AAAAAAAAAAA This is to certify that the dissertation entitled PeYCQWOMS abdut Cou?€Vm—t\ve o in EJuCa‘bOM ProgyafitSl “:51,- Si: odd, X (1 wuwook IMS‘EitU 2,3 in UN presented by 1. HA]. flé&uL_HV5¢/h WQ has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for 00050? gtaQMn Sapl‘ydegreeinflc’bmdim £59 ”“9 +11%“, Edutodv 0“ a4 fwd; Major professor ' MSU LIBRARIES "- RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. WE'M-fiaea - ' r ‘ . ‘ \ IW1 1... ,_. rm m: \60 A 107 -\ -“V . IVE-- 70/7 PERCEPTIONS ABOUT COOPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION INSTITUTES IN KUWAIT BY Ali Taqi A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum College of Education 1983 ABSTRACT PERCEPTIONS ABOUT COOPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION INSTITUTES IN KUWAIT BY Ali Taqi This study was undertaken to obtain the perceptions and attitudes of employers, faculty, and students toward the cooperative education programs at two—year post- secondary technical and vocational institutes in the State of Kuwait. To accomplish this, four groups affecting co- operative education were selected to respond to question- naires designed to test seven hypotheses developed in this research to identify the perceptions and attitudes of the subject groups of cooperative employers, non-cooperative employers, faculty and students. A secondary purpose was to determine why employers are not participating in the program in the numbers anticipated by program planners. To insure the validity of the questionnaires and to make certain the instructions and questions were clearly stated the instruments were pilot tested by five members of each group. The study revealed varied perceptions and attitudes among the study subjects. Only non-cooperative employers Ali Taqi were unaware of the program, and all the groups were found to favor the concept of cooperative programs. Co- op employers supported the program mainly as a service to the country or community and secondarily, as a means to cut personnel turnover. This study also showed that both employers and students preferred a variety of time formats designed to fit their needs, rather than the tra- ditional arrangement of one term of work alternating with one term of study. All groups expressed interest in ob- taining more information about the program. The major findings of the study revealed a lack of confidence and communication between employers and co-op students, poor administration or coordination of the pro- gram by institute staff, lack of information among em— ployers about the program due to a lack of appropriate publicity for the program. No economic or transportation problems appeared to be significant in this study. Based on the findings and conclusions of the study and the state- ment of the problem, several recommendations were developed. DEDICATION To my wife and my parents in grateful appreciation for all their encouragement. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Louis F. Hekhuis, Chairman of the dissertation committee for his support, guidance and direction. A special debt of gratitude is extended to the other members of the dis- sertation committee: Dr. R. L. Featherstone, Dr. Allan J. Beegle, and Dr. Joseph Levine for their cooperation and assistance. Appreciation is extended also to Dr. Rex E. Ray for his valuable advice and direction. In addition I want to express appreciation to the students, faculty members, directors and employers associated with the technical and vocational institutes and the tech- nical and vocational education department of the Ministry‘ of Education. ’ A Finally, gratitude is expressed to my family, es- pecially to my wife, Sadeigah, and to my children, Fatema, Adhad, Hanan and Mohamad-Jawad for their encouragement, support and patience during these years of study. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM.... ....... ................l IntrOduction O O O O O O O C C O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ....... l Institutes of Cooperative Technical and Vocational Education.........................4 Statement of the Problem........-...............5 Hypotheses.............................. ........ 6 Definition of Terms. ..... .......................7 Significance of the Study.......................9 Methodology................... ..... ............ll Instrument Development........ ..... .........12 Scope and Limitations..........................l4 Overview of the Study............... ......... ..15 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW....................l6 Historical Background of Co-Op Education Programs in the United States..................16 History of Cooperative Education Programs in Kuwait......................................23 Vocational and Cooperative Programs in Other Ministries............................28 Vocational and Cooperative Programs in the Private Sector..........................30 Goals and Objectives of Cooperative Education..31 Goals and Objectives of Cooperative Programs in Kuwait......................................37 Related Research and Studies on Cooperative Education in the U.S...........................4O Values and Benefits of Co-Op Programs.......40 Employer Attitudes..........................43 Attitudes of Co-Op Students and Faculty.....44 Studies and Related Research on Cooperative Education in Kuwait............................49 Summary of the Chapter.........................Sl Historical Development......................51 Goals and Objectives........................52 Related Research............................54 iv CHAPTER PAGE CHAPTER THREE: POPULATION, INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA COLLECTIONOOOOO0.000....000000056 Population and Sampling......... ........... .....57 Instrumentation........ ..... . .......... .........60 Procedures for Data Collection .............. ....63 Statistical Treatment...........................67 CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS OF THE DATA.. ............ ...68 Overview of the Results.... ..... ......... ..... ..68 Cooperative and Non-Cooperative Employers.......75 Faculty.........................................88 Demographic Data.........,....... ..... .......88 Students........................................92 Hypotheses Discussion...........................96 Hypothesis One...... ..... ....................96 Hypothesis Two..............................lOl Hypothesis Three............................102 Hypothesis Four.... ....... ..................103 Hypothesis Five.............................107 Hypothesis Six...... .............. ..........llZ Hypothesis Seven............................114 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RE- SEARCHOOOOOOOOOOO'OOOO0.0000000000000118 Summary........................................118 Statement of the Problem....................118 Review of the Literature....................ll9 Procedures Used in the Study................120 Findings of the Study.......................121 Conclusions....................................125 Recommendations.................... ......... ...130 Suggestions for Further Research.. ....... ......133 APPENDICES... ....... ...............................135 BIBLIOGRAPHY...ooooooooooloooooooooooo00000000.00000164 TABLE AL» 0 O F‘H #1511515 0 £111wa .5 o 0‘ LIST OF TABLES PAGE Responses to Survey Questionnaire.. ...... .....66 Awareness and Knowledge of the Co-Op Programoooooooooooooooooooooooooooa... ........ 69 Acceptance Of CO-Op Educationoooooooooo 00000 0.70 Sizes and Budgets of Firms Surveyed...........78 Employers' Preferences Among Co—Op Plans......79 Co—Op Involvement of Employers, By Years, Number of Students, and Type of Institution...81 Employers' Reasons for Supporting Co-Op Programs......................................82 Type of Co-Op Format Preferred by Employers...84 Co-Op Program Strengths as Selected By Employers.....................................85 Co-Op Program Weaknesses Selected by Employer586 Information Employers Wanted About Co-Op Programs......................................88 Sources of Faculty Knowledge of Co-Op Program......... ..... .........................89 Faculty Questions About Co-Op Programs........9l Summary of Responses Showing How Employers (Cooperative and Non—Cooperative), Faculty and Students Described A COOperative Educa- tion Program..................................98 How the Groups Replied to Each Item of the Question and Mean 7 for Each Response.........99 Question One Responses by Frequency Dis- tribution and Mean Y.........................lOO Summary of Responses to Question Two By Number of Frequencies and Percentages........102 Responses to Question Three by Number and Percentage...................................lO4 Number of Answers to Each Item of Question Three by Mean Y'of Each Answer and Frequency Percentages..................................lO4 Employers' Priorities in Favoring Co-Op Programs.....................................105 Responses for Cooperative and Non-. Cooperative Employers by Frequency and Mean..106 Accumulation of Data According to Frequency and Mean i'of Each Response from Table 4.20..106 vi TABLE PAGE 4.22 What Cooperative and Non-Cooperative Employees Wanted to Know About Co-Op Program by Frequency and Percentages.......109 4.23 Cooperative and Non-Cooperative Em- ployers' responses by Frequency and Mean 7109 4.24 Summary of Responses to Question Six by Percentage and Frequency Distribution...lll 4.25 Summary of Weaknesses Cooperative and Non-Cooperative Employers Perceived in Cooperative Education Program by Frequency and Percentage...................113 4.26 Summary of Faculty Responses to Questions of Weaknesses in Cooperative Education Programs by Frequency and Percentage.......115 4.27 Summary of Students Answers to Weak- nesses of Cooperative Education Program Illustrated by Frequency and Percentage....ll7 vii CHAPTER ONE THE PROBLEM Introduction_ In recent years, in Kuwait and other countries, particularly those in the Third World, cooperative educa- tion has been given new emphasis in the field of educa— tion. Because of tremendous changes in all phases of economic and social life following the discovery of oil in Kuwait, and a severe and current shortage of semi— skilled labor, there is a resurgence of interest in em- ployment training and career-related work experience, par- ticularly concepts and programs of cooperative education. Experiences in the past decade in Kuwait education have shown that human resources development programs have dealt only with high-level manpower needs (e.g., professional, scientific and technological personnel). More recently, this scope has widened from "a relatively narrow and fragmentary concept of manpower planning toward a larger conceptual view of the 'overall' development of human re- sources." (Khalil, 1975, p.60). The need of less developed countries for semi- skilled, skilled and professional people requires a l substantial change in the quality and efficiency of educa- tion and training programs, so that people of varying abil- ities, capacities and interests are prepared for skills and professions that fit labor market and social requirements (USAID/NEC, 1965, p.1). This is the case in Kuwait today. It is apparent there is a need for Kuwait society to bridge the large gap between the demands of business and industry for workers at all levels, but particularly skilled labor, and the output of its educational institutions to meet that demand. Kuwait officials and policy-makers are concerned about finding solutions to this problem. In the five-year development plan for 1970/71 to 1975/76, policy-makers emphasized the need for developing vocational education: The plan aims at developing human resources by setting up technical skills and scientific knowledge, spread of education, developing the potential abilities of the population and raising their production efficiency throu h planned education and training. TKuwait Ministry of Planning, 1971) The speed of the modernization movement in Kuwait has affected various areas of production and the provision of services in both the public and private sectors. It has created demand for new types and greatly increased manpower at all levels. Policy-makers in the country have been encouraged, by this increased demand for workers, to Vaccelerate the establishment of an organized, functional educational system, for technical and vocational education to supervise all cooperative programs in post-secondary institutions in Kuwait. Educational policy-makers recommendation (Number 6.4) to the Committee on Education and Manpower emphasized that: Coordination between the educational insti— tutes and the labor market must take place to facilitate field training at the actual work sites, where graduates would be employed after graduation. The institutes should take part in evaluating students' work during this training. (Ibid) It became the main objective of Kuwait's Institutes of Cooperative Technical and Vocational Education to apply this and other recommendations, as stated in their handbook, "to utilize the objective of Cooperative Vocational Educa- tion. The students of these institutes will receive prac+ tical field training at the actual place of work where they may be employed after graduation." (Naja, et al., 1979, p. 52). The need for this type of education has been re- iterated in Kuwait since 1945 in the face of the shortage of skilled labor (Alessa, 1981, p.57). The real push for vocational education in general and cooperative programs in particular, however, came in response to Ministerial Decree No. 7—711 in 1978. The decree was issued specifi- cally to designate the duties and responsibilities of the Department of Technical and Vocational Education. In Part 4 Two, Item Number 3, expressly establishes a Division of Cooperative Education under the heading, "Field Training and Follow-Up of Technical and Vocational Education Stu- dents,“ to play a role as liason between educational in- stitutions and employers.* One year later, policy—makers for vocational educa- tion in the Arab countries met at Thnisia under the aegis of the Arabic Association for Culture, Education and Science (AACES), Department of Education, from November 1-15, 1979. These policy-makers and planners for vocational and tech- nical education in the Arab World considered cooperative vocational education from an integrated point of view in which classroom vocational instruction would constitute one part and training in their societies' enterprises would constitute another. They stressed the role and importance of such co-op education in Recommendation #9 issued after that meeting (AACES, 1979, pp. 7 and 12). Directed toward meeting manpower needs, it focused attention on the economic environment in which educational planners have to work (Khalil, 1979, p.6). Institutes of Co-Operative Technical and Vocational Education In accordance with this strategy, Kuwait's institutes of technical and vocational education (two years or more of * . This writer has been designated by a ministerial decision as a first head of the division. post-secondary education) were entrusted with creating ap- propriate cooperative plans in those institutions. The Department of Technical and Vocational Education had es- tablished these institutes, the focal point for this study, in 1972-73. They include: 1. the Teacher Education Institutes, (one for males another for females). 2. the Health Institute for Females. 3. the Business Institute, (One for males another for females) 4. the Kuwait Institute for Applied Technology, (for males). - In the years since their inception, enrollments at these institutions have increased from 207 (70 males and 137 females) in 1972/73 to 4,242 in 1980/81 (1,901 males and 2,341 females). The number of teachers rose accordingly, from 37 teachers in 1972/73 (18 males and 19 females) to 543 teachers in 1980/81. Based on these figures the stu- dent enrollment projection for1990/91 is more than 20,000 students. (Kuwait Ministry of Education, 1978; and AL-ANBA, 1982, p.2). Statement of the Problem With increasing numbers of students enrolled in co- operative education in Kuwait, there is concern among edu- cational and economic planning and policy-makers to insure high quality educational training for vocational students, especially since skilled and semi-skilled workers are in very short supply in the country. In this situation, it would be logical to assume that many employers would want to become involved with co-op programs, for the work co-op students could do while in training and a chance to hire them when they complete their programs. This is not, how- ever, the case. The problem is that few employers are in- volved in co-op programs. In 1981, there were only 48 throughout the country participating in a program that had been reorganized to make improvements in 1976. Even then, some were anticipating dropping out of the program (Rust, 1977, p.17). The purpose of this study was to discover why only a small number of employers were participating in cooperative educational programs in two-year, post-secondary vocational and technical institutes in Kuwait. Students, faculty and employers' perceptions and understanding of the existing cooperative education program were identified and used as data for the study. This data is treated statistically and interpreted to make recommendations for the improvement of existing cooperative education programs at post-secondary institutions in keeping with the perceptions of all three groups. Hypotheses In undertaking the study, several hypotheses was tested: 1. Students, faculty and employers have dif- ferent perceptions about cooperative education programs at two year post-secondary institutions in Kuwait. 2. In contrast to non-cooperative employers the cooperative employers, students and faculty have better knowledge of cooperative education programs. 3. Students, faculty and employers favor the concept of cooperative education programs. 4. The cooperative employers (who are involved in this program) and non-cooperative employers consider their participation as a social obligation to offer services to their community and country. 5. Most employers lack information about coopera- tive education programs at two—year post-secondary education institutions in Kuwait. 6. The employers are discouraged from participating in these programs because of poor administration or coordination by the educational institutions. 7. Both students and faculty have a perception that employers, supervisors, and coordinators are not cooperating sufficiently to bring about a successful cooperative education program in post— secondary institutions in Kuwait. Definition of Terms To provide a degree of commonality and limit semantic confusion, the following terms are defined as they are used in this study. Post-Secondary Education: a general term that in- cludes all formally organized education beyond completion of the twelvth grade. "Institutes" is a conventional Eng— lish term for two-year post-secondary colleges. 