Student Perceptions of Open Pedagogy and Community-Engaged Service Learning

Abstract

Open pedagogy is an approach to instruction that places the student as a partner in the learning environment moving beyond traditional methods of instructional delivery that center the instructor as the expert. Open pedagogy allows for student contributions to the classroom that move beyond traditional instructional methods such as disposable assignments and educator led classroom discussions that are created by faculty to provide students with a learning experience. Instead, open pedagogy facilitates a student-centered learning environment that engages students as co-creators of learning and allows them to play a role in the facilitation of the learning environment. This paper focuses on the role of open pedagogy in community engaged service learning and is based on a quasi-experimental research study that explored student perceptions of community engaged service learning with and without an open pedagogical approach. The results report student satisfaction with the experience, perceived value, and the likelihood that they would take a course that combines these pedagogies in the future.

1. Introduction

In the face of shifting educational and societal terrains, it has become increasingly important to evaluate teaching and learning approaches to maximize student learning, engagement, and performance outcomes. Traditional teaching models that have emphasized the educator as the expert at the center of the learning experience are often being replaced with active and experiential learning models. No longer is the preferred method of information delivery the instructor as the “Sage on the Stage” being replaced with active and experiential learning models that extend learning beyond the classroom and emphasize the students’ role as central to the learning process. Active and experiential learning models have gained widespread acceptance and have been found to increase student attendance [1], engagement [1, 2, 3], and enhance learning [4]. Learning by doing approaches to classroom design has also been connected to increased retention of concepts and knowledge [5] and a deeper connection to the course content through practical application and reflection [6]. When classrooms are designed with active and experiential approaches to teaching, there is a significant shift in the learning environment that allows students to be actively engaged as co-constructors of the learning experience alongside their instructors and peers. While there are many iterations of models of active learning, the current study focuses on Community Service Learning (CSL) pedagogy and Open Pedagogy.

Community Service Learning (CSL) has been widely implemented and continues to gain traction in educational communities as a way to enhance student learning opportunities and create active engagement [7, 8]. CSL is a well-researched and established pedagogical approach that connects course learning to community-based service through an ongoing commitment to civic engagement, experiential learning, and reflective practice [9]. CSL course activities are designed to create an integrated approach that connects theoretical course content to practice by engaging in organized community service that meets an identified community need area [7]. Outcomes reported for CSL include enhanced student engagement, improved student learning, increased social skills in students [10], and positive student perspectives on service activities [11, 12].

Another student-centered emerging trend in educational pedagogy includes open educational practices such as the use of open educational resources (OER) to increase student centered learning approaches and equity in education by decreasing barriers to access of course materials and content. These practices are centered around the concept of openness include the use of free and accessible resources that not only decrease student costs and increase access and equity but also includes practices that empower students to be creators of the learning community and creators of knowledge [13, 14, 15]. Open pedagogy in practice has been described as shifting the classroom from a place where instruction is delivered to students who absorb it to one where learning is co-created and student centered [14, 16].

This paper explores a study that was designed using archival student satisfaction data. It compares students’ perceptions of community engaged service-learning projects with and without the use of open pedagogy. The purpose of this study was to explore how open pedagogy, and particularly the use of non-disposable assignments, would influence students’ satisfaction with and perception of, community engaged service-learning projects.

2. Community service learning

CSL combines traditional classroom delivery methods of education with community based practical service experiences [17]. This practical application increases critical thinking skills as students are challenged to explore and problem-solve real world challenges [4, 12, 18]. Further it has a positive impact on students’ understanding of social justice issues [19] and development of cross-cultural understanding [20, 21]. CSL has long been accepted in the educational field as a pedagogical approach that creates meaningful ways to facilitate students’ engagement in service and thereby increasing their commitment and internalization of civic responsibility. It serves as a connection point for students between the academic classroom and their roles as thoughtful citizens in the community [21].

CSL presents a shift in traditional reliance on knowledge as preparation for future occupations and community life to emphasizing the role of experience and practice in the enhancement of critical thinking, communication, and problem-solving skills [22, 23, 24]. Further CSL has been found to enhance student learning environments, and has been tied to increased academic success, positive impacts on student learning outcomes [4, 21, 23, 24], moral development, and critical thinking skills [23]. Previous research has found that CSL positively influences students’ academic performance when compared to traditional classroom content delivery methods of instruction [4]. Particularly, evidence suggests that engagement in learning activities outside of the classroom increases critical thinking skills and collaboration that is not traditionally fostered in lecture-based courses [4, 18, 21, 24].

