Keyword

1 Introduction

Service learning describes a phenomenon established in higher educational institutions that bring together academic learning with real-world action. In the absence of a broad consensus definition, service learning is used to describe and “characterize a wide array of experiential education endeavors, from volunteer and community service projects to field studies and internship programs” (Furco, 1996, p. 1). Its distinctive features are rooted in experiential learning (Dewey, 1938) and a strict orientation toward reflecting on the experiences lived through in a learning environment outside the classroom. At the same time, it builds a bridge between universities and society (Benson et al., 2007).

Service learning today takes place in a variety of contexts, with different student audiences and a wide range of objectives. While some approaches focus on clearly defined tasks with a small scope, others try to achieve far-reaching, even systemic changes. The following will particularly focus on programs that are transformative in character.

Programs taking place in an international context and bringing together people from different cultures and walks of life have certain challenges, but considerable opportunities as well. Structured international service learning programs operate in sub-Saharan Africa (Tyran, 2017) and the Caribbean (Curtin et al., 2015), for example. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that, especially in international and intercultural contexts, learning experiences are diverse, and include intercultural competence and sensitivity, gender awareness, diversity learning, cultural techniques, and an awareness of global issues and concerns (Kohlbry & Daugherty, 2015; Chen et al., 2012; Camacho, 2004; Fitch, 2004; Monard-Weissman, 2003). Culturally aware international service learning programs not only contribute to this cross-cultural understanding and awareness of global challenges, but can make a tangible contribution to the development of countries in the Global South as well (Crabtree, 2008). This requires that these projects do not provide a “frontier experience” for privileged Western students, but that a respectful process focused on mutual learning is initiated and achieved. To paraphrase Guo (1989, p. 108), service learning must be prevented from allowing people from the Global North to “experience other people’s misery for a life-enriching experience.”

Complex service learning programs embedded in international contexts that address real-world problems are as demanding as they are rewarding. The exchange of perspectives between the Global North and the Global South is not infrequently associated with deep challenges to existing world views, beliefs, and routines (Naudé, 2015).

The following outlines a competency-based approach to transformative service learning programs (not necessarily) taking place in an international context, with a focus on the lecturer perspective. Particular attention is paid to the competencies necessary for shaping sustainable development.

2 Traditional, Critical, and Transformative Service Learning

According to Chesler (1995), traditional service learning responds to mostly social problems that are selectively dealt with in a delimited setting. However, the structures that cause these problems are usually not critically questioned. This kind of depoliticized service learning is said to have little impact beyond the development of the students, and may even contribute to further deepening of established paternalistic hierarchies (Mitchell, 2008). Enos and Morton (2003) conclude that a large number of service learning programs are wedded to this traditional understanding, and follow a transactional logic: While there are certainly mutually rewarding exchanges between the parties involved, their effects are achieved solely within existing structures, and the tasks to be worked on within them are narrowly defined. A critique or transformation of existing structures and arrangements does not take place. Ironically, this may further diminish the power of the social groups that service learning was intended to empower (Pompa, 2002).

This is why authors suggest critical service learning that, according to Mitchell (2008), encourages students to use their experiences as agents of social change to identify and address injustice. Accordingly, the focus here is on an understanding that extends beyond “service” itself and is intended to lead to a fundamental shift in students’ consciousness, norms, and values (see Fig. 1). Similar to Forbes et al. (1999), Mitchell (2008) focuses on social change that students are expected to strive for in social coalitions. Students then become system changers through their political agency and justice-oriented commitments (Mitchell & Coll, 2017). Critical service learning underlines the issues of unequally distributed power and privilege as it aims to contribute to the creation of a socially just society (An & Decker, 2019). As Butin (2003, p. 1684) states, service learning can be viewed as “a site of identity construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction.”

