Topical Synthesis #8

Community-Based Learning:
A Foundation for Meaningful Educational
Reform
January 1996

Thomas R. Owens
Changhua Wang
In my community experience, I went from learning what something is, to applying it to
real life. I learned why I need to know the things that I learned in math class. I had a
chance to work with some neat people who let me try out things for myself. The mentor
really seemed to care about me as a person, and I had fun.—A Student

Introduction
Many of today's leaders in education, business, and community development are coming
to realize, even more than in the past, that schools alone cannot prepare our youth for
productive adulthood. These leaders are ready to try new approaches that link learning
activities in classrooms with a full range of learning experiences available in our
communities.

Perhaps more important than the views of adults are the views of young people about
themselves and their schools. Students often complain that their classes are irrelevant, not
related to what occurs outside of the classroom, and lacking opportunities for hands-on
applications. They feel they are treated as children instead of being given adult
responsibilities. They feel cut off from meaningful relationships with caring adults. As a
result, they are often unmotivated to study and view education as something imposed by
adults rather than an exciting opportunity for them to develop their skills and contribute
to others. In short, there is a growing consensus that change is needed in education, not
only in reforming what is taught but also in how and where it is taught.

This topical synthesis summarizes what we have learned over the past 20 years about
various community-based learning programs and describes how community-based
learning can serve as an important contribution to educational reform in the future. The
paper first defines what we mean by community-based learning and discusses it as a
philosophy, program, set of strategies, and expected outcomes. Next, we describe the
advantages of having multiple outcomes for community-based learning that include a
youth development perspective. We review the barriers that have faced this form of
learning. The research regarding community-based learning is discussed, followed by its
contribution to educational reform. Finally, we state some conclusions and
recommendations for future directions. Following the text we cite key references and
general references.
 What is Community- Based Learning?
This synthesis uses the term community-based learning as a broad framework that
includes service-learning, experiential learning, School-to-Work, youth apprenticeship,
lifelong learning and other types. A problem with these individual approaches is that each
focuses on only a portion of the learning outcomes that can potentially be achieved
through community-based learning. For example, service-learning concentrates on
learning emerging from service provided to meet important needs—such as cleaning up
our rivers—in a particular community, while School-to-Work generally focuses only on
preparing youth for employment.

We define community-based learning as the broad set of teaching/learning strategies that

enable youth and adults to learn what they want to learn from any segment of the
community. Our definition provides for learners of all ages to identify what they wish to
learn and opens up an unlimited set of resources to support them. By community, we are
including the schools, formal and informal institutions in one's neighborhood, and the
entire world through such resources as the Internet.

Principles of community-based learning relate to the changing nature of society, the

learner, the learning processes, and sources for learning. These principles have been
articulated and refined over a five-year period by participants in a summer seminar
organized by the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory and focused on future
directions in work-relevant education. This group, in preparing A Model for
Restructuring Education for the 21st Century (Owens 1994), identified several critical
assumptions that can serve as a foundation for community-based learning:

• Education must be viewed as a continuum from preschool through lifelong

education for adults.
• Learning is what we do for ourselves. It therefore requires the full involvement of
the learner as well as the teacher/mentor.
• Jobs in the future will require not only more education, but a different type of
education that includes critical thinking, teamwork, and the ability to apply
knowledge.
• Adults need to be involved in community affairs and to balance work, family and
community responsibilities.
• Problems affecting learners today are much broader than schools alone can solve.
Involvement of the family, business, labor, the community, and other agencies is
essential.
• Resistance by some teachers, schools, and communities to the changes implied by
the above assumptions is to be expected. Helping these groups to see the need for
change and to feel empowered to guide these changes is an important challenge
facing the new leadership in education. Without this vision, supported by
adequate resources and staff development, these changes are unlikely to occur.
 Examples of Community-Based Learning Programs
Many programs have been funded and developed that involve important elements of
community-based learning. A few of them are described here briefly, and their
contributions to the learning process are discussed in the next section. Service-learning,
Experience-Based Career Education, Cooperative Education, Tech Prep, School-to-Work,
and Youth Apprenticeship are some of the more common ones.

Service-Learning

The National and Community Service Act of 1990 (amended in 1993) defined service-
learning as a method of teaching and learning: 1) by which young people learn and
develop through active participation in thoughtfully organized service experiences that
meet community needs and that are coordinated with the school and community; 2) that
is integrated into the academic curriculum or provides structured time for a young person
to think, talk, or write about what he/she did and saw during the service activity; 3) that
provides young people with opportunities to use newly acquired academic skills and
knowledge in real-life situations in their own communities; and 4) that enhances what is
taught in the school by extending student learning beyond the classroom and into the
community and helps to foster the development of a sense of caring for others (Alliance
for Service-Learning in Education Reform 1993, p. 971).

