Rick Williams summarizes the findings from twelve studies of field experience participation by high school, junior high., and college students. The National Society for internships and Experiential Education is pleased to give reprint permission of this chapter from Combining Service and Learning: A Resource Book for Community and Public Service , 1990. Published by NSIEE, 3509 Haworth Drive, Suite 207, Raleigh, NC 27609. Members of the Cooperative Education Association are eligible for a discount. Please see the acknowledgment at the beginning of the volume or the enclosed brochure. This chapter originally appeared in the Voices of Volunteers, edited by Rick Williams, The Korda Project, Sharon, MA, 1980, pp. 18-50, 56-60.
In the last decade researchers have conducted studies to measure and to determine the effects of field education on young people. Twelve studies of field education are reviewed here. Nine of the studies involved high school age students. In addition, two studies involved junior high school students and two studies involved college age students. Although the majority of the studies are competent, none is definitive. Nevertheless, the contention here is that, taken as a whole, the studies provide a strong argument for field education. Despite differences in type of program, choice of measure, population, and other significant factors, the results are consistent. The studies strongly confirm the personal observations of field education practitioners. Field education does promote the development of young people and this development is reflected in measures of achievement, self concept, career maturity, and values and attitudes.
What do students gain from participation in field education programs? In the next section the research studies will be reviewed in some detail. The studies have been grouped into four areas: Personal Development, Career Development, Affective Development, and Academic Achievement. In these four areas the individual studies will be discussed followed by summary comments. Information from various questionnaires will then be presented. Finally, there will be some general observations and recommendations based on the research.
The research on the effects of participation in field education on personal development have utilized instruments to measure change in five areas:
The results of Usher's study are the most informative and also summarize the findings of the other studies. Usher's measure was the Self-Concept Scale constructed by Gill and D'Oyley. Of the different scales that compose this measure, the following showed significantly higher scores:
Perceived Acceptance by Peers and Teachers scale: "As a result of the program . . . students tended to see themselves as more liked and accepted by their peers than did students in other programs" (p. 74).
Perceived Reaction to School Program scale: The program "resulted in higher positive perceptions as to the school program's ability to help students achieve their general life goals and to allow them to work on their own, and to use their talents" (p. 74).
Perceived Self-Satisfaction scale: "The course resulted in greater self understanding, greater self-satisfaction, and greater understanding of the individual by most members of his family " (p. 75 ).
Perceived Concentration Ability scale: The program "resulted in the students perceiving themselves as more patient, less easily distracted, and less inclined to daydreaming than the (non-program) students" (p. 75).
Usher's measure was the Eysenck Personality Inventory. He found significant change on both the Extroversion-Introversion Scale and on the Neuroticism Stability Scale as compared to a control group. He concludes: "The data indicate that the ... course results in higher out-going, uninhibited, impulsive, and sociable inclinations. In terms of the neuroticism dimension, the data indicate a lower general emotional over responsiveness and lower liability to neurotic breakdown under stress." (p. 67)
The research on the effects of participation in field education programs on personal development is strong and positive. Of the ten measures of personal development, seven found significant gains for students. Two others found a positive trend. After participation in field education programs, students appear to have higher self-respect, less anxiety and depression, and more emotional comfort and confidence in social interactions. The research confirms that experience through field education appears to foster maturity, self-respect, and social competence.
One of the most popular goals for field education has been career development. These programs have been designed to expose students to the world of work and to provide information for career planning. Seven studies are reported here that looked at two aspects of career development:
Newton, using the Ohio Vocational Interest Survey, found no significant change in vocational interests. However, he did find significant change in the degree of interests. Although program participants did not significantly change their choice of vocational interests, the strength of interest in their choices declined on the post-test significantly more than the control group. In referring to the change in degree of interest, Newton observed: "The distribution of change in degree of interest demonstrated by the experimental group, as opposed to the control group, may be attributed to a work experience program that provided experimental pupils with data and experiences from which to make a more realistic appraisal of job areas as they relate to self." (p. 33)
"The Competence Test attempts to measure the maturity of competencies that are considered critical in career decision making. In contrast to the Attitude Scale, the Competence Test seeks to assess the more cognitive factors involved in occupational selection" (Newton, 1975, p. 27). The Competence Test contains five subtests: Knowing Yourself (Self-Appraisal), Knowing About jobs (Occupational Information), Choosing a Job (Goal Selection), Looking Ahead (Planning), What Should They Do? (Problem Solving).
Two studies fully used both of the scales of the CMI. Stead (1977) did not find significant differences between the experimental and control groups. However, the experimental group did make more positive gains than the control group on three of the Competence subtests (Goal Selection, Self-Appraisal, and Planning). The Lafayette Parish School Board, LA (1973) also did not find significant differences between the experimental and control groups for their ninth grade sample. The study did find a significant difference in favor of the experimental group for the eighth grade sample.
