A great deal of attention has been given to cooperative education programs in those academic areas, such as business, engineering, and applied sciences, which have direct connections with business and industry. For instance, several evaluation studies have been conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of co-op experience in catalyzing the career success of co-op undergraduates in business administration (Brock, Larson, Rogers, & Stull, 1984; Gore, 1972; Krebs, 1989), engineering (Gillin, Davie, Beissl, 1984;, Marks & Wohlford, 1971), and mathematics and science (Herring, Gantzer, & Nolting, 1990; Jarrell, 1974; Rowe, 1980). On the other hand, relatively little attention has been given to evaluating the success of co-op students majoring in humanities, arts, and the social sciences (although see Martello & Shelton, 1980-8t Siedenberg, 1990). Yet interestingly enough, the best evidence suggests that a relatively large percentage of college graduates who majored in humanities, arts, and social sciences end up in positions that are commonly associated with fields that typically employ many co-op students such as business and public administration.
Take for example, the undergraduate major of Psychology. Psychology is a particularly popular undergraduate academic major, with over 50,000 bachelors degrees awarded in the U.S. annually. Although a graduate degree is considered essential training for a professional career in Psychology (e.g., APA, 1991; Fretz & Stang, 1980), only a relatively small percentage of Psychology majors obtain graduate degrees in Psychology (U.S. Department of Education, 1992). The best evidence suggests that many undergraduate psychology majors end up, not in jobs that are typically associated with psychological training, but in positions that may be best described as "supervisory" jobs in either private or public sector organizations (see Carducci, 1988; Parker, Hedl, & Chan; 1988; Woods, 1987). This includes managerial positions in human resources, administration, marketing, and a variety of other areas. In addition, other psychology graduates obtain technical-professional positions as data analysts, personnel "specialists" or "consultants" in the so-called ''business" sector. Therefore, it seems reasonable that some supervised work experience where students could see applications of psychological principles to work behavior would benefit psychology undergraduates who are not interested in pursuing graduate study in Psychology; such experience would also be of some benefit for graduate school-bound students who want some practical work experience. To this end, in 1983, we developed, at California State University, Fullerton, a field placement co-op course with an emphasis in Industrial/Organizational (I/0) Psychology. Clearly the topics typically studied by I/0 psychologists have direct relevance for practicing managers and for students "apprenticing" to be managers or supervisors (Riggio, 1990).
This I/0 co-op course was modeled partly on an existing undergraduate Clinical/Community Psychology field placement course, partly on the graduate-level internship experiences in some Masters degree and Ph.D. programs in I/0 Psychology, and partly on undergraduate cooperative education programs that are quite common for business and engineering undergraduates (but less common for psychology majors). This I/0 co-op course was offered to junior and senior undergraduates who had completed a survey course in Industrial/ Organizational Psychology and finished most of their undergraduate Psychology coursework. The co-op course combined in-class academic experience with a minimum of 10 hours per week in a relevant, supervised field placement site. Of the 82 placements made through the co-op course, approximately 60% of the co-op students (n SO) involved paid work experience, and 40% (n=32) were unpaid, volunteer placements. Co-ops were in a variety of positions in a wide range of private and public sector organizations. The most common placements were in human resources or marketing departments in medium-sized or large companies, administrative positions in public sector organizations (e.g., city or county government, large volunteer organizations), "assistant" positions with management consultants or other "organizational" consultants (including I/0 psychologists), or human factors positions in high-tech industries. Students typically obtained these placements either through the University's Cooperative Education Office, through the instructor's contacts, or through the student's own efforts and contacts.
This field placement/co-op course has been a regular offering, with a section offered nearly every semester since 1983. Class sizes tended to range from 4-12 students per semester. To date, a few more than 100 students have completed this I/0 Psychology co-op course. The purpose of this study was twofold. First, it was designed to evaluate the impact of a specific co-op course on the early careers of alumni. Particular concern was given both to alumni's subjective perceptions of how the co-op course had contributed to their early career development, and to a more objective analysis of how alumni who completed the co-op experience compared to their peers who did not complete a co-op experience. To this end, it was anticipated that (1) alumni would view the co-op experience as an important contributor to their early career development; (2) alumni with co-op experience would perceive their academic training as more relevant to their professional careers than alumni without coop experience; and (3) alumni with co-op experience would show greater early career success (in terms of salary, satisfaction with current position, etc.) than alumni lacking co-op experience. The second purpose of this study is to provide an example of the kind of ongoing evaluation of coop programs that can be done at the departmental or program level.
