AN ANALYSIS OF FACULTY MEMBERS' AND EMPLOYERS' RATINGS OF ATTITUDINAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATION STUDENTS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES

Attitudes have long been recognized for their value to mental health, personal discipline and philosophical orientation. According to Stalcup ( 1968), an attitude can be defined as a "tendency (learned) to react in a cer­tain manner toward tangibles and intangibles" (p. 177). Oppenheim (1966) indicates that attitudes are always present, although not necessarily active. Attitudes subsequently become apparent when the individual is confronted with a questionnaire aimed at measuring his/her attitude.

According to Roberts, there is a distinct relationship between attitudes and perceptions:

Attitudes presuppose perception, of course. Perception is difficult to define, particularly as it pertains to this study. For example, if a number of individuals are queried regarding length of the segments of the broken line in the middle of a highway, their answers (probably perceptions unless they are civil engineers) might range from a foot and a half to eight feet. Respondents would be aghast to discover that each segment is approximately 15 feet in length. If the question is asked of a single individual in a moving automobile, the perceptions vary depending upon speed of the vehicle at the time the question is asked. The faster the speed, the shorter the segments are perceived to be (1976, p. 5).

Perception, therefore, according to Roberts, is a relative phenomenon. A part of his study involved the development of an instrument called At­titudes Toward Career Education which was used to measure "Attitudes" toward five areas of concern - curriculum development, fiscal policy, evaluation, grade level and teacher education-as each pertains to Career Education (1976, pp. 6-7).

Measurement of attitude and perception in cooperative education has been a part of a number of different studies. In his study Cooperative Education as Perceived by Administrators and Teaching Faculty of Technical Programs in Texas Public Two-Year Postsecondary Educational Institutions, Benson (1977) compared the attitudes of administrators and instructors toward cooperative education and toward technical education curricula that include integrated cooperative education plans. According to Benson, technical program administrators and instructors have a favorable attitude toward an integrated cooperative plan for students. In addition Benson noted that "the attitudes of some technical program instructors from both urban and rural, single-campus community colleges are in less accord with the values of cooperative education and cooperative plans than those from larger, urban, multi-campus comprehensive community col­leges" ( 1977, p. 96) .

Other studies dealing with perception and attitudinal characteristics have been conducted by Sawyer (1972), utilizing pre-tests and post-tests of the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) and the Vocational Develop­ment Inventory (VDI); Couey, using the Work Values Inventory; the University of Houston, working in the area of employer attitudes; Lentz and Saligsohn (1968), utilizing the College Student Questionnaire and Baker (1969), comparing 15 variables using the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule.

There are, of course, numerous variations in the comparison methods, subjects compared and participants ( or non-co-op participants) examined. In the absence of more recent studies examining the differences (in ratings) between faculty members and employers on specific attitudinal characteristics needed for co-op student employment, the present study was undertaken.

The major purpose of this study was to analyze faculty and employer ratings of specific attitudinal characteristics and to examine the influence of selected demographic characteristics on faculty and employer response. For example, does the length of time a faculty member has been teaching affect his/her ratings of attitudinal characteristics? Do faculty members feel differently about the attitudinal characteristic of "punctuality" from employers? If they do, does this difference signal a possible misunderstand­ing between the groups, resulting in a detrimental impact on student co­op participation? Identifying the possible areas of conflict is an important first step to taking corrective action to reconcile the two viewpoints.

Methodology

The population for this study included faculty members from post­secondary institutions who were identified as being supportive of co-op education and employers identified as being supportive of co-op education, in the twelve-state region which comprises the Western Association of Work Experience Educators (W.A.C.W.E.E.). This area includes the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

The population for this study included faculty members from post­secondary institutions who were identified as being supportive of co-op education and employers identified as being supportive of co-op education, in the twelve-state region which comprises the Western Association of Work Experience Educators (W.A.C.W.E.E.). This area includes the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

The Non-Technical Employment Qualities for Cooperative Education Students Survey developed at Utah State University was used to obtain in­formation in this study. It is based on employment characteristics that employers have identified as desirable for employees. The total number of non-technical qualities identified in the questionnaire was sixty. This article deals with the second thirty questions identified as attitudinal characteristics, and consists of single words that describe a personal stan­dard of performance. The complete survey form is available upon request from the author.

Faculty members and employers were asked to indicate the importance of each attitudinal characteristic by using the following rating scale:

1 = No importance
2 = Limited importance
3 = Important
4 = Extremely important

Four demographic questions not asked on the original Utah State University survey were added. These questions and their relevance to the study are discussed when examining the null hypotheses.

