Becoming “Effective” Citizens? Change-Oriented Servicein a Teacher Education Program

Susan V. Iverson & Jennifer H. James

Published online: 28 November 2009# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Abstract The authors investigated the impact of 22 pre-service teachers’ participation in achange-oriented service-learning project on their conceptions of citizenship as civic actors andcivic educators. The goal of this project was to push students toward adopting more criticallyconscious and activist conceptions of citizenship as aligned with the needs of a democraticsociety. Using Eyler and Giles’ (1999) typology of effective citizenship as an analyticframework, we describe how students’ participation in this project led to demonstrated growthalong all five dimensions of effective citizenship. Yet, analysis revealed that, despite the project’schange-orientation, students’ conceptions of citizenship failed to move beyond personalresponsibility to include enhanced social consciousness and the importance of collective action.Thus, we raise critical questions about what constitutes “effective citizenship” in a democraticsociety and the role of higher education in preparing teachers to embody and enact such a vision.

Key words citizenship . service-learning . social justice . pre-service teachers

Preparing graduates for active engagement in the civic life of their communities isconsistently identified as a central task of higher education (Colby et al. 2003; Hamrick

Innov High Educ (2010) 35:19–35DOI 10.1007/s10755-009-9127-y

Susan V. Iverson received her Ed.D. from the University of Maine. She is currently Assistant Professor ofHigher Education Administration and Student Personnel at Kent State University, where she is also anaffiliate faculty member with the Women’s Studies Program. Her scholarly interests include multiculturalcompetence, gender equity, citizenship, and service-learning.

Jennifer H. James received her Ph.D. from the University of Maryland, College Park. She is currentlyAssistant Professor in the Department of Teaching, Learning & Curriculum Studies at Kent StateUniversity. Her research interests include understanding how teachers’ biographies and experiencesimpact who they become as educators, examining constructs of socialization and citizenship in schools,and asking critical questions about gender in social studies and teacher education.

S. V. Iverson (*) : J. H. JamesKent State University, Kent, OH, USAe-mail: siverson@kent.edu

J. H. Jamese-mail: jjames4@kent.edu

1998). However, many scholars have expressed concern regarding students’ disengagementin socio-political affairs (Hamrick 1998; Johnson 2005) and have been critical ofeducation’s effectiveness in meeting the challenge of cultivating students’ civic efficacy(Dionne et al. 2003; Galston 2003; Hillygus 2005). For instance, while students’ rates ofvolunteerism remain high, their political engagement is at an all-time low (Sax 2004).Further, research has indicated that students’ civic responsibility grows during college; buttheir perceived efficacy to create changes in society remained unchanged (Sax 2000). Whilewe believe volunteer and charity work are essential to meeting community needs, we worryabout our students’ limited exposure to more critical and activist versions of citizenship. Weargue for a spirit of democratic citizenship that requires more than good character andloyalty to one’s country; this spirit of citizenship should reflect the ability to “exertinfluence in public affairs” and work toward democratic ideals of justice, equality andfreedom (Griffin 1996/1942; Newmann et al. 1977; Westheimer and Kahne 2004).

Service-learning, which “integrates academic learning with meeting community needs tothe benefit of both students and the community” (Donahue 2000, p. 429), is increasinglyheralded as a key curricular mechanism for promoting civic engagement (Eyler and Giles1999; Kahne et al. 2000). More specifically, service-learning approaches that strive toaddress the root causes of social issues within a community (change-oriented), rather thansimply tending to their symptoms (charity-oriented), are noted for their potential to movestudents toward greater critical civic consciousness and efforts to address injustices insociety (Bickford and Reynolds 2002; Rhoads 1997).

As scholars and educators committed to helping students realize their potential as criticallyconscious and active citizens in a democratic society, we embrace the goals of change-orientedservice-learning for the opportunities it offers students to engage real-world issues and connecttheory to practice. We report here on a study of 22 pre-service teachers’ involvement in achange-oriented service-learning experience as part of their teacher preparation program. Pre-service teachers constitute a unique and important population to study not only because theyare some of the least politically active college students (Sax 2004), but because they arepursuing a career in which they will be responsible for the civic education of others.

In what follows, we situate this study within larger conversations of citizenship andservice learning in higher education. We then describe our particular approach to teachingfor effective citizenship within a pre-service teacher education program and the methodsemployed for this study. Using Eyler and Giles’ (1999) dimensions of effective citizenshipas an analytic framework, we next offer an analysis of students’ writing at the beginningand end of the semester to determine how this framework helps us to understand students’growth toward effective citizenship. We then consider the usefulness of this typology forempowering students’ critical civic consciousness and offer some critique of the notion ofeffective citizenship. In the end, we discuss implications for teacher education, consideringhow teachers’ entrenchment in traditional conceptions of citizenship emphasizing personalresponsibility may unwittingly contribute to the shortfall of civic education to preparestudents for democratic citizenship.

Background and Conceptual Framework

We align our work with critical, social justice-oriented conceptions of citizenship andparticular approaches to service-learning aimed at fostering critical citizenship among pre-service teachers. Before reviewing relevant service-learning literature, we delineate variousconceptions of citizenship, explicating our place within this body of work.

20 Innov High Educ (2010) 35:19–35

Conceptions of Citizenship

Various conceptions of citizenship exist, and debate abounds over which conceptionscontribute most to a good society. Marshall (1950), in his seminal essay on citizenship,identified three overlapping, related elements: civil—those protections, equalities, andliberties before the law; political—the opportunity to participate and exercise politicalpower; and social—the health, education, and welfare needed to participate fully in societyand “to live the life of a civilized being according to the standards prevailing in the society”(p. 94). Schudson (1998), in his history of American civic life, delineated four types ofcitizen—loyalist, partisan, informed, and rights-bearing—and documented how citizenshipin the U.S. has changed over time. Schudson observed that today the “informed citizen”type is supplemented by the “rights-bearing citizen” type, recognizing that the personalcitizen is political and constantly monitoring institutions to protect rights.

