Critically Engaged Civic Learning: A Comprehensive Restructuring of Service-Learning Approaches

This article contributes to a long- standing conversation about the implementation of service- learning by proposing an updated revision for the 21st century: critically engaged civic learning (CECL). The term service- learning is problematic as it invokes inequitable power dynamics that inherently privilege one group over another, with more privileged groups providing “service” to marginalized groups (Bortolin, 2011). CECL shifts service- learning from a student- centered pedagogy to an equity- based framework that views all constituent stakeholders as invested partners in the co- design, implementation, and evaluation of CECL initiatives and is founded on redistributed power and authority to promote civic learning and social change. CECL is structured by six guiding principles: social justice, power dynamics, community, civic learning objectives, reflexivity, and sustainability. Consequently, we argue that CECL can be seen across four overar ching outcomes— increased self- awareness, self- efficacy, and self- empowerment; increased awareness of civic agency; better understanding of community; and workforce preparation— which can be assessed through the CECL Inventory for Social Change (CECL- ISC) (Awkward et al., 2021). This article contributes to a long- standing conversation about the implementation of service- learning by proposing an updated revision for the 21st century: critically engaged civic learning (CECL). Service- learning has been embedded in universities and communities for close to a century, where it has been framed as a movement, educational phenomenon, pedagogy, theory, and field (Giles & Eyler, 1994). However, the term service- learning is problematic as it invokes inequitable power dynamics that inherently privilege one group over another, with more privileged groups providing “service” to marginalized groups (Bortolin, 2011; Mitchell, 2007). This crit-icism attacks the epicenter of service- learning, which often places emphasis on “servicing” others rather than collaborating to resolve issues that affect everyone in the community, including the educational institution. This framing reinforces structural and institutional inequalities in the community and reifies the inequitable power dynamics that persist throughout