The reliability of the survey instrument, mailed to approximately 197 faculty members and 190 employers, was established at . 791, using the test­-retest method. An overall return rate of 70.03 percent was obtained.

In constructing this study, the null hypothesis method was chosen as the most efficient means of examining several questions. The four null hypotheses were tested at the . 05 level using the chi square test of in­dependence. The degrees of freedom (df) vary throughout this study, since cells were collapsed in accordance with recognized _practice (Siegel, 1956). Each of these hypotheses will be examined in the following pages, covering the four basic questions with which this study was concerned.

Results and Findings

Null Hypothesis One

The first hypothesis dealt with the question, "Do faculty members and employers differ on their ratings of the 30 attitudinal characteristics?" Find­ing differences here would signal a disagreement in faculty-employer view­points and indicate a different expectation level for each group.

The first null reads as follows:

The ratings of attitudinal characteristics are independent of faculty or employer affiliations.

Table I shows the attitudinal characteristics that were found to be significant at the .05 level (indicating that one's affiliation does affect how a faculty member or employer rates these attitudinal characteristics).

As noted in Table I, on eleven of the 30 attitudinal characteristics, an individual's affiliation as a faculty member or employer affects the ratings of that characteristics while for the remaining nineteen, affiliation made no difference. In examining the ratings, it is apparent that employers uniform­ly regard those significant characteristics as "extremely important," while faculty uniformly regard the same characteristics as less important. For ex­ample, four times as many employers as faculty rated being "people­-oriented" as extremely important. Similarly, twice as many employers as faculty rated being "courteous" and "honest" as extremely important. Similar discrepancies in ratings were discovered as detailed in Table I.

This difference in ratings for fully one-third of the characteristics sug­gests that even among those regarded as supportive of co-op education, there may not be nearly the congruence of opinion that one would expect or presume. While differences in attitudinal characteristics such as "intellec­tual" and "courageous" may be excused because of the inherent implications they perhaps denote, it is still interesting to note that employers feel that being "intellectual" is extremely important to job success while faculty members proportionally feel this is less important. Perhaps one might have expected to find the ratings reversed here.

Table I
Faculty Members' and Employers' Ratings of Attitudinal Characteristics

Represents collapsed cells; further collapsing may be included (Siegei 1956).

Further individual examinations reveal that employers are very strong on "loyalty," "persistence" and "adaptability" while faculty are less so. Faculty uniformly attach less importance to these attitudinal characteristics.

Null Hypothesis Two

The second hypothesis dealt with the question, "Is there a difference in the ratings of attitudinal characteristics between employers and faculty members who have been working with co-op students and programs 0-2 years, 3-5 years, 6-8 years and 9 years or longer?" In the event that signifi­cant differences were found in the study, it was reasoned that possible dif­ferences in ratings could be traced to the length of time a participant had been working with co-op programs.

The second null hypothesis reads as follows:

The ratings of attitudinal characteristics by faculty members and employers is independent of time affiliated with the program. Table II shows the attitudinal characteristics that were found to be

Table II shows the attitudinal characteristics that were found to be statistically significant at the .05 level. The analysis presented here indicates that the length of affiliation with the co-op program does affect how a faculty member or employer rates these attitudinal characteristics.

As Table II indicates, of the 30 _attitudinal characteristics, faculty members and employers were in agreement about the relative importance of 27. The length of time either group has been affiliated with the program is not a strong overall determining factor in their ratings of 90 % of the attitudinal characteristics.

However, two of the 30 faculty ratings of attitudinal characteristics were significant at the .05 level, indicating a relationship with the length of time affiliated with the program. Those faculty members who had been with the program 0-2 years generally attached far less importance to being "religious" than faculty members with co-op 3-5 or 6-8 years. Similarly, almost three times as many faculty members in the 0-2 years category rated being "ambitious" as important as those who rated it "extremely important." However, in the 3-5 years category, faculty members are split evenly between the relative importance and extreme importance attached to this attitude. In addition, the 6-8 years category, more than twice as many faculty members rated the characteristic as extremely important as those rating it important. Clearly, in this study, length of affiliation with

Table II
Faculty Members' and Employers' Ratings of Attitudinal Characteristics According to Length of Time Affiliated with the Program.

the co-op program influenced faculty members' perceptions of the impor­tance attached to the attitudinal characteristic of "ambition."