Fig. 1
figure 1

Differences between traditional and critical service learning (Mitchell, 2008, p. 53)

Full size image

According to current work on the topic, an understanding of a critical and transformative service learning are closely related (Cranton, 2006; Kiely, 2005; Mezirow, 2000; Jacoby, 1996). However, there are certain difficulties in distinguishing between critical and transformative service learning, because both understandings draw on a common vocabulary and a similar set of objectives. When talking about transformative learning in education literature, it is often based on the foundational learning theory introduced by Mezirow (1978) stressing that transformative learning happens when students critically question their perspectives and values. Mezirow (2009) defines transformative learning as “learning that transforms problematic frames of reference to make them more inclusive, discriminating, reflective, open, and emotionally able to change” (p. 22). Reflecting upon their own actions and beliefs, students may take other, more suitable perspectives that can lead to a fundamental change in how they see themselves and the world (Dal Magro et al., 2020; Sterling, 2011). Thus, transformative learning is described as acting at the deepest level by influencing ways of thinking, knowing, and acting. By having a focus on challenging dominant beliefs, social habits, and normative practices, authors often point at transformative learning as addressing a person’s competence to be critical and reflective (Bosangit & Demangeot, 2016; Lange, 2004). In this way, transformative learning and service learning could be equally used because critical service learning as well as transformative learning address students’ reflectiveness and attitude and therefore contribute to the transformation of learners.

This understanding extends beyond gradual changes in existing environments, ultimately challenging the fundamental principles of existing systems. If service learning wants to be seen as not simply working within existing systems and reproducing them, it requires the ability of all partners to think critically and without reservation—not just the students. This is a key prerequisite for service learning that does not seek to work within and reproduce existing systems, but instead leads to competence development being achieved for transformative change (Kahne & Westheimer, 1996).

However, since service learning addresses students’ competence development while at the same time generating societal impacts, service learning also has the potential of transformation in both directions. While some authors state that transformative learning—at least in the long run due to peoples’ changing views—also creates possibilities for both individual and societal transformation (e.g., Zembylas & McGlynn, 2012), the additional potential of directly having a positive impact on society and contributing to sustainable systems change can be seen as a specific element of transformative service learning. In addition to offering transformative experiences to students, service learning can also directly contribute to societal transformation processes and the development of competences that students need as they serve as (future) agents of transformation.

We argue that a distinction between critical and transformational service learning remains necessary. As shown, being critical—and teaching critical thinking—is seen as important, with critical service learning being an improved avenue toward service-oriented teaching. It should be stressed that, without questioning existing structures and systems, problems cannot be identified to help create a picture of a better future, develop solutions to reach this, and translate them into transformative action. The latter is not possible by merely being critical; it also needs sustainable systems to change. Therefore, we see being critical as an important prerequisite for transformation, with transformation additionally needing action-oriented components. While some authors do in fact include a social change orientation in their concept of critical service learning (Mitchell, 2008; Mitchell & Coll, 2017), underlining this important connection, we call for transformative service learning to be understood as an even more integrative approach that includes critical aspects.

When training strives to teach future system changers or, in other words, sustainable transformers, it should include both critical and action-oriented competences. By adopting a competence-oriented view in the following section, we will shed light on how transformative service learning addresses a set of skills and the knowledge needed for educating future change agents.

3 Competence-Oriented Education Through Service Learning

There is broad consensus on the salient suitability of service learning in competency-based teaching (Molderez & Fonseca, 2018; Cantor, 1997; Chen et al., 2012; Giles Jr. & Eyler, 1994; Biberhofer & Rammel, 2017). In the following, we understand along with Rieckmann (2011, p. 129) competencies to be “characterized as individual dispositions to self-organization which include cognitive, affective, volitional (with deliberate intention) and motivational elements; they are an interplay of knowledge, capacities and skills, motives and affective dispositions.”

Extensive efforts have recently been made to identify competencies for sustainable development, and merge them with entrepreneurial competencies (Biberhofer et al., 2018; Lans et al., 2014; Hesselbarth & Schaltegger, 2014; Osagie et al., 2016; Wesselink et al., 2015). The starting point for these considerations is often Wiek et al.’s (2011) five key competencies of sustainability, shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Key competencies of sustainability according to Wiek et al. (2011)

Full size image

We draw on the further development of this thinking by Lans et al. (2014) and Ploum et al. (2018), who were able to validate six relevant core competencies in the context of sustainable entrepreneurship:

  • Strategic management and action competencies. These are understood as merged competencies to actively and responsibly participate in the sustainable development of socio-ecological systems (De Haan, 2006; Mogensen & Schnack, 2010), as well as the necessary ability to design strategies and actions for corresponding development steps (De Haan, 2006). In this context, strategic management and action competencies are the most relevant. Tschopp (2004) points out that certain elements typically applied in service learning, such as drawing up a business plan, can contribute significantly to building strategic competencies.

