Educational policy analysis archives

Educational policy analysis archives

Material Information

Educational policy analysis archives
Arizona State University
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tempe, Ariz
Tampa, Fla
Arizona State University
University of South Florida.
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Education -- Research -- Periodicals ( lcsh )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
serial ( sobekcm )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
E11-00073 ( USFLDC DOI )
e11.73 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c19979999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00073
0 245
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 5, no. 4 (January 23, 1997).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c January 23, 1997
Learning from others : service-learning in Costa Rica and Indonesia / David D. Williams [and] William D. Eiserman.
x Research
v Periodicals.
2 710
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
1 773
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
4 856

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 5issue 4series Year mods:caption 19971997Month January1Day 2323mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 1997-01-23


1 of 29 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 5 Number 4January 23, 1997ISSN 1068-2341A peer-reviewed scholarly electronic journal. Editor: Gene V Glass Glass@ASU.EDU. College of Education Arizona State University,Tempe AZ 85287-2411 Copyright 1997, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES.Permission is hereby granted to copy any a rticle provided that EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES is credited and copies are not sold.Learning from Others: Service-Learning in Costa Rica and Indonesia David D. Williams Brigham Young University William D. Eiserman Colorado Foundation for Families and ChildrenAbstract: Calls are increasingly sounded for universities to better address their communities' and students' needs through service, as well as research and teac hing. This article invites policy makers to re-examine university service, research, and teachi ng responsibilities by reflecting on roles service-learning plays in universities in Indonesia and Costa Rica. We conclude that service-learning plays a critical role and a key to expanding service-learning for students and understanding the utility of such a policy change i s increased faculty involvement. Until more faculty explore the "why" and "how" of service-lear ning, research and teaching will dominate the university agenda. "Martin Luther King Jr. once said that "our scient ific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misgui ded men." I have seen many times men who abandoned their dreams; I have seen t hose misguided men who believe they can solve all problems with guided mis siles. These are men without values, and the world cannot afford their leadershi p into the twenty-first century. "The return to a life and a world dominated by val ues is urgent if we want


2 of 29peace to prevail. We should no longer be ashamed of feelings of piety. It is not true that they degrade reason and science. Piety is no l ess than the intelligence of the soul, and we need heart and brains to recover the w orld in our hands, for the values we cherish. "Nobody can ignore the problems of today, least of all the intellectuals." (Arias, 1988, pg. 19) Oscar Arias Snchez President of Costa Rica A new book on service-learning in higher education (Jacoby, 1996) "provides a historical overview and a context for understanding the essent ial linkage of service and learning; it describes the current state of practice; and it hig hlights the relationship between service-learning and institutional educational goals" (p. 5). After examining the predominant assumptions underlying the combining of community service and a cademic learning in higher education and offering several illustrative examples from college s and universities in the United States, several authors address in part three of the book "organiza tional, administrative, and policy issues" which "may be the most crucial factors in the initi ation and sustainability of service-learning" (p 229). Reviews of this excellent summary of the field and several related sources (e.g., Albert, 1994; Daloz, et al., 1996; Kendall and Associates, 1990; and many others which are indexed and available through the University of Colorado's serv ice-learning homepage ( raise some questions for educational policy makers to consider: What kinds of service belong in higher education? How does service enhance and/or detract from learni ng, teaching, scholarship, and other institutional goals? What policies regarding service should be made in h igher education? What evidence is accruing that might inform policy regarding potential roles of service-learning in higher education? Though most universities have always claimed that "service" is one of the three main purposes for higher education, both research and te aching continue to dominate the activities of most academics and their institutions. However, gro wing numbers of community service proponents are arguing that service combined with o ther kinds of academic learning should receive a more equitable place in higher education. While traditionalists note that there is very little time, incentive, or support for more service in academic life, service-learning proponents insist that the three-pronged mission need not cons titute three separate sets of activities. Rather, they contend that activities under each of these mi ssions may be more effective and efficient when integrated into a common set of activities (Ja coby, 1996). As questions are asked and plans are developed for service-learning programs, whether on individual, institutional or national levels, it wo uld be wise to learn from the experiences of those who have been involved in the development and imple mentation of service-learning programs in various contexts. Existing programs may inform a ne w "vision" for higher education's service role and may shape the development of practices for fulfilling that "vision" as well. Unknown to many higher educators, some of the most comprehensive and innovative approaches to service-learning have been designed a nd implemented in developing countries (Eberly & Sherraden, 1990). In this study, the Univ ersity of Costa Rica's compulsory service-learning program, which began in 1975, is e xplored and compared to a similar, even older program in Indonesia to help readers consider some questions to ask as they examine the role of service-learning in higher education in oth er societies and in their own contexts.


3 of 29 Following a short case study of a service-learning project in San Jos, Costa Rica, a brief definition of service-learning, a summary of princi ples identified in the literature which should under gird such projects, and an overview of method s used in our inquiry, this article explores what can be learned by educators world-wide through understanding the historical roots, program components, perceived outcomes, and perceived stren gths and weaknesses of the two programs in Costa Rica and Indonesia.Helping Children Help Children: One Brief Case Entering a slum community set aside by the governm ent of Costa Rica for indigent families who own no property, our van pulls off the blacktop onto a dirt road strewn with garbage and dirty-faced children in tattered clothes. Disca rded plastic bags, old bottles, and cans clog an open sewage ditch which reeks of stagnant human was te and rotting trash. Stopping in front of a plywood and tin shed, Marta Picado Mesen, a Social Work professor from the University of Costa Rica, explains that this shed was built by Wo rld Vision and is intended to be used as a meeting hall exclusively by people living in one of the nine sectors of this settlement. We are visiting this settlement with Marta and four of the twenty-two university students who have joined her for the past few months. This settlement is the focus of a project they are doing as part of the university's community service program, Trab ajo Comunal Universitario (TCU), in which students are required to participate before graduat ion. As we unload the van, Marta explains that despite the perceptions of many tourists that Costa Rica is a clean and safe, idyllic place, ther e are many problems with crime, health, and drug abuse. This settlement is a sort of breeding g round for the worst of such things. Brought here from all over Costa Rica, many of these people were removed from squatter sites, while others had been homeless. Now they live here, on th e outskirts of Costa Rica's capitol, San Jos, having been placed in the particular sector of the settlement which corresponds with the section of the country from which they were removed. The ma jority of the 3,840 individuals living here are members of single parent families and earn no s alary. Forty-eight percent of the settlement's residents are children under the age of fifteen and the average family income is between 5,000 and 22,000 colones per month (approximately $36 to $160)--well below the poverty line in Costa Rica. About 15% of the inhabitants are unregistered Nicaraguan refugees, though it appears that nearly everyone in this settlement is a refugee of sorts. Nearby, men are loudly nailing a sheet of rusted, corrugated tin to a small frame hut to make walls and a roof; a new home in the making. Ea ger to share their experience, the students explain that people move in every day and are const antly searching for materials to build shelters for themselves. Nearly everyone lives in multiple f amily dwellings. Each of the twelve-square-meter shelters, of which only 60% hav e latrines, is home to about 16 people. The only public building is a shed-like school on the e dge of the settlement which is staffed by five teachers who teach about 500 children a day in shif ts from six in the morning to six at night. Surprised by the severity of these circumstances, we would like to wander through the settlement to see all of this more close-up, but Ma rta warns us that it is too dangerous. We must stay here on the edge of the settlement in the Worl d Vision building, with the van parked outside. Inside the tin-roofed meeting hall with a dirt floo r, while we sit at weather-beaten tables, Marta explains that the 960 families which live in the ni ne sectors of the settlement fight among themselves, with gang leaders from each sector lead ing assaults against people in other sectors. Children are often caught in the middle and, Marta believes, are consequently at serious risk psychologically, physically, and educationally. Mar ta's TCU project aims to address the needs of some of these children. The focus of her project is to help a selection of 30 children in the settlement prepare themselves to more effectively deal with the proble ms they face due to the conditions in which


