Lori A. Braunstein, Central Washington University
William A. Stull, Emeritus, Utah State University
The purpose of this study was to examine employer benefits and attitudes toward postsecondary cooperative education. Additionally, the variables of organization size, organization type, respondent's degree of familiarity with cooperative education, years of organizational experience in cooperative education, and student major were examined to determine if any relationship existed between these variables. A mail survey was sent to 300 members of cooperative education professional organizations. Ninety-three surveys were returned, for a return rate of 31 percent. Respondents identified many benefits to participating in cooperative education, including hiring motivated new employees, screening students for permanent employment, and providing positive interactions with the college/university.
As a human resource and educational strategy, cooperative education has been in place in the United States since 1906. Although research has been published concerning employer benefits of participating in cooperative education (e.g., Deininger, Rogers, & Halbower, 1974; Deane. Rankel. & Cohen, 1978; Hayes, 1978; Phillips, 1978), most of the research in the last 15 years has focused on topics related to student participation and issues related to colleges and universities. Few studies have focused on issues of interest to employers (Hurd & Hendy, 1997). Of the research topics identified in their study, Stull, Crow, and Braunstein (1997) found six (28%) of the topics were related to perceptions of and benefits to employers participating in cooperative education programs.
Five major empirical studies from the United States have addressed the benefits to employers from participation in cooperative education. The Little Study was initiated by Asa Knowles and Roy Woolridge. who contracted with the Arthur D. Little Company to administer an in-depth research study to identify and quantify possible benefits employers realize from participating in cooperative education. The case study approach was used with six large employers. The Little Study found that cooperative education students performed very well and in general better than regular college students with respect to pre-professional employment, recruitment yield, and permanent employment performance (Deininger et al., 1974).
In the Applied Management Sciences study, Deane, Rankel. & Cohen (1978) studied employer costs and benefits from involvement in cooperative education in a sample of 250 employers who participated in cooperative education and 125 employers who had not participated in cooperative education. Data were collected on the costs incurred by cooperative education employers in relation to areas such as the training and evaluation costs of employees who had not participated in cooperative education as well a the benefits derived from employers who had participated in cooperative education, such as reduced recruitment costs and higher productivity. The researchers found the costs of cooperative education employees to be less than for regular employees, the benefits of cooperative education employees to be greater than for regular employees, and the overwhelming majority of employers planning to continue their cooperative education programs.
The purpose of the Detroit Institute of Technology study (Hayes. 1978) was to examine in detail the experience of employers in terms of the costs and benefits involved in operating a cooperative education program. Seventy employer organizations participated in the cross-sectional survey. Hayes found that recruitment costs were lower for cooperative education students than for regular college graduates, salary and promotional progression were faster for cooperative education students than for regular college graduates, employee retention for cooperative education students was better than for regular college students, employee work performance was better, and higher equal employment opportunities and recruitment yields were generated. In addition, the vast majority of employers rated their satisfaction with cooperative education programs on all the above criteria as good to excellent (Nielsen & Porter, 1983).
Phillips (1978) reported the results of a major study initiated by the Georgia organization of Southern Bell to assess the benefits to the company of cooperative education involvement. As reported by Nielsen and Porter (1983), the conclusions of Phillips were:
A co-op program can provide the company with a continuous supply of qualified individuals who, because of their co-op experience, are better prepared to assume management responsibilities in the future. A co-op program also helps the company meet its Affirmative Action commitments. Co-op students who are hired permanently usually remain with the company longer and progress faster than regular college hires. Co-op students become good public relations ambassadors on their campuses, and this can contribute positively to our recruiting efforts and the company's image (p. 20).
Abel and Love (1988) surveyed 11 organizations to ascertain supervisor and administrator perceptions of productivity and supervisory time required for the cooperative education program. Eight of eleven reporting organizations were cost effective in their cooperative education programs.
Two Canadian studies (Dobreci, 1996; Ellis, 1987) echo research findings in the United States. The World Association for Cooperative Education conducted an international study of employer benefits of cooperative education in 1997. Young (1997) concluded the study was a success, as the six countries surveyed have many similarities in why employers in these countries hire cooperative education students and what they see as the greatest benefits of cooperative education.