In a more abbreviated form, service-learning has been defined by the National Service-
Learning Cooperative as "a teaching/learning method that connects meaningful
community service experiences with academic learning, personal growth, and civic
responsibility" (Poulsen 1994, p. 4). The National and Community Service Trust Act was
signed in 1994 to create opportunities for young people to become personally involved in
improving their communities while pursuing their personal and social development. As
stated in the recent Youth Preparation for Employment policy reference document
(Council of Chief State School Officers 1994, p. 23),

Service represents a point of interface between school-, community- and work-site

learning and can be used at almost any point in the youth development continuum,
kindergarten through post high school. Service-learning represents an opportunity for
schools and postsecondary institutions to work with employers and young people to
provide meaningful opportunities for community service combined with the academic
and technical skills that employers require. For children, it offers exposure to the world of
work and community and provides a context for building academic and work readiness
skills. For youth, it offers valuable explorations into and experiences with real world
needs which can be addressed through action and initiative while further solidifying their
work readiness, academic and technical skills. Service represents a holistic approach to
youth development and the building of multiple competencies.

Experience Based Career Education

Experience Based Career Education (EBCE) was developed by four regional educational
laboratories in the early 1970s. As Bucknam and Brand (1983) state:

EBCE was designed to bridge the gap between study and experience and between the
classroom and the community. It takes the subject matter students normally study, adds
many new ingredients about people, jobs, self, and the way communities work, and lets
high school and post-secondary students learn about them in the community through
direct interaction with adults in all walks of life. In the process students earn academic
credit, explore the real dimensions of many careers, learn much about who they are and
what they want to become, and master many of the skills they will need to succeed as
adults in America (p. 66).

Recently, Shumer (1995) has stated that:

Many of the [EBCE] programs included service-learning activities, with students

working in hospitals, schools, day-care centers, and many social agencies. Students tied
their community learning experiences to classes held on campus, usually as part of their
regular academic program. In many ways, these EBCE programs were more integrated
into the curriculum than most service-learning programs today (p. 2).

The concepts of EBCE first developed in the early 1970s have generated some projects
that have continued on for over 20 years. They have also served as the springboard for a
new set of programs funded by the U.S. Department of Education, called Community-
Based Education Centers, that are being coordinated by the Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory in six communities across the United States.

Cooperative Education

Cooperative education is probably the most common form of community-based learning

program used by the schools. It was offered by 47 percent of the nation's public high
schools in 1991-92 (Stern, et al. 1994, p. 5). In most cases, cooperative education is a
paid experience in which students are employed in jobs directly related to the vocational
courses they are studying in high school or college. Students receive school credit for this
supervised work. The level of coordination between the school staff and the employers
varies widely from program to program. While associated mainly with high schools or
community colleges, cooperative education programs have operated successfully at a
number of public and private colleges.

As a federally funded program, cooperative education has been defined in the 1990
Perkins Amendment as

...a method of instruction of vocational education for individuals who, through written
cooperative arrangements between the school and employers, receive instruction,
including required academic courses and related vocational instruction, by alternation of
study in school with a job in any occupational field. Such alternation shall be planned and
supervised by the school and employers so that each contributes to the student's education
and to his or her employability (Stern, et al. 1994, p. 13).

Tech Prep

Tech Prep is a federally funded program begun under the Tech Prep Education Act as part
of the 1990 Perkins Amendment. Tech Prep programs are operating in all 50 states
through consortia involving secondary and postsecondary institutions in collaboration
with business and industry. Generally, these programs start in at least 11th grade and
encourage students to complete an associate degree or higher. Vocational curricula
focusing on high technology areas are combined with applied academic courses that are
designed to prepare students for success in high-performance workplaces. While
cooperative education is generally perceived as a course or program, Tech Prep is viewed
by some as a specific program focused primarily on the average student and by others as
an educational reform measure intended for all secondary students. Key elements
intended for all students include career counseling, an individual student plan, and often
career clusters or pathways that all secondary students are expected to chose from in
order to give direction in the high school courses they select to take.

School-to-Work

The School-to-Work Opportunities Act signed into law on May 4, 1994 is one of the
newcomers to the community-based learning club. Districts receiving School-to-Work
funds are expected to have three major elements: 1) school-based learning related to each
student's interests, including broad-based academics, career exploration and counseling;
2) work-based learning that provides a planned program of job training experiences, paid
work experience, workplace mentoring, and instruction in general workplace
competencies and in a broad variety of elements of an industry; and 3) activities to
connect the two through training of teachers, counselors, and mentors and through
involvement of schools and employers.

As with Tech Prep, School-to-Work is perceived by some educators to be a program with

specific students enrolled and by others as an educational reform strategy involving all
students. The legislation itself stresses that School-to-Work is intended for all students
and is meant to be systemic reform. As with other educational reform efforts, School-to-
Work is sometimes associated with only a portion of the community-based learning
continuum and thus fails to achieve its potential impact.

