Contemplative Pedagogy: Fostering Transformative Learning in a Critical Service Learning Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Research demonstrating the positive outcomes of service learning among university students is robust and some describe the impact as transformative. Purpose: To help me better understand how I can support transformative learning in my classroom, this study explored how an intergenerational critical service learning project fostered change among student participants. Methodology/Approach: Data consisted of reflection journals collected over 6 years from 228 students who participated in a course-based intergenerational service learning project and researcher field notes. Using a qualitative design and narrative methodology analysis took place over a 2-year period and consisted of a 3-stage process: deep reading, identifying stories, and re-storying to generate findings. Findings/Conclusions: Three mechanisms were found to foster transformation among students—writing as inquiry, embodied learning, and mindfulness. The two-pronged contemplative approach used in this course informs the way in which students experience the critical service learning project. Together, they provide a deep and transformative learning opportunity. Implications: Insights into course design and pedagogical approaches that support transformative learning.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".