‘ .21" i" il!’ ““mfl " :" mi- - -. : .4. ‘ - .- ; W-J.‘ ' ’ ; '12 5“." ~ *3. ‘ -< _ .7. :2— 4": A7?- I“ ‘: . '»“'-’$"“f-_ _." ' ‘ , ‘-; a“ " ; '13- _' ‘ ;? -;_.‘-,:_ ‘ -_:: fii': _: —'-_ I. 2:"; _‘- ,. -‘4 J- : 1) . £:.‘ 5? _~.'Rcv - H -_r .—_-r_ -_ '5‘.._; 1::— ' - ‘ '2 3 :9 El: _ r~ AL‘ 1' v - ' ' - - - 'J ' _ - ~ . ‘ 1‘- ' E I' - - ‘ 4 -J: us': . "_ , -_ . , . < ‘ . 4.. “film 49!“ "1.53:5 --'.' M24 .4 if.) in "‘M ‘1 6:59,“ I 1". \“. “1‘.“‘)‘\‘ "“t “'41. 2",! ,. "“h '2‘ ‘1‘“ 3'11 :hhkg'zgk} I}; ["31nd I}? I WM "I‘m", 1‘ “P ‘5: -' ”J‘LT :E‘hl‘d" I‘C‘ :Pt ‘ M wr '1;"1-"‘ ”5"”: "1 “In." I)" - Wm" \ . ,_., '1. Ali, '1 i‘ . .i‘: .w‘ ‘ " ‘ » “$"*‘¢‘at1'~~i.m a ' fl " ‘ y . . I ‘1 \ .' I 4 ‘1‘.” . J}: I ‘1‘". I ‘ Z' I 1:" ' 45:“ '1 .. “ m ‘1’: W'. m‘fii‘H'f '1 ‘l‘x ‘1‘6‘1 ‘NV'W j“ ‘fli Y“ in 9.13 , (1-. .-.I ‘ I. 1- u ‘ I 1...! u ‘ . . - ‘ '14.“ Pl ”J" ‘ . 1 37"}! ‘ '.A ’1 ”that '4'-' {firm 4111?, it“ 502.15.."‘Ffiwg 3 '. .- ‘I.\ '6‘. - .1? '1: PM?” ’ ‘2"'~'-“~:"5.’%:$ ‘3“ T\E;fl"1l . 211. "1'; - .(.J - , '31. an? .5.‘ A "it" 1pm ,0, ‘ ' ~ 3 1'1" AV fi'm‘. II .O.L‘#1‘.\\Y.. 0“ , AI' 1:}.11‘1'!‘ ‘ A ”'1‘": “7‘. W {492‘ M I' H; IBM-22. m“ '4 101' .'4 1‘ ' 1' 1:1}? ‘IJ.""“1':,| p 12111 .. , :“»;.»"IIm“-!:.., m3 ' . mm mm. W ‘i‘: ‘: a1!“ ‘ " "21. ' ”L“ 2) I I "i "1"""-‘,‘ ““4““. . "I 7‘ «W‘ 3'. 52.1% 1")";“1‘311‘ ,5 ii ‘ "1; IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 1293 00079 6767 [“59" This is to certify that the thesis entitled "THE IMPACT OF THE PLACEMENT TRAINING PROGRAM ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION STUDENTS OF THE INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY" presented by GORDON ALBERT NUETHRICH has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhD Adult & Continuing degree in Education zéjor professor 2 E a Date 20 June 1980 07 639 OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per ite- RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book return to mauve charge fra- circulation records THE IMPACT OF THE PLACEMENT TRAINING PROGRAM ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION STUDENTS OF THE INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY By Gordon Albert wuethrich A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Adult and Continuing Education 1980 é HG/W ABSTRACT THE IMPACT OF THE PLACEMENT TRAINING PROGRAM ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION STUDENTS OF THE INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY By Gordon Albert Wuethrich The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of the cooperative education program called Placement Training on Agricultural Production students who were enrolled in the Institute of Agricultural Technology from the Fall of 1974 through the Winter of 1978. A thirteen (13) item pre-tested questionnaire was mailed to 392 former students along with one follow-up letter and resulted in a response of 307 or 78.31%. These responses were coded and frequency counts were performed on the data using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The study revealed that persons participating in the Placement Training Program, when compared to non-participants had a greater tendency to finish their program of study and to become employed in their chosen field of production agriculture. They were more satisfied with their salary and 88.8% would participate in the placement program today. Non-participants earned $1025.00 more per year and were more satisfied with Fringe Benefits, Responsibility, Opportunities for Advancement, People They Work For and People They Work With. Forty and three tenths percent (40.3%) would now participate in the program. The persons participating on their Home Farm earned the highest annual salary and had 92.4% of the respondents directly in production agriculture or a related field. The persons who took Placement Training some place Other Than The Home Farm had a greater tendency to complete their program at the Institute of Agricultural Technology. Those participants who took placement Off the Home Farm/ Within the Home State earned the second highest salary but also had the least tendency to remain in production agriculture. The students who took Placement Training Out of State had the lowest average salary of any of the locations, but had 75% employed directly in a field of production agriculture. All of the respondents in this group would participate in the program if they had to decide now. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Dr. Clifford 0. Jump, Director of the Institute of Agricultural Technology, for assuming Chair- manship of the Doctoral Committee and for providing financial and moral support along with the opportunity to grow as a person. I wish to express my thanks to the Institute of Agri- cultural Technology and to former Director, Dr. James L. Gibson, for providing both financial and personal support for my graduate work. I also wish to express my appreciation to members of the Guidance Committee: Dr. Lawrence Borosage, Dr. Richard Featherstone and Dr. Gerald Schwab. A special thanks to the staff and especially the students of the Institute for their support of the study. To my mother and father, Mr. and Mrs. Ralph E. Wuethrich, my brothers, Gary and Dan, and my sister, Robin, I wish to express my appreciation for the support, confidence and encouragement to continue and not settle for just anything. Finally, to my wife, Debbie, my thanks for typing the dissertation and for putting up with the inconveniences and sacrifices from the beginning, so long ago, and to Michele, our daughter, for offering an inspiration to overcome all of the difficult situations. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT INTRODUCTION PROBLEM STATEMENT. CONTRIBUTIONS TO RESEARCH. II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT EXAMPLES OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATION IN TWO-YEAR COLLEGES . . . IMPACT STUDIES SUMMARY. III. METHODOLOGY, DESIGN AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE. DATA COLLECTION. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY . ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION . V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . SUMMARY iii iv PAGE l4 19 22 24 24 25 28 29 3O 58 59 59 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) SUMMARY OF TOTAL POPULATION OF THE STUDY . . . SUMMARY OF PLACEMENT VS. NON PLACEMENT TRAINING PARTICIPANTS . . SUMMARY OF PLACEMENT TRAINING LOCATIONS. CONCLUSIONS. IMPLICATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS. BIBLIOGRAPHY. APPENDIX A - LETTER . APPENDIX B - INSTRUMENTATION: COVER LETTERS AND SURVEY INSTRUMENT. iv PAGE 59 61 7O 72 73 75 Al A2 TABLE 10 ll 12 LIST OF TABLES PROGRAM AREAS IN THE INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY . DEFINITION OF PROBLEM STATEMENT AND IMPORTANT TERMS . . . . INSTITUTIONS INITIATING COOPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS BETWEEN 1909 AND 1919.. . . . . . INSTITUTIONS INITIATING COOPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS BETWEEN 1921 AND 1930 . . . QUESTIONS ASK OF EACH GROUP IN DESCRI- BING THE GROUP AND IN DETERMINING THE IMPACT OF PLACEMENT TRAINING. GROUP #1 - TOTAL POPULATION OF THE STUDY . . . . . . GROUP #2 - ALL STUDENTS WHO TOOK PLACEMENT TRAINING. GROUP #3 - STUDENTS WHO DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PLACE- MENT TRAINING PROGRAM . GROUP #4 - STUDENTS WHO TOOK PLACEMENT TRAINING ON THE HOME FARM . GROUP #5 - STUDENTS WHO TOOK PLACEMENT TRAINING IN A LOCATION OTHER THAN THEIR HOME FARM GROUP #6 - STUDENTS WHO HAD N0 HOME FARM AND TOOK PLACEMENT TRAINING WITHIN HOME STATE . . . . GROUP #7 - STUDENTS WHO TOOK PLACEMENT TRAINING OUT OF STATE . PAGE ll 13 27 31 36 40 43 47 51 55 LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.) TABLES PAGE 13 COMPARISON OF PLACEMENT TRAINING AND NON PLACEMENT TRAINING PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . . 