Languages for Specific PurposesCurriculum Creation andImplementation in Service to the U.S.CommunityDARCY LEARUniversity of North Carolina–Chapel HillDepartment of Romance LanguagesCB 3170 Dey HallChapel Hill, North Carolina 27599Email: lear@email.unc.edu

Community service learning (CSL) is a type of experiential learning that blends specific coursecontent with real-world applications and ties them together through structured reflection. Itis an ideal pedagogy for 21st-century language for specific purposes (LSP) programs. Thisarticle frames that argument around sociocultural theory, moves to a discussion of existingmodels, materials, and research, and describes the relevance of CSL and LSP to the contextsof higher education, communities beyond campus, and professional workplaces. Challenges tothe implementation of CSL and LSP programs include resistance to interdisciplinary work, in-creasing dependence on income-generating models, and historical lack of campus–communityengagement. The article concludes with a description of current needs and priorities, such asthe development of models and standards for CSL and LSP, as well as an agenda for advancingthe disciplines within institutions of higher education.

COMMUNITY SERVICE LEARNING (CSL) ANDlanguage for specific purposes (LSP) courses andprograms have been steadily gaining strength inthe postsecondary pedagogical realm. AlthoughCSL and LSP complement each other well, theyhave not been fully connected to other, more es-tablished academic disciplines, such as sociocul-tural theory, which is explored here. This arti-cle provides an overview of existing programmingand research in the fields of LSP and CSL—inwhich Spanish predominates—and analyzes theroles of various stakeholders in LSP programs andcourses that use CSL. The article concludes witha look at challenges to implementation, currentneeds and priorities, and areas in need of furtherresearch.

The Modern Language Journal, 96, Focus Issue, (2012)DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01302.x0026-7902/11/158–172 $1.50/0C©2012 The Modern Language Journal

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

In the conclusion of Grosse and Voght’s article(1991), the authors called for a research agendathat included “community outreach and fundrais-ing” (p. 188). Community outreach is a corner-stone of the pedagogy of CSL, in which studentsprovide service by working in local agencies andorganizations as part of their coursework. In thisway, students support the infrastructures of localcommunities while simultaneously applying thetheory from their LSP courses to the practical,real-world situations they encounter in the com-munity. Grosse and Voght’s call to implement cur-ricular innovations in such a way that “foreign lan-guage education can adapt to the changing needsof students and society” (p. 188) is largely metby the burgeoning field of CSL. As society andthe concomitant needs of the workplace evolve,college and university programs are moving awayfrom providing students with fixed knowledgewithin a given field and toward training students

Darcy Lear 159

to have the flexibility required to deal with a con-stantly changing professional landscape.

CSL is a pedagogical approach that presents ascenario with benefits for all participants. Employ-ers and, by association, their clients in the commu-nity, obtain volunteer labor and unpaid trainingfor potential future employees. Students gain im-mediate applications for what they are learningin class, along with some work experience andprofessional networking opportunities. CSL pro-vides professors with a living laboratory in whichstudents can apply and enrich their academiclearning. By combining CSL with LSP, languageeducation can remain at the forefront of thechanging needs of students and society whileachieving community outreach.

Theoretical Framework Underlying CommunityService Learning Curricula

With the globalization and internationalizationof the 21st century, it has become apparent thatcommunicative competence as it is traditionallyunderstood is not sufficient to describe and ana-lyze language learning experiences. Socioculturaltheory, based primarily on the work of Vygotsky(1978) and his followers, has long acknowledgedthe importance of communities in learning. So-ciocultural theory has had to accommodate thefact that we all belong to many cultures simul-taneously and that the number of people usingmultiple languages and dialects in their daily livesis constantly on the rise.

Within the sociocultural tradition, Lave andWenger (1991) stipulated that meaning makingemerges out of communities of practice, thoughthe communities referred to in the context oflanguage learning usually consisted of students,teachers, parents, and peers—in other words, theywere constrained to the classroom environmentand those who closely orbit it. Recently, there hasbeen a push to expand the definition of thosecommunities by including social objectives in lan-guage education and acknowledging that “lan-guage is bound by the society that creates it”(Magnan, 2008, p. 352). The sociocultural per-spective consistently asserts that culture, context,personal experience, social behavior, and, by ex-tension, power and identity are factors in lan-guage learning (Savignon, 2007).

Kramsch (2006) asserted that beyond com-municative strategies, language learners in the21st century have to develop competence in sub-tle symbolic systems related to history, religion,power, status, speaking rights, silence, pride, andhonor. Learners have to master the interpreta-

tion of traditional symbols, such as signs, let-ters, and words, and also “subjective realities suchas perceptions, emotions, attitudes, and values”(Kramsch, 2009, p. 7). Savignon (2007) describedthese elements of symbolic competence as manifest-ing themselves in “kaleidoscopic fashion, theyappear as brilliant multi-layered bits of glass”(p. 217).

Magnan (2008) discussed the constraints ofclassroom environments, where many interac-tions persistently remain anchored in native lan-guage (L1) and native culture (C1) perspectivesand norms. CSL moves learners away from theseconstraints and broadens the communities thatmediate learners’ construction of activities whilealso increasing the “symbolic forms that interre-late with speech” (p. 363). CSL and its attendantpedagogy might be just the thing to transcend theclassroom limitation and be “more fully account-able to the needs of both the learner and society”(Doyle, 2010, p. 80). By its very nature, CSL addsto and values the participants in the socioculturalrealm by adding community partners and otherswho are not associated with traditional pedagogi-cal environments.

Experiential learning is a framework in whichacademic content is applied in a real-worldcontext—such as an internship, study abroad, orCSL—then, that experience is reflected on andthe knowledge gained is assimilated into the the-oretical academic content (Kolb, 1984). One ofthe founding practitioners and theoreticians inthe field defined CSL as “meaningful communityservice that is linked to students’ academic expe-rience through related course materials and re-flective activities” (Zlotkowski, 1998, p. 3). Struc-tured reflection is an active learning techniquethat encourages learning “beyond the acquisitionof knowledge” (Bringle & Hatcher, 1999, p. 179)in such a way that students are able to general-ize, apply knowledge to various contexts, and pro-mote personal understanding. Reflection activi-ties may include journals, experiential researchpapers, case studies, directed readings, and classpresentations (Bringle & Hatcher, 1999).

Any structured reflection activity should re-quire students to work through three levels ofunderstanding based on B. Bloom’s taxonomy(Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl,1956): first, description, in their own words, of theacademic theory studied in class as well as the ob-servations in the community; second, analysis andexplanation of connections between the academictheory and the real-world experience; and, finally,an ability to synthesize their academic and commu-nity experiences in such a way that they can apply

160 The Modern Language Journal 96 (2012)

what they have learned to other aspects of theirlives and experiences (for sample reflection es-say prompts in Spanish, see the companion Website for Comunidades: Mas alla del aula: http://pearsonhighered.com/comunidades/; for guide-books on using structured reflection, see Ash &Clayton, 2004; Eyler, Giles, & Schmiede, 1996;Goldsmith, 1995; Reed & Koliba, 1996; Silcox,1993).

Howard (1998) further expounded on four keycomponents to the accepted definition of CSL:(a) a pedagogical model and teaching methodol-ogy, (b) intentionality in the application of whatis learned in the community to academic learn-ing and vice versa, (c) the integration of expe-riential and academic learning, and (d) commu-nity service placements that are relevant to theacademic course of study. This last componentis particularly relevant to LSP courses because itdemands that student placements be related tothe languages and cultures under study. Althoughthere are no field-wide standards for best prac-tices in CSL, the National Service-Learning Clear-inghouse (2011) identified factors that correlatewith successful community–campus partnerships,including “joint planning, a genuine sense of reci-procity, clear definitions of roles and activities, acomprehensive student orientation and prepara-tion process, and consistent communication witha primary point of contact on each side.”

