Content uploaded by Anne-Marie Fannon
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anne-Marie Fannon on Aug 23, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Work experience reduces a gender-based gap in time on tasks
with supervisors in co-operative education
IDRIS ADEMUYIWA
1
DAVID DREWERY
2
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
MICHELLE J. EADY
University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
ANNE-MARIE FANNON
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
Using a cross-sectional survey of co-operative education students, this study explored relationships between
students’ gender, work experience, time spent on tasks with supervisors, and self-reported learning. Inexperienced
men spent 50% more time on tasks with supervisors than inexperienced women. Work experience (completing at
least one co-operative education work term) significantly reduced this gender-based gap. Further, time on tasks
with supervisors was positively associated with self-reported learning among women, especially inexperienced
women, but not for men. The findings are interpreted using the literature on gender roles at work and students’
experiential learning outcomes. Early career women may be socialized into gender roles that limit access to
supervisors’ time. Work experience may help such women develop human capital such as confidence and social
skills that closes gender-based gaps in learning opportunities.
Keywords: gender, work experience, time on tasks, survey, co-operative education, work-integrated learning
A substantial amount of literature suggests the importance of time spent on tasks with supervisors to
students’ learning during work-integrated learning (WIL) experiences (Korte, 2009; Korte & Li, 2015;
Korte & Lin, 2012). More time on tasks means more opportunities to practice and learn (Gettinger,
1985). When that time involves supervisors, learning may be especially rich because it provides space
for supervisors to observe students’ performance, provide feedback, and model behavior on a given
task (Rowe et al., 2012). For example, consider a student and supervisor co-writing a project report.
The supervisor’s participation in that task provides space to show the student what ’good performance’
looks like and to direct the student’s behavior accordingly. This is quite different from providing
feedback on a completed project report.
This paper explores relationships between students’ gender, work experience, time on tasks with
supervisors, and self-reported learning. One area of research suggests that early-career women are
socialized into gender roles that generate feelings of inadequacy (Bordalo et al., 2019; Langan et al.,
2008; Torres-Guijarro & Bengoechea, 2016). Such feelings may limit women’s willingness to access
supervisors’ time at work. Supervisors may also see women as less competent and less worthy of their
time (Bowen, 2019; Correll, 2004). This suggests a gender-based gap in time on tasks with supervisors
which holds true even in more egalitarian societies (e.g., Gronlund, 2011; Halldén, 2014). Another area
of research suggests that work experience is an opportunity to develop confidence in oneself at work
(Freudenberg et al., 2013; Reddan, 2016) and may reduce a gender-based gap in self-reported
competence (Arsenis & Flores, 2021). This may suggest that work experience reduces a gender-based
1
Corresponding author: Idris Ademuyiwa, i2ademuyiwa@uwaterloo.ca
2
Author is Associate Editor of IJWIL. To maintain anonymity of the reviewers and preserve the integrity of the double-blind
review process, the review was managed by the Editor-In-Chief outside the IJWIL administrative tracking.
ADEMUYIWA, DREWERY, EADY, FANNON: Gender-based gap in time on tasks with supervisors
International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2023, 24(3), 293-303 294
gap in time on tasks with supervisors. The present study explores these dynamics to address calls for
research on gender equity (Bowen, 2019) and temporal dynamics (Rowe, 2017) in WIL.
Gender Work Experience and Time on Tasks with Supervisors
Gender identity is referred to as the socially constructed roles and expressions of an individual. It
impacts how individuals perceive themselves and how they act, and interact (Canadian Institutes of
Health Research, 2015). Gender is not confined to simply being men, women, girl, or boy (also known
as a binary), and can change over time. Indeed, the authors acknowledge that gender can be a complex,
personal, meaningful, and important construct for individuals. It is acknowledged that the information
used for this study was gathered from a 2020 survey which was largely limited to man and woman
gender identities. Therefore, for this paper, only these two gender identities are covered.
Gender differences in the labor market have been looked at in a variety of contexts (Babcock et al., 2017;
Fana et al., 2021). The literature suggests that gender dictates the experience that students have during
WIL opportunities. Common differences that are noticeable in workplace settings are attributed to the
physiological differences that falsely encourage employers to assume that each gender brings its
distinct benefits. For example, men are more likely employed in roles that require physical work and
women are more likely employed in roles that require intellectual or relational work (Magnusson &
Tåhlin, 2018). Compounding these factors are preferences and choices that women possess in contrast
to many of their male counterparts (Fana et al., 2021). For example, women are likely to seek out roles
that offer family-friendly work hours and opportunities to work with children (Brutger & Guisinger,
2021).