8 Vocational Education: A planned order of educational experiences, the purpose of which is to prepare students and or retrain other individuals with skills needed in a country's labor market. Cooperative Program or Plan: A plan under which students of vocational institutions receive practical field training at an actual place of work where they may be em- ployed after graduation. Cooperative Education: A cooperative work-study sequence of vocational education for persons who, through a cooperative arrangement between the school and employers, receive instruction by the alternation of study in school and on a job in various occupational fields. This concept has been broadly interpreted to include paid students, students who are still trying to identify a career, or those who have been assigned voluntary positions. All of these programs in Kuwait are sponsored and supervised by the Ministry of Education or the Central Training Depart- ment of the Ministry of Social Affairs. Cooperative Employer: Any employer who participated in cooperative programs by training the students; when the school, the employer, and the students worked together for the students' educational attainment during the 1980-81 school year. Coordinator of Cooperative Education Programs: Re- fers to a faculty member who is directly responsible for 9 the classroom phase of a cooperative education program and for coordinating the work phase of the program in the com- munity. At post-secondary institutions in Kuwait, the co— ordinator's position refers to a post similar to that of a Director of Co-op programs in the United States. Director of Cooperative Education: A person who is responsible for the overall operation, development and coordination of the program. His duties in the United States include counseling, teaching, speaking, writing, editing, traveling and visiting employers. In Kuwait, the director is not a faculty member but he should be a member of the Technical and Vocational Education Department. His job is similar to that of his colleagues in the United States except for teaching. Term: The academic term in post—secondary institutes in Kuwait consists of fifteen weeks including counseling and registration. Significance of the Study There is no doubt that students, faculty and em- ployers are the main factors in the success or failure of any co-op program, therefore, distinguishing their per- ceptions, needs and expectations is a matter of importance. The situation in Kuwait now is similar to the sit— uation the United States for a decade, which was described by Gore "There is the evidence of the complete 'dropout' 10 culture of romantic 60's. And, to some extent, business firms also have been reflecting a sense of isolationism and noninvolvement. (Gore, 1973, p.46) The research and studies in Kuwait on this issue are very few and may be counted on the fingers of one hand. In the United States, also, there was a lack of studies and research concerning employers' perceptions and attitudes to- ward cooperative programs compared to other aspects of co-op. Supporting this, Margaret Snell said, "while over 250 articles have been written within the last ten years on cooperative education programs, few studies have been conducted regarding employers‘ perceptions of these programs." (Snell, 1981, p. 20) The significance of this study stems from the fact that cooperative education is needed to bridge the gap be- tween the country's need for skilled labor and educational institutes in Kuwait. There are numbers of training cen- ters established all over the country for this purpose, but these are not adequate to the need and, as the General Secre- tary for the Kuwait Labor Union said, "Most of these con- temporary training centers lack much equipment and tools needed to achieve the purpose of contemporary training." (Al—Kandari, 1981) The results of the study may have an impact on de- cisions about the current cooperative program at post-secondary 11 school institutions in Kuwait. It indicates the need for necessary change in the current program to eliminate misconceptions by students, faculty and employers regarding cooperative education programs. This study could have an impact on recruiting stu- dents for the cooperative education programs at planned comprehensive Community Colleges in 1984-85 with 30,000 students expected to enroll (Adams and others). The results background information and expectations could also be of considerable interest to Kuwait Univer- sity and its colleges and faculties which are involved in planning cooperative type educational programs. Methodology In order to identify perceptions regarding the co— operative education programs at post-secondary education institutes in Kuwait, four different groups weneidentified. The first group was students, both those who have parti- cipated in such programs before, and those who have not participated (Group I). Group II consisted of full—time faculty members from post-secondary vocational education institutes. Group III was composed of cooperative em- ployers, those who had participated in the past or who were currently involved in co-op programs. These were selected from cooperative employer lists kept by post- secondary institutes during 1980.81. Group IV was composed 12 of employers who had not been involved in co-op programs, including small and large, private and public and business and industry personnel managers, presidents and vice- presidents. These were selected from the Industrial Di- rectory at the Ministry of Industry and Trade, and the Chamber of Commerce Annual Directory for 1981. Instrument Development The content and format of the instrument were par— tially adapted from a questionnaire constructed by Dr. Wadworth Balcom, in the Education Department, of the Uni- versity of Miami. (1976, p.159). After determining the questions, the first step was to translate the question— naire into Arabic language since Arab managers predominate in Kuwait buSinesses. The translation was made by Al Shafiea, Director and Professor of Arabic Language in the Techni- cal and Vocational Department at Ministry of Education. To insure the validity of the questionnaires for post—secondary institutes in Kuwait, and to make certain that the instructions and the questions were clearly stated, the instruments were administered to a pilot group of stu- dents, faculty and employers, in addition to being reviewed by representatives from the vocational and technical de- partment in the Ministry of Education. During a 1982 summer visit to Kuwait, the researcher had the opportunity to test 13 the instrument with pilot groups which consisted of (5) members of each group; (5) students, (5) faculty members and (5) employers, in addition to (3) senior employers at the Vocational and Technical Department. Based on the results of the pilot testing, some adjustments and modifi— cations were made. The results of the pilot study were compiled and a revised instrument designed. The instrument was further refined after careful review with Mr. Al—Shafiea, a professor of Arabic and Literature at post-secondary institutions. These adjustments were completed prior to the production of the final questionnaire, a copy of this questionnaire appears in Appendix 1. The names of students and faculty were obtained from the registrar's office in each institution. Of these, 150 students were selected at random from both male and female students to represent the total number of 4,200 students in post-secondary institutions in Kuwait. The 75 faculty members were selected randomly from approximately 520 faculty and staff members at these institutions. The names and addresses of 77 co-operative employers in the 1980—81 are ayailable from an employers' directory available at the cooperative education section in each institution. The employers who had never been involved with co-op programs were surveyed by distributing ‘77questionnaires to manage- ment personnel or owners of that number of firms, randomly 14 selected from more than 6,000 firms and factories in the country. Statistical procedures for this study included analyses of frequency and percentage. The results are illustrated by tables. Scope and Limitations The students sample includes full-time coopera- tive students (who participated in the program or are currently enrolled) and non-cooperative students from Kuwait's post-secondary institutes. The faculty members were selected from full-time employees at the same institutions. Therefore, the faculty members from Kuwait University, who are involved part-time in cooperative education programs, were not included in this study. The research sample was drawn from those stu- dents enrolled in two-year post-secondary edu- cational institutions in Kuwait in the academic year 1980-81, which included the following six- institutions: (2) Institutes of Business Administration (one for males, another for females) (2) Teacher Training Institutes (one for males, another for females) (1) Institute of Health (1) Kuwait Institute for Applied Technology The cooperative employers are those listed in the institutions' directories for 1980-81. This study is limited to researching the per- ceptions of students, faculty and employers re- garding co-op education programs, factors re- lated to economy, manpower and the local job market. The political structure of the country is not examined. 15 Overview of the Study Chapter Two deals with a review of literature per- tinent to cooperative education in the United States and Kuwait that includes the history of co-op education and recent research done in this area in both countries. Chapter Three sets forth the methods and procedures for the study. The instruments are described in detail, as well as the procedures used for selecting the sample for the study. Collection of the data and its treatment are also described. Chapter Four includes the analysis of the data. Chapter Five comprises the summary and conclusions, dis- cussion and implications for further study in cooperative“ education. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW In viewing the literature the researcher hopes to shed some light on the evolution of co-op programs and re- cent research in this area. The findings and ideas from the precedent literature has helped in providing background for the study and theoretical grounding. This chapter is divided into seven sections: (1) The historical development of cooperative education programs in the United States, (2) The historical development of co-op programs in Kuwait, (3) Goals and objectives of co-ops in the United States, (4) Objectives and goals of co-ops in the State of Kuwait, (5) Related research studies in the U.S., (6) Related research studies in Kuwait, and (7) Summary of the chapters. Historical Background of Co—Qp Education Programs in the United States It is generally accepted that the history of co- operative education dates back to the early 19003, or some years earlier. Wanat and Snell state that, "Cooperative education has been in existence for a long time; it is not new, it is no longer experimental." (1980, p.v.). Elements 16 17 of Cooperative Vocational Education has been found in edu- cation systems for over a hundred years. Wanat and Snell even date this back to 1824, when an orphanage at Potsdam encouraged boys to learn trades in the community (Ibid,p.3). It was common in England during the nineteenth cen— tury for children to work in factories part of the day, while still attending school. In this regard, Hudson (1955), mentions that the roots of the cooperative program movement in United States were similar to the Mechanics Institute movement in Great Britain, which provided a new means of developing relationships between education and manual labor (p. 13 ). Programs at these institutions and similar in- stitutes in the United States--such as Gardiner in Maine in 1822--required students to spend twenty-three hundred hours in shops operated by the school which manufactured goods for the open market (Ibid, p.14). This program is the one most closely related to the present cooperative education program system. Bill Patterson of Tennessee Technological University in 1958 adopted a co-operative program in which every co-op student was required to spend a full year on the job site (Welch, 1982, p.96). Two uni— versities adopted this system later on: Vanderbuilt Uni- versity in 1976 and Murray State University in 1977. Re- view of the literature in the field shows a general belief that cooperative education programs were inagurated by 18 Dean Herman Schnieder in 1906 at the University of Cincinnati. This way, "the first cooperative program that combined work and study as an integral part of the educational process (Wanat and Snell, 1980, p.4). In 1906, the first group of twenty-seven young men began their training under the co- operative system, divided into two groups, that alternated every other week between shop and classroom. Dean Seneider's first cooperative program was established in the field of Engineering. The passage of Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 (Public Law 347 of the 64th Congress)-—approved a month and a half be- fore the United States entered World War I--was significant for cooperative education development. The Federal Board for Vocational Education recognized cooperative courses and encouraged schools to establish these courses (Ibid). The 1936 George-Dean Act (Public Law 673 of the 74th Congress) was another important milestone in development and growth of cooperative education programs (Reimer, 1976, p.11). This act, for the first time, had in its regulations an annual appropriation for distributive occupations, and the federal funding for this program was contingent upon the operation of these programs on a cooperative basis between schools and their local communities. For the first time in 1921, Antioch College insti- tuteda cooperative education program on the initiative of Mr. Arthur Morgan, the President, that included courses I 19 other than engineering. This program required students to be trained through a combination of liberal arts and voca- tional courses. The liberal arts courses grounded all stu- dents in the significant ideas and methods of biology, geo- logy, chemistry, physics, literature, social history, econ- omics, and philosophy. A set of vocational courses was de- signed to teach the techniques of administration, tranSpor— tation, marketing, purchasing, personnel and so on--as well as specialized courses in chemistry, education and engineer— ing (Henderson and Hall, 1949, p.4). During the same period of time, two year colleges-— most of which were technical institutes--adopted cooper- ative programs (Barbeau, 1972, p. 23). The movements at this level was began by Rochester Athenaeum and the Mechanics Institute in New York in 1912. The Ohio College of Applied Science and Wyomissing Polytechnic Institute in Pennsylvania followed with two-year cooperative technical programs. These curriculums were predominantly engineering (Heerman, 1973, p.5). The Collegiate Cooperative Education Association was assembled in 1926 under the direction of Herman Schneider at the University of Cincinnati. Soon thereafter, the Co- Operative Education Division of the American Society of Engineering Education was formed and became the medium of exchange among educators and employees engaged in cooper- ative education. In 1922, Riverside Junior College in Cali- fornia began cooperative programs in engineering, business, 20 nursing, library work and architecture. This was the first junior college in the United States to adopt a cooperative program (Barbeau, 1974, pp. 5-12). In 1924, Garland Junior College in Boston offered its own cooperative program, and by 1939 fourteen Junior colleges had established similar programs (Barbeau, 1972). The growth of cooperative programs in community col» leges was significant, but "it was in the later part of the 1960's, however, that such programs began to flourish"(Per- loff and Sussna, 1978, p.54). In 1970, LaGaurdia Community College created by New York's Board of Education, as the State's first post-secondary institution to cffer a compre- hensive program of cooperative education (Abbott, 1978, p. 217). A cooperative programs survey in 1972 showed 105 community or junior college programs compared to 260 commun- ity college programs operational in the 1974 survey of un- dergraduate co-op programs in the United States (Brown and Wilson, 1975, p.1-8). This was a 40 percent increase in cooperative programs in these institutions. This number grew to 600 college and universities in the Winter of 1975, with 120,000 cooperative students involved in that year according to Bender and Holsenbeck (1975). In spite of recession and inflation, the trend toward cooperative experience has continued to gather strength (Wandsworth, 1976, p.21). Indicators of this phemonenon, including program numbers and sizes, show substantial growth over the past ten years, particularly during 1970 to 1977 21 period when 857 new programs, involving well over 100,000 students, were developed. Presently there are an estimated 1,047 programs operating in the United States and Canada (19 in Canada) involving over 200,000 students. Approximately 46 percent of these programs are in Junior institutions while the remaining 54 percent are in Senior institutions (McMullen, 1981, p.73). Before concluding this historical review of co-op education in the United States, it is im- portant to mention the contributions industry-sponsored institutions have made to the c00perative education move- ment. The first program of this type was established by General Motors Institute (GMI) in 1919. Under the direction of Albert Sobey, 492 students took advantage of the oppor- tunity GMI offered that year (Rodes, 1969, pp.l-Z). GMI conducted five-year cooperative programs in mechanical, industrial or electrical engineering, and in industrial administration. These programs provided General Motors Corporation with a nucleus of college graduates who were well qualified and highly motivated to assume positions of responsibility and leadership, primarily in engineering and management. Since 1946 General Motors Institute has also enrolled selected students from General Motors' Overseas Operations for special one-or two-year cooperative programs (Heerman, 1973). In 1962 the National Commission for Cooperative Edu— cation was organized through an initial grant from the 22 Charles Kettering Foundation, with funding and assistance from the Ford Foundation and other organizations (Wilson and Lyons, 1961). There were three basic goals set for this commission to accomplish during its first five years: (1) to double the number of colleges and universities of- fering cooperative education from 60 to 120, (2) to in- crease the number of students enrolled in co-op education from 28,000 to 78,000; (3) to strengthen some of the ex- isting co-op programs, especially in liberal arts colleges (Borman, 1972, p.50). During the same year several in- surance companies founded a College of Insurance on a five- year cooperative plan of alternating four months of work with the same period of study (Murray, 1969, p.155-6). Two-thirds of the students' tuition was paid by the col- lege. A year later, following the organization of the National Commission for Cooperative Education, the Cooper- ative Education Association was officially founded in Sept- ember, 1963, with a comprehensive range of membership, in- cluding colleges, employers, and others interested in co- operative education (Heerman, 1973, p.6). In the same year Northeastern University established a program in power sys- tem engineering on the cooperative plan of education (Ibid, p.86). This program was initiated with the scholarship and matching-fund support of members of the Electric Coun- cil of New England. This program led to a Master's degree in six years, with a bachelor's degree awarded at the end 23 of five years. Chrysler Corporation in Detroit also pro— vides a two-year cooperative graduate program through the Chrysler Institute of Engineering and participating uni- versities (Ibid). The program leads to a Master's degree and subsequent employment by Chrysler as a professional engineer. With the idea of skilled employee recruitment, Price Waterhouse and Company established its cooperative: program for replacement of temporary employees in accounting. The students are required to work three to six months each year at different locations around the country and almost 90 percent of them become permanent staff members (Kuchens, 1968, p.49). History of Cooperative Education Programs in Kuwait In the recent years, there has been an increasing interest in cooperative education overseas and placement abroad (D.R. Allen, 1976). The need for cooperative vo- cational education in the State of Kuwait has been noted by the Kuwaiti government and serious endeavors have been undertaken to cope with the new demands and challenges of the post-oil era. Although some Arab educators feel that Arab oil-rich countries have gone ”degree mad "--that the advantages of getting a university education has been blown out of proportion, the Kuwait government seems to be aware of these problems and has introduced an increasing number of vocational education programs (Sapstead, 1980, p.97). 