In the past few years, three textbooks in Spanishhave been published that specifically address theconnections between CSL placements and stu-dents’ linguistic and cultural development. Comu-nidades: Mas alla del aula (Abbott, 2010) providesfaculty and intermediate to advanced studentswith a comprehensive CSL curricular program.Originally published in 2004, Temas: Spanish forthe Global Community (Cubillos & Lamboy, 2007) isrecognizable as a traditional introductory Spanishtextbook, but throughout the text there are sug-gestions for applying course content to the com-munity. En comunidad: Comunicacion y conexion(Nichols, Johnson, Lemley, & Osa-Melero, 2009)is an intermediate Spanish text that emphasizeslanguage skills for real-world, practical purposes.The content emphasizes the global nature of theissues Spanish CSL students work with at thelocal level, such as immigration and bilingualeducation.

As is often the case with an emerging field,the early published work describing Spanish CSLcurricula was highly anecdotal, serving primar-ily as a “how-to” guide for faculty interestedin designing similar CSL courses (Dıaz-Barriga,2003; Jorge, 2003a; Julseth, 2003; Kaplan & Perez-

Gamboa, 2003; Olazagasti-Segovia, 2003; Plann,2002; Sanders, 2005). The early literature onSpanish and CSL was devoted to CSL as a way tofurther the goals of acquiring Spanish languageand Hispanic cultures skills, and scholars writingin the field reported improvement in students’linguistic and cultural acquisition as well as inmotivation and attitude as a result of engagingin CSL (Beebe & DeCosta, 1993; Darias, Gomez,Hellebrandt, Loomis, Orendain, & Quezada,1999; Hale, 1999; Jorge, 2003a; Morris, 2001a,2001b; Mullaney, 1999; Varas, 1999; Weldon &Trautmann, 2003). Grabois (2007, 2008) con-ceptualized sociocultural analysis as a way to in-form CSL and build curricular frameworks. Hisstudents also self-reported gains in all aspectsof their language and culture learning throughCSL. Few published articles addressed the prob-lems that can arise out of CSL in LSP, such asmisaligned expectation among the various par-ticipants (Lear & Abbott, 2009) or inadequatelanguage proficiency on the part of students(Zapata, 2011; for problems in CSL contexts morebroadly, see also Jones, 2002; Leiderman, Furco,Zapf, & Goss, 2003). Implications from the de-scriptive articles on Spanish and CSL were oftendrawn for faculty (Jorge, 2003a). However, anymention of methodology in the literature referredto teaching methodology rather than to empiri-cal research models (Caldwell, 2007; Cockerham,Nelson, & Anderson, 2003; Dıaz-Barriga, 2003;Hale, 1999; Jorge, 2003a; Julseth, 2003; Lally,2001; Lesman, 2003; Olazagasti-Segovia, 2003;Plann, 2002; Tilley-Lubbs, 2003; Varona, 1999;Varona & Bauluz, 2003).

Only recently have attempts been made tocollect data on attitudes, student gains in the5Cs of the Standards for Foreign Language Learn-ing in the 21st Century (American Council onthe Teaching of Foreign Languages [ACTFL],2006), and development of intercultural compe-tence. The 5Cs are five goal areas comprisingCommunication, Cultures, Connections, Com-parisons, and Communities, each one with stan-dards and indicators of what students should beable to do. Intercultural competence is the abil-ity to appreciate the perspectives of others, seek-ing out new cultural experiences and interactionswith people from different cultural backgroundswhile withholding judgment and constantly re-flecting on both those interactions and one’sown taken-for-granted assumptions (Deardorff,2008). Hellebrandt’s research (2006) addressedthe impact of engagement on faculty teaching,research, and service as well as on the campus–community bridge. Elorriaga (2007) found that

Darcy Lear 161

students in her specific-purpose course benefitedin various academic, social, and cultural ways fromCSL while the community members received aca-demic support for their children’s reading skills.Lear and Abbott (2008) found that CSL couldsatisfy the Standards (the 5Cs) for foreign lan-guage education, though “students’ particularstrengths varied amongst the 5Cs” (p. 84). An-other study examined success with one of the5Cs—connections—and found that in order forstudents to engage in self-directed social action, itwas essential to infuse civic engagement explic-itly into CSL curricula (Abbott & Lear, 2010).M. Bloom (2008) used diaries, questionnaires,and observations to study intercultural compe-tence gains in novice Spanish students and foundthat they made only slight progress, moving outof the first (denial) of six stages described inBennett’s (1993) model of intercultural sensitiv-ity. Westrick’s (2004) quantitative study on the in-fluence of service on intercultural sensitivity atan international school in Hong Kong yieldedmixed results, with some students showing ex-pected gains in intercultural sensitivity while oth-ers showed unexpected losses.

To the best of the author’s knowledge at thetime of this writing, no qualitative or quantitativeresearch on linguistic gains in CSL contexts exists(see also Wurr & Hellebrandt, 2007).

Language for Specific Purposes Programs andCourses That Use Community Service Learning

There is no comprehensive list of existing LSPcurricula that use CSL (M. K. Long, 2010), butsome data can be gathered from dependablesources and the author’s own first-hand experi-ence with various programs and courses can pro-vide depth of description.

M. K. Long (2010) described five LSP degreeprograms in the United States, most of which in-clude experiential education such as a practicum,internship, or study abroad. The selection of thoseprograms was made at random, based on an Inter-net search, and revealed a lack of published litera-ture emanating from the LSP programs that exist.Of the 25 research universities listed on Leiter’sPhilosophical Gourmet Report (2009), only threehave dedicated LSP programs, 14 do not have anySpanish LSP offerings, two have a series of courses,and the rest have assorted courses (medical, busi-ness, legal, CSL, international relations, and en-gineering). The three dedicated Spanish LSPprograms all include CSL. Johns Hopkins Univer-sity’s Spanish for the Professions minor includes arequired Spanish-language internship/practicum

(http://grll.jhu.edu/spanish/undergrad). Theminor in Spanish for the Professions at the Uni-versity of North Carolina–Chapel Hill (UNC–CH)has a one-credit CSL component that is inte-grated into the profession-specific courses thatinclude business, law, medicine, journalism, andentrepreneurship (http://romlcourses.unc.edu/Spanish/professions/). The minor in Spanish forProfessional Development and Community En-gagement at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) requires an entire course,Spanish in the Community, devoted to CSL(http://www.spanishandillinois.illinois.edu/).

In addition, the new Spanish for the Profes-sions minor/certificate at the downtown campusof Arizona State University requires a three-creditinternship involving service to the community as acapstone experience in Arizona and in Peru. TheUniversity of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) hasa service learning course (Taking it to the Streets:Spanish in the Community) as part of the Spanishand Community and Culture track for the Spanishmajor.

The majority of the published literature on CSLand LSP comes from liberal arts colleges, wherecommunity service is included as part of their mis-sions, making it integral to the work of all those onthe campus from the highest levels down. Muchof the published work on CSL in languages comesfrom two such campuses, Pitzer College (Jorge,2003a, 2003b, 2010) and Santa Clara Univer-sity (Hellebrandt, 2006; Varona, 1999; Varona &Bauluz, 2003). This concentration of publicationscoming from liberal arts colleges could explainthe dearth of literature on languages other thanSpanish given that it is the large research uni-versities that most often have the resources todevelop programs and offer courses in less com-monly taught languages. Perhaps CSL and LSPfind their niche on liberal arts campuses in partbecause those campuses reward such work—andpublications about that work—with promotionand tenure.

This pattern is apparent in the annual Pres-ident’s Higher Education Community ServiceHonor Roll awarded by Learn and Serve Amer-ica, a program of the Corporation for Nationaland Community Service. In 2009, the presidentialawardees included one research university, onecommunity college, and four liberal arts collegesand universities. The Honor Roll with Distinctionmembers includes 115 campuses: 56 state and pri-vate universities, 49 colleges, three communityor technical colleges, and only seven of the uni-versities included in the Carnegie Classifications(2010) list of 108 research universities with very

162 The Modern Language Journal 96 (2012)

high research activity. A similar pattern is evidentamong the 2008 and 2007 honorees, indicatingthat community service may not be a priority fortop research universities, given that the criteriathat determine graduate rankings do not includeindicators of community service (see, e.g., Morse,2011; Ostriker, Holland, Kuh, & Voytuk, 2009).

