Service measurement of RIT co-op program

(1)

Rochester Institute of Technology

RIT Scholar Works

Theses

Thesis/Dissertation Collections

1996

Service measurement of RIT co-op program

Veeramol Maneeratanasarn

Follow this and additional works at:

http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses

Recommended Citation

(2)

Service

Measurement

of

RIT

Co-op

Program

by

A project submitted to the

Faculty

of the school of

Food,

Hotel,

and Travel Management

at

Rochester Institute of

Technology

in partial furfillment of the requirements

for the degree

of

(3)

ROCHESTER mSTITUTE

OF

TECHNOLOGY

School of Food, Hotel and Travel Management

Department

oC

Graduate Studies

M.S. Hospitality-Tourism Management

Presentation of ThesislProjed

Findin~s

Name:

VE_E_RAM_O_L_ _

MAN_E_E_RA_T_AN_A_SARN

Date:

2/10/97

SS#:

_

Title of Research:

---=:.SER~V~I~C~E_:.M~EA~SUR~EM~ENT~~O=_F..:.R~I:.:.T...:CO-O~~P..:.P~R~OG.:::RAM=~

_ __'__ _

Specific Recommendations: (Use other side

if

necessary.)

Thesis Committee:

(1) _ _

D_R_._E_DW_ARD

_ _S_TOCK

_ _HAM

CChairperson)

~

DR. RICHARD

MARECKI

(2)

_

OR

Faculty Advisor:

(3)

_

DR. EDWARD STOCKHAM

Number of Credits Approved: _ _

...;..0.;;;;.2...CR=E;;;.;DI::.:T:..;:S

_

2/10/97

Date

2/10/97

Date

Committee Chairperson's Signature

Department Chairperson's Signature

Note: This form

will

not

be

signed

by

the Department Chairperson until

all corrections,

as suggested

in

the specific recommendations (above) are completed.

(4)

FORMK

ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

School of Food, Hotel and Travel Management

Department of Graduate Studies

M.S. Hospitality-Tourism Management

Statement Grantin2 or Denyin2 Permission to Reproduce ThesislProject

The author of a thesis or project should complete one of the following statements

and include this statement as the page following the title page.

Title of thesis/project:

-=sE~R~V:..::I;.;::C:.:::E...:M:..::EA=S:.:::UREM=:..::EN=T;...;:O::..F_=R;..:.:I:.:T;...;:Co-.:::...;O::.:P__=_P.:.:ROG=RAM==---

_

I,

VEEB AMOT ,

MANEERATANA~by

(grant,

deny) permission to the

Wallace Memorial Library of R.I.T., to reproduce the document titled above in

whole or part.

Any

reproduction will not be for commercial use or profit.

OR

I,

VEERAMOL MANEERATANAsliP"fer to be contacted each time a

request for reproduction is made.

I

can be reached at the following address:

5

9 /]

3 MATINGTONGTANEE

CHAENGWATANA RD.

PARKHET

(5)

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr.Stockham for guidance _my

project. I would like to thank Lynne

Perry

for the coop

data,

to

Ping

and Pui for

letting

me use their computer with

several nice dinners. Most of all , to my parents for

(6)

Service Measurement of RIT

Co-op

Program

Abstract

This is a continuation of project in service measurement

in RIT cooperative education program developed

by

Amynah

Virani in 1993. This _study is

testing

a SPSS (the

Statistical Package for the Social _Sciences) program that

analyze statistical data for the evaluation process in School

of

Food,

Hotel,

and Travel management.

The t-test is done in 3 years from 1993 through 1995 in

gender and major of students and gender of employers. The

questionnaire is _already in use. The data is obtained from

employers and student forms and it has to be paired to use in

the research. There were 37 pair of participants in 1994 and

90 pair of participants in 1995 compare with 93 pairs of

participants in 1993 which is already collected.

Most of the significant differences are in food

major. There are eight significant differences in food vs.

(7)

0.1,

nineteen of them have p-value less than or equal to

0.05,

three of them have p-value less than or equal to 0.01

and none of them has p-value less than or equal to 0.001.

The lesser p-value the more the differences.

The most significant changes _category are 'pay'

by

gender and

by

major. Average men were paid more than women

and

diversity

in major but still less satisfaction than other

categories in student rating. Sex of evaluator has most

effect on what

they

evaluated in 1995.

Generally,

male

employers gave the higher _rating to student more than female

employers in 1995.

Housing

and _coop coordinator are another

differences occurring

by

major. Hotel and travel majors have

the less satisfaction value to their

housing

and _coop

(8)

Study

3

Methodology

3

Hypothesis 4

Definition of Terms 5

Assumption 5

Scope and Limitation 6

Long

Range Consequences 6

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction 7

What is cooperative education? 7

Role of _co-op program staff 8

Student responsibilities 8

What are the benefits 9

Gender differences 9

Anthropological data 10

Economic perspectives on work

and

family

issue 10

(9)

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 64

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES 69

APPENDICES

A. Detail _summary of employers'

evaluation

of student performance

by

gender and major

and detail _summary of student satisfaction

rating

by

gender and major 71

B. RIT'

s _survey forms 114

C. SPSS Program 118

(10)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure number Page

1. Comparison of sex of students from

1993 through 1995 18

2. Comparison of major of students from

1993 through 1995 19

3. Comparison of _company type from

1993 through 1995 20

4. Comparison of wages of students from

1993 through 1995 22

5.

Comparison of how obtained _coop from

1993 through 1995 23

6. Comparison of student difficulties from

1993 through 1995 24

7 . Comparison of

employer'

s evaluation of student performance in Accurate and

thorough from 1993 through 1995 25

8. Comparison of employer's evaluation

of student performance in Volume and rate

from 1993 through 1995 26

of student performance in Competence

of student performance in

Ability

to learn

(11)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure number Page

of student performance in Judgement

of student performance in Attitude

of student performance in Relations

of student performance in Communication

of student performance in Overall

performance from 1993 through 1995 35

18. Comparison of students _rating their

job _{responsibility} from 1993 through 1995 37

coop and career interest from

1993 through 1995 38

location from 1993 through 1995 39

Housing

Pay

(12)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure number _Page

(13)

LIST OF TABLES

Table number Page

1A. Significant difference of employer'

s

evaluation of student performance

by

gender in 1994 50

2B. Significant difference of student

satisfaction _rating of _coop experience

by

gender in 1994 51

3C. Significant difference of student

by

gender in 1995 51

4D. Significant difference of employer's

by

sex of evaluator in 1993 52

5E. Significant difference of employer's

by

6F. Significant difference of employer'

s

by

7G. Significant difference of student

satisfaction rating of _coop experience

by

major in 1993 56

8H. Significant difference of employer's

by

major in 1994 57

91. Significant difference of student

by

major in 1994 58

10J. Significant difference of employer's

(14)

