INFORMATION TO USERS
The most advanced technology has been used to photo­
graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm
master. UMI film s the text directly from the original or
copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies
are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type
of computer printer.
The quality of th is reproduction is dependent upon the
quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print,
colored or poor quality illu stration s and photographs,
print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a
complete manuscript and there are m issing pages, these
will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright m aterial
had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­
produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the
upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in
equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also
photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back of the book. These are also available as
one exposure on a standard 35mm slide or as a 17" x 23"
black and w h ite photographic print for an ad d ition al
charge.
Photographs included in the original m anuscript have
been reproduced xerographically in th is copy. H igher
quality 6" x 9" black and w hite photographic prints are
available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.

U n iversity M icro film s Intern ation al
A Bell & Howell Inform a tion C o m p a n y
3 0 0 N o rth Z e e b Road, A nn Arbor, M l 4 8 10 6-13 46 USA
3 1 3 /7 6 1 -4 7 0 0
8 0 0 /5 2 1 -0 6 0 0

O rder N u m b e r 9012027

A n e v a lu a tio n o f th e in ter n sh ip p rogram offered by th e
D e p a r tm e n t o f R e c r e a tio n a n d P ark A d m in istr a tio n , C en tral
M ich ig a n U n iv er sity , M o u n t P le a sa n t, M ich igan
Lutz, Donald Fred, Ph.D .
Michigan State University, 1939

UMI

300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

AN EVALUATION OF THE INTERNSHIP PROGRAM OFFERED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARK ADMINISTRATION,
CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY,
MOUNT PLEASANT, MICHIGAN

By
Donald F. Lutz

A DISSERTATION

Submitted t o
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f th e requirements
f o r the degree o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department o f C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A dm in is t ra t io n

1989

ABSTRACT

AN EVALUATION OF THE INTERNSHIP PROGRAM OFFERED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARK ADMINISTRATION,
CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY,
MOUNT PLEASANT, MICHIGAN
By
Donald F. Lutz

The primary purpose o f t h i s study was t o determine t h e q u a l i t y
and e x t e n t t o which former undergraduate

students

and co o p e r a t i n g

agency s u p e r v is o r s p e r c e iv e d th e 30-week in t e r n s h ip e x p e r ie n c e
o f f e r e d by t h e Department o f Recreation and Park A dm in is t ra ti o n at
Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y .
and sp rin g 1988.
Park

agencies

in

The study was conducted during w in te r

Q u e s ti o n n a ir e s were mailed t o 360 R ecreation and
and

outside

of

Michigan

that

s u p e r v is e d

and

e v a l u a t e d the former st u d en t i n t e r n s during t h e 30-week i n t e r n s h i p
experience.
students

who

Q u e s t io n n a ir e s were a l s o mailed t o a l l
participated

in

th e

internship

th e 600 former

program

since

its

i n c e p t i o n in 1975 u n t i l t h e study was conducted in 1988.

Procedure o f the Study
The c h i - s q u a r e s t a t i s t i c was employed t o determine r e l a t i o n s h i p
between t h e groups.

A minimum c o n f id e n c e l e v e l

determine th e s t a t i s t i c a l
data.

of

.05 was used t o

s i g n i f i c a n c e o f th e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e

Donald F. Lutz

C o ncl us ion s o f t h e Study
1.

The former s t u d e n t i n t e r n s g e n e r a l l y agreed t h a t t h e major

con trib u tion s
experience,

of

the

the

making

in tern sh ip
of

professional

opportunities.

The c o o p e r a t i n g

that

opportunities

employment

program.

program

agency

were

Those f i n d i n g s are l o g i c a l ,

a

were

the

contacts,
supervisors
major

gaining

and

of

employment

did

not

contribution

agree
of

considering the i n t e r e s t s

the
of

t h e groups in v o l v e d .
2.
tion

and

p e r c e iv e d

The i n t e r n s h i p program o f f e r e d by t h e Department o f Recrea­
Park
as

A d m i n is tr a t io n

a valuable

at

Central

e d u c a t io n a l

tool,

Michigan
and

it

U niversity
is

meeting

is
the

g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s as o u t l i n e d by t h e Department o f R ec re at io n and
Park A dm i n is t ra t io n .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I gratefully

recognize

th e

contributions

ins trumental in producing t h i s s t u d y.

of

others

who were

A debt o f thanks i s extended

to :
Dr.
giv en

as

Eldon

R.

Chairman

Nonnamaker f o r
of

the

his

Guidance

w is e

counsel

Committee,

and

and d i r e c t i o n
who was

most

w i l l i n g t o i n t e r r u p t a very busy s ch ed u le t o open new h o r iz o n s o f
learning.
Dr.

Louis

F.

Hekhuis,

Dr.

Max R.

Ra ines,

and Dr.

James. L.

B r i s t o r , who gave encouragement and counsel throughout th e st ud y.
The

faculty

members

and

secretaries

in

R ec re at io n and Park A dm in ist ra tio n at Central

the

Department

of

Michigan U n i v e r s i t y ,

who gave t h e i r support.
Janet,

my w i f e ,

who

was

w illing

s a c r i f i c e s t o share in t h i s un de rtaking.
you so very much."

iv

to

make

some

significant

This husband s ay s:

"Thank

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF T A B L E S .......................................................................................................

vii

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

THE PROBLEM...........................

1

In tr od u ct i o n
....................................................................................
Statement o f t h e Problem ........................................................
Value o f t h e S t u d y ......................................................................
O b j e c t i v e o f th e S t u d y .............................................................
L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study ........................................................
Hypotheses
.........................................................................................
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms ......................................................................
Previous Research on I n te r n s h i p in Recreation
and P a r k s .........................................................................................
Population
.........................................................................................
Q u es t io n n a ir e Design
..................................................................
Follow-Up Procedures on Nonrespondents
........................
Treatment o f D a t a ...........................................................................
Overview o f the S t u d y ..................................................................

9
9
10
11
11
12

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.............................................................

13

The Need f o r E v a l u a t i o n .............................................................
D i s s e r t a t i o n s R e la t in g t o Evalu ation o f Student
I n t e r n s h i p s .....................................................................................
S t u d i e s Published R e la t in g t o Evaluation o f
Student I n t e r n s h i p s ..................................................................
Unpublished S t u d i e s R e la t in g t o Evaluation o f
Student I n t e r n s h i p s ..................................................................
Summary...................................................................................................

13

22
29

PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY.............................................................

31

.....................................................................................
I n tr o d u c t i o n
P o p u l a t i o n .........................................................................................
Q u e s ti o n n a ir e s
................................................................................
Analyzing th e D a t a .......................................................................
Summary...................................................................................................

31
31
32
34
35

v

1
4
5
6
6
7
7

14
21

Page

IV.

V.

ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ......................................................................

36

In tro du cti o n ....................................................................................
Basic Student C o n s i d e r a t io n s f o r a Q u al it y
I n te rn sh ip Program ..................................................................
P er ce p tio n s o f Students Regarding t h e I n t e r n ­
ship E x p e r i e n c e ......................................................................
Summary..............................................................................................
Basic Agency C o n s i d e r a t io n s f o r a Q u a li t y
In te rn sh ip Program ..................................................................
Perce pt ion o f Q u a li ty by I n te rn sh i p S i t e Super­
v i s o r s and All I nte rn s Concerning th e I n t e r ­
ship Program at Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y . .
Summary..............................................................................................

36

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..................................................................

81

I n tr od u ct io n ....................................................................................
The P r o b l e m .........................................................................................
Procedure o f t h e S t u d y .............................................................
Summary o f F i n d i n g s ......................................................................
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2 ................................................................................
C o n c l u s i o n s .........................................................................................
S u g ge s ti o n s f o r Further Research ......................................
R e f l e c t i o n s .........................................................................................

81
81
82
84
84
86
89
92
93

COVER LETTER, FOLLOW-UP LETTER, AND STUDENT INTERN
QUESTIONNAIRE .........................................................................................

95

COVER LETTER, FOLLOW-UP LETTER, AND INTERNSHIP
AGENCY QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................................................

104

36
37
68
69

71
79

APPENDICES
A.

B.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

............................................................................................................

Ill

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

1.

Number o f Respondents

2.

3.
4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

by Concentration A r e a .............................

38

Responses t o
internship

Question 4: "Why did you a cce pt an
. . . t o gain e x p e r i e n c e ? " ......................................

39

Responses t o
internship

Question 4: "Why did you a cce pt an
. . . peer p r e s s u r e ? " ................................................

41

Responses t o Question 4:
"Why did you a cce pt an
internship . . .
t o make p r o f e s s i o n a l co n t a ct s ? "

. . .

43

Responses t o Question 4: "Why did you ac ce pt an
i n t e r n s h i p . . . v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e ? " .............................

45

Responses t o Question 4: "Why did you ac ce pt an
i n t e r n s h i p . . . req uired f o r c u r r i c u l u m ? " .........................

47

Responses t o Question 4: "Why did you ac ce pt an
internship . . .
t o expand background (program)?"

49

. . .

Responses t o Question 4: "Why did you ac ce pt an
i n t e r n s h i p . . . drawnby personnel in a g iv e n
department?"
..............................................................................................
Responses t o Question 4: "Why did you ac ce pt an
i n t e r n s h i p . . . t o t e s t the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f the
f i e l d ? " .................................................................................................
Responses t o Question 4: "Why did you a cc e p t an
i n t e r n s h i p . . . e x p l o r e s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t area?"

53

. . .

55

Responses t o Question 20b: "Have you r e c e i v e d any job
o f f e r s s i n c e your i n t e r n s h i p based on t h e f a c t you
were an i n t e r n ? " ..........................................................................

57

Responses t o Question 26: "Did th e v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i ­
en ces during th e i n t e r n s h i p meet your needs in
preparing you t o e n t e r t h e p r o f e s s i o n ? " .......................

62

v ii

51

Page

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Responses t o Question 34:
"Do you have any reason t o
t h in k t h a t a c c e p t i n g the i n t e r n s h i p was not a good
idea in your s i t u a t i o n ? "
..................................................................

63

Responses t o Question 38:
"Do you f e e l t h e Re cre at io n
and Park co u r s e s at CMU prepared you f o r t h e i n t e r n ­
ship?"
............................................................................................................

65

Responses t o Question 5/ Q ue sti on 9:
"What do you f e e l
are th e main c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f th e i n t e r n s h i p program
t o th e st ud en t . . . o n - t h e - j o b e x p e r i e n c e ? " ....................

72

Responses t o Question 5/ Q ues ti on 9:
"What do you f e e l
are th e main c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f th e i n t e r n s h i p program
t o th e st u d en t . . . employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s ? " . . . .

73

Responses t o Question 5/Que sti on 9:
"What do you f e e l
are the main c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f th e i n t e r n s h i p program
t o th e st u d en t . . . p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s ? " ....................

74

Responses t o Question l l b / Q u e s t i o n 20b:
"To your
knowledge, has t h e former in t e r n r e c e i v e d any job
o f f e r s s i n c e the i n t e r n s h i p based on t h e f a c t
h e / s h e was an i n t e r n ? " .....................................................................

75

Responses t o Question 16/Q ues tion 26:
"Did th e v a r i e t y
o f th e e x p e r i e n c e during t h e i n t e r n s h i p meet th e
needs in preparing the in t e r n f o r the p r o f e s s i o n ? "
. .

76

viii

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

I n tr od u ct io n
McCuskey (1961) commented t h a t th e i n t e r n s h i p ,
t r a i n i n g sequence,
professional

i s a terminal

experiences

as a p o i n t in a

phase in a s e r i e s o f academic and

provided

by f o r m a li z e d

programs.

It

is

a l s o an i n i t i a l

e x p e r i e n c e t h a t p ro vi d es th e kinds o f problems and

conditions

the

in t er n

practice.

I t i s not a p l a c e t o le a r n th e b a s i c s k i l l s , d i s c i p l i n e s ,

or

principles

of

w ill

recognize

a professional

acquired b e f o r e the i n t e r n s h i p .
these

sk ills

and l e a r n i n g s

as

typical

field .

These

of

professional

should

have

been

I t i s a p l a c e where t h e in t e r n puts

into

practice.

It

is

a

place

where

a t t i t u d e s and p r o f e s s i o n a l be havior are l e a r n e d .
The goal o f the i n t e r n s h i p program, as p e r c e i v e d by f a c u l t y in
the Department o f Recreation and Park A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,
a

structured

and

accordance with
outlook,

systematic
the

to

s t u d e n t s ’ growing

and s e l f - a w a r e n e s s .

academic p r e p a r a t io n .

th eo ry

It

is

practical

i s t o pro vid e
experience

p rofession al
experience

in

knowledge,

c o m b in ed

with

The i n t e r n s h i p i s t h a t phase o f p r o f e s s i o n a l

p rep a ra tio n t h a t en ab le s s t u d e n t s t o assume l e a d e r s h i p in a v a r i e t y
of

settin g s

and

programs

and

1

to

progress

to

management

2

respon sib ilities

under t h e

supervision

of

e x p er i en ce d

agency

and

u n iv ersity supervisors.
The f o l l o w i n g major o b j e c t i v e s o f the
d ev el ope d by t h i s

i n t e r n s h i p program were

r e s e a r c h e r and approved by t h e f a c u l t y and s t a f f

in t h e Department o f R ecr eat io n and Park A d m i n is t r a t io n and Central
Michigan U n i v e r s i t y :
1.

To a l l o w each s t u d e n t t o become an i n t e g r a l and p a r t i c i p a t ­

ing member o f t h e ag en cy ’ s s t a f f .
2.

To help t h e st u d en t ga in an understanding and a p p r e c i a t i o n

o f th e management r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f a f u l l - t i m e p r o f e s s i o n a l .
3.

To pro vid e th e s tu d e n t

with e x p e r i e n c e s

that w ill

aid

in

d e v e l o p i n g a sound r e c r e a t i o n and parks p h il o s o p h y .
4.

To pr o vi d e

th e

student

opportunities

to

d ev el o p

supervi­

s o r y , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , and management s k i l l s in a r e a l i s t i c s e t t i n g .
5.
goals,

To t r e a t
strengths

students

individually

and w ea k ne sse s,

and

acc ording

their

to

their

pr eparedness

c a re er
for

the

intern experiences.
6.

To a s s e s s th e r e l e v a n c e and q u a l i t y o f cl ass roo m work with

practical experience.
7.

To a s s i s t

th e

student

for

f u t u r e employment

by p rov idi ng

professional experience.
8.

To co o p e r a t e with and s tr e n g t h e n r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the

r e c r e a t i o n and parks a g e n c i e s and th e u n i v e r s i t y .
9.

To prepare t h e s t u d e n t by pr o vi d in g him/her wit h e x p e r i e n c e

in l e t t e r w r i t i n g ,
for p o sitio n s.

prepari ng resumes,

job i n t e r v i e w s ,

and applying

3

10.

To a ll o w each st ud en t t o take a major r o l e and r e s p o n s i b i l ­

i t y in h i s / h e r i n t e r n s h i p placement, c a re er g o a l s , and development.
In
adopted

1975,
by t h e

A dm inistration
M i ch ig an

the

Leisu re

faculty

in

Services
the

and a p p ro v ed

U niversity.

s u p e r v is e d 30-week

and

Department
by t h e

The

of

Curriculum

R ecr eat io n

adm inistration

curriculum

internship

Studies

included

a t one l o c a t i o n .

and

at

a

was
Park

Central

continuous

Each s t u d e n t

who

s u c c e s s f u l l y completed t h e i n t e r n s h i p r e c e i v e d 30 se m es te r hours o f
credit.

The

o p p o rt u n i t y

to

internship

was

design ed

relate

t heo ry

to

i n d iv i d u a l

basis,

s t u d e n ts

to

practice

pro vide
through

students

th e

observation

and

experience.
On an

were

g iv e n

th e

s e l e c t i n g one o f four approved academic c o n c e n t r a t i o n s .
1.
of

this

is

to

develop

adm inistrative s k i l l s

that w ill

variety

including,

of

settings,

ma nagerial,

but

not

restricted

function
to,

park and/or r e c r e a t i o n departments, county park s y st e m s,
s y st e m s,

quasi-public

agencies

(such

as

the

The i n t e n t

supervisory,

enable gra duates t o

YMCA),

of

These were:

Community Recre atio n and Park A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
concentration

choice

and
in

a

municipal
s t a t e park

and community

ed u ca tio n programs.
2.

P r i v a t e and Commercial Recreation and F a c i l i t y Management.

The Commercial
directed

Recre atio n and F a c i l i t y Management c o n c e n t r a t i o n

p r im a r i ly

toward

employment

in

the

private

sector

is
of

l e i s u r e d e l i v e r y systems or toward t h e r e v e n u e - g e n e r a t io n p o r t i o n o f
the public se c to r .

It includes,

but i s not l i m i t e d t o ,

r e s o r t and

4

h o sp ita lity services,

amusement parks,

and a s u b s t a n t i a l

amount o f

cou rs e work in th e School o f Business A d m i n is t r a t io n .
Employee S e r v i c e s

and Recreation

(private)

p ro v id es

training

f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l r e c r e a t i o n in le a d e r s h i p programming f o r employees
and f a m i l i e s o f b u s i n e s s and i n d u s t r y .
and s o c i a l

e v e n ts

t o managing c o s t l y

Programs range from s p o r t s
fa cilities

such

as

ath letic

complexes, community c e n t e r s , and v a c a t io n r e s o r t s .
3.
three

Therapeutic
p r im a r y

programs,

Recreation.

areas:

the

transitional

This

concentration

trad itional

programs

(including

focuses

on

clin ica l/in stitu tio n a l
group-living

fa cilities

apart from the i n s t i t u t i o n ) , and community r e c r e a t i o n programs f o r
t h e handicapped.
special

The r e c r e a t i o n t h e r a p i s t works with a v a r i e t y o f

populations,

in c l u d i n g

the

m en ta ll y

impaired,

emotionally

impaired, p h y s i c a l l y impaired, and p o s s i b l y g e r i a t r i c , c o r r e c t i o n a l ,
and so on.
4.

Outdoor and Environmental

Recreation.

This c o n c e n t r a t i o n

i s de s ig n ed p r im a r i ly f o r t h o s e s t u d e n t s wis hin g t o be in v o lv e d
camp a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ;

city,

county,

or township

e d u c a t io n ; or environmental i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
face

leadership

sk ills,

but

also

involves

parks;

in

outdoor

I t emphasizes f a c e - t o program management

and

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e - l e v e l co m p ete n ci es .

Statement o f th e Problem
The purpose o f t h i s
the

extent

supervisors

to

which

perceive

study was t o a s s e s s both t h e q u a l i t y and

former

undergraduate

th e 30-week

students

internship experience

and

agency

as

meeting

5

t h e g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e Recre atio n and Park A dm in is t ra t io n
Department a t Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y .
Value o f t h e Study
During

the

A d m i n is t r a t io n

fall

se m es te r

Department

of

went

1981,

through

the
a

Re cr ea ti o n

thorough

and

Park

accreditation

s tud y sponsored by t h e National Recre atio n and Park A s s o c i a t i o n and
t h e American A s s o c i a t i o n o f Le isu re and R e c r e a ti o n .
detailed

study

expertise.

of

the

During

department’ s m i s s i o n ,

th e

following

s e m es t er ,

This e n t a i l e d a

courses,
th e

and

faculty

department

was

n o t i f i e d o f complete acc e pt an ce f o r a c c r e d i t a t i o n .
S in c e

the

inception

of

th e

internship

program,

600

students

have graduated a f t e r f u l f i l l i n g t h e i r i n t e r n s h i p requirements w it h i n
agencies

in

Corporation
Virginia,

Michigan
(employee

and

services

South Seas P l a n t a t i o n

Rocky Mountain Na tional
Rehabilitation
Illin ois,

out-of-state

and

Institute
the

and

settin g s

recreation)

(commercial

in

Sacramento

Chicago

(therapeutic

Department

New

recreation)

Park (outdoor r e c r e a t i o n )
of

s uc h

of

as

Xerox

York

and

in F l o r i d a ,

in Colorado,

the

recreation)

in

R ecr ea ti o n

and

Parks

(community r e c r e a t i o n ) in C a l i f o r n i a .
The National

R ec re a t io n and Park A s s o c i a t i o n and th e American

A s s o c i a t i o n o f L ei su re and R e c r e a t i o n , along with t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
of

the

Central

A dm in istration

Michigan

Department,

U niversity
had

expressed

R ecreation
the

and

d esire

Park

that

e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p program was needed t o determine i f
was meeting t h e needs o f t h e s t u d e n t f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l

an
it

development.

6

I t was t h i s r e s e a r c h e r ’ s i n t e n t i o n t o undertake an in- d ep th study to
accomplish such an e v a l u a t i o n .

O b j e c t i v e o f t h e Study
The o b j e c t i v e
quality

of

the

of

th is

internship

study

was

to

experience

c o o p e r a t i n g agency s u p e r v i s o r s .

determine

from

former

the

p er ce iv ed

students

The study was d es ig n ed

to

and

answer

the follow ing questions:
1.

What i s th e q u a l i t y o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p program as p e r c e iv e d

by former s t u d e n t s and c o o p e r a t i n g agency s u p e r v i s o r s ?
2.

Do co o p e r a t i n g agency s u p e r v i s o r s and former s t u d e n t s have

d i f f e r i n g p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p e xp er ie n ce ?
3.

What s u g g e s t i o n s are commonly mentioned f o r

improving the

i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e as a t r a i n i n g d e v i c e as p e r c e iv e d

by former

s t u d e n t s and c o o p e r a t i n g agency s u p e r v i s o r s ?

L i m i t a t i o n s o f th e Study
Any c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t may be p r o j e c t e d from th e study should be
i n t e r p r e t e d in l i g h t o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n s t h a t apply t o t h i s r e s e a r c h .
1.
any

This study was l i m i t e d by f a c t o r s

questionnaire.

These

inc lu d ed

the

in h er e n t

in the use o f

d ifficu lties

complete c o o p e r a t i o n o f t h e sample s e l e c t e d ,

the bias

in

s ec u ri n g

and i n t e r e s t

o f t h e r e s p o n d e n ts , t h e time in v ol v e d in com pleting t h e in s tr u m en ts ,
and th e

fact

that

some

individuals

might

be unable t o

ad eq ua tel y

r e f l e c t t h e i r t r u e p e r c e p t i o n s o f th e i n t e r n s h i p program.
2.

The f i n d i n g s o f t h i s re s ea r ch p r o j e c t were l i m i t e d t o t h e

intern ship

program

in

the

De pa rtm en t

of

R ecreation

and

Park

7

Ad m i n is t ra t io n at Central

Michigan U n i v e r s i t y .

Other i n s t i t u t i o n s

o f h ig h er l e a r n i n g us in g t h i s same method and in s tr u m en t a ti o n might
find

th is

to

be

very

useful

in

researching

th eir

in tern sh ip

programs, even though t h e obta ined r e s u l t s would always r e f l e c t the
uniqueness o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n i n v o lv e d .
3.

Sin ce

the

internship

program

is

relatively

new

to

Department o f R ecr ea ti on and Park A dm in ist ra tio n at Central Michigan
U niversity,
enough

p eop le who have graduated r e c e n t l y might not

seniority

in

their

positions

to

have

g iv e n

an

have had
a ccu ra te

acc ou n tin g o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p program.

Hypotheses
I t was important t o e s t a b l i s h some fundamental
this

study

in

order

to

an aly ze

th e data

to

assumptions f o r

be g a t h e r e d .

These

assumptions were h y p o t h e si z e d in n u ll form as f o l l o w s :
Hypot hes is 1 : There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in the
s c o r e s o f t h e mail survey between former i n t e r n s o f th e four
s t u d e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s as t o t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s a b o u t t h e
q u a l i t y o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p program.
Hypot hes is 2 : There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in the
s c o r e s o f t h e m a il
s u rv ey between c o o p e r a t i n g
agency
s u p e r v i s o r s and t h e former i n t e r n s as t o t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s
about t h e q u a l i t y o f th e i n t e r n s h i p program.
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms
In an e f f o r t t o c l a r i f y

and prevent misunderstanding o f terms

used in r e c r e a t i o n and park a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,

th e f o l l o w i n g terms are

defined:
Perception.
to,

and t h e

A perception

conscious

o p in io n

refers
and

t o th e

knowledge

importance a l l o c a t e d
the

respondent

has,

the

8

regarding the i n t e r n s h i p program.
determined

by

both

personal

In t h i s

experience

study,

p e r c e p t i o n s were

and

secondary

th e

deg ree

s ou rc es

of

information about the i n t e r n s h i p program.
Quality.

Qu ali ty

is

d e f in e d

as

of

excellence

p er ce iv ed by t h e former st u d en t i n t e r n s and c o o p e r a t i n g a g e n c i e s

in

meeting the g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p program in the
Department o f Recreation and Park A dm in is tr at io n at Central Michigan
University.
The i n t e r n s h i p program i s an approach in preparing s t u d e n t s to
become p r o f e s s i o n a l s

in

recreation

d istin ctive

contribution

pre p ar at io n

coupled with e x p e r i e n c e ,

professional

beh avio r,

o f the

ap plying

and park

internship

administration.

is

that

e n a b li n g

t h eor y

to

it

is

students

practice

The

academic

to

deve lo p

while

being

placed f o r 30 weeks with a co o p e r a t i n g agency.
An i n t e r n

is

cu rricu lu m with
administration

a st u d en t
a major

who

has

in

th e

Le isu re

concentration

the

necessary

in

Services

and S t u d i e s

recreation

requirements

and

and

park

has

gone

through a s c r e e n i n g p r o c e s s t o become ac ce pte d i n t o t h e i n t e r n s h i p .
A co o p e r a t i n g agency may be l o c a t e d in or o u t s i d e o f Michigan.
The in t e r n i s exposed t o the managerial r e s o u r c e s o f t h e co o p e r a t i n g
agency, which in c l u d e s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,

programming, and t h e use and

planning o f f a c i l i t i e s .
The agency s u p e r v i s o r i s an e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r and employee with
a c o o p e r a t i n g agency,

g iv e n

the

responsibility

of

supervising

in t e r n through h i s / h e r i n t e r n s h i p at t h a t p a r t i c u l a r

agency.

in t e r n w i l l be ev a l u a t ed at t h e t er m i n a t i o n o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p .

the
The

9

An i n t e r n s h i p
i n c l u d e s most,

experience

i f not a l l ,

is

a comprehensive

experience

that

o f th e p o s s i b l e a s p e c t s o f a s i g n i f i c a n t

professional experience.

Previous Research on I n te rn sh i p in Recreation and Parks
It

was

fou nd

during

the

search

for

studies

relatin g

to

i n t e r n s h i p s t h a t a c o n s i d e r a b l e body o f l i t e r a t u r e does e x i s t with
r e s p e c t t o t h e va lu e and e v a l u a t i o n o f i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e s .
appears t h a t t h e i n t e r n s h i p
w it h i n t h o s e p r o f e s s i o n s
perform

services

of

is

advocated and used most f r e q u e n t l y

in which t h e p r a c t i t i o n e r

d irect

It

contact

and

is

interaction

According t o Hayes ( 1 9 6 0 ) , t h e o l o g y , e d u c a t io n , law,

exp ect ed
with

to

people.

sociology,

and

government s e r v i c e seem t o be the f i e l d s in which t h e i n t e r n s h i p i s
most f r e q u e n t l y employed.
Very l i t t l e

re s ea r ch has been done with r e s p e c t t o e v a l u a t i o n s

o f r e c r e a t i o n and park i n t e r n s h i p s .
U niversity
present

by

Richard

study.