The Development of Community Service LearningPrograms

The question of how these programs come intobeing—whether they are initiated by the commu-nity, the university, or both—proves a complicatedone to answer. However, there is an increasingbody of literature that includes the perspectiveand, indeed, the voice of the community (see,e.g., d’Arlach, Sanchez, & Feuer, 2009). In thethree different models described in the follow-ing sections—one course, one program, and onecampus-wide initiative—ties to the local commu-nity factored strongly in the development of CSLprograms.

At the course level, Spanish in Ohio(http://sppo.osu.edu/spanish/courses/syllabi/syllabus.cfm?SYL=spanish689.cfm), at The OhioState University, was designed by two facultymembers who are deeply committed to bothundergraduate education and Latino commu-nities in Columbus. They decided to unite theneed for immersion experiences on the part ofstudents with the needs of the local communityfor volunteers with the linguistic and cultural re-sources of Spanish students. The course requires100 contact hours with the Spanish languageoutside of class, including volunteering in thelocal community. D. R. Long’s (2003) study ofstudent diary entries from this course found gainson Valette and Disick’s Taxonomy of AffectiveBehaviors, Hanvey’s model of cross-culturalawareness, and Bennett’s model of interculturalsensitivity.

At the program level, the Spanish and Illinoisprogram in the Department of Spanish, Italian,and Portuguese at UIUC also arose out of itsfounder’s ties with the local community. Theprogram, which focuses on CSL, LSP, and en-trepreneurship, works with more than a dozencommunity partners, providing CSL experiencesto approximately 200 students each academicyear, many of whom will receive a Certificate inSpanish for Professional Development and Com-munity Engagement.

For the past 2 decades, the UNC–CHcampus-wide APPLES (Assisting People in Plan-ning Learning Experiences in Service) Service-Learning Program (www.unc.edu/apples/) has

served as a centralized foundation, infrastructure,and supplier of resources and administrative sup-port for all CSL on campus. The program re-ceived external funding, which made it possible tolaunch the minor in Spanish for the Professionswith a CSL component fully integrated into all fiveof the profession-specific courses: business, med-ical, journalism, law, and venture creation. Eachsemester, approximately 70 students from the mi-nor program engage in CSL.

Like nearly all CSL, the three cases presented il-lustrate the advantages of developing LSP coursesthat include CSL. Grosse and Voght (1991) statedthat “to be effective, the study of LSP cannot beseparated from the study of the culture and soci-ety in which the language is spoken” (p. 183). Byincorporating CSL, LSP is taught, in part, throughworking directly in the cultures and societieswhere the language is spoken. Grosse and Voghtmentioned “simulations of actual situations”(p. 182) in LSP classes, but with CSL it is possibleto move away from simulations to actual experi-ential learning.

Furthermore, CSL provides opportunities torepackage language basics, such as the alphabetand numbers, specifically for use in the LSP con-text. Grosse and Voght (1991) pointed to the factthat LSP curricula require “activities drawn fromprofessional contexts such as business, engineer-ing, or medicine, a context almost totally absent intraditional language courses, textbooks and teach-ing aids” (p. 182). For example, in CSL in LSP pro-grams, the alphabet and numbers are revisited insuch a way that students develop the skills to takea coherent message from a caller that includes acorrectly spelled name and a simple 10-digit tele-phone number. Students must return to the basicsand build on those skills before they can expectto negotiate multimillion dollar business deals. Asthe most basic skills are developed and honed forspecific workplace contexts and actually appliedin the real world through CSL, students developthe ability to meet the goals of LSP courses, suchas “being able to carry on a conversation with aclient, make presentations, negotiate proposals,or write memos and reports” (Grosse & Voght,1991, p. 182), in authentic contexts.

STAKEHOLDERS IN LANGUAGE FORSPECIFIC PURPOSES COURSES THAT USECOMMUNITY SERVICE LEARNING

The stakeholders and the served audience inLSP programs that use CSL are the same: facultyand foreign language departments, local commu-nities, students, and employers. Although collegesand universities themselves are stakeholders, they

Darcy Lear 163

do not value LSP or CSL in the way that theyvalue other disciplines, namely, through hiringtenure-track faculty, retaining them based on re-search agendas (including the training of gradu-ate students in those fields) and publications thatadvance the field.

Faculty and Foreign Language Departments

As the first decade of the 21st century drew to aclose, faculty and foreign language departmentsfound themselves in a rapidly shifting landscape.State-funded research institutions have faced aus-tere budget cuts year after year. The demand todecrease costs to both students and departmentsthrough means such as online teaching, increasedclass size, and affordable—or free—pedagogicalmaterials has forced faculty to reimagine theirprofessions.

Various forms of experiential education, in-cluding CSL, make the work of foreign lan-guage departments relevant in the 21st-centuryenvironment. By connecting foreign language de-partments to communities outside the university,faculty can develop relationships that are essen-tial to the sustainability of their departments.Through contacts with community organizationsand development of long-term relationships withstudents as they transition into the role of alumniequipped with the unique skills provided by CSLand LSP training, faculty and their departmentscan grow stronger in a weakening economic cli-mate. CSL has the potential to lay the groundworkfor the kind of sustainability universities increas-ingly require of their departments—namely, pro-grams that generate income.

At a time when proving relevance and attract-ing high numbers of students to enroll in coursescan save entire programs and departments frombudget cuts, CSL and LSP together are impor-tant tools for language programs to consider.In this financial climate, universities that offercourses that give students practical applicationsof language study will benefit from higher enroll-ments than universities that do not. In addition,where the programs are offered online or in hy-brid campus-distance models, enrollments couldgenerate much needed income.

Local Communities

Schools and social service agencies take seri-ously their commitment to serve their clientele,even if the individuals who make up that clientbase undergo a dramatic demographic shift. Thestruggle to serve clients with particular linguis-

tic and cultural needs can often be acute asnew language minority groups migrate to anarea. Where there are rapidly changing demo-graphics, resource-limited agencies and organiza-tions struggle to accommodate those with limitedEnglish proficiency.

Although CSL can provide nearly ideal recipro-cal relationships between LSP courses and localcommunities, there are several caveats. First, thecommunity placements must match the skills ofstudents—only a proficient Spanish speaker cando some of the communication and translationthat community organizations most desperatelyneed, such as interpreting for doctors and crit-ically ill patients in life-and-death situations. Towork successfully in the community, students alsoneed professional skills for which the universitycurricula rarely prepare them (in any language),including workplace etiquette and second lan-guage skills such as memo writing and preparingconference room presentations (Lear & Abbott,2009). Just as it is expensive for organizations tohave a high turnover rate because of the cost ofhiring and training new employees, CSL studentswho enter and leave the workplace environmentrelatively quickly represent a drain on resources inthe community. Faculty and students can work to-gether with community partners to address theseissues as long as all parties are aware that theyexist.

Students and Employers

Through CSL, students are offered real-worldpractical opportunities to apply their languageand culture skills. CSL is unique in that studentscan study theory through their academic course-work, simultaneously apply it in the workplace,and use structured reflection to align real andperceived differences between theory and prac-tice. In many cases, CSL in LSP courses is theclosest to an immersion experience students canhave without studying abroad.

Grosse and Voght (1991) called for LSP cur-ricula that help meet the needs of society aswell as help students prepare for a variety of ca-reers. More recently, the Modern Language As-sociation issued two reports, Foreign Languagesand Higher Education: New Structures for a ChangedWorld (2007a) and the Report to the Teagle Foun-dation on the Undergraduate Major in Languageand Literature (2007b), that stressed the needfor students to develop essential communicationand team-building skills that are equally useful inacademic and professional contexts.