This approach is more than just combining hands on experiences with traditional class materials for students, it also provides opportunity for critical reflection on service experiences and facilitates a deeper understanding of course content and in many cases the field of study than compared to traditional learning methods [4, 23]. This pedagogical approach can assist students particularly in helping professions to be more prepared for the work they will do in the future [19, 23], providing them opportunities to engage with and be of service to individuals from vulnerable populations and community organizations [19, 25]. Students engaged in CSL community collaborations were found to have increased empathy and understanding of working with individuals with disabilities [26]. Additionally, Deck and colleagues also found that service-learning opportunities increased student perceptions of their self-efficacy [19].

While CSL is an accepted and common practice across a variety of educational settings, there continues to be little consensus as to the best practices in course implementation and outcomes directly related to how the pedagogy is implemented. Further, there is little literature that measures the outcomes for students in a manner that is tied into implementation strategies [27]. There are numerous resources available to faculty to utilize when designing a CSL course or project, yet concerns exist that they are not utilized consistently [4]. CSL is best implemented when the community engaged assignments and the course content are cohesive, allowing for each to assist with synthesizing the information [23] and promoting deeper understanding. Most traditional renditions of CSL facilitate the practical application of course knowledge by engaging in community collaboration with a partner organization that identifies needs that the course and students can help to fill. Course instructors can ensure the success of these collaborations by facilitating reciprocal relationships for students, providing opportunities for transformative learning. It is important that CSL programming and design is centered around being flexible and responsive to meet the changing needs of community partners [28]. An approach that is adaptable to the needs of the community has been positively correlated with enhancing student capacity for critical thinking [28].

Student perceptions related to effective implementation include course content that is closely in line with the service-learning experience and in class reflection and class discussions that facilitates the integration of practice and course content build deeper connections [23]. Further students reported that service-learning projects helped them to have a more complete understanding of content and issues presented in the course and service project, thereby increasing their own personal reflection on their experiences and their role in problem solving [23].

CSL has many overlapping qualities with open educational approaches, particularly open pedagogy, which has been gaining increased presence and acceptance in educational settings, making the exploration of student perspectives on the integration of these pedagogical approaches is timely. These include fostering classroom environments that empower students to think critically about their performance and to monitor progress and adjust as necessary [4]. Additionally, student centered learning that focuses on problem-solving and critical thinking are important attributes of both pedagogical approaches.

This specific study implemented a course-specific community engaged service-learning project in two courses with different groups of students. One course implemented traditional instructional community service-learning methods and the assignment was presented as disposable. The second course implement an open pedagogical approach with the assignment being presented as renewable with a lasting impact and availability to the broader community.

3. Open pedagogy

The use of OER and its application to praxis through open pedagogy has gained momentum in higher education as a pedagogical approach that has the capacity increase equity, access, and student agency. In the wake of challenging and shifting educational terrains over the past few years, it is important that educators and systems of education find ways to not only respond to these changing needs but that we recognize the contexts that students exist in and work to break down barriers to engagement [29]. Open pedagogy grew out of the open education movement, which initially gained traction through the use of open educational resources (OER) to increase equity and access in education and decrease barriers related to cost of materials for students [30, 31]. OER has allowed for increased and expanded access to educational materials using open licensing that allows for no-cost access and permits the adaptation of the materials to suit the needs of the user and the course [16, 30]. The open education movement has included the implementation of open educational practices and the inclusion of OER that allow students to retain, reuse, remix, revise, and redistribute materials via open copyright licensing [32]. OER also allow for increased individualization of instruction to meet the needs of students [33], promoting inclusion, which is increasingly important in the wake of educational disruption from the global pandemic.

Much like CS, open pedagogy seeks to enhance student engagement with the course material by creating conducive educational environments where learning is student centered and the student is co-creator of knowledge with learning as a process rather than a product of teacher delivery [34, 35]. This shift in power dynamic present in open pedagogy assists in the goal of deepening student engagement with subject matter by increasing the development of critical thinking skills, enhancing the capacity for collaboration [16], and providing opportunities for self-direction in the learning process [14, 15, 36]. Further, empowering students to take ownership and direction of their learning process increases confidence and self-efficacy [30, 35, 36]. OER pedagogy creates a milieu where students can explore real issues and engage in collaborative solution focused problem-solving [31, 35]. Quote my article here.

