In this article we report on an evaluation of a work-based learning program from Suranaree University of Technology (SUT) in Nakhon Ratchasima, in Thailand. The views of students from a variety of SUT programs in technology and engineering were investigated based on a qualitative approach but utlizing a mixed-methodology based on but including the use of a survey instrument and interviews. The research findings point to some issues that are likely generic in nature, and others that are specific to this educational context. The findings indicate that the participants were in general satisfied with the benefits of co-op as provided by the University, but also provide suggestions for improvement in the administration of co-op in this and similar institutions.
Cooperative education has been exhorted worldwide as an effective means for the development of graduates with desirable work competencies (Burchell, Hodges & Rainsbury, 2001). Nowhere is this more evident than in Western countries.
For example, the report into higher education in the United Kingdom conducted by Lord Dearing recommending that all undergraduate degrees contain a component of work-based learning (Dearing, 1997). A similar situation exists in North America with some universities such as the University of Waterloo in Canada offering engineering degrees only as co-op and the USA-based Cooperative Education and Internship Association (CEIA) and the international organization the World Association for Cooperative Education (WACE) serve as strong advocates for work-based learning in the US and worldwide. The AsiaPacific region also strongly emphasizes co-op degrees with Australia and New Zealand in particular co-op strong advocates (Coll, 1996).
Cooperative education programs worldwide seek to prepare students for the workplace by developing generic and specific competencies that they believe will be useful to employers (Rainsbury Hodges, Burchell & Lay, 2002). Individual attributes which are drawn on to perform tasks competently, consist of cognitive skills and behavioral skills.
Cognitive skills include technical knowledge, those skills and abilitiesthat are functional job requirements; whereas behavioral skillsare built from personal characteristics such as principles, attitudes, values and motives, which are a function of an individual's personality (Birkett, 1993). Any successful performance, while dependent on a number of skills, will likely require both cognitive and behavioral skills (Ashton, 1994; Caudron, 1999; Georges, 1996; Mullen, 1997; Strebler, 1997). Skills such as those described above are also referred to as 'soft' and 'hard' skills. Many authors believe that both hard and soft skills are complementary with successful individual performance requiring both types of skills (e.g., Hackett, Betz & Doty, 1985; Kemper, 1999; McMurchie, 1998) and research by Spencer and Spencer (1993) suggests that superior performers are not distinguished solely on the basis of technical skills, but also by the demonstration of certain motives, values, traits and attitudes, in other words, behavioral skills. Co-op programs are seen by some as an effective means of developing skills in a manner not easily achieved in the higher or tertiary educational context and this may be one reason for their continued popularity and adoption by developing nations (Burchell, Hodges & Rainsbury, 1999; Coll, Zegwaard & Hodges, 2002a,b; Rainsbury, Hodges & Burchell, & Lay, 2002).
SUT's co-op program is based on an international model, developed from reports, the literature, and indepth consolation with overseas institutions (especially Canada, see above). The University believes that the co-op program a superior education which results in multi-skilled graduates with workplace competencies desired by Thai and overseas employers (for current thinking on international coop see Reeve, Schultz & Laslett., 1998). This is the only fully-fledged co-op program being offered in Thailand (Lampang, 2001; Teekachunhatean, 2001a,b), although other Thai universities are now in the process of implementing co-op (Chinvorarat, 2001). An implicit assumption is that this model of western based co-opwill be successful in Thailand. However, there are reports in the literature that suggest that cultural differences between the 'West' and 'East' may prevail when the co-op experience is transferred into a new context (see, e.g., Hodges, Rainsbury, Burchell & Brown, 2001). Other studies also suggest that the implementation of co-op in developing countries proves problematic (Humphrey & Groenwald, 2001; Mckune, 2001). There have been recent efforts to standardize co-op practice across institutions within the same setting, such as the UK (e.g., Faraday et al., 2001) and South Africa (Taylor, 2001; Wessels & Hugo, 2001), (NOTE: none of these three citations appear in your references) but little research into the transfer of coop across cultures (however, see, Aleisa & Alabdulahfez, 2001, 2002).
