Studies in Higher Education

ISSN: 0307-5079 (Print) 1470-174X (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cshe20

The value of service-learning: the student

perspective

Donella Caspersz & Doina Olaru

To cite this article: Donella Caspersz & Doina Olaru (2017) The value of service-
learning: the student perspective, Studies in Higher Education, 42:4, 685-700, DOI:
10.1080/03075079.2015.1070818

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1070818

Published online: 11 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1904

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cshe20
Studies in Higher Education, 2017
Vol. 42, No. 4, 685–700, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1070818

The value of service-learning: the student perspective

Donella Caspersz* and Doina Olaru

Business School, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley 6009,
Western Australia, Australia

The aim of this paper is to discuss the value of service-learning to students. There
currently exists a gap in this understanding. We apply mixed-methods research
using a sample of higher education students to develop this discussion. We
found that students valued service-learning for the opportunity that it provides to
increase their personal citizenship skills. We suggest this reflects Habermas’
framework of knowledge/interests, namely instrumental, hermeneutic and
emancipatory. Our findings further highlight a significant difference between
males and females in the value that students attached to service-learning. We
suggest that these findings can inform us about the aspects we should consider
when developing learning and teaching approaches in service-learning.
Keywords: service-learning; Habermas; mixed methods

Introduction
There are many illustrations of major social change movements that have originated
with students in universities. As Durkheim states (1925, 59), education teaches students
‘how one should act on behalf of the collective interest’. More recently, there has been a
trend for universities to develop formal learning programmes across both undergradu-
ate and graduate levels to ‘teach’ students how to create social change. Yet, our under-
standing of the value that students expect from engaging in learning about how to create
social change remains minimal, exposing us to the criticism that our programmes
‘tame’ and ‘discipline’ students’ into a form of knowledge about social change that
reflects an accepted status quo because the development of these initiatives comes
from ‘above’ (namely faculty) (Amna 2012). By listening to the voices of students
about what they value, we can instead empower them to develop an alternative
‘frame of reference’ that can potentially be ‘transformative’ because it is more ‘inclus-
ive, discriminating, and self-reflective’ of themselves and their own learning (Mezirow
1997, 5). When students have a voice in designing curriculum, they develop democratic
civic habits that become embedded in their psyche, rather than their civic action remain-
ing as a ‘once only’ experience (Mansfield, Welton, and Halx 2012). This is because
voice has been found to be significant in influencing the propensity towards ethical lea-
dership, psychological well-being (Avey, Luthans, and Jensen 2010) and satisfaction
with the workplace (Holland et al. 2011). Thus, the justification for our research is
that by understanding the value students expect in learning how to create social
change, we can design learning and teaching programmes that will potentially embed

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2015 Society for Research into Higher Education

686 D. Caspersz and D. Olaru

both capability (critical thinking, social interaction, communication) and commitment

(responsibility) in students to continue to act as social change agents in the long term.
Research highlights the opportunity that service-learning presents to foster both these
outcomes (Bringle et al. 2011; Deeley 2014; Kearney 2004, 2013). Importantly,
‘service-learning is a powerful pedagogy that is designed to facilitate transformative
learning’ (Carrington et al. 2015, 62).
Our study was conducted by asking students in a higher education institution what
they valued about doing a service-learning programme. Service-learning has a multi-
plicity of meanings. Frequently confused with other forms of experiential learning
such as practicums and work-related learning, we define service-learning as ‘a
process of reflective education in which students learn civic or social responsibility
through a scholarship of community engagement that embodies the principle of recipro-
city’ (Caspersz, Olaru, and Smith 2012, 19). In practice, service-learning courses inte-
grate academic rigour with real-world projects that students undertake with community
groups and organisations. Service-learning thus forges a reciprocal learning relation-
ship between students (and their education institution) and community groups and
organisations, and offers the community robust and informed service (Deeley 2010;
Kenworthy-U’Ren 2003). Service-learning creates the opportunity for students to
learn how to work in partnership with community to create social change by applying
their formal learning to problem-solve issues of social need (Mendel-Reyes 1998).
Hence, students can learn how to be everyday makers of their local community
through service-learning, addressing local problems, such as waste management, that
are related to collective dilemmas such as environmental sustainability (Ranson 2012).
Reflection lies at the core of service-learning because reflecting can foster a ‘critical
self’ that questions the status quo (or what is known) to develop ‘solutions’ that are
grounded in formal knowledge and skills. The operationalisation of this dynamic is
what makes service-learning transformative learning, that is learning that transforms
the self because it fosters a different way of thinking about what is currently known
(Mezirow 1997). However, because service-learning is usually conducted in collabor-
ation with a community organisation (most often not for profit), the opportunity also
emerges to foster ‘civic learning’ about social responsibility, that is, teach students
‘how an active citizen participates in the life of a community in order to improve con-
ditions for others or to help shape the community’s future’ (Adler and Goggin 2005,
241). Thus, in addition to offering a potentially transformative learning experience
for learners, service-learning can also become a process of learning how to create
social change. The research question that we therefore pose is what should a service-
learning programme offer to be a potentially transformative learning experience that
teaches students how to create social change? We argue that canvassing the voice of
students about the value they expect from engaging in service-learning is fundamental
in answering this question.