LIST OF TABLES

Table number Page

UK. Significant difference of student

(15)

LIST OF TABLES

(Appendices)

Table number Page

1. Detail _summary of employers'

evaluation of

student performance

by

gender in 1993 72

evaluation of

student performance

by

gender in 1994 73

evaluation of

student performance

by

gender in 1995 74

4. Detail _summary of student satisfaction

rating

by

gender in 1993 75

rating

by

gender in 1994 7 6

rating

by

gender in 1995 77

evaluation

by

gender of

evaluator in 1993 78

evaluation

by

gender of

evaluation

by

gender of

10. Detail summary of employers'

evaluation

by

food vs. hotel

in 1993 81

evaluation

by

food vs. hotel

(16)

LIST OF TABLES

(Appendices)

Table number Page

evaluation

by

food vs. hotel

in 1995 83

evaluation

by

food vs. travel

in 1993 84

evaluation

by

food vs. travel

in 1994 85

evaluation

by

food vs. travel

in 1995 8 6

evaluation

by

hotel vs. travel

in 1993 87

evaluation

by

hotel vs . travel

in 1994 88

evaluation

by

hotel vs. travel

in 1995 89

evaluation

by

travel vs. nutrition

in 1993 90

evaluation

(17)

LIST OF TABLES

(Appendices)

Table number Page

evaluation

by

food vs. nutrition

in 1993 93

evaluation

by

food vs. nutrition

in 1994 94

evaluation

by

food vs. nutrition

in 1995 95

rating

by

food vs. hotel in 1993 96

26. Detail summary of student satisfaction

rating

by

food vs . hotel in 1994 97

rating

by

food vs. hotel in 1995 98

rating

by

food vs. travel in 1993 99

rating

by

rating

by

rating

by

food vs. nutrition in 1993 102

(18)

LIST OF TABLES

(Appendices)

Table number Page

rating

by

hotel vs. travel in 1993 105

rating

by

hotel vs . travel in 1994 106

rating

by

hotel vs. travel in 1995 107

rating

by

travel vs. nutrition in 1993 108

rating

by

rating

by

evaluation

by

1993 vs. 1994 Ill

evaluation

by

1993 vs. 1995 112

42 Detail _summary of employers'

evaluation

(19)

Chapter 1

Introduction and statement of _study

Introduction

Technology

(RIT)

_coop program is

the fifth largest and the fourth oldest in the United States.

Each year, 1,300 employees _employ more than 2,500 students of

RIT. The Co-operative Education is a part of the curriculum

in the School of

Food,

Hotel and Travel Management since

1912. All FH&T students complete a minimum one year of

courses before

they

are eligible to start their _co-op work

experience. As the _co-op _students,

they

can gain experience

by

applying what

they

have learned in the class room. The

coop experience can

help

the students plan their career goals

and get a connection with employers for employment in the

future.

Furthermore,

the wages that gain

by

_working can

help

in

financing

their education.

Background

For the school of

Food,

Hotel and Travel

Management,

to

(20)

important for _coop system _so, a formal statistical tool is

set to figure the evaluation forms filled out

by

students and

employers .

Statement of problem

After the students and their employers filled out the

evaluation forms that provided

by

the _coop office, these

forms are collected

by

a statistical program. The computer

program referred as the Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences (SPSS) is designed for _evaluating the process in the

School of

Food,

Hotel and Travel Management. The

quantitative measure for analysis of the _coop program has

never differentiated

by

sex and major. In _general, the

different gender has the difference in decision making and

the different maj'ors cope the different problems as well.

Unfortunately, the 1993 data was never compared with the data

in 1994 and 1995.

Therefore,

the effective use of _coop

report information has never been measured.

(21)

and evaluation of the _coop

learning,

will benefit the new

coming coop. students. To compare the evaluation between 1993

through 1995 is also a part of a project.

By

_categorizing

the report

by

sex and _major, the _coop program can obtain the

knowledge of what the differences between them.

Significance

A SPSS program

help

in _grouping the data and save time

instead of _manually _collecting the file. It can be used as a

reference in _making decision for future use of the coop. The

comparison between sex and major is to analyze the problem

and solutions of each group. The 1995 data is the most

recent data we have.

However,

by

_comparing with the last

data

1993,

the result will be known whether the _satisfactory

of _coop students

""and

employers increase or decrease or has no

change

during

3 years. It will be longitudinal _study for the

future year. The information from _measuring the benefit of

coop will be advantage to the _coop system.

Methodology

(22)

students and employers. The data which is analyzed

by

sex

and majors will be compare between 1993,1994 and 1995. In

addition, the copy of _coop work experience is attached.

2. Instrument

RIT standard form.

The SPSS computer program developed

by

Amynah Virani.

3. Administration of survey

Total population in the _coop VS total _survey

by

hand out.

Match of students and employers.

4. Analysis of data

SPSS program and t-Test.

Procedure:

Put the 1994-5 data in the SPSS program.

Compare the 1993 data which has collected _already with

1994-5's.

Bring

the information which classified

by

sex and major.

Note the differences.

Analysis the data.

(23)

in cooperative student. The different gender and age have

the effect in making decision and _solving the problem. Each

major may has the different problems because the tasks are

not the same. The difference between these two groups is

still a question that need to be found

by

t-Test .

Definition of terms

Cooperative education: The access to alternate academic _study

with full-time paid employment that is planned, evaluated and

directly

related to your career goal.

P-value:

Probability

which can be defined as proportions that

reflect the likelihood of a particular outcome occurring.

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

(SPSS)

: A

computer program used to analyze statistical data.

t-Test: One of several statistical procedures used to test a

null hypothesis. The t-Test tests a hypothesis _concerning

the mean of a normal distribution.

Assumption

Technology

has not used SPSS

(24)

has never done before. In _my _opinion, the _coop didn't use

the SPSS program effectively.

Scope and limitation

The scope will be RIT co-operative students in the

school of

Food,

Hotel and Travel management. This _study is

used _only to compare the employer evaluation and student

evaluation form categorized

by

sex and major from 1993

through 1995.

Long

range consequences

For the future year, this research hope that there is

the continuous longitudinal study. After the research come

out, the new _coming student can use this _survey to find a

proper

training

job. The

following

improvement can occur:

redesign the _coop report filled out

by

_student,

bring

this

useful information to the curriculum, measure the experience

VS curriculum.

By

_using this _research, the RIT _coop program

can

develop

their system in the decision process and

bring

to

(25)

Chapter 2

Literature Review

The literature review sources are First search-ERIC, the

RIT _coop handbook '94-_'95

, the books related with gender

differences area , and a statistical program for analysis of

student/employer _coop evaluation form project done

by

Amynah

Virani.

