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.
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
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.