The fact that the co-op program at SUT has been in place for some 10 years, is regarded by many as 'successful' according to in-house evaluations (see above), means that it is appropriate to evaluate the program in detail. In particular, we wished to gain an understanding of how well the transfer of the co-op program into this context serves to satisfy students' perceptions of a 'successful' program of study. Hence we have conducted an in-depth study of students' perceptions of their work experiences and their views of co-op as it pertains to the Thai perspective, with a particular focus on the work placement. Therefore, the research question for this study is: What are Thai students' views on the work-placement component of their co-op degrees? We are presently conducting a complimentary research project of employers' and teachers' views of the SUT co-op program, and this will be reported subsequently (Coll & Pinyonatthagarn, unpublished work).
The context for this inquiry, namely the tertiary education system in Thailand and technology and engineering at SUT, is described in detail elsewhere (see Coll, Pinyonatthagarn & Pramoolsook, 2004) and we briefly summarize the main features here. Suranaree University of Technology is situated in the province of Nakhon Ratchasima in Thailand and is the first university to operate as semi-autonomous institution responsible to, but not under direct control of the Thai civil service. The University was established over 10 years ago to serve the peoples of the eastern provinces. It is the first institution in the country to use cooperative education as an educational strategy for preparing students for Thailand's workforce. The program was developed from documentary reports, literature, and visits to North American university co-op providers in an attempt to achieve best practice in development of co-op for Thailand. The University is organized under five institutes with schools the next level of administration. Institutes and Schools are: Social Technology - incorporating General Education, English, Management Technology and Information Technology; Engineering – with Agricultural, Transportation, Chemical, Mechanical, Computer, Ceramic, Polymer, Electrical, Telecommunications, Civil, Metallurgical, Environmental, Industrial Engineering and Geotechnology; Agricultural Technology – with Animal Production, Crop Production, food technologies, and Biotechnology; Science – with Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics, Remote Sensing and Laser Technology and Photonics, and lastly, Medicine – with Environmental Health and Occupational Health and Safety.
After beginning studies in his or her major field, a student is required to take a co-op placement comprising a trimester plus one month of the term break, out of a total of six trimesters (i.e., three work terms each with a duration of 12-13 weeks) credits (each credit needs 13 contact hours of instruction in regular university course work), resulting in a total of nine credits.
The research reported here subscribes to an interpretive (also often called qualitative) philosophy in which the role of subjective experience (of both participants and researchers) is recognized and acknowledged (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, 1994). This view means that the most appropriate research approach is via qualitative means of inquiry typified by the use of in-depth techniques such as interviews, examination of documentary evidence, and unobtrusive observation (but does not necessarily preclude the use of instruments, see below) (Peshkin, 1993). The subjective nature of such studies proves to be both an advantage and a disadvantage. The principle advantage lies in the extra depth of understanding gained from intensive data collection methods like interviews. As Patton (1990) points out, a survey may provide an overall view of a learning context (e.g., the success or otherwise of SUT's coop program), but interviews provide underlying reasons for the findings of a survey – which may ultimately be more valuable to co-op practitioners (e.g., why SUT's program has been successful, or ways in which it might be improved).
Interpretive or qualitative inquiries whilst recognizing the importance of context and subjectivity are prone to problems with reliability and validity. Guba and Lincoln (1989) provide some guidelines to avoid such problems. In particular they and others (e.g., Denzin & Lincoln, 1998) recommend triangulation in data collection, that is, the gathering of data from multiple sources, particularly by the use of different methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998, and see Coll & Chapman, 2000, for more details as this issue pertains to co-op inquiries). Interviews in particular are prone to misunderstandings and we have thereby employed the notion of the translation interface in which no new terms were introduced during discourse, and only the meaning ascribed by participants was deemed to be valid (Johnson & Gott, 1994). Interpretations of data are supported by the so-called thick description (Merriam, 1970) including a detailed description of the context of the inquiry (see above), and portions of verbatim transcript - either written on survey forms, or reproduced from interview transcripts.
A mixed-methodology approach was used to canvass the views of students. Data-gathering tools used to gain an overview of the students' views included an instrument that sought their views about their placement experience (see the appendix), interviews, unobtrusive observation of student presentations and examination of relevant documentary sources.
The survey instrument was developed from anecdotal reports and informal interviews of SUT stakeholders (i.e., faculty, students and recent graduates), along with examination of evaluation studies of other programs reported in the literature (Coll, Eames & Halsey, 1997). The final instrument comprised four sections (in addition to some demographic questions). The first section sought to understand students' views of University support, next was workplace support and experiences on placement, and the final section asked about financial matters.