The literature review includes the questions that often

asked

by

the _coop students and employers.

By

looking

at the

result of significance differences in gender, the sources can

bring

some more topics in the _coop area. The topics in the

literature review are concentrated on the students and

employers satisfaction, the continuous _study in the

future,

the evaluation of _coop learning.

What is cooperative education?

Co-operative education is a system of

learning

which combines

(26)

can achieve the

learning

in workplace. The word _co-op

reflects the co-operative _relationship between the student,

the employer and the university. All three participation are

obligated for a successful program.

Role of _co-op program staff

Co-op

coordinators

develop

the appropriate work term

opportunities for students. The staffs

help

the student

prepare for the successfully complete the _coop work.

Coordinators and placement staff counsel student on resume

and letter participation, interview skills, job search

techniques, employer _expectation, and _way to strengthen

opportunities on the job.

Student responsibilities

The students are expected to participate

fully

in the _co-op

process. The student general responsibilities are:

-Familiar with the _co-op policies and procedures.

-Checking the co-op bulletin board regularly especially in

(27)

-Inform the _co-op office of address changes.

-Having an answering machine and check messages _regularly.

Leave the number when out-of-town.

-Keep contact with _co-op staff.

What are the benefits?

-Look for potential career interests.

-Attain new skills and _apply

learning

in classroom.

-Develop professional work habits and better human relations

skills.

-Gain practical job experience prior to graduation.

-Increase chance of permanent employment.

-Get the financial support for the education.

Gender difference's

For the results of significance differences in gender

for _coop works, the issue of gender differences must be

mentioned. The research from the biological _sciences, the

social sciences, and _psychology have contributed to the new

(28)

Anthropological data

Males are, on the _average, larger and have better

physical strength than females. In child

behavior,

boys 3-6

years of age exhibit more aggression, rough-and-tumble _play

than girls. Behavioral differences can be diminished in

later childhood when

they

are raised together and boys do

feminine tasks. Thus the existence of gender capacities does

not predict how or what

they

will be.

Considering

society as a entire picture, men are more

frequently

assigned positions of _authority and power in

domestic,

economic, and political arenas than women.

Economic perspectives on work and family issue

Women has changed their roles and activities over the

past 20 years. With the growth of interest in _achieving

economic equality for women, the aspects of women'

s work

participation, the low level of their earnings compare with

(29)

the growing number of service and other female-typed

jobs,

increasing

education and a need for income to meet

family

needs or to

keep

_up standard of living. The desegregation of

occupations was occurred

by

men moved into some female

occupations such as the secretarial and _nursing fields.

Gender research

Researchers explore the differences that exist between

women and men. These examples are the complex relations

among gender that the concept of difference is unavoidable.

-Cynthia Berryman-Fink studied how women and men rate

themselves as competent communicators, contrasting the

findings with how others rate those women and men. She found

that women

rated'"

themselves less

favorably

than did other

people. Men rate themselves

highly

on _commanding authority,

while women rate themselves as

being

good nonverbal

communicators and more empathetic than men (Cynthia

Berryman-Fink,

1994, 5-9)

.

-Barbara Gayle and Raymond Preiss'

(30)

face with conflict.

They

found _only small

differences,

but

differences correspond to sex-role expectations that men tend

to choose competitive strategies and women tend to _employ

cooperative ones (Barbara Gayle and Raymond

Preiss,

1994,

10-23)

.

-Edward

Mabry

and Carolyn Sorgel examined the group

discussion.

They

found that women _may find themselves at a

disadvantage in group with more men than women in them. In

such groups, both women and men perceive the men as

holding

the

leadership

positions. In female-dominated groups, women

manage not much better.

They

suggest that more than such

gender affects these decisions (Edward

Mabry

and Carolyn

Sorgel, 1994, 61-69)

.

-In a meta-analysis of studies _seeking to know how

managers get their people to do

things,

Kathleen

Krone,

Mike

Allen, and John Ludlum found men tended to use both reward

and punishment as incentives. In this _study, women and men

relied equally upon rational processes. Their conclusion

suggests role effects and men'

(31)

within organizations (Kathleen

Krone,

Mike

Allen,

and John

(32)

Chapter III

Chapter 3

Results and Discussions

This study is continuation from Virani '

s project. The

SPSS program file was _already written,

however,

there are

some changes and update information. For a data

files,

two

evaluation surveys are used. One is the standard _survey from

employers. The other one is standard evaluation _survey for

cooperative students obtained from the _coop and placement

office. The data are collected from summer 1993 to winter

1995.

To create a data

file,

the employers and student files

are need to be paired. Not _only the unpaired _survey

need to be

discarded,

but also the paired data with the

blanks on the particular variables. Those variables are

varOl ' sex' , var02 'major', var07 to varl7

'employers'

evaluation', which are the variables that we do t-Test.

Reconstructed the SPSS program

Reconstructed the SPSS program file is done by:

(33)

-Adding value label of var27 location of employment, the

missing state number 8 'DC (see appendix _A) .

-Adding value label of var04 for '5' double block

instead of Virani '

s program which is _giving two spaces to

indicate what quarters student worked when _they did a double

block , but the second space was left as the same format for

old data.

-Recode the var07 to varl7 from 1'excellent'

to be

5'excellent'

, 2 'very

good'

to be 4

'very

good', 4'marginal' to

be 2'marginal'

and 5'poor'

to be l'poor'. The researcher

recode those value labels inorder to have the same

classification with varl9 to var25.

T-Test

According to the

hypothesis,

the t-Test is done in 3

categories,

by

gender of student,

by

gender of evaluators and

by

major. The researcher didn't do the Anova because the

data is random sample. The t-Test is done from 1993 through

1995.

At this point, the reform of Virani'

s data file has to

be done. From Virani's 1993 data

file,

the researcher cut

out all unmatched data that begin with data _entry number 110

(34)

Not only the entry number 110 to

193,

but also the other

entry that missed the information in column

Ol(sex),

column

02 (major) , or column 07 to

17,

employer's evaluation. The

t-Test can't be _completely accurate unless the number of

sample sizes are equal.

For column 19 to

25,

student's evaluation can be left

blank because the questions come with the choice of no _rating

by

means of the students didn't use the service. So, the

sample sizes for student's evaluation aren't _necessary to be

equal.

As mentioned, the t-Test is done in 3 years, so the

select if command is

being

used in _running each year result.

