Critical Pedagogy of Discomfort in Community-Based Learning: Kenyan Students' Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community-based learning (CBL) is employed as a pedagogical approach in professional programs globally; however, transferability of Eurocentric CBL models and theory to university settings outside the global north is under-examined. Adopting critical hermeneutics as the theoretical and methodological framework, this study explored the meaning of community-based learning (CBL) to Kenyan university students in a human services program and examined the complexity of students’ difficult learning experiences in making connections between classroom learning and praxis in Kenyan communities. Data were collected from six university students following 12-week placements with community organizations in Kenya. Findings revealed disciplinary, historical, cultural and extra-linguistic factors related to students’ difficult and uncomfortable learning experiences as human service professionals in training. Recognizing critical civic engagement in Kenya is closely associated with social and cultural contexts, this article recommends the pedagogy of discomfort be integrated into CBL curriculum and praxis to mitigate negative reactions to challenging CBL experiences. The article concludes with implications for enhancing critical CBL literacy and praxis.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".