Microsoft Word - 1318-Phillips_manuscript_copyedit3


_________________ 
Amy Phillips, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Social Work at the University of North Dakota. 
 
Copyright © 2011 Advances in Social Work Vol. 12 No. 1 (Spring 2011), 1-20 
 

Service-Learning and Social Work Competency-Based Education: 
A ‘Goodness of Fit’? 

Amy Phillips 

Abstract: As social work education moves to a competency-based approach, faculty are 
increasing their use of pedagogical tools designed to provide students with opportunities, 
in addition to traditional field placements, to develop practice skills. Faculty are no 
doubt turning to service-learning, and other forms of experiential education, to provide 
these opportunities and to offer an additional means for departments to demonstrate and 
measure student practice behaviors. To help focus the use of service-learning in social 
work education, this article uses sources from the larger service-learning field and from 
social work scholarship to examine the nature of service-learning, to review current 
service-learning trends, to summarize its use in social work education, and to raise 
questions about its goodness of fit with competency-based education.  

Keywords: Service-learning, social work, competency-based education 

INTRODUCTION 
As social work education moves to a competency-based approach, faculty are 

increasing their use of pedagogical tools designed to provide students with opportunities, 
in addition to traditional field placements, to develop practice skills. Faculty are no doubt 
turning to service-learning, and other forms of experiential education, to provide these 
opportunities and to offer an additional means for departments to demonstrate and 
measure student practice behaviors. The purpose of this article is to help provide a focus 
for the use of service-learning in social work education and to encourage a common 
disciplinary understanding and language about service-learning. A broad lens is first 
employed to examine the definition of service-learning and its role in the higher 
education civic engagement movement. Current service-learning trends are reviewed, and 
then the focus is narrowed to a discussion of its use in social work education. The article 
concludes with a section that raises questions about the goodness of fit between service-
learning and social work competency-based education.  

WHAT IS SERVICE-LEARNING? 
SERVICE-LEARNING AND THE HIGHER EDUCATION CIVIC 

ENGAGEMENT MOVEMENT 
In the context of higher education, service-learning is cited as one example of the 

various activities reflective of the higher education civic engagement (HECE) movement 
(Colby, Ehrlich, Beaumont, & Stephens, 2003; Jacoby, 2009a). Other HECE activities 
include participatory action research, public scholarship, and college-sponsored service 
abroad. In the past decade, numerous initiatives, both inside and outside higher education, 
have emerged to encourage and support the civic engagement of college students and 



Phillips/SERVICE LEARNING AND SOCIAL WORK COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 2 

their institutions. In addition, over 15 years’ worth of research demonstrates positive 
impacts of civic engagement generally and service-learning specifically on student 
academic learning, critical thinking abilities, heightened sense of civic responsibility, and 
sense of personal efficacy (Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda, & Yee, 2000; Eyler & Giles, 
1999; Eyler, Giles, Stenson, & Gray, 2001; Seifer, 2005). Researchers studying effective 
educational practices view engaged learning activities, such as service-learning, as “high 
impact” educational practices that improve the quality of undergraduate education 
(Indiana University Center, 2009). 

The term “service-learning” emerged in the late 1960s at a time when national 
service initiatives such as the Peace Corps, Job Corps, VISTA, and university-community 
partnerships were drawing thousands of college students and other young adults into 
community service activities (Learn and Serve, n.d.a). By the mid-1980s, grass roots and 
campus-based organizations such as the Campus Outreach Opportunity League and 
Campus Compact were in place to encourage civic engagement among college students 
and to support service-learning initiatives in higher education. The federal government 
offered its support to the burgeoning higher education civic engagement movement 
through passage of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and the creation of 
the Corporation for National and Community Service in 1993. Through its Learn and 
Serve America program, the Corporation provides grants, training, and technical 
assistance to community-service and service-learning programs in community, K-12, and 
postsecondary institutions.  

The higher education civic engagement movement can claim success in encouraging 
student service involvement. By 2006, college students had logged 377 million service 
hours (NYLC, 2008), and at present there are over 1100 member colleges and 
universities in the Campus Compact national coalition (Campus Compact, n.d.).  

Service-Learning Described 

Service-learning projects and programs may be curricular or co-curricular. Curricular 
service-learning, sometimes called academic service-learning, is classroom-based and is 
used to meet course learning objectives. Curricular service-learning may also take the 
form of fourth-credit option courses, stand-alone service-learning modules, introductory 
service-learning courses, course clusters with service-learning, capstone service-learning 
projects, and service-learning majors and minors (Enos & Troppe, 1996). Co-curricular 
service-learning takes place outside the classroom and may take the form of school-wide 
service learning programs, campus leadership-development initiatives, residence hall or 
Greek organization projects, and athletic service-learning programs (Scheuermann, 
1996). Both curricular and co-curricular service-learning “make intentional efforts to 
engage students in planned and purposeful learning related to service experiences” 
(Howard, 2001, p. 10). 

Service-learning is sometimes viewed interchangeably with volunteerism and 
internships. However, there is widespread agreement among service-learning scholars 
and practitioners that there are three necessary conditions for service activities to be 
considered service-learning: civic engagement, reflection, and reciprocity (Jacoby, 1996; 



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2011, 12(1)  3 

Howard, 2001; Welch, 2009). Regarding the first condition, student participants must 
engage in a service experience designed to address real community problems and to 
develop student civic engagement skills. The second condition requires that the service 
experience be grounded in curricular learning objectives that are facilitated not only 
through instruction and the service experience itself but also through intentional, deep, 
and structured reflection on that experience. Without routine reflection on the root causes 
of community problems, on the relationship between the service, community problems, 
and curriculum, and on the student’s role in the service activity, the experience is solely 
volunteerism. Thirdly, service-learning requires a reciprocal relationship between all 
participants in the experience. In other words, students and their instructors take 
leadership from community members in defining and addressing issues, and community 
members are receptive to the contributions of their educational partners. There is mutual 
responsibility and accountability in the relationship. As Jacoby (1996) notes, 

Service-learning thus stands in contrast to the traditional, paternalistic, one-way 
approach to service, where one person or group has resources that they share with 
a person or group that they assume lacks resources….Service-learning 
encourages students to do things with others rather than for them. (p. 8. Italics in 
original.)  