Gender also affects students' learning, appraisal, and satisfaction. Langan et al. (2008) and Torres-
Guijarro and Bengoechea (2016) revealed that female students underreport their competence and
confidence. Indeed, meta-analytic results suggest this is a broad phenomenon (Voyer & Voyer, 2014).
Given that learning is the primary outcome of WIL, these results place gender in the spotlight of WIL
research. More so because the influence of gender on WIL experiences extends beyond learning
outcomes. It may influence students’ performance appraisals, such that women are perceived less
favorably than men (Chopra et al., 2020), but may also affect students’ satisfaction, such that women
experience more feelings of inadequacy and lower satisfaction (Bowen, 2019; Chopra et al., 2020).
Bowen’s (2019) study of gendered work experiences provides the strongest clue that women have less
access to time on tasks with supervisors. Bowen’s interviews with WIL students suggested that women
felt inadequate and worried about presenting as pushy or threatening. That is, much more than their
men colleagues, women were careful about their social interactions and mindful of impression
management. This could have implications for time on tasks with supervisors. While some research
suggests that women are more likely to seek support at work (Poleacovschi et al., 2021), Bowen’s (2019)
research suggests that women WIL students may be hesitant to invite supervisors into their work. This
seems consistent with the observation that men assert themselves at work more than women and have
less hesitation about asking supervisors to share their resources, including their time (Bordalo et al.,
2019; Webb et al., 2020). This paper seeks clarity on how gender relates to time on tasks with
supervisors and what this might mean for WIL experiences.
Experiential and WIL theories suggest that learners’ characteristics are important to learning outcomes.
For example, Mezirow’s (1997) transformative learning theory proposes that what is learned and how
it is learned depends on the learner, specifically the learner’s frame of reference. This is echoed in the
organizational literature which describes learning at work as an interactive process between the
ADEMUYIWA, DREWERY, EADY, FANNON: Gender-based gap in time on tasks with supervisors
International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2023, 24(3), 293-303 295
individual and their situation (Ashforth et al., 2007). This is relevant to the present research because it
suggests that work experience is likely associated with student learning. The more work experience
students gather, the greater their ability to make sense of new challenges, deal with those, and,
ultimately, organize experiences in a mental framework (Adkins, 1995; Beus et al., 2014; Weick, 1995).
Work experience may also shape the relationship between gender and time on tasks with supervisors.
Our specific interest in this study is the relationship between previous work experience and time on
tasks with supervisors. As mentioned earlier, women are often socialized into gender roles that
prescribe lower confidence (Bordalo et al., 2019), and this may lead them to assert themselves less in
their supervisors’ schedules. However, WIL research shows that work experience enhances students’
confidence. For example, Reddan (2016, 2017) showed that work experience was associated with
increases in students’ reports of self-efficacy. Other research (Arsenis & Flores, 2021) showed that
gender-based gaps in self-reported skills, although modest, are larger for inexperienced students than
for experienced ones. If confidence is somehow related to accessing supervisors’ time, as Bowen’s
(2019) findings seem to suggest, then such results indicate that work experience may close a gender gap
in time on tasks with supervisors.
Time on Tasks with Supervisors and Self-Reported Learning
Supervisors’ participation may strengthen students’ WIL. Theories about experiential learning
emphasize the importance of other organizational insiders like co-workers and supervisors in the
learning process (Korte, 2009). For example, organizational socialization theories suggest that
supervisors facilitate students’ understanding of their roles and organizational contexts (Korte & Li,
2015; Korte & Lin, 2012). The WIL literature emphasizes the role of the supervisor in students’ learning.
It explains that supervisors support students’ sense-making and guide them through challenges (Rowe
et al., 2012). It is argued here that supervisors’ participation in students’ tasks (i.e., time on task with
supervisors) will be especially important to students’ learning. Consider again a student and
supervisor co-writing a project report. A working session in which the student and supervisor work
closely together allows the supervisor to model behavior. For example, they could demonstrate how
to search for and take notes on articles. Also, such participation allows the supervisor to provide
feedback on the student’s performance at that moment. This time together may be a richer learning
experience than a typical feedback model in which students perform a task and receive feedback later.
The link between time on tasks with supervisors and student learning is regarded as uncontroversial.
Nevertheless, the present study sought to quantify that link for the first time.
In summary, the literature suggests that students’ gender and work experience may associate with time
on tasks with supervisors, and that these personal characteristic and time allocation variables may have
implications for students’ learning. The study described below explored these relationships. It was
guided by two research questions. Research question 1 asks: how are students’ gender and work
experience associated with time on tasks with supervisors? Research question 2 asks: how is time on
tasks with supervisors associated with self-reported learning during organizational socialization? Both
questions are addressed using a survey of students’ time allocations during the first three months of a
four-month paid co-operative education (co-op) work term.