4 of 29they live and to reach out as peer leaders to help other children. The scope of the project is broad, starting with activities associated with helping th e children understand the dangers of drug abuse, the importance of education, the need to obtain hea lth care, and the need to prevent disease, physical abuse, prostitution, and sexual promiscuit y. As the project proceeds, Marta expects it will become more focused on concerns and interests of the participating children. They have already begun to elicit information from the childr en which will direct the planning for the next phase of the project. While Marta serves as the director of the project, most of the direct work with children and other members of the community is being done by her TCU students who come from a wide variety of disciplinary backgrounds including nursi ng, medicine, social work, psychology, dramatic arts, and education. Marta has given four of the students (who are from health, psychology, dramatic arts, and education) responsib ility for presenting the project to us. Prepared with handouts and using a portable overhead project or plugged into an outlet from a dangling ceiling light bulb, one-by-one the students present different aspects of the project including the settlement statistics, an overall project descripti on, their specific objectives, the problems they have encountered, and their accomplishments. As they present, a dozen or more children from the settlement playfully throw rocks on the roof of our building. Though these rocks are distra cting to us as they thunderously roll off the tin roof, this interruption scarcely interferes with th e students' steady, enthusiastic presentation of their experiences. These childish pranks, which app ear to be commonplace to the students, remind us throughout their presentation of the dist urbing harshness of the circumstances in which Marta and these students have been working. Devoting their entire 300 hours of community servi ce required for graduation from the University of Costa Rica on the initial diagnostic and planning phases of this project, these students have met with formal and informal leaders of the settlement to explain the project and to coordinate their efforts with other organizations w ithin each sector of the settlement. From these efforts, they identified thirty children between th e ages of eight and twelve from each of the sectors who are participating in the project. The s tudents then diagnosed the children's challenges with respect to health threats, social problems, an d educational needs through data gathering activities including games, discussions, and role-p laying directly involving the 30 children. With their 300 hours now complete, these TCU students wi ll be passing the project on to a new group of students who will continue to develop and carry out the next phase of the project, with Marta. While they have confronted numerous challenges alo ng the way, Marta and the students identify two areas with which they have been especi ally concerned. First, the students explained that they and the children are from completely diff erent worlds. Previously they had had very little understanding of what these people faced eco nomically and socially. The students consequently question the extent to which they can appropriately reach out to the children with what the children most need. A similar lack of unde rstanding is true in reverse. As one student expressed, We know we are looked to as role models by some of these children, but what that means since we are from different worlds, I don't k now. Is that helpful? Most of them will never have the opportunities we have. (Note 1) Second, as this first phase is ending, there is go ing to be a total team turnover, with the exception of Marta. This represents a challenge sin ce the children's participation in the project is largely a function of the relationships they develo p with the TCU students. According to Marta, it is also somewhat traumatic for the TCU students sin ce they come to know and care about these children: Making this transition and maintaining continuity w ithin the project is the challenge


5 of 29we face next. Marta recognizes that they face many challenges in being able to effectively empower children to help other children face some tremendou s difficulties of life in this situation. The importance of this project, according to Marta, is that they are addressing concerns for which there presently are no obvious solutions. In this r espect, the TCU project provides a forum for Marta's scholarly research as well, including explo ration of such questions as: Will the concept of children helping children work under these conditio ns, within the culture of this settlement? What will those who are assisted in their peer lead ership abilities gain from trying to help other children? Marta explains, These are some of our questions. We will have to se e. We know that they need what we are trying to provide. We just have to try. While the focus of the experience has clearly been on what could be provided to the children of this settlement, the university student s say this has been a valuable learning experience for them as well. They each describe way s in which they have creatively applied their education to the problems in this situation. For ex ample, the drama student explains how rewarding it has been to use role playing to help t he children identify their social problems. He had never seen his art form in this way; actually a pplied in such a useful manner. The health student explains that in his previous c oursework he had learned about the existence of various health problems and difficulti es associated with getting people such as these to use free health services to which they were enti tled. His work in this project has given him a chance to actually be a part of an effort aimed at overcoming some of those problems; according to him, a "way" of learning about these issues whic h other coursework could not have provided. All of the students say that beyond gaining an app reciation of life in these harsh conditions and an understanding of how their skills could be useful there, both of which address the primary aim of the TCU program, they have learn ed the value of combining their disciplines with others in a collaborative effort. According to these students, interdisciplinary problem solving in actual, reallife settings is often wha t distinguishes TCU learning from other coursework. Three of the four students believe they probably w ould have participated in some form of service even if TCU had not been compulsory, but th ey do not know how they could have organized anything like this on their own. Only one student says she would not have been involved in a service project like this if it had n ot been required because her family did not like the idea of her going into such a dangerous place. As we leave the settlement with Marta and her stud ents we are filled with questions. Can they succeed in helping these children? How? Is thi s what is meant by the integration of research, teaching, and service? Is this really working as we ll as it already seems to be? Why here? Why this project when there are so many other things th ey could all be doing which would more likely succeed and which would be easier and safer? Why do es Marta feel that they "just have to try"? Principles Service-learning has been defined in many differen t ways but the definition used by Jacoby (1996, p. 5) is informative: Service-learning is a form of experiential educatio n in which students engage in activities that address human and community needs t ogether with structured opportunities intentionally designed to promote stu dent learning and development. Reflection and reciprocity are key concepts of serv ice-learning.


6 of 29 Jacoby argues persuasively that service-learning b rings the resources of the university to bear on social issues of concern which are not adeq uately addressed by other means. In addition to benefits for students, faculty, and the communit y, service-learning may help upgrade the educational institution itself: Higher education is being called on to renew its hi storic commitment to service. Its foremost experts are urging colleges and universiti es to assume a leadership role in addressing societyUs increasing problems and in mee ting growing human needs.... At the same time, higher education is questioning i ts effectiveness at achieving its most fundamental goal: student learning.... As coll eges and universities across the country are developing programs to enable their stu dents to serve their communities, the nation, and the world-and at the same time to enrich undergraduate education-it is critical that these programs embrace the conc ept of service-learning. (Jacoby, pp. 3-5) A growing number of university policy shapers are accepting the claim that the traditional curriculum and research agenda of universities can be informed via servicelearning activities; and community support to the institution may be enh anced in many different ways as a result of the heightened visibility of the institution throug h its community-based service-learning activities. While its proponents suggest that service-learning has the potential of addressing a wide variety of aims, perhaps most emphasized is the rat ionale of service-learning as a viable, maybe even optimal means for impacting students and facul ty with regard to the improvement of social and civic responsibility, enhanced intellectual dev elopment, crosscultural learning, leadership development, moral and ethical development, and car eer development (Kendall and Associates, 1990). Most service-learning programs tend to focus on one or two of these areas rather than address all of them equally, resulting in a wide ar ray of service-learning configurations. To understand the common threads of servicelearn ing programs, as well as to help construct servicelearning programs which possess the most critical elements, in 1989 a set of ten principles was developed by a group of servicelearning educators from across the United States. These principles were intended to represent the common threads which distinguish service-learning from other types of learning and f rom other types of service activities. These principles state that an effective service-learning program: Engages people in responsible and challenging actio ns for the common good. 1. Provides structured opportunities for people to ref lect critically on their service experience. 2. Articulates clear service and learning goals for ev eryone involved. 3. Allows for those with needs to define those needs. 4. Clarifies the responsibilities of each person and o rganization involved. 5. Matches service providers and service needs through a process that recognizes changing circumstances. 6. Expects genuine, active, and sustained organization al commitment. 7. Includes training, supervision, monitoring, support recognition, and evaluation to meet service and learning goals. 8. Insures that the time commitment for service and le arning is flexible, appropriate, and in the best interests of all involved. 9. Is committed to program participation by and with d iverse populations (Kendall and Associates, 1990, p. 40). 10. While there seems to be considerable agreement amo ng service-learning educators regarding these principles generally, discussion ab ounds on a number of issues related to how


7 of 29these principles are to be expressed in practice. I n response, we have conducted two studies in universities in developing countries (the Kuliah Ke rja Nyata or KKN projects through the University of Indonesia and the Trabajo Comunal Uni versitario or TCU projects through the University of Costa Rica) which have been practicin g diverse versions of servicelearning for many years, to better understand how their practice s relate to these principles and to discover other principles that might be helpful in guiding s imilar efforts elsewhere. Methods To begin exploring these issues, a qualitative inq uiry (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994) approach was used, allowing for emergent themes to arise in the context of on-site interviews and observations. Qualitative inquiry provides a means for investigators to refine their questions to better reflect the perspectives of all participants throughout a study. Thus, an attempt was made to blend the concerns of students, faculty, adminis trators, service recipients, the literature, and the researchers through ongoing refinement of quest ions in light of concurrent data analyses. New questions arose and were addressed along with q uestions suggested by the literature. The second author reviewed documents and interview ed participants in three KKN projects associated with Andalas University in Pada ng, West Sumatra, Indonesia. Then, after analysis and review of that experience, both author s visited eleven TCU projects associated with the University of Costa Rica (of which the case stu dy presented earlier was one) throughout Costa Rica. Details regarding data sources for both studies are summarized in Table 1.Table 1 Summary of Data Sources for the Indonesian and Cost a Rican StudiesData sources Indonesia (KNN) Costa Rica(TCU) Administrators interviewed310 Faculty/supervisors interviewed112Students interviewed 1911 Student questionnaire19NACommunity members interviewed 1530Projects studied311 Interviews, in Indonesian and Spanish, were conduc ted with administrative staff, participating faculty (from accounting/business, ag riculture, animal husbandry, arts and letters, civil engineering, chemistry, law, and medicine in Indonesia and from history, social work, engineering, linguistics, agronomy, art, anthropolo gy, education, computer science, and nursing in Costa Rica), participating students (from accoun ting/business, agriculture, animal husbandry, arts and letters, civil engineering, chemistry, law and medicine in Indonesia and from geology, psychology, drama, English teaching, nursing, botan y, and nursing in Costa Rica; many other fields such as architecture, social work, education art, engineering, sociology, and so on were involved in the Costa Rican projects but we were no t able to meet with students from all represented disciplines), as well as various commun ity participants (families being served, teachers in the settings, and visitors at museum an d display sites). We were able to travel to several project sites to see either the results of the projects or to see them in progress. These visits allowed us to ob serve KKN and TCU participants at work, gave us a sense of the outcomes from their efforts, and provided us with general observations of