Service-learning, then, is distinctly different from volunteerism due to service-
learning’s focus on intentional learning (both curricular and civic), and because of its 
emphasis on the reciprocal relationship between students, their instructors, and 
community members. 

In addition to confusion with volunteerism, service-learning is often viewed 
synonymously with internships and field practica. Field training, however, places primary 
focus on student disciplinary skill development and little to no focus on development of 
civic engagement skills. In addition, the condition of reciprocity is generally absent from 
internships, with the student playing a traditional one-way service provider role in 
relationship to some service recipient. 

In summary, the three essential components of service-learning outlined above set it 
apart from volunteerism and internships and ensure the equal weight of learning and 
service, as the term’s hyphen represents. In a well-known conceptual tool, Furco (2003) 
highlights this required balance via demonstrating service-learning’s distinction among 
other service programs on a beneficiary and focus continuum. As seen in Figure 1, 
service-learning is distinguished from recipient-oriented activity where the focus is 
primarily service, and from provider-oriented programs, in which the focus is on student 
learning. 



Phillips/SERVICE LEARNING AND SOCIAL WORK COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 4 

Figure 1: Distinction Among Service Programs 

Furco, A. (2003). Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education. In Campus 
Compact, Introduction to service-learning toolkit: Readings and resources for faculty (2nd ed.). 
Providence, RI: Campus Compact. 

In addition to promotion of service and learning through civic engagement, 
reciprocity, and reflection, there is often an expectation that service-learning will promote 
the larger goals of democratic participation, improved community well-being, civic 
responsibility, and social justice (Calderon, 2007; Colby, Beaumont, Ehrlich, & 
Corngold, 2007; Colby et al., 2003; Jacoby, 2003; Kelshaw, Lazarus, Minier, & 
Associates, 2009). Service-learning has been viewed as a “model for community 
development” (NYLC, 2008, p. 9), a pedagogy for shaping “student civic and moral 
values and dispositions” (O’Meara & Niehaus, 2009, p. 25), and a type of “justice-
learning” (Butin, 2010; Conley & Hamlin, 2009). These expectations are reflected in 
numerous definitions of service-learning, including the following used by Learn and 
Serve America to describe service-learning at the K-12 and college levels: “Service-
Learning is a teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningful community 
service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civic 
responsibility, and strengthen communities” (Learn and Serve, n.d.b.). While service-
learning research may not yet be able to demonstrate the direct correlation between 
service-learning, social justice, and strengthened communities, it is clear that numerous 
scholars, practitioners, and organizations view service-learning as a tool for social, as 
well as academic and personal, transformation.  

CURRENT HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICE-LEARNING TRENDS AND 
DELIBERATIONS 

From the late-1980s through the1990s, discussion about service-learning moved from 
debate about what constitutes service-learning to delineation of best practices and 
assessment of its impact on student learning outcomes (Furco, 2009). Over that time, 
numerous professional associations, publications, conferences, and university service-
learning centers emerged to provide a broad array of texts, workbooks, discussion 
opportunities, and research all designed to support the novice or seasoned service-
learning practitioner.  



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2011, 12(1)  5 

In the first decade of the 21st century, research, such as that conducted by the 
National Survey of Student Engagement, has demonstrated the importance of service-
learning as a valuable pedagogical tool for promoting civic engagement (Indiana 
University, 2009). Service-learning scholars have also published models and processes 
for ensuring service-learning institutionalization and sustainability (Billig, Holland, & 
Bowden, 2008; CCNCCE, 2006; Chadwick & Polowski, 2007; Hartley, Harkavy, & 
Benson, 2005). Grounded in what appears to be a solid foundation, new trends in service-
learning practice and research, as well as deliberations about service-learning, are 
emerging. The following section reviews some of these areas. 

Service-eLearning 

As various forms of distance learning have exploded onto the educational scene (e.g., 
videoconferencing, computer-based courses, and web-based courses), faculty are 
developing pedagogical models which blend e-learning activities and service. “Service-
eLearning” is the name given to this blend and it is defined as “an integrative pedagogy 
that engages learners through technology in civic inquiry, service, reflection, and action” 
(Dailey-Hebert, Donnelli-Sallee, & DiPadova-Stocks, 2008, p. 1).  

Service-eLearning may involve the simple addition of a discussion board into a 
traditional face-to-face (f2f) service-learning course, or in the case of a completely online 
class, it may involve blogs, wikis, web-conferencing, Skype, or other e-communication 
methods for all academic activities. In addition, the service portion of service-eLearning 
may be conducted either f2f in the student’s location, or take place purely online, with 
students providing an online service to a local or distant community (Dailey-Hebert et al., 
2008; Guthrie & McCracken, 2010; Pearce, 2009). As Strait (2009b) outlines, service-
eLearning may look different depending on the course delivery method, but the core 
components of service-learning such as civic engagement with community partners, 
course content, and reflection, are expected to remain constant. A variety of online 
resources are emerging to provide support for and dissemination of information about 
service-eLearning and other forms of civic engagement via the use of communication 
technologies. These resources include the Journal of Interactive Online Learning, the 
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, the Journal of Community Informatics, and 
university-related resources such as Minnesota Campus Compact’s Center for Digital 
Civic Engagement, Massachusetts Campus Compact’s Digital Engagement Initiative, and 
the University of South Dakota’s Service-Learning Handbook for Distance Learning. 

International Service-Learning 

Although students have involved themselves in civic engagement through service 
abroad for many years (Chisholm & Berry, 1999; Yates & Youniss, 1998), the most 
rapidly growing service-learning programs today are those promoting international 
learning and global citizenship (Jacoby, 2010). Parker and Dautoff (2007) make a clear 
distinction, however, between study abroad and service-learning, noting that students are 
the primary beneficiaries of study abroad while international service-learning also 
benefits faculty and community members. In addition, international service-learning 
refers not only to students from the U.S. providing service abroad, but now “embodies 



Phillips/SERVICE LEARNING AND SOCIAL WORK COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 6 

the many different models and methods used by international students and practitioners 
outside the United States in international settings” (Strait, 2009a, p. 5). There is a 
growing body of academic literature related to international service-learning that provides 
case examples, guidelines, and resources (e.g., Grusky, 2000; Metcalf, 2010; Sternberger, 
Ford, & Hale, 2005). In addition, international networks and associations exist to support 
global service-learning initiatives in a variety of countries, to link initiatives to each 
other, and to provide resources for examination and dissemination of research on 
international programs. Examples of these associations include The Talloires Network, 
the International Partnership for Service-Learning and Leadership, and the Global 
Service Institute. While international service-learning is a growing area, Jacoby (2009b) 
notes that challenges to global service efforts include affordability and accessibility, 
concerns about exploitation of community partners, and questions about whether service 
abroad inhibits responsiveness to domestic social issues. 

