Although research has demonstrated the effectiveness of some cooperative work experience programs, a recent study points out that simply being in the workplace will not contribute to cognitive or social learning or to satisfaction (Greenberger and Steinberg, 1981). Obviously there is a need to identify the elements of a work experience that help students obtain quality learning. Programs that provide cooperative work experiences and other forms of community-based learning need to know what job site characteristics to look for, plan for and monitor.
Diane Hedin and Dan Conrad of the Center for Youth Development and Research at the University of Minnesota recently completed a "National Assessment of Experiential Education" involving 4,000 students in 30 high school experiential education programs. The programs were classified as adventure education, community service, career internships and community study/political action. Vocational, Experience-Based Career Education (EBCE) and work-related programs were excluded by these researchers because such programs had already been extensively evaluated.
Hedin and Conrad concluded from their comprehensive research that "students in experiential programs increased significantly in social and personal responsibility, gained more positive attitudes toward adults and others with whom they worked, and felt more positive toward being active in the community."
The factors that contributed most to pre-post gains were, in rank order, ''discussed experiences with teachers,'' ''did things myself instead of observing," "adults did not criticize me or my work," "had adult responsibilities," "developed personal relations with someone on site," "had freedom to explore my own interests," "discussed experiences with family and friends," "felt I made a contribution," "had a variety of tasks," "was free to develop and use my own ideas," "got help when I needed it," "made important decisions," and "had challenging tasks."
Harry Silberman at UCLA has conducted various studies of youth in the workplace. He expresses the opinion that "the most potent variables to consider in designing an educational work experience curriculum are the same variables that determine the effectiveness in any instructional situation: clear verbal instruction, availability of effective role models, meaningfulness of the task, availability of feedback and adaptation of the work experience to accommodate differences in individual abilities." (1978)
Silberman (1979) also argues that the reinforcing elements of a job tend to be the enjoyment of the activities themselves and the role work plays in life satisfaction and personal development. Therefore, it is important to look at what young people value in a particular job site so that these intrinsic benefits can be more fully developed.
Morris Keeton (1978) has pointed out the need for postsecondary institutions that sponsor cooperative work experience and other nontraditional programs to provide quality assurance in order to maintain credibility with accrediting bodies, government funding agencies, faculty, students and, ultimately, the public. However, efforts to evaluate the outcomes of experiential programs have been hampered by a lack of knowledge about the characteristics which make them successful learning experiences.
Relatively little is known about what job site characteristics contribute the greatest learning experiences for various types of youth. With these concerns in mind, the Education and Work Program staff at Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NW REL) designed and conducted research into this area.
Key questions we addressed were
A review of the literature on experiential learning convinced us that a foundation exists upon which to design a useful study. John Dewey (1938) pointed out that not all experiences are learning experiences. For example, some experiences may be simply a routine repetition of other experiences (Geiger, 1978); the learner may fail to realize the meaning or significance of an experience (Combs, Avial and Purkey, 1971), its relationship to other experiences or to previously learned concepts (Friedlander, 1965). Bandura (1977) and others developing Social Learning Theory have identified factors such as role modeling and reinforcement which research has shown to be related to increased learning (Krumboltz, Mitchell and Jones, 1976); (Silberman and Hanelin, 1978). More recently a social organization framework has been developed for studying educational encounters in non-school settings (Moore, 1981).
Students in Experience-Based Career Education (EBCE) programs throughout the country were selected to participate in this study.
EBCE was initially designed as an alternative program for a full range of high school students. The program integrates individual direct learning experiences in the school and in the community. EBCE learning opportunities are geared to helping students in three key areas: career skills, life skills and basic skills.
Begun in 1971 and sponsored by the National Institute of Education, EBCE has been developed, demonstrated and evaluated through four regional educational laboratories: Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory and Research for Better Schools. Although each of the four models had distinctive features, all four shared certain goals relating to helping students develop the knowledge and skills necessary for choosing, entering, advancing in and finding satisfaction in adult roles.
Since the initial development of EBCE, the program has been successfully adapted to many special populations, including adults seeking career redirection, economically disadvantaged, gifted and talented, junior high school youth, juvenile delinquents, migrants, and the handicapped. The 1979 national directory of EBCE programs, sponsored by the National EBCE Association, describes 190 programs in 48 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. In 1981 EBCE served over 25,000 students. It is being used in community colleges or other postsecondary education settings in 11 states.
A more complete description of EBCE together with a summary of evaluation findings over a ten year period is contained elsewhere (Owens, 1981).
This study involved 1,103 high school students enrolled in 18 high fidelity EBCE programs in 16 states. EBCE programs were selected for this study because ( 1) they would insure a good cross-section of American youth, (2) EBCE student activities at employer sites were known and documented and (3) EBCE students average career explorations at from four to eight employer sites each. Thus, each student was likely to have experienced and could be asked to describe characteristics of sites where both excellent and poor learning had occurred.
Using open-ended questions and rating scales based primarily on propositions derived from social learning theory, a questionnaire was designed, pilot tested and revised. The pilot instrument was administered to 218 students in eight EBCE programs covering five states. Based on information gained from that study (Owens and Owen, 1979) and from comments by a national review panel, the instrument was revised for use in the present study. For a more detailed discussion of the instrument, methodology and findings, see Owen and Owens (1981 ).
Respondents indicated the degree to which various worksite factors contributed to an excellent or poor learning experience. For each factor or possible reason listed, they were asked to circle a number from 1 = Not Significant to 5 = Extremely Significant.
Chi square analyses were used to determine differences between high and low learning sites. Multiple discriminant analyses were used to determine the significance of differences in responses by various subpopulations of students.
