Practicum: A Teaching Tool to Highlight the Scientistâ€“Practitioner Model January 2008

“Which would have advanced the most at the end of a month—the boy who had made his own jackknife from the ore which he had dug and smelted, reading as much as would be necessary for this—or the boy who had attended the lectures on metallurgy at the Institute in the meanwhile, and had received a Rogers’ penknife from his father? Which would be most likely to cut his fingers?” (Krutch, 1962, p. 143)

A major issue in industrial-organizational (I-O) as well as other fields of psychology is the divide between those who focus on science and those who focus on practice (Murphy & Saal, 1990). The divide results in miscommunication between scientists and practitioners (Maton & Bishop-Josef, 2006) and can lead to disregard of one side by the other (Banks & Murphy, 1990). The divide has hindered the progress of many psychological theories as well as public policies that could be more fully developed through collaboration between scientists and practitioners (Maton & Bishop-Josef, 2006).

In an effort to increase cooperative efforts among scientists and practitioners and to emphasize the importance of considering both science- and practice-relevant issues within the work of individuals, many graduate programs now attempt to expose future professionals to the importance of applied work through field work and other experiences. The prevailing educational philosophy of these programs is that through the integration of science and practice, students will develop competency in both (Leibowitz, 2003; Murphy & Saal, 1990; Stern, 2003). The overarching goal is to increase “students’ awareness of and ability to address issues involved in the application of theory and research to real-world problems and settings and in the collaboration between university and field-based personnel” (Glenwick & Busch-Rossnagel, 1993, p. 141). Despite the administration of graduate programs designed to fulfill this scientist–practitioner model, little is known about the actual utility of such programs, especially in the area of I-O psychology.

Little published research has evaluated scientist–practitioner training programs in I-O psychology. This is despite I-O researchers’ strong support of a scientist–practitioner model (Murphy & Saal, 1990). This paper and the associated survey examines a scientist–practitioner training program against the criteria of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology’s (SIOP) guidelines for PhD programs (1999; 1985) in hopes of stimulating further evaluative perspectives on training and developing scientist–practitioners. The SIOP guidelines were developed by the Education and Training Committee in an effort to aid program developers and faculty in the design of doctoral programs in I-O psychology. One important purpose of such guidelines is to reduce variability across training programs, thereby making the training of future professionals more consistent (see Table 1 for a list of the training guidelines). In addition to program standardization, the guidelines also serve to emphasize the competencies that students should develop during their graduate training. This report evaluates a unique “practicum” program at The Pennsylvania State University, which can serve as an illustration of a relatively longstanding practicum program and, possibly, as an example for other graduate programs wishing to implement a practicum program.

Pennsylvania State Practicum

A fundamental goal of the I-O psychology program at Penn State is to develop scientist–practitioners rather than either one exclusively. The focus on a scientist–practitioner model of graduate education has existed since the program’s inception in 1921, with the hiring of Dr. Bruce Moore (Jacobs & Farr, 1993). Moore applied a scientist–practitioner model to the graduate program by providing opportunities for faculty and students to interact and work with state and local organizations, in addition to the typical graduate program coursework offered by the program. These interactions involved faculty and students from Penn State helping organizations with projects such as establishing ventilation standards for battleship and aircraft fire control rooms by monitoring the performance of workers. For client organizations, Penn State scholars represented a source that could help with their organizational needs at an inexpensive price related to the resources offered by professional consulting organizations. For students, working on the projects allowed them to apply classroom knowledge to real-world problems as well as to develop an understanding of issues facing practitioners that could not be achieved in a typical classroom setting.

Today, practicum work is still a primary means for providing graduate students with experience in both the science and practice of I-O psychology. The practicum program has several specific goals that are consistent with SIOP training guidelines (1999). The primary goal involves providing graduate students with direct exposure to and participation in applied problems. Another goal is developing students’ skills in establishing and maintaining positive relationships with clients. In addition, students are able to learn how to balance theory, research, and practice in ongoing organizational projects given constraints on resources and time, and continually changing demands, roles, and expectations.

In order to ensure that contracts are successfully satisfied and that all graduate students are trained in a scientist–practitioner model, the practicum experience is a requirement for all graduate I-O students in their first through third years in the program, covering 6 semesters in total. Not only does the 3-year requirement provide ample opportunity to work with applied projects, working in the practicum program for 3 years exposes students to a wide variety of projects and organizations. Over the 3 years, graduate students typically work on between 6 and 10 projects and with between four and six different organizations.

The practicum process begins with faculty communications with potential clients about projects that would lend themselves to and be appropriate for work by graduate students. These communications may be initiated by clients (if organizations that hear about the program contact the program) or by program faculty, who may contact representatives from potential clients to discuss what the program could do to help meet their needs (whether they are research or practice oriented). The practicum program will often work on projects that clients had considered to be “back-burner” projects and perform them quickly and efficiently. Project leads are turned into project proposals and eventually project plans with timelines, milestones, and expectations that are negotiated with clients.

