Bruce A. Calway Gerald A. Murphy
Swinburne University of Technology Lilydale, Victoria, Australia
[email protected] ABSTRACT
Research conducted over the life (estab-lished 1988) of the Swinburne Bachelor of Information Technology (BIT) Program has indicated that graduates have shown 100% employment rates and have been judged as being productive earlier than graduates of other programs. While this research has shown early success for graduates of the program, analysis of the relative performance of graduates over time has only been anecdotal.
In December 1996, the Steering Com-mittee of the BIT program commissioned a study of the career progression of gradu-ates of the program since its inception: • to gauge the longer term experiences of
the graduate, as well as
• to evaluate the significance of the tech-nical, business and generic skills devel-oped by them in the program. The study, conducted in 1997, included an examination of the success of the graduates in the workplace from both the graduate and employer perspective.
At the 10th World Conference on Coop-erative Education (Cape Town 1997) a re-port was presented on the methodologies used and the preliminary results gathered from Focus groups to that point. The key findings of the completed study are psented in this paper. The paper also re-ports the results of the analysis of quanti-tative and qualiquanti-tative data obtained through the surveys of graduates and em-ployers.
INTRODUCTION
The Bachelor of Information Technology (BIT) program commenced at Swinburne University of Technology in 1988 as part of a National Pilot Program for new inno-vative cooperative education programs in Information Technology. BIT programs were established at four universities. Because of the innovative nature of these programs there was a need that both the model pedagogy and the program outcomes un-dergo substantial review. Sweeney (1990) and Shaw (1992) have evaluated the model on a national basis.
The Swinburne program has been evalu-ated in relation to:
• the quality of graduates— Murphy (1991)
• the costs and benefits to industry— Murphy (1992)
• mechanisms for continuous improve-ment— Calway and Murphy (1993). Also in 1994, a major review of the BIT Quality Project funded by the Department of Employment Education and Training permitted an all-encompassing evaluation of the program, its operation and out-comes.
These studies established the benefits to employers and graduates of the program in particular when new graduates were hired. There was a perceived need to es-tablish the longitudinal advantages, if any, the graduates held over graduates of other computing related programs.
This paper describes a study which takes as its premise this perceived need and which collects data relating to the perfor-mance of the graduates of the program for subsequent evaluation of the perceived benefits to both graduates and employers over time.
ORIGINS OF THE STUDY
The BIT Quality Project (Calway, Murphy et al 1994:173) proposed:
“… that a longitudinal survey be developed and conducted over a period of three years. Such a survey should be com-menced in 1994 with subsequent surveys being commenced three years prior to the program’s reaccreditation. The latter part of this proposal would allow the results of the survey to be incorporated into the re-accreditation process.”
It also indicated that the survey should include questions to establish data such as:
• Current employment details.
• A history of employment details since the last time the survey was conducted. • Type of work being undertaken. • Usefulness of various aspects of the BIT • program including academic units, the Industry Based Learning (IBL) compo-nent and extracurricular activities. • Suggested inclusions for the BIT
pro-gram.
Conducting such a survey would pro-vide data from the perspective of the graduate only. It seemed appropriate to try and gather data from the employer as well. It is appreciated that employers will not necessarily be in a position to comment on particular details of the program. How-ever, they should be able to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the program’s graduates and therefore provide some input towards the future develop-ment of the program.
The original proposal was not actioned immediately due to a lack of resources and the need to further develop the aims and methodologies of the study. Decisions needed to be made as to the size, format and composition of the study, including, whether:
• The study would track one group of graduates’ progress over a number of years, or
Career Progression of Cooperative Education
Graduates in a Co-op-Based Information
Technology Degree Program: A Review of the Final
Report of 1998 (Murphy & Murphy)
• All graduates over a number of years, to be surveyed at the same time. The BIT Steering Committee commis-sioned the recommended evaluation study in 1996 to gauge the long-term experi-ences of graduates and the merits of vari-ous aspects of the course. A working party decided that the survey population would be the graduates of all years of the pro-gram, seven years in all. It was considered that:
• This would provide more immediate data for review.
• Response rates would be better for a one off survey than those for a survey, which was repeated on an annual or re-curring basis.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The objectives of the study were finally specified as:
• To gather data that can be used to: • Improve the curriculum to ensure the
program’s ongoing relevance to indus-try and its students
• Substantiate the advantages of the program as perceived by future stu-dents, as well as existing and poten-tial sponsors
SPECIFIC AIMS OF THE STUDY The specific aims are to:
• Determine the progression of the BIT Graduates in the workplace by: • Identifying and describing the
gradu-ates’ positions of employment and identify change of jobs since gradua-tion.