24 A range of commercial, industrial, religious and teacher training institutions have been built, while many companies, particularly the oil companies, have extensive programs to train and develop employees from the level of field workers right to upper management positions (Ibid, p.98). The revenues from oil have grown steadily since its discovery in 1946. These have allowed the government to implement remarkable programs for the development of the country. Extensive social services have been created such as schools, hospitals and other institutions. Perhaps the most salient results has been that labor demand has far outstripped the country's human resources and reserves of skills (Kuwait Central Training Dept., 1979). To overcome this problem, and to develop the country's human resources through vocational training, the government implemented its plan in the 1950's by the establishment of three institutions for education and training: 1. Magwa Vocational Training Center of the Kuwait Oil Company. 2. Industrial College of the Ministry of Education in 1954. 3. Central Vocational Training, with Cooperation between the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs in 1950-1960 (A1— Kandari, 1981). 25 The Curricula of these Centers were geared to train- ing skilled and semi-skilled workers in the occupations of electrician, welder, moulder, blacksmith, turner and auto mechanic. The principal objective of Central Vocational Training was to (1) improve the skills and general condi- tions of the labor force and to eventually (2) satisfy cur- rent and future manpower requirements (Alessa, 1981, p.72). A few years later, in academic year 1963-64, the Ministry of Education established the Commercial Secondary School which prepares boys of high school age for lower levels business and commercial professions. In academic year 1967-68 the first trade school for girls was opened by the Education Ministry and names the Secondary Technical School for Girls (Kuwait Department of Technical and Voca- tional Education, 1979, p.12). The purpose of establishing these schools and centers was to answer the immediate needs of several ministries and governmental institutions. There- fore, "they were not established on the basis of manpower required nor were they expected to meet the demand, and the idea of organized training came out in the 1960's". (Al-Kandari, p.2). In 1971, the Planning Board's (now the Planning Min- istry), National Commission on Manpower and Education, ...raised the issue of training coordination, in response to criticism from several quarters inside and outside government circles. The 26 end point of this was, to set up a com— mittee to: (a) report on Vocational training efforts in all forms, including technical education. (b) identify prob- lems and submit recommendations for better coordination and reconciliation of educa- tion and training (cooperative education). (Central Training Department in Kuwait, 1979, p. 2 ). This committee submitted a report in December 1971 which has since become a landmark effort in the field of human resource development in Kuwait. It was implied in this report, that a Higher Committee for Vocational Training (HCVT) was needed to organize existing vocational programs and training centers (Ibid, p. 11). Thus, in February 1972, the Department of Technical and Vocational Education was established within the Ministry of Education, to supervise the Cooperative and Vocational Education programs, spon- sored by this Ministry, in Kuwait (Hassan and El-Ghannam, 1975, p.6). During the 19705, a number of reports on cooperative vocational education were submitted to the Ministry of Education, which undoubtedly had great effect on the de- velopment of technical and vocational education and cooper- ative programs. A 1974 report from Dr. Bonny Rust, the Dean of West London College in England, on commercial education and its development recommended the establishment of business in- stitutes (two-years post-secondary) to include preparation 27 for cooperative programs (Rust, 1974). Another report was done by Dr. George Hunting, an expert in Industrial Educa- tion in the United Kingdom, who emphasized cooperative edu- cation programs in his recommendation, "make provision for reciprocal mobility between the programs of technicians and other types of training in various institutions (Hunt- ing, 1974, p.9). A report by K. Elais in May 1967 was directed toward relating education and to industry, emphas— izing the value of co-op education as a practicum, in place of work. His report also stressed the importance of inte— gration between theory and practice (Hassan and El—Ghannan p.26). It is generally accepted that Kuwait's development of technical and vocational education, with corresponding cooperative programs, actually began when UNESCO personnel and other Arab experts were invited to Kuwait during the period from January 20, 1970 to February 18, 1975 to do five-year feasibility studies (Kuwait Department of Tech- nical and Vocational Education, 1979, p.14). The experts studied and revised the conditions of technical and voca- tional education and cooperative education programs, within the context of comprehensive perceptions of the Kuwaiti society and the country's labor market. Between 1972 and 1976 several institutions with organized cooperative pro- grams were established, including two Teachers Education 28 Institutes in 1972 (one for males and one for females); the Health Institute in 1974 (for females only); two Business Institutes in 1975 (one for males and one for females); and the Kuwait Institute for Applied Technology in 1966 which is for males only (Ibid, p.24). All of these institutes provided two-year, post-secondary programs and a special division was established in each of them to supervise and conduct cooperative education programs. The most recent Kuwait legislation to support the development and acceleration of cooperative programs in these institutions was the Ministerial Decree Number 7111/7, dated October 3, 1978. The Decree, in its first section, identified the role of the Technical and Vocational De- partment in facilitating cooperative education programs for both males and females. The second section of the Decree, Title 3, sanctioned the establishment of a Division of Field Training and Graduate Pursuits with responsibility for supervising, coordinating and facilitating co-op pro- grams at all institutes of vocational education in Kuwait (Kuwait Ministry of Education, 1978). Vocational and Cooperative Programs in Other Ministries Although the Ministry of Education has exerted lead- ership in this area, other vocational education and co-op programs in Kuwait have been made available through the 29 efforts of agencies that employ their own trainees. It is worth mentioning that some institutions offering vocational and cooperative programs have been established, either by other government ministries or private sector companies such as the Kuwait Oil Company. For example, the Ministry of Public Works established its own program in 1969, through the Institute of Agriculture, to offer theoretical and prac- tical work-study experiences in agricultural production. Their two-year course includes farming supervision,agri- cultural farming, animal husbandry, dairy farming, poultry— farming and nursery gardening. The students are all em— ployed by the Ministry of Public Works upon graduation. This Ministry also established an Institute of Applied Engineering in 1968. Graduates from secondary schools, who are interested in civil engineering, enter a two-year program that includes road and duct building, surveying, building and draughtsmanship and measurements. Similar programs for interested graduates of secon- dary schools, have been established by other ministries. The Ministry of Postal and Telecommunication Services es- tablished the Institute of Telecommunication Services in 1966. The Institute of Aeronautics was established by the Ministry of Defense in 1969 and offers a 12 to 24 month course of classroom and work study. The Center for the Development of Water Resources was established in 1968 by the Ministry of Water and Power Resources in 1968 (Al-Kandari, pp.2-7). 30 Vocational and Cooperative Programs in the Private Sector In the private sector, the Kuwait Oil Comapny (KOC) established the earliest vocational training center program in 1951, mainly to attract secondary school-leavers. KOC later began to attract graduates of secondary schools and in 1970 a three-year work-study program was instituted for these workers. This program was comprised of one year in the KOC operations department, six months in the United Kingdom (divided between English language classes and instruction at a refinery, and then back to KOC for a further eighteen months in operations (Kuwaiti Digest, 1980, p.7). This program is closely related to the model of "sandwich courses" in the British Vocational educational system. KOC also develops work-study and on-the-job train- ing programs for university graduates. Similar programs exist in Kuwait chemical industry companies. The Kuwait Central Bank established its Center for Financial Studies in 1970. Its curriculum includes a mix- ture of theoretical courses in banking and management, along with practical training programs at the job sets. Admission to this program is restricted to Kuwait Central Bank em- ployees and employees of other commercial banks or finan- cial institutions in the county (Faiz, 1974, 72-83). 31 Goals and Objectives of Cooperative Education In tracing the goals and objectives of cooperative education, it is apparent that, over time, the goals and objectives of any given program tend to expand to reflect the program's ability to cope with ad hoc demands and changes in the need for the program. This is particularly true when programs are providing skills in a rapidly changing society where not only skills, but entire occupations and indus- tries, become obsolete or change radically, sometimes in just a few years. Cooperative education, because of its close relationship to the work place, has an advantage over other forms of education in keeping up-to-date and training students in relevant, needed skills, but putting this ad- vantage to good use means maintaining flexibility in speci- fic objectives and keeping other objectives general enough to allow for almost any needed change. Hudson in 1955, summarized the general objectives of cooperative education. 1. Work experience directly related to the student's major fields of study. 2. Vocational guidance 3. Personal and Social Development 4. Financial Aid to Students. (Hudson, 1955, p.81). \ His study was an early effort in the field, that showed 60 percent of the colleges involved in the study considered work experience in the major field as the most important objective. Another 33 percent chose Guidance 32 and Student Orientation as the most important co-op ob- jectives. From this study it may be concluded, that al- though most c00perative institutions claim to pursue all of these objectives at some point in their programs, some differences in priorities and emphasis are evident. For example, Antioch College's institutional goals, as stated by its Vice President Emeritus, gave priority to personality growth due to real life personal relations on the job. Antioch's second goal is career orientation and prepara- tion through better integration of studies. A third goal was to help students gain knowledge and learning by bringing real world experiences into the classroom (Dawson, 1973, pp.l’S). The National Conference on Cooperative Vocational Education (1969) identified four major objectives of co- operative education: 1. To earn money in order to remain in school...the work-study program. 2. To develop the necessary social skills and work attitudes and habits necessary for job tenure or entry into the vocational training programs. 3. To develop a viable career plan based realistic self-appraisal and accurate occupational information. 4. To develop a well-balanced combination of vocational competencies that enable graduates to advance more rapidly in satisfying careers (1969, p.19). 33 Another objective of cooperative education was iden- tified as success motivation and the development of success- ful and realistic social attitudes (Knowles, et al., 1971). It is also important for cooperative education to prepare students to enter the social and economic worlds. "The task of helping students find relevancy is one which is fast being recognized as crucial for society and economic structures to continue to function as intended." (Jacobs, 1973, p.14). In this regard, Collins, in 1975, also pointed out the motivational goals of cooperative programs. He said that some liberal arts institutions provide co-op programs be- cause they enable their students to deal with the practical as well as the theoretical aspects of course material. They "enable the student to break through the 'ivory tower' effect of the sometimes isolated campus and also to engage in ser- vice types of employment which they regard as important". (Collins, 1975, p.16). Dube (1981) described cooperative education objectives according to the interest of those served by such programs: students, educational institutions and employers. For stu- dents, he says, "the CO-Op program aims to reinforce and expand learning, develop personal growth, and provide career direction". The Co-op plan enables educational institutions to provide, "a superior education and compete more effectively for students in a declining student-age pool." And, as far '34 as employers are concerned, there are "the economic advan- tages of using cooperative programs for meeting their long- and short-term manpower needs (Dube, 1981, p.9). Brazzail, on the other hand, identifies co-op program objectives of employers as, "a means for companies to meet the demands of personnel turnover and growth, to accommodate changes in needed skills and knowledge, and to improve job performance." (1981, pp.50-53) At a conference of California educators and 35 corpor- ate presidents, Tom Clausen, Bank America President, emphas- ized the importance of co-op programs, saying that a "busi- nessman's success as manager depends on the quality of stu- dents available to him into his company." (Beal, 1981, p. 24). As for the educational institutions concerned, Shive and Rogers suggest three objectives for educators' involve- ment with businesses in cooperative programs: (1) schools need the tax revenues generated by the business presence, (2) they need the work opportunities provided for their grad- uates and (3) they are dependent upon business support in trying to generate overall community approval for school pro- grams (Jerrald and Joseph, 1979, p.286-90). Don Iugua, a member of the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology, in his comments on a bill to increase university research funding, stated that the reason for university-industry cooperation is that the universities create new knowledge 35 while industry puts that new knowledge to work. Cooperative education, in the final analysis, is but one means of human resource development. In this respect Herbert Striner, Dean of the College of Business Administration of American University, told a conference of educators and industrial leaders that, "the United States must adopt a philosophy which sees education and training throughout life as an ab- solutely necessary national investment in human resource development (Watkins, 1980, pp. 1 and 4). This objective was echoed by Orfila Aleganho, Secretary-General of the Organization of American States, who said that, "the focus on cooperative education rests on developing human resources perhaps the most difficult challenge for mankind today." (Orfilla, 1981, pp.lZ-16). Although it is generally understood that the goals and objectives of co-op education involves blending school— ing and experience along parallel tracks, Cross, at the 14th International Conference for Cooperative Education indicated that the objective of co-op education in the 1980's is, "to lead the way in integrating and enriching the total learn- ing experience for workers entering classrooms, as well as for students entering employment." (1979, pp. 5-14) The objectives of cooperative education have been ex- panded and diversified and extended beyond a national frame- work. In recent years, especially in the last decade, 36 considerable thought has been given to international objec- tives of cooperative education. Dube asserts that such pro- grams can be a means to internationalize education, since he feels it is evident that, "the need to relate education and work is a worldwide concern". (Dube, 1981, p.9). Sprinkle views this shift to international education and the exchange of students as a relatively new development for co-op edu- cation in the United States (Sprinkle, 1981, pp. 99-107). The aims of the Second World Conference on Cooperative Education in April 1981 confirmed this trend toward better understanding between nations through international educa- tion and encouraging the transfer and use of technology to developing countries by educating and training nationals in the use of that technology. David Nicol of the United Nations Institute for Training and Research also believes that co- operative education can play a major role in this "transfer of technology". (Nicol, 1981, p.17-21). Such international co-op education could be a good solution for developing countries where lack of facilities,qualified instructors and equipment limit training opportunities. The goals and objectives of international cooperative education exchanges are somewhat different than more tra- ditionally defined approaches. In general terms, these ob- jectives are to: (1) provide the student with a general international or cultural awareness; (2)to provide the stu- dent with improved language fluency in a foreign language; 37 (3) to provide the student with the next level of field study skills which would normally be associated with a domes— tic experience or; (4) some combination of all three (Sprinkle, pp.99-107). Goals and Objectives of Cooperative Programs in Kuwait The objectives of Kuwait's cooperative education pro- grams stem from the goals the country's policy-makers hold for vocational and technical education and the country's general trend toward upgrading its indigenous labor force to substitute for foreign labor as much as possible. The Report on Vocational Training in Kuwait (1981) states that co-op programs were established, from the beginning, to meet the constantly growing demand for manpower. Within this goal, two objectives were identified: (1) to alleviate the heavy reliance of the country on foreign labor and (2) to develop the country's human resources through cooperative and vocational programs. The policy makers of Kuwait directed citizens inside and outside government circles to adopt a new set of objectives. They tried to inculcate such objectives as the dignity of manual labor, non-tribal allegiance and acceptance of an intricate system of labor relations (Status of Vocational Training in Kuwait, 1981). In contrast to the situation in developed countries, the issue of dignity for manual workers has to be made an 38 objective in vocational training, for several social and cultural reasons. People in less developed countries, such as Kuwait, feel manual workers are inferior members of the work force; white-collar workers are given much higher status (Alessa, 1981, p.75). The Five-Year Plan of 1981/82-1985/86 concerning con— struction programs, identified the objectives of cooperative programs in Kuwait as "the program that enables the students to overcome the problems they are faced with in their own lives, to continue their education, and to promote their scientific and occupational standards. (p.83) Until this point, the objectives of top education pro- grams were directed to the labor market and disregarded edu- cational philosophy. Heerman pointed out this problem by calling attention to: ...evidence that a particular brand of institutional education philosophy may be 'lifted' without sufficient thought to its relationship to institutional mission. There is, then, a clear danger that meeting community needs and designing cooperative education to conform to college philosophy may be secondary to launching a program--any cooperative program (Heerman, 1973, p.9). Drega Hurley, in her report to the Ministry of Educa- tion, sets forth four objectives for cooperative education programs in the Medical Secretaries Branch of Kuwait Busi- ness Institute: 39 1. To provide the students with some practical knowledge related to the nature of medical services and ad- ministrative organizations in hospitals, primary care units and the Ministry of Public Health; to give them (students) an opportunity to utilize the knowledge gained at the Institute. 