Enhancing workplace learning for adolescents: the use of metacognitive instruction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to describe an instructional study of three cases of work‐based education students (in co‐operative education in Canada), described by their teachers as ranging from high achieving to low achieving. Design/methodology/approach The three students are given metacognitive instruction to enhance their workplace learning. The instruction is based on findings from a population of recent case studies of learning in the workplace and is shared with the students, with their teachers, and with their workplace supervisors. Interviews and observations are used to describe the variable success of metacognitive instruction in the three workplace settings. Findings The paper finds that, while the teachers do not implement the materials fully, both the employers and the students find the metacognitive questions that make up the instructional materials to be useful and have suggestions for how the instructional materials should be used in workplaces. The instructional materials are appended. Originality/value The paper provides useful information on enhancing their workplace learning among work‐based education students.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it