Critical Service-Learning Supports Social Justice and Civic Engagement Orientations in College Students

Universities are tasked with developing students’ commitment to social justice, ethical judgment, active citizenship, and respect for their and others’ identities, cultures, and histories (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2002). To meet these demands, scholars are currently exploring the effects of high-impact educational practices that promote student learning in the broader social context, including service-learning. This study examines the impact of academic-based community service-learning (hereafter referred to as service-learning, or SL) on diverse college students’ commitment to social justice and civic engagement.

SL enables students to expand their academic knowledge and apply theories and theoretical concepts to real-world situations (Butin, 2010; Mitchell, 2008; Tinkler et al., 2019) and facilitates several positive outcomes, including increased civic identity (García-Gutierrez et al., 2017; Mitchell, 2015), awareness of the world and personal values, and commitment to ethics and social responsibility (Bringle et al., 2016; Fleck et al., 2017; Henderson et al., 2021; Kretchmar, 2001; Smirles, 2011; Valdez & Lovell, 2021). However, the design and implementation of SL courses vary greatly, and not all SL courses produce the same outcomes. One possible major pitfall of SL is that, since the mainstream implementation of SL places emphasis on the service outcomes, the curriculum may omit critical reflection about how social identities (e.g., race and class) influence students’ interactions with community partners (Hess et al., 2007; Moely et al., 2002). Furthermore, SL does not guarantee that students will question the macro-level influences—such as systemic racism and marginalization—that impact their community sites and create the need for their service (Asghar & Rowe, 2017; Mitchell, 2008; Tinkler et al., 2019). Zucchero and Gibson (2019), for example, found that students in a developmental psychology class that utilized SL did not significantly differ from students in a non-SL class on measures of empathic concern, perspective-taking, civic action and social justice attitudes, and perceptions of learning. These findings may be partially attributed to the curriculum’s lack of explicit focus on social identity and power dynamics in the service relationship. In the absence of critical discourse and self-reflection, SL may reinforce students’ perceptions that their community partners are deficient, unable to help themselves, and in need of being saved from their marginalization by service providers (Mitchell et al., 2012). Within such a power dynamic, the role of service is not to assist the community in long-term self-determination but to use the community’s marginalized status to boost students’ sense of agency and educational benefits. Thus, SL without a social justice perspective may lead to further marginalization and exploitation of community partners and a missed opportunity to create a transformative experience for both students and the community (Davis et al., 2017). For SL educators—and higher education overall—to live up to its democratic purpose of preparing students for socially responsible civic engagement, researchers must explore the relationship between SL and students’ attitudes and beliefs about social justice, and educators must ground SL within social justice–oriented approaches, such as critical curriculum and pedagogy (Astin et al., 1999; Bringle & Duffy, 1998; Conway et al., 2009; Saltmarsh et al., 2009).

The current study examines a critical, social justice–oriented implementation of SL that disrupts these power dynamics of marginalization in both the practice of SL in communities and the SL scholarship at large. In addition to critiques of SL’s impact on marginalized communities, the practice and theory of service-learning have been criticized for upholding a pedagogy of whiteness that positions White people as leaders and practitioners and communities of color as either peripheral contributors or underserved service recipients (Bocci, 2015; Mitchell et al., 2012). The literature on SL has not focused on SL’s impact on student-practitioners from marginalized communities or at minority-serving institutions, and SL has often been implemented by White faculty with White students at predominantly White institutions (Mitchell et al., 2012). Thus, it is crucial for scholars and practitioners of SL to reckon with how SL, from its history and theoretical conceptualizations to its practice, has the potential to either perpetuate marginalization or center and empower minoritized communities. The current study, implemented by a faculty of color with primarily students of color at a minority-serving institution, aims to examine the impact of SL and critical curriculum on college students’ civic engagement and social justice orientations in psychology courses.