Although the benefits to employers of participation in cooperative education are well documented, two problems exist. Few studies have been completed in the last 15 years and the Canadian and World Association for Cooperative Education studies do not generalize to U.S. employers.
The primary purpose of this study was to examine employer benefits of and attitudes toward cooperative education. The following research questions were answered as a result of this study:
The population for this study included employers who have familiarity with cooperative education programs. Because no known source of descriptive data on the universe of employers who have familiarity with cooperative education programs exists, those employers holding membership in the Cooperative Education Association, the Cooperative Education Division of the American Society of Engineering Education, and employers on a list of cooperative education employers maintained by the National Commission for Cooperative Education were considered the accessible population. These groups do not provide demographic statistics (i.e., number of employees, profit or nonprofit, etc.) on organizations, making a stratified random sample extremely difficult. Because of time constraints. a simple random sample of 300 organizations from the 3,125 organizations contained on the combined lists of these three organizations was drawn.
Although it is not possible to assess how representative this sample was of all cooperative education employers, this sample allowed the analysis of many characteristics of organizations involved in cooperative education that are likely to impact on the benefits of employing cooperative education students.
A mail survey was developed using historical research survey instruments. A panel of experts and a pilot group helped refine the preliminary questionnaire. The final survey instrument included five major parts: demographic information, employer benefits, outcomes of cooperative education, structural features of cooperative education, and interpersonal skills and competencies. (See Appendix for survey instrument).
A cover letter and survey were mailed to the sample population, following recommendations of the Total Design Method (TDM; Dillman, 1978). A follow-up postcard was sent one week after the survey. Four weeks after the initial mailing non-respondents were sent another letter and survey. A third mailing was sent seven weeks after the initial mailing. Because the response rate was less than 30 percent a fourth mailing was conducted approximately four months after the initial mailing. Analysis was completed to determine that answers from early responders did not differ statistically with answers from later responders.
A total of 93 surveys (31 %) were returned. The demographic profile of respondents is shown in Table 1. Survey respondents were evenly distributed among small, medium, and large size organizations. A large majority (72 %) of respondents came from profit organizations. A very small number of responses came from non-profit organizations (8%) and government agencies (19%). A majority of respondents reported in-depth knowledge of cooperative education. and a majority of respondents worked in organizations that have been involved in cooperative education for 11 or more years. Engineering majors comprised the largest category of student majors. Additionally, 45 percent of respondents indicated their organization would increase the number of cooperative education hires during the next five years.
Benefits of cooperative education were ascertained through a review of literature and through the panel of experts (Research Question I). To answer Research Question 2, how do employers perceive the importance of these benefits, employers were asked to rate 11 statements on a scale of 1 (no benefit) to 5 (great benefit). Means and standard deviations were calculated for each question and rank ordered from highest mean to lowest mean (see Table 2). For descriptive purposes, the frequency of responses to each individual benefit statement is also reported. Column 6 of Table 2 displays the percentage response to 4 (benefit) and 5 (great benefit). Responses of 4 and 5 were combined to provide a summation of respondents believing the benefit in the statement was of some or great benefit to their organization. Column 7 displays the percentage response to 3 (neutral), and Column 8 displays the percentage response to 1 (no benefit) and 2 (little benefit). Responses of 1 and 2 were combined to provide a summation of respondents believing the benefit in the statement was of little or no benefit to their organization.
