Service-Learning

S-L is a high-impact pedagogical practice with well-documented impact on students’ critical thinking, academic and civic learning, and personal and/or professional development (Astin et al., 2006; Campbell & Oswald, 2018; Choo et al., 2019; Conway et al., 2009; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Salam et al., 2019; Yorio & Ye, 2012). Celio et al.’s (2011) meta-analysis of over 11,800 pre-collegiate and collegiate students across 62 S-L studies found improvements in attitudes toward self, learning, and school; as well as improvements in civic engagement, social skills, and academic performance. Other meta-analyses found similar favorable outcomes for understanding social issues, gaining personal insights, and achieving academic and cognitive development, as well as positive effects in the social and citizenship domains (Conway et al., 2009; Yorio & Ye, 2012). Beyond impacts on student learning, Salam et al. (2019) also suggested that S-L can strengthen relationships between stakeholders, can allow faculty members to conduct action research into their teaching practices, and can effectively serve the needs of the community. Specific to NP’s context, Choo et al. (2019) found significant improvement in perceived civic outcomes among polytechnic students in S-L modules compared with those in non-S-L modules, as well as favorable outcomes in academic connection, career preparation, and personal and interpersonal development following S-L.

Since adopting S-L as its signature pedagogy in 2016, NP has integrated community engagement into academic learning, requiring every student to complete at least one S- L module that applies course-specific skills to real-world community challenges. These service activities are broadly classified into four categories (Table 1), each differing in the degree of direct interaction with the community and the nature of the response to identified community needs. Table 1 also illustrates the service activities within each category and provides examples from NP.

When the COVID-19 pandemic struck, face-to-face service activities pivoted to digital platforms, a crucial adaptation that enabled students to continue contributing meaningfully to community issues while learning remotely. Although some service activities were easily transferable to online formats, others required significant redesign, including modifying the nature of the service or relocating the S-L component to another module within the curriculum. While prior work has explored the impact of direct and indirect service activities on fostering attitudes toward social equality (Brown et al., 2016), our literature review found no other studies that examined the differential impacts across categories of service activities. Hence, this study addressed this lacuna in the literature by investigating these impacts.

Electronic Service-Learning

Conventionally, course instruction and service experiences occur in a face-to-face environment. The emergence of online education alongside the global COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped the education landscape. With the advent of home-based online learning, Singapore’s Ministry of Education reviewed how to “blend” classroom and digital learning to “harness the best of both worlds” (Ang, 2020) and augment students’ proficiency in digital literacy (Tushara, 2023).

Bringle and Clayton (2020) also emphasized the importance of merging the strengths of S-L with online learning and digital technology for achieving learning goals. Waldner et al. (2012) posited four types of eS-L (Figure 1) with varying combinations of online and onsite course instruction and S-L experiences. The feasibility of eS-L design and implementation depends largely on the nature of the module and project. While all NP course instructions were moved online during the pandemic, online lessons could not replace hands-on laboratory, clinical, and studio sessions. In some cases, it was easier to redesign eS-L service activities in indirect, research, or advocacy categories to be delivered online (vs. direct service).

eS-L can potentially overcome the geographical restrictions faced by traditional S-L (Salam et al., 2019; Waldner et al., 2012) with online communication tools, allowing learning to be more flexible as students can gain access to online materials and instructions at their convenience (Marcus et al., 2019; Muraleedharan, 2024). eS-L is a powerful pedagogy to promote interaction (e.g., student-student, student-instructor, student-community partner) and engagement, which are perceived to be lacking in typical online learning (Figuccio, 2020; Gaytan & McEwen, 2007; Hill et al., 2009; Muirhead, 2004; Swan, 2002; Waldner et al., 2012). Moreover, eS-L can engage non-typical populations (e.g., persons with disabilities), which is a challenge in traditional S-L (Figuccio, 2020; Malvey et al., 2006), individuals who are introverted (Waldner et al., 2012) or shy (Compare & Albanesi, 2022), and those who live far from their schools (McGorry, 2023; Strait & Hamerlinck, 2010). eS-L is also an attractive alternative when minimal physical interaction is possible (Ong et al., 2023). The transition from traditional S-L to eS-L also unveils opportunities to broaden the demographic of students who can partake in such courses through reduced educational expenses (Faulconer, 2020). This approach fosters greater inclusivity and equitable access to educational opportunities, aligning with the imperative to democratize learning experiences across diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.

Figure 1

Types of eS-L (Waldner et al., 2012).

Institutions stand poised to leverage a plethora of technological tools and platforms (Faulconer, 2020; Yusof et al., 2021) to facilitate remote collaboration, potentially widening the reach of eS-L initiatives across diverse communities. This adaptive approach is particularly salient in responding to emerging community issues, such as social isolation, amidst the challenges posed by the pandemic (Dinour & Daclan, 2022).

