Lazarus and Oloroso – Administering Cooperative Education Programs

36 Administering Cooperative Education Programs

FREYDA C. LAZARUS
Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, USA

HELEN C. OLOROSO
Robert R. McCormick School of Engineering & Applied Science, Northwestern University,
Evanston, IL, USA

SHARLEEN HOWISON
Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, NZ

Over the past century, cooperative education (co-op) programs have developed in
institutions of higher education throughout the world. In the UK and Australasia, work
placements and sandwich courses described the alternation of work and study, and the term
internship was used in some academic institutions in the USA and Europe. Work-based
learning and work-integrated learning have recently emerged as new ways to expand or
describe the cooperative education concept. Co-op programs have developed to support
every type of curriculum, from engineering, technology, the social and natural sciences, to
the arts and humanities. Although co-op programs are diverse and the descriptions and
terms to define them vary, they all share the goal of guiding students through the process of
integrating academics with learning in the workplace. The person responsible for managing
this educational process is the co-op administrator.
This chapter will provide insights into the challenges of co-op program
administration, a discussion of co-op literature concerning administration; an exploration of
the academic workplace as a context for learning administration; and an inventory of the
functions, skills, and competencies needed to succeed as a co-op administrator.
Recommendations are made for an effective human resource development plan that will
move a new practitioner from novice to professional, as well as research needed to advance
the profession. Co-op administrators can be faculty or professional staff hired for the
purpose of administering a program, as compared with Boud and Solomon’s (2001)
perspective that “partner organizations want full-time academics involved, not sessional
staff hired for the purpose” (p. 218). Co-op administrators in some countries such as New
Zealand and Australia also work as academic lecturers, where their work role is split
between administration and lecturing.
Having administrators who are also academics, can be positive, as the emphasis
on effective learning as part of the co-op experience is integrated into the administration of
the program. With the increase in technology available, co-op administrators are in a
position to exchange dialogue with students and employers through Skype. Where the
administrators are charged with organizing seminars Elluminate and Skype are effective
tools for this to occur. The use of learning platforms such as Moodle and Blackboard have
also encouraged the development of more online discussion boards for students, supervisors
and the administrators encouraging more regular integrated feedback by all parties.
(Howison, and Finger, 2010)

CHALLENGES OF CO-OP PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

Co-op programs exist at the interface between the world of academia and the larger

International Handbook for Cooperative Education 180

 Lazarus and Oloroso – Administering Cooperative Education Programs

community. As a result, the administration of co-op programs calls for individuals who
possess a unique set of skills and insights equipping them to draw together constituencies
that do not normally coexist peacefully. Two overarching challenges face administrators.
The first is that co-op administrators must be able to bridge the vast cultural differences
between their academic institutions and organizations that employ their students. The
second is the conflict that often exists between the role of the co-op program and the mission
of the academic institution. The challenge is to administer a co-op program that is both
stimulating in the work placement sense and also fulfills the needs of the institution in
reference to the academic requirements. Engaging students in more online engagement
through discussion boards, online reflective journals and technology such as Elluminate and
Skype help to strengthen the link between the institution and the workplace. Administrators
who can effectively utilize all the technology available today are extremely valuable to any
co-op program. Being able to successfully master these technologies will enable the
administrator to work more effectively and efficiently to meet the requirements of their
position.
Co-op administrators must understand the natural differences that exist between the
purpose of academia and the purpose of enterprise, and then translate that understanding into
the ability to work with the differences and find common ground in the shared purpose of
developing students into professionals. Students themselves play a different role in each
environment, but the eventual outcome for them should be the integration of learning at
work and in the classroom. Institutions of higher education exist to preserve fundamental
knowledge and to develop new knowledge in each discipline they represent. Students are
both participants in, and beneficiaries of, these goals; they are the end itself. Co-op
administrators must understand and advance this process.
Employing organizations, on the other hand, serve a very different purpose. While
the service mission of non-profit organizations and the governance mission of public sector
organizations help foster cultures similar to that of academic institutions, there are still
fundamental differences between them. Colleges and universities are there to serve
students; employing organizations are there to get work done. Students are important to
employers insofar as they can deliver results. Private sector organizations have the
additional pressure to be profitable; for them, students must add value or they will not be
considered. For all employers, cooperative education is a means of accomplishing strategic
goals of talent acquisition and development. Students, therefore, are a means to an end, and
not the end itself.
Also not surprising is the common experience of co-op professionals that the
dichotomy and contradictions between academia and the workplace exist within the walls of
the institution as well. Therefore the second challenge confronting the co-op administrator
is to align the program with the mission and goals of the institution. With one foot in the
world of the employer, co-op administrators must be able to plant the other foot in the world
of academia, where the student is the end and not the means to the mission. Faculty are key
in the accomplishment of this mission. However, they frequently see teaching as the only
legitimate way to guarantee that students will learn the fundamentals of their discipline, free
from bias that comes from learning by serving the vested interests of a company.
Theoretical learning is often viewed as pure learning, as opposed to learning as a by-product
of a corporate agenda.
The co-op administrator, therefore, must develop and guide the co-op program in
such a way as to bridge the talent development aspects of the academic institution and
employers talent acquisition priorities. The success of the program rests upon the
administrator’s ability to assess the changing environment of the academic institution, the
academic leadership’s expectations for the program, and clear understanding of the skills

