During the 1990s, work-based learning has gained prominence as one element of local, state, and federal school reform strategies. The School to Work Opportunities Act of 1994 (STWOA), for example, calls for redesigning educational programs to include both school-based and work-based learning (WBL). The act defines WBL as a planned program of work experience linked to school. It further specifies that WBL include training on the job, supervision by workplace mentors, and instruction in general workplace competencies and "all aspects of the industry." Successful completion of paid or unpaid work experiences (paid experiences are preferable under STWOA) should lead to a portable certificate. By late 1996, federal funding totaling $695 million had been provided to 37 local and state partnerships. A recent evaluation of states receiving funds under STWOA indicates that developing work-based activities are the top priority (Hershey, Hudis, Silverberg, & Haimson, 1997).
While WBL is not new--cooperative education has been recognized by federal authority since the 1917 Smith-Hughes Act--it has primarily been associated with vocational education programs. Co-op in high schools and community colleges is typically designed as an adjunct to vocational training leading to specific occupations. The renewed interest in WBL incorporates much broader purposes that, for example, tie WBL to the academic curriculum and to preparing students for a four-year college or university. Thus, WBL is now intended for all students, whether they intend to work after high school or pursue higher education (Urquiola et al., 1997).
Not surprisingly, the renewed interest in WBL raises questions about its effectiveness. Previous research provides some information about student outcomes associated with cooperative education, school-based enterprises, and other types of programs that incorporate WBL, but our understanding is sketchy at best, particularly for newer programs promoting broader purposes. Some evidence suggests that the quality of work experience matters (Greenberger & Steinberg, 1986; Stern & Nakata, 1990; Stern, Hopkins, Stone, & McMillion, 1990), but there is little systematic information about quality across programs or even consensus on how to define it. Several studies document structural features of WBL programs, such as the nature of school-employer partnerships, curriculum changes, or connecting activities (e.g., Hershey et al., 1997), and others describe what students do at work (e.g., Hamilton & Hamilton, 1997). However, hardly any attention at all has been given to the actual experiences of students during WBL or the ways those experiences contribute to, or hinder, their intellectual and occupational development (OTA, 1995).
This exploratory study takes a different approach from previous research by examining the characteristics of WBL sites as learning environments for participating students. The study examined WBL in three different types of programs in Los Angeles, with an emphasis on the students' perspective and experience. At each site, students completed a survey about their WBL experience. The study team interviewed teachers, mentors, employers, and other adults associated with the programs. We also observed students at work and interviewed them to gather in-depth information on WBL. This report focuses on two issues. First, it characterizes the learning environments that students are exposed to when engaged in school-supervised WBL activities. Second, it discusses opportunities WBL presents for learning, including technical and academic knowledge and skills and work-related attitudes.
Before delving into the particulars of this study, it is useful to place the research in a broader context. Programs funded under STWOA are intended to build on previous federal initiatives and existing programs, including Tech Prep, career academies, school-based enterprises, and cooperative education. Each of these program types or models has specific characteristics which support different purposes for WBL. In practice, each type has many variants to accommodate local conditions and needs. Consequently, WBL implementation is not uniform, even for those programs supported by STWOA, which defines WBL in a particular way.
Since STWOA expands on previous initiatives, it is difficult to precisely gauge the number of participating students engaged in WBL. A recent review estimated that 49% of secondary schools offered cooperative education programs, 34% offered other work experience, 19% had school-based enterprises, and about 7% offered Tech Prep or school-to-apprenticeship (Stern, 1992). A U.S. Department of Education report to Congress in September 1996 reported that about half a million students, representing 1,800 schools, are engaged in school-to-work systems, with 53,000 WBL sites available for students.[1]
A recent review by Urquiola and his colleagues (1997) identifies at least five purposes for WBL: (1) acquiring knowledge or skill related to employment in particular occupations or industries; (2) providing career exploration and planning; (3) learning all aspects of an industry; (4) increasing personal and social competence related to work in general; and (5) enhancing students' motivation and academic achievement. These purposes are not mutually exclusive. In practice, different programs emphasize different purposes, but given limited student time, it is probably not possible to address all purposes simultaneously.
Job shadowing experiences, for example, primarily serve career awareness and motivational purposes--they enable students to get a general sense of a career area and perhaps to see firsthand how learning in school is related to the world of work. Longer-term paid or unpaid internships provide opportunities for learning general or specific knowledge and skills related to employment.
