There are many points made by Kahne and Westheimer in this article.
The first point that is made by them is that there are two ways to approach service learning. They both have pros. The first way is to be fully engaged with the personal interest and the community. This drives students to explore something they enjoy and help them see that direct impact that they can have in a community. The second approach is more systematic and analytical.
At first I was a bit confused on the main points of the article. I had written the previous paragraph before class and I did not fully understand it. After class, today it was clear. The main point is how service learning could promote charity or change. Charity tends to be geared to providing an individual fulfillment. Knowing that “others” are being helped, that for that moment you’ve made their lives a bit easier by providing a service or a needed object, makes you feel good. And I don’t think that is a bad thing. It’s good to have that moment because that leads you to care more and dive into the issue. Then that could create a chain reaction for change. For change to occur students must engage in critical thinking, as the article explains. The article discusses how having the students change or have a direct impact on an issue it will teach them how to be better citizens. Change is more political than charity. Charity feeds the moral being. Having students do service learning to change their community has a greater impact not only on them but the community as well. That’s what I think is the primary point of the article.