Table 1
Demographic Profile of Respondents
| Response category | Number of responses | Percent of responses |
|---|---|---|
| Size of organization | ||
| Small (1-250 employees) | 22 | 23.7 |
| Medium (251-2000) | 35 | 37.6 |
| Large (more than 2000) | 34 | 36.6 |
| Total | 91 | 97.89 |
| Type of organization | ||
| Profit | 68 | 73.1 |
| Nonprofit, nongovernment | 7 | 7.5 |
| Government agency | 18 | 19.4 |
| Total | 93 | 100.0 |
| Personal knowledge of cooperative education | ||
| Minimal knowledge | 3 | 3.2 |
| Sufficient working knowledge | 9 | 9.7 |
| General understanding | 22 | 23.7 |
| In-depth knowledge | 58 | 62.4 |
| Total | 92 | 98.9 |
| Years of organizational involvement in cooperative education | ||
| 3 years or less | 5 | 5.4 |
| 4-5 years | 6 | 6.5 |
| 6-10 years | 19 | 20.4 |
| 11 years or more | 63 | 67.7 |
| total | 93 | 100.0 |
| Student majors | ||
| Engineering | 59 | 63.4 |
| Business | 13 | 14.0 |
| Nontechnical/liberal arts | 3 | 3.2 |
| Combination of engineering business, and nontechnical | 9 | 9.7 |
| Othera | 8 | 8.6 |
| Total | 92 | 98.9 |
| Main product classification (SIC code) | ||
| Mining | 2 | 2.2 |
| Manufacturing | 37 | 39.8 |
| Transportation | 3 | 3.2 |
| Finance, insurance, real estate | 3 | 3.2 |
| Services | 10 | 10.8 |
| Government | 14 | 15.1 |
| Otherb | 24 | 25.8 |
| Total | 93 | 100.0 |
| Projected number of cooperative education hires | ||
| Number will increase | 42 | 45.2 |
| Number will remain the same | 21 | 22.6 |
| The number will decrease | 5 | 5.4 |
| Don't know | 24 | 25.8 |
| Total | 92 | 98.9 |
aExamples include computer science, sciences, and chemistry
bExamples include engineering, theme park, public utility, education, and television
For Research Question 3, employers indicated the importance of outcomes of cooperative education. Respondents were asked to rate seven questions on a five-point scale from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement). Means and standard deviations were calculated for each question and ranked from highest to lowest (see Table 3). Again, a frequency distribution of responses is provided in Table 3 for descriptive purposes. Answers to 4 (agreement) and 5 (strong agreement) were summed, as well as answers to 1 (strong disagreement) and 2 (disagreement).
For Research Question 4. employers indicated page 10 their perceptions of the structural features of cooperative education. Response categories were from 1 (very unimportant) to 5 (very important). Means and standard deviations were calculated for each question and rank ordered from highest mean to lowest mean (see Table 4). Again, the percentage responses are displayed to provide additional descriptive information. Responses to 4 (important) and 5 (very important) were summed, as were responses to 1 (very unimportant) and 2 (unimportant).
T he analysis of Research Question 5 involved comparing the variables to be measured in this study (organization size, organization type, respondent's
Table 2
Rank Order of Means of Respondents' Perceptions of Benefits to Cooperative Education and Percentage
Responses of Respondents Rating Benefit Statements as Benefit and Great Benefit, Neutral, or Little and
No Benefit
| Rank | Question | n | M | S.D. | Benefit | Neutral | No benefit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hire motivated and enthusiastic new employees | 92 | 4.26 | 0.83 | 88% | 9% | 3% |
| 2 | Screen students for permanent employment | 93 | 4.24 | 0.97 | 80% | 15% | 5% |
| 3 | Provide positive interactions with university | 93 | 4.21 | 0.80 | 81% | 17% | 2% |
| 4 | Hire people with special skills | 93 | 4.05 | 0.97 | 79% | 15% | 6% |
| 5 | Reduce the cost of recruitment and hiring | 93 | 3.92 | 1.06 | 67% | 24% | 9% |
| 6 | Bring new knowledge into the organization | 92 | 3.89 | 0.91 | 69% | 24% | 7% |
| 7 | Reduce the cost of training | 91 | 3.87 | 1.10 | 65% | 25% | 11% |
| 8 | Fulfill social responsibilities | 92 | 3.44 | 0.94 | 42% | 48% | 10% |
| 9 | Assistance in completing one-time projects | 93 | 3.44 | 0.99 | 52% | 34% | 14% |
| 10 | Meet the organization's affirmative action goals | 93 | 3.07 | 1.28 | 39% | 32% | 29% |
| 11 | Provide supervisory experience to supervisors | 93 | 2.97 | 1.17 | 30% | 40% | 30% |
degree of familiarity with cooperative education, years of organizational experience in cooperative education, and student major) with the perceptions of employer benefits, cooperative education outcomes, and structural features of cooperative education measured in Research Questions 2 through 4. The analysis was designed to determine whether any statistically significant differences occurred in the proportion of respondents (based on the variable being measured) evaluating employer benefits statements as a benefit or great benefit, agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statements of outcomes of cooperative education, and evaluating the structural features of cooperative education as important or very important.
