STUDENT ASSESSMENT OF THE CO-OP EXPERIENCE AND OPTIMUM INTEGRATION OF CLASSROOM LEARNING WITH PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Introduction

Defining cooperative education as a method of pedagogy that integrates theory and practice does not mean that all practical experiences are educational and that learning automatically happens. Dewey asserted that there exist experiences that are mis-educative, that is, have "the effect of arresting or distorting the growth of further experience." (1938, p. 13) The challenge for those who monitor cooperative education is to insure that students have a quality work experience that complements and enhances their theoretical learning and educative experience. By tracking the qualities of students' co-op experiences, their reports and evaluations, and employers' assessment of their work performance over the span of all co-op terms, we can gather a quantity of analyzable information and use it to improve the co-op experience.

The research reported here rests on the assumption that the quality of a work experience is gauged by several variables describing the co-op work assignment, to which students respond and use to assess the overall work experience. The purpose of this research was to identify the variables most linked to high overall evaluation. Our intention then is to use this information to develop instructional strategies and topics that reinforce the student learning process. Although the research is based on a study in the area of architecture, the process can be replicated for other disciplines, as well.

Literature Review

The literature is replete with research reports regarding the career planning, personal development, and academic performance benefits that accrue to students from their participation in cooperative education (Wilson and Lyons, 1961; Smith, 1965; Lindenmeyer, 1967; Davie, 1974; Wilson, 1974; Bales 1979; Heller, 1987; Apostolides, 1989; Dawson, 1989; Fletcher, 1989). These early efforts to understand the outcomes of co-op participation were not theory-based and examined outcomes as though they naturally and inevitably occurred. Still without theory, researchers explored job satisfaction as a factor contributing to co-op students' level of job performance (Rowe, 1970; Rowe, 1976; Rowe and Lumley, 1971; Hartley, 1978; Foster, Franz, and Waller, 1986). Conversely, other studies focused on factors that contribute to student satisfaction from cooperative education (Laycock, Hermon, and Laetz, 1992; Wanat and Snell, 1980; Page, Wiseman, and Crary, 1981).

More recently, authors have begun to examine the outcomes of cooperative education in light of theories, developmental and educational. (Branton, Van Gyn, Cutt, Loken, Ney, and Ricks, 1990; Fletcher, 1990; Van Gyn 1994). These research reports and essays make a valuable contribution in that they attempt to establish a theoretical context for understanding the outcomes of cooperative education. Again, however, they did not address issues of how and why cooperative education works and how we might make it work better.

Most recently, authors such as Mezirow (1991), Garvin (1993), Gardner (1996), Ricks (1996), Van Gyn (1996), and Wilson, Stull, and Vinsohaler (1996) have taken a multidimensional approach to the educative function of cooperative education. They have focused on processes, instruments, and theories that explore factors and relationships to create a dynamic setting where students engage in responsible proactive and interactive learning. In these studies, the importance of the workplace is featured, both as a reflection of the changes occurring in the marketplace and as a potential for developing a learning organization in which employees are prompted to become self-directed learners.

The research reported here is grounded in these latter ideas about cooperative education and suggests that simultaneously co-op can promotes self-directed learning and that educators can influence co-op learning outcome. While classroom education can be readily structured and evaluated, co-op education is less predictable and less able to be structured. Nonetheless, we have arrived at a point in our thinking about cooperative education and a time when external demands make it necessary that we view co-op in terms of curriculum. The intent of this study, therefore, is to contribute to the development of strategies to structure the total co-op experience. Recent work on educational and organizational theories, reflective practice, transformational learning has given us a sound foundation to use our findings and to design interactive, progressive, discipline-related curricula. The target discipline in this study is architecture, which balances art, engineering and science, and addresses many issues. As a result, the methodology we have used will be relevant for other institutions offering cooperative education.