Participants. The participants consisted of the 82 former co-op students and 47 students who had: expressed interest in the /0 co-op, filled out application materials for the course, met the course prerequisites, but who had never enrolled in the course nor had a co-op experience. All students had been enrolled as psychology majors at CSUF at some time between the years of 1983 and 1990 (covering all field placement courses from Spring of 1983 through Fall of 1990). The 47 students who had applied for, but not had a co-op experience, were used as a comparison group. The intention was to use a "motivated" comparison group, e.g., students who had actually explored co-op and students who had similar career interests such as an emphasis in I/0 Psychology, as the actual co-op students. The reasons these comparison students did not get co-op experience were varied. Sometimes, the students were hampered by time constraints. Other times, the students simply did not complete the process. [All applicants to the course were guaranteed by the instructor that a co-op would be found for them if they wanted one, and these comparison students were aware that they could have obtained a co-op if they really wanted one].
Procedures. Sixty-seven of the 82 co-op alumni had completed, at the end of the semester, an evaluation of their co-op experience and of the course. These questionnaires provided a concurrent student evaluation of the co-op experience and the field placement course.
All participants, both co-op alumni and comparison alumni, were mailed a survey during the 1991-1992 academic year. Of the 82 co-op alumni 24 surveys (29%) were returned as undeliverable; of the 47 comparison alumni 17 surveys (36%) could not be delivered. Of the remaining 58 co-op alumni and 30 comparison alumni 17 co-op surveys were returned, and nine surveys were returned from comparison alumni, for response rates of 29% and 30%, respectively. No doubt, our survey was hampered by the fact that our state institution puts relatively little effort into maintaining contact with alumni and the fact that new college graduates, particularly in Southern California tend to change residences frequently. It is anticipated that institutions with better alumni networks should have higher return rates than our survey.
The surveys asked about the alumni's educational experiences, including courses that they found particularly valuable for their careers, and whether they had pursued any graduate studies. The surveys also asked participants to provide a detailed description of their current job, including ratings of their satisfaction with their current job and how much their psychological training contributed to the work they do. Finally, participants were asked to give a detailed work history since graduation, including brief job descriptions and salaries. In addition to these questions, co-op alumni were asked to give a retrospective evaluation of the co-op experience on a series of 9-point rating scales asking how much the co-op experience contributed to: securing a job; career advancement; helpfulness in "other areas (a "9" indicated "a great deal" a "1" indicated "very little"). The results of this survey will be presented in two ways. First, we will focus on the responses of the former co-op students. Second, we will compare the co-op alumni with the non-co-op alumni.
Evaluations Made by Co-op Students. The 67 students who completed the co-op experience concurrently submitted an evaluation of the co-op experience at the end of the term. These concurrent evaluations of their experience were generally very favorable, with a mean overall evaluation of the experience of 5.9 on a 7-point semantic differential type rating scale. Also, 83 percent of the students said they would recommend their coop sites to another student. In addition, 91 % said they developed new skills from the experience, and students generally felt their on-site supervision was of high quality (Mean = 5.7 on a 7-point scale; a high score on both 7-point rating scales indicated a more "positive" experience). These concurrent ratings also coincide with the co-op coordinator's experience. Students generally reported that their co-op experiences were positive and beneficial to their learning and career development. It was common for co-op students to mention that the coop course was a highlight of their undergraduate education. On the other hand, the number of real "problems" with co-op placements have numbered fewer than five out of more than 100 placements to date. Another informal piece of evidence concerning the value of the l/0 Psychology co-op experience is that many students report receiving offers of full-time employment from their co-op employers post-graduation. Indeed, seven of the 82 co-op students mailed surveys themselves became on-site supervisors of co-op students in later academic years.
