While over 250 articles have been written within the last ten years on cooperative education programs, few studies have been conducted regarding employers' perceptions of these programs. Those which have been reported were conducted on college programs (Deane, et al, 1978; Philip, 1978; Erlich, 1978; and Perloff and Sussna, 1978).
A recent study by Winer and Snell (1979) was directed toward investigating employers' perceptions of cooperative programs on the secondary level. A comparison of the Winer-Snell findings to those of a study conducted for a similar purpose on the post-secondary level seems appropriate. The study conducted by Arthur D. Little, Inc. for Northeastern University (1974) was selected, as it dealt with employers' policy level commitments and the benefits employers felt they received from their cooperative education programs.
Two different study designs were used. Investigators for Northeastern University (Arthur D. Little, Inc.) adapted the case study method, while the Winer-Snell study used a mailed questionnaire as the means of gathering information. The designs of both studies are reviewed briefly in the following paragraphs.
The Northeastern study was composed of six organizations having in common an expressed policy level commitment to cooperative work experience education programs and the belief that cooperative education was beneficial to them. The other criterion used for selection was that educators generally regarded those companies as managing their cooperative programs to derive various benefits from them. The organizations were dissimilar in size and type, the length of time they had been involved with co-op programs, and their emphasis and utilization of various aspects of co-op.
In order to facilitate the investigation, the researchers divided the work experience aspect of cooperative education into three phases. They called the first phase the Pre-professional Employment Phase because during it employers used students as a source of manpower, prior to permanent employment. Specific job assignments were reserved for the coop students and they were rotated through those jobs as part of the orientation process.
The Initial Training Phase and the Permanent Professional Employment Phase involved actual employment. The Training Phase was delineated as the time from recruitment to the completion of any initial job training. The Permanent Phase lasted from three to five years and involved the assimilation of former co-op students into the company as permanent employees.
The Winer-Snell study used a population of 260 randomly selected employers of cooperative education students. Almost half of the employers had co-op students working for them at the time of the study. All of the employers had employed co-op students within the five year period preceding the study.
Employers were asked to complete a questionnaire designed to elicit a ranking of their perceptions about various components of cooperative education programs at the secondary level. The questionnaire contained 43 items relating to all aspects of a cooperative work experience education program.
A discussion of some of the differences between the post-secondary work experience programs investigated in the Northeastern study and typical secondary level co-op programs is appropriate at this point.
The companies investigated in the Northeastern study were relatively large and able to reserve a variety of jobs specifically for co-op students. The jobs involved basic skills which could be easily mastered. Students were selected at that stage for the next phase of the employment process, the initial training phase. Secondary level programs require a specific training program for each participant. The responsibilities and obligations of the three involved parties, the student-learner, the cooperating work station, and the school, are documented by an individualized training agreement and training plan.
Other differences between the two are that employers of secondary level co-op programs usually provide technical instruction and supervision for the students. In addition, related instruction, closely connected with the work experience, is provided by the school. Associated instruction and close supervision are usually not features of post-secondary level programs.
Yet another difference was in the fringe benefit coverage provided by the employers. Secondary level co-op students receive no fringe benefits, such as life insurance, hospitalization and vacation pay. Co-op students in the post-secondary level programs investigated in the Northeastern study did receive fringe benefits, though those benefits were not as generous as those provided for permanent employees.
Findings of the two studies are reported using the format of the study designs. The phases of employment are used for the Northeastern study. The Winer-Snell study is reported as respondent evaluations, with respect to six dimensions of concern as reflected by factor analysis.
In Phase I, the Pre-Professional Employment Phase, the Northeastern study found that all employers felt that they derived benefits from their association with a co-op program. By reserving certain jobs for co-op students, the permanent employees were free to perform more sophisticated jobs. The rotation program for co-op students also enabled the companies to preserve the pay schedules of certain jobs for longer periods of time than they would have, had the position been filled by permanent employees. The lower fringe benefit package was also a savings to the companies.