Background and Methodology

The University Cincinnati operates on a quarter system and co-op students alternate academic quarters with co-op work quarters. Before their first co-op term, students must take a preparatory course and have completed several required courses in their major. Students start to co-op in the sophomore year (quarters vary with degree discipline) and must satisfactorily complete a minimum of four co-op quarters to a maximum of eight co-op quarters. Cooperative education is a degree requirement for undergraduate architecture students and consists of eight co-op terms. Starting with the Spring or Summer quarters of their sophomore year, students alternate academic quarters with co-op quarters. At graduation, 40 percent of students' education will have been spent on co-op work assignments.

Typically, the work assignments for the first two co-op terms are designed to introduce students to the world of work, including the structure of the organization and its management style. Assignments focus on the basic functions of practice and allow students to develop general and technical skills, e.g., communication and drafting. The following four coop quarters fall during the pre-junior and junior years, where academic preparation becomes increasingly specialized and where students develop additional interest and curiosity for the profession. The co-op work assignment involves students in real projects with real clients and real implications. Skill development expands to areas providing discipline- related services to both the employer-supervisor and clients. The last two co-op quarters come in the senior year with students more actively exposed to the management style of the organization and the idiosyncracies of the key players. They interact with clients and, on occasion, present their own design schemes. The work assignment varies but, for the most part, resembles that of an entry level intern architect.

Two sources of data have been used in this research. The first is the Architectural Students Co-op Record. This is designed to document students' co-op experiences for each of the eight work terms, including employers, kinds of projects, Intern Development Program training areas, student assessment of supervision and experiences. The second source of data is the Employer Appraisal of Professional Practice Student record, which is completed by the employer-supervisor in the student's presence and often discussed with the student during the exit interview.

The data consist of 120 completed records for five groups of students, beginning with 1987-88 and ending with 1991-92. The students (approximately half the undergraduate architecture student body) all completed eight co-op quarters, and graduated between 1992 and 1996. Inferential statistics are used to test student ratings of the overall co-op experience vs. aspects that affect the quality of that experience, employer grade vs. student GPA, and student ratings of the overall co-op experience.

This research assumes that student assessment of the co-op term as a whole is a reliable proxy for the quality of the co-op experience. Based on that assumption two hypotheses were tested. First, we hypothesized that some elements of the work experience (described below) affect overall assessment more so than others. By identifying these it will be possible to highlight areas in which professional practice faculty can focus their advising effort. Second, we hypothesized that high employer-supervisor evaluations are positively correlated with high student rating of the co-op experience. If so, this information will aid professional practice faculty in teaching students to evaluate their own performance and become self-directed learners.

The variables that constitute elements of the overall rating of the coop experience are:

Supervision. Since supervising and mentoring are instrumental in fostering student learning, we tested whether good supervision practices result in a high rating of co-op experience. The variable is quality of supervision and the ranking is "very good," "good," "adequate," "unsupervised," and "poor."

Co-op work assignment. The work assignment is portrayed by examination of several specific variables: office type, office size, project type, activity training areas, degree of challenge of co-op assignment, student ability to handle projects, and student contribution to projects.

Employer-supervisor appraisal. Several specific variables are included: co-op employer grade (A, B, C, D) and employer ratings of student cooperation with others, student taking initiative, student ability to learn, quality of work, volume of work, and willingness to accept responsibility.

Student work conditions. The variable is student perception of office atmosphere. The ranking categories are "very enjoyable," "enjoyable," "satisfactory," "pressured," and "uncomfortable."

Student academic performance. The measure of academic performance is the quarterly Grade Point Average (GPA) for the academic quarter preceding the co-op quarter. The categories are "A= 3.50-4.00," "B=3.00- 3.49," "C=2.50-2.99," and "D=2.00-2.49."

Findings

After describing the students, the elements of their co-op work assignments, and the factors that influence the quality of the co-op experience, inferential statistics are used. We first describe our sample and second, test a set of variables for correlations.

