july08b.indd Nancy K. Herther Service learning and engagement in the academic library Operating out of the box Defined as “a structured learning experi­ence that combines community service with explicit learning objectives, prepara­ tion and refl ection,”1 Service Learning (SL) is a revolutionary new type of teaching and learning that combines traditional class­ room curriculum with experiential learning and community service opportunities. It is designed to provide an enriched learning experience for students, expanding their theoretical learning into practical experi­ ences through meaningful service projects in the local community. SL strives to teach civic responsibility, as well, and provides opportunities for students to reflect on these experiences as a part of their formal learning. John S. Riddle’s overview of SL and its implications for library bibliographic instruc­ tion (BI) provides a strong argument for developing new models of library instruction and information literacy for these unique aca­ demic programs. He points to the potential synergy “for scholars in both service learning and information literacy to recognize a com­ mon ground.”2 Noting parallels between SL and “the agendas for information literacy research at­ tempting to show that genuine learning takes place in library instruction classes,” Riddle goes on to suggest models to modify tradi­ tional library instruction to fit SL needs.3 Although they share a common need for more research, information literacy and SL are very different concepts. Before we can design programs of service and methods of assessment, we need to better understand SL as it is practiced in our institutions. SL in academe today SL is, perhaps, best described as a new, and very unique, type of collegiate instruction, derived from a very different philosophical and practical base, which requires very differ­ ent types of support from libraries—including unique programs of information literacy.4 Incoming college students increasingly have experienced SL in K–12 educational set­ tings. According to a 1999 survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, 64 percent of all public schools and 83 percent of all public high schools provided some type of community service for their students. In high schools, 46 percent of the students par­ ticipated in SL, where the service was linked with the school curriculum.5 UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute recently found that 80 percent of incoming students reported to be involved in some type of volunteering experience.6 Organizations such as Campus Compact (www.compact.org), a national coalition of more than 950 college and university presi­ dents committed to service learning ideals and implementation, reflect the deep penetration of these programs throughout academe. SL: Dynamic, fluid, and intense Clearly, SL courses provide opportunities for a much broader role for libraries in the learn­ ing process. However, from teaching these classes, it is also clear that they require far Nancy K. Herther is sociology, anthropology, American studies, Asian American studies librarian at the University of Minnesota, e-mail: n-hert@umn.edu © 2008 Nancy K. Herther C&RL News July/August 2008 386 mailto:n-hert@umn.edu www.compact.org more time, energy, and support from librarians than do traditional college courses. Having worked with more than 12 SL classes here at the University of Minnesota in the past two years, I have found these courses to be highly rewarding, invigorating, and intense. SL courses are well­structured and their syllabi provide an excellent roadmap for understanding the basic flow of learning and potential needs for support. Most SL classes begin with some traditional classroom expe­ riences—to cover background and theory to provide context for the learning to be experi­ enced, etc.—before the SL component begins. The SL itself is followed by some time for re­ flection and integration at the end of the term, if only for a few sessions, to share experiences and evaluate the learning. Popular refl ective options have included: case studies, personal or team journals, major papers, presentations, interviews, and discussions. However, even these roadmaps can be deceptive. Assumptions about the types of needs the students will have (understanding the specific natures—backgrounds, ethnicities, needs—of the communities/clients, needs for skills to be employed during the service learn­ ing, student’s background knowledge of the topic, service work, etc.) may prove wrong once the class meets and the backgrounds/ skills of the actual class members are known. Also, the needs of students will vary in terms of their need for individual support, even when students share a common background. In one case, I was asked to lecture on re­ sources to support the study of the particular ethnic group that was to be the focus for the SL. Once the class met, I realized that more than 90 percent of the enrolled students were from the same ethnic group as the SL clients, requiring a quick change of plans in terms of my scheduled lecture. Students, instead, asked for information and support on areas related to the types of SL work that they would be involved