62 14 COMPARISON OF VARIOUS PLACEMENT SITUATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 65 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT Introduction The phenomenon that has come to be called Cooperative Education was introduced in 1906 at the University of Cincinnati by Professor Herman Schneider. He began this innovative approach to post secondary education by encouraging his engineering students to work in industry on a half time basis while attending classes and full time during the summer. From this beginning, cooperative education has grown to the point where there are programs in post secondary institutions all over the country. Cooperative education has been and continues to be an integral part of the training of persons entering the respective fields of technical agriculture at Michigan State University since 1906. For the most part, we in the area of technical education have perceived that this experience has produced more confident, mature and decisive individuals. This, however, has never been verified in any quantitative study by the Institute of Agricultural Technology. As higher education enters an era of more limited resources, increased program accountability is required not only by our financial sources but by the faculty and students of the Institute of Agricultural Technology. The Institute of Agricultural Technology at Michigan State University is an eighteen (18) month technical education program dealing with thirteen (13) program areas of technical agriculture. The thirteen (13) program areas are as follows: Table 1. PROGRAM AREAS IN THE INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY 1 Dairy Production 2 Livestock Production 3 Cash Crop Production 4 Fruit Production 5. Vegetable Production 6 Animal Technology 7 Elevator and Farm Supply 8 Soil and Chemical Technology 9 Turfgrass Management 10. Landscape and Nursery 11. Commercial Floriculture 12. Power Equipment Technology 13. Electrical Technology The mission of the Institute is: "to make available to the peOple of the State of Michigan quality post-secondary opportunities designed for the prepara- tion for entry level and continuing employment in technician/and mid- management level jobs in agricultural production, business and industry to the extent of the available and anti- cipated job market."1 I Institute of Agricultural Technology, "Mission of the Institute of Agricultural Technology." 1976. An integral part of the programs at the Institute of Agricultural Technology, is a supervised cooperative education program called Placement Training. Placement Training traditionally accounts for approximately six (6) months of a learner's eighteen (18) months in the Institute. The learner is typically employed from mid-March to mid-September at one or more places of business in order to obtain or increase the skill levels required for entry-level or mid-management positions in their respective field of production agriculture. This six (6) month experience accounts for up to twenty (20) credits of a student's minimum required number of eighty (80) credits, and may be required for the Certificate of Completion. PROBLEM STATEMENT In response to the call for accountability within the Institute of Agricultural Technology, the problem that will be looked at in this study concerns the value of the Placement Training Program. More specifically, the problem to be researched is: What impact did the Placement Training Program have on the students of the Agricultural Production Program from the Class of 1976 through the Class of 1979? Table 2. DEFINITION OF PROBLEM STATEMENT AND IMPORTANT TERMS PLACEMENT TRAINING PROGRAM: This is a six (6) month supervised cooperative education program on a farm or a ranch which helps to fill the educational needs of the student. COOPERATIVE EDUCATION: Reflects the relationship between the educational institution, industry and the student in providing a learning, work situation. STUDENTS: Those individuals who enrolled in the Agricultural Production Program at The Institute of Agricultural Technology from Fall, 1974 through Winter, 1978 and completed at least two terms. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION PROGRAM: Technical agriculture program at the Institute of Agricultural Technology. It encompasses Dairy, Livestock, Cash Crops, Fruit and Vegetable Production. HOME FARM: Place of the student's residence, usually owned by parents or close relatives. LOCATION OTHER THAN THE HOME FARM: Place of employment other than home farm. These students came from full time, relatively large farms, but chose to obtain work experience elsewhere. NO HOME FARM/WITHIN HOME STATE: Place of employment other than home farm but within the student's home state. These students either had no farm to return to or it was a relatively small, non economical unit. OUT OF STATE: Place of employment in a state other than student's home state. EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Current employment position. SALARY LEVEL: Current level of income. CONTRIBUTIONS T0 RESEARCH This research project will contribute to educational knowledge and to the Institute of Agricultural Technology in the following ways: 1. The study will provide information and insight into the future directions of the Placement Training Program at the Institute of Agricultural Technology. 2. The study will provide information that should give coordinators of the Institute of Agricultural Technology a basis for developing the individual student's placement program. 3. The information may be useful to other two year colleges as well as other educational institutions and their own cooperative education programs. 4. The study may help determine if the resources used to support a cooperative education program should be increased, remain the same or be eliminated. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE In developing the study on the impact of Placement Training, we will first review the history of the cooperative education movement in the United States, then look at some cooperative education programs currently in place at several two-year technical agricultural colleges and finally, we will review some of the impact studies concerning cooperative education on the post-secondary level. Historical Development Herman Schneider, the ”Father of Cooperative Education" was born on September 12, 1872 in the mining town of Summit Hill, Pennsylvania. He first worked in his father's general store and at the age of fifteen (15) was employed as a "breaker boy" in the coal mines for the magnificent sum of between fifty (50) and seventy-five (75) cents per day. Schneider was transferred through several jobs at the mines and consequently obtained a vast amount of practical experience. In 1894, Schneider graduated from Lehigh University with a degree in Architecture and established his own architectural firm in Cumberland, Maryland. Schneider was forced to sell this firm in 1897 after an attack of malaria made it necessary for him to return to Summit Hill for rest and convalescence. Following this, Schneider obtained a position with the Oregon Short Line Railway of Pocatello, Idaho. It was here in the Pacific Northwest that he applied his trade in the design and construction of bridges for this railroad system. In the fall of 1899, Schneider accepted the position of Instructor of Engineering at Lehigh University. In the year 1902, Professor Schneider began to develop his co-op education plan and submitted it to his colleagues and superiors at Lehigh. The plan was rejected. In 1903, Professor Schneider accepted the position of Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Cincinnati. It was here, in 1906, with the support of Dr. Charles W. Dabney, President of the University of Cincinnati, that Professor Schneider put into operation the plan for cooperative education that was developed during his years at Lehigh and Cincinnati. It was his plan to alternate two groups of students on a weekly basis between the on campus study of engineering and the off campus employment in the real world of engineer- ing in related jobs. The benefit as seen by Dr. Schneider from the coopera- tive program was that classroom learning was reinforced by the responsibilities of the job. Dr. Schneider further observed: "Students graduating from the cooperative program had greater confidence in their career choices and their potentials for success upon graduations."2 Moreover, "It becomes clear that cooperative education experiences contribute to the developing sense of identity and sense of worth of the student."3 _There were several reasons for this. These are as follows: 1. Perhaps for the first time in his life, the student relates to adults as an adult. 