ON THE NATURE OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATION

In the following paper I plan to examine the meaning of cooperative education. I believe that there presently exists much confusion as to what cooperative education is -- and is not. Most of this confusion stems from the fact that efforts to define cooperative education have focused too much upon visible, arbitrary, and non-necessary forms of implementation, or upon anticipated outcomes of cooperative education, and not upon that for which the conception of cooperative education is absolutely dependent for its existence.

The majority of published definitions first indicate that cooperative education is an integration of academic study and employment and then go on to enumerate a variety of elements which, it must be assumed, are thought to be crucial to the meaning of cooperative education (Arms by, 1954, Collins, 1968, P. L. 90-575, 1968, Seaverns, 1970, Stirton, 1968, Wilson and Lyons, 1961, Wooldridge, 1969). Below, together with their authors, are paraphrased the more frequently appearing elements .

... alternating periods of academic study and employment. (Arms by, Stirton, Collins, P. L. 90-575)

... maintain close relationship between studies and employment. (Arms by, Stirton, Collins)

... work experience included in graduation requirements. (Arms by, Wilson, and Lyons, Stirton, Seaverns, Wooldridge)

... liaison between institution and employing firm. (Wilson and Lyons; by inference, Arms by, Stirton)

... planned, supervised, organized program. (Arms by, Stirton, Collins, Seaverns, Wooldridge)

... enhances self -realization and direction. (Collins, Seaverns, Wooldridge)

The most efficient strategy for operating a cooperative program may well be an alternating pattern, employment as such may be most effective, a close tie between employment and academic studies may be most desirable, but none of these elements go to the heart of the cooperative education concept nor are they essential to the existence of a cooperative program. Institutional commitment in the form of incorporating co-operative education into graduation requirements will surely strengthen the program, liaison between institution and cooperating firm or agency is clearly necessary for a viable program, to have a program at all it must be planned and organized, and self -realization and personal direction are obviously important outcomes for students but, again, these elements fail to speak to the essence of cooperative education.

By essence is meant that which makes a thing cooperative education and which, were it not present, would signify the absence of cooperative education. In my judgment, not one of these elements meets this qualification, either individually or collectively. Yet, they form a central part of every definition and constitution the substance of confusion about the nature of cooperative education. Though I disagree with the particular formulation, the proposition in each definition which asserts cooperative education to be an integration of academic studies and employment is the only element which goes to the heart of the cooperative education concept. It is the introduction into the curriculum of a different kind of experience which is the defining characteristic, the essence, of cooperative education. Institutional commitment and means of implementation while important and perhaps even necessary to the operation of a given program are not part of the meaning of cooperative education.

It is one thing to criticize the efforts of others to define cooperative education or even to point in the direction of its essence; it is quite another to fashion a meaningful definition around that essence. It can be best accomplished by a careful analysis of the predicable of cooperative education.

Cooperative education is of the genus education. It is a member of the class of things called education and though unique it has characteristics in common with other things called education, vocational education, computer assisted education, higher education. What is common is that each, whether substantively, methodologically, or in terms of level is a part of a process of behavioral change through experience. As used here behavioral change is understood to mean modifications of cognitive, affective and psycho-motor behavior. Because the possibilities of change are almost infinite it is necessary that the particular behavior changes desired be specified. These specifications are the educational objectives of institutions, of programs, or of particular courses of study.

Not all institutions share precisely the same objectives, but for most there are three principal ones: to assist students to develop vocationally; to assist students to develop personally; and to assist students to develop in social responsibility. These developmental goals of higher education are for the student developmental tasks. Developmental tasks," ... are those things which constitute healthy and satisfactory growth in our society. They are the things a person must learn if he is to be judged and to judge himself to be a reasonably happy and successful person. A developmental task is a task which arises at or about a certain period in the life of the individual, successful achievement of which leads to his happiness and to success with later tasks, while failure leads to unhappiness in the individual, disapproval by society, and difficulty with later tasks." (Havighurst, 1948, p. 6). The developmental tasks of infants and small children include learning to walk and talk, learning to control the elimination of body wastes, learning to relate to parents, siblings, and others outside the home, forming simple concepts of social and physical reality. Older children must learn various physical skills, learn to get along with age mates, develop fundamental skills of reading, writing and calculating, develop values. It is to the developmental tasks of later adolescence and early adulthood that colleges and universities are responsive in establishing their educational goals. These include achieving emotional independence from parents and other adults, selecting and preparing for an occupation, developing intellectual skills and concepts necessary for civic competence, desiring and achieving socially responsible behavior, building a set of values which are in harmony with an adequate view of reality and which are possible of realization, selecting a mate. These are additional tasks to be achieved during the same period of life and, of course, there are others to follow in later life. These will suffice to illustrate, however, both tasks to be learned by students and developmental objectives of higher institutions.

