SURVEY OFF ACULTY ATTITUDES TOWARD COOPERATION EDUCATION ¹

Much of the discussion concerning cooperative education is limited to the student, the employer, the coordinator and the administrator, as they relate to the operation of various cooperative education programs. That this discussion occurs is, of course, healthy, but it is an oversight of great magnitude that there is not more examination of the position of the teaching faculty in relation to co-ops. This paper, therefore, has as its purpose to report on a "Survey of Faculty Attitudes Toward Cooperative Education" carried out by the author.

Procedure

A random sample of full-time, day faculty was drawn from the College of Liberal Arts and the College of Engineering at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts. The sample equaled 8.0% of the faculties of each of the colleges and 4.3% of the total university faculty.

These groups were chosen as the sample because of their physical proximity and because of the traditional position of leadership in cooperative education which Northeastern has held. These groups were also chosen because the author theorized that a distinct and specific contrast would appear between the faculties of these colleges.

Northeastern University is the largest privately owned institution in the country (approximately 40,000 students) and the largest cooperative education institution in existence with approximately 10,000 students participating in the cooperative education program. Northeastern is also one of the oldest cooperative education institutions having begun the program in 1909. It was on the basis of these facts that Northeastern presented an excellent choice of location and population to conduct the survey.

The instrument ² used for the survey contained twelve questions, ten multiple choice and, two fill-ins where the respondents were asked to answer in a couple of brief phrases.

Each respondent was interviewed by the author. In most cases the elapsed time of the interview was approximately five minutes. After completing the questionnaire portion of the interview, the respondents were, in each case, invited to comment further on cooperative education and on the survey. In some cases these comments will be related later in this report as they affect the data being discussed.

The Sample

It was determined that there are 862 full-time, day faculty members at the university, of which 330 belong to the College of Liberal Arts and 130 are from the College of Engineering. Together these groups represent 53.4% of the total university faculty. From this population a sample of 8.0% of the faculties from Liberal Arts and Engineering responded. In Liberal Arts this 8.0% equaled 27, and in Engineering it was 10. Together, these 37 faculty members represent 8.1 % of the combined faculties of Liberal Arts and Engineering, and 4.3% of the total Northeastern University faculty. 3

The Liberal Arts sample represents 3.1% of the total Northeastern University faculty and the Engineering groups equals 1.2% of the total Northeastern faculty.

The Liberal Arts faculty sampled was composed of (22.2%) Professors, (29.6%) Associate Professors, (29.6%) Assistant Professors, and (18.5%) Instructors.

The Engineering faculty sample was made up of (500%) Professors, (40.0%) Associate Professors, and (10.0%) Instructors.

In Liberal Arts the respondents had in 40.3% of the cases, more than 5 years experience on the faculty of Northeastern, with 51.8% having 1 to 5 years, and only 7.4% having less than 1 year experience.

In Engineering 90.0% of the sample had more than 5 years experience at Northeastern University, and the remaining 10.0% had between 1-5 years experience.

These statistics taken together demonstrate that the sample drawn, included not only ranking faculty from each college, but also many individuals who have many years of experience on the faculty of a cooperative education institution.

For the purposes of this paper we will consider our samples as it represents the respective college faculties.

Findings

Table 1 presents the responses of the faculties of the Colleges of Liberal Arts and Engineering concerning the value of cooperative education.

It is particularly note worthy that, 100.0% of the Engineering faculty considered cooperative education to be at least of some value, while 11.1% of the Liberal Arts faculty considered it to be of only little value.

Table 2 presents this same data in the light of the addition of whether or not the respondent was ever a student in a cooperative education program.

There seems to be little correlation between a feeling of value of co-op and having been a co-op student.

Table 3 presents the responses of the sample to the question, "Does the cooperative program cause you any problems in the presentation of your subject matter?" There is a greater feeling that co-op is responsible for problems by the Liberal Arts faculty, 33.3%, than by the Engineering faculty, 20.2%. This may be interpreted to reveal greater dissatisfaction on the part of the Liberal Arts faculty than the Engineering faculty.

Table 4 demonstrates the respondents reaction to the question of "Mandatory" or "Optional" status for the cooperative program at Northeastern.

There is a distinct response from Liberal Arts that the program should be optional. This is demonstrated by the fact that 7 4.1 % feel it should be strictly optional, and the remaining 25.9% feel the program should be mandatory in some curricula and optional in others.

This too, may be an example of less satisfaction with co-op by the Liberal Arts faculty.

Table 1
The Value of Cooperative Education To The Student As Reported By The Faculty Sample

TABLE 2
The Value Of Cooperative Education To The Student As Reported By The Faculty Sample According To Whether Or Not They Had Been A Student In A Cooperative Program

TABLE 3
Problems In The Presentation Of Subject Matter Caused By Cooperative Education As Reported By Faculty Sample

In Engineering the faculty seems to be more evenly spit in their response to this question. 50.0% of the respondents considered that cooperative education should be mandatory and, 50.0% felt that co-op should be optional. Although it is difficult to draw any further conclusions from this data, it may be theorized that a portion of the Engineering faculty hold a "traditional" view of this matter. Traditional, in that, they view co-op as an intricate part of engineering education that should be mandatory for students. The other portion of this sample holds a somewhat more moderate view, perhaps a more student-oriented view, in preferring co-op as an optional program.

Table 5 illustrates the responses to the question of academic credit for cooperative education.

