Work-Integrated Learning: Impact, Patterns, and Conditions of Undergraduate Students, High school final essays of English

Download Work-Integrated Learning: Impact, Patterns, and Conditions of Undergraduate Students and more High school final essays English in PDF only on Docsity! UBC] THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA — Ww Vancouver Campus Re hse ea Department of Educational Studies LTE Hard Working Students Report of 2018 and 2019 Survey Findings Alison Taylor, Milosh Raykov & Robert Sweet THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  2 This page intentionally left blank 1 Executive Summary Balancing part-time work while studying full-time at university has become increasingly common in Canada. While there is research into the effects of students’ term-time work on their persistence and grades, there is little Canadian research that examines other aspects of working students’ lives. This report addresses this gap by presenting findings from two online surveys of undergraduate students at the University of British Columbia about their term-time work in 2018 and 2019. Since this is the first stage of a mixed-methodology study, impressions from our initial qualitative data collection (in process) have been included as a starting point for further conversation between qualitative and quantitative results. The findings of this study construct a profile of ‘the working student’, including their motivations for working, the intensity of that work, and self-perceived working conditions. Since work-integrated learning (WIL) aims to develop students’ professional skills through meaningful employment related to studies, we also compare WIL with other forms of student work. This study reports findings from modules that we developed for inclusion in the Undergraduate Experience Survey (UES) – a survey of all undergraduate students in the Faculties of Arts, Science, Applied Science, Sauder (Business), Land and Food Systems, School of Kinesiology in Education, and Forestry conducted by the institutional research office at UBC (Vancouver campus). In 2018, responses were obtained from 1,073 (62%) female and 659 (38%) male students for a total of 1,732. In 2019, responses were obtained from 1,117 (37%) male and 1,870 (63%) female students for a total of 2,987. Findings from 2018 and 2019 form the basis for further analysis of trends in student work. More than half (55%) of the respondents worked during the first semester of 2018, and a slightly greater proportion (57%) worked during the first semester of 2019. Students worked an average of 14.3 hours per week in 2018 and 16 hours in 2019. Our survey findings in both years show that more women than men worked, more domestic than international students worked, and more students from lower socio- economic status (SES) families worked. In addition, more upper year students and more students in Arts and Commerce programs worked. In terms of intensity, male students worked more hours than females, and international students and immigrant students worked more hours than domestic students. Overall, the total time that students spent on work, studies, and social/leisure activities increased as work hours increased. However, we also see that working students spent at least three fewer hours studying per week than those who are not employed. The gap grows to six hours less of studying for students working more than 21 hours a week. The intensity of student work negatively impacted grades also. 2 Working students were more likely than others to rely on personal savings and employment income to meet their financial needs and were also more likely to have worked in summer. Students' top reasons for term-time work were for additional spending money and to gain work experience. However, the strongest statistically significant correlation was between students’ hours of work and their financial needs – to cover their rent and other basic needs, to pay tuition, and to help their parents reduce expenses for their education. In both years, almost one-quarter of respondents indicated that they could not afford to be a student without their job. Overall, 30% of working students in our survey were employed on campus in their main job. The top three sectors students worked in were retail (18%); accommodation, food or beverage services (18%); and teaching (16%). The average wage for students was $16.20 per hour with a gender gap (privileging men) of almost two dollars. The aim of work-integrated learning (WIL) programs like UBC’s Work Learn is to support students in developing professional skills through meaningful employment. In 2018, 10.1% of student respondents were involved in the Work Learn Program, and 12.6% were involved in 2019. Over half of all WIL jobs were in research or in entertainment and recreation, while almost half of non-WIL (NWIL) work occurred in food or retail, sales and accommodation sectors. Overall, women and international students tend to be overrepresented in the Work Learn program. Although a large number of students in the 2018 survey reported stress or anxiety (68%) and fatigue (58%) as problems at work, the majority of participants were satisfied with the atmosphere at their workplace and their job. Reported levels of stress or anxiety and fatigue increased with work intensity. Students working in Accommodation or Food Services were most likely to say their