SURVEYING DESIGN SKILL DEVELOPMENT IN WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNING EXPERIENCES: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
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
Abstract Work-integrated learning (WIL) is an educational approach that intentionally scaffolds work experiences throughout undergraduate education. This approach has been proven to provide many benefits to students, including increased grade point averages, better job prospects after graduation and skill development. As such, we expect WIL experiences to contribute to engineering student's ability to design, a central aspect of both engineering education and practice. We found little evidence of research related to WIL experiences in the design literature, so we conducted a secondary data analysis on 33 publications from engineering education literature focusing on student WIL experiences with design. The review found evidence of students using a design process and recognizing the importance of designing within context, focusing on health, safety and ethical concerns of being an engineering designer. However, there was little evidence found of what students actually designed (i.e., components, systems or processes). We highlight some interesting areas for future research, specifically for design researchers to investigate how student work experiences are contributing to their development of design knowledge, skills and abilities.
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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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