transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative ... › bitstream › 1807 › 26169 ›...
TRANSCRIPT
Transfer of Learning from the Classroom to the Cooperative Education Workplace in a Baccalaureate Program in an
Ontario College of Applied Arts and Technology
by
Marguerite Mary Donohue, B.Sc.N., M.H.A., R.N.
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Theory and Policy Studies in Education University of Toronto
© Copyright by Marguerite Donohue 2010
ii
Transfer of Learning from the Classroom to the Cooperative
Education Workplace in a Baccalaureate Program in an Ontario
College of Applied Arts and Technology Doctor of Philosophy 2010
Marguerite Donohue, B.Sc.N., M.H.A., R.N.
Department of Theory and Policy Studies in Education
University of Toronto
Abstract
This research used case study methodology with both qualitative and quantitative
research tools to examine the transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative
education workplace and the relationship of students‘ learning styles to this transfer of
learning in a Bachelor of Applied Business program at a large comprehensive College of
Applied Arts and Technology in Ontario. Kolb‘s experiential learning theory was used as
the conceptual framework. A purposive convenience sample of six students (28.6%) who
had completed the second of three cooperative education work terms in the program
participated and completed all components of the study. The research findings led to six
conclusions:
1. Foundation skills learned in the classroom, such as communication and technical
skills, and in this case general business concepts, are used in all of the cooperative
education workplace experiences in this study.
2. The co-op work term experience itself, including the workplace environment and
culture, is more important than the student‘s learning style in explaining the
learning from the classroom that a student is able to transfer to the co-op
workplace.
3. Co-op experiences may not challenge students to the level they may be capable of
with respect to what they have learned in class.
iii
4. A co-op work term learning plan, opportunity to use previous learning, and a
supportive co-op environment are important for students to be able to transfer
their learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace
experience.
5. Perceived barriers to transfer of learning can also provide the opportunity for
learning experiences.
6. The program curriculum design plays a role in enabling transfer of learning.
Several recommendations related to implications for practice were also identified.
These included the need to reinforce the importance of communication and technical
skills with students, providing a variety of learning experiences, designing curriculum to
link classroom learning with the co-op experience, selecting co-op experiences so as to
ensure alignment between the students‘ knowledge and abilities and the opportunities
available, providing formal orientation and training to cooperative education employer
supervisors, and aligning the work term learning plan with the program curriculum.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Without willing participants this research would not have been possible. I extend
my sincere appreciation to the six students who agreed to participate in my research study
and then completed all of the steps involved. Your cooperation during the data collection
process and your openness and honesty in the interview enabled me provide a window
into the co-op experience that would not have been possible otherwise.
To members of my thesis committee, Michael Skolnik (Thesis Supervisor), Dr.
Katharine Janzen, and Dr. Glen Jones, I extend my gratitude for so generously sharing
your expertise, your feedback along the way, and your guidance and support. You are an
amazing group of academics and I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to work
with you and learn from you. Michael, you were an excellent supervisor. You made sure
that I was heading in the right direction in such a kind manner. I truly appreciated that
even while you were travelling you still made time to respond to my drafts in your
detailed and clear way. I was grateful (and more than a little relieved) that although you
began semi-retirement during my doctoral journey you continued to work with me. A
special thank you to you.
Thank you to the members of the executive committee at my College, especially
the President and the Vice Presidents Academic, current and retired, for being so
incredibly supportive of my Ph.D. education. I discovered that completing a doctorate is
not an easy task. To do this while working full-time adds another level of complexity.
Your support and your willingness to accommodate my classes and the writing of my
dissertation enabled me to balance my professional and student responsibilities.
v
My Mother is a living example of the value of education. If she had not made the
courageous decision to become a Registered Nurse, while at the same time caring for six
young children as a young widow, our life circumstances would have been very different.
Thank you Mom for being such a stellar role model–you are an inspiration to me.
My family, husband Terry, and sons, Michael and Evan, have been fully engaged
from the beginning to the end of this endeavour. From driving though snow storms, to
being my trail audience, to carrying the load at home, I thank you from the bottom of my
heart for always being there for me and encouraging me to continue when my resolve
waivered.
I feel blessed to have succeeded in earning my Ph.D. Writing my thesis was a
very solitary experience. Those I‘ve mentioned above and many others–friends,
colleagues, and extended family–made it possible to persevere. Although I was the
student everyone around me helped make this Ph.D. possible. I am eternally grateful to
everyone who played a part.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................... xi DEDICATION .................................................................................................................. xii CHAPTER 1 – PROBLEM STATEMENT ........................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Research .................................................................................................. 2 Contribution to Knowledge............................................................................................. 5 Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 7 Definition of Terms......................................................................................................... 9
Assumptions and Consideration of Bias ....................................................................... 11 Theoretical Construct .................................................................................................... 14
Organization of the Study ............................................................................................. 15 CHAPTER 2 – REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......................................................... 17
Cooperative Education in Higher Education ................................................................ 18 The Beginning of Cooperative Education................................................................. 20 Optional vs. Mandatory Co-op Programs ................................................................. 26
Benefits of Cooperative Education Programs ........................................................... 28 Research Related to Learning in Cooperative Education ............................................. 34
Skill Development in Cooperative Education........................................................... 34 Applying Knowledge in Practice .............................................................................. 37 Academic Performance Related to Cooperative Education ...................................... 41
Learning in the Cooperative Education Workplace .................................................. 44
Summary ................................................................................................................... 52 Experiential Learning Theory ....................................................................................... 53
Dewey‘s Theory of Experiential Learning ............................................................... 53
Kolb‘s Experiential Learning Theory ....................................................................... 57 Lewin‘s Group Dynamics and Action Research Method ..................................... 57
Piaget‘s Cognitive Development Theory .............................................................. 58 The Link to Dewey‘s Theory of Experiential Learning........................................ 59
Kolb‘s Learning Cycle .......................................................................................... 59 Kolb‘s Learning Styles ......................................................................................... 61 Kolb‘s Learning Style Inventory .......................................................................... 66 Experiential Learning Theory: What the Critics Have to Say .............................. 69
Experiential Learning Theory and Cooperative Education .......................................... 71
Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................... 72 CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................................... 74
Research Methodology: Case Study ............................................................................. 76 Case Definition ......................................................................................................... 77 Selection of Participants ........................................................................................... 80
Instrumentation and Data Analysis ............................................................................... 82 Learning Style Inventory .......................................................................................... 83 Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire ............................................................... 86
vii
Cooperative Education Work Term Documentation ................................................ 88
Course Outlines – Academic Semesters One to Five ............................................... 90 Interviews .................................................................................................................. 92 Summary – Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 93
Scope and Limitations of the Research ......................................................................... 93 Generalizability ......................................................................................................... 94 Limitations ................................................................................................................ 94
Bias ....................................................................................................................... 95 Objectivity............................................................................................................. 97
Other Limitations ...................................................................................................... 98 Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................. 99 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 101
CHAPTER 4 – PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS ................ 103
The Participants .......................................................................................................... 104 Presentation of Findings ............................................................................................. 105
Kolb‘s Learning Style Inventory ............................................................................ 105 Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire ............................................................. 106
Cooperative Education Work Term Documentation .............................................. 114 Work Term Learning Plan .................................................................................. 115 Work Term Progress Report ............................................................................... 119
Site Visit Report .................................................................................................. 120 Employer Evaluation .......................................................................................... 121
Work Term Report .............................................................................................. 122 Course Outlines ....................................................................................................... 126 Interviews ................................................................................................................ 132
Analysis of Findings ................................................................................................... 134
Research Question 1 ............................................................................................... 135 Summary: Transfer of Learning .......................................................................... 139
Research Question 2 ............................................................................................... 140
Learning Styles ................................................................................................... 140 Transfer of Learning by Participants with Differing Learning Styles ................ 141
Summary: Transfer of Learning and Learning Styles ......................................... 143 Research Question 3 ............................................................................................... 144
Enablers and Barriers to Transfer of Learning Identified ................................... 144 Enablers of Transfer of Learning ........................................................................ 147 Barriers to Transfer of Learning ......................................................................... 156 Learning Styles and Enablers and Barriers to Transfer of Learning .................. 160 Summary: Enablers and Barriers to Transfer of Learning .................................. 161
Research Question 4 ............................................................................................... 162 Evidence of Planned Learning in the Curriculum ............................................... 162
Linking Classroom Learning and the Co-op Experience .................................... 168 Summary: Planned Learning in the Curriculum to Promote Transfer of Learning
............................................................................................................................. 171 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 172
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 174 Overview and Critique of Research Methodology ..................................................... 174
viii
Research Conclusions ................................................................................................. 178
Implications for Practice ............................................................................................. 183 Recommendations for Future Research ...................................................................... 190
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 192
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.Preferred choices in Kolb‘s Learning Styles ....................................................... 63 Table 2.Bachelor of Applied Business Program Structure ............................................... 78 Table 3.Research Instruments and Analysis ..................................................................... 82
Table 4.Cooperative Education Work Term Documentation ........................................... 89 Table 5.Participants‘ learning styles ............................................................................... 106 Table 6.CLOs reported as used in co-op on questionnaire ............................................. 108 Table 7.CLOs reported as used in co-op on questionnaire by semester ......................... 109 Table 8.Number of CLOs reported as used on questionnaire by learning style ............. 112
Table 9.Number of CLOs reported as no opportunity to use on questionnaire by learning
style ................................................................................................................................. 113 Table 10.Cooperative education work term documentation ........................................... 114
Table 11.Examples of CLOs linked to students‘ co-op learning objectives ................... 118
Table 12.Number and type of CLOs in cooperative education documentation .............. 123 Table 13.Enablers and barriers to transfer of learning found in co-op documentation .. 125 Table 14.Co-op Work Term I – CLOs and knowledge and skills .................................. 128
Table 15.Co-op Work Term II – CLOs and knowledge and skills ................................. 130 Table 16.Evidence of potential to link classroom and co-op education experience learning
......................................................................................................................................... 132 Table 17.Themes and categories developed from interview transcripts; with learning style
......................................................................................................................................... 134
Table 18.CLOs reported as used in co-op – percent per semester .................................. 138 Table 19.Variables that influence workplace learning compared to enablers and barriers
found in this study ........................................................................................................... 146 Table 20.Classroom learning reported as used in co-op – planned and unplanned ........ 150
Table 21.Number of CLOs reported as used by each participant by semester ............... 157 Table 22.Enablers and barriers to learning and participants‘ learning styles ................. 161
Table 23.CLOs and embedded knowledge and skills linked to transfer of learning in co-
op courses........................................................................................................................ 164
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The four stages in Kolb‘s Learning Cycle ........................................................ 61 Figure 2. Resolution of the dialectical conflicts of the processing and perception continua
........................................................................................................................................... 66
xi
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – Baccalaureate Degrees in Applied Areas of Study in Ontario ............ 202 APPENDIX B – Invitation to Participate ....................................................................... 204 APPENDIX C – Gentle Reminder .................................................................................. 206
APPENDIX D – Letter of Informed Consent ................................................................. 207 APPENDIX E – Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire .......................................... 210 APPENDIX F – Interview Protocol ................................................................................ 227 APPENDIX G – Questionnaire Response Frequency Graphs ........................................ 228 APPENDIX H – Course Learning Outcome use in Co-op Workplace Reported on
Questionnaire .................................................................................................................. 295
APPENDIX I – Reported Use of CLOs on Questionnaire Only by all Participants in Each
Group .............................................................................................................................. 311
APPENDIX J- Reported No Opportunity to Use CLOs on Questionnaire by All Groups
......................................................................................................................................... 313 APPENDIX K – Summary of Co-op Documentation Analysis and Questionnaire
Responses, with Learning Styles .................................................................................... 316
xii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to
Terry, Michael, and Evan
for your love, support, and encouragement throughout my doctoral journey –
you helped make this possibility a reality
and
Mom
you are a woman ahead of your time –
you showed me that education is the key to independence.
1
CHAPTER 1 – PROBLEM STATEMENT
The purpose of this research study was to examine the transfer of learning from
the classroom to the cooperative (co-op) education workplace in a baccalaureate program
at an Ontario College of Applied Arts and Technology (CAAT). It also examined the
relationship between students‘ learning styles and this transfer.
Changes in my areas of responsibility at the College of Applied Arts and
Technology (CAAT) in Ontario where I worked resulted in exposure to two different
areas that interested me greatly. First, I became responsible for policy implementation in
the baccalaureate degree in applied areas of study programs. These programs are
delivered only with consent from the Minister of Training, Colleges, and Universities and
must meet the guidelines and benchmarks set out by the Postsecondary Education Quality
Assessment Board (PEQAB), an arm‘s length organization of the provincial government.
Subsequently, responsibility for operation of the Cooperative Education Department was
transferred to me. As I became more involved in cooperative education I began to wonder
about the link between the theoretical and the cooperative education components in the
degree programs. I knew these degrees were developed to be applied in nature and that a
work experience component was mandatory. This, combined with my thoughts about the
connection between classroom learning and co-op, was the impetus for the research
presented here.
In this chapter, I describe the purpose of the research and the contribution that I
hoped this work would make to knowledge. The research questions that operationalized
this research study are detailed, and I define the terms used in this dissertation to ensure a
2
common understanding. The assumptions I used are stated as is the potential for bias and
how I addressed this. I explain why Kolb‘s experiential learning theory is used as the
theoretical framework for this research. The remainder of the chapter outlines how this
study is presented.
Purpose of the Research
Cooperative education became part of higher education early in the 20th
century.
Proponents of this educational model have touted the benefits it provides the students,
such as experience in the world of work, job search skills, employability skills such as
communication and teamwork skills, and help in establishing career direction (Canadian
Council on Learning, 2008; Milne, 2007). A defining characteristic of cooperative
education is that students are engaged in productive real life work (Ryder, 1987, p. 3).
The findings of the first comprehensive research study of cooperative education in
the United States were published in 1961. Wilson and Lyons (1961) documented the
value of this type of education. They found that ―by coordinating work experience with
the campus educational program, theory and practice are more closely related and
students find greater meaning in their studies‖ (p. 6) and that ―this coordination of work
and study increases student motivation‖ (p. 6). Further research to examine cooperative
education began to appear in the literature following this study. These research studies
looked at cooperative education from various perspectives. For example, Van Gyn,
Branton, Cutt, Loken and Ricks (1996; see also Van Gyn, Cutt, Loken, & Ricks, 1997)
conducted a longitudinal study that investigated the entry level characteristics of co-op
and non co-op students and investigated the educational benefits of cooperative
education; Williams, Sternberg, Rashotte and Wagner (1993) conducted a research study
3
to examine the development of tacit knowledge in co-op vs. non-co-op students; Cates
and Langford (1999) conducted a document review to assess the development of
communication and thinking skills during the cooperative education work experience;
Sherin (2001) examined the role of co-op students‘ sense of entitlement; and Sawyer
(2008) contacted engineering and science professionals who graduated over the previous
20 years to assess their perceptions of their co-op experiences and their career
development. A few recent studies have examined the learning experience as it relates to
the cooperative education work experience (Davidge-Johnston, 1996; Grosjean, 2000;
Milley, 2004; Stark, 2004). These studies focused predominantly on what these authors
called essential skills, that is, communication skills, organizational skills, job
interviewing skills, and job search skills, learned during the cooperative education
workplace experience. In reporting their results the authors indicated having observed
some transfer of knowledge and skills from the classroom to the workplace and vice
versa. However, the conclusions drawn by these researchers indicated a need to further
examine the link between classroom learning and the cooperative education workplace
learning experience.
Such an examination became more imperative with the fairly recent (2000)
extension of degree-granting authority to CAATs in Ontario (Ontario Ministry of
Training, Colleges and Universities, 2001). These degree programs have an applied focus
with students learning the theory of the discipline as well as the skills needed to be
successful. Students are provided with opportunities to apply what they learn in both the
college and the workplace environments. The colleges‘ bachelor‘s degrees are required to
have at least one mandatory 14-week cooperative education work term in the curriculum
4
(PEQAB, 2006b). By way of background to this development, most of the cooperative
education experiences in colleges in Ontario are optional co-op diploma or advanced
diploma programs (two- and three-year programs). Most often students are expected to
find their own co-op placements with assistance from the cooperative education
department staff. The introduction of degree programs with mandatory cooperative
education work terms resulted in the need for some adjustments in thinking on the part of
cooperative education departments‘ staff members and the employers that hire co-op
students. In these new degree programs, cooperative education coordinators now assist all
of the degree students to find co-op work term placements rather than looking for
placements for only the students with grade point averages (GPAs) above a specified
level. Employers have had to adjust to the fact that they are hiring CAAT students with
preparation at the degree level and that, rather than only those students with a GPA above
the specified level, all students in the program are participating in co-op.
The applied focus of these degree programs provided the impetus for me to use a
baccalaureate degree program in an applied area of study in order to research the transfer
of learning, that is, the knowledge and skills learned, from the classroom to the
cooperative education workplace. Despite the obvious importance of these new degree
programs I was able to find only one study that examined these degrees specifically
(Vigil Laden, 2005) and the focus of that research was not relevant to this study.
Recognizing that each student brings his or her uniqueness to their educational
experience this research study incorporated Kolb‘s (1984) learning styles as a means of
exploring the relationship that an individual‘s learning style may have with this transfer
of learning. Kolb‘s experiential learning theory was used as the theoretical construct
5
grounding this research. Specifically, Kolb‘s spiral learning cycle of concrete experience,
observation and reflection, formation of abstract concepts, and then testing these concepts
in new situations was the framework used to examine the transfer of the knowledge and
skills learned in the classroom to the cooperative education workplace. Examining the
transfer from this perspective rather than from the workplace to the classroom, as has
been reported in other research findings, is what makes this research unique (Grosjean,
2000; Milley, 2004).
The next section summarizes the contribution to knowledge anticipated from this
research study.
Contribution to Knowledge
As previously noted, while the use of cooperative education in postsecondary
education dates back to the early 20th
century, I found limited research in the literature to
validate its role in the application of theoretical knowledge. Research studies on
cooperative education related to learning have examined: ―what and how learning occurs
in cooperative education experiences‖ (Davidge-Johnston, 1996, p. 1); how the co-op
experience impacted the students‘ understanding of learning and work and how they
made meaning of the experience (Grosjean, 2000); ―how the students understand their
experiences in co-op, how they arrive at these understandings, and what effects these
understandings have on their learning‖ (Milley, 2004, p. 2); how ―to design an efficient
assessment instrument and provide hard evidence for the type of [Engineering Criteria
2000] outcomes students acquire by participating in cooperative education and to what
degree these outcomes are being achieved‖ (Nasr, Pennington, & Andres, 2004, p. 14);
and, how transformative learning theory could inform how students learn through
6
cooperative education (Stark, 2004). The examination of results in each of these research
studies revealed some transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative
education workplace. While these observations were incidental to the main purpose of
their research, they led the researchers to recommend that this be explored further.
In Ontario the need for research on the transfer of learning during cooperative
education appeared even more necessary because of the changes stemming from the
introduction of bachelor‘s degrees in the CAATs. Prior to this, many college programs
contained provisions for cooperative education, but usually there was a requirement for
the student to have a minimum GPA to qualify, and the experience was usually optional.
With students in the colleges‘ new degree programs required to participate in cooperative
education work terms, it was important to examine further whether students apply their
classroom learning during their cooperative education work terms. Studying whether
students transfer learning from the workplace back to the classroom is also important and
has been suggested previously (Grosjean, 2000; Milley, 2004); however, this study will
focus on the transfer of learning from the classroom to the workplace in order to address
this particular gap in the literature in depth. The findings of this study could have
curriculum development implications for the program under study and possibly for other
bachelor‘s degree programs and other cooperative education programs.
This research study built on the findings of previous research about the transfer of
learning from the classroom to the workplace. Specifically, it aimed to add clarity to the
observations made in other research about the transfer of learning from the classroom to
the cooperative education work term (Davidge-Johnston, 1996; Grosjean, 2000; Milley,
2004; Stark, 2004).
7
The findings of this study aimed to add new information to the understanding of
the role that of the cooperative education work term in the overall higher education
learning experience and provide a stepping stone for further research in this area. A
significant contribution of this study was to be the development of a research design that
could function in other contexts to examine this question. The methodology and results
are reported with sufficient detail that replication would be possible. This research study
also provided some new information related to the recently introduced baccalaureate
degrees in Ontario colleges.
Another contribution was anticipated through the use of Kolb‘s experiential
learning theory as the contextual framework for analyzing the transfer of learning from
the classroom to the cooperative education workplace. I hoped that this would help to
identify the relationship between learning style preferences and transfer of learning from
the classroom to the cooperative education workplace experience. Identifying these
linkages may be instructive for students and teachers alike and may have implications for
curriculum development in programs with a cooperative education component.
Research Questions
The purpose of this research study was to examine the transfer of learning from
the classroom to the cooperative education workplace in a bachelor‘s degree program and
the relationship between students‘ learning styles and this transfer. Case study research
methodology was used. The case selected was the third-year class of a Bachelor of
Applied Business program at a College of Applied Arts and Technology in Ontario.
This particular Bachelor of Applied Business program had a total of three
cooperative education work terms in the program with the first one occurring after the
8
fourth academic term. Students were required to participate in all three work terms. The
learning that I examined in this research was defined by the course learning outcomes
(CLOs) as articulated in the course outlines of the courses taken by the students prior to
the second cooperative education workplace experience (the first five of eight academic
semesters). In this program, in order to be eligible for each cooperative education work
term, students were required to have successfully completed, that is, passed, all courses
up to that point in the program of study prior to the specific cooperative education work
term. Students from the third-year class of the Bachelor of Applied Business program, in
the sixth academic semester, were invited to participate in this study, given that the
second co-op term was the focus in this research.
Within the case study, I used both quantitative and qualitative research tools to
collect the research data. Students completed a Course Learning Outcome Questionnaire
that I developed from the CLOs in the courses in the first five semesters and the Kolb
Learning Style Inventory. I reviewed the documents each participant submitted during the
cooperative education work term and I conducted a short one-on-one interview with
them. Kolb‘s (1984) experiential learning theory constituted the conceptual framework
for analysis.
This study sought to answer four research questions pertaining to the extent of
transfer of learning and the relationship between the students‘ learning style and the
transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace in this
Bachelor of Applied Business program. They are as follows:
1. What is the extent of transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative
education workplace in the Bachelor of Applied Business program?
9
2. What are the differences in the types of learning outcomes that students with
differing learning styles transfer from the classroom to the cooperative education
workplace?
3. What are the enablers and barriers to transfer of learning identified by the
students? Are there differences in enablers and/or barriers depending on the
student‘s learning style?
4. What planned learning is in place in the program‘s curriculum to promote transfer
of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace?
Definition of Terms
In this section I provide definitions for terms used in this dissertation in an
attempt to bring some consistency to readers‘ understanding of how they are used in this
research study.
LEARNING: ―Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the
transformation of experience‖ (D. A. Kolb, 1984, p. 38). Kolb‘s use of the term
transformation incorporated Dewey‘s (Dewey, 1938/1998, p. 69) premise that it is
through delaying immediate action until observation and judgment have intervened and
through the integration of these opposing but related processes that knowledge develops
and learning occurs.
TRANSFER OF LEARNING: The phrase ―transfer of learning‖ was used to concisely
capture the use of knowledge and application of skills learned in the classroom during the
cooperative education workplace experience. While changing attitudes is a third
component of learning, and the CLOs are intended to capture these, this was not
examined in this research. In the phrase ―transfer of learning‖ the word ―learning‖ refers
10
to the knowledge and skills that have been learned rather than learning as a process. The
phrase ―transfer of learning‖ is used in the literature to convey this process. Nolan (1994)
defined transfer of learning as ―the ability of learners to use in the real world that which
they should have learned in the classroom‖ (p. 26). Similarly, Ford (1994) indicated that
―the common sense notion of transfer is that learners use the knowledge and skills
learned through adult education in the appropriate settings‖ (p. 22).
COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES (CLOs): These describe learning that integrates the
knowledge, skills and attitudes (values) that learners have achieved at the end of a course.
These statements identify performances that must be demonstrated and verified in order
to receive credit for a course. They describe learning that is durable, meaningful,
significant, transferable, and essential for successful completion of the course (College in
the Study, 2007).
COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY/COLLEGE: There are 24
Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology (CAATs) across the province of Ontario.
These institutions provide career-related education at the certificate, diploma, advanced
diploma, graduate certificate and most recently, the degree level. They were established
in 1965 and now operate under the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act,
2002 (Government of Ontario, 2002) and receive funding from the Ontario government.
In this study the terms CAAT(s) and college(s) are used interchangeably.
BACCALAUREATE DEGREE IN APPLIED AREA OF STUDY: The CAATs were
granted the authority to offer baccalaureate degree programs in applied areas of study in
2002 under the provisions of the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act,
2000 (Government of Ontario, 2000). These bachelor‘s degrees were introduced in the
11
colleges in response to the increasing complexity being experienced in the workplace due
to the influence of technology and globalization. They are designed to develop
specialized theoretical knowledge and a mastery of the knowledge and skills of the field
(PEQAB, 2006). See Appendix A for a more detailed description of these degrees.
COOPERATIVE EDUCATION WORK TERM: This is the period of time that students
spend in paid employment between academic semesters. The bachelor‘s degree programs
are required to include ―at least one separate, paid, full-time work term (of no less than 14
consecutive weeks) prior to graduation, related to the professional field of study‖
(PEQAB, 2006b, p. 13).
Along with a common understanding of the terms used in this study, it is also
important for me to make my assumptions explicit and outline how I addressed the
potential for bias.
Assumptions and Consideration of Bias
I chose to examine the learning transferred by students from the classroom to the
second cooperative education work term experience in this Bachelor of Applied Business
program. I assumed that this transfer of learning could be identified through the various
documents that the students completed during co-op and through the completion of the
questionnaire and interview. Given that CLOs are stated as demonstrable and verifiable
performances and the aim of having students do the co-op work term documentation was
to assist them in outlining their learning during co-op, these seemed to be reasonable
assumptions.
An examination of bias was particularly important in this case as I conducted the
research in the institution where I worked. Although I was a member of the senior
12
academic team at the college where I conducted the research, I had no direct reporting
responsibility for any faculty members or students in my position. I had direct reporting
responsibility for the Cooperative Education Department for a period of one year up until
approximately five months prior to commencing the actual research for this study.
I considered whether the students would feel able to respond freely during this
research. They had no previous contact with me, other than possibly being copied on
emails sent to employers validating their program as a degree level program. I recognized
that, despite this, my position as an administrator in the college might influence students‘
decisions to participate in the study. It might also influence their responses, particularly
in the interview. As a result of this, assurances of confidentiality were very important.
Researcher bias was another consideration. I examined whether what I knew
about the program would influence and/or affect how the research was conducted and
how the data were interpreted. I oversaw the submission of the application to renew
ministerial consent for the program two years prior to commencing this research. This
gave me a detailed understanding of the program curriculum; however, I had little or no
involvement in the direct operation of program, and I was not involved when the program
was originally launched. Before I embarked on this project I discussed it with the
program coordinator, who did not report to me. He expressed no concerns about conflict
given my position and was excited about the possibilities that the research presented for
the program.
In order to address any concerns, or potential concerns, for conflict due to my
responsibility for the Cooperative Education Department at the college, this responsibility
was transferred to another area of the college for the duration of my research and until
13
after defending my dissertation. The students involved in the research had graduated by
this time thereby removing concerns related to potential future influence.
Given my ―distance‖ from the students in the organization, I do not believe that
the students felt influenced to participate in the study, or that it would benefit them in
some way to participate, or that they would experience any adverse consequences as a
result of not participating. In the informed consent process, which is described in detail in
chapter 3, I took care to inform them that they could withdraw from the study at any time
without explanation or penalty and that they were free to answer only questions they
wished to. I also indicated that participation or non-participation would not affect their
progress in the program at the time of the research or in the future.
The steps taken to address any concerns related to the potential bias in conducting
this research were reviewed by senior administrative staff at the college, by the college‘s
Research Ethics Board (REB), and the University of Toronto REB. Each of these groups
concluded that it was acceptable for me to proceed with this research, as reflected in the
approval to conduct this research by the college administration and both REBs.
In searching the literature for answers regarding whether objectivity would be a
concern in this circumstance I found a relevant article. Eisner (1992) described being
objective, or having an objective view, as seeing and telling it like it is (p. 9). He argued
that ―perception of the world is perception influenced by skill, point of view, focus,
language, and framework‖ (p. 11) and because of this, achieving true objectivity is quite
difficult. While I brought the knowledge of the Bachelor of Applied Business program
that I gleaned during the ministerial consent renewal process to this research, being aware
of this in order to reduce subjectivity and increase objectivity was most important. On the
14
other hand, my knowledge of the program and of cooperative education was of benefit
during this research in that it assisted me to ask more informed questions related to the
goals of this study. This background and experience helped me to focus on the key issues.
In addition, given that the goal of this research study was to obtain a deeper
understanding regarding transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative
education workplace in this particular program and the relationship of students‘ learning
styles to this, I believe my prior knowledge assisted with this.
A degree of objectivity is important when qualitative research methodologies are
used. Reflexivity, as described by Johnson (1997), was useful to assist me in increasing
objectivity. Reflexivity means that ―the researcher actively engages in critical self
reflection about his or her potential biases and predispositions…Through reflexivity,
researchers become more self aware, and they monitor and attempt to control their
biases‖ (p. 284). The use of reflexivity is evidenced above in the ―pre-work‖ done in
planning this research to ensure that even the potential for bias was addressed, for
example, reassignment of the full responsibility for the Cooperative Education
Department and recognition of my previous level of knowledge of the program.
A more detailed discussion of bias is included in chapter 3. The limitations related
to the methodology are also included in chapter 3 following the description of the
methodology.
Theoretical Construct
Learning through experience is intended to be an integral component of the
bachelor‘s degree programs in the colleges. ―Students in applied programs learn by
doing, with a focus on preparing for entry into an occupational field of practice. Such
15
programs incorporate a blend of theory and practice‖ (PEQAB, 2006b, p. 1). Given this
direction in these programs, and indeed in college programs in general, I explored the
experiential learning theories of John Dewey (1938/1998) and David Kolb (1984). Other
researchers have recommended experiential learning theory and/or the theories derived
from it as potential theoretical foundations for cooperative education (Saltmarsh, 1992;
Van Gyn, 1995). Kolb, whose theory is built on that of Dewey, believes that ―field
placement or work/study is an empowering experience that allows [students] to capitalize
on practical strengths while testing the application of ideas discussed in the classroom‖
(p. 6). He contends that this type of experiential learning provides a link between
education and work that increases the relevance of higher education.
Kolb‘s Learning Cycle and his description of individual learning styles, combined
with the recognition that new learning is linked to previous learning provided the
framework within which to examine how theory informs practice in the cooperative
education work experience and provided a means to recognize individual differences.
Organization of the Study
This research, with its focus on the transfer of learning from the classroom to the
co-op workplace in a baccalaureate degree in applied area of study program and the
examination of the influence that students‘ learning styles has on this process, would add
to knowledge about the cooperative education experience, these degree programs, and the
value of using learning styles in this context.
This study is presented in five chapters. This first chapter has outlined the purpose
of this research and the research questions. Chapter 2 presents a review of the literature
related to cooperative education in higher education. I also provide an overview of the
16
theoretical construct used in this research, experiential learning theory and the learning
styles that are described within it. Chapter 3 outlines the methodology used to conduct
this research study. The instrumentation used is described in detail, as are the limitations
and ethical considerations. The research findings and a discussion of these are laid out in
chapter 4. In chapter 5, I present the conclusions as well as recommendations for further
research.
17
CHAPTER 2 – REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
One of the aims of cooperative education is described as providing students with
the opportunity to integrate the knowledge, attitudes, and skills that they learn in the
classroom with a practical workplace experience (Apostolides & Looye, 1997; Eames,
2000; Stark, 2004; Weisz & Kimber, 2001). In cooperative education ―students are
placed in real-world contexts and required to make decisions, negotiate their different
roles as students and workers, develop relationships with coworkers and supervisors, take
on responsibilities and work as members of teams‖ (Howard, 2004, p. 4). By providing
them with opportunities to explore the world beyond the classroom cooperative education
prepares students to make a smooth transition from college or university to the
workplace.
Kolb‘s (1984) experiential learning theory was developed using the strengths of
Dewey‘s experiential learning theory, Piaget‘s cognitive development theory, and
Lewin‘s group dynamics and action research model (p. 20). The learning cycle and
learning styles in Kolb‘s theory have been used in educational and cooperative education
research since its introduction.
Using Kolb‘s experiential learning theory as the theoretical framework for this
research study, I examined the transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative
education workplace in a bachelor‘s degree in an applied area of study in one Ontario
college. I also examined the relationship of students‘ learning styles to this transfer of
learning. Specifically, six students in the third-year class, in the sixth academic semester,
in a Bachelor of Applied Business program at a College of Applied Arts and Technology
18
(CAAT) in Ontario participated in this study. This research tested the claims that
cooperative education provides the opportunity for students to use classroom learning in
the workplace, something that I was not able to identify had been examined specifically
to date.
In this review of the literature, I first explore cooperative education, what it is and
how it originated. This is followed by an examination of the benefits of cooperative
education that have been identified in the literature. Research about cooperative
education is explored with the greatest focus placed on research studies related
specifically to learning in cooperative education. Within this group of studies, those that
examined the link between classroom learning and the workplace are highlighted.
I then discuss the theory of experiential learning with an emphasis on David
Kolb‘s theory of experiential learning and the learning styles that he delineates.
Cooperative Education in Higher Education
Cooperative education was founded by Herman Schneider early in the 20th
century with the workplace as the primary focus of learning. His intention was that
education programs would be developed around the workplace experience. Schooling
would serve to mold students ―to a set of predetermined standards derived from
workplace norms‖ (Saltmarsh, 1992, p. 13). John Dewey, an educator and contemporary
of Schneider, developed a theory of experiential learning that linked all new learning to
experience. Although Dewey‘s theory was proposed prior to the introduction of
cooperative education programs, it was not used as the theoretical foundation for this new
way of delivering programs. In recent years however, Dewey‘s theory, and others derived
from it, have been identified as a suitable theoretical foundation for cooperative
19
education (Heinemann & de Falco, 1990; Howard & England-Kennedy, 2001; Johnston,
Angerilli, & Gajdamaschko, 2004; Ryder, 1987; Saltmarsh, 1992). Use of this theoretical
perspective has been criticized because it was not used by Schneider when he conceived
the notion of cooperative education (Grosjean, 2000). However, Saltmarsh (1992)
suggested that for cooperative education to play a meaningful role in higher education a
shift away from a structural approach towards relating theory to practice was necessary.
Others who recognized the importance of strengthening the connection between the
learning in the classroom and the workplace have found experiential learning theory, and
the many learning theories that have developed from it, useful as theoretical frameworks
for cooperative education research (Johnston, et al., 2004; Ricks et al., 1990; Van Gyn,
1996).
Weisz & Kimber (2001, p. 46) contend that ―The purpose of a co-op program is to
provide students with a structured learning opportunity that integrates their academic and
work practices that enhance learning.‖ While this is the stated aim of cooperative
education programs a formal definition is provided by the Canadian Association for
Cooperative Education (CAFCE):
A cooperative education program is a program that formally integrates a
student‘s academic studies with work experience in cooperative employer
organizations. The usual plan is for the student to alternate periods of
experience in appropriate fields of business, industry, government, social
services and the professions according to the following criteria:
Each work situation is developed and/or approved by the cooperative
educational institution as a suitable learning situation;
The cooperative education student is engaged in productive work
rather than merely observing;
The cooperative education student receives remuneration for the work
performed;
The cooperative education student‘s progress on the job is monitored
by the cooperative education institution;
20
The cooperative education student‘s performance on the job is
supervised and evaluated by the student‘s employer;
The time spent in periods of work experience must be at least 30% of
the time spent in academic study. (Canadian Association for Co-
operative Education, 2008)
As will be described later, there is some variability on how these criteria are met
in many cooperative education programs due to the reality that local circumstances
impose on program delivery. Achieving these is also impacted by the vagueness of some
of the criteria themselves. Cooperative education programs at universities and colleges in
Canada can choose to become accredited through CAFCE. The accreditation review
process determines whether the program meets the criteria identified above (2010).
The Beginning of Cooperative Education
Herman Schneider, professor and Dean of Engineering at the University of
Cincinnati, introduced cooperative education into engineering programs in 1906. He
developed this program after reflecting on his earlier career experience observing
students hired to work on a railroad project. He saw that these students had difficulties
adapting what they had learned in the classroom to the actual work situation. He worked
in partnership and co-operation with industry in Cincinnati to create a curriculum that
linked work experience with academic learning. The resulting curriculum alternated
periods of classroom instruction with periods of practical experience in the students‘
chosen fields. Schneider saw cooperative education as a link between the universities and
the corporations that would help transform engineering education into part of the
industrial system. This is most clearly demonstrated in how Schneider described
education‘s worth as measured by the degree to which it would ―train the leaders to do
sound building‖ (Schneider, 1912, p. 124). He believed that education must train leaders
21
and teach principles of what he called sound building, that is, life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness, together with the material sciences of the professions. The graduates, in
Schneider‘s view, would not alter the industrial system or social and economic divisions
it created. Instead, they would perpetuate corporate managerial functions as they had
learned to. Education plans would increase the efficiency of the workers. Schneider
assumed that it would be the schools that would adjust and accommodate to workplace
demands. He saw education as a way to increase corporate prosperity and stability and
bring about greater productivity and industrial efficiency. His model of industrial
education, with the workplace at the center of learning, was very much a functionalist
approach, with a functional connection of education to the workplace (Saltmarsh, 1992,
p. 13).
Cooperative education was well received by both students and employers. Soon
after, this model of cooperative education was adopted by some other engineering
programs in the United States. Within 15 years 11 other institutions of higher education
were delivering cooperative education programs (Cates & Langford, 1999; Ryder, 1987).
This model of education, with its close links to the larger capitalist culture, was a clear
departure from educational norms of the day and posed a significant threat to liberal
education, the autonomy of higher education and independence of thinking (Barrow,
1990). As a result, cooperative education ended up falling outside the ―mainstream‖ of
higher education with links to the academic part of the program that is tenuous at best
(Saltmarsh, 1992). This status continues to exist in general in higher education
(Heinemann, 1988; Howard, 2004; Van Gyn, 1996). Some believe that greater
acceptance by the academic community could result from increased examination of
22
cooperative education programs using theory to guide research and generating theory
specific to cooperative education (Howard, 2004; Ricks, et al., 1990; Van Gyn, 1996).
Cooperative education was first introduced in Canada in 1957 in Kitchener-
Waterloo, Ontario in the temporary Waterloo College Associated Faculties of the
Lutheran-affiliated Waterloo College (later to become Wilfrid Laurier University).
Following independence from Waterloo College the Associated Faculties became the
University of Waterloo. This technologically oriented university was established by a
group of local business men, some of whom were familiar with the cooperative education
model in the United States where they had previously lived (University of Waterloo,
2010).
The expansion of cooperative education in Canada occurred slowly, with only 15
higher education institutions offering this mode of delivery within the first two decades
(Grosjean, 2000). Since that time cooperative education programs have increased in
number at a much faster rate. A recent report on experiential learning by the Canadian
Council on Learning (CCL) (2008) reported approximately 80,000 Canadian students
enrolled in postsecondary cooperative education, with two-thirds of these studying at the
university level. However, when compared to the Canadian university enrollment of more
than one million students, this represents a very small proportion of students. Grosjean
(2000) identified over 110 higher education institutions in Canada participating in
cooperative education by 1998. In 2009 CAFCE (2009), which is a voluntary
membership organization, had 83 member institutions. Grosjean attests that the number
of higher education institutions with cooperative education programs is indicative of the
23
growing interest in this type of educational program and demonstrates the success of
Schneider‘s original concept.
Recent arrivals on the cooperative education scene in Canada are the bachelor‘s
degrees in applied areas of study1 delivered by CAATs in Ontario. These programs were
first launched in 2002 and are required to include a minimum of one 14 week paid work
term experience (PEQAB, 2006b). I discuss the differences between mandatory and
optional cooperative education programs later in this chapter.
A review of the types of cooperative education programs in Canada by Ricks et
al. (1990) revealed ―program differences in terms of 1) number of work terms and/or
academic terms, 2) sequencing of work terms with academic terms, and 3) the extent to
which work terms appear to be integrated with academic terms‖ (p. 8). This review
identified three different program types. The first type of program operated in accordance
with the CAFCE cooperative education criteria listed earlier (CAFCE, 2008). The
second type had four work terms delivered in some alternate way with four to seven
academic terms. The third type included a block placement of some kind. They
concluded that while presumably all types of cooperative educational programs shared
the same objectives, the degree to which the second and third types adhere to the CAFCE
criteria was probably highly variable. In addition, local circumstances may lead to
compromises in program design or delivery. This variation among programs needs to be
kept in mind when considering research results or statements made about cooperative
education programs.
There are three stages in the co-op experience: planning, the work experience
itself, and evaluation/reflection. Pedagogical approaches such as co-op courses,
1 For a detailed description of bachelor‘s degrees in applied areas of study refer to Appendix A.
24
workshops, seminars, and one-on-one advising are most commonly used to prepare
students for co-op.
The work experience is usually four months in length but many programs allow
students to have consecutive co-op terms resulting in an 8 or 12 month experience. The
format of traditional co-op degree programs is to alternate between academic semesters
and cooperative education work terms beginning after either the first term or the second
term of study. This extends the length of time that students are in postsecondary
education. Because they are, or are assumed to be, working in their field gaining
experience, the ability to gain experience and be paid to do it are generally seen by
students as worthwhile trade-offs.
Assessment usually takes the form of projects, reports, presentations, and
debriefing sessions (Howard & England-Kennedy, 2001). Hartley and Smith (2000)
suggested that the linkage between cooperative education and academic goals might be
strengthened through assessment, specifically assessment of student learning outcomes.
In addition, they contended that ―assessment of student learning outcomes provides an
opportunity for cooperative programs to document the academic outcomes from student
work experiences‖ (p. 41). While this may be so, Eames (2000) contended that it is
difficult to determine what the educational outcomes of work placements are.
Schneider, the founder of co-op as a mode of education, understood that the
experience in co-op needed to be directed. He hired shop coordinators to help provide the
link between students‘ practice and academic work (Herr, 2000). Today, it is generally
the co-op department staff members who fill this role.
25
Some concerns have been expressed about cooperative education as it has evolved
(Hall, 1999). With the increased number of colleges and universities offering cooperative
education some employers have come to expect that students will perform jobs for low
rates of remuneration. Some assign co-op students to do work that is routine or trivial.
Work that is closely linked to the program being studied is becoming more difficult to
find, as are opportunities for students to work closely with key supervisors in the
workplace. One study found that as a result of poor matches between jobs and the
students‘ academic programs the experience either did not complement the students‘
studies when it might have been expected to, or the experience threatened their academic
interest and identities (Milley, 2004). Considering that Ricks (1996) advocated that
―students need to be engaged in a learning process with partners who need to understand
and care about their learning and the application of that learning‖ (p. 19) this is a concern
for those involved in the planning and delivery of cooperative education. A work
experience that connects well with the students is important for a successful cooperative
education experience.
Wilson (1987) summarized the cooperative education experience well:
The cooperative education experience places responsibility on the students
for productive work, furnishes them with a rich environment for exploring
and testing career choices, provides professional role models, gives them
feedback on the adequacy of their efforts, reminds them that they are
productive adults through the mechanism of wages, and formally links the
work experience to the academic experience to create synergism. (p. 281)
The separation of academic and cooperative education was touched on earlier.
Another demonstration of this is the separation of the cooperative education departments
from the academic departments in most institutions. This division serves to isolate the
cooperative education programs effectively from the academic programs. Co-op
26
coordinators are responsible for both the administration of the programs and for the
supervision of the work experiences. Simms‘ (1985) description of the education
component of cooperative education illustrates this loose connection: ―One always hopes
that students will digest and apply their classroom learning, combine it with their own
needs, desires and aspirations and, as a direct result of blending these various ingredients,
uniquely grow on both a personal and professional level‖ (p. 30). In more recent years
there has been an effort to begin to bring the cooperative education and academic areas
together; to have them collaborate in planning and evaluating the cooperative education
experience. More often now, enhancing learning outcomes has become the driver for
decisions and actions related to cooperative education (Wilson, 2001).