work negatively impacted their energy levels and study time. WIL students tended to evaluate their working conditions more positively than NWIL students. The negative association between students’ hours of term-time paid work and missing classes, study time, and fatigue due to work are statistically significant. It is clear that an increasing number of work hours negatively influences students’ academic activities. On the other hand, over one-third of working students reported that work increases their interest in the university. Therefore, it appears that the effects of employment on studies are mixed. Overall, this study highlights important features of students’ term-time work. Several findings have implications for policy discussions in higher education. In particular, greater awareness of the realities of working students’ lives and experiences can hopefully contribute to the development of policies within UBC and other universities that better accommodate these realities. 3 Introduction The need to balance work and studies has become increasingly important globally. A recent thematic review based on European data suggests that slightly more than half of all students in higher education were combining studies and a paid job (Eurostudent, 2018). In the US too, almost half of all college students worked (US Department of Labor, 2017). Whereas in OECD countries, 41% of students aged 15 to 24 were engaged in paid work in 2017, in Canada the figure was 57% (Wade, 2018). Many Canadian university students face pressure to engage in work while studying because of rising tuition costs (Canadian Labour Congress, 2016) and the need to gain work experience (Zeidler, 2017). Given the increase in the proportion of working students over time, it’s important to learn more about their experiences. This report presents findings from an online survey completed by undergraduate students at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in western Canada. We construct a profile of working undergraduate students and their term-time work patterns, examine their motivations for working, consider self-perceptions of work, and look at how term-time work impacts studies. Literature review and conceptual framing European research finds that the average number of hours students work per week during the school year varies by country, from less than 20 in Denmark and the Netherlands to over 35 in Romania and Turkey (Eurostudent, 2018). A UK study suggests that students’ average number of hours per week in term-time work was around 15 (Callendar, 2008). A 2014 survey of 28 Canadian universities found that just over half of the “middle years” undergraduate respondents worked while studying, for an average of 17 hours per week (CUSC, 2014). A more recent survey of over 18,000 first- year students from 46 Canadian universities found that over one-third (36%) were employed for an average of 14 hours per week (CUSC, 2019). The proportion across all undergraduate students is likely to be higher since first-year students are least likely to be working. Most students in Europe reported working at paid jobs for financial reasons and to gain labour market experience (Eurostudent, 2018)—findings that are echoed in Canada (Bristow & Nestico-Semianiw, 2014). In most European countries, students working in study-related positions were more satisfied with their paid jobs than others (Eurostudent, 2018). In research conducted with six Ontario universities, most students reported working in jobs unrelated to their field of study (Bristow & Nestico-Semianiw, 2014). Labour Force Survey data indicate that the vast majority of post-secondary students employed during the 2009-10 school year worked in the low-wage service sector (Marshall, 2010). 6 study experiences, and 1,732 (24.4%) of these respondents completed it. Responses were obtained from 1,073 (62%) female and 659 (38%) male students (see Table 1). The structure of participants in our 2018 sample is similar to that of the institutional population; differences regarding gender, year of study, and other socio-demographic characteristics are not significant. The second part of Phase 1 was a survey module attached to the UES, which was conducted in January and February of 2019, where students were again invited via email to participate in this online institutional survey. Students who completed this survey were invited to participate in the HWS survey module related to their work and study. The number of questions in our module was much more limited in 2019 because the institutional research office decreased the size of UES overall in order to increase the response rate. Further, our access to socio-demographic data in the main survey was limited (to protect student anonymity). There were also small differences in the wording of some 2019 questions based on what we learned from our analysis of 2018 data (e.g., we reduced the number of categories of industry sectors for student work). Responses were obtained from 1,117 (37%) male and 1,870 (63%) female students for a total of 2,987 in 2019 (see Table 1). Again, Table 1 shows that the structure of participants in our 2019 sample is similar to the institutional population in terms of gender and the number of international students. Table 1. Comparing Our Sample With UBC-V Population* Number of undergraduate students UBC (V) Statistics 2017/18 UBC (V) Statistics 2018/19 