POE 2003 Conference

The Perspective: Cooperative Education

Panel Organizer:
Mark L. Putnam, Director, Office of University Planning and Research, Northeastern University

Panelists:
Pat Linn, Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies, Professor of Cooperative Education, Antioch College

Bruce A. Lumsden, Director, Cooperative Education and Career Services, University of Waterloo

Scott Weighart, Associate Cooperative Education Coordinator, College of Business Administration, Northeastern University

Knowledge Broker:
Ganesh Krishnamoorthy, Associate Professor, College of Business Administration, Accounting, Northeastern University

Major Issues/Points Raised

This session focused on issues related to demonstrating the effectiveness of cooperative education. The major perspectives discussed in the session included a developmental psychology perspective (Pat Linn), an administrator’s perspective from a Director of Cooperative Education (Bruce Lumsden), and a practitioner/coop coordinator’s perspective (Scott Weighart). In addition, Mark Putnam provided a framework that can be used to understand coop effectiveness in terms of the alignment of interests and expectations of the various stakeholders: employers, coop advisors, faculty, practitioners, administrators, and researchers. Mark indicated that a central challenge in demonstrating coop effectiveness revolves around efforts to maximize the alignment of expectations across these stakeholders.

Pat Linn's presentation from a developmental psychology perspective began with the following key assumptions:
1. Student learning is the central focus
2. Cognitive-development psychology theories and methods can be useful in studying program effects
3. Work-based learning that has clear connections to classroom learning is important, but is not the only important learning that occurs
4. The academy values certain kinds of learning over others

Pat presented the notion that there are several levels of analysis related to work-based learning. Theories in developmental psychology correspond to these levels of analysis and can provide a useful lens to understand and evaluate effectiveness of cooperative education. The successive levels of analysis may include the evaluation of:
1. A single work experience (narrowly focused on a particular student or a particular experience)
2. The entire college experience or experience over a lifespan
3. A cultural/class context or a school setting as a learning enterprise distinct from other learning experiences such as apprenticeships.

The presentation, however, focused on the developmental level of learning generated during one’s lifespan. The following key stages in learning were synthesized based on the work of Baxter Magolda:
1. The notion that truth is owned by authorities
2. All opinions are equal
3. The Great Accommodation
4. Generative Knowing

Finally, the presentation included ideas on how to assess the cognitive stages and the various mechanisms (open-ended questions, computer-aided qualitative data analysis, etc.) available to perform the assessment.

From the perspective of the Director of Cooperative Education, Bruce Lumsden addressed a number of issues related to levels of acceptance of coop education, the various stakeholders involved, and the importance of partnerships and relationships in assessing and demonstrating coop effectiveness. Stakeholders (students, faculty, employers, etc.) can show varying levels of acceptance of a work-based learning model, ranging from hostility to benign acceptance to full commitment. He also emphasized the notion that coop effectiveness can be enhanced by fostering a sense of partnership among the various stakeholders, including the students, faculty, employers, university administrators, and the president of the university.

Scott Weighart addressed coop effectiveness from the perspective of a coop practitioner. In his view, the practitioner’s perspective bnefits from having ongoing, regular contact with a wide range of students and employers, in addition to having many opportunities to see what works and what doesn’t. These advantages, however, need to be balanced with the disadvantages, such as lack of an objective view and lack of time to keep up-to-date with assessment theories and research. He also alluded to the following challenges in demonstrating effectiveness:
• Practitioners “know” anecdotally and intuitively that coop works but administrators sometimes push for hard evidence.
• There is a tension between the need for research to obtain resources and the need for research that is scientific.
• There is a lack of time and resources to do more relevant and rigorous assessment.
• There are challenging issues around the timing of surveys and assessment measures.

In summary, the panelists provided a number of insights that should be of interest to a broad range of stakeholders interested in assessing and demonstrating coop effectiveness from both a practice and a research perspective.

Principal Themes

The principal ideas that emerged from the panel presentations and discussion are presented below.

Institutional Issues:
• The academy places different values on various types of learning (classroom, coop, etc.). Hence, the central issue is how to justify the value of learning through coop.
• Coop should become part of the mission statement of institutions to protect it from changes in institutional leadership or other changes at the institution.
• Coop can be an effective means to enhance the academic reputation of institutions (based on the experience at the University of Waterloo).
• Coop practitioners can contribute to curriculum design by enhancing our understanding of where students learn key concepts — on coop or in the classroom?
• Coop practitioners can also facilitate the transfer of knowledge from students to the faculty regarding curriculum design, based on students’ coop experience. However, students’ views regarding the curriculum may be based on inadequate experience or knowledge.

Methodological Concerns:
• Alternatives to standard surveys (e.g., computer-aided qualitative data analysis) are available in gathering data relating to effectiveness of coops and should be explored more fully.
• The use of GPA as the basis for screening applicants for coop should be re-evaluated since students with a low GPA may need a coop experience to demonstrate their competence more so than students with a high GPA.
• One basis for evaluating the effectiveness of coop is to compare the outcomes of students who have had coop experience from those who have not.
• An effective way to assess the effectiveness of coop education is to measure student development during their entire term in college and demonstrate the incremental benefits of a work-based learning model.
• Developmental psychological theories can be helpful in evaluating coop effectiveness.
• Coop effectiveness can also be measured in terms of how coop practitioners can maximize student learning.
• Practitioners can demonstrate coop's effectiveness by using coop experiences to raise the ethical awareness and sensitivity of students.
• Practitioners (and coop administrators) should be involved in assessment, but we need to decide which practitioners are best suited to contribute.
• Practitioners should be able to step back from their “fire-fighting” mode and take the time to reflect on issues related to coop effectiveness and identify areas where further research is necessary and useful.

Additional Commentary
1. What will it take to “sell” cooperative education?
Rigorous research based on developmental psychology or other learning theories will go a long way toward convincing the various stakeholders of the value added by the coop learning model. Often, the only way to convince academics is by scientific, rigorous research that clearly isolates and demonstrates the impact of the variable of interest, i.e., the work environment as a learning venue.

2. How are incentives used to induce learning?
It is important to understand how different incentives in the classroom (e.g., grades) versus the work environment (e.g., potential for a full-time job offer) drive different behaviors and learning in students.

3. How does cooperative education differ from standard provision?
Some of our institutions of higher learning are experiencing ,in Bruce Lumsden’s terms, “benign acceptance” or downright hostility toward coop from their stakeholders. Given that different values may be placed on different types of learning (for example, some institutions may view practice-orientation as bordering on being “vocational” and hence inconsistent with the academic mission of the University), it is important to demonstrate that the kind of learning which takes place in the work environment is consistent with what faculty (and other stakeholders) view as the central educational mission of the University.

4. What are roles of theory and reflection in learning from work?
It is crucial to develop a theoretical framework in order to be able to generalize learning from the specific to the general and vice-versa. Hence, applying classroom theories to real-world issues and reflecting in the classroom about workplace experiences are essential to delivering a holistic learning experience to students.

5. What linkages exist between the classroom (academic) and work environments? How can each reinforce the other?
Clearly establishing such linkages and the synergistic effects of learning from both environments is a key element in demonstrating the effectiveness of cooperative education. For disciplines such as business, these synergies help students assimilate important concepts and issues (e.g., ethics in business) they might otherwise see as merely “academic,” with little appreciation of the impact on the various stakeholders.

• Return to Reports from the Panel Sessions