Early cooperative education programs had as their principal aim the solution of two problems: 1) how to provide for the practical application of theory learned in the classroom and 2) how to meet students' financial need to work during college in a way related to their area of study or career goal (Wilson, 1971). Looking beyond the popular view that co-op helps students in relating practice to theory, choosing a career, preparing for that career, and earning money for college expenses, Henderson and Hall (1946) perceived co-op experiences as contributing to the aims of a liberal education: the student on the job is in a position 1) to observe contemporary society in action, 2) to distinguish between good and bad ethics, 3) to evaluate the effects of planned social changes and lack of planning, 4) to observe tolerance and intolerance, 5) to recognize differences between creative and passive individuals, 6) to become more sensitive to individual<; and groups of people, and 7) to understand history and the theories about human progress.
The growth of cooperative education in all kinds of academic programs has led to increased interest in its integral role in a student's education. The focus of this paper will be on the ways in which cooperative education can contribute to three areas of personal development identified by Chickering (1971): competence, autonomy and purpose. The purpose of this paper is to investigate ways in which cooperative education programs, placing students on their own and assisting in the establishment of career objectives, contribute to these areas of personal development. A review of the literature concerning the relationship between co-op programs and these three vectors of personal development will be followed by a discussion of the implications for program growth and development.
Emotional autonomy occurs as a student moves from reliance on parent<; and peers to disengagement, self-reliance or personal autonomy. Autonomy, in Chickering's terms, has both emotional and instrumental aspects.
Chickering defines achieving competence as having three elements. First, achieving intellectual competence-to which most colleges are primarily committed-requires a student to develop an ability to identify and define problems, to synthesize information from a variety of sources for a specific purpose, to invent rather than just search for solutions, to listen carefully and to become more articulate.
Physical and manual competence, the second element, is most obvious in the high value students place on athletic skills or the creativity of arts and crafts. The development of physical and manual competence permits students to tie objects and events to symbols through action, to implement ideas in specific acts, to translate abstractions into products, and to realize goals through concrete behavior.
The third element is the development of interpersonal competence. Communication directed toward another person is intended to have an effect. The extent to which that effect is achieved is a measure of interpersonal competence. The concern here is for developing skills in human relations, an ability to work productively with others, and a sense of self confidence.
Autonomy, in Chickering's terms, has both emotional and instrumental aspects. Emotional autonomy occurs as a student moves from reliance on parents and peers to disengagement, self-reliance or personal autonomy. Instrumental autonomy is defined as self-sufficiency or the ability to cope, to be mobile in relation to needs and desires, and to recognize and accept interdependence.
The development of purpose requires the clarification and establishment of goals, plans, and priorities that integrate career plans, avocational and recreational interests, life style issues, and family considerations. The objective in the development of purpose is to facilitate a life that satisfies needs for direction and meaning.
Although there is no evidence to indicate that college and university cooperative education programs have been specifically designed to accomplish these growth objectives set forth by Chickering, the following excerpts from brochures from a sample of institutions suggest that student development along the three defined vectors is an anticipated outcome of participation in a co-op program:
Through the blending of study and work, the students enhance their academic knowledge, their personal development, and their professional preparation. . . . they actually learn how to live and be self-sufficient, and their self reliance begins to assert itself in all phases of their life (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1980). Co-op offers you a valuable work experience, the opportunity to relate to others in a professional capacity, a maturing experience (University of South Florida, 1979). Adding work to the study program develops confidence, maturity, responsibility, and skill in human relations (Santa Fe Community College, 1979).
The program is designed to contribute to a greater sense of responsibility, self-sufficiency, and self-confidence (North Carolina State University, 1980). Co-op provides the methodology of delineating and identifying academic and career goals (Troy State University, 1979).
He will have an opportunity to test his career objectives, thus confirming the chosen goals or indicating a change early in his academic program (North Carolina A & T University, 1979).
A review of the literature has revealed a number of cooperative education research studies which are relevant to student development along the three vectors. In addition, opinions of several authors are presented because of their valuable, extensive experience in the field. Although there is significant overlap in such development-growth in one often influenced by or requiring a certain level of development in another-the results of the literature review will be grouped as nearly as possible within the three categories.
