Students' reflections of quality (RoQ) in work-integrated learning (WIL): a systematic review and framework
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 In light of the expanding prominence of work-integrated learning (WIL), the pedagogical model that integrates work experiences into an academic curriculum, this paper presents a systematic review that uncovers little-explored students’ reflections of quality (RoQ). Design/methodology/approach Drawing on the concept of wayfinding rocks and Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory, the “students’ RoQ (pronounced [ROK]) WIL model” offers guidance for future research, policy development and educational interventions aimed at optimizing students' experiences of WIL. Findings This paper highlights RoQ WIL through student voice. The outcomes offer a model, contributing insights for institutions, employers and students involved in WIL experiences. Research limitations/implications While the study addresses specific limitations such as the use of specific search terms and potential biases, future research is needed to explore cultural capital’s influence on WIL quality. A focus on broadening the scope of data collection to include a more comprehensive range of student perspectives is needed. Practical implications The paper suggests practical implications for institutions, employers and educators in designing WIL programs that prioritize student perspectives, ultimately enhancing the quality of WIL experiences. Originality/value By focusing on students' RoQ in WIL, this paper fills a significant gap in the literature and provides a foundation for future research and practice in optimizing WIL engagement and outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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