Service Learning in Environmental Sciences: Nurturing Two Compatible Values

Service Learning in Environmental Sciences

Nurturing Two Compatible Values

Budi Widianarko

Graduate Program on Environmental and Urban Studies,

Soegijapranata Catholic University (SCU)

E-mail: widianarko@unika.ac.id

1.      Introduction

Service-learning (SL) is recently becoming an attractive learning method which has been applied across educational levels, including higher education. The growing interest on SL among universities is most likely due to its multitude promises, i.e. the learning outcomes, beyond conventional learning.  As formulated by EPA (2002) SL is a method of encouraging student learning and development through active participation in considerately organized service that is conducted in, and meets the needs of, a community. Seifer & Connors (2007) stated that SL presents the students with “transformational learning experiences” for it increases community understanding among faculty and brings new directions and confidence to the teaching and scholarly pursuits of the faculty involved; moreover it can contribute to social-economic benefits to the community partners.

SL is integrated into, and enhances, the academic curriculum and the community service program. In other words, it is a structured learning experience that combines community service with explicit learning objectives, preparation, and reflection (Seifer & Connors, 2007). Students involved in SL will not only learn a subject while providing direct community service, but they will also learn about the context in which the service is provided, the connection between the service and their academic coursework, and their roles as citizens (EPA, 2002; Seifer & Connors, 2007). A truly unique distinctive feature of SL is the provision structured time for the students to reflect on their service experience. As defined by the National Society for Experiential Education (1994), SL is a carefully monitored service experience in which a student has intentional learning goals and reflects actively on what he or she is learning throughout the experience. 

According to Seifer & Connors (2007), compared to other forms of experiential education SL has several additional learning outcomes, i.e. (1) offers a balance between service and learning objectives; (2) places an emphasis on reciprocal learning;  (3) increases an understanding of the content in which service work occurs;  (4) focuses on the development of civic skills;  (5) addresses community identified concerns; and (6) involves community in the service-learning design and implementation. In shorts, since its preparatory stage SL involves the community since it is developed, implemented, and evaluated in collaboration with the community. Moreover, SL aims to responds to community-identified concerns.

SL has proven to be a valuable pedagogical undertaking. A literature survey by MacHarg et al. (2012) showed various benefits of SL have been well documented, e.g.

(1)   SL enhances student learning outcomes (Butin, 2010; Prentice & Robinson, 2010). 

(2)   SL has positive effects on

o   personal development such as a sense of personal efficacy, personal identity, spiritual growth, and moral development among participating students (Astin & Sax, 1998; Eyler & Giles, 1999)

o   interpersonal development and the ability to work well with others, leadership and communication skills (Astin & Sax, 1998; Keen & Keen, 1998).

o   reducing cultural stereotypes and facilitating racial and cross-cultural understanding (Astin & Sax, 1998; Giles & Eyler, 1994)

o   a sense of social responsibility and increased civic engagement (Eyler & Giles, 1999; Mabry, 1998), as well as later commitments to service (Astin & Sax, 1998)

(3)   Students and faculty report

o   greater learning and better academic performance when students participate in service-learning (Boss, 1994)

o   improved ability for students to apply the theory of what they have learned to the “real world” (Eyler & Giles, 1999). 

(4)   Enhances career development (Astin & Sax, 1998; Keen & Keen, 1998) and participating students report a closer relationship to faculty and satisfaction with the institution (Eyler & Giles, 1999). 

In short, service-learning assists students with personal, social and learning outcomes in addition to their career development and relationship with the institution (Eyler et al., 2001).  For that reason SL is certainly be a justifiable field of study. 

2. Environmental Service Learning (ESL)

Despite of its multitude pedagogical advantages, it is only quite recently that SL has been applied in natural science education. SL has, for quite a while, been associated merely with social sciences and underrepresented in natural sciences (Curry et al., 2002).

However, when it comes to environmental studies (ES) SL seems to be the perfect match. Ward (1999) even stated that these two fields have a natural fit. The combination of these two is frequently referred to as environmental service-learning (ESL) (Madigan, 2000). Through this amalgamation, the notion of community is broadened, not only limited to human community but also embracing natural community.

