A Review and Synthesis of Scholarly Research in Cooperative Education and Internships
Part I. An Analysis of Quantitative Research Published Outside the Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships

Prior reviews have documented the status of research in the area of cooperative education and internships. An analysis of these reviews indicates at least three major approaches. First, some reviews have evaluated research quality. In this regard, Wilson (1988) noted that cooperative education "has fallen short of the ideal of scientific inquiry to illuminate relationships, predict effects, explain findings in the light of existing theory, or contribute to theory development." (83) Ricks, Van Gyn, Branton, Cutt, Loken, & Ney (1990) and Ricks and Cutt (1990) reviewed theory and practice and found a lack of integration between theory, research and practice in the literature base. Bartkus and Stull (1997, p. 13; 2004) also commented on the quality of research and concluded that "the challenge for cooperative education is to evolve beyond merely descriptive studies and generate theory."

A second approach has been to provide an historical commentary on the evolution of research. Bowman (1989), for example, commented on 25 years of scholarship in the Journal of Cooperative Education. Hartley (1986) discussed the evolution of the Journal of Cooperative Education and the impact that its editors have had on the discipline while Harris (1989) discussed 25 years of service provided by the Journal.

A third approach involves summaries of research published in the Journal of Cooperative Education. Principle among these are Wilson and Pratt (1972) who provided the first annotated bibliography, Goff and Hartley (1983) who updated the bibliography through 1983, and Pullin (1998) who completed the most recent update through 1997. While these reviews do not provide a formal critique of cooperative education and internship research, they nonetheless provide an efficient means for evaluating the scope of research in this area.

Finally, it is interesting to note that all of these reviews have at least one thing in common; namely, they focus almost exclusively on research published in the Journal of Cooperative Education (now, the Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships)¹. This approach is logical given that the Journal has historically been regarded as one of the leading scholarly and practitioner publications for this area of study.

¹ For brevity, the remainder of this review will reference only the Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships with the understanding that it includes reference to the previous title of the journal as well.

Although these reviews have made important contributions to our understanding of research in cooperative education and internships, several important questions remain. First, what is the overall quality of cooperative education and internship research? While prior reviews have provided preliminary answers to this question, the responses have largely focused on illustrative examples and researcher's expert opinions than more systematic analysis. As a result, the contributions represent an important step in the review process, but should be viewed from the perspective in which they were conducted.

A second question concerns the quality of research published in journals other than the Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships (hereafter JCEI). Since existing reviews have already commented on the quality of research in this journal, it might be helpful to develop a better understanding of research published in alternative journals. In doing so, the discipline would have a more comprehensive basis for evaluating the overall status of cooperative education and internship research. Furthermore, the results could then be compared with those of JCEI.

Finally, it would be useful to determine the quantity of research published in alternative journals. In doing so, the extent to which cooperative education and internship research has been received in the scholarly community can be assessed.

In sum, answers to these questions can provide the discipline with an important clarification regarding the nature, scope, and quality of research published in the area of cooperative education and internships. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to evaluate a representative sample of scholarly research that has been published on topics relevant to the study of cooperative education and internships and published in journals other than JCEI. In this regard, the current study represents Part I of a proposed three-part research plan. It covers quantitative research published in journals other than the Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships. Part II will review quantitative research in the Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships and Part III will review qualitative research in the area of cooperative education and internships from all publication sources. In all, the three reviews will provide a comprehensive analysis of research in the area and serve as a reference for scholars.

Summary of Research Issues

This study will address four major issues related to the nature, scope, and quality of the research:

1. Research Quantity: How much research has been published during the time interval studied?
2. Diversity of Research Outlets: How many and what types of journals are publishing cooperative education and internship research?
3. Diversity of Research Themes: What types of issues are being examined in the research?
4. Quality of Research: To assess the quality of the research, six factors were examined:
1. The characteristics of the sample: Did the study use a convenience sample or a random sample? How large was the sample? Were any limitations noted?
2. Use of control groups for experimental research: If the study did not use a control group, was this limitation noted?
3. Integration of theory: Was there a theoretical basis for the study established?
4. Acceptable selection and application of the statistical method: Was the statistical method appropriate and was it applied correctly?
5. Acceptable reporting of statistical data: Did the researchers adequately report statistical data or was relevant information missing from the analysis?
6. Acceptable reporting of the results: Did the authors report results in a manner that was consistent with the actual findings?

Method of Review

Developing guidelines for selection of articles was the first step in the research process. Since there are no firmly established guidelines from prior research, this study attempts to develop a template that can be used for the current study as well as future evaluations.

The first issue to be addressed is the appropriate time period to use. It was decided to study the period between 1987 and 2006. The starting date of 1987 was selected for several reasons. First, it represents a period when information technology (e.g., advances in personal computers, databases, statistical software, etc.) was quickly evolving. As such, it provides a general benchmark for the modern era of research. Second, it also allows for a reasonable time frame to be evaluated (i.e., two decades of research).

A second guideline concerns the appropriate criteria for harvesting research articles. In this regard, a number of questions needed to be answered. Should the criteria include commentaries and opinion-related articles as well as empirical research? Should the review include indirectly related articles (i.e., ones where cooperative education or internships are merely a tangential part of the research) or should the review be limited only to those articles directly related to cooperative education or internships? It was decided to limit the selection to research-driven articles and ones where cooperative education and internship issues are directly relevant to the research. As such, reviews of how-to articles and case study approaches were omitted from this review but it is acknowledged that they should be considered in future reviews. Additionally, articles that describe one particular program or explain how a specific program was implemented or administered at a particular institution were omitted from the review. This criterion is not intended to imply that such articles are unimportant or uninformative; instead, it is used to make the review more manageable and relevant to the stated purpose.

Articles where internships or cooperative education are regarded as a historical component of the educational discipline were also omitted. This review does not exclude research that uses samples from programs that have historically required internship or cooperative education component as integral part of particular program unless it can also be reasonably determined that the entire discipline participates. Hence, teaching, medical, and other clinical internships were precluded because they have traditionally required internship participation as part of the overall program of study and, as such, are not typically examined in the same context as other co-op and internship research. Additionally, this review will only include articles that relate to student internships and cooperative education at the high school or undergraduate level. Professional internships, such as those conducted at the graduate level, will be omitted.