164 The Modern Language Journal 96 (2012)

In addition, in 2008, the American Associationof Colleges and Universities commissioned a sur-vey of employers (Peter D. Hart Research Asso-ciates, Inc., 2008), the results of which indicatedthat college graduates most lacked the followinghighly needed skills for the workplace: adaptabil-ity, self-direction, critical thinking, global knowl-edge, and writing. The development of many ofthose skills is ideally suited to CSL. For exam-ple, most students are accustomed to the highlystructured environment of 15-week semesters (or10-week quarters), regular schedules, detailed syl-labi, and clear grading policies—none of whichare the norm in the workplace of most commu-nity partners where adaptability and self-directionare minimum requirements.

In the community, students quickly realizethat they need to adapt to less (or differently)structured environments in almost every way—from scheduling and transportation to resourcegathering and office skills. Although the com-munity experience provides community mem-bers who participate in the learners’ negotia-tion of the learning experience as describedby sociocultural theory and symbols to negoti-ate as described by symbolic competence, it re-mains true that “in professional communities . . .

conformity to the practices of an establishedmembership continues to serve an importantgate-keeping function” (Savignon, 2007, p. 210).Savignon went on to illustrate the examples of aca-demic communities, but her assertion has impor-tant implications for LSP as well, where, despitethe ever-broadening parameters described by sym-bolic competence, students will have to masterlinguistic, cultural, and behavioral practices (or atleast be able to recognize and acknowledge wherethey fall short) in order to gain admittance andthen succeed in any professional community.

Critical thinking and global knowledge comeinto play in the CSL context when the demands ofcommunity work force students to work with peo-ple, both the employees and clients of partnerorganizations, whose life experiences and worldperspectives differ widely from their own. The sim-ple experience of difference starts students downthe path of critical thinking and global knowl-edge, but the classroom environment togetherwith academic assignments give students space toreflect explicitly on their community experiences.They can explore the contradictions that arisebetween theory and practice, between what theyhave always assumed and what they experience. Al-though LSP instructors are long-accustomed to in-tegrating critical thinking and global knowledgeinto their courses, CSL adds a layer of real-world

application and nuanced experience that couldnot be achieved without leaving the traditionalacademic environment.

CSL also provides unique opportunities forheritage learners, whose linguistic and culturalstrengths stand out in the community. This oppor-tunity to excel often means that heritage learnerscan bring their strengths to bear in CSL languagecourses in a way that they might not in courseswithout a CSL component.

Colleges and Universities

The two California state university systems pro-vide examples of institutional commitment to CSL(California State University [CSU], 2011). Overthe past 10 years, the California State UniversitySystem has devoted just over $1 million per yearto developing a service learning infrastructure onits 23 campuses. Clearly, this funding indicates acommitment to community engagement at thelevel of teaching; however, the other two tenets ofacademic careers—research and service—are no-tably absent. If CSL were valued in research andservice, there would be published research com-ing out of the California (and other) universitysystems, and this article would reference empiri-cal data, on linguistic gains made during a CSLexperience, published in peer-reviewed journalsby tenured and tenure-track faculty working at in-stitutions that support qualitative and quantitativeresearch. The California examples bear out this as-sertion. Fewer than 20% of the directors and coor-dinators in the California State University System’sCenter for Community Engagement (2008) havedoctoral degrees. In the UC system, service learn-ing is a student-run program (UC Santa Cruz; UCSanta Barbara), a staff-run program (UC Irvine),or housed in career services (UC Davis) or the Of-fice of Educational Development (UC Berkeley).One university in the UC system—UCLA—has acenter with a director who holds a Ph.D.

Colleges and universities are increasing theirengagement with communities, but mostly in theform of development, which entails relationshipswith private-sector interests that donate moneyto support campus programs and infrastructure.However, universities could use CSL to furtherthis agenda and build lasting relationships withalumni by folding long-term engagement intotheir development programs so that former stu-dents who benefited from CSL become futurecommunity partners in CSL programs as well asfinancial donors, thus making LSP programs in-come generating. This broader, multilateral viewof CSL and LSP would benefit both foreign

Darcy Lear 165

language departments and the universities atlarge. CSL and LSP are viable responses to thecall to internationalize and globalize the curricu-lum and can achieve results in local communitiesof immigrants surrounding campus.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

The specific challenges to implementation in-clude resistance to interdisciplinary work, the in-creasing dependence of all university programson income-generating models, and the fact thatcampuses are not known for sustained engage-ment with local communities.

Resistance to Interdisciplinary Work

For 2 decades, there has been a call for in-terdisciplinary collaboration in LSP. Grosse andVoght (1991) suggested that interdisciplinarywork would benefit all parties: “Interdisciplinarycooperation among humanists and business orprofessional educators provides an atmospherein which all can learn to understand and ap-preciate the value of the others’ specializations”(p. 184). The ideal of interdisciplinary cooper-ation called for reflects the intercultural focusof all foreign language studies and parallels thestudent–community partner relationships in CSL,but it also requires familiarity with disciplinesoutside those in which academics are highly—and specifically—trained. However, the reality re-mains that many departments and programs incolleges and universities in the United States op-erate in discipline-specific “silos” so that very littleinformation or resources are shared. Much of thisisolation is part of the historical infrastructure.

Often, professional programs, such as businessand medicine, have strong ties to the communityand understand the needs of people in their field.The professional departments can customize LSPand CSL courses to their already existing pro-grams. For instance, it was health professionals onthe medical campus at UNC–CH, together withlanguage educators, who developed the widelyused medical Spanish curriculum, ¡A su salud!Spanish for Health Professionals (Cotton, Tolman,& Mack, 2009). Likewise, the business schooldeveloped its own Working Languages Program(http://www.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/KI/ciber/workingLanguages.cfm) for its students. Al-though it is an asset to have many disciplinesthat care about LSP, the lack of a centralizedprogram prevents consistent development andimplementation of CSL in all of these courses.

Despite the seeming lack of integration of LSPprograms at UNC–CH, it is a campus that pro-motes interdisciplinary cooperation as a way tomove research and teaching agendas forwardefficiently and effectively (see, e.g., the Clus-ter Program in the College of Arts and Sci-ences http://www.unc.edu/depts/uc/Students/ClusterIntro.html). In the minor in Spanish forthe Professions, CSL has been a catalyst for in-terdisciplinary work. Medical Spanish studentshave done their CSL placements with School ofNursing studies on obesity and diabetes preven-tion in Latino communities. Business Spanishstudents can participate in the School of Busi-ness intermediate Working Spanish course thatincludes a study-abroad experience. JournalismSpanish students write about their CSL work forthe School of Journalism’s Latino Journalism andMedia Web site (http://latijam.jomc.unc.edu/),while students in the School of Journalism’s Un-dergraduate Certificate in Latino Journalism andMedia Studies take the CSL Journalism Spanishcourse in the Department of Romance Lan-guages. Some students in the Spanish andEntrepreneurship CSL course come from theentrepreneurship minor in the Department ofEconomics. Most of this interdisciplinary collab-oration would not be possible without the CSLcomponent to the minor program.

Income-Generating Models

It is impossible to address the lack of in-terdisciplinary cooperation in CSL and LSPprograms without acknowledging the role ofmonetary support. The instructional budgetsof most Spanish programs exist to support twothings: basic language courses that help studentsmeet language requirements and the traditionalhumanities curricula of the field. Likewise, theprofessional schools do not have the fundingto support CSL and LSP courses in languagedepartments. Therefore, although universitiesunderstand the value of interdisciplinary workand encourage their scholars to work acrossdisciplines, the money to support such thingsremains tied up in individual disciplines.

