What are the characteristics of WBL sites as places for students to learn? In the previous section, we provided an overview of programs and WBL activities and survey data on the types of jobs and tasks that students perform. In this section, we discuss the components of the social context that constitute "education" or learning at work gained from observations of students at work and interviews with students, employers, mentors, and others associated with the programs. As discussed in the section titled, "Conceptual Approaches and Methods," this social context influences the activities that students engage in. Because activity structures cognition, the context is important in the way it furnishes experience or guidance, thereby influencing students' learning. We begin by describing the social means by which students' main tasks are initiated, established, and processed. Then we examine the pedagogy in worksites and the community of practice that students entered and how these shape working and learning. Finally, we examine what students learn, including the extent to which WBL connects with learning in school.
Following Moore (1981), our perspective assumes that work-related learning is possible when a student encounters a task or problem. Other necessary conditions include an environment that provides information concerning the nature of the problem, knowledge, and skills necessary for its solution, and relevant criteria for performance. The student must engage in some action to accomplish the task and utilize available resources, including information and other individuals in the workplace. The environment also needs to provide information to the student about what is expected from him or her.
The way a task is established indicates whether a student is highly supervised or has some autonomy and discretion over work tasks. If a student has discretion, then the job may provide opportunities to learn how to make decisions, organize one's work, and make use of the resources at hand. When students engage in autonomous activity, they are pressed into the type of thinking associated with learning. Having autonomy may also help motivate students--research on work suggests that greater job autonomy is related to higher motivation (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Learning how to work autonomously is important for success in many jobs (Berryman & Bailey, 1992; Stasz et al., 1996).
The way tasks are established and the degree of autonomy and discretion accorded to students in carrying them out varied considerably across the three programs. Students in the TCAP program performed tasks that would be done by regular employees such as making slides for presentations or modifying legal documents. Their work tasks were often done on an as-needed basis or were incorporated into a set schedule of work. For as-needed tasks, a supervisor or coworker simply made a request to initiate a task, which had to be completed right away. These were often fairly straightforward clerical tasks such as making phone calls, copying, or sending a fax. Students were also assigned tasks with a longer time frame, which gave them some discretion over when to work on particular projects. Ray, for example, worked on rebar documentation that was updated monthly. He could work on the documentation, take a break, and then work on another task for a change of pace. Although the supervisor felt the student had little discretion--"I tell him exactly and set the priorities for him to follow"--in practice, he appeared to be a bit more flexible than he claimed. Ray said that when he finished a particular task he went to whomever requested it and asked them for something else to do. He added that since he often finishes jobs "too quickly," he sometimes runs out of things to do (see Table 4.1).
For TCAP students, work might be initiated by their assigned mentor/supervisor, or by someone else in the office. For example, a second TCAP student, Kristin, had an office manager who wanted to make sure that she was exposed to different aspects of the work. He would ask other staff to take her out to the field for an inspection or to court to hear a deposition. And the engineers also took Ray with them on visits to the construction site.
MMHS students' work was closely scheduled and monitored by their mentors. As apprentice scientists in a high-level university lab, they assisted in the various experiments conducted at the lab. The schedule for running the experiments determined the order and timing of many tasks. Thus, some tasks had to be completed in a certain sequence or at a particular time. Sometimes the schedule changed and tasks were re-ordered. If others in the lab had a task for the student, they coordinated them with the student's mentor. When students found themselves without something to do, they reported to the office manager. She gave them other tasks, such as going to the library or sending out research articles, that could be done in between experiment-related work. Overall, students had little discretion over their work. The level of student monitoring was partly due to the nature of the lab work--specific tasks, like entering data on a computer or testing for RNA in muscle cells, needed to be done in a certain way, following a certain procedure. When following a specified procedure ensures the integrity of the research, there is no room for creativity or choice. Rather, students needed to learn that work is done a certain way, at a certain time, and for a certain reason. Task establishment, then, is closely tied to the work of the lab and norms established by the community of practice, which we discuss further below.
The student-owners in the SBE had the most discretion over their work. Indeed, student-owners decided when they came to work, how long they stayed, and often what they did. The SBE established guidelines for what had to be accomplished, but students also had many choices. The guidelines consisted of a list of 27 items which primarily included activities related to running the business (e.g., basic bookkeeping, correspondence, handling orders, gardening, sales, and marketing). Each student was responsible for learning and doing every task at some time during his or her tenure. The white board in the office posted tasks that needed immediate attention such as watering the garden, completing invoices, or writing a follow-up letter to a potential funder. At weekly meetings, students could volunteer for various scheduled activities such as conducting a taste-testing demo at a grocery store. By engaging in a variety of tasks, students could determine which were more interesting to them or which complemented their talents. A student who demonstrated skill at organizing demos, for example, took charge of a group of students who needed training in giving demos. Students who found they liked to garden did more gardening than office work.
One student felt the most significant difference between learning at work and in the classroom was the level of autonomy: "Here we do stuff ourselves. In school, we listen to the teacher, and she tells us what to do. Down here, we make our own decisions, basically."
In this atmosphere of choice, however, not every student took initiative. A few students at the SBE stood out for their accomplishments and were recognized for their expertise. Other students would show up for work, but waited for someone, usually one of the adult supervisors, to assign a task. Sometimes students came to the SBE not to work, but to socialize or just hang out in a safe and friendly environment. Thus, students looking for assistance with some office task often began a conversation by asking "Are you here to work?"
| Task
Processes
|
Worksite
Pedagogy
|
Community
of Practice
| |
| TCAP
|
autonomy accomplishment school |
for productive work approach opportunities at one site |
temporary employees toward students |
| MMHS
|
autonomy accomplishment school |
approach available wrong level |
high school students scrutinized |
| SBE
|
work hours some tasks accomplishment |
available opportunities |
student-owners increase learning opportunities |
Many factors affect whether and how well a student can accomplish a task. Some tasks are straightforward and only require one to follow directions. Other tasks demand creativity. To accomplish a task, the student may have all the information and resources at hand or may need to locate them in the environment. They may need help from others or permission to use some equipment. If the student can find what he or she needs easily, then the work is easier to accomplish. Conversely, if resources are not accessible, then work can be slow, frustrating, or unsuccessful. Since other people are often resources for task accomplishment, a student may need social skills to interact with others and enlist their help.