A third set of guidelines involves the appropriate method of analyzing the research. On the one hand, the inclusion of an abstract for each article would appear to be one important guideline. On the other hand, an abstract itself is probably not sufficient if one wants to develop comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of the research. Furthermore, abstracts do not typically provide the depth of information that would allow an adequate evaluation of the quality of the research. For example, abstracts often omit basic characteristics of the sample. Abstracts also do not typically mention the limitations of the study. For example, an abstract might report that the study found a relationship between grade point average and internship experiences, but fail to mention that certain limitations make that finding tentative.

It was determined, therefore, that a review and presentation of abstracts will not meet the objectives of this study. Hence, this review examines each article in its entirety and includes a report on the basic characteristics of the sample, the foundation for the study, and a commentary on the method of analysis and the validity of the research outcomes. Relevant limitations are also noted.

Finally, developing criteria for the article search is needed. Given advances in information technology, it seemed logical to use electronic databases from a library that operates within a university rated as a Carnegie Research-Intensive institution. In doing so, it helps ensure a more efficient and effective literature search and retrieval of articles. The databases used were those related to: engineering, science, social science citation, arts and humanities, business, and education. Key search words included: interns, internships, cooperative education, work-integrated, work-based, experiential learning, and experiential education, as well as variations of these terms (e.g., singular versus plural versions of the keywords and the use of the conjunction "and" between keywords). It was anticipated that by utilizing a relatively wide description of cooperative education and internship terminology there would be a greater likelihood of obtaining a more complete census of the population of interest. Of course, it was also anticipated that it would result in numerous articles that were not directly relevant and, as such, these articles would ultimately need to be reviewed-out of the sample.

Analysis

Using the search criteria established in the method section, the literature search resulted in the identification of 72 research articles related to the fields of cooperative education and/or internships. While every effort was made to procure a complete census of articles published, it should be noted that it is possible that some articles were inadvertently excluded. Additionally, since some of the research articles initially reviewed had a relatively minor focus on cooperative education or internships, they were excluded. It is possible that another reviewer might include more articles. To help control for this, this review sought to be overly inclusive rather than overly exclusive. As such, some of the articles are more heavily focused on cooperative education and internships than others. An appendix is provided at the conclusion of this study that summarizes the issues for each individual study. Included are the authors, the characteristics of the sample, and general comments on the study.

In general, the research covered a range of important issues from ethics and job-related outcomes, to descriptions and perceptions of cooperative education and internship programs. From this observation, it is apparent that the research stream is consistent with the major goals and objective of the discipline. As such, the research forms a good foundation for understanding cooperative education and internships and for the development of future research projects.

With that in mind, the following synthesizes the major research issues.

Research Issue 1: Quantity of Publications

The 72 articles represent an average of slightly less than 4 articles a year for the time period 1987 to 2006. However, given that these articles are research-driven and not commentaries, case studies, how-to papers, or other similar reports suggest that the number of articles could be significantly higher. Future reviews will help verify this proposition. In any event, the identification of 72 research articles provides some evidence that cooperative education and internship research has been accepted throughout the scholarly community.

A descriptive review of publications per year suggests a slightly upward trend in output during the time period. Using a simple regression analysis with an ordinary least square procedure, the F-value is 29.1 (p<.01) with a regression coefficient of .23 (p<.05, standard error = .04) and variance explained (R²) .62, suggesting that the number of articles published during the measure time interval increased by approximately 1 article every four years.

To help ensure that autocorrelation of the residual error terms did not influence the results, a Durbin-Watson (DW) test statistic was calculated. The DW statistic tests whether each error term in the regression equation is correlated with the error term immediately preceding it. The DW statistic provides a test for the null hypothesis that the autocorrelation is zero. A positive autocorrelation can produce a downward bias of estimates for error variance (i.e., the standard errors) resulting in confidence intervals that are too narrow, whereas a negative autocorrelation tends to bias the estimate of the error variance upward, resulting in confidence intervals that are too wide. As a result, significant positive autocorrelation tends to help reject the null hypothesis and a significant negative autocorrelation tends to help accept the null hypothesis.

In either case, the existence of autocorrelation can bias the results (For a more comprehensive assessment of the Durbin-Watson statistic see Judge, Griffiths, Hill, Lütkepohl, & Lee, 1985). For the current data, the DW statistic for autocorrelation is 2.1 (p=.52 for positive autocorrelation and .48 for negative autocorrelation). As such, the null hypothesis of no autocorrelation is supported and the results from the ordinary least squares model are accepted.

Readers are cautioned, however, not to over-interpret this result. The fact that the number of publications increased during the time interval could reflect an increased interest in cooperative education and internship research in alternative journals or it could mean that there was an increasing number of articles published overall. Without additional information, no definitive conclusions can be made.

Research Issue 2: Diversity of Publication Outlets

Table 1 presents a list of the journal and the respective authors. In total, the 72 articles represent 48 separate journals. A descriptive review of the journals' characteristics provides some insights into the types of journal selected and the reasons. Of the 48 journals, 26 use the term education (or some related term such as teaching or student) in their title. Forty-four articles (approximately 61 percent of the total) were published in these journals. Additionally, 6 other journals appear to reflect an emphasis on work-based learning/guidance (e.g., Journal of Work-Place Learning). One journal reflects both a work-based learning focus and an educational focus (i.e., Education + Guidance). As such, it was counted in both of the above categories. Sixteen journal titles reflect no expressed emphasis on either education or work-based learning/guidance representing approximately 33 percent of the journals. Altogether, the journals titles suggest that authors tended to target their research toward journals that emphasize some aspects of education or work-based learning.

It is also apparent that the number of articles per scholar is relatively low, with the mode equal to 1. Only 21 of the 151 authors published more than one article and most of these articles are co-authored with the same authors. The average number of authors per article is approximately 2.4. Thirteen of the articles were single-authored and an additional 27 were dual-authored. Twenty-five of the articles had 3 authors and 5 of the articles had 4 authors. Only 2 of the articles had more that 4 authors with 1 having five authors and another having 8.