The post-pandemic era heralds a nuanced landscape for eS-L, marked by a confluence of challenges. Foremost among the challenges is the persistent digital divide that accentuates socioeconomic disparities in access to the requisite technological tools and internet connectivity (Bell et al., 2020; Usher et al., 2024; Yu et al., 2023). Concurrently, ensuring sustained student interaction and fostering the sense of community and empathy in virtual settings emerges as a formidable hurdle (Ngai et al., 2024). Furthermore, the prolonged period of uncertainty surrounding the resumption of daily routines imposed significant stress on students, evidenced by an increase in reported mental health issues (Elmer et al., 2020).

Current eS-L research has generally pointed to it generating similar learning outcomes as traditional face-to-face S-L (Figuccio, 2020; Lin et al., 2023; McGorry, 2012; Waldner et al., 2010; Yu et al., 2023). Marcus et al. (2019) analyzed student reflections from a Hybrid Type III eS-L course and found that most students focused on their global citizenship skills, followed by scholarship and adaptability skills. In contrast, teamwork skills—commonly emphasized in traditional S-L—were less prominently reported, which the authors attributed to fewer opportunities for students to take on leadership roles in the eS-L setting. At the same time, students highlighted the benefits of the online platform, particularly its provision of useful learning resources, facilitation of interactions with instructors and peers, and support for tracking their learning progress. Studies investigating extreme eS-L have substantiated its pedagogical efficacy and viability within educational contexts. Waldner et al. (2010) conducted research on fully online eS-L courses in public health policy and management marketing courses. Their findings indicated that these courses successfully met established benchmarks for effectiveness, including project deliverable completion, client satisfaction metrics, student engagement levels, quality of stakeholder interactions, and skills development outcomes. When the learning outcomes (practical and interpersonal skills, citizenship and personal responsibility) for traditional S-L and extreme eS-L pedagogies were compared for both marketing strategy and marketing research courses, no significant differences were found (McGorry, 2012). Although educators may be inclined to revert to fully in-person S-L activities post-pandemic, these findings underscore the value of eS-L in fostering a more inclusive and impactful educational paradigm.

The eS-L modules in the current study were largely Hybrid Types II and III as influenced by Singapore’s national directives in response to COVID-19. This pioneering research is Singapore’s first comprehensive study of eS-L in the polytechnic sector. By examining various eS-L hybrid approaches and their impact on academic and civic learning, the study will identify effective module design and implementation elements. The findings will provide educators with critical insights and practical recommendations for developing impactful eS-L programs.

Design and Implementation of S-L and eS-L Modules

S-L Quality Assessment Tool (SLQAT) was introduced for the design, implementation and assessment of S-L modules (Furco et al., 2023). It encompasses 28 “essential elements” derived from high-quality S-L research, which are categorized into five dimensions: Course Design, Learning, Student, Instructor, Community Partner and Partnership. The Center for Service and Learning at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) has also created a taxonomy for S-L modules, aiming to bolster fidelity and quality by pinpointing six essential characteristics of S-L courses (Hahn et al., 2016). Choo et al.’s (2019) study of NP students in S-L also highlighted important factors such as students’ perceived impact of S-L, preparedness for S-L, quality of reflection prompts, and amount of interaction with the community in designing and implementing S-L.

NP’s Office of Service-Learning (OSL) reviewed and refined the elements to the current list in Table 2 (Ong et al., 2023). The descriptive texts serve as a guide for instructors to determine the presence of each element and assess its level of implementation. These considerations for designing high-quality eS-L were emphasized in our faculty training for designing and implementing eS-L.

Besides the seven S-L elements used by NP OSL, technology effectiveness was included in this eS-L study to capture the considerations and impact of technological tools. eS-L requires technical capability and training of students to implement eS-L online. eS-L activities exhibit four distinct types of technological interaction (Culcasi et al., 2022). The first two focus on delivery methods: an instrumental channel employs basic digital tools such as video conferencing without requiring special expertise, while an integrated channel demands advanced technical skills for tasks such as digital content creation. The other two types relate to project goals: an instrumental objective utilizes existing technological platforms like social media for project implementation, while an integrated objective involves creating new technological solutions such as developing custom software to address community needs. Most of the eS-L service activities in NP adopted a combination of the first three types of technological interactions, namely the instrumental channel (e.g., using video conferencing platforms for communication with students and community partners), the integrated channel (e.g., using digital tools for content creation in advocacy projects) and the instrumental objective (e.g., using video conferencing platforms for implementation of eS-L activities with the community participants).