In all sites, students found the social supports they needed to learn and do their job. However, the sites differed in several respects. In the TCAP sites, where the interns were the only young people in an adult working environment, nearly all the adults provided assistance. Most of their tasks were clerical and fairly procedural, but some required creating new solutions or problem solving (e.g., creating a presentation on a computer). The students felt that their coworkers were friendly and wanted to help them. Both students worked fairly independently and felt comfortable asking questions and seeking help when they needed it. But, like many workplaces, they did not always get answers right away, and sometimes the adults could not really help them. Ray, for example, often had to search for the files containing the latest construction specifications, as they were used for different purposes and might be in the office or with the engineers in the field. Ray also used a coworker's computer and had to get permission from him to do so. If the person were unavailable, he had to wait to complete his task. Overall, any challenges the students faced in finding the resources they needed seemed normal occurrences for a busy office environment--things are not always where they are supposed to be, some resources must be shared, and sometimes it is hard to find the right answer.
Likewise, the MMHS students found assistance from many individuals in the lab. Typically, they would seek assistance from whomever was supervising a particular task. This might be their mentor, a graduate student, a lab manager, or a member of the research staff. The two students also sought assistance from each other. Once students received training, they worked fairly autonomously. However, as we discuss further below, this environment presented some challenges to students because of their social status. They were the youngest, least experienced, and least knowledgeable students in the lab, and their lower status created some problems related to task accomplishment. One student, for example, could not finish her work efficiently because someone else had taken over the computer she had been using.
Finally, students at the SBE also found many available supports and resources for completing their tasks. First, there were usually other students around who could help out. The adult supervisors were on hand to teach, coach, and assist. Since students were on their own for some tasks, it was very important for them to rely on each other. When they encountered problems while doing a store demonstration, for example, they had to figure out what to do on their own. Students sometimes ran into trouble doing some of the office work because they could not find the materials they needed or supplies had run out. In these instances, they seemed to find ways to manage, for example, by taking a trip to the office supply store or by figuring out an alternative way to get the information needed (e.g., by calling the broker for grocery store addresses when the list could not be located).
To accomplish a task well and successfully, a student needs to know what kind of performance is expected. Ideally, a student will get clear information about performance expectations before starting a task, as well as feedback along the way. Problems may arise if expectations are unclear or if the student's work is not monitored. Feedback and monitoring may be more effective if the supervisor or mentor guides the student's performance. Providing appropriate guidance can be a complicated affair, since the mentor must provide enough information and feedback so the student can proceed with the task, but not so much that it presents little challenge or no longer provides an opportunity for learning (Stasz et al., 1993). In some WBL programs, evaluations of work performance are incorporated into school-based evaluations, and students need to understand this aspect of the evaluation process as well.
TCAP students appeared to receive ongoing, albeit informal, feedback from supervisors. Ray worked on a spreadsheet, for example, which he showed to his boss. His boss identified a discrepancy and asked him to correct the problem. This particular task required several iterations of revisions based on feedback from the supervisor, so in this way, Ray got feedback along the way. Sometimes feedback was incorporated into the task, as when Kristin prepared a Power Point demonstration on the computer. Since the image changes in real time, she got immediate feedback on any adjustments made.
During the informal critique process, performance criteria was not explicit, but this ambiguity did not appear to pose any problems for students. For easy tasks like copying, the criteria is evident because a finished product results--for instance, five copies of a document are made and delivered to whomever requested them. In other cases, the necessity of quality performance was unclear, or lackluster performance did matter. In one instance, for example, a supervisor noted that while Kristin had made some mistakes editing the Power Point presentation, he was not expecting perfect performance. In discussing her work he said that anyone could make small mistakes and, besides, "she is just in high school." Nonetheless, performance remained an important issue. Both students knew that their mentor would complete an evaluation form on their performance and send it back to the program coordinator at the end of the summer. Students also complete a form to provide feedback about their work experience.
At the research laboratory, feedback was more formal and more frequent, which befitted the nature of the work and social environment. Students learned a task from a particular individual, who provided feedback and monitored their work. When the tasks were crucial to an experiment, like testing for RNA in muscle tissue, the student was closely monitored and feedback was frequent. For less crucial or easy tasks, like collecting articles from the library, feedback was less frequent and more informal.
Feedback was also provided through task processing. Working on the computer, for example, James could easily tell if his actions were correct or incorrect--if he made a mistake, the data would not appear. In lab work, feedback is often provided through physical evidence. For example, if RNA is being isolated successfully, then the RNA pellet should appear in the tube. If a procedure ends with many empty tubes, then something in the process is probably wrong. The student needed to understand the process, "but not the chemistry at the equation level," to know how to interpret the feedback.
In addition to feedback about the work, MMHS students received feedback about their behavior, especially any undesirable behavior. The lab was an active and busy environment where people work hard, for long hours. Loafing and socializing were not the order of the day. The students' behavior was frequently scrutinized by other staff, who would report any off-task behavior to a mentor or the office manager. One student said there was an "expectation to be doing something" and that "people get on your case" if they perceive that a student is not working. Students expressed some resentment that staff would assume they were loafing and "tell on them" rather than just ask what they were doing.
At the SBE, feedback was also provided in a variety of ways. Overall, student-owners could gauge success by sales volume. If their marketing pitch was successful, the store buyer would place an order. On a day-to-day basis, students looked mostly to adults to determine if they were doing a good job, but some students also provided feedback. During staff meetings, the advisor might report whether each student was doing well or what he or she needed to work on. The adult mentors frequently praised students' good work or accomplishments. In introducing students to the research staff, for example, they described their accomplishments (e.g., "Carlos is our math whiz. He went to a summer program at Cal Poly Pomona and aced his math class.").
Students who were not performing up to expectations were put on probation. This happened if the other student-owners perceived that a student was not putting in many hours, did not show up for regular meetings, or did not work very hard. The student-owners discussed such problems and, if necessary, notified a student that he or she was on six weeks probation. If the student's behavior did not improve, he or she could be dropped from the program. As one student explained, "If you're lazy, you can't be here. We don't want to fill a slot with a student who won't work."
Students also gauged their performance by the number of points earned. Ultimately, the number of points they accumulated (point equity) would determine their financial remuneration upon graduation. They received 100 points for each hour of work, 75 for attending weekly meetings, 250 for each hour of SAT preparation, and 500 points for demos. Although the number of points earned provides feedback about how much a student accomplished, point totals do not provide information about the quality of their work.
Moore's (1981) studies of student internships found no "rational pedagogy" whereby social means, as pedagogical strategies, are matched to the task. Rather, extrapedagogical factors, embedded in the broader institutional context, helped shape the setting as a learning environment. We reach some similar conclusions upon examining the pedagogy of worksites, but also found instances where teaching strategies are carefully planned and where opportunities for learning were foremost in the minds of adult mentors. These appeared to be tied to the organizational setting and/or a particular community of practice and to the individual adults involved.
