Challenging Traditions: The Field Education Experiences of Students in Workplace Practica
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
Consonant with an ongoing commitment to increase access to social work educational opportunities, this paper presents the results of an evaluation of a pilot project by a Canadian university that supported workplace practica for undergraduate social work students. Often adopted in social work programs with high proportions of economically marginalized students, workplace practica are field education experiences situated in the student's regular place of employment. This paper summarizes the findings of an evaluative project which compares the learning experiences and academic outcomes achieved by students who have completed workplace practica to those who completed traditional unpaid practica. In contrast to the views of some field educators, student performance and experiences in workplace practica were found to equal or exceed those in traditional practica. Perceived benefits cited by students include the financial advantages associated with maintaining employment, enhanced accessibility to practicum opportunities, expediting degree completion and a deeper practicum experience. Students also confirmed concerns observed in the literature when they were expected to juggle a portion or all of their normal work roles with a new role. Implications of these findings in relation to the offering of workplace practicum are also discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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