Malvey et al. (2006) highlighted the need to assess students’ technological skills, communicate software requirements, and expose them to online learning to mitigate cognitive overload. Other literatures suggest that instructors have the responsibility to bridge synchronous and asynchronous communications in eS-L to promote inclusivity and systematic tracking (Waldner et al., 2012). eS-L requires digital proficiency from students, instructors, and community partners (Zhu et al., 2023). Training in technological platforms/tools should be extended to both instructors (Smeltzer, 2020; Strait & Sauer, 2004) and community partners (Waldner et al., 2012) as well as students to alleviate tech-related anxiety issues in non-digital natives (Meuser et al., 2022). Instructors and community partners should also conduct trials prior to actual eS-L sessions to ensure quality (Yu et al., 2023; Waldner et al., 2012).

Communicating clear expectations is vital to prevent disengagement and confusion in the context of online learning. Prince et al. (2020) proposed the implementation of asynchronous and synchronous modes of contact and communication coupled with the clarification of expected engagement. For eS-L, Hunter (2007) and Waldner et al. (2012) suggested “memorandums of understanding” among students, instructors, and community partners to ensure commitment to project collaboration. This can guide instructors to engage actively with students and provide sufficient feedback to students, which are vital in eS-L because it lacks the immediacy of feedback that face-to-face learning can provide (Hunter, 2007; Tabor, 2007).

Online communication lacks nonverbal cues, affecting communication effectiveness and can lead to feelings of disconnection (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012). In virtual communication, deciphering nonverbal cues is often challenging for users (Guthrie & McCracken, 2010). Hence, students should be cautioned about inappropriate online communications, as toxic disinhibition effects can affect relationships with others (Shah et al., 2018; Suler, 2004). eS-L modules should be purposefully designed to promote active participation among all parties, especially for extreme eS-L with less frequent synchronous interaction (Waldner et al., 2010) and interactions can be more truncated (Bringle & Clayton, 2020). Although both S-L and eS-L emphasize building reciprocal relationships with community partners, eS-L’s reliance on online interactions requires intentional planning to facilitate these relationships. At the beginning of the course, a community partner “reveal” (e.g., video teleconferencing) can foster active communication and engagement between students and community partners. Students have noted that a real-time chat or a physical meeting was crucial for building relationships and understanding project rationale and issues (McGorry, 2006). Evidently, the strategic deployment of technological tools to facilitate online collaboration and communication is crucial to building these relationships (Stefaniak, 2020).

Faculty Development for S-L and eS-L

Faculty development is essential to achieve the desired student outcomes of increased academic learning, civic learning, and personal growth and/or professional development (Abes et al., 2002; Clayton & Ash, 2004; Howard, 2000). Faculty development is closely related to the success of S-L modules (Ash & Clayton, 2009; Bringle & Hatcher, 1999; Clayton & O’Steen, 2010; Howard, 2000) because it can influence the design and implementation of the modules (Billig, 2007). Faculty development has enhanced staff confidence, their positivity in teaching, and their perception of collaboration with the community in S-L pedagogy (McKinney, 2002). Forming a core group of instructors for research and S-L/eS-L implementation can enhance mutual support and resource pooling (McKay & Rozee, 2004; Rice & Stacey, 1997).

NP OSL has trained over 700 instructors in S-L since 2016. The first-place award in the 2020 MacJannet Prize for Global Citizenship validated the quality and impact of the S-L initiatives in NP. Similarly, faculty development is crucial for eS-L, given the complexity of integrating S-L with online platforms (Guthrie & McCracken, 2010).

In this study, the development of faculty training for eS-L design and implementation adopted an iterative approach. The existing eS-L research findings and NP S-L guidelines informed the initial faculty training. Following the training, the implementation and review of eS-L experiences referenced Kolb’s experiential learning framework (Sharlanova, 2004). The concrete experience phase commenced in the October 2021 semester, when eS-L modules were implemented based on the proposed design and implementation approaches. The research team collected data concerning the experiences of students, instructors, and community partners. They analyzed and drew insights from the quantitative and qualitative data reflecting the reflective observation and abstract conceptualization phases to inform the subsequent faculty training for eS-L instructors in April 2022 semester. Another cycle of Kolb’s experiential learning commenced, and similar data were collected to inform future faculty training.

Research Questions

This study examined the impact of eS-L on students’ learning outcomes, identified good eS-L module designs and essential implementation elements, and elucidated how these elements were related to the student outcomes. The research questions include:

• (a) What is the impact of eS-L on civic learning, academic learning, and personal growth and/or professional development?

• (b) How are eS-L elements related to students’ civic learning and academic learning?

• (c) Across the categories of service activities (direct, indirect, research, advocacy), is there a difference in the:

  • (i) impact of eS-L on civic and academic learning?

  • (ii) student ratings of eS-L elements?

