Deeper Learning through Service: Evaluation of an Interprofessional Community Service-Learning Program for Pharmacy and Medicine Students
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
Abstract Background This Community Service-Learning Project (CSLP) at the University of Saskatchewan is designed to help students develop patient-centred care practices in urban underserved settings. First-year medical and pharmacy students partner interprofessionally to both learn and serve, working with community-based organizations (CBOs) that primarily serve either low-income or newcomer residents of Saskatoon. Since the CSLP’s pilot year in 2005-2006, 98 first-year medical and pharmacy students have participated in the CSLP. Methods and Findings We evaluated the outcomes and processes of the CSLP since the 2006-2007 year, using mixed methods: end-of-project questionnaires; document analysis looking for key and recurrent themes; end-of-project semi-structured interviews with CBO coordinators and clients. We examined students’ experiences, including satisfaction, achievement of learning objectives, learning processes, and perceived outcomes. Students’ main learning outcomes related to client-centered approach, interprofessional attitudes and skills, and personal development. Various learnings related to program processes are reported. Conclusions Our evaluation reinforced findings from the literature on both interprofessional education and community service-learning, as well uncovering some new findings. Students described a transformative learning experience that helped them begin to develop understanding and skills to work more effectively with clients in urban underserved settings.
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 | 0.055 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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