Construction Management Internship and Co-op Programs: Stakeholder Needs Assessment

Khalid Siddiqi and Said Ozcan

This study analyzes various types of internships and co-op programs offered by universities, which are accredited by the American Council of Construction Education (ACCE). Practical training requirements for Bachelor of Science (BS) Construction students and construction companies’ needs are also assessed. Responses to a questionnaire survey, which was administered to program directors of ACCE accredited programs, construction firms, and construction students provide information about existing types of internship and co-op programs. Student perspective and preferences, sought through an internship or co-op position in the Construction Industry, were also identified in the study. Construction companies, seeking new graduates for employment, consider practical training a plus. Majority of the institutions provide an option of co-op program, however, less than half of the programs make internships available to their students through formal means. A very large percentage of companies prefer new employees to start as interns or co-ops. Majority of the students prefer to complete internships prior to full-time employment in a company. Results from this study are expected to benefit Construction Management Program leadership, managers of internship programs in the construction industry, and students intending to serve as interns prior to full-time employment. Findings shall also assist those educators who are in the process of changing internship or co-op management structure at their respective institutions. 

Key Words:  Internship, co-op, practical training, accredited institutions, construction management 

Introduction

Future employers in the Construction Management (CM) discipline expect students to learn theory and practice along with applications in the field. Co-op and internship programs are an important means of connecting the students and the industry, as well as meeting the needs of both students and construction companies. Most importantly, these programs provide students with an opportunity to apply the knowledge learned from classrooms while still in the  university setting.  Those students, who otherwise would not be able to pursue university education due to their financial constraints, consider co-op programs extremely beneficial. 

Accordingly, references such as (Taylor 2002) characterize cooperative education as a strategy for combining classroom learning with on the job training.  Furthermore, this strategy is becoming well known and understood.  As has been noted, the close interaction between the learner, the educational institution, and the employer – public or private sector partner –  characterizes cooperative education. 

Likewise, co-op has been reported to be an educational strategy that is highly successful in terms of operational outcomes for all three partners:  students, employers, and educational institutions. First, students benefit in terms of ease of getting jobs, quality of jobs, greater remuneration, and/or advancement (Somers, 1995Wagstaffe, 1995; Wessels & Pumphry, 1995 1996). Second, employers benefit from ease of recruitment and strengthening links to educational institutions.  Third, institutions also gain from such links and can, for example, gain in student recruitment. (Coll, 1996; Hurd, & Hendy, 1997).  Similarly, a related study concluded that the level of satisfaction among the stakeholders, students, faculty, and employers is very high (Chapin, Stephen & Krone 2003).   

 Internship and co-op programs are one of the institutional means for the industry to influence construction education. Universities can improve the teaching and learning process from the feedback they receive from the industry through these programs. The objective of the study undertaken was to identify and benchmark existing types of internship and Co-op programs offered by accredited Construction Management programs nationwide. Another objective of this study was to identify priority, needs, and preferences of the stakeholders including the Construction Industry, academic institutions, and the Construction Management students. 

Data Collection

Data was collected for this study through three survey questionnaires which were sent to sixty-eight (68) accredited Construction Management programs, sixteen (16) construction companies in Georgia who employ graduates from these programs, and one hundred forty eight (148) students in accredited programs. Three (3) survey questionnaires, specific for each stakeholder category, were administered to the program directors, construction companies, and construction students through email and fax. In few cases follow up telephone discussion were also held. The description of each survey questionnaire follows this section.   

Twenty-six (26) responses were received out of sixty-eight (68) universities contacted and eight (8) responses were received out of sixteen (16) construction companies. Instructors discussed the survey questionnaire during a class and the questionnaire was sent individually by email to one hundred forty-eight (148) Construction students. Eighty (80) responses were received from the Construction students.  

Survey Questionnaire Descriptions

Following are the descriptions of the survey questionnaires that were administered to the program directors, construction companies, and construction students through email and fax.  

CM Program Director

Employers of Graduates

CM Student

Survey Results

Following are the results of the survey questionnaires that were administered to the program directors, construction companies, and construction students.    