The instrument was presented in English rather than Thai for a number of reasons. First, translation would be required whatever language was used. Second, the students are in general bilingual, and although their English competency varies, they are typically stronger in written rather than verbal English. At the time of administration (immediately after the completion of their placements), a research assistant or investigator bilingual in Thai and English went through each of the questions in turn in the vernacular, and remained present while the instrument was completed to clarify any ambiguity or lack of comprehension.
Respondents were able to reply in Thai or English and data analysis reveals a mixture of both languages was used (about 30% responded in English). The nature of student responses in English, despite some minor grammatical errors, suggests that for respondents who chose to reply in this language the questions were comprehensible. There were a total of 87 completed instruments obtained, canvassing students' views across three departments; animal production technology, mechanical engineering and food technology (out of a total co-op class of 291, across 13 departments). This choice was purposive given limitations of the scope of the study due to some resource constraints (see Shulman, 1998). We deliberately chose programs from engineering and technology, in order to access potential different experiences and cover the two main curriculum areas delivered at SUT.
Quantitative data from the instrument were triangulated with interview data obtained from a cohort of 11 students chosen to provide a variety of disciplines (e.g., mechanical engineering, animal production technology, etc.), chosen in order to achieve a gender balance, and a range of academic abilities. Interviews were conducted in the vernacular, tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim in Thai, and translated into English. Two external individuals, bilingual in Thai and English, with no contractual interest in the research project checked all interview transcriptions. The interviews generally followed the instrument and sought to access a greater depth of understanding about the issues raised in the instrument. The interview questions also included some more open questions and, for example, sought suggestions about how SUT might improve the delivery of co-op.
These interview data were triangulated by means of unobtrusive observation of student post-placement presentations (in the Thai language) in which the investigators took extensive field notes. Student presentations, lasting 10 minutes per group, followed a set format and addressed a number of issues directly related to the research objectives (e.g., the best and worst aspects of the placement). Other data of relevance were obtained from examination of student placement reports.
Quantitative data were analyzed using means appropriate to the level of data (categorical) involving percentile calculations in order to identify overall themes emerging from the student responses. Interview transcripts were subsequently examined in two ways; first seeking further data on the themes identified from the quantitative data, and second, for other themes. The field notes from the observations and the documentary evidence were analyzed in a similar manner to that of the interview data. The researchers then examined the entire data corpus seeking to provide a summary of the findings that provide both a measure of prevalence of views expressed, along with variety of views. The research findings reported below are summarized in this manner under themes that arose from the data. Prevalence of views is expressed by means of percentages from the instruments (as appropriate), and summaries of interview data when the issues that arose were not obtained from the instrument. Where portions of interview transcriptions are provided, we have used pseudonyms to protect the identity of participants.
The research findings are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 and described in detail using the themes that emerged from the data analysis procedures described above. Thus in these tables the findings from the instrument responses are combined with the data obtained from the other sources described above (i.e., observation of student presentations, post-placement interviews, and examination of documentary material such as placement reports). Where percentages are given they are derived from analysis of the instrument data
Of the sample (n=87) who completed the instrument (and who formed the source of the interviews), 29% were Animal Production Technology, 27% Food Technology, 44% were Mechanical Engineering students. Of these some 60% of the APT students had previous work experience whereas for FT and ME few had previous experience. The experience of the APT students was unpaid work experience at the SUT Farm. The SUT Farm is based on the campus and functions both as business center and out-of-class practical skill development in agricultural based programs like APT. The APT students felt this was useful and relevant experience for their study and helped them understand the practical aspects of their studies. The ME students work experience as in computer-aided design and water quality control, both of which were considered relevant to the study program.
The students generally felt that the University did provide adequate information about their placements before starting work (62% positive response). Few written comments were provided on the instrument, but of the positive comments, students found that information provided by previous co-op student at the organization was very helpful. Adverse comments included lack of information about the work to be undertaken, out-dated information about the organization, and lack of information about the supervisor and his/her expectations. Students also felt they wanted information about the workplace well in advance. These views were in agreement with the qualitative data with, for example, Somchai commenting "I got information about this company from my senior classmates." Somsak stating "I heard information about the company from my friend, he told me it is a cassava flour production company, just that! I knew nothing about the structure of the company," with Somying agreeing: "I had little information about the company." Likewise few students interviewed had any idea of what they would actually be doing with Saeng saying "I knew about what I was going to be doing, but not exactly what I would do," while Sai commented "I knew in general what I was supposed to do, but no details."
