Citing the need for a basic, K-12 developmental framework for service learning, this article describes such a model. This model, an inclusive typology of service learning, distinguishes three levels of service learning: Community Service, Community Exploration, and Community Action. The authors correlate this typology to Piaget's cognitive developmental stages tying in Bradley's three-factor Criteria for Assessing Levels of Reflection. Two types of service, direct and indirect, are explained. Implications for education, research, and the community are discussed.
Alliance for Service Learning in Education Reform. (1993). Standards of quality and excellence for school-based service learning. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
2.
BhaermanR.CordellK.GomezB. (1998). The role of service: Learning in educational reform. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom.
3.
BilligS. H. (2000). Research on K-12 school-based service-learning: The evidence builds. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 658–664.
4.
BilligS. H.FurcoA. (2002). Service-learning: Through a multidisciplinary lens. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
5.
BohnenbergerJ. E.BomisB. S.ReinhardtK. C. (1999). 1999 International conference CmPS champions. Ann Arbor, MI: Future Problem Solving Program.
6.
BohnenbergerJ. E.TerryA. W. (2002). Community problem solving works for middle level students. Middle School Journal, 34(1), 5–12.
7.
BradleyJ. (1995). A model for evaluating student learning in academically based service. In TroppeM. (Ed.), Connecting cognition and action: Evaluation of student performance in service learning courses (pp. 13–26). Providence, RI: Campus Compact.
8.
ConradD.HedinD. (1991). School-based community service: What we know from research and theory. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 743–49.
9.
DeweyJ. (1954). The public and its problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press.
10.
FurcoA. (1994). A conceptual framework for the institutionalization of youth service programs in primary and secondary education. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 395–409.
11.
GrantT. (1996). Youth in action: Tipping the legislative balance. Green Teacher, 50, 6–14.
12.
HalperinS. (1993). Youth service is also about changing adults. In SagawaS.HalperinS. (Eds.), Visions of service: The future of the national and community service act (p. 25). Washington, DC: National Women's Law Center and American Youth Policy Forum.
13.
KraftR. J. (1996). Service learning: An introduction to its theory, practice, and effects. Education & Urban Society, 28(2), 131–159.
LewisA. C. (1988). Facts and faith: A status report of youth service. Washington, DC: The William T. Grant Foundation Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 298234)
RossD. D. (1989). First step in developing a reflective approach. Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 22–30.
22.
SchineJ. (1996). Service learning: A promising strategy for connecting students to communities. Middle School Journal, 28(2), 3–9.
23.
SchineJ. (Ed.). (1997). Service learning. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
24.
StantonT. K.GilesD. W.CruzN. I. (Eds.). (1999). Service learning: A movement's pioneers reflect on its origins, practice, and future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
TerryA. W. (2000). An early glimpse: Service learning from an adolescent perspective. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 115–134.
26.
TerryA. W. (2001). A case study of Community Action service learning on young, gifted adolescents and their community. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (08), 3058.
27.
TerryA. W. (2003). Effects of service learning on young, gifted adolescents and their community. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(4), 295–308.
28.
TerryA. W.BohnenbergerJ. E. (2003). Service learning: Fostering a cycle of caring in our gifted youth. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 1, 23–30.