Theoretical Framework: Critical Curriculum and Pedagogy

Drawing from the scholarship of Brazilian educator Paulo Freire (1968/2000) and scholars on social justice education (Mthethwa-Sommers, 2014; Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017), we define critical curriculum and pedagogy as an educational approach rooted in praxis, in which critical reflection about societal power dynamics mediates the continuous, cyclical relationship between the formation of theoretical knowledge and the actions that test this theoretical knowledge. Within this notion of praxis, students’ experiential knowledge is a valued, core component of the learning process. The goal of critical curriculum and pedagogy is to empower students—and communities more broadly—to develop critical consciousness, or the ability to perceive and act to change the oppressive elements of social, political, and economic realities (Freire, 1965/2005; Mthethwa-Sommers, 2014). Along with critical consciousness, critical curriculum also aims to lessen students’ social dominance orientation, which is defined as the degree to which a person prefers inequality and hierarchy among social groups (Pratto et al., 1994). While social dominance orientation and critical consciousness are related theoretically and practically—as Pratto et al.’s (1994) measure of social dominance orientation was used in the creation of the Critical Consciousness Scale (Diemer et al., 2017)—social dominance orientation focuses on a person’s inclinations towards hierarchy and egalitarianism, which may influence the reproduction of oppressive social power dynamics in SL (Brown, 2011; Prati et al., 2022; Stewart & Tran, 2018). Thus, examining students’ social dominance orientation in SL research may be important for understanding the mechanisms through which students’ inclinations towards hierarchy change and, subsequently, whether this change in worldview compels students to disrupt oppressive hierarchies and power dynamics.

Through critical curriculum, students gain confidence in activism; willingness to engage in civic life; and awareness about oppression, power, and privilege (Davis et al., 2017; García-Gutierrez et al., 2017; Krings et al., 2015; Mitchell, 2015). Educators have also successfully implemented critical curriculum into psychology classes with promising results, such as prejudice reduction, increased empathy, and increased comfort in discussing racism and social justice (Kernahan & Davis, 2010; Lundy, 2007; Yoder et al., 2016). Incorporating critical curriculum into psychology courses can promote students’ active participation in their learning as well as critical and creative problem-solving about social justice issues in their communities (Cosgrove, 2004). Therefore, by combining critical curriculum and pedagogy with SL, students can engage more deeply in their learning, cultivate their awareness of marginalization in their communities, and gain valuable experiential practice in acting to change these oppressive realities.

Critical Service-Learning: A Synthesis of Service-Learning and Critical Curriculum

Critical service-learning (CSL) refers to the integration of critical curriculum into SL to promote students’ critical and social justice–oriented engagement with their communities and academic learning (Butin, 2007; Castellanos & Cole, 2015). Both students and the community benefit from a shift from SL and traditional (i.e., solely lecture-based) pedagogy to CSL; community partners foster authentic relationships with students working to redistribute power to communities (Mitchell, 2015), and students envision themselves as “agents of change [who] use the experience of service to address and respond to injustice in communities” (Mitchell, 2008, p. 51).

CSL also has the potential to promote students’ social justice–oriented civic engagement. Torres-Harding et al. (2012) posit that, according to Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior, social justice–oriented behaviors can be predicted by attitudes towards social justice, subjective norms related to social justice, and perceived behavioral control over social justice (see Figure 1). Given the evidence suggesting that critical curriculum and SL can each alter students’ social justice–related attitudes, perceived norms, and behavioral orientation, the framework proposed by Torres-Harding et al. has the potential to help us understand how social justice–related development may unfold for students participating in CSL and critical curriculum courses.

Figure 1

Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior, as Applied by Torres-Harding et al. (2012)

Current research, specifically in the teaching and learning of psychology, has yet to address students’ experiences taking CSL courses, despite the field’s practical orientations towards understanding human behavior and providing behavioral health services within complex social, cultural, and political contexts. Adopting a CSL approach may more strongly prepare psychology students to understand and serve diverse communities, engage in critical dialogues about issues that affect these communities, and advocate for these communities through community-informed and culturally competent research and clinical practice (Cosgrove, 2004).

The Current Study

This mixed method study examines CSL’s and critical curriculum’s potential impacts on students’ development of civic engagement and social justice orientations in a diverse sample. We use survey measures to examine differences in students’ civic engagement attitudes and behaviors and social dominance orientations across three psychology classes that varied in curricula: one CSL class, one class with critical curriculum but no SL, and one class without critical curriculum or SL, termed here as a traditional lecture course (Table 1). We also tested whether participation in a CSL or critical curriculum class would increase students’ civic engagement orientations and decrease social dominance orientations over time. Our study addresses the following research questions:

• Are there differences in students’ orientations to social dominance and civic engagement across three psychology courses that vary in curricula (CSL, critical curriculum, traditional courses with no CSL or critical curriculum)?