  • Embracing diversity and interdisciplinary competence refers to the ability to build relationships with stakeholders, design joint projects, and assess the legitimacy of concerns in social, environmental, and economic contexts (Ellis & Weekes, 2008). This ability to collaborate through service learning has been emphasized several times (Toncar et al., 2006).

  • Systems thinking competence corresponds to the ability to holistically understand problem situations, opportunities, and conditioning factors across the boundaries of social subsystems and disciplines. Remington-Doucette et al. (2013) and Clevenger and Ozbek (2013) note a strong connection between real-world learning experiences and the development of this competence.

  • Normative competence refers to the ability to analyze and discursively engage with stakeholder value judgments, principles, and objectives (Blok et al., 2015). Although Wiek et al. (2011) also state that normative competence is at the core of any sustainable development and thus plays a central role within it, this competence, in particular, is often rarely examined in the context of service learning.

  • Foresighted thinking competence allows the analysis, evaluation, and genesis of future ideas about the long-term and possibly supra-local effects of decisions made about ecological, social, and economic areas and contexts. Wesselink et al. (2015) come to the (at first glance surprising) conclusion that this particular competence is rarely found in concrete practice, even in the context of sustainability. One possible explanation for this can be found in the fact that this competence is required particularly in the early stages of projects. This raises the profile of the lecturer in service learning events, who must not only promote this competence with the students but also demonstrate it him/herself in early phases such as event conception.

  • Interpersonal competence stands for the ability and motivation to work cooperatively and in participation with different social groups (Schlange, 2009). Here, a number of analyses highlight the particular contribution of experiential learning methods that address real-world problems (Clevenger & Ozbek, 2013; Remington-Doucette et al., 2013; Barth et al., 2007).

As noted by Meza Rios et al. (2018), these competencies are not stand-alone constructs that can be clearly delineated, but instead are highly intertwined. Settings that call for and develop multiple competencies in a holistic and problem-oriented manner are gaining importance as a result. This too underscores the importance of real-world learning settings such as those provided by service learning programs. Although the competencies raised here were developed in the context of sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship, they are generic and open enough to provide orientation and action competence within a wide range of socio-economic fields of action.

When applying this competence-oriented view to the different forms of service learning, we notice that, according to the definitions and descriptions of service learning, different sets of competencies are addressed. As shown in Fig. 3, the concept of service learning as such can be especially suitable for developing personal competences of students. Due to regular and intensive contact with peers, as well as with external partners, students encounter interaction opportunities and challenges with various personalities in new contexts. The more teachers design a specific course that includes diverse stakeholders from, e.g., politics, society, and/or business, the better service learning can train competences embracing diversity and interdisciplinarity. This competence will also be fostered by courses being offered to students from different disciplines. In addition, all service learning approaches are assigned to a specific bundle of skills and knowledge depending on the topic-related setting and the course of study (e.g., service learning in computing science may be designed differently than in medical studies).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Key competencies assigned to forms of service learning

Full size image

Integrating a critical perspective shows the potential to broaden the competence development. When adding a critical orientation, service learning can additionally foster the acquisition of systems and normative thinking; after all, a critical and reflective mind should have a holistic understanding of how systems actually function and what they should do. Forward thinking may also be mainly addressed in critically oriented service learning contexts because generating, analyzing, and evaluating future ideas is hardly possible without being able to critically reflect on how these ideas may influence future settings—and thus will lead (or not lead) to the desired outcomes.

Finally, being able to contribute to transformation also needs action orientation. When designing transformational service learning courses, lecturers should create situations that motivate and accompany students as they develop their own innovative solutions and bring them into action. This opens up the chance of additionally addressing action and strategic management competences. Doing this would help ensure that transformational service learning always remains entrepreneurial.

