Shelley Billig, Ph.D. -

Research shows that service learning is a popular innovation in schools, with about 38% of all students in the United States participating in school-based service (Corporation for National and Community Service, 2006).

Anecdotes about the value of service learning abound, and rigorous research is beginning to validate the impacts that many practitioners note (see, for example, Billig, 2001; Billig, 2010; Furco & Root, 2010). The studies collectively show that service learning is a "value- added" proposition, with young people benefitting academically, civically, and personally. But why should this be so? What can the research tell us about why service learning is such a good idea?

This article provides a very brief explanation from two bodies of research that suggest why service learning works. First, the research on student engagement is presented, revealing what works best to pique student interest and task persistence in any educational endeavor. Next, the research on service itself shows why people enjoy helping others. The match between service learning and the research findings are discussed. While other theories also apply (particularly ones that show how people learn), this discussion of the combination of student engagement and service begins to suggest why service learning should be a key feature of all of our educational institutions.

Student Engagement and Academic Performance

One has only to peek inside of many classrooms today to recognize that many students simply appear disengaged from their academic work. Engagement is defined as active participation in and enjoyment of school work. Studies of engagement show that, according to parents, 39% of females and 20% of males were engaged in school, K-12, and that the percentages decline dramatically as students enter high school (Spring, et.al., 2004). Disengagement has been highly associated with poor academic performance, absenteeism, and dropout (Lippman & Rivers, 2008).

On the flip side, student engagement is highly associated with academic performance and closing the achievement gap (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Glanville & Wildhagen, 2006); dropout prevention and school attendance (National Research Council, 2004); and reduction of risky behaviors (National Research Council, 2004). Steinberg (1996) cited research that shows that students who are interested and involved in school score higher on measures of psychological adjustment (e.g., self-esteem, responsibility, and competence in social relationships), and are less likely to use and abuse alcohol and drugs, fall into depression, experiment with sex, and commit criminal or delinquent acts.

Deconstructing the Concept of Engagement

Bartko (1999) found that engagement has three dimensions: behavioral, affective, and cognitive. Behavioral engagement is defined as active participation, persistence, concentration, task completion, and positive conduct, and has been documented to be highly associated with learning. Affective engagement refers to the level of interest, "flow," and enjoyment of learning and is related to the relationships one has with instructors and peers. Affective engagement has also been found to be highly correlated with learning. Cognitive engagement, defined as incorporating the information into one's knowledge base, seeking out information from other sources, and persistently trying to understand phenomena, going beyond the task, is less well studied, but is supported by research that shows its relationship to curiosity and interest in subject matters.

Student disengagement has been documented as being widespread on each of these dimensions. Several researchers found that students' interest in challenging subjects declined because of the lack of active learning experiences (Anderson, Pruitt, & Courtney, 1989; Reyes & Laliberty, 1992), and several showed that if students were not given opportunities to experience academic success, they were more likely to become disengaged (Ekstrom, Goertz, Pollack, & Rock, 1986; McDill, Natriello, & Pallas, 1985, 1986; Wagenaar, 1987). Still others found that engagement was related to instructors' expectations. Simply put, students expected to learn if teachers expected them to learn (Brophy, 1987; Stipek, 1988). Finally, Anderman and Midgley (1998) showed that students' attitudes about their own abilities and interpretation of success affect their willingness to engage in schoolwork. Extrinsically motivated students tend to become disengaged more easily than those who are intrinsically motivated.

Increasing Engagement

Researchers have shown that the disengagement epidemic can be stemmed by redesigning the learning environment. For example, Maehr and Midgley (1991) found that instructors increase engagement and student motivation to learn when they:

• Stress goal setting and self-regulation/ management;

• Offer students choices in instructional settings;

• Reward students for attaining 'personal best' goals;

• Foster teamwork through group learning and problem-solving experiences;

• Replace social comparisons of achievement with self-assessment and evaluation techniques; and

• Teach time management skills and offer self-paced instruction.

Eccles, Midgley, and Adler (1984) showed that motivation to learn increased when students were given greater autonomy and control over their learning. These researchers recommended that schools create environments that stress task involvement rather than ego involvement. Ames (1992); Strong, Silver, & Robinson (1995); and Anderman and Midgley (1998) found that teachers who were most successful in engaging students developed activities that addressed students' intellectual and psychological needs, including work that gave students a sense of competency and autonomy, encouraged self-expression, and allowed them to develop connections with others.

Other researchers recommended the following strategies to increase student engagement (cited in a review by Brewster and Fager, 2000, p. 7):

• Ensure course materials relate to students' lives and highlight ways learning can be applied in real-life situations (Lumsden, 1994; Skinner & Belmont, 1991);

• Help students feel that schoolwork is significant, valuable, and worthy of their efforts (Policy Studies Associates, 1995);

• Allow students to have some degree of control over learning (Brooks, Freiburger, & Grotheer, 1998);

• Assign challenging but achievable tasks for all students. Tasks that seem impossible and those that are rote and repetitive discourage learners (Dev, 1997; Policy Studies Associates, 1995);

• Stimulate students' curiosity about the topic being studied (Strong et al., 1995);

• Design projects that allow students to share new knowledge with others. Projects are more engaging when students share what they are learning in reciprocal relationships, as in collaborative projects where each student's knowledge is needed by others in the group to complete an assignment (Strong et al., 1995); and

• Develop caring and trust between teachers and students (Noddings, 2000, p. 36).