Comparisons of Co-op and Non-Co-op Alumni. The comparison of co-op (n = 17) and non-co-op (n = 9) alumni showed some important differences between the two groups. For example, the cumulative college grade point average of co-op students was slightly, although not significantly higher than of non-co-op students (Mean of 2.99 and 2.77, respectively; t-test for mean differences = 1.2, not significant). Using a 7-point scale indicating '1evel of responsibility" associated with current job (ranging from 1 -'1 report to a supervisor, but do not supervise subordinates" to 7 - "I hold an executive position/I am head of a department"), co-op alumni had significantly more responsible current jobs (Mean 3.60; Standard Deviation 2.0) than comparision alumni (Mean= 2.25; S.D. = 1.0; t=2.1, p<.05). On a 5-point scale of overall job satisfaction, co-op alumni were slightly, but not significantly, more satisfied with their current jobs (Mean = 3.56) than were comparison alumni (Mean 2.88, t = 1.3, not significant). Co-op alumni were also slightly more likely to rate their psychology major as being relevant to their current job than were comparison alumni (Means, respectively 4.27 and 3.75; t=1.0, not significant). Finally, co-op alumni had higher current salaries (Means $30,973 vs. $21,150; t = 2.3, p<.05), and higher salary histories, than did comparison alumni, although the differences were not always statistically significant due to the small number of comparison subjects and the large variances in salaries. Interestingly, most co-op alumni (56%) and non-co-op alumni (78%) said they had pursued some post-graduate studies, which makes interpretation of salaries difficult, since salaries may often be adversely affected by taking graduate courses. It is also important to mention that these comparison analyses were hampered by the low numbers of alumni (particularly comparison alumni) who completed the surveys. The low response rates not only made it difficult for differences to reach statistical significance, but it also makes it difficult to generalize from such a small and self-selected group to a larger group of alumni. Yet despite these limitations the results are interesting and potentially meaningful.
Co-op Alumni's Retrospective Evaluations. Turning to the separate questionnaire asking about co-op alumni's perceptions of how the co-op experience and course contributed to their careers, responses to a series of 9-point ratings scales showed that these alumni believed the co-op experience had a very positive effect on their careers. For example, alumni believed the co-op experience: contributed to securing a job post-graduation (Mean = 6.8 on the 9-point scale) and contributed to career advancement (Mean = 6.9). In addition, co-op alumni believed that the co-op experience gave them an advantage over non-co-op students (82%) and alumni said they would recommend co-op to other students (94%).
With some qualifications, these results showed that an undergraduate co-op program in I/0 Psychology was successful, both in terms of alumni perceptions of the value of the experience in helping their professional careers, and in terms of comparison data hinting at objective career advantages (i.e., higher levels of responsibility and salary) for students with co-op experience. The important qualifications are: (1) the relatively small number of alumni participants (especially from the non co-op group); (2) the fact that although many of the differences between co-op and comparison alumni were in the predicted direction, they were statistically non significant; and (3) the fact that the study relied entirely on self-report data, and often relied on retrospective self-reports.
In spite of these limitations, however, the generally positive impact the co-op experience seemed to have on these psychology students is consistent with the substantial research illustrating the positive effects of cooperative education experience in the career success of business students and students in other academic majors (e.g., Fletcher, 1989; Gardner, Nixon, & Motschenbacker, 1991; Ryder & Wilson, 1987; Taylor, 1988).
The present study was an attempt to show that evaluations of even very small, department-based co-op programs can be conducted, and that the results can be informative and meaningful. With the recent trend toward outcome assessment in higher education, the present evaluation program is an illustration of one relatively easy and cost-efficient type of outcome assessment. In addition, this evaluation, and the positive results obtained, helped justify continuation of the I/0 Psychology field placement/co-op course through recent lean budgetary times. Finally, the authors are sure that this type of I/0 Psychology field placement/co-op is not unique, and that similar programs exist in several colleges and universities. Unfortunately, evaluations of these programs are either rarely conducted, or go unpublished, as we were unable to locate any published evaluations of undergraduate I/0 Psychology co-op programs. Perhaps this evaluation, despite its limitations, will encourage Psychology departments that do not have such co-op programs to consider starting one, and encourage those departments that do have such programs to conduct evaluations of them and/or disseminate the results.