This examination of developmental tasks and educational objectives was undertaken in the context of education being the larger class of which cooperative education is a member. Education in turn belongs to the genus experience. Recall, that education is a process of changing behavior through experience. It would be possible to abstract further and look for the genus of which experience is the subaltern genus. Perhaps it would be event. For the present purpose this does not seem essential r particularly useful and, hence, experience will be viewed as the all inclusive concept to which cooperative education belongs.

The experiences which people can have are limitless. Although the ways of classifying these experiences are many fewer, they are still numerous: good-bad; exciting-dull; profitable-worthless -- to suggest a few. The dimension of significance here is that which classifies experience as instrumental or goal directed on the one hand and experience for its own sake on the other hand. Experiences engaged in for their own sake may be of great value in the sense that they may produce pleasure and genuine happiness, whether it be aesthetic pleasure, joy of having accomplished a difficult task, or whatever. They may, in addition, be a source of new learning. But because the experience is for its own sake any learning resulting from it is necessarily incidental. This situation is illustrated by the person who climbs the mountain only because it is there. Numerous benefits may accrue from this total experience: a stronger and healthier body; increased skill in mountain climbing; new knowledge about the terrain; greater confidence in one's self. But these are not goals of the experience; they are, rather, incidental (albeit valuable) outcomes of an experience engaged in for no reason other than the desire to engage in it.

In contrast are goal directed experiences. These are experiences engaged in not for their own sake, but because they lead to some other desired end. Education, as we have seen, is a goal directed experience. Hence, it is not just any experience which constitutes the parent concept for cooperative education but only goal directed or instrumental experience.

Education, like experience, can be meaningfully dichotomized. The most appropriate dimension upon which to dichotomize education for this analysis is that of planned education versus unplanned education. Unplanned education would be education that proceeds without any well delineated strategy. Both substantive and methodological means for achieving goals have not been formulated. It may be observed that such a classification of education has no instances in reality, that it is an empty class. I will not argue the point because whether in fact such education exists or not is of no importance. It is not important because (1) it is a logically possible class and (2) its contrasting category, planned education, does have members. These are the instances of education which are significant here.

Our interest, in seeking to understand the nature of cooperative education, is with education in which the learning experiences have been carefully planned in the light of educational objectives to be achieved, These learning experiences, in turn, are organized into a total program. This organized body of learning experiences constitutes a subclass of education--the curriculum. A vast array of curriculum possibilities exist. In this analysis, however, we are interested in only one educational plan: that plan which on occasion removes the student from the strictly academic setting and all that it entails and puts him in an altogether different situation. The situation demands of the student commitments of time, energy and personal involvement. It calls for a different kind of activity than that which we know as scholastic or academic. I opt for calling this activity non-scholastic work. Because non-scholastic work is judged to be the focal point of the meaning of cooperative education it is essential that what is meant by work and non-scholastic be explored. The discussion to follow will be devoted to this purpose.

The concept basic to this analysis of cooperative education is goal directed experience and its corollary, goal directed activity. Education is viewed as goal directed experience, the curriculum as the organized plan of goal directed experiences, and cooperative education as a specific curricular plan. Hence, the experiences provided within the plan and the student activities which it evokes must themselves be goal directed. Workis conceived as a goal directed activity. C. Gilbert Wrenn defines work as an, " ... activity calling for the expenditure of effort toward some definite achievement or outcome.'' (1964, p. 27). Louis Schaw views

work as a solution to some problem (1968), and Walter Neff defines work as an instrumental activity carried out by human beings (1968). By explicit statement or illustration each of these writers sees the ultimate object of the activity to be the preservation of life or survival. In primitive societies the relationship between activity and object is direct and immediate: the hungry man kills the animal with spear or club and eats. In complex societies the relationship is often considerably more remote and the activity far different but the ultimate objective, survival, is the same. The basic point at the moment, however, is that the concept of work satisfies our requirement for goal directed experience.