A crucial element of WBL activities, whether long or short, paid or unpaid, is the link to the school curriculum, so that students can see how the skills they learn in class are needed in the workplace and have a chance to apply them (Hershey et al., 1997; Stern, Finkelstein, Stone, Latting, & Dornsife, 1995). School activities can help students understand what they have learned at work (Goldberger, Kazis, & O'Flanagan, 1994), and can integrate academic and employment-related instruction (Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 1994).
Forging this connection between school and work is difficult and typically requires some structural feature to be built into the program. Studies of programs that incorporate WBL describe several ways to support the school-to-work link, such as written training agreements that incorporate student learning objectives (Stern, 1991), seminars to explicitly discuss school and work connections (Grubb & Badway, 1995; Wieler & Bailey, 1997), and workforce performance assessments linked to grades. However, the research also shows that links between school and work experience were infrequent and often tenuous (Hershey et al., 1997; Wieler & Bailey, 1997).
The establishment of a linking component is crucial to WBL because without it, it is unclear why school-supervised WBL has any advantages over regular work experience. Since youth jobs are plentiful, on average--in 1992, 80% of high school seniors worked for pay outside of school--students can presumably gain valuable work-related skills and attitudes in those jobs (U.S. Department of Education, 1992).[2] If so, then there would be little need to develop school-supervised WBL programs unless they add value to schooling. Given the high transaction costs associated with developing and implementing WBL programs in schools, it is important to document the benefits of school-supervised WBL.
Regardless of the definition or purposes adopted for WBL, proponents believe that giving young people responsibilities outside of school will help them make the transition to adulthood. Since research and experience tell us that not all work experience is beneficial (Greenberger & Steinberg, 1986), it is important to address the quality of WBL experiences. Defining program quality would also help determine what school-supervised WBL provides over and above school-based instruction alone or regular work experience.
At present, there is no consensus on how to define program quality. Rather, researchers and program developers look for evidence that programs achieve their intended purpose. Indeed, case studies provide many examples of WBL's effectiveness in promoting the purposes discussed above. Several studies show that WBL can help students acquire specific job-related knowledge or skill (Bragg, Hamm, & Trinkle, 1995; Pauley, Kopp, & Haimson, 1996; Urquiola et al., 1997), as well as knowledge of all aspects of an industry (Goldberger et al., 1994; Hamilton & Hamilton, 1997; Nielsen Andrew, 1996; Stern et al., 1995). WBL offers important information about jobs and careers that students cannot otherwise obtain, which can in turn affect their course of study and decision to pursue higher education (Grubb & Badway, 1995; Pauley et al., 1994; Pedraza, Pauley, & Kopp, 1997). In addition to learning technical job skills, students can enhance personal and social competencies related to work in general (Hamilton & Hamilton, 1997; Stasz & Brewer, in press). WBL offers students a context for understanding how skills learned in school are useful and important in work, thus enhancing their school learning (Hamilton & Hamilton, 1997; Stone, Stern, Hopkins, & McMillion, 1990). Finally, some studies find that WBL engages students who are otherwise uninterested in school and motivates them to stay in school (Phelps, Scribner, Wakelyn, & Weis, 1996; Urquiola et al., 1997).[3]
While case studies of WBL programs show many effects from program participation, not all are positive. Since WBL can be a time-intensive activity, it is possible that students' academic performance might suffer. They might have less time to do homework, may be tired or late for class, may take fewer courses, or may have lower grades. Several studies show such negative affects associated with WBL (e.g., Stasz & Brewer, in press; Stone et al., 1990). The research indicates that once students work 10-20 hours per week, their school performance begins to deteriorate (Urquiola et al., 1997).
In addition, academic benefits of WBL may not be realized without explicitly focusing on academics or creating the connection between academic concepts and their practical application (Hamilton & Hamilton, 1997). Presently, the notion that "situated" or "authentic" learning, such as the opportunities that may be provided in WBL, can advance learning in academic subjects is more theoretical than empirically based (Raizen, 1989; Resnick, 1991). Although a recent study by Newmann and Wehlage (1995) shows gains in academic achievement as a result of "authentic" instruction in classrooms, the students were not participating in WBL.