Contact and support from the University supervisor was again seen in a fairly positive way (66% and 78% positive response for contact and support respectively). Some of the students felt one visit was enough and that company reports on student performance was adequate contact. Positive comments were that the supervisors provided good guidelines about requirements for the placement report, and the caring nature of some supervisors. The main problem encountered related to difficulties in contacting supervisors due to their heavy teaching schedules; as a result some supervisors made no contact whatsoever with their students. Some of the students reported they felt their supervisors did not care about them and thus provide little support during their placements. Other issues were the fact that some supervisors were too senior and held administrative position that allows them only little time to do the on-site supervision.
The qualitative data from interviews provides some insights into the quantitative findings from the instrument with, for example, Somsak commenting "my university supervisor didn't inform me about his trip to visit me, he just showed up on the day." Somkid likewise noted that support consisted of "nothing in concrete form" and Sommai saying support consisted of "nothing much." However, the qualitative data also revealed that students had little expectation of academic support from their university supervisors with Suk saying "the university only looks for a place[ment] for us, the rest is our responsibility," and Somjai adding "I didn't make any contact with my supervisor, but he visited me once at the company. I thought that if I had a problem, I should find a way to solve it myself first."
| Example(s) of perceptions | Example(s) of Negative Perception | |
|---|---|---|
| Student program & experience | ||
| Animal Production Technology (29%) Food Technology (27%) Mechanical Engineering (44%) | A considerable number of Animal Production Technology students (60%) had some work experience prior to going on placement; other programs had little/no experience. Most work for APT students was unpaid work at the SUT farm (on campus) | Work was limited but seen as useful and relevant preplacement experience |
| University support | ||
| Adequate information before placement (62%) | Information of previous co-op at place of work seen as most valuable | Some students unsure of exact duties required |
| University support & contact acceptable (66%, 78%) | University staff provided good guidelines about requirements for placement reports | Some concerns over lack of contact by faculty, but little university support expected |
| Workplace support | ||
| Workplace supervisory contact & support viewed favorably (76%, 77%) | Workplace supervisors being SUT graduates familiar with requirements; good instructions; good support for writing placement reports; seen as competent | Lack of caring; lack of expertise in specific area; too busy to help |
| Placement Experiences | ||
| Placement relevant to studies (78%) | Good preparation for 'real world'; gained specific skills; gained practical & planning skills; good workplace atmosphere; welfare benefits (meals, accommodation, wages); safety systems | Some financial problems; loneliness; some workplace conflicts; tedious & repetitive work; unfair treatment; unpleasant working conditions |
| Financial Situation | ||
| Most paid (90%) range 1100-4440 baht per month | Mechanical Engineer's most paid (95%) | Animal Production Technology Students biggest proportion of those not paid (38% not paid) |
Workplace contact and support from industry supervisors also was viewed favorably (76% and 77% positive response for enough workplace contact and support respectively) with comments that the workplace supervisor was highly experienced, friendly, and provided plenty of contact (daily in most cases). Other positive comments were that the workplace supervisor having done their degree through SUT understood the purpose of co-op placements and knew what the students were seeking to gain from the workplace. Workplace support was also provided in non- verbal means via the provision of appropriate documentation (books etc.) assigning tasks on a daily basis, giving good instructions and suggestions and helping with the writing of the workplace report. Interviews showed that the students were impressed with the expertise of their workplace supervisors, with Somsak commenting that, "he was a very competent man. He shared his working experience with me and we were very close," and Sommai saying, "he was a competent engineer."
Support difficulties included some lack of care in the case of some students, lack of relevant information and documentation at times, and in some instances perceived lack of expertise or knowledge for the task involved at work. The reasons for these perceptions was elucidated from the interviews with, for example, Somchai saying "he wasn't in animal husbandry…he didn't see what the real problems were in the farm," and Sommai commenting "he was so busy that he didn't have much time to supervise me. But whenever I had a problem, he was available to give advice."