• Tracking the graduates’ progress in their place of work.
• Identifying the level of responsibility attained by the graduates in their workplace since graduation. • Recommend changes to the program
based on the data collected by: • Developing mechanisms to market
and advertise the BIT program for
fu-and evaluate the impact of structural change and industry progression on the graduate during employment, • Investigating and establishing the
rel-evance of the current BIT course cur-riculum.
• Identifying potential relevant future curriculum inclusions for the BIT course.
• Discovering and ranking employer in-dicators and opinions regarding graduate performance in the work-place.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
Two research techniques were utilized in the study of both graduates and employ-ers as stakeholdemploy-ers:
• Focus Group Workshops • Survey/Questionnaires
The purpose of the Focus Group’s study was to determine the long-term experi-ences of the BIT graduates, and to focus on the merits or otherwise of various as-pects of the program from the perspective of each stakeholder group.
These two techniques of data collection use different strategies. Focus Groups study samples of graduates and employ-ers to collect qualitative data. Survey/ questionnaires of all graduates and em-ployers collect quantitative data.
The study methods combine both an Im-pact Evaluation and a Program Logic ap-proach. Owen (1993:86) says:
“Impact Evaluation needs to determine whether a given program works and thus a determination of outcomes is of major concern. This form is used on a program which is judged to be settled and in place.” An essential feature of Program logic is that it concentrates on cause and effect and means and ends links. Owen (1993: 147) says:
“… every program has some form of un-derlying logic which justifies the resources allocated to the program. Sometimes the
152) said that:
“Program Design Evaluation aims in-cluded: obtaining consensus about goals held by different program providers and elaborating the program through attention to how it worked in practice, as a way of making the program more plausible to policy makers.”
A study plan incorporating both an Im-pact Evaluation and a Program Logic ap-proach is appropriate for a longitudinal study because it:
• Meets the aims of the study.
• Enables both quantitative and qualita-tive evaluation of data taken from dis-parate groups.
The methodology and design relied ex-tensively on goodwill established with em-ployers and in particular with graduates. The enthusiasm of these groups enhanced the outcomes of the Focus Groups and the relevance and clarity of the survey. The number of graduates able to be sent sur-veys was increased considerably by hav-ing graduates involved in updathav-ing mail-ing lists.
Where possible, the distribution of the surveys was by e-mail, where these ad-dresses could be established and where graduates had access to this facility. Elec-tronic distribution is faster, cheaper and can be verified. Responses are more eas-ily made and therefore the response rate is likely to be higher.
SURVEY/QUESTIONNAIRE OF GRADUATES AND EMPLOYERS DATA COLLECTION
Tasks to be done for both groups included: • Identify the topics and questions to be used in the graduate and employer sur-veys.
• Build the survey documents.
• Contact selected graduates by phone. • Advise on survey. Ask for help in
updat-ing mailupdat-ing lists.
gradu-ates and employers (at conclusion of Focus Groups).
• Prepare final survey distribute via mail and e-mail.
Note: both the graduate and employer surveys are distributed to the graduates, with the graduates being asked to contact their managers to complete the employer survey.
GRADUATE FOCUS GROUP DATA COLLECTION
The graduates were asked to consider the following themes:
• Description of your employment history since graduation— in particular noting the kind of work you were undertaking, the responsibilities of the job and the title and classification of the position. • Obtaining of feedback on your
progres-sion through the companies for which you have worked. That is, what oppor-tunities for advancement have there been and what have been the critical issues which have determined your suc-cess or failure?
• What has been the impact of structural change in the economy on the industry or business in which you work and more particularly on your current job role? • What are the particular features of the
BIT program (academic, work experi-ence, social, etc.) which stand out as being of long benefit to you in your ca-reer?
• Reflecting on the structure (number of subjects, number of semesters, timing of the industry experience, etc.) of the BIT program, what changes would you now suggest?
• Thinking about particular subject con-tent, which broad ‘knowledge’ areas have been most relevant or least relevant in the range of jobs you have undertaken since graduation?
• What do you consider to be the major gaps in the BIT program which have be-come obvious to you in your career(s)? Note— some questions of a program content nature have been omitted from this
paper; however, a full report can be found in Murphy & Murphy (1998).
Question 2: Time taken to obtain first position.
74.5% of graduates obtained a first posi-tion prior to compleposi-tion of the course. 18.1% of graduates took less than one month to obtain a position and 3.6% took two months. One graduate (1.8%) took seven months to gain a position and one graduate took six months to obtain a po-sition.
