Evaluating differences in community-engaged learning and service-learning via the context, input, process, and product model

IF 1.9 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Jonathan J. Nguyen, Danielle L. Jessen Condry
{"title":"Evaluating differences in community-engaged learning and service-learning via the context, input, process, and product model","authors":"Jonathan J. Nguyen, Danielle L. Jessen Condry","doi":"10.3389/feduc.2023.1289322","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Service-learning (SL) and community-engaged learning (CEL) are high-impact practices whose ideological foundations are built upon ideas pioneered by philosophers such as John Dewey and William James. Given that one methodology (CEL) directly branched from the other (SL), these practices are expected to have fundamental underpinnings that differentially influence how projects within these practices are carried out. Stufflebeam and Shinkfield’s Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model for evaluation was applied to assess these two high-impact practices. This narrative review has two goals: (1) discuss the usage of the CIPP model to evaluate established SL and CEL projects, and (2) assess any differences in evaluation garnered from CIPP model usage that may have stemmed from nuances in SL and CEL ideology. Literature covering either practice had shown, in some cases, to be inconsistent with how the implementation and guiding principles of such projects matched the terminology used by project organizers. This discrepancy has implications for how these projects are carried out and evaluated in the future.","PeriodicalId":52290,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Education","volume":"12 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1289322","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Service-learning (SL) and community-engaged learning (CEL) are high-impact practices whose ideological foundations are built upon ideas pioneered by philosophers such as John Dewey and William James. Given that one methodology (CEL) directly branched from the other (SL), these practices are expected to have fundamental underpinnings that differentially influence how projects within these practices are carried out. Stufflebeam and Shinkfield’s Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model for evaluation was applied to assess these two high-impact practices. This narrative review has two goals: (1) discuss the usage of the CIPP model to evaluate established SL and CEL projects, and (2) assess any differences in evaluation garnered from CIPP model usage that may have stemmed from nuances in SL and CEL ideology. Literature covering either practice had shown, in some cases, to be inconsistent with how the implementation and guiding principles of such projects matched the terminology used by project organizers. This discrepancy has implications for how these projects are carried out and evaluated in the future.
通过情境、投入、过程和产品模式评估社区参与式学习和服务学习的差异
服务学习(Service-learning,SL)和社区参与式学习(Community-engaged learning,CEL)是具有高度影响力的实践活动,其思想基础建立在约翰-杜威(John Dewey)和威廉-詹姆斯(William James)等哲学家开创的思想之上。鉴于一种方法(社区参与式学习)直接源自另一种方法(社区参与式学习),预计这两种实践方法的根本基础会对这些实践方法中的项目实施方式产生不同的影响。Stufflebeam 和 Shinkfield 的 "背景、输入、过程和产品"(CIPP)评估模型被用于评估这两种影响力大的实践。本叙述性综述有两个目标(1) 讨论如何使用 CIPP 模型来评估已确立的 SL 和 CEL 项目,以及 (2) 评估使用 CIPP 模型所获得的评估结果中的任何差异,这些差异可能源于 SL 和 CEL 意识形态的细微差别。有关这两种做法的文献表明,在某些情况下,这些项目的实施和指导原则与项目组织者使用的术语不一致。这种不一致对今后如何开展和评估这些项目产生了影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Education
Frontiers in Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
8.70%
发文量
887
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信