VOl. xii OF StudeNt NO. emplOymeNt€¦ · All materials contained in this publication are the...

Journal of Student Employment | Nov. ’09 | Vol. XII 1

NOV. ’09

VOl.xii

NO.

01

JOurNalStudeNtemplOymeNt

OF

tHe

National Student Employment Association

National Student Employment Association2


The National Student Employment Association (NSEA) is an organi-zation of professionals working in support of college and university employment programs. NSEA supports and promotes student employment through research, publications, professional develop-ment opportunities, and the open exchange of information. NSEA is a key resource for current information on federal student employ-ment regulations, and for expert advice on the Federal Work-Study Program. Through annual conferences and workshops, members are offered training opportunities and a nationwide network of experienced student employment colleagues. Similarly, the organi-zation offers workplace employers access to student employment professionals, in the United States and abroad, who can help facili-tate their workforce needs with well-trained, enthusiastic student employees.

editOrMatthew J. Long, Ed.D.

Associate Director

Student Financial Services

Yale University

246 Church Street, Suite 209

Phone: 203.432.0169

[email protected]

deSigNWolasi Konu

www.onthebacksofgiants.com

permiSSiONSAll materials contained in this

publication are the property of

NSEA. NSEA grants repro-

duction rights to libraries,

researchers, and teachers

who wish to copy all or part of

the contents of this issue for

scholarly purposes, pro-

vided that no fee for the use

or possession of such copies

is charged to the ultimate

consumer.

JOurNalStudeNtemplOymeNt

OF

tHe


09. editOrialMatthew Long, Ed.D.

11 . prepariNg prOFeSSiONalS: a tHeme tO imprOVeuNdergraduate educatiONBill Coplin, Ph.D.

19. learNiNg WHile earNiNg: aSSeSSiNg StudeNtemplOymeNt learNiNgJessica M. Turos, M.A.

29. StudeNt emplOymeNt admiNiStratOrS:a NatiON-Wide SurVey OF cOmpeNSatiON, beNeFitS aNd WOrk liFe iN 2007–2008Matthew Long, Ed.D.

37. ON campuS StudeNt emplOymeNt:a tOOl FOr StudeNt reteNtiON at drury uNiVerSityCrystal D. Ponder, M.P.A., P.H.R.

NOV. ’09

VOl.xii

NO.

01

iNeditiONtHiS


Dear ProfessionalsIt is with great pleasure and humility that I assume the reigns of editorship for the national Journal of Student Employment. I would like to dedicate this issue of the Journal to the tireless work of the previous long-term editor, Tracy VanHorn-Juart, whose efforts placed the Journal in the forefront as an invaluable resource for student employment administrators. The work of this journal is to provide relevant research and factual information to those who make daily policy and programmatic decisions in the realm of student work through peer-reviewed articles and research. These adminis-trators deserve, nay require, the most up-to-date research and thinking on higher education, the student employment profession, and the vari-ous facets of work, and how it affects our most precious resource: students. I am happy to say that this volume of the Journal provides new perspectives in all these areas. This issue begins with an article serving as a clarion call to administrators on what is arguably the most important issue in student employ-ment today: student learning and professional preparation. Bill Coplin, the esteemed author of “Ten Things Employers Want You to Learn While in College,” and professor of public policy at Syracuse University reminds us of the vital contribution that student employment can make toward preparing a student for the work world, if only that experience were shaped and guided by wise programs and administrators to ensure the attainment of certain learning outcomes. The theme of gaining valuable skills and knowledge through student work is reinforced

in the article Learning While Earning by Jes-sica Turos of Bowling Green State University. As Turos points out, students have reported learning through their workplace in such diverse arenas as interpersonal relations, teamwork, time management, leadership and personal self-confidence. In addition, Turos’ point of assess-ment is well-taken: there is no way to know what students are learning if evaluation is absent. In fulfillment of a National Student Employ-ment Association grant, yours truly has pro-vided the results to a year-long study of student employment administrator compensation, work life, and benefits. The survey provided illumi-nating but mostly confirmatory information about professionals working in the field: we are predominantly female, operate at the Assistant Director level, have worked in higher educa-tion for over a decade, and have pretty good benefits. The study will serve as a benchmark for additional analysis in the area for the future. Crystal Ponder of Drury University closes this volume of the Journal by citing her findings on a topic of continuing conversation in student employment research, and one of on-going interest to university administrators: how work affects student retention. Ponder reminds us that it is important to question whether our programs impact this most important statistic, and in what ways. The answer is not always what we have anticipated. Read on, and enjoy this issue of the Journal of Student Employment.

Matthew J. Long, Ed.D.Yale University

FrOmeditOrtHe


prepariNg prOFeSSiONalS:a tHeme tO imprOVeuNdergraduate educatiONBill Coplin, Ph. D.Syracuse University

Most students expect their college educa-tion to prepare them for successful careers as professionals in whatever field they pursue. The terms in the thesaurus for

“professional”—“skilled,” “experienced,” “pro-ficient,” “learned,” “trained,” “able,” “adept” or “masterful”—collectively express the idea. A successful four-year undergraduate program should graduate individuals who see themselves as young professionals wanting to learn for the sake of excellence in what-ever career or interest they pursue. Yet this expectation is not met as fre-quently as it should be. If we can believe studies and reports from the field, many students are not getting the preparation to be competent professionals. In fact, most students I talk with do not see themselves as “professionals.” They have neither the soft skills nor the commitment to excellence required for career success. By clearly presenting the preparation of professionals as part of their missions, undergraduate institutions of all sizes can do a much better job in helping students use the multiple curricula and extra-curricular options to acquire the skills, character and career exploration needed to place them on a viable career track once they graduate college. This article shows how this can be done and why it would work. It suggests an approach that shows students how to inte-grate curricular and extra-curricular activities to become successful professionals.

geNeral cOmpeteNcieS FOr SucceSSFul careerS The first and most crucial step is to create and embrace a list of general professional competen-cies. To illustrate what this list would look like, Table 1.1 identifies 38 professional competen-cies grouped by ten areas. They are fully dis-

cussed in my book, Ten Things Employers Want You to Learn in College (Ten Speed Press 2003). This list is based on interviews with corporate professionals and career advisers, various stud-ies and over 30 years of advising and teaching undergraduates at Syracuse University. The list is provided for illustrative purposes only; readers need not accept this list to accept the general argument presented in this article. The key idea is that units in each institution of higher educa-tion that offer undergraduate programs agree on a list of skills and competencies, providing a template for students and institutional evalu-ators. Such a list would be used in promotional material, syllabi, curricular design and program evaluation. Whatever list is used, it must be specific enough to help focus students and programs but not too detailed and numerous to be overwhelming. Although this list focuses on career prepara-tion, the competencies (some might be called attitudes or character traits) are essential to the development of responsible and caring adults and citizens. However, I think that it makes sense to stay focused on “skills for a profes-sional career” and not to confuse students, administrators and faculty by broadening it out to those other areas. “Preparing for a profes-sional career” is the hook that will motivate most students to work harder and learn more. Students motivated primarily by self-exploration, learning for the sake of learning or the desire to make the world better can also benefit by enhancing their professional competencies. StudeNt prOgramSCollege administrators know that academic coursework is only part of the educational experience of undergraduates. Consequently, they invest resources in the following student services to provide a more complete education:

tab.1 .1


Career services• Student employment• Internships • Learning assistance services• Student activities • Residence hall programs such as learning • communities Athletic Programs• Community service support• Off-campus Semester Programs (both within • and outside the United States)

The first three are generally seen as helping to develop competencies employers want, but they may be more about career exploration than about developing skills. The last six however, do not have career development as a primary goal. Let me suggest how each of these eight areas might be improved by a focus on profes-sional competencies. A specific action is listed under each area for illustrative purposes.

c a r e e r S e r V i c e SSpecific Action: Create one credit lower division courses introducing students to the need for planning professional competencies develop-ment during their college years. Career service providers face a very difficult situation when seniors walk in the door two months before they graduate and say, “what are you going to do for me?” It would have been much better if students had asked when they were freshmen, “what am I going to do to prepare myself when I go on the job market?” If the other areas of student services as well as the academic programs were to highlight the importance of the professional competencies, students would walk in the door much earlier. The proposal above could be the beginning of a more comprehensive approach. Students could take a one credit course in their junior year where they write portfolios and prepare for their senior year job search as well as strengthen any weak areas in skills or experience.

S t u d e N t e m p l O y m e N tSpecific Action: Use promotional materials, in-take forms and employer evaluation forms to provide a checklist of the general professional competencies. Students tend to view part-time employ-ment on campus as nothing more than a way to make money. Many supervisors of student employees treat students as day laborers. If stu-dent employment were viewed as a program to develop professional competencies, attitudes on both sides would change. Students would take their jobs more seriously and supervisors would realize that encouraging professional develop-ment would yield higher productivity and less aggravation.

i N t e r N S H i p SSpecific Action: promotional material to students, guidelines to intern supervisors and intern evalu-ation forms would use the list of competencies Internship programs tend to be sold more as career exploration than developing professional competencies. Even worse, some students will treat an internship as a course require-ment instead of an opportunity to develop and demonstrate their skills. If students were to see internships as an opportunity to practice their skills and the internship organization were given the list of professional competencies as part of the orientation and evaluation materials, both parties would benefit immensely.

S t u d e N t a c t i V i t i e SSpecific Action: promotional materials and outcome measures for student activities would be shaped by the list of general professional competencies With hundreds of student organizations on college campuses, students could obtain substantial practice in all of the 38 skill areas if they saw such activities as a chance to develop, and if the student organizations themselves were better organized. Most college administrators realize that student organizations are a place for learning, but they face two problems. First, skills for the work world are almost never a focus in student organization work because the educational goals are more diffuse and self-exploratory. Although these goals are legitimate and should be pursued, they should not be allowed to crowd out the kinds of compe-tencies listed in Table 1.1. The second problem is more serious. Stu-dent organizations are run by students, most of whom have not mastered many of the profes-sional competencies. The presidents of student governments or Greek organizations, who can’t manage their own time, let alone the tasks of their organization, act as poor role models in an environment that most often leads to poor skill development. If a list of professional competencies were to structure training programs for student lead-ers and presented to students who may want to participate in student activities, the student organizations could better prepare students for professional careers. With the purpose of preparing professionals in mind, administrators would demand more professional performance from the leaders of these organizations.

r e S i d e N c e H a l l p r O g r a m S Specific Action: use the list of competencies as outcome measures for the various programs, as well as in promotional materials. Residence hall programs have increasingly


1. eStabliSHiNg a WOrk etHicKick Yourself in the Butt • Be Honest • Manage Your Time • Manage Your Money

2. deVelOpiNg pHySical SkillS Stay Well • Look Good • Type 35 WPM Error Free • Take Legible Notes

3. cOmmuNicatiNg Verbally Converse One-on-One • Present to Groups • Use Visual Displays

4. cOmmuNicatiNg iN WritiNg Write Well • Edit and Proof • Use Word-Processing Tools • Send Information Electronically

5. WOrkiNg directly WitH peOple Build Good Relationships • Work in Teams • Teach Others

6. iNFlueNciNg peOple Manage Efficiently • Sell Successfully • Politick Wisely • Lead Effectively

7. gatHeriNg iNFOrmatiON Use Library Holdings • Use Commercial Databases • Search the Web • Conduct Interviews • Use Surveys • Keep and Use Records

8. uSiNg QuaNtitatiVe tOOlSUse Numbers • Use Graphs and Tables • Use Spreadsheet Programs

9. aSkiNg aNd aNSWeriNg tHe rigHt QueStiONSDistinguishing between Appearance and Reality • Pay Attention to Detail • Apply Knowledge • Evaluate Actions and Policies

10. SOlViNg prOblemS Identify Problems • Develop Solutions • Launch Solutions

table 1 . 1 Ten Know-how Groups and 38 General Professional Competencies


provided structured learning activities over the past several decades. The movement toward residential learning communities in recent years is aimed at integrating academic with residential hall programs. A list of professional competen-cies could serve as a guideline for all residence hall programs just as it does for student service organizations.

at H l e t i c p r O g r a m S Specific Action: demonstrate how participation in athletics is relevant to professional develop-ment in promotional materials. All intercollegiate athletic programs as well as intramural programs on campus provide a great opportunity for students to learn most if not all of the skills listed in Table 1.1. High on the list is work ethic, physical skills, working with and influencing people and problem solving. Creating initiatives where the students are not only responsible for participating in the sports themselves but also in planning and managing some of the activities would enhance the career benefits to students. The list could also enhance and legitimate the educational benefits of athletics. Administra-tors might show that such things as improving money management, personal communications, attention to detail, statistical analysis of indi-vidual or team performance and “higher level” analytical skills are part of effective participa-tion in athletic programs. Athletes as students could build a portfolio throughout their experi-ence to help them record their progress in skill development.

c O m m u N i t y S e r V i c e p r O g r a m S Specific Actions: use the list of competencies in promotional materials to recruit and evaluate volunteers. The tremendous growth of community service, both volunteer and credit-based, over the past decade has yet to tap into the oppor-tunities for developing the skills listed in Table 1.1. Service learning has been touted as a way to drive home the theoretical perspectives of the classroom as well as to develop the citizenship dimensions of students’ learning. These goals should be kept, but the experience could be enhanced if a template or portfolio piece based on a list of competencies is added to the design and evaluation of the experiences. In addition, driving home the point that community service offers opportunities to hone many of the compe-tencies needed for future careers will motivate more students to participate more often and with a greater sense of commitment.

