Self-authoring a civic identity: A qualitative study of change-oriented service-learning

JSARP 2013, 50(1) doi:10.1515/jsarp-2013-0006 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © NASPA 201388

Self-Authoring a Civic Identity:

A Qualitative Analysis of Change-Oriented

Service LearningSusan V. Iverson, Kent State University – Kent Campus

Jennifer H. James, University of Georgia

Iverson, S. V., & James, J. H. (2013). Self-authoring a civic identity: A quantitative analysis of change-oriented service-learning.Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 50(1), 88–105.doi:10.1515/jsarp-2013-0006Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2013-0006

Innovations in Research and Scholarship Feature

Susan V. Iverson, Associate Professor, Higher Education Administration & Student Personnel, College of Education, Health, & Human Services, Kent State University – Kent Campus. Jennifer H. James, Associate Professor, Elementary and Social Studies Education, College of Education, University of Georgia. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Iverson at [email protected].

This qualitative case study explored how undergraduate students’ involvement with change-oriented service-learning contributed to their civic-political development. Using Baxter Magolda’s notion of self-authorship as an analytic lens, findings sug-gested that students’ involvement with change-oriented service-learning led to (a) deeper and more nuanced understandings of citizenship, (b) a developed sense of efficacy as citizens, and (c) an increased awareness of self in relation to others

and their communities. Implications for practice in student affairs are addressed.

Many colleges and universities identify developing students for their role as citizens in soci-

ety as central to their mission. Some have been critical of higher education’s efforts to develop stu-

dents’ civic knowledge, skills, attitudes, and engagement (Galston, 2003; Hamrick, 1998; Hillygus,

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload Date | 2/21/13 3:47 AM

http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2013-0006

mailto:[email protected]

JSARP 2013, 50(1) © NASPA 2013 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:10.1515/jsarp-2013-0006 89

Self-Authoring a Civic Identity

2005), leaving higher education practitioners to grapple with determining effective experiences

for developing students’ civic identity. Service-learning is often identified as a useful pedagogical

tool for fostering students’ civic growth (Einfeld & Collins, 2008; Eyler & Giles, 1999). Yet, some

critique service-learning in higher education as too often charitable in its focus, meaning it em-

phasizes action that tends to the symptoms of social ills in one’s community (Rhoads, 1997; Rosen-

berger, 2000).

Perhaps as a result of an emphasis on charity in education, volunteerism among young peo-

ple has increased (Zukin, Keeter, Andolina, Jenkins, & Delli Carpini, 2006). Students’ civic engage-

ment beyond volunteerism (i.e., writing to one’s legislators, participating in a protest, speaking at

a public hearing, even voting) is lower than ever before (Dalton & Crosby, 2008). Concerned with

students’ disengagement in sociopolitical affairs, some scholars (Einfeld & Collins, 2008; Marullo

& Edwards, 2000) argued for service-learning that fosters students’ civic-political engagement.

Serving soup at a soup kitchen is important, they argue, but does not address the underlying causes

of poverty and hunger.

In this qualitative case study, we sought to understand if and how students’ experiences

with change-oriented service-learning—that which strives to address the underlying causes of

social ills in one’s community—contributed to their civic-political development. We used Baxter

Magolda’s (2004) notion of self-authorship as a framework for understanding students’ civic-po-

litical growth along three dimensions: cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal. As Jones and

Abes (2004) argued, the potential of particular approaches to service-learning as they contribute

to students’ cognitive development and civic engagement remains understudied. This study was

conducted in an effort to fill this important gap.

Literature ReviewIn this section, we define civic-political engagement and differentiate it from other dimen-

sions of students’ civic engagement. We then describe the key elements of change-oriented service-

learning reflected in the literature. Finally, we describe Baxter Magolda’s framework for self-author-

ship and explain why we believe that is a useful lens for understanding student growth over time.

Civic EngagementAfter Adler and Goggin’s (2005) review of literature on civic engagement, they concluded,

“there is no single, widely agreed-upon meaning for the term” (p. 237). They did, however, usefully

categorize definitions into specific types of activity: community service, collective action, political

involvement, and social change. As Zukin et al. (2006) observed, these categories often overlap.

Einfeld and Collins (2008) similarly noted the need to differentiate between various forms of en-

gagement, noting important distinctions between individuals who vote, and others who donate

clothes to a homeless shelter, and still others who dedicate their lives to fighting systemic inequal-

ity would be equivalently active or civically engaged. Arguing for engagement that tends toward




social change, Einfeld and Collins state it is “not enough to simply be an active or ‘engaged’ citi-

zen” (p. 105). Likewise, Marullo and Edwards (2000) argue that political socialization is a critical

component of civic engagement. As Marullo and Edwards observed, “acts of community service can

become . . . a first step in a process of politicization that puts community service volunteers on the

path to becoming active agents of social change” (p. 900). Our criticism is that higher education

over-emphasizes community service and falls short in its attention to the civic-political aspect of

education. Since our thinking aligned with those who viewed charitable and political engagement

as complementary (Zukin et al, 2006), we sought to enact service-learning approaches that might

contribute to students’ civic-political engagement.