HWS Survey 2018 HWS Survey 2019 44,378 44,882 1,733 (3.9%) 2,982 (6.7%) Full-time 29,926 (67%) 31,084 (69%) 1,515 (89%) n/a Part-time 14,472 (33%) 13,792 (31%) 181 (11%) n/a Female 24,864 (56%) 25,133 (56%) 1,073 (62%) 1,870 (63%) Male 19,536 (44%) 19,748 (44%) 659 (38%) 1,117 (37%) Domestic 33,169 (75%) 33,064 (74%) 1,422 (82%) 2,331 (81%) International 11,209 (25%) 11,818 (26%) 285 (17%) 675 (19%) * Full-time and part-time enrolment statistics are from the Planning and Institutional Research Office, UBC. All other statistics are from UBC Annual Enrolment Reports (Mukherjee-Reed & Szeri, 2018/19; Szeri & Mathieson, 2017/18) Appendix 1 provides further elaboration on the profile of students in our survey modules for both years. We recommend that a module on students and term-time work should become a regular part of the UES. This report therefore presents findings from both 2018 and 2019 surveys (also referred to as HWS Survey 2018 and HWS Survey 2019) to form the basis for further analysis of trends in student work. 7 Our data analysis focused on working students' characteristics, their work conditions, and the relationship between their work and university experience. Exploratory techniques (percentages and means) and data visualisation were applied to describe the incidence and intensity of student involvement in term-time paid work, learning, and other activities. The analysis also included a bivariate comparison of the average amount of time that students spend on their various activities (t-test and the analysis of variance) as well as correlational analysis. Multiple logistic regression (Hosmer, Lemeshow, & Sturdivant, 2013) was applied to determine the relationship between student participation in term-time paid work and the impact of this work on their academic achievement, while controlling for the effects of socio-demographic factors and work and study characteristics (see Appendix 2). 8 FINDINGS PART 1: The working student Hours of work Our analysis of survey data shows that more than half (55%) of the respondents had worked during the first semester (2018), and a slightly greater proportion (57%) worked during the first semester (2019). Students were employed for an average of 14.3 hours in 2018 and 16 hours in 2019. Although this study focused on term-time work, it is important to note that 70% of students reported having worked in the summer of 2017. Only 20% of students did not work during term-time or summer. Desire to work For 2018, Figure 1 below shows that approximately one-fifth of the students who were not working (9% of the entire sample) would have liked to work but were unable to find a term-time job. This percentage is almost the same in the 2019 survey (9.1%). In addition, nearly a quarter of all employed students (24%) in the 2018 survey indicated a desire to work more hours (Figure 2). Overall, almost two-thirds (64%) of all respondents were employed or were actively seeking work. Figure 1. Student Employment Status Figure 2. Preferred Hours of Work Not working, 36 Working, 55 Not able to find work, 9 More hours, 24 The same number, 58 Fewer hours, 18 11 Table 3 suggests that students in some faculties, particularly Arts and Commerce, are more likely to be working – a difference that is statistically significant.4 Time use The time-use profile in Table 4 shows students’ time allocations in a typical week during the fall term for different levels of work intensity. Despite the small differences regarding the number of employed students and some minor differences regarding the average number of work hours, results are almost identical in the surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019. Results indicate that the most time-consuming tasks are class attendance and studying. Table 4. Time-Use Profile by Hours of Work (Average Number of Hours) Work Time Hours Studying and other academic activities Attending classes, tutorials, or labs Unpaid or volunteer work Social and leisure activities Travelling to and from university and work 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 Not working 19 18 19 17 3 2 10 10 - 6 1-5 16 17 17 17 3 3 7 8 - 6 6-10 15 17 16 16 3 3 8 9 - 7 11-15 15 16 15 16 2 3 9 9 - 8 16-20 15 15 15 15 3 3 9 10 - 8 21 + 11 15 11 13 3 3 12 8 - 8 TOTAL 16 17 17 16 3 3 9 9 - 6 F-test 10.95** 3.43*** 15.89*** 13.63*** .62n.s. 4.47*** 4.89*** 2.94** - 15.58*** Source: HWS Survey 2018 and 2019. Given that leisure and volunteer work are similar across work time categories, it appears that work impinges on academic activities. Working students spend fewer hours studying per week than those who are not employed. Students working more than 21 hours per week spend fewer hours studying and attending classes (22 compared to 28 for non-working students in 2018). It is also noteworthy that the combined number of hours that students spend in academic, social/leisure, and work activities increases as their working hours increase – 68+ hours for students working over 21 hours per week compared to 53 hours for those not working in 2019. This echoes European findings that higher education students engaged in paid work have a higher total time budget than non-working peers (Eurostudent, 2018). The correlational analysis in Table 5 shows a relatively low but statistically significant negative correlation between students' class attendance and work hours in 2018 and 2019 (r = -.130***, r = -.152***) as well as studying and other academic activities and work hours in 2018 (r = -.131***). Thus, increasing the number of work hours has a 4 Applied degrees in the UES dataset include Engineering, Land and Food Systems, Kinesiology, and Forestry. 