工程服务学习/社区参与中的互惠性系统文献综述

IF 3.9 2区 工程技术 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Engineering Education Pub Date : 2023-10-18 DOI:10.1002/jee.20561
David A. Delaine, Sarah Redick, Dhinesh Radhakrishnan, Amena Shermadou, Mandy McCormick Smith, Rohit Kandakatla, Linjue Wang, Claudio Freitas, Casey L. Dalton, Lina Dee Dostilio, Jennifer DeBoer
{"title":"工程服务学习/社区参与中的互惠性系统文献综述","authors":"David A. Delaine,&nbsp;Sarah Redick,&nbsp;Dhinesh Radhakrishnan,&nbsp;Amena Shermadou,&nbsp;Mandy McCormick Smith,&nbsp;Rohit Kandakatla,&nbsp;Linjue Wang,&nbsp;Claudio Freitas,&nbsp;Casey L. Dalton,&nbsp;Lina Dee Dostilio,&nbsp;Jennifer DeBoer","doi":"10.1002/jee.20561","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Scholars agree that reciprocity is a cornerstone of service-learning and community engagement (SLCE); however, engagement with this concept varies widely in practice and across disciplines. To enhance the potential of SLCE to fulfill its promise for societal impact, engineering education must understand how reciprocity is achieved, recognize barriers that inhibit its progress, and identify strategies for how it can be strengthened.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>We performed this review to understand the ways reciprocity is articulated in the engineering SLCE literature. Drawing from these articulations, we examined the extent of engagement with reciprocity toward providing insights into the design and assessment of SLCE efforts for reciprocity.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Scope/Method</h3>\n \n <p>We performed a systematic literature review on engineering SLCE at institutes of higher education. Following an established approach to identify and synthesize articles, we developed deductive codes by distilling three well-articulated orientations of reciprocity. We then analyzed the operationalization of reciprocity in the literature.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The literature demonstrated varying degrees of reciprocity. Minimally reciprocal efforts centered university stakeholders. In contrast, highly reciprocal partnerships explicitly addressed the nature of engagement with communities. Findings provide insights into the breadth of practice within reciprocity present in engineering SLCE. Further, analysis suggests that our codes and levels of reciprocity can function as a framework that supports the design and evaluation of reciprocity in SLCE efforts.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Our review suggests that to enact more equitable SLCE, researchers and practitioners must intentionally conceptualize reciprocity, translate it into practice, and make visible the ways in which reciprocity is enacted within their SLCE efforts.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20561","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic literature review of reciprocity in engineering service-learning/community engagement\",\"authors\":\"David A. Delaine,&nbsp;Sarah Redick,&nbsp;Dhinesh Radhakrishnan,&nbsp;Amena Shermadou,&nbsp;Mandy McCormick Smith,&nbsp;Rohit Kandakatla,&nbsp;Linjue Wang,&nbsp;Claudio Freitas,&nbsp;Casey L. Dalton,&nbsp;Lina Dee Dostilio,&nbsp;Jennifer DeBoer\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jee.20561\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Scholars agree that reciprocity is a cornerstone of service-learning and community engagement (SLCE); however, engagement with this concept varies widely in practice and across disciplines. To enhance the potential of SLCE to fulfill its promise for societal impact, engineering education must understand how reciprocity is achieved, recognize barriers that inhibit its progress, and identify strategies for how it can be strengthened.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>We performed this review to understand the ways reciprocity is articulated in the engineering SLCE literature. Drawing from these articulations, we examined the extent of engagement with reciprocity toward providing insights into the design and assessment of SLCE efforts for reciprocity.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Scope/Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>We performed a systematic literature review on engineering SLCE at institutes of higher education. Following an established approach to identify and synthesize articles, we developed deductive codes by distilling three well-articulated orientations of reciprocity. We then analyzed the operationalization of reciprocity in the literature.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The literature demonstrated varying degrees of reciprocity. Minimally reciprocal efforts centered university stakeholders. In contrast, highly reciprocal partnerships explicitly addressed the nature of engagement with communities. Findings provide insights into the breadth of practice within reciprocity present in engineering SLCE. Further, analysis suggests that our codes and levels of reciprocity can function as a framework that supports the design and evaluation of reciprocity in SLCE efforts.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Our review suggests that to enact more equitable SLCE, researchers and practitioners must intentionally conceptualize reciprocity, translate it into practice, and make visible the ways in which reciprocity is enacted within their SLCE efforts.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Engineering Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20561\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Engineering Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jee.20561\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Engineering Education","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jee.20561","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 学者们一致认为互惠是服务学习和社区参与(SLCE)的基石;然而,在实践中和在不同学科中,对这一概念的理解却大相径庭。为了提高 SLCE 的潜力,实现其对社会影响的承诺,工程教育必须了解互惠是如何实现的,认识到阻碍其发展的障碍,并确定如何加强互惠的策略。 目的 我们撰写了这篇综述,以了解工程学 SLCE 文献中阐述互惠的方式。根据这些阐述,我们研究了互惠的参与程度,以便为设计和评估互惠的 SLCE 工作提供见解。 范围/方法 我们对高等教育机构的工程学 SLCE 进行了系统的文献综述。按照既定的方法来识别和综合文章,我们通过提炼三种明确的互惠取向来编制演绎代码。然后,我们分析了文献中互惠的可操作性。 结果 文献显示了不同程度的互惠。最低程度的互惠以大学利益相关者为中心。与此相反,高度互惠的合作伙伴关系明确涉及与社区互动的性质。研究结果为工程学 SLCE 中互惠实践的广度提供了启示。此外,分析表明,我们的互惠代码和水平可以作为一个框架,支持设计和评估 SLCE 工作中的互惠。 结论 我们的综述表明,要实施更加公平的 SLCE,研究人员和从业人员必须有意识地将互惠概念化,将其转化为实践,并使互惠在其 SLCE 工作中的实施方式清晰可见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A systematic literature review of reciprocity in engineering service-learning/community engagement

