Table Of Content

THE JOURNAL of COOPERATIVE EDUCATION SPRING 1992 Volume XXVn Number 3 The JOURNAL of COOPERATIVE EDUCATION Volume XXVn, Number 3 EDITOR James W. Wilson Peterborough, New Hampshire EDITORIAL BOARD Sylvia J. Brown Girl Scouts of America Dawn Wilson DePasquelle California University Kathleen Finn Northeastern University H. Sanford Gum San Mateo College Ann E. Keeling University of Cincinnati Freyda C. Lazarus Montclair State College Ellen Weaver Paquette Rhode Island College Christopher G. Pratt Seton Hall University Patricia M. Rowe University of Waterloo Joan M. Stoia University of Massachusetts William Stull Utah State University James W. Varty Macomb Community College Leonard J. Watts Antioch University William Weston North Carolina State University CONSULTING EDITOR Sheri Dressier University of Central Florida Copyright® 1992 Cooperative Education Association, Inc. All rights reserved OFHCERS OF THE COOPERATIVE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, INC. 1991-1992 President — Helen Oloroso, University of Illinois at Chicago Executive V. P., President Elect — Robert F. Way, Lane Community College Past President —Jennifer Jones, Jersey City State College Vice President for Finance — Kathie Decker, University of Iowa Vice President for Finance Elect —Jean Egan, Northeastern University Vice President for Programs — Sharon Bieker, Spokane Community College Vice President for Committees — O. Diane Bowles, Clark Atlanta University Vice President for Employer Affairs — Mark Kilian, AT&T Vice President for Public Affairs — Kenneth Osborne, Roger Williams College Regional Representatives, Educators Region 1, Ellen Avenoso, Long Island University, Southampton Campus Region 2, Peter Gotlieb, Saint Peter’s College Region 3, Sheri Dressier, University of Central Florida Region 4, E. Daniel McKenna, Concordia College Region 5, Jimmie J. Henslee, El Centro College Region 6, David Cessna, University of Northern Colorado Region 8, James C. Wilson, University of Waterloo Regional Representatives, Employers Region 1, Deanna Sklenak, Digital Equipment Corporation Region 2, Thomas Guza, Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. Region 3, Loretta Walker, BellSouth Region 4, Suzanne M. Tutko, 3M Region 5, John P. Kochner, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Region 7, Al Barela, IBM U.S.A. Region 8, Kent Phillips, Walt Disney World Journal Editor James W. Wilson Co-op/Experience/Co-op Magazine Barbara Taylor Executive Secretary Dawn E. Pettit SUBMISSION OF MANUSCRIPTS Manuscripts must be double-spaced and submitted in triplicate, the original included, to the Editor, Journal of Cooperative Education, 1 Sand Hill Road ^12, Peterborough, NH 03458. The guidelines for authors, which appear elsewhere in the Journal, should be carefully followed. The Journal of Cooperative Education is published three times a year by the Cooperative Education Association, Inc. The Journal is available through membership in the Cooperative Education Association, Inc., or at a subscription rate of $30.00 per year ($45.00 outside U.S. and Canada). Information about the Cooperative Education Association, Inc., orders for the Journal, and address changes should be directed to the Cooperative Education Association, Inc., 11710 Beltsville Drive, Suite 520, Beltsville, MD 20705. The Journal of Cooperative Education CONTENTS Volume XXVII, Number 3, Spring 1992 EDITOR’S NOTE 4 Janies W. Wilson A Comparision of Cooperative Education Graduates with Two Cohorts of Regular Graduates: Fellow Entrants and Fellow Graduates 7 Patricia M. Rowe Starting Salary Outcomes of Cooperative Education Graduates Philip D. Gardner 16 David C. Nixon Garth Motschenbacher The Effect of a Cooperative Education Work Experience on Autonomy, Sense of Purpose and Mature Interpersonal Relationships 27 Sheila Landfair Mueller Cooperative Education: Factors That Predict Success Angelina haycock 36 Mary Vielhaber Hermon Virginia Laetz Issues In Higher Education Cooperative Education 47 William A. Stull Academic Credit for Cooperative Education: A Survey of AACSB Accredited Institutions in the United States 58 Frances Jackson A. Bruce Brewer IN THE FIELD Involving the Private Sector with Higher Education David X. Fitt 64 Mary Ann Heverly “Co-op Rating” — An Alternative to Co-op Grading 73 Gary R. Martin BOOK REVIEW 78 HOW TO OBTAIN REPRINTS AND BACK ISSUES 79 GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS 80 GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS 81 EDITOR’S NOTE The articles of this issue of the Journal address a number of interrelated topics: outcomes of the cooperative education experience, the processes of cooperative education, and concerns about cooperative education. Their principal contributions to the body of knowledge about cooperative education are that they reinforce previously gained knowledge, raise questions concerning presumed knowledge, demonstrate the tenacity of some issues and the transiency of others, and illustrate the capacity of practitioners to find workable solutions to program questions. Consider, for example, the first three articles, those by Rowe, Gardner, and Mueller. Each focuses upon co-op outcome variables. Both Rowe and Gardner examine work-related outcomes for co-op graduates. Rowe looks at a number of relevant variables, including salary, while Gardner concentrates on salaries. Both report differences favoring co-ops, as have others in the past, but raise questions of the persistence of that advantage over time, noting the importance both of caution in making claims for co-op and need for research on the specific question. Mueller, on the other hand, compares co-op and non-co-op students with respect to a number of developmental constructs advanced by Arthur Chickering. Her research, too, raises questions for further research. Particularly interesting is the fact that Mueller used a methodology of pre and post co-op experience. A conclusion drawn by Rowe is that serious attention must