Theoretical approach
A brief review of the literature about the benefits of service-learning for students high-
lights the relevance of drawing on the social theorist Jurgen Habermas for our study. In
Knowledge and Human Interests Habermas distinguishes between developing instru-
mental, hermeneutic and emancipatory knowledge/interests (Habermas 1968, 1984).
Instrumental knowledge/interest reflects purposeful intervention and is associated
with developing a technical, objective knowledge. Hermeneutic knowledge is
 Studies in Higher Education 687

considered a strategic knowledge, as this helps to interpret the influences of the society
in which we live on our own existence and that of others. Emancipatory knowledge/
interest is Habermas’ third form; developing emancipatory knowledge/interests is
informed by instrumental knowledge/interests about a social need that attains a
meaning through understanding the hermeneutic knowledge/interests or the societal
influences that shape that need. In other words, these knowledge/interests do not
resemble a linear form of development, but reflect a scaffold of learning.
Habermas further suggests that when we attain emancipatory knowledge/interests,
we develop a ‘depth hermeneutics’, that is to ‘find meaning in that which superficially
appears to be mere nature’ (Edgar 2005, 94), and become ‘free’ (or emancipated) from
the constraints of what we currently know about our roles, interactions, identities, inter-
pretive patterns and norms, to ‘construct’ ‘new’ meanings about the traditions, solida-
rities and identities that society operates under (Crick and Joldersma 2006; Guo and
Sheffield 2006). Mezirow (1997) describes this as transformative learning whereby
we transform a previously held ethnocentric understanding through ‘critical reflection
on the assumptions upon which our interpretations, beliefs, and habits of mind or point
of view are based’ and formulate a new ‘frame of reference’ (1997, 7). Regardless of
how we may describe this ‘moment’, it is when we embrace that there are alternative
understandings of a current status quo that we recognise the need for social change.
For Habermas, this is when we re-reason our life-world or ‘the indirect context of
what is said, discussed, addressed in a situation’ (Habermas 1987, 131 in Brookfield
2005, 1141) that gives meaning to our life in society. In the Theory of Communicative
Action, Habermas argued that we changed our life-world (or understanding of the status
quo) through ‘communicative rationality’, that is through debate, interaction and ‘com-
munications’ with other people. Habermas continued in arguing that it is when our life-
world changes that we potentially engage in creating changes in the everyday practices
or social arrangements that supported the status quo, that is creating social change
(Habermas 1987; Roderick 1985).
Students engaged in service-learning appear to develop technical knowledge/
interests as they perform better academically (Eyler and Giles 1989), develop a practi-
cal understanding of their theoretical content, and are more likely to graduate (Eyler
et al. 2001; Jensen and Burr 2006). Research suggests the development of hermeneutic
knowledge/interests given that students who undertake service-learning develop stron-
ger faculty relationships, and an improved satisfaction with their university or school
(Billig, Root, and Jesse 2005; Billig and Welch 2004; Eyler et al. 2001; also see
Furco 2002; Meyer, Hofshire, and Billig 2004). Importantly, research shows that
service-learning fosters students’ sense of civic responsibility (Ballantyne and Phelps
2002; Ngai 2006; Kahne and Weishemeir 2006), moral awareness (Boss 1994; Eyler
2000) and an understanding of civic knowledge and societal issues (Toncar et al.
2006), in summary implying the formation of emancipatory knowledge/interests. We
therefore propose that the value students perceive they will gain from service-learning
can be described using Habermas’ conceptualisation of instrumental, hermeneutic and
emancipatory knowledge (P1), and that students will value these knowledge/interests in
transformative learning and learning to create social change (P2), without valorising
one over the other (P3).
In presenting this knowledge/interests framework in The Theory of Communicative
Action (1984), Habermas suggests that the pathway to emancipatory knowledge/interests
is through ‘communicative rationality’, that is an understanding that we reach through
our social engagement or social action with others (Roderick 1985). Habermas argued
688 D. Caspersz and D. Olaru

that through communicative rationality or discourse (that is speaking and interacting

with each other), we are able to freely engage in ‘argumentation’ about intersubjective
meanings, re-frame these and thus readjust our intersubjective meaning. For Habermas,
communicative rationality is developed in the public sphere, which is in essence civil
society where people can come together to discuss matters of mutual concern to learn
from each other. Thus, discursive participation with others (or learning through enga-
ging in conversations with others) is fundamental to the process of communicative
rationality and hence underpins the learning of new meanings that may then lead to
social change. The Habermasian framework has been extensively used in teaching
and learning (Brookfield 2005; Grundy 1987). From Grundy’s perspective (1987),
Habermas’s ideas make curriculum not just a product, but also a dynamic process
that engages both learner and instructor in learning how to create social change.
Universities have traditionally been sites where this discursive process takes place
by providing an arena for students and scholars to debate and then develop new ideas
and meaning. However, since Ernest Boyer’s landmark report, Scholarship Reconsid-
ered: Priorities of the Professoriate (1990), the voice of ‘community’ has increasingly
been recognised as a crucial ‘third party’ in making this discourse meaningful.
‘Engaged Scholarship’ (Boyer 1996) and ‘Public Sociology’ (Burawoy 2004) have
been terms used to name this process and to exhort sites of learning such as universities
to engage with civil society to learn from community in creating social change. In
keeping with this view, we argue that while listening to students’ voices about their per-
ception of value about service-learning is critical in designing appropriate curriculum,
the reciprocal nature of service-learning also makes it essential to understand how
‘community’ interests perceive this value. Thus, in our research we also asked univer-
sity and external (to university) informants of the value that they perceive students gain
from service-learning. Although not the focus of this paper, this understanding enables
us to foster more meaningful and engaging service-learning spaces that can realise the
transformative potential that service-learning has to create social change not just in stu-
dents, but for and with society.

