The Global Village Café:
Toward a More Effective Service Learning/Experiential Paradigm – Holistic Academic/Experiential Service Learning with Multiple Commitment Devices
Peter L. Banfe, Ph. D
Associate Professor of International Business
Ohio Northern University
E-mail: p-banfe@onu.edu
This article is about the quest for the pedagogical Holy Grail, the magical chalice containing that perfect essence which, when applied to the educational experience, will maximize retention and application of curricular knowledge by our apprentices: the students. This need has become even more immediate as the costs of formal university education skyrockets, competition for students has become even more intense, affordable and effective online options multiply, employer training programs get more sophisticated, employers demand more from graduates who cost more than their un-degreed counterparts, and current methodologies appear to be failing to produce adequate results (Porter & McKibbin, 1988). Traditional paradigms which propose educators as transmitters of knowledge and students as passive recipients are quickly being challenged by new pedagogies (Herremans & Murch, 2003; Steffes, 2004).
We are truly in a period of “revolutionary science” in the “Kuhnian” sense (Kuhn, 1962). Many of these new pedagogies posit the student/teacher relationship to be one of interaction and mentoring and the role of the educator to be one of facilitating experiences, engaging students, creating learning environments, and improving retention of information through experiences which create personal relevance and real world linkages (Boyer, 1990; Burns, Hannon, McBride, 2004; Herremans et al., 2003; Jacoby & Associates, 1996).
Academics have been increasingly turning to the experiential education literature in search of answers. The emerging academic service learning paradigm has been debated as one proposed solution to the search for more effective ways of designing the learning experience. The subject of this research is a roughly six year experimentation at a small accredited undergraduate Mid-Western business school with a variant of academic service learning, one with some interesting twists and turns, which has had some striking empirical results. The experiment is called the “Global Village Café.”
The Global Village Café (GVC) is an intense one quarter undergraduate, senior level project run under the auspices of the entrepreneurs/small business class in the Fall of each academic year. The students have one quarter to craft a full service restaurant from scratch, facing the myriad of tasks involved in such an enterprise: concept and design, cuisine, theme, operations, financials, permits, rentals, charities, outside events, expenses, long-term investments, suppliers, marketing, and flow charts. Students were also responsible for selecting team leaders and associates with appropriate skills, hiring entertainers, conducting public relations. All of this was completed under extreme time constraints and under intense pressure for excellence and innovation. The experience culminates with the final exam: opening night, when dignitaries and other customers arrive, when the lights dim, when the music and the aroma of food waft through the air, when the glasses “clink” together—it’s show-time. The restaurant is run for two intense weekend evenings serving about two hundred patrons a night.
The goal here is to examine the empirical record of the Global Village Café experience and see what can be learned from the triumphs and fiascoes about organizing a service learning project, as well as ways to get the most out of these projects.
Brief Review of the Experiential Learning Literature
Of course, the pedagogical utility of experience in learning is not a new subject. In 1938, Dewey wrote of the need for an educational experience based on the “philosophy of experience” that should emphasize the “freedom of the learner.” As Dewey clearly articulates, principles only become concrete by application or understanding of the real world relevance of those concepts. However, the debate has been energized in the last couple of decades due in no small part to a number of critical catalysts. First there was Kolb’s 1984 book Experiential Learning: Experience as a Source of Learning and Development and the plethora of research examining alternative approaches to learning, many of an experiential nature such as service learning. Second, there were developments in the external environment—such as increased competition in higher education, not only from traditional sources but from new ways of delivering learning, including less expensive online options. Additionally, the field of business has witnessed greater demands for practical skills from employers. These have helped move the focus of pedagogy away from traditional lecture style, non-interactive methods towards a pedagogy which emphasizes engaging students in applying theory to real life experience.
Experiential learning is learning by students who are given the opportunity to acquire and then apply knowledge and skills and examine feelings in an immediate and relevant setting. It is learning which takes place with a direct encounter with the subject matter being studied. As Kolb (1984) writes, the “learning is a process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience.” Kolb’s now famous model, clearly drawing from work by Piaget and Dewey, identifies four major elements in the learning process: Concrete experience (CE), observation and reflection (RO), formulation of abstract concepts (AC), and active experimentation in new situations (AE). Although Kolb and Fry (1975) argue that the cycle can begin with any one of the four elements, they suggest that learning begins with carrying out an action then reflecting upon the effect of that action.
