The Role of the Work Report in Co-operative Education at the University of Waterloo

Prepared for Dr. James Downey, Director, Waterloo Centre for the Advancement of Co-operative Education (WatCACE)

Prepared by Mathew Escott

Date: April 28, 2004

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Guideline overview
• Faculty of Arts
  • Accounting
  • English/Economics/Germanic and Slavic Studies
  • Psychology
  • Sociology
  • Political Science
• Faculty of Engineering
• Faculty of Mathematics
• Faculty of Science
• Faculty of Environmental Studies
• Faculty of Applied Health Sciences
• Co-operative Education & Career Service (CECS) student reference manual report guidelines
• Student/faculty attitudes towards work reports
• Other university work report guidelines
• Conclusions and recommendations
• Works cited
• List of website addresses
• Appendix A: Overview of co-op 101
• Appendix B: Sociology Work report evaluation form
• Appendix C: Electrical, Computer and Software Engineering work report evaluation algorithm
• Appendix D: Faculty of Mathematics employer evaluation of work report form
• Appendix E: CECS work report evaluation form
• Appendix F: Interview answers
• Appendix G: Overview of learning objectives pilot project

Introduction

The University of Waterloo, since its inception in 1957, has viewed the incorporation of work experience into the learning process as instrumental in developing well educated and proficient students. By creating a system whereby the student alternates study and work, the University of Waterloo allows the student to combine the theoretical and fundamental studies of an academic term with the practical experience of a work term, both to gain a greater understanding of the concepts taught on the academic term and to apply workplace learning to concepts taught in the classroom. The nature of the University of Waterloo co-op program, its pattern of alternating work/study terms as opposed to an internship or some other form of work- integrated learning program, is an attempt to strengthen the link between classroom and workplace. The work term is not viewed as simply remunerated time off from school, as year-long internships can be viewed, but a continuation of the learning process.

The University of Waterloo takes specific measures to assist students in making the connection between classroom and workplace learning. The University provides Co-op 101 for all co-op students (see Appendix A for a full overview of Co-op 101). Co-op 101 gives a description of the co-op process, from how to apply for jobs, to what to expect from the co-op experience. Co-ordinators meet with students during the work term, discussing with them their role within the company, their standing and future plans, and how the job links both with academic experience and career plans. Recently, the Engineering faculty has also developed online learning modules for students to complete during the work term, focusing on “soft” skills such as communication and leadership, further strengthening the link between classroom and workplace learning.

Yet perhaps the most pervasive attempt the University makes to facilitate the linking of classroom and workplace learning is through compulsory work reports. All students are required to complete at least four work terms to graduate in co-op. However, the work report guidelines differ between faculties, and work reports themselves vary in terms of purpose, goals, structure, and components. As such, some program work reports link classroom and workplace learning more effectively than others.

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the many different work report guidelines that exist at the University of Waterloo, as well as a sampling of faculty and student attitudes towards work reports. By doing so, I hope to show how some work report guidelines seem to be more successful in encouraging the student to consciously link classroom and workplace learning. My paper concludes with recommendations on how better to link classroom and workplace learning, specifically through the work report, and within the co-op process itself.

Guideline overview       

This section of the report provides a description of the work report practices at the University of Waterloo. Each faculty’s practices are analyzed individually, and the same set of questions is applied. These questions are:

• What is the purpose/goal of the work report?
• What is the format/structure of the report?
• Who marks the reports?
• What evaluation techniques are applied to the report?
• What role does the employer play in the work report process?
• Is there any additional work required of the student?

All quotations, unless otherwise specified, are from faculty and program websites (a list of these website addresses is provided at the end of the report).

Faculty of Arts

Since there are many different programs within the Faculty of Arts, I have grouped similar programs together and give a general overview of those groupings. The History, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Drama and Speech Communication, Fine Arts, Classical/Medieval Studies, Music, and Spanish programs do not have program-specific guidelines, and use the CECS work report guidelines found in the Student Reference Manual (described later).

Accounting

Purpose/goal of report

The purpose of the Accounting work report is to allow the student to give an account of what he/she did on the work term and discuss how effective the classroom learning was in preparing him/her for the job experience.

Format/structure

The work report must include a letter of transmittal, a summary that outlines the major points of the report and the conclusions, and an analysis and discussion. The analysis and discussion portion of the report should include “an identification of the office, its size, and the duties of the student; a description of the work experience focusing on the knowledge (tools), perspectives and the skills required for the job, and a brief description of what the author learned during the work term; a listing of how the work term experience reinforced or contradicted what the author had been led to expect from the university experience; and a discussion and evaluation of the differences and similarities identified in [the above step].” The report can also include “a commentary about how the university preparation was deficient or comment on interesting ideas discussed in the university setting that were, in the author's experience, not implemented in practice.”

Markers

The guidelines do not mention who is responsible for marking work reports.

Marking criteria

Work reports are assigned one of four grades: Outstanding, Very Good, Satisfactory, and Unacceptable (Resubmit). Work reports that do not have a title page or a letter of transmittal, or a work report whose analysis section exceeds five pages, is immediately returned without being marked. Reports that are marked unacceptable must be corrected and resubmitted by the end of term.

Role of employer

The employer plays no prescribed role.

Additional requirements

There are no additional requirements.

English/Economics/Germanic and Slavic Studies

Purpose/goals

The English guidelines do not specifically state the purpose of the work report. The Economics and Germanic and Slavic Studies programs describe the work report goal as offering the student an opportunity “to analyse, assess and integrate knowledge and experience gained during work and academic terms,” and “provide students the opportunity to further their analytical, organizational and written communication skills.”

Format/structure

Economics students must follow the formatting and structure guidelines set out in the CECS Student Reference Manual (discussed later in the report). English and Germanic and Slavic Studies work reports must contain a title page, a one page summary of the report, and a 2,000 word analysis of one aspect of the student’s job. The report can be in either essay or report form; if essay from, it must follow Modern Language Association (MLA) guidelines, and if report form, it must follow the standard business report guidelines.

However, each programs’ work reports must be an analysis of one aspect of the student’s work term. Although the Economics guidelines are vague regarding some suitable aspects for analysis, the English and Germanic and Slavic Studies departments offer some suggestions of suitable topics in its guidelines, such as an analysis of decision making processes, or of the effects of power structures on communication in the organization.

Markers

Economics work reports are marked by faculty; English reports by grad students; and the Germanic and Slavic Studies guidelines do not state who marks the reports.

Marking criteria

The English program guidelines do not set out any specific marking guidelines. Economics and Germanic and Slavic Studies work reports are assigned one of five grades: Outstanding, Very Good, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory, or Unacceptable. An unsatisfactory grade means the student must correct the report and resubmit it to obtain a credit, whereas a report marked unacceptable results in a loss of credit.

Role of employer

There is no prescribed role that the employer plays in the work report process for any of these programs.

Additional requirements

There are no additional requirements.

Psychology

Purpose/goals

The purpose of the Psychology work reports is to provide the Psychology Undergraduate Office with information about the student’s co-op position which can be shared with Psychology majors and prospective students. “The work-term reports provide the Psychology Undergraduate Office with useful information about students' co-op positions that can be shared with psychology majors and prospective students. It has been our experience that co-op positions reflect the wide range of capabilities of, and career possibilities for, graduates with a Bachelor's degree in Psychology.”