The z test for proportion was used for making statistical comparisons between the proportions associated with two independent samples. Two population proportions are compared by using the difference between the observed proportions of two independent samples. Assumptions for the z test for proportion are that the proportion sizes are normally distributed and the sample sizes are sufficiently large. The null hypothesis to be tested is that there is no difference between the two proportions to be tested (Johnson, 1988).
Although the z test for proportion is widely used in popular media, its function may not be as familiar. For a general illustration of theztest for proportion, assume a political pollster determined that 36 percent of men and 30 percent of women plan to vote for a particular political candidate (often stated, for example, as 36% ± 2% and 30%, ± 2%). The percentages of votes between the genders are certainly different, but are they statistically significant in their difference? Theztest for proportion answers this question. If there is no statistical difference, then gender either does not account for the percentage difference or no true difference exists (statistical random error). A statistical difference, on the other hand, indicates that gender does make a difference in voting patterns.
In the previous example, the voting pattern of men and women is statistically significant in their difference because the proportions and their confidence intervals do not overlap (i.e., 34-38% of men plan on voting for the particular candidate and 28-32% of women plan on voting for the particular candidate). Certainly the political candidate would want to research further these gender differences as possible platforms in a political campaign. In this particular study, the variables to be
Table 3
Means of Respondents' Perceptions of the Outcomes of Cooperative Education and Percentage Responses
of Respondents Answering Outcome Statements with Agreement and Strong Agreement, Neutral, or
Disagreement and Strong Disagreement
| Rank | Question | n | M | S.D. | Agreement | Neutral | Disagreement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | More likely to be hired | 93 | 4.26 | 0.86 | 88% | 8% | 4% |
| 2 | Tend to progress faster in organization | 93 | 3.97 | 0.97 | 75% | 20% | 5% |
| 3 | Spend less time training and developing | 93 | 3.67 | 1.11 | 61% | 28% | 11% |
| 4 | Tend to remain for longer employment period | 93 | 3.56 | 0.97 | 51% | 41% | 8% |
| 5 | Spend less money training and developing | 93 | 3.55 | 1.11 | 53% | 32% | 15% |
| 6 | Tend to receive higher starting salary | 93 | 3.54 | 1.06 | 50% | 37% | 13% |
| 7 | Specifically recruit underrepresented groups | 93 | 3.25 | 1.18 | 38% | 41% | 21% |
studied were compared against the benefit statements, outcome statements, and structural features to determine if any statistical difference occurred.
Only the survey questions that showed a statistically significant difference in the proportion of organizations answering positively to the statements (with the confidence interval following the ± sign) are displayed in Table 5. Additionally, because so few respondents, when asked their personal knowledge of cooperative education, had "minimal knowledge of cooperative education," this category was combined with "sufficient working knowledge" for the z test for proportion.
When reading Table 5, it is important to recognize what the confidence interval represents. Using the first category of Meeting Affirmative Action Goals for a small company (14% ± 12%), between 2 percent and 26 percent of the respondents from small organizations agree with the statement. Between 29 percent and 57 percent of respondents from medium size organizations agree with the statement (43% ± 14%). Because the confidence interval indicates the range about the "true" percentage, a smaller confidence interval is considered to be better than a larger confidence interval. The confidence intervals in this study are so large as to preclude any useful conclusions from this analysis.