The main pedagogical approach at the two TCAP sites was "show and tell." Students received instructions to complete a task and were expected to ask questions if they did not understand. Learning was not planned, but experienced on an as-needed, or just-in-time basis. This model of training is common in industry, particularly for front-line or entry-level staff (Stasz et al., 1996; Stern, 1994).
Organizational differences also contributed to variations in learning experiences offered to TCAP students. Kristin worked in a firm characterized by organizational openness and value for training and learning; these characteristics affected her experience in several ways. First, Kristin was both permitted and encouraged to observe a range of roles in the organization. The director became overtly involved in her internship and, in keeping with the program's goals, wanted her to gain broad knowledge about different aspects of the work.[16] To accomplish this goal, he gave Kristin a special project--to interview all key staff to learn about their jobs, background, and experiences in the industry. Kristin was able to organize and carry out this task in her own way and was expected to present what she learned to the staff at the end of her internship. Although the office was fairly small, the range and type of tasks the company engaged in represented several aspects of the construction industry--marketing, engineering, planning, and inspection. Thus, she had the opportunity to learn about a broad range of activities, whether she worked directly on them or not. The director made it clear on several occasions that this project was an important part of Kristin's internship and that staff should accommodate her requests for interviews and information.
The director's interest in Kristin's educational experience paralleled with the organization's view toward learning and training. According to Kristin's supervisors, the company has a self-development program. This program is open to all employees and includes technical training within the company, lunch time seminars, and outside seminars. Each employee must obtain yearly continuing education credits. Classes are available four times a year and different full- and half-day seminars are offered concurrently. Many classes are held on Fridays, since the office closes on alternate Fridays. Staff we spoke to felt the educational programs were beneficial and planned to encourage Kristin to attend an upcoming seminar.
In sum, this emphasis on training and learning helped create a nurturing environment where Kristin found ready assistance when she needed it and where many individuals paid attention to the educational activities in her internship, not just productive work activities. In contrast, the construction company where Ray worked had no such organizational training policies or practices and, except for some occasional visits to the construction site with the engineers, did not offer instruction other than just-in-time training.[17]
The university-based science research laboratory considers teaching part of its mission. The students from MMHS worked as unpaid interns during the school year, when they visited the lab one morning per week. During the summer, the interns were hired as lab assistants and paid under a special program the university sponsors for minority students. The basic pedagogical approach resembled an apprenticeship model of teaching, modified somewhat for high school students, where mentoring was very important. As one staffperson explained, "In science, mentorship is a big deal." Each student we observed had a designated mentor, and also received training from others in the lab. In addition, both students also reported to the lab manager, who checked their hours and assigned them other work to fill in between research-related tasks.
One mentor, a graduate student in the lab who was instrumental in creating the internships for MMHS students, developed several instructional activities for the summer interns, in addition to working closely with one student. From experience, she knew that the students' science background was very general and not related to the specific scientific concepts and methods utilized in neuromuscular research. To help prepare students for lab work, she developed a curriculum, including textbook readings, an annotated bibliography, and a few key research articles. She also assessed the students' skills and attempted to provide learning opportunities to help them reach higher skill levels. When she discovered that Shawna could not type, for example, she gave her a computer program for developing keyboarding skills. Shawna was required to spend 45 minutes each day practicing her typing. The mentor also arranged for Shawna to take a computer class at the university.
As mentioned earlier, students learned the same way that others learn in the lab--they are taught a procedure or a task by whoever knows how to do it. The "teacher" can be a researcher, a college student, a graduate student, or a lab manager. The training is often planned ahead of time. The quality of instruction, from James' perspective, was uneven; sometimes it was too fast--"they are forgetting we are high school kids"; some people "get mad at having to explain again . . . others are cool and will help you out."[18]
Shawna's mentor had a good deal of previous teaching experience, although with older students, and had worked as a counselor's aide with undergraduate science majors. She used several specific teaching techniques when instructing Shawna in laboratory work. For example, she provided a "job aid" or summary of the "RNA Protection Assay" procedure. It began with a description of what had already been done, then outlined the day's procedures and described what would happen next. This summary put the immediate task in the larger context of the study and also explained the steps required to complete three procedures--(1) RNA digestion, (2) inactivation of RNase, and (3) precipitation of target RNA. Although this procedure was available in a book, the student felt the job aid presented it in simpler language and made it easier to understand.
As Shawna started to work, the mentor discussed what they had done last time and gave another example they had observed in a different lab. This review served to remind Shawna that she has seen or used these techniques before. While Shawna followed the procedures, her mentor let her do the task on her own, but closely watched her, correcting and coaching as needed. At a later point in the process, the mentor set up a "test" to see if Shawna would know what to do. The centrifuge needed four tubes to be balanced to operate properly, but the experiment only required three. She did not mention this to Shawna, but waited to see if she would remember. Shawna did remember and filled a fourth tube with the same amount of liquid to achieve balance. Her mentor praised her for properly balancing the centrifuge.
The SBE provided a wide range of learning opportunities for students, from many different sources. Students learned from and taught each other to perform many tasks and earned points for training others. The advisors admitted that students are not always good teachers. One advisor described a student-owner who was proficient at most tasks, "Tim is not a good teacher. He gets impatient and would rather do it himself."[19]
The two adult advisors primarily coached students, letting them make most decisions on their own. They also adopted one-on-one tutoring techniques, in which they gave enough information and guidance for students to proceed and would gradually withdraw assistance as the student became proficient. One advisor was able to provide guidance for several students at the same time, and also answer other students' questions. She said she works hard not to answer everyone's questions and first asks instead, "Did you try and answer that yourself?" She felt that students are not encouraged to ask questions in school and that many do not when they first begin working at the SBE. In her view, teachers were often unable to relinquish control and were inclined to "spoon-feed" students, which was a disservice to them in the long run. Eventually, students learned that the SBE is "a safe place to ask questions" and began changing their behavior. She felt that when a student began asking questions, it was a good sign that they were learning. As described earlier, the advisors adopted role-playing and rehearsal techniques to instruct students. The students also did role playing as part of training. Tina, who heads a demonstration or "demo" team, set up a practice demo in the SBE office. She played the role of customer to student trainees and asked them a lot of questions: "They [the customers] ask you some crazy questions. They want to know details about the ingredients, fat content, and other things."