Banks’ (2008) typology of four related levels of citizenship identified legal citizenship as“the most superficial level” embodying certain rights and responsibilities to the nation-statebut not involving any meaningful participation in the political system (p. 136). The nextlevel, minimal citizenship, is typically enacted through voting. Beyond voting, activecitizenship involves civic participation and involvement; but “the actions of active citizensare designed to support and maintain—but not to challenge—existing social and politicalstructures” (p. 136). In the final level, transformative citizenship, citizens take action topromote social justice.

Some scholars argue that dominant discourses in civic education today overemphasizecharacter education and community building at the expense of asking questions andengaging in collective action (Abowitz and Harnish 2006; Fouts and Lee 2005; Westheimerand Kahne 2004). Abowitz and Harnish (2006), for instance, highlighted the dominance ofcivic republican and liberal citizenship discourses within civic education. These discoursesemphasize loyalty and individual action, leading to K-12 civic education “as civicrepublican literacy (factual consumption of American history, geography, and government)combined with varying degrees of patriotic identity and the liberal virtue of tolerance fordifference” (p. 680). However, they illuminated alternatives, which they termed “criticaldiscourses” that challenge dominant conceptualizations of citizenship and suggested thatthese alternatives (e.g., feminist and cultural perspectives) could offer transformative waysfor students to practice citizenship that “rely heavily on the values and skills associated withsocial justice activism” (p. 671).

Westheimer and Kahne (2004) offer a useful framework for thinking about citizenshipthat tends toward social justice. Educators who are committed to justice-orientedcitizenship, they argued, “seek to prepare students to improve society by criticallyanalyzing and addressing social issues and injustices” (p. 242). This justice orientationdiffers qualitatively from those who are committed to citizenship as personally responsibleor participatory in nature. Educators focused on citizenship as being personally responsibleemphasize character education and individual responsibility for leading a moral life andcontributing to the community in cooperative and positive ways (e.g., volunteering at asoup kitchen, picking up trash). Proponents of participatory citizenship focus on “preparingstudents to engage in collective, community-based efforts” in an effort to teach studentsabout government (p. 243).

While Westheimer and Kahne acknowledged the contributions each of these types ofcitizen may make to society, they differentiated between those who are particularly alignedwith the needs of a democratic society and those who are not. Citizenship as personallyresponsible, for example, which they identified as the dominant conception undergirding

Innov High Educ (2010) 35:19–35 21

the character education and community-service movements with its emphasis on individualcharacter and behavior, “obscures the need for collective and public sector initiatives…[and] distracts attention from analysis of the causes of social problems and from systemicsolutions. … [V]olunteerism and kindness are put forward as ways of avoiding politics andpolicy” (p. 243). Civic education limited to the concept of personally responsiblecitizenship, they argued, risks teaching students that “citizenship does not requiredemocratic governments, politics, or even collective endeavors,” working against the sortsof critical reflection and action “essential in a democratic society” (p. 244). Conversely,educators who have a social justice orientation to citizenship “seek to prepare students toimprove society by critically analyzing and addressing social issues and injustices”(Westheimer and Kahne 2004, p. 242).

In the study reported here, our understanding of education for citizenship is theconcerted effort to prepare students to assume responsibility for moving society forward ina more just direction where individuals are responsive and responsible to the larger wholeor common good. As such, higher education is a necessary place to “teach citizens to exertinfluence in public affairs, for without the competence to influence the state, the unalienableright to do so (that is, the key feature of representative democracy) cannot be exercised”(Newmann et al. 1977, p. 226).

Service-Learning and Social Action

Service-learning is a form of experiential education through which “students engage inactivities that address human and community needs together with structured opportunitiesintentionally designed to promote student learning and development” (Jacoby et al. 1996,p. 5). There are questions that need to be asked, however. Who determines the communityneeds; how do we know service is needed and beneficial; and how do we define and know ifstudents have been effective in their service? Rooted in our commitment to a conception ofcitizenship oriented toward social justice, we seek to employ pedagogical methods that arealigned with social justice goals and to develop students’ abilities to study social problems,cultivate critical consciousness, and “grasp [the concepts] of equity and fostering activism”(Boyle-Baise et al. 2006, p. 17; Baldwin et al. 2007; Boyle-Baise and Langford 2004; Butin2007; Cuban and Anderson 2007; Maybach 1996; Mayhew and Fernandez 2007).

Service-learning scholars suggest that different types of service experiences can lead todifferent outcomes for student learning. For instance, Kendall (1990) posited that service-learning experiences should move students beyond acts of charity to address root causes ofsystemic social inequality. The poles of Kendall’s continuum—charitable and justice-oriented—are typically identified as competing goals within service-learning. Service-learning oriented toward charity, sometimes referred to as “philanthropic” service(Battistoni 1997), is an “exercise in altruism” and emphasizes “character building and akind of compensatory justice where the well-off feel obligated to help the less advantaged”(p. 151). By contrast, justice-oriented service (Kahne and Westheimer 1996), criticalcommunity service (Rhoads 1997), revolutionary service (Reich 1994), and activism(Bickford and Reynolds 2002) help students to develop a deeper understanding of socialissues and promote the development of skills necessary to work for social change (Boyle-Baise and Langford 2004; Donahue 2000; Hart 2006; Naples and Bojar 2002). A “do good”sense of responsiveness to immediate needs is replaced by an analysis of power andoppression (Wade et al. 2001). To guide our development of the experiential component ofthe course in our study, we aligned with those who advocated a social justice-orientation toservice-learning and its transformational power.

22 Innov High Educ (2010) 35:19–35

Eyler and Giles (1999) also cited the transformational potential for learning experiencesin terms of a transition from the “patronizing role of charity” (p. 47) to “a more systemicview of social problems and a greater sense of the importance of political action to obtainsocial justice” (p. 135). Their work has been used widely to discuss the benefits of service-learning for students’ development as “effective citizens” (Einfeld and Collins 2008; Hinckand Brandell 1999; Jones 2002; Kahne et al. 2000). Through extensive survey data andintensive interviews, Eyler and Giles found that “participation in service-learning leads tothe values, knowledge, skills, efficacy, and commitment that underlie effective citizenship”(p. 164). More than learning outcomes, Eyler and Giles’ (1999) viewed the five dimensionsdefined below as the “means to the end of citizenship” (p. 156).

