The Co-op Supervisor's Role as Teacher in the Workplace

Abstract

This study explores whether co-op supervisors function as teachers in the workplace. A sample of 252 supervisors in five professional programs at a Canadian university were surveyed on learning-related activities and attitudes. This study found characteristics common to supervisors who recognize (and specifically address) students' workplace learning. Supervisors primarily hired for pragmatic reasons such as benefitting from students' enthusiasm, energy and motivation or acquiring specific skills. A minority, however, were motivated by the opportunity to teach. The findings suggest a profile of teacher attributes for supervisors who broadly interpret the students' job, and cultivate a dynamic relationship beyond work performance.

Agreat deal of attention has been paid to the interdependence between education, industry and government and the partnership between co-op institutions and co-op employers. But the co-operative education literature provides modest insight about the role of the individual supervisor, notably the supervisor's pivotal role as a teacher in the workplace.

Benefits to the employer have been well documented. Employers hire co-op students to meet cyclical, short-term or project staffing needs, and to recruit potential full-time employees (Deane, Frankel, & Cohen, 1978; Freeland, Marini, & Weighart, 1998; Hurd & Hendy, 1997; Kane, 1985; Laycock, Vielhaber Hermon, & Laetz, 1992; Phillips, 1978; Rowe, 1987; Schofield, 1999; Wilson, 1988; Wilson, Stull, & Vinsonhaler, 1996). Gardner and Koslowski (1993) found that employers pref erred coop graduates because they adjusted more quickly to organizational cultures.

Meanwhile, there has not been sustained focus on the learning that co-ops derive from their work.terms. Heinemann and De Falco (1990) state that the "cooperative education community" has not given due attention to the educational aspects. "In tum, co-op experiences tend not to maximize the educational impact on students" (p. 43). While educators view "experiential education as a critical component of the learning environment" (Schofield, 1999), few studies have focused on the supervisor's role even though there is an entrenched perception that the role is central to student learning.

In their discussion of the quality student experience, Laycock, Vielhaber Hermon, and Laetz (1992) argue that the supervisor serves a key role in the professional development of the student. They see a soundly structured co-op program as the learning "mechanism" and the supervisor as the "critical link" (1992, p. 45). "The supervisor can help the student become a productive member of the organization and learn about the career through both supervisory and mentoring behaviors. By directing the work of the student and by providing career information and advice, the supervisor plays a key role in the professional development of the student" (p. 45).

Haberman (1994) maintains that, at the very least, the supervisor must be competent. In fact, co-op supervision should purposely be made explicitly educational" (Ashworth & Saxton. 1992, p. 67). Ashworth and Saxton (1992) make a strong case that the workplace supervisor has "change agent" potential, helping students develop increased confidence. Furthermore. a supervisor who adopts the role of educator, in addition to monitoring and judging functions, will positively influence the student's learning outcomes. Ricks (1996) advocates that "students need to be engaged in a learning process with partners who understand and care about their learning and the application of that learning" (p. 19). On a more specific note, Weaver (1993) wants supervisors to give more input in helping co-op students define their individual learning objectives.

Taylor (1995) observes that co-op educators must adopt instructional strategies that "use the workplace as a learning site" (p. 20). This places a priority on recognizing that co-op education is a joint venture between educators and employers (Wilson, Stull and Vinsonhaler, 1996). "Co-operative education employers must be viewed as partners in the educative process" (Wilson, Stull, & Vinsonhaler, 1996, p. 159).

Although co-op supervisors are deemed to be partners in co-operative education, their contribution to teaching has not been adequately explored. This descriptive study, then, helps to address that gap. The research presented here was undertaken to expand the literature on the workplace supervisor's role. This survey of Canadian cooperative education supervisors provides a starting point to understanding how supervisors perceive their roles in educating students and what learning measures they use.

Methodology

Campus co-op administrators identified all supervisors who hired co-ops within a recent twoyear period. Participants came from all five of the professional co-op programs at a Canadian university. The disciplines included: business, human ecology and dietetics, information management, public relations, and tourism and hospitality management. A questionnaire was mailed to 394 supervisors of co-operative education students in February 1998. A follow-up package was mailed in April. The survey resulted in 252 questionnaires (return rate of 64%).

Instrument

The 72-item questionnaire was pre-tested with five co-op supervisors who had participated in several of the university's programs. The questionnaire was designed to examine various learningrelated and employer-oriented factors cited in the Ii terature.

