Ethical challenges encountered on learning/volunteer abroad programmes for students in international development studies in Canada: youth perspectives and educator insights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning/volunteer abroad programmes are increasingly popular in international development studies (IDS), and educators recognise the importance of quality preparation and debriefing sessions for students travelling to the Global South. In this paper, we examine the findings of a 2007–2011 Canada-wide study by Tiessen and Heron of student participants in learning/volunteer programmes, and the relational and ethical issues the youth encountered abroad. Building on materials and methods employed by IDS faculty and programme facilitators that appear most effective in helping students reflect on and analyse their experiences, we conclude with some suggestions for improving the ethics dimension of international experiential learning programmes. Résumé Les programmes de stages internationaux sont de plus en plus populaires dans les études du développement international, et les enseignants reconnaissent l'importance des séances de préparation pré-départ et de bilan-retour pour les étudiants qui participent à de tels stages en pays en voie de développement. Dans cet article, nous examinons les données d'une enquête canadienne menée par Tiessen et Heron auprès de participants à ces programmes durant la période de 2007 à 2011 pour cerner les problèmes relationnels et éthiques qu'ils ont rencontrés durant leur stage. En nous appuyant sur le matériel et les méthodes utilisés par les enseignants et les animateurs pour faire réfléchir les étudiants sur leur expérience, nous proposons des mesures pour améliorer la dimension éthique de ces programmes d'apprentissage pratique.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".