Perceptions, Motivations, and Concerns of Post-Secondary Faculty Regarding Implementing Service-Learning Pedagogy Into Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Faculty in post-secondary educational institutions is directly involved in designing, implementi!lg and directing coursework components. The degree of the coursework's impact on student learning can be attributed in part to these instructional gatekeepers. Extensive research indicates that service-learning tenets incorporated into curriculum have enhanced student learning experiences. Nevertheless, faculty inclusion of service-learning curricular components in higher education remains marginal. The purpose of this research was to study post-secondary faculty perceptions, motivations, and concerns from three local institutions of higher education regarding the phenomena that attracts or deters faculty from participating in service-learning pedagogy. This study concludes that more than one third of faculty who do not incorporate Servicelearning has no knowledge of the pedagogy or do not know how to implement servicelearning project effectively. Others are reluctant to implement service-learning because of the perception that it is not relevant to their coursework or that logistical issues are overwhelming. Those who do service-learning state that while concerns exist; the benefits to all constituents far surpass any pedagogical hindrances. A Spearman rho test for analysis of the demographics of gender, rank, and tenure was performed for variances in faculty perceptions. By employing a mixed method approach, the researcher attempted to pragmatically study the problem through multiple lenses. An electronic survey was conducted and distributed to 2710 post-secondary teaching faculty in Monroe County, NY. Open-ended survey questions, focus groups, and interviews were designed to gather data from phenomenological experiences. These multiple research methods were interactive and humanistic in nature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".