


































Advances in Business Research 2011 Volume 2.pdf


Kaupins and Bodie                                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 
                                                                                                                                                                                               2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 46-56 

46 
 

Administrative Challenges of the Service Learning Lab Option with Non-Profits 
 

Gundars Kaupins, Boise State University 
Dusty Bodie, Boise State University 
 

 

Service learning provides professors an opportunity to allow students to serve nonprofit organizations 
and share their experiences through reflection sessions and reports. Based on a literature review, 

administrators such as deans, department chairs, and service learning managers have many challenges 
and potential opportunities associated with service learning in coordinating professors, students, and 
clients. To further demonstrate the challenges, a case study of the service learning lab option from a 

western university highlights administrative issues and points to gaps in present service learning 
research. Suggestions for future research follow. 
 

 

Service learning involves “an educational methodology that combines community service with explicit 
academic learning objectives, preparation for community work, and deliberate reflection” (Gelmon et al., 
2001). Service learning provides the nonprofit sector of the economy with services ranging from market 
analysis, volunteer management, advocacy, fundraising, human resource management, and financial 
analysis. The nonprofit sector comprises more than 1.9 million registered organizations, employs more 
than 13 million people, and generates annual revenues exceeding $1.1 trillion dollars (Worth, 2012).  This 
often overlooked sector offers many opportunities for experiential learning and for future internship and 
employment opportunities for students.  
 

Purpose of Paper 
 

There are several ways service learning can be completed. First, a nonprofit client comes to class, 
presents a problem, and students provide a report dealing with the problem. The client may visit the class 
several times. Students also may visit the client but they do not work for the client. Second, students 
provide significant community service for a non profit client as part of a class requirement. Students work 
at the non profit in an area related to their class and also attend lectures at school. The work and the 
lectures cover the same topic area but are not fully integrated. Third, the student works part or full-time at 
the nonprofit’s location to get credit for a full university service learning course. This approach appears 
somewhat similar to an internship.   

A final example, and focus of this paper, is the lab option that is a formal supplement to an existing 
course on a university campus. Students register for an existing course - say human resource management 
for three credits. They have an option of taking a fourth credit service learning option associated with that 
course. If they do so, they would be doing special projects for a nonprofit while requiring reflection 
sessions (described later) and reports that directly relate to the human resource management course.    

This paper describes a service learning lab option, briefly shows its immediate rewards, and then states 
some of the practical challenges that administrators face in coordinating professors, students and clients 
associated with that lab option. The main contributions of the study include a case study of the service 
learning lab option from a western university that highlights administrative issues and points to gaps 
leading to future research. 
 

LITERATURE REVIEW 
 

Most service learning literature seems to focus on the significant advantages of service learning 
assignment for university students and the communities at large through empirical studies. Examples are 
provided below. 
 

Advantages 
 

Service learning assignments in general do provide  significant  advantages  for the university students 



Kaupins and Bodie                                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 46-56 

47 
 

based on adult learning (Andragogy) theory. In this theory, adult learners should not just hear lectures but 

have a rich variety of learning experiences to enhance learning (Knowles, 1984). Service learning 

assignments provide those experiences with interviews with organization managers, visits to organization 

sites, working together in groups, and writing reports. Adult learners also can apply their vast knowledge 

in these wide settings to help nonprofits. 

University students who volunteer for service learning assignments tend to have greater leadership 

ability, social self confidence and critical thinking and conflict resolution skills (Astin and Sax, 1998; 

Astin et al., 1999). They may use their volunteer experiences to enhance career prospects to get better 

jobs and higher salaries (Freeman, 1997; Prouteau and Wolff, 2006; Katz and Rosenberg, 2005). 

Expanded volunteering is also associated with the effort to build resumes (Handy et al., 2010). 

Concerning their personality, they have broadened self-efficacy (Tucker and McCarthy, 2001), 

confidence (Konwerski and Nashman, 2002), personal satisfaction and fulfillment (Rehling, 2000), and a 

sense of social responsibility (Kolenko et al., 1996). 

