Student learning through service learning: Effects on academic development, civic responsibility, interpersonal skills and practical skills
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although anecdotal evidence and research alike espouse the benefits of service learning, some researchers have suggested that more rigorous testing is required in order to determine its true effect on students. This is particularly true in the case of academic development, which has been inconsistently linked to service learning. It has been proposed that this discrepancy is due to three complications: grades not reflecting higher order thinking skills, self-selection bias, and different grading methods. The study described in this article attempted to circumvent these complications using a test–retest methodology and measuring academic development in three ways: course grades, an assignment that directly tested course-specific comprehension, and self-reported improvement. In addition, improvements in civic responsibility, interpersonal skills, and practical skills were measured via self-report. Although students who participated in service learning self-reported greater improvement in civic responsibility, interpersonal skills, and academic development, they only demonstrated more academic development in terms of concrete course concepts, showing no differences in final examination marks or generation of detailed examples. These findings suggest that academic improvement through service learning may not be adequately assessed by typical methods used to evaluate academic development at universities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it