Reflections on Continuing to Transform SLCE Programming as a Form of Resiliency

There is emerging research exploring the idea of the “pandemic as a portal” (Roy, 2020). Arundathi Roy coined this term explaining: “Pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next” (Roy, 2020).  The COVID-19 pandemic created a global portal and opportunity for reflection and transformation in all areas including service-learning and community engagement (SLCE). The pandemic caused immense devastation. The isolation and world events happening during the COVID-19 pandemic also gave individuals a unique opportunity and time for reflection. Reflection is a core component of many SLCE practices. Five years after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic the world and SLCE field continue to face new challenges and an ongoing need for critical reflection and adaptation.  

As I have recently finished my doctorate degree, I have been thinking about current and upcoming portals and contemplating how I can change my practice and research centered around youth SLCE programming to make it more relevant for today and tomorrow. Like many others, I am trying to figure out how to sustain SLCE programming in a time when resources are limited and many programs are being cut. There are two specific forms of SLCE that I examined in my dissertation that I believe could have a growing impact. These two areas are the potential of e-SL or online service-learning and short-term SLCE programming. 

Continual Need and Desire for e-SL Programming

 There is a need and desire for e-SL programming, beyond the necessity of online learning that the COVID-19 pandemic presented. A tension often exists in that individuals want to be involved in SLCE programs but are sometimes limited by factors such as time, money, and accessibility. Many participants in my dissertation study indicated that if the program was not offered virtually, they would not have been able to participate for reasons beyond the pandemic (travel, time, costs, age, other commitments) (Ankenman, 2025). Online programs can allow more accessibility and help overcome some of these challenges, particularly in nonformal learning contexts (Derreth, 2024; Shea et al., 2022). 

e-SL is often viewed as a second choice. Strait & Nordyke (2015) describe how e-SL is not a “last resort” or “substitute” (p.20) for in-person SLCE. Rather, e-SL can offer the same benefits plus additional benefits compared to in-person programming, which include accessibility, skill-building (academic, professional, technical, cognitive, etc.), and specific course outcomes (Helms et al., 2015; Shaw, 2018; Strait & Nordyke, 2015; Waldner et al., 2012). With the potential of e-SL, how can we fully embrace it as a primary form of SLCE practice?

Even without physical proximity, SLCE programs can foster psychological, emotional, and cognitive proximity (Shea et al., 2022). A common limitation of online programming is the ability and depth of building relationships and engagement. In-person SLCE programming offers important experiences, especially with community and relationship building. Practitioners and researchers should collaborate to find ways to incorporate these types of experience into online and hybrid programming. 

One new direction in e-SL is critical online service-learning (COSL) (Derreth, 2024). In COSL, the focus is on sharing one’s experiences rather than shared space through global localities, reciprocity, and critical sensemaking (Derreth, 2024). COSL offers the opportunity to open a new portal. When reflecting about the online community she built, Maria, a participant in my dissertation study, explained: “I think there’s just so much power in feeling like you’re part of something big and having people from all over the country and even across the Pacific Ocean just made you really get a sense of that” (Ankenman, 2025). e-SL can bring a diversity of people and perspectives together more conveniently than in-person programming can. Not being limited by physical proximity, costs, and other challenges of in-person programming allowed Maria and others to make global connections and collaborate with people they normally would not have. The accessibility and ease of e-SL programming are irreplaceable and can encourage the participation of individuals who may otherwise not be able to participate in SLCE programming (Dempsey, 2023; Derreth, 2024).  

Impact of Short-Term SLCE Programs

Similar to e-SL, shorter SLCE programs are more accessible. Previous SLCE research and frameworks have identified that the duration of a program experience is important to have an impact both on student participants and the community (Kielsmeier, 2011). It is not solely the program duration but also the structure and content of a SLCE program that can impact student transformation. If a short-term SLCE program is intentionally structured, longer SLCE programs may not necessarily have a greater impact on student participants. Extended participation is not always better or realistic. 

SLCE programs can be a conduit to bringing together changemakers and providing opportunities for involvement. A common critique of short-term and e-SL programming is that they do not provide the time and space to build community and relationships, let alone to have these relationships last beyond the experience. A reoccurring theme in my dissertation research was student participants' ability to build, and in many cases maintain, strong relationships with each other in a matter of weeks, including those who participated in the program fully virtually. Two aspects that participants shared helped them build community in a short time were connecting over the common experience of being a young woman and their shared desire to make positive change. Donita, a participant in my dissertation study, described the power of coming together with others and creating a community of change: “And remembering that you came up with an action plan with girls from different places in the country that genuinely care about the same thing, just shows even whatever you care about, whatever your activism thing is, there's always going to be a community” (Ankenman, 2025). 

Relationships are often built over shared experiences and goals. In a time of social distancing and isolation, the participants in this brief program built community and lasting relationships. One participant explained: “Even though it was online, I felt a strong sense of community and felt that I truly bonded with my peers. I still keep in touch with some of them and have developed some meaningful friendships” (Ankenman, 2025). SLCE programs can offer individuals a meaningful community, even in uncertain times, like the COVID-19 pandemic (Grenier et al., 2020; Shea et al., 2022). As we continue to face precarious times, we need to reflect on new ways to offer programming so individuals and partners continue to have opportunities to participate in the essential SLCE work. 

