<%BANNER%>

Business Faculty Knowledge of Adult Learning Styles: Cooperative Education vs. Non-Cooperative Education Institutions


PAGE 1

BUSINESS FACULTY KNOWLEDGE OF ADULT LEARNING STYLES: COOPERATIVE EDUCATION VS. NON-COOPERATIVE EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS By FRANK RUSSELL ROTHAMER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2003

PAGE 2

Copyright 2003 by Frank Russell Rothamer

PAGE 3

To Nancy, Kaitlyn, Jessica, and Lauren. Thank you for your unwavering support and patience. My educational pursuits coul d not have been a success without you. I love you all.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS An endeavor of this sort and magnitude cannot be successful without the help and encouragement of a group of people. My committee members, friends, and family were instrumental in the completion of my graduate studies. As with all those who aided me in this accomplishment, they provided their time and expertise when there were many other demands on their attention. I thank all noted below and those I could not mention for their support. Dr. David Honeyman was the chair of my committee and a key influence in my graduate studies. I thank him for accepting me as one of his doctoral students and being patient and flexible given my work, family, and school responsibilities. His unwavering support and feedback guided me through this process. Dr. Art Sandeen provided key insights into the world of higher education and consistently pushed me to consider all the possibilities. He was always the first to respond with words of encouragement and congratulations. I aspire to have a similar impact on higher education as has Dr. Sandeen. Dr. Dale Campbell introduced me to the community college realm. Although I graduated from Santa Fe Community College, Dr. Campbell helped me to better understand the community college system. His questions and feedback on my writing helped me improve immeasurably. iv

PAGE 5

Dr. Andrew McCollough was at the foundation of my career at the University of Florida. He has supported my endeavors as an employee, an undergraduate student, and a graduate student. His demeanor, candor, and advice have been an inspiration to me. Many of my friends have aided me either directly or indirectly in this accomplishment. I would like to offer a special and sincere thank you to Michelle Reynolds for her leadership and faith in my abilities. Mark Reed kindly put up with my incessant questions regarding the statistical analysis. Last, but certainly not least, I thank my family for their support and encouragement. Nancy has continually sacrificed her personal time to cover my share of family and parental duties. My educational accomplishments are due in a large part to her patience and support. I appreciate my three daughters, Kaitlyn, Jessica, and Lauren, for enduring their dads absence and for providing me with the hope and wonderment of life. v

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Need for the Study........................................................................................................2 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................4 Significance of the Study..............................................................................................6 Limitations of the Study...............................................................................................8 Assumptions of the Study.............................................................................................9 Definition of Terms......................................................................................................9 Summary.....................................................................................................................11 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................13 History of Cooperative Education..............................................................................13 Benefits of Cooperative Education.............................................................................15 Cooperative Education and the Importance of Academic Credit...............................18 Role of Faculty in Cooperative Education..................................................................20 Philosophic Foundations of Cooperative Education...................................................22 Adult Learning Theory...............................................................................................24 Relating Theory and Practice......................................................................................28 Principles of Adult Learning Scale.............................................................................30 Summary.....................................................................................................................31 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...............................................................................33 Research Questions.....................................................................................................33 Design of the Study....................................................................................................34 Study Population.........................................................................................................35 Survey Instrument.......................................................................................................37 Validity of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale....................................................39 Reliability of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale.................................................41 vi

PAGE 7

Data Collection Procedures........................................................................................41 Survey Response Rate................................................................................................43 Summary.....................................................................................................................44 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS........................................................................45 Description of the Business Faculty Respondents......................................................45 Analysis of Research Question I.................................................................................49 Analysis of Research Question II...............................................................................54 Analysis of Research Question III..............................................................................63 Summary.....................................................................................................................69 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................71 Introduction.................................................................................................................71 Findings......................................................................................................................72 Conclusion..................................................................................................................75 Recommendations for Further Research....................................................................78 Summary.....................................................................................................................80 APPENDIX A PRINCIPLES OF ADULT LEARNING SCALE......................................................81 B INITIAL INFORMED CONSENT SENT TO POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS BY E-MAIL...............................................................................................................85 C FINAL INFORMED CONSENT SENT TO POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS BY MAIL....................................................................................................................87 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................89 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................95 vii

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 Faculty Response Rates by Institution.....................................................................43 2 Current Faculty Status..............................................................................................46 3 Years of Higher Education Teaching Experience....................................................46 4 Years of Business-related Work Experience in Addition to Teaching....................47 5 Level of Courses Most Often Taught.......................................................................47 6 Primary Discipline of the Business Faculty .............................................................48 7 Faculty Who Participated in Cooperative Education as Undergraduate Students...48 8 Business Faculty that Believe Students Should Receive Academic Credit for Their Cooperative Education Experiences...............................................................49 9 Principles of Adult Learning Scale Factor Items.....................................................51 10 Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities..................................................................................................................52 11 Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction.................................................................................................................52 12 Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 3, Relating to Experience................................................................................................................52 13 Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs........................................................................................................................53 14 Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 5, Climate Building....................................................................................................................53 viii

PAGE 9

15 Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process................................................................................................54 16 Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development..............................................................................................54 17 Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities..............................................56 18 Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction..................................................57 19 Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 3, Relating to Experience.....................................................58 20 Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs..................................................59 21 Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 5, Climate Building..............................................................61 22 Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process...............................62 23 Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development..............................63 24 Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities..............................................64 25 Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction..................................................65 26 Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 3, Relating to Experience .....................................................66 27 Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs..................................................66 ix

PAGE 10

28 Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 5, Climate Building..............................................................67 29 Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process...............................68 30 Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development..............................69 x

PAGE 11

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy BUSINESS FACULTY KNOWLEDGE OF ADULT LEARNING STYLES: COOPERATIVE EDUCATION VS. NON-COOPERATIVE EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS By Frank Russell Rothamer December 2003 Chair: David S. Honeyman Major Department: Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations Many higher education institutions are facing difficult financial decisions. Researchers have identified the need for empirical research on cooperative education programs to help justify necessary financial and pedagogical decisions in todays ever-changing higher education environment. The purpose of this study was to determine if differences exist between business faculty in their knowledge of adult learning styles utilizing the seven factors of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale. This study focused on business faculty at four-year higher education institutions that promote cooperative education and business faculty at four-year higher education institutions that do not promote cooperative education. There were 82 business faculty members who participated in this study. An ANOVA was used to determine if there were significant differences in the factor scores of cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education xi

PAGE 12

business faculty. Significant differences were identified in the factor scores for climatebuilding, participation in the learning process, relating to experience, and flexibility for personal development. Business faculty in higher education institutions with a rich culture in cooperative education scored higher in each of the above factors than did their business faculty counterparts at higher education institutions with no such cooperative education culture. The results of this study contribute to a greater understanding of cooperative education and adult learning theory. This study, along with other research, begins to bridge the empirical research gap utilizing the linkage of cooperative education and adult learning theory. xii

PAGE 13

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Heinemann (1983) wrote cooperative education is often presented as an educational system that expands traditional classroom-based learning by incorporating practical work experience into the curriculum (p. 14). The foundation and development of cooperative education was based upon the concepts of educational pragmatism. Dewey (1938) asserted there is an intimate and necessary relation between the processes of actual experience and education (p. 7). While the cooperative education model has its roots in the educational pragmatism of the late nineteenth century, the model as it exists today was first developed in 1906 at the University of Cincinnati. By 1998, over 900 higher education institutions offered cooperative education programs and more than 230,000 students participated yearly in some form of cooperative education work experience (Sovilla, 1998). Cooperative education has grown over the past 97 years due to the benefits and results provided by these work-experience programs. Hutcheson (1996) stated cooperative education programs benefit students, colleges, universities, employers, and society. These benefits are derived from a partnership between the cooperative education stakeholders. Parents and students have confronted the rising cost of college tuition by students participating in cooperative education programs that provide financial remuneration for student participants. Hutcheson also noted students, colleges, and universities have found that cooperative education programs enhance classroom learning by integrating curriculum and practical work-experience. Hutcheson stated that employers have benefited in two distinct ways from cooperative 1

PAGE 14

2 education programs: these types of programs provided employers with a pool of well-prepared workers and enhanced the employers relationship with colleges and universities. Within the college and university setting, faculty have played a significant role in the success or failure of cooperative education programs. Wilson (1987a) noted business majors account for the largest numbers of cooperative education participants. Engineering programs have been the second largest discipline to use cooperative education programs within their curricula. Given that business programs have been large stakeholders in cooperative education, business faculty also play a distinct role in the development and success of those business students who are engaged in cooperative education experiences. Wilson argued that administrators and faculty provide cooperative education programs with academic sanction and validity, important ingredients of the long-term development and institutionalization of the program (p. 39). Dube and Korngold (1987) documented the importance of surveying faculty to determine their knowledge and support of cooperative education programs. By obtaining this faculty information, cooperative education researchers and practitioners can determine steps to be taken to build awareness and advocacy for their students and programs. Higher education leaders can also use faculty survey results as a decision-making tool and to build greater institutional commitment for cooperative education. Need for the Study Despite a century-long interest in cooperative education, very little research has been conducted to link faculty curriculum efforts, integration, and pedagogy to work experience opportunities. Heinemann (1983) stated there is an urgent need to develop an appropriate pedagogy for cooperative education to integrate the educational outcomes

PAGE 15

3 from the work and classroom experience (p. 14). Contomanolis (2002), in his study to determine engineering faculty attitudes concerning the value and applicability of cooperative education work experience to academic classroom learning, found a positive relationship between engineering faculty attitudes and the academic value of cooperative education. He also noted two specific and relevant areas in need of further research. Contomanolis suggested a study that would compare different types of institutions as well as compare faculty from different academic disciplines, stressing this would add new knowledge to the field of cooperative education and adult learning theory. Other researchers have also acknowledged that few faculty outside of adult basic education and continuing education programs are aware of or apply the principles of adult learning theory to their classroom curriculum (Morman, Hernandez, & Evans, 1989; Schlossberg, 1989). The consensus among those concerned with these issues is that rigorous academic research must be conducted to develop an empirical body of research that supports the tenets of cooperative education. Ricks, Cutt, Branton, Loken, and Van Gyn (1993) reviewed the cooperative education literature and found that there is an absence of integration among theory, research, and practice as well as a lack of standards in cooperative education research. They argued, if cooperative education is conceptualized as a teaching and/or learning model of higher education, then the learning model needs to be defined and studied in terms of its conceptualization as teaching and/or learning conditions (p. 15). Throughout its history, cooperative education research has not followed a model that allows research to be processed into theory and practice. Ricks et al. (1993) further argued that an interaction between principle parties of the cooperative education and

PAGE 16

4 other branches of education may benefit cooperative education by ensuring exposure to recent theoretical, operational and research advances in education (p. 19). Wilson (1988) lent support to these ideas when he proposed that the future research into cooperative education must, much more frequently, be theory-based and findings explained in terms of theory (p. 86). In order to promote their inclusion into mainstream academia, Saltmarsh (1992) further explained that staff and faculty involved with cooperative education must understand and incorporate the education and training of those who teach in their academic disciplines. Van Gyn (1996) also noted that many academic faculty members have a narrow traditional definition of higher education that excludes the possibility of experiential education. Instead of this limited focus, Van Gyn proposed academic faculty become better prepared to help students with their overall education. He wrote classroom learning and experiential learning should be seamless if they are built on the same educational values (p. 127). This concept of a seamless educational and training experience has linked the tenets of adult learning theory to academic faculty in their disciplines, as well as to cooperative education. This study was designed to partially remedy the lack of research and address the need for further research as outlined above. Statement of the Problem While experiential education and cooperative education have been a part of higher education over the past 100 years, the Ad Hoc Committee on Cooperative Education (1998) argued that cooperative education functions on the periphery of the academy (p. 109). The Ad Hoc Committee on Cooperative Education further reported that the undergraduate college is a troubled institution driven by careerism and overshadowed by graduate and professional education and the nations colleges and universities are far

PAGE 17

5 more successful in credentialing than providing a quality education for their students (p. 112). The Ad Hoc Committee identified several reasons why cooperative education operates on the periphery of the academy and why cooperative education is not viewed as an integral component of the curriculum. First, the Ad Hoc Committee suggested that the teaching faculty do not recognize that learning, thinking, and general professional development can be achieved using the work environment as a classroom with the work itself serving as an instructional vehicle (p. 113). Second, they noted that there is a cleavage between cooperative education professionals and the classroom faculty. Third, they argued that cooperative education research for promoting learning is underdeveloped (p. 114). The fact that cooperative education has not been generally accepted by academia as a viable and proven learning strategy suggests a need to know why that is so. The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty knowledge and utilization of adult learning theory in order to help fill the theoretical gap identified by the Ad Hoc Committee. No attempt will be made to assess or determine if cooperative education institutions are better than non-cooperative education institutions or vice versa. Specifically, this study is designed to address the following research questions: Research question I. Is there a difference between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale?

PAGE 18

6 Research question II. Is there a difference between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work experience? Research question III. Is there a difference between business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work experience? Significance of the Study Researchers have noted the importance of cooperative education research as a worthwhile and needed academic pursuit in various studies of cooperative education (Harris, 1984; Heinemann, Enright, Johnson, Murtaugh, Reed, Robinson & Wilson, 1988; Hines, 1987; Stout, 1984; van der Vorm, Jones, & Ferren, 1979; Wilson & Lyons, 1961). In a study by Contomanolis (2002) that analyzed the degree to which engineering faculty integrated student cooperative education experiences in the classroom curriculum, he included two specific dimensions of faculty attitude that are applicable to this study. First, he measured faculty attitudes concerning the potential value and applicability of cooperative education work experience to academic classroom learning. Second, he measured the extent to which faculty integrated the students cooperative education experiences into the subject matter curriculum. These two dimensions, faculty attitudes and extent of incorporation, are closely tied into the Principles of Adult Learning Scale and a faculty members awareness and application of adult learning theory. This study has the potential to contribute to the fields of adult learning theory and cooperative education in four different and specific areas.

PAGE 19

7 First, the focus of this study may advance the knowledge of adult learning theory as applied by business faculty in cooperative education programs and business faculty in non-cooperative education programs. Perry (1997) noted that there are two questions that faculty must address to be effective instructors. One, who are the students, and two, what are the best methods to help them learn? Heinemann et al. (1988) noted that cooperative education has not been integrated into the classroom curriculum due to the reluctance of teaching faculty to acknowledge the value of the students cooperative education work experience. Contomanolis (2002) wrote, the concept of training as specific, short-term and applied and education as general, longer, and more theoretical has the potential to cause conflict when applied to the philosophies of education and teaching (p. 13). In order to remedy this reluctance and conflict, this study aims to demonstrate that cooperative education administrators and faculty can utilize the principles and strategies of adult learning theory in order to provide students with an experience-related learning opportunity. Second, as administrators and faculty utilize methodology, pedagogy, and andragogy to develop and implement both academic programs and cooperative education programs, this study can provide results to determine the extent to which business faculty apply adult learning theory to their classroom environments. The results derived from the four higher education institutions included in this study may help establish goals and quality improvement benchmarks at other institutions considering cooperative education programs as a vehicle for enhancing student learning.

PAGE 20

8 Third, the Principles of Adult Learning Scale can be applied to business faculty to determine their awareness and application of adult learning theory. No such research has been conducted previously. Fourth, the results of this study may contribute to the growing field of continuing research, both in adult learning theory as well as in the cooperative education field. While this study will not answer all the questions associated with cooperative education programs or the awareness and application of adult learning theory, it may provide an insight into the cooperative education system as a whole as well as the individual participating institutions. Limitations of the Study The potential limitations of this study include the ability to generalize issues and problems associated with this type of study. As Dooley (2001) noted, external validity consists of the extent to which research findings generalize to other populations, other times, and other settings (p. 197). This study is limited to four higher education institutions, two noted for cooperative education and two with no cooperative education institutional history or culture. This study is also limited to the business faculty at the four higher education institutions. Coll and Chapman (2000a) observed that cooperative education programs are highly variable and this may mean the generalization of the findings of an inquiry based on one institution, or in one country, or to an international audience is tenuous (27). Therefore, caution must be observed in generalizing any findings beyond the faculty and institutions represented. Further, the Principles of Adult Learning Scale is a 44-item self-reporting instrument that measures a faculty members awareness of adult learning principles and a faculty members application of adult learning principles through seven different and relevant factors.

PAGE 21

9 Assumptions of the Study For the purpose of this study, the following assumptions are made: (1) Business faculty in this study come from diverse backgrounds. Some may have had previous training or education in the principles of adult learning. (2) Business faculty reported their true perceptions on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS). Definition of Terms Knowles (1980) originally defined andragogy as the art and science of helping adults learn (p. 43). As further adult learning theory research was conducted, Knowles noted that educators utilized the principles of adult learning on all ages of learners. Upon review of the research, Knowles (1980) acknowledged andragogy as simply another model of assumptions about learners to be used alongside the pedagogical model of assumptions (p. 43). Adult education as noted by Knowles (1977), can be defined in several different ways. In the broad sense, Knowles (1980) wrote that adult education describes the process of adult learning, and that in this sense it encompasses practically all experiences of mature men and women by which they acquire new knowledge, understanding, skills, attitudes, interests, or values (p. 25). Knowles also wrote that adult education can have a more specific or technical definition. He included in this broader definition all organized classes, study groups, lecture series, planned reading programs, guided discussions, conferences, institutes, workshops, and correspondence courses in which American adults engage (p. 25). This present study focused on this broader definition of adult education. Cooperative education as noted by Ryder (1987a), cannot be formally defined because of the polarization of research around the institutions and programs that offer

PAGE 22

10 cooperative education opportunities. Ryder offered a summation of cooperative education as follows: cooperative education is a particular application of the concept of experiential learning in which productive work performed by students is integrated into the curriculum and for which the institution assumes primary responsibility (p. 2). Ryder acknowledged that the terms internships and cooperative education opportunities are often used interchangeably, but noted cooperative education programs often involve multiple terms of work. Internships, on the other hand, happen less frequently and most often are for a single term or summer period. Keeton and Tate (1978) wrote that experiential learning refers to learning in which the learner is directly in touch with the realities being studied (p. 1). They stated that experiential learning is different from activities in which a student only reads about, hears about, talks about, or writes about these realities, but never comes into contact with them as part of the learning process (p. 1). Internships according to Premont (1998), share three basic characteristics: the duration of the experience, work opportunity, and learning opportunity. Internships share some of the same characteristics as apprenticeships, externships, field studies, work-studies and cooperative education programs. Premont argued that most internships are for a short period of time, usually ranging from a few months to a few years. She further explained that internships provide students with an opportunity to work in a professional situation and that the internships represented a learning by doing (p. 338) experience for the student. While Premont also stated that the terms apprenticeships and externships are often used interchangeably with internships, this is incorrect as these two experiences do not meet the three criteria she previously stated.

PAGE 23

11 Pedagogy is defined as the art and science of teaching children. Knowles (1980) noted the model of pedagogy was derived from the Greek word paid (meaning child) and agogus (meaning leading). Initial pedagogical assumptions were based primarily on teaching rudimentary skills to young children. Knowles (1980) wrote that the pedagogical method spread with the increase of elementary schools throughout Europe and the United States, as well as the dispersion of missionaries around the world. Summary The purpose of this study is to determine if differences exist between business faculty in their awareness and application of adult learning theory by analyzing the seven factors of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale. The focus of this study was business faculty at two four-year higher education institutions that actively promote and support cooperative education programs as part of their educational culture and business faculty at two four-year higher education institutions that do not actively promote and support cooperative education programs. Knowles (1980) was instrumental in bringing andragogy and adult learning theory to the mainstream of educational research. However, this body of knowledge has not been accepted by all educational practitioners as there has not been a substantial amount of empirical research conducted in the fields of adult education theory and cooperative education. In fact, no empirical research currently exists linking adult learning theory and cooperative education even though they share conceptual tenets about the importance of experience-based learning and educational pragmatism. The following four chapters describe the methods and procedures used in this study for adult learning theory and cooperative education. Chapter 2 contains a literature review of both adult learning theory and cooperative education as it relates to the research

PAGE 24

12 questions of this study. Chapter 3 discusses the research methodology utilized in this study. Chapter 4 provides the analysis of data information. Finally, Chapter 5 contains a summary of the findings and recommendations for further research.

PAGE 25

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of this study is to determine if differences exist between business faculty in their awareness and application of adult learning styles using the Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS) and how these differences correspond to support cooperative education. Existing literature covers the following eight topics: (1) the history of cooperative education, (2) the benefits of cooperative education, (3) the importance of academic credit in cooperative education programs, (4) the key role of faculty in cooperative education programs and adult learning theory, (5) the philosophic foundations of cooperative education, (6) adult learning theory, (7) relating theory and practice, and (8) the Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS). History of Cooperative Education Hall (1999) acknowledged the importance of the scientific revolution to academic development in the late nineteenth century and noted that cooperative education emerged during the early twentieth century in part due to the needs of rapid American economic growth and high employment. The early 1900s saw a rapid change in science, economics, and philosophy. Leaders in higher education were also surveying the climate to provide their institutions and students with learning opportunities appropriate to the changing environment of the time. Ryder (1987a) used Herman Schneider as an example of a pioneer in cooperative education. Ryder (1987a) wrote that innovation in higher education requires both inspiration and energetic advocacy (p. 3). Schneider began his career as a civil engineer 13

PAGE 26

14 and moved into the field of higher education, first as an instructor at Lehigh University and subsequently at the University of Cincinnati. Ryder argued that Schneider embodied these qualities as he began his efforts to integrate work experience with formal learning. As Ryder recounts the story, Schneider was strolling the Lehigh University campus when the sound of a blast from a nearby steel plant provided Schneider with the inspiration to found what has become known as cooperative education. Schneider recognized a modern steel plant with the most up-to-date equipment existing so close to a higher education institution as an opportunity to provide state-of-the-art training to students. Through his continued efforts and influence, Schneider began the first cooperative education program for engineering at the University of Cincinnati in 1906. Since its inception, cooperative education programs have spread throughout the country and across the globe. Northeastern University established a new college of engineering in 1909 and modeled its new cooperative education program after Schneiders Cincinnati plan of working and learning (Ryder, 1987a). While cooperative education has its roots in engineering, its practitioners moved into other academic disciplines in the early 1900s. The business department at the University of Cincinnati adopted cooperative education in 1917 and, in 1921, Antioch College, a liberal arts institution, integrated a cooperative education ethos into its academic culture. Throughout the remainder of the twentieth century, cooperative education has moved beyond its initial inception in engineering to become more pervasive throughout higher education. Much of the impetus for the growth and success of cooperative education programs came from the perceived benefits associated with such programs.

PAGE 27

15 Benefits of Cooperative Education Learning by doing has been noted as an important part of an overall educational experience. Education and learning theorists have written about the importance of engaging students in hands-on learning as a means to enhance comprehension of and engagement in subject matter (Dewey, 1938; Hutchings and Wutzdorff, 1988; Kolb, 1984). These kinds of experiences are well documented to have positive effects on student development and comprehension (Hutchings and Wutzdorff, 1988; Kolb, 1984; Terenzini, 1995). Over the years, students, employers, institutions of higher education, and faculty have used the cooperative education model, which has proven to be pedagogically sound and transferable to various institutions and academic disciplines. Ryder (1987b) pointed out cooperative education as a cost-saving strategy for employers and a revenue-generating and learning opportunity for students. He also wrote, throughout its history, cooperative education has demonstrated its value to higher education in at least four significant ways (p. 305). These four ways are a) an effective pedagogical model, b) a source of income for students, c) cost-savings for employers, and d) program transferability. Each of these four attributes has allowed cooperative education stakeholders to accrue program benefits, and research has been conducted on each of these beneficiaries. Somers (1995) stated a substantial body of literature exists regarding the benefits that accrue to cooperative education participants upon graduation (p. 25). Student benefit research was some of the first to appear in academic literature. Wilson and Lyons (1961) reported that students participated in cooperative education experiences to gain a better understanding of their own career goals. Participants in the study not only reported a clarification of their career goals, but they also reported feeling more prepared to begin

PAGE 28

16 their chosen career. Wilson (1987b) summarized the body of cooperative education empirical research on student outcomes as follows: The body of research studies examining the impact of cooperative education on students clearly indicates that participation contributes to clarification of career goals and great assurance in deciding upon a goal; developing autonomy and self-confidence; increasing awareness of the need for and skills involved in interpersonal relations; and increasing motivation for studies, as manifested in increased academic achievement and perseverance. (p. 279) Raiola and Sugerman (1984) added that work experiences also provide student participants with an opportunity to develop critical analytical skills and reflection practices, allowing them to link their classroom theory studies with practice in a work environment. Wilson (1987b) wrote that students become proactively involved in the cooperative education work assignments and are also afforded the opportunity to explore career choices as well as experience the culture and traditions of their work experience. Similar to academic assessment for course subjects, students cooperative education work experiences are assessed as well. Students receive feedback on their success or failure in their cooperative work experience. Finally, Wilson stated that students are often paid for their cooperative work experience. This real acknowledgment of their efforts provided students with a sense of participation and success in meeting an employers standards and expectations. Therefore, students felt accountable to both their institution of higher learning and their cooperative education employer. Employers also have benefited from cooperative education programs. Brown (1987) argued that employers of cooperative education students became involved with such programs to fill a human resource need. Hutcheson (1996) agreed as she stated cooperative education provides employers with a larger pool of well-prepared employees as well as allows employers to improve their selection process by pre-screening full-time

PAGE 29

17 hires through a cooperative education program. These two benefits have allowed employers to increase their recruitment and training effectiveness. Hutcheson also added that cooperative education programs improved the retention rates of full-time employees who had started with their employers as cooperative education students. Brown (1987) found employers also seek co-ops for full-time employment because they are perceived to be mature, serious, and stable (p. 299). Institutions of higher education and industry have courted one another throughout their shared history. Just as cooperative education has benefited the students and employers, academic institutions have also gained from the implementation and support of cooperative education programs. Research has been conducted to identify potential benefits to the higher education institutions with cooperative education programs. Dube and Korngold (1987) argued an effective cooperative education program should be able to strengthen the curriculum, help maintain or increase enrollments, improve employment opportunities for its graduates, and strengthen the institutions financial position as a result of greater enrollments and employer contributions (p. 111). Hutcheson (1996) has also argued that cooperative education programs help colleges and universities build positive relationships with the business community that employs their students. Also, Hutcheson wrote that cooperative education programs have provided access to state-of-the art equipment and technology by using the workplace as a laboratory extension of the classroom (p. vi). Faculty have been important stakeholders in the success of higher education as well as cooperative education programs. However, there has been little research conducted on how individual faculty benefit from cooperative education programs.

PAGE 30

18 Stull and deAyora (1984) conducted a study of more than 250 cooperative education directors and faculty and found that the benefits ranked highest by both two-year and four-year faculty concerned the classroom environment. Specifically, faculty identified improved classroom facilitation and enhancement of classroom learning as their primary benefits. Stull and deAyora also found faculty support of cooperative education as least beneficial to a faculty members promotion, salary, tenure, and professional development. Somers (1995) further explored the concept of faculty benefits through cooperative education. He found cooperative education programs allowed faculty to develop positive relationships with students and also provided faculty with feedback regarding the relevance of their academic coursework. In addition, Sommers noted faculty felt cooperative education students enhanced the classroom learning environment. Finally, faculty, similar to higher education institutions as a whole, benefited from increased contact with employers to build positive relationships. Cooperative education has also encountered resistance. Some academic faculty have proven to be deterrents to program implementation and acceptance of cooperative education on individual college and university campuses, as well as a hindrance to the continued growth of cooperative education. Faculty became a pivotal ingredient to the acceptance and growth of cooperative education when questions arose with regard to academic credit for students participating in cooperative education opportunities. Cooperative Education and the Importance of Academic Credit Academic credit is one way to measure the perceived value of an educational endeavor. Wilson (1987a) pointed out that the reasons for awarding academic credit for cooperative education experiences preceded the rationale for such awards. He wrote that prior to the 1970s, only 18 percent of the cooperative education programs awarded

PAGE 31

19 academic credit to those students that successfully completed their experiences. As cooperative education expanded through the 1970s to the present, the number of cooperative education programs awarding credit to their participants increased to approximately 70 percent. Wilson concluded that the reason for the dramatic shift was based upon simple economics and practicality. In the public higher education institutions, operating income was primarily tied to the total student count. Cooperative education students who were currently engaged in their cooperative work experiences were not being counted as part of the total student body because they did not meet the definition of an enrolled student. Therefore, academic departments were not receiving fund allocations for those students engaging in a co-op work experience. This non-recognition of cooperative work experience students impacted budget forecasts and had an adverse affect on faculty support. Administrators and faculty thus began to rationalize credit awards for cooperative education experiences as a means to protect their tuition funds. Wilson noted that the rationale was simple: tuition is paid for the opportunity to learn and learning does not always have to take place in the traditional classroom environment. While Ryder (1987b) agreed with this analysis, there was no initial pedagogical justification for academic credit for cooperative education. Rather, the push for granting academic credit was merely economical, a way to help public higher education institutions maintain their budget allocations. As the awarding of credit rests with teaching faculty, cooperative education programs had to begin the process of engaging and bringing teaching faculty into the cooperative education realm.

