Teachers as Students in the (Literal) Field: A Service-learning Internship within a Developing Nation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides an account of a recent research study that investigated an international field experience—labelled as a service-learning internship—for in-service teachers. Relying upon what we know to be the advantages and benefits of similar international field experiences for pre-service teachers to frame our investigation, we explored the impact upon in-service teachers, particularly as they relate to both professional and personal growth. Analysis of questionnaire responses revealed several prominent themes. Stories and accounts of professional growth were related to: 1) creating an engaging and safe learning environment, 2) (over)planning for the unexpected, and 3) teaching with (and in front of) others. Stories and accounts of personal growth were related to: 1) letting go of control, 2) facing fears and confronting anxieties outside of one’s comfort zone, and 3) recognizing privilege and the excess of possessions. Results from this study might be of interest to those who similarly share an interest in international field experiences, service-learning, in-service teacher education, and international or global education.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".