8 of 29the contexts in which projects were implemented. Three forms of data were compiled in this inquiry. The primary data were field notes taken by the two investigators. These field notes i ncluded reconstruction of interviews and observations as well as our questions and interpret ive comments. Supplementary data included photographic documentation of sites, observable out comes of projects, and exposure to the various participants. Additionally, archival data w ere collected which were relevant to the questions addressed in this investigation, includin g official documents describing the goals and objectives of the programs and their implementation criteria, documents provided to faculty and students regarding participation guidelines, studen t evaluation instruments, as well as student and faculty reports of individual project activities. Analysis procedures consisted of three activities: First, key questions to guide the inquiry were iden tified through a review of literature and our own experiences with service and learning. Second, we elaborated and expanded the key question s by reflecting on information obtained throughout each country's study. Third, we interpreted our experiences in these site s by searching for patterns across data sources and by attempting tentative answers to both our original guiding questions and to questions which emerged throughout the study. Several methodological standards for conducting qu alitative inquiry have been proposed (e.g., Eisner, 1991; Guba and Lincoln, 1989) and we re used to guide this study. Though each visit was brief (less than a month in each country) we were able to meet the triangulation standards by using multiple investigators, sites, i nformants, and collection procedures. We also shared our findings with participants and asked for their judgments of accuracy and credibility (member checking), shared our findings with disinte rested others to discover our blind spots (peer debriefing), and searched for evidence that w ould counter our conclusions (negative case analysis) to ensure trustworthiness of the findings Finally, we have included a case description of one project (at the beginning of this article) t o allow readers to hear the voices of the participants and to judge transferability of our fi ndings to readers' sites. We have also kept an audit trail of all our activities throughout this p roject to increase the likelihood of dependability and confirmability of the study.Lessons Learned So what did we learn from participants in these tw o countries that could help others as they contemplate servicelearning and policy setti ng in university settings? In the remainder of this article, we summarize the lessons learned arou nd the following questions, which are a combination of questions we began the study asking and other questions that arose: What are the historical roots that lead to the form ation of these programs? 1. What are the basic program purposes and components? 2. What are the perceived outcomes, concerns, and ling ering questions associated with participation in these programs from various perspe ctives? 3. What are some implications for combining service an d learning for university students in other countries? 4. What questions are raised by this study for future inquiry into service and learning in higher education? 5. Historical Roots


9 of 29 Both of these "non-military national service" prog rams developed in the 1970's, beginning in grassroots initiatives and culminating in centra lized governmental support and/or mandates. Indonesia. Rooted in a rich history of gotong-royong (or mutu al assistance), KKN had its first observable roots as a program implemented bet ween 1945 and 1949 when Indonesians were struggling for independence from the Dutch. Due to a critical lack of teachers in guerrilla areas at that time, members of the student army were recruit ed to teach in secondary schools in these areas (Hardjasoemantri, 1981). After the fighting c eased, the organized students felt a "moral commitment" to continue providing teaching services on a voluntary basis and subsequently developed a volunteer project called Pergerahan dan Penempatan Tenagaa Mahasiswa (recruitment and placement of students for the purp ose of teaching, known as PTM) which lasted until 1962. In 1966 a major revision of the entire educational system included an institutional service-learning concept that was drawn from the ea rlier students' experiences with PTM. Several reform objectives eventually emerged from this move ment which would become the basis for Kuliah Kerja Nyata or KKN: education would become more Indonesia-based in cont ent, 1. education would relate more closely to the range of skills presently needed in Indonesia, 2. the availability of non-formal education would be i ncreased in order to complement the available formal education, and 3. education would provide greater opportunities for y oung Indonesians to participate directly in the development of their country in practical an d satisfying ways. 4. With these objectives as a foundation, KKN emerged in 1972 as a formal course which was piloted at three of Indonesia's major universit ies, including Andalas University. The success of these pilot projects resulted in expansion to al l 43 public universities, 90% of which subsequently have determined that KKN is compulsory for all students. Thus the impetus behind service-learning has shifted over the years from a voluntary effort fueled by student initiative to a compulsory "program" mandated by universities. Costa Rica. Details from Sherraden & Castillo (1990), Gonzalez (1992), a booklet describing TCU entitled Informacin General (1992) and interviews with TCU administrators and university faculty contribute to understanding the historical roots of TCU as a program initiated by several Costa Rican students and facul ty concerned about how to make their university more responsive to the needs of their br oader society. They felt that because they were receiving many opportunities at the expense of othe rs, they ought to find a way to compensate the rest of the nation for what they had received. This attitude first emerged in what is described as a small "radically left" group of students and receiv ed support from a similar group of faculty during the 1960's and 1970's. Like most modern univ ersities, the University of Costa Rica identifies a three-pronged mission for itself, incl uding teaching, research, and service to the community. Therefore, in 1974, in an effort to respond to thi s "service movement," to raise service to the level of importance held by research and teachi ng, and to better integrate the three within the academic mission of the institution, the University of Costa Rica created an Office of Social Action (Vicerrectoria de Accin Social) to match it s two sibling offices of research and teaching; all three of which serve as administrative supports for faculty. Responsible for a variety of service related activities which bridge faculty and students with the community, this office administers several service-learning programs (incl uding TCU which became compulsory for students in 1975) which involve faculty and student s from each academic department to promote service as an integral part of the academic mission of the university.


10 of 29 Basic Program Purposes and Components Costa Rica and Indonesia have many similar objecti ves and processes for carrying out their service-learning programs. These are summariz ed in Table 2. As the details in Table 2 suggest, there are many similarities between these two programs but there are also tremendous differences. In terms of purposes, both programs are viewed as means for bridging university resources with commun ity resources. The emphasis in both is on community improvements and benefits while benefits to the students, faculty, and university as separate from the community are of secondary import ance. They both emphasize students' obligations to society more than student learning, although that is an obvious secondary focus.Table 2 Program Purposes and Components of the Indonesian and Costa Rican Programs Indonesia Costa Rica Purposes(For Indonesia, these are adaptedfrom Direktorate Pembinaan danPengabdian pada Maysarakat Ditjen Kikti Depdikbud, 1986.)1. Students obtain learning experiences through theirinvolvement in the social life of people in the community wherethey are directly exposed to everyday problems and addressthose problems in the process of development pragmatically andinter-disciplinarily.2. Students contribute their ideasto the people by virtue ofsciences, technologies, and arts in the attempt to stimulate andescalate the growth and development of the community aswell as set up cadres for continuing development.3. Universities produce graduateswho are more aware of thecomplex conditions, changes, and problems that the people face inthe process of development.Therefore, the graduates ofuniversities can be prepared to overcome problemspragmatically and interdisciplinarily.4. Relations among universities, (For Costa Rica, these are adapted from Gonzalez, 1992, pg. 8.)1. To raise the social consciousness of future professionals by bringing theminto direct contact with their society and its problems.2. To partially reimburse the society for what it has invested inthe preparation of its university students.3. To promote the students' sense of social responsibility so thatthey will continue to serve their communities throughout theirprofessional careers.4. To provide feedback to the university regarding how well itis meeting its teaching and research missions. Theconfrontation of the academic world with the social environment in service-learningsettings should lead to importantchanges in curricula and research projects.