12 negative influence on students’ academic activities. As we discuss later in this report, intensity of work hours also negatively impacts grades. Our focus group interviews suggest that many students perceive a trade-off between higher grades and work experience. Table 5. Correlation (r) Between Students’ Paid Work and Other Activities Year Unpaid or volunteer work Social and leisure activities Attending classes, tutorials, or labs Studying and other academic activities Travelling to and from university and work 2018 .047ns .207ns -.130*** -.131*** - 2019 .121*** -.023 -.152*** -.046^ .056* Source: HWS Survey, 2018 (N=932) and 2019 (N=1625). Why do students work? Students’ financial status is one indicator of the need to work. Table 6 first shows working and non-working students’ levels of debt. These comparisons indicate minimal differences between these groups. There was also little difference in working and non- working students’ reliance on government-sponsored student loans and grants and bursaries. Table 6. Financial Profile of Non-working and Working Students (% who responded ‘a great deal’) Profile 2018 (%) 2019 (%) Work No Work Work No Work Debt Significant debt 25 24 19 24 Some debt 12 12 12 11 No debt 64 64 68 66 Financial Support/Sources Parents 79 84 79 84 Government loans 29 28 26 26 Grants and bursaries 45 48 41 43 Bank loans 6 3 4 5 Personal savings / (term-time) work 74 51 44 35 Employment - - 60 21 Prior Summer work 81 56 - - Financial Concerns * Have experienced financial stress 13 11 -- -- Worry about paying tuition / expenses 31 27 -- -- Source: HWS Survey, 2018 and 2019. However, the non-working group was somewhat more reliant on parental support. Working students were more likely to rely on personal savings and employment 13 income to meet their financial needs. Our findings from the 2018 survey show that they are also more likely to have worked in the previous summer term to augment their savings (81% vs. 56%, χ2 = 130.568***). This suggests that while both groups rely on their parents for financial support, the families of non-working students allocate a greater amount of money toward their children's education. Finally, although relatively few students report experiencing ‘a great deal’ of financial stress, close to 30% in both work and non-work groups report worrying about basic tuition and living costs. Our focus group interviews with working students suggest that most rely on parental support as one source of their funding. They were often working to reduce their debt load after graduation, to assert their growing independence, and to improve their living conditions as students. Figure 3 confirms that students work for a variety of reasons (see Appendix 3 for more detail). Findings from the 2018 and 2019 surveys indicate that students most commonly work for additional spending money and to gain experience. Figure 3. Students’ Reasons for Term-Time Work (% who responded ‘very important’) Source: HWS Survey, 2018 and 2019. Factorization of the items related to students’ motivations for term-time work shows that they can be grouped into two broad categories – working for financial reasons and working for experience or social reasons. Among financial motivations for work is the 11 11 19 13 42 42 31 27 36 34 41 37 44 47 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 (2019) Make a social contribu_on (2018) (2019) Expand my social network (2018) (2019) To gain experience (2018) Social (2019) Pay my tui_on fees (2018) (2019) To help parents reduce expenses (2018) (2019) To buy food and other basic necessi_es (2018) (2019) For addi_onal spending money (2018) Financial 16 Over half of the undergraduate students employed in Work Learn positions came from Arts (37.5%) and Science (25.4%) faculties combined, which is not surprising since these are the largest undergraduate faculties. Our findings suggest that 10.1% of students were involved in the Work Learn Program in 2018 and 12.6% were involved in 2019. Sectors of work Overall, 30% of working students stated that their main job was on campus. The top three sectors students worked in were retail (18%); accommodation, food or beverage services (18%); and teaching (16%). When we compare which students worked in retail or in accommodation, food and beverage services (2018 survey) with other kinds of work, we see some interesting differences. Students more likely to be working in these two sectors include males (38% vs. 29%), low and mid-low SES students (41% vs. 28%), first generation students (35% vs. 26%) and first- and second- year students (54% vs. 34%). These findings are statistically significant. The average wage for students across all sectors was $16.20/hour, and the mode was $12.90 (around the provincial minimum wage when the survey was conducted). Figure 4. Work-integrated Learning by Sector of Employment Source: HWS Survey 2018. Figure 4 suggests that there are differences in the labour market sectors where WIL students are employed, compared to NWIL students. Perhaps not surprisingly, although WIL made up only 13% of term-time work in 2018, it more often involved jobs in 2 2 6 8 18 25 38 24 6 