Service-Learning Research 

In addition to the National Survey of Student Engagement mentioned earlier, service-
learning practitioners are fortunate to have a body of research to support assertions that 
service-learning positively impacts student academic learning and personal development. 
Research by Eyler and Giles (1999; 2002), Astin et al., (2000) and other scholars whose 
studies are found in publications such as the Michigan Journal of Community Service 
Learning and Advances in Service-Learning Research, have contributed to the evidence 
base of service-learning practice and pedagogy. Publications also exist to provide 
guidance to faculty for assessing service-learning outcomes in their own classes (Bringle, 
Phillips, & Hudson, 2004; Gelmon, Holland, Driscoll, Spring, & Kerrigan, 2001). 

Current service-learning research includes what Shumer (2009) describes as 
constructivist approaches. These approaches view knowledge as socially constructed and 
work toward inclusion of all participants in the development and implementation of 
research studies. Constructivist researchers view service-learning itself as “a 
constructivist process in which those being served create new understandings so that they 
can control their own destiny” (Shumer, 2009, p. 193). Examples of this kind of research 
include community-based research, empowerment evaluation, youth participatory 
research, and utilization focused evaluation and research (Shumer, 2009). Constructivists 
researchers are also attempting to extend the conceptualization of service-learning 
through a community inquiry framework that, instead of the classroom, identifies the 
“community as a locus and source of learning” (Bishop, Bruce, & Jeong, 2009). 

In addition to the research on service-learning’s impact on students, the service-
learning literature provides case studies and models of university-community 
collaborations and some research on service-learning’s impact on community partners 
(d’Arlach, Sanchez, & Feuer, 2009; Ferrari & Worrall, 2000; Jacoby & Associates, 2003; 
Kelshaw, Lazarus, Minier, & Associates, 2009). Additional research is still needed, 
however, to determine the effect of service-learning on partner organizations, community 
members, and on whether service-learning is having the larger transformative effects 
many intend it to have (Jacoby, 2009b). 



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2011, 12(1)  7 

Deliberations about Service-Learning’s Function and Purpose 

Service-learning is variously discussed as pedagogy, practice, theory, philosophy, or 
some combination of these. Authors trace its philosophical and theoretical roots to John 
Dewey’s early twentieth-century experimentalist theory of knowledge (Rocheleau, 2004) 
and his advocacy of active learning tied to democratic participation. As a pedagogy and 
practice of civic engagement, service-learning is linked to Ernest Boyer (1990) and his 
influential work, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities for the Professoriate which 
promotes civically-engaged teaching, learning, and scholarship (Colby et al., 2003). 
Stevens (2003) connects service-learning roots to African American social thought and 
action. Various authors also ground service-learning in the context of theoretical models 
such as the philanthropic model (Abel, 2004), the civic engagement model (Watson, 
2004), or the communitarian model (Codispoti, 2004).  

Building on, and responding to, the perspectives mentioned above, some authors 
have offered critical examinations of service-learning’s functions and purpose in higher 
education. Mitchell and Donahue (2009) posit that service-learning is a pedagogy “that 
has traditionally targeted privileged students” (p. 173). Their work highlights the 
“service” in which students of color engage in the classroom, “helping White classmates 
learn about the communities where they serve and challenging their peers to understand 
that White and middle class are not normative perspectives” (p. 188). The authors’ 
examination of the classroom experience and what constitutes “service” raises questions 
about the potential disconnect between service-learning’s transformational aspirations 
and its functional reality. 

Consistent with long-standing concerns raised about the purpose of service-learning 
and its potential to reinforce stereotypes and systems of privilege, (Chesler & Vasques 
Scalera, 2000; Morton, 1995), Jones, Gilbride-Brown, and Gasiorski (2005) found that 
service-learning activities can, in fact, uncover student stereotypes, assumptions, and 
privilege, resulting in student resistance. These authors promote a critical whiteness and 
developmental approach to address resistance and to promote critical awareness. Jacoby 
(2009b) also takes a critical perspective by asking if service-learning perpetuates the 
status quo and calling on practitioners to ensure that service-learning confronts “the 
structural inequities that create unjust and oppressive conditions” (p. 98).  

Butin (2006; 2010), probably more than any other author, has challenged the service-
learning field to take a hard look at the definitions, conceptualizations, and underlying 
premises of service-learning. For Butin, the most commonly accepted understandings of 
the purpose and nature of service-learning (described in this article’s first section above) 
are grounded in a generally unacknowledged “modernist, liberal, and radical 
individualistic notions of self, progress, knowledge, and power” (2010, p. 7). He 
elaborates as follows: 

Specifically, such a worldview is grounded in the notion that individuals are 
autonomous change agents who can effect positive and sustained 
transformations. It is the belief that we can consciously and deliberately bring 
about betterment (by the more powerful for the less powerful) through a 
downward benevolence whereby all benefit. (2010, p. 7) 



Phillips/SERVICE LEARNING AND SOCIAL WORK COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 8 

Despite this benevolent urge, Butin (2010) points out that there is significant lack of 
evidence about the beneficial impact of service-learning on service recipients or 
communities in general. In addition, Butin interestingly uses the work of Stanley Fish to 
assert that any foundational declarations about the ultimate purposes of service-
learning—to encourage democracy, support social justice, or whatever—actually work 
against achieving those purposes by shutting off critical examination of service-learning 
conceptualizations, practices, and underlying assumptions. As Butin notes, for service-
learning to be “justice-oriented education,” it must be “antifoundational,” operating 
“from the presumption of service-learning-as-question rather than service-learning as 
answer” (2010, p. 63). Butin also asserts that service-learning has reached the limits of its 
ability to be institutionalized and would be more effective as a transformative tool if it 
were an actual academic discipline rather than a pedagogy used in various forms 
primarily by faculty in the “soft” disciplines. 