▪ Values—Students’ recognition of what “I ought to do,” Eyler and Giles (1999) observed,“provides powerful motivation for involvement” (p. 157). These feelings of socialresponsibility, they added, when coupled with “a belief in the importance of social justiceand political action” can lead to active involvement in one’s community (p. 157).

▪ Knowledge—Students also need knowledge: “the expertise and cognitive capacity tomake intelligent decisions about what needs to be done” (Eyler and Giles p. 159).Through involvement in service-learning, students demonstrated an “increased ability toanalyze problems” and an advanced “capacity for thoughtful citizenship participation”(pp. 159–160).

▪ Skills—Further, students must acquire practical experience and interpersonal skills to beeffective. Acquisition of this “know how” was evident in the development ofinterpersonal, leadership, communication, and strategic thinking skills. Stronger skillscontributed to students’ “confidence in their ability to act” (p. 161).

▪ Efficacy—Being effective also “depends on the willingness to take the risk ofinvolvement, which depends on personal self-confidence”, which Eyler and Giles termedefficacy (p. 161).

▪ Commitment—Finally, the “ultimate test” of effective citizenship, according to Eyler andGiles, is students’ commitment to do something. Students’ service-learning experience“creates a real urgency to do something” (p. 162). They acknowledge limitations in thisdimension, since “the closest we could get to action in the time frame of our studies was tomeasure intent” (p. 162), meaning intention for continued involvement in theircommunities and/or commitment to a career involving service.

While Eyler and Giles usefully delineated differing dimensions of citizenship that can beenhanced through service-learning, little effort has been made to understand the possiblerange of meanings that fall within each dimension when the service-learning in question isinformed by a particular conception of citizenship. For instance, what skills might be usefulwhen engaging in justice-oriented versus charity-oriented citizenship? How do differingtypes of service-learning experiences help students to foster these differing sets of skills?For the purposes of this study, we were interested in understanding how students’engagement with justice-oriented service-learning may help them to foster the values,knowledge, skills, efficacy and commitment particular to justice-oriented citizenship.

The Study

The primary goal of this qualitative longitudinal study (now entering its third phase) is toadvance understanding of change-oriented service-learning as a strategy for facilitatingshifts in pre-service student teachers’ thinking about citizenship. Additionally, we are

Innov High Educ (2010) 35:19–35 23

interested in understanding the sustainability of any changes and describing how students’experiences may contribute to their thinking about civic education. We developed thefollowing research questions as a guide for this investigation:

& How did students’ thinking about citizenship change over the course of the semester asa result of their engagement in change-oriented service-learning?

& How did students come to see themselves as civic actors as a result of their participationin change-oriented service-learning?

& What effect does this effort seem to have on students evolving conceptions of civiceducation?

Description of the Course

The context for the initial phase of this study was a social studies methods course forprimary educators offered as part of an undergraduate degree in Early Childhood Educationat a large, mid-western university. Students enroll in the course during their second-to-lastsemester (methods block), and they also take four other content methods courses and a fieldseminar. In this course, students examine the nature of social studies; become familiar withvarious models of instruction; critically reflect on their identity as social studies educators;and further develop their skills as critical, democratic, and historical thinkers. Aftercompleting the methods block semester, students move into their final semester of theprogram, which is their student teaching experience in an elementary school. The programin which students are enrolled leads to licensure for teaching children ages 3–8 (throughthird grade).

Take a Stand Project1

As part of this course, we designed a change-oriented service-learning project, called the“Take a Stand” project, to foster pre-service teachers’ sense of civic competence as anessential aspect of preparing them to become civic educators. This semester-longassignment involved a series of steps, the first of which was critical discussion aboutvarious social issues (e.g., poverty, immigration, and same-sex marriage) that we believedhad particular relevance to our students’ lives, not only as citizens in their own right but asteachers of young children. Stemming from these discussions of social issues, students wereassigned to identify one issue on which they would, individually or in small groups, “take astand.” Students had the option of choosing an issue we discussed as a class or choosinganother that was approved by the instructor. Working with a local organization, studentswere expected to assess specific needs of their community (either campus or home) and, inresponse to those needs, implement a course of action that was change-oriented rather thancharitable.

For instance,2 Derek was concerned about the issue of sweatshops around the world andthe role of U.S. corporations in perpetuating them. Derek attended a local hearing on theissue, where he was introduced to the idea of asking for the state’s divestment incorporations that have been connected with sweatshops worldwide. He then prepared aPowerPoint presentation to share with friends and family. He included vivid photos as ameans of gaining people’s attention and offered them information about sweatshops and

1 The Take a Stand project is adapted from an assignment described in Bickford and Reynolds (2002).2 When names are provided, they are pseudonyms.

24 Innov High Educ (2010) 35:19–35

American owned corporations that were known to support them. He then wrote a letter tothe governor, in which he asked for the state’s complete divestment from these companies.He copied the letter and asked others to sign them. In the end he collected over 75 signedletters to send to the governor.

Upon completion of their Take a Stand projects, students presented the results of theirefforts at a class poster fair. The purpose of the assignment was to teach students about thevalue of social action as a means of addressing the root causes of social problems ratherthan simply tending to their symptoms. Like Banks (2008), we acknowledge thesignificance of action that goes beyond charity and the value of providing students withauthentic opportunities for engagement in transformative citizenship in the promotion ofsocial justice.

