New Possibilities for Culturally Responsive Experiential Education in Teacher Education

Mutual Partnership and Mutual Benefits

The university has nurtured a partnership and relationship with a local organization in Fiji. Over the past 10 years, the university and the local organization in Fiji have created a partnership based on a common faith, a desire to positively impact the community in culturally responsive coconstructed ways that yield mutual benefits, and on the basis of friendship (Grain et al., 2019). Similar to prior initiatives, decision-making and direction for projects related to this course were coconstructed with local partners. For example, in advance of the trip, I connected with local field partners to learn of their wishes for projects to be completed upon our arrival. I was able to loosely build the schedule, the budget, and the accompanying course based on the wishes of our field partners. Then, once we were situated in the host community, projects were coconstructed on a daily and weekly basis. The students and I adapted our plans and schedules based on our field partners’ wishes and needs. While we benefited from the opportunity to participate in CRSL projects, we continually checked in with our field partners to make sure there were benefits to them, as well. Based on their wishes and preferences, our EE program completed the following projects at their request:

With the opportunity to participate in these projects, the students were able to practice and employ strategies from CRSL. Our focus was on how to go about doing these coconstructed projects. Rather than simply doing things in the ways they wished or assumed were best, the students were given opportunities to practice asking for permission, waiting to be invited, standing back, and learning from others in the process. We focused on following cultural protocols, procedures, and expectations.

In addition, there were many shared joyful experiences with local partners that were purely fun and enjoyable. Such activities included traditional feasts, invitations to local villages, church services, and performances. While there were shared projects that yielded mutual benefits, there were also shared moments of fun—connections of the human spirit across cultures. This added an important dimension of relational integrity to the projects we participated in; we did projects together with people we cared about collectively as a group.

While our partners benefited from the completion of these projects, the students benefited from opportunities to practice skills learned through their experiential work. A future study would include analyzing benefits across the partnership, including local Fijian partners’ reflections, experiences, and perceived benefits from the collective work together each summer. This article examines how the undergraduate students’ definitions and perceptions of CRSL changed over the course of the program in summer 2019 and what specific experiences led to the transformation of these definitions.

Research Questions

EE and Social Justice

Much research has been done in EE around issues of social justice (e.g., Breunig, 2019; Grain et al., 2019; Tinkler et al., 2019; Warren, 2019). Much of this work includes examination of the relationship between EE theory (T. Smith et al., 2011) and critical pedagogy (Breunig, 2011; Freire, 1972, 1994, 1997). Together, these theories aim to decolonize EE (L. Smith, 2012) through the experiential learning cycle, the problem-posing method of education, cyclical practice, and the development of critical consciousness (Breunig, 2011). When braided together, EE and critical pedagogy “assert that the aim of [the] educative practices is to bring about a more socially just world” because “there is a value in developing an understanding of both these theories and in engaging in a reflective praxis that acts upon the theoretical underpinnings of these pedagogies” (Breunig, 2011, p. 62). In this context, EE theory and critical pedagogy are closely connected to postcolonial theory (Said, 1978; Spivak, 1988) as the EE program strives to deconstruct colonial power structures. This braiding of EE theory and critical pedagogy can also be used to frame critical service learning and CRSL, one branch of EE work.

Critical Service Learning

There are distinctions in regard to the different types of service learning (Porfilio & Hickman, 2011); not all service learning is conceptualized in connection with the tenets of social justice teaching and learning. Mitchell (2008) in particular linked the concepts of service learning and critical pedagogy to develop the concept of critical service learning. Mitchell stated that the purpose of critical service learning is for students “to see themselves as agents of social change, and use the experience of service to address and respond to injustice in communities” (p. 51). Research situated in critical service learning has both theorized and explained practical outcomes of contextualizing service learning through a critical lens (e.g., Andrews & Leonard, 2018; Porfilio & Hickman, 2011; Tinkler et al., 2019). When embodying characteristics from critical service learning, the findings of Tinkler et al. (2019) indicated that program participants identified that their service-learning experience “cultivated an understanding of the identities, strengths, and motivations of learners needed to build relationships; nurtured their practice; and fostered their understanding of the importance of community engagement” (p. 71). While critical service learning addresses social justice issues, questions remain: How can service learning from a critical perspective be adapted into different cultural contexts to ensure that program participants do not dominate or default into the traditional framework of service learning? In pursuing social justice, how can program participants pursue these tenets in respectful ways?