There was a conscious effort on the part of the program advisors to look for learning opportunities outside the day-to-day operations of the SBE. They took advantage of the expertise of their adult mentors--one university professor, for example, lectured students in principles of accounting. In a lesson we observed, he used many specific examples directly related to their business. The advisors also looked for workshops or conferences that students might attend to learn entrepreneurial or other skills. Several students, for example, attended an entrepreneurship training program conducted by a national organization. The advisor discussed several reasons for seeking outside learning opportunities. Activities like the entrepreneurship program provided specific advantages such as offering opportunities for teamwork and learning technical aspects of product design. She said that students had little experience working in teams when they first arrived at the SBE and thus needed opportunities to learn to "network to form solutions." These experiences help make the SBE "less of a goldfish experience." Also, by sending students to an outside program, the advisors can get feedback. If attending students learned something new and useful, they taught it to other students. If the outside program did not present new opportunities for learning, then advisors felt more confident about the SBE program's content and design.
The SBE's prominence in the community helped attract interested businesspeople who volunteered their expertise. We attended a half-day meeting with a team of students at a marketing and public relations firm. The firm arranged a series of presentations on different topics, including budgeting, investment strategies, fundraising, dynamics of marketing, and principles of public relations. They also arranged for a conference call with a store buyer so the students could give him a sales pitch. They did a dry run to help students prepare for this call. The staffperson who arranged the meeting had also been a professor, and her teaching experience was evident in her interactions with the students.
In sum, with the exception of the construction firm where Ray worked, all the sites provided purely educative experiences unrelated to the skills needed for productive work. In addition, mentors at the SBE and the university laboratory were also skilled teachers, perhaps not surprising since both were school-based worksites.
The TCAP interns were well-integrated into the work groups in their organizations. Both were seen as regular workers who had temporary employment for the summer. Both made valued contributions. Ray was an "extra hand" who could help with paperwork backlog. Kristin also performed the same duties as regular employees. Both students participated fully in office activities, although Kristin's employer offered more opportunities (e.g., all-hands meetings, training seminars).
Students at the university research laboratory had a more difficult road to participation. The community of practice was organized to train novice scientists--to "give them the building blocks for more advanced work." However, to participate fully in this community, the students had to learn to behave in certain ways. As the youngest, least experienced, and least knowledgeable assistants in the laboratory, high school interns had to prove themselves. Some graduate students or postdoctoral fellows did not want to work with them. The students recognized their lower status, which, as mentioned earlier, sometimes interfered with their work and learning opportunities.
Several reasons for the interns' lower status were apparent. First, status is typically conferred through rank, experience, or skill, which often go hand-in-hand. The chief scientist who heads up the lab sits at the top of a loose hierarchy of academic rank and experience, including senior researchers and laboratory staff (of varying academic ranks), postdoctoral fellows, graduate and undergraduate students, and, finally, high school students. There are two areas in which one can gain prestige in the lab: (1) intellectual and (2) "fine hand work." One staff member, for example, was known for "doing beautiful gels." In this environment, the only way for a high school student to achieve status is to exhibit some special talent that is in demand. Although this can happen, it is unlikely.[20]
Understanding where one stands in the hierarchy was important. Shawna spent some time trying to figure out just how everyone fit in[21] She said she was surprised, for example, to find out that one of the lab managers did not have a Ph.D. She assumed that this person had a degree because she was responsible for running a lab and had many students working for her. Shawna also realized she was "only a high school student" and, thus, did not feel entitled, for example, to ask for computer time when she needed it. She also observed that ignoring rank can get one into trouble. For example, James apparently had a habit of walking into the chief scientist's office and talking to him about his internship or even complaining when he was not permitted to do what he wanted to do. Although his assertiveness did not seem to bother the chief scientist, it did bother some other staff. James' behavior was considered "cocky" and inappropriate, and he was admonished for not "knowing his place." James seemed genuinely puzzled that others viewed his behavior as improper, which suggests that he was less attentive than Shawna to the social milieu.[22]
Students' lower status was also a product of history. The lab had been providing internships to high school students since 1989. Because high school students tend to be quieter and ask fewer questions than older students, they were perceived as lacking interest in the work. Over time, this perception stuck, causing some to ignore high school students and others to refuse to work with them. The only way for a student to overcome this reputation was to consistently behave in an "interested" way--specifically, to ask questions.
At first, Shawna, who had a quiet, reserved nature, did not ask questions. Shawna's mentor and the lab manager talked to her and explained that it was very important for her to always look interested and alert, and advised her to ask questions: "Anne told me to ask questions even when I'm on my way to the library or passing by another lab." Shawna consciously worked to change her behavior. When a researcher taught her a lab technique, for example, she said she tried to think of questions to ask during his explanation. She felt frustrated because he would often "answer my questions before I could ask them." Her strategy was somewhat successful, however, because the researcher told her mentor that Shawna was "doing better." Shawna provided an interesting explanation for her behavior--she likes to listen. She felt that "if you ask questions, then the other person might think you aren't paying attention." She added that listening, rather than asking questions, "works out in school because they don't want kids asking questions all the time." The teacher has too many students to answer all the questions. And "not asking questions means you are listening to your teacher, not sleeping in the back of class or talking to your friends." Shawna had learned an important, if somewhat ironic, lesson: "asking questions" means very different things at work and at school.[23]
Although the lab held weekly staff meetings, the students were not asked to attend. Students were included in the other all-staff activity, the Friday morning basketball game. These games provided some relief to the intense pace of work and encouraged social relations in the lab. All staff, including the chief scientists, lab assistants and managers, secretaries, students, and so on, were encouraged to play. The game was not purely recreational, but more like "serious fun"--teams kept score in an atmosphere of friendly competition. The ethos in this lab could be described as "work hard and play hard."
Unlike other settings, the SBE community was defined primarily by students and by the goals of the program. An important goal of the SBE was to be student-driven. Student-owners recruited and selected new students, decided when to put a student on probation, and made many business decisions on their own. The adult advisors and mentors were available to provide assistance, advice, and instruction. One advisor emphasized that it was important to involve adults who "will give up control. Otherwise, it's a program for the adults."
In order to run the business, students had to learn to work with each other. Although this was difficult for some, the SBE provided many supports to achieve teamwork and collaboration. Students had many choices and opportunities to participate in the business activities and in activities that supported their academic achievement (e.g., SAT preparation, college tours and applications, tutoring). About 25 adult mentors volunteered to help students with all types of activities.
The SBE, then, was much more than a business venture in salad dressing and garden produce. It was a supportive environment to "build healthy, thriving kids, who will be able to leave this `model' and still thrive." Adult advisors and mentors were just as concerned about building students' self-confidence and getting them to college as they were in making money. As one student put it, the SBE "is like a family."
In sum, the work settings provided different opportunities for participation. TCAP students had "junior" status but were full participants in the community of practice. MMHS students participated peripherally, albeit sometimes for legitimate reasons. SBE students had the best prospects for full participation since the SBE established its own norms and since participation was more dependent on student choice.