Question 3: Analysis of first position. Graduates held a number of varied first job positions, which included:
47% of graduates held programming po-sitions in their first employment, broken down as:
8 students held programming positions 6 students held analyst/programmer
po-sitions
3 students held graduate-programming positions
2 students held a trainee programmer position
1 student held a graduate analyst pro-grammer position
2 students held contract-programming positions
1 student held application-programming position
1 student held systems programming po-sition
1 student held programmer in training position
3
Question 1: Year of Graduation
54 Graduates responded, 40 male and 14 female. This is roughly equivalent to the male/female ratio of graduates of the period. This was broken down by year as follows:
Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
No. Responding 7 8 9 5 8 5 12
No. of Graduates 32 43 47 38 24 29 31
Table 1
9.5% of graduates held consulting posi-tions in their first employment, titled: 2 students held graduate consultant
po-sitions
1 student held a technical consultant sup-port position
1 student held a LAN/WAN consultant position
1 student held a database consultant position
15% of graduates held a “graduate” posi-tion in their first employment.
A significant number of graduates held programming type positions in their origi-nal employment. Other major categories included “graduate” positions— both in pro-gramming and in other job roles— techni-cal roles, development positions and con-sulting roles.
Question 5a & 14a: The supervision of work of others— comparison of supervision done in first position (5a) and in current position (14a).
A high percentage of BIT graduates in their first position did not supervise others im-mediately following graduation. This result was constant across each graduate year, with the exception of graduates from 1994 and 1996. A smaller number of gradu-ates stated that they rarely supervised the work of others, in their first position. Ex-ceptions to this were graduates from 1995 and 1997, with the highest number of graduates from 1997 falling within the cat-egory of rarely. A very low number of gradu-ates regularly supervised the work of oth-ers in their first position, one graduate from
each of the years 1992,1993,1995, and two from 1996.
In contrast, graduates in their current positions often supervise the work of oth-ers. The exceptions to this are the 1997 graduates, who in fact are new graduates. Only a very low number of graduates never
or rarely supervise others in their work. The majority of graduates stated that they sometimes or regularly supervise others. A small number of graduates from 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995 supervise the work of others at all times.
For the graduates in their first position and in their current position, the results show graduates do move onto levels of greater supervision responsibility and plan-ning. Generally graduates commenced witha degree of responsibility for the diffi-cult work and planning their own work.
Table 2
Quest. 5a=Immediately following graduation Question 14a=In current position Supervision of Other Workers
By Year of Graduation 1991-1997 Q1 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Q5a never 4 3 2 1 3 3 rarely 1 2 3 1 4 1 6 sometimes 2 3 3 2 3 regularly 1 1 1 2 Q14a never 1 1 1 rarely 1 1 1 2 4 sometimes 1 2 4 1 3 3 3 regularly 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 always 1 2 1 1
Crosstab of Suprvision of Work of Others in First Year of Graduation (1991-1997) (Percentages)
Q1 Total
91' 92' 93' 94' 95' 96' 97'
Q5A Missing % within Q5A 100 100
% within Q1 14 2
% of Total 2 2
Never % within Q5A 25 19 13 6 19 19 100
% within Q1 57 38 22 20 38 25 30
% of Total 7 6 4 2 6 6 30
Rarely % within Q5A 6 11 17 6 22 6 33 100
% within Q1 14 25 33 20 50 20 50 33
% of Total 2 4 6 2 7 2 11 33
Sometimes % within Q5A 7 14 21 21 14 21 100
% within Q1 14 25 33 60 40 25 26
% of Total 2 4 6 6 4 6 26
Regularly % within Q5A 20 20 20 40 100
% within Q1 13 11 13 40 9
% of Total 2 2 2 4 9
Total % within Q5A 13 15 17 9 15 9 22 100
% within Q1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
5
Table 3B
Crosstab of Supervision of Work of Others in Current Position (Percentages)
Q1 Total
91' 92' 93' 94' 95' 96' 97'
Q14A Missing % within Q14A 29 14 14 43 100
% within Q1 29 11 20 25 13
% of Total 4 2 2 6 13
Never % within Q14A 33 33 33 100
% within Q1 13 13 8 6
% of Total 2 2 2 6
Rarely % within Q14A 11 11 11 22 44 100
% within Q1 14 13 11 25 33 17
% of Total 2 2 2 4 7 17
Sometimes % within Q14A 11 11 22 6 17 17 17 100
% within Q1 29 25 44 20 38 60 25 33
% of Total 4 4 7 2 6 6 6 33
Regularly % within Q14A 17 25 8 25 8 8 8 100
% within Q1 29 38 11 60 13 20 8 22
% of Total 4 6 2 6 2 2 2 22
All the Time % within Q14A 20 40 20 20 100
% within Q1 13 22 20 13 9
% of Total 2 4 2 2 9
Total % within Q14A 13 15 17 9 15 9 22 100
% within Q1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 % of Total 13 15 17 9 15 9 22 100 Q1 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Q5b never 1 1 rarely 2 2 1 1 1 sometimes 1 2 1 6 regularly 2 8 7 2 6 4 4 Q14b sometimes 1 1 1 2 4 regularly 1 2 3 4 3 always 3 6 6 1 2 4 2
Responsibility for Progressively More Difficult Work By Year of Graduation 1991-1997
Question 5b = Immediately following graduation / Question 14b = In current position Table 4
Question 5b & 14b: Being responsible for several types of progressively more diffi-cult work— comparison of diffidiffi-culty of work done in first position (5b) and in current position (14b).