In addition to those findings, some other benefits were identified. Some employers used co-op students for routine activities so that their other employees could pursue the more complex aspects of their jobs (4 of 6). Other benefits identified were that the personnel selection process was considerably improved (5 of 6), and the communications between business and college were enhanced (4 of 6).
In Phase II, concerned with Recruitment, Selection, Orientation and Hiring, the researchers found that co-op programs facilitated recruitment efforts in two ways (5 of 6). One was that the yield of accepted employment offers was higher than those made by traditional methods. The other way co-op programs facilitated recruitment was that middle management was involved to a greater extent than usual in the selection and orientation of new personnel. Because they were asked to indicate the employment suitability of co-op students, people in middle management positions tended to be more satisfied with the new employees, willing to assist them in their job responsibilities, and generous in assisting them to become part of the company family. In addition, cooperative programs were found to be effective as a predictor of the employability of co-op students (4 of 6), a means of locating qualified minority employees (2 of 6), and as an improvement in the cost-benefit aspects of employee orientation (3 of 6).
The value attributed to co-op persons having a higher retention rate and more potential for advancement than those who had no co-op experience was examined in Phase III, the Permanent Professional Employment Phase. Of the three companies that maintained personnel information, only one showed any significantly higher job retention of former co-op persons. Considering that the co-op students in the Northeastern study were rotated through several departments in a company before committing themselves to employment there, their leaving the company after a year or two seemed surprising. No reasons for the students leaving their jobs were stated.
The rate of promotion of former co-op students to employees who had no cooperative work experience background was examined. Only four companies kept records. Only one company's records were adequate to compare performance appraisals of former co-op persons to non-participants. That analysis showed no significant differences in their performance evaluations. An assumption that seems compatible with the finding is that while the co-op experience is helpful during the initial phase, and perhaps even the secondary phase of employment, the advantages of co-op do not extend to advancement considerations.
As has been previously stated, the Winer-Snell study asked employers to rate their perceptions of various aspects of secondary level co-op programs. The variables were grouped into six dimensions of employer concern as follows: school staff activities, recruitment considerations, employer regulations, in-school instruction, and employer interaction with the school. In terms of priority of importance, employers ranked variables related to the nature and extent of students' skill competencies and general work attitudes as being of the greatest importance to them. Financial and regulatory considerations such as salaries and tax incentives were ranked as a fourth concern in their priority ranking. Prior to the study most coordinators would expect employers to rank these priorities in reverse order. An explanation might be that employers enter into a co-op relationship with the school in the spirit of community service.
Other findings indicated that employers were supportive of the concept of co-op and regarded it as a good recruitment tool. Employers seemed to regard the work experience aspect of co-op as an extension of the school's educational program, and such management details as student selection criteria, job evaluation and supervision, and counseling of co-op students as being within the school's sphere of authority.
The findings of the Northeastern and Winer-Snell studies were similar in some respects and dissimilar in others. Both regarded co-op as worthwhile recruitment devices for employment.
The Northeastern study showed that employers structured their programs for that purpose. The employers participating in post-secondary level programs seemed to derive economic benefits from their co-op programs as a result of routine activities' being accomplished by co-op students, lower pay for the orientation jobs students did, and less cost to the company on fringe benefit packages as compared with those of their permanent employees. The Winer-Snell study found that employers identified the variables associated with student competencies as being of the greatest importance to them, with financial and regulatory considerations only at an approximate mid-point of their stated concerns.
In the Northeastern study the researchers concluded that employers seemed to derive more benefits from the earlier aspects of co-op student employment, based on the rotation of student employees and the lower pay schedule for those employees. In secondary level programs, employers often provide much, if not all of the skill training for students while paying them minimal wage. Accordingly, employers tend to derive more benefits from co-op students the longer the students remain in the program at that work station.
In summary, then, employers' perceptions of cooperative work experience education programs on the secondary and post-secondary education levels, while similar in some respects, are different in emphasis as well as structure. Considering that co-op programs serve different populations of students with different needs and interests, the differences would seem to be healthy and worthwhile.