24 19 7 17 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 Accommoda[on or food services Health services Retail or sales Teaching, tutoring, or educa[on Entertainment or recrea[on Other industries Research or development NWIL WIL 17 Research and Development (38%). Around one-fifth of WIL work was in entertainment- recreation. NWIL work occurred most often in retail or sales (24%) and accommodation or food (24%). About 20% of NWIL students were employed in the education area. The health sector employed relatively few WIL and NWIL students. Results from the 2019 survey (Figure 5) show a pattern that is similar to the 2018 survey. Differences in the distribution of WIL and NWIL are probably due in large part to the different classification of industries. In 2019, over half (59%) of all WIL jobs were in Research and Development and Teaching, Tutoring or Education, and around half (49%) of NWIL jobs in Retail or Sales and Food and Beverage Services. Figure 5. Work-integrated Learning by Sector of Employment Source: HWS Survey 2019. Earnings represent a basic indicator of work quality. Wages differed by gender with the mean wage for men being $17.45 per hour while the mean wage for women was $15.61 (a statistically significant difference). There were no significant differences in hourly wages by ethnicity. Earnings in Figure 6 for both WIL and NWIL groups were greater than the provincial minimum wage. Male students had a wage advantage irrespective of work type although gender differences were most obvious among WIL students. It appears that although approximately two-thirds of Work Learn students were women in 2018, their average wages were lower ($16 per hour vs. $19 per hour for men) – clearly an area for further study. 4 12 12 16 21 35 6 49 10 15 3 18 0 10 20 30 40 50 Business and finance Retail, sales and food Health and social services Other Research or development Teaching, tutoring or educa[on NWIL WIL No CoOp 18 Figure 6. Student Earnings ($) by Gender and Type of Work (%) Source: HWS Survey 2018. Work intensity Socio-demographic differences are evident when we look at work intensity. For example, although male students were less often involved in term-time paid work, they worked more hours than females. In addition, international students were less frequently involved in paid work (47% vs. 57%, Chi-square = 8.209**) but they worked more hours than domestic students (16.65 vs. 13.97, F = 6.403**). Interestingly, middle class students (M = 18.1) worked more hours than lower (M = 13.5) and upper/high class (M = 13.9) students. Further analysis will examine whether the kind of work varies for different groups. For example, our findings indicate that first generation students were less likely to work on campus, while international students were more likely to do so. Figures 7a and 7b compare students' work intensity – the number of hours worked in a given week for WIL and NWIL students. We see that around two-thirds of WIL students and around half of NWIL students work less than 11 hours per week. As noted above, students in UBC’s Work Learn program are permitted to work a maximum of 10 hours per week and the effect of this regulation may be seen in WIL students' hours. The fact that one-third of WIL learning students report working more than 10 hours suggests that some employers may exceed the cap, or students may have more than one job. Although a small proportion overall, noticeably more NWIL students work over 20 hours per week. 19 16 16 15 5 10 15 20 25 Male Female WIL NWIL 21 This may be due to the fact that Work Learn hours are more regulated, and campus employers are more likely to accommodate students’ study demands in their work schedules. In addition, it may be the case that the everyday transitions for WIL students are more ‘seamless’ than for NWIL students. Our focus group interviews confirm that it makes a difference to students’ wellbeing when employers take into account and accommodate their studies. For example, Work Learn students were more likely to say that they were able to arrange their work schedules around assignments and examinations. Since most ‘student work’ is typically viewed as temporary and not directly linked to a career path, it often fits the description of 'precarious work' – that is, work characterized by low wages, poor work conditions, lack of a union or statutory protection(s), job instability, and a lack of benefits (Young, 2010). Additionally, such employment typically offers few opportunities for individual initiative. Figure 10 presents students' descriptions of their working conditions for WIL and NWIL students from the 2018 survey. For both groups, work time is quite variable, although NWIL students report somewhat greater variability (62% vs. 50% for WIL), and more NWIL students 'strongly agree' that their work involves repetitive tasks (26% vs. 18%). The 2019 survey data show similar differences. Figure 10. Working Conditions (% who responded ‘strongly agree’) Source: HWS Survey 2018. 