balancing structure and choice in intergenerational service-learning

This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]On: 28 November 2014, At: 08:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Gerontology & Geriatrics EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wgge20

Balancing Structure and Choice inIntergenerational Service-LearningCynthia Riffe Hancock a b , Dena Shenk a c & Jeena George da Gerontology Programb Gerontology Program; and Department of Sociology , University ofNorth Carolina Charlotte , Charlotte , North Carolina , USAc Gerontology Program; and Department of Anthropology , Universityof North Carolina Charlotte , Charlotte , North Carolina , USAd Yuba Skilled Nursing Center , Yuba City , California , USAAccepted author version posted online: 02 Apr 2012.Publishedonline: 05 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Cynthia Riffe Hancock , Dena Shenk & Jeena George (2013) Balancing Structureand Choice in Intergenerational Service-Learning, Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 34:2, 115-134,DOI: 10.1080/02701960.2012.679371

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701960.2012.679371

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wgge20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/02701960.2012.679371

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701960.2012.679371

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 34:115–134, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0270-1960 print/1545-3847 onlineDOI: 10.1080/02701960.2012.679371

Balancing Structure and Choice inIntergenerational Service-Learning

CYNTHIA RIFFE HANCOCKGerontology Program; and Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina Charlotte,

Charlotte, North Carolina, USA

DENA SHENKGerontology Program; and Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina

Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA

JEENA GEORGEYuba Skilled Nursing Center, Yuba City, California, USA

Intergenerational service-learning has become an importantcomponent of many educational gerontology programs. Themodel at the University of North Carolina Charlotte incorporatesmultiple elements of student choice within a very structuredservice-learning experience. A review of the literature reveals somediscussion of the value of choice, but very little utilization of choicewithin a structured intergenerational service-learning model.Qualitative analysis of data from 210 student reflection papersreveals the experience of having choices in structured under-graduate service-learning. These findings support the utilizationof choice within structure as a best practice in intergenerationalservice-learning.

KEYWORDS intergenerational service-learning, choice, gerontol-ogy education

The authors wish to thank their many undergraduate students who participated in theirservice-learning project over the years. Additionally the authors thank their partnering service-learning sites, as well as their resident conversation partners without whom this researchwould not be possible. The authors hope that others can benefit from their findings.

Address correspondence to Cynthia Riffe Hancock, Department of Sociology, Universityof North Carolina Charlotte, 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA. E-mail:[email protected]

115

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14

116 C. R. Hancock et al.

Intergenerational service-learning has become an important component ofmany gerontology educational programs. The Gerontology Program at theUniversity of North Carolina Charlotte (UNC Charlotte) has utilized andrefined its intergenerational service-learning model since initially implement-ing a very open model in 1999 (Bradley, Peacock, & Shenk, 2001; Peacock,Bradley, & Shenk, 2001). Today the UNC Charlotte model is built around thecreation of a conversation partner relationship between gerontology under-graduate students and a person living with dementia. The framework ofthis model is one of choices within structure. A review of the literaturereveals some discussion of the value of choice in the context of intergener-ational service-learning but very little utilization of dimensions of choice ina structured context. We share our findings from three semesters of studentreflection papers regarding the experience of choice in an otherwise struc-tured service-learning project. We also offer a typology that balances choiceand structure as a way to assist others in implementing and refining theirown models of intergenerational service-learning.

Service-Learning

Service-learning is the experiential learning opportunity for students toengage in the community and learn from as well as serve in the process.This type of experiential learning is a “process whereby knowledge is cre-ated through the transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 38). Clark(1999) succinctly outlined the critical elements of service-learning as collabo-ration with the community; extending the curriculum beyond the classroom;fostering of civic and social responsibility; application of course contentto real world settings; the opportunity for reflection, discussion, and lead-ership development; and identification and meeting of community needsand assets. Casile, Hoover, and O’Neil (2011) explained that “the inclu-sion of service-learning projects in the regular curriculum can improve bothcivic engagement and content mastery” (p. 138). You and Rud (2010) sug-gested that service-learning can heighten one’s moral imagination leading toincreased sensitivity to the needs of others. Atler and Gavin (2010) foundservice-learning can influence student confidence in occupational therapypractice. Dedmond and Kestler (2010) found service-learning led to suc-cessful transitions in the area of personal development, social development,academic achievement, citizenship, and career awareness.

The benefits of incorporating intergenerational service-learning intothe classroom environment have been well documented (Beling, 2003;Blieszner & Artale, 2001; Bringle & Kremer, 1995; Brown & Roodin, 2001;Fisher & Finkelstein, 1999; Karasik, Maddox, & Wallingford, 2004; Knapp& Stubblefield, 2000; Lambert-Shute, Jarrott, & Fruhauf, 2004; Shippee,Schafer, & Pallone, 2008; Whitbourne, Collins, & Skultety, 2001). Specifically

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Balancing Structure and Choice 117

intergenerational service-learning offers the opportunity for students of agingto engage with the community, apply course concepts and theories, reflecton the experience, transform their own knowledge base, and enhance thelives of older adults. Peacock et al. (2001) noted the value of service-learning is often in the transformative experience it offers. Karasik (2005)noted that gerontological service-learning offers a more realistic view ofaging, lessens the negative attitudes and stereotypes, and increases stu-dents’ knowledge base and community awareness. Curl, Larkin, and Simons(2005) and Goncalves (2009) found greater motivation to take jobs witholder adults following direct contact with older adults. Cavanaugh (2001)suggested there is mounting evidence that service-learning helps studentsto mature in their thinking about content and their place in the world. TheAssociation for Gerontology in Higher Education (AGHE; n.d.) has a 15-yearplus history of supporting faculty, student, and community efforts in thedevelopment and use of intergenerational service-learning in higher edu-cation. Intergenerational service-learning is well respected as a method forteaching students of aging.