Optional vs. Mandatory Co-op Programs
In traditional cooperative education programs in higher education in Canada,
students begin with several academic semesters and then alternate academic semesters
with cooperative education work terms. They spend the academic semester acquiring the
theoretical knowledge related to their field and in some cases learning skills in labs. This
is followed by a semester in the workplace where they apply this theoretical knowledge
and begin to develop skills in practical application (Grosjean, 2000). As an educational
model, cooperative education provides students with an ―opportunity to practically apply
and expand the knowledge, skills and abilities they have gained in a classroom, to a
related real world employment situation‖ (Stark, 2004, p. 6).
Today, in most co-op programs the hiring process for co-op placements mirrors
that of the hiring process for full-time employees in industry. Employers post co-op
positions, usually through the cooperative education department of the educational
27
institution, students apply for the positions, employers review the applications and select
candidates for interviews. Students prepare for, and participate in, selection interviews
with the employer. Ultimately, employment is the result of mutual agreement by students
and employers. This has evolved from the early days when cooperative education
coordinators worked with employers and made decisions regarding suitable candidates
for work placement positions (Wilson, 2001).
In the majority of programs co-op is an option. In ―selective‖ co-op programs
students both apply to enter the co-op stream of the program and then must also meet
certain published criteria in order to be eligible for co-op work experiences. The rationale
for this selectivity is to prevent ―the problem of sending out students who have yet to get
it together and who, by failing to follow a basic work ethic such as showing up on time,
might reflect negatively on the university‖ (Maynard, 2004, p. 205). In other programs
co-op is an open option that all students in the program can choose to participate in.
Selective co-op programs are the more common of the two types. In both types of
optional co-op programs, in order to achieve a cooperative education designation on their
degree or diploma, students must complete the required number of cooperative education
work terms identified for that particular program. If they are not able to complete the
cooperative education requirement of the program the option to obtain their program
degree or diploma without the cooperative education designation is usually available to
them (CAFCE, 2007).
Some programs have mandatory cooperative education, meaning that once
students enrol in the program they must successfully complete the prescribed number of
cooperative education work terms in order to successfully complete the program. All
28
students in the program earn the cooperative education designation. Mandatory co-op
programs require adjustments in thinking on the part of the cooperative education
department staff members and the employers who hire co-op students especially if the
model they are most familiar with is a selective co-op model. In mandatory co-op
programs, co-op department staff members assist all students in the program to find a co-
op placement. The requirement to ensure that all students have a placement can present a
challenge. Employers need to adjust to the fact that they are hiring students that represent
a spectrum of student success.
The bachelor‘s degrees in applied areas of study programs delivered by CAATs in
Ontario are all mandatory co-op programs. Students enrolled in these programs are
required to participate in the cooperative education work terms; the curricula are designed
with cooperative education work terms as an integral part of the program of study. All
students must successfully complete the number of co-op terms specified in the program
of study in order to be eligible for the degree.
Benefits of Cooperative Education Programs
As Canada faces the demands of a knowledge economy, Canadian employers are
experiencing a growing need for highly skilled personnel (CCL, 2008). Contributing to
this transition, cooperative education has been identified as an important component of
higher education (Grosjean, 2000; Milley, 2004). Ellis (1987) suggested that cooperative
education helps to foster the development of the human capital necessary for individuals
and nations to compete on a global scale. Cooperative education is seen as ―the education
of today that is well placed to meet the increasingly complex environment of the world of
work‖ (Weisz & Chapman, 2004, p. 256). Employers identified that ―in addition to
29
academic skills, [they] require occupational skills in their employees—these include job-
specific technical skills and the so-called ―soft-skills‖ (CCL, 2008, para. 3).
Some universities have evolved the traditional academically oriented mission
statement to missions that now include a goal to produce graduates who can both think
well and work effectively (Roland, 2000). Cooperative education serves to provide a
bridge between universities and the labour market and provides a way for universities to
make their programs more relevant (Milley, 2004). Colleges in Ontario have historically
developed and maintained strong links with business and industry in their regions.
Cooperative education is another means to this end. David Vice, president of Northern
Telecom in the late 1980s, spoke in several forums advocating for cooperative education
as a means for postsecondary institutions to improve ties with the corporate community
(Ellis, 1987). His comments support the role cooperative education can play in building
these linkages.
Much of the research on cooperative education, especially earlier research,
focused on identifying the benefits of cooperative education. Eames (2000) summarized
this early research. Some of the positive outcomes and benefits of cooperative education
programs identified included ―application of academic learning, enhanced career
prospects and clarification of career choice for students, highly motivated and productive
temporary employees and a preview of potential future employees for employers, and
enhanced industry links and student attraction for educational institutions‖ (p. 76).
A study commissioned by the Canadian government in the 1990s examined both
secondary (N=344) and postsecondary (N=48) Human Resources Development Canada
funded and non-funded co-operative education projects across Canada to assess the
30
impacts of co-operative education on the subsequent education and work experience of
former participants. Program coordinators, former students, and former employers were
contacted. It determined that both students and employers benefited from the cooperative
education experience. Some of the positive outcomes identified in that study were:
increased employment and earnings, and informed career choices for students; the
opportunity for recruitment and access to new technologies, ideas and skills for
employers; and, input into curriculum development by employers and improved student
retention for postsecondary institutions (Human Resources Development Canada, 1994).
More recently, Braunstein and Stull (2001) sought to examine employer benefits from
and attitudes toward cooperative education in the United States using a mail survey sent
to a simple random sample of 300 organizations drawn from those employers holding
membership in either the Cooperative Education Association or the Cooperative
Education Division of the American Society of Engineering Education, and those
cooperative education employers listed with the National Commission for Cooperative
Education. The response rate was 31% (n=93) with the majority of these (72%) coming
from for-profit companies. Their findings confirmed the results of earlier studies. They
found that employers still used cooperative education to hire motivated and enthusiastic
employees and as a screening device for full-time employment. Employers indicated that
hiring and training costs for cooperative education graduates were lower. They also
reported that cooperative education graduates were more likely to be hired, tended to
progress faster in an organization, and tended to remain in their employ longer. In another
study in the United Stated, 53 co-op employers from across 10 states were surveyed
during the first and second co-op experiences of 86 electrical and computer engineering
31
students. These co-op employers observed value in both discipline related educational
objectives as well as written and spoken communication skills (Canale & Duwart, 1999).
Linn and Ferguson (1999) developed a lifespan study of a random sample, stratified for
equal gender representation, of cooperative education graduates from 1946-1955 with
complete archive records at Antioch College in the U.S. Seventy-three (61%) of those
contacted agreed to complete a questionnaire about their careers. They reviewed archive
data from when these individuals were enrolled as students and the data on the
questionnaire (50 years later). They found that 41% of the participants had been self
employed at some point during their careers, compared with 7% of the total work force in
any given year from 1980 to 1990. Self employment occurred more frequently with
graduates who had multiple co-op experiences. They also found that 100% of the female
respondents had participated in the labour force, which was much higher than the national
norms. They suggested that these finding reflected the development of self-efficacy
during the co-op experience. Bandura (1982) has shown that self-efficacy, that is, a
person‘s judgment about their capability to perform various activities, can predict
performance. In a related study, Sawyer (2008) assessed perceptions of 276 professionals,
who graduated from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology over the
previous 20 years and responded to an email invitation to participate, regarding their
cooperative education experiences and their career development. These engineering and
science graduates reported co-op as a positive influence on their career development,
especially related to career actualization, professional development, and personal growth
(p. 90).
32
Blair and Millea (2004) examined and compared the registrar‘s and exit survey
data of 5,506 graduates from Mississippi State University between Fall 2000 and Spring
2002, 780 of whom participated in cooperative education. They confirmed earlier
research findings that cooperative education had a positive effect on academic
performance, that co-op students‘ programs were of longer duration thus increasing cost
as measured by duration in school, and that successful completion of cooperative
education programs increased the marketability of graduates and increased their starting
salary. Milley (2004) conducted an ethnographic, multi-case study at a Canadian
University with 10 co-op students who responded to an invitation to participate. Equal
numbers came from arts and engineering. Using interviews, focus groups, and document
review, he found that cooperative education experiences provided opportunities for
students to specialize in fields of knowledge and presented them with the opportunity to
learn how to integrate into the workplace. Grosjean (2000) conducted a case study at the
University of Victoria involving four programs, Chemistry, Geography, Engineering, and
Business. Co-op and non-co-op students in these programs were surveyed with 97.3% of
the surveys returned completed and usable (n=1012). Interviews were conducted with 41
staff at the university and 45 students from the four programs. He discovered in his
research that as an educational strategy cooperative education allowed students to
contribute to society through employment while pursing their degree, and provided the
opportunity to develop skills that would best serve them in the future. For some students
a co-op work term afforded an opportunity to ‗try-out‘ a job that might look interesting.
Co-op experience helped them decide that, even though the job provided learning and
skill development, it was not what they eventually wanted to pursue.
33
Cooperative education programs provide benefits not only to students and
employers but also benefit society indirectly. Some of the societal benefits of cooperative
education programs identified by CCL were reduced demand for student loans, increased
tax revenue, and increases in partnerships between industry and education (CCL, 2008,
para. 19).
Cooperative education is now well established in Canada and the United States,
and indeed internationally. Van Gyn, Cutt, Loken & Ricks (1997) noted that the
description of cooperative education had become more focused on the student gaining
employability skills and the benefits to the labour market in contrast to the original focus
of the cooperative education movement which was on the education of the student. Van
Gyn contended that ―if co-op is only a vehicle for experience, to gain information about
the workplace and to link technical knowledge with workplace application then its
effectiveness is not fully developed‖ (1996, p. 125).
Others concluded that ―while traditional classroom instruction gives students a
foundation in the basic principles of science, cooperative education gives them the ability
to use these principles in practice‖ (Cates & Langford, 1999, p. 8). That being said, what
was learned and how this learning was accomplished by means of cooperative education
were not fully understood (Roland, 2000). The following review of research conducted in
the cooperative education environment focuses on what these studies have revealed about
learning in cooperative education, in particular the relationship between learning in the
higher education classroom and learning in the cooperative education work experience.
Other relevant findings are reported as well.
34
Research Related to Learning in Cooperative Education
Research related to cooperative education in higher education programs has been
conducted since at least the early 1960s and has seen a gradual increase since the early
1990s. The focus of the research has changed over time. Early research predominantly
examined career planning, personal development, and academic performance benefits for
students participating in cooperative education (Apostolides & Looye, 1997). The use of
various theories, both educational and developmental, as a framework for research into
cooperative education is a more recent occurrence, as is interest in learning during the
cooperative education experience. It is research studies of this type that this section of the
literature review will focus on. While earlier cooperative education research studies
tended to use quantitative research methodologies the value of in-depth qualitative
research was gaining recognition and was being recommended for the richness of
information that could be revealed (Van Gyn, et al., 1997). Many of the research studies
cited are qualitative studies or mixed methods studies that combine both qualitative and
quantitative methodologies. This too was a shift from early research although it was a
trend that was not unique to research related to co-op.
Skill Development in Cooperative Education
The importance of skill development, from the employers‘ perspective cannot be
underestimated. ―Human Resources representatives consistently seek potential co-op or
other employees with good communication and thinking abilities; these qualities are
sought after with as much intensity as good technical ability and high grade point
averages‖ (Cates & Langford, 1999, p. 8). Canter (2000) in his work in the United
Kingdom on the assessment of key skills in the workplace contended that ―to become
35
competent in any specific vocational skills, undergraduates need to develop their
competence in the workplace. This is where the work placement elements of programs
can play a major part‖ (p. 45). He concluded that individuals were able to apply their
skills in different circumstances only if they fully understood how and when to apply
their skills competently. A good contextual understanding was required to enable skill
transfer to another context.
Skill development during the cooperative education experience emerged as a
theme in the research that I reviewed (Canale & Duwart, 1999; Coll, Zegwaard, & Lay,
2001; Davidge-Johnston, 1996; Milley, 2004). Milley‘s research (2004), described
earlier, identified two groups of skills reported by the 10 arts and engineering students he
interviewed as being developed during the cooperative education experience. First were
the skills that the students came to understand ―as those aspects of their competence that
they can market and sell to employers‖ (p. 152) such as job search skills or general
employability skills like communication, organizational and computer skills. Second
were those that were ―forms of competence that prove useful and effective, given the
existing practices, organization of work processes and culture of the workplace‖ (p. 152)
such as programming, desktop publishing, accounting or management skills.
Davidge-Johnston‘s (1996) case study to better understand the nature of co-op
learning involved three kinesiology students from Simon Fraser University in British
Columbia. Two of the students were in their first co-op placement and one was in the
third and final co-op placement. All were in co-op at the same location. Davidge-
Johnston found several categories of student learning during the cooperative education
experience: ―appreciating the difference between theory and practice; managing the
36
unexpected; working effectively as a team and performing multiple tasks; focusing on,
prioritizing, and responding to key issues; developing community-specific technical and
interpersonal skills; understanding the ―big picture‖ and connecting with it; and, learning
to learn differently‖ (p. 60). These are related more to general employability skills than
discipline specific learning. Similarly, through analysis of the students‘ assignments in
Canale and Duwart‘s study (1999) of 86 electrical and computer co-op students,
described earlier, the following themes of learning emerged: role differentiation,
responsibility to self vs. others, time management, importance of prioritizing tasks,
working in a team, work product and value, working with culturally diverse people,
effective communication, and ethical awareness. They found the students ―report and
demonstrate learning ‗the big picture,‘ liberal arts aspects of education in which they
develop maturity, adaptability, and problem solving skills‖ (p. 30).
Interestingly, Milley (2004) found that applied science students saw the learning
in co-op as complementary to their discipline, while those in humanities learned skills
outside their discipline. The humanities students felt that they learned technologically
related skills in co-op, which ―would mitigate the financial and career risk associated
with their fields of study‖ (p. 152). Milley (2004) also found that, while students
identified that strategic and instrumental forms of skill development were important, they
also derived meaning from other experiences in co-op. He determined that depending on
the perspective that was assumed, or that students were encouraged to assume, the
meanings they constructed could shift. He concluded that ―the students‘ interpretations
are thus highly dependent on the contexts in which they formulate them, as these contexts
condition the interpretive resources the students are able to draw upon‖ (p. 205).
37
This links to work done by Coll, Zegwaard and Lay (2001) examined student
perceptions of their self-efficacy, that is, their perception of their ability to organize and
perform tasks, as a result of a cooperative education program. Using a naturalistic case
study methodology they conducted face-to-face interviews with 16 second-year
purposefully selected Bachelor of Science (Technology) and Bachelor of Technology co-
op students in New Zealand immediately after their first co-op experience. Coll and his
colleagues developed a framework which linked content knowledge, skill development,
and self-efficacy together as contributors to the development of competence. Their study
focused on the influence that workplace experiences had on student self-efficacy.
Through analysis of the interviews conducted and document analysis their research
suggested that work placement experiences enhanced students‘ confidence to undertake
practical work and learn new practical skills, contributed towards improved problem
solving ability, and reinforced their confidence in communicating scientific information.
It also increased their confidence towards working in teams and about suggesting new
ideas and new ways of doing things. The reasons suggested for this positive influence on
students‘ perceptions of the abilities developed from the cooperative education
experience were twofold. First, they believed that students gained domain specific
knowledge, both theoretical and practical, and second, that the feedback from supervisors
and coworkers in the workplace enhanced students‘ perceptions of their abilities.
Applying Knowledge in Practice
Although they did not examine the question of application of knowledge learned
in the classroom during the cooperative education workplace experience, several studies
reported on findings related to this. In reporting his research results, Milley (2004)
38
indicated a level of surprise at having to prompt the students in his study to discuss ―their
knowledge as a function of their cognitive abilities in their respective disciplines, in the
context of their participation in co-op‖ (p. 154). For example, some of the students in the
humanities ―often saw little connection between what they learned about on campus and
what they learned to do at work‖ (p. 154). As another example:
It took significant prompting for some of the engineering students to
become aware of their use, in the context of their work, of the scientific
principles and methods, which they had learned and applied repeatedly on
campus. It also took prompting to have these same students reflect on how
their use of these principles and methods at work subsequently affected
their understanding of them−that is, how they were engaged in producing
new knowledge about principles and methods on-the-job. (pp. 154-155)
He also found that most of the students in his study ―described and interpreted their
academic and co-op experiences as if these represented autonomous spheres of social
action and learning‖ (p. 209).
Somewhat different results were found by Katajavuori, Lindblom-Ylӓnne and
Hirvonen (2006) when they examined the experience of 47 third-year Bachelor of
Science in Pharmacy students at the University of Helsinki in Finland during their 6-
month practical experience. Over half of the students emphasized that their practical
training had made it possible to test their knowledge and skills in real life. However, over
half of the students also reported problems applying their knowledge in these real life
learning situations. This may seem to make sense at first blush in that the postsecondary
institution is where learning is traditionally thought to occur, while skill development is
thought to occur in the workplace. However, the authors suggested that their finding that
some students were able to apply what they learned in a workplace situation and others
had difficulty deserves further exploration.
39
Several studies have identified the development of metacognitive capacity as a
by-product of the co-op process (Davidge-Johnston, 1996; Milley, 2004). Milley
recognized that when metacognition was encouraged it focused on searching past
experience for skills and knowledge to apply in the situation. He stated that ―there is
some evidence in the study that suggests a dialogical educational emphasis on
metacognitive processes would improve students‘ ability to learn at both work and
school. Such a focus would allow them to perceive themselves to be not starting from
―scratch‖ in each new learning context‖ (p. 303).
The integration of cooperative education and academic experience was discussed
by Milley (2004). He found that if students had not been encouraged in their academic
world ―to reflect on the ways they think, how they learn, and to understand, appreciate
and practice alternative ways of knowing and learning‖ (p. 269), they had more difficulty
in integrating their learning in the workplace. In addition, the connection between school
and work became even more difficult when students were faced with cultural attributes
and practices that they were unfamiliar with (p. 270). He underscored the importance of
cross-cultural preparation, including an understanding of rights and obligations, for
students entering co-op experiences.
The quality of the job placement in a cooperative education experience has been
shown to have an effect on the students‘ ability to integrate their learning from school to
work (Milley, 2004). The more challenging the job content the more the students
perceived themselves to learn. Also playing a role were other factors such as alignment of
purpose, interests, and expectations; or the existence, or lack thereof, of a supportive
community of practice, along with ―the students‘ broader lifeworld contexts that they
40
have brought with them…such as their family upbringing, subsequent life experiences
and corresponding abilities, needs, values, interests and interpretive resources‖ (p. 301).
Milley (2004) also noted that the students‘ integration of their learning from work
when they returned to campus occurred in an ad hoc fashion. Respondents reported little
or no formal encouragement by the professors to reflect on this learning, just as they
reported little or no formal involvement of professors or instructors in the cooperative
education experience (p. 272). However, informal involvement of professors resulted in
an important component of ad hoc learning. If professors demonstrated an interest in, and
openness to, the students‘ co-op experiences Milley found that students might then
interpret that learning from an academic perspective. The work term reports, intended as
the primary means of facilitating the transfer of learning from co-op back to campus,
were often described as pro forma exercises.
A study by Stark (2004) examined how transformative learning theory could
inform how students learn through co-op education. It used interview and focus group
methodology and involved a convenience sample of six cooperative education students at
Camosun College in British Columbia. The students were each from different programs:
Business Administration, Hotel/Restaurant Management, Professional Golf Management,
Environmental Technology, Computer Systems Technology, and Computer and
Electronics Engineering Technology. The findings demonstrated that students engaged in
cooperative education programs experienced transformative learning. This study focused
on personal and social level learning. The students‘ descriptions of a significant learning
experience in co-op were examined based on the transformative learning theory of
Mezirow (1994). Stark noted that some of the students were more willing and able to be
41
reflective which she believed was related to the level of transformation achieved. They
required prompting to reflect on their learning but with this encouragement some were
able to identify significant personal learning. When analyzed by Stark, the students‘
learning was consistent with the Mezirow‘s transformative learning theory. An increase
in self-confidence was identified as the main outcome for the participants overcoming the
challenges faced in the significant learning experience.
Academic Performance Related to Cooperative Education
In research studies several different measures of student academic performance
have been used as a proxy for the learning that occurs in, or as a result of, the cooperative
education experience (Ciarleglio, 2008; Roland, 2000; Van Gyn, et al., 1996; Van Gyn, et
al., 1997). Roland conducted (2000) a study of whether the cooperative education
preparation experience affected student academic performance and career-clarity over the
first academic year with a convenience sample of 166 first-year University of Windsor
Business Administration and Engineering students. Student academic performance was
measured by cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA) over two semesters and student
persistence was defined as a student being ―in good academic standing‖ at the university
level. These factors were then evaluated for all students involved in the study. The results
were examined to determine whether or not the students in cooperative education streams
of programs performed better academically as defined in the study than their counterparts
who were not in cooperative education. The study found that co-op participants out-
performed their non-co-op counterparts, regardless of faculty membership. This was a
statistically significant difference. This difference was confirmed when the ANCOVA
was computed to control for the potential confound effect of initial achievement
42
differences between the two groups of students. The study results also indicated that
students participating in cooperative education showed stable Certainty Scale scores from
the beginning of the program to the end of the first academic year as measured by the
Career Decision Scale, while the scores for the non-co-op students declined significantly.
A recent study that examined the relationship among cooperative education
program participation, student grade point average, and retention found different results
(Ciarleglio, 2008). Ciarleglio compared two groups of 167 purposively selected second-,
third- and fourth-year co-op and non-co-op students from the full range of disciplines at a
public university in Connecticut. The finding revealed no significant difference in GPA
between the two groups from baseline to follow-up. It should be noted that this author did
not control for differences between the co-op and non-co-op groups and acknowledged
that this lack of statistically significant difference may have been the result of unknown
differences in entry characteristics. The author described a change in academic
performance that was more perceptual as evidenced by co-op interviewees speaking
―about increased contributions to class discussions, and a greater understanding and
knowledge of coursework in their major field of study, following the cooperative
education experience‖ (p. 116). Ciarleglio also found that cooperative education students
as a group had a significantly higher rate of degree completion than among non-
cooperative education students. An odds ratio calculation placed the odds of graduating at
4.5 times higher for the co-op students.
Van Gyn, Branton, Cutt, Loken and Ricks (1996; see also Van Gyn, et al., 1997)
conducted a longitudinal cross-disciplinary study comparing the educational benefits that
accrued to students participating in cooperative education programs with those not
43
participating in cooperative education programs. They recruited participants and selected
999 (co-op: n=309; non-co-op: n=690) participants with second class academic standing
in the previous term from Arts, Engineering, and Science at the Universities of British
Columbia and Victoria. The students selected were entering the first year of co-op for the
program or the equivalent year in the non-co-op stream. They controlled for differences
in the two student groups in two ways: by screening in non-co-op students with the same
entry level academic standing and by matching the students on other characteristics when
conducting comparisons in the research study. They used a pre- and post-test model with
an instrument suitable for longitudinal testing, an Objective Form, the OT, of the College
Outcomes Measure Program, to measure the level of knowledge of the participants at
both points in the study. The OT was developed and tested by the American College
Testing Program (Van Gyn, et al., 1996, p. 18-19). The pre-test results showed that the
co-op sample had significantly higher percentages of first class academic averages upon
entry into the programs compared with the non co-op sample across all disciplines. The
co-op students also scored higher on the OT with a small but statistically significant
difference between the groups (1996). The post-test results on the OT showed a
statistically significant better performance by the co-op group as compared with than
non-co-op group on total scores and in the sub-scores of Problem Solving and
Functioning in Social Institutions (Van Gyn, et al., 1996; 1997). The researchers
concluded that this was a reasonable indicator that participation in cooperative education
programs was beneficial. They also suggested that there was enough evidence to
recommend further study of the effects and benefits of cooperative education as they
relate to educational competence.
44
Learning in the Cooperative Education Workplace
Several research studies were conducted that examine what students have learned
in the cooperative education experience related to the workplace (Davidge-Johnston,
1996; Eames, 2000; P. D. Gardner & Koslowski, 1993; Grosjean, 2000; Johnston, et al.,
2004; Lee, 2006; Nasr, et al., 2004; Williams, et al., 1993).
Gardner and Koslowski (1993) studied graduating seniors in engineering and
business programs at a major research university and a four-year cooperative education
institution in the U.S. All graduating seniors were contacted except for a small class of
co-op students at the research university. This was to ensure all non-co-op students in the
study were from the research university. Of the total of 496 participants who expressed
an interest in participating, 67% (n=334) completed the first phase questionnaires and
66% of those (n=219) completed the second phase questionnaire. Thirty-two percent of
the respondents in both phases were co-op students. Gardner and Koslowski found that
through increased exposure to the work environment during co-op, particularly when it is
career relevant, co-op students were able to ―learn the ropes‖ faster than their non-co-op
counterparts. The results suggested that co-op students, through exposure to socializing
environments, learned tacit information about the workplace that they would otherwise
not be exposed to until after graduation, as is the situation for their non-co-op
counterparts. They found that co-op graduates were less likely than non-co-op graduates
to be perceived by their supervisor and coworkers as needing assistance during the early
months in a new job after graduation.
Williams, Sternberg, Rashotte, and Wagner upon examination of 68 co-op
students compared to 46 non-co-op students (N=114) from the northeastern and
45
southeastern United States found that even with, on average, less than five months total
experience with cooperative education significant differences were evident between the
groups (1993). The cooperative education group had more practical job knowledge and
they displayed more tacit knowledge in general than the non-co-op group, especially
related to how the business world operates.
In seeking to better understand the nature of the learning that occurred in the
cooperative experience of three kinesiology students, the study by Davidge-Johnston
described earlier examined how this learning occurred (1996). The research results
showed that these students engaged in problem detection, recognition, and reframing as a
process for learning. This was identified as key to effective performance. Problem
solving occurred in two ways, through reflection-in-practice, consistent with Schön‘s
theory of reflective practice (Schön, 1983), or on-the-fly. They developed better
understanding of their practice through conversation with other students, coworkers, and
supervisors as suggested by Vygotsky‘s theory of proximal development in which he
described movement through one‘s zone of proximal development as being activated by
discussion with a more capable individual (Davidge-Johnston, 1996). A combination of
seeing, doing, and being shown was another way that these three students learned. This
learning by being immersed in a community of practice followed from Lave and
Wenger‘s theory of legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The
researcher observed that ―while some of the learning appeared to be the application of
skills and knowledge gained in school or training sessions, much of the learning observed
in this study appeared to be new, situated in the experience itself, or reconstructed in the
context of this placement‖ (Davidge-Johnston, 1996, p. 63).
46
Eames (2000) conducted a survey of graduates of the Bachelor of Science
(Technology) cooperative education programs at a university in New Zealand. The 125
co-op graduates from 1989-1997 were sent a survey that asked them what they learned
during their co-op experience and how they learned it. Ninety-five graduates completed
the survey (77%). Eames found that these graduates perceived that learning did occur in
the work placement. Eighty-six percent reported learning in work specific areas such as
theoretical knowledge and technical skills and 43% reported learning soft-skills such as
communication and time management skills. They learned by doing tasks (86%
reported), through interactions with work supervisors (86% reported), and through
interactions with coworkers (80% reported).
Grosjean‘s (2000) extensive investigation of cooperative education from the
students‘ perspective (n=1012) at the University of Victoria, described earlier, was
conducted ―to understand how co-op students develop perceptions of learning and work
and how they use these perceptions to understand their experience‖ (p. ii). He examined
learning in both the academic and work term contexts. The former he identified as
learning ―for‖ the workplace, and the latter as learning ―in‖ the workplace. Students in
this study referred to the work term component of their program as ―doing co-op.‖ When
they were on their work term they were ―on co-op.‖ He described co-op as ―not only an
integral part of the process; it is the distinguishing feature of the co-op program. It is
what sets co-op students apart from non-co-op students…the work term is the axis on
which co-op turns‖ (p. 130). In rating their satisfaction with the integration of coursework
with the co-op work experience most students in this study indicated satisfaction. There
was variability in the levels of satisfaction from program to program with Chemistry
47
(n=202), Engineering (n=298), and Geography (n=175) students being the most satisfied
(82%, 77% and 65% respectively). Business students (n=337) were least satisfied with
the integration of their coursework with the co-op work experience (36%). He noted that
these results paralleled the Business students‘ reported general lack of satisfaction with
the co-op work term.
Grosjean‘s results reported a bi-directional connection between coursework and
the co-op work term experience.
The opportunity to attempt a procedure or skill previously learned in the
classroom, and to produce a tangible outcome is a rewarding experience
for many students. They discuss the excitement of discovery and the
impact of their perceptions of learning…On the work term students might
also learn skills not yet encountered in the academic context. The work
experience can thus increase students‘ appreciation of the importance of
classroom learning, and give them a head start on the courses they will be
taking in the following academic semester. The work term can thus
motivate them to learn more about their disciplines. (pp. 137-138)
Some students identified concerns with finding quality co-op work term
experiences, but despite these concerns ―the interview evidence clearly indicates that co-
op students perceive that the work term provides valuable opportunities for learning and
skill development beyond those available in the classroom‖ (Grosjean, 2000, p. 146).
Approximately one quarter of the students identified the importance of being able to
practice in the workplace what they had previously learned in class. In addition, more
than half of the students spoke of the influence that learning in the workplace had on their
academic performance, with workplace learning providing students with a better
understanding of their academic course work. Students also reported that the experience
and skills acquired in the workplace contributed to increased self-confidence (2000, p.
147-148).
48
Some students suggested that it was an understanding of how the skills that were
learned in the classroom could be applied in different situations that made them
transferable. Reflection and praxis were important in this process. Being able to relate
learning to future workplace use was a strong motivator for some students for both
learning and understanding coursework (Grosjean, 2000). Similarly, an increase in
motivation to acquire theoretical knowledge was also reported by pharmacy students
following their first practice period in the study conducted by Katajavuori, Linblom-
Ylänne and Hirvonen (2006).
Grosjean (2000) investigated what co-op students thought about learning and
knowledge and how they were acquired by asking them ―In your program, what does
learning mean to you?‖ He probed when vague responses were received with follow-up
questions like ―But, what does that mean to you in terms of learning?‖ (p. 197). He found
that the majority of students responded in terms of learning during their work term. Effort
was required to direct them to the concept of learning in the classroom. Students
articulated that learning workplace procedures in the classroom was not necessarily taken
seriously because it did not seem to be ―real‖; it had a sense of artificiality attached to it.
When discussing learning in the classroom many students in Grosjean‘s study
stated that the type of assessment and the need to get good grades to stay in co-op
influenced how they studied. Memorization to meet the immediate needs of reproducing
facts on a test (surface-level learning), rather than achieving understanding (deep-level
learning), was commonly described as a strategy used by students, despite their
recognition that it had drawbacks as a learning strategy in the long run. Critical thinking
was identified as much more important in the workplace than regurgitating facts (2000).
49
Grosjean (2000) concluded that the workplace experience provided co-op students
with a first-hand opportunity: to learn how employers made hiring decisions; to see the
importance that employers placed on relevant skills and experience; to determine areas of
in-demand skills; and to learn the importance of networks of professional contacts. With
all of this information, they returned to class with a better idea of how to position
themselves for employment after graduation.
A study was conducted to develop an assessment tool for mechanical engineering
students at one university in Michigan to identify the degree to which they learned the
Engineering Criteria 20002 (EC2000) outcomes during their cooperative education
experience (Nasr, et al., 2004). One hundred and seventy-seven students across all four
years of the program (N=~550) responded to the invitation and completed the online
survey. The findings revealed that the wording of the EC2000 outcomes was difficult for
some students to comprehend or relate to: ―Aside from the expected enhancement of
―soft skills‖ and the majority of ―core skills‖, it was obvious that students have trouble
interpreting the ―hard-to-assess‖ outcomes from the EC2000 list‖ (Nasr, et al., 2004, p.
20). They also found that, although maximum use was not always made of students‘ time
and talents, students were satisfied with their employers, supervisors, and work
experiences.
Johnston, Angerilli and Gajdamaschko (2004), using Kolb‘s experiential learning
theory as their framework, sought to ―uncover the breadth and depth of opinions
2 The Engineering Criteria 2000 were first published in draft form in 1995 and formally adopted by the
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology in 1997. Beginning in fall 2001 all engineering
degree programs in the U.S. were to be accredited using Criteria 2000. There was a three year phased
implementation period during which schools could opt for accreditation under Criteria 2000 or the previous
criteria. To be considered for accreditation, engineering programs must prepare graduates for the practice
of engineering at a professional level.
50
regarding the complex issue of learning through cooperative education and to explore any
differences and similarities that might exist between stakeholder perspectives…to
understand more about student and practitioner perceptions of the theoretical
underpinnings of co-op learning; what was learned, where and how this learning may be
occurring, and to what extent it transferred across contexts‖ (p. 161). In order to capture
each participant‘s views and allow for new perspectives to emerge they selected the Q-
Methodology. The Q-method allowed the views of the participants to emerge. The
researcher then focused on interpreting the participants‘ views that emerged rather than
on interpreting participants‘ responses to views presented to them. A Q sample of 55
statements was developed by the researchers to reflect the broad range of perspectives
about co-op. They used the instrument with 120 participants from British Columbia and
Yukon: 33 university students, 8 technical institute students, 51 college students, 28 co-
op coordinators and managers (11 from universities, 16 from colleges, and one from a
technical institute). Eight statistically distinct factors emerged in their study. The
individual factors and the primary defining statements are summarized below:
1. Co-op is for learning technical skills: Work experience is the only real
way to learn these work skills−you have to be part of the whole
experience in order to really understand it.
2. Co-op elements of practice and learning: Site visits to co-op students
midway through their term provide a key opportunity for discussing the
students‘ progress with respect to their learning objectives.
3. Anti-co-op−no value added view of co-op: Students who work in
related jobs throughout their schooling learn just as much as co-op
students do through their job placements.
4. Co-op derives classic employability outcomes: Through co-op, students
learn to communicate effectively with others.
5. Co-op and learning models focus: Co-op students learn by engaging
more and more fully in the workplace, slowly absorbing, and being
absorbed by, the culture (cognitive, social, environmental, emotional)
of their work community.
51
6. Synergistic/complementary model (school + co-op = what is needed for
employability related learning): Co-op students learn best through their
own successes and failures at work as well as watching the successes
and failures of others in the workplace.
7. Co-op is for the application of school-learned skills to the workplace:
Co-op is the application of what is learned in school to a real work
environment.
8. Co-op practitioner is key facilitator to the world of work: Through co-
op students learn what to expect in the world of work. (pp. 170-172)
The authors concluded that the views of co-op stakeholders, that is, students and
practitioners, were both highly complex and subjective. They were surprised by the
emergence of eight statistically distinct factors. They acknowledged that they had not
anticipated the anti-co-op factor because this view had not been expressed during pilot
and field studies. They recommended that each of these factors be further explored both
to help understand co-operative education and to inform the evolution.
Lee (2006) contrasted learning in the classroom environment with learning in
cooperative education in Hospitality Management students from the University of Central
Florida. Classes were selected from which to invite students to participate using a
stratified cluster sample method. Six hundred and eighty-one students from first to fourth
year completed the in-class survey. Student perceptions of learning in both their
classroom environments and co-op assignments were also investigated. A modified
version of the Predicting Learner Advancement through Cooperative Education
(P.L.A.C.E.) was used. This was a standardized instrument that measured pre-graduation
learning outcomes in career development, academic achievement, work skills
development, and personal growth/development. The researcher found that, in both the
experiential learning assignments and the classroom experiences, learning occurred for
all 29 items measured in the study. The researcher also found that ―as a result of
52
participating in the experiential learning program students were more confident in
themselves and the decisions they made, possessed better time management skills and
valued networking with professionals more‖ (p. 101).
Summary
While Grubb and Badway (Grubb & Badway, 1998) believed that for the
cooperative education experience to be both educationally sound and integrated it needed
to be central to the educational process of the institution and Grosjean (2000) suggested
that the co-op work term was ―the axis on which the co-op program turns‖ (p.130), the
literature suggested that the linkages between academic and co-op learning could be
strengthened. Research results pointed towards the various kinds of benefits that students
gained from the co-op experience. Recent research studies (Davidge-Johnston, 1996;
Eames, 2000; P. D. Gardner & Koslowski, 1993; Grosjean, 2000; Johnston, et al., 2004;
Lee, 2006; Nasr, et al., 2004; Williams, et al., 1993) have begun to reveal the link
between what is learned in the classroom and what is learned in the workplace.
Although Herman Schneider did not develop the cooperative education model
based on the theory of experiential learning, in the effort to ground research in theory and
work towards building a theoretical framework for co-op, researchers often cited John
Dewey‘s experiential learning theory. The many theories that have been developed from
this base are serving as the means to examine cooperative education within a theoretical
framework. In this next section, I will review experiential learning theory paying
particular attention to David Kolb‘s (1984) experiential learning theory and the four
learning styles that he delineates.
53
Experiential Learning Theory
Experiential learning theories are based in constructivism. 3 In the constructivist
perspective, learners are portrayed as ―independent constructors of their own knowledge
with varying capacity or confidence to rely on their own constructions‖ (Fenwick, 2000,
p. 248). The fundamental premise used by constructivist theorists is described very well
by Phillips (1995) in the following excerpt:
We do not believe that individuals come into the world with their
―cognitive data banks‖ already pre-stocked with empirical knowledge, or
with pre-embedded epistemological criteria or methodological rules. Nor
do we believe that most of our knowledge is acquired, ready-formed, by
some sort of direct perception or absorption…by and large human
knowledge, and the criteria and methods we use in our inquiries, are all
constructed. Furthermore, the bodies of knowledge available to the
growing learner are themselves constructs. (p. 5)
John Dewey‘s theory of experiential learning was developed on the premise that
all learning was constructed based on previous experience (Dewey, 1938/1998). David
Kolb (1984) built on Dewey‘s theory, adding concepts from Piaget‘s cognitive
development theory and Lewin‘s group dynamics and action research model. I describe
both theories of experiential learning in the following section.
Dewey’s Theory of Experiential Learning
John Dewey (1938/1998) is known as the founder of experiential learning theory.
He suggested that education must be based on the individual‘s life experience in order to
accomplish its purpose or goals (1938/1998). He developed his theory in reaction to the
primary tenet of traditional educational theories of the day, which was ―to prepare the
3 Phillips (1995) identifies that there are many varieties of constructivism. There are numerous authors‘
writings that can be considered in some sense constructivist. They represent a broad philosophical and
theoretical spectrum. His summary of the fundamental premise of constructivism is that ―human
knowledge–whether it be the bodies of public knowledge known as the various disciplines, or the cognitive
structures of individual knowers or learners–is constructed‖ (p. 5). He described the work of von
Glasersfeld, Alcoff and Potter, Kuhn, Piaget and Dewey as six important and influential constructivist
views of the 20th
century, while acknowledging that there are many others as well.
54
young for future responsibilities and success in life by means of acquisition of the
organized bodies of information and prepared forms of skills which comprehend the
material of instruction‖ (p.3). He believed that ―all genuine education comes about
through experience it does not mean that all experiences are genuinely educative‖ (p. 13).
What he meant by this was that learning depends on the quality of the experience. Dewey
identified two aspects of quality in experience: immediate ―agreeableness‖ or
―disagreeableness‖; and influence on later experience. He believed that the educator‘s
challenge was to ―arrange for the kind of experiences that engage and are more
immediately enjoyable since they promote having desirable future experiences‖ (p. 16).
An experience, as described by Dewey (1938/1998) was transactional: it was what
it was because of a transaction between the individual and whatever constituted his
environment at that time. He described the environment as the conditions that interacted
with personal needs, desires, purposes and capacities to create the experience. Dewey‘s
constructivist base, combined with his belief in the contribution of experience to learning
was clearly revealed in his description of learning. He stated that ―If we see that knowing
is not the act of an outside spectator but of a participator inside the natural and social
scene, then the true object of knowledge resides in the consequences of directed action‖
(1929/1960, p. 196).
Dewey‘s theory of experiential learning was based on the principles of continuity
and interaction: ―what is learned in the way of knowledge and skill in one situation
becomes an instrument of understanding and dealing with the situations which follow‖
(1938/1998, p.42). These principles emphasized the linkages between learning from one
situation to the next. Dewey felt very strongly about this and asserted that ―subject-
55
matter, learned in isolation, ends up stored in compartmentalized segments that don‘t
relate to actual conditions and is unretrievable because of this…This type of learning
does not give genuine preparation‖ (1938/1998, p. 48). One of Dewey‘s key philosophies
stressed that when education was based on experience, it was seen to be a social process.
In order for experiences to be educative they must lead into an expanding world of
subject-matter. In order for this to occur the educator needed to view teaching and
learning as a continuous process of reconstruction of experience (1938/1998, p. 111).
Dewey wrote extensively on vocational education, as well as the education system
in general. His opinions on how he thought vocational education should be implemented
emerged from his social theory that was a reaction to, and a challenge of, industrial
capitalism at the turn of the 20th
century. He believed strongly in participatory
democracy. In addition, Westbrook (1991) described Dewey‘s belief ―that democracy as
an ethical ideal calls upon men and women to build communities in which the necessary
opportunities and resources are available for every individual to fully realize his or her
particular capabilities and power through participation in political, social, and cultural
life‖ (p. xv). Dewey was a vocal opponent of a separate vocational educational system in
the years before World War I. He believed that the separation of vocational and
intellectual training resulted from industrial capitalism, that such dualities were artificial
(Linn, 2004). He promoted the integration of vocational education into the public school
curriculum, thus engendering a unity of work and thought, theory and practice.
Dewey was critical of capitalist culture. He observed that in the environment of
the day individuals were socially and intellectually underdeveloped, and that those
involved in most of the tasks of productive labour had ―no share—imaginative,
56
intellectual, emotional−in directing the activities in which they physically participate.
Workers did not share in management and were often nothing more than hands, their
intellect and imagination deadened by their work‖ (Westbrook, 1991, pp.434-435). He
felt that this meant the workplace became an obstacle to true learning.
Saltmarsh (1992) suggested that using Dewey‘s educational theory entwined with
social theory as a philosophical path for cooperative education would mean that the
education we pursue must not be integrative but transformative. It had to encompass both
what happened at work as well as what occurred at school. Simply learning at work was
not enough. Dewey noted that ―if one conceives that a social order different in quality
and direction from the present is desirable…schools should strive to educate with social
change in view by producing individuals not complacent with what already exists, and
equipped with desires and abilities to assist in transforming it‖ (Westbrook, 1991, p.
502). Based on Dewey‘s philosophy, Saltmarsh (1992) observed that students needed to
learn about the cultural, social, economic, and political barriers that affected the
workplace. They needed to learn the theoretical underpinnings of free-market capitalism,
as well as the cultural and social consequences that arose from it. As Dewey put it:
An education which acknowledges the full intellectual and social meaning
of a vocation would include instruction in the historic background of
present conditions; training in science to give intelligence and initiative in
dealing with material and agencies of production; and study of economics,
civics and politics, to bring the future worker into touch with the problems
of the day and the various methods proposed for its improvement.
(1916/1966, p.318)
Dewey‘s vision, an educational ideal where vocational education would fuel
social change, bears little resemblance to the practice of cooperative education today just
as Deweyan reforms were not part of Harold Schneider‘s cooperative education plans.
57
Harold Schneider, as described earlier in this chapter, was the creator of the concept and
practice of cooperative education in higher education in the early 1900s. He introduced a
work component into engineering education when he observed that students did not seem
to be able to apply the theory that they learned at school in the workplace. Schneider‘s
model was a functional one—one that he saw contributing to corporate prosperity. This
was completely counter to the views of Dewey who wished to preserve the independence
of higher education from the values of capitalism (Saltmarsh, 1992).
Dewey‘s theory of experiential learning helped to shape several different theories
of learning during the 20th century. One of these is David Kolb‘s experiential learning
theory.
Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory
David A. Kolb‘s experiential learning theory, also constructivist in nature, was
built on the theories of Dewey, Piaget and Lewin. Kolb (1984) identified a renewed
interest in experiential learning in higher education due to a changing educational
environment. He believed that for students ―field placement or work/study is an
empowering experience that allows them to capitalize on practical strengths while testing
the application of ideas discussed in the classroom‖ (p. 6). He contended that this type of
experiential learning provided a link between education and work that increased the
relevance of higher education. Kolb‘s learning cycle is discussed in detail below.
Lewin’s Group Dynamics and Action Research Method
The theme from Kurt Lewin‘s group dynamics and action research method
described by Kolb as relevant to his experiential learning theory was integration of theory
and practice (D. A. Kolb, 1984). Lewin stated that learning happened best where there
58
was a dialectic tension between immediate, concrete experience and analytic detachment.