International Handbook for Cooperative Education 181

 Lazarus and Oloroso – Administering Cooperative Education Programs

needed to succeed in the position.

LITERATURE ON PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

Within co-op literature there is an enormous gap in information about program

administration and the responsibilities of the administrator. Early in the expansion of
cooperative education programs in the USA, Knowles et al. (1972) included a chapter on
general administration with consideration of a few basic concepts that help insure success:
support of upper-level administrators (president, deans, and heads of departments), support
of faculty, the availability of jobs and assignments, requirement for a degree, and public
relations. For the next three decades, when exploring issues of program administration, co-
op practitioners debated from two major perspectives: the appropriate organizational
structure for the most effective program, and the reporting relationships for the co-op
program within the institution.
Boud and Solomon (2001) have determined, based on their knowledge of work-
based learning in Australian universities, that “the most common approach to date has been
to locate it [co-op administration] as part of a program structure within existing schools or
faculties, as at Anglia Poloytechnic University, or within its own faculty structure, as has
occurred at Middlesex Universities” (p. 217). In a similar way, the experiential education
field has explored the virtues of different organizational reporting relationships, with the
debate centering on the merits of reporting to academic affairs or student affairs (Kendall,
Duley, Little, Permaul, & Rubin, 1986).
Some administrators have been faculty members; some come from the ranks of
student affairs; and others from the business world (Heinemann & Wilson, 1995). Often,
the reporting structure around the co-op program reinforces the focus of the administrator.
Further to this, an administrator can be drawn from either the faculty, with experience in the
academic affairs, or from the student affairs division, or from the business community.
The cooperative education literature and research on program administration is
limited and is primarily based on the perspectives of the author. Exceptions are the studies
conducted by Stull (1981) and Lazarus (1991) concerning the ways in which co-op directors
learn their job, and general research about higher education administration. It is clear that
there is a serious void in the professional literature about co-op program administration.
Jenny Onyx of the Faculty of Business at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS)
draws a similar conclusion in her chapter Implementing Work-based Learning for the First
Time (Onyx, 2001), concluding that “the lessons that can be learnt from our experience
suggest that we have not recognized the importance of adequate staff development of both
university academics and workplace supervisors” (p. 139).
As argued by Harper, O'Donoghue, Oliver, and Lockyer (2001), there is a need for
academics and administrators to design courses based upon educational principles of
effective learning with reference to ICT. Thus it is essential that the technology adopted in
administering the co-op courses must be user friendly, contain all the necessary
functionalities and encourage the students to engage with it.
Of the various theories that explain technology style acceptance, the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) appears to be the most widely accepted theory among
information systems research for studying users’ system acceptance behaviour.
Furthermore, in the model conceptualised by Davis et al. (1989), perceived ease of use
directly affects perceived usefulness, and affects computer technology adoption (Pituch &
Lee, 2004). Davis has also suggested that external factors may be important determinants of
the usefulness constructs of TAM. These include internet experiences, computer anxiety,

International Handbook for Cooperative Education 182

 Lazarus and Oloroso – Administering Cooperative Education Programs

computer self-efficacy, and affect. Pituch & Lee (2004) conclude that students’ prior
technical skills in using the internet may affect intention to use E-learning. When
administrators are involved in decisions associated with the preferred computer programs to
adopt in the implementation of co-op, it is essential that they consider this issue.