Nonprofit organizations also can benefit from service learning. Organizations benefit through access to 

university resources, positive relationship opportunities with the university, awareness building of 

community issues, opportunities to contribute to the educational process, affordable access to professional 

development, and short- and long-term solutions to important community needs (Institute for Learning 

and Teaching, 2007). Studies associated with the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public 

and International Affairs student projects (Bright et al., 2007), New York University’s Robert F. Wagner 

Graduate School of Public Service Capstone Projects (Schachter and Scwartz, 2009), and several 

nonprofit graduate degree programs (Mirabella and Wish, 1999) showed general high satisfaction of 

student performance on projects as rated by nonprofit organizations receiving the services. Major issues 

covered through service learning include K-12 education, hunger, tutoring, poverty, environment/ 

sustainability issues, housing/homelessness, mentoring, health care, reading/writing, and senior/elder care 

services (Campus Compact, 2011). 

Faculty report gains from service learning. Within their classrooms, there are more lively class 

discussions, greater participant retention of course material, greater student awareness of community and 

real world issues, and more innovative approaches to classroom instruction. Outside of class, there are 

enhanced opportunities for research and publication and greater faculty awareness of community issues 

(The Institute for Learning and Teaching, 2007). In a study of service learning faculty practitioners, 

O’Meara and Niehaus (2009) found that the four dominant reasons for faculty participation in service 

learning were as a model for teaching and learning (strategy to learn the discipline, exposure to diversity), 

as an expression of personal identity (personal commitment, religious experience), as an expression of 

institutional context and mission, embedded in a specific community partnership. According to Campus 

Compact (2011) faculty can also use service learning in some institutions to contribute to their promotion 

and tenure, obtain grants related to service learning, attend service learning conferences, give awards to 

faculty, allow sabbaticals for service learning research, scholarship, and program development, and 

publish research about service learning that in turn further enhances their promotion and tenure chances. 

According to Campus Compact (2011), administrators benefit from service learning because service 

learning can enhance the organizational mission once it becomes a widespread institutional priority. 

Furthermore, major successes in service learning can be publicized to enhance the reputation of the 

educational institution and to make further connections with the nonprofit community. 
 

Challenges 
 

Though the literature tends to have glowing reports about the efficacy about service learning for 

students, nonprofit communities, professors, and administrators, the literature does not discuss as much 

the many practical problems they have in maintaining and enhancing service learning experiences.   

For example, Petkus (2000) mentions that clients sometimes fail to participate fully. They may start 

with high interest levels but as time goes on their interest falls short of full involvement. Careful 

screening of clients may be needed to ensure that they are able to follow through on projects.   



Kaupins and Bodie                                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 46-56 

48 
 

When compared to other training methods, service learning is more time consuming for the professor. 

This is especially true in terms of its initial design and facilitation (Madsen and Turnbull, 2006). In 

addition, professors might not be comfortable with this particular method of training because this is 

untried territory for some (Clark et al., 1997). 

For students, service learning can be messy and unpredictable. They face ambiguity and uncertainty in 

assignments (Bush-Bacelis, 1998). Students face problems when some contacts do not answer phone calls 

(Madsen and Turnbull, 2006). Students often receive truncated understandings of the nature of social 

problems and strategies of social change (Eby, 1998). 

Administrators include service learning coordinators, university/college presidents, deans, 

associate/assistant deans, and department chairs. Their role is to help the educational institution relate its 

mission and objectives to service learning in order to help service learning programs become an active 

part of the curriculum for professors, students, and the non-profit community. 

A major challenge for administrators is to collect the integrity of interests and cultures of all 

stakeholders. Students, clients, service learning coordinators, local governments and professors have to be 

coordinated in a way that makes sense for the school and for the client. It is too often that conversations 

and planning are done in pairs rather than representatives from all the groups involved. (Eby, 1998; 

Krisnawati, 2009). Administrators need to carefully organize the feedback provided to professors 

associated with service learning in order to make service learning effective (Chang, 2011). 

Lingnan University provides a model for the administration of service learning. The article describes 

the processes and strategies of incorporating service learning into courses and evaluating the experiences 

of students throughout the curriculum (Chan et al., 2009). What the article does not provide is how to 

document instructor’s efforts for promotion and tenure purposes and how to document how service 

learning fits in the scheme of the university. 

At California State University, the governing board gave service learning its strongest endorsement. 

Then a service learning coordinator was appointed. Workshops were offered, grants written, meetings 

held, and campus subgrants awarded. By 2000, more than 1000 service learning courses were in the 

California State University system. Unfortunately, it was not a complete system wide revolution but a 

series of mini innovations of committed individual faculty members who used service learning (Eckart et 

al., 2006). 

At Portland State University in the 1990s, the school was in the middle of a financial crisis.  

