Student perceptions on learning from participating in low-cost service-learning course assignments
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
There exist many descriptions of how service-learning benefits higher learning. However, these usually involve large-scale and well-funded projects that are not easily exported. We conducted a secondary analysis of student reflection papers to better understand what was learned from participating in low-cost service-learning projects. Through collaborations with community-based organizations, student learning goals were to enhance aptitudes for research literacy, self-organizing, and teamwork. We also examined factors that encouraged and hindered student learning. Projects were embedded in bachelor of social work courses on community development. Student narratives described: growth and professional development, enhanced awareness of community issues, the importance of community partner engagement, and processes that encouraged teamwork and learning. Some students partnered with previous workplaces; this impacted group dynamics. Narratives highlight students’ conscientious effort to facilitate peer learning. Implications for teaching, educational policy, and the place of service-learning within professional programs, are contemplated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it