PAGE 32

20 Students were impacted by the initial lack of credit for the cooperative education work experiences. Students who engaged in cooperative education work experiences often had to delay graduation by a semester or a year as they fell behind their non-co-op classmates. In fact, early programs at the University of Cincinnati, Northeastern University, and Drexel University extended their undergraduate programs by a year to accommodate cooperative education programs. Students were now expected to take five years to graduate, as opposed to the traditional four years. When academic credit was awarded for participation in cooperative education programs, those institutions of higher learning helped students stay on track for a more traditional graduation time. Because faculty awarded the academic credit, academic credit became the catalyst for increased faculty involvement in cooperative education. Role of Faculty in Cooperative Education Wilson (1987a) observed that teaching faculty became concerned that cooperative education staff doled out the coin of the realm (p.36). Some cooperative education programs gave as few as one credit while other programs gave out as many as eighteen credits. On many campuses, as this friction built, teaching faculty began to get more involved in their cooperative education programs. Academic faculty developed curricula that not only enabled students to get credit for their cooperative education work experience, it also helped the students graduate in the traditional time. As cooperative education programs were integrated into the academic realm and credit was being awarded, academic faculty voiced their concerns about and resistance to an educational model that had not been proven. Ryder (1987b) reports that academic faculty usually resist cooperative education because it is an unconventional system of learning, implying that learning can take place

PAGE 33

21 outside of the classroom, outside of the traditional course structure, and, perhaps most threatening, outside of the professors reach (p. 26). Contomanolis (2002) wrote that the perception of cooperative education as providing training to meet the needs of industry conflicts with the dominant higher education paradigm of education as its own goal (p. 19). Van der Vorm (1988) and DePasquale (1991) contended faculty resistance could also be explained by the tension between cooperative educations practicality and the traditional liberal arts education. Feeney and Morris (1994) observed that faculty may view cooperative education as a form of experiential learning that is contrary to or detracting from rigorous study in the academic disciplines (p. 14). The Ad Hoc Committee on Cooperative Education (1998) echoed these assumptions when they suggested teaching faculty do not recognize that learning, thinking, and general professional development can be achieved using the work environment as a classroom with the work itself serving as an instructional vehicle (p. 113). The Ad Hoc Committee also found that the research supporting cooperative education as a proven methodology for learning was vague and underdeveloped (p. 114). Wilson (1988) found that most cooperative education research conducted on faculty involved measuring their attitudes and perceptions in order to gain support for cooperative education, not for strengthening theory or methodology. The dichotomy of the two faculty views was reflected in the schism in thought surrounding the theoretical base of cooperative education. Cooperative education professionals and faculty in various academic disciplines have attempted to close this gap by conducting empirical research to demonstrate that cooperative education is a sound educational pedagogy. Heinemann and DeFalco (1990) argued that cooperative

PAGE 34

22 education is both theoretical and pedagogical within the educational pragmatism model based on John Deweys learning-by-doing model. Stanton (1991) and Ricks et al. (1993) concurred with this assessment and suggested cooperative education will not be fully accepted by teaching faculty and institutions of higher education until empirical research has demonstrated the theoretical and pedagogical success of cooperative education programs. Philosophic Foundations of Cooperative Education The scientific revolution of nineteenth-century America had a dramatic impact on research and thought. Scientific breakthroughs resulted in new methods and strategies in research. These new scientific methods and discoveries were widely applicable to many facets of life. Ryder (1987a) identified John Dewey as the prime proponent of this new pragmatist philosophy. Educational research and thought turned to experimentation to gain useful and practical outcomes. Dewey influenced many educators of the day and still has an impact on the philosophy of education. He argued that people learn from actual experience and by doing and participating in activities, the basic philosophy of cooperative education, as noted by Ryder (1987a) who stated that cooperative education is a particular expression of educational pragmatism (p. 8). Cooperative education is not merely a work experience for the sake of work, rather, work experience allows students to learn beyond the traditional classroom in ways that will improve their overall learning experience. After the Ad Committee on Cooperative Education (1998) reported that cooperative education operates on the periphery of academia, cooperative education supporters and researchers rushed back to Dewey and the subject of educational pragmatism in order to defend their programs and methodologies. Subsequently,

PAGE 35

23 Minnich (1999) wrote, the taproot of U.S. experiential education is in this nations passionate, if always painfully contradictory, orientation toward aspirational democracy, and Pragmatism is one of democracys most compatible philosophies (p. 6). Minnich further articulated that Pragmatists advocated an educational experience centered on relating theory and practice. Heinemann and DeFalco (1992) detailed how post-secondary cooperative education programs are philosophically sound because these programs relate to the concepts of Deweys writing. For example, Heinemann and DeFalco argued that cooperative education offers a work-place experience that meets Deweys criterion of a laboratory where experience evolves into learning and discovery. Heinemann and DeFalco supported Deweys proposal that higher education in America evolve into a new model that eliminated the dualism of the world of ideas and the world of work (p. 40). According to them, it was this dualism or separation that had hindered the efforts of cooperative education methodologies to enter into the mainstream academic community. Dewey (1916) had written the problem is not that of making schools an adjunct to manufacture and commerce, but of utilizing the factors of industry to make school more active, more full of immediate meaning, more connected with school experience (p. 369). Heinemann and DeFalco (1992) argued that it is precisely in this arena that cooperative education excels and meets the needs of students. Saltmarsh (1992) also stressed the efficacy of utilizing Deweys educational arguments to strengthen the foundation of cooperative education. Saltmarsh went beyond the Heinemann and DeFalco dualism argument and added that what was needed was not merely an education that linked academic study to experiential learning, but an education that would foster the transformation of the work experience (p. 8). He stated that in

PAGE 36

24 order to make this happen, cooperative education institutions must integrate classroom and workplace learning as well as provide students with the tools to use their cooperative work experiences to help with their self-realization, a clear extension of Deweys philosophy. Even with this resurgence of research based on Deweys pragmatism, supporting cooperative education as a valid experiential learning activity, other researchers were not convinced. Miettinen (2000) argued adult education is at risk of remaining a quasi-scientific field without connection to the philosophical, anthropological, sociological, and psychological studies of learning and thought (p. 71). Miettinen posited that adult education and experiential education were inadequate as they were currently practiced and researched. Miettinen contended that the formulation of an experiential learning model by Kolb (1984) was an eclectic endeavor in which Kolb extracted terms and concepts from their idea-historical contexts and purposes and puts them to serve the motives of his own presentation (p. 56). Adult Learning Theory Knowles (1984) defined andragogy as the art and science of helping adults learn. He identified seven components of this art and science that teachers effectively utilize to help adults learn. Knowles proposed that a teacher should 1. Establish a physical and psychological climate conducive to learning, 2. Involve learners in mutual planning of methods and curricular directions, 3. Involve participants in diagnosing their own learning needs, 4. Encourage learners to formulate their own learning objectives, 5. Encourage learners to identify resources and to devise strategies for using such resources to accomplish their objectives,

PAGE 37

25 6. Help learners to carry out their learning plans, and 7. Involve learners in evaluating their learning. While Knowles delineated the traits that a teacher should possess, he also outlined the differences between pedagogy and andragogy. Knowles recognized a teachers concept of the learner, a learners need to know, a learners motivation to learn, a learners readiness to learn, and a learners orientation to learning, as well as the role of a learners experience as key conceptual differences between pedagogy and andragogy. Knowles elaborated on each of these assumptions to provide a clear distinction between the two methods, as discussed below. Concept of the learner. Knowles argued that pedagogical practice defines the role of the learner as passive and dependent upon the instructor as the provider of knowledge. Knowles wrote that teachers in the pedagogical model take full responsibility for determining what is to be learned, when it is to be learned, how it is to be learned, and if it has been learned (p. 43). To highlight the distinction between the two models, he noted that adult learners move from dependency to self-directedness. Knowles defined adults as individuals who take responsibility for their own decisions, actions, and lives, and it is this self-directness that demarks one important dimension in the educational models. Need to know. Knowles believed adults need to understand how their learning is related to their every day lives and how they can apply this new learning. If this relevance is not perceived, Knowles argued that adult learners will withdraw as opposed to engage in their learning environments. Therefore, teaching faculty are encouraged to explicitly state and encourage their adult learners to search for that applied meaning.

PAGE 38

26 Knowles contrasted this andragogical methodology to the pedagogical view in which the subject matter was taught for the sake of learning the subject matter. Motivation to learn. Knowles argued that the assumptions of the pedagogical model include motivation by external rewards and punishments, while the andragogical model establishes a motivational assumption based on internal incentives and curiosity. Therefore, adults are not only motivated by job promotions and increased pay, they also are motivated by self-satisfaction, personal development, and an improved quality of life. Readiness to learn. The prevailing pedagogical assumptions with regard to readiness to learn have established that people are ready to learn whatever society (especially the school) says they ought to learn, provided the pressures on them (like fear or failure) are great enough (p. 44). Contrary to this thought, Knowles argued adults become ready to learn something new in order to deal with a practical situation or real-life event. Knowles wrote that teachers must provide a rubric for adult learners to understand the necessity of knowledge and the principle that instruction should be organized around life-application categories and sequenced according to the learners readiness to learn (p. 44). Orientation to learning. Knowles wrote that pedagogical methodology is organized by subject-matter units as learners are placed in the silos of specific academic disciplines and subject matter. Learners have viewed this type of curriculum as valuable only later in life, because it appeared to lack current applicability. The andragogical viewpoint has held that learning involves acquiring competencies that are readily utilized for specific real-life situations. Knowles stated that because adult learners are

PAGE 39

27 performance-centered in their orientation to learning, these experiences should be organized around competency-development categories (p. 44). Role of learners experience. Knowles found that in the pedagogical teaching methodology, a learners previous life experience or work experience is not considered a valuable teaching asset. Teachers who have utilized the pedagogical method have tended to rely on lecture, textbook reading, and sometimes audiovisual techniques as modes of delivering instruction. Knowles wrote that as people grow and develop they accumulate an increasing reservoir of experience that becomes an increasingly rich resource for learning for themselves and others (p. 44). To that end, Knowles believed that adult learners gain more from active experiences than passive classroom instruction. Hence, he argued for problem-solving cases, simulations, experiments, and field experiences as a preferred method of instruction. These assumptions provided a nexus for developing an adult education theory that is widely utilized and valued. Roots of adult learning theory can also be linked to the work of experiential learning and Kolbs (1984) model of experience. Miettinen (2000) stated that Kolbs four-stage model of learning is now regarded as classical and the foundation for experiential learning. Kolb (1984) wrote that experiential learning was developed by such notable educational thinkers as John Dewey, Kurt Lewin, and Jean Piaget. Using the seminal works of these authors, Kolb developed the Lewinian experiential learning model that includes concrete experiences, observations, reflections, and the formation of abstract concepts and generalizations, as well as the testing of implications of concepts in new situations. In other words, Kolb believed the experiential learning model provided a

PAGE 40

28 methodology to verify learning by categorizing the experience in terms of the event, what happened, what was learned, and how to apply that learning in the future. Merriam and Caffarella (1999) write that andragogy, as defined by Knowles, is an enduring model for understanding certain aspects of adult learning (p. 278). While they identified various inconsistencies in Knowles model, Merriam and Caffarella acknowledge andragogy as a significant piece of adult learning. Relating Theory and Practice From its inception at the University of Cincinnati in 1906, the cooperative education movement has grown across the country and throughout the world. As researchers addressed the higher education issues of the 21 st century, Hall (1999) wrote that because cooperative education will only increase, not decrease, in importance, rigorous academic research must be conducted to develop an empirical body of research that supports the tenets of cooperative education. Throughout cooperative education literature, faculty knowledge, perception, and involvement is a common theme (Burchell, Hodges, & Rainsbury 2000; Matson & Matson, 1995; McNutt 1980/1989; Ryder, 1987b; van der Vorm 1995; Wilson 1989). Dube and Korngold (1987) wrote most of the research has centered on faculty and their views on program goals, program operation, benefits to students, difficulties cooperative education may create for students, weaknesses of the program, benefits to the institution and direct or indirect benefits to the faculty (p. 107). To address this gap and to advance knowledge in the field of adult learning theory and cooperative education, more researchers are exploring the relationship between cooperative education and academic linkages to adult learning theory. Heinemann and DeFalco (1992) argued that the reflective learner concept, the interdisciplinary

PAGE 41

29 perspective, and the linkage of theory and practice could all be utilized as criteria for assessing teaching effectiveness. Each of these concepts can be found in both Kolbs (1984) model of experiential learning and Knowles (1980) work on adult education theory. Heinemann and DeFalco also stated that cooperative education experiences should incorporate inquiry methods to allow students to reflect on their experiences through an interdisciplinary approach utilizing various academic disciplines. Finally, they articulated the necessity that cooperative education be structured so that students can examine the relationships between theory and practice as observed in the workplace (p. 43). Ricks et al. (1993) reviewed the cooperative education literature and found that there is an absence of integration between theory, research, and practice, as well as a lack of standards in cooperative education research. They argued that if cooperative education is conceptualized as a teaching and/or learning model of higher education, then the learning model needs to be defined and studied in terms of its conceptualization as teaching and/or learning conditions (p. 15). Throughout its history, cooperative education research has not lent itself to a model that allows research to be processed into theory and practice. Ricks et al. argued that an interaction between principle parties of the cooperative education and other branches of education may benefit cooperative education by ensuring exposure to recent theoretical, operational and research advances in education (p. 19). Heinemann, DeFalco, and Smelkinson (1992) stated a similar concern. They wrote that cooperative education research implies that concepts taught in the classroom are reinforced in cooperative education work experiences and cooperative education students reach understandings and make connections that cannot be achieved

PAGE 42

30 as well through classroom instruction alone (p. 18). Heinemann et al. expressed concern that these cooperative education beliefs were just assumptions and were not grounded in empirical research. Wilson (1988) proposed that future research into cooperative education must, much more frequently, be theory-based and findings explained in terms of theory (p. 86). Saltmarsh (1992) argued that a Deweyan cooperative education scheme would also require conceiving of cooperative education as placed solidly within the scholarly specializations of knowledge at the university, most profitably as an interdisciplinary area of education (p. 14). In order to encourage their inclusion in mainstream academia, Saltmarsh further explained that those in cooperative education must embody the education and training similar to those who teach in their academic discipline. Van Gyn (1996) also noted that many academic faculty members have a narrow, traditional definition of higher education that excludes the possibility of experiential education. Instead of this limited focus, Van Gyn proposed faculty become better prepared to help students with their overall education. Van Gyn wrote classroom learning and experiential learning should be seamless if they are built on the same educational values (p. 127). This idea of a seamless education and training experience implies that the tenets of adult learning theory can be linked to academic faculty in their disciplines, as well as to cooperative education. Principles of Adult Learning Scale Conti (1978) noted that literature in the adult learning field was expanding and the use of the nascent collaborative teaching-learning method was growing. However, Conti noted this method had gained wide acceptance by adult educators, but had not been empirically tested. He undertook research to develop and validate an instrument capable

PAGE 43

31 of measuring the degree to which adult education practitioners accept and adhere to the adult education learning principles that are congruent with the collaborative teaching-learning mode (p. 2). Conti (1978) based his initial work on of the Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC). Conti wrote that the instrument he was developing would add to the adult learning theory field by expanding on the categories created by Flanders. These categories which also measure initiating and responsive actions were used as an observable, external, and independent criterion to systematically assess practitioner behavior (p. 2). Contis research led to his creation of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS). Subsequent to Contis development of his instrument, two other instruments were developed and became available to adult education researchers. Hershel Hadley developed the Educational Orientation Questionnaire (EOQ) in 1975. To help educators meet the needs of their adult learners by understanding their own philosophical orientation, Zinn developed the Philosophy of Adult Education Inventory (PAEI) in 1983. Zinn (1998) wrote that teachers determine the scope, sequence, methods, strategies and teaching materials that they will utilize to help their students learn. Adult education researchers have utilized the Principles of Adult Learning Scale with greater frequency than either the EOQ or the PAEI due to its aforementioned capability to measure the degree to which individuals are aware and apply adult learning theory to their classroom teaching. Summary Chapter 2 has provided a review of current literature in the area of cooperative education and adult learning theory. Cooperative education has played various roles with varying degrees of success at different institutions over the past near century. Although

PAGE 44

32 these programs have developed and grown, their acceptance and worth have provided a constant field of debate. Faculty members have played a key role in accepting and implementing cooperative education programs. Wilson (1987a) stated faculty support provides co-op with academic sanction and validity, important ingredients of the long-term development and institutionalization of the program (p. 39). Studies based on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale developed by Conti (1978) have helped to clarify and strengthen both adult learning theory and cooperative education.

PAGE 45

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was to determine if differences exist between business faculty in their knowledge of adult learning styles utilizing the seven factors of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale. The focus of this study was business faculty at four-year higher education institutions that promote cooperative education and business faculty at four-year higher education institutions that do not promote cooperative education. The following three research questions have guided this study. Research Questions Research question I. Is there a difference between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale? Research question II. Is there a difference between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work experience? Research question III. Is there a difference between business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work experience? It was theorized that business faculty that are aware of and apply the theories of adult learning are more prevalent at those higher education institutions that subscribe to the principles of cooperative education. Therefore, those faculty that have had business33

PAGE 46

34 related experiences and are part of an education culture rich in cooperative education principles should score higher on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale. Design of the Study Sprinthall (1997) stated that experimental research and post facto research are two research strategies that utilize inferential techniques of hypothesis testing. Sprinthall listed the type of research methodology utilized in this study as ex post facto research (p. 249) in which experimental research involves the manipulation of independent variables and provides an approach for drawing cause-and-effect conclusions. Dooley (2001) stated that ex post facto research allows for the experimental design to be created after the treatment has already taken place (p. 344). In other words, the participants are assigned to categories or groups based on characteristics they already possessed. Coll and Chapman (2000b) stated researchers must take into account the research questions when choosing a research methodology as opposed to having a specific preference for that methodology. This study utilized a quantitative methodology. Coll and Chapman (2000a) argued the quantitative approach is an effective research methodology for cooperative education research as it is possible to measure the reactions of many subjects to a limited set of questions, thus facilitating comparison and statistical aggregation of data (27). This study explored the differences between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty. Based on the review of the literature, it was hypothesized that an analysis of adult learning theory and cooperative education might provide a basis for a better understanding and potential direction for future research.

PAGE 47

35 Study Population The study population included business faculty at four four-year higher education institutions in the United States. Business faculty from Drexel University in Pennsylvania and Northeastern University in Massachusetts were chosen to represent cooperative education business faculty because of the long institutionalized history of cooperative education at the respective schools. McKenna and Hamrick (1986) stated, when a cooperative education program becomes an integral part of an institution, it has been referred to as being institutionalized with the process of achieving it identified as institutionalization (p. 68). McKenna and Hamrick listed support and participation as two key ingredients for the institutionalization of cooperative education. Drexel University and Northeastern University both fit the criteria established by McKenna and Hamrick. Dr. Constantine Papadakis, president of Drexel University, and Dr. Richard Freeland, president of Northeastern University, both serve as board of trustee members on the National Commission for Cooperative Education. Dr. Papadakis and Dr. Freelands participation, support, and promotion of the field of cooperative education outside their institutions, as well as their leadership within their institutions, demonstrate the support needed for institutionalization as stated by McKenna and Hamrick. The most recently published Directory of College Cooperative Education Programs (1996) listed Northeastern University and Drexel University as two higher education institutions with a large annual volume of student participation in cooperative education. Northeastern University had over 1,400 business students participate in a cooperative education experience, while Drexel University had over 500 business students participate in cooperative education. McKenna and Hamrick (1986) stated that the degree of participation also impacts the level of institutionalization of cooperative education

PAGE 48

36 programs. In the Directory of College Cooperative Education Programs the large number of participants at Northeastern University and Drexel University indicate this criterion has been met. Business faculty from Florida State University and the University of Florida were chosen because both schools are known to have strong business programs without a cooperative education culture. While non-membership on the board of trustees for the National Commission on Cooperative Education does not exclude support and promotion of cooperative education, there is no Florida higher education official or representative on the board of trustees for the National Commission for Cooperative Education. The Directory of College Cooperative Education Programs did not include any entry for business students at Florida State University who had participated in cooperative education experiences. The Directory of College Cooperative Education Program noted that only five business students at the University of Florida participated in cooperative education experiences. Due to the lack of student participation in cooperative education programs at Florida State University and the University of Florida, these two schools were chosen to represent the non-institutionalized higher education universities. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching publishes the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education This classification system is a typology of American colleges and universities. The 2000 Carnegie Classification typology includes all colleges and universities in the United States that are degree-granting and accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education. Under the 2000 Carnegie Classification Drexel University, Florida State University, Northeastern University, and the University of Florida are all listed as

PAGE 49

37 doctorate-granting institutions. Florida State University, Northeastern University, and the University of Florida are listed as doctoral/research universitiesextensive while Drexel University is listed as a doctoral/research universityintensive. According to the 2000 Carnegie Classification both the extensive and intensive doctoral research universities typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs and they are committed to graduate education through the doctorate. The extensive doctoral research institutions and the intensive doctoral research institutions are differentiated by the number doctoral degrees awarded over a certain number of disciplines. The doctoral/research universitiesextensive institutions awarded 50 or more doctoral degrees per year across at least 15 disciplines, while the doctoral/research universitiesintensive institutions awarded at least ten doctoral degrees per year across three or more disciplines, or at least 20 doctoral degrees per year overall. All four participating institutions participating in this research study offer doctoral programs through their respective business schools or colleges. Survey Instrument The Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS) was utilized to conduct this study. Gary J. Conti (1978) developed the Principles of Adult Learning Scale to assess teaching styles. Conti (1998) argued that the survey instrument measures the frequency with which one practices teaching/learning principles that are described in the adult education literature (pp. 76-77). For example, high total scores on the PALS indicated a faculty member had a learner-centered approach to teaching as opposed to a faculty member with a lower total PALS score that indicated a teacher-centered approach. Conti contended the total score indicates the overall teaching style and the strength of the teachers support for this style (p. 77). However, Conti stated his goal was to identify the specific

PAGE 50

38 classroom behaviors that make up the learner-centered teaching approach. Therefore, he divided the 44-items of the PALS into seven groups of factors that make up a major component of teaching style. Conti labeled the seven factor titles to reflect their correlation with the principles incorporated into the adult learning theory literature. High scores in each factor represented support of the learner-centered concept implied in the factor name, while low scores indicated support of a teacher-centered concept. The seven factor titles include: learner-centered activities, personalizing instruction, relating to experience, assessing student needs, climate building, participation in the learning process, and flexibility for personal development (Conti, 1998). Factor 1, Learner-Centered Activities, is made up of 12 of the negative items that relate to evaluation by formal methods and to a comparison of students to outside standards (Conti, 1998). Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction, contains six positive items and three negative items to identify instructors who utilize numerous and various methods to meet the individual learning needs of each student (Conti, 1998). Factor 3, Relating to Experience, is made up of six positive items to determine if faculty utilize their students prior experiences in the development and delivery of instruction to foster greater student independence and growth (Conti, 1998). Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs, is made up of four positive items to make that assessment. This factor identifies whether or not the faculty member sought out the students wants and needs in the specific subject matter area, as well as the development of short-range and long-range learning objectives (Conti, 1998). Factor 5, Climate Building, is made up of four positive items identifying whether or not faculty establish dialogue and interaction with the

PAGE 51

39 students that can eliminate learning barriers and allow risk to become a natural part of the learning process (Conti, 1998). This factor also identifies faculty who also build an environment that allows learners to explore elements related to their self-concept, practice problem-solving skills, and develop interpersonal skills (p. 79). Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process, is made up of four items. Conti (1998) stated that while Factor 2 [Personalizing Instruction] focuses on the broad location of authority within the classroom, this factor specifically addresses the amount of involvement of the student in determining the nature and evaluation of the content material (p. 79). Flexibility for Personal Development is the seventh factor. Faculty that score low in this factor perceive their educational role as a provider of knowledge, as opposed to a facilitator of knowledge (Conti, 1998). Also, a low score in this factor indicates an unwillingness to change learning objectives even though the students needs change (Conti, 1998). Validity of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale Conti developed the Principles of Adult Learning Scale in 1978 as part of a doctoral dissertation. The PALS is a 44-item instrument that uses a six-point Likert scale to measure the frequency with which a faculty member is aware of and applies the practices and principles of adult learning theory (Conti, 1978). But an instrument must demonstrate validity. Dooley (2001) wrote that validity refers to the appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of the specific inferences made from the measures. For his doctoral study, Conti tested the PALS for three forms of validity: construct validity, content validity, and criterion-related validity. Conti (1978) established the PALS construct validity through two juries of adult education professors. The first jury consisted of three local professors at Contis

PAGE 52

40 institution of higher education, Northern Illinois University. The second jury of professors consisted of ten professors of adult education from across the United States. Conti wrote that these juries of adult education professors attested to the validity of the constructs in PALS, linked the positive items in PALS with the initiating behaviors and the negative items with responsive behaviors (p. 82). Conti established the PALS content validity using a two-phase field-testing approach. The survey instrument was distributed to faculty in adult education centers in Illinois. Conti wrote that Phase I of the testing provided written, verbal, and statistical information that was utilized to revise and update the PALS. Phase 2 of the testing yielded the 44 current test items that were significant at the .10 level. After the content validity testing, Conti selected the appropriate items to be used to measure the degree to which survey participants subscribed to the principles of adult learning. The criterion-related validity of the PALS was established statistically. Conti utilized chi-square statistical analysis to compare the scores on the Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) and the Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS). He compared the FIAC and PALS teacher response ratios, the teacher question ratios, and the pupil initiation ratios. The correlation coefficients for the preceding were as follows: .85 on the teacher response ration, .79 on the teacher question ration, and a .82 on the pupil initiation ration. Conti wrote, the high positive correlations indicate PALS consistently measures initiating and responsive constructs and that PALS is capable of consistently differentiating among those who have divergent views concerning these constructs (p. 99).