Participants

Research suggests that among college-aged students, those majoring in educationdemonstrate one of the lowest rates of political participation (Sax 2004). Pre-serviceelementary teachers, who have responsibility for educating future generations of citizens,constitute a critical subset of the larger college population. Participants in this initial phaseof the study included 22 of 23 pre-service elementary educators enrolled in the socialstudies methods course.3 Of these, 21 were female and one was male, two were AfricanAmerican, and the remainder identified themselves as Caucasian. The majority describedthemselves on a demographic profile as having grown up in a middle-class environmentalthough four identified themselves as from a lower-class background and two as from anupper-middle income background. All were between the ages of 20–24. The studentsenrolled in this class reflect demographic trends in pre-service elementary teacher educationenrollment nationally, the majority being under 24, Caucasian, and middle-class (Zumwaltand Craig 2005). As is typical of other students enrolled in the Early Childhood Educationprogram at this predominantly white, public, regional campus, most students are from thelocal community and have spent the better part of their lives within 60 miles of their home.Many commute home on the weekends or continue to live with family while attendingschool. The majority works part-time while taking classes, and roughly one-third are first-generation college students.

Data Collection

Our use of a qualitative design coupled with our experiential curricular strategy led us toidentify a variety of data sources, which we believed would best illuminate students’thinking about citizenship generally and about themselves as citizens and citizenshipeducators more specifically. We were systematic in gathering and recording information,and we collected various data at different points during the class.

Pre-writing on Citizenship On the second day of the semester, students were asked torespond to the question, “What is citizenship?” This in-class free writing task preceded anydiscussion of citizenship and served as the point of comparison for the later post-writingtask at the end of the semester.

3 Human subject approval was gained and all participants signed an informed consent form.

Innov High Educ (2010) 35:19–35 25

Post-writing on Citizenship/Culminating Reflection At the end of the methods semester,students submitted a 4–5 page paper reflecting on three central questions. “What iscitizenship? How did your participation in the Take a Stand project push your thinkingabout citizenship? How are you thinking about civic education?” These reflections werecollected to gain insight about the impact of the project on students’ evolving conceptionsof citizenship and of themselves as civically engaged individuals as well as their thinkingabout civic education.

Field Logs Throughout the semester, the two investigators kept field logs in which wereflected on class meetings, kept notes about our shared sense-making, and documentedconversations with students about their projects. Jennifer James was the instructor-of-record; however, as co-investigator, Susan Iverson assisted with course design, observedseveral class sessions, and reviewed assignments related to the Take a Stand project. Ourfield logs helped to serve as a record of our semester together—our challenges, questions,and lessons learned.

Analytic Process

We drew upon established qualitative methods of coding and categorizing to identify broadthemes across data sources, looking first at the pre-post writing on citizenship (Miles andHuberman 1994). The findings we present here are the result of careful coding for centralcategories, which are defined by Strauss and Corbin (1998) as those that “appear frequentlyin the data.” We identified frequently-used words and phrases in students’ pre- and post-writing in response to the question “What is citizenship?” and began clustering them intounits of information, or what Lincoln and Guba (1985) refer to as “unitizing” (p. 344), as abasis for defining categories. We worked on this initial reading of the data individually andthen came together to compare these central categories. After reaching agreement on commonlanguage for the patterns we found in the data, we then returned to the pre- and post-writingdata to complete a deductive level of analysis using Eyler and Giles’ (1999) five dimensionsof effective citizenship. Codes from inductive and deductive analyses were visuallydisplayed, and common patterns emerged. Finally, we reread the data, making comparisonsacross data sources, in order to refine codes; a descriptive framework began to emerge.

Findings

We now describe how students’ participation in change-oriented service-learning facilitateda shift in their thinking about citizenship, helping them to develop along all five dimensionsof citizenship as described by Eyler and Giles (1999). We illustrate students’ growth withineach of these dimensions through excerpts from the data and, using a critical lens, critiquethe degree to which they moved closer to enacting a social justice orientation to citizenship.

Values: “My Responsibility to Do What is Right”

In their pre-writing about citizenship, students articulated the importance of character:“being honest and trustworthy” (Melissa), “showing respect” (Suzie), “being a responsiblemember of a community” (Tami), “to exhibit qualities of caring, kindness, respect andoverall goodness” (Elizabeth). However, these descriptors did not translate into what one

26 Innov High Educ (2010) 35:19–35

has a social responsibility to do. By contrast, at the end of the semester, students expandedtheir ideas and addressed what one ought to do as a citizen. For instance, Christie stated, “Inow realize that I have certain responsibilities that must be upheld, including volunteeringbut also to help educate people in the concepts I have now come to better understand.”Jessica noted, “As a citizen, I feel it is my responsibility to do what is right and take actionthat I know will help others … I felt it was important to take a stand” (emphasis added).Jackie observed that one’s responsibility is tied to knowing what to do: “When you know alot about something and feel strongly about it, you have a responsibility to take a stand andeducate people about it.”

While students, at the end of the semester, had articulated their new sense of socialresponsibility and the importance of doing “what is right” and taking action that “will helpothers,” their assertions of what they now valued personally and acknowledgement of theirresponsibility to their community require careful consideration of what values service-learning seeks to promote (Kahne and Westheimer 1996). For instance, students’ assertionsof what they ought to do did not include a sense of responsibility to dismantle causes ofinequality; they viewed “the individual as the locus of responsibility rather thaninstitutional, systemic, or structural aspects of our political culture” (Berman 1997,p. 174). An emphasis on social responsibility to one’s community, inclusive of valuingconnectedness in a community so as to break barriers between “us” and “them” may havethe unintended consequence of erasing difference, reinforcing stereotypes about “them”held by “us,” and failing to ensure reciprocity and mutuality. Young (1995), who criticized“the ideal of community,” argued instead for “an understanding of social relations withoutdomination in which persons live together in relations of mediation among strangers withwhom they are not in community” (p. 234). Cultivating responsibility for the root causes ofsocial problems would also likely involve questioning values that have gone unquestioned(Rosenberger 2000).

Knowledge: “I Know What it Takes”

Evident in the data was the role of knowledge in shaping conceptions of effectivecitizenship. Only four students at the beginning of the semester identified knowledge as akey aspect of active citizenship; and these students viewed knowledge as received andabsolute, with clear parameters on what counts as knowledge. For instance, Jackie wroteabout “learning the history of how our country was founded and how we got our rights.”Melanie added that citizenship involves “learning about our country.” Similarly, Rachelemphasized the importance of “being loyal to that country, knowing the rights and laws…knowing about the country in which you live.”

