| Preamble |
This Chapter is part of the PolyCIVIS Handbook on Participatory Methods for Teaching about the Polycrisis in Higher Education. The objective of this Handbook is to serve as a reference resource for teaching about the polycrisis in Higher Education in a participatory manner, a need which has not only been foreseen by the PolyCIVIS project in its inception phase, but also confirmed and further substantiated in a number of meetings and workshops during the project’s lifetime.
This Handbook is not a coursebook to teach what the polycrisis is, but a methods book, to provide instruments for teaching about the polycrisis in a participatory manner. It is to be made available online as a multimedia live resource, presenting different participatory teaching methods for uptake by the Polycrisis-interested community in Higher Education, together with supporting materials such as method descriptions, references, examples and case studies.
The different methods proposed are presented in one chapter for each group of methods, which also includes, in the digital edition of this Handbook, a live survey to collect peer feedback from the community itself, on the usefulness and ease of use that community members (Higher Education tutors, students, researchers as well as practitioners) may themselves find specific methods to have within, and for, their own contexts and audiences.
| What do we mean by thin participation techniques? |
Service-learning is a pedagogical approach that combines academic learning with meaningful service to communities, structured reflection and reciprocal partnership. It differs from volunteering because it is intentionally connected to course learning outcomes, disciplinary knowledge, civic responsibility and critical reflection. It also differs from internships because the focus is not only professional experience, but mutual learning and public value. For teaching the polycrisis, service-learning can connect students with communities facing climate vulnerability, migration pressures, food insecurity, digital exclusion, public-health challenges, housing stress or emergency-preparedness needs. It supports participation by positioning community partners as co-educators rather than passive beneficiaries.
| Indicative starter sources for information about these methods |
| Additional sources of information about these methods |
CIVIS — Europe's Civic University Alliance. (n.d.). CIVIS service-learning guide for lecturers.
https://civis.eu/storage/files/civis-service-learning-guide-for-lecturers.pdfCIVIS — Europe's Civic University Alliance. (n.d.). Resources: Service-learning.
https://civis.eu/en/resourcesBringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1995). A service-learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2(1), 112–122.
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 221–239.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2943981Stoecker, R. (2016). Liberating service learning and the rest of higher education civic engagement. Temple University Press.
Santiago-Ortiz, A. (2019). From critical to decolonizing service-learning: Limits and possibilities of social justice-based approaches to community service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 25(1), 43–54.
https://doi.org/10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0025.105Eyler, J., Giles, D. E., Stenson, C. M., & Gray, C. J. (2001). At-a-glance: What we know about the effects of service-learning on students, faculty, institutions, and communities, 1993–2001. National Service-Learning Clearinghouse.
Celio, C. I., Durlak, J., & Dymnicki, A. (2011). A meta-analysis of the impact of service-learning on students. Journal of Experiential Education, 34(2), 164–181.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105382591103400205Conway, J. M., Amel, E. L., & Gerwien, D. P. (2009). Teaching and learning in the social context: A meta-analysis of service learning's effects on academic, personal, social, and citizenship outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 36(4), 233–245.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280903172969Bringle, R. G., Phillips, M. A., & Hudson, M. (2004). The measure of service learning: Research scales to assess student experiences. American Psychological Association.
Aramburuzabala, P., & Cerrillo, R. (2023). Service-learning as an approach to educating for sustainable development. Sustainability, 15(14), Article 11231.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411231González-Sánchez, R., Díaz-García, V., & Romero-García, C. (2023). Educating for the sustainable development goals through service-learning: University students' perspectives about the competences developed. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1144134.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1144134Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2004). The articulated learning: An approach to guided reflection and assessment. Innovative Higher Education, 29(2), 137–154.
Saltmarsh, J., & Hartley, M. (Eds.). (2011). "To serve a larger purpose": Engagement for democracy and the transformation of higher education. Temple University Press.
Jacoby, B. (2003). Building partnerships for service-learning. Jossey-Bass.
Opazo, H., & Aramburuzabala, P. (2019). Considerations for service-learning in European higher education. In P. Aramburuzabala, L. McIlrath, & H. Opazo (Eds.), Embedding service learning in European higher education (pp. 1–20). Routledge.
Yorio, P. L., & Ye, F. (2012). A meta-analysis on the effects of service-learning on the social, personal, and cognitive outcomes of learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1), 9–27.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0016Gallup-Purdue Index. (2014). Great jobs, great lives: The relationship between student debt, experiences, and perceptions of college worth. Gallup/Purdue University.
https://www.gallup.com/services/176768/2014-gallup-purdue-index-report.aspx| Indicative participatory teaching scenarios for these methods |
Students collaborate with a local organisation, municipality or campus unit to examine emergency-preparedness needs. They may help map communication gaps, cooling spaces, food-support routes or vulnerable locations. The academic component connects crisis governance, social inequality and community knowledge. Reflection focuses on reciprocity, power and responsibility.
Students work with a food-aid organisation, student-support service or community kitchen to understand food insecurity under polycrisis conditions. They may support logistics, produce communication materials, analyse barriers to access or create resource maps. Reflection connects food systems, dignity, austerity, climate, migration and care.
Students support community members in accessing trusted emergency information, public-health guidance or digital services. The project connects digital inequality, misinformation, language barriers and crisis response. Students reflect on the limits of technological solutions and the importance of trust, accessibility and relational support.
Students partner with a local group to create multilingual, accessible climate adaptation materials, such as heatwave guidance, flood-preparedness checklists or mutual-aid contact cards. Community partners review the materials before use. Reflection focuses on voice, clarity, cultural relevance and non-extractive collaboration.
Students collaborate with older adults, care organisations or community centres to explore preparedness for heatwaves, blackouts or health emergencies. Activities may include listening sessions, resource guides or neighbourhood care maps. Students reflect on vulnerability, autonomy, ageism, care infrastructures and the ethics of support.
CC BY-SA 4.0 - Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
Previous chapter