ADEMUYIWA, DREWERY, EADY, FANNON: Gender-based gap in time on tasks with supervisors
International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2023, 24(3), 293-303 296
METHOD
Procedure
After institutional ethics clearance (Project number 42139), email invitations were sent to potential
participants in March 2020. A survey was administered within the first three months of a co-operative
education work experience. This is a time when students are learning to adjust to a new work role
which is a challenging time for students and employers alike (Pennaforte & Pretti, 2015). This time also
coincided with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic so students and employers were also adjusting
accordingly. Of 8,355 students invited to the study, 1,170 consented to participate and provided at least
partial data. This response rate (14%) was consistent with previous research on students at this
institution. On the survey, students were asked to provide information about their work tasks,
interactions with others at work, personal characteristics, and learning. All participants received $5.00
gift cards in appreciation for their time. The sections on work tasks were based on a modified time-
diary approach that is common in social science research. Such an approach has been used to, as one
example, explore how much time faculty members spend on various tasks (O’Meara et al., 2017).
Similar to this approach, the survey asked students to report the (percentages of) time they spent on
various tasks and the extent to which their supervisors participated in those tasks.
Participants
Participants were undergraduate co-operative education students enrolled in a paid co-op program,
and were working between January and April 2020 (i.e., the Winter 2020 work term). Most (64%)
participants were male. Two-fifths (40%) of participants were studying engineering, and the rest were
distributed across various social sciences, humanities, environment, arts, math, and science programs.
Table 1 provides details on the participants' characteristics.
TABLE 1: Participant gender, number of work terms completed before the study, and faculty of
study.
Variables
n
%
Gender
Men
410
64.0
Women
231
36.0
Work terms completed before the study
0
215
33.5
1
146
22.8
2
65
10.1
3
148
23.1
4+
67
10.5
Faculty of study
Arts
68
10.6
Environment
29
4.5
Engineering
260
40.6
Health
68
10.6
Mathematics
110
17.2
Science
72
11.2
ADEMUYIWA, DREWERY, EADY, FANNON: Gender-based gap in time on tasks with supervisors
International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2023, 24(3), 293-303 297
Measures
Work experience
Participants were asked to indicate the number of co-op work terms they had completed including their
current term (i.e., the Winter 2020 term). Students who were on their first co-op work term were
considered inexperienced (coded as ‘0’) and students who had completed at least one co-op work term
before the study were considered experienced (coded as ‘1’).
Gender identity
Participants were asked to report their gender identity by selecting from a list of options. Nearly all
participants selected either male or female as their gender identity. There were insufficient responses
from other gender identity categories to be included in statistical analyses. These categories include
trans, two-spirit, non-binary, and other. The authors recognize the complexity of gender that is missed
in this paper’s binary operationalization of gender. Gender identity for those participants included in
analyses was coded as 1 = female and 2 = male.
Time on tasks with supervisors
Participants were asked to identify their three main tasks at work. For example, participants may have
written a project report as one such task. Then, participants were asked to report the percentage of
their total time at work that they spent on each task. For example, participants may have indicated that
30% of their total time at work was spent writing a project report. Furthermore, participants were asked
to report the percentage of time that their supervisors were involved in their tasks. For example, they
may have indicated that 5% of all time spent writing a project report involved a supervisor. From these
data, we calculated a ’time on tasks with supervisor’ variable. We chose to represent time as a
percentage rather than in units such as hours because hours at work differ greatly between WIL forms.
Learning
Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they had learned at work using a single item.
Responses were provided on a five-point scale where 1 = not at all and 5 = a great deal.
Analyses
First, we used independent samples t-tests to examine differences in time on tasks with supervisors
between men and women who were either inexperienced or experienced. Second, we used multiple
linear regression analyses to examine associations between time on tasks with supervisors and self-
reported learning.
RESULTS
Gender, Work Experience and Time on Tasks with Supervisor
The percentage of time spent on tasks with supervisors ranged from 0% to 69.3%. On average,
participants spent 8.01% (SD = 9.75) of their time on tasks with their supervisor. There was no
significant difference in time on tasks with supervisors between men (M = 9.22%, SD = 10.87) and
women (M = 7.79%, SD = 9.22), t(639) = 1.77, p = .08, d = .15[-.02, .31]. We explored variations in time on
tasks with supervisors at levels of gender and work experience. There was no difference in time on
tasks with supervisors between inexperienced men (M = 8.99%, SD = 12.93) and experienced men (M =
9.15%, SD = 10.09), t(200) = .09, p = .93, d = .01[-.31, .28]. Experienced women spent more time on tasks
with supervisors (M = 8.37%, SD = 9.66) than did inexperienced women (M = 5.98%, SD = 7.53), t(374)
ADEMUYIWA, DREWERY, EADY, FANNON: Gender-based gap in time on tasks with supervisors
International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2023, 24(3), 293-303 298
=2.54, p = .011, d = .27[.06, .48]. Inexperienced men reported more time on tasks with supervisors than
did inexperienced women, t(209) = 2.11, p = .036, d = .32[.02, .61]. There was no difference in time on
tasks with supervisors between experienced men and experienced women, t(365) = .74, p = .46, d = .08[-
.29, .13]. This suggests that a gender-based gap in time on tasks with supervisors may be larger among
inexperienced students than among experienced students. These analyses are visualized in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1. Percentage of time on tasks with supervisors by work experience and gender.