Eyler and Giles (1999) differentiated the knowledge dimension as more than staticknowledge of factual information, noting instead that effective citizens must demonstrate anadvanced cognitive capacity, be able to function as a problem solver, and see what theyknow as “connected to a complex network of principles, concepts, and other facts” (p. 65).At the end of the semester, most students articulated an epistemological shift, differentiatingtheir knowledge at the end of the semester from what they knew at the beginning. Forinstance, Emily reflected, “Citizenship is definitely different than what I thought startingout… It is hard to create a definition… but I know what it takes to become an activecitizen” (emphasis added). Derek stated, “The entire process took me through many levelsof thinking.” Similarly, Kelly adds, “I have learned I was not aware... I now feel I havebeen naïve.” Tami also noted, “Prior to this experience, I had no idea…I feel like I hadblinders on…This stand-taking deepened my understanding.” One student, blending

Innov High Educ (2010) 35:19–35 27

knowledge with values, observed, “This experience made me think more deeply about myresponsibility as a person and as a citizen, and made me realize that all of my actions, nomatter how small I may consider them, truly do affect my environment” (Christie).

While students emphasized their increased awareness of social problems and shifts intheir thinking, few seemed to grasp the systemic ways that inequities are produced andsustained socially. Thus, students may develop perspective, that is, the “the ability to putoneself in another person’s place and to understand what he or she is thinking” (Evans et al.1998, p. 177); but they may fail to analyze the dynamics at work (i.e. power, privilege,oppression) in our communities and the places where they provide service. Eyler and Giles(1999) emphasized their belief that students must do more than gain awareness and that thedepth of their understanding and engagement of social problems is inextricably tied to theircognitive capacity. Expanding this capacity, they noted, “is a slow developmental process”(p. 160). Service-learning appears to create “a state of readiness” (Evans et al. 1998, p. 177)for students’ cognitive development. However, students’ knowledge development may fallshort in acquiring the knowledge of the socially constructed reality of socioculturalidentities and the way power operates to produce different experiences. Instead, studentsmust engage in the “twofold process of gaining increasingly critical levels ofconsciousness” by “…perceiving, first, one’s place in reality and, secondly, one’s capabilityas an agent of change” (Rosenberger 2000, p. 35).

Efficacy: “I Can Make a Difference”

At the start of the semester, students seemed blind to their potential and capacity as citizens,thinking about citizenship as an abstraction or textbook definition. Their responses to thewriting prompt “what is citizenship?” during the first week of the semester were void of first-person voice, using instead either no pronoun or second person voice (“you”). For instance, onestudent wrote of citizenship as a “duty to your country to uphold certain obligations” (Heidi).

At the end of the semester, students’ responses had shifted to first-person voice; theysaw themselves in the role of active citizen. This shift in voice is exemplified by Kelly whoreflected: “I now see citizenship as more of a verb than a noun. I used to think of it as atitle…now I see it as a description of acts of service and an awareness of the issues thataffect our lives.” In their statements, students revealed growth in their efficacious belief thatthey had the capacity to act. For instance, Cathi wrote, “I used to think, ‘I can’t make adifference’…, but I was wrong…. My efforts have directed me to believe that I can make adifference” (emphasis added). Elizabeth observed, “I learned that I am able to make changewhen I set my mind to it.” Similarly, Beth wrote, “When you have the tools and resourcesto make a difference, you do it.”

Almost every student expanded the belief in one’s ability to act and make a difference.What,however, do we view as the socio-political arena in which students can and will act? Will theirefforts contribute to making a justice-oriented difference? The efficacious belief in the effectivecitizen’s ability to make a difference, as conceptualized by Eyler and Giles, does not necessarilyinclude “the capacity to effect inequities and unjust practices in society” (Rosenberger 2000,p. 36). Critical civic efficacy is the belief in one’s ability “to create social change” and the“recognition that larger problems exist that contribute to the many social ills that make servicenecessary” (Rhoads, p. 221). Awareness of the inadequacy of existing (charitable) efforts,which are merely treating the symptoms and not the root causes of the social problems, leadsto “participation in the larger struggle for change” (p. 221). Further, the absence of criticalcivic efficacy risks students perpetuating the status quo of identity privilege, with service-providers “doing good” for the “have nots” (Jones 2002; Rosenberger 2000).

28 Innov High Educ (2010) 35:19–35

Skills: “I have the Abilities”

At the end of the semester, and directly linked with their Take a Stand projects, somestudents articulated a growing awareness of the skills they had acquired and how theseskills would help them to work better with others and their communities. For instance,Rachel realized,

I have learned that I, along with any citizen, can take a stand about an issue… I havethe abilities to educate people about issues that I am passionate about ….Citizensshould take part in activities that will help the community [and] should take stands onissues they feel are important. I almost feel guilty for not taking stands on issues that Ivery well could have for the past few years. (emphasis added)

Colleen, referring to her project on autism, wrote, “Now that I have actively done some-thing, I feel that I have actually contributed to the cause.” Elizabeth added, “I am aware andhave [had] practice at being an active citizen.”

While most students did not explicitly identify skills, which illuminates the need foradditional opportunities for students to acquire practical experience and build strongerskills, they did describe how their civic knowledge, values, and efficacy translated into whothey would be and what they would do in their future classrooms. Students’ writing at theend of the semester resonated with Eyler and Giles’ (1999) indication that effective citizensdevelop skills in order to help students “work better with others,” “organizing volunteergroups,” and “mapping the community” in order to assess needs and identify stakeholders(pp. 160–1). Absent in consideration of these skills is whether they will be effective in themaintenance of the status quo or in the actions of transformative citizenship. Thus, added toa justice-oriented citizen’s toolbox must be skills in dissenting, as much as consensusbuilding; in articulating the critic’s perspective perhaps more often than being thesynthesizer; and skills as an activist or agitator in addition to being the helpful volunteer.These skills, we argue, will give learners “a broader understanding of dissent and willencourage them to envision themselves as actors or agents in political arenas” (Bickfordand Reynolds 2002, p. 230).