This conflict between experience and theory was the central dynamic in Lewin‘s
description of the process of experiential learning. Lewin‘s perspective on learning was
holistic. Through experiential learning he combined experience, perception, cognition
and behaviour into a four-stage cycle. The cycle began with the immediate concrete
experience, moved to observation and reflection, then on to formulation of abstract
concepts and generalizations and then testing of implications of concepts in new
situations. The cycle continued in the next related situation. The immediate personal
experience was where the learning occurred. The feedback in the cycle provided a
continuous process of goal-directed action and evaluation of the consequences of that
action (D. A. Kolb, 1984).
The four elements developed by Kolb in his experiential learning theory strongly
resembled those of Lewin‘s theory. That dialectic energy was necessary for learning was
another feature of Lewin‘s theory that Kolb incorporated into his own theory.
Piaget’s Cognitive Development Theory
Jean Piaget‘s cognitive development theory focused on how intelligence was
shaped by experience and this was what Kolb described as linking to experiential
learning theory (D. A. Kolb, 1984). Action was the key; it was the result of the
interaction between the person and his/her environment. Piaget proposed that
―intellectual development from infancy to adulthood moved from a concrete
phenomenological view of the world to an abstract constructionist view; from an active
egocentric view to a reflective internalized mode of knowing‖ (D. A. Kolb, 1984, p.23).
He believed that the key to learning was ―in the mutual interaction of the process of
59
accommodation of concepts or schemas to experience in the world and the process of
assimilation of events and experiences from the world into existing concepts and
schemas. Learning or intelligent adaptation, results from a balanced tension between
these two processes‖ (D. A. Kolb, 1984, p. 23). This necessity for a balanced tension
between these two processes for learning to occur was incorporated into Kolb‘s
experiential learning theory.
The Link to Dewey’s Theory of Experiential Learning
I outlined Dewey‘s theory of experiential learning earlier. His theory provided a
strong influence and a foundation for the development of Kolb‘s theory of experiential
learning. Of particular influence was Dewey‘s description of how experience transforms
the impulses, feelings and desires into purposeful actions and learning. Dewey stated
A purpose differs from an original impulse and desire through its
translation into a plan and method of action based on foresight…The
crucial educational problem is that of procuring the postponement of
immediate action upon desire until observation and judgment have
intervened. (1938/1998, p. 69)
It was through the integration of these opposing but related processes that Dewey stated
that knowledge developed and learning occurred. Kolb incorporated this concept into his
theory.
Kolb’s Learning Cycle
A key part of Kolb‘s (1984) experiential learning theory was a four-stage cycle of
learning involving four adaptive learning modes. He described learning as a process that
occurred when there was interplay between expectation and experience. He contended
that learning was a continuous process grounded in experience; that all learning was
relearning; and that learning was by its nature a conflict-filled process. Brew (1993) built
60
on Kolb‘s definition and described learning as ―grasping or getting hold of or possessing
something we did not previously have, or changing an aspect of our view of the world‖
(p. 96). Boud, Cohen, and Walker (1993) stressed that ―learning required interaction,
either directly or symbolically, with elements outside the learner. It is only by
counterposing experience with something which is internal to the learner that meaning
can be created‖ (p. 2).
In order to be effective, Kolb found that learners needed four different kinds of
abilities:
1. Learning through ―experiencing‖ the concrete, tangible, felt qualities of the world.
2. Learning through ―examining,‖ watching others involved in the experience and
reflecting on what happens.
3. Learning through ―explaining,‖ gaining new information by thinking, analyzing,
or planning.
4. Learning through ―applying,‖ jumping straight in and doing it. (Chapman, 2006;
D. A. Kolb, 1984, p. 64; Raschick, Maypole, & Day, 1998, p. 32)
Kolb‘s learning cycle was comprised of four stages reflecting the four adaptive
learning modes or learning abilities required to be effective learners: concrete experience,
learning through experiencing or feeling; reflective observation, learning through
examining or watching; abstract conceptualization, learning though explaining or
thinking; and active experimentation, learning though applying or doing. Kolb contended
that all four stages must be completed for a complete learning experience to take place.
This did not happen automatically (D. A. Kolb, 1984).
Kolb stated that new knowledge, skills or attitudes were achieved by movement
through four stages of experiential learning. He suggested that learners should go through
the cycle from concrete experience which provides the basis for reflective observation.
These observations were then converted to abstract conceptualizations that lead to
61
implications for action through active experimentation in new experiences (see Figure 1).
Kolb described this four-stage cycle as becoming spiral when what was learned in one
experience was used in the next learning experience and so on. Vince (1998) described
the learning cycle as ―an accessible way of expressing both the importance of experiential
knowledge and the link between theory and practice (p. 306).
2. Reflective
Observation
1. Concrete
Experience
4. Active
Experimentation
3. Abstract
Conceptualization
Figure 1. The four stages in Kolb‘s Learning Cycle. One stage leads to the next with all
stages being necessary for complete learning. (Adapted from D. A. Kolb, 1984)
Kolb’s Learning Styles
Kolb (1984) went on to describe two paired continua in the experiential learning
process. One pair, called the perception continuum, that is, our emotional response, what
we are feeling or thinking and how we grasp an experience, has concrete experiencing of
events at one end (feeling) and abstract conceptualization of events at the other
(thinking). The second pair, called the processing continuum, that is, how we approach
and transform a task, has active experimentation (doing) at one extreme and reflective
observation (watching) at the other. Kolb (1984) described the movement along these
dimensions as learning occurred: one moved from specific involvement to analytic
62
detachment on one dimension (the perception continuum) and from observer to actor in
the other dimension (the processing continuum) during any experience. The level of
learning that occurred was determined by the way in which the conflicts among the
dialectically opposed modes of adaptation were resolved; that is, thinking vs. feeling and
watching vs. doing. A strong need for integration of the four adaptive modes was
demonstrated at the highest levels of learning. Development in one mode led to
development in others. Complexity and integration of dialectic conflicts among the
adaptive modes were the signs of true creativity and growth (p. 31). Kolb maintained that
―learning involves the integrated functioning of the total organism—thinking, feeling,
perceiving [watching] and behaving [doing]…It is the major process of human
adaptation. It occurs in all human settings, at all ages‖ (p. 32).
Kolb (1984) believed that knowledge was created as a result of the transaction
between social knowledge, that is, the civilized accumulation of previous human cultural
experience, and personal knowledge, meaning, the accumulation of the individual
person‘s subjective life experiences, in a process called learning. Succinctly, ―learning is
the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience‖ (D.
A. Kolb, 1984, p. 38). Knowledge resulted from the combination of grasping experience
and transforming—the two modes of adaptation referred to above. The simple perception
of an experience was not enough to know it; something had to be done with it. Kolb
proposed two ways of grasping or approaching experience on the processing continuum:
apprehension (feeling) and comprehension (thinking). The former was active, the later
was ethereal. The transformation process itself can occur in two dialectally opposed ways
on the perception continuum: intention (intentional reflection, watching), which he also
63
described as imagination, or creating new ideas; or extension (extensional action, doing),
that is, when referring to known objects. Based on these means of grasping and
transforming experience Kolb suggested that different types of knowledge have been
created.
1. Experience grasped through apprehension [feeling] and transformed
through intention [watching] results in divergent knowledge.
2. Experience grasped through comprehension [thinking] and transformed
through intention [watching] results in assimilative knowledge.
3. Experience grasped through comprehension [thinking] and transformed
through extension [doing] results in convergent knowledge.
4. Experience grasped through apprehension [feeling] and transformed
through extension [doing] results in accommodative knowledge. (D. A.
Kolb, 1984, p. 42)
The combination of these two choices in approach, thinking or feeling and watching or
doing, and the ensuing resolution of the dialectical conflict resulted in a tendency to rely
on one of the four basic forms of knowing and the development of a preferred learning
style. The preferred choices outlined in the matrix in Table 1 illustrate the construction of
Kolb‘s learning styles. The learning styles themselves are described more fully below.
Table 1.
Preferred choices in Kolb’s Learning Styles (Adapted from Chapman, 2006, Figure 3)
Modes of Grasping /Perceiving
an Experience
Modes of Transforming/Processing an Experience
Active Experimentation
(Doing)
Reflective Observation
(Watching)
Concrete Experience
(Feeling)
Accommodating
(Feel and Do)
Diverging
(Feel and Watch)
Abstract Conceptualization
(Thinking)
Converging
(Think and Do)
Assimilating
(Think and Watch)
64
The concept of learning styles ―describes individual differences in learning based
on the learner‘s preference for employing different phases of the learning cycle‖ (A. Y.
Kolb & Kolb, 2005a, pp. 194-195). The divergent learning style (diverging) relies
primarily on concrete experience and reflective observation (feeling and watching).
These people can look at things from a variety of perspectives and tend to use
information from their senses and feelings. They have strong imaginative abilities. They
perform best when idea generation is required. They excel in exercises such as
brainstorming. They like to gather information, have broad cultural interests, tend to
work in groups and listen with an open mind. Their preferred approach to situations is to
observe as opposed to taking action (Chapman, 2006; D. A. Kolb, 1984, 2005; Raschick,
et al., 1998).
The assimilative learning style (assimilating) relies primarily on abstract
conceptualization and reflective observation (watching and thinking). Inductive reasoning
and the ability to create theoretical models are strengths for these individuals. They are
abstract thinkers who can assimilate disparate observations into an integrated
explanation. Ideas and concepts tend to be more important to them than people. They are
more attracted to logically sound theories than approaches based on practical value.
These people prefer to explore analytical models and like to have time to think things
through (Chapman, 2006; D. A. Kolb, 1984, 2005; Raschick, et al., 1998).
The convergent learning style (converging) relies primarily on the dominant
learning abilities of abstract conceptualization and active experimentation (thinking and
doing). These individuals are problem solvers and use their abilities to find solutions to
practical issues. They are less concerned with people and interpersonal aspects. They like
65
to experiment with new ideas and work with practical applications (Chapman, 2006; D.
A. Kolb, 1984, 2005; Raschick, et al., 1998).
The accommodative learning style (accommodating) relies on concrete experience
and active experimentation (feeling and doing). Their strength lies in getting things done.
They like to get involved in new experiences. They are ―hands-on‖ people and rely on
intuition rather than logic. They are risk takers and are attracted to new challenges and
experiences and to carrying out plans. They use others‘ analyses and prefer to take an
experiential, practical approach and will try different ways to achieve an objective. They
prefer to work in teams to complete tasks (Chapman, 2006; D. A. Kolb, 1984, 2005;
Raschick, et al., 1998).
Figure 2 depicts the two continua: processing—transformation of experience
(feeling and thinking) and perception—grasping of experience (doing and watching), as
well as the quadrants representing each of the learning styles. This model offers a way to
understand an individual‘s learning styles while also providing an explanation of the
cycle of experiential learning that applies to all of us (Chapman, 2006).
As a result of heredity, life experience, educational specialization, professional
career choice, current job role, and present environment most people will develop a clear
preference for a particular learning style. The ability to switch between styles does not
come easily to many people. Where a strong learning style preference exists, learning
will be most effective if learning is oriented to that preference (Chapman, 2006; D. A.
Kolb, 1984).
66
Processing Continuum (Transforming)
Concrete
Experience
(Feeling)
Accommodating Diverging
Converging Assimilating
Reflective
Observation
(Watching)
Abstract
Conceptualization
(Thinking)
Active
Experimentation
(Doing)
Pe
rce
ptio
n C
on
tinu
um
(Gra
sp
ing
)
Figure 2. Resolution of the dialectical conflicts of the processing and perception continua
by combining that individual‘s preference on each continuum results in a preferred
learning style as listed in the four quadrants. (Adapted from Chapman, 2006 and;
Raschick, et al., 1998)
Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory
Kolb‘s Learning Style Inventory (LSI) is an instrument developed to enable
individuals to identify their learning style preference. It ―is designed to help you
understand how you learn best in educational settings and everyday life situations‖ (D. A.
Kolb, 2005, p.2). It is a self rating tool. The learning style preferences are not rated
through standards of behaviour as some other personal style inventories are: ―It is not a
criterion-referenced test and is not intended for use to predict behaviour for purposes of
selection, placement, job assignment, or some active treatment‖ (A. Y. Kolb & Kolb,
2005b, p. 8). This has been identified as a weakness of the instrument (Kelly, 1997).
Despite this, Kolb‘s model has helped to move the locus of educational thought from the
67
instructor to the student. After over 30 years of use the LSI has benefited from extensive
use that includes statistical examination and validation. For Version 3.1 of the LSI, Kolb
(2005) reported:
…norms on the four basic scales (concrete experience, reflective
observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation the)
for 6,977 men and women ranging in age from 17–75. This sample group
includes college students and working adults in a wide variety of fields. It
is made up primarily of US residents (80%) with the remaining 20% of
users residing in 64 different countries with the largest representations
from Canada, UK, India, Germany, Brazil, Singapore, France, and Japan.
A wide range of occupations and educational backgrounds is represented.
(p.3)
With this information, group results can be compared to other groups to assess for
similarities and differences (Raschick, et al., 1998). The materials provided with the LSI
allow individuals to compare their scores with the sample group‘s to see how their score
on each of the learning modes compares on a percentile basis (D. A. Kolb, 2005). Kolb
indicated that ―scores on the inventory should not be interpreted as definitive, but as a
starting point for exploration of how one learns best‖(A. Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2005b, p. 8).
Boud, Cohen, and Walker (1993) believed that ―more is often lost than is gained by
ignoring the uniqueness of each person‘s history and ways of experiencing the world‖ (p.
11).
Many studies have been conducted examining the internal reliability, test-retest
reliability, and internal and external validity of the LSI. Results of these studies were
included in the 2005 technical specifications for the LSI version 3.1 (A. Y. Kolb & Kolb,
2005b). Overall, study results suggested good internal consistency and reliability across a
number of different populations. Some discrepancy was found in studies of test-retest
reliability. The internal structure for both dimensions of the LSI was supported by high
68
internal consistency. Correlation and factor analysis studies provided data that gave
qualified support for the experiential learning theory basis for the LSI. Experiential
learning theory and the LSI have been used in many studies related to educational
specialization, aptitude test performance, assessment of academic performance,
experiential learning in teams, and have been used to increase individuals‘ understanding
of the process of learning (A. Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2005b). In a review of more than 1,000
studies, over 50% of which appeared in refereed journal articles, it was found that
―judged by the standards of construct validity, experiential learning theory has been
widely accepted as a useful framework for learning-centered educational innovation,
including instructional design, curriculum development, and lifelong learning‖ (D. A.
Kolb, Boyatzis, & Mainemelis, 2001, p. 240; see also Mainemelis, Boyatizis, & Kolb,
2002). Hickcox (1990) concluded that ―the greater the understanding of Kolb‘s
experiential theory, the more supportive an investigator within higher education tends to
be of the LSI‖ (p. 310).
Kolb (1984) maintained that teaching and learning in higher education, in order to
foster student development, needed to take into consideration the individual learning
styles of students. Other aspects of the educational system that influence the learning
process also needed to be managed. He contended that many techniques were used to
assist the learning process but the weakness of nearly all of these was their failure to
recognize and explicitly provide for the differences in learning styles of both individuals
and subject matters (p. 196).
In most disciplines there are important norms about learning styles and students
are expected to adopt certain perspectives during their work to align with these norms (D.
69
A. Kolb, 1984). Kolb (1984) described data that ―provided enticing, if not definitive,
evidence that career choices tend to follow a path toward accentuation of one‘s
specialized approach to learning‖ (p. 176). However, he also suggests that,
in making students ―well-rounded‖ the aim is to develop the weaknesses
in the students‘ learning style to stimulate growth in their ability to learn
from a variety of perspectives. Here, the goal is something more than
making the students‘ learning styles adaptive for their particular career
entry job. The aim is to make students self-renewing and self-directed; to
focus on integrative development where the person is highly developed in
each of the four learning modes: active, reflective, abstract, and concrete.
Here the student is taught how to experience the tension and conflict
among these orientations, for it is from the resolution of these tensions that
creativity springs. (p. 203)
Experiential Learning Theory: What the Critics Have to Say
Kolb‘s theory of experiential learning has made a substantive contribution to
advancing learning theory, has been used as the framework for many research studies and
as the springboard for the development of other theories and models (Jarvis, 1987). In a
review of the literature on learning styles based on citation analysis, Kolb was found to
be ―the most cited author in the learning style literature, with 49% (172/349) of all
documents in the Institute for Scientific Information learning style file citing Kolb at least
once‖ (Desmedt & Valcke, 2004, p. 451). It has also been identified as useful in planning
learning activities and assessing whether learners are effectively engaged (Boud, et al.,
1993). Hickcox‘s (1990) study, which examined research conducted using Kolb‘s
experiential learning theory and the LSI concluded that ―Kolb‘s theory and/or LSI are
highly supported and used within the postsecondary education field‖ (p. 310). This being
said, some criticism of the model has also been made.
A strength of Kolb‘s theory that has been identified is the relationship that was
drawn between the actual learning process, knowledge, and the style in which the
70
learning occurred or the knowledge was acquired (Jarvis, 1987). However, Kolb‘s
learning cycle, while it highlighted a number of important aspects of learning, is thought
by some to be ―rather too neat and perhaps over-simple‖ (Jarvis, 1987, p. 18) and Garner
(2000) questioned the accuracy of Kolb‘s theoretical linkages with Jung‘s work. Others
suggested that perhaps the stages of learning as described in Kolb‘s learning cycle were
not always sequential. Schön‘s (1983) work on reflection, which discussed the idea of
reflection-in-action, is an example of this. In reflection-in-action active experimentation
was followed directly by the reflection, or they occurred almost simultaneously (pp. 49-
69). Kolb‘s model has also been criticized for paying insufficient attention to the process
of reflection (Boud, et al., 1993; Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 1985).
Similarly, while Kolb‘s learning cycle begins with concrete experience and moves
through reflective observation and abstract conceptualization to active experimentation
this may not be an accurate portrayal of the learning that occurs in all learning situations.
Information assimilation and memorization are two examples where this may be the case
(Jarvis, 1987). Tennant (1997) observed that ―not every learning situation demands a
balanced integration of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract
conceptualization, and active experimentation‖ (p. 92) and therefore questioned the
universal applicability of Kolb‘s learning cycle. Rogers (1996) expressed concern that it
was not clear how other elements of the learning process such as goals, purposes,
intentions, choice and decision-making fit in Kolb‘s model of experiential learning.
The focus on the individual in Kolb‘s theory of experiential learning, rather than
the team or system, has also received comment (Bleakley, 2006). Vince (1998) in
identifying several limitations of the learning cycle pointed out that in Kolb‘s model
71
―experience is not seen as being constructed, shaped, and contained by social power
relations…the learning cycle appears to be rather apolitical, assuming that people are able
to speak about their experience in their own voice‖ (p. 307). He identified that there were
some things that we will always be better to learn from the experiences of others, such as
terminal illness, extreme physical pain, and sexual or racial harassment, among other
similar experiences. He also suggested that this model focused on what he called first-
order learning and did not provide opportunities for second-level learning, metacognition,
where we reflect on our reflections.
Anderson (1988) observed that there was a need to take account of the cognitive
and learning styles of students from different cultures. This comment reflected early use
of the LSI. As described earlier, a broader use of the instrument internationally is
providing norms made up of a broader spectrum of individuals from different countries
and cultures (A. Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2005b).
Despite these criticism Kolb‘s model ―provides an excellent framework for
planning teaching and learning activities‖ (Tennant, 1997, p. 92). Experiential learning
theory and the Learning Styles Inventory are used extensively in North America and in
many other countries around the world.
Experiential Learning Theory and Cooperative Education
Kolb‘s Learning Cycle described the process that one must go through for real
learning to occur. Kolb‘s theory of experiential learning which linked previous
experience to new learning is a useful model with which to examine cooperative
education in higher education. Using the four stages in the learning cycle students in
cooperative education can be guided to an enhanced understanding that learning in the
72
cooperative education workplace does not happen in isolation, but rather, is connected to
what they learn in the classroom.
Knowledge of learning styles can augment this. In knowing where students are
beginning from, we can assist them to identify the areas where they need to grow. As
Tennant (1997) noted, one needs to be careful when using learning styles not to develop
misconceptions about learners; the notion that everyone has a preferred learning style
does not limit their capacity as a learner.
Enhancing the ability of the learner to apply skills learned in the classroom or
training program in workplace settings is an area that has been of interest particularly for
adult educators. They have developed models for enhancing on-the-job application of
skills and knowledge acquired during a training program and implemented strategies to
consider before, during, and after a training program to foster this (B. S. Gardner &
Korth, 1997).
Chapter Summary
The value of cooperative education in higher education has been demonstrated
from many perspectives. Proponents of cooperative education cite the opportunity for
students to apply what they learn as one of the major advantages of cooperative
education. That being said, research about learning in cooperative education has focused
on what researchers have called essential or employability skills and I found a dearth of
research related to whether students use what they have learned in the classroom in the
cooperative education workplace.
Experiential learning theory, which proposes that all learning builds on previous
learning, is a theoretical framework used in cooperative education research. Kolb‘s
73
experiential learning theory, the four-stage learning cycle, and the learning styles that are
derived from it provided the theoretical framework for this research study.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology and instruments used in this study.
74
CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this research study was to examine the transfer of learning from
the classroom to the cooperative education workplace, and the relationship between
students‘ learning styles and this transfer of learning, in one of the recently introduced
bachelor‘s degree programs in one Ontario college, a Bachelor of Applied Business
program. As noted in the literature review, I found only a few research studies in the
literature that looked specifically at the use of the knowledge and skills learned in the
classroom in the cooperative education workplace (Davidge-Johnston, 1996; Katajavuori,
et al., 2006). Research studies related to what is learned in cooperative education tended
to focus on what is learned in the cooperative education work term (Grosjean, 2000;
Milley, 2004). These same research studies recommended that transfer of learning, that
is, the knowledge and skills learned, from the classroom to the cooperative education
workplace should be explored further.
In Ontario the need for research on the transfer of learning from the classroom to
the cooperative education workplace appeared even more necessary because of the
changes stemming from the introduction of bachelor‘s degrees in the Colleges of Applied
Arts and Technology (CAATs). Many other college programs contained provisions for
cooperative education, but there was usually a requirement for the student to have a
minimum Grade Point Average (GPA) to qualify, and the co-op experience was most
often optional. With the mandatory cooperative education work experience in the new
degree programs delivered at the CAATs, it was important to examine further whether
students apply what they learn in the classroom during the cooperative education work
75
term. My interest in this area stemmed from a genuine curiosity about transfer of
learning. The value of the cooperative education workplace experience was well
documented by other researchers. I explored this other dimension to broaden the
understanding of what students bring to the co-op workplace from the classroom. This
was where I found a gap in the literature. Kolb‘s (1984) experiential learning theory, with
its delineation of individual learning styles, was used as the conceptual framework for
analysis.
This research study, using four research questions examined the extent of transfer
of learning and the relationship between the students‘ learning styles and the transfer of
learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace in the Bachelor of
Applied Business program. The four questions are:
1. What is the extent of transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative
education workplace in the Bachelor of Applied Business program?
2. What are the differences in the types of learning outcomes that students with
differing learning styles transfer from the classroom to the cooperative education
workplace?
3. What are the enablers and barriers to transfer of learning identified by the
students? Are there differences in enablers and/or barriers depending on the
student‘s learning style?
4. What planned learning is in place in the program‘s curriculum to promote transfer
of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace
In this chapter, I outline the methodology used in this research study, namely the
research methodology chosen, the program selected as the case to be studied, participant
76
selection and the resulting sample, instrumentation and data analysis, along with the
limitations of the study and ethical considerations.
Research Methodology: Case Study
This was a mixed method research study, which used both qualitative and
quantitative research tools to gather data. I chose the case study methodology for this
research. Cresswell (1998) stated that ―a case study is chosen to study a case with clear
boundaries‖ (p. 39). He went on to prescribe using case study methodology when
exploring a ―case or a ‗bounded system‘ or a case over time through detailed, in-depth
data collection involving multiple sources of information rich in context‖ (p. 61) and
―when the site is circumscribed‖ (p. 114). I planned to study one class in a specific
program in my research; therefore the case study methodology was an appropriate
methodology for this study. According to Yin (2003) ―case studies are the preferred
strategy when…the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life
context.‖ (p. 1). Case studies ―allow investigators to retain the holistic and meaningful
characteristic of the real-life events‖ (p. 2). It is the methodology that ―is preferred in
examining contemporary events, but when the relevant behaviours cannot be
manipulated‖ (p. 7). He identified that one of the strengths of the case study was ―its
ability to deal with a full variety of evidence—documents, artifacts, interviews, and
observations‖ (p. 8). This study involved reviewing circumstances that occurred in the
past and reviewing several different documents. Case study methodology allowed me to
investigate the research questions posed by studying one group of students in depth. It
also allowed me to examine the transfer of the knowledge and skills from the courses
77
taken before the second cooperative education work term experience to that co-op
experience using Kolb‘s theory of experiential learning as the theoretical construct.
The next section describes the case used in this research study, and details how
both the case and the sample were selected.
Case Definition
I selected the third-year class, studying in the sixth academic semester, of the
Bachelor of Applied Business program at a large comprehensive multi-campus CAAT in
Ontario for this research study. As has been described previously, in 2000 the Ontario
government granted CAATs the authority to offer baccalaureate degree programs with
Ministerial consent4 (MTCU, March 27, 2002). The Bachelor of Applied Business
program was the first degree program to be offered by the college where this study is
based. The first offering of the program occurred in Fall 2003 and its first class graduated
in Fall 2007. I collected the data in 2008.
The Bachelor of Applied Business program has eight academic semesters and a
total of three cooperative education work terms. All students are required to participate in
all three work terms. The third-year class, the focus of this study, had completed the
second of three 14-week mandatory cooperative education work terms. The participants
were in the sixth academic semester when they participated in this study. The learning
examined in this research was defined as the course learning outcomes (CLOs), as
articulated in the course outlines of all the courses taken by the students prior to the
second cooperative education workplace experience (specifically, the learning from the
first five of eight academic semesters). Students in this program are required to have
4 See also Appendix A – Baccalaureate Degrees in Applied Areas of Study in Ontario
78
successfully completed all courses in the program of study that preceded each
cooperative education work term in order to be eligible to participate in that work term.
The cooperative education work terms occur in alternate terms beginning after
academic Semester 04 as identified in Table 2.
Table 2.
Bachelor of Applied Business Program Structure
Year Semester (Sem.)
Fall Winter Summer
One Sem. 01 Sem. 02 Free
Two Sem. 03 Sem. 04 Co-op Work Term I
Three Sem. 05 Co-op Work Term II Sem. 06
Four Co-op Work Term III Sem. 07 Sem. 08
Defining the case in this study as the third-year class of the Bachelor of Applied
Business program allowed for in-depth examination of the students‘ experience in the
second cooperative education work term. It also allowed for examination of the
program‘s curriculum and its interaction with co-op to that point, almost three quarters of
the way through the program.
I acknowledge that this study could have been conducted using students who had
completed any, or all three of the cooperative education work terms in the program. The
CLOs that students were exposed to up to the particular point selected in the program
could be used just as they were for the third-year students in this study. I made a
79
conscious decision to use only the students in the third year of the program to enable me
to conduct in-depth research on one particular group.
From a research methodological perspective the choice to focus on the class that
had completed the second cooperative education work term experience in the program
was sound; in fact, there were some advantages to choosing this group over the others.
These students were in the third year of the program. They had completed all but three
academic semesters and they had already completed one cooperative education work
term experience; therefore, they had previous exposure to a co-op workplace setting and
thus would likely have developed a comfort level with their role as a co-op student. The
first experience in a cooperative education workplace was part of their previous learning
experience. They had this earlier opportunity to transfer learning from the classroom to
the workplace and might also have had the opportunity to transfer their previous
workplace learning to the second cooperative education work term experience.
Students in the research conducted by Grosjean (2000) described the first co-op
experience as a rite de passage that legitimized them as co-op students. Not only did it
shape their perceptions of co-op but it also provided them with an inside view of the
workplace. It helped them to realize what their disciplines were all about. This, combined
with the possibility that the first co-op experience could be a student‘s first true work
experience, led to my decision not to choose the students in the first work term to
participate in this study.
The fact that the third-year students were not yet close to the point of completing
their program, as the fourth-year students who had finished the third cooperative work
term experience would have been, I thought to be an advantage for this research. The
80
students‘ focus would continue to be on their academic studies and the college rather than
on their future beyond the college as their focus might be when they returned from their
third cooperative education work term. This potential for a shifted focus after the third
co-op work term solidified my decision to focus on the second cooperative education
work term in this study and leave research on the other levels to future projects.
Selection of Participants
As described above, the case for this research study was the third-year class of the
Bachelor of Applied Business program. A purposive convenience sample of participants
from this class was used. In preliminary discussion with the program coordinator, he
indicated that he believed that some of the students in this class would be interested in
participating in this research study. The 24 students in the third-year class were invited
via email to participate in this study. This message was written carefully to emphasize
that confidentiality would be respected throughout the research and that aggregate results
rather than an individual‘s results would be reported. It also included a description of the
research project. The administrative assistant in the academic department agreed to be the
conduit for this communication because the students‘ email addresses could not be
released to me by the college as a result of Freedom of Information legislation in Ontario
that governs access to personal information in public institutions. She was well known to
the students and was not in a position of power. She often sent general communications
to them by email so would not be seen to be influencing them in any way with respect to
this research. The Invitation to Participate (see Appendix B) was sent by email as soon as
all approvals to conduct the research were received from the college and the University of
Toronto. This was followed by two reminder emails sent at one week intervals (see
81
Appendix C – Gentle Reminder). At the end of the third week after the initial email, the
six eligible students who responded comprised the sample for the study.
I reviewed the co-op status of the class with the program coordinator. I
determined that three of the 24 students in the class would not be eligible to participate
because they had completed only one cooperative education work term to date. Seven
students responded to the invitation to participate. One of these students was ineligible to
participate as only one co-op work term had been completed leaving six participants, two
female and four male (6 of 21 eligible students or 28.6% participation rate).
These individuals self-selected to participate in this research. The invitation to
participate gave a clear indication of the components of the research study and the time
that each participant would be required to invest, about two hours in total plus travel time
to and from the campus for the interview. Each student‘s reaction to this information
might have influenced their decision to participate. An individual who perceived she or
he had little or no time to spare would be less likely to participate. A shy individual might
hesitate to participate because of the one-on-one interview. Students who did not feel
confident about their cooperative education documentation might not be willing to share
these in a project such as this.
That the participants were self-selected and the small sample size influenced the
generalizability of the results, as is discussed in detail later in this chapter, but it did not
diminish the value of the information gleaned from the six participants because of the in-
depth perspectives developed using the case study methodology.
82
Instrumentation and Data Analysis
In this section I provide a description of each instrument or method that I used to
collect the data in this research study. I describe how each was developed or why it was
selected, and how I developed the information needed to address the research questions
from the data collected. I describe how the instruments were administered, as appropriate.
I also discuss how the data were analyzed. This information is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3.
Research Instruments and Analysis
Instrument Analysis
Research
Question
Addressed
Course Learning Outcomes
Questionnaire
Analyze responses for use of CLOs in co-op
Analyze responses for differences in use of
application of concept and application of
skill CLOs between participants with
different learning styles
1, 2
Kolb Learning Style Inventory Identify participant‘s preferred learning
style
1, 2, 3
Cooperative Education Work Term
Documentation
Analyze content for evidence of use of
CLOs
Identify enhancers and barriers to learning
Analyze content for differences in use of
application of concept and application of
skill CLOs between participants with
different learning styles
1, 2, 3
Course Outlines Analyze content for link between classroom
and co-op learning experiences
Analyze content for potential opportunities
to link classroom and co-op learning
experiences
4
Interviews Review for emergence of themes/categories
Identify enhancers and barriers to learning
Analyze for link between classroom and co-
op learning experiences
1, 2, 3, 4
83
Case studies allow researchers to gather and deal with information from a variety
of sources (Yin, 2003). This study used a one-on-one interview with each participant,
completion of a researcher-developed questionnaire and a purchased test, and the review
of several different documents, which included the course outlines from the courses taken
before the second cooperative education work term and the five documents, that is, the
plans, evaluations, and reports, completed by each participant during the second
cooperative education work term experience.
Using several different methodologies or sources to collect relevant data was
important in order to triangulate the data (Johnson, 1997). Flick (1992) described
triangulation as ―a strategy of founding the credibility of qualitative analyses… (p. 194).
He also stated that it ―gives access to different versions of the phenomenon that is
studied‖ (p. 194).
I now describe each of the instruments and methods used to gather data in this
research study and how the data were analyzed.
Learning Style Inventory
The Learning Style Inventory (LSI) is an instrument that has been used
extensively since its first introduction over 30 years ago. Kolb (2005) designed it ―to help
individuals understand how you learn best in educational settings and everyday‖ (p. 2).
The LSI is not a standardized test; however, the results of the test are continuously being
collected and compared to the scores of others to allow for comparison to a larger group.
By 2005 the size of the comparison sample reached a total of 6,977 men and women
ranging in age from 17 to 75 years. These people came from a wide variety of fields
including college students. Although 80 per cent were from the U.S., 20 per cent were
84
from around the world including Canada. Percentiles were developed from this sample to
represent the norms on the scales for the four basic learning modes: concrete experience,
reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation (D. A.
Kolb, 2005, p. 3). The results of the test are used extensively and are well recognized as
useful for instructional purposes as described earlier (Chapman, 2006; Raschick, et al.,
1998; Smith, 2001). Illif‘s (1994) research concluded that the LSI was best used for its
intended purpose—to teach and guide learners regarding learning style.
Cook and Smith (2006) found that explicit and repeated instructions highlighting
the potential of error in answering the questions on the LSI helped ensure that
participants answered the questions correctly. Given this information, I was very careful
to be clear when providing instructions on completing the LSI to the participants during
each initial one-on-one meeting. Five of the six participants completed the LSI correctly
the first time. One participant needed to repeat it and was successful on that attempt. The
time delay between the instructions and completion of the LSI was possibly a factor
contributing to this occurrence.
I purchased copies of the LSI, Version 3.1 from the distributor for use in this
research. This allowed me to provide a LSI interpretive booklet to each participant. I
scored the LSI following the instructions provided by the distributor. Four primary
scores, one for each of the learning modes, concrete experience, reflective observation,
abstract conceptualization and active experimentation, were calculated. These scores
measured ―an individual‘s relative emphasis on the four learning orientations‖ (A. Y.
Kolb & Kolb, 2005b, p. 12). The two combination scores which ―measure an individual‘s
preference for abstractness over concreteness (abstract conceptualization – concrete
85
experience) and action over reflection (active experimentation – reflective observation)‖
(A. Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2005b, p. 12) were then calculated as per the directions. The
calculation of these scores was completed by simple addition and subtraction; however, I
had a colleague verify my calculations to ensure accuracy. These scores were then plotted
on the Learning Style Type Grid provided by the distributor to identify each participant‘s
preferred learning style.
Participants involved in the research study completed the LSI after they
completed the Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire. I was concerned that if they
completed the LSI first it might influence their answers on the questionnaire. The
students were not exposed to the concept of learning styles in the program curriculum
prior to this research study and the participants confirmed that this was their first
introduction to the idea of learning styles. Asking them to complete the LSI and then
subsequently completing the Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire might have
resulted in an unconscious connection between the two resulting in an influence on the
answers to the questionnaire. I shared each participant‘s results on the LSI with her or
him at the conclusion of the one-on-one interview with me and provided them with a
copy of the LSI interpretive booklet.
LSI Analysis: In order to examine the relationship between participants‘ learning
styles and transfer of learning I compared the participant‘s preferred learning style with
the results of the Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaires and cooperative education
work term documentation analysis, the themes and categories developed from the
interview transcripts, as well as the enablers and barriers to transfer of learning that I
derived from the interview transcripts.
86
Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire
The Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire provided the means for the
students to identify the classroom learning that they used in the cooperative education
workplace. I developed this questionnaire from the learning outcomes for all of the
courses that the students took prior to the second cooperative education work term, that
is, Semesters 01 to 05. In some cases several CLOs were collapsed together to more
accurately reflect what the students may do in the cooperative education experience. The
questionnaire was then vetted by the program coordinator. Students were asked to
respond to each of the 134 CLOs included in the questionnaire by selecting one of the
following four responses: Do Not Recall Learning in my Course Work; No Opportunity
to Use in the 2nd
Co-op Workplace; Have Used at Least Once in the 2nd
Co-op
Workplace; or Used on at Least a Bi-weekly Basis in the 2nd
Co-op Workplace. These
frequencies of CLO use were finalized following the results of the pilot test of the
questionnaire with fourth-year students. They informed me that, for the CLOs that they
used the most, a frequency of bi-weekly was most appropriate. The questionnaire was
developed as a Microsoft Word form. The text was protected leaving only the fields to be
completed available for text entry. The response boxes ―checked‖ when they were
clicked on. The questionnaire took between 20 and 30 minutes to complete.
I conducted a pilot test with four students in the fourth year of the program
(Semester 08) to evaluate the Letter of Informed Consent and the questionnaire for clarity
and accessibility of data. I asked the students participating in the pilot to review and
critique the draft Letter of Informed Consent and complete and critique the draft Course
Learning Outcomes Questionnaire. When these were completed they provided written
87
feedback on both the documents and the process. No revisions to the Letter of Informed
Consent were recommended during the pilot test. All four of the students in the pilot test
stated that the questionnaire was clear and easy to use. The frequency of CLO use was
adjusted based on their feedback as described above. A suggestion for a minor revision to
the introduction of the questionnaire was incorporated before submitting applications for
ethics review to the college and the University of Toronto. One student in the pilot test
indicated that she/he found it helpful to have completed the questionnaire in that it helped
her/him to recognize just how much she/he used what she/he learned in the classroom
during the co-op experience. The final versions of the Letter of Informed Consent and the
Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire are included as Appendix D and Appendix E
respectively.
Participants in this research study were asked to complete the Course Learning
Outcomes Questionnaire independently late in Semester 06. I sent the questionnaire to
the study participants via email following a face-to-face meeting with each of them to
explain the research and obtain their informed consent. I asked them to complete it
electronically, save the results to a new file, and then return it to me by email. All
participants completed the questionnaire successfully.
Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire Analysis: Prior to analysis, I
categorized each CLO as either an application of concept or application of skill. My
categorization of the CLOs was validated by the program coordinator. The categorization
of CLOs was aligned with two of Kolb‘s four learning modes. Application of concepts
aligned with abstract conceptualization, and application of skills aligned with active
experimentation (D. A. Kolb, 1984). Individuals with assimilating and converging
88
learning styles have more of a tendency towards using abstract conceptualization
(thinking), while individuals with accommodating and converging learning styles have
more of a tendency toward active experimentation (doing) (refer to Figure 2).
I analyzed the responses on each completed questionnaire. Each individual
student‘s results were examined to determine whether one type of CLO was used more
frequently in the cooperative education workplace. This was followed by analysis related
to the student‘s preferred learning style as determined by the Learning Style Inventory
(LSI). These were reported in aggregate to protect student confidentiality.
I used Microsoft Excel to analyze the responses on the Course Learning
Outcomes Questionnaire to determine the extent to which the learning outcomes were
used in the cooperative education workplace. I calculated the frequency and per cent of
the use of the CLOs in the cooperative education workplace for all students. I then
examined these results by semester. This was followed by an analysis based on the type
of CLO and the learning style of the participants. Individual results were not reported to
protect participant confidentiality.
Cooperative Education Work Term Documentation
Documentation is an integral component of the cooperative education work term
experience in the Bachelor of Applied Business program. A retrospective examination of
the contents of these documents provided another source of information about the
knowledge and skills that students learned in the classroom and then transferred to the
workplace. This technique has been used by other researchers (Cates & Langford, 1999).
The information gathered from these documents was also used for triangulation.
89
The cooperative education work term documentation and the individual source for
each report are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4.
Cooperative Education Work Term Documentation
Cooperative Education Work Term
Documentation Person Completing the Documentation
Work Term Learning Plan Student in conjunction with employer supervisor
Work Term Progress Report Employer supervisor; student provides comments
Site Visit Report Cooperative Education Department staff member after
meeting with the student and the employer supervisor
(if available)
Employer Evaluation of the Student Employer supervisor; student provides comments
Final Work Term Report Student writes; employer reviews; program coordinator
evaluates
These documents had already been completed when the research study began. I
obtained copies of these documents from the Cooperative Education Department or the
program coordinator, depending on where they were retained, at the beginning of the
research study subsequent to obtaining the participants‘ agreement and signature on the
Letter of Informed Consent.
Cooperative Education Work Term Documentation Analysis: I coded the content
of each document against the predetermined CLOs used in the Course Learning
Outcomes Questionnaire, that is, the CLOs as articulated in the course outlines from
Semesters 01 to 05. Where participants used language similar to a CLO I recorded that
CLO as being referenced. Analysis of the number and type of CLOs identified was
conducted on the results of the coding. This information was compared to the results of
90
the Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire and the participant‘s preferred learning
style.
I coded the content of each co-op document to derive the enablers and barriers to
transfer of learning from the classroom to the co-op workplace described in these
documents by students. Students were not guided to describe enablers and barriers in the
instructions for completing each of these documents. I derived these from what the
students wrote. These detailed enablers and barriers are compared to the participant‘s
preferred learning style. I later compiled the specific enablers and barriers derived during
the coding exercise into summary statements of enablers and barriers to transfer of
learning from the classroom to the co-op workplace.
My coding of the cooperative education work term documentation was validated
by a faculty member who was familiar with the program but did not know the students in
the class being studied. I provided her with both verbal instructions and detailed written
audit guidelines outlining the steps that I followed in conducting the coding.
Course Outlines – Academic Semesters One to Five
Course outlines were in place for each course in the program. They described the
learning to be achieved by the students upon successful completion of each course. The
course outlines included a course description, a summary of the topics to be covered, the
learning outcomes to be achieved by the students by the end of the course, the learning
activities the student were to be engaged in during the course, and a description of how
the learning was to be evaluated. The college provided these documents to me for use in
this research study. They were another source of information for triangulation.
91
Course Outline Analysis: I conducted a content analysis on the course outlines for
the courses the students took prior to the second cooperative education work term,
Semesters 01 to 05, for two purposes. First, I looked for clear evidence of planned
linkages between classroom learning and the cooperative education work experience.
Second, I looked for potential opportunities that teachers could use to link classroom
learning to the cooperative education learning experience. This information was
compared to the analysis of the students‘ interview transcripts and the documentation
from the cooperative education workplace experience.
92
Interviews
Each participant was interviewed in a one-on-one interview at a time convenient
to them. Most chose a time in the evening, but one participant came to the college on her
lunch hour. I selected a neutral location at the college for the interviews—a meeting room
in a building that they had classes in on a regular basis. I developed the interview
protocol based on the themes that emerged from the content analysis of the Course
Learning Outcomes Questionnaire, cooperative education work term documentation, and
the course outlines. I also took the research questions into consideration. There are seven
questions in the protocol. The interview protocol is included as Appendix F. I reviewed
each student‘s results on the Learning Style Inventory with her or him at the conclusion
of the interview. Similar to my concern that completing the LSI before the Course
Learning Outcomes Questionnaire might influence those responses, so too was I
concerned that reporting their preferred learning style at the beginning of the interview
might influence their responses to the questions posed during the interview.
With the students‘ written consent, I audio recorded each interview and also took
notes during the interview. I had a verbatim transcript of each interview created from the
audio recording of the interview by a professional who signed a statement of
confidentiality. I provided each student with a copy of the transcript of his or her
interview and asked each of them to both validate the transcript and add any thoughts that
they might have.
Interview Analysis: I coded the transcripts of the interviews for the emergence of
themes including indications of transfer of learning, and reference to enablers and
barriers to the transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education
93
workplace. The themes identified were later developed into categories. These data were
then compared to the data collected using the other instruments to aid in triangulation and
to lead to the development of the discussion of the results and conclusions.
Summary – Data Analysis
The analysis of data from each of the instruments has been described here in
detail. In summary, the data were examined from several perspectives. The first
perspective was transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education
workplace in general, as well as related to the specific types of learning transferred from
the classroom to the cooperative education workplace. Within this perspective the
enablers and barriers to transfer of learning identified by the participants were explored.