Service-learning is also valuable to older adults and service providerswho work with the aging population. Gray, Ondaatje, Fricker, andGeschwind (2000) noted the improvement of staff morale, number of peopleserved, variety and quality of services, and achievement of goals as positiveoutcomes of the intergenerational service-learning experience. Thus, service-learning, when appropriately designed and implemented, provides positiveexperiences to multiple stakeholders.

Models of Intergenerational Service-Learning

Although the benefits of intergenerational service-learning are well estab-lished, the models vary widely from practica, internships, and mentoringmodels (Bradley et al., 2001; Fisher & Finkelstein, 1999; Lambert-Shute et al.,2004; Von Dras & Miller, 2002; Weinreich, 2003, 2004) to “friendly visiting”(Brown & Roodin, 2001; Dorfman, Murty, Ingram, Evans, & Power, 2004)and dementia-specific models (Fruhauf, 2007; Fruhauf, Jarrott, & Lambert-Shute, 2004; Gigliotti, Morris, Smock, Jarrott, & Graham, 2005; Lambert-Shuteet al., 2004). Many programs offer quite specific models including a focus onphysical therapy (Beling, 2003), coordination of multiple courses (Murakami,Lund, Wright, & Stephenson, 2002), incorporation of nontraditional stu-dents (Knapp & Stubblefield, 2000; M. Lewis 2002), a foster grandparentprogram (Peacock, Flythe, & Jones, 2006), cross-cultural sensitivity (Jones,2006), underserved seniors (Lagana, 2003), residential immersion (Shippeeet al., 2008), a senior law project (Anstee, Harris, Pruitt, & Sugar, 2008),medically complex seniors (McWilliams, Rosemond, Roberts, Calleson, &Busby-Whitehead, 2008), and a cybernetic model (Marx & Miller, 2009).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Ours is a unique research-based model (Hancock & Murray, 2007; Hancock,Murray, Shenk, Davis, & Bordeman, 2007; Hancock, Shenk, & Davis, 2009;Hancock, Shenk, Murray, & Davis 2006; Shenk et al., 2006). Although themodels vary widely, the inclusion of choice in service-learning has receivedlittle attention.

Choice in Service-Learning

Choice in learning in general has received attention in the primary educationliterature. Kohn (1993) suggested that increased choice (within the structuralcontext of student age, time, and needs of other stakeholders) increasesa sense of self determination that leads to greater well-being, heightenedsense of responsibility, better academic performance, less teacher burnout,and greater respect of students. Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, and Ryan (1991)noted that increased student motivation is a rationale for choice in learn-ing. Monty and Rosenberger (1973) believe that amount and locus of choiceplay a role in motivated learning with locus (when choice is offered) beingkey. Flowerday and Schraw (2000) found teachers believe choice leadsto self-efficacy, meaningful experiences, effective decision-making, moti-vated learning, enjoyment, increased interest, ownership, and creativity.Turner (1995) suggested choice enhances literacy learning whereas Amabileand Gitomer (1984) found choice increased children’s artistic creativity inpreschool. Flink, Boggiano, and Barrett (1990) however found that for fourthgraders yoked learning (no choice) was only negative when teachers them-selves were under great pressure. D’Ailly (2004) suggested choice may onlybe a relevant learning component where level of interest in students can beincreased.

The benefits of choice as a component of college education has beendocumented in a few studies. Frymier, Shulman, and House (1996) foundchoice did not affect state (point in time) motivation but also noted studentsare rarely given the opportunity for choice. In their controlled experimentSchraw, Flowerday, and Reisetter (1998) found choice positively affectedmotivation but had no effect on cognitive engagement. Others suggestedthat choice in the college classroom helps to foster more positive work-placeskills (K. Lewis & Hayward, 2003; Lizzio, Wilson, & Simons, 2002).

The elements of choice and structure as components of service-learninghave received scant attention in the literature. Rosing, Reed, Ferrari, andBothne (2010) found that students “frequently desire more structure totheir service-learning placement process, site orientation, and task super-vision in order to feel more comfortable and productive” (p. 475). Stukas,Clary, and Snyder (1999) noted that “providing greater freedom to stu-dents to choose their service activities and related program features mightattenuate some of the negative impact of requiring participation” (p. 7).Beehr, LeGro, Porter, Bowling, and Swader (2010) concurred based on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14


their research on required volunteerism that enhancing students’ choice inservice-learning might be important. Nichols and Monard (2001) suggestedthat the service-learning model should take into account a student’s age,gender, class standing, and gerontological experience. Brown and Roodin(2001) believe that with increasing age of the students more flexible andless structured service-learning may be effective. Long, Larsen, Hussey, andTravis (2001) developed a flowchart detailing how rigid and flexible service-learning models might operate. None of these authors, however, offerred amodel of intergenerational service-learning that integrates a detailed typol-ogy of choice within a structured experience. We present the Universityof North Carolina Charlotte service-learning model with an emphasis onhow students relate to the choices incorporated into our structured modeland then present a typology that integrates choice and structure into anintergenerational service-learning model.