By

gender

For

example--select if

(var31=l)

t-Test groups=var01(l, 2) /variable=var07 to varl7/

var31--year of study

(1=1993,

2=1994,

3=1995)

var01--gender

(l=male,

2=female)

var07 to varl7

--employer' s evaluation

(35)

By

major

For example:

-select if (var31=3)

t-Test groups=var02

(1,

2) /variable=varl9 to var25/

var31--year of _study

(1=1993,

2=1994,

3=1995)

var02--major

(l=food,

2=hotel, 3=_travel, _4=nutrition)

,-major is

done

by

pair

(1,2),

(2,3), (3,4), (1,3), (1,4).

var07 to varl7

--employer' s evaluation

varl9 to var25--student' s evaluation

As a result of changing the data

file,

the output file

was changed. It means the significant differences are

changed. The frequencies of variables are run to compare the

performance and _tendency of _coop works in 3 years from 1993

through 1995.

Finding Analysis

Female _coop students population are more than male in

each year and to a large extent in number in 19 93 and

1995 (see figurel) . Most of all students came from Hotel

concentration (see figure 2) . This information leads to the

large percentages of hotel _company type that hired coop

students in 1993. But in 1994 and

1995,

the trend is more

(36)

LO O) Oi

JZ

o

CO O) a.

E

o >_ ?

CO

c CD T3

+-* Ui

X CD

(0

c o

CO

CO Q.

E

o

O

a>

O)

ii

a> cri 0) CO 2

E

LL a

CA

c

cu

-o

#^ Ui

cd a

c

CD

O

in

co a> a>

P^

yf^f

Vj? NjO VP

cf- o"-

o~-O O O

-A sO sO nJJ O1- <T- <jN ti^

o o o o o o

ooooooooooo

(37)

LO CD CD SZ O) 3 o CO O) o> o c CD 3 CO O CO

E

c o CO _ CO Q. o O CM CD i_ 3 O)

E

CO <* ur> O) O) Q> CD o> O)

t t * D El &?:$"""" iMilili wmmmm tv o U9m :S:::: 13 $K*j

.>::>:;:::;:|:;:::;::;::Xv:-:::v::: z

%ffi#%:;.yy-: ':y_

""

vx.:.->

'

?;#$;&?:$$*:.

SSWftS^ft^^^

:s;::;:K'm::;-<S./21

:::S::S:%$x^^?>S::::::::::: pK5#K#*SK&:>S^ip !:;:|^^y^;:::x:::::::::;|;;A:

|.^f^^!;:^:iP

wS^SS^i^-ivi-iv

Sv&lj^S^ sfe"$:*?:^

:':::'^::m

W i-h-x^-k-x-^wxo:-:-:-:^-:-:-:*:-:*:^:-:-:3*11::::;:v.;>v:;-:::;::x:>:;::'x >

CD .^r^^^i^^^^ CO 1-&:jj)))))))H TJ 3

:::,,.:;::,:.-.":::.:.,;:v:.,"::. ,.-:-".'::

Hi

4- >yM^^^.%V0^^^0^^wyir

CO K^^^twA-^^^v^wyA^^A

<^ \f^yM$$0^^^f0^^y. :;:;:::j:j::.^^

o

wmm>^

l_ ^^^^^^^^^>^$^Sj;: lgrHririrH8M8

o

{H

CD

j:o:j:vx:;:::::;:v:x:u-:X.:y,,;;S:<v:^J:;:-.V'

*-l^^^^^^^_

'

1

O

_

**H-5>H-s->xffi-:-:-:->:-:-:M ^W-^-KvKvWK^vXw/B \ _{^^^^!PH^883S8S^}

x^x.*-.:..:.:>::.

ox:;:::.'V':..-:.' ::;:..-.:-:-:-:..:::-::-:-.-.-'

. v.-:-

Bill

-

ffi^S^'M^vV:^^:.1-::::v:::::::vv:v:::::::::::::v:;

amm 'y.-y-<:-y<-'y-y>'yyy-#yy::<'':

lllllllllllli

::::i^:::$::>^^^^S;S^Sx^K::; 'SSftSij^tfAStt&WSS

:;.x:::;-:.-:-:-x-xx:x-x::--x:;v.;:.; _{JSLw^S^SSsBSy.:}

O ^^.yl^-yy^^^M^ K3

:v::::y;:Xv:v:::;-;uv:::;>:::v:v-::::v:v:v:-::;

H

::;;:S:;:;:;:;:;S:;:;i;:;:;:;:;:;S:--:i:i LiO

:-.-.:::-..-::::::::::...-:-:.

^>^^^^^^^

::::::::::::-::>:::::.:::::::: x-:::

:-NHMiH

^^^^^

&*Sp$l

.t .t..

^1m:::_{J&&%fLfLtS88%f!LfSlWt sk;*:?.'.:}J&SLii; I "'T'""'"|"" 1

1 T"" ₁ " ' ₁ _i _i *

c

O vP vP vP

^ <T* CT* CT- nP

x0 ^0

0> CT- 0> ^9CT- cr- _c's

cD O O O O o o o O O CD

cD O O O O OOO O O C3

(38)

LO

CD CD

3 O

CO CD o>

o

CD CL

>

>^

C

CO

Q.

o

c o

CO 'l_

CO cx

o O CO

CD

i_

3 O)

CO

M-in CJ) O) O) O) o> o>

T

r-i

D m

CD O.

>. * >s

C CO Q.

o O

CD JZ

CD >

O

0)

O

(39)

The average wage for coop works are range from five

dollars to seven dollars. The trend is increasing. The

wider range of wages is up to more than eleven dollars per

hour(see figure 4).

Most of student obtained coop job

by

their own. The

second most is

by

coop office (see figure 5) . Unlike in

1993, students difficulties are less in 1994 and 1995 (See

figure

6)

.

Employers Rating of Student (figure 7 to 17)

Employers rating of students are variable 07 to 17 in

program file. The five scales of _rating are excellent, very

good, average, marginal and poor. Most of the employer's

comments are between excellent and _very good. The initiative

category is the least average percentage in excellent and

very good rating".

There are a few poor _category in 1993 only and disappear

in 1994 and 1995. In

1994,

some of ratings were dropped from

excellent to very good noticeably. For overall performance

category, an average of excellent and _very good _rating is

about 50% which is

imply

that the FHTM students were

(40)

LO CD CD

3 O

CO

CD

o

c CD

3

CO

CO CD CD CO

C o CO

CO Q.

o o

CD i_ 3 cn

CO "* in O) CD O) o> o> cn 1 r r

D m

Ui CD O) CO

ueq} ejoL<\

66'CH$-6$

66'8$-/$

66'9$-9$

66>$-e$

uei|i ss8"i

,r,:,:f,:,:,r,^

vy ^y *>y vy f> 0s QN On

-*t* \ ^y CT* CuT*- Q>

OOOOOOOOOOO

(41)

oooor^cDio^cocviT-LO CD CD

SZ CD 3 O

CO O)

o

Q. o o o

TJ CD c

2

o

c o CO CO Q.

o

O

in CD L_ 3 O)

co

--a-in <j) ch a> Oi GO Oi

iai

o

Q. O O O T3 CD C

'co

JQ O

o I

3 O CO

CO

o CD CD o o

-o

-O _

o '> CD CO

t r:

f'^p'r j t::

o o

o cn

o co

o o CD

O O in

(42)

LO Ol CD

SZ

TO

3

O

CO CD O)

E

o

CO

CD

3 O

c

CD TD

3

Ui

c

o

CO 'l

CO Q.

o O to

CD

i-3

O)

Is

D

:W,,.vi

llll

::':Sx::.:v. in

:jS;:;:K::: Oi

Oi T

y-yyy.y r

CO CD

3

o

^T-: "*

** _Oi

T5 Oi

<

C

CD

T3 ::;!gj$

3 S-SSSS

CO S&iS:*?:?