Ultimately, the work of CSL and LSP schol-ars also must be valued in the currency of theuniversity: promotion and tenure. The paucity ofpublished work on CSL for languages other thanSpanish may be a greater indicator of who devel-ops and teaches these courses than of their exis-tence. LSP courses that use CSL could indeed bethriving on campuses across the country, but if thefaculty developing and teaching these courses do

166 The Modern Language Journal 96 (2012)

not have the time, ability, or support to researchand publish, information is not disseminated. Atthe institutions where CSL and LSP work mightcount toward tenure, faculty have heavy teachingand administrative responsibilities in addition totheir requirements to publish, perhaps limitingthe possibilities of engaging in the time-intensivework of CSL and LSP.

Sustained Engagement with Local Communities

Part of the reason that CSL work is so time-intensive is tied to the reality that the history of“town and gown” problems is as long as the his-tory of most institutions. The exploitation of localcommunities to forward research agendas and fac-ulty careers makes local communities legitimatelyskeptical of campus-initiated proposals to engagein truly mutually beneficial CSL relationships. Al-though there is a movement afoot to coteach CSLcourses with community partners and includethem in research and publications (d’Arlach et al.,2009), the reality remains that deep and long-standing relationships often have to be in placebefore a CSL program can be launched.

Even assuming that established campus–community relationships are in place, they stillhave to be nurtured and maintained. Student par-ticipation in the community organizations is usu-ally short term, lasting no more than 15 weeks.For the community partners to benefit, the rela-tionship with the course and faculty members hasto be long term. For example, a community part-ner that aims to offer a workshop in Spanish mightpartner with one faculty member teaching variouscourses with several cohorts of students in orderto execute the project. The first cohort of stu-dents might prepare materials in Spanish, whilethe next semester a second cohort plans the logis-tics and publicizes the workshop, and a third co-hort of students actually hosts the workshop withthe community organization. The faculty mem-ber has to sustain the project across the semestersand cohorts of students, carefully tracking theprogress, passing on information and materials,and—perhaps most important—communicatingwith the community partner, which can also provechallenging when turnover is high among theemployees at the community organizations.

CURRENT NEEDS AND PRIORITIES

There are two primary areas of focus for theadvancement of CSL in LSP: the needs and pri-orities for curricula and an agenda for advancingthe disciplines within institutions. In terms of cur-ricula, the three areas of greatest need are the

development of models and standards that specif-ically address integrating CSL into LSP courses,the development and dissemination of materials,and faculty training. To advance the disciplines ofCSL and LSP, they must achieve greater presencein traditional venues such as scholarly publica-tions and conferences. There is also tremendouspotential for CSL and LSP to serve as an examplein the establishment of income-generation mod-els through corporate sponsorship and alumnidevelopment—a priority at the highest levels ofadministration in most academic institutions.

The Development of Models and Standards

On the most basic level, the development ofmodels and standards that specifically addressblending CSL into LSP courses is a priority.Language educators rely on ACTFL’s Standards(2006) to guide them, and practitioners of CSLhave the three pillars of academics, related ser-vice, and structured reflection (Zlotkowski, 1998),but there are no standards to guide practition-ers in either CSL or LSP, much less the two com-bined. Also lacking are appropriate ways of assess-ing gains in language and cultural knowledge inLSP and CSL courses.

There is an increasing body of resources forlanguage educators who want to incorporate CSLinto their courses and programs, but nothing thatexplicitly addresses CSL in existing or developingLSP programs. The minor in Spanish for the Pro-fessions program at UNC–CH effectively uses theSpanish CSL textbook Comunidades: mas alla delaula (Abbott, 2010) in combination with LSP textsfor the intermediate business, medical, journal-ism, and venture-creation courses that use Exitocomercial: Practicas administrativas y contextos cul-turales (Doyle, Fryer, & Cere, 2011), ¡A su salud!Spanish for Health Professionals (Cotton, Tolman, &Mack, 2009), La dinamica de la comunicacion ma-siva (Dominick, 2006), Como desarrollar un plan denegocios (Finch, 2002), and El desarrollo sostenibleen America Latina: Estudios de caso (Ward & Pratt,1997). Although these courses thrive with thecombined textbook curricula, models and stan-dards would be useful to guide the instructorsin designing syllabi, assignments, course projects,and evaluation criteria. Furthermore, more con-crete models and standards can aid curriculumdevelopers in rapidly creating curricular materi-als for less commonly taught languages for whichdemand depends on refugee and immigrant pat-terns. This issue points to another paradox ofCSL: The community’s greatest need for LSP isoften for languages of recent immigrant popu-lations, such as Nuer or Karen, but university

Darcy Lear 167

infrastructures rarely accommodate the less com-monly taught languages such as these andtherefore development of LSP programs, CSLprograms, or both would not be mutuallybeneficial.

The Development and Dissemination of Materials

Comunidades: Mas alla del aula (Abbott, 2010)is the only available Spanish CSL curricular ma-terial for intermediate and advanced levels. Forlanguages other than Spanish, there are no pub-lished materials. Without an explicit, disciplinedapproach guided by models and standards, mostcourses and materials are being developed in-dependently and in isolation. This decentralizedprocess encourages redundancy of work in thebest cases and something less than best practicesin the worst cases. If university faculty were com-pensated specifically to develop and disseminateCSL and LSP materials, then formal approachessuch as needs assessment, focus groups, on-site vis-its, and interviews with professionals in the fieldwho need to use professional language with po-tential clients or their supervisors certainly wouldbe implemented.

Faculty Training

CSL can be problematic in that each courseeach semester has to be customized to the indi-vidual community partners. Often, projects areextended from previous semesters, which eitherincreases dependence on a single faculty mem-ber to maintain continuity, or introduces a steeplearning curve for a faculty member new to acourse. Although UNC–CH is fortunate to havea CSL office in the form of the APPLES Service-Learning Program, which offers an annual 2-dayFaculty Development Institute, most campuses donot have any resources to help new instructorsover the learning curve. Ultimately, the majorityof information about CSL in LSP is shared in-formally among colleagues when what is neededis the CSL and LSP equivalent of the minimaltraining all new graduate teaching assistants re-ceive before teaching language to undergraduates(for materials, see Campus Compact’s Introductionto Service-Learning Toolkit , 2003).

Advancement of the Discipline Through Publicationand Presentations

Opportunities for formal sharing of informa-tion with broad audiences already exist for fac-ulty who are able to submit and present arti-

cles and presentations. Both national languageteaching professional organizations, ACTFL andthe American Association of Teachers of Spanishand Portuguese (AATSP), host annual con-ferences and sponsor publications such asHispania, Language Educator , and Foreign Lan-guage Annals. Both the conferences and journalswelcome work on CSL and LSP. The premier jour-nal in the field of CSL in the United States, theMichigan Journal of Community Service Learning ,has published LSP articles. There is also an an-nual Center for International Business Educationand Research (CIBER) conference that is specificto LSP and welcomes CSL presentations. CIBERsupports the U.S.-based journal Global BusinessLanguages, which is dedicated to LSP (as was thenow-discontinued Journal of Language for Inter-national Business). Other international journals,such as Iberica and English for Specific Purposes,specifically welcome submissions related to occu-pational, professional, and vocational communi-ties of discourse. Beyond these already existingopportunities, there is a need to launch an agendaof rigorous research. Most anecdotal and empiri-cal work in LSP and CSL comes from diary studiesof students’ written reflections, and the field cancontinue to build on that work. However, thereis also a need for attitudinal studies and a rigor-ous look at linguistic and cultural outcomes of theCSL experience.

There is a need for intentionality in the field.Applied linguists, sociolinguists, and second lan-guage acquisition researchers (as well as practi-tioners in other interdisciplinary fields related toLSP and CSL) must apply their tools to the LSPand CSL environment. For example, a pretest–posttest study to measure linguistic gains in anLSP course with a CSL component compared toa non-CSL section of the same LSP course wouldprovide much needed data for the emerging fieldsof LSP and CSL.

Establishment of Income-Generating Models

As campuses and language programs move to-ward increased intentionality in research, publish-ing, and interdisciplinary work, there is an op-portunity to lead instead of follow in the areaof income-generating models. Most state collegesand universities remain state supported but ac-knowledge the need to move toward financialmodels that rely on campuses generating income.