Wilson and Lyons (1961) carried out a comprehensive evaluation of the cooperative plan of education including the values sought by the programs, the means devised for attaining the values, and the extent to which the values were attained. From the massive amount of information generated by this study, the following conclusions relevant to student development of competence can be drawn: 1) theory and practice are more closely related for co-op students than for non co-op students and 2) co-op students experience a better understanding of other people and develop better human relations skills than non co-op students mainly because of the significant adult contact in the work place.
In a descriptive study of cooperative work programs, present status, trends, and implications in institutions of higher education, Smith (1944) surveyed co-op students and cooperative education leaders and found that co-op students develop the ability to get along with people and achieve a more comprehensive understanding of concepts due to practical job experience.
Peart (1974) in a survey of students in two-year, terminal programs, found that when students ranked 12 potential benefits derived from the coop experience, the 4 related to the development of competence were ranked 1,2,4 and 5. They included (a) a better understanding of the relationship between theory and practice; (b) a better understanding of the world of work; (c) a better appreciation of learning and performance objectives and ( d) improved personal skills.
Fram (1964) defined ten general objectives of co-op in terms of desired student and employer behaviors from which he developed criteria. Measurement techniques were employed to obtain data on the extent to which student and employer behaviors met the criteria. With reference to the development of competence, Fram found that students related job situation (practice) to classroom instruction (theory). But he found that students did not (a) observe business principles in action or (b) learn how to get along with others through practice on the job, and that (c) it was not possible to evaluate maturity. These are the only results that fail to support the hypothesis that the co-op work experience helps students to improve their interpersonal competence.
In a study comparing engineering graduates from cooperative and regular programs, Yensco (1971) sent questionnaires to graduates, college officials, and individuals from industry and found that 1) college and industry personnel indicated that co-op graduates are well motivated and more mature at graduation than regular graduates, 2) the co-op 01ethod produces a versatile engineering graduate, and 3) the co-op graduate has a one to two year lead over the non-co-op graduate in practical knowledge.
Marks and Wohlford (1971), in a study of the effect of cooperative education on the academic and personal development of Georgia Tech undergraduates, used a sample of 225 co-op students and a matched sample of non-co-op students. The grade point average was found to be significantly higher for co-op students during freshman and sophomore years but was found to be about the same for both groups during the junior and senior years. The findings suggest that entering non-co-op freshmen do not possess as strong educational and vocational goals as do co-op students and that attrition of the "aimless" non-co-op student might account for the cross sectional pattern of academic performance obtained for this group. Among the co-op group, the need for intellectual achievement increased greatly from freshman to senior year.
Stark (1965) compared co-op graduates and non-co-op graduates from Wilmington College and found that 1) co-op graduates exceeded regular graduates on personal trait ratings of industry, responsibility, and concern for others, 2) both groups were equal in academic achievement at graduation, and 3) co-op students on the job when rated by their supervisors were rated equal to regular workers on all ratings except one: the students had a better safety record.
Jarrell (1974) studied co-op and non-co-op employees at NASA as measured by the following four criteria: 1) number of years required to attain given grade levels, 2) continuation of education beyond the BS degree, 3) rate of turnover, and 4) awards for exceptional performance.
A growing sense of competence fosters a feeling of self-confidence in co-op students. Cornelius (1978) developed a questionnaire used to determine self-perceptions of students in terms of career awareness, self confidence, relevance of coursework to career goals, and need for cross discipline coursework. All business and liberal arts students at a stratified, systematic, random sample of Florida community colleges were asked to participate in taking a pre-and-post questionnaire before and after the initial co-op work semester. For 17 of the 22 subsets for both business and liberal arts groups, there wa<; a significant positive difference between pre-and-post measures and a positive difference for all subsets in career awareness.
In a study of women graduates of co-op programs, Mosbacker (1957) found that co-op graduates perceived having gained from the co-op experience a clearer understanding of working conditions and discipline required in business and a greater ability to get along well with people.
