A comparison of the experiences and vocational benefits of service-learning and community service volunteering in a community-based exercise program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Service-learning (SL) is a form of pedagogy which integrates community service into class curriculums. Literature has highlighted the benefits of service-learning within a variety of student outcomes, including personal development, academic learning, interpersonal outcomes and outcomes related to the university experience. However, there is debate as to whether community service may provide a better foundation for these outcomes. Therefore, it is pertinent to compare outcomes of service-learning and community service volunteering in order to better understand and implement theory and implications for practice. This study compares the experiential and vocational outcomes of service-learners and community service volunteers (CS) involved in a community-based exercise program. Participants (SL; n = 22, CS; n =24) were alumni recruited from the XXXX database within the XXXX School of Kinesiology and Health Studies. Online surveys were used to collect data examining outcomes related to Self-Determination Theory constructs for assessment of service experience and career transitions. Analyses of covariance revealed statistically significant higher scores for SL regarding outcomes of autonomy perceptions in their service role and perceived influence of relatedness in guiding career pursuits. SL provides experiential and vocational benefits that may exceed community service volunteering, specifically in regard to fostering career relatedness and autonomy supportive program structures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".