Participants

Students of eS-L modules from eight NP STEM and non-STEM schools in October 2021 semester (October 2021 to March 2022) and April 2022 semester (April 2022 to September 2022) were invited to participate in this study. A total of 1012 students from first, second, and third year of studies completed one survey before and another survey after their eS-L experience. Among this group of participants, 38 students who reported significantly higher or lower civic learning scores after eS-L took part in an online focus group discussion. An additional 486 students completed only the post eS-L survey.

Eleven instructors whose students participated in the focus group discussions were interviewed. Community partners were invited to complete a survey and 42 responses were collected. The number of schools, modules, and the types of eS-L service activities are summarized in Table 3.

During the October 2021 semester, the COVID-19 pandemic situation in Singapore was such that face-to-face lessons could resume partially in NP with Safe Management Measures. However, community visits were not possible, and all community interactions and activities remained online. As such, modules were designed and conducted as Hybrid Type II eS-L in October 2021 semester, with lessons conducted onsite and service delivery online. In the April 2022 semester, COVID-19 measures further eased and some eS-L modules incorporated onsite community-based activities and were conducted as Hybrid Type III eS-L in the April 2022 semester.

Across the eS-L modules examined in this study, three distinct types of technology interaction by Culcasi and colleagues (2022) were identified: instrumental channel, integrated channel, and instrumental objective. This multi-modal approach enhanced the pedagogical efficacy of community-based activities while maintaining the core principles of S-L. However, as technological examination was not a primary focus of this study, the differential learning outcomes associated with these various modalities of technology interaction were not investigated.

Research Design and Materials

This study used a mixed methods approach to triangulate quantitative survey results with qualitative interview findings. A within-subjects design was employed to examine changes in students’ civic learning scores before and after eS-L. Quantitative analysis of post-eS-L survey responses for students’ academic and civic learning as well as correlational analysis of the relationships between these learning outcomes and eS-L elements were conducted. Post-eS-L surveys were conducted for the instructors and the community partners. In addition, qualitative data were collected through student focus groups and instructor interviews to gather insights that may not be obtained through surveys.

eS-L Module Design and Implementation

At the start of the semester, students went through pre-service activities in their respective modules during which instructors briefed them about the principles and purposes of eS-L and the service activities they would undertake with the community partners. Pre-service activities were included to enhance students’ comprehension of community challenges, strengths, and essential project details, including policies, ethics, and safety considerations. Students then embarked on the various service activities. Towards the end of the semester, post-service activities required students to present the required deliverables and evaluate how the service activities related to the eS-L outcomes (Ong et al., 2023).

Throughout the semester, reflection activities took place at pre-, during, and post-service. Instructors provided reflection prompts for each of the academic learning, civic learning, and personal growth learning outcomes.

Civic Learning: Triangulating Student, Instructor, and Community Partner Survey Responses

Based on students’ pre-eS-L and post-eS-L survey data, paired sample t-test analysis revealed that students reported significantly higher civic learning outcomes after eS-L (M = 3.88, SD = 0.59) than before eS-L (M = 3.78, SD = 0.55), t(1011) = 6.47, p < .01.

The instructors’ ratings for the integration of civic competencies into student learning outcomes had a mean of 3.40 (SD = 0.84). This indicated that instructors generally perceived that they focused on discipline-based content, and connected to civic learning and competencies when relevant to the community activities.

The community partner’s survey responses revealed that they perceived students as having good civic learning outcomes. A single-sample t-test revealed that their perception of students’ civic learning scores (M = 4.30, SD = 0.64) was significantly greater than the neutral score of 3 on the survey’s response scale, t(41) = 13.05, p < .01.

The qualitative data findings from the students and instructors generally corroborated the quantitative findings. Across students and instructors, the most common finding was that students reported a deeper awareness of social issues. For instance, one student commented how they were “a little bit more self-conscious of the food wastage” while one instructor had mentioned how S-L “left the biggest impact to the student, because the student got to know about their [Dialogue in the Dark blind guides’] daily life, which they have never thought of.” Another common finding was that students reported a greater desire to give back to the community because of their eS-L experience. Examples of situations where students felt they could give back were by working in a soup kitchen or by distributing hampers to the elderly. Some students also candidly shared that while they had a greater desire to give back to the community, they were unable to do so. On the other hand, there were students who reported that they did not learn much about social issues due to limited interactions with the community during the eS-L experience.

The quantitative findings of the students and community partners’ perspectives, and the qualitative findings of the students and instructors, all suggested that students generally experienced a growth in civic learning as a result of their eS-L experience.

Academic Learning: Triangulating Student, Instructor, and Community Partner Survey Responses

Post-eS-L survey responses indicated that students’ academic learning outcomes (M = 3.94, SD = 0.74) were significantly higher than the neutral score of 3, t(1497) = 48.97, p < .01. This suggests that students experienced good academic learning from the eS-L modules.