Null Hypothesis Three

The third hypothesis dealt with the question, "Is there a difference between the ratings of attitudinal characteristics among faculty members who teach and coordinate in social sciences, sciences, business and humanities?" If significant differences were found, it was assumed that students may be receiving conflicting reports about the relative importance of attitudinal characteristics since students are involved in a variety of course offerings regardless of major field of study.

The null hypothesis reads as follows:

The ratings of attitudinal characteristics by faculty members is independent of affiliation with the social ·sciences, sciences, business and humanities. Table III shows the attitudinal characteristics that were found to be

Table III shows the attitudinal characteristics that were found to be significant at the .05 level. This analysis indicates that in this study there is a relationship between the faculty members' rating and the discipline area in which he/she teaches.

Table III
Faculty Members' Ratings of Attitudinal Characteristics by Discipline Area

* Represents collapsed cells. Further collapsing may be included (Siegel, 1956).

As indicated in Table III, the discipline area in which a faculty member teaches affected the rating of 21 attitudinal characteristics. Twenty-one of the 30 attitudinal characteristics were found significant at the .05 level. Generally speaking the social sciences rated most of the characteristics important or extremely important. The sciences, on the other hand, overall rated very few of the characteristics as extremely impor­t-ant. In fact, the attitudinal characteristics of "humorous," "sociable," "cheerful" and "courageous" received a large percentage of "limited impor­tance" ratings by science faculty. Business faculty, along with humanities and social sciences faculty, generally attached more importance to these at­titudinal characteristics. All groups were in agreement regarding the relative lack of importance attached to being "religious."

Since students often take courses in areas outside of their major field, it is possible that co-op students may be receiving conflicting evaluations of the relative importance of these attitudinal characteristics. For example, if a large percentage of science faculty attach limited importance to being "sociable," while social science faculty attach significantly more, which one should students listen to? If employers are placing a certain emphasis in im­portance on these characteristics, while faculty members vary depending on the discipline area in which they teach, students may be receiving con­flicting signals regarding attitudinal expectations of employers.

Given the diversity of opinion in the faculty involved in higher educa­tion on any given issue, such a diversity of opinion on the ratings of these 30 attitudinal characteristics is not surprising. This might also suggest that having standard programs in co-op requiring agreement on a number of these issues may not be realistic and may tend to be a constraint on com­prehensive program development.

Null Hypothesis Four

The fourth hypothesis dealt with the question, "Is there a difference in the ratings between faculty members and employers in those institutions which have had a co-op program in existence 0-2 years, 3-5 years, 6-8 years and 9 years or longer?" In other words, will co-op participants be affected in their ratings by the length of time a program has been in existence at his/her institution or place of business? Such a factor will need to be dealt with in co-op participant training if such an effect is documented.

The null hypothesis reads as follows:

The ratings of attitudinal characteristics by faculty members and employers is independent of the length of time the co-op program has been in existence.

Table IV shows the attitudinal characteristics found significant at the .05 level. The analysis presented here indicates that the length of time a co­op program has been in existence does affect how a faculty member or employer rates these attitudinal characteristics.

Table IV
Faculty Members' Ratings of Attitudinal Characteristics According to Longevity of Co-op Program

* Represents collapsed cells. Further collapsing may be inluded.

As indicated in Table IV, the longevity of the co-op program has only a limited effect on faculty members and employers' ratings since both groups are in agreement on 26 and ·27 of the attitudinal characteristics respectively. However, the four faculty ratings and three employer ratings found significant at .05 level deserve discussion particularly since there was a substantial difference in several of the longevity groups. For example, faculty in the 3-5 group, consistently rated "enthusiastic," "courteous," "ambitious" and "self-confident" as more important than the faculty in the 0-2 year group. The longer the co-op program is in existence the more at­tuned to the importance of these attitudinal characteristics are the faculty members. The implications are obvious for newly developing co-op pro­grams: provide for training that brings faculty along quickly in apprecia­tion of the importance of these attitudinal characteristics. Secondly, in­tegrate employers and faculty as much as possible in the training since employers clearly have an appreciation for the importance of these characteristics regardless of how long the program has been in existence.