be paid to the co-op experience — the process of cooperative education. This is precisely what Laycock, Hermon, and Laetz have undertaken. They developed operational models of a quality co-op experience for students and for co-op supervisors and tested them by multiple regression analysis. Their findings have important implications for structuring co-op experiences. Articles by Jackson and Brewer, Fitt and Heverly, and Martin likewise address issues of process, but in this instance the issue is program procedure and organization. Jackson and Brewer report on a survey of U.S. business colleges concerning the awarding of academic credit for cooperative education. Martin offers an alternative to co-op grading. Fitt and Heverly describe in some detail the rationale, responsibilities and values to be gained of a carefully designed cooperative internship program. Finally, Stull reports on important issues in cooperative education, as perceived by program directors. This is largely a replication of a study reported ten years earlier. It permits Stull to compare critical issues today with those of a decade ago. For me, these articles reinforce what I believe should be an agenda for the continued development of cooperative education as a significant learning strategy. To begin, I was struck by Stull’s finding that the most pressing issues, as judged by the program directors of his sample, are how to attain institutional commitment, permanent funding, and academic respect. These issues were judged the most 4 Feature EDITOR'S NOTE critical in his 1980 study. Why is this so? Why, in a decade of concerted effort to mainstream cooperative education through training sessions, workshops, public information advertising, and widespread consulting, does this persist as a major concern to so many? Clearly, there is no single answer to the question and it is not my intent here to explore the myriad of possible or, even, the most likely answers. I want to address what I believe to be one factor. Simply put, I believe that too often we have become preoccupied with this issue per se to the neglect of the pedagogical issue of how to enhance the educative nature of our programs. Why is this so? Two reasons, I think: first, administrative, economic, and political issues are more immediate and they are often traumatic. Educational issues are seldom either of these. But, they are, or should be, the reasons we are engaged in cooperative education. The second reason is that many of us do not have the time, or perhaps the inclination, or perhaps even the specialized knowledge needed to relate cooperative education to the educational process and how it might enhance student learning. With this in mind I urge a collective effort to expand our knowledge and to find ways to apply that knowledge to our programs. My proposal for a developmental agenda is as follows: First, I suggest a greatly intensified research effort. This research must be aimed at extending our knowledge of work and education from a variety of points of view, including psychology, sociology, economics, and education. We must increasingly focus on the processes of work and education as they impact upon learning and development outcomes. We must build upon what we now know, explore relevant theories, extract principles, and articulate a philosophy appropriate to our profession. We must be flexible in our research methodologies. The particular research strategy used must flow from the questions to be studied. Whatever the approach, our research must be rigorous. I am fully aware that a call for more research runs immediately into at least two problems: money and skilled researchers. Institutional budgets are extremely tight and there are very few external sources for this kind of research. Title VIII is about the only one, and the amount available is pitifully small. The other problem is that relatively few co-op practitioners are also researchers and we have had only limited success in attracting researchers outside co-op to look at co-op questions. One approach to solution might be to relate to the graduate departments of our institutions, education, psychology, economics, etc., and seek to interest students needing thesis and dissertation topics in research into cooperative education. Such research could be supervised by the researchers among us or by faculty in those departments. 5 JOURNAL OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATION Volume XXVII Number 3 The second element of my proposal is that we must deliberately and conscientiously seek to apply the insights and hypotheses generated from research to our programs. Innovation and experimentation are essential to the continued development of cooperative education. Creative application of what has been learned from research and documented experience can accomplish two important goals. It can test insights and hypotheses \indtr field conditions, verifying, correcting, or augmenting our knowledge and it can enhance student learning experience. An integral and necessary part of any innovation is the evaluation of that innovation. This is not to be a casual assessment but, rather, a rigorous examination conducted by persons skilled in evaluative research. Most institutions have such persons on staff, either in specialized departments or as members of the teaching faculty. The intent, of course, is to determine if, to what extent, under what conditions, and why the innovative procedure or program achieved its desired outcome. The third and final element of my proposed agenda is that research reports and evaluation reports of innovative ideas must be disseminated widely. In many ways, I think this has been the weakest part of our past effort to expand our knowledge of cooperative education. Every means at our disposal should be used to report and discuss research findings, concept and procedure innovations, evaluation results, and the meaning these all have for cooperative education. The Journal of Cooperative Education, Experience, and