Our Gains, Pains and Hopes: Community Partners’ Perspectives of Service-Learning in an Undergraduate Business Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In assessing the impact of service-learning, most studies focus on its effects on students’ learning than community partners and the communities served; leaving largely unanswered, the question of whether service-learning in business education still contributes value to community organizations and the wider society. This study investigates the impact of service-learning on communities through the perspectives of community partners from nonprofit and for-profit organizations in Canadian urban communities. Using semi-structured interviews and qualitative analysis, the authors collected and analyzed data from 30 participants to confirm their perspectives of service-learning in an undergraduate business education. The study found that service-learning offered practical benefits to communities and presented challenges that impacted partners’ experiences of service-learning. The penultimate sections of the paper provide recommendations for the improvement of the pedagogical practices of service-learning and advancement of community organizations. Key recommendations to maximize benefits for community partners include more faculty-community partners’ collaboration and creating networking opportunities for community partners.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".