Students at University Working and How It Affects Their Studies and Grades

Introduction

            Amidst the increasing costs of education as well as other constraints associated with college student life, students are compelled to find other alternatives to address their problems. One of the perceived solutions to the constraints in the college student life is through combining studying and working at the same time. According to Doug (2009), contemporary college students do not have a choice but seek employment while still in school. Following the rise in tuition fees, about 50% of full time students and 80% of part-time students are currently working while studying; this numbers are projected to increase in future. In the wake of this reality, there is a growing interest among researchers and policy makers in the education sector to find out the interplay between students’ working and their academic performance (Doug, 2009). For instance, BBC (2005) reported that working at least 20 hours per week negatively affects the student’s grades. The study also reported that students working less than 20 hours per week, both off-campus and on-campus, had the same grades as their counterparts who are not any engaged in any form of work at all. Nevertheless, Doug (2009) reported that the interplay between grades and student employment, when measured in terms of the degree of participation in academically focused activities is somewhat complicated. According to Doug (2009), students working on campus less than 20 hours a week often have higher levels of engagement in academically focused activities such as student-faculty interaction, and collaborative and active learning. Similarly, students working off-campus at least 20 hours a week are more likely to be engaged in the academically focused activities than those working less than 20 hours and those who do not work at all; Doug (2005) attributes this trend to the fact that students working at least 20 hours a week have developed more effective skills in time management when compared to their counterparts. Amidst these divergent findings, there is the need to further explore the impacts of student’s working on various aspects of student life, and have an understanding of why students opt to mix studying an working, which is the primary focus of this pilot study.

Findings from the Pilot Study

            The age composition of the respondents is shown in table 1 below.

Age	Count
21	1
25	5
26	3
30	1
Total	10

 

The Gender composition of the respondents is shown in Table 2 below.

Gender	Count
F	6
M	4
Total	10

 

 

The following table 3 shows the mode of study for the respondents

Part time of Full time	Count
FT	4
PT	6
Total	10

 

 

The academic majors of the students who participated in this pilot study is shown in table 4 below.

Academic Major
Computer Science	3
Fine Arts	1
Liberal Arts	1
Music	5
Total	10

 

 

The following table 5 outlines the reasons for combining study and work.

Reason
Experience	2
Interest	1
Money	7
Total	10

 

It is evident that most students (70 percent) work primarily because of money, 20 percent work because of experience whereas 10 percent work because of interest.

Gender Differences With Respect to the Reason for Student Working

The cross tabulation below shows the gender differences as regards the reasons for working.

Sum of Count	Column Labels
Row Labels	Experience	Interest	Money	Grand Total
F	2	1	3	6
M			4	4
Grand Total	2	1	7	10

 

From the table, it is evident that most female students (50 percent) work because of money, followed by interest and experience. On the other hand, all male students work primarily because of money. Male students are not motivated to work because of experience and interest.

Gender Differences With Respect to the Working Hours

	Male	Female
Mean	27	35.33333333
Variance	357.5	240.6666667
Observations	4	6
Pooled Variance	292.5925926
Hypothesized Mean Difference	0
df	9
t Stat	-0.804546917
P(T<=t) two-tail	0.441814813
t Critical two-tail	2.262157158

 

From the two independent samples test above, it is evident that there is a mean difference between the female working hours (35.3) and male student working hours (27); however, this difference is not statistically significant because p > 0.05.

Gender Differences Regarding the Ability to Effectively Allocate Time between Study and Work

	Male	Female
Mean	4.75	3.166666667
Variance	0.25	2.166666667
Observations	4	6
Hypothesized Mean Difference	0
df	7
t Stat	2.432700719
P(T<=t) two-tail	0.045240884
t Critical two-tail	2.364624251

 

From the two independent samples t-test above, it is evident that there is a statistically significant difference between male and female students regarding their ability to effectively allocate time between study and work. Male students are more effective (4.75) in balancing time between study and work when compared to their female counterparts (3.166). This difference is statistically significant since p < 0.05.