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Davis et al. 1989)

Roffe (2002) argues that purchasers of E-learning platforms, including managers and
administrators often want particular forms of information on performance. One of the most
promising aspects of E-learning consists of the opportunity to activate students and shift
more of the responsibility for the learning outcome to the learner. This can be done, on the
one hand, by integrating communication tools in order to foster collaborative learning and
discussion about problems and task-solving with other administrators as well as among
peers. Administrators of co-op could therefore utilise the E-Learning program to assist with
delivery and implementation of co-op while the students are completing their placement.
Furthermore, connectivism recognises the need to be flexible to meet the needs of the
individual learners. E-Learning, and the digital age that we are in, necessitate the need for
effective online programs that encourage, stimulate and motivate the student (Siemens,
2008). The functions of the program that the students engage with must include options
that allow discussion, feedback and a sense of being part of a larger community. The
administrators of co-op must consider this when implementing new E-Learning programs.
Virtual learning communities are also being established as a means of managing workforce
placement, through delivery modes that are not time- or place-dependent (Arbaugh &
Duray, 2002). In order to successfully participate in virtual learning communities, however,
participants must invest time and energy in a range of virtual discussions and other online
collaborative activities. Administrators should consider this E-Learning concept, as an
effective strategy to assist in the co-ordination of the co-op students (Jones & McCann,
2005).

THE CONTEXT AND THE CONTENT FOR LEARNING PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATION

The academic workplace provides a unique context for learning how to administer a
program. Higher education relies on co-op administrators learning their administrative
responsibilities by “doing” and then reflecting on the experience in order to produce some
level of knowledge that will guide future actions. The institution normally does not provide
professional development activities, but relies on the individual locating resources and

International Handbook for Cooperative Education 183

 Lazarus and Oloroso – Administering Cooperative Education Programs

colleagues to foster his or her own development. In fact, individual administrators must
come to the realization that they have a need for learning and decide what and how they will
learn what they need to know (Lazarus, 1991).
Marsick and Watkins (1990), when discussing informal and incidental learning,
suggest that there is no formula that guarantees workplace learning; however proactivity,
critical reflectivity, and creativity can enhance it. They go on to state:

Proactivity refers to readiness to take initiative in learning. Critical reflectivity is

related to the surfacing and critiquing of tacit, taken for granted assumptions and
beliefs that need to be examined in order for people to reframe problems.
Creativity refers to the capacity of people to see a situation from many points of
view, and use new perspectives and insights to break out of preconceived patterns
that inhibit learning (p. 8).

In contrast, the worlds of business and government provide professional development in a

more rational and routine manner by sponsoring training programs and planned instructional
meetings. Visionary organizations recognize the importance of formal training, as well as
informal and incidental learning that occurs out of the structure of planned activities.
According to McDade (1987), higher education follows a “pattern of natural selection with
little planning or preparation by the individual or the organization for its leadership of the
future” (p. 1).
Co-op administrators are often not consciously aware of what they are learning;
they frequently overlook opportunities for professional development that occur
simultaneously with on-going, job-related responsibilities. However, administrators who
proactively seek out on-campus, informal learning opportunities, such as serving on a task
force or participating in organizational events, can enhance their understanding of the art of
administration. This understanding is further enhanced through reflection and discussion or,
most especially, by participating in formal training programs through either professional
organizations or courses (Lazarus, 1991, 1992).
Further to this the importance of networking and attending national and
international cooperative education conferences cannot be undervalued. It is at such
conferences that administrators are able to share common ideas and knowledge and learn
from other administrators in the same position, adding to best practice models. As stated by
Randall (2010, p.1) “Conferences offer the chance to join forces with others in pursuit of a
common goal…..for this reason alone, the conference experience can be extremely
beneficial--and that is before one takes into account the access to fresh research, and new
resources available”.

ADMINISTRATOR FUNCTIONS, SKILLS AND COMPETENCIES

To date the only significant research to establish a curriculum supporting the development of
co-op administrators is the work of Timothy Nolan. Conducting an occupational analysis in
the 1980s, the published outcome of Nolan’s (1988) work was A Professional Inventory for
Administrators: Functions, Skills and Competencies which details the tasks, skills, and
competencies required to execute the responsibilities of a co-op administrator. Once the
tasks, skills, and competencies were identified to create a DACUM (Developing a
Curriculum) and SCID (Steps, Competencies, Information, and Decisions), further analysis
was undertaken to uncover the accepted practices within a job cluster, along with the skills
and competencies needed to perform the job This inventory for co-op administrators

