In Democracy and Education, John Dewey argued that higher education should focus on “three essential elements: it should engage students in the surrounding community; it should be focused on problems to be solved rather than academic discipline; and it should collaboratively involve students and faculty” (as cited in Lawry, Laurison, & VanAntwerpen, 2009, p. 17). Much of Dewey’s work has influenced our thinking about civic engagement in higher education.
However, within the field of higher education, there are inherent challenges when trying to define civic engagement. Saltmarsh (2005) states:
A lack of clarity about what is meant by the tern ‘civic engagement’ is evident when, at almost any gathering convened for the purpose of furthering civic engagement in higher education, questions inevitably arise about what is meant by civic engagement and about how it relates to civic education, service learning, democratic education, political
engagement, civics, education for citizenship, or moral education. Moreover, the lack of clarity fuels a latent confusion about how to operationalize civic engagement agenda on campus. (p. 2).
Thus a “big tent” approach in defining civic engagement was used in order to be as inclusive of the varied types of policies, academic curriculum, practices, activities, and communities who participate in this work. Perhaps more importantly, this approach was utilized in order for AANAPISI programs to advance their own definitions of civic engagement, which may also include forms of racial and social justice in their engagement. Therefore, as previously stated, civic engagement is defined as, “acting upon a heightened sense of responsibility of one’s communities. This includes a wide range of activities, including developing civic sensitivity, participation in building civic society, and benefiting the common good…through civic engagement, individuals–as citizens of their communities, their nations, and the world–are empowered as agents of positive social change for a more democratic world” (Jacoby, 2009, p. 9).
The first portion of this section focuses on the civic engagement literature including an overview of the importance of studying civic engagement at higher education institutions. Additionally, the civic engagement section will discuss the empirical evidence that demonstrates how civic engagement benefits students as well as its impact on faculty, staff, and administrators. Furthermore, this section will review the research that connects civic engagement with issues of
diversity, since AANAPISI programs often utilize diversity efforts in their civic engagement activities (CARE, 2014; Nguyen et al., 2018).
Civic Engagement for the Federal Public Good
Civic engagement has been apart of the fabric of American higher education since the founding of our first institutions (Smith, 1994). The first colonial colleges were focused on preparing the individual for civic participation and life (Jacoby, 2009). Following the Revolutionary War, the focus of civic engagement in higher education shifted from the individual to the building of a new nation (Boyer, 1994). By the mid 1900’s global events changed how colleges and universities focused on civic engagement. With a national economic depression, two world wars, and an omnipresent cold war, higher education for the public good was focused on direct service to the nation. For example, in response to the Soviet Union’s launching of the satellite Sputnik into orbit, the U.S. Congress passed the National Defense Education Act, which called for higher education to partner with the federal government to advance national interests. Boyer (1994) argues, “the very title of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 clearly linked higher education to the security of our country” (p. 48). Other pieces of federal legislation over time, including the creation of the Peace Corps, the Commission on National and Community Service, and AmeriCorps, were signed into federal law further establishing the connection between higher education and the federal government with regards to civic engagement (Jacoby, 2009). This trend continues today, where federal officials maintain the importance of colleges and universities as primary sites that provide learning opportunities to develop students into civically engaged citizens (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
Differences between Serving Learning and Civic Engagement
Despite their differences, civic engagement and serving learning are often used interchangeably on college campuses. For example, institutions may have offices of civic engagement that provide serving learning opportunities (Jacoby, 2009). Certainly both terms are related and interconnected, and indeed much of the empirical work concerning the outcomes attributed with civic engagement often focuses on service learning. However, without clearly distinguishing the differences between these two similar concepts and understanding how they relate to one another, it will difficult to examine the role of AANAPISI programs in their efforts to build capacity for civic engagement. This following section will explore those differences as well as discuss empirical studies of relevance to both serving learning and civic engagement.
Serving learning is most commonly understood as “an umbrella term under which many activities and programs can fall, rather than a narrowly defined practice with associated
outcomes” (Finley, 2011, p. 2), or “a form of active learning that involves service to one’s community” (Rama, Ravenscroft, Wolcroft, & Zlotkowski, 2000, p. 658). Although service learning does appear to be similar to civic engagement, critical scholars have argued that service learning typically includes apolitical community engagement and does not “intentionally engage students in the activities and processes central to democratic building (i.e. deliberative dialogue, collaborative work, problem-solving within diverse groups)” (Finley, 2011, p. 1). In other words, civic engagement goes beyond engaging in the community, and also develops new skillsets, value systems, and understandings of different worldviews in its educational practices that moves students toward becoming better citizens, while service learning typically does not. Certainly, service learning can be manifested as civic engagement if it is divorce of political involvement and engagement (Prentice, 2007). This is where the two most often intersect, and
where much of the empirical research with regards to educational and societal outcomes and benefits on this topic has emerged.