However, according to Kolb and Fry (1975), although the learning cycle can begin at any one of the four points listed above, the process of learning normally proceeds in a continuous spiral. In general, the learning process begins with a particular action by an individual, who subsequently sees the effect of that action. The individual then reflects upon the effects in order to understand the causal linkages between action and outcome, so they could anticipate the effect given a similar circumstance. In the third step, this understanding would lead to capturing the general principle under which the subject action falls. Finally, once the action/response is categorized under a general principle, this general principle is then tested in a range of new situations. Most people learn in a fairly straight-forward two step process, inputting and then processing. However, some people differ in their preferences of order for these two steps: some prefer concrete inputs (specific) and others prefer abstract (holistic); some prefer hands on experimentation, and others prefer to passively reflect on reality (Kolb, 1976).
Although Kolb clearly provides us with a useful framework for understanding learning and explaining the effectiveness of experiential models of learning, he has been criticized for a number of flaws and omissions. His model does not pay enough attention to understanding the process of reflection (Boud, Keough, Walker, 1985; Holman, Pavlica, Thorpe, 1997; Miettinen, 2000; Reynolds, 1997). Some argue that the model is culture bound, ethno-centric, and does not effectively deal with alternate cultural experiences which could significantly affect the learning process (Anderson, 1988). Further, one could argue that Kolb’s model relies on fairly inflexible stages and doesn’t deal with the issue of skipping stages, or concurrent stages, missing the untidy nature of human learning. As Dewey clearly articulates, in reflection, stages can be skipped and processes can occur concurrently (Dewey, 1933). Regardless of Kolb’s flaws, it is indisputable that his work, along with others who have followed (Jarvis, 1994; Jarvis, 1995; Tenant, 1997), has begun the process of enunciating a counter paradigm to the traditional pedagogical one.
A variant of experiential learning, academic service learning continues to be a focus in many business schools around the nation. Service learning is defined as educational activities, programs or curriculums that promote experiential learning among students through experiences which apply course content while engaging in community or volunteer services. Academic service learning refers to learning models in which students are paired in mutually beneficial relationships with organizations or individuals in a meaningful project where students are offered the opportunity to reflect on their experiences (Dudderar & Tover, 2003).
Empirical studies provide support for the effectiveness of experiential learning approaches in general, and service learning pedagogies in particular (Gosen and Washburn, 2004, Madsen, 2004; Russel & Sibthorp, 2004). Some of the benefits enumerated include (Anonymous, 2004; Lizzio, 2004; Slavkin, 2003; Stanton, 1990):
- Motivating them to engage in higher order thinking about issues, by requiring students and teachers to interact with external environments
- Stimulating democratic involvement
- Exposing students to philanthropic values
- Developing stronger analytical and problem solving skills
- Leading to personal development
- Developing leadership skills
- Learning cultural awareness and tolerance
- Building social development skills and improving interpersonal skills
- Developing self-pride
Further, research on brain-based pedagogies (BBP) largely supports the premises of experiential learning in general and service learning in particular (Slavkin, 2003). But with a very different focus, BBP proposes a view of cognition that envisions the brain as a complex interrelated ecosystem. This approach asserts that the stronger the interaction between information and skills, and the more individually relevant and meaningful the experiences, the greater the likelihood that students will engage in higher order thinking, and the more likely knowledge will become nested and accessed to effect thinking and behavior. And where one might criticize the relative inattention to the process of reflection within the work of Kolb, BBP focuses on reflection as a critical aspect of the learning process. Also, individuals learn better in environments which are intriguing and multi-sensory, and when they are provided dynamic problems with multiple solutions. BBP says that service learning supports the learning process through community interaction, contributing to greater commitment and ownership of the projects.
In a review of the experiential and BBP literature one can identify at least eight characteristics of a good experiential/service learning environment. BBP states that a good learning environment allows students first to demonstrate knowledge, second to collaborate on the analysis of real world problems, and third to incorporate curricula into the project (Dozier, 1992; Slavkin, 2002; Slavkin 2003; Sylwester, 1994).
BBP also maintains that it is critical that participants be offered the opportunity to reflect (Steffes, 2004). Petkus (2000) maintains that a good academic service learning/experiential project must contain each of the learning phases identified by Kolb (1984). In other words, a good experiential/service learning project must present the student with not only reflective opportunities but concrete experiences, a chance for abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. Therefore, a fourth characteristic of a good experiential/service learning environment is one which offers students the opportunity for exposure to concrete experience, reflection, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation.
Furthermore, BBP asserts that when learners become involved in decision-making and applying curricular knowledge to real life, the more likely the information appears meaningful and relevant and is retained (Dozier, 1992; Slavkin, 2002; Sylwester, 1994). As Slavkin (2003) relates, the richness of the learning environment has a direct impact on neural pathways and how information is hardwired. Therefore a fifth characteristic is that the environment should be one which presents multiple sensory experiences, as opposed to a pure lecture format. Sixth, the environment should be one which presents dynamic multi-causal issues with multiple solutions (Slavkin, 2003).