The majority of graduates stated that they regularly were responsible for several types of progressively more difficult work, imme-diately following graduation. A smaller number stated that they sometimes were
responsible for several types of progres-sively more difficult work, with a very high number of these being 1997 graduates. A very low number of graduates registered a rarely or never result.
Table 5a
Q5B * Qi Crosstabulation of Responsibility for several types of progressively more difficult work (1991-1997)
Q1 Total
91' 92' 93' 94' 95' 96' 97'
Q5A Missing % within Q5B 100 100
% within Q1 14 2 % of Total 2 2 Never % within Q5B 50 50 100 % within Q1 20 8 4 % of Total 2 2 4 Rarely % within Q5B 29 29 14 14 14 100 % within Q1 29 22 20 13 8 13 % of Total 4 4 2 2 2 13 Sometimes % within Q5B 10 20 10 60 100 % within Q1 14 40 13 50 19 % of Total 2 4 2 11 19 Regularly % within Q5B 9 24 21 6 18 12 12 100 % within Q1 43 100 78 40 75 80 33 63 % of Total 6 15 13 4 11 7 7 63 Total % within Q5B 13 15 17 9 15 9 22 100
Q14 * Q1 Crosstabulation of Responsibility for several types of progressively more difficult work. (1991-1997)
Q1 Total
91' 92' 93' 94' 95' 96' 97'
Q14A Missing % within Q14B 29 14 14 43 100
% within Q1 29 11 20 25 13 % of Total 4 2 2 6 13 Sometimes % within Q14B 11 11 11 22 44 100 % within Q1 14 13 20 25 33 17 % of Total 2 2 2 4 7 17 Regularly % within Q14B 8 15 23 31 23 100 % within Q1 13 22 60 50 25 24 % of Total 2 4 6 7 6 24
All the Time % within Q14B 16 24 24 4 8 16 8 100
% within Q1 57 75 67 20 25 80 17 46
% of Total 7 11 11 2 4 7 4 46
Total % within Q14B 13 15 17 9 15 9 22 100
% within Q1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
As with graduates in their first position, the highest number of graduates in their cur-rent position stated that they regularly were responsible for several types of progres-sively more difficult work. There were no results registered in either the never or rarely categories. A low number of gradu-ates stated that they sometimes were re-sponsible for a variety of progressively more difficult work in their current posi-tion. A small number of 1997 graduates did not record an answer for this ques-tion.
Questions 5c & 14c: The planning of an individual’s work— comparison of planning of own work done in first position (5c) and in current position (14c).
The majority of graduates stated that they sometimes or regularly planned their own work, in their position immediately follow-ing graduation. Only two graduates in 1991
and 1993 stated that they never planned their own work. A very low number stated that they rarely had an opportunity to plan their own work.
A high number of graduates in their cur-rent positions stated that they took part in the planning of their own work, regularly or at all times. A small number only some-times planned their own work, with one 1997 graduate rarely planning work on their own. Again a small number of 1997 graduates did not record an answer for this question.
Question 6a: Was initial employer a BIT Sponsor?
A BIT Sponsor did not employ 27% of grad-uates in their first position.
73% of graduates stated that their first employer was a BIT Sponsor.*
7
*Note this figure is slightly higher than the BIT annual survey taken each year of grad-uates’ employment (63%).(BIT Annual Report 1991-1997).
Question 6b: If initial employer was a BIT Sponsor.