Format/structure

The Psychology work report includes both a narrative account of the student’s position and experiences during the work term, as well as a reflection on the value of the learning experience and how the job related to course work. The student is to reflect on what skills were developed in the course of the work term, what the student learned about his/her skills, interests, strengths and weaknesses, and how the job affected the student’s long term goals. However, the student is not asked to develop any specific learning objectives. The student may also reflect on which courses contributed, and in what way, to the job experience, as well as what courses the student would recommend for subsequent students who are employed in a similar position.

Markers

Graduate students are responsible for marking the reports.

Marking criteria

The report is assigned a grade of satisfactory or unsatisfactory, and is “evaluated on the organization of [the] material, the clarity of [the] writing, and the extent to which [the report] followed the guidelines above.”

Role of employer

The Psychology department encourages students to provide their employers with a copy of the work report guidelines, although there is no mention of requiring the employers to mark the report.

Additional requirements

There are no additional requirements.

Sociology

Purpose/goals

The work report provides an “opportunity to examine, analyse and describe the social relations and patterns occurring in the workplace.” Also, in the process of preparing a work report the student may “learn about surveys and experimentation, archival research and statistical analysis.”

Format/structure

The work report follows the usual work report structure, in that it must contain a letter of submittal, title page, and introduction. Also, the work report consists of four major sections: Context/Work Setting, Sociological Emphasis, Analysis, and Conclusions. The Context section is provided to give readers a sense of what the student did during the term, and both how he/she fit into the organization and how the position allowed the student to develop the report. The Sociological Emphasis section allows the student to show what “theoretical viewpoint, concepts, [and] processes” he/she will be engaging in the report. The main body of the report, however, is the Analysis section. In this section the student uses data (such as personal notes, observations, interview transcripts, or results from surveys) to discuss concepts and hypotheses. The point is not necessarily to prove the idea or hypothesis. Instead, the work report is to allow the student to suggest and idea and evaluate it on the basis of the evidence collected. “The aim of sociological research is to raise good questions (ideas, theory) and then to assess the degree to which these are supported.”

Markers

The guidelines do not mention who marks the reports.

Marking criteria

Sociology work reports are assessed on a number of aspects, from the clarity and flow of the paper to the use of any Sociological viewpoints, concepts and insights, as well as the use of citations. A copy of the evaluation form can be found in Appendix B. Also, markers make the distinction between a first term and fourth term work report, and naturally expect the fourth term work report to be a much deeper and complex analysis.

Role of employer

There is no prescribed role set out for the employer in the Sociology co-op guidelines. However, the nature of the report (its reliance on research) means that the employer will probably end up involved in some aspect of the report, even if it is only to provide the student with information, whether through an interview or by providing the student with information on the company. Also, Sociology work reports must contain the evaluation form, which suggests that the report is evaluated before it reaches the University of Waterloo, but the guidelines do not specifically state the employer must evaluate it.

Additional requirements

None, although the conclusion section of the report describes how the project could be used to develop another research project, thereby allowing for the possibility of work in the future.

Political Science

Purpose/goals

The purpose of the report is two-fold. One, the report “provides an opportunity to analyze, evaluate and integrate what has been learned from the work experience with what has been learned during academic terms.” Two, it “helps to develop written communication skills and, in particular, those which are required in a managerial context.” Since political science majors will likely be required to write many reports in their future employment, it is vital they develop this ability.

Format/structure

The report can have one of two foci. The first is on the philosophy of the organization, its purpose and how the organization perceives it, whether it has a concept of a “best society” and how it promotes that concept. Also, the student may question whether the organization is on the right track to meet its goals. The other approach the student may take is to focus on policy issues that arise from his/her work, and on the future implications or organizational problems that exist within the department. Nevertheless, the student must offer concrete solutions to the problems set forth. The “principal task is to find a way of using your work term experience to illuminate some of the theoretical concerns to which you have been introduced in academic terms and using the lessons of your academic terms to gain greater insight into the character of the practical aspect of your work term.” In structure, the report should follow the guidelines set out by the CECS department in the Student Reference Manual (discussed later).

Markers

Work reports are evaluated by a member of the Political Science Department.

Marking criteria

Work reports will receive one of the following four grades: Outstanding, Very Good, Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory. A report is marked on the basis of its style, written clarity, content, physical appearance, and how well theory and practice are related within the report.

Role of employer

The work report must be submitted to the employer. However, the employer is not asked to complete a formal evaluation of the report.

Additional requirements

There are no additional requirements.

Faculty of Engineering

Purpose/goal of report

The goal of the work reports is to allow the student to develop his/her written communication skills. “A work report examines a student's abilities to display sound engineering judgement on a topic of analysis or design and to produce a written report which is clear, concise, and convincing.” Report writing is very important part of the engineer’s job, as engineers need to “convince potential customers…; convince the public that the product or design is safe…; [and] convince regulators that the regulations have been met” (Systems Design Style Manual, 2).

Format/structure

The report must be a critical analysis of an engineering problem. Work reports should include a summary, introduction, main body, conclusions, and if applicable, recommendations. In addition to these sections, work reports written by Electrical, Computer and Software engineers also must include a contributions section which “clearly identifies the student's contribution to the work. The primary purpose of this section is to permit the reader to evaluate the student's involvement in the work and the student's understanding of how their work relates to the team's goals. It is not the intent to mark the level of contribution.” The report can be either (a) an engineering design project, which “should identify a problem, describe alternative solutions to the problem, analyze and evaluate the alternative solutions, and recommend one of the solution,”, or (b), as in some programs such as Systems Design, an engineering study, which includes a literature review and allows the student to specify what equipment, materials and methods were used and explain why specific methods were used, the other methods considered and the reason for their rejection.

Markers

There is a wide variety of work report markers, depending on the program. For example, the first work report submitted by a Mechanical Engineering student is marked by the CECS department, and the second by the Associate Chair or a grad student under the Chair’s supervision. Reports three and four are marked by Mechanical Engineering professors.

The first work report for Civil and Environmental students are also marked by the CECS department, but the final three are marked by Class Professors (professors who act as overseers for a certain stream and year, eg: 4A and B students). The first two work reports submitted by Electrical, Computer and Software engineering students are marked by a grad student, the third by a lab instructor, and the fourth by a class lecturer. The Systems Design program does not explicitly state who marks which reports, stating that “work reports are evaluated and graded by a faculty member, a field co-ordinator, an employer, or some combination of these.”

Marking criteria       

Many Engineering programs evaluate work reports in two stages. For example, Systems Design uses a two stage process, where in “Level One” all stylistic criteria, such as the headings and binding, is evaluated. Then, in Level Two, the organization, clarity, grammar and conciseness of the report is graded, along with the analytical, when the “completeness of the analysis including its evaluation and justification” is evaluated (Style Manual, 60), along with “the quality and extent of the engineering analysis,” and “the quality of the engineering judgement that is in evidence” (Style Manual, 60). Similarly, Civil and Environmental engineering work reports go through a two stage marking process, where the reports are first evaluated by a “specialist in technical writing” who focuses on the English and overall stylistic quality of the report, and then are evaluated by a faculty member for technical content.

Electrical, Computer and Software engineering work reports go through a three stage marking process, and these programs have developed an algorithm to determine how marks are assigned to work reports (see Appendix C). The mechanics of these work reports are checked first against a list of requirements, which focuses on the stylistic requirements. Then, if the report passes that list, it is marked first for technical communication, and finally for technical content. The scores are combined and make up the final grade.

