MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W110454950

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

2013· article· en· W110454950 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tania Kajner, Donna M. Chovanec, Misty Underwood, Ayesha Mian

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0040.014
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Abraham Lincoln AssociationSame topicService-Learning and Community EngagementFrench-language works237,207