International Handbook for Cooperative Education 184

 Lazarus and Oloroso – Administering Cooperative Education Programs

contains 13 job functions with each function containing between 6 and 15 tasks. It also
provides an in-depth description of the overall responsibilities of the position and provides
the “curriculum” for self-directed learning.
With respect to student development, the activities of a administrator parallel the
sequence of events that transpire during a student’s participation in the program. These
include, but are not limited to, assisting students with career planning, teaching career
planning courses and evaluating students for placement. Following the finalization of
placement plans, the administrator continues the student development process by helping
students to see the links between academic work and work experience, monitoring placed
students, and evaluating and assessing student learning at work.
The administrator’s responsibility for employer development includes developing
new work sites and maintaining the continuity of those sites. This involves outreach to
those employers who can provide meaningful, challenging opportunities for the general
student population, as well as assisting an individual student identify particular employers
who can offer an experience that will be unique to that student. It also means anticipating a
pending vacancy with a co-op employer and proactively assisting the employer with the
process of identifying candidates to fill their co-op position. It is essential that the student
and employer are matched correctly to meet the needs of the academic curriculum and also
the career path of the student involved.
Finally, the administrator is responsible for program management. This means
developing and maintaining links among the faculty, as well as promoting and marketing the
program to students and employers. Administrators must also evaluate the program
periodically, participate in strategic planning, as well as advance their own professional
development in order to keep the program and their own skills current with the changing
needs of the students, the curriculum, and the workplace. Further to this they may be
required to update the learning platforms such as Blackboard or Moodle to ensure that
relevant course information and announcements are dispersed electronically to the students,
academics and themselves. Student participation in online discussions through these
learning platforms may also be monitored for evaluation by the administrators. These
functions, then, constitute the inventory for administrators.

Functional Learning

Learning to develop and manage program resources; create and maintain information
management systems; collect, analyze, and disseminate program outcomes to all involved
parties – the institution, students, employers, and the community.

International Handbook for Cooperative Education 185

 Lazarus and Oloroso – Administering Cooperative Education Programs

FIGURE 1
Director DACUM

International Handbook for Cooperative Education 186

 Lazarus and Oloroso – Administering Cooperative Education Programs

Behavioral Learning

Behavioral learning is learning to manage the full range of relationships that exist among
participants in the co-op program (students, faculty, employers and site supervisors) and
between the program participants and the academic institution. The activities associated
with this category of learning include such responsibilities as promoting and marketing the
program to all constituencies; staffing the program; developing and managing employer
relations; and facilitating student learning.

Organizational Learning

Organizational learning is learning that involves the integration of the co-op program with
the institution as a whole. It refers to all functions that actualize the institution’s mission
and goals through the program’s objectives and activities. The DACUM addresses the
following elements of organizational learning: implementing strategic management within
the co-op program; building and maintaining institutional support for the program; and
participating in and contributing to the development of the institution’s strategic initiatives.

Professional Learning

Professional learning is learning to pursue professional development activities for the field
of cooperative education and work-integrated learning. This includes learning about, and
adhering to, the standards for professional conduct as a co-op professional, as well as
developing a desire for continued learning about the field.

Technical Learning

Technical learning involves the development of skills related to the use of website
development, digital media, social networking strategies, electronic reputation management
tools, web-based video, webinars, electronic communications platforms and other Web 2.0
applications. At the current time, this would include blogs, wikis, video sharing, personal
branding, mashups and folksonomies. These are all web applications that facilitate
participatory information sharing, interoperability and user-centered design. On the
hardware side, the use of smart phones, tablet devices and electronic readers are
proliferating, and point the way towards smarter and more agile handheld devices.
However, the world of electronic media and communications is changing so rapidly that the
role of the administrator is to continuously learn not only what is new, but devise ways to
integrate these tools into the structure and strategies of the co-op program, while at the same
time, maintaining quality content. Ensuring that the administrators are trained and skilled at
implementing these new technologies is essential.

APPLICATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS

The information found in the administrator and director inventories can serve as the
curriculum for a training program, and be used to explain the responsibilities of the positions
to senior administrators. The inventory for a director can be used to construct a job
description for a newly-established program, or it can be used when an out-going
administrator is not available to help select a successor. It offers the institution a
comprehensive view of the position in order to recruit the best candidates. The functions

International Handbook for Cooperative Education 187

 Lazarus and Oloroso – Administering Cooperative Education Programs

described in both inventories are necessary for every type of program, and the skills they
outline provide criteria for recruiting the most qualified candidates.
Frequently, individuals comprising the interview committee hiring a co-op
administrator come from a cross-section of the institution. They do not necessarily perform
any functions directly related to the co-op program, but their units may impinge on the
program in some ancillary fashion. In order for them to conduct a productive and beneficial
interview, they need a framework for questions that address the skills and competencies the
job requires. Each function outlined in the DACUM can be made into quantifiable or
observable objectives with corresponding activities. Taken as a whole, they provide the
framework for the administrator’s role within the co-op program and with internal and
external constituencies. This is especially useful when individuals in the institution who
have no direct experience with cooperative education programs conduct the performance
review.