Community-based learning became one of the central pedagogies of the new general education 

curriculum known as university studies. This type of learning spread to other majors in the institution. 

Portland State’s Center of Academic Excellence “tries to integrate assessment and community 

engagement strategies into teaching and research activities and ultimately into the core of university life” 

(Kecskes and Spring, 2006, p. 223). 

At Chandler Gilbert Community College, service learning was introduced by the university by an 

orientation to faculty in all departments. A ten minute video defined service learning, illustrated the 

various models with footage from campus events, and included various testimonials from students, 

faculty and staff from a variety of community agencies. The service learning program in the English 

department in particular has continued because there has been continued commitment from the various 

department chairs who have rotated into the position (Mason and Davenport, 2006) 

Efforts to institutionalize service learning across higher education institutions have been a difficult 

task. Service learning is not already a part of the institutional practices and norms of many higher 

education bodies (Butin, 2006; O’Meara and Niehaus, 2009). Departmental reward structures might not 

appropriately support service learning in terms of tenure and promotion (Eckardt et al., 2006). In a survey 

of nine research campuses, the most cited problem in the development of service learning is the lack of 

faculty incentive and the absence of promotion and tenure rewards for engaged scholarship in the area. 

Moreover, faculty often think of service learning as somewhat anti-intellectual and related to vocational 

training (Hollander, 2009). 

 The most comprehensive research study on administrative issues on service learning involves Campus 

Compact’s (2011) survey of campus engagement efforts. In its survey of higher education institutions, 



Kaupins and Bodie                                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 46-56 

49 
 

efforts for faculty engagement include 70% of campuses providing faculty development workshops, 67% 

providing materials for reflection and assessment, 64% providing curriculum models and syllabi, 61% 

offering financial support to attend service learning conferences, 44% offering grants to support 

curriculum redesign, 44% giving awards to faculty, 41% including service learning and community 

orientation in faculty orientation, and 24% allowing sabbaticals for service learning research. 

 Also in the Campus Compact (2011) survey, efforts for institutional support of student service include 

the following: 75% public dialogs on current issues, 71% awards for students for service, 63% 

considering service in awarding scholarships, 61% providing funding for student service learning, 60% 

defining and identifying service learning courses, 59% managing liability associated with service 

placements, 57% coordinating transportation to and from community sites, 50% giving extra credit for 

community service participation, 35% designating service learning course in the course guide, 24% 

offering students mini-grants for service related initiatives, and 12% requiring service for graduation. 
 

METHODOLOGY 
 

To study administrator implications of service learning lab option, this study focuses on one state 

university in the western United States. One of the authors is a department chair and the other is a 

professor. Both teach a human resource management course offered to junior and senior level business 

students. Both have about fifty students in each human resource class. About half of the students are 

general business majors, a quarter are human resource management majors, and the rest are a mix of 

entrepreneurship, construction management, and health management majors. All general business, human 

resource management, and entrepreneurship students must take the class.  For the other students, the class 

is one of several options they may take.   

The service learning component of the class is completely optional for everyone and is one extra 

credit. Usually about five to ten students choose the service learning option per class. Students who 

register for the service learning option receive their assignments within the first week of class.  

Since individual students (rather than the entire class) volunteer to take the option of a one-credit 

service learning lab in addition to the base course, it’s less appropriate for the community sponsors to 

visit the classroom. The service learning students, however, spend generally 30-40 hours over the 

semester, serving at the nonprofit site. 
 

Administrative Steps 
 

  To implement service learning labs, several administrative steps were established: First, on the 

administrative side, the university committed to doing service learning in its overall objectives and 

college by college objectives. There is a commitment to interact with the community through service 

projects. In the College of Business and Economics, similar wording involving community engagement is 

used. However, community engagement is not considered as important as research and teaching. For 

faculty, a standard workload would involve 40% research, 40% teaching, 10% internal service, and 10% 

community engagement. Community engagement could not only include service learning but could also 

include internships, guest speaking, memberships and attendance at local professional organizations, and 

consulting. The bulk of faculty work would involve research (at least two refereed journal articles every 

five years), teaching (2-3 courses per semester), and committee assignments (2-4 depending on committee 

intensity). The loads would correspond to accreditation standards of the Association to Advance 

Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) in which the university desires to continue. 