Based on these ideas, transformative service learning shows the greatest potential for addressing all sorts of competences that are important for future change agents. Or put differently: Only if service learning formats are designed to address a combination of key competences can they reach their full potential of being transformative. We, therefore, suggest adding transformative service learning to the differentiation provided by Mitchell (2008), as shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4
figure 4

From traditional to transformative service learning

Full size image

Research on this topic is still at an early level. The question remains if and how various forms of service learning actually lead to which competences are necessary for sustainable transformation. There is also little work on learning processes and the diverse personalities (of students, teachers, and partners) required to have an impact on service learning approaches. While embracing diversity and interdisciplinarity is shown to be an important competence for future transformers, it often remains under-recognized when designing and researching service learning. Work is also needed on the factors pushing or impeding the successful implementation of transformational service learning. Empirical studies in particular are missing here. This is why we strive to motivate researchers to address service learning as a tool for educating future system changers.

This also requires openness by teachers and universities toward innovative teaching and learning methods. We encourage teachers to adopt service learning approaches to their fields as they hopefully contribute to designing innovative ways of transformational teaching. In the following, we introduce a method for supporting lecturers in structuring, systematizing, and professionalizing their service learning courses. We begin the following section by stressing the importance of adopting a lecturer's perspective.

4 The Lecturer's Perspective on Service Learning

As a result of the establishment of service learning in schools and universities over several decades, service learning, in general, has advanced to become a format that has been intensively researched empirically and conceptually. A number of international meta-studies identify service learning as fundamentally and extensively studied (Eyler et al., 2001; Salam et al., 2019; Yorio & Ye, 2012; Celio et al., 2011; Conway et al., 2009; CUREE, 2005; Muscott, 2000). Nevertheless, transformational service learning only now is receiving its due attention in research. In addition, the abundant supply of case studies and empirical evidence offers comparatively little added value to the question regarding concrete didactic tools for university teaching and the role of the lecturer in the complex teaching process. The focus so far has predominantly been on the learning effects of the students as well as on general success factors. Furthermore, only a comparatively small fraction of the studies address higher education and the special framework conditions of universities at all, while the main focus is still on students at general education schools.

Rarely discussed are the benefits to lecturers, although Salam et al. (2019) do in fact point to a number of findings here. Carrington et al. (2015) note that teachers in service learning programs can themselves build important skills such as critical thinking, critique and develop their learning methods, and come to a better understanding of how scientific theories interact with real-life problems. The real-world reconnection of theories and a resulting deeper understanding of social contexts have also been emphasized in a number of other studies (Lasen et al., 2015; Kohlbry & Daugherty, 2013).

As Fig. 5 illustrates, the predominant focus on the learner shifts the focus to the process of experiential learning, represented here by Kolb (1984), and the extensively researched effects on students. In this regard, while much of the work is insightful and eminent for the study of competency development, research often leaves out, marginalizes, or mostly reduces the practical design of courses by instructors to single case studies or purely anecdotal evidence (Hébert & Hauf, 2015). This is due to a wider academic and abstract discussion that describes competencies as significant and learnable, albeit not teachable (Dlouhá & Burandt, 2015; Weinert, 2001). As a result, lecturers gain a profound understanding of what competencies are needed to develop solutions to real-world problems, but learn too little about how to address them in an experiential setting.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Perspectives on service learning. Source: Own research: Halberstadt et al. (2019) with reference to Kolb (1984) and Berger Kaye (2010)

Full size image

By adopting a lecturer perspective, we focus on the challenges of planning, implementing, reflecting on, and evaluating events, and in doing so, identify an initial set of tools that can be used to establish learner- and lecturer-centered service learning at universities.