Change-Oriented Service-LearningService-learning is a form of experiential education through which “students engage in ac-

tivities that address human and community needs together with structured opportunities in-

tentionally designed to promote student learning and development” (Jacoby & Associates, 1996,

p. 5). Through extensive survey data and intensive interviews, Eyler and Giles (1999) found that

“participation in service-learning leads to values, knowledge, skills, efficacy, and commitment that

underlie effective citizenship” in a democratic society (p. 164).

Service-learning scholars differentiate service experiences that lend themselves to differing

outcomes. King (2004) argued that some approaches to service-learning “may actually reinforce

prejudice and replicate power differentials between those conferring and those receiving the ser-

vice” (p. 123), and the privileged position of the service-provider implies the ability to walk away

from the social problems we seek to address through service. King and others (Rosenberger, 2000)

argued such an approach should be more properly referred to as charity. Service-learning oriented

toward charity, which could involve serving soup at a soup kitchen or organizing a food drive, can

be an “exercise in altruism” and emphasizes “character building and a kind of compensatory jus-

tice where the well-off feel obligated to help the less advantaged” (p. 151).

Alternatively, justice-oriented service-learning (Kahne & Westheimer, 1996), critical com-

munity service (Rhoads, 1997), and activism (Bickford & Reynolds, 2002)—what we refer to as

change-oriented service-learning—strives to help students develop a deeper understanding of social

issues and promotes the development of skills necessary to work toward social change (Boyle-Baise

& Langford, 2004; Hart, 2006). This approach to service-learning “emphasizes social issues and

their underlying possible root causes in social injustice, knowledge of alternative ways to address

social justice issues, and commitment to change social situation” (Wang & Rodgers, 2006, p. 321).

Change-oriented service-learning aims to enhance students’ civic-political capacity by deepening

their understanding of issues impacting their community, developing their self-efficacy as civic

actors, and fostering interdependence through collective action. Such experiential learning has the

potential to develop students’ civic capacity beyond volunteerism toward mature civic-political

engagement.




Self-AuthorshipBaxter Magolda (2004), building upon the work of Kegan (1994), articulated self-authorship

as the outcome of three developmental dimensions: (a) cognitive maturity, (b) intrapersonal capac-

ity, and (c) interpersonal ability. Here, cognitive maturity refers to “the ability to evaluate possible

actions, interpret contexts and consequences, and make wise choices” (Baxter Magolda, 2004, p.

6). Intrapersonal capacity is the sense of efficacy one develops through experience and overcoming

difficult situations. Interpersonal ability is the awareness of one’s place relative to others as well as

the symbiotic relationships we share. Development across these three dimensions of one’s identity

enables “effective citizenship”—taking action for both the individual and collective good (Baxter

Magolda, 2004, p. 6).

According to Baxter Magolda (2001), self-authorship develops in phases. Initially, upon en-

tering higher education, most students find thinking for them to be difficult and believe authori-

ties can and should provide the answers. Students then encounter disequilibrium, due to multiple

and competing perspectives wherein no clear right or wrong distinction exists. Here, students

bring “acute awareness that internal sources of belief and definition were necessary” (p. 93), which

gives way to becoming the author of one’s life, as one reconstructs her beliefs about knowledge, self,

and relationships with others. From this reconstruction or development of internal foundations,

one then enacts beliefs, goals, and values; students’ own perspectives and experiences in construct-

ing knowledge are valued, as well as recognizing the value of others’ thoughts. This “contextual

knowing,” according to Baxter Magolda (1996), is possible among undergraduate students but ex-

tremely rare: “only 2% [of undergraduates] were contextual knowers as they neared graduation”

(p. 284). Change-oriented service-learning, was well suited to the aims of self-authorship for civic-

political identity because it attends explicitly to students’ cognitive, intrapersonal, and interper-

sonal growth.

MethodsThis qualitative case study sought to understand how students’ involvement in change-ori-

ented service-learning contributed to their self-authorship as civic-political actors. We asked three

research questions to understand the influence of change-oriented service-learning on students’

civic-political growth:

1. Cognitive: How does students’ thinking about citizenship change over the course of the

semester, if it does?

2. Intrapersonal: To what degree do students see themselves as civic-political actors?

3. Interpersonal: How do students think about the relationships they share with others in

the community?




Context: The CourseCase study research, according to Creswell (2007), is a choice of what to study rather than

a methodology. The context for this case study was a social studies methods (SSM) course offered

as part of an undergraduate degree in early childhood education at a large, mid-western university.