CRSL

While critical service learning is a robust concept with accompanying extensive research, CRSL is a new conceptual addition to the field of service learning that opens new possibilities for engagement in EE programs and in teacher education and addresses some of the challenges of international service work. This concept is an extension of culturally responsive research methodology (see Berryman et al., 2013). Table 1 summarizes the purposes, theoretical origins, perspectives, goals, student positionalities, outcomes, and guiding questions for both CRSL and critical service learning.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Dimensions of Critical Service Learning and CRSL.

Dimension	Critical service learning	CRSL
Purpose	Critical service learning aims to “encourage students to see themselves as agents of social change, and use the experience of service to address and respond to injustice in communities” (Mitchell, 2008, p. 51).	CRSL aims to share power, decision-making, project design, and develop relationships in the host community.
Theoretical foundations	Critical pedagogy (Freire, 1972).	Critical pedagogy (Freire, 1972) and Kaupapa Maori theory (Berryman et al., 2013; in alignment with culturally responsive methodology).
Perspective of service	“Service for an ideal” (Wade, 2000) and “service for critical consciousness” (Rosenberger, 2000).	Service for relationship building, mutual benefits, and sharing humanity with people (Berryman et al., 2008, p. 14).
Goals	To create “true community-university partnerships where community issues and concerns are as important (in planning, implementation, and evaluation) as student learning and development” (Brown, 2001).	To create “true community-university partnerships where community issues and concerns are as important (in planning, implementation, and evaluation) as student learning and development” (Brown, 2001). To develop relationships not only at an institutional and community level but also at an individual level. Responsive dialogic space—a central space where “through face-to-face dialogic, and ongoing interactions, the terms of the relationship can be brokered by both parties and the rules of engagement can be negotiated, understood, and consolidated” (Berryman et al., 2013, p. 21).
Student positionality	Students function as change agents (Mitchell, 2008).	Students hold the posture of the learner as they stand back, stand last, and wait to be invited into projects. This challenges traditional power structures and notions of service. Students hold the posture of a learner (Berryman et al., 2008).
Outcomes	“While individual change and student development are desired outcomes of traditional and critical service-learning, critical service-learning pedagogy balances the student outcomes with an emphasis on social change” (Mitchell, 2008, p. 53).	To benefit the host community in ways they deem appropriate and necessary To develop critical consciousness of students as a precursor to culturally responsive engagement in home/local community To develop cross-cultural connections, to learn indigenous epistemologies, and to critique/question the hierarchy of Western knowledge.
Guiding questions	Sample questions from Rhoads (1998): • “Why do we have significant economic gaps between different racial groups? • Why do women continue to face economic and social inequities? • Why does the richest country on earth have such a serious problem with homelessness?” (p. 53).	Sample questions (adapted from Berryman et al., 2008) Do you come prepared with some social or cultural knowledge of the people with whom you are seeking to engage? What subjectivities, positionalities, and ideologies do you bring to your work? What do we need to do to gain access? Are your own rituals of encounter respectful and humble as a visitor in someone else’s place? How have the relationships affected the service? How has the service affected the relationships? How have lives benefited as a result of this collaboration?

Note. CRSL = culturally responsive service learning.

The main difference between critical service learning (CSL) and CRSL is that CSL focuses on nurturing agency and helping students become agents of change. CRSL focuses on participating in coconstructed service projects in culturally responsive ways. In CRSL, change may be an outcome but is not the primary objective.

This article explores how undergraduate students engaged with the topic of CRSL during a month-long EE program. Furthermore, it discusses students’ pre-trip and end of trip definitions and explores experiences that helped the students gain new understandings of this concept.

Methodology

This qualitative study is situated in narrative inquiry (Connelly & Clandinin, 1986, 1990). While analyzing student definitions of CRSL may not seem inherently narrative in nature, participants were encouraged to illustrate the concepts through stories and lived experiences. Throughout the data analysis process, participant narratives were kept intact as much as possible to understand how the storied experiences led to the transformed definitions of CRSL. Furthermore, because the course had an emphasis on connecting with indigenous Fijian knowledge and ways of knowing, students were encouraged to utilize storytelling throughout their coursework and during the research study as storytelling holds great importance in Fijian culture (Nabobo-Baba, 2006). In holding true to narrative inquiry, mini-stories from the participants are included throughout the “Findings” section to feature student voices and allow their stories to illuminate the findings. Pseudonyms are used to protect participant identities. Quotes are edited for clarity and readability.