11 of 29 local government, technicaloffices and members of the community are strengthened.Consequently, universities will be able to play a broader role andadapt their educational and research activities to the actualdemands of the developing societyStudentMotivation Compulsory for allundergraduates. Generallycompleted after the third year atthe university. Compulsory for allundergraduates. Generallycompleted after the third year atthe university.Faculty MotivationFaculty are assigned to KKNsupervisory responsibilities aspart of their regular assignment. Varies. One faculty member(minimum) from each academicdepartment elects to be involved by developing their own project.CommunityMotivationVaries. But usually participationis viewed as a means of obtainingad-ditional services not otherwise available and sometimesupgrading the status of the community generally. Varies. But usually participationis viewed as a means of obtainingadditional services not otherwise available and sometimesupgrading the status of the community generally.Program OfficeA separate office designed tobridge other units on communityand research; reorganization underway to shift KKN undercommunity unit Equated with sibling offices onresearch and teaching; providessupport to department level TCU activities.Project development and administrationCentralized within KKN officewith guidance from regional andnational government input on priorities. Faculty assigned toKKN developed projects and sites. Decentralized to academicdepartments and voluntaryfaculty within those departments.Faculty develop their ownprojects and get approval by TCU office.Length ofprojectUsually two monthsUsually three yearsLength of service for studentsTwo months full time-projectsare turned over to the communityafter this with no new students coming in. 300 hours-projects usuallycontinue with another group ofstudents and the same faculty member.Curricular placementSeparate from traditionalcoursework and concentrated inJune-August. Separate from traditionalcoursework but ongoingthroughout the year.


12 of 29 Preparation of studentsPrior to participation in theprogram, students complete acoaching orientation. Prior to participation in theprogram, students complete alarge group course on "national reality."Project choicesStudents are assigned to a teamwhich is assigned to a projectsetting. Students are provided with abooklet of about 100 facultyprojects from which they may choose and apply.Setting/focusAll projects are similar. They areinterdisciplinary projectsfocusing on several areas of development reflecting regionaland national governmental priorities, usually in rural settingsbut moving toward urban projects in the future. Varies greatly from foci oncultural development, to healtheducation, to infrastructure development to literacy concerns.May be focused on a single social issue or on multiple aspects ofurban or rural concerns.Team size (on site)8 to 10 students and a supervisor Varies: 10 to 30 and a facultymember.Team compositionInterdisciplinaryInterdisciplinaryResidencyStudents are required to reside inthe village community where theproject takes place. Students generally continue toreside at home.SupervisionVaries but faculty serve as distantsupports and evaluators. Studentswork very independently with little supervision. Varies but tends to have facultyinvolved in all phases of projects.Students usually have regular supervision.Community participationVaries greatly. Mechanisms existto promote the development ofprojects which arise from needs identified by communitymembers, which foster community participation. Varies greatly. Mechanisms existto promote the development ofprojects which arise from needs identified by communitymembers, which foster community participation.Program evaluationFormal formative and summativeevaluations involve all stakeholders. Formal formative and summativeevaluations involve all stakeholders.Student evaluationGraded, group grading used.Pass/failFaculty involvementA small core group of faculty(about 20% of all faculty) areactively involved. A small core group of faculty(about 20% of all faculty) areactively involved.


13 of 29 Reflective componentThere is no specified reflectivecomponent but there are regularproblem-solving/decision-making meetings. These may be formalwith participation of faculty and community members or informalwith only students. Implicitemphasis is to focus on othersand not encourage self-consciousreflection on service. There is no specified reflectivecomponent but there are regularproblem-solving/decision-making meetings. These may be formalwith participation of faculty and community members or informalwith only students. Implicitemphasis is to focus on othersand not encourage self-consciousreflection on service.FinancesMinimal funds are used.Supplemental funds areoccasionally received from extension offices. Students areprovided one round trip transport to and from the site. Moststudents pay tuition and often contribute project funds. Minimal funds are used.Supplemental funds areoccasionally received from extension offices. Provides foodand transportation to and from out of city sites. 70% of studentspay no tuition and students rarely fund projects. In terms of motivations for participating, communi ty members view the programs in both countries as a means of obtaining services not othe rwise available. These programs are also meant to provide a feedback loop so that society ca n inform the university about the social realities that academia should address. Thus, the c ommunity not only receives benefits but should also inform the university via these programs. Students in both countries are required to partici pate if they want to graduate (though many of them want to offer their help and do not vi ew this requirement negatively). According to faculty and students interviewed in this study, stu dents who participate in Costa Rica feel some obligation, beyond their university requirement, to participate because about 60% of them pay almost no tuition. Even of those who do, the highes t payments are only about the equivalent of $120 a semester. And in Indonesia, all university s tudents feel some obligation to the rest of their society to help, even though they have to pay tuiti on and often major costs associated with their projects. Faculty motivations vary more substantially. In In donesia, faculty are assigned supervisory roles to projects that may or may not be directly r elevant to their teaching and research agenda. They do not appear to glean much professionally or personally from participating. But in Costa Rica, faculty volunteer to be involved by proposing their own projects which sometimes grow directly out of their research and teaching activit ies. It appears that the main incentive for professors' involvement in TCU is to write about it They are welcome to publish what they learn, just as they would with regular research pro jects. Administratively, the programs are very similar in that program offices are set up to bridge service with research and teaching rather than make service a separate activity. However, the Indonesian program administration is centralized wi thin the KKN government office and involves service learning projects for students fro m many different universities. Though the Costa Rican program has the TCU office and a formal project development and evaluation process (involving reviews of plans, implementation and outcomes), most of the development and administration is decentralized to academic dep artments and faculty within those departments. Each academic department in the univer sity has a faculty member assigned to coordinate the efforts of their department with the Office of Social Action. This person helps orient other professors to the Social Action progra ms, knows the community service projects pertaining to their department, helps solve problem s encountered by participants in the program,


14 of 29encourages integration of service with inquiry and teaching, and otherwise searches for ways to meet the office of Social Action's main responsibil ity, which is to translate what the university is learning into the society at-large. Both programs provide minimal financial support, a lthough the Costa Rican program appears to provide slightly more. Most University o f Costa Rica departments dedicate at least three percent of their budget to TCU-related projec ts and allow up to 30% overload or faculty release time to participate in these programs. The TCU office provides an assistant for ten hours a week to help faculty members in whatever ways the y see fit. That office also provides food, transportation, hourly assistants, materials, and e valuation/ accreditation assistance for projects they approve. In contrast, the Indonesian students often provide their own financial support for projects in addition to paying tuition, though the program provides travel to and from the project site. In terms of student requirements and faculty invol vement, the TCU program, translated as university community work, is designed to meet the Costa Rican objectives through compulsory "pass/fail" participation of all undergraduate stud ents, in addition to their traditional coursework and departmental practica requirements. Students mu st complete the equivalent of 300 hours of service by working on a segment of a faculty member 's TCU-approved project in less than one year after completing at least 50% of their coursew ork and taking a class on "national reality" which orients them to the problems of the nation (c ourse content and activities vary widely as each academic department teaches its own version). They may apply to participate in a project after reviewing available project descriptions in a booklet. These projects usually involve some needs assessme nt with community leaders or members, span at least three years and are somewhat interdisciplinary in nature. Project foci vary widely from efforts to solve health problems, to im proving literacy, to enhancing cultural development, to preserving historical relics, to pr eserving native dialects. Projects usually grow out of the faculty members' assessment of what a pa rticular community needs in light of each faculty member's primary research and teaching inte rests and their ongoing relationships with the community. Thus, the faculty members are usually me mbers of these communities or have strong ties to them and are willing to dedicate several ye ars to addressing needs there, working with several cohorts of 10-30 students from many differe nt disciplines throughout the project's history. The KKN program is also compulsory and subsequent to at least two years of on-campus study. It involves participation in a graded four c redit "coaching" class taught for 2-4 hours from January to June within each college (usually in lar ge groups of up to 200 students) to orient students to the infrastructure of villages, as well as production, education, social, cultural, and spiritual issues important in village life. Toward the end of this course, students are divided into small teams of 8-10 which are assigned to participa ting villages and they meet to prepare for an initial visit to the village. Meanwhile, village le aders are approached by government and university staff to explain the aims of KKN and pre pare the villagers to identify needs and prepare for the team to take residence there. Event ually, an initial one day "observation visit" is conducted to allow students to gather data about th e situation and needs of the village. However, rather than a formal needs assessment, this visit u sually only involves introductions, a short tour of the village, and a short meeting to discuss the starting date, housing arrangements, and the expression of hopes for what will be accomplished. About a week after this initial visit, the student team moves into the village and spends two months developing relationships, working with v illage leaders to develop a multi-disciplinary work plan and working collaborat ively with one another and villagers to address this plan. The students are supposed to pla y five main roles: sharers of information from outside sources that the villagers might want to us e, motivators to encourage village members to make necessary changes, diffusers of national progr ams and ideas, inter-system mediators between villagers and offices offering technical se rvices within the region, and supervisors of