A closer look at the specific attitudinal characteristics found significant by faculty and employers might also prove helpful in analyzing the find­ings. Perhaps, for the faculty members, the significant characteristics of "ambition," "enthusiasm" and "courtesy" carry connotations of the overly­eager, fawning employee who is an unthinking person. The appearance of the characteristic of self-confidence in this group is interesting, since much research in recent years on this topic has come from the educational com­munity. The importance of self-confidence for success in almost any under­taking is recognized both in the private sector and post-secondary higher education. Therefore, one might have expected more agreement on this characteristic. Employers, on the other hand, are split on their ratings of the importance of "intellectuality" as a desired employee characteristic. Once again, perhaps the word conveys a negative impression to employers. The other two characteristics-"dedication" and "loyalty" -are very close in meaning and once again indicate employer disagreement. Perhaps the importance of this characteristic is beginning to fade as managers become more concerned with competence and less with loyalty or dedication.

Summary & Conclusion

By way of general summary, several findings need to be pointed out. First of all, five of the 30 attitudinal characteristics were found to be in­dependent of any of the following: faculty or employer affiliation, length of time the faculty member or employer has been affiliated with the program, discipline areas in which the faculty member teaches and the length of time the co-op program has been in existence. They are the characteristics of being ethical, forgiving, helpful, obedient and tactful. Given the em­phasis in curricula on ethical considerations, the use of tact and the impor­tance of human interaction through helping, the independence of these characteristics is not surprising. With the presence of the characteristic of obedience in these characteristics-a word with strong connotations and overtones-one would have expected a wider divergence of opinion on its relative importance as an attitudinal characteristic, since the very notion of obedience runs counter to the present American cultural emphasis on in­dependence of action.

Second, there is disagreement between faculty and employers on three of the 30 attitudinal characteristics. The three characteristics are ambition, courtesy and loyalty. All three were found to be significant when examining affiliation, discipline area and longevity of program. The first, ambition, was also significant when examining length of time affiliated with the pro­gram.

Third, in rating the characteristic of ambition, it should be pointed out that the statistical significance occurred· when looking at four of the demographic areas for faculty. Also, the rating of the characteristic of courtesy was· found statistically significant when examining three of the demographic areas for faculty. Faculty are in disagreement on the relative importance of this characteristic. The attitudinal characteristic of loyalty was found statistically significant in both faculty and employers' ratings.

Fourth, it would appear that among faculty members, generally speaking, disagreement is more marked than among employers on these at­titudinal characteristics. Perhaps proximity to the marketpiace gives a dif­ferent perspective on qualities and characteristics needed for success from that of the educational setting. If this is so, the implication is clearly that co­op has much to offer the interested educator: an opportunity to get closer to the marketplace through working with students and thereby being exposed to the prerequisites for success as viewed by the employer.

Fifth, there are clearly implications for training and development within the cooperative education movement. For example, given the wide diversity of opinion among faculty members in the discipline areas of the social sciences, sciences, business and humanities regarding the relative im­portance of attitudinal characteristics, co-op proponents clearly need to devise methods of training faculty members in the importance of these characteristics. One of the stated goals of regional training centers is to train faculty members as well as co-op practitioners. Indeed one of the srong criteria for receiving federal allocations for administrative as well as train­ing grants is faculty involvement and participation in the program. Such participation of necessity involves training. Is it possible that faculty are receiving training, but only in such technical aspects of the co-op program as training agreements, evaluation, learning contracts, and not in the non­technical and attitudinal areas?

Sixth, co-op programs could utilize a more clearly defined linkage mechanism to properly involve employers in the educational process. In­deed some recent research on high school co-op programs indicates that strong institutional involvement with the participating co-op employer is present initially-developing or modifying a training agreement and delineating responsibilities-but after the hiring has taken place, shortcom­ings begin to emerge (Haberman, 1982). It is after this placement has taken place that employers need specific help and training in the supervision pro­cess. According to the National Child Labor Committee,

Studies indicate that few supervisors have the understanding and ability to motivate and help young workers acquire the work habits, skills and attitudes necessary for them to become good workers. Yet we have not identified a single program that is do­ing very much to help supervisors (cooperating employers) to in­crease their ability to supervise young workers (Haberman, 1982, p. 9).

Can college and post-secondary co-op programs be guilty of the same shortcoming? Could the differences between faculty members and employers be traced to a lack of proper training in this vital area of at­titudinal development? If so, training needs to be more effectively delineated and joint training programs initiated.

Finally, students need to understand the attitudinal characteristics necessary for success in the workplace. While co-op proponents have de­vised training programs for administration, office staff, employers and so forth, perhaps what is needed is a training preparation program for students. This program would focus specifically on attitudinal characteristics. It could also be incorporated as a part of the periodic co-op class, which many schools and colleges utilize as a requirement of co-op participation. However it is done, students need to understand that the signals they have been receiving while in class differ significantly in some areas from what employers expect on the job.