Exploring Internship Readiness Among Working Students in Cebu, Philippines: A Thematic Analysis for Item Generation

Abstract

Aim/Purpose: This study aimed to develop a qualitative foundation for an Internship Readiness Scale for Working Students, addressing the unique challenges faced by students who balance academic coursework with part-time employment. The goal was to identify specific behaviors and competencies that constitute “internship readiness” for working students and to generate an initial pool of scale items grounded in those insights.

Introduction/Background: Internship readiness, which is the ability to apply academic knowledge, demonstrate professional behavior, and adapt to workplace demands, is especially challenging for working students who must balance classes, paid work, and internship duties, yet existing assessments overlook these pressures. Drawing on Social Cognitive, Experiential Learning, and Organizational Socialization theories, this study qualitatively developed a five-construct readiness scale (Work Attitude, Adaptability, Technical Skills, Communication and Teamwork, and Career Preparedness) tailored to the unique contexts of working interns.

Methodology: The researchers employed a qualitative descriptive design using semi-structured interviews with seven participants in Cebu City, Philippines. Participants were purposefully selected from three groups to provide diverse perspectives: five working students who had completed internships while holding part-time jobs, one internship program manager, and one academic internship instructor. Interviews (10–30 minutes each) were conducted face-to-face in private settings to encourage open discussion. All interviews were audio-recorded with consent, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s six-phase framework. An interview guide structured around the five a-priori constructs ensured that each conversation elicited examples and reflections relevant to Work Attitude, Adaptability, Technical Skills, Communication and Teamwork, and Career Preparedness. Data collection continued until thematic saturation was reached. No new themes or codes emerged by the seventh interview, indicating sufficient coverage of concepts. The analysis was primarily deductive but allowed for inductive emergence of sub-themes. Reliability was reinforced through researcher triangulation in coding and iterative checking to confirm that the final themes consistently represented participants’ experiences.

Findings: Twenty-two distinct sub-themes were identified across the five constructs, illustrating a rich picture of internship readiness in working students. Under Work Attitude, for example, participants emphasized a Proactive Work Ethic and a Feedback-Driven Motivation that turns criticism into improvement. The Adaptability construct yielded themes like Workplace Integration and Task Strategy. For Technical Skills, participants highlighted Skill Application, Procedural Competence, and Self-Improvement. The Communication and Teamwork construct revealed the importance of Collaborative Problem-Solving, Feedback, and Conflict Management. For Career Preparedness, themes of Lifelong Learning and Self-Discovery were prominent. These qualitative insights were distilled into 41 draft scale items spanning the five constructs. For Work Attitude themes, items were written to capture behaviors such as volunteering for extra tasks and using feedback constructively; for Adaptability, items reflect adjusting to new environments and managing multiple responsibilities. Each item is a concise statement that encapsulates a readiness attribute identified by participants.

Contribution/Impact on Society: This study provides one of the first in-depth qualitative examinations of internship readiness specifically for working students. The findings bridge a crucial gap by outlining concrete behaviors and skills that educators and employers can nurture to better prepare working students for internships. The initial item pool offers a practical tool for internship coordinators and career counselors to assess and support students who balance work and study, informing targeted interventions. By highlighting the five a-priori constructs, the study underlines how working students’ experiences can be leveraged to enhance their career development. In the broader context, improving internship readiness among this population can lead to more successful internship outcomes, higher workplace performance, and ultimately a smoother transition of working students into professional workforces, benefiting not only the students themselves, but also employers and academic institutions that partner in internships.

Recommendations: Based on these findings, universities and internship programs should consider tailoring their preparation and support strategies for working students. For example, given working students’ multiple responsibilities, institutions could provide preparatory training that emphasizes time management and self-care to prevent burnout. Mentorship programs could pair working interns with former working students or understanding mentors to help them navigate conflicts between job and internship demands. On a policy level, flexible scheduling or an adjusted internship timeline might be implemented to accommodate working students’ time constraints, thereby enabling them to fully engage in both their work and internship roles without compromising performance.

Research Limitation: This qualitative study was conducted with a relatively small sample within a specific cultural and geographic context. As such, the findings may not capture all possible constructs of internship readiness relevant to working students in other regions or fields. Additionally, the results were based on self-reported experiences and perceptions, which may carry subjective biases. The researchers mitigated this through triangulating perspectives and reaching thematic saturation, but some nuances could still have been missed. Another limitation was that the study focused solely on the qualitative item generation phase.

Future Research: Future studies should pursue quantitative validation of the Internship Readiness Scale for Working Students. This could involve administering the 41-item scale to a larger sample of working students and applying factor analysis to refine the scale’s structure. Cross-cultural research would also be valuable, examining if the readiness themes identified are relevant in different countries or educational systems, or if additional themes emerge elsewhere. Finally, intervention studies could be designed, implementing a preparatory program that targets the key readiness themes, and then evaluating its impact on working students’ internship experiences.