Engaging Community Organizations in the Design, Implementation, and Assessment of The University of Alberta Residence Services' Alternative Reading Week Community Service-Learning Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explores the role community organizations can have in the design, implementation, and assessment of the University of Alberta’s Alternative Reading Week community service-learning program to align the program with a more justice-based approach to service-learning. Specifically, this research aims to identify potential strategies that staff of University of Alberta Residence Services can utilize to highlight community organization voice in all stages of the program. The research question was “What are community organization’s perspectives on how the University of Alberta Residence Services staff can best engage them in the design, implementation, and assessment of the Alternative Reading Week program?” It was explored by surveying and interviewing five representatives from community organizations who have hosted service placements and educational workshops during Alternative Reading Week programming within the past three years (November 2019 - November 2021). A secondary data analysis of program learning outcomes, schedules, and assessment questions was also conducted. Research findings identified key areas where community organizations could be more involved in the design of the Alternative Reading Week program, including early discussions on organizational and institutional learning outcomes, preparing student participants for community organizational involvement, and communication during the planning phase of the program. Findings also highlighted that community organizations perceived their engagement with Alternative Reading Week primarily in the implementation phase of the program and as being the primary facilitators of this portion of the program. Further, organization representatives interviewed suggested an openness for community organizations to be more involved in the assessment of the Alternative Reading Week program through debriefing or contributing to program assessment questions. Particularly, how the individual context of each institutional-community partnership can influence what the engagement of a community organization in Alternative Reading Week entails. Recommendations are included on how Residence Services staff could best engage community organizations in future service-learning programs, highlighting a need for engagement to be facilitated on a case by case basis that was sensitive to each community organization’s needs, objectives, and relationship to the institution. Finally, although the research findings identify potential areas as to where community organizations could be more engaged in the Alternative Reading Week program, the specific strategies and methods of engaging community organizations requires additional research.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".