In the opinions of authors who are well known in the field, there is strong support for the expectation that the co-op experience contributes to the development of competence in students. Brown (1971), Collins (1973), Dube"(l971), Harris and Grede (1977), Horn (1971), Tyler (1971), and Willis (1980) all point to the fact that co-op provides an opportunity for students to relate theories to application. More specifically, co-op students seem better able to identify and define problems and to take responsibility for problem solving within the context of a work-setting (Heermann, 1973; Robertson, 1978; Tyler, 1981). It is also believed by other co-op leaders that co-op students, because of the work experience, gain a better understanding of other people and develop better human relations skills than non-co-op students (Collins, 1973; Duhl, 1971; Heermann, 1973; Horn, 1971; McCaffery, 1975; Tyler, 1971).
According to Wilson (1971) co-op students perform better academically than non-co-ops. The fact of being held accountable on the job was seen by Collins (1973), Duhl (1971), Heermann (1973), and Horn (1971) as contributing to students' development. A growing sense of competence fosters a feeling of self-confidence in co-op students according to Smith and Takehara (1978) and Tyler (1971, 1981). The co-op student learns to communicate with and relate to adults as an adult (Wilson, 1971) as well as with both blue- and white-collar workers (Horn, 1971).
By going to college, students make a significant change of status, leaving home, their prents, and their peers and establishing new contacts and support groups. The similarity of their principal responsibility, academic study, to their activity in high school eases the transition. The next large step for most students is into the work force away from school and peer support. Cooperative education work assignments which require students to move out on their own can reasonably be expected to contribute to the development of autonomy even though there is still a communication link to the college and the expectation of returning to classes the following term.
Several studies reviewed earlier support the expectation that participation in cooperative work assignments contributes to the development of autonomy among college students. Marks and Wohlford (1971) found that from freshman year to senior year the need for autonomy (self-reliance, independence) increased, the need for democratic leadership increased greatly, and the need for harm-avoidance increased (with increased commitment and taking on of responsibilities). Co-op students developed a greater sense of responsibility for their own efforts and relied more on their own judgment than did non-co-op students according to the Wilson and Lyons (1961) study. Contributing to self-sufficiency is the decrease in dependency on others for financial support as a result of co-op job earnings, according to the studies of Mosbacker (1975), Smith (1944), and Yencso (1971)
In the opinions of other writers, co-op students develop a greater sense of responsibility for their own efforts and greater dependence on their own judgment (Collins, 1973) and can make their own decisions about life (Robertson, 1978). Compared to non co-ops, co-op students are more self sufficient and self-dependent (Collins, 1973; Dube, 1971), more mobile (Dube', 1971; Keeney, 1975; Tyler, 1971), and more liberated (Keeney, 1975). Co-op students learn how to match jobs to meet their needs (Heermann, 1973), and they recognize the fact of interdependence (Chickering, 1977; Dube', 1971; Gore, 1973; Heermann, 1973; Keeney, 1975; McCaffery, 1975; Tyler, 1971).
In three studies, researchers investigated attitudes and job satisfaction of co-op students. Baker (1975) concluded that the co-op student was better adjusted to the work setting and had a more positive attitude toward employer and co-workers.
Winer, Howe, and Berestecky (1974) found that, for engineering students, autonomy was the most important aspect of co-op work satisfaction. In a similar study of nursing students, Winer and Flynn ( 1975) also found autonomy to be the most important aspect of co-op job satisfaction. In both studies, autonomy was further defined as responsibility, testing ideas, decision making, and work independence.
Due to the pre-professional nature of cooperative education programs, one would expect student clarification and development of career plans to be probable outcomes. This expectation is well supported by studies cited earlier: Cornelius (1978), Fram (1964), and Mosbacker (1957).
In a study of co-op graduates, their career planning, and later work adjustment, Baskin (1954) found that the co-op work experience was a significant factor in the individual's career planning for 74.5 percent of the co-op group.
Brown (1976) in a comparative study of 1427 alumni from 12 institutions found that 1) co-op participation increased the undergraduate's perception of career preparedness, 2) the impact of co-op participation upon student career development diminished over time, 3) co-op participation had differential effects on the career development of minorities, and 4) women who participated in co-op married later, had children later, and pursued their career longer.
Wilson (1974) in a study of the impact of co-op personal development among liberal arts undergraduates found that 1) co-op students perceived a greater personal change, especially in career development, 2) the most important change agent for both co-ops and non-co-ops was perceived to be general maturity, with work becoming increasingly important for the upper-class co-op group, 3) as freshmen, more co-ops were unsure of career goals, and 4) co-ops put high priority on ·career establishment, non-co-ops on personal well-being. The overall evidence is that the co-op work exerience has a great impact on student development during college especially in the area of career planning.