AN EVOLVING UNC CHARLOTTE SERVICE-LEARNING MODEL

Students at UNC Charlotte taking the introductory Aging and the Lifecourseclass spend 10 hours in conversation with a fully consented older adult livingwith dementia as part of their service-learning requirement. This service-learning is integrated into a lower-level undergraduate course with fullcontent focused on Aging and the Lifecourse. The course is required of allundergraduate gerontology minors (we do not have a major in gerontology),but minors only make up approximately 20% of those taking the course.This course is widely utilized as an elective by many programs includingsociology, psychology, pre-public health, exercise science, and social work.All students in the course are required to complete the service-learning.Time spent at the site (10 hours) in addition to in-class and on-site train-ing, reflection time, completion of assignments including transcription of aconversation, and class discussions results in approximately 20 to 25 hoursdevoted to service-learning for the student. It is notable that this course isone of the first to receive an official “Service-Learning” designation by theUNC Charlotte.1

Our service-learning sites are strong community partners who havebeen part of this experience for 5 to 10 years. Their continued willingnessto partner semester after semester is evidence of the value that our service-learning experience brings to their sites and residents. Sites are responsiblefor obtaining consent from the resident or the resident’s guardian depend-ing on the level of cognitive impairment. Sites, in consultation with familymembers and residents, determine which residents may benefit from theservice-learning experience. Students are asked to evenly divide betweensites, and having students volunteer for each site every semester has neverbeen a challenge.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14


After extensive on-site and in-class training for the student, eachstudent and older adult becomes one another’s conversation partner for thesemester. Since 2005 students have learned to utilize empirically developedcommunication techniques that help them foster a comfortable conversationwith their conversation partner. These communication techniques includethe use of “indirect questions” rather than direct questions (e.g., “So, youhave two sisters, don’t you”?), “go-aheads” such as verbal and nonver-bal signals that one is attending to the conversation, and “quilting” thatinvolves bringing past learned information to the present conversation tohelp develop a story (Davis & Smith, 2009, 2011). Additionally, each studentrecords one conversation that becomes part of an extensive corpus of narra-tives that are further utilized for understanding dementia discourse (Pope &Davis, 2011).

Choice Within a Structured Service-Learning Model

As our service-learning has evolved we have moved toward more structurebut also more choice within that structure. Prior to 2007 students signed upfor a conversation partner at one of our partnering sites and worked oneon one to visit for 10 hours and record a 10-minute conversation at onepoint in the semester. After recording the conversation, students transcribedthat conversation verbatim and reflected on the experience through coursefeedback forms and reflection papers. In 2007 we piloted a new model withgerontology undergraduate students within one of our sections of Aging andthe Lifecourse. The new model involved the creation of a photo-ring by stu-dents who worked in pairs, took resident-centered photographs with theirconversation partner, laminated those pictures, connected the photos witha loose leaf ring, and then returned to have a conversation with their con-versation partner about the photos. The photo-ring serves as a conversationtool for the conversation partners to engage one another. Resident centeredis defined as that which the resident attended to at some point during theservice-learning experience. It could be anything from their environmentas long as the student believed their conversation partner had an interestin the subject of the photograph. Graduate students helped to analyze theconversation and student reflection data from this experience. One of theunexpected findings to emerge from this pilot project was that studentswere excited to have the opportunity to choose what type of service-learning experience they might have within the context of our structuredservice-learning model.

Having discovered that this choice played a positive role in an oth-erwise very structured service-learning experience, we began to furtherintegrate and investigate the experience of choice within a structured inter-generational service-learning experience. With the support of a Curriculumand Instructional Development Grant (for technology and graduate assistant

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 1 Evolution of Our Model

Semester Class section 1 Class section 2

Fall 2007 Photo-ring pilot with 5 students NoneGA support

Spring 2008 All photo-ring Non photo-ringCID funding

Fall 2008 Choice of either Non photo-ringCID funding

Spring 2009 Choice of either Non photo-ringFall 2009 Choice of either Choice of either

GA = graduate assistant; CID = curriculum and instructional development.

support) from UNC Charlotte, we were further able to implement the photo-ring option into Aging and the Lifecourse, providing a greater opportunityfor choice in our service-learning model. Table 1 shows the evolutionof the implementation of the photo-ring option into the service-learningexperience.

METHOD

The project has been approved by the UNC Charlotte Institutional ReviewBoard (IRB), and the students each complete research training. All namesand locations are pseudonyms to protect the identity of students, residents,and service-learning partners. An inductive approach was utilized to analyzedata from 210 students’ formative (prereflection) and summative (postre-flection) reflection papers collected over three semesters. All students inthe course complete the required service-learning. Student consents for usto utilize their reflection papers were obtained from 64 students from Fall2008 (four declined consent), 72 from Spring 2009 (seven declined consent),and 74 from Fall 2009 (seven declined consent) for a total of 210 partic-ipants. A total of 85 (40%) students completed the service-learning witha student partner whereas 125 (60%) chose to work alone. The formativereflection prompt asked students to discuss any concerns they had goinginto the service-learning experience and to speculate on the impact theexperience might have on their perceptions of aging, older adults, and per-sons with dementia. The summative reflection prompt asked students todiscuss how the service-learning experience changed and/or reinforced theirthoughts about aging and how their communication skills with persons withdementia changed over the course of the semester. Choice emerged as asalient element after the reflection prompts were assigned, so no distinc-tion is made between prereflection and postreflection data in our analysis.Useful next steps would include prompts that uncover pre–post changes inthe experience of choice in service-learning.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14


The reflection papers were first reviewed by the third author who didnot take the class nor complete the service-learning experience. Througha process of open coding she uncovered choice themes that she discussedwith the second author. The third author then conducted focused coding ofthe data to identify relevant statements related to each theme and to be sureno choice themes were overlooked. See Esterberg (2002) for a discussionof thematic coding. All student comments that related to self-determinationin the service-learning process were included in the analysis. The secondauthor was the original creator of the service-learning component of thecourse (but does not teach the course) and the member of the researchteam who worked with the third author on analysis and identification ofall choice themes. Together, through multiple face to face meetings over20 weeks, they came to complete agreement on the inclusion of commentsand development of themes that exposed student feelings of having or nothaving choice in their service-learning experience. Interrater reliability wasnot calculated because of the nature of the analysis process. Future researchaimed at uncovering any pre–post changes (as previously suggested) shouldincorporate this step.