The second perspective was the influence of learning styles on the transfer of learning
from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace. And the third perspective
was with respect to the curriculum and how it influences, or could influence, transfer of
learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace. The conclusions
drawn from each of these perspectives were valuable in and of themselves, but together
they contributed to addressing the research questions that guided this study.
Scope and Limitations of the Research
As with any case study, this one had defined parameters and boundaries. In
designing this research methodology I recognized that there were limitations that I
needed to acknowledge and mitigate to the extent possible.
In this section I give an overview of the potential usefulness of the results beyond
this sample. I discuss bias and describe the efforts that I went to in order to minimize this.
I also present the limitations of this research study.
94
Generalizability
I conducted this study using a purposive sample of students from one year of a
specific bachelor‘s degree program, a Bachelor of Applied Business in one Ontario
CAAT. This design meant that the findings were directly applicable only to this group of
students and possibly this case. However, the findings deepened the understanding of this
important curriculum question. I used rich, thick description when providing the details
of this case as recommended by Cresswell (1998). The reader should be able to examine
the descriptions in the case study, including the sample selection, design, and
methodology to determine how relevant the findings may be to his or her circumstances
and thus make decisions about their transferability. Johnson (1997), stated that ―typically,
generalizability is not the major purpose of qualitative research for two reasons. First,
random selection of participants is rare, and second, the documentation of a particular
circumstance is more often the goal‖ (p. 290). Both of these descriptors fit the case in this
research study. Stake (1990) referred to ―the expectation that audiences will make
naturalistic generalizations (i.e., extrapolations, applications, expectations based at least
partly on personal experiences) about this case to other individual cases‖ (p. 236). This
was what I hoped readers would be able to do with the results of this research.
Limitations
Cresswell (1998) suggested that one of the means used to assess the quality of
qualitative research is an examination of whether the researcher has made his or her own
subjectivity explicit. In this case, because I conducted this research in the institution
where I worked, this was particularly important. The ways that I addressed potential bias
are outlined here.
95
Bias
I was a member of the senior academic team at the college where I conducted the
research. I was responsible for quality assurance for all programs including the bachelor‘s
degree programs, curriculum integrity, articulation agreements, and up until
approximately five months prior to commencing the actual research for this study,
cooperative education. At that time responsibility for cooperative education was moved
to another administrator. I had no direct reporting responsibility for any faculty members
or students in the college, but rather acted solely in a resource capacity. This was an
important factor given that I conducted this research in my own college, with students as
research participants.
First, I needed to be sure that the students would feel able to respond as freely as
possible during this research. The students involved in the research had no contact with
me prior to the research other than possibly as a name on an organizational chart—and
the likelihood of them having seen that was minimal. A few students may have been
copied on emails sent to employers when verification of their program as a bachelor‘s
degree program was required. Where this might have been the case, I did not believe that
recognizing my name influenced their decision to participate in this research. It may have
increased my credibility in their eyes. It would have been unrealistic to assume that my
position as an administrator at the college had no effect; however, I did everything
possible to minimize the impact this might have had. Despite this effort I recognized that
I was an administrator at the college where the participants were students. By
emphasizing their anonymity, non-identifiability, and the confidentiality of their
responses my aim was to establish an atmosphere that would enable them to provide both
96
positive and negative comments freely. I acknowledged that some individuals do defer to
persons in positions of authority and I needed to be aware of this during my analysis of
the results.
A second and more important issue to consider was researcher bias. Did what I
knew about the program influence and/or affect how the research was conducted and how
the data were interpreted? My experience with the Bachelor of Applied Business program
was indirect. The college is a large comprehensive college with several campuses. The
first 13 of my 15 years working at the college were spent at one of the rural campuses
thus limiting my exposure to the programs and faculty at the main campus where the
program under study is located. I was not involved in the launching of this degree
program or the other degree programs offered at the college. Two years prior to
conducting the research study, I assumed my current position. In that time, I supervised
the submission of the documentation for the application to renew Ministerial consent for
the bachelor‘s degree programs at the college including the Bachelor of Applied of
Business program. As a result of that process, I worked closely with the program
coordinator and reviewed all of the course outlines for the program along with the many
other supporting documents required for that submission. The other program faculty
members worked with the program coordinator on the project so I was not involved in
interactions with them. Prior to beginning this research project I discussed my research
proposal with the program coordinator and he was excited about the possibilities that it
presented for the program and expressed no concerns about conflict given my position.
Our relationship was professional and this was maintained during the research.
97
Early on in my current position I had direct reporting responsibility for the
Cooperative Education Department at the college for the period of one year. This was
part of what stimulated my interest in this area of research. At that time there were three
full-time staff members in the department and one contract position: one manager, a
faculty member, a co-op consultant (the contract position) and a support staff person.
During that time, the Manager of the Cooperative Education Department reported to me;
the other three staff members reported to her. I had no contact with students during that
year in relation to cooperative education. Even though I had no contact with students, in
order to eliminate any concerns related to potential conflicts for the participants involved
in this research, the full responsibility for the Cooperative Education Department was
transferred to another administrator in the college as indicated earlier.
Given my ―distance‖ from the students in the organization, I did not believe that
the students felt that they must participate in the study, would benefit in some way
academically by participating, or would experience adverse consequences as a result of
not participating. In the informed consent process, which is described in detail later in
this chapter, I took care to inform the participants that they could withdraw from the
study at any time without explanation or penalty and that they were free not to answer
any questions they did not wish to answer. I also indicated that participation or non-
participation in the study would not affect their progress in the program at the time of the
research or in the future.
Objectivity
In searching the literature for answers regarding whether objectivity would be a
concern in this circumstance I came upon a relevant article by Eisner (1992). He
98
described being objective, or having an objective view, as seeing and telling it like it is
(p. 9). He argued that ―perception of the world is perception influenced by skill, point of
view, focus, language, and framework‖ (p. 11) and because of this, achieving true
objectivity is quite difficult. While I brought the knowledge of the Bachelor of Applied
Business program that I gleaned during the Ministerial consent renewal process to this
research, being aware of this in order to reduce subjectivity and increase objectivity was
most important. On the other hand, my knowledge of the program and of cooperative
education was of benefit during this research in that it assisted me to ask more informed
questions related to the goals of this study. This background and experience helped me to
focus on the key issues. As a result of this reality attempting to achieve complete
objectivity in this research was unrealistic.
Having said this, a degree of objectivity was still important. Reflexivity, as
described by Johnson (1997), was useful to assist me in increasing objectivity. Johnson
describes reflexivity as meaning that ―the researcher actively engages in critical self
reflection about his or her potential biases and predispositions…Through reflexivity,
researchers become more self aware, and they monitor and attempt to control their
biases‖ (p. 284). The use of reflexivity is evidenced above in the ―pre-work‖ done in
planning this research to ensure that even the potential for bias was addressed, for
example, reassignment of the full responsibility for the Cooperative Education
Department and recognition of my previous level of knowledge of the program.
Other Limitations
The time frame from the end of the second cooperative education work term
experience to the beginning of data collection was not ideal. Ideally the data collection
99
would have commenced very soon after the students began their next academic semester,
Semester 06, in order to ensure that participants‘ recall was not affected by the passage of
too much time. However, the research could not begin at that time as the required
approvals were not yet in place. Research began near the end of Academic Semester 06.
Participants did not appear to have, and did not report, difficulty remembering the details
of their second cooperative education work term experience.
Six of twenty-one eligible candidates participated in this research study. A larger
number of participants would have provided a broader perspective on the research
question in general and an examination of the influence of learning styles in particular.
That being said, the research design allowed for in-depth examination of the research data
from the participants providing a perspective not revealed previously.
Ethical Considerations
Respecting confidentiality and disclosing, or not, as appropriate to the research,
are important ethical considerations in any research (Cresswell, 1998). As indicated
previously, participants in this study were provided with a Letter of Informed Consent
(Appendix D). This letter outlined the research in detail including the purpose of the
study and their role as participants. At my initial meeting with each participant I
discussed the contents of the Informed Letter of Consent with the participant to be sure
that she or he understood. I stressed to each participant that there were no anticipated
present or future risks to them in participating in this research study. The potential benefit
to them was that they would learn what their preferred learning style is and how knowing
this could influence their learning. I stressed that their participation was voluntary and
that they could withdraw from the study at any point in the research or not answer some
100
or all of the questions without consequence. I made it very clear that their decision, one
way or the other, to participate in the research study would have no impact on their
progress in the program.
In order to protect confidentiality individual profiles and details about where they
worked during co-op were not collected or reported. The participants felt that because
they were part of such a small class these details could allow their identities to be
determined. I replaced the students‘ names with numbers on all documents as soon as
they were received. With written approval from the students, transcription of audio tapes
was done by a professional who signed a statement of confidentiality. Aggregate
reporting of data and using numerical identifiers on quotes from participants and in
reporting individual data were used in reporting results. In accordance with my
agreement with the participants, every effort was made to ensure that individuals were
not identifiable in any reporting of the findings.
I analyzed the data and wrote this dissertation in my home. This necessitated extra
caution in safeguarding confidential information. The master key of students‘ names to
number identifiers was stored in password-protected electronic files on my laptop. Only I
had access to them. Original documents were received and stored at the college in a
locked cabinet. There was no need for me to transport any original hard copy documents
with students‘ names on them. Any electronic material containing students‘ information
was stored in password-protected files on my computer. In addition, access to my
computer was password protected and I was the only one with access. Hard copy
documents containing confidential information related to this research were kept in a
locked filing cabinet in my home and I safeguarded the key. Audio tapes were stored in
101
the same cabinet. All electronic files, audio tapes and hard copy documents were to be
destroyed by deleting or shredding, as appropriate to the media within two years after the
successful defense of this dissertation.
During discussions with potential participants, I conveyed these arrangements to
maintain confidentiality and security of the data and reinforced that individuals would not
be identifiable in any reporting of the findings.
Chapter Summary
A purposive convenience sample of six students from the third-year class, in the
sixth academic semester, of the Bachelor of Applied Business program at a large
comprehensive multi-campus CAAT in Ontario was selected to conduct this research.
Case study methodology that included both qualitative and quantitative research tools
was used. The data collected from the participants in this case study to examine the
transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace and the
influence of learning styles on this transfer of learning in this group of students were
analyzed in two iterations. The data collected from the Course Learning Outcomes
Questionnaire, the LSI, the five cooperative education work term documents, and the
review of the course outlines were analyzed first. This analysis was used to develop the
protocol for the interviews with the participants.
A one-on-one interview was completed with each of the participants. At the
conclusion of the interview the participant‘s preferred learning style, as determined by
the LSI, was shared with her or him. The validated verbatim transcripts of the interviews
were coded for the emergence of themes and evidence of enhancers and barriers to
transfer of learning. The themes were then collapsed into categories. The data from the
102
Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire, the cooperative education work term
documentation, the themes and categories, and the enhancers and barriers to transfer of
learning that emerged from the coding of the interview transcripts were compared to one
another for triangulation purposes. These data were also compared to the participants‘
preferred learning styles.
The results, the data developed from all of the data collection tools and
instruments are presented in chapter 4. The analyses of the data, presented as responses to
each of the research questions are also included in chapter 4.
103
CHAPTER 4 – PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS
This research study examined the transfer of learning from the classroom to the
cooperative education workplace and the relationship of students‘ learning styles to this
transfer of learning. A Bachelor of Applied Business program at a large comprehensive
College of Applied Arts and Technology (CAAT) in Ontario was the site for this
research. A purposive convenience sample of six students from the third-year class, in the
sixth academic semester in this program served as the case studied. The mandatory nature
of the cooperative education work experience in this relatively new type of degree
program in Ontario provided some of the impetus to examine transfer of learning in this
context. Kolb‘s (1984) theory of experiential learning and the learning styles he described
were used as the theoretical framework for this research.
The four research questions for this study pertained to the extent of transfer of
learning and the relationship between the students‘ learning styles and the transfer of
learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace in the Bachelor of
Applied Business program. The specific research questions used were:
1. What is the extent of transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative
education workplace in the Bachelor of Applied Business program?
2. What are the differences in the types of learning outcomes that students with
differing learning styles transfer from the classroom to the cooperative education
workplace?
104
3. What are the enablers and barriers to transfer of learning identified by the
students? Are there differences in enablers and/or barriers depending on the
student‘s learning style?
4. What planned learning is in place in the program‘s curriculum to promote transfer
of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace?
This chapter is divided into two parts. In the first part I present the research
findings. I do this by presenting the data and information gathered through each of the
research instruments and methods used in this study. Throughout the presentation of the
findings the data are presented in the text of the chapter, along with tables that summarize
the detail, and greater detail is included in appendices. These are referenced throughout
the chapter.
The second part of the chapter is my analysis of the research findings. This
analysis is conducted by addressing the four specific research questions. Conclusions
drawn from the presentation of the findings will be brought together in chapter 5.
The Participants
The 24 students in the third-year class, in the sixth academic semester, in a
Bachelor of Applied Business program at a large comprehensive College of Applied Arts
and Technology in Ontario were invited to participate in this research study. In order to
be eligible respondents needed to have completed their second cooperative education
work term experience. I determined that 3 of the 24 students were not eligible because
they had not yet completed their second co-op experience. Seven students responded to
the email invitation to participate; one student was not eligible. This represented a 28.6%
response rate (6 of 21 eligible students). In the sample there were two female and four
105
male participants. Background information on these students and their co-op workplace
was not collected because revealing this could have resulted in their identities being
determined. This effort to ensure non-identifiability also precluded comparisons being
made between the sample and the class itself. The six participants completed all
components of the research.
Presentation of Findings
In this section I present the findings from each of the instruments and methods
used in this research study. The results from the Learning Style Inventory (LSI) are
presented first, followed by the Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire. I then present
the information generated from the five cooperative education documents. I conclude the
presentation of the findings with a summary of the themes and categories developed from
the interviews.
For the most part findings are presented in aggregate form in order to protect the
participants‘ identity. When individual data are reported this is done in such a way as to
ensure non-identifiability. Other than minor grammatical corrections, the participants‘
comments are stated in their own words.
Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory
Each participant completed the Kolb Learning Style Inventory (LSI) Version 3.1
(D. A. Kolb, 2005). I met with each participant individually, provided them with an
overview of experiential learning theory and instructions on how to complete the LSI. All
participants returned the survey to me either in the stamped self-addressed envelope or by
fax. One participant completed it incorrectly; however he did it over again and
resubmitted it to me. I scored each of the inventories according to the instructions
106
provided by the distributor. At the conclusion of the interview I shared the results of the
LSI with each participant and gave each of them a copy of the LSI interpretive booklet to
take with them.
The distribution of the participants‘ learning styles is outlined in Table 5. A
discussion of the distribution is presented in the analysis section of this chapter.
Table 5.
Participants’ learning styles
Learning Style
Diverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating
Number of
participants 0 2 0 4
Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire
The Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire, included as Appendix E, is an
instrument that I developed. It is comprised of 134 course learning outcomes (CLOs) that
are representative of the learning in the first five academic semesters in the program.
Participants were asked to read each CLO and then identify whether not he or she used
the outcome during the second cooperative education work experience. There are four
response options for each CLO: do not recall learning in my course work; no opportunity
to use in the second co-op workplace; have used at least once in the second co-op
workplace; and, used on at least a biweekly basis in the second co-op workplace.
Each CLO in the questionnaire was examined and identified as either an
application of concept outcome or an application of skill outcome. My classification of
107
the CLOs was validated by the program coordinator. The validation process was
described in detail in chapter 3. Of the 134 CLOs included in the questionnaire, 90 are
application of concept outcomes and 44 are application of skill outcomes. That almost
one third (32.8%) of the CLOs are application of skill outcomes supports the curriculum
direction of the bachelor‘s degrees in applied areas of study to provide opportunities for
practical, applied learning (PEQAB, 2006b).
I compiled the participant responses to the Course Learning Outcomes
Questionnaire and analyzed them in two ways, first as a group and then grouped by
learning style. I present the findings in that order. Appendix G, Questionnaire Response
Frequency Tables and Bar Graphs, presents the frequency data for the responses on the
Questionnaire for the three groups examined, that is, all participants, all assimilating
learning style participants, and all accommodating learning style participants.
The first review of the Questionnaire was for frequency of CLO use. Appendix H
summarizes the frequency data from the questionnaire to show how many of the CLOs
were reported as being used by at least one participant, ―used at least once‖ or ―used
regularly‖ by all participants, used by the majority of participants, that is, at least four of
the six participants, and the CLOs for which all participants reported having no
opportunity to use in the cooperative education workplace. Each CLO was placed in one
of these four categories. This information is compiled in Table 6, which also displays the
breakdown of CLOs between application of concept outcomes and application of skill
outcomes. The distribution of these CLOs across the semesters is presented in Table 7.
Eleven (8.2%) of the CLOs were reported as being used by all participants during
their cooperative education workplace experience. These CLOs described technical and
108
communication skills. Two CLOs were application of concept. All but one of them were
found in course outlines from the first semester in the program.
Twenty-six (19.4%) of the CLOs were used by the majority of participants (at
least 4 of 6 participants). There were more than twice as many application of concept
CLOs (19 or 14.2%) than application of skill CLOs (7 or 5.2%) in this grouping. The
CLOs reported in this grouping were related to the fundamentals of supply chain
management, project management, ethical practices, report writing and presenting, e-
business concepts, legal perspectives, and using reporting tools in SAP5. Close to 70%
(18 of 26) of these were from the first two semesters of the program (see Table 7).
Table 6.
CLOs reported as used in co-op on questionnaire
Total
CLOs Used*
Course Learning Outcome Types
Application of Concept Application of Skill
Total CLOs 134 (100%) 90 (67.2%) 44 (32.8%)
CLO ―Used at Least Once‖ or ―Used
Regularly‖ by all participants
11 (8.2%) 2 (1.5%) 9 (6.7%)
CLO use reported by majority (at
least 4 of 6) of participants
26 (19.4%) 19 (14.2%) 7 (5.2%)
CLO use reported by at least one
participant
62 (46.3%) 44 (33.8%) 18 (13.4%)
Total CLOs reported used 99 (73.9%) 65 (48.5%) 34 (25.4%)
―No Opportunity‖ to use CLO
reported by all participants
35 (26.1%) 25 (18.7%) 10 (7.5%)
*Use reported only once per CLO
Sixty-two (46.3%) of the CLOs were reported as being used by at least one
participant (some of these were used by up to three participants). These CLOs were
5 SAP is one of the supply chain management business process software programs used in this program.
109
predominantly application of concept outcomes (44 or 32.8% vs. 18 or 13.4%) and are
concentrated in Semester 03 and Semester 04 (see Table 7). These CLOs relate to more
specific areas of knowledge in the program such as inventory, procurement, process
improvement, system implementation, marketing, and forecasting, among others.
There were 35 (26.1%) CLOs that all of the participants reported having no
opportunity to use. Two-and-a-half times as many of these were application of concept
outcomes compared to application of skill outcomes (25 or 18.7% vs. 10 or 7.5%). Half
of the learning outcomes that participants did not have an opportunity to use were from
courses offered in Semester 05 of the program. Except for one CLO, the others were from
Semesters 03 and 04 (see Table 7). This pattern of higher use of CLOs from the earlier
semesters is of note and is discussed in the analysis section of this chapter.
Table 7.
CLOs reported as used in co-op on questionnaire by semester
Total
CLOs
Semester
01 02 03 04 05
Total CLOs in the semester 134
(100%)
26
(19.4%)
19
(14.2%)
37
(27.6%)
28
(20.9%)
24
(17.9%)
CLO ―Used at Least Once‖ or ―Used
Regularly‖ by all participants 11
(8.2%)
10
(7.5%)
1
(0.7%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
CLO use reported by majority (at least 4 of 6) of participants
26
(19.4%)
8
(6.0%)
10
(7.5%)
3
(2.2%)
4
(3.0%)
1
(0.7%)
CLO use reported by at least one
participant 62
(46.3%)
8
(6.0%)
7
(5.2%)
24
(17.9%)
17
(12.7%)
6
(4.5%)
Total CLOs reported used 99
(73.9%)
26
(19.4%)
18
(13.4%)
27
(20.1%)
21
(15.8%)
7
(5.2%)
―No Opportunity‖ to use CLO reported by all participants
35
(26.1%)
0
(0.0%)
1
(0.7%)
10
(7.5%)
7
(5.2%)
17
(12.7%)
110
There were very few responses indicating ―Do Not Recall Learning in my Course
Work‖ on the questionnaire. Four CLOs were reported in this category by single
respondents. These CLOs are quite varied. They are:
9. Use the principles and theories of financial accounting (Semester 01);
24. Implement the ethics and social responsibility paradigms in relation to
business and human resource management (Semester 01);
39. Use characteristics and functions of common report formats (Semester
02); and,
62. Organize and present data, by constructing graphs, charts, frequency
distributions, and histograms (Semester 03).
The fifth CLO in this category was identified by three respondents:
30. Use the SDLC6 process (Semester 02).
These CLOs were spread across the first three semesters. This information was curious;
however, I was unable to explain these responses based on the other data collected. I
verified that these CLOs were referenced in the course outlines. That some of the
participants provided a response regarding use of these CLOs indicates that they may
have been taught in class. It is possible that participants had exemptions in courses
related to this material and therefore didn‘t study it in this program or perhaps they were
absent when it was taught.
When looked at in the aggregate, almost 74% (99) of the CLOs from the courses
taken prior to the second cooperative education work experience were reported as being
used by the participants. The participants reported having no opportunity to use the
learning represented by the remaining 26% (35) of the CLOs.
6 SDLC: System Development Life Cycle
111
Wilson and Lyon (1961), in the first comprehensive study of co-operative
education, concluded that ―the cooperative experience provides meaningful opportunities
for the student to see the relevance of theory to practical situations and affords him
opportunities to practice making applications‖ (p. 155). The findings of my research lend
support to the second half of their conclusion, that is, that co-op provides opportunities to
practice. One quarter (34 or 25.4%) of the CLOs reported as used by the participants in
their cooperative education workplace experience were application of skill CLOs. Use of
an application of skill CLO was indicative of an opportunity to practice.
Examining the CLOs reported as used by the participants on the Course Learning
Outcomes Questionnaire with the added perspective of participants‘ learning styles
revealed very little difference between the two learning style groups. I looked at two of
the categories of CLOs with this lens by adding the groupings of ―only all assimilating
learning style participants‖ and ―only all accommodating learning style participants‖ to
the analysis. I then compared the number of CLOs identified by each group and
determined the semester of the program that they fell in. The categories of CLOs
examined were ―all participants reported using CLOs‖ and ―all participants reported no
opportunity to use CLOs.‖ I did not examine the ―use of CLOs reported by majority of
participants‖ category or the ―use of CLOs reported by at least one participant‖ category
because of the small numbers in the learning style groups.
I first looked at each CLO and identified those that all participants in both
learning style groups used, those that only all assimilating learning style participants
used, and those that only all accommodating learning style participants used. The results
of this review are presented in detail in Appendix I and summarized in Table 8. There
112
were 11 CLOs used by all participants in both learning style groups. There were no CLOs
used only by all assimilating learning style participants. One CLO was used only by all
accommodating learning style participants: 80. Define solution requirements in a clear
concise and unambiguous manner, from Semester 03. It was from a Semester 03 course
(see Table 8). It was possible that the small sample size contributed to this finding. It was
also possible that the co-op workplace experiences had a degree of similarity to them
such that the participants had similar opportunities. This is something that could be
explored further in future research.
Table 8.
Number of CLOs reported as used on questionnaire by learning style
Semester
Number of CLOs
Used by Both
Learning Style
Groups
N=6
Used Only By All
Assimilating
Participants
n=2
Used Only By All
Accommodating
Participants
n=4
01 10 0 0
02 1 0 0
03 0 0 1
04 0 0 0
05 0 0 0
Total 11 0 1
I reviewed the responses from the Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire on
the ―no opportunity to use learning in 2nd
co-op work term‖ option for the same three
groups: all participants, only all assimilating learning style participants, and only all
113
accommodating learning style participants. The overall results of this review are
presented in Appendix J and are summarized in Table 9. All participants in both learning
style groups reported no opportunity to use 35 CLOs. The comparison of CLOs reported
as ―no opportunity to use‖ between the assimilating and accommodating learning style
groups also revealed little difference between the two. Only one CLO was reported as no
opportunity to use by the ―only all assimilating learning style participants‖ group. It was
the same CLO that all accommodating learning style participants reported using: 80.
Define solution requirements in a clear concise and unambiguous manner. This CLO was
from a Semester 03 course. No CLOs were reported as no opportunity to use by the ―only
all accommodating learning style participants‖ group.
Table 9.
Number of CLOs reported as no opportunity to use on questionnaire by learning style
Semester
Number of CLOs
No Opportunity to Use
For Both Learning Style
Groups
N=6
No Opportunity to Use
For Only All
Assimilating
Participants
n=2
No Opportunity to Use
For Only All
Accommodating
Participants
n=4
01 0 0 0
02 1 0 0
03 10 1 0
04 7 0 0
05 17 0 0
Total 35 1 0
114
Based on these findings there appeared to be little difference between the two
groups with respect to the CLOs used and not used by the groups based on learning style.
Cooperative Education Work Term Documentation
Documentation is an important component of the cooperative education work
term experience in this program. Documentation is one of the principal factors that sets
the cooperative education work term experience apart from other jobs that students might
have had. It is intended to both guide and document the learning experience during co-op.
There are five separate documents to be completed by the students before, during and
after the cooperative education work term experience at this college. A summary of the
cooperative education documents, who was responsible to complete them, and when they
were to be completed is presented in Table 10.
Table 10.
Cooperative education work term documentation
Document Person Completing the
Documentation
Timeline for Completion
Work Term Learning Plan Student in conjunction with employer
supervisor
Within first two weeks of co-op
experience
Work Term Progress Report Employer supervisor; student provides
comments
At approximately the mid-point in the
semester
Site Visit Report College cooperative education
department staff member
Following the site visit which occurs
during the semester
Employer Evaluation of the
Student
Employer supervisor; student provides
comments
At the conclusion of the co-op work
term experience
Final Work Term Report Student writes; employer supervisor
reviews; program coordinator
evaluates
At the conclusion of the co-op work
term experience
115
I examined the cooperative education documents in two stages using the process
of coding, first for evidence of the predetermined CLOs, and then for what I determined
to be participants‘ descriptions of circumstances that were enablers and/or barriers to
transfer of learning. I later developed summary statements to represent the enablers and
barriers that I derived from the students‘ documents. In presenting the results of the
coding of the cooperative education documentation the students‘ learning styles are
included.
The coding process I used to develop the data from the cooperative education
documentation is described in detail in chapter 3. My coding of the cooperative education
documents was validated by a faculty member who was familiar with the Bachelor of
Applied Business program curriculum but who had no interactions with the students who
participated in this case study. The process used to validate the coding is also described in
detail in chapter 3.
In the next sections I provide a brief overview of each of the cooperative
education documents and present the findings obtained.
Work Term Learning Plan
At the beginning of the cooperative education work term experience each student
develops a work term learning plan. He or she develops learning objectives in four
employability skill areas: (1) communication, thinking and learning; (2) personal
management; (3) teamwork; and, (4) technical skills. The plan was reviewed by the
student‘s employer supervisor and signed by both the student and the employer
supervisor.
116
The number of objectives developed in each category by the study participants
was quite variable. It ranged from a low of one objective in a given category to a high of
12 objectives in a category. The total number of objectives in the participants‘ work term
learning plans ranged from 7 to 29.
Students were not guided to refer to CLOs in the development of their objectives.
However, in coding the participants‘ learning objectives for evidence of the prescribed
CLOs from the courses taken prior to the second co-op experience I was able to identify
clear links. I did not look for exactly the same language as the CLOs but rather for either
similar intent or for elements of a CLO. I reviewed each of the participants‘ work term
learning objectives, identified the CLO(s) that linked to them and noted the participants‘
learning styles. The results of this review are included in Appendix K. The participants‘
learning objectives were linked to 31 (23.1%) of 134 CLOs. Fourteen of these were
application of concept outcomes and 17 were application of skill outcomes. Table 11
provides some examples of the links I identified between the learning objectives
developed by the participants in their work term learning plans and the CLOs.
I also coded the work term learning plans for participants‘ descriptions of enablers
and/or barriers to transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative workplace. I
derived the specific enablers and barriers to transfer of learning from the participants‘
descriptions of situations and experiences contained in the work term learning plans. I
found the enabler I described as ―planning to use knowledge and skills learned in the
classroom‖ in all of the participants‘ work term learning plans. No barriers were
identified in this document for any of the participants. A summary of the enablers and
barriers to transfer of learning found in the cooperative education documentation is
117
provided later in Table 13. The learning style of the participant(s) associated with each
enabler or barrier to transfer of learning is also provided.
118
Table 11.
Examples of CLOs linked to students’ co-op learning objectives
Category Student‘s Learning Objective Course Learning Outcome
Communication,
Thinking and Learning
Learn and utilize standard business communication practices for e-mail and
telephone messages; teleconferencing and
participate during meetings.
18. Write clear and concise business and technical documents that conform to professional standards
for content, style, organization and mechanics.
19. Demonstrate effective use of technology as a communication tool.
Manage communication during the bid solicitation process.
84. Use competitive bidding to determine price.
Improve ability to work across teams to develop
Integrated Project Plan.
106. Use Project Management methodology,
practices, tools and techniques.
Personal Management Improve goal oriented approach to each
procurement file, and learn how to set up
priorities in a fast paced environment.
21. Develop strategies for personal, academic,
and professional development and management,
to enhance performance, and maximize career opportunities.
22. Use the management concepts of planning,
organizing, leading, and controlling.
Consistently exhibit integrity on a day-to-day
basis in decision-making and dealings with
clients.
90. Use ethical practices.
Team Work Establish myself as a reliable team member who
can be relied on to provide a high standard of
work when completing tasks.
36. Effectively collaborate and support team
projects in ways that contribute to effective
working relationships with others and the achievement of key objectives.
To process client requirements and provide
support and administration for existing contracts.
87. Use current practices for the purchase of
services.
Manage the evaluation and assessment process
ensuring that detailed and summary documentation is provided and signed off by the
evaluators.
85. Use the purchasing process to evaluate and
select suppliers.
126. Use key processes in systematic public
sector procurement.
18. Write clear and concise business and technical documents that conform to professional standards
for content, style, organization and mechanics.
Technical Skills Become proficient at using SAP for my tasks. 96. Use reporting tools to prepare reports from SAP or another ERP system.
Build on my SAP skills by creating purchase
orders, card documents, reports and Call-ups.
129. Run Client transactions (examples are
purchasing orders, sales orders).
Development of a Bid Evaluation and
Contractor Selection Methodology.
85. Use the purchasing process to evaluate and
select suppliers.
119
Work Term Progress Report
The work term progress report is a one-page form that included several items to
be rated by the student and the employer supervisor, as well as allowing for student and
employer supervisor comments in several areas. This is completed at approximately the
mid-point in the work term. The student is asked to describe the work environment and
duties, the technical skills used, the skills developed, whether the job was as it was
described, whether the job met his or her expectations, state progress toward learning
objectives, and identify program/work term recommendations. The employer section
includes rating the student on a three-point scale on his or her interest, initiative, quality
of work, quantity of work, dependability/punctuality, and compatibility. They are also
asked to include general comments and program/work term recommendations.
Participants‘ work term progress reports were fairly brief for the most part. I
coded the narrative in each participant‘s work term progress report for evidence of
linkage to the predetermined CLOs. In the six work term progress reports, I found
evidence of 25 individual CLOs in total in this review; 15 were application of concept
outcomes and 10 were application of skill outcomes. Seven of these CLOs were different
from those identified in the review of the participants‘ work term learning plans. The
details of these findings, including the participants‘ learning styles are presented in
Appendix K.
I then coded the work term progress reports for participants‘ descriptions of
conditions that could be enablers and/or barriers to transfer of learning from the
classroom to the cooperative education workplace. Two enablers to transfer of learning
were identified. I found evidence of an enabler I describe as ―using knowledge and skills
120
learned in the classroom‖ in all six participants‘ work term progress reports. One
participant also described how important it was to have been provided a range of
interesting and challenging opportunities to use what had been learned in the classroom
during the co-op experience. A summary of the enablers and barriers to transfer of
learning I identified in the cooperative education documentation is provided later in Table
13. The learning style of the participant(s) associated with each enabler or barrier to
transfer of learning is also provided.
Site Visit Report
The site visit report is a narrative summary of the cooperative education
department staff member‘s assessment of the student‘s performance at that point in the
cooperative education work term experience. It also includes a summary of the employer
supervisor‘s comments, if he or she is available for the co-op staff member to consult
with during the visit, as well as a summary of the student‘s comments. The site visit
occurs at about mid-point in the work term. The exact timing of the site visit is dependent
on the number of students out on co-op in a given semester.
The site visit report for each of the participants was coded for evidence of the
predetermined CLOs. The CLOs identified were compared to the participants‘ work term
learning plans. In total, links to 19 separate CLOs were identified in the six participants‘
site visit reports. Thirteen were application of concept outcomes and six were application
of skill outcomes. None of the CLOs was identified for all participants. Three of the 19
CLOs were not evident in the students‘ work term learning plans (see Appendix K).
121
I coded the site visit reports for participants‘ descriptions of enablers and/or
barriers to transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education
workplace. None were identified in this document for any of the participants.
Employer Evaluation
The employer evaluation is completed by the employer supervisor at the
conclusion of the cooperative education work term and is discussed with the student. The
employer supervisor rates the student‘s performance on a four- or five-point scale,
depending on the item, on his or her interest in work, initiative, planning and
organization, and ability to learn, quality of work, quantity of work, judgment,
dependability, relations with others, creativity, and written and oral communication skills.
Rating of the student on a two-point scale is completed regarding acceptance of criticism
and suggestions, grooming, attendance, and punctuality. The student‘s major strengths
are identified, as are his or her areas for improvement. The employer supervisor is given
the opportunity to grade the overall performance on a scale of A to F and to indicate
whether he or she would consider hiring the student in a similar type of
responsibility/setting if such were available. The evaluation is signed by both the
supervisor and the student, attached to the final work term report, and submitted by the
student to the college for review.
I coded the employer supervisors‘ evaluations of the six participants and found
evidence of links to 6 of the predetermined CLOs; 3 application of concept outcomes and
3 application of skill outcomes (see Appendix K). One of these CLOs was not identified
in the participants‘ work term learning plans.
122
I coded the employer supervisors‘ evaluations for descriptions of enablers and/or
barriers to transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education
workplace. I found evidence of one enabler of transfer of learning in one participant‘s
employer supervisor evaluation: ―using knowledge and skills learned in the classroom.‖
A summary of my descriptions of the enablers and barriers to transfer of learning found
in the cooperative education documentation is included later in Table 13. The learning
style of the participant associated with each enabler or barrier to transfer of learning is
also provided.
Work Term Report
The final piece of required documentation in the cooperative education work term
experience is the work term report. The purpose of the work term report was to provide
an opportunity for the student to integrate theoretical concepts and practical experience,
review their progress against their work term learning objectives, and clarify future
learning objectives and career goals ("Cooperative education: Student info - Current co-
op students," 2008). Students are provided with general guidelines to complete the report
which includes an outline of the report. These guidelines do not specifically encourage
students to refer to their course outlines or to use CLOs when writing the report. Once the
report is completed, the student submits it to his or her employer supervisor. The
employer supervisor reviews it and indicates whether or not it is a true representation of
the student‘s work experience. The program faculty member then reviews the work term
report and the other co-op documentation and awards either a pass or fail grade for the
cooperative education workplace experience.
123
I coded each participant‘s work term report for use of language that provided
evidence, both explicit and implicit, of links to the predetermined CLOs. In reporting on
their workplace experience participants unintentionally referred to the learning from class
that they used in the workplace. I found 30 CLOs. Nine of these were not evident in the
work term learning plans. Twenty of the 30 were application of concept outcomes and 10
of the 30 were application of skill outcomes. This information is included in Appendix K
and is discussed later in this chapter. The participants‘ learning styles linked to the
outcomes were reviewed as well.
Table 12 provides a summary of the number of CLOs I identified in the
cooperative education documents, the split between application of concept outcomes and
application of skill outcomes, and the number of CLOs that participants had not referred
to in the their work term learning plans.
Table 12.
Number and type of CLOs in cooperative education documentation
Cooperative
Education Document
Total Number
of CLOs
Identified
Type of CLO Number of CLOs Different from
Work Term Learning Plan CLOs*
Application of Concept
Application of Skill
Total Different
Application of Concept
Application of Skill
Work Term Learning
Plan
31 14 17 n.a.** n.a. n.a.
Work Term Progress
Report
25 15 10 7 6 1
Site Visit Report 19 13 6 3 3 0
Employer Evaluation 6 3 3 1 1 0
Work Term Report 30 20 10 9 8 1
Total CLOs Different from Work Term Learning Plan*** 14 12 2
*CLO counted only once even if identified in multiple participants‘ documents
**n.a.: not applicable
***some CLOs appear in multiple co-op documents but are only counted once
124
I also coded the participants‘ work term reports for language that identified
enablers and/or barriers to transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative
education workplace. I derived descriptions of enablers and barriers to transfer of
learning from the text in the participants‘ reports. I found a variety of enablers and
barriers in these documents. A couple of these were referred to by more than one student
but the majority related to a circumstance or characteristic of the individual‘s cooperative
education work term experience. A summary of the enablers and barriers to transfer of
learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace found in the
participants‘ cooperative education documentation is provided in Table 13. The learning
style of the participant(s) associated with each enabler or barrier to transfer of learning is
also provided.
125
Table 13.
Enablers and barriers to transfer of learning found in co-op documentation
Enablers and Barriers to
Transfer of Learning
Number of Participants Reporting in Cooperative Education
Documentation1 N=6
Participant‘s Learning
Style2 N=6
Work Term Learning
Plan
Work Term Progress
Report
Site Visit
Report
Employer
Evaluation
Work Term
Report
Assim.*
n=2
Accom.**
n=4
Enablers -
Planning to use knowledge
and skills learned in the
classroom 6 - - - - 2 4
Having opportunities to use
knowledge and skills related
to classroom learning
- 6 1 1 4 2 4
Supervisor providing
interesting and important
work related to program
- 1 - - 3 1 2
Applying concepts learned in
the classroom to a practical
situation
- - - - 1 1 0
Participating in training that
builds on knowledge and
skills learned in the classroom
- - - - 2 1 1
Challenging learning
experiences - - - - 2 0 2
A wide variety of learning
experiences - - - - 1 0 1
Having supervisor‘s trust
and confidence - - - - 1 0 1
Positive change is self-
perception - - - - 1 0 1
Barriers
Receiving an ineffective
orientation to the work unit and responsibilities of the
position
- - - - 1 0 1
Reorganization creating confusion which resulted in
work delays
- - - - 1 0 1
Supervisory change resulting in insufficient work to
continue to be challenged
- - - - 1 1 0
Poorly functioning systems preventing use
- - - - 1 0 1
Having to negotiate with HR
for appropriate remuneration - - - - 2 1 1
1An enabler or barrier to transfer of learning is counted in each document for each student if evidence is found in the documents;
repeat evidence of a particular enabler or barrier within the same document is counted only once 2Where an enabler or barrier to transfer of learning is found in more than one co-op document the students‘ learning style is only recorded once
* Assimilating Learning Style
**Accommodating Learning Style
126
Course Outlines
Course outlines documented the curriculum for each course. Each course outline
includes the following information: course description, course learning outcomes,
embedded knowledge and skills7, learning resources, teaching/learning methods, learning
activities and assessment, evaluation and earning credit, as well as relevant course and
college policies. Course outlines for the courses taught prior to the second cooperative
education work term, that is, the first five of eight academic semesters in the program,
were provided to me by the college.
I reviewed each course outline for evidence of planned learning experiences to
connect classroom learning with the cooperative education work term experience. In
addition I looked for potential opportunities to include learning from or about the
cooperative education work term experience. This was a two-fold review: first, for an
actual indication of the use of cooperative education experiences in support of classroom
learning, and second for the potential to use/include cooperative education experiences in
support of classroom learning.
In my review of academic course outlines for evidence of links between the
classroom and the cooperative education experience only one link was identified. The
only instance where the cooperative education experience is mentioned in a course
outline is in the Co-op Preparation course outline. This course is designed to assist
students in preparing for the co-op work term as evidenced in the course description:
7 Embedded Knowledge and Skills: The embedded knowledge and skills in course outlines describe the key
concepts and skills which will be addressed in the course to help students achieve the course learning
outcomes. Several of these aspects normally contribute to each course learning outcome. The embedded
knowledge and skills are the building blocks that help the student to acquire significant, transferable
learning (Algonquin College, 2008).
127
Prior to their first co-op work term, students study cooperative education
policies and procedures, strategies for employability and on-the-job
protocols. Students prepare a professional resume, participate in mock
interviews and understand the need for effective interview persona.
Students also learn about work term objectives, policies and procedures
and the requirement for effective job performance. (p. 1)
The Co-op Work Terms I and II course outlines include statements that I
identified as linking the classroom and the cooperative education learning experiences.
The following is an excerpt from the course description for Co-op Work Term I:
Immediately following academic term four, the first co-op work term
provides students with experiential opportunities directly related to supply
chain management and e-business technology. The first work term centers
on attaining entry-level positions that immerse students in a variety of
supply chain activities allowing them to apply learning concepts and
principles. Students returning from Co-op Work Term I will contribute
new ideas to their program of study. (p. 1)
This course description articulates an expectation that students would transfer learning
from the classroom to the co-op workplace and bring that experience back to the
classroom with them. In the Co-op Work Term I course outline, one of the course
learning outcomes and some of the knowledge and skills associated with it, demonstrates
a link between classroom and cooperative education learning experiences. Table 14
provides the detail related to this course outline with the linked learning marked with an
asterisk.
128
Table 14.
Co-op Work Term I – CLOs and knowledge and skills
Course Learning Outcome Embedded Knowledge and Skills
To earn credit for this course, you must reliably demonstrate your ability to:
1. *Use experiential learning to successfully
complete the learning contract with the
employer.
a. Meet or exceed the employers‘ standards, for
example, attendance, grooming and business
acumen.
b. *Use employability skills (such as time
management, personal responsibility, teamwork
and problem solving) in a business context.
c. *Communicate effectively in a work
environment.
d. *Create and implement a learning plan that
reflects a realistic assessment of learning needs
and builds related skills.
e. Work within a team environment to accomplish
work related tasks and meet organizational
goals.
f. Work responsibly, respecting industry and
organizational guidelines and standards.
g. *Communicate clearly, concisely and correctly
in the written, spoken and visual form that
fulfills the purpose and meets the needs of the
audience.
h. *Apply and adapt concepts, principles and
skills learned in academic terms to a business
context.
2. *Assess and present in written form, in a timely
manner, the student‘s responsibilities and
learning during the work term.
a. Submit all documentation required for
successful completion of a co-op work term.
b. *Communicate effectively in writing. *denotes a link between the classroom and the cooperative education workplace experiences
Similarly, the course description for Co-op Work Term II positioned the
experience as a link between the classroom and the cooperative education experience
with the students‘ increased responsibilities noted.
Immediately following academic semester five, the second co-op work
term provides students with experiential opportunities directly related to
supply chain management and related e-business technology. The second
work term centers on an expanded role with higher level responsibilities in
the workplace. Students returning from co-op work term two will expand
the knowledge and abilities to their program of study. (Co-op Work Term
II Course Outline, p. 1)
129
The CLOs for Co-op Work Term II mirror and then build on those included in Co-op
Work Term I. In Table 15, the CLOs and embedded knowledge and skills in Co-op Work
Term II are listed with those that link to CLOs in academic courses marked with an
asterisk.
130
Table 15.
Co-op Work Term II – CLOs and knowledge and skills
Course Learning Outcome Embedded Knowledge and Skills
To earn credit for this course, you must reliably demonstrate your ability to:
1. *Use experiential learning to successfully
complete the learning contract with the
employer.
a. Meet or exceed the employers‘ standards, for
example, attendance, grooming and business
acumen.
b. *Use employability skills (such as time
management, personal responsibility, teamwork
and problem solving) in a business context.
c. *Communicate effectively in a work
environment.
d. *Create and implement a learning plan that
reflects a realistic assessment of learning needs
and builds related skills.
e. Work within a team environment to accomplish
work related tasks and meet organizational
goals.
f. Work responsibly, respecting industry and
organizational guidelines and standards.
g. *Communicate clearly, concisely and correctly
in the written, spoken and visual form that
fulfills the purpose and meets the needs of the
audience.
h. *Apply and adapt concepts, principles and
skills learned in academic terms to a business
context.
i. *Use critical thinking skills to make decisions
and solve problems in an increasingly wide
range of business contexts.
j. *Use an understanding of the current literature
in the field as well as tools of reflective practice
to contribute to both an organization and to the
learning plan.