The Research Sample - Profiles of students, employers, and work assignments. The sample consisted of 120 architectural students from the graduating classes of 1992 through 1996: 1992, 21 (18%); 1993, 18 (15%); 1994, 28 (23%); 1995, 28 (23%); 1996, 25 (21 %). Although 91 (76%) of the sample were male and 29 (24%) female, no gender distinction was made in the analysis of data.

The sample contains 220 co-op employers. Of these, 56% are architecture firms, 7% are architecture engineering (A/E) firms, 10% are architecture interiors (A/I) firms, 1 % are engineering firms, 2% are design/build firms, 11 % are multidisciplinary firms, and 13% are other (e.g., architecture departments in various state or city agencies or institutions). Regarding size, 62% are small (1-19 employees), 18% are medium (20-49), 9% are medium-large (50-99), and 11 % are large (100 and more). Based on the 1994 survey of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) we conclude that this pool of co-op employers is representative of the professional architecture environment.

In terms of co-op work assignments over the eight co-op quarters (929 total assignments), nearly half (45.2%) of the assignments are to architectural offices and more than half (52.5%) to offices with fewer than 20 employees (Table 1).

Table 1
Percentage of AJA Members, Co-op Employers and Co-op Work Assignments by Office Type and Size

Despite the type or size of the offices where they work, students have the opportunity to be exposed to a variety of projects each co-op quarter. These consist of: commercial (which include also retail, office, and recreational), 65.7%; historic preservation (which include also renovation), 24.3%; institutional (which include also educational, civic, and correctional), 40.3%; medical (which include also nursing homes and outpatient structures), 22.1%; residential (privately owned single-family and speculative multi-family units), 34.4%; and other (e.g., industrial, space planning, urban design), 27.8%.

Table 2 presents the activity training areas in which students worked for the first, fifth and eighth work terms. These quarters were selected because they represent the three stages of a student's practical professional education: early (general), middle (professional), and late (capstone or focused). It will be observed that there is a shift of activities over time.

The "none" row in Table 2 specifies the percentage of students that did not work in a particular training area. Thus, 40% of first co-op quarter students did not participate in "presentation" training activities, whereas 60% did. By examining this row, shifts in training activities over the eight co-op terms become apparent. For example, "presentation" training activities lessen over time and "schematic design" activities increase, as do design development activities.

Student evaluation of work experience - correlation. This section examines the correlation between student ratings of the co-op experience and the sense of student contribution to the projects, student ability to handle the projects, the quality of supervision, the degree of challenge of the coop assignment, and the office atmosphere. Evaluations are reported on a correlation. This section examines the correlation between student ratings of the co-op experience and the sense of student contribution to the projects, student ability to handle the projects, the quality of supervision, the degree of challenge of the coop assignment, and the office atmosphere. Evaluations are reported on a

Table 2
Activity Training Areas by Percentage of Time Spent

Table 3
Correlation Coefficients of Student Co-op Experience Ratings vs. Variables Influencing Student Satisfaction

Note: *denotes P<.05; ** denotes P<.01. + The n for this column is approximately 32. The question was introduced in 1990 to the graduating classes of 1995 and 1996.

Strongest correlations are found for a challenging co-op assignment (r values range from 0.382 to 0.740, all statistically significant at the 0.01 level). Student ability to handle projects is not correlated for the first, fourth, seventh and eighth co-op quarters, possibly a reflection of their inexperience (first quarter) or differences in their personality and self-confidence.

Student ratings of the co-op work experience. While the correlation table confirms our expectations, it is useful to focus on the strengths alone for the purposes of planning. Table 4 shows that, overall, 74.0% of students rate their co-op experience as excellent or very good. The remainder of the table is, in effect, a cross tabulation of a highly-rated co-op experience and high ratings for the same variables for which correlation coefficients were computed. The percentage of students giving high ratings to the co-op experience and to other variables ranged from a high of 70.3% to a low of 64.3%. In brief, there is a match between the students' assessment of the co-op experience and the factors one would expect to contribute to this assessment.