• Do students’ orientations to social dominance and civic engagement change over time in CSL and critical curriculum classes?

We hypothesized that a CSL approach impacts students’ orientations to social dominance and civic engagement uniquely relative to critical curriculum and traditional courses. That is, students who participate in CSL will develop increased orientations to civic engagement and decreased orientations to social dominance relative to students in the critical curriculum and traditional courses. Regarding changes over time, we hypothesized that students in the CSL and critical curriculum courses would report decreases in social dominance orientations over time, but only the CSL students would report increases in civic engagement orientations over time due to the course’s utilization of SL and focus on civic engagement.

As an exploratory research question, we were also interested in examining differences between participants based on race and student generation status, given that students of color and first-generation students are underrepresented in the literature on SL. We specifically ask, Do students of color and first-generation students differ from White students and non-first-generation students in their orientations to social dominance and civic engagement over time and in each class section?

To complement the quantitative data, we also sought to explore the impact of the CSL course in students’ orientations to civic engagement and social justice at two points during the semester by analyzing students’ written reflections. This analysis provides us with information about how students are making sense and meaning of their experience in the classroom and their SL sites, which we cannot deduce from the pre- and post-test quantitative analysis alone. Our thematic analysis of students’ writing assignments was guided by Torres-Harding et al.’s (2012) application of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) to social justice–related behaviors. Given the overarching goals of CSL to mobilize students towards social justice by changing assumptions, thoughts, and agency related to social change, Torres-Harding et al.’s articulation of the theory of planned behavior is one framework that can outline the process that students experience in CSL. The qualitative analysis sought to explore how students’ social justice attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and intentions to act differed at the beginning versus at the end of a CSL course. By collecting both quantitative and qualitative data, this study aims to better understand both the process and the extent to which civic engagement and social justice orientations develop across the semester.

Quantitative Analysis

Two objectives guided the quantitative inquiry of this study. First, by analyzing survey data collected at the end of each class, we examined whether participants in different classes reported significantly different civic engagement and social dominance orientations by the end of each semester. Second, by analyzing survey data collected at the beginning and end of the CSL and critical curriculum classes, we explored whether students’ orientations to civic engagement and social dominance significantly changed over time.

Qualitative Analysis

To complement the quantitative results that suggested changes in students’ social dominance orientations over the course of the CSL class, the qualitative analysis explored differences in the social justice–related content of CSL students’ first written assignment from the beginning of the semester to that of their final written paper for the semester. Given that the CSL was the only course to assign reflection assignments about students’ experiences and thoughts of social justice, only the CSL class was included in this qualitative analysis.

Results

The coding process resulted in four major themes constructed from 17 codes, including descriptive, dimensional, value, and process codes (coding materials are available upon request). The following themes reveal how students in the CSL class shifted their ideas regarding inequality and social justice towards engagement in actions that could help ameliorate those inequalities (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Summary of the Proposed Process of Social Justice and Civic Engagement Orientation Development in a CSL Course.

Shifting Attitudes and Norms Related to Social Justice (Equality and Unequal Treatment)

Regarding students’ attitudes and subjective norms about social justice, students’ responses shifted in focus over time from conceptual ideas and unrealistic hopes for equality to acknowledging the existing systems that maintain inequality. Specifically, when initially asked what social justice meant to them, 12 out of 19 students’ initial understandings of social justice were centered on conceptual definitions of equality. For instance, a first-generation Black and Mexican student stated that “treating everyone equally,” regardless of their identities or appearance, is part of her definition of social justice. Among these 12 students, four made general statements about how some groups are treated unequally based on their identity. Among the seven participants who did not discuss equality in their initial assignments, most exhibited awareness about social injustice: five students posed a call to action (i.e., three to the general public, themselves, or social institutions) for social justice, three defined social justice in terms of equity rather than equality, and three discussed the realities of social injustice faced by minoritized groups.