Open educational practices have taken on many forms and faculty have used vast implementation strategies some of which include creating opportunities for students to create course content that will be available for continued access to future students and beyond through open licenses [16, 30, 37, 38] rather than the traditional approach of disposable assignments completed only for the purposes of a grading mechanism and are then discarded [37]. These types of open projects have included creating editing Wikipedia pages, developing multiple choice quizzes, providing demonstration examples or tutorials, social annotation, student created syllabi and assignments, co-authoring textbook entries, and much more. Previous research has found significant value in renewable assignments for students including an increase in their proactive completion of assignments and the added value for future endeavors such as applications for employment and further education should the assignments be available for public consumption [30].

This shift in approach to resources that not only decrease educational expenses and increase availability of resources, has also been tied to increased student engagement in the class. Open Pedagogy has been generally found to be positively regarded by students and to have a meaningful impact on the sense of pride students experienced about their work [29, 30]. While previous studies have not found a significant difference in overall course learning outcomes for open pedagogy studies on this have been limited and have yet to consider if the areas of overall skill improvement via open pedagogy may not be adequately captured by course specific learning outcomes.

Research has identified the potential for open pedagogy to benefit student learning and facilitate meaningful engagement and participation within the classroom, yet there continues to be a gap in the literature regarding student perceptions of specific iterations of open pedagogy, particularly the comparison between assignments delivered with traditional and open approaches [29, 37, 38]. Pavotti and colleagues [39] shared the results of a research that looked at the experience of open practices by educators who did not design the course as with the intention of open pedagogical design. However, this study used a community engaged project online and reported data from all parties on their perspectives of the assignment and overall satisfaction [39]. Overall students reported a positive experience with the course yet identified practical barriers to group work outside of the classroom, highlighting the need to ensure that course design has adequate support and set up to ensure success [39].

When looking at the influence of open approaches to CSL there is limited exploration of student perceptions of satisfaction and their desire to engage in future CSL and service-related activities. This is particularly true of for student satisfaction and their willingness to engage in future. The present study builds upon existing research and explores student perceptions of project based CSL assignments one using traditional CSL pedagogy with a disposable assignment and the second employing open pedagogy to the project based CSL assignment. Students in the latter course engaged in dialog about open pedagogy, the role of renewable assignments, and how the CSL assignment fit into this approach. The decision to include the same assignment with two groups was to decrease the possibility of student perceptions of the project being measured rather than the experience of open pedagogy.

4. Methods

The goal of the current study was to compare students’ perceptions of community engaged service-learning projects when implemented using traditional methods and disposable assignments versus when an open pedagogical approach was used. In the open pedagogy rendition, students were aware that their project would be publicly shared and were able to view other examples of similar student work in the repository. The research question addressed was: Does the use of open pedagogy contribute to students’ perceptions about a CSL project-based assignment.

The sample included students from a small, catholic, liberal arts institution who were enrolled in and completed courses that employed CSL projects as part of the pedagogical approach. Anonymous self-administered survey responses are regularly collected about CSL courses at the University to measure student perceptions of the course and CSL integration into the classroom. Archival data from two CSL courses taught by the same instructor in the Fall of 2021 and Spring of 2022 was accessed and utilized for the purposes of this project with approval of the Assumption University’s Institutional Review Board. Since the surveys were initially anonymous and completed with the purpose of program evaluation by the Community Service-Learning department at the University, concerns for students’ openness were minimized due to the lack of connection to the individual instructor and potential influence on their grade in the course.

Overall, 47 survey responses students’ responses were utilized 33 from Fall of 2021 and 14 from Spring of 2022. Exposure to community service-learning as a pedagogical practice varied among the group of students with the majority of the students (n = 27) were taking a CSL course for the first time (Fall = 18, Spring = 9), 5 students reported having taken 2 prior CSL courses (Fall = 4, Spring = 1), and 13 students reported that they had taken one previous CSL course (Fall = 11, Spring = 2). Only 2 students reported having taken 3 or more CSL courses and both were in the Spring Cohort. Of the students in the Spring cohort, only one student reported having heard of open pedagogy before this course (7.1%), with the majority of students (n = 13) being exposed to open pedagogy and OER for the first time.

