Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning
Fall 2000, pp. 11-17
What Do We Most Need to Know About the Impact
of Service-Learning on Student Learning?
Janet S. Eyler
Vanderbilt University
Survey research over the past decade gives us ample evidence of the impact of service-learning on the
personal and social development of college students; the evidence for its cognitive impact is less well
developed. In order to improve the quality of academic service-learning, we need to move beyond surveys and identify the intellectual outcomes best facilitated through service-learning, create measures of
those learning outcomes that can be imbedded into the instructional process, and conduct experimental
studies of alternative pedagogical techniques to identify those which produce optimal learning and cognitive development.
There has been a flood of service-learning research
in the 1990s and most studies have focused on the
impact of service-learning programs on students.
Unfortunately, this research is weakest in both concept and methodology precisely in the areas where
we need the most guidance if we are to design powerful academic programs. We know that service has
something important to contribute to personal and
social development; we have less reason to be confident that uniting it with academic work improves
learning. Intellectual outcomes - knowledge, cognitive development, problem-solving skills, and
transfer of learning - are at the heart of the school
and college mission and yet we know relatively little about how they are affected by service-learning.
So while we will touch on the many student outcomes documented in the literature, the primary
focus of our recommendations for future research
will address gaps in our understanding of the academic learning goals of service-learning and the
instructional processes needed to achieve these
goals.
What We Know
Just in the past ten years there have been several
national studies that address the impact of servicelearning on students (Astin & Sax, 1998; Eyler &
Giles, 1999; Gray, Ondaatje, Geschwind, Fricker,
Goldman, Kaganoff, Robyn, Sundt, Vogelsang, &
Klein, 1999; Melchior, 1997) and dozens of smaller
scale studies (Alt & Medrich, 1994; Andersen, 1999;
Eyler, Giles & Gray, 1999). Most of these have
explored the impact of service-learning on such personal qualities as efficacy, interpersonal skills,
reduced stereotyping, and on social responsibility or
sense of commitment to future service. This body of
research consistently shows a small but positive effect
of service-learning on these outcomes. Studies which
have examined the impact of quality differences in
service-learning have found that programs with more
opportunity for reflection, substantive links between
coursework and service, and ethnic and cultural
diversity have a stronger impact (Eyler & Giles,
1999; Gray et al, 1999; Mabry, 1998). While we lack
longitudinal studies that show a link between academic service-learning and later civic involvement,
there is evidence in the youth development literature
(Youniss, McLellan & Yates, 1997), as well as the
work of Astin, Sax and Avalos (1999) in higher education, that volunteer service leads to subsequent
community involvement. The mediating factor
appears to be the development of civic identity, i.e.
the personal efficacy and social responsibility that are
the outcomes of both community service and servicelearning.
The effect of service-learning on cognitive outcomes has been less well studied and relatively little
attention has been given to defining learning outcomes that would be expected to be enhanced by
service participation. Most of the reports of learning
are based on student self reports or faculty testimony (Eyler, Giles & Gray, 1999). Where attempts
have been made to use grades as measures of learning, the evidence is mixed (Berson & Younkin,
1996; Markus, Howard & King, 1993; Miller, 1994;
Kendrick, 1996). In some cases where positive
results are reported the method of calculating grades
has differed for treatment and comparison students
so that results can be attributed to different standards
or 'extra credit' for service rather than increased
learning (Balazadeh, 1996; Sugar & Livosky, 1988).
In other studies, it is hard to disentangle the effects
11
0