INSIGHTS FOR THE FUTURE

Cooperative education programs all over the world face the challenge of selecting,
developing, and supporting administrators who must possess a rare combination of skills and
talents. By balancing the often-conflicting missions of academia and business they create a
synergy between theoretical and applied learning, through their own efforts and by leading
staff and faculty in that process. They learn their own jobs through a variety of informal
learning methods, often unknowingly, and frequently in isolation. They are the very
embodiment of the pedagogical strategies that they seek to implement: learning by doing
and, ultimately, learning from experience.
Based on the absence of information and limited research on co-op program administration,
it is clear that co-op practitioners, whether faculty or staff, rely on their professional
organizations for formal training and developmental activities. The leaders of the
professional community socialize their members to the norms and values of the profession
(Lazarus, 1991). With the increase in E-Learning technologies available to co-op
administrators, it is important that these individuals are given specific training and support
to implement that technology effectively. Building online communities of learning with
students and the academic supervisors of the co-op program, is one way of integrating the
co-op placement with the academic work required. It also increases the flexibility of the
learning experience whilst encouraging more integrated reflective learning for the students
(Howison, and Finger, 2010).
With this clear mandate, state, regional, national, and international
organizations have a renewed responsibility to provide programs and resources that will
move the administrators from novice to professional. As cooperative education programs
evolve in the next hundred years, they will no doubt reflect the changing needs of both
academia and the workplace. Through skilled administrators the programs will continue to
bridge these two worlds, resulting in the ongoing refinement of the learning process as well
as the skills, competencies, and insights needed to succeed as a program administrator.

International Handbook for Cooperative Education 188

 Lazarus and Oloroso – Administering Cooperative Education Programs

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arbaugh, J., & Duray, R. (2002). Technological and structural characteristics, learner learning and
satisfaction with web-based courses. Journal of Management Learning, 33 (3), pp. 331-47.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Austin, A.E. (1984a). The work experience of university and college administrators. Washington, DC:
American Association of University Administrators.
Austin, A.E. (1984b, March). Work orientation of university mid-level administrators: Commitment to
work role, institution, and career. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association
for the Study of Higher Education. Chicago, Il.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London:
Kogan Page.
Boud, D., & Solomon, N. (Eds.). (2001). Work-based learning: A new higher education? London:
Open University Press.
Bookfield, S. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, S.J., & Wilson, J.W. (1979). National assessment of cooperative education training. Boston:
Cooperative Education Research Center, Northeastern University.
Clark, B.R. (1984). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national
perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology, MIS Quarterly, 13.
Eble, K.E. (1988). The art of administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Harper, B., O'Donoghue, J., Oliver, R., & Lockyer, L. (2001). New designs for web-based learning
environments. In C. Montgomerie, & J. Viteli (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2001, World
Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp.674-675).
Tampere, Finland: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Heinemann H., & Wilson, J.H. (1995). Developing a taxonomy of institutional sponsored work
experience. Journal of Cooperative Education, 30(1), 46-55.
Howison, S., Finger, G., (2010) Enhancing Cooperative Education Placement through the Use of
Learning Management System Functionalities: A Case Study of the Bachelor of Applied
Management Program, Asia Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 11(2), pp.47-56
Jarvis, P. (1987a). Adult learning in the social context. London: Croom Helm.
Jarvis, P. (1987b). Meaningful and meaningless experience: Towards an analysis of learning from life.
Adult Education, 37(3), 164-172.
Jones, S., & McCann, J. (2005). Virtual learning environments for time-stressed and peripatetic
managers, Journal of Workplace Learning, 17 (5), pp. 359-69.
Kendall, J., Duley, J., Little, T., Permaul, P., & Rubin, S. (1986). Establishing administrative structures
that fit the goals of experiential education. In J.C. Kendall (Ed.), Strengthening experiential
education within your institution: A sourcebook by the National Society for Internships and
Experiential Education (pp. 81-104). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Experiential
Education.
Kennedy, W.B. (1990). Integrating personal and social ideologies. In J. Mezirow, & Associates.
Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory
learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Knowles, A., & Associates (1972). Handbook of cooperative education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kram, K. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview,
IL: Scott Foresman.
Kuh, G., & Whitt, E. (1988). The invisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges and universities.
(Report No. 1). Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