TABLE 1 - Summary of Journals and Authors

Research Issues 3: Diversity of Research Theme

Numerous themes were identified in the research. Principle among these is a focus on outcomes such as grade point average (e.g., Hornsby & Johnson, 1991; English & Koeppen, 1993; Harris, Tanner, & Knouse, 1996; Knouse, Tanner, & Harris, 1999; Blair & Millea, 2004), salary (e.g., Taylor, 1988; Fuller & Schoenberger, 1991; Blair & Millea, 2004), job performance (e.g., Siegel & Rigsby, 1988; Douglas & Brewer, 1999) and employment success (e.g., Knouse, Tanner, & Harris, 1999; Sagen, Dallam, & Laverty, 2000; Callanan and Benzing, 2004).

Other themes include the development of skills and competencies (e.g., Morton, Dawson, & Laing, 1993; Garavan & Murphy, 2001; Haag & Goble, 2006), the perceived benefits and challenges of co-op and internships (e.g., Hymon-Parker, 1998; Lancaster & Smith, 1994; Parsons, Caylor, & Simmons, 2005), evaluations of cooperative education and internship experiences by decision makers (e.g., Avis & Trice, 1991; Maynard, 1997), ethical developments resulting from cooperative education and internship experiences (e.g., , DuPont & Craig, 1996; Dellaportas, Cooper, & Leung, 2006), descriptions of programs (Cappelli, Shapiro & Shumanis, 1998; Chapin, Roudebush, and Krone, 2003), and employer and student perceptions of cooperative education and internship experiences (e.g., Keenan, 1992; Maskooki, Rama & Raghunandan, 1998; Chapin, Roudebush & Krone, 2003).

A category for miscellaneous research related to cooperative education and internships was also identified. For example, one study sought to explain why students participated in a cooperative education program during high school (Chin, Munby, Hutchinson, Steiner-Bell, 2000). Another study surveyed student attitudes toward internships (Cook, Parker, and Pettijohn, 2004).

In all, the research appears to be rather diverse both in terms of the types of programs examined (i.e., cooperative education, internships) and the issues researched (e.g., ethics, perceptions, outcomes).

Research Issue 4: Quality of Research

With regard to quality, the analysis took the position that the value of research is based largely on its ability to produce evidence that is valid and reliable. This means that the research used generally accepted principles of research design and administration. Six major principles were used for the analysis: (1) the type of sample, (2) the research design, (3) the theoretical foundation, (4) the statistical method, (5) reporting of statistical data, and (6) reporting of the results.

Quality Issue 1: The Type of Sample

Overall, the articles were found to be diverse in terms of the samples used. Of the 72 articles, 46 used student samples related to internships (e.g., Maynard, 1997) while 19 involved student samples related to cooperative education (e.g., Rainsbury, Hodges, Sutherford, & Barrow, 1998). In three studies, the research involved student samples related to both internships and cooperative education (e.g., Sagen, Dallam, & Laverty, 2000). In a few cases, the sample consisted of other stakeholders. For example, Spinks and Wells (1994) surveyed college dean's perceptions of the importance of internship programs. Other research used employers or relevant others (e.g., educators) as part of the sample (e.g., Brumm, Hanneman, & Mickelson, 2006).

Aside from the distinction between cooperative education and internship samples, the terminology used to describe the sample varied as well. For example, Cappelli, Shapiro, and Shumanis (1998) examined the extent to which employers participate in school-to-work partnerships and work-based learning. Stasz and Brewer (1998) and de Jong, Wierstra, and Hermanussen (2006) also conducted research in the context of work-based learning while Linnehan (2001) examined participation in a work-based mentoring program in relation to academic performance and school attendance behavior. Brown-Welty and Peterson (2002) examined the benefits and challenges of offering college degree programs in collaboration with private corporations (which they referred to as collaborative degree programs). Finally, Kardash (2000) studied the influence of undergraduate research experiences on the acquisition of research skills.

With regard to how the sample was obtained, it was found that the majority were convenience samples. Approximately 95 percent (n=68) of the studies used this type of sample. In one of those studies (i.e., Maynard, 1997), the author reported that the sample was a census, which was correct, but only in the sense that it was a census of a sub-sample of a larger population. Only 2 of the studies used a random sample. Two other studies used secondary data but did not provide information on how the sample was collected. For example, Stern, Finkelstein, and Cagampang (1997) merely referred readers to another research article to find details about the sample. Although this notation may have been useful, it is not a substitute for describing the characteristics of the sample. Sample descriptions should cover basic information such as the size of the sample and how the data were collected.

Although the use of convenience samples is not optimal from a research perspective, their use is relatively common and understandable in social science research given the difficult of securing random samples. As such, there appears to be no over-riding stigma associated using them. However, it is appropriate for researchers who use convenience samples to at least acknowledge this fact along with related limitations, particularly with regard to its inability to generalize to the broader population. This in no way compromises the integrity of the study since its purpose is to put the results in proper context. In the absence of such disclosure, readers are left to infer the limitations on their own.

Of those using convenience samples, only 47 percent (n=32) acknowledged this fact. In some cases, the acknowledgement was implied rather than explicit which required this reader to examine the documentation more carefully than should have been the case. In general, readers should not have to search for the proverbial needle in a haystack.

The fact that so many studies neglected to acknowledge the limitations of convenience samplings is somewhat troubling. Although there is no reason to believe that researchers intentionally omit such information, the relatively large number of omissions suggests that journal editors and manuscript reviewers should be remind authors to include an acknowledgement.

With regard to samples size, the analysis indicates that most samples were relatively small. Approximately 12 percent (i.e., 9 of the 72 studies) used samples of less than 50. Those with samples of between 50 and 100 represented approximately 32 percent of the studies (n=23). This means that nearly 44 percent of the studies used samples that can generally be regarded as small in size. Furthermore, some of the samples represented experiments where the sample size in each group was often less than 30 and in some cases less than 20.

Of samples above 100, approximately 20 percent ranged from 101 to 200 while another 22 percent had samples of between 201 and 500. Approximately 13 percent (or 9 studies) had sample sizes greater than 500. Overall, the samples sizes for individual groups ranged from 3 to over 4,000. In cases where the sample sizes were relatively small, researchers often noted the limitation, although this was not always done. Researchers are reminded to acknowledge limitations associated with sample sizes and journal editors and reviewers should insist on such notation before accepting manuscripts for publication.

