Defining and designing work-integrated learning curriculum
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 scope of work-integrated learning (WIL) has expanded and evolved globally and is a recognised pedagogy that enhances graduate employability, strengthens students’ personal attributes, and affords a personalised learning experience. Despite abundant research and discourse on WIL, misconceptions about what WIL is and how WIL educative experiences are enacted continue to prevail, partially due to the absence of a universal definition of WIL. The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into WIL curriculum design and educational practices that reflect a recently published inclusive definition of WIL. The importance of pre- and post-WIL for optimising outcomes during WIL is emphasised. A framework for conceptualising the enactment of the WIL curriculum is presented that preserves the flexibility of WIL while establishing a consistent interpretation of what WIL curriculum entails. Consensus on the defining elements of WIL and its enactment will facilitate stronger global collaboration, shared teaching ethos, augmented research impact, and agreement on what constitutes quality WIL.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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