Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reflection has been identified as a key component of service-learning. To add to the body of knowledge on pedagogical reflective practices, this paper examines how reflection was incorporated in an international service-learning project with Global Brigades in rural Honduras through the lens of three students from Atlantic Canada, one of whom engaged in the project through an optional course and two of whom had a co-curricular experience. The reflections incorporated throughout the project differed by group size, organization, structure, timing, setting, and tone. At a high level, combining different methods of reflection and understanding of gray areas in morality and engineering were explored. Recommendations for reflection in service-learning education are offered in preparing for the experience, during the international project, and after the experience to integrate learning with course content. This article utilizes a retrospective lens to examine the ways in which reflection was incorporated in a curricular and co-curricular international service-learning experience and offers insights from three students who participated in the project.
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 | 0.018 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".