Data Collection Methods

This study was approved by the Pepperdine University Institutional Review Board (IRB). The data used for this research study were a part of a larger set of data collected throughout the Fiji program. The larger data set included all course assignments which each student documented in a composition notebook. The course assignments included written reflections, observations, stories, poetry, and in-class assignments. Furthermore, the larger data set included an interview that took place during the last week of the EE program which gave students an opportunity to reflect holistically on the experience. For this research study, two questions from the reflective interview and the students’ composition notebooks were used to analyze the students’ definitions of CRSL. The interview questions were as follows:

With informed consent from each participant, the interviews were audio recorded. The interviews took place in our classroom during the final week of the EE program. In addition, on the last page of their composition notebook, students kept a list of their definitions of CRSL. During each class session, students were invited to revise this definition based on the experiences that took place both in and out of the classroom. During the interview, students used their early-trip definitions and end of trip definitions to define the term and discuss the changes.

Following the EE program, the interviews were transcribed and analyzed through a comprehensive data analysis process described below. The data were triangulated by carefully reviewing each participant’s definitions of CRSL across the data.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using Saldaña’s (2016) data analysis tools. The process of the data analysis is outlined below.

The data went through several cycles of qualitative coding to develop emergent themes (see Table 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Coding Cycles.

Cycle	Type of coding	Active engagement	Central question
Cycle 1A	Concept coding	Labeling codes	What is the voice of each participant saying?
Cycle 1B	Concept coding	Tabletop organization	What codes are the most common? Which codes are the least common? How do the codes connect to one another? How do they disconnect from each other?
Cycle 1C	Theoretical coding	Memo writing	What can I learn from each group of codes? What does each section of codes reveal?
Cycle 2A	Thematic coding	Identify themes from memo analysis and tabletop organization analysis	What themes emerge from the tabletop coded groups and memos?
Cycle 2B	Thematic coding	Memo writing	By combining the themes from the memos and tabletop organization, what themes emerge?

Note. CRSL = culturally responsive service learning.

After the completion of the data analysis, I returned to the original, unedited participant narratives to both triangulate the data and remain in alignment with the principles of narrative inquiry. While the participant stories were analyzed for meaning, I returned to the original stories in the data to ensure that the findings were deeply connected to and rooted in the stories that the participants told.

Early-Trip Definitions of CRSL

Twenty-five percent of participants disclosed that they did not have an awareness of the term CRSL at the beginning of the course. Of the 75% that did come into the program with a working definition, their definitions were situated in traditional, hegemonic dominant Western perspectives of service. Within this framework, two categories emerged from the data: participants believed that CRSL was primarily cultural awareness and respectful observation.

The data showed that participants’ definitions of CRSL were situated in Westernized notions of service. Their definitions included ideas about service being for the purpose of a resumé builder in which they give something to someone in need without asking permission. Their definitions included terminology that both explicitly and implicitly had a hero mindset in which they would come into the community and solve a problem on behalf of the community “in need.” Their definitions indicated that they believed modernization and Westernization are the goals of CRSL. Furthermore, their early definitions included ideas about Americans as superior to the individuals in the host community. Two participants indicated that they were aware of the White savior complex, but they were unaware of how to adapt to hold another posture or to conceptualize service in another way.

Even within these Westernized notions of service framing the experience, the data revealed that participants believed two key components of CRSL would include cultural awareness and respectful observation (see Figure 1). In terms of cultural awareness, participant definitions of what this would include were quite vague. For example, participants stated that they should “keep the culture in mind,” “be immersed,” and “respect traditions.” They did not articulate specifics about what cultural awareness included or how it would impact the CRSL experience. In addition, when participants discussed respectful observation, they discussed politeness, being impartial and objective, being quiet, and “not getting in people’s way.” Their ideas about respectful observation indicated that they would be detached from the people of the host culture and would be observing them rather than interacting with them in intentional ways. Interestingly, within participant definitions, there is a disconnect between their ideas about service and how the service would function according to their definitions. While participants had many ideas about why they needed to “help” the community, their explanations of how they would “help” the community did not explain how they would actually go about “solving” the so-called problems they identified. Rather, their ideas were general and passive and did not explain how CRSL would actually function throughout the EE program.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Early definitions of CRSL.

The next section explains how participant definitions changed from the early-trip to the end of trip definitions. Following this section, the findings of activities that led to the change in definition will be reported.