Demographics included the supervisor's province, industry sector, the number of co-ops supervised over what time period and whether the supervisor had graduated from a co-op program. Other questions asked supervisors why they participated in cooperative education, which learning-oriented activities they employed, (e.g. helping the student to set learning objectives) and which types of student feedback they used (e.g. scheduled, informal, project by project, etc.). Supervisors were also asked to give their observations about specific aspects of cooperative education.

Analysis

The data were analyzed using SPSS. All of the findings were tested for statistical significance using the chi square for tabular analysis and t-tests for differences in mean averages. (To allow for comparisons between the two groups with different sizes of n, Levene's test for equality of variance was also calculated and applied when choosing the appropriate p values.)

Findings

Demographics

The respondents had wide-ranging levels of experience supervising co-ops. In the veteran category, 6% of the supervisors had supervised more than 20 co-ops. Another 28% had supervised between 6 to 20 students while 37% had supervised 3 to 5 students. Just under 1/3 (29%) were in the novice category, having supervised 1 or 2 students. The majority worked in the Atlantic region (85%) with Ontario and Quebec supervisors accounting for another 11 %. Supervisors in all other provinces and territories made up the remaining 4%. Supervisors were well represented across sectors: government (32%); not-for-profit (36%); and for-profit (32%). A minority (14%) had been co-op students themselves.

Identification of Teacher and Non-teacher Supervisors

For purposes of comparative analysis, one survey question enabled the researcher to designate supervisors to one of two categories: teachers and nonteachers. Respondents were specifically asked if they participated in cerop "to have the opportunity to teach from personal experience."

T hose supervisors (32%, n=75) who answered that they took part "almost always" or "most of the time" to teach were designated as teachers. Alternatively, those remaining supervisors (68%, n=l6l) who said that they "sometimes," "rarely," or "never" participated to teach were designated as non-teachers. There were 16 missing cases. The following analysis compares teaching-related elements of the supervisory roles of the two groups: their reasons for participating, the types of feedback they give students; the learning-oriented measures they incorporate; and the perceptions they have about their educational role in the cerop process.

Results and Discussion

Reasons for Participating in Co-op

Respondents were asked to indicate the reasons why they took part in co-op. They rated each of 15 items on a five-point scale, ranging from almost always (value =l) to never (value=5). Table l compares the reasons for teachers and non-teachers.

Broad workplace factors. Three reasons have direct bearing on the workplace. Teacher supervisors (t=-3.890, p<.001) took part more frequently in cooperative education to benefit from co-ops' enthusiasm, energy and motivation than non-teacher supervisors. Teachers also more often sought access to new technologies, ideas, and research than non-teachers (t=-2.831, p<.01). Teachers may have been more opportunistic when matching up cerops with jobs. They more frequently than non-teachers undertook projects for which they would not otherwise have the personnel (t=-1.991, p<.05).

Organizational factors. Teachers were more inclined (t=-2.488, p<.05) to hire co-ops because of their organizations' employment policies than non-teachers. As well, teachers were more inclined to showcase their organizations as good community citizens (t=-4.439, p<.001) than non-teachers.

Personal factors. Non-teachers were more likely to participate out of loyalty to their alma mater (t=-2.786, p<.01) than were teachers. However, teachers were more inclined to supervise cerops for the managerial experience (t=-6.753, p<.001) than non-teachers.

The remaining reasons for participating showed no statistically significant differences between teachers and non-teachers. Teachers and non-teachers almost equally hired co-ops to help increase their organizations' productivity, efficiency or profitability, and to gain access to a specific set of skills. Teachers and non-teachers sometimes hired co-ops to fill seasonal staffing needs, and to meet temporary needs such as vacations and maternity leaves. Supervisors placed a moderate priority on hiring cerops as a recruiting strategy or hiring them to receive government grants or wage subsidies.

Supervisors' Feedback Methods

Ricks (1996) contends that students benefit from co-op experiences where their supervisors care about their learning. One way that a supervisor can demonstrate caring is by providing feedback to the student about his or her job performance. Table 2 presents various types of feedback and their usage by teachers and non-teachers. Generally speaking, as the type of f cedback became more formalized, more structured and more time consuming, the percentages of supervisors who used any given type decreased. So, while teachers gave informal student feedback less frequently (93.2% of the time compared to non-teachers' 96.3%, Chi Square= 1.043, df= 1 , p=.307) , teachers more often gave feedback on specific projects or tasks (teachers =82.4%, non-teachers=75.2%, Chi Square= 1.537, df=L p=.215). Teachers also provided periodically scheduled feedback more consistently than nonteachers (teachers=7 l.6%, non-teachers=.58.4%, Chi Square=3.792, df=l, p=.051). Teachers and non-teachers relied almost equally on joint evaluations with a university faculty member or co-op administrator in the forms of worksite visits or phone calls (teachers=70.3%, non-teachers=73.3%) Chi Square=.231, df=l, p::::.631). The lowest percentage of supervisors (teachers=I3.5%, nonteachers= 13.0%, Chi Square=.010, df=l, p=.921) evaluated co-ops with the same process they used for full-time employees.