2. *Assess and present in written form, in a
timely manner, the student‘s
responsibilities and learning during the
work term.
a. Submit all documentation required for
successful completion of a co-op work term.
b. *Communicate effectively in writing.
*denotes a link between the classroom and cooperative education workplace experiences
While the formal link between classroom learning and the cooperative education
workplace experience in the general academic course outlines was weak, the link
131
between the cooperative education workplace experience course outlines and the learning
from the classroom was clear and strong.
In the second review of the course outlines I looked for potential opportunities to
link the classroom learning experience to the cooperative education workplace learning
experience. I looked for teaching/learning methods or learning activities identified in the
course outlines that could be used to encourage students to use the learning from the
course during their cooperative education experience or that included the students‘
experiences in cooperative education to enhance the classroom learning experience. The
teaching/learning methods that I looked for in the course outlines that could accomplish
one or both of these objectives were: case studies, group and class discussion, field trips,
and discussions of current practices. Table 16 details the results of the review of the
course outlines for the courses in the program in Semesters 01 to 05 with respect to the
potential to link the classroom and cooperative education learning experiences. A course
was counted only once no matter how many different opportunities might have been
included in the course outline.
132
Table 16.
Evidence of potential to link classroom and co-op education experience learning
Evidence of Potential
Linking to Co-op
Experience
Number of Course Outlines Each Activity is Identified in
(by Semester)
Sem. 01 Sem. 02 Sem. 03 Sem. 04 Sem. 05
Total
Courses/Semester 6 6 6 7 6
Case Studies 4 2 2 6 1
Group and class
discussions 5 4 6 6 4
Field Trip 1 0 1 1 0
Discussion of current
practices 3 1 2 3 2
Interviews
Each student was invited to attend an interview with me. The interviews were
conducted in a conference room at the college in a building where the students frequently
had classes. Each interview followed the protocol established in advance with probing
questions used to obtain additional information as needed on a given point. The interview
protocol is included as Appendix F. The interviews lasted about 30 minutes. Each
interview was audio taped with the participant‘s permission and then transcribed by a
professional who had signed a confidentiality agreement. Each participant subsequently
verified her/his own transcript.
I conducted a content analysis on the transcripts. In this analysis I coded the
individual themes that emerged from the transcripts and then collapsed the themes into
broad categories. My coding was validated by a professor who was familiar with the
Bachelor of Applied Business program but who had no interaction with the students in
133
this case study. The processes used for both the coding and the validation of the coding
are described in detail in chapter 3. Table 17 lists the themes I derived from the
transcripts and the categories I developed from these. The number of participants that
identified each theme during their interview and their learning styles are also included.
The details of the interviews are incorporated in the analysis of findings section of this
chapter.
134
Table 17.
Themes and categories developed from interview transcripts; with learning style
Categories Developed from Themes Themes Identified in Interview
Transcripts
Participants‘ Learning
Style N=6
Assim*
n=2
Accom.**
n=4
1. Enablers to transfer of learning 1. Discussion with student/recent graduate
coworkers
Change in self-perception
Work environment/culture
Real world examples in class
1
-
1
-
1
2
1
1
2. Barriers to transfer of learning 2. Specialized work during co-op
Work environment/culture
Co-op student status
1
1
-
3
2
1
3. Practical learning in the classroom 3. Practical learning - 2
4. Linking classroom learning to the
co-op experience
4. Linking classroom learning to co-op
experience
2 4
4.1 Program specific knowledge
and skills
4.1 Project management
Supply chain management skills
Forecasting
SAP
Procurement
Marketing skills/concepts
Business analysis
IT/Networking
Process and process design
Accounting
Logistics
Materials management
2
2
1
2
-
-
1
1
1
1
1
-
1
1
-
1
2
1
1
1
-
-
-
2
4.2 Essential knowledge and
skills
4.2 Communication skills
Teamwork/group skills
Computer applications
Conflict resolution
Problem solving
Critical thinking
Organizational skills
1
2
2
-
-
-
-
2
3
2
1
1
2
1
5. Linking co-op experience to
classroom learning
5. Linking co-op experience to classroom
learning
2 4
*Assim.: Assimilating Learning Style
**Accom.: Accommodating Learning Style
Analysis of Findings
The analysis of the findings of this research study was guided by four specific
research questions:
135
1. What is the extent of transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative
education workplace in the Bachelor of Applied Business program?
2. What are the differences in the types of learning outcomes that students with
differing learning styles transfer from the classroom to the cooperative education
workplace?
3. What are the enablers and barriers to transfer of learning identified by the
students? Are there differences depending on the student‘s learning style?
4. What planned learning is in place in the program‘s curriculum to promote transfer
of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace
The findings obtained through the various methods of data collection used in this
research study were presented in the first part of this chapter. With few exceptions the
information was presented in aggregate form to protect the identity of the participants. In
this analysis section, I provide responses to the four research questions using the results
presented in the first part of this chapter. Where possible I compare my results with
research findings from the literature.
Research Question 1
What is the extent of the transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative
education program in the Bachelor of Applied Business program?
The analysis of the Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire showed that the
participants in this case study transferred learning from the classroom to the cooperative
education workplace. Close to 74% of the CLOs from the courses studied prior to the
second co-op workplace experience were reported as used by at least one participant,
136
were used at least once or used regularly by all participants, or were reported as used by a
majority of participants during that co-op experience (see Table 6).
In the first comprehensive research study conducted on cooperative education in
the United States, Wilson and Lyons (1961) explored the question of application of
theory to practice in the entire college experience in a representative sample of co-op and
non-co-op colleges in the U.S. A sample of students was drawn from these colleges (n
was not reported). They found that in the total sample, which included co-op and non-co-
op students and graduates approached by either questionnaire or interview, 39% ―felt that
the amount of practice that they had was ―just about right‖ (p. 90) and that a
―substantially and statistically reliable larger proportion of cooperative students and
graduates than non-cooperative students and graduates felt their opportunities to practice
applying theory to concrete situations were adequate‖ (p. 90). However, where Wilson
and Lyons inquired in general terms whether students used their classroom learning in the
workplace, my research asked participants to report the specific learning used. The CLOs
reported as used by all of the participants in this study (8% of the CLOs) were clustered
in the first two semesters (see Table 7). These CLOs describe technical and
communication skills. The CLOs reported as used by the majority of the participants
were also concentrated in the first two semesters. These CLOs relate to fundamental
business concepts. The frequency of CLO use by participants is detailed in Appendix H.
During the interview I asked the participants about the classroom learning that
they reflected on during their co-op experience and whether this affected their behaviour
during the co-op experience in any way. Coding of the interview transcripts for
participants‘ descriptions of learning linked to the predetermined CLOs revealed similar
137
results to those seen in the analysis of the Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire (see
Table 17). I found that the participants predominantly identified concepts related to the
field of business, with some mention of more specific skills related to e-business supply
chain management. They also described technical and communication skills. One item
mentioned by five of the six participants was their learning related to teamwork. They
found this particularly beneficial and used this skill in their co-op experience as recalled
by this participant:
There are a lot of group projects in our class. Conversations and
exchanges in class were encouraged. On those group projects, we had a lot
of group meetings, obviously a lot of brainstorming, a lot of exchange of
ideas…and at the same time a lot of conflict resolution. You know, trying
to negotiate, trying to almost sell your ideas between teams. It‘s like, this
option is better, or I think this sort of stream is better than what you are
trying to introduce…I used the same strategy back at work. My co-op
placement is very team-oriented; it‘s a project management area so there is
a lot of collaboration, a lot of team work, a lot of reviewing each other‘s
work. (P. 3)
The technical and communication skills reported by participants in my study are
consistent with several of the factors explored by Johnston, Angerilli and Gajdamaschko
(2004). One factor they reported was: ―co-op derives classic employability
outcomes…providing outcomes such as communication skills, teamwork skills, problem
solving, and job finding‖ (pp. 176-177). Another factor they described was: ―co-op is for
the application of school learned skills to the workplace…is the only factor that clearly
sees the role of school as teaching the relevant technical skills of a discipline and the role
of co-op as providing the opportunity to apply those school-derived skills in the real
world…This factor also supports the notion of skills transfer between school and work‖
(pp. 178-179).
138
My examination of the pattern of CLO use over the five academic semesters in
this program showed decreasing reported use of CLOs as the participants progressed
through the semesters. Almost all of the CLOs from Semesters 01 and 02 were reported
as used, 100% and 94.7% respectively. The participants reported using approximately
three quarters of the CLOs in Semesters 03 and 04, 72.9% and 75% respectively. CLO
use reported in Semester 05 dropped to 29.2% (see Table 18).
Table 18.
CLOs reported as used in co-op – percent per semester
Total
CLOs in
Program
Semester
01 02 03 04 05
Total number of CLOs in the semester 134 26 19 37 28 24
Total number of CLOs reported used 99 26 18 27 21 7
Total percent CLOs reported used 73.9% 100% 94.7% 72.9% 75% 29.2%
If either recency of learning or recall had an impact on responses to the Course
Learning Outcomes Questionnaire, higher levels of reported use of CLOs in the more
recent semesters might have been reported. When the CLOs themselves were examined it
became clear that those in earlier semesters are more broadly applicable, while those
from courses in higher semesters are more specific. The more specific CLOs would only
be applicable in related work experiences. For example, procurement and purchasing
management would not be applicable in all co-op work experiences. Semester 05 in
particular introduces this specific type of CLO and fewer more broadly applicable ones.
139
Based on the responses from the participants, the use of specific CLOs related to the
particular co-op work experience seemed to be a potential explanation for this. Another
possible explanation is a lack of opportunity to use CLOs from higher level courses in the
co-op workplace experience. This is explored further through the other research
questions.
Summary: Transfer of Learning
The analysis of the results shows that the participants in this case study
transferred learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace. Review
of the Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire revealed that, as a group, the
participants reported using 99 of 134 CLOs (~74%) from the courses studied prior to the
second co-op workplace experience (see Table 6). These represented a broad range of
concepts and skills. Eleven (8%) of the CLOs were reported as used by all participants on
the questionnaire. These CLOs are clustered in the first two semesters of the program and
they describe technical and communication skills and fundamental business concepts.
One additional item of note mentioned by five of six participants during the interview
was teamwork. They indicated that they found this skill particularly beneficial and used it
in their cooperative education workplace experiences. When the co-op documentation
and Questionnaire results were triangulated the CLO related to teamwork also turned out
to be reported as used by all participants. The participants reported using fewer CLOs in
Semesters 03, 04, and 05 (72.9%, 75%, and 29.2% respectively) than in Semesters 01 and
02 (100% and 94% respectively – see Table 18). This appeared to be related to there
being a greater number of more broadly applicable CLOs in the earlier semesters and
140
increasingly specific CLOs in the higher semesters. In the latter case the opportunity to
use the CLOs appeared to be related to the co-op work experience.
Research Question 2
What are the differences in the types of learning outcomes that students with differing
learning styles transfer from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace?
Learning Styles
Four of the six participants in this study had an accommodating learning style.
The other two had an assimilating learning style (see Table 5). Unfortunately the small
number of participants in this study meant that statistical analysis for learning styles
frequency would not have been meaningful. Kolb (1984) compared career classifications
to the learning styles delineated in his experiential learning theory. He demonstrated,
through his research, and the research of others, that career classifications could be
oriented on the two-dimensional experiential learning theory framework. Relevant to this
research study, business and organizational type careers were positioned in the
accommodating learning style quadrant. Science and general culture type careers were
positioned in the assimilating learning style quadrant (pp. 128-131). More recent research
conducted using a meta-analytic approach reviewed eight studies of business students‘
learning styles. With a combined sample size of 1,791, Loo (2002) showed a higher
proportion of assimilating learning style students and a lower proportion of
accommodating learning style students than would be expected if learning styles were
equally distributed.
Kolb (1984) stated that not all individuals within a particular career type have the
same learning style, nor should they be expected to. That Loo‘s results were counter to
141
Kolb‘s findings with respect to the learning style of individuals in the field of business
supports the notion of individuality but puts into question the particular learning style that
individuals in the field of business may tend to have. That not all students in my study
had the same learning style reinforces Kolb‘s contention that not all individuals in a
particular career type have the same learning style. Although the number of participants
in my study is small it is interesting to note that more were of the accommodating
learning style type, consistent with Kolb‘s observations.
Transfer of Learning by Participants with Differing Learning Styles
Individuals with an assimilating learning style, or abstract-reflective individuals,
prefer a concise, logical approach. They tend to be more concerned with abstract ideas
and concepts and are more interested in these than they are in people. Approaches based
on practical value appeal to them less than ones based on logically sound theories. They
like to have time to think things through (Chapman, 2006; Cornwell & Manfredo, 1994;
Smith, 2001). Their strengths are ―inductive reasoning, the ability to create theoretical
models, and assimilating disparate observations into an integrated explanation‖ (D. A.
Kolb, 1984, p. 78). In this case, they may tend to use more application of concept CLOs
as these may be more closely aligned to their preference to think things through.
People with an accommodating learning style, or active-concrete individuals, use
a more hands-on approach. They prefer to take a practical approach—to do things. They
tend to rely on the analyses developed by others, like new challenges and experiences,
and carrying out plans. They often solve problems intuitively rather than through
extensive analysis. They perform well when required to react to immediate
circumstances. Working in teams to achieve goals is their preference. They are risk takers
142
(Chapman, 2006; Cornwell & Manfredo, 1994; D. A. Kolb, 1984; Smith, 2001). In this
case, they may tend to use more application of skill CLOs as they tend to prefer to do
things.
I examined the CLOs reported as used by the assimilating and accommodating
learning style participants more closely. The supporting material for this analysis is
detailed in Appendices I and J. I looked at the number of CLOs that only all participants
in each learning style group reported using and the ones that only all participants in each
group learning style reported having no opportunity to use (see Tables 8 and 9 and
Appendices I and J).
There were no CLOs reported as used only by all of the assimilating learning style
participants. There was one CLO reported as being used only by all of the
accommodating learning style participants: ―CLO 80. Define solution requirements in a
clear concise and unambiguous manner,‖ an application of concept. See Appendix I for
details of this analysis. This does not follow the tendency expected, that is, to use
application of skill CLOs; however, it is only a tendency and it would not occur in all
cases. It is also possible that the small sample size may have influenced the findings.
All participants in both learning style groups reported using 11 of the program‘s
CLOs. As described earlier in this chapter, these CLOs described technical and
communication skills, only two are application of concept, and all but one of them is
from the first semester. This latter finding was somewhat curious. If recall was a
contributing factor I would have expected the CLOs from the early semesters to be
reported less frequently. As discussed earlier, it appeared more likely that this was related
to the co-op work experiences themselves.
143
My examination of the number of CLOs that the participants reported having no
opportunity to use revealed a similar picture as detailed in Appendix J. Only all of the
assimilating learning style group participants reported having no opportunity to use one
CLO. It is the same CLO from Semester 03: ―CLO 80. Define solution requirements in a
clear concise and unambiguous manner.‖
Based on this analysis, bearing in mind the small sample size and uneven
distribution of learning styles, it appeared that the assimilating learning style groups and
the accommodating learning style groups were more similar than they were different with
respect to the CLOs transferred from the classroom to the cooperative education
workplace. In addition, neither group appeared to have a tendency to favour using
application of skills CLOs over application of concept CLOs, or vice versa.
Summary: Transfer of Learning and Learning Styles
The analysis of results related to transfer of learning from the classroom to the
cooperative education workplace with respect to the participants‘ learning styles revealed
that the accommodating and assimilating learning style groups in this case appeared to be
more similar than they were different. As a group, the accommodating learning style
group all used only one CLO. The assimilating learning style group did not all use any of
the CLOs. Neither group seemed to favour using one type of skill over the other, that is,
application of concept or application of skill. The small sample size and the uneven
distribution of learning styles prevented statistical analysis regarding this part of the
question.
144
Research Question 3
What are the enablers and barriers to transfer of learning identified by the students? Are
there differences in enablers and/or barriers depending on the student‘s learning style?
Enablers and Barriers to Transfer of Learning Identified
Participants‘ descriptions of enablers and barriers to transfer of learning from the
classroom to the co-op workplace were coded from the contents of the cooperative
education work term documentation and the interview transcripts as described earlier. In
the analysis of the results of the coding of the cooperative education work term
documentation, the work term report proved to be the primary source of this information
(see Table 13). I derived eight enablers of transfer of learning and five barriers to transfer
of learning from the cooperative education work term documentation. My coding of the
interview transcripts revealed four additional enablers of transfer of learning and three
additional barriers to transfer of learning (see Table 17). I analyzed the specific enablers
and barriers identified from these two sources. From these I developed summary
statements to describe the enablers and barriers to transfer of learning identified by the
participants in this study.
I developed four summary statements from the participants‘ descriptions of what
enabled them to transfer learning from the classroom to the cooperative education
workplace. Participants‘ ability to transfer learning from the classroom to the cooperative
education workplace was enabled by:
1. Developing a plan to use the knowledge and skills learned in the classroom in the
co-op workplace.
145
2. Having the opportunity to use the knowledge and skills learned in the classroom
in the co-op workplace.
3. Working in an environment that is supportive and provides breadth and depth of
experience for co-op students.
4. Experiencing a positive change in self-perception.
The participants identified fewer barriers to transfer of learning from the
classroom to the cooperative education workplace than enablers (see Tables 13 and 17). I
developed two summary statements to represent these barriers. Participants identified
barriers that prevented them from transferring learning from the classroom to the
cooperative education workplace in the following ways:
1. Working in a co-op position that is specialized.
2. Dealing with organizational factors.
Barriers to learning can be internal, coming from the unique personal experience
of the learner, such as established patterns of behaviour, previous negative experiences,
or a lack of awareness of one‘s assumptions. Or they can be external to the learner, such
as people they come in contact with, cultural expectations, or the learning environment
(Boud & Walker, 1993). The participants in this study identified only external barriers to
learning. Identifying external barriers to learning is easier than identifying internal ones.
The latter requires a high level of personal insight. Even if the participants in this study
had this level of insight they might have hesitated to reveal these thoughts spontaneously
to someone they had just met, as was the case with me.
In research related to learning at work, a number of variables that influence
workplace learning were found. Some of these variables are:
146
The workplace environment/culture;
Authentic learning experiences;
Quality of learning materials;
Role of language and literacy; and
Company/business size. (Beckett & Hager, 2000, p. 302)
All of the enablers and barriers to transfer of learning identified in this research study
were reflective of the workplace culture and authentic learning experiences variables
identified by Beckett and Hager. The other three variables that influence workplace
learning that they found, that is, quality of learning materials, role of language and
literacy, and company/business size, were not clearly revealed in this study. Table 19
demonstrates how the variables that influence workplace learning map to the enablers and
barriers to transfer of learning found in this study.
Table 19.
Variables that influence workplace learning compared to enablers and barriers found in
this study
Variables that Influence Workplace Learning
(Beckett and Hager, 2000)
Enablers and Barriers to Transfer of Learning
(found in this study)
The workplace environment/culture Enabler:
Working in an environment that is supportive
and provides breadth and depth of experience for
co-op students.
Barriers:
Working in a co-op position that is specialized.
Dealing with organizational factors.
Authentic learning experiences Enabler:
Developing a plan to use the knowledge and
skills learned in the classroom in the co-op
workplace.
Having the opportunity to use the knowledge and
skills learned in the classroom in the co-op
workplace.
Experiencing a positive change in self-
perception.
147
Enablers of Transfer of Learning
In this section I discuss in more detail the four statements I developed to
summarize the enablers to transfer of learning I derived from the participants‘
cooperative education documentation.
1. Developing a plan to use the knowledge and skills learned in the classroom in the
co-op workplace. As described in chapter 3, students in the Bachelor of Applied Business
program develop a work term learning plan for their cooperative education workplace
experience and then finalize this in conjunction with their employer supervisor at the
outset of their co-op experience. Many of the learning objectives written by the
participants in this case linked closely to the CLOs in the courses taken prior to the co-op
experience. Table 11 provides some examples of the links that I identified. This clearly
demonstrated planning on the participants‘ part to take the learning from the classroom
into the workplace.
I coded the information in each participant‘s cooperative education work term
documentation for evidence of the predetermined CLOs and I analyzed the responses on
the Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire. The details of this analysis are presented
in Appendix K. While the participants did not always report using the planned learning
identified in the work term learning plans in their cooperative education work term
documentation, they reported using the learning in the Course Learning Outcomes
Questionnaire. Without exception, the CLOs that I identified in the participants‘ work
term learning plans were reported as used during their cooperative workplace experience
in at least one of the documents I reviewed as part of this study.
148
Boud and Walker (1990) described learning intent ―as a personal determination
which provides a particular orientation within a given situation…it prompts learners to
take steps to achieve their goals‖ (p. 64). The work of Hamilton and Hamilton (1997),
related to work-based learning, stressed that ―work-based learning is intentional‖ (para.
2). They identified the importance of training plans that identify learning goals because
they serve to guide the learning experience and facilitate communication between all
partners. Ottoson (1994) also emphasized the importance of planning. She stated that
―transfer needs to be a forethought, not just an afterthought‖ (p. 21).
The participants‘ work term learning plans demonstrated their plans, their intent
to use the learning from the classroom in the cooperative education workplace. The
analysis of the data collected in this research study confirmed that their plans were
followed through—they reported using all of the classroom learning that they developed
a plan to use.
2. Having the opportunity to use the knowledge and skills learned in the classroom
in the co-op workplace. The analysis presented above, regarding whether or not the
participants executed their work term learning plans provided one part of the picture to
demonstrate the availability of opportunities to transfer what had been learned in the
classroom to the workplace situation. Further analysis of the cooperative education
workplace documentation and the course learning outcomes questionnaire for evidence of
additional classroom learning reported as being used demonstrated that the participants
had the opportunity to use more classroom learning than they planned for in their work
term learning plans.
149
In Table 12, I quantify both the number and type of CLOs found in each of the co-
op work term documents that the participants as a group indicated that they used as they
had planned and the CLOs identified that they used that were not in their work term
learning plans. This represented a total of 27 CLOs that were different from those
identified in the work term learning plan. I deemed the CLOs identified as being used by
the participants in the co-op work term documentation but not reported in the work term
learning plan as unplanned transfer of classroom learning.
I triangulated the information in the co-op documentation and the Course
Learning Outcomes Questionnaire. I found that the 14 CLOs reported as used by
participants in their co-op documentation but that had not been planned, that is unplanned
transfer of classroom learning, were also reported as used in the Course Learning
Outcomes Questionnaire. I also found an additional 54 unplanned transfer of classroom
learning CLOs identified as being used in the co-op workplace only in the Course
Learning Outcomes Questionnaire. This brings the total to 68 unplanned transfer of
classroom learning CLOs reported by the participants. Table 20 summarizes the planned
and unplanned learning, identifies in which documents participants identified these
CLOs, and includes the type of CLO (refer also to Appendix K).
150
Table 20.
Classroom learning reported as used in co-op – planned and unplanned
Document CLOs Identified In
Number of
CLOs
Identified as
Used
Type of CLO
Application of
Concept
Application of
Skill
Planned Learning:
Work Term Learning Plan 31 14 17
Evidence of Planned Learning:
Co-op Documents* and CLO Questionnaire 20 10 10
Co-op Documents* Only - - -
CLO Questionnaire Only 11 4 7
Total CLOs: Planned Learning 31 14 17
Evidence of Unplanned Learning:
Co-op Documents* and CLO Questionnaire 14 12 2
Co-op Documents* Only - - -
CLO Questionnaire Only 54 39 15
Total CLOs: Unplanned Learning 68 51 17
*Work Term Progress Report, Site Visit Report, Employer Evaluation, Work Term Report
The work term learning plan is prepared at the beginning of the experience. It is
intended to be a statement of the major learning objectives for the term. At that point
students may have had only a limited understanding of the position they would be
working in. Analysis of the co-op work term documentation revealed that all but a few of
the CLOs included in the participants‘ work term learning plan were reported as used in
the co-op workplace. As well, students discovered they used a lot of other learning from
the classroom that they had not planned in advance to use. The Course Learning
Outcomes Questionnaire provided a vehicle for participants to reflect on and fully record
the learning that they had the opportunity to use during their cooperative education
151
workplace experience. One participant‘s comment about the work term described what
the experience was like.
At work it‘s almost like continuous learning; it‘s almost an extension of
what I would have learned at school, but the only difference is that I‘m
accountable for the results. (P. 3)
Boud and Walker (1990) contended, ―there is potential for learning in every
situation and it is up to the learner to realize this potential. It is the learner‘s interaction
with the learning milieu which creates the particular learning experience. While
facilitators and others can help create the milieu, it is the learner who creates the
experience‖ (p. 62). The ability to apply concepts and skills learned in class was cited by
the co-op students in Eakins‘ (2000) study as a factor in the workplace context that
supported student learning in a co-op experience and contributed to a satisfactory
experience. The co-op graduates of the Bachelor of Science (Technology) program
between 1989 and 1997 in Eames (2000) study (n=95) reported that they ―perceived that
learning occurred by doing tasks (86%) and by interacting with work supervisors (86%)
and co-workers (80%)‖ (p. 78). The author suggested that ―this implies that students on
placement learn by carrying out their work‖ (p. 78).
Some participants in my research study reported using more of the CLOs during
their co-op experience than others did; however, when both the individual and aggregate
data were examined it was clear that the participants used a lot more of what they learned
in the classroom than they included in the work term learning plan at the beginning of the
experience. As previously mentioned this could partially be a reflection of them not being
fully aware of what their co-op experience would entail. It could be seen as an indication
that participants had more opportunity to apply their learning in the cooperative education
152
workplace than anticipated. It could also mean that the participants generally did not
think in the neat little boxes in which course learning outcomes were written.
The fact that the number of unplanned CLOs exceeded the number of planned
CLOs, in this case by a little over two times, is something to be considered by those
administering co-op programs. Do we need to provide students with more guidance in
developing their work term learning plans? Would providing them with a way to capture
the learning that they were able to use during the cooperative education workplace
experience be useful to them? This will be discussed further in chapter 5 in the
implications for practice section.
When I examined the type of unplanned learning CLOs reported by participants, I
noted that there were three times as many application of concept CLOs as application of
skill CLOs. This heavier weighting of the unplanned transfer of learning CLOs to the
application of concept type could be a reflection of the types of positions these
participants had. One might wonder if it could have something to do with the planning of
application of concept versus application of skill CLOs; however, the numbers of planned
application of concept and application of skill CLOs were almost equal, so this doesn‘t
seem to be a likely explanation. This is something that bears further study.
3. Working in an environment that is supportive and provides breadth and depth of
experience for co-op students. Having an environment that was supportive was described
as important by the participants in this study. The type of support and encouragement that
participants received varied. One participant described one type of supportive
environment:
My supervisor, you could bounce ideas off her left, right and center which
was great when it came to the contracting side of things to be done…It
153
was a very positive environment. You could wander anywhere and ask
anyone anything, which was a real bonus. (P. 5)
Another described support from co-workers, who in some cases were other co-op
students and in other cases were graduates of the program:
There were a number of us from the program there…It was nice to have
other students around so that we could compare notes. (P. 2)
There was someone on my co-op term who was a graduate of the program,
and it was good to talk to him every so often because we had the same
background. We were able to discuss issues, and I guess just talk on a
certain level that I don‘t think I would have been able to do with my
supervisor or another coworker. (P. 2)
Cates and Langford (1999) found that ―student confidence was significantly
enhanced when they received positive responses from supervisors or co-workers‖ (p. 69).
Participants in this research study revealed that, on occasion, cooperative
education workplace experiences that started out with limited opportunities for learning
shifted to providing richer learning experiences as illustrated in the following quote:
As [the co-op experience] evolved and as everybody got a little more
comfortable with it, I got to learn more and more, and I got some
opportunities that maybe would not have been standard for a first time
around [co-op student], so that was a bonus…I got to sit in on a lot of
things that you would not get to be part of normally, so that was good, that
was the up side [of being the first co-op student hired by the company]. (P.
5).
Grosjean stated that ―The types of activities that co-op students engage in on a work term
determines what they learn; the degree of guidance they receive determines the quality of
that learning‖ (2000, p. 255). Milley‘s (2004) research revealed that the quality of the
work term position affected the students‘ ability to integrate learning from campus to
work with the substantive content of the work being very important. Students in another
study identified the workplace environment, including relationships with managers and
154
colleagues, as key contributors to satisfactory work environments (Eakins, 2000).
Autonomy, responsibility and challenge in the cooperative education experience were
reported as key ingredients by those students. Williams, Sternberg, Rashotte and Wagner
(1993) stressed the importance of the effort by employers in making the co-op experience
as relevant as possible for students.
Eakins (2000) found that ―the nature of the task set and the level of responsibility
given to the students were frequently identified as contributing to feelings of satisfaction
with the placement‖ (p. 65). Less demanding co-op positions sometimes resulted in
frustration for co-op students when they believed that they were not working to their
capacity as illustrated in this comment:
Because co-op positions are often very entry level, there‘s only so much
you are allowed to do and see…If I was a full-time employee and had the
ability to maybe implement what I had learned in a sense of being more
efficient, then I would. But as a co-op student I can‘t. (P. 6)
Arriving at a workplace full of anticipation co-op students sometimes faced less than
ideal circumstances, at least initially.
I don‘t think there had been a co-op student before, so they weren‘t quite
sure what to do with a co-op student, and it was [seen as] a
burden…Because they hadn‘t had students before they weren‘t quite sure
of the expectations…As things evolved they are to the point now where
they are bringing in more. (P. 5)
Nasr, Pennington, and Andres (2004) found similar results in their research
examining the type of outcomes reported by engineering cooperative education students.
One of the overriding issues for the students in their study was the lack of meaningful
assignments awaiting them upon reporting to their sponsor companies.
These examples speak to the importance of the educational institution working
with the cooperative education employer in developing co-op workplace positions that
155
are a match with the students‘ program and their level of ability. They also illustrate the
importance of working with co-op employers to help them develop mechanisms to
support the co-op students.
My research findings show that students in cooperative education work term
experiences are reliant on the organizations with respect to the support they receive, the
work they are responsible for, and the opportunities that they have during their time there.
The students‘ initiative is also important and plays a role in the opportunities that they
take advantage of.
4. Experiencing a positive change in self-perception. One of the participants talked
at length about how the co-op experiences changed both his confidence level and how he
saw his role in the classroom when he returned from co-op.
Participant 2: If you are doing a large contract that‘s worth multi-millions
of dollars, is multi-year, and you are dealing with people who are directors
and have dozens of people working for them…and you [have to] tell them,
―No, this is how it is,‖ it does give you a bit of a confidence boost. And to
be able to bring that back to the classroom when you are dealing with
individuals, your professor, or whoever, it just feels like what I have to say
has more weight as opposed to [the other person] being the authority in the
matter and I‘m just going to sit back and not question it at all.
Researcher: Do you think it changed how you interact as a student?
Participant 2: It feels like I have more credibility, more to offer, as
opposed to just being a student–I don‘t feel like I am a student.
Researcher: What do you feel like now? How has it shifted? You are still
learning…
Participant 2: It feels more like professional development, more like I‘m
not going into the classroom and the professor is my teacher–it‘s more like
we are equals. They have a certain experience and skill set and knowledge.
They are there to share with me because they are an authority in that, but
that doesn‘t mean that I have got nothing to offer. It just feels that we are
equals but different. (P. 2)
156
This change in self-perception was not explicitly articulated by all of the students;
however, it clearly demonstrates the power of the co-op experience to influence
students.
Barriers to Transfer of Learning
The two statements that I developed to summarize the barriers to transfer of
learning from the classroom to the co-op workplace are discussed in detail in this section.
1. Working in a co-op position that is specialized. Some participants identified that
the work done during the co-op experience was unique or specialized. This uniqueness
was seen as a barrier to using more of the learning from the classroom at the co-op
workplace. The participants appreciated the learning opportunities that the specialized
position presented but recognized that there was a lot of potential for learning that they
were not tapping into.
It‘s such a unique position that I don‘t think it is something that reflects
well on what we have learned. I can take bits and pieces from different
courses, but when it actually comes down to it, there‘s nothing directly
related. It was very unique. (P.1)
Our program is so broad, covering so many different topics, but in my
second co-op term, it was a very specialized thing that I was doing, so
there was a lot of learning that I didn‘t get an opportunity to apply. (P. 2)
Two of the six students expressed this sentiment. Despite these comments when
the number of CLOs reported as used in the co-op workplace was examined for each
participant the range was from 32 CLOs to 66 CLOs of the 134 CLOs included in the
Course Learning Outcome Questionnaire. Table 21 provides the summary of this
information by participant, while Appendix K includes the detail.
157
Table 21.
Number of CLOs reported as used by each participant by semester
Participant Program CLOs
Used
Number of CLOs Used
Sem. 01 Sem. 02 Sem. 03 Sem. 04 Sem. 05
Total CLOs 134 26 19 37 28 24
1 32 (23.9%) 15 7 3 5 2
2 61 (45.5%) 19 11 12 13 6
3 66 (49.3%) 25 17 19 3 2
4 44 (32.8%) 22 9 7 5 0
5 40 (29.9%) 17 8 3 10 2
6 52 (38.8%) 16 7 10 15 3
The two participants who identified the specialization in their co-op experiences
used 32 and 61 CLOs. In this case numbers do not tell the whole story. When the actual
learning outcomes that the participants reported using in the co-op work term were
examined it became clear that this was where the specialization revealed itself. For
example, a participant with a position focused on procurement reported using the CLOs
related to procurement and others with positions focused on purchasing or inventory
reported using the CLOs related to these areas. As presented previously in Table 20, as a
group, the students used a total of 99 CLOs, 31 planned and 68 unplanned. The difference
between the number of CLOs used by the individuals and the group as a whole illustrates
the wide variety of opportunities presented to this group of six participants. Given the
diversity in the field of business, it is not surprising that some of the participants‘
experiences were more concentrated. Although participants identified that having a
158
specialized co-op experience was a barrier to transfer of a wider range of learning there is
also great value in learning one area in greater depth.
The trend identified earlier (see Table 7) of decreasing reported use of CLOs in
higher semesters also revealed itself when the individual participant‘s experiences were
examined (see Table 21). There was considerable variability evident among participants
in each level. This might be explained by the differences in the co-op workplace
experiences. That the participants reported using fewer CLOs from higher levels could
mean that, in general, their employers did not feel that co-op students had developed the
ability to use these skills or apply this knowledge despite having learned it and therefore
did not provide the opportunity. Alternatively the employer may not have been fully
aware of learning that the students were bringing to this second co-op placement in their
program. Another possible explanation is that the co-op work placement simply did not
provide them with the opportunity to use what they learned in class. If the latter is the
case, this could be an indication of a possible mismatch between a student‘s ability and
the co-op workplace experience.
2. Dealing with organizational factors. The findings show that the culture of the
workplace and circumstances occurring during the participants‘ co-op work term had an
influence on the participants‘ ability to use, and build on, learning from the classroom.
For example, a company re-organization had an impact on one participant‘s experience:
In my second co-op term there was a reorganization going on. They were
splitting people into groups doing more of a specialization or division of
labor that was different, and because they were still trying to figure out
that piece, it made it difficult for me to do my job because we ended up in
a situation where no one really knew whose job it was to do certain things.
(P. 2)
159
Another participant worked through a company-wide layoff that saw his supervisor laid
off. He described how it negatively impacted what he was working on and what his
thinking was in the wake of this event:
During my co-op, my boss got laid off. So that was a little weird…I did a
project and we were going to implement it, but my boss had to be involved
to implement it. He was gone the next day so I didn‘t get to implement
it…In purchasing training we had to study about capacity…what you do
with the idle time. You have options as a manager, so when I‘m looking at
it, I‘m looking at it through the eyes of a manager. It helps out for
sure…You just feel it, the uneasiness in the culture for a while. It was a
good learning experience though; the other co-op [students] said, ―Wow,
what a learning experience; you worked through a layoff?‖ (P. 4)
These comments demonstrate that, similar to employees, cooperative education students
are sensitive to what is happening in an organization. Depending on the circumstances,
this can have either a negative or a positive impact on being able to use learning from the
classroom. On the other hand valuable learning about organizational culture and function
can occur through this type of situation.
Two other participants reported different situations related to payroll that they had
to spend a considerable amount of time and energy to resolve, thus distracting them from
their work and, from their reports, their ability to apply what they learned in class. They
did, however, as a result of having to work through these situations learn valuable
workplace skills regarding how to address compensation challenges.
These examples illustrate that organizational issues can impact cooperative
education students. This is in line with one of the variables that influence workplace
learning found by Beckett and Hager (2000): workplace environment/culture.
160
Learning Styles and Enablers and Barriers to Transfer of Learning
Kolb‘s (1984) theory of experiential learning and learning styles describes the
cyclical learning cycle and the tendencies that individuals have to learn in a particular
way. Building on this, I sought to explore whether individuals with different learning
styles would identify different enablers and barriers to using their classroom learning in
the cooperative education workplace. Analysis of the enablers and barriers to transfer of
learning coded in the study participants‘ cooperative education documents and interview
transcripts for differences depending on learning style revealed none, although the small
sample size needs to be considered. All participants expressed specific enablers and
barriers to transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace
that fit into almost every one of the four enablers of transfer of learning and two barriers
to transfer of learning summary statements (see Table 22).
There were two exceptions to this. Two participants described experiencing a
positive change in self-perception. Two participants did not identify that their co-op
positions were specialized.
The small sample size and uneven distribution of participants between the
learning style groups precludes definitive conclusions. That being said, based on this
analysis, participants‘ with different learning styles in this case did not report different
enhancers and barriers to transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative
education workplace.
161
Table 22.
Enablers and barriers to learning and participants’ learning styles
Summary Statements: Enablers and
Barriers to Transfer of Learning
Participants (P) Reporting Enabler or Barrier
Assimilating Learning Style
n=2
Accommodating Learning Style
n=4
Enablers
1. Developing a plan to use the
knowledge and skills learned in
the classroom in the co-op
workplace.
P 1
P 4
P 2
P 3
P 5
P 6
2. Having the opportunity to use
the knowledge and skills learned
in the classroom in the co-op
workplace.
P 1
P 4
P 2
P 3
P 5
P 6
3. Working in an environment that
is supportive and provides
breadth and depth of experience
for co-op students.
P 1
P 4
P 2
P 3
P 5
P 6
4. Experiencing a change in self-
perception.
P 2
P 3
Barriers
1. Working in a co-op position that
is specialized.
P 1
P 4
P 2
P 3
2. Dealing with organizational
factors.
P 1
P 4
P 2
P 3
P 5
P 6
Summary: Enablers and Barriers to Transfer of Learning
John Dewey (1938/1998) argued for the education experience to be relocated
outside the classroom. He acknowledged the complexity of experiential learning and
stressed that, as important as the experience was, the quality of the experience was just as
important. Kolb (1984) believed that being able to take what is learned in an experience
162
and transform it into workable, useable knowledge should be an important goal of
experiential learning.
The summary statements describing the enablers and barriers to transfer of
learning derived from the information gathered in the documentation and the interviews
in this research study reflect the kinds of things that these participants felt were either
necessary or missing to help them take what they had learned in the classroom and use it
to further their learning in the cooperative education workplace.
Research Question 4
What planned learning is in place in the program‘s curriculum to promote transfer of
learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace?
Evidence of Planned Learning in the Curriculum
The curriculum of the Bachelor of Applied Business program is intended to
provide students with opportunities to apply theoretical learning in practical, applied
situations. As with all bachelor‘s degrees in applied areas of study programs offered in
colleges in Ontario, a minimum of one mandatory 14-week cooperative education work
term experience is required in the program (PEQAB, 2006b). In fact, this degree program
includes three co-op work-terms. The focus of this research was on the participants‘
experience up to and including the second co-op work term. In order to address the fourth
research question I reviewed the course outlines for all of the courses in academic
Semesters 01 to 05 and both cooperative education work term experiences. I examined
the course descriptions, the CLOs, the embedded knowledge and skills, and the teaching
and learning methods in the course outlines for evidence of planned activities to promote
the transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace. I also
163
looked for items in the course outlines that held the potential to provide opportunities to
promote transfer of learning.
Co-op Work Term Course Outlines. The course descriptions for both Co-op Work
Term I and Co-op Work Term II include the statement that the ―co-op work term
provides students with experiential opportunities directly related to supply chain
management and related e-business technology.‖ In addition, the course description for
Co-op Work Term I state: ―The first work term centers on attaining entry-level positions
that immerse students in a variety of supply chain activities allowing them to apply
learned concepts and principles.‖ These statements described an expectation for students
to transfer learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace. The
CLOs and embedded knowledge and skills in these course outlines support this
expectation. All of the CLOs and more than half of the embedded knowledge and skills in
the first two co-op work term course outlines are clearly linked to transfer of learning
from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace. For example, the first CLO
states: ―Use experiential learning to successfully complete the learning contract with the
employer.‖ An example of a statement of the embedded knowledge and skills that the
student should demonstrate in the course is: ―Apply and adapt concepts, principles and
skills learned in academic terms to a business context.‖
Table 23 captures the emphasis in the course outlines for the first two co-op work
terms on transfer of learning. It shows how many CLOs and embedded knowledge and
skills in these course outlines are linked to transfer of learning from the classroom to the
co-op workplace. The actual CLOs and knowledge and skills were presented previously
in Tables 14 and 15.
164
Table 23.
CLOs and embedded knowledge and skills linked to transfer of learning in co-op courses
Course Title
Course Learning Outcomes Embedded Knowledge and Skills
Total Linked to
Transfer Total
Linked to
Transfer
Co-op Work Term I 2 2 10 6
Co-op Work Term II 2 2 12 9
Submission of a variety of co-op documentation is a requirement of the co-op
experience in this Bachelor of Applied Business program as previously outlined (see
Table 10). Each of these documents provides an opportunity for the students to describe
what they were learning in the co-op experience.
The work term learning plan, in which the students, in conjunction with the
employer supervisor, describe what they plan to learn during the co-op experience, is a
key first step as they begin their co-op work term experience. Including this as a
requirement for the co-op work terms is consistent with the recommendations in the
literature. Cheek and Campbell (1994) emphasized that ―purposeful activity linked to
newly acquired behaviours will facilitate the transfer of learning‖ (p. 27). Eakins (2000)
concluded from her research that it was important to seek ―an approach to structuring the
workplace context and the curriculum of cooperative education so as to support applied
learning in the workplace‖ (p. 63). She noted that using an individualized learning
contract discussed between the student and the workplace supervisor, that is, a negotiated
curriculum, is most desirable due to the variability among workplaces, students and
165
supervisors. This was consistent with the view presented by Wilson, Stull and
Vinsonhaler (1996) that the learning objectives to be achieved by students in the
cooperative education work term experience were to be specific to the individual student
needs, their program of study, and the work experience itself. My review of the
participants‘ learning objectives in the work term learning plans revealed that most of
these were related to CLOs in the academic courses. This is an indication that the
participants see the linkage between the classroom and the co-op workplace.
DiConti (2004) states that
students come to a better understanding of the field experience by
combining the theoretical aspects learned in classrooms with the practical
experience encountered in the internship…students can make a connection
between their traditional curriculum and accomplishments outside the
classroom because of the fundamental requirements of experiential
learning. Such requirements for the learner include taking initiative,
making decisions, and being accountable for results, achievable by
actively posing questions, investigating, experimenting, solving problems,
assuming responsibility, and integrating previously developed
knowledge…Thus, both reflection and the transfer of knowledge are
essential and integral components of any academically successful
program. (p. 175-176)
Including the work term learning plan was the first step toward achieving this.
Another requirement of the co-op work term is the completion of a work term
report. There are several objectives outlined for the work term report in the Bachelor of
Applied Business program, one of which is the ―integration of theoretical concepts and
practical experience‖ (Final Work Term Report Guidelines, p. 1). My analysis of the
participants‘ work term reports revealed evidence of many CLOs, some planned, some
not (see Table 12). This substantiates the findings of Wilson and Lyons (1961) that the
student work term report was used as a means of helping the student to integrate work
and classroom experience.
166
The Co-op Work Term I and II course outlines provide curriculum guidance to
foster transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace.