The first author is the course instructor and brings a sense of context tothe findings. Although the first author was beginning, from classroom discus-sions, to suspect that choice was playing a salient role in the service-learningexperience, data had not been systematically analyzed data that would docu-ment and clarify this. The first author confirmed the relevancy of all emergentchoice themes to the service-learning process. From a review of the reflec-tion papers the following themes related to student choices within structurein our service-learning model were generated: choice of service-learning site,working alone or with a student partner, type of service-learning, choice ofconversation partner, choice of communication intervention, and choice ofcontinuing the experience when the semester ends. These themes, somewith subthemes, frame our findings and analysis.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

This is generally the first class in gerontology for most of our students, andthe students enrolled in this course have widely varying experiences witholder adults. An average of 83% over the three semesters have spent timewith older adults in their family, and 28% have work experience with olderadults. Fourteen percent have at one time or another worked as a CertifiedNurse Assistant (see Table 2). Thus for nearly three fourths of our studentsthis is the first experience with older adults outside of an informal setting.

It is quite notable that though the experience of having choice optionswas never a prompt for these reflection papers, student references to theelements of choice clearly emerged from the reflection paper analysis.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 2 Student’s Previous Experience With Older Adults

Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009Experience with older adults N (%) N (%) N (%)

Work related 15 (23%) 21 (29%) 23 (31%)No work experience 38 (59%) 38 (53%) 40 (54%)Family related 56 (88%) 59 (82%) 58 (78%)No family experience 5 (8%) 11 (15%) 16 (22%)Certified Nursing Assistant 8 (13%) 11 (15%) 11 (15%)Total 64 72 74Missing information 3 (5%) 2 (3%) 0 (0%)

To fully understand these choices, one must understand the structuralcontext of our service-learning model. This context involves structural com-ponents that are non-negotiable elements due partly to the fact that studentsare participating in a research-based model under the auspices of theUniversity’s Office of Institutional Research and also to maintain equity ofcourse expectations and requirements among students participating in theservice-learning project. These structured elements include the following:students must spend at least 10 hours at the assisted living community, mustbe trained in communicating with older adults and specifically people withdementia, choose from three established service-learning sites, their con-versation partner must have some level of cognitive impairment, must betrained in and utilize gerontology program digital recorders and cameras,must abide by and meet the needs and protocol of the assisted living com-munity, and must turn in course items by the due date. In addition, theirselection of site, partner, and type of service-learning is firm once selected,and they must attend an in-class and on-site orientation.

Types of Choice Within the Service-Learning Experience

Within these structured parameters students have the opportunity for severalchoices. They may choose which of our partnering sites they would like tovisit. These sites vary with regard to levels of care, location in the commu-nity, size, racial-ethnic diversity, faith diversity, and socioeconomic diversity.Following orientations in class and at the site, students may select when tovisit the site. This may be dictated somewhat by their conversation partner’sneeds, but they are free to choose a conversation partner whose availabil-ity meets their own scheduling needs. Students may select to work aloneand complete the non-photo-ring option or work with a student partner andcomplete the photo-ring option. Either way all students record, transcribe,and evaluate a conversation. To meet student personality and schedulingneeds they may select their own student partner. Students may choose thecommunication interventions with which they and their conversation partnerare most comfortable. Students may select their conversation partner from

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14


the residents of the community. This selection is typically made at an on-site orientation where students as a group meet the residents who haveconsented to participate in the service-learning project. Most typically allresidents with consent are provided with a student conversation partnereach semester, and some residents even have more than one student part-ner. There are several subelements of choice with regards to conversationpartner. Partners have varying levels of cognitive impairment as well asdiffering biographies, personalities, and circumstances. Each of these is dis-cussed below. Finally, students may decide how to bring closure to theirservice-learning experience. Some will cease visiting when the semester isover whereas others will continue to visit.

In choosing a site, students can select from three partnering assisted-living communities each semester, all within 20 minutes of the University’scampus. These communities vary with regard to residents’ level of cognitiveimpairment; location, size, and building layout; and whether the communityis entirely special care for people with dementia, a memory care unit withina larger community, or simply assisted living. With an understanding of thevalue of the “disorienting dilemma” in transformative learning (Mezirow,1990), site selection by the student can ease some initial fears as the service-learning begins. As one student expressed, “My conversation partner livesat [site]. After visiting the facility I feel comfortable with having this locationas my conversation site because the staff seems to be inviting and even theresidents.” Site selection also allows the students to choose a site to meettheir desires to learn something new, “I have no experience with dementiapatients, but I would like to get a better understanding of the disease andwhat it does to people, which is why I signed up for this particular site.”

After initial orientations in the classroom and on-site, students are freeto schedule their conversation visits at a time that meets their own and theirconversation partner’s needs. Although none of our students mentioned thisin his or her reflection papers, Rosing et al. (2010) found time demands tobe of concern to students.