Research methodology
Overview of mixed-methods approach
We conducted our study during 2012–2013 using a mixed-methods research (MMR)
approach. MMR reflects a unified view of research because this approach involves col-
lecting, analysing and interpreting qualitative and quantitative data in a single study or
series of studies that investigate the same underlying phenomena (Leech and Onwueg-
buzie 2009; Wolf 2010). Researchers use MMR when seeking to strengthen their
research findings or seek new insights about existing knowledge or phenomena (Cress-
well and Plano Clark 2011). Drawing on Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2009), the research
approach that we adopted for this study can be described as a partially mixed concurrent
equal weight design, that is: ‘A partially mixed concurrent equal status design involves
conducting a study that has two phases that occur concurrently such that the quantitat-
ive and qualitative phases have approximately equal weight’ (Leech and Onwuegbuzie
2009, 268).
It was considered appropriate to use an MMR approach because through this we
gain a breadth and depth of data from a number of sources to understand our prop-
ositions. We argue that by asking students (and key informants) what value they
 Studies in Higher Education 689

would place on service-learning, we enhance the possibility that the curriculum that is
designed to teach service-learning will be able to maximise the transformative learning
in service-learning because it reflects what students need to know to become effective in
this work.

Overview of data collection and methods used in this research

In keeping with our mixed-methods approach, we developed a semi-structured inter-
view for qualitative interviews and an online survey using items adapted from the
SELEB (Service-Learning Benefits) scale developed by Toncar et al. (2006) with
minor word changes to terminology.
The former was conducted with two groups: (1) a focus group of eight (8) under-
graduate students drawn from the major faculties of Law, Science, Arts, Engineering
and Business, as well as volunteering activities such as Engineers without Borders
and Science Students Union; and (2) five university-based faculty and six representa-
tives from external organisations (government, non-government organisations and
private sector). The analysis presented in this paper refers only to the student group.
The quantitative data were collected online from a sample of 248 students. Unlike
Toncar et al. (2006, 235) who use the SELEB scale as an outcomes assessment tool of
service-learning, in this study we used the SELEB scale a priori to understand what
students perceived the value would be from participating in a service-learning pro-
gramme. We were able to develop this a priori understanding because there is no
formal service-learning programme at the institution in which the research was
conducted.

Qualitative data and methods

The focus group for the qualitative research included eight undergraduate students from
the largest faculties in the university, as well as volunteering activities such as Engin-
eers without Borders and Science Students Union, and one representative from Student
Guild. There were three males and five females, and all students were second-year level
and above in their degree studies. The sampling was purposive, with students involved
in extracurricular activities that could be considered similar to service-learning
(e.g. teaching disadvantaged school children the basics of science).
The interview transcripts were analysed using the software Leximancer. This is a
content analytical tool that has been applied in a wide range of qualitative research pro-
jects (see Caspersz and Olaru 2013; Caspersz, Olaru, and Smith 2012; Cretchley et al.
2010; Dann 2010; Scott and Smith 2005; Stockwell et al. 2009; Martin and Rice 2007).
Leximancer extracts the most highly ranked lexical terms based on word frequency,
tags them to the text segments where they appear, establishes co-occurrence with
other concepts and presents these concepts and relationships on conceptual maps.
The maps are colour coded with the more frequently occurring concepts/themes
being red and orange in colour and cool colours and lighter shades representing the
least relevant. Bigger circles indicate higher relative importance of the concept/
theme, and circles with more descriptors (or words that appear in the circles) indicate
more complex concepts/themes. Proximity of concepts and their relative distance indi-
cates the strength of the relationships and higher importance allocated in the text.
Descriptors/concepts that appear in each circle ‘explain’ the theme; they can be
linked together by the grey lines to develop a ‘pathway’ or connection between
690 D. Caspersz and D. Olaru

concepts. Leximancer generates transcripts for each concept and descriptors, which
illustrate the ‘story’ of the concept/theme, and between descriptors, when these are
linked in a pathway (see further descriptions from Martin and Rice 2007; Smith and
Humphreys 2006). Leximancer also generates insight quadrants based on the same
method. Again, these provide a pictorial representation of the most frequently occurring
ideas in transcripts with supporting verbatim. Both types of analyses have been applied
to the qualitative data collected here.

Quantitative data and methods

The quantitative survey was administered online using Surveymonkey to undergraduate
students from the Business Faculty. The survey included 15 questions measured on a
7-level Likert scale and randomised in their order of presentation to the respondents. The
questions asked respondents how service-learning contributed to their self-development
or practical and interpersonal skills (self-confidence, organisational, communication
and problem-solving skills, personal growth); developing social responsibility and citi-
zenship (involvement in the community, making a difference, understanding of cultural
and racial differences, establishing caring relationships, citizenship) and leadership
skills.1 A definition of service-learning was provided at the beginning of the survey,
to clarify its distinction from other ‘service-learning like activities’ such as a practicum
or volunteering. Two additional questions elicited the age and gender of the student.
The survey was facilitated through a student services office, hence minimising the
potential for researcher bias. No incentive was offered to respondents to complete the
survey, once again minimising any bias that may have arisen from inducing participant
completion. A total of 248 responses were received (response rate 5.1%), including the
members of the focus group. To account for their prior engagement in activities resem-
bling service-learning, a minimum quota of 100 students with experience was set to be
included in the sample. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with alpha extraction (Hair
et al. 2010) was conducted on the survey data, to assess the strength of relationships
among the items. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was further conducted in
MPLUS7 to calculate latent factor scores, and make comparisons across gender, age
and previous involvement.

