Facilitating service-learning through competencies associated with relational pedagogy: a personal reflection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Service-learning is identified as a high-impact teaching practice as it aids the development of business knowledge, human skills and civic responsibility amongst students. In spite of the benefits of service-learning, there are few studies that indicate the relational competencies of faculty members used to facilitate service-learning. This study shows how four relational competencies associated with relational pedagogy: care, interpersonal communication, an attentive presence and trust, facilitated service-learning amongst undergraduate students. Data for this study were drawn from personal reflections of teacher-student interactions during a service-learning course in change management. Findings show that although the demonstration of relational competencies associated with relational pedagogy created a conducive learning space that enabled students to gain practical knowledge, not all students in the study welcomed this approach. Based on the findings of this study, this article provides suggestions to educators in higher education engaged in service-learning and directions for further research.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it