Table 1
Reasons for Participating in Co-op

1=almost always, 2=most of the time, 3=some of the time, 4=rarely, 5=never

Table 2
Types of Student Feedback

Of the six approaches to providing feedback, only one was statistically significant. Almost one quarter, 24.3%, of teachers used in-house evaluations specifically designed for co-ops, compared with 13.0% for non-teachers (Chi Square=4.661, df=l, p<.05).

Learning-oriented Measures Incorporated into the Workterm

The learning measures that supervisors integrated during the workterm (see Table 3) covered a comprehensive approach to co-op learning: they began with the start-up orientation and progressed to extracurricular activities suggested by the supervisor.

Supportive Learning Environment. Almost universally, supervisors-teachers more so-provided orientation or briefing sessions (t=-2.714, p<.05). While co-ops were on their workterms, teachers consistently made more effort to nurture a comfortable climate; they more often promoted co-op interaction with other practitioners within the organization (t=-4.582, p<.001). As well, teachers were more likely than non-teachers to invite students to activities of professional associations (t=- 5.060, p<.001) and to encourage co-ops to volunteer constructive criticism about their organizations (t==-2.424, p<.05).

Academic Requirements. Compared to nonteachers, teachers took a more active part in fulfilling formalized elements of co-op learning. Teachers, for example, more often helped students to set their learning objectives (t=-4.898, p<.001) than non-teachers. They identified specific job skills for development (t=-3.997, p<.001) more often than non-teachers. Elsewhere, when it came to the handling of worktenn reports, teachers more often than non-teachers helped co-ops identify topics (t=-4.328, p<.001), and offered suggestions with the workterm reports (t=-4.042, p<.001).

Table 3
Learning-oriented Measures Incorporated During Workterms

1=almost always, 2=most of the time, 3=some of the time, 4=rarely, 5=never

Mentor and Advisor. The scope of learning measures extended beyond the day-to-day aspects of the job for some supervisors. In particular, the mentoring role strongly differed between teachers and non-teachers. In their capacity as mentors, teachers discussed career options and gave advice (t=-6.174, p<.001) more often than non-teachers. More often than non-teachers (t=-3.205, p<.01), teachers endorsed their students' attending in-house professional development workshops or sessions. And, finally, to round out the workterm, teachers were more forthcoming in suggesting extra-curricular experiences, such as volunteer or social activities (t=-3.179, p<.01) than non-teachers. There was no significant difference on one criterion: most supervisors drafted job descriptions to clearly outline students' roles and responsibilities.

Supervisors'Observations and Practices

Table 4 presents supervisors' observations on a five-point scale, ranging from "almost always" (value=l) to "never" (value=5). Teachers more frequently helped students develop generic job skills (t=-3.443, p<.01), and encouraged them to see how their workplace learning might apply elsewhere (t=-4.247, p<.001). And teachers also observed more changes in students' performance that demonstrated on-the-job learning (t=-2.244, p<.05) than did non-teachers. Both teachers' and non-teachers' organizations were inclined, most of the time but without a statistically significant difference, to structure the workplace experience so that co-ops could apply theory from the classroom. Teachers found the co-op experience more professionally satisfying (t=-3.823, p<.001) than non-teachers.

Internal and External Support for Co-op

Table 5 highlights sources of support for supervisors- the employers' decisionmakers and the university's co-op administrators. The results are based on a five-point scale that ranges from "strongly disagree" (value=l) to strongly disagree (value=5). All supervisors shared almost equally the belief that the co-op work environment is an extension of the classroom with students' work serving as the "instructional vehicle." Most supervisors, whether teachers or non-teachers, agreed that their employers supported cooperative education's goal of facilitating learning through planned workterm experiences. By contrast, however, fewer supervisors agreed that cooperative education administrators had provided "adequate" guidelines and support.