Second, a clear commitment to service learning was set by the university in hiring a full-time service 

learning manager and staff and by setting the mission of the service learning program. The service 

learning program exists to foster active citizenship and enhance learning through academically-based 

community service. The program provides logistical support by prescreening agencies who are oriented to 

work with college students, providing sample forms, agreements, timelines, and checklists, providing 

teaching assistants for monitoring, record keeping, and trouble shooting, organizing evaluations for 

students agencies, and faculty, and establishing online student project registration and partnership 



Kaupins and Bodie                                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 
                                                                                                                                                                                               2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 46-56 

50 
 

coordination. Course planning support includes one-on-one planning consultation, sample syllabi, 
workshops and roundtables with other faculty, and a supportive network with other faculty on campus 
participating in service learning. There is grant support of $300 planning grant for first time service 
learning faculty. Online liability policies include safety policies for students and risk and liability 
coverage. 

The service learning program has several resources that showcase faculty for their promotion and 
tenure portfolio. On the service learning website, various service-learning publishing outlets, tips and 
other resources are presented. Many of these resources come from the National Service Learning Clearing 
House. To document service learning in a promotion and tenure portfolio, the service learning department 
suggests various actions and strategies. The department also outlines various ways faculty can gain 
recognition through participation in service learning in the university and the community. Recognition 
can come in the form of letters to the provost for new service learning faculty, letters of appreciation from 
the service learning director to the dean, news bites to the local media about service learning 
accomplishments, service learning Faculty of the Year awards, civic engagement exhibitions, certificates 
for completing a service learning faculty fellows seminar, and exemplar syllabi posted on the service 
learning website. 

Third, the university committed to establishing service learning by authorizing one credit lab additions 
to existing three credit courses. Professors could voluntarily choose to add service learning credit by 
contacting their department chair about six months before the new semester started. The course, such as 
human resource management would not only have an HRM 305 listing for three credits but would also 
have an HRM 305SL (service learning) listing for one credit. That one credit listing would be optional for 
students if they were to choose HRM 305. 
 Fourth, community partner relationships are developed and found through the help of the service 
learning staff and other parts of the university such as small business development centers, prior students, 
prior nonprofits, or articles in the local or university newspaper. Advertising in the newspaper should 
highlight that the service is free and several students would be providing consulting for free. The service 
learning center sponsors a semi-annual service learning Volunteer Expo in which professors with 
potential nonprofits could get together to provide potential linkages for future classes. 
 Fifth, individual colleges incorporated service learning by encouraging professors to voluntarily 
participate. In the statement of objectives in the College of Business and Economics, participation in 
community activities is encouraged. Community engagement is one of the four prongs of faculty activity 
that are to be recorded electronically in a database called Digital Measures that all faculty share. That 
database is used by department chairs to help determine faculty pay raises and promotion and tenure. 
 

Professor, Student, and Client Steps 
 

Once the administrative portion is completed and the students have registered for the service learning 
section, it is up to the professor, student and client to finish the job of the service learning.  Several steps 
must be completed among them: 
 First, the professor and students must identify the need for service. Service assignments vary based on 
the organization’s needs and the experience level of the student. The human resource management course 
(HRM) typically has a specific HRM related project, such as developing a policy manual, collecting and 
analyzing data for a records retention system, updating client and volunteer files, assisting refugees in 
identifying and applying for jobs, and helping design and administer training programs. The specific 
project related assignment gives a focused, in depth view of one HRM practice, or may address several 
HRM areas.  

Second, the client, student, and professor must be coordinated during the semester. Reflection sessions 
with the students enrolled in the lab and the instructor are held bi-weekly to apply course principles to 
their experiences. Student selection of different agencies adds richness to the discussion. In addition to the 
30-40 hours of HRM service, each student conducts a one-hour interview with a manager, volunteer 
coordinator, or executive director close to the end of the semester. This is another opportunity for the 



Kaupins and Bodie                                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 46-56 

51 
 

students to reflect on their live experience and ask course content-related (both structured and semi-

structured) questions of the manager. This one-hour interview allows in depth interchange between the 

student and community sponsor and prepares the student for a required analytical report of the student’s 

learning experiences and applications to course principles. Often student recommendations and 

observations are sought by the nonprofit manager to aid in strategic planning.    

With most nonprofits in the community, attendance at a group orientation is also required. In addition 

to being a way to solidify the obligations of the community partner and student, this is another 

worthwhile experience shared with other volunteers, service learners, and trainers.   