Time on Tasks with Supervisors and Self-reported Learning
Table 2 shows the results of multiple linear regression analyses in which self-reported learning was
regressed on time on tasks with supervisors, work experience, and the interaction between those two
variables. Two models are presented, one for men and one for women. In the model for women, time
on tasks with supervisors was positively associated with self-reported learning. Work experience was
not significant. The interaction term between time on tasks with supervisors and work experience was
significant. This interaction was probed using the Hayes PROCESS macro for SPSS. It is visualized in
Figure 2. For inexperienced women, the association between time on tasks with supervisor and self-
reported learning was significant and positive, b = .035, se = .012, t = 2.996, p = .003. For experienced
women, the association between time on tasks with supervisor and self-reported learning was not
significant, b = .004, se = .007, t = .481, p = .631.
TABLE 2: Associations between time on tasks variables and self-reported learning by
experience and gender.
Women
Men
b
se
t
p
b
se
t
p
Time on tasks with supervisor
.016
.006
2.49
.013
.012
.007
1.848
.066
Work experience
.032
.113
.286
.775
.349
.155
2.254
.025
Interaction term
-.031
.014
-2.28
.023
-.019
.013
-1.438
.15
5.98
8.37
8.99 9.15
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Inexperienced Experienced
% Time on tasks with Supervisors
Level of Work Experience
Women
Men
ADEMUYIWA, DREWERY, EADY, FANNON: Gender-based gap in time on tasks with supervisors
International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2023, 24(3), 293-303 299
FIGURE 2: Interaction between experience and time on tasks with supervisor on self-reported
learning for women.
In the model for men, the association between time on tasks with supervisors and self-reported learning
was not significant. The association between work experience and self-reported learning was positive
and significant. The interaction term between time on tasks with supervisors and work experience was
not significant. These results suggest that time on tasks with supervisors was more important to
inexperienced women’s self-reported learning than it was for experienced women and men.
DISCUSSION
Students and supervisors worked together for less than 10% of the time that students spent working on
their main tasks. While this may seem low, it makes sense. Most of the co-op students in this sample,
and indeed in general, participate in the knowledge economy. In that economy, a great deal of time at
work is directed to ’deep work‘ using human capital and intangible assets. Such deep work is often
solitary. Consider our example of the student writing a project report. It seems likely that most of that
task is performed alone, without the supervisors’ direct involvement. Further, our result seems
consistent with research on supervisors’ time allocations which shows supervisors spend a modest
percentage of their time directly supervising students. For example, a study of medical supervisors
(Tavrow et al., 2002) showed that of all the time that such supervisors spent on ’supervisory visits‘, only
between 9% and 15% of their time was spent observing supervisees and interacting with them.
Our first research question asked: how are students’ gender and work experience associated with time
on tasks with supervisors? Our analyses suggested that both gender and work experience were
associated with time on tasks with supervisors and that these associations were nuanced. In the general
sample, there was no difference in time on tasks with supervisors between men and women and, among
those with work experience, gender was not associated with time on tasks with supervisors. However,
there was a significant gender-based gap in time on tasks with supervisors between inexperienced men
and inexperienced women. Inexperienced women spent nearly 6% of their time on tasks with
supervisors and inexperienced men spent nearly 9% of their time on tasks with supervisors. That is,
compared to inexperienced women, inexperienced men spent 50.3% more time on tasks with
supervisors. This finding seems to align with those of previous research on gender roles at work. For
3.61
3.87
4.18
3.93
3.30
3.40
3.50
3.60
3.70
3.80
3.90
4.00
4.10
4.20
4.30
Inexperienced Experienced
Self-reported learning scores
Time on tasks with supervisor for different levels of experience
Low
High
ADEMUYIWA, DREWERY, EADY, FANNON: Gender-based gap in time on tasks with supervisors
International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2023, 24(3), 293-303 300
example, studies suggest that females may refrain from asking their supervisors for help, guidance,
and advice because such support-seeking is inconsistent with their gender roles (Bordalo et al., 2019;
Webb et al., 2020).