50 23 23 18 62 23 18 26 0 20 40 60 80 Time varies On call Make decisions Repe[[ve work WIL NWIL 22 Figure 11 suggests that despite the high levels of stress and fatigue and the precarious nature of much student work, the majority of participants (around three-quarters in 2018 and 2019 surveys) were satisfied with the atmosphere at their workplace and with their job. In the 2018 survey, a similar proportion of students were satisfied with their relations with coworkers and supervisors. At the same time, more than half of the students indicated that their work was repetitive and they need to work fast at their job. Approximately one-third felt overqualified for their job, and a quarter indicated that their job was physically demanding. Results from both surveys were similar, except in regard to the lower proportion of the participants in 2019 who reported on-the-job training compared to the 2018 survey (46% vs. 70%). Figure 11. Students’ Experiences of Work Source: HWS Survey 2018 and 2019. Figure 12 shows that WIL students tended to evaluate their working conditions more positively than NWIL students. The 2019 results were very similar to the results from 2018. Slight differences were probably caused by the smaller sampling error in the 2019 survey because of the greater number of participants. 6 6 12 11 16 17 18 23 8 21 24 22 28 23 17 19 23 22 39 42 39 41 38 49 47 50 46 51 15 19 33 34 20 23 20 21 20 16 20 17 18 20 32 30 27 27 16 16 17 13 24 9 7 8 6 5 30 27 6 6 9 3 6 2 10 5 2 2 2 3 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% (2019) My job involves hard physical work (2018) (2019) I feel over-qualified for my job (2018) (2019) I need to work fast at my job (2018) (2019) I do the same thing over and over (2018) (2019) I receive on-the-job training (2018) (2019) Overall, I am sa_sfied with my job (2018) (2019) My workplace has a pleasant atmosphere (2018) Strongly Agree Agree Neither ... Disagree Strongly disagree 23 Figure 12. Subjective Workplace Evaluations (% who responded ‘strongly agree’) Source: HWS Survey 2018 and 2019. Our focus groups with working students provided further insight into seemingly contradictory findings – for example, students described their jobs as repetitive or felt overqualified but were also satisfied. Some students indicated that social relations at work (e.g., working with other youth/friends) made up for challenging aspects. Other students said that their work varied; it was boring some of the time but challenging at other times. Interestingly, students aspiring to professions like medicine or finance felt that juggling work and studies better prepared them to handle a heavy workload in the future. Further analysis of our qualitative data will shed more light on the factors that contribute to students’ perceptions of their work and its impact on studies. 37 34 34 34 23 19 20 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 Sa[sfied with the atmosphere (2019) Sa[sfied with job (2019) Sa[sfied with the atmosphere (2018) Sa[sfied with job (2018) WIL NWIL 26 Table 4 in Part 1 of this report suggests that the overall time budget of students increased as hours of work increased. Figure 15 shows how an increase in working time impacted class attendance and study time. Figure 15. Work Intensity and Academic Engagement (% who responded ‘strongly agree’) Source: HWS Survey 2019. Figure 16. Work Intensity and Leisure Time (% who responded ‘strongly agree’) Source: HWS Survey 2018. (Not available in HWS Survey 2019 dataset) 19 20 18 12 5 7 4 3 1 1 0 10 20 30 40 21+ hours 16-20 hours 11-15 hours 6-10 hours 1-5 hours Miss classes Less studying 39 37 29 18 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 21+ 16-20 11-15 6-10 1-5 Less Leisure % 27 Figure 16 shows the negative effects of work intensity on students' leisure time. For example, while 9% of students working 1 to 5 hours reported less leisure time, almost 40% of students who worked 21+ hours per week reported less leisure time. One might expect a lack of leisure time to have a negative impact on students’ wellbeing. In our focus groups, we asked students if they would like to spend ‘the same,’ ‘more,’ or ‘less’ time on different time use activities. Several students, especially those working more than 15 hours per week expressed a desire for more social and leisure time. Impact of paid work on wellbeing Figure 17 shows the link between work intensity and students' ability to manage stress in their lives – whether as a consequence of work or other aspects of campus life. Students who did not work were better able to cope with sources of school-related stress. Among working students, those employed for fewer than 11 hours per week appeared somewhat better able to manage stress. Figure 17. Work Intensity and Ability to Cope with Stress at University Source: HWS Survey 2018. (Not available in HWS Survey 2019 dataset). 12 8 10 17 16 38 0 10 20 30 40 50 21+ hours 16-20 hours 11-15 hours 6-10 hours 1-5 hours 0 hours % who responded 'strongly agree' 28 Impact of paid work on grades The relationship between work status and academic performance (GPA) is shown in Figure 18. These results suggest that students who did not work obtained better grades. Among those who did work, the relationship between work intensity and academic performance was less clear. Students who worked up to 10 hours per week did somewhat better than those who worked longer hours. However, the GPAs of the latter group were variable. Figure 18. Work Intensity and GPA Source: HWS Survey 2018. Work sector differences The impact of work on studies varies by work sector. Table 8 shows that students working in Accommodation or Food Services were most likely to say that their work impacted their energy levels and study time. In contrast, those working in Teaching and Tutoring indicated the least impact on these areas. 