15 of 29 project activities. However, actual roles emerge an d are negotiated, often resulting in the students spending considerable time physically laboring in t he village on projects villagers want. The students also spend time each day informally meetin g together to talk about their work, challenges they face, and possible solutions. The foci of the projects usually combine several a reas of development reflecting local, regional, and national governmental priorities. Som e examples include rodent control, building an irrigation canal, reactivation of a local chapte r of the national family education and welfare organization for women, activation of youth in vill age projects through sports, traditional dancing, and drama, renovation of a bridge, advice on legal issues, conservation of traditional folk drama through education of the youth by knowle dgeable villagers, education on health maintenance and hygiene, conducting a census, and m obilizing funds for economic development. The students are supervised and evaluated/graded at the end of the two months by faculty assigned to their project who do not usually reside in the village with the students but make occasional visits. These evaluations include observ ations of projects, interviews with key village leaders, and review of a final report prepared by t he students which describes the village, current problems in it, and students' activities and projec t outcomes. One important component of service-learning progra ms according to the literature is "reflection" by participants on what they are learn ing from their giving of service. Neither of these programs specify a "reflective" component per se. However, there are many opportunities for the students in the Indonesian teams and the st udents and faculty in the Costa Rican projects to meet, talk, make decisions, and solve problems t ogether. Thus, there is an emphasis on being thoughtful about what they are doing as they addres s real problems of their communities. But reflection is implied rather than highlighted. Also the focus is on encouraging an orientation toward helping others rather than on self-conscious service (e.g., what am I getting out of this?). Perceived Outcomes To facilitate interpretation of the findings of th ese two studies, overall results as perceived by participants and by us as visitors are presented in Table 3 then discussed briefly. The first substantial finding of this investigatio n was that the goals of both KKN and TCU are actually being translated into practices and ex periences of faculty, students, and members of the community. It became clear that the service mis sions of these programs are being expressed in tangible, though somewhat different ways.Table 3 Perceived Outcomes for the Indonesian and Costa Ric an ProgramsArea of Perceived Outcomes Indonesia Costa Rica 1. In terms of official objectivesThe first three objectives areclearly being met. However,although relations among participating universities andcommunities are improving, it is not clear that the universitiesare adapting their teaching and research activities to thedemands of the developing society. All four objectives appear to beaddressed by the currentprogram. The service mission ofTCU is being actualized intopractices and experiences of faculty, students, and membersof the community.


16 of 29 2. Relative emphasis is on community outcomesThe primary benefit is what thevillagers receive from theirinvolvement in KKN projects-direct help with health,agricultural, educational, and other challenges as well asincreased status for being a KKN project village. While students, faculty, anduniversity are benefiting, theexplicit emphasis is on community benefits. Thecommunity members felt listened to and responded to byuniversity representatives. Theywere invited to collaborate withstudents and faculty to address their own problems in smallsteps over time.3. Student outcomesIn contrast with othercoursework, KKN participation is perceived to developself-management and interpersonal skills, and values,perspectives, and ideas related to social responsibility andmulticultural awareness. It isalso one rite of passage intoadulthood. With few exceptions, studentsfeel that participation in TCUhelps them develop civic responsibility and caring forothers in society while they refine their skills and applyknowledge in their majors. Theysee this as one way to begin"paying back" their fellow citizens for this opportunity for ahigher education.4. Faculty/university outcomesThe universities whichparticipate receive greatervisibility in the communities involved and most graduateshave a deeper knowledge of and commitment to the society; but faculty do not appear tobenefit directly and curriculum and research programs are notaffected directly. Faculty who choose toparticipate report professionalgrowth and learning while noting that participation helps them bebetter teachers and researchers and to integrate thoseresponsibilities with service in meaningful ways.5. Interdisciplinary focusStudents from many differentdisciplines are organized intoteams which are assigned to address realistic projectproblems in villages. The focus of TCU projects onreal problems faced bycommunities leads naturally to integration of various disciplinesto cooperatively address those problems.6. Project focusUse of original service projectsto coalesce student and facultyeffort in groups around community problems helpsfocus their efforts in ways that could not be achieved throughsolo service hours spent in existing service agencies. Use of original service projectsto coalesce student and facultyeffort in groups around community problems helps focustheir efforts in ways that could not be achieved through soloservice hours spent in existing service agencies.7. Placement in curriculumService in KKN as arequirement separate from all other coursework emphasizesthe importance of the community needs in Service in TCU as a requirementseparate from all othercoursework emphasizes the importance of the community needs over university


17 of 29 conjunction with university requirements. requirements and makes the use of student time much moreflexible.8. Role of compulsionThe compulsory nature of theprogram is critical to itssuccess but carries some problematic side effects. The compulsory nature of theprogram is essential to itssuccess but may lead to problems if other universities don't require it.9. How well the program meets the Principles of Service LearningClearly meets 6 of 10 but doesnot emphasize criticalreflection (Principle 2), often fails to clarify theresponsibilities of participants (Principle 5), often lackssufficient supervision of students (Principle 8), andprovides insufficient time for many projects to be completedsatisfactorily (Principle 9). Clearly meets 8 of 10 but doesnot emphasize critical reflection(Principle 2) nor articulation of learning goals (Principle 3).10. Main lesson learnedThe focus on serving takesprecedence over a focus onlearning; this seems to be a strength rather than a weaknessof the program. The emphasis on social actionfor others by students and facultyleads to meaningful learning without (and maybe better than)an explicit focus on learning benefits to participants(particularly students).11. Problems facedFaculty supervisor to student ratio is too small-due tocompulsory nature of the program. They needa mechanism to releasefaculty from other responsibilities in order to be placed withstudents in villages longer. 1. Lack of funds-undue load carried by the students. 2. Length of program is too short for students to see consequences oftheir service. 3. Disagreement over the purposes and foci of KKN projects betweenstudents and villagers-often an overemphasis on highly visibleprojects involving 4. Quality of students' experience depends on the faculty member, theproject, and the student and appears to varyconsiderably. 1. Compulsory element can lead to a negative experience for somestudents who would rather not participate. 2. There is a potential threat from other universitieswhich do not require service; they may take over the higher educationmarket. Therefore, there is growing pressure tojustify TCU with respect to student benefits. 3. There is a need to involve more faculty in the program. While TCUprovides an infrastructure for integrating research, 4.


18 of 29 physical labor to satisfyvillager's expectations while under emphasizing otherstudent roles.Institutionalization of the KKN by the centralgovernment facilitates the amassing of resources and supportfrom many sources butit can also lead to a focus on governmentalgoals and projects rather than local interests. 5. They need to develop more urban projects instead of working onlyon rural problems. 6. They need more external evaluation of their programs,including research on processes and outcomes of programs. 7. teaching and service, how it is used depends largelyon the academic departments' understanding of andcommitment to the integration possibilities of TCU projects.Increasingly TCU staff are feeling the need to be able to demonstrate moreconvincingly the benefits to faculty and theuniversity which emerge from TCU involvement so more departments willsupport research through this program and notrequire faculty to do research in competing areas.Funding for projectsneeds to be increased. 5. They need more external evaluation of their programs, includingresearch on processes and outcomes of programs. 6. Second, while students, faculty, and the universit y seem to be benefiting in a variety of ways, both programs are distinguished by their expl icit emphasis (in terms of stated objectives and the planned activities of participants) on comm unity benefits with more subtle or implicit emphasis on benefits to students, faculty, and the associated universities generally. Members of the communities being served by the university stud ents and faculty reported that they felt understood and listened to by the academics. They w ere usually very involved in identifying their needs, developing the programs that would address t hose needs and evaluating their success in collaboration with the faculty and students involve d. As one Costa Rican community leader said, This project has been good. . it has helped peopl e to get involved, to listen to one another. Some of our people have volunteered with b uilding a canal here, because of this project. This land, you know, was given to us. This is a problem.. People sometimes begin to think other people should always solve their problems. This project has begun to show them that outside help is important, but it requires effort from us. Change requires collaboration. The best ou tside help is like this, when they help us decide, help us plan, help us accomplish ou r goals. Third, however, with only a few exceptions, most o f the university students felt that participation also helped them develop a realistic sense of civic responsibility, understanding, and caring for others in their society while provid ing an opportunity for them to refine their skills and apply knowledge obtained through their studies in new and useful ways. As one Indonesian student noted,