our annual conferences must be continued, and even strengthened, as ways to disseminate information and ideas. Additionally, I would hope we might institute again the monograph series once sponsored by the CEA Research Committee, making sure they reach all members of our association. I wish, too, that training workshops might to a greater extent acquaint their participants with the current body of co-op knowledge and seek to sensitize them to its importance for the continued development of cooperative education. Finally, I wish that a person-to person network might be established within the co-op community for sharing ideas, raising questions, and suggesting potential solutions. The aim of all this is, of course, to enhance the educational experiences of students and strengthen our programs. James W. Wilson Editor 6 A COMPARISON OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATION GRADUATES WITH TWO COHORTS OF REGULAR GRADUATES: FELLOW ENTRANTS AND FELLOW GRADUATES' PATRICIA M. ROWE Dean of Graduate Studies University of Waterloo Waterloo Ontario, Canada During the past two decades numerous studies have been published documenting the benefits of cooperative education to students. While these benefits have been found in many areas, the students themselves primarily value co-op education for the advantages it may provide to their careers following graduation (Siedenberg, 1988). A number of these career progress benefits have been reported (see Fletcher, 1989, for a review). Of interest here are the results suggesting that co-op graduates earn higher salaries, experience higher levels of satisfaction with their jobs, and are more likely to have jobs related to their majors. A characteristic of most of these studies is the fact that comparisons are made between co-op and non-co-op graduates who graduated at the same time. Most co-op programs, however, require additional time, typically an extra year of study. Thus it might be argued that co-op graduates should be compared to those non-co-op graduates who completed their programs a year earlier. This comparison is equivalent to testing the question of whether work experience is best gained during the academic program as in co-op education, or is best acquired following graduation. The present study was designed to examine various measures of employment status, work-attitudes, and attitudes towards their academic programs in recent co-op and regular graduates. Because the sample includes graduates of two consecutive years, comparisons can be made between co-op graduates and regular graduates who graduated in the same year, and between co-op graduates and regular graduates of the previous year. All were graduates of the Honours program in the humanities or social sciences in the Faculty of Arts of the University of Waterloo. Co-op education is an option in this faculty. This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research council of Canada. I wish to thank Suzanne Carrell for research assistance. 7 JOURNAL OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATION Volume XXVII Number 3 Method Subjects. The subjects for this study were drawn from a larger project examining the postgraduate experiences of University of Waterloo students. Questionnaires were sent to all graduates of co-op programs in . .rts in 1988 and 1989, and all Honours graduates of regular Arts programs in 1988 and 1989. Since all co-op programs are Honours programs, only Honours graduates of regular programs were included in the study. Names of prospective subjects were obtained from the Alumni Directory. Questionnaires were mailed to 552 graduates; 259 were completed and returned, for a response rate of 46.9 percent. Five graduates had taken a very long time to complete their programs (because of interruptions or being part-time students) and were discarded from the sample. Of the 254 questionnaires analyzed 38 were from graduates of co-op programs in 1988, 73 from graduates of regular programs in 1988, 54 from graduates of co-op prgrams in 1989, and 89 from graduates of regular programs in 1989. Of the 92 co-op graduates, 29 were males and 63 were females, while there were 55 males and 107 females in the group of 162 regular graduates. Test Materials. The questionnaire consisted of a variety of items, some specially designed for this survey and some previously published materials. There were a number of biographical items (e.g., age, sex, program), and items about their current employment status. In addition, several items were included to assess the graduates’ attitudes towards their education. Five commonly used scales were used to measure their attitudes towards work. Job satisfaction was measured with Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) five- item measure of general job satisfaction. Internal consistency reliabilities of this scale are generally reported to be around .75. A two-item measure of pay satisfaction based on the work of Hackman and Oldham was also included with the measure of job satisfaction. Both measures used a seven-point response scale. The measures of job and work involvement were taken from Kanungo (1982). The Job Involvement scale has ten scored items, and measures attitude towards one’s current job. The Work Involvement scale has six scored items, and measures one’s attitudes toward work. A six-point response scale is used for both measures. Finally, organizational commitment, or the strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization, was measured with Mowday, Steers, and Porter’s (1979) 15-item Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, using a seven-point response scale. The questionnaire has high reliability, as evidenced by a median coefficient alpha of .90 across a number of studies. The Work Aspect Preference Scale (WAPS) developed by Pryor (1983), which measures the qualities of work that people consider important, was also included in the questionnaire. This scale produces scores on 13 aspects of work 8