An entrepreneurial view of universal work-integrated learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Work-integrated learning (WIL) has emerged as a leading pedagogy that blends theory with application. In recent years, policymakers, educators and practitioners have called for a significant expansion of WIL, one which would enable every undergraduate student has at least one WIL experience during their program of study. Despite these appeals, there remains a significant divide between the aspiration of universality and the realities. Consequently, the study asks the following question: How can post-secondary institutions expand their WIL initiatives to universal levels that deliver transformative learning? Design/methodology/approach In this exploratory study, the authors leverage research from entrepreneurship and management to develop a conceptual model of universal work-integrated learning (UWIL). Entrepreneurship and management research is relevant in this context, as the rapid introduction of a UWIL has transformative implications at the level of the individual (e.g. students, faculty), organization (e.g. processes) and the learning ecosystem (e.g. partners, policymakers) — issues at the core of research in entrepreneurship and management over the past two decades. Findings At the core of the authors’ proposal is the contention that the high-impact talent challenge and the delivery of UWIL must be reframed as not simply a challenge facing educators, but as a challenge facing the broader ecosystem of the workforce and the larger community. The authors propose the implementation of UWIL through an open innovation framework based on five strategic pillars. Originality/value Ultimately, the findings the authors present here can be leveraged by all members of the learning ecosystem, including administrators, faculty, policymakers, accreditation bodies and community partners, as a framework for operationalizing a UWIL strategy. The study’s model challenges all members of this learning ecosystem to operationalize a UWIL strategy. This entrepreneurial reframing introduces the potential for innovating the delivery of UWIL by leveraging the broader learning ecosystem to drive efficiencies and transformative learning.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".