Depending on the goals of the program and the nature of the WBL placement, students may have opportunities to learn different kinds of skills. As discussed in an earlier section, this study is primarily interested in more intensive WBL experiences that can provide opportunities to learn technical skills, generic workplace skills (problem solving, communication) and attitudes, personal and social skills, and a broad understanding of an occupation or industry. In addition, WBL that is connected to school learning may enhance motivation and academic achievement.
Student learning in each program is summarized in Table 4.2. Although we did not formally test skill acquisition, accounts of student learning are embedded in particular situations, which lends to their validity.
Since TCAP students primarily performed clerical tasks, they had fewer opportunities to develop sophisticated technical knowledge or skills. Of the two students, Ray's work on rebar documentation and assisting engineers conducting tests at the construction site, introduced him to some technical aspects of construction work and materials. He also learned some new computer applications (e.g., Excel).
MMHS students had the best opportunities to learn high-level technical skills. In running experiments, for example, the students had to master various laboratory techniques (e.g., pipetting), operate scientific instruments, and work with the computer. They also needed to learn and use specialized scientific language. For example, they knew the names of various muscles and how they worked. Some tasks provided more opportunities to learn and use technical skills than others. The computer work that James did, for example, did not, in his opinion, require much technical skill or understanding. He said once you learn the procedure for recording data from the computer, and can "push `play' on the VCR . . . that's about it." He said he can do what he was taught on the computer, but did not really understand it. If some problem arose with the program, "sometimes only the person who wrote the program knows how to fix something."
Other tasks, such as testing a method for separating RNA from DNA, required more technical competence. The task required developing psychomotor skills such as pipetting and handling tubes with gloves. Shawna also learned to operate equipment, like the centrifuge and incubation bath. She had to understand the process very clearly in order to avoid costly mistakes. Since experiments are run under varying conditions, she needed to learn when to change or not change pipette tips--that is, when contamination is possible and when it is not. She had to calculate tiny measurements (micrograms), know what solution to place in each tube, and keep track of the tubes and different experimental conditions. According to her mentor, while the task is relatively easy once it is learned, understanding the purpose of the task is complex. According to the mentor, "it takes about ten repetitions to become proficient at using the pipette and other equipment." Mistakes could be costly--one kit of solutions costs $350. One pipette in the wrong tube could contaminate the solution and ruin the kit. If that happened, the kit had to be thrown out.
SBE students had the opportunity to learn many skills related to running a business. These included gardening skills (operating equipment, techniques for mulching); knowledge about ingredients and nutritional properties of their products; and principles and concepts associated with sales, marketing, distribution, accounting, and so on. In addition, students learned computer skills and how to operate various office equipment (e.g., fax, postage meter).
When we discussed problem-solving skills with mentors associated with TCAP, they spoke about problem solving in a particular way. The tasks students had, such as rebar documentation or creating Power Point presentations, did not require much problem solving in themselves. However, students did need to know how to deal with a variety of problems that arose, for example, finding the information they needed to complete a task. As one mentor explained, students have to think "how can I do it and not ask someone else." Their description of problem solving, then, means that students need to be resourceful and independent. Both students exhibited this type of problem solving during our observations (see "Conceptual Approach and Methods" section). The following excerpt from the field notes illustrates the type of problems that one student encountered and how he used resources in the environment to accomplish his task:
Ray finished checking 7 and 8 and was ready to move on to roof 5. He had the detailer's list, but not the plans for roof 5. He looked through a stack of blueprints in the inspectors' office but couldn't find the correct one. He poked his head into the lead inspector's office, asking him where the print might be. The inspector was a bit abrupt with him, but told him where it should be. Ray replied he already had looked there. The inspector suggested a couple of other places to look, but also said that it was likely that one of the inspectors had the map out in the field with him, since they are currently working on that part of the project. Ray searched through several piles, but without success. Ray then went into Bob's office and borrowed a book that listed all of the plans and what folder they should be in. When he took the book, Bob asked him what was going on. Ray explained the situation and Bob said, "give me a holler if you can't find it." Ray determined where the plan should be, pulled the appropriate file folder and found the right plans. Unfortunately, this iteration of the plans had not been approved by the inspector yet, so it was possible that changes had been made which weren't noted on that copy. Bob came out of his office and told Ray to use the unapproved version for the time being. "When the approved plan comes in, just doublecheck where changes have been made." Ray went through the two sets of copies comparing the numbers. He could tell from the detailer's list that numerous changes had been made, and he decided it wasn't worth trying to do the cross-check at this point. He needed the final, modified plan to be able to do the job right.
Mentors and students at the university research lab described problem solving a bit differently. Although problem solving is a basic process involved in laboratory research, the students were not required to solve such problems. As Shawna explained, "I sometimes problem solve in doing the procedures, but it's not about the research." Similarly, James encountered problems with his computer analysis task, but the problem concerned the computer program, not the research itself. These students were required to solve problems similar to the TCAP students. The problems encountered were primarily procedural, and if students got stuck, they needed to use resources in the environment to carry on with their task.
Students might have an opportunity to solve science problems while conducting their science experiment, which is a required part of their school curriculum. However, neither the students nor the mentor believed that this project really helped advance their problem-solving skills.[24] Since students worked on the science fair project during the school year, their main activity during their weekly visit to the lab was the science fair project. James said the science fair project was "handed to him." They were assigned a topic and shown how to gather data. The student analyzed the data with help from lab staff: "They check up on you and you get to ask questions." The student handed in a written report to the science teacher, which was read at the lab "because they read everything that goes out of the lab." Sometimes, "they scratch everything out and write it themselves." Even the mentor admitted that the science fair project has become a bit of a joke at the lab because students did not choose the project and they were "walked through it." She said others would ask her, "How did you do in the science fair this year?" Ironically, the science fair requirement appeared to conflict with the students' opportunity to do "real" science in the lab.
