Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article includes theoretical and empirical evidence suggesting that Service-Learning (SL) experiences are conducive for the development of two critical dimensions of positive leaders; emotional intelligence and ethical leadership. SL promotes leadership development experiences by providing ‘crucible’ learning moments to students, thereby supporting arguments for the adoption of SL androgogy in Management Education. The impact of multiple SL experiences is also examined, with research results confirming a continuum of SL influence whereby the greater the exposure to SL by undergraduate students the greater the leadership development. BACKGROUND The pressure on educational institutions to demonstrate the effectiveness of their teaching methodologies in the development of socially aware leaders has heightened due environmental management failures and the perceived lack of ethical business practices by business graduates (Waldman & Siegel, 2008). Business schools and their graduates have become targets for criticism as the ethical lapses of senior executives to major scandals and the economic meltdown. Reflection is required by education leaders regarding management education and the integration and pedagogy of ethical reasoning and comprehension (Cavico & Mujtabd, 2009). Academics such as Weick (2008) are asking the fundamental question “How can the concepts, tools, and techniques we teach be used to invent a better future?” (p. 96). While there is no blanket solution to educational challenges, the practice of ServiceLearning (SL) (Godfrey & Grasso, 2000, Kenworthy-Uren, 2008)) has gained credibility, and provides a viable teaching tool in for not only enhanced cognitive abilities but also the development of citizenship behaviors. In this paper a summary of SL is provided leading into an overview of current research based on the relationships between SL and leadership development, followed by the illustration of SL practices within the context of a Leadership Development course at Mount Royal University in Canada. The impact of the SL experience upon the self-perception of the students exposed to SL pedagogy is empirically tested. The development of the students leadership attributes are evaluated as a consequence of SL experiences by examining the self-assessment of such students regarding their emotional intelligence and ethical leadership. The limitations for this small study are then reviewed, and implications for educators discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".