There is a response from the Liberal Arts faculty of 7 4.1 % who feel that in some way credit should be granted for co-op experiences. This is in distinct contrast to the response of the Engineering faculty of 70.0% feeling that, no credit of any kind should be given for cooperative education experiences.

This data becomes even more interesting, when viewed in light of the fact that 60.0% of the Engineering faculty considered co-op to be of great value, while only 22.2% of the Liberal Arts faculty considered it to have great value. An interesting contrast exists in these responses which perhaps merits further examination in a later study. Table 6 illustrates this situation.

Table 7 demonstrates the reaction of the sample to the question "Do you believe that Northeastern could operate the Cooperative Program on a 4-year basis rather than the present 5 years?" There seems to be a nearly equal distribution on this question. The interesting point is that, the Liberal Arts faculty has a more "traditional" view of cooperative education on this point with 55.6% holding to the

TABLE 4
Mandatory Or Optional Cooperative Education As Reported By The Faculty Sample

TABLE 5
Academic Credit For Cooperative Education As Reported By The Faculty Sample

TABLE 6
Academic Credit For Cooperative Experience By Value Of The Cooperative Program As Reported By The Sample

TABLE 7
The Possibility Of A Four Year Cooperative Program Rather Than The Present Five Years As Reported By The Faculty Sample

five year program, while the Engineering faculty perhaps moves more toward more innovative progressive thinking with 60.0% accepting the idea of the four-year program.

Table 8 illustrates the responses to the question of recognition for cooperative education work and the possibility of including a statement on the diploma that the student has participated in the cooperative program.

It is interesting to note that 62.9% of the Liberal Arts faculty are in favor of such recognition, while 70.0% of the Engineering faculty are opposed. This is also, perhaps, a break with what might be expected, in light of the respective college faculties basic view of the value of cooperative education as demonstrated in Table 1.

TABLE 8
The Possibility Of Giving Recognition To Students For Co-op, Including A Statement On Their Diploma That They Participated In The Program As Reported By Faculty Sample

Finally, the "survey" included two fill-in questions, concerning the respondents feelings about the greatest strengths or values and the greatest weaknesses or drawbacks of cooperative education. In each case at least two of these characteristics were requested but, no control was in effect as to the order in which the responses were given and therefore, no judgement is possible concerning the ranking of the individual responses by the respondent.

Table 9 and 10 illustrate the reaction of the sample to these questions.

The major areas of strength are seen to be in concepts of a "Maturing influence" (64.9%), and "financial assistance" for the student (51.4%). The major areas of weakness are the concepts of "unrelated jobs" (51.4% ), and the "interruption of the academic process of traditional education" (35.1 % ). 4

It is interesting that the areas valued include, both a practical concept by way of the "financial aid" and, a traditional educational value in the concept of co-op being a "maturing influence."

In terms of weaknesses, the same situation holds. There is a representative concept from the practical, the "unrelated jobs," and the more traditionally educational way of the "interrupting of the educational process."

TABLE 9
Strengths And Values Of Cooperative Education As Reported By The Faculty Sample

TABLE 10
Weaknesses And Drawbacks Of Cooperative Education As Reported By The Faculty Sample

Conclusions

From this study, it is possible to discern that certain attitudes concerning cooperative education are held by some of the faculty of the university. Attitudes which might not be recognized on first observation. Attitudes which, the author has discovered, do not demonstrate the distinct and specific contrast expected.

We have noted that the Liberal Arts faculty seemed to be more dissatisfied with the cooperative education program, and yet, the majority of this group seem to feel that some form of academic credit could be granted for cooperative education experiences.

The Engineering faculty has demonstrated that they feel there is significant value in cooperative education, but they do not consider it possible to grant credit in any form for cooperative education experiences. Although the Engineering group has this negative feeling toward credit, they do consider it possible for the present program to be operated on a four-year basis rather than the current five years. The Liberal Arts group does not feel that this would be possible and yet, as we have stated they do agree with academic credit. This is especially noteworthy, as credit for cooperative education experiences is viewed by many today, as a method of shortening the five year programs to four years.

From this information, we may draw the conclusion that rather than there existing a basic opposition or solid support of cooperative education on the part of either group, there is a feeling that the philosophy and the practice are not one and the same. The operation has not yet solved all the problems that occur when the concept is put into use in the myriad of cases in existence at Northeastern. Indeed, the myraid of cases of implementation across the country today, undoubtably face similar fronts of ambiguous support by the faculty.

The philosophy of cooperative education seems to have the support of the faculty but there is disagreement over its implementation.

It is the conclusion of the author that the greatest significance of the findings reported from this survey is that they demonstrate the need and potential of further study of faculty attitudes toward cooperative education. As we know, the notion of cooperative education was formalized by Herman Schneider at the University of Cincinnati in 1906. Herman Schneider was a member of the teaching faculty in the School of Engineering at Cincinnati, and he brought the notion of co-op with him from Lehigh University. As a faculty member, Schneider was able to both implement and directly observe the affects of cooperative education on his students and the college community. Schneider later became a Dean, and the notion he implemented as a faculty member then grew through all the channels of administrative development.

Today, perhaps unwittingly, these administrative channels which have so helped co-op to flourish, have almost completely overlooked the importance of the group within the college community from which its initiator came.

We must consider the attitudes of the faculty toward cooperative education with a sincere desire to understand. There is a need for further study of faculty attitudes and concerns. The cooperative education community should encourage such research and take careful note of the findings.

We may discover the teaching faculty to be a worthy a11y in our continuing endeavors in cooperative education.