Service-Learning Within Higher Education: Rhizomatic Interconnections Between University And The Real World

This paper discusses Service-learning within an Australian higher education context as pedagogy to teach about inclusive education. Using Deleuze and Guattari’s (1987) model of the rhizome, this study conceptualises pre-service teachers’ learning experiences as multiple, hydra and continuous. Data from reflection logs of pre-service teachers highlight how the learning experience allowed them to gain insights in knowledge as socially just, ethical and inclusive. The paper concludes by arguing the need to consider Service-learning as integral to university education for preservice teachers. Inclusive education has an emphasis on community and democratic participation where teachers work together to meet the challenges of supporting the diverse needs of students. A critique of social values and a consideration of who is included and excluded in schools is necessary to enable a more inclusive approach (Barton, 2003). In order to better prepare teachers to work in inclusive ways, some significant questions emerge: How can teacher education programs assist teachers to comprehend their role in developing more connected and socially just communities? How can teachers be assisted to understand their work as central to the future role of schooling for social responsibility, democracy, social justice, and civility (Smyth, 2000)? This paper discusses Service-learning within an Australian higher education context as a pedagogy about inclusive education that enables a critique of social values and promotes acceptance of diversity. The theoretical framework draws on Deleuze and Guattari’s (1987) notion of rhizome. to analyse data from student reflection logs to suggest shifts that occur in understanding around diversity and inclusion. The paper concludes by advocating the importance of Service-learning within academic learning. Service-Learning Theory Since the 1990s, Service-learning has been popular in higher education, particularly in the United States. Service-learning is defined as pedagogy, a philosophy and a form of inquiry (Le Grange, 2007) that integrates classroom instruction with community service activities. Service that is organised in relation to an academic curriculum has clearly stated learning objectives, addresses real community needs in a sustained manner over a period of time and assists the learner in drawing lessons from the service through regularly scheduled, organised critical reflection through a variety of modes such as structured writing like reflection logs (see Skinner & Chapman, 1999). As an innovative practice (Stanton, Giles & Cruz, 1999), Service-learning has been coupled with concepts of social justice, civic responsibility and ethical practice. Giles and Eyler (1994) draw on principles from Dewey (1966) to discuss that Service-learning provides unique learning experiences. As Giles Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol 36, 6, May 2011 2 and Eyler (1994) state, Service-learning ensures: 1) the continuity of experience; 2) the principle of interaction; 3) process of inquiry that leads to further knowledge through participation; 4) reflective activity that leads to learning; 5) citizenship promoting conscious awareness of values; and 6) democracy through conflict resolution and inclusion. Further, Butin (2003, pp. 1676-1677), uses the four Rs respect, reciprocity, relevance and reflection to provide a values oriented framework for Service-learning: Respect for members in the Service-learning organisation; reciprocity, where the server interacts positively creating mutual outcomes; relevance where the Service-learning pathway adds to academic learning and reflection that enables the participant to make pertinent meaning of the experience. These two theoretical frameworks for Service-learning are enhanced when it is perceived as critical pedagogy that can be experienced as a pathway to challenge the traditional modes of learning at university. However, a critical approach to pedagogy does not only focus on critique. This approach to education also engages in a language of transcendence, so there is a capacity to imagine an alternative reality and a hope for education and society (Giroux, 1988; Greene, 1986; Kincheloe, 1993). The term “Service-learning” emphasises “a reciprocal relationship” with service and learning responding and strengthening the other (Prentice & Garcia, 2000, p. 20). The significance of Service-learning in higher education has been reiterated by scholars (Battistoni 1997; Boyer, 1990; Bringle & Hatcher, 2000; Zlotkowski, 1998), and in the past decade, there has been a growing movement to integrate Service-learning into higher education as “an avenue for civic engagement and scholarship” (Billig & Welch, 2004, p. 222). Service-learning frameworks have been described either as a continuum or as distinct models (Morton, 1995). The continuum framework has a charity perspective at one end and an advocacy or social change perspective at the other end. The charity paradigm of service involves assistance to one or more individuals to solve immediate problems and