Research conducted about cooperative education has largely focused on program development (Wilson, 1988). Other studies, regarding attitudes toward cooperative education (Heller and Heinemann, 1987; Wilson, 1989) have reinforced the need for additional research and documentation of the benefits of co-op to each of its effected constituencies: students, employers, institutions. Very few attempts at connecting co-op participation to student retention have been made (Somers, 1986; Dudzik, 1989). This is surprising, especially given the trend of declining numbers of traditional age college students during the late 1980's to early 1990's and the impact on colleges, particularly those that are tuition-dependent. In 1985, a survey of college presidents showed that retention was a major concern (Chronicle of Higher Education, 1985).
In the 1992 American Council on Education (ACE) survey of entering freshmen, 78.5 percent indicated that they were going to college to get a better job. Retention studies show a direct relationship between students' educational aspirations and their career goals, concluding that a combination of high educational goals and well-established career goals leads to greater persistence to graduation (Astin, 1975). Beal and Noel (1980) report that indecision about career goals and limited educational aspirations are the factors that contribute most to attrition. Hillery (1978) concludes that students who make educational decisions such as choice of major and course of study often make such decisions impulsively, based on unrealistic ideas about the demands of various careers. These decisions often result in a lack of commitment followed by poor academic achievement leading to attrition. According to Sprandel (1987), students "need to be aware of the real world of life outside the campus and of how courses and activities in which they are engaged as students are related to their future lives."
The connection between persistence and cooperative education is self-evident. Yet, at many institutions co-op is still looked on as an easily expendable fringe. Showing the relationship between retention and coop can build a strong case for institutional commitment particularly at institutions where attrition rates are high. While the Somers study suggests a relationship between participation in co-op and graduation rates, students were ineligible for co-op until the completion of the Sophomore year. However, since attrition rates typically are highest in the first year for four-year institutions, and are expected to decrease by half in each succeeding year (NoeL Levitz, 1987), retention-related programs for Juniors and Seniors would appear to have negligible impact on students' decisions to persist to graduation_ (See Table 1 below).
| 5 Year Graduation Rates | National Freshman to Sophomore Dropout Rates | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selectively | Public | Public | Private | Private |
| Highly Selective | 63.2% | 81.8% | 17.4% | 6.1% |
| Selective | 62.9% | 66.9% | 13.8% | 14.2% |
| Traditional | 50.5% | 55.0% | 13.8% | 25.2% |
| Liberal | 45.8% | 47.5% | 29.8% | 32.1% |
| Open | 41.8% | 41.4% | 41.6% | 37.8% |
A logical group to study, therefore, is underclassmen (Freshmen and Sophomores). Yet, in a survey of the co-op community conducted in 1990 by Barbeau and Kaye for the Cooperative Education Research Center at Northeastern University, only 33 percent of the four-year institutions polled reported placing students before the Junior year. Only 2.5 percent of those institutions placed students during the Freshman year. Like the Somers report, the Dudzik study - the most comprehensive to date with 1808 students from eight institutions - again was limited to schools that restricted participation in co-op to Juniors and Seniors only. Research in this area is clearly needed as retention plays an underlying role in every aspect of institutional planning for institutions at all levels.
This study looks at students from four entering classes (1989, 1990, 1991, 1992) at Long Island University/Southampton Campus who were placed in co-op positions as freshmen and sophomores and compares their rate of retention to that of their non-co-op peers through to the junior year.
LIU/Southampton is a four-year, private, liberal arts institution with liberal admissions selection criteria. (The combined average SAT score profile for the last four entering classes ranging from 910 to 936 is misleading, since fully one-third of each entering class required remediation, and a large honors cohort in each class created a bimodal distribution). The college is known for its marine science programs. Cooperative education has been part of the academic curriculum since 1 CJ79 when it was initiated by faculty in the Natural Science Division. Since then, the program has expanded to include all academic disciplines. It is a credit-bearing elective in every major and a requirement in three majors: Environmental Science, Communication Arts, Graphic Design. The pattern of co-op may be parallel or alternating, and students are eligible after completion of one full-time semester of study with a grade point average of 2.0 on a 4.0 scale. Co-op participation is structured and formal with a mandatory preplacement workshop, learning contract and final paper. The co-op placement period is for the duration of a full-semester. Since the program's inception, over fifteen hundred students have been placed in co-op positions.
Since 1989, the college has had a strong emphasis on experiential learning as part of the LIU Plan. Although efforts have increased to encourage freshmen and sophomores to participate in co-op, numbers in this population are still smaller than hoped for.
