University of Central Florida STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2006 A Comparison Of Student Perceptions Of Learning In Their Co-op And Internship Experiences And The Classroom Environment: A Study Scott Lee University of Central Florida Part of the Educational Leadership Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.edu This Doctoral Dissertation (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact STARS@ucf. STARS Citation Lee, Scott, "A Comparison Of Student Perceptions Of Learning In Their Co-op And Internship Experiences And The Classroom Environment: A Study" (2006).
Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019.edu/etd/969 A COMPARISON OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF LEARNING IN THEIR CO-OP AND INTERNSHIP EXPERIENCES AND THE CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT: A STUDY OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT STUDENTS by SCOTT LEE B. Florida State University, 1992 M. University of Central Florida, 2000 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in the Department of Educational Research, Technology and Leadership in the College of Education at University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Summer Term 2006 Major Professor: LeVester Tubbs © 2006 Scott Lee ii ABSTRACT This study analyzed hospitality management student perceptions of learning both inside the classroom environment and student perceptions of learning in their experiential learning assignments outside the classroom. There were 681 students attending the Rosen College of Hospitality Management at the University of Central Florida who participated in this study.
A modified version of the Predicting Learner Advancement through Cooperative Education (P.) instrument was used in order to collect data for the study. instrument was developed to be a standardized instrument measuring pre- graduation learning outcomes in the following four areas: (a) career development, (b) academic functions achievement, (c) work skills development, and (d) personal growth/development (Parks et al. This study attempted to add to the literature regarding learning outcomes by contrasting learning in the classroom environment and cooperative education learning assignments. Many leading hospitality curriculums currently incorporate an experiential learning component into their curriculums.
Some of the documented benefits of experiential learning or cooperative education programs include: (a) improved student self confidence, self-concept, and improved social skills (Gillan, Davies, & Beissel, 1984). (b) increased practical knowledge and skills (Williams et al. This study confirmed all of these previously documented benefits of experiential learning, and iii identified new learning outcomes or benefits for students who participate in experiential learning, such as an increased understanding of how organizations function, increased ability to view career expectations realistically, an increased network of professional contacts, increased ability to take initiative, increased ability to adapt to change, increased leadership skills and increased financial management skills. Unlike many other studies, this study investigated student perceptions of learning in both their classroom environments and their experiential learning assignments at the same time.
This allowed the researcher a unique opportunity to compare and contrast each learning environment and identify specific benefits for each. iv Just like the little train climbing up the mountain, it all started with one thought: I think I can. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES. x CHAPTER 1 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND DESIGN COMPONENTS.
3 Purpose of the Study. 4 Significance of the Study. 6 Definition of Terms. 10 Limitations and Delimitations.
10 Organization of the Study. 11 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE. 12 History of Experiential Learning/Cooperative Education. 12 Cooperative Education and Internships.
15 Cooperative Education: A Definition. 17 vi The Purpose of Cooperative Education. 20 Career Benefits for the Students. 22 Learning Outcomes of Experiential Learning.
23 Benefits for Educational Institutions. 25 Experiential Learning and the Hospitality Curriculum. 28 Assessment of Cooperative Education. 44 Presentation of Ethical Considerations.
46 CHAPTER 4 DATA ANLYSIS. 47 Description of the Population. 78 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 79 Statement of the Problem.
84 Summary and Discussion of Findings. 85 Brief Description of the Population. 103 Experiential Learning in the Curriculum. 105 Synergistic Efforts of all Faculty.
106 Recommendations for Future Research. 107 APPENDIX A: INFORMED LETTER OF CONSENT. 110 viii APPENDIX C: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL LETTER. 114 APPENDIX D: THE COOPERATIVE EDUCATION MODEL.
CRITERIA FOR ACCREDITATION. 122 APPENDIX F: THE ATTRIBUTES OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATION. 126 APPENDIX G: DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF LEARNING (EXPERIENTIAL). 131 APPENDIX H: DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF LEARNING (EXPERIENTIAL BY GENDER).
135 APPENDIX I: DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF LEARNING (CLASSROOM BY GENDER). 139 APPENDIX J: ANOVAS: EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING (NUMBER OF CO-OP TERMS). 143 APPENDIX K: ANOVA RESULTS BY CO-OP TERM: CLASSROOM LEARNING EXPERIENCES. 149 APPENDIX L: ANOVAS FOR EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING BY CLASS STANDING.
155 APPENDIX M: CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT ANOVAS BY CLASS STANDING. 161 LIST OF REFERENCES. 167 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Student Respondent Demographics: Gender, Class Standing, Major and Minor (n = 681). 49 Table 2 Student Respondent Demographics: Age and Citizenship (n = 681).
50 Table 3 Student Respondent Demographics: Industry and Co-op Experience (n = 681) 51 Table 4 Student Respondent Experience Non-Hospitality Industry Experience (n = 681). 52 Table 5 Student Respondent Demographics: GPA and Marital Status (n = 681). 53 Table 6 Student Perceptions of Learning as a Result of Classroom Experiences (n = 681). 54 Table 7 Student Perceptions of Learning as a Result of Co-op or Internship Experiences (n = 681).
56 Table 8 Paired Samples t-test: Student Participants in Experiential Learning (n=681). 58 Table 9 Increased Learning Reported as a Result of Experiential Learning (n=681). 59 Table 10 Increased Learning Reported as a Result of Classroom Environment (n=681) 61 Table 11 Differences in Students’ Perceptions as a Result of Experiential Learning. 63 Table 12 Differences in Student Perceptions as a Result of Experiential Learning By Gender.