As part of a larger study, Wilson, Brown, Bork, and Black (1975) interviewed 469 students, after they had been administered a short questionnaire, in order to determine how they perceived their co-op programs. Students were asked to rank nine perceived positive outcomes. Career development was ranked highest, with personal growth second.
Several authors expressed opinions that co-op students are better than non-co-op students in time management (Wilson, 1971); in motivation toward being organized (McCaffery, 1975); and in developing future plans (Collins, 1973).
The available research generally supports the premise that work experiences in cooperative education programs have contributed positively to student development along the vectors of competence, autonomy, and purpose.
The implications for co-op employers may be less obvious than implications drawn from studies of the costs and benefits of a company's participating in the co-op program but are equally worth noting by employers who recruit on campuses and those who frequently offer co-op graduates permanent employment. Students who are known to have attained a high level of personal maturity, to have clearly defined personal and career goals, and to have demonstrated a high level of competence on the job would make attractive candidates for responsible positions. Aware that coop work experiences enhance th qualities in a job applicant, the recruiter will likely discover that the selection of job applicants is easier. Furthermore, a co-op employer's awareness of the vectors of personal development may contribute to the development of a more productive employee.
Where institutions have an established policy or tradition of nonparticipation in integrated study and work programs, further consideration of that position appears to be warranted. A large proportion of college students choose to work at least part-time while in school and full-time during summers. The opportunity exists through programs such as cooperative education to take advantage of that fact and to design learning opportunities to fit those student needs and to provide broader experiences for them.
Support from faculty, especially those in classical disciplines, for an academic program having a work component is hard to achieve unless it can be demonstrated to them that certain types of learning and development, in which they too have an interest, can indeed occur outside the classroom and often while on a co-op work assignment. Cooperative education can complement a liberal education by further expanding students' horizons and adding another important dimension to their college experiences. Faculty support of, and input to, any co-op program is essential to its success in integrating the experience of study and work.
As for existing co-op programs, in initial contact with students interested in co-op, it would seem appropriate for co-op personnel to discuss not only the tangible benefits, such as earnings and improved marketability at graduation, but also the less obvious, the areas of potential personal growth. Job expectations of the co-op staff, students, and employers might well be negotiated and agreed upon in advance of any job placement and, in the process, the less tangible areas of potential personal development could be considered. During jobsite visits, co-op personnel would do well to collect the data that would contribute to the maintenance of adequate records which reflect a concern for the qualitative outcomes of the program as well as the usual quantitive aspects.
By maintaining a keen awareness of an important objective of cooperative education, that of the development of the total student, activities of the co-op staff can be evaluated in educational terms and modifications implemented. For example, the job development, student recruitment, and job placement functions in cooperative education have traditionally been carried out by the staff and can be considered a passive process for the student. The active involvement of students even in this initial process, would contribute more to their development than the present passive approach. The difference between passive and active approaches to deciding on a career and finding a job can be viewed as follows (van Aalst 1981):
| The Stage | Passive Approach | Active Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Self-assessment: values, interests, and skills Identifying job openings |
Take standardized tests Check want ads, bulletin boards, co-op office, placement office |
Analyze and discuss successful experiences Venture to discover and develop openings |
| Use of a network | Talk with family, friends, professors | Establish your own contacts |
| The resume | Covers chronologically what you have done, who you are; same resume for every opening | Organize by skills; outline what you plan to do, target it to the opening |
| The interview | Answer questions | Ask questions, find out about company in advance, offer information considered relevant |
| The contract | Accept or reject offer | Negotiate the offer |
This example is brief and simple but suggests that each activity of the co-op office, each contact made by the the co-op staff, each brochure or form developed, and each policy or procedure established can reflect a broader awareness of and concern for student development processes.
Further research into the effect of the co-op work experience on the personal growth of students, using a framework of student development such as Chickering's, could provide important information for those who direct co-op programs; for faculty who have doubts about what student learning takes place at the co-op job site; for employers who hire co-op graduates; for college and university administrators who must decide on whether to establish, continue, modify, or discontinue a co-op program; and for funding agencies, who must assess the relative merits of co...op programs competing for limited funds.