O F F - c a m p u S S e m e S t e r p r O g r a m S ( b O t H W i t H i N a N d O u t S i d e t H e u N i t e d S tat e S ) Specific Actions: Use list of competencies in promotional materials and in outcome measures of high structured programs. Like internship and community service programs, the number, level of participation and variety of off-campus programs has increased substantially over the past decade. The cur-riculum design components of these programs as well as the advertising supporting them has not emphasized the professional competencies listed in Table 1.1 except for overseas programs that require speaking in the language of the country visited. However, off-campus programs can have a tremendous impact on work ethic, physical performance, working with others, gathering information, asking and answering the right questions and problem solving. Under-standing the diversity and multiple perspec-tives that people in different cultures bring to their interaction generates an especially fertile environment for people and their communica-tion skill development. The list will be particularly useful in designing service learning experiences, a growing component of overseas and off-cam-pus programming.

academic prOgramSAcademic programs, both lower division and major programs, could also benefit from viewing the attainment of professional competencies like those listed in Table 1.1 as a unifying force in program outcomes across the curriculum. It could guide curriculum as well as course design. It could also create a better fit between the expectation that college will lead to a solid pro-fessional career and the academic experience that is offered. The discussion of how academic programs could integrate the list of professional com-petencies can only be briefly discussed here. The wide range of academic programs and the multiple goals of such programs ultimately would require a program by program discussion. However, the following programs can use the list of professional competencies.

Pre-College and first year programs• Academic advising• Learning support services• Undergraduate coursework • Graduate coursework •

p r e - c O l l e g e a N d F i r S t y e a r p r O g r a m SSpecific Actions: include the competency list in orientation materials, pre-college programs and in first-year forums.First-year students face a serious case of over-stimulation. As rational beings, they practice triage. They will deal with their most pressing


problems first: what courses to choose, how to find their classroom, and dorm living. Using their college education to help them have a success-ful work life may be high on their stated list of priorities, but it is often crowded out in their first and second years by other pressures and interests. All undergraduate programs have some type of orientation activities, and many offer one credit or even three credit courses designed to help orient first-year students to college. These programs appear to be successful on many fronts but helping students develop a strategy to improve their general work place competencies is not one of them. Although many programs pay some attention to career development, the majority give little or no attention to professional competencies and options. Focusing students on the long-term goal of getting jobs when they graduate from college is a challenge. However, if there is agreement on a set of competencies and they are present in a variety of contexts, students will ask how they can develop these competencies over their four years. Keeping this question in mind will serve as a road map throughout their college years, not just in choosing the right courses but also in choosing the right student jobs, obtaining great internships and participating in student activities in a serious way.

a c a d e m i c a d V i S i N g Specific Action: advisors have the list of profes-sional competencies to guide their conversations with advisees. Most students are confused about advising. They want their advisor to be a “recorder,” telling them what courses to take so they graduate on time and also to be a “vocational counselor” helping them get a job or choose a career. Faculty advisers also bring their particular field viewpoint into their advising which sometimes does not serve the needs of first-year students who have not decided on a major. The criticisms students make about faculty advising are in no small measure a result of the students’ lack of capability in some of the ten areas of professional competencies. If they could ask and answer the right questions, pay attention to detail, manage their time better and exercise problem solving skills, they would be able to use the advising materials and advising programs much better. To provide one concrete example, if students could learn to pay atten-tion to detail, they could get the information they need to check on progress toward the degree without assistance. Instead, many students ask their advisers to tell them how many credits they have left to complete the degree when in fact the student should be able to tell this from their

own transcript. They should check with their adviser or recorder to make sure they got it right, but they should not ask their adviser “so what do I have to do to finish my degree?” On the vocational guidance dimensions, the task is more complex. There is no magic bullet to help students answer the question, “What do I want to be when I grow up?” Alumni in their forties still ask me that question, on occasion. However, if students could come to under-stand that it is the professional competencies that employers want, the urgency of deciding on a specific career would be reduced. Real-izing that the competencies will open up many opportunities should allow for a more systematic approach to career exploration.

l e a r N i N g S u p p O r t S e r V i c e S Specific Actions: at the outset of developing an individualized program for helping students do better in their classes, clients should be alerted to how the coursework will help them develop the skills employers want. Students who receive remedial and course—specific tutorial services may lack the motiva-tion to put the necessary effort into their work. Although poor motivation can have many causes, one may be a feeling that coursework is irrel-evant to one’s career goals. Tutors and coaches could take time at the beginning of their work with students to review the list of skills and dis-cuss which ones will be enhanced by doing well in the course.

c O u r S e d e S i g NSpecific Actions: course syllabi indicate what professional competencies are most empha-sized in the course. A competency approach as an overlay for or addition to course design could improve not only the appeal of the course to students but also the delivery of the course. The emphasis on writing, oral communication, applying quantita-tive techniques, teamwork and problem solving would lead to more active and applied learning in almost all fields. Faculty could include the specific terminology of some of the 38 profes-sional competencies in their syllabi for the course objectives, which in turn would help to re-enforce all of the messages coming from student activities. The approach would also cre-ate inexorable pressure for more active learning coursework, especially fieldwork and service learning.

u N d e r g r a d u at e p r O g r a m SSpecific Action: all academic programs literature should identify which skills will be enhanced by their programs. The on-going battle between proponents of


liberal arts versus those supporting undergradu-ate professional school education over which provides better preparation for a successful career should not obscure the fact that both can be helped by planning, evaluating and promot-ing their programs shaped by a list of profes-sional competencies. Some professional school education is so narrow and technical that the ten areas are not an explicit part of their plan. Most liberal arts programs pin their defense of the career-relevance of their programs on “critical thinking,” which may be interpreted as a general term of the last 16 competencies listed in Table 1.1. Explicitly adopting a list of competencies could help both types of programs. For example, it would communicate to accounting majors that knowing the language and methods of account-ing is not enough. It would also communicate to liberal arts students that graduating summa cum laude with a triple major is not a guarantee of professional success. In addition, the list could serve as a checklist in curricula development. Courses might be changed to meet some of the key competencies like writing or using com-mercial databases. Students would be encour-aged to acquire competencies within a major if that made sense or through electives or general degree requirements. Such changes would further blur the distinc-tion between undergraduate liberal arts and professional programs. Students would not be faced with an “either-or” choice and the various schools within universities could have a frame-work for mutual cooperation. The “blurring” of the programs makes sense to both university-wide administrators and stu-dents but might engender significant opposition from each of the programs as they search for an “edge” in the battle for students. The hardest sell no doubt will be to liberal arts faculty who may juxtapose a liberal education to vocational training. Like all ideological juxtapositions, this one carries some degree of reality but it creates more heat than light. First, given the increasing spe-cialization in most liberal arts major programs, one could easily argue that the liberal arts faculty is trying to “train” professional scholars and therefore would want their protégés to have the minimum professional competencies. Second, nobody who defends traditional liberal arts avoids the cliché that a liberal education teaches critical thinking skills and good professionals are considered to be “critical thinkers.” One would hope that the providers of a liberal education would be able to get beyond this knee-jerk reac-tion to anything that they imagine is vocational. In actuality, identifying the competencies that are already inherent in and developing pro-

grams around the competencies will help draw students—who are already found focused on eventual employment as an outcome of gradua-tion to the programs. In fact, the emphasis on professional com-petencies may help students more deeply on actual learning and decrease the students’ belief that learning is not as important as just “getting that diploma.”

g r a d u at e S t u d e N t SSpecific Actions: Highlight the ten areas of pro-fessional competencies in both M.A. and Ph.D. Programs Although the argument has been focused at undergraduate programs, it relates to gradu-ate programs. Professional Masters programs encompass the ten areas of professional compe-tencies and much more, but the more academic and research oriented programs do not. Yet all of the competencies are part of what we hope a professional scholar and teacher would be. Competencies like good oral and written com-munication or people skills are as essential to success in any academic field as they are in all professions. Our future professors clearly need to have the kinds of professional competencies listed in Table 1.1.

a critical pOiNt—StudeNt eNgagemeNtShowing students how their academic pro-grams will help develop their professional skills addresses one of the most central problems in undergraduate education today —the lack of student engagement. The work of George Kuh and others who survey student engagement demonstrates both the importance of engage-ment in student learning and the lack of time spent by students on their studies outside of class. A comprehensive focus on professional competencies will increase student engagement. Students who come to college to develop the potential for a satisfying career will be motivated to work harder in what they do both within and outside of class if they see the connection between their expectation and their education.

WHere dO We gO FrOm Here?This article proposes that a list of professional competencies of approximately 10 groups with or without more detailed listings of 40 skills or more be used across student affairs and aca-demic affairs programming. It does not call for extensive training, major curriculum or organiza-tional revisions or for faculty and administrative committees to ponder the right list and changes in requirements. Instead, it could be imple-mented if an advocate in the faculty or adminis-tration convinced administrators and faculty to


use a specific list in publicity, orientation materi-als, program design and program evaluation. The list should be couched in terms of general professional competencies for future careers because that will motivate the students, but the list itself can be applied to the general goals of a college education. I have presented this idea of preparing professionals as a way to help students find a map for their college education and to help institutions find a way of creating a common mission across all of its activities. I have tested this idea through the Policy Studies Major a successful Arts and Science major begun in the late 1970’s. Many of the major students in this are in dual programs throughout the Univer-sity. The Program’s tag line is “undergraduates building professional skills through research and community service” and a brochure’s tag line is “the right tools for the real world.” The major has a higher percentage of award winners in the

top internal scholarship competition for juniors ($5,000 Scholarship given to 35 rising seniors each year in memory of the 35 students killed in the PAM 103 terrorist action in 1988). The competition is based on scholarship, community service and leadership, and our majors win more (average 20% of the 35 awards a year) than any other major on campus (despite its relatively small size of 60 graduates a year). Each year about ten major apply to Teach for America and 75% are successful compared to about a 12% national success rate. The major’s graduates are very successful in the job market and have become active alumni. I have written this article because I think it is time to bring this idea into the mainstream of undergraduate education. (Special thanks to Jane Neuberger, Director of the Learning Resource Center of Syracuse University for her many suggestions).

Bill Coplin is a professor of public policy at the Maxwell School and the College of Arts and Sciences, Syracuse University, and author of

“Ten Things Employers Want You to Learn in Col-lege” (Ten Speed Press, 2003), and of 25 Ways to Make College Pay Off: Advice for Anxious Parents from a Professor Who’s Seen it All (AMACOM, 2007). He has received almost every teaching award offered by Syracuse University and received the 2000-2001 College of Arts and Sciences Award for Outstanding Faculty Advisor. He can be reached through [email protected].