The lecturer's perspective is depicted in Fig. 5 with the five stages or phases of service learning, which illustrate the role of the lecturer in the interplay with the learners and the partners over various points in time (Berger Kaye, 2010). The Inventory and Investigation phase serves as an introductory stocktaking of the social needs and existing motives, interests, and resources of all participants, ideally in close coordination with the cooperation partners. Careful preparation can ensure that relevant issues and concerns are addressed, and that the right partner organizations can be acquired. Continuing from this, in the Planning and Preparation phase, the project idea is further concretized and transferred to the institutional framework of academic course work. In this process, internal and interorganizational areas of responsibility are defined, and project roles are assigned. It is necessary to create an atmosphere of trust between all participants right from the start during the first two phases to ensure the local anchoring of the project orientation, and to enable the exchange of academic and non-academic knowledge at eye level. Only on this basis can the actual implementation take place in the Action phase, which is then characterized by a meaningful linking of the “university” and “non-academic living environment” learning locations. Based on a self-determined learning approach, concrete actions by the students and their consequences can be discussed and reflected upon in a protected space. Accordingly, the Reflection phase cannot be reduced to a single fixed point in time, but is carried out in parallel. The lecturer systematically supports the students with feedback channels. Just as dynamic is the Demonstration phase, in which the learners make their progress internally and externally explicit and discussable. This includes keeping a learning diary as well as internal presentations or joint exhibitions with partners. The Reflection and Demonstration phases are thus more dynamic than the first three, and are best understood as a cross-sectional task for the lecturer.

Based on this dynamic-processual understanding, which particularly emphasizes the role of the lecturer while neglecting the interaction with the learners, the first instrument for its design can be recommended in the following.

5 How to Start and How to Measure—Introducing a Service Learning IOOI

By developing the service learning IOOI (Impact—Outcome—Output—Input), we aim to provide a tool for lecturers that unfolds its greatest effect in the inventory and investigation phase, while also providing valuable services for planning and preparation. It can be used both autonomously by lecturers and in conscious collaboration with students.

This instrument is composed of two models which methodically build upon each other: The starting point is the logic model developed by the W. K. Kellog Foundation (1998) and intends to help organizations manage and evaluate their charitable projects: “The program logic model is defined as a picture of how your organization does its work - the theory and the assumptions underlying the program. A program logic model links outcome (both short- and long-term) with program activities/processes and the theoretical assumptions / principles of the program” (p. 3). This model was taken up and further developed into the IOOI model by the German Bertelsmann Foundation, which aims to professionalize the management of corporate citizenship (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2010). On the one hand, both developments have in common how nonprofit activities, which are easily aligned with the community service of service learning, should be subjected to systematic planning and performance monitoring. This makes our model especially suitable for service learning. On the other hand, neither model takes the approach of the person-centered, competency-based learning essential for our purposes. This is why we adapted our model to a service learning context.

As a result, we provide a service learning IOOI that aims at structuring, systematizing, and professionalizing courses by elaborating target and expectation horizons and operationalizing them into (envisioned) work processes. It simultaneously serves as a compass and map within a dynamic process. In order to ensure the systematic integration of both the students’ competence development and effects on society, we included the two perspectives of academic learning and social impact as the core characteristic of service learning (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Service learning IOOI

Full size image

A careful consideration of the intended impact, i.e., the medium- and long-term effects of someone’s own efforts, counteracts the lack of orientation of many formats. With regard to academic learning, the intended competence gains should be clearly named and communicated in a motivating manner. The key competencies discussed above are a possible starting point that lends themselves to a variety of (not exclusively) social or economic issues. The goals of societal activities should be treated no less sensitively, since blind charity or even activity solely for its own sake is not genuinely capable of motivation and, of course, does not bring about systematic change. Through the core topics of organizational governance, human rights, labor practices, the environment, fair operating and business practices, consumer concerns, and community involvement and development, complex organizational problems can be systematized and structured in a manner allowing them to be addressed in groups.

The three steps of outcome, output, and input follow the impact outline using milestones of decreasing complexity. From the academic perspective, the outcome focuses on the formally successful completion of the course or a certain event, which can be measured using indicators such as completion rate, quality of final theses, and course evaluations. The output comprises the seminar activities leading to this result, and measures both qualitative and quantitative recordings or planning of coaching and mentoring units, as well as theoretical lessons or practical contacts. Academic requirements and framework conditions are defined via the inputs. These include, e.g., the planned workload, possible excursions, personnel support via co-teaching, and the forms of examination. Applied to the societal impact, the outcome is understood to be material in nature such as catalogs of measures, or concepts with concrete recommendations for action, indicators and evaluation tools, films, donations raised, information brochures, or survey results in the target group. Output on the other hand comprises the work steps that were necessary for this (research, presentations, workshops, etc.). The input encompasses the competencies and skills already available among students, lecturers, and practice partners, while also identifying resources that still need to be developed, such as contacts, financial resources, or expertise.