The Benefits of Service Learning
Many positive outcomes have been attributed to serving learning. Three of the most common benefits that are typically explored in previous studies examine retention, completion, and grade point average (GPA). Research has demonstrated positive connections between serving learning with retention and completion (Astin & Sax, 1998; Vogelgesang, Ikeda, Gilmartin, & Keup, 2002), as well as with career development (Eyler, Giles, Stenson, Gray, 2001) and on faculty student interactions (Astin & Sax, 1998). However, research on the relationship between serving learning and GPA is mixed. Some researchers have found that service learning has a positive impact on GPA (Astin & Sax, 1998; Vogelgesang & Astin, 2005), while others have found no effect (Kendrick, 1996; Miller, 1994; Parker-Gwin & Mabry, 1998). Beyond GPA, research has also explored how service learning is connected to different arenas of student development, such as critical thinking, citizenship skills, and intrapersonal and social development (Eyler et al., 2001). Indeed, serving learning provides many beneficial outcomes for students, although it often does not take a critical approach (Finley, 2011). Certainly, critical service learning does exist, however programs with this focus are in the minority, or can be understood, in this context, as civic engagement. Nonetheless, on a broad scale, it provides students with opportunities to work in the community, but often does not encourage the type of reflections intended to advance certain outcomes such as training students in the skills of democracy or among issues of race and ethnicity.
The Benefits of Civic Engagement
Since a majority of the scholarship on civic engagement is often connected to serving learning, it suggests that civic engagement’s purpose is to offer students an “understanding of civic life” (Cress, Burack, Giles, Elkins, & Stevens, 2010, p.4), rather than developing the “skills and values needed to actively participate in and influence that civic life” (Finley, 2011, p. 3). By focusing on the understanding of civic life rather than developing the necessary skills for active citizenship, service learning tends to center the student as an individual rather than having the student evaluate and consider their experiences in connection with the community or society. The consequence of this approach is that the student’s individualism comes at a “very high cost in the neglect and diminishment of democratic society” (Knefelkamp & Schneider, 1997, p. 333). With these differences in mind, the following section will broadly discuss empirical studies that examine the outcomes associated with civic engagement.
Since “civic learning is rooted in respect for community-based knowledge, grounded in experiential and reflective modes of teaching and learning, aimed at active participation in American democracy, and aligned with institutional change efforts to improve student learning” (Saltmarsh, 2005, p. 53), the empirical research that examines these concepts show increases in political understanding, skills, and motivation (Colby, 2008). Furthermore, Mayhew &
Fernández (2007) found that participation in intergroup dialogue, serving learning courses (that are critical and focus on social issues and oppression), and discussions about diversity with opportunities for reflection mattered the most in order to improve social justice outcomes. Co- curricular activities that link participation in the community to the classroom showed increases in civic outcomes that include awareness of one’s civic responsibilities and ability to critique the political process (Harringer & McMillan, 2007). Overall, the literature has found that civic
engagement in higher education settings is beneficial to students in a myriad of ways (Finley, 2011).
Civic Engagement and Diversity
Scholars, institutional leaders, and policy makers have all declared the importance and necessity for higher education to play a critical role in serving the pubic good through civic engagement (Kezar, 2005). To achieve this public good, some institutions have opted to take a critical approach to civic engagement and focused their efforts on diversity. Although there are a myriad of reasons as to why diversity is key to these efforts, from ensuring students receive a multitude of benefits that diversity provides or to preparing students to work in an increasing diverse and global world, a central rationale for civic engagement in relation to diversity is that, in order to “end America’s discomfort with race and social difference, and deal directly with many of the issues of inequality present in everyday life,” it is “time to renew the promise of American higher education in advancing social progress” (Hurtado, 2007, p. 186). In agreement, scholars continue to call for civic engagement initiatives to focus on diversity efforts – both on campus and in the community (Green & Trent, 2005).
Summary of Civic Engagement
The amount of research and scholarship that exists regarding civic engagement is expansive. This section alone only represents a cross section of the theoretical and empirical research regarding civic engagement – as it relates or may be applied toward AANAPISIs. The nexus between civic engagement and diversity (Hurtado, 2007) is critical to build efforts to understand the work of MSIs, and in particular for this study. Research discussed in this section suggests that academic (although mixed) and co-curricular activities related to diversity, which is typically used in AANAPISI programs, contributes to new levels of civic engagement. Yet,
there is dearth of research that examines the process in which capacity for civic engagement is created, and its potential impact on the institution. Furthermore, of the research that does exist, much of it is not focused on AANAPISI programs. Thus, the next section of this literature review will examine relevant research of the key components that would be expected to build capacity for civic engagement at AANAPISI programs.
PART III: Literature on Blended Components to Build Capacity at