International Handbook for Cooperative Education 189

 Lazarus and Oloroso – Administering Cooperative Education Programs

Lazarus, F. (1991). The synergy of workplace learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York:
Columbia University Teachers College.
Lazarus, F. (1992). Learning in the academic workplace: Perspectives of cooperative education
directors. Journal of Cooperative Education, 28(1), 67-76.
Marsick V.J. (Ed.). (1987). Learning in the workplace: Theory and practice. London: Croom Helm.
Marsick, V.J. (1988). Learning in the workplace: The case for reflectivity and critical reflectivity.
Adult Education Quarterly, 38(4), 187-198.
Marsick, V.J. (1990a). Altering the paradigm for theory building and research in human resource
development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1(1), 5-23.
Marsick, V.J. (1990b). Action learning and reflection in the workplace. In J. Mezirow, & Associates
(Eds.), Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and
emancipatory learning (pp. 23-46). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Marsick, V.J. & Watkins, K.E. (1990). Informal and incidental learning: A challenge to human
resource developers. London: Routledge.
McDade, S. (1987). Higher education leadership: Enhancing skills through professional development
programs. (Report No. 5). Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Mezirow, J. (1977). Perspective transformation. Studies in Adult Education, 9(2), 153-154.
Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education, 28(2), 100-110.
Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education, 32(1), 3-24.
Mezirow, J. (1985). A critical theory of self-directed learning. In S. Brookfield (Ed.), Self-directed
learning: From theory to practice. New directions for continuing education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. In J. Mezirow, &
Associates (Eds.), Fostering Critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and
emancipatory learning (pp. 23-46). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moore, K.M., & Sagaria, M.D. (1982). Differential job change and stability among academic
administrators. Journal of Higher Education, 53, 501-513.
Nolan, T. (1988). Task analysis of the cooperative education administrator. In S. Sovilla, B. LeMaster,
& C Stemple (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Anniversary Conference of the
Cooperative Education Association (pp. 27-33). Cincinnati, OH: Cooperative Education
Association.
Ott, J.S. (1989). The organizational culture perspective. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Onyx, J. (2001). Implementing work-based learning for the first time. In D. Boud & N. Solomon
(Eds.), Work-based learning: A new higher education? (pp. 126-140). London: Open
University Press.
Pituch, K. A. and Lee, Yao-Kuci. (2004). The influence of system characteristics on E-Learning,
Retrieved August 01st from http://www.qou.edu/homePage/arabic/researchProgram/E-
LearningResearchs/
Randall, M. (2010) Adventures on the Conference Circuit. Teaching Music Journal. 17 (4), pp. 38-41.
Roffe, I. (2002) E-learning: Engagement, enhancement and execution. Quality Assurance in
Education Journal. 10, (1), pp. 40-50.
Ryder, K.G., Wilson, J.W., & Associates (Eds.). (1987). Cooperative education in a new era. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sagaria, M.A. (1986, February). Head counting and hill climbing, and beyond: The status and future
directions for research on mid-level administrators careers. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. San Antonio, CA.
Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic
Books
Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and
learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved December 12,
2008 from http://elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.
Siemens, G. (2008). New structures and spaces of learning: The systemic impact of connective
knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning. Retrieved October 10 from
http://elearnspace.org/Articles/systemic_impact.htm.

International Handbook for Cooperative Education 190

 Lazarus and Oloroso – Administering Cooperative Education Programs

Stull W.A. (1981). Leadership styles of cooperative education directors, organizations characteristics
and elements of program success in colleges and universities in the United States. Logan,
UT. US Department of Education (Grant #GOO8005091), September 1981, Research
Monograph, # 4.
Tough, A.M. (1967). Learning without a teacher: A study of tasks and assistance. The adult’s learning
projects: Education resource series (Report No. 3). Toronto, ON: Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education.
Tough, A.M. (1979). The adult’s learning projects: A fresh approach to theory and practice in adult
learning (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Weick, K.E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 21, 1-18.
Wilson, J.W. (1987). Contemporary trends in the United States. In K. Ryder & J.W. Wilson (Eds.).
Cooperative education in a new era (pp. 30-44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

International Handbook for Cooperative Education 191