:Kj>:-:*::

<.

CO Oi Oi

III

'

:)>?':3p$_Jtillt&SMS%*ffirW%j8&:vf:-:

_14Uiilil1U44

-1 l r 1 1 1 1

0* ^5 c>> vp vP vO

o> o> o^ 0> --5 --5

c3 O O O OOO o o o O

cD O O O OOO o o o O

(43)

CD O

c

CO

E

O

t CD Q.

M

c

CD LO

3

CO cr>

c co

o en

'+-> _CD

03 , 3 ro

E

> o

y*

sz

CD >

c?

fc

+-* "O

O re

S

v

o +-> co ro

O CJ <r u

c

CD

3

o

-a

c ro

cu

M

ro

i_

3 O

CO Tf LO Oj CT) CT) Ol CT) CT)

inhm

WftWiWSW:5 w

:^^-^:^-^:^?:^^il

I

o o D_

c

CJ) CD CO C CD 4-> > CO <

q o

o

O d cn

cu

(44)

CD

O c ro

E

i_ o t: CD Q.

M

c

CD -a

3

M

CO

V4

O LT> CD

c CT)

o

ro O

3 M

ro CO

> CD

CD CD CO

-CD

E

>. o

o M

CL ₍₁₎ fc CD ro O -a_c

c ro

o

CO

'i CD

E

ro 3

CL

E

>o o u l_

CD

ro i_ a

c ro

CD

E

o >

ro ^J-m cn cn cn cn cn cn

D

i$$&:S

o o a.

co c O)

I

ON

O

d

o

o o

d d

cn oo

rjS

O

d

c

(45)

CD O

c CO

l_

o

tz

CD CL

c CD T3 3

^< CO

c O _LO

CD

<?,

CD & ^ >

2

CD *"

CO "

-^ 05

CD CD

>*

"-II

CD

w_ CD

O O

c

C CD

o -*

I

li

s

E

O

o

O

CD

CD i_ 3 O)

CO "* m O) cn c Oj cn cn

T t i

? m

CD

O c

Q.

o O

o o

4 CL

CO

D)

CO

CD 0> CO

i_

CD > <

c

^,,4^^

O

d

o

o cn

o

co

co 6^ o^

OOO

odd

N IO U)

c

.2

"cd

cj

X

o o o o CO OJ

(46)

CD O c

CO

i

o

CD Q.

u> C

CD TO

3 +-CO

c o

LO CD Oi

4-* CO

r

3 _O

CO +-"

> CD CO_CD

CO CD

!_ i

CD

F

O

Q. o

E

_r

CD i_

rn

O a>

c o

o CO

>.

CO '

Q. _n

b <

o

O c

CD i_ 3 CD

CO * in cn cn cn cn cn cn

T i i

D m

CO

a>

o

15

<

o o a.

CO c

CO

H^.Mir^^^t,^^^.^

C

^y xy ^y vy vy ^y -^* vy -^* ^y ^y o^ o^ _o u* o^ u* Cj* 0s cv- v* o^

ooooooooooo

dododoc6c6ocid

(47)

CD

O c CO

o Tz CD a.

*

c CD o

3

4.

CO

c o

4

CO

LD

CO CD

>

CD CD

CO

O CD

>. CO

O CD a. CD

",

CD

** _o

O

L-H

c o CD CO r>

1

ca CO

a.

+-c

o

O c

CD i_ 3 cn

CO ^f in cn a> cn cn cn cn T T *

a Ll

CD

CO

'E

ooooooooooo

(48)

CD O c CO

E

L_ o

-CD CL

c CD "O 3

+-CO

c o

4_*

CO -J U)

CO CD_CD

CD T~

CO O k_ CD CO > _CD O CD

Q. "

E

CD

E

o

**- i_ O **

c > o co _n

cri co Q. _CD

b

CC

o O c

CN

CD i_ 3 CD 3

co ^t in Oi Oi Oi Oi Oi Oi

ID1

CO

CC

:l

o o

CO c

O)

CO

CD 0> co C

I?

iii^^

JD

"cd

Cj

X LU

O

O O cn

o co

o

O

d

CD

O

m

o o co

o o

cm

(49)

CD O c CO

E

o T= CD Q. C CD TD 3 4 CO c o 03 3 LO Oi CO > CD O f^ (O -j Oi 0) CD > Oi o t Q.

E

CD

E

o i O *^ c_ c CD o CO

E

CD CO n TO T3 3 i o O L. CO CD i_ 3 CD 3

CO * in cn cn O) O) cn Oi

T- T T

(50)

CD O c CO

E

i_

o t CD Q.

*^ c

CD T3 3

CO

c o

*' CO -J

m

CU _CD

CD O)

CO o

CD

uj >. co u _Oi

CL Oi

E

~r-CD

F

O o1_

c

o CD

CO o

1_ ₃

CO *-i

D. +-*

b

<

o

O L.

CD i_ 3 cn 3

CO "<t m

cn Oi cn

cn O) cn

T T i

? m

CD 3

3

o o

CL

CO

L

CO

Ol c

O

^9 CO

o

oo

o

sjp -*4) vP ^p vP

CO CO 0s* _CO _CO

o o o O O

<o

o

CO

o

CO

O

o o

o cn

o CO

O O O O o

N ID lfl * CO

a6e)U33J3d

o

CM

(51)

CD O c

CO

O

cd

c

CD o

3

+-*

Ui

c o

1 CO

3 LO

CO Oi

> Oi CD

i-CO O

CD _CO

CD

VJ

CD Q.