Critically, and perhaps the key finding of this paper, work experience reduced this gender-based gap
in time on tasks with supervisors. If the gap in time on task with supervisors between inexperienced
men and inexperienced women was 50.3%, then the gap in time on task with supervisors between
experienced men and experienced women was 9.3%. This reduction seems incredibly noteworthy
given the literature on supervisors’ contributions to the success of students’ work experiences (Rowe et
al., 2012). Further, this echoes evidence that work experience builds students’ confidence (Freudenberg
et al., 2013; Reddan, 2016). Whereas work experience seems less important to younger men’s
confidence and access to supervisors’ time, it seems that such experience may build this important
human capital among women that results in closer relationships with supervisors.
Time on Tasks with Supervisors and Self-Reported Learning
Research question 2 asked: how is time on tasks with supervisors associated with self-reported learning
during organizational socialization? For women, time on tasks with supervisors was positively
associated with their self-reported learning that occurred during their work-integrated experience.
This is consistent with previous research on the importance of supervisors to students’ WIL (Rowe et
al., 2012). But it is interesting given that women in this dataset spent very little time working on tasks
with their supervisors. This finding speaks to the magnitude of supervisors’ influence in WIL. Despite
a small window of participation in students’ tasks, supervisors can affect students’ learning.
Interestingly, for men, time on tasks with supervisors was not associated with self-reported learning.
This allows us to infer that work experience is more important to time on tasks with supervisors for
women than for men. This could be due to men asserting themselves at work more than women and
feeling a sense of heightened confidence than their women counterparts (Bordalo et al., 2019). That is,
whether inexperienced or experienced, men seem to report that they are learning a great deal. This
seems aligned with research on gender and the so-called Dunning-Kruger effect. While women tend
to outperform men in most academic areas, they self-reported poorer performance (Voyer & Voyer,
2014). Similarly, women report lower confidence in their abilities than their equally capable peers who
are men (Langan et al., 2008; Torres-Guijarro & Bengoechea, 2016). This finding suggests the
importance of work experiences to female students’ confidence and performance. Time spent on tasks
with supervisors could alleviate feelings of low self-efficacy in the workplace often experienced by
women.
While work experience alone was not associated with self-reported learning for women, the interaction
between time on tasks with supervisors and experience was significant, further reinforcing the
importance of women being able to comfortably request more time with and assistance from their
supervisors. These findings suggest that there is more work to be done in this space. What seems to
matter most now is that we ensure that women in WIL experiences feel safe, supported, acknowledged,
and, in turn, willing to take risks beyond their comfort zone. This seems central to creating equitable
access to time on tasks with supervisors.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Learning can mean lots of things, and we did not measure that. So, this complicates the picture of the
role of experience. Previous experience has different effects on what newcomers learn. While previous
ADEMUYIWA, DREWERY, EADY, FANNON: Gender-based gap in time on tasks with supervisors
International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2023, 24(3), 293-303 301
work experience can positively affect newcomers’ task performance, it can also lead to slower
integration of organizational values (Ashforth et al., 2007). Moreover, the use of self-reported
assessment subjects this study to the well-known limitations of such measures, including subjectivity
and inaccurate recall. Another limitation of this study was the very low rate of response to the survey
from individuals that identified as neither men nor women (less than 2%). This limits our ability to
offer nuanced insights and make distinctions important to specific and multi-dimensional gender roles
in society. Finally, this study was conducted at the onset of COVID pandemic which required many
students to transition to remote or hybrid co-op program. While this may have affected students
learning and interaction with supervisors generally, we do not expect the effect to differ significantly
across gender.
Future research may consider the intersectionality of gender and other identities to better understand
students’ interactions with supervisors at work. Individuals embody many identities, but we
considered only gender in the present study. Examining identities based on race, ethnicity, social class,
and sexual orientation, as some examples, could reveal much about how students access supervisors’
time at work. Similarly, future research could explore interactions between students’ identities and
supervisors’ identities. This information was not available to us for our analyses. Perhaps contrary to
lay beliefs, research has shown that cross-gender supervisory relationships are associated with higher
supervisee perceptions of support (Sosik & Godshalk, 2005). This may suggest that students would
access more time on tasks with supervisors who are gender dissimilar. Exploring this seems especially
important to address concerns about the WIL experiences among students from equity-deserving
groups. Finally, future research may consider investigating the relationship between gender identities
and the types of tasks allocated to co-op students. It will be insightful to see if the impact of gender
roles is reflected in allocation of tasks in co-op programs.