The research reported here is based on the results of a self-report assessment of student learning at a public institution in the Midwest. Students in a variety of on-campus employ-ment experiences and roles responded to the survey, totaling a response rate of 24% (N = 760). Respondents possessed similar charac-teristics to the larger on-campus employee population. The results of this study differ from previ-ous research in two primary ways. First, the majority of students responding to this sur-vey reported working fewer hours per week (1–20 hours) than students in prior research on work (see, for example, American Council on Education, 2006). Second, those students who reported working more than 15 hours per week did not show a negative impact on learning (for an opposite assertion see, for example, Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Per-haps this is because working while in school encourages students to multi-task and gain organizational skills, leading to better use of the time they have left (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). In the study, students identified knowl-edge and skill development they gained on the job. The majority of students reported that their campus job helped them develop or improve the identified learning outcomes either “somewhat” or “a great deal” on a scale ranging from “not at all” to “a great deal.” Juniors reported higher than expected percentages of the highest level of learn-ing compared to the rest of the grade levels. As for the length of time worked, gener-ally higher than expected responses were reported of the highest level of learning, as the length of time students worked increased. Regarding the effect of the number of hours worked per week, students who reported

working an average of 1–35 hours per week cited a higher percentage of learning “a great deal” than was expected. Dependent upon their primary role, students reported higher percentages than expected of “a great deal” responses on the learning outcomes. This study has important implications. It reveals that student employment is much more than earning a paycheck. While certain primary roles focus learning on different outcomes, there is an opportunity to learn no matter the primary role required of the stu-dent in his or her position. While some work experiences may have to be more intentional about helping students achieve specific learning outcomes, students have the oppor-tunity to learn various skills and knowledge at their on-campus jobs. After reviewing these results, employers can communicate to stu-dents the learning objectives that can occur through their various positions, and addi-tionally use this information as a recruiting tool. Furthermore, employers can evaluate their intended learning outcomes and spend time targeting opportunities for students to achieve them. Many students work on college and university campuses nationwide. In fact, 55% of college students ages 16–24 reported themselves as employed or seeking employment, while a definitive “51.9 percent of the population were employed” (Postsecondary Education Opportu-nity, 2007, p. 11). As far as college and university students are concerned, “during the 2003–04 academic year, 78 percent of undergraduates worked while they were enrolled. On average, employed students spend almost 30 hours per week working.” (American Council on Education, 2006, p. 1) Only one-third of college students work 20 hours or fewer, and 23% work more

learNiNg WHile earNiNg: aSSeSSiNg StudeNtemplOymeNt learNiNgJessica M. Turos, M.A.Bowling Green State University


than 35 hours per week (American Council on Education, 2006). Bearing in mind the consider-able time, effort, and resources dedicated to stu-dent employment suggested by these statistics, if educators can better document learning, they can effectively demonstrate how these experi-ences positively impact students’ lives.

reVieW OF literature“The body of evidence concerning the impact of work during college on the development of general cognitive skills and intellectual growth is inconsistent” (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, p. 196). National research shows students who work on campus (fewer than 15 hours) feel more connected to the academic environment, and as a result, may be more inclined to be retained. Additionally, working during college “enhances the development of career-related skills” (p. 519). The amount of time students spend work-ing impacts their learning. Working 15 hours or fewer per week has a positive impact on student learning, while working more than 15 hours per week has a negative impact on student learn-ing (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Students who work during college may gain “efficient organi-zational skills and work habits. As a result, they may be able to compensate for less study time by using the study time available more efficiently” (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, p. 133). Additional research reveals working full-time during one’s college years has a negative effect on degree completion, while working part-time has a posi-tive effect on degree completion (Astin, 1993). Student employment may aid with retention by helping students meet financial needs, connect with a sense of responsibility, and build connec-tions with faculty, staff, and upperclass students (Hanover Research Council, 2008). Students develop skills through their student employment experience. As a result, students are able to communicate these enhanced skill sets to potential employers, perhaps improving their marketability. By studying learning out-comes obtained by student employees, society stands to benefit from the resulting enhance-ment in the relationship between learning and working on campus. This study investigated and assessed the learning outcomes of student employ-ment experiences. This research is based on Michelle Simmons’ (2003) master’s thesis, in which she investigated criteria for measuring student employee performance. Through her Delphi study, Simmons (2003) identified student employee performance criteria, which she subdi-vided into three areas: 1 . Quality and Quantity of Work: criteria for evalu-ating work product, productivity, and the quality of work performed, including:

Time management and effective use of time;• Productivity and accuracy;• Completes work with little or no supervision;• Completes work following specific policies • and procedures;Follows directions;• Demonstrates high quality standards in all • interactions and work assignments; and Exercises good judgment and makes appro-• priate decisions in performance of duties

2. Worker Characteristics and Attributes: employee characteristics that are demonstrated by students’ work performance, including:

Professional behavior and service • orientation; Punctual, reliable, and consistent • attendance; Good interpersonal and communication • skills; Has the ability to appreciate and work with a • diverse population; Respectful of confidentiality of all students • and University documents, information, records, etc.; Proactively and willingly acquires new skills, • tasks, procedures, and projects; Self starter; takes action without being • asked; Willing to accept suggestions and training; • takes direction; Gets along well with others;• Demonstrates initiative and personal • responsibility; andFlexible—adapts to changing tasks•

3. Job Knowledge and Skills: criteria that describe the basic knowledge, skills, and abilities required to be successful on the job, including:

Demonstrates knowledge of the position, • department, division, and institutional mis-sion and goals; Understanding of job duties;• Ability to perform all aspects of assigned job;• Has the ability to make sound judgments;• Deals with difficult situations effectively;• Demonstrates effective and appropriate writ-• ten and oral communication skills;Keeps information confidential;• Takes steps to learn and keep current with • new job skills, equipment, etc.;Ability to resolve problems; and• Demonstrates proficiency in working with • technology or equipment in ways that are appropriate for the position.

metHOdOlOgy The research question posed is: Does class standing, length of time worked, average hours


per week worked, and/or primary role impact students’ learning as measured by their percep-tion of specific learning outcome achievement? To investigate this question the researcher cre-ated an online survey to gather demographic information and to assess student employees’ perception of their learning. If students were employed in more than one position, they were to respond in reference to the job in which they worked the most amount of time. The demo-graphic questions (class standing, length of time worked, average number of hours worked per week, and primary role) were created after an in-depth discussion with an expert in the field. The 29 learning outcomes were developed by synthesizing Simmons’ (2003) employee perfor-mance criteria. On a scale offering the values of “Not at All,” “Somewhat,” and “A Great Deal,” students indicated the degree to which their on-campus job helped them develop or improve each of the learning outcomes. The students also had the option of selecting “Not Applicable” if their position did not offer an opportunity to develop or improve a particular outcome. Students were told that a choice of “Not at All,” indicated that while their position could have helped them develop that particular outcome, no such achievement occurred. To ensure validity, the researcher pilot tested the survey with both student employment supervisors and student employees, and incorporated their feedback into the final version of the survey. The researcher e-mailed the online survey link to all undergraduate and graduate on-campus employees at a public institution in the Midwest, a total of 3,210 students. The body of the e-mail included consent information for participants, and informed recipients of the study’s purpose and of the opportunity to win a $50 bookstore gift certificate. After one week, a reminder e-mail was sent to students who had not completed the survey. The data were imported from the online survey 12 days after the initial e-mail was sent and then exported to SPSS, the Statistical Package for the Social Sci-ences, for analysis.

reSultSThirty-one of the 3,210 e-mail addresses were invalid, leading to a revised population of 3,179. Seven hundred and sixty-one students com-pleted the online survey. One case was deleted because the respondent indicated they had not yet begun work, which yielded a sample of 760 for a response rate of 24%. After cleaning the data set, responses recorded in the optional

“Other” boxes were analyzed and the items recorded as necessary.

F r e Q u e N c i e SThe distribution of class standing for respon-dents was similar to that of the larger population. For the survey respondents, 33.6% were seniors, and 30.0% were juniors. Sophomores denoted 23.6% of the survey respondents, and first-year students comprised 11.7%. Graduate and guest, or visiting, students encompassed fewer than 2% of the survey respondents. In terms of length of time worked, 33.9% of the survey participants worked at their assessed job for 1–2 semesters, while 29.2% of the respondents worked at their assessed job for 3–4 semesters. Slightly more than 14% of the respondents worked at their assessed job for either less than one semester or, alternatively, 5–6 semesters. Few survey respondents worked at their jobs for more than seven semesters: those working 7–8 semesters encompassed 5.9% of the survey respondents, and students working more than eight semesters represented 2.1%. Regarding the average hours per week worked, 88.1% of the students worked 20 hours or fewer at their assessed job, and 10.9% of the respondents worked an average of 1–5 hours per week. Furthermore, 30.2% of the respon-dents worked an average 6–10 hours, and 29.5% of the respondents work 11–5 hours per week at their assessed job. Seventeen and a half percent of the respondents worked 16–20 hours per week, and 7% of the respondents worked 21–25 hours per week at their assessed job. Slightly more than 3% of the respondents worked 26–40 hours per week at their assessed job, and only 1.6% of the respondents worked more than 40 hours per week at their assessed job. There are a variety of on-campus roles in which students can gain experience. The primary roles offered for student selection in the survey included:

Accounting/Accounts Management/Busi-• ness ServicesClerical/Administrative Support• Customer/Public Service• Custodial/Building/Maintenance/ Mover/• FacilitiesDriver/Delivery/Courier• Graphic Designer/Media/Artist/ Photogra-• pher/Web DesignGrounds/Athletic Fields• Lab Monitor/Consultant/Networking• Library/Book Depository/Archival Collections • AssistantManager/Supervisor/Team Leader• Mentor/Group Leader• Programmer/Web Maintenance/Technology • SupportPublic Safety/Security• Researcher/Laboratory Aide•


Residential/Live in-Mentor/Advisor/• CoordinatorRetail/Cashier/Sales• Sports/Intramurals/Recreation• Training/Teaching/Tutoring/ Coaching/Note • TakerWriter/Editor/Reporter• Cook/Food Prep/Cook’s Help •

The highest proportion (22.9%) of respondents identified Clerical/Administrative Support as their primary role. The next highest proportion (17.7%) of respondents selected Customer/Public Service as their primary role, and 10.3% of the survey respondents selected Training/Teaching/Tutoring/Coaching/Note Taker as their primary role. Six and a half percent of the survey respondents identified Residential/Live in-Mentor/Advisor/Coordinator as their primary role, and 5.3% of the respondents selected either Lab Monitor/Consultant/Networking or Manager/Supervisor/Team Leader as their primary role. Each of the rest of the primary roles represented fewer than 5% of the survey respondents. Students self-reported the degree to which their campus job, excluding other experiences, has helped them to develop or improve skills, abilities, and characteristics related to the 29 identified learning outcomes. The majority of students selected “Somewhat” or “A Great Deal” for each of the identified learning outcomes (see Table 2.1).

c r O S S ta b u l at i O N S To investigate the impact of various demo-graphic characteristics on students’ perception of learning, the researcher conducted several Chi Square analyses. In terms of Learning Out-comes by Class Standing, there was significantly (p < .05) higher than expected attribution of learning “A Great Deal” for the items and stu-dent class levels listed below:

Show Time Management Skills—juniors, • seniors, and guest students Show a Strong Work Ethic—freshmen and • juniors Be Punctual—freshmen, sophomores, and • juniorsBe Reliable—juniors • Show a Positive Image—freshmen and • juniors Show Initiative—sophomores and juniors • Be Adaptable—juniors and graduate • students Use Technology—sophomores, juniors, • seniors, and graduate students

For Learning Outcomes by Length of Time Worked, there was significantly (p < .05) higher than expected responses of achieving “A Great Deal” of learning for the items and semesters worked:

Identify How the Department/Office Works—• worked 3+ semesters Effectively Work with Difficult Work Situa-• tions—worked 3–4 and 5–6 semesters Use Technology—worked 3–4 and 5–6 • semesters

For Learning Outcomes by Average Number of Hours Worked per Week, there were significantly (p < .05) higher responses than expected for the highest level of attainment, “A Great Deal”:

Show Time Management Skill - worked 16+ • hours; except for 31–35 hours Be Reliable—worked 1–35 hours per week • Show Positive Customer Service—worked • 11–15, 21–25, and 31–35 hours per week Identify How the Department/Office Works—• worked 16–35 hours Identify How the University Works—worked • 16–35 hours Use Technology—worked 11–35 hours•

For Learning Outcomes by Primary Role, there were significantly (p < .05) higher responses than expected in learning “A Great Deal” for each of the 29 identified outcomes, and were shown to be dependent upon the particular primary role identified.

Q u a l i tat i V e d ataTwelve main themes emerged from the students’ responses when asked, “What else would you like to share with us about how your campus job has helped you develop or improve knowledge, skills, and/or abilities?” They included: oral com-munication, interpersonal skills, teamwork, tech-nology, content knowledge, transferable skills, leadership, confidence, critical thinking/problem solving, time management, networking, and customer service. To provide context and justifi-cation for these themes, the researcher identi-fied specific student responses to illustrate the particular theme. Please note that the responses are verbatim; and the quotes have not been edited for spelling, grammar, or content.

O r a l c O m m u N i c at i O NOral communication was a strong theme that emerged from student responses. One student stated,

My job as a tour guide has impacted my image of (the University) in a positive way. It has allowed me to refine my public and interpersonal speaking while still allowing me to devlop [sic] my own personality and encouraging me to grow as an individual and as a student.