Students enrolled in the SSM course during their second-to-last semester, along with four other

courses and a field seminar. The goals of the SSM course included examining the nature of social

studies, becoming familiar with various models of instruction, reflecting on their evolving identi-

ties as social studies educators, and developing skills as critical, democratic, and historical think-

ers.

Take a Stand Project1

As a core component of the SSM course, we codesigned a change-oriented service-learning

project to foster preservice teachers’ sense of civic-political growth as an essential aspect of prepar-

ing students to become civic educators. Stemming from our shared interest in and commitment to

civic education across the grade-bands (K-16), we were excited to think about the civic education

of teacher education students, who sat at the intersection of our expertise. These college students

were still developing as citizens themselves and soon to become civic educators of other people’s

children. [Second author] was the instructor of record for the SSM course, and [first author] at-

tended six of the 15 sessions: three in-class issues studies, two “Take a Stand” project work ses-

sions, and the end-of-semester exhibition of students’ projects. We worked collaboratively during

each of these sessions.

Issues study. Over the course of the semester, students discussed various social issues

(e.g., poverty, immigration) that we believed had particular relevance to their lives, not only as

citizens in their own right, but as future teachers of young children. For instance, students were

assigned to read an article by Kozol (2007), who addressed the impact of poverty on U.S. public

schools, and then reflect on the question “What does it mean to be ready to learn?” Students initi-

ated virtual dialogue on an online discussion board and, when together for class, they continued

the discussion that had begun online. Following class, students wrote a one- to two-page reflec-

tion. The purpose of these issues studies was threefold: (a) to introduce students to a range of so-

cial issues in preparation for their own Take a Stand project; (b) to push students to consider the

various ways social issues such as those studied manifest in the lives of teachers and the children

they instruct; and (c) to help students develop a habit of mind wherein they engaged in ongoing

reading, reflection, and discussion of complex social issues impacting their communities.

Taking action. Stemming from these issues studies, students were assigned to select one

issue on which they would, individually or in small groups, take a stand. Students had the option

1The Take a Stand assignment is adapted from the activism assignment described in Bickford and Reynolds (2002).




of choosing an issue discussed as a class or choosing one that was approved by the instructor (inso-

far as the issue has some bearing on teaching and learning in public schools). Working with a local

organization, students were expected to identify a need of their community (either university or

home) and then take action to address that need; students were pushed to go beyond charity, to

strive for social change. Upon completion of their stand taking, students presented the results of

their experience at an in-class exhibition and wrote a culminating reflection on the impact of their

projects on themselves and others. Examples of students’ projects included (all students were pro-

vided with pseudonyms)

• Homelessness: Four students (Tami, Isabelle, Elizabeth, and Jessica) worked with

the local Family Services Center to research homelessness in the local community. In

particular, they were interested in understanding the conditions that often led to

homelessness, the rate of homelessness in their community, and the services available

to assist homeless families. They then prepared a PowerPoint presentation, which they

shared at a university exhibition on engaged learning, and they wrote letters to the

editors of three local papers in hopes of raising awareness about homelessness in their

community.

• Sweatshops: Derek attended a local hearing on the issue of sweatshops where he learned

about the possibility of asking for the state’s divestment in corporations that have

been connected with sweatshops worldwide. He created a PowerPoint presentation

to share with friends and family, and he drafted a letter to the governor, asking for the

state’s complete divestment from these companies. He circulated copies of the letter and

asked others to sign it. In the end, he collected over 50 signed letters to send to state

legislators.

• Global warming: Christie and Julie invited friends to view the film, An Inconvenient Truth, a 2006 documentary film about Al Gore’s campaign to educate citizens about global

warming. They then discussed global warming, asking others to reflect on the film and

talk about it with friends and family. Before leaving, attendees were asked to pledge to

take a specific action (from a possible list) to help reduce the effects of global warming.

While we endeavored to help students understand and appreciate the full range of social

action in which citizens engage, the purpose of the Take a Stand assignment was to teach students

about the value of collaborative and organized social action as a means of addressing the root causes

of social problems. We encouraged students to identify authentic opportunities for such participa-

tion. However, the degree to which students ultimately took actions that addressed the root cause

of the social issue varied, a point we discuss later in the article.




ParticipantsTwenty-two of 23 preservice elementary educators enrolled in the SSM course agreed to par-

ticipate in this study. Human subject approval was gained and all participants signed an informed

consent form. Of those enrolled, 21 were female and one was male, two self-identified as African

American and 20 as Caucasian. The majority of students described themselves as coming from mid-

dle-class backgrounds, although four claimed lower class and two upper-middle income bracket on

a demographic profile. All were between the ages of 20 and 24. The students reflected demographic

trends in preservice elementary teacher education enrollment nationally, the majority being under

24, Caucasian, and middle-class (Zumwalt & Craig, 2005). Typical of other students enrolled in

the early childhood education program at this public regionally serving campus, most students

were from the local community and spent the better part of their lives within 60 miles of their

home. Many commuted home on the weekends or lived with family while attending school. The

majority worked part-time while taking classes, and roughly one-third were first-generation col-

lege students.