Students are given the choice to work alone or work with a student part-ner. If they choose to work with a student partner, they then get to choosethat student. The desire to work with or without a partner is a personalpreference, and having that option helps students to feel more empoweredand positive about their service-learning experience. As the following threestudents explained, “Knowing I was going to have a partner in this projectmade me feel more relaxed about it”; “Coordinating [student partner’s] andmy busy schedule was another difficult task, but I’m glad to have her therewith me to ease my nervousness”; and“I also expect we will both challengeand help each other out with the conversation techniques so we can usethem better each time we visit.”

Some students are motivated by the choice of type of service-learning.Every student visits for at least 10 hours and records a conversation. Student

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14


partners who complete the photo-ring option take digital photographs withtheir conversation partner and record a conversation while taking and thenlater viewing photographs. The photo-ring is a tool in the conversationprocess that some students are anxious to utilize as stated in the follow-ing example, “I chose to work with a partner so that I would be able toparticipate in the photo-ring option.”

Students are trained to use three types of communication interventionsthat work well with individuals with cognitive impairment. They learn to useindirect questions rather than direct questions, to use “go-aheads” whichinclude two-syllable audible sounds such as “uh-hmmm,” and to “quilt”previously learned biographical information into a conversation with theirconversation partner (Davis, 2005). Students practice the various techniquesand learn to utilize the approach(es) that work(s) best in a particular situa-tion. In some cases, it is a question of personal preference and the extentof the communication partner’s cognitive impairment, whereas the situationoften varies from day to day. As one student explained:

When my conversation partner was having a good day and talking alot, it was easy to use go-aheads and to let her know that we werelistening and for her to continue on. . . . When she was not speakingvery much, however, [student partner] and I had to make good use ofindirect questions and quilting.

There are several subelements of choice related to the choice of con-versation partner. One obvious element is level of cognitive impairment.Some resident conversation partners are living with mild cognitive impair-ment whereas others have more advanced dementia. Level of cognitiveimpairment is a salient choice parameter for some students as demonstratedin the following example, “I was most comfortable in the [Albemarle] and[Charleston] communities. I think this is mostly because [Waynesville] hitsclose to home, with my last memories of my great grandma being at thatstage.” Sometimes the needs of the community (structure) override whatotherwise would be a student’s choice. This student did not get to choosehis or her conversation partner but would have liked to do so:

My partner and I got paired with [conversation partner]. She is in the[Waynesville] neighborhood. I am nervous about that because I am afraidit will make things more difficult. . . . She seemed very upbeat and happy.I was hoping for someone in [Albemarle neighborhood] or [Charlestonneighborhood] but maybe we paired with her for a reason.

In the process of matching students with their resident communicationpartners, personality sometimes comes into play. Students first visit the com-munity site as a student group during an orientation when they get to meetseveral residents and talk to staff about what makes each resident unique.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Students sometimes express needs and expectations in terms of the person-ality of their conversation partner, such as, “My ideal conversation partnerwould be somewhat upbeat, talkative and maybe even able to throw afew jokes here and there”; “My heart instantly melted when I saw him. Heseemed so enthralled by the group of [University] students walking throughthe [community]”; and “I was told most of the students picked [conversationpartner] because she was easy to work with.”

Choice of conversation partner sometimes involved consideration ofthe conversation partner’s personal circumstances. For example, selectinga conversation partner because of perceived loneliness was salient for onestudent, “I asked [staff] which resident did not receive any family or friendsbecause that would be the one who I would want to spend my time with.”

Biography as a dimension of conversation partner is a little differentfrom circumstance: Circumstance is in the moment whereas biography rep-resents the conversation partner’s personal life story. Wanting a partner witha biography that was similar to one’s own or would benefit one’s own wasexpressed. For example, one student explained,

I think it will be interesting to get a conversation partner who has workedas a pediatrician or in the hospital setting as a nurse. My major is nursingand I think he/she could give me some insight and information aboutworking as a nurse.

And another emphasized, “I do not want to do this service-learning projectfor just the grade; I want to really put effort at getting to know myconversation partner’s life and story.”

Students develop a close caring relationship with their conversationpartner in many instances, so closure is particularly important. Having theoption to continue to visit with a conversation partner is often one of theearliest questions asked in the in-class preparation for the service-learningproject. Indeed Rosing et al. (2010) found in many cases students wished tocontinue their service-learning when the semester ends. Our model offersthis option, and this is important to some students, as the following examplesshow,

I got to meet an incredible woman who has experienced so much in her74 years of life, and still has so much to contribute to the world. I planon visiting her for a long time after this class is over.

I value the hours I got to spend with [conversation partner] and willcontinue to visit her until she gets sick of talking to me! She made such animpression on my partner and I that I never imagined would come about.

I had no idea how rewarding and enjoyable it could be to visit anassisted living facility. My student partner and I have already agreed to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14


continue our visits to the [community] and spend time with [conversationpartner].

There are challenges for the students in making choices, including the possi-bility of making what is later recognized as the wrong choice. For example,one student expressed the following in her postreflection paper:

I wish I would have chosen to do this project on my own. I think I wouldhave learned a lot more. I remember feeling very frustrated when I wassupposed to be leading the conversation with [conversation partner] andI was being interrupted by my student partner.

Tangentially related to the service-learning but certainly an option forstudents is the choice to continue studies in gerontology. Students in thiscourse may or may not be gerontology minors. Often the service-learningexperience gives students enough experience to help them make decisionsabout plans for their own future and whether to continue in gerontology.