Youth Apprenticeship

While the above examples of community-based learning are governed by federal

legislation and funding, youth apprenticeship, as conceived by Steven Hamilton (1990)
and others, draws on Hamilton's study of apprenticeships in Germany and programs such
as the Finance Academy in the United States. Hamilton has described youth
apprenticeship as involving workplaces as learning environments, creating opportunities
for mentor relationships to provide adult role models, and developing the high levels of
academic and vocational skills being sought by employers. Youth apprenticeships are
viewed by Hamilton as including "the Job Corps, Summer Training and Education
Program, community service, Foxfire programs, Experience-Based Career Education,
cooperative education, and informal apprenticeships" ( Hamilton 1990, p. 40).

Robert Jones, Assistant U.S. Secretary of Labor for Employment and Training, has said
that, "In order to increase access, teach basic skills, and use work-related structures, we
need to evolve a system in this country that is truly an American-styled apprenticeship
and school to work system." (Northdurft and Jobs for the Future 1990, p. 19).

Learning Strategies of Community-Based Learning

While community-based learning involves a philosophy and programs, most service-
learning educators agree that it is the learning strategies that are the most critical aspect
of community-based learning. At the National Conference on Service-Learning, School
Reform, and Higher Education in 1994, participants agreed that:

The focus is changing and must change from teaching to learning; from outer-directed,
"expert"-driven curriculum and methodologies to more learner-centered, experience-
based, connected ways of acquiring the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required for life
in the world in which we now live and the rapidly changing world in which our young
people will live and work (Poulsen 1994, p. 2).

What are the components of such community-based learning? Zeke Zellerman of the
Association for Experiential Learning stated, at the 1994 Work Now and in the Future
conference in Portland, Oregon, that there are three critical steps—framing (planning),
the activity itself, and reflection (Dukehart 1994). The clearer the framing, the more the
learner will get from the experience. Generally, the objectives for the learning are
developed jointly by the student and the teacher/mentor. The second step is the activity
itself, which can be simple or complex with many steps. The third critical step is
reflection or a debriefing on what was learned. According to Zellerman, the reflection can
be done alone (in the form of a journal, for example) or with a group. These discussions
often include an analysis of what went right, what went wrong, and what was unexpected.
The reflection sets the stage for framing the next related activity. Programs such as
Experience-Based Career Education have developed detailed guides to help students
process what they have learned as well as to raise questions for the future.

Other key elements of community-based learning or experiential learning include use of a

mentor, student application of information collected (such as presenting it to a city
council meeting), and integrating academic learning with real-world usage.

The role of mentors in community-based learning is critical. A mentor gives advice and
encouragement, sharing the knowledge and wisdom of experience in a relationship that is
personal and enduring (Hamilton 1990, p. 156). Mentors for youth may be described as
teachers, challengers, role models, supporters, and companions. Ongoing research at
Public Private Ventures indicates that the most successful mentors are those who are
engaged in developmental relationships with youth and establish a strong, reliable bond
through enjoyment of activities chosen together, as opposed to a prescriptive relationship
in which they expected to change the youth (Morrow and Styles 1995).

The learning processes serving as a foundation for community-based learning are well
grounded in cognitive research. At the heart of cognitive research is the observation that
intelligence and expertise are built out of interaction with the environment, not in
isolation from it. This research shows that effective learning engages both head and hand
and requires both knowing and doing. In their classic book on cognitive research
applications, Berryman and Bailey (1992) point out that "Passive, fragmented, and
decontextualized instruction organized around generating right answers adds up to
ineffective learning" (p. 68). Such decontextualized learning fails to enable students to
examine the ideas they bring to the learning situation, to learn from their errors, or to look
for patterns.

Educators interested in developing effective learning practices can gain important insight
from looking at the nature of traditional apprenticeships. Berryman and Bailey identify
six characteristics that could be applied to community-based learning:

1. Apprenticeship is a way of life and may not be recognized as a teaching effort.

2. The work to be done is the driving force.
3. There is a temporal ordering of skill acquisition from easy to more difficult.
4. Bodily performance and embodied knowledge are visible.
5. Standards of performance and evaluation of competence are implicit and often
internalized by the apprentice.
6. Teachers and teaching are largely invisible.

Collins, Brown and Newman (1989) identified characteristics of ideal learning

environments that are helpful to consider as we design effective community-based
learning. Their model has four building blocks: content, methods, sequence, and
sociology. Content involves the domain knowledge such as geography or architecture,
tricks of the trade used by experts in solving problems, cognitive management strategies
such as thinking and planning skills, and learning strategies such as those needed in
exploring a new domain.

Teaching methods are used to help students observe, engage in, invent, or discover expert
strategies in context. They include modeling, coaching, scaffolding and fading
(suggestions or support initially given by the teacher), articulation to get students to
identify the knowledge and problem-solving strategies they use, reflection to compare
one's problem-solving strategies with those of experts, and exploration to solve problems
and raise new questions.