2. He/She learns important lessons about relating to other persons from many different backgrounds. 3. Frequently, he/she changes his/her attitudes toward himself/herself. 4. The students tend to organize their time and work better. 5. They find greater relevancy and more motivation for the academic part of their career development. 2James W. Wilson, Handbook of Cooperative Education, "Historical Development"'(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1971), p. 4-5. 3Ibid, p. 5. 10 In 1909, the Polytechnic School of the YMCA Evening Institute, now the Northeastern University in Boston, began a cooperative engineering program based upon the model established by the University of Cincinnati of one week on the job in industry and the following or alternate week in the classroom. Between 1909 and 1919, several other institutions initiated cooperative education programs all dealing with the engineering discipline. (See Table 3). The first non-engineering cooperative program was begun in 1919 in business, at the University of Cincinnati. It was generally believed at that time that a cooper- ative education program could not function effectively in a non-urban setting, however, this thesis was proven erroneous in 1921, when Antioch College, located in Yellow Springs, Ohio, began the first cooperative education program in a totally liberal arts institution. The Antioch Philosophy was that cooperative education contributed to liberal education by placing the learner in a situation where she/he could make direct observations concerning the distinction between good ethics and bad ethics, tolerance versus intolerance and other dichotomies of contemporary society. 11 Table 3. INSTITUTIONS INITIATING COOPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS BETWEEN 1909 and 1919.4 INSTITUTION University of Pittsburg, Pittsburg Pennsylvania University of Detroit, Detroit, Michigan Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York University of Akron, Akron, Ohio Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ‘Cambridge, Massachusetts Ibid, p. 6. YEAR 1910 1911 1912 1912 1914 1919 1919 1919 12 "With this kind of first-hand knowledge about society today, students are in better position to comprehend the past and the various theories about human progress. They are more likely to assimilate a liberal education in a way that means something in today's living. Thus liberal education can become more a constructive force in molding society, and less a badge of social prestige."5 Between the years 1921 and 1930, five post-secondary institutions in addition to Antioch College began programs using the concept of cooperative education. (See Table 4). From 1931 to 1945, a time which included the Great Depression and World War II, only five (5) cooperative education programs were added. Immediately following World War II, in response to the large number of returning veterans, a comparatively large growth of cooperative education programs began, and by 1953, forty-three (43) programs of cooperative education programs were operational, with eight (8) being community colleges and technical institutes. Moreover, by the year 1960, the number of baccalaureate institutions operating cooperative education programs had increased to fifty-one (51) and to ten (10) Community and Junior Colleges. Between the years 1960 and 1970, more than thirty (30) additional two year colleges reported establishing coopera- tive education programs at their institutions, but "a much larger number had some form of cooperative education."6 SIbid, p. 7. 6 F. Dudley Dawson, Handbook of Cooperative Education, "Community and Junior College Programs" (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1971) p. 39. 13 Table 4. INSTITUTIONS INITIATING COOPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS BETWEEN 1921 and 1930.7 INSTITUTION Finn College (Cleveland State University) Cleveland, Ohio General Motors Institute, Detroit, Michigan Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 7Ibid, p. 8. DATE 1923 1924 1925 1925 1926 14 The majority of the cooperative or work experience programs are in career or in occupational majors, such as business and office services, engineering, industrial, and agricultural technologies, in the health occupations and the social and public services. EXAMPLES OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATION IN TWO-YEAR COLLEGES The use of cooperative education programs in two-year colleges is a national trend with institutions on the West Coast developing some innovative programs. "Some examples which indicate the spread of cooperative education in community colleges across the country include the Golden West and Orange Coast Colleges in Southern California, which have a wide range of programs in vocational education, including applications of cooperative education principles in their adult continuing education. Pasadena City College has initiated a new cooperative education plan in the human services for its college- transfer students along with other programs in the para professional and other vocation- al fields.”8 The author has chosen as examples some programs that represent institutions closer to the Institute of Agricul- tural Technology both geographically and philosophically. In the early 1960's, the State University of New York at Alfred initiated a cooperative education plan for students in the Agricultural, Agricultural Engineering, and Horticultural areas. This plan consisted of three (3) six month study periods alternated with two (2) six month employment periods. 8 Ibid, p. 41. 15 The objectives were to allow the learner to obtain ”an accurate and thorough knowledge of the fundamental underlying activities within the occupation. Included in this is an understanding of the nature and character- istics of human and social relationships and the individual behavior essential to success in any field."9 In addition, the cooperative education program sought to help those individuals participating to develop the occupational competencies required in their particular field of interest. The advantages of this plan from the viewpoint of the State University of New York at Alfred were as follows: 1. "At graduation the student will have twelve (12) months of practical field employment experience in addition to the eighteen (18) months of on campus training."10 2. "He will have sufficient exploratory work experience to enable him to select the type of work in which he wishes to continue after graduation."11 3. "The student with limited funds can largely support the cost of his or her education. If sufficient funds are available to meet the expenses of the first six months study period he or she can usually earn enough through succeeding work periods to meet most of the cost of the remaining on-campus instruction."12 9State University of New York Agricultural and Technical Institute at Alfred, Catalog Number and Announcements for 1964- 1965-1966. Vol. XII, No. 1 (Alfred: S.U.N.Y. at Alfred Press, 1965) p. 19. lolbid, p. 19 11 . Ibld, p. 20. 12 Ibid, p. 20. 16 A more recent cooperative education program was started at the University of Minnesota Technical College at Waseca in the early 1970's and is called the Pre- Occupational Preparation Program, or POP. This program has a bit more flexibility than the traditional cooperative education programs previously discussed. This flexibility may take the form of an on the job position in an area of agriculture of interest to the student or may be composed of additional course work, with the objective being to increase the competency level of the student. "POP enables students to obtain additional training and to become better prepared for employment in their chosen field."l3 The regulations which govern this program are of interest as they outline the responsibilities of not only the student, but the faculty member as well. These regulations and procedures are as follows: 1. "The instructor-counselor and the pre-occupational preparation coordinator, after consultation with the student, will determine where and how the pre-occupational preparation experience will be completed."14 2. "The student may enroll in pre-occupational preparation only after he or she has satis- factorily completed at least two (2) quarters (24 credits) of work in the major.”15 13University of Minnesota Technical College, Waseca, Bulletin. Vol. V, No. l (Waseca: 1979) p. 24. 