MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2583884251

Service-Learning in Theory and Practice: The Future of Community Engagement in Higher Education

2014· book-chapter· en· W2583884251 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jenn Kozak

Notice bibliographique

RevueComparative and international education · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueService-Learning and Community Engagement
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésService-learningService (business)Transformative learningSociologyPoliticsPublic relationsPolitical scienceBusinessMarketingPedagogyLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Service-learning in theory and practice: The future of community engagement in higher education. Dan W. Butin. (2010). New York: Palgrave MacMillan. 174 pp. (ISBN 9780230622517).Many organizations support ever increasing numbers of service-learning initiatives in colleges and universities across the continent (Hollander, 2010), making an examination of such initiatives of particular interest to Canadian scholars involved in comparative and international research. Dan Butin maintains that a lack of one unitary model for service-learning creates difficulties for integration into traditional conventions of higher education. For this reason Butin establishes limits and possibilities for service-learning, explores philosophical shifts needed for an institutionalizing of service-learning in higher education and offers suggestions for an attainable future for service-learning.Following an informational foreword by Elizabeth Hollander and an impassioned preface by the author, Butin demonstrates the limitations and potential of service-learning in higher education. Throughout Chapter 1 Butin attempts to define and conceptualize service-learning from multiple perspectives, and tenders technical, cultural, political and antifoundational typologies. Chapter 2 explores the pedagogical, political, and institutional limits of servicelearning and the impediment that these limits pose to its institutional longevity. In Chapter 3 Butin explains how external and internal limitations of service-learning represent powerful and transformative possibilities in higher education.Chapter 4 examines the disciplining of service-learning as an intellectual movement comparable to women's studies. While Chapter 5 explores how some programs are already institutionalizing service-learning through recognized certificates, minors, and majors. Butin utilizes Chapter 6 to take the reader through an examination of other disciplines that provide additional insights into the evolution and incorporation of community engagement within the academy.Butin persuades service-learning scholars and practitioners to reexamine what they do and how they do since he believes that service-learning and community engagement should be no novel or noteworthy than any other scholarly task (126). Chapter 7 helps faculty to view community engagement as another means of being a good scholar through the production and dissemination of knowledge and the search for truth. While Chapter 8 places servicelearning and community engagement within the larger picture of the major contemporary trends and tensions in higher education.A solid and logical structure is provided by Dan Butin which aids the reader since his arguments can sometimes be rather complex. This book should not be a starting point for scholars new to the field of service-learning since it is not concerned with the fundamentals of community-engaged learning models but it does offer insights useful to those concerned with the future of such programs in higher education. Butin focuses on defining and conceptualizing service-learning in higher education and the place it occupies within the sphere of academia.Hironimus-Wendt & Lovell-Troy state, [i]ndeed some of our own colleagues have questioned the strong emphasis on a 'transformative' role ascribed to service learning, particularly regarding community change and suggest a more broadly theoretical foundation for service learning is warranted in order to encourage other educators to consider its adoption and implementation (1999, p. 363). To support this suggestion, they reference the work of John Dewy and George Herbert Mead who are considered by some to be the originators of the servicelearning concept, demonstrating that even in the preliminary stages, during the early 1900s, the leading experts held very different beliefs as to the exact role that experiential education could play in student development.This publication is suitable for a scholarly audience already familiar with service learning, and are interested in a deeper examination, classification and possible future evolution of the phenomenon. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,017
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,076

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,048
Communication savante0,0170,026
Science ouverte0,0020,012
Intégrité de la recherche0,0080,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,161
Tête enseignante GPT0,426
Écart entre enseignants0,265 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueComparative and international educationMême sujetService-Learning and Community EngagementTravaux en français237 207