A.

Bunch

Entitled

"An

A 1971 d i s s e r t a t i o n a t Indiana
provided

Evaluation

some
of

parallels

Selected

to

the

I n te rn sh i p

Programs Sponsored by t h e National Recre atio n and Park A s s o c i a t i o n , "
t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n embraced some o f t h e same c o n s i d e r a t i o n s incl ude d
in th e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h .

Po d u I a t i o n
The

subjects

supervisors
Michigan

of

th is

representing

who

s u p e r v is e d

study

360
and

incl uded

various

th e

agencies

evaluated

th e

cooperating
in

and

students

agency

outside
during

of
the

10

30-week i n t e r n s h i p and t h e 600 former s t u d e n t s who took p a rt in the
internship

program

since

its

inception

s t u d e n t s were gra duates o f Central
in r e c r e a t i o n

in

1975

to

1988.

The

Michigan U n i v e r s i t y with majors

and park a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

in t h e

Le isu re S e r v i c e s

and

S t u d i e s curriculum.
With r e s p e c t t o p o s s i b l e respondent d i f f e r e n c e s (as t he y a f f e c t
re sp on se r a t e )
th e

on gender,

former s t u d e n t s

these

variables.

economic s t a t u s ,

of th is

All

study were

students

held

same program in th e same u n i v e r s i t y .

and e d u c a t io n a l

relatively

level,

homogeneous

a b a c h e l o r ’ s deg ree

on

from the

Data on parent occ u p at io n and

income f o r s t u d e n t s a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y i n d i c a t e d t h e i r so cioeconomic
s t a t u s as middle c l a s s .
An important f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g res p on se r a t e s i s th e " i n t e r e s t s "
o f t h e group being s t u d i e d

in t h e sp ons ori ng o r g a n i z a t i o n and the

topic

(P ar te n,

under

consideration

surveyed were t r a i n e d
in terest

in

the

as

study

19 6 6 ) .

"professionals
was

assumed.

Sin ce

in r e c r e a t i o n
Moreover,

all

students

and parks,"

in terest

in

the

spons oring agency, Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y , was a l s o assumed.
Q u e s t io n n a ir e s

were

mailed

to

the

entire

p o p u l a t io n

of

600

former i n t e r n s and t h e 360 c o o p e r a ti n g agency s u p e r v i s o r s where the
former s t u d e n t s had done t h e i r i n t e r n s h i p s .

Q u e s t io n n a ir e Design
The procedures f o r s e l e c t i n g q u e s t i o n s f o r th e mail survey were
based

on

the

goals

and

objectives

of

the

internship

program.

Information f o r th e mail survey came from r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e and the

11

resu lts

of

the

R ecreation
Leisur e

and

and

accred itation

study

Park A s s o c i a t i o n

and

R ec r e a t i o n .

Other

sponsored
th e

by t h e

American

questions

were

N ational

Association

d er i v ed

r e s e a r c h e r ’ s e x p e r i e n c e as a former p r a c t i t i o n e r

from

of
the

in r e c r e a t i o n

and

parks a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and from e x p e r i e n c e t e a c h in g c o u rs es taken by
t h e former i n t e r n s .
The d r a f t v e r s i o n o f the mail q u e s t i o n n a i r e was p i l o t t e s t e d on
a

small

agencies

group
in

of

former

in t e r n s

M ichigan.

The

and

supervisors

resu lts

of

of

the

co o p e r a t i n g

in terview

and

q u e s t i o n n a i r e were examined and changes, where n e c e s s a r y , were made
and a f i n a l d r a f t was prepared.

Follow-Up Procedures on Nonrespondents
The f o l l o w - u p

procedures

used

in t h i s

study were based on a

model by Galfo and M i l l e r ( 1 9 7 0 ).

This model i s a t h r e e - c y c l e plan ,

with

of

th e

first

questionnaire

cycle

consisting

f o ll o w e d

by a t a b u l a t i o n

computation on r e t u r n s .
nonrespondents

with

the
of

in itial
data

m a il in g
and

of

the

a p erc ent ag e

The second c y c l e c o n s i s t s o f a f o ll o w - u p by
a

new

d ead lin e,

w hich

is

follow ed

by

a

t a b u l a t i o n o f data and per ce nt a ge computation o f r e s p o n s e s .

Treatment o f Data
Because t h i s
in tern s

and

study inv o lv e d p a r t i c u l a r groups,

cooperating

agency

d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s was made.

su p ervisors,

former s t u d e n t
the

choice

of

The f o l l o w i n g methods were employed:

12

1.

Asked the in d i v i d u a l how h e / s h e f e l t about t h e i n t e r n s h i p .

This te ch n iq u e employed a sche du le or q u e s t i o n n a i r e o f th e open or
c l o s e d form.
2.

Asked the in d i v i d u a l t o check th e s t a t e m e n t s in a l i s t with

which h e / s h e was in agreement.
3.
ment

Asked th e in d i v i d u a l

or

disagreem ent

with

t o i n d i c a t e h i s / h e r de g re e o f a g r e e ­
a

series

of

statem ents

about

the

i n t e r n s h i p program.
Answers o f each respondent were recorded
Data

were

analyzed

Computer S e r v i c e s

by

the

Department

S tatistical
at

Central

on

an Opscan

C o ns u lt in g
Michigan

Group

form.
at

University

the
using

SPSSX S t a t i s t i c a l Package on the IBM 3090 computer system.
To

test

the

null

h y p o t h e se s ,

employed t o determine r e l a t i o n s h i p
confidence

level

of

.05

was

th e

chi-square

statistic

between t h e groups.

used

to

determine

the

was

A minimum
sta tistica l

s i g n i f i c a n c e in t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

Overview o f th e Study
This

study

is

developed

Chapter II t h e l i t e r a t u r e
detailed

in

a format

relevant

to

this

of

five

st udy

chapters.
is

r ev ie w ed .

In
A

r ep o rt o f the methodology used in t h e development o f the

ins tru men ts and t h e procedures o f a n a ly z i n g th e data are c o n t a in e d
in Chapter I I I .

The f i n d i n g s o f t h e study are re p or t e d in Chapter

IV, and th e c o n c l u s i o n s and i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r study appear in
Chapter V.

CHAPTER I I

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The Need f o r Evaluation
It
stud y.

is

important

to

define

evaluation

According t o Lundegren and F a rr el l

as

it relates

to

this

( 1 9 8 5 ) , e v a l u a t i o n may be

d e f i n e d as:
. . . a p ro ce s s o f a s c e r t a i n i n g value by comparing r e s u l t s with
o b j e c t i v e s and ju d g in g how well o b j e c t i v e s have been met in
both a q u a l i t a t i v e and q u a n t i t a t i v e s e n s e .
The r e s u l t s o f
e v a l u a t i o n c o n t r i b u t e t o d e c i s i o n making.
Krause and C ur tis (1982) s t a t e d

the purpose o f

e v a l u a t i o n as:

. . . not simply t o provide a s c o r e , with r e s p e c t t o the
s u c c e s s or q u a l i t y o f any i n d iv i d u a l or program.
Instead, i t
i s t o g i v e a p i c t u r e o f s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses t h a t can be
used t o bring about improvement.
To the e x t e n t t o which
s p e c i f i c standards or o b j e c t i v e s are not being met, i t permits
an agency or s u p e r v i s o r t o p in p o in t s t e p s t h a t must be taken to
upgrade p r o f e s s i o n a l performance.
There are a number o f d i f f e r e n t
evaluation,

which

approaches t o t h e p ro ce s s

have been drawn from ed u ca tio n or

service professions.

o th er

of

human

Howe (1980) i d e n t i f i e d s e v e r a l o f t h e s e :

1.

Evalu ation as p r o f e s s i o n a l judgment, which i s c a r r i e d on
through c r i t i c a l review by an i n d iv i d u a l or v i s i t i n g p a n el ,
and which r e s u l t s in s u b j e c t i v e judgment o f an agency or
program.

2.

Evalu ation as
on t h r o u g h
a n a l y s i s , or
feedback used

s c i e n t i f i c , q u a n t i t a t i v e measurement, c a r r i e d
su ch meth od s as PPBS, MBO, c o s t - b e n e f i t
s t a t i s t i c a l treatment o f d a t a , r e s u l t i n g in
in d eci si o n -m a k in g .

13

14

3.

Evalu ation measuring s u c c e s s in a c h i e v i n g o b j e c t i v e s , c a r ­
r i e d on through c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s , which provide
a cc u ra t e measures o f a c c o u n t a b i l i t y and p r o d u c t i v i t y .

4.

D e c i s i o n - o r i e n t e d e v a l u a t i o n , which us es s u r v e y s , q u e s t i o n ­
n a i r e s , i n t e r v i e w s or document a n a l y s i s , t o pro vide data
l e a d i n g t o d e s i r a b l e d e c i s i o n s and a h igh er l e v e l o f
effectiveness.

5.

T r a n s a c t i o n - o b s e r v a t i o n e v a l u a t i o n , which employs c a s e study i n t e r v i e w s , and p a r t i c i p a t i o n o b s e r v a t i o n , and y i e l d s
an o v e r a l l p i c t u r e o f a p r o c e s s and t h e dynamics inv ol v ed
in i t .

According t o Krause and C ur tis
evaluated,

(1982),

if

a program i s

to

i t needs t o go beyond j u s t g a t h e r in g in f o rm a t io n .

be

It is

important t o determine t h e e x t e n t o f pr og re s s toward s p e c i f i c g o a l s
and o b j e c t i v e s .

I t i s used t o measure o b j e c t i v e l y what a program i s

t r y i n g t o accom pli sh.

The end r e s u l t

should c o n s i s t

of a set

of

c o n c l u s i o n s or recommendations.

D i s s e r t a t i o n s R e l a t i n g to Evalua tion o f Student I n t e r n s h i p s
It

was

foun d

during

the

search

for

studies

relatin g

to

i n t e r n s h i p s t h a t a c o n s i d e r a b l e body o f l i t e r a t u r e does e x i s t with
r e s p e c t t o th e v a lu e and e v a l u a t i o n o f i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e s .
appears t h a t th e

internship

w it h i n t h o s e p r o f e s s i o n s
perform

services

of

is

advocated and used most

in which t h e p r a c t i t i o n e r

d irect

According t o Hayes ( 1 9 6 0 ) ,

contact

and

interaction

theology, education,

government s e r v i c e seem t o be t h e f i e l d s

is

law,

It

frequently
exp ect ed

with

to

p e o p le .

sociology,

and

in which t h e i n t e r n s h i p i s

most f r e q u e n t l y employed.
Very l i t t l e
o f recreation

re s e a r c h has been done with r e s p e c t t o e v a l u a t i o n s

and park

internships.

Bunch

(1971)

did

a d o ct o ra l

15

study e v a l u a t i n g t h e i n t e r n s h i p programs sponsored by the National
Recr eat io n and Park A s s o c i a t i o n

in P h i l a d e l p h i a ,

Pennsylvania;

Oak

Park, I l l i n o i s ; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Ba lti m o re, Maryland.
Participants

four

cities

between 1965 and 1969 were admin ister ed a q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o

secu re

th eir

in

evaluation

of

the

the

internship

internship

programs

in

experience

the

and

to

assess

r e l a t i o n s h i p o f th e i n t e r n s h i p t o th e i n t e r n ’ s p r o f e s s i o n a l

the

career.

I n te r v ie w s were conducted with th e i n t e r n s h i p s u p e r v i s o r in each o f
t h e fo u r c i t i e s t o determine th e methods and procedures employed by
each agency in con ducting the i n t e r n s h i p program.
of

college

interns

and

university

graduated

were

faculties

admin ister ed

at
a

Representatives

institutions
questionnaire

from
to

which

identify

t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i n t e r n s h i p program.
Findings in t h e study were as f o l l o w s :
1.
were

S i x t y p er ce nt o f the p a r t i c i p a n t s in th e i n t e r n s h i p program

introd uce d

to

the

program

through

college

and

university

personnel.
2.

E i g h t y - s i x p er ce n t o f t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l

positions

held

by

i n t e r n s a f t e r t h e i n t e r n s h i p were a d m i n i s t r a t i v e or s u p e r v i s o r y

in

na tu re.
3.

Approximately 70% o f t h e i n t e r n s remained in t h e r e c r e a t i o n

profession.
4.

Each in d i v i d u a l

agency acted ind ep en d en tly in e s t a b l i s h i n g

procedures f o r i t s i n t e r n s h i p program.

16

5.

S i x t y p erc en t o f the park and r e c r e a t i o n d i r e c t o r s c o n s i d ­

ered communications f a i r t o poor between th e n a t io n a l

organization

and s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y .
Bunch

concluded

that

th e

internship

p a r t i c i p a n t s and e x e r t e d a p o s i t i v e

was

influence

of

v a lu e

to

in preparing

th e

interns

f o r en tr y i n t o th e p r o f e s s i o n o f r e c r e a t i o n and parks.
Several

doctoral

administration
Geren

(1981)

have
did

d isserta tio n s

been w r i t t e n ,
a

do cto ra l

in

evaluating

study

to

higher

education

st u d en t

internships.

evaluate

the

e d u ca ti o n a l

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n t e r n s h i p a t East Texas S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
conclusions
effective

of
and

th e

study

should

be

were

that

co n tin u ed .

the

internship

Second,

The major

program

supervision

of

in t e r n was viewed as one o f the s t r e n g t h s o f the program.
(1958),

Norsted

concluded t h a t

( 1 9 7 4 ) , O’ Brien
the

internship

(1963),

and Simonds

in ed u ca tio n al

was
the

Rossey

(1965)

administration

also
is

an

e f f e c t i v e te ch n iq u e f o r t r a i n i n g school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
Kole (1978) focu sed her study on th e inadequacy and d iv e r g e n c e
o f c r i t e r i a f o r e v a l u a t i o n o f i n t e r n s in ed u ca t io n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
In s p i t e o f t h e o v e r a l l endorsement o f the t h e o r e t i c a l framework f o r
in tern

evaluation

by

the

respondent

group,

its

universal

a c c e p t a b i l i t y as

a model f o r in t e r n e v a l u a t i o n i s i n c o n c l u s i v e .

The

most t h a t can be

s a id i s t h a t t h i s re se ar ch has moved a s t e p c l o s e r

t o the t h eo ry o f in t e r n e v a l u a t i o n .
A model i n t e r n s h i p program t h a t would propose c r i t i c a l el ements
to

facilitate

integration

administrative s k i l l s

of theoretical

knowledge with

f o r p r o s p e c t i v e human s e r v i c e

practical

administrators

17

was

d es ig n ed

by

Anderson

de sig n ed t o a s s i s t
vital

(1980).

The

model

human s e r v i c e a g e n c i e s

was

sp ecifically

and u n i v e r s i t i e s

in

t a s k s o f s e t t i n g st andards and in d ete rm ini ng a c t i v i t i e s

internship

programs should

p r o v id e .

Another model

program was devel ope d by Wright ( 1 9 8 4 ) .

the
that

adm inistrative

The study in cl ud ed a revi ew

o f planned o r g a n i z a t i o n change models and recommended a change model
for

the

systematic

implementation

or

m odification

of

a

new

or

e x i s t i n g i n t e r n s h i p program.
Two d i s s e r t a t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o community c o l l e g e s and e v a l u a t i n g
student

i n t e r n s h i p s were done by Hutkins

Hutkins

did

teacher

preparation.

performance
evaluated
project)

a

study

of
the

at

to evaluate

was

internship

E n d ic o t t

the

a

highly

program

Ju n io r

(a

C ollege,

and Mauke

internship

The team approach

interns

(1971)

(1965).

a c t i v i t i e s for

employed in e v a l u a t i n g th e

effective

technique.

four- we ek,
Weberly,

Mauke

off-campus

work

Massachusetts,

by

making a comparison o f s t u d e n t e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e i r work e x p e r i e n c e
and s t u d e n t achievements during t h e work p e r i o d .

The c o n c l u s i o n was

t h a t th e i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e met th e s t u d e n t e x p e c t a t i o n s and t h a t
i t e x e r t e d a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e in prepa ri ng i n t e r n s f o r en try i n t o
the t e a c h i n g p r o f e s s i o n .
Wideman (1975) d i v i d e d h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i n t o two s e c t i o n s .
f i r s t was a d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e undergraduate i n t e r n s h i p
student

development. The

effects

of

th is

second

program on

the

p ar t
students

i n t e r n s during t h e 1973-74 academic y e a r .

was
who

an

in itial

became

The
in

study o f

in v o lv e d

as

One o f t h e c o n c l u s i o n s

18

that

grew out

of

this

study

was

that

it

was

important

t r a i n i n g a s p e c t o f t h e program t o fo cu s f u r t h e r on the
and

h is/h er

conclusion

interpersonal

that

the

sty le.

internship

These

program

findings

was

for

in d i v i d u a l

led

meeting

the

to

its

the

stated

o b j e c t i v e s and should be co n sid er ed e f f e c t i v e .
Suggestions

for

improving

the

residential

internship

t r a i n i n g d e v i c e f o r g e n e r a l i s t stud en t personnel
developed by O’Donnell

(1967).

as

a

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s was

The f o l l o w i n g were h i s c o n c l u s i o n s :

1.

Improved immediate s u p e r v i s i o n .

2.

Improved and more r e l e v a n t academic work.

3.

Broader base o f p r a c t i c a l

e x p e r i e n c e beyond the r e s i d e n c e

internship.
4.

Improved i n t e g r a t i o n o f the academic and work e x p e r i e n c e .

5.

Greater de gree o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i n t e r n s .

6.

B etter-q u ality interns.

Eyler (1980)
on th e l e v e l

the e f f e c t

of students’ p o litica l

and p o l i t i c a l
significant

investigated

sk ills.
increase

knowledge,

As h y p o t h e s i z e d ,
was

found

of political

for

internships

p olitical

efficacy,

t h e i n t e r n s did i n d i c a t e a

the

applicant

or

cl ass roo m

student.
A doctoral
intern ship

th esis

to

ascertain

in v o c a t i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l

the

effectiven ess

education

as

viewed

of

the

by t h e

c o o p e r a t i n g a g e n c i e s and o f f e r e d by Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y was exe c ut e d
by Sakiey ( 1 9 7 3 ) .
1.

The f i n d i n g s o f the study were as f o l l o w s :

Cooperating a g e n c i e s were l i k e l y t o o f f e r t h e same type o f

e x p e r i e n c e r e g a r d l e s s o f the type o f i n t e r n s h i p being o f f e r e d .

19

2.

On th e average,

63% o f the t a s k s

s t u d i e d were being made

a v a i l a b l e by t h e c o o p e r a t i n g a g e n c i e s , t o ap proximately h a l f o f the
interns.
3.

When

view point

th e

of

designation,
providing

internship

those

task

results

more

experiences

statem ents

indicated

than

h alf

that

of

the

were

examined

assigned

a more

the c o o p e r a t i n g
experiences

from

the

important

agencies

were

designated

more

important t o h a l f o f the i n t e r n s .
A

number

a d m in is t r a t io n
(1981)

of

evaluating

conducted

adm inistration
collecting,

other

a

d issertation s
internships

d o ct o ra l

in tern sh ip

analyzing,

have

study
at

in

to

East

higher

been

written.

evaluate

T ex a s

education

th e

State

Geren

ed u c a ti o n a l

U niversity

by

and i n t e r p r e t i n g data provided by th e in t e r n

r e l a t i v e t o th e va lu e o f h i s

internship experience.

The data

for

the study were secured through s e p a r a t e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s developed by
the w r i t e r .

An a c c e p t a b l e sample o f 290 r e s p o n s e s was ob ta in ed from

q u e s t i o n n a i r e s mailed t o
had completed t h e
The

103

se m ester

interns

internship
who were

internship

i n t e r n s resp on din g.
the

e d u ca ti o n a l

State

U niversity

525 randomly s e l e c t e d
during

the years

currently

enrolled

c o u r s e were surveyed,

wit h

former
1972
in
82

The major c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e

administration
had b ee n

internship

effective

and

program
should

interns

who

through

1979.

1980

spr ing

the

cu rr e nt

the
of

study were t h a t
at

East

Texas

be c o n t i n u e d .

Second, s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e in t e r n was viewed as one o f t h e s t r e n g t h s
o f the i n t e r n s h i p program as p r a c t i c e d .

20

Eden (1965) e v a l u a t e d the ed u cat ion al a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n t e r n s h i p
programs

of

Association
concluded

colleges
of

that

and

Colleges
the

u n iv ersities

and

Secondary

in te r n s h ip

in

in

the

Schools.

of

Colleges

and

The

ed u ca tio n al

ad m ini st ere d by th e c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s
Association

Secondary

North

Central

researcher

administration,

as

in th e North Central

Schools,

was

an

effective

tec h n iq u e f o r t r a i n i n g school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
Rossey

(1958)

investigated

i n t e r n s h i p in e d u ca t io n a l
Middle A t l a n t i c

Region

the

problems

of

evaluating

the

a d m in is t r a t io n as i t had been used in the

of

the

Cooperative

Program in

A dm in ist ra tio n during the f i v e y ea rs from 1949 t o 1954.
th ir ty -n in e in d ividu als

p articip ated

Educational
One hundred

in i n t e r n s h i p s w i t h i n

re g i o n during t h e f i v e - y e a r period covered.

the

Data were c o l l e c t e d by

means o f a d e t a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e and personal i n t e r v i e w s .
Ce rtain i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the improvement o f th e i n t e r n s h i p were
indicated.

Indi vid ua l

identified

and

met,

selected,

co o p e r a t i n g

the

t he y

task

are

needs

of

the

sponsoring

agencies

administrators
called

on

in t e r n

to

must

must

be more

be

most

must be more ably
perform,

and

improvements
internship

in

effect,

program f o r

there
it

is

no l i m i t

possesses

to

carefully
suited

interns

s u b j e c t e d t o con tin uo us and i n d i v i d u a l i z e d e v a l u a t i o n .
the

th e very b a s i c

closely

must

for
be

With t h e s e

future

of

the

ideals

o f the

l e a r n i n g o p p o r t u n i ty .
Melvin (1974) analyzed the U n i v e r s i t y o f Mi nnesota’ s I n te rn sh i p
Program in

Educational

A d m i n is tr a t io n .

study

an

to

was

attempt

determ ine

The major
whether

the

fo cu s

of

U niversity

this
of

21

Minnesota I n te r n s h ip

Program in E d u c a t i o n a l

A d m i n i s t r a t i o n had

produced ed u c a t io n a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t
from t h o s e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who had not in t e r n e d .
the

fin d in gs

showed

that

the

Without q u e s t i o n ,

in tern sh ip

in

educational

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n had many p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s .

S t u d i e s Published R e la t in g t o Evaluation
o f Student I n t e r n s h i p s
Morris (1984) formulated a method f o r e v a l u a t i n g undergraduate
f i e l d e x p e r i e n c e s in p s yc ho log y t h a t took i n t o account att ain me nt o f
individual

goals

and q u a l i t y o f s u p e r v i s i o n .

Results

showed t h a t

th e most s a t i s f a c t o r y f i e l d placements were t h o s e in which t h e r e was
a

w el1 -o rg a n ize d ,

ex p licitly

structured

train ing

program.

S u g g e s t i o n s f o r implementing and monitoring i n t e r n s h i p programs were
d e s c r i b e d by Hanson (1984) in the communication a r t s .
An ov erview
Lanese

(1983).

of

a 16-step

internship

The s t e p s ranged from th e

model

was

in itial

p re s en t ed

by

c o n t a c t between

t h e company and u n i v e r s i t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , p r o j e c t c o o r d i n a t o r , and
student

intern

e x am in e

to

what

extent

th eir

ob jectives

and

e x p e c t a t i o n s have been met.
Haviland (1983)
lib eral

arts

sophomore
liberal

students

career

an i n t e r n s h i p program t h a t

a career-developm ent
Components

internship

planning workshops.

s t u d e n t s was d i s c u s s e d ,
st a nd a rd s .

in

or j u n i o r y e a r .

arts

and c a r e e r

described

program,
The

of

the

in

the

program in cl ude d

a

a career resource cen ter,

importance

and s u g g e s t i o n s

process

in v o lv e d

of

were gi v e n

evaluation

for

for evaluation

22

Unpublished S t u d i e s R e l a t i n g t o Evalu ation
o f Student I n t e r n s h i p s
During

1985,

the

Northwest Regional
five

internships

for

Educational
in

development work.
formal

Center

in terview

Professional

Laboratory i d e n t i f i e d

various

aspects

To a s s e s s
schedule

Development

the

of

of

these

in corp oratin g

the

the

and supported

e d u c a t io n a l

effect

of

re s e a r c h
internships,

five

and
a

evaluation

q u e s ti o n s d e l i n e a t e d in t h e program’ s work s ta te m en t was used.

The

e v a l u a t i o n found the f o l l o w i n g :
1.

The

capability

of

the

interns

to

pursue

ed u c a ti o n a l

resea rc h and development (R & D) work in c r e a s e d because t h e s k i l l s
needed were acquired or s t r e n g t h e n e d .
2.

The job placement and promotion a c t i v i t i e s

o f th e

intern­

s h ip s have in cr ea se d t h e employment o f women and m i n o r i t i e s in R & D
work.
3.

The p r o j e c t has a s s i s t e d

i n t e r n s in o b t a i n i n g c r e d e n t i a l s ,

although t h i s was not a major need, s i n c e i n t e r n s were a lr ea d y well versed in such pro ced ur es .
4.

Information on i n t e r n s h i p a c t i v i t i e s was p u b l i c i z e d in s e v ­

eral media s o u r c e s .
5.

The i n t e r n s h i p s were a p o s i t i v e e x p e r i e n c e f o r both i n t e r n s

and sponsoring a g e n c i e s .
A number

of

other

e v a l u a t i n g st ud en t i n t e r n s .
deciding

what

should

be

authors

d iscu ssed

the

im portance

of

Rubin (1982) rep or te d th e f i r s t s t e p i s
measured,

su ch

as

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , jo b performance, and r e s u l t s .

in tern s’

personal

The most u s e f u l form

23

o f performance a p p rai sa l

f o r st u d en t i n t e r n s

i s based on beha vior s

th e s tu d e n t d i s p l a y s when acc omplishing a p a r t i c u l a r t a s k .

A 34-

item c h e c k l i s t f o r improving th e q u a l i t y o f st u d en t i n t e r n s h i p s was
d es ig n ed by Lapan ( 1 9 8 2 ) .