I would add another, probably self-evident but nevertheless critical, requirement for a successful experiential/service learning project. The experience of the GVC supports the contention that any experiential/service learning project must have clearly delineated goals and be thoughtfully constructed in a way which assures benefits to both the students and the recipients of the service. This would include a carefully instructor designed or pre-constructed framework, within which student creativity can flourish, but with clear guidance, limits and direction. Hence a seventh characteristic is that a well-crafted project must have been thoughtfully constructed with goals and limits delineated and the project environment carefully considered.
An eighth critical characteristic, also highlighted within BBP theory, is that the project must “intrigue” and “interest” student participants (Slavkin, 2003). However, my experience suggests that it is critical that student participants go well beyond interest and intrigue and develop a sense of ownership in the project and begin to associate their own fortunes, their own sense of integrity, with the project. This commitment creates the emotional attachment needed to achieve the project goals, which has the ability to push students to leave the domain of curricular requirement and perceive themselves as integral to the accomplishment of valuable goals. Therefore, a good experiential/service learning environment is also one that includes effective tools to motivate students to feel personal ownership of the projects as well as to have an intimate personal concern with its success or failure.
The Global Village Café
The project’s goal was to create an experiential service learning environment in which students could be immersed in a simulated real world experience, and through exposure to the challenges of this experience—and with reflection upon those challenges—gain valuable skills and knowledge for use in their future careers. Our analysis begins with the assumption that good experiential service learning projects adhere to research conducted within the field of BBP and experiential learning. Therefore, well-structured experiential projects should conform to the eight characteristics identified in the previous section.
During the Global Village Café, students had the quarter to design a restaurant and then open for business for two nights during the final week of class. The Global Village Café began during the 2000-2001 academic year and, except for a one-year hiatus, remained open for business for six years. One of the catalysts for the project was the realization that a small business course taught as a traditional textbook/lecture format could never introduce students to the richness, dynamism, and causal complexity of the small business experience (Porter et al., 1988).
The first year was a modest venture but set the foundation for future years. The project had no clear concept, no chefs, no site, no capital, no equipment, and no precedent. Four major goals were the focus for the first year: 1) to give students an opportunity to let their creative juices flow while integrating the major disciplinary skills they had learned in the program; 2) to increase student’s cultural sensitivity; 3) to introduce the mid-western rural community to international culture through a multi-cultural cuisine and décor; and 4) to generate funds to be used for a scholarship for international students. The project was located at an old train depot in town that was in need of some renovation but was used for some community events. A church across the street had a professional, fully-equipped kitchen with Hobart mixers, full commercial ovens, freezers, steamers for chaffing dishes, etc. The depot was contracted for the event each year, and the kitchen was contracted beginning with the second year and continuing through the sixth.
The class spent the entire quarter in teams, arranging décor, obtaining permits, locating suppliers, creating cuisine, selling tickets, etc. Foreign students managed the kitchen the first year, cooking three cuisines—Japanese, Costa Rican, and Arabic. There were four languages being spoken in the kitchen and, many times, in the restaurant, presenting some real communication challenges. The GVC’s first year was not the fine dining experience it came to be in later years, though; during the first year entrees were served on disposable plates. On Friday and Saturday nights there were five meal services about 45 minutes apart. A credit card was used for working capital until all seatings were sold and the resulting funds could be used to pay toward the initial credit card funding. The first event was sold out. The profits generated were allocated to charity work, and a portion was invested in future GVC events.
During the later years, certainly the scope and quality of the end product evolved radically. For year two, we were able to use some of the previous year’s profits as working capital. That year we contracted the local church to use their industrial kitchen, and we also used university china and place settings. During the third year, the curriculum was radically altered to dedicate more time to the project and begin to connect the course content to the GVC in a more meaningful way; this evolved over the last three years of the event. During the final three years, the students from the business college collaborated with a local culinary college, for which the GVC became their course project. Students from the business college and the culinary institute participated in joint meetings and joint classes, sharing ideas.
The theme became quite ornate, with superb décor, live professional jazz, and of course, much elevated ticket prices. The customer service experience became quite unorthodox and extraordinary as students were taught to “think outside the box” while balancing creativity against cost. The event was televised and received quite a bit of media attention. A website was created, project management became more automated, and the event became more demanding, more competitive and more professional. It became a popular university event, populated by dignitaries and top university officials.
GVC: Good Academic/Experiential Service Learning Structure?
As stated previously, the goal of the GVC was to create an experiential service learning environment where students could be immersed in a simulated real world experience, and through exposure to the challenges of this experience and reflection upon those challenges gain valuable skills and knowledge for use in their future careers. In order to do this effectively we assumed that the environment created by the GVC should be one which conformed to the eight characteristics identified above as part of a good experiential/service learning environment. With this in mind, the eight characteristics of good service learning projects are applied below to an analysis of the GVC. Although the data analyzed is drawn from all six years, many of the observations are made relative to the academic years 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. While the experiences of each year had some common characteristics, the records for the years 2004-2007 are a bit more detailed, and the recollection of our experiences during that time is also fresher. It was during the 2004-2005 project year that we engaged in a cooperative relationship with the culinary institute, which enriched the experience of the GVC and provided some intriguing analysis.
