Table Of Content

THE JOURNAL of COOPERATIVE EDUCATION FALL 1995 Volume XXXI Number 1 COOPERATIVE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION INC. The JOURNAL of COOPERATIVE EDUCATION Volume XXXI, Number 1 EDITOR James W. Wilson Peterborough, New Hampshire EDITORIAL BOARD Kathleen Finn Northeastern University H. Sanford Gum San Mateo College Barbara R. Heller Center for Advanced Study in Education Ann E. Keeling University of Cincinnati E. Daniel McKenna Concordia College Ellen Weaver Paquette Rhode Island College Christopher G. Pratt Seton Hall University Frances Ricks University of Victoria 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® 1995 Cooperative Education Association, Inc. All rights reserved 1995-96 Officers of the Cooperative Education Association^ Inc. President - David Cessna, University of Northern Colorado Executive V.P., President Elect - Jean Egan, Northeastern University Past President - Richard J. Abel, University of Cincinnati, College of Applied Science Vice President, Finance - Geri D-S. Moers, The University of West Florida Vice President, Employer Affairs - W. Kent Phillips, Walt Disney World Co. Vice President, Government Relations - Brenda Kueger-Wilson, University of Cincinnati Vice President, Marketing & Public Relations - Douglas Q. Davis, Northern Illinois University Vice President, Programs/Professional Development - Richard Pullin, University of Waterloo Vice President, Research & Information - Ellen Weaver-Paquette, Rhode Island College Regional Vice Presidents Region 1, Vacant Region 2, Albert Foderaro, County College of Morris Region 3, Charles Dooley, U.S.D.A. Forest Service Region 4, Karen Eagles, Southwest Missouri State University Region 5, Clay Willis, Oklahoma Baptist University Region 6, Toni Herzog, Kansas State University Region 7, A1 Barela, IBM Region 8, Mark Kilian, AT&T Corporate Headquarters Executive Director Dawn E. Pettit Legal Counsel Jennifer Sugiyama, University of California at Berkeley Journal of Cooperative Education James W. Wilson, Editor Co-op/Experience/Co-op Betty Lynne Leary, Editor 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 CEA, Inc., or at a subscription rate of $30.00 per year ($45.00 outside U.S. and Canada). Information about CEA, Inc., orders for the Journal, and address changes should be directed to the Cooperative Education Association, Inc., 8640 Guilford Road, Suite 215, Columbia, MD 21046. The Journal of Cooperative Education CONTENTS Volume XXXI, Number 1, Fall 1995 EDITOR'S NOTE 4 James W. Wilson Reflections by a Co-op Educator and Co-op Mother 8 Vasso Apostolides Changing Times in Higher Education: An Empirical Look 13 at Cooperative Education and Liberal Arts Faculty Linda Casey Matson Ron Matson The Post-Graduate Pecuniary Benefits of Co-op Participation: 25 A Review of the Literature Gary Somers The Effects of Cooperative Education on Job-Search Time, 42 Quality of Job Placement and Advancement Walter Wessels Gerald Pumphrey The Workplace - Needs and Changes 53 George Hines R. S. Moorthy The Transfer of Training to Field-Based Environments for 60 Year-Long Assigned to At-Risk Students William C. Martin Matoteng M. Ncube Conceptual Framework for Workplace Problem Solving 67 John Knechtel Kenneth Leithwood HOW TO OBTAIN REPRINTS AND BACK ISSUES 78 GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS 79 GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS OF LITERATURE 82 EDITOR'S NOTE I didn't participate and I didn't watch it as it unfolded, but subse¬ quently 1 did obtain and read a printed copy of at least a part of an elec¬ tronic "discussion" regarding the distinction between cooperative education and internship. Naturally enough, the definition of cooperative education quickly became the issue. I was struck by two things. First, this discussion, like the floating craps game in Guys and Dolls, has been going on for years . . . with little substantive change and without resolution. Second, this discussion ignites passions akin to those engendered by debates over religion and politics. Why is this? At least in part, I think the answer was given in the discussion. It seems we are looking for identity... program identity and professional identity. The single best way to attain this is to be unique. Both these terms were used in the electronic exchanges, but what was not mentioned is the simple fact that some p)ersons are more able or more willing to live with vagueness than others. For some, leaving the sense of cooperative education as an "instructional method that integrates work into a curriculum" is sufficient to give their pro¬ grams and their professional Lives identity. They are not bothered by the blur between co-op and internship. For others this is not so. They need, for what¬ ever reason... personal orientation or institutional demands... greater dif¬ ferentiation between their programs and others that also link work and academics. They require more descriptors of cooperative education to show its uniqueness and give appropriate identity. The conflict