Sequencing allows learning to be staged and involves increasing complexity of tasks and
concepts needed, increasing diversity of strategies or skills used, and developing an
overview before attending to details.
The sociology of learning involves reproducing the real-world environment for learning.
It involves active communication with expert practitioners, intrinsic motivation for
learning, cooperative learning, and competitive learning to compare the processes
developed by various learners to create a product.

Frequently, a few of the above processes are used in individual community-based

learning projects but seldom—if ever—are all of them systematically used in planning
and carrying out learning. If they were to be used, the likelihood of more positive and
consistent outcomes would increase.

Cognitive research over the past ten years has shown that the quality of cognitive
performance often depends on the context in which the performance occurs. People who
perform tasks well in one setting may not perform them well in other settings. Learning
which is "situated" in practical, work-related contexts is both faster and more effective
than learning which is purely classroom based and unrelated to the contexts in which it is
to be applied (Resnick 1987).

Cognitive research is being applied today not only in schools but in industry. Erica
Sorohan (1993) has identified some workplace applications of this research and illustrates
five lessons learned:

• We embed learning in our individual experiences, so we learn best when we direct

our own learning.
• We learn most effectively in context, so learning should be linked directly to
work.
• We learn from each other, so workplaces should enable us to communicate and
collaborate freely.
• We continuously create knowledge, so we need to learn how to capture what we
know and share it with others.
• We learn unconsciously, so we need to learn how to recognize and question our
tacit assumptions (p. 48).

The principles cited above are equally applicable to schools and workplaces.

In a study of common elements of three distinctly different types of community-based

learning programs (Foxfire, EBCE, and Outward Bound), five aspects of learning
strategies were identified. Common learning strategies were found to: 1) be based on an
explicit theory of learning; 2) encourage learners to perform tasks normally given to
adults in our society; 3) emphasize a balance of action, reflection, and application; 4)
provide learning experiences that are individualized, sequential, and developmental; and
5) provide opportunities for unplanned learning from new experiences (Druian, Owens,
and Owen 1995).

Given the above discussion of characteristics of effective learning, Berryman (1995)

raises the question of where cognitive apprenticeship skills can best be learned—the
schools or in workplaces. The answer is that they can be learned in either place if the
conditions are right. To help reach a decision for a particular community, Berryman poses
four useful questions (pp. 209-213):

1. Is the location organized to deliver effective and efficient learning?

2. Does the learning location reflect the knowledge demands of the workplace and
the work contexts in which knowledge and skill have to be used?
3. Does the learning location deliver knowledge and skills that are broadly
applicable?
4. Does the learning location blur the division between academic and vocational?

Expected Outcomes of Community-Based Learning

The outcomes of community-based learning cover the full range of knowledge, skills, and
attitudes needed to be an effective citizen, worker, and lifelong learner. Articles and
research reports across the various categories of community-based learning suggest five
major outcome areas: 1) academic, 2) career and vocational, 3) personal-social
development, 4) service and work values, and 5) understanding and use of community
resources.

As Robert Blum has pointed out,

Goals for student learning are changing. While there is still an expectation that students
learn important facts, there is growing emphasis on application of facts in problem
solving and relating facts to life outside the school. In addition to learning traditional
subject areas, students are expected to think critically, collaborate with others, transition
smoothly from school to work, fit into an increasingly diverse community, integrate what
they learn across subjects and much more. As the content of what is to be learned
changes, so must the methodologies of both learning and teaching shift (Blum 1995, p.
8).

Andrew Furco, from the Service-Learning R&D Center at the University of California at
Berkeley, has presented a systematic look at the similarities and differences of service-
learning and School-to-Work transition programs. He describes the intended purposes of
both reforms as career development, academic development, personal development,
social development, civic responsibility, and ethical development (Furco 1995).

While many community-based learning programs include academic learning as an

outcome, it is usually approached as a way to reinforce the basic concepts learned in
school. Motivation to learn the basics and the ability to apply them to real life situations
are the unique additions of community-based learning.

While School-to-Work and service learning cover a wide spectrum of learner outcomes, a
third set comes from the field of youth development. These outcomes include skill in
being an active and self-directed learner, leadership, and personal and social
responsibility. Zeldin (1995) and others, in their attempt to integrate School-to-Work and
youth development, state that young people require opportunities and supports to achieve
desirable outcomes.

Two important federal initiatives provide a useful framework for looking at the learner
outcomes of community-based learning—Goals 2000 and the SCANS report. The
GOALS 2000: Educate America Act calls for the development of comprehensive state
education strategies that result in the attainment of the national educational goals and
lifelong learning systems.

Several of the national goals are being impacted directly by community-based learning.
Goal 2 states that by the year 2000, the high school graduation rate will increase to at
least 90 percent. Community-based learning makes school relevant to students by
connecting academic concepts to real-life applications and makes students active learners
who are responsible for their own learning.

Goal 3 deals with student achievement and citizenship. It states that by the year 2000, all
students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging
subject matter, including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and
government, economics, arts, history, and geography, and that every school in America
will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for
responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our nation's
modern economy. In 1993, the nation's governors adopted service-learning as an indicator
of citizenship in Goal 3.