Because educators know that employers specif-ically value the skills they teach in CSL and LSPprograms, there is tremendous potential for part-nerships between universities and companies. In

168 The Modern Language Journal 96 (2012)

addition to benefiting from the positive publicrelations that come from offering monetary sup-port (usually in exchange for naming rights),companies stand to gain from participating inCSL. Students can begin their professional rela-tionships with those companies during their CSLwork, and can then segue into internships and, ul-timately, become long-term fully trained and accli-mated employees upon graduation, thus decreas-ing both the cost of training new employees andthe attrition rates from the workplace.

The students themselves are also an importantpoint of contact. Campus development offices de-vote tremendous resources to attracting alumnicontributions. Although there is a need for CSLand LSP programs to undertake rigorous, longitu-dinal research to study students’ use and applica-tion of knowledge, skills, and experiences gainedthrough CSL and LSP in their professional careersafter graduation, that same connection couldbe an opportunity for development. If ongoingcommunication with former students, includingfollow-up research on the relative rates of successin obtaining employment, illustrated that theybenefit from their experiences in CSL and LSPcourses, they might be encouraged to make thosesame experiences possible for future studentsthrough financial contributions as well as servingas a community partner in a CSL relationship.

Like the “currency” of promotion and tenure,financial development also requires up-front in-vestment. Faculty members can take the lead net-working within and beyond the community but,ultimately, for the institutions to derive maximumbenefit, they must position the institutional in-frastructure in order to support CSL and LSPdevelopment.

AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

It could be argued that there is a need forany and all research in the area of CSL in LSP.Both fields have moved away from publishingpurely anecdotal accounts of work in the disci-plines, but the overlapping field of CSL in LSPhas not advanced to the level where rigorous, sys-tematic inquiry is commonplace. Many areas forfurther research arise out of the problematic is-sues discussed previously, including assessment,consistency in programming and nomenclature,and the need for longitudinal studies of the effec-tiveness of CSL in LSP.

Assessment

Although curricular development has ad-vanced in the area of CSL and LSP, and indi-

vidual practitioners have developed rubrics forreflection essays, community partner evaluation,and community-based assignments and projects,there are no published research accounts onvalid, reliable measures that assess student workin LSP and CSL courses. Without such assess-ment tools, it is difficult to engage in systematicresearch that addresses student and communitypartner outcomes. Questions that merit furtherresearch in this area include: (a) How are LSP lin-guistic abilities assessed at different levels (begin-ning, intermediate, advanced)? (b) How is inter-cultural competence assessed at different levels?(c) How do linguistic and cultural learning out-comes compare in CSL versus non-CSL coursesin LSP? (d) How do linguistic and cultural learn-ing outcomes compare between LSP and regularlanguage courses? (e) What impact does CSL stu-dents’ presence in the community have for thecommunity partner organizations?

As the fields of CSL and LSP grow and ad-vance, the need for program assessment will alsoincrease. As the National Service-Learning Clear-inghouse (2011) is quick to point out, there areno field-wide standards to apply in order to as-sess programs. Questions that will have to be ad-dressed include:

1. What are the key measures of success forcampus–community relationships?

2. How do academic measures and standardsdiffer from those of community partners?

3. Do programs adhere to standards once thosestandards have been established?

4. Are there minimum quantitative measures(hours of service, number of students in a course,total length of experience) for success in CSL andLSP?

5. Do programs adhere to them?

Consistency in Programming and Nomenclature

Because there are no models or standards spe-cific to CSL and LSP, there is very little consistencyacross similar courses on a single campus, muchless nationwide. For example, there is no consis-tent standard for curriculum development andassessment that is labeled as CSL. Courses andprograms that are not faithful to the theoreti-cal underpinnings of rigorous academics blendedwith related community service and structured re-flection should not be called CSL. It is especiallyimportant that professional presentations andpublished literature designed to disseminateknowledge on the subject of CSL represent thefield appropriately.

Darcy Lear 169

Inconsistent nomenclature is one point of con-fusion. For example, terms such as community andservice are used in course titles and program de-scriptions where communities and service are theacademic topics under study, but students do notengage in CSL. At the same time, there is no con-sistent way to identify courses that actually useCSL. At UNC–CH, there is no way for an out-sider to know that all LSP courses in the minorin Spanish for the Professions have a CSL com-ponent. These issues indicate that CSL in LSP re-quires some refined nomenclature and more dis-semination of information about these programsto the public via Web sites, press releases, anduniversity public relations offices. Questions thatmerit further research in the area include: (a)What are the minimum standards for CSL in LSPprogramming? (b) What measures can be usedto assess programs employing those standards?(c) What consistent nomenclature will be em-ployed to distinguish CSL courses from non-CSLcourses?

Longitudinal Studies of Effectiveness of CommunityService Learning in Language for Specific Purposes

Along with valid, reliable measures of immedi-ate student linguistic and cultural gains and tangi-ble benefits to community partners, such as num-ber of clients served, work that would not havebeen done absent students, and documents pro-duced, there is a need for longitudinal studies ofthe lasting effects of CSL and LSP coursework.This research might include pre- and posttestsof students’ linguistic, cultural, and workplaceknowledge with a delayed posttest administered1 to 5 years after graduation. Rich data could alsobe gathered from comparisons of the transfer ofacademic course content from CSL and LSP tothe workplace compared to other college courses.Questions that merit further research in this areainclude:

1. What assessment measures are effective inlongitudinal studies of student gains in linguisticand cultural knowledge, employability, and work-place skills?

2. Is there a minimum length of community en-gagement required for CSL to show gains in lin-guistic, cultural, and workplace knowledge? (Forexample, is a 1-week break trip long enough to beeffective?)

3. Does CSL lead to internships and job oppor-tunities? If so, does it do so at a greater rate thando programs without CSL courses?

4. How does CSL compare to other forms of ex-periential learning, such as study abroad, in termsof linguistic and cultural gains?

CONCLUSIONS

Existing LSP programs demonstrate the naturalsynergy that springs from blending CSL and LSP.The potential for CSL to unite the goals of LSP,both in theory and in practice, with the broad aspi-rations of universities to achieve greater interdisci-plinary cooperation, sustained relationships withlocal communities, and income-generating mod-els, remains largely untapped. Models and stan-dards that drive a rigorous research agenda mustbe part of the infrastructure changes within insti-tutions that would allow for CSL and LSP to thrivein all the ways that would best serve campus pro-grams, college and university development, andlocal communities.

REFERENCES

Abbott, A. R. (2010). Comunidades: Mas alla del aula[Communities: Beyond the classroom]. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Abbott, A. R., & Lear, D. W. (2010). The connectionsgoal area in Spanish community service-learning:Possibilities and limitations. Foreign Language An-nals, 43, 231–245.

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Lan-guages. (2006). Standards for foreign language learn-ing in the 21st century (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA:ACTFL.

Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2004). The articulatedlearning: An approach to guided reflection andassessment. Innovative Higher Education, 29 , 137–154.

Beebe, R. M., & DeCosta, E. M. (1993). Teaching beyondthe university: The Santa Clara University Eastsideproject: Community service and the Spanish class-room. Hispania, 76 , 884–891.

Bennett, M. J. (1993). Toward ethnorelativisim: A de-velopmental model of intercultural sensitivity. InR. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural ex-perience (pp. 21–72). Yarmouth, ME: InterculturalPress.

Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., &Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational ob-jectives: The classification of educational goals: Hand-book I. Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.

Bloom, M. (2008). From the classroom to the commu-nity: Building cultural awareness in first semesterSpanish. Language, Culture & Curriculum, 21,103–119.

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1999). Reflection inservice learning: Making meaning of experience.Educational Horizons, 77 , 179–185.

170 The Modern Language Journal 96 (2012)

Caldwell, W. (2007). Taking Spanish outside the box: Amodel for integrating service learning into foreignlanguage study. Foreign Language Annals, 40 , 463–469.

