{"id":5641,"date":"2011-03-18t13:36:41","date_gmt":"2011-03-18t19:36:41","guid":{"rendered":"\/\/www.imrbdigital.com\/"},"modified":"2018-05-07t12:02:52","modified_gmt":"2018-05-07t17:02:52","slug":"a-word-on-nomenclature","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"\/\/www.imrbdigital.com\/guides-sub-pages\/a-word-on-nomenclature\/","title":{"rendered":"a word on nomenclature"},"content":{"rendered":"
\/\/ by joe bandy, assistant director, cft<\/address>\n

 <\/p>\n

as is obvious from the variety of teaching models associated with “service learning,” the term is a label for a wide variety of community-oriented pedagogies throughout higher education.\u00a0 traditionally, the term, \u201cservice learning,\u201d has been a more common label for these pedagogies and it is under this moniker that the practice has been institutionalized in the titles of higher education initiatives, centers, curricula, professional societies, conferences, journals and books.<\/p>\n

however, the term “service” in \u201cservice learning\u201d has received some criticism, particularly from supporters who regard the pedagogy as a potentially powerful force for both education and community development.\u00a0 they have argued that the language of \u201cservice\u201d can mislead students or faculty into relationships with communities that are not mutually beneficial, and thus work to reinforce stereotypes or inequalities.\u00a0 insofar as students regard themselves as “working for” and not “working with” a community \u201cclient,\u201d they may see the community partner through paternalistic lenses.\u00a0 at its worst, this may limit a community’s voice, limit the effectiveness of community-based projects, and reinforce campus-community inequalities.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n

in part because of these reasons, an array of other terms with different connotations have become common:<\/p>\n