Gen Z students' work-integrated learning experiences and work values
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
Purpose This study aims to explore the relationship between the number of co-operative (co-op) education work terms that students completed and the importance they attach to employer and job attributes (i.e. work values). Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from a large cross-sectional survey of co-op students (N = 2,097) from one Canadian university. Findings Of the 19 work values measured, only six were related to work experience. Whereas work experience was related to several of the least important work values, such as geographic location, it was unrelated to many of the most important work values, such as work–life balance. Further, evidence suggests that changes in work values occur when work experience is first introduced in the curriculum (e.g. first co-op work term), not at subsequent work experiences. Research limitations/implications The findings extend the understanding of how work-integrated learning (WIL) prepares students to make decisions about their careers in the future of work and provide insights to address the challenge of scaling WIL. However, the study draws on cross-sectional data from one single Canadian university and does not explore potentially confounding factors including time itself or critical events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Practical implications WIL educators may leverage these findings to improve their understanding of how students' work values evolve as they complete WIL experiences. They may also use insights from the study to align students' needs and employers' understandings of those needs. Originality/value This study is the first to explore how work values might change throughout a WIL program, particularly among Gen Z students whose work values seem divergent from those of previous generations.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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