Once project work begins, projects are actively managed by more experienced and senior students under the guidance of an I-O program faculty member. Thus, students managing a project learn not only about the specific project but also about project leadership. This leadership experience is a critical part of the program as it allows the students to develop skills that they will need to use in various occupations (teaching, research, consulting, etc.) upon graduation.

Project work is generally arranged to be accomplished from September though May, although project work often continues into the summer, especially when client organizations are part of a multi-year agreement. Typically, multiple projects are active at the same time and students will work on two projects at the same time, one as a primary assignment and the other as a secondary assignment or in a back-up capacity. Recent projects include conducting job analyses of several positions for the Pennsylvania State Police, assisting in developing competency-based screening tools for use in employee selection for a large national consulting firm, and identifying factors that lead to commitment and participation of union members for the Pennsylvania State Education Association. The accomplishments and positive outcomes of the program over the years include students being hired by client organizations after graduation, former students hiring the practicum program to work for their organizations, contract renewals by many clients due to satisfaction with students’ performance, students’ appreciation of the benefits and liabilities of applied research, and numerous professional publications and presentations resulting from practicum work. Perhaps the biggest benefit for students, faculty, and client organizations is a greater understanding of how science and practice can and should be integrated.

Although the Penn State practicum program, like similar programs from other fields of psychology, has existed for many years and anecdotal evidence supports the value and effectiveness of the program, there is little direct evidence speaking to the long-term benefits of the program for students after graduation. Therefore, there are two primary questions that are addressed in this study:

Question 1: To what extent and in what ways does the program satisfy its intended outcomes?

Question 2: To what extent does the practicum program satisfy the criteria for graduate education established by the SIOP training guidelines (1999)?

Method

Sample
The sample included both individuals who had graduated from the Penn State PhD program in the past 25 years and senior-level graduate students currently enrolled in the program (those who have already completed the practicum program). Sixty-five individuals were recruited to participate in the study, including 57 graduates and 8 senior-level graduate students. Surveys were returned from 32 subjects, making a response rate of 49%.

Measures
A survey was generated that included three sections. The first section consisted of nine items concerning the perceived usefulness of practicum experiences (see Table 2). Responses were scored on a 5-point scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = agree. The second section of the survey involved the content areas identified in the training guidelines (1999; Table 1). Subjects rated the extent to which the practicum experience resulted in an increase in their competency in a given content area on a 5-point scale from 1 = a very strong increase in competency to 5 = no increase in competency. The final section dealt with individual program experiences and included three items, including:

1. “Please share any interesting (and especially humorous) stories that you remember from your time in practicum.”

2. “Which one or two experiences with practicum had the greatest impact on your career plans/appreciation of practitioner’s jobs?”

3. “Review your vita/resumé. List all presentations and publications that are the direct result of practicum (data from a practicum project or an idea that came from working in practicum).”

Procedure
All subjects were contacted via e-mail to ask for their participation in the study. Those that wished to participate were directed to an Internet site to complete the survey. Respondents were requested to complete the survey and then send (via e-mail) the most current copy of their vita. The vitas were collected in an effort to examine career progression of graduates from the program. Vitas/resumés were also examined to evaluate whether subjects’ responses differed according to whether they had used data from practicum experiences for professional publications and/or presentations. The underlying logic being that those who participated in more presentations and publications may have a more “academic” approach to their career.

Results

Table 2 lists the results for the questions addressing the perceived usefulness of practicum. The responses to a majority of the questions support the contention that the practicum program does satisfy its own objectives, affirmatively answering Question 1. The results for the second section of the survey, which focused specifically on the SIOP training guidelines (1999; Table 3), indicate that participating in practicum helped to develop students’ competencies in areas that are relevant to applied experience but does not lead to the development of competencies in all areas. Subjects reported that practicum was useful for developing competency in areas such as, “personnel recruitment, selection, placement, and classification” (M = 2.29, 100% agreement of some increase) and “consulting and business skills” (M = 2.48, 97% agreement of some increase). As might be predicted, less positive reactions were reported for areas such as, “history and systems of psychology” (M = 4.74, 19% saw some form of increase) and “consumer behavior” (M = 4.58, 26% saw some increase in expertise). The results reported in Table 3 are instructive in understanding what areas are impacted by practicum.

One question that can be asked is whether or not those who were more academically oriented during their practicum experience saw the same value in practicum as those who saw themselves pursuing a career in consulting or industry? Since students often change focus during their early stages of graduate school, the same time period when they are enrolled in practicum, we divided our sample of respondents into two groups based on whether subjects had used data collected through a practicum project for a professional publication and/or presentation. The two groups responded similarly to all survey items dealing with practicum experiences outside the publication process. While given the relatively small sample size (the power of this test is limited) the findings across the wide array of content areas leads us to believe that practicum experiences were useful for both academic and career-related development.

Discussion

As the SIOP training guidelines comprehensively explain, there is much to be gained by including practice, along with theory, in educating future I-O professionals. The prevalence and importance of the scientist–practitioner model indicates that integration of theory and practice is critical for the progression of I-O theories and practices. This is the core idea upon which the Penn State practicum program operates. In addition to receiving traditional classroom instruction, graduate students are exposed to and participate in programs targeting real organizational issues with clients who expect positive and professionally delivered outcomes.