The co n te n t o f t h e c h e c k l i s t was based on

com prehensive e v a lu a tio n

r e s u l t s g a t h e r e d from p o s t - i n t e r n s h i p

s t u d e n t s , agency p e r s o n n e l, and f i e l d s u p e r v i s i o n .
Stauffer

(1975)

did

an

evaluation

study

of

391

liv in g

p a r t i c i p a n t s in t h e 1 0 - y e a r - o l d Academic I n te r n s h i p Program (AAIP);
320 or 82% completed the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , which became t h e b a s i s f o r
th is evaluation.

S i x t y p er ce nt rated t h e AAIP i n t e r n s h i p program as

very p o s i t i v e .
Goebel

(1971)

prepared

f o r Higher Education

for

the Western

Interstate

(WICHE) a repo rt e n t i t l e d

WICHE Inte rn Program in th e S t a t e o f Oregon."

"Evaluation

for

interns.

as s t r e n g t h s o f

He made a number o f s u g g e s t i o n s and recommendations as

t o how t h e program c o u ld be mo difie d
useful

o f the

In t h i s e v a l u a t i o n ,

Goebel p o in te d out a number o f d e f i c i e n c i e s as well
th e program.

Commission

potential
Goebel

as

(1972)

well

as

so as t o make i t

actu al

sponsoring

did a paper on an a n a l y s i s

even more

agencies
of

th e

and
WICHE

i n t e r n s h i p program d i r e c t e d by t h e Urban S t u d i e s Center a t Portland
State

U niversity,

Po rt la n d,

Oregon.

The

methodology

used

for

e v a l u a t i n g t h e i n t e r n s h i p program was c a r r i e d out p r im a r i ly through
th e

use

of

two

questionnaires.

Both

in t e r n

b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e program was worthwhile.

and agency

rep ort ed

24

A series
Profughi

of essays

(1976)

to

co nt ain ed

in a monograph was d esi gn ed

prove a n a l y t i c a l l y

a s s o c i a t e d with i n t e r n s h i p s .

some o f

major concerns

D isc uss ed in the f i r s t s e c t i o n are the

components o f th e i n t e r n s h i p t r i a n g l e :
sp ons ori ng a g e n c i e s ,

th e

by

and s t u d e n t s .

C o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s ,

The probable f u t u r e

prospects

and t r e n d s .
An

internship

study

de sig ned

to

relate

all

model

training

p r o j e c t (MTP) st ud en t r e s p o n s e s , as well as r es p o n se s from th e 197273 non-MTP ( F a c u l ty o f Educational Development) re s ea r ch a s s o c i a t e s ,
on

a

50 -i t e m

(1978).

internship

The c o n c l u s i o n

internship experience

questionnaire
was t h a t

was

developed

coursework

completed

improved the competence o f

the i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e was th e

by

b ef o re

interns

most b e n e f i c i a l

Wegner
the

and t h a t

aspect o f t h e i r

program o f stud y.
Bangar and o t h e r s
rela te all
as

did an i n t e r n s h i p

Model Trai ning P r o j e c t

responses

from

Development)

the

research

questionnaire.

1972-73

study de sig n ed

(MTP) st u d en t r e s p o n s e s ,
non-MTP

associates,

on

( F a c u l ty
a

in r e l a t i o n

to

as well

of

Educational

50-item

in tern sh ip

The m a j o r it y o f MTP and non-MTP i n t e r n s

t h ey gain ed p r a c t i c a l
useful

(1973)

believed

knowledge from t h e i r i n t e r n s h i p t h a t would be

to

th eir

career goals

and t h a t

th e

internship

e x p e r i e n c e was t h e most b e n e f i c i a l a s p e c t o f t h e i r program o f st ud y .
A booklet to

inform and a d v is e s t u d e n t s apply ing f o r or j u s t

beginn ing i n t e r n s h i p s was prepared by Sigmon ( 1 9 7 2 ) .
year,

Sigmon

1973

state

(1973)

developed

government

interns

The f o l l o w i n g

and mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
and

their

supervisors

to

Summer

to

gather

25

information

that

might

pro vid e

s u p e r v i s o r s and i n t e r n s .
supervisors
served

and

well

the

some

clues

to

the

perceptions

Results indicated that:

interns

overwhelmingly

p eop le

of

North

believed

C a ro li n a ,

(a)

both in t er n

that

the

(b)

both

and

of

interns
in t e r n

s u p e r v i s o r s and i n t e r n s had a high deg ree o f s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e
program.
Background infor mat ion on th e o r g a n i z a t i o n and o p e r a t i o n o f an
i n t e r n s h i p program at C a l i f o r n i a

State

presented

Students

experiences
lecturing.

by

H eiges
had

(1972).

a greater

effect

U niversity,

than

A second study by Heiges

fo u n d
hours

(1977)

San Diego,
the

of

was

w ork/learn
profession al

d e s c r i b e d changes and

improvements in a geography i n t e r n s h i p program at

San Diego

State

U n i v e r s i t y s i n c e i t s i n c e p t i o n in 1969.
Two d i f f e r e n t models f o r i n t e r n s h i p s were developed by Adkison
(1980) and Fevin ger ( 1 9 8 4 ) .

Adkison (1980) produced a monograph as

a part o f t h e p r o j e c t known as i n t e r n s h i p s ,
leadership,
field-tested

and support
a model

(ICES).

positions.
year-long

The c r u c i a l
in tern sh ip

p la n n in g , m on it o ri n g ,
field

experiences

The Kansas

for m obilizing

women f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c a r e e r s

school

Project

d escribed

successfully

of

the

them in

training

ad m in istration .

and e v a l u a t i n g human s e r v i c e

was

equity-

s t a t e w i d e r e s o u r c e s t o prepare

and t o p l a c e

component
in

certification,

by

Fevinger.

a p p ro p ri a t e

program was
A model

a

for

internships

and

The

was

model

organ ized around work r o l e s and could be e a s i l y adopted f o r gen era l
job e v a l u a t i o n s beyond in t e r n placement.

26

The e d u c a t io n a l

and personal

C o l l e g e in t e r n programs,

effects

of

the

New York S t a t e

d es ign ed t o provide c o l l e g e

s t u d e n t s with

f i r s t - h a n d knowledge o f t h e l e g i s l a t i v e p r o c e s s and f u n c t i o n s , were
examined

by

Balutis

(1977).

The

internship

experience

had

no

s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e on s t u d e n t s ’ p a t t e r n s o f i n t e r e s t and v a l u e s .
Recom men da tion s t o h e l p
positions
"real

maximize

wo rld "

and

their
also

student

ed u c a t io n a l
to

help

interns

opportunities

them

avoid

a s s o c i a t e d problems were made by O l d f i e l d
may be

helpful

to

both

in a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
vis-a-vis

certain

(1984).

new and e s t a b l i s h e d

the

placem ent-

The s u g g e s t i o n s

in t e r n

directors,

as

w ell.
In t h e
involving

d iscip lin e

internships

comp leted.

of
by

speech
Konsky

communication,
(1976)

Konsky noted t h a t l i t t l e

and

three

Masson

studies

(1985)

systematic atten tio n

were

had been

devot ed t o r e s ea r ch on t h e development, a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,

and e f f e c t s

o f s t u d e n t i n t e r n s h i p programs in speech communication.

A practical

g u id e t o i n t e r n s h i p s d e s c r i b e d how t o deve lo p and a d m in is t e r such a
program.

Masson

departments

surveyed

197

co n cer nin g t h e i r

college

speech

and

speech

internship

communication

programs.

Results

were:
1.
interns

There was l i t t l e

agreement con cerning t h e

should work per week t o

earn c r e d i t ,

number o f

with j u s t

hours

over h a l f

a g r e e in g t h a t t h e s t u d e n t should put in ten hours o f work t o t h r e e
hours o f c r e d i t .
2.

I n te rn s

academic c r e d i t .

generally

received

between

one

and

six

hours

of

27

3.

A f a c u l t y member d e s ig n a t e d as c o o r d i n a t o r s u p e rv is ed the

program.
4.

S tu den ts were u s u a l l y e v a l u a t e d by both th e o n - s i t e s u p e r­

v i s o r and t h e i n t e r n c o o r d i n a t o r .
5.

Most c o o r d i n a t o r s

experience

and w r i t e

requ ired t h e

a final

interns

report

or

to

give

document

some

their

p articu lar

presentation.
In a second st ud y, Masson (1985) ad vised s e v e r a l t h i n g s should
be

taken

into

account

when

establishing

an

internship

program.

I s s u e s t o be co n s id er ed were whether the p o s i t i o n should be a paid
one, how many c r e d i t hours should be a ll o w e d, th e number o f hours a
week and t h e number o f weeks the in te r n should work, p r e r e q u i s i t e s ,
and whether grades should be g i v e n .
A study
Council

of

of

developed

th e

goals

Education)
by

A dm i n is t ra t io n

Creager

and achievements

I n te r n sh i p
(1971).

I n te r n s h i p

in

Academic

The

Program was

high

administration.

in trin sic

Fellow

The r e s u l t s

correlation

and e a r l y

between

at ta inm ent

of

the

to

the
the

to f i l l

indicated

a career

of

enlarge

selection

ACE (American

A dm in is t ra t io n

purpose

improve th e q u a l i t y o f persons a v a i l a b l e
academic

of

was

Academic
number

and

key p o s i t i o n s
that

there

and e x p e r i e n c e

position

as

in

was

a

as

a

an academic

administrator.
A paper
developing,

to

assist

interested

and e v a l u a t i n g

political

faculty

members

internships

in

so as

designing,
to

produce

t h e b e s t l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e p o s s i b l e was introduced by Ball

(1976).

28

Recommendations e m p h a s i z e d t h a t

the

in tern sh ip

program s h o u l d

complement and enhance t h e cl ass roo m e x p e r i e n c e r a t h e r than merely
be a j o b - t r a i n i n g program.
The

results

programs

in

of

a

sociology

national
were

survey

rep o rt e d

on

by

undergraduate

S a t a r ia n o

in t e r n

(1979).

He

d i s c u s s e d c r i t e r i a used f o r and problems found with i n t e r n s h i p s

and

recommended s t r e n g t h e n i n g th e programs by f o r m a l l y i n t e g r a t i n g them
i n t o t h e curriculum.

A more r e c e n t study by Mares and o t h e r s (1984)

provided r e s u l t s o f a n a t i o n a l
in the h u m an it ie s .
departments

and

internships
history,

in

art

study o f c o l l e g e s t u d e n t i n t e r n s h i p s

The f o c u s was a t t i t u d e s and p r a c t i c e s o f 1,621
central

th e

o ffices

following

history,

on

U .S.

majors:

philosophy,

c a m p u se s

English,

classics,

concerning

American

and

studies,

modern

foreign

l a ng ua ges .
Scheckels

(1986)

presented

a

paper

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e dimensions o f a s u c c e s s f u l

d escrib ing

i n t e r n s h i p program in the

English Department o f a f o u r - y e a r p r i v a t e c o l l e g e

in V i r g i n i a .

paper asking 74 p a r t i c i p a n t s t o e v a l u a t e a 1 i b e r a l
program,

us in g

a

73-item

several

questionnaire,

was

arts

internship

prepared

by

Fagon

(1985).

The e v a l u a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e program was s u c c e s s f u l

teaching

students

cross-cultural
and

urban

community.
apply

experiences),

problem s,

and

The program was

sociological

Guidelines

about working with

for

concepts

learning

d ifferen t
about

p articip atin g
less

and t h e o r i e s

implementing f i e l d

to

placement

(especially

urban

environment

a

successful

in

1ivin g-learn in g
helping

the
in

in

p eo p le

the
in

A

urban

social

students
situation.

gerontology

29

co u r s e s were pr es en te d by o r g a n i z a t i o n , e x e c u t i o n , and e v a l u a t i o n o f
f i e l d place men ts.
A manual intended f o r community agency personnel who s u pe rv is ed
students

in u n d e r g r a d u a t e

(1982).

i n t e r n s h i p s was c o m p l e t e d

The importance o f e v a l u a t i o n s f o r s t u d e n t s was d i s c u s s e d ,

and s u g g e s t i o n s were g iv e n f o r e v a l u a t i o n s t an d ar d s .
manual

by Bo w le r

by McDonald

serving

in

Education

(1983)

professional
Studies

provided

infor ma tion needed by s t u d e n t s

internships

Program

at

A more r e c e n t

as

a

Southern

part

of

th e

Illin o is

Vocational

U niversity

at

University

of

Carbondale.
Ivy

(1983)

described

the

internship

at

th e

Minnesota, Duluth.

T h i r t y - f i v e s t u d e n t s in th e Department o f Home

Economics

internships

completed

from

1979

through

1982.

Each

i n t e r n s h i p was at l e a s t t en weeks in l e n g t h , and each st u d en t worked
from 90 t o 150 hours on t h e j o b .

Before s t a r t i n g

the

internship,

th e s t u d e n t s completed a state men t o f t h e i r own g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s
for

th eir

in tern sh ip s.

Intern

supervisors

also

subm itted

e v a l u a t i o n s o f st ud en t performance.

Summary
In t h i s ch a p te r a revi ew o f t h e p e r t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e regarding
e v a l u a t i o n o f st ud en t i n t e r n s h i p programs was p r e s e n t e d .

Supporting

e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n s must g i v e high p r i o r i t y t o the
e v a l u a t i o n o f st u d en t i n t e r n s h i p s .

This i s e s s e n t i a l

so t h a t each

c o l l e g e or u n i v e r s i t y may a s s e s s t h e de gree t o which program g o a l s
and o b j e c t i v e s are being ma inta ined .

30

According t o t h e l i t e r a t u r e , s e v e r a l t e c h n iq u e s and ins truments
have

been

developed

and

u se d

to

evaluate

student

in tern sh ip

programs.
Two b e n e f i t s o f t h e s e i n t e r n s h i p programs have been i d e n t i f i e d :
St ude nts b e n e f i t from t h e i r exposure t o r ea l problems, and gra du at es
entering

th e jo b market

believe

th eir

internships

have made them

s t r o n g e r c om p et it or s f o r employment.
In Chapter

I II

d i s c u s s e d in depth.

the

d e s ig n

and methodology

of

the

study

are

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY

In tr o d u ct i o n
The o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s re s e a r c h was t o determine th e q u a l i t y o f
the i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e in t h e R ecr eat io n and Park A d m i n is tr a t io n
program

at

students

Central

and

Michigan

cooperating

University

agency

as

perceived

supervisors.

The

by

former

research

was

de sig n ed t o answer t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s :
1.

What was th e q u a l i t y o f th e i n t e r n s h i p program as p e r c e i v e d

by former s t u d e n t s and c o o p e r a t i n g agency s u p e r v i s o r s ?
2.

Did c o o p e r a t i n g

supervisors

and former s t u d e n t s have d i f ­

f e r i n g p e r c e p t i o n s o f the i n t e r n s h i p ex p e r i e n c e ?
3.

What s u g g e s t i o n s were commonly mentioned f o r improving the

internship experience

as a t r a i n i n g d e v i c e

as

perceived

by former

s t u d e n t s and c o o p e r a t i n g agency s u p e r v i s o r s ?
This
population,

chapter

is

concerned

w ith

the

com position

t h e i n s tr u m e n t a t io n used in t h e st u d y ,

for c o l le c t i n g the data,

of

the

t h e method used

and t h e procedures used f o r a n a ly z i n g the

data.

Population
The p o p u l a t io n o f t h i s re s e a r c h c o n s i s t e d o f c o o p e r a t i n g agency
supervisors

representing

360

various

31

agencies

in

and

outside

of

32

Michigan who s u p e rv is ed and e v a l u a t e d th e s t u d e n t s during t h e 30week i n t e r n s h i p
internship

and the 600 former s t u d e n t s who took part

program

since

its

inception

in

1975

to

in the

1988.

The

s t u d e n t s were gra duates from Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y with majors
in Re cre at io n and Park A dm in is t ra t io n in the

Leisu re S e r v i c e s

and

S t u d i e s Curriculum.
With r e s p e c t t o p o s s i b l e respondent d i f f e r e n c e s (as t he y a f f e c t
res p on se r a t e )
the

former

homogeneous.

on gender,
intern

economic s t a t u s ,

students

of

th is

and e d u ca t io n al
study

were

level,

relatively

All former s t u d e n t s held a b a c h e l o r ’ s degree from the

same program in th e same u n i v e r s i t y .
An important f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g resp on se r a t e s i s the " i n t e r e s t s "
o f th e group being s t u d i e d

in the sponsoring o r g a n i z a t i o n and the

t o p i c under c o n s i d e r a t i o n (Parte n, 1 96 6 ) .
surveyed

were

trained

administration,"

as

interest

Sin ce a l l former s t u d e n t s

"professionals
in

the

study

in
was

recreation

and

park

assumed.

Moreover,

i n t e r e s t in t h e spons oring agency, Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y ,

was

assumed.

Q u es t io n n a ir e s
Q u e s t io n n a ir e s were mailed t o t h e e n t i r e
students

and

internships.

to

all

agency

su pervisors

at

po p ul at io n o f former
the

site

of

th eir

(See Appendices A and B, r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r st u d en t and

agency s u p e r v i s o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . )
The procedures f o r s e l e c t i n g q u e s t i o n s f o r the mail survey were
based on t h e g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p program.

Items

33

incl ud ed

in the mail

resu lts

o f the

Recre atio n
L ei su re

survey came from r e l a t e d

accred itation

study

and Parks A s s o c i a t i o n

and

R ec r e a t i o n .

Other

literature

sponsored

and t h e

by t h e

questions

and from e x p e r i e n c e

N ational

American A s s o c i a t i o n
were

derived

r e s e a r c h e r ’ s e x p e r i e n c e as a former p r a c t i t i o n e r
park a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

and the

of

from

the

in r e c r e a t i o n

and

teaching

courses

taken

by

t he former st ud en t i n t e r n s .
The d r a f t v e r s i o n o f the mail q u e s t i o n n a i r e was p i l o t t e s t e d on
a small

group

of

former

student

c o o p e r a t i n g a g e n c i e s in Michigan.
were examined.

interns

and

su pervisors

of

The r e s u l t s o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s

Where n e c e s s a r y , changes were made and a f i n a l d r a f t

was prepared.
There
interns

were

questions

and 30 q u e s t i o n s

respond t o .
R ecr eat io n
agreed,

43

or

statements

or s t a te m e n t s

for

for
agency

former

st ud en t

supervisors

to

A m aj o ri t y o f the f a c u l t y members in th e Department o f
and Park A dm i n is t ra t io n

after

a s u rve y,

at

Central

Michigan

t h a t 8 o f th e 43 q u e s t i o n s

University

on t h e

survey

instrument f o r t h e former st u d en t i n t e r n s and 7 o f t h e 30 q u e s t i o n s
for

the

cooperating

agency

supervisors

w er e

rela tiv e

to

the

about

the

perceptions of q u a lity .
The f o l l o w i n g methods were employed:
1.

The

internship.

in d iv i d u a l

was

asked

what

he/she

thought

This employed a s ch ed u le or q u e s t i o n n a i r e o f th e open

and c l o s e d form.
2.

The in d iv i d u a l

was asked t o p r i o r i t i z e

with which h e /s h e was in agreement.

items from a l i s t

34

3.

The in d i v i d u a l was asked t o check s t a te m e n t s in a l i s t with

which h e / s h e was in agreement.
The co ver s h e e t f o r t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s co n t ai n ed d i r e c t i o n s f o r
com pleting them.

The l e t t e r , co ver s h e e t , and q u e s t i o n n a i r e s appear

in Appendices A and B.

Analyzing t h e Data
I t was important t o e s t a b l i s h some fundamental

assumptions f o r

t h i s study in a n al y zi ng t h e data t o be accumulated.

For s t a t i s t i c a l

pu rposes,

following

th e

assumptions

were developed

into

the

null

hyp othe ses:
Hy pothesis 1 : There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in the
re s p o n se s t o t h e mail survey between former i n t e r n s o f t h e four
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s as t o t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s about th e i n t e r n s h i p
program.
Hyp othesis 2 : There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in the
r e s p o n s e s t o t h e m a il s u r v e y b e t w e e n c o o p e r a t i n g a g e n c y
s u p e r v i s o r s and t h e f o r m e r s t u d e n t i n t e r n s as t o t h e i r
p e r c e p t i o n s about th e i n t e r n s h i p program.
Answers o f each respondent were recorded
Data

were

analyzed

Computer S e r v i c e s
SPSSX S t a t i s t i c a l

by

the

Department

Statistical
at

Central

on

an Opscan

C on s u lt in g
Michigan

Group

form.
at

U niversity

the
using

Package on th e IBM 3090 computer sy stem.

The c h i - s q u a r e s t a t i s t i c was employed t o determine r e l a t i o n s h i p
between t h e groups.

The minimum c o n f i d e n c e l e v e l o f .05 was used to

determine t h e s t a t i s t i c a l

s i g n i f i c a n c e in t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the

data.
R e s u l t s from q u e s t i o n n a i r e s as t o th e p e r c e p t i o n s h eld by the
former

in t e r n

students

and

cooperating

agency

supervisors,

and

35

comparison o f t h e

perceptual

were

The

ana lyze d.

d istributions

relationship

results

were

f o r each v a r i a b l e .

between the

obtained

In a d d i t i o n ,

by

two groups,

us ing

frequency

means and standard

d e v i a t i o n s f o r some v a r i a b l e s were o b t a in ed .

Summary
This r e s e a r c h c o n s i s t e d
representing

360 v a r i o u s

o f cooperating

agencies

in

agency s u p e r v is o r s

and o u t s i d e

o f Michigan

who

s u p e r v is e d and e v a l u a t e d the s t u d en ts during the 30-week i n t e r n s h i p
and the 600 former s t u d e n t s who took part in the i n t e r n s h i p program
since i t s

inception

in 1975 t o 1988.

The s tu d e n t s were grad ua tes

from Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y with majors in R ecreation and Park
A d m in is tr at io n in t h e Leisure S e r v i c e s and S t u d i e s Curriculum.
Q u e s t io n n a ir e s
former s t u d e n t s
internships.

were

mailed

and t o a l l

to

th e

entire

agency s u p e r v i s o r s

p o p u la t io n
at

the

site

Respondents were asked t o respond t o t h e i r

of

the

of

the

p e r c e iv e d

v a lu e o f th e 30-week i n t e r n s h i p ex p e r i e n c e as meeting th e g o a l s and
o b j e c t i v e s o f th e Re cre at io n and Park A dm in ist rat ion Department at
Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y .
Responses were compared by c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s t o determine th e
deg ree o f s i m i l a r i t y or d i f f e r e n c e in t h e p e r c e p t i o n s held by agency
supervisors
level

of

and

former

st ud en t

interns.

The

minimum c o n f i d e n c e

.05 was used t o determine the s t a t i s t i c a l

significance

the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f th e da ta .
In Chapter IV, r e s u l t s o f the a n a l y s i s o f data are p r e s e n t e d .

in

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

I n tr od u ct i o n
This

ch ap ter

is

presented

in two major s e c t i o n s .

The f i r s t

s e c t i o n in c l u d e s t h e r e s p o n s e s o f former st u d en t in t e r n p a r t i c i p a n t s
in t h e Department o f Re cr ea ti on and Park A d m i n is t ra t io n
Program

regarding

th eir

in t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e .
major

concentration

curriculum.
from a l l

perceptions

of

the

Internship

q u ality

of

th eir

The data were analyzed s e p a r a t e l y f o r each

offered

The second

cooperating

in

section

internship

the

Le isu re

includes
site

Services

an a n a l y s i s

supervisors

and
of

with

Studies
th e data

respect

to

t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p program o f f e r e d
by t h e Department o f R ec re at io n and Park A d m i n is t r a t io n ,
all

former st u d en t

in t e r n s ’ perceptions

o f quality

as w e ll

conce rni ng

as
the

program.

Ba sic Student C o n s i d e r a t io n s f o r a
Q u a l i t y I n te r n s h i p Program
It

was

important

to

determine

relevant

data

on

the

former

st u d en t in t e r n q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( s e e Appendix A), which would i n d i c a t e
fo r m e r

student

in tern sh ip

in tern s’

program

in

perceptions

the

D ep a rt m en t

of

q u ality
of

A dm in is t ra t io n at Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y .

36

regarding

R ecreation

and

the
Park

The f a c u l t y members

37

in t h e Department o f R ecr eat io n and Park A dm in is t ra ti o n at Central
Michigan U n i v e r s i t y
st ud en t

in t e r n

agreed

that

questionnaire

8 of

were

43 q u e s t i o n s

relative

to

the

on th e

former

former

st ud en t

student

in tern

in te r n s ’ perceptions o f q u a lity .
The

relevant

questions

on

the

f o rm er

q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e l a t i n g t o q u a l i t y were as f o l l o w s :
Question 4:

Why did you acce pt an in t e r n s h i p ?

Question 9:

What do you f e e l are t h e t h r e e major c o n t r i b u t i o n s
o f th e i n t e r n s h i p program t o the st ud en t?

Question 20b:

To your knowledge, have you r e c e i v e d any job
o f f e r s s i n c e the i n t e r n s h i p based on th e f a c t
you were an in ter n ?

Question 26:

Did t h e v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e s during the
i n t e r n s h i p meet your needs in preparing you t o
enter the profession?

Question 34:

Do you have any reason t o th in k t h a t a c c e p t i n g
the i n t e r n s h i p was not a good idea in your
situation?

Question 38:

Do you f e e l the R ecr ea ti o n and Park co u r s e s at
CMU prepared you f o r t h e i n t e r n s h i p ?

Question 42:

Would you recommend ot h e r s t u d e n t s t ak e th e
i n t e r n s h i p program?

Question 43:

What s u g g e s t i o n s do you have f o r improving t h e
i n t e r n s h i p program?

P e r c e p ti o n s o f St udents Regarding
the I n te rn sh i p Experience
The above

questions

were

all

compared

to

Question

3 on t h e

in t e r n q u e s t i o n n a i r e (What i s your c o n c e n t r a t i o n area?) in order to
determ ine p e r c e p tio n s

of

q u ality

by

in d ivid u al

con cen tration .

Table 1 i l l u s t r a t e s th e number o f resp ond ents incl uded in th e survey
from

each

of

the

four

major

areas

of

concentration.

It

also

38

in clu d es

a percentage

of

the

total

respondents

by

in d ividu al

concentration.

Table 1 . --Number o f resp ond ents by c o n c e n t r a t i o n area .

Conce nt rat ion Area

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

N

Commercial
Outdoor
Community
Thera peu tic
Total

% o f Total

47
14
55
81

23.9
7.1
27.9
41.1

197

10 0 . 0

The former i n t e r n s were asked t o p r i o r i t i z e
accepted

the

in tern sh ip

option

offered

by

R e c r e a t i o n and Park A dm in ist ra tio n at Central

the

the

r ea s o n s

Department

they
of

Michigan U n i v e r s i t y .