Both SL and ES are two value laden domains. Interestingly, these values are compatible. As mentioned earlier, through SL students will not only learn a subject while providing direct community service but they will also learn their roles as citizens. In fact, SL promotes good citizenship values, in terms of rights and responsibilities of individual in his or her community (Madigan, 2000).

Ecology as the main pillar of ES is not just an academic and scientific discipline. Ecology also serves as an ethical principle. Ecological ethics is part of applied ethics which looks at the moral basis of our responsibility toward the environment. Several thinkers, e.g. Capra (1982, 1996, 2002); Goldsmith (1998); Cairns (2002) and Bordeau (2004) put their hopes on ecological world view as a way to get out of the environmental crisis deadlock. Ecological world view was seen as a new paradigm to solve public problems (Capra, 1982; Goldsmith, 1998). As a substitute for mechanical world view, ecological or system paradigms place the total above the parts, process above structure, and relativity above the absolute understanding of external world, knowledge network and information and acclaim.

 

Assumptions in system paradigm require new set of ethics, which are more supporting of life instead of destroying, recognizing interconnectedness of every objects and knowing of humans’ place in the network. According to Merchant (1994) human perspective is shifting from mechanistic reductionist – as the product of the ethics of domination of nature of the Enlightenment – towards an ecological world view which is based on interconnectedness, process, and open system.

As defined by Kinne (1997, 1998, 2001, 2002) in Cairns (2002)  eco-ethics refer to the principal importance of ecological dynamics for all forms of life on earth. Without natural environment, no human will be able to survive. Rigoberta Menchu, a Nobel Peace Laureate from Guatemala, once said that “nothing is larger than life coexistence” (see Widianarko, 2007). Everyone would agree that in their entire history Homo sapiens depend entirely on the biosphere as a life support system, either as natural capital or ecosystem service (Hawken et al., 1999). The 20th century was a moment of awakening for humanity from its long sleep of environmental ignorance, after witnessing the worst natural and environmental damages in the history of humanity (McNeill, 2000 in Cairn, 2002).

Along with the spirit of life coexistence, each human person has responsibilities toward his or her immediate as well as larger community, i.e. global ecosystem. To protect global ecosystem a collaborative global response is required. Leadership and acceptance of differentiated responsibilities must be at the heart of any global environmental agreement (see e.g. Widianarko, 2010). In the case of climate change, for example, Stern & Noble (2008) endorsed three basic criteria of global action, i.e. effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. To respect the value of life coexistence, equity should be in the heart of all environmental decision making. Wealthy countries are responsible for the bulk of past emissions. The same holds true for wealthy families or individuals in a country. The deficiency of the global agreement of on climate change, has clearly demonstrated how countries are still imprisoned by their own interests, rather than seeking for a mutual win-win solution (Widianarko, 2010). In other words, the fight against climate change is more a problem of ethics rather than merely a technical obstacle.

Flemming (2009) stressed the importance of the so called, “shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community”. Flemming (2009) further asserted that such a vision can be found in the Earth Charter which provides sixteen “interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and trans-national institutions is to be guided and assessed”.

Principle 14 of the Earth Charter emphasizes the need to “integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life” (Hessel, 2002). According to Flemming (2009) education is critical in the promotion of sustainable development and improving the capacity of people to address environmental and developmental issues. Education is also critical in achieving environmental and ethical awareness, values and attitudes, skills and behavior coherent with sustainable development, and for effective public participation in decision-making.

Considering the above context, ESL certainly finds its niche. The combination of ES and ESL will, in fact, nurture two compatible values, i.e. societal and ecological citizenships.

Ward (1999) further notes that through ESL students can see more clearly the impacts of environmental negligence and witness policy implications at a grassroots level.  Moreover, environmental studies require an outlook beyond students’ immediate or local community but should also incorporate international engagement to promote significant learning in higher education (Parker et al., 2004).  As suggested by Madigan (2000) promising practices of ESL may include: (1) encourages youth leadership and decision-making; (2) integrates and values the community voice; (3) fosters civic stewardship; (4) provides opportunities for cross-cultural connections; and, (5) plans for the long-term sustainability.

