Table Of Content

MAY 2 / ;;u. JmimaLz^ of Cooperative Education Volume 36, Number 3 2001 rOOPERATIVX ■ EDUCATION & m minternship m ASSOCIATIOI The Journal of Cooperative Education Volume 36, Number 3 Editor Patricia M. Rowe University of Waterloo Editorial Board Kenneth R. Bartkus • Utah State University Philip Gardner • Michigan State University Adam Howard • Antioch College E. Daniel McKenna • Concordia College Ellen Weaver Paquette • Rhode Island College Christopher G. Pratt • Massachusetts Institute of Technology Frances Ricks • University of Victoria J. Ernest Simpson • California State Polytechnic University at Pomona James W. Varty • Macomb Community College Geri Van Gyn • University of Victoria William Weston • North Carolina State University Book Review Editor Jean F. Egan Northeastern University Consulting Editor Sheri Dressier University of Central Florida Copyright©2001 Cooperative Education Association, Inc. All rights reserved Submission of Manuscripts Between January 1-July 31, 2003, manuscripts may be submitted as email attachments in MS Word, double-spaced to: Sally Cardenas California State University, Fullerton [email protected]. After July 31,2003, new procedures will be in place. Guidelines for authors, how to obtain reprints, and subscription information is located on the Association website; www.ceiainc.org. The Journal of Cooperative Education Contents Volume 36, Number 3 From the Editor 5 The Co-op Supervisor's Role as Teacher in the Workplace 7 Brent King Social Skills Training and Cooperative Education: An Empirical 17 Investigation of Performance Outcomes Kenneth R. Bartkus Using Trial Interviews to Enhance Student Self-Efficacy towards 25 Pre-placement Interviews Richard K. Coll Mark Lay • A Study of Changes in intellectual Development from Freshman to 37 Senior Year at a Cooperative Education College Cheryl Keen Supervisor/Manager Perceptions of Cooperative Education 46 /Internship Students: Implications for the Development of a Needs-based Program Kenneth R Bartkus • William A. Stull The Influence of Cooperative Education on Student Perceptions of 58 Their Ability in Practical Science Richard K. Coll • Karsten Zegwaard • Mark Lay Multiple Perspectives on the Purposes of High School Cooperative 73 Education: A Qualitative Study Nancy L. Hutchinson • Karin Steiner-Bell • Hugh Munby Peter Chin • Joan Versnel • Christine Chapman page 4 From the Editor This issue of the Journal of Cooperative Education is the last one for which I will serve as Editor. It has been an honor and a privilege to work for the members of the Cooperative Education and Internship Association and all those around the world who are committed to work-integrated education. During my time as editor the Journal has brought you numerous research reports examining many aspects of cooperative educa¬ tion and internship programs, and several descriptive articles dealing with innovative programs. Noteworthy have been the special issues on Partnerships, Technology, International Research, and Ethics. Last but not least, we have published an Annotated Bibliography for Volumes 19-32. I regret, however, the many problems that have beset the Journa/during my term: delays in publication, the shipping of three issues to subscribers rather than separately as they were printed, and the fact that this issue bears the date of 2001. Many of these problems were due to the financial difficulties of the Association, to management changes in the central office, and to a move to a new printer. I apologize to our authors, subscribers, and readers for these delays. There is, however, another reason contributing to the fact that the Journal is a year behind in its issues, and that Is because of a shortage of manuscripts. Many of you conduct research as part of your jobs or for master's or doctoral theses, yet only a small proportion of it Is submitted to the Journal. Research that Is not communicated to others might just as well never have been done: it benefits only the researcher, and has wasted the time of all those students or coordinators who served as participants. This is not to deny that communicating one's work is difficult for many of us. The fun part is doing the research, the hard part Is writing it up! While communication may take many forms, an article published in a scientific journal such as the Journal of Cooperative Education is most Important because it is archival; that is, journals are the repository of scholarly work. Including both theoretical and empirical articles, and are available to others now and in the years to come. Only by accumulating knowledge in this way and building on the past do we advance our understanding of work integrated education. I hope that In the future more of you will write up your work and share your knowledge with the readers of the Journal. As I write this note it Is not known who will assume the editorship, or even what form the Journal will take. As it is the only scholarly journal devoted to articles about work- integrated education, I can only hope that the Journal survive, and offer my very \n\\\ best wishes to my successor. Pat Rowe Editor pdye b Journal of Cooperative Education Volume 36, Number 3 page 6 A Volume 36, Number 3 Journal of Cooperative Education great deal of attention state that the “cooperative education has been paid to the community” has not given due interdependence attention to the educational aspects. between education, “In turn, co-op experiences tend industry and govern¬ not to maximize the educational ment and the partnership between impact on students” (p. 43). While co-op institutions and co-op educators view “experiential educa¬ tion as a critical component of the learning environment” (Schofield, 1999), few studies have focused The Co-op Supervisor's Role as on the supervisor’s role even though there is an entrenched per¬ Teacher in the Workplace ception that the role is central to student learning. Brent King In their discussion of the quality Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada student experience, Laycock, Vielhaber Hermon, and Laetz (1992) argue that the supervisor serves a Abstract employers. But the co-operative key role in the professional devel¬ This study explores whether ! education literature provides modest opment of the student. They see a co-op supervisors