Eight Characteristics of Good Service Learning Projects Applied to Analysis of the GVC
1. Facilitates Demonstration of Knowledge
The organization of the GVC offered ample opportunity for demonstrating knowledge. In fact, due to the real life nature of the project, the students didn’t just demonstrate knowledge they were able to see the results of applying that knowledge in a live business function. The GVC was set up into sub-teams, one team for each restaurant function of accounting, operations, design, public relations, and marketing. Before being selected for a position in any one of the departments, students were required to submit a full resume and cover letter explaining why they believed they were qualified for the position for which they were applying.
In a number of ways, however, the GVC fell short. The first shortfall had to do with the division of labor. Since the GVC was a project with a specific task to be completed within compressed timeframes, it was inevitable that students end up having a limited exposure to anything other than their appointed tasks. Also due to the compressed timeframes, invariably a group of high achievers rose to the challenge and, at times, usurped responsibility and valuable experience from others. Therefore, at times a majority of students ended up with fairly rudimentary tasks and felt isolated from the “big picture.” This was a complaint clearly voiced in student evaluations. One way that we had at least a limited effect on ameliorating this problem in later years was the practice of assigning multiple team leaders.
2. Facilitates Collaboration
The entire GVC was a collaborative exercise. The organizational structure of the GVC was quite flat, and collaborative inter-team meetings were highly encouraged. Many team meetings were structured into the format of the project itself. The GVC team coordinators set up a Yahoo group web-space where each department placed all of its meeting minutes for every other group to view. On this web-space, group emails were posted, polls were taken about new concepts, group emails were sent and recorded for easy access, and email addresses and cell phone numbers were listed. A folder was set up by the department where any associate from any department could post an idea anonymously, if they wished, or participate in the awards program for best ideas. The entire GVC met on a weekly basis during which each sub-team gave a short 10-minute presentation regarding progress and challenges after which they invited associate input from all of the GVC. After this, the GVC separated into department/teams, and sub-team coordinators used this time to integrate new ideas, discuss challenges and address critical current items. Sub-teams also met separately, in many cases daily. Collaboration was more problematic in earlier years until the frequency of combined meetings increased, the virtual meeting place became a central communication gateway, and cell phones numbers for all associates were listed, etc.
But collaboration was certainly a challenge that at times bedeviled the project. In-group conflict and “groupthink” created some fairly intense conflict which necessitated outside intervention by the instructor. At times, personality conflict left communication gaps between teams. Some years there were too many leaders and too few followers. Many sub-team managers were forced to modify their personal management styles in an environment where their only real power to censure other students was peer pressure to perform.
3. Incorporates Curricula
The first six weeks of class were when the more traditional learning formats of lectures, PowerPoint presentations, text readings, and quizzes took place. During the later years, those preparatory first weeks focused on material regarding developing organizational skills, leadership styles with a focus on servant leadership, and superior customer service. Students would also read some brief primers on entrepreneurship and lessons from successful entrepreneurs. During this foundational academic period students were also exposed to GVC foundational concepts for the success of the project, which were referred to as S.T.E.P’s, (Service, Teamwork, Execution and Planning). In the later years Alumni who were ex-GVCers would come and speak about some of the challenges of the project during their year and open the floor to questions from that year’s class. Past analogies drawn from previous years’ experiences and other small business cases were used to illustrate the concepts taught. In fact, the discussion almost always led to the GVC and the relevance of the skills being taught to the operation of the GVC. During the 2006-2007 iteration, students were bussed to the culinary institute to sit in on classes with the students who would handle the kitchen at the GVC.
As might be expected, every year one of the biggest challenges was to get students to commit to the less appealing academic foundation coursework. Students would invariably complain about the formal foundational coursework, assigned readings, lectures, and quizzes and want to move on to the project.
4. Generates Reflection
A number of venues for reflection were incorporated into the event. First, the weekly meetings during which each group presents its progress, challenges and ideas was a great chance for them to reflect upon decisions and options as a group. Second, we also noticed that the web space became a vibrant reflective vehicle for GVC associates to reflect upon decisions and test new approaches. The web-space hosted numerous GVC polls. Each sub-team had a folder in which anyone associated with the GVC could offer suggestions for improvement and innovation ideas—anonymously, if desired. They also went over comment cards from previous years, which usually had a good deal of suggestions leading to a number of alterations in the way we did business. For example, due to customer comments regarding food temperature, in the fourth year we moved the food prep room inside the restaurant site rather than housing it outside in a tent. Third, students participated in a fairly complete trial run during the last week of class before the GVC, testing out and modifying plans for opening night’s operations.
