|
|
Staying Connected:
A Case Study of Distance Learning for Student Interns
Diane F. WitmerDepartment of Communications California State University, Fullerton
Table of Contents
Abstract
This paper reports a pilot distance learning course that was launched in response to a number of concerns regarding an existing internship program at a Midwestern university. Not surprisingly, student reactions to the program were somewhat inconsistent, as their experiences varied widely, both in terms of the technology and the internship site, and the new course needed considerable debugging. Comments ranged from very negative to very positive. However, most of the students (63.5%) highly recommended or recommended without qualification that communication technologies be used for summer internships. Another 20.5% of the students recommended the use of communication technology with suggestions for improvement. A major improvement in the general quality of student report writing also was noted. The data indicate that a distance learning approach to internships has great potential to enhance synthesis and integration of classroom learning with on-the-job experiences.
Introduction
Student internships have long been recognized as important adjuncts to college education across disciplines (e.g., Farinelli & Mann, 1994; Gettys, 1990; Huvard, 1998; Little, 1993; Ovans, 1991; Wolvin & Jamieson, 1974). Many practitioners in communication-based fields such as public relations consider a career-related internship to be a critical element in the student's undergraduate program (Fulmer, 1993). However, the challenges of developing internships that are both effective learning experiences for students and beneficial to employers have been the subject of intense scrutiny (e.g., Flesher, Leach, & Westphal, 1996; Hanson, 1984; Ovans, 1991). Industry professionals and academics alike have recognized that students sometimes enter internships with unrealistic expectations (Novak, 1987), face sexual harassment at their internship sites (Bowen & Laurion, 1994), and deal with inconsistencies in grading and evaluation (Ciofalo, 1988; Weitzel, 1992). In addition, educational institutions recognize that it is difficult to establish and maintain appropriate academic standards for off-campus internship experiences (e.g., Muller, 1989; Cheslik, 1989) and that successful internship programs require guidance and feedback from both the practitioner and the academic supervisors (Ross, 1990).
Communication technologies may help diminish some of the difficulties of guiding and evaluating student internships. Educators already recognize that educational uses of technology both enhance pedagogy (e.g., Althaus, 1997, Laurillard, 1987; McComb, 1994) and enable students to find placement in highly competitive job markets (e.g., Palmer, Collins, & Roy, 1995/1996). The potential for improving student internships with the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) is especially promising, when the internship is viewed as an academic course that is worthy of pedagogical innovation. CMC in college instruction potentially facilitates discussion and debate (Hiltz, 1986; McComb, 1994; Shedletsky, 1993a), enables collaboration beyond a single physical location or classroom (Lopez & Nagelhout, 1995), and offers students opportunities for experiential learning (Bartel, 1995; Cohen, 1995; Mascolini, 1995; Shedletsky, 1993b). CMC in the classroom also may enhance group cohesion among students (Durham, 1990; Smeltzer, 1986), reduce communication anxiety (Coombs, 1993), improve student perceptions of learning (Alavi, 1994; Althaus, 1997), provide a wide range of information (Benson, 1994; Rowland, 1994; Ryan, 1994), and extend access to university resources (Acker, 1995). Althaus (1997) proposes that students using computer-mediated discussion groups as a supplement for face-to-face discussions both earn higher grades and seem to learn better than students who participate only in face-to-face discussions. These findings suggest that CMC might enhance student internships, both by providing a means of communication with faculty and as a mode of communication between the students. The following case study reports the implementation of a restructured internship program that utilized communication technologies in order to reduce problems similar to those identified in the literature.
Background and Rationale for Pilot Program
The pilot internship program was developed at a large Midwestern university to address five key concerns regarding summer sessions, when most of the students entered the experiential portion of their internships. First, there was no faculty member to advise students about routine but substantive questions, such as determining the best of several internship possibilities, or providing guidance during the course of the internship experience. Second, no faculty member was immediately identifiable in case of a major concern, such as improper use of student interns, poor quality internships, or sexual harassment. Third, students had no faculty guidance in drawing connections between course concepts and their on-site internship experiences. Fourth, summer interns were isolated, both from each other and from the university, which reduced the educational value of the internship experience. Finally, faculty generally found that papers produced by summer interns were poorly written and lacked conceptual linkages between theory and praxis.