2. To give the student the opportunity to understand basic office practice in the environment in which ultimately, she will be working. 3. Train the students in the actual use of equipment and machines available in the fieldwork centers. 4. To acquire the behavioral skills neces- sary for students to become an integral part of the health care team (Hurley, 1981, p. 12). The Business Institute's Annual Directory for co- operative programs summarizes its objectives: (1) to open channels between the labor market and the institutes' stu- dents; and between the labor market and the institutes' administration and faculty members; (2) to inform the em- ployers about the theoretical and practical experiences of the students and about their ambitions (Institute of Busi- ness Administration, 1981, p.1). To attain the objectives of the technical and voca- tional education institutes, their students are offered cooperative programs at actual job sites where they might seek employment after graduation. The overall objectives of such programs were identified by-the Ministry of Educa- tion as: 40 1. To assimilate theoretical and practical courses offered by the institutes. 2. To act as an evaluative criterion of the students' success in their studies. 3. To prepare students to carry out their future roles efficiently. 4. To aquaint the students with the nature and actual problems of the work which they may face in the future (Technical and Vocational Education in Kuwait, 1979 p. 53). Related Research And Studies on Cooperative Education in the U.S. Values and Benefits of Co-Op Programs One of the earliest studies of cooperative education programs was Hudson's research at Michigan State University in 1955. Hudson mailed 70 employer questionnaires and, with a 93 percent rate of return, found that co-op students show higher attendance, better quality and quantity of work, with others. and more ability to get along titudes toward the employment entirely favorablet" (p. 5 ). LeLievre at the University of among accounting graduates at cent of the students believed "Employer at- of co-op students were almost Another survey conducted by Cincinnati, showed that, that University, 93.1 per- their co-op work aided in testing their interest and aptitude for their chosen fields and 84.7 percent throught their co-op work made their aca- demic study more meaningful (Thomas,l981, p.15). Another 41 study by Wilson and Lyons of the relevance of cooperative education for graduate and undergraduate students was in— augurated in July 1958. The research concluded that in cooperative education, "theory and practice are more closely related, and students therefore find greater meaning in their studies (1961, p.4-5). Also in 1961, another study conducted at the University of Cincinnati reported that of all the graduating students of that year who were required to take the Graduate Record Examination (258 students), 145 had had cooperative education. The results showed the mean G.R.E. score for co-op students was 523 compared to 501 for the full-time students (Gore, 1972, p.7). Gove conducted another survey of 398 co-op and non co-op graduates from 1964 to 1969, and found that the scores of co-op students increased more than those of non co-op students. He also concluded that, "as time goes by, the co-op students gain more in salaries and increase more in position and respon- sibility compared to non co-op" (1212, p.9). Nevertheless, in another study in 1972, he found that co-op students did not have a monetary or professional advantage over full-time students at the time of graduation (1212, p.33). James Wilson, in 1969, found that co-op education coordinators ‘gave priority to student personnel orientation and counsel- ing functions. His study also recognized the professional speciality of coordinators in finding and helping students 42 to find co-op jobs (James, 1969, p.51). In a survey of strengths and weaknesses of co-op programs in the secondary schools of Kentucky, responses from a total of 767 students, 42 teachers, and 502 employers revealed that career prepar- ation was considered the greatest strength of the co-op program. However, student interest, knowledge, and under- standing of the business world were viewed as weak. Stu- dents and faculty members regarded poor job placement as the major weakness; the employers considered students' lack of adequate preparation in communication skills to be the major weaknesses of the program (Clemons, 1971). In the same year, a study to discover the effect of job environ- ment or co-op students was done at the University of Water- loo in Canada. The research concluded that, "students would be more willing to endure their early work terms if they were made aware of the improvement that takes place in sub- sequent terms" (Row and Lumley, 1971, p.10). Doris Fitz- gerland (1971) of New York University, in her two-year study to determine the effects of occupational moviation on aca- demically disadvantaged high school students, found that guaranteeing specific part-time jobs upon attainment of stated levels of achievement in job-oriented programs and guaranteeing full-time employment upon graduation motivated general curriculum students to higher academic achievements. The results of a study to discover the meaning of work to women students in a cooperative education program, conducted it) 43 at Northeastern University in the Winter Term 1972/73, re- vealed that, "co—op work experience is positively influencing women's career commitments and identity" (Kany, 1973, p.41). A similar study concerning women's participation in cooper- ative education programs, by Mosbacker (1973), indicated that the total number of women in co-op programs had in- creased about three times as rapidly as the number of men, during the 10 years preceeding the survey. Employer Attitudes One of the few research studies concerning employers' involvement in cooperative programs was conducted by Gore of the University of Cincinnati. In a survey of 208 firms providing jobs for co—op students in Business Administra- tion, the results showed that the firms viewed their in- volvement in co-op programs as a good way to attract college graduates to their firms, as well as a good way to interest well-trained men in their particular kind of work. A similar study at the University of Houston identified the attitudes and policies of participating employers. A survey of,7l Houston co-op employers revealed that the co-op concept had strong support from top management. The study concluded that increasing the retention rate of talented, educated personnel was the major objective of industry/business em- ployers (Slusher, 1973). 44 Attitudes of Co-Op Students and Faculty A study by Winner to compare the job satisfaction of male and female cooperative education students, indicated that female co-op students were significantly more satisfied with their jobs than male co-op students (Winner, 1973, p. 43). A study of faculty attitudes toward cooperative educa- tion was conducted by Pratt in 1974. The findings indicated that almost all faculty members considered CO-Op programs to be of some value. Pratt also found that 74 percent of the Liberal Arts and 50 percent of the Engineering students he surveyed preferred optional co-op programs in all curri- cula. Another job-satisfaction study done in 1974 revealed that Sophomores and Juniors who were placed in curriculum- related co-op work assignments, were far more satisfied with their work experience than sophomores and juniors placed in unrelated co-op assignments (Winner, 1974,p.35). In a study of job satisfaction at Northeastern University, the subjects were bachelor's degree nursing students. The results indicated that autonomy and self-actualization were the most important, and job security the least important, aspects of the nurses' co-op work satisfaction (Winner, May 1975, p.51). Hansen and Boardman reviewed literature re- lated to cooperative education and conducted a questionnaire survey to determine the best practices in co-op programs in 26 selected two-year colleges. They concluded that the 45 expansion of cooperative education depends upon the contin- ued harmonious working relationship of students, faculty and employers. They also recommended that careful attention be given to each aspect in the organization and administration of the program (Hansen and Boardman, 1975). Another study of students' attitudes conducted at the University of Hous- ton in the Summer of 1973 indicated that co-op students were well adjusted to their work environments and maintained positive attitudes toward their employers, supervisors, and co-workers (Backe, 1975). In 1976 a case study was adopted for Northeastern University to identify the benefits employ- ers derive from their cooperative education programs. The study results indicated the following benefits to employers: (1) providing a good source of manpower, (2) giving other professional workers released time, (3) improving personnel selection processes, and (4) enhancing relations with the participating colleges (Wooldridge, 1976, p.5). A similar study with broader bases was conducted at the Detroit In- stitute of Technology in Michigan. The Detroit study indi- cated that, the cost of recruiting co-op students is less than the cost of recruiting non co-op candidates. The re- search also showed high ratios of efficiency, acceptance and recruiting for co-op students compared to non co-op students (Hayes, 1976). Also in 1976, an important study from the University of Miami identified co-op student, non 46 co-op student, faculty and employer perceptions regarding co-op programs. The study revealed that of these four groups affected by cooperative education, only non CO-Op students were unsure of what cooperative education is. Employers, faculty, and non co-op students "were not as aware of co-op variations in work patterns as were co-ops". (Wadsworth, 1976, p. 75). A similar study was done one year later at Macomb County Community College (MCCC) in Michigan. Results showed that employers indicated a favor- able rating for the employees trained by MCCC and perceived them as efficient and enable them to learn quickly (Breeman, 1977, p.57 ). With regard to liberal arts co-op programs, questionnaires were mailed to 485 institutions to discover the weaknesses and strengths of such programs. It was found that five factors affected the success of these pro- grams: (1) cooperation of the faculty, (2) flexible program operation, (3) students learning objectives, (4) job place- ments, and (5) cooperation of employers (Kinnison, 1977). The results of a survey of community employers in- volved with Bakersfield College Co-op Programs in California indicated that these employers believed that course work very much improved the students' employment career, and that the program was effective in reducing turnover and training costs. (Warrene, 1978). A similar study done at LaGuardia Community College on Long Island revealed findings similar to the Bakersfield study. The LaGuardia study found 47 that the employers surveyed unequivocally rated CO-Op grad- uates as superior to other employees in motivation, job skills, and abilities (Ehrlich, 1977). A comparative study funded by the U.S. Office of Education and conducted by Applied Management Sciences, Inc., in 1978, indicated that all forms of compensation costs were less for co-op student employees than for regular employees. Research also con- cluded that "it may be less costly for employers to hireco-Op students"(EEans and Others, l978,p.5); Research conducted by the Graduate School of Business at the University of Pitts- burgh in 1978 concluded that high-technology industries pay higher c00perative education employee salaries than medium and low-technology industries. As compared to medium and low-technology industries, high-tech industries also in- vested more training and supervisory resources in their co- operative education employees and were more likely to offer such employees jobs upon graduation (Puloff, 1978). Brown and Wilson conducted a comprehensive study that included a survey of non-participating employers. The findings in- dicated that the major reason for not participating in co- op programs, was that the nature of educational programs did not meet the employer's needs. Further, some employers encouraged specific examination of the student-employer Ifn relationship (Brown, 1939). Another study of this aspect of cooperative education was conducted by Winner and Snell (1981) who examined secondary level program. They found 48 that "employees identified the variables associated with student competencies as being of the greatest importance to them, with financial and regulatory consideration only at an approximate mid-point of their stated concerns." (p.32 ). In 1980, Martello and Shelton designed an ex— perimental study matching co-op students to non co-op stu- dents according to race, sex, age, and level of education. Co-op students were rated higher on the CMI Attitude Scales, Knowinngourself Scale, Knowing About Jobs, and Choosing a Job Scale, compared to non co-op students. The findings of another survey at Northeastern University, however, in- cluded senior students of nursing and revealed a lack of correlation between cooperative work experience and aca- demic learning. Further, it was discovered that students choose their employers on a highly individualized basis, not always related to their educational values (Willis, 1980). However, another research project studied the im- pact of Title VIII funding on cooperative educational pro- grams. In contrast to Willis's findings in 1980, the Title VIII study found that 90 percent of the co-op programs sam- pled, "provided work terms that were entirely or generally related to the student's academic major" (McMullen, 1981, p.67). Another study conducted in 1981 involved 1103 high school students in Experience-Based Career Education (EBCE). This research revealed that, "most students feel they learn best at a job site when given challenging tasks to perform" (Owens, 1981, p.57). 49 Studies and Related Researchcnm Cooperative Education in Kuwait Among the few studies done in this field in Kuwait is one by Berga Hurley (1981), who made a thorough investi- gation into co-op programs of the Medical Scretarial students at Kuwait Business Institute. In the first part of the study Hurley interviewed some directors of hospitals who reported that the students' levels of oral English and medical terminology were well below the expected standards for a medical secretary, while other directors reported that the work produced by the students was much better than that of graduate medical secretaries they had employed. The study, which included the physician and surgeons who had the direct responsibility for the student's training remarked that: 1. The co-op programme was basically sound and provided the student with a good over- view of the work of the medical secretary. 2. many students showed keen interest and initiative once unfamiliarity with the hospital environment had been overcome. 3. every student should have been issued a medical dictionary, a shorthand dictionary and an Arabic/English dictionary. 4. that the Kuwait Business Institute should examine the curriculum of the medical secretaries' courses and revise them to fit the needs of hospital staff. 5. that there was a certain reluctance on the part of a few doctors to cooperate in the training of the students. 50 In a survey of hospital coordinators, it was re- vealed that they believed that Kuwait Business Institute was not prepared to listen and discuss changes with those persons involved in the co—op program. Coordinators also felt that the only graduate candidates accepted in the program lacked the necessary skills required to fulfill the jobs. They also identified a need for orientation sessions before attending the program. Her study included directors of the Ministry of Education, who emphasized the need for an "in-depth" analy- sis of co-op programs in conjunction with personnel from the employers. Institution coordinator research demonstra- ted that most personnel involved in training the co-op students were unfamiliar with the program and "although the course guide had been widely distributed to the heads of departments, in many cases it had remained unread or had not been passed on to other staff." (Ibid, p.13). Students' attitudes toward the co-op program demon- strated that, while the students were satisfied that they were able to participate in an organized training program, many were dissatisfied about the work they actually didg\ Individual analysis of the student reaction scales showed that the non-graduates did not feel that they were getting as much benefit from the training program as the graduate candidates. The results of this research also indicated that students had a hostile reception from clerical and typing 51 staff, who felt threatened that trained medical secretaries would place their own jobs in jeopardy. "In some instances, these staff were deliberately obstructive and situations became extremely difficult for the student to handle"(Ibid, p.18). At the same time, another study conducted at the Business Institute in 1981 revealed that the students gained the maximum benefit from the co-op program (Ministry of Ed- ucation, 1981). Summary of the Chapter The literature review has revealed that cooperative education, a vital part of the educational process, has increased in scope and size in a rapid and seemingly un- ending manner during the last decade. Cooperative educa- tion can be considered one strategy to prepare students to enter today's social and economic world. Helping stu- dents find relevancy in their studies is being recognized as crucial for society and the economy to continue to func- tion as intended under the next generation of workers. Historical Development The cooperative education movement in the U.S. dates back to the 1900's. It was inagurated at the University of Cincinnati by Dean Schneider of the School of Engineering. 