3.      ESL at Soegijapranata Catholic University (SCU)

In order to implement ESL at SCU a project (funded by UB) was conducted by moving students from the classroom to the real world setting as required by service-learning method.  As descibed by Ward (1999) ESL particularly lends itself to students in the discipline, most particularly noting that environmental studies largely focuses around the importance of place and one’s interaction with location. 

The project is entitled “Integrating Carbon Footprint Solidarity into University Education through a Service Learning” (Widianarko et al., 2011). The aims of this project are the following.

1.      To investigate a carbon calculator suitable to a course for enhancing carbon footprint solidarity of the students participating in the ESL course. The carbon calculator together with other related materials is developed by the faculty in line with the characteristics of three locations in Semarang - namely urban, peri-urban and coastal area - which is be used as the place for students or participants of the course to conduct a field research using participatory observation method and/or other activities which is constructed in objective 2. The faculty is responsible for all activities related to curriculum development. The ESL is conducted by students of SCU representing several departments.

2.      To construct some participant activities that are integral parts of the model of carbon footprint solidarity ESL, such as a camp and research activities on the three locations mentioned above.

3.      To formulate an ideal model of carbon footprint solidarity ESL and disseminate it with the intention that such a model will inspire other universities. Based on the initial curriculum and the results of students’ ESL, the faculty is responsible to achieve this objective. Hopefully the course with all the activities will bring forward carbon footprint empathy and solidarity among the student participants.

The following is a brief description of the Environmental Service Learning on Carbon Footprint Solidarity conducted at SCU.

3.1.            Participants

Twenty two (22) students of SCU coming from Departments of Food Technology (9), Civil

Engineering (4), Law (1), Architecture (2), Accounting (2), Business Management (3), and

Taxation (1) involved in this project. The recruitment of students was conducted through an announcement by the SCU’s Research and Community Service Institute and followed up by short message services to several student contacts – which were then distributed among his/her network. This process has ensured the participation of genuinely interested students. The success of the recruitment was also supported by the fact that it took place during the inter-semester break.

3.2. Preparation and Introduction of the Draft Modules

Prior to the ESL, the draft of the module on Climate Change and Solidarity was introduced to the participating students in a two-days training session. The draft module covers various topics, not only limited to the subject matter (climate change, carbon calculation, and solidarity), but includes also the description of study site, research and presentation techniques, as well as, reflection method. The topics covered in the draft module are listed below

(1) Climate Change and Carbon Footprint

(2) Carbon Solidarity

(3) Description of Study Sites

(4) Carbon Calculator + Practical Work

(5) Participatory and Field Research

(6) Reflection Method + Practical Work

(7) Research Reporting

(8) Presentation Technique

3.3. Students Live In

Students live in took place at three different locations in Semarang, i.e.(I). peri-urban

(agricultural area), (II). urban (student dormitory/house), (III). coastal area. Students are divided into three batches of 7 or 8 each, to experience all three locations. At Location I and III students were placed in 7 houses, allowing each student to experience and observe the extent of a family’s carbon footprint, while at Location II each student stayed in his or her own house or dormitory.

At each location, students stayed and performed participatory observation for a duration of 3 days 2 nights. So, in the course of this field work each student stayed and observed the carbon footprint of three houses in three different locations. In total, carbon footprint data of 14 households at Location I and III plus 22 houses at Location II were collected by students.

3.4. Participatory Field Observation

Upon arrival at the assigned house, the participating student was introduced to the family by the neighborhood chief and the SCU’s research assistant. Afterward, the student involved in routine activities of the host family. For example, a male student at Location III joined his host to work at the fish pond – a female student at Location I joined her host to prepare a meal for the family.

While joining the family’s routine, students observed all activities and home facilities associated with carbon footprint, i.e. meal, water, electricity, energy, transportation and solid waste. To obtain more refined information on the family’s carbon footprint the observing student also interviewed the host on family member, lifestyle, consumption pattern and daily travel.

For the electricity carbon counting, student observed the number of lamps and home appliances available in the household, as well as their frequency and duration of use. For the food related carbon footprint student obtained data via having meal together with the host family, and performing interview on the amount and variety of foodstuffs, cooking methods, frequency and amount of consumption. All carbon footprint information were recorded by each student and compiled with other data obtained by his or her fellow students.

