3 Page paper. 12-pt font, Times New Roman. Instructions included. ***OPTION 3 ONLY***
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825919863452 Journal of Experiential Education 2019, Vol. 42(4) 349 –363 © The Authors 2019 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1053825919863452 journals.sagepub.com/home/jee Article Service-Learning and First-Generation University Students: A Conceptual Exploration of the Literature Alison Taylor1 , Lorin Yochim2 , and Milosh Raykov3 Abstract Background: Despite increased access to higher education in recent decades, first- generation (first-gen) university students continue to face challenges with persistence and completion. Recommended responses by universities include exposing these students to “high-impact” educational practices. Purpose: This article examines the potential of one of these practices—service-learning—to address the disadvantages faced by first-gen students. Methodology/Approach: We review the literature on first-gen students and service-learning and offer a conceptual critique of dominant approaches. Findings/Conclusions: Dominant conceptions of service-learning treat first-gen students as a homogeneous, deficient group and reduce learning to an input-environment-output model. We argue for a more conceptually nuanced understanding of the reasons for the cultural mismatch often experienced by underrepresented groups of students. Implications: The conceptual resources offered in this article are intended to help researchers and policy makers undertake research that captures the diversity and richness of students’ lives and leads to more equitable practices. Keywords higher education, service-learning, social justice, literature review, methodology 1The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada 2University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada 3University of Malta, Msida, Malta Corresponding Author: Alison Taylor, Department of Educational Studies, Faculty of Education, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver Campus, 6445 University Boulevard, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z2. Email:
[email protected] 863452 JEEXXX10.1177/1053825919863452Journal of Experiential EducationTaylor et al. research-article2019 https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions https://journals.sagepub.com/home/jee mailto:
[email protected] 350 Journal of Experiential Education 42(4) Despite increased access to higher education in recent decades, young people whose parents did not complete university, or first-generation (first-gen) students, continue to lag behind continuing-generation peers in terms of their persistence and completion (Whitley, Benson, & Wesaw, 2018). These students are generally perceived to be less prepared, less supported by families, and less engaged in their studies. In addition to cocurricular supports, colleges are exploring pedagogical strategies to help these stu- dents fulfill their potential (Chatelain, 2018). Among these, high-impact practices are believed to be especially beneficial for such historically underserved students (Kuh, 2008). One of these practices, service- learning, is the focus of a growing evaluation literature. However, many such studies treat first-gen students as a homogeneous, deficient group and reduce learning to an input-environment-output (I-E-O) model. Instead, this article argues for closer atten- tion to the reasons for the cultural mismatch often experienced by first-gen students. It draws on two thinkers in particular. Pierre Bourdieu’s work encourages us to pay more attention to the problematic effects of institutional policies and practices that value the capitals of privileged students. Contemporary writers drawing on Lev Vygotsky’s work suggest how pedagogies can be more culturally responsive. Taken together, Bourdieu and Vygotsky promote understandings of student diversity that are more attentive to structural inequalities and to learning processes as social and cultural. The “Problem” With First-Gen Students Most authors define first-gen students as those who do not have at least one parent with a bachelor’s degree, although definitions vary across studies (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2018). Definitions aside, these students are usually seen as having fewer economic, social, and cultural resources than continuing-generation students. For instance, par- ents of first-gen students are perceived as less able to provide academic guidance (Aries & Seider, 2005). Economic and social factors reportedly contribute to first-gen students “feeling out of place” and seeing their background as a burden (Granfield, 1991). The literature finds that compared with continuing-generation students, low- income, first-gen students are more likely to attend community colleges than universi- ties (Levin, 2007), are older (Engle & Tinto, 2008), work more hours off campus (Walpole, 2003), lack social capital (Moschetti & Hudley, 2015), are less likely to be integrated into university life (Davis, 2010; Pike & Kuh, 2005), have a weaker sense of belonging (Ostrove & Long, 2007), and drop out of postsecondary institutions at higher rates (Chen, 2005). Low-income and racialized minority students, especially Black and Hispanic/Latino, are more likely to be first-gen (Aries & Seider, 2005; Pelco, Ball, & Lockeman, 2014), an intersectionality that demands more attention in research (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2018). In sum, these students are seen as challenged or deficient in various ways. Service-Learning in Universities Service-learning is a form of experiential learning in which students learn and develop through participation in thoughtfully organized service experiences that Taylor et al. 351 meet community needs, are integrated into students’ academic studies, and extend students’ classroom learning into the community (Furco, 1996). Ideally, through such experiences, students gain “further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility” (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996, p. 222). Since the 1980s, service-learning