14Ibid, p. 24. l51bid, p. 24. 17 In addition to this program, the University of~ Minnesota Technical College at Waseca has a cooperative education program for the student majoring in agricultural production who wishes to complete his pre-occupational preparation on the home farm. The primary objective is to acquaint the participating student with the financial and management aspects of farming, and to establish a business relationship with student's parents. The first supervised cooperative education program at the Institute of Agricultural Technology was called Placement Training and was initiated at the Michigan Agricultural College in 1906 when six (6) students enrolled in the Creamery Short Course were placed on the job in local creameries in the afternoons of their resident academic program. From this beginning until the early 1970's, Placement Training was a voluntary part of the agricultural curriculum. However, beginning in 1975, the Institute of Agricultural Technology's cooperative education program became a required part of the Certificate Program. The purpose of this cooperative education program was to provide an opportunity to develop and/or refine the skills needed for employment at the technician level. This would allow the student to practice the skills and knowledges learned in the classroom situation. 18 The objectives of the program as written by the Institute of Agricultural Technology are as follows: "The main objective is to develop those attitudes and habits needed for successful entry and advancement within a farm operation."l6 The procedures for this type of a program are: l. ”The student will locate, with the cooperation of his/her coordinator, and secure an acceptable position on a farm in the desired area."17 2. "The student and employer will establish an acceptable work agreement with the Institute of Agricultural Technology which will provide a wide range of activities.”18 3. "The student will carry out the responsibilities and obligations as spelled out in the work agreement.”l9 4. "The student will observe and, to the extent possible, participate in the management decision making process."20 5. "The student will determine and attempt to learn the knowledge and skills needed to perform satisfactorily in a mid-management position."21 16Institute of Agricultural Technology, "Goals and Objectives of Placement Training" Unpublished Staff Paper, 1977. 17 Ibid, p. l. lsIbid, p. 1 l91bid, p. 1 ZOIbid, p. 1 lebid, p. 1 l9 6. "The student will evaluate his/her own career goals, desired life style, etc. based on the experiences gained during placement training."22 7. "The student will resume formal studies on campus by selecting those courses which will best meet his/her needs to gain successful employment at the technician/mid—management level."23 Impact Studies There is considerable information regarding cooperative type educational programs in community colleges, however, according to Dr. James W. Wilson,24 (See Appendix A) Director of the Cooperative Education Research Center at Northeastern University, there have been no published reports of research specifically dealing with the impact of cooperative education programs at the two year college level. There has been some evaluative research done on cooperative education at the baccalaureate level. In a five year study at Sarah Lawrence College involving social science students, Dr. Helen M. Lynd found that "The students came away from their field work with a meaning to the subject under study which was their very own and which thereby 25 became an integral part of their thinking.” 22Ibid, p. 1. 231bid, p. 1. 24 25Helen Merrell Lynd, Field Works in Colle e Education (New York, Columbia University Press, 1945) p. 35. James W. Wilson, Personal Letter. 20 .Furthermore, the study of the people on the field experience programs found that the students "were constantly finding themselves in strange situations where they had only themselves to rely upon and where the success or failure of their mission depended on their handling of the situation."26 The study further reported that: ”Field work is a valuable means of helping a student to develop critical analysis and coherence in thinking."27 Therefore, in 1945, Sarah Lawrence College concluded that its field experience program was vital to the personal and professional educational development of the learner. In 1959, Lelievre conducted a follow-up study of 133 accounting graduates of the University of Cincinnati from the years 1950 through 1959. Seventy-two (72) percent of those in the survey stated that the cooperative education experience, helped them obtain a better position after graduation. Of these, forty-one (41) percent remained with the employer with whom they had their cooperative education job and seventy-five (75) percent stated that their cooperative work experience helped them attain positions of higher salary and responsibility. 26Ibid, p. 35. 271bid, p. 44. 21 Fram (1964) conducted An Evaluation Of The Work-Study Program at The Rochester Institute of Technology and found that this cooperative education: 1. Enabled the student to relate and supplement working situations to his academic instruction. 2. Allowed the student to obtain earnings to help finance his education. 3. Enabled the student to refine and evaluate his occupational goal. 4. Allowed a cooperating company the opportunity to evaluate the student for full time employment after graduation. A study performed by Wilson and Lyons (1961) concerning engineering, business and liberal arts students, showed no significant difference (.05 level of significance) in starting salary or position responsibility when comparing cooperative and non-cooperative education students. Moreover, there was no difference in job satisfaction among students in the two groups. Mitchell (1968) performed a similar study using a base of alumni graduating in 1962 and 1967 and "found the average income of cooperative education graduates to be $1500 higher per year, that the cooperative education graduates, on the average, supervised two more people than the other graduates studied and were slightly more satisfied with the progress of their careers."28 28John Mitchell, "Comparative Study of 1962 and 1967 University of Cincinnati Graduates" (Unpublished Masters Degree Thesis, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, 1968) Cited by John Duele, "Research" (Unpublished Staff Paper, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI). 22 Therefore, cooperative education was seen as a very valuable process for learners and in two studies resulted in higher paying, more responsible positions after leaving the formal education system. In 1977, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare sponsored a national assessment of cooperative education and found that the cooperative programs in the two year colleges compose more than half of all post secondary cooperative programs nationally. The study also demonstrated that when compared to the four (4) year program, those in 2 year programs are less profitable for the students. Overall, the analysis of the study indicated "that the mean earnings of co-op graduates were significantly higher (at a 95% confidence level) than those for non-co-op graduates when considering all graduates."29 SUMMARY The cooperative education movement was initiated by Herman Schneider in 1906 at the University of Cincinnati for engineering students in order to develop skills and knowledges on the job that were not available in the classroom. Alan J. Cohen and Steven Frankel, Cooperative Education- A National Assessment (Silver Springs, MD, Applied Management Services Incf), p.10. 