The view that work activity has survival as its object is not entirely satisfactory. Writers on the subject of work do not specify the relationship that presumably exists between work activity and survival. Hence, it is not clear if survival is viewed as a sufficient condition of work or a necessary condition. If a sufficient condition then any survival directed activity would be work. If a necessary condition any activity to be work would have to be survival directed but the fact that it is so directed would not insure the activity to be work. As a matter of fact, if survival is understood to have its usual meaning of maintenance or preservation of life, then survival directed activity is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition of work. To call the activity of a patient whose physician has advised a long vacation trip work even though survival of the patient is at stake seems a strange use of the word. On the other hand, if one accepts the proposition that all instances of employment constitute instances of work then there exist examples of work in the absence of any obvious survival goal. The person of independent means holding a regular paying job is a case in point. There must be a large number of cooperative students holding conventional jobs for whom removal of compensation, though unacceptable, would not be fatal.

The goal of survival as a criterion of work activity might be applicable in the vast majority of situations and, most certainly, it is applicable to primitive societies. It is not adequate, however, for all situations in a complex society. As a matter of fact, to reduce to one the possible motives for activity that may properly be called work or to force into the notion of work activities which are not normally considered to be work only because of this motive seems both an inadequate representation of the range of human motivation and an inaccurate conception of work. The goal of work for a given person might well be physical survival. It might be psychological survival; it might be preparation for survival of one sort or another; it might be self-enhancement and fulfillment; it might be many other things as well. To argue that each of these motives is but a special instance of the more basic and general concept of survival is really to alter the usual meaning of the word.

The conclusion is that work cannot be defined adequately by reference to the intent of activity alone. Nor does the specific nature of activity provide much help. The range of possible work activities is too great. Neff has suggested that impact of activity upon the environment is essential to the work process. He says that work is activity which is " ... directed at a planful alteration of certain feature's of man's environment." (Neff, p. 78). If we may interpret this alterative characteristic of work activity to include more than direct modification of the physical environment then work is an activity which produces, either routinely or creatively, or it serves.

When these thoughts about work are put together they result in the following suggested definition: work is a goal directed activity, the object of which is to fulfill some need of the person performing the activity and which is directed toward production, or service. Student activity consistent with this notion of work, performed during cooperative periods and non-scholastic in character, is what I conceive to be the essence of cooperative education. The term non-scholastic is used in an attempt to make clear that student activities during academic periods are different from those during cooperative periods even though they may be substantively related, Activities during academic periods are characterized by formal study and activities typically entailed by that, such as class attendance, library search, laboratory exercises, out-of -class assignments. Cooperative periods, on the other hand, are characterized by service or production, provided outside the context of formal study in an educational institution. It might be argued that one set of activities may properly be called study and the other work and that such designation should suffice to make distinction between the two clear. This may be so but since students "do homework," "work in the library," "work on papers, " it will hopefully eliminate any possible confusion if I refer to the work performed in cooperative periods as non-scholastic work.

It should be understood that solely a semantic difference between academic and cooperative periods is not being sought. I believe that the tradition and essence of cooperative education calls for non-scholastic work during cooperative periods. Study in foreign countries, exchanges with other institutions in this country and programs of independent study are worthwhile but they are not a part of the essence of cooperative education as I understand it.

It should be noted further that non-scholastic work more adequately designates the broad range of activity performed by students during their cooperative periods than either of two other terms used to define cooperative education. The most frequently used term and the one with longest history is employment. Employment is compensated work or work done for hire. It is used most frequently because the vast majority of cooperative situations are employment. There is much to commend employment: it provides opportunities for practicing increased independence and the assumption of greater responsibility; it contributes to pride in ones competencies and accomplishments; it makes higher education possible for many who otherwise might not be able to attend. Despite these values, it must be remembered that the essence of cooperative education is the introduction of work into the curriculum, not wages. The other term, introduced within the last several years is experimental situation. The intent is to cover those cooperative situations which are not employment and which do not necessarily relate closely to the student's instructional program. The term, however, is redundant. The analysis has made the point that cooperative education ultimately belongs to the broader concept experience. Were we to call non-employment situations experiential we would then be speaking of experiential experience, whatever that may be. Not only is the term redundant it is unnecessary because although such situations may provide no compensation to the student and may not be directly germane to his major if they are goal directed activities performed outside the context of formal study and they produce or serve then they are non-scholastic work.