A second curriculum framework for grouping the skills needed to be an effective worker
comes from the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) in the
U.S. Department of Labor. In 1993 the commission produced a useful document called
Teaching the SCANS Competencies that illustrates how these competencies can be taught
in schools and communities. The SCANS outcomes are made up of five competencies
and a three-part foundation of skills and personal qualities needed for high-quality job
performance. The competencies state that effective workers can productively use
resources, interpersonal skills, information, systems, and technology, with each of these
spelled out in greater detail. For example, interpersonal skills include working on teams,
teaching others, serving customers, leading, negotiating, and working well with people
from culturally diverse backgrounds. The foundations consist of basic skills (reading,
writing, mathematics, speaking, and listening), thinking skills (thinking creatively,
making decisions, solving problems, visualizing, knowing how to learn, and reasoning),
and personal qualities (individual responsibility, self-esteem, sociability, self-
management and integrity).

A third grouping of community-based learning outcomes is a modification of the ones

developed by the American Society for Training and Development (Carnevale, Gainer,
and Meltzer 1990). In the ASTD book, Workplace Basics: The Essential Skills Employers
Want, the authors identify seven areas: 1) learning to learn; 2) basic competencies in
reading, writing, and computation; 3) communication skills of speaking and listening
effectively; 4) problem solving and critical thinking; 5) managing personal and
professional growth; 6) group effectiveness; and 7) influencing skills, including
understanding of organizational climate and leadership. For each area, the authors
describe what is intended, the theories that support it, and how it can be taught in schools
and in the workplace, and then provide examples. As a result of seminar participation at
the Menucha Summer Conference sponsored by the Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory (NWREL) over a three-year period, participants added three outcome areas to
the ASCD list: technological literacy, social-global awareness, and general occupational
skills such as safety and flexibility. For each of the ten outcome areas NWREL staff, with
the input of the Menucha participants, developed a set of specific learner outcomes,
school delivery strategies, and family and community-based delivery strategies (Owens
1994).

Conrad and Hedin (1989), based on a review of research in the field and various large-
scale evaluations they had conducted of community-based learning programs (excluding
those focused on workforce preparation), identified areas where they expected such
programs to have a positive effect on youth. They grouped these outcomes under three
headings: personal growth and development, intellectual development and academic
learning, and social growth and development. Their specific outcomes expected are listed
below.

Personal Growth and Development

• Self-esteem
• Personal efficacy (sense of worth and competence)
• Ego and moral development
• Exploration of new roles, identities, and interests
• Willingness to take risks, accept new challenges
• Taking responsibility for, accepting consequences of own actions

Intellectual Development and Academic Learning

• Higher-level thinking skills

• Content and skills directly related to service experience
• Skills in learning from experience (to observe, ask questions, apply knowledge)
• Motivation to learn and retention of knowledge
• Insight, judgment, and understanding

Social Growth and Development

• Political efficacy
• Knowledge and exploration of service-related careers
• Understanding and appreciation of, and ability to relate to, people from a wide
range of backgrounds and life situations

Whereas the outcomes listed above are expected, research results actually documenting
some of them are discussed later in this synthesis.
 Advantages to an Integrated Approach
Just as high schools are often justly criticized by students for compartmentalizing
instruction—50 minutes of history, followed by algebra and then physical education, for
example—so, too, do community-based learning programs sometimes focus too narrowly
on outcomes immediately related to their funding. From an individual young person's
perspective, it makes no sense to learn only leadership skills from the Boy Scouts, career
development from a career exploration at a local company, and service-learning from a
separate class that has students visiting residents in a nursing home. Fragmentation is
undesirable whether it occurs in the school, a business, or a family.

A more integrated alternative can be found in certain mentorship approaches where a

young person gets to know and trust an adult. The student might gain career knowledge
by shadowing the mentor in his or her company. He or she might apply business
management skills by accompanying the mentor into management meetings (where the
student is expected to contribute to a problem-solving discussion and perhaps write a
report that can be shared with the English teacher on how communications problems
were identified and solved). The young person could also accompany and assist the
mentor as he or she takes two hours from work each week to serve as a volunteer tutor in
an inner-city elementary school.

From an organizational perspective, too, it is satisfying to combine outcomes of

community-based learning. Businesses are often overwhelmed by frequent requests from
schools to engage in many diverse activities—furnishing speakers, providing job
shadowing, supervising a teacher or student intern, and volunteering time to tutor
students in math. An alternative is to design ways that a business or other community
organization can combine efforts. For example, while students are at a hospital to perform
service-learning, they might also hear about the variety of occupations at the hospital, and
do a science project in one of the laboratories.

Barriers to Community-Based Learning

With all that we know about the benefits of community-based learning, why has it
affected relatively few educators and students, rather than becoming a mainstay of
America's educational reform?

