A Transformative Learning Model for Service-Learning: A Longitudinal Case Study.

This article presents a longitudinal research study that led to the development of a theoretical framework for explaining how students experience the process of transformational learning in service-learning. The article describes nonreflective and reflective dimensions of the process of transformational learning. The author recommends that future research focus on supporting the transformative potential of service-learning. ********** For more than a decade, service-learning educators have been voicing their concerns about the need to develop a more systematic and rigorous research process and agenda to better understand, improve, and substantiate the theory, practice, and value of service-earning in K-12 and higher education (Billig & Eyler, 2003; Giles, Honnet, & Migliore, 1991; Furco, 2000; Furco & Billig, 2002; Howard, Gelmon, & Giles, 2000; Welch & Billig, 2004). More recent increases in volume and attention to rigor in research have led some educators to conclude that the service-learning field is at a "methodological crossroads" (Ziegert & McGoldrick, 2004). If this is an important methodological turn in the history of the service-learning movement, it is important to reflect on where we are and where we'd like to go. Concurring with recently proposed research frameworks, this would mean focusing the research agenda on developing theories, specifying values, and generating empirical knowledge that explain and support the unique philosophical and epistemological underpinnings of service-learning (Bringle, 2003; Harkavy, 2004; Ziegert & McGoldrick, 2004). In terms of where we are "in theory," the emphasis on more rigorous research has drawn increasing attention to questions regarding the development of more sophisticated methodological instrumentation and design at the expense of theory development (Bringle, 2003; Bringle & Hatcher, 2000; Ziegert & McGoldrick, 2004). As Bringle points out, "there is more to good research than simply collecting data" (p. 4). In addition, calls for more advanced methodological approaches often translate into a myopic, technical-rational obsession with more precise measurement of service-learning outcomes which "runs the risk of being misguided as it ends up focusing precision at a level that is impossible in the context of the real world" (Ziegert & McGoldrick, 2004, p. 32). With regard to research, empirical studies on learning in service-learning have focused primarily on measuring the impact of service-learning on students' personal, civic, and cognitive development (Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda, & Yee; Eyler, 2000; Eyler, Giles, Stenson, & Gray, 2001; Steinke & Buresh, 2002). While much of this research on "outcomes" is useful, it often stems from institutional pressure to prove that service-learning is more than curricular fluff. Measuring students' acquisition of disciplinary knowledge means service-learning research tends to neglect important community and institutional impacts (Jacoby & Associates, 2003; Strand, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoecker, & Donohue, 2003), learning processes (Kiely, 2002, 2005), theory development (Bringle, 2003) and values unique to service-learning contexts (Harkavy, 2004; Hecht, 2003). As a result, there is a deficit in studies that generate theory and/or investigate the contextual factors and learning processes in service-learning that lead to reported outcomes. The focus on the "what" of student learning rather than the "how" leaves us with a theoretical "black box" regarding the contextual and process mechanisms in service-learning that enhance certain cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes--particularly those that are transformative (Kiely, 2002, 2004). Educators that do explore learning processes in service-learning tend to focus primarily on reflection as a useful predictor of students' academic and personal outcomes (Ash & Clayton, 2004; Eyler, Giles, & Schmiede, 1996; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Hatcher, Bringle, & Muthiah, 2004; Silcox, 1993; Welch, 1999). …