The intent of this analysis has been to explore the meaning of cooperative education, what it is, what it is a part of. The whole of the analysis can be brought into focus by reference to the following figure. In it , each genus of this analysis beginning with the most general, experience, is dichotomized into members having certain differentia or characteristics and members not having those same differentia. Each of the classes on the right of the figure are "cut-off" or rejected as irrelevant to the meaning of cooperative education. "Reading" this figure tells us that cooperative education is the introduction of non-scholastic work into the curriculum of a planned educational effort, where education is understood to be an instance of goal directed experience. With these elements of the essence of cooperative education before us and bearing in mind the earlier discussion of the developmental goals of educational institutions the following definition is offered: Cooperative education is a strategy of non-scholastic work incorporated into the curriculum and carried out by students, the object of which is to assist students to meet these developmental goals appropriate to their age level.

In his theory of predicable, Aristotle speaks not only of definition (formed from the genus and differentia of predicable) but also of property and accident. In effect, a property is a concomitant of a thing; while not part of the essence of a subject it nonetheless belongs to it. An accident, on the other hand, is a non-necessary predicate; it is something which may possibly belong or not belong to a subject. Thus, water is defined as a chemical combination of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. It has the property of boiling at 212° F and freezing at 32° F. That a particular specimen of water is colored pink and is in the shape of an elephant is an accident. With reference to cooperative education, its essence is the introduction of student non -scholastic work into the educational program; chief among its properties is student growth and development; the accidents are specific means of implementation, e.g. alternating or field periods, employment or service work, professionally directed work or generally educating work; mandatory, elective, or selective programs.

Once a particular pattern of implementation is adopted the presence or absence of other properties, what Aristotle called relative properties, is dictated. For example, if an institution decides upon a mandatory program for all its students to operate on an alternating plan more efficient utilization of physical facilities will be a concomitant. Other plans of operation are possible which will not result in space saving.

The accidents of cooperative education have been the basis of confusion and controversy noted at the outset of this paper. Efforts to portray cooperative education have tended to dwell upon the non-necessary, operating features rather than upon the essence and properties. This is not meant to suggest that the way in which the concept of cooperative education is to be implemented is unimportant, it is extremely important. But that way is not properly a part of the concept itself. If it is not part of the concept but is important, how then should matters of implementation be dealt with in our thinking about cooperative education? My suggestion is the simple expedient of classifying programs of cooperative education according to the particular manner of their implementation.

By developing a scheme for classifying programs for cooperative education several worthwhile ends would be achieved. It would first of all give clear recognition that all programs faithful to the essence of cooperative education are, in fact, programs of cooperative education whatever their particular style of operation. It would testify to the fact that cooperative education is an educational concept of great vitality, capable of wide application to fields of study and to models of operation. Second, a classification would provide a systematic base for the study of outcomes of cooperative education for students, institutions and employers. Third, the development of a system for classifying programs of cooperative education according to the manner in which they have been implemented can be of invaluable assistance to those institutions which in the years ahead are attracted to the potential of cooperative education and wish to adapt the concept to their particular situation.

As important and likely worthwhile as I believe a classification scheme to be, my intent in this paper has been to examine the meaning of cooperative education, not its implementation. Hence, the table below is tended to be suggestive only. Two parts are necessary for the scheme,

Illustrative Classification For Implementing Programs of Cooperative Education

the dimensions of implementation and the possibilities of implementation within each dimension. Examination of the table will show, despite its incompleteness, that by classifying a program according to each dimension of implementation it provides a reasonably detailed description of program operation.

How a program of cooperative education operates is indeed important. It will have great impact upon the outcomes realized by a program. Nonetheless the thesis of this paper is that the meaning of cooperative education, the essence of the concept, is independent of its implementation and that the essence of cooperative education is the introduction of non-scholastic work into the academic program.