Our Gains, Pains and Hopes: Community Partners’ Perspectives of Service-Learning in an Undergraduate Business Education
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
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.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it