23 At approximately the same time, at the Institute of Agricultural Technology of the Michigan Agricultural College, Dr. C. D. Smith, Dean of the College, initiated a voluntary cooperative education program called Placement Training for students in the Creamery Short Course. The movement spread slowly at first, and between 1909 and 1930, fifteen institutions began their own forms of cooperative education. From the years 1931 to 1945 only five (5) additional cooperative education programs were initiated. At the end of World War II with the return of the veterans, a comparatively large growth rate occurred and by 1953 there were 35 baccalaureate cooperative education programs and 8 community colleges and technical institutes. _ Several two year colleges have developed innovative cooperative education programs from 1953 to the present. Research on the impact of the two (2) year college programs while surely being done has not been published according to the Center of Cooperative Education at Northeastern University. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY, DESIGN AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS Description of Sample A sample size of 392 was drawn from students enrolled in the Agricultural Production Program at the Institute of Agricultural Technology at Michigan State University from the Fall Term 1974 up to and including Winter 1978. The students must have attended the program for at least two (2) terms. This stipulation was made because a student attending a minimum of two (2) terms is forced to make a decision regarding Placement Training. Data Collection Data was collected by means of a questionnaire and one follow-up contact. The questionnaire (see Appendix B) was developed by the researcher in conjunction with the guidance of the members of his graduate committee and staff members of the Department of Learning and Evaluation Services at Michigan State University. A twelve (12) question instrument was developed and subsequently pilot tested using fifteen (15) former Agricultural Production students representing the time span of the sample. As a result of this pilot, a thirteen (13) question survey instrument was finalized for mailing. 24 25 The questionnaire was mailed along with a cover letter and a stamped self-addressed envelOpe to 392 individuals on January 29, 1980 with a follow-up set of materials mailed on February 15, 1980 to those individuals who had not responded. Research Questions and Methodology In determining the impact of Placement Training, a series of questions were asked of each of Seven (7) groups, derived from the sample population. These groups included the following: Group 1 - Total Population of the Study Group 2 - All Students Who Took Placement Training Group 3 - Students Who Took Placement Training on the Home Farm Group 4 - Students Who Took Placement Training in a Location Other Than Their Home Farm Group 5 - Students Who Took Placement Training Off the Home Farm/Within the Home State Group 6 - Students Who Took Placement Training Out of State Group 7 - Students Who Did Not Participate in the Placement Training Program 26 The questions represented in Table 5, are the composite questions that were asked in reference to each particular group. The results of these were obtained from the data accumulated from the survey instrument (See Appendix B). 27 Table 5. QUESTIONS ASK OF EACH GROUP IN DESCRIBING THE GROUP AND IN DETERMINING THE IMPACT OF PLACEMENT TRAINING. Question 1. What is the size of the group? Question 2. What is the relative distribution of majors? Question 3. What is the relative distribution of those receiving and not receiving a Certificate of Completion? Question 4. What is the average salary of the group? Question 5. What is the employment status distribution? Question 6. What is the relative importance of the values listed in Item 9 of the questionnaire? Question 7. How often did Placement Training help participants obtain a permanent position? Question 8. What is the status of each group regarding job satisfaction as reflected by the items listed in Question 11 of the Placement Training Questionnaire? Question 9. What would be the response of each group if they had to decide about Placement Training today? Question 10. (Groups 1 and 3 only) What were the most frequently used reasons for not taking Placement Training? 28 Additional Information In addition to the above data, those responses to Item 13 on the Placement Training will be analyzed and the results reported in Chapter IV, Data Analysis and Results. CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Data Analysis The data obtained from the Placement Training Questionnaire was coded on computer sheets and subsequently transferred to data cards by way of the keypunch. Following this, the data was analyzed on the computer at Michigan State University using the Statistical Package for Social Scientists or SPSS Program. Frequency counts were obtained on data represented by Items One (1) through Twelve (12) on the Placement Training Questionnaire, and included Absolute Frequency, Relative Frequency (Percent), Adjusted Frequency (Percent) and a Cumulative Adjusted Frequency (Percent). A sort was then done and frequency counts for Items One (1) through Twelve (12) was performed for each of Groups One (1) through Seven (7). (See pages 25 and 27). Item Thirteen (13) of the Questionnaire was analyzed categorizing the comments and recording the number of times the comment was made. The data from the respective groups was then compared in order to draw conclusions on the relative impact of Placement Training. 29 30 Results The results of the data collected as it represents the Total Population Of The Study is given in Table 6. This combines all respondents of the sample including both participants in the Placement Training Program and non participants. 31 Honuo I wowaumm oEHH when I memoHQEoSD I supuaauz - coaumosom mcwscflucoo I pmumHouoD I moumaom I #0264 none: I HmwmsmzwamEmpuom I Hoauumm I HoumuomqumSBO I No.m Nm.m Nm.o Nm.o Nm.o Nm.oH Nm.m Nm.HH Nm.m Nm.m~ No.NN I I I I I I I oxfonoomo NOONmI-IMN ppm» Ema om.~mp.aam mumowmwuumu oz oumowwwuumo cowuoououm oHLMumwm> sowuoouonm uwsum cowuoomoum mono Snow cowuospoum huwma cowuoououm xUOumm>MA Nam.mm onEmm mo ucoouom «OH mom I N am No 00H NOH I mom Honesz wcowuonwuumflu msuoum ucoE>onEo can we uo£3 .m wasouw onu mo %HmHMm omnuo>m osu ma umSB .¢ «cowuoamaoo mo oumOHMHuHou m wcfi>aooou uo: can wsw>fiooou omo£u mo cowusnwuumwu m>fiumaou can we umnz .m wmuonme mo cowusnwuumau o>fiumaou osu ma umnz .N wasonw osu mo muflm ozu ma ums3 .H cowumoom webfim mmH mo ZOHHwuosuumcoo mo mocmuaooo< wcfluoxumz um aawxm vowmouocH muouumz HmwocmCHm cw maawxm commmuocH cowmfl>uoaom mo assess: a spa: mauxpoz mmocwmsm I wcflmoox vuooom ucoquEoo zaamowcnooe who: wcwaooom mcowumwfiano wcwuomz mausoucomoucH wcfiuo< mposuoz cowuosuoum uco -ppmmaa nous HESHHEpm weasoupm zuwafinflmcoamom mo mocmumooo< Houmouo cowuosuoum I wcwaomx uuooom wcwxmz sowmflooa CH ucouanoo who: wsHEooom mocmpwmaoo «How who: uoaoao>mn mocowuoaxm Sham wswcwmuno Aqav Amav ANHV AHHV Aoav Amv va ARV on Amv Aqv Amv ANV Aav AucmuuanH Ho acmuuoaeH huo> mm3 uH unwoonu 0:3 ucoouom mam uamuuoaeH unwed ou ucmuuomaw umozv wouwmcaowumoso onu mo m BouH cw umumwa mooam> osu mo oocmuuomafi o>HumHon ocu ma buzz .o A.U.ucoov c oHQMH wcwcwoue ucoEoomHm ome uoz I 33 waflCHmHH waHSHMHH Nu.mh N¢.om Nm.¢n NH.Nm Nm.oo N¢.Nc Nm.wm No.mn Nw.mm NN.¢N Nn.mm nacho I xk.m I EH RH.AH I we Show 680: mwo ucmsmopam meme I ep.om I om papaaupam meme I ep.pa I HMS spas EH03 sow manomm Hops: xuoz now mamoom uGoEoocm>p< Mom >ufic3uuoam0 hufiafinwmaoammm muwwocmm omcwum humamm dam: uoz can I xo.Hm I HHH panama I Na.ms I «03 mome waficflmuh ucoEoomHm magnumm Amav maaoom Boz wnwuooz Amav mmou< Honouaoowuw< nonuo mo «monoumz< commouoaH ANHV mane so mafimm AGHV muonuo km museumooo< Amav wxmnou wcficwmue uamEoomHm uaonm wowoom Ou om: honu we msouw fiomo mo oncoamou man on UH903 umnz Apmammaumm spm> no ppawmaumm unmouomv wouwmaGOMumooo wcficwmue uCoEoomHm onu HO HA Cowumoso cw woumwa maouw osu >3 wouooamou mo cowuoommwuom.30m magnumwou anouw some mo msumum map ma umnz wcowuwmom unocmauom m samuno mucmmwofluumm mam: onchHH ucosoomam own amumo 30: A.p.u:00v p «Hams 34 Hosuo ucoahoamfim oumHUoEEH umoo mac: um maowumwfiano ucoaoomam ouomon puma Nm.m I m Nc.H I m Nm.om I ma Nq.om I ma N~.mm J an onEmm Hmnaoz mo unmoumm wmcwawmny uGoEmomHm wawxmu uoc How chmmou pom: hauconcoum umoa on“ mums umfiz .oa Aebcoov o 633. 