MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W110454950

Critical Community Service Learning: Combining Critical Classroom Pedagogy with Activist Community Placements

2013· article· en· W110454950 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical pedagogySociologyPresumptionCitizenshipCritical literacyCritical consciousnessCritical thinkingInjusticeCritical theoryNeutralityPower (physics)Economic JusticePublic relationsPedagogyPolitical scienceLawPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, community service learning (CSL) has become a prominent pedagogy in higher education (Speck & Hoppe, 2004). CSL combines real world experiences and academic learning, encourages moral development, promotes citizenship, and facilitates a sense of social responsibility. It is not surprising, however, that what constitutes citizenship and social responsibility is the subject of debate. There is no agreement, for instance, that social justice is an intended outcome of CSL (Marullo & Edwards, 2000; Zlotkowski, as cited in Chambers, 2009). In fact, critics have suggested that CSL too often is comprised of community experiences maintaining a charitable or voluntary orientation, fails to explore and address the root causes of injustice (Kahne & Westheimer, 2006; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004), and ignores critical issues such as the presumption of neutrality, privileging of whiteness, and imbalance of power relations that support social inequalities (Butin, 2003, 2007). In this paper, we share a model of CSL that responds to these criticisms--critical CSL. We use the term critical CSL to invoke an association with the critical theories that have informed both a justice-oriented perspective and the development of critical pedagogy. Critical CSL can be understood as an approach that embraces the explicit aim of social justice. As Mitchell (2008) explained, the goal of critical CSL is to deconstruct systems of power so the need for service and the inequalities that create and sustain them are dismantled (p. 50). Thus, critical CSL is potentially effective when paired with a critical pedagogical approach. However, few authors have shared detailed accounts of how critical CSL might function and how critical pedagogy might work with critical CSL to support students' learning. The critical CSL that we explore in this paper was used in a graduate seminar taught by Donna Chovanec, one of the paper's authors. In 2009, with support from the University of Alberta Community Service-Learning Program and approval from the University Research Ethics Board, the instructor initiated a qualitative research study, asking the question: How might a critical/radical CSL pedagogy inform a critique of conventional service-learning in post-secondary contexts? The research team (1) reviewed CSL literature and collected the following data: three written homework assignments completed by students as part of the course; a short online survey adapted with permission from J. Westheimer; and individual, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 21 students who had completed the course six months to two years prior. In addition, the instructor and one student completed written anecdotes on specific aspects of the course experience. Phenomenological analysis of the data revealed that the course/critical CSL experience facilitated students' willingness to go deeper into social issues by analyzing root causes and enabled many students to develop an awareness of systemic inequality, power inequalities, the beliefs and practices that support domination, and their own positionality in the social system (Chovanec, Kajner, Mian, & Underwood, 2012). These research findings prompted the research team to interrogate the pedagogical dimensions of the course that combined critical classroom pedagogy with activist community placements. Focusing this paper on the course pedagogy, we draw from critical pedagogy theory, research study data, and instructor and student anecdotes to explore the pedagogical dimensions of our experience with critical CSL. Four dimensions are included: course/placement integration, critical pedagogy in practice, the intricacies of recruiting and supporting activist placements, and ethical considerations. While critical CSL requires careful design and consideration of the risks involved, we conclude that it can be an effective approach for critical educators. Course/Placement Integration Effective CSL engages the community as partners in student education and tightly integrates the academic part of the course and the community placement (Bowman, Brandenberger, Mick, & Toms Smedley, 2010; Bringle, Hatcher, & Games, 1997). …

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it