An additional series of items was posed for both the high and poor learning site experiences. Five items asked the student to rate the extent of their agreement with statements concerning their interaction with their employer/instructor. Open-ended items requested a description of the student's activities, what they learned and what happened at the site to make it the type of experience it was.
Hands-on Activities. "Trying out the work myself" was the most important reason given for an excellent job site experience. Correspondingly, "no opportunity to try out the work myself" was ranked fourth among 20 factors seen as contributing to a poor learning experience. "Trying out the work myself" was the most important reason given for an excellent job site experience. Correspondingly, "no opportunity to try out the work myself" was ranked fourth among 20 factors seen as contributing to a poor learning experience.
In addition, students were asked to describe briefly what they actually did at both the excellent and poor learning sites. The results indicate a significantly greater proportion (p < .01) of job related, hands-on tasks for the excellent learning sites than for the poor learning sites (72 versus 52 percent). These findings clearly indicate that the quality of learning in job experiences is closely tied to the opportunity for students actually to perform job-related work, rather than simply observe.
Task Difficulty and Challenge. "Easy tasks" is ranked the lowest of 19 reasons contributing to excellent learning, and "challenging tasks" is ranked tenth, which suggests it was considered moderately important. "Boring tasks" was ranked as the most important factor in creating a poor learning experience and "tasks were too difficult" was the least important. Taken together, these item ratings indicate that most students feel they learn best at a job site when given appropriately challenging tasks to perform.
Responsibility. "Being given an adult responsibility" ranked fifth among the 19 reasons listed as contributing to a successful learning experience in a job site placement. Proportionately, there were twice as many high responsibility tasks 1 at the excellent learning sites and more than twice the proportion of moderate level tasks. Respondents at the poor learning sites performed substantially more low responsibility tasks. It is evident that having responsibility is important to young persons in order for them to perceive a job site as a positive learning experience.
Content of learning. Students were also asked to list the specific things they learned at each type of site. Overall, proportionately more job-specific types of learning were listed for the high learning sites. However, for other types of learning such as self-understanding, the differences are relatively small. It is apparent that many of the learner outcomes do occur at both the excellent and poor sites. In-depth interviews at one site indicated that sometimes greater understanding of self or others can occur at a site in which little job-related learning occurred.
Relationship with adults at the sites. For both excellent and poor learning sites, students were asked to indicate on a five-point scale (1 = Strongly Agree to 5 = Strongly Disagree) the extent of their agreement with five statements. These statements described their relationship with their employer/supervisor. In addition, they were asked to estimate the number of people they "worked closely" with at the site.
The mean responses for the excellent learning sites were significantly (p < .001) higher than the mean responses for the poor learning sites. Thus, youth tended to agree more with the positive relationship statements in the excellent learning sites. Additionally, the mean number of persons with whom respondents worked closely was significantly higher in the high learning sites (a mean of 5.40 versus 2.66, p < .001).
These data are evidence that youth learn best in an environment where there are positive relations with adults. The data may also be viewed as confirmation of the concept of mentorship, where the student works closely with one or more job site supervisors.
This study of student perceptions of their workplace was conducted to provide useful information not only to educators but also to employers. Therefore, we sought employer reactions to the findings and their suggestions for other employers who might wish to participate in such programs.
The employers found the results consistent with their experiences and observations. They were also able to shed light on some aspects of the report.
"Boring tasks" was the most strongly held reason given by students when they said that a workplace experience resulted in little or no learning. Our employer group felt that "boring tasks" is often a cliché that can mean a variety of things to youth, including "I don't understand what is expected of me," "I'm afraid to ask questions," "I don't know what's involved in the task" or "I don't like doing that kind of work." The group felt it is important to ask young people what they mean.
Some employers pointed out that a brief observation of, for example, a person keypunching can make the job appear boring. However, if there is a diversity of keypunching operations the task may not be boring. Similarly, the owner of an automotive repair shop remarked that although some repairs are routine, others could take up to five years of on-the-job training to learn.
Several employers felt it is important to show youth the variety within a business because they may take an interest in unexpected areas. All agreed that it is important to let young people actually do things while at their site and to encourage them to ask questions of other employees. Some students were thought to relate better to the other young employees at a site than to an older supervisor.
Employers felt students at their sites should be treated as regular employees, given responsibilities such as handling money or working with customers and invited to parties with the staff.
Employers agreed that for them to work effectively with youth it is important to know what the program expects of the students. In addition, the employers need help in recognizing potential projects or activities their site can provide.
A major complaint of students about sites is having "nothing to do." Staff pointed out the need for students to take initiative in getting "hands-on" experience. Staff felt that differences in initiative were due to differences in students' personalities rather than differences by sex. Some staff reported that they send a more assertive student to a new site to open up "hands-on" possibilities and later send a more timid student to that site after the employer has had a chance to see what a youngster can actually do.
Staff at the learning center help shy students build up their self-confidence and prepare for encounters with adults in the community. These activities include having students use a telephone hook-up to role play making an appointment with an employer to visit a job site for the first time.
Staff felt it is important to learn about the personality of the employers participating in the program. Some employers are willing to give close supervision to students who need it. Others are especially good at letting youth discuss their experiences with them. In special cases the staff will call employers in advance to fill them in on the personality and background of the student who will be visiting their site.
Other staff conclusions related to this study include the following:
The reactions of employers and program staff to the findings of this study suggest that applied research growing out of student experiences can have useful application in improving practice. While it was important to obtain student perceptions of workplace factors contributing to or inhibiting quality learning, it is essential for future research to explore these variables through direct observation.
The results of this study suggest six ways experiential education staff can improve the learning potential of community experiences.