4.1 Procedures

While the data utilized was archival in nature, the educational design of the two courses was similar except for the introduction of open pedagogy to the CSL project in the Spring 2022 iteration. Specifically, each course shared the same educational objectives as well as contact hours, both classes met face-to-face and utilized the same teaching approaches and techniques. Each course shared identical implementation of reflective practice and assessment methods related to the CSL project including collaborative class presentations and journals entries, all of which contributed to their final grade. Students in the Spring 2022 iteration of the course were engaged in dialog about open pedagogy and the difference between disposable and renewable assignments and how their project fit into this approach.

Following this conversation, the students completed their community based CSL course in the same manner as students in the Fall of 2021.

4.2 Measures

At the end of each CSL course, students are asked to complete an anonymous CSL Academic Goals Survey (See Appendix A) by the CSL department on campus. Due to the anonymous nature of the survey, it is not possible to identify which students completed the survey or to ensure that all students in the course did. Therefore, in the Fall of 2021 there were 44 students enrolled in the course across 2 sections and 75 percent (n = 33) completed the survey. In the Spring of 2022, there was 15 students enrolled in the course and all but one completed the survey (n = 14, 93%).

As this study is based on archival data it utilized data was garnered from surveys completed by students that were not integrated into the course experience rather they are asked to complete it as part of their CSL experience via an online platform where the questionnaire is stored. The CSL Academic Goals Survey asks students to answer questions indicating their satisfaction with the CSL portion of the course, specifically if the service experience enhanced their understanding of the other subject matter in the course, if the other subject matter in the course enhanced their understanding of the service experience, if after the course they would consider taking another CSL course, if after the course they were more likely to do community service in the future, and if they would recommend this CSL course and project to other students. Individual items are measured on a 5-point Likert scale that ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The reliability of the scale was positively evaluated as acceptable using the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (0.847). The participants were asked an additional open-ended question to add any comments that they had about the course, CSL project, or community partner.

4.3 Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to identify the students’ previous experiences with CSL courses and open methods of instruction. Assumptions for homoscedasticity and normality were not met, therefore Mann Whitney U non-parametric statistics were sample t-tests were used to assess the influence of open pedagogy on student’s perception of a CSL class project versus traditional means of CSL instruction. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to control for the influencing factor of previous CSL courses taken on student perceptions. ANCOVA requires an assumption of normality that was not met in the current study, therefore, a nonparametric rank ANCOVA as designed by Quade [40] was utilized. This nonparametric test does not assume normal distribution of data making it an appropriate choice. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS 27 for both the Mann Whitney U and the nonparametric ANCOVA. Additionally, thematic analysis was also used to analyze student open responses to identify and similarities in experiences and feedback.

5. Results

5.1 Students’ perspectives on service-learning enhancing understanding of the other subject matter in the course

A Mann–Whitney U test was run to determine if there were differences in student perceptions of CSL between the open pedagogy and traditional learning methods students. Impact of service learning on their understanding of the other subject matter in the course. Distributions of scores for students in the fall and spring were similar, as assessed by visual inspection. Median engagement scores were not statistically significantly different between the fall students (5.00) and spring students (4.50), U = 179.50, z = −1.394, p = .163.

5.2 Students’ perspectives on the other subject matter in the course enhancing their understanding of the service experience

A Mann–Whitney U test was run to determine if there were differences in student perceptions of the impact of the course content on their understanding of the CSL project between the open pedagogy and traditional learning methods students. Distributions of scores for students in the fall and spring were similar, as assessed by visual inspection. Median engagement scores were equal between the fall students (5.00) and spring students (5.00), U = 222.50, z = −.230, p = .818.

5.3 Students’ perspectives on if they would consider taking another CSL course

A Mann–Whitney U test was run to determine if there were differences in students’ consideration of another CSL course between the open pedagogy and traditional learning methods students. Distributions of scores for students in the fall and spring were similar, as assessed by visual inspection. Median scores were equal between the fall students (5.00) and spring students (5.00), U = 263.00, z = .874, p = .382.

