Disorientation in Community Service-Learning: A Phenomenological Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community service-learning (CSL) is commonly featured in health promotion curriculum. Lauded for its pedagogical richness and transformative potential, CSL is also pedagogically messy and often experienced as a struggle. And yet, the content, contexts and conditions of that which students find disorienting in CSL have garnered little attention in the literature. In this qualitative, phenomenological study, we explore the “disorienting dilemma” as an understated concept in CSL. Our aim is to better understand the disorienting dilemma to “make CSL a smoother experience for everyone.” We draw upon reflections from 39 students enrolled in a full-year undergraduate health promotion CSL course. Using directed content analysis, we read and coded 390 reflections. In mapping the codes ( n = 2104), we found them to cluster around three domains: (i) aspects of the CSL learning experience that were most disorienting, (ii) course aspects that enabled students to navigate their disorientation, and (iii) how students relate their learning to the disorientation. Students often shared their emotional experience of CSL as a pedagogy, and that they struggled with the process of real program planning, and uncertainty with how they related to the community. Often, it was the practical, social, and relational content that students struggled with that morphed into support for students to navigate their disorientation. We found students to relate their disorientation to new self-learning, a changed and more collectivist criteria of success, and an altered sense of self in relation to community. We discuss theoretical and pedagogical implications of the disorienting dilemma.
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 | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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 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".