Data CollectionWe were systematic in gathering and recording information, which we believed would best

illuminate students’ thinking about citizenship generally and about themselves as citizens and

citizenship educators more specifically. We collected the following data submitted at different

points in the semester.

Prewriting on citizenship. At the start of the semester, students were asked to write

a response to the question, “What is citizenship?” This exercise preceded any formal discussion of

citizenship and served as prewriting with which we would later compare students’ postwriting on

citizenship completed at the end of the semester.

Postwriting on citizenship and culminating reflection. At the end of the meth-

ods semester, students submitted a four- to five-page paper reflecting on three central questions:

What is citizenship? (postwriting); How did your participation in the Take a Stand project push your thinking about citizenship, if it did?; and How are you thinking now about civic education? We collected and then ana-

lyzed these reflections focused on our three research questions.

Data AnalysisQualitative case study is comprised of direct interpretation of the data, as “the qualitative

researcher concentrates on the instance, trying to pull it apart and put it back together again more

meaningfully” (Stake, 1995, p. 75). Our first phase of analysis involved inductive coding. “The search

for meaning,” Stake (1995) explained, “often is a search for patterns, for consistency within certain

conditions” (p. 78). We searched for patterns across data sources looking first at the prewriting on

citizenship pulling out frequently used words and phrases in students’ prewriting in response




to the question, “What is citizenship?,” and began by tallying how often they appeared across stu-

dents. This work was initially done independently. We then brought our independent codes to-

gether to see how to subsume the “particulars into the general” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 245).

We then similarly analyzed students’ culminating reflections, identifying frequently used

words and phrases, and clustering them into units of information, or what Lincoln and Guba (1985)

referred to as “unitizing” (p. 344), as a basis for defining categories. Next, using Baxter Magolda’s

theory of self-authorship (2001, 2004, 2007) as an analytic framework, we compared pre- and post-

writing data to complete a deductive level of analysis. Our multilayered approach to data analy-

sis was important, enabling us to examine the data on multiple levels: reading data deductively

and inductively, analyzing pieces of data vertically (i.e., all prewriting data), then horizontally

(i.e., pre- and postwriting data), and enabling us to examine “developing ideas about [our] findings

and relating them to the literature and to broader concerns and concepts” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003,

p. 147).

LimitationsOne limitation of this study is that one author was also the instructor of record for the

course. We strove to address this limitation in two key ways. First, a graduate assistant collected

student consent forms (signed and unsigned) in a sealed envelope that was not opened until after

grades had been submitted for the semester. This procedure was also shared with students as a way

to assure them that their participation was voluntary and in no way would influence their grade

for the class. Because the pre- and postwritings and Take a Stand projects were course assignments,

the instructors had access to these throughout the semester and they were used to inform instruc-

tional decisions. Neither researcher knew the identities of participants until the semester ended

and grades were submitted. Second, since the two investigators were from different disciplinary

backgrounds, data were continuously subject to questions from two distinct vantage points.

Another limitation of this study is researcher bias. Because we codesigned and implemented

this project, the lens through which we view this research risks being clouded by our perspectives.

Certain strategies, such as moving from independent coding to shared understanding of the data,

and maintaining field journals, were employed to overcome the bias of single-observer studies and

limit researcher bias in interpretation (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2009).

A third limitation of this study is the lack of demographic diversity in the student sample.

While this group of teacher education students was racially and economically homogeneous, and

almost exclusively female, the group was representative of the population of teacher candidates in

the United States (Zumwalt & Craig, 2005). Thus, as we seek to understand how to prepare such

a homogeneous group for their roles as civic educators of an increasingly diverse student body, it is

important to study representative groups. We do acknowledge, however, the importance of extend-

ing this work to demographically heterogeneous populations.




FindingsAnalysis of the data suggests that the students’ involvement with change-oriented service-

learning contributed to their development along each of Baxter Magolda’s three dimensions toward

self-authorship of a civic-political identity: (a) the cognitive dimension: their understandings of

citizenship grew in depth and complexity, as they incorporated their own and others’ experiences

of civic action; (b) the intrapersonal dimension: they grew in feeling a sense of efficacy as citizens

themselves and assuming responsibility for their own actions; and (c) the interpersonal dimen-

sion: they increased their awareness of self in relation to others and their communities. Figure 1

captures how students moved toward self-authorship across these three dimensions.

Though not all students developed at the same rate or reached the same place in the end, en-

gaging in change-oriented service-learning did seem to provide opportunities for students’ cogni-

tive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal growth. In what follows, we offer discussion of the data that

support this claim.