has no expectation of a lasting impact. The advocacy or social change paradigm of service is concerned with producing changes in the larger societal structures that determine outcomes for people in need (Morton, 1995). This second approach requires an “increasingly complex analysis of the situation that created the need for service in the first place” (Morton, 1995, p. 20). Models of Service-learning, in contrast, are built on a clear, underlying set of assumptions and therefore have their own paradigm. For example, critical Service-learning has been used to describe a social justice-oriented approach to community Service-learning that “redirects the focus of Service-learning from charity to social change” (Boyle-Baise & Langford, 2004, p. 55). This type of pedagogical approach expects individuals to take responsibility for the future of our society and the critical issues facing communities so that Service-learning becomes a “problem-solving instrument of social and political reform” (Fenwick, 2001, p. 6). Further, as Mitchell (2008) states, critical Service-learning attends to social change, questions distribution of power in society and focuses on developing authentic relationships (p. 1) The above model of pedagogy expects transformation in education and action because it focuses on a deeper understanding of the root causes of the problems that require service (Morton, 1995; Wade, 2008). There is limited evidence of a service component in teacher education courses about teaching diversity (Bell, Horn & Roxas, 2008), however, Butin’s (2008) edited collection of chapters provides good examples of how critical Service-learning models are being used in higher education. The Service-learning model described in this paper draws on the critical Service-learning approach. We wanted to support a group of mainly monolingual, white, pre-service teachers from dominant middle-class backgrounds to participate in service organisations that value diversity, promote equity, and strive for inclusivity (Author & Saggers, 2008). As critics (Bringle & Hatcher, 1995; Butin, 2003; 2008) note, Service-learning is conducted in the spirit of respect for community members, is based on reciprocity and should be a reflective practice. In this study on Servicelearning, reflection is embedded within traditional university activities such as reading and discussion. It is combined with students’ twenty hours of voluntary service within organisations that Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol 36, 6, May 2011 3 support individuals with diverse needs within their communities. Students’ understandings of ethics, diversity, equity and their roles as teachers and citizens are developed through a scaffolded reflection log. The reflection log is a particularly powerful vehicle because it leads students to reflect on their transition from being unaware of societal inequities to being deeply aware of such forces and the critical importance of their role as teachers in a democratic society (Author, Mercer, Bland & Kimber, 2009). The model involves supporting students to examine and challenge traditional beliefs about student diversity and the role of schools in society. The program aims to challenge pre-service teachers to imagine how schools could be different as places where diversity is valued for the richness it brings to the learning community; where belonging and trust characterise the environment; where barriers to learning are broken down so that educational outcomes are maximised for all students; and where inclusive practices are possible and not just an ideal (Author, Mercer, Bland & Kimber, 2009). Some of the specific goals of the Service-learning program were to: 1) Enhance student learning by joining theory with experience and thought with action 2) Enable students to help and enter into caring relationships with others 3) Increase the civic and citizenship skills of students 4) Assist agencies to benefit from enthusiastic volunteers 5) Expose students to societal inadequacies and injustices Drawing on Butin (2005, pp. 90-91), Service-learning outcomes can be viewed through four lenses: technical, cultural, political and postmodern. Briefly, the technical is focused on the pedagogical and on changes that occur to students in practice; the cultural aspect focuses on meanings that are made by participants through practice; the political is concerned with agentive positions subjects occupy in their desire to change systemic imbalances through attention to socially unjust practices and the postmodern is concerned with Service-learning as a site to disturb, disrupt and redefine the boundaries of the self in relation to the world. Butin’s four lenses explain the process of learning that occurs through Service-learning within education. The lenses provide a link between theory and practice of Service-learning. The lenses reverse the modernist, liberal conceptualisation of self, unpack the different purposes of Service-learning, and foreground the hidden agenda that might be part of a Service-learning program. We adopt these lenses as these assist in situating Service-learning in all its complexities within the field of teacher