I have decided that because of this class that I want to continue to learnand work with older adults, and because of that have decided to minorin gerontology. I really look forward to working with and learning moreabout this amazing practice and people with it.

Analysis of students’ prereflection and postreflection papers makes it clearthat choice is a salient dimension of their intergenerational service-learningexperience at UNC Charlotte. We believe it is important to think about choiceas an element of other service-learning models.

A TYPOLOGY OF CHOICE

The elements of choice we have identified in our model lend them-selves to developing a typology that integrates choice and structure intointergenerational service-learning (see Figure 1).

Having a choice of location gives students the opportunity to select alocation that is geographically proximate to their home or work or schooling.This choice may also include the type of care and ideology or philosophy ofcaregiving. In our case a site closer into town was also the site that was faithbased and had more residents living with milder cognitive impairment. Whatlocations are available to your students? Scheduling options give students theflexibility to complete service-learning hours at their own convenience andat the convenience of the older adult with whom they will be spending.Check with potential sites as to the flexibility of their scheduling visits fromstudents. Peer support offers students the option of working with anotherstudent of their choosing or working alone. Providing this option gives some

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14


TECHNIQUES

What tools will be madeavailable to the students to

empower them forsuccessful engagement in

diverse settings?

PEER SUPPORT

Does student want to workwith another student or

independently?

CLOSURE

Do students have theoption of continuing to

engage in the experiencewhen service-learning

and class are over?

INTERPERSONALCOMPONENTS

How do biography, personality,and circumstance affect theservice-learning choices of

the student?

FORMAT

What will students andolder adults choose to do

together?

LOCATIONWhat geographical

locations, types or levels ofcare and ideology of care are

available from whichstudents can select?

ELEMENTS OF STRUCTURE

Time: What is the minimum time studentsspend doing service-learning?

Training: What is minimally required tocomplete the service-learning?

Sites: Which have agreed to participate?

Older Adult: What role/status is required?

Equipment: What is needed?

Due Dates: When are service-learningcomponents due?

SCHEDULING

When can students andolder adults get together?

FIGURE 1 A typology: Balancing student choice and structure.

students a greater chance of completing the service-learning project with lessstress. A choice in format gives students the flexibility to choose what theywill do during their time with the older adult. For our students they couldchoose whether to create a photo-ring. Other models might offer options foryour own service-learning structure, including but not limited to, possibleiPad, smart phone, or laptop usage. Technique corresponds to teaching stu-dents several possible tools to help them succeed in a specific environment.We offered students tools to communicate with older adults with dementia.What tools will your students need? Interpersonal components have to dowith meeting the personal, biographical, and circumstantial needs of thestudents and older adults. You can ask yourself how biography, personal-ity, and circumstance affect your students and their service-learning needs.Finally, closure refers to students having the option to continue with ele-ments of their service-learning even after the semester is over. For somethis may even result in continuing the experience outside the bounds ofthe classroom requirements. Students will likely make choices dependingon their personal logistics as well as their interest in stepping outside of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14


their comfort zone. As many authors of choice in education suggest, offer-ing these choices will likely increase motivation, interest, work place skills,and in general have a positive effect on the learning experience (D’Ailly,2004; Deci et al., 1991; Flowerday & Schraw, 2000; Kohn, 1993; K. Lewis &Hayward, 2003; Lizzio et al., 2002; Schraw et al., 1998; Stukas et al., 1999).

CONCLUSIONS

Intergenerational service-learning is well established as a way to enhancethe educational value in gerontology. The literature review notes the impor-tance of and multiple models of intergenerational service-learning as wellas educational literature on choice in learning. With the evolution of theUNC Charlotte Gerontology Program service-learning model it has becomeapparent that choice as an element is playing a salient role in providinga successful structured service-learning experience for our undergraduatestudents. Qualitative analysis reveals that you can have a service-learningmodel with high expectations and rigorous structure yet still offer studentsthe opportunity to make choices that enhance their educational experi-ence. Students have noted, through the reflective process, many positivebenefits of having choices within our structured intergenerational service-learning model and how these elements of choice have enhanced theirservice-learning experience.

Building the ideal level of choice into service-learning does not happenovernight. It takes strong community partnerships, an established structure,time, being open to setbacks and midsemester challenges, and ongoingand consistent communication between students, instructors, and service-learning sites. There is value in piloting a new element of choice within asmall subsection of a course and learning from student feedback. Studentreflections have clearly helped us see the value of multiple dimensionsof choice within elements of a highly structured service-learning project.These data and this discussion open the door to an understanding ofhow choice can play a salient role within a structured intergenerationalservice-learning experience. For those interested in understanding choiceprocesses, the relative value of choice in service-learning, and student trans-formation in the face of service-learning, we suggest directly prompting forthis in the reflection process. Additionally, follow-up surveys postexperi-ence could further explore the impact of choice in continued willingnessto volunteer at the same site, volunteer elsewhere with older adults, or takeanother service-learning course. As well, another useful line of inquiry mightinclude an assessment of work-place skills as a result of having engaged inservice-learning that is built on a model of choice within structure.

In conclusion, we believe our typology of choice within structure willencourage other faculty members to consider the role that choice can play

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14


in their own service-learning model, structured and otherwise. Consideringthe literature on choice in learning and our students’ experiences wesuggest students will benefit from the options that help them make theservice-learning experience their own and the choices that empower theirlearning environment. These efforts should foster the continued evolutionof intergenerational service-learning as a strong pedagogical tool.