in the United States has been constructed primarily as an “educational reform strategy that complemented the traditional discipline-based curriculum and emphasized the student’s cognitive development” (Lounsbury & Pollack, 2001, p. 332). A meta-analysis of research on service-learning (Celio, Durlak, & Dymnicki, 2011) indicates its positive impact on a variety of outcomes, including attitudes toward self, attitudes toward school and learning, civic engagement, social skills, and academic performance. No doubt the range of approaches to service-learning contributes to varied out- comes. Butin (2010), for example, describes four different approaches described as technical, cultural, political, and anti-foundational. While technical service-learning aims to identify best practices to achieve improved student outcomes, anti-founda- tional service-learning is more likely to question taken-for-granted ideas and practices. According to Butin, this diversity of service-learning approaches makes it difficult to achieve consensus on best practices. He further notes that while researchers are able to identify positive impacts of service-learning, there is a notable gap in the literature about how such outcomes occur. Critical Service-Learning and First-Gen Students Researchers interested in the impacts of student engagement have examined rela- tionships between “educationally purposeful activities” and student success (Strayhorn, 2008, p. 5). For example, Astin’s (1991) I-E-O college impact model has been used to explore connections between active learning activities (including service-learning) and personal/social learning outcomes. Other writers further argue that the disadvantages faced by first-gen students can be addressed using active learning or high-impact practices, including service-learning (cf. Pelco et al., 2014, p. 51). Yeh (2014), for example, suggests that community-based education strategies have the potential to engage marginalized students more than traditional pedagogies “academically as well as psychosocially” (p. 2). Similarly, service- learning reportedly helps first-gen students achieve their academic goals and feel better integrated into a college community (McKay & Estrella, 2008; Wilsey, Friedrichs, Gabrich, & Chung, 2014). Of particular interest is the work of writers who assume that social justice should be a key aim of service-learning for first-gen students. York (2013), for example, points out how critical theory aids the development of critical consciousness and biculturalism in low-income, first-gen students. Critical service-learning models that emphasize “true community partnerships” can “help students navigate issues of power, privilege, and systematic oppression” (p. 148). In the same vein, Conley and Hamlin (2009) suggest that because justice-oriented service-learning “provokes specific ques- tions related to power, privilege, and difference in contemporary society, it can poten- tially provide a space that recognizes new forms of agency and engagement for 352 Journal of Experiential Education 42(4) traditionally marginalized students” in and out of the classroom (p. 48). Thus, justice- oriented learning can help students bridge these spaces. The promise of justice-oriented service-learning, then, is threefold. First, it can help first-gen students bridge two communities otherwise seen as incompatible—home and university (Conley & Hamlin, 2009). Second, engaging first-gen students in work that brings them closer to communities similar to their own helps them “build stronger rela- tionships in communities” (Wilsey et al., 2014, p. 91). Third, the critical orientation of justice-oriented service-learning means first-gen students gain a more complex under- standing of social structures so that they can become agents of community change. Although we agree that service-learning has significant potential as a culturally responsive pedagogy (see Colvin & Tobler, 2013; Kiyama, Rios-Aguilar, & Deil- Amen, 2018), we are critical of the suggestion that it can help first-gen students fit better into universities. Rather, shifting the discourse from that of “college-ready stu- dents” to “student-ready colleges” calls on systems, not just students, to change in response to growing diversity of student needs and realities (McNair, Albertine, Cooper, McDonald, & Major, 2016). Complicating First-Gen Students and Service-Learning We are not the first to critique literature on first-gen students and service-learning for its methodological limitations, for example, small and unrepresentative samples, and lack of comparison of first-gen with “continuing generation” students (Wilsey et al., 2014). Our main complaints, however, are conceptual. By paying insufficient attention to the diversity and richness of first-gen students’ lives and to learning as a complex social practice, studies on first-gen students and service-learning are limited in their capacity to explain why students experience universities in different ways, as well as how service-learning can help institutions become more student-ready. From the Adaptive Student to the Transformative University It is problematic to essentialize first-gen students—to assign to them particular traits that are then seen as determining their responses to university experiences. This sec- tion highlights, instead, the relational and shifting character of social class and consid- ers the ways in which pedagogical practices differentially value students’ backgrounds and experiences. Scholars who draw on the work of Pierre Bourdieu see universities and colleges as sites of production, reproduction, and contestation of social class positions and identi- ties and seek to demonstrate how this occurs. Stuber (2011), for instance, contends that the model of the highly involved college student is not class-neutral. Higher education works as both a “sieve” that filters out student from lower class backgrounds over time and an “incubator” that develops students’ social and cultural competencies in and out of the classroom (p. 878). The confidence or pride felt by working-class or first-gen students upon entering university