19 of 29I never realized that the villagers might have a se t of customs and beliefs about what materials can be used for something like a water sy stem and that concrete was not a part of that. This required a great deal of discuss ion. At times I was frustrated that we could not proceed faster. But I also gained an a ppreciation for their ability to deliberate on these matters. Without this sort of d eliberation, important aspects of the culture could be lost. ... those ways might act ually be there because they are the most effective. I suppose I did not realize that sl ow progress may sometimes be appropriate. ... KKN helped me learn the importance of examining these cultural issues, especially when drastic changes are being s uggested. They know their reasons for previous practices and they know some o f the barriers to change which outsiders can not anticipate." Another student from Costa Rica explained, I'm a boy from the city, but now my heart beats to the rhythm of the village. I know the condition of many people in my country whi ch I could have easily been shielded from my entire life. It is possible, you k now, to pursue your own interests above the needs of people who are suffering nearby. We learn to navigate around them, those people, so well that we remain complete ly ignorant of their circumstances. But once you know about them first h and, ...then you no longer can only pursue your own interests. TCU helps you accep t some responsibility for your society. Fourth, Costa Rican faculty who choose to particip ate are also affected positively while Indonesian faculty are more tangential to their pro gram. The universities in Indonesia which participate receive greater visibility in the commu nities involved and have the satisfaction of believing that most of their graduates have a deepe r knowledge of and commitment to the society; but faculty do not appear to benefit direc tly and most curriculum and research programs are not affected directly by the service component. In contrast, TCU appears to serve as a sort of fac ulty and university development program for at least a small proportion of the faculty. Par ticipating faculty reported they benefited in many of the same ways students did, which was not surpri sing because one of the most obvious elements of faculty involvement across all Costa Ri can sites was that faculty viewed themselves as learners alongside the students. As one professo r reflected, This project gives me a chance to go to areas I nev er would otherwise go. I meet people I never would know and learn about circumsta nces I have only heard about. It is one thing to have an opinion or a solution in yo ur mind. It is another to confront it, to address the problem, just as it exists, with all of the complications. ... And to do it in the peace of high mountain villages. Well, it is enjoyable and difficult at the same time. It changes you, personally and professionally It anchors who you are and why you do what you do. Others noted that participation helped them be bet ter teachers and researchers and to integrate those responsibilities with service in me aningful ways: By blending them, I am not as torn between my respo nsibilities as I would be if I had them all separated.Doing different things is a good way to stay intere sting to your students. Somehow I think I am more lively now when I teach my courses because TCU has gotten me out


20 of 29into the fresh air, off campus. TCU is a good remin der of what I am really doing as an instructor. It is easy to forget about that.For me it has been a good way to integrate research and service...and teaching. It has given me many ideas for teaching and research. I am very excited about this research. It is full of surprises. One of the striking features of the research being conducted in the context of TCU projects is the way research questions arise. Many of the ideas for research projects emerge in the contexts in which they are being executed. Rather t han formulating a research agenda out of context and imposing it on "subjects", the requirem ents of TCU call for projects which arise from community needs. For many researchers, this calls f or a methodological departure often moving from highly reductionistic, quantitative approaches to more individualistic, qualitative research approaches. Several faculty find themselves develop ing new research skills as they ask different questions, often more directly bridging their resea rch with practice. Inasmuch as faculty experience personal or profess ional development, it is likely the university itself is indirectly being upgraded. Fac ulty indicated that the most apparent way the university benefits from their TCU experiences is t hat the curriculum is informed by the community-based projects. The strengthened communit y relationships which result from many TCU projects, including collaboration with various public and private agencies, also are perceived as beneficial to the university. And a st udent explained that as the faculty have improved through participation in this program, the whole university has benefited too, TCU makes the university more realistic. It forces faculty to take their theories into the streets, not just to test them, but to use them And I think that when they teach, their experience of having used a certain theory or method in a real situation makes their lesson more meaningful to students, more vali d. This improves the university generally, I think.. Fifth, programs in both countries address real pro blems of their national and local communities using interdisciplinary teams of studen ts. In Indonesia, this occurs because the teams are created through a mixing of students from a variety of majors; then the teams are assigned to villages where the problems to be addre ssed are negotiated with the villagers and the students are able to call upon their experiences an d coursework to address these real needs. In Costa Rica, the faculties' focus in their TCU p rojects on real problems faced by communities throughout the country has lead natural ly to the integration of various disciplines to cooperatively address those problems. The students join the projects from many different majors after reviewing brief summaries of the projects and in response to requests from the faculty members for students with particular expertise. In both situations, the interdisciplinary efforts are breaking down barriers between people with different perspectives while identifying bette r solutions to problems they all face. As one student said, I am from the hard sciences. It was helpful to work with social workers on this. I would not have thought to do this, maybe because I was never taught to think that way, that inclusively, in my coursework. They helpe d me understand why people were making the decisions they were about how they built their houses; why they did or did not take care of their land like I thought t hey should. This was necessary to understand if we wanted to get them to change how t hey did things. It was humbling, I guess you would say, to realize that our solution s were useless until we learned how to reach them. This is why TCU is valuable to m e. It is my work to help solve


21 of 29human's problems, but in my school, we do not study humans. We study the earth. TCU taught me the human side to geology that never appeared in my books. And a faculty member noted, I have learned many things from this project alread y. I am a social worker, but I have had to learn about geology and geography, even arch itecture in order to make the social changes I am interested in making there. Non e of us can work in isolation when we are applying what we do to real life proble ms. This has helped me question my methodology and others' methodologies as well. W hat can it mean when people are working within a single perspective? What kinds of solutions to problems can they offer? Sixth, in both countries, original service project s are created by the participants to coalesce efforts of all group members around commun ity problems. This approach helps focus their efforts in ways that could not be achieved th rough solo service hours spent in existing service agencies. Students are not just giving serv ice-they are part of a team which supports them, challenges them, and helps them see that they are part of something bigger than themselves. They are learning to collaborate as cit izens for the common good. Seventh, although the Indonesian students are grad ed while the Costa Ricans receive pass/fail ratings only, both programs include the s ervice curriculum as a separate requirement for students, outside of all coursework, again emphasiz ing the focus on community needs first and university structure and requirements second. Inter estingly, several of the Costa Rican faculty who were interviewed as well as the TCU administrat ors, commented on how the aims of TCU depend on the freedom this external placement of th e program provides. As one faculty member noted (and this seems to apply in Indonesia as well ), I think it is better to have TCU separate as well a s non-graded. It helps me achieve many of the objectives of TCU related to social res ponsibility. The interdisciplinary nature of TCU would be much more difficult if TCU w ere part of specific courses. And how can you respond to community needs if you h ave to do projects which must operate on the semester calendar? The way TCU works now, students are involved for 300 hours. How those hours are distrib uted depends totally on the nature of the work to be done for the community. It all depends on the community project. ...Having TCU non-graded is also very good at least for me. It helped me use the evaluation process to achieve the objective s of social responsibility. If I had to grade the students, they would be motivated by a grade rather than by doing something which was meaningful to them and to other s. The TCU process is just more real and so is the way they are evaluated. Don 't you think it is good to learn how to evaluate your own work in your own terms? An d, the students were more motivated than students ever are when grades are a part of it. This is ironic because some people, other faculty, who don't participate i n TCU, say that it is impossible to motivate students if you are not grading them. Thos e of us who are committed to TCU do not find this to be true. Eighth, one of the most hotly debated issues regar ding the composition of university service-learning programs is whether service-learni ng should be cumpulsory or voluntary. Many of the elements in these programs which were cited as key in determining the value they have for their various participants are a function of their compulsory nature. The compulsory nature of the programs appears to be critical to their success; b ut this characteristic also bears some problematic side effects. In Indonesia, because nea rly all universities participate in this national