NOTE

1. Service-learning designation requires, among other things, the scholarly exploration of service,citizenship, social issues and justice; service to the larger community; multidimensional reflection asa large component of one’s grade; lifelong skill development; lasting reciprocal relationships betweenthe specific service-learning model and the community; student critical and comparative thinking; andconnections to career goals.

REFERENCES

Amabile, T., & Gitomer, J. (1984). Children’s artistic creativity: Effects of choice intask materials. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 209–215.

Anstee, J., Harris, S., Pruitt, K., & Sugar, J. (2008). Service-learning projects inan undergraduate gerontology course: A six stage model and application.Educational Gerontology 34, 595–609.

Association for Gerontology in Higher Education. (n.d.). Intergenerational service-learning. Retrieved from http://www.aghe.org/677851.

Atler, K., & Gavin, W. (2010). Service-learning-based instruction enhances stu-dents’ perceptions of their abilities to engage in evidence-based practice.Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 24, 23–39.

Beehr, T., LeGro, K., Porter, K., Bowling, N., & Swader, W. (2010). Required volun-teers: Community volunteerism among students in college classes. Teaching ofPsychology, 37 , 276–280.

Beling, J. (2003). Effect of service-learning on knowledge about older peopleand faculty teaching evaluations on a physical therapy class. Gerontology &Geriatrics Education, 24(1), 31–46.

Blieszner, R., & Artale, M. (2001). Benefits of intergenerational service-learning tohuman service majors. Educational Gerontology, 27 , 71–87.

Bradley, D., Peacock, J., & Shenk, D. (2001). Mentoring between and within “gen-erations” of gerontology students. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 22(2),1–14.

Bringle, R., & Kremer, J. (1993). Evaluation of an intergenerational service-learningproject for undergraduates. Educational Gerontology 19, 407–416.

Brown, L., & Roodin, P. (2001). Service-learning in gerontology: An out-of-classroomexperience. Educational Gerontology, 27 , 89–103.

Casile, M., Hoover, K., & O’Neil, D. (2011). Both-and, not either-or: Knowledge andservice-learning. Education + Training, 53(2), 129–139.

Cavanaugh, J. (2001). Learning and doing: The importance of service-learning ingerontology. Educational Gerontology 27 , 117–124.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Clark, P. (1999). Service-learning education in community-academic partnerships:Implications for interdisciplinary geriatric training in the health professions.Educational Gerontology, 25, 641–660.

Curl, A., Larkin, H., & Simons, K. (2005). Special section: Innovations ingerontological social work education factors affecting willingness of social workstudents to accept jobs in aging. Journal of Social Work Education, 41, 393–406.

D’Ailly, H. (2004). The role of choice in children’s learning: A distinctive culturaland gender difference in efficacy, interest, and effort. Canadian Journal ofBehavioural Science, 36 , 17–29.

Davis, B. (2005). So, you had two sisters, right? Questions and discourse markersin Alzheimer’s Discourse. In B. Davis (Ed.), Alzheimer talk, text, and context(pp. 128–145). New York, NY: Palgrave.

Davis, B., & Smith, M. (2009). Infusing cultural competence training into the cur-riculum: Describing the development of culturally sensitive dementia carecommunication. Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences 25, 503–510.

Davis, B., & Smith, M. (2011). Intersections of research and training: Dementia carein the U.S. In P. Backhaus (Ed.), Language in eldercare (pp. 20–39). New York,NY: Continuum.

Deci, E., Vallerand, R., Pelletier, L., & Ryan, R. (1991). Motivation and education:The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26 , 325–346.

Dedmond, R., & Kestler, E., (2010). Making a meaningful connection—Freshmantransition and service-learning. Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers,85, 30–32.

Dorfman, L., Murty, S., Ingram, J., Evans, R., & Power, J. (2004). Intergenerationalservice-learning in five cohorts of students: Is attitude change robust?Educational Gerontology, 30, 39–55.

Esterberg, K. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. New York, NY: McGrawHill.

Fisher, B., & Finkelstein, M. (1999). The gerontology practicum as service-learning.Educational Gerontology, 25, 393–409.

Flink, C., Boggiano, A., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling teaching strate-gies: Undermining children’s self-determination and performance. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 59, 916–924.

Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G., (2000). Teacher beliefs about instructional choice: Aphenomenological study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 634–645.

Fruhauf, C. (2007). Helping students understand aging and dementia: An innovativeprogram. Dementia, 6 , 157–162.

Fruhauf, C., Jarrott, S., & Lambert-Shute, J. (2004). Service-learners at dementiacare programs: An intervention for improving contact, comfort, and attitudes.Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 25(1), 37–52.

Frymier, A., Shulman, G., & House, M. (1996). The development of a learnerempowerment measure. Communication Education, 45, 181–199.

Gigliotti, C., Morris, M., Smock, S., Jarrott, S., & Graham, B. (2005). An intergen-erational summer program involving persons with dementia and preschoolchildren. Educational Gerontology, 31, 425–441.

Goncalves, D. (2009). From loving grandma to working with older adults: Promotingpositive attitudes towards aging. Educational Gerontology, 35, 202–225.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Gray, M. J., Ondaatje, E. H., Fricker, R. D., & Geschwind, S. A. (2000). Assessingservice-learning: Results from a survey of Learn and Serve America, HigherEducation. Change, 32, 30–39.

Hancock, C., & Murray, L. (2007, March). Evaluation of student experiences inservice-learning: Conversations with people with dementia. Paper presentedat the meeting of the Association for Gerontology in Higher Education,Portland, OR.

