Learning beyond the lecture room: Do placements help students learn about themselves and for themselves?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning in the workplace, particularly through placements and internships, is increasingly recognised as a means to enhance and advance the skills, knowledge and competence that students develop in an academic setting (e.g. Bates, 2008; Boud & Falichikov, 2006; Costley, 2007; Crebert et al., 2004). However, the psychological outcomes of work integrated learning are not yet fully established and have also been contested by some (Allen & van der Velden, 2007). Aim. In this emerging area of research interest, the study aimed to determine whether differences in self-concept, self-efficacy, hope, and motivation exist between students who have taken part in a placement versus those who have not. Methodology. The following valid and reliable measures were collected, post placement, from a large sample (n=956) of undergraduate students: Trait Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1991); Self-Description Questionnaire III (Marsh & O’Neill, 1984), a measure of self-concept; College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (Owen & Froman, 1988); Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich et al., 1993), a measure of study skills and motivation. The methodology utilised for this study was designed by Drysdale et al. at the University of Waterloo (Canada), who led an international comparative research study of which our study forms a part. Results. Students who participate in placements had significantly higher trait hope, agency, and lower test anxiety than their non-placement counterparts. However, there appeared no significant differences in the way in which placement and non-placement students approached their studies, in terms of study skills or the degree of procrastination reported.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".