Results
Our research was guided by three propositions: (1) what students perceive they will
gain from service-learning can be described using Habermas’ conceptualisation of
instrumental, hermeneutic and emancipatory knowledge (P1); (2) students will value
these knowledge/interests in transformative learning and learning to create social
change (P2); and (3) without valorising one over the other (P3).

Qualitative analysis – understanding the meaning of value for students

Figure 1 depicts the Leximancer analysis conducted with the student focus group. Three
pathways emerge from the most dominant concept ‘service-learning’ (coloured in red)
that by tracking these and using the transcripts generated by Leximancer, we can gain
an understanding of what students perceive that the value service-learning has for them.
Both pathways 1 and 2 (green and blue lines in Figure 1) indicate that service-
learning provides students with the opportunity to develop their instrumental and
 Studies in Higher Education 691

Figure 1. Conceptual map for all participants.

Note: Paths colour coded – path 1 (green); path 2 (blue); path 3 (red).

hermeneutic knowledge/interests. The route from ‘service-learning’ to ‘students’

(coloured in orange) through the descriptors ‘community’, ‘students’ and finally
‘work’ (organisation and faculty) suggest that service-learning is an activity for ‘stu-
dents’ through which they engage with the community on a ‘work’ project. The link
to the descriptor ‘need’ (in the theme ‘organisation’) associates the ‘work’ in
service-learning as relating to a ‘need’ that the organisation may have. However, the
transcripts for this pathway emphasise that a main value that students associate with
service-learning is that service-learning provides them with the opportunity to
develop their employability skills:

We are entering a globalised and competitive world and all students are looking for a
competitive advantage, but a lot of us are missing the vocational training that a lot
need to go into the workplaces we want to work in. I think a formal service-learning
environment, would provide a bit of an anchor where they (students) could see that
their practical learning would take them in a more practical direction. (Female
Science Student)

While the link through ‘people’ to ‘units’ in Pathway 2 adds support to Pathway 1 (units
are formal elements of academic learning that offer the knowledge/skills necessary to
692 D. Caspersz and D. Olaru

the graduate), it also highlights that a further value of service-learning is that of being
able to develop hermeneutic knowledge/interests by being able to engage with people
through service-learning and – by implication – develop networks with people who
have different experiences:
Service-learning will give you a chance to learn from a greater range of people who have
different experiences. (Male Law Student)

However, Pathway 3 (red line) implies a value that resembles Habermas’ concept of
emancipatory knowledge/interests by connecting ‘service-learning’ to the fourth
most prominent concept in the participants’ text of ‘doing’. This suggests that students
value the opportunity that service-learning provides to do a ‘project’ that is ‘doing’
‘important work’, which is ‘different’ and ‘needed’:
And then at the end you would have something you had contributed to this particular
organisation or community. (Male Arts Student)

In summary, student perception is that service-learning provides them with an oppor-

tunity to develop practical and interpersonal skills, which align with Habermas’ con-
cepts of instrumental and hermeneutic knowledge/interests. While not articulated
clearly, there is a suggestion that by developing these knowledge/interests, students
develop an emancipatory ‘moment’ of recognition that their engagement can ‘make a
difference’, in this case to an organisation.
A subsequent analysis was conducted to assess whether there was any difference on
the basis of gender in the sample. Table 1 presents a comparison between females (red)
and males (blue) in terms of frequency and strength of concepts in their narrative. This
analysis suggests that females linked the value of service-learning to the opportunity to
develop their instrumental knowledge by working on ‘projects’ related to the ‘commu-
nity’ but managed through their formal ‘units’. However, by affirming experience and
volunteering as being of the greatest importance, we suggest that for males, the value of
service-learning is related with the opportunity to mostly foster their hermeneutical
knowledge/interests. This gender difference is an unexpected finding, given that
males are more commonly associated with agentic or assertive behaviour and

Table 1. Gender comparison in terms of frequency and strength of concepts in their narrative.

Female students Male students

Relative Relative
frequency Strength frequency Strength
Concept (%) (%) Prominence Concept (%) (%) Prominence
Project 3 100 1.5 Experience 9 47 1.5
Community 4 76 1.1 Volunteering 6 46 1.5
Unit/units 15 70 1.0 Need 5 37 1.2
People 11 67 1.0 Service 12 33 1.1
Student/ 16 67 1.0 Learning 12 33 1.1
students
Service 11 66 1.0 Student/ 17 32 1.0
students
Learning 11 66 1.0 People 11 32 1.0
Need 4 62 0.9 Unit/units 13 29 0.9
Volunteering 3 53 0.8 Community 2 23 0.7
Experience 4 52 0.8 Project <1 <1 0.0
 Studies in Higher Education 693

females with a greater concern for interpersonal relationships (Barbuto and Gifford
2010). We discuss this finding further in the paper.

