ENSURING EQUITABLE ACCESS TO WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNING IN ONTARIO, CANADA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This research aims to investigate and evaluate the barriers to work-integrated learning (WIL) faced by underrepresented postsecondary students in Ontario, Canada. WIL is in demand by universities to improve employment outcomes and produce “work-ready” students. However, a diversity lens is rarely used when evaluating such programs even though diversity is considered by many employers. Using semi-structured interviews, this two-year study has identified: 1) the barriers and challenges encountered by WIL offices in Ontario universities and 2) employer’s perceptions regarding the WIL program and WIL students. Additionally, we conducted quantitative data analysis to examine differences in students’ access to WIL programs when factors including intersections of gender, visible minority, disability, parents’ educational level, and citizenship status are taken into consideration. We interviewed 25 staff from WIL offices of universities across Ontario, including Executive Directors and Directors of Co-op or Experiential Education. Our analysis produced numerous insights relevant to the current state of diversity and inclusion within the WIL sector in Ontario universities. First, we found the presence of multiple university- and employer-level “sorting mechanisms” that unintentionally, but systematically, excluded students of certain social groups. Second, we our analysis suggests that staff at WIL offices were generally unaware of any kind of inequities/discrimination faced by historically marginalized students in their programs. Finally, the analysis shows that WIL offices across many Ontario universities lacked formal procedures to address diversity and inclusion related complaints raised by WIL participants; instead, the offices relied on informal mechanisms to handle these situations. We also conducted in-depth interviews with employers to better understand their perceptions for WIL programs. Using thematic analysis, we identified five recurring themes: 1) government funding & employer budgeting, 2) recruitment & selection, 3) skills gaps & employer expectations, 4) evaluation criteria, and 5) underrepresented groups. Although Ontario’s postsecondary institutions have started to pay more attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion, WIL offices did not operate the program using a diversity and inclusion lens, neither did employers, who hired WIL students, apply such lens. The recommendations for further research include conducting diversity and inclusion-related studies within this sector, which are to be oriented around the six principal components of the Diversity Assessment Tool (DAT) developed by Diversity Institute. In addition, there is a need to address recruitment and hiring restrictions encountered by underrepresented groups in WIL. We also recommend working on strengthening partnerships between employers and WIL programs in postsecondary institutions to bridge the skills gap and enhance mutual understanding.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,013 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».