Hancock, C., Murray, L., Shenk, D., Davis, B., & Bordeman, D. (2007, April).Implications for practice: The impact of undergraduate service-learning withpeople with dementia. Workshop presented at the meeting of the SouthernGerontological Society, Greensboro, NC.

Hancock, C., Shenk, D., & Davis, B. (2009). Integrating gerontology service-learningstudents as members of a research team. In M. Moore and P. Lan Lin (Eds.),Service-learning in higher education: Paradigms and challenges (pp. 171–184).Indianapolis, IN: University of Indianapolis Press.

Hancock, C., Shenk, D., Murray, L., & Davis, B. (2006, April). Research basedinterventions and service-learning in Introduction to Aging and the Lifecourse.Workshop presented at the meeting of the Southern Gerontological Society,Louisville, KY.

Jones, K. (2006). Teaching anthropological methods with communities of aging.Anthropology & Aging Quarterly, 27(4), 9–16.

Karasik, R. (2005). Breaking the time barrier: Helping students “find the time” to dointergenerational service-learning. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 25(3),49–63.

Karasik, R., Maddox, M., & Wallingford, M. (2004). Intergenerational service-learningacross levels and disciplines: One size (does not) fit all. Gerontology & GeriatricsEducation, 25(1), 1–17.

Knapp, J., & Stubblefield, P. (2000). Changing students’ perceptions of aging:The impact of an intergenerational service-learning course. EducationalGerontology, 26 , 611–621.

Kohn, A. (1993). Choices for children: Why and how to let students decide. The PhiDelta Kappan, 75(1), 8–20.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning anddevelopment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lagana, L. (2003). Using service-learning research to enhance the elderly’s qualityof life. Educational Gerontology, 29, 685–701.

Lambert-Shute, J., Jarrott, S., & Fruhauf, C. (2004). Service-learning at dementiacare programs: An orientation and training program. Gerontology & GeriatricsEducation, 25(1), 19–35.

Lewis, K., & Hayward, P. (2003). Choice-based learning: student reactionsin an undergraduate organization communication course. CommunicationEducation, 52, 148–156.

Lewis, M. (2002). Service-learning and older adults. Educational Gerontology, 28,655–667.

Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of learn-ing environment and academic outcomes: implications for theory and practice.Studies in Higher Education, 27 , 27–52.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Long, A. B., Larsen, P., Hussey, L., & Travis, S. (2001). Organizing, managing, andevaluating service-learning projects. Educational Gerontology, 27 , 3–21.

Marx, J., & Miller, L. (2009). Cybernetic service-learning course development lessonslearned. Educational Gerontology 35(1), 47–54.

McWilliams, A., Rosemond, C., Roberts, E., Calleson, D., & Busby-Whitehead, J.(2008). An innovative home-based interdisciplinary service-learning experience.Gerontology & Geriatrics Education 28(3), 89–104.

Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Monty, R., & Rosenberger, M. (1973). Amount and locus of choice as sources ofmotivation in paired-associate learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology,97 , 16–21.

Murakami, J., Lund, D., Wright, S., & Stephenson, M. (2002). Service-learningin gerontology: A coordinated curriculum model. Gerontology & GeriatricsEducation, 23(2), 1–24.

Nichols, A., & Monard, K. (2001). Designing intergenerational service-learningcourses based on student characteristics. Educational Gerontology, 27 , 37–48.

Peacock, J., Bradley, D., & Shenk, D. (2001). Incorporating field sites into service-learning as collaborative partners. Educational Gerontology, 27 , 23–35.

Peacock, J., Flythe, M., & Jones, K. (2006). A service-learning collaboration: Agraduate gerontology program and a foster grandparent program. EducationalGerontology, 32, 335–349.

Pope, C., & Davis, B. (2011). Finding a balance: The CCC corpus. Corpus Linguisticsand Linguistic Theory, 7 , 143–161.

Rosing, H., Reed, S., Ferrari, J., & Bothne, N. (2010). Understanding student com-plaints in the service-learning pedagogy. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 46 , 472–481.

Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Reisetter, M. (1998). The role of choice in readerengagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 705–714.

Shenk, D., Hancock, C., Davidson, J., Bordeman, D., Murray, L., & Davis, B. (2006,October). Multiple perspectives of ongoing service-learning in an introductorygerontology course. Workshop presented at the North Carolina Conference onAging, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Shippee, T., Schafer, M., & Pallone, K. (2008). Building the bridge: Linkinggerontology education to a local retirement community. Gerontology &Geriatrics Education 28(4), 57–70.

Stukas, A., Clary, E., & Snyder, M. (1999). The effects of “mandatory volunteerism”on intentions to volunteer. Psychological Science, 10(1), 59–63.

Turner, J. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young chldren’s motivationfor literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 410–441.

Von Dras, D., & Miller, K. (2002). Learning outside the classroom: The undergraduategerontology internship. Educational Gerontology, 28, 881–894.

Weinrich, D. (2003). Service-learning at the edge of chaos. Educational Gerontology,29, 181–195.

Weinrich, D. (2004). Interdisciplinary teams, mentorship, and intergenerationalservice-learning. Educational Gerontology, 30, 143–157.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Whitbourne, S., Collins, K., & Skultety, K. (2001). Formative reflections on service-learning in a course on the psychology of aging. Educational Gerontology, 27 ,105–115.

You, Z., & Rud, A. (2010). A model of Dewey’s moral imagination for service-learning: Theoretical explorations and implications for practice in highereducation. Education and Culture, 26(2), 36–51.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

8:26

28

Nov

embe

r 20

14

balancing structure and choice in intergenerational service-learning

Documents