The various deliberations about service-learning found in the literature and discussed 
at conferences may strike some service-learning practitioners as somewhat extraneous to 
their on-the-ground efforts. However, critical thought about service-learning is consistent 
with one of its core components, reflection, and is also indicative of the growth, 
influence, and discipline, of the service-learning field. 

SERVICE-LEARNING IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 
In the context of its disciplinary focus on service and empowerment, and with its 

traditional use of field practica, social work education has been viewed as an historic 
contributor to the development of service-learning (Zieren & Stoddard, 2004) and even 
indistinguishable from service-learning (Jarman-Rohde & Tropman, 1993). In truth, 
however, social work education has suffered from a lack of clarity about the nature of 
service-learning and, in comparison to other disciplines, has been late to incorporate 
service-learning into its curriculum (Phillips, 2007). In their review of service-learning in 
the social work education literature, Lemieux and Allen (2007) demonstrated that social 
work education has often confused service-learning, field practica, and volunteerism, 
ignoring service-learning’s focus on community-led activities and development of 
student civic engagement skills. The authors noted that this lack of “conceptual clarity 
and consistency” has posed problems for service-learning development and research in 
social work education (p. 312). They provided examples from the social work literature, 
however, which described service-learning experiences they considered to be based in 
established theory and practice from the larger service-learning field. Such established 
practice meant that the experiences were a part of academic coursework undertaken by “a 
group or class of social work students that integrated a community-based service 
component distinct from both voluntary service and field instruction (Lemieux & Allen, 
2007, p. 313). Examples included a cross-cultural service-learning project which assessed 
students’ perceptions of race and culture (Sanders, McFarland, & Bartolli, 2003), a 
summer course at a camp for children with burn injuries which assessed student self-
efficacy and value orientations (Williams, King & Koob, 2002; Williams & Reeves, 
2004), and a housing needs assessment project conducted by a research class (Knee, 
2002).  



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2011, 12(1)  9 

As Phillips (2007) outlined, the lack of conceptual clarity, along with the perception 
of field practica as service-learning, has resulted in social work’s arrival as a late-comer 
to service-learning scholarship. In addition, such scholarship has occurred without a 
common language for service-learning and without broader disciplinary recognition of 
service-learning’s role in supporting social work as a civically engaged discipline. As a 
result, articles have appeared in the social work literature related to “experiential 
education,” “community-based learning,” “participatory action research,” “hands-on 
learning,” “social change interventions,” and “service-learning” (Phillips, 2007).  

Despite the range of civic engagement pedagogical examples and the general lack of 
conceptual clarity in the literature about what constitutes service-learning (Lemieux & 
Allen, 2007), a body of work related to service-learning across the social work 
curriculum is emerging in the literature. Service-learning has been used to foster 
beginning-level knowledge and skills in introduction to social work and social welfare 
courses (Allen, Rainford, Rodenhiser, & Brascia, 2007; Watkins, Charlesworth, & 
House, 2007) and in the context of micro, mezzo, and macro practice courses (Bye, 2005; 
Norris & Schwartz, 2009; Sather, Weitz, & Carlson, 2007; Singleton, 2009; Williams, 
King, & Koob, 2002). Service-learning has been applied in policy classes (Droppa, 2007; 
Pierpont, Pozzuto, & Powell, 2001; Rocha, 2000) and social work research courses 
(Hyde, 2004; Kapp, 2006; Knee, 2002). It has been used to influence student attitudes, 
values, and self-awareness while working collaboratively with diverse community groups 
(Arches, 2001; Forte, 1997; Lowe & Medina, 2010; Sanders et al., 2003; Williams & 
Reeves, 2004). Service-learning has also been used to support the application of theory to 
a community project in the context of a human behavior and the social environment class 
(Ames & Diepstra, 2007). It has even been incorporated into social work internships 
(Poulin, Silver, & Kauffman, 2006). 

All of the pedagogical projects listed above, and others in the social work literature, 
may or may not reflect the necessary components for designation as service-learning (as 
discussed in the first section of this article), yet all may represent a movement toward a 
more civically-engaged curriculum, with service-learning as a core component of the 
movement. In an effort to support both conceptual clarity and civic engagement, social 
work educators and authors are offering theoretical tools, pedagogical models, and 
discussion forums to promote a common language, purpose, and research agenda for 
service-learning in social work education. For example, Lemieux and Allen (2007) 
provide a review of service-learning practice and assessment issues for social work 
education, and the Nadel, Majewski, and Sullivan-Cosetti text, Social Work and Service 
Learning (2007) offers models for service-learning across the social work curriculum. 
Discussions about service-learning and social work education have taken place via the 
University of Nebraska’s service-learning and social work education conferences in 2003 
and 2004, Indiana University’s service-learning conference in 2010, and this special issue 
of Advances in Social Work.  

As in the larger service-learning arena, social work education will best utilize 
service-learning if it understands its distinction from internships and volunteerism, builds 
on its current best practices as pedagogy, and undertakes research to determine its 
effectiveness and encourage its development. These activities are particularly important 



Phillips/SERVICE LEARNING AND SOCIAL WORK COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 10 

in the context of social work’s current focus on competency-based education (CSWE, 
2008). It is natural that social work educators would seek to use service-learning as a tool 
for enhancing and assessing student competencies. But social work programs may want 
to move this agenda forward with some caution, taking the questions and accompanying 
discussions in the following section into consideration while determining the “goodness 
of fit” between service-learning and competency-based education. 

SERVICE-LEARNING AND SOCIAL WORK COMPETENCY-BASED 
EDUCATION 

Question 1: What is at risk in the application of service-learning to social work 
competency-based education? 

Educational Policy 2.1 of the Council on Social Work Education’s Educational 
Policy and Accreditation Standards states the following about competency-based 
education:  

Competency-based education is an outcome performance approach to curriculum 
design. Competencies are measurable practice behaviors that are comprised of 
knowledge, values, and skills. The goal of the outcome approach is to 
demonstrate the integration and application of the competencies in practice with 
individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities. (CSWE, 2008, p. 
3) 

The current CSWE EPAS lists 41 practice behaviors and skills and states that 
“practice behaviors may be used to operationalize the curriculum and assessment 
methods” (p. 3). Developing curricula and assessment around the teaching and learning 
of practice behaviors to ensure the competency of graduates makes undeniable sense and, 
in fact, a competency-based approach is not new in social work education (see, for 
example, Arkava & Brennen, 1976). With such an approach, educational programs must 
then provide students with the opportunities to practice the behaviors. Since it may be 
difficult for all practice behaviors to be measured in internships or field practica, and 
since programs are required to undertake multiple measures of the behaviors, additional 
active and experiential learning activities such as simulations, role plays, and service-
learning offer opportunities for behavior development and assessment.  