The Cognitive DimensionBy the end of the semester, students’ thinking about citizenship had changed. According

to Baxter Magolda (2004), cognitive growth is moving from accepting the prescribed definitions

offered by external authorities to constructing meaning on one’s own and occurs when individuals

are challenged by situations that do not fit within their previously held assumptions and under-

standings about the world, which lead to more sophisticated understandings as students come to

recognize the contextual and temporal nature of knowledge. In this study, students’ conceptions

of citizenship grew in scope and depth as they began to see spaces between right and wrong, as

well as questioned the words and ideas they had earlier used quite confidently. Over time, students

moved from reciting definitions of citizenship they had learned from textbooks and civics classes

to articulating more complex and tentative notions of citizenship that reflected their experiences.

Prewriting. At the start of the SSM course, students’ writings about citizenship were

short with relatively simple definitions that included lists of citizens’ rights and responsibilities.

Seventeen students described citizens as rights-bearing, having earned their status as citizen by

virtue of living in a particular place, and with a responsibility to follow the law. Jackie’s writing was

reflective of this characterization, as it emphasized rights and responsibilities, the importance of

knowing about one’s past, and how to contribute to society:

Citizenship is knowing your rights as a U.S. citizen, knowing your responsibilities as a citi-

zen (voting, making informed, educated decisions), learning the history of how our country

was founded and how we got our rights, knowing what qualifies a person to be a citizen,

learning to be an active member of society.

Cathi specified responsibilities to others in the community by including “respecting their

rights and beliefs, their property, and the law.” Kelly also pointed to the importance of rights and




responsibilities, but like 10 others in the class, added a character dimension, suggesting the devel-

opment of particular dispositions towards one’s community.

Citizenship is being a part of your town, state, and country, [it] allows you to have rights and

responsibilities, a way of living in accordance with laws, rules, etc., an attitude you may have

about living where you do, some feel a sense of pride or responsibility.

Postwriting. By the end of the semester, all 22 students reflected again on their under-

standings of citizenship. A theme that emerged from analysis of student’s postwriting was shift-

ing conceptions of the role knowledge plays in citizenship. Students moved from talking about

knowledge as something they needed to learn and remember (knowledge of the three branches of

government, of national history) to thinking about the importance of gathering information about

community issues and being civically attentive—what Zukin et al. (2006) call cognitive engagement

(p. 65). Thirteen students, compared to four at the start of the semester, wrote about knowledge

as an essential component of citizenship. In students’ prewriting, knowledge was mentioned by

only four students and included “knowing your rights and the laws,” “knowing government and

procedures,” “knowing cultural expectations,” and “knowing about the country in which you live.”

Only one student stated “making informed and reasoned decisions” was important for citizens at

the start of the semester. At the end of the semester, over half of the students included statements

about the importance of being informed or educated about current events or issues. Cindy wrote,

“I think as a good citizen you should be knowledgeable about issues so you can support them in

Figure 1. Toward self-authoring a civic identity.

Cognitive Dimension:

Students’ knowledge of citizenship deepens and

becomes more complex; they move from receiving others’ stock definitions

to generating their own in light of their experience.

Intrapersonal Dimension:

Students begin to see themselves as actors in their community;

developing a sense of self-efficacy and agency.

Interpersonal Dimension:

Students begin to see themselves as part of a larger community;

they develop and value relationships with others.




appropriate ways.” Similarly, Colleen wrote, “Citizens need to think deeply and create ideas and

thoughts independently and with reason.” This shift, displayed by students toward assuming re-

sponsibility for gathering, evaluating, and using information, is significant.

Throughout the semester, students’ conceptions of citizenship deepened and became more

complicated, but they were increasingly cautious to define the term as they considered the many

ideas they had encountered as a result of their experiences inside and outside of class. The students

grew in cognitive ability through receiving concrete knowledge about citizenship (i.e., definitions

in textbooks) toward constructing meanings for themselves that took into account their own

experiences and commitments—critical elements of cognitive growth. This finding of cognitive

growth resonates with others who have reported the positive effect of service-learning on cogni-

tive changes involving knowledge and the ability to apply knowledge (Conway, Amel, & Gerwien,

2009).

The Intrapersonal DimensionBaxter Magolda (2004) described intrapersonal growth as developing an integrated identi-

ty—an “internally generated sense of self that regulates interpretation of experience and choices”

(p. 8), an identity that “requires the ability to reflect one, explore, and choose enduring values” (p.

9). As students deepened their understandings of citizenship, their roles as citizens became more

apparent to them. Across the semester, students’ writing reflected a marked change in their sense

of agency. Students moved from talking about citizenship as something “one” does (again, reflect-

ing abstract definitions) to something they engage for particular purposes and in specific ways.