The results of this study indicate that the practicum program is effective in its intended training areas. Survey responses show that students of the program perceived the applied experiences associated with practicum as valuable for their career development regardless of whether that career leads to academics or practice. Regarding SIOP’s training guidelines for developing PhD student competencies, responses showed that practicum helped to develop knowledge in practice-related areas such as business skills, performance appraisals, selection, and job analyses, areas that are included in most if not all practicum projects. Responses were less positive in theory-related areas such as knowledge of the history and fields of psychology, which the practicum program was not intended to highlight, leaving that for more traditional classroom learning. Thus, a practicum program (or similar program) should function in conjunction with a complete set of graduate courses. Such a program should benefit its students in their graduate work, search for employment, and careers, and should benefit the field of psychology through promoting effective integration of theory and practice.

As with all projects, it is necessary to cover any possible limitations that may have affected the results. For this study, there were two such limitations. First, a small portion of the respondents were still students at the time they responded to the survey (n = 4). Although they were senior students (4th year or beyond) who had completed the practicum portion of our program, their responses to the career questions were limited in insight because they had yet to leave the university. The second limitation has to do with the survey itself. The survey was by no means comprehensive regarding the total experience of the practicum program. Instead, it focused on the participant’s opinions of what they personally saw as outcomes of their practicum experiences. This is only one part of the equation. Future studies of such programs may wish to consider obtaining information from employers of these students/graduates regarding their actual performance on the job. If one could compare a new hire that went through a traditional program without a practical component with one who went through a program that focused on theory as well as practice, then it would be possible to get another perspective on the effectiveness of such programs as the one offered at Penn State.

Conclusion

This study contributes to research promoting graduate student education as a means of reducing the scientist–practitioner gap in I-O psychology. By illustrating a specific program designed to give students experience integrating theory and practice to help with real organizational problems and quantitatively evaluating the program, the study shows how I-O psychology PhD programs can effectively satisfy SIOP’s training guidelines (1999) for PhD education.

On a positive note, one quote from the survey is worth repeating. “Managing and executing that project gave me a taste for applied work in the field and an appreciation for the complexity associated with doing good scientific work, all-the-while trying to please a client with little research background.” This statement supports the usefulness of integrating a scientist–practitioner model into graduate education.

Although this study is admittedly narrow in focus, as it took place within the Penn State practicum program alone, it should be noted that the number of graduate programs offering formal programs that provide experience to students in integrating research and practice in working with client organizations is growing. For example, Minnesota State University–Mankato conducts a business consulting challenge as part of its program where students are required to propose a consulting project to a large organization. This program involves multiple individuals from three universities and the top proposal is funded by the participating organization. Also, Wayne State University has developed the Applied Psychology and Organizational Research Group that assists in providing applied experience to their students through internships, grants, and projects with area organizations.

This study focused on the Penn State practicum program because it was thought that a detailed description of the program would be useful to possibly serve as an example for other programs. This is not to say that the Penn State program is perfect, but it is a longstanding program, and this study shows that graduates of the program consider it to be an important part of their graduate education. Future research should evaluate the utility of characteristics of practicum-type programs across multiple graduate programs. A recent forum at the 2006 SIOP conference, “Teaching Practice and Practicing Science: I-O Psychology Beyond the Classroom,” was devoted to a similar topic. It is clear that future research should be conducted to further our understanding of alternative teaching tools and their value to I-O programs.

References

     Banks, C. G., & Murphy, K. R. (1990). Toward narrowing the research–practice gap in performance appraisal. Personnel Psychology, 38, 335–345.
Glenwick, D. S., & Busch-Rossnagel, N. A. (1993). Co-teaching a joint graduate practicum in community and applied developmental psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 20, 141–143.
     Jacobs, R. R. & Farr, J. L. (1993). Industrial and organizational psychology at the Pennsylvania State University. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 30(3), 75–79.
     Krutch, J. W. (1962). Thoreau: Walden and other writings. New York: Bantam Books.
     Leibowitz, H. W. (2003). The symbiosis between basic and applied research. In J. T. Andre, D. A. Owens, and L. O. Harvey (Eds.), Perception: The influence of H. W. Leibowitz. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
     Maton, K. I., & Bishop-Josef, S. J. (2006). Psychological research, practice, and social policy: Potential pathways of influence. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 140–145.
     Murphy, K., & Saal, F, E. (1990). Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice. In K. Murphy & F. Saal (Eds), Series in Applied Psychology (pp. 49–66), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
     Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. (1999). Guidelines for education and training at the doctoral level in industrial/organizational psychology. Bowling Green, OH: Author.
     Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. (1985). Guidelines for education and training at the doctoral level in industrial/organizational psychology. College Park, MD: Author.
     Stern, R. M. (2003). Basic and applied nausea research using an optokinetic drum. In J. T. Andre, D. A. Owens, and L. O. Harvey (Eds.), Perception: The influence of H. W. Leibowitz. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.