The assignments that the students submit in conjunction with these courses, especially the
work term learning plan and the work term report, facilitate the documentation of their
planned learning. They also facilitate the documentation of the additional learning that
they had not planned for that occurred during the co-op experience. My analysis of these
documents strongly suggested that the participants transfer what they learn in class to the
cooperative education workplace.
Academic Semesters One to Five Course Outlines. My review of the course
outlines for the academic courses in Semesters 01 through 05 in the Bachelor of Applied
Business program revealed little in the way of planned activity to directly promote
transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace. I
reviewed the course descriptions, CLOs, embedded knowledge and skills, learning
resources, teaching/learning methods, learning activities and assessment, and
evaluation/earning credit sections of these course outlines. With the exception of the Co-
op Preparation course, there is no specific mention of cooperative education in any of the
academic course outlines. It is understandable that co-op would be mentioned in the Co-
op Preparation course given that it was designed to help students ―learn about work term
objectives, policies and procedures, and the requirements for effective job performance‖
(Co-op Preparation Course Outline, p. 1). An Ad Hoc Committee on Cooperative
Education in the U.S. suggested that educators do not see cooperative education as
integral to the curriculum because ―teaching faculty do not recognize that learning,
thinking, and general professional development can be achieved using the work
167
environment as a ―classroom‖ with the work itself serving as an instructional vehicle‖
(Heinemann, 1988, p. 113). That the connection between classroom learning and the co-
op work experience did not emerge in these other course outlines does not necessarily
mean that the faculty members in this program do not see the cooperative education work
term as an important part of the program. In a later section I explore what happens in the
classroom that may not be articulated in the course outlines.
In reviewing the descriptions of the assignments, assessments, and evaluations in
the course outlines, I noted that these are stated in general terms. Some examples of how
these are described include: assignments and projects, midterm exams, online and graded
homework assignments, and comprehensive final examinations, among others. The detail
of the assignment expectations is not included in the course outline but instead is
provided to students by the teacher during the course. In order to elicit information about
whether their assignments or projects were linked in any formal way to the co-op
experience I included the following question in the interview protocol: ―Were the projects
or assignments in any of your courses linked in any way to your co-op work term
experience?‖ (refer to Appendix F for the complete Interview Protocol). Only one student
identified a formal link between assignments or projects and the co-op experience. It was
related to the final program project scheduled later in the program.
No, except for the final project…It‘s in our final term. When I was talking
to [a graduate]…she said, start now, start thinking about it now. (P. 4)
With the exception of the Co-op Preparation course, the course outlines for the
academic courses in Semesters 01 to 05 in the Bachelor of Applied Business program
provided no indication that the teachers planned to foster the transfer of learning from the
classroom to the cooperative education workplace. Recognizing that what is documented
168
may not always represent what actually occurs I investigated this further. The next
section provides a glimpse into what happens in the classroom from the participants‘
perspectives.
Linking Classroom Learning and the Co-op Experience
In order to investigate the linkage between the classroom and co-op further, I
asked participants the following question during the interview: ―What happened in the
classroom that positively influenced you being able to use the knowledge and skills that
you learned in the classroom during your cooperative education workplace experience?‖
This question was designed to elicit their thoughts about the learning experiences that
took place in the program to promote transfer of learning from the classroom to the
cooperative education workplace.
Participants cited examples of how they applied theoretical learning in practical
situations in the classroom and were then able to bring this learning to the workplace.
One example follows:
There were also a lot of hands-on aspects in the courses that we took.
There was practical learning—there were situations where we had to go
and do research and put ourselves in the situation of a company. I am
thinking back to the Marketing course that we did where we had to sell
maple syrup to Norwegians. It was the kind of thing where we had to put
ourselves in the situation of a company trying to sell overseas and setting
up the entire logistics channel and that kind of thing. Just being able to put
yourself in a vendor‘s shoes, coming at it from the opposite side of the
table where you are out there buying from a vendor and even though I was
buying envelopes [in my co-op], the same kind of challenges can come up
in terms of logistics and how you get things across Canada. (P. 2)
Comments about the types of skills that they learned in the classroom that they found
helpful in the co-op experience were common. Several of the participants talked about the
169
importance of being able to work in groups and in teams and how this focus in the
program transferred to the co-op experience.
Probably the biggest thing would be the fact that we work in groups.
Everything we do [in the program] is through teamwork. It‘s basically all
teamwork, so we have to learn to rely on each other…we have certain
expectations on what each individual can do, and so we have to pull our
own weight, and contribute, and all that sort of reflects into this co-op
term. (P. 1)
Definitely the group work. I guess the group dynamics, relating with
people, communicating ideas between people and then too throughout all
the classes, not in just the term before [co-op], but all the terms leading up
to it, especially getting to know people, being able to read people, and then
working with people. Because it was my first time at this company it was
more like me meeting new group members, that kind of thing, introducing
yourself. And it always takes time breaking into a new culture. (P. 4)
Other skills that they learned in class and took to the co-op workplace were
problem solving and critical thinking:
Probably the biggest thing in the classroom is that we were encouraged to
work through situations and to think about them so that when it transferred
to the co-op situation, asking questions and following things through to the
logical conclusion was just a normal thing to do and not something that
you are hesitant to do because you‘re in a new situation. (P. 5)
One of the questions on the interview protocol pursued the transfer of learning
from the co-op workplace to the classroom by exploring whether the professors used the
students‘ experiences from co-op in class: ―Were you asked to draw from your co-op
work experience in any of your classes?‖
With respect to specific content, several students mentioned one professor asking
about their experience in the area of forecasting:
The closest thing I can think of right now is basically when we were asked
in our Forecasting class, what past experience do you have in forecasting?
(P. 1)
170
Well, it did come up once, but it didn‘t really apply to me. One of the
professors had asked us…Think back to a time, it could be on your last co-
op, where you might have done some forecasting. And not a whole lot of
us did, so it kind of fell flat, but I guess the intention was there, the effort.
(P. 2)
In one course for example, we were talking about forecasting, and we
were asked if we did some sort of forecasting at work, and I told him yes I
did. My manager assigned me to do some human resources forecasting for
the next five years, operations and budget stuff and being able to forecast
based on the templates and based on his inputs. I was able to relate to that.
(P. 3)
Although this was the only specific example provided by the participants, in more
general terms they seemed to feel that their professors did draw on their co-op
experience to support classroom learning.
I think for a lot of professors that‘s a favourite thing to draw on because
then they can take it into a learning experience, so we have a lot of that
going on, or it seems to me we have a lot of it going on. But they like to
ask questions because you get such good illustrations. (P. 5)
I can just say that yes, teachers do try and ask about the co-op. If they are
trying to relate something, like about what they‘re teaching, they might
ask a general question like ―who here has done this in their co-op?‖ or
―who can tell us what their experience about this was?‖ and often times
somebody out of all of us will have experience and be able to tell us. For
sure. (P. 6)
Wilson and Lyons (1961) found that although not universally done, individual
faculty members made use of students‘ work experiences in the classroom setting
as a means to assist the student in integrating classroom and co-op learning.
Participants in this study also shared examples from their co-op experience with
their classmates during discussions.
Well a lot of people in class bring up examples from co-op and the
experiences they had, or methodologies and knowledge from their
particular resources. (P. 4)
171
Participants made another observation related to linking classroom learning and
cooperative education experience. They used their experience in co-op to help each other
understand what they were learning in class.
Sometimes, when we would be in class someone would say something
like, ―Gee, I‘m not getting this,‖ or ―What‘s it like?‖ and then you can
reference what you did back in co-op. Like working on group assignments
or when we would get together and study, it was…drawing the parallels
was easy to explain to somebody. (P. 2)
One student described how the experience in co-op had an impact on learning in the
classroom.
Well, I wouldn‘t say there was a direct link, like it was pre-arranged ahead
of time, but I‘d say definitely that because of my professional experience
out on co-op, there was an impact on the schoolwork, or how I saw
things…It was the kind of thing where I was sitting in class and hearing
about this wonderful theory, and I had that kind of background. It helped
to digest the material, it helped to analyze it, think critically about it. (P. 2)
Cantor (1995) stated that ―through practical job- or career-related experiential learning
and/or hands on training in a chosen field, formal classroom learning is clarified,
reinforced, and made relevant (p. 7). This student‘s statement clearly illustrates this.
Summary: Planned Learning in the Curriculum to Promote Transfer of Learning
In summary, I found the course outlines for Co-op Work Term I and II provided
clear links between classroom learning and the workplace. The academic course outlines
provided no tangible evidence of the professors‘ intent to link classroom learning with
the co-op workplace or vice versa. When the participants were asked about their
experience in the classroom it was apparent that, at least to some minimal extent, their
experience in co-op was brought back to the classroom. With the exception of the Co-op
Work Term course outlines; there is little evidence to show that the curriculum was
designed to help the students transfer the knowledge and skills they learned in the
172
classroom to the cooperative education workplace. That students felt this disconnect is
illustrated in the following quote:
…one of the things about learning classroom-type things is that it sort of
works on the theory, and sort of presents a very perfect ideal of how things
should be, whereas when you get out into the workplace, things don‘t
necessarily happen in the perfect theoretical way. Again, there are these
hidden surprises, individuals, or structures that just get in the way of
applying the knowledge. (P. 2)
Chapter Summary
This research study used case study methodology and both qualitative and
quantitative research tools to gather data to address the research questions. This study
examined the extent of transfer of learning and the relationship between students‘
learning styles and the transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative
education workplace in the Bachelor of Applied Business program in a large
comprehensive Ontario CAAT. Purposive convenience sampling of the third-year class,
in the sixth academic semester, of the Bachelor of Applied Business program yielded six
participants (28.6% response rate).
Several different instruments and methodologies were used to gather and present
the findings for this research: Kolb‘s Learning Style Inventory, a researcher-developed
Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire, the five documents that comprise the
cooperative education workplace documentation in this program, the course outlines for
Semesters 01 through 05 and Co-op Work Terms I and II, and the interview transcripts
from one-on-one interviews conducted by the researcher with the participants.
The research findings were outlined in detail in the first part of this chapter. The
analyses of the findings were presented in the second half of the chapter by addressing
the four specific research questions. Conclusions drawn from the analyses of these
173
findings are presented in chapter 5. These are accompanied by implications for practice
and recommendations for future research.
174
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this research study I examined the extent of transfer of learning from the
classroom to the cooperative education workplace in the Bachelor of Applied Business
program and the relationship between the students‘ learning styles and the transfer of
learning. Four research questions were used to guide this research. They are:
1. What is the extent of the transfer of learning from the classroom to the
cooperative education workplace in the Bachelor of Applied Business program?
2. What are the differences in the types of learning outcomes that students with
differing learning styles transfer from the classroom to the cooperative education
workplace?
3. What are the enablers and barriers to transfer of learning identified by the
students? Are there differences depending on the student‘s learning style?
4. What planned learning is in place in the program‘s curriculum to promote transfer
of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace
In this chapter, I first provide a brief overview and critique of the research
methodology. I then present my conclusions, implications for practice, and
recommendations for future research.
Overview and Critique of Research Methodology
This research used case study methodology and both qualitative and quantitative
research tools to gather data to address the research questions. The Bachelor of Applied
Business program delivered at a College of Applied Arts and Technology (CAAT) in
Ontario was the program from which the case was selected. Taking part in the study was
175
a purposive convenience sample of six students who had completed the second of three
cooperative education work terms in the program. Six of 21 (28.6%) eligible students
agreed to participate and all completed all components of the study. The research
methodology I used for this study is described in detail in chapter 3. In summary, the
participants completed the Kolb Learning Style Inventory (LSI), the researcher-
developed Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire, and participated in a one-on-one
interview. I analyzed the five co-op documents completed by the student, the employer
supervisor and the co-op staff member. Data collected using each of these methods were
validated as appropriate, triangulated, and analyzed to develop the results and analyses
presented in chapter 4 and the conclusions presented later in this chapter.
Self-reporting comprised a large component of the data collection in this study.
Based on my critical analysis, I recommend that the research design would benefit from
modification to help mitigate the possible influence of this: reducing the number of items
on the Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire and the use of a desk diary or a similar
reporting tool during the co-op workplace experience. The rationale for these
modifications is described in the following paragraphs.
As indicated previously, the participants completed a researcher-designed Course
Learning Outcomes Questionnaire asking them to identify the classroom learning, as
described by the course learning outcomes (CLOs), that they used during the cooperative
education workplace experience and the extent to which they used these. On the positive
side, this tool enabled triangulation of the information found in the other documents and
the interview. However, the questionnaire, comprised of 134 CLOs, used self-reporting
and participants had to recall what they learned, in some cases, more than two years
176
previously. There may have been too long a lapse between the actual learning and the
reporting of its use. Sudman and Bradburn (1982) note: ―human memory is fallible and
depends on the length and recency of the time period and the saliency of the topic‖ (p.
21). In behavioural research ―periods of a year (or sometimes even longer) can be used
for highly salient topics such as purchase of a new house, birth of a child or a serious auto
accident. Periods of a month or less should be used for items with low saliency‖ (p. 21).
In other words, perfect accuracy for a number of small items such as these CLOs learned
over an extended period of time cannot necessarily be assumed. Difficulty remembering
CLOs from earlier semesters did not appear to be a problem in this study based on the
findings; however, recall remains an important factor to be considered.
Balanced against the possible over-reporting by the participants of their use of the
CLOs is a possible under-reporting of ―do not recall learning [the CLO] in my course
work.‖ As noted in chapter 3 there were very few admissions to this by the participants.
This reluctance by the participants to admit that any of the CLOs eluded them may derive
from a conscious or unconscious interest in presenting themselves in a favourable light to
me or anyone else who may view the data. They may have viewed the option of revealing
that they ―don‘t recall learning [the CLO] in my course work‖ as threatening. In the
words of Sudman and Bradburn (1982) the participants may have felt ―there is a ‗right‘
and a ‗wrong‘ answer…‖ (p. 32). Here the ―right‖ answer was to claim near-perfect recall
of these course building blocks. In the interest of improving the research design and
finding out more accurately which of these CLOs the students used in the cooperative
education workplace experiences, another means of verifying the self-reported data
should be included in the methodology. One possible support might be the use of a desk
177
diary or similar reporting tool used by the student throughout the co-op work term. This
could then be analyzed later along with the other documentation as a reliability check.
The number of CLOs on the questionnaire is something else that should be
revisited. In developing this questionnaire, I worked with the program coordinator to
condense some CLOs together and remove the ones that did not seem relevant to the
cooperative education workplace experience. The feedback on the pilot test was that the
students found the questionnaire easy to complete and a useful reflective tool; however,
having worked with this tool, I would suggest that the number of CLOs be further
reduced by collapsing similar CLOs together. Doing this in collaboration with the
program coordinator and/or faculty members is important to ensure that the academic
intention of the CLOs is maintained.
A final comment related to the use of CLOs is regarding their use as a proxy for
students‘ learning. Those unfamiliar with the concept of learning outcomes may question
their use in this manner. The curriculum design at the college in this research study is
based on the premise that student learning is demonstrated by the performances outlined
in the CLOs. Students are introduced to this concept at the beginning of the program,
their course outlines are designed in this manner, and evaluation in each of their courses
is designed to measure learning related to the CLOs articulated in the course outline. For
this reason, I deemed the use of CLOs as a valid proxy for learning. I found that the
students received the CLOs in the questionnaire positively. I recommend that subsequent
researchers use these as well, if the curriculum is designed in an outcomes based
approach.
178
In chapter 2, I described the difference between mandatory and non-mandatory
cooperative education programs. The Bachelor of Applied Business program is a
mandatory co-op program meaning that all students must participate in the co-op work
terms in order to complete the program. A variable that I did not include in my research
was the Grade Point Average (GPA) or academic standing of the participants. It is
possible that the relationship between learning style and transfer of learning outcomes
might vary with GPA. Thus this would be an interesting variable to examine in the future
particularly in programs such as this one where co-op is mandatory and no minimum
GPA is required to be eligible for co-op.
Research Conclusions
My conclusions are drawn from the analyses of the findings of this study which
are described in detail in chapter 4. They look at the analyses holistically and in some
cases combine information from more than one research question.
Conclusion 1: Foundation skills learned in the classroom, such as communication
and technical skills, and in this case general business concepts, are used in all of the
cooperative education workplace experiences in this study.
The results showed clearly that students in this program used what they learned in
the classroom during their co-op workplace experience. Close to 74% (99) of the 134
CLOs from the courses studied prior to the second co-op workplace experience were
reported as used by at least one participant during that co-op experience (see Table 6).
The CLOs reported on the Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire as used by all of the
participants in this study (11 or 8% of the CLOs) were clustered in the first two semesters
(see Table 7). These CLOs described technical and communication skills. The CLOs
179
reported as used by the majority of the participants were also concentrated in the first two
semesters. These CLOs were related to fundamental business concepts. Coding of the
interview transcripts for participants‘ descriptions of learning linked to the prescribed
CLOs revealed similar results to those seen in the analysis of the Course Learning
Outcomes Questionnaire (see Table 17). I found that the participants predominantly
identified concepts related to the field of business, with some mention of more specific
skills related to e-business supply chain management. They also described technical and
communication skills. One item mentioned by five of the six participants was their
learning related to teamwork.
The extensive use of the CLOs representing communication and technical skills
and general business concepts provides support for the importance of these broad-based,
foundational skills in the workplace. These results are consistent with the results of
studies of student learning during the cooperative education experience that also found
evidence of communication and technical skills along with discipline specific learning
(Canale & Duwart, 1999; Davidge-Johnston, 1996). Employers reported finding value in
both discipline-related learning as well as written and spoken communication skills in the
co-op experience (Canale & Duwart, 1999).
Conclusion 2: The co-op work term experience itself, including the workplace
environment and culture, is more important than the student‘s learning style in explaining
the learning from the classroom that a student is able to transfer to the co-op workplace.
Aside from the commonly used CLOs, the CLOs used by the individual
participants were clearly related to different but specific areas within the field of e-
business supply chain management. The differences in the CLOs used among all of the
180
students were related to the opportunities to use CLOs during the particular co-op work
term experience, the culture and environment of the business, and the supportiveness of
the employer supervisor, rather than the learning style of the student. The use of
application of concept CLOs versus application of skill CLOs also appeared to be related
to the opportunity presented in a particular co-op experience rather than a student‘s
learning style.
The learning that students transfer from the classroom is dependent on the
position that a student obtains for his or her cooperative education workplace experience.
Some jobs provide for a more focused experience; others provide more breadth. The
small sample size may have influenced the findings related to this conclusion.
Conclusion 3: Co-op experiences may not challenge students to the level they
may be capable of with respect to what they have learned in class.
The low level of reported use of the CLOs in the higher academic levels,
particularly those that represent higher level concepts and skills (see Table 7), is an
indication that these students were not necessarily working to their potential related to
what they had learned to date in the classroom. This has implications for practice that are
discussed later. This is something that program faculty and co-op staff alike need to bear
in mind when planning co-op experiences.
Conclusion 4: A co-op work term learning plan, opportunity to use previous
learning, and a supportive co-op environment are important for students to be able to
transfer their learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace
experience.
181
The results of this study showed that the work term learning plan, as used in this
program, sets the stage for transfer of learning from the classroom to the co-op workplace
rather than leaving it to occur, or not, on an ad hoc basis. I found that all of the CLOs
identified in the students‘ work term learning plans were used during the co-op
experience. Of note is that the majority of the CLOs identified in the participants‘ work
term learning plans were clustered in the early academic semesters with fewer but more
job-specific CLOs from the upper years included as well.
A co-op workplace environment that provides opportunities to use the knowledge
and skills learned in the classroom is an important enabling factor to transfer these to the
co-op workplace. The supportive involvement of the employer supervisor in the
cooperative education experience, as reflected in participant comments in the cooperative
education documentation and interview transcripts, is also important to support transfer
of learning. There are several implications for practice that can be derived from this
conclusion. These are addressed later in this chapter.
Conclusion 5: Perceived barriers to transfer of learning also provide the
opportunity for learning experiences.
Although the barriers identified by the participants may have prevented them
from transferring some of the learning in the program, they ultimately benefited from
encountering these barriers. The specialized work experiences noted provided them with
a focused learning experience, and dealing with organizational issues helped them to
learn some valuable workplace-related skills.
182
Co-op staff and employer supervisors can assist students to see the learning
potential in difficult situations especially recognizing that some barriers are not avoidable
or able to be circumvented (Boud & Walker, 1993).
Conclusion 6: The program curriculum design plays a role in enabling transfer of
learning.
The curriculum for the co-op work term courses is designed with the expectation
that students would transfer learning from the classroom to the co-op workplace, thus
facilitating this occurring. The findings of this research demonstrated that transfer of
learning from the classroom to the co-op workplace did indeed occur.
The reverse situation was also demonstrated to a limited extent in the findings of
this research, that is, the transfer of learning from the co-op workplace to the classroom.
The academic course outlines for the first five of eight semesters appeared to have been
developed in apparent isolation from the cooperative education experience as evident in
my review. This resulted in only an ad hoc connection between the two being made
during academic courses as evidenced by the participants‘ comments during the interview
(see chapter 4). It would be interesting to see the impact of formal links between the
academic courses and the co-op workplace experience.
One of the enablers to transfer of learning identified in these research finding
pointed clearly to the role that the curriculum could play in influencing transfer of
learning with respect to ensuring that students planned to use their classroom learning in
the cooperative education workplace: participants‘ ability to transfer learning from the
classroom to the co-op workplace was enabled by developing a specific plan to use the
knowledge and skills learned in the classroom in the co-op workplace. Much more
183
learning was reported as being used during the co-op experience in the co-op documents
and in the Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire than was planned for in the co-op
work term learning plan.
This study shows that the work term learning plan is an effective tool to set the
stage for transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace
in that it has the students put these plans in place. The other co-op documents provide a
means to document the use of this planned learning, as well as any other learning that is
used. I explore how documenting the learning used might be improved in the implications
for practice section.
Implications for Practice
Through an in-depth examination of one group of six students‘ experience related
to transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace I have
been able to gain insight into what and how much learning they do in fact transfer. I have
determined that it is more likely the workplace experience itself rather than the students‘
learning style that influences the extent and type of learning that they transfer. I have
identified those factors that students feel enable or deter this transfer of learning. And I
have looked at the program curriculum and identified the role that it played in this
transfer of learning. This information contributes to the current state of knowledge related
to cooperative education, transfer of learning and learning styles. In addition, I developed
several recommendations for changes to practice related to cooperative education.
Recommendation 1: Reinforce the importance of communication and technical
skills for success in the cooperative education workplace experience with students.
184
It is an unfortunate reality that students are often more engaged in learning related
to their discipline than they are in the more generic, employability skills such as
communication and technical skills. The findings of this research point to the fact that,
while students use different discipline related knowledge and skills depending on the co-
op work term experience, it is the communication and technical concepts and skills that
all students use in every cooperative education workplace experience. The evidence that
these skills are used in all co-op workplace experiences could have an influence on
students‘ engagement levels in the communication- and technology-related courses.
Recommendation 2: Provide learning experiences that approach situations in a
variety of ways during the academic courses in a co-op program such that students have
the opportunity to build their capabilities in each of the four learning modes: observation,
abstract conceptualization, active experimentation, and concrete experience.
In this case, transfer of learning does not appear to be linked to learning style but
rather to the cooperative education experience that the students had; however, the small
number of participants in this study limits the conclusions that can be drawn related to
learning styles. That being said, the participants in this study did not all belong to the
same learning style preference group. Professors need to recognize that their classes are
made up of individuals who learn in different ways, and therefore, the faculty members
need to recognize this in course planning.
Recommendation 3: Design the academic course curriculum to link classroom
learning with the cooperative education workplace experience to enable the students to
transfer this learning more effectively.
185
It is encouraging to find that this Bachelor of Applied Business program appears
to be at the point of maturity where the cooperative education component of the program
has clearly articulated outcomes that link the classroom learning to the cooperative
education experience. The cooperative education course learning outcomes establish the
expectation that students are to transfer learning from the classroom to the cooperative
education workplace experience. What is not obvious in the course outlines for the first
five academic semesters is this intentional link between the two learning environments in
the classroom-based courses. This is consistent with Milley‘s (2004) findings that when
students returned to campus from co-op the integration of their learning from work
occurred in an ad hoc fashion (p. 272). In his study, as in this one, it was shown that
professors played important informal roles in encouraging this integration of learning
through their approaches to teaching. It is also somewhat consistent with Grosjean‘s
(2000) finding of two distinct worlds: co-op and the classroom.
An ad hoc committee in the U.S., Cooperative Education and the Academy,
(Heinemann, 1988) determined that:
the cooperative education methodology for promoting learning is vague
and underdeveloped…the work experience is seen as an end unto itself
rather than the vehicle to achieve broader learning goals that complement
and support the curriculum. As a consequence not enough attention has
been paid to developing broad educational philosophies and rigorous
methodologies to guide students learning while working. The learning
outcome from the cooperative education experience must be clearly
defined, be in line with the objectives of the curriculum, and readily allow
for evaluation by faculty. (p. 114-115).
While the Bachelor of Applied Business program curriculum is at a point much advanced
from the U.S. Ad Hoc Committee‘s description of cooperative education programs, still
missing is a clear connection between the classroom and the cooperative education
186
experience in other than the co-op preparation course. In order to achieve the full
integration of the cooperative education experience into the program‘s curriculum this
must occur. Case studies and group discussions can both be effective ways to link theory
and concepts with workplace experiences. Case studies can take the place of a real
situation in order to learn, especially if guidance is provided and if done in a supportive
group environment (Van Gyn, 1996). Group discussions allow for feedback, questioning,
exploration, clarification, and critique of ideas and skills. These not only stimulate
exploration of new knowledge by the learners, but provide the opportunity for critical
evaluation of the ideas presented in class (Nolan, 1994).
The findings of this research study show that relatively specific concepts and
skills are transferred by students to the cooperative education workplace selectively
depending upon the particular co-op experience. This means that students may not have
the opportunity to use all that they learned in the classroom during their co-op
experience. By presenting students with the opportunity to use knowledge and skills
during their academic courses within the frame of reference that they are preparing for
their cooperative education workplace experiences and ultimately their future careers,
they may be more able to see the connection between their classroom learning and the
workplace, thus breaking down the two solitudes.
Recommendation 4: Select cooperative education workplace experiences for
students carefully to ensure alignment between the students‘ knowledge and abilities and
the opportunities available to transfer the knowledge and skills learned in the classroom
to the co-op workplace experience.
187
The enablers and barriers to transfer of learning revealed in this research point to
the importance of careful selection of cooperative education workplace experiences and
careful matching with students. Both the college and the employers have key roles to play
in this process. The analysis of the classroom learning used during co-op reveals that the
students predominantly reported using learning from early in the program. This leads to
several questions: Are positions that are below the students‘ current ability level all that
are available? and/or, Are the employers fully aware of the students‘ level of knowledge
and ability? and/or, Have the employers had previous experiences that influence them to
limit the co-op student‘s activities? Investigation of these issues by college faculty and
staff members in dialogue with the employers may produce some answers and ultimately
lead to co-op work term positions that allow students to work to their capacity.
Recommendation 5: Provide formal orientation and training to cooperative
education employer supervisors to help them to understand their role, the program
curriculum, and the level of the student more clearly.
It is with the employer supervisors that the students finalize their work term
learning plans and the employer supervisor conducts the mid-term and final evaluations
for the student. In order to do this effectively, employer supervisors need to have a good
understanding of the program curriculum and have the ability to support the student to
write effective learning objectives. Employer supervisors need to understand their role in
the co-op experience in order to ensure that the student is provided with the guidance,
support, and supervision necessary to transfer learning from the classroom effectively,
build on this learning, and also make a positive contribution in the workplace. Formal
orientation and training for employer supervisors, along with resource materials, could be
188
very helpful in achieving this. Any initiatives developed in this direction will need to
keep in mind that employers will be conscious of their time commitment—they will want
whatever they participate in kept simple. Ongoing support to employers during the work
term from the college is also important. This recommendation is in line with the
implications for practice identified by Eakins (2000) who stressed the importance of
establishing ―partnership and communication between the educational institution,
students, and employers…so that the context of the work place and the opportunities that
it provides for student learning are clearly understood by all the parties in cooperative
education‖ (p. 66).
Recommendation 6: Align the guidelines for the work term learning plan with the
curriculum for the program and guide students to use the CLOs from the academic
courses studied prior to the particular co-op work term experience as a tool in developing
co-op work term learning plans with the goal of greater use and reinforcement of higher
level classroom learning.
My analyses of the learning that the students included in their work term learning
plans provide a clear indication that when they plan to use learning, they do use it. Use of
the work term learning plan should be continued and encouraged. Additional guidance in
the development of the learning objectives in the work term learning plans would be
beneficial for students. In particular, revising the work term learning plan template to
more closely align with the academic part of the program curriculum would help
students, faculty members, and employers make a direct link between the curriculum of
the program and the co-op experience. Encouraging the students to use the CLOs and the
associated embedded knowledge and skills from their courses in all semesters as a guide
189
when developing their work term learning plans would foster this link. Eames and Cates
(2004) described Kolb‘s learning cycle as ―particularly useful in explaining how learning
can be integrated between the classroom and the workplace‖ (p. 43). This
recommendation places emphasis on planning for concrete experiences based on previous
experience.
Engaging employers in discussion about the CLOs in the program through this
process will provide a real time link between the program and the world of work. This
could result in ongoing updates to the program, including ensuring that the language used
in the CLOs mirrors what is being used by employers. This will have the double benefit
of improving the currency of the program and decreasing the chance of confusion for
students where different terminology is used in the classroom and the workplace.
Recommendation 7: Add a planning and assessment tool to the cooperative
education workplace experience that allows the student to both plan for and identify the
CLOs transferred to the co-op work term.
Participants in this research study completed the researcher-developed Course
Learning Outcomes Questionnaire. Both the participants and the students that
participated in the pilot study indicated that this was a useful tool. They said that it gave
them a comprehensive picture of the learning that they brought from the classroom to the
cooperative education workplace. It could also be used in planning discussions with the
employer supervisor to give them a clear picture of what the student coming to them has
learned in the classroom prior to the co-op work term. While the Course Learning
Outcomes Questionnaire was useful, any subsequent development should condense it
190
further by developing summary statements from several similar CLOs to reduce the
number of CLOs to a more manageable level.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study focused on one class in one particular bachelor‘s degree program at a
College of Applied Arts and Technology in Ontario. It provided a focused view of the
issue of transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace in
general and explored the relationship that students‘ learning styles have with this transfer
of learning.
The examination of these questions can be expanded in several ways. A larger
sample of students from all levels in an individual program could provide additional
insight into the question of transfer of learning. This would allow for the exploration of
the differences between the various co-op experiences in a program. A larger sample of
students would enable a broader analysis of the question related to learning styles and
allow for examination of the students‘ academic standing as a variable. Conducting a
similar type of study with other bachelor‘s degree programs at this college or at other
colleges would add additional information to this discussion.
I designed this study intentionally to focus on a bachelor‘s degree program
delivered at a CAAT in Ontario because of the mandatory co-op work term and the
practical focus of the program curriculum. Replication of this research using university-
based theoretical bachelor‘s degree programs and/or programs that have a selective rather
than mandatory co-op experience, as well as those with mandatory co-op could provide
some additional useful information. Examining the experience of college co-op diploma
students would add another dimension as well.
191
The employers‘ perspective related to the learning that students transfer to the
workplace would also be an important and useful dimension to examine. Several
questions were articulated earlier that could be used in future research: Are co-op
positions that are below the students‘ ability level all that are available? and/or, Are the
employers fully aware of the students‘ level of knowledge and ability? and/or, Have the
employers had previous experiences that influence them to limit the co-op student‘s
activities?
College faculty and staff members‘ perceptions of transfer of learning from the
classroom to the co-op workplace and vice versa are other dimensions that could be
explored. Both co-op staff and program faculty play a role and it is important that the
perceptions of both be incorporated.
The findings of this research demonstrate that learning is indeed transferred from
the classroom to the cooperative education workplace. Transfer of learning appears to be
more closely linked to the co-op workplace experience itself rather than the student‘s
learning style. This study also shows the important role that curriculum design plays in
facilitating the transfer of learning from the classroom to the co-op workplace. The
findings of this research provide information that may be considered by those involved in
developing and delivering cooperative education programs.
192
REFERENCES
Algonquin College. (2008). Developing course outlines. Lifesaver Retrieved April 25,
2010, from http://www.algonquincollege.com/profres/lifesavers/documents/03-
DevelopingCourseOutlines.pdf
Anderson, J. A. (1988). Cognitive styles and multicultural populations. Journal of
Teacher Education, 39(1), 2-9.
Apostolides, V., & Looye, J. W. (1997). Student assessment of the co-op experience and
optimum integration of classroom learning with professional practice. Journal of
Cooperative Education, 32(3), 16-30.
Bandura, A. (1982). The assessment and predictive generality of self-percepts of efficacy.
Journal of Behaviour Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 13(3), 195-199.
Barrow, C. W. (1990). Universities and the capitalist state: Corporate liberalism and the
reconstruction of American higher education, 1894-1928. Madison, Wisconsin:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Beckett, D., & Hager, P. (2000). Making judgments as the basis for workplace learning:
Towards an epistemology of practice. International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 19(4), 300-311.
Blair, B. F., & Millea, M. (2004). Student academic performance and compensation: The
impact of cooperative education. College Student Journal, 38(4), 643-652.
Bleakley, A. (2006). Broadening conceptions of learning in medical education: the
message from teamwork. Medical Education, 40, 150-157.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Walker, D. (1993). Introduction: Understanding learning from
experience. In D. Boud, R. Cohen & D. Walker (Eds.), Using experience for
learning (pp. 1-17). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.). (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into
learning. New York: Nichols Publishing Company.
Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1993). Barriers to reflection on experience. In D. Boud, R.
Cohen & D. Walker (Eds.), Using experience for learning (pp. 73-86).
Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Boud, D., & Walker, D. P. (1990). Making the most of experience. Studies in Continuing
Education, 12(2), 61-80.
193
Braunstein, L. A., & Stull, W. A. (2001). Employer benefits of, and attitudes toward
postsecondary cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education, 36(1), 7-
17.
Brew, A. (1993). Unlearning through experience. In D. Boud, R. Cohen & D. P. Walker
(Eds.), Using experience for learning (pp. 87 -98). Philadelphia, PA: Open
University Press.
Canadian Association for Co-operative Education. (2007). Definitions. Retrieved
September 10, 2007, from http://cafce.ca/pages/directory.php
Canadian Association for Co-operative Education. (2008). CAFCE: Putting Education to
Work [Brochure].
Canadian Association for Co-operative Education. (2009). Retrieved April 17, 2010,
from http://www.cafce.ca/en/home
Canadian Association for Co-operative Education. (2010). Retrieved April 17, 2010,
from http://www.cafce.ca/en/home
Canadian Council on Learning. (2008, February 21). The benefits of experiential
learning. Retrieved November 19, 2008, from http://www.ccl-
cca.ca/CCL/Reports/LessonsInLearning/
Canale, R., & Duwart, E. (1999). Internet based reflective learning for cooperative
education students during co-op work periods. Journal of Cooperative Education,
34(2), 25-34.
Canter, M. (2000). The assessment of key skills in the workplace. Journal of Cooperative
Education, 35(2/3), 41-47.
Cantor, J. A. (1995). Cooperative education and experiential learning. Toronto, ON:
Wall & Emerson, Inc.
Cates, C. L., & Langford, D. R. (1999). Documenting communication and thinking skills
through co-op student reports. Journal of Cooperative Education, 34(3), 7-17.
Chapman, A. (2006). Kolb learning styles. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from
http://www.businessballs.com/kolblearningstyles.htm
Cheek, G. D., & Campbell, C. (1994). Help them use what they learn. Adult Learning,
5(4), 27-28.
Ciarleglio, A. (2008). The relationship among cooperative education program
participation, student grade point average and retention. Unpublished
Dissertation, Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, CT.
194
Coll, R. K., Zegwaard, K., & Lay, M. (2001). The influence of cooperative education on
student perceptions of their ability in practical science. Journal of Cooperative
Education, 36(3), 58-72.
College in the Study. (2007). Writing course learning requirements. Lifesaver Retrieved
January 16, 2009, from www.collegeinthestudy
Cook, D. A., & Smith, A. J. (2006). Validity of index of learning styles scores: Multitrait-
multimethod comparison with three cognitive/learning style instruments. Medical
Education, 40, 900-907.
Cooperative education: Student info - Current co-op students. (2008). Retrieved April
11, 2009, from http://www.algonquincollege.com/coop/student/current.html
Cornwell, J. M., & Manfredo, P. A. (1994). Kolb's learning style revisited. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 54(2), 317-327.
Cresswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the
five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Davidge-Johnston, N. L. (1996). The nature of learning in cooperative education in the
applied sciences. Unpublished Thesis, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver.
Desmedt, E., & Valcke, E. (2004). Mapping the learning styles "jungle": An overview of
the literature based on citation analysis. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 445-464.
Dewey, J. (1916/1966). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1929/1960). The quest for certainty. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
Dewey, J. (1938/1998). Experience and education: The 60th anniversary edition. West
Lafayette: Kappa Delta Pi.
DiConti, V. D. (2004). Experiential education in a knowledge-based economy: Is it time
to reexamine the liberal arts? The Journal of General Education, 53(3-4), 167-
183.
Eakins, P. (2000). The importance of context in work placements. Journal of Cooperative
Education, 35(2-3), 61-67.
Eames, C. (2000). Learning in the workplace through co-operative education placements:
Beginning a longitudinal qualitative study. Journal of Cooperative Education,
35(2/3), 76-83.
Eames, C., & Cates, C. L. (2004). Theories of learning in cooperative education. In R. K.
Coll & C. Eames (Eds.), International handbook for cooperative education (pp.
37-47). Hamilton, New Zealand: World Association for Cooperative Education.
195
Eisner, E. (1992). Objectivity in educational research. Curriculum Inquiry, 22(1), 9-15.
Ellis, R. J. (1987). Postsecondary cooperative education in Canada. Ottawa: Science
Council of Canada.
Fenwick, T. (2000). Expanding conceptions of experiential learning: A review of the five
contemporary perspectives on cognition. Adult Education Quarterly, 50(2), 243-
272.
Flick, U. (1992). Triangulation revisited: Strategy of validation or alternative? Journal
for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22(2), 175-197.
Ford, J. K. (1994, March/April). Defining transfer of learning. Adult Learning, 22-23, 30.
Gardner, B. S., & Korth, S. J. (1997). Classroom strategies that facilitate transfer of
learning to the workplace. Innovative Higher Education, 22(1), 45-60.
Gardner, P. D., & Koslowski, S. W. J. (1993). Learning the ropes: Co-ops do it faster.
Journal of Cooperative Education, 28(3), 30-41.
Garner, I. (2000). Problems and inconsistencies with Kolb's learning styles. Educational
Psychology, 20(3), 341-348.
Government of Ontario. (2000). Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act,
2000. Retrieved January 18, 2009, from http://www.e-
laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_00p36_e.htm
Government of Ontario. (2002). Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act,
2002. Retrieved January 17, 2009, from http://www.e-
laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_02o08f_e.htm
Grosjean, G. (2000). Doing co-op: Student perceptions of learning and work.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
B.C.
Grubb, W. N., & Badway, N. (1998). Linking school-based and work-based learning:
The implications of Laguardia's co-op seminars for school-to-work programs.
Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.
Hall, J. W. (1999). Cooperative education for the future. Journal of Cooperative
Education, 32(2), 9-15.
Hamilton, S. F., & Hamilton, M. A. (1997). When is learning work-based? Retrieved
September 2, 2007, from http://proquest.umi.com.my.access.library.utoronto.ca
Hartley, J. L., & Smith, B. W. (2000). Strengthening academic ties by assessment of
learning outcomes. Journal of Cooperative Education, 35(1), 41-47.
196
Heinemann, H. N. (1988). Cooperative education and the academy. Journal of
Cooperative Education, 24(2-3), 109-119.
Heinemann, H. N., & de Falco, A. A. (1990). Dewey's pragmatism: A philosophical
foundation for cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education, 27(1),
38-44.
Herr, S. R. (2000). Academic yearnings--Cooperative responses. Journal of Cooperative
Education, 35(1), 35-40.
Hickcox, L. K. (1990). An historical review of Kolb's formulation of experiential learning
theory. Unpublished Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Howard, A. (2004). Cooperative education and internships at the threshold of the twenty-
first century. In P. L. Linn, A. Howard & E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook for research
in cooperative education and internships (pp. 3-10). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Howard, A., & England-Kennedy, E. S. (2001). Transgressing boundaries through
learning communities. Journal of Cooperative Education, 36(1), 76-82.
Human Resources Development Canada. (1994). Evaluation of the cooperative education
option: Final Report. Ottawa, ON.
Iliff, C. H. (1994). Kolb learning style inventory: A meta-analysis. Unpublished
Dissertation, Boston University, Boston, MA.
Jarvis, P. (1987). Adult learning in the social context. New York: Croom Helm.
Johnson, R. B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research.
Education, 118(2), 282-292.
Johnson, R. B. (Winter 1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research.
Education, 118(2), 282-292.
Johnston, N., Angerilli, N., & Gajdamaschko, N. (2004). How to measure complex
learning processes: The nature of learning in cooperative education. In P. L. Linn,
A. Howard & E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook for research in cooperative education
and internships (pp. 157-190). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Katajavuori, N., Lindblom-Ylӓnne, S., & Hirvonen, J. (2006). The significance of
practical training in linking theoretical studies with practice. Higher Education,
51, 439-464.
Kelly, C. (1997). David Kolb: The theory of experiential learning and ESL. The Internet
TESL Journal III, 9. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from
http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kelly-Experiential
197
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005a). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing
experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 4(2), 193-212.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. ( 2005b). The Kolb learning style inventory -- Version 3.1:
2005 Technical Specifications. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from
http://www.learningfromexperience.com
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, D. A. (2005). Kolb learning style inventory: Version 3.1. Boston: Hay Resources
Direct.
Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory:
Previous research and new directions. In R. J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.),
Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 227-247). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, S. (2006). A comparison of student perceptions of learning in their co-op and
internship experiences and the classroom environment: A study of hospitality
management students. Unpublished Dissertation, College of Education at
University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
Linn, P. L. (2004). Theories about learning and development in cooperative education
and internships. In P. L. Linn, A. Howard & E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook for
research in cooperative education and internships (pp. 11-28). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Linn, P. L., & Ferguson, J. (1999). A lifespan study of cooperative education graduates:
Quantitative aspects. Journal of Cooperative Education, 34(3), 30-41.
Loo, R. (2002). A meta-analytic examination of Kolb's learning style preferences among
business majors. Journal of Education for Business, 77(2), 252-256.
Mainemelis, C., Boyatizis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Learning styles and adaptive
flexibility: Testing experiential learning theory. Management Learning, 33(1), 5-
33.
Maynard, M. L. (2004). Correlation analysis in a natural experiment design: Seeking the
opportune grade point average cutoff for internships. In P. L. Linn, A. Howard &
E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook for research in cooperative education and internships
(pp. 191-206). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
198
Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformation theory. Adult Education Quarterly,
44(4), 222-232.
Milley, P. (2004). The social and educational implications of university cooperative
education: A Habermasian perspective. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
University of Victoria, Victoria.
Milne, P. (2007). A model for work integrated learning: Optimizing student learning
outcomes. Paper presented at the World Association for Cooperative Education
6th Annual International Conference. Retrieved from
http://www.waceinc.org/papers/html
Nasr, K. J., Pennington, J., & Andres, C. (2004). A study of students' assessment of
cooperative education outcomes. Journal of Cooperative Education, 38(1), 13-21.
Nolan, R. E. (1994). From the classroom to the real world. Adult Learning, 26.
Ontario Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities. (2001, October 1). Students to
benefit from more choices in degrees. Canada NewsWire Retrieved March 10,
2004, from ProQuest
Ontario Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities. (March 27, 2002). Students have
more choice as Ontario colleges begin offering 12 applied degree programs.
Canada NewsWire Retrieved March 10, 2004, from ProQuest
Ottoson, J. M. (1994). Transfer of learning: Not just an after thought. Adult Learning, 21.
Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of
constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.
Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board. (2006a). Degree level standards.
Retrieved July 24, 2007, from http://192.139.188.172/PEQAB/index.asp?id1=10
Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board. (2006b). Handbook for Ontario
colleges applying for ministerial consent under the Post-secondary Education
Choice and Excellence Act, 2000. Toronto: Ministry of Training, Colleges and
Universities.