Prewriting. At the start of the semester, students showed little sense that they were in-

vested in the conceptions of citizenship they offered. The vast majority of their prewriting (17 of

the 22 participants) was lists of rights, responsibilities, or character traits that students believed

that citizens possessed. Only three students used “I” or “we” in their prewriting about citizenship.

Of those, two used the phrase, “the way we treat each other.” The third, Emily, wrote, “I am a U.S.

citizen.” Other than these three examples, all of the writing about citizenship at the start of the

semester either used the word “you” or invoked the use of an omnipresent narrator. For example,

Wendy wrote: “Being a legal resident of the country, the right to vote, having the right to vote, to

run for political office, the right to government assistance, and to equal opportunity.” Jackie wrote,

“Knowing your rights as a U.S. citizen, knowing your responsibilities as a U.S. citizen.”

Postwriting. Later in the semester, students’ growth in their efficacious belief that they

possessed agency could be found not only in the ideas they expressed, but also in the language they

used to express them. Thirteen students used the word “I” or “we” to talk about citizenship in

their postwriting. Heidi wrote, “I want to make sure that I’m an active citizen who tries to make a

difference rather than just sit on the couch, do nothing about it, then complain. If everyone stepped

up their role as a citizen, we would have a better place to live and I think you would see more re-

sults.” Similarly, Cathi wrote,




This experience opened my eyes to the ways that I can be an active citizen. Before this class, I

used to think, “I can’t make a difference” . . . but I was wrong. Even the littlest efforts to help

out in the community will make a difference. Even if you reach out to one person . . . all it

takes is one person to make a difference.

Derek added,

We must actively care. We must be aware that things in our communities, country, and plan-

et are sometimes being done wrong and we can change them. If we gather knowledge and

spread that knowledge, then others will have the means to actively care as well.

The use of “I” and “we” language in students’ postwriting signified their increased aware-

ness of their own capacity for autonomy. No longer was citizenship something someone does or

something to be defined, but something for them to do. This shift towards a greater sense of effi-

cacy and ownership over citizenship is related to students’ personal experience in the community.

Whether or not students had such experiences previously, through their Take a Stand projects, they

had lived experiences to serve as contexts for reflecting on, exploration of, and internalizing values

about citizenship. The service-learning experience provided them an opportunity to act as civic-

political beings and to reflect on their experiences. This finding echoes others who reported the

positive impact of service-learning on students’ feelings about themselves and civic values (Con-

way et al., 2009).

The Interpersonal DimensionFor Baxter Magolda (2004), interpersonal growth is marked by a capacity for “productive

collaboration to negotiate and integrate multiple perspectives and needs” (pp. 9–10). At the start

of the semester, students cited membership in a community as part of citizenship. Yet, at the end

of the semester, students’ writing revealed an evolving understanding of their relationships with

others in community as symbiotic—coming to see that their well-being was tied to that of others

and that collective action was more powerful than individual action.

Prewriting. At the start of the semester, most students (15 of 22) described citizenship

as passive membership, often bestowed on an individual as a result of his or her place of birth. For

instance, descriptions included “you have to be a member of the U.S.” (Amanda); “being a member/

part of something” (Jessica); “member of a small/large community, the classroom, state or country”

(Cathi); “living in a country” (Rachel); “being a legal resident of the country” (Wendy); and “a per-

son’s status or relationship to a certain country and/or area” (Emily).

Only three student responses were coded as demonstrating some participatory tendencies

in their writing, describing a citizen’s engagement with others toward some common good. For

instance, Samantha wrote,

Citizenship is being a part of a larger community, actively contributing to the well-being of

the whole, sharing responsibilities with other citizens, sort of a membership. It is like a co-




op, being part of a group with similar beliefs/goals, the right to be part of a larger community.

Similarly, Melissa wrote,

Citizenship is taking responsibility for the community, taking action to improve lives, help-

ing others for no reward, being honest and trustworthy, character counts, accepting the dif-

ference of others.

These students’ emphasis was on responsibility, not just for oneself, but for the community as a

whole.

Postwriting. In their postwriting on citizenship, all 22 students described moving be-

yond passive membership in a community, and instead articulated that citizenship was connected

to something larger and that one’s actions impacted others. As Kelly described, “citizenship [is]

more of a verb than a noun.” Other examples include

• “Citizenship requires one to think of the greater good before themselves and to strive to

make the place around them better for all who live there.” (Elizabeth)

• “I am thinking citizenship is about creating community. As a citizen you need to work

together making the community a better place to live. You need to be aware of the issues

around and take a stand.” (Cindy)

• “I believe that being a citizen means so much more than simply living in an area. It means

being connected to an area and caring about the issues that affect everyone living there. It

means not closing your eyes to the problems that face other citizens, but opening them

to see (and even to act upon) the things that affect the community.” (Tami)

From the beginning of the semester to the end, students demonstrated growth in their sense

of connection and responsibility to others in their community. They began to see themselves as

active participants in something larger and to understand that their actions could have an impact

on others and that their well-being was interdependent with the well-being of others. At the end

of the semester, students credited their stand taking experience for their new sense of civic confi-

dence, for their newfound capacity for autonomy and connection, and for their dawning awareness

for their self as part of something larger.