From an ideological perspective, many educators still maintain an older paradigm of

education, in which its purpose is to impart to students the content knowledge possessed
by the teacher. In such a paradigm there is no need for input from students about what is
to be learned, when, where, or how. The teacher maintains control in directing education,
and students are tested to determine the extent to which they have remembered what was
taught. Under the new paradigm, teachers need to function more in the role of coach and
mentor.
A second ideological barrier is the perception of many school and community people that
the subject matter content they learned in school should serve as the driving force in what
is taught today. Failing to recognize or acknowledge the importance of applying
knowledge to real-world issues, they see community-based learning as drawing students'
time and attention away from the traditional curriculum content.

From a practical perspective, community-based learning requires commitment from the

top as well as from dedicated teachers. Community-based learning requires time, effort,
and expense. Time is needed to allow teachers to work individually with students in
identifying and planning learning objectives, in arranging for involvement of community
sites, and in helping students reflect on their experiences. Other practical considerations
include liability coverage for times when students are outside the school building,
transportation issues, and the need to schedule blocks of time so as to allow students
sufficient time to get to and from their learning sites as well as to become active there.
Orientation and training of both educators and community mentors are also essential.

It is necessary to spend time in creating an awareness among students, parents, educators,

and community members of the purposes of community-based learning so that they don't
see it as simply releasing students into the community without clear expectations of what
is to occur. A final problem is the difficulty of effectively evaluating what is learned from
student's experiences in community-based learning. This assessment is complicated by
the fact that different students may be at the same learning site for different purposes, and
that some community-based learning outcomes (identified in the prior section) are
difficult to measure.

The Research Literature on Community-Based

Learning
Much of the research on community-based learning has focused on individual programs
and has assessed outcomes without a clear understanding of the elements that underlie a
quality community-based learning experience. Just as students can fall asleep in their
history class, so, too, can they waste time at a job site; not all workplace experiences lead
to productive learning. This review of the literature first discusses the characteristics and
quality of learning processes and then moves to attempts to document outcomes. We
identify barriers faced in conducting quality research on community-based learning and
describe some promising directions for the future.

Characteristics of High- Quality Learning Programs and Experiences

One attempt to identify common characteristics of programs classified under the broad
heading of School-to-Work was made by the National Center for Research in Vocational
Education in its publication, Research on School-to-Work Transition Programs in the
United States. The researchers identified fourteen features and determined the relative
frequency of these features in six programs: Cooperative Education, School-Based
Enterprise, Tech Prep, School-to-Apprenticeship, Youth Apprenticeship, and Career
Academies. The fourteen features were: 1) structured work-based learning while in
school, 2) school curriculum that builds on work experience, 3) paid work experience, 4)
employer-provided financial support, 5) program-arranged student work placement, 6)
employer involvement in curriculum design, 7) integrated vocational and academic
curriculum, 8) formal links to postsecondary education, 9) employment/college
counseling, 10) pre-11th grade academic preparation, 11) pre-11th grade career
exploration, 12) targeting of at-risk or non-college bound students, (13) use of outside
mentors, and 14) occupational certification (Stern, et al. 1994, p. 8).

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory staff conducted a study of over 1,000 EBCE
students in 24 states to determine young people's perceptions of what characteristics of a
worksite are important for quality learning (Owens 1982). In addition to open-ended
questions about their experiences at learning sites, students were asked to rate the
importance of each of 19 characteristics in contributing to an excellent learning
opportunity. At worksites judged by students as providing rich learning experiences, they

• often learned job-specific skills including use of tools or equipment and gained
specific knowledge of how the job operates through hands-on experiences
• More often described the people they worked with as helpful and friendly
• Generally worked closely with more than one person and formed a personal
relationship with at least one person with whom they worked
• Reported completing tasks (judged by outside consultants) to have high or
moderate levels of responsibility and were perceived to be challenging. (Owens
1982, pp. 89-90)

At a broader level, Goldberger, Kazis and O'Flanagan (1994) have identified

characteristics of high-quality environments that provide structure and support for young
people. They found that such worksite learning requires the following:

• Partners formally agree on the goals of the work-based program and how to
achieve them.
• Student learning at the workplace progresses according to a structured plan.
• Work-based experiences promote the development of broad, transferable skills.
• School-based activities help students distill and deepen lessons of work
experience.
• The program prepares students to enter the workplace.
• Ongoing support and counseling is provided for students.
• Orientation, training, and ongoing support to worksite and school staff are
provided.
• Administrative structures exist to coordinate and manage the worksite component.
• Mechanisms are in place to assure the quality of students' work-based learning
experiences.
Research conducted by staff at the Center for Youth Development and Policy Research
has identified five key opportunities and supports needed to achieve desirable youth
outcomes:

• Opportunities for active and self-directed learning

• Opportunities to take on new roles and responsibilities
• Ongoing emotional support from adults and peers
• Ongoing motivational support and high standards from adults, and
• Ongoing access to strategic support and social networks (Zeldin 1995, p. 10-11)

In the past, practitioners involved in community-based learning were often not interested
in participating in program evaluation and sometimes saw it as interfering with students'
progress. This attitude seems to have changed in recent years, as evaluation has shifted in
emphasis toward continuous quality improvement, and as educators have become more
sensitive to the needs of legislators and the public for accountability.