Implications for Practice
These findings present an opportunity for WIL practitioners to revisit preparatory materials for
students and supervisors to ensure that all parties are prepared to engage effectively in the WIL
experience. WIL supervisors may be novices to supervision themselves (Martin et al., 2019) and thus
can benefit from training and resources which speak to their role and responsibilities as a WIL
supervisor (Brewer et al., 2021; Rowe et al., 2012). These materials could explicitly mention the need
for equitable time on tasks for WIL students of all genders. Given the self-reported increases in learning
associated with supervisor time on task for inexperienced women, supervisors may also want to create
structures that allow for more contact points with this group of learners. This could be done through
more regular check-ins or the development of formal mentorship programs for women.
Students also need to be prepared to effectively ask for the support and time required of their
supervisors. Pre-WIL training materials should include techniques for approaching a WIL supervisor
and asking for assistance or additional support. Testimonials and techniques from more senior women
speaking about the importance of connecting with supervisors might encourage inexperienced women
to approach their supervisors more confidently. While the findings from this study suggest that WIL
experiences play a role in reducing the gender gap, the long-term goal of WIL practitioners should be
to remove this gap from the onset.
ADEMUYIWA, DREWERY, EADY, FANNON: Gender-based gap in time on tasks with supervisors
International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2023, 24(3), 293-303 302
REFERENCES
Adkins, C. L. (1995). Previous work experience and organizational socialization: A longitudinal examination. Academy of
Management Journal, 38(3), 839–862.
Arsenis, P., & Flores, M. (2021). Confidence and gender differences within a work-integrated learning programme: Evidence
from a UK higher education institution. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(5), 947-963.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1798888
Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Saks, A. M. (2007). Socialization tactics, proactive behavior, and newcomer learning: Integrating
socialization models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(3), 447–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.02.001
Babcock, L., Recalde, M. P., Vesterlund, L., & Weingart, L. (2017). Gender differences in accepting and receiving requests for
tasks with low promotability. American Economic Review, 107(3), 714–747. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20141734
Beus, J. M., Jarrett, S. M., Taylor, A. B., & Wiese, C. W. (2014). Adjusting to new work teams: Testing work experience as a
multidimensional resource for newcomers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(4), 489–506.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1903
Bordalo, P., Coffman, K., Gennaioli, N., & Shleifer, A. (2019). Beliefs about gender. American Economic Review, 109(3), 739–773.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20170007
Bowen, T. (2019). Examining students’ perspectives on gender bias in their work-integrated learning placements. Higher
Education Research & Development, 39(3), 411-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1677568
Brewer, M., Duncanson, K. ,Bribble, N., Reubenson, A., & Hart, A. (2021). An intervention to enhance the supervision of health
science students who struggle during work placements. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 22(2), 149-166.
Brutger, R., & Guisinger, A. (2021). Labor market volatility, gender, and trade preferences. Journal of Experimental Political
Science, 9(2), 189-202. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2021.9
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2015, June 17). Definitions of sex and gender. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/47830.html
Chopra, S., Khan, A., Mirsafian, M., & Golab, L. (2020). Gender differences in work-integrated learning experiences of STEM
students: From applications to evaluations. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(3), 253-274.
Correll, S. J. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review,
69(1), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900106
Fana, M., Villani, D., & Bisello, M. (2021). Mind the task: Evidence on persistent gender gaps at the workplace (JRC Working Papers
Series on Labour, Education and Technology, No. 2021/03). European Commission
Freudenberg, B., Brimble, M., Cameron, C., MacDonald, K., & English, D. (2013). I am what I am, am I?: The development of
self-efficacy through work integrated learning. The International Journal of Pedagogy and Curriculum, 19(3), 177–192.
https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7963/cgp/v19i03/48923.
Gettinger, M. (1985). Time allocated and time spent relative to time needed for learning as determinants of achievement. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.77.1.3
Gronlund, A. (2011). On-the-job training--A mechanism for segregation? Examining the relationship between gender,
occupation, and on-the-job training investments. European Sociological Review, 28(3), 408–420.
https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcr007
Halldén, K. (2014). Taking training to task: Sex of the immediate supervisor and men’s and women’s time in initial on-the-job
training. Work and Occupations, 42(1), 73–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888414555583
Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford
Press.
Korte, R. F. (2009). How newcomers learn the social norms of an organization: A case study of the socialization of newly hired
engineers. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(3), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20016
Korte, R., & Li, J. (2015). Exploring the organizational socialization of engineers in Taiwan. Journal of Chinese Human Resources
Management, 6(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/jchrm-01-2014-0002
Korte, R., & Lin, S. (2012). Getting on board: Organizational socialization and the contribution of social capital. Human Relations,
66(3), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712461927
Langan, A. M., Shuker, D. M., Cullen, W. R., Penney, D., Preziosi, R. F., & Wheater, C. P. (2008). Relationships between student
characteristics and self‐, peer and tutor evaluations of oral presentations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
33(2), 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701292498
Magnusson, C., & Tåhlin, M. (2018, March 7-9). Class and gender: Mapping the structure of work-life inequality [Paper presentation].