Table 4
Percentage of Students Rating the Co-op Experience Excellent or Very Good and Also Giving the Two Highest Ratings to Other Variables

Note: Percentages cannot be added since only highest ratings are reported.

Of note are the consistently lower evaluations of the third and fourth co-op quarters, suggesting a mismatch of expectations. This is most likely due to the decline in the construction industry, which was especially noticeable during the years of these co-op assignments (1988-89 through 1993-94 for this data set). In addition, the wider fluctuations around the overall value for both challenging and student ability may also reflect the economic conditions of the period, which started to improve only in the second half of 1994. With a tight job market, potential co-op work assignments were fewer, which limited the ability to find a good student-employer match.

Employer assessment of student work - correlation. Students' overall performance is assessed by the employer-supervisor' letter grades (A=4.0, B=3.0, C=2.0, D=l.0) for the co-op quarter and ratings of 19 factors (variables) that describe student work performance and habits. These assessments were made using a five-point scale (outstanding, very satisfactory, satisfactory, barely satisfactory, unsatisfactory). Six variables were selected for our study and were tested for correlation with the employer grade (Table 5). The six variables were cooperation with others, taking initiative, ability to learn, quality of work, volume of work, and willingness to accept responsibility. Forty-five of the 48 correlation coefficients are significant at the .01 level of confidence. A notable exception is that no correlation is found between the quality of work and the employer grade for the first quarter, suggesting that employers do not expect a high quality of work from a beginning co-op student. We have no explanation for the lack of correlation between employer grade and initiative in the sixth coop term. Another interesting observation is that the correlation coefficient between employer grades and all the variables that affect that grade drop from the seventh to the eighth co-op quarter. A possible explanation is that, with the last co-op, employer-supervisors are not as careful in their evaluations and/ or students were distracted and preoccupied with their thesis, job hunting, and other personal matters, which have affected their focus and concentration.

Table 5
Correlation Coefficients Between Employer Grade and Selected Variables Related to Student Work Performance and Habits

Note:** denotes P<.01

Table 6 shows that there is a significant correlation between employer grades and student GPA for the second, third, fourth, and fifth co-op quarters. T his finding is consistent with the middle segment of students' academic education (third and fourth years), where courses progressively relate to the discipline of architecture. Discipline-related skills and knowledge learned in the classroom - the competency of which is generally reflected in their GPA - are applied on the job where their mastery is reflected in the employer's grade. Later in the sequence of co-op experiences (sixth, seventh and eighth co-op quarters), the origin of student skills and abilities is much more a mix between academic education and co-op work assignments and, consequently, the employer's grade is not as close a reflection of their academic performance.

Finally, it was found that there exists a statistically significant correlation between employer grade and student rating of the co-op experience for the seventh and eighth co-op quarters (r = .317 and .355, respectively, both significant at the 0.01 level of confidence) and the first co-op quarter (r = .227, significant at the 0.05 level). This suggests that student expectations from the co-op work assignment and employer expectations from the co-op student are not clearly communicated until the senior sequence. While the weaker correlation at the first co-op quarter may show a period of leniency and optimism between student and employer-supervisor, the stronger correlation at the seventh and eighth co-op quarters may be attributed to well-defined employer-supervisor and student expectations and well-planned agendas for their realization.

Table 6
Correlation Coefficients Between Employer Grade and GPA and Student Rating of the Co-op Experience by Co-op Quarter

Note: *denotes P<.05; **denotes P<.01

Conclusions and Recommendations

What this research reveals is the flaw of planning co-op work assignments based on "end of career" evaluations alone. Such evaluations assume a homogeneous experience over time; this analysis clearly demonstrates that different elements of evaluation will shift in importance over the student's college career. The findings of this research demonstrate that in developing syllabi, selecting co-op work assignments, and directing employers, cooperative education professionals must focus on variables that are important at a particular phase in a student's college career. Table 7 depicts, for each co-op stage, the variables describing the co-op experience, as well as student ratings of the experience and employer grade. It also summarizes key information from Table 3, where the comparison of quarterly to overall means reveals which elements of evaluation are important in influencing positive student evaluation of the co-op experience each quarter.