Finally, in situations were the sample size is very large researchers should acknowledge that the significance of statistical tests can be affected because standard errors decrease as sample size increases. In very large samples, statistical differences may be found even when the actual magnitude of the differences is quite small. There were several studies that fell into this category (e.g., Blair and Millea 2004). In such cases it is important for the researcher to acknowledge the sample size effect and to remind readers that a more appropriate way to evaluate statistical differences is by the magnitude of the differences rather than the significance of the test statistic. In doing so, the results will be presented in their proper perspective. As with earlier comments, part of the responsibility for proper reporting comes from journal editors and manuscript reviewers.

Quality Issue 2: Research Design

Twenty six of the studies utilized an experimental design. Experimental designs are studies that seek to determine the influence of a treatment effect. In order to control for the possibility that other factors might influence the results, a control group is standard procedure. In essence, control groups allow the researcher to determine if any change that occurs as a result of a treatment (e.g., internship experience) can be attributable to that treatment. Without a control group, the researcher has nothing to compare the findings to and, as such, is unable to validate the results of the experiment.

Consider, for example, a study that wants to examine the effect of internship experiences on student grade point average. In this case, the researcher would want to obtain a relevant sample of both intern and non-intern students. In doing so, the researcher can more objectively attribute any changes in grade point average to the treatment (e.g., internship experience). If grade point averages increase for intern students but not for non-intern students, the researcher can conclude (with greater certainty), that the internship contributed to higher grades. The greater certainty issue assumes that the researcher has implemented reasonable safeguards for the effects of other variables, such as age, SAT scores, college major, and gender.

In the absence of a control group, however, the researcher would be unable to assert that the treatment influenced the grade point average because a non-treatment group could also have shown an increase in grades. In this way, the control group serves as an important means of validating the research results.

Unfortunately, only 17 of the 26 studies (65 percent of the total) that utilized an experimental design used a control group. Of the 9 (34 percent) studies that did not use a control group, only 4 acknowledged this as a limitation. As with the use of convenience sampling, researchers should be careful to explain relevant limitations and, to the extent that they do not, editors and reviewers should ensure that authors make such acknowledgement before a manuscript is accepted for publication. Such acknowledgement should also note the exploratory nature of the study. Failure to do so can lead to some readers accepting the results as more valid than might actually be the case.

Quality Issue 3: Theoretical Foundation

Prior reviews have expressed a need for more theory in cooperative education and internship research (e.g., Wilson, 1988; Bartkus & Stull, 1997). This review supports this position and notes that the overwhelming majority of the research evaluated in this study sought to address research questions without providing a strong theoretical foundation. In this sense, much of the research was descriptive in nature. For example, some research sought to describe the characteristics of internship and/or cooperative education programs while others sought to describe student perceptions or expectations of internship experiences.

Other research sought to discover relationships between internship or cooperative education experiences and presumed outcomes. The use of the terms "discover" and "presumed" are used to clarify the point that while the research methods used in the study might have been very similar to those used in theory-driven research, the use of a particular statistical method is not, in and of itself, sufficient reason to call a esearch study theory-driven. Instead, such studies must do more than simply report the results of prior research. They must seek to explain, by way of established or proposed theories, the hypothesized relationships. These theories might be related to cooperative education and internship research or they might be bridged from other research domains. The point is that for research to be theory driven, it must incorporate rationale that provides a systematic means of explaining phenomena (Bartkus & Stull, 1997).

Consider, for example, the presumed relationship between cooperative education and outcomes such as starting salaries or grade point averages. While one might like to believe that such an experience will ultimately lead to one or more of these outcomes, it is not enough to simply test the relationship. Even if it is shown a thousand times in a thousand different studies that cooperative education leads to higher starting salaries, it is not theory-driven research unless one can provide some theoretical (not simply intuitive) rationale for the relationship. Otherwise, we are simply providing evidence of an empirical regularity which, as important as it is to theory development, is not a theory.

Although some of the research reviewed in this study initially appeared to have theoretical content, a more careful analysis revealed that many of these studies merely discussed and/or summarized prior research results that were not expressly identified as theory. Hence, they were not classified as theory-driven. To qualify under the criteria of this study, theories needed to be formally discussed along with testable hypotheses. Few of the studies provided such evidence, although many of them could have provided more in this context.

In total, approximately 14 percent of the studies (n=10) provided evidence of being theory-driven. Another 11 percent (n=8) provided partial evidence of a theoretical foundation meaning that, overall, only 25 percent of the studies integrated a meaningful amount of theory.

Quality Issue 4: The Statistical Method

The review examined the extent to which the research appropriately applied the correct statistical method. Although most of the research had at least one limitation, the severity differed significantly. In some cases, the limitations were relatively minor and in others they were more significant. For example, several studies conducted a correlation analysis where one or more of the variables was binary in nature (i.e., data with only two points) (e.g., Knemeyer & Murphy, 2001; Callanan & Benzing, 2004). Because the data were categorical, a more correct method would have been a test for mean differences (t-test) or an analysis of variance. Additionally, if the intent was to identify how many responses were in each category (a comment that was reported in one study to justify the use of binary data) a more appropriate method would have been an examination of the frequency distributions. Lancaster and Smith (1994) examined gender differences involving outcomes resulting from cooperative education experiences and used a cross-tabulation test based on the frequency of responses to Likert categories (after unnecessarily collapsing some of the categories). A more robust test would have been one based on a t-test or analysis of variance without compressing the data.

Other researchers also adjusted the data prior to analysis. Knemeyer, Murphy, and Poist (1999) collapsed categories from a Likert scale prior to using the data in a cross-tabulation analysis. The authors argued that this was necessary since there were not enough data points in some categories. This adjustment is unnecessary since the issue could have been resolved through a multivariate analysis of variance. While it is unknown if the results would have changed using this method, adjusting data to fit a particular technique of analysis is generally not recommended when an acceptable alternative is available.

It was also revealed that some studies used unbalanced response categories. Unbalanced means that the response categories are skewed in either a positive or negative direction. As such, the are source of bias because they tend to lead the respondent to answer in one direction. A balanced scale eliminates this potential.

