MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W257338704

Service-Learning "Rules" that Encourage or Discourage Long-Term Service: Implications for Practice and Research.

2000· article· en· W257338704 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carol M. Werner, Natasha McVaugh

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService-learningService (business)Quarter (Canadian coin)Public relationsPsychologySense of communityCommunity serviceMedical educationPedagogySociologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyBusinessMedicineMarketingHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Six students spent a quarter as service-learners in a community They participated 3 hours each week, presenting lessons, interacting with the children, and working beside them in the garden. They were prompt and reliable, engaged, and seemed genuinely committed to helping the children. To facilitate the learning component, they read and discussed scholarly and popular articles about children's gardens. To assure them that their service was meaningful, the articles underscored the importance of nature for children's development and psychological well-being. An outsider looking at these students would think they were all intrinsically motivated and all likely to continue even once the course requirement had been fulfilled. And yet, as much as they enjoyed it and as highly as they rated it as a life experience, in the two years since that quarter, only three of these students ever returned to the garden or volunteered for any other kinds of service activities. Why did some continue and others drop out of this kind of community participation? Two of the most important issues facing educators and community organizations are: how do we motivate young people to be involved in community activities, and how do we develop a long-term commitment once they are involved? For many, the first impulse is to require community service. There are increased calls for mandatory service as a way to recapture Americans' sense of community (see Markus, Howard & King, 1993, for overview). At the University of Utah, more and more faculty now require service in their classes. Many of them hope to change how we educate, but also hope to foster a lifelong commitment to service amongst their students. The description above illustrates an experience common to service-learning educators: many students appear to enjoy and benefit from a service activity, realize the contribution they're making, and seem enthusiastic at the time--but then never volunteer again. How do we account for this apparent discrepancy between these students' expressed satisfaction and enjoyment, and their lack of further service participation? Why is it that some continue but others do not? This article takes a social psychological perspective on how the of a service project might relate to long-term commitment to service. By structure we mean the complex of rules, guidelines, and instructions that influence whether a student undertakes service (e.g., voluntary, required, or punitive), that influence how students locate service opportunities, and that guide students' day to day service activities. The heart of our argument is that faculty and agencies may unwittingly undermine students' long-term interest in service: faculty in the way they assign service opportunities, and leaders at the service setting in how they manage the project. We are very interested in suggesting ways of avoiding such undermining effects. For ethical reasons, we are less interested in strategies for persuading, or otherwise manipulating, students to be more favorable toward service in the absence of undermining structures. Our arguments are based on social psychological research as well as numerous experiences with service-learning (CW has taught service-learning classes for over 10 years; NM has been a service-learning student leader for several years and has supervised service-learning students at a local children's garden for two years). We did not conduct systematic interviews, but did talk to many service-learning students in our class and in others'. We view this article as a way to stimulate research on these issues, rather than as a final statement. Some key findings with implications for increasing long-term interest can be distilled from the psychological literature on choice and control and from the environmental psychology literature on behavior change. First, in general, people prefer autonomy, choice, and control over their goals and over their strategies for achieving those goals; external rewards, whether positive or negative, must be used carefully lest they undermine students' natural interests (some ways of using rewards will be suggested below). …

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)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.142
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.142
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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