Background

Scholars agree that reciprocity is a cornerstone of service-learning and community engagement (SLCE); however, engagement with this concept varies widely in practice and across disciplines. To enhance the potential of SLCE to fulfill its promise for societal impact, engineering education must understand how reciprocity is achieved, recognize barriers that inhibit its progress, and identify strategies for how it can be strengthened.

Purpose

We performed this review to understand the ways reciprocity is articulated in the engineering SLCE literature. Drawing from these articulations, we examined the extent of engagement with reciprocity toward providing insights into the design and assessment of SLCE efforts for reciprocity.

Scope/Method

We performed a systematic literature review on engineering SLCE at institutes of higher education. Following an established approach to identify and synthesize articles, we developed deductive codes by distilling three well-articulated orientations of reciprocity. We then analyzed the operationalization of reciprocity in the literature.

Results

The literature demonstrated varying degrees of reciprocity. Minimally reciprocal efforts centered university stakeholders. In contrast, highly reciprocal partnerships explicitly addressed the nature of engagement with communities. Findings provide insights into the breadth of practice within reciprocity present in engineering SLCE. Further, analysis suggests that our codes and levels of reciprocity can function as a framework that supports the design and evaluation of reciprocity in SLCE efforts.

Conclusions

Our review suggests that to enact more equitable SLCE, researchers and practitioners must intentionally conceptualize reciprocity, translate it into practice, and make visible the ways in which reciprocity is enacted within their SLCE efforts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Engineering Education
Journal of Engineering Education 工程技术-工程:综合
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
47
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) serves to cultivate, disseminate, and archive scholarly research in engineering education.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The Undergraduate Engineering Mental Health Help-Seeking Instrument (UE-MH-HSI): Development and validity evidence How can I help move my manuscript smoothly through the review process? Reasons and root causes: Conventional characterizations of doctoral engineering attrition obscure underlying structural issues Special issue on systematic reviews and meta-analyses in engineering education: Highlights and future research directions
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1