CD

E

o

O

r CO

o c

CO o i_ 4i

CO CO

Q. _CD

b

_ O

O c

LO

CD

i_

3 cn 3

CO -* in O) O) cn cn cn cn

r- T

m D m

Ui c

o

ro CD ?c

o o

CL

CO C

D) i CO

CO O d o

Ol c

o o o

CM

(52)

CD O c CO

E

k_ o .t CD Q. ^^ C CD XJ 3 4-> Ui WJ o LO c OJ o OJ "1 CO 3 o 4-^ CO > CO CD OJ OJ CO i CD

E

O o1_ Q. *"

F

c CD o +-O CO o c c o 3 CO

E

CO r-CL _o

b

O o O c CO CD i_ 3 O) 3

co ^ in Oi Oi a Oi Oi Oi

5 i

c o v^ CO o

'c

3

E

o O o o CL CO c cn i_ CO 5

4_H _f _f

f-, 1 f f

oi c CO o d o

S \" vJJ

CO CO CO

OOO

s? s? \

CO CO CO

(53)

CD O c CO

E

i_ o x: CD CL C CD XJ

3

LO CO OJ o -C O O ~ CO o> OJ CD _fc

CO oI i_ + CD >. O CD O c CL CO

E

F

OJ i_ o o x: CD c CL o co "fc

"CO

co CD CL _>

fc o

o O c CD i_ 3 cn 3

CO tf in cn Oj CD cn Oi cn T T~ T

(54)

Student's evaluation of coop experience

Student rating of _coop experiences are variable 19 to 25

in program file. The five scales of rating are _very

dissatisfied,

somewhat

dissatisfied,

satisfied, somewhat

satisfied, and _very satisfied. The results of job

responsibility, coop and career

interest,

location category

range between satisfied _very satisfied and

housing

(see

figure 18-21) .

For pay, job search preparation and _coop coordinator

category, the results are more spread out from _very

dissatisfied through _very satisfied (see figure 22-24) .

According to the no _rating choice for students who didn't

apply for the service, the results of figure

22-24, pay, job search preparation and _coop coordinator, have

lower percentage than other categories.

Significant Difference (Table 1A to UK)

After running the SPSS, the significant differences are

found. Nothing

by

gender is found in 1993. The differences

by

gender of employer's and student's evaluation are found in

(55)

CD

i_

3

O)

co >s-m Oi Oi 01 Oi Oi Oi

CO c o CL CD

i

O

CD SZ

TO C

CO

c CD XJ 3

Ui LO CD CD

TO 3 O

>

.2 CD 1

4-CO CL

E

o

O

E

o

*co

c o Q. CO CD

O

ijmuYl>TmiT>*T

AJ8A

p8|)S|)es

IBL|M8LU0S

Ol

peijsjiBS s; co

pajjsjiBssip

JBL)M9LUOS

pe|}S!)Bss|p

AJ9A

^p^uvyvy^yvy^yvyvyxy^y co CO (jo co co co co co co cO <o OOOOOOOOOOO

o o o o o o

o cd co o* cd m

o o o o o ST CO C\J

(56)

CD

i_

CD

*-C

i_

CD CD

.

CO

o

XJ

c CO

CL o o o

I

CD SZ

+-wj_ o

TO

c

^_l

CO LO Jj

CD UJ-* _CD

c CD

XJ SZ

3 m

CO 3 O

o SZ

c

o CO CO OJ

L_ OJ

CO

Q.

E

o o

O 1

CD

CD i_ 3

cn

CO

CD

i_

CD

I*

CD

2

CO

o

XJ

c CO

Q. O O

O

CO -* in cn cn cn cn OJ cn

-r

T T

m D 13

o m

co o co

m

CM

o in CM

-r-o

d

pe!jsj)BS

Ajsa

pajjsues

lEL)MeLUOS

Ol

pejjsiiBS -z.

CO

pejjsnessjp

JBL)M9LU0S

PSIJSIIBSSJP

AJ9A

(57)

LO CD CD

TO 3 O

CO OJ OJ

E

o

c o

CO o

o

Cl o o o

CD sz

TO

CO

c CD

XJ

3

CO

c o

CO *1_ CO

Q.

E

o O

CO <r in cn cn CD cn CD CD

T T T

? El

c

o

*

CO o

o

4.

W*

WWW^

paijsjies

AJ9A

pgjjsjiBS

JBL|M9LU0S

Ol

P9!}S|JBS ^ (0

p9|JS|)BSS;p

IBU./VA9LU0S

P9!JS|JBSS!P

AJ9A

ooooooooooo

ocDcoN.com-*cocMT-36e)U33J3d

O CM

CD

(58)

LO OJ CD

co * in CD CD CD CD CD CD

E i

TO 3 O

CO CD CD

E

o

TO c 'co 3 o sz

CL o o o

CD

TO c

CO

c CD XJ 3 GO

TO C CO 3 O

X

pauses

A;8_a

P9!|si;bs

IBL|M9LU0S

Ol

pauses "5

P9|JS|)BSS|P }BL|M91U0S

p9{|S{)BSS|p

AJ9A

s*s?

W^W^W

^fy^if

vjJvysPNPvjavjyvyvP^yvysjj

O^COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOiOCO

OOOOOOOOOOO ddddddddddd

ooiaot^iDin-^ncMT-C. O CO "l_ CO CL

E

o O

(59)

co -* m

CD CD CD

ID1

co CL

CL o o

o

CD

TO

ro LO_CD CD

c CD

XJ

3

Ui

sz TO 3 O

E

o

8

CD .92 cd

I __

CO

Q.

E

o

O

CM CM

CD

i_

3 cn

ii

%%$

CL

pgjjsjiss

AJ9A

p9|i;s!)BS

)BL|M9UJ0S

cn

P9!}S|}BS ^

CO

pejjsiiBssjp

IBL(M8LU0S

pSjJSUBSSip

Ajsa

o

~f . t . f 1 t 1 H

vP -*J> -Jp vP -u9 VP u9 ^P VP CO 0s CO CO O*- ff. CO (O (O

OOOOOOOOOO

(60)

c

g

+-CO i_

cO

CL CD

P

CD

CO

o

"^^

_. CD SZ

+*

-1 o

TO C

*->

co LO >_

CD

*< _OJ

c CD

XJ r

3

CO

TO 3 CJ i_ O _SZ

*-*

c

o CO

CO OJ

l_ OJ

Cfl

CL

E

o o

O fc

c o

_ co CL CD

CO

CD

CO

JD

O

co <* in

CD CD CD

E i

PSJJSUBS

AJ8A

peijsiiBS

IBU.M9LU0S

Ol c

paijsuBS -,=

a

pajjSjjBssip

IBL|M9W0S

pgj|s;iBSS!p

Ajsa

WW^w^W^

O** _CO CO CO CO Co CO 0s o^ _co _co

OOOOOOOOOO O

ddddd dcicScSdd

(61)

o

-i-^

co c u

fc_

o o o

CL O O o

fc

CD SZ

+*

*-o

TO c

_

CO IT)

fc-CD

+*

CD c CD XJ _SZ

3

+^

CO TO 3 O

i

o _SZ

-*

c o CO CO OJ

fc- _OJ

CO Q.