 In order to expose many students to the uniqueness of service learning, and the nonprofit sector, the 

lab students are required to present a short report to the larger class and answer questions about their 

service learning experience and its application to the course curriculum. In addition to sharing the real life 

experiences with the larger audience, this presentation is usually one of the best received presentations of 

the semester. For some curious students, this is the first informational encounter with the nonprofit sector 

seen through a peer’s experience. For others, it is a compelling invitation to enlist in other experiential 

learning activities such as civic engagement, volunteerism, internships, or even employment. 

 The immediate positive benefits and especially weaknesses of the service learning module are based 

on a combination of author perceptions and service learning evaluations by students over the last year and 

a half since the beginning of 2010.   
 

Administrative Benefits in Service Learning 
 

Service learning fits the College of Business and Economics objectives of having more contact with 

the outside community. While a career opportunity may arise in many cases, the primary objective of the 

service learning experience is application of course concepts while meeting a community need. As this 

happens, students also reflect upon themselves personally and professionally and consider their 

responsibilities to the larger community. According to one of the human resource management lab 

students, “It has changed my perception of the value of social services and the important role that they 

play in society and in our communities. I further recognize the importance of valuing people for who they 

are and the affect that each person has on everyone else.” Another echoed this sentiment, adding, 

“…helping people in need is much more gratifying than receiving any type of paycheck. Paychecks end 

up getting spent on something that ends up getting thrown away while the memories you get from 

watching a kid smile at a Christmas Party because they are opening a present that some stranger got them 

is without a doubt something that will make anyone smile.”  

Service learning provides both direct (to the service-learner) and indirect (other members of the class 

not involved in the service requirement) benefits. For example, one member of the class audience was so 

curious about the highlighted community organization, that after class she went directly to the computer 

lab to learn more about it. Subsequently, she enrolled for and completed a major fundraising marathon 

race. In doing so, she found that she had a distinct interest in employment in the nonprofit sector, 

something that she had not considered before. She has recently been offered and accepted a part-time 

position with this social service agency recruiting volunteers.   

Most students involved with the program state there is self-gratification at being able to personally 

contribute assistance to nonprofit social service agencies and especially the clients. They often declare 

that they will continue their service with this or other agencies. Many students also express satisfaction in 

learning about the nonprofit sector and applying classroom topics with an actual real-world nonprofit 

organization, something they had not had the opportunity to do with this sector, in other classes.  

Service learning has helped the College of Business and Economics compete with other business 

schools in the area. There are a plethora of for-profit on-line programs that do not have service learning or 

even internships. These programs in our university provide a competitive advantage to the seven schools 

that have entered the region. We have been able to advertise service learning on our website showing the 

variety of nonprofit organization opportunities students can receive. 



Kaupins and Bodie                                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 46-56 

52 
 

With the service learning contacts, there is potential for making excellent money raising contacts for 

student scholarships and further enhancements to the service learning program. The money could be 

coming from the nonprofits themselves or board members who see the advantages of continued 

relationships with the college or university.   
 

Administrative Challenges in Service Learning 
 

A major challenge for deans, department chairs, and the service learning manager at the university is 

to make sure that the service learning lab option fits in the strategic plan of the university, colleges, and 

departments. It has to make sense for professors to be encouraged to add the lab option not only to 

enhance the program but also to enhance their careers. At the university, service learning is encouraged 

but is not a top priority. Because of the lack of prioritization in service learning, getting faculty to add one 

credit to their teaching load with service learning is like pulling teeth. It is at the goodness of their heart 

that they do it because it takes time away from research which is the top priority. Faculty must publish 

two to three major refereed journal articles in five years to be academically qualified according to our 

accreditation goals.   

Service learning adds one extra credit to a professor’s teaching load. This one extra credit might not 

make sense for a new assistant professor in a major university whose major mission should be to publish 

in journals rather than focus on teaching. Service learning with all of its reflection sessions, search for 

new clients, and extra grading would simply take away time from the research without getting much 

credit in return for the extra work involved to do the service learning. 

 Obtaining clients can be challenging each semester whether it is done by the administration or by the 

professor. Though a service learning department on campus holds a mixer each semester matching 

professors with potential nonprofits, it is not guaranteed that nonprofits will be available. Other sources of 

nonprofits can be Small Business Development Centers, visiting local charities, prior service learning 

clients, personal contacts, and local organizations. 