A final drawback to WBL is identified in studies of cooperative education, a
form of WBL which is offered in 49% of secondary schools (Stern, 1992).
Compared to nonworking students and students with jobs unrelated to school,
co-op students perceive a stronger connection between school and work, have
better attitudes toward both, and earn more after high school if they work for
the same employers. On the other hand, they are also less likely to go to
college than other high school graduates (Stern et al., 1995).
Co-op
students may gain in the short term--by improving their immediate transition to
work and earnings--but at the same time they may forego longer-term benefits
associated with college matriculation and completion.
Although school-supervised WBL opportunities are increasing for many high school youth, research on WBL effectiveness for helping students achieve a variety of learning goals is inconclusive. Our review of the purposes and quality of programs incorporating WBL suggests some positive benefits, but also raises some concerns. There appears to be little consensus on how to define program quality apart from the various purposes that WBL hopes to promote. Since programs have varied purposes and are structured in various ways, students' experiences in WBL can be vastly different. For WBL to add value to school learning, the two must be carefully coordinated. Yet links between students' work experience and the classroom are often tenuous.
An important gap in our knowledge concerns the actual experiences of students at worksites, especially how and what they learn. This exploratory study adopts a different approach than previous research by focusing explicitly on the workplace as a learning environment for students. It draws on research on learning at work from a sociocultural perspective to characterize the sorts of instructional activities and learning tasks that students encounter. The advantage of this approach is to draw attention to the teaching and learning process itself--the process that teachers in school or at work have the most ability to shape.
This study aims, first, to understand these workplaces as learning environments for young people. Specifically, it examines the social means by which work tasks are established and accomplished by students. It characterizes teaching at work--who does it and how does the community of practice support teaching and learning?
Our second main objective is to understand what students learn from WBL, including technical, generic, social skills, and work-related attitudes. The study does not measure learning formally, but, rather, asks what opportunities are presented for learning different skills or attitudes and what students appear to learn from these opportunities, based on our observations and their own opinions. We also explore the relationship between school-based learning and WBL in these programs.
This study provides in-depth information about teaching and learning at selected WBL sites. Except for the school-based enterprise, selected study sites are not necessarily representative of the range of WBL experiences available to all students in a program. Rather, we asked program coordinators to nominate the worksites that provided, in their own opinion, high-quality, WBL experiences for our observation. These sites, then, represent "best practice" as defined by programs themselves. To the extent that they indeed provide valuable learning for students, then the sites may represent a standard that other programs could aim for.
Because the programs and WBL experiences have varied purposes and because of the situated nature of teaching and learning at work, this study does not aim for generalizability in the statistical sense. Rather, our study design is meant to reveal similar patterns across varied cases. These patterns describe important features of the social context of learning at work that are replicable in varied settings. In turn, they can provide insights to program developers about how to structure WBL experiences for students.
We did not attempt to formally assess student learning, but base our findings on observation and the students' own opinions. This limits our ability to determine what students actually learn. We also did not attempt to evaluate these programs to determine which one was "best." A comparative evaluation of student learning or other outcomes of interest would require a different design with complex controls. Two of the programs we studied systematically gather evaluation data of their own, and in this report we make use of relevant, available data gathered by the programs themselves (e.g., the college matriculation rates of program participants and nonparticipants at the same school).
Following the Introduction, this report is divided into four sections: "Conceptual Approach and Methods," "Overview of Programs and Work Experiences," "Learning at Work," and "Conclusions and Implications."
These figures represent eleven states (210 partnerships) with complete data on schools, about one-fourth of the 818 partnerships receiving funds through October 1996.
[2] Although, on average, the majority of high school youth find jobs, employment rates differ for different groups. In 1992, for example, 24% of high school students aged 15-24 were working, but white students were twice as likely to be working as minority students (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992). Some programs, including one in our study, are specifically designed to provide work experience for minority youth because real opportunities in the community are scarce. In this context, WBL may have value in providing work for experience alone, irrespective of its relationship to school. In addition, conventional wisdom characterizes youth jobs as low-level "McJobs" which do not afford students the opportunity to gain higher-level skills that might enhance their overall employability. Studies that closely examine the quality of youth jobs in comparison to school-supervised work experiences, however, have not been conducted.
[3] See OTA (1995) and Urquiola et al. (1997) for further discussion on the various rationale in support of WBL.