66 Table 13 Differences in Student Perceptions as a Result of Classroom Environment by Gender. 68 Table 14 ANOVA Results by Co-op Term: Student Perceptions of Experiential Learning. 70 x Table 15 Test of Homogeneity of Variances. 72 Table 16 ANOVA Results by Co-op Term: Student Perceptions of Classroom Learning73 Table 17 ANOVA Results by Class Standing: Student Perceptions of Classroom Learning.
77 xi CHAPTER 1 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND DESIGN COMPONENTS Introduction Wilson (1988) claimed that research in cooperative education had “fallen short of the ideal of scientific inquiry to illuminate relationships, predict effects, explain findings in light of existing theory, or contribute to theory development” (p. Ricks et al. (1990) concurred that “very little theory has been developed and no fine-tuning has resulted from cooperative education research” (p. A group of experienced cooperative professionals described how they viewed the status of research in cooperative education with words such as “sketchy”, “sparse”, limited, “spotty” and uncertain” (Bartkus & Stull, 1997, p.
Bartkus and Stull (1997) clarify further: To be fair, it should be noted that such reactions or criticisms of research in co-op education are only valid in comparison to some stated benchmark. For example, one could describe research in cooperative education as ‘inadequate’ if the comparison were made against one of the more traditional academic disciplines such as chemistry or psychology. Alternatively, if a comparison were to be made against similar non academic activities (e., career services, financial aid, student advisement, etc.) one could conclude that the quantity and quality of research in cooperative education is quite good (p. Dressler and Keeling (2004) argued that doing research in the field of cooperative education is difficult due to the many variables involved in cooperative education programs.
However, they added that “it is to their credit that many practitioners and researchers have created models, applied theoretical constructs, and produced research” (p. Regardless of the context, multiple leading authorities within the field of cooperative education assert that cooperative education professionals should become 1 more research oriented (Bartkus & Stull, 1997, 2004; Ricks et al., 1990; Ryder, 1987; Weaver, 1993; Wilson, 1988). Ricks et al. argued that scientific research will help cooperative education be more of a part of the mainstream of higher education.
Weaver (1993) asserted that the “identity of co-op as an academic program must be reinforced” (p. Weaver continued to explain that the mechanism for reinforcement was research. He believed that “To be credible, cooperative education must be able to substantiate claims that cooperative education practice is good educational practice and be able to relate cooperative education practice to the theoretical framework of education” (p. This study attempted to contrast learning in the classroom environment and cooperative education learning assignments.
In most cases, the classroom is teacher- centered because the teacher usually guides the presentation of material and lectures (Mellor, 1991). Cooperative education learning opportunities are usually student- centered because the learning is guided by the individual student’s experiences, choices, and decisions as they experience new situations (Mellor). Cooperative education opportunities also give students an opportunity to gain entry-level skills necessary to succeed in the work-place (Gibson, 1985; Langdon & Judd, 1994; Moore & Urwin, 1991; Richardson-Koehler, 1988; Zeichner, 1986). There is quite a bit of attention given to experientially based courses and opportunities for students because of the opportunity for deeper levels of learning and application of classroom learning provided in experientially based courses (Cooper, Bottomley, & Gordon, 2004).
Experiential learning is valued due to the assumption that deeper learning occurs as the student increases his or her level of involvement in the activity. This idea fits well with 2 Kolb’s (1984) learning cycle. Kolb explained that there are four stages of learning: (a) experience, which leads to (b) observation and (c) reflection, which leads to the development of new ideas and (d) experimentation, which leads to further experience. Learning is most effective when it is grounded in experience (Train & Elkin, 2001).
Dewey stated that it is not sufficient for the teacher to merely transmit information to the student or for the student to participate in active tasks in order for learning to occur (Cooper, Bottomley, & Gordon, 2004). Dewey (1938) claimed that for real learning to occur at deeper levels that education needed to be grounded in experience, and that experience needed to be accompanied by the student’s active reflection on his or her experience. Problem Statement Cooperative Education has been around for 100 years. Although much has been done up to this point, much work is left in order to promote and advance quality cooperative education programs (Sovilla & Varty, 2004).
Heinimann (1988) reported that despite obvious growth and success of cooperative education programs that overall many programs still languished on the sidelines of mainstream academics. Van der Worm (1988) added that there were three main reasons for this: 1. Faculty do not recognize work as a vehicle for learning and, in fact, view cooperative education as anti-intellectual [original emphasis]. Co-op practitioners tend to see themselves as operational people concerned with logistics and administration – not as educators, and 3 3.
Cooperative education methodology for promoting learning is vague and underdeveloped. 121) Sovilla and Varty (2004) claimed that “many administrators and program staff do not seem to understand that the primary mission of cooperative education is enhanced student learning” (p. They continued to explain that even when administrators understand the mission of cooperative education, many times they ignore the mission when making administrative decisions. Eames and Cates (2004) added that “the failure to gain clear recognition of work experience components as learning opportunities has been linked to a failure thus far to place cooperative education on a sound educational basis with a theoretical underpinning” (p.
It has been difficult for cooperative education practitioners to convince faculty to integrate co-op into the curriculum. “Many faculty and administrators are entrenched and comfortable in the more conventional education system” (Sovilla & Varty, p. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was three-fold.