The service learning IOOI does not necessarily have to follow the schematic described above. It can alternatively start at the various points, e.g., an input-oriented start with the circumstances, enabling further thinking from a resource perspective. This would provide the lecturer with an understanding of whether the learning outcomes and benefits for society envisioned are realistic, and what steps are presumably required to achieve them. The lecturer here would be free to autonomously use this tool for preparation or involve the students and practice partners in the strategic considerations in a planned way.

6 Conclusion

Due to increasing societal challenges, we need system-changing solutions, and people who are willing and able to develop and implement corresponding ideas. This is why educating these (future) agents of transformation is one of the key aims of higher education. With service learning representing a particularly promising approach toward this, it is receiving growing attention in both educational practice and research.

While traditional forms of service learning are often criticized for not addressing their complete transformative potential, authors underline the necessity of critical service learning because it systematically includes critical reflection that raises awareness about societal imbalances, questioning learners’ personal views and values as well as existing structures. We also emphasize service learning’s potential to be transformative in three ways: contributing to the transformation of learners’ norms and values; contributing to societal transformation directly; and contributing to the development of a specific set of competences that are crucial for generating and implementing transformational solutions.

Designing and implementing successful service learning formats places the focus of our work on the teachers. We have stressed that this is a field requiring more attention, with the lecturer perspective being less researched than the student perspective, even though lecturers are key for the successful use of service learning methods. In response, we have introduced a service learning IOOI tool, helping teachers plan, structure, and monitor the different phases of developing and implementing service learning formats.

With our chapter, we want to emphasize the vast potential of transformational service learning, and deliver a tool inspiring and assisting (potential) service learning “providers.” We furthermore want to encourage teachers to use service learning as the promising approach it is, adopt existing service learning formats, and create innovative ways of transformative service learning. Lecturers as well as researchers are welcome to follow up on our work, try out and evaluate our service learning IOOI tool, and further contribute to research on transformative service learning in higher education.

In doing so, we consider various fields of research as explicitly important and promising. First, we call for combining research on service learning with a stronger transformational competence orientation. As we have shown, different ways of (service) learning approaches may address different competences that are crucial for enabling transformation (Halberstadt et al., 2019; Molderez & Fonseca, 2018; Rieckmann, 2018). More empirical work is definitely needed in this area. Second, we currently observe an educational paradigm shift toward distance and technology-supported learning (environments) (Marcus et al., 2019). Only a few studies have to date addressed the potential of digitalization and innovations in information and communication technology (ICT) for service learning, and only recently have authors completed studies on e-service learning approaches (Figuccio, 2020; Harris, 2017; Marcus et al., 2021). With the COVID-19 crisis requiring innovative solutions, including e-service learning (Adkins-Jablonsky et al., 2021; Schmidt, 2021), we expect digital and hybrid formats to gain increasing attention in future research.

We want to highlight transformational learning opportunities in international contexts, e.g., by critically experiencing cultural differences and imbalances (Dorsett et al., 2017; Johnson & Howell, 2017). Service learning in international settings (and research on it) can contribute to a better understanding of global interconnections in combination with the positive effects on students’ personal intercultural competences, while at the same time having the potential to build international relationships (Daniel & Mishra, 2017; Liou, 2022). Improving technologies and increasing expertise in using e- and hybrid formats allows for increased opportunities in service learning design, and should in turn lead to innovative forms of international service learning. We additionally call for a longer-term implementation of service learning formats instead of “one and done” models (Musial, 2020). By embedding service learning into various modules throughout a curriculum (as single units or full seminars), students may be influenced by a practical orientation while simultaneously considering the consequences of societal change. Teachers developing curricula in higher education may also want to consider generating long-term seminars taking place over several semesters, and which can also be offered within extracurricular formats accompanying regular studies.

Universities themselves should also act more entrepreneurially, transforming themselves into modern organizations reacting to the urgent needs of our time. Higher education should motivate teachers that are training future agents of transformation to apply the immense potential of service learning to help develop important transformational competences, creating space and opportunity for innovative teaching and learning arrangements.