Sometimes clients disappear in the middle of the semester, leaving the students with no client to work 

with. It occasionally happens because the client may run out of funding or may move out of state. The 

priorities of the business or community partner might be to respond to recipients of social services. For 

example, finding safe harbor for an abused spouse and her children, for the Women’s and Children’s 

Alliance, far outweighs in priority an appointment with a student, or any constituent for that matter. 

Furthermore, some clients may be unavailable during the middle of the semester because they are taking a 

vacation, have some personal problems, or show a lack of interest in the project. Service learning 

managers and professors may or may not have back up clients just in case clients disappear. 

Students sometimes express frustration at another weakness of the service learning lab option such as 

a mismatch of the project or assignments as promised by the community partner and the actual 

assignment(s). When assignments are clerical and general in nature, and not related specifically to the 

main human resource management class they are taking, students are disappointed. One of the key 

concepts in service learning lab option is the application of course concepts to academically based 

community service. It is difficult to tie human resource management course concepts directly to a general 

assignment. As well, students who expected and are prepared to provide thirty to forty hours of quality 

service on a specific human resource deliverable project are less likely to be able to use the general or 

clerical assignments, as evidence of an accomplishment, on a resume, in an interview, or simply for 

professional enrichment. Service learning coordinators and professors would need to know if there is a 

problem with a client in order to help provide a back up client if one were available.  

 Students might drop out of service learning for personal reasons. A client might feel jilted when he or 

she loses students in valuable service learning roles. It is important for the client to have backup plans in 

case student projects do not pan out especially due to the volunteer nature of the projects. This is an 

administrative public relations problem. 

 

  



Kaupins and Bodie                                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 46-56 

53 
 

SOME SOLUTIONS TO PRACTICAL CHALLENGES 
 

Administrator and Professor Challenges 
 

 Clear organizational strategies and administrative commitment to those strategies are two of the most 

effective ways to solve many key organizational problems. Without administrative buy-in, nothing much 

can happen (Worth, 2012; Holland & Ritvo, 2008). In this light, many of the problems of the service 

learning lab option just listed can be reduced if there is a clear understanding of the role of service 

learning in the university. The university must have a clear commitment to service learning in its strategic 

plan and it must place its commitment in its faculty in places where it counts - specifically in its tenure 

and promotion and financial reward structures. If faculty chose the service learning lab option and that 

choice helped them obtain higher pay, promotion, and tenure that would indicate a significant 

commitment to service learning by university administration. 
 

Student and Client Challenges 
 

The clear expectations that administrators should have for professors associated with the service 

learning lab option should correspond to the clear expectations between professors, students, and clients. 

In comparison with case studies and other assignments done in and out of class, service learning is messy 

and unpredictable (Clark, 2000). Although not a guaranteed problem prevention technique, written 

agreements that identify the main project, or types of assignments, and the learning outcomes, as well as 

the obligations of the student, community organization and instructor can reduce somewhat the 

“messiness” and “unpredictability.” Even with this contractual agreement, product quality or the quality 

of the learning experience, is still unpredictable due to variations in student and client effort and 

background.  
 

Research Needs 
 

The present study summarized prior research into service learning and presented a summary of how 

one university administered its service learning program. However, there are many research questions that 

are left unanswered associated with the case and the literature review that should be subject to future 

research. 

For example, both the literature review and the case discuss the need for enhancing service learning’s 

connection to promotion and tenure decisions and pay increases for faculty. What is missing in the 

research is how to politically and culturally shift universities (faculty, administrators, staff, and students) 

into making service learning a key aspect of university objectives that are important in tenure and 

promotion and pay raise decisions. This political and cultural shift may have to start with top leadership 

being committed to service learning. How much influence does top leadership have in the enhancement of 

service learning in a university? What are the most effective techniques to get service learning to become 

a major objective within a university? How can service learning be most effectively linked to the tenure 

and promotion process? How can service learning be most effectively linked to the pay raise process for 

faculty?   

Related to the linkage of service learning to the overall objectives of the university is the relationship 

of the university to accreditation. In the present study, the university was accredited by the Association to 

Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). Various accreditation organizations such as AACSB, 

Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP), and the Northwest Accreditation 

Commission allow freedom of programming to some extent. The AACSB however provides some 

limitations in terms of the definition of who is academically qualified by specifically requiring certain 

degree levels and publication expectations (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, 

2011). Future research needs to investigate how accreditation bodies affect the amount of service learning 

that is done at universities because of some of the research constraints imposed by these bodies. 