The instructors rated the role of eS-L in enhancing academic content, course design, and assignments with a mean score of 4.00 (SD = 0.82). This suggested that instructors reported integrating the community activities and relevant social issues as critical dimensions for students’ understanding of academic content and ability to complete assignments. Furthermore, the course syllabus, teaching schedule, and assessment plan provided a good rationale for the relationship of the community activities to the course learning outcomes. The students’ perceived academic learning from the eS-L experience may be attributable to the well-planned design implemented by instructors as a result of faculty development activities for eS-L.

The qualitative data findings from the students and instructors also corroborated the quantitative findings. Across both the students and instructors, the most common finding was that students enhanced their domain knowledge and skills through their eS-L experience. For example, students across the diplomas listed many skills including “photoshop and design”, “cause- effect and ways to prevent or slow down the progression of Alzheimer’s”, “about hand gestures and our languages” and other domain-related knowledge. Instructors likewise highlighted the various academic contents that students had learnt, such as “Facebook ads manager, TikTok ads manager, Google ads”, and “preparing them (students) to build IoT (Internet of Things) sensors in urban farming.” In modules into which the instructors had intentionally integrated and scaffolded academic knowledge and skills through the eS-L design, students reported higher ratings for their academic learning in relation to the eS-L experience. Another common finding was that students reported applying the domain knowledge and skills learnt in the eS-L module. For instance, one instructor highlighted how students came up with many ways to solve a real-life problem using their domain knowledge, such as “having a device that is attached to a bicycle or a personal mobility device, some with a wearable device on the neck, and some think of making use of the existing infrastructure for example the lamp post, and then install something on the lamp post.” Another example was an Environmental & Water Technology student who explained that their service allowed them to “see how what we learnt in the classroom was actually applied in real life, so I think being able to see that will help to strengthen our understanding and knowledge.”

All students in the focus group discussion mentioned that they had no issue in learning the module content and knowledge in the eS-L module. However, a few instructors observed that some students might face difficulties with academic learning. This may be due to condensed delivery of academic content to free up time for eS-L within a semester.

The triangulated findings from the above instructors’ interview, students’ focus group, and quantitative results from post-eS-L analysis suggested that eS-L was instrumental in helping students achieve their academic learning.

Personal Growth and/or Professional Development

Instructors’ perception of the extent to which the eS-L experience supported students’ personal growth was analyzed. They rated “the S-L experience engages students in developing personal learning and/or professional skills” with a mean of 3.80 (SD = 1.03). In general, they perceived good and sufficient evidence of how the eS-L experience and related course content supported students in developing both deeper personal learning outcomes (e.g., moral reasoning, stereotype reduction, becoming more aware of personal values/strengths), and professional skills (e.g., teamwork, communication, time management, project development). This is congruent with the findings on personal growth from the student focus groups.

Two major themes emerged, based on the thematic analysis of the students’ and instructors’ interviews regarding students’ personal growth. The most common theme was that students felt they had developed the core values (Respect, Responsibility, Resilience, Integrity, Compassion and Gratitude) of NP. Among the 38 students interviewed, 63% of the students shared how they could exercise these values during the eS-L module. For example, one student mentioned how they practiced being “respectful in a way that we watch[ed] our words and know how to respect the community regardless of whether they are [perceived as] low or not [in social status]. We [should] treat them as an equal.” Students also expressed “gratitude and respect for the people putting in so much effort to make these spaces beautiful and clean for us.”

The next most common theme was greater clarity of career paths for students. This was evident when 53% of students described the careers they would like to pursue or avoid based on their eS-L experience. For example, some students would like to pursue careers as “early childhood or primary school teachers” or seek career opportunities in “creating social media posts such as content marketing.” Conversely, one student stated that “I don’t think I will become something like a social worker. It’s just not my passion or like my outlook on life” – indicating careers that they wanted to avoid. Likewise, instructors could also highlight certain careers that students might prefer or avoid. For example, one instructor shared that “some students … don’t like this thing that they’re doing. Like they think they know that, ok, I’m not going to do this. I’m not going to do this [study] design anymore. So I’m not doing this [as a] career.”

Hence, the instructors’ survey results and qualitative responses of both instructors and students consistently suggested eS-L provided opportunities to enhance clarity in career exploration and strengthen NP core values (Respect, Responsibility, Resilience, Integrity, Compassion and Gratitude).

Relationships between eS-L Elements and Learning Outcomes (Academic Learning and Civic Learning)

Table 4 shows Pearson correlations between the eS-L elements with Academic Learning (Pearson’s r ranged from .54 to .79, p < .01) and the change (Δ) in Civic Learning (Pearson’s r ranged from .28 to .35, p < .01). Civic learning outcome is presented as the difference between pre- and post-eS-L civic learning scores.