Illustrating the communication theme, a different student responded,

When working for (my area) I developed communication skills quite a bit. This was primarily because we worked directly with

tab.2.1


O u t c O m e S O m e W H at a g r e at d e a l a g r e e m e N t

Show Time Management Skills (n = 760) 343 (45.1%) 362 (47.6%) 705 (92.7%)

Show Attention to Detail (n = 757) 284 (37.5%) 427 (56.4%) 711 (93.9%)

Make Decisions on My Own (n = 758) 346 (45.6%) 329 (43.4%) 675 (89.0%)

Follow Directions (n = 758) 258 (34.0%) 478 (63.1%) 736 (97.1%)

Show a Strong Work Ethic (n = 760) 262 (34.5%) 456 (60.0%) 718 (94.5%)

Be Punctual (n = 757) 240 (31.7%) 468 (61.8%) 708 (93.5%)

Be Reliable (n = 759) 174 (22.9%) 560 (73.8%) 734 (96.7%)

Show a Positive Image (n = 760) 194 (25.5%) 519 (68.3%) 713 (93.8%)

Show Positive Customer Service (n = 758) 159 (21.0%) 507 (66.9%) 666 (87.9%)

Show Interpersonal Skills (n = 759) 222 (29.2%) 498 (65.6%) 720 (94.8%)

Show the Ability to Work with Others Different from Myself (n = 760)

241 (31.7%) 473 (62.2%) 714 (93.9%)

Show Initiative (n = 756) 292 (38.6%) 412 (54.5%) 704 (93.1%)

Be Open to Constructive Criticism (n = 759) 308 (40.6%) 340 (44.8%) 648 (85.4%)

Be a Team Player (n = 759) 271 (35.7%) 392 (51.6%) 663 (87.3%)

Show a Sense of Ownership (n = 756) 279 (36.9%) 260 (34.4%) 539 (71.3%)

Be Adaptable (n = 756) 294 (38.9%) 413 (54.6%) 707 (93.5%)

Identify How My Position Works (n = 758) 277 (36.5%) 400 (52.8%) 677 (89.3%)

Identify How the Department/Office Works (n = 754)

291 (38.6%) 356 (47.2%) 647 (85.8%)

Identify How the University Works (n = 755) 322 (42.6%) 267 (35.4%) 589 (78.0%)

Complete Tasks/Assignments (n = 756) 248 (32.8%) 447 (59.1%) 695 (91.9%)

Think Critically (n = 754) 297 (39.4%) 296 (39.3%) 593 (78.7%)

Effectively Work with Difficult Situations (n = 759)

271 (35.7%) 394 (51.9%) 665 (87.6%)

Show Written Communication Skills (n = 757) 252 (33.3%) 267 (35.3%) 519 (68.6%)

Show Oral Communication Skills (n = 758) 227 (29.9%) 466 (61.5%) 693 (91.4%)

Maintain Confidentiality (n = 758) 223 (29.4%) 371 (48.9%) 594 (78.3%)

Actively Solve Problems (n = 756) 276 (36.5%) 390 (51.6%) 666 (88.1%)

Apply What I am Learning (n = 759) 264 (34.8%) 335 (44.1%) 599 (78.9%)

Use Technology (n = 754) 264 (35.0%) 338 (44.8%) 602 (79.8%)

Show Supervision/Leadership Skills (n = 746) 238 (31.9%) 373 (50.0%) 611 (81.9%)

table 2.1 Frequencies for Agreement of Learning Outcomes Responses


professors and other professionals. It was a challenge at first adapting to how communi-cation is typically handled in the professional world.

Further demonstrating the communication theme another student stated, “I feel like I am improving my communication skills by tutoring students and teaching them how to do some-thing that they did not get when the teacher taught it.”Interpersonal Skills.

i N t e r p e r S O N a l S k i l l SInterpersonal skills were a new, well-document-ed theme emerging from student responses. The theme encompasses the ability to work well with others and with those different from oneself. Displaying the gains to be made in interpersonal connection, one student reported, “It’s helped me realize that everyone learns differently and you have to be patient with people.” Further em-phasizing the benefits to be realized in this area, one student responded, “I’ve learned to work with all types of people here.” Highlighting the aspect of working with diverse types of people, another student stated,

“(My on campus job) has helped with learning to work with other students who are not like you and that come from different backgrounds.” Another student commented, “I also have learn [sic] to accept different people, because I work with so many people.” A different responder stated, “Being a Resident Advisor has been a great preparation [sic] for entering the workforce by allowing me to deal with different on a regular basis.” Students not only learn about other peo-ple while on the job, but they also learn about themselves. One student stated, “My position here has taught me not only about others but a lot [sic] about who I am as an individual. It teaches me to deal with other students and has taught me more about myself on a daily basis.”

t e a m W O r kTeamwork emerged as a strong theme from the students responses. One student commented,

My experience working as a student on campus has been most beneficial in helping me to gain more experience working in a team environment. Despite the common lectures students are often given regarding teamwork, hearing about working on a team and actually working on a team are two very different ideas. While you can lecture end-lessly about teamwork actually being part of a team provides a substantial amount of knowlege [sic] and experience that a class-room experience cannot. You have to learn to deal with different personalities. You have to be a team player and not slack...

Another student highlighted teamwork skills gained by stating,

It emphasizes the ability to work together, not just with individuals in your area, but also the other areas. It is sometimes less than desirable to work with a customer that is degrading you, your job, or your employer. Being able to handle these customers with-out losing your cool is a something that you have to know how to do and as you do it, the skills also continues [sic] to improve

t e c H N O l O g yTechnology was another theme conveyed by responders. One student stated, “I’m constantly learning new things about computer programs and how the systems work.” A different student responded, “My job has helped me learn more about the computers as I have had to help people fix the problems they had while using them.”

c O N t e N t k N O W l e d g eContent knowledge was a theme that illustrated students were able to apply classroom knowl-edge and use it in future situations. One student commented, “I work in the chemistry stockroom prepping all the general chemistry labs. So my campus job has enhanced my chemistry knowledge which has helped me with classes.” Another respondent stated, “(My department) is the perfect job for an education major interested in teaching English because it helps train you in how to respond to student writing.” Further illus-trating content knowledge, a student responded,

My job as a tutor has allowed me to get experience in the field I will be going into while being able to make a little extra money. It has also allowed me to get into the area schools and build up my knowledge on how schools are operating right now in the area. I am grateful for this experience.

t r a N S F e r a b l e S k i l l SIn addition to content knowledge, students highlighted how their campus jobs helped them gain skills that can be used in various situations, not just their major area of focus. One student stated, “Food service work continually shows me how to prepare such food items that will be beneficial to me in the future for my own home.” Another student commented, “My job has also taught me a lot about organization as it pertains to filing papers, statements, conversation logs, e-mails, etc. It has showed me a system I will carry on throughout any other job I get beyond this job.” A different responder said, “I’m very thankful for my campus job because it has pro-vided me with skills and abilities that will benefit me throughout my entire life, not just until I


graduate and am done working on campus.”

l e a d e r S H i pLeadership was an emergent theme from stu-dent responses. One student stated, “Being a supervisor has helped me to learn how to teach and train others.” Another student commented,

“I feel my leadership skills have improved dra-matically.” Further illustrating a gain in leadership skills a student stated,

By becoming a supervisor I have been given an opportunity [sic] to show my leadership skills. I am able to now effectively [sic] com-municate with my fellow employees. I had always had a hard time showing authority [sic] over my peers, and this position [sic] has helped me over come [sic] that.

c O N F i d e N c eAnother theme emerging from students’ responses was how their on-campus job made them more confident. A student stated, “It has improved my ability to feel confident about my work.” A different student commented,

My campus job has help [sic] to improve my self esteem when it comes to the work I am doing. I often find myself in tough situations that I work hard to figure out were as in the past I don’t think I would have been moti-vated to do so.

Another respondent stated, “I gained confidence in my ability to work through difficult tasks on my own.” Further illustrating the confidence theme, a student reported, “I am more confident when interacting with people irrespective of age.”

c r i t i c a l t H i N k i N g / p r O b l e m S O lV i N gStudents cited gains in critical thinking and problem solving due to their student employ-ment experiences. One student commented,

My work experience through (my depart-ment) has taught me to be able to handle a wide variety of situations and to be able to think on the fly. You face a wide array of problems, both expected and unexpected, and the professional staff in the building really doesn’t get involved in anything unless asked to, which forces student employees to find solutions on their own.

Another student stated, “It has helped me develop as a well rounded individual. I have learned to look at other peoples [sic] opinions and views and come to conclusions that satisfy those needs.” Another student stated,

My tutoring position has helped me to be able to come up with creative ways to solve a problem, and to realize that many prob-lems can’t be solved on the first try. Also, that the ability to quickly come up with a new approach is a skill that is beneficial for

any position, especially teaching, and that some people are better suited to deal with this than others.

t i m e m a N a g e m e N tAnother theme emerging from the students’ responses was time management. One student stated, “This job really helps me to managae [sic] my time better and be able to focus more on my school work.” Another respondent com-mented, “It taught me not to procrastinate on things.” Further illustrating the time management theme, a student stated, “I have learned to bal-ance school and work, which in turn has made me a much more responsible student here.”

N e t W O r k i N gIn addition to specific skills, students identified their on campus jobs as opportunities to meet individuals and network. One student stated,

Being a Resident Advisor also gives you good networking skills because of the variety of programs you need to plan. I have met new people in different offices around campus that are very helpful that I would not have otherwise.

Another student commented, In working as a morning cashier, I meet office staff from all over the building. This is nice because if it should become neces-sary for me to meet with these people, it is possible that they will remember me from working in the (dining hall).

c u S t O m e r S e r V i c eAnother theme emerging from student responses was customer service. One student stated,

“Working at the box office has been a great job for me. I have learned more about customer service, and about being positive and upbeat when talking to people over the phone.” Another student commented, “I have learned more about creating a relationship with the customer/guest and creating a friendly atmosphere for them.”

p O S i t i V e V e r S u S N e g at i V eAs is evident from the aforementioned quota-tions, a great deal of student responses in regard to employment were favorable. One student commented,

I love my on-campus job! I have learned just as much working here the last three years then in the classroom. I think all students should have a job on-campus. I have learned great time management skills, pro-fessionalism, people skills, and confidence! What a wonderful experience!

A different student expressed her or his positive view by stating, “It’s really given me a profes-sional experience. I appreciate how the employ-


ees treat the student assistants like adults.” However, not all of the responses were positive. One student did not believe that she or he had gained any skills during her or his work experience. This student commented, “A monkey could do my job. You just have to fol-low directions and do as you are told. It hasn’t helped me develop any skills.” Another student cited equivocal feelings stating, “I have realized that I work with a lot of lazy jerks who make the same amount of money as I do except that they do nothing because they are lazy and I actually do my work.” I believe these aforementioned quotes reveal that the responders held a variety of views about their work experiences, some positive and some negative; thus revealing a broad group of respondents.