and resultant emotion arises because those who are content with a very broad definition reject one that contains descriptions that their programs may not include, denying them inclusion and, thus identity. While those who need a narrower defini¬ tion feel that the more general one denies them the uniqueness they require and, consequently, their identity. I once believed, having grown weary of this longstanding argument, that we should ignore the issue and simply acknowledge and live with the fact of several definitions of cooperative education. I no longer believe this to be a viable approach for three reasons. First, because in the absence of our defining ourselves others are tempted. I note, for example. Title VIII regu¬ lations of the past and the current trend for many college administrators to equate cooperative education and placement. Second, our current state of ambiguity can and perhaps has already led to confusion about what we do. We need to examine carefully whether we are defining cooperative edu¬ cation or cooperative service. Third, if we are to be maximally effective in promoting cooperative education in the uncertain but promising future we must have a unified sense of what we are promoting. Consequently, I believe we must strive to find a widely acceptable def¬ inition that in all probability amounts to a compromise of strongly held 4 Feature EDITOR'S NOTE views. As a first step, I suggest we back away from cooperative education and examine the nature of definitions. Perhaps a better understanding of pur¬ poses served by definitions, of the possible kinds of definition, and how to judge the adequacy of a definition will provide a framework for our efforts. The term definition is generally defined as a "statement of the meaning or sense of a word, phrase, or term." Meaning is defined as, "something that is signified, denoted, or specifically referred to by a word or phrase." Thus, triangle means, or signifies, or denotes, or is defined as, "a polygon having three sides." Discussions of definition list five principal purposes for their con¬ struction: 1. To increase the vocabulary of the persons for whom the definition was constructed. 2. To eliminate ambiguity due to a word having two or more distinct meanings. 3. To clarify meaning by specifying the limits of its meaning. 4. To explain theoretically. 5. To influence attitudes or stir emotions. Of these five purposes, it seems to me that our effort must be directed toward clarification. We may serve other purposes as well, but this is crit¬ ical. A definition is needed that will provide a basis for identifying instances of cooperative education and for identifying instances of programs that are not cooperative education. As far as possible, we need to reduce the vagueness of the term cooperative education. There are five types of definition: 1. Stipulative, which is a definition given to a brand-new term when it is first introduced. 2. Lexical, in which the term being defined is not new, but has an estab¬ lished meaning and the intent is to reduce ambiguity or to increase the vocabulary of the person or persons for whom it is constructed. 3. Precising, in which the intent is to reduce vagueness. Like lexical definitions these are for terms with an established meaning, but which are vague. A vague term is one for which borderline cases may arise such that it cannot be determined whether the term should be applied or not. 4. Theoretical, in which the attempt is to formulate a theoretically ade¬ quate characterization of the objects to which it applied. Proposing a theoretical definition is about the same as proposing the accep¬ tance of a theory. 5. Persuasive, in which the intent is to influence attitudes. 5 JOURNAL OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATION Volume XXXI Number 1 The type of definition most germane to our purpose is the precising definition because our principal problem is vagueness and our intent is to reduce it. Again, the term to be defined by a precising definition is not new, but one with an established, although vague, usage. Consequently, as we seek a precising definition of cooperative education we are not free to construct any definition, but must remain "true to" the established usage as far as it goes. Yet we must go somewhere beyond established usage to reduce its vagueness. Thus, as I see it, our task is to construct a definition that is less vague than, for example, "an instructional method that inte¬ grates work into curriculum," but less narrow than one that lists details of how it is organized and functions within the institution. We want to be as inclusive as possible, while also differentiating cooperative education from other work-integrated education programs. Several criteria generally are applied to judge the adequacy of defin¬ itions: 1. A definition should state the essential characteristics of the "thing" which the term being defined connotes. That is, it should state the essential characteristics of all those things being called cooperative education. 