/ A Service-Learning Curriculum for Faculty
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
Top of page Top of page