cONcluSiONSAs the results highlighted, students identified learning outcomes achieved through work on campus. In fact, the majority of students cited that they had learned “Somewhat” or “A Great Deal” in each of the identified learning outcomes. More than 10% of the students identified Be Open to Constructive Criticism, Show a Sense of Ownership, Identify How the University Works, Think Critically, Show Written Communication Skills, Maintain Confidentiality, Apply What I am Learning, Use Technology, and Show Supervi-sion/Leadership Skills as “Not at All”. These skills require employers to be more intentional. If employers use a feedback sandwich (providing a positive comment, a constructive comment, and a positive comment) it may help students be more open to constructive criticism. To help students’ with ownership, employers need to clearly communicate the importance of their work. If employers communicate their mission and how it relates to the larger university system, this may help students identify how the Univer-sity works. To aid with students’ critical thinking and application of learning skills, employers need to help provide opportunities for them to evaluate options and apply learning. Not every on-campus job offers an opportunity to focus on written communication skills, but employers can assist students in enhancing their written communication skills through memo writing or other assignments. Maintaining confidentiality is emphasized more in some positions than oth-ers; however, every employer can help students learn the importance of this concept. Technology is an important aspect of society, but using this medium is more accessible in some positions as opposed to others. Even if a position does not require the use of technology, employers can discuss how technology impacts the particular work environment. While positional leadership is not an option for every student employee

position, employers can encourage students to develop leadership skills in their current posi-tions by having them lead, plan, or organize projects. The results of this study differ from previ-ous research in two primary ways. First, the majority of students responding to this survey reported working fewer hours per week (1-20 hours) than students in prior research on work (see, for example, American Council on Educa-tion, 2006). The American Council on Education (2006) stated only one-third of college students work 20 hours or fewer, and 23% work more than 35 hours per week. Slightly more than 88% of the students who responded to the survey reported to work between 1–20 hours per week. This number is far higher than the 33% identified by the American Council on Education (2006). In fact, only 11.7% of the students who responded to the survey reported working more than 20 hours per week. However, this may be due to the fact that students who completed the survey were assessing only one job (the one in which they worked the most amount of time). A second way this study differs from previous research regards the relationship between student learn-ing and the number of hours worked. Those stu-dents who reported working more than 15 hours per week did not show a negative impact on learning (see, for example, Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). The results from this study reveal work-ing anywhere between 1–35 hours per week can have a positive impact on student learning out-comes, and the reported hours from this survey may be lower than the total hours worked per week because students assessed only one of their work experiences. Working while in school encourages students to multi-task and gain organizational skills, and this may lead to better use of the time remaining (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). The cross tabulations revealed interest-ing findings. When looking at class standing, juniors reported higher percentages of “A Great Deal” responses than expected as compared to the rest of the grade levels. Perhaps juniors are advanced enough in their schooling to be focused at work, but not too far into their schooling to be focused on other things, such as graduating. As for length of time worked, generally the longer the length of time students worked the higher the percentage of “A Great Deal” responses they reported than expected, and 5–6 semesters or three years appeared to be the cutoff. This supports the notion of work-ing at a place/position for an extended period of time can be beneficial. Perhaps this is due to the students becoming comfortable in their work environment and taking on new learning opportunities. Regarding the average number of


hours worked per week, students who reported working 1–35 hours per week reported a higher percentage of “A Great Deal” responses than expected. Perhaps the length of time is not as important as compared to students’ perception of their work. In terms of primary role, all roles have reported higher percentages of “A Great Deal” than expected for some of the learning outcomes. I believe this illustrates that there are numerous roles on campus that help students achieve specific learning outcomes. Students’ qualitative results revealed 12 themes: oral communication, interpersonal, teamwork, technology, content knowledge, transferable skills, leadership, confidence, criti-cal thinking/problem solving, time management, networking, and customer service. Ten of these themes align with identified learning outcomes students evaluated in the quantitative portion of the survey (oral communication—oral commu-nication; interpersonal—interpersonal and work with others different from me; teamwork—team player; technology—technology; content knowl-edge—apply what I am learning; leadership—leadership/supervision; confidence—positive self image and open to constructive criticism; critical thinking/problem solving—critical thinking/prob-lem solving; time management – time manage-ment; and customer service—customer service). Two of the identified themes differed from the previously identified learning outcomes - trans-ferable skills and networking. Transferable skills refer to skills that can be used in various situa-tions, not just their major area of focus. On-cam-pus positions help students gain skills not only

useful today, but those lasting a lifetime, such as organizational skills. These positions also help students meet a wide variety of individuals and enhance their network of contacts; and as a result, the students may feel more connected to the university.

implicatiONSThis study has important implications. It reveals student employment is much more than earning a paycheck. While certain primary roles focus on different learning outcomes, there is an oppor-tunity to learn no matter the primary role of the student’s position. Some areas/departments may have to be more intentional about helping students achieve specific learning outcomes, but students can learn various skills and knowledge at their on-campus jobs. After reviewing these results, employers can communicate to students the perceived learning occurring through a vari-ety of positions, and use this information as a recruiting tool. In addition, employers can evalu-ate the learning outcomes that they may need to be more intentional about and spend time targeting opportunities for students to achieve these outcomes.

tHaNkSI would like to thank Michelle Simmons and Michelle Garnsey for their continued support with this project. They were instrumental in the development of the survey and the editing of this article. I also would like to thank William Knight for his full support of the research for this project.

Jessica Turos is an assistant director of the Career Center at Bowling Green State Univer-sity. She is currently pursuing her doctorate in higher education administration, and she can be contacted at [email protected]


reFereNceSAmerican Council on Education. (2006). Working their way through college: Student employment

and its impact on the college experience. Washington, DC: Author.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey

Bass.

George, D. A. (2005). Student employee job satisfaction in the university dining services: A case

study. Unpublished manuscript, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH.

Hanover Research Council. (2008). The use of student employment as a retention improvement

tool. Washington, DC: Author.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of

research. (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Postsecondary Education Opportunity. (2007). Labor force status of college students ages 16 to

24 years: 1970 to 2006. Oskaloosa, IA: Author.

Simmons, M. L. (2003). Identification of criteria for measuring student employee performance.

Unpublished master’s thesis, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH.


StudeNt emplOymeNt admiNiStratOrS: a NatiON-Wide SurVey OF cOmpeNSatiON, beNeFitS aNd WOrk liFe iN 2007–2008Matthew Long, Ed.D.Yale University

This Article was Submitted in Fulfillment of the Agreement for the NSEA Research Grant for this Project

iNtrOductiON aNd literature backgrOuNdAt a series of regional meetings in 2007, the members of the Northeast Association of Student Employment Administrators (NEASEA) requested that a survey of the compensation and benefits of student employment adminis-trators be conducted. Members posed several questions they hoped to answer: What titles and salaries are characteristic for student employ-ment personnel? How do organizational con-figurations impact the compensation, benefits, working conditions and responsibilities of student employment personnel? Is the typical student employment administrator high enough in the organizational hierarchy to martial enough resources to solve problems? In answer to this request, the leadership of NEASEA brought a proposal to the National Student Employment Association (NSEA) to assist with, and fund a survey of the national membership. Surveys regarding compensation and wage rates for professionals are commonplace in today’s work world. The United Stated Depart-ment of Labor conducts perhaps the largest sur-vey of compensation with the NCS, or National Compensation Survey (U.S. Department of Labor, 2009). Many individual professions also undertake the collection of data regarding their profession and personnel in order to better understand the composition of the workforce, and the trends and patterns representing its cur-rent reality. Collecting data on compensation and work responsibilities is often important to under-standing the nature of the workforce (Campbell & Kamlani, 1997). When professional organizations sponsor wage surveys, they must be careful to abide by

federal policy established to enforce antitrust regulations (Boost, 2001). Such wage surveys are subject to anti-trust legislation because it allows competitors to share information con-cerning price (salaries). A 1996 federal safe har-bor provision, however, allows for salary surveys to be structured to avoid such complications. For instance, the survey should be managed by a third party (such as an association separate from universities), the information must be more than three months old when published, the data should be reported in the aggregate rather than by institution, and there must be at least five sites represented in the data. In addition, it is recommended that the survey be published in written form, that participation is voluntary, and that the survey is provided to non-members, if such a request is made (Boost). While most compensation and work surveys provide interesting and perhaps even useful information, Rynes and Milkovich (1986) warn that it can be difficult to discern the origins of differences between workplaces. According to the researchers, such factors as responsibilities and qualifications may be difficult to quantify even though, from a certain viewpoint, jobs appear to require similar levels of skill, effort and responsibility. Reporting data is a judgmental process where decisions must be made on how to operationalize concepts and present infor-mation. Despite the most painstaking efforts, however, Rynes & Milkovich question whether a market wage really exists, and can be captured in a survey.

metHOdOlOgyThe survey of the compensation and benefits of student employment administrators was conducted in 2007 and 2008. Members of the NEASEA Executive Board designed the questionnaire with input from members of the


region. The instrument was designed to capture a wide variety of information about the partici-pants, their compensation levels, benefits, and work environment. An on-line assessment tool, SurveymonkeyTM, was utilized to capture the responses of participants. The invitation to par-ticipate in the study took place in the form of an e-mail disseminated via the leaders of the four regional associations and NSEA. Several follow-up reminders were sent during the collection period, which spanned approximately six weeks. Results were downloaded and analyzed via SPSS statistical software. Total respondents numbered 281. The results were analyzed and brought to the 2008 National Conference. Simple descriptive statistics were used to report the data that follows in this article.

participaNt demOgrapHicSParticipant demographics were collected through questions about experience, education, job title, age, ethnicity and gender. Participants were asked to describe their years working in three different contexts: higher education, student employment, and their specific position. Over half the respondents worked nine years in higher education, while the overall average number of years in higher education was 12. The respondents had worked an average of 7.5 years in student employment and an average of 6 years in their current position. Participants were also asked to describe their educational background. Most administra-tors had a bachelor’s degree or had completed some graduate coursework. Less than 1% held a doctoral degree. Thirty-two percent of student employment administrators held a master’s degree, while another 32% held a bachelor’s degree. Participants were asked if they held any professional certifications they brought to their employment. 16% of respondents did, and the types varied. Most commonly certifications in training or leadership were held, or in human resources. Certifications in career counseling, counseling, or financial/tax were least likely among participants. Job titles varied within the population of stu-dent employment administrators. The majority of administrators (56%) resided at the Associate Director level or below. Seventeen percent of respondents held the title of Director, Dean, or Executive Director. The “Other” category was explained in a follow-up question to contain the job titles of Coordinator or Manager. If this category is included, the survey data reveals that almost 83% of administrators held a title of Associate Director or below. Student employment administrators reported a wide span of ages, from 22 to 68, with an overall average age of 43. Average ages varied

little over job level within the field of student employment. However, a gradual rise of age with the level of position was evident. Of the survey respondents, 69% reported themselves as White or Caucasian, 5% as African American or Black, 4% as Latino or Hispanic, and 3% as Asian or Asian American. A large majority of administra-tors were female at 74%.

campuS cHaracteriSticSVarious characteristics of the respondents’ institutions were recorded as part of the survey. There was almost an even split of respondents at public as opposed to private universities. Almost 87% of participants were located at four year institutions. Most student employment admin-istrators worked at institutions supporting both graduate and undergraduate students (82%). While a higher percentage of administrators worked at urban institutions, rural and subur-ban institutions were well represented in the sample. The majority of administrators worked at schools with fewer than 5,000 students (55%). An additional 18% worked at institutions with 10-15,000 students, 11% worked at institutions with 15-20,000 students and 16% worked at institutions with 20,000 or more students.

admiNiStratOr cOmpeNSatiONAnnual salary was reported both with and with-out the costs of benefits included. Gross annual salaries ranged from $15,600 to $207,000, with a median salary of $40,000 and an average salary of $42,918. The inclusion of benefits added an average of 19% to an administra-tor’s gross annual salary, boosting the median salary by $8,000 and the average salary by close to $10,000. Participants reported salary increases from 0% to 20%, with an average of 3.6% gained by administrators in that year. The spread of gross annual salary by job level (see chart below) was as to be expected. Assistant Directors, the most common level of a Student Employment administrator, earned an average of $42,069 a year in gross salary, with salary rising as job level increased. Average annual salary was analyzed over various demographic variables. Regarding the gender of participants, average salaries paid to males and females were virtually equivalent ($42,017 vs. $42,574). Based on institutional type, suburban schools tended to pay the high-est salaries, with rural and urban schools paying administrators roughly the same. Compensation at two-year institutions, averaging $43,735, paid slightly more than four-year schools, averag-ing $41,853. Private schools paid, on average, almost $9,000 more a year than their public counterparts. The smallest schools tended to pay their

Fig.3.1

Fig.3.2

Fig.3.3


32%

15%

32%7%

13%

1%

Doctoral

High School Diploma/Some Undergrad Coursework

Associate's

Bachelor's

Graduate Coursework/Certificate

Master's

18%

29%

9%

16%

1%

27%Other

Dean/Executive Director

Director

Associate Director

Assistant Director

Administrative Assistant/Secretary

$36,792

$85,406

$61,793

$48,089

$42,069

$31,533Administrative Assistant/Secretary

Assistant Director

Associate Director

Director


Other (Manager, , Coordinator, etc.)