At the SBE, students were encouraged to think about how to solve problems--adult staff were there to advise and give feedback. Many problems were procedural such as locating the grocery store addresses (see "Conceptual Approach and Methods" section). One student described another situation when they discovered that their salad dressing was not on the shelf at five stores they had arrangements with. A team of students called a meeting with their broker to find out why. Several problems that students encountered were quite challenging and required a team effort, as illustrated in the following example:
Unbeknownst to the students, the marketing and public relations firm had arranged for a buyer to call during their meeting so that students could "make a pitch." Ms. Green, who arranged with the grocery store buyer to call in at 1:00, suggested that they prepare for the phone call. Student-owner Tim started saying his usual presentation, but the SBE advisor and the firm's staff interrupted him. The presentation was to occur during a conference call, which would not support the visual format that Tim was used to. He needed to adjust his remarks to work without visual props. The other staff helped the students to structure their remarks. They wrote notes on the big pad of paper and outlined an introduction, background, description of their products, pricing, sales volume, etc. The group had a lengthy discussion about each of the points and what the kids would say. The students negotiated who would speak. Two students, who their advisor referred to as "the anchors," and two other students (of five) divided up speaking responsibilities. The staff offered some advice about how to do a conference call (e.g., introduce yourself before you speak, say that "now so and so will be speaking," don't make any unnecessary noise). With a staffperson acting as the buyer, the students did a dry run. It did not go well, and two students admitted to being very nervous. The students decided to change seats to make it easier to read the notes. They went through it again and [it] went slightly better. At 1:15, Ms. Green came in to say that the grocery store buyer was on the line. They hooked the call up, and the kids began. This time they did a great job. Tim began by introducing the group and saying a few things about the SBE; Marcus described their product line; Benita talked about prices; and Mary discussed consumers to whom [their product was] sold, sales volume, and the company's mission. The buyer asked several questions, all of which Tim answered. The buyer mentioned that honey is a declining market, and he asked why they chose honey mustard as their new flavor. Tim said that they brainstormed and came up with the idea of making it a no-fat dressing. Tim added that theirs was better than other honey dressings on the market. The buyer closed by requesting two samples of each flavor and all the information they have about the SBE: "The more information the better." He gave them his mailing address and his position--ethnic and gourmet category manager. After the call, the staff and SBE advisors praised the students' performances. It was clear the kids felt good about themselves. There was some discussion of next steps, and one student agreed to put together the packet of information to send to the store.
In this example, students worked as a team, with advice and coaching from the adults, to convert a face-to-face presentation to a telephone presentation in real time, under a tight deadline.
A traditional way to analyze communication is to consider four aspects: (1) audience (who is communicated with), (2) purpose (why they are communicated with), (3) style (the way in which the communicator presents him or herself), and (4) mode (the means by which communication is accomplished) (Kinneavy, 1971). This framework provides a way to describe the kinds of communication required at work and the opportunities for students to develop different communication skills.
The TCAP students primarily communicate with internal audiences, including coworkers, other staff, and supervisors, but Kristin also spoke to customers. These communications were typically face-to-face, sometimes in meetings, and occasionally over the telephone. In addition, both students worked with written records or forms. And both used computers to record and display information. The main purposes of their communication was to elicit and provide information or to clarify instructions. The style of these communications was friendly, but professional. The mentors felt the most important communication skills were telephone skills (for Kristin) and verbal communication with coworkers (for Ray).
MMHS students also communicated with an internal audience--staff in their lab, other labs, or the library. Most communications were face-to-face, and asking questions was very important. The main purposes of communication were to elicit and provide information. Students kept written records of the experimental procedures. The mentor felt that students have communication skills, but don't display them. Most students are quiet and "need to be drawn out."
MMHS students were also taught to present their science fair projects. The mentor had heard from science fair judges that many students cannot answer the questions put to them because they do not really understand the material or did not do their own work. So she emphasized presentation, even though students may not actually present the project at the science fair. Nonetheless, she felt it was important for students to be able to communicate what they did to lay audiences, since the science is complex and the topic specific.
SBE students communicated with internal audiences, including other students and adult supervisors and mentors. Unlike the other programs, working in the SBE involved frequent communication with external audiences as well. Communications with internal audiences were primarily face-to-face. Communications with outsiders were face-to-face, by telephone, and by fax. Students also had opportunities for public speaking at conferences or with the media. Written communications included business-related forms, such as invoices, and may be computer-based. Students also needed to write many business and thank-you letters (e.g., to the gardeners who taught them mulching techniques). The purposes of communication were also quite varied. Students gave instructions, made decisions, and provided information. At demos, students had to persuade customers to try their salad dressing, if not actually buy it. And they had to persuade store buyers to stock their product. In the office, the style of their communications was friendly and casual, which suited the casual atmosphere at the SBE.
Except for the SBE, there was little opportunity for students to work in teams. TCAP students primarily worked on their own. When they did work with others, it was often a teaching situation and sometimes a collaborative effort (e.g., Ray assisting an engineer with environmental tests). Individual tasks, like the rebar documentation, were sometimes part of a larger process involving other individuals, but each worked individually on separate parts of the process.
MMHS students' work was also interdependent--independent research tasks form separate parts of a larger process. This work organization is typical of a science lab where a large study is comprised of separate, linked projects.
At the SBE, several activities were organized as team activities, with one student sometimes acting as team leader. Students could choose which teams they wanted to work on. A team of two students, for example, usually conducted "taste testing" demos at the grocery store. Sometimes three or four students would be on hand for a demo, so that each student could take a break for lunch or relaxation. A demo might last four or five hours, with students standing the entire time. As discussed earlier, marketing, sales, and even gardening activities were accomplished through teaming. Unlike more formal teams, where roles are sometimes determined by rank or expertise, the SBE teams were egalitarian. Students often distributed the work by discussing it among themselves--as in choosing roles for the sales call--or by just pitching in.
Work-related attitudes and dispositions, also referred to as personal skills, include work habits and personal qualities that are crucial for success on the job. A TCAP mentor said students learn primarily what he described as the social aspects of work: "They can see discipline at work. Habits of being on time and working through the hours they are paid for. Work is a team effort, and all are needed to participate." Students must "be punctual, communicate, and watch." Students' views and behavior suggested they learned these lessons. Ray worked meticulously and persistently to get the information he needed for his main documentation task. Kristin's mentors said it was important to be aggressive, motivated, and ambitious: "Can't be intimidated working as a female in an all-male office." They were happy with her behavior, describing her as "on the ball" and a "go-getter." Kristin also noted that even though the atmosphere was "friendly and fun," it was important to "get serious and focus" when a job needed to be done.
At the science lab, students said it was important to work hard and be responsible because others are depending on what you do. The students' tasks were central to the work of the lab, since they worked with real data that would eventually be incorporated into published articles. Both students said they learned to work carefully and meticulously, and our observations confirmed this. James talked about needing to be "tedious" and "careful" to write down everything when doing an experiment or working with data. Neatness was very important in a lab and was the expected norm for lab behavior. Sloppiness could cause accidents or ruin other objects in the lab (e.g., one chemical reaction could destroy a painted surface). As mentioned earlier, a procedural error could result in ruining an expensive test kit.