Newton (1975) used the Attitude Scale and three subtests (Self-Appraisal, Occupational Information, and Goal Selection) of the Competence Test. His sample was a group of students in a middle school. He found no significant differences between the experimental and comparison groups.
Owens (1975) and Carey and Webber (1979) used only the Attitude Scale. Neither found significant differences between their experimental and comparison groups. Owens does maintain that the experimental group in his study had "a positive (and significant) growth for the year ... "while, "neither comparison group made a significant change over the year." (p. 6)
Finally, Beister (1978) used two subtests (Occupational Information and Planning) of the Competence Test. Over a two-year period, the cumulative change in scores for the experimental group was significantly better than for the control group.
No general or simple conclusions can be drawn from the research on career development. Five of the seven studies reviewed I found positive gains for the field education students. But only two of these studies measured significantly greater gains for the field education students in contrast to control students. Since six of these programs were designed to enhance career education, the findings, although positive, are not conclusive.
One critically important issue must be raised in order to assess this research. A consistent finding of researchers is that vocational interests are both formed early, usually by the ninth or tenth grade, and are resistant to change. The research reviewed here seems to support both of these points. Two studies found significant differences between experimental and control students. In the Lafayette Parish School Board study, the researchers did not find significant differences for the ninth grade sample but they did find significant differences for the eighth grade students. Beister did not find significant differences between groups in the first year but did find significant cumulative score differences after two years. Thus, one study demonstrates that career attitudes and interests may be formed at an early age. The other study shows that, once formed, these attitudes and interests may require extensive experience before significant changes are seen.
Given both the research on vocational interests and the research presented here, more attention must be paid to the type of measure utilized in the research on field education. Standardized measures of vocational interests such as the Strong-Campbell and the Ohio Vocational Interest Survey are probably not suitable for detecting subtle, yet important, changes in vocational interests. Also, unless students are placed in the vocational areas of most interest, as indicated by the surveys, the field experience will probably not make a major impact on their interests. The student placed in a work experience dissimilar to his expressed interest will not be exposed to the experience and information necessary to influence his career choice.
One of the most suggestive findings of the research is Newton's observation of a shift in degree of career interests. Young people's exposure to the world of work is generally limited. As a consequence, they tend to have naïve or unrealistic expectations both about the world of work and about specific careers in which they are interested. Through such media as television they often see the glamour and fruits of work but rarely see the frustrations and drudgery.
For further research, three suggestions emerge from this review:
Educators have come to believe that student attitudes and values critically affect learning and academic performance. A few studies have investigated the effects of field education experiences on values and attitudes. The studies have focused on three areas:
There was a significant difference on the Assignment Learning scale. The program -resulted in higher preferences among the students for a mode of learning which is specific, formal and linear in nature." (P. 70) Results on the Interaction scale were marginally significant.
To measure attitudes toward school, Newton (1975) administered the School Sentiment Index (SSI) to experimental and control groups of middle school students. The SSI measures five aspects of attitude toward school: teachers, learning, school structure and climate, peers, and the notion of school in general. The experimental group had a significantly better attitude toward learning than did the control group. Significant differences were not found on any of the other dimensions nor on the composite index. "However, the mean score of the experimental group for the composite index (comprehensive attitude toward school) and the significance level computed (.15) indicate the group approached having a better comprehensive attitude toward school than did the control group. A higher mean for the experimental group was also computed for the dimensions, 'notion of school in general' and 'attitude toward teachers' (Newton, 1975, p. 29).
Beister (1978) measured attitudes toward school using the Assessment of Student Attitudes Toward Learning Environments Scale (ASA). The ASA is a Likert scale developed by two of the study's researchers. Subscales include Attitudes Toward Education in General, Attitudes Toward School Curriculum, Attitudes Toward School Resources, Attitudes Toward School Counseling, and Overall Attitudes Toward Learning Environments. During the first year, experimental students made significantly greater gains than control students in attitude toward school curriculum, school counseling, and overall learning environments. During the second year, the experimental group showed significant growth in attitudes toward education in general, school resources, and overall learning environments. Beister 's interpretation of this fact was: " ... first year growth was clearly illustrated in those areas of learning environments which the intervention of the (program) immediately and most directly affects, namely, school curriculum and school counseling. Attitudes toward more remote factors such as education in general and learning resources remained stable during the first year but significantly increased during the second year of program participation." (p. 9)
The research in this area must be divided into two groups. The first group is composed of Sprinthall's and Urie's studies. Obviously, there is too little evidence on moral development or attitudes toward others to draw any conclusions.