Competency-based education focusing on the development of student practice 
behaviors is just that, though – a focus on student practice behaviors -- and any active or 
experiential learning experience which has student skill development as its singular goal 
is ultimately reflective of the learning-side focus of Furco’s (2003) diagram shown 
earlier. In other words, using service-learning for practice behavior development runs the 
risk of losing the service/learning balance, and particularly runs the risk of losing service-
learning’s focus on service to the community informed by reciprocal relationships with 
community members. In addition, if the focus is on learning a prescribed set of practice 
behaviors, service projects may be developed for the purpose of practicing some subset of 
those behaviors but none of the behaviors may be related to civic engagement—and 
developing civic engagement skills is another intended by-product of service-learning. 



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2011, 12(1)  11 

Lastly, unpacking the relationship between service activities, community issues, and 
learning objectives through structured, critical reflection is a sine qua non of service-
learning. However, the breadth and depth involved in critical reflection (Ash & Clayton, 
2009) may be more than what some instructors feel is manageable, or necessary, for 
practice behavior development. 

In summary, using service-learning for competency-based education risks the 
watering down, if not complete loss, of service-learning’s critical, civically-engaged, and 
transformative potential. This is not a problem if social work educators choose to define 
service-learning in ways other than that outlined in the first section of this article. 
Nevertheless, it is possible for educators to use service-learning as outlined above to 
develop practice behaviors which would require intentional application of the elements 
that characterize service-learning. This should not be difficult given the close alignment 
of these elements to the mission of the social work profession. 

If there is a risk to service-learning in the context of competency-based education, 
could the opposite also be true? As referenced earlier, service-learning has been viewed 
alternately as a pedagogy potentially promoting the status quo (Jacoby, 2009b) or “a 
progressive and liberal agenda under the guise of a universalistic practice” (Butin, 2006, 
p. 483). These perspectives highlight the fact that service-learning, or any pedagogy, is 
not a value-free, objectivistic endeavor, and that the act of using service-learning is also a 
philosophical, if not political, statement. Social work education was attacked just a few 
years ago for “having ideological proclivities and a strong penchant for advocacy” 
(National Association of Scholars, 2007). While the profession might be inclined to 
dismiss such statements as coming from a fringe sector, social work educators might 
want to be aware that adoption of service-learning for competency development could 
raise further questions about the ideology, and resultant competencies, into which social 
work students are being indoctrinated. 

Question 2: What are some practical considerations for the use of service-learning 
in competency-based education? 

As mentioned earlier, if social work programs begin using service-learning more 
frequently in their curricula, they may want to hold faculty discussions to clarify their 
definition of service-learning and for what purpose it will be used. It would also be useful 
to review best practices from the service-learning and social work literature for 
replication purposes, and to make assessment plans to measure not only practice 
behaviors but also other service-learning outcomes. In addition, programs may want to 
think strategically about the placement of service-learning in their curricula. Service-
learning has been used variably in a number of disciplines in introductory classes to 
introduce new majors to the field, in methods or practice classes to enhance disciplinary 
skills or to prepare students for practica, and in capstone courses to demonstrate 
cumulative knowledge and skills. Since service-learning courses generally require 
substantial work in and out of the classroom on the part of both instructor and students, 
programs may want to determine the best strategic location for service-learning. In other 
words, consideration should be given not only to service-learning’s best fit in a course, 



Phillips/SERVICE LEARNING AND SOCIAL WORK COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 12 

but also its best fit in the curriculum as a whole, taking multiple issues such as faculty 
time, community needs, and practice behavior development, into account. 

Another practical consideration already alluded to is the effort and time needed to 
develop and implement quality service-learning courses. A service-learning center may 
exist on campus to assist with course mechanics and community placements, but most 
faculty who use service-learning probably have a very hands-on approach to their courses 
to ensure course/service compatibility, reciprocity with community partners, student 
support, and meaningful assessment. Many such faculty also choose to use service-
learning courses for their scholarship, undertaking action research, community-based 
studies, and collaborative inquiry projects. While a scholarship of engagement has been 
recognized as a viable endeavor for at least two decades, an individual college or 
university may not always value it. As Driscoll notes (2008, as cited in Sandmann, 2009), 
“most institutions continue to place community engagement and its scholarship in the 
traditional category of service and require other forms of scholarship for promotion and 
tenure” (p. 41). Social work programs that decide to incorporate service-learning for 
competency development will need to ensure that faculty are not penalized in the 
professional evaluation process by their use of service-learning for scholarship or 
teaching. 

The questions above and the challenges they raise are intended to stimulate dialogue 
about service-learning and competency-based education. However, individuals new to 
service-learning may be reading this special issue in search of tools for competency-
based education. Also, as of the writing of this paragraph, the U.S. House of 
Representatives has passed a federal funding bill which would eliminate the Corporation 
for National and Community Service and all its programs (including Learn and Serve 
America). For both these reasons, a summary of the benefits of service-learning in 
competency-based education is certainly appropriate and timely. The benefits are many 
and the list below comes primarily from those already mentioned throughout the article 
and from this author’s own experience. Additional service-learning adherents can easily 
add to the list. 

1. As mentioned earlier, the CSWE Educational and Policy Accreditation Standards 
define competency-based education as “an outcome performance approach to 
curriculum design,” the goal of which is to “demonstrate the integration and 
application of the competencies in practice” (CSWE, 2008, p. 3). Key words here 
are “performance,” “application,” and “competencies.” It is not enough for 
students to demonstrate knowledge about competencies; they must also 
demonstrate ability in the performance of them. The more opportunity students 
have to use skills and behaviors, particularly in practice courses, the more able 
they will be to demonstrate competence by graduation. Service-learning is an 
experiential methodology which can be adapted to any social work course and 
which aptly serves the purpose of providing opportunities for skill integration 
and application in practice. 