22 of 29program, there are more students needing supervisio n and guidance than the existing faculty can appropriately serve. So, although many villages are receiving help, the quality may suffer. In Costa Rica, in addition to the requirements pla ced on the students, each academic department at the University of Costa Rica is expec ted to have at least one TCU project underway at all times. Most participants seem to ag ree that the compulsory nature of the program has been essential to its overall success. A staff member who has been in the TCU program since its inception summarized, Once we had general commitment to TCU, we were able to be more creative in what we expected of students. When you require them to b e in TCU, you can require them to be creative and to have the more intense experie nce, the better experience... maybe better than they would choose if you allowed them to choose it or not. However, as mentioned earlier, as other universitie s which do not have this requirement continue to emerge and to compete for student enrol lments, the compulsory nature of TCU is coming under increasing attack both from within and outside the university. Ninth, an analysis of the Indonesian and Costa Ric an program in terms of the ten principles of good practice for combining service a nd learning cited earlier (Kendall and Associates, 1990, p. 40) suggests both programs con firm and conform to most of these principles. It appears that eight of them were clea rly represented in the experiences of participants in the TCU projects examined in this s tudy. For example, relating to the seventh principle of servicelearning, "An effective progr am expects genuine, active, and sustained organizational commitment," it appeared that TCU en joys considerable institutional support. This support includes the compulsory nature of the program, the requirement of each academic department to be involved in TCU, financial and adm inistrative support, and the clear articulation of TCU's mission and its relationship to the overall mission of the university. However, in both countries there is evidence also that they do not follow these principles exactly. For instance, the Indonesian program clear ly meets six of the ten but does not emphasize critical reflection (Principle 2), often incomplete ly clarifies the responsibilities of participants (Principle 5), lacks sufficient supervision of stud ents (Principle 8), and provides insufficient time for many projects to be completed satisfactorily (P rinciple 9). Although the Indonesians would agree that they should meet the latter three princi ples better and they are searching for ways to do so, they do not appear to value the critical reflec tion component as much as the authors of the principles do. Likewise, in Costa Rica, there is very little evid ence that principle 2 (critical reflection) or the learning focus of principle 3 (articulation of clear learning goals) were explicitly addressed at all, almost in direct relation to the major emphasi s of the program on "community" benefits. While there are many references in goal statements and program objectives to helping the communities associated with the university, neither of these principles that focus on more typical concerns of universities for their students are exp ressly manifest in the TCU program. From many service-learning educators' perspectives the absence of these student-centered components would be viewed as a programmatic weakne ss. In fact, some service-learning educators (see several in Jacoby, 1996) suggest tha t it is the presence of some of these components which distinguishes service-learning fro m non-educational volunteerism. They argue that one can volunteer but not necessarily interpre t their volunteer experience accurately or ethically and not necessarily learn anything new wi thout a reflective component and clearly stated learning goals. Thus, the absence of explici t student learning objectives in the TCU program and a reflective component in both programs may technically be noted as a weakness of these programs. Paradoxically, however, it is possible that the la ck of these particular ingredients may actually facilitate the objectives of both programs while better addressing the learning goals of


23 of 29students and faculty than the principles could, in this context. Perhaps to include components focusing on student learning objectives and a stude ntcentered reflective process would be somewhat contradictory to the underlying philosophy of what the TCU and KKN experiences "ought" to mean to students since they emphasize an "other" orientation; and a focus on student outcomes emphasizes a "me" orientation. One of the TCU staff, pretending to be a student, tried to illustrate this point: TCU is not about me. Its about other people. Its ab out my community. ...Or the environment. It is not about ME! The implication is that being a part of some actio n or activity which is other focused is a form of learning itself. Conversely, to demand the setting of student learning goals and objectives and the use of a formal reflective process for stud ents to examine their experiences could be to undo the essence of the experience TCU and KKN are designed to facilitate. The exclusion of such elements may be as vital to the success of the se programs as their inclusion in programs with different learning aims. The question which so me service-learning educators will inevitably ask is whether the benefits students receive due to the absence of those elements can be called "learning". When speaking about student experiences, TCU and K KN staff do not talk about learning as much as they talk about "social action" and serv ice. In university settings where behavioral components of learning rarely appear, can such acti on constitute learning in and of itself? Some vehemently argue that the conscious processing of a ction is what constitutes the learning and is what may ensure that the actions have been "appropr iately" interpreted and incorporated into the students' ethical and information systems. Finally, in terms of challenges, participants in b oth countries are searching for ways to involve more faculty, to clarify the purposes of th e program for potential participants, to obtain greater supporting funds, to improve the quality of the experience for all participants, to overcome negative side effects associated with thei r programs being compulsory, to have external evaluation assistance, and to conduct rese arch on the processes and outcomes of their programs. The Indonesians are also seeking to develop more u rban projects rather than focus only on rural problems, and they are searching for ways to place faculty directly in field settings with students. The University of Costa Rica has found wa ys to deal with both these problems but finds that other newer universities throughout the countr y are not requiring students to give this kind of service and so they may lose enrollments over time if the program doesn't become a national one. Lingering Questions Our inquiries into the service learning programs of Indonesia and Costa Rica have clarified many of the issues that educators everywhere ought to consider as they contemplate similar programs in their contexts. But we have also encoun tered several questions that merit the attention and considered thinking of these educator s as well. Some of these follow: What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of attempting to develop or sustain a university program which is "action" oriented versu s "learning" oriented? 1. What adaptations to the university mission are nece ssary to incorporate social action into the educational agenda? 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages (either i n terms of learning or action) of including elements in programs which encourage stud ent-centered thought or reflection? 3. What types of educational processes are helpful and for what purposes? 4.


24 of 29How to create a balance between national and local community needs? 5. How to decide if enough student learning is occurri ng in a program, how to determine what learning is occurring, and how to expand learn ing benefits (if so desired). 6. What is the relationship between various programmat ic elements and students' learning outcomes, including relative focus on the importanc e and function of training, monitoring, evaluation processes, reflective components, and co ncomitant traditional study? 7. How should teaching, research, and service be blend ed most appropriately. 8. How to demonstrate most convincingly the benefits t o faculty and the university which emerge from involvement in service learning? What t hese benefits are, what elements are necessary to produce them, and how they can be docu mented and presented represent important research questions which need to be addre ssed. 9. What are the unexpected outcomes or side-effects of service learning programs? 10. To what extent are the experiences of the community students, faculty, the university (i.e.. benefits, involvement, challenges) dependent on whe ther the program assumes a service project focus or consists of solo service activitie s? In what ways is the meaning of the servicelearning experience for each participant i nfluenced by this aspect of the program's design? 11. How do community, student, and faculty experiences differ depending on whether the service-learning activities are embedded in or exte rnal to traditional coursework? 12. What other aspects of participants' experiences are a result of the compulsory nature of programs and how do participants' experiences compa re with the experiences of those involved in voluntary service-learning programs? 13. These questions mark important needs for future inv estigation. Conclusions and Implications Universities all over the world have continually al igned themselves with a three-pronged mission which includes research, teaching, and comm unity service. While the ways in which each of these missions are defined may vary signifi cantly from one university to the next, the priority service usually receives in comparison wit h the other two is quite consistent across many different university contexts in which service at l east ostensibly appears as a part of the mission. Almost without exception, service in academic life remains a low priority, is often ambiguously and narrowly defined, frequently refers only to oncampus service within or between departments, rarely is integrated into research and teaching activities and involvement with students, and is rarely considered as an equally vi able component in promotion and tenure evaluations. The KKN and TCU programs serve as examples of univ ersity programs which promote service, though still as a "third" priority, as a m ore legitimate part of students' and faculties' academic lives than in most universities in the wor ld. Increasingly universities everywhere are receiving the message that students need to be developing a greater sense of community membership, interdisciplinary understanding of social problems, and an enhanced ability to apply their kn owledge and skills to a wide variety of circumstances. Communities which host universities often feel isolated from the university members, frequently serving only as subjects for th eir research, and often removed from the wealth of resources housed in those "ivory" towers. As a result, universities are increasingly re-evaluating their service missions and asking the question, "Why is service part of the university's mission and what does it mean?" In this study, we have begun to examine the meanin g of the KKN and TCU experiences as well as challenges they face from many different pa rticipants' perspectives. While the focus of


25 of 29both programs seems to be on benefits to the commun ity, participants also acknowledged that better linkages need to be forged between students' learning needs, faculty needs, and the needs of communities in which students and faculty are in volved if more faculty are going to get involved and if financial support from various sour ces is going to be forthcoming. It seems fair to conclude from our experiences in these two countries that the key variable to overcoming challenges and expanding service-lear ning beyond the levels that have been achieved is increased faculty involvement. The comm unities are already benefiting and welcoming whatever the universities are offering. T he students participate because it is mandated. But until more faculty are involved by he lping them understand both the "why" and the "how" of service-learning, both these exemplary programs are limited. The Indonesian program is unable to grow due to lack of supervisio n while the Costa Rican program remains fairly small because fewer than 20% of the faculty are involved in developing projects in which students may engage. In an effort to understand the faculty role better we asked faculty who were involved why they considered involvement a legitimate expenditur e of their time and energy. However, their answers to this question usually did not quench our curiosities. Their responses were, "We must." "It is important, don't you think so?""It is interesting." It began to be clear that while the support mechan isms associated with these programs were necessary and helpful, they were not what made the prospect of involvement compelling for faculty. All faculty in the University of Costa Ric a and the Indonesian system are repeatedly provided with this information, yet only about one fifth of the faculty participate. Why do some choose to get involved and view participation as an ideal way to combine teaching, research and service while others simply don't participate? We were reminded of the philosophy of Emmanuel Lev inas (1987) who suggests that when one truly comes to acknowledge another person and their call upon the acknowledger, engaging with that "other" ethically comes naturall y, as do methods for responding to the call of the other. This view prompts us to wonder if in our study of methods used in these two service-learning programs, perhaps we only brushed the surface of the most important characteristics of KKN and TCU: the reasons why som e faculty (and universities) are committed to these programs; and, conversely, why some facult y, even though they have the same information about how these programs operate, choos e not to be involved? Is it possible that the critical issue is one of p hilosophy or paradigm; how those involved with servicelearning see the world differently th an those who are not involved? Perhaps what is needed to expand these programs is vision--the assu mptions of individuals and their organizations in relation to the communities which surround and support them. The question becomes, "How can this vision be shared?" Some faculty criticize these programs as free labo r given to the community. Reflecting on this perceived problem, a TCU staff member stated, We need ideas for educating our faculty, for motiva ting them about TCU in a positive way. Clearly they do not understand TCU wh en they feel that way. TCU is not free labor. We need a way to show them how educ ational it is for students. But its more than that. I don't know. It is difficult t o explain. But we need this more and more because their sentiment seems to be growing." They need more of what? As qualitative researchers who have spent considerable time exploring the paradigmatic assumptions of this form of inquiry, we recognize significant parallels