They were g iv e n nine re as on s and were asked t o p r i o r i t i z e them on a
slid ing

scale

low est).

from 1 t o

9

(1

being

the

highest

and 8 being

Tables 2 through 10 i n d i c a t e t h e s t u d e n t r e s p o n s e s .

c h i - s q u a r e s t a t i s t i c was employed t o determine s i g n i f i c a n c e

at

th e
The
th e

.05 l e v e l .
To g a i n
differences
p rio rity

chose

According

to

the

data

in

among

the

that

the

students
gaining

were
of

not

sig n ifica n t.

experience

was

very

i n d i c a t e d by the f a c t t h a t 110 o f 188 (58.5%)

the

Table

2,

in p e r c e p t i o n s o f th e g a i n i n g o f e x p e r i e n c e as a high

acknowledged
This i s

exp erien ce.

gaining

of

experience

as

the

number

1

Students
im portant.
re sp on d en ts

priority.

An

39

a d d i t i o n a l 52 (27.7%) ch os e i t as t h e i r number 2 p r i o r i t y .

Only 12

s t u d e n t s (6.4%) placed t h e g a in in g o f e x p e r i e n c e on th e lower end o f
t he s c a l e .

Only one s tu d e n t pla ce d th e g a i n i n g

o f experience

as

h i s / h e r number 7 p r i o r i t y .

Table 2 . - - R es p o n s es t o Question 4: "Why did you a cce pt an i n t e r n ­
s h ip . . . t o g a in experience?"
High
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Low
9

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

1

27
60.0

11
24.4

4
8.9

1
2.2

1
2.2

2

9
64.3

4
2 8 .6

1
7.1

3

32
61.5

15
28.8

3
5.8

1
1.9

4

42
53.8

22
2 8 .2

6
7.7

5
6.4

Concen­
tration

Chi- square t e s t :
Key:

Total
N
%

1
2.2

45
23.8
14
7.4

1
1.9

52
2 7 .5

3
3.8

p - v a lu e = . 91558

78
41.3

Not S i g n i f i c a n t at . 05

C onc en tra tio n 1 = Commercial, Concentration 2 = Outdoor,
C onc ent rat ion 3 = Community, Concentration 4 = Therapeutic

Of

45

former

interns

responding

in

C oncentration

1

(Commercial), 43 (95.6%) p la ce d th e g a i n i n g o f e x p e r i e n c e in th e top
h a lf o f the p r io r it y s c a le .

Twenty-seven (60%) resp on de nts placed

it

number 1 p r i o r i t y

position.

in

the

in t h e

p la ce d

it

the

middle

of

scale

One former
at

th e

in t e r n

number

(2.2%)

5 priority

40

position.

One respondent (2.2%) placed th e g a i n i n g o f e x p e r i e n c e in

t h e lower h a l f o f t h e p r i o r i t y s c a l e .

No resp ond ents pla ce d i t

in

t h e number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
Of

14respondents

p la ce d t h e
scale.

in

Concentration

2 (Outdoor),

g a i n i n g o f e x p e r i e n c e in t h e

14

(100%)

top h a l f o f th e p r i o r i t y

Nine (64%) placed t h e g a i n i n g o f e x p e r i e n c e in t h e number 1

priority position.
Of 52 respo nd ents

in Concentration 3

place d t h e g a i n i n g o f e x p e r i e n c e
scale.

T hirty-tw o

(6 1.5%)

(Community),

51

in t h e top h a l f o f t h e

respondents

placed

e x p e r i e n c e in t h e number 1 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .

the

(98.1%)
priority

gaining

of

One respondent (1.9%)

place d t h e g a i n i n g o f e x p e r i e n c e in the lower h a l f o f t h e p r i o r i t y
s c a l e at th e number 7 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
Of 78 respon de nts in Concentration 4 ( T h e r a p e u t i c ) ,
p lac ed t h e
scale.

g a i n i n g o f e x p e r i e n c e in the

Forty-two

number 1 p r i o r i t y
experience
priority

in

(53.8%)

place d

p osition.

t h e middle

position.

the

top h a l f o f the p r i o r i t y

th e g a i n i n g o f e x p e r i e n c e in the

Three

of

75 (96.2%)

(3.8%)

priority

No resp ond ents

in

place d
scale

the
at

Concentration

gaining

the

of

number

4 placed

5

the

g a i n i n g o f e x p e r i e n c e in t h e lower h a l f o f the p r i o r i t y s c a l e .
Peer

pressure.

As

in d icated

in

Table

3,

the

student

resp ond ents p e r c e iv e d peer p r es s u r e as a low p r i o r i t y f o r a c c e p t i n g
an i n t e r n s h i p .

This

is

i n d i c a t e d by th e f a c t t h a t only 3 o f

107

(2.8%) resp ond ents p r i o r i t i z e d peer p r es s u r e in p o s i t i o n s 2 through
4.

E i g h t y - t h r e e o f 107 respo nd ents (77.6%) p lac ed peer p r es s u r e as

41

t h e i r number 9 p r i o r i t y .

Fourteen o f 107 re s p on d en ts (13.1%) place d

peer p r e s s u r e in t h e number 8 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .

Table 3 . -- R esp on se s t o Question 4: "Why did you a c c e p t an i n t e r n ­
s h ip . . . peer pressure?"

High
1
Concen­
tration

N
%

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Low
9

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

1
3.2

1
3.2

1
3.2

2
6.5

3
9.7

23
74.2

31
2 9. 0

2
66.6

3
2.8

5
17.2

21
72.4

29
27.1

6
13.6

37
84.1

44
41.1

1

2

1
33.3

3

1
3.4

4

2
6.9

1
2.3

Chi-square t e s t :
Key:

Total
N
%

Not S i g n i f i c a n t a t .05

p - v a lu e = .50633

Concentration 1 = Commercial, C onc ent rat ion 2 = Outdoor,
Concentration 3 = Community, C onc ent rat ion 4 = Thera pe ut ic

Of 31

respondents

in

Conce nt rat ion

1

(Commercial),

placed peer p r es s u r e as a p r i o r i t y c o n s i d e r a t i o n
i n t e r n s h i p in the top h a l f o f th e p r i o r i t y

for

scale.

scale,

place d

peer

p res su re

in

the

lower

with 23 (74.2%) o f t h e C onc en tra tio n

half

accepting

an

of

Twenty-nine
the

1 re s p o n d e n ts

peer p r e s s u r e in th e number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .

(6.4%)

No res p on d en ts

place d peer p re s s ur e in th e number 1 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
(93.5%)

2

priority
placing

42

All
peer

3 respondents

pr es s ur e

in

(100%)

the

lower

in Concentration
half

of

th e

2 (Outdoor)

priority

placed

scale,

with

2

(66.6%) p l a c i n g peer p r es s u r e in the number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
Of 29 respondents
pla ce d

peer

pressure

in
in

Concentration
th e

lower

3

half

(Community),
of

the

29

(100%)

priority

scale.

Twenty-one respondents (72.4%) placed peer p r es s u r e in t h e number 9
priority position.
Of 44 respondents

in Concentration

4 (Therapeutic),

1 (2.3%)

pla ce d peer p r e s s u r e in th e top h a l f o f the p r i o r i t y

s c a l e at the

number 1 p r i o r i t y

placed

p osition .

Forty-three

(97.7%)

p r e s s u r e in t h e lower h a l f o f the p r i o r i t y s c a l e ,

with 37

peer

(84.1%)

p l a c i n g peer p r e s s u r e in th e number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
Professional

contacts.

According

to

the

data

in

Table

4,

s t u d e n t s pla ce d making p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s on th e high end o f the
priority

scale.

Of

154

re sp o n d en ts,

110

(71.4%)

p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s in t h e top f i v e p o s i t i o n s .
ranked making
p ositions.

professional

contacts

in

th e

Among th e v a r i o u s c o n c e n t r a t i o n s ,

ranked

making

F o r t y - f o u r (28.6%)

6 through

9

priority

t h i s was s i g n i f i c a n t

at th e .05 l e v e l .
Of 37 respondents in Concentration 1 (Commercial),

20 (54.1%)

p la ce d making p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s in t h e top h a l f o f th e p r i o r i t y
scale.

Two (5.4%) placed making p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s in th e number

1 p riority position.

Five respondents

p la ce d making p r o f e s s i o n a l

contacts

in Concentration

in th e middle o f t h e

1 (13.5%)
priority

s c a l e a t the number 5 p o s i t i o n .

Twelve respondents (32.4%) placed

making

the

professional

contacts

in

lower

half

of

the

priority

43

scale.

No respondents in Concentration 1 placed making p r o f e s s i o n a l

c o n t a c t s in th e number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .

Table 4 . - - R esp on se s t o Question 4: "Why did you a cc e p t an i n t e r n ­
s h ip . . . t o make p r o f e s s i o n a l con ta cts ? "

High
1
Concen­
tration

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Low
9

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

2
5.4

10
27.0

5
13 . 5

3
8.1

5
1 3. 5

6
16 .2

2
5.4

4
10.8

1
10.0

3
30.0

2
20 .0

3
30.0

4
8.9

16
35.6

12
26.7

5
11.1

2
4.4

3
6.7

1
2.2

7
1 1 .3

8
12.9

13
2 1. 0

10
16.1

15
24 .2

5
8.1

4
6.5

2
1
2.1

3

4

Chi-square t e s t :
Key:

p - v a lu e = .00990

Total
N
%

37
24.0
1
10.0

10
6.5

1
2.2

45
29.2
62
40.3

S i g n i f i c a n t a t .05

C onc entration 1 = Commercial, Concentration 2 = Outdoor,
Co nc entration 3 = Community, Concentration 4 = Th er ap eu tic

Of 10 respondents in Concentration 2 (Outdoor), 6 (60%) p la ce d
making p r o f e s s i o n a l

c o n t a c t s in t h e top h a l f o f th e p r i o r i t y s c a l e .

No res p on d en ts place d i t

in the number 1 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .

Three

resp on d en ts (30%) placed making p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s in t h e middle
of

the

priority

respondent

scale

at

the

number

5

priority

(10%) placed making p r o f e s s i o n a l

position.

contacts

h a l f o f t h e p r i o r i t y s c a l e at t h e number 9 p o s i t i o n .

in

the

One
lower

44

Of 45 resp on den ts

in

Concentration 3

(Community),

33

(73.3%)

p la ce d making p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s in th e top h a l f o f t h e p r i o r i t y
scale.
the

One respondent (2.2%) placed making p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s in

number

1 p riority

professional

contacts

number 5 p o s i t i o n .
p lac ed

making

p riority

p osition .

in

Seven

w ith

(11.1%)

placed

th e middle o f th e p r i o r i t y
respondents

professional

scale,

Five

1

contacts

respondent

(15.6%)
in

in

the

(2.2%)

scale

making
at

the

Concentration

lower

placing

half
th e

of

making

3

the
of

p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s in t h e number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
Of 62 res po nd ent s in Concentration 4 ( T h e r a p e u t i c ) ,
pla ce d making p r o f e s s i o n a l
scale.
middle

Ten
of

(16.1%)

th e

c o n t a c t s in th e top h a l f o f t h e p r i o r i t y

p la ce d

priority

28 (45.2%)

scale

making
at

th e

professional

contacts

number 5 p r i o r i t y

in

the

position.

Twenty-four (38.7%) pla ce d making p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s in t h e lower
h a lf o f the p r io r ity s c a le .
Variety

of

experience.

According

to

the

data

in

Table

5,

d i f f e r e n c e s in p e r c e p t i o n s o f g a i n i n g a v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e as an
important

con sid eration

sign ificant.

This

is

for

accepting

indicated

by th e

an
fact

in tern sh ip
that

were

not

153 respondents

(86.4%) out o f a t o t a l o f 177 place d g a i n i n g a v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e
in t h e top 5 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n s , with 24 (13.6%) p l a c i n g th e g a in in g
o f a v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e in t h e lower h a l f o f t h e p r i o r i t y s c a l e .
Of 40 resp on den ts in C onc entration 1 (Commercial),
p la ce d

gaining

priority scale,

a variety

of

with 3 (7.5%)

experience

in

the

top

25 (62.5%)

half

of

the

p l a c i n g t h e g a in in g o f a v a r i e t y o f

45

experience

in

the

number 1 p r i o r i t y

position.

Five

respondents

(12.5%) placed g a i n i n g a v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e in t h e middle o f the
p r i o r i t y s c a l e at t h e number 5 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
gaining a va riety o f experience
scale.

Ten (25%) placed

in t h e lower h a l f o f t h e p r i o r i t y

No respondents in Concentration 1 place d g a i n i n g a v a r i e t y

o f e x p e r i e n c e in t h e number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .

Table 5 . --Re spo ns es t o Question 4: "Why did you ac ce pt an i n t e r n ­
ship . . . v a r i e t y o f experience?"
High
1
Concen­
tration

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Low
9

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

3
7.5

7
17 .5

7
1 7. 5

8
2 0 .0

5
12 .5

8
20.0

2
5.0

6
50 .0

1
8.3

4
33 .3

1
8.3

2

3
6.1

16
3 2. 7

11
22.4

9
18.4

5
10.2

1
2.0

4

11
14 .5

18
23 .7

20
2 6. 3

12
15.8

6
7.9

9
11.8

Key:

N
%

40
2 2 .6
12
6.8

3

Chi-square t e s t :

Total

p - v a lu e = .11510

3
6.1

1
2.0

49
27. 7
76
42.9

Not S i g n i f i c a n t a t .05

Concentration 1 = Commercial, Concentration 2 = Outdoor,
Concentration 3 = Community, Concentration 4 = Th erapeutic

Of
placed

12

respondents

g a in in g

p riority

scale.

in

a variety

Concentration
of

experience

No r e s p o n d e n t s

2

(Outdoor),

in

th e

placed

top

gaining

11
half

(91.7%)
of

a variety

the
of

46

experience

in th e number 1 p r i o r i t y

p osition.

One (8.3%)

pla ce d

g a in in g a v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e in t h e middle o f t h e p r i o r i t y s c a l e
at t h e number 5 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .

No resp on de nts in C onc entration

2 place d g a i n i n g a v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e in th e lower h a l f o f t h e
priority scale.
Of 49 respondents
placed

g a in in g

of

C onc entration

a variety

priority scale,
variety

in

o f experience

with 3 res p on d en ts

experience

in

3

th e

(Community),
in

the

top

39

(79.6%)

half of

the

(6.1%) p l a c i n g t h e g a i n i n g o f a

number

1 priority

p osition.

Five

(10.2%) placed g a in in g a v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e in t h e middle o f t h e
p riority

scale

at th e

number 5 p r i o r i t y

place d g a in in g

avariety

priority

with

scale,

of

position.

e x p e r i e n c e in t h e

1 respondent

(2%)

Five (10.2%)

lower

placing

half

the

o f the

gaining

of

a

v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e in t h e number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
Of 76 respondents in Conce nt rat ion 4 ( T h e r a p e u t i c ) ,
placed

g a in in g

a variety

o f experience

in

the

top

61

(80.3%)

half of

th e

p r i o r i t y s c a l e , with 11 (14.5%) p l a c i n g t h e g a i n i n g o f a v a r i e t y o f
experience

in

the

number

1

priority

p osition.

S ix

res p on d en ts

(7.9%) placed g a in in g a v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e in th e middle o f th e
priority

scale

place d g a i n i n g

at t h e

number 5 p r i o r i t y

avariety

of

p osition.

e x p e r i e n c e in t h e

Nine (11.8%)

lower

half

o f th e

p r i o r i t y s c a l e at th e number 6 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
Required f o r c u r r i c u lu m .
acceptance

o f an

in tern sh ip

curriculum

was

sig n ifica n t

re s p o n d en ts ,

76 (45.2%)

According t o t h e data in Table
because

p la ce d

at

the

i t was
.05

required

lev el.

Of

curriculum requirements

6, t h e

for
168

the
total

in t h e

top

47

half

of

th e

requirements
position.

priority

scale.

Twenty

(11.9%)

in t h e middle o f th e p r i o r i t y

placed

scale

at

curriculum

th e number 5

S i x t y - o n e (36.3%) placed curriculum requirements

lower h a l f o f t h e

priority

scale,

with 5 (3%)

placing

in t h e

curriculum

requirements in th e number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .

Table 6 . --R es p on s es t o Question 4: "Why did you acce pt an i n t e r n ­
s h ip . . . requ ired f o r curriculum?"

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Low
9

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

%

N
%

9
2 1 .4

5
1 1 .9

5
11.9

4
9.5

3
7.1

3
7.1

3
7.1

8
1 9. 0

2
4.8

42
2 5 .0

3
30.0

2
2 0 .0

2
20. 0

1
10 .0

1
1 0 .0

1
1 0 .0

10
6.0

1
2.2

8
1 7 .8

7
15 .6

4
8.9

3
6.7

2
2.8

7
9.9

6
8.5

13
1 8 .3

7
9.9

High
1
Concen­
tration

1

2

3

12
26 .7

10
22 .2

4

21
2 9 .6

8
11. 3

Chi-square t e s t :
Key:

5
7.0

p - v a lu e = .01399

Total

N

45
26.8
2
2.8

71
43.9

S i g n i f i c a n t at .05

Concentration 1 = Commercial, Concentration 2 = Outdoor,
Concentration 3 = Community, Concentration 4 = Th erapeutic

Of 42 respondents in Concentration 1 (Commercial),

14 (33.3%)

placed th e importance o f curriculum requirements in t h e number 1 and
number 2 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n s .

S ix t e e n o f the 42 respondents

p laced i t in t h e 6 through 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n s .

(38%)

48

Of 10 respondents in Concentration 2 (Outdoor), 5 (50%) placed
curriculum requirements in th e top h a l f o f th e p r i o r i t y s c a l e .

Two

(20%) pla ce d curriculum requirements in t h e middle o f t h e p r i o r i t y
scale

at

the

number

5

p riority

curriculum requirements

in th e

with

curriculum

1

(10%)

placing

p osition .

lower h a l f

of

Two
the

requirements

(20%)

placed

priority

in

the

scale,

number

9

priority position.
Of 45 respondents
placed i t

in Concentration

3

(Community),

22

(48.9%)

in t h e number 1 and number 2 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n s .

45 re s p o n d en ts ,

14 (31.1%)

place d

it

Of the

in th e 6 through 9 p r i o r i t y

positions.
In Concentration 4 ( T h e r a p e u t i c ) , 29 respondents out o f a t o t a l
o f 71 (40.8%) place d the f a c t t h a t t h e i n t e r n s h i p was a curriculum
requirement in the number 1 and number 2 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n s .

Seven

(9.9%) place d curriculum requirements in th e middle o f t h e p r i o r i t y
s c a l e at th e number 5 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .

Of t h e 71 r e s p o n d e n ts ,

28

(39.4%) placed i t in the 6 through 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n s .
To expand background (proqraml.
7,

the

perception

ba ck g ro u n d

was

of

the

According t o t h e dat a in Table

importance

sig n ifica n t

at

the

of
.05

expanding
lev el.

th e
Of

in tern ’s

167

total

re s p o n d e n ts , 97 (58.1%) place d expansion o f t h e i r background in the
top

half

of

the

priority

scale,

number 1 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
background

in

th e

priority position.

middle

with

5

(3%)

placing

it

in

the

F o r t y - t h r e e (25.7%) p la ce d expansion o f
of

the

priority

scale

at

th e

number

5

Seventy respondents (41.9%) p lac ed expansion o f

49

background in the lower h a l f o f the p r i o r i t y s c a l e ;

no respondents

pla ce d i t in the number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .

Table 7 . --R es p on s es t o Question 4: "Why did you a cc e p t an i n t e r n ­
s h ip . . . t o expand background (program)?"

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Low
9

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

1

2
5.1

3
7.7

2
5.1

7
17.9

16
41.0

5
1 2 .8

4
10 .3

2

3
25.0

1
8.3

4
33.3

1
8.3

2
16 .7

1
8.3

3

3
6.4

13
27.7

18
38.3

6
12.8

5
1 0 .6

1
2.1

4

7
10.1

20
29.0

13
18.8

19
2 7 .5

6
5.8

4
5.8

High
1
Concen­
tration

Chi -square t e s t :
Key:

p-'value = .00022

Total
N
%

39
23 .4
12
7. 2
1
2.1

47
28.1
69
4 1 .3

:S i g n i f i c a n t at .05

Conce nt rat ion 1 = Commercial, Concentration 2 = Outdoor,
Conce nt rat ion 3 = Community, Concentration 4 = Therapeutic

Of 39 respondents
pla ce d

expansion

positions.
middle

of

of

Sixteen

in

Concentration

background
resp on de nts

importance

at

the

in

1 (Commercial),

7 (17.9%)

the

number

1

and

(41.0%)

place d

it

exactly

number

5

priority

2

priority
in

position.

the
Nine

re s p on d en ts (23%) placed i t in th e lower h a l f o f t h e p r i o r i t y s c a l e .
Of 12

former

interns

in

p la ce d t h e expansion o f t h e i r

Concentration

2

(Outdoor),

9

(75%)

background in t h e upper h a l f o f th e

50

scale.

Two (16%) placed i t e x a c t l y in t h e middle at th e number 5

position.
the

Only 1 respondent (8.3%) p lac ed i t

scale

at

the

number

Of 47

respondents

6

in t h e lower h a l f o f

p osition .

in Concentration 3 (Community),

34

(72.3%)

placed expansion o f t h e i r background in t h e top h a l f o f t h e s c a l e ,
although none placed

it

in the

number

1 priority

p osition.

S ix

respondents (12.8%) pla ce d i t e x a c t l y in th e middle at t h e number 5
priority position.

Seven resp ond ents

placed

importance o f

expanding t h e i r background as a reason f o r a c c e p t i n g

an i n t e r n s h i p

in t h e lower h a l f o f t h e

scale.

(14.9%)

No respondent pla ce d

it

in the

number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
F o r t y o f 69 f o rm er

C oncentration

4

(T herapeutic)

(57.1%) placed the importance o f th e expansion o f t h e i r
in the top

h a l f o f the s c a l e ,

1 priority

position.

the

priority

scale

(14.5%) placed i t

although none

Nineteen
at

the

(27.5%)

number

5

background

placed i t

pla ce d

it

position.

in th e number

in t h e
Ten

interns

middle o f
respondents

in th e lower h a l f o f th e p r i o r i t y s c a l e ,

although

no respondent placed i t as h i s / h e r number 9 p r i o r i t y .
Drawn bv personnel
data in Table 8 ,

in

a g iv e n

department.

According

t o the

the p e r c e p t i o n t h a t th e former i n t e r n s p lac ed t h e

importance o f a c c e p t i n g an i n t e r n s h i p because they were drawn
th e program by personnel
the .05 l e v e l .

in a g iv e n department was s i g n i f i c a n t

Of 123 t o t a l

in t e r n r e s p o n d e n ts ,

i n t e r n s placed importance on t h i s
scale.

Sixteen

number 5.

in t o

(13%) pla ce d i t

question

at

14 (11.4%) former

in t h e top h a l f o f t h e

in th e middle p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n at

N i n e t y - t h r e e (75.6%) p lac ed i t

in t h e lower h a l f o f the

51

scale.

Eight

(6.5%)

of

the

total

respo nd ents

pla ce d

it

in

the

number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .

Table 8 . - - R esp on ses t o Question 4: "Why did you a c c e p t an i n t e r n ­
sh ip . . . drawn by personnel in a g iv e n department?"

High
1
Concen­
tration

N
%

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Low
9

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

2
6.1

2
6.1

4
12.1

4
12.1

6
18 .2

12
36.4

3
9.1

33
26.8

1
1 2 .5

2
25.0

1
12. 5

1
1 2 .5

2
25.0

1
2.9

8
22.9

9
25. 7

11
31.4

3
8.6

35
2 8. 5

3
6.4

2
4.3

14
29.8

22
46.8

2
4.3

47
38.2

1

2

1
1 2 .5

3

3
8.6

4

1
2.1

P- va lu e = .04531

Chi-square t e s t :
Key:

3
6.4

Total

8
6.5

S i g n i f i c a n t at .05

C onc entration 1 = Commercial, Concentration 2 = Outdoor,
C onc entration 3 = Community, C onc entration 4 = Therapeutic

Of 33 respondents
placed

being

drawn

in Concentration

into

the

program

department at t h e top h a l f o f the s c a l e .

1 (Commercial),
by p e r s o n n e l

t h e number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .

a given

Four (12.1%) pla ce d i t

t h e middle at t h e number 5 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
place d i t in th e lower h a l f o f th e s c a l e .

in

4 (12.1%)

in

T w e n t y - f iv e (75.8%)

Three (9%) placed i t

in

52

Of 8 respondents in Concentration 2 (Outdoor),

2 (25%) place d

acce ptance o f t h e program because t hey had been drawn by department
personnel in the top h a l f o f the s c a l e .
number 1 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
t h e number 5 p o s i t i o n .

One in t e r n p lac ed i t in the

Two (25%) pla ce d

it

in t h e middle at

Three (37.5%) place d i t in t h e lower h a l f o f

t h e s c a l e , whereas none placed i t in t h e number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
Of 35

respondents

in

Concentration

3

(Community),

placed importance o f a c c e p ti n g th e i n t e r n s h i p

4

(11.4%)

program because th ey

had been drawn by department personnel in t h e top h a l f o f th e s c a l e .
No

respondent

position.

placed

Eight

it

(22.9%)

p riority position.

in

either

placed

it

Twenty-three

Concentration 3 placed i t

the

number

1

in t h e middle

(65.7%) o f t h e

or
at

2

priority

the

number 5

former

in th e lower h a l f o f t h e

interns

scale.

in

Three

(8.6%) p lac ed i t in the number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
Of 47 respondents
placed

priority

scale.

in Concentration

concerning

this

question

Two respondents (4.3%) place d i t

p o s i t i o n 5.
the s c a le .

(Therapeutic),
in

the

top

4

half

(8.5%)
of

the

in t h e middle at p r i o r i t y

Forty-one (87.2%) place d p r i o r i t y in t h e lower h a l f o f
Two (4.3%) place d i t in t h e number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .

To t e s t d e s i r a b i l i t y o f the f i e l d .
Table 9,

4

According t o t h e d at a

t h e p er ce p t i o n t h a t the respondents p la ce d t h e

in

importance

on t e s t i n g the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h e f i e l d was not s i g n i f i c a n t at th e
.05

lev el.

testing

the

con sid eration

for

a c c e p t i n g an i n t e r n s h i p in the top h a l f o f t h e p r i o r i t y s c a l e .

Six

d esirab ility

respondents

Of
of

150

re sp on de nts ,

the

(19.6%)

field

placed

as

it

71
an

in th e

(47.3%)

important

p lac ed

number 1 p r i o r i t y

p osition.

53

Seventeen former i n t e r n s (11.3%) placed i t in th e number 5 p r i o r i t y
position.

S i x t y - t w o (41.3%) o f t h e former i n t e r n s placed i t in the

lower h a l f o f th e p r i o r i t y s c a l e .

Four respondents

(17.2%) place d

i t in th e number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .

Table 9 . --R es p on s es t o Question 4: "Why did you ac ce pt an i n t e r n ­
s h ip . . . t o t e s t t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h e f i e l d ? "
High
1
Concen­
tration

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Low
9

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

8
1 9. 0

7
1 6 .7

11
26.2

5
1 1 .9

4
9.5

4
9.5

2
4.8

1
2.4

42
2 8 .0

1
9.1

1
9.1

3
27. 3

1
9.1

1
9.1

1
9.1

11
7.3

2
5.7

35
2 3 .3

N
%

1

2

1
9.1

2
1 8 .2

3

2
5.7

4
1 1 .4

3
8.6

2
5.7

5
14.3

7
2 0. 0

5
14 .3

5
1 4 .3

4

3
4.8

3
4.8

10
16.1

14
22 .6

6
9.7

10
16.1

11
1 7. 7

5
8.1

Chi -square t e s t :
Key:

p - v a l u e = .31297

Total

62
4 1 .3

Not S i g n i f i c a n t at .05

Conce nt rat ion 1 = Commercial, Concentration 2 = Outdoor,
Concen tra tio n 3 = Community, Concentration 4 = Th erapeutic

Of

42

responding

(Commercial),

26 (61.9%)

former
p lac ed

in tern s

in

C oncentration

importance o f t e s t i n g

o f t h e f i e l d in th e top h a l f o f t h e p r i o r i t y s c a l e .
p la ce d

it

in

th e

(11.9%) p lac ed i t

number

1 priority

position.

in t h e middle p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .

1

desirab ility

No respondents
Five

respondents

Eleven (26.2%)

54

pla ce d i t

in th e lower h a l f o f t h e p r i o r i t y

scale,

with

1 former

in t e r n (2.4%) p l a c i n g i t in th e number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
Of 11 responding former in t e r n s in Concentration 2 (Outdoor), 4
(36.4%) p la ce d t e s t i n g

d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h e f i e l d in t h e top h a l f o f

the

One

priority

scale.

(9.1%)

number 5 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
2 i n t e r n s pla ce d i t

placed

it

in th e

middle

at

the

Six (54.5%) o f th e former Concentration

in t h e lower h a l f o f t h e p r i o r i t y

scale.

One

(9.1%) p lac ed i t a t th e bottom in t h e number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
Of 35 resp ond ents

in Concentration

3 (Community),

pla ce d t e s t i n g th e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f the f i e l d
p riority scale.

priority

(31.4%)

in t h e top h a l f o f the

Five (14.3%) p lac ed i t in t h e middle at th e number

5 p riority position.
o f the

11

Nineteen

scale.

(54.3%) placed i t

Two respondents

in t h e lower h a l f

(5.7%)

place d

it

in

the

number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
Of 62 resp on den ts in Concentration 4 ( T h e r a p e u t i c ) ,

30 (48.4%)

pla ce d t e s t i n g th e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h e f i e l d in th e top h a l f o f the
priority
p osition.
priority

scale.

S ix

T w ent y- six
scale.

(9.7%)
(41.9%)

place d

it

place d

No resp ond ents

it

in t h e number

5 priority

in the lower h a l f o f the

in Concentration

4 place d

testing

t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f th e f i e l d in th e number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
Explore s p e c i a l
10,

in terest area.

the perception that

accepting

the

internship

According t o t h e data in Table

former st u d en t
to

s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l .

explore

interns
special

pla ce d p r i o r i t y
in terest

areas

Of 158 responding former i n t e r n s ,

(47.5%) p la ce d e x p l o r i n g s p e c i a l

on
was
75

i n t e r e s t areas in t h e top h a l f o f

55

the

priority

priority

scale,

position.

priority position.
special

wit h

10

(6.3%)

Twenty

placing

it

in

the

(12.7%) pla ce d

it

at

the

Sixty-three

(39.9%)

pla ce d

th e

number

1

number 5

exploration

of

i n t e r e s t areas in t h e lower h a l f o f th e p r i o r i t y s c a l e , with

2 (1.3%) p l a c i n g i t in t h e number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .

Table 1 0 . - - R esp on se s t o Question 4:
"Why did you a c c e p t an i n t e r n ­
s h ip . . . e x p l o r e s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t area?"

High
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Low
9

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

N
%

2
5.0

2
5.0

13
32.5

8
20.0

1
2.5

3
7.5

8
2 0 .0

2
5.0

1
2.5

40
2 5 .3

1
9.1

3
2 7 .3

2
18. 2

4
36.4

1
9.1

Concen­
tration

1

2

3

3
7.1

2
4.8

3
7.1

4
9.5

7
16.7

14
3 3 .3

3
7.1

5
11.9

4

5
7.7

13
20.0

9
13.8

7
10.8

12
18.5

9
1 3 .8

7
10.8

3
4.5

Chi -squarei t e s t :
Key:

p-<value = .00175i

Total

11
7.0
1
2.4

42
2 6. 6
65
41.1

S i g n i f i c a n t at .05

Concentration 1 = Commercial, C onc en tra tio n 2 = Outdoor,
Concentration 3 = Community, C onc entration 4 = Th erapeutic

Of

40

responding

former

in tern s

in

C oncentration

(Commercial), 17 (42.5%) pla ce d t h e e x p l o r a t i o n o f s p e c i a l

1

in terest

areas in t h e top h a l f o f th e p r i o r i t y s c a l e , with 2 (5%) p l a c i n g i t
in t h e number 1 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .

One respondent (2.5%) p lac ed th e

56

exploration o f special

i n t e r e s t areas in the middle o f the p r i o r i t y

s c a l e at the number 5 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
exploration
priority

of

special

in terest

areas

s c a l e , wit h 1 (2.5%) p l a c i n g

Fourteen (35%) pla ce d th e
in

it

th e

lower

half

of

the

in t h e number 9 p r i o r i t y

position.
Of

11

respondents

in

Concentration

2

(Outdoor),

pla ce d t h e e x p l o r a t i o n o f

s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t areas

the

respondents

priority

scale.

priority position.
in terest

areas

No
Seven

in the

pla ce d

4

in t h e top h a l f o f
i t at

the

number

(63.6%) placed th e e x p l o r a t i o n o f

lower h a l f

of

the

(36.4%)

priority

scale,

5

special
with

no

resp ond ents p l a c i n g i t in t h e number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
Of 42 responding former i n t e r n s in C onc entration 3 (Community),
12 (28.6%) place d the e x p l o r a t i o n o f s p e c i a l
top h a l f

o f the

priority

s c a l e , with 3

number 1 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
exploration o f special

(7.1%)

Seven resp ond ents

placing
(16.7%)

i t in

the

place d

th e

i n t e r e s t areas in t h e middle o f t h e p r i o r i t y

s c a l e at t h e number 5 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
(54.8%) pla ce d i t

i n t e r e s t areas in the

Tw enty-three respon de nts

in the lower h a l f o f th e p r i o r i t y

scale,

with 1

(2.4%) p l a c i n g i t in th e number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
Of

65

responding

former

interns

in

C oncentration

( T h e r a p e u t i c ) , 35 (53.8%) place d th e e x p l o r a t i o n o f s p e c i a l
area s in th e top h a l f o f t h e p r i o r i t y s c a l e ,
it

in t h e number 1 p r i o r i t y

position.

pla ce d t h e e x p l o r a t i o n o f s p e c i a l
the

priority

scale

at

the

interest

with 5 (7.7%) p l a c i n g

Twelve resp on de nts

interest

4

ar ea s

number 5 p r i o r i t y

(18.5%)

in t h e middle o f

position.

res po nd ent s (29.2%) pla ce d t h e e x p l o r a t i o n o f s p e c i a l

Nineteen

i n t e r e s t areas

57

in

the

lower

h alf

of

the

p riority

scale;

no

respondents

in

C onc entration 4 placed i t in th e number 9 p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
The former i n t e r n s o f the four c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f f e r i n g s w i t h i n
th e Leisu re S t u d i e s and S e r v i c e s Curriculum were asked i f ,
knowledge,

t hey had r e c e i v e d

any job o f f e r s

since

the

to th e ir
internship

based on t h e f a c t they were inv olved in the i n t e r n s h i p program.

The

p e r c e p t i o n t h a t th ey had been o f f e r e d j o b s based on t h e i n t e r n s h i p
e x p e r i e n c e was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l .
in Table 11,
185

According t o t h e data

109 (58.9%) responding former i n t e r n s from a t o t a l

respondents

p er ce iv ed

that

they

had

r e s u l t of t h e ir internship experience.

been

offered

Seventy-six

jobs

of

as

a

(41.1%) o f the

resp ond ents b e l i e v e d th ey had not r e c e i v e d job o f f e r s based on th e
f a c t t h ey had been former i n t e r n s .

Table 1 1 . - -R esp on se s t o Question 20b: "Have you r e c e i v e d any jo b
o f f e r s s i n c e your i n t e r n s h i p based on th e f a c t you were
an intern?"
Concentration
2

1

3

4

Total

Yes
N
%

No
N
%

Yes
N
%

No
N
%

Yes
N
%

No
N
%

Yes
N
%

No
N
%

Yes
N
%

No
N
%

30
69.8

13
30.2

11
78.6

3
2 1 .4

34
65.4

18
34.6

34
44.7

42
5 5 .3

109
58.9

76
41.1

Chi-square t e s t :
Key:

p -v a lu e = .00914

S i g n i f i c a n t a t .05

Concentration 1 = Commercial, Concentration 2 = Outdoor,
Concentration 3 = Community, Concentration 4 = Thera pe ut ic

58

Of 43 resp ond ents in Concentration 1 (Commercial),

13

(30.2%)

b e l i e v e d th ey had not been o f f e r e d employment based on t h e f a c t they
were

former

interns.

C o n v e rs el y ,

30

(69.8%)

believed

they

had

r e c e i v e d o f f e r s based on th e f a c t t h e y had completed an i n t e r n s h i p .
Of

14

resp on den ts

in

Concentration

2

( O u t d oo r) ,

3

(21.4%)

b e l i e v e d th ey had not r e c e i v e d employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s because they
had

been

in tern s.

Concentration

Eleven

2 believed

th ey

(78.6%)

of

the

had r e c e i v e d

respondents

offers

based

on

in
this

fact.
Of 52 respo nd en ts
bel i e v e d

they

in tern sh ip

had

in C onc entration 3

not

received

experience.

job

T h irty-fou r

(Community),

18

(34.6%)

offers

because

of

th eir

(65.4%)

b elieved

they

had

r e c e i v e d employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s based on th e i n t e r n s h i p .
Of 76 respo nd ents in Concentration 4 ( T h e r a p e u t i c ) , 42 (55.3%)
b e l i e v e d th ey had not r e c e i v e d job o f f e r s based on t h e f a c t t h e y had
been former i n t e r n s .

T h i r t y - f o u r (44.7%) b e l i e v e d th ey had r e c e i v e d

employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s due t o t h e f a c t t h a t th ey had been former
interns.
The former

interns

of

the

fo u r

concentration

offerings

were

asked what th ey thought were t h e t h r e e major c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f the
internship

program t o

the

st u d en t

(Question

9).

The

resp ond ents

i d e n t i f i e d t h r e e t o p i c s t h ey b e l i e v e d were s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n
areas.

The

areas

we re

on-the-job

o p p o r t u n i t i e s , and p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s .

experience,

employment

59

One
( 94.9%)

hundred

eighty-seven

in d icated

that

respondents

on-the-job

from

experience

contribution o f the internship to the student.
eight

(90.4%)

indicated

that

professional contacts

total
was

of
a

197

major

One hundred s e v e n t y -

employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s were a l s o

major c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h e program.
thought

a

One hundred f i f t y - e i g h t

were

a major

a

(80.2%)

contribution of

the

i n t e r n s h i p program.
Of 47 respo nd en ts in Concentration 1 (Commercial),
believed

on-the-job

experience

was a major

program.

Two (4.3%) did not respond t o th e q u e s t i o n .

45

(95.7%)

contribution of

the

Of 14 respondents in Concentration 2 (Outdoor), 13 thought onthe-job
program.

experience

was

a

major

contribution

of

the

internship

One (711%) did not respond t o th e q u e s t i o n .

Of 55 former i n t e r n s in Conce nt rat ion 3 (Community), 54 (98.2%)
believed

on-the-job

program.

One (1.8%) did not respond t o t h i s o p t i o n .

Of

81

experience

responding

was a major

f o rm er

in tern s

contribution o f

in

C oncentration

the

4

( T h e r a p e u t i c ) , 75 (92.6%) b e l i e v e d o n - t h e - j o b e x p e r i e n c e was a major
c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p program.

S ix (7.4%) did not respond

to t h i s option.
The p e r c e p t i o n among respo nd ents from th e f o u r c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
that

on-the-job

experience

was

a

m aj o r

con trib u tion

of

the

i n t e r n s h i p was not s i g n i f i c a n t at t h e .05 l e v e l .
Forty-two resp on den ts

(89.4%)

in Conce nt rat ion

1 (Commercial)

i n d i c a t e d employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s were a major c o n t r i b u t i o n o f the

60

program.

Five (10.6%) o f the respo nd ents did not respond t o t h i s

option.
Of

14

respondents

in

Concentration

2

(Outdoor),

13

(92.9%)

i n d i c a t e d t h a t employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s were a major c o n t r i b u t i o n o f
the

pr ogram.

One

(7.1%)

did

not

respond

to

the

e m p lo y m e n t -

o p p o rt u ni ty op t io n on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
Of 55 respondents

in Concentration

3

(Community),

50

(10.1%)

b e l i e v e d t h a t employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s were a major c o n t r i b u t i o n o f
the

in tern sh ip

program.

Five

(9.1%)

did

not

respond

to

the

employment-opportunity o p t i o n .
Of 81 respondents in Concentration 4 ( T h e r a p e u t i c ) , 73 (90.1%)
i n d i c a t e d t h a t employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s were a major c o n t r i b u t i o n o f
t h e i n t e r n s h i p program.

Eight (9.9%) did not respond t o t h i s o p t io n

on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
The

perception

concentrations

among

that

respondents

employment

from

the

op p ortu nities

c o n t r i b u t i o n o f the i n t e r n s h i p program was not

four

w er e

a

sign ificant

m a jo r
m a jo r
at

th e

.05 l e v e l .
Of 47 respondents in Concentration 1 (Commercial),
p e r c e iv e d

professional

i n t e r n s h i p program.

contacts

Fifteen

as

a

major

32

contribution

(68.1%)
of

th e

(31.9%) did not respond t o t h i s o p t i o n

on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
Of

14

respondents

in

Concentration

2

(Outdoor),

12

(85.7%)

b e l i e v e d t h a t p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s were a major c o n t r i b u t i o n o f th e
program.

Two (14.3%) did not respond.

61

Of 55 respo nd ents
thought

professional

in tern sh ip

in Concentration
contacts

prog ram .

were

T h re e

a

3

(Community),

major

(5.5%)

did

51

(92.7%)

c o n t r i b u t i o n o f the
not

respond

to

the

p r o fe s s io n a l-c o n ta c ts option.
Of 81 resp on de nts in Concentration 4 ( T h e r a p e u t i c ) ,
perceived

professional

internship

contacts

program.

Eighteen

as

a

major

(22.2%)

63 ( 7 7 . 8 )

c o n t r i b u t i o n o f the

did

not

respond

to

the

p r o f e s s i o n a l - c o n t a c t s o p t i o n on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
The

perception

among

respondents

in

the

four

major

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s t h a t p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s were a major c o n t r i b u t i o n
o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p program was s i g n i f i c a n t at t h e .05 l e v e l
The former i n t e r n s were asked i f

(.02439).

t he y thought t h e v a r i e t y o f

e x p e r i e n c e s during t h e i n t e r n s h i p met t h e i r needs in preparing them
to

enter

the

profession

former

interns,

during

the

Thirty-nine

152

(79.6%)

internship
(20.4%)

(Question

did

met

26).

thought
their

Of

th e

191

variety

total
of

responding
experiences

professional-preparation

not t h i n k t h e

variety

of

ne eds.

e x p e r i e n c e s met

t h e i r needs in preparing them t o e n t e r the p r o f e s s i o n .
A ccording

to

the

data

in

Tabl e

12,

p e r c e p t i o n s among

re s p o n d en ts in t h e four major c o n c e n t r a t i o n s were not s i g n i f i c a n t at
the

.05 l e v e l .

Of 46 resp on de nts in C onc entration 1 (Commercial) ,

32 former i n t e r n s (69.6%) thought th e v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e s during
t h e i n t e r n s h i p had met t h e i r needs in preparing them t o e n t e r t h e
profession.

Fourteen (30.4%) thought t h e v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e s had

not met t h e i r ne eds .

62

Table 1 2 . - - R esp on se s t o Question 26: "Did the v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i ­
en ce s during t h e i n t e r n s h i p meet your needs in preparing
you t o e n t e r t h e p ro fe s s io n ? "
Concentration
1

2

3

4

Total

Yes
N
%

No
N
%

Yes
N
%

No
N
%

Yes
N
%

No
N
%

Yes
N
%

No
N
%

Yes
N
%

No
N
%

32
69.6

14
30.4

12
9 2 .3

1
7.7

43
78 .2

12
21.8

65
84.4

12
1 5. 6

152
79.6

39
2 0. 4

Chi-square t e s t :
Key:

p - v a l u e = .154049

Not S i g n i f i c a n t at .05

C onc entration 1 = Commercial, Concentration 2 = Outdoor,
C onc entration 3 = Community, Concentration 4 = Therapeutic

Of 13 resp ond ents in Concentration 2 (Outdoor),

12 (92.3%)

of

t h e former i n t e r n s thought t h e v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e s had met t h e i r
needs in preparing them t o e n t e r the p r o f e s s i o n .

One (7.7%) thought

t h e v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e s had not met h i s / h e r p re pa rat ion needs.
Of 55 resp on den ts

in Concentration 3

(Community),

43

(78.2%)

thought t h e v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e s had met t h e i r needs in preparing
them to e n t e r t h e p r o f e s s i o n .
believed

the

variety

of

Twelve (21.8%) o f t h e former i n t e r n s

experiences

had

not

met

their

needs

in

C oncentration

4

preparing them f o r th e p r o f e s s i o n .
Of

77

responding

f o rm er

in tern s

in

( T h e r a p e u t i c ) , 65 (84.4%) i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e s
had met

th eir

needs

in

preparing

them t o

enter

the

profession.

63

Twelve (15.6%) i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e s had not met
t h e i r needs in preparing them t o e n t e r the p r o f e s s i o n .
According t o t h e d a t a

in Table 13,

the

perception

among t h e

i n t e r n s t h a t a c c e p t i n g t h e i n t e r n s h i p was not a good idea in t h e i r
situation

was

sign ificant

former i n t e r n s ,
good

idea

thought

in

the

19

(9.9%)

their

at

the

believed

situation.

internship

.05
the

One

experience

level.

Of

internship

hundred

had been

191

responding

had not

been

seventy-one

a good

idea

a

(89.5%)
in

their

situation.

Table 1 3 . -- R esponses t o Question 34:
"Do you have any reason t o
th in k t h a t a c c e p t i n g t h e i n t e r n s h i p was not a good idea
in your s i t u a t i o n ? "
Co nc entration
2

1
Yes
N
%

No
N
%

5
1 0 .9

41
89.1

Yes
N
%

2
15. 4

3
No
N
%

Yes
N
%

No
N
%

10
7 6. 9

8
14.8

46
85.2

Chi - square t e s t :
Key:

4
Yes
N
%

4
5.1

p -v a lu e = .00670

Total
No
N
%

Yes
N
%

No
N
%

74
94.9

19
9.9

171
89.5

S i g n i f i c a n t at .05

Concentration 1 = Commercial, Conce nt rat ion 2 = Outdoor,
Concentration 3 = Community, Conce nt rat ion 4 = Thera peu tic

Of

46

(Commercial),

responding

former

in tern s

in

C oncentration

1

5 (10.9%) thought t h e i n t e r n s h i p had not been a good

idea in t h e i r s i t u a t i o n .

Fo rty -o ne

good idea in t h e i r s i t u a t i o n .

(89.1%)

thought i t

had been a

64

Of

13

(15.4%)

responding

interns

in

Concentration

(Outdoor),

had reason t o b e l i e v e th e a cce pta nc e o f an i n t e r n s h i p

not been a good idea in t h e i r s i t u a t i o n .
to

2

believe

the

internship

had

not

2
had

Ten (76.9%) had no reason

been

a

good

idea

in

their

situ ation .
Of 54 responding former i n t e r n s in Concentration 3 (Community),
8 (14.8%) b e l i e v e d t h a t a c c e p t i n g th e i n t e r n s h i p had not been a good
id ea in t h e i r s i t u a t i o n .

F o r t y - s i x (85.2%) had no reason t o b e l i e v e

t h a t t h e accept an ce o f an i n t e r n s h i p

had not been a good

idea

in

th eir situation.
Of 78 responding
(5.1%)

interns

in Concentration

4 (Therapeutic),

4

had reason t o b e l i e v e t h a t a c c e p t i n g an i n t e r n s h i p had not

been a good idea in t h e i r

situation.

Seventy-four

(94.9%)

had no

reason t o b e l i e v e t h a t a c c e p t i n g an i n t e r n s h i p had not been a good
id ea in t h e i r s i t u a t i o n .
The

former

interns

were

asked

if

t he y

thought

th e

Park and

R ec re at io n co u r s e s a t Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y had prepared them
for

the

interns,

internship

(see

170

answered p o s i t i v e l y ,

(89.9%)

Table

14).

Of

189

responding

w h i le

18

(9.5%)

former
thought

t h a t t h e coursework a t CMU had not prepared them f o r t h e i n t e r n s h i p .
This was s i g n i f i c a n t at th e .05 l e v e l
Of

46

responding

(Commercial),
coursework
prepared.

at

39

(84.8%)

CMU.

former
thought

Seven

(.00652).

in tern s
t h ey

(15.2%)

had

in

C oncentration

been

believed

prepared

th ey

had

by

not

1
th e

been

65

Table 1 4 . - - R esp on se s t o Question 38: "Do you f e e l th e R ecr ea ti on
and Park co u r s e s at CMU prepared you f o r th e in t e r n s h ip ? "
Concentration
1

2

Yes
N
%

No
N
%

Yes
N
%

39
84.8

7
15.2

11
91.7

3
No
N
%

Chi-square t e s t :
Key:

4

Total

Yes
N
%

No
N
%

Yes
N
%

No
N
%

Yes
N
%

No
N
%

49
92.5

4
7.5

71
91.0

7
9.0

170
89.9

18
9.5

p - v a l u e = .00652

S i g n i f i c a n t at .05

C onc entration 1 = Commercial, Concentration 2 = Outdoor,
Co nc entration 3 = Community, Concentration 4 = T her ap eut ic

Of

12

respo nd en ts

in

Concentration

2

(Outdoor),

11

(91.7%)

thought th ey had been prepared f o r t h e i n t e r n s h i p by th e coursework
a t CMU.

One (8.3%) chose not t o answer t h e q u e s t i o n .

Of 53 responding former i n t e r n s in Concentration 3 (Community),
49 (92.5%) thought t he y had been prepared by th e coursework, whereas
4 (7.5%) b e l i e v e d they had not been prepared.
Of 78 respondents in Concentration 4 ( T h e r a p e u t i c ) ,

71

(91.0%)

b e l i e v e d t h ey had been prepared f o r the i n t e r n s h i p by t h e coursework
a t CMU.

Seven (9.0%) thought th ey had not been prepared by t h e i r

coursework.
The former
students

take

i n t e r n s were asked
the

in tern sh ip

if

program

t hey would recommend o t h e r
(Q uestion

42).

Of

168

responding former i n t e r n s , 100% i n d i c a t e d t he y would recommend o t h e r
s t u d e n t s ta k e the i n t e r n s h i p program.

66

The former
improving

the

interns

were asked what

internship

program

suggestions

(Question

43).

were g iv e n t h r e e ar ea s o f concern and asked t o
t h ey

thought

would

improve

the

internship

improvement

areas

w ere:

more

supervisor,

better

screening

The

had f o r

respondents

i n d i c a t e t h e areas

program.

com m unications

of

th ey

in tern sh ip

The

three

w ith

the

CMU

agency,

and

the

i n t e r n s h i p should be s h o r t e r than 30 weeks.
Of

197

total

respondents,

90

(45 .7% )

thought

that

communication with t h e CMU s u p e r v i s o r would improve t h e
program,

whereas

107

did

not

th in k

this

area

would

more

internship
improve

the

experience.
S i x t e e n o f 197 re s p o n d en ts

(8.1%) thought b e t t e r s c r e e n i n g o f

t h e i n t e r n s h i p agency would improve t h e program, whereas 181 (91.9%)
did not b e l i e v e t h i s would improve t h e i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e .
None o f th e 197 res p on d en ts thought an i n t e r n s h i p s h o r t e r than
30 weeks would improve t h e i n t e r n s h i p program.
The p e r c e p t i o n o f s t u d e n t s among th e f ou r major c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
that

more

communications

with

CMU s u p e r v i s o r s

would

i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e was not s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e
resp on den ts

in

C o nc en tra tio n

1

(Commercial) ,

improve

.05 l e v e l .

32

(68.1%)

the

Of 47
did

not

t h i n k t h i s would improve t h e i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e .

F i f t e e n (31.9%)

believed

the

that

more

communications

would

improve

internship

program.
Of

14

res p on d en ts

in

Conce nt rat ion

thought more communications would

2

(O u td oo r),

improve th e

internship

7

(50.0%)
program.

67

Co nve rse ly,

7 (50.0%) did not b e l i e v e t h a t more communication with

th e CMU s u p e r v i s o r would improve t h e i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e .
Of 55 respondents
did not
would

believe

impr ove

in Concentration 3

(Community),

t h a t more communications wit h
the

program.

Twenty-six

the

29

(52.7%)

CMU s u p e r v i s o r

(47.3%)

thought

more

communication would improve the i n t e r n s h i p program.
Of

81

r e s p o n d i ng

f or m er

in tern s

in

C oncentration

4

( T h e r a p e u t i c ) , 39 (48.1%) thought more communications with t h e CMU
supervisor
(51.9%)

would

not

p er ce iv ed

improve

more

the

internship

communication

with

program.

th e

Forty-two

CMU s u p e r v i s o r

as

improving the i n t e r n s h i p program.
The

perception

among

students

from

the

four

major

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s t h a t b e t t e r s c r e e n i n g o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p agency would
improve the i n t e r n s h i p program was not s i g n i f i c a n t at th e .05 l e v e l .
Of 47 responding former i n t e r n s in C onc entration 1 (Commercial) ,
(95.7%)

believed

that

better

screening

would

not

improve

45
the

i n t e r n s h i p program, w h i l e 2 (4.3%) thought b e t t e r s c r e e n i n g o f the
i n t e r n s h i p agency would improve the program.
All 14 respondents (100%) in C onc entration 2 (Outdoor) did not
b e l i e v e t h a t b e t t e r s c r e e n i n g would improve th e i n t e r n s h i p program.
Of 55 responding former i n t e r n s in Conce nt rat ion 3 (Community),
49

(89.1%)

internship

did

not

program.

think
S ix

better
(10.9%)

screening
thought

wo uld

better

imp rov e

screening

the
would

improve t h e i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e .
Of

81

r e s p o n d i ng

(T h erap eu tic),

73

f o rm er

(90.1%)

i nterns

b elieved

in

better

C oncentration
screening

of

4
the

68

internship
(9.9%)

site

would not

thought

better

improve th e

screening

internship

would

program.

im p ro ve

the

Eight

in tern sh ip

experience.
The

perception

concentrations

that

among
an

respondents

internship

from

shorter

the four

than

30

ma jo r

weeks

would

improve th e i n t e r n s h i p program could not be computed u sin g t h e c h i square s t a t i s t i c because a l l o f th e 197 resp ond ents did not t h i n k a
s h o r t e r i n t e r n s h i p period would improve th e program.