Biannual Conference of the Swedish Sociological Association, Committee on Work, Organization and Profession, Lund,
Sweden
Martin, A. J., Rees, M., Fleming, J., Zegwaard, K. E., & Vaughan, K. (2019). Work-integrated learning gone full circle: How prior
work placement experiences influenced workplace supervisors. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(3),
229-242.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. In P. Cranton (Ed.), Transformative learning in action: Insights
from practice – New directions for adult and continuing education (pp. 5-12). Jossey-Bass.
ADEMUYIWA, DREWERY, EADY, FANNON: Gender-based gap in time on tasks with supervisors
International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2023, 24(3), 293-303 303
O’Meara, K., Kuvaeva, A., Nyunt, G., Waugaman, C., & Jackson, R. (2017). Asked more often: Gender differences in faculty
workload in research universities and the work interactions that shape them. American Educational Research Journal,
54(6), 1154–1186. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217716767
Pennaforte, A., & Pretti, T. J. (2015). Developing the conditions for co-op students' organizational commitment through
cooperative education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 16(1), 39-51.
Poleacovschi, C., Javernick-Will, A., Wang, S., & Tong, T. (2021). Gendered knowledge accessibility: Evaluating the role of
gender in knowledge seeking among engineers in the us. Journal of Management in Engineering, 37(1).
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000865
Reddan, G. (2016). The role of work-integrated learning in developing students' perceived work self-efficacy. Asia-Pacific Journal
of Cooperative Education, 17(4), 423-436.
Reddan, G. (2017). Enhancing employability of exercise science students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(1), 25-
41.
Rowe, A., Mackaway, J., & Winchester-Seeto, T. (2012). But I thought you were doing that'-Clarifying the role of the host
supervisor in experience-based learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 13(2), 115-134.
Rowe, P. (2017). Toward a model of work experience in work-integrated learning. In T. Bowen & M. T. B. Drysdale (Eds.),
Work-integrated learning in the 21st Century (pp. 3–18). Emerald Publishing.
Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2005). Examining gender similarity and mentor’s supervisory status in mentoring relationships.
Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 13(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611260500040138
Tavrow, P., Kim, Y. M., & Malianga, L. (2002). Measuring the quality of supervisor-provider interactions in health care facilities
in Zimbabwe. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 14(suppl 1), 57–66.
https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/14.suppl_1.57
Torres-Guijarro, S., & Bengoechea, M. (2016). Gender differential in self-assessment: A fact neglected in higher education peer
and self-assessment techniques. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(5), 1072–1084.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1264372
Voyer, D., & Voyer, S. D. (2014). Gender differences in scholastic achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4),
1174–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036620
Webb, F. K., Rauhaus, B., & Eskridge, R. (2020). Gender representation, professional experiences, and socialization: The case of
city managers. Public Personnel Management, 50(1), 56-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026020903073
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications.
About the Journal
The International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning (IJWIL) publishes double-blind peer-reviewed original
research and topical issues related to Work-Integrated Learning (WIL). IJWIL first published in 2000 under the
name of Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education (APJCE).
In this Journal, WIL is defined as " An educational approach involving three parties – the student, educational institution,
and an external stakeholder – consisting of authentic work-focused experiences as an intentional component of the curriculum.
Students learn through active engagement in purposeful work tasks, which enable the integration of theory with meaningful
practice that is relevant to the students’ discipline of study and/or professional development” (Zegwaard et al., 2023, p. 38*).
Examples of practice include off-campus workplace immersion activities such as work placements, internships,
practicum, service learning, and cooperative education (co-op), and on-campus activities such as work-related
projects/competitions, entrepreneurships, student-led enterprise, student consultancies, etc. WIL is related to, and
overlaps with, the fields of experiential learning, work-based learning, and vocational education and training.
The Journal’s aim is to enable specialists working in WIL to disseminate research findings and share knowledge to
the benefit of institutions, students, WIL practitioners, curricular designers, and researchers. The Journal
encourages quality research and explorative critical discussion that leads to the advancement of quality practices,
development of further understanding of WIL, and promote further research.
The Journal is financially supported by the Work-Integrated Learning New Zealand (WILNZ; www.wilnz.nz), and
the University of Waikato, New Zealand, and receives periodic sponsorship from the Australian Collaborative
Education Network (ACEN), University of Waterloo, and the World Association of Cooperative Education
(WACE).
Types of Manuscripts Sought by the Journal
Types of manuscripts sought by IJWIL is of two forms: 1) research publications describing research into aspects of
work-integrated learning and, 2) topical discussion articles that review relevant literature and provide critical
explorative discussion around a topical issue. The journal will, on occasions, consider good practice submissions.