To answer Research Question 6, respondents were asked to compare employees who had participated in cooperative education against employees who had not participated in cooperative education on 17 statements. Respondents rated the employees on a scale of 1 (better than), 2 (the same as), or 3 (worse than). The frequency of responses to each individual interpersonal skill is provided in Table 6.
Question 57 of the survey asked respondents to indicate, from an overall perspective, how satisfied they have been with their organization's involvement in cooperative education. The five-point scale went from 1 (very satisfied) to 5 (very dissatisfied). The overall mean response was 1.40 with a standard deviation of .69. Sixty-two respondents (67%) indicated they were very satisfied with their organization's involvement in cooperative education; 24 respondents (26%) indicated they were satisfied; 2 respondents (2%) indicated neutral; and 3 respondents (3%) indicated dissatisfaction with their organization's involvement with cooperative education. No respondents answered very dissatisfied to the question.
The final question of the survey was an open-ended question: what suggestion(s) would you make to colleges and universities regarding how they could increase employer participation in cooperative education programs. No statistical analysis was completed on this question. Of the 34 responses, eight respondents specifically identified the need for cooperative education professionals to visit the work site and/or remain actively involved with the employer. Respondents indicated that not only did the student need a mentor from the school to visit the work site, but also the employer liked to know and interact with the faculty or staff person.
Table 4
Means of Respondents' Perceptions of the Structural Features of Cooperative Education and Percentage
Responses of Respondents Rating Structural Features Statements as Important and Very Important, Neutral,
or Unimportant and Very Unimportant
| Rank | Question | n | M | S.D. | Important | Neutral | Unimportant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Receive a formal evaluation from organization | 93 | 4.67 | 0.73 | 94% | 3% | 2% |
| 2 | Receive a formal evaluation from college/university | 92 | 4.36 | 0.76 | 88% | 11% | 1% |
| 3 | Complete end-of-term work report | 93 | 4.20 | 1.02 | 80% | 15% | 5% |
| 4 | Complete specific learning objectives | 93 | 4.13 | 0.92 | 79% | 17% | 4% |
| 5 | Spend more than one work term in same organization | 93 | 4.08 | 1.04 | 75% | 18% | 7% |
| 6 | Receive academic credit | 93 | 4.02 | 0.96 | 74% | 22% | 4% |
| 7 | On-site visits from faculty/staff members | 93 | 3.73 | 0.93 | 60% | 31% | 9% |
Several respondents stated the need for cooperative education to provide more information to employers on the benefits of participating in cooperative education. As one person stated, "Helping employers understand how co-ops, if utilized and developed properly, can be an excellent pipe-line to full-time employment in a very competitive market." Another respondent stated that cooperative education professionals should provide "information on their on-campus co-op programs with brochures detailing the win-win outcome." Finally, one respondent stated, "We participate in a number of career days and job fairs for graduating students, but very few specifically for co-op."
Based on the responses to the survey and the resulting findings, the following conclusions have been formulated.
A large number of respondents to the survey worked in profit organizations hiring engineering students; the conclusions and recommendations contained in this study may have a stronger application to profit organizations hiring engineering students.
Respondents indicate some very important outcomes from involvement in cooperative education. Most impressive is that 88 percent of respondents indicate that students who have cooperative education experience are more likely to be hired in the organization, and 7 5 percent of respondents indicate that cooperative education students tend to progress faster in the organization. Further, respondents indicate their organization spends less time and money training and developing employees who have had cooperative education experience. Considering the human resource concerns often touted in popular media (e.g., fewer applicants for positions, job hopping, and the cost of employee development programs), it would appear that employers derive many economic benefits from participating in cooperative education.
Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that the structural features listed in the survey instrument are important in their cooperative education program. While on-site visits from faculty/staff members received the lowest mean score (3.73) on structural features, the mean score is well above the middle of the scale and should be interpreted with caution. Perhaps employers are interested in other forms of communication with faculty/staff members - email, for example, rather than on-site visits. Certainly the cost effectiveness and efficiency of on-site visits could be the subject of further research.
Although the z test for proportion showed some statistically significant results, as mentioned earlier, because the confidence intervals are so large meaningful conclusions cannot be formulated. because the confidence intervals are so large meaningful conclusions cannot be formulated.