PAGE 53

41 Since its creation, the Principles of Adult Learning Scale has been utilized in the academic area to research adult learning theory topics. Rachal, DeCoux, Leonard, and Pierce (1993) noted PALS was an effective and validated instrument that has been used in dissertations and refereed journal articles. Reliability of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale Dooley (2001) stated that reliability refers to the degree to which observed scores are free from errors of measurement (76). Conti (1978) utilized the retesting method to establish the reliability of the PALS. Conti administered the instrument to a group of 23 adult learning theory educators throughout the city of Chicago. The instrument was then distributed to the same group for a second time seven days later. Conti used the Pearson correlation to measure the relationship between the first test and the second test. He wrote, this process produced a reliability coefficient of .92 which is significant at the .001 level (pp. 105-106). This test-retest method confirmed the reliability of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale. Data Collection Procedures The Principles of Adult Learning Scale was input into an Excel spreadsheet and initially distributed by e-mail to each business faculty member at Drexel University and Florida State University. This survey distribution and collection approach was chosen for two specific reasons. First, survey response rates by e-mail distribution may be greater than survey response rates by regular postal mail (see Kiesler & Sproull, 1986; Mehta & Sivadas, 1995). Second, e-mail surveys may be less costly than surveys distributed by regular postal mail (see Bachmann & Elfrink, 1996; Schaefer & Dillman, 1998). The first step of the survey distribution process involved contacting the dean or associate dean of the respective College of Business at each institution. The research was

PAGE 54

42 briefly described in order to ascertain their willingness to support the distribution of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale survey to their business faculty. Each of the contacts agreed to support this research effort. In the case of one institution, Florida State University, the associate dean and another faculty member in the Hospitality Management Department wished me success, as both stated that their faculty typically had very low response rates to such research endeavors. As Florida State University was the first institution to respond affirmatively to the research request, the Principles of Adult Learning Scale (see Appendix A) and the participant informed consent form (see Appendix B) were e-mailed to the business faculty during the last week of April 2003. The first completed survey was returned within fifteen minutes of the original distribution. During the next two weeks, only two other completed surveys were returned from Florida State University business faculty. E-mail surveys were also distributed to Drexel University business faculty during the first week of May. Several business faculty members contacted the researcher stating their computers could not read the Excel spreadsheet due to the macros contained within the spreadsheet. Due to the unacceptably low response rate to the e-mailed surveys, it was determined that the surveys be distributed via paper copies placed directly in the faculty members departmental mailboxes. Upon approval from the University of Floridas Institutional Review Board, the paper copies were sent to the Deans office of each of the four participating institutions during the first and second week of May 2003. The updated Institutional Review Board-approved hard copy of the informed consent document is located in Appendix C. Two weeks after the distribution of the paper

PAGE 55

43 surveys, individual faculty members who were non-respondents to the paper survey were e-mailed a follow-up survey for completion. Survey Response Rate The Principles of Adult Learning Scale was distributed to 381 business faculty at Drexel University, Florida State University, Northeastern University, and the University of Florida. There were 82 total surveys returned which yielded a response rate of 21.5 %. Table 1 describes the size of the study population and response rate for each participating institution. Table 1. Faculty Response Rates by Institution Institution Population Size Respondents Response Rate (%) Drexel University 69 11 15.9% Florida State University 115 17 14.7% Northeastern University 100 28 28.0% Uof Florida 97 26 26.8% Totals 381 82 21.5% Given the classification of each institution and the nature of the research undertaken, the homogeneity of the business faculty was assumed and no institutional analysis was proposed or undertaken. The combined response rate for the two cooperative education institutions, Drexel University and Northeastern University, was 23%. The combined response rate for the two non-cooperative education institutions, Florida State University and the University of Florida, was 20.2%. Of the total surveys received, the returned cooperative education surveys represented 47.5% of the total surveys returned, while the non-cooperative education surveys returned represented 52.4% of the total surveys returned. The difference between response rates between institutions and groups of institutions was not viewed as significant to the overall findings.

PAGE 56

44 Researchers have noted the difficulty in establishing consistent and high response rates (Fowler, 1988; Heberlein & Baumgartner, 1978; Kalton, 1983). Fowler (1988) underscores the importance of attempting to achieve the highest possible response rate when initially conducting the survey. These strategies were incorporated into the data collection procedures for this research endeavor. Unfortunately, there is no body of research involving business faculty survey efforts that might help establish a reasonable benchmark or explain certain response rates. Contomanolis (2002) conducted a cooperative education study with engineering faculty and observed similar difficulties in obtaining a high response rate. Contomanolis achieved a 22.8% response rate with engineering faculty at cooperative education institutions. Summary This chapter specified the research questions as well as the research methodology utilized for this study. The ex post facto research process was conducted with the participation of business faculty at four higher education institutions in the United States. Two of the institutions, Drexel University and Northeastern University, have institutionalized cooperative education programs. The other two higher education institutions, Florida State University and the University of Florida, do not have institutionalized cooperative education programs. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching classifies all four of the participant institutions as Doctorate-granting Institutions. The Principles of Adult Learning Scale, previously tested for validity and reliability, provided a snapshot of business faculty and their awareness and application of adult learning theory. The data analysis results will be presented in the next chapter.

PAGE 57

CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS This chapter presents the findings of the research study. The results are presented in response to each of the studys research questions based on the data provided by the survey respondents. The studys research questions included the following: Research question I. Is there a difference between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale? Research question II. Is there a difference between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work experience? Research question III. Is there a difference between business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work experience? In addition to responding to the Principles of Adult Learning Scale, the business faculty were asked to provide information concerning various aspects of their experience. These respondent characteristics are summarized in the following tables. Description of the Business Faculty Respondents The faculty appointment status of the respondents is summarized in Table 2. As indicated, every business faculty that responded to the survey indicated they held a full-time appointment. There were no part-time or adjunct faculty respondents. 45

PAGE 58

46 Table 2. Current Faculty Status Status Number of Respondents (%) Full-time 82 (100%) Part-time 0 (0%) Table 3 describes the extent of higher education teaching experience of the business faculty that responded to the Principles of Adult Learning Scale. As reported in Table 3, 11 (13%) of the business faculty had 0 years of teaching experience, 16 (20%) of the business faculty had 6 years of teaching experience, 11 (13%) of the business faculty had 11 years of teaching experience, 13 (16%) of the business faculty had 16 years of teaching experience, and 31 (38%) of the business faculty had 21 or more years of teaching experience. Table 3. Years of Higher Education Teaching Experience Years Institution 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21 or more Totals Drexel 2 4 2 1 2 11 Florida State 3 2 2 5 5 17 Northeastern 3 3 5 3 14 28 U of Florida 3 7 2 4 10 26 Totals 11 (13%) 16 (20 %) 11 (13%) 13 (16%) 31 (38%) 82 (100%) Faculty were also asked to provide information concerning the extent of their business-related work experience or consulting experience in addition to their teaching experience. The distribution of the respondents years of business-related work experience can be seen in Table 4. There were 30 (37%) of the business faculty that had 0 years of business-related experience, 26 (32%) of the business faculty had 6 years of business-related experience, 7 (8%) of the business faculty had 11 years of business-related experience, 4 (5%) of the business faculty had 16 years of business-related experience, and 15 (18%) of the business faculty had 21 or more years of business-related experience.

PAGE 59

47 Table 4. Years of Business-related Wo rk Experience in Addition to Teaching Years Institution 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21 or more Drexel 5 2 1 1 2 Florida State 5 6 1 2 3 Northeastern 5 9 4 1 9 U of Florida 15 9 1 0 1 Totals 30 (37%) 26 (32 %) 7 (8%) 4(5%) 15 (18%) Table 5 lists the level of courses most often taught by the bus iness faculty that responded to the survey. As indicated, 7 (8%) of the business faculty taught lower division courses, 44 (54%) of the business f aculty taught upper division courses, and 31 (38%) of the business faculty taught graduate level coursework. Table 5. Level of Courses Most Often Taught Institution Lower Division U pper Division Graduate Level Drexel 3 5 3 Florida State 0 13 4 Northeastern 4 16 8 U of Florida 0 10 16 Totals 7 (8%) 44 (54%) 31 (38%) The business faculty at Drexel Universit y, Florida State University, Northeastern University, and the University of Florida were also asked to identify to which business discipline they primarily associated as a faculty member. Table 6 summarizes those results as follows: 15 (18%) identifie d with accounting, 10 (12%) identified with finance, 10 (12%) identified with decision and information scien ces, 4 (5%) identified with economics, 2 (2%) identif ied with human resource management, 27 (33%) identified with management, and 14 (18%) identified with marketing. No business faculty identified with the real estate discipline.

PAGE 60

48 Table 6. Primary Discipline of the Business Faculty Institution ACG FIN DIS ECO HR MGT MRK R.E. Drexel 5 2 0 0 0 3 1 0 Florida State 0 0 5 1 0 8 3 0 Northeastern 5 3 4 0 2 8 6 0 U of Florida 5 5 1 3 0 8 4 0 Totals 15 10 10 4 2 27 14 0 Percentage (18%) (12%) (12%) (5%) (2%) (33%) (18%) (0%) Table 7 summarizes whether or not the busin ess faculty indicated a participation in any cooperative education experi ence as an undergraduate student. There were 7 (9%) of the business faculty that responded that they had participated in a cooperative education experience as an undergraduate student while 75 (91%) of the busin ess faculty did not participate in a cooperati ve education experience. Table 7. Faculty Who Participated in Coope rative Education as U ndergraduate Students Institution Yes No Drexel 1 10 Florida State 3 14 Northeastern 2 26 U of Florida 1 25 Totals 7 (9%) 75 (91%) Table 8 indicates whether the business faculty at the participating institutions believe students should receive academic credit that can be applied to their required hours for graduation for participating in cooperati ve education experiences. There were 49 (60%) business faculty that indicated they believed students should receive academic credit for their cooperative education experi ences. There were 33 (40%) business faculty that responded that students should not receive cooperative education credit for their cooperative educat ion experiences.

PAGE 61

49 Table 8. Business Faculty that Believe Students Should Receive Academic Credit for Their Cooperative Education Experiences Institution Yes No Drexel 6 5 Florida State 14 3 Northeastern 15 13 U of Florida 14 12 Totals 49 (60%) 33 (40%) Analysis of Research Question I Is there a difference between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale? To examine this question, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was computed to determine whether there were significant differences in the factor scores of cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty. Business faculty at the four targeted four-year higher education institutions were asked to respond to the survey in order to determine if there is a difference between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale. Faculty responded to the items using a six-point Likert scale which ranged as follows: Always, Almost Always, Often, Seldom, Almost Never, and Never. An ANOVA was conducted on each of the seven factors contained within the PALS. Factor 1, Learner-Centered Activities, is made up of items 2, 4, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 21, 29, 30, 38, and 40. Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction, contains items 3, 9, 17, 24, 32, 35, 37, 41, and 42. Factor 3, Relating to Experience, is made up of items 14, 31, 34, 39, 43, and 44. Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs, contains items 5, 8, 23, and 24. Factor 5, Climate Building, is made up of items 18, 20, 22, and 28. Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process, contains items 1, 10, 15, and 36. Factor 7,

PAGE 62

50 Flexibility for Personal Development, is made up of items 6, 7, 26, 27, and 33. Table 9 provides the factors with their corresponding question numbers from the PALS. The factor scores are calculated by summing the value of the responses for each item in the factor. Table 10 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities. The mean composite Factor 1 score for cooperative education business faculty was 39.36. The mean composite score for non-cooperative education business faculty was 39.52. The ANOVA showed an F score of .019 with a significance level of .892. We can conclude that this analysis did not indicate any significant differences between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities. Table 11 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction. The mean composite Factor 2 score for cooperative education business faculty was 20.79. The mean composite score for non-cooperative education business faculty was 18.48. The ANOVA showed an F score of 3.140 with a significance level of .080. We can conclude that this analysis did not indicate any significant differences between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction.

PAGE 63

Table 9. Principles of Adult Learning Scale Factor Items 51 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7 LearnerCentered Activities Personalizing Instruction Relating to Experience Assessing Student Needs Climate Building Participation in the Learning Process Flexibility for Personal Development Item 2 3 14 5 18 1 6 Number 4 9 31 8 20 10 7 11 17 34 23 22 15 26 12 24 39 24 28 36 27 13 32 43 33 16 35 44 19 37 21 41 29 42 30 38 40

PAGE 64

52 Table 10. Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities Institution Type Mean SD F Sig. Coop 39.36 5.400 .019 .892 Non-Coop 39.52 5.480 Table 11. Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction Institution Type Mean SD F Sig. Coop 20.79 6.715 3.140 .080 Non-Coop 18.48 5.087 Table 12 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 3, Relating to Experience. The mean composite Factor 3 score for cooperative education business faculty was 19.17. The mean composite score for non-cooperative education business faculty was 16.79. The ANOVA showed an F score of 3.931 with a significance level of .051. We can conclude that this analysis did not indicate any significant differences between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 3, Relating to Experience. Table 12. Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 3, Relating to Experience Institution Type Mean SD F Sig. Coop 19.17 5.534 3.931 .051 Non-Coop 16.79 5.314 Table 13 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs. The mean composite Factor 4 score for cooperative education business faculty was 11.97. The mean composite score for non-cooperative education business faculty was 11.17. The ANOVA showed an F score of 1.208 with a significance level of .275. We can

PAGE 65

53 conclude that this analysis did not indicate any significant differences between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs. Table 13. Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs Institution Type Mean SD F Sig. Coop 11.97 3.330 1.208 .275 Non-Coop 11.17 3.255 Table 14 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 5, Climate Building. The mean composite Factor 5 score for cooperative education business faculty was 15.37. The mean composite score for non-cooperative education business faculty was 14.19. The ANOVA showed an F score of 4.008, which was significant at the .049 level. This finding showed a significant difference between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 5, Climate Building. These results can be seen in Table 14. Table 14. Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 5, Climate Building Institution Type Mean SD F Sig. Coop 15.37 2.665 4.008 .049 Non-Coop 14.19 2.690 Table 15 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process. The mean composite Factor 6 score for cooperative education business faculty was 9.53. The mean composite score for non-cooperative education business faculty was 7.19. The ANOVA analysis showed an F score of 7.894, which was significant at the

PAGE 66

54 .006 level. This finding showed a significant difference between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process. These results can be seen in Table 15. Table 15. Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process Institution Type Mean SD F Sig. Coop 9.53 3.690 7.894 .006 Non-Coop 7.19 3.833 Table 16 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development. The mean composite Factor 7 score for cooperative education business faculty was 12.81. The mean composite score for non-cooperative education business faculty was 11.36. The ANOVA showed an F score of 3.677 with a significance level of .059. We can conclude that this analysis did not indicate any significant differences between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development. Table 16. Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development Institution Type Mean SD F Sig. Coop 12.81 3.616 3.677 .059 Non-Coop 11.36 3.219 Analysis of Research Question II The second research question in this study was as follows: Is there a difference between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work experience. The business faculty years of business-related experience were

PAGE 67

55 grouped into categories for the purpose of facilitating this analysis. The groups consisted of those faculty members who identified additional years of work experience beyond teaching in the following categories: 0 years, 6 years, 11 years, 16 years, and 21 or more years. These groups were compared within each of the seven factors of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale. Table 17 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty and their years of additional business-related work experience for Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities. Cooperative education business faculty with 0 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 36.95. The mean score for cooperative education business faculty with 6 years of business-related work experience was 40.68. The mean score for cooperative education business faculty with 11 years of business-related work experience was 43.70 while those with 16 years of work experience was 36.75. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 38.73. Non-cooperative education business faculty with 0 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 39.71. The mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 6 years of business-related work experience was 39.10. The mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 11 years of business-related work experience was 43.00 while those with 16 years of work experience was 43.50. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 37.88. The ANOVA yielded an F of .060 with a significance level of .807. These results failed to show a significant difference in the Factor 1 scores of cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education

PAGE 68

56 business faculty when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The results of this analysis can be seen in Table 17. Table 17. Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities Coop Business Faculty Non-Coop Business Faculty Years of Experience Mean SD Mean SD F Sig. 0-5 36.95 5.974 39.71 5.475 .060 .807 6-10 40.68 5.785 39.10 5.282 11-15 43.70 5.179 43.00 11.314 16-20 36.75 4.596 43.50 7.778 21+ 38.73 3.663 37.88 3.750 Table 18 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business and their years of additional business-related work experience for Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction. Cooperative education business faculty with 0 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 15.50. The mean score for cooperative education business faculty with 6 years of business-related work experience was 22.95. The mean score for cooperative education business faculty with 11 years of business-related work experience was 23.10, while those with 16 years of work experience was 25.50. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 21.55. Non-cooperative education business faculty with 0 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 17.92. The mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 6 years of business-related work experience was 19.43. The mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 11 years of business-related work experience was 23.50, while those with 16 years of work experience was 13.00. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of

PAGE 69

57 experience had a mean score of 17.75. The ANOVA yielded an F of 3.067 with a significance level of .084. These results failed to show a significant difference in the Factor 2 scores of cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The results of this analysis can be seen in Table 18. Table 18. Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction Coop Business Faculty Non-Coop Business Faculty Years of Experience Mean SD Mean SD F Sig. 0-5 15.50 6.241 17.92 4.273 3.087 .084 6-10 22.95 8.023 19.43 6.100 11-15 23.10 3.362 23.50 3.536 16-20 25.50 3.536 13.00 8.485 21+ 21.55 5.027 17.75 2.630 Table 19 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business and their years of additional business-related work experience for Factor 3, Relating to Experience. Cooperative education business faculty with 0 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 14.65. The mean score for cooperative education business faculty with 6 years of business-related work experience was 20.27. The mean score for cooperative education business faculty with 11 years of business-related work experience was 21.00, while those with 16 years of work experience was 21.50. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 20.91. Non-cooperative education business faculty with 0 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 16.66. The mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 6 years of business-related work experience was 16.57. The

PAGE 70

58 mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 11 years of business-related work experience was 19.50 while those with 16 years of work experience was 8.50. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 20.25. The ANOVA yielded an F of 4.107 which was significant at the .046 level. These results showed a significant difference in the Factor 3 scores of cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The results of this analysis can be seen in Table 19. Table 19. Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 3, Relating to Experience Coop Business Faculty Non-Coop Business Faculty Years of Experience Mean SD Mean SD F Sig. 0-5 14.65 6.600 16.66 4.793 4.107 .046 6-10 20.27 4.480 16.57 6.196 11-15 21.00 3.857 19.50 .707 16-20 21.50 .707 8.50 .707 21+ 20.91 4.821 20.25 2.754 Table 20 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business and their years of additional business-related work experience for Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs. Cooperative education business faculty with 0 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 11.65. The mean score for cooperative education business faculty with 6 years of business-related work experience was 12.50. The mean score for cooperative education business faculty with 11 years of business-related work experience was 11.20, while those with 16 years of work experience was 14.00. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 11.73.

PAGE 71

59 Non-cooperative education business faculty with 0 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 9.74. The mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 6 years of business-related work experience was 12.37. The mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 11 years of business-related work experience was 12.50, while those with 16 years of work experience was 9.00. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 13.50. The ANOVA yielded an F of 1.317 with a significance level of .255. These results failed to show a significant difference in the Factor 4 scores of cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The results of this analysis can be seen in Table 20. Table 20. Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs Coop Business Faculty Non-Coop Business Faculty Years of Experience Mean SD Mean SD F Sig. 0-5 11.65 4.619 9.74 3.016 1.317 .255 6-10 12.50 2.419 12.37 3.287 11-15 11.20 3.701 12.50 4.950 16-20 14.00 2.828 9.00 1.414 21+ 11.73 3.036 13.50 1.291 Table 21 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business and their years of additional business-related work experience for Factor 5, Climate Building. Cooperative education business faculty with 0 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 14.06. The mean score for cooperative education business faculty with 6 years of business-related work experience was 15.73. The mean score for cooperative education business faculty with

PAGE 72

60 11 years of business-related work experience was 15.90, while those with 16 years of work experience was 16.00. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 15.86. Non-cooperative education business faculty with 0 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 14.42. The mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 6 years of business-related work experience was 14.07. The mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 11 years of business-related work experience was 14.00, while those with 16 years of work experience was 9.00. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 15.75. The ANOVA yielded an F of 4.229 which was significant at the .043 level. These results showed a significant difference in the Factor 5 scores of cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The results of this analysis can be seen in Table 21.

PAGE 73

61 Table 21. Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 5, Climate Building Coop Business Faculty Non-Coop Business Faculty Years of Experience Mean SD Mean SD F Sig. 0-5 14.06 3.436 14.42 2.411 4.229 .043 6-10 15.73 3.028 14.07 2.783 11-15 15.90 1.673 14.00 2.828 16-20 16.00 .000 9.00 .000 21+ 15.86 1.925 15.75 2.217 Table 22 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business and their years of additional business-related work experience for Factor 6 Participation in the Learning Process. Cooperative education business faculty with 0 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 7.90. The mean score for cooperative education business faculty with 6 years of business-related work experience was 9.09. The mean score for cooperative education business faculty with 11 years of business-related work experience was 10.10, while those with 16 years of work experience was 8.50. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 11.36. Non-cooperative education business faculty with 0 5 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 6.39. The mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 6 10 years of business-related work experience was 7.63. The mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 11 15 years of business-related work experience was 6.50, while those with 16 years of work experience was 6.50. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 10.00. The ANOVA yielded an F of 7.679

PAGE 74

62 which was significant at the .007 level. These results showed a significant difference in the Factor 6 scores of cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The results of this analysis can be seen in Table 22. Table 22. Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process Coop Business Faculty Non-Coop Business Faculty Years of Experience Mean SD Mean SD F Sig. 0-5 7.90 4.040 6.39 3.426 7.679 .007 6-10 9.09 4.392 7.63 4.261 11-15 10.10 2.881 6.50 .707 16-20 8.50 2.121 6.50 4.950 21+ 11.36 2.656 10.00 5.009 Table 23 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business and their years of additional business-related work experience for Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development. Cooperative education business faculty with 0 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 11.45. The mean score for cooperative education business faculty with 6 years of business-related work experience was 13.82. The mean score for cooperative education business faculty with 11 years of business-related work experience was 14.40, while those with 16 years of work experience was 11.00. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 12.64. Non-cooperative education business faculty with 0 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 10.84. The mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 6 years of business-related work experience was 11.67. The

PAGE 75

63 mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 11 years of business-related work experience was 14.50, while those with 16 years of work experience was 9.00. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 11.25. The ANOVA yielded an F of 4.175 which was significant at the .044 level. These results showed a significant difference in the Factor 7 scores of cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The results of this analysis can be seen in Table 23. Table 23. Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development Coop Business Faculty Non-Coop Business Faculty Years of Experience Mean SD Mean SD F Sig. 0-5 11.45 3.287 10.84 3.114 4.175 .044 6-10 13.82 4.100 11.67 3.574 11-15 14.40 3.927 14.50 .707 16-20 11.00 2.828 9.00 .000 21+ 12.64 3.355 11.25 2.986 Analysis of Research Question III The third question in this study was as follows: Is there a difference between business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work experience. The business faculty years of business-related experience were grouped into categories for the purpose of facilitating this analysis. The groups consisted of those faculty members who identified additional years of work experience beyond teaching in the following categories: 0 years, 6 years, 11 years, 16 years, and 21 or more years. These groups were compared within each of the seven factors of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale.

PAGE 76

64 Table 24 is the ANOVA table comparing business faculty based on their years of additional business-related work experience for Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities. Business faculty with 0 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 38.76. The mean score for business faculty with 6 years of business-related work experience was 39.77. The mean score for business faculty with 11 years of business-related work experience was 43.50, while those with 16 years of work experience was 40.13. Finally, business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 38.50. The ANOVA yielded an F of 1.268 with a significance level of .290. These results failed to show a significant difference in the Factor 1 scores of business faculty when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The results of this analysis can be seen in Table 24. Table 24. Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities Years of Experience Mean SD F Sig. 0-5 38.76 5.703 1.268 .290 6-10 39.77 5.445 11-15 43.50 6.272 16-20 40.13 6.511 21+ 38.50 3.571 Table 25 is the ANOVA table comparing business faculty based on their years of additional business-related work experience for Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction. Business faculty with 0 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 17.09. The mean score for business faculty with 6 years of business-related work experience was 20.92. The mean score for business faculty with 11 years of business-related work experience was 23.21, while those with 16 years of work experience was 19.25. Finally, business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of

PAGE 77

65 20.53. The ANOVA yielded an F of 2.462 with a significance level of .052. These results failed to show a significant difference in the Factor 2 scores of business faculty when controlled for years of business-relate d work experience. The results of this analysis can be seen in Table 25. Table 25. Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of BusinessRelated Experience for Factor 2, Personalizi ng Instruction Years of Experience Mean SD F Sig. 0-5 17.09 5.062 2.462 .052 6-10 20.92 7.052 11-15 23.21 3.107 16-20 19.25 8.958 21+ 20.53 4.749 Table 26 is the ANOVA table comparing bus iness faculty based on their years of additional business-related work experience for Factor 3, Relating to Experience. Business faculty with 0 years of business -related experience had a mean score of 15.97. The mean score for business faculty with 6 years of business-related work experience was 18.13. The mean score for bus iness faculty with 11 years of businessrelated work experience was 20.57, while those with 16 years of work experience was 15.00. Finally, business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 20.73. The ANOVA yielded an F of 1.268 which was significant at the .033 level. These results showed a significant difference in th e Factor 3 scores of business faculty when controlled for years of business-related work e xperience. The results of this analysis can be seen in Table 26.

PAGE 78

66 Table 26. Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of BusinessRelated Experience for Factor 3, Relating to Experience Years of Experience Mean SD F Sig. 0-5 15.97 5.451 2.779 .033 6-10 18.13 5.746 11-15 20.57 3.246 16-20 15.00 7.528 21+ 20.73 4.280 Table 27 is the ANOVA table comparing bus iness faculty based on their years of additional business-related work experience for Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs. Business faculty with 0 years of business -related experience had a mean score of 10.40. The mean score for business faculty with 6 years of business-related work experience was 12.42. The mean score for bus iness faculty with 11 years of businessrelated work experience was 11.57, while those with 16 years of work experience was 11.50. Finally, business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 12.20. The ANOVA yielded an F of 1.514 with a significance level of .207. These results failed to show a significant difference in the Factor 4 scores of business faculty when controlled for years of business-relate d work experience. The results of this analysis can be seen in Table 27. Table 27. Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of BusinessRelated Experience for Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs Years of Experience Mean SD F Sig. 0-5 10.40 3.682 1.514 .207 6-10 12.42 2.897 11-15 11.57 3.690 16-20 11.50 3.416 21+ 12.20 2.757 Table 28 is the ANOVA table comparing bus iness faculty based on their years of additional business-related work experience for Factor 5, Climate Building. Business faculty with 0 years of bus iness-related experience had a mean score of 14.29. The

PAGE 79

67 mean score for business faculty with 6 year s of business-related work experience was 14.77. The mean score for business faculty with 11 years of bus iness-related work experience was 15.36, while those with 16 years of work experience was 12.50. Finally, business faculty with 21 or more years of experien ce had a mean score of 15.83. The ANOVA yielded an F of 1.592 with a sign ificance level of .185. These results failed to show a significant difference in the Factor 5 scores of business faculty when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The results of this analysis can be seen in Table 28. Table 28. Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of BusinessRelated Experience for Factor 5, Climate Building Years of Experience Mean SD F Sig. 0-5 14.29 2.750 1.592 .185 6-10 14.77 2.950 11-15 15.36 2.015 16-20 12.50 4.041 21+ 15.83 1.924 Table 29 is the ANOVA table comparing bus iness faculty based on their years of additional business-related work experience fo r Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process. Business faculty with 0 years of business-related e xperience had a mean score of 6.91. The mean score for business f aculty with 6 years of business-related work experience was 8.25. The mean score for business faculty with 11 years of business-related work experience was 9.07, while those with 16 years of work experience was 7.50. Finally, business faculty w ith 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 11.00. The ANOVA yielded an F of 3.043 which was significant at the .022 level. These results showed a significan t difference in the Factor 6 scores of

PAGE 80

68 business faculty when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The results of this analysis can be seen in Table 29. Table 29. Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of BusinessRelated Experience for Factor 6, Part icipation in the Learning Process Years of Experience Mean SD F Sig. 0-5 6.91 3.650 3.043 .022 6-10 8.25 4.292 11-15 9.07 2.950 16-20 7.50 3.317 21+ 11.00 3.317 Table 30 is the ANOVA table comparing bus iness faculty based on their years of additional business-related work experien ce for Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development. Business faculty with 0 y ears of business-related experience had a mean score of 11.05. The mean score for bus iness faculty with 6 years of businessrelated work experience was 12.58. The m ean score for business faculty with 11 years of business-related work experience was 14.43, while those with 16 years of work experience was 10.00. Finally, busine ss faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 12.27. The ANOVA analysis yielded an F of 2.034 with a significance level of .098. These results fa iled to show a significant difference in the Factor 7 scores of business faculty when c ontrolled for years of business-related work experience. The results of this analysis can be seen in Table 30.