Role of employer

The employer does not play a prescribed role in the work report process, except in Systems Design where the employer may mark the report if it is confidential. However, all engineering programs discourage confidential reports, and therefore very rarely will allow a report to be marked solely by the employer. Nevertheless, since engineering work reports are highly technical and can sometimes be based on an actual project completed during the work term, the employer can play a valuable role in helping the student choose a topic and edit the report for technical content.

Additional requirements

Civil and Environmental engineering students are required to do two seven minute oral presentations based on their second and third work reports. Students in these two engineering programs are expected to attend a work report lecture during their first week, which is intended to review the work report requirements and alert students to what the English markers are looking for. Also, students who are asked to resubmit their work reports because of English difficulties are required to attend two tutorial sessions. The first tutorial is a group session; the second an individual session. No other program mentions any other additional work.

Faculty of Mathematics

The Biotechnology and Chartered Accountancy programs (of the Science Faculty) also use these guidelines.

Purpose/goals

The purpose of the work report is to develop the student’s writing and analytical skills.

Format/structure

The format and structure of these work reports are similar to the work reports of other faculties. These reports must contain a summary or abstract, an introduction, a main body (which must be an analysis), conclusions and recommendations. Reports cannot be user manuals that do not contain any analytical content, purely descriptive or narrative reports, or reports that are too technical for the intended audience. However, the Faculty of Mathematics and the Biotechnology and Chartered Accountancy programs do allow students to submit a user manual if accompanied by a 500 word analysis section. If the student’s job does not lend itself to a work report, the student may write one which details business or industry practices, or how the company could have used his/her skills more effectively.

Markers

The work report is marked by two different parties. First, the employer marks the report, using an Employer Evaluation of Work Report Form (see Appendix D). If the report passes the employer evaluation, it is marked by “qualified university personnel.”

Marking criteria

The employer marks the report, using a scale of five possible grades, four (4) being the highest grade (“outstanding”), and zero (0) being the lowest (“unacceptable”). If the report receives a mark of zero (0) then it is not marked by the University and receives a grade of No Credit Received (NCR). A report that receives a passing grade from the employer is marked by the University. The University markers use the same grading scale, but reports that are graded zero (0) can be revised and resubmitted. The final grade is a combination of the employer evaluation and the University evaluation. To receive a credit, a report must receive a grade of at least one (1) from both evaluations. Reports that receive higher than a combined total of seven (7) points is eligible for the work report award.

Role of employer

The employer is responsible for marking the report. The marking criteria are described in the preceding section.

Additional requirements

The guidelines do not mention any post report opportunities or requirements, such as presentations. However, students who receive a mark of zero (0) on their work reports must attend a tutorial. During this tutorial, the student meets with an on-campus advisor to revise the work report, and this revised report must be submitted by the end of term. Failure to attend the tutorial results in the student receiving an NCR grade and no credit is granted.

Faculty of Science

The Faculty of Science does not have faculty specific guidelines. Instead, science co-op students (with the exception of students in Biotechnology/Chartered Accountancy programs) are to use the CECS guidelines found in the Co-op Student Reference Manual. A description of the CECS guidelines is provided later in the report.

Faculty of Environmental Studies

All programs within the Faculty of Environmental Studies, with the exception of Architecture, use the CECS work report guidelines found in the Co-op Student Reference Manual (a description of these CECS guidelines are provided later in the report). The following is a description of the Architecture work report guidelines.

Purpose/goals

The goal of architecture work reports is not simply to focus on developing the student’s writing and presentation skills, but also to assist the student in future job searches, as architecture work reports allow the student to develop his/her portfolio. The work report also illustrates the experience and understanding the student has developed during the work term.

Format/structure

The format of architecture work reports is unique within the University of Waterloo in that it changes depending on the term it is developed. The first work report is a portfolio; the second a written report of the type common to most faculties and programs; the third is a portfolio, updated and on CD ROM; and the final report is linked with the Intern Architect Program, a mentoring program that all architects must take part in order to become accredited.

The first report, as stated previously, is a portfolio. The student, in designing a portfolio, will be both using and showcasing classroom learning, as projects developed by the student will naturally incorporate learning that has taken place in the classroom. However, by specifying that work completed during the work term must be included in the portfolio, the student must show, in a concrete way, how learning occurred during the work term. The second report is a written report whose format is identical to the Accounting work report guidelines. The report must show “how the work experience either contradicted or reinforced what the student had been led to expect from the university experience,” such as the tools actually used on the job, as compared to the tools taught in class. Also, the report should make specific reference to previous courses taken, and how adequate the courses were in preparing the student for the work term. The student must “include a commentary about how the university preparation was deficient or comment on interesting ideas discussed in the university setting that were, in the author’s experience, not implemented in practice.”

The third work report is an updated electronic portfolio. More projects are to be included, which should show a progression in technique and learning. However, work reports that are structured this way may not clearly link the concepts learned to a specific work term, nor if the particular techniques reflected through projects showcased in the portfolio came from classroom or workplace learning. In essence, the portfolio will undoubtedly show what the student has learned and what skills he/she possesses, but unless the student explicitly states in the portfolio what new techniques were developed or new tools used during the work term, the viewer will not be able to tell from the portfolio how the work term contributed to the student’s learning.

Work report four must be recorded in the Canadian Experience Record Book (CERB). CERB is part of the Intern Architect Program (IAP), “a profession wide, comprehensive program administered by the provincial associations of architecture…[t]he student is required to select a Mentor prior to recording [his/her] experience in the Canadian Experience Record Book. A Mentor is an architect, from outside the firm [he/she is] working in, with whom [the student] regularly meet[s] to:

• review the quality and range of the practical experience you are gaining
• discuss career objectives
• discuss broader issues related to the architectural profession
• review the licensing process."

In this way, the work report is closely linked with the student’s accreditation process. Also, since the intern program “requires [the student] to acquire judgment, skills, knowledge and a quest for learning and discipline that will serve [the student] as an architect,” the work report, in the form of the CERB, will be a record of work term learning, as this whole process begins while the student is still in school.

Markers

Faculty mark architecture work reports.

Marking criteria

The faculty who mark the architecture work report view it as a professional document. The report is evaluated for appearance, organization, clarity, critical analysis, and completeness. The marker makes suggestions for improvement, and assigns either a grade of credit or non-credit (resubmit).

Role of employer

The employer plays no formal role in the development and evaluation of the work report.

Additional requirements

There are no additional requirements.

Faculty of Applied Health Sciences

Purpose/goals

The goal of Applied Health Sciences (AHS) work reports is to allow students to develop writing and analytical skills.

Format/structure

The AHS faculty allows two types of work reports: empirical and non-empirical. Empirical reports involve the collection and/or manipulation of data, or contain “a proposal for data collection.” Non-empirical reports “involve formal reasoning and include development and/or implementation of programs, procedures, processes, software, curricula, techniques, etc.” The report cannot be simply a narrative description of the student’s work term; it must contain analysis. The report must have a title page, table of contents, letter of submission, abstract or summary, and introduction. The information contained within the introduction is similar to that found in Arts work reports: background information on the company and its goals; the student’s role in the company; and the objective of the report. The report may also comment on assumptions used and/or relevant information reviewed, as well as provide a description of the outline of the report, and definitions of unfamiliar or specialized information or terms.