3.5. Carbon Footprint Analysis

The carbon calculation was done using a worksheet based on “The Climate Diet – How You Can Cut Carbon, Cut Cost, and Save the Planet” (Harrington, 2008) available in the module.

Carbon footprints were calculated manually using the available worksheet based on data obtained from participatory observation as inputs.

After several trial sessions by students, the worksheet was complemented with a virtual carbon calculator – available at www.eatlowcarbon.org - to improve the calculation. This should be done especially due to unavailability of local foodstuffs in the worksheet. Even then, some specific foodstuffs, such as vegetables and fishes, were not available in both the worksheet and virtual carbon calculator.

Carbon calculation of individual and batch of students were presented at the mini workshop. It turned out that, the results of carbon footprint calculation varied among the students - leading to different conclusions and validity. To solve this problem, a calculation technique used by Gorby (Group II) was adopted by the group. This technique was run on Microsoft Excell subroutines. Before the adoption by the group, this technique was refined several times to give reasonable results.

Upon the adoption of a common calculation technique, carbon footprint of individual house at all locations were recalculated and presented as the average value of individual carbon footprint (tons CO2 equivalent per capita per year).

3.6. Carbon Footprint Reflection

After knowing carbon footprint information and analyzing it, participants were reflected it together in class. In this session, students reflected their experiences about carbon footprint and to share among them. Participants were also motivated to realize that climate change is caused by human behavior and activities. In other words, human’s life style impacted the large body (earth).

The session started by letting the participants to prepare themselves in a prayer. Participants from three different batches were instructed to internalize that they have responsibility to change their life style for contributing to social welfare or common good, in this case carbon solidarity. In this internalization session, participants shared his or her on carbon consumption in comparison to experiences during live in. Furthermore, they were asked to tell his or her planning for contributing to save the environment.

Finally, participants determined some decisions for doing together in their group as a solidarity model of carbon consumption. That decision or consensus is collected from member’s experiences that are shared in the group. This decision is manifestation of a new initiative toward global solidarity. Each coordinator wrote the decision of his or her group and read them for all participants. The reflection session was ended by a prayer.

Note: At the start of the research students were asked to write their current knowledge and experience on climate change approximately in 200 words. The same process was repeated after the modules introduced to the students, and after the reflection session.

4. Lessons Learned

In general, two objectives of this ESL project - namely (1) to train students to master the carbon footprint calculation and (2) to put the results of the carbon calculation into the context of solidarity - are met. With a limited introduction, i.e. a –two-days training session, students have been able to perform carbon footprint calculation, despite of the fact that the provided tool (i.e. carbon calculator) is not fully compatible with the local conditions. The participating students, however, have managed to make some necessary adjustments of the carbon calculation tool and technique by making use of internet resources.

At the initial stage – i.e. mini workshop - the second objective of the project seemed not fully met. After the repeated reflection session, however, a larger proportion of student participants have been starting to grasp how and what the carbon footprint reflection is all about. The students realized that application of the module on reflection needs to be extended in terms of duration (live in) and frequency (reflection session).

The successful application of the outcome of this project, i.e. a new program for ESL on Carbon Footprint and Solidarity, is not improbable. Service Learning approach has proven to enable students to gain expertise in carbon footprint calculation, and at the same time to be able to make a reflection on the solidarity aspect of carbon footprint.

One component of ESL which needs to be addressed in the future projects is the community empowerment. Ideally, via ESL the participating students should initiate activities aimed at nurturing community awareness toward their own carbon footprints, and stimulating relevant actions accordingly.  

Finally, although this pilot activity has shown that ESL is very promising, its implementation in other or broader subjects, however, is still quite challenging. In this case, the most apparent challenge will be the time constraint perceived by faculty in the light of the number of required course contents. 

 

5. References

Astin, A. & L. Sax (1998).  How undergraduates are affected by service participation.

Journal of College Student Development, 39.

Boss, J.  (1994).  The effect of community service on the moral development of college

Ethics students.  Journal of Moral Development, 23.

Bourdeau, Ph. (2004). The man-nature relationship and environmental ethics.

Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 72 : 9–15

Butin, D. (2010). Service-learning in theory and practice: The future of community

engagement  in higher education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cairn Jr, J. (2002). Sustainability and sacred value. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2002: 15-27.