Raschick, M., Maypole, D. E., & Day, P. A. (1998). Improving field education through
Kolb learning theory. Journal of Social Work Education, 34(1), 31-42.
Ricks, F. (1996). Principles for structuring cooperative education programs. Journal of
Cooperative Education, 31(2), 8-22.
Ricks, F., van Gyn, G., Branton, G., Cutt, J., Loken, M., & Ney, T. (1990). Theory and
research in cooperative education: Practice implications. Journal of Cooperative
Education, 27(1), 7-20.
199
Rogers, A. (1996). Teaching adults. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Roland, K. A. (2000). Co-operative education: A value-added approach to education at
the university level. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Windsor, Windsor,
ON.
Ryder, K. G. (1987). Social and educational roots. In K. G. Ryder & J. W. Wilson (Eds.),
Cooperative education in a new era: Understanding and strengthening the links
between college and the workplace (pp. 1-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Saltmarsh, J. A. (1992). John Dewey and the future of cooperative education. Journal of
Cooperative Education, 28(1), 6-16.
Sawyer, D. (2008). Career benefits of cooperative education and internships:
Perceptions of graduates from a rural midwest engineering and science
institution. Unpublished Dissertation, University of South Dakota, Vermillion,
SD.
Schneider, H. (1912). Education and industrial peace. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 44, 119-129.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Sherin, J. (2001). The role of entitlement in co-operative education. Unpublished Master's
thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON.
Simms, M. W. (1985). Cooperative education and academia: When does the partnership
come of age? Journal of Cooperative Education, 21(3), 29-33.
Smith, M. K. (2001). David A. Kolb on experiential learning. The Encyclopedia of
Informal Education Retrieved September 2, 2007, from
http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htm
Stake, R. E. (1990). Situational context as influence on evaluation design and use. Studies
in Educational Evaluation, 16, 231-246.
Stark, J. (2004). The "iceberg effect": Potential for deeper learning through cooperative
education. Unpublished Master's thesis, Royal Roads, Victoria, BC.
Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. (1982). Asking questions: a practical guide to questionnaire
design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Tennant, M. (1997). Psychology and adult learning (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
University of Waterloo. (2010). History of the University of Waterloo. Retrieved April
17, 2010, from http://www.uwaterloo.ca
200
Van Gyn, G. H. (1995). The educational orientation of cooperative education: A critical
variable in effectiveness. Journal of Cooperative Education, 30(1), 17-25.
Van Gyn, G. H. (1996). Reflective practice: The needs of professions and the promise of
cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education, 31(2), 103-131.
Van Gyn, G. H., Branton, G., Cutt, J., Loken, M., & Ricks, F. (1996). An investigation of
entry level characteristics between co-op and non co-op students. Journal of
Cooperative Education, 32(1), 15-28.
Van Gyn, G. H., Cutt, J., Loken, M., & Ricks, F. (1997). Investigating the educational
benefits of cooperative education: A longitudinal study. Journal of Cooperative
Education, 32(2), 70-85.
Vigil Laden, B. (2005). The new ABDs: Applied baccalaureate degrees in Ontario. In D.
L. Floyd, M. L. Skolnik & K. P. Walker (Eds.), The community college
baccalaureate: Emerging trends and policy issues (pp. 153-178). Sterling: Stylus.
Vince, R. (1998). Behind and beyond Kolb's learning cycle. Journal of Management
Education, 22(3), 304-319.
Weisz, M., & Chapman, R. (2004). Benefits of cooperative education for educational
institutions. In R. K. Coll & C. Eames (Eds.), International handbook for
cooperative education (pp. 247-258). Hamilton, New Zealand: World Association
for Cooperative Education.
Weisz, M., & Kimber, D. (2001). Ethics, education, and work: Reflections on cooperative
education in the new university system. Journal of Cooperative Education, 36(2),
43-50.
Westbrook, R. B. (1991). John Dewey and American democracy Retrieved from ACLS
Humanities E-book database Available from
http://hdl.handle.net.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/2027/heb.00586.0001.001
Williams, W. M., Sternberg, R. J., Rashotte, C. A., & Wagner, R. K. (1993). Assessing
the value of cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education, 28(2), 32-
55.
Wilson, J. W. (1987). What students gain from cooperative education. In K. G. Ryder &
J. W. Wilson (Eds.), Cooperative education in a new era: Understanding and
strengthening the links between college and the workplace (pp. 269-285). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wilson, J. W. (2001). Value shifts and ethics in cooperative education. Journal of
Cooperative Education, 36(2), 20-25.
201
Wilson, J. W., & Lyons, E. H. (1961). Work-study college programs: Appraisal and
report of the study of cooperative education. New York: Harper & Brothers
Publishers.
Wilson, J. W., Stull, W. A., & Vinsonhaler, J. (1996). Rethinking cooperative education.
Journal of Cooperative Education, 31(2), 154-165.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (Third ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
202
APPENDIX A – Baccalaureate Degrees in Applied Areas of Study in Ontario
Baccalaureate Degrees in Applied Areas of Study in Ontario
The CAATs in Ontario were granted the authority to offer degree programs,
specifically baccalaureate degrees in applied areas of study, in 2001, under the provisions
of the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000 (Government of
Ontario, 2000). These degree programs were introduced in colleges in response to the
increasing complexity being experienced in the workplace due to the influence of
technology and globalization. They are developed in colleges by experts in their
respective fields of study, with the support of curriculum design experts.
The bachelor‘s degrees awarded by colleges are ―Bachelor‘s Degrees:
Honours/Applied‖ as described in the Degree-Level Standards (2006a) developed by the
Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board (PEQAB), an arm‘s length agency
of the Ontario Government. The description of these degrees in the Handbook for Ontario
Colleges (PEQAB, 2006b) follows:
An honours baccalaureate program in an applied area of study is normally
designed to require a level of conceptual sophistication, specialized
knowledge, and intellectual autonomy similar to that in an honours or
specialist degree program but with the disciplinary content oriented to an
occupational field of practice.
Students in applied programs learn by doing, with a focus on preparing for
entry into an occupational field of practice. Such programs incorporate a
blend of theory and practice, and normally include a terminal project or
other practice-based exercises intended to develop and demonstrate the
student‘s readiness for employment in the occupational field of practice.
In addition to personal and intellectual growth, the programs are primarily
designed to prepare students for employment in the field of practice,
second-entry professional degree programs, or, depending on the content
203
of the program and the field, entry into either graduate study or bridging
studies for an appropriate graduate program. (p. 14)
It is worth noting that universities also offer many baccalaureate degrees in applied areas
of study. Some examples are nursing, engineering and medicine.
A proposal for a new bachelor‘s degree at a college follows stringent development
guidelines and undergoes a rigorous review process, overseen by the PEQAB, prior to a
college being granted the consent of the Minister of Training, Colleges, and Universities
to offer the program. A college‘s capacity to deliver each degree program to the level of
the established benchmarks is determined through this review.
Experiential learning is an integral component of these relatively new degree
programs. The bachelor‘s degrees programs offered by Ontario colleges include eight
semesters at a minimum, of on-campus studies, or the equivalent, and are required to
include workplace experience. Work experiences, internships, and field placements must
be appropriate, have articulated learning outcomes, identify appropriate methods for joint
instructor and employer/supervisor assessment leading to the assignment of a grade, and
consist of at least one term of no less than 14 weeks (PEQAB, 2006b).
The number of cooperative education work terms included in bachelor‘s degrees
programs in colleges varies across the province and depends on both the discipline and
the curriculum design. The Bachelor of Applied Business program examined in this
research study has three mandatory work terms of 15 weeks each. The positioning of
these work terms in the program of study is described fully in Chapter 3.
204
APPENDIX B – Invitation to Participate
Email Text for Invitation to Participate in Doctoral Research Study
I am a doctoral student at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University
of Toronto. I am also a staff member in Academic Development here at the College. My
thesis research is examining the influence of the students‘ learning style on the transfer of
learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace in the Bachelor of
Applied Business program. I have selected the students who have completed the second
cooperative education workplace experience as the group to be studied because you are
midway in the program, you have previously completed your initial cooperative
education work term experience so co-op isn‘t a new experience for you, and you still
have several semesters of study left before your program is complete.
This research has several components each of which happens at different times over the
course of several weeks. The first is to complete a questionnaire which asks you to
identify the course learning outcomes that you used in your second cooperative education
work term experience. This will take about 20 minutes. The second is to complete a
Learning Style Inventory. This also takes about 20 minutes. The third is an interview with
me, the researcher, to discuss your experience. This interview will be audio taped with
your written permission. The audio tapes will be transcribed by a professional who will
be required to sign a statement of confidentiality. The interview will last approximately
30 minutes. At the end of this interview I will share the results of the Learning Style
Inventory with you and explain what it means and how this information may be of benefit
to you in your future studies. In addition to these active participation pieces, I will ask
you to share several documents that you or your employer completed as part of your
second cooperative education work term: Work Term Learning Plan, Work Term
Progress Report, Site Visit Report, Employer Evaluation of Student, and Final Work
Term Report.
I will be analyzing all of this information to determine whether or not students‘ learning
styles influences the transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education
workplace. Based on this analysis I will then make recommendations.
I hope that you will agree to participate in this research study. Participation is voluntary
and you may withdraw from the study at any time without explanation or penalty and are
free not to answer any questions you do not wish to answer. Participation or non-
participation will not affect your progress in the program now or in the future.
There are no known or anticipated risks to you. I will ensure that all information that I
obtain from you and related to you is kept completely confidential. In writing my reports
I will use pseudonyms and collective information to protect your identity. The findings of
this study may be presented in professional publications or conferences but no individual
participants will be identifiable in any reporting of the findings. You will learn what your
205
preferred learning style is as a result of participating in this study. This may be helpful to
you as you continue on in your education.
I plan to conduct this research over the months of August and September. All interactions
with you will be scheduled at your convenience.
If you are willing to participate in this research study, please indicate this in a response to
this email, preferably within the next week. I will then arrange to meet with you to
answer any questions that you may have and to have you sign a Letter of Informed
Consent. If you have any questions before you make a decision, please let me know. I‘d
be pleased to provide you with any information that you need to assist in your decision
making. I can be reached at (researcher‘s email address) or (researcher‘s work phone
number or by cell at (researcher‘s cell number).
Thank you very much for considering this request.
Sincerely,
Marguerite Donohue
206
APPENDIX C – Gentle Reminder
Gentle Reminder: Regarding Invitation to Participate in Doctoral Research Study
About a week ago, I sent you an email extending an invitation to participate in the
doctoral research study that I am conducting to examine the relationship between the
students‘ learning style and the transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative
education workplace in the Bachelor of Applied Business program. I‘ve attached the
original email below for your information.
I would appreciate your assistance in this project. If you are interested in participating in
this research study or if you have any questions, please let me know. I can be reached at
(researcher‘s email address) or (researcher‘s work phone number) or by cell at
(researcher‘s cell phone number).
207
APPENDIX D – Letter of Informed Consent
College Logo
Letter of Informed Consent
Dear
I would like to invite you to participate in a research project that I am doing as part of the
requirements of my doctor of education degree at the Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education at University of Toronto (OISE/UT). I am also a staff member in Academic
Development here at the College. I can be reached at (researcher‘s email address) or
(researcher‘s phone number). My research supervisors are Michael Skolnik, Professor
Emeritus, [email protected], Dr. Glen Jones, Associate Dean,
[email protected] and Dr. Katharine Janzen, [email protected] all
from the Department of Theory and Policy Studies at OISE/UT. The purpose of this letter
is to provide you with the information that you will need to decide whether or not you
wish to participate in this research project.
The purpose of this study is to explore the influence of learning styles on the transfer of
learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace in a bachelor‘s
degree in an applied area of studies program in Ontario; specifically, the Bachelor of
Applied Business. The study‘s principal research question is:
What is extent of the transfer of learning and the relationship between the
students‘ learning style and the transfer of learning from the classroom to the
cooperative education workplace in the Bachelor of Applied Business
program?
Several more specific questions will be examined:
What is the extent of transfer of learning from the classroom to the
cooperative education workplace in the Bachelor of Applied Business
program?
What are the differences in the types of learning outcomes that students with
differing learning styles transfer from the classroom to the cooperative
education workplace?
208
What are the enablers and barriers to transfer of learning identified by the
students? Are there differences depending on the student‘s learning style?
What planned learning is in place in the program curriculum to promote
transfer of learning from the classroom to the cooperative education
workplace?
Research of this type is important because while research related to cooperative education
has been conducted over the past thirty years, no study that the researcher has been able
to identify has focused on the transfer of learning from the classroom to the workplace.
The results of this research will contribute new knowledge about both the transfer of
learning from the classroom to the cooperative education workplace and the relationship
between learning styles and the transfer of learning.
Information gathered in this study may provide a basis for further research or
publications.
You are being asked to participate in this study because the year you are studying in the
Bachelor of Applied Business program has been identified as the case to be studied. Each
of the students in your class is being invited to participate in this research study.
If you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study, your participation will
include:
Signing the Letter of Informed Consent
Completing the Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire (approximately 20
to 30 minutes)
Completing the Learning Styles Inventory (approximately 15 to 20 minutes)
Participating in a one-on-one interview with the researcher which will be
audio recorded and transcribed—transcriber(s) will have signed a statement of
confidentiality (approximately 20 to 30 minutes)
Providing the researcher with a copy of, or access to, the following
documents:
- Work Term Learning Plan
- Work Term Progress Report
- Site Visit Report
- Employer Evaluation of Student
- Final Work Term Report
There are no known or anticipated risks to you by participating in this research.
The potential benefits of your participation in this research include learning about your
preferred learning style and how this may influence your learning. Participation in the
study will also provide you with the opportunity to reflect on your learning in a way that
might not have occurred otherwise.
I will protect the confidentiality of all of the documents and information that I obtain
from you and will not share them or anything I learn from you with other people in such a
209
way that they will be able to identify you. In order to protect your anonymity, numbers
for each participant will be used in the final study rather than using actual names and no
information that could potentially identify you will be included. The master key of
students‘ names to participant numbers will be stored in a locked cabinet and in
password-protected files that only I have access to. Any material with students‘
information in it will be stored in password-protected files on my computer. I will be the
only one who knows the password. Hard copy documents, tapes, CDs, etc., containing
this type of information will be kept in a locked filing cabinet in my home and I will
safeguard the key. Transcription of the interviews will be done by a professional who will
be required to sign a statement of confidentiality. All documents, audio tapes and
electronic information will be destroyed by shredding or deleting within a reasonable
period of time, no longer than two years, after the successful defense of this dissertation.
Your participation in this research must be completely voluntary. If you decide to
participate, you may withdraw at any time without any consequences or any explanation.
If you do withdraw from the study your data may not be included in the study, depending
on the point at which you withdraw. If you decide to withdraw from the study and do not
wish your data to be used you can indicate this to me and it will not be included in the
study.
The results of this study will be included in my doctoral dissertation which, once
approved, will be available for circulation at the University of Toronto Library. I also
hope to publish the results of this research in a peer reviewed journal and/or present at
professional conferences but no individual participant will be identifiable in any reporting
of the findings. I will contact you when I have finished collecting data for this study to
see if you would like to receive a summary of the research results. If you would like a
copy I will send this summary to you when my dissertation has been approved.
In addition to being able to contact me at the phone number or email address listed above,
you may verify the ethical approval of this study, or raise any concerns you might have
about your rights as a participant by contacting the Director of Applied Research at the
College, (Director‘s email and phone contact information) or the Ethics Review Office at
the University of Toronto at 416-946-3273 or [email protected].
Your signature below indicates that you understand the above conditions of participation
in this study, that you have had the opportunity to have your questions answered by me,
the researcher, and that you consent to participate in this study.
___________________________________
Participant‘s Name (Please Print)
___________________________________ _____________________
Participant‘s Signature Date
Please keep a copy of this consent form for your records.
210
APPENDIX E – Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire
Bachelor of Applied Business Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire
Thank-you for agreeing to participate in this research project by signing the Letter of Informed Consent. This questionnaire will take
approximately twenty minutes to complete.
When completing this questionnaire please refer only to your second cooperative education work term experience.
Please read each of the course learning outcomes listed below and identify whether or not you applied each identified outcome during
your second cooperative education work term experience by checking only one of the identified choices for each outcome. The
box will automatically check by moving your cursor over the box and clicking on it once. If you check a box and then change your
mind, please click the box again to clear it and then make another selection. This document can also be printed and completed in hard
copy. Submission instructions for electronic or hard copy completion are included at the end of the questionnaire.
Your confidentiality will be maintained at all times. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.
Definitions: Don‘t Recall Learning: Do Not Recall Learning in my Course Work
No Opportunity: No Opportunity to Use in the 2nd
Co-op Workplace
Used at Least Once: Have Used at Least Once in the 2nd
Co-op Workplace
Used Regularly: Used on at Least a Bi-Weekly Basis in the 2nd
Co-op Workplace
211
Student’s Name: (Note: Individual student’s names will be replaced with codes when received by the researcher.
Course Title Learning Outcome Use of Learning Outcome in the Workplace
Don’t Recall Learning: Do Not Recall Learning in my Course Work
No Opportunity: No Opportunity to Use in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used at Least Once: Have Used at least Once in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used Regularly: Used on at least a Bi-Weekly Basis in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Year One,
Semester 01
Introduction to
Operations and
Supply Chain
Management
1. Refer to the definitions of operations and supply chain
management and their importance to organizations and
the economy.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
2. Utilize common project management techniques/tools
to plan and schedule any type of project.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
3. Use quality management tools and/or techniques.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
4. Analyze and improve processes. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
5. Use the concepts of supply chain management. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
6. Plan and/or conduct dependent demand inventory of
items.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
7. Use MRP concepts. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
8. Use the concepts of JIT or Lean. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
212
Course Title Learning Outcome Use of Learning Outcome in the Workplace
Don’t Recall Learning: Do Not Recall Learning in my Course Work
No Opportunity: No Opportunity to Use in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used at Least Once: Have Used at least Once in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used Regularly: Used on at least a Bi-Weekly Basis in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Financial
Accounting
9. Use the principles and theories of financial accounting;
e.g. the accounting cycle; accrual vs. cash accounting;
revenue and expenses as they relate to assets and
liabilities; the importance of a code of ethics; product,
selling and administrative costs; perpetual and periodic
inventory; and, the types and purposes of internal
controls.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Microeconomics
10. Use the principles and theories of microeconomics;
e.g. basic principles of economics; allocation of resources
in competitive markets; effects of government
intervention in the marketplace; the behaviour of firms
under different market structures.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Computer
Applications
11. Apply a systematic approach to solve problems. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
12. Analyze, evaluate, and apply relevant information
from a variety of sources.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
13. Execute mathematical operations accurately. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
14. Use MS Word to demonstrate word-processing skills
for business uses.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
15. Use PowerPoint to demonstrate presentation skills for
business use.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
213
Course Title Learning Outcome Use of Learning Outcome in the Workplace
Don’t Recall Learning: Do Not Recall Learning in my Course Work
No Opportunity: No Opportunity to Use in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used at Least Once: Have Used at least Once in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used Regularly: Used on at least a Bi-Weekly Basis in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
16. Use MS Excel to demonstrate spreadsheet preparation
skills for business use.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
17. Use MS Access to demonstrate basic database
knowledge for business use.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Communications
I
18. Write clear and concise business and technical
documents that conform to professional standards for
content, style, organization and mechanics.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
19. Demonstrate effective use of technology as a
communication tool.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
20. Conduct research to substantiate claims and opinions. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Business
Fundamentals
21. Develop strategies for personal, academic, and
professional development and management, to enhance
performance, and maximize career opportunities.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
22. Use the management concepts of planning,
organizing, leading, and controlling.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
23. Apply decision-making models including the case
methodology.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
24. Implement the ethics and social responsibility
paradigms in relation to business and human resource
management.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
214
Course Title Learning Outcome Use of Learning Outcome in the Workplace
Don’t Recall Learning: Do Not Recall Learning in my Course Work
No Opportunity: No Opportunity to Use in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used at Least Once: Have Used at least Once in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used Regularly: Used on at least a Bi-Weekly Basis in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
25. Observe organizational culture. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
26. Observe and assess the process and impact of
organizational change.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Year One,
Semester 02
e-Business
Concepts
27. Use e-Business concepts; e.g. their role and scope
within an organization; different types of e-Business
models and strategies; significance of security and control
issues in e-Business; legal issues related to e-Business
activities; types of transactions in e-Business activities,
role of e-procurement; importance of business
intelligence; relationship between CRM and e-Business
and between e-Business and SCM.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Management
Information
Systems
28. Assess the role of Information Systems within an
organization.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
29. Read and evaluate System Flow Charts. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
30. Use the SDLC process. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
31. Develop a basic implementation plan for a system or
software.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
32. Use database concepts for analyzing information. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
215
Course Title Learning Outcome Use of Learning Outcome in the Workplace
Don’t Recall Learning: Do Not Recall Learning in my Course Work
No Opportunity: No Opportunity to Use in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used at Least Once: Have Used at least Once in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used Regularly: Used on at least a Bi-Weekly Basis in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
33. Use HTML or PERL at a basic level. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Marketing I 34. Demonstrate strategic planning from a marketing and
operations perspective when focusing on selling supply
chain management to consumers and businesses.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
35. Use marketing principles and theories; e.g. the role of
environmental scans, target marketing; product and
service strategies; the role of ethics; internet marketing
and internet research.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
36. Effectively collaborate and support team projects in
ways that contribute to effective working relationships
with others and the achievement of key objectives.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
37. Use effective verbal, written, and presentation skills
both individually and as a group member.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Macroeconomics
38. Use macroeconomic theories and concepts; e.g.
economic factors that influence unemployment; the role
of Canadian financial systems in the Canadian economy;
the causes and economic costs of inflation; international
flows of goods and capital; aggregate demand/aggregate
supply model; etc.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Communications
II
39. Use the characteristics and functions of common
report formats.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
40. Apply the rules of organization, style, and mechanics
in both business and technical reports.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
216
Course Title Learning Outcome Use of Learning Outcome in the Workplace
Don’t Recall Learning: Do Not Recall Learning in my Course Work
No Opportunity: No Opportunity to Use in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used at Least Once: Have Used at least Once in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used Regularly: Used on at least a Bi-Weekly Basis in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
41. Conduct valid research and use information to support
and substantiate claims and opinions.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
42. Produce meaningful and useful content for a variety
of audiences in a variety of reporting situations.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Law
43. Apply the concepts of law, ethics and justice during
the conduct of business.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
44. Access and accurately interpret laws related to the
typical problems that occur during the conduct of
business.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
45. Analyze a typical business issue from a legal
perspective and draw conclusions regarding its outcome.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Year Two,
Semester 03
Basics of
SCM/ERP
46. Estimate demand by applying basic time series
quantitative forecasting methods.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
47. Develop a make to stock production plan and master
production schedule from historical data.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
48. Describe required and available capacity for a plant
and major work centre and develop a detailed operations
schedule.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
49. Use key concepts related to aggregate inventory and
calculate the cost of inventory.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
50. Determine appropriate order quantities and order
points.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
217
Course Title Learning Outcome Use of Learning Outcome in the Workplace
Don’t Recall Learning: Do Not Recall Learning in my Course Work
No Opportunity: No Opportunity to Use in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used at Least Once: Have Used at least Once in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used Regularly: Used on at least a Bi-Weekly Basis in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
51. Perform Pareto analysis. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
52. Use the practices of logistics or distribution
management.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
53. Identify areas of waste in processes and apply Lean
practices.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
54. Use the managerial and technical requirements of
ERP systems.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Marketing II
55. Construct a customer profile for a business and
consumer market segment.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
56. Develop an appropriate marketing mix for a specific
business situation.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
57. Analyze a business situation in a structured way and
make justified recommendations.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
58. Develop an appropriate marketing mix in the
formulation of a basic B2B marketing plan.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Managerial
Accounting
59. Evaluate management control systems and procedures
by employing management accounting techniques in the
planning, directing, and controlling of an enterprise.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
218
Course Title Learning Outcome Use of Learning Outcome in the Workplace
Don’t Recall Learning: Do Not Recall Learning in my Course Work
No Opportunity: No Opportunity to Use in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used at Least Once: Have Used at least Once in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used Regularly: Used on at least a Bi-Weekly Basis in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
60. Apply computer skills and knowledge of accounting
information systems to support the accounting function
including maintaining accounting records and preparing
financial statements and reports.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
61. Use managerial accounting principles to control
inventory, non-inventory and production costs.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Quantitative Methods
62. Organize and present data, by constructing graphs,
charts, frequency distributions, and histograms.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
63. Calculate and interpret measures of central tendency,
and measures of variability of data.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
64. Construct index numbers and interpret indexes to
identify trends in a data set.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
65. Use trend analysis.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
66. Use the basic rules of probability.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
67. Use the characteristics of probability distribution to
solve problems.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
68. Use sample information to estimate.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
219
Course Title Learning Outcome Use of Learning Outcome in the Workplace
Don’t Recall Learning: Do Not Recall Learning in my Course Work
No Opportunity: No Opportunity to Use in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used at Least Once: Have Used at least Once in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used Regularly: Used on at least a Bi-Weekly Basis in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
69. Use estimation techniques.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
70. Use hypothesis testing as a way of drawing
conclusions about a population parameter from sample
statistics.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
71. Use simple linear regression and correlation analyses
to examine a possible relationship between two variables.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Speaking and
Presentations
72. Plan and deliver an effective public speech. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
73. Use nonverbal aspects of powerful speaking. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
74. Create and accomplish a best-self speaking character
(or persona).
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
75. Utilize appropriate technologies in actual
presentations.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Business
Analysis
76. Conduct problem investigation and discovery in order
to situate problems within related business processes.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
77. Investigate root cause by applying various modeling
and diagramming techniques.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
78. Set the boundaries for product development by
organizing the concept of vision and scope definition into
a set of product ―features‖.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
220
Course Title Learning Outcome Use of Learning Outcome in the Workplace
Don’t Recall Learning: Do Not Recall Learning in my Course Work
No Opportunity: No Opportunity to Use in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used at Least Once: Have Used at least Once in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used Regularly: Used on at least a Bi-Weekly Basis in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
79. Apply modeling technique in order to better
understand and document requirements by understanding
what ―stuff‖ needs to be described in detail in order for
system design to proceed, (workflow, business rules, and
information requirements).
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
80. Define solution requirements in a clear concise and
unambiguous manner.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
81. Use problem analysis and requirements definition to
support financial decisions by providing information used
to develop a business case which Senior Management
relies upon for capital budgeting and go/no-go decisions
on projects.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
82. Perform Business Analysis using different
methodologies such as Rapid Application, Rational
Unified process and technologies including Structured
Analysis, Object Oriented Analysis.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Year Two,
Semester 04
Purchasing
Management
83. Use the steps in the purchasing process. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
84. Use competitive bidding to determine price. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
85. Use the process to evaluate and select suppliers. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
221
Course Title Learning Outcome Use of Learning Outcome in the Workplace
Don’t Recall Learning: Do Not Recall Learning in my Course Work
No Opportunity: No Opportunity to Use in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used at Least Once: Have Used at least Once in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used Regularly: Used on at least a Bi-Weekly Basis in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
86. Effectively utilize global sourcing. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
87. Use current practices for the purchase of services. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
88. Use methods of procuring capital goods. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
89. Use an understanding of supplier relations to assist in
meeting corporate objectives.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
90. Use ethical practices.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
91. Use purchasing research methods and performance
measures to determine effectiveness.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
92. Use ethical procurement practices. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
93. Use a variety of negotiation strategies. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
ERP and SAP 94. Use SAP or another ERP System to conduct or
analyze business processes.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
95. Evaluate and describe SAP Procedures. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
222
Course Title Learning Outcome Use of Learning Outcome in the Workplace
Don’t Recall Learning: Do Not Recall Learning in my Course Work
No Opportunity: No Opportunity to Use in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used at Least Once: Have Used at least Once in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used Regularly: Used on at least a Bi-Weekly Basis in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
96. Use reporting tools to prepare reports from SAP or
another ERP system.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Computer
Networks and
Data
Communications
97. Use the principles and concepts of computer networks
and data communications; e.g. different uses of Internet
communication; relationship between internet addressing
and internet operations; significance of voice-oriented
networks; nature of local area networks and wide area
networks; characteristics of network management
systems; and the nature of network security.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Manufacturing
Processes and
Systems
98. Integrate business knowledge with different aspects of
product design.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
99. Use Manufacturing Processes and industrial product
development techniques.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
100. Use strategies of operation processes, system
requirements, manufacturing, distribution, and different
services in the realm of product design.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
101. Strengthen the business concept with different
product planning strategies from the engineering
perspective.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
102. Highlight the importance of product specification as
a requisition for successful product finishing.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
103. Articulate and practice different modern process
strategies used in the current technologies.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
223
Course Title Learning Outcome Use of Learning Outcome in the Workplace
Don’t Recall Learning: Do Not Recall Learning in my Course Work
No Opportunity: No Opportunity to Use in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used at Least Once: Have Used at least Once in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used Regularly: Used on at least a Bi-Weekly Basis in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
104. Define and implement different layout strategies
from manufacturing perspective.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
105. Identify and establish product architecture and
industrial/manufacturing design.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Project
Management
106. Use Project Management methodology, practices,
tools and techniques.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
e-Business
Systems Analysis
and Development
107. Use enterprise-wide systems in e-Business
enterprises.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
108. Use policies and procedures for security and control
issues related to e-Business systems.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
109. Develop client-side e-Business applications. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
110. Use e-procurement in e-Business activities. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Year Three,
Semester 05
Master Planning
of Resources
111. Utilize various types of forecasts. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
112. Use current management practices to manage
demand and delivery of customer service.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
113. Identify key considerations for an effective
distribution system and network structure.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
224
Course Title Learning Outcome Use of Learning Outcome in the Workplace
Don’t Recall Learning: Do Not Recall Learning in my Course Work
No Opportunity: No Opportunity to Use in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used at Least Once: Have Used at least Once in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used Regularly: Used on at least a Bi-Weekly Basis in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
114. Use an aggregate sales and operations plan to
integrate demand and in approving all supply plans.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
115. Utilize master scheduling concepts and identify fit
with other business planning activities.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
116. Develop a realistic master production schedule
utilizing multilevel master scheduling and rough-cut
capacity planning.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
117. Utilize various performance measurements to
validate the plan.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Computer
Programming,
Analysis and
Design
118. Construct algorithms and organize program into
cohesive models.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
119. Identify appropriate strategies for solving and
customizing business problems via SAP-ABAP program
code.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
120. Write program code, using appropriate design
documents, data files and structured programming
techniques.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
121. Develop & process models to verify and control
software complexity.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
122. Analyze Business Requirements and design software
solutions using SAP R/3 environment & techniques.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
225
Course Title Learning Outcome Use of Learning Outcome in the Workplace
Don’t Recall Learning: Do Not Recall Learning in my Course Work
No Opportunity: No Opportunity to Use in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used at Least Once: Have Used at least Once in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used Regularly: Used on at least a Bi-Weekly Basis in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
123. Design friendly and efficient GUI environment using
SAP R/3 screen tools.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
124. Work with SAP Internal Tables. Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
125. Use SAP File handling.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Issues in Public
Sector
Procurement and
Contracting
126. Use key processes in systematic public sector
procurement.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Business
Configuration
with SAP
127. Complete a SAP Configuration, make decisions
around configuration requirements and complete Problem
Solving activities.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
128. Analyze information to make decisions with respect
to appropriate configuration requirements.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
129. Run Client transactions (examples are purchasing
orders, sales orders).
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
130. Work within a client environment to advise,
configure and demo ERP functionality.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Logistics
131. Use the dimensions of logistics management to
examine demand and procurement – both the inbound and
outbound sides of logistics system.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
226
Course Title Learning Outcome Use of Learning Outcome in the Workplace
Don’t Recall Learning: Do Not Recall Learning in my Course Work
No Opportunity: No Opportunity to Use in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used at Least Once: Have Used at least Once in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Used Regularly: Used on at least a Bi-Weekly Basis in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
132. Use the functional processes associated with
logistics, investigating the role, fundamentals and
techniques of warehousing and transportation, and
implementing effective and efficient management control.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
133. Utilize the new, innovative, and value-added
approaches and strategies of logistics.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Object Oriented
Programming for
e-Business
Applications
134. Implement programming specifications by writing,
entering, compiling, testing and debugging and
documenting JAVA applets and programs.
Don’t Recall
Learning
No
Opportunity
Used at Least
Once
Used
Regularly
Do you have any comments that you would like to make about the learning that you were able to bring from the classroom to your Co-op
Work Term Experience? Please enter your comments in the shaded text box. It will expand as you enter your comments:
As described in the Letter of Informed Consent to participate in this study, the next steps in this study are, first, the completion of the Learning
Styles Inventory, followed by a short interview with the researcher. Once the researcher receives your completed questionnaire she will contact
you to make arrangements for these.
Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Now that it is complete, please be sure that your name is on the first page, save it and send it to
(researcher‘s email address) or if you completed it in hard copy please send it to (researcher‘s address). It can be sent via interoffice mail within
the College if you drop it off in an addressed sealed envelope at your department office (no stamp is required for this option).
227
APPENDIX F – Interview Protocol
Interview Protocol
Transfer of Learning from the Classroom to the Cooperative Education Workplace
in a Baccalaureate Program in an Ontario College of Applied Arts and Technology
Introduction (Informal guide for the researcher)
Thank you
Will be audio taping the interview and taking notes as well
o Speak clearly
o Using two machines; one for back-up
o Try not to think about the machines
Will send a transcript for verification and to add any other thoughts
Focusing on 2nd
co-op work term
This is meant to be a relaxed atmosphere, more of a conversation,
Feel free to add to previous answers at any time
Questions:
1. What happened in the classroom that positively influenced you being able to use
the knowledge and skills that you learned in the classroom during your
cooperative education workplace experience? (Questions 2, 3)
2. What barriers or inhibitors to applying your classroom learning did you encounter
during your cooperative education workplace experience? (Questions 2)
3. While you were on co-op did you find yourself thinking about things that you
learned in the classroom and how you could use them? (Question 1)
4. While you were on co-op, to what extent did you reflect on or think about or
review the knowledge and skills that you learned in your courses? (Question 1)
5. Did you change your behaviour in any way because of this? (Question 1)
6. Were the projects or assignments in any of your courses linked in any way to your
co-op work term experience? (Question 3)
7. Were you asked to draw from your co-op work experience in any of your classes?
(Question 3)
228
APPENDIX G – Questionnaire Response Frequency Graphs
Questionnaire Response Frequency Tables and Bar Graphs
1. Refer to the definitions of operations and supply chain management and their
importance to organizations and the economy.
1CLO: Course Learning Outcome
2C: Application of Concept
2. Utilize common project management techniques/tools to plan and schedule any type of
project.
3
S: Application of Skill
229
3. Use quality management tools and/or techniques.
4. Analyze and improve processes.
230
5. Use the concepts of supply chain management.
6. Plan and/or conduct dependent demand inventory of items.
231
7. Use MRP concepts.
8. Use the concepts of JIT or Lean.
232
9. Use the principles and theories of financial accounting; e.g. the accounting cycle;
accrual vs. cash accounting; revenue and expenses as they relate to assets and liabilities;
the importance of a code of ethics; product, selling and administrative costs; perpetual
and periodic inventory; and, the types and purposes of internal controls.
10. Use the principles and theories of microeconomics; e.g. basic principles of
economics; allocation of resources in competitive markets; effects of government
intervention in the marketplace; the behaviour of firms under different market structures.
233
11. Apply a systematic approach to solve problems.
12. Analyze, evaluate, and apply relevant information from a variety of sources.
234
13. Execute mathematical operations accurately.
14. Use MS Word to demonstrate word-processing skills for business uses.
235
15. Use PowerPoint to demonstrate presentation skills for business use.
16. Use MS Excel to demonstrate spreadsheet preparation skills for business use.
236
17. Use MS Access to demonstrate basic database knowledge for business use.
18. Write clear and concise business and technical documents that conform to
professional standards for content, style, organization and mechanics.
237
19. Demonstrate effective use of technology as a communication tool.
20. Conduct research to substantiate claims and opinions.
238
21. Develop strategies for personal, academic, and professional development and
management to enhance performance and maximize career opportunities.
22. Use the management concepts of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling.
239
23. Apply decision-making models including the case methodology.
24. Implement the ethics and social responsibility paradigms in relation to business and
human resource management.
240
25. Observe organizational culture.
26. Observe and assess the process and impact of organizational change.
241
27. Use e-Business concepts; e.g. their role and scope within an organization; different
types of e-Business models and strategies; significance of security and control issues in e-
Business; legal issues related to e-Business activities; types of transactions in e-Business
activities, role of e-procurement; importance of business intelligence; relationship
between CRM and e-Business and between e-Business and SCM.
28. Assess the role of Information Systems within an organization.
242
29. Read and evaluate System Flow Charts.
30. Use the SDLC process.
243
31. Develop a basic implementation plan for a system or software.
32. Use database concepts for analyzing information.
244
33. Use HTML or PERL at a basic level.
34. Demonstrate strategic planning from a marketing and operations perspective when
focusing on selling supply chain management to consumers and businesses.
245
35. Use marketing principles and theories; e.g. the role of environmental scans, target
marketing; product and service strategies; the role of ethics; internet marketing and
internet research.
36. Effectively collaborate and support team projects in ways that contribute to effective
working relationships with others and the achievement of key objectives.
246
37. Use effective verbal, written, and presentation skills both individually and as a group
member.
38. Use macroeconomic theories and concepts; e.g. economic factors that influence
unemployment; the role of Canadian financial systems in the Canadian economy; the
causes and economic costs of inflation; international flows of goods and capital;
aggregate demand/aggregate supply model; etc.
247
39. Use the characteristics and functions of common report formats.
40. Apply the rules of organization, style, and mechanics in both business and technical
reports.
248
41. Conduct valid research and use information to support and substantiate claims and
opinions.
42. Produce meaningful and useful content for a variety of audiences in a variety of
reporting situations.
249
43. Apply the concepts of law, ethics and justice during the conduct of business.
44. Access and accurately interpret laws related to the typical problems that occur during
the conduct of business.
250
45. Analyze a typical business issue from a legal perspective and draw conclusions
regarding its outcome.
46. Estimate demand by applying basic time series quantitative forecasting methods.
251
47. Develop a make to stock production plan and master production schedule from
historical data.
48. Describe required and available capacity for a plant and major work centre and
develop a detailed operations schedule.
252
49. Use key concepts related to aggregate inventory and calculate the cost of inventory.
50. Determine appropriate order quantities and order points.
253
51. Perform Pareto analysis.
52. Use the practices of logistics or distribution management.
254
53. Identify areas of waste in processes and apply Lean practices.
54. Use the managerial and technical requirements of ERP systems.
255
55. Construct a customer profile for a business and consumer market segment.
56. Develop an appropriate marketing mix for a specific business situation.
256
57. Analyze a business situation in a structured way and make justified recommendations.
58. Develop an appropriate marketing mix in the formulation of a basic B2B marketing
plan.
257
59. Evaluate management control systems and procedures by employing management
accounting techniques in the planning, directing, and controlling of an enterprise.
60. Apply computer skills and knowledge of accounting information systems to support
the accounting function including maintaining accounting records and preparing financial
statements and reports.
258
61. Use managerial accounting principles to control inventory, non-inventory and
production costs.
62. Organize and present data, by constructing graphs, charts, frequency distributions,
and histograms.
259
63. Calculate and interpret measures of central tendency, and measures of variability of
data.
64. Construct index numbers and interpret indexes to identify trends in a data set.
260
65. Use trend analysis.
66. Use the basic rules of probability.
261
67. Use the characteristics of probability distribution to solve problems.
68. Use sample information to estimate.
262
69. Use estimation techniques.
70. Use hypothesis testing as a way of drawing conclusions about a population parameter
from sample statistics.
263
71. Use simple linear regression and correlation analyses to examine a possible
relationship between two variables.
72. Plan and deliver an effective public speech.
264
73. Use nonverbal aspects of powerful speaking.
74. Create and accomplish a best-self speaking character (or persona).
265
75. Utilize appropriate technologies in actual presentations.
76. Conduct problem investigation and discovery in order to situate problems within
related business processes.
266
77. Investigate root cause by applying various modeling and diagramming techniques.
78. Set the boundaries for product development by organizing the concept of vision and
scope definition into a set of product ―features‖.
267
79. Apply modeling technique in order to better understand and document requirements
by understanding what ―stuff‖ needs to be described in detail in order for system design
to proceed, (workflow, business rules, and information requirements).
80. Define solution requirements in a clear concise and unambiguous manner.
268
81. Use problem analysis and requirements definition to support financial decisions by
providing information used to develop a business case which Senior Management relies
upon for capital budgeting and go/no-go decisions on projects.
82. Perform Business Analysis using different methodologies such as Rapid Application,
Rational Unified process and technologies including Structured Analysis, Object
Oriented Analysis.
269
83. Use the steps in the purchasing process.
84. Use competitive bidding to determine price.
270
85. Use the purchasing process to evaluate and select suppliers.
86. Effectively utilize global sourcing.
271
87. Use current practices for the purchase of services.
88. Use methods of procuring capital goods.
272
89. Use an understanding of supplier relations to assist in meeting corporate objectives.
90. Use ethical practices.
273
91. Use purchasing research methods and performance measures to determine
effectiveness.
92. Use ethical procurement practices.
274
93. Use a variety of negotiation strategies.
94. Use SAP or another ERP System to conduct or analyze business processes.
275
95. Evaluate and describe SAP Procedures.
96. Use reporting tools to prepare reports from SAP or another ERP system.
276
97. Use the principles and concepts of computer networks and data communications; e.g.
different uses of Internet communication; relationship between internet addressing and
internet operations; significance of voice-oriented networks; nature of local area networks
and wide area networks; characteristics of network management systems; and the nature
of network security.
98. Integrate business knowledge with different aspects of product design.
277
99. Use Manufacturing Processes and industrial product development techniques.
100. Use strategies of operation processes, system requirements, manufacturing,
distribution, and different services in the realm of product design.
278
101. Strengthen the business concept with different product planning strategies from the
engineering perspective.
102. Highlight the importance of product specification as a requisition for successful
product finishing.
279
103. Articulate and practice different modern process strategies used in the current
technologies.
104. Define and implement different layout strategies from manufacturing perspective.
280
105. Identify and establish product architecture and industrial/manufacturing design.
106. Use Project Management methodology, practices, tools and techniques.
281
107. Use enterprise-wide systems in e-Business enterprises.
108. Use policies and procedures for security and control issues related to e-Business
systems.
282
109. Develop client-side e-Business applications.
110. Use e-procurement in e-Business activities.
283
111. Utilize various types of forecasts.
112. Use current management practices to manage demand and delivery of customer
service.
284
113. Identify key considerations for an effective distribution system and network
structure.
114. Use an aggregate sales and operations plan to integrate demand and in approving all
supply plans.
285
115. Utilize master scheduling concepts and identify fit with other business planning
activities.
116. Develop a realistic master production schedule utilizing multilevel master
scheduling and rough-cut capacity planning.
286
117. Utilize various performance measurements to validate the plan.
118. Construct algorithms and organize program into cohesive models.
287
119. Identify appropriate strategies for solving and customizing business problems via
SAP-ABAP program code.
120. Write program code, using appropriate design documents, data files and structured
programming techniques.
288
121. Develop & process models to verify and control software complexity.
122. Analyze Business Requirements and design software solutions using SAP R/3
environment & techniques.
289
123. Design friendly and efficient GUI environment using SAP R/3 screen tools.
124. Work with SAP Internal Tables.
290
125. Use SAP File handling.
126. Use key processes in systematic public sector procurement.
291
127. Complete a SAP Configuration, make decisions around configuration requirements
and complete Problem Solving activities.
128. Analyze information to make decisions with respect to appropriate configuration
requirements.
292
129. Run Client transactions (examples are purchasing orders, sales orders).
130. Work within a client environment to advise, configure and demo ERP functionality.
293
131. Use the dimensions of logistics management to examine demand and procurement –
both the inbound and outbound sides of logistics system.
132. Use the functional processes associated with logistics, investigating the role,
fundamentals and techniques of warehousing and transportation, and implementing
effective and efficient management control.
294
133. Utilize the new, innovative, and value-added approaches and strategies of logistics.
134. Implement programming specifications by writing, entering, compiling, testing and
debugging and documenting JAVA applets and programs.