At the end of the semester, additional students acknowledged the realities of unequal treatment experienced by marginalized groups in society due to factors such as race and class. Specifically, in the first assignment, seven participants referenced unequal treatment when describing their ideas related to social justice, and by the last assignment, 12 participants discussed unequal treatment. The first-generation Black and Mexican student mentioned previously, who initially defined social justice in terms of equal treatment, was one of the students who made this shift. In the last assignment, she discussed the disproportionate hardship that individuals in poverty may face compared with people of higher socioeconomic status. Additionally, a Filipino, first-generation student, whose initial response defined social justice as equality, wrote about racial bias in court rulings for domestic violence cases. He concluded, “I believe that [the rationale for a court ruling] is very flawed and had [the defendant] been a White woman defending herself against a Black perpetrator, the court rulings would have been different.” Overall, these responses suggest a shift in students’ reflections towards acknowledging the systemic marginalization and bias that threaten the possibility of social justice and equity-minded policies. Of the seven participants who did not discuss unequal treatment at either time point, six participants identified a social group (e.g., people living with addiction, low-income children) that experienced social injustice, but the participants did not discuss this marginalization in their response.

Perceived Behavioral Control Related to Social Justice

Overall, students’ responses reflected higher perceived behavioral control in attaining social justice at the end of the semester compared with the beginning of the semester. Specifically, students developed higher levels of confidence in the possibility of attaining social justice. Of the 14 students who discussed their confidence in attaining a just society in either assignment, six who did not endorse a confidence level during the first assignment endorsed a high level of confidence during the last assignment, leading to 10 students who endorsed a high level of confidence at either time point. Additionally, out of three participants who cited low confidence in social justice during the first assignment, two endorsed a higher level of confidence during the second assignment. One of the participants who endorsed a low level of confidence at the beginning of the semester, a first-generation Mexican student, initially reported that “social justice to me is an idealistic concept because it is something people wish for but hard to make a reality.” By the end of the course, this student shifted to a moderate level of confidence, stating that “realistically, we cannot completely stop the stereotyping, but we can take steps to lessen it.” The only participant (a first-generation White Hispanic student) who endorsed low levels of confidence at both time points wrote in their first assignment about how society is designed to benefit people with higher socioeconomic status relative to those with lower socioeconomic status; in their second assignment, they discussed the tremendous amount of effort needed to eliminate child obesity, without discussing hope or opportunities for intervention.

Intentions to Act Towards Social Justice

Calling for Institutional Action

Another theme that emerged was the attribution of responsibility for social justice: students in the second assignment expanded the attribution of responsibility to various sources, ranging from eliciting a call to action for the general public to strive for social justice (n = 13) to increased recognition of systemic issues and institutional responsibility to address unequal treatment and attain social justice (n = 12). At the beginning of the semester, four participants indicated that social and governmental institutions (e.g., the government, public programs and policies, schools, and community agencies) were agents in the social justice process. By the end of the semester, 12 participants referred to the importance of institutional involvement for minimizing unequal treatment and promoting equity. This contrasted participants’ initial focus on individual responsibility or blame for social inequalities. Furthermore, most of the students who included institutions in the social justice process also identified a strategy through which these institutions could act. One of such calls for institutional action, cited by a White, non-first-generation student, included “focusing our efforts on increasing the wages of jobs that can be obtained by those with lower socioeconomic status and education levels, while working to lower the housing costs.” Overall, students’ responses revealed their understanding of how institutions and policymakers, not only individuals, needed to be held accountable for promoting social justice.

Identifying Strategies to Resolve Inequality

Students’ acknowledgment of unequal treatment, their new understanding of the systemic and institutional causes of injustice, and their increased confidence in attaining social justice were associated with the identification of concrete, tangible strategies to resolve unequal treatment and achieve social justice. This pattern emerged in 12 participants, who identified at least one strategy to work towards social justice. At the beginning of the semester, three participants mentioned one strategy for change along with having high confidence in the attainment of social justice or calling for institutional action; by the end of the semester, an additional nine participants were able to identify at least one strategy along with reporting the unequal treatment of marginalized groups, high confidence in social justice, or calls for institutional action. For instance, one Mexican, non-first-generation student reported low confidence in the attainment of social justice, an acknowledgment in the unequal treatment of groups, and a call for institutional action at the beginning of the semester. By the end of the course, the student felt more confident in attaining social justice, continued to call for institutional action, and identified a strategy to challenge inequality. He stated that “by becoming knowledgeable about the [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy], people can gain awareness that DACA does not harm the United States in any way, shape, or form.” Another student, who identified as a non-first-generation White Brazilian student, wrote her final paper on the potential positive and transformative impact of legislation that “encourage[s] collaborative programs between foster homes, schools and community colleges in order to prepare the youth when they leave.”