One unique feature of AHS work reports is the type of information that is deemed unacceptable to be used in the report. The “evidence [collected] is based on information systematically collected by yourself or others (e.g. published literature, expert books, policy papers, official internal documents) and not personal experience or assumptions, anecdotal information or material from the popular press.” The restriction on using personal experience is found only in the AHS work report guidelines.

Markers

In the Health Studies, Gerontology, and Recreation and Leisure Studies programs graduate students mark all four reports. The first two Kinesiology work reports are marked by graduate students and the final two by faculty members. Students must also include, if completed on time, the employer evaluation form within their work report, although this evaluation is not a specific work report evaluation, but the overall work term evaluation that all employers are required to complete.

Marking criteria

Markers evaluate the structure of the report, the report’s methods and findings (although how this is evaluated differs depending on whether the report is empirical or analytical), its conclusions and recommendations (if any), and the quality of the subject matter (did the subject of the report allow for critical analysis?).

Role of employer

As stated earlier, the student’s report must include a copy of the employer evaluation form, thereby allowing the employer to evaluate the work report, although the employer does not assign a specific grade. However, the employer may ask students to modify the report in order to obtain a satisfactory employer evaluation, which the University requires before it will mark the report. Also, the Faculty of Applied Health Sciences encourages students to include employers in the development of the report, whether it is asking the employer to help the student choose a topic or asking the employer for information relating to the report.

Additional requirements

There are no additional requirements.

CECS student reference manual report guidelines

Purpose/goals

The work report allows the student to practice his/her skills of presentation, argument, evaluation, and/or calculation, as well as to illustrate an understanding of the experience acquired during the work term.

Format/structure

The format and structure of the report is similar to that of many of the written reports of the six faculties. The report must include a letter of submittal, written in the format of a standard business letter and containing, among other things, the main activity of the employer and department the student worked for, the purpose of the report, as well as an acknowledgement and explanation of any assistance the student may have received. The report must also include an abstract or summary (depending on the type of report), and the main body, which should include an introduction, body, conclusions, and, if necessary, recommendations. The main body must be an analysis.

Markers

There are no set markers presented in the guidelines. The work report markers are determined by the faculty.

Marking criteria

Work reports can receive one of seven grades: Outstanding, Excellent, Very Good, Good (Math work reports only), Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory (Resubmit), and Unacceptable.  A report that is graded Unsatisfactory must be corrected and resubmitted by the last day of classes during the current term. A standardized marking form has been developed (see Appendix E).

Role of employer

There is no prescribed role the employer plays as set out by the CECS guidelines.

Additional requirements

There are no additional requirements.

Student/faculty attitudes towards work reports

I conducted seven interviews with various University of Waterloo faculty and students to discover how they felt about work reports. The students interviewed were: David Rose, 4A Mechanical Engineering; Sadhisha Ambagahawita, 2A Business/Mathematics double degree; Erika Kivik, 4A English Language and Literature; and Shelly Steffler, 2A Psychology. The faculty members I interviewed were: Patricia Rowe, recently retired Professor of Psychology and former Dean of Graduate Studies; Professor Ian Williams, of the Kinesiology Department; and Professor Barry Wills, of the Systems Design program. All faculty either are, or at one point had been, involved in the co-op process, and more specifically, with work reports, usually in a marking function.

This is in no way a systematic statistical survey of student and faculty opinion, nor were the people chosen to be interviewed from a random sampling. Although such a survey would have been beneficial, time constraints did not allow for it. However, I thought it useful to interview students who have completed work reports and faculty with an informed perspective on work reports.

The full list of answers is supplied in Appendix F; the following is simply an overview of all their answers as they pertained to each question. The questions developed were designed for faculty, and therefore at times when interviewing students I had to modify or skip some questions. Also, answers to some of the questions are provided in the overview of guidelines; in such cases, I direct the reader to that section.

Answers

Question 1) What is the principal purpose of the work report in your program?

Answers: Both Erika and Sadhisha felt that the sole purpose of the work report was to allow the University of Waterloo to grant credit, David thought it was to give the students practice in writing technical reports, and Shelly believed that in theory it was to allow the student to relate the work experience to course work, although in practice is simply used to fit in with the rest of the University. The faculty replies varied. Ian Williams stated that work reports are used to evaluate a work term. Barry Wills believed the purpose of the report is to work on communication skills, and Patricia Rowe said that the purpose of the report is to simply comply with the requirements that there be a work report.

Question 2) What generic skills are addressed by it?

Answers: Three of the four students answered writing skills, and various other skills such as editing, research and organizational skills. The faculty all stated that analytical, written/communication, and critical thinking skills are addressed by the work reports. Also, Barry Wills stated that writing work reports help students learn to follow guidelines. However, Patricia Rowe was uncertain how much the work reports actually develop these types of skills, rather than merely display them.  

Question 3) Are there skills specific to your program that work report writing addresses?

Answers: Both Erika and Sadhisha said writing skills, David said that it is the project the work report is based on teaches the skills, which would occur even without the work report, and Shelly stated that she believed the report could address certain skills, but that the way the Psychology work reports were designed, simply as a narrative report of what happened on the work term, none are addressed.

Patricia Rowe believes that analytical skills, stats, and experimental design skills are all addressed by work reports, although not all students do in fact develop them. Professor Barry Wills stated that work reports help students learn how to express themselves in scientific and mathematical terms, as well as allow them to practice developing diagrams. Ian Williams felt that the work reports addressed generic, not program specific, skills.

Question 4) Who evaluates the report, and why?

This question is answered in the overview of the faculty guidelines.

Question 5) Are there prescribed standards and methods of evaluation?

This question is answered in the overview of the faculty guidelines.

Question 6) What role do employers play?

Both Sadhisha and David stated that the employer played a significant role in the development of the report (for example, helping them pick the topic and narrow the scope of the report). Erika stated that the employer played no role, and Shelly’s employer evaluated the report.

Question 7) What preparation for report writing is required or recommended?

Sadhisha said that he researched, and David said that he simply organized his data and double checked that the project he based his work report on would fulfill all of the work report requirements for his faculty. For Shelly and Erika students I modified the question to “What preparation did you do for your work report?” Erika answered that she had done some research on the company, while Shelly said that she had only looked over the guidelines.

Professor Rowe stated that none was required of the students, as the department expects the student to learn writing skills in the classroom. Ian Williams’ answer was similar, as he stated that Kinesiology students are not required to take an English course, although they do get a lot of practice writing reports throughout their academic career.

Question 8) Are there any post report opportunities or requirements: e.g., oral presentations based on the reports; a source for thesis topics; tutorials about how to improve report writing?

Answer: None of the programs have any post report opportunities or requirements. Psychology graduate co-op students do give oral presentations, and when asked if Patricia felt that this was a better practice than work reports she replied affirmatively.

Question 9) How useful is work report writing as an educational tool? To what extent do the link classroom and workplace learning?

Answer: Both Erika and Shelly stated that there was a very small link. The reason given for this is that the guidelines are so broad as to be almost useless, and that many times the job had very little in common with the student’s program. The other two students felt that the reports were useful because they allowed the student to practice report writing skills. However, Sadhisha suggested a course would be more beneficial in teaching these skills.

Patricia Rowe feels that work reports do not link classroom and workplace learning as well as it can, for in her experience many students do not understand the connection. She believes that in many cases students need help making that link (by asking either a teacher or advisor), especially students in the earlier years. She also believes that a 4 month work term is not long enough to allow the student to consolidate learning, making it harder for him/her to reflect on it and make that link.