Other barriers to effective research and evaluation of community-based learning have

been the lack of a definition and theoretical framework for much of the evaluation,
differences in the quality and intensity of programs labeled School-to-Work or service-
learning, the difficulty of measuring some of the skills and affective outcomes of
community-based learning, and the confusion about how each program or practice may
contribute to total educational reform.

Learner Outcomes

One of the earliest and most intensively evaluated School-to-Work programs has been
Experience-Based Career Education. Bucknam and Brand (1983) conducted a meta-
analysis of 80 evaluations of EBCE programs. They start by distinguishing EBCE from
traditional work/education programs. In contrast to other programs, EBCE was found to:
1) use planned experience as a basis for learning academic subjects; 2) include career
exploration and multiple employer/community site utilization as opposed to job
experience at a single site; 3) expect students to take a greater role in shaping their
personalized educational plans; 4) be appropriate for and used with all types of students;
and 5) use community worksites for learning rather than for production purposes, so
students earn academic credit rather than pay.

In terms of student learning outcomes, Bucknam and Brand found positive academic
gains in 376 of 558 test administrations, including 112 where the differences were
significantly positive. When compared to similar students not in EBCE, students in
EBCE scored significantly higher in career-related skills, life skills, and in academic
skills.

A comprehensive evaluation of the four EBCE demonstration sites was conducted over a
several-year period by Educational Testing Service. This evaluation involved use of
standardized tests, in-depth interviews of EBCE and control group students, survey
questionnaires, and ethnographic studies by trained anthropologists. They found that
EBCE students, in contrast to a control group:

• Have a knowledge of a greater number of career areas

• Know more of the personal and school-related characteristics and abilities that are
necessary for entry into careers of interest
• Are more positive in their attitudes toward career planning
• Are better able to respond orally to interviewers' complex questions, and
• Had no greater gains in basic skills as measured by a standardized test (Owens
1982)

The NCRVE study of School-to-Work programs (Stern, et al. 1994) found that
participation in cooperative education was associated with more positive attitudes toward
school and a stronger perceived connection between school and work, but no consistent
association between participation in cooperative education and subsequent success in the
labor market.

The study of cooperative education by the Office of Technology Assessment (1995)

found that programs nominated as being of high quality had

participation by employers who are willing to provide training in occupations with

promising career paths, screening of applicants to assure that they are prepared to meet
employers' expectations, training plans with ambitious and specific learning objectives,
and, for high school students, close monitoring of the worksite activities by school
representatives (p. 68).

When service-learning is not mandated, the outcomes on students are generally positive.
For example, Krug (1991) found significant differences in self-esteem and attitudes
toward the school and community between high school students involved in a school-
sponsored service-learning experience and those not involved.

Shumer (1994), in studying a community-based Job Training Partnership Act program for
high school students, found that learning in the community improved attendance and
school grades. This was facilitated especially by the use of adults and college students in
helping students to learn.

Some of the most comprehensive evaluation of service-learning (commonly called

"experiential education" in the 1980s) was conducted by Conrad and Hedin at the
University of Minnesota. Their study involved 4,000 students in 33 programs and
included comparison group students. The programs included volunteer service, political
and social action, outdoor adventure, internships in government and business, and
research in the community. The opportunities to act autonomously and to develop
collegial relationships with adults were the two most powerful predictors of personal
growth. In their review of others' research findings, Conrad and Hedin (1989) found that
service-learning generally increases students' sense of personal and social responsibility,
more positive attitudes toward adults and toward those served, enhanced self-esteem,
growth in moral and ego development, and complex patterns of thought.

The research literature on required community service is mixed and generally fails to
support requiring high school students to participate in it. For example, Crossman (1989)
found that required community service did not produce as much improvement as
voluntary service. Patterson (1987) found, in fact, that while fewer than 20 hours of
required service had little impact, required participation for more than 20 hours may have
a negative impact on the process of self-actualization. On the other hand, Giles and Eyler
(1994) found that a required service-learning experience of limited intensity and duration
has a positive impact on the development of college students: they showed a significant
increase in their belief that people can make a difference, that they should be involved in
community service, and in their commitment to perform volunteer service the following
semester.

Systemic Approach to Community-Based Learning

A new movement has emerged recently to examine the similarities and differences
between service-learning and School-to-Work and to focus on linkages. At a conference
conducted in June 1995 and titled School Improvement: Strategies for Connecting
Schools and Communities, the Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, and Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation for National Service, Eli Segal, signed a formal
agreement to work together to link service-learning and School-to-Work. The conference
was attended by state teams representing both sectors.