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of co-op on retention. Specifically it sought to answer two questions:
This study analyzes the impact of co-op on retention, using a population of 1028 first-time, full-time freshmen from the entering classes of 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992. Data were taken from official college records. Before examining retention data, an assessment of comparability of the two populations upon entry into the college was undertaken. This was deemed important for several reasons: (a) since the program is elective, there is no way in advance of knowing which students will select coop as an option; (b) a minimum grade point average (2.0 on a 4.0 scale) for participating in co-op essentially excludes poor achievers, and there is a direct relationship between ability levels and freshman attrition (Noel, 1987). By determining relative academic equivalence between populations, grade point average could be ruled out as an influencing factor. Many variables may affect the predictability of first year academic success. In this instance, verbal SAT scores, which have a predictive validity correlation of .52 for freshman grade point average. (Ramist, 1984) were used to evaluate whether co-op and non-co-op populations were equivalent academically upon entry into the college. Use of combined SAT scores was ruled out because the program places a disproportionate number of science students whose math SAT scores are expected to be higher than average. At-test was performed to compare SAT scores for freshmen in co-op and general (non-co-op) populations.
The study also compares the retention rate from freshman to sophomore year of students who participated in co-op during their first year of study with that of the general population (non-co-op) from the same entering classes. It also looks at the 570 students from the classes of 1989, 1990, 1991 who returned as sophomores, comparing retention rates through to the junior year of those who did co-op in either of the first two years to that of the general (non-co-op ) population. Students from the entering class of 1992 were excluded since they are in their sophomore year at the time of completion of this study. A chi-square test was used to compare the retention percentages for each population during each time period.
In the Southampton study it was found that academic profiles, measured by entering verbal SAT scores, were not significantly different between co-op and non-co-op students. (See Table 2). This is an important point to note for two reasons. First, it is often suggested that academically gifted students are the ones who select co-op. Second, weaker students are more dropout prone.
| Freshman Classes 1989-1992 | Total | Non-Co-op | Co-op |
|---|---|---|---|
| Freshman N= | 1028 | 916 | 112 |
| Mean SAT V= | 1028 | 916 | 112 |
| S.D. | 96 | 111 |
A summary of the Chi-Square test comparing retention for these classes indicates a statistically significant difference between the retention rates of the co-op and general populations after the first year, suggesting a relationship between co-op and retention at LIU/Southampton. (See Table 3 below). Statistical significance at the .001 level, indicates no more than one chance in a thousand that this difference in the rates of retention occurred by chance.
| Freshman Classes 1989-1992 | Total | Non-Co-op | Co-op | X2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freshman N= | 1028 | 973 | 55 | |
| Retention after year = 1 | 722 | 671 | 51 | |
| Percentage | 70 | 69 | 93 | 14.0641* |
Sophomore to Junior year retention was calculated based on the total number of students from the initial pool who returned for the sophomore year, excluding that group of students from the entering class of 1992 who would still be sophomores. The co-op pool consists of students from those classes who did co-op in either of their first two years (See Table 4).
| Freshman Classes 1989-1992 | Total | Non-Co-op | Co-op | X2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freshman N= | 570 | 475 | 95 | |
| Retention after year = 1 | 435 | 356 | 79 | |
| Percentage | 82 | 75 | 83 | 2.953* |
Attrition rates are expected to be reduced by half in each year following the freshman year. The figures above conform approximately to that pattern. Freshmen are an ideal group to study, because they generally take standard academic programs and preadmission measures (such as SAT scores) are valid predictors for academic performance in the first year. Predictive validity declines each successive year (Ramist, 1984). As mentioned earlier, academic performance and persistence correlate positively. For those students who participated in co-op in the first and second years the rates of retention to the junior year as compared with the non-co-op group was significant. (x2= 2.953, p<.1) As students progress in college, additional factors influence their decisions· and it appears that they become increasingly similar to the general population.
This study suggests evidence of the relationship between early participation in co-op and retention. Since no differences were found in academic ability of co-op and non-co-op populations before placement, one can be confident that co-op participants were not at an advantage academically and thus were not predisposed to being retained at a higher rate than their non-co-op peers. It is noteworthy that co-op in this instance is elective, since results at a mandatory co-op institution might yield different results. Implications for elective co-op programs that have traditionally been limited to upperclassmen and for those that have selective criteria for participation are far-reaching. The financial implications for institutions with high attrition levels are significant.
If cooperative education programs - which are labor and cost intensive - expect to be considered an integral part of the institutions they serve, program results must reinforce institutional goals. Student retention is a financial issue that is clearly a high priority for all institutions. Since multiple factors affect decisions to leave school including finances, social adjustment and myriad external influences, it is often difficult to discover the real reasons behind each individual's decision.
This study has attempted to show that by enhancing one factor - relevance of coursework to career goals - student persistence can be influenced. Because placement of freshmen and sophomores is not a widespread practice, this study was limited by the small number of available subjects and further study is suggested. Additional studies might also attempt to analyze variables such as gender, major, and the effect of alternating vs. parallel placements. This study included co-op in each of its forms and treated the co-op population as a single entity. Of course, any study of the effect of co-op on grade point average would be valuable as well.