PAGE 81

69 Table 30. Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related Experience for Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development Years of Experience Mean SD F Sig. 0-5 11.05 3.129 2.034 .098 6-10 12.58 3.880 11-15 14.43 3.220 16-20 10.00 2.000 21+ 12.27 3.218 Summary This chapter has presented the results of the comparison of scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty. In this research, the survey was distributed to business faculty at Drexel University, Florida State University, Northeastern University, and the University of Florida to determine if there were any significant differences between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty. The individual questions were grouped by factor scores and these factor scores were analyzed to determine if any significant differences arose between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty. The scores were further compared in terms of additional business-related work experience. The analysis of scores comparing cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty on the seven factors of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale yielded significant results in the areas of Factor 5, Climate Building and Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process. In addition, when cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty were compared using additional business-related work experience, significant results were found in four of the seven factors. These factors included Factor 3, Relating to Experience, Factor 5, Climate Building, Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process, and Factor 7, Flexibility for

PAGE 82

70 Personal Development. Finally, the entire group of business faculty from the four higher education institutions was compared on the basis of additional business-related work experience. This analysis identified significant differences in Factor 3, Relating to Experience and Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process. Throughout the entire study, no significant differences were found in Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities, Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction, and Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs. Chapter 5 presents a discussion of the findings of this study. Also, recommendations will be made for further research in the related fields of cooperative education and adult learning theory. The differences between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale were examined in terms of conclusions that may be drawn from this study and the implications of these conclusions for linking adult learning theory and cooperative education in higher education.

PAGE 83

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction This study compared cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty using the Principles of Adult Learning Scale. Various previous studies indicated a need for cooperative education research as a worthwhile and needed academic pursuit (Harris, 1984; Heinemann, Enright, Johnson, Murtaugh, Reed, Robinson & Wilson, 1988; Hines, 1987; Stout, 1984; van der Vorm, Jones, & Ferren, 1979; Wilson & Lyons, 1961). Contomanolis (2002) analyzed the degree to which engineering faculty integrated student cooperative education experiences into their engineering curriculum. Using Contomanolis, who applied his research to a practical application methodology, as a model, this study also took the next logical step to incorporate cooperative education into the theoretical framework of adult education. This chapter explores the extent to which the studys findings contribute to a greater understanding of cooperative education and adult learning theory. Specifically, the researcher addressed the following three questions: Research question I. Is there a difference between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale? Research question II. Is there a difference between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work experience? 71

PAGE 84

72 Research question III. Is there a difference between business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work experience? Findings This study focused on business faculty and their awareness and application of adult learning theory. Conti developed the Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS) in 1978 to measure awareness of adult learning theory as well as the application of knowledge about adult learning styles. The PALS includes seven factors that were the focus of this comparative study. Thirty-nine business faculty from two historically cooperative education four-year higher education institutions and forty-three business faculty from two non-cooperative education four-year higher education institutions completed the PALS survey. These scores were then analyzed using an ANOVA. Research question I. For research question one, it was hypothesized that there would be differences between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty on the seven factors of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS). The mean scores on the PALS survey for cooperative education business faculty were compared to the mean PALS scores for non-cooperative education business faculty. The results indicated a significant difference for Factor 5, Climate Building (.049) and Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process (.006). Cooperative education business faculty scored higher on both Climate Building and Participation in the Learning Process than did their non-cooperative education counterparts. According to the survey results for Factor 5, Climate Building, cooperative education business faculty rated higher in setting a friendly and informal climate to enhance the learning process than did non-cooperative education business faculty. For Factor 6, Participation

PAGE 85

73 in the Learning Process, cooperative education business faculty also rated higher for having a preference for allowing student involvement in determining the nature and evaluation of course content and material. For the first research question, results failed to show any significant differences between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty on the other five factors. Cooperative education programs stress the importance of a students work experience to their development. Work experiences are well documented to have positive effects on student development and comprehension (Hutchings and Wutzdorff, 1988; Kolb, 1984; Terenzine, 1995). A study conducted by Stull and deAyora (1984) found that faculty identified an enhanced classroom environment as a benefit of cooperative education programs. There has been no empirical research on business faculty relating to cooperative education programs and adult learning theory. However, with the noted student benefits of work experience and the finding that faculty identified an enhanced learning environment as a cooperative education benefit, it was hypothesized that cooperative education business faculty with additional business-related work experience would score higher on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale, especially within Factor 3, Relating to Experience. Research question II. For research question two, the survey data were analyzed to determine if there was a difference between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work experience. The results indicated significant differences exist with Factor 3, Relating to Experience (.046), Factor 5, Climate Building (.043), Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process (.007), and

PAGE 86

74 Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development (.044). For each of the years of experience categories, except the 0 years of experience, cooperative education business faculty scored higher for Factor 3, Relating to Experience. This indicated that the cooperative education faculty who responded to this survey plan learning activities that take into account their students prior experiences more so than do their non-cooperative education business faculty counterparts. For Factor 5, Climate Building, cooperative education business faculty had higher scores in all business-related work experience categories, except the 0 years of work experience category. As noted above, these results indicated cooperative education business faculty encourage a friendlier educational climate. Cooperative education business faculty scored higher in all Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process, work experience categories than did the non-cooperative education business faculty. Similar to research question one, faculty that scored higher in this subtest had a preference for allowing students to participate in the decision-making process for course content and material. Finally, cooperative education business faculty scored significantly higher on Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development, in all work experience categories except for the 11 years category. Faculty that scored higher in this subtest see their education role more as facilitators of knowledge than strict providers of knowledge. Research question III. For research question three, the survey data were analyzed to determine if there was a difference between the entire group of business faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work experience. The results indicated significant differences exist in Factor 3, Relating to Experience (.033) and Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process (.022). With the exception of

PAGE 87

75 the 11 years category, the more business-related work experience faculty members had, the higher their score on Factor 3, Relating to Experience. This would tend to indicate the business faculty with the most additional work experience valued and incorporated the students work experiences into their classroom curriculum. Similarly with Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process, business faculty with the most additional work experience involved their students more in the nature and evaluation of the course content. The 16 year category was the only exception for Factor 6. Conclusion Previous research findings on faculty awareness and application of adult learning theory in higher education have not been consistent. This study focused on the empirical research linking cooperative education to the theoretical groundwork of adult learning theory. It was hypothesized that institutions with a culture and tradition of cooperative education would employ faculty that upheld the tenets of cooperative education and adult learning theory. One overarching tenet is the belief in, and application of, work experiences to enhance students learning experiences. This study found significant differences among business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business experience. These findings are consistent with the findings of Contomanolis (2002). While Contomanolis did not utilize the Principles of Adult Learning Scale in his research, many of his questions centered on various aspects of adult learning theory, including the integration of students previous knowledge and work experience in the classroom environment. For example, Contomanolis analysis contained the elements of Factor 3, Relating to Experience and Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process, in terms of engineering faculty characteristics and cooperative education. He asked his research participants if

PAGE 88

76 they agreed with the statement the classroom learning experience is enhanced by the presence of students with cooperative work experience (76). He found that engineering faculty with six to ten years of work experience and engineering faculty with eleven or more years of work experience rated the statement higher than those faculty with five or fewer years of engineering work-related experiences. This research study suggested that business faculty score higher on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale if they have additional business-related work experience beyond their traditional classroom teaching experience. This would suggest both cooperative education programs and non-cooperative education business programs in schools and colleges of business would benefit by encouraging faculty to gain business-related work experience to enhance their classroom teaching and employing those who do have business-related work experiences. These findings are also consistent with the studies by Sexton-Isaac (1989) and Moore (1996), both of whom found significant differences between full-time community college faculty and part-time community college faculty. Sexton-Isaac and Moore both found that full-time instructors scored significantly higher on the PALS than did part-time instructors. They hypothesized that full-time instructors would score higher on the PALS than part-time instructors because of the growing awareness of the increasing numbers of adults enrolling in community colleges and because of the efforts of many colleges to offer staff and faculty development opportunities that address the needs of students. Neither study examined years of work-related experience or its potential connection to the PALS scores or the individual factor scores within PALS. However, both studies showed that significant differences exist between certain groups of faculty.

PAGE 89

77 These findings run counter to a study by Ruehl (2000) that examined scores of full-time and part-time community college instructors on the PALS survey to determine if there were significant differences in faculty awareness of adult learning needs. Ruehl found that with one exception, full-time and part-time instructors do not differ significantly in their awareness and application of those principles of adult learning theory. The one exception she found was the significant difference between full-time faculty and part-time faculty in Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction. These findings are also consistent with the writings of Knowles (1984), who identified seven components of adult learning theory that aid in adult learning. The present study indicated significant differences between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty on Factor 3, Relating to Experience (.046), Factor 5, Climate Building (.043), Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process (.007), and Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development (.044). Each of these factors is listed as an integral component to Knowles research on adult learning theory. These aforementioned studies and writings did not specifically link adult learning theory and cooperative education. Therefore, the differences in the results between these studies merely add to the available research on faculty awareness and knowledge of adult learning theory. However, each added either to the field of adult learning theory or to cooperative education. The present study utilized the research in adult learning theory and cooperative education to gain a new perspective and address the void in cooperative education empirical research. Again, this study focused on full-time business faculty at

PAGE 90

78 higher education institutions that either had or did not have a distinct academic culture of cooperative education. In summary, this study examined the scores of cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative business education business faculty within the seven factors of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale to determine if there were significant differences. The study also explored whether or not there were significant differences between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty based on years of additional business-related work experience. The results indicated that cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty do differ significantly on various factors within PALS. These differences are also noted within the various additional business-related work experience categories. Overall, cooperative education business faculty scored higher in their knowledge and utilization of the various factors within adult learning theory. Therefore, the cooperative education community may be able to bridge the empirical research gap by utilizing the linkage with adult learning theory. Recommendations for Further Research Few studies have been conducted on academic faculty and their awareness and application of adult learning theory. As more and more colleges and universities analyze their academic programs, the opportunities for potential research in cooperative education and adult learning theory also increases. There are several possible recommendations for further research stemming from this study. Recommendation 1: Perhaps one of the most common follow-up efforts to any research project is replication of the original study. This approach is often helpful in

PAGE 91

79 confirming the original findings or uncovering reasons why those original findings should be questioned. Recommendation 2: Further studies should be done with larger samples from more higher education institutions to determine if cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty truly differ in their responses on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale. Recommendation 3: Engineering and business programs have the largest numbers of cooperative education student participants. Not only should further research on adult learning theory and cooperative education extent beyond the business faculty at the four institutions of this study, data from other faculty from other disciplines that utilize cooperative education may help build an empirical link between cooperative education and adult learning theory. Recommendation 4: Other demographics within the sample might be examined to determine how these factors affect the participants scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale. For example, analysis could be conducted on the faculty members academic discipline, years of teaching experience, level of courses most often taught, race, and gender. Recommendation 5: Future research could also use student evaluations to determine if the perceptions of the instructors about their classroom practices reflect the actual methods the instructor claims to utilize. Recommendation 6: Not only should additional four-year higher education institutions be analyzed, further research could also explore cooperative education programs and adult learning theory at the community college level as well.

PAGE 92

80 Summary This study indicated significant differences exist between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty on each of the research questions within some of the various factors of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale. Conti (1978) developed PALS utilizing prevalent research on adult learning theory. As the Ad Hoc Committee report (1998) suggested, cooperative education research is underdeveloped and has not been accepted by academia as a viable and proven learning strategy. This study has helped to close gaps in cooperative education research by suggesting some plausible linkages between cooperative education and adult learning theory.

PAGE 93

APPENDIX A PRINCIPLES OF ADULT LEARNING SCALE

PAGE 94

82

PAGE 95

83

PAGE 96

84

PAGE 97

85 APPENDIX B INITIAL INFORMED CON SENT SENT TO POTENTI AL PARTICIPANTS BY E MAIL Informed Consent To: Suppressed Recipient List From: Russ Rothamer Subject: Dissertation Research Survey Attachment: Excel Spreadsheet Greetings! I, Frank Russell Rotha mer, a doctoral candidate in the college of Education at the University of Florida, under the supervision of Dr. David Honeyman, am conducting research in the field of business and cooperative education. I would like to ask for your participation with t his effort by responding to the attached questionnaire. The attached Excel spreadsheet contains macros so please click on the Enable Macros button when you open the survey. One macro will automatically send the survey to my email account once you compl ete the survey by clicking on the Thank you for participating! Click here to complete your survey button. This should take no more than 10 15 minutes of your time. Please take a moment to read the following information concerning Informed Consent. Title of Protocol: Business Faculty Knowledge of Adult Learning Styles: Cooperative Education vs. Non Cooperative Education Institutions Principle Investigator: Frank Russell Rothamer, University of Florida, doctoral candidate, rothamer@ufl.edu

PAGE 98

86 Description of Study: The study you will be participating in is intended to assess how business faculty utilize adult learning theory in their classroom teaching. Results from the study should help inform the higher education community, as well as the cooperative education community, about business faculty awareness of and application of adult learning theory in their classrooms. The study will involve the analysis of data obtained through the use of the attached Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS). Your Rights as a Participant: You may ask questions about the research procedures used in this study and have them answered by the investigator. Questions should be directed to Russ Rothamer at the e mail address above. You may also contact Dr. David Honeyman, the chair of my dissertation committee. His email address is daveh@coe.ufl.edu. Your participation is CONFIDENTIAL. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Yo ur information will be assigned a code number. The list connecting your name to this number will be kept locked in my office file cabinet. When the study is complete and the data have been analyzed, the list will be destroyed. Your name will not be used in any report. Your participation is VOLUNTARY. There is no penalty for not participating. You do not have to answer any questions that you do not want to answer. This study involves no risk to your physical or mental health beyond those encountered in the normal course of everyday life. There are no direct benefits to you for your participation. If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant, please contact: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, F L 32611 2250; ph(352)392 0433. Agreement: By clicking on the Thank you for participating! Click here to complete your survey button on the attached survey, you are indicating the following: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily a gree to participate in the procedure, and I understand that I should print out a copy of this email for my records as the email submission indicates informed consent.

PAGE 99

87 APPENDIX C FINAL INFORMED CONSE NT SENT TO POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS BY MAI L Informed Consent I, Frank Russell Rothamer, a doctoral candidate in the College of Education at the University of Florida, under the supervision of Dr. David Honeyman, am conducting research in the field of business and cooperative education. I would like to ask for your participation with this effort by responding to the attached questionnaire. This should take no more than 10 15 minutes of your time. Please place the complete d survey, as well as this Informed Consent document, in the stamped self addressed envelope provided and place in your outgoing mail. Please take a moment to read the following information concerning Informed Consent. Title of Protocol: Business Facu lty Knowledge of Adult Learning Styles: Cooperative Education vs. Non Cooperative Education Institutions Principle Investigator: Frank Russell Rothamer, University of Florida, doctoral candidate, rothame r@ufl.edu Description of Study: The study you will be participating in is intended to assess how business faculty utilize adult learning theory in their classroom teaching. Results from the study should help inform the higher education community, as we ll as the cooperative education community, about business faculty awareness of and application of adult learning theory in their classrooms. The study will involve the analysis of data obtained through the use of the attached Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS). Your Rights as a Participant: You may ask questions about the research procedures used in this study and have them answered by the investigator. Questions should be directed to Russ Rothamer at the e mail address above. You may also co ntact Dr. David Honeyman, the chair of my dissertation committee. His email address is daveh@coe.ufl.edu. Your participation is CONFIDENTIAL. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your information will be assigned a code number. The list connecting your name to this number will be kept locked in my office file cabinet. When the study is complete and the data have been analyzed, the list will be destroyed. Your name will not be used in any report. Your participation is VOLUNTARY. There is no penalty for not participating. You do not have to answer any questions that you do not want to answer. This study involves no risk to your physical or mental health beyond those encountered in the normal course of everyday life. T here are no direct benefits to you for your participation.

PAGE 100

88 If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant, please contact: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; ph(352)392 0433. Agreem ent: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Please sign below and return with your completed survey in the envelope provided. The last page of this p acket is your copy of the Informed Consent document. Participant: ___________________________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigator: ___________________________________ Date: _________________

PAGE 101

LIST OF REFERENCES Ad Hoc Committee on Cooperative Education. (1998). Cooperative education and the academy. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 24 (2-3), 109-119. Bachmann, D., & Elfrink, J. (1996). Tracking the progress of e-mail versus snail mail. Marketing Research, 8 (2), 31-35. Brown, S. J. (1987). The impact of cooperative education on employers and graduates. In K. G. Ryder, J. W. Wilson & Associates (Eds.)., Cooperative education in a new era (pp. 285-303). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Burchell, N., Hodges, D., & Rainsbury, L. (2000). What compentencies do business graduates require? Perspectives of New Zealand stakeholders. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 35 (2), 11-19. Coll, R. K., & Chapman, R. (2000a). Qualitative or quantitative? Choices of methodology for cooperative education researchers. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 35 (1), 25-31. Coll, R. K., & Chapman, R. (2000b). Advantages and disadvantages of international co-op placements: The students perspectives. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 35 (2), 95-105. Conti, G. J. (1978). Principles of adult learning scale: An instrument for measuring teacher behavior related to the collaborative teaching-learning mode (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39 A7111. Conti, G. J. (1985). The relationship between teaching style and adult student learning. Adult Education Quarterly 35 220-228. Conti, G. J. (1998). Identifying your teaching style. In M. W. Galbraith (Ed.), Adult learning methods (pp. 73-89). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing. Contomanolis, E. (2002). Engineering faculty and the integration of cooperative education based student learning in the college classroom ((Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, AAT3052499. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education New York: MacMillan. 89

PAGE 102

90 Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education New York: MacMillan DePasquale, D. (1991). A comparison of faculty attitudes of cooperative education disciplinary differences (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pttisburgh, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, AAT9218852. Dooley, D. (2001). Social research methods (4 th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dube, P., & Korngold, A. F. (1987). Documenting benefits and developing campus and community support. In K. G. Ryder, J. W. Wilson, & Associates (Eds.), Cooperative education in a new era (pp. 98-128). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Feeney, J., & Morris, J. (1994). Student-initiated experiential education. NSEE Quarterly 20 (1), 14-15. Fowler, F.J. (1988). Survey research methods Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Hall, J. W. (1999). Cooperative education for the future. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 34 (2), 9-15. Harris, R. R. (1984). An analysis of faculty members and employers ratings of non-technical employment qualities of cooperative education students in the western United States. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 19 (1), 25-39. Heberlein, T. A., & Baumgartner, R. (1978). Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the published literature. American Sociological Review, 43 : 447-462. Heinemann, H. N. (1983). Towards a pedagogy for cooperative education. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 19 (2), 14-26. Heinemann, H. N. (1987). Planning, implementing, and assessing programs. In K. G. Ryder, J. W. Wilson, & Associates (Eds.), Cooperative education in a new era (pp. 78-98). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Heinemann, H. N., & DeFalco, A. (1990). Deweys pragmatism: A philosophical foundation for cooperative education. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 27 (1), 38-44. Heinemann, H. N., DeFalco, A., & Smelkinson, M. (1992). Work-experience enriched learning. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 28 (1), 17-33. Heinemann, H. N., Enright, J., Johnson, P., Murtaugh, K., Reed, G., Robinson, V., & Wilson, J. (1988). Cooperative education and the academy, The Journal of Cooperative Education, 24 (2-3), 109-119.

PAGE 103

91 Hines, D. (1987). A Delphi study: Perceptions of current issues and trends in cooperative education in Texas post secondary institutions (Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48 03A546. Hutcheson, P. (1996). The directory of college cooperative education programs. Phoenix: Oryx Press. Hutchings, P., & Wutzdorff, A. (1988). Knowing and doing: Learning through experience San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kalton, G. (1983). Introduction to survey sampling. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Keeton, M., & Tate, P. (1978). The boom in experiential learning. In M. Keeton & P. Tate (Eds.), New directions for experiential learning: Learning by experience (pp. 1-8). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50 402-413. Knowles, A. S. (1971). Academic administration. In A. S. Knowles and Associates, Handbook of cooperative education (pp. 228-240). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Knowles, M. S. (1977). A history of the adult education movement in the United States (Rev. ed.). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing. Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy New York: The Adult Education Company. Knowles, M. S. (1984/1973). The adult learner: A neglected species (3 rd ed.). Houston: Gulf Publishing. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Matson, L. C., & Matson, R. (1995). Changing times in higher education: An empirical look at cooperative education and liberal arts faculty. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 31 (1), 13-24. McCormick, A. C. (2001). The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education Menlo Park: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. McKenna, E. D., & Hamrick, R. (1986). Institutionalization of cooperative education: Corporate and collegiate. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 23 (2), 68-76.

PAGE 104

92 McNutt, D. E. (1980). Developing faculty support for cooperative education through participation and evaluation. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 16 (3), 77-84. McNutt, D. E. (1989). Faculty in cooperative education = excellence in cooperative education. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 25 (2), 23-29. Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37 (4), 429-439. Merriam, S.B., & Caffarella, R.S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: a comprehensive guide San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miettinen, R. (2000). The concept of experiential learning and John Deweys theory of reflective thought and action. The International Journal of Lifelong Education 19 (1), 54-72. Minnich, E. K. (1999). Experiential education: Democratizing educational philosophies. Liberal Education 85 (3), 6-13. Moore, J. A. L. (1996). Competency of community college developmental reading instructors in the principles of adult learning (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, AAT9709280. Morman, R.R., Hernandez, F.A., & Evans, S.E. (1989). Relating educational level and ethnicity on personal qualities for teaching credential applicants. College Student Journal, 23 (1), 311-318. Perry, R. P. (1997). Teaching effectively: What students? What methods? In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and practice (pp. 154-168). New York: Agathon Press. Premont, S. B. (1998). Internship. In M. W. Galbraith (Ed.), Adult learning methods (pp. 337-352). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing. Rachal, J. R., DeCoux, V., Leonard, R., & Pierce, W. L. (1993). Philosophy and adult educators: An inquiry into the philosophy-practice link using the PALS, EOQ, and PAEI. Educational Research Quarterly, 17(2) 11-28. Raiola, E., & Sugerman, D. (1984). Experienced-based education and the liberal arts curriclum. ERIC microfiche, ED252135 (Maine). Ricks, F., Cutt, J., Branton B., Loken, M., & Van Gyn, G. (1993). Reflections on the cooperative education literature. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 29 (1), 6-23.

PAGE 105

93 Ruehl, P. A. (2000). A comparison of full-time and part-time community college instructors awareness and application of adult learning styles (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, AAT9997864. Ryder, K. G. (1987a). Social and educational roots. In K. G. Ryder, J. W. Wilson & Associates (Eds.), Cooperative education in a new era (pp. 1-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ryder, K. G. (1987b). Meeting the challenges and opportunities of the next decade. In K. G. Ryder, J. W. Wilson & Associates (Eds.), Cooperative education in a new era (pp. 304-316). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Saltmarsh, J. A. (1992). John Dewey and the future of cooperative education. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 28 (1), 6-16. Schaefer, D. R., & Dillman, D. A. (1998). Development of standard e-mail methodology: Results of an experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62 (3), 378-397. Schlossberg, N.K. (1989). Improving higher education environments for adults: Responsive programs and services from entry to departure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sexton-Issac, P. (1989). Community college instructor attitudes toward and perceptions of adult learners. (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, 1989), Dissertation Abstracts International, 0391. Somers, G. (1995). The post-graduation pecuniary benefits of co-op participation: A review of the literature. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 31 (1), 25-41. Sovilla, E. S., (1998, January). Co-ops 90-year odyssey. American Society for Engineering Education Prism 18-23. Sprinthall, R. C. (1997). Basic statistical analysis (5 th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Stanton, T. (1991). Liberal arts, experiential learning and public service: Necessary ingredients for socially responsible undergraduate education. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 27 (2-3), 55-72. Stout, K. L. (1984). Cooperative education: A marketing study Trenton, NJ: Trenton State College. Stull, W. A., & deAyora, M. R. (1984). The benefits to faculty involvement in cooperative education in institutions of higher education in the United States. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 20 (3), 18-27.

PAGE 106

94 Terenzini, P. T. (1995). Influences affecting the development of students critical thinking skills. Research in Higher Education, 36 (1), 23-39. van der Vorm, P. T. (1988). Response to the preliminary report of the ad hoc committee on cooperative education and the curriculum. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 24 (2-3), 120-124. van der Vorm, P. T. (1995). Cooperative education and general education: A partnership with potential. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 30 (2), 28-33. van der Vorm, P. T., Jones, N. R., & Ferren, A. S. (1979). A close encounter of the co-op kind. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 15 (3), 22-29. Van Gyn, G. H. (1996). Reflective practice: The needs of professions and the promise of cooperative education. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 31 (2-3), 103-131. Wilson, D. K. (1987). Liberal arts faculty and co-op: Attitudes for success at a small private college. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 24 (1), 22-31. Wilson, D. K. (1989). Influencing undergraduate advisees: Internalization of faculty attitudes on cooperative education. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 26 (1), 6-15. Wilson, J. W. (1987a). Contemporary trends in the United States. In K. G. Ryder, J. W. Wilson & Associates (Eds.), Cooperative education in a new era (pp. 30-44). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Wilson, J. W. (1987b). What students gain from cooperative education. In K. G. Ryder, J. W. Wilson & Associates (Eds.), Cooperative education in a new era (pp. 269-284). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Wilson, J. W. (1988). Research in cooperative education. The Journal of Cooperative Education, 24 (2-3), 77-89. Wilson, J. W., & Lyons, E. (1961). Work-Study college programs: Appraisal and report of the study of cooperative education. New York: Harper and Brothers. Zinn, L. M. (1998). Identifying your philosophical orientation. In M. W. Galbraith (Ed.), Adult learning methods (pp. 37-72). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing.

PAGE 107

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Russ Rothamer grew up in Abbotsford, Wisconsin. He received a B.A. degree in history with a minor in social studies education from the University of Florida. After completing his undergraduate degree, Russ continued his education in the University of Floridas PROTEACH program where he earned a M.Ed. in social studies education. He then taught high school social studies at P.K. Yonge Developmental Research School for four years. During this time he began a new civics program, taught a variety of social studies courses and conducted and disseminated research on service learning. Also during this time, Russ earned an Ed.S. degree in instruction and curriculum from the University of Florida. Maintaining a passion for new challenges and professional growth opportunities, Russ transferred from the College of Education to the College of Business Administration to eventually become Director of Student Services for the Florida MBA Programs. During his time in the College of Business Administration, Russ completed his MBA degree. After two years with the Florida MBA Programs, he was presented with another opportunity to combine his education and business experience for the Walt Disney World College Program. As the Manager for College Educational Partnerships, Russ helped create and oversees a college level curriculum for interns at Walt Disney World. He also serves on the Board of Trustees for the National Commission for Cooperative Education. 95


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0001861/00001

Material Information

Title: Business Faculty Knowledge of Adult Learning Styles: Cooperative Education vs. Non-Cooperative Education Institutions
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0001861:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0001861/00001

Material Information

Title: Business Faculty Knowledge of Adult Learning Styles: Cooperative Education vs. Non-Cooperative Education Institutions
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0001861:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











BUSINESS FACULTY KNOWLEDGE OF ADULT LEARNING STYLES:
COOPERATIVE EDUCATION VS. NON-COOPERATIVE EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS















By

FRANK RUSSELL ROTHAMER


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2003

































Copyright 2003

by

Frank Russell Rothamer





























To Nancy, Kaitlyn, Jessica, and Lauren. Thank you for your unwavering support and
patience. My educational pursuits could not have been a success without you.
I love you all.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

An endeavor of this sort and magnitude cannot be successful without the help and

encouragement of a group of people. My committee members, friends, and family were

instrumental in the completion of my graduate studies. As with all those who aided me in

this accomplishment, they provided their time and expertise when there were many other

demands on their attention. I thank all noted below and those I could not mention for

their support.

Dr. David Honeyman was the chair of my committee and a key influence in my

graduate studies. I thank him for accepting me as one of his doctoral students and being

patient and flexible given my work, family, and school responsibilities. His unwavering

support and feedback guided me through this process.

Dr. Art Sandeen provided key insights into the world of higher education and

consistently pushed me to consider all the possibilities. He was always the first to

respond with words of encouragement and congratulations. I aspire to have a similar

impact on higher education as has Dr. Sandeen.

Dr. Dale Campbell introduced me to the community college realm. Although I

graduated from Santa Fe Community College, Dr. Campbell helped me to better

understand the community college system. His questions and feedback on my writing

helped me improve immeasurably.









Dr. Andrew McCollough was at the foundation of my career at the University of

Florida. He has supported my endeavors as an employee, an undergraduate student, and

a graduate student. His demeanor, candor, and advice have been an inspiration to me.

Many of my friends have aided me either directly or indirectly in this

accomplishment. I would like to offer a special and sincere thank you to Michelle

Reynolds for her leadership and faith in my abilities. Mark Reed kindly put up with my

incessant questions regarding the statistical analysis.

