Undergraduate Students’ Experiences of a Community-Engaged Learning Course: A Mixed-Methods Study
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
Background Undergraduate student engagement increases the quality of education. Community-engaged learning (CEL) courses are one way to promote engagement and involve students collaborating with community partners to achieve a common goal by applying course knowledge to real-world issues. Purpose This study evaluated: (a) the relationship between CEL-related student learning outcomes (SLOs) and attitudes toward CEL courses before taking one; (b) CEL-related SLOs among undergraduate students before versus after taking a CEL course; and (c) the lived experiences of students who participated in their first CEL course. Methodology Pre- and post-course surveys and focus group data were collected. Survey data were analyzed via correlations and dependent groups t -tests, while inductive content analysis was employed to analyze focus group data. Findings Findings revealed a significant correlation between students’ opinions toward the benefits of taking a CEL course and their CEL-related SLOs and a statistically significant positive difference between student growth and achievement before compared to after completing a CEL course ( t = 2.6778, p = .0123). Students also expressed the benefits of taking CEL courses, including community impacts, conduciveness to learning preferences, and skill development. Implications CEL courses are a means to improve students’ motivation, achievement, and skill acquisition for future career preparedness.
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 | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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