Commitment: “We must Actively Care”

This dimension of effective citizenship, according to Eyler and Giles (1999), is a measureof intent. Through our analysis of post-writing data, students’ commitment was evidentprimarily in their descriptions of how their experiences had expanded their thinking as pre-service teachers about civic education. For instance, Colleen excitedly considered how shecould adapt the Take a Stand project for her future classroom.

Stand taking would be an awesome way of teaching and modeling citizenship…Children could be given a chance to become active members of a community at avery young age…My goal will be to give children opportunities to create their ownbeliefs and ideas about social studies…I hope to present social studies in a way inwhich children must think deeply and will be challenged by others… This will bedone through exploration, books, active participation, and discussion.

Derek, too, articulated what he believes must happen: “It is not enough to just care orsay someone must do something. We must actively care. I want to not only teach mystudents to actively care but to take the next step and want others to do the same” (emphasisadded). Echoing this commitment to care, Emily stated what she wants for herself and for

Innov High Educ (2010) 35:19–35 29

the children she will teach: “I want to convey the messages to children that they …careenough to take a stand for whatever issues are very important to them.”

When students in this study articulated the intent and urgency to do something and to beinvolved in their community, we wondered if their future efforts would be evidence of acommitment to structural change or to charity? Effective citizens, like the participants inour study, indicate they will “continue community service” (Eyler and Giles, p.162). Thus,effective citizens may engage “the world as it is, not as we wish it to be” (Morton 1995,p. 23). A critical commitment, however, does not stop at charitable efforts or with learningabout the root causes of social problems, but “demands that larger efforts be made to alterthe social dynamics” (Rhoads, p. 185). As Berman (1997) argued, our commitment must beto consider “how we can change social structures so that our society becomes a better placein which to live” and to ask “how power and wealth should be shared” (p. 182).

Discussion

At first glance, we could feel accomplished in our efforts since students demonstratedgrowth across all of Eyler and Giles’ five dimensions of effective citizenship. Generally,students concluded the course with a sense of civic responsibility, an articulation ofincreased knowledge, a sense of their capacity to make a difference; and these factorstranslated into their commitment to sustain their active citizenship in their lives and transmitthis feeling into their future classrooms. Jackie asserted, “I now believe that because wehave the right to take a stand, we should—no matter what the issue, we should find whatwe are passionate about and act on it.” Wendy echoed her sentiment: “I have learned howimportant it is to stand up for what you believe in … Becoming actively involved made mefeel like a good citizen.”

Students largely moved from understanding citizenship as an abstract thing or titleearned by a person living in a certain place to something to be enacted. Yet, very few cameto incorporate a social justice orientation in their constructs of citizenship. As our criticalanalysis illuminated, we are left with the question: “effective for whom and what?”Students in our study spoke at length about their increasing commitment to action and theirexcitement at realizing their capacity to make a difference. However, to what degree havethey moved closer to enacting a commitment to democratic ideals of justice, equity, andfreedom? As faculty members committed to helping to prepare students capable of andcommitted to democratic citizenship that tends toward concern for justice and the commongood, we are aware now that a range of meanings fall within each dimension of “effective”citizenship.

As a result of students’ participation in change-oriented service-learning, they movedfrom thinking about values as aspects of character to a social responsibility to “do the rightthing” and to “help others.” They moved from understanding knowledge for citizenship asreceived and absolute to knowledge as something to be arrived at through deliberation andproblem solving. They began to see themselves as citizens capable of taking action, nolonger describing citizenship as an abstraction. They articulated a greater sense of “knowhow” and a commitment to future civic action. Nonetheless, for each of these fivedimensions we are left wondering—to what end? How will students interpret “the rightthing”, and how will they endeavor to “help others” in their community? Will “the rightthing” be confined to being loyal to and not questioning government, or could it includeacts of dissent? To what degree will students use their knowledge to question the status quoand seek alternative solutions to age-old problems? Will knowledge include attention to the

30 Innov High Educ (2010) 35:19–35

historical, social, and political context of need? How will students deploy their new sense ofagency as citizens, and to what ends will they be committed? Will their commitments alignwith charitable conceptualizations of service-learning rather than justice-oriented? Will theircivic actions be “designed to support and maintain existing social structures” (Banks 2008,p. 136) or to explore issues of oppression and understand the “effects of our service”(Maybach 1996, p. 228)?

Within each of Eyler and Giles five dimensions there is a multitude of ways to conceiveof and enact citizenship. Effective citizens in the service of justice question existing valuesand have a social responsibility to address root causes of social problems; they acquireknowledge of how power operates to produce different lived experiences; they develop anefficacious belief in their ability to create systemic change; they demonstrate skills inprincipled dissent; and they enact a commitment to participate in the larger struggle forsocial change. This study has only begun to illuminate the range embedded in eachdimension of effective citizenship, signifying that, while students developed towardeffectiveness as citizens, we must be clearer about the goals of service-learning work andrefine our language for describing students’ progress toward those goals. We hope tocontribute to future efforts that will strive to develop more sophisticated typologies forcapturing this complicated process. Future studies are also warranted to investigate thesustainability of students’ action-taking and thinking about citizenship. In the second phaseof our longitudinal study, we were dismayed to find that students’ new ideas and professedcommitments had not persisted once their engagement with service-learning had ceased(James and Iverson 2009). Our project continues and is now entering its third phase, whichis to follow these (now former) students as they enter their first year of teaching.

In considering these findings and our ideas, we should note, however, that students varyin their developmental readiness for transformative learning experiences; and mosttraditional age college students “rely heavily on external authorities and sources for theirbeliefs and values” (Baxter Magolda and King 2004, p. xxiii). Faculty members then, arechallenged to design programs that acknowledge students’ current patterns of thinking and“quite deliberately create the circumstances for its productive undoing” (Kegan 1994,p. 46). King and Ladson-Billings (1990) described their attempts to help pre-serviceteachers consider critical perspectives “as a continuum that begins with self-awareness andknowledge and extends to thinking critically about society and making a commitment totransformative teaching” (p. 26). While students’ enactment of effective citizenship inour study did not move them fully into change-oriented citizenship, all studentsshifted in their thinking about citizenship from the beginning to the end of themethods semester, suggesting the enhancement of cognitive maturation. Baxter-Magolda and King (2004) suggested that “effective citizenship” is enabled by anindividual’s cognitive, intra-personal and inter-personal maturity and that these threeareas combine to empower “coherent, ethical action for the good of both the individualand the larger community” (p. 6).