with. Classroom­based learning tends to be quite predictable (known time and place, known faculty, same students throughout the class). SL brings significant change. The learning tends to be serendipitous and open­ended. The need for research and information sup­ port also rises and falls unpredictably. Partner organizations become learning laboratories: their staffs become facilitators/teachers, just as students find they learn from the clients of these agencies, as well. Seeing librarians in a new light SL expands and deepens the librarian’s role with both faculty and students—in effect creat­ ing a new type of “social contract” between the libraries and our users. Instead of creating a one­size­fits­all scenario, SL deepens the learn­ ing experience by giving students far more responsibility for their learning, defi ning their support needs, and seeking and evaluating potential solutions. Defined as a part of the instructional team for many of these classes, my work at the Uni­ versity of Minnesota has allowed for deeper, more personal, ongoing contact with students, paralleling the in­depth relationships I’ve had with faculty and graduate students. Long after the course is over, I often get e­mails asking for assistance with other classes, advice on job hunting, etc.—and even requests for help with such nonlibrary issues as problems with registration or getting tickets to special campus events. Students often tell me that they thought about contacting me as soon as they realized they needed help. Students tell me that they know I can help them (since I have in the past), and that they find me approachable and friendly. Making this type of connection with undergraduates is rare in academic libraries. The world as the classroom With SL we have a new, and developing, inno­ vation in academe; one for which faculty (still experimenting with the model) are far more open to library support for both their teaching and student learning needs. For classes that I have supported, BI needs have sometimes been divided into two segments: Early on, a background or practical/skills­based ses­ sion to help students prepare for the specifi c clients, tasks, or involvements they will be experiencing; and, secondly, a more traditional July/August 2008 387 C&RL News research skills session, later in the term, to cover resources and tools needed for them to complete the reflection exercises required for course completion. In many others, since the reflection piece may offer more options than a traditional paper, I am asked to act as a consultant for students, rather than making a second, formal presentation on research methods to the whole class. The individual nature of learning in the SL model highlights the need for support programs that not only cover the core basics related to the study, but support the indi­ vidual needs of learners who are taking on more responsibility for their learning. This not only includes the “rational” needs for learning (database searching, distinguishing scholarly works from popular, proper citation methods, etc.), but the psychological, supportive needs students may encounter as they work in new areas or take on new roles: The need to feel comfortable and supported during trial and error learning; ongoing personal self­as­ sessment of learning; meeting unforeseen needs and answering questions that come up unexpectedly during the learning; and so on. These needs are not apparent in the course planning process, yet they are critical to each student’s successful completion of the learning. What role for the library? To date, little research in our field has ad­ dressed either this dynamic aspect of learning support or the psychological aspects of this type of learning. Scholarly literature, in virtu­ ally every discipline (including LIS) reports the efforts, successes, frustrations and needs experienced by faculty and students who take on these projects.7 Yet, the professional LIS literature shows little discussion or analysis of existing programs and services for these classes. This crucial information is needed to gauge needs, define and delineate potential roles, plan and guide implementation, and to suggest methods of measuring success and improving service. Michael Keresztesi theorized a deeper in­ tegration of library instruction into academic curricula in 1982: “The library’s function is being transformed from that of a public warehouse of cultural goods to one of a social dynamic institution of communication and knowledge dissemination.”8 This “social dynamic” aspect is, perhaps, nowhere as ap­ parent as with SL. Lynn C. Westney found academic contri­ butions “few and far between” in this area, both in the United States and in the interna­ tional literature, as well: Academic librarians continue to be conspicuous by their absence within the literature of their discipline and the engagement literature. Aca­ demic librarians must forge formal partnerships and coalitions with community and national organizations to ensure that they will possess the necessary ammunition to deserve a place at the table and they will indeed be seated above the salt.9 Just as information literacy offers academic libraries opportunities for broader and