Last, but certainly not least, I thank my family for their support and

encouragement. Nancy has continually sacrificed her personal time to cover my share of

family and parental duties. My educational accomplishments are due in a large part to

her patience and support. I appreciate my three daughters, Kaitlyn, Jessica, and Lauren,

for enduring their dad's absence and for providing me with the hope and wonderment of

life.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST O F TA B LE S .............. ......................................... .. .... .. ............. viii

ABSTRACT .............. .......................................... xi

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

N eed for the Study ........................................................ ................ .2
State ent of the P problem ............................................................................. ........ 4
Significance of the Study ..................................................................................6
Lim stations of the Study ................................... ..... ...... .......... ........
A ssum options of the Study .................................................................. .....................9
D definition of T erm s ................... .... ............................ ...... ........ .......... .......
S u m m a ry .......................................................................................................1 1

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 13

H history of Cooperative Education ........................................ ......................... ..13
B benefits of C cooperative Education........................................................ ..................15
Cooperative Education and the Importance of Academic Credit.............................18
Role of Faculty in Cooperative Education....................................... ............... 20
Philosophic Foundations of Cooperative Education.......................................22
A dult L earning T theory ....................................................................... ..................24
R elating Theory and Practice........................................................... ............... 28
Principles of A dult Learning Scale..................................... ......................... ......... 30
S u m m a ry ...................................................................................................... 3 1

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................ ......................... 33

R research Q uestions........... ... .............................................................. ........ .. ... 33
D design of the Study ............................................................... .... .. ....34
Stu dy P opu nation ................................................. ................. 3 5
Survey Instrum ent........ ....................... .................. .... .. ....... ......... 37
Validity of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale ..................................................39
Reliability of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale...............................................41









D ata C collection P procedures ............................................................. .....................4 1
Survey R response R ate ........................ .... ............ ................... ..... .... 43
S u m m a ry ............................................................................................................... 4 4

4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ............................................................ 45

Description of the Business Faculty Respondents................... ....................................45
Analysis of Research Question I............. ........ ....................... ............. .......... 49
Analysis of Research Question II ...................................... .... ...............54
Analysis of Research Question III.............. ..................... .................... 63
Sum m ary ................... .... ................................................ ............. 69

5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... ...............71

In tro d u ctio n ................ ...... ......................... ........................................................ 7 1
F in d in g s ..................................................................7 2
Conclusion .......................... .............. .......................75
Recom m endations for Further R research ........................................ .....................78
Sum m ary ................... .... ................................................ ............. 80

APPENDIX

A PRINCIPLES OF ADULT LEARNING SCALE ...............................................81

B INITIAL INFORMED CONSENT SENT TO POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS
B Y E -M A IL ...................................... ............................................... 8 5

C FINAL INFORMED CONSENT SENT TO POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS
B Y M A IL ............................................................................87

L IST O F R EFER EN CE S ........................................................................... ...............89

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ..................................................................... ..................95
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

1 Faculty R response R ates by Institution ........................................ .....................43

2 C current F faculty Status ........ ......... ................ ............................. ............... 46

3 Years of Higher Education Teaching Experience..........................................46

4 Years of Business-related Work Experience in Addition to Teaching ...................47

5 Level of Courses Most Often Taught................. ........................................... 47

6 Primary Discipline of the Business Faculty ......................... ... ........... ..... 48

7 Faculty Who Participated in Cooperative Education as Undergraduate Students ...48

8 Business Faculty that Believe Students Should Receive Academic Credit for
Their Cooperative Education Experiences ............... ........................... .......... 49

9 Principles of Adult Learning Scale Factor Items ................. ............... ...............51

10 Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business
Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 1, Learner Centered
A ctiv cities ............................................................................ 52

11 Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business
Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 2, Personalizing
Instruction ............... ........... ......................... ...........................52

12 Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business
Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 3, Relating to
Experience ............... ..... .. .......... ........ .......... .... ..... ........ 52

13 Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business
Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 4, Assessing Student
N eeds ................. .................................... ...........................53

14 Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business
Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 5, Climate
B building ............. ... .... ........... .............. ............................53









15 Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business
Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 6, Participation in
the L earning Process ...................... ................ ................. ..........54

16 Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education Business
Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 7, Flexibility for
Personal D evelopm ent.................................................. ................................ 54

17 Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative
Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities..............................56

18 Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative
Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction................................ ............... 57

19 Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative
Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 3, Relating to Experience ......................... ..................58

20 Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative
Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs................................ ............... 59

21 Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative
Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 5, Clim ate Building ................................... ..................61

22 Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative
Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process.............................62

23 Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative
Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development ...........................63

24 Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities..............................64

25 Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction.................. .......... ..........65

26 Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 3, Relating to Experience ......................... ..................66

27 Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs...............................................66









28 Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 5, Clim ate Building ................................... ..................67

29 Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process.............................68

30 Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development ...........................69















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

BUSINESS FACULTY KNOWLEDGE OF ADULT LEARNING STYLES:
COOPERATIVE EDUCATION VS. NON-COOPERATIVE EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS

By

Frank Russell Rothamer

December 2003

Chair: David S. Honeyman
Major Department: Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations

Many higher education institutions are facing difficult financial decisions.

Researchers have identified the need for empirical research on cooperative education

programs to help justify necessary financial and pedagogical decisions in today's ever-

changing higher education environment.

The purpose of this study was to determine if differences exist between business

faculty in their knowledge of adult learning styles utilizing the seven factors of the

Principles of Adult Learning Scale. This study focused on business faculty at four-year

higher education institutions that promote cooperative education and business faculty at

four-year higher education institutions that do not promote cooperative education. There

were 82 business faculty members who participated in this study.

An ANOVA was used to determine if there were significant differences in the

factor scores of cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education









business faculty. Significant differences were identified in the factor scores for climate-

building, participation in the learning process, relating to experience, and flexibility for

personal development. Business faculty in higher education institutions with a rich

culture in cooperative education scored higher in each of the above factors than did their

business faculty counterparts at higher education institutions with no such cooperative

education culture.

The results of this study contribute to a greater understanding of cooperative

education and adult learning theory. This study, along with other research, begins to

bridge the empirical research gap utilizing the linkage of cooperative education and adult

learning theory.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Heinemann (1983) wrote "cooperative education is often presented as an

educational system that expands traditional classroom-based learning by incorporating

practical work experience into the curriculum" (p. 14). The foundation and development

of cooperative education was based upon the concepts of educational pragmatism.

Dewey (1938) asserted "there is an intimate and necessary relation between the processes

of actual experience and education" (p. 7). While the cooperative education model has its

roots in the educational pragmatism of the late nineteenth century, the model as it exists

today was first developed in 1906 at the University of Cincinnati. By 1998, over 900

higher education institutions offered cooperative education programs and more than

230,000 students participated yearly in some form of cooperative education work

experience (Sovilla, 1998). Cooperative education has grown over the past 97 years due

to the benefits and results provided by these work-experience programs.

Hutcheson (1996) stated cooperative education programs benefit students, colleges,

universities, employers, and society. These benefits are derived from a partnership

between the cooperative education stakeholders. Parents and students have confronted

the rising cost of college tuition by students participating in cooperative education

programs that provide financial remuneration for student participants. Hutcheson also

noted students, colleges, and universities have found that cooperative education programs

enhance classroom learning by integrating curriculum and practical work-experience.

Hutcheson stated that employers have benefited in two distinct ways from cooperative









education programs: these types of programs provided employers with a pool of well-

prepared workers and enhanced the employers' relationship with colleges and

universities. Within the college and university setting, faculty have played a significant

role in the success or failure of cooperative education programs.

Wilson (1987a) noted business majors account for the largest numbers of

cooperative education participants. Engineering programs have been the second largest

discipline to use cooperative education programs within their curricula. Given that

business programs have been large stakeholders in cooperative education, business

faculty also play a distinct role in the development and success of those business students

who are engaged in cooperative education experiences. Wilson argued that

administrators and faculty provide cooperative education programs with "academic

sanction and validity, important ingredients of the long-term development and

institutionalization of the program" (p. 39).

Dube and Komgold (1987) documented the importance of surveying faculty to

determine their knowledge and support of cooperative education programs. By obtaining

this faculty information, cooperative education researchers and practitioners can

determine steps to be taken to build awareness and advocacy for their students and

programs. Higher education leaders can also use faculty survey results as a decision-

making tool and to build greater institutional commitment for cooperative education.

Need for the Study

Despite a century-long interest in cooperative education, very little research has

been conducted to link faculty curriculum efforts, integration, and pedagogy to work

experience opportunities. Heinemann (1983) stated "there is an urgent need to develop

an appropriate pedagogy for cooperative education to integrate the educational outcomes









from the work and classroom experience" (p. 14). Contomanolis (2002), in his study to

determine engineering faculty attitudes concerning the value and applicability of

cooperative education work experience to academic classroom learning, found a positive

relationship between engineering faculty attitudes and the academic value of cooperative

education. He also noted two specific and relevant areas in need of further research.

Contomanolis suggested a study that would compare different types of institutions as well

as compare faculty from different academic disciplines, stressing this would add new

knowledge to the field of cooperative education and adult learning theory. Other

researchers have also acknowledged that few faculty outside of adult basic education and

continuing education programs are aware of or apply the principles of adult learning

theory to their classroom curriculum (Morman, Hernandez, & Evans, 1989; Schlossberg,

1989). The consensus among those concerned with these issues is that rigorous academic

research must be conducted to develop an empirical body of research that supports the

tenets of cooperative education.

Ricks, Cutt, Branton, Loken, and Van Gyn (1993) reviewed the cooperative

education literature and found that there is an absence of integration among theory,

research, and practice as well as a lack of standards in cooperative education research.

They argued, "if cooperative education is conceptualized as a teaching and/or learning

model of higher education, then the learning model needs to be defined and studied in

terms of its conceptualization as teaching and/or learning conditions" (p. 15).

Throughout its history, cooperative education research has not followed a model that

allows research to be processed into theory and practice. Ricks et al. (1993) further

argued that "an interaction between principle parties of the cooperative education and









other branches of education may benefit cooperative education by ensuring exposure to

recent theoretical, operational and research advances in education" (p. 19). Wilson

(1988) lent support to these ideas when he proposed that the "future research into

cooperative education must, much more frequently, be theory-based and findings

explained in terms of theory" (p. 86).

In order to promote their inclusion into mainstream academia, Saltmarsh (1992)

further explained that staff and faculty involved with cooperative education must

understand and incorporate the education and training of those who teach in their

academic disciplines. Van Gyn (1996) also noted that many academic faculty members

have a narrow traditional definition of higher education that excludes the possibility of

experiential education. Instead of this limited focus, Van Gyn proposed academic faculty

become better prepared to help students with their overall education. He wrote

"classroom learning and experiential learning should be seamless if they are built on the

same educational values" (p. 127). This concept of a seamless educational and training

experience has linked the tenets of adult learning theory to academic faculty in their

disciplines, as well as to cooperative education. This study was designed to partially

remedy the lack of research and address the need for further research as outlined above.

Statement of the Problem

While experiential education and cooperative education have been a part of higher

education over the past 100 years, the Ad Hoc Committee on Cooperative Education

(1998) argued that "cooperative education functions on the periphery of the academy" (p.

109). The Ad Hoc Committee on Cooperative Education further reported that the

undergraduate college "is a troubled institution driven by careerism and overshadowed by

graduate and professional education" and "the nation's colleges and universities are far









more successful in credentialing than providing a quality education for their students" (p.

112). The Ad Hoc Committee identified several reasons why cooperative education

operates on the periphery of the academy and why cooperative education is not viewed as

an integral component of the curriculum.

First, the Ad Hoc Committee "suggested that the teaching faculty do not recognize

that learning, thinking, and general professional development can be achieved using the

work environment as a classroom with the work itself serving as an instructional vehicle"

(p. 113). Second, they noted that there is a cleavage between cooperative education

professionals and the classroom faculty. Third, they argued that cooperative education

research for promoting learning is "underdeveloped" (p. 114).

The fact that cooperative education has not been generally accepted by academia as

a viable and proven learning strategy suggests a need to know why that is so. The

purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between cooperative education

business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty knowledge and

utilization of adult learning theory in order to help fill the theoretical gap identified by the

Ad Hoc Committee. No attempt will be made to assess or determine if cooperative

education institutions are better than non-cooperative education institutions or vice versa.

Specifically, this study is designed to address the following research questions:

Research question I. Is there a difference between cooperative education business

faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult

Learning Scale?









Research question II. Is there a difference between cooperative education

business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles

of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work experience?

Research question III. Is there a difference between business faculty scores on

the Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work

experience?

Significance of the Study

Researchers have noted the importance of cooperative education research as a

worthwhile and needed academic pursuit in various studies of cooperative education

(Harris, 1984; Heinemann, Enright, Johnson, Murtaugh, Reed, Robinson & Wilson,

1988; Hines, 1987; Stout, 1984; van der Vorm, Jones, & Ferren, 1979; Wilson & Lyons,

1961). In a study by Contomanolis (2002) that analyzed the degree to which engineering

faculty integrated student cooperative education experiences in the classroom curriculum,

he included two specific dimensions of faculty attitude that are applicable to this study.

First, he measured faculty attitudes concerning the potential value and applicability of

cooperative education work experience to academic classroom learning. Second, he

measured the extent to which faculty integrated the students' cooperative education

experiences into the subject matter curriculum.

These two dimensions, faculty attitudes and extent of incorporation, are closely tied

into the Principles of Adult Learning Scale and a faculty member's awareness and

application of adult learning theory. This study has the potential to contribute to the

fields of adult learning theory and cooperative education in four different and specific

areas.









First, the focus of this study may advance the knowledge of adult learning theory as

applied by business faculty in cooperative education programs and business faculty in

non-cooperative education programs. Perry (1997) noted that there are two questions that

faculty must address to be effective instructors. One, who are the students, and two, what

are the best methods to help them learn? Heinemann et al. (1988) noted that cooperative

education has not been integrated into the classroom curriculum due to the reluctance of

teaching faculty to acknowledge the value of the students' cooperative education work

experience. Contomanolis (2002) wrote, "the concept of training as specific, short-term

and applied and education as general, longer, and more theoretical has the potential to

cause conflict when applied to the philosophies of education and teaching" (p. 13). In

order to remedy this reluctance and conflict, this study aims to demonstrate that

cooperative education administrators and faculty can utilize the principles and strategies

of adult learning theory in order to provide students with an experience-related learning

opportunity.

Second, as administrators and faculty utilize methodology, pedagogy, and

andragogy to develop and implement both academic programs and cooperative education

programs, this study can provide results to determine the extent to which business faculty

apply adult learning theory to their classroom environments. The results derived from the

four higher education institutions included in this study may help establish goals and

quality improvement benchmarks at other institutions considering cooperative education

programs as a vehicle for enhancing student learning.









Third, the Principles of Adult Learning Scale can be applied to business faculty to

determine their awareness and application of adult learning theory. No such research has

been conducted previously.

Fourth, the results of this study may contribute to the growing field of continuing

research, both in adult learning theory as well as in the cooperative education field.

While this study will not answer all the questions associated with cooperative education

programs or the awareness and application of adult learning theory, it may provide an

insight into the cooperative education system as a whole as well as the individual

participating institutions.

Limitations of the Study

The potential limitations of this study include the ability to generalize issues and

problems associated with this type of study. As Dooley (2001) noted, "external validity

consists of the extent to which research findings generalize to other populations, other

times, and other settings" (p. 197). This study is limited to four higher education

institutions, two noted for cooperative education and two with no cooperative education

institutional history or culture. This study is also limited to the business faculty at the

four higher education institutions. Coll and Chapman (2000a) observed that cooperative

education programs are highly variable and "this may mean the generalization of the

findings of an inquiry based on one institution, or in one country, or to an international

audience is tenuous" (27). Therefore, caution must be observed in generalizing any

findings beyond the faculty and institutions represented. Further, the Principles of Adult

Learning Scale is a 44-item self-reporting instrument that measures a faculty member's

awareness of adult learning principles and a faculty member's application of adult

learning principles through seven different and relevant factors.









Assumptions of the Study

For the purpose of this study, the following assumptions are made: (1) Business

faculty in this study come from diverse backgrounds. Some may have had previous

training or education in the principles of adult learning. (2) Business faculty reported

their true perceptions on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS).

Definition of Terms

Knowles (1980) originally defined andragogy as "the art and science of helping

adults learn" (p. 43). As further adult learning theory research was conducted, Knowles

noted that educators utilized the principles of adult learning on all ages of learners. Upon

review of the research, Knowles (1980) acknowledged andragogy as "simply another

model of assumptions about learners to be used alongside the pedagogical model of

assumptions" (p. 43).

Adult education, as noted by Knowles (1977), can be defined in several different

ways. In the broad sense, Knowles (1980) wrote that adult education describes the

process of adult learning, and that "in this sense it encompasses practically all

experiences of mature men and women by which they acquire new knowledge,

understanding, skills, attitudes, interests, or values" (p. 25). Knowles also wrote that

adult education can have a more specific or technical definition. He included in this

broader definition "all organized classes, study groups, lecture series, planned reading

programs, guided discussions, conferences, institutes, workshops, and correspondence

courses in which American adults engage" (p. 25). This present study focused on this

broader definition of adult education.

Cooperative education, as noted by Ryder (1987a), cannot be formally defined

because of the polarization of research around the institutions and programs that offer









cooperative education opportunities. Ryder offered a summation of cooperative

education as follows: "cooperative education is a particular application of the concept of

experiential learning in which productive work performed by students is integrated into

the curriculum and for which the institution assumes primary responsibility" (p. 2).

Ryder acknowledged that the terms internships and cooperative education opportunities

are often used interchangeably, but noted cooperative education programs often involve

multiple terms of work. Internships, on the other hand, happen less frequently and most

often are for a single term or summer period.

Keeton and Tate (1978) wrote that experiential learning "refers to learning in which

the learner is directly in touch with the realities being studied" (p. 1). They stated that

experiential learning is different from activities in which a student only "reads about,

hears about, talks about, or writes about these realities, but never comes into contact with

them as part of the learning process" (p. 1).

Internships, according to Premont (1998), share three basic characteristics: the

duration of the experience, work opportunity, and learning opportunity. Internships share

some of the same characteristics as apprenticeships, externships, field studies, work-

studies and cooperative education programs. Premont argued that most internships are

for a short period of time, usually ranging from a few months to a few years. She further

explained that internships provide students with an opportunity to work in a professional

situation and that the internships represented a "learning by doing" (p. 338) experience

for the student. While Premont also stated that the terms apprenticeships and externships

are often used interchangeably with internships, this is incorrect as these two experiences

do not meet the three criteria she previously stated.









Pedagogy is defined as the art and science of teaching children. Knowles (1980)

noted the model of pedagogy was derived from the Greek word paid (meaning child) and

agogus (meaning leading). Initial pedagogical assumptions were based primarily on

teaching rudimentary skills to young children. Knowles (1980) wrote that the

pedagogical method spread with the increase of elementary schools throughout Europe

and the United States, as well as the dispersion of missionaries around the world.

Summary

The purpose of this study is to determine if differences exist between business

faculty in their awareness and application of adult learning theory by analyzing the seven

factors of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale. The focus of this study was business

faculty at two four-year higher education institutions that actively promote and support

cooperative education programs as part of their educational culture and business faculty

at two four-year higher education institutions that do not actively promote and support

cooperative education programs.

Knowles (1980) was instrumental in bringing andragogy and adult learning theory

to the mainstream of educational research. However, this body of knowledge has not

been accepted by all educational practitioners as there has not been a substantial amount

of empirical research conducted in the fields of adult education theory and cooperative

education. In fact, no empirical research currently exists linking adult learning theory

and cooperative education even though they share conceptual tenets about the importance

of experience-based learning and educational pragmatism.

The following four chapters describe the methods and procedures used in this study

for adult learning theory and cooperative education. Chapter 2 contains a literature

review of both adult learning theory and cooperative education as it relates to the research






12


questions of this study. Chapter 3 discusses the research methodology utilized in this

study. Chapter 4 provides the analysis of data information. Finally, Chapter 5 contains a

summary of the findings and recommendations for further research.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this study is to determine if differences exist between business

faculty in their awareness and application of adult learning styles using the Principles of

Adult Learning Scale (PALS) and how these differences correspond to support

cooperative education. Existing literature covers the following eight topics: (1) the

history of cooperative education, (2) the benefits of cooperative education, (3) the

importance of academic credit in cooperative education programs, (4) the key role of

faculty in cooperative education programs and adult learning theory, (5) the philosophic

foundations of cooperative education, (6) adult learning theory, (7) relating theory and

practice, and (8) the Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS).

History of Cooperative Education

Hall (1999) acknowledged the importance of the scientific revolution to academic

development in the late nineteenth century and noted that cooperative education emerged

during the early twentieth century in part due to the needs of rapid American economic

growth and high employment. The early 1900s saw a rapid change in science,

economics, and philosophy. Leaders in higher education were also surveying the climate

to provide their institutions and students with learning opportunities appropriate to the

changing environment of the time.

Ryder (1987a) used Herman Schneider as an example of a pioneer in cooperative

education. Ryder (1987a) wrote that "innovation in higher education requires both

inspiration and energetic advocacy" (p. 3). Schneider began his career as a civil engineer









and moved into the field of higher education, first as an instructor at Lehigh University

and subsequently at the University of Cincinnati. Ryder argued that Schneider embodied

these qualities as he began his efforts to integrate work experience with formal learning.

As Ryder recounts the story, Schneider was strolling the Lehigh University campus when

the sound of a blast from a nearby steel plant provided Schneider with the inspiration to

found what has become known as cooperative education. Schneider recognized a modern

steel plant with the most up-to-date equipment existing so close to a higher education

institution as an opportunity to provide state-of-the-art training to students. Through his

continued efforts and influence, Schneider began the first cooperative education program

for engineering at the University of Cincinnati in 1906. Since its inception, cooperative

education programs have spread throughout the country and across the globe.

Northeastern University established a new college of engineering in 1909 and

modeled its new cooperative education program after Schneider's Cincinnati plan of

working and learning (Ryder, 1987a). While cooperative education has its roots in

engineering, its practitioners moved into other academic disciplines in the early 1900s.

The business department at the University of Cincinnati adopted cooperative education in

1917 and, in 1921, Antioch College, a liberal arts institution, integrated a cooperative

education ethos into its academic culture. Throughout the remainder of the twentieth

century, cooperative education has moved beyond its initial inception in engineering to

become more pervasive throughout higher education. Much of the impetus for the

growth and success of cooperative education programs came from the perceived benefits

associated with such programs.









Benefits of Cooperative Education

Learning by doing has been noted as an important part of an overall educational

experience. Education and learning theorists have written about the importance of

engaging students in hands-on learning as a means to enhance comprehension of and

engagement in subject matter (Dewey, 1938; Hutchings and Wutzdorff, 1988; Kolb,

1984). These kinds of experiences are well documented to have positive effects on

student development and comprehension (Hutchings and Wutzdorff, 1988; Kolb, 1984;

Terenzini, 1995). Over the years, students, employers, institutions of higher education,

and faculty have used the cooperative education model, which has proven to be

pedagogically sound and transferable to various institutions and academic disciplines.

Ryder (1987b) pointed out cooperative education as a cost-saving strategy for employers

and a revenue-generating and learning opportunity for students. He also wrote,

"throughout its history, cooperative education has demonstrated its value to higher

education in at least four significant ways" (p. 305). These four ways are a) an effective

pedagogical model, b) a source of income for students, c) cost-savings for employers, and

d) program transferability. Each of these four attributes has allowed cooperative

education stakeholders to accrue program benefits, and research has been conducted on

each of these beneficiaries.

Somers (1995) stated "a substantial body of literature exists regarding the benefits

that accrue to cooperative education participants upon graduation" (p. 25). Student

benefit research was some of the first to appear in academic literature. Wilson and Lyons

(1961) reported that students participated in cooperative education experiences to gain a

better understanding of their own career goals. Participants in the study not only reported

a clarification of their career goals, but they also reported feeling more prepared to begin









their chosen career. Wilson (1987b) summarized the body of cooperative education

empirical research on student outcomes as follows:

The body of research studies examining the impact of cooperative education on
students clearly indicates that participation contributes to clarification of career
goals and great assurance in deciding upon a goal; developing autonomy and self-
confidence; increasing awareness of the need for and skills involved in
interpersonal relations; and increasing motivation for studies, as manifested in
increased academic achievement and perseverance. (p. 279)

Raiola and Sugerman (1984) added that work experiences also provide student

participants with an opportunity to develop critical analytical skills and reflection

practices, allowing them to link their classroom theory studies with practice in a work

environment. Wilson (1987b) wrote that students become proactively involved in the

cooperative education work assignments and are also afforded the opportunity to explore

career choices as well as experience the culture and traditions of their work experience.

Similar to academic assessment for course subjects, students' cooperative education work

experiences are assessed as well. Students receive feedback on their success or failure in

their cooperative work experience. Finally, Wilson stated that students are often paid for

their cooperative work experience. This real acknowledgment of their efforts provided

students with a sense of participation and success in meeting an employer's standards and

expectations. Therefore, students felt accountable to both their institution of higher

learning and their cooperative education employer.

Employers also have benefited from cooperative education programs. Brown

(1987) argued that employers of cooperative education students became involved with

such programs to fill a human resource need. Hutcheson (1996) agreed as she stated

cooperative education provides employers with a larger pool of well-prepared employees

as well as allows employers to improve their selection process by pre-screening full-time









hires through a cooperative education program. These two benefits have allowed

employers to increase their recruitment and training effectiveness. Hutcheson also added

that cooperative education programs improved the retention rates of full-time employees

who had started with their employers as cooperative education students. Brown (1987)

found "employers also seek co-ops for full-time employment because they are perceived

to be mature, serious, and stable" (p. 299).

Institutions of higher education and industry have courted one another throughout

their shared history. Just as cooperative education has benefited the students and

employers, academic institutions have also gained from the implementation and support

of cooperative education programs. Research has been conducted to identify potential

benefits to the higher education institutions with cooperative education programs. Dube

and Komgold (1987) argued "an effective cooperative education program should be able

to strengthen the curriculum, help maintain or increase enrollments, improve employment

opportunities for its graduates, and strengthen the institution's financial position as a

result of greater enrollments and employer contributions" (p. 111). Hutcheson (1996) has

also argued that cooperative education programs help colleges and universities build

positive relationships with the business community that employs their students. Also,

Hutcheson wrote that cooperative education programs have provided access to "state-of-

the art equipment and technology by using the workplace as a laboratory extension of the

classroom" (p. vi).

Faculty have been important stakeholders in the success of higher education as well

as cooperative education programs. However, there has been little research conducted on

how individual faculty benefit from cooperative education programs.









Stull and deAyora (1984) conducted a study of more than 250 cooperative

education directors and faculty and found that the benefits ranked highest by both two-

year and four-year faculty concerned the classroom environment. Specifically, faculty

identified improved classroom facilitation and enhancement of classroom learning as

their primary benefits. Stull and deAyora also found faculty support of cooperative

education as least beneficial to a faculty member's promotion, salary, tenure, and

professional development. Somers (1995) further explored the concept of faculty

benefits through cooperative education. He found cooperative education programs

allowed faculty to develop positive relationships with students and also provided faculty

with feedback regarding the relevance of their academic coursework. In addition,

Sommers noted faculty felt cooperative education students enhanced the classroom

learning environment. Finally, faculty, similar to higher education institutions as a

whole, benefited from increased contact with employers to build positive relationships.

Cooperative education has also encountered resistance. Some academic faculty

have proven to be deterrents to program implementation and acceptance of cooperative

education on individual college and university campuses, as well as a hindrance to the

continued growth of cooperative education. Faculty became a pivotal ingredient to the

acceptance and growth of cooperative education when questions arose with regard to

academic credit for students participating in cooperative education opportunities.