Of the 73% of graduates employed by a sponsor of BIT:
• 4.7% had their first placement with the sponsor
• 50% had their second placement with the sponsor
• 7.1% had both placements with the sponsor
• 38% had no placement with that spon-sor
This represents a pleasing end result of the partnership between industry and edu-cation in the program. BIT Sponsors have
Planning of Own Work By Year of Graduation 1991-1997
Table 6
Question 5c = Immediately following graduation / Question 14c = In current position
Q1 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Q5c never 1 1 rarely 2 1 2 sometimes 1 4 1 2 4 5 regularly 1 4 7 3 4 4 5 Q14c rarely 1 sometimes 1 2 3 regularly 2 2 2 1 4 1 4 always 2 5 6 4 2 3 1
Q8 Time worked with initial employer (months)
0_6 7_12 13_18 19_24 25_32 33_36 37_48 49_60 61_78
# of Graduates 8 9 5 5 13 1 3 3 4
Table 7 not been able to recruit from the program
on only two occasions over this period (BIT Annual Report 1991-1997).
Question 7: Length of time working be-fore first promotion.
8% of graduates stated that they received their first promotion after 0 months of em-ployment.
19% of graduates received their first pro-motion after 6 months of employment. 8% of graduates received their first pro-motion after 9 months of employment. 38% of graduates received their first pro-motion after 12 months of employment. 11% of graduates received their first pro-motion after 24 months of employment.
The majority of BIT graduates received their first promotion within their first year of employment.
Question 8: Time worked with initial employer.
The majority of graduates remained with their initial employer from between 7 to 36 months. The total months worked for the BIT graduates initial employer ranges from 2 months to 78 months. A high num-ber of graduates held their first position for over 12 months. It is not appropriate to present averages as they are subject to change as many graduates are still with their first employer. This is of course most relevant for more recent graduates.
Question 9: Number of employers worked for since graduation by year of gradua-tion.
43% of graduates have had only one em-ployer. The range of time worked for the first employer ranged form 2 months to 78 months. Responses to this question are also influenced by the number of years since graduation.
Reasons given for graduates changing em-ployers were: • Salary (1) • Personal (2) • Job Satisfaction (3) • Career Opportunities (3) • Organization Change (2) • Expiration of Contract (1) • Other (1)
Q9
# of emp. worked for
Q1
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1
1
1
2
7
3
9
2
1
4
3
3
2
1
3
4
1
4
1
1
5
1
Number of Employers Worked for: By Year of Graduation 1991-1997
Q10
Level of satisfaction
Q1
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
very dissatisfied
1
1
1
dissatisfied
1
1
1
3
indifferent
1
1
1
1
1
satisfied
4
4
3
3
4
3
2
very satisfied
1
2
4
1
2
1
5
Overall Job Satisfaction of Initial Position By Year of Graduation 1991-1997
Table 9
9
Question 10: Overall job satisfaction with initial position
The overall satisfaction of the first posi-tion held indicates a high level of gradu-ates who were satisfied or very satisfied with their first job.
Question 17: Satisfaction with current position.
The responses to this question indicate that there is a high overall level of job sat-isfaction for the graduates in their current positions of employment.
Question 18: Time period worked with current employer.
The data received from this question is consistent with the data collected in Ques-tion 9. The majority of respondents have
Overall Job Satisfaction of Current Position By Year of Graduation 1991-1997
Q17
Level of satisfaction
Q1
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
very dissatisfied
dissatisfied
1
1
indifferent
2
1
1
satisfied
1
3
3
4
5
3
3
very satisfied
1
4
5
3
2
4
Table 10held their first position from between 6 months and 36 months.
Qualitative Analysis of Graduate Survey Curriculum and Course Development: Question 25: How the curriculum of the BIT program was relevant to your profes-sional career?
The IBL placements and their value to graduates were highlighted as having a positive impact on professional careers. The IBL placements gave graduates good “real world skills’. This type of practical experience was helpful in gaining employ-ment for graduates.
The development of a broad base skill set has been important for graduates. With a broad range of areas covered, problem
solving skills were developed. The course gave strong grounding/foundations to build on.
Communication and networking skills were mentioned by a graduates as being useful within their careers. Developing net-working contacts while on placement was very useful. A mixture of communication, business systems, skills and practices. Programming languages & database sub-jects gave benefits within organizations, and were considered very relevant. Project planning/management skills were used and prepared the graduate for work-ing within different environments. The skills/content could be transferred to the working environment.
Question 28: List the specific benefits of the IBL placements.
Professional experiences Exposure to the IT environment
Preparation for the IT world /real experi-ences
Provides networking & contact opportuni-ties
Developed confidences for graduates To become familiar with the working IT environment helped [me] to understand the demands of the industry
Helped in the final job seeking/place-ment/adapting to new position quickly Question 29: Short-term benefits that the BIT program has given in relation to pro-fessional careers.
Employment opportunities— access to a first position/employment through an IBL placement
A wide base skill set/a good IT founda-tion/skills that were useful
More experience within the workforce than other graduates
A strong general confidence
An ability to move between different areas of the industry quickly/successfully A broad exposure to the IT industry Question 30: Long-term benefits that the BIT program has given in relation to present & future professional career pro-gression.