Table 7
Profile of Students' Professional Education by Selected Co-op Quarters'

Of note is that nearly 80% of the students rate their overall co-op experience as excellent or very good at the early and late stages, with the middle stage almost ten points lower. Nevertheless, there is a high degree of satisfaction and fulfillment. Employers also reveal a high level of satisfaction, with a growing share of high grades from the early to the middle to the late stage. A sense of contribution to projects is very important to a little less than three-fourths of the students at the early stage and to over three-fourths at the late stage, while a work assignment that is a little above or the same as the students' ability to handle it is very important to three-fourths of the students at the early and late stages.

Quality supervision plays a very important role to a little less than three-fourths of students at all stages. Although office atmosphere and a challenging work assignment show a downward shift, about three-fourths of the students consider the former very important at the early and late stages and the latter at the early stage . Two-thirds find a challenging work assignment important at the middle and late stages.

Qualitative data regarding students' interpretation of the variables affecting their evaluation show the following:

• students feel that they contribute to projects when they are involved (e.g., treated as a professional, taken seriously, part of a team, and exposed to clients), have the freedom to experiment with various approaches to solving a problem and/ or design, feel instrumental in the completion of projects, are responsible for a part/phase of a project (e.g., to select material, organize a set of documents, prepare and/or make presentations.), sit in on meetings and voice their opinion, go on business trips, and asked to return to work for the following term;
• they define quality supervision to be synonymous with mentorship, where the supervisor praises the quality of student work, is open and appreciative of student ideas and suggestions, and informs students when their ideas are being used;
• students expect from a challenging co-op work assignment the opportunity to adapt to new situations (e.g., new city, new office, and new organizational structure), be in charge of project(s), be responsible for the completion of tasks and develop time management skills, exceed own and employer's expectations, work under pressure, learn new skills and/ or be exposed to new activities, synthesize and use knowledge from school and previous co-ops, use critical thinking in order to solve problems, work on a variety of projects and tasks, work on projects outside the immediate realm of their discipline, and work for top professionals in the field.

In conclusion, nearly three-fourths of the students in the early and late stages rate their experiences excellent or very good, and most rate highly the variables most influencing their experience. It is clear that they find the co-op work assignments educationally sound and fulfilling. On the other hand, lower student ratings for the middle stage quarters and lower ratings of the variables most influencing their experience show a weaker application of the co-op model.

To obtain this kind of information, one must collect quantitative and qualitative data on co-op work assignments each term. A form similar to the one employed in this paper is important for the identification of strengths and shortcomings at the various levels of students' professional development and essential for the planning of a future course of action. To develop cooperative education curricula based on these findings, both the academic department and the division of professional practice must recognize the need for further study and change. T he following strategy is proposed.

Appointment of a curriculum committee, composed of two to three faculty members from the department of architecture and the two professional practice faculty in charge of the architecture program, to take the following action:

• study the findings of this research in detail and compare student practical experiences, in each practice stage, with the existing academic curriculum;
• develop a plan proposing necessary modifications in the curriculum to accommodate existing employer demands and expectations;
• produce an alternative plan where changes and modifications will be asked of the employers to better complement the existing curriculum, assuming that during this process a select number of employers will be consulted for input and support;
• create a final conciliatory plan incorporating changes from both sides for a less disruptive and painful change.

Given the support and recognition cooperative education has from the department of architecture, and its high reputation among co-op employers, it is expected that the proposed or a similar strategy has the potential to be implemented. Meanwhile, co-op employers will have received a summary of findings highlighting the strengths and shortcomings of their participation in the educational process, as an introduction to a period of change.