Barry Wills believes that reports are a valuable educational tool because they teach students how to communicate effectively, and knowledge is only useful if it can be communicated effectively.

Question 10) How do students regard work reports? Has any attempt been made by your program to test student opinion?

Answer: When posing this question to the students I modified the question, asking instead that they sum up their feelings about the work reports, and I did not ask them if there had been any attempt to test student opinion. Both Erika and Shelly felt that the reports were useless. Sadhisha thought that the report would not lead to any substantial improvements in the student’s writing skills (a stated goal of the work reports) and David saw them as beneficial.

Neither Patricia Rowe nor Ian Williams was aware of any attempt to test student opinion, although Ian Williams stated that he sensed some students were simply going through the motions. In Systems Design a group called SAGE (Student Advisory Group on Education) made up of students, Class Professors, the Associate Chair and Chair of the department meet every couple of weeks. Barry Wills was quite certain that if students had a problem with the work reports it would have been voiced in those meetings, but he cannot remember any negative comments from students regarding work reports.

Question 11) How do faculty regard work reports? Are they ever used for teaching purposes?

Answer: Ian Williams stated that any faculty who marks work reports benefits from learning about what type of co-op jobs are available. Barry Wills stated that he had not heard much, either positive or negative, regarding work reports, and Patricia Rowe said that she did not think work reports were used for teaching purposes in the Psychology department.

Question 12) Is there an alternative to work reports that might achieve the same ends as well or better?

Answer: Both Shelly and Sadhisha liked the idea of a presentation, although Shelly conceded that this would be unfeasible for large faculties, and Sadhisha understood that if the goal of the work report is to improve writing skills that a written report is the best idea. David felt that the work reports achieved its goals, and therefore an alternative was not needed, and Erika wanted to see clearer guidelines, as she felt that the vague guidelines did not allow the student to achieve the goals that the work reports are intended to meet.

Ian Williams does not think so. He likes the work reports, as he feels they offer more focused feedback than a presentation would. Barry Wills is of the same opinion, as he believes that learning how to write and communicate effectively is important, and work reports address those skills. Patricia Rowe believes that programs need to determine what the goals are, and then, once those are set, determine what method of evaluation meets those goals. However, she believes some sort of work report is necessary.

Other university work report guidelines

In order to determine some work report best practices I looked at other Canadian university work report guidelines. The five universities I focused on were Wlifrid Laurier University, Simon Fraser University, The University of Ottawa, The University of Windsor, and the University of Victoria. By searching on their websites I was able to discover their work report guidelines (varying by university in terms of thoroughness) and discover what each university required of their students’ work reports. Instead of giving a general overview of the guidelines by university, I will focus specifically on the Wilfred Laurier University (WLU) and Simon Fraser University (SFU) work report guidelines, as their guidelines are the most different from the University of Waterloo’s.

The primary difference between these universities’ guidelines and the University of Waterloo guidelines is the incorporation of learning objectives within the work reports at both WLU and SFU. WLU students are able to choose between writing a descriptive report or a research project. If the student chooses to write a descriptive report, the report must detail how the co-op job allowed the student to meet his/her learning objectives, and how the job influenced or changed the student’s career objectives. WLU students are required to set learning objectives and must submit them to their co-op co-ordinators by a certain date. Creativity is also encouraged. Rather than insist students follow a certain work report model, as occurs at the University of Waterloo, WLU allows students to use a variety of work report structures, from short stories to websites, as well as the standard written report. Regardless of the format of the work report, however, the report must contain the required content and analysis.

Simon Fraser University’s work report guidelines are very similar to Wilfrid Laurier University’s. The purpose of SFU work reports is to allow students to reflect on what has been learned on the work term, and provide the co-op department with an understanding of how the work term allowed the student to meet his/her learning objectives.

Like WLU students, students in many of the SFU co-op programs also have a wide variety of work report structures and styles to choose from. Faculty of Arts’ students, for example, have the choice of developing a written report, web site, or video for their first term work report, and in subsequent work terms are presented with different choices. The same occurs in the Science and Environment program, where students can choose from a wide range of options, from developing a brochure to creating a web site, and the Communication program, where students can develop a manual or brochure for their work report. However, unlike WLU work reports, in some faculties and programs the content of the reports changes with each term. For example, in the Arts faculty the content of the report changes with the student’s term. In other programs the content of the report remains the same, although the format and structure can change.

The main area in which the WLU and SFU work report guidelines are different from the work report guidelines of most University of Waterloo programs is in its focus on student reflection. As stated earlier, all descriptive work reports at WLU must contain a reflective section, detailing how the job allowed the student to develop skills and meet his/her learning objectives, how it influenced the student’s career objectives, and how the student’s academic experiences prepared him/her for the position. The same is true for almost all SFU work report guidelines. In every program, except the Science and Environment program, the work report must in some way reflect on the work term, such as what new learning occurred during the term, whether the student enjoyed the work term experience, whether the student found the work term to be valuable, and whether the work term allowed the student to meet his/her learning objectives. This type of reflection is almost completely absent from most faculty work report guidelines at the University of Waterloo.

Conclusions and recommendations

As my paper has shown, work report guidelines vary considerably at the University of Waterloo. Each program and faculty is responsible for setting their own, even if that means simply using the guidelines developed by the CECS department. Therefore, the question of whether or not the work reports link classroom and workplace learning, and whether it is an effective learning tool, does not have only one answer. Almost all work reports, to some extent, allow the student to link classroom and workplace learning. Some, because of their focus and the way they are structured, seem to encourage student reflection. For instance, the Accounting work report guidelines, with its focus on student reflection on the job and how the University preparation was adequate or inadequate, is an example of how work reports can be used to allow students to analyze the job’s effectiveness in linking classroom and workplace learning. Other work report guidelines, especially guidelines for technical reports (such as the engineering guidelines) allow students to link classroom and workplace learning by encouraging them to incorporate concepts and theories learnt both on the job and in class in the work report.

However, I believe that the work reports that do not promote active student reflection are not as proficient in allowing students to consciously link classroom and workplace learning. This conscious link is important, as students may benefit when they can specifically point to something that occurred on the work term and show how they used classroom learning to develop a solution, or how classroom learning was inadequate in preparing them for a particular task or job. The following are a number of recommendations that I believe would make the work reports a more valuable exercise for the students.

1) Ensure that every program, or at least every faculty, has determined and clearly stated the purpose of its work reports.

It is not necessary to develop University-wide guidelines. However, developing clear work report goals is essential to ensuring the work reports remain relevant and successful. When the purpose of the reports is vague, they are not supported by either faculty or students, and the development of work reports becomes an exercise in futility and drudgery. Having a clear purpose allows the student to determine why the reports are valuable and what needs to be included in the report to attain those goals. It appears, just through the few interviews that I conducted with students, that the students who wrote work reports in faculties where the guidelines were very structured and gave a very clear understanding of the purpose of the report had a much more favourable view of work reports than students in some other programs. I believe that every program and faculty should have the following two goals for their work reports: to effectively and clearly link classroom and workplace learning, and to allow the students to practice report writing skills. The following recommendations suggest a way this can be done.

2) Incorporate learning objectives.