Gender Differences Regarding the Level of Satisfaction with academic performance among working students

	Male	Female
Mean	4.5	4
Variance	0.333333333	1.6
Observations	4	6
Hypothesized Mean Difference	0
df	7
t Stat	0.845154255
P(T<=t) two-tail	0.425965481
t Critical two-tail	2.364624251

 

From the two independent samples t-test above, it is evident that male working students are more satisfied with their academic performance (M=4.5) than their female counterparts (M=4); however, this difference is not statistically significance since p >0.05. Therefore, evidence from the study suggests that there is no statistically significant difference between male and female students as regards their levels of satisfaction with their academic performance.

Preference between Working and Studying

Row Labels	Sum of Count
S	9
W	1
Grand Total	10

 From the table above, it is evident that, if most students were to make a choice between studying and working, most of them (90 percent) will prefer studying. Only 10 percent will prefer working.

Should Institutions Acknowledge Student’s Work Commitments

All the respondents were of the opinion that institutions of higher learning should acknowledge work student’s work commitments and come up with a learning environment that favors both academics as well allowing students to work with minimal constraints.

Consider Your Current Part-time Job as your Future Career

Sum of COUNT	Column Labels
Row Labels	D	DN	M	Grand Total
F	3	1	2	6
M	3		1	4
Grand Total	6	1	3	10

 

 

From the cross tabulations, it is evident that most female and male students consider their current part-time employment to be their future careers. However, there are no male students who do not consider their current part-time jobs as their likely future careers.

Benefits of Combining Work and Study

            The respondents listed a number of benefits associated with combining work and study; most respondents were of the opinion that working while studying plays an integral role in increasing their self-independence and gaining experience. Respondents also cited that working while studying helps make them make good use of their free time to earn some money. For instance, one respondent reported that “I would rather be involved in meaningful work during my free time rather than have fun with my peers”. In addition, the respondents also reported that working while studying helps in reducing their college fees burden and widen their horizons and connections.

Methods through which the University Can Acknowledge Student’s Work Commitments

Respondents were also asked to details the various methods through which the university could acknowledge their students’ employment commitments; most respondents cited the need for flexible teaching methods, part-time contacts with their tutors, part-time studies, flexible lesson arrangements and formal recognition of the students’ employment commitments.

Critique of Existing Questionnaire

            An inherent limitation associated with the questionnaire is that there are no methods that the researcher can use to verify that the information provided by respondents is true. As a result, some respondents are likely to provide false information. Another limitation is that the structured multiple choice questions are somewhat rigid. Nevertheless, this questionnaire was designed in a manner that the respondent would have relatively easy time in answering the questions; this is because of the structured multiple choice questions incorporated in the questionnaire.

Suggestions for Improvement to the Questionnaire

            This questionnaire lacks attributes that could be used to motivate the respondent have an interest to take part in the study. Perhaps, the use of visual aid presentations could be incorporated into the design in order to make it visually appealing. In order to eliminate the rigidness associated with the structured questions, an inclusion of “others” in the choice could be incorporated, or that the respondent could be allowed to skip the question.

Suggestions for Improvement to the Sampling Method

The sample for this study is limited to the local university only, which implies that the findings cannot be generalized to include diverse universities across the country. This limitation could be addressed by drawing samples from various universities in order to enhance the sample generalizability.

Critical Reflection

            During the survey, there were no significant difficulties in designing the questionnaire and gathering data. The only difficulty experienced during the process relates to translating the data in the questionnaire into the MS Excel software for analysis. In addition, data analysis in Excel proved problematic, especially with regard to the choice of the appropriate data analysis techniques suitable for the collected data.

References

BBC. (2005). Term-time working ‘lowers grades’ . Retrieved May 16, 2013, from BBC.Co.UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4462956.stm

Doug, L. (2009). The Impact of Student Employment. Retrieved May 16, 2013, from Inside Higher Education : http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/08/work