Structure and Anticipated Outcomes of the Pilot Program
A major goal of the internship program was to help students write a short final paper that linked their internship work with their courses in communication. The innovation was designed to solve the five problems listed above by making a single, identifiable faculty member available to students in order to provide the following: 1) assistance with the research and selection of internship opportunities, 2) guidance in resolving difficult situations such as broken agreements, exploitation, poor quality internships, or sexual harassment, 3) ongoing instruction in communication concepts and theories, 4) structure for developing high-quality, upper-division written assignments, and 5) moderation of student-to-student interactions via a class e-mail list (Listserv).
In addition to providing solutions for the identified problems, we expected the revised internship program to encourage student development of skills in communication technologies that are becoming essential for success in today's workplace. We also hoped the innovation would enable early assessment of learning and identification of conceptual or practical difficulties that students might encounter during their internships. Finally, we anticipated that student educational experiences would be enhanced, both within the context of their on-the-job experiences and by increased interaction with each other.
Components of the Pilot Program
The course components included: 1) a mandatory group orientation meeting for all students, 2) exercises for reflection throughout the internship experience, 3) a class e-mail discussion list (specifically, a "Listserv") to allow interaction and discussion between students, and 4) ongoing faculty guidance via e-mail, phone, and fax for developing and 5) a series of short, written assignments that culminated in a final, written report. During the orientation sessions, students received a formal course syllabus and detailed instruction on how to use the technology. In addition, the syllabus was available on the World Wide Web.
The distance learning component of the course ran during two regular university summer modules. During that period, I used a variety of communication technologies to provide questions for reflection and structured development of a final written assignment, offer guidance for problems that arose at internship sites, guide students in drawing connections between students' courses in communication and their internship experiences, moderate and facilitate the class discussion, and evaluate and grade students' work.
As students prepared for their internships, I responded to their questions by phone, office visit, and e-mail. During the formal course session, I sent tips, suggestions, and handouts to students every week. Students were required to post to the class Listserv a small weekly assignment that focused on some aspect of their final paper. I monitored the class Listserv at least twice each day, and consistently sent feedback, comments, and suggestions quickly--often within minutes, and always within 24 hours of receiving assignments or questions.
Students completed employer evaluation forms that were included as part of the original internship program. In addition, the summer interns in this pilot program were asked to complete a questionnaire that evaluated the relative merits of using communication technologies (fax, e-mail, or phone) as channels for facilitating the summer internship program. They also completed standard instructor evaluation forms that were used throughout the university.
Results
Administrative changes
Some predictable confusion arose over a variety of administrative issues that had not been anticipated when the program was implemented. One such challenge evolved from inadequate enforcement of the policy that students attend orientation workshops prior to enrolling in the internship program. The few students who did not attend had considerable difficulty in accessing their e-mail accounts, did not understand how to use the Listserv, and had difficulty with both the required weekly assignments and the nature of the final paper. I also never met the students who did not attend the orientation sessions, so our only contact was through fax, phone, or e-mail. Thus, the administration of the new program was fraught with difficulty, which resulted both in a somewhat reduced enrollment and in several pedagogical challenges.
Quantitative Data
A total of 47 students registered for the summer internship program, 44 of whom passed the course and returned completed questionnaires. Two students dropped the class. One student never completed any work and received a "No Pass," despite several e-mail and telephone discussions.
Of the 44 students who successfully completed the course, 5 (11.4%) were Advertising majors, 7 (15.9%) were in Journalism, 3 (6.8%) were in Organizational Communication, one was in Public Communication, 8 (18.2) were in Telecommunications, and 6 (13.6%) were in General Communication. As expected, based on past enrollments, the most active major in the internship program was Public Relations, with 14 (31.8%) enrolled.
Of the 45 interns who enrolled in the summer course, 33 had e-mail access, and 44 completed questionnaires. The survey data indicate that of these students, 27 (61.4%) relied most heavily on e-mail, but a number of them occasionally also used fax for assignments, to circumvent technical problems or difficulties with Internet access. Another 15 (34.1%) of the interns reported they relied most heavily on fax. One student indicated reliance on the telephone, and one used traditional "snail" mail. I gave the interns the option of e-mailing, faxing, or snail mailing their final papers and evaluation forms to the office, and I received a fairly equal number of papers through all three modes. All the evaluation forms were faxed or sent by surface mail to retain integrity of format.
When asked if the tuition costs influenced their decision to do a summer internship, 21 students (47.7%) indicated that cost had no bearing. Another 14 (32.8%) indicated that tuition costs were a factor. Only one student indicated that the cost of obtaining e-mail access had any bearing on the decision to enroll in the summer internship.