The mentor at the lab added that students needed to be reliable and on time. Typically students were not very punctual. James said it was important to "be on time." Shawna learned "it is important to call them when you're not coming in":
Work is a daily routine . . . can't say, "I just won't go in today." When you're in school you can do that . . . just skip when you don't feel like going.
Shawna also learned to speak up--"Anne tells me a thousand times." Shawna discovered that "work does not have to be that serious," but she also learned what it feels like to have a boss: "You can't be fired at school, but you can be fired from work." James learned to "be patient and don't let anything get to you."
While TCAP and MMHS students worked in environments where punctuality was important, the SBE was much more casual about time. The SBE was open from 3:30-6:30 p.m. after school and had longer hours on weekends and during the summer (but usually did not open before 10 a.m.). Much of the time, students determined their own hours. Students wandered in and out of the office and sometimes during scheduled meetings. Except for outside professional meetings, the SBE students did not have to conform to dress codes at work (as TCAP students did). Some SBE students had to be reminded when to dress formally, so were not always properly attired.
Since the SBE lacked some aspects of a real workplace, the students did not have the same opportunities to develop the same kinds of work-related attitudes that TCAP or MMHS students learned. However, the SBE did establish specific "rules" that students had to learn to adhere to. These rules were often posted on the white board in the main office space--for example, "Anyone using the phone for personal reasons is stealing money from the company and therefore in line to be fired"; "Point sheets are like time cards at work." The SBE advisors expressed frustration at having to remind students to turn in their point sheets on time, and told some they were out of luck: "If you don't turn your time sheet in at work, you don't get paid. This should be no different."
Excuses are another problem that advisors had to work on. The students had "lots of excuses and don't understand why the excuses don't work." Students believed that as long as they had a good excuse, then everything would be fine. The advisor felt that students learned this lesson in school, where accountability is lax--"Kids' excuses work at school."
When asked about work-related skills or attitudes, the students emphasized having a positive attitude and being willing to work. Students who were not productive members of the SBE could be put on probation or dismissed. In admitting new students to the SBE, the internship period provided an opportunity to gauge a student's interest and willingness to work before he or she became a regular student-owner.
Although students' jobs did not always require teamwork, they always involved interactions which called upon their social skills. TCAP students were the only young people in the offices where they worked. It was important for them to get along with their supervisors, who were evaluating them, and with coworkers who helped them learn the ropes. Everyone in Kristin's office was friendly toward her, and her outgoing personality suited the office. Ray's situation was a little more complicated. Two people acted as his mentors--one was warm and very supportive, but his supervisor could be gruff and short-tempered at times. However, Ray did not seem bothered by his boss's behavior and had no problems asking people to help him. Both students basically arrived at their WBL sites with social skills well-matched to their work situations.
On the personal side, both students felt confident in their capabilities. Ray was using the experience to help him decide whether to go into engineering or law. Kristin learned how to "cope with different situations and to feel comfortable in new situations" and felt prepared for work in the future--"If you took a non-TCAP student and me, I would excel in every way."
Developing appropriate social skills was more challenging for student interns in the university research lab. They depended on others to train them. The lab environment was a complex social system in which high school students were often viewed with suspicion, and their behavior was closely scrutinized. One mentor felt that the social aspect of working in the lab was very challenging--it required "getting over being a high school student." She felt that most students were not very successful at this. As discussed earlier, both students worked to understand the social rules--for example, ask questions to show interest, but do not put yourself forward too much. When students were asked about skills needed on the job, one said it was important to be patient and "don't let anyone get to you." When someone "tells on you," you have to realize that "misunderstandings happen."
In addition to learning social skills, James felt the experience helped his career exploration. The internship provided an "up-close experience, which makes you really think about it more." He originally thought he wanted to be a neurosurgeon, but now is thinking about cardiology or law.
The SBE students developed social skills to work together in teams and to solve problems at work. They also needed social skills for interacting with external audiences, in dealing with adult clients and customers. SBE students often come into contact with people from very different backgrounds than their own, so they must be able to interact with a diverse group of people. The advisors and students felt there were few opportunities in school for students to learn to work together. One student said she took part in the "leadership program," which gives students opportunities to work on committees. But only 30 students could participate in this program each semester.
The SBE aimed to build "healthy, thriving human beings who will leave this model and still thrive." Building students' self-esteem and confidence and teaching them "to respect themselves and other people" were as important as learning to run the business. Students were encouraged to try new things and to push themselves. One student, for example, reported that she was very shy when she first came to the SBE. The advisors and mentors really supported her and helped her overcome her shyness: "Now I don't mind public speaking at all." Other students said the program helped them think about going to college and about their career goals. As we discuss in more detail below, increasing academic achievement is a main goal of the SBE.
All of the students expressed a broader understanding of a career or industry from their WBL experience. Kristin was given a special assignment to interview all the staff to learn about their particular job and the education it required. This project gave her a broad perspective about various jobs associated with the transportation construction industry. Ray learned that many individuals contributed to documentation and other paperwork.
MMHS students gained an understanding of the work of professional scientists and how the work in the laboratory contributes to real-world problems: "Being a scientist is not all it's cracked up to be if you're not a writer. I did not realize that so much of the job was writing articles to publish." Students could converse knowledgeably about the work they were doing, its connection with the lab and scientific purposes.
SBE students had opportunities to learn "all aspects" of their enterprise, from hands-on gardening, to marketing, sales, invoicing, and all the large and small tasks associated with running an office. The task list provided a way to ensure that students indeed had exposure to a wide range of activities.
Since the TCAP interns work in the summer, there was no direct contact between teachers and employers. A program coordinator found placements for the students and worked with employers. She attempted to prepare students for their work experience by providing some orientation workshops. Kristin said these sessions covered such topics as "how to dress, how to act, and how to go into an adult environment." She felt well-prepared for her work assignment. Both TCAP students had specific computer skills or technical skills (familiarity with blueprints and plans) that applied directly to their work assignments. When asked, they provided several examples of how school learning and work learning were related to each other. Ray, for example, felt that some math he learned at work would help with higher-level classes at school. Kristin felt the school program had helped her learn to be responsible and to work with others. Students also had skills that employers could not make use of. Ray had experience using CAD, but the office he worked in did not have it. They hoped to install CAD equipment before the end of the summer, but at the time of our visit Ray could only look forward to this possibility.[25]
The TCAP coordinator felt the connections were "not strong right now," and had plans to improve them. Since career exposure is an important goal of the program, she hoped to get more placements at architecture and urban planning firms; most current placements were in engineering firms. Although she tried to get employers to develop specific work plans for students, most did not. The coordinator was working on a business outreach plan that included more formal arrangements with employers such as work plans, enhanced mentor training, and the like.
