, garner the
motivation and skills to initiate service-learning in a course, and develop new interdisciplinary professional relationships.
4.Institutionalization. CAPSL identifies a
planned sequence of activities that support
the implementation of service-learning programs (Bringle & Hatcher, in press). In
doing so, the model recognizes the importance of four constituencies. However, faculty are crucial to the success of institutionalizing service-learning. Richard Wood
(1990) goes to the heart ofthe matter when he
observes, "Educational programs...need
champions. Those champions must be found
in the faculty if an innovation is to be profound and long-lasting" (p. 53). Faculty will
not be coerced into pedagogical change; they
must develop the motivation to do it through
a reasonable portrayal of its benefits relative
to the investments. Effective faculty development will support this process of selfdiscovery and self-persuasion by faculty.
And, as faculty adopt service-learning, the
educational culture and climate of the institution will be altered.
Theoretical Underpinnings
Kolb's (1984) model of the experiential learning process has been widely used as a theoretical
basis for analyzing and designing experiential
educational programs for students. His model
identifies four steps that are cardinal points on a
cycle oflearning: abstract conceptualization (i.e.,
theories and conceptual schemata that organize
experiences), active experimentation (i.e., innovations based on the organized interpretation of
one'spast experiences), concrete experience (i.e.,
direct, immediate experiences), and reflective
observation (i.e., thoughtful interpretation and
comparison of experiences).
This model for learning can also be applied to
113