52 Many new ideas and techniques have been used to bring co- operative education strategy into the modern curricula. Other theories have continued to be a part of a long and well established traditional philosophy which has functioned successfully with the Smith-Hughes, George-Dean, George- Bardon, Vocational Education (1963) and Vocational Education (1968) Acts as a catalyst for cooperative education. It is predicted that cooperative education, in both United States and Kuwait, will see continuous growth. A major reason for this dramatic growth is, "the federal governmennt. Their program of grants for support to cooperative educa- tion has made exploration, planning, and implementation of programs possible for many institutions." (Wilson, 1975, p.2). In recent years, not only in Kuwait but in many other countries, partially those of the Third World, cooper- ative education has begun to occupy an important and pro- minent place in the field of education. The endeavors by the Kuwait government to establish and develop cooperative education began in the 1950s to overcome the shortage of skilled labor in the country. The private sector also has exerted efforts to bring this program to success. Goals and Objectives Although the objectives and goals of cooperative education vary from country to country and from one discip- line to another, there are some general points which are 53 agreed upon. The major objectives of cooperative education can be summarized as: l. 2. to give relevant education to the students entering the social and economic world today. to develop a viable career plan based on realistic self appraisal and accurate occupational information. to develop a well-balanced combination of vocational competencies that enables graduates to advance more rapidly in satisfying careers. to enable students to deal with the practical as well as theoretical aspects of course material (motivational goals). to enable educational institutions to provide a superior education and compete more effectively for students in a de- clining student-age pool. to meet employers' demands of personnel turnover and growth to accommodate change in needed skills and knowledge, and to improve job performance. The goals and objectives of cooperative education in Kuwait in addition to those mentioned above are: l. to inculcate such objectives as the dignity of manual labor, non-tribal allegiance and acceptance of an intricate system of labor relations. to meet the demands of the labor market for semi-skilled and skilled labor in short and long run. to inform employers about the theoretical and practical experiences of the students and about their ambitions. 54 Related Research Studies and research into cooperative education began in the early 19505 in the United States. The great number of studies compiled from then until now, covers cooperative education programs in a variety of educational disciplines and helps to indicate the need for additional research that can help correlate the understanding of co- operative education educators into a unified discipline. Many of the problems and innovative ideas are universal in nature, and solutions can be helpful to several different areas of the educational field. Those studies concerning student, faculty and employers showed positive attitudes toward co-op programs. Research has found that co-op stu- dents show higher attendance, better quality and quantity of work, and more ability to get along with co-workers than other students. Employers attitudes toward the em- ployment of co-op students were found to be almost entirely favorable. In other research co-op students were found to be more intelligent than those not in co-op programs ac- cording to Graduate Record Exam (GRE) scores, and most researchers noted that cooperative programs made classes more meaningful to students. Among the very few studies done in Kuwait, the need is apparent for further research to discover employers' attitudes toward the program. Hurley indicates in her study 55 there is a need for "in-depth analysis of cooperative pro- grams in conjunction with personnel from employees." (1981, p.13). CHAPTER THREE POPULATION, INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA COLLECTION In order to determine whether students, faculty and employers differed in their perceptions and attitudes to- ward cooperative education programs in two-year post- secondary technical and vocational institutes in the State of Kuwait, 1. these hypotheses were developed. The students, faculty and employers have dif— ferent perceptions about cooperative education programs at two-year post-secondary institutes in Kuwait. ‘ In contrast to non-cooperative employers, the cooperative employers, students and faculty know what cooperative education programs are. The students, faculty and employers favor the concept of cooperative education programs. The cooperative employers (who are involved in this program), and non-cooperatives employerscxnv- sider their participation as a social obligation to offer services to their community and country. Most employers lack information about coopera- tive education programs at two-year post- secondary education institutes in Kuwait. The employers are discouraged from participating in these programs because of poor administration or coordination by the educational institutions. Both student and faculty have a perception that employers' supervisors and coordinators are not cooperating sufficiently to bring about a suc- cessful cooperative education program in these institutes. 56 57 Three groups of related parties were of concern: the students, who constitute the body of any cooperative educational program and who the program is designed to bene- fit, the faculty members whose support and cooperation is vital in preparing the students for the program with appro- priate direction; and, finally, the employers without whose cooperation the program cannot exist. Accordingly, three different questionnaires were developed to identify the differences in the perceptions and understanding of students, faculty and employers. The questionnaire results were intended to reveal these differ- ences in perceptions regarding cooperative education programs. Population and Sampling Four groups of population were of concern in develop- ing this study. The first group consisted of students, both co-ops (those currently or previously involved in a coopera- tive programs) and, non C0~OP students. The student popula- tion at all two-year post-secondary education institutions in Kuwait comprised approximately 4,200 male and female students, as of April 15, 1982. Of this group, those stu- dents who were non-Kuwaiti (about 517 male and female stu- dents) were subtracted from the total number. The non co-op students were randomly selected from 1-16 by using a table of random numbers. When a number was 58 selected, it was then necessary to determine from the regis- trar's records of students' nationality if the student selected was of Kuwaiti nationality. If he met that qualification, he was accepted as a subject for this study. The reason that the researcher used only Kuwaiti students was that the non-Kuwaiti students do not have the same opportunities for employment after they graduate, because of the preference for training and hiring Kuwaitis. Therefore, excluding the non-Kuwaiti students from this study was essential to pre- vent inconsistency in data and biased results. The same procedure was followed in selecting the cooperative students. The names of these students were available from co-op student's records at field training and the follow-up division in each institute. The numbers selected, were checked with the registrar's records to iden- tify the students' nationality. The researcher also focused more on co-op students than non co-ops. The justification for this was that the co-op students have actual experience on the job site and are more acquainted with the strengths and weaknesses of the program. Accordingly, the students' population actually consisted of one non co-op student to every two co-ops. Group number two consisted of full-time faculty mem- bers at post-secondary institutions. A total of 751question- naires were distributed to 571 teachers and faculty members of technical and vocational institutions in Kuwait. The 59 subjects were selected from registrar's records in each in— stitution. This number represented only the full-time faculty members at these institutions; all part-time teachers at Kuwait University who were involved in part-time teaching or counseling were eliminated from the lists. The third group consisted of cooperative employers or those who were currently involved in co-op programs. Names and addresses of these employers were obtained from each institution separately. Records from an employers' directory available at the field training and follow-up division of each institution revealed the names and addresses of all cooperative employers and their locations, in addi- tion to the names of the contact persons in charge of the co-op program in each firm. The list for 1981/82 was checked out and 45 cooperative employers, with 77 branches through- out the country, 77 were identified and all of them were used as subjects to respond to the final questionnaire. A significant problem was encountered in deter- mining non co-op employers for the study. This group was the fourth group of concern and included small and large, private and public, business and industry, personnel man- agers; presidents and vice-presidents. Names were selected from the Industrial Directory at the Kuwait Ministry of Industry and Trade, in addition to the Annual Directory of the Chamber of Commerce for 1981/82. Employers totaled approximately 6,000. After randomly selecting employers, 60 the telephone directory was used to determine their loca- tion and the contact person in charge to be contacted. Instrumentation There is general agreement among researchers that questionnaires are an acceptable method of obtaining neces- sary data, in order to accept or reject a hypothesis. (Van Dalen, 1966, p.525). Thus, the need for developing a suitable questionnaire to elicit the data necessary to test the hypotheses was obvious. The content and format of the instrument were part- ially adapted from an instrument constructed by Dr. Roger Wadsworth of the University of Miami, Education Administra— tion Department (1976). The purpose of his study was to identify student, faculty and employer perceptions regard- ing cooperative education at Miami-Dade Community College, South Campus. Major findings for that study appeared to be: a lack of adequate publicity for the program; need for flexibility in the program; stronger coordination and commitment by employers; a lack of economic resources and insufficient staffing. The first step was to translate appropriate parts of the questionnaire into Arabic because Arabic-speaking managers predominate in firms and institutions all over the country. The translation was accomplished with the assistance and supervision of Mr. Al-Shafied, director and 61 professor of Arabic language in the technical and vocational department. Also Mr. Sabri Al-Fadhil, the chairman of the Research and Translation Division in that department. A long-time teacher in the Business Institute was consulted in this process to insure proper translation of the words without losing the purpose. In order to further refine the questionnaire to elimi- nate possible areas of ambiguity, vagueness, bias, and con- fusion, it was decided to conduct a pilot study. It was also desirable to ascertain whether or not the responses of the_subjects would indeed reflect the kind of informa- tion that this study aimed to obtain. Therefore, the pre- liminary questionnaire, with an appropriate cover letter of explanation accompanied by an official letter signed by the chairman of the Technical and Vocational Department of the Ministry of Education (in Arabic) was distributed to a group of five students, five faculty members, five coop- erative employers and five non-cooperatives, in addition to three senior members of the Technical and Vocational De- partment. All pilot study subjects were asked to complete the questionnaire and were then interviewed to obtain their reactions. The pilot study was developed using three co-op and two non co-op students. The student questionnaire was written in two parts. The first part concerned student demographic data and the second part aimed at discerning their participation and attitudes. 62 The questionnaire was designed to take only 10-12 minutes to fill out. The pilot study resulted in changing some items in the students' questionnaire. The students' nationality, for example, was found to be a sensitive area by the panel and made non-Kuwaiti students feel discrimin- ated against. The student panel also suggested "less than 150 K.D." instead of "100 K.D." in the question pertaining to students' income per month because of the high rates of income in the country. A time table for question num- ber 12 in the student questionnaire was eliminated because it was found to be difficult for students to indicate the exact date for continuing their education after graduation. The student panel also crossed out the response "to gain more money" in the question related to why they favored the co-op program, because the payment was not competitive in most cases with similar jobs outside. The faculty questionnaire (See Appendix 1) was admin- istered to a panel of five faculty members, including a teacher from the Business Institute for Boys, the Chair- person of Career Development in the Student Service Division of the Business Institute for Girls, two professors at the Applied Technology Institute and one Science teacher from the Health Institute. The pilot study panel crossed out the response "to assist students financially" in the ques- tion about why they favored the plan, for the same reasons given by the students' panel. The faculty panel also added 63 "no monetary incentives" to the question about why they don't favor the plan. The faculty questionnaire was deter- mined to take seven minutes to complete. The employers' pilot study group was composed of five co-ops and five non co-ops (see Appendix 1). The employer panel suggested a one-part questionnaire instead of two parts, as in the student questionnaire, because the two- part instrument looked too long and might discourage manager- respondents. They also asked that the designations "Kuwaiti and non-Kuwaiti" managers be changed to Kuwaiti, Arabic and non-Arabic for ethnic reasons. The pilot group also added "over 5,000,000 K.D." to the question on the firm's budget. Based on the results of the pilot testing a few minor ad- justments were completed prior to the production of the final questionnaires. Procedures for Data Collection Prior to collecting data from students and faculty members, it was necessary to obtain official permission from the Ministry of Education, which was obtained with no obstacles (See Appendix 2). It is also worth mention- ing that data was obtained by personal visits by the re- searcher to the groups' involved in the study. No ques- tionnaires were mailed to any party. The students were classified according to their car- eer departments, and, with the c00peration of the chairman 64 of each department, the questionnaires were distributed to the student subjects in their classes. Students were asked to return questionnaires within a week to their teachers in class and those teachers were asked to turn them in to the field training division at each institution. The number of questionnaires returned from students was lower than expected because of Muslem holiday vacation. From the total number of 150 questionnaires, only 63 were obtained on time, 29 were turned in two weeks later than the deadline date, and were accepted because of the intervening holiday. Two ques- tionnaires were not included in the results because students did not follow questionnaire directions and three were turned in too late to be of use. The students' question- naire was accompanied by a letter (in Arabic) signed by the researcher explaining the purpose of the study and the im- portance of their cooperation. Follow-up procedures were oral reminders given in visits to each class after the dead- line data. Each questionnaire was given a code number so that any anomalies in return rates could be identified and the cause traced (i.e., no returns from one class might mean that teacher had forgotten to turn them in). The faculty members were divided according to their departments, and the questionnaires were distributed by personal visits to each institution. The faculty question- naire was accompanied by two cover letters. The first letter, signed by the researcher, was to emphasize the purpose and 65 importance of the study; the second letter, signed by the director of Technical and Vocational Education in the Ministry of Education, gave his support and asked their cooperation with the research. The registrar's records for 1981/82 showed 517 faculty members, of whom 75 were interviewed. The cover letter asked them to return the questionnaires after one week and 71 questionnaires were received. Only one questionniare was found to be inconsistent and unusuable. No follow-up procedures were necessary to obtain the questionnaires. Seventy-seven,questionnaires were delivered to 45 co-op employers in their branches all over the country. A cover letter signed by the researcher accompanied each ques- tionnaire and,where necessary,a copy of the official letter from the Ministry of Education was distributed. This letter showed that the researcher's request to do the study had the approval of the Undersecretary for Technical and Vocational Education at the Ministry of Education in Kuwait and was helpful in obtaining employers' confidence and cooperation. The employer questionnaire was five pages long and took 10 minutes to complete. In the cover letter two weeks were given as a deadline for questionnaires to be made ready for pick-up by the researcher. All questionnaires were coded to allow for follow-up procedures. A total of 43 responses were collected from offices of employers in the two weeks 66 after distribution and another 23 questionnaires were col- lected after the first and second follow-up. Only one ques- tionnaire was unusuable because of inconsistencies. The same procedure was used to collect data from non co-op em- ployers. The diverse locations of different corporations and firms all over the country made this procedure difficult to complete but it was felt that personal visits elicitied a more complete response than a mailed questionnaire and that limiting the area might have biased the response. Only 23 questionnaires were picked up from non co-op em- ployers on time, 25 questionnaires were turned in one week later, and 12, three weeks later. Only one response was unusuable and four questionnaires were received too late and were not used. Follow-up procedures used with both groups of employers were telephone calls by the researcher preceeding his visit to pick up responses. The results of the survey efforts are detailed in Table 3.1 below. TABLE 3.1 RESPONSES TO SURVEY QUESTIONNIARE Popula- Number Number Percentage Group tion Sampled Returned of Return Students 3600 150 97 65 Faculty 571 75 71 96 Co-Op Employers 77 77 66 86 Non Co-Op Employers 6000 100 57 57 67 Statistical Treatment The data were analyzed on the C.D.C. Michigan State University Computer System. The results will be presented in Chapter Four. Findings will be presented in tables using frequencies, percentages and means. CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS OF THE DATA In this chapter a general analysis of data derived from student, faculty, and employer questionnaires is pre- sented. The chapter is designed to present the analysis ' of the data in a way that facilitates testing the hypo- theses presented in Chapter One. Additional details of the findings will be discussed in the succeeding chapter. Overview of the Results To determine employers', faculty and students' per- ceptions and understanding of cooperative education pro- grams, the queStion, "Do you know what the cooperative education program is?" was asked of each group. Only 19.2 percent of employers who had not been involved in co-op programs said "yes", while 87.7 percent of cooperative employers replied affirmatively to this question. Of the faculty, 91.4 percent answered "yes", and 82 percent of students said "yes". It is clear from this data that of all four groups, only non-cooperative employers were gen- erally uninformed about cooperative education programs. The relative percentages are presented in Table 4.1. 