The first method stressed was, the charity and community service method. For this the students picked a topic and went out into the "real world" and volunteered somewhere that was related to their topic chosen. The question surrounding this way of teaching service learning was, did the students actually see the human being behind the charity that they were giving? Although there was no argument in regards to the development of the student's sense of civic duty. The second method, the change method, involved students reading stories, doing research and community service. In this situation students felt more connected with the people they were helping and were able to work together, respond to problems and feel good about helping people.
When reflecting on these two methods there isn't much difference, however the students involved with "change" were able to connect with the people they were helping on a much deeper level and for me that is most important. As I am sure many of my fellow students have, I participated in a community service project as a requirement to graduate high school and it felt more like school work rather than what it was suppose to be; life changing. Most students half a**** their project and at the very most handed out pamphlets concerning their problem or issue. Due to the lack of effort, most of my fellow classmates failed to consider the life and disposition of who they were caring for and went about their daily lives as if nothing could change it. Which is why, based on my own experiences, I believe that allowing the students to make deeper connections with their fellow neighbors is the only way that the service learning program will affect students lives in the long run.
It is my belief that the following chart shows the delicate balance needed in order for student to get the most out of their service learning experience.