Table 5
Statistically Significant Differences at the .10 level in the Proportion of Positive Responses, Categorized by the Variable Measured
| Variable | Proportion of positive responses |
|---|---|
| Size of organization | |
| Meet affirmative action goals | |
| Small size organization | 14% ± 12% |
| Medium size organization | 43% ± 14% |
| Small size organization | 14% ± 12% |
| Large size organization | 53% ± 14% |
| Specifically recruit minorities | |
| Small size organization | 14% ± 12% |
| Medium Size organization | 49% ± 14% |
| Small size organization | 14% ± 12% |
| Large size organization | 44% ± 14% |
| More than one work term in same organization | |
| Small size organization | 55% ± 18% |
| Medium size organization | 94% ± 7% |
| Medium size organization | 94% ± 7% |
| Large size organization | 69% ± 13% |
| Personal knowledge of cooperative education | |
| Screen students for permanent employment | |
| Minimal or sufficient working knowledge | 50% ± 24% |
| In-depth knowledge | 86% ± 8% |
| Student major | |
| Screen students for permanent employment | |
| Engineering | 92% ± 6% |
| Business | 62% ± 22% |
| Engineering | 92% ± 6% |
| Other | 60% ± 18% |
When rating interpersonal skills between employees who had and had not completed cooperative education, respondents overwhelmingly agreed that employees who had participated in cooperative education were better concerning many interpersonal skills. Technology skills received very high scores for participants in cooperative education, with 77 percent of respondents rating coop students better while only seven percent found them worse. Likewise overall technical knowledge was better for 74 percent of respondents and worse for only five percent. In the landmark Applied Management Study (Deane, et. al., 1978), researchers found that "46.5 percent of employers found co-op students better while only 27.2 percent found them worse" concerning technical knowledge.
Table 6
Percent of Responses to Interpersonal Skills and Competencies Statements
| Question | Better than | Same as | Worse than |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technology | 77% | 16% | 7% |
| Overall technical knowledge | 74% | 20% | 6% |
| Team skills | 70% | 25% | 5% |
| Overall quality of work | 68% | 26% | 6% |
| Resource utilization | 64% | 31% | 5% |
| Thinking skills | 62% | 33% | 5% |
| Self-esteem | 60% | 33% | 7% |
| Self-management | 58% | 35% | 7% |
| Communication skills | 56% | 38% | 6% |
| Overall human relations skills | 56% | 38% | 6% |
| Computer literacy | 54% | 39% | 7% |
| Responsibility | 54% | 42% | 4% |
| Customer service skills | 53% | 41% | 6% |
| Overall quantity of work | 51% | 45% | 4% |
| Training/facilitation skills | 47% | 46% | 7% |
| Leadership skills | 41% | 51% | 8% |
| Integrity/honesty | 17% | 79% | 4% |
It would seem that while our cooperative education students are skilled in technology and technical areas, they might lack some ability in the soft skill areas. Several soft skill areas indicate that cooperative education participation may not make a large difference, specifically responsibility (54% better than; 39% same as), customer service skills (53% better than, 41 % same as), training/facilitation skills (47% better than; 46% same as), leadership skills (41 % better than; 51 % same as), and integrity/ honesty (17% better than; 79% same as). Research has indicated that soft skills are important to employers (Hodges, Rainsbury, Sutherland, & Wong, 1998; Sweeney & Twomey, 1997), while technical skills receive less importance perhaps because employers assume the co-op student possesses the necessary technical skill (Hodges, et al., 1998; Sweeney & Twomey, 1997).
The present study was motivated by the need to update empirically the attitudes and perceptions of employers toward cooperative education. While the researchers in the landmark studies of the 1970s and 1980s concluded that employers do in fact benefit from the cooperative education (Deininger, Rogers, & Holbower, 1974; Deane, Rankel, & Cohen, 1978; Hayes, 1978; Phillips, 1978), these studies provide outdated information. Interestingly, though, many of the findings from these landmark studies remain true today.
