Lessons for Service Learning in Rural Areas

Abstract

The literature about service learning in planning education contains a wealth of insights from practitioners at large research universities in urban settings. Very little has been written about experiences in rural areas. The Environmental Studies Department at St. Lawrence University has experimented with several strategies for service learning in rural northern New York. As a type of service learning, the research seminar offers several advantages over conventional internships and community-based independent study. These advantages are critical in rural areas of sparse population, where few agencies exist. Case studies involving conservation easements, community planning, and historical preservation demonstrate that some agencies derive real benefits from service learning. The case studies also illustrate the following lessons: the research seminar can engage a variety of planning issues and organizations; it is helpful, though not necessary, if sponsoring organizations articulate needs, but they should not anticipate preferred results from research; university staff should pay close attention to the sociopolitical context of participating agencies and ensure that students are fully immersed in the community; and service learning can make tangible contributions to the quality of rural life, thereby making these areas more attractive for residents who wish to stay.

Multiversity of the twenty-first century – examining opportunities for integrating community engagement in planning curricula

“…As a condition of engagement, learning always involves some kind of experiential learning (Brand & Rincon, 2007;Kotval, 2003). Examples are diverse and range from work-based learning (Higgins & Simpson, 1997;Harris, 2004), problem-based learning (e.g. Shepard & Cosgrif, 1998;Abramson, 2005), live projects (Higgins & Simpson, 1997) to participatory action research (e.g.…”

Educating Boundary Crossing Planners: Evidence for Student Learning in the Multistakeholder Regional Learning Environment

“…First, the confirmation that working in multidisciplinary instead of monodisciplinary student groups more strongly stimulates various competencies regarded as important for professional planners provides an argument for more explicitly facilitating multidisciplinary group work in planning studio courses (Long 2012) and in service learning (G. Harris 2004;Sletto 2010). Second, the revealed importance of intense process coaching and reflection in order to facilitate and explicate learning experiences in the RLE evidentially supports the important role that reflection has been given in service learning (Roakes and Norris-Tirrell 2000;Sletto 2010).…”

“…Several studies have portrayed learning experiences in studios, service learning, and in mixed variants of these two, resulting in suggested guidelines for the educational design of these learning environments (e.g., Balassiano 2011;G. Harris 2004;Higgins, Aitken-Rose, and Dixon 2009;Sletto 2010;Winkler 2013).…”

“…Learning outcomes are in most cases closely connected to those of a related theoretical course. Students work individually or in groups on realworld, societal assignments that ideally are relevant for the community at the local or sublocal level (G. Harris 2004;Sletto 2010). The assignments are often, but not necessarily, multidisciplinary.…”

“…Teachers and students work in a master-apprenticeship model in which the teacher fulfills the role of facilitator of the process and reflection (G. Harris 2004;Roakes and Norris-Tirrell 2000;Schön 1987;Sletto 2010). In planning education practice, many different service learning courses have been developed and evaluated, for example, the service learning studio (Forsyth, Lu, and Mc Girr 1999;Winkler 2013) and the research seminar (G. Harris 2004). In these service learning variants, both faculty members and students maintain a close relationship with external organizations and deliver a formal community service report.…”