Kaupins and Bodie                                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 46-56 

54 
 

 The present study focused on the service learning format in which students get one extra credit for 

doing service learning off of a regular class. Is this service learning format more effective for learning 

than other service learning formats in which the service learning is actually part of the regular class? How 

much more effective is the service learning for students when it is optional than it is required for everyone 

in a class?   

 The present study focused on a service learning format in which only a few students did service 

learning in a class. Is this service learning format more effective for those learners rather than other 

formats in which the entire class is involved in service learning? 

 The present study included a Volunteer Expo recruiting effort in which professors and potential 

nonprofit clients could gather in a party atmosphere to discuss potential connections in future classes. Is 

this recruiting technique more effective than other techniques for getting nonprofit clients for professors 

e.g., former clients, newspapers, small business development centers, former students, or other sources? 
 

Conclusion 

 

The service learning lab option allows students to service nonprofit organizations, gives them a chance 

to reflect on their experiences, and provides them an opportunity to report their experiences through a 

written paper. But there are major administrative challenges associated with the lab option. The additional 

credit takes faculty time. University administration might not recognize this time is important because 

their strategic plan focuses more on research, service, or some other teaching goals. To help reduce 

problems associated with the service learning lab option, the service learning lab option must fit in the 

university strategic plan. Future research should investigate how individuals interested in enhancing 

service learning can politically and culturally shift the university in that direction. 
 

REFERENCES 

 

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. 2011. Business Accreditation Standards. 

Retrieved on November 11, 2011 from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/business/standards/ 

participants. 
 

Astin, A., & Sax, L. 1998. How undergraduates are affected by service participation. Journal of College 

Student Development, 39: 251-263. 
 

Astin, A., Sax, L., & Avalos, J. 1999. Long-term effects of volunteerism during the undergraduate years.  

Review of Higher Education, 22: 187-202. 
 

Ayers, L., Gartin, T., Lahoda, B., Yeyon, S., Rushford, M., & Neidermeyer, P. 2010. Service learning: 

Bringing the business classroom to life. American Journal of Business Education, 3: 55-59. 
 

Bright, L., Bright, C., & Haley, L. 2007. Nonprofit outreach services: Using outreach to increase 

nonprofits’ capacity and to provide a quality educational experience for students. Journal of Public 

Affairs Education, 13: 335-343. 
 

Bush-Bacelis, J. 1998. Innovative pedagogy: Academic service-learning for business communication. 

Business Communication Quarterly, 61: 20-34. 
 

Butin, D. 2006. The limits of service learning in higher education. Review of Higher Education, 29: 473-

498. 
 

Campus Compact. 2011. Annual membership survey results executive summary. Boston, MA: Campus 

Compact. 
 

Chan, A., Lee, W., & Ma, C. 2009. Service learning model and Lingnan University: Development 

strategies and outcome assessment. New Horizons in Education, 57: 57-73. 



Kaupins and Bodie                                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 46-56 

55 
 

Chang, P. 2011. Pre-service teachers’ views: How did e-feedback through assessment facilitate their 

learning? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11: 16-33. 
 

Clark, T., Croddy, M., Hays, W., & Philips, S. 1997. Service learning as civic participation.  Theory Into 

Practice, 36: 164-170. 
 

Clark, S. 2000. The more we serve, the more we learn: Service learning in a human resource management 

course. In P. Godfrey & E. Grasso, (Eds.), Working for the common good: Concepts and models for 

service-learning in management. American Association for Higher Education Series on Service-

Learning in the Disciplines. Washington, DC.  
 

Eby, J. 1998. Why service-learning is bad. Retrieved on August 10, 2011 from http://www. messiah. 

edu/external_programs/agape/servicelarning/articles/wrongsvc.pdf.  
 

Eckardt, S., Randall, E., & Vogelgesang, L. 2006. A journey of system-wide engagement. In engaging 

departments: Moving faculty culture from private to public, individual to collective focus for the 

common good. San Francisco: Anker Publishing. 
 

Freeman, R. 1997. Working for nothing: The supply of volunteer labor. Journal of Labor Economics, 15: 

S140-S166. 
 

Gelmon, S., Holland, B., Driscoll, A., Spring, A., & Kerrigan, S. 2001. Assessing service learning and 

civic engagement: Principles and techniques. Providence, RI: Campus Compact. 
 

Giles, D., & Eyler, J. 1994. The theoretical roots of service learning in John Dewey: Toward a theory of 

service learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 1: 77-85. 
 