A cautionary note must be given on Sprinthall's study. His program was unique and intensive and dealt with issues that were, in fact, moral or were secondarily related to moral issues. Most field education experiences are likely to raise moral issues with which participants must cope. But the assumption, based on Sprinthall's study, that field education programs necessarily affect moral development would be rash.
The second group of studies are those that measured attitudes toward learning and school. Of the four studies, one found no significant improvement in attitudes; one found partial improvement; one found a positive trend; and one found significant improvement. Additional information is given by Bloom (1976) in her review of the research on tutoring programs. She reports a number of studies in which students had significant improvement in attitudes toward school.
The research on the effects of field education on attitudes toward school and learning, though not conclusive, is very encouraging. The objective measures indicate that following participation in a field education program, students have a more positive attitude toward school. The subjective reports of teachers, parents, and students on questionnaires agree that students are more interested in school and are more motivated to learn.
An indirect way to assess attitude toward school would be to consider behavior in school (e.g. discipline, truancy, and drop-out rates) and academic achievement. These areas are discussed here in other sections.
None of the studies reported here were conducted on field education programs that were specifically designed to improve academic achievement. The programs studied were intended to involve students in community life, provide a needed service ( e.g. tutoring), or enhance career education. Nevertheless, many practitioners believe that field education experiences do have a positive effect on achievement. The studies that have measured achievement have been grouped according to the type of measure employed.
Carey and Webber (1979) administered subtests 1-5: Vocabulary, Comprehension, Mechanics, Expression, and Spelling. They found that the control group had significantly better post-test scores on the mechanics and expression subtests.
Owens and Fehrenbacker (1975) measured Reading, Language, Arithmetic, and Study Skills on the CTBS. They specifically state that "it was not a goal of (the program) that its students make greater growth in Basic Skills than a random sample of students . . . " only that they not make significantly less growth." (p. 4) Although experimental students made significant gains, the experimental students gained no more than the comparison group.
Beister (1978) tested for Reading Comprehension, Arithmetic Applications, and Arithmetic Concepts on the CTBS. Students participated in this program for two years. Students made significant gains on Arithmetic Concepts and Arithmetic Applications during the first year and significant gains on all three subtests during the second year. In the first year, the experimental students' gains were not significantly greater on any of the subtests than the control group. However, in the second year, the experimental students made significantly greater gains than the control group on the reading Comprehension and Arithmetic Applications subtests. Over the two-year period, the experimental students' cumulative gains were significantly greater than the control group on the Arithmetic Concepts and Arithmetic Applications subtests.
In 1976, Dr. Sophie Bloom published a review of research on peer and cross-age tutoring for the National Institute of Education. Bloom reviews the effects on both the tutors and the tutees on three dimensions: achievement, attitudes toward school, and self-concept. She concludes that benefits for tutors include gains in both attitude toward school and self-concept. But she states: "Perhaps the clearest benefits for tutors is that they improve their own learning ... In 66 percent of these studies there were significant gains in school achievement for tutors. These findings were especially true for measures of gains in reading and language arts" (p. 13).
Bloom summarizes the results of 15 studies in which tutors' grades ranged from 4 to 12. Six of the studies involved high school age tutors. Four of these studies found significant gains in achievement for the tutors.
The research on academic achievement is surprisingly encouraging. Yet one point must be kept in mind in considering this research. None of the programs studied were deliberately and specifically designed to enhance academic achievement. Several of the researchers pointedly state that they did not expect to find significantly greater gains in academic achievement for the experimental students as compared to control groups. The researchers hoped that students would not suffer academically due to participation in field education programs. On this, the research is conclusive.
In only one of the studies reviewed, (Carey and Webber, 1979) and then on only two of five subtests, did experimental students show no gain in achievement or significantly less gain than control students. On the basis of this research, the confident assertion can be made that participation in field education programs is not detrimental to academic achievement. This is interesting, since field education students in many of the studies spent markedly fewer hours in traditional academic courses than control students.
The research is not conclusive on the obverse statement that participation in field education has definite positive effects on academic achievement. However the research is remarkably supportive. Of the twelve studies reviewed ( one college group and eleven high school groups, six reported by Bloom), experimental students made positive gains in four programs and significant gains in five pr grams on measures of academic achievement.
The research presented here suggests two conclusions. One, field education programs do not hamper academic achievement despite the fact that field education participants may devote less time to traditional educational courses. Two, participation in field education programs may enhance academic achievement.