| Barriers to Learning in the Workplace | Example(s) |
|---|---|
| Interpersonal Issues | Workplace supervisor too busy; dismissive of student ideas & input; language difficulties with non-Thai speaking supervisors |
| Company Polcies | Confidentiality restricted learning opportunities; New ideas dismissed as too costly/unsure of profitability |
| Student Recomendations | Comment |
| Greater variety of workplace options | Likely to achieve better match of student with workplace (see below) |
| Orientation meetings prior to placements | More information needed on placements requirements generally |
| Better briefing about individual placements | More information needed on specific placement requirements |
| Financial remuneration | Either wages or free meals/accommodation |
| Better match of student with workplace | Match skill with workplace demands/tasks; workplace needs to understand purpose of co-op; check that job is what was advertise |
| Improved University support | More coordination & more frequent visits |
Placements were deemed relevant to studies (78% positive response for relevance). The students reported that their placements provided good preparation for real world work and specific skills gained included AutoCAD, statistics, energy, and knowledge of ceramics and food analysis. The participants reported that they felt these skills would enhance their employment prospects upon graduation and that the work experience was linked well with their academic program of study. Interviews provided further detail about the survey findings with, for example, Sommai saying, "I worked as an assistant engineer; most of my jobs are fixing and repairing anything I was asked to do. I like this kind of job that was so practical," and Saeng commented, "I learned a little theory, but a lot of practice and social skills."
Best features of the students' placements were the good workplace atmosphere – good colleagues, supervisors, friendly atmosphere and good attention; gaining real work experience – new knowledge, knowledge that was directly applicable to work; and welfare benefits - financial, meals, accommodations. Other positive things were learning to adjust to working with other people, self-reflection, and learning good systematic work habits. Some students reported being particularly impressed with workplace safety systems. Interview comments are again in agreement with the quantitative findings, with Somying stating: "I had new, interesting things to do every day. It gave me an opportunity to get close to the real working situations, so it helped me to realize what I really needed to do," Somjai commented "I learned that planning was important and learned how to plan before work." Others commented on the good atmosphere that they experienced in the workplace, along with the acquisition of interpersonal skills as seen in Sai's comment that "friendliness and communication" were appreciated, Sommai saying "I liked my colleagues and the job because it is a practical job," and Somkid likewise saying "my colleagues are nice."
Worst features were related to financial problems with some students, in contrast to those above, finding difficulties with coping financially. Other problems were people-related, such as loneliness as a result of isolation, some workplace conflicts and a feeling that the student's views were not listened to or respected and lack of attention to support (see above). Some of the students reported that their work was not particularly relevant, others found it too demanding, and still others tedious and repetitive. The variety of work placements also meant that other students found they had too little work to do and, in some cases, unclear job descriptions. Some of the students reported concerns with safety, pollution, and working conditions. Somjai, for example, commented: "I was bored with the nature of the work," and Somkid said, "one thing was that some didn't trust in my potential to work," and Somying concerned about "the supervisor's unfair treatment…He seemed to favor my friend more. Another thing was food. I had to walk a long way to a food stall…The factory was dirty and released smelly wastewater."
The students reported that the most important things learned on placements were new knowledge and skills relevant to their program of study and in more generic skill such as communication, and language skills. Real-life experience was rated most beneficial but social skills were rated highly also, learning how to work more systematically, good work-habits, becoming more disciplined in work and learning teamwork skills. Specific comments from interviews included: "self-adjustment to people," "how to apply what learned at university to the real work," "I also learned to work with other people," and "self-adjustment to a new environment, and other life experiences. I learned how to use and fix tools, and I learned about preventative maintenance and how to adjust myself to other people."
The students also talked about their perceptions of barriers for learning in the workplace. Principal problems were associated with interpersonal issues – some of which were described above. So lack of supervision, lack of support, being dismissive of student's ideas and suggestions, and feeling too rushed to be able to learn properly were all problems encountered. Other issues included language difficulties in the case of students with foreign supervisors, and a few students reported incidents of favoritism in the workplace. Interview comments included: "It was the limited time," "there was something I wanted to learn, but they can't tell me the information or details because they keep that as a company secret," and some students comment about cost being a barrier: "the cost saving measures…Nobody wanted to propose new ideas if they were not sure it would bring profit." The students also talked about their perceptions of barriers for learning in the workplace. Principal problems were associated with interpersonal issues – some of which were described above. So lack of supervision, lack of support, being dismissive of student's ideas and suggestions, and feeling too rushed to be able to learn properly were all problems encountered. Other issues included language difficulties in the case of students with foreign supervisors, and a few students reported incidents of favoritism in the workplace. Interview comments included: "It was the limited time," "there was something I wanted to learn, but they can't tell me the information or details because they keep that as a company secret," and some students comment about cost being a barrier: "the cost saving measures…Nobody wanted to propose new ideas if they were not sure it would bring profit."