295
APPENDIX H – Course Learning Outcome use in Co-op Workplace Reported on Questionnaire
Definitions: Don‘t Recall Learning: Do Not Recall Learning in my Course Work
No Opportunity: No Opportunity to Use in the 2nd
Co-op Workplace
Used at Least Once: Have Used at Least Once in the 2nd
Co-op Workplace
Used Regularly: Used on at Least a Bi-Weekly Basis in the 2nd
Co-op Workplace
Course Title Learning Outcome Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
“Used at
Least Once”
or “Used
Regularly”
by all
Participants
Use of CLO
Reported by
Majority (at
least 4 of 6)
of
Participants
Use
Reported
by at Least
One
Participant
“No
Opportunity”
Reported by
all
Participants
At Least
One
Participant
Reports “Do
Not Recall
Learning”
Year One,
Semester 01
Introduction to
Operations and
Supply Chain
Management
1. Refer to the definitions of operations and
supply chain management and their
importance to organizations and the economy.
C √
2. Utilize common project management
techniques/tools to plan and schedule any type
of project.
S √
3. Use quality management tools and/or
techniques.
S √
4. Analyze and improve processes.
C √
5. Use the concepts of supply chain
management. C √
6. Plan and/or conduct dependent demand
inventory of items. C √
7. Use MRP concepts.
C √
296
Course Title Learning Outcome Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
“Used at
Least Once”
or “Used
Regularly”
by all
Participants
Use of CLO
Reported by
Majority (at
least 4 of 6)
of
Participants
Use
Reported
by at Least
One
Participant
“No
Opportunity”
Reported by
all
Participants
At Least
One
Participant
Reports “Do
Not Recall
Learning”
8. Use the concepts of JIT or Lean.
C √
Financial
Accounting
9. Use the principles and theories of financial
accounting; e.g. the accounting cycle; accrual
vs. cash accounting; revenue and expenses as
they relate to assets and liabilities; the
importance of a code of ethics; product,
selling and administrative costs; perpetual and
periodic inventory; and, the types and
purposes of internal controls.
C √ √
Microeconomics
10. Use the principles and theories of
microeconomics; e.g. basic principles of
economics; allocation of resources in
competitive markets; effects of government
intervention in the marketplace; the behaviour
of firms under different market structures.
C √
Computer
Applications
11. Apply a systematic approach to solve
problems. C √
12. Analyze, evaluate, and apply relevant
information from a variety of sources. S √
13. Execute mathematical operations
accurately. S √
14. Use MS Word to demonstrate word-
processing skills for business uses. S √
15. Use PowerPoint to demonstrate
presentation skills for business use. S √
297
Course Title Learning Outcome Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
“Used at
Least Once”
or “Used
Regularly”
by all
Participants
Use of CLO
Reported by
Majority (at
least 4 of 6)
of
Participants
Use
Reported
by at Least
One
Participant
“No
Opportunity”
Reported by
all
Participants
At Least
One
Participant
Reports “Do
Not Recall
Learning”
16. Use MS Excel to demonstrate spreadsheet
preparation skills for business use. S √
17. Use MS Access to demonstrate basic
database knowledge for business use. S √
Communications
I
18. Write clear and concise business and
technical documents that conform to
professional standards for content, style,
organization and mechanics.
S √
19. Demonstrate effective use of technology
as a communication tool.
S √
20. Conduct research to substantiate claims
and opinions.
S √
Business
Fundamentals
21. Develop strategies for personal, academic,
and professional development and
management, to enhance performance, and
maximize career opportunities.
S √
22. Use the management concepts of planning,
organizing, leading, and controlling.
C √
23. Apply decision-making models including
the case methodology.
C √
298
Course Title Learning Outcome Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
“Used at
Least Once”
or “Used
Regularly”
by all
Participants
Use of CLO
Reported by
Majority (at
least 4 of 6)
of
Participants
Use
Reported
by at Least
One
Participant
“No
Opportunity”
Reported by
all
Participants
At Least
One
Participant
Reports “Do
Not Recall
Learning”
24. Implement the ethics and social
responsibility paradigms in relation to
business and human resource management.
C √ √
25. Observe organizational culture.
C √
26. Observe and assess the process and impact
of organizational change. C √
Year One,
Semester 02
e-Business
Concepts
27. Use e-Business concepts; e.g. their role
and scope within an organization; different
types of e-Business models and strategies;
significance of security and control issues in
e-Business; legal issues related to e-Business
activities; types of transactions in e-Business
activities, role of e-procurement; importance
of business intelligence; relationship between
CRM and e-Business and between e-Business
and SCM.
C √
Management
Information
Systems
28. Assess the role of Information Systems
within an organization. C √
29. Read and evaluate System Flow Charts.
S √
30. Use the SDLC process.
S √ √
31. Develop a basic implementation plan for a
system or software. C √
299
Course Title Learning Outcome Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
“Used at
Least Once”
or “Used
Regularly”
by all
Participants
Use of CLO
Reported by
Majority (at
least 4 of 6)
of
Participants
Use
Reported
by at Least
One
Participant
“No
Opportunity”
Reported by
all
Participants
At Least
One
Participant
Reports “Do
Not Recall
Learning”
32. Use database concepts for analyzing
information. C √
33. Use HTML or PERL at a basic level. S √
Marketing I 34. Demonstrate strategic planning from a
marketing and operations perspective when
focusing on selling supply chain management
to consumers and businesses.
C √
35. Use marketing principles and theories; e.g.
the role of environmental scans, target
marketing; product and service strategies; the
role of ethics; internet marketing and internet
research.
C √
36. Effectively collaborate and support team
projects in ways that contribute to effective
working relationships with others and the
achievement of key objectives.
S √
37. Use effective verbal, written, and
presentation skills both individually and as a
group member.
S √
Macroeconomics
38. Use macroeconomic theories and
concepts; e.g. economic factors that influence
unemployment; the role of Canadian financial
systems in the Canadian economy; the causes
and economic costs of inflation; international
flows of goods and capital; aggregate
demand/aggregate supply model; etc.
C √
300
Course Title Learning Outcome Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
“Used at
Least Once”
or “Used
Regularly”
by all
Participants
Use of CLO
Reported by
Majority (at
least 4 of 6)
of
Participants
Use
Reported
by at Least
One
Participant
“No
Opportunity”
Reported by
all
Participants
At Least
One
Participant
Reports “Do
Not Recall
Learning”
Communications
II
39. Use the characteristics and functions of
common report formats. S √ √
40. Apply the rules of organization, style, and
mechanics in both business and technical
reports.
S √
41. Conduct valid research and use
information to support and substantiate claims
and opinions.
S √
42. Produce meaningful and useful content for
a variety of audiences in a variety of reporting
situations.
S √
Law
43. Apply the concepts of law, ethics and
justice during the conduct of business. C √
44. Access and accurately interpret laws
related to the typical problems that occur
during the conduct of business.
C √
45. Analyze a typical business issue from a
legal perspective and draw conclusions
regarding its outcome.
C √
Year Two,
Semester 03
Basics of
SCM/ERP
46. Estimate demand by applying basic time
series quantitative forecasting methods. S √
47. Develop a make to stock production plan
and master production schedule from
historical data.
S √
301
Course Title Learning Outcome Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
“Used at
Least Once”
or “Used
Regularly”
by all
Participants
Use of CLO
Reported by
Majority (at
least 4 of 6)
of
Participants
Use
Reported
by at Least
One
Participant
“No
Opportunity”
Reported by
all
Participants
At Least
One
Participant
Reports “Do
Not Recall
Learning”
48. Describe required and available capacity
for a plant and major work centre and develop
a detailed operations schedule.
C √
49. Use key concepts related to aggregate
inventory and calculate the cost of inventory. C √
50. Determine appropriate order quantities and
order points. S √
51. Perform Pareto analysis. C √ 52. Use the practices of logistics or
distribution management. C √
53. Identify areas of waste in processes and
apply Lean practices. C √
54. Use the managerial and technical
requirements of ERP systems. S √
Marketing II
55. Construct a customer profile for a business
and consumer market segment. C √
56. Develop an appropriate marketing mix for
a specific business situation. C √
57. Analyze a business situation in a
structured way and make justified
recommendations.
C √
58. Develop an appropriate marketing mix in
the formulation of a basic B2B marketing
plan.
C √
302
Course Title Learning Outcome Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
“Used at
Least Once”
or “Used
Regularly”
by all
Participants
Use of CLO
Reported by
Majority (at
least 4 of 6)
of
Participants
Use
Reported
by at Least
One
Participant
“No
Opportunity”
Reported by
all
Participants
At Least
One
Participant
Reports “Do
Not Recall
Learning”
Managerial
Accounting
59. Evaluate management control systems and
procedures by employing management
accounting techniques in the planning,
directing, and controlling of an enterprise.
C √
60. Apply computer skills and knowledge of
accounting information systems to support the
accounting function including maintaining
accounting records and preparing financial
statements and reports.
S √
61. Use managerial accounting principles to
control inventory, non-inventory and
production costs.
C √
Quantitative Methods
62. Organize and present data, by constructing
graphs, charts, frequency distributions, and
histograms.
S √ √
63. Calculate and interpret measures of central
tendency, and measures of variability of data. S √
64. Construct index numbers and interpret
indexes to identify trends in a data set. C √
65. Use trend analysis. C √ 66. Use the basic rules of probability. C √ 67. Use the characteristics of probability
distribution to solve problems. C √
68. Use sample information to estimate.
S √
69. Use estimation techniques. S √
303
Course Title Learning Outcome Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
“Used at
Least Once”
or “Used
Regularly”
by all
Participants
Use of CLO
Reported by
Majority (at
least 4 of 6)
of
Participants
Use
Reported
by at Least
One
Participant
“No
Opportunity”
Reported by
all
Participants
At Least
One
Participant
Reports “Do
Not Recall
Learning”
70. Use hypothesis testing as a way of
drawing conclusions about a population
parameter from sample statistics.
C √
71. Use simple linear regression and
correlation analyses to examine a possible
relationship between two variables.
C √
Speaking and
Presentations
72. Plan and deliver an effective public
speech. S √
73. Use nonverbal aspects of powerful
speaking. S √
74. Create and accomplish a best-self speaking
character (or persona). S √
75. Utilize appropriate technologies in actual
presentations.
S √
Business
Analysis
76. Conduct problem investigation and
discovery in order to situate problems within
related business processes.
C √
77. Investigate root cause by applying various
modeling and diagramming techniques.
C √
78. Set the boundaries for product
development by organizing the concept of
vision and scope definition into a set of
product ―features‖.
C √
304
Course Title Learning Outcome Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
“Used at
Least Once”
or “Used
Regularly”
by all
Participants
Use of CLO
Reported by
Majority (at
least 4 of 6)
of
Participants
Use
Reported
by at Least
One
Participant
“No
Opportunity”
Reported by
all
Participants
At Least
One
Participant
Reports “Do
Not Recall
Learning”
79. Apply modeling technique in order to
better understand and document requirements
by understanding what ―stuff‖ needs to be
described in detail in order for system design
to proceed, (workflow, business rules, and
information requirements).
C √
80. Define solution requirements in a clear
concise and unambiguous manner.
C √
81. Use problem analysis and requirements
definition to support financial decisions by
providing information used to develop a
business case which Senior Management
relies upon for capital budgeting and go/no-go
decisions on projects.
C √
82. Perform Business Analysis using different
methodologies such as Rapid Application,
Rational Unified process and technologies
including Structured Analysis, Object
Oriented Analysis.
C √
Year Two,
Semester 04
Purchasing
Management
83. Use the steps in the purchasing process.
C √
84. Use competitive bidding to determine
price. C √
305
Course Title Learning Outcome Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
“Used at
Least Once”
or “Used
Regularly”
by all
Participants
Use of CLO
Reported by
Majority (at
least 4 of 6)
of
Participants
Use
Reported
by at Least
One
Participant
“No
Opportunity”
Reported by
all
Participants
At Least
One
Participant
Reports “Do
Not Recall
Learning”
85. Use the process to evaluate and select
suppliers. C √
86. Effectively utilize global sourcing.
C √
87. Use current practices for the purchase of
services. C √
88. Use methods of procuring capital goods.
C √
89. Use an understanding of supplier relations
to assist in meeting corporate objectives. C √
90. Use ethical practices.
C √
91. Use purchasing research methods and
performance measures to determine
effectiveness.
C √
92. Use ethical procurement practices.
C √
93. Use a variety of negotiation strategies.
C √
ERP and SAP 94. Use SAP or another ERP System to
conduct or analyze business processes. S √
95. Evaluate and describe SAP Procedures.
C √
96. Use reporting tools to prepare reports from
SAP or another ERP system.
S √
306
Course Title Learning Outcome Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
“Used at
Least Once”
or “Used
Regularly”
by all
Participants
Use of CLO
Reported by
Majority (at
least 4 of 6)
of
Participants
Use
Reported
by at Least
One
Participant
“No
Opportunity”
Reported by
all
Participants
At Least
One
Participant
Reports “Do
Not Recall
Learning”
Computer
Networks and
Data
Communications
97. Use the principles and concepts of
computer networks and data communications;
e.g. different uses of Internet communication;
relationship between internet addressing and
internet operations; significance of voice-
oriented networks; nature of local area
networks and wide area networks;
characteristics of network management
systems; and the nature of network security.
C √
Manufacturing
Processes and
Systems
98. Integrate business knowledge with
different aspects of product design. C √
99. Use Manufacturing Processes and
industrial product development techniques. C √
100. Use strategies of operation processes,
system requirements, manufacturing,
distribution, and different services in the realm
of product design.
C √
101. Strengthen the business concept with
different product planning strategies from the
engineering perspective.
C √
102. Highlight the importance of product
specification as a requisition for successful
product finishing.
C √
103. Articulate and practice different modern
process strategies used in the current
technologies.
C √
307
Course Title Learning Outcome Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
“Used at
Least Once”
or “Used
Regularly”
by all
Participants
Use of CLO
Reported by
Majority (at
least 4 of 6)
of
Participants
Use
Reported
by at Least
One
Participant
“No
Opportunity”
Reported by
all
Participants
At Least
One
Participant
Reports “Do
Not Recall
Learning”
104. Define and implement different layout
strategies from manufacturing perspective. C √
105. Identify and establish product
architecture and industrial/manufacturing
design.
C √
Project
Management
106. Use Project Management methodology,
practices, tools and techniques. C √
e-Business
Systems Analysis
and Development
107. Use enterprise-wide systems in e-
Business enterprises. C √
108. Use policies and procedures for security
and control issues related to e-Business
systems.
C √
109. Develop client-side e-Business
applications. C √
110. Use e-procurement in e-Business
activities. C √
Year Three,
Semester 05
Master Planning
of Resources
111. Utilize various types of forecasts.
C √
112. Use current management practices to
manage demand and delivery of customer
service.
C √
113. Identify key considerations for an
effective distribution system and network
structure.
C √
308
Course Title Learning Outcome Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
“Used at
Least Once”
or “Used
Regularly”
by all
Participants
Use of CLO
Reported by
Majority (at
least 4 of 6)
of
Participants
Use
Reported
by at Least
One
Participant
“No
Opportunity”
Reported by
all
Participants
At Least
One
Participant
Reports “Do
Not Recall
Learning”
114. Use an aggregate sales and operations
plan to integrate demand and in approving all
supply plans.
C √
115. Utilize master scheduling concepts and
identify fit with other business planning
activities.
C √
116. Develop a realistic master production
schedule utilizing multilevel master
scheduling and rough-cut capacity planning.
S √
117. Utilize various performance
measurements to validate the plan.
C √
Computer
Programming,
Analysis and
Design
118. Construct algorithms and organize
program into cohesive models.
C √
119. Identify appropriate strategies for
solving and customizing business problems
via SAP-ABAP program code.
C √
120. Write program code, using appropriate
design documents, data files and structured
programming techniques.
S √
121. Develop & process models to verify and
control software complexity.
C √
309
Course Title Learning Outcome Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
“Used at
Least Once”
or “Used
Regularly”
by all
Participants
Use of CLO
Reported by
Majority (at
least 4 of 6)
of
Participants
Use
Reported
by at Least
One
Participant
“No
Opportunity”
Reported by
all
Participants
At Least
One
Participant
Reports “Do
Not Recall
Learning”
122. Analyze Business Requirements and
design software solutions using SAP R/3
environment & techniques.
C √
123. Design friendly and efficient GUI
environment using SAP R/3 screen tools.
S √
124. Work with SAP Internal Tables.
S √
125. Use SAP File handling.
S √
Issues in Public
Sector
Procurement and
Contracting
126. Use key processes in systematic public
sector procurement. C √
Business
Configuration
with SAP
127. Complete a SAP Configuration, make
decisions around configuration requirements
and complete Problem Solving activities.
C √
128. Analyze information to make decisions
with respect to appropriate configuration
requirements.
C √
129. Run Client transactions (examples are
purchasing orders, sales orders). S √
130. Work within a client environment to
advise, configure and demo ERP functionality. S √
310
Course Title Learning Outcome Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
“Used at
Least Once”
or “Used
Regularly”
by all
Participants
Use of CLO
Reported by
Majority (at
least 4 of 6)
of
Participants
Use
Reported
by at Least
One
Participant
“No
Opportunity”
Reported by
all
Participants
At Least
One
Participant
Reports “Do
Not Recall
Learning”
Logistics
131. Use the dimensions of logistics
management to examine demand and
procurement – both the inbound and outbound
sides of logistics system.
C √
132. Use the functional processes associated
with logistics, investigating the role,
fundamentals and techniques of warehousing
and transportation, and implementing effective
and efficient management control.
C √
133. Utilize the new, innovative, and value-
added approaches and strategies of logistics. C √
Object Oriented
Programming for
e-Business
Applications
134. Implement programming specifications
by writing, entering, compiling, testing and
debugging and documenting JAVA applets
and programs.
S √
Total Frequency All CLOs 134 11 26 62 35 5* Application of Concept CLOs 90 2 19 44 25 - Application of Skill CLOs 44 9 7 18 10 -
*These are also included in the other categories
311
APPENDIX I – Reported Use of CLOs on Questionnaire Only by all Participants in Each Group
Semester/Course Learning Outcome*
Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
CLO Reported as Used
Used by All
Participants
N=6
Only Used By All
Assimilating
Participants
n=2
Only Used by All
Accommodating
Participants
n=4
Semester 01
12. Analyze, evaluate, and apply relevant information from a variety
of sources. S √
13. Execute mathematical operations accurately. S √ 14. Use MS Word to demonstrate word-processing skills for business
uses. S √
16. Use MS Excel to demonstrate spreadsheet preparation skills for
business use. S √
18. Write clear and concise business and technical documents that
conform to professional standards for content, style, organization and
mechanics. S √
19. Demonstrate effective use of technology as a communication tool. S √ 20. Conduct research to substantiate claims and opinions. S √ 21. Develop strategies for personal, academic, and professional
development and management, to enhance performance, and
maximize career opportunities. S √
25. Observe organizational culture. C √ 26. Observe and assess the process and impact of organizational
change. C √
Semester 02
41. Conduct valid research and use information to support and
substantiate claims and opinions. S √
312
Semester/Course Learning Outcome*
Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
CLO Reported as Used
Used by All
Participants
N=6
Only Used By All
Assimilating
Participants
n=2
Only Used by All
Accommodating
Participants
n=4
Semester 03
80. Define solution requirements in a clear concise and unambiguous
manner. C √
CLOs Reported as Used
Total 11 0 1
C 2 0 1
S 9 0 0 *Only the course learning outcomes captured in each category are reported
313
APPENDIX J- Reported No Opportunity to Use CLOs on Questionnaire by All Groups
Semester/Course Learning Outcome*
Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
CLO Reported as No Opportunity to Use
All Participants
Report No
Opportunity to Use
N=6
No Opportunity to
Use for Only All
Assimilating
Participants
n=2
No Opportunity to
Use for Only All
Accommodating
Participants
n=4
Semester 02
33. Use HTML or PERL at a basic level. S √ Semester 03
47. Develop a make to stock production plan and master production
schedule from historical data. S √
48. Describe required and available capacity for a plant and major
work centre and develop a detailed operations schedule. C √
58. Develop an appropriate marketing mix in the formulation of a
basic B2B marketing plan. C √
59. Evaluate management control systems and procedures by
employing management accounting techniques in the planning,
directing, and controlling of an enterprise. C √
61. Use managerial accounting principles to control inventory, non-
inventory and production costs. C √
63. Calculate and interpret measures of central tendency, and
measures of variability of data. S √
64. Construct index numbers and interpret indexes to identify trends
in a data set. C √
67. Use the characteristics of probability distribution to solve
problems. C √
70. Use hypothesis testing as a way of drawing conclusions about a
population parameter from sample statistics. C √
71. Use simple linear regression and correlation analyses to examine a
possible relationship between two variables. C √
314
Semester/Course Learning Outcome*
Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
CLO Reported as No Opportunity to Use
All Participants
Report No
Opportunity to Use
N=6
No Opportunity to
Use for Only All
Assimilating
Participants
n=2
No Opportunity to
Use for Only All
Accommodating
Participants
n=4
80. Define solution requirements in a clear concise and unambiguous
manner. C √
Semester 04
99. Use Manufacturing Processes and industrial product development
techniques. C √
100. Use strategies of operation processes, system requirements,
manufacturing, distribution, and different services in the realm of
product design. C √
101. Strengthen the business concept with different product planning
strategies from the engineering perspective. C √
104. Define and implement different layout strategies from
manufacturing perspective. C √
105. Identify and establish product architecture and
industrial/manufacturing design. C √
107. Use enterprise-wide systems in e-Business enterprises. C √ 108. Use policies and procedures for security and control issues
related to e-Business systems. C √
Semester 05
113. Identify key considerations for an effective distribution system
and network structure. C √
114. Use an aggregate sales and operations plan to integrate demand
and in approving all supply plans. C √
115. Utilize master scheduling concepts and identify fit with other
business planning activities. C √
116. Develop a realistic master production schedule utilizing
multilevel master scheduling and rough-cut capacity planning. S √
117. Utilize various performance measurements to validate the plan. C √ 118. Construct algorithms and organize program into cohesive
models. C √
315
Semester/Course Learning Outcome*
Application
of
Concept (C)
or
Skill (S)
CLO Reported as No Opportunity to Use
All Participants
Report No
Opportunity to Use
N=6
No Opportunity to
Use for Only All
Assimilating
Participants
n=2
No Opportunity to
Use for Only All
Accommodating
Participants
n=4
119. Identify appropriate strategies for solving and customizing
business problems via SAP-ABAP program code. C √
120. Write program code, using appropriate design documents, data
files and structured programming techniques. S √
121. Develop & process models to verify and control software
complexity. C √
122. Analyze Business Requirements and design software solutions
using SAP R/3 environment & techniques. C √
123. Design friendly and efficient GUI environment using SAP R/3
screen tools. S √
124. Work with SAP Internal Tables. S √ 125. Use SAP File handling. S √ 127. Complete a SAP Configuration, make decisions around
configuration requirements and complete Problem Solving activities. C √
128. Analyze information to make decisions with respect to
appropriate configuration requirements. C √
130. Work within a client environment to advise, configure and demo
ERP functionality. S √
134. Implement programming specifications by writing, entering,
compiling, testing and debugging and documenting JAVA applets and
programs. S √
CLOs Reported as No Opportunity to Use
Total 35 1 0
C 25 1 0
S 10 0 0 *Only the course learning outcomes captured in each category are reported
316
APPENDIX K – Summary of Co-op Documentation Analysis and Questionnaire Responses, with Learning Styles
Course Title/Course Learning Outcome (CLO)
Concept
or
Skill
Work
Term
Learning
Plan
Work
Term
Progress
Report
Site
Visit
Report
Employer
Evaluation
Work
Term
Report
Student Reported Use of
CLO on Questionnaire
Participant # 1 ,4: Assimilating Learning Style Used at Least Once: Student Used at Least Once in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Participant # 2 ,3, 5, 6: Accommodating Learning Style Used Regularly: Student Used on at Least a Bi-Weekly Basis in the 2nd Co-op Workplace
Year One; Semester 01; Introduction to Operations and Supply Chain Management
1.Refer to the definitions of operations and supply
chain management and their importance to
organizations and the economy.
C† Used at Least Once 1 5
Used Regularly 4 2 3
2. Utilize common project management
techniques/tools to plan and schedule any type of
project. S 2 3 5 3 3 2
Used at Least Once 4 2 5 6
Used Regularly 3
3. Use quality management tools and/or techniques.
S† Used at Least Once 2 3
Used Regularly 4
4. Analyze and improve processes.
C 4 3
4 Used at Least Once 2 5 6
Used Regularly 4 3
5. Use the concepts of supply chain management. C* 4 4
Used at Least Once 5 6
Used Regularly 4 2 3
6. Plan and/or conduct dependent demand inventory
of items.
C† Used at Least Once 3
Used Regularly
7. Use MRP concepts.
C† Used at Least Once 3
Used Regularly
8. Use the concepts of JIT or Lean.
C† Used at Least Once 4 2
Used Regularly 3
317
Course Title/Course Learning Outcome (CLO)
Concept
or
Skill
Work
Term
Learning
Plan
Work
Term
Progress
Report
Site
Visit
Report
Employer
Evaluation
Work
Term
Report
Student Reported Use of
CLO on Questionnaire
Financial Accounting
9. Use the principles and theories of financial
accounting; e.g. the accounting cycle; accrual vs. cash
accounting; revenue and expenses as they relate to
assets and liabilities; the importance of a code of
ethics; product, selling and administrative costs;
perpetual and periodic inventory; and, the types and
purposes of internal controls.
C† Used at Least Once 3
Used Regularly 1 4
Microeconomics
10. Use the principles and theories of
microeconomics; e.g. basic principles of economics;
allocation of resources in competitive markets; effects
of government intervention in the marketplace; the
behaviour of firms under different market structures.
C† Used at Least Once 4 3 5 6
Used Regularly 2
Computer Applications
11. Apply a systematic approach to solve problems. C* 3 6 4
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 4 2 3 6 12. Analyze, evaluate, and apply relevant information
from a variety of sources.
S*
4 3 5
3 5
1 4 Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 1 4 2 3 5 6
13. Execute mathematical operations accurately. S†
Used at Least Once 4
Used Regularly 1 2 3 5 6 14. Use MS Word to demonstrate word-processing
skills for business uses.
S* 5
4 5
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 1 4 2 3 5 6
15. Use PowerPoint to demonstrate presentation skills
for business use.
S* 3
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 3
16. Use MS Excel to demonstrate spreadsheet
preparation skills for business use.
S*
4 5 6
1 4 5
1 4 6
Used at Least Once 5 6
Used Regularly 1 4 2 3
318
Course Title/Course Learning Outcome (CLO)
Concept
or
Skill
Work
Term
Learning
Plan
Work
Term
Progress
Report
Site
Visit
Report
Employer
Evaluation
Work
Term
Report
Student Reported Use of
CLO on Questionnaire
17. Use MS Access to demonstrate basic database
knowledge for business use.
S† Used at Least Once 1
Used Regularly
Communications I
18. Write clear and concise business and technical
documents that conform to professional standards for
content, style, organization and mechanics.
S 1 4
2 3 5 1
2 3 1 3
1 4 2 3
Used at Least Once 6
Used Regularly 1 4 2 3 5
19. Demonstrate effective use of technology as a
communication tool.
S 1 4
3 5 6 4 3
3 4
3 6
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 1 4 2 3 5 6
20. Conduct research to substantiate claims and
opinions.
S* 3
1 3
1 4 2 5
Used at Least Once 4 5 6
Used Regularly 1 2 3
Business Fundamentals
21. Develop strategies for personal, academic, and
professional development and management, to
enhance performance, and maximize career
opportunities.
S 1
3 6
Used at Least Once 2
Used Regularly 1 4 3 5 6
22. Use the management concepts of planning,
organizing, leading, and controlling.
C* 1 5
4 Used at Least Once 5
Used Regularly 1 4 2 3
23. Apply decision-making models including the case
methodology.
C†
Used at Least Once 5
Used Regularly 4 3
24. Implement the ethics and social responsibility
paradigms in relation to business and human resource
management.
C† Used at Least Once 1
Used Regularly 4 3 6
319
Course Title/Course Learning Outcome (CLO)
Concept
or
Skill
Work
Term
Learning
Plan
Work
Term
Progress
Report
Site
Visit
Report
Employer
Evaluation
Work
Term
Report
Student Reported Use of
CLO on Questionnaire
25. Observe organizational culture.
C* 4
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 1 4 2 3 5 6
26. Observe and assess the process and impact of
organizational change.
C* 4
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 1 4 2 3 5 6
Year One; Semester 02; e-Business Concepts
27. Use e-Business concepts; e.g. their role and scope
within an organization; different types of e-Business
models and strategies; significance of security and
control issues in e-Business; legal issues related to e-
Business activities; types of transactions in e-Business
activities, role of e-procurement; importance of
business intelligence; relationship between CRM and
e-Business and between e-Business and SCM.
C† Used at Least Once 2
Used Regularly 1 4 3
Management Information Systems
28. Assess the role of Information Systems within an
organization. C* 5 Used at Least Once 2 5
Used Regularly 4 3 29. Read and evaluate System Flow Charts.
S† Used at Least Once 4
Used Regularly 3
30. Use the SDLC process. S†
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 3 31. Develop a basic implementation plan for a system
or software.
C†
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 3
32. Use database concepts for analyzing information. C† Used at Least Once 3
Used Regularly 33. Use HTML or PERL at a basic level.
S
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
320
Course Title/Course Learning Outcome (CLO)
Concept
or
Skill
Work
Term
Learning
Plan
Work
Term
Progress
Report
Site
Visit
Report
Employer
Evaluation
Work
Term
Report
Student Reported Use of
CLO on Questionnaire
Marketing I
34. Demonstrate strategic planning from a marketing
and operations perspective when focusing on selling
supply chain management to consumers and
businesses.
C† Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 3
35. Use marketing principles and theories; e.g. the
role of environmental scans, target marketing; product
and service strategies; the role of ethics; internet
marketing and internet research.
C† Used at Least Once 3
Used Regularly
36. Effectively collaborate and support team projects
in ways that contribute to effective working
relationships with others and the achievement of key
objectives.
S 1 4
2 3 5 6 3 3
1 3
Used at Least Once 6
Used Regularly 4 2 3 5
37. Use effective verbal, written, and presentation
skills both individually and as a group member.
S 3
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 1 4 2 3
Macroeconomics
38. Use macroeconomic theories and concepts; e.g.
economic factors that influence unemployment; the
role of Canadian financial systems in the Canadian
economy; the causes and economic costs of inflation;
international flows of goods and capital; aggregate
demand/aggregate supply model; etc.
C† Used at Least Once 2
Used Regularly
Communications II
39. Use the characteristics and functions of common
report formats. S* 3 5 Used at Least Once 6
Used Regularly 1 3 5
40. Apply the rules of organization, style, and
mechanics in both business and technical reports. S 3 Used at Least Once 2 6
Used Regularly 1 3 5
321
Course Title/Course Learning Outcome (CLO)
Concept
or
Skill
Work
Term
Learning
Plan
Work
Term
Progress
Report
Site
Visit
Report
Employer
Evaluation
Work
Term
Report
Student Reported Use of
CLO on Questionnaire
41. Conduct valid research and use information to
support and substantiate claims and opinions.
S* 3
1 4 2 5
Used at Least Once 4 2 5
Used Regularly 1 3 6
42. Produce meaningful and useful content for a
variety of audiences in a variety of reporting
situations.
S* 4 3 Used at Least Once 4 2 5
Used Regularly 1 3
Law
43. Apply the concepts of law, ethics and justice
during the conduct of business. C† Used at Least Once 5
Used Regularly 4 2 3 6
44. Access and accurately interpret laws related to the
typical problems that occur during the conduct of
business. C†
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 4 2 3 6
45. Analyze a typical business issue from a legal
perspective and draw conclusions regarding its
outcome. C†
Used at Least Once 4 3 5 6
Used Regularly 2
Year Two; Semester 03; Basics of SCM/ERP
46. Estimate demand by applying basic time series
quantitative forecasting methods. S† Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 1 47. Develop a make to stock production plan and
master production schedule from historical data. S
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
48. Describe required and available capacity for a
plant and major work centre and develop a detailed
operations schedule. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
49. Use key concepts related to aggregate inventory
and calculate the cost of inventory. C† Used at Least Once 6
Used Regularly
50. Determine appropriate order quantities and order
points. S† Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 6 51. Perform Pareto analysis.
C† Used at Least Once 4
Used Regularly
322
Course Title/Course Learning Outcome (CLO)
Concept
or
Skill
Work
Term
Learning
Plan
Work
Term
Progress
Report
Site
Visit
Report
Employer
Evaluation
Work
Term
Report
Student Reported Use of
CLO on Questionnaire
52. Use the practices of logistics or distribution
management. C† Used at Least Once 2 6
Used Regularly 4 3 53. Identify areas of waste in processes and apply
Lean practices. C† Used at Least Once 4
Used Regularly 3 6
54. Use the managerial and technical requirements of
ERP systems. S† Used at Least Once 2
Used Regularly 4 Marketing II
55. Construct a customer profile for a business and
consumer market segment.
C† Used at Least Once 3
Used Regularly
56. Develop an appropriate marketing mix for a
specific business situation. C† Used at Least Once 3
Used Regularly 57. Analyze a business situation in a structured way
and make justified recommendations. C† Used at Least Once 2 6
Used Regularly
58. Develop an appropriate marketing mix in the
formulation of a basic B2B marketing plan. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
Managerial Accounting
59. Evaluate management control systems and
procedures by employing management accounting
techniques in the planning, directing, and controlling
of an enterprise.
C Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
60. Apply computer skills and knowledge of
accounting information systems to support the
accounting function including maintaining accounting
records and preparing financial statements and
reports.
S Used at Least Once 2 6
Used Regularly 3
61. Use managerial accounting principles to control
inventory, non-inventory and production costs. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
Quantitative Methods
62. Organize and present data, by constructing graphs,
charts, frequency distributions, and histograms. S† Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 1 3
323
Course Title/Course Learning Outcome (CLO)
Concept
or
Skill
Work
Term
Learning
Plan
Work
Term
Progress
Report
Site
Visit
Report
Employer
Evaluation
Work
Term
Report
Student Reported Use of
CLO on Questionnaire
63. Calculate and interpret measures of central
tendency, and measures of variability of data. S
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
64. Construct index numbers and interpret indexes to
identify trends in a data set. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
65. Use trend analysis. C†
Used at Least Once 3
Used Regularly 1
66. Use the basic rules of probability. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 4
67. Use the characteristics of probability distribution
to solve problems. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
68. Use sample information to estimate. S† Used at Least Once 2
Used Regularly 69. Use estimation techniques.
S† Used at Least Once 2 3
Used Regularly 6
70. Use hypothesis testing as a way of drawing
conclusions about a population parameter from
sample statistics. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
71. Use simple linear regression and correlation
analyses to examine a possible relationship between
two variables. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
Speaking and Presentations
72. Plan and deliver an effective public speech. S 3 Used at Least Once 2 3
Used Regularly 73. Use nonverbal aspects of powerful speaking.
S† Used at Least Once 2 6
Used Regularly 3
74. Create and accomplish a best-self speaking
character (or persona). S† Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 3 75. Utilize appropriate technologies in actual
presentations.
S* 3
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 3
324
Course Title/Course Learning Outcome (CLO)
Concept
or
Skill
Work
Term
Learning
Plan
Work
Term
Progress
Report
Site
Visit
Report
Employer
Evaluation
Work
Term
Report
Student Reported Use of
CLO on Questionnaire
Business Analysis
76. Conduct problem investigation and discovery in
order to situate problems within related business
processes. C* 4
Used at Least Once 4 2 5 6
Used Regularly 3
77. Investigate root cause by applying various
modeling and diagramming techniques. C† 3 Used at Least Once 4
Used Regularly 3
78. Set the boundaries for product development by
organizing the concept of vision and scope definition
into a set of product ―features‖. C* 3
Used at Least Once 2
Used Regularly 3
79. Apply modeling technique in order to better
understand and document requirements by
understanding what ―stuff‖ needs to be described in
detail in order for system design to proceed,
(workflow, business rules, and information
requirements).
C* 3 3 3 3 Used at Least Once 5
Used Regularly 2 3
80. Define solution requirements in a clear concise
and unambiguous manner. C* 3 Used at Least Once 5 6
Used Regularly 2 3 81. Use problem analysis and requirements definition
to support financial decisions by providing
information used to develop a business case which
Senior Management relies upon for capital budgeting
and go/no-go decisions on projects.
C† Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 3
82. Perform Business Analysis using different
methodologies such as Rapid Application, Rational
Unified process and technologies including Structured
Analysis, Object Oriented Analysis.
C† Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 3
Year Two; Semester 04; Purchasing Management
83. Use the steps in the purchasing process. C 2 5 2 2 5 2 5
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 2 5
84. Use competitive bidding to determine price. C 2 3 2 3 2 2
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 2 6
325
Course Title/Course Learning Outcome (CLO)
Concept
or
Skill
Work
Term
Learning
Plan
Work
Term
Progress
Report
Site
Visit
Report
Employer
Evaluation
Work
Term
Report
Student Reported Use of
CLO on Questionnaire
85. Use the purchasing process to evaluate and select
suppliers. C* 2 2 2 2 5 Used at Least Once 5
Used Regularly 2 6
86. Effectively utilize global sourcing. C†
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 6 87. Use current practices for the purchase of services.
C 2 5 2 2 5 5
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 2 5 6
88. Use methods of procuring capital goods. C* 5
Used at Least Once 5
Used Regularly 6 89. Use an understanding of supplier relations to assist
in meeting corporate objectives.
C 2 5 6 2 5 2 6 6 5 6 Used at Least Once 5
Used Regularly 1 2 6
90. Use ethical practices.
C 2 2 2 2
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 1 4 2 5 6
91. Use purchasing research methods and
performance measures to determine effectiveness.
C†
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 6
92. Use ethical procurement practices.
C* 2 2 2 Used at Least Once
Used Regularly2 5 6 93. Use a variety of negotiation strategies.
C 2 2 2 Used at Least Once 2 6
Used Regularly 1
ERP and SAP
94. Use SAP or another ERP System to conduct or
analyze business processes. S† Used at Least Once 2 5
Used Regularly 6 95. Evaluate and describe SAP Procedures.
C† Used at Least Once 6
Used Regularly
326
Course Title/Course Learning Outcome (CLO)
Concept
or
Skill
Work
Term
Learning
Plan
Work
Term
Progress
Report
Site
Visit
Report
Employer
Evaluation
Work
Term
Report
Student Reported Use of
CLO on Questionnaire
96. Use reporting tools to prepare reports from SAP or
another ERP system.
S*
1 4 5
4 5 6
4 5
1 4 5 6
Used at Least Once 2 5
Used Regularly 1 4 6
Computer Networks and Data Communications
97. Use the principles and concepts of computer
networks and data communications; e.g. different uses
of Internet communication; relationship between
internet addressing and internet operations;
significance of voice-oriented networks; nature of
local area networks and wide area networks;
characteristics of network management systems; and
the nature of network security.
C† Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 1 3
Manufacturing Processes and Systems
98. Integrate business knowledge with different
aspects of product design. C† Used at Least Once 4
Used Regularly 99. Use Manufacturing Processes and industrial
product development techniques. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
100. Use strategies of operation processes, system
requirements, manufacturing, distribution, and
different services in the realm of product design. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
101. Strengthen the business concept with different
product planning strategies from the engineering
perspective. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
102. Highlight the importance of product specification
as a requisition for successful product finishing. C† Used at Least Once 2 6
Used Regularly 103. Articulate and practice different modern process
strategies used in the current technologies. C† Used at Least Once 4
Used Regularly
104. Define and implement different layout strategies
from manufacturing perspective. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
105. Identify and establish product architecture and
industrial/manufacturing design.
C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
327
Course Title/Course Learning Outcome (CLO)
Concept
or
Skill
Work
Term
Learning
Plan
Work
Term
Progress
Report
Site
Visit
Report
Employer
Evaluation
Work
Term
Report
Student Reported Use of
CLO on Questionnaire
Project Management
106. Use Project Management methodology,
practices, tools and techniques. C* 2 3 5 3 3 3 3 Used at Least Once 4 2 5
Used Regularly 3 e-Business Systems Analysis and Development
107. Use enterprise-wide systems in e-Business
enterprises. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
108. Use policies and procedures for security and
control issues related to e-Business systems. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
109. Develop client-side e-Business applications. C† Used at Least Once 6
Used Regularly
110. Use e-procurement in e-Business activities. C 6
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 2 6 Year Three; Semester 05; Master Planning of Resources
111. Utilize various types of forecasts. C* 1 1
Used at Least Once 2
Used Regularly 1
112. Use current management practices to manage
demand and delivery of customer service.
C* 6 6 Used at Least Once 6
Used Regularly
113. Identify key considerations for an effective
distribution system and network structure.
C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
114. Use an aggregate sales and operations plan to
integrate demand and in approving all supply plans. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
115. Utilize master scheduling concepts and identify
fit with other business planning activities. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
116. Develop a realistic master production schedule
utilizing multilevel master scheduling and rough-cut
capacity planning.
S Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
117. Utilize various performance measurements to
validate the plan. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
328
Course Title/Course Learning Outcome (CLO)
Concept
or
Skill
Work
Term
Learning
Plan
Work
Term
Progress
Report
Site
Visit
Report
Employer
Evaluation
Work
Term
Report
Student Reported Use of
CLO on Questionnaire
Computer Programming, Analysis and Design
118. Construct algorithms and organize program into
cohesive models. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
119. Identify appropriate strategies for solving and
customizing business problems via SAP-ABAP
program code. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
120. Write program code, using appropriate design
documents, data files and structured programming
techniques. S
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
121. Develop & process models to verify and control
software complexity. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
122. Analyze Business Requirements and design
software solutions using SAP R/3 environment &
techniques. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
123. Design friendly and efficient GUI environment
using SAP R/3 screen tools. S Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
124. Work with SAP Internal Tables. S Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 125. Use SAP File handling. S
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
Issues in Public Sector Procurement and Contracting
126. Use key processes in systematic public sector
procurement. C* 1
2 6 1 2
1 2 5 6
2 5
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 1 2 5 6
Business Configuration with SAP
127. Complete a SAP Configuration, make decisions
around configuration requirements and complete
Problem Solving activities. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
128. Analyze information to make decisions with
respect to appropriate configuration requirements. C
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
129. Run Client transactions (examples are purchasing
orders, sales orders). S 5 6 6 6 Used at Least Once
Used Regularly 2 5 6
329
Course Title/Course Learning Outcome (CLO)
Concept
or
Skill
Work
Term
Learning
Plan
Work
Term
Progress
Report
Site
Visit
Report
Employer
Evaluation
Work
Term
Report
Student Reported Use of
CLO on Questionnaire
130. Work within a client environment to advise,
configure and demo ERP functionality. S
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
Logistics
131. Use the dimensions of logistics management to
examine demand and procurement – both the inbound
and outbound sides of logistics system. C†
Used at Least Once 2
Used Regularly 3
132. Use the functional processes associated with
logistics, investigating the role, fundamentals and
techniques of warehousing and transportation, and
implementing effective and efficient management
control.
C† Used at Least Once 2
Used Regularly 3
133. Utilize the new, innovative, and value-added
approaches and strategies of logistics. C† Used at Least Once 2
Used Regularly
Object Oriented Programming for e-Business Applications
134. Implement programming specifications by
writing, entering, compiling, testing and debugging
and documenting JAVA applets and programs. S
Used at Least Once
Used Regularly
Results
Total CLOs Identified in Co-op Documents 31 25 19 6 30
Application of Concept 14 15 13 3 20
Application of Skill 17 10 6 3 10
Total CLOs from Work Term Learning Plan Reported
as Used 31
In Co-op Documentation Only 0
In Co-op Documentation and CLO Questionnaire 20
Application of Concept 10
Application of Skill 10
In Course Learning Outcome Questionnaire Only 11
Application of Concept 4
330
Course Title/Course Learning Outcome (CLO)
Concept
or
Skill
Work
Term
Learning
Plan
Work
Term
Progress
Report
Site
Visit
Report
Employer
Evaluation
Work
Term
Report
Student Reported Use of
CLO on Questionnaire
Application of Skill 7
Total CLOs Identified as Different from Work Term
Learning Plan: 68
In Co-op Documents Only 0
In Co-op Documents * and in CLO Questionnaire 14
Application of Concept 12
Application of Skill 2
Only in Course Learning Outcome Questionnaire† 54
Application of Concept 39
Application of Skill 15
*CLO identified in co-op documents; CLOs are only counted once, even if found in multiple students‘ co-op documentation.
†CLO identified only in Course Learning Outcomes Questionnaire