Fourth, the two night event presented a unique opportunity for reflection upon the concrete experiences of the first night and application of improvements for the second night’s experience. With this in mind, after the first night students engaged in a serious discussion of mistakes and triumphs and began to make modifications for incorporation during the final night. Chefs made what was referred to as a “family” breakfast for all associates after the first night at which problems were discussed and solutions decided upon and then implemented the second night.
The final source of reflection incorporated into the event was the requirement that each department create a history, with contacts, forms, emails, problems and solutions, recommendations for future “GVC’ers”, meeting minutes, and other important issues. However, at least partially due to inter-year competition, although each year’s associates did keep copious notes, minutes, histories, both visual and written, a culture of secrecy began to develop. Therefore, most important documents and discussions, contacts and ideas were intentionally left out of what was kept for the next year’s class. In a way this was not completely counterproductive, as it required each year to have to face all of the challenges of the GVC independently.
5. Utilizes a Multiple Sensory as Opposed to Pure Lecture Format
As previously discussed, the GVC project uses a combination of speakers, energetic brainstorming, off-site classes, PowerPoint presentations, quizzes, team meetings, cross disciplinary classes, culinary roll-outs, colorful ethnic themes and direct experiential immersion with only a limited degree of traditional lecture. One thing we learned is that students have a short attention span during the event for material that does not have apparent immediate relevance to the event. We learned through our mistakes that lectures and course content had to be tailored to be made relevant to the GVC experience or students would lose interest and focus solely on the GVC project.
6. Presents Dynamic Multi-Causal Issues with Multiple Solutions
Faculty advisors observed that over the years multi-causal issues eliciting a multiplicity of solutions seemed to be a natural outgrowth of the operation of the GVC project. In fact this characteristic of the event presented the greatest challenge to young sub-team coordinators (team leaders). Consider a simple purchase order system. Accounting can err on the side of control and give no independent signing authority to sub team coordinators and bog down progress. Or they can err on the side of flexibility and allow unlimited signing authority with the potential of uncontrolled spending. Also, for example, how to arrange the guest experience from the time they purchase their ticket up until the time they depart for home has always been a complicated, though absolutely fascinating, challenge with multiple solutions. Although each year wanted to have the most extraordinary customer experience program, these were invariably tempered by cost and the goal of maximizing charitable contributions. One could see this debate play out in team meetings when unrealistic plans were quashed by arguments which discussed the need to maximize charitable contributions.
However, the rapid time frames and inexperience of students at times might have led to some suboptimal choices, some of which could have, if left unattended, scuttled the event. As educators and mentors we found it difficult to let the students flounder in their own problems and go through the messy process of designing solutions. I constantly dealt with this temptation and not always with complete success. The caveat is to tread lightly and only intervene when absolutely necessary.
7. Represents a thoughtfully constructed project in which goals and limits are delineated and the project environment is carefully considered
The mission of the GVC was clearly outlined and explained to the students. The project was organized around three central values: providing customers with high quality ethnic food, incredible/innovative service, and global philanthropy. The mission of the GVC was:
“The Global Village Café is a restaurant catering to those with an appetite for social consciousness. We set the table for global responsibility with a menu featuring ethnic gourmet cuisine. Feed your conscience along with your palate. All profits go to philanthropic causes on a global scale. It’s food for thought - and your soul.”
The syllabus itself was about 12 pages long, a large portion dedicated to the GVC. Over the years we attempted to come up with an effective mix of independence and formal organization. The ten-week timeframe along with the course content requirements led us inevitably to the decision that we could not start each year’s project without a beginning framework. On the other hand, we wanted each year’s GVC participants to have to struggle with most of the major questions independently from participants of the other years. Each year’s group of GVC associates was presented with the overall mission, an organizational chart and job descriptions and employee evaluation system, a reservation database, a bank account with starting capital, a web-space to communicate in, a webpage from the previous year, and contact numbers for chefs and a multitude of suppliers. Finally, the faculty gave a fairly in-depth briefing about the event, past and present.
For all six years, the culinary operation was pre-arranged for the students, although students played an important part in the selection of the cuisine, as well as in the presentation and integration of kitchen and dining room operation. Starting in the fourth year a local culinary college provided the entire culinary team, including an accomplished award winning chef.
Granted, it was always difficult to decide just how much flexibility should be built into the event. We opted for a general structure but left many of the details to each year’s class.