deeper roles in the structures of their organizations, SL and the broader scholarship of engage­ ment require more of libraries and their staffs than traditional expectations.10 Librarians can, in effect, become partners with the faculty and community agency in the instructional process.11 In many ways, academic libraries are already highly engaged organizations, well­ suited to the challenges offered by SL: We have well­established, integrated systems of services and collections; decades of ex­ perience in providing information support (class­based and individual); and our historic bibliographic/liaison models for faculty inter­ action and support, which provide a strong network into the departments throughout our organizations.12 Academic libraries share a strong, historic tradition of solidarity with our local user communities and, through land grant and other social contracts, with the wider world. Creating citizen scholars Toni Murdock, president of Antioch Univer­ sity in Seattle, described the potential social impact of SL in an editorial: C&RL News July/August 2008 388 http:organizations.12 http:process.11 http:expectations.10 This means far more than volunteering to serve in a soup kitchen and presenting a classroom report on that experience. We must devise a community­based curriculum that not only engages students in discovering why this affl u­ ent country has so many homeless citizens and soup kitchens, but also provides opportunities for them to work with the community to solve the root causes of poverty. Connecting studies with problem­solving service in the community deepens, complicates and challenges students’ learning. It turns them into knowledge pro­ ducers, not just knowledge consumers. They become citizen scholars who renew our demo­ cratic society and actively engage in shaping this nation’s future.13 Librarians often lament the lack of opportu­ nities to deepen their involvement with classes and students beyond the one­shot BI session or brief encounters over the reference desk. SL provides a wonderful opportunity to expand and broaden our roles on campus; however, it also requires time and energy beyond that normally given to student support. The question for academic libraries, then, is whether we are ready to take on this challenge: To provide the key assets needed to ensure the success of growing SL programs on our campuses—and all this implies for services and personnel—or face the consequences of nonin­ volvement. SL may provide us with a unique op­ portunity to explore future directions and roles for academic libraries in the 21st century. Notes 1. Sarena D. Seifer, “Service­learning: Community­campus partnerships for health professions education,” Academic Medicine 73 (Mar. 1998): 274. 2. John S. Riddle, “Where’s the Library in Service Learning?: Models for Engaged Library Instruction.” Journal of Academic Librarian­ ship 29 (Mar. 2003): 71. 3. Ibid., 71. 4. Teresa Y. Neely and Hannelore Rader (Eds.), “Beyond the Standards: What Now?” Information Literacy Assessment: Standards­ Based Tools and Assignments, Chicago, IL, ALA, 2006. 5. National Student Service­Learning and Community Survey. Washington, D.C.: Na­ tional Center for Education Statistics, 1999. 6. Higher Education: Civic Mission & Civic Effects Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Sanford, CA, February 2006, www.civicyouth.org /PopUps/higher_ed_civic_mission_and _civic_effects.pdf, 3. 7. See, for example, Naomi J. Rhodes, “Us­ ing service learning to get positive reactions in the library,” Computers in Libraries (January 2001): 32–35; and Sarah E. McCleskey and David J. Allison, “Collaboration for Service Learning in Architectural Education,” Art Docu­ mentation 19 (Spring 2000): 40–42. 8. Michael Keresztesi, “The Science of Bib­ liography: Theoretical Implications for Biblio­ graphic Instruction,” Theories of Bibliographic Education: Designs for Teaching, edited by Cerise Oberman and Katrina Strauch (New York: Bowker, 1982): 2. 9. Lynn C. Westley, “Conspicuous by their absence: Academic librarians in the engaged university,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 45 (Spring 2006): 202. 10. Judith A. Ramaley, Seizing the Moment: Creating a Changed Society and University through Outreach (Worthington, Ohio ed. Ohio State University, 2004). 11. Kathleen de la Pena McCook and Peggy Barber, “Public Policy as a Factor Infl uencing Adult Lifelong Learning, Adult Literacy and Public Libraries,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 42 (Autumn 2002): 68. 12. John R. Rachal, “The American Library Adult Education Movement: The Diffusion of Knowledge and the Democratic Ideal, 1924­ 1931,” Breaking New Ground: The Develop­ ment of Adult and Workers’ Education in North America – Proceedings from the Syracuse Uni­ versity Kellogg Project’s First Visiting Scholar Conference in the History of Adult Education, edited by Rae Rohfeld (Syracuse: Syracuse University, 1990), 16–31. 13. Toni Murdock, “A higher civic calling for higher education,” Seattle Times, June 8, 2006, seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opin­ ion/2003046428_tonimurdock08.html. July/August 2008 389 C&RL News http:www.civicyouth.org http:future.13