Quantitative analysis – survey findings

In the sample that completed the online survey 67% were females. Their ages varied
between 17 and 29 years, with an average age of 20.5 years. Students were multidisci-
plinary and also varied in their years of study. Thirty-six per cent of students indicated
that they had prior experience of service-learning-type activities.
Students highly valued all 15 items in the survey (Table 2). Most highly valued
were the opportunity that service-learning provided to ‘experience personal growth’
(average 5.62; std. deviation 1.32), ‘being involved in the community’ (average
5.59; std. deviation 1.37), ‘learning practical workplace skills’ (average 5.57; std. devi-
ation 1.36), and ‘enhancing their leadership skills’ (average 5.52; std. deviation 1.38).
These were followed by ‘establishing caring relationships’ (average 5.11; std. deviation
1.26), ‘gaining a greater understanding of cultural and racial differences’ (average 5.23;
std. deviation 1.35), and ‘applying classroom knowledge to real life scenarios’ (average
5.25; std. deviation 1.54), which represented the lowest scores. These findings confirm
the trends we noted in the qualitative findings with students and stakeholders in valor-
ising the opportunity to develop instrumental and hermeneutic knowledge/interests
through service-learning.
The EFA highlighted two factors explaining 69% of the total variance (see Table 3).
The first is what we call ‘personal skills’, which in fact reflects the instrumental and
hermeneutic knowledge/interests that the qualitative findings highlighted, that is prac-
tical skills such as develop organisational skills and interpersonal skills such as personal
growth. However, this analysis also uncovered a second factor that we have called

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the 15 Items.

Std.
Mean deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Be involved in the community (q1) 5.59 1.37 −1.38 2.07
Make a difference in the community (q2) 5.31 1.37 −0.93 0.89
Develop social responsibility and citizenship 5.50 1.32 −1.28 2.01
skills (q3)
Experience personal growth (q4) 5.62 1.32 −1.35 2.32
Gain a greater understanding of cultural and racial 5.23 1.35 −0.77 0.53
differences (q5)
View social issues from a variety of 5.38 1.26 −1.02 1.22
perspectives (q6)
Establish caring relationships (q7) 5.11 1.26 −0.63 0.51
Apply information learned in the classroom and 5.25 1.54 −0.95 0.43
apply it to real-life scenarios (q8)
Apply problem-solving techniques (q9) 5.41 1.33 −1.14 1.44
Develop organisational skills (q10) 5.48 1.35 −1.24 1.95
Learn practical workplace skills (q11) 5.57 1.36 −1.07 0.95
Build my self-confidence (q12) 5.43 1.37 −1.21 1.84
Demonstrate my trustworthiness to others (q13) 5.42 1.31 −1.17 1.79
Further develop my oral and written 5.43 1.30 −1.22 2.00
communication skills (q14)
Enhance my leadership skills (q15) 5.52 1.38 −1.32 1.98
Note: All items are negatively skewed and leptokurtic.
694 D. Caspersz and D. Olaru

Table 3. CFA ‘value’ of service-learning and allocation of our findings using Toncar et al.
(2006, 230, Table 5).
Personal skills (eight items) Civic responsibility (seven items)
Practical skills (five Interpersonal skills Citizenship (five Personal
items) (three items) items) responsibility
(two items)
Develop Experience personal Develop social Demonstrate my
organisational growth 0.805 (q4) responsibility and trustworthiness to
skills 0.917 (q10) citizenship skills others 0.678
0.922 (q3) (q13)
Build my self- Further develop my View social issues Establish caring
confidence 0.885 oral and written from a variety of relationships
(q12) communication perspectives (from 0.764 (q7)
skills 0.846 (q14) Lester) 0.815 (q6)
Learn practical Enhance my Be involved in the
workplace skills leadership skills community 0.883
0.857 (q11) 0.793 (q15) (q1)
Apply problem- Gain a greater
solving techniques understanding of
0.826 (q9) cultural and racial
differences 0.781
(q5)
Apply information Make a difference in
learned in the the community
classroom to real- 0.865 (q2)
life scenarios 0.724
(q8)
GOF: Chi-Square = 30.807 (16), p = .0142 GOF: Chi-Square = 14.298 (11), p = .217
AIC = 5,098.115 AIC = 4,462.992
CFI = 0.985; TLI = 0.974 CFI = 0.997; TLI = 0.994
RMSEA = 0.061 RMSEA = 0.035
SRMR = 0.021 SRMR = 0.019
Note: In brackets the number of the item in the questionnaire.
Analysis conducted in MPLUS7.

‘civic responsibility’. This encompasses a broader set of knowledge and skills that are
related to the opportunity that service-learning presents to develop citizenship and per-
sonal responsibility. As Table 2 presents, both these highlight significance for skills
development factors (such as develop social responsibility and citizenship skills) and
factors that are captured by Mezinow’s (1997) concept of wanting to develop a new
‘frame of reference’ when viewing social need. We suggest that this is illustrated by
noting the significance of the factors make a difference in the community and establish
caring relationships.
CFA results (Table 3) re-affirmed the distinction between ‘personal involvement’
and ‘community engagement’ factors. All factor loadings were greater than 0.65, and
the Cronbach’s alpha indicators of reliability had the value of 0.939 and 0.950, demon-
strating good internal consistencies of the two constructs. Although the discriminant
validity of the constructs is marginal, we are confident in suggesting that these con-
structs were viewed differently by the sample.
We therefore suggest that unlike the qualitative findings, these quantitative findings
more clearly identify an association by students with the potential that service-learning
has to foster their emancipatory knowledge/interests.
 Studies in Higher Education 695