CM Program Director 

A significant majority (77%) of Construction Management degree offering programs make co-op programs available at their institutions. On the other hand, co-op programs are not offered by a sizeable (23%) number of institutions. In a majority of the programs where co-ops were available students were able to make a choice. The second major finding of this survey indicated that less than half of the Construction Management programs (46%) make internships available to their students. Fifty-four percent (54%) of the respondents do not arrange internships for their students. 

(See Table 1)  Fourteen percent (14%) of the programs had seventy-four (74) or fewer students, another fourteen percent (14%) consisted of 75-124 students, eighteen percent (18%) had 125-174 students, twenty-seven percent (27%) consisted of 175-249 students, and twenty-seven percent (27%)  had a 250 plus student population. Larger programs constitute more than 50% of the sample, however, smaller and medium sized programs were also represented in substantive proportions. 

 (See Table 2)  More than half of the institutions (58%) give at least 1 credit hour for internship.  

 (See Table 3)  A significant majority (73%) of the institutions do not have any company enlistment requirements for participation in co-op or internship programs. However, twenty-seven percent  (27%) of institutions have laid down requirements for enlistment of companies in their co-op or internship programs. 

Academic institutions, where company enlistment is necessary for participating in co-op or internship programs, mainly focus on six factors.  Site visits and agreement are the two most important factors utilized.  Contracts, letter of intent, recommendations, and job description forms are the other enlistment requirements reported by institutions.  As table three illustrates, the enlistment criteria for participation breaks down as follows:  twenty-eight percent (28%) require both a site visit and agreement; fourteen percent (14%) require a contract, letter of intent, recommendation, or a a job description form.  (See Table 3) 

 (See Table 4) A majority (62%) of the institutions require progress monitoring for their co-op and internships. Remaining programs that offer internships or co-op programs have no such monitoring requirement.  Different instruments are used for tracking student progress by the institutions that require progress monitoring.  The most popular means for tracking progress are the final and mid-term evaluation forms that are required to be completed before the credits are awarded. Thirty-one percent (31%) use weekly reports to monitor student progress. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the institutions require internship reports from student to monitor progress. 

 Daily job sheet, verification of number of hours at work, and presentations by students are required by nineteen percent (19%) of the institutions to monitor student progress. In fewer cases a university representative is required to visit the site where an intern is located. There are some other requirements such as Pre-assessment forms; assessment forms, summaries, and an exit form that are used by relatively very few institutions. 

Employers of Graduates

A majority (88%) of the construction companies prefer to hire graduates who have had some practical experience through internships or co-op programs. Most of the construction companies (75%) approach institutions for internships through the university career centers or construction programs. However, 25% of the companies do not have a formal contact with the institutions offering the Construction Management programs. 

Seventy five percent (75%) of the companies agree that a graduate in Construction Management discipline who has completed an internship is better or significantly better than the one who has not been involved in such a program. A majority of the construction companies indicated that the amount of time required to train a fresh graduate, who has not undergone an internship, is significantly higher than the one who has internship experience. 

Half of the construction companies recommended graduates to complete an internship prior to degree completion.  Additionally, about half of the companies suggested doing an internship either in junior or senior year of study. 

CM Student

More than half of the student respondents were seniors (Figure 1) and majority (63%) of them fell in the age bracket of 22-27 years (Figure 2). Most (80%) of the students, who did an internship, agree that each student should work in the industry for some time prior to a full time job. Half of the students surveyed, located in metro Atlanta area campuses were employed, and the rest of them expressed their interest in being employed in a construction related job (Figure 3).

Figure 1: Student Respondent Class Profile 

Most of the students who gained industry experience through a co-op or internship found that construction companies tend to pay higher salaries to BS (Construction) graduates with some practical or internship experience than those without it. Consequently, a majority of the construction students prefer to work and study together, if they can, to improve their prospects for a higher compensation in a full time position.