68 69 TABLE 4.1: AWARENESS AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE CO-OP PROGRAM Employers__ Students Faculty Co-Op Non Co-Ops Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Yes 82.0% 91.4% 87.7% 19.2% No 11.2% 8.6% 1.5% 53.8% Unsure 6.8% 0.0% 10.8% 26.9% All four groups were asked to describe a cooperative education program. Among these groups non co-op employers by a margin of 41 percent were unsure about the program. Of these, 34.4 percent of them described it as part-time work. The answers ranged from “part-time work for students" to "the traditional alternating of full-time work with full- time study in a student's career field". Cooperative em- ployers chose the "alternating" response over others by 37.2 percent, faculty by 39.2 percent and students by 27.5 percent. Of the non co-op employers, only 9.8 percent made this choice which was the lowest margin among all the _groups. The biggest difference in perceptions of coopera- tive education programs appeared between non-cooperative and co-op employers. Comparing the responses for all groups, reveals the inconsistency :among them in understanding variations in cooperative education programs. 70 Data also revealed an overwhelming acceptance of the cooperative education concept among all four groups. The question, "do you favor the concept of co-op education?" brought responses that were 70 percent or more in the af- firmative in all groups (Table 4.2). TABLE 4.2: ACCEPTANCE OF CO-OP EDUCATION Responses to, "Do Employers You Favor the Concept _ of Co-op Education?" Co-op Non-Co-op Faculty Students % % % % Yes 96.9 78.8 70.0 88.0 No 3.1 5.8 -- 8.7 Undecided -- 15.4 -- 3.3 Those in favor of the co-op education program con- cept, were asked, "why do you favor co-op programs?" Co-op employers favored, as a first reason, "to attain better employees who are more educated" by 29.5 percent. The rea- sons given by this group were "to save money and effort" (26.7 percent), and to "cut personnel turnover" (22.9 per- cent). The non—ce-Op employers responded differently than co-ops. They chose "service to community" most frequently (33.7 percent). Next in frequency were, "to expand the source of personnel" (29.1 percent) and "to obtain better employers" (25.6 percent). Faculty and students' responses 71 were similar to each other. The faculty chose"integrating theory and study with experience“ (44.2 percent) most fre- quently and students chose "to gain experience" (58.4 per- cent) most frequently, while faculty mentioned this as a secondary choice. Both faculty and students favored "to assist students in finding the right career" as the third reason. Those who were not in favor of the program were asked to give reasons why they were not. Very few reasons were given to this question since the majority of subjects accepted the concept. Of those who did respond, co-op employers favored "it takes too much time to train Stu- dents who may not stay" as the primary reason (44.4 per- cent), while "students are not qualified for our jobs" (22.2 percent) was the second most popular reason. Non- co-op employers gave different reasons, in that 53.6 per- cent said they "did not know about the program". This response supports the need for employers to be informed about programs to obtain their participation. Some 23 per- cent of non co-op employers mentioned "no budget for co-op programs" as a second reason. No responses were generated to this question from the faculty. Students checked “lack of financial support" (38.1 percent) as their most frequently mentioned response. All of those who were aware of the cooperative edu- cation program were asked, "how did you hear about the pro- gram?" Co-op employers mentioned a "college and institutional 72 mailing" overwhelmingly by 53.3 percent. The second most frequent response was "own experience" as a second one. Non—cooperative employers heard about the program from, most frequently, "the newspaper or other organization" at 40 percent, "own experience" by 30 percent, and "college and institute's mailings" by 20 percent. Faculty members mentioned "personal involvement"(43.3 percent) "from a college" (31.3 percent), and "official announcement or memorandum" (31.3 percent). Students heard of it mostly via "institutes directory or brochure" (36.0 percent), from "another student" by (30.7 percent) and "a faculty member (20 percent). The data shows that different means and methods were effective in reaching different groups of concern in this study. Each method could be enhanced or broadened to reach more organizations, faculty and stu- dents. Students and employers were asked, "what types of cooperative program,for students working in their career field,best fits your needs?" Co-op employers preferred by 27.5 percent to have students for part-time work, or by 21.7 percent to have them full-time on the job for 2 terms (6 months or more) as first and second choices. Non :o-op employers also chose part-time student work by 30.5 percent but preferred to hire college and university students or graduates on a permanent basis by 18.6 percent. 73 Co-op and non co-op employers mentioned "students work for pay like other employees” by 26.1 percent and 22.0 percent, respectively. Students answer to this question showed a preference for full-time work for at least one term by 40.5 percent. The traditional alternating of full- time student work with full-time study was chosen by 26.6 percent. "Part-time work" was selected by 15.2 percent. All employers (cooperatives and non-cooperatives), faculty and students were asked "what would you like to know about the cooperative education program at technical and vocational institutes?" Co-op and non co-op employers had similar requests for information about specific career fields involved (34.5 and 32.1 percent, respectively). The second choice they wanted to know about was "how the program functions" by 22.4 and 29.5 percent respectively. "Whom to contact for information" was chosen by 19.8 per- cent of co-ops and 20.5 percent of non co-ops. Faculty members chose "who to contact for information" as their first choice by 40.6 percent and "what career fields are involved" by 21.9 percent. "How does the program function?“ was selected by 34.0 percent of the students. The data means a lack of information exists inside the educational institutions and within the co-op programs themselves. From all groups, those who knew what cooperative programs were, were asked to determine what the strengths of the co-op program were. Cooperative and non-cooperative 74 employers answered similarly to this question. Their re- sponses were "able to look at employees on a temporary basis to see if they will fit into the organization before hiring them permanently." (57.5 percent for co-ops and 39.6 percent for non-co-ops). The next most favored response was "students already have skills for the job" (17.8 per- cent for co-ops and 30.2 percent for non co-ops). Faculty favored "great maturity of students developed“ by 21.8 per- cent, the "1earning of human relations skills" by 15.1 percent, and "exploration of careers" by 14.7 percent. Students' responses to this question were similar to the faculty. They favored "learning of human relations skills at work" by 27.4 percent, "greater maturity of students is developed" by 19.4 percent and "exploration of career" by 16.0 percent. The same groups were asked about the weaknesses of cooperative education programs. Cooperative employers favored "poor administration and coordination by the educational institution" by 29.9 percent. The next most frequent weakness, indicated was "don't always receive well qualified students" (21.5 percent). It is not clear why employers who had not had co-op students most frequently selected this response (33.3 percent) to this survey item. Non co-ops listed other reasons such as inadequate training time and economic factors while faculty members chose "poor job supervision by the employer" (22.1 percent) as the most frequent weakness. 75 They also felt the program suffered from "mostly temporary jobs" and "students more concerned with earning credits than learning skills" (19.8 percent and 18.3 percent re- spectively). Students identified "lack of monetary in- centives" (by 18.7 percent) as the greatest weakness of the program and then "poor supervision by employers" (17 percent) and "inadequate coordination between school and employers" (12.6 percent) as other weaknesses. A lack of communication and coordination between employers and edu- cational institutes is evidenced by the data. It is also worth nothing that both students and faculty blamed inade- quate employer supervision for program weaknesses while both students and co-op employers felt there was poor co- ordination of the program at the institute level. A mutual lack of understanding and sincere commitment to resolving the problems is evident in the tendency of the educators and employers to blame each other (i.e., the educators said "employer supervision" and the employers said "in- stitute coordination".) Students gave these reasons second and third place, following "lack of monetary incentives." Cooperative and Non-Cooperative Employers The cooperative and non-cooperative employer question- naire included several questions to elicit demographic data, including nationality, sex, and occupational 76 status. This was in addition to the other part of the ques- tionnaire that concerned their opinions and perceptions about cooperative education programs. Synthesis of the demographic data of employer-respondents indicated that males overwhelmingly outnumbered females by 87:13. Of the 113 employers who iden- tified their nationality, the non-Kuwaiti (non citizen) em- ployers were in the majority. Data revealed 53.1 percent non-Kuwaiti, 42.5 percent Kuwait, and only 4.4 percent non-Arab employers. It was noted that, while still in the minority, Kuwaiti employers were better represented among co-op employers than non-cooperative employers or the em- ployer group as a whole. Data showed 47.7 percent Kuwaitis to 52.3 percent non-Kuwaitis were co-op employers. Among those who did not employ co-op students, 35.4 percent were Kuwaitis, while 64.6 percent were not Kuwaitis. Over 40 percent of the responses obtained were from persons aged 31-40 years and over, 60 percent of them had been in their positions for five years or more. Over 85 percent of re- turns were from persons in high ranking positions such as personnnel directors (31.6 percent), presidents or vice- presidents (17.5 percent) and divisional or department super- visors (26.3 percent). This is a good indicator of the validity of the data, because most of the answers came from personnel in direct charge of their programs for five years or more. Furthermore, most of those who were cooperative employers are the contact persons for information about 77 cooperative program. Their positions and experience in the job makes them the most knowledgeable persons on this issue. Their opinions are considered reliable. Cooperative employers were 50 percent from the public or government sector, 26 per- cent from firms that are both private and public and 23.4 percent from the private sector. The non-c00perative em- ployers were 70.6 percent private, 21.6 percent public and 7.8 percent from firms both private and public. Overall, 44.3 percent of the respondents came from the private sector and 37.4 percent from the public or government sector. Seventy percent of respondents represented large organiza- tions with 500 or more employees which were considered more able to provide opportunities for co-op programs in their firms, compared to other smaller organizations. Of the cooperative employers, 50 percent had over 500 employees, 23.4 percent employed from 101-500. Of the non co-ops, 40.4 percent were firms with 101-500 employees and 28.8 percent had over 500 employees. Service and production and manufacturing firms predominated, which indicates the ex- panding role of these sorts of firms in the economy. Con- sideration should be given to meeting their needs for skilled labor as their demand increases. The results also showed that commercial banks and financial companies provided numerous opportunities for co-op students, even though they recorded lower percentages. A question about the annual budgets of the sample firms was 78 answered by 110 employers, and showed that over 49 percent had a budget from one million K.D. to over 500 million. Over 20 percent of employers indicated their firm's budgets were between 100,000 K.D. and a half million K.D.; 6.4 percent indicated their budgets were somewhere between 500,000 to one million K.D. Some employers (22.7 percent) were not willing to specify their annual budgets, mostly because they were considered confidential, others were not sure what their budgets were. Although private firms predomin- ate in frequency, they tend to be smaller and employ fewer people than the government and quasi-government establish- ments. TABLE 4.3: SIZES AND BUDGETS OF FIRMS SURVEYED Types of Number of *Annual Budget Firms % Employees % in K.D. % private 44.3 1-50 14.7 less than 100,000 10.9 Public 37.4 51-100 13.8 100,001-500,000 10.9 Both 18.3 101-500 31.0 SO0,00l-l,000,000 6.4 over 500 40.5 ’1,ooo,ooo-5,ooo,ooo 26.4 Over 5,000,000 22.7 Don't Know 22.7 *One K.D. (Kuwaiti Dinar) = 3.4 American Dollars 79 Cooperative and non-cooperative employers were asked "do you know what cooperative education is?" Co-op employers, by 87.7 percent said "yes", 11 percent were not sure, and only 1.5 percent denied knowledge. Only 19.0 percent of non co—Ops replied "yes", 80.7 percent of them did not know what a co-op program was or were unsure. This indicates that most employers,who were-not co-op employers, were not informed about the program. Both the cooperative and non- cooperative employers were asked to describe the cooperative education program (Table 4.4). A total of 37.2 percent of co-ops described the program as "alternating full-time work with full-time study", 23.3 percent described it as "part- time work for students". Non-cooperative employers chose "part-time work for students" (34.4 percent), "a volunteer or intern plan" (9.8 percent) or checked some other descrip- tion. The vast majority, 41 percent of these employers, were unsure how to describe the co-op plan. TABLE 4.4 EMPLOYERS'PREFERENCES AMONG CO-OP PLANS Co-ops Non-Co-Ops Description Choices Percentage Percentage Part-time work for students 23.3 34.4 Full-time work for students 20.9 4.9 A volunteer or intern plan 18.6 9.8 Alternating full-time work with 37.2 9.8 full-time study Unsure -- 41.0 80 Employers (co—Ops and non co-ops) indicated various sources of information about the co-op program. The majority of cooperative employers,63.3 percent, heard about it from a college or university mailing. Some 13.3 percent heard from their families or their own school experience and 10 percent from a fellow employees. Only 30 non-cooperative employers answered this question and 40 percent of them said they had heard about the co-op program from the news- paper or another organization, 30 percent of them from their families and school experience and 20 percent from a college or institute mailing, which shows a fairly diverse but limited public relations effort. The majority of cooperative employers were involved in technical and vocational co—op programs (42.1 percent) some 28.3 percent were involved with the Kuwait University Summer Co-Op Program, and 5 percent with otherpmograms. Of those who responded to this question, 41 percent had been involved in the program for one year and 23 percent had been involved three to five years. The largest group supervised 11-20 students (39.7 percent), while 25.4 per- cent had over 20 students, some 15.9 percent had 6-10 stu- dents and 19 percent trained less than 5 students.