Several studies used unbalanced scales. Brumm, Hannemann, and Mickelson (2006) had categories with the following points: 5=essential; 4=very important; 3=important; 2=useful, but not essential; 1 unnecessary. At least three of the five categories are worded in a positive direction and, as such, the scale is not properly balanced. A balanced scale would have something like the following: 5=very important; 4=somewhat important; 3=neither important nor unimportant; 2 somewhat unimportant; 1 very unimportant. In this example, there is a neutral position, two positive and two negative response categories.

Others scales appeared to be unbalanced but this could not be fully confirmed since only end-points were reported. For example, Lancaster and Smith (1994) used a five-point scale with categories ranging from not helpful to extremely helpful. For this scale to be balanced, the first end-point should have been extremely unhelpful. Similarly, Brown-Welty, and Patterson (2002) used a scale with end-points ranging from extremely important to not important at all. For the scale to have been balanced, the second end-point should have been extremely unimportant.

While the distinction between end points such as not helpful and extremely unhelpful may appear trivial, they are important because they determine whether or not the remaining categories are equally divided between positively and negatively worded responses. For example, if not helpful is used as an end-point it would be difficult to find another negatively worded response category. However, if you used extremely unhelpful as a category, the next response option could be something like somewhat unhelpful.

In summary, it is important to use the most appropriate method of analysis whenever possible. While the most appropriate method can be the debated among reasonable scholars, research methods that substantially deviate from accepted practice compromise the validity of the results. At a minimum, researchers should disclose the rationale for a particular method of analysis in clear and unambiguous terms so that readers can be in a better position to interpret the meaning of the results. Additionally, the researcher should neither over report or under report the rationale for the method, but when in doubt, more information in better than less. In this regard, journal editors and manuscript reviewers can be particularly helpful in providing guidance.

Quality Issue 5: Reporting of Statistical Data

Some of the research omitted important statistical data such as standard deviations (e.g., Spinks & Wells, 1994; Cannon & Arnold, 1998; Nagle & Collins, 1999; Knemeyer & Murphy, 2001; Kaupins, 2002; Scholz, Steiner, & Hansmann, 2004; Karns, 2005; Brumm, Hannaman, & Mickelson, 2006) or test diagnostics for the statistical tests (Stern, Finkelstein, Urquiola & Cagampang, 1997) In other cases, the means were not provided at all and only frequencies for the response categories were reported (Stasz & Brewer, 1998; Cook, Parker & Pettijohn, 2004). Note that one of the major reasons for using Likert scales (e.g., 7-point scales from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree) is to obtain sufficient variance to be able to test differences between groups or relationships among variables. Failure to utilize the data in this form can lead to suboptimal results.

In a few cases, the internal consistency of scales was not evaluated (e.g., Parsons, Caylor, & Simmons, 2005). Measures of internal consistency, such a Cronbach's alpha, are relatively easy to calculate and should be included.

Although this review reminds researchers to be more careful in the reporting and use of statistics, it should also be noted that journal editors and manuscript reviewers and have a responsibility to ensure that researchers are utilizing the appropriate technique and report the statistical data in a meaningful way.

Quality Issue 6: Reporting of Results

Once a test of the data has been run, it is important to provide an objective reporting of the results. In some cases, researchers reported significant findings when tests for statistical significance were not transparently conducted (e.g., Hornsby & Johnson, 1991; Brumm, Hanneman, & Mickelson, 2006) or the interpretation was based on a subjective assessment of the data (e.g., Lancaster & Smith, 1994; Bailey, Hughes, & Barr, 2000).

Finally, some of the authors published similar articles using the same sample, the same method, and the same focus. In doing so, readers conducting a literature review might be led to believe that the accumulated evidence is greater than it actually is unless similarities can be readily identified. For example, Blair and Millea (2004a & 2004b) published reports of the relationship between cooperative education experiences and grade point average, length of time in school, and starting salary. Ironically, the second citation is a publication in the Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships. Had one of the publications been a conference proceeding, this would be less of an issue since conferences are often regarded as places to test market research. However, when the research is published in competing journals, the effect can be regarded as an over-reporting of the data unless the audiences are substantially different. To be fair, a review of the editorial policy for the Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships and the College Student Journal indicates no requirement that the research be original. As such, the authors did not technically violate the specific editorial policies of either journal. Nonetheless, professional courtesy suggests that the authors should have acknowledged the dual publication. Overall, the published results of Blair and Millia should be considered the findings of one study, not two.

Discussion

This review sought to synthesize and provide constructive comments on 72 research articles published between 1987 and 2006. Although limitations were highlighted, it is important to note that the accumulated research has contributed to our knowledge of cooperative education and internships and has provided a good foundation for future research efforts. For example, the focus on outcomes (e.g., job employment, salaries) has provided evidence on the link between work-based learning experiences and tangible outcomes. Other research issues, such as those dealing with skills development, ethical issues, program descriptions, personal experiences, benefits and challenges of programs, and how the experiences are perceived by students and employers are equally important and serve to advance an important goal of the discipline; to advance the state of knowledge about cooperative education and internships.

With regard to limitations, it is important to note that those listed in this review are not exclusive to the study of cooperative education and internship research. Indeed, there is probably no such thing as a completely error-free research project. All research is limited in some way and a primary objective of this review was merely to identify some of the major issues in this area. The rationale centers on the belief that if we do not acknowledge our limitations, we are bound to repeat them in future research.

With that said, the limitations can be summarized as follows. First, many of the studies did not use a control group even though it was apparent that the research was based on an experimental design. This suggests that either the research should have been more carefully evaluated during the review process or that the journals should have insisted that the limitation be noted within the text of the manuscript. Without such clarification, some readers might rely on the results and research design to justify future research and/or policy. In some cases, the lack of a control group might be justified if the results are exploratory and the limitations of the study noted. In too many cases, however, these acknowledgements were not provided.

Second, the lack of theoretical integration is one that has hampered research in cooperative education and internships for some time. While other reviews have criticized the general lack of theory in articles published in the Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, this review extends the analysis to research published in other journals. This review also joins the call for more integration of theory. While descriptive research is certainly valid, along with exploratory research that seeks to identify empirical relationships, if the status of cooperative education and internship research is to evolve, additional attention is needed in the area of theory development and testing.