5.4 Students’ perspectives on the likelihood that of engaging in future community service

A Mann–Whitney U test was run to determine if there were differences in the likelihood that students would engage in community service in the future between the open pedagogy and traditional learning methods students. Distributions of scores for students in the fall and spring were similar, as assessed by visual inspection. Median scores were insignificantly different between the fall students (4.00) and spring students (5.00), U = 260.50, z = .763, p = .455.

5.5 Student’s future recommendation of the course or CSL project

A Mann–Whitney U test was run to determine if there were differences in students’ recommendation of the CSL course, project, or community partner between the open pedagogy and traditional learning methods students. Distributions of scores for students in the fall and spring were similar, as assessed by visual inspection. Median engagement scores were not statistically significantly different between the fall students (5.00) and spring students (4.50), U = 179.50, z = −1.404, p = .160 (Table 1).

	Fall 2021 traditional (n = 33)	Spring 2022 open pedagogy (n = 13)
Student perspectives	Mean Rank	Mean Rank	U	Z	P
CSL enhanced understanding	5.00	4.50	179.50	1.394	.163
Course enhanced CSL	5.00	5.00	222.50	.230	.818
Would take another CSL	5.00	5.00	263.00	.874	.382
Future comm service	4.00	5.00	260.50	.763	.455
Would recommend course/project	5.00	4.50	179.50	1.404	.160

Table 1.

Summarizes Mann–Whitney U test results.

Summary of differences between fall and spring students on Mann–Whitney U test.

Note. * p < .05.

5.6 Covariates and additional analysis

Since many of the students had taken previous CSL courses, which may influence their perceptions of CSL and the likelihood of taking future CSL courses, it was important to explore this as a possible covariate. Due to the potential impact on reported differences between groups, a nonparametric analysis of covariance was conducted to control for the impact of previous exposure on student perceptions [40]. When controlling for how many CSL courses students had previously taken, differences in student perceptions remained statistically insignificant.

Analysis of student open responses on the prompt “Please add further comments concerning the course, service project, or agency.” were reviewed and were not included in the current study due to not providing additional insight into the research questions. Student open responses were overly positive about the CSL experiences highlighting their enjoyment “I enjoyed this because I got to me new people” “Great CSL”, the value of the experience “I truly think this opportunity is worthy trying for all students,”, and the opportunity to increase their exploration of information that they may not have otherwise been exposed to “It allows for the experience and knowledge to be further explored in areas that we may not have known.”

6. Discussion

The current study aimed to compare students’ perceptions of CSL courses when they were implemented with open pedagogy versus traditional teaching approaches. The results revealed insignificant differences between these groups of students. The results of this research are in line with previous research that has found open pedagogy approaches to instructional design are as effective as traditional means [37] with the findings from the current study showing that the application of open pedagogy did not have a significant impact on the CSL project and student perceptions of its place in the classroom.

It is important to recognize that pedagogical models are not in and of themselves avenues to increasing student engagement and enhancing academic skills, they must be implemented in such as way that facilitates the spaces where students can engage deeper with course content and collaborate with faculty and peers. The body of literature that identifies open approaches as being positively regarded by students and faculty does not account for the lack of cohesiveness in implementation and the continued resistance regarding pedagogical change [15]. Implementation of open pedagogy has at-times been found to be time consuming for students and faculty alike [15] and ensuring that considerations for technology, simplicity, and ease of engagement are explored prior to implementation can have significant impacts on faculty and student perspectives [34].

Another potential influencing factor may be the students previous experience with open education and open pedagogy and any hesitancy towards this new pedagogical approach. Previous research has found that some of the challenges to the implementation of open pedagogical approaches have been student hesitancy to have their work reviewed and evaluated by others as well as widely available after the course ends [39]. Throughout the course of the semester, students in the Spring course shared that they were anxious about the renewable assignment portion of the assignment, questioning if their work was good enough to be shared with the general public, a sentiment not expressed by the fall group where the CSL projects took the form of disposable assignments. While the data did not find that previous CSL experience had a statistically significant impact on the current results, future research should account for student comfortability with open pedagogy when attempting to measures its impact on student perceptions. Only one student in the present study had exposure to open pedagogy prior to the spring semester. The shift in relationship between student and instructor may be felt by students who are not used to a more collaborative mentor role and feel more familiar with instructors who view their role as imparting information [37].

