The Goals and Outcomes of Adult Leaders of Humanitarian Trips with High School Students: \nWhat Motivates Them to Keep Organizing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract \nThis qualitative study was designed to understand the goals and motivations of High School Humanitarian Trip leaders. Three trip animators from three high schools from one school board in the Montreal area were interviewed and my own experience was added to the interview results. The three main areas investigated were: 1) The impact animators feel they have on participants, their schools and communities, as well as the communities they visit. 2) Their knowledge, understanding and management of the critiques leveled against this type of travel. 3) How these factors work to motivate the continuation of trips in a positive way. \nOrganizing the endeavour is hard work, traveling with groups of adolescents is an enormous responsibility. So while each of the trip leaders had some great adventures, they would not continue with the projects if they did not perceive there to be a positive educational value derived through the relationships and connections that develop in this inter-cultural exchange. The trip leaders reflect in particular on the themes of learning and unlearning, on host communities and work projects and on gender issues. Acknowledging that there is no perfect way of generating communication and learning between cultures, trip leaders aim to move forward, using their experience to ensure that encounters occur with mutual openness and respect. This project aims to add the reflection of high school trip leaders to the general literature on internationalisation, globalisation and student exchanges that usually concentrate on the experiences of university and postsecondary students. It is also suggested that a more appropriate designation than Humanitarian Trips should be applied to these trips. \n Key words: Humanitarian trips, high school students, motivation and goals of trip leaders, learning and unlearning outcomes for students, impact on host communities, centrality of work projects, gender
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".