The Council of Chief State Schools Officers, in a 1994 memorandum, presented

commonalties and a rationale for linking School-to-Work and service-learning. As quoted
from Bhaerman (1995),

Both provide environments in which students can develop various skills and
competencies including those identified by the Secretary's Commission on Achieving
Necessary Skill (SCANS) that are important for employment and responsible citizenship;
both provide students with meaningful roles in their communities; and both foster
collaboration between educators and community groups. The memorandum also presents
several rationales for linking the two methodologies including the following: both have
the potential to address such weaknesses as the lack of relevance of the curriculum or
school experience; both can motivate students to want to learn; both can build community
partnerships; and both focus on outcomes as a measure of acquired skills and knowledge.
Service learning can help address issues of "scale and access" in school-to-work
transition....Combining the approaches in a "learning continuum" can provide even
primary grade students with opportunities to develop generic work skills at an early age
(p. 2).

Service-learning also has an appeal to many parents and community groups, is relatively
easy to start, and covers areas of a curriculum such as civics and government generally
not addressed by School-to-Work. On the other hand, School-to-Work offers good links
in the curriculum between academic and vocational education, presents a model for a
four- or six-year curriculum sequence, stresses documentation of skills gained and
transportable credentials, builds in adult mentorship, and has good support from the
business community. By linking service-learning, School-to-Work and other forms of
community-based learning, educators can build a much stronger rationale for the use of
the community for learning and broaden their community support base.

Conclusions and Future Directions

This topical synthesis paper has integrated a great deal of current literature related to
contextual learning theory and its application in community-based learning. While the
research base on essential components of high-quality learning in the community is
moderate, research to prove the validity of outcomes expected from community-based
learning is still weak. New strategies, such as the application of cost-benefit analysis to
service-learning, are emerging that can complement some of the qualitative research and
provide support to those needing to justify the costs of such programs.

Although there are many programs that could be labeled community-based learning, few
educators have yet used this term or started to sell community-based learning as a broad
set of strategies to enhance educational reform. Likewise, many of the programs called
service-learning or School-to-Work are very fragmented, and students often receive only
minimal exposure to the array of learning potential that exists in the community.
Similarly, very few community-based learning programs come close to systematically
using the principles described in this synthesis for quality contextual learning.

New efforts have been implemented recently to place educators in the community for
their own learning to identify workplace applications for the subjects they teach. In some
cases, companies like The Boeing Company in Seattle have provided slots for secondary
and postsecondary teachers to explore worksites for the summer and to prepare lesson
plans based on their new learning (Owens and Wang 1994). In other cases, teams of
academic and vocational teachers have been prepared to visit companies and community
agencies to identify applications of work-based tasks related to their school subject
content (Stone-Ewing 1995). Educators have also accepted invitations from businesses
and community agencies, including government, to participate in training in areas such as
continuous quality improvement.

The examples and issues discussed in this synthesis have focused on student learning in
the community. However, it is important for educators to keep abreast of workforce
training that is taking place for existing workers. Such training costs billions of dollars
annually. Simulations, group problem solving, and other strategies are being used
effectively in many industries and may have applications for public education.

Another element related to educational reform is the transformation of some businesses

into "learning organizations." Although originating in business and industry, the learning
organization concept is starting to be applied in some schools, with all staff and students
working in open and supportive learning environments. Drucker (1995) has written
recently about the societal transformation to learning communities taking place
throughout the world.

If community-based learning is to contribute its full potential to school and educational

improvement, the following five changes appear needed:

1. Staff involved in School-to-Work, service-learning and other forms of

community-based learning will need to collaborate with each other to present a
unified message to educators and the community that there are diverse and
purposeful roles community members can play in helping young people learn and
mature.
2. The research on contextual learning will need to be studied more closely by
educators, so that they can develop and operate community-based learning efforts
that are of high quality and likely to produce significant results in students.
3. Focused research is needed on student outcomes of community-based learning
programs and efforts that are based on the contextual research literature. This
research needs to be implemented on a multi-year basis since the outcomes
expected seldom occur in a single year.
4. Educators will continue to need greater inservice and preservice training in
identifying specific ways their subject content is being used in community
settings or what new content should be infused into their courses to make them
more relevant to the real world. They will also need training on the philosophy
and methodology to support community-based learning so as to make it an
integral part of their total educational program.
5. Practitioners involved in separate School-to-Work, service-learning, and youth
development programs need to come together to identify common ground, share
their expertise, and learn from each other's efforts.

Legislators and policy makers also have a major role to play in fostering integration of
community-based learning by broadening the scope of expected outcomes. Michele
Cahill (1993), in reporting the consensus of the New York City Youth Employment
Consortium, stated,

For programs to be effective in positioning participants on pathways to success they have

to go beyond a narrow focus on acquisition of job skills or even behavioral changes...
Youth must meet needs and build competencies in many areas of their lives at the same
time as they are acquiring vocational skill (Cited by Zeldin 1995, p. 9).