Most students (52.3%) reported that the telephone was their preferred technology or general communication, and 18 (40.9%) preferred e-mail. Although several students indicated they did not avoid any mode of communication technology, 25 (56.8%) indicated they tended to avoid snail mail. Most students (31 or 70.5%) found the mode of communication they used for the internship to be helpful in communicating with the instructor. The Listserv was seen as helpful by 16 of the interns (36.4%), and as an obstacle by 13 (29.6%). A majority of students (29 or 65.9%) reported that the weekly assignments helped them in their understanding of the final paper. In terms of their understandings of communication in the workplace, 28 of the students (59.1%) reported that the final paper assignment was helpful.
Most of the students (28 or 63.5%) highly recommended or recommended without qualification that communication technologies be used for summer internships. Another 9 (20.5%) students recommended the use of communication technology with suggestions. Thus, a total of 37 (84.1%) recommended summer internships continue with the use of communication technologies.
Qualitative Data:
During the course of the summer, two students contacted me with issues concerning the quality of their internships. In both cases, I was able to offer guidance, and in both cases, the problems were resolved to the students' satisfaction.
Not surprisingly, the student reactions to the program were fairly inconsistent, since their experiences varied widely, both in terms of technological access, and in terms of their internship sites. Comments on the evaluation forms ranged from very negative to very positive. Several general themes emerged from seven open-ended questions, each of which is summarized as follows:
I was not able to use e-mail because: The responses to this question indicated that students did not use e-mail as a result of technical difficulties (stemming either from lack of expertise or system failures), lack of a computer, or no e-mail availability through the workplace.
The most useful aspect of using communication technology to communicate with the instructor and/or other interns during my summer internship was: Seven general themes emerged from the responses to this item. In order of frequency, they were: 1) speed; 2) convenience; communicating with or observing other interns; the fax; 3) communication with the instructor; learning the technology; 4) ability to communicate about the assignments.
The least useful aspect of using communication technology to communicate with the instructor and/or other interns during my summer internship was: Seven general themes emerged from the responses to this item. In order of frequency, they were: 1) the technology itself; volume of mail on the Listserv; 2) difficulty of access; 3) lack of face-to-face contact; technical problems; 4) inconvenience; 5) lack of expertise.
The thing I liked best about my primary mode of communication to communicate with the instructor and/or other interns during my summer internship was: Two clear themes emerged from the responses to this item: In order of frequency, they were: 1) convenience; 2) speed.
The thing I liked least about my primary mode of communication to communicate with the instructor and/or other interns during my summer internship was: Four general themes emerged from the responses to this item. In order of frequency, they were: 1) technical difficulties; 2) inconvenience; volume of mail on the Listserv; difficult access.
Overall, the use of communication technology for summer internships is recommended with the following suggestions: General themes that emerged from the responses to this item included: 1) providing multiple modes of access, and 2) reducing the volume of mail on the Listserv.
Discussion
Some of the results tended to be nearly bipolar, which is not surprising, given that both the use of e-mail and the implementation of charging tuition for summer internships tended to be somewhat controversial. However, the majority of students clearly recognized the value of staying connected with their university during their summer internships, and found the final paper assignment to be a useful learning experience.
Many of the difficulties we encountered stemmed from the newness of the program, and the fact that we were learning how to administer it at the same as the students were learning how to enroll in it. We also encountered some initial resistance on three issues:
- Because students have been permitted to complete the experiential portion of their internships during the summer but enroll for credit in the fall when tuition is a flat fee, they perceived past internships as "free." This led some of them to question both the appropriateness and the value of paying any tuition at all for summer units.
- In the workshops, some students expressed concern that the new program would constitute "more work" than they had invested in other internships. Despite reassurances that the work was simply distributed differently, and that some assignments had been set aside for the summer program, this perception seemed to linger with a few students.
- In spite of the concerted efforts of the counseling and office staffs and some of the faculty, a number of students enrolled late, did not attend orientation sessions, or were otherwise unprepared for the beginning of the class.
Although a surprisingly low percentage of students reported that tuition costs were a factor in their decision to do a summer internship, this may be because only students who had decided to register completed the questionnaires. Enrollment was lower than it had been in the past, perhaps because of the new tuition structure. Another reason for the lower enrollment may have been that students placed a relatively low value on the hitherto "free" internships, coupled with the perception that internships were not courses, but on-the-job training for which credit could be earned by writing a brief, post hoc paper.