$0 22500 45000 67500 90000

Figure 3.3 Gross Salary by Job Title

Figure 3.2 Job Title by Percent

Figure 3.1 Education Level by Percent

18%

29%

9%

16%

1%

27%Other


Director

Associate Director

Assistant Director

Administrative Assistant/Secretary

32%

15%

32%7%

13%

1%

Doctoral

High School Diploma/Some Undergrad Coursework

Associate's

Bachelor's

Graduate Coursework/Certificate

Master's


administrators more. The difference in aver-age salaries between institutions with less than 1,000 students and institutions with 30,000 or more students was nearly $16,000. Although average salaries generally fell as institution size increased, schools with between 15,000 and 30,000 students paid more than schools with 5,000-15,000 students. Salaries tended to increase significantly according to educational level. Administrators with master’s degrees earned nearly $20,000 more annually than their counterparts with only high school diplomas. The salaries of partici-pants with a high school diploma and those who had completed some undergraduate course-work but not obtained a degree did not differ significantly. Likewise, the salaries of those who obtained associate’s and master’s degrees were comparable. There was a significant increase in salary (nearly $9,000) noted between par-ticipants who had completed some graduate coursework and those who had obtained a master’s degree.

beNeFitSA comprehensive survey of health and family-related benefits was provided through the questionnaire. The majority of administrators received benefits such as medical and prescrip-tion coverage, vision, retirement plans, maternity and paternity leave, long-term disability, and life insurance. Fewer than half received domestic partner benefits, flex time, day care assistance, adoption leave, or adoption assistance. Over half of the respondents did not know whether or not their employer offered adoption assistance benefits, while 25-40% did not know whether adoption leave, domestic partner benefits, home buyer assistance, or paternity leave were available benefits. Only 10% of administra-tors received home buyer assistance from their institution. Participants were asked to identify the tuition benefits provided by their institution for themselves and others in their family. The major-ity of employers provided tuition remission for the employee at their home institution (88%) and for their spouses (63%) and dependents (72%). The least offered tuition benefit was for spouses at other institutions (16%). A greater percent-age of institutions provided tuition remission for employees’ dependents at other institutions (38%) than for employees attending other insti-tutions (34%).

WOrkiNg cONditiONSThe survey revealed that the scope of student employment programs differed on each campus. The average number of students served by the programs represented in the survey was 1292.

Logically, the number of students employed on campuses tended to rise according to institution size, yet the percentage of student employees relative to the total number of students at an institution decreased with increased institu-tional size. While student employees comprised approximately 20% of the students at institu-tions with less than 1,000 students, they com-prised only 7% of students at institutions with populations of 30,000 or more. A large majority of campuses (82%) support both on and off campus employment. One of the unique characteristics of student employment administration captured by the survey was the distribution of their job duties across other areas of administration. Respon-dents were asked if they had responsibilities in a variety of areas and if so, how much of their job time was spent in each area. The majority of respondents had duties in Institutional Employ-ment (74%), Work-study (72%), Job Location and Development (64%) and Human Resources (51%). This is not unusual, as all of these tasks relate directly to the employment of students. However, the category of Human Resources was not clarified as to whether it pertained only to student employees, or involved duties for other categories of employment. No activities were described as encompassing over half their job duties. Work-study (20%), Institutional Employ-ment (19%), and Financial Aid (19%) were listed as the most time-consuming duties for the sam-ple, and Committees, Community Service and Internships the least (1%). The average adminis-trator described spending 64% of their time on student employment duties, with the remainder dedicated to another area of administration. Often student employment administrators supervise staff as part of their job duties. This survey found that over 87% of administrators supervised some type of staff. Of this number, most are charged with supervising student staff, while less than half (47%) supervised clerical staff and only 28% supervised professional staff. Seventy-two percent of administrators did not supervise any professional staff, only 16% supervised one professional staff member and 12% supervised two or more professional staff. Similarly, while a majority of administra-tors (53%) did not supervise any clerical staff and 35% supervised one clerical staff person, the numbers declined significantly for two or more staff (12%). For supervision of student staff, only 14% did not supervise students, 31% supervised one student staff person, and 55% supervised two or more student staff members. Administrators reported working an aver-age of 42.4 hours per week, although their jobs typically required 38.7 hours according to institutional policy. As the level of organizational

Fig.3.4

Fig.3.5

Fig.3.6


Master's Degree

Some Graduate Coursework

Bachelor's Degree

Associate's Degree

Some Undergraduate Coursework

High School Diploma

$0 15000 30000 45000 60000

0% 20 40 60 80 100

Unknown

No

Yes

Vision

Retirement Plan

Product or Service Discounts

Prescription Plan

Paternity Leave

Medical

Maternity Leave

Long-term Disability

Life Insurance

Homebuyer Assistance

Flex Time/Variable Holidays

Domestic Partner Benefits

Dental

Daycare

Adoption Leave

Adoption Assistance

Figure 3.4 Salary by Education Level

Figure 3.5 Benefits by Type


responsibility rose, so too did the reported actual hours per week worked. Deans/Execu-tive Directors reported the highest levels of work per week at 50 hours. An overwhelming majority of administrators worked for 12 months (98%) and worked full-time (97%). Administrators were asked to describe if certain work options were available to them, such as working from home and job sharing. While compensatory time was available to 41% of respondents, most other options such as telecommuting, working from home, and a compressed work week were not available to the majority of respondents (83-84%). Only 8% of respondents reported that job sharing was an available work option.

cONcluSiONThe survey demonstrated that the average stu-dent employment administrator is a 43 year old white female with a bachelor’s degree or some graduate coursework, 12 years of experience in higher education, and six years in her cur-rent position in student employment. She would likely hold the position of Associate Director or lower, earn an average gross annual salary of $42,918, and receive standard benefits (includ-ing medical and prescription coverage, vision, retirement plans, maternity and paternity leave, long-term disability, and life insurance) as part of her compensation. The majority of respondents were from private, four year schools with both graduate and undergraduate students and a population of less than 5,000 students. These statistics concerning participant demographics, campus characteristics and compensation pro-vide a comprehensive sketch of the current state of student employment offices nationwide and serve as a point of comparison for future studies. The survey data also reveals factors that may affect an administrator’s ability to impact

the macro-level operation of their departments. The survey data suggests that the average administrator spends 36% of their time on other areas unrelated to student employment. Although most administrators reported work-ing more hours than their jobs typically required according to institutional policy, options such as telecommuting, working from home and job sharing were generally unavailable to them. An overwhelming number of student employment staff is comprised of students, as most admin-istrators do not supervise any clerical or profes-sional staff. Despite the fact that the number of students employed on campuses rose with institution size, the increases were not pro-portionate, meaning that student employment administrators at small schools tend to man-age employment for a larger percentage of the student population than administrators at larger schools. Each of these factors may impact an administrator’s ability to push through new initia-tives, design important program components, implement new technologies, and in general discover new ways of approaching problems. Ultimately, this nation-wide survey of com-pensation, benefits and work life points to the continuing need for statistical data on student employment administration. This and future surveys can provide the necessary data for identifying areas for improvement and analyz-ing important trends in student employment administration. The data may also serve as the basis for policy and best practice recommenda-tions to improve compensation, benefits and the working conditions for student employment administrators and enable them to better serve the universities and student populations that depend on them.

Fig.3.7

reFereNceSBoost, S. L. (2001, Winter). Chapter sponsored wage surveys: A word to the wise. LeadersEdge,

1–7.

Campbell, C. M. & Kamlani, K.S (1997). The reasons for wage rigidity: Evidence from a survey of

firms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(3), 759–789.

Rynes, S. L., & Mikovich, G. T. (1986). Wage surveys: Dispelling some myths about the ‘market

wage.’ Personnel Psychology, 39(1), 71–90.

United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009). National Compensation

Survey. Retrieved February 27, 2009 from http://www.bls.gov/ncs/home.htm


Career Services

Committee/Governance

Community Service

Financial Aid

Human Resources

Institutional Employment

Internships/Co-ops

Job Location and Development

Work-Study

0% 20 40 60 80

Percentage of Job Duties

Is Half their job or more

Percentage of population with Duty

59

33

14

14

1914

12

199

21

1315

8

209

72

64

74

517

45

47

42

None

1

2

3

4

5

6 or more

0% 20 40 60 80

1453

7231

351617

65

932

102

5

115

14

Student

Clerical

Professional

Figure 3.6 Salary by Education Level

Figure 3.7 Percent of Administrators Supervising other Staff by Type and Number


autHOrSHip aNd SpONSOrSSurvey Author: Matthew Long, Ed.D.

Matthew Long is Associate Director of Student Financial Services at Yale University. He is the

former President of the Northeast Association of Student Employment Administrators (NEASEA)

and has a varied background in an array of student services, including Academic Advising and

Career Counseling. Matthew holds an M.A. from the University of Maryland College Park in

Counseling and Personnel Services and doctorate in Educational Leadership from Johnson &

Wales University.

NEASEA: the Northeast Association of Student Employment Administrators

NEASEA is a nonprofit association of professionals involved with programs for students who

work while attending college. NEASEA members are professionals from education institutions,

business, industry, labor and government who have an interest in the employment of students

on a part-time or full-time basis and who support on-campus and off-campus student work

programs including Community Service, Cooperative Education Programs, Internship and Sum-

mer Employment Programs. To this end, we support and promote student employment through

the exchange of ideas, professional development and the promotion of student employment

administrators and their programs.

NSEA: the National Student Employment Association

The National Student Employment Association is an organization of several hundred profes-

sionals involved with programs for college students who work. Membership is open to anyone

with an interest in administering student employment or hiring students. NSEA supports and

promotes student employment through research, publications, professional development op-

portunities, and the open exchange of information.

The survey was sponsored by NSEA and NEASEA, and the write-up and analysis was completed by Matthew Long of Yale University.


ON campuS StudeNt emplOymeNt:a tOOl FOr StudeNt reteNtiON at drury uNiVerSityCrystal D. Ponder, M.P.A., P.H.R.Drury University

iNtrOductiONStudent retention is more than an institutional issue for an individual college or university. States and the federal government have been involved in attempting to identify factors in the attrition of students who have begun but not completed a 4-year degree. In 2003, upon a request from Congress, the United States Gen-eral Accounting Office (GAO) released findings from a longitudinal cohort study of the 1995 cohort of students entering 4-year colleges. The report represents an attempt to hold colleges and universities accountable for fostering the completion of a 4-year degree. The GAO (2003) sought to examine the extent to which students enroll in a 4-year college, factors that affect degree achievement and what actions colleges/universities as well as the Department of Educa-tion take to encourage completion. Attainment of a college degree is often credited with having many positive effects for the individual and soci-ety, whether the degree is granted from a public or a private college. Due to the substantial resources committed by all parties, completion rates from colleges and universities are an area of interest to parents, students, policy makers and society at large. The GAO report addresses Senator Edward Kennedy and Representative George Miller in its response to the Congressional request:

In addition to the investment the federal gov-ernment makes in higher education, states, parents, and students make substantial investments. To help protect these invest-ments, policy makers have begun to focus on accountability of colleges and universi-ties, especially regarding college completion rates (GAO, 2003. p. 1).

The GAO examined several attributes of individuals in order to help predict comple-tion. One such variable was employment during

enrollment. They find that working more than 20 hours per week during enrollment is associ-ated with lower completion rates. Though not statistically significant, it is interesting that the difference is a slightly higher completion rate for those students working less than 20 hours per week. The GAO study collapses all employment, however, whether it is through a Federal Work Study program, other on campus employment, or employment through an off campus private employer. One of the areas on which the GAO recom-mends the Department of Education focus is that of college financial aid. One mechanism of financial aid is the Federal Work Study program, which provides grants to colleges and univer-sities to pay for enrolled student’s wages for student employment. The grants are need-based and offered only to students who demonstrate a financial need. The staggering amount of money allocated to the program (nearly 1 billion dollars each year 2006, 2007, and 2008) suggests a per-ceived need for student employment opportuni-ties to help students pay for college expenses [United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 2008]. The grants are provided to students at both public and private colleges and universities. As the Department of Educa-tion strives to hold colleges and universities accountable for their performance as measured by degree completion, the GAO (2003) recom-mends that the Secretary of Education “take steps to identify and disseminate information about promising practices in the areas of reten-tion and graduation (p.1)”. Thoughtfully executed student employment programs are one such promising practice that might be employed to aid in student retention, and therefore, degree completion. The purpose of this research is twofold: 1) to demonstrate an effective methodology for evalu-


ating the relationship of student employment and retention and 2) to enhance the awareness of university and student employment admin-istrators of the potential for increased retention by executing an effective student employment program. This client-based research evaluates the retention rates of the 2004 cohort of first-time incoming freshmen at Drury University. The study explores whether there is a positive relationship between on campus employment and the rate of retention for students who have worked in on campus jobs during their period of full-time enrollment. The research reveals whether an on campus student employment pro-gram is a promising practice at Drury University. This study includes at all on campus employ-ment, including students who were employed by Drury but did not receive a federal work-study grant. Drury University was founded in 1873 as a private, independent collegiate university and is located on an 88 acre residential campus in Springfield, Missouri. Drury was modeled after the New England liberal arts tradition of universities such as Harvard and Yale (Clip-pinger, 1982). The traditional day- school in the university serves approximately 1600 under-graduate full-time students. Eighty percent of Drury’s traditional students come from within a 450 mile radius of the campus and more than half of students live on campus. Tuition for Drury for the 2007-2008 academic year was $16,615 for full-time enrollment. Housing costs run approximately $6,000 per year (Drury Univer-sity, 2007). In contrast, the publicly subsidized Missouri State University, which is located less than two miles from Drury’s campus, will charge $6,256 after an increase in tuition for the 2008-2009 academic year for Missouri residents and $11,536 for non-residents (Missouri State University, 2008). This contrast makes Drury a unique case study in that students have likely not chosen to attend Drury based solely on financial factors. However, financial barriers are still often an unfortunate reality for some Drury students. Those with the most need qualify for the Federal Work Study grant program (though it is important to note that those who qualify for a grant may decline to use it). Others, including international students do not qualify for the program, choose to work dur-ing their enrollment for a variety of reasons. This study examines employment patterns of students in the 2004 cohort of first-time incom-ing freshmen at Drury University. The students are separated into three groups: “work study”,