26 of 29between the assumptions of a qualitative inquiry pa radigm and the underlying assumptions of service-learning. For example, qualitative inquirer s assume that to develop an understanding of another phenomenon such as a person, it is necessar y to interact with them from multiple perspectives, to allow the phenomenon to affect one self. Qualitative researchers also assume there are no simple causal relationships but rather complex interrelationships that generally require interdisciplinary perspectives to be unders tood, that values influence all constructions of knowledge (simple objectivity is impossible), that constructs about phenomena should be defined within their own context and language, and that to influence phenomena with any amount of deliberation, all of these assumptions must be enco untered. We also noticed, as we have in our work with resea rchers (whether quantitative or qualitative), a sort of blindness on the part of "i nsiders" in these service-learning programs regarding the assumptions they were operating under Similar to researchers we have worked with, the "insiders" were often unable to articulat e their assumptions clearly. And so, it is perhaps this inability to understand one's own assumptions that handicaps them in being able to expand their programs to other faculty and associated stud ents and community members. For example, a person who has not considered their teaching, learn ing, and research paradigms, especially if they contrast drastically with those of participants in service-learning programs, would likely find statements like, "TCU is a must" or "KKN is importa nt" not very convincing arguments for engaging in these programs. But it is those kinds o f statements faculty tend to make regarding the impetus for their involvement. If what we have found in our experience in helping researchers consider alternative paradigms of inquiry relates to the process of help ing faculty consider their entire professional paradigms, it may require an in-depth examination o f their paradigmatic assumptions in order for them to understand what service-learning is based o n and why they should be involved. A subsequent related question is, what risks are i nvolved in bringing these assumptions into the primary awareness of those persons already committed to and engaged in service-learning? Polanyi (1962), in Personal Knowledge discusses the value of both primary and subsidiary awareness and what elements of experienc e belong to each. He offers the example of a pianist who suddenly pays attention to his fingers and immediately falters. While sometimes it is helpful to focus on the fingers, in developing form for example, at other times it is not. Addressing the point that some "information" belong s only to the realm of tacit knowledge, Polanyi also points out how explicit mathematical d escriptions of what is involved in keeping a bicycle balanced as it is ridden down a sidewalk do not help the bicyclist accomplish this task. Therefore, pulling up the underlying assumptions o f what fuels commitment and understanding of service-learning programs such as TCU and KKN, may create self-conscious servers for the future and may not actually lead to others' participation. But, our experience in helping researchers consider alternative paradigms of inquiry suggests that such examination can be extremely liberating for people and can help the m make choices they never consciously made before. Furthermore, by understanding those assumpt ions, they are less likely to violate them and, consequently, are more likely to be successful within the parameters upon which the paradigm enables them to act. TCU and KKN represent rich fields of inquiry in wh ich the principles of good practice for combining service and learning can be explored. Thi s inquiry has demonstrated the need for research in many different areas regarding universi ty service-learning. This inquiry of TCU and KKN also serves as evidence that there is great pot ential value in looking in unexpected places for innovation and the need for educators to look t o educators in developing countries to see what they can teach us for a change.References


27 of 29Albert, G. (Ed.) (1994). Service-learning reader: r eflections and perspectives on service. Raleigh, N. C.: National Society for Experiential Education.Arias Sanchez, O. (1988). We seek ... Not peace alo ne. Commencement address at Harvard University, Harvard Magazine July-August, 19-22. Daloz, L. A. P., Keen, C. H., Keen, J. P., & Parks, S. D. (1996). Common fire: lives of commitment in a complex world. Boston, MA: Deacon P ress. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Direktorate Pembinaan dan Pengabdian pada Maysaraka t Ditjen Kikti Depdikbud, 1986. Eberly, D. J. & Sherraden, M. (Editors) (1990). The moral equivalent of war? A study of non-military service in nine nations. New York: Greenwood Press. Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye: qualitative inquiry and the en hancement of educational practices New York: Macmillan. Gonzalez, M. A. (1992). In Eberly, D. J. (Ed.), National youth service: A global perspective. Washington, DC.: National Service Secretariat.Hardjasoemantri, K. (1981). Study-service as a subs ystem in Indonesian higher education. Unpublished dissertation.Informacin General (1992). (General Information). San Jos, Costa Rica: The University of Costa Rica, Vice Rectory of Social Action.Jacoby, B. and Associates (1996). Service-learning in higher education: concepts and practices San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Kendall, J. C. & Associates (Eds.) (1990). Combinin g service and learning: a resource book for community and public service, Volume I. Raleigh, NC : National Society for Internships and Experiential Education.Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philoso phy Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Sherraden, M. & Castillo, C. M. (1990). "Costa Rica : Nonmilitary service in a nation with no army." In Eberly, D. J. and Sherraden, M. (Editors) The moral equivalent of war? A study of non-military service in nine nations New York: Greenwood Press.Acknowledgment This project was supported by Fulbright for visits to Indonesia and by the National Service Secretariat for visits to Costa Rica.Note All quotes are based on actual comments made by in terviewees; however, because most of these people spoke Spanish, they are not literal qu otes. Rather, they have been embellished by us


28 of 29 to reflect the spirit of what they said.About the AuthorsDavid D. WilliamsBrigham Young Universitye-mail: David_Williams@byu.eduDavid D. Williams is an Associate Professor in the David O. McKay School of Education at Brigham Young University. He earned his PhD in Educ ational Research and Evaluation Methods at the University of Colorado, Boulder in 1981. His M.A. (1978) in Educational Leadership (emphasis in evaluation) is from Western Michigan U niversity; his Bachelors degree (1976) is from Brigham Young University.Dr. Williams holds an appointment in the Department of Instructional Psychology and Technology at BYU, where he teaches graduate course s in qualitative inquiry, research methods, and educational evaluation. He conducts research in the areas of service and experiential learning, international education and development, integrated curricula, qualitative methods of research and evaluation, use of computers in educat ion, and the role of the learner in the education process. He is currently conducting an ev aluation of an innovative teacher preparation and professional development program in Utah.See David Williams's Homepage for more details. Visit his qualitative inquiry class homepage. William D. EisermanColorado Foundation for Families and William D. Eiserman earned his Ph.D. in Instruction al Design at Brigham Young University in 1986. Currently Dr. Eiserman is on th e research faculty in the Department of Communication Disorders and Speech Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder. He also has a joint appointment at the Colorado Foundation for Families and Children in Denver, Colorado. Dr. Eiserman's research focuses on the ne eds of families as they adapt to the birth of a child with a disability and on the various ways com munities support these families and children. He also has a strong interest in service and experi ential learning and has engaged in research on this topic in a variety of international contexts, one of which was initiated while on a Fulbright Fellowship in Indonesia.Copyright 1997 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, or reach him at College of Education, Arizona Stat e University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2411. (602-965-2692). T he Book Review Editor is Walter E.


29 of 29 Shepherd: The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Andrew Coulson Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Richard Garlikov Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Alison I. Griffith York University Arlen Gullickson Western Michigan University Ernest R. House University of Colorado Aimee Howley Marshall University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Calgary Richard M. Jaeger University of North Carolina--Greensboro Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Rocky Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education William McInerney Purdue University Mary P. McKeown Arizona Board of Regents Les McLean University of Toronto Susan Bobbitt Nolen University of Washington Anne L. Pemberton Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo Richard C. Richardson Arizona State University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers University of California at Davis Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven Robert E. Stake University of Illinois--UC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education Robert T. Stout Arizona State University


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.