As shown in Table 4, all eight eS-L elements showed positive and significant relationships with ratings of academic learning, and positive change in civic learning outcomes. These suggested that all eight elements are important considerations in the design and implementation of eS-L modules. The correlation coefficients between the learning outcomes and the eS-L-specific element, technology effectiveness, were comparable to those for the seven traditional S-L elements. This suggested the importance of selecting suitable technological tools to deliver course content and facilitate engagement between students and community partners/members. Students, instructors, and community partners should be prepared to ensure that they are capable of utilizing the technological tools in eS-L. In addition, eS-L design should intentionally promote regular and clear online communication and active engagement among students, instructors, and community partners, keeping in mind the lack/absence of nonverbal communication cues in online communication.

Impact of eS-L on Learning Outcomes Across Categories of Service Activities

A MANOVA analysis was conducted to see if the four categories of service activities would differ based on the learning outcomes and eS-L elements. The multivariate result was significant for service type, Wilk’s Lambda = .90, F(3,30) = 3.52, p < .001, indicating a difference in the learning outcomes and eS-L element scores among the four categories of service activities.

Comparing the learning outcomes, the univariate tests showed that the four categories had significant differences in students’ ratings on academic learning, F(3,1008) = 5.06, p < .01. Meanwhile the categories of service activities did not significantly differ for change in civic learning.

Comparing the eS-L elements, the univariate tests showed that the four categories of service activities had significant differences in students’ ratings on critical reflection, F(3,1008) = 3.27, p = .02; meaningful service, F(3,1008) = 4.04, p = .007; dialogue with diverse others, F(3,1008) = 4.57, p = .003; reciprocal relationship, F(3,1008) = 4.27, p = .005; student voice, F (3,1008) = 7.16, p < .001; and technology effectiveness, F(3,1008) = 4.17, p = .006. Meanwhile, the categories of service activities did not significantly differ in students’ ratings on connection between service and learning and community voice (p > .05).

The post-hoc comparisons in Table 5 show statistically significant mean differences between various categories of service activities for academic learning and five elements (meaningful service, dialogue with diverse others, reciprocal relationship, student voice, and technology effectiveness). Students involved in indirect service activities reported significantly lower academic learning scores than research, advocacy, and direct service activities. Direct service activities had significantly higher mean scores than indirect service activities for student voice, dialogue with diverse others, reciprocal relationship, and meaningful service. Meanwhile, advocacy service activities had significantly higher technology effectiveness scores compared to indirect service activities. These findings highlight the relative strengths of research, advocacy and direct service activities in academic learning, as opposed to indirect service activities.

Civic Learning: Triangulating Student and Instructor Perspectives on eS-L Elements

There were mixed findings in students’ reports of civic learning across the diverse modules, with students in some modules reporting significant change in civic learning, while other modules reported no significant change. The instructors’ interviews and students’ focus group discussions provided insights into why certain modules had or did not have significant civic learning.

Academic Learning: Triangulating Student and Instructor Perspectives on eS-L Elements

The most common theme was that students were able to apply the knowledge and skills they learnt in their modules into the eS-L service activities. The interviews with the instructors, and focus group discussions with students, highlighted the following elements as important for the S-L outcomes: connection between service and learning, technology effectiveness, critical reflection, meaningful service, and reciprocal relationship.

Critical Reflection

Critical reflection questions could be intentionally designed to facilitate academic learning. Students reported that structured reflections helped them to “remember” the project, gain a “clearer understanding”, “summarize what [they] have learned”, and “articulate [their] learning.”

Implications for S-L and eS-L Design

Based on the triangulation of survey results with instructor interviews and student focus group discussions highlighted earlier, the team extrapolated some good practices to adopt. These good practices can help instructors improve academic learning and civic learning outcomes when designing their S-L or eS-L (see Table 6).

Additional eS-L Elements

In addition to the three eS-L elements highlighted in Table 6, the study highlighted two other elements of interest for improving academic learning outcomes, namely technology effectiveness and reciprocal relationships. Likewise, community voice was highlighted as another element of interest for improving growth on civic learning.

Technology Effectiveness. To enhance technology effectiveness in eS-L modules, educators should assess available tools and intentionally adopt those that best support specific learning and service goals. These include using technology as a medium for communication (instrumental channel) and developing comprehensive activities through digital platforms (integrated channel). Additionally, students can learn to harness digital platforms to serve community needs (instrumental objective) and create innovative digital solutions (integrated objective). This multifaceted approach enhances both the learning experience and community impact of eS-L. For example, in modules where technology is an instrumental channel, instructors should first familiarize themselves with the necessary technological tools for conducting online discussions or presentations with community organizations or members. They should then support students and, if necessary, community partners in becoming adept at using these tools. This ensures that students and community partners can focus on the activity content rather than being hindered by technical challenges during the S-L activity.