There is one other more speculative, yet inescapable, conclusion. Even though a field education program does not directly intend to promote academic learning, successful participation may indirectly and positively affect academic achievement. Urie suggests that participation in a field education program gives meaning to students' lives. Bloom reports that in seven studies the researchers concluded "that tutor gains in achievement were primarily true when achievement gains were also made by their tutees." (p. 14) The review of the research of personal development clearly shows gains in self-concept following participation in field education programs. These threads lead to an intriguing hypothesis.
By heightening self-concept and self-confidence, field education experiences may motivate students to have higher academic achievement. As a result of field education experiences, students may have a stronger sense of self-control and more confidence their abilities to positively affect their environment, including school. As a consequence, they may have a more positive attitude toward school and learning and more motivation to perform well academically. Thus, regardless of the type of field education program, a successful field education experience may lead to high academic achievement.
A few of the studies not only used standardized measures but also questionnaires. These questionnaires were intended for more internal program evaluation rather than for objective evaluation They do, however, provide an indication of the general support and value of field education programs. The questionnaires were given to parents, students, teachers, and field supervisors.
One question that was asked by most of the researchers was whether the respondent was supportive of the programs. In all cases where this question was asked, students, parents, teachers, and field supervisors were overwhelmingly supportive of the programs.
When field supervisors were asked if they would either con- tinue with the program or recommend it to other "agencies," the responses were: 77% yes ( Stead, 1977); 92% yes (Newton, 1975); 93% yes (University of Pittsburgh, 1975); 94.7% yes (Usher, 1977); and 100% yes (Owens and Fehrenbacker, 1975). The percentage of parents, teachers, and students who responded yes to whether the program was beneficial or should be continued was similar - 90% to 100%.
A second question that was frequently asked was what benefits the students gained from participation in the field experience. Again, there was remarkable agreement among teachers, students, and parents. There was also a strong consistency among the studies in response to this question. The benefits most often cited can be divided into three categories: interpersonal or intrapersonal skills, attitudes toward school and learning, and career awareness.
Even a cursory comparison of the lists given by students, parents, and teachers shows their overall agreement. The composite portrait is of students who are more responsible, mature, and self-confident; more open and positive in social relations; more interested in school and motivated to learn; and more generally aware and knowledgeable about the world of work. These are the subjective perceptions of the people involved. But they tally extremely well with the results of the standardized measures reviewed earlier.
There are a few observations that deserve comment. The following are cautious speculations based on slim evidence or peripheral remarks in the research reports. Nevertheless, they are worthy of note and, certainly, of further research.
Young people are often considered to be idealistic. Frequently, this is a polite way of saying that they are impractical or have unreasonable expectations. Several of the studies concluded that participants emerged from the field education experiences being more realistic about themselves, others, school, or work. Hypothetically, the field experience provided concrete information about self, others, education, and work. Based on this information, participants could make more accurate assessments of their own abilities, the characteristics of other people, the purpose of education, and the world of work.
Young people's idealism is particularly apparent in their career and related educational goals and in their expectations about their own abilities and achievements. All too often young people have chosen a career goal, yet they have not considered such issues as the cost of education, the training necessary, the competition, or the personal abilities required by the work. As indicated by the questionnaires, this is the kind of information that students acquire through a field experience. They may not alter their career choices, but they are able to fill the gap between the wish and the goal with a realistic plan based on practical information.
Currently, the drop-out rate for high school students is 23 percent. Clearly, this continues to be a serious problem. Field education programs may contribute to a solution of this problem by providing an educational option that attracts and holds students in school. One study found fewer discipline problems among field education program participants. Two studies found lowered truancy rates. And one study claimed fewer drop-outs among the field education students as compared to the general school population. In another, the parents of participants suggested that the field education program offered an alternative that may have prevented students from leaving school. Admittedly, this is slim evidence for making any strong claim. However, the research does show that field education experiences do enhance attitudes toward school. For students who are disaffected with traditional education, field education programs may stimulate the motivation to continue their education.
One of the criticisms of public education is that the system contributes to age segregation in American society. One of the advantages of field education is that students usually have an adult field supervisor and role model who is neither their teacher nor their parent. Ideally, this relationship can evolve into one of mutual respect, particularly if the student is accepted, and expected to function, in an adult role.
In the questionnaire portions of the research, students indicated the importance of their relationship with their supervisors. They turned to their supervisor for guidance, support, and solutions to problems. The students rated this relationship as more important to them than coursework, school personnel, or program seminars or discussion groups. These elements of field education programs were valued by students. But the key ingredient, for them, was the relationship with the supervisor.
The research indicates that after their field experiences, students felt more accepted by their teachers. And parents reported more understanding, positive relations with their children. One might speculate that students who had positive interactions with adult supervisors were more positive in their interactions with other adults. There may also be a Pygmalion effect: students whose supervisors expected them to act as adults may have, in fact, come to behave and think as adults.