Third, researchers need to utilize appropriate methods of analysis. In too many instances, it was apparent that the method was sub-optimal and compromised the validity and interpretation of the results. In other cases, the method was overly-complicated making an interpretation of results more difficult than it needed to be. Researchers should use the most appropriate method and not over-analyze the data.

Journal editors and reviewers are reminded that since some readers might not have a strong statistical background, accepting manuscripts without noting any relevant limitations might result in providing de facto validation for the procedures used. Hence, journals reviewers and editors share responsibility for ensuring that proper statistical procedures are selected and administered. At a minimum, relevant limitations should be reported by the authors prior to publication.

Fourth, statistical results need to be adequately reported. Some of the reviewed research tended to under-report key data. As a result, some degree of caution needs to be exercised when interpreting the validity of the results. Researchers should be reminded to provide all appropriate information.

Fifth, researchers should not over-report the significance and importance of the results. There is nothing virtuous about over-claiming modest research results and nothing unethical about trumpeting significant ones. When in doubt, researchers should exercise moderation.

Finally, this review identified research that was published multiple times by the same authors, using the same sample, and examining the same issues. While this can sometimes be helpful in disseminating research to different audiences, it also warrants caution. Journal editors and reviewers have a fiduciary responsibility to remind authors that research should be original and not previously published or under review at other journals. At a minimum and as a courtesy to readers, researchers who publish the same or very similar researcher results using the same data should acknowledge prior journal publications, even if the journals themselves do not expressly prohibit dual publications. It is recommended that the Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships include a policy statement to clarify this issue and reduce potential problems in the future.

Limitations and Directions for Furture Reseach

All studies contain limitations and this study is no exception. First, this review only covered articles in publications other than the Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships. To develop a more comprehensive understanding of the nature, scope, and quality of research in cooperative education and internships, future reviews should compare the results of this study with those from a review of articles published in this journal. Additionally, an analysis dedicated to qualitative research should also be conducted.

Second, the articles selected for review were intended to reflect a representative sample of quantitative research published in alternative journals. Given the vagaries of literature reviews, there are perhaps additional articles that simply slipped through the cracks. This was not intentional on the part of the reviewer and concerted efforts were made to secure as complete a record of published articles as was reasonably possible. While this study may not be a complete audit of all articles published in alternative journals, it is nonetheless believed to be a reasonable representation of this literature. To the extent that other relevant articles exist, this study acknowledges this limitation.

Third, the reviews are not intended to provide a complete analysis of each and every article. Nor was the intent to conduct a complete analysis of the data. To do so would have resulted in a rather unwieldy study. For the sake of parsimony and to ensure that the study could be completed in a timely manner, the review intentionally focused on selected issues. Therefore, it is acknowledged that other streams of research could have been evaluated as well and that additional analysis of the data would have been performed. For example, the literature is replete with articles that provide commentaries on cooperative education and internship programs. Other research has focused on case studies and descriptions of program techniques. While a review of this literature might be more challenging, it would likely reveal additional insights and trends regarding the status of research in cooperative education and internships.

Finally, this review attempted to provide an accurate and objective review of the literature. Nonetheless, reasonable reviewers can come to different conclusions regarding the nature, scope, and quality of research. This is respectfully acknowledged.

This research was commissioned by the Research Committee of the Cooperative Education and Internship Association with support from the Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships. The article was peer reviewed by a group of senior scholars with experience in cooperative education and internships.

References

Avis, R.K. and Trice, A.D. (1991). The influence of major and internship on the evaluation of undergraduate women's resumes. College Student Journal, 25(December), 536-538.

Bailey, T., Hughes, K. and Barr, T. (2000). Achieving scale and quality in school-to-work internships: Findings from two employer surveys. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(1), 41-64.

Bales, K.B. (1979). Experiential learning: A review and annotated bibliography. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 16, 70 - 90.

Bartkus, K.R. and Stull, W. (2004). Research issues in cooperative education. In R. Coll and C, Eames (Eds.). International Handbook for Cooperative Education: An International Perspective of the Theory, Research, and practice of Work-Integrated Learning, (pp. 67-81). World Association for Cooperative Education, Inc., Boston, MA.

Bartkus, K.R. and Stull, W. (1997). Some thoughts about research in cooperative education. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 32(2), 7-16.

Beard, F. and Morton, L. (1999). Effects of internship predictors on successful field experience. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 53(4), 42-53.

Blair, B.F., Millea, M., Hammer, J. (2004). The impact of cooperative education on academic performance and compensation of engineering majors. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(4), 333-338.

Blair, B.F. and Millea, M. (2004a). Student academic performance and Compensation: The Impact of Cooperative Education. College Student Journal, 38(4), 643-652.

Blair, B.F. and Millea, M. (2004b). Quantifying the Benefits of Cooperative Education. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 38(1), 67-72.

Bowman, L.G. (1989). Then and now: commemorating twenty-five years of scholarship in the Journal of cooperative education. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 25(winter), 4-66.

Brown-Welty, S. and Patterson, T. (2002). University and corporate partnerships: Benefits and challenges of offering college degrees in collaboration with private corporations. Planning & Changing, 33(3/4), 208-22.

Brumm, T.J., Hannemann, L.F., and Mickelson, S.K. (2006). Assessing and developing program outcomes through workplace competencies. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(1), 123-129.

Buller, P.F. and Stull, W.A. (1990). Strategy and performance in cooperative education programs. Research in Higher Education, 31(June), 257-70.

Callanan, G. and Benzing, C. (2004). Assessing the role of internships in the career-oriented employment of graduating college students. Education + Training, 46(2), 82-89.

Cannon, J. A. and Arnold, M.J. (1998). Student expectations of collegiate internship programs: A 10-year update. Journal of Education for Business, 73(4), 202-205.

Cappelli, P., Shapiro, D. and Shumanis, N. (1998). Employer participation in school-to-work programs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 559 (September), 109-124.

Chapin, L., Roudebush, W.H. and Krone, S.J. (2003). Cooperative Education in the Associated Schools of construction, Journal of Construction Education, 8(1), 56-68.