California State University. (2008). The center for com-munity engagement . Retrieved April 20, 2011, fromhttp://www.calstate.edu/cce/campus-contacts/

California State University. (2011). The center for com-munity engagement . Retrieved April 5, 2012, fromhttp://www.calstate.edu/cce/initiatives/infra_development.shtml

Campus Compact. (2003). Campus Compact’s introduc-tion to service-learning toolkit: Readings and resourcesfor faculty (2nd ed.). Providence, RI: Brown Uni-versity Press.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.(2010). The Carnegie classification of institutions ofhigher education. Retrieved April 11, 2011, fromhttp://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/srp.php?clq=%7B%22basic2005_ids%22%3A%2215%22%7D&limit=0,50&orderby=sortname&start_page=standard.php

Cockerham, S., Nelson, A. L., & Anderson, M. K. (2003).It takes a holler: Appalachia goes Hispanic. In C.Klein (Series Ed.), J. Hellebrandt, J. Arries, & L.Varona (Vol. Eds.), American Association of Teachersof Spanish and Portuguese professional development se-ries handbook: Vol. 5. Juntos: Community partnershipsin Spanish and Portuguese (pp. 83–99). Boston:Thompson Heinle.

Cotton, C. E., Tolman, E. E., & Mack, J. C. (2009). ¡Asu salud! Spanish for health professionals (rev. ed).New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Cubillos, J. H., & Lamboy, E. M. (2007). Temas: Span-ish for the global community (2nd ed.). Boston:Thomson Heinle.

Darias, T., Gomez, A., Hellebrandt, J., Loomis, A.,Orendain, M., & Quezada, S. (1999). Commu-nity video: Empowerment through university andcommunity interaction. In E. Zlotkowski (Se-ries Ed.), J. Hellebrandt & L. T. Varona (Vol.Eds.), American Association for Higher Educationseries on service-learning in the disciplines. Con-struyendo puentes (Building bridges): Concepts andmodels for service-learning in Spanish (pp. 149–169).Washington, DC: American Association for HigherEducation.

d’Arlach, L., Sanchez, B., & Feuer, R. (2009). Voicesfrom the community: A case for reciprocity inservice-learning. Michigan Journal of CommunityService Learning , 16(1), 5–16.

Deardorff, D. (2008). Intercultural competence: A def-inition, model, and implications for educationabroad. In V. Savicki (Ed.), Developing interculturalcompetence and transformation: Theory, research, andapplication in international education (pp. 32–52).Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Dıaz-Barriga, M. (2003). Spanish in the social sciences:Notes on the challenges of service-learning amongMexican migrants in Pennsylvania. In C. Klein (Se-ries Ed.), J. Hellebrandt, J. Arries, & L. Varona(Vol. Eds.), American Association of Teachers of

Spanish and Portuguese professional development se-ries handbook: Vol. 5. Juntos: Community partnershipsin Spanish and Portuguese (pp. 154–161). Boston:Thompson Heinle.

Dominick, J. R. (2006). La dinamica de la comunicacionmasiva [The dynamics of mass communication].Distrito Federal, Mexico: McGraw-Hill Interamer-icana.

Doyle, M. S. (2010). A responsive, integrative Span-ish curriculum at UNC Charlotte. Hispania, 93,80–84.

Doyle, M. S., Fryer, T. B., & Cere, R. (2011). Exito com-ercial: Practicas administrativas y contextos culturales[Commercial success: Practical management andcultural contexts] (5th ed.). Boston: Heinle.

Elorriaga, M. (2007). College students as tutors: Learn-ing from the Latino community of Adams County.Hispania, 90 , 533–542.

Eyler, J., Giles, D. E., & Schmiede, A. (1996). A prac-titioner’s guide to reflection in service learning: Stu-dent voices and reflections. Nashville, TN: VanderbiltUniversity.

Finch, B. (2002). Como desarrollar un plan de negocios[How to develop a business plan]. Barcelona,Spain: Gedisa.

Goldsmith, S. (1995). Journal reflection: A resource guidefor community service leaders and educators engagedin service-learning . Washington, DC: American Al-liance for Rights and Responsibilities.

Grabois, H. (2007). Service-learning throughout theSpanish curriculum: An inclusive and expan-sive theory-driven model. In A. J. Wurr & J.Hellebrandt (Eds.), Learning the language of globalcitizenship: Service-learning in applied linguistics(pp. 164–189). Bolton, MA: Anker.

Grabois, H. (2008). Contribution and language learn-ing: Service-learning from a sociocultural perspec-tive. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Socio-cultural theory and the teaching of second languages(pp. 380–406). Oakville, CT: Equinox.

Grosse, C., & Voght, G. M. (1991). The evolution of lan-guages for specific purposes in the United States.Modern Language Journal , 75, 181–195.

Hale, A. (1999). Service-learning and Spanish: A missinglink. In E. Zlotkowski (Series Ed.), J. Hellebrandt,& L. T. Varona (Vol. Eds.), American Associationfor Higher Education series on service-learning in thedisciplines. Construyendo puentes (Building bridges):Concepts and models for service-learning in Spanish(pp. 9–31). Washington, DC: American Associa-tion for Higher Education.

Hanvey, R. (1979). Cross-cultural awareness. In E. C.Smith & L. F. Luce (Eds.), Toward internationalism:Reading in cross-cultural communication (pp. 46–56). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Hellebrandt, J. (2006). Spanish service-learning re-search from 1999–2003: Effects on faculty, depart-ment, community, and discipline. Hispania, 89 ,919–926.

Howard, J. P. F. (1998). Academic service learning: Acounternormative approach. In R. A. Rhoads &J. P. F. Howard (Eds.), New directions for teaching

Darcy Lear 171

and learning: No. 73. Academic service-learning: Apedagogy of action and reflection (pp. 21–30). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jones, S. R. (2002). The underside of service learning.About Campus, 7 , 10–15.

Jorge, E. (2003a). Dialogue and power: Collaborativelanguage curriculum development. In C. Klein(Series Ed.), J. Hellebrandt, J. Arries, & L. Varona(Vol. Eds.), American Association of Teachers ofSpanish and Portuguese professional development se-ries handbook: Vol. 5. Juntos: Community partnershipsin Spanish and Portuguese (pp. 17–28). Boston:Thompson Heinle.

Jorge, E. (2003b). Outcomes for community part-ners in an unmediated service-learning program.Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning ,10(1), 28–38.

Jorge, E. (2010). Where’s the community? Hispania, 93,135–138.

Julseth, D. C. (2003). The Hispanic achievers program:An interdisciplinary model for service learning. InC. Klein (Series Ed.), J. Hellebrandt, J. Arries, & L.Varona (Vol. Eds.), American Association of Teachersof Spanish and Portuguese professional development se-ries handbook: Vol. 5. Juntos: Community partnershipsin Spanish and Portuguese (pp. 140–153). Boston:Thompson Heinle.

Kaplan, B., & Perez-Gamboa, T. (2003). Rompiendobarreras: Una experiencia de integracion deaprendizaje de espanol y servicio comunitarioen UGA [Breaking barriers: An experience ofintegrating Spanish learning and communityservice at UGA]. In C. Klein (Series Ed.), J.Hellebrandt, J. Arries, & L. Varona (Vol. Eds.),American Association of Teachers of Spanish andPortuguese professional development series handbook:Vol. 5. Juntos: Community partnerships in Spanishand Portuguese (pp. 113–124). Boston: ThompsonHeinle.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as thesource of learning and development . Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competenceto symbolic competence. Modern Language Jour-nal , 90 , 249–252.

Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject . Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Lally, C. G. (2001). Service/community learning andforeign language teaching methods: An appli-cation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 2,53–63.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Le-gitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Lear, D. W., & Abbott, A. R. (2008). Foreign languageprofessional standards and CSL: Achieving the 5C’s. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learn-ing , 14(2), 76–86.