End of Trip Definitions of CRSL

The participants’ definitions changed quite dramatically from the beginning to the end of the experience. The data analysis revealed that students’ new definitions relied heavily on relationships with local partners. Relationships were spoken about as a precursor and ongoing objective of CRSL. Participants indicated that building individual relationships as well as community relationships fostered great unity and oneness in the work they did. The data revealed that important components of relationship included learning specific things about specific people; pursuing friendships; and listening with an open ear, heart, and mind. With relationships as a cornerstone for CRSL, the participant definitions revealed three categories for how CRSL should be accomplished.

Self-Reported Experiences to Embody CRSL

While there were a wide variety of daily activities that took place as a part of the EE program, the data revealed three primary categories that students identified as formative experiences in their revised definition of CRSL. The three main experiences included participating in coconut copra, working in the local schools, and engaging with the local villages. In addition to these three main activities, participants also noted how they learned what CRSL is not.

Complexities of Engaging in CRSL

The findings of the study suggest that students grew in their understandings of CRSL and engaged in an international context in new ways. While the students learned new ways of defining and embodying CRSL, there are still many complexities with this concept and practice. The concept is not a catchall or simple solution to the challenges of Western collegiate students working in indigenous spaces in developing nations. As the data suggest, defining and understanding the concepts of CRSL is a starting point for anti-colonial engagement—not an arrival point. This is true for both the instructor of the EE program as well as the students. CRSL is not something that can be attained, achieved, or reached—rather, it is a concept that invites all to dwell deeper and deeper. The work of CRSL is the work of a lifetime that requires careful, invested effort and a constant interrogation of the self.

The Need for CRSL EE as a Precursor to Clinical Experience in Teacher Education

While CRSL is a complex, multidimensional concept, it is one that is worth further exploration in teacher education to both unlock new possibilities for culturally responsive teaching and fulfill professional obligations of providing clinically rich experiences for teacher candidates. The results of this study suggest that if a CRSL EE program experience precedes a student teaching experience, the rich theoretical framework is in place for preservice teachers to expand upon the knowledge gained in the EE program. The participants’ transformed definitions demonstrate emergent critical consciousness that could function as a springboard for the student teaching experience. In an ideal situation, preservice teachers could participate in a culturally responsive EE program together with their instructor before beginning their clinical experience. Based on the findings from this study, preservice teachers and teacher educators—upon returning home from the EE program—could use this theoretical framework to navigate the clinical experience. This new framework for serving and learning would be a rich springboard to launch into the learning-to-teach journey that is rooted in culturally responsive classroom practices; community engagement; and democratic, coconstructed teaching and learning alongside students. Because program participants developed the critical consciousness to identify bias and apply the concepts into new directions, a cohort model of clinical practice could follow a CRSL EE program. With these new understandings as a framework, teacher candidates—alongside the same faculty member from the EE program to ensure that prior learning and experiences can be built upon together—could conceptualize new ways to employ the concepts in the local or home community. Questions for beginning clinical practice after an EE program like the CRSL program detailed here could include the following:

Engaging in clinical experience after a CRSL EE program would follow the expectations of a clinically rich student teaching experience while adhering to important theoretical and conceptual aspects of teaching. Without the CRSL EE program as a cornerstone to anchor the clinical experience, teacher preparation programs risk losing the theoretical foundations of teaching and succumbing to reductivist perspectives of education which value skills over theory or natural abilities and practice rather than critical praxis (Freire, 1972). As Dewey stated, “the interaction of knowledge and skills is key to learning” (in Ehrlich, 1996, p. xi). In fact, Freire noted that he preferred a “knowledge that is forged and produced in the tension of practice and theory” (Freire, 1996, p. 85). A culturally responsive framework developed in an EE program can be important knowledge to connect with the skills and practice developed in clinically rich teacher preparation programs. If an international EE program is not possible for programs, local CRSL EE programs would certainly suffice.

The Need for CRSL Programs and Research in the Field

CRSL EE programs in both teacher education and beyond provide new possibilities, opportunities, and frameworks for how EE can take place in international contexts. While many of the concepts of CRSL have likely been employed in other EE programs without the CRSL label, engaging this concept explicitly and fully opens new possibilities for research, programming, and student teaching. While there will always be complexities in engaging international service learning and EE and the need to refine and redefine practices (see Perry & Ricard, 2018), CRSL offers a springboard for new possibilities for teaching, learning, serving, and connecting in culturally responsive ways. There is a compelling need for further programming and related research on these topics to expand the field and further new possibilities for CRSL EE programs.