Cooperative Education and the Importance of Academic Credit

Academic credit is one way to measure the perceived value of an educational

endeavor. Wilson (1987a) pointed out that the reasons for awarding academic credit for

cooperative education experiences preceded the rationale for such awards. He wrote that

prior to the 1970s, only 18 percent of the cooperative education programs awarded









academic credit to those students that successfully completed their experiences. As

cooperative education expanded through the 1970s to the present, the number of

cooperative education programs awarding credit to their participants increased to

approximately 70 percent. Wilson concluded that the reason for the dramatic shift was

based upon simple economics and practicality. In the public higher education

institutions, operating income was primarily tied to the total student count. Cooperative

education students who were currently engaged in their cooperative work experiences

were not being counted as part of the total student body because they did not meet the

definition of an enrolled student. Therefore, academic departments were not receiving

fund allocations for those students engaging in a co-op work experience. This non-

recognition of cooperative work experience students impacted budget forecasts and had

an adverse affect on faculty support. Administrators and faculty thus began to rationalize

credit awards for cooperative education experiences as a means to protect their tuition

funds. Wilson noted that the rationale was simple: tuition is paid for the opportunity to

learn and learning does not always have to take place in the traditional classroom

environment.

While Ryder (1987b) agreed with this analysis, there was no initial pedagogical

justification for academic credit for cooperative education. Rather, the push for granting

academic credit was merely economical, a way to help public higher education

institutions maintain their budget allocations. As the awarding of credit rests with

teaching faculty, cooperative education programs had to begin the process of engaging

and bringing teaching faculty into the cooperative education realm.









Students were impacted by the initial lack of credit for the cooperative education

work experiences. Students who engaged in cooperative education work experiences

often had to delay graduation by a semester or a year as they fell behind their non-co-op

classmates. In fact, early programs at the University of Cincinnati, Northeastern

University, and Drexel University extended their undergraduate programs by a year to

accommodate cooperative education programs. Students were now expected to take five

years to graduate, as opposed to the traditional four years. When academic credit was

awarded for participation in cooperative education programs, those institutions of higher

learning helped students stay on track for a more traditional graduation time. Because

faculty awarded the academic credit, academic credit became the catalyst for increased

faculty involvement in cooperative education.

Role of Faculty in Cooperative Education

Wilson (1987a) observed that teaching faculty became concerned that cooperative

education staff doled out the "coin of the realm" (p.36). Some cooperative education

programs gave as few as one credit while other programs gave out as many as eighteen

credits. On many campuses, as this friction built, teaching faculty began to get more

involved in their cooperative education programs. Academic faculty developed curricula

that not only enabled students to get credit for their cooperative education work

experience, it also helped the students graduate in the traditional time. As cooperative

education programs were integrated into the academic realm and credit was being

awarded, academic faculty voiced their concerns about and resistance to an educational

model that had not been proven.

Ryder (1987b) reports that academic faculty usually resist cooperative education

because "it is an unconventional system of learning, implying that learning can take place









outside of the classroom, outside of the traditional course structure, and, perhaps most

threatening, outside of the professor's reach" (p. 26). Contomanolis (2002) wrote that

"the perception of cooperative education as providing training to meet the needs of

industry conflicts with the dominant higher education paradigm of education as its own

goal" (p. 19). Van der Vorm (1988) and DePasquale (1991) contended faculty resistance

could also be explained by the tension between cooperative education's practicality and

the traditional liberal arts education. Feeney and Morris (1994) observed that faculty

may view cooperative education as a form of experiential learning that is "contrary to or

detracting from rigorous study in the academic disciplines" (p. 14). The Ad Hoc

Committee on Cooperative Education (1998) echoed these assumptions when they

suggested "teaching faculty do not recognize that learning, thinking, and general

professional development can be achieved using the work environment as a classroom

with the work itself serving as an instructional vehicle" (p. 113). The Ad Hoc Committee

also found that the research supporting cooperative education as a proven methodology

for learning was "vague and underdeveloped" (p. 114). Wilson (1988) found that most

cooperative education research conducted on faculty involved measuring their attitudes

and perceptions in order to gain support for cooperative education, not for strengthening

theory or methodology.

The dichotomy of the two faculty views was reflected in the schism in thought

surrounding the theoretical base of cooperative education. Cooperative education

professionals and faculty in various academic disciplines have attempted to close this gap

by conducting empirical research to demonstrate that cooperative education is a sound

educational pedagogy. Heinemann and DeFalco (1990) argued that cooperative









education is both theoretical and pedagogical within the educational pragmatism model

based on John Dewey's learning-by-doing model. Stanton (1991) and Ricks et al. (1993)

concurred with this assessment and suggested cooperative education will not be fully

accepted by teaching faculty and institutions of higher education until empirical research

has demonstrated the theoretical and pedagogical success of cooperative education

programs.

Philosophic Foundations of Cooperative Education

The scientific revolution of nineteenth-century America had a dramatic impact on

research and thought. Scientific breakthroughs resulted in new methods and strategies in

research. These new scientific methods and discoveries were widely applicable to many

facets of life. Ryder (1987a) identified John Dewey as the prime proponent of this new

pragmatist philosophy. Educational research and thought turned to experimentation to

gain useful and practical outcomes. Dewey influenced many educators of the day and

still has an impact on the philosophy of education. He argued that people learn from

actual experience and by doing and participating in activities, the basic philosophy of

cooperative education, as noted by Ryder (1987a) who stated that "cooperative education

is a particular expression of educational pragmatism" (p. 8). Cooperative education is not

merely a work experience for the sake of work, rather, work experience allows students

to learn beyond the traditional classroom in ways that will improve their overall learning

experience.

After the Ad Committee on Cooperative Education (1998) reported that

cooperative education operates on the periphery of academia, cooperative education

supporters and researchers rushed back to Dewey and the subject of educational

pragmatism in order to defend their programs and methodologies. Subsequently,









Minnich (1999) wrote, "the taproot of U.S. experiential education is in this nation's

passionate, if always painfully contradictory, orientation toward aspirational democracy,

and Pragmatism is one of democracy's most compatible philosophies" (p. 6). Minnich

further articulated that Pragmatists advocated an educational experience centered on

relating theory and practice. Heinemann and DeFalco (1992) detailed how post-

secondary cooperative education programs are philosophically sound because these

programs relate to the concepts of Dewey's writing. For example, Heinemann and

DeFalco argued that cooperative education offers a work-place experience that meets

Dewey's criterion of a laboratory where experience evolves into learning and discovery.

Heinemann and DeFalco supported Dewey's proposal "that higher education in America

evolve into a new model that eliminated the dualism of the world of ideas and the world

of work" (p. 40). According to them, it was this dualism or separation that had hindered

the efforts of cooperative education methodologies to enter into the mainstream academic

community. Dewey (1916) had written "the problem is not that of making schools an

adjunct to manufacture and commerce, but of utilizing the factors of industry to make

school more active, more full of immediate meaning, more connected with school

experience" (p. 369). Heinemann and DeFalco (1992) argued that it is precisely in this

arena that cooperative education excels and meets the needs of students.

Saltmarsh (1992) also stressed the efficacy of utilizing Dewey's educational

arguments to strengthen the foundation of cooperative education. Saltmarsh went beyond

the Heinemann and DeFalco dualism argument and added that "what was needed was not

merely an education that linked academic study to experiential learning, but an education

that would foster the transformation of the work experience" (p. 8). He stated that in









order to make this happen, cooperative education institutions must integrate classroom

and workplace learning as well as provide students with the tools to use their cooperative

work experiences to help with their self-realization, a clear extension of Dewey's

philosophy.

Even with this resurgence of research based on Dewey's pragmatism, supporting

cooperative education as a valid experiential learning activity, other researchers were not

convinced. Miettinen (2000) argued "adult education is at risk of remaining a quasi-

scientific field without connection to the philosophical, anthropological, sociological, and

psychological studies of learning and thought" (p. 71). Miettinen posited that adult

education and experiential education were inadequate as they were currently practiced

and researched. Miettinen contended that the formulation of an experiential learning

model by Kolb (1984) was an eclectic endeavor in which Kolb extracted terms and

concepts "from their idea-historical contexts and purposes and puts them to serve the

motives of his own presentation" (p. 56).

Adult Learning Theory

Knowles (1984) defined andragogy as the art and science of helping adults learn.

He identified seven components of this art and science that teachers effectively utilize to

help adults learn. Knowles proposed that a teacher should

1. Establish a physical and psychological climate conducive to learning,

2. Involve learners in mutual planning of methods and curricular directions,

3. Involve participants in diagnosing their own learning needs,

4. Encourage learners to formulate their own learning objectives,

5. Encourage learners to identify resources and to devise strategies for using such
resources to accomplish their objectives,









6. Help learners to carry out their learning plans, and

7. Involve learners in evaluating their learning.

While Knowles delineated the traits that a teacher should possess, he also outlined

the differences between pedagogy and andragogy. Knowles recognized a teacher's

concept of the learner, a learner's need to know, a learner's motivation to learn, a

learner's readiness to learn, and a learner's orientation to learning, as well as the role of a

learner's experience as key conceptual differences between pedagogy and andragogy.

Knowles elaborated on each of these assumptions to provide a clear distinction between

the two methods, as discussed below.

Concept of the learner. Knowles argued that pedagogical practice defines the role

of the learner as passive and dependent upon the instructor as the provider of knowledge.

Knowles wrote that teachers in the pedagogical model "take full responsibility for

determining what is to be learned, when it is to be learned, how it is to be learned, and if

it has been learned" (p. 43). To highlight the distinction between the two models, he

noted that adult learners move from dependency to self-directedness. Knowles defined

adults as individuals who take responsibility for their own decisions, actions, and lives,

and it is this self-directness that demarks one important dimension in the educational

models.

Need to know. Knowles believed adults need to understand how their learning is

related to their every day lives and how they can apply this new learning. If this

relevance is not perceived, Knowles argued that adult learners will withdraw as opposed

to engage in their learning environments. Therefore, teaching faculty are encouraged to

explicitly state and encourage their adult learners to search for that applied meaning.









Knowles contrasted this andragogical methodology to the pedagogical view in which the

subject matter was taught for the sake of learning the subject matter.

Motivation to learn. Knowles argued that the assumptions of the pedagogical

model include motivation by external rewards and punishments, while the andragogical

model establishes a motivational assumption based on internal incentives and curiosity.

Therefore, adults are not only motivated by job promotions and increased pay, they also

are motivated by self-satisfaction, personal development, and an improved quality of life.

Readiness to learn. The prevailing pedagogical assumptions with regard to

readiness to learn have established that "people are ready to learn whatever society

(especially the school) says they ought to learn, provided the pressures on them (like fear

or failure) are great enough" (p. 44). Contrary to this thought, Knowles argued adults

become ready to learn something new in order to deal with a practical situation or real-

life event. Knowles wrote that teachers must provide a rubric for adult learners to

understand the necessity of knowledge and the principle that instruction should be

"organized around life-application categories and sequenced according to the learners'

readiness to learn" (p. 44).

Orientation to learning. Knowles wrote that pedagogical methodology is

organized by subject-matter units as learners are placed in the silos of specific academic

disciplines and subject matter. Learners have viewed this type of curriculum as valuable

only later in life, because it appeared to lack current applicability. The andragogical

viewpoint has held that learning involves acquiring competencies that are readily utilized

for specific real-life situations. Knowles stated that because adult learners are









performance-centered in their orientation to learning, these "experiences should be

organized around competency-development categories" (p. 44).

Role of learners' experience. Knowles found that in the pedagogical teaching

methodology, a learner's previous life experience or work experience is not considered a

valuable teaching asset. Teachers who have utilized the pedagogical method have tended

to rely on lecture, textbook reading, and sometimes audiovisual techniques as modes of

delivering instruction. Knowles wrote that "as people grow and develop they accumulate

an increasing reservoir of experience that becomes an increasingly rich resource for

learning for themselves and others" (p. 44). To that end, Knowles believed that adult

learners gain more from active experiences than passive classroom instruction. Hence, he

argued for problem-solving cases, simulations, experiments, and field experiences as a

preferred method of instruction. These assumptions provided a nexus for developing an

adult education theory that is widely utilized and valued.

Roots of adult learning theory can also be linked to the work of experiential

learning and Kolb's (1984) model of experience. Miettinen (2000) stated that Kolb's

four-stage model of learning is now regarded as classical and the foundation for

experiential learning. Kolb (1984) wrote that experiential learning was developed by

such notable educational thinkers as John Dewey, Kurt Lewin, and Jean Piaget. Using

the seminal works of these authors, Kolb developed the Lewinian experiential learning

model that includes concrete experiences, observations, reflections, and the formation of

abstract concepts and generalizations, as well as the testing of implications of concepts in

new situations. In other words, Kolb believed the experiential learning model provided a









methodology to verify learning by categorizing the experience in terms of the event, what

happened, what was learned, and how to apply that learning in the future.

Merriam and Caffarella (1999) write that andragogy, as defined by Knowles, is "an

enduring model for understanding certain aspects of adult learning" (p. 278). While they

identified various inconsistencies in Knowles' model, Merriam and Caffarella

acknowledge andragogy as a significant piece of adult learning.

Relating Theory and Practice

From its inception at the University of Cincinnati in 1906, the cooperative

education movement has grown across the country and throughout the world. As

researchers addressed the higher education issues of the 21st century, Hall (1999) wrote

that because cooperative education will only increase, not decrease, in importance,

rigorous academic research must be conducted to develop an empirical body of research

that supports the tenets of cooperative education.

Throughout cooperative education literature, faculty knowledge, perception, and

involvement is a common theme (Burchell, Hodges, & Rainsbury 2000; Matson &

Matson, 1995; McNutt 1980/1989; Ryder, 1987b; van der Vorm 1995; Wilson 1989).

Dube and Komgold (1987) wrote most of the research has centered on faculty and their

views on "program goals, program operation, benefits to students, difficulties cooperative

education may create for students, weaknesses of the program, benefits to the institution

and direct or indirect benefits to the faculty" (p. 107).

To address this gap and to advance knowledge in the field of adult learning theory

and cooperative education, more researchers are exploring the relationship between

cooperative education and academic linkages to adult learning theory. Heinemann and

DeFalco (1992) argued that the reflective learner concept, the interdisciplinary









perspective, and the linkage of theory and practice could all be utilized as criteria for

assessing teaching effectiveness. Each of these concepts can be found in both Kolb's

(1984) model of experiential learning and Knowles' (1980) work on adult education

theory. Heinemann and DeFalco also stated that cooperative education experiences

should incorporate inquiry methods to allow students to reflect on their experiences

through an interdisciplinary approach utilizing various academic disciplines. Finally,

they articulated the necessity that cooperative education be "structured so that students

can examine the relationships between theory and practice as observed in the workplace"

(p. 43).

Ricks et al. (1993) reviewed the cooperative education literature and found that

there is an absence of integration between theory, research, and practice, as well as a lack

of standards in cooperative education research. They argued that "if cooperative

education is conceptualized as a teaching and/or learning model of higher education, then

the learning model needs to be defined and studied in terms of its conceptualization as

teaching and/or learning conditions" (p. 15). Throughout its history, cooperative

education research has not lent itself to a model that allows research to be processed into

theory and practice. Ricks et al. argued that "an interaction between principle parties of

the cooperative education and other branches of education may benefit cooperative

education by ensuring exposure to recent theoretical, operational and research advances

in education" (p. 19). Heinemann, DeFalco, and Smelkinson (1992) stated a similar

concern. They wrote that cooperative education research implies that concepts taught in

the classroom are reinforced in cooperative education work experiences and cooperative

education students "reach understandings and make connections that cannot be achieved









as well through classroom instruction alone" (p. 18). Heinemann et al. expressed concern

that these cooperative education beliefs were just assumptions and were not grounded in

empirical research. Wilson (1988) proposed that "future research into cooperative

education must, much more frequently, be theory-based and findings explained in terms

of theory" (p. 86).

Saltmarsh (1992) argued that "a Deweyan cooperative education scheme would

also require conceiving of cooperative education as placed solidly within the scholarly

specializations of knowledge at the university, most profitably as an interdisciplinary area

of education" (p. 14). In order to encourage their inclusion in mainstream academia,

Saltmarsh further explained that those in cooperative education must embody the

education and training similar to those who teach in their academic discipline. Van Gyn

(1996) also noted that many academic faculty members have a narrow, traditional

definition of higher education that excludes the possibility of experiential education.

Instead of this limited focus, Van Gyn proposed faculty become better prepared to help

students with their overall education. Van Gyn wrote "classroom learning and

experiential learning should be seamless if they are built on the same educational values"

(p. 127). This idea of a seamless education and training experience implies that the tenets

of adult learning theory can be linked to academic faculty in their disciplines, as well as

to cooperative education.

Principles of Adult Learning Scale

Conti (1978) noted that literature in the adult learning field was expanding and the

use of the nascent collaborative teaching-learning method was growing. However, Conti

noted this method had gained wide acceptance by adult educators, but had not been

empirically tested. He undertook research to "develop and validate an instrument capable









of measuring the degree to which adult education practitioners accept and adhere to the

adult education learning principles that are congruent with the collaborative teaching-

learning mode" (p. 2). Conti (1978) based his initial work on of the Flanders' Interaction

Analysis Categories (FIAC). Conti wrote that the instrument he was developing would

add to the adult learning theory field by expanding on the categories created by Flanders.

These categories "which also measure initiating and responsive actions were used as an

observable, external, and independent criterion to systematically assess practitioner

behavior" (p. 2). Conti's research led to his creation of the Principles of Adult Learning

Scale (PALS).

Subsequent to Conti's development of his instrument, two other instruments were

developed and became available to adult education researchers. Hershel Hadley

developed the Educational Orientation Questionnaire (EOQ) in 1975. To help educators

meet the needs of their adult learners by understanding their own philosophical

orientation, Zinn developed the Philosophy of Adult Education Inventory (PAEI) in

1983. Zinn (1998) wrote that teachers determine the scope, sequence, methods, strategies

and teaching materials that they will utilize to help their students learn. Adult education

researchers have utilized the Principles of Adult Learning Scale with greater frequency

than either the EOQ or the PAEI due to its aforementioned capability to measure the

degree to which individuals are aware and apply adult learning theory to their classroom

teaching.

Summary

Chapter 2 has provided a review of current literature in the area of cooperative

education and adult learning theory. Cooperative education has played various roles with

varying degrees of success at different institutions over the past near century. Although






32


these programs have developed and grown, their acceptance and worth have provided a

constant field of debate. Faculty members have played a key role in accepting and

implementing cooperative education programs. Wilson (1987a) stated "faculty support

provides co-op with academic sanction and validity, important ingredients of the long-

term development and institutionalization of the program" (p. 39). Studies based on the

Principles of Adult Learning Scale developed by Conti (1978) have helped to clarify and

strengthen both adult learning theory and cooperative education.














CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to determine if differences exist between business

faculty in their knowledge of adult learning styles utilizing the seven factors of the

Principles of Adult Learning Scale. The focus of this study was business faculty at four-

year higher education institutions that promote cooperative education and business

faculty at four-year higher education institutions that do not promote cooperative

education. The following three research questions have guided this study.

Research Questions

Research question I. Is there a difference between cooperative education business

faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult

Learning Scale?

Research question II. Is there a difference between cooperative education

business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles

of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work experience?

Research question III. Is there a difference between business faculty scores on

the Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work

experience?

It was theorized that business faculty that are aware of and apply the theories of

adult learning are more prevalent at those higher education institutions that subscribe to

the principles of cooperative education. Therefore, those faculty that have had business-









related experiences and are part of an education culture rich in cooperative education

principles should score higher on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale.

Design of the Study

Sprinthall (1997) stated that experimental research and post facto research are two

research strategies that utilize inferential techniques of hypothesis testing. Sprinthall

listed the type of research methodology utilized in this study as "ex post facto research"

(p. 249) in which experimental research involves the manipulation of independent

variables and provides an approach for drawing cause-and-effect conclusions. Dooley

(2001) stated that ex post facto research allows for the experimental design to be created

after the treatment has already taken place (p. 344). In other words, the participants are

assigned to categories or groups based on characteristics they already possessed. Coll

and Chapman (2000b) stated researchers must take into account the research questions

when choosing a research methodology as opposed to having a specific preference for

that methodology. This study utilized a quantitative methodology. Coll and Chapman

(2000a) argued the quantitative approach is an effective research methodology for

cooperative education research as "it is possible to measure the reactions of many

subjects to a limited set of questions, thus facilitating comparison and statistical

aggregation of data" (27).

This study explored the differences between cooperative education business faculty

and non-cooperative education business faculty. Based on the review of the literature, it

was hypothesized that an analysis of adult learning theory and cooperative education

might provide a basis for a better understanding and potential direction for future

research.









Study Population

The study population included business faculty at four four-year higher education

institutions in the United States. Business faculty from Drexel University in

Pennsylvania and Northeastern University in Massachusetts were chosen to represent

cooperative education business faculty because of the long institutionalized history of

cooperative education at the respective schools. McKenna and Hamrick (1986) stated,

"when a cooperative education program becomes an integral part of an institution, it has

been referred to as being institutionalized with the process of achieving it identified as

institutionalization" (p. 68). McKenna and Hamrick listed support and participation as

two key ingredients for the institutionalization of cooperative education. Drexel

University and Northeastern University both fit the criteria established by McKenna and

Hamrick. Dr. Constantine Papadakis, president of Drexel University, and Dr. Richard

Freeland, president of Northeastern University, both serve as board of trustee members

on the National Commission for Cooperative Education. Dr. Papadakis and Dr.

Freeland's participation, support, and promotion of the field of cooperative education

outside their institutions, as well as their leadership within their institutions, demonstrate

the support needed for institutionalization as stated by McKenna and Hamrick.

The most recently published Directory of College Cooperative Education Programs

(1996) listed Northeastern University and Drexel University as two higher education

institutions with a large annual volume of student participation in cooperative education.

Northeastern University had over 1,400 business students participate in a cooperative

education experience, while Drexel University had over 500 business students participate

in cooperative education. McKenna and Hamrick (1986) stated that the degree of

participation also impacts the level of institutionalization of cooperative education









programs. In the Directory of College Cooperative Education Programs, the large

number of participants at Northeastern University and Drexel University indicate this

criterion has been met.

Business faculty from Florida State University and the University of Florida were

chosen because both schools are known to have strong business programs without a

cooperative education culture. While non-membership on the board of trustees for the

National Commission on Cooperative Education does not exclude support and promotion

of cooperative education, there is no Florida higher education official or representative on

the board of trustees for the National Commission for Cooperative Education. The

Directory of College Cooperative Education Programs did not include any entry for

business students at Florida State University who had participated in cooperative

education experiences. The Directory of College Cooperative Education Program noted

that only five business students at the University of Florida participated in cooperative

education experiences. Due to the lack of student participation in cooperative education

programs at Florida State University and the University of Florida, these two schools

were chosen to represent the non-institutionalized higher education universities.

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching publishes the Carnegie

Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. This classification system is a

typology of American colleges and universities. The 2000 Carnegie Classification

typology includes all colleges and universities in the United States that are degree-

granting and accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education.

Under the 2000 Carnegie Classification, Drexel University, Florida State

University, Northeastern University, and the University of Florida are all listed as









doctorate-granting institutions. Florida State University, Northeastern University, and the

University of Florida are listed as "doctoral/research universities-extensive" while

Drexel University is listed as a "doctoral/research university-intensive." According to

the 2000 Carnegie Classification, both the extensive and intensive doctoral research

universities typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs and they are

committed to graduate education through the doctorate. The extensive doctoral research

institutions and the intensive doctoral research institutions are differentiated by the

number doctoral degrees awarded over a certain number of disciplines. The

doctoral/research universities-extensive institutions awarded 50 or more doctoral degrees

per year across at least 15 disciplines, while the doctoral/research universities-intensive

institutions awarded at least ten doctoral degrees per year across three or more

disciplines, or at least 20 doctoral degrees per year overall. All four participating

institutions participating in this research study offer doctoral programs through their

respective business schools or colleges.

Survey Instrument

The Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS) was utilized to conduct this study.

Gary J. Conti (1978) developed the Principles of Adult Learning Scale to assess teaching

styles. Conti (1998) argued that the survey instrument measures the "frequency with

which one practices teaching/learning principles that are described in the adult education

literature" (pp. 76-77). For example, high total scores on the PALS indicated a faculty

member had a learner-centered approach to teaching as opposed to a faculty member with

a lower total PALS score that indicated a teacher-centered approach. Conti contended

"the total score indicates the overall teaching style and the strength of the teacher's

support for this style" (p. 77). However, Conti stated his goal was to identify the specific









classroom behaviors that make up the learner-centered teaching approach. Therefore, he

divided the 44-items of the PALS into seven groups of factors that make up a major

component of teaching style.

Conti labeled the seven factor titles to reflect their correlation with the principles

incorporated into the adult learning theory literature. High scores in each factor

represented support of the learner-centered concept implied in the factor name, while low

scores indicated support of a teacher-centered concept. The seven factor titles include:

learner-centered activities, personalizing instruction, relating to experience, assessing

student needs, climate building, participation in the learning process, and flexibility for

personal development (Conti, 1998).

Factor 1, Learner-Centered Activities, is made up of 12 of the negative items that

relate to evaluation by formal methods and to a comparison of students to outside

standards (Conti, 1998). Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction, contains six positive items

and three negative items to identify instructors who utilize numerous and various

methods to meet the individual learning needs of each student (Conti, 1998). Factor 3,

Relating to Experience, is made up of six positive items to determine if faculty utilize

their students' prior experiences in the development and delivery of instruction to foster

greater student independence and growth (Conti, 1998). Factor 4, Assessing Student

Needs, is made up of four positive items to make that assessment. This factor identifies

whether or not the faculty member sought out the students' wants and needs in the

specific subject matter area, as well as the development of short-range and long-range

learning objectives (Conti, 1998). Factor 5, Climate Building, is made up of four positive

items identifying whether or not faculty establish dialogue and interaction with the









students that can eliminate learning barriers and allow risk to become a natural part of the

learning process (Conti, 1998). This factor also identifies faculty who also build an

environment that allows learners to "explore elements related to their self-concept,

practice problem-solving skills, and develop interpersonal skills" (p. 79). Factor 6,

Participation in the Learning Process, is made up of four items. Conti (1998) stated that

"while Factor 2 [Personalizing Instruction] focuses on the broad location of authority

within the classroom, this factor specifically addresses the amount of involvement of the

student in determining the nature and evaluation of the content material" (p. 79).

Flexibility for Personal Development is the seventh factor. Faculty that score low in this

factor perceive their educational role as a provider of knowledge, as opposed to a

facilitator of knowledge (Conti, 1998). Also, a low score in this factor indicates an

unwillingness to change learning objectives even though the students' needs change

(Conti, 1998).

Validity of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale

Conti developed the Principles of Adult Learning Scale in 1978 as part of a

doctoral dissertation. The PALS is a 44-item instrument that uses a six-point Likert scale

to measure the frequency with which a faculty member is aware of and applies the

practices and principles of adult learning theory (Conti, 1978). But an instrument must

demonstrate validity. Dooley (2001) wrote that validity refers to the appropriateness,

meaningfulness, and usefulness of the specific inferences made from the measures. For

his doctoral study, Conti tested the PALS for three forms of validity: construct validity,

content validity, and criterion-related validity.

Conti (1978) established the PALS construct validity through two juries of adult

education professors. The first jury consisted of three local professors at Conti's









institution of higher education, Northern Illinois University. The second jury of

professors consisted often professors of adult education from across the United States.

Conti wrote that these juries of adult education professors "attested to the validity of the

constructs in PALS, linked the positive items in PALS with the initiating behaviors and

the negative items with responsive behaviors" (p. 82).

Conti established the PALS content validity using a two-phase field-testing

approach. The survey instrument was distributed to faculty in adult education centers in

Illinois. Conti wrote that Phase I of the testing provided written, verbal, and statistical

information that was utilized to revise and update the PALS. Phase 2 of the testing

yielded the 44 current test items that were significant at the .10 level. After the content

validity testing, Conti selected the appropriate items to be used to measure the degree to

which survey participants subscribed to the principles of adult learning.

The criterion-related validity of the PALS was established statistically. Conti

utilized chi-square statistical analysis to compare the scores on the Flander's Interaction

Analysis Categories (FIAC) and the Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS). He

compared the FIAC and PALS teacher response ratios, the teacher question ratios, and

the pupil initiation ratios. The correlation coefficients for the preceding were as follows:

.85 on the teacher response ration, .79 on the teacher question ration, and a .82 on the

pupil initiation ration. Conti wrote, "the high positive correlations indicate PALS

consistently measures initiating and responsive constructs and that PALS is capable of

consistently differentiating among those who have divergent views concerning these

constructs" (p. 99).









Since its creation, the Principles of Adult Learning Scale has been utilized in the

academic area to research adult learning theory topics. Rachal, DeCoux, Leonard, and

Pierce (1993) noted PALS was an effective and validated instrument that has been used

in dissertations and refereed journal articles.