Lear, D. W., & Abbott, A. R. (2009). Aligning expecta-tions for mutually beneficial community service-learning: The case of Spanish language profi-

ciency, cultural knowledge, and professional skills.Hispania, 92, 312–323.

Leiderman, S., Furco, A., Zapf, J., & Goss, M. (2003).Building partnerships with college campuses: Com-munity perspectives. The Council of IndependentColleges. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from http://www.cic.edu/caphe/grants/engaging_monograph.pdf

Leiter, B. (Ed.). (2009). The philosophical gourmet re-port . Retrieved April 18, 2011, from http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/topresearch.asp

Lesman, A. (2003). From service-learning to social ac-tivism: Growing the “soul of a citizen.” In C. Klein(Series Ed.), J. Hellebrandt, J. Arries, & L. Varona(Vol. Eds.), American Association of Teachers ofSpanish and Portuguese professional development se-ries handbook: Vol. 5. Juntos: Community partnershipsin Spanish and Portuguese (pp. 29–35). Boston:Thompson Heinle.

Long, D. R. (2003). Spanish in the community: Studentsreflect on Hispanic culture in the United States.Foreign Language Annals, 36 , 223–232.

Long, M. K. (2010). Spanish for the professions degreeprograms in the United States: History and cur-rent practices. In M. Gueldry (Ed.), How global-izing professions deal with national languages: Stud-ies in cultural conflict and cooperation (pp. 29–53).Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.

Magnan, S. S. (2008). The unfulfilled promise of teach-ing for communicative competence: Insights fromsociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E.Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teach-ing of second languages (pp. 349–379). Oakville,CT: Equinox.

Modern Language Association. (2007a). Foreign lan-guages and higher education: New structures for achanged world . Retrieved September 5, 2010, fromhttp://www.mla.org/flreport

Modern Language Association. (2007b). Report tothe Teagle Foundation on the undergraduate ma-jor in language and literature . Retrieved Septem-ber 5, 2010, from http://www.mla.org/pdf/2008_mla_whitepaper.pdf

Morris, F. A. (2001a). Serving the community and learn-ing a foreign language: Evaluating a service learn-ing program. Language, Culture and Curriculum,14, 244–255.

Morris, F. A. (2001b). Enhancing motivation and pro-moting positive attitudes toward second languagelearning through community experience. In G.Brauer (Ed.), Pedagogy of language learning inhigher education: An introduction (pp. 47–60).Westport, CT: Ablex.

Morse, R. (2011, September). Methodology: Un-dergraduate ranking criteria and weights.U.S. News and World Report . Retrieved July25, 2011, from http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2010/08/17/methodology-undergraduate-ranking-criteria-and-weights-2011

Mullaney, J. (1999). Service-learning and language-acquisition theory and practice. In E. Zlotkowski

172 The Modern Language Journal 96 (2012)

(Series Ed.), J. Hellebrandt, & L. T. Varona (Vol.Eds.), American Association for Higher Educationseries on service-learning in the disciplines. Con-struyendo puentes (Building bridges): Concepts andmodels for service-learning in Spanish (pp. 49–60).Washington, DC: American Association for HigherEducation.

National Service-Learning Clearinghouse. (2011).Higher education community engagement quality prac-tices. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from http://www.servicelearning.org/topic/quality-components-standards/he-community-engagement-quality-practices

Nichols, P. A., Johnson, J. A., Lemley, L. R., & Osa-Melero, L. (2009). En comunidad: Comunicacion yconexion [In the community: Communication andconnection]. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Olazagasti-Segovia, E. (2003). Second language ac-quisition, academic service learning, and learn-ers’ transformation. In C. Klein (Series Ed.), J.Hellebrandt, J. Arries, & L. Varona (Vol. Eds.),American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Por-tuguese professional development series handbook: Vol.5. Juntos: Community partnerships in Spanish andPortuguese (pp. 5–16). Boston: Thompson Heinle.

Ostriker, J. P., Holland, P. W., Kuh, C. V., & Voytuk,J. A. (Eds.). (2009). A guide to the methodol-ogy of the National Research Council assessmentof doctorate programs. National Academies Press.Retrieved July 20, 2011, from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12676

Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. (2008). Howshould colleges assess and improve student learning?Employers’ views on the accountability challenge:A survey of employers conducted on behalf of: TheAssociation of American Colleges and Universities. Re-trieved September 5, 2010, from http://www.aacu.org/advocacy/leap/documents/2008_Business_Leader_Poll.pdf

Plann, S. J. (2002). Latinos and literacy: An upper-division Spanish course with service learning.Hispania, 85, 330–338.

Reed, J., & Koliba, C. (1996). Facilitating reflection: Amanual for higher education. Washington, DC: Vol-unteer and Public Service Center, GeorgetownUniversity.

Sanders, R. F. (2005). Community based learning in ru-ral Guatemala. Hispania, 88, 182–189.

Savignon, S. J. (2007). Beyond communicative languageteaching: What’s ahead? Journal of Pragmatics, 39 ,207–220.

Silcox, H. (1993). A how-to guide to reflection: Addingcognitive learning to community service programs.Philadelphia, PA: Brighton Press.

Tilley-Lubbs, G. A. (2003). Crossing the border throughservice-learning: The power of cross-cultural rela-tionships. In C. Klein (Series Ed.), J. Hellebrandt,J. Arries & L. Varona (Vol. Eds.), American Asso-ciation of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese pro-

fessional development series handbook: Vol. 5. Juntos:Community partnerships in Spanish and Portuguese(pp. 36–56). Boston: Thompson Heinle.

Valette, R., & Disick, R. (1972). Modern language perfor-mance objectives and individualization. New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Varas, P. (1999). Raising cultural awareness throughservice-learning in Spanish culture and conver-sation: Tutoring in the migrant education pro-gram in Salem. In E. Zlotkowski (Series Ed.), J.Hellebrandt, & L. T. Varona (Vol. Eds.),American Association for Higher Education serieson service-learning in the disciplines. Construyendopuentes (Building bridges): Concepts and modelsfor service-learning in Spanish (pp. 123–135).Washington, DC: American Association for HigherEducation.

Varona, L. T. (1999). From instrumental to interac-tive to critical knowledge through service-learningin Spanish. In E. Zlotkowski (Series Ed.), J.Hellebrandt, & L. T. Varona (Vol. Eds.), Ameri-can Association for Higher Education series on service-learning in the disciplines. Construyendo puentes(Building bridges): Concepts and models for service-learning in Spanish (pp. 61–75). Washington, DC:American Association for Higher Education.

Varona, L. T., & Bauluz, M. V. (2003). When everydaylife becomes the focus of attention in intermediateSpanish courses. In C. Klein (Series Ed.), J. Helle-brandt, J. Arries, & L. Varona (Vol. Eds.), Ameri-can Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portugueseprofessional development series handbook: Vol. 5.Juntos: Community partnerships in Spanish andPortuguese (pp. 69–82). Boston: ThompsonHeinle.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Ward, S., & Pratt, L. (Eds.). (1997). La em-presa sostenible en America Latina: Estudios decaso [Sustainable enterprises in Latin America:Case studies]. Washington, DC: World ResourceInstitute.

Weldon, A., & Trautmann, G. (2003). Spanish andservice-learning: Pedagogy and praxis. Hispania,86 , 574–583.

Westrick, J. (2004). The influence of service-learningon intercultural sensitivity: A quantitative study.Journal of Research in International Education, 3,277–299.

Wurr, A. J., & Hellebrandt, J. (Eds.). (2007). Learningthe language of global citizenship: Service-learning inapplied linguistics. Bolton: Anker.

Zapata, G. (2011). The effects of community servicelearning projects on L2 learners’ cultural under-standing, Hispania, 94, 86–102.

Zlotkowski, E. (1998). Introduction: A new model of ex-cellence. In E. Zlotkowski (Ed.), Successful service-learning programs: New models of excellence in highereducation (pp. 1–14). Bolton: Anker.