Work-Integrated Learning (WIL)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging literature critiques the current Australian model of work-integrated learning (WIL), as it poses a major barrier to students’ study success, including withdrawing from the degree. Other countries such as the United Kingdom (UK) and Canada have similar requirements with implications for study retention. Research highlights the financial burden for students undertaking these lengthy unpaid placements, including the cost of accommodation, inability to continue part-time work and the cost of travel. Yet little is known about Regional and Remote Area (RRA) and Australian First Nations students’ experiences. Moreover, the authors argue a lack of culturally safe practices, limited allowance for the time needed for community obligations such as attending ceremonies, or family and cultural events, and dominant Westernised approaches that perpetuate racism for Indigenous students may be barriers to study success. Drawing from Postmodern and Critical Theory, Indigenous Standpoint Theory, Insider-Outsider perspectives, and Black Feminism, we present data obtained from interviews with RRA and Australian First Nations Social Work students at three Australian universities. The findings provide an in-depth understanding of the stressors surrounding WIL for RRA and First Nations students and identify ways to better support and retain students through inclusive and sustainable pathways to participation in placements.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.011 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".