Reciprocal Relationship. A good practice to incorporate reciprocal relationships in eS-L modules is for instructors to begin by considering the perspectives of all stakeholders and designing the eS-L activity to provide mutual benefit to all stakeholders involved, including the community partner organization, community members, students, faculty, and the institution’s administration (Bringle et al., 2009; Jacoby, 2014). Instructors should support students in recognizing the potential benefits of their service activities for various stakeholders involved. To achieve this, instructors must establish channels within the eS-L activity by which students receive regular feedback from the different stakeholders they collaborate with.

Community Voice. A good practice for strengthening community voice in eS-L design is to actively seek the community partner’s input throughout the community service activities and to encourage students to do the same. This will ensure that, despite limited face-to-face interactions with the community during eS-L, students can stay engaged and involved with the community. For instance, students developing a digital literacy program for an elderly care home could schedule fortnightly video calls with their community partner to present their progress, engage in discussions about community needs, and collaboratively refine their solutions, thereby fostering a sustained and meaningful partnership throughout the project.

Implications for Faculty Development and Institutional Support

The research findings and the above discussions suggest that the instructor plays a key role in the quality of S-L/eS-L design and delivery. As such, faculty development is closely related to the success of S-L/eS-L modules (Ash & Clayton, 2009; Bringle & Hatcher, 1999; Clayton & O’Steen, 2010; Howard, 2000) because it influences the course design and implementation (Billig, 2007). With appropriate faculty development programs, instructors would be equipped not only to produce a good initial S-L/eS-L design, but also to iteratively enhance their course design and implementation.

The design and implementation of quality S-L/eS-L modules require much effort from the instructor (Choo et al., 2019). As such, institutional support can create “academic environments that cultivate professional growth [and that, in turn] … lead to increase in organizational commitment and retention, motivation, satisfaction, and performance” (O’Meara, 2013, pp. 218–219). Having institutional support and campus resources to support the design, implementation, and assessment of S-L and eS-L pedagogies can contribute to their quality (Ong et al., 2023; Ti et al., 2021). Scaffolded training programs can be designed to avoid overwhelming new instructors as they build their capacity and work on the quality of their S-L/eS-L design and delivery. Campus units can offer help with the technical aspects of suitable technologies in eS-L.

In 2017, OSL was founded at NP to advance the integration of S-L as NP’s signature pedagogy (Ti et al., 2021). One of OSL’s primary goals is to empower S-L instructors to create and execute S-L modules in their programs/disciplines. To achieve this goal, OSL staff implemented virtual training workshops for OSL trainers to model how to design and deliver eS-L modules, so that the participants experienced first-hand what their students would go through. Welch and Plaxton-Moore (2017) identified workshops and individual consultations as the most common methods for S-L faculty development. Consequently, OSL staff offered one-on-one coaching (virtual and face-to-face) to eS-L instructors after workshops, offering tailored guidance for their S-L/eS-L course design and implementation. The eS-L taxonomy in Table 2 was particularly useful in coaching and self-development of S-L instructors because it served as a template and benchmark for instructors to consider in their initial S-L/eS-L design as well as in subsequent refinements.

Additionally, OSL staff organized regular sessions for a core group of S-L and eS-L practitioners in NP to share good practices, exchange ideas, and perform informal study and formal research on S-L and eS-L courses in their respective schools/disciplines. OSL staff believed that such a faculty learning community is essential in strengthening institutional capacity in S-L and eS-L, as well as providing instructors with up-to-date knowledge and skills in designing S-L and eS-L courses amidst today’s evolving educational landscape.

Longitudinal Studies

By tracking students’ progress and experiences over an extended period, these studies could provide valuable insights into the sustained benefits of eS-L on academic, personal, and civic development. Longitudinal research allows for a deeper understanding of how eS-L contributes to students’ knowledge retention, skill development, and their ability to apply learned concepts in real-world contexts. Additionally, such research could also elucidate the influence of eS-L on the students’ subsequent professional pathways and post-graduation civic engagement, offering critical insights into whether eS-L experiences foster enduring commitments to socially conscious career choices and sustained community participation. Furthermore, longitudinal research helps to identify factors that may influence the long-term outcomes of eS-L, such as the duration and intensity of engagement as well as the role of reflection and community partnerships. To address potential self-selection bias, subsequent studies should incorporate control groups comprising non-service-learning participants, thereby enabling more rigorous assessment of the distinctive effects attributable to eS-L interventions. The findings from longitudinal studies with a good control of self-selection bias in eS-L can inform program design, curriculum development, and institutional policies, leading to continuous improvement and the cultivation of meaningful, transformative learning experiences for students.