8. Presents many effective ways to generate student commitment
One could argue that commitment from participants in experiential projects is of critical importance to the richness of the experience and success of those projects. Getting commitment from senior level students in their final year of undergraduate education, while they are juggling jobs and school, looking for permanent employment, and involved in extra-curricular activities can be a challenge as any undergraduate professor will admit. However, it could be argued that the GVC was fairly effective at generating student commitment. Students worked 20-30 or more hours per week, on occasion, just on this project, because they chose to. During a fall quarter, one could find students hanging around the business building after hours discussing plans for the event, on cell phones, on the street fund-raising, having group meetings and brain-storming. A number of the commitment devices were intentional, while others were just a beneficial outgrowth of the project itself. However, as will be discussed, one could also argue that the extent of commitment resulted in a number of less savory, sub-optimal behaviors.
The first partial explanation for student commitment was the student evaluation system. Fifty-percent of the final class grade was the GVC. Each individual was graded based on two components. The first was the team component. This was calculated based on:
- Quantifiable results from customer comment cards
- Observations by the instructor of teamwork and enthusiasm
- Observations by the instructor as to whether or not they were successful creating “Raving Fans” of external organizations including the suppliers, the community, the university, the press
- Observations by the instructor as to how well they integrated community service ideas in to the project.
Each individual received the overall team score unless they missed required meetings, failed to complete assigned tasks before or during the event, exhibited dishonest or unethical behavior, or were responsible for negative relations internal to the GVC team or with external organizations. The penalties were clearly delineated and substantial for certain breeches.
Another commitment device included the peer awards given after the final GVC meal to top performers, based on selection either by peers or by quantitative performance.
Clearly the substantial independence and decision making authority for students within the GVC was an important reason for student ownership and commitment. The challenge for us as faculty was to walk the fine line between intervention and total independence without snuffing out enthusiasm. A number of criticisms on course evaluations referred to the need to allow even further independence for students, and complaints about intervention by faculty.
Another commitment device was the philanthropic mission of the GVC. Philanthropy became the raison de-E’tre of the GVC. Each year’s GVC project focused on a compelling current charity issue. For example, the charity one year was breast cancer, other years it was 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. During the year focusing on Hurricane Katrina the GVC hosted families profoundly affected by the devastation. A number of families displaced by Hurricane Katrina attended the event. During the last few years, global issues related to children dominated the philanthropic agenda and turned out to be the most compelling for students of all genders. The GVC was able to generate thousands of dollars for children’s causes including The Ronald McDonald House, Christian Children’s Fund, Wheels for the World, World Vision Tsunami Relief Fund, Christmas Gifts for Homeless Children, Novirapin project for pregnant African Aids mothers, an equestrian program for handicapped children, and plane tickets for an Haitian girl seeking orthopedic surgery in the United States. The GVC was appointed as a UNICEF emissary for its work in raising money for support of their campaign against AIDs in children. It was interesting to see how protective students became of the over-riding goal of generating money for the children. Almost every expense was scrutinized under this lens and the cost benefit explained. At times, good ideas with obvious payoffs in excess of cost were rejected because students didn’t want to threaten profits available to these causes.
The effectiveness of personal involvement with the philanthropy through service, as opposed to just raising cash, turned out to be a powerful and effective commitment device that seemed to create a personal “buy-in” to the project. For example, in 2003 the GVC had a subsidiary walk for breast cancer which the staff organized. However, the experience of students in the latest years seemed to have the more powerful impact on commitment. In each of the later years, students organized a party for a local school for disabled children, cooking for them, arranging a story-teller and magician, as well as clowns. The personal exposure to these children with the students, many of whom had never been exposed to special needs children, clearly had a visible emotional impact.
Certainly all of the media attention has had an impact on student commitment. Every year the event received news coverage in the local news as well as in media with more statewide coverage. Sometimes there was also television coverage live at the event. Although media coverage clearly excited the students, it was never the major motivation for their decisions.
Another motivator was the fact that real high profile customers attended the event. Many were fellow students, past GVC alumni, parents, university employees, dignitaries, and successful Alumni. The President of the college and his wife and the Dean of the School of Business attended with many Advisory Board members, parents and other dignitaries. This placed pressure on students to excel and try to surpass the results of previous years, especially because many of the patrons had experience with previous years and would voice comparative opinions.
One final commitment device was clearly unplanned and an interesting outgrowth of the projects itself. Over the years, the GVC became a highlight for the student experience for at least 25 to 40 students each year. These students began to perceive themselves as part of a special club, a fraternity/sorority of “GVC’ers.” For example, comments on class evaluations included a request to make the class a privilege, open only to certain students. The communication between the GVC staff continued on after graduation day with students exchanging phone numbers. Every year many of the patrons at the GVC are past alumni, coming to enjoy a meal and to size up this year’s GVC compared to their GVC event. This was totally unintentional. But this camaraderie resulted in an enthusiasm which was passed on from year to year.