Chin, P., Munby, M., Hutchinson, N.L., Steiner-Bell, K. (2000). Post-Secondary Students' Intentions for Participating in High School Co-Operative Education Programs: A Descriptive Study. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 25(2), 126-54.

Coll, R.K., Pinyonatthagarn, D. & Pramoolsook I. (2003). The Internationalization of cooperative education: A Thailand perspective. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 4(2), 1-6.

Cook, S.J., Parker, S.R. & Pettijohn, C.E. (2004). The perceptions of interns: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Education for Business, 79(3), 179-185.

Cunningham, G.B. & Sagas, M. (2004). Work experiences, occupational commitment, and intent to enter the sport management profession. Physical Educator, 61 (3), 146-156.

Cunningham, G.B., Dixon, M., Kent, A., & Turner, B. (2005). Anticipated career satisfaction, affective occupational commitment, and intentions to enter the sport management profession. Journal of Sport Management, 19(1), 43-57.

de Jong, J.A.S., Wierstra, R.F.A. & Hermanussen, J. (2006). An exploration of the relationship between academic and experiential learning approaches in vocational education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(March, Part 1), 155-169.

Dellaportas, S., Cooper, B.J. & Leung, P. (2006). Measuring moral judgment and the implications of cooperative education and rule-based learning. Accounting & Finance, 46(1), 53-70.

Dixon, M., Cunningham, G., Saga, M., Turner, B., & Kent, A. (2005). Challenge is key: An investigation of affective organizational commitment in Undergraduate interns. Journal of Education for Business, 80(3), 172-180.

Douglas, J.W. & Brewer, G.A. (1999). Supervisors' perceptions of the performance of cooperative education employees working in federal agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(2), 50-60.

DuPont, A.M. & Craig, J.S. (1996). Does management experience change the ethical perceptions of retail professionals: A comparison of the ethical perceptions of current students with those of recent graduates? Journal of Business Ethics, 15(8), 815-826.

Durso, F.T. (1997). Corporate-sponsored undergraduate research as a capstone experience. Teaching of Psychology, 24(1), 54-56.

Ellis, H.J.C., Mead, N.R. & Moreno, A. (2002). Characteristics of successful collaborations to produce educated software engineering professionals. Computer Science Education, 12(1/2), 119-140.

English, D.M. & Koeppen, D.R. (1993). The relationship of accounting internships and subsequent academic performance. Issues in Accounting Education, 8(2 Fall), 292-299.

Eyler, J. (1995). Graduates' assessment of the impact of a full-time college internship on their personal and professional lives. College Student Journal, 29(June), 186-194.

Fuller, R. & Schoenberger, R. (1991). The gender salary gap: Do academic achievement, internship experience, and college major make a difference? Social Science Quarterly, 72(4), 715-726.

Garavon, T.N. & Murphy, C. (2001). The co-operative education process and organisational socialisation: A qualitative study of student perceptions of its effectiveness. Education + Training, 43(6), 281-302.

Gault, J., Redington, J, & Schlager, T (2000). Undergraduate business internships and career success: Are they related? Journal of Marketing Education, 22(1), 45-53.

Goff, B.M. & Hartley, M.P. (1983). Journal of cooperative education annotated bibliography and index. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 19(Spring), 15-132.

Gordon, D. (2002). Tracking internship outcomes through comparative quantitative assessment. Journal of Career Planning & Employment, 62(2), 28-32.

Gryski, G.S., Johnson, G.W. & O'Toole. L., Jr. (1987). Undergraduate internships: An empirical review. Public Administration Quarterly, 11(2), 150-170.

Haag, S., Guilbeau, E., & Goble, W. (2006). Assessing engineering internship efficacy: Industry's perception of student performance. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(2), 257-263.

Hall, M., Stiles, G., Kuzma, J. & Elliott, K. (1995). A comparison of student and employer expectations with regard to business internships. Marketing Education Review, 5(3), 41-49.

Harris, R. (1989). The journal of cooperative education: twenty-five more years of service. The Journal of Cooperative Education. 25(Winter), 59-66

Harris, E.W., Tanner, J.R. & Knouse, S.B. (1996). Employment of recent university business graduates: Do age, gender, and minority status make a difference? Journal of Employment Counseling, 33(3), 121-129.

Hartley, M.P. (1986). The Journal of cooperative education: another look at its editors and evolution. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 22(Spring), 4-15.

Hartley, M.P. (1983). The Journal of Cooperative Education: Its editors and evolution. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 19, 6-14.

Hilt, M.L. & Lipschultz, J.H. (1996). Broadcast newsroom hiring and career preparation. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 51(Spring), 36-43.

Hornsby, J.S. & Johnson, M. (1991). Developing internships at a university: An intrapreneurial model. Journal of Education for Business, 66(3), 155-159.

Huthinson, N.L., Munby, H., Chin, P., Edwards, K.L., Steiner-Bell, K., Chapman, K., Ho, K., & Mills de España, W. (2001). The intended curriculum in co-operative education in Ontario secondary schools: an analysis of school district documents. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 26(2), 103-140.

Hymon-Parker S. (1989). Benefits and limitations of internships as viewed by educators and retailers. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 90(4 Winter), 76-80.

Judge, G.G., Griffiths, W.E., Hill, R.C., Lütkepohl, H., & Lee, T. (1985). The Theory and Practice of Econometrics, 2^nd Edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kardash, C.M. (2000). Evaluation of an undergraduate research experience: Perceptions of undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 191-201.

Karns, G.L. (2005). An update of marketing student perceptions of learning activities: Structure, preferences, and effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(2), 163-171.

Kaupins, G. (2002). Trainer opinions of selected computer-based training methods. Journal of Education for Business. 77(6), 319-323.

Knechel, W.R. & Snowball, D. (1987). Accounting internships and subsequent academic performance: An empirical study. The Accounting Review, 62(4), 799-807.

Knemeyer, A.M. & Murphy, P.R. (2001). Logistics internships: Employer perspectives. Transportation Journal, 41(1), 16-26.

Knemeyer, M.A. & Murphy, P.R. (2002). Logistics internships. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 32(1/2), 135-154.