41 40 37 44 45 50 42 49 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 21+ 16-20 11-15 6-10 1-5 0 Work Intensity Employed Not Employed Work Status % Receiving 'A' grades 31 although both preliminary quantitative and qualitative results highlight the importance of ‘resilience skills’ to academic performance, these are general competencies that also shape the general university experience (Masten, 2014). Given the current concern on Canadian campuses about students’ health and psychological wellbeing, a detailed examination of the role of work in developing personal resilience is an important next step. We need to ask not only whether work supports students’ ability to cope with the stresses of campus life but also how this development is qualified by the conditions of students’ employment and the reciprocal relationship with their broader campus experiences. While this analysis of academic performance is important, our focus group interviews with students suggest that grades are not always seen as the most important outcome of university. In fact, a number of students voiced awareness of potential trade-offs between gaining valuable work experience during their programs and achieving higher grades. Understandably, students who intend to pursue graduate studies and those on scholarships tend to be most concerned about grades. However, many working students challenge the focus on grades as the primary measure of their university experience. Again, more attention to this topic in our qualitative data analysis will be important. 32 Discussion and conclusions Our study findings construct a profile of working students that is much needed. Just over half (54%) of the respondents were working during the 2018 school term for an average of 14.3 hours per week. A slightly greater proportion (57%) was working during the first term of 2019 for an average of 15.2 hours per week. This slight increase in the number of working students and the number of hours they work signals a need for universities to continue to survey students about their paid work and the implications for their studies and wellbeing. Such monitoring is important because the day-to-day realities of working students differ from non-working students, and there are also significant differences within the working student group. Not only do non-working students have a smaller time budget overall, but they also spend more time studying and their grades tend to be higher. Non-working students are also more likely to be financially advantaged: they rely less than working students on personal savings and employment income and are less likely to have worked in the previous summer term. Working students are a diverse group in terms of the type and intensity of their work. Perhaps not surprisingly, students from lower SES backgrounds are more likely to be working and financial motivations are most strongly correlated with the intensity of their work. Less predictably, although international students are less likely to be working during the term than domestic students, they work more hours. Women are also more likely than men to be working during the term, but work fewer hours. These findings warrant further investigation into the factors that affect term-time work participation of different groups. The reasons why students work more intensively, and the extent to 33 which they are able to mitigate negative impacts on their studies warrant further investigation. For example, it may be that some students work intensively because, in addition to financial rewards, they find more sense of community and value at work than at university. Overall, the majority of student workers were satisfied with the atmosphere at their workplace and with their job as well as with their relations with coworkers and supervisors. This seems to contradict other findings indicating that more than half of the students felt that their work was repetitive and approximately one-third felt overqualified for their job. Further analysis could explore differences in satisfaction by sector and type of job. We also intend to compare students’ engagement in paid and unpaid (volunteer work) to explore differences in motivations and outcomes. Our initial analysis of focus group interviews suggests that the social ties at work may help to reduce dissatisfaction about working conditions; in addition, some students appreciate the fact that their work is quite different from their intellectual pursuits. Our further analysis of qualitative data in Phase 2 of this study will no doubt help to explain and inform the quantitative findings in this report. Work-integrated learning appears to have a number of benefits vis-à-vis other work although only a small proportion (10 to 13%) of students in our sample were involved in WIL. The hours and conditions of work are more regulated, the work tends to be more closely related to studies, and students report less fatigue and stress. In sum, work- study facilitation rather than work-study conflict (Butler, 2007) seems to be more likely for students involved in WIL. The findings reported here are important for university staff and administrators across UBC to consider. It could be argued that the typical undergraduate student continues to be seen by the university as a non-working student, despite evidence that this is not the case. Such a