2. A definition must not be circular. That is, we cannot define coopera¬ tive education by using the same term in the definition. 3. A definition must be neither too broad nor too narrow. This rule goes to the heart of our problem. The ultimate test is that when the definition is applied, all programs that we want to be termed coop¬ erative education are included and those we do not want to be termed cooperative education are excluded. One hundred percent achievement is unlikely and, thus, our definition may have to incorporate such vague words as, "in most instances," "generally," or "usually," or "for the most part." 4. A definition must not be expressed in ambiguous, obscure, or figu¬ rative language. Since our purpose is to clarify, failure to heed this rule is self-defeating. 5. A definition should not be negative where it can be affirmative. This simply means that our definition should state what cooperative edu¬ cation is, not what it is not. The intent of this discourse has been to suggest that defining terms, such as cooperative education, is a complex intellectual exercise and to sug¬ gest that by focusing on the purpose, types, and criteria of definitions we might better approach our task thoughtfully and without rancor. It is also my purpose to suggest that thoughtful dialogue by members of the coop- 6 Feature EDITOR'S NOTE erative education community will help us to clarify and better understand the object of our professional commitment. One forum for such a dialogue could be the Journal of Cooperative Education. Thus, I want to take this opportunity to invite essays on the meaning of cooperative education to be submitted to the Journal for possible publication. I want, however, to set forth a few ground rules for submissions. 1. All established guidelines for essays apply (See guidelines for authors in the back pages of this issue of the Journal). 2. Any resulting definition of cooperative education will minimally meet the criteria for definitions given above. 3. Authors will be willing to have others comment on their analysis and have those commentaries published. 4. No ad Hominem arguments. Cooperative education is already an important educational strategy and in light of all the changes occurring within industry and education glob¬ ally there is potential for it to become even more important. It is incum¬ bent upon us to unify and accommodate as much as possible differing views of what it is we are. I would be pleased to have the Journal of Coop¬ erative Education be a positive vehicle for achieving this. James W. Wilson Editor 7 REFLECTIONS BY A CO-OP EDUCATOR AND CO-OP MOTHER VASSO APOSTOLIDES Division of Professional Practice University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio When my son, an industrial design major, started to co-op, I decided to seize the opportunity and study, first hand, how work would affect his way of thinking. I have always been amazed with how students' attitudes change after each co-op quarter. I felt this was my chance to use my son's co-op expe¬ riences to explore and record changes as they develop. My strategy was to expand on our usual dinner conversations and include "innocent" questions regarding his work. And, because 1 wanted him to feel free and uninhibited to express himself, 1 did not reveal my plan until a while later. I expected that probing and keeping the conversation on the subject would be hard but, to my surprise, 1 was proved wrong. All 1 had to do was ask; "how was your day," and a torrent of words followed. 1 kept quiet, lis¬ tening to him talk and enjoying my dinner, while he, immersed in his nar¬ rative, let his dinner become stale and cold. It was his first co-op job and, having never worked in an industrial design office before, he had no first hand knowledge of the industrial design field. Lack of experience, never¬ theless, did not stop him from expressing his views and having ideas on business organization, product design, employer supervision, etc.... I was not surprised. Our students sometimes think they know everything, and he was no exception. From the first day, he complained about the long hours and inflexible schedule. (He was working 45 miles away from home and that made for particularly long days.) He argued that a strict work schedule was counter¬ productive and an impediment to his creativity: "But mom, I need my soli¬ tude, my space, my time to be inspired! I cannot be creative on command." I expected this reaction. When he was in school, he kept odd hours and pre¬ ferred to work in the studio around his peers. So while I was thinking, "That's tough, welcome to the real world," I responded, "No one is asking you to be creative all the time. After aU you may conceive an idea anywhere, anytime, and develop it on any job." We debated the issue for a while, each of us holding our own stance, until I said in a voice of authority, "That is it. You have no choice but to be disciplined and comply with the demands of the profession and the policies of the office." This was his first lesson. 8