Remote work-integrated learning experiences: Student perceptions
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 COVID-19 pandemic required a quick adaptation in the way work-integrated learning programs are offered While not suitable for all types or disciplines of WIL, this disruption has led to many WIL experiences occurring remotely, that is, students working for organizations from home Students' perceptions of their WIL experiences have previously been examined, but there is little literature investigating students' perceptions of remote WIL, and how host organizations can best support their learning in a remote working context Organizational research conducted on remote employees over the past two decades has identified important considerations, such as flexibility, productivity, engagement, and commitment In the present study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 50 co-operative education students and a grounded theory approach was taken to analyze the transcripts Findings reveal the importance students associate with socialization, productivity, and meaningful work in the remote context Study limitations and directions for future research are also discussed © 2020 International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning All rights reserved
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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 it