Knemeyer, M.A., Murphy, P.R., & Poist, R.F. (1999). Opportunities for women in logistics: An analysis of student perspectives. Transportation Journal, 39(1), 34-41.

Knouse, S.B., Tanner, J.T. & Harris, E. (1999). The relation of college Internships, college performance, and subsequent job opportunity. Journal of Employment Counseling, 36(1), 35-43.

Lancaster, A. & Smith, B. (1994). Potential contributions of cooperative education to the retention of women in computer science. Computer Science Education, 5(1), 85-101.

Linn, P.L., Ferguson, J. & Egart, K. (2004). Career exploration via cooperative education and lifespan occupational choice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(3), 430-447.

Linnehan, F. (2001). The relation of a work-based mentoring program to the academic performance and behavior of African American students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 310-325.

Lochner, B.T. & Melchert, T.P. (1997). Relationship of cognitive style and theoretical orientation to psychology interns' preferences for supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44(2), 256-260.

Marsden, C. (1994). Business-education partnership: assessing the value. Journal of Education Finance, 19(Spring), 127-129.

Maskooki, K., Rama, D.V. & Raghunandan, R. (1998). Internships in undergraduate finance programs. Financial Practice & Education, 8(2), 74-82.

Maynard, M.L. (1997). Opportunity in paid vs. unpaid public relations internships: A semantic network analysis. Public Relations Review, 23(4), 377-390.

Maynard, M. L. (1999). Challenging the 3.0 GPA eligibility standard for public relations internships. Public Relations Review, 25(4), 495-507.

Morton, L.L., Unger, C. & Laing, D.A. (1997). A brief report on the paradoxical effect of co-operative education on school attendance patterns--program effect or student effect? Guidance and Counseling, 12(Spring), 20-23.

Morton, L.L., Dawson, P. & Laing, D.A. (1993). Interpersonal skill development through cooperative education. Guidance and Counseling, 9(2 November), 26-31.

Nagle, R.A. & Collins, M. (1999). Workplace education: A survey of employers on experiential education programs. Journal of Career Planning & Employment, 60(1), 39-42.

Neapolitan, J. (1992). The internship experience and clarification of career choice. Teaching Sociology, 20(July), 222-231.

Nnadozie, E., Ishiyama, J. & Chon, J. (2001). Undergraduate research internships and graduate school success. Journal of College Student Development, 42(2), 145-156.

Parsons, C.K., Caylor, E. & Simmons, H.S. (2005). Cooperative education work assignments: The role of organizational and individual factors in enhancing ABET competencies and co-op workplace well-being. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(3), 309-318.

Paulins, A.V. (2001). Student and supervisor perceptions of the ethical environment of retail merchandising internship sites. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 93(4), 88-93

Pullin, R.A. (1998). An annotated bibliography. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 33(3), 8-112.

Rainsbury, E., Hodges, D., Sutherland, J. & Barrow, M. (1998). Academic, employer and student collaborative assessment in a work-based cooperative education course. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(3), 313-324.

Randall, E.J. & Good, D.J. (1991). An analysis of marketing internship programs. Journal of Education for Business, 66(4), 228-231.

Raymond, M.A. & McNabb. D.E. (1993). Preparing graduates for the workforce: The role of business education. Journal of Education for Business, 68(4), 202-206.

Ricks, F. & Cutt, J. (1993). Reflections on the cooperative education literature. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 29(1), 6-23.

Ricks, F., Van Gyn, G., Branton, G., Cutt, J., Loken, M. & Ney, T. (1990). Theory and research in co-op education: Practical implications. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 27, 7 - 20.

Roebuck, D.B. & Brawley, D.E. (1996). Forging links between the academic and business communities. Journal of Education for Business, 71(January/February), 125-128.

Rothman, M. (2003). Internships: Most and least favored aspects among a business school sample. Psychological Reports, 93(3)(December, Part 1), 921-924.

Ruiz, J. (2004). Airline flight operations internships: perspectives. Journal of Air Transportation. 9(1), 86-99.

Sagen, H.B., Dallum, J.W. & Laverty, J.R. (2000). Effects of career preparation experiences on the initial employment success of college graduates. Research in Higher Education, 41(6), 753-767.

Savoie-Zajc, L. & Dolbrec, L. (2003). Co-operative education in the pulp and paper sector in Quebec. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(3), 114-122.

Scholz, R.W., Steiner, R. & Hansmann, R. (2004). Role of internship in higher education in environmental sciences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 24-46.

Singer, J.A., King, L.A., Green, M.C. & Barr, S.C. (2002). Personal identity and civic responsibility: "Rising to the occasion" narratives and generativity in community action student interns. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 535-556.

Spinks, N. & Wells, B. (1994). Student internships: Viewpoints from AACSB schools," The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 36(2), 81-95.

Stasz, C. & Brewer, D.J. (1998). Work-based learning: student perspectives on quality and links to school. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis. 20(1), 31-46.

Stern, D., Finkelstein, N., Urquiola, M.& Cagampang, H. (1997). What difference does it make if school and work are connected? Evidence on co-operative education in the United States. Economics of Education Review, 16(3), 213-229.

Sublett, M.D. & P.F. Mattingly (1995). Undergraduate geography internships in the United States - national survey and case study. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 19(2), 240-249.

Taylor, S.M. (1988). Effects of college internships on individual participants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3 August), 393-401.

Trach, J.S. & Harney, J.Y. (1998). Impact of cooperative education on career development for community college students with and without disabilities. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 23(2), 147-158.

Wesley, S.C. & Bickle, M. (2005). Examination of a paradigm for preparing undergraduates for a career in the retailing industries: Mentors, curriculum, and internships. College Student Journal, 39(4), 680-691.

Wilson, J.W. (1988). Research in cooperative education. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 24(Winter/Spring), 77-89.

Appendix A

Outcomes: Grade Point Average and Salary

Appendix B

Outcomes: Job Performance and Employment

Appendix C

Skill and Competencies

Appendix D

Perceived Benefits and Challenges

Appendix E

Evaluations

Appendix F

Ethics

Appendix G

Description of Programs

Appendix H

Perceptions of Experiences

Appendix I

Summary of Miscellaneous Research

Appendix J

Miscellaneous