E

F

o o O

fc-co -^ m CD CD CD CD CD CD

iai

o

CO

o o o

CL o o o

r^^fm^f^f *y***yi:**f

pajjsiiBS

AJ9A

peijsjiBs

}BL|M8UJ0S

Ol

pgjjsjiBS

<o

pgjjsiJBSSip

lBqM8LU0S

pSIiSjlBSSJP

Ajsa

^w _v?

o^ dv

OOOOOOOOOOO

OCDOOo-COin-sl-COCMT-e6e}U33jad

CM

(62)

\-37.9%

43.2%

33.7%

62.1%

56.8%

66.3%

Summary

of the percentage of

figure

1-figure

24

Comparison

of sex of students

from 1993

through

1995

Sex

1993

1994

1995

Male

Female

Comparison

of major of student

from 1993

through

1995

Major

1993

1994

1995

Food

Hotel

Travel

Nutrition

Comparison

of wages of student

from 1993

through

1995

Wages

1993

1994

1995

12.6%

21.6%

24.7%

65.5%

48.6%

44.9%

8.0%

27.0%

12.4%

13.8%

2.7%

18.0%

Less

than

$3

6.9%

5.4%

4.5%

$3-$4.99

20.7%

10.8%

10.1%

$5-$6.99

56.3%

56.8%

47.2%

$7-$8.99

11.5%

24.3%

29.2%

$9-$10.99

4.6%

2.7%

3.4%

More

than

$1

1

0.0%

5.6%

Comparison

of student

difficulties from1993

through1995

Student

difficulties

1993

1994

1995

Yes

51.7%

37.8%

38.2%

NO

41.4%

62.2%

61.8%

Comparison

of

company

type

from 1993

through

1995

Company

type

1993

1994

1995

(63)

Comparison

of

how

obtained

coop from 1993

through

1995

How

obtained

coop

1993

1994

1995

Coop

office

13.8%

18.9%

22.5%

Coop

office services

6.9%

13.5%

16.9%

Faculty

8.0%

13.5%

16.9%

My

own

70.1%

54.1%

42.7%

47.1%

45.9%

49.4%

42.5%

48.6%

40.4%

8.0%

5.4%

9.0%

1.1%

0.0%

1.1%

0.0%

Comparison

from

1993

to

1995

Accurate

and thorough

1993

1994

1995

Excellent

Very

good

Average

Marginal

Poor

Comparison

from 1993

to

1995

Volume

and rate

1993

1994

1995

Excellent

43.7%

32.4%

43.8%

Very

good

Average

Marginal

Poor

Comparison

from 1993

to

1995

Competence

1993

1994

1995

Excellent

Very

good

Average

43.7%

48.6%

37.1%

1 1

.5%

18.9%

19.1%

1.1%

0.0%

41.4%

32.4%

40.4%

46.0%

59.5%

43.8%

(64)

(65)

54.0%

40.5%

52.8%

35.6%

56.8%

39.3%

9.2%

2.7%

7.9%

0.0%

1.1%

0.0%

36.8%

32.4%

37.1%

47.1%

45.9%

34.8%

1 1

.5%

18.9%

27.0%

3.4%

2.7%

1.1%

0.0%

Comparison

from 1993

to

1995

Ability

to

learn

1993

1994

1995

Excellent

Very

good

Average

Marginal

Poor

Comparison

from 1993

to

1995

Initiative

1993

1994

1995

Excellent

Very

good

Average

Marginal

Poor

Comparison

from 1993

to

1995

Reliability

1993

1994

1995

Excellent

Very

good

Average

Marginal

Poor

Comparison

from 1993

to

1995

Judgement

1993

1994

1995

Excellent

Very

good

Average

Marginal

Poor

65.5%

62.2%

57.3%

23.0%

24.3%

32.6%

8.0%

8.1%

7.9%

2.3%

5.4%

2.2%

1.1%

0.0%

41.4%

45.9%

38.2%

44.8%

43.2%

43.8%

1 1

.5%

10.8%

16.9%

2.3%

0.0%

1.1%

(66)

64.4%

59.5%

59.6%

25.3%

35.1%

27.0%

10.3%

5.4%

12.4%

0.0%

1.1%

0.0%

63.2%

62.2%

46.1%

27.6%

24.3%

43.8%

9.2%

13.5%

6.7%

0.0%

3.4%

0.0%

Comparison

from 1993

to

1995

Attitude

1993

1994

1995

Excellent

Very

good

Average

Marginal

Poor

Comparison

from 1993

to

1995

Relations

1993

1994

1995

Excellent

Very

good

Average

Marginal

Poor

Comparison

from 1993

to

1995

Communication

1993

1994

1995

Excellent

Very

good

Average

Marginal

Poor

Comparison

from 1993

to

1995

Overall

performance

1993

1994

1995

Excellent

Very

good

Average

Marginal

Poor

47.1%

24.3%

38.2%

36.8%

70.3%

40.4%

14.9%

5.4%

21.3%

1.1%

0.0%

55.2%

48.6%

44.9%

36.8%

45.9%

44.9%

6.9%

5.4%

10.1%

1.1%

0.0%

(67)

Comparison

of student

rating coop

office

from 1993

through

1995

Job responsibility

1993

1994

1995

Very

dissatisfied

3.4%

2.7%

1.1%

Somewhat dissatisfied

8.0%

8.1%

5.6%

Satisfied

28.7%

32.4%

28.1%

Somewhat

satisfied

29.9%

29.7%

34.8%

Very

satisfied

28.7%

27.0%

30.3%

Comparison

of student

rating coop

office

from 1993

through

1995

Coop

and career

intere

1993

1994

1995

Very

dissatisfied

1.1%

2.7%

2.2%

10.3%

5.4%

7.9%

Satisfied

29.9%

24.3%

21.3%

Somewhat

satisfied

33.3%

35.1%

32.6%

Very

satisfied

24.1%

32.4%

36.0%

Comparison

of student

rating

coop

office

from 1993

through

1995

Location

1993

1994

1995

Very

dissatisfied

0.0%

1.1%

2.3%

5.4%

4.6%

Satisfied

26.4%

18.9%

19.1%

Somewhat

satisfied

32.2%

32.4%

24.7%

Very

satisfied

37.9%

40.5%

48.3%

Comparison

of student

rating coop

office

from 1993

through

1995

Pay

1993

1994

1995

Very

dissatisfied

9.2%

5.4%

7.9%

Somewhat

dissatisfied

16.1%

16.2%

15.7%

Satisfied

31.0%

32.4%

34.8%

Somewhat

satisfied

32.2%

16.2%

27.0%

(68)

Comparison

of student

rating coop

office

from 1993

through

1995

Job

search preparation

1993

1994

1995

Very

dissatisfied

13.8%

8.1%

6.7%

Somewhat

dissatisfied

23.0%

16.2%

5.6%

Satisfied

33.3%

32.4%

27.0%

Somewhat

satisfied

9.2%

8.1%

1

.2%

Very

satisfied

9.2%

5.4%

9.0%

Comparison

of student

rating coop

office

from 1993

through

1995

Coop

cordinator

1993

1994

1995

Very

dissatisfied

10.3%

5.4%

7.9%

Somewhat

dissatisfied

18.4%

10.8%

3.4%

Satisfied

29.9%

24.3%

23.6%

Somewhat

satisfied

12.6%

8.1%

14.6%

(69)

The t-Test revealed significant difference in the _way that

male and female students were rated, t=1.79 and p=0.082 at

the significant level of 0.1. A comparison of means revealed

that male students were rated higher

(M=4.5625)

than female

students (M=4.1905) ,which scale of 5 is excellent and 1 is

poor.