Suggestions for improvement of placement included greater variety of workplace options, better coordination and contact with university staff and better preparation before the placement. Specific suggestions include the provision of orientation meetings by SUT, briefings about individual placements and adjustment of SUT curricula to include instruction of languages and business administration. Some felt a better match of student with placement could be achieved and others that coop should not be compulsory at SUT. Workplace improvements mostly concerned financial remuneration (see below) either as direct salary or in the provision of free accommodation or meals. Other issues identified were to do with matching students with work - by giving tasks appropriate to the student's level of skill and not overloading students with work. Some students suggested more instruction for workplace supervisors as to the aims of co-op work, and more trust for students by workplace supervisors. Comments from interviews expanded on these views, with Somchai stating that "the university should provide more information on the work placement," Somying agreeing "we should have more information about the work placement," and Somjai pointing out that "I didn't have any contact with the co-op office, even when there was an explosion near the factory I worked at…They didn't call to check if I was fine."
Saeng pointed to some work place difficulties associated with different levels of education of workplace staff: "Misunderstandings among staff, especially of different levels of education and mutual acceptance. Sometimes staff with lower education have more experience and knowledge because they have been working for a long time…These people tend not to accept staff with higher education, but less experience." Companies could also "see the importance of cooperative education more, so that it will assign more suitable jobs to the students."
Better university support was seen as need via "more coordination and frequent visits," and better matching of students with job descriptions, "the office should check to see that the job the co-op student will do is exactly what advertised."
Most of the particpants reported being paid for their work placements (90%) but the total remuneration package varied from 1100 baht to 4400 baht per month. Animal Production Technology students were least likely to be paid (38% of APT were not paid) whereas most Mechanical Engineering students (95%) and all the Food Technology students were paid. Of the 70 respondents that reported being paid, 27% said they were not paid enough and 7% said they were paid enough (not all participants responded to this item). Interview comments suggested that family and friends alleviated the cost difficulties in the cases for which students were not directly remunerated: "I stayed with a relative," "it's enough, I stayed at my house," I think it was OK," and it is "enough, if you are economical."
The research findings reported here suggest that the SUT students that participated in this study were in general happy with their placement experiences. Many of the perceived advantages and disadvantages reported by the student participants are similar to those reported in Western countries - such as gaining of real life experience, gaining interpersonal skills and experience and the acquisition of relevant practical skills. Placement support by SUT and industry supervisors, along with better pre-placement preparation surfaced as key issues seen by the participants to inhibit student learning. The importance of context is however, also evident. For example, many students were not paid, or were paid very modest stipends. This, ostensibly, was not of great concern, as the student's expectations were modest and Thai cultural practice of family and others providing support mitigates this disadvantage somewhat. Hence, it seems that a 'Western' model of co-op has, in general transferred well into a different cultural context, certainly in the minds of these students for such a program.
The results of the present inquiry contribute to the co-op literature in that they provide data on Thai students' perceptions of their co-op placements. In particular, the inquiry has helped to identify issues of importance to these co-ops in an interesting nonWestern context. It seems that, with comparatively little modification to the placement administration, these students perceive that they realize the benefits they identified during discourse. Since this is a intrepretivist-based qualitative inquiry it not appropriate to attempt to generalize the findings to other settings. Instead we have adhered to common practice for such inquiries aiding transferabilty judgments (Merriam, 1988), by providing details of the context, methodology and interpretation, thus allowing the reader to decide if the findings are relevant or pertinent to their own situation.
The research reported in this article suggests that SUT, like other universities and tertiary institutions worldwide, is providing students with learning experiences that compliment on-campus learning and that are valued by their students. Hence, from this perspective, the introduction of a Western model of co-op into Thailand has proven successful. The research, however, also has identified some specific issues that the university needs to address. Specificallystudents have pointed to issues dealing with placement support structures and pre-planning of placements. . We strongly recommend that coordinators at other campuses consideirng co-op programs give serious thought to the pre-planning of placement. (would be helpful to briefly elaborate why) These findings provide other institutions in Thailand as well as other countries in Asia and similar non-Western countries, with some useful data on which to base their education planning for the introduction of co-op programs. The research suggests that a 'Western' model for co-op, albeit tailoredto the local context, may well prove successful in other developingcountries.