While the data is not statistically significant in highlighting differences in student perceptions of the CSL project with open pedagogy approaches, students also did not report less satisfaction and therefore we can assume that this approach was at least equal to that of traditional CSL assignments. Additionally, Bloom found that faculty found themselves more comfortable and effective in implementing open pedagogy the second time they engaged this way [41], which may be similar for students and should be considered as an area for future inquiry.

At the very least the recognition by educators of the potential for discomfort can create opportunities for important dialog with students regarding the role of openness. Faculty should discuss any benefits and risk factors that they should consider when deciding to publicly license their work and researchers have debated the benefits of providing students with opportunities to complete alternative assignments or decline to make assignments renewable [38]. When students are expected to partner in the creation of the learning and assessment process, it is important to assist them in setting and understanding reasonable benchmarks to avoid preoccupation with a grading process that deviates from traditional methods [38]. This is supported by evidence that has found that faculty implementation of open practices does not improve student outcomes in and of itself, students must also be informed of the benefits, rational, and strategies for successful engagement otherwise this confusion cannot only impact the classroom environment but their willingness to engage with open approaches [39]. Effective classroom practices engage students by providing them dialog to understand why different teaching strategies are being used and their overall role in the class including for assessment purposes.

6.1 Limitations

While this study attempts to minimize some of the limitations by having the same faculty member for each rendition of the CSL project, there are still several limitations that must be considered. The sample size of the current study is relatively small and limited to one small catholic liberal arts university therefore, generalizations cannot be readily made to a larger student population. These students were all engaged in face-to-face learning models within person community engagement, however, pivots to hybrid instruction continue to be present to manage the spread of COVID-19 which may influence student perspectives on the course. This study utilized archival data, which protected against concerns about students feeling pressured to answer in a positive manner due to worries for their grades, it is limited to the data that has been previously collected. It was not possible to explore other potential covariates such as how many semesters they have been enrolled at the university, previous experience with community-service, perspectives on engagement, and comfortability with the assignments. Further questions directly related to the experience of open pedagogy as it intersects with CSL was not collected and would be an important avenue for future research.

Due to the lack of consensus on implementation of open pedagogy and varying practices of faculty, results may not be easily implemented by other educators who may have differing views on openness. Future research should consider pedagogical approaches that are being implemented as open pedagogy and seek to provide guidance regarding effective approaches in to creating open classroom communities. Additionally, research that explores open pedagogy learning designs as they are experienced by students may help to develop guidelines for implementation that can be added to the tools currently available for faculty.

7. Conclusions and implications

While the present study did not find statistically significant differences between CSL projects that are implemented with traditional means such as disposable assignments and those that were implemented with open pedagogy, this paper has highlighted the significant overlap in these pedagogical approaches. This is encouraging for educators who seek to increase the experiential learning opportunities that they facilitate for their students. Previous research on CSL and open pedagogical practices highlight student positive perceptions of their learning experience as well as increased outcomes both for the specific course material as well as attainment of academic skills such as critical thinking and collaboration. There is limited research that has explored the intersection of service-learning and open pedagogical practices and should be explored further as a possible avenue for increase student efficacy, engagement, and ownership of course outcomes. Further, the exploration of student connectedness to future career paths via CSL and open pedagogy is another important area to consider as contributions to the field of practice prior to graduation may enhance students’ perceptions of their readiness to enter the field and their career trajectories.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Term:

Course:

List Community Partner:

Please answer the following questions to indicate your satisfaction with the CSL component of this course.

How many CSL course(s) have you taken (check one) in previous semesters?

___ none, this is my first CSL course __________ 1–2 ___________ 3 or more.

Indicate the nature of CSL requirements:

____________ Project-based.

____________ Service provided at the agency in a series of individual visits.

For the following statements, please rate the degree to which you agree with the statement. Select a number that best matches your agreement.

	Strongly disagree (1)	Somewhat disagree (2)	Neutral (3)	Somewhat agree (4)	Strongly agree (5)
The service experience enhanced my understanding of the other subject matter in the course
The other subject matter in the course; enhanced my understanding of my service experience.
After this course, I would consider taking another CSL course
After this course, I am more likely to do community service in the future
I would recommend this placement or project to other students

Please add further comments concerning the course, service project or agency.

We appreciate your feedback.