Table

1A

Significant

difference

of employer's evaluation of student

performance

by

gender

in1994

Category

sample mean

t-value

df

p-value

size

Judgment

male

N=16

4.5625

vs.

female

N=21

4.1905

1.79

34.67

0.082*

*p

<=

0.1

***p

<=

0.01

"p

<=

0.05

****p

<=

0.001

Table 2B shows the significant difference of student

satisfaction _rating _coop experience

by

gender in 1994. The

t-Test revealed the difference in job _{responsibility}

category. The mean for each _group showed a

tendency

for the

male to rate coop experience higher

(M=4.0625)

than female

rated (M=3.4286) coop job. The t-Test revealed significant

difference of t=1.92 and p=0.063, at the significant level of

(70)

Table

2B

Sianificant

difference

of student satisfaction ratina of

coop

p-value experience

by

qender

in

1994

sample mean t

-size value

df

Category

Job

responsibility

male

vs.

female

Pay

male

vs.

female

N=16

4.0625

N=21

3.4286

1.92

N=16

3.8125

N=19

3.0526

1.91

34.39

0.063*

:;0,Q65*;

"p

<=

0.1

***p

<=

0.01

**p

<=

0.05

****p

<=

0.001

Only

the difference of student's evaluation in

gender found in 1995 is pay (table

3C)

. The analyze shows

that male students are more satisfied with _pay (M=3.5667)

than female students (M=3.0172). _Thirty male respondents and

fifty

eight female respondents show the significant

difference in pay (t=2 . 04,p=0. 047) , significant level at

0.05. The result backs up the table 2B in "pay"

category in

1994 which means male have more satisfaction with wages than

female.

Table

3C

Significant

difference

of student satisfaction

rating

of

coop

experience

by

gender

in1995

Category

sample mean t-

df

p-value

size value

Pay

maie

N=30

3.5667

(71)

When the gender of evaluator is the variable in t-Test,

the significant difference of employer's evaluations are

found in 3 years,

1993,

1994,

and 1995. Table 4D shows the

result in 1993. The sex of evaluator plays important role in

gender comparison. Male evaluator rated _reliability _category

less

(M=4.3125)

than female rated (M=4.7188) on students.

T-Test revealed significant difference as t=-2.30 and p=0.024

which is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 4D

Significant

difference

performance

by

sex of evaluator

in1993

Category

sample mean t -

df

p-value

size value

Reliability

male

N=48

4.3125

vs.

female

N=32

4.7188

-2.30

78.00

0.024**

(sex

of

evaluator)

kp

<=

0.1

***p

<=

0.01

**p

<=

0.05

****p

<=

0.001

Table 5E shows that male evaluator rated volume and rate

(M=3.9500) less than female evaluator (M=4.3529) rated

students. The significant difference displays t=-1.76 and

(72)

Table

5E

Significant

difference

performance

by

sex of evaluator

in

1994

Category

sample mean t -

df

p-size value value

Volume

and rate male

N=20

3.9500

vs.

female

N=17

4.3529

1.76

33.78

0.088*

(sex

of

evaluator)

'p

<=

0.1

***p

<=

0.01

k*p

<=

0.05

****p

<=

0.001

Especially

in

1995,

the results of difference in

employer's evaluation are found abundantly

by

gender of

evaluator and

by

major (table 6F) . There were seven

significant differences among the means from male evaluator

to female evaluator. All the cases are male rated students

higher than femaie did. The mean declined from male

(M=4.5306) to female

(M=4.2195)

while _showing t=2.09 and

(73)

Table 6F

Sianificant

difference

of employer's evaluation of student performance

by

sex of evaluator

in

1995

i mean t -

d

f

_p-value

Category

sample

size value

Accurate

and thorough male

N=49

4.5306

vs.

female

N=41

4.2195

2.09

72.04

0.040**

(sex

of

evaluator)

Abiljty:;.;1o;;:

fearn;^;

I;-;:;:;;;

;

Saligiliilil;;::;;;;

;-.N.#J9;;.:

"^;5714;;

::';-::::'i::-;;r::':;:':;:';::-;;:':;:';::l;;;;:':::;;i:::7::- _vs.

female

N=41

;;4;;2927

::2.07::\?&MM.WM:i

'"(seiiol::

;e:v^

Initiative

male

N=49

4.2245

vs.

female

N=41

3.9268

1.71

85.4

0.090*

(sex

of

evaluator)

Reliability

mate

N=49

;SI;l^.i;4:;

vs>

female

N*4i

;

4 2927

i${W-l

lit

^74;:;:iQ|Q7;7*:

(sex

of evaitiator).

Attitude male

N=49

4.5714

vs.

female

N=41

4.2683

1.89

74.35

0.062*

(sex

of

evaluator)

Relations

\rMMWM^M^Mi.

i:i-5714;

:^:SiM^^lS^.^Mt:

4.2683

;ir89;

;

74^

Service measurement of RIT co-op program

Rochester Institute of Technology

Faculty

VE_E_RAM_O_L_ _

Committee Chairperson's Signature

Department of Graduate Studies

VEEB AMOT ,

can be reached at the following address:

testing

diversity

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Study

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

family

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 64

Ability

LIST OF FIGURES

Housing

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF TABLES

Technology

Furthermore,

Therefore,

However,

Bring

directly

Technology

training

looking

learning

fully

learning

behavior,

Considering

increasing

favorably

Preiss,

Mabry

Krone,

discarded,

hypothesis,

being

lllllllllllli

imply

OOOOOOOOOOO

dissatisfied,

IBL|M8LU0S

P9|JS|)BSS|P }BL|M91U0S

OOOOOOOOOOO

Summary

coop from 1993

Excellent

Excellent

Job responsibility

Comparison

Satisfied

Table

tendency

female

Table

Table 4D

Category

Table 6F