35 In reviewing the total population of this study (see Table 6), we find that only one (1) out of the total population is unemployed and of the remaining 306, 75 percent are employed in a field of production agriculture or related occupation. Further analysis indicates that these students indicated wages earned while on placement training were the least important value received from the experience. This is contrary to the perception of many individuals who act as teachers and advisors of these students. In addition, despite the high percentage of respondents employed, over one-half said that placement training did not help them obtain a permanent position. However, over 75% would still take placement training. Table 7 displays the data received from those respondents who participated in the placement training program at the Institute of Agricultural Technology. This group is composed of 218 respondents or 71 percent of the total sample population. 36 Honuo I gm.m I m weasupe mane some I No.m I Ha tomonEoGD I Nm.o I H _ coflupuspm waspsauaoo I No.m I AH noumaoucs I wo.HH I «N woumaom I Nm.m I w Hoard coma: I ww.MH I om umwmcszGmEmuno: I Nm.aa I om umcuumm I Nu.m~ I on Nsouuonfluumup “OumuoaoIHocao I NH Hm I we moumum ucmEAoHoEo osu ma umsz .m mmaouw mcu om.mwm.aaw mo humamm owmuo>m onu ma owns .3 wsowuoHano mo oumowmwunou o mumoflmwunou oz NN.¢H I mm wcw>flooop uoa paw wcfi>wooou omonu mo oumowmwuuoo Nm.mm I owa cowusnfluuwwu o>wumamu ecu ma “653 .m aowuoamoum manmuowo> $m.~ I o cowuosuoum uwoum Nw.n I NH couuospoua mono ammo NN.HN I as cowuosuoum zufimo Na.mm I mm wmuonma cowuooooum xooumo>HA Nw.am I mo mo cowuonwuumfiv o>fiumaon onu ma umnz .N mam Nanouw on“ mo oNHm onu ma umaz .H moouo wo Honeaz cowumosm unoonom UZHZHwuosuumcoo mo mocmuaooo< mewuoxumz um maawxm mommouoaH muouumz HmfiocQSwm cw maawxm vommonocH COHmH>HoQDm mo Esaucaz rune wcaxpoz mmoawmsm I mafiaooz umooom ufimuomfioo xaamowcnooe who: wcHEooom mcowumwfiano wcwuooz haucouaoaouaH wSHuo< muosuoz cowuoououm unouommaa LuHB HmHHHEmm mcHEooom cowuonwoum I wawaoox chooom sunanpnm Icoamom mo mocmumooo< Houmouu wowxmz cowmfioon cw unouoafioo who: wcHEooom monoufimcoo waom who: coaoao>on mocofiuomxm Spam wSHaHMueO ASHV Amav ANHV AHHV AoHV Amv va Amv on Amv Acv Amy ANV Adv AuamunoaaH no ucmunomEH mum> mp3 uw unwsonu 0:3 ucooumm mam ucmuuanH unwed ou ucmuuoaaH umozv wouwmccowumooo onu mo m EouH SH noumfia mosam> onu mo oocmuuoaefi o>wumHou ecu ma boss .0 A.p.upoov a magma 38 Hmnuo I NN.¢ I m wcwawmue ucmaoomam oxmh uoz I No.5 I ma Show @805 mmo w%muou wGHchue ucoEoomHm waflcfimue ucoEoomHm ome I Nq.mm I om usonm oufloou ou no; hose ma anouw wchHmHH uGoEoomHm 6x69 I N¢.Hm I oHH Sumo mo uncommon onu on nH503 buzz .m Na.NA I sue: Enos no» «Haoma Appfimmapam spm> no paammapam Nu.mo I Home: xH03 Dow oaaoom unmouomv woufimacowumosc wcwawmuB Nm.o~ I ucoEoocm>u< How moansunoamo ucoaoomam osu mo HH cowumoso Nn.mm I xuwawnfimcoamom ca moumwa mEoufi can he pouooamou Nm.oo I muawocom owcwum mm cofiuommmwumm pom wcwupmwmu Nm.co I %Hoamm moouw zoom mo mdumum osu we wonz .m wfiOfiuHmoa ucmcmaumm mama poz pen I eo.as I ooH a chance muepaaouuppa mama ppaaa: I eo.Hm I «OH mcacamue spasmomam pup amumo 30: .a Nm.mm I mowmz wchHmHH unofioomam wcwchm Amav No.ma I manomm smz magnum: Amav Nw.mn I mmou< amusuaoowuw< nocuo mo mmocoum3< pompouoaH Amav x~.an I many so weuam AGHV Nm.mm I muofiuo km moamuaooo< Anav A.p.pcoov k «Hams 39 A comparison of those students who took Placement Training (see Table 7) showed that over 85 percent completed the certificate program at the Institute. Furthermore, approximately three out of four are still actively engaged in production agriculture or a related occupation, and slightly more than one-half indicated that Placement Training helped in obtaining a permanent position. It is of significance that students who took Placement Training have an average annual salary of $1025 less than those who did not participate in the Placement Training Program. Over 88 percent of these individuals would still participate in the Placement Training. The survey respondents who did not participate in the Placement Training Program at the Institute of Agricultural Technology are represented in Table 8. This group includes 89 persons and makes up 28.9% of the sample population. 40 Hosuo I NH.H wCHEHmm oEHB upmm I Nw.o mupofiafiz I NH.H cowumoscm wcwscwucou I N~.oH woumaouca I NH.m omumamm I Nm.m moped rowan I Nw.o powmcszcmSmuumm I N¢.m nonuumm I Nw.am Houmuoaquoczo I Nm.mm mumoHMHuumo oz No.ow ouoowwfiuuoo NH.mH cowuoscoum manmuowo> $H.H Cowuosuoum uwnum $0.5 oofluooeoum mono ammo Nm.- coauospoum spawn gm.Hm coauooponm x60um6>wa Na.mm .msouu mo unmouom l I JGDMONCDO‘I—ikoI—I NN om.NHa.NHm mm NH I H I A I ON wN mm mm Hopasz wmowuanwuumwu mDuMum ufioE%OHQEo osu mH unfiz .m wadouw onu mo humamm owmuo>m can we umnz .q NcOHuoaaaoo mo oumowwfiuuoo m wcw>woomn uo: pom wcfl>wooou omonu mo coauonwuumwc o>wumaou onu ma umsz .m meOHME mo cowuonwuumwm o>Humaou ecu ma umnz .N NQDOHw man mo owwm men ma umsz .H cowumonm Z©< How >uflc3uuomao N¢.mm xuwawnfimoommom Rm.no muflmocom owaum Nm.om humHmm .Emuwopm wcwawmpe ucoEoomHm onu ca mummflowuumm 902 can mesa mm muconsum mo asouw menu he ou ooucoamou uo: mp3 cowumosv maze .Emuwoum wcwcfimue ucoaoomam one cw mummwowuuma 802 can honu mm muaououm mo moouw mwnu he on movaoamoh uoc ouo3 mEouw omoLH wwaflcfimuk unmaoomam wowxmu uoc How mcommou com: >Huaosvmnm umoE msu oum3 umnz wxmuou wawcwmua ucoEoomHm uoonm oufioou on up: xonu «H msouw some Mo mmaoamou onu on UH503 umnz Apmfimmauam spm> co pmammaumm ucoouomv wouamccoHumoso wowcwmue ucoaoomam osu mo Ha cowumoso a“ mama“ ecu he wouooawou mm aowuommmwumm £0n wswuHmwou anonw some mo msumum ecu ma umnz wooeuwmom unocmauoa w cflmuno mucmawowuumm mam: wcficwmhe ucoaoomam can Coumo 3o: AucmuuanH Ho ucmuuomEH >Ho> mp3 uw unwoonu on? unmouom paw ucmuuanH ammoq Ou ucmuuanH umozv woumeCOHumooo mnu mo m BouH cw umumfia monam> onu mo museuuanH o>HumHoH onu ma uo£3 .OH .0 A.p.p:00v w pupae 42 The analysis of those students who did not participate in the Placement Training Program (see Table 8) demonstrates the highest annual salary of the groups 2 and 3 and also the lowest rate of certificate completion. In addition, there is a lesser percentage of persons employed in production agriculture or a related occupation when compared to those students who took part in the Placement Program. It is interesting to note that over 40 percent of this group would now take Placement Training as part of their program at the Institute. Table 9 is made up of the data representing those individuals who took Placement Training on their home farm. They represent 91 of the 218 peOple who participated in the Placement Training Program, and account for 41.7% of the placement population. 43 Hocuo I NH.H I H mcwaumm mafia uumm I Nq.¢ I q Gowumosum mewscwucoo I SN.N I N noumaoucs I Nq.¢ I q woumamm I NH.H I H Honmq mouflm I No.o I o HowmcszcmEmouo: I $5.5 I m Hmfiukwm I NH.m¢ I Hfi NCOHUSDHHumHU HoumHoQOIuoczo I Nm.- I mm msumum uCoE>oamEo ocu ma uwsz .m wasouw om.m¢m.aaw mnu mo humamm owmuo>m onu ma umnz .q wcowuoamaoo mo oumowmauuoo m mumowmwuhoo oz NH.~H I AH wcH>Hooou uoc mam wafl>aooou omonu mo oumowwwuuoo Nm.~m I ow cowunnwuumfiu o>wumaou osu ma umnz .m coauozuoum manmuowo> NN.N I N coauosuoum uwsum N¢.¢ I q Goauoduoum mono sumo No.mm I om :ofluodwoum kufima Nm.