2. Since social work programs are required by the EPAS to undertake multiple 
measures of student competencies, service-learning offers programs an initial 



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2011, 12(1)  13 

point-in-time course-based measurement of practice behaviors before a second 
measurement which could occur during internship. Service-learning is also an 
educational method with a substantial body of literature providing 
implementation and assessment tools (see the “Service-Learning Research” 
section above). Some of these tools could be useful in the development of 
assignments and assessments related to social work practice behaviors. 

3. Service-learning has been used effectively as preparation for field practica and 
for development of skills in areas which practica may not offer (such as macro 
practice). Service-learning projects give programs the opportunity to measure 
practice behaviors not used in internships, and if sequenced appropriately, 
service-learning activities may give students a beginning-level exercise in certain 
skills, which they can then deepen and develop once they are in capstone field 
experiences. 

4. Finally, service-learning offers social work education an additional mechanism to 
reinforce to students the core values of the profession. Service-learning’s primary 
conditions of civic engagement, reflection, and reciprocity (see “Service-
Learning Described” section above), support all social work values, but 
particularly the values of “service,” “social justice,” and “the importance of 
human relationships.” These values are reflected in the core competencies 
outlined in CSWE’s Educational Policies (e.g., EP 2.1.5 and EP 2.1.8). To the 
extent that social work educators who use service-learning meet its core 
conditions, they will be enabling students to act out of the profession’s core 
values while developing core competencies of social work practice. 

Service-learning and social work competency-based education would seem to be a 
good fit given their shared values, social work’s history as an engaged profession, and the 
opportunities service-learning affords students to apply knowledge, values, and skills. 
Yet, as I hope this article has reinforced, a head-long rush to use service-learning in 
social work competency-based education without consideration of their unique purposes, 
reciprocal impacts, and practical implementations may result in an outcome that does not 
do justice to either or to the constituents they intend to serve. 

References 

Abel, C. F. (2004). A justification of the philanthropic model. In B. W. Speck & S. L. 
Hoppe (Eds.), Service-learning: History, theory, and issues (pp. 45-58). Westport, 
CT: Praeger. 

Allen, R., Rainford, W., Rodenhiser, R., & Brascia, K. (2007). General education: 
Herding cats and making history in a large general education social welfare course. 
In M. Nadel, V. Majewski, & M. Sullivan-Cosetti (Eds.), Social work and service 
learning: Partnerships for social justice (pp. 147-163). Lanham, MD: Rowman & 
Littlefield. 

Ames, N., & Diepstra, S. A. (2007). Human behavior and the social environment: An oral 
history service-learning project. In M. Nadel, V. Majewski, & M. Sullivan-Cosetti 



Phillips/SERVICE LEARNING AND SOCIAL WORK COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 14 

(Eds.), Social work and service learning: Partnerships for social justice (pp. 107-
120). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 

Arches, J. (2001). Powerful partnerships. Journal of Community Practice, 9(2), 15-30. 

Arkava, M. L., & Brennen, E. C. (1976). Competency-based education for social work. 
New York, NY: Council on Social Work Education. 

Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Generating, deepening, and documenting learning: 
The power of critical reflection for applied learning. Journal of Applied Learning in 
Higher Education, 1(1), 25-48.  

Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., & Yee, J. A. (2000). How service learning 
affects students. Los Angeles: UCLA Higher Education Research Institute. 

Billig, S. H., Holland, B. A., & Bowdon, M.A. (2008). Scholarship for sustaining 
service-learning and civic engagement. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. 

Bishop, A. P., Bruce, B. C., & Jeong, S. (2009, March). Beyond service learning: Toward 
community schools and reflective community learners. In L. Roy, K. Jensen, & A. 
Hershey Meyers (Eds.), Service learning: Linking library education and practice 
(pp.16-31). Chicago: ALA Editions. 

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities for the professoriate. Menlo Park, 
CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 

Bringle, R. G., Phillips, M. A., & Hudson, M. (2004). The measure of service learning. 
Research scales to assess student experiences. Washington, DC: American 
Psychological Association. 

Butin, D. (2006). The limits of service-learning in higher education. The Review of 
Higher Education, 29(4), 473-498. 

Butin, D. (2010). Service-learning in theory and practice: The future of community 
engagement in higher education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Bye, L. (2005). Teaching group work through service-learning. Arete, 29(2), 44-49. 

Calderon, J. Z. (2007). Race, poverty, and social justice: Multidisciplinary perspectives 
through service learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus. 

Campus College National Center for Community Engagement. (2006). SAFE models of 
civic engagement: Sustaining service learning. Mesa, AZ: CCNCCE. 

Campus Compact. (n.d.). Campus Compact. Retrieved from http://www.compact.org/  

Chadwick, S. A., & Powlowski, D. R. (2007). Assessing institutional support for service-
learning: A case study of organizational sensemaking. Michigan Journal of 
Community Service Learning, 13(2), pp. 31-39. 

Chesler, M., & Vasquex Scalera, C. (2000, Fall). Race and gender issues related to 
service-learning research. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Special 
Issue, 18-27. 



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2011, 12(1)  15 

Chisholm, L. A., & Berry, H. A. (1999). Service learning in higher education around the 
world: An initial look. New York: International Partnership for Service-Learning and 
Leadership. 

Codispoti, F. (2004). A justification of the communitarian model. In B. W. Speck & S. L. 
Hoppe (Eds.), Service-learning: History, theory, and issues (pp. 99-118). Westport, 
CT: Praeger. 

Colby, A., Beamont, E., Ehrlich, T., & Corngold, J. (2007). Educating for democracy. 
Preparing undergraduates for responsible political engagement. San Francisco: 
Jossey-Bass. 

Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Beaumont, E. & Stephens, J. (2003). Educating citizens. 
Preparing America’s undergraduates for lives of moral and civic responsibility. San 
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Conley, P. A., & Hamlin, M. L. (2009). Justice-learning: Exploring the efficacy with 
low-income, first-generation college students. Michigan Journal of Community 
Service Learning, 16(1), 47-58. 

Council on Social Work Education. (2008). Educational Policy and Accreditation 
Standards. Available at http://www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=13780  

Dailey-Hebert, A., Donnelli-Sallee, E., & DiPadova-Stocks, L. N. (2008). Service-
eLearning as integrated pedagogy. A. Dailey-Hebert, E. Donnelli-Sallee, & L. N. 
DiPadova-Stocks (Eds.), Service-eLearning: Educating for citizenship (pp. 1-5). 
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. 

d’Arlach, L., Sanchex, B., & Feuer, R. (2009). Voices from the community: A case for 
reciprocity in service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 
16(1), 5-16. 