Even so, supervisors agreed that co-op administrators had clearly outlined the role of the co-op workterm to students' learning (t=-2.287, p<.05). More to the point, supervisors did see themselves as key partners in helping educate co-ops, teachers more strongly (t=-4.976, p<.001) than non-teachers.

Discussion and Conclusions

The findings confirm the concept of workplace learning complementing the learning on campus. Yet, while both teachers and non-teachers endorsed co-op's experiential nature, teachers saw themselves as somewhat more pivotal to the educational process. Consequently, teachers approached their co-op supervision with the "critical link" mindset envisioned by Laycock et al, and the "change agent" function described by Ashworth and Saxton. Further, the analysis shows that teachers comply with Ricks' assertion that "students need to be engaged in a learning process with partners who understand and care about that learning."

It follows that effective co-op supervisors are, according to Hoberman, more than "competent." They are conscientious and committed, recognizing (and adopting) a number of teaching-oriented approaches. To this end, it is advantageous when supervisors have a predilection towards teaching, as was the case for about one third of the supervisors surveyed. The remaining supervisors, nonteachers, tended to have the conventional employers' outlook. In the non-teachers group, 65 supervisors responded that teaching was "never" an influencing factor.

There were material differences in how supervisors approached co-ops' learning in practice. A comments section on the questionnaire revealed contrasting expectations about students' workplace learning. Based on those responses. it is clear that some portion of supervisors emphasized on-the-job performance, not learning. The two comments below are typical.

Table 4
Supervisors' Observations about Co-op

1 =almost always, 2=most of the time, 3=some of the time, 4=rarely, 5=never

"The co-op term is a workterm. We put students to work and expect them to achieve results and treat them just like any other staff member. It is not an academic exercise. It's the real world. The student is here to learn, but fundamentally he or she is being paid to do a job and the focus is on performance and results."

"The workplace is not a classroom. Co-op supervisors need the opportunity to give feedback on the structure of workterm education in general. Presently, the structure seems too heavily weighted towards the needs of the educational institution and student."

On the other hand are those supervisors who considered teaching part of their co-op function. A couple of teaching-minded supervisors offered the following comments:

"I find co-op placement a win-win situation and we purposely provide as many learning possibilities as possible."

"I find co-op placement a win-win situation and we purposely provide as many learning possibilities as possible."

This study does not address whether supervisors with an affinity for teaching actually help co-ops learn more compared to their school-of-hard-knocks counterparts. However, it does suggest a distinct educator's profile. Teachers brought depth and breadth to the conventional supervisor functions; their diverse learning measures blended aspects of mentor. advisor. counsellor. not to mention facilitator and problem solver. Such a multi-faceted relationship is presumably more dynamic than the narrower job focus that some supervisors expressed. It does not follow that co-ops working for teachers had a superior learning experience to their counterparts. Rather, the findings show that some supervisors (teachers) view their role with more scope, at least interacting more with their co-ops on matters pertaining to learning. They also report tangible instances to confirm student learning under their supervision. And teachers emphatically describe their experiences as professionally satisfying. The unanswered question is how co-ops respond to the supervisors' initiatives and if they see the relevance to their learning.

Table 5
Support for Co-op

1=Strongly agree, 2=Somewhat agree, 3=Neither agree or disagree, 4=Somewhat disagree, 5=Strongly disagree

Recommendations for Further Study

This study has begun to identify some activities and attitudes that are commonplace to teacher supervisors. There is an evident link between how a supervisor defines his or her role in the co-op process, and the specific activities and approaches that a supervisor takes with the co-op. Teachers, like non-teachers, have definite expectations of what the co-op can bring to the organization, but teachers also have a student-oriented perspective. They provide a fuller educational experience and are more likely to observe their students' learning. These findings suggest an enhanced learning experience for the co-ops who have teacher supervisors. What is less clear is how effective the teachers' initiatives are from the co-ops' viewpoint. It would be useful to more fully explore this aspect of the learning process. While the co-op positions expose students to learning by doing, it would be worth isolating how much contribution the supervisor makes to the workterm from the students' perspective.

Given Ricks' (1996) reinforcement that the learning experience is a collaborative one between students, faculty, co-op coordinators and the supervisors. it is fitting to identify high quality supervisors and develop the partnership between the university and the supervisor. That approach could be guided by research such as this. It would be insightful to do follow-up research to this survey. Qualitative research in the form of in-depth interviews with teachers would add more information on their motivations and the nature of their relationship with their co-ops. Similarly, future research with students to articulate the desirable characteristics of ideal supervisors and how those traits enhance learning would be helpful. This study has contributed to the beginning of that process.