Figure 2: Student Respondent Age profile

 A substantial majority (63%) of Construction students agree that internship should be mandatory in the Construction management degree programs while over one-third (37%) of them disagree with the majority (Figure 4). Half of the students would be willing to pay a fee to a school to earn three (3) credit hours through a formal internship.  On the contrary, the other half of students would not be willing to pay internship fees.  Finally, a majority of the student respondents prefer that their university should arrange for an internship or practical training through a part-time job.

Figure 3: CM Students Employment Type

 Three fourths of the student respondents were found willing to submit a detailed internship report at the end of the internship in cases where they had a formal internship arranged by the school.

Figure 4: Mandatory Credit Bearing Internship (Student Response) 

Findings

In most institutions where co-op programs are offered, they are voluntary in nature. More than half of the Construction Management programs do not arrange or facilitate internships for their students. However, many such programs are located in a large city environment where students are able to arrange their practical field experiences themselves informally. Institutions in large city settings do not generally offer co-op opportunities because students tend to work part-time construction jobs while they are enrolled in a Construction Management program. 

Most construction companies would prefer that educational institutions consider the needs of the industry while designing internships and co-op programs for students. There is a lack of communication between institutions and the industry, in most instances, on internship arrangements that are satisfactory to both parties. 

Accordingly, a majority of the students prefer to work and study together knowing this will  enable them to get a better compensation package when they start a full-time position in the Construction Management discipline.  

About one quarter of the programs tend to specify enlistment criteria for companies before they are allowed to recruit students in a co-op or an internship setting. Such programs mainly require site visits, and an agreement on training requirements with participating companies. Such programs also implement student progress monitoring requirements. Award of credits is one of the reasons for enforcing enlistment and monitoring requirements by such university programs. 

Recommendations

Internship programs have a favorable impact on the outcome of construction education. Therefore, both formal and informal types of internships need to be encouraged and considered by accreditation agencies. 

Accordingly, when arranging internships or co-op opportunities for students, institutions should also take into consideration construction company requirements for an intern.   

Construction student needs vary, depending on the geographic location of their institution particularly in terms of proximity to a large city environment. Students belonging to the Construction programs that are located in a university town environment generally prefer summer co-ops and interships.  Such co-op and internship should preferably be credit bearing and therefore monitored.   

Most students located in a large city or metro area locations tend to arrange their practical training through part-time jobs within the construction industry.  Such practical training opportunities are informal and non-credit bearing generally.  

The Construction companies, employing part time construction students would prefer to avoid a formal structure or monitoring requirements for such training opportunities.  The students, involved in such jobs, also prefer lack of structure and monitoring for reasons of higher mobility. 

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the inputs provided by Directors of ACCE accredited programs, Georgia construction companies, and construction students who participated in the questionnaire survey.   

References

Chapin, L.T., Roundebush, W. H., Krone, S. J. (2003). Cooperative Education in the Associated Schools of Construction.  Journel of Construction Education Vol.8, No.1, pp. 56-68 

Coll, R.K. (1996). The BSc(Technology) degree: Responding to the challenges of the education marketplace. Journal of Cooperative Education, 32(1), 29-35.  

Hurd, J., & Hendy, M. (1997). What we know about co-op employers’ perceptions of cooperative education: A synthesis of research in the United States and Canada. Journal of Cooperative Education, 32(2), 55-62.  

Nathan, S. (2003) Linking Cooperative Education and Education for Sustainability: A New Direction for Cooperative Education. Asia Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education., 4(1), 1-8.  

Somers, G. (1995). The post-graduate pecuniary benefits of co-op participation: A review of the literature. Journal of Cooperative Education, 31(1), 25-41. 

Wagstaffe, D.R. (1995) Advantages of cooperative education to students. In V. Lewis, B. Bailey, C. Williams-Myers, & J. Yee-Sing (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Cooperative Education (p. 83). Kingston, Jamaica: World Association of Cooperative Education.  

Wessels, W.J., & Pumphry, G. (1995). The effects of cooperative education on job search time, quality of job placement and advancement. Journal of Cooperative

Education, 31(1), 42-52.  

Wessels, W.J., & Pumphry, G. (1996). The impact of cooperative education on wages. Journal of Cooperative Education, 32(1), 36-51.