Traditional vs. Critical Service-Learning: Engaging the Literature to Differentiate Two Models

are dismantled. This article uses perspectives from the literature to uncover and explicate the meaning of a critical service-learning view. In discussing each of the three distinguishing elements of the critical ser-vice-learning approach, I examine the classroom and community components. Traditional vs. Critical Service-Learning Community service learning “serves as a vehicle for connecting students and institutions to their com-munities and the larger social good, while at the same time instilling in students the values of community and social responsibility ” (Neururer & Rhoads, 1998, p. 321). Because service-learning as a pedagogy and practice varies greatly across educators and institu-tions, it is difficult to create a definition that elicits consensus amongst practitioners (Bickford & Reynolds, 2002; Butin, 2005; Kendall, 1990; Liu, 1995; Varlotta, 1997a). However, I use the terms ser-vice-learning and community service learning to define a community service action tied to learning goals and ongoing reflection about the experience (Jacoby, 1996). The learning in service-learning results from the connections students make between their community experiences and course themes (Zivi, 1997). Through their community service, stu-dents become active learners, bringing skills and information from community work and integrating them with the theory and curriculum of the class-room to produce new knowledge. At the same time, students ’ classroom learning informs their service in the community. Research heralds traditional service-learning pro-grams for their transformative nature—producing students who are more tolerant, altruistic, and cultur-ally aware; who have stronger leadership and com-munication skills; and who (albeit marginally) earn higher grade point averages and have stronger crit-