Learning objectives, if at all logistically feasible, should be incorporated into the work term process in some way, whether through a reflective work report or some other way not linked with the report, such as a work term logbook. The Co-op 101 seminar should be expanded to five sessions, one being focused on developing and meeting learning objectives. Co-op students should be forced to set objectives with their co-op advisor, and must account for either how they met these objectives or why they did not. Even when students do not meet learning objectives it is a valuable learning experience for both the student and the University, as the student can see areas in need of improvement, and the University can discover where it possibly failed in preparing the student for the work force.

However, I understand that there exist many challenges to instituting this recommendation. The first problem is ensuring that students actually do complete the learning objectives. Many students do not have a very clear idea of their roles and responsibilities when they start the work term. As such, students would find it difficult to develop job-specific learning objectives before the start of the work term, although doing so would allow the co-ordinator to review them with the student before the work term begins (possibly during the acceptance of employment meeting).  Nevertheless, the student could still develop very general learning objectives. If students are allowed to wait until they have worked for a certain amount of time (possibly two or three weeks) before they are required to set learning objectives, they could be required to fill out an electronic learning objectives form and email it to the co-ordinator for approval. Failure to set learning objectives should result in the student not receiving credit, as happens when a student does not complete a work report. These learning objectives do not necessarily have to be linked with the work report, although I believe they should be with at least the one reflective report students should be required to write (see next recommendation).

The second problem results from student attitudes toward any sort of addition to the work term work load. In the Learning Objective Pilot Project conducted by Kerry Mahoney (see a summary of the report in Appendix G) it was discovered that most of the students had a very unfavourable view of setting learning objectives. Sixty-six percent of the students did not feel that setting learning objectives enhanced learning. If this is indicative of student opinion, it seems that it would have to be mandatory to ensure that students would complete it (however, a statistical study should be completed to properly determine student opinion). Even now, where setting learning objectives is strongly encouraged both in the CECS Student Reference Manual, and by co-ordinators, many students do not set them. Again, in order to ensure that students do complete them there must be a penalty for failing to do so, such as refusing credit.

3) Make at least one work report, for all faculties and programs, solely reflective.

At present, not all faculties use the work report to encourage students to specifically focus on what was learned during the work term, or how the student used concepts and theories learnt in class to solve problems at work. For example, engineering work reports seem to focus more on allowing students to practice their report writing skills than on what was learned on the work term, or if the student believed that the job was professionally and academically rewarding. However, I believe it is vital, especially for the highly technical and professional programs, to encourage students to reflect on what learning occurred during the work term, and I believe the work report is an excellent way of accomplishing this goal.  The student who has reflected on his/her learning is more self aware, has a better understanding of his/her capabilities, skills, strengths, and weaknesses, and has more defined career goals, all of which are valuable to any student, regardless of the faculty or program.

If only one of the reports is reflective, it should be the last report completed. In this way, the student can reflect on the whole co-op experience, may gain a greater understanding and appreciation for both the classes and jobs that at the time the student considered negatively, and be able to more accurately state how effective co-op was in helping him/her meet learning objectives or shaping the student’s career goals. The co-ordinators could set up a special meeting with these graduating co-op students (as the final work report is completed the final co-op term before graduation), going over the work report with them and discussing their views of co-op and their future plans.

4) Make a report writing course mandatory.

I believe that this should only occur in faculties where there is an emphasis on developing report writing skills, such as engineering, or where the students have historically submitted poorly written work reports. Simply writing four to six work reports over a period of four years is not sufficient to teach report writing techniques or to practice it. 

At the core of all these suggestions is the necessity of determining the purpose of the work report. If the purpose of the reports is simply to allow students to develop business report writing skills, then it is unnecessary to require students to complete a reflective piece, although perhaps a report writing course should be developed and made mandatory for all co-op students. If it is to link classroom and workplace learning, then I believe a more reflective piece is necessary, and an effort should be made to tie this to learning objectives. Nevertheless, specific, clear, and attainable work report goals are essential in determining how effective and necessary work reports are in the University of Waterloo co-op process.  

My report has attempted to provide a general overview of work report guidelines at the University of Waterloo, a sampling of student and faculty opinion towards work reports, and some recommendations that will hopefully result in changes to the work report that will make it a valuable learning exercise for both the faculty and especially the students.

However, this report is by no means the final say on work reports. There are many areas I would have liked to explore, but which I was not able to because of time constraints. One of these, as mentioned earlier, is the necessity of developing a statistical survey to determine student opinion regarding work reports and learning objectives. Understanding how students view work reports is important to understanding how to make them more relevant and useful. The second area that could be developed on is a literature review of learning objectives. Doing so would allow the University to determine how learning objectives are used in other contexts and places, and therefore determine how they could be used in our co-op process. Also, in this report I did not focus on any other methods of linking classroom and workplace learning. Katrina Strample, a graduate student here at the University of Waterloo, is writing her MA thesis on electronic learning portfolios, and would be a valuable resource for anyone who wishes to focus on other ways of linking classroom and workplace learning. Finally, I think it would be a valuable exercise to revisit in-depth this University’s past experience with learning objectives and determine why it was eventually shelved, and also go more in-depth than I endeavoured to do to discover ways to make learning objectives work at this institution.

Heppler, Glenn. Systems Design Style Manual.

List of website addresses

CECS Work Report Guidelines: Student Reference Manual

http://www.cecs.uwaterloo.ca/manual/

Faculty of Arts

Accounting: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/ACCT/reports/require.htm

English: http://english.uwaterloo.ca/wkrpts.htm

Economics: http://economics.uwaterloo.ca/ug-WorkReportguideline.html

German and Slavic Studies: http://germanicandslavic.uwaterloo.ca/coop.html

Psychology:  http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~hsmith/Handbook0304.htm#guidelines

Sociology: http://sociology.uwaterloo.ca/coop-workreport.html

Political Science: http://politicalscience.uwaterloo.ca/workreports.htm

Faculty of Engineering

​All links to engineering work report guidelines are found in the CECS Student Reference Manual, http://www.cecs.uwaterloo.ca/manual/

Faculty of Mathematics

http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/navigation/Current/workreport/index.shtml

Faculty of Science

The faculty uses the CECS guidelines.

Faculty of Environmental Studies

Architecture: Use the “Architecture” link found in the CECS Student Reference Manual.

All other Environmental Studies programs use the CECS Student Reference Manual guidelines.

Faculty of Applied Health Sciences

http://www.ahs.uwaterloo.ca/current/guidelines.htm

Appendix A: overview of co-op 101

Co-op 101 is a series of four non-credit seminars, presented over two months, which introduce students to the many different aspects of co-operative education. The first seminar is a broad overview which shows how co-op works, what to expect from co-op, as well as a tutorial explaining how to use the co-op online system ACCESS. The second seminar provides tips on the job search process, and useful interview skills. This seminar also touches on workplace safety, and this portion of the seminar is presented by the Industrial Accident Prevention Association. Seminar three completes the outline of co-op procedures, describing the job-ranking process as well as outlining work report requirements. Co-op 101 also offers tips on how to deal with and resolve “career compromising” situations, and ends with a panel of students and employers who share their insights and answer audience questions. The final seminar, presented a month after the third seminar and occurring in the middle of the continuous phase of interviews, deals with job search and networking strategies, and is of most interest to those students who did not find a job in the initial interview phase.