education. This paper focuses on the last lens, postmodern, for deeper examination. Like Butin (2005, p. 90), we view Service-learning as postmodern, with “multiple pedagogical strategies”. Butin (2005) argues that a postmodern conceptualisation “disrupts” norms and directs attention to the micro aspects that operate and are relevant to Service-learning, for example, efficient knowledge links being formed by students through practical application of learning acquired at university. Instead of a linear, structured approach to curriculum, Service-learning involves a multiplicity of practices where ethical practices, inclusivity and appreciation of diversity become significant. The postmodern/poststructural lens allows us to theorise disruption further through the rhizomatic model provided by Deleuze and Guattari. As Butin (2003) notes, the postmodern lens assists in questioning how far Service-learning helps in disrupting notions of self and others. While Butin’s (2005) conceptual model is holistic, and we agree that Service-learning as postmodern pedagogy is an “analogous”, “embodied process” (p. 101), we move beyond this vision of Service-learning to one that is more fluid and flexible, where learning occurs through disruption and sets new directions that are not linearly learnt. We believe that Service-learning is a pedagogy that interconnects theoretical understanding of concepts of inclusion, civic responsibility and ethical practice occurring in lived experience. To illustrate this lived experience and the rhizomatic nature of Service-learning, we explain the rhizome as conceptualised by Deleuze and Guattari (1987) and analyse the themes that emerged from narratives drawn from student reflection logs that were completed in the Service-learning program. Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol 36, 6, May 2011 4 Deleuze and Guattari’s (1987) concept of rhizome has been adopted widely in education (Gough, 2004; Gregoriou, 2004; Semetsky, 2004; St Pierre, 1997), and in feminism (Braidotti, 1994); yet it is in its infancy in Service-learning, with Le Grange (2007) being a notable author. Drawing on the above studies, we clarify the rhizomatic characteristics of Service-learning and elucidate how students develop new subject positions as caring professionals through contextual, experiential application of theory to practice. Rhizomatics is a mode of thinking that disturbs and disrupts hegemonic, linear mode of operation common to Western ways. Instead of a singular and forced unity that symbolises the tree, the rhizome is a ‘messy’ de-centered network that grows in all directions. As Deleuze and Guattari (1987) state, “the rhizome has “neither beginning nor end, but always a middle from which it grows and overspills”. Rhizomes display multiplicity through roots and branches that emerge without a structured order, and though shattered will re-emerge at another point; a rhizome defies the principles of structure because it does not conform to any one generative or linear model (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, pp. 8-12). The non-linear, multiple growth of the rhizome associates it with difference and its lack of center provides it a space to establish external networks. There are six principles of a rhizome: connection and heterogeneity; multiplicity; assigning rupture; cartography; and decalcomania. Each of these is required if the rhizome is to be considered a map: 1) The principle of connection and heterogeneity signifies how Service-learning relates theory with practice in lived experience. Theoretical understanding of inclusivity and ethics of care in Service-learning is realised through students undertaking an active role of being an inclusive, caring and responsible individual. 2) The principle of multiplicity explains how Service-learning could be understood as an assemblage (Le Grange, 2007, p. 8). Multiplicity explains how new knowledges can be formed through interconnections between knowledges acquired at university and new knowledges on site. The assemblages that are formed have possibilities in terms of acquisition of values and for promoting ethical and inclusive practices. 3) The principle of assigning rupture explains how Service-learning could de-centralize academic learning from its confines in the institution and become applicable in a practical context or, to use Deleuze and Guattari’s terms, to deterritorialize and reterritorialize. 