A solid grounding/basis in a variety of skill sets, which can be applied within the IT industry
Experiences/a start with the business en-vironment/access to the IT industry Involvement with a variety of networks A strong work ethic/business focus/A keen interest in information technology A greater awareness of the application of computing rather than the technology
Has given me an appreciation of the main business applications for IT. I have knowl-edge in both the IT/Software Engineering and Business areas.
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS OF DATA COLLECTED FROM
THE BIT GRADUATE FOCUS GROUP The members of the Focus Group covered graduates with post graduation experience ranging from six years to having just fin-ished the course. Six of the graduates had remained at their original company of employment. Within these companies the BIT graduates have held a number of var-ied positions and roles.
Working within a team was considered to be very important, as many company projects now involve substantial teamwork. A number of these graduates were given the opportunity to lead teams through projects. The Team Leader or Project Man-ager role is one way that the graduates have demonstrated their leadership quali-ties and abiliquali-ties. The graduates who had remained with the same company since graduation had taken on a significant num-ber of different roles and positions. Given the generally perceived mobility of IT pro-fessionals there is potentially a strong job retention rate by the BIT graduates.
Two graduates had moved from com-pany to comcom-pany, holding a number of varied roles and positions.
One graduate was forced to move com-panies, as Information Services were out-sourced during his first year after gradua-tion. He was then poached by another company after another year’s work.
Another graduate was also working at a company that out-sourced its Information Services. The new company them gave him a consulting position from which he worked for an extended period at another spon-soring company. Finally, one graduate had been self-employed since graduation.
The BIT graduates have all held a vari-ety of positions, levels of responsibility and job titles. Two of these original positions were extensions of an IBL placement. All graduates held an appropriate position in IT since graduation.
Promotion and progression within the different companies varied from graduate to graduate. Three types of promotion were discussed during the session:
• the internal or formal progression, where graduates from all programs and disci-plines move through the same process. • the informal, where the employee takes on more responsibility, ‘a sink or swim progression’.
• the earned promotion through: 1. an internal application process, or 2. where the manager designates the
staff member best suited.
Overall the graduates felt that there were many strengths which were gained from the BIT program. The program gave them a thorough skill set, strong background knowledge, and confidence to jump in and tackle most problems.
‘Putting a hand up’ to volunteer, and not being afraid to try for new roles and to learn the skills required for other positions were stated as important issues which had led to the advancement and success of
Table 11
1. Developer 1. Data Base Administrator 2. Analyst 2. Technical Support Analyst 3. Project Controller 3. Internet Consultant 4. Project Manager 4. Pre - Sales System 5. Production Manager 5. Managing Consultant
6. Lotus Notes Programmer 6. Coordinator Network Infrastructure 7. Client Service Network Consultant 7. Manager: Consultants
8. Programmer
9. Coordinator - Network 10. Consultant/Resource
the graduates. Having the ability to ‘learn and do a bit of everything’ within industry rather than having narrow specialization helped the graduates achieve further suc-cess.
The impact of structural change on the IT industry and business in general where graduates worked was considered to be influential in developing the group’s expe-riences. The shift of industry to Internet Applications, and Global Networking were seen as major issues advancing structural change.
Recent changes include a move to WEB based technologies, and a move away from main frame orientation to personal com-puter (PC) orientation. Changes in telecom-munications in Australia have also effected the IT work environment. These changes have created many new jobs and opened many new opportunities within the indus-try for graduates.
The graduates felt that there is a per-ception that Australia is now seen as the gateway to Asia and the Pacific. Therefore the BIT course content should include some people and cultural issues, with a focus on the awareness of different cul-tural and business issues. While some graduates felt that learning a language other than English, could be a useful in-clusion within the program, there was a feeling that no one language stood out and that an understanding of cultural issues was more significant.
Reflecting on the course structure of the BIT program, the graduates identified a number of areas that they felt had been of use in their place of work. The group also identified areas, which were of little use in the workplace. The summer semesters and the IBL placements were identified as pro-ductive and well timed. Completing the course within three years, and working within a number of group situations throughout the program was also seen to be a very valuable experience. The experi-ence of group work, which is a feature of many subjects in the program, enabled the graduates to build and establish a num-ber of useful networks and develop inter-personal skills. The IBL component was also identified as a very important part of the program.
• A large distribution company who was part of a major conglomerate Austra-lian multi-national company.
• A government body.
Collectively these organizations had re-cruited over twenty graduates of the pro-gram since 1991. This is approaching 10% of all graduates of the program. As the sample the group was small, it is difficult to assert that the data obtained is repre-sentative fully of the overall BIT employer organizations. A second session is planned to verify the results from this group.