Though behaviors that promote social justice were not assessed after the CSL course, participants’ responses on the final assignment suggest that they reflected on or discovered that they could also be agents of change and that their actions matter and could make a difference. One participant, a non-first-generation Iranian student, used their final assignment as an opportunity to write to a senator about advocacy against gun violence. She stated, “As a psychology student, I have often learned about the importance of civic engagement, and I feel as though it is my duty to take a stance against gun violence in this country. Change would never take place if people fail to use their voice so I choose to use my voice in hopes that your administration shares my passion and beliefs in this matter.” Additionally, a first-generation Vietnamese student felt motivated to “seek a solution for those who suffered from the model minority myth” and used her final assignment to create a plan for increasing civic engagement among Asian Americans, which she believed would “tremendously benefit the mental health of Asian American individuals.”

Discussion

This study examined the potential benefit of integrating SL and critical curriculum in courses, guiding college students’ orientations towards civic engagement and social justice. Our study finds that students in the CSL and critical curriculum classes had stronger orientations to civic engagement and lower orientations to social dominance than did students in the traditional class. Within-subjects analyses suggest that students in the CSL class developed a greater preference for social group equality over time; this decrease in social dominance orientation was significant for students of all races and non-first-generation students. Additionally, non-first-generation CSL students endorsed a higher attitudinal orientation to civic engagement over time. However, social dominance orientation only decreased over time for students of color in the critical curriculum class, and on average, civic engagement attitudes did not significantly change over time for critical curriculum students. Taken together, these findings suggest that SL pedagogy uniquely contributes to changes in relatively privileged (i.e., White, non-first-generation) students’ social dominance orientation and attitudes towards civic engagement. These findings are also consistent with Mitchell’s (2008) model of CSL, which emphasizes orientations to social change as a process within CSL. According to Mitchell’s model, students’ reflections in both classroom and community environments give rise to students’ development of a social change orientation, efforts to redistribute power to the community, and authentic relationships with community partners. Thus, this study’s results add to the current evidence on the impact of and the need to pair SL with critical curriculum to achieve changes in individual attitudes such that individuals with lower social dominance orientation and higher levels of civic engagement will reject ideologies and policies that uphold social inequality, leading to meaningful social change.

In general, our quantitative findings suggested that White students and non-first-generation students in the CSL and critical curriculum classes at the end of the semester significantly differed in orientations from pre-test and from their counterparts in the traditional class. Specifically, between-groups analyses revealed that White students in the CSL class had significantly lower social dominance orientations than White students in the traditional class, and non-first-generation students in the CSL and critical curriculum class differed significantly from non-first-generation students in the traditional class on measures of civic engagement. In the CSL class, there were significant differences in social dominance and civic engagement orientations over time among non-first-generation students. The only significant change in outcomes among relatively marginalized students occurred for students of color in the CSL class. Previous studies on diversity courses similarly found that White students experienced more significant changes in social attitudes and critical consciousness compared with students of color, who might have already been exposed to issues of diversity and social injustices by the start of the course (Bowman, 2009; Cole et al., 2011; Sleeter & Zavala, 2020). Additionally, the descriptive statistics suggest that first-generation college students in the CSL class had low SDOS scores and high CES scores at pre-test, which may be related to their own experiences and awareness of marginalization.