Personal Reflections: Getting Ready for Our Next Portal

 I believe e-SL and short-term SLCE programming could be “mini-portals” for student and community transformations meaning that they can expose participants to new perspectives and tools through accessible SLCE programming. They can plant a seed and lay the foundation of knowledge and skills for future and longer SLCE opportunities as well. As with all types of SLCE programming, there are limitations to e-SL (e.g. access to technology, technological skills and knowledge, relationship and community building, engaging students and community partners) (Baim, 2019; Waldner et al., 2012) and short-term SLCE programming (e.g. limited time, building trust, creating sustainable and reciprocal relationships) (Kielsmeier, 2011; Yamauchi et al., 2006). Despite these limitations, the benefits, accessibility, and equity these types of programming can provide are invaluable.

We will continue to face portals and opportunities for growth and resilience. Reimagining programming and changing practices are difficult and there are many barriers (e.g. time, funding, staff). The consequences of not transforming how we practice SLCE are even more daunting. SLCE programs positively changed my life, and I want others of all ages and in all locations to have access and opportunities to participate in these types of programs. Authentic SLCE experiences and communities can occur outside of the traditional classroom. Even when people cannot be together for extended periods of time or be together in-person, lasting community, relationships, and impact can be built through SLCE programming. 

Five years ago, many of us adapted in ways we never imagined in some of the most uncertain times. This shows our flexibility and resilience as individuals and communities dedicated to the SLCE field. 2025 is a milestone year in many areas including the 25th anniversary of IARSLCE. This online global community has been a beacon of hope and inspiration for me and many others. The IARSLCE network has immense potential to shape the SLCE field and beyond. I encourage us as a network to keep critically reflecting and questioning our practices and research. We have a unique privilege and opportunity to move the SLCE field forward in our current and future portals to become more accessible and equitable. The IARSLCE network is also a reminder that we are not alone as we navigate these new “portals”.   

References

Ankenman, C. (2025). Authentic youth community engagement in nonformal service-learning community engagement programming (Publication No. 3206719621) [Doctoral dissertation, Saint Mary’s College of California]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://www.proquest.com/docview/320671962. 

Baim, S. (2019). Capturing the essence of true service-learning projects in an online learning environment: Experience-driven suggestions for implementation. Association for University Regional Campuses of Ohio Journal, 25, 24 - 43. Retrieved April 21, 2025 from https://aurco.org/journals/AURCO_Journal_2019/Baim_Capturing_AURCO19.pdf.

Dempsey, S. B. (2023). Community engagement: A retrospective learning experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.37333/001c.92027.   

Derreth, T., (2024). Human-centered community engagement in online education: Developing a critical online service-learning pedagogy. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.3998/mjcsl.4381.  

Grenier, L., Robinson, E., & Harkins, D. A. (2020). Service-learning in the COVID 19 era: Learning in the midst of crisis. Pedagogy and the Human Sciences, 7(1). Retrieved April 21, 2025 from https://scholarworks.merrimack.edu/phs/vol7/iss1/5.

Helms, M. M., Rutti, R. M., Hervani, A. A., LaBonte, J., & Sarkarat, S. (2015). Implementing and evaluating online service learning projects. Journal of Education for Business, 90, 369-378. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1074150.

Kielsmeier, J. (2011). Service-learning: The time is now. Prevention Researcher, 18(1), 3-7. Retrieved April 21, 2025 from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ914155. 

Roy, A. (2020). The pandemic as a portal. Financial Times. Retrieved April 21, 2025 from https://www.ft.com/content/10d8f5e8-74eb-11ea-95fe-fcd274e920ca. 

Shaw, T. (2018). Student perceptions of service-learning efficacy in a hybrid I online undergraduate writing class. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 11(2). Retrieved April 21, 2025 from https://journals.psu.edu/td/article/view/713.

Shea, L., Grenier, L. I. & Harkins, D. A., (2022). The power of proximity: Navigating physical and psychological connection in service-learning courses throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.3998/mjcsl.3211. 

Strait, J. & Nordyke, K. (2015). Eservice-learning: Creating experiential learning and civic engagement through online and hybrid courses. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003444596. 

Waldner, L. S., Mcgorry, S. Y., & Widener, M. C. (2012). E-service-learning: The evolution of service-learning to engage a growing online student population. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 16(2), 123–150. Retrieved April 21, 2025 from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ975813.

Yamauchi, L.A., Billig, S. H., Meyer, S., & Hofschire, L. (2006). Student outcomes associated with service-learning in a culturally relevant high school program. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 32(1-2), 149-164. https://doi.org/10.1300/J005v32n01_10.

Colette Ankenman, Ed.D. is a research practitioner dedicated to positive youth development and community engagement. Her roles have included: director, manager, facilitator, mentor, teacher, community partner, coordinator, researcher, board member, AmeriCorps VISTA, and volunteer. Colette has an Ed.D. in Educational Leadership from Saint Mary’s College of California, a Master of Science Degree in Child Development from UC Davis, and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Human Development and Family Studies and Consumer and Community Studies from the University of Utah. Her primary research interest is exploring the impact of nonformal service-learning and community engagement youth programming.

Open to connect on LinkedIn or at colette.ankenman@gmail.com