(Table 4.5) Research results revealed that both groups of em- ployers sampled were in favor of the concept of cooperative education*programs. A total of 96.9 percent of co-op em- ployers and 78.8 percent of non co-ops favored the concept, 81 TABLE 4.5 CO-OP INVOLVEMENT OF EMPLOYERS, BY YEARS, NUMBER OF STUDENTS, AND TYPE OF INSTITUTION Kind of N276 Years N=67 Number of N=7l Institution % Involved % Students % Kuwait - 28.3 less than 41.0 less than University 1 year 5 19.0 Voc. & Tech. Institution 50.0 1-2 years 18.0 6-10 15.9 Both 13.3 3-5 years 23.0 11-20 39.7 Don't Know 3.3 Over 5 years 18.0 Over 20 25.4 Other 5.0 while only 3.1 percent of co-ops and 5.8 percent of non co-ops responded negatively. Some 15.4 percent of non co-ops were undecided. Those who expressed an opinion: were asked to give reasons (Table 4.5); 63 cooperative employers with 105 tallies indicated "to obtain better employees who are more educated" (29.0 percent), 41 non- cooperative employers answered the question, marking 86 tallies. The most frequent response was "as a community service". Neither group of employers believed that their em— ployees were reluctant to train co-op students for fear of losing their own jobs in the future. Co-op employers, by 56.9 percent, denied this, although 24.6 percent said 82 TABLE 415 EMPLOYERS' REASONS FOR SUPPORTING CO-OP PROGRAMS N=63 N=41 Reasons Employers Favor Co-ops Non Co-op Co-Op Programs % % To obtain better employees, more educated 29.5 25.6 To save money and effort 10.5 3.5 To cut personnel turnover 8.6 7.0 As a community service 26.7 33.7 To expand the sources of personnel 22.9 29.1 Other 1.9 1.2 there was a strong indication this was true and 16.9 per- cent said "yes, but it does not really affect the program." Non—co-op employers, also, responded in the negative by 40 percent, some 37.5 percent said, "Yes, but it does not really affect the program" and 22.5 percent said "yes there is a good indication that this is true." While these high- ranking personnel primarily rejected the idea of trainer- student rivalries negatively affecting the co-op programs, the literature has indicated otherwise, particularly Berga's study of the hostility shown student medical secretaries by clerks and typists in the hospitals. This discrepancy may exist only in isolated situations or it may reflect a 83 realistic concern of the majority of supervisors or trainers, who are non-Kuwaitis and may reasonably fear losing their jobs to co-op graduates they have trained. Since the ques- tion was outside the scope of this study, however, it could not be resolved here. When asked whether "the communication problems are because of non-Arab supervisors," both groups of employers said yes. Co-op employers answered "yes" by 66.1 percent, and "no" by 32.3 percent. Non co-ops answered "yes" by 60 percent and "no“ by 40 percent. On another aspect of the communication problem, the data indicated that co-ops and non co-op employers prefer direct contact with educa- tional personnel, rather than going through bureaucratic channels in the Ministry of Education, as is currently practiced. Cooperative employers favored this by 79.4 per- cent and 48.9 percent of non-cooperative employers thought it seemed the best way to communicate on mutual concerns. Agreement was evident between the two employer groups with relevance to co-op students' wages. Seventy-one per- cent of co-op employers and 63 percent of non co-ops stated that payment should be made by the employers to create loyalty and enthusiasm, while 22.2 percent of co-ops and 26.1 percent of non co-ops said students should be paid through the educational institutions. A small percentage felt pay should come from both. 84 When both groups of employers were asked to identify the type of cooperative format which best fit their needs, co-ops' answers ranged from 27.5 percent for part-time work to 26.1 percent for alternating full-time work with full- time study. Non co-Ops chose the same types with 30.5 per- cent favoring part-time and 22.0 percent for the traditional mode of alternating full-time work with full-time study. It was worth nothing that CO-Op employers favored full—time work on the job for two terms (6 months) or more, which is unusual in the State of Kuwait. A significant number of non-cooperative employers (18.6 percent) expressed a preference for hiring graduates from college and universit- ies instead of training them. TABLE 4.7: TYPE OF CO-OP FORMAT PREFERRED BY EMPLOYERS Co-Ops Non Co-Ops % % Type of Program N=69 N=59 1. Full-time work for 2 terms (6 months) or more 21.7 10.2 2. Part-time student work 27.5 30.5 3. Full-time work alternating with study 26.1 22.0 4. Students paid like other employees 20.3 16.9 5. None (hire college or uni- versity graduates) 4.3 18.6 6. Other -- 1.7 85 Those employers who had been involved in cooperative education programs were asked to select the strengths and weaknesses of the program from the choices given in the questionnaire. The most frequently mentioned element of strength for the co-op program, as determined by cooperative employers, was its “ability to look at an employee on a temporary basis to see if that individual fits into the organization before hiring someone permanently." (Table 4.8). Non-cooperative employers preferred the same advantage by 39.6 percent. As the next most selected choice, both groups preferred "students already have skills for the job" and "free recruitment program" was the third most frequent choice for both groups. TABLE 4.8: CO-OP PROGRAM STRENGTHS AS SELECTED BY EMPLOYERS Co-Ops Non Co-ops Strengths of Co-Op Program % % N: 73 N: 4 7 Free recruitment program 15.1 18.9 Obtain employees for lower wages 2.7 9.4 Students already have skills 17.8 30.2 To look at employees before hiring 57.8 39.6 Other 6.8 1.9 86 When asked to select the weaknesses of the cooperative educational program, the two weaknesses selected most fre- quently by co—op employers were "poor administration or co- ordination by the educational institutions" (29.9 percent) and "don't always receive well-qualified students" (21.5 percent). Some 18.7 percent checked other reasons, such as "not informed about the program in advance," "student training occurs mostly during Ramadan Month (Muslim Fasting month) which is not appropriate for employers, most train- ing activity occurs in summer time when personnel are on vacations and leaves (Table 4.9). TABLE 4.9: CO-OP PROGRAM WEAKNESSES SELECTED BY EMPLOYERS Co-Ops Non Co-ops Weaknesses of Co-Op Program % % ' N: 77 N: 33 Don't always receive qualified students 21.5 33.3 Supervisors don't have time to train 15.9 18.2 Need to explain the plan continuously 7.5 9.1 The plan is tied to economic factors 6.5 18.2 Poorly administered or coordi- nated by the educational insti- tution 29.9 3.0 Other 18.7 18.2 87 Fewer non-cooperative employers responded to this question. Of the 33 who did, 30.3 percent selected "don't always receive well-qualified students for positions." When employers were asked ‘what they would like to know about the cooperative education program at Vocational and Technical Institutes in Kuwait, more responses were received from non co-op employers than co-ops. The ratio of responses was 2.15:1.8, respectively. The data revealed strong indications that both groups of employers wanted to know more about co-op education programs, but those who were not involved, perhaps naturally, seemed to have more questions. The first item co-op employers wanted to know was the career fields that were involved (34.5 percent). "How the program functions" was given second priority (22.4 percent). The non-cooperative employers had the same prior- ities, except that even more of them wanted to know how the program functioned (29.5 percent). The third priority of both groups was "who to contact for information" and "the involvement of academic credits" was last on the list. There were few "other" questions (Table 4.10). 88 TABLE 4.:U):INFORMATION EMPLOYERS WANTED ABOUT CO-OP PROGRAMS Co-Ops Non Co-ops What Employers Wanted to Know % % ' ‘ N= 66 N: 44 How the program functions 22.4 29.5 Who to contact for information 19.0 20.5 What career fields are involved 34.5 32.1 How academic credits are involved 19.8 16.1 Other 3.4 1.8 Faculty As far as can be determined, this was the first study to assess faculty members' attitudes and perceptions of c00perative education programs in Kuwait. Excellent c00peration was provided the researcher; 93 percent of the questionnaires were returned and faculty seemed pleased that an interest was being taken in their profession. Demographic Data Faculty members were 57 percent male and 43 percent female. The question of nationality of faculty members was answered by 80 percent of the respondents, 20 percent did not respond. The results showed that 91.0 percent of the respondents were non-Kuwaitis and only 8.9 percent were 89 Kuwaitis. Respondents were 90 percent from the teaching faculty, 8.6 percent from administration and 1.4 percent from the student service department. As previously noted, only full-time staff were included in the study. More than 55 perCent of respondents were aged 31 to 50 years old and 57 percent have been working in technical and vocational institutions in Kuwait from 6 to over 8 years (See Appendix C, Table 4 for details). When faculty were asked if they knew what a coopera- tive education program was, 91.4 percent answered fyes" and 8.6 percent did not know. They were also asked to in- dicate their sources of knowledge about the co-op program. Some 43.3 percent attributed their knowledge to personal in- volvement and another 31.3 percent cited contact with a colleague. Taken together, these indicate personal con- tact is the most common method used to reach faculty members. TABLE 4.11: SOURCES OF FACULTY KNOWLEDGE OF CO-OP PROGRAM Source of Information percentage N'==67 Institute directory, newsletter, official memo. ' 22,4 A colleague 31.3 A student 3.0 Advertising board at the institute 0.0 Personal involvement 43.3 Other 0.0 90 Faculty members' description of cooperative educa- tion programs indicated differential understanding of the program. The majority, 39.2 percent described it as a1- ternating full-time work with full-time study, but a large number (34.2 percent) described it as "full-time work". Almost 17 percent described it as "part-time work which should be career-related", some 7.6 percent marked "volunteer or intern plan for students to find a career field," and 2.5 percent did not know. Faculty were asked whether they favored the concept of cooperative education, and further asked to give reasons why they favored it or why they did not. They were unanimously (100 percent) in favor of the concept, indicating excellent support for the program. The faculty members (N = 71 ) marked a total of 147 responses as their reasons for favor- ing the program. The greatest number of responses (44.2 percent) indicated support for the program because it in- tegrated theory and study with practice, another 24.8 per- cent supported the work of experience aspect (See Appendix C, Table '5 for details). The question of whether they were willing to allow for co-op students' problems, drew a varied response, re- flecting tolerant attitudes toward some arrangements and inflexibility concerning others. Over 95 percent of faculty members were tolerant about, "taking course change suggestions 91 to meet employers' needs;" and only 4.5 percent said "no". On the other hand, 65.7 percent said they were not willing to allow co-op experience to slow down a students' gradua- tion time. There was general agreement students could "add or drop a course after it began". They showed less flexi- bility about rescheduling an exam for students, possibly because rescheduling an exam after reporting the final grades to the administration department or the Office of the Dean, requires some bureaucratic procedures (See Appendix C. Table 6 for details). When faculty were asked what they would like to know about the Technical and Vocational Institutes' Cooperative education programs, the data indicated the lack of effective internal communications within the institutes. The response most frequently selected was “who to contact for informa- tion or referral of students?" Other responses are shown in Table 4.12. TABLE 4.12: FACULTY QUESTIONS ABOUT CO-OP PROGRAMS Percentage Kind of Information Desired N =70 How the program functions 15.6 Who to contact for information 40.6 What career fields are involved 21.9 What jobs are open 10.9 How academic credits are awarded 9.5 Other 1.5 92 Those faculty members familiar with the program were asked to list its strengths and weaknesses. Seventy faculty members provided a total of 225 responses which gives enough data for reliability. The highest priority among the strengths was given to "greater maturity of students is developed," "ex- ploration of career," and “learning of human skills while at work," in that order (See Appendix C Table '7for details). The same group of faculty members responded to dif- ferent items in considering weaknesses, with a total number of responses of 131. The most frequently identified weak- nesses were "poor job supervision by the employer" and "mostly temporary jobs." See Appendix C, Table 8. Students The student questionnaire was designed in two parts to facilitate future research in cooperative education pro- grams in Kuwait. The study revealed that from a total num- ber of 92 returned questions 69.6 percent of the students were currently involved in cooperative education programs and 30.4 percent were not involved. Sixty-four percent were male and 35.9 percent female, with 73 percent aged 19 to 24 years old, and 30.6 percent with grade points of 3.0 or more, 28 percent.2.5-2.9. (See Appendix C, Table 9). Students were asked if they had identified a career and 83.7 percent said yes, while 16.3 percent answered "no". 93 The most frequently choices were finance (Insurance and Banks), Mechanics and Construction Technology. Some 29.7 percent of the students were working for pay from which 37.9 percent worked in jobs related to their career choices and 62.1 per- cent worked in unrelated jobs; 50 percent of them worked 6 hours a day, mostly on night shift jobs, and 31.8 percent worked less than 6 hours (See Appendix C, Table 10). The majority of the students were planning to continue their education after graduation (62 percent) and the others said "no" or were undecided. When students were asked if they knew what the co- operative education program was, a large margin of 82 per- cent said "yes", 11.2 percent said "no", and 9.8 percent were unsure. None of those who said no or were unsure had been involved in the co-op program. Those who knew what the co-op program was, were asked how they had heard about the program. Some 56 percent checked, "institute's directory or Ministry of Education brochure," 30.7 percent were in- formed by another student and 20 percent learned from faculty members. The results evidenced that students' methods of getting this information were different than that of faculty and employers (See Appendix C, Table .13for details). Students were asked to describe a cooperative educa- tion program. In contrast to other groups (faculty and co- operative employers) students, by large margin of 44 percent, described the co-op program as part-time work, 27.5 percent 94 said it was alternating full-time work and study (See Appen- dix C; Table A14). Students answered solidly in the affir- mative when asked "do you favor the cooperative education program." A majority of 88 percent were in favor, 8.7 percent did not favor it, and 3.3 percent were undecided. Those who favored the program were asked to indicate why; 58.4 percent stated "to gain experience", 21.2 percent said "to help find the right career field", and 9.7 percent in- dicated "to earn more credits for graduation". Only 8 students did not favor the co-op program, and checked 21 responses, the most frequent reason given for not favor- ing the program was "lack of financial support or encourage- mentfrcmiemployer or the educational institute" (38.1 per- cent), 19 percent indicated "jobs located too far away." (See Appendix C, Table 11). Students were asked, "what type of cooperative ed- ucation best fits your needs?" The majority (40.5 percent) cfifstudents chose full-time work for at least one term, and 26.6 percent chose alternating full—time work with full-time study, another 15.2 percent chose part-time work. Some 13.9 percent of students checked "full-time on the job for at least two terms." This is a large percentage in favor of at least two terms on site and is unusual in Kuwait. When students were asked if the co-op program should be voluntary or compulsory, 72 percent preferred to have it on a voluntary basis according to desires of the students, 95 12.3 percent preferred a compulsory program for all stu- dents, and 15.7 percent preferred a compulsory program for some career fields and voluntary for others. Only 51 stu- dents wanted to know more about cooperative education pro- grams, marking 150 responses. The items that most wanted to know were "how the program functions" (34 percent), "who to contact for information" (28.7 percent), "what career fields are involved" 20 percent, and 16 percent wanted to know how academic credit was involved. The students who were familiar with the program were asked to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the pro- gram. A total of their 212 responses showed "learning of human relations skills while at work" to be the most popular choice of strengths and "coordination between employer and institute" as the least popular (4.7 percent). Appendix C, Table thas more details. The same group of students was asked to list weaknesses of the program and checked 230 re- sponses. The most frequently checked weaknesses by students were "lack of monetary incentives", "poor supervision by employers" and "lack of information and communication," respectively (See Appendix C, Table 112 for details and per- centages). In this chapter, the major findings of the study concerning cooperative education programs at technical and vocational institutes of post-secondary education, for 96 cooperative employers, non-cooperative employers, faculty of the institutes, and students has been presented. Analy- sis of the data concerning various perceptions and under- standing of cooperative education programs by the various groups were illustrated and discussed. Details concerning the percentages of their responses are furnished in tables in the chapter or in the Appendix. In the following section, a discussion of what the data showed as a test of the hypo- theses is presented to determine whether the hypotheses can be accepted or rejected. Hypotheses Discussion Hypothesis One Hypothesis One stated, "students, faculty and em- ployers have different perceptions about the cooperative education program at two-year post-secondary institutions in Kuwait.“ To test this hypothesis, the following ques- tion was administered to all groups (Co-op employers, non co-op employers, faculty, and students). \ Question: How would you describe a cooperative education program? (You may circle more than one.) . 1. Part-time work which should be career-related for students. 2. Full-time work which must be career-related. 3. A volunteer or intern plan for students to find a career field. 97 4. A plan of alternative full-time work with full- time study in a student's career field, for which credit may be given. 5. Unsure. Responses received from all four groups are shown in percentages in Table 4.13; the number of responses to each choice is illustrated by mean 7, for all groups. Tables 4.14 and 4.15 include a summary of all re- sponses. The results show that 86 cooperative, 61 non- cooperative employers, 75 faculty members and 109 students responded to the question. Each of the five possible re— sponses were checked by different numbers of subjects. As shown in Table 4.15, answer number one was checked most frequently (f=102), with a mean 7 25.5 representing 30.4 percent of the answers. The lowest frequency (f) was ac- corded response five. It received only 29 checks with a mean Y'of 7.25, representing 8.7 percent of the answers. The second highest was number four with a f of 99, 24.75 mean 7 representing 29.6 percent. Other answers ranged between the latter two. Differences in perception were evident from the responses to this question. The first description of "part-time work" (f=102) was not the best description. The second most frequently chosen description (f=99) was the traditional alternation of full-time work with full time study that characterizes co-op programs. These responses indicated a lack of real understanding about cooperative education programs at vocational and technical institutes in Kuwait. 