Droppa, D. (2007). Social welfare policy and services: Service learning through social 
policy project in human service organizations. In M. Nadel, V. Majewski, & M. 
Sullivan-Cosetti (Eds.), Social work and service learning: Partnerships for social 
justice (pp. 61-75). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 

Enos, S. L., & Troppe, M. L. (1996). Service-learning in the curriculum. In B. Jacoby & 
Associates (Eds.), Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices (pp. 
156-181). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Eyler, J. S., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (1999). Where's the learning in service-learning? San 
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999. 

Eyler, J. S., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (2002). Beyond surveys: Using problem solving interviews 
to assess the impact of service-learning on understanding and critical thinking. In S. 
Billig, & A. Furco (Eds.), Service-Learning: The essence of the pedagogy (pp. 147-
160). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. 

Eyler, J. S., Giles, D. E., Stenson, C. M., & Gray, C. J. (2001). At a glance: What we 
know about the effects of service-learning on college students, faculty, institutions, 



Phillips/SERVICE LEARNING AND SOCIAL WORK COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 16 

and communities, 1993-2000 (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Corporation for National 
and Community Service. 

Ferrari, J. R., & Worrall, L. (2000). Assessments by community agencies: How “the other 
side” sees service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7, 35-
40. 

Forte, J. A. (1997). Calling students to serve the homeless: A project to promote altruism 
and community service. Journal of Social Work Education, 33(1), 151-166. 

Furco, A. (2003). Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education. In 
Campus Compact, Introduction to service-learning toolkit: Readings and resources 
for faculty (2nd ed.). Providence, RI: Campus Compact. 

Furco, A. (2009). Forward. In J. Strait & M. Lima (Eds.), The future of service-learning 
(pp. xi-xiii). Sterling, VA: Stylus. 

Gelmon, S. B., Holland, B. A., Driscoll, A., Spring, A., & Kerrigan, S. (2001). Assessing 
service-learning and civic engagement: Principles and techniques. Providence, RI: 
Campus Compact. 

Grusky, S. (2000). International service learning. A critical guide from an impassioned 
advocate. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 858-867. 

Guthrie, K. L., & McCracken, H. (2010). Making a difference online: Facilitating 
service-learning through distance education. The Internet and Higher Education, 
13(3), 153-157. 

Hartley, M., Harkavy, I., & Benson, L. (2005). Putting down roots in the groves of 
academe: The challenges of institutionalizing service-learning. In D. W. Butin (Ed.), 
Service-learning in higher education (pp. 205-222). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Howard, J. (2001). Service-learning course design workbook. Michigan Journal of 
Community Service Learning, Companion Volume. 

Hyde, C. A. (2004). A collaborative approach to service, learning, and scholarship: A 
community-based research course. Journal of Community Practice, 12(1/2), 71-88. 

Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. (2009). National Survey of 
Student Engagement. Press Release. Retrieved from 
http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2009_Results/pdf/NSSE_2009_Press_Release.pdf  

Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-learning in today’s higher education. In B. Jacoby & 
Associates (Eds.), Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices (pp. 
3-25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  

Jacoby, B., & Associates. (2003). Building partnerships for service-learning. San 
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Jacoby, B. (2009a). Civic engagement in today’s higher education. In B. Jacoby & 
Associates (Eds.), Civic engagement in higher education: Concepts and practices 
(pp. 5-30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2011, 12(1)  17 

Jacoby, B. (2009b). Facing the unsettled questions about service-learning. In J. Strait & 
M. Lima (Eds.), The future of service-learning: New solutions for sustaining and 
improving practice, (pp. 90-105). Sterling, VA: Stylus. 

Jacoby, B. (2010, March 4). Creating a culture of engagement that transforms colleges 
and universities. Plenary Presentation, Gulf-South Summit on Service-Learning and 
Civic Engagement through Higher Education. Athens, GA: The University of 
Georgia. 

Jarman-Rohde, L., & Tropman, J. E. (1993). The social work practicum as service-
learning. In J. Howard (Ed.), Praxis I: A faculty casebook on community service 
learning (pp. 173-180). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 

Jones, S., Gilbride-Brown, J., & Gasiorski, A. (2005). Getting inside the “underside” of 
service-learning: Student resistance and possibilities. In D. Butin (Ed.), Service-
learning in higher education: Critical issues and directions (pp. 3-24). New York: 
Palgrave Macmillan. 

Kapp, S. A. (2006). Bringing the agency to the classroom: Using service-learning to 
teach research to BSSW students. The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 12(1), 
56-70. 

Kelshaw, T., Lazarus, F., Minier, J., & Associates. (2009). Partnerships for service-
learning: Impacts on communities and students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Knee, R. T. (2002). Can service learning enhance student understanding of social work 
research? Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 22(1/2), 213-225. 

Learn and Serve America. (n.d.a.). Historical timeline. National Service-Learning 
Clearinghouse. Retrieved August 18, 2010 from 
http://www.servicelearning.org/what_is_service-learning/history 

Learn and Serve America. (n.d.b.). What is Service-Learning? Corporation for National 
and Community Service. Retrieved August 18, 2010 from 
http://www.servicelearning.org/what_is_service-learning/service-learning_is  

Lemieux, E. M., & Allen, P. D. (2007). Service learning in social work education: The 
state of knowledge, pedagogical practicalities, and practice conundrums. Journal of 
Social Work Education, 43(2), 309-325. 

Lowe, L. A., & Medina, V. L. (2010). Service learning collaborations: A formula for 
reciprocity. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 46(2), 
127-134. 

Metcalf, L. E. (2010). Creating international community service learning experiences in a 
capstone marketing-projects course. Journal of Marketing Education, 32(2), 155-171. 

Mitchell, T. D., & Donahue, D. M. (2009). “I do more service in this class than I ever do 
at my site”: Paying attention to the reflections of students of color in service-learning. 
In J. Strait & M. Lima (Eds.), The future of service-learning: New solutions for 
sustaining and improving practice (pp. 172-190). Sterling, VA: Stylus. 



Phillips/SERVICE LEARNING AND SOCIAL WORK COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 18 

Morton, K. (1995, Fall). The irony of service: Charity, project, and social change in 
service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2, 19-32. 