The employers were asked to consider the following themes:
• Identify structural changes over the last, say, five years and the impact on em-ployment— numbers, opportunities, costs.
• Identify either technological (or meth-odological) changes over this period and their impact.
• Comment on the importance (out-comes) of the breadth and depth of BIT graduates.
• Comment on the importance of the de-velopment of Generic Skills for the graduates.
• Comment on any significant technical skill requirements of the Graduate. • Are there any major gaps that have
be-come obvious in your observation of the graduates?
• Comment on the progression of gradu-ates through the organization and re-flect on the issues, which have contrib-uted to success or failure.
• Is there an emerging pattern of where these graduates may be heading in their careers?
Note— some questions of a program content nature have been omitted from this paper, however, a full report can be found in Murphy & Murphy (1998)
It was agreed that as the Information Technology discipline is so broad and ever changing, the program should concentrate in one area viz. a management and busi-ness focus of IT, and that the program should be careful to not fall into an over-load situation.
Decision Analysis was identified as a subject that had little relevance in the work environment. The lack of involvement within the areas of culture and languages other than English was identified as a gap within the program.
The group also suggested that the com-panies involved with the IBL placements, need to be educated on how to treat and deal with the IBL students on placement. A link could be developed between gradu-ates, management and students, to target and improve all aspects of an IBL place-ment.
SUMMARY FOR THE GRADUATE FOCUS GROUP OBSERVATIONS The overall long-term experiences of the BIT graduates showed they had all achieved successful transitions into the workplace. The graduates had taken on a variety of positions and roles within their companies. They all felt that the BIT pro-gram had given them and their peers the skills needed and the confidence required to take on significant challenges within the work environment.
EMPLOYER FOCUS GROUP DATA COLLECTION
The purpose of this Focus Group study was to:
• determine the long-term experiences of the BIT Graduates within their place of employment from an employers’ point of view,
• focus on the merits or otherwise of the various aspects of the program. Four members of the employer organi-zations attended this Focus Group (a num-ber of apologies were received). The em-ployers present represented a cross sec-tion of the IT industry:
• Suppliers of hardware, software and ser vices who were subsidiaries of foreign companies.
Question 9: Overall quality of BIT gradu-ates compared with other recently hired graduates
An interest in the level of work, initiative, the ability to work in a team, communica-tion skills, interpersonal skills, practical/ technical knowledge, business orientation, quality of work and overall quality are re-corded as superior or as the same quality factor when comparing BIT graduates and other hired graduates.
The performance under pressure was recorded as quality factor of the same and inferior to be considered. Problem solv-ing/critical thinking was rated as the same quality factor.
The quality of work is a superior factor/ quality to be considered when comparing graduates within an organization.
Question 17: Long term costs/benefits from hiring BIT graduates in comparison to comparable hiring— hiring new gradu-ates.
work experience was again stated as a strength. Students were offered good gen-eral preparation for the real world. Spe-cific comments were:
on-site work experience & supervisor/ref-eree comments
Adequate for the work involved. Don’t know the program, so hard to answer
Content appears relevant to that of a vo-cational IT course Good general prepara-tion for ‘real world’ IT delivery Prepares graduates well for business analysis tasks rather than emphasizing ‘hard-core’ tech-nical roles Work experience component provides a practical experience.
Question 22: Benefits that the IBL placements give organizations. Specific comments were:
Professional well-trained computer
profes-impress. New outlook on problem resolu-tion, with skills/processes. Insight into pro-spective new employees. Insight into what universities are teaching.
Graduates have a good understanding of the work environment that they are enter-ing. The company is able to experience the benefits of bringing young people into the organization (removes the fear) prior to employing graduates. Enthusiastic,high caliber.
1. Technically qualified graduates appro-priate to Oracle’s needs
2. Lower cost recruitment FURTHER OBSERVATIONS OF DATA COLLECTED FROM EMPLOYER FOCUS GROUP
The employers felt that the Graduates of the BIT program had a wide variety of skills and attributes to offer their organizations.
Table 8 (n=9)
Benefit level and A B C D E F
% % % % % % % A - Very high B - high C - Marginal D - Neutral E - Less F - No response Short term 1 3 2 1 _ 2
costs/benefits from hiring new graduates
1 3 2 1 2
Short term 2 1 1 1 2 2
costs/benefits from hiring graduates with prior employment experience
2 1 1 1 2 2
Long term 1 2 3 1 _ 2
costs/benefits from hiring BIT graduates in comparison to comparable hiring - Hiring new graduates.