- I ma wmuohma mo coauoDuoum xooumm>flq No.mm I on cowusnfiuumwu o>wumaou ecu ma um£3 .N am wasouw onu mo ouflm ozu ma uo£3 .H moonu IIIIII . .Illlll_m mo unmouom Honesz coaumos Zmuomsm mo assume: a run: maneuoz Imconuoz cowuosooum uaouommwo SuwS HmeHEmm ouoz wCHEooom unouoaaou kHHmoHGSooH ohoz wCHEouom wcwuoxumz u< HHfixm commouocH mcowumwwano mcwuooz muouumz Hmwoamcam SH maafixm vommouocH mmoawmsm I wcfimoox whooom oocowuoaxm Show wcficwmuno haucopcoooucH wcfluo< ABHHHnHm Icoamom mo oocmuaooo< Hmumouo wcflxmz cowmfloon CH ucouomEou who: wcHEooom cowuonuoum I wcflmoox whooom monopwwsou ouoz ummoHo>oQ Aqav Amav ANHV AHHV Aoflv Amv va ARV on Amv Aqv Amv ANV AHV AucmuuanH Ho ucmuuanH >Ho> mm3 ufi unwoonu 0:3 unmouom mam unpuuoaaH ammoq ou uamuuomEH umozv mouwmcaoflumooo ozu mo m EouH a“ moumfla mosam> onu mo ooomuuomEH o>wumamu man we uonz .o A.p.uaoov a shape Monuo I Nm.¢ I ¢ mew IGHmHH ucoEoomHm oxme uoz I No.w I m Sham 650m mwo «mmuou wcwawmufi unoEoomHm waGHmHH ucoaoomam ome I Nm.nm I mq uoonm ouwomu ou um: zonu ma moouw wcwcflmuH ufioEoomHm oxmfi I Nm.am I mm Sumo mo omaommou osu on vaso3 umnz .a Nm.ow I Suez xuoz 50» oaaoom Aumwmmfiumm NCm> no powmmwumm Nq.on I Hops: x903 sow oaaoom unmouomv woufimncowumosd waHCHmuH No.0m I ucoEoosm>v< How huwonuuomao uCoEoomHm ofiu mo Ha cowumoao aw ”w No.~a I xuwawnfimcoamom woumfia mEmuH onu up mouomamou N¢.¢o I muflmocom owcwum mm cowuommmfiuwm £0n wawoumwou Vm.mo I humamm anonw comm mo moumum onu ma umnz .w wcowuamom unocmauom mam: uoz man I Na.m¢ I mm m :wouno muammflowuuma mam: nomao: I $¢.Hm I Ha wcficwmue unoEoomHm new aoumo 30: .N we.ap I mpwpz wcwawmue unmaoomam mafiaumm AmHV Nm.qc I oHaoom Boz wcwuooz Amav Nm.no I mHoSuo Am mocmumooo< ANHV N~.oc I many so maupm AGHV No.mo I Emfiofiufiuo o>wuonuumcoo mo ooomuaooo< AmAV A.u.uooov a manna 46 An assessment of the data representing those students who took Placement Training on the home farm (see Table 9) shows that over one-half would now take Placement Training off the home farm. Moreover, over 50 percent of this group indicated that Placement Training was of assistance in obtaining permanent employment which is in contrast to the perceptions of many people regarding students from a home farm. The students who participated in the Placement Training Program at a location other than their home farm are represented by Table 10. This group is composed of 46 respondents, which represents 21.1% of the placement sample of 218. 47 pmnpo I waHEhmm mafia uumm I Nm.o cowumooum wcflncwucoo I NN.N woumHoHca I NN.N pmumamm I Nm.q Honmq none: I Xq.ma HowmcszcmEmuuo: I Uo.ma “mauumm I Na.o~ Houmuomqumczo I wa.mm mumoflmwuumo oz NN.N mumowwwuuoo Nw.mm cowuosuoum uwoum Nm.w coauospoum mono capo NA.HN oowuoseoum muwmo $m.m¢ cowuospoum xooumm>wq Na.om moouu mo unmouom I \DCDNI—lr—JMN I NH I HH oo.mam.oam I mq I CA I ON we Hosanz mcoflusnwuumfiu msumbm uCoEmoaan onu ma ups: .m wmsoum osu mo zumHmm owmuo>m onu ma umsz .q wcowuoHQEoo mo ouMUMMMuHoo m wsfi>wooou omonu mo coaunnwuumwp o>wuwaon onu ma uwnz .m mmHOMMS mo coausnwuumwu o>flumHoH man we umna .N «moouw onu mo oNHm orb ma umnz .H cowumooo Zmwuoouumcoo mo mucouaooo< haucmmcomoucH moauo< mamoom 3oz wcwuooz mmocwmsm I wcwmoox chooom mcowumwfiano wcfluooz muonuo Am mosmumooo< ooCouomEoo HmowcsooH who: moaoHo>oo oocowwmcou mHom who: pomoao>om ImEOSHmZ cowuosuoum ucouommwo £uw3 umHHHEmm who: wcHEooom huwawnwmcoammm mo oocmumooo< Houmouo Goamw>uoanm mo spsflcuz < nun: weuxpoz mocowuoaxm Eumm wcwcwmuao AaHV AmHV ANHV AHHV AOHV AmV AmV ARV AoV AmV AqV AmV ANV AHV AuamuuomaH Ho ucmuuomaH Auo> mmz aw uzwsonu on: unoopom mam uamunanH ummoq ou ucmuuomEH umon Rouwmcaoaumodo ocu mo m EouH ow noumfia moaam> onu mo oocmuuomefi o>wumHou ozu ma umnz .o A.p.upooV or passe 49 Monuo I No.0 I m chchue ucoaoomam oJMH uoz I Nm.¢ I N Show 080: wwo Rumoou wcwcamue ucofioomHm chchHH usoaoomHm oxmfi I Nm.wN I ma usonm owwoou Ou pm: zonu MN anouw wswcwmua ucoEoomHm oxme I No.00 I mN some mo omcoammu oSu on oasoz umfiz .m No.mR I nuaz xuoz no» oaaoom Auoammwumm muo> no mowwmflumm Nm.mo I Homo: xuoz sow oHaoom unmouomV NoHNMCGONumoDO wowcwmue NR.HR I ucoaooom>v< How AuHGSuuoaao ucoaoooam onu mo NH coaumoso aw Rm.RR I Rpaaapamcoammm. pmpmna Eamon asp Rn pmuoaaupp Nm.cR I muwwocom ochum mm mowuommmwumm no“ wcHuumon N¢.Ro I humamm_ maouw Sumo mo maumum msu ma umsz .w Rcowuflmom mam: uoz can I NR.m¢ I HN unocmEhom m awmuno mucmawowuumm mam: poaHm: I Rm.am I mm meanness unassumam pap emumo 30: .R .5? - swag wcwcfimuh unoaoomam wowcumm AmHV No.mo I moou< Hmuouanowuw< nonuo mo mmoSonB< wommouocH AwHV Ro.oR I maaumxppz up HHme pmammpucH ARHV No.mR I mcuxpz nonmaoma CH ucouoaaou who: mcHEooom AoHV Ro.oR I appuumz Hmflocchm :H maawxm oommmuocH AmHV A.U ucooV OH manna 50 In comparing those students who participated in Placement Training in a location other than their home farm (see Table 10) we find that approximately ninety- eight percent (98%) of the respondents earned the Certificate of Completion from the Institute of Agricultural Technology. This was the highest of any group. It is interesting to note that over 89 percent would still take Placement Training, only one in four would now go off the home farm. It is also of interest to note that this group has the second lowest annual salary level. Table 11 displays the data obtained from the group of students who had no home farm and took Placement Training within their home state. This group comprises 33.4 percent of the Placement Training population. 51 porno I NR.N I N mcHEumm oEHB uumm I NH.¢ I m pomoHQEocD I N¢.H I H fiOHumooum wcHDcHucou I No.HH I w moumHoHcD I Nm.mN I RH cmumHmm I Rm.m I a HOHMH wouHm I NN.mH I 3H HowmcsznmEmwuom I NH.mH I HH nocuumm I NH.¢ I m HoumuomoIHoaBO I NR.MH I OH oo.oqm.HHw mumonHuumo oz Nm.mN I RH oumonHuuoo NR.oR I on SOHuonoum mHnmuowo> No.m I q coHuonoum uHouh NH.HH I w COHuoouon mono ammo Nm.w I c 60Huoowoum RuHmo NR.H¢ I on SOHuosuoum xooumo>HH Nm.mm I qN mR moouo Hopesz mo unmouom NGOHanHHumHU maumum ucoE%0Han ozu mH umnz Radouw osu mo mumHmm omwuo>m onu mH umnz NcoHuonEoo mo oumonHuHoo m wcH>HoooH uo: use waH>HoooH omocu mo SOHanHHumHu m>HumHou onu mH buzz NmHOMmS mo :OHuDHHHumHu m>HumHoH onu mH umnz Raaonw onu mo oNHm mzu mH umnz .N .H GOHumosm m9Hom3m Go essflcfiz < EEHz wafixuoz oEHH so wcHom muonuo Am ooCmumooo< EmHoHuHHo o>Huonuumcoo mo ooamuaooo< mucouHmcoo HHom ouoz vomoHo>oa AuHHHHHmcoamom mo mocmumooo< Monmouw mcHuoxumz um HHme mommouocH ucouomEoo AHHmoHcsooH who: waHEooom AHuGoucoamcaH wcHuo< wcmez :onHooo CH unouomfioo muoz wnHEooom ooCoHuoaxm Emmm wchHmuno mvosuoz COHuoDuoum ucouom IGHQ EBHs umHHHspe mewsoomm mSOHumeHHo wcHuooz AqHV AmHV ANHV AHHV AOHV AmV AwV ARV AoV AmV AqV AmV ANV AHV AucmuuomfiH Ho unnuuoaeH Aum> mp3 DH unwsonu 0:3 unmouom paw ucmuuoaBH ummmH ou ucmuuoaaH umon RoHHmacoHumooo osu mo m EouH :H moumHH moDHm> onu mo ooamuuanH o>HumHou ofiu mH umnz .o A.p.ucooV .HH mepH Honuo I N0.N I N wcHaHmHH uaoEoomHm oxoh uoz I NN.w I 0 Show 6803 000 whmuOu maHaHmuB unoEoomHm waHGHmuh ucofimomHm oxme I NN.NN I 0H uaonm opHooU ou was zosu 0H asoum wchHmuB unmEoomHm 6x69 I NR.00 I me some mo uncommon onu on uHoo3 umnz .m Rm.mR I EBA; Rhos sow EHHOEE Apmfimmflumm Rum> so pmfimmflupm $0.00 I Hows: xuoz Dow oHaoom ucooHomV RoHHmGCOHumoSO wcHaHmHH N¢.Nm I uaoEoocm>u< Mom AuHasuHoamo unoEoomHm osu mo HH cOHumoso CH Rm.eo I RBHHHnHmcoampm pmumHH mamuw asp Rn pmuomHmmu Nm.m0 I munocom owcHHm mm COHuommmHumm 00n wcHUHmwou ”w NR.00 I kHMHmm @3090 some mo msumum mnu mH umHB .0 NCOHuHmoa unonEHom aHmm uoz pHa I Rs.mm I am a :Haupo auspaflofiuupa aHm: pmaHpm I RH.ma I Rm wcpcfippa pepamomHm pHp cpumo 30m .R Nw.Rn I momma onaHmuH pooEoomHm wchHmm AmHV Nq.HR I mmoaHmsm I waHmooM whooom AmHV No.NR I mpouumz HmHocmch CH mHHme pommouocH ARHV fim.mR I oHaoom 3oz waHuooZ AOHV No.mR I mmou< HonoquoHHm< nonuo mo mmmConz< commouooH AmHV A.0.u:ooV HH oHHmB 54 In reviewing the results which represent those students who did not have a farm to return to and worked within their home state (see Table 11), we find that this group, while having the second highest salary level, also had the lowest percentage of students employed on a full time basis directly in production agriculture or a related occupation and had only about 45 percent that were helped by Placement Training in obtaining a permanent, full time position. In spite of these relatively negative figures regarding employment status and placement assistance, almost 89 percent would still participate in the Placement Training Program. The most important values received on Placement Training by this group, included: Meeting Obligations, Becoming Familiar With Different Production Methods, Obtaining Farm Experience, Becoming More Competent in Decision Making and Acting Independently. The students who took Placement Training out of state are represented in Table 12. This group is the smallest group in the study being composed of only eight (8) individuals or 3.8 percent of the Placement Training population. 