service-learning research

Salt Lake City: I gave the keynote luncheon address today at the International

Service-Learning Research Conference. I argued that we need research

to test whether service-learning (i.e., combinations of community service

with academic study) works as well or better than competing approaches

to civic education. The best way to prove causality is an experiment

in which students are randomly assigned to the "treatment"

(here, service-learning) or to a control group, and then the two groups

are compared. That’s the "gold standard," although there are

ways to approximate random selection if it proves to be impossible.

There has never been anything like a random experiment to test whether

(or how well) service-learning works as civic education.

Several people who spoke from the floor expressed the views that (a)

research will never settle any debates in education, because the results

are always murky and contested; and (b) policymakers won’t listen to

research, no matter how strong it may seem. I said that for us, research

is necessary but not sufficient. I realize that scholarly papers don’t

just jump off the shelf and pass legislation; we also need political

organization. The service-learning movement is beginning to organize

itself, as shown by the robust defense of Americorps this fall. But

research is necessary because we lack a large or wealthy constituency,

so policymakers don’t have to listen to us. Fortunately, there are some

decision-makers in government, higher education, and philanthropy who

genuinely want to achieve the best outcomes, and they would support

service-learning if it really seemed to work. At present, they

have reason to be skeptical.