Nadel, M., Majewski, V., & Sullivan-Cosetti, M. (2007). Social work and service 
learning: Partnerships for social justice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 

National Association of Scholars. (2007). The Scandal of Social Work Education. NAS 
Study. Retrieved from 
http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doctype_code=Article&doc_id=26  

National Youth Leadership Council. (2008). Growing to greatness 2008: The state of 
service-learning. St. Paul, MN: National Youth Leadership Council. 

Norris, D., & Schwartz, C. L. (2009). Needs assessments: An integrated assignment in 
civic service. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 29(4), 373-382. 

O’Meara, K., & Niehaus, E. (2009). Service-learning is…How faculty explain their 
practice. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(1), 17-32. 

Parker, B., & Dautoff, D. A. (2007). Service-learning and study abroad: Synergistic 
learning opportunities. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 13(2), 40-
53. 

Pearce, J. M. (2009). Appropedia as a tool for service learning in sustainable 
development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 3(1), 47-55. 

Phillips, A. (2007). Service learning and social work education: A natural but tenuous 
connection. In M. Nadel, V. Majewski, & M. Sullivan-Cosetti (Eds.), Social work 
and service learning: Partnerships for social justice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & 
Littlefield. 

Pierpont, J. H., Pozzuto, R., & Powell, J. Y. (2001). Service learning and systems of care: 
Teaching students to learn from clients. Journal of Family Social Work, 5(3), 79-93. 

Poulin, J., Silver, P., & Kauffman, S. (2006). Serving the community and training social 
workers: Service outputs and student outcomes. Journal of Social Work Education, 
42(1), 171-184. 

 Rocha, C. J. (2000). Evaluating experiential teaching methods in a policy practice 
course: The case for service learning to increase political participation. Journal of 
Social Work Education, 36(1), 53-63. 

Rocheleau, J. (2004). Theoretical roots of service-learning: Progressive education and the 
development of citizenship. In B. W. Speck & S. L. Hoppe (Eds.), Service-learning: 
History, theory, and issues (pp. 3-21). Westport, CT: Praeger. 

Sanders, S., McFarland, P., & Bartolli, J. S. (2003). The impact of cross-cultural service-
learning on undergraduate social work students’ perceptions of culture. The Journal 
of Baccalaureate Social Work, 9(1), 19-40. 



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2011, 12(1)  19 

Sandmann, L. R. (2009). Community engagement: Second-generation promotion and 
tenure issues and challenges. In J. Strait & M. Lima (Eds.), The future of service-
learning: New solutions for sustaining and improving practice (pp. 67-89). Sterling, 
VA: Stylus. 

Sather, P., Weitz, B., & Carlson, P. (2007). Engaging students in macro issues through 
community-based learning: The policy, practice, and research sequence. Journal of 
Teaching in Social Work, 27(3/4), 61-79. 

Scheuermann, C. D. (1996). Ongoing cocurricular service-learning. In B. Jacoby & 
Associates (Eds.), Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices (pp. 
135-155). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Seifer, S. (2005). The evidence base for service-learning in higher education. Fact 
Sheets. National Service-Learning Clearinghouse. Retrieved from  
http://www.servicelearning.org/instant_info/fact_sheets/he_facts/evidence/  

Shumer, R. (2009). New directions in research and evaluation: Participation and use are 
key. In J. Strait & M. Lima (Eds.), The future of service-learning: New solutions for 
sustaining and improving practice (pp. 191-205). Sterling, VA: Stylus. 

Singleton, J. L. (2009). Service learning: The effect on BSW students’ interest in aging. 
The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 14(1), 31-43. 

Sternberger, L. G., Ford, K. A., & Hale, D. C. (2005). International service-learning: 
Integrating academics and active learning in the world. Journal of Public Affairs, 8, 
75-96. 

Stevens, C. S. (2003, Winter). Unrecognized roots of service-learning in African 
American social thought and action, 1890-1930. Michigan Journal of Community 
Service Learning, 9, 25-34. 

Strait, J. (2009a). Introduction: Critical questions and directions for the next generation of 
practitioners. In J. Strait & M. Lima (Eds.), The future of service-learning. New 
solutions for sustaining and improving practice (pp. 3-8). Sterling, VA: Stylus. 

Strait, J. (2009b). Service-eLearning. What happens when service-learning and online 
education unite? In J. Strait & M. Lima (Eds.), The future of service-learning. New 
solutions for sustaining and improving practice (pp. 155-171). Sterling, VA: Stylus. 

Watkins, M. L., Charlesworth, L., & House, A. V. (2007). Social work practice: 
Nurturing beginning practice skills while mobilizing partnerships between youth 
development agencies and social work education. In M. Nadel, V. Majewski, & M. 
Sullivan-Cosetti (Eds.), Social work and service learning: Partnerships for social 
justice (pp. 77-91). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 

Watson, J. B., Jr. (2004). A justification of the civic engagement model. In B. W. Speck 
& S. L. Hoppe (Eds.), Service-learning: History, theory, and issues (pp. 73-84). 
Westport, CT: Praeger. 



Phillips/SERVICE LEARNING AND SOCIAL WORK COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION 20 

Welch, M. (2009). Moving from service-learning to civic engagement. In B. Jacoby & 
Associates (Eds.), Civic engagement in higher education: Concepts and practices 
(pp. 174-195). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Williams, N. R., King, M., & Koob, J. J. (2002). Social work students go to camp: The 
effects of service learning on perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Teaching in Social 
Work, 22(3/4), 55-70. 

Williams, N. R., & Reeves, P. M. (2004). MSW students go to burn camp: Exploring 
social work values through service-learning. Social Work Education, 23(4), 383-398. 

Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1998). Roots of civic identity: International perspectives on 
community service and activism in youth. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Zieren, G. R., & Stoddard, P. H. (2004). The historical origins of service-learning in the 
nineteenth and twentieth centuries: The transplanted and indigenous traditions. In B. 
W. Speck & S. L. Hoppe (Eds.), Service-learning: History, theory, and issues (pp. 
23-42). Westport, CT: Praeger. 

Author note: 
Direct correspondence to: Amy Phillips, M.S.S.W., Ph.D., Department of Social Work, 
University of North Dakota, Gillette Hall 309, 225 Centennial Drive, Grand Forks, ND 
58202. Email: amy.phillips@email.und.edu