Drawing on CFA, latent factor scores were calculated and compared across gender,
age, and previous involvement groups (see Figure 2). Notably, all score values are high,
with more than 70% of the respondents recording values above 5 on a scale up to 7,
which indicates strong positive opinions about the value of service-learning. A t-test
compared the latent scores for Personal skills and Civic responsibility and the results
were statistically non-significant (p = .394), suggesting that no priority is allocated to
one dimension over another.
Similar to the qualitative findings, we again found significant differences between
male and female students (at 0.01 level); female students had latent scores 0.3–0.4 units
higher than that for male students; also, females more highly valued the opportunity to
develop personal rather than civic responsibility, by doing service-learning pro-
grammes. As Figure 2 illustrates, we also found differences between students
younger than 19 and above 19 years of age (p = .003 for personal skills and p = .042
for civic responsibility). Age differences may indicate an individual readiness related
to intellectual development (Perry 1999) that is necessary for meaningful participation
in service-learning activities. However, we did not analyse either age or gender differ-
ences in terms of factor loadings; this would be an area for future research and inves-
tigation. We were also surprised by the lack of significant difference in the perceived
benefits of service-learning for students previously engaged in a service-learning-
type activity and those who were not (p = .391, thus not shown here), as exposure to
these activities is expected to enhance the perceptions of participants about the benefits.
The results may suggest that when exposure to service-learning-type activities is
minimal or in the absence of formal activities (which would provide service-learning
opportunities to students), the benefits of the engagement are yet to ripen. At the
same time, unsuccessful experiences can have consequences for all participants and
reduce the magnitude of the perceived benefits.
In summary, the quantitative findings refined our understanding of the qualitative
findings in noting the emphasis placed by students on associating the value of
service- learning primarily with the opportunity to develop instrumental knowledge/
interests that are of personal use to them, but which can be used in creating social
change. They further support gender and marginal age differences.

Figure 2. ‘Value’ of service-learning factor scores by gender and age. (a) gender differences
(b) age differences.
696 D. Caspersz and D. Olaru

Discussion: developing a new ‘frame of reference’

Our research makes a contribution to understanding the value students expect from
engaging in transformative learning and learning to create social change, such as in
service-learning, by conceptualising and providing an evidence-based understanding
of this value. As a result, we offer insights that others can use in developing similar
learning programmes.
More specifically, we found that students aligned the value of doing service-learning
with learning what and how (or instrumental knowledge/interests) to create social
change. In particular, the research highlights a ‘skills set’ that students expect to
develop through service-learning. This includes practical skills such as organisational
and workplace skills, interpersonal skills that include oral, written and communication
skills, and leadership (see Table 2). However, the research also provides some under-
standing of the foci in civic responsibility that students value in developing civic respon-
sibility. This includes agentic behaviour as well as skills development, and fostering
behaviours such as trustworthiness to others. We therefore suggest that our research pro-
vides those interested in developing curriculum responses to teaching social change,
with a ‘list of wants’ that students expect to receive from engaging in service-learning.
The differences that we found in both gender and age form a further contribution to
guide those interested in this area. The implication that arises from these is that any
service-learning activity that aims to teach students how to create social change must
respond to the findings that personal development (as in practical and interpersonal
skills) is of importance to females, whereas hermeneutic knowledge/interests or the
opportunity to network with community interests in these learning programmes is
important to males; in other words, male students expect to engage with community
in service-learning programmes. While this does not imply that female students do
not hold this expectation, or that these interests are mutually exclusive, it may
provide some guidance about approaches to teaching that should be considered in
these learning programmes to respond to these gender differences. Additionally, age
differences may indicate an individual readiness that is necessary for meaningful par-
ticipation in service-learning activities. University environments that offer and appreci-
ate the nuances of engaging in service-learning activities are better equipped to match
the individual readiness. This could be achieved by designing service-learning as a
sequence where activities develop/scaffold and finesse student instrumental and herme-
neutic knowledge and skills along the way.
Furthermore, the study findings suggest that students are interested in the value that
service-learning offers to not only learn how to create social change, but also the poten-
tial to achieve transformative learning. This is evidenced in the study findings of sig-
nificance in the factor civic responsibility, in particular the items ‘view social issues
from a variety of perspectives’, ‘establish caring relationships’ and, ‘make a difference
to the community’. The latter further implies evidence of an association by students
between the value they expect to gain from service-learning and developing emancipa-
tory knowledge/interests.
Finally, while we have found evidence of instrumental, hermeneutic and emancipa-
tory knowledge/interests in both our qualitative and quantitative findings as per P1, our
findings further support P2 in suggesting that students value these knowledge/interests,
and P3 as we have not found any suggestion of a priority of these within our sample.
Therefore – and in keeping with a Habermasian interpretation – we suggest that the
value of service-learning for students is the opportunity that this learning presents to
 Studies in Higher Education 697

develop all three knowledge/interests. In fact, without sound instrumental knowledge/

interests that are embedded in a hermeneutic understanding of the significance that
these hold, we would argue that attaining a ‘depth hermeneutics’ (Edgar 2005) or eman-
cipatory knowledge/interests that foster a ‘frame of reference’ (Mezirow 1997, 2009) to
create social change would not be possible.

Conclusions
There are many limitations to this study. We have only sought to understand percep-
tions about service-learning, without examining causality. A further study that is con-
ducted after a service-learning experience would be useful in understanding this. These
findings would appreciably deepen our understanding of how to improve our learning
and teaching in this area. In a similar vein, our study is cross-sectional. A longitudinal
study would of course add to the depth that is aforementioned, as well as highlight the
nuances that we should consider to ensure the effectiveness of these learning and teach-
ing programmes in fostering a long-term commitment by students to continuing with
recognising the need for and then creating social change beyond university. Our find-
ings further suggest that a more in-depth exploration of the factors contributing to both
gender and age differences would be useful. We may have to adjust our data collection
tool in light of these findings to better capture these effects in future iterations of the
research. Finally, we need to better understand the pre-university influences that
form students’ perceptions of the value of service-learning in higher education. Attend-
ance to these dynamics may give us further information on how we may develop our
learning and teaching programmes to more effectively capture a nascent interest
among students that may have developed through these efforts. Finally, a more in-
depth investigation of the values that university and community organisations assign
to service-learning by students would provide additional insights to design better learn-
ing and teaching programmes in this area.
In conclusion, the aim of this study was to develop an understanding of the value
students place on service-learning. Being effective in creating social change requires
agents to ‘own’ their engagement: reflecting the ‘voice’ of agents (such as students)
in terms of how they view their engagement in learning and teaching activities may
increase the probability that they will accept a self-responsibility to exercise their
agency and continue to create social change in the future. Our research has already
guided the development of our own teaching and learning interventions with pre-
experience students. We are hoping that the opportunity exists for others to similarly
draw on the findings and discussion in the paper to do the same.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers and the editor for their useful
suggestions that helped to improve the quality of this paper.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Note
1. The full questionnaire is available upon request.
698 D. Caspersz and D. Olaru