“non-work study”, or “did not work”. These categories are indicative of whether the student worked on campus and if so, whether he or she

was paid through a work study grant, regular student employment wages, or a combination of the two. Employment data are compared to enrollment records to determine: 1) if on campus student employment has a positive relationship to student retention, and; 2) if there is a differ-ence in retention rates in those students who were employed on campus through a work-study grant and those who worked without a grant. I hypothesize that: 1) There is a positive rela-tionship between on campus student employ-ment and retention, and that; 2) the relationship is weaker for students who have accepted a Federal Work Study grant. The grant is part of the Federal Work Study Program which “pro-vides funds that are earned through part-time employment to assist students in financing the costs of postsecondary education (United States Department of Education, 2007).” Data collected through the first phase of research via student records reveals whether there is a positive relationship between student employment and retention rates. This analysis is broken down further and reveals whether students who worked and received work study grants have a higher or lower rate of retention when compared against those working students without a work study grant. The second prong to this study provide data gathered from a survey regarding student employment experiences and habits distributed to all currently enrolled students from the 2004 cohort. Finally, this study employs the use of Student Employment Pro-gram Evaluations for three years to gauge the student employment experiences of students at Drury University.

literature reVieWRelevant literature to this topic includes a variety of research surrounding students who work while attending a university as well as the different attributes of students, types of institu-tions and institutional environments. Some of the focus areas include an emphasis on work study and financial aid in student employment (Lipka, 2007; Perna and Li, 2006; Porter, Fossey, Davis, Burnett, Stuhlmann and Suchy, 2006), character-istics of students who work on and off campus during enrollment (Hexter, 1990; McCartan, 1988), the benefits and downfalls to working during enrollment (Kincaid, 1997; Van de Water, 1989; Wilkie and Jones, 1994; Hughes and Mal-lette, 2003; Kulm and Cramer, 2006), and general student retention strategies (Noel-Levitz, 2007; Habley and McClanahan, 2004). A great deal of information can be ascer-tained through these various approaches. How-ever, considering the vast amount of resources allocated to student employment programs,


such as the Federal Work Study program, a gap in the literature supporting a relationship between student employment and persistence and retention appears to exist. In fact, the United States Office of Management and Budget reports a 20 percent score (out of 100 percent possible) of the Federal Work Study program’s current levels of accountability and demonstra-tion of results. In 2004, it was proposed that a data collection method be implemented to determine measure the program’s effectiveness by persistence (continued enrollment and gradu-ation). However, this has not yet come to fruition (2008).

S t u d e N t r e t e N t i O NThere are important differences to note in the retention rate of students depending on the type of institution the student has attended. The American College Testing Program reports first-year attrition of students for the fall 1990 cohort of full-time entering students at private four-year institutions was twenty-four percent. In contrast, attrition was twenty-eight percent for public four-year institutions. Two-year private universi-ties reported a twenty-seven percent attrition rate, while two-year public universities reported nearly a forty-eight percent attrition rate (as cited by Tinto, 1993). Tinto also explains attrition based on the

“institutional selectivity” for the 1983, 1986, 1990, and 1992 cohorts of entering students. The aver-age SAT score for students at Drury University is 1100 (Drury University, 2007). According to Tinto, this average SAT score, categorizes Drury as a university that falls between “Selective” (SAT 931-1099) and “Highly Selective” (SAT>1100) by the American College Testing Program report. When selectivity is considered, attrition rates can vary significantly. For example, “Highly Selective” universities had attrition rates for the selected four years as low as 8 percent to just over 11.6 percent. “Selective” universities had retention rates as low as 18 percent and as high as 20.2 percent (as cited by Tinto, 1993 p. 18). Drury’s recent retention rates mirror those from other “Selective” universities cited in the American College Testing Program report. Based on data collected by the Office of the Registrar at Drury University, attrition for first year fresh-men was 21.6 percent for the 2004 cohort of entering freshmen, 19.2 percent for the 2005 cohort, and 17.9 percent for 2006 cohort (Office of the Registrar, Drury University). Drury cer-tainly exceeds retention rates from the average four-year private university. However any study which identifies attributes of students who persist through graduation can be of value when considering how to commit scarce resources to bolster retention efforts. It is important to

appreciate those attributes that lead to the inclu-sive, connected institutional environment that has been emphasized by Astin (1993) and Tinto (1987, 1993). Rosenbaum and Stephan (2005) have also shown that the “type” of university itself can affect retention. Institutions are categorized as: private for-profit, private non-profit two-year, public two-year, public four-year, and private four-year. They find that four-year non-profit institutions such as Drury University consistently have higher retention rates for individuals when controlling for other variables such as socio-economic status, race, grades and others. They construct a regression analysis on a “propensity to succeed” variable which is based on a col-lapsed version of several of the aforementioned variables. The only type of institution that has a statistically significant (p<.05) affect on success for a student with a low propensity to succeed is a four-year non-profit college or university. However, among all groups, this institution type has a positive effect. On the other hand, other institution types have statistically significant negative effects on completion. For example, public two-year and private for-profit both have a statistically significant negative relationship (p<.001 and p<.01, respectively) for students with a medium propensity to succeed.

S t u d e N t e m p l O y m e N t b e N e F i t SA student enrolled in either a private and public university can use student employment as a means to pay tuition, earn spending money and learn valuable job skills. Often, on campus employment provides students with an environ-ment which is supportive of a student’s success in his or her studies. The students do not have to leave campus and can work a couple of hours at a time in between classes. Student employment can serve needs of both the student as well as the university. Additionally, the students may become more engaged and socially integrated as they interact with other student employees, staff, and faculty members in a capacity outside of the classroom. As Tinto points out, social integration is vital in retention in that it weighs heavily in a student’s departure decision (1993). Astin’s theory of student involvement also directly supports a positive relationship between on campus employment (with limited hours) and degree completion as well as several other posi-tive effects (1993). Literature reveals that a student’s experi-ences on campus help to determine a student’s decision to leave an institution of higher edu-cation. Tinto’s model of institutional departure suggests that pre-entry attributes such as family background, skills, and prior schooling will affect a student’s intentions and goal when pursuing


higher education. When these goals and inten-tions do not match the campus environment, the student is unable to integrate in to the formal and informal social and academic systems on campus. Tinto notes that it is this integration to these systems on campus that is vital to student retention (Tinto, 1993).

c H a r a c t e r i S t i c S O F W O r k i N g S t u d e N t SIn 1992, the National Student Employment Association administration administered a stu-dent employment questionnaire to over 13,000 students across the United States. The survey examined demographics of working students, and the reasons students chose to work or not. Mulugetta and Chavez find, for instance, that eighty percent of all Federal Work Study (FWS) eligible students worked on campus while only thirty-eight percent of non-FWS-eligible stu-dents worked on campus. In addition, students enrolled in private universities work on campus more often than those enrolled in public institu-tions (65 percent compared to 33 percent). This is despite the fact that wages were lower at the private universities than public universities by about twenty-nine cents per hour or about five percent. They find that FWS-eligible students worked less hours per week than their non-FWS counterparts, working 13 hours per week com-pared to 17 hours. Some of the reasons students chose to work included money, personal fulfillment, job experi-ence, and the establishment of referral contacts. Students chose not to work primarily to devote more time to their studies, but also because they had sufficient savings, or conflicts with class and work schedules. Finally, Mulugetta and Chavez find that, whether working or not, students tended to view work during enrollment as a positive contribution to the educational experience, for the development of career plans, and for job market advantages (NSEA, 1996).

S t u d e N t r e t e N t i O N a N d i N V O lV e m e N tPerhaps one of the most often cited sources regarding student retention and the concept of student involvement is Alexander W. Astin. Astin’s work is based on a series of correlations of several factors that affect the student col-lege experience. One particular concept Astin addresses is that of involvement. He breaks this concept into five categories: academic involve-ment, involvement with faculty, involvement with student peers, involvement in work, and “other” forms of involvement. Astin discusses patterns associated with full-time work during enrollment. He writes that “the biggest negative effect is on completion of a bachelor’s degree (Beta = -.16)” (1993, p. 386). However, Astin also finds the following:

Holding a part-time job off campus has a pattern of effects that is almost identical to the pattern associated with working full-time. Having a part-time job on campus, however, has a completely different pattern of effects. As a matter of fact, holding a part-time job (on campus) is positively associated with attainment of a bachelor’s degree and with vertically all areas of self-reported cognitive and affective growth (388).

Astin posits the reason for a positive asso-ciation with on campus employment as opposed to off campus employment, is due to his con-cept of involvement. He notes that students who work on campus are in more frequent contact with other students and faculty, and thus are by this definition more involved. He writes that, “(a)pparently, this greater degree of immersion in the collegiate environment and culture more than compensates, in terms of student out-comes, for the time that students must devote to a part-time job on campus” (389). Data from the 2004 incoming freshmen at Drury University supports Astin’s findings.

metHOdOlOgyData were collected from multiple sources. Posavac and Carey (2007) note that “using multiple sources is the best approach to obtain comprehensive information” (p. 78). They point out that program evaluators have a variety of sources available to them. Each source has inherent strengths and weaknesses. The three primary sources they cite are the intended ben-eficiaries of the program, providers of services, and observers. This study employs data from both the intended beneficiaries of the program (students) as well as some of the providers of services (primarily supervisors and student employment personnel). For the records review portion of this study, data were coded through a numeric system in order to protect this sensitive and confidential information. A list of the 366 students in the 2004 cohort of first-time incoming freshmen was obtained from the registrar’s office. The list of students was checked against student employ-ment records to verify whether a student worked on campus, and if so, whether or not the student used a federal work study grant. Once this information was compiled, enrollment records were reviewed to determine whether or not the student was still enrolled during the spring 2008 semester. Each student was assigned a numeric code for his disposition; for example, a student was assigned a “1” if he had never worked and was no longer enrolled in the university. Students who had never worked but remained enrolled in the university were coded as a “2”. The unit of analysis for this research is the


individual student. The independent variable is whether the student worked on campus while the dependent variable is retention as measured by student graduation or continued enrollment in classes in the spring of 2008. Graduation records issued by the Office of the Registrar have also been compared to ensure that gradu-ates were not counted in the attrition rates. Once the data were compiled, a statistical analysis was performed. Because the data for both the dependent and independent variables are nominal variables, a cross-tabulation proce-dure was performed and Cramer’s V requested. Babbie (2007) notes that lambda is one appro-priate measure for nominal variables. Lambda is preferred because it is a PRE (proportional reduction in error) measure. Pollack writes that a PRE measure is valuable because it reveals “the extent to which the values of the independent variable predict the values of the dependent variable” (Pollack III, 2005, 118). However, Pol-lack (2005) also notes that when one or both of the variables are nominal, Cramer’s V should be requested in addition to lambda. Although Cramer’s V is not a PRE measure, the Lambda measure has a tendency to underestimate the relationship when there is little variation in one of the variables, which is why Cramer’s was used in this analysis. The records review portion of this research was guided by the approaches of the National Center for Educational Statistics and the United States General Accounting Office in that it is a longitudinal, cohort study of attrition based on student backgrounds and different institutional types (Bradburn and Carroll, 2002). A longitu-dinal study is defined by Babbie (2007) as “(a) study design involving the collection of data at different points in time.” He defines a cohort study as one form of a longitudinal study and as

“(a) study in which some specific sub-population, or cohort, is studied over time, although data may be collected from different members in each set of observations” (p.102, 103). This is a slight variation from a typical definition of a longitudinal study in that the records already exist for the different points in time and it does not require continued observations. However, a longitudinal study with the measurement of several cohorts would increase the reliability of the study, but the scale would be much too large to complete within this limited time frame. Reliability is defined by Babbie as “(t)hat quality of measurement method that suggests that the same data would have been collected each time in repeated observations of the same phenom-enon” (p. 143). In the second prong of this study, the stu-dents from the 2004 cohort that were retained at Drury were surveyed via e-mail to determine

the level of satisfaction with the student employ-ment program and why the students chose to work or not. The students were identified using the 2004 cohort list provided by the Office of the Registrar. Once the students were identified, an e-mail was sent with a link to a survey created on Survey Monkey. The results were collected and the identity of the participating students remained anonymous. The survey was approved by both the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs Institutional Review Board as well as the Drury University Human Subjects Research Council. The information gained provides valu-able supplemental insight to the perceptions of this group about student employment. Questions for the survey were guided by previous research on student employment and work. Many questions from the Data Analysis System of the National Center for Education Statistics were of use, and covered a variety of topics including why students work, whether they worked during their freshmen year, whether working during enrollment had a positive or negative effect on grades, if student employment helped with career preparation, and whether they worked on campus, off-campus, or not at all (NCES). In the final prong to this study, additional data were gathered using student employment program evaluations for three years, a longitu-dinal form or research. The program evaluation is systematically sent to student employees to evaluate their employment and supervisory experience at Drury University. The results from these evaluations were complied for the 2003–2004, 2004–2005, and 2006–2007 academic years. Data were not available for the 2005–2006 academic year. While these evaluations do not specifically examine the 2004 cohort, they do provide invaluable insight to the experiences of students during their campus employment. A total of 452 surveys were collected during the evaluation periods. 133 and 218 surveys were collected during the 2003–2004 and 2004–2005 academic years, respectively. 101 surveys were collected during the 2006-2007 academic year. Because these surveys were col-lected over different periods of time, inferences can be extracted regarding the strong and weak aspects of the student employment program at Drury University.

