I'd like to second Kim's suggestion about not dichtomizing formal and
informal learning-- both are valuable and those boundaries should be
stretched anyway. But what really spurned me to chime in was Kim's
assessment of the current 17-27 generation. In my research of college
students doing service learning in an "add-on" program, I've found that
they did indeed held an intense desire to live and work toward a better
world. We talked about cynicism and citizenship and the common theme
across all of the students in the study (there were 8 case studies) was that
to be a "good citizen" required the transcendence of self-interest. Now
I haven't fully explored this topic yet in my writing, but I certainly
would like to hear what other people are saying about what it means to be
a "good citizen." As the Vanderbilt study has prelimilarly concluded,
terms live "civil society" and "citizenship" are not resonant terms with
young people-- but I'd like to Ask if this means whether the terms are
irrelavant? In my mind, our collective understanding of citizenship
mirrors the prevailing cultural norm. We need only turn to Harry Boyte
and so many others who have written and spoken about how problematic the
"citizen as consumer" and "citizen as client" mentality has been to
society. I think we need more research on not only the younger
generation's perceptions of citizenship, but all generations'
understanding of these important terms. And then, collective, we can
begin or contribute to the begining of a collective public deliberation
of the topic. In my mind, one of the virtues of service-learning is
"its" ability to create learning environments for people to think and
discuss these issues... and of course, most importantly, ACT on these issues.
regards, Chris Koliba