Appendix B: Sociology Work report evaluation form

Appendix C: Electrical, Computer and Software Engineering work report evaluation algorithm

This is the algorithm for work reports that have not been resubmitted:

Technical
Communication	Content
	0	1	2	3	4
0-2	Unacceptable	Unacceptable	Unacceptable	Unacceptable	Unacceptable
3-5	Unacceptable	Unacceptable	Resubmit	Resubmit	Resubmit
6-8	Unacceptable	Resubmit	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	Very good
9-11	Unacceptable	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	Very good	Excellent
12	Unacceptable	Satisfactory	Very good	Excellent	Outstanding

This is the algorithm for reports that are resubmitted for either a technical- communication or technical-content failure:

Technical
Communication	Content
	0	1	2	3	4
0-2	Unacceptable	Unacceptable	Unacceptable	Unacceptable	Unacceptable
3-5	Unacceptable	Unacceptable	Unacceptable	Unacceptable	Unacceptable
6-8	Unacceptable	Unacceptable	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	Satisfactory
9-11	Unacceptable	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	Satisfactory
12	Unacceptable	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	Satisfactory	Satisfactory

Appendix D: Faculty of Mathematics employer evaluation of work report form

Appendix E: CECS work report evaluation form

Appendix F: Interview answers

Erika Kivik, 4A English Literature

3 work reports completed

1. The work report is used to justify the University’s granting of academic credit for the work term.
2. Researching skills, and business writing skills.
3. Writing skills.
4. N/A
5. Modified the question to “How do you feel about the evaluation and the methods of evaluation?” Answer: Pretty fair. The TA’s are trying to prove themselves, therefore they are pretty conscientious. She did not put much effort into her work report, and that was reflected in her mark (Satisfactory).
6. Employers played no role, although she did interview an employer once for her work report, although that was more driven by boredom than necessity for the work report to be completed.
7. Modified question to “What preparation did you do for your work report?” Answer: She did some research in the company and the library, and interviewed some co-workers.
8. No
9. Very little link (only in the most basic skills, such as writing), and the guidelines are useless and very broad, which means there is nowhere to channel your research.
10. Changed question to “Put succinctly, what is your opinion of work reports?” Answer: Poor opinion of work reports.
11. N/A
12. Would like to see stricter guidelines that would give a clear starting point. “Analyse a process” (as the English work report guidelines state) is far too vague.

Shelly Steffler, Psychology 2A

1 work report completed

1) In theory, the principle purpose of the work report is to relate work experience to course work. In practice, it simply goes through the motions to fit in with the rest of the University.

2) Editing, research, application of knowledge, following guidelines.

3) The work report could address certain skills, but the way the Psychology work reports are designed it is simply a summary of the work term.

4) N/A

5) One of the things markers look for is to see how well the report follows the guidelines, and the coherency of the document.

6) The employers evaluated the work report. Because the work report was not very relevant to the employer (in her opinion) it seemed pointless to her to make the employer evaluate it. If the report was more technical, rather than a simple narrative, the employer grading requirement would make more sense.

7) Changed question to “What was your preparation for writing the work report?” Answer: None, other than reading the guidelines.

8) No

9) The work reports are not really a learning tool, and it is a stretch to say that they link classroom and workplace learning, since most jobs do not directly relate to the program.

10) Changed question to “Put succinctly, what is your opinion of work reports?” Answer: Waste of time.

11) N/A

12) She likes the idea of a presentation. However, she admits that it might be unfeasible with a university of this size. She thinks that a presentation to the employer would be valuable.

Patricia Rowe

When the Psychology co-op program started, she was the co-op program advisor, and she has graded co-op work reports off and on.

1. To comply with the requirements that there be a work report.
2. From what she has seen, the skills addressed are the written/communication skills. She is not sure to what degree the report writing skills are being developed (as opposed to essay writing skills). She feels that report writing skills should be developed. Also believes that good analytical skills are developed, but how much of the analysis is independently developed by the report writer is questionable. A work report does not necessarily develop this skill, it simply displays it. Work reports allow the student to reflect on workplace learning and pick out important aspects, but she feels it is difficult to determine how well the work report accomplishes this. In her experience, students were unable to make the connection between classroom/workplace learning.
3. Analytic skills, stats, experimental designs. However, this is the ideal, not all students develop them.
4. Grad students (Note: Talk to Theresa Bauer, Assistant to the Undergraduate Secretary, to find out how many Psych students are in co-op). Faculty are too busy to mark them. Therefore, faculty do not learn about what is going on during work term, and the integration of the classroom/workplace experience does not occur.
5. Talk to Theresa
6. As far as she is aware, none.
7. None. The assumption, she believes, is that the students receive writing skills from the classroom.
8. At the grad level, there are oral reports, given to faculty and fellow students. These oral reports detail what the student did, what they liked/didn’t like, and allows the presenter to give advice to other students as well as answer any questions (usually on the content of their work experience). I asked a follow up question: “Do you feel this is better than the work reports?” Answer: Yes, they stopped all written reports at the grad level.
9. Believes in documenting what goes on during the work term, but doesn’t believe that work reports do that. Students see work reports as make-work. She believes that 4 month work terms are not long enough to consolidate learning. The short amount of time does not allow for reflection. The work report may help this to be achieved, but it could also be make work  because the student has not consolidated his/her learning and so cannot reflect on it (see Nigel Nicholson, “Managers in Transition” Pat Rowe said Nigel stated that it took at least 7 months for learning to be consolidated. However, this figure does not appear in his book.). She knows that the work reports are supposed to demonstrate that learning has occurred, but in her experience students do not seem to believe that they have learned. She believes work reports link classroom and workplace learning less well than it could, since she feels that students need help applying what they have learned in the classroom to the workplace (by asking a teacher, or an advisor). Especially in the early years, it might be too soon to ask a student to make that connection, as in her experience grad students are able to reflect on classes that they took years earlier, which, at the time, they despised, but which they come to realize was a necessary and helpful course.
10. Does not think that any attempt has been made to test student opinion.
11. Work reports are not really used for teaching purposes. Unlike Engineering, where the work reports are used to develop scenarios.
12. Programs need to decide what the ends are, and if it is possible to accomplish them. If it is possible to specify what the ends are, then it is possible to look at what is being done and determine if it leads to those ends being met. She believes in the necessity of some sort of work report, but it must be one that deals with the job, the task, the kills needed, and if the student felt that the skills they had developed were of help.

Sadhisha Ambagahawita, 2A Bus/Math Double Degree

1 work report completed

1. As a way to get the credit.
2. Mainly writing skills (especially report writing skills).
3. The specific program skills that are addressed by the work reports are report writing skills, as math/bus. Majors must write a lot of reports.
4. English majors and the employer.
5. A marking grid, and a very vague evaluation criteria (although he stated that it was not easily available for students to find).
6. The report was specifically written for the employer, and the employer had input into the scope and format of the report.
7. Research is required.
8. No. The employer may ask the student to do a presentation, but it is not a co-op requirement.
9. It is useful in his field because when he graduates and enters the workforce he will have to write reports, but he feels that a course that focuses on report writing would be more beneficial. A course would be more beneficial because those students who really wanted to learn would take the course, and those who did not, would not, unlike now where everyone, even those not interested in learning, must write the work report.
10. Trying to decide what to write on is annoying, and he would like to see more guidance. Also, the marking procedures do not help the student improve the report writing skills. He feels that 2 different markers, who look at 2 different aspects of the report (grammar, analysis) are not beneficial. Also, the employer does not scrutinize the report very closely. He believes that simply writing work reports will not lead to any substantial improvements, as most Math/Bus. majors do not take English classes.
11. N/A
12. It depends on why co-op makes work reports mandatory. If the purpose is to determine how the work term went, a presentation would suffice. If the purpose is to understand and develop report writing skills, then a work report is the best. 