Because the students in this study were pre-service teachers, we consider the impact oftheir growth toward more effective citizenship as both citizens in their own right and asfuture civic educators. For teacher educators, this study makes a contribution toward greaterawareness of how pre-service teachers understand and enact citizenship. Despite growingscholarly interest in the use of service-learning within teacher education programs(Dinkelman 2001; Lake and Jones 2008; Theriot 2006), few examples exist of service-learning experiences grounded in such critical conceptions of citizenship (Wade 2007). Thisstudy supports the inclusion of service-learning experiences within teacher educationprograms.

Innov High Educ (2010) 35:19–35 31

Furthermore, the results of this study highlight the difficult nature of citizenship teachereducation. Because pre-service teachers are some of our least politically aware and activecollege students (Sax 2004), teacher education programs have the challenge to preparegraduates for their roles as citizens and civic educators in only a few years. One class andone opportunity for service-learning, while a powerful starting position, are insufficient.Teacher educators would be wise to consider the integration of service-learning experiencesthroughout their programs, providing students with greater opportunities to wrestle withdifficult issues in their communities and continue along this path toward “effectivecitizenship.” Such integration could occur within ongoing practicum experiences withminimal disruption to current program structure.

Finally, because teacher educators must think not only about the students in theirclassrooms but also about the children who will ultimately sit in the classrooms of theirgraduates, there is the ethical and moral question about what we expect to see as evidenceof effective citizenship among teachers. We must ask ourselves difficult questions about ourresponsibility for preparing teachers to enact and teach effective citizenship and about thesustainability of our own efforts to support this development. While greater inclusion ofcitizenship education within pre-service programs may be one answer, we must alsoconsider the role teacher education can play in continuing education for teachers in thefield.

Within our own work, this study has contributed to revisions of our Take-a-Stand projectand greater efforts to include service-learning throughout our program. One lesson learnedfrom our engagement with this project was that students needed varying levels of support indeveloping their projects and in coming to understand the nature of social issues. We havesince created a variety of instructional materials and experiences for helping studentsdifferentiate issues from symptoms and for initiating their collaborative work with partnersin the field. We have also shared our results with colleagues in the early childhood teachereducation program and are in the process of designing additional opportunities for service-learning, as well as re-conceptualizing our current field experiences to include greaterreflection upon the social issues which are manifest in local schools and classrooms. Webelieve these efforts, along with our ongoing collaborative reflection on our work, will helpmove us and students toward greater effectiveness as citizens and as civic educators.

Conclusion

Through this study we sought to examine changes in students’ thinking about citizenshipover the course of a semester as a result of their engagement in change-oriented service-learning. The students demonstrated growth along the five dimensions of effectivecitizenship; yet, through our application of a critical lens to students’ performance ofeffective citizenship, we realized that students fell short in achieving social justice-orientedcitizenship and that they were instead (more) effectively performing personally responsibleconstructs of citizenship to which they had been socialized (Abowitz and Harnish 2006;Westheimer and Kahne 2004). We suggest research that would build on this effort tocomplicate prominent conceptions of effective citizenship as a learning outcome ofcurricular initiatives.

The complex social issues that continue to plague the U.S. (and the world)—homelessness, poverty, hunger, to name a few—demand that higher education developcitizens committed to social justice and transformative change (Maybach 1996; Mayhewand Fernandez 2007). Scholars call for more than academic knowledge to address social

32 Innov High Educ (2010) 35:19–35

problems that face society; for college graduates to “situate themselves as citizens withattendant responsibilities to identify and deal with social problems;” and for students todraw upon the skills, expertise, and commitment “to use [their] energies and abilities inservice to a collective society” (Hamrick 1998, p. 450). As educators committed to socialjustice efforts, we believe it is our responsibility to insist that our classrooms become placeswhere students not only gain self-awareness of social issues, knowledge of socialresponsibility, and confidence in their ability to serve their community, but also are “placeswhere students examine their resistance to activism and consider what is at stake inrecognizing the power of and need for dissent” (Bickford and Reynolds 2002, p. 247). Yet,without differentiating among the various interpretations of each dimension of effectivecitizenship, we cannot adequately determine if students’ evolving conceptions ofcitizenship are becoming justice-oriented.

References

Abowitz, K. K., & Harnish, J. (2006). Contemporary discourses of citizenship. Review of EducationalResearch, 76(4), 653–690.

Baldwin, S. C., Buchanan, A.M., &Rudisill, M. E. (2007).What teacher candidates learned about diversity, socialjustice, and themselves from service-learning experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(4), 315–327.

Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age. EducationalResearcher, 37(3), 129–129.

Battistoni, R. (1997). Service learning and democratic citizenship. Theory into Practice, 36(3), 150–156.Baxter Magolda, M., & King, P. M. (eds). (2004). Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to

educate for self-authorship. Sterling, VA: Stylus.Berman, S. (1997). Children’s social consciousness and the development of social responsibility. Dayton,

OH: Kettering Foundation.Bickford, D. M., & Reynolds, N. (2002). Activism and service-learning: Reframing volunteerism as acts of

dissent. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture, 2(2), 229–252.

Boyle-Baise, M., & Langford, J. (2004). There are children here: Service learning for social justice. Equity &Excellence in Education, 37(1), 55–66.

Boyle-Baise, M., Brown, R., Hsu, M., Jones, D., Prakash, A., Rausch, M., et al. (2006). Learning service orservice learning: Enabling the civic. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in HigherEducation, 18(1), 17–26.

Butin, D. W. (2007). Justice-learning: Service-learning as justice-oriented education. Equity & Excellence inEducation, 40(2), 177–183.

Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., & Stephens, J. (2003). Educating citizens: Preparing American’s undergraduates forlives of moral and civic responsibility. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cuban, S., & Anderson, J. B. (2007). Where’s the justice in service-learning? Institutionalizing service-learning from a social justice perspective at a Jesuit university. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(2),144–155.

Dinkelman, T. (2001). Service learning in student teaching: “What’s social studies for?”. Theory andResearch in Social Education, 29(4), 617–639.

Dionne, E. J., Drogosz, K. M., & Litan, R. E. (eds). (2003). United we serve: National service and the futureof citizenship. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Donahue, D. M. (2000). Charity basket or revolution: Beliefs, experiences, and context in preserviceteachers’ service learning. Curriculum Inquiry, 30(4), 429–450.

Einfeld, A., & Collins, D. (2008). The relationships between service-learning, social justice, multiculturalcompetence, and civic engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 49(2), 95–109.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, researchand practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Fouts, J. T., & Lee, W. O. (2005). Concepts of citizenship: From personal rights to social responsibility. In W.

O. Lee & J. T. Fouts (Eds.), Education for social citizenship: Perceptions of teachers in USA, Australia,England, Russia, and China (pp. 19–51). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Innov High Educ (2010) 35:19–35 33

Galston, W. (2003). Civic education and political participation. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(1), 29–33.Griffin, A. F. (1996/1942). Teaching in authoritarian and democratic states. In W. C. Parker (Ed.), Educating

the democratic mind (pp. 79–93). Albany, NY: SUNY. (Original work published in 1942).Hamrick, F. A. (1998). Democratic citizenship and student activism. Journal of College Student

Development, 39(5), 449–460.Hart, S. (2006). Breaking literacy boundaries through critical service-learning: Education for the silences and

marginalized. Mentoring & Tutoring, 14(1), 17–32.Hillygus, S. D. (2005). The missing link: Exploring the relationship between higher education and political

behavior. Political Behavior, 27(1), 25–47.Hinck, S. S., & Brandell, M. E. (1999, October). Service learning: Facilitating academic learning and

character development. NASSP Bulletin, 83(609), 16–24.Jacoby, B., & Associates (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.James, J. H., & Iverson, S. V. (2009). Striving for critical citizenship in a teacher education program:

Problems and possibilities. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(1), 33–46.Johnson, B. (2005). Overcoming “doom and gloom”: Empowering students in courses on social problems,

injustice, and inequality. Teaching Sociology, 33(1), 44–58.Jones, S. R. (2002). The underside of service-learning. About Campus, 7(4), 10–15.Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (1996). In the service of what? The politics of service learning. Phi Delta

Kappan, 77(9), 592–599.Kahne, J., Westheimer, J., & Rogers, B. (2000, fall). Service learning and citizenship: Directions for research.

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, [Special issue: Strategic Directions for Service-Learning Research], 42–51.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Kendall, J. (1990).Combining service and learning: A resource book for community and public service (Vol. I).Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education.

King, J. E., & Ladson-Billings, G. (1990). The teacher education challenge in elite university settings:Developing critical perspectives for teaching in a democratic and multicultural society. EuropeanJournal of Intercultural Studies, 1(2), 15–30.

Lake, V. E., & Jones, I. (2008). Service-learning in early childhood teacher education: Using service to putmeaning back into learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2146–2156.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class and other essays. Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.Maybach, C. W. (1996). Investigating urban community needs: Service learning from a social justice

perspective. Education and Urban Society, 28(2), 224–236.Mayhew, M. J., & Fernandez, S. D. (2007). Pedagogical practices that contribute to social justice outcomes.

The Review of Higher Education, 31(1), 55–80.Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook of new methods

(2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Morton, K. (1995). The irony of service: Charity, project, and social change in service-learning. Michigan

Journal of Community Service-Learning, 2(1), 19–32.Naples, N. A., & Bojar, K. (eds). (2002). Teaching feminist activism: Strategies from the field. New York,

NY: Routledge.Newmann, F., Bertocci, T., & Landsness, R. (1977). Skills in citizen action: An English-social studies

program for secondary schools. Madison, WI: Citizen Participation Curriculum Project.Reich, A. (1994). Call and response: Service learning in a liberal arts curriculum. In R. Kraft & M. Swadener

(Eds.), Building community: Service learning in the academic disciplines (pp. 3–6). Denver, CO:Colorado Campus Compact.

Rhoads, R. A. (1997). Community service and higher learning: Explorations of the caring self. Albany, NY:SUNY.

Rosenberger, C. (2000). Beyond empathy: Developing critical consciousness through service-learning. In C.R. O’Grady (Ed.), Integrating service-learning and multicultural education in colleges and universities(pp. 23–43). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sax, L. J. (2000). Citizenship development and the American college student. In T. Ehrlich (Ed.), Civicresponsibility and higher education (pp. 3–18). Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and TheOryx Press.

34 Innov High Educ (2010) 35:19–35

Sax, L. J. (2004). Citizenship development and the American college student. In J. C. Dalton, T. R. Russell &S. Kline (Eds.), Assessing character outcomes in college: New directions for institutional research (pp.65–80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schudson, M. (1998). The good citizen: A history of American civic life. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developinggrounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Theriot, S. (2006). Perceived benefits of service-learning in teacher education. Issues in EducationalResearch, 16(2), 1–10. Retrieved September 11, 2009, from http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/theriot.html

Wade, R. C. (2007). Service-learning for social justice in the elementary classroom: Can we get there fromhere? Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(2), 156–165.

Wade, R., Boyle-Baise, M., & O’Grady, C. (2001). Multicultural service-learning in teacher education. In J.B. Anderson, K. J. Swick & J. Yff (Eds.), Service-learning in teacher education (pp. 248–259).Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teachers Education.

Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269.

Young, I. M. (1995). The ideal of community and the politics of difference. In P. A. Weiss & M. Friedman(Eds.), Feminism and community (pp. 232–257). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2005). Teachers’ characteristics: Research on the demographic profile. In M.Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel onresearch and teacher education (pp. 111–156). Washington, DC: American Educational ResearchAssociation.

Innov High Educ (2010) 35:19–35 35