Handy, F., Hustinx, L., Kang, C., Cnaan, R., Brudney, J., Haski-Leventhal, D., Holmes, K., Meijs, L., 

Pessi, A., Ranade, B., Yamauchi, N., & Zrinscak, S. 2010. A cross-cultural examination of student 

volunteering: Is it all about résumé building? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39: 498-523. 
 

Holland, T., & Ritvo, R. 2008. Nonprofit organizations: Principles and practices. New York: Columbia 

University Press. 
 

Hollander, E. 2009. Civic education of undergraduates in United States Research Boston. Tufts 

University.  
 

Institute for Learning and Teaching. 2007. CSU service-learning faculty manual. Colorado State 

University. Retrieved on November 10, 2011 from http:tilt.colostate.edu/guides/tilt_servicelearning/ 

index.cfm. 
 

Katz, E., & Rosenberg, J. 2005. An economic theory of volunteering. European Journal of Political 
Economy, 21: 429-443. 

 

Kecskes, K., & Spring, A. 2006. Continuums of engagement at Portland State University: An institution-

wide initiative to support departmental collaboration for the common good. In K. Kecskes, (Ed.), 

Engaging departments: Moving faculty culture from private to public, individual to collective focus 

for the common good. Bolton, MA: Anker. 
 

Knowles, M. 1984. The adult learner: A neglected species.  Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. 
 

Kolenko, T., Porter, G., Wheatley, W., & Colby, M. 1996. A critique of service learning projects in 

management  education: Pedagogical foundations, barriers, and guidelines. Journal of Business Ethics, 

15: 133-142. 



Kaupins and Bodie                                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 46-56 

56 
 

Konwerski, P., & Nashman, H. 2002. Who teaches whom: The varied voices and instructional roles of 

community service-learning partners. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 10: 165-186. 
 

Krisnawati, L. 2009. Service learning in Duta Wacana Christian University: Past, present and future 

states. New Horizons in Education, 57: 74-81. 
 

Madsen, S., & Turnbull, O. 2006. Academic service learning experiences of compensation and benefit 

course students. Journal of Management Education, 30: 724-742. 
 

Mason, M., & Davenport, P. 2006. Sustaining a service learning program: An English department’s 

commitment to service. In K. Kecskes (Ed.), Engaging departments: Moving faculty culture from 

private to public, individual to collective focus for the common good. Bolton, MA: Anker.   
 

Mirabella, R., & Wish, N. 1999. Educational impact of graduate nonprofit degree programs: Perspectives 

on multiple stakeholders. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9: 329-340. 
 

Munger, R., & Gutowski, A. 2007. Preparing future leaders: Project management strategies for service 

learning. Unpublished Manuscript.    
 

O’Meara, K., & Niehaus, E. 2009. Service learning is…how faculty explain their practice. Michigan 

Journal of Community Service Learning, 15: 17-32. 
 

Petkus, E. 2000. A theoretical and practical framework for service-learning in marketing: Kolb’s 

experiential learning cycle. Journal of Marketing Education, 22: 64-70. 
 

Prouteau, L., & Wolff, F. 2006. Does volunteer work pay off in the labor market? Journal of 

Socioeconomics, 35: 992-1013. 
 

Rehling, L. 2000. Doing good while doing well: Service learning internships. Business Communication 
Quarterly, 63: 77-89. 

 

Schacthter, D., & Schwartz, D. 2009. The value of capstone projects on participating client agencies. 

Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15: 445-461. 
 

Tucker, M., & McCarthy, A. 2001. Presentation self-efficacy: Increasing communication skills through 

service learning. Journal of Management Issues, 13: 227-245. 
 

Worth, M. 2012. Nonprofit management: Principles and practice. Los Angeles: Sage. 
 

 

Gundars Kaupins is department chair and professor of management at Boise State University. He 

received his Ph.D. in human resource management from University of Iowa and is certified as a senior 

professional in human resources (SPHR). His publications include over 300 articles in job evaluation, 

training and development, Baltic studies, and human resource ethics in journals such as Academy of 

Management Perspectives and International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction. 
 

Nancy Bodie is an associate professor of management at Boise State University. She received her Ph.D. 

in educational psychology from University of Illinois at Chicago. Her research interests include 

international ethics and corporate social responsibility, team management, service learning, and change 

management. She published in Journal of Business Ethics; Journal of Management Policy and Practice; 

and Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications, and Conflict. 

 