David Rose, 4A Mechanical Engineering

3 work reports completed

1. Practice writing technical reports. In the industry, engineers have to write many reports.
   1. Question: “Is there an approval process for topics?” Answer: Don’t have to meet with anyone, just follow the work report guidelines.

2. General writing skills, which engineers need to develop. He said it is helping him prepare for writing Master’s reports. Work reports are also a good way to practice organizing and presenting data (such as using graphs, visual aids) which is important for engineers.
3. The project that the work report is based on is what teaches the student particular skills, but those skills would be learned without the work report.
4. Either professors or grad students.
5. The marked reports are returned to the student along with a grading checklist, and therefore the student can check subsequent reports against this checklist to ensure that all the criteria are met.
6. Mostly, employers help the student to choose the topic, usually because topic selection is the hardest part of the report and students are unsure of what topic to pick. Also, employers will read over the report to ensure that it is technically accurate, but the employer does not formally evaluate it. He told me that since the first work report an engineer completes is marked by a co-op department staff member, he knew he did not have to make his first report technically correct (indeed, he knew of some errors and did not fix them) because the marker was only looking at format, and would not know enough about engineering to know if he was right or wrong.
7. Just organizing data, making sure the report will work, will meet all the requirements (analytical content, recommendations, etc.), and will have a conclusion. 
8. No.
9. The work reports are good in that they help the student learn how to write technical reports (which he repeatedly stressed was very important for engineers). It does not really link classroom and workplace learning.
10. His opinion of work reports has improved the longer he has been in school, as he has slowly realized the importance of good report writing skills.
11. N/A
12. Based on what he believes the purpose of work reports are (to improve report writing skills), then he feels that work reports do a good job of achieving its goal.

Ian Williams

1. It is a requirement, one doesn’t ask the purpose. Work reports are a way to evaluate the work term. A faculty who makes them gets a valuable insight into what the students are doing (on the work term).
2. Critical thinking, evaluation.
3. Rather general skills are developed through them.
4. First two work reports are marked by grad students, last two by faculty. It is split this way to share the load. The first two reports focus on format, and the last two more on critical thinking. Therefore, since faculty should be better equipped to judge how well a student has critically analyzed a problem (although he did say that he was sure most grad students would be adequate) they mark the last two.
5. The form.
6. Employers evaluate the work reports. Employer evaluations of the work reports are usually quite positive and favourable, less critical than the faculty and grad evaluations. Sometimes the employer wants the student to do a project that does not fit the guidelines very well.
7. Kin does not ask that students complete an English course to fulfill the degree requirements. Kin students must fulfill a wide variety of requirements, and requiring one more would only lessen the applicant pool even more so. There is not much formal preparation, but Kin students complete many lab reports over the course of their academic careers, which provides them with a lot of report writing practice. He did not see the need to add any more preparation, on the whole the reports seem to be fine. There are not many ESL students.
8. No, he would not add anything else. The days are already quite full for Kin students, so they would have no time to complete another requirement. He stated that many Kin students volunteer (one example he gave was students volunteering as varsity team trainers, a job that takes upwards of 20 hours a week) so adding another requirement would be unfeasible.
9. Inexplicably, I missed this question. From everything that he told me relating to other questions, however, I can hypothesize what he would have said. His overall view of the work reports seemed quite neutral, but I think he would have said work reports were good report writing practice, something that is valuable for Kin students. I think he would also say that they link classroom and workplace learning to some extant. He was quite vocal about his belief that faculty who marked the reports gained valuable insight into what students were doing on their work terms, which suggests to me that he sees the possibility that faculty can use them in the classroom. As for linking classroom and workplace learning for the student, I think he would have said that it did, since Kin students do a literature review and use concepts they have learned in class in their critical analysis.
10. No attempt to test opinion. He senses that some students are simply going through the motions because it is mandatory. He has never had a dispute with a student that a report has been unfairly graded.
11. Anyone who marks the work reports benefits from learning about what jobs are available and using that in the classroom. Most faculty are diligent, return the marked reports on time with ample comments. A few faculty are tardy.
12. He can’t think of any alternative. He likes the work reports because they offer more focused feedback than a presentation would allow for. Follow up question, “What about modules as replacement?” Answer: Modules have separate goals, to develop soft skills, and the purposes are not the same as work reports. In Engineering, modules are also used as justification to increase the amount of credit for work reports.

Barry Wills

1. To work on communication. Poorly written reports can detract from the findings of a report. Outcomes need to be expressed efficiently.
2. Teaches students to follow rules/guidelines.
3. Expressing yourself in scientific and mathematical terms, developing the ability to draw and develop clear diagrams, which for certain reports is very important. Follow up question: “Is there an approval process for work report topics?” Answer: Not really, sometimes the student must clear the topic with employers if there are confidentiality issues.
4. The class professor (the professor who looks after certain aspects of a particular class [for example, Professor Wills is the Class Professor of 4A and 4B students this year]) marks the reports.
5. Yes, they are found in the style manual.
6. If the report is confidential the employer marks it. Professor Wills believes it would be good to have non-confidential reports submitted to employers as well because it could be used as a way to convince the employer to rehire the student, and teaches the student workplace tact (speaking positively of the boss/workplace).
7. No. He said that it should be based on the work term experience, because it causes the student to evaluate the work term. (Note: I don’t know if he fully understood the question, because his answer does not really seem to address the question).
8. No, not in Systems Design.
9. Once a week, all the students and Class Professors meet together and use that time to go over a wide variety of issues, including work reports, and present it to the class. As well, former students and employers sometimes attending these meetings and speak to the students. Professor Wills said that work reports were useful as an educational tool, because knowledge is of no use if it cannot be communicated effectively, and work reports are good practice.
10. In Systems Design, a group called SAGE (Student Advisory Group on Education) meets every couple of weeks, with the Class Professors, the Associate Chair, and the Chair of the department. If students had a problem with work reports it would come up in these meetings, and since he can’t remember any negative comments lately, he assumes the students do not have a problem with work reports.
11. He hasn’t really heard much, either positive or negative, from the faculty.
12. No, because learning how to write and communicate effectively is important. Reports are important to Engineers, and therefore practice in this area is key.
13. “How will the Professional Development modules affect the work reports?” Answer: Not sure. He also did not know anything about E-Learning portfolios

 Questions:

1. What is the principal purpose of the work report in your program?
2. What generic skills are addressed by it?
3. Are there skills specific to your program that work report writing addresses?
4. Who evaluates the report, and why?
5. Are there prescribed standards and methods of evaluation?
6. What role do employers play?
7. What preparation for report writing is required or recommended?
8. Are there any post report opportunities or requirements: e.g., oral presentations based on the reports; a source for thesis topics; tutorials about how to improve report writing?
9. How useful is work report writing as an educational tool? To what extent do the link classroom and workplace learning?
10. How do students regard work reports? Has any attempt been made by your program to test student opinion?
11. How do faculty regard work reports? Are they ever used for teaching purposes?
12. Is there an alternative to work reports that might achieve the same ends as well or better?