4) The principles of cartography and decalcomania explain the capacity of inclusion and diversity to spread, take root and become a map through Service-learning. As Deleuze and Guattari (1987) explain, the map is open to change, to be contested, to be reformed and to be reshaped. The principles of rhizome are not tight compartments and, as Goodchild (1996, p. 85) notes, mix and proliferate. Briefly, connection and heterogeneity indicate the multiple offshoots and links that are possible through a rhizome. The difference between the arborescent tree and the rhizome is well established through the above principles, where the rhizome in contrast to the tree is set out as smooth and deterritorialized with no central or structured branch or body. The linear tree like structure of traditional learning is rooted in singular (delusional) logic with clearly defined (Western) epistemologies. The traditional mode of learning within the higher education ignores the multiple points of learning that could occur if learning were practice based and interactive, as happens in Service-learning. As Dimitriadis & Kamberalis, 2006) observe, “rhizomes build links between preexisting gaps and between nodes that are separated by categories and orders of segmented thinking, acting and being” (p. 89). In a similar manner, Service-learning promotes variegated learning beyond the immediate conception of course requirements. Deleuze and Guattari (1987, p. 7) state that, “any point of a rhizome can be connected to anything other, and must be. This is very different from the tree or the root, which plots a point fixes an order” (p. 7). Applying the rhizomatic model to Servicelearning pathway, students may begin with a given identity, but are able to form different subject positions for themselves in and through service activities. Like the rhizome, Service-learning Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol 36, 6, May 2011 5 provides an opportunity for students to build links and to overcome gaps in knowledge-based comprehension. Although the rhizome signifies mapping and deterritorializing, Deleuze and Guattari (1987) deny a firm binary between the tree and the rhizome; for them, the rhizome-tree exists in metaphoric connections where “there are knots of arborescence in rhizomes and rhizomatic offshoots in roots” (p. 20). The rhizome forms and re-forms by conforming to the principles that underlie its composition. As Gregoriou (2004, p. 244) states, “the rhizome is perpetually in construction or collapsing”. By applying this rhizomatic principle, Service-learning is perceived as not dissociated from the structured principles of learning favored in institutions, while at the same time, it provides for practical, and lived experiences. Similar to the rhizome, aspects of Service-learning may conform to the structured format of formal learning because, as Butin (2006) rightly observes, “higher education is a disciplining mechanism”, so the benefit for Service-learning lies in being similar to, rather than completely different and distanced from, the academic unit with which it is associated (p. 491). Interrelated with the rhizome are the concepts of nomad and haecceity. While the nomad explains how spaces deterritorialize and re-territorialize, haecceity describes that assemblage, in this context, the teaching, learning nexus that comprises Service-learning. For Deleuze and Guattari (1987), nomads experience freedom by being unconstrained and through constant movement. In the Service-learning context, smooth space and displacement that is the result of being nomadic (Semetsky, 2004; St. Pierre, 1997) occurs when students in new spaces experience new ways of learning. As St. Pierre (1997, p. 367) observes, nomadic identity attends to the requirements of the place, in this case, the requirements of the service organization helping students to develop a sense of belonging during their engagement. The associated concept of haecceity explains the specificity or this-ness of Service-learning (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, pp. 260-262). We interpret haecceity as the individual and particular engagement that each student is enabled through Service-learning and to the process of learning that occurs when students are involved in the service aspect of learning. Together, these concepts provide for rhizomatic ways of thinking about service as a form of learning that occurs in key moments at different intensities at different sites. The interconnections between formal learning in academia and the lived experiences of learning through doing make the pedagogical aspects of Service-learning significant. With its propensity to resist the “lines of articulation or segmentarity” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p. 4) that crystallize institutional learning, Service-learning provides for de-stratification of the values of education along “lines of flight”. The lines of flight are not discrete or isolated and enable cohesive, tangential yet interconnected roots and lines in multiple spots. As Butin (2005, pp. viiviii) observes, “Service-learning challenges our static notions of teaching and learning, de-centers our claim to the labels of ‘students’ and ‘teachers’, and exposes and explores the linkages between power, knowledge, and identity” (p. vii-viii). We believe that Service-learning achieves the above through a rhizomatic approach to knowledge gain and application; through its capacity to de-center, through its propensity to be applied at multiple points and for enabling the participant to engage in a variety of experience. The significant aspect of Service-learning for us as educators/researchers is that it enables students to experience learning as an intensity where each layer of experience is interconnected and spans the academic and practice field. To explain the rhizomatic processes involved in Service-learning we proceed to examine the data.