Indigenous Methods and Pedagogy: Revisiting Ethics in Community Service-Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper looks at the development of a teaching module intended to enhance students’ understanding of ethics in a community service-learning (CSL) class. This module, created to meet academic (western) learning outcomes for CSL, is based upon Indigenous pedagogy and methods, and offers a non-western framing of specific community service goals, particularly reciprocity and transformative dissonance. The paper proposes that moving toward Indigenous or other ways of knowing offers students and instructors an entry point into decolonizing practices and into alternate ways of experiencing service, transformative learning, and power dynamics. The paper also includes a discussion of the theory behind the teaching module and focuses on the intertwining of ethical research protocols (from Tri-Council policy, OCAP® principles, and elsewhere), service-learning goals, and Indigenous methods within the context of settler colonial practices and policies. Alongside other traditional service-learning outcomes, the primary goal of the module is to encourage students to become critical thinkers reflecting on the mechanics of power and social inequity as they experience social justice founded upon the ideals of relationship building.
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 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 | 0.952 | 0.761 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.748 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.863 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".