by Laura Rog
Last month, I began discussing the need to bring greater focus to assessing service-learning outcomes, centered on the Joel Westheimer and Joseph Kahne article Educating the “Good” Citizen: Political Choice and Pedagogical Goals. This is a great piece to consider to not only assess whether you are encouraging personal responsibility, civic participation, or reflective citizenship in your youth-based service and service-learning projects, but to also find evidence that supports the idea that both civic action and justice-oriented thought are needed to create meaningful service experiences for youth.
In both this month and next, I’m going to extend the discussion a little further and focus on a framework for understanding how to design and assess quality thought and action in a service-learning project. The most effective tool I’ve found to assist with this is the Rigor/Relevance Framework, created by the International Center for Leadership in Education.
The Rigor/Relevance Framework was developed as a tool for educators to drive instruction that challenges youth to think in increasingly complex ways and to apply knowledge through experiences that have meaning and worth in their lives. Referring back to the Westheimer and Kahne article, it aligns with the idea that as youth service facilitators, adults should be designing and assessing projects to increase the levels at which youth think (justice-oriented thought) as well as engaging them in hands-on learning experiences (civic action) to encourage effective citizens.
The tool is very simple to use, whether you want to design activities that strive to encourage these outcomes or assess how effectively you are reaching them. For today’s post, I’ll focus on the first continuum of the Framework and how you can begin looking more strategically at your thought and reflection project outcomes.
This piece, the Knowledge Taxonomy (the vertical axis when looking at the tool), uses increasingly complex levels of thinking to illustrate the processes we all go through while learning to be critical and creative thinkers. For example, you need to comprehend the effects of pollution on our ecosystem, a low level of critical thinking, before you can evaluate the effect garbage dumps have on developing countries, a high level of critical thinking. It is an ever-developing cycle in each one of us that begins each time we explore a new idea or concept.
Those working with youth in service can use this continuum to assess the level of thought that is being required to work on the community issue at hand. It may sound obvious, but the higher the level of thinking youth are asked to use in their service activities, the more engaged they are in the project outcomes. Key to the service or service-learning project success is striving to engage youth in the levels which apply critical thinking on the high end of the continuum:
Analysis: Youth are able to break things down and examine elements, relationships, and how things are organized. In service, examples of analysis are youth breaking down the pros and cons of recycling versus throwing all trash out together, what functions the three branches of government serve to make a law, or what benefits a senior citizen home sees when they include pets at their residence.
Synthesis: Where youth are able to think creatively by developing new ideas or processes based on the relationships they see, or taking existing ideas or processes and organizing them in a new way. In service, examples of synthesis are creating recommendations for a school recycling plan, conceiving a plan to challenge a school or town law, or formulating an idea to use music and drama to increase activity for senior citizens in a home.
Evaluation: Where youth can make educated judgments and decisions. In service, examples of evaluation include prioritizing what recycling materials should be collected in the school, deciding from many plans which idea to bring to the town board, or deciding the best activities to conduct with Alzheimer’s patients in a senior citizen home.
When youth think critically, as Westheimer and Kahne show in last month’s article, they are able to create relationships and feel personal connection to the community issue at hand. They have great potential to become justice-oriented citizens and understand the structural issues facing our communities and world.
However, as the authors also offer, an orientation toward thoughtful justice-oriented citizenship is not enough to inspire an engaged citizenry. Action is needed to help put these thoughts into motion and give youth concrete opportunities to create community change. Next month, we’ll examine the second part of the Rigor/Relevance Framework to look at the use of the Application Model and explore the importance of tying thought and action together.
Laura Rog is the Director of Training and Technical Assistance with generationOn and a featured blogger.