Discussion and ImplicationsOver the course of the semester, students moved away from clear right and wrong distinc-

tions and being deferent to rules and authority, to developing “awareness that internal sources of

belief and definition were necessary” (Baxter Magolda, 2001, p. 93). Involving students in critical

dialogue around social issues and assigning them to engage in social action to address those issues,

it seems, pushed them to recognize the self as an authority. Students’ conceptions of citizenship

reflected greater cognitive complexity as they began to rethink terms and ideas they had previously

used with confidence. Students also demonstrated growth along Baxter Magolda’s (2004) interper-




sonal and intrapersonal dimensions, showing a greater sense of civic confidence to make a differ-

ence in the community, demonstrating greater ownership and investment in their conceptions of

citizenship by using the first-person voice, and describing themselves as connected to others and

to something larger. These three dimensions taken together illuminated students moving toward

self-authoring their civic lives: aware of their capacity to construct knowledge for the good of them-

selves and their community. Our findings resonate with those from Jones and Abes (2004) who

observed the influence of service-learning on students’ capacity to care and that an increased focus

on others influenced students’ actions. There were limits to some students’ growth, perhaps due

to the limited scope of the project (one semester) or to the developmental readiness of individual

students. One class and one opportunity for service-learning, while a powerful starting position,

are insufficient. Baxter Magolda (2007) acknowledged that many students do not, during their col-

lege years, fully demonstrate the “self-authorship of identity, relationships, and knowledge . . . nec-

essary for mature adult decision making, interdependent relationships, and effective citizenship”

(p. 72). “Provocative experiences” during one’s college years may allow for greater developmental

transformations (p. 73). Herein is the opportunity for student affairs practitioners. Zlotkowski,

Horowitz, and Benson (2011) criticized that too much of the service-learning movement has cen-

tered around faculty, and that students must be engaged as “coauthors of serious initiatives” (p.

50). They added that the development of students’ agency and competence for such leadership and

involvement is the domain of student affairs.

Facilitating ReflectionThe research reported here has implications for service-learning classes and student affairs

efforts in this area. Cocurricular life offers many civic opportunities; however, reflection is typically ab-

sent in these service-learning experiences outside the classroom. For the students in this study,

reflection was an ongoing expectation throughout the issues studies and Take a Stand experiences.

As students discussed and wrote about their encounters with texts and with others, their ideas

grew and they began to sort out their own ideas from others’. In this way, reflection played an im-

portant role in facilitating students’ move toward cognitive sophistication (their ideas were chal-

lenged and deepened), toward intrapersonal maturity (developing the confidence to make their

own decisions), and interpersonal development (seeing themselves connected to others as they

tackled the issues together).

Conway et al. (2009) suggested that the reason curricular service projects have a higher in-

fluence than cocurricular service is that unlike cocurricular projects, curricular service projects

usually encourage reflection. Such reflection, whether in writing or through facilitated dialogue,

can cultivate the habit of interrogating one’s experience. In their use of the community standards

model in residence life to promote self-authorship, Piper and Buckley (2004) found that “engaging

in dialogue with peers allows the student to hear and reflect on the views of others” (p. 193). Facili-

tating dialogue and structured reflection, as students engage civically, can create a “developmental




bridge” to support one’s current sense of self as one encounters challenges that stimulate growth

(Piper & Buckley, 2004, p. 187). Student affairs practitioners are uniquely positioned to facilitate

reflection and dialogues through their access to students in cocurricular settings (e.g., posing ill-

structured problems during community agreement meetings in residence halls, facilitating criti-

cal dialogue with fraternities and sororities about and their participation in community outreach,

or incorporating reflection into leadership development programs).

Coauthoring Initiatives Student affairs professionals can cultivate students’ capacity for leadership in both develop-

ing curricular partnerships and designing projects outside the curriculum. As students develop

the knowledge for what they “ought to do” (Eyler & Giles, 1999), student affairs practitioners can

incorporate into leadership development programs opportunities for students to develop skills to

act on, and think critically about, their evolving civic commitments. Student affairs professionals

must continue to develop students’ capacity to coauthor and coconstruct curricular and cocurricu-

lar initiatives. Zlotkowski et al. (2011) was critical of the development of service-learning programs

that are conducted “almost to the exclusion of student-based initiatives” and that student affairs

professionals can challenge the academic “reluctance to recognize student agency and . . . compe-

tence” (p. 50).

