Practicum-education experiences: post-interns' views
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
The practicum component in undergraduate education across all professions (identified by various terms such as `internship,' `field education,' `clinical experience' or `co-op education') is typically rated by pre-baccalaureate students as the most important phase of their entire professional preparation. In this investigation, which formed one segment of a broader cross-Canada study, a group of postpracticum Engineering students from one Canadian university (who had just completed an internship with engineering firms) identified the most positive and the most negative aspects of that practicum experience. The authors compared these students' responses with those reported by post-practicum students from two other professions: Nursing and Teacher Education. Several positive aspects were identified by all three groups of students, such as: developing their professional competence and technical skills, increasing their personal self-confidence, and gaining real-world experience. Some of the negative aspects that all three cohorts mentioned were: receiving unsatisfactory internship placements, experiencing inadequate mentorship, and being assigned unproductive work tasks. The authors contend that practicum organizers across all professional fields should exchange with one another and examine such student data. The student voice provides a valuable dimension to the program-enhancement process, the ultimate goal of which, is to improve the `experiential learning' phase of professional pre-training in all fields.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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