Reliability of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale

Dooley (2001) stated that reliability "refers to the degree to which observed scores

are free from errors of measurement" (76). Conti (1978) utilized the retesting method to

establish the reliability of the PALS. Conti administered the instrument to a group of 23

adult learning theory educators throughout the city of Chicago. The instrument was then

distributed to the same group for a second time seven days later. Conti used the Pearson

correlation to measure the relationship between the first test and the second test. He

wrote, "this process produced a reliability coefficient of .92 which is significant at the

.001 level" (pp. 105-106). This test-retest method confirmed the reliability of the

Principles of Adult Learning Scale.

Data Collection Procedures

The Principles of Adult Learning Scale was input into an Excel spreadsheet and

initially distributed by e-mail to each business faculty member at Drexel University and

Florida State University. This survey distribution and collection approach was chosen for

two specific reasons. First, survey response rates by e-mail distribution may be greater

than survey response rates by regular postal mail (see Kiesler & Sproull, 1986; Mehta &

Sivadas, 1995). Second, e-mail surveys may be less costly than surveys distributed by

regular postal mail (see Bachmann & Elfrink, 1996; Schaefer & Dillman, 1998).

The first step of the survey distribution process involved contacting the dean or

associate dean of the respective College of Business at each institution. The research was









briefly described in order to ascertain their willingness to support the distribution of the

Principles of Adult Learning Scale survey to their business faculty. Each of the contacts

agreed to support this research effort. In the case of one institution, Florida State

University, the associate dean and another faculty member in the Hospitality

Management Department wished me success, as both stated that their faculty typically

had very low response rates to such research endeavors.

As Florida State University was the first institution to respond affirmatively to the

research request, the Principles of Adult Learning Scale (see Appendix A) and the

participant informed consent form (see Appendix B) were e-mailed to the business

faculty during the last week of April 2003. The first completed survey was returned

within fifteen minutes of the original distribution. During the next two weeks, only two

other completed surveys were returned from Florida State University business faculty.

E-mail surveys were also distributed to Drexel University business faculty during the first

week of May. Several business faculty members contacted the researcher stating their

computers could not read the Excel spreadsheet due to the macros contained within the

spreadsheet.

Due to the unacceptably low response rate to the e-mailed surveys, it was

determined that the surveys be distributed via paper copies placed directly in the faculty

members' departmental mailboxes. Upon approval from the University of Florida's

Institutional Review Board, the paper copies were sent to the Dean's office of each of the

four participating institutions during the first and second week of May 2003. The

updated Institutional Review Board-approved hard copy of the informed consent

document is located in Appendix C. Two weeks after the distribution of the paper









surveys, individual faculty members who were non-respondents to the paper survey were

e-mailed a follow-up survey for completion.

Survey Response Rate

The Principles of Adult Learning Scale was distributed to 381 business faculty at

Drexel University, Florida State University, Northeastern University, and the University

of Florida. There were 82 total surveys returned which yielded a response rate of 21.5 %.

Table 1 describes the size of the study population and response rate for each participating

institution.

Table 1. Faculty Response Rates by Institution
Institution Population Size Respondents Response Rate (%)
Drexel University 69 11 15.9%
Florida State University 115 17 14.7%
Northeastern University 100 28 28.0%
Uof Florida 97 26 26.8%
Totals 381 82 21.5%

Given the classification of each institution and the nature of the research

undertaken, the homogeneity of the business faculty was assumed and no institutional

analysis was proposed or undertaken. The combined response rate for the two

cooperative education institutions, Drexel University and Northeastern University, was

23%. The combined response rate for the two non-cooperative education institutions,

Florida State University and the University of Florida, was 20.2%. Of the total surveys

received, the returned cooperative education surveys represented 47.5% of the total

surveys returned, while the non-cooperative education surveys returned represented

52.4% of the total surveys returned. The difference between response rates between

institutions and groups of institutions was not viewed as significant to the overall

findings.









Researchers have noted the difficulty in establishing consistent and high response

rates (Fowler, 1988; Heberlein & Baumgartner, 1978; Kalton, 1983). Fowler (1988)

underscores the importance of attempting to achieve the highest possible response rate

when initially conducting the survey. These strategies were incorporated into the data

collection procedures for this research endeavor. Unfortunately, there is no body of

research involving business faculty survey efforts that might help establish a reasonable

benchmark or explain certain response rates. Contomanolis (2002) conducted a

cooperative education study with engineering faculty and observed similar difficulties in

obtaining a high response rate. Contomanolis achieved a 22.8% response rate with

engineering faculty at cooperative education institutions.

Summary

This chapter specified the research questions as well as the research methodology

utilized for this study. The ex post facto research process was conducted with the

participation of business faculty at four higher education institutions in the United States.

Two of the institutions, Drexel University and Northeastern University, have

institutionalized cooperative education programs. The other two higher education

institutions, Florida State University and the University of Florida, do not have

institutionalized cooperative education programs. The Carnegie Foundation for the

Advancement of Teaching classifies all four of the participant institutions as Doctorate-

granting Institutions. The Principles of Adult Learning Scale, previously tested for

validity and reliability, provided a snapshot of business faculty and their awareness and

application of adult learning theory. The data analysis results will be presented in the

next chapter.














CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

This chapter presents the findings of the research study. The results are presented

in response to each of the study's research questions based on the data provided by the

survey respondents. The study's research questions included the following:

Research question I. Is there a difference between cooperative education business

faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult

Learning Scale?

Research question II. Is there a difference between cooperative education

business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles

of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work experience?

Research question III. Is there a difference between business faculty scores on

the Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work

experience?

In addition to responding to the Principles of Adult Learning Scale, the business

faculty were asked to provide information concerning various aspects of their experience.

These respondent characteristics are summarized in the following tables.

Description of the Business Faculty Respondents

The faculty appointment status of the respondents is summarized in Table 2. As

indicated, every business faculty that responded to the survey indicated they held a full-

time appointment. There were no part-time or adjunct faculty respondents.









Table 2. Current Faculty Status
Status Number of Respondents (%)
Full-time 82 (100%)
Part-time 0 (0%)

Table 3 describes the extent of higher education teaching experience of the business

faculty that responded to the Principles of Adult Learning Scale. As reported in Table 3,

11 (13%) of the business faculty had 0-5 years of teaching experience, 16 (20%) of the

business faculty had 6-10 years of teaching experience, 11 (13%) of the business faculty

had 11-15 years of teaching experience, 13 (16%) of the business faculty had 16-20

years of teaching experience, and 31 (38%) of the business faculty had 21 or more years

of teaching experience.

Table 3. Years of Higher Education Teaching Experience
Years
Institution 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21 or more Totals
Drexel 2 4 2 1 2 11
Florida State 3 2 2 5 5 17
Northeastern 3 3 5 3 14 28
U of Florida 3 7 2 4 10 26
Totals 11 (13%) 16(20 %) 11 (13%) 13 (16%) 31 (38%) 82 (100%)

Faculty were also asked to provide information concerning the extent of their

business-related work experience or consulting experience in addition to their teaching

experience. The distribution of the respondents' years of business-related work

experience can be seen in Table 4. There were 30 (37%) of the business faculty that had

0-5 years of business-related experience, 26 (32%) of the business faculty had 6-10 years

of business-related experience, 7 (8%) of the business faculty had 11-15 years of

business-related experience, 4 (5%) of the business faculty had 16-20 years of business-

related experience, and 15 (18%) of the business faculty had 21 or more years of

business-related experience.









Table 4. Years of Business-related Work Experience in Addition to Teaching
Years
Institution 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21 or more
Drexel 5 2 1 1 2
Florida State 5 6 1 2 3
Northeastern 5 9 4 1 9
U of Florida 15 9 1 0 1
Totals 30 (37%) 26(32 %) 7 (8%) 4(5%) 15 (18%)

Table 5 lists the level of courses most often taught by the business faculty that

responded to the survey. As indicated, 7 (8%) of the business faculty taught lower

division courses, 44 (54%) of the business faculty taught upper division courses, and 31

(38%) of the business faculty taught graduate level coursework.

Table 5. Level of Courses Most Often Taught
Institution Lower Division Upper Division Graduate Level
Drexel 3 5 3
Florida State 0 13 4
Northeastern 4 16 8
U of Florida 0 10 16
Totals 7 (8%) 44 (54%) 31(38%)

The business faculty at Drexel University, Florida State University, Northeastern

University, and the University of Florida were also asked to identify to which business

discipline they primarily associated as a faculty member. Table 6 summarizes those

results as follows: 15 (18%) identified with accounting, 10 (12%) identified with

finance, 10 (12%) identified with decision and information sciences, 4 (5%) identified

with economics, 2 (2%) identified with human resource management, 27 (33%) identified

with management, and 14 (18%) identified with marketing. No business faculty

identified with the real estate discipline.









Table 6. Primary Discipline of the Business Faculty
Institution ACG FIN DIS ECO HR MGT MRK R.E.
Drexel 5 2 0 0 0 3 1 0
Florida State 0 0 5 1 0 8 3 0
Northeastern 5 3 4 0 2 8 6 0
U of Florida 5 5 1 3 0 8 4 0
Totals 15 10 10 4 2 27 14 0
Percentage (18%) (12%) (12%) (5%) (2%) (33%) (18%) (0%)

Table 7 summarizes whether or not the business faculty indicated a participation in

any cooperative education experience as an undergraduate student. There were 7 (9%) of

the business faculty that responded that they had participated in a cooperative education

experience as an undergraduate student while 75 (91%) of the business faculty did not

participate in a cooperative education experience.

Table 7. Faculty Who Participated in Cooperative Education as Undergraduate Students
Institution Yes No
Drexel 1 10
Florida State 3 14
Northeastern 2 26
U of Florida 1 25
Totals 7 (9%) 75 (91%)

Table 8 indicates whether the business faculty at the participating institutions

believe students should receive academic credit that can be applied to their required hours

for graduation for participating in cooperative education experiences. There were 49

(60%) business faculty that indicated they believed students should receive academic

credit for their cooperative education experiences. There were 33 (40%) business faculty

that responded that students should not receive cooperative education credit for their

cooperative education experiences.









Table 8. Business Faculty that Believe Students Should Receive Academic Credit for
Their Cooperative Education Experiences
Institution Yes No
Drexel 6 5
Florida State 14 3
Northeastern 15 13
U of Florida 14 12
Totals 49 (60%) 33 (40%)

Analysis of Research Question I

Is there a difference between cooperative education business faculty and non-

cooperative education business faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale? To

examine this question, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was computed to determine

whether there were significant differences in the factor scores of cooperative education

business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty.

Business faculty at the four targeted four-year higher education institutions were

asked to respond to the survey in order to determine if there is a difference between

cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty

scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale. Faculty responded to the items using a

six-point Likert scale which ranged as follows: Always, Almost Always, Often, Seldom,

Almost Never, and Never. An ANOVA was conducted on each of the seven factors

contained within the PALS.

Factor 1, Learner-Centered Activities, is made up of items 2, 4, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19,

21, 29, 30, 38, and 40. Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction, contains items 3, 9, 17, 24,

32, 35, 37, 41, and 42. Factor 3, Relating to Experience, is made up of items 14, 31, 34,

39, 43, and 44. Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs, contains items 5, 8, 23, and 24.

Factor 5, Climate Building, is made up of items 18, 20, 22, and 28. Factor 6,

Participation in the Learning Process, contains items 1, 10, 15, and 36. Factor 7,









Flexibility for Personal Development, is made up of items 6, 7, 26, 27, and 33. Table 9

provides the factors with their corresponding question numbers from the PALS. The

factor scores are calculated by summing the value of the responses for each item in the

factor.

Table 10 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty

and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities.

The mean composite Factor 1 score for cooperative education business faculty was 39.36.

The mean composite score for non-cooperative education business faculty was 39.52.

The ANOVA showed an F score of .019 with a significance level of .892. We can

conclude that this analysis did not indicate any significant differences between

cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty

for Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities.

Table 11 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty

and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction.

The mean composite Factor 2 score for cooperative education business faculty was 20.79.

The mean composite score for non-cooperative education business faculty was 18.48.

The ANOVA showed an F score of 3.140 with a significance level of .080. We can

conclude that this analysis did not indicate any significant differences between

cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty

for Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction.












Table 9. Principles of Adult Learning Scale Factor Items
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Learner Personalizing Relating to
Centered Instruction Experience


Item
Number


Activities
2
4


Factor 4
Assessing
Student Needs

5
8
23
24


Factor 5
Climate
Building

18
20
22
28


Factor 6
Participation in
the Learning
Process
1
10
15
36


Factor 7
Flexibility for
Personal
Development
6
7
26
27
33









Table 10. Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education
Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 1,
Learner Centered Activities
Institution Type Mean SD F Sig.
Coop 39.36 5.400 .019 .892
Non-Coop 39.52 5.480

Table 11. Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education
Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 2,
Personalizing Instruction
Institution Type Mean SD F Sig.
Coop 20.79 6.715 3.140 .080
Non-Coop 18.48 5.087

Table 12 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty

and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 3, Relating to Experience. The

mean composite Factor 3 score for cooperative education business faculty was 19.17.

The mean composite score for non-cooperative education business faculty was 16.79.

The ANOVA showed an F score of 3.931 with a significance level of .051. We can

conclude that this analysis did not indicate any significant differences between

cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty

for Factor 3, Relating to Experience.

Table 12. Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education
Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 3,
Relating to Experience
Institution Type Mean SD F Sig.
Coop 19.17 5.534 3.931 .051
Non-Coop 16.79 5.314

Table 13 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty

and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs.

The mean composite Factor 4 score for cooperative education business faculty was 11.97.

The mean composite score for non-cooperative education business faculty was 11.17.

The ANOVA showed an F score of 1.208 with a significance level of .275. We can









conclude that this analysis did not indicate any significant differences between

cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty

for Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs.

Table 13. Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education
Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 4,
Assessing Student Needs
Institution Type Mean SD F Sig.
Coop 11.97 3.330 1.208 .275
Non-Coop 11.17 3.255

Table 14 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty

and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 5, Climate Building. The

mean composite Factor 5 score for cooperative education business faculty was 15.37.

The mean composite score for non-cooperative education business faculty was 14.19.

The ANOVA showed an F score of 4.008, which was significant at the .049 level. This

finding showed a significant difference between cooperative education business faculty

and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 5, Climate Building. These

results can be seen in Table 14.

Table 14. Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education
Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 5,
Climate Building
Institution Type Mean SD F Sig.
Coop 15.37 2.665 4.008 .049
Non-Coop 14.19 2.690

Table 15 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty

and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 6, Participation in the Learning

Process. The mean composite Factor 6 score for cooperative education business faculty

was 9.53. The mean composite score for non-cooperative education business faculty was

7.19. The ANOVA analysis showed an F score of 7.894, which was significant at the









.006 level. This finding showed a significant difference between cooperative education

business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 6,

Participation in the Learning Process. These results can be seen in Table 15.

Table 15. Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education
Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 6,
Participation in the Learning Process
Institution Type Mean SD F Sig.
Coop 9.53 3.690 7.894 .006
Non-Coop 7.19 3.833

Table 16 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty

and non-cooperative education business faculty for Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal

Development. The mean composite Factor 7 score for cooperative education business

faculty was 12.81. The mean composite score for non-cooperative education business

faculty was 11.36. The ANOVA showed an F score of 3.677 with a significance level of

.059. We can conclude that this analysis did not indicate any significant differences

between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business

faculty for Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development.

Table 16. Comparison of Cooperative Education and Non-Cooperative Education
Business Faculty on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale for Factor 7,
Flexibility for Personal Development
Institution Type Mean SD F Sig.
Coop 12.81 3.616 3.677 .059
Non-Coop 11.36 3.219

Analysis of Research Question II

The second research question in this study was as follows: Is there a difference

between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business

faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-

related work experience. The business faculty years of business-related experience were









grouped into categories for the purpose of facilitating this analysis. The groups consisted

of those faculty members who identified additional years of work experience beyond

teaching in the following categories: 0-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years, 16-20 years,

and 21 or more years. These groups were compared within each of the seven factors of

the Principles of Adult Learning Scale.

Table 17 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty

and non-cooperative education business faculty and their years of additional business-

related work experience for Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities. Cooperative education

business faculty with 0-5 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 36.95.

The mean score for cooperative education business faculty with 6-10 years of business-

related work experience was 40.68. The mean score for cooperative education business

faculty with 11-15 years of business-related work experience was 43.70 while those with

16-20 years of work experience was 36.75. Finally, cooperative education business

faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 38.73.

Non-cooperative education business faculty with 0-5 years of business-related

experience had a mean score of 39.71. The mean score for non-cooperative education

business faculty with 6-10 years of business-related work experience was 39.10. The

mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 11-15 years of business-

related work experience was 43.00 while those with 16-20 years of work experience was

43.50. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of

experience had a mean score of 37.88. The ANOVA yielded an F of .060 with a

significance level of .807. These results failed to show a significant difference in the

Factor 1 scores of cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education









business faculty when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The

results of this analysis can be seen in Table 17.

Table 17. Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative
Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities
Coop Non-Coop
Business Faculty Business Faculty
Years of Experience Mean SD Mean SD F Sig.
0-5 36.95 5.974 39.71 5.475 .060 .807
6-10 40.68 5.785 39.10 5.282
11-15 43.70 5.179 43.00 11.314
16-20 36.75 4.596 43.50 7.778
21+ 38.73 3.663 37.88 3.750


Table 18 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty

and non-cooperative education business and their years of additional business-related

work experience for Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction. Cooperative education business

faculty with 0-5 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 15.50. The

mean score for cooperative education business faculty with 6-10 years of business-

related work experience was 22.95. The mean score for cooperative education business

faculty with 11-15 years of business-related work experience was 23.10, while those with

16-20 years of work experience was 25.50. Finally, cooperative education business

faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 21.55.

Non-cooperative education business faculty with 0-5 years of business-related

experience had a mean score of 17.92. The mean score for non-cooperative education

business faculty with 6-10 years of business-related work experience was 19.43. The

mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 11-15 years of business-

related work experience was 23.50, while those with 16-20 years of work experience was

13.00. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of









experience had a mean score of 17.75. The ANOVA yielded an F of 3.067 with a

significance level of .084. These results failed to show a significant difference in the

Factor 2 scores of cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education

business faculty when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The

results of this analysis can be seen in Table 18.

Table 18. Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative
Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction
Coop Non-Coop
Business Faculty Business Faculty
Years of Experience Mean SD Mean SD F Sig.
0-5 15.50 6.241 17.92 4.273 3.087 .084
6-10 22.95 8.023 19.43 6.100
11-15 23.10 3.362 23.50 3.536
16-20 25.50 3.536 13.00 8.485
21+ 21.55 5.027 17.75 2.630


Table 19 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty

and non-cooperative education business and their years of additional business-related

work experience for Factor 3, Relating to Experience. Cooperative education business

faculty with 0-5 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 14.65. The

mean score for cooperative education business faculty with 6-10 years of business-

related work experience was 20.27. The mean score for cooperative education business

faculty with 11-15 years of business-related work experience was 21.00, while those with

16-20 years of work experience was 21.50. Finally, cooperative education business

faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 20.91.

Non-cooperative education business faculty with 0-5 years of business-related

experience had a mean score of 16.66. The mean score for non-cooperative education

business faculty with 6-10 years of business-related work experience was 16.57. The









mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 11-15 years of business-

related work experience was 19.50 while those with 16-20 years of work experience was

8.50. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of experience

had a mean score of 20.25. The ANOVA yielded an F of 4.107 which was significant at

the .046 level. These results showed a significant difference in the Factor 3 scores of

cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty

when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The results of this

analysis can be seen in Table 19.

Table 19. Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative
Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 3, Relating to Experience
Coop Non-Coop
Business Faculty Business Faculty
Years of Experience Mean SD Mean SD F Sig.
0-5 14.65 6.600 16.66 4.793 4.107 .046
6-10 20.27 4.480 16.57 6.196
11-15 21.00 3.857 19.50 .707
16-20 21.50 .707 8.50 .707
21+ 20.91 4.821 20.25 2.754


Table 20 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty

and non-cooperative education business and their years of additional business-related

work experience for Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs. Cooperative education business

faculty with 0-5 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 11.65. The

mean score for cooperative education business faculty with 6-10 years of business-

related work experience was 12.50. The mean score for cooperative education business

faculty with 11-15 years of business-related work experience was 11.20, while those with

16-20 years of work experience was 14.00. Finally, cooperative education business

faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 11.73.









Non-cooperative education business faculty with 0-5 years of business-related

experience had a mean score of 9.74. The mean score for non-cooperative education

business faculty with 6-10 years of business-related work experience was 12.37. The

mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 11-15 years of business-

related work experience was 12.50, while those with 16-20 years of work experience was

9.00. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of experience

had a mean score of 13.50. The ANOVA yielded an F of 1.317 with a significance level

of .255. These results failed to show a significant difference in the Factor 4 scores of

cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty

when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The results of this

analysis can be seen in Table 20.

Table 20. Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative
Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs
Coop Non-Coop
Business Faculty Business Faculty
Years of Experience Mean SD Mean SD F Sig.
0-5 11.65 4.619 9.74 3.016 1.317 .255
6-10 12.50 2.419 12.37 3.287
11-15 11.20 3.701 12.50 4.950
16-20 14.00 2.828 9.00 1.414
21+ 11.73 3.036 13.50 1.291


Table 21 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty

and non-cooperative education business and their years of additional business-related

work experience for Factor 5, Climate Building. Cooperative education business faculty

with 0-5 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 14.06. The mean

score for cooperative education business faculty with 6-10 years of business-related work

experience was 15.73. The mean score for cooperative education business faculty with









11-15 years of business-related work experience was 15.90, while those with 16-20

years of work experience was 16.00. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with

21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 15.86.

Non-cooperative education business faculty with 0-5 years of business-related

experience had a mean score of 14.42. The mean score for non-cooperative education

business faculty with 6-10 years of business-related work experience was 14.07. The

mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 11-15 years of business-

related work experience was 14.00, while those with 16-20 years of work experience was

9.00. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of experience

had a mean score of 15.75. The ANOVA yielded an F of 4.229 which was significant at

the .043 level. These results showed a significant difference in the Factor 5 scores of

cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty

when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The results of this

analysis can be seen in Table 21.









Table 21. Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative
Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 5, Climate Building
Coop Non-Coop
Business Faculty Business Faculty
Years of Experience Mean SD Mean SD F Sig.
0-5 14.06 3.436 14.42 2.411 4.229 .043
6-10 15.73 3.028 14.07 2.783
11-15 15.90 1.673 14.00 2.828
16-20 16.00 .000 9.00 .000
21+ 15.86 1.925 15.75 2.217


Table 22 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty

and non-cooperative education business and their years of additional business-related

work experience for Factor 6 Participation in the Learning Process. Cooperative

education business faculty with 0-5 years of business-related experience had a mean

score of 7.90. The mean score for cooperative education business faculty with 6-10

years of business-related work experience was 9.09. The mean score for cooperative

education business faculty with 11-15 years of business-related work experience was

10.10, while those with 16-20 years of work experience was 8.50. Finally, cooperative

education business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of

11.36.

Non-cooperative education business faculty with 0 5 years of business-related

experience had a mean score of 6.39. The mean score for non-cooperative education

business faculty with 6 10 years of business-related work experience was 7.63. The

mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 11 15 years of

business-related work experience was 6.50, while those with 16-20 years of work

experience was 6.50. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more

years of experience had a mean score of 10.00. The ANOVA yielded an F of 7.679









which was significant at the .007 level. These results showed a significant difference in

the Factor 6 scores of cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative

education business faculty when controlled for years of business-related work experience.

The results of this analysis can be seen in Table 22.

Table 22. Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative
Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process
Coop Non-Coop
Business Faculty Business Faculty
Years of Experience Mean SD Mean SD F Sig.
0-5 7.90 4.040 6.39 3.426 7.679 .007
6-10 9.09 4.392 7.63 4.261
11-15 10.10 2.881 6.50 .707
16-20 8.50 2.121 6.50 4.950
21+ 11.36 2.656 10.00 5.009


Table 23 is the ANOVA table comparing cooperative education business faculty

and non-cooperative education business and their years of additional business-related

work experience for Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development. Cooperative

education business faculty with 0-5 years of business-related experience had a mean

score of 11.45. The mean score for cooperative education business faculty with 6-10

years of business-related work experience was 13.82. The mean score for cooperative

education business faculty with 11-15 years of business-related work experience was

14.40, while those with 16-20 years of work experience was 11.00. Finally, cooperative

education business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of

12.64.

Non-cooperative education business faculty with 0-5 years of business-related

experience had a mean score of 10.84. The mean score for non-cooperative education

business faculty with 6-10 years of business-related work experience was 11.67. The









mean score for non-cooperative education business faculty with 11-15 years of business-

related work experience was 14.50, while those with 16-20 years of work experience was

9.00. Finally, cooperative education business faculty with 21 or more years of experience

had a mean score of 11.25. The ANOVA yielded an F of 4.175 which was significant at

the .044 level. These results showed a significant difference in the Factor 7 scores of

cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty

when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The results of this

analysis can be seen in Table 23.

Table 23. Comparison of Cooperative Education Business Faculty and Non-Cooperative
Education Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-Related
Experience for Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development
Coop Non-Coop
Business Faculty Business Faculty
Years of Experience Mean SD Mean SD F Sig.
0-5 11.45 3.287 10.84 3.114 4.175 .044
6-10 13.82 4.100 11.67 3.574
11-15 14.40 3.927 14.50 .707
16-20 11.00 2.828 9.00 .000
21+ 12.64 3.355 11.25 2.986

Analysis of Research Question III

The third question in this study was as follows: Is there a difference between

business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of

business-related work experience. The business faculty years of business-related

experience were grouped into categories for the purpose of facilitating this analysis. The

groups consisted of those faculty members who identified additional years of work

experience beyond teaching in the following categories: 0-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15

years, 16-20 years, and 21 or more years. These groups were compared within each of

the seven factors of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale.









Table 24 is the ANOVA table comparing business faculty based on their years of

additional business-related work experience for Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities.

Business faculty with 0-5 years of business-related experience had a mean score of

38.76. The mean score for business faculty with 6-10 years of business-related work

experience was 39.77. The mean score for business faculty with 11-15 years of business-

related work experience was 43.50, while those with 16-20 years of work experience was

40.13. Finally, business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of

38.50. The ANOVA yielded an F of 1.268 with a significance level of .290. These

results failed to show a significant difference in the Factor 1 scores of business faculty

when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The results of this

analysis can be seen in Table 24.

Table 24. Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-
Related Experience for Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities
Years of Experience Mean SD F Sig.
0-5 38.76 5.703 1.268 .290
6-10 39.77 5.445
11-15 43.50 6.272
16-20 40.13 6.511
21+ 38.50 3.571


Table 25 is the ANOVA table comparing business faculty based on their years of

additional business-related work experience for Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction.

Business faculty with 0-5 years of business-related experience had a mean score of

17.09. The mean score for business faculty with 6-10 years of business-related work

experience was 20.92. The mean score for business faculty with 11-15 years of business-

related work experience was 23.21, while those with 16-20 years of work experience was

19.25. Finally, business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of









20.53. The ANOVA yielded an F of 2.462 with a significance level of .052. These

results failed to show a significant difference in the Factor 2 scores of business faculty

when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The results of this

analysis can be seen in Table 25.

Table 25. Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-
Related Experience for Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction
Years of Experience Mean SD F Sig.
0-5 17.09 5.062 2.462 .052
6-10 20.92 7.052
11-15 23.21 3.107
16-20 19.25 8.958
21+ 20.53 4.749

Table 26 is the ANOVA table comparing business faculty based on their years of

additional business-related work experience for Factor 3, Relating to Experience.

Business faculty with 0-5 years of business-related experience had a mean score of

15.97. The mean score for business faculty with 6-10 years of business-related work

experience was 18.13. The mean score for business faculty with 11-15 years of business-

related work experience was 20.57, while those with 16-20 years of work experience was

15.00. Finally, business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of

20.73. The ANOVA yielded an F of 1.268 which was significant at the .033 level. These

results showed a significant difference in the Factor 3 scores of business faculty when

controlled for years of business-related work experience. The results of this analysis can

be seen in Table 26.