Since the internship spring orientations were new, it is probable that despite concerted efforts to inform interns of the orientation sessions, not all students were aware of them. Students who did not attend the sessions tended to have great difficulty, both with utilizing the technology and in understanding the value of the course beyond getting some job experience.
Conclusions
This pilot distance learning program had several goals. The first was to provide ongoing faculty guidance to students ggggwith substantive questions concerning the research and selection of internship opportunities. In that regard, the program was successful. In addition, the orientation sessions included extensive question-and-answer sessions on precisely those topics.
The second goal was to make available a single, identifiable faculty member to whom students could turn in difficult situations such as broken agreements, exploitation, poor quality internships, or sexual harassment. Fortunately, only two such cases arose, and with faculty guidance, both were appropriately resolved by the students. Here, the implementation of communication technologies clearly made it possible to empower students and to give them appropriate guidance when substantive problems arose.
The third goal was to provide faculty instruction to students to allow them to gain the most from their internships. This goal was met, in terms of ongoing interactions, consistent guidance, and a focus on how the internship and classroom experiences can inform each other.
A fourth goal was to provide students with opportunities to interact with each other as well as faculty, and to discuss via the class e-mail list their experiences as they related to the study of communication. Although the mechanism for this goal was implemented, it was not particularly effective. Most of the students felt flooded with e-mail, and took time to read only faculty-generated messages because those messages contained information directly pertinent to their assignments. Furthermore, the "fax" students were unable to communicate with each other. Some of them expressed a sense of isolation, since they knew they could not access the Listserv. In sum, there was relatively little student-to-student interaction, although some students reported that they found the comments of fellow interns on the Listserv to be helpful.
The last goal was to provide course structure and faculty direction throughout the internship period in order to produce high quality, upper division written assignments. Here, a major improvement was evident, in both structure and in conceptual understanding over papers from past internship programs. The final papers, although variable in mechanical quality, creativity, and depth, managed to apply, at least to some degree, concepts from the classroom to students' work experiences. To that extent, they transcended the "what-I-did-on-my-summer-vacation" type of paper that was all too common from previous summer internships, and that had drawn extensive criticism from faculty in the past. Since this was one of the major goals of the program, this pilot program in distance education for summer internships was considered a clear success.
Using communication technologies to work with summer interns admittedly required close administrative support and daily attention on the part of faculty. However, it also permitted enormous flexibility of movement, as long as a computer and modem were available. The week that the program began, for example, I was out of the state, although most of the interns were never aware of that fact. I simply checked my e-mail twice a day or so, and sent assignments or responses to student inquiries just as I would have from my home or office computers.
In general, the overall time investment for instructional faculty seems to be similar to that required for the preparation and delivery of a regular class. The primary difference between this distance education course and a traditional one, in terms of time, is the apportionment of that time.
Recommendations
The use of communication technologies can enhance summer internships, particularly in institutions where problems similar to those identified in this university exist, for several reasons. First, the distance learning approach meets several goals, in terms of: 1) providing faculty guidance to students concerning the research and selection of internship opportunities, 2) providing one identifiable faculty member for counsel in resolving difficult job site situations, 3) providing ongoing instruction to help students synthesize their work experiences and integrate them with classroom abstractions, and 4) improving the overall quality of written internship assignments through constant feedback and instruction from faculty.
Second, the majority of students value the opportunity to communicate with faculty during their internships. When problems of job quality arise, for example, concerned students are appreciative that a faculty member is available for guidance and counsel. Third, it is clear that students are able to integrate their coursework and their jobs more effectively with faculty supervision than without it. Fourth, distance learning enables students to discuss and clarify both class assignments and on-the-job questions with both faculty and each other. Although the student-to-student interaction was low in this pilot program, a number of the questionnaire comments indicated that hearing from fellow interns was useful. Finally, the distance-learning approach enables faculty to monitor and maintain the scholarly standards that are appropriate for academic credit at an institution of higher learning.
In sum, despite the challenges and obstacles of this pilot program, it is clear that a distance learning approach to the summer internship has great potential, and meets the needs of many students. Today's communication technologies offer interns a way to overcome the distances they travel to gain high quality internships, and to benefit from the internship experience as the academic and professional opportunity it is designed to be.
References
Acker, S. R. (1995). Space, collaboration, and the credible city: Academic work in the virtual university. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication [On-line], 1(1). Available: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol1/issue1/acker/ACKTEXT.HTM
Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 18, 159-174.
Althaus, S. L. (1997). Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiment with on-line discussions. Communication Education, 46, 158-174.