On one hand, these results pose questions about the value of CSL for marginalized students (i.e., students of color and first-generation students) and about the extent to which SL is only a learning exercise for the relatively privileged. To examine this possibility, future studies can consider different outcome variables—such as resistance against racism, critical motivation, anti-neoliberal attitudes, or perceived agency—that may be more relevant to the cognitive and behavioral changes experienced by marginalized students in CSL classes. On the other hand, these quantitative findings shed light on the importance of using mixed methods to examine CSL. While the quantitative findings suggested more robust benefits for White students and non-first-generation students, the qualitative findings suggested that several students of color and first-generation students did reap benefits from the CSL class. The qualitative results suggest that CSL classes empower students of color and first-generation students to shift their perspectives to a systems-oriented analysis of the exclusionary institutions that are in place in their communities and creatively identify strategies to address inequities. Thus, the mixed method design of this study offered two important types of information: the pre- and post-test surveys allowed us to assess the numerical extent of outcomes among students, and the qualitative findings revealed how students process and make meaning of their critical consciousness development amid SL and critical curriculum. The qualitative findings, in particular, allow us to give voice to the participants and ground our results in their social justice–oriented and civic engagement experiences.

The qualitative analysis of students’ reflections revealed how changes in students’ attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control over social justice may lead to intentions and behaviors that promote social justice. For example, at the beginning of the semester, several students conceptualized social justice as an abstract concept and an unattainable goal that was simply synonymous with equality. At the end of the CSL course, many students’ perspectives shifted to acknowledge the realities of unequal treatment and the systemic barriers experienced by marginalized and oppressed groups. Students also shifted in their confidence in creating social change and their increased understanding of the role that institutions play in creating unjust living conditions. By the end of the course, students who acknowledged marginalization, had high levels of confidence in the social justice process, and recognized the importance of institutional change in the achievement of social justice were also able to identify specific and concrete strategies towards making social justice possible. This pattern, according to Torres-Harding et al. (2012), will lead to an increase in behaviors that contribute to the social justice process.

Notably, students’ course reflections often did not explicitly discuss their SL experiences. Although SL experiences were not a dominant theme in the qualitative data, we do not conclude that SL was irrelevant to students’ overall development. One practical explanation for this pattern in the data is that the first reflection assignment was completed during the third week of the semester, which was before students chose an SL site. Additionally, the instructions for the last reflection assignment did not explicitly require students to integrate their thoughts about SL in their papers, since students’ SL activities may have differed from the focus of the social justice–related event they attended for that assignment. The study’s quantitative results suggest that students in the CSL class became less oriented to social dominance and had increased civic engagement attitudes and behaviors at post-test, whereas students in the critical curriculum class did not exhibit changes in civic engagement orientations. This finding offers general support for our hypothesis that the SL component of the CSL class uniquely contributes to students’ development. Additionally, though behaviors after the course are not explicitly measured, the qualitative data suggest that the CSL course contributed to students’ confidence that social change was possible and their beliefs that they could also be agents of social change by engaging in activities that would ameliorate current social issues.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study’s findings fit with the literature positing that social justice–oriented learning and civic engagement orientations are related (Krings et al., 2015; Mitchell, 2015). Future research on CSL can examine its relationship with other variables related to social justice orientations, such as colorblind racial attitudes, implicit bias, or critical consciousness. Such research could broaden the evidence for CSL as an educational approach that supports students’ academic, personal, and civic development. Particularly, additional studies examining the aforementioned variables can evaluate the potential of CSL as an anti-racist, anti-bias educational intervention to enhance students’ critical consciousness and ethical community engagement.

Although the quantitative analysis considers multiple classes, certain characteristics of the course may have limited findings in the study. First, the same professor taught the CSL and critical curriculum classes analyzed. It is possible that other factors may also influence student development in the course, such as relatability, overall likability, perceived trustworthiness, and the teaching skills of the instructor. For instance, it is possible that students provided vague descriptions of social justice in their first assignment relative to their last assignment because the instructor had not yet earned their trust. To minimize the variance contributed by instructor characteristics, future studies can examine instructors with similar levels of teaching skill and style and control for instructor-level variables across comparisons. Second, it is possible that self-selection bias impacted the types of students in the sample. The developmental psychology course included in the research was one of four elective courses students can choose from to meet graduation requirements; additionally, students had the option of dropping the course for up to two weeks after instruction began, which may have filtered out students who were uninterested in civic engagement. While students’ enrollment patterns cannot be fully manipulated in a research study, future research should note any pre-test differences between students in CSL and non-CSL classes. Alternatively, future research can compare a CSL course with an equivalent SL course taught without critical curriculum to nuance researchers’ understanding of the impact of CSL on students. Future research could also benefit from examining the effects of CSL in the context of different types of psychology courses (i.e., social, statistics, educational or clinical) and in the context of different academic fields.

