The Impact of Experiential Learning on Professional Identity: Comparing Community Service-Learning to Traditional Practica Pedagogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community service-learning (CSL) has been referred to as a “pedagogy for citizenship,” as it enhances ethical behavior and social responsibility among student participants. It represents a pedagogical and philosophical approach that promotes experiential learning by incorporating intentional course-based lessons with service in the community. Despite the numerous studies outlining the benefits of CSL initiatives, there is a dearth of research on how CSL courses can impact students already in the “helping professions.” More specifically, there is very little research on the benefits of CSL in social work field education courses. For this study, the researchers found that developing a CSL practicum led to a substantive shift in professional understanding for the students who participated in a CSL learning opportunity. Although the traditional and CSL groups began their practicum experiences believing the primary role of a social worker was to build and maintain healthy relationships with service users, the CSL group saw their primary role switch from a “micro practice” to a “macro practice” worker. CSL offers social work education additional unique opportunities to support the development of student's social work core values, knowledge, and skills.
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 | 0.008 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".