Bartel, K. (1995). Applying multiple communication channels to business communication classes. Business Communication Quarterly, 58, 12-13.
Benson, T. (1994). Electronic-network resources for communication scholars. Communication Education, 43, 120-128.
Bowen, M., & Laurion, S. (1994). Incidence rates of sexual harassment in mass communications internship programs: An initial study comparing intern, student, and professional rates. (Report No. CS508696). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 374485).
Cheslik, F. E. (1989). Professional internships: The use of a valuable learning experience (Report No. CS506992). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED316889).
Ciofalo, A. (1988). A prospective on internship grading problems and a solution (Report No. CS506238). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED298557).
Cohen, L. (1995). SimBiz. Business Communication Quarterly, 58, 13-14.
Coombs, N. (1993). CMC: The medium and the message. Electronic Journal of Communication [On-line], 3. Available: http://www.cios.org/getfile\COOMBS_V3N293
Durham, M. (1990). Computer conferencing, students' rhetorical stance and the demands of academic discourse. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 6, 265-272.
Flesher, J., Leach, S., Westphal, L. (1996). Creating effective internships. Performance improvement, 35, 22-25.
Farinelli, J. L., & Mann, P. (1994). How to get the most value from your internship program. Public Relations Quarterly, 39, 35-37.
Fulmer, H. W. (1993). Public relations internships: Bridging the classroom-boardroom gap (Report No. CS508273). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED361763).
Gettys, C. M. (1990). Internship paved the way for first year positions. (Report No. SP032760). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED326523).
Hanson, J. (1984). Internships and the individual: Suggestions for implementing (or improving) an internship program. Communication Education, 33, 53-61.
Hiltz, S. (1986). The "virtual classroom": Using computer-mediated communication for university teaching. Journal of Communication, 36(2), 95-104.
Huvard, G. S. (1998). Make a summer internship a learning experience. Chemical Engineering Education, 32. 48-51.
Laurillard, D. (1987). Computers and the emancipation of students: Giving control to the learner. Instructional Science, 16, 3-18.
Little, S. B. (1993). The technical communication internship: An application of experiential learning theory. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7. 423-451.
Lopez, E. S., & Nagelhout, E. (1995). Building a model for distance collaboration in the computer-assisted business communication classroom. Business Communication Quarterly, 58, 15-20.
Mascolini, M. (1995). Analysis of an e-mail-based audience. Business Communication Quarterly, 58, 11-12.
McComb, M. (1994). Benefits of computer-mediated communication in college courses. Communication Education, 43, 159-170.
Muller, W. D. (1989). College internship program (Report No. HE023203). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED316090).
Novak, G. D. (1987). Selecting and coping with college interns in radio (Report No. CS506809). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED311494).
Ovans, G. L. (1991). An assessment of criteria that will contribute to a desirable industrial internship model for the manufacturing engineering technology program at Ferris State University (Report No. CE059333). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED337564).
Palmer, R. D., Collins, R. A., & Roy, P. (1995/1996). Directions in distance education. Speech Communication Technology [On-line], 10. Available: http://iml.umkc.edu/comm/faculty/aitken/sct/sct4.htm
Ross, R. G. (1990). Building a relationship with the agency supervisor: An academic internship coordinator's perspective (Report No. CS507415). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED330013).
Rowland, L. M. (1994). Libraries and librarians on the Internet. Communication Education, 43, 143-150.
Ryan, S. M. (1994). Uncle Sam online: Government information on the Internet. Communication Education, 43, 151-158.
Shedletsky, L. (1993a, April). Computer-mediated communication to facilitate seminar participation and active thinking. Electronic Journal of Communication/La Revue de Communication [Special Issue] [On-line], 3(2). Available: http://www.cios.org/getfile/Shedlet_v3n293
Shedletsky, L. (1993b). Minding computer-mediated communication: CMC as experiential learning. Educational Technology, 33(12), 5-10.
Smeltzer, L. (1986). An analysis of receivers' reactions to electronically mediated communication. Journal of Business Communication, 23(4), 37-54.
Weitzel, A. (1992). Assessment in graded speech communication internships (Report No. CS508051). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED354553).
Wolvin, A. D., & Jamieson, K. M. (1974). The internship in speech communication: An alternative instructional strategy. Today's Speech, 22(4), 3-10.
About the Author
Diane Witmer is Associate Professor of Communications at California State University, Fullerton. Address: P.O. Box 6846 Fullerton, CA 92834-6846 USA