Investigating the Difference in Students’ Learning Outcomes for S-L and eS-L Modules

By systematically investigating the differences in these outcomes, the research could shed light on the unique benefits and potential advantages offered by both S-L and eS-L approaches. The findings of this study will contribute valuable insights into the effectiveness and impact of these pedagogical methods, aiding in the enhancement of future S-L and eS-L initiatives at NP and beyond. It will also further clarify how faculty development can be improved for the different types of S-L.

Pre- and Post-eS-L Survey for Students

For Pre- and Post-eS-L Surveys

Civic Learning

• 1) I often try to act on solutions that address social, local or international problems in the community.

• 2) I try to encourage others to participate in activities that help to improve the community.

• 3) I am aware of the important needs in the community.

• 4) I am aware of what can be done to meet the important needs in the community.

• 5) I feel that I have the ability to make a difference in the community.

• 6) I plan to find time or a way to make a positive difference in the community.

• 7) I participate in activities that help to improve the community.

• 8) Being concerned about local or international issues is an important responsibility for everybody.

• 9) Being informed about social issues is a good way to improve the community.

For Post-eS-L Survey

Academic Learning

• 10) Due to the Service-Learning experience, I was able to apply the academic content of this/other module(s).

• 11) Due to the Service-Learning experience, I have been motivated to learn more about the academic content in this/other module(s).

• 12) Due to the Service-Learning experience, I have developed skills and knowledge for my diploma’s industry/field.

Connection Between Service and Learning

• 13) The module content that I have learnt in class was important in the execution of the Service-Learning experience.

• 14) The module content that I learnt in class helped to enhance the Service-Learning experience I had with the community.

• 15) I did more than volunteerism as the service I provided was connected to my learning.

Critical Reflection

• 16) During reflection activities, my lecturer/tutor helped me to deepen and broaden my critical thinking in my reflection(s).

• 17) The reflection activities contributed to the achievement of the module objective(s).

• 18) The reflection activities helped me to understand the Service-Learning experience better.

• 19) The reflection activities helped me to understand the module’s content better.

Community Voice

• 20) The community partner influenced the direction of the Service-Learning experience.

• 21) The community partner had a say in how the Service-Learning experience should be done.

• 22) The community partner got to share more about their organization and the community they serve.

• 23) The community partner’s contributions in the Service-Learning experience were acknowledged.

Meaningful Service

• 24) The service that I provided was relevant to the community I served.

• 25) The service that I provided met the community need(s).

• 26) The service that I provided was meaningful to the community I served.

Dialogue With Diverse Others

• 27) I had the opportunity to talk to people of different culture(s), social, or economic background(s) during my Service-Learning experience.

• 28) I gained a better understanding of people of different culture(s), social, or economic background(s) during my Service-Learning experience.

Reciprocal Relationship

• 29) I believed that the community partner and/or community had benefited from the Service-Learning experience.

• 30) I had frequent discussions with the community partner throughout the Service-Learning experience.

• 31) I benefited from the Service-Learning experience.

Student Voice

• 32) I felt that my opinions were valued by my group members.

• 33) I felt that my opinions were valued by my lecturer/tutors.

• 34) I contributed actively to the Service-Learning experience.

Technology Effectiveness

• 35) Appropriate technology tools were used throughout this module.

• 36) The technology tools enabled me to engage with others during my Service-Learning experience

• 37) Different online tools were used throughout the Service-Learning experience.

• 38) I could interpret non-verbal communication cues online.

• 39) I am confident in using technology tools to implement community services online.

Instrument: Survey for Instructors

Instrument: Survey for Community Partners

Civic Learning

• 1) This eS-L experience helped the students to become more aware of community issues.

• 2) The students demonstrated a sense of responsibility to help and contribute to the community.

Connection Between Service and Learning

• 3) The goal(s) for the students’ eS-L service activities were clear to me.

• 4) The students were able to apply course knowledge and skills to their eS-L service activity.

Community Voice

• 5) I felt valued as a co-educator in the eS-L experience.

Meaningful Service

• 6) I am satisfied with the service provided by the students.

• 7) In general, the benefits of working with eS-L outweighed any burdens it may have added to our work.

Dialogue With Diverse Others

• 8) The students had meaningful interactions with community members from my community organization.

Reciprocal Relationship

• 9) I had a good working relationship with the faculty during the eS-L service activity.

• 10) I had a good working relationship with the students during the eS-L service activity.

Student Voice

• 11) The students were given the opportunity to decide how the eS-L service activity was conducted.

Technology Effectiveness

• 12) The eS-L service activity that was conducted online was smooth and effective.