In Lieu of Conclusions:
The GVC and Holistic Academic/Experiential Service Learning with Multiple Commitment Devices
In general, the findings support the conclusion that although the GVC did a fairly good job of conforming to the eight criteria of effective experiential service learning projects. It appears as though the project provided a rich, causally complex, collaborative, multi-sensual learning environment that came to effectively incorporate curricular content into its structure in a relevant and meaningful fashion. The project facilitated demonstration and application of curricular and other acquired knowledge, provided adequate though admittedly less than robust avenues for reflection, and opportunities for modification and observation of the outcome of those modifications. The students were given a fairly substantive carefully constructed supra-structure for the project from year to year, while preserving wide latitude for creativity. Surprisingly, on average this course generated 10-20 times the number of student quarter end evaluation comments and recommendations as most other courses. The majority of students listed the GVC as the highlight of the course, some the highlight of their entire college experience. When queried about the benefits of the course, a majority listed the real world experience running a small business and the hands on experience. Others mentioned teamwork skills, project management skills, problem solving skills, and time and people management skills. In addition, many mentioned the relationships they developed, working with other students, and seeing how people work under pressure.
However, the GVC was not without its problems. One might argue that more can be learned from its fiascoes and the organizational pathology it engendered than from its successes. For example, good service learning projects should create an environment with ample opportunity for participants to demonstrate knowledge. What was problematic in the GVC project was the resultant division of labor. First of all, because of the compressed time-frames, a number of students ended up feeling isolated and limited to performing rudimentary tasks. This was a complaint voiced by students in written evaluations.
Collaboration was certainly one bedeviling problematic. Clearly the event improved year by year with the inclusion of a collaborative web-space, inter-group and team coordinator meetings, better communication through cell phones, closer relationships with the culinary team through collaborative classes and cooperative meetings. However, in-group conflict and “group think” kept the GVC organization from optimization of decision-making and operational effectiveness during a number of years.
A perennial challenge for the faculty was keeping students committed to academics, to working on foundational coursework. Students invariably complained about the coursework and were anxious about the compressed time frames. The faculty did seem to be able to reach a happy medium in later years by modifying the course foundational presentation to focus on topics relevant to the GVC, integrate case examples from previous years and host speakers with relevant topics. As discussed in the BBP literature, this dynamic interaction between knowledge and experience helps to “nest” the information into cognitive frameworks (Slavkin, 2003; D’Arcangelo, 1998).
An important characteristic of good experiential service learning projects is that they create ample opportunity for reflection. Some of this was addressed through collaborative meetings between the two nights of the event, where students reflected upon there experiences and then modified behavior for the second night. On the other hand, there survived a nagging constraint to organizational reflection and memory. Largely due to intense inter-year competition, a culture of secrecy developed and only incomplete information regarding prior year’s experiences was relayed, including reflective notes which could have been of great utility to future years.
Certainly the GVC did create an environment rife with dynamic multi-causal issues with multiple solutions. However, on the other hand, the inexperience of the students and the compressed time-frames resulted in some suboptimal decisions, a few necessitating faculty intervention. Also, faculty had to deal with the temptation of intervention and did so with spotty success. This was a fairly common complaint found on evaluations from students involved in the event. One could argue a strong case for limited intervention. But making the call of when to and when not to intervene is quite difficult, especially when legal concerns and reputations are involved.
This research also identified two other issues not clearly covered in the literature. The first is the potential utility of approaching the creation and operating of these learning environments in a dynamic, holistic light. Every participant and each group of individuals is different with different limitations, resources and resultant organizational dynamic. Every project is unique and generates its own internal dynamic that may unfold to the joy or chagrin of the facilitator. Gauging interaction of participant and learning environment is an important element in project design. It might be useful to view each experiential project in a holistic way, as an evolving system necessitating careful consideration of the parts, as well as constant attention to the evolution of the project over time in order to ascertain when minor modification might redirect and help optimize what is learned.
The second and arguably the most significant finding was the identification of the critical importance of the need to be sensitive to, identify and nurture, and construct multiple commitment devices within any experiential service learning project. In the case of the GVC these included the system of student evaluations, peer awards, decision making independence, philanthropy, personal involvement in philanthropy, media coverage, real life high profile customers, and eventually the development of a tight knit GVC fraternity and inter-year competition. Admittedly, the development of the GVC fraternity and inter-year competition was a welcome though unintentional development.
The goal of these commitment devices should be the transformation of perceptions of the project from one of being another academic responsibility to personal involvement, one in which students begin to perceive that the success of the project is directly related to their own sense of integrity. It should be a project that is not only seen as having real world relevance and one that interests students, but one that creates commitment to the goals of the project, loyalty, ambition, interest and enthusiasm. One might ask the question of whether or not the élan that these commitment devices create provides us with a clue to one of the ingredients of the magic elixir that fills the chalice of the pedagogical Holy Grail?
