Does work integrated learning better psychologically prepare British students for life and work.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Work integrated learning (WIL) provides a plausible mechanism to develop the skills knowledge, competence, and experience (Bates, 2008; Boud & Falichikov, 2006; Collin & Tynjala, 2003; Crebert et al., 2004; Rhodes & Shiel, 2007), which increase employability and lead to more satisfying careers (Bates, 2008) in a competitive labour market (CBI/UUK, 2009). The occupational and academic impact of work integrated learning including better careers, salaries and degree outcomes are beginning to be established (Powell et al., 2008). In addition a range of personal skills and professional competencies have been cited as outcomes of work integrated learning, such as improved decision making, interpersonal and self management skills (Costley, 2007; Crebert et al., 2004), the application of theoretical knowledge in workplace environments, professional networking, professional behaviour, and leadership (Costley, 2007; Dreuth & Deuth-Fewell, 2002; Lizzio & Wilson, 2004; Rickard, 2002). \n \nHowever, the psychological outcomes of work integrated learning are not yet fully established or understood and have been contested by some (Allen & van der Velden, 2007). The impact of work integrated learning on traits such as hope, self efficacy and self concept have yet to be researched. \n \nAims and Objectives \nIn this emerging area of research interest, the aim of this study is an examination of the relationship between work integrated learning and the psychological variables believed to play an important role for graduate success in the subsequent transition to the labour market. \n \nThe objectives of this project are to determine if there are significant psychological outcome differences in self-concept, self-efficacy, hope, procrastination, and study skills/work ethic between students who pursue WIL and students who pursue a more traditional degree programme. \n \nMethodology \n \nUsing a cross sectional analysis of a large sample of undergraduate students at the University of Huddersfield. Undergraduates in all years of study, pursuing both traditional and WIL degrees, from all schools, will be invited to participate in the study. Demographic information including information regarding educational attainment, work related activity and subject area will be collected. In addition the following measures will be used: \n \n•\tTrait Hope Scale (THS: Snyder et al., 1991), which measures hopes and goals. \n•\tProcrastination Assessment Scale – Students (PASS: Solomon & Rothblum, 1984), which measures procrastination, the postponement of goals and tasks. \n•\tSelf-Description Questionnaire III (SDQ-III: Marsh & O’Neill, 1984), which measures self-concept. \n•\tCollege Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (CASES: Owen & Froman, 1988), which measures the degree of confidence participants believe they have in various academic settings. \n•\tMotivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ: Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993), which measures study skills and motivation. \n \nAlthough the results unique to Huddersfield students will be presented in this session, the project itself is part of a much larger international comparative research study, designed and led by Drysdale et al. at the University of Waterloo (Canada) examining psychological outcomes on a global level. Other partners include University West (Sweden), University of Central Florida (USA), and Liverpool John Moores University (UK). Logistics of being involved in a large international project will be discussed. \n \nConclusions \nAs this study is a work-in-progress, results and conclusions will be available and submitted as part of the full paper in August.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».