98 mmm 111 mod 1111 me 1111 am 1111 mm qHBBJDUHBHBuasomm 00100 :02 .Haem 00100 mucommmfl mmzommmm m0oaaem cmmzumn coflumcfivuoou m H.m v moamflw uwmumo Ham cw manmmqnmasocx no: mHODMCHUuoou m m.m m and CONDmUficseeoo Ilemumoua usonm coaumeuomcw mo xomq h m.ma em ocacumma cans muaomuu ocflcfimm usonm Omcumucou muoe mucmosum o 0.5H mm um>oHaem soum sunflmsnucm 6cm ucmemmmuaoucm mo xomq m H.NN mm um>oaaem mnu >n :0am«>umasm woom v m.H N vamflm nomumu mucmnaum CH mocwcmao QOn 02 m m.ma mm mnofl >umuoaemu >Humoz N m.o m DOM m mxmu ou commouv momaaoo Ho mmmuzou .H x m AsmumWMm coHumusom m>flumummoou mo mommmcxmmzv umnssz momucmuumm >Ucngmum umzmc< may no cofluaauomma mucoammx .mo<92mummm 92¢ MuszOmmm >m mzHH¢mmmOOU 2H mmmmmzx¢m3 m0 wZOHBmmDO OB mumZOmmmm >BJDU0aasm Ucm Hoocum cmmzumn cowumcavuoou m H.m v moawwm umwumu Ham CH manmmmomHBch Doc emumona mo Amvuoumcflcuoou m m.m m 9mm acaumoflcsseou .emuooua on» usonm coaumeuomca mo xuma h m.mH VN ocficumma can» «Homuo ocficfimm usonm Umcumocoo mum mucmosum m 0.5H mN mm>HucmocH aumumcoe mo xumq m H.NN mN mucmcaum may cflmnu cu Emmamscucw xuma muomfl>umasm .mum>oaaem v m.H N uw>oaasm >9 cowmfl>umasm QOn uoom m m.ma oN @Hmaw ummumu ca acacoao n0n 02 N m.m m mach >umuoasmu >Humoz H momucmoumm wucmzvmnm memuH mo cowumauomma umnezz oncoammm Nuafizmummm 92¢ wuzmbommm Mm QMBHBao o.- s.m~ no unassumnmo sona>Hm no ucoeuumama < o.ma H.vH canoe: uOmH>umasm m.om >.hv mumo> m um>o unmofimoumumoa> o.o~ o.ma no ocmonmmnm ~.H~ ~.m~ mamas m on m ucmumfimm< o.oa m.o soumuomacaeoa s.ov m.ea menu» 4 on a o.wN v.vm nouomuam Hmccomnom m.a N.m umo> a mono was; assumed ucoouom pause unmoumm unwound cowuwmom nonou coz QOIOO QOIOO coz nOnOO ucomomm ca memo» mmwcdmzm mOIOU ZOZ 92¢ mOIOU m0 WJBHB QZ< ZOHBHmOm BZNWQKQ 2H mmmmw uN mamafi 153 o.ooa v.MN m.v coaumooom .om: Ocm o>auuzooum mow>uom mxcmm Ocm mOHchEOO HafiucmCNm NuumsocH Hao HO HmUwEOLUOvam o.om v.mN o.ma oom uw>0 oom OH Hoa 00H 0» am cm 09 H unmoumm 00:00 :02 coaumnacmmuo no NaumsocH mo ocax HETUHNQ “CGUHUQ QOIOO coz acouumm QOIOU momwoamem mo monenz mmotfizmummm ZOHBCNH2 m uo>o H.h om uo>o o.om mamas mum m.~m .u> amuse Huamzsz a.m~ mama» mum m.~m .n> oe-am H.Hm -coz m.~v mamema mumm> H.~H m can» mmmn H.s .s> om-n~ m.m auamzsx H.5m mam: unwound manuaumcH unwound Om< unwound muwamcofiumz unwound xow CH memo» ZOHBDBHBmzH mm? B¢ BZNQm MZHB 02¢ m0¢ .weHd¢20HB¢2 .xmm wm .mmmmzmz >9430¢m "v mdm¢8 155 TABLE 5: WHY FACULTY FAVOR CO—OP PROGRAMS Reasons Frequency Percentage 1. To assist students in 31 21.1 finding a career 2. To assist students in 15 10.2 finding permanent employ- ment 3. To integrate theory and study 65 44.2 4. To provide work experience 36 24.5 5. Other 0 0 147 100.0 156 TABLE 6: HOW FACULTY MEMBERS ARE WILLING TO ALLOW FOR A CO-OP STUDENTS PROBLEMS Problems Yes No 1. Missing some classes or coming 52.9 47.1 late due to job 2. Slowing down their graduation 34.3 65.7 time 3. Taking classes out of sequence 48.8 51.2 4. Course change to meet employee's 95.5 4.5 needs 5. Rescheduling an exam 45.2 54.8 6. Adding or dropping course after 78.3 21.7 it began 157 TABLE 7: STRENGTH OF COiOP PROGRAM AS DETERMINED BY FACULTY MEMBERS Sources Frequency Percentage 1. Great maturity of students is 49 21.8 developed 2. Learning of human relation 34 15.1 skills while at work 3. Credits toward graduation 12 5.3 for career-related work experience 4. Exploration of a career 33 14.7 5. Feedback to teachers on the 29 12.9 relevance of their teaching 6. Feedback to students in class 23 ' 10.2 7. Finding permenant employment 26 11.6 for students 8. Involvement of students in job 7 3.1 seminars 9. Coordination between the 12 5.3 employer and educational institutions 10. Other 0 -- 158 TABLE 8: WEAKNESSES OF CO—OP PROGRAM AS DETERMINED BY FACULTY MEMBERS :*SOurces Frequency Percentage 1. Courses and college dropped 94 6.9 to take jobs 2. Mostly temporary jobs 26 19.8 3. NO job Opening in student 2 1.5 career field 4. Poor job supervision by 29 22.1 employer 5. Lack of encouragement from 23 17.6 employers 6. Students concerned about 24 18.3 gaining more credits than learning 7. Lack of information about 5 3.8 programs; communication gap 8. Coordinator(s) of program are 4 3.1 not knowledgeable in all career field 9. Coordination between the 9 6.9 employer and the appropriate institute official 10. Other _ -_ 131 100.0% 159 H.HH memo» mN uo>o OHOE m.om mo Amem o.oa mmmm> m~-¢~ ~.m~ m.~-m.~ o.oa mmmm» «Numm m.oa v.~-o.~ o.om mmmms -ua~ ~.m~ m.aum.a m.mm mmmm» omuma m.mm mamsma 4.om no-oo coz m.H mummx s.~ amen mmmn m.m as amen mmms H.4m mam: m.mm nouoo ucmuumm momma unmoumm mmt unmouom xmm ucmuumm maumum szHom macaw aza woe .xmm .maeaam sm mezmnaem "a mamas 160 TABLE 10: STUDENTS PLAN AFTER GRADUATION FROM POST- SECONDARY TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL INSTITUTES "ARE YOU PLANNING TO GO ON TO A SENIOR INSTITUTION OR UNIVERSITY IN KUWAIT OR ABROAD AFTER LEAVING THE INSTITUTE? 'Students Response Frequence Percent Yes 57 62.0 NO . 10 10.9 Undecided 25 27.0 161 TABLE 11: WHY STUDENTS FAVOR CO-OP PROGRAM Reasons Frequency Percentage 1. To help find the right 24 21.2 career 2. To earn more credits 11 9.7 3. TO find permanent em- 4 3.5 ployment 4. To gain experience 66 58.4 5. It is sort of change in 8 7.1 academic routine 6. Other 0 -- TOTAL 113 100.0% 162 o I: umcuol Hoocom 0cm umzoanem mN O.Na comzuon cowumcwouooo x003: o I 4 nosuo .m mnoumswouooo OH n.v noumaumHCHEom manuaumcw 0cm ON >.m magmooomazocx uozu uoaoHneo coozuon coaumCNouooo .m Emuooua may usonm mN m.NH CONOmEuOch mo xomql mN n.ma Homewoaasm unocmeuon ocaocam .h ocacumma coca muaomuo HN H.m :flmo ou cumocou muozn NH >.m mocmosum ou xomnommm .m mo>aocoo m4 m.ma use snmumcos mo xumn- m e.~ monommu on xumoommm .m muoma>uomsm muoxoaaem ON m.HH soum somamsnuco mo xomql em o.wa umoumo mo coaumuoHaxm .v mum>oaaem mm G.RH >9 conH>uonsm uooml MN m.oa coaumsomum oumzou ufiomuu .m . maaflxm ha v.5 OHmaw umoumu ca Ooh oz: mm v.5N coaumaou omen: mo mswsumoa .N o O.N Ooh wumuoaeou >Humozu av m.ma >uflu5ums Hoummuu .H .ooum unmoumm QOnOO mo mmmnxmoz (Mona ucoouom menou mo cumwouum z¢mwomm @0100 QB ZOHBU¢mm BZMGDBm ”NH Mdm¢8 163 TABLE 13: HOW STUDENTS HEARD ABOUT COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS AT TWO-YEAR POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTES OF TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION Resources of Information Frequency Percentage Institute directory 27 3620% Another Student 23 30.7% Faculty Members 15 20.0% Institutes Local Advertisements 3 4.0% Other 7 9.3% 75 100.0% TABLE 14: HOW STUDENTS DESCRIBED A COOPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM Type of Co-Qp Program Frequency_ Percentage Part-time work, should be career-related 48 44.0% Full-time work, must be career-related 15 13.8% Volunteer or intern plan 14 12.9% Alternating terms of full- time with part-time 30 27.5% Unsure 2 1.8% 109 100.0% BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Abott, L.W., "Beating Unemployment through Education," The Futurist,(August 1978), p.217. Akkila, M.K., "Educational Development in the Arab Countries: Some Criteria for Educational Planning,“ Unpublished Dissertation, University of Kansas, May, 1975, p.6. Alessa, S. Y., The Manpower Problem in Kuwait, Kegan Paul International, London and Boston, 1981. Allen, D.R., "Foreign Exchange and Cooperative Education," Journal of Cooperative Education, Vol. XIII, No.1, Nov. 1976. Backe, J.M., "A Discription Study of CO—Op/Non Co-Op At- titudes," Journal of Cooperative Education, vol. II, No. 2 (May 1975), pp.98-105. Barbeau, J.A., "Cooperative Education: Looking Backwards," Journal of Cooperative Education, Vol. II, NO. l, 1974. Barbeau, J.E., "The History of the Cooperative Education Movement in American Higher Education," Unpublished Dissertation, Boston University, 1972. Beal, L., "School and Business: Working Together," Thrust Vol. 10, NO. 5 (April 1981). Bender, I.W., Lucas and Holsenbeck., "Conception to Credi- bility," Talahassee: Florida State University, 1975. Borman, B.A., "New Programs in Cooperative Education," Journal of Cooperative Education, Vol. 9, No. 1 (November 19727. Brazziel, F.A., "College—Cooperative Partnerships in Higher Education," Educational Record (Spring 1981), Vol. 62, pp.50-53. Breeman, E.F. and Freeman, N., "Ap Appraisal of the In— dustrial Cooperative Education Program based on Responses from Students and Employers6C " Macomb County Community College, Warren, Mic igan, ®tober, 1977. 164 165 Brown, J. and Sylvia & Wilson W. James, "National Assess- ment of Cooperative Education Training," Coopera- tive Education Center, Northwest University, Boston Massachusetts, 1979. I Brown, S.J., & Wilson, J.W., "Survey of Cooperative Educa- tion," Journal of Cooperative Education, Vol. 11, NO. 2, 1975. Clemons, E.M., "An Assessment of the Cooperative Education Program in the Secondary Schools of Kentucky," Uni- versity Of Kentucky, Lexington, 1971. Collins, S.D., Cooperative Education: Its Philosophy and Operation in Participating Colleges in the United States and Canada, Philadelphia: Cooperative Edu- cation Association, 1975, p. 16. Cross, K.P., "Cooperative Education for the 1980's," Journal of Cooperative Education, Vol. XV, NO. 2, TWinter, 1979). Dawson, J.D., "College Goals for Cooperative Education,“ Journal of Cooperative Education, 1973, Vol. 9, NOe 2' ppe l-Se Deane, T., Robert, Frankel Steven & Cohen, A. "An Analysis of Co-Op Students' Employer Costs and Benefits," Journal of Cooperative Education, Vol. 14, No. 2 TMarch 1978), p. 5453. Dube, Paul. "Introduction," Journal of Cooperative Edu- cation, Vol. 17 (Summer 1981), p.9. Ehrlich, D.J. and Heineman, H.N., "The Impact of 3 Com- munity College Cooperative Education Program on the Performance of its Graduate," La Gaurdia Community College, Long Island City, N.Y., 1977. Fitzgerald, D.B., "Occupational Motivation of the Aca- demically Disadvantaged High School Students," New York University, New York, 1971. Gore, G.J., "Why Should We Get Involved?" Journal of Cooperative Education, Vol. 9, No. 2 (May 1973), p.46. ., "New Evidence System Relevancy," Journal of Cooperative Education, Vol. VIII, No. 2, (May 1972), pp.7-l4. 166 Gore, G.J., "While on the Subject of Cooperative Education," Journal of Cooperative Education; Vol. 8-9, No. 1 (November 1972), pp. 33-47. Hansen H. and Boardman R. Gerald, "Planning COOperative Programs at the Post Secondary Level," American Vocational Journal, Vol. 50, NO. 6 (September 1975). Hayes, Richard A. & Travis, Jill H., "Employer Experience with the Recruitment of Cooperative Education Em- ployees: An Analysis of Costs and Benefits," Journal of Cooperative Education, Vol. 13, No. l (1976). Heerman, 8., CooperaEive Education in Community Colleges, Jossey Bass, Inc., Publishers, San Francisco, CA. 1973. Henderson, A.D., & Hall, D. Antioch College: It'g Desigp_ for Liberal Education, Harper and Brothers Publishers, New York, 1949. Hudson, R.I., "Cooperative Degree Programs in American Colleges and Universities," Michigan State University, 1955, Department of Administrative and Educational Services. Jacobs, D.D., "Data on Arizona Employers and Coordinators in Cooperative Education Programs," Unpublished Dissertation, Department of Secondary Education, Brigham Young University, April 1973. Jerrald Shire & Joseph Rogers. "The School—Business Partnership: A Concept Revitalized," Clearing House, Vol 52 (February 1979). John A. Wanat & Margaret A. Snell., Cooperapive Vocational Education: A Successful Education Concept, Charles C. Thomson Publisher, Illinois, 1980. Kany, D.C., "First Impression on Women in Cooperative Education," Journal of Cooperative Education, Vol. 9, No. 2 (May 19717. Kinnison, J.F. and Probst, G.E., "An Explanatory Investi- gation of Liberal Arts Cooperative Education Pro- grams," Journal of Cooperative Education, (November 1977) Vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 16-23. Kuchens, J.H., "Cooperative Education in Accounting and Business," Journal of COOperative Education, (1968), Vol. 2, No. 2 p.49. 167 Lelievre, T., "Survey of Cooperative Education," 1950-1959, University of Cincinnati, Unpublished Study Paper, p.150. Margaret Snell. "A Comparison of Employers of CO-op Work Experience Education Programmers on the Secondary and Post-Secondary Education Levels," Journal of Cooperative Education (1981), Vol. 17, No. 2, p.20. Martello, S. John & Paul,D.S., "An Experimental Study of Career Development in CO-Op and Non-Cooperative Education Liberal Art Students," Journal of Cooperative Education,(Winter 19807f Vol. 17? No. 1, pp. 7-11. McMullen, W., "The Impact of Title VIII Funding on Opera- tional Characteristics of Two- and Four-Year Co- operative Education Programs," Journal of Coopera- tive Education, (Fall 1981), Vol. 18, NO. 1, pp. 67-78. McMullen, W.J., Undergraduate Prgggams of Cooperative Education in the United States and Canada, Coop- erative Education Research Center, Northeastern University, Boston, Mass. 8th Edition, 1981. Mosbacker, B.W., "Women in Cooperative Education," Journal of COOperative Education, (November 1973), Vol. 10 no. 1. Murray, M.M., "Development In Insurance Education," Journal of Business Education, Vol. 44, 1969. Nicol, D. "Human Resources: An International Concern for Developing Countries," Journal of Cooperative Education, Summer, 1981. "Notes and Working Papers From the National Conference on Cooperative Vocational Education,“ Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, 1969, p.19. Orfilla Alegandro. "Cooperative Education: A Powerful Instrument for Development and Peace," Journal of Cooperative Education (Summer 1981), Vol. 17. Perloff, Robert and Sussna Edward, "Toward An Education of Cooperative Education: A Managerial Perspective," Journal of Cooperative Education, Vol. 14, No. 2 1978. I Pratt Christopher, G.L., "Survey of Faculty Attitudes Toward COOperative Education," Journal of Coopera- tive Education (May 1974), Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.68-78. 168 Puloff, R. and Sussna, E., "Toward An Evaluation of Co- operative Education: A Managerial Perspective," Journal of Cooperative Education, (March 1978) Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.54-92. Reimer, J.E., "A Comparative Follow-Up Study of the Oc- cupational Development of Co-Operative Education Graduates and Non-Graduates," Unpublished Disser- tation, School of Education, Indiana University, January 1976. Rodes, H.P., "G.M.I.'s First Fifty Years," Journal of Cooperative Education, (1969) Vol. 5, No.2. Row, M.P. and Limley, Churchs, "Changes in Job Satisfac- tion for Successive Work Terms," Journal of Cooperative Education, (Nov. 1971), Vol. 7111, NO. l. Sapsted, David., Modern Kuwait, Macmillan, London, Limited, London and Basuigstore, 1980. Slusher, G.T., "Employer Comprehension of the University of Houston Co-Op Program," Journal of Cooperative Education, (1973), Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.64-66. Snell, M., "A Comparison of Employers of Cooperative Work Experience Education Programs on the Secondary and Post-Secondary Education Levels," Journal of Cooperative Education (Spring 1981), Vol. 17, No. 2. Sprinkle, M.R., "International Work Assignments for Co- operative Studies: Some issues to be considered." Journal of Copperative Education, (Summer 1981), Vol. XVII, No. 3, pp. 99-107. Owens, Thomas R. & Sharon K., "Improving Learning in the Work Place," Journal of Cooperative Education, (Winter, 1981—82), Vol. 18, NO. 2. pp.57:65. Also, Journal of Cooperative Education (Sum. 1981) Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 99-107. USAID/NEC "Far East Manpower Assessment and Educational Planning Seminar," Manila, February 12-17, 1965, p. 1. Van Dalen, D.B. Understanding Educational Research: An Introduction, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1966. 169 Wadsworth, R.B., "Student, Faculty, and Employer Perceptions Regarding a Career-Related Cooperative Program at a Community College." Unpublished Research, Univer— sity of Miami, Florida, June 1976. Warren, E.H., "Community Employers Evaluation of Bakers- field College Co-Op Work Experience Education Program," Bakersfield College, California, 1978. Watkins, B., "Drive to End Shortages of Skilled Workers," The Chronicle of Higher Education,(March 24, 1980) Vol. XX, No. 4. Welch, B., "The Familiarity: Reflections on One—Year Cooperative Education Internship," Journal of COOperative Education, (Winter 1981-1982), Vol. 17, No. 1 pp.39-45. Wilson, J., "Implementation of Cooperative Education," Boston Northwestern University, 1975, p.2. Wilson, J.W. & Lyons, G.H., "Work Study College Programs," New York: Harper, 1961. Wilson, W. James and Lyons H. Edward., "Work-Study College Programs and Appraisals and Report of the Study of Cooperative Education," Harper & Brothers, New York, 1961. Winner, N.E., "Work Satisfaction of Cooperative Education Students," Journal of Cooperative Education. (Nov. 1973). Vol. 10, no. 1. Winner, N. Ellen, Howe, K. George & Berestecky. "Job Satisfaction and Cooperative Engineering Students" Journal of Cooperative Education, (May 1974), Vol. 1, No. 2. Winner, N.E., and Flynn, R.M., "Job Satisfaction and Co-Op Nursing Students,“ Journal of Cooperative Education, (May 1978), Vol. 11, No. 2. Wooldridge, L.R., "A Summary of Documented Employee Bene- fits from Co-Op Education," Journal of Cooperative Education, (May 1976), Vol. 12, No. 2. 170 Other References and Publications From Kuwait Abul Naja, A., and others. "The Technical and Vocational Education in Kuwait," Department of Technical and Vocational Education, Division of Public Relation, Ministry of Education, Kuwait (October, 1979), p. 52. Adams, A.H., "Review of Post-Secondary Education in Kuwait," A report to the Ministry of Education, Technical and Vocational Education Department, April 1979. AL—ANBA Daily Magazine, February 14, 1982, pp. 2 (In Arabic). Al-Kandari, Ali., "The Actual Situation for Vocational Training in Kuwait," A Report to Kuwait Teacher Association, 11th Educational week from March 28-April 2, 1981 (In Arabic). Ministry of Education, Decree No. 7 7-711 of 1978. Department of Technical and Vocational Education, October 1978, (In Arabic). Faiz, A.R., "Report on Vocational and Technical Education in Kuwait,” Journal of Social Science (In Arabic) Vol. 2, NO. 1 (March 1974) pp. 72-83. Final Report for Vocational Education Policy Makers in Arab World Meeting From 1-15, November,l979. Arabic Association for Culture, Education and Science, Department of Education, Tunisia Recom- mendation #9, pp. 12 and 7 (In Arabic). Five—Year Development Plan 1971 to 1976, Ministry of Planning, Kuwait, December 1971. Hassan, M., & El—Ghannam. "The Future of Technical and Vocational Education in Kuwait," Publication of Department of Technical and Vocational Educa- tion, February 1975, .p. 6 (In Arabic). Hurely, B., "Field Training Programme for Medical Secretarial Students of the Kuwait Business Institute," Ministry of Education, April 25, 1981. Institute of Business Administration, "Guide Book for the Field Training System in Practical Training Program," February 1981, (In Arabic). 171 Ministry of Education, Department of Technical and Vocational Education, “Statistics of Institutes and Schools of Technical and Vocational Education," Division of Research and Technical Studies, November 1978 (In Arabic). Ministry of Education. Report About Students Field Training, Business Institute, Ministry of Education, Kuwait 1981 (In Arabic). Rust, Bonny., "Commercial Education and It's Development in Kuwait," Ministry of Education, October, 1974. Rust, Bonny, W., "Kuwait Business Institute: A First Assessment," Ministry of Education, January 1977. The Kuwaiti Digest, "Making A Career With KOC," Vol. 8, No. 2., April/June 1980. “Vocational Training in Kuwait," Central Training Dept. Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, March, 1978.