Capra, F.  (1982) Turning Point - Science, Society and the Rising Culture. Flamingo-HarperCollins Publishers. London.

_________ (1994). Systems theory and the new paradigm. In C. Merchant (ed.): Ecology, Key Concepts in Critical Theory. Humanities Press. New Jersey. p. 334-341.

_________ (1996). The Web of Life – A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter. Flamingo-Fontana Paperbacks. London.

_________ (2002). The Hidden Connections – A Science for Sustainable Living. HarperCollins Publishers. London.

Curry, J.M., G. Heffner & D. Warners (2002). Environmental Service-Learning: Social

Transformation through Caring for a Particular Place. Michigan Journal of Community

Service Learning. Fall 2002: 58-66

EPA (2002). Service-Learning. Education beyond Classroom. Washington D.C.

Environmental Protection Agency. 32 p.

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

Jossey-Bass.

Eyler, J., D. Giles &  C. Gray (2001). At a glance:  What we know about the effects of service-learning on students, faculty, institutions and communities. Washington: Corporation for National Service. 

Fleming, M.L. (2009). Ecological sustainability: What role for public health education? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 6: 2028-2040.

Giles, D. & J. Eyler (1994).  The theoretical roots of service-learning in John Dewey:

Toward a theory of service-learning.  Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 1.

Goldsmith, E. (1998). The Way: An Ecological World-View. Revised and Enlarged edition. The University of Georgia Press. Athens.

Hawken, P., A. Lovins & L.H. Lovins (1999). Natural Capitalism: Creating Next Industrial Revolution. Little, Brown & Co. London.

Hessel, D.T. (2002). The Earth Charter: Guide to a sustainable way of life. In Biodiversity Project: Ethics for A Small Planet. Biodiversity Project. Madison.

Keen, C. & J. Keen (1998). Bonner student impact survey.  Princeton, NJ:  Bonner

Foundation.

MacHarg, B., J. Lessman & B. Widianarko (2012). Theory to Practice: Environmental Service Learning in Indonesia. A granted proposal to ASIANetwork Service Learning and the Environment in Asia Program (ANSLEAP)2012 Pilot Grant - Supported by the Luce Foundation.

Madigan, P. (2000). The Environmental Service-Learning Research Project. Washington DC: Corporation for National Service National Service Fellowship Program. 89 P.

National Society for Experiential Education. (1994). Partial list of experiential learning terms

and their definitions.  Raleigh, NC.

Parker, J., R. Wade & H. Atkinson (2004). Citizenship and community from local to global:

Implications for higher education of a global citizenship approach.  In J. Blewitt & C.

Cullingford (Eds.), The sustainability curriculum: The challenge for higher education.

Sterling, VA:  Earthscan. 

Prentice, M. & G. Robinson (2010). Improving Student Learning Outcomes with Service Learning. AACC–RB 10: 1-16

Seifer, S.D. & K. Connors (Eds.) (2007).  Community Campus Partnerships for Health. Faculty Toolkit for Service-Learning in Higher Education. Scotts Valley, CA: National Service-Learning Clearinghouse.

Stern, N. & I. Noble (2008). Achieving low carbon growth for the world: Key elements for a global deal. Development Outreach 10(1): 4-7.

Ward, H. (1999). Why is service-learning so pervasive in environmental studies programs?.

In H. Ward (Ed.), Acting locally: Concepts and models for service-learning in environmental

studies.  Sterling, VA:  Stylus. 

Widianarko, B. (2007). Can Hydrospirituality Ensure Water Sustainability?. Global Spiral

(e-publication of Metanexus Institute. Philadelphia).

Widianarko, B. (2010). Paving pathway to sustainable Asia: Enhancing the roles of Christian

Higher Education Institutions. Keynote Speech at the Biennial Conference, General Assembly

of ACUCA. Keimyung University, Daegu, 1 Nov 2010.

Widianarko, B., W. Hadipuro, S. Weru & D.S. Djati (2011). Coping with Climate Change:

Integrating Carbon Footprint Solidarity into University Education through a Service Learning

Approach. Report of a UB Sponsored Project. Soegijapranata Catholic University. 14 p.