Summary
The data

analyzed

Hypothesis

1,

significant

difference

former

in

interns

of

in

which

the

the
it

in

preceding
was

the

f ou r

section

stated that

scores

of

st ude nt

th e

were

there
mail

related

w ill

be

survey

concentrations

as

to
no

between
to

th eir

p e r c e p t i o n s concerning t h e i n t e r n s h i p program.
Of t h e e i g h t q u e s t i o n s on th e in t e r n q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e l a t i n g t o
perceptions
interns,

the

of

quality

following

of

the

were

internship

found

to

be

program

by

th e

significant

at

former
the

.05

co n f i d e n c e l e v e l :
1.

Question 4 / 3 :

professional contacts?
2.

Question 4 / 5 :

f o r curriculum?
3.

To make

S i g n i f i c a n t at p - v a lu e = .0 0990.
Why did you ac ce pt an i n t e r n s h i p ?

Required

S i g n i f i c a n t at p - va lu e = .0 1399.

Question 4 / 6 :

background?

Why did you acce pt an i n t e r n s h i p ?

Why did you acce pt an i n t e r n s h i p ?

S i g n i f i c a n t a t p - v a lu e = .00022.

To expand

69

4.

Question 4 / 7 :

Why did you ac ce pt an i n t e r n s h i p ?

personnel in a g i v e n department?
5.

Question

4/9:

6.
the

Question 9 c :

internship

S i g n i f i c a n t a t p - v a lu e = .04531.

Why did

e x p lo r e s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t areas?

you

ac ce pt

an

internship?

To

S i g n i f i c a n t at p - v a lu e = .00175.

What do you f e e l

program?

Drawn by

Professional

are major c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f
contacts?

Significant

at

p - v a l u e = .0 2 43 9.
7.

Question 20b :

Have you r e c e i v e d any jo b o f f e r s s i n c e your

i n t e r n s h i p based on th e

f a c t you were an in t e r n ?

Significant

at

p - v a l u e = .00 91 4.
8.
in g

Question 3 4 :

the

in tern sh ip

Do you have any reason t o t h in k t h a t a c c e p t ­
was

not

a

good

idea

in

your

situ ation ?

S i g n i f i c a n t at p - v a l u e = .0 0670.
9.

Question 3 8 :

Do you f e e l

the Re cre at io n and Park Adminis­

t r a t i o n c o u r s e s a t CMU prepared you f o r th e i n t e r n s h i p ?

Significant

at p - v a lu e = .00 652 .

B as ic Agency C o n s i d e r a t io n s f o r a
Q u a li t y I n te r n s h i p Program
As

in

relevant
would

dat a

p rec ed in g
on th e

in d icate

reg arding
The

th e

the

faculty

the

agency
agency

internship
members

section,

in

it

important

questionnaire

(see

su p ervisor’s

program at
the

was

Department

of

Michigan
R ecr eat io n

questions

survey

agency

instrument

agency s u p e r v i s o r ’ s p e r c e p t i o n o f q u a l i t y .

were

that

q u ality

U niversity.

Michigan U n i v e r s i t y agreed t h a t

the

B)

of

A d m i n is t ra ti o n a t Central
on

determine

Appendix

perception

Central

to

and

relative

Park

7 o f 30
to

the

70

The r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n s on t h e agency q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e l a t e d to
q u a l i t y are as f o l l o w s :
Question 5:

What do you f e e l are th e t h r e e major c o n t r i b u t i o n s
o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p program t o t h e s t ude nt ?

Question 11b:

To your knowledge, has t h e former in t e r n r e c e i v e d
any j o b o f f e r s s i n c e t h e i n t e r n s h i p based on the
f a c t h e / s h e was an in te r n ?

Question 16:

Did t h e v a r i e t y o f t h e e x p e r i e n c e s during t h e
i n t e r n s h i p meet t h e needs in preparing t h e in t e r n
for the profession?

Question 24:

Do you have any reason t o t h i n k t h a t a c c e p t i n g an
in t e r n was not a good idea in your s i t u a t i o n ?

Question 27:

Do you f e e l t h e R ecr ea ti on and Park c o u r s e s at
Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y prepared t h e in t e r n
for the internship?

Question 29:

Would you recommend o t h e r s t u d e n t s t ak e the
i n t e r n s h i p program in th e R ecr ea ti on and Park
Department at Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y ?

Question 30:

What s u g g e s t i o n s do you have f o r improving t h e
i n t e r n s h i p program?

The a b o v e - 1 i s t e d q u e s t i o n s on t h e agency q u e s t i o n n a i r e were a l l
compared t o cor re sponding q u e s t i o n s on t h e

in t e r n q u e s t i o n n a i r e

order t o compare alJL agency s u p e r v i s o r s ’ and a l l
perceptions
R ecr ea ti on
U niversity.

of

quality

co n cer nin g

and Park A d m i n is t r a t io n

the

internship

Department a t

in

former s t u d e n t s ’
program
Central

in

the

Michigan

The corres pon din g q u e s t i o n s on both q u e s t i o n n a i r e s are

as f o l l o w s :
AGENCY QUESTIONNAIRE

INTERN QUESTIONNAIRE

Question 5

Question 9

Question 11b

Question 20b

Question 16

Question 26

71

Question 24

Question 34

Question 27

Question 38

Question 29

Question 42

Question 30

Question 43

P e r c e p t io n o f Q u a li t y bv In te rn sh ip
S i t e S u p e r v is o r s and All Interns
Concerning th e I n te rn sh i p Program
a t Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y
The agency s u p e r v i s o r s were asked what th ey thought were t h e
t h r e e main c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f the i n t e r n s h i p program t o
(Question 5 ) .
were

asked

to

contrib u tion

the

student

The respondents were g iv e n t h r e e s u g g e s t e d t o p i c s and
identify
areas.

the

topics

The

areas

t he y
were:

thought

were

on-the-job

sign ificant
experience,

employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s , and p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s .
The agency s u p e r v i s o r s were asked i f t h ey thought t h a t o n - t h e j o b e x p e r i e n c e was a major c o n t r i b u t i o n o f th e

internship

program.

Thei r r e s p o n s e s were compared t o th e t o t a l

student intern responses

on Question 9 o f the in t e r n q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

According t o t h e d at a in

Table 15,
student

th e p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e agency s u p e r v i s o r s and t h e former
interns

regarding

on-the-job

experience

as

a

c o n t r i b u t i o n o f th e i n t e r n s h i p program were not s i g n i f i c a n t

ma jo r
a t th e

.05 l e v e l .
Of 121 t o t a l responding agency s u p e r v i s o r s , 117 (96.7%) thought
on-the-job
program.

experience
Four

(3.3%)

was
did

c o n t r i b u t i o n o f th e program.

a major c o n t r i b u t i o n
not

t h in k

such

of

the

experience

internship

was

a major

72

Of 197 responding former i n t e r n s ,

187

(94.9%) thought o n - t h e -

job e x p e r i e n c e was a major c o n t r i b u t i o n o f th e i n t e r n s h i p program.
Nine

(4.6%)

thought

on-the-job

experience

was

not

a

major

c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h e program.

Table 1 5 . - - R esp on se s t o Question 5/Q ue sti o n 9: "What do you f e e l are
t h e main c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p program t o th e
s t u d e n t . . . o n - t h e - j o b experience?"
Student In ter ns

Agency S u p e rv is or s
No
N
%

Yes
N
%

4
3.3

117
96.7

Total
N
%

No
N
%

Yes
N
%

121
38.1

9
4.6

187
94.9

Chi-square t e s t :

p - v a l u e = .62777

The agency s u p e r v i s o r s were asked

Total
N
%

Total
N
%

197
61.9

318
100.0

Not S i g n i f i c a n t at .05

if

t he y thought

employment

o p p o r t u n i t i e s were a major c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p program.
Their

re s p o n se s

were compared

Question 9 o f the

intern

to

th e

questionnaire.

total

st u d en t

r es p o n se s

on

According t o the dat a

in

Table 16, t h e p e r c e p t i o n t h a t employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s were a major
c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p program by the agency s u p e r v i s o r s and
the

former

student

intern s

was

sig n ifica n t

at

the

.05

level

( . 00000) .
Of 121 t o t a l responding agency s u p e r v i s o r s , 83 (68.6%) thought
employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s were a major c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p

73

program.

T h i r t y - e i g h t (31.4%) thought employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s were

not a major c o n t r i b u t i o n o f th e program.
Of 197 responding former s t u d e n t i n t e r n s ,

178 (90.4%) thought

employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s were a major c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p
program.

Eighteen (9.1%) thought employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s were not

a major c o n t r i b u t i o n o f th e program.

Table 1 6 . -- Respon ses t o Question 5 /Q ue st io n 9: "What do you f e e l are
the main c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f the i n t e r n s h i p program to the
s tu d en t . . . employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s ? "

Agency Su pe rv is o rs
No
N
%

Yes
N
%

38
31.4

83
68.6

Student In te rn s

Total
N
%

No
N
%

Yes
N
%

121
38.1

19
9.6

178
90.4

Chi-square t e s t :

p - v a l u e = .00000

Total
N
%

Total
N
%

197
61.9

318
10 0 .0

S i g n i f i c a n t at .05

The agency s u p e r v i s o r s were asked i f t h ey thought p r o f e s s i o n a l
c o n t a c t s were a major c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p program.

Their

r es p o n se s were compared t o t h e t o t a l s t u d e n t r e s p o n s e s t o Question 9
on t h e in t e r n q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

According t o t h e data in Table 17, the

perception that professional

c o n t a c t s were a major c o n t r i b u t i o n

the

internship

program by t h e

agency

supervisors

st u d en t i n t e r n s was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l

and

(.00000).

the

of

former

74

Table 1 7 . --R es p o n s es t o Question 5 /Q ue sti on 9: "What do you f e e l are
th e main c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f the i n t e r n s h i p program t o the
s t u d e n t . . . p r o f e s s i o n a l c on ta ct s ? "
Agency S u p e r v is o r s
No
N
%

Yes
N
%

74
61.1

47
38.8

Total
N
%

No
N
%

Yes
N
%

121
38.1

39
1 9 .8

158
80.2

Chi-square t e s t :

Of 121
professional
program.

Student I n te rn s

p - v a l u e = .00000

responding

agency

Total
N
%

Total
N
%

197
61.9

318
1 00 . 0

S i g n i f i c a n t a t .05

su pervisors,

47

c o n t a c t s were a major c o n t r i b u t i o n

Seventy-three

(61.1%)

thought

(3 8 .8 % )
of

the

such c o n t a c t s

thought

internship
were

not

a

major c o n t r i b u t i o n o f the program.
Of

197

professional
program.

responding

f o rm er

in tern s,

158

c o n t a c t s were a major c o n t r i b u t i o n

Thirty-eight

(8 0 .2 % )
o f th e

(19.8%) b e l i e v e d p r o f e s s i o n a l

thought
internship

c o n t a c t s were

not a major c o n t r i b u t i o n o f th e program.
The agency s u p e r v i s o r s were asked i f ,

to th e ir

knowledge,

the

former in t e r n had r e c e i v e d any jo b o f f e r s s i n c e the i n t e r n s h i p based
on t h e f a c t h e / s h e was an in t e r n
dat a

in Table 18,

(Question 11 b ).

t h e p e r c e p t i o n among t h e

According t o t h e

agency s u p e r v i s o r s

and

t h e former s t u d e n t i n t e r n s t h a t the in t e r n had r e c e i v e d a jo b o f f e r
s i n c e t h e i n t e r n s h i p based on th e f a c t h e / s h e had been an in t e r n was
s i g n i f i c a n t at th e .05 l e v e l .

75

Table 1 8 . --Re spo ns es t o Question l l b / Q u e s t i o n 20b: "To your knowl­
edge, has th e former in t e r n r e c e i v e d any j o b o f f e r s s i n c e
t h e i n t e r n s h i p based on th e f a c t h e / s h e was an intern?"

Agency S u p e rv is or s
No
N
%

Yes
N
%

76
76.8

23
23.2

Total
N
%

99
34.9

Chi-square t e s t :

Of 99 t o t a l
th e

Student In te rn s
No
N
%

Yes
N

76
41.1

109
58.9

%

p - v a l u e = . 00000

Total
N
%

185
65.1

284
10 0. 0

S i g n i f i c a n t at .05

responding agency s u p e r v i s o r s ,

former i n t e r n had not r e c e i v e d

h e / s h e had been an i n t e r n .
had r e c e i v e d

Total
N
%

a jo b o f f e r

76 (76.8%)

a jo b o f f e r

thought

based on th e

fact

Twenty-three (23.2%) thought the in t e r n
since

the

internship

based

on t h e

fact

h e / s h e had been a former i n t e r n .

not

Of 185 responding former i n t e r n s , 76 (41.1%)

b e l i e v e d t hey had

r e c e i v e d job o f f e r s

had been i n t e r n s .

based on th e f a c t

t h ey

One hundred nine former i n t e r n s (58.9%) thought t h ey had r e c e i v e d a
job o f f e r s i n c e t h e i r

internships

based on t h e f a c t

t hey had been

interns.
The agency s u p e r v i s o r s were asked i f t h ey thought th e v a r i e t y
o f e x p e r i e n c e during th e i n t e r n s h i p met t h e needs in preparing th e
in t e r n

for

the

profession

(Question

16).

The

re s p o n s e s

were

compared t o th e t o t a l s t u d e n t in t e r n re s p o n s e s t o Question 26 on th e
in t e r n

questionnaire.

According

to the

dat a

in

Table 19,

the

76

p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e agency s u p e r v i s o r s and t h e former s t u d e n t i n t e r n s
were s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l .

Table 1 9 . --Re spo ns es t o Question 16 /Q ue sti on 26: "Did th e v a r i e t y
o f th e e x p e r i e n c e during t h e i n t e r n s h i p meet t h e needs
in preparing th e in t e r n f o r t h e p r o f e s s io n ? "
Agency S u p e rv is o rs
No
N
%

Yes
N
%

5
4.4

109
95.6

Student I nte rn s

Total
N
%

No
N
%

Yes
N
%

Total
N
%

Total
N
%

114
37.4

39
20. 4

152
7 9 .6

191
62.6

305
10 0. 0

Chi-square t e s t :

p - v a lu e = .00012

S i g n i f i c a n t a t .05

Of 114 t o t a l responding agency s u p e r v i s o r s , 109 (95.6%) thought
t h e v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e met the needs in preparing t h e in t e r n f o r
the p rofessio n .

Five (4.4%) thought t h e v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e did

not meet t h e needs in preparing the i n t e r n f o r t h e p r o f e s s i o n .
Of

191

responding

former

interns,

152

(79.6%)

thought

the

v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e met th e needs in preparing th e i n t e r n f o r t h e
profession.

Thirty-nine

(20.4%) thought t h e v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e

d id not meet t h e needs in preparing t h e i n t e r n f o r t h e p r o f e s s i o n .
The agency s u p e r v i s o r s were asked
think

that

situation

accepting

an

(Question 2 4 ) .

in t e r n

was

if
not

t hey had any reason
a

good

id ea

in

to

th eir

The re s p on se s were compared t o t h e t o t a l

s t u d e n t in t e r n re s p o n se s t o Question 34 on th e in t e r n q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
According t o t h e d a t a , t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f th e agency s u p e r v i s o r s and

77

t h e former st ud en t i n t e r n s regarding t h e a cc e pt a n ce

o f an i n t e r n /

i n t e r n s h i p program were not s i g n i f i c a n t at t h e .05 l e v e l .
Of 113 t o t a l responding agency s u p e r v i s o r s , 107 (94.7%) thought
t h a t a c c e p t i n g an in t e r n was a good idea in t h e i r

situation.

Six

(5.3%) thought t h a t a c c e p t i n g an in t e r n was not a good idea in t h e i r
situation.
Of 190 t o t a l
that

accepting

responding

former

interns,

an i n t e r n s h i p was a good

171

idea

in

(89.5%)
their

thought

situ ation .

Nineteen (9.9%) thought t h a t a c c e p t i n g an i n t e r n s h i p was not a good
idea in t h e i r s i t u a t i o n .
The

agency

supervisors

coursework at Central

(Question 2 7 ) .

total

intern

questionnaire.

asked

if

Michigan U n i v e r s i t y

the internship
student

w ere

they

b elieved

prepared t h e

in t e r n

the
for

The r es p o n se s were compared t o the

responses

on

Q uestion

38

of

the

in tern

According t o th e d a ta , th e p e r c e p t i o n s o f th e agency

s u p e r v i s o r s and t h e former st u d en t i n t e r n s reg a rd in g th e coursework
at CMU preparing the in t e r n f o r th e i n t e r n s h i p were not s i g n i f i c a n t
a t the .05 l e v e l .
Of 48

responding

agency

supervisors,

34

(70.8%)

thought

coursework at CMU prepared th e in te r n f o r th e i n t e r n s h i p .

the

Fourteen

(29.2%) b e l i e v e d th e coursework did not prepare t h e i n t e r n f o r the
internship.

It

should be noted

here

that

there

were

73 m is s in g

o b s e r v a t i o n s by the agency s u p e r v i s o r s .
Of

189

responding

former

interns,

170

coursework at CMU had prepared them f o r t h e

(89.9%)

thought

internship.

th e

Nineteen

78

(10.1%)

thought

the

coursework

had

not

prepared

them

for

the

internship experience.
The

former

recommend

other

Recreation
(Question

agency

supervisors

students

take

the

and Park D ep ar tm en t a t
29).

w ere

asked

if

in tern sh ip
Central

they

program

M i c h ig a n

The r es p o n se s were compared t o

th e

would
in

the

U niversity
total

former

s tu d e n t in t e r n re sp on se s t o Question 42 on th e in t e r n q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
According t o t h e da ta , t h e p e r c e p t i o n s concerning t h e recommendation
o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p program t o o th e r s t u d e n t s were not s i g n i f i c a n t at
t h e .05 l e v e l .
Of 111 t o t a l
t h ey

would

responding agency s u p e r v i s o r s ,

recommend

th e

internship

program

80 (72.1%)

to

other

stated

students.

T h ir ty - o n e (27.9%) i n d i c a t e d they would not recommend t h e i n t e r n s h i p
program t o o t h e r s t u d e n t s .
Of

168

responding

former

interns,

100%

stated

they

would

recommend th e i n t e r n s h i p program t o o t h er s t u d e n t s .
The agency s u p e r v i s o r s were asked what s u g g e s t i o n s t h e y had f o r
improving t h e i n t e r n s h i p program.

They were asked i f t h e y thought

more communications with th e Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s o r
would

improve

the

program

(Question

30).

The

responses

were

compared t o t h e t o t a l former st ud en t in te r n r es p o n se s t o Question 43
on t h e in t e r n q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

According t o t h e d a t a , t h e p e r c e p t i o n

t h a t more communication with th e in t e r n s u p e r v i s o r would improve the
program was s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .05 l e v e l

(.00000).

79

Of

121

responding agency

communication would

improve

s u p e r v i s o r s , 22
the

(18.2%)

internship

that

program.

more

Ninety-nine

(81.8%) thought more communication would not improve t h e program.
Of

197

total

responding

former

student

interns,

90

(45.7%)

thought more communication with t h e CMU s u p e r v i s o r would improve the
in tern sh ip

prog ram .

One

hundred

seven

(54.3%)

thought

more

communication would not improve t h e program.

Summary
The data
Hyp othesis

2,

difference

in

agency

analyzed
which
the

supervisors

in

the

stated

scores
and the

pre ceding

that

of

the

section

there
mail

former

w ill

survey

st u d en t

were

be

r s 1ated

to

no

significant

between

c o o p e r a ti n g

interns

as

to

their

p e r c e p t i o n s conce rni ng t h e i n t e r n s h i p program.
Of t h e seven q u e s t i o n s on th e agency q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e l a t i n g t o
perceptions

of

quality

of

th e

internship

program

by

th e

agency

s u p e r v i s o r s and t h e former st ud en t i n t e r n s , t h e f o l l o w i n g were found
t o be s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .05 l e v e l :
1.
b u t io n s

Question 5 / 2 :
of

the

opportunities?
2.
b u ti o n s
contacts?

internship

the

program

to

th e

st ud en t?

Employment

S i g n i f i c a n t at p - v a l u e = .00000.

Question 5 / 3 :
of

What do you f e e l are the t h r e e major c o n t r i ­

What do you f e e l are t h e t h r e e major c o n t r i ­

internship

program t o

th e

S i g n i f i c a n t a t p - v a l u e = .00000.

st ud en t?

Professional

80

3.

Question

received

any j o b

1 1b :
offers

h e / s h e was an in t e r n ?
4.

Question

To your knowledge,
since

th e

internship

16:
the

Did th e

S i g n i f i c a n t a t p - v a lu e = .00000.

internship

program?

in

of

profession?

Question 3 0 :

needs

variety

m eet

the

th e

former

based

on

in t e r n

the

fact

S i g n i f i c a n t a t p - v a l u e = .00000.

in tern sh ip

5.

has

preparing

experience
the

during

intern

What s u g g e s t i o n s do you have f o r
More communication wit h

for

the
the

improving

CMU s u p e r v i s o r ?

S i g n i f i c a n t a t p - v a lu e = .0 0000.
A summary o f th e f i n d i n g s o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , as w e ll as the
c o n c l u s i o n s and i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h ,
Chapter V.

is

presented

in

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
I n tr o d u c t i o n
In t h i s ch a p t e r , t h e problem and t h e procedure o f t h e study are
summarized.
d etail.

Conc lus ion s o f t h e study are s t a t e d

and d i s c u s s e d

in

F i n a l l y , i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r re se ar ch are e x p lo r e d .

The Problem
The primary purpose o f t h i s study was to determine the q u a l i t y
and e x t e n t t o which former undergraduate

students

and co o p e r a t i n g

agency s u p e r v i s o r s p e r c e iv e d th e 30-week in t e r n s h i p e x p e r ie n c e
o f f e r e d by t h e Department o f R ecr ea ti o n and Park A dm in is t ra t io n at
Central Michigan.

( Q u a li t y was d e f i n e d as the degree o f e x c e l l e n c e

p e r c e iv e d by th e former s t u d e n t i n t e r n s and co o p e r a ti n g a g e n c i e s
meeting t h e g o a l s

and o b j e c t i v e s

in

o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p program in the

Department o f Re cre at io n and Park A d m i n is tr a t io n at Central Michigan
U niversity.)
S p ecifica lly ,

th is

study

i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e as i t

was

undertaken

to

evaluate

related to the s a t is f a c t o r y

the

atta inmen t

o f t h e g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e Department o f Re cr ea ti on and Park
A d m i n is tr a t io n at Central

Michigan U n i v e r s i t y .

p re s en t ed

in two major s e c t i o n s .

re s p o n s e s

from former

student

The f i r s t

intern

81

The f i n d i n g s
section

participants

in

incl ude d
the

were
th e

L ei su re

82

S e r v i c e s and S t u d i e s curriculum.

The data were analyzed s e p a r a t e l y

f o r each o f t h e four major c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f f e r e d in t h i s program o f
study:

Commercial

R ec r e a t i o n ,

R ecreation,

and Thera pe ut ic R ec re a t i o n .

comparison between co o p e r a ti n g
combined

Outd oor

former

student

Community

The second s e c t i o n

internship

in tern

R ecreation,

agencies

and a l l

concentrations

as

was a
o f the

to

th eir

spring

1988.

p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e q u a l i t y o f th e i n t e r n s h i p program.
The

study

was

conducted

during

w inter

and

Q u e s ti o n n a ir e s were mailed t o 360 Recreation and Park a g e n c i e s
and o u t s i d e
student

o f Michigan t h a t

in tern s

during

s u pe rv is ed

th eir

30-week

Q u e s ti o n n a ir e s were a l s o mailed t o a l l
participated

and e v a l u a t e d
in tern sh ip

the

in

former

experience.

t h e 600 former s t u d e n t s who

in t h e i n t e r n s h i p program s i n c e i t s

inception

in 1975

u n t i l t h e study was conducted in 1988.

Procedure o f th e Study
The procedures f o r s e l e c t i n g q u e s ti o n s f o r the mail survey were
based on the g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s o f the i n t e r n s h i p program.
incl ude d

in the mail

resu lts

of

R ecr eat io n
Leisu re

and

the
and

survey came from r e l a t e d

accred itation

study

Parks A s s o c i a t i o n

R ec r e a t i o n .

Other

literatu re

sponsored

and the
questions

interns.

teaching

courses

taken

and th e
N ational

American A s s o c i a t i o n
were

r e s e a r c h e r ’ s e x p e r i e n c e as a former p r a c t i t i o n e r
from e x p e r i e n c e

by t h e

Items

by t h e

derived

of

from

the

in r e c r e a t i o n

and

former

student

83

The d r a f t v e r s i o n o f the mail q u e s t i o n n a i r e was p i l o t - t e s t e d on
a

small

group

of

former

in t e r n s

and

supervisors

of

co o p e r a t i n g

a g e n c i e s in Michigan.

The r e s u l t s were examined and changes, where

n e c e s s a r y , were made.

A f i n a l d r a f t was prepared and mailed t o the

co o p e r a t i n g
Total

agencies

and

former

u s a b l e res p o n se s f o r t h i s

interns

inv o lv ed

in

the

st ud y .

study included 197 from the former

st u d e n t i n t e r n s and 121 from s u p e r v i s o r s o f co o p e r a t i n g a g e n c i e s .
The study was de sig n ed t o answer th e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s :
1.

What was the q u a l i t y o f th e i n t e r n s h i p program as p er ce iv ed

by former in t e r n s and co o p e r a t i n g agency s u p e r v i s o r s ?
2.

Did c o o p e r a t i n g

agency s u p e r v i s o r s

and f o r m e r

student

i n t e r n s have d i f f e r i n g p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p e xp er ie n ce ?
3.

What s u g g e s t i o n s were commonly mentioned f o r improving the

i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e as a t r a i n i n g d e v i c e

as

p er ce iv ed

by former

s t u d e n t s and c o op er a t in g agency s u p e r v i s o r s ?

th is

I t was important t o e s t a b l i s h some fundamental

assumptions f o r

study in a n a ly z i n g t h e data t o be g a t h e r e d .

For s t a t i s t i c a l

p urp oses,

th e assumptions were developed

into

nu ll

hypotheses

and

were as f o l l o w s :
Hypothesis 1 : There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in the
re s p o n se s t o the mail survey between former i n t e r n s o f t h e four
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s as t o t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s concerning t h e i n t e r n ­
s h ip program.
Hypothesis 2 : There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in the
r es p o n se s t o th e mail survey between c o o p e r a t i n g agency s u p e r­
v i s o r s and th e former i n t e r n s as t o t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s co n ce r n ­
ing t h e i n t e r n s h i p program.

data

Each r e s p o n d e n t ’ s answers were recorded on an Opscan form.