1 2 3 1 2
Long term 1 2 1 1 1 3
costs/benefits from hiring BIT graduates in comparison to comparable hiring - Hiring graduates with prior employment.
The program had offered the employers graduates with a high maturity level and strong ability to adapt to many different situations. The employers saw the future career paths of the hired graduates in the short term as roles including:
• Business Analyst
• Specialized / Technical Specialist • Project Management/Consultant
The Employer Group felt that the impact of structural change on employment over the last five years has been influential. From the first day that new graduates en-ter an organization they take on a full set of responsibilities. The use of a training year no longer takes place. Each graduate also has an increased workload, along with other employees.
All of the organizations in this Focus Group stated the importance of team work, and being able to take charge of a team. This appears to be an important shift from the focus on individual performance.
Client Server Computing is now an im-portant part of many organizations. Com-panies work on many small projects over shorter time frames. Most work is ‘Mission Critical’.
The BIT Graduates who work within these organizations:
• have a strong knowledge of business • pick up skills quickly
• possess a wide breadth of generic skills They also have a sound understanding of quality systems and are prepared to par-ticipate in development of systems in ac-cordance with these standards.People management, documentation and commu-nication skills were also rated as very im-portant skills for an IT graduate.
The graduate needs to possess a vari-ety of technical skills to enter the work force successfully. It was stated that the BIT graduates demonstrate a strong ability to learn and research, from which in turn they can learn specific skills that they may not have. The IBL placements are of great im-portance and are an asset for the gradu-ates in developing these skills.
Lastly, the BIT graduates appear to hold a higher level of maturity, flexibility and adaptability, than graduates of other
pro-grams do. They are keen to take on addi-tional training and to progress within or-ganizations.
SUMMARY FOR THE EMPLOYER FOCUS GROUP OBSERVATIONS The employers perceived that the overall focus of IT employment in organizations has changed over the last five years. The major changes are:
• A growing emphasis on teamwork • The development of small projects • Client server computing
• Requirements for people management skills
• Increased workloads
• Taking control of an individual’s own career
The experiences gained in the BIT pro-gram enable graduates to successfully take on challenges and to achieve this quickly. The IBL placement is an important part of the program that gives the graduates the maturity and experiences needed in the work place. This Employer Focus Group felt that the BIT program gave the gradu-ates the skills, experiences and confidence needed to become successful team mem-bers of their organizations.
SUMMARY
The research observations to date show promising and immediate outcomes can be achieved. The availability of more data from further study will enable future plan-ning and implementation of changes ef-fecting the student, industry and univer-sity as stakeholders. In particular, results will impact curriculum development and maintenance and the marketing of the pro-gram.
The longitudinal study has already shown anecdotally that graduates of the BIT program are highly sought after when they enter the workforce and that they con-tinue to be highly valued employees. REFERENCES
ACES (Australian Cooperative Education Soci-ety), (1996) Proceedings of the Second Pa-cific Conference on Cooperative Education— Network for the Future, Melbourne.
Calway B. A. and Murphy G. A., (1994) Using Stakeholders to determine quality education outcomes, 16th International Conference of EAIR forum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Aug. 1994.
Calway B. A., Murphy G. A., et al., (1994) Defin-ing Mechanisms and Measures for AssessDefin-ing Quality in Higher Education— A case study of the Bachelor of Information Technology, BIT Quality Project, Swinburne University of Tech-nology Australia.
Calway B. A., Murphy G. A., Diamond N., and Watson D. (1995) Industry Participation in Teaching and Learning Outcomes, (A Study of Sessional Input to Co-operative Education U/ G Programs) 9th World Conference on Co-op-erative Education, Kingston Jamaica, Sep. 1995.
Hudson, H., (1992) Report of the Discipline Review of Computing Studies and Information Sciences Education, DEET, Canberra, Vol. 1 and 2.
Kysor, D. V., (1994) An Evaluation of the Career Progress and Satisfaction of Cooperative Edu-cation/Internship Graduates and Regular Graduates at Mercyhurst College, UMI, Michi-gan.
Murphy, G. A., (1992) Industry Education Tal-ent and Challenge— Costs and Benefits to In-dustry, ACES, Sydney.
Murphy, G. A., Murphy, R. E. (1998) Career Pro-gression of Graduates— Bachelor of Informa-tion Technology, Swinburne University of Tech-nology, Australia
Owen, J. (1993) Issues in Evaluation, CPE- The University of Melbourne.
Shaw, J. E., (1992) An Evaluation of the Co-operative Education Program in Information Technology, DEET, AGPS, Canberra.
Sweeney, T., (1990) Higher Education and In-dustry Working Together, Report prepared for the National Advisory Committee on Coopera-tive Education in Information Technology.