As researchers in the landmark studies found, employers today still use the co-op system to hire motivated and enthusiastic employees and as a screening devise for full-time employment. This researcher also found the costs of hiring and training cooperative education hires is less, in agreement with the historical studies. Additionally, both the historical studies and the current study indicate that co-ops are more likely to be hired by an organization, tend to progress faster in an organization, and tend to remain for longer employment.
One difference between the historical studies and the current study lies in the area of affirmative action. The advent of affirmative action programs in the early 1970s is clearly reflected in the earlier studies. Hayes (1978) as reported by Nielsen & Porter (1983) stated, "co-op programs can help employers attain Equal Employment Opportunity objectives. More members of minority groups were hired through co-op than through regular college recruitment activities. In one four-year period studied, 28 percent of the co-op students hired were minority applicants, as opposed to only 3 percent of the regular college students hired" (p. 15). Phillips (1978) states in his final conclusion "The cooperative education program has been and can be a significant tool in selecting minority students at a formative level and training and developing them into productive professional career employees" (p.118).
Data gathered in the current study indicate less importance being placed on using the co-op system to meet affirmative action goals. Of the 11 benefits ranked by respondents, "meet affirmative action goals" was ranked next to last, followed only by "provide supervisory experience to supervisors." Likewise. "specifically recruit underrepresented groups" received the lowest mean score in the outcomes of cooperative education.
Beyond updating employer benefits of participating in cooperative education, this research provides much useful data for both employers and co-op practitioners, especially in terms of marketing co-op programs to employers, students, and interested university personnel.
Human Resource personnel in organizations can use the benefit statements as the focus of an internal marketing campaign to increase the use of co-op students in their organization, thus realizing such benefits as hiring motivated and enthusiastic new employees and screening students for permanent employment. Focusing on outcome statements such as faster progression in the organization and less time and money spent in training and developing cooperative education participants may also help increase the numbers of co-op students in an organization. These same statements can be used to increase internal funding for cooperative education. if funding is an issue.
Colleges and universities can organize seminars for cooperative education students during their co-op experience, concentrating on soft skills (i.e., leadership, honesty /integrity. responsibility). Although students may learn soft skills in traditional classrooms, taught in the context of a realistic employment environment, these seminars may have more impact and meaning to students than the same material presented in a traditional classroom setting.
Additionally colleges and universities can use the results of this study as part of their overall marketing strategy. Brochures, posters, and web pages emphasizing the benefits and outcomes of participating in cooperative education to students and parents may increase enrollment and/or retention of students.
Although the present study provides much useful data, quantitative survey research can only answer the "what" of employer perceptions, not "why" employers feel the way they do about cooperative education. Providing a broad overview of employer's attitudes and perceptions is certainly useful, but qualititative studies based on results uncovered in this study may provide coop practitioners with more in-depth knowledge of why cooperative education is so beneficial (Chapman, Coll, & Meech, 1999).
Further study is needed to determine, for example, why employers rated site visits seventh of seven among structural features of co-op programs. Are employers interested in alternative forms of communication between themselves and institutions? From an institutional standpoint, are site visits economical, or even necessary? Conversely, 8 of 34 employers, responding to the open-ended question of how universities can increase participation of employers in co-op, specifically discussed the need for site visits by faculty/staff, both in terms of student support and public relations activities. Because of the time and money spent on on-site visits, the cost and effectiveness of site visits should be researched.
Additionally, why did so few non-profit and government agencies respond to the survey? Do they simply not participate in as great a number as do profit organizations (and were consequently underrepresented in the sample population), or are our professional organizations not reaching out to these groups to increase their membership and participation in cooperative education? Non-profit and government agencies should be researched to determine if their needs differ from profit organizations in relation to benefits, outcomes, and structural features.
Co-op practitioners must diligently monitor employers' satisfaction, and dissatisfaction, with cooperative education (Hurd & Hendy, 1997) so that it can remain the viable educational strategy as envisioned in 1906. Studies to update employer perceptions and attitudes concerning cooperative education should be undertaken at least every decade to provide useful information to all the stakeholders involved in cooperative education.