The

were

the

analyzed

by

the

S tatistical

Co nsu lti ng

Group

at

84

Computer S e r v i c e s Department o f Central

Michigan U n i v e r s i t y ,

using

the SPSSX S t a t i s t i c a l Package on th e IBM 3090 computer system.
The c h i - s q u a r e s t a t i s t i c was employed t o determine r e l a t i o n s h i p
between the groups.

A minimum c o n f i d e n c e l e v e l

determine the s t a t i s t i c a l

o f .05 was used to

s i g n i f i c a n c e o f th e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the

da ta .
R e s u l t s from q u e s t i o n n a i r e s as t o t h e p e r c e p t i o n s held by the
former st u d en t

interns,

agency s u p e r v i s o r s ,

and comparison o f the

perceptual r e l a t i o n s h i p s between th e two groups were an aly ze d.
Summary o f Findings
Hypothesis 1
S ign ifican t

d ifferen ces

were

fo u n d

in

the

p erceptions

of

q u a l i t y concerning t h e i n t e r n s h i p program between the former i n t e r n s
from t h e four c o n c e n t r a t i o n a r e a s .
would

be

no

sig n ifica n t

Hypothesis 1 s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e

d ifferen ce

in

the

fo r m e r

students’

p e r c e p t i o n o f the q u a l i t y o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p program among t h e four
major c o n c e n t r a t i o n s .
A major focu s

o f the

study concerned why the

former

acce pted the i n t e r n s h i p o p t io n in th e Leisu re S e r v i c e s
curriculum.

gain in g

scale

from 1 t o 9,

The m a jo ri ty o f th e former st u d en t
e x p e r i e n c e was t h e i r m ost

a c c e p t i n g th e i n t e r n s h i p o p t i o n .
four

major

and S t u d i e s

The former i n t e r n s were g iv e n nine re as on s and asked to

p r i o r i t i z e them on a s l i d i n g
highest.

interns

concentrations

important

with 1 being the

interns

agreed t h a t

con sid eration

for

The former st u d en t i n t e r n s in the

disagreed

significantly

co n cer nin g

th e

85

following

reaso ns

professional
curriculum,

for

accepting

contacts,

to

the

expand t h e i r

the

fact

internship

that

it

background,

was

th e

i n t o th e i n t e r n s h i p program by personnel

o p t io n :

to

required

fact

make

on

t h ey were

the

drawn

in a g iv e n department,

to

e x p l o r e s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t a r e a s , and t o make p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s .
The former st u d en t i n t e r n s were a l s o asked t o d e f i n e t h e t h r e e
major c o n t r i b u t i o n s
The

majority

of

of

th e

th e

internship

students

experience

p er ce iv ed

job

to

the

student.

experience

as

most

important in order o f p r i o r i t y , f ol l o w ed by employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s
and p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s , in t h a t order.
As f a r as jo b o p p o r t u n i t i e s being pr es en te d t o th e in t e r n based
on th e

fact

h e /s h e

had been

an

in t e r n

are

concerned,

the

former

st u d en t i n t e r n s h i p p a r t i c i p a n t s d is a g r e e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with agency
supervisors.

The m a jo r it y o f the s t u d e n t s b e l i e v e d

t he y had been

o f f e r e d j o b s based on the f a c t they had been former i n t e r n s .
The m a j o r it y o f the former st ud en t i n t e r n s b e l i e v e d th e v a r i e t y
of

experiences

them f o r e n t r y

inv ol v ed

in

the

internship

i n t o th e r e c r e a t i o n

program helped

and park p r o f e s s i o n .

enough former st u d en t respon de nts d i s a g r e e d

prepare
However,

in t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n t o

make t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s q u e s t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t at t h e .05 l e v e l .
The p e r c e p t i o n

among t h e
differed

former i n t e r n s

concentration

areas

significantly

accepting the

i n t e r n s h i p had been a good idea

The m a j o r i t y o f the s t u d e n t s agreed t h a t

as

from th e
to

whether

in t h e i r

accepting

f ou r

the

major
or

not

situation.
internship

86

had been a good idea in t h e i r s i t u a t i o n ,

but enough d is a g r e e d t o be

s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .05 l e v e l .
The m aj o ri ty

of

the

students

thought

the

coursework

in

tne

Department o f Recre atio n and Park A dm in is t ra t io n a t Central Michigan
U niversity

had

experience.

prepared

Enough

of

them
the

adequately

former

for

students

the

in tern sh ip

disagreed

to

be

s i g n i f i c a n t at t h e .05 l e v e l .
All t h e former s t u d e n t i n t e r n s agreed t h a t t hey would recommend
the i n t e r n s h i p o p ti o n t o o t h e r s t u d e n t s .
The m a jo ri t y o f the former st u d en t i n t e r n s s u g g e s t e d two areas
for

improving

the

internship

communication

w ith

A dm in is t ra t io n

at

program.

the

Central

program.

D ep ar tm en t
Michigan

They
of

believed

Recreation

U niversity

would

that

more

and

Park

improve

the

The m a jo r it y a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t a b e t t e r s c r e e n i n g o f the

i n t e r n s h i p agency b ef o re a ll o w i n g i n t e r n s to be a s s i g n e d t h e r e would
improve th e i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e .

Hy pothesis 2
S ign ifican t
q u ality

d ifferen ces

concerning

supervisors

and t h e

the

were

in tern sh ip

former st ud en t

foun d

in

program
interns.

t h a t t h e r e would be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
quality

between

the

agency

supervisors

and

the

p erceptions

between

the

Hypot he sis

2

of

agency
stated

in th e p e r c e p t i o n o f
the

former

st u d en t

interns.
A major fo cu s area o f t h i s

study d e a l t

wit h what t h e

agency

s u p e r v i s o r s b e l i e v e d were t h e t h r e e major c o n t r i b u t i o n areas o f the

87

in t e r n s h i p program.
employment

opportunities,

supervisors
the-job

The t h r e e areas were:

as w el l

and

on-the-job experience,

professional

contacts.

as t h e former st u d en t i n t e r n s

experience

was

a

major

contribution

experience.

The p e r c e p t i o n t h a t employment

p rofession al

contacts

were a major

agency

agreed t h a t on-

of

th e

internship

op portunities

contrib u tion

i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e was p er ce iv ed d i f f e r e n t l y

The

area

of

and
the

by th e two groups.

The i n t e r n s b e l i e v e d t h a t employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s and p r o f e s s i o n a l
c o n t a c t s were

a major c o n t r i b u t i o n , whereas th e

agency s u p e r v is o r s

disagreed

the

were

to

p o in t

where

the p e r c e p t i o n s

statistically

sign ificant.
The agency s u p e r v i s o r s were asked i f ,

t o t h e i r knowledge,

the

in t e r n had r e c e i v e d a jo b o f f e r based on t h e f a c t t h a t the student
had been
st u d en t

an

intern.

interns

had

The
not

agency
received

supervisors

believed

jo b

based

offers

w h i l e , co m p a r a t iv e ly , t h e i n t e r n s d i s a g r e e d

the

on

former

this

fact

in s i g n i f i c a n t numbers.

This p e r c e p t i o n was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t .
The agency s u p e r v i s o r s were asked i f t h ey b e l i e v e d the v a r i e t y
of

experiences

needs

in

offered

during

th e

internship

preparing the

intern

for the

experience

profession.

met

The re sp on ses

were compared t o th e re s p o n s e s by t h e former st ud en t i n t e r n s .
m a j o r it y

of

experiences

th e

former

st ud en t

interns

prepared them f o r en t ry

believed

into

the

the

th e

variety

profession;

The
of

however,

enough d i s a g r e e d t o make th e p e r c e p t i o n s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at
t h e .05 l e v e l .

The agency s u p e r v i s o r s

agreed t h a t th e v a r i e t y o f

88

experience

d id ,

in

fact,

prepare

th e

in t e r n

for

entry

into

the

r e c r e a t i o n and park p r o f e s s i o n .
The agency s u p e r v i s o r s were asked

if

th ey

had any reason t o

t h in k t h a t t h e i r a cc ept an ce o f an in t e r n had not been a good id ea in
their situation.

Their r es p o n se s were then compared t o th e i n t e r n s ’

p e r c e p t i o n concerning t h e i r accepta nc e o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e .
The

m aj o ri t y

of

both

in tern /in tern ship

groups

had

been

agreed
a

good

that

the

idea

in

acc e pt an ce
th eir

of

an

p articu lar

situation.
The

agency

Recreation

su pervisors

and

Park

w ere

a s k ed

A d m i n is t ra t io n

if

c o u rs es

they
at

b elieved

Central

the

Michigan

U n i v e r s i t y prepared th e in t e r n f o r th e i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e .

The

res p on se s were then compared t o t h e res p on se s o f t h e former st ud en t
i n t e r n s as t o t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f the coursework preparing them f o r
the

experience.

coursework

as

experience;
significant
finding

The

m ajority

ad eq ua tel y

therefore,
at

.05.

because

preparing
the

Caution

60% (73)

of

of

b ot h
th e

perceptions
should
th e

121

groups
st u d en t

p erceived
in t e r n

w er e n o t

be e x e r c i s e d
agency

for

the
the

sta tistica lly
con cerning

supervisors

this

did

not

respond t o t h i s q u e s t i o n on t h e agency q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
The agency s u p e r v i s o r s were asked i f th ey would recommend ot h e r
students

take

Ad m in is tr a tio n

the

internship

Department

at

program

in

the

Re cre at io n

Central

Michigan

and

U niversity.

Park
The

m a j o r it y o f th e agency s u p e r v i s o r s s t a t e d t h ey would recommend t h e
program.

The re s p o n se s

were then compared t o

the

st u d en t

r e s p o n s e s , and t h e r e s u l t s were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t .

in t e r n

89

The a g e n c y

su pervisors

c o m m u n ic a t io n w i t h
Recreation

and

the

were

student

in tern s

Park Admi nis tra tio n

would improve the program.

and

if

they

and

recent

b elieved

the

more

Department

intern

of

supervisors

The ma jo rit y o f t h e c o o p e r a t i n g agency

supervisors

agreed

experience.

The res p on se s were then compared t o t h o s e o f t h e former

st u d en t i n t e r n s .
co m m u n ic a t io n

that

as k ed

more communication would

not

improve

th e

Enough former st ud en t i n t e r n s b e l i e v e d t h a t more

would

improve

the

intern sh ip

program t h a t

th is

comparison was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t .
Conclusions
1.
quality

There were s i g n i f i c a n t
concerning

th e

differences

internship

in t h e

perceptions

program between

and

former in t e r n s from the four c o n c e n t r a t i o n s as well
former in t e r n s and the a g e n c i e s in v o lv e d .
of

respondents

should

be

in

the

exercised

Outdoor
when

Recreation

review ing

among

of
the

as between t h e

Due t o th e small
concentration,

sta tistica l

number
c a u t io n

sig n ifica n ce

concerning p e r c e p t i o n s between the four c o n c e n t r a t i o n s .
2.
why the

There were s i g n i f i c a n t
in t e r n s

perceptual

differences

conce rni ng

accepted the i n t e r n s h i p program in R ec re at io n

Park A dm in is tra tio n at Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y .

and

The r e s e a r c h e r

concluded t h a t t h i s i s due t o the f a c t t h a t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s d i f f e r in
basic

phi los op hy

and f o c u s .

Other perceptual

differences

may be

a t t r i b u t e d t o m i s i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e instrument used.
3.

The former st ud en t in t e r n s g e n e r a l l y agreed t h a t t h e major

con trib u tion s

of

the

in tern sh ip

program w ere

the

gaining

of

90

experience,

the

opportunities.

making

of

professional

The c o o p e r a t i n g

agency

contacts,

and

supervisors

employment

did

not

t h a t the employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s were a major c o n t r i b u t i o n
program.

Those f i n d i n g s are l o g i c a l ,

c o n s i d e r i n g th e

agree
o f the

interests

of

the groups i n v o lv e d .
4.

The f a c t t h a t t h e former s t u d e n t in t e r n was in v o lv e d in the

in ternship

program

A dm in is tra tio n
placement.
opportunities

in

the

at

Central

While

the

D ep a rtm en t

Michigan

s tu d e n t

of

R ecreation

University

in t e r n

did

believed

were a major c o n t r i b u t i o n ,

the

data

not
that

and
insure

Park
job

employment

do not

warrant

t h a t involvement with the i n t e r n s h i p program insured jo b placement.
5.

P er ce p t io n s

rega rdi ng

the

variety

of

experience

offered

during th e i n t e r n s h i p program preparing t h e former st u d en t

interns

f o r en try i n t o th e r e c r e a t i o n and park p r o f e s s i o n were s i g n i f i c a n t l y
d ifferent

between

and

among

the

c o op er a t i n g agency s u p e r v i s o r s .

former

st u d en t

interns

and

the

The c o o p e r a t i n g agency s u p e r v i s o r s

b e l i e v e d th e v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e did prepare t h e st u d en t f o r en t ry
in to

the

recreation

and

park

c o op er a t i n g agency s u p e r v i s o r s

p rofession .

O verall,

and former s t u d e n t

both

interns

the

believed

the v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e was b e n e f i c i a l .
6.

There were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in p e r c e p t i o n among the

former st ud en t i n t e r n s in t h e four c o n c e n t r a t i o n areas rega rd in g the
coursework in th e Department o f R ecr ea ti on

and Park A d m i n is t r a ti o n

ad equ at ely preparing the former s t u d e n t i n t e r n s

for the

internship

91

program.

This

is

largely

due t o

the

wide

variety

and scope

of

c o u r s e s o f f e r e d in each in d iv i d u a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n .
7.
th e

A number o f former st ud en t i n t e r n s

internship

between

the

program would

in t e r n

and

the

A dm in ist ra tio n s u p e r v i s o r .
th is

conclusion

be

(90 or 45.7%) b e l i e v e d

improved

Department

by

of

more

communication

R ecr eat io n

and

Park

The communication problems a l l u d e d t o in

should be i n v e s t i g a t e d

in th e

future to

determine

reaso ns f o r them.
8.

The former st u d en t i n t e r n s and c o o p e r a t i n g agency s u p e r v i ­

s o r s b e l i e v e d t h e i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e was a p o s i t i v e one and would
recommend i t

as

a valuable

l e a r n in g

experience

to

other

students

c o n s i d e r i n g the i n t e r n s h i p program.
9.
tion

The i n t e r n s h i p program o f f e r e d by the Department o f Recrea­

and

Park

A dm in ist ra tio n

at

Central

p e r c e iv e d as a v a lu a b le ed u ca t io n al

tool

Michigan
and i s

U niversity

is

meeting th e g o a l s

and o b j e c t i v e s as o u t l i n e d by the Department o f Re cre at io n and Park
A d m i n is t r a t io n .
10.

Throughout th e st u d y , t h e r e s e a r c h e r has implied or p oi n te d

out concerns about the d a t a - g a t h e r i n g ins tru m en t.
project

were

ins tru m ent .

to

begin

a ga in ,

Nonetheless,

th e

some

changes

findings

would

based

C ertainly,
be made

on t h e

i f the
in

the

instrument’ s

in t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y do appear t o be l o g i c a l l y sound in view o f the
inf orm at ion gained from t h i s stud y.

92

S u g g e s ti o n s f o r Further Research
The primary purpose o f t h i s study was t o determine the q u a l i t y
and

extent

of

contrib u tion

to

p rofession al

preparation

of

undergraduate s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d in t h e i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e o f f e r e d
by t h e Department o f Recre atio n and Park A dm i n is t ra t io n at Central
Michigan U n i v e r s i t y .
th e

A secondary purpose o f th e study was t o a s s e s s

v a lu e

of

involvement

personnel

in

assistin g

of

c o o p e r a ti n g

the

agencies

De pa rtm ent

of

and

le a d e r s h i p

R ecreation

and

Park

A d m i n is t r a t io n in th e development and r e v i s i o n o f i t s program.
Based on t h e data ob ta in ed
acquired

from

review ing

in t h i s

relevant

study and t h e

litera tu re,

information

the

follow ing

s u g g e s t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r re s ea r ch are made:
1.

A number o f former s t u d e n t i n t e r n s

(90 or 45.7%) b e l i e v e d

th e i n t e r n s h i p would be improved by more communication between the
intern

and

supervisor.

the

Department

of

Re cre at io n

and

Park

A dm in is t ra ti o n

The communication problems al l u d e d t o in t h e c o n c l u s i o n

should be i n v e s t i g a t e d in the f u t u r e t o determine re as o n s f o r them.
2.

Further re s ea r ch should be conducted con cerning the i n t e r n ­

s h ip program in t h e Department o f Re cre at io n and Park A dm in ist ra tio n
at

Central

differences
f ou r

student

Michigan
in

U n iversity.

perceptions

S p ecifica lly ,

o f the goals

concentrations

should

be

sig n ifica n t

and o b j e c t i v e s
investigated.

among t h e

An expanded

instrument u s in g i n t e r v i e w s in a c a s e study procedure with a s e l e c t
number o f s t u d e n t
which

to

interns

effectively

would pr ovide

evaluate

the

sp ecific

goals

and

infor ma tion with

objectives

of

the

93

in tern sh ip

program

in

the

Dep artm ent

of

R ecreation

and

Park

A d m i n is t r a ti o n .
The

stud y,

generally

s pea kin g,

affirmed

th e

quality

of

the

i n t e r n s h i p program as a component o f the Department o f Re cre at io n
and Park A d m i n is t r a t io n .
A f t e r conducting t h i s

study o f t h e

internship

program in the

Department o f Recreation and Park A dm in ist ra tio n a t Central Michigan
U niversity,
h igh er

the

learning

researcher
offering

believes

an

that

internship

other

program

park a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

w ill

find

the

same method

effective

evaluating

the

goals

means

of

and

in stitu tion s

of

recreation

and

in
and

instrument

objectives

of

an

th eir

in d i v i d u a l i n t e r n s h i p program.

R eflections
Based on the data ob ta in ed in t h i s
acquired

from re vi ew ing

th e

study and from infor ma tion

literature,

the

following

reflections

emerged:
1.

Records and a d d re s se s f o r former gra duates from th e i n t e r n ­

s h ip program are n e c e s s a r y t o in s u re a l a r g e r number o f r e s p o n s e s .
2.
should

If
be

a mail
kept

questionnaire

s h o rt

and

simple

survey
to

is

in s u r e

to
a

be

considered,

larger

number

it
of

responses.
3.

An area o f concern t h a t was a r e s u l t o f t h i s study i s t h a t

t h e r e should have been more communication between t h e s t u d e n t i n t e r n
and th e Department o f Recre atio n and Park A dm in is t ra t io n s u p e r v i s o r .
P o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s might be:

94

a.

Encourage

in t e r n

s tu d e n t s

t o do t h e i r

internships

in

Michigan t o in s u re b e t t e r communications with t h e Department o f
Recr eati on and Park Admi nis tra tio n s u p e r v i s o r .
b.

The Department

of

Recreation

and Park A dm in ist ra tio n

could hold workshops with the department s u p e r v i s o r s t o p o in t
out the importance o f b e t t e r communication between t h e

in t e r n

and department s u p e r v i s o r s .
c.

A dm inistration

resources,

planning

should

include

su fficien t

such as p er s o n n e l, m a t e r i a l s , funding, and so on, to

o p er at e the i n t e r n s h i p program based on the number o f st ud en t
i n t e r n s e n r o l l e d at a give n time .
4.

These r e f l e c t i o n s may be h el p f u l t o o t h er r e s e a r c h e r s using

t h e same method o f in s t r u m e n t a t io n .
from t h i s
ment

of

survey w i l l
R ecr eat io n

U niversity.

However, the r e s u l t s

ob ta in ed

always r e f l e c t the uniqueness o f th e Depart­
and

Park

Admi nis tra tio n

at

Central

Michigan

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

COVER LETTER, FOLLOW-UP LETTER, AND
STUDENT INTERN QUESTIONNAIRE

95

1) @ CD£9 Q (5) Q £S @ 03 £9 CBG
January 11, 1988

Dear Former Intern:
The Visitation Team from the National Council on Accreditation,
along with the administration pf the Central Michigan University
Recreation and Park Administration Department, have expressed the
desire that an evaluation of the internship program is needed to
determine if it is meeting the needs of the student for pro­
fessional development.
In addition, the results will be used as
a part of my Ph.D. dissertation at Michigan State University.
The study has been undertaken in two directions.
The first is to
contact all former interns to gain their reactions as to their
intern experience and to note their career progress and present
status.
The second is to contact the agencies where the interns
completed their internship and have the supervisors assess the
abilities of the interns as to the professional preparation for
the internship.
It will take approximately ten minutes or so to
fill out the questionnaire.
All the results will be treated with strict confidence and you
will remain anonymous.
Upon request and within these restrictions,
results will be made available to you.
The number on the form is
merely an indicator in the event follow-up is needed.
There is no
penalty for declining to participate.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,

Donald F. Lutz, Associate Professor
Department of Recreation and Park Administration
Central Michigan University
Mt. Pleasant, MI
48858
Telephone - (517) 774-7307

96

February 8, 1988

DID YOU FORGET?
We
need
the recreation intern/agency
questionnaire returned that was sent to you in January. This
information is necessary to complete our recreation study at
CMU.
If it's already in the mail, thank you.
Sincerely,

]& s!SvLStt'SL
Department of Recreation and Park Administration
Finch 109

97

INTERN QUESTIONNAIRE
INTERN EXPERIENCE:
1.

2.

Where did you do your in t e r n s h ip ?
1 )___ In s t a t e
2 )___ O u t - o f - s t a t e
la.

What i s your gender?
1 ) ____ Male
2 ) ____ Female

lb.

What yea r did you graduate?
1)
1975-1980
2)
1981-1986
3 )____ 1987

What was th e a g e n c y ’ s c o n c e n t r a t i o n area?
1 )___ Commercial r e c r e a t i o n
2 )___ Outdoor r e c r e a t i o n
3 )___ Community r e c r e a t i o n
4 )___ Therap eut ic r e c r e a t i o n
2a.

Are you working f o r the same agency where you did
your in t e r n s h i p ?
1)
Yes
2 ) ___ No

3.

What i s your c o n c e n t r a t i o n area?
1 )___ Commercial r e c r e a t i o n
2 )___ Outdoor r e c r e a t i o n
3 )___ Community r e c r e a t i o n
4 )___ Ther apeutic r e c r e a t i o n

4.

Why did you a cc e p t an i n t e r n s h i p ? ( p l e a s e i n d i c a t e in order
o f p r i o r i t y , number 1 being b e s t )
1 )___ t o gain e x p e r i e n c e
2 ) ___ peer p r e s s u r e s
3 ) ___ p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s
4 ) ___ v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e
5 ) ___ req uir ed f o r curriculum
6 ) ___ t o expand background (program)
7 ) ___ drawn by personnel in a g iv e n department
8 ) ___ t o t e s t th e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h e f i e l d
9 )____e x p l o r e s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t area

98

5.

What were your p r o f e s s i o n a l g o a l s at t h e time you
acc epted th e in t e r n s h ip ?
1 ) ____Advanced degree
2 ) ____D i r e c t o r / a d m i n i s t r a t o r
3 ) ____Teach in a c o l l e g e or u n i v e r s i t y
4 ) ____Supervisory p o s i t i o n
5 ) ____P o s i t i o n in a c o n c e n t r a t i o n area ( e . g . , t h e r a p e u t i c )

6.

Did t h e s e g o a l s change during the i n t e r n s h i p ?
1)
Yes
2 ) ____No
I f y e s , did t h i s change i n v o lv e (check each a p p l i c a b l e
response):
1 ) ____Change o f p r i o r i t y
2 ) ____Establishment o f new g o a l s
3 ) ____D es ire t o g e t more involve d in f i e l d

7.

How do you f e e l the in t e r n s h i p has a f f e c t e d p r o g r e s s toward
t h e achievement o f t h e s e g o a ls ? (check each ap p ro p ri a te
re sp on se )
1 ) ____Speeded up progress
2 ) ____Opened new avenues
3 ) ____Provided c o n t a c t s
4 ) ____A d el a y in working toward c e r t a i n g o a l s
5 ) ____L i t t l e or no e f f e c t

8.

P l e a s e i n d i c a t e the amount o f time on t h e jo b which was
devoted t o the development and b e n e f i t o f th e sp o ns o ri ng
agency and i t s programs but not r e l a t e d t o th e i n t e r n s h i p .
1)
0 - 20 %
2)
21-40%
3)
41-60%
4 ) ____61-80%
5 ) ____81% or more

9.

What do you f e e l are the t h re e major c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f the
i n t e r n s h i p program to the student?
1 ) ____On-t he -j ob e x p er i en ce
2 ) ____Employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s
3 ) ____P r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s

10.

Did you r e c e i v e any compensation as an in t e r n ?
s t i p e n d , hou sing, meals)
1)
Yes
2 ) ____No

( i f salary,

99

11.

I f y e s , what did you r e c e i v e ?
Sa lar y
1)
Stipend
2)
Housing
3)
Meals
4)
Tuition
5)
11a.

I f y e s , what did you r e c e i
1)
$ 5 0 - $ l 25 per week
2)
$12 6 - $ l 50 per week
3)
$151-$175 per week
4)
$176-$200 per week
5)
$201-$250 per week

12.

What importance did compensation play in t h e s e l e c t i o n o f
the in t e r n s i t e ?
1 )____Extremely important
2 )____Important
3 )____Of some importance
4 ) ____Not so important

13.

P l e a s e l i s t th e s a l a r y f o r each p o s i t i o n subsequent t o your
internship:
1.
First position
1)
$ 8,000-$13,000
2)
$13,001-$18,000
3)
$18,001-$23,000
4)
$ 2 3 , 0 0 1 -$ 2 8 , 0 0 0
5 ) ____ $ 2 8 , 0 0 1 - $ 3 3 , 0 0 0
2.

P re se nt P o s i t i o n
1)
$ 8,000-$13,000
2)
$13,001-$18,000
3)
$ 1 8 , 0 0 1 -$ 2 3 , 0 0 0
4)
$ 2 3 , 0 0 1 -$ 2 8 , 0 0 0
5)
$28,001-$33,000
6 ) ____ $ 3 3 , 0 0 1 - $ 4 0 , 0 0 0

14.

Is your p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n w i t h i n th e f i e l d o f parks and
recreation?
1)
Yes
2 )____No

15.

What do you c o n s i d e r t o be your foremost important d u t i e s
or f u n c t i o n s in your p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n ?
( l i s t in order o f
importance)
1 ) ____P u b li c r e l a t i o n s and communication
2 ) ____Personnel s u p e r v i s i o n
3 ) ____Programming, o p e r a t i o n s and e v a l u a t i o n
4 )____Cost c o n t r o l and budgeting

100

16.

N/A

EFFECTS OF INTERNSHIP ON CAREER DEVELOPMENT
17.

What advantages have you observed in your p r o f e s s i o n a l
c a r e e r as a r e s u l t o f your p a r t i c i p a t i o n in th e in t e r n
program? ( i n d i c a t e order o f p r i o r i t y )
1 ) ___ Experience
2 ) ___ Know! edge
3 ) ___ I n s i g h t
4 )___ Personal c o n t a c t s
5 ) ___ Job o p p o r t u n i t i e s
6 ) ___ Placement s e r v i c e
7 ) ___ No advantage

18.

Have you found any advantage in remaining in c o n t a c t with
the agency where you did your i n t e r n s h i p ?
1)
Yes
2 ) ___ No
18a.

P l e a s e i n d i c a t e t h e nature o f the c o n t a c t :
1 ) ___ Phone
2 ) ____Mail
3 ) ____Personal
4 ) ____Weekly
5 ) ____Monthly
6 ) ___ Yearly

18b.

For what reason ( g e n e r a l l y ) :
1 ) ____Information
2 ) ____Personal
3 ) ____P r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t

19.

Can you s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f y any methods or procedures
you are not u t i l i z i n g t h a t you acquired as an in ter n?
1)
Programming
2)
Or ga ni za tio n and paperwork (documentation)
3)
Communication and s u p e r v i s i o n s k i l l s
4)
Budget p rep ar a tio n

20.

Was the agency where you did your i n t e r n s h i p instrumental
in p l a c i n g you at t h e completion o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p ?
1)
Yes
2 )____No
20a.

In what way?
1 ) ____Recommendation
2 ) ____A c t i v e l y sought p o s i t i o n in your b e h a l f
3 ) ____Hired you t o department s t a f f
4 ) ____Introduced you t o p r o s p e c t i v e employers
5 ) ____Passed along employment vacancy n o t i c e

101

20b.

To your knowledge, have you r e c e i v e d any job o f f e r s
s i n c e th e i n t e r n s h i p based on the f a c t you were an
in ter n ?
1)
Yes
2 ) ____ No

EVALUATION OF THE INTERNSHIP PROGRAM
21.

How did you le a r n o f t h e i n t e r n s h i p program?
1 ) ____U n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y
2 ) ____Former in t e r n
3 ) ____Center f o r Leisu re S e r v i c e s
4 ) ____ Other

22.

In one s e n t e n c e , what do you s e e as th e purpose o f an
in t e r n s h i p ?
1 ) ____ To gain o n - t h e - j o b ex p e r i e n c e
2 )____ Stronger c o m p et it o r s f o r employment

23.

Do you know the o b j e c t i v e s o f th e i n t e r n s h i p program as s e t
f o r t h by the Recre atio n and Park A dm in ist rat ion Department
at Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y ? (not n e c e s s a r y t o l i s t them)
1)
Yes
2 ) ____ No

24.

Did you know the o b j e c t i v e s at the time o f your i n t e r n s h i p ?
1)
Yes
2 ) ____ No

25.

What would you recommend regarding the le n g t h o f th e i n t e r n ­
ship?
1 ) ____ 30 weeks
2 ) ____ Less than 30 weeks
3 ) ____ More than 30 weeks

25.

Did t h e v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e s during th e i n t e r n s h i p meet
your needs in preparing t o e n t e r the p r o f e s s i o n ?
1)
Yes
2 ) ____ No

27.

Was c o n t a c t e v i d e n t with t h e Department o f Recre atio n and
Park A dm in ist ra tio n at Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y during
your i n t e r n s h i p as f o l l o w s :
27a.

By th e department i n t e r n s u pe rv is o r?
1)
Yes
2 ) ____No
a ) ____ By phone
b ) ____ By mail
c ) ____ Personal

102

28.

How would you r a t e th e s u p e r v i s o r provided by th e CMU
Recre atio n and Park Department?
1 )____E x c e l l e n t
2 )____Good
3 )____Average
4 )____Poor
5 )____Not a c c e p t a b l e

29.

N/A

30 .

How would you r a t e th e s u p e r v i s o r o f th e agency where you
did your i n t e r n s h i p ?
1)
Excellent
2 )____Good
3 )____Average
4 )____Poor
5 ) ____Not a c c e p t a b l e

31.

N/A

32.

What a d d i t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e would have been b e n e f i c i a l t o
your in t e r n ex p e r i e n c e ?
1 ) ____More in vo lv e d with s ch ed u lin g and programs
2 ) ____More involvement with s t a f f meetings and guidance
3 ) ____More management e x p e r i e n c e
4 ) ____More in v ol v e d with the budget and pr oc es s

33.

What e x p e r i e n c e could have been d e l e t e d ?
1 ) ____R e p e t i t i v e e x p e r i e n c e s
2 ) ____Being impeded by personal b ia s o f s i t e s u p e r v i s o r
3 ) ____Too much paperwork

34.

Do you have any reason t o th in k t h a t a c c e p t i n g t h e i n t e r n ­
s h ip was not a good idea in your s i t u a t i o n ?
1)
Yes
2 )____No

35.

To what l e v e l do you f e e l t h e i n t e r n s h i p i s geared ( i n
order o f p r i o r i t y ) ?
1 )____A dm in ist ra tio n
2 )____S u p e rv is io n
3 )____Leadership
4 )____Other

36.

Are you aware o f t h e p r e s e n t p r o c e s s f o r s c r e e n i n g and
s e l e c t i o n o f i n t e r n s at CMU’ s Recreation and Park
Department?
1)
Yes
2 )____No

103

36a.

Is t h e p ro ce s s :
1)
D es ir a b le ?
2 ) ____ Undesirable?
3 )____No comment

37.

Would you recommend t h a t every person e n t e r i n g t h e p r o f e s ­
s io n o f Parks and Recre atio n do an i n t e r n s h i p ?
1)
Yes
2 ) ____No

38.

Do you f e e l the R ecr ea ti o n and Park co u r s e s at CMU prepared
you f o r the i n t e r n s h ip ?
1 ) ____Yes
2 ) ____No

39.

Were you required t o ta k e t h e p r e - i n t e r n s h i p c l a s s (RPA 215)?
1)
Yes
2 ) ____No

40.

I f your answer i s y e s , do you f e e l t h e p r e - i n t e r n s h i p c l a s s
was b e n e f i c i a l ?
1)
Yes
2 ) ____No

41.

I f your answer i s no, what would you s u g g e s t f o r improvement?
1 ) ____Should be more s p e c i f i c in c o n c e n t r a t i o n
area
2 ) ____Spend more time on i n t e r v i e w i n g t e c h n iq u e s

42.

Would you recommend o t h e r s t u d e n t s take t h e i n t e r n s h i p
program?
1)
Yes
2 ) ____No
a ) ____Program a ll o w s s t u d e n t s t o e x p l o r e th e c a r e e r f i e l d
b ef o re committing t o a f u l l - t i m e jo b
b ) ____Cannot e x p e r i e n c e t h i s in c l a s s e s andmakes you more
marketable

43.

What s u g g e s t i o n s do you have f o r improving th e i n t e r n s h i p
program?
1 ) ____More communications
with CMU s u p e r v i s o r
2 ) ____B e t t e r s c r e e n i n g o f
i n t e r n s h i p agency
3 )____The i n t e r n s h i p program should be s h o r t e r than 30 weeks

APPENDIX B

COVER LETTER, FOLLOW-UP LETTER, AND
INTERNSHIP AGENCY QUESTIONNAIRE

January 11, 1988

Dear Agency Supervisor:
The Visitation Team from the National Council on Accreditation,
along with the administration of the Central Michigan University
Recreation and Park Administration Department, have expressed the
desire that an evaluation of the internship program is needed to
determine if it is meeting the needs of the student for pro­
fessional development.
In addition, the results will be used as
a part of my Ph.D. dissertation at Michigan State University.
The study has been undertaken in two directions.
The first is to
contact all former interns to gain their reactions as to their
intern experience and to note their career progress and present
status.
The second is to contact the agencies where the interns
completed their internship and have the supervisors (if that
particular supervisor is no longer with the agency, someone
familiar with the intern's performance) assess the abilities of
the interns as to the professional preparation for the
internship.
It will take approximately ten minutes or so to
fill out the questionnaire.
All the results will be treated with strict confidence and you
will remain anonymous.
Upon request and within these restrictions,
results will be made available to you.
The number on the form is
merely an indicator in the event follow-up is needed.
There is no
penalty for declining to participate.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,

Donald F. Lutz, Associate Professor
Department of Recreation and Park Administration
Central Michigan University
Mt. Pleasant, MI
48858
Telephone - (517) 774-7307

105

February 8, 1988

DID YOU FORGET?
We
need
the recreation intern/agency
questionnaire returned that was sent to you in January. This
information is necessary to complete our recreation study at
CMU.
If it's already in the mail, thank you.
Sincerely,

Department of Recreation and Park Administration
Finch 109

106

INTERNSHIP AGENCY QUESTIONNAIRE
1.

With r e s p e c t t o Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y , where i s your
agency lo c a t e d ?
1 ) ____In s t a t e
2 )____ Out o f s t a t e
la.

What i s your gender?
1 ) ____ Male
2 ) ____ Female

lb.

What was t h e gender o f in te rn ?
1 ) ____ Male
2 ) ____ Female

2.

What i s your ag en cy ’ s c o n c e n t r a t i o n area?
1 ) ____Commercial r e c r e a t i o n
2 )____Outdoor r e c r e a t i o n
3 ) ____Community r e c r e a t i o n
4 ) ____Therap eut ic r e c r e a t i o n
5 ) ____Other

3.

What was t h e i n t e r n ’ s c o n c e n t r a t i o n area , i f known?
1 ) ____Commercial r e c r e a t i o n
2 ) ____Outdoor r e c r e a t i o n
3 )____Community r e c r e a t i o n
4 ) ____Therap eut ic r e c r e a t i o n
5 ) ____Other

4.

Why did your agency a cc e p t an in t er n ?
1 ) ____Important t o prepare f u t u r e p r o f e s s i o n a l s f o r th e f i e l d
through "hands-on e x p e r i e n c e . "
2 ) ____To a s s i s t in t h e R ecreation Program areas

5.

What do you f e e l are t h e t h r e e major c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f the
i n t e r n s h i p program t o t h e stude nt ?
1 ) ____On -t h e- jo b e x p e r i e n c e
2 ) ____Employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s
3)
Professional contacts

6.

What i s your t i t l e wit h t h i s agency?
1 ) ____D i r e c t o r
2 ) ____S u p e rv is o r or s p e c i a l i s t
6a.

What i s your l e v e l with t h i s agency?
1 ) ____Upper management
2 ) ____Middle management

107

6b.

What i s your l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e with t h i s agency?
1 ) ____1 -5 y ea rs
2 ) ____6 -10 y ea rs
3 ) ____Over 11 y e a r s

7.

What i s your ed u c a t io n a l background?
1 ) ____Ph.D. or terminal degree
2 )____S p e c i a l i s t degree
3 )____Master’ s degree
4 ) ____B a c h e l o r ’ s degree
5)
High school
6)
Less than high school

8.

What do you c o n s i d e r t o be th e fo u r most important d u t i e s or
f u n c t i o n s o f an in t e r n with your agency?
1)
Pub lic r e l a t i o n s and communications
2 ) ____Personnel s u p e r v i s i o n
3 )____Programming, o p e r a t i o n s and e v a l u a t i o n s
4 ) ____Cost co n t ro l and budgeting

9.

N/A

10.

Can you s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f y any methods or procedures t h a t the
in t e r n was exposed t o t h a t could be u t i l i z e d in t h e f u t u r e f o r
the in te rn ? ( e . g . , f i l i n g , p roc ed u res , programming a t h l e t i c
le a g u e , s e t u p , e t c . )
1 ) ____Programming
2 ) ____O rg anization and paperwork (documentation)
3 ) ____Communication and s u p e r v i s o r y s k i l l s
4 )____Budget p rep ar at io n

11.

Do you f e e l your agency was ins trumental in p l a c i n g th e in t er n
at th e completion o f th e i n t e r n s h i p ?
1)
Yes
2 ) ____No
3 ) ____Unknown
11a.

In what way?
1 ) ____ Recommendations
2 ) ____ A c t i v e l y sought p o s i t i o n s in b e h a l f o f in t e r n
3 ) ____ Hired in t e r n t o department or agency s t a f f
4 ) ____ Introduced in t e r n t o another p r o s p e c t i v e employer
5 ) ____ Passed along employment vacancy n o t i c e

lib .

To your knowledge, has t h e former in t e r n r e c e i v e d any job
o f f e r s s i n c e t h e i n t e r n s h i p based on t h e f a c t h e / s h e was
an in ter n?
1)
Yes
2 )____ No

108

12.

How did you le a r n about the i n t e r n s h i p program in Recreation and
Park A dm in ist ra tio n a t Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y ?
1)
Fa cu lt y or s t a f f a t CMU
2)
Michigan R ecr eat io n and Parks A s s o c i a t i o n
3 ) ___ By in t e r n
4 ) ___ Other p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s

13.

In one s e n t e n c e , what do you s e e as th e purpose o f an in t e r n s h i p ?
1 ) ___ To ga in o n - t h e - j o b e x p e r i e n c e
2 ) ____St ro n ge r c o m p e t it o r s f o r employment

14.

Do you know t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f th e i n t e r n s h i p program as s e t
f o r t h by the R ecr ea ti on and Park A dm in is tr a tio n Department at
Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y ?
1)
Yes
2 ) ____No

15.

What would you recommend regarding th e le n g t h o f the in t e r n s h i p ?
1 ) ____30 weeks
2 ) ____Less than 30 weeks
3 ) ____More than 30 weeks

16.

Did t h e v a r i e t y o f e x p e r i e n c e during the i n t e r n s h i p meet the
needs in preparing th e in t e r n f o r the p r o f e s s i o n ?
1)
Yes
2 ) ____No

17.

Was c o n t a c t e v i d e n t with t h e Department o f Recreation and Park
A d m i n is tr a t io n a t Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y during t h e i n t e r n ­
s h ip as f o l l o w s :
17a.

By the department in t e r n s u p e r v is o r ?
1)
Yes
2 ) ____No
a ) ____By phone
b ) ____By mail
c ) ____Personal

18.

How would you r a t e t h e s u p e r v i s o r provided by the CMU Recreation
and Park Department?
1)
Excellent
2 ) ____Good
3 ) ____Average
4 ) ____Poor
5 ) ____Not a c c e p t a b l e

19.

N/A

109

20.

How would you r a t e t h e in t e r n from CMU?
1 ) ___ E x c e l l e n t
2 ) ___ Good
3 ) ___ Average
4 ) ___ Poor
5 ) ___ Not a c c e p t a b l e

21.

N/A

22.

What a d d i t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e would have been b e n e f i c i a l t o th e
in t e r n ex p er ie n ce ?
concentration
1 ) ____Needs t o know more inf ormation bout h i s / h e r
area
2 ) ____Needs t o know more about budgeting and p ro ce s s

23.

N/A

24.

Do you have any reason t o th in k t h a t a c c e p t i n g an in t e r n was
not a good idea in your s i t u a t i o n ?
1)
Yes
2 )____No

25.

To what l e v e l do you f e e l th e i n t e r n s h i p i s geared?
of priority)
1 ) ____A dm in ist ra tio n
2 )____S u p e rv is io n
3 )____Leadership

26.

Would you recommend t h a t every person e n t e r i n g th e p r o f e s s i o n
o f Recre atio n and Parks do an in t e r n s h i p ?
1)
Yes
2 )____No

27.

Do you f e e l th e R ecr eat io n and Park co u r s e s at Central Michigan
U n i v e r s i t y prepared t h e i n t e r n f o r the i n t e r n s h i p ?
1 )____Yes
2 )____No

28.

Are you aware o f th e p r e s e n t p ro ce s s f o r s c r e e n i n g and s e l e c t i n g
i n t e r n s at CMU’ s R ecr ea ti on and Park Department?
1)
Yes
2 ) ____No
28a.

Is t h e p r o c e s s :
1 )____D e s ir a b le ?
2 )____Und esirable?
3 )____No comment

( i n order

110

29.

Would you recommend o t h e r s t u d en t s take t h e i n t e r n s h i p program
in t h e Recre atio n and Park Department at Central Michigan
University?
1)
Yes
2 ) ____No

30.

What s u g g e s t i o n s do you have f o r improving t h e i n t e r n s h i p
programs? P l e a s e e x p l a i n .
1 ) ____More communications with CMU s u p e r v i s o r

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adkinsom, J . A. "The A d m i n is t r a t iv e I n t e r n s h i p . "
v e r s i t y o f Kansas, 1965.

Lawrence:

Uni ­

B a l l , B. P. "The Undergraduate I n t e r n s h i p Technique: An Essay on
Program Development." Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e Annual Meeting o f
t h e American P o l i t i c a l S c ie n c e A s s o c i a t i o n , San F r a n c i s c o ,
C a l i f o r n i a , September 2 - 5 , 1976.
B a l u t i s , A. P.
Program."

"An Evaluation o f the New York S t a t e Assembly Intern
Unpublished paper, New York S t a t e C o l l e g e , 1977.

Bowler, R. M. "Fieldwork S u p e rv is or s Manual."
U n i v e r s i t y o f Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 1982.

Unpublished paper,

Bunch, R. A.
"An Evaluation o f S e l e c t e d I n t e r n s h i p Programs
Sponsored by the National Re cre at io n and Park A s s o c i a t i o n . "
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Kansas, 1971.
Center f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l Development o f t h e Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory.
"The Impact and E val ua tio n o f
I n t e r n s h i p s . " Washington, D.C., 1985.
Creager, J . A. "Goals and Achievements o f t h e ACE I n te r n s h i p
Program in Academic A d m i n is t r a t io n ." Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, 1971.
Eden, J. E. "An Evaluation o f t h e I n t e r n s h i p in Educational
A d m i n is t r a t io n ." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M i ss o u r i,
1965.
Fagon, R. W. "Student Evaluation o f an Urban I n t e r n s h i p Program."
Paper p res ent ed at th e American S o c i o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n
m e e t i n g s , San Antonio, Texas, August 2 7 - 3 1 , 1984, 1985.
Fe vi ng er, F. R. "A Three Parameter Model f o r Pla nni ng, Monitoring
and Evaluating Human S e r v i c e s F i e l d E xp eri en ce. " EDIC Mono­
graph. Omaha, Nebraska: EDIC A s s o c i a t e s , 1984.
Geren, M. R. "An Evaluation o f the I n t e r n s h i p Program in Educa­
t i o n a l A dm in ist ra tio n a t East Texas S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . "
Ph.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , East Texas S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1981.

Ill

112

Gobel, C. "Evaluation o f the WICHE Intern Program in t h e S t a t e o f
Oregon." Boulder, Colorado: Western I n t e r s t a t e Commission
f o r Higher Education, Oregon S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1971-1972.
Greenbaum, A. F. "A D e s c r i p t i o n and I n i t i a l Evaluation o f the
Undergraduate I n te r n s h i p in Student Development at t h e Uni ver ­
s i t y o f M a s s ac h us et t s , Amherst." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Uni ver ­
s i t y o f M a s s a ch u s et t s , 1975.
Halteman, B. M. "The Use and E f f e c t s o f P o l i t i c a l I n t e r n s h i p s in
Higher Education." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Va nde rb il t U n i v e r s i t y ,
1980.
Hanson, J.
" In t e r n s h ip s and the I n d i v id u a l: S u g g e s ti o n s f o r Imple­
menting (or Improving) an I n te r n sh i p Program." Communication
Education 33 ( 19 84) : 53-51.
Haviland, M. G. "Good Grades f o r Liberal Arts I n t e r n s h i p s . "
Journal o f C o l l e g e Placement 5 (1 983): 57-60.
Hayes, R. B. "A Study o f Programs o f P r e - S e r v i c e and I n - S e r v i c e
Education f o r Cooperating School S u p e r v is in g Teachers Used by
S e l e c t e d Teacher Education I n s t i t u t i o n s . "
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
U n i v e r s i t y o f Kansas, 1960.
H e ig e s , H. E. "Progress and Development o f a Student I n te r n sh i p
Program in Geography." Unpublished paper, C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y , 1977.
_________ . "A Student I n te r n s h i p Program in Geography."
paper, C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1972.

Unpublished

Howe, C. Z.
"Evaluation o f Leisure Programs." Leisu re Today.
Journal o f Phys ica l Education and R e c r e a t i o n , v o l . 10, p. 39.
Hutkin, R. M. "The Community C o ll e g e Cooperative I n te r n s h i p
Program: An Evalua tion o f the I n te r n s h i p Core A c t i v i t i e s . "
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y , 1971.
Ivy, W. F. "A D ia g n o s t i c Design f o r I n d i v i d u a l i z e d F i e l d and Campus
I n t e r n s h i p . " Paper pr es en te d at t h e Annual I n t e r n a t i o n a l Con­
v e n t i o n o f t h e Council f o r Exceptional Children, D e t r o i t ,
Michigan, April 4 - 8 , 1983.
K o l l , P. J .
"Evaluation o f the Intern in Educational A dm in is t ra t io n
in Wisconsin and Minnesota." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Loyola Uni­
v e r s i t y , 1984.
Konsky, C. " P r a c ti c a l Guide t o Development and A dm in is tr at io n o f an
I n t e r n s h i p Program:
I s s u e s , Procedures, and Forms." Unpub­
l i s h e d paper, U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , 1976.

113

Kraus, R. G., and C u r t i s s , J. E. C re at iv e Management in Recreation
and Park s. S t . Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1982.
Land, G. A. "A Proposed Model f o r I n te r n s h i p s in Human S e r v i c e s
P r o f e s s i o n s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Maryland,
1980.
Lanese, L. D. "How to Get an Intern Off and Running:
Performance and I n s t r u c t i o n 22 (1 983): 30 - 3 2 .

A Model."

Lapan, S. D . , and Vogal, F. X. " Ch eck li st f o r U n i v e r s i t y S u p e r v i­
s o r s and F i e ld Experience." Unpublished paper, S ou th ea ste rn
I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y , 1982.
Lowery, J. H. "Guidelines f o r F i e l d Placements in S o c i a l G e r o n to l­
ogy Courses." Paper p res ent ed at the Annual Meeting o f the
American S o c i o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , D e t r o i t , Michigan, August 31September 1, 1983.
Lundegren, H. G . , and F a r r e l l , P. Evaluation f o r Le isu re S e r v i c e
Managers. P h i l a d e l p h i a : Saunders C o ll e g e P u b l i s h i n g , 1985.
Mares, K. R . , and o t h e r s .
"A Focus on A t t i t u d e s and P r a c t i c e s o f
1,621 Departments and Central O f f i c e s on U.S. Campuses Concern­
ing I n t e r n s h i p s . " Ra lei gh , North C aro li na, 1984.
Mason, G.
"Coordinating t h e I n te rn sh i p Program: The Ins and Outs
o f D i r e c t i n g I n t e r n s . " Paper p res en ted at t h e Annual Meeting
o f the Central S t a t e s Speech A s s o c i a t i o n , I n d i a n a p o l i s ,
Indiana, April 4 - 6 , 1985.
_________ . "A National Survey o f I n te r n s h i p s in Speech Communica­
t i o n . " Michigan, 1985.
Mauke, 0. R. "An Evaluation o f the I n te rn sh ip Program at En d ico tt
Ju nio r C o l l e g e . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas,
1965.
McCuskey, D. Teacher Education and the Pub lic S c h o o l s . F o r t i e t h
Yearbook o f th e A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Student Teaching. Cedar
F a l l s , Iowa: A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Student Teaching, 1961.
McDonald, B. A. " P ro fe s s io n a l I n te r n s h i p : Student Manual."
Carbondale: Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y , 1983.
Morris, S. B., and Haas, L. J.
"Evaluating Undergraduate F i e l d
Placement: An Empirical Approach." Teaching o f Psychology 11
(1 98 4) : 166 -68.

114

Norsted, R. M. "An A n a l y s i s o f the U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota
I n te r n s h i p Program in Educational A d m i n is tr a t io n ." Ph.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota, 1974.
O’Brian, J. L. "An Evaluation o f t h e P r o f e s s i o n a l
I n t e r n s h i p in
Educational A d m i n is tr a t io n ." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , P en ns ylv an ia
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1963.
O’D o n n el l, S. B. "An Evalua tion o f the R e s i d e n t i a l I n t e r n s h i p as
Trai nin g f o r Student Personnel G e n e r a l i s t s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a ­
t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Denver, 1967.
O l d f i e l d , K . , and Ayers, M. "Maximizing the B e n e f i t s o f an Adminis­
t r a t i v e I n te r n s h i p : Some P r a c t i c a l Advice." S p r i n g f i e l d ,
Illin ois:
Sangamon S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1984.
Pr of ug hi, V. L. "Student In ter ns in the Pu b li c S e c t o r . "
l i s h e d e s s a y s , Rhode Island U n i v e r s i t y , 1976.

Unpub­

Rossey, P. W. "An Evaluation o f the I n te rn sh i p in Educational
A dm in is t ra t io n With Sp ec ia l Emphasis on t h e E f f e c t s on t h e
I n te rn ." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Wayne S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1965.
Rubin, S.
"Performance A pp ra is a l: A Guide t o B e t t e r S u p e rv is o r
Evaluation P r o c e s s e s . " Paper presen ted at the meeting o f th e
National S o c i e t y f o r I n te r n s h i p s and E x p e r i e n t i a l Learning,
R a le i g h , North C ar o li n a , January 1986.
Sa k ie y , F. A. "The E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f th e Doctoral I n t e r n s h i p Program
in V o c a t io n a l- T e c h n i c a l Education Offered by Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y
as Viewed by th e Cooperating A g en ci es ." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y , 1973.
S a t a r i a n o , W. A. "Undergraduate I n t e r n s h i p s :
Problems and P r o s ­
p e c t s . " - Teaching S o c i o l o g y 6 (1979): 3 55- 72.
S h e c k e l s , T. F. " In t e r n s h ip s in Writing." Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e
Annual Meeting o f t h e Conference o f C o ll e g e Composition and
Communication, New Orleans, Lo u is ia n a, March 13 - 1 5 , 1984.
Sigman, R. L. " Se rvi ce -L ear nin g I n t e r n s h i p s : How t o R e a l i z e t h e
P o s s i b i l i t i e s and Make th e Most o f Them." R ale ig h: North
C arolina I n te rn sh i p O f f i c e , 1972.
_________ . "Supervisor P a r t i c i p a n t s in North Carolina S t a t e
Government I n te r n s h i p Program." Raleigh: North Ca rolina
I n te r n s h i p O f f i c e , 1973.
Simonds, J . L. "An Evaluation o f t h e P r o f e s s i o n a l I n te r n s h i p in
Educational A d m i n is t r a t io n ." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f
Minnesota, 1974.

115

S t a u f f e r , T. M. "Assessment o f Outcomes From th e Academic Adminis­
t r a t i o n I n te rn sh i p Program." Washington, D.C.: Academic
A dm in ist ra tio n I n te rn sh i p Program, American Council on Educa­
t i o n , 1975.
Wegner, K. W. "Beginning Counseling Practicum: An Ev alu at ion o f
t h e I n te r n s h i p Program in National Counselor T ra i n i n g ."
Columbus: Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Model Trai ning P r o j e c t , 1978.
Wright, L. V. "A Research-Based Model D i s t r i c t A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
I n te r n s h i p Program." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Loyola U n i v e r s i t y ,
1984.