Table 26. Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-
Related Experience for Factor 3, Relating to Experience
Years of Experience Mean SD F Sig.
0-5 15.97 5.451 2.779 .033
6-10 18.13 5.746
11-15 20.57 3.246
16-20 15.00 7.528
21+ 20.73 4.280


Table 27 is the ANOVA table comparing business faculty based on their years of

additional business-related work experience for Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs.

Business faculty with 0-5 years of business-related experience had a mean score of

10.40. The mean score for business faculty with 6-10 years of business-related work

experience was 12.42. The mean score for business faculty with 11-15 years of business-

related work experience was 11.57, while those with 16-20 years of work experience was

11.50. Finally, business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of

12.20. The ANOVA yielded an F of 1.514 with a significance level of .207. These

results failed to show a significant difference in the Factor 4 scores of business faculty

when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The results of this

analysis can be seen in Table 27.

Table 27. Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-
Related Experience for Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs
Years of Experience Mean SD F Sig.
0-5 10.40 3.682 1.514 .207
6-10 12.42 2.897
11-15 11.57 3.690
16-20 11.50 3.416
21+ 12.20 2.757

Table 28 is the ANOVA table comparing business faculty based on their years of

additional business-related work experience for Factor 5, Climate Building. Business

faculty with 0-5 years of business-related experience had a mean score of 14.29. The









mean score for business faculty with 6-10 years of business-related work experience was

14.77. The mean score for business faculty with 11-15 years of business-related work

experience was 15.36, while those with 16-20 years of work experience was 12.50.

Finally, business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a mean score of 15.83.

The ANOVA yielded an F of 1.592 with a significance level of .185. These results failed

to show a significant difference in the Factor 5 scores of business faculty when controlled

for years of business-related work experience. The results of this analysis can be seen in

Table 28.

Table 28. Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-
Related Experience for Factor 5, Climate Building
Years of Experience Mean SD F Sig.
0-5 14.29 2.750 1.592 .185
6-10 14.77 2.950
11-15 15.36 2.015
16-20 12.50 4.041
21+ 15.83 1.924


Table 29 is the ANOVA table comparing business faculty based on their years of

additional business-related work experience for Factor 6, Participation in the Learning

Process. Business faculty with 0-5 years of business-related experience had a mean

score of 6.91. The mean score for business faculty with 6-10 years of business-related

work experience was 8.25. The mean score for business faculty with 11-15 years of

business-related work experience was 9.07, while those with 16-20 years of work

experience was 7.50. Finally, business faculty with 21 or more years of experience had a

mean score of 11.00. The ANOVA yielded an F of 3.043 which was significant at the

.022 level. These results showed a significant difference in the Factor 6 scores of









business faculty when controlled for years of business-related work experience. The

results of this analysis can be seen in Table 29.

Table 29. Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-
Related Experience for Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process
Years of Experience Mean SD F Sig.
0-5 6.91 3.650 3.043 .022
6-10 8.25 4.292
11-15 9.07 2.950
16-20 7.50 3.317
21+ 11.00 3.317

Table 30 is the ANOVA table comparing business faculty based on their years of

additional business-related work experience for Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal

Development. Business faculty with 0-5 years of business-related experience had a

mean score of 11.05. The mean score for business faculty with 6-10 years of business-

related work experience was 12.58. The mean score for business faculty with 11-15

years of business-related work experience was 14.43, while those with 16-20 years of

work experience was 10.00. Finally, business faculty with 21 or more years of

experience had a mean score of 12.27. The ANOVA analysis yielded an F of 2.034 with

a significance level of .098. These results failed to show a significant difference in the

Factor 7 scores of business faculty when controlled for years of business-related work

experience. The results of this analysis can be seen in Table 30.









Table 30. Comparison of Business Faculty When Controlled for Years of Business-
Related Experience for Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development
Years of Experience Mean SD F Sig.
0-5 11.05 3.129 2.034 .098
6-10 12.58 3.880
11-15 14.43 3.220
16-20 10.00 2.000
21+ 12.27 3.218

Summary

This chapter has presented the results of the comparison of scores on the Principles

of Adult Learning Scale for cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative

education business faculty. In this research, the survey was distributed to business

faculty at Drexel University, Florida State University, Northeastern University, and the

University of Florida to determine if there were any significant differences between

cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty.

The individual questions were grouped by factor scores and these factor scores were

analyzed to determine if any significant differences arose between cooperative education

business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty. The scores were further

compared in terms of additional business-related work experience.

The analysis of scores comparing cooperative education business faculty and non-

cooperative education business faculty on the seven factors of the Principles of Adult

Learning Scale yielded significant results in the areas of Factor 5, Climate Building and

Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process. In addition, when cooperative education

business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty were compared using

additional business-related work experience, significant results were found in four of the

seven factors. These factors included Factor 3, Relating to Experience, Factor 5, Climate

Building, Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process, and Factor 7, Flexibility for









Personal Development. Finally, the entire group of business faculty from the four higher

education institutions was compared on the basis of additional business-related work

experience. This analysis identified significant differences in Factor 3, Relating to

Experience and Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process. Throughout the entire

study, no significant differences were found in Factor 1, Learner Centered Activities,

Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction, and Factor 4, Assessing Student Needs.

Chapter 5 presents a discussion of the findings of this study. Also,

recommendations will be made for further research in the related fields of cooperative

education and adult learning theory. The differences between cooperative education

business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles

of Adult Learning Scale were examined in terms of conclusions that may be drawn from

this study and the implications of these conclusions for linking adult learning theory and

cooperative education in higher education.














CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

This study compared cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative

education business faculty using the Principles of Adult Learning Scale. Various

previous studies indicated a need for cooperative education research as a worthwhile and

needed academic pursuit (Harris, 1984; Heinemann, Enright, Johnson, Murtaugh, Reed,

Robinson & Wilson, 1988; Hines, 1987; Stout, 1984; van der Vorm, Jones, & Ferren,

1979; Wilson & Lyons, 1961). Contomanolis (2002) analyzed the degree to which

engineering faculty integrated student cooperative education experiences into their

engineering curriculum. Using Contomanolis, who applied his research to a practical

application methodology, as a model, this study also took the next logical step to

incorporate cooperative education into the theoretical framework of adult education. This

chapter explores the extent to which the study's findings contribute to a greater

understanding of cooperative education and adult learning theory. Specifically, the

researcher addressed the following three questions:

Research question I. Is there a difference between cooperative education business

faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult

Learning Scale?

Research question II. Is there a difference between cooperative education

business faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles

of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work experience?









Research question III. Is there a difference between business faculty scores on

the Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work

experience?

Findings

This study focused on business faculty and their awareness and application of adult

learning theory. Conti developed the Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS) in 1978

to measure awareness of adult learning theory as well as the application of knowledge

about adult learning styles. The PALS includes seven factors that were the focus of this

comparative study. Thirty-nine business faculty from two historically cooperative

education four-year higher education institutions and forty-three business faculty from

two non-cooperative education four-year higher education institutions completed the

PALS survey. These scores were then analyzed using an ANOVA.

Research question I. For research question one, it was hypothesized that there

would be differences between cooperative education business faculty and non-

cooperative education business faculty on the seven factors of the Principles of Adult

Learning Scale (PALS). The mean scores on the PALS survey for cooperative education

business faculty were compared to the mean PALS scores for non-cooperative education

business faculty. The results indicated a significant difference for Factor 5, Climate

Building (.049) and Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process (.006). Cooperative

education business faculty scored higher on both Climate Building and Participation in

the Learning Process than did their non-cooperative education counterparts. According

to the survey results for Factor 5, Climate Building, cooperative education business

faculty rated higher in setting a friendly and informal climate to enhance the learning

process than did non-cooperative education business faculty. For Factor 6, Participation









in the Learning Process, cooperative education business faculty also rated higher for

having a preference for allowing student involvement in determining the nature and

evaluation of course content and material. For the first research question, results failed to

show any significant differences between cooperative education business faculty and

non-cooperative education business faculty on the other five factors.

Cooperative education programs stress the importance of a student's work

experience to their development. Work experiences are well documented to have

positive effects on student development and comprehension (Hutchings and Wutzdorff,

1988; Kolb, 1984; Terenzine, 1995). A study conducted by Stull and deAyora (1984)

found that faculty identified an enhanced classroom environment as a benefit of

cooperative education programs. There has been no empirical research on business

faculty relating to cooperative education programs and adult learning theory. However,

with the noted student benefits of work experience and the finding that faculty identified

an enhanced learning environment as a cooperative education benefit, it was

hypothesized that cooperative education business faculty with additional business-related

work experience would score higher on the Principles of Adult Learning Scale, especially

within Factor 3, Relating to Experience.

Research question II. For research question two, the survey data were analyzed to

determine if there was a difference between cooperative education business faculty and

non-cooperative education business faculty scores on the Principles of Adult Learning

Scale related to years of business-related work experience. The results indicated

significant differences exist with Factor 3, Relating to Experience (.046), Factor 5,

Climate Building (.043), Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process (.007), and









Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development (.044). For each of the years of

experience categories, except the 0-5 years of experience, cooperative education business

faculty scored higher for Factor 3, Relating to Experience. This indicated that the

cooperative education faculty who responded to this survey plan learning activities that

take into account their students' prior experiences more so than do their non-cooperative

education business faculty counterparts.

For Factor 5, Climate Building, cooperative education business faculty had higher

scores in all business-related work experience categories, except the 0-5 years of work

experience category. As noted above, these results indicated cooperative education

business faculty encourage a friendlier educational climate. Cooperative education

business faculty scored higher in all Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process, work

experience categories than did the non-cooperative education business faculty. Similar to

research question one, faculty that scored higher in this subtest had a preference for

allowing students to participate in the decision-making process for course content and

material. Finally, cooperative education business faculty scored significantly higher on

Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development, in all work experience categories except

for the 11-15 years category. Faculty that scored higher in this subtest see their

education role more as facilitators of knowledge than strict providers of knowledge.

Research question III. For research question three, the survey data were analyzed

to determine if there was a difference between the entire group of business faculty on the

Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business-related work experience.

The results indicated significant differences exist in Factor 3, Relating to Experience

(.033) and Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process (.022). With the exception of









the 11-15 years category, the more business-related work experience faculty members

had, the higher their score on Factor 3, Relating to Experience. This would tend to

indicate the business faculty with the most additional work experience valued and

incorporated the students' work experiences into their classroom curriculum. Similarly

with Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process, business faculty with the most

additional work experience involved their students more in the nature and evaluation of

the course content. The 16-20 year category was the only exception for Factor 6.

Conclusion

Previous research findings on faculty awareness and application of adult learning

theory in higher education have not been consistent. This study focused on the empirical

research linking cooperative education to the theoretical groundwork of adult learning

theory. It was hypothesized that institutions with a culture and tradition of cooperative

education would employ faculty that upheld the tenets of cooperative education and adult

learning theory. One overarching tenet is the belief in, and application of, work

experiences to enhance students' learning experiences.

This study found significant differences among business faculty scores on the

Principles of Adult Learning Scale related to years of business experience. These

findings are consistent with the findings of Contomanolis (2002). While Contomanolis

did not utilize the Principles of Adult Learning Scale in his research, many of his

questions centered on various aspects of adult learning theory, including the integration

of students' previous knowledge and work experience in the classroom environment. For

example, Contomanolis' analysis contained the elements of Factor 3, Relating to

Experience and Factor 6, Participation in the Learning Process, in terms of engineering

faculty characteristics and cooperative education. He asked his research participants if









they agreed with the statement "the classroom learning experience is enhanced by the

presence of students with cooperative work experience" (76). He found that engineering

faculty with six to ten years of work experience and engineering faculty with eleven or

more years of work experience rated the statement higher than those faculty with five or

fewer years of engineering work-related experiences.

This research study suggested that business faculty score higher on the Principles

of Adult Learning Scale if they have additional business-related work experience beyond

their traditional classroom teaching experience. This would suggest both cooperative

education programs and non-cooperative education business programs in schools and

colleges of business would benefit by encouraging faculty to gain business-related work

experience to enhance their classroom teaching and employing those who do have

business-related work experiences.

These findings are also consistent with the studies by Sexton-Isaac (1989) and

Moore (1996), both of whom found significant differences between full-time community

college faculty and part-time community college faculty. Sexton-Isaac and Moore both

found that full-time instructors scored significantly higher on the PALS than did part-

time instructors. They hypothesized that full-time instructors would score higher on the

PALS than part-time instructors because of the growing awareness of the increasing

numbers of adults enrolling in community colleges and because of the efforts of many

colleges to offer staff and faculty development opportunities that address the needs of

students. Neither study examined years of work-related experience or its potential

connection to the PALS scores or the individual factor scores within PALS. However,

both studies showed that significant differences exist between certain groups of faculty.









These findings run counter to a study by Ruehl (2000) that examined scores of full-

time and part-time community college instructors on the PALS survey to determine if

there were significant differences in faculty awareness of adult learning needs. Ruehl

found that with one exception, full-time and part-time instructors do not differ

significantly in their awareness and application of those principles of adult learning

theory. The one exception she found was the significant difference between full-time

faculty and part-time faculty in Factor 2, Personalizing Instruction.

These findings are also consistent with the writings of Knowles (1984), who

identified seven components of adult learning theory that aid in adult learning. The

present study indicated significant differences between cooperative education business

faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty on Factor 3, Relating to

Experience (.046), Factor 5, Climate Building (.043), Factor 6, Participation in the

Learning Process (.007), and Factor 7, Flexibility for Personal Development (.044). Each

of these factors is listed as an integral component to Knowles' research on adult learning

theory.

These aforementioned studies and writings did not specifically link adult learning

theory and cooperative education. Therefore, the differences in the results between these

studies merely add to the available research on faculty awareness and knowledge of adult

learning theory. However, each added either to the field of adult learning theory or to

cooperative education. The present study utilized the research in adult learning theory

and cooperative education to gain a new perspective and address the void in cooperative

education empirical research. Again, this study focused on full-time business faculty at









higher education institutions that either had or did not have a distinct academic culture of

cooperative education.

In summary, this study examined the scores of cooperative education business

faculty and non-cooperative business education business faculty within the seven factors

of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale to determine if there were significant

differences. The study also explored whether or not there were significant differences

between cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education business

faculty based on years of additional business-related work experience. The results

indicated that cooperative education business faculty and non-cooperative education

business faculty do differ significantly on various factors within PALS. These

differences are also noted within the various additional business-related work experience

categories. Overall, cooperative education business faculty scored higher in their

knowledge and utilization of the various factors within adult learning theory. Therefore,

the cooperative education community may be able to bridge the empirical research gap

by utilizing the linkage with adult learning theory.

Recommendations for Further Research

Few studies have been conducted on academic faculty and their awareness and

application of adult learning theory. As more and more colleges and universities analyze

their academic programs, the opportunities for potential research in cooperative education

and adult learning theory also increases. There are several possible recommendations for

further research stemming from this study.

Recommendation 1: Perhaps one of the most common follow-up efforts to any

research project is replication of the original study. This approach is often helpful in









confirming the original findings or uncovering reasons why those original findings

should be questioned.

Recommendation 2: Further studies should be done with larger samples from more

higher education institutions to determine if cooperative education business faculty and

non-cooperative education business faculty truly differ in their responses on the

Principles of Adult Learning Scale.

Recommendation 3: Engineering and business programs have the largest numbers

of cooperative education student participants. Not only should further research on adult

learning theory and cooperative education extent beyond the business faculty at the four

institutions of this study, data from other faculty from other disciplines that utilize

cooperative education may help build an empirical link between cooperative education

and adult learning theory.

Recommendation 4: Other demographics within the sample might be examined to

determine how these factors affect the participants' scores on the Principles of Adult

Learning Scale. For example, analysis could be conducted on the faculty members'

academic discipline, years of teaching experience, level of courses most often taught,

race, and gender.

Recommendation 5: Future research could also use student evaluations to

determine if the perceptions of the instructors about their classroom practices reflect the

actual methods the instructor claims to utilize.

Recommendation 6: Not only should additional four-year higher education

institutions be analyzed, further research could also explore cooperative education

programs and adult learning theory at the community college level as well.









Summary

This study indicated significant differences exist between cooperative education business

faculty and non-cooperative education business faculty on each of the research questions

within some of the various factors of the Principles of Adult Learning Scale. Conti

(1978) developed PALS utilizing prevalent research on adult learning theory. As the Ad

Hoc Committee report (1998) suggested, cooperative education research is

underdeveloped and has not been accepted by academia as a viable and proven learning

strategy. This study has helped to close gaps in cooperative education research by

suggesting some plausible linkages between cooperative education and adult learning

theory.















APPENDIX A
PRINCIPLES OF ADULT LEARNING SCALE













Prfjc4ics of Adult Learing Scale


Dlrctl Qn: Thp fp1L~WngihaG .isy earnlne snw vrl tlng- Ih a Iurnur al dinke mit d In a clinsmarn. yk riay
pwurmndl I nd tomt of Itkm dsirbll nd fJrindathlr uneialrable. FPr eKh k in, phIsma rspond to Un wayy YI -nI
rriqusrtly practice de acfl carerilted In tm IIsm. Your cholces ar: awayst, Ameal awsya, Often, Selcdo, imaoSt
Never, Mr If tth Iam daSs NOT ipply to yo, cMhoee m fr N*er.
(A= Always, AAm Aknsat Always, 0 = OOte, S a Seldom, AN AlMmosl Nevr, N Mmverh





imllwbu deinb r pwotlpalt In dwhplIN Ihr atetltI wel g C0 0 0 0 C. OD
huirb pftriuam it clawM

I use dleclpfrlary ertion when41 Is n d L 'e'

ialkrilowolde* S i mrnO tim Co boaomplis si9gment wlna m y a C


i nmmiragre udelnIso adopt acetpled middled-cla*nvakw. C, 0

I hbstal WniN magau sth gppa b Iem U*ir gogs and itk l C 0 0
5 pr0 n 0 IM Sparrmancu.

I porMid kmuwle e ratir tamn imrv as a so U~rc prsonL

I tila ta1 Itsnaet~n~t Bcdonit I rls at td m b beg lmndift 0 0 0 0 0 C 0
I pro'fasm.

I pArldpatc in the Inrfounl c.unas l madn d 0 '.)

I use cluring a hu bewl nffdhd Fe pseimhng my subJect rflrta 0 0 0 C
t adult saudAent
0 0 0 ." C: C;
I swange th aalnroom so that 1 I iay tkr aludta d I to nlbrtct
1

I d aetrmer the eduna oalM uemlvan Uorm cl of mly CanC*ts,

I pln ptid winithcfair Sn wit6lyn p a el rhm myl dents' 0 0 0 C *; n
12 chpolcl bakyunds.4________ ___________
I gwrl p sahnt in mil hli meKa r y eliarniarM hMn ltwhi k 0h 0 0 0 0
1 Um pnamceof clsmna t sharing Bpoupcdlous4le4.
I pn lmarniig asplaBdes l tvte into entim mry etudns'| prior 0 0 0 O
14 Wipirlences._

l i r madeit tio eal c k n l lin daeliddl E bnoul il ptrt 0s 0 J
Uit ill beovMad in ciis.

I el i.Msl PnMelng mln aOd s lcausM I hgf foWnd 1iu'm. fs 0 0 Q
e ptll hi a himlbr rit f nlefiolag.

T u mnt IrMlnqua dmpdg n Us tudar i f 0 0 0 0
17

Iencoudlhiplogo kmmong mrn studrnt",
1B
I u wdlitw t t ih ae the dert *or cadamsc gr mrwin aM C O O 0 -


I li Lhe maIny caNpmprlnc.leMa hl most idul skurfnt 4frstly C 3
2p m ta~ cklw e B _dusntdi&Mlob*cilvslw-


21
I Lm what iLniy Pan prinn tAylS nd r to kaan mi-rnt chkf 0 0 0 0 0 Q
21 rstaib rpinnkg haming *WiAdet.

1 aNcepit arrer ~s n ratr F pt uf U ra lonIg prfwcs- O

I lah I dm.dual ahnfecel Bp h tfadents Mu CV" 0 0
eduoatful nudt.L
















Ilt ech c mtudemni wvA hl fiulTberom mia regardleo ari i amoa.urt Io C
24 Mll I tkeu hhtmdeJr tola lh a new coept-

I rhlp mry suidentf dep ihertmm as wal Bs longr0ng O O C -,


I irln h i wal l -tiplksbn4d l rm io du Intlfm w m 0 r0 'm .' -._;
26 ernin.

Iad aicss diacaneeoqC lL3eTCOiiVflS* m thCd hwvan edo. 0 0 ) O (D

0 0 CU ,:' ": .-
I dallw mtty tudeU ljal5oI podip b~rl4a urirng class.
20

I u met iat ftse quK lproAOi desk wo 0 0 -





Ipl i itemiFllSl htwll elncWPra a Mh- a ol it~m 0 0 0 .' '
31 depmdriden ovtvE to gatr psullpedenMe.
I jim W iuahlucloEl ctieciwm to n "uth ed Jndhlid-al iabllllas M 0 ..:
32 nods f lithe warud

I avlod lan th0t elt to to skt*deBst wcupt of hlImabhrmn)f O O O O C



34


35 be a mor dtcr mnamiI in ha plarming of the taming we tut,
O3 0 0 ': ::'"


I hew ry* IJladels dlntlafy hilc own prublemsithat nedt hs s oal.id.


Igtv.uasonhinmy cmmsA amefabnalinmarn aeu ek. O O O O Ci
35



I us* mniaerNl Ihat weorIn crunill delgnmd For litm dna 0 O O


I lgaitI adut larnvl~pl wdes acwinrb tih prWn" tihat ai O 0 0 ,
39
9I ,mluda* o .mmi h eOyvcl yw .ife.' mt :_ -
I unaPlrs a shllent laMIIrm fliucational B wwth by cqmparinj :_ 0 0 :
bhsol total achievement Isn dai laH hlbMlr peCdd perdmaNnce sm
4dmiiured abyn utonakt a from s mtandardb d dl.

I enoiICag mpell i O -M y :k0 00
41


42 _ _ _

Ine a0 0 ': : relate w to l
43

S esh UmllboutibL 0m 0 b c nQdlmrldlt' li. C .
44














ag At what higher educalon Inrtwiutlurt r yvo f Itchy mrmbasr
'0 Dac UnK rw 0 F itk n ShMt Uhrivtir C Nkellat&nl Unrwy 'sk UWersklf WArMP

Ilh n Im yo w lur nl tlat ut a laithy nmenimb

OFMi-kf C htlnadrMrc

4 How mapyy*m r of hlghk education teaching nperntce do you have?
Os Ltaswn 5w i a- I, -yshrs C 1. M5 l~lr., un

48 H manyyesof bubin* frltsd work or canwfltng p apernceS 'oyou Avh IN APPHION techting?
OB-SWEri Os-iYB oFu Oi nvel s oI Q6-2B .R. DCllmavfCn

What level Foi urses do yu MOST OFTEN tech?

OL-awrSi Drii CLit ,ndarL Otr Umu WhW (g r o e po yar.) 4nGWH LwM

Wi eiM rtlorh ulnaidilclplln n1 you PROMN LY o* wocrJ d p a k cui y mrtmbr7

O cfnFw e] nw.ii CDssIM OCmM. 0 Cman.. .r OCitgoanart 0 MWt"q 0 R E-t

,As an undlrgradmat4 student did you pirticiplat hi oopflvI* educaullon?


Do you bfllew students houi rcalve madtIs eni t' pard I n Copeat Educhatort Itperlenmar tdht can be
52 apdM to thir mird ha Tfr gradualong?
OQy OCN














APPENDIX B
INITIAL INFORMED CONSENT SENT TO POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS BY
E-MAIL


Informed Consent


To: Suppressed Recipient List

From: Russ Rothamer

Subject: Dissertation Research Survey

Attachment: Excel Spreadsheet

Greetings!

I, Frank Russell Rothamer, a doctoral candidate in the college of Education at the
University of Florida, under the supervision of Dr. David Honeyman, am conducting
research in the field of business and cooperative education.

I would like to ask for your participation with this effort by responding to the attached
questionnaire. The attached Excel spreadsheet contains macros so please click on the
"Enable Macros" button when you open the survey. One macro will automatically send
the survey to my email account once you complete the survey by clicking on the "Thank
you for participating! Click here to complete your survey" button. This should take no
more than 10 15 minutes of your time.

Please take a moment to read the following information concerning "Informed Consent."

Title of Protocol:

Business Faculty Knowledge of Adult Learning Styles: Cooperative Education vs. Non-
Cooperative Education Institutions

Principle Investigator:

Frank Russell Rothamer, University of Florida, doctoral candidate, rothamer@ufl.edu









Description of Study:

The study you will be participating in is intended to assess how business faculty utilize
adult learning theory in their classroom teaching. Results from the study should help
inform the higher education community, as well as the cooperative education community,
about business faculty awareness of and application of adult learning theory in their
classrooms. The study will involve the analysis of data obtained through the use of the
attached "Principles of Adult Learning Scale" (PALS).

Your Rights as a Participant:

You may ask questions about the research procedures used in this study and have
them answered by the investigator. Questions should be directed to Russ
Rothamer at the e-mail address above.
You may also contact Dr. David Honeyman, the chair of my dissertation
committee. His email address is daveh@coe.ufl.edu.
Your participation is CONFIDENTIAL. Your identity will be kept confidential to
the extent provided by law. Your information will be assigned a code number.
The list connecting your name to this number will be kept locked in my office file
cabinet. When the study is complete and the data have been analyzed, the list will
be destroyed. Your name will not be used in any report.
Your participation is VOLUNTARY. There is no penalty for not participating.
You do not have to answer any questions that you do not want to answer.
This study involves no risk to your physical or mental health beyond those
encountered in the normal course of everyday life. There are no direct benefits to
you for your participation.
If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant,
please contact: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University ofFlorida, Gainesville,
FL 32611-2250; ph(352)392-0433.

Agreement:

By clicking on the "Thank you for participating! Click here to complete your
survey" button on the attached survey, you are indicating the following: "I have read
the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure, and I
understand that I shouldprint out a copy of this emailfor my records as the email
submission indicates informed consent. "

















APPENDIX C
FINAL INFORMED CONSENT SENT TO POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS BY MAIL

Informed Consent

I, Frank Russell Rothamer, a doctoral candidate in the College of Education at the University of Florida,
under the supervision of Dr. David Honeyman, am conducting research in the field of business and
cooperative education.

I would like to ask for your participation with this effort by responding to the attached questionnaire. This
should take no more than 10 15 minutes of your time. Please place the completed survey, as well as
this Informed Consent document, in the stamped self-addressed envelope provided and place in your
outgoing mail.

Please take a moment to read the following information concerning "Informed Consent."

Title of Protocol:

Business Faculty Knowledge of Adult Learning Styles: Cooperative Education vs. Non-Cooperative
Education Institutions

Principle Investigator:

Frank Russell Rothamer, University of Florida, doctoral candidate, rothame r@ufl.edu

Description of Study:

The study you will be participating in is intended to assess how business faculty utilize adult learning
theory in their classroom teaching. Results from the study should help inform the higher education
community, as well as the cooperative education community, about business faculty awareness of and
application of adult learning theory in their classrooms. The study will involve the analysis of data
obtained through the use of the attached "Principles of Adult Learning Scale" (PALS).

Your Rights as a Participant:

You may ask questions about the research procedures used in this study and have them answered
by the investigator. Questions should be directed to Russ Rothamer at the e-mail address above.
You may also contact Dr. David Honeyman, the chair of my dissertation committee. His email
address is daveh@coe.ufl.edu.
Your participation is CONFIDENTIAL. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent
provided by law. Your information will be assigned a code number. The list connecting your
name to this number will be kept locked in my office file cabinet. When the study is complete and
the data have been analyzed, the list will be destroyed. Your name will not be used in any report.
Your participation is VOLUNTARY. There is no penalty for not participating. You do not have
to answer any questions that you do not want to answer.
This study involves no risk to your physical or mental health beyond those encountered in the
normal course of everyday life. There are no direct benefits to you for your participation.







88


If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant, please contact:
UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph(352)392-
0433.

Agreement:
I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have
received a copy of this description. Please sign below and return with your completed survey in the
envelope provided. The last page of this packet is your copy of the Informed Consent document.

Participant: Date:

Principal Investigator: Date: