5. The Questionnaire Study

[next chapter] [previous chapter] [contents]

• Introduction and Background
• Results
• Variation between Courses
• Discussion and Implications

Introduction and Background

The purpose of this chapter is to use the Work Experience Questionnaire (WEQ) data to explore how work placement students experience learning in the work environment and how their experiences differ between courses. We ask the following questions.

• Are the courses perceived to be different by the students?

• How are they different?

(A full description of the background to the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), the parent instrument, and the development of the Work Experience Questionnaire is provided in Chapter 3).

The WEQ like the CEQ, is designed to explore students’ perceptions of the environment in which they learn. Studies of university courses and academic departments have shown that students’ perceptions of the context in which they learn influence their approaches to learning and the outcomes achieved. Experiences of good teaching, ‘clear goals’ and appropriate assessment are associated with more effective learning processes and outcomes. These outcomes include the reported development of generic employment related competencies such as problem solving and communication skills (Ramsden 1992; Wilson, Lizzio & Ramsden 1996).

An analysis of previous interviews of students on work placement indicated that similar findings would be likely to emerge in this context (Martin & Bowden 1992). When the students in the Martin and Bowden study reported a lack of satisfaction with their placement, they typically talked about three things: first, being uncertain of their role and their tasks; second, receiving very little support or assistance in undertaking tasks; and third, being given endless menial tasks, such as photocopying, or errand running, which they saw as unrelated to the development of professional competence.

Therefore, students would most likely report satisfaction and development of generic skills where work placements goals were clearly stated and supported, and where students were given professionally relevant work.

Investigations using the CEQ have reported associations between students’ perceptions as process variables and their approaches to learning, generic skills development, overall satisfaction and assessment grades as outcome variables (Ramsden 1991; Wilson, Lizzio & Ramsden 1996). Given that one aim of work placement is the development of employment related generic skills, the present study used the CEQ’s ‘Generic skills’ scale (Ainley & Long 1995) as the principal outcome measure, together with a set of additional items previously used to measure outcomes among Griffith University graduates (Griffith University 1994). The CEQ’s ‘overall satisfaction’ item, slightly amended to refer to the work placement rather than the whole course of study, was used as the other outcome variable. The CEQ ‘Generic skills’ scale is subsequently referred to as the short ‘Generic skills’ scale and, when used together with the additional nine items from the Griffith University study, as the long ‘Generic skills’ scale.

The questions and the scales of the questionnaire on which the study is based are given below.

Table 5.1 Scales and Questions of the Work Experience Questionnaire

Results

We begin by examining some technical aspects of the Work Experience Questionnaire (WEQ): the reliability of its scales and the structural relations between the scales. We then describe the variation in the results between courses. The process variables describe students’ experiences of the work placement and the context in which they are learning. These scales comprise ‘Clear goals’ and standards’, ‘Support for learning’, and ‘Focus on menial tasks’. The outcome variables comprise the ‘Generic skills’ scale (long and short form) and the ‘Overall satisfaction with work placement’ item.

Reliability and Structure

Table 5.2 shows the relationship between items and scales in the WEQ, equivalence between WEQ and CEQ scales, and internal consistencies (Cronbach alpha values) for the WEQ scales.

Table 5.2 Work Experience Questionnaire Scales

The following items were omitted from the analysis since they did not show satisfactory item-scale correlations: 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 22. Table 1 shows that each of the scales has acceptable reliability with the ‘Generic skills’ Scale (long form) having the highest reliability (alpha = .91), and ‘Support for learning’ the lowest (alpha = .74), but nevertheless, still acceptable.

Table 5.3 shows interrelations between the scales. Note that high values on the menial task scale indicate agreement with items such as ‘In this placement I’m seen as an extra pair of hands rather than a developing professional’ and that scores on this scale would be expected to correlate negatively with the remaining scales, which are all positively keyed.

Table 5.3 Scale Interrelations

Decimals omitted: N = 127 r >.19, p < .05

Table 5.3 shows that the long and short forms of the ‘Generic skills’ scale are highly correlated (r= .93). They can be regarded as measuring identical constructs for the purposes of this chapter. More importantly, Table 5.3 indicates a clear pattern of association between the process and the product variables. Students who report they experience strong ‘Support for learning’, ‘Clear goals’ and a lesser emphasis on ‘menial tasks’ in their placement are more likely also to report extensive generic skills development (r= .73; r= .76; r= .31) and higher levels of ‘Overall satisfaction with work placement’ (r= .60; r= .76; r= -.36). The correlations of the ‘Generic skills’ (long form and short form) outcome variables with the ‘Focus on menial tasks’ variables are considerably smaller than with the other two process variables (r= -31 & 30, .76 & .73 respectively). This suggests that ensuring that students are clear about the goals and students believing that they are getting support in learning may be more important than concern about a focus on menial skills.

Variation between Courses

Table 5.4 shows the mean values for all scales in the Work Experience Questionnaire (WEQ) for the whole sample (N= 127). Table 5.5 shows the same results by course. The scale is from 1 to 5 in each case, with a value of 5 indicating strong agreement, 3 indicating neither agreement nor disagreement, and 1 indicating strong disagreement.

Table 5.4 Scale Means and Standard Deviations for each Scale in the
Work Experience Questionnaire (N=127)

The table shows similar means on each of the scales ranging from 3.1 to 3.38. The ‘Focus on menial tasks scale’ was reverse scored.

Table 5.5 shows a breakdown of the scale means and standard deviations by course. Large differences between the courses are apparent. Among the four case study courses, shown in the first four columns of Table 5.5, Medical Laboratory Science and Engineering are distinctive for their high mean scores on the ‘Clear goals’ (4.0 & 4.10 respectively), ‘Support for learning’ (4.03 & 3.72), ‘Generic skills’ (4.15 & 3.96), and ‘Overall satisfaction with work placement’ item (4.29 & 4.33) and their low mean scores on the menial tasks scale (2.64 & 1.96). In contrast, the Youth Work case study course presents a picture of dissatisfaction, low skills development (2.40), unclear goals (1.75), low ‘Support for learning’ (1.90) and the highest emphasis of any of the courses on menial tasks (2.94). The Accounting case study course falls between these extremes and shows generally higher values on the first four scales than the non-case study courses (‘Clear goals’ 2.97, support 3.36, menial tasks .80, ‘Generic skills’, 3.96, overall satisfaction, 3.75).

Table 5.5 Scale Means and Standard Deviations by Course

As a way of further illustrating the variation between courses, Figure 5.1 illustrates the effect of support, goal clarity and menial work on satisfaction and generic skill development for the four case study courses.

Figure 5.1 Effect of Support, Goal Clarity and Menial Work on Satisfaction and Generic Skills

While the means of individual items in all but one scale were consistent with the scale scores, there was some variation in the ‘Generic skills’ scale which prompted further investigation. An analysis of variation between courses at the individual item level highlights the ways in which the different courses encourage the development of specific skills. Table 5.6 shows a breakdown of the ‘Generic skills’ items by course.

On the whole, these results are much as expected, with students from the Medical Laboratory Science and the Engineering case study courses, scoring consistently high in most of the areas of skills development. The perceived development of skills in the Accounting case study course shows that this course is particularly strong in the areas of ‘Written communication skills’ and ‘Ability to plan own work’, although, in general, skills are developed slightly less well than in the Engineering and Medical Laboratory Science case study courses. In the Youth Work course, on the other hand, overall scores on the skill development variables are substantially lower than in any other course, but on the oral communication variable, they are the highest. This seems likely to reflect the fact that communication with clients was the single most important objective of students undertaking the workplace experience in this course.

Table 5.6 Mean Values for ‘Generic Skills’ Items by Course

Discussion and Implications

Perhaps the single most striking result from this analysis of the quantitative data is the considerable variation in the way these work placement components of courses are experienced by students. Among the four case study courses, Medical Laboratory Science and Engineering are distinctive for their high scores on the ‘Clear goals’, ‘Support for learning’, ‘Generic skills’, and ‘Overall satisfaction with work placement’ items, and their low scores on the menial tasks scale. In contrast, the Youth Work case study course presents a picture of dissatisfaction, low skills development, unclear goals, low ‘Support for learning’ and a focus on menial tasks. The Accounting case study course falls between these extremes and shows generally higher values on the first four scales than the non-case study courses.

If we now look at the correlation analysis we see that, as expected from previous research (Entwistle & Ramsden 1983), students who report that they experience strong ‘Support for learning’, ‘Clear goals’ and a lesser emphasis on menial tasks, (the process variables) in their placement are more likely also to report extensive generic skills development and higher levels of overall satisfaction (the outcome variables). This confirms expectations that aspects of curriculum known to be vital in classroom-based curriculum are equally important in the workplace. This is a fact which is yet to be appreciated by many academic staff involved in developing workplace learning.

There is a weaker relationship between the outcome variables and menial tasks scale. This suggests that ensuring that students are clear about the goals and that they are supported in their workplace learning is more important than concern about the fact they may be asked to undertake a range of menial tasks. This point is highlighted in the interview study where it becomes clear students are typically happy to undertake menial tasks when they feel they are developing professionally overall.

The analysis of the development of individual skills across the four case study courses suggested that workplace learning experiences can probably be planned to target and develop very specific capacities in a way not previously appreciated. In this analysis, as expected, Medical Laboratory Science and Engineering scored consistently high in most areas of skills development whereas Youth Work and Accounting scored very high in one or two strategic areas. Accounting scored very high in the areas of ‘written communication’ and ‘planning of own work’ and this may well be associated with the seminar and workshop series run by the department in parallel with the work experience; this series had written communication and self sufficiency as major objectives (for further discussion and explanation, see Chapter 6).

Finally, a comment on the Work Experience Questionnaire (WEQ) itself: even though it is still a relatively under-developed instrument, the scales do appear to reliably detect substantial differences between the experiences of students in different courses. There is little reason to doubt that following further refinement, the WEQ will be capable of reliably and validly measuring the perceptions of students of their work placements.

The Work Experience Questionnaire, like the Course Experience Questionnaire, is designed to explore students’ perceptions of the environment in which they learn. Studies of university courses and academic departments have shown that students’ perceptions of the context in which they learn influence their approaches to learning and the outcomes achieved. Experiences of good teaching and having clear goals and appropriate assessment are associated with more effective learning processes and outcomes. These outcomes include the reported development of generic employment-related competencies such as problem solving and communication skills (Ramsden 1992; Wilson, Lizzio & Ramsden 1996).

[back to top]