function insight about the role of the individ¬ soundly structured co-op program as teachers in the workplace. A sample of 252 supervisors ual supervisor, notably the supervi¬ as the learning “mechanism” and in five professional pro¬ sor’s pivotal role as a teacher in the supervisor as the “critical link” grams at a Canadian univer¬ the workplace. (1992, p. 45). “The supervisor can sity were surveyed on Benefits to the employer have help the student become a produc¬ learning-related activities been well documented. Employers tive member of the organization and and attitudes. This study found characteristics com- i hire co-op students to meet cyclical, learn about the career through both mon to supervisors who short-term or project staffing needs, supervisory and mentoring behav¬ recognize (and specifically and to recruit potential full-time iors. By directing the work of the address) students' work¬ employees (Deane, Frankel, & student and by providing career place learning. Supervisors primarily hired for pragmatic Cohen, 1978; Freeland, Marini, & information and advice, the super¬ reasons such as benefitting Weighart, 1998; Hurd & Hendy, visor plays a key role in the prcfes- from students' enthusiasm, 1997; Kane, 1985; Laycock, sional development of the student” energy and motivation or Vielhaber Hermon, & Laetz, 1992; (p. 45). acquiring specific skills. A Phillips, 1978; Rowe, 1987; Hoberman (1994) maintains that, minority, however, were motivated by the opportu¬ Schofield, 1999; Wilson, 1988; at the very least, the supervisor must nity to teach. The findings Wilson, Stull, & Vinsonhaler, 1996). be competent. In fact, co-op super¬ suggest a profile of teacher Gardner and Koslowski (1993) vision should purposely be made attributes for supervisors found that employers preferred co¬ “explicitly educational” (Ashworth who broadly interpret the students' job, and cultivate op graduates because they adjusted & Saxton, 1992, p. 67). Ashworth a dynamic relationship more quickly to organizational cul¬ and Saxton (1992) make a strong beyond work performance. tures. case that the workplace supervisor Meanwhile, there has not been has “change agent” potential, help¬ sustained focus on the learning that ing students develop increased co-ops derive from their workterms. confidence. Furthermore, a sujDer- Heinemann and De Falco (1990) visor who adopts the role of edu- page 7 Journal of Cooperative Education Volume 36, Number 3 cator, in addition to monitoring and judging func¬ five co-op supervisors who had participated in tions, will positively influence the student’s learn¬ several of the university’s programs. The question¬ ing outcomes. Ricks (1996) advocates that “students naire was designed to examine various learning- need to be engaged in a learning process with related and employer-oriented factors cited in the partners who understand and care about their literature. learning and the application of that learning” (p. 19). Demographics included the supervisor’s province, On a more specific note. Weaver (1993) wants industry sector, the number of co-ops supervised supervisors to give more input in helping co-op over what time period and whether the supervisor students define their individual learning objectives. had graduated from a co-op program. Other ques¬ Taylor (1995) observes that co-op educators tions asked supervisors why they participated in must adopt instructional strategies that “use the cooperative education, which learning-oriented workplace as a learning site” (p. 20). This places activities they employed, (e.g. helping the student a priority on recognizing that co-op education is a to set learning objectives) and which types of stu¬ joint venture between educators and employers dent feedback they used (e.g. scheduled, informal, (Wilson, Stull and Vinsonhaler, 1996). “Co-opera¬ project by project, etc.). Supervisors were also tive education employers must be viewed as part¬ asked to give their observations about specific ners in the educative process” (Wilson, Stull, & aspects of cooperative education. Vinsonhaler, 1996, p. 159). Although co-op supervisors are deemed to be Analysis partners in co-operative education, their contribu¬ The data were analyzed using SPSS. All of the tion to teaching has not been adequately explored. findings were tested for statistical significance This descriptive study, then, helps to address that using the chi square for tabular analysis and t-tests gap. The research presented here was undertaken for differences in mean averages. (To allow for to expand the literature on the workplace supervi¬ comparisons between the two groups with different sor’s role. This survey of Canadian cooperative sizes of n, Levene’s test for equality of variance education supervisors provides a starting point to was also calculated and applied when choosing understanding how supervisors perceive their roles the appropriate p values.) in educating students and what learning measures they use. Findings Demographics Methodology The respondents had wide-ranging levels of Campus co-op administrators identified all experience supervising co-ops. In the veteran cat¬ supervisors who hired co-ops within a recent two- egory, 6% of the supervisors had supervised more year period. Participants came from all five of the than 20 co-ops. Another 28% had supervised professional co-op programs at a Canadian univer¬ between 6 to 20 students while 37% had supervised sity. The disciplines included: business, human 3 to 5 students. Just under 1/3 (29%) were in the ecology and dietetics, information management, novice category, having supervised 1 or 2 students. public relations, and tourism and hospitality man¬ The majority worked in the Atlantic region (85%) agement. A questionnaire was mailed to 394 with Ontario and Quebec supervisors accounting supervisors of co-operative education students in for another 11 %. Supervisors in all other provinces February 1998. A follow-up package was mailed and territories made up the remaining 4%. Super¬ in April. The survey resulted in 252 questionnaires visors were well represented across sectors: gov¬ (return rate of 64%). ernment (32%); not-fOT-profit (36%); and for-profit (32%). A minority (14%) had been co-op students Instrument themselves. The 72-item questionnaire was pre-tested with page 8