Considering Hautzinger
1.What prompted the change in course design between 2006 and 2008?
The main change in course design was prompted by questions around whether students could be “of service” in places where they don’t speak the language, have individual relationships or understand the rudiments of deep or recent histories. The course seems unable to avoid reproducing and reinforcing an order of post-colonialism. The 2008 course was developed in collaboration with in-country instructors to provide exposure to local analyses and strategies.
2. How does the change in course design reflect the difference between service-learning and community-based learning?
In contrasting the two courses, the 2006 course takes direction from local concerns, emphasizing immersion. Hautzinger
3. What does deferred reciprocity look like in the context of the 2008 course?
4. How does an emphasis on deferred reciprocity affect the exchange between the community partners and the students in the 2008 course?
5. Under what circumstances is deferred reciprocity a preferred model for community-based work involving students?
Considering Holland
1. How does Holland’s conceptualization of reciprocity compare with Hautzinger’s?
2. Why do faculty, students, and community partners become involved in engaged partnerships?
3. Given their motivations, how can reciprocity be achieved?
4. On page 15, Holland makes the following claim: I believe the next great wave of change in civic engagement and service-learning will be documenting and measuring our relationships and the impact of our partnership endeavors. This is important not just to grow and sustain this work within the academy, but given current events, documentation, evaluation and assessment have important policy implications as well (p. 15).What is your response to the claim?
5. How can we assess and document the work of the CCE moving forward?