ORCID
Doina Olaru http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8750-9656

References
Adler, R. P., and J. Goggin. 2005. “What Do We Mean By “Civic Engagement”?” Journal of
Transformative Education 3 (3): 236–53.
Amna, E. 2012. “How is Civic Engagement Developed over Time? Emerging Answers from a
Multidisciplinary Field.” Journal of Adolescence 35: 611–27.
Avey, J. B., F. Luthans, and S. M. Jensen. 2010. “Psychological Capital: A Positive Resource
for Combating Employee Stress and Turnover.” Human Resource Management 48 (5):
677–93.
Ballantyne, J., and K. Phelps. 2002. “What Can I Do? Applying Classroom Knowledge to
Service Work, or Doing Practice Sociology.” Sociological Practice: A Journal of Clinical
and Applied Sociology 4 (1): 41–52.
Barbuto, J. E., and G. T. Gifford. 2010. “Examining Gender Differences of Servant Leadership:
An Analysis of the Agentic and Communal Properties of the Servant Leadership
Questionnaire.” Journal of Leadership Education 9 (2): 4–21.
Billig, S., S. Root, and D. Jesse. 2005. The Impact of Participation on Service Learning on High
School Students’ Civic Engagement. CIRCLE Working Paper 33. Denver, CO: RMC
Research Corporation.
Billig, S. H., and M. Welch. 2004. “Service-Learning as Civically Engaged Scholarship.” In
New Perspectives in Service Learning, edited by M. Welch and S. H. Billig, 221–41.
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Boss, J. A. 1994. “The Effect of Community Service Work on the Moral Development of
College Ethics Students.” Journal of Moral Education 23 (2): 183–98.
Boyer, E.L. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered. Priorities of the Professoriate. The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. http://www.umces.edu/sites/default/files/al/
pdfs/BoyerScholarshipReconsidered.pdf.
Boyer, E. L. 1996. “The Scholarship of Engagement.” Journal of Public Service and Outreach
1 (1): 11–20.
Bringle, R. G., M. H. Studer, J. Wilson, P. H. Clayton, and K. S. Steinberg. 2011. “Designing
Programs with a Purpose: To Promote Civic Engagement for Life.” Journal of Academic
Ethics 9: 149–64.
Brookfield, S. 2005. “Learning Democratic Reason: The Adult Education Project of Jurgen
Habermas.” Teachers College Record 107 (6): 1127–68.
Burawoy, M. 2004. “The World Needs Public Sociology.” Sosiologisk tidsskrift 12 (3): 255–72.
Carrington, S., K. L. Mercer, R. Iyer, and G. Selva. 2015. “The Impact of Transformative
Learning in a Critical Service-learning Program on Teacher Development: Building a
Foundation for Inclusive Teaching.” Reflective Practice: International and
Multidisciplinary Perspectives 16 (1): 61–72.
Caspersz, D., and D. Olaru. 2013. “Developing ‘Emancipatory Interest’: Learning to Create
Social Change.” Higher Education Research and Development 33 (2): 226–41.
Caspersz, D., D. Olaru, and L. Smith. 2012. “Striving for Definitional Clarity: What is Service
Learning?” In Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment: Engagement, Equity, and
Retention. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Teaching Learning Forum, February 2–3,
1–13. Perth: Murdoch University. https://ctl.curtin.edu.au/events/conferences/tlf/tlf2012/
refereed/caspersz.pdf.
Creswell, J. W., and V. L. Plano Clark. 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods
Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cretchley, J., C. Gallois, H. Chenery, and A. Smith. 2010. “Conversations between Carers and
People With Schizophrenia: A Qualitative Analysis Using Leximancer.” Qualitative Health
Research 20 (12): 1611–28.
Crick, R. D., and C. W. Joldersma. 2006. “Habermas, Lifelong Learning and Citizenship
Education.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 26: 77–95.
Dann, S. 2010. “Redefining Social Marketing with Contemporary Commercial Marketing
Definitions.” Journal of Business Research 63: 147–53.
 Studies in Higher Education 699