Change-oriented service-learning is not the sole domain of the classroom. Christie and Julie’s global

warming project, described above, could have been developed in the residence halls or through a so-

rority. Too often cocurricular service projects do not develop beyond one-time philanthropic efforts,

so the challenge for practitioners is to design experiences that are more than episodic volunteerism.

Charitable projects can be a first step in a process of politicization because they can develop students’ abili-

ties to engage in civic-political action (Marullo & Edwards, 2000). More intentional efforts, Dalton

and Crosby (2008) argued, “could be made to teach and model the knowledge, skills, and passion

for political engagement during the college years”; they further added that “colleges and universi-

ties can be powerful laboratories for learning the knowledge and skills of democratic citizenship if

this goal is given greater priority” through both curricular and cocurricular activities (p. 4).

In sum, findings from this study point to the power of change-oriented service-learning for

facilitating cognitive, intra-, and interpersonal shifts in students. Baxter Magolda’s (2001, 2004)

framework for self-authorship allowed us to see how civic-political identity can be impacted by

specific pedagogical approaches. Educators would be wise to consider the integration of service-

learning and other experiential learning opportunities in the classroom and through cocurricular

opportunities. They should focus on social change and move beyond charitable civic engagement,

to develop students’ capacity for civic-political engagement. Educators must, as Dalton and Crosby

(2008) argued, take on “a more activist role in preparing students for civic engagement” (p. 2).




ReferencesAdler, R. P., & Goggin, J. (2005). What do we mean by “civic engagement”? Journal of Transformative

Education, 3(3), 236–53.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1996). Epistemological development in graduate and professional educa-

tion. The Review of Higher Education, 19(3), 283–304.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Self-authorship as the common goal of 21st-century education. In M.

B. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship (pp. 1–35). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2007). Self-authorship: The foundation for twenty-first century education.

In P. S. Meszaros (Ed.), Self-authorship: Advancing students’ intellectual growth. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 109 (pp. 69–83). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

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.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and meth-ods (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Boyle-Baise, M., & Langford, J. (2004). There are children here: Service learning for social justice.

Equity & Excellence in Education, 37(1), 55–66.

Conway, J. M., Amel, E. L., & Gerwien, D. P. (2009). Teaching and learning in the social context:

A meta-analysis of service-learning’s effects on academic, personal, social, and citizenship

outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 36(4), 233–45.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualtitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Dalton, J., & Crosby, P. (2008). From volunteering to voting: Higher education’s role in preparing

college students for political engagement. Journal of College & Character, 9(4), 1-6.

Einfeld, A., & Collins, D. (2008). The relationships between service-learning, social justice, mul-

ticultural competence, and civic engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 49(2),

95–109.

Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Galston, W. A. (2003). Civic education and political participation. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(1), 29–33.

Hamrick, F. A. (1998). Democratic citizenship and student activism. Journal of College Student Devel-opment, 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.

Jacoby, B., & Associates. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2004). Enduring influences of service-learning on college students’ iden-

tity development. Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 149–166.

Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (1996). In the service of what? The politics of service learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 7 7(9), 593–599.

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

sity Press.

King, J. T. (2004). Service-learning as a site for critical pedagogy: A case of collaboration, caring, and

defamiliarization across borders. Journal of Experiential Education, 26(3), 121–37.

Kozol, J. (2007). Still separate, still unequal: America’s educational apartheid. In P. S. Rothenberg

(Ed.), Race, class, and gender in the United States: An integrated study (7th ed.) (pp. 644–658).

New York, NY: Worth.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Marullo, S., & Edwards, B. (2000). Editors’ introduction: Service-learning pedagogy as universities’

response to troubled times. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 746–55.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Piper, T. D., & Buckley, J. A. (2004). Community standards model: Developing learning partner-

ships in campus housing. In M. B. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King, (Eds.), Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship (pp. 185–212). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

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

SUNY Press.

Rosenberger, C. (2000). Beyond empathy: Developing critical consciousness through service-learn-

ing. In C. R. O’Grady (Ed.), Integrating service-learning and multicultural education in colleges and universities (pp. 23–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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, no. 122 (pp. 65–80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.




Wang, Y., & Rodgers, R. (2006). Impact of service-learning and social justice education on college

students’ cognitive development. NASPA Journal, 43(2), 316–337.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Zlotkowski, E., Horowitz, K., & Benson, S. (2011). The potential of service-learning student leader-

ship. In N. V. Longo & C. M. Gibson (Eds.), From command to community: A new approach to leadership education in colleges and universities (pp. 45–64). Hanover, NH: University Press of

New England.

Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2006). A new engagement? Po-litical participation, civic life, and the changing American citizen. Oxford, NY: Oxford 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 on research and teacher education (pp. 111–156). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-

ates.


Self-authoring a civic identity: A qualitative study of change-oriented service-learning

Documents

Transcript of Self-authoring a civic identity: A qualitative study of change-oriented service-learning