Another limitation of this research is that only the first and last class assignments were analyzed. Although the class as a whole was grounded in critical curriculum, the two assignments had different prompts, which may have led students to reflect on and write about social justice and civic engagement differently. While outside the scope of the current study, this issue can be alleviated in future research by triangulating in additional data sources (e.g., other class reflection assignments). These additional data sources would provide researchers with a more complete picture of the development of social justice orientations. Analyses of other course assignments can also reveal which specific class lessons are most impactful for the development of civic engagement orientations, which types of SL experiences impacted the development of social justice orientations, and which aspects of the course were most beneficial overall according to students.

Lastly, this study had incomplete data collection, which limited the statistical analyses conducted. Specifically, data were not collected from all participants at both time points due to limited access to survey students in the traditional class at pre-test and a shortage of physical copies of surveys for critical curriculum students at post-test. This resulted in a relatively small sample size, which limited the types of statistical analyses possible. Future research using complete data collection designs, in which pre- and post-test data are obtained from all participants, can validate and extend this study’s findings. Additionally, although separate statistical analyses were conducted based on race and college generation status to identify group-level differences, a larger sample would have enabled the researchers to examine quantitative differences at the intersections of these identities. Future studies applying an intersectional framework could utilize other methodological and statistical designs that account for the cumulative influence of racism, sexism, and classism on civic engagement and social justice orientations.

Recommendations for Educators and Community Partners

There are many ways that CSL can be successfully and ethically implemented in higher education. The results of this study suggest that instructors must scaffold students’ social justice and civic engagement orientations—and the connections students make between the two. At the beginning of the course, CSL instructors can focus class material on challenging students’ ideas about equality and the goal of service. That is, before engaging with their SL sites, students must begin reflecting on their personal views on egalitarianism and social dominance, thus reframing the SL experience as a form of redistributing power and resources to—and not “saving”—minoritized communities. This can be facilitated by class material and discussions about the realities of unequal treatment of minoritized groups, as displayed in research, in the media, and by community members at students’ SL sites. Instructors can also scaffold students’ reflection about social inequities through writing assignments that ask students to define social justice and to reflect on injustices and social power imbalances they see in their community and the lessons they learned about social power and marginalization from their SL site. Encouraging students’ engagement with the implications of power and justice may be especially important for White or non-first-generation students, whose process of critical reflection may take a different form (i.e., that of an outsider looking in) compared with students from minoritized backgrounds (Karras et al., 2021; Thomann & Suyemoto, 2018).

Instructors and community partners can orient students towards calls for institutional action by contextualizing students’ observations at the SL site in the broader sociopolitical context. To do so, instructors and community partners can educate students on laws, policies, and institutional practices that oppress communities and create the need for civic engagement in marginalized communities. Additionally, instructors can assign community asset mapping activities in which students, in collaboration with people at their SL sites, research the different community, educational, wellness, governmental, cultural, and social organizations and institutions in the surrounding area (García, 2020). By identifying social institutions and the sociopolitical context that impacts students and their communities, students can narrow down the possible stakeholders and strategies needed to address pressing social issues at their SL site and in the broader community.

Lastly, critical curriculum and SL activities should aim to boost participants’ confidence in meaningful social change by offering examples of changes achieved by civic engagement and framing the SL experience as a form of meaningful civic engagement. The results of this study suggest that as students gain confidence in their ability to effect change, they can more easily identify tangible, actionable strategies to work towards social justice.

Conclusion

Cumulatively, these findings show that the combination of critical curriculum and SL (i.e., CSL) is a promising approach to support college students’ understandings of and orientations towards social justice and civic engagement. Furthermore, the quantitative results also support the potential of critical curriculum to increase college students’ orientation towards social justice in cases where implementing SL is not possible. In sum, CSL can enhance students’ civic identities, empowering them to be agents of social change while also meeting the community’s needs in an ethical, transformative, and socially responsible manner.