Research publications should contain; an introduction that describes relevant literature and sets the context of the
inquiry. A detailed description and justification for the methodology employed. A description of the research
findings - tabulated as appropriate, a discussion of the importance of the findings including their significance to
current established literature, implications for practitioners and researchers, whilst remaining mindful of the
limitations of the data, and a conclusion preferably including suggestions for further research.
Topical discussion articles should contain a clear statement of the topic or issue under discussion, reference to relevant
literature, critical and scholarly discussion on the importance of the issues, critical insights to how to advance the
issue further, and implications for other researchers and practitioners.
Good practice and program description papers. On occasions, the Journal seeks manuscripts describing a practice of
WIL as an example of good practice, however, only if it presents a particularly unique or innovative practice or was
situated in an unusual context. There must be a clear contribution of new knowledge to the established literature.
Manuscripts describing what is essentially 'typical', 'common' or 'known' practices will be encouraged to rewrite
the focus of the manuscript to a significant educational issue or will be encouraged to publish their work via another
avenue that seeks such content.
By negotiation with the Editor-in-Chief, the Journal also accepts a small number of Book Reviews of relevant and
recently published books.
* Zegwaard, K. E., Pretti, T. J., Rowe, A. D., & Ferns, S. J. (2023). Defining work-integrated learning. In K. E. Zegwaard & T. J. Pretti (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of work-integrated learning (3rd ed.,
pp. 29-48). Routledge.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Editor-in-Chief
Assoc. Prof. Karsten Zegwaard University of Waikato, New Zealand
Associate Editors
Dr. David Drewery University of Waterloo, Canada
Assoc. Prof. Sonia Ferns Curtin University, Australia
Dr. Judene Pretti University of Waterloo, Canada
Dr. Anna Rowe University of New South Wales, Australia
Senior Editorial Board Members
Dr. Bonnie Dean University of Wollongong, Australia
Dr. Phil Gardner Michigan State University, United States
Prof. Denise Jackson Edith Cowan University, Australia
Assoc Prof. Jenny Fleming Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
Assoc. Prof. Ashly Stirling University of Toronto, Canada
Emeritus Prof. Janice Orrell Flinders University, Australia
Emeritus Prof. Neil I. Ward University of Surrey, United Kingdom
Copy Editor
Diana Bushell International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning
REVIEW BOARD
Assoc. Prof. Erik Alanson University of Cincinnati, United States
Prof. Dawn Bennett Curtin University, Australia
Mr. Matthew Campbell University of Queensland, Australia
Dr. Craig Cameron University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia
Prof. Leigh Deves Charles Darwin University, Australia
Assoc. Prof. Michelle Eady University of Wollongong, Australia
Assoc. Prof. Chris Eames University of Waikato, New Zealand
Assoc. Prof. Wendy Fox-Turnbull University of Waikato, New Zealand
Dr. Nigel Gribble Curtin University, Australia
Dr. Thomas Groenewald University of South Africa, South Africa
Assoc. Prof. Kathryn Hay Massey University, New Zealand
Dr Lynette Hodges Massey University, New Zealand
Dr. Katharine Hoskyn Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
Dr. Nancy Johnston Simon Fraser University, Canada
Dr. Patricia Lucas Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
Dr. Jaqueline Mackaway Macquarie University, Australia
Dr. Kath McLachlan Macquarie University, Australia
Prof. Andy Martin Massey University, New Zealand
Dr. Norah McRae University of Waterloo, Canada
Dr. Katheryn Margaret Pascoe University of Otago, New Zealand
Dr. Laura Rook University of Wollongong, Australia
Assoc. Prof. Philip Rose Hannam University, South Korea
Dr. Leoni Russell RMIT, Australia
Dr. Jen Ruskin Macquarie University, Australia
Dr. Andrea Sator Simon Fraser University, Canada
Dr. David Skelton Eastern Institute of Technology, New Zealand
Assoc. Prof. Calvin Smith University of Queensland, Australia
Assoc. Prof. Judith Smith Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Dr. Raymond Smith Griffith University, Australia
Prof. Sally Smith Edinburgh Napier University, United Kingdom
Prof. Roger Strasser University of Waikato, New Zealand
Prof. Yasushi Tanaka Kyoto Sangyo University, Japan
Prof. Neil Taylor University of New England, Australia
Dr. Faith Valencia-Forrester Charles Sturt University, Australia
Ms. Genevieve Watson Elysium Associates Pty, Australia
Dr. Nick Wempe Primary Industry Training Organization, New Zealand
Dr. Theresa Winchester-Seeto University of New South Wales, Australia
Dr. Karen Young Deakin University, Australia
Publisher: Work-Integrated Learning New Zealand (WILNZ)
www.wilnz.nz
Copyright: CC BY 4.0