An intriguing facet of the project, which I did not cover in depth in this research but which may be a subject for future research related to the GVC, is how the faculty was immersed in their own experiential learning experience. Certainly there are a number of examples of how faculty modified facets of the project after reflection. For example, experience with the limited timeframes for the project led to modifications by faculty to add some pre-structuring to the project. Additionally, upon reflection, the classroom curricular content was modified to make it more relevant to the GVC project, thereby increasing student engagement and the likelihood that the content delivered would be retained long-term and with a more sophisticated understanding of causal linkages. This included, for example, speakers drawn from participants in past GVCs and co-curricular classes with the culinary institute. Moreover, reflection by the faculty led to the structuring of more opportunities for reflection by the students, including mandatory meetings between the first and second nights of operation.
Clearly, this research is only one small step in identifying how to optimize learning through experiential projects. We are limited in our conclusion by the fact that this is only one case analysis. On the other hand, one might consider it a number of annual case analyses. But certainly this is still inadequate to draw anything but tentative conclusion and maybe spark interest in developing a research agenda to look more closely at the concepts of “holism” and most importantly the part played by commitment devices in optimizing experiential learning environments.
References
Anderson, J. A. (1988). Cognitive styles and multicultural populations. Journal of Teacher Education, (39)1.
Anonymous. (2004). Hands-on science improves understanding. District Administration, 40(5).
Boud, D., Keogh, M., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London: Kogan Page.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Burns, B., Hannon, S., McBride, H. (2004). Developing creative and critical thinking abilities in business graduates: The value of experiential learning techniques. Industry & Higher Education, 18(2).
D’Arcangelo, M. (1998). The brains behind the brain. Educational Leadership, 56(3).
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. New York: Heath.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Dozier, R. (1992). Codes of evolution: The synaptic language revealing the secrets of matter, life, and thought. New York: Crown.
Dudderar, D. & Tovar, L. T. (2003). Putting service learning experiences at the heart of a teacher education curriculum. Education Research Quarterly, 27(2).
Gosen, J. & Washburn, J. (2004). A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning effectiveness. Simulation and Gaming, 35(2).
Herremans, I. M., & Murch, R. (2003). Multidisciplinary decision making through experiential learning: Perspectives from practical trials. Innovative Higher Education, 28(1).
Holman, D., Pavlica, K., Thorpe, R. (1997). Rethinking Kolb’s theory of experiential learning in management education. Management Learning, 28(2).
Jacoby, b. & Associates. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Jarvis, P. (1994). Learning. ICE301 lifelong learning. Unit 1(1), London: YMCA George Williams College.
Jarvis, P. (1995). Adult and continuing education. Theory and practice 2e, London: Routledge.
Kolb, D. A. & R. Fry (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of Group Process, London: John Wiley.
Kolb, D. A. (1976). The learning style inventory: Technical manual. Boston, Ma: McBer.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, JJ: Prentice Hall.
Kuhn, T. S., (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Lizzio, A. (2004). Action learning in higher education: An investigation of its potential to develop professional capability. Studies in Higher Education, 29(4).
Madsen, S. R. (2004). Academic service learning in human resource management education. Journal of Education in Business, 79(6).
Miettinen, R. (2000). The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey’s theory of reflective thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(1).
Petkus, E. J. (2000). A theoretical and practical framework for service-learning in marketing: Kolb’s experiential learning cycle. Journal of Marketing, 22(1).
Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. (1988). Management education and development: Drift or thrust into the 21st century?. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reynolds, M. (1997). Learning styles: A critique. Management Learning, 28(2).
Stanton, T. (1990). Service learning: Groping toward a definition. In J. C. Kendall & Associates (Eds.), Combining service and learning: A resource book for community and public service (Vols. I and II), Raleigh: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education.
Slavkin, M. (2002). The importance of brain functioning on cognition and teacher practice. The Journal of Teaching and Learning, 6(1).
Slavkin, M. (2003). Engaging the heart, hand, brain. Principal Leadership, 3(9).
Steffes, J. S. (2004). Creative powerful learning environments beyond the classroom. Change, 34(3).
Sylwester, R. (1994). What the biology of the brain tells us about learning. Educational Leadership, 51(4).
Tenant, M. (1997). Psychology and adult learning 2e. London: Routledge.
You are invited to join AE Extra staff!
Send your ideas and/or writing sample
to the Editor-in-chief:
Elizabeth Haller
Kent State University (e-mail: editoraee@hotmail.com)
Academic Exchange Extra invites reader response to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.
Web Master: Nicholas Eastham