The MMHS students did not feel well-prepared for either the technical or social aspects of their work experience. The mentor said they did not expect the students to know the specialized science knowledge related to their work; it was her job to teach them. They did have opportunities to apply school learning on the job, particularly if their lab work involved chemistry (as Shawna's did). But the science they learned on the job was much more advanced than high school-level science, so, if anything, it might help when they get to college. If they major in science at college, their experience might help them get a job in another lab.[26]
In theory, the MMHS students' science fair projects might serve as a means to coordinate school and work. In practice, however, the project seemed to interfere with the students' opportunity to participate in real science research. The science fair project had specific requirements and deadlines, which were not always easy to adhere to. For example, the lab research involved animals, but the science fair guidelines stipulated that students could neither handle nor kill animals for their projects. They are, however, permitted to use animal tissue obtained from other projects in the lab. When Shawna proposed a project that used animal tissue, the science teacher at first objected on the grounds that it "seems cruel to animals." Shawna and her mentor provided more information to the teacher, who eventually gave her approval.[27]
Since the students only visited the lab three hours a week during the school year, it was difficult to meet all the science fair deadlines on time. James had science class first period on the day he went to the lab, so he wanted to skip class and go right to the lab to have more time to work on his project. Even though class time was used to work on the science fair projects, he said the science teacher would not give him permission.[28]
A third drawback concerns the level of science work done in the lab. Their work was very specialized and, since students have placements in addition to this lab, it would be very difficult for the science teacher to connect the curriculum to all these possible experiences. The mentor worried that the science fair projects also remain unconnected to the "grander issues of science." She believed that unless students were interested in these grand issues, it was hard for them to be motivated to do everyday lab work.[29]
While work in the SBE was also unconnected to school classes, the program was dedicated to improving students' academic skills and expanding their educational horizons. This was accomplished in several ways. When the advisors identified a student who did not have the math skills to do bookkeeping or the English skills to write a grammatically correct letter, they arranged for tutoring with one of the volunteer mentors. Tutoring was available for any school subject (students must maintain a C average to stay in the program) and for ACT and SAT preparation. Students received points for preparing for and taking the SAT, which provided an extra incentive. Advisors tried to identify a mentor who would work one-on-one with a student to complete the college application process. Most students and their parents were unfamiliar with applying for financial aid, even though most would qualify. Advisors were very careful to find mentors who would encourage and support students' academic aspirations. The advisors also reviewed students' schedules every semester to make sure that they were taking college-prep classes. In the past, they discovered that counselors were not always advising students well.[30]
The mentors also made important contributions to academic learning in addition to tutoring. One mentor, a business professor at a local university, gave lectures on accounting. He also organized a summer program at his university where several students stayed on campus and took college courses.
We found the amount and level of discussion about academics striking. SBE student-owners often talked about their classes and teachers and the colleges they were considering. They discussed their future aspirations and debated whether their friends were making the right choices. The program was evidently successful in raising academics: nearly all of the student-owners went to college, compared to fewer than half of the students enrolled in the same high school.
This section sketched the range of learning environments in WBL programs and the opportunities different programs present for learning. It raised several issues that educators and policymakers committed to WBL might ask of their programs: What is the social context of the worksite(s)? How might different students be accommodated in them? How can we better prepare students for WBL? In the next section, we explore some of these questions.
Another indicator of the director's support for the program was financial. Although most of the student internships were paid with program funds, about five students' salaries, including Kristin's, were paid by the employer. This company was willing to pay for an intern because it believed in the goals of the program. Significantly, their support did not diminish even though their experience with the previous summer's intern was less than satisfactory. That intern worked very slowly and was shy; she needed to be "more aggressive to work with people."
[17] Ray's work combined tasks from two regular jobs--assistant office engineer and document control person. The company does not usually train new hires for these positions because they hire people with previous experience.
[18] James and Shawna had somewhat different opinions about their training. Shawna worked closely with her mentor and felt looked after. James' first mentor assignment did not work out--she decided she was too busy to supervise him--and he had to be reassigned. During the transition to a new mentor, there seemed to be some miscommunication about what he was supposed to be doing and he was temporarily left to shift for himself.
[19] On one visit, the advisor mentioned to this student that a new intern was in the office, which presented a good opportunity for him to "get some teaching points." She gently reminded him that teaching others was part of his responsibility.
[20] We heard about one student who had achieved status through skill. He was a "computer nut" who proved valuable to the lab. Even though he was only a high school student, and was volunteering at the lab, he had no problem getting to work. This student has a standing offer for paid work in the lab.
[21] Shawna paid close attention to the social distinctions in the lab. She knew that the chief scientists were always called "Doctor," but that young, new Ph.D.s. were called by their first name. She did not always know the reasons for the different ways to address people, but she did know it was important to learn the "rules."
[22] According to the mentor, the only student ever dropped from the program was "argumentative." He would disagree with what was being done in the lab. He was also only interested in "finding out the answer, not going through the process."
[23] Similarly, when asked how learning at school is different from learning at work, James replied, "At school, you either listen or write notes--there's nothing else for you to do."
[24] The mentor felt that students generally lack problem-solving skills when they come to the lab: "They seem to have the knowledge and ability to solve problems, but lack the confidence to try." She also observed that, in her opinion, undergraduate students are also less prepared than in the past, but did not know why this was so.
[25] The survey data corroborate these impressions. Students were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with the following statements about their job or internship: What I learned in school helps me do better [on the job], with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. TCAP students were significantly more likely to claim that school learning supported work (mean scores: TCAP, 4.27; MMHS, 3.65; SBE, 3.50).
[26] Lab staff tried to keep in touch with students after graduation and mentioned several students, including James' sister, who went on to college. This lab's reputation and the chief scientist's professional network have been influential in helping former MMHS students get internships or jobs at college.
[27] The mentor pointed out that this lab followed very strict rules about the use of animals in federally funded science research and was very sensitive to animal rights issues. In this context, the teacher's objection seemed based on personal opinion rather than any knowledge of the research process.
[28] We did not speak to the teacher or school to hear the other side of this story. But from James' perspective, school rules hampered his ability to meet the science fair deadlines, which, in turn, did not allow him to take full advantage of his internship.
[29] The mentor's concern was partly due to her goals for the program. She and the chief scientist wanted to expose minority students to science "in a way that will interest them, not drive them away." From the school's perspective, the intent of the internships was career exploration, and according to the students, the internship did help focus their career goals.
[30] According to the advisors, some student athletes in the SBE were affected by the recent NCAA eligibility rules. They did not have all the high school courses they needed to play in college and were caught offguard. Sometimes the coaches directed students to a few local colleges, rather than help them consider a broader range of educational options.