student is seen as devoting 100 percent of their time and energy to their studies, prioritizing learning in the classroom, demonstrating concern about achieving high grades, and participating in extra-curricular activities on campus to become well rounded. In contrast, our study results6 confirm the image of the working student as a juggler, trying to keep all the balls in the air – paid and unpaid work, attending class and studying – while trying to preserve a few precious moments for self-care, family, and friends. In our focus groups, students noted that their work activities go largely unrecognized by the university. For example, in one interview, a student commented, “I really appreciate this study because you’re actually the first person who’s asked, you know, like how are you juggling all of it, because the expectation is that we just are.” Some suggestions for recognition include acknowledging that many students are not working by choice; students (especially those in precarious work conditions) may require accommodations 6 Our longitudinal qualitative data analysis will add to understandings from this report. See our blogsite to follow this study: blogs.ubc.ca/hardwork 36 Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. (2013). Applied logistic regression (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2012, September). Supporting first-generation college students through classroom based practices (Issues Brief). Washington: Institute for Higher Education Policy. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED535822.pdf Jackson, D. (2015). Career choice status among undergraduates and the influence of work-integrated learning. Australian Journal of Career Development, 24(1), 3-14. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1038416215570043 MacDonald, D. (2019, July). Unaccommodating: Rental housing wage in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Retrieved from www.policy alternatives.ca Marshall, K. (2010). Perspectives on labour and income: Employment patterns of postsecondary students. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 75-001-X. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2010109/pdf/11341-eng.pdf Masten, A. (2014). Ordinary magic: Resilience in development. New York: The Guilford Press. Meeuvwise, M., de Meijer, L., Born, M., & Severiens, S. (2017). The work-study interface: similarities and differences between ethnic minority and ethnic majority students. Higher Education, 73(2), 261-280. Mounsey, R., Vandehey, M., & Diekhoff, G. (2013). Working and non-working university students: Anxiety, depression, and grade point average. College Student Journal, 47(2), 379-389. Mukherjee-Reed, A., & Szeri, A. (2018/19). UBC 2018/19 Annual report on enrolment. Retrieved from https://academic.ubc.ca/sites/vpa.ubc.ca/files/documents/2018- 19%20Enrolment%20Report.pdf Riggert, S. C., Boyle, M., Petroski, J. M., Ash, D., & Rude-Parkins, C. (2006). Student employment and higher education: Empiricism and contradiction. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 63-92. Sattler, P., & Peters, J. (2013). Work-integrated learning in Ontario’s postsecondary sector: The experience of Ontario graduates. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Szeri, A. & Mathieson, C. (2017/18). UBC 2017/18 Annual report on enrolment. Retrieved from https://academic.ubc.ca/sites/vpa.ubc.ca/files/documents/2017- 18-Enrolment-Report.pdf U.S. Department of Labor. (2017). College enrollment and work activity of 2017 high school graduates. News release. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm. Wade, M. (2018, January 27). Working while at high school or university leads to higher wages later in life. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/working-while-at-highschool-or-university-leads- to-higher-wages-later-in-life-20180126-h0p23d.html Young, M. C. (2010). Gender Differences in Precarious Work Settings. relations industrielles/industrial relations, 65, (1), 74–97. 37 Zeidler, M. (2017, August 27). Campus advisers promote work experience, but students struggle to find balance. CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/ canada/british-columbia/campus-advisers-promote-workexperience-but-students- struggle-to-find-balance-1.4264096 38 Appendix 1. Profile of the 2018 and 2019 HWS Survey Participants Source: HWS Survey 2018 and 2019. 9 46 45 24 12 64 27 74 83 17 58 43 45 55 26 27 20 26 38 62 8 47 45 21 12 67 26 74 82 18 58 43 57 25 21 25 29 37 63 0 20 40 60 80 100 0-67% (C+, C, C-, F) 68-79% (B+, B, B-) 80-100% (A+, A, A-) Self-reported cumula_ve GPA Domes_c students with significant debt Domes_c students with some debt Domes_c students with no debt Student debt First genera_on (both parents did not One or both parents completed First genera_on status Domes_c Interna_onal Student status Born in Canada Immigrated 2007 or earlier Immigrant status Not employed Employed Employment status 4/5th year 3rd year 2nd year 1st year Year of study Male Female Gender 2019 2018 41 This page intentionally left blank THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA w Vancouver Campus Rega eo) Department of Educational Studies PY Hard Working Student Survey Report 2018 and 2019 Alison Taylor, Milosh Raykov & Robert Sweet University of British Columbia Faculty of Education AVET Tere UNV =Tg 2020 THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA VY