55 wcHEHmm oEHH uumm I Nm.NH I pmumHmuc: I No.mN I woumHom I Nm.NH I Hoan onHz I No.0N I HowmcszcmSmuuoz I No.0N I NNI—lNI—i om.~oo.mw oumoHMHuHmo oz N0.Rm I mumonHunmu Rm.N0 I SOHuosuoum uHDHm Nm.NH I cowuonpopm aopo ammo Nm.~H I GOHuoowoum RuHmo Nm.Rm I aoflpoapoum xoopmm>HA Rm.Rm I mmI—lI—l mm Iimoouo mo unmouom Honasz «SOHuanuumHu msumum ucoEAOHQEo onu mH 0653 .m Radouw onu mo mumHmm owmuo>m osu mH umnz .0 NGOHuoHano mo oumoHuHuuoo m waH>HoooH uo: 0cm wcH>HoooH omonu mo GOHuDHHHumHv o>HumHoH onu mH umsz .m NmHOMmE mo COHuDHHuumHu o>HumHoH onu mH buzz .N Rasouw oxu mo oNHm onu mH umsz .H Gowumosm MHHuosnumcoo mo mo:Muaooo< nownonwonm I wanmomz unooom wanuoxnmz um HHme pommonoaH mHuComaoaouaH wanno< wcmez aOHmHooQ CH ucoanEoo onoz NGHEooom oEHH so wcHom mucouHmcoo 0Hom onoz ummoHo>oQ mnouumz HmHoamch u< HHme 0omwonocH moon< HmnanDoHnw< nonuo mo mmosonm3< commonosH oonmn>nomsm no assncnz < can: wenxnoz muosuoz connosuonm usonow Inna nun: nannneRa menacomm mononnomxm Enmm waH:H6uno AsHV AmHV ANHV AHHV AoHV AmV AmV ARV AoV AmV AqV AmV ANV AHV AucmunanH no ucmunomEH >no> mp3 nH unwsozu 053 ncoonmm 0cm ucmunoaaH ummoH on ucmunOQEH umon Ronnmcaonumooo can mo m EouH CH woumHH moDHm> man mo oocmnnoaeH o>HumHon osu mH umsz .0 A.p.pcooV .NH pnppn 57 Nm.mm Nm.R0 No.00 No.0R Nm.mm Nm.N0 No.0 No.N¢ Nm.N0 Nm.N0 Nm.N0 wcHGHmnH ncoaoomHm ome NooH I 0 none xnoz so» onoooo noon: xnoz so» oHooom uCoEoocm>0< now zuHcsnnoooo zuHHHHHmnoomom muHmocom owcHnm zanmm anon ooz ono No.n~ . I N ooonom Ro.mR I o mmochom I mongooz onooom AoHV mowmz wchHmnH ucosoomHm wchnmm AwHV muHHHQHmcoomom mo oocmnoooo< noumono ARHV ononoo Rm ooooooooo< AoHV oHooom 3oz wonuooz AmHV szoou onaHmnH ucoaoomHm uponm ooHooo on 0m: mono 0H moonw nomo mo omcoomon osn on 0Hso3 um£3 Aponomnoom Roo> no oonomnopm ncoonomV NonnmocoHumooo wchHmnH nsoaoomHm osn mo HH conumoso on noanH mEouH osu >0 oouoonon mm conuommmnnmm non wcnwnmwon 050nm Homo mo mnnmum ozu on um£3 Room unocmanom m :Hmuno mucmoHoHunmo oHos wchHmnH uaosoomHm 0H0 coumo 3oz A.o.ooooV .NH oHomn 58 The comparison of students who took Placement Training out of state indicates that they had the lowest percentage of program completion and the lowest average annual salary. They had only slightly over 60 percent still employed in a field of production agriculture or a related occupation. Placement Training did help three out of four obtain a permanent position and all of the respondents would participate in the program again, if they had to decide now. Additional Information Item Thirteen (13) of the Placement Training Questionnaire (see Appendix A) was available for any comments the respondents might wish to make in reference to the Institute of Agricultural Technology, its Resident Instruction Programs or Placement Training. 0f the 307 respondents in the study, 192 or 62.5% contributed additional comments via Item Thirteen (13). In reviewing those comments, of importance was the request by 15 students to increase Placement Training opportunities. In addition, 14 students indicated a desire for more specialized types of classes and 12 were interested in having different program tracts based upon experience level. Twelve respondents indicated an interest in furthering their education. The issue of credit transfer from the Institute to undergraduate programs was of much less importance after people had left the Institute. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The 392 questionnaires sent to the population, resulted in a response of 78.31% or 307. SUMMARY OF TOTAL POPULATION OF THE STUDY The total number of respondents was 307 and was distributed among the Agricultural Production majors in the following manner: 34.6% Dairy Production, 33.3% Live- stock Production, 21.9% Cash Crop Production, 7.8% Fruit Production, and 2.3% Vegetable Production. Certificates of Completion were obtained by 66.1% of I the sample population. The average salary of the total population responding was $11,687.50 and 80.5% are currently engaged directly in production agriculture on a full or part time basis or are in a field directly related to agriculture. The most important values received from the Placement Training experience include Obtaining Farm Experience, Developed More Self Confidence, Becoming More Competent In Decision Making, Record Keeping - Production, and Greater Acceptance of Responsibility. The least important value was Earning Placement Training Wages. 59 60 Placement Training helped 48.4% of the participants obtain a permanent position. Sixty—two and four tenths percent (62.4%) of the respondents were satisfied with their Salary, 66.5% were satisfied with their Fringe Benefits, 82.1% felt satisfied with their level of Responsibility, 74.2% thought they had a satisfactory Opportunity for Advancement, 70.4% approved of the People They WOrked For and 78.7% approved of the People They Worked With. If the respondents were given the opportunity to decide about Placement Training today, 46.6% would take Placement Training, 30.6% would take Placement Training Off The Home Farm, 17.1% would not take Placement Training and 5.7% would do something else. Of those respondents who chose not to participate in Placement Training, 33.7% left the Institute of Agricultural Technology before Placement Training, 30.4% had obligations at home, 20.7% chose not to participate because of costs, 1.6% had immediate employment opportunities and 9.8% did not participate because of other reasons. 61 SUMMARY OF PLACEMENT VS. NON PLACEMENT TRAINING PARTICIPANTS Table 13 presents a visual comparison of the data for a summary of Placement Training participants compared to Non Placement Training participants. It should be noted that under the headings of Most Important Values; Least Important Values and Placement, those persons not participating in the Placement Training Program would have no basis from which to respond. 62 N0.HR <\z <\z <\z <\z <2 .32 I Nm.~ Rm.o Ro.m Rm.nm I Rm.RN om.~no.nnm Nn.mn RH.H Ra.R Nm.- Rm.nm RH.Rm 00 NN.0R Nm.wm Nm.mm Nm.mm NN.mm NH.00 Nm.ww .IRR.m Rm.mn Ra.nn RR.m~ AIRH.H~ om.Rmm.HHm Rm.mo Nm.N Rm.R NR.H~ Na.mm . Rm.nm mHN wchHmnB uCoEoomHmIcoz wchHmnH ncoEoomHm mowmz wchHmnH unoEoomHm wcncnmm mMDH<> HzmezomZH Hmo0 oocoHnooxm Enmm wchHmuno mmDH<> Hz<fimom2H Hmoz ooumHoz noan oonHz nowmoszcmBmonoz noonnmm noumnoooInon3o Aanmm owmno>< oumonnnnoo GOHuosoonm oHnmuowo> conuoooonm uHonm COHuosoonm mono ammo aOHuoooonm unnmo GOHuoovonm xooumo>HH ozono mo oNHm mfizmmHUHHm0< now moHuHcounoooo AuHHHHHmcoomom mUHHoCom owcHnm Aanmm ZOHHU< oumonmnunou conuosoonm oHnmno0o> COHuoovonm nHDnm nonnoooonm mono some connosoonm mnHmQ conuoooonm xooumo>HH osono mo oNHm mZOHHmnfiHw Hzm2m0 mo ZOmHmnooom mo EHEHGHZ o son: monxooz NooH muonuoz conuonoonm ucono Inommno :uHB an IHHSmm 0cHEooo0 NooH oocoHnooxm Enmh mononmnno NooH oumum mo n50 mowmz mononmne nooB IoomHm 0chnmm N0.N0 xHucow IsomowcH 0oHno< N0.00 0stmz GOHmHooo GH naouooEou onoz waHEooom No.00 oocoHnooxm Enmm wchHmuno N0.o0 mwonuoz cowuoovonm uco InoMMHo nunz nm IHHHEmm wcHEooom NN.00 moonn Iownnoo monooo: N0.Ho Enmm mac: oz mowmz mononmnB uaoE IoomHm 0chnmm NH.00 oocouHmaooIMHom onoz 0o00Ho>oQ NR.00 moonuoz conuoovonm uao Inowmno SnHB nm IHHHEmm 0cHEooo0 NR.00 Ronnnonm Iaoowom mo oocm Iuoooo< nonmono N0.N0 :onH> InoQSm SSEHcHZ cons wonxnoz NR.00 oocoHnooxm Enmm mansHmuno N0.No Enmm oEo: cone nonuo mo0m3 0chHmnH uaoa IoomHm wawcnmm N0.H0 thCovco ImoUGH wanuo< N0.00 Ronnnonm Inoomom mo oocm Iuoooo< noumono NH.00 wameZ GOHmHooQ CH uaonooaou onoz 0GHEooo0 N0.00 connoaoonm IwcHoooz 0nooom N0.oo ooaoonmooo onoz woooHo>o0 NHo Enmm oEom MDH<> Hz Hz0< now zuHoounoooo N0.No ouHHHnHmaoomom N0.00 munocom owcHnm No.00 manmm ZOHHU