Deeley, S. J. 2010. “Service-learning: Thinking Outside the Box.” Active Learning in Higher
Education 11 (1): 43–53.
Deeley, S. J. 2014. “Summative Co-assessment: A Deep Learning Approach to Enhancing
Employability Skills and Attributes.” Active Learning in Higher Education 15 (1): 39–51.
Durkheim, E. 1925. L’Education Morale. Paris: Alcan/PUE.
Edgar, A. 2005. The Philosophy of Habermas. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Eyler, J. 2000. “What Do We Most Need to Know About the Impact of Service-learning on
Student Learning?” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 7: 11–17.
Eyler, J., and D. Giles. 1989. “The Impact of Service Learning Program Characteristics on
Student Outcomes.” Paper presented at the national society for experiential education
conference, Snowbird, UT.
Eyler, J., D. E. Giles Jr., C. Stenson, and C. Gray. 2001. At a Glance: What we Know About the
Effects of Service Learning on College Students, Faculty, Institutions and Communities,
1993–2000, 3rd ed. Accessed March 20, 2013. http://www.compact.org/wp-content/
uploads/resources/downloads/aag.pdf.
Furco, A. 2002. “Is Service-learning Really Better than Community Service? A Study of High
School Service.” In Advances in Service-learning Research: Vol.1. Service-learning: The
Essence of the Pedagogy, edited by A. Furco, and S.H. Billig, 23–50. Greenwich, CT:
Information Age.
Grundy, S. 1987. Curriculum: Product or Praxis? London: Falmer Press.
Guo, Z., and J. Sheffield. 2006. “Habermasian Inquiring System: Towards a General Framework
for Knowledge Management Research.” Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences. USA: Hawaii.
Habermas, J. 1968. Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. 1984. Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of
Society, Vol. 1, Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. 1987. Theory of Communicative Action, Lifeworld and System: A Critique of
Functionalist Reason. Vol. 2, Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Hair, J., W. Black, B. Babin, and R. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis: A global
Perspective. 7th ed. Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Holland, P., A. Pyman, B. K. Cooper, and J. Teicher. 2011. “Employee Voice and Job
Satisfaction in Australia: The Centrality of Direct Voice.” Human Resource Management
50 (1): 95–111.
Jensen, S., and K. Burr. 2006. “Participation and Learning Relationships: A Service-learning
Case Study.” Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 43 (3): 6–28. http://scholar.lib.vt.
edu/ejournals/JITE/v43n3/jensen.html.
Kahne, J., and J. Westheimer. 2006. “The Limits of Political Efficacy: Educating Citizens for a
Democratic Society.” PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (2): 289–96.
Kearney, K. R. 2004. “Students’ Self-Assessment of Learning through Service-Learning.”
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 68 (1): 1–13.
Kearney, K. R. 2013. “Impact of a Service-Learning Course on First Year Pharmacy Students’
Learning Outcomes.” American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 77 (2): 1–7.
Kenworthy-U’Ren, A. 2003. “Service-learning and Negotiation: Engaging Students in Real-
world Projects That Make a Difference.” Negotiation Journal 19 (1): 51–63.
Leech, N. L., and A. J. Onwuegbuzie. 2009. “A Typology of Mixed Methods Research
Designs.” Quality and Quantity 43 (2): 265–75.
Mansfield, K. C., A. Welton, and M. D. Halx. 2012. “Listening to Student Voice: Toward a
More Inclusive Theory for Research and Practice.” In Global Leadership for Social
Justice: Taking it from Field to Practice, edited by C. Boske and S. Diem, 21–41.
Bingley: Emerald.
Martin, N. J., and J. L. Rice. 2007. “Profiling Enterprise Risks in Large Computer Companies
Using the Leximancer Software Tool.” Risk Management 9: 188–206.
Mendel-Reyes, M. 1998. “A Pedagogy for Citizenship: Service Learning and Democratic
Education.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 73: 31–38.
Meyer, S. J., L. Hofshire, and S. H. Billig. 2004. The Impact of Service-learning on MEAP: A
Large-Scale Study of Michigan Learn and Serve Grantees: Year Two Evaluation Report.
Denver, CO: RMC Research Corporation.
700 D. Caspersz and D. Olaru

Mezirow, J. 1997. “Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice.” New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education 74: 5–12.
Mezirow, J. 2009. “An Overview on Transformative Learning.” In Contemporary Theories of
Learning: Learning Theorists in their Own Words, edited by K. Illeris, 90–105. London:
Routledge.
Ngai, S. S. 2006. “Service-Learning, Personal Development and Social Commitment: A Case
Study of University Students in Hong Kong.” Adolescence 41 (161): 165–77.
Perry, W. G. Jr. 1999. Forms of Ethical and Intellectual Development in the College Years.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ranson, S. 2012. “Remaking Public Spaces for Civil Society.” Critical Studies in Education
53 (3): 245–61.
Roderick, R. 1985. “Habermas on Rationality.” Man and World 18: 203–218.
Scott, N., and A. E. Smith. 2005. “Use of Automated Content Analysis Techniques for Event
Image Assessment.” Tourism Recreation Research 30 (2): 87–91.
Smith, A. E., and M. S. Humphreys. 2006. “Evaluation of Unsupervised Semantic Mapping of
Natural Language with Leximancer Concept Mapping.” Behaviour Research Methods
38 (2): 262–79.
Stockwell, P., R. M. Colomb, A. E. Smith, and J. Wiles. 2009. “Use of an Automatic Content
Analysis Tool: A Technique for Seeing Both Local and Global Scope.” International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies 67 (5): 424–36.
Toncar, M. F., J. S. Reid, D. J. Burns, C. E. Anderson, and H. P. Nguyen. 2006. “Uniform
Assessment of the Benefits of Service-learning: The Development, Evaluation, and
Implementation of the SELEB Scale.” The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
14 (3): 223–38.
Wolf, F. 2010. “Enlightened Eclecticism or Hazardous Hotschpotch? Mixed Methods and
Triangulation Strategies in Comparative Public Policy Research.” Journal of Mixed
Methods Research 4: 144. doi:10.1177/1558689810364987.