FiNdiNgSThe records reviewed reveal that there were 366 first time incoming freshmen who enrolled in the fall of 2004. At the commencement of research in March of 2008, there were 215 students from the cohort still enrolled. Ten students had gradu-ated prior to the study and 141 students were no longer enrolled and had not completed their


studies at Drury University. Of the ten graduated students, six never worked. 172 of the students in the cohort worked on campus at some point during their enrollment, while 194 never worked. Of the 172 students who worked on campus, 116 persisted in the fourth year or graduated. Of the 194 students who never worked, only 109 persisted into the fourth year or graduated. Of the 172 students who worked on campus, 93 were paid through a Federal Work Study grant at some point during employment. The remain-ing 79 students that worked were never paid through a work study grant. Findings from student records revealed that students who worked were retained for the fourth year of enrollment at a slightly higher rate than students who never worked (See Figure 4.1). Overall, the retention rate into the fourth year for all students in the 2004 cohort of incom-ing freshmen was sixty-two percent versus fifty-nine percent retention for students who never worked. However, for students who worked on campus, the retention rate into the fourth year was sixty-seven percent. It might be argued that students retained into the fourth year had more time, and therefore, more opportunity to work on campus because they stayed enrolled longer. However, responses from the cohort survey reveal that about sixty percent of students who worked on campus began working during some point in their fresh-man year, helping to mitigate the “opportunity” suggestion. When controlling for whether the student worked through a work study grant, the differ-ence appears even more dramatic. The overall retention rate of students who worked was sixty-seven percent. When controlling for whether a student had ever been paid through a work study grant, this relationship seems to show a distinct difference. For students who worked and were paid through a work study grant, the retention rate was just sixty percent (just slightly higher than that of students who never worked on campus). However, the retention rate for students who worked but who were never paid through a work study grant, the retention rate is much higher at seventy-six percent.

d r u r y ’ S S t u d e N t e m p l O y m e N t i N i t i at i V e g r a N tAn innovative new Student Employment Initiative Program implemented in 2004 seems to buttress this data. The program is administered through a partnership between the human resources and admission departments. Through the admis-sion process, representatives for the admission department identify students who are interested in attending Drury and who meet two specific criteria: 1) they do not qualify for a Federal Work Study grant and 2) they claim that, despite

exceeding income guidelines (and therefore not meeting the criteria determined by the financial aid process for a work study grant) they cannot afford to attend. As an incentive to attend, Drury offers what has been referred to as a “Student Employment Initiative Grant.” This renewable “grant” is an allocation of money that is comparable to the typical work study grant. In 2004, the amount for the Student Employment Initiative grant, was matched at the typical maximum work study grant amount of $2000 per academic year. The student is guaranteed a position on campus for four years of enrollment, but is subject to typical student employment guidelines and disciplinary action procedures, up to and including termination. The student is not guaranteed other positions than the one they are originally offered. The human resources department identifies supervisors on campus who have a need for additional student employees in their depart-ments. It is important that these positions are truly “additional” positions so that they do not displace current student employees. The spe-cific idea is to increase the number of opportuni-ties available for on campus employment while providing incentives for identified students to attend Drury University. Students are guaranteed placement in to a position. Because the grants are few, only 10 were made in 2004, it would be imprudent to make a generalization from this group. However, it is notable that nine of the ten students who accepted the “grant” in 2004 are still currently enrolled at Drury University in the spring of 2008, representing a 90 percent retention rate. This is in line with the hypothesis that students who work on campus, but do not qualify for a work study grant have the highest retention rate. However, it adds another variable: the student’s perception of his or her own financial need and the way that student employment fits in to that picture. Figure 4.3 depicts the retention rates for all groups (with the recipients of the Student Employment Initiative grant collapsed in to those who worked on campus without a work study grant). The table reveals that the highest retention rates are for students who worked on campus, but never were paid through a work study grant. It also reveals that the lowest reten-tion rate is for students who never worked on campus. To determine whether these differences were statistically significant, a cross-tabulation was run on the sample between on campus employment and retention. The cross tabulation revealed that there was a weak to moderate, but highly significant positive relationship between the two variables.

Fig.4.1

Fig.4.2

Fig.4.3


60

76

Worked, Work-Study

Worked No Work Study

0% 20 40 60 80

Overall Retention

Retention of Students who never worked

Retention of Students who worked

62

59

67

0% 20 40 60 80

Figure 4.1 Retention Rates of Students Based on Employment Status

Figure 4.2 Retention rates of Students Working on Campus by Group

Overall Retention

Never Worked

Worked

Worked, Work-Study

Worked No Work-Study

62

59

67

60

76

0% 20 40 60 80

Figure 4.3 Retention Rates for all Groups


Cramer’s V indicates a .115 value with a p = .027. Babbie et al (2003) note that a value of .10 to .29 is “Moderate/Worth noting” (p. 258). The “p” value represents the confidence level or the probability there is a sampling error and the relationship is misstated. In other words, value of p=.027 indicates that we can be more than 97 percent confident in rejecting the null hypothesis that on campus student employment has no relationship to student retention. Next, a cross-tabulation was run by break-ing the sample out by those students who worked in two categories: “work study” and “no work study.” Here, the results were somewhat stronger, but statistical analysis was only run on “Worked,” “No Work Study” because there were no values for students who “Did Not Work,”

“Work Study.” Due to the nature of the data col-lection students eligible for work study were not included, only those who earned wages through Federal Work Study program were noted. The results for this cross tabulation indicate a marginally stronger relationship at V=.185, p=.002. Because it does not measure the work study group, the relationship is noticeably stron-ger (.185 as compared to .115). Further, the null hypothesis can be rejected with even more con-fidence with a value of p=.002 as compared to p=.027. This means that the null hypothesis that no relationship exists between student retention and working without a work study grant can be rejected at a 99 percent confidence level. This data reveal that while student employ-ment is not a strong predictor of student reten-tion, there is a slight to moderate correlation. However, we can be quite confident that the relationship is not found just by chance. Further, we can deduct that the relationship is stronger when we exclude work study students because student employment is a stronger predictor for retention for students who worked without a work study grant. The second component of data collection was a survey e-mailed to the 215 remaining students at Drury University to their university e-mail account. Over a period of one week three invitations to take the survey were e-mailed, culminating in a survey response rate of twenty-six percent. Forty-seven percent of students in the cohort worked on campus, despite a self report by fifty-seven of the respondees who said they worked on campus. When controlling for the groups that responded based on their self-identification of whether they worked or not, an interesting story unfolds. The highest response rate was received from the group who reported working with a work study grant. This group responded at a thirty-five percent rate, while the response rate for those who worked with no grant and those who did not work at all was

twenty-one ant twenty-two percent, respectively. Perhaps the story behind the dramatic dif-ference in the response rate is that those who responded felt a greater social obligation. It is possible that many students who did not have a Federal Work Study grant passed over the sur-vey due to a incorrect assumption that “student employment” always means “work study.” Some of the comments in the survey responses seem to support this suggestion. Thirty-one students who worked responded to the survey. Most questions were directed at this sub-population within the survey. The results from this survey offer some insight into student reasons for working on campus, off campus, or not at all. The findings indicated a high rate of satisfaction in several areas for students who were employed on campus. Of students who worked on campus, the survey results indicate that ninety percent either

“agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the state-ment, “My on campus job(s) made me feel more

‘connected’ to Drury.” Eighty-seven percent of respondents reported that either their supervi-sors in their on campus jobs were flexible in scheduling work around course schedules. Ninety percent of respondents indicated that they felt their supervisors generally supported their academic progress. Sixty percent of respondents also reported that they “strongly disagreed” or “disagreed” with the statement that “My on campus job made it more difficult to complete my studies.” Only ten percent indi-cated they agreed with the statement and none

“strongly agreed.” However, only about half (fifty-two percent) indicated that their on campus job enhanced their overall learning experience at Drury University. This finding is also apparent in the third portion of this study and might suggest a lack of challenging employment opportunities available on campus. Students who worked on campus seemed to stay working on campus for at least four semesters (including summers). As previously indicated, about sixty percent of students who worked on campus began in their first year. The respondents averaged about five semesters during their enrollment. Various reasons were cited for working on campus. The most common was to earn spending money. See Figure 4.4 for a distribution of reasons cited for working on campus. Contrast this information with the reasons cited from those who did not work on campus in Figure 4.5. The final component of this research included the compilation of Student Employment Program Evaluations. These evaluations were collected for the 2003–2004, 2004–2005, and the 2006–2007 academic years. No data was

Fig.4.4

Fig.4.5


Related to My Interests/Studies

Supportive Environment

Did Not Have to Leave Campus

Flexible Scheduling

Spending Money

To Pay Tuition

27

13

50

50

77

30

0% 20 40 60 80

Other Employment Relatedto my Interests/Studies

Needed to Work after5pm or Weekends

I Did Not Work

Higher Paying Job Off-Campus

No WS Grant & Could NotFind On-Campus Job

53

11

26

58

47

0% 20 40 60 80

Figure 4.4 Why Students Worked on Campus

Figure 4.5 Why Students Did Not Work On Campus

Additional Reasons Cited

I spent my time keeping involved in on campus organizations, which was an investment in my career •

in itself.

I had a work study grant but could not get a job. At least not one I was interested in.•

I didn’t know anything about work study- so it was easier to get a job off campus.•

I wanted to work primarily in the summer, and I wanted to work at home rather than paying to live at •

Drury in the summer. Plus, it would be hard to find an on campus, non-work study job with enough

summer hours.


available for the 2005–2006 academic year. This component does not isolate the 2004 cohort of incoming freshmen, but does offer some insight into the attitudes of working students before and during their enrollment. Each year, this survey is sent to students, offering them a chance to give feedback to certain attributes of the student employment program as well as their supervisors. In this survey, a Likert scale is used to indicate, on a scale of one to five, whether they agree with a statement. A “5” indicates “Strongly agree,” a “1” indicates “Strongly disagree” and a “3” indicates

“Neutral.” At first glance, this data gives us very little information because there is virtually no variation in the responses. Once the data are aggregated, every answer is only some variation of a “4” response or “Agree.” The survey was set up so that “Strongly agree” is always the most positive response available. All questions that are answered on the affirmative indicate a posi-tive response toward the student employment program. However, upon further examination, a useful story can be extrapolated from this data. Once the data are aggregated, a pattern begins to emerge that reveals consistently lower scores in certain categories in each year that data were gathered. The data were ranked from highest to lowest for each year and there are three areas that nearly always score as the top three. The two lowest ranked areas consistently ranked in the two bottom slots as well. Each year students gave the highest marks to student employment for flexible scheduling, tasks relevant to the department they worked in, and accurate reviewing of hours worked and time sheets. Conversely, each year the lowest marks were found in the ability to learn new job skills and the receipt of regular feedback sessions from supervisors regarding their performance. On campus employment is positively cor-related with retention for the 2004 cohort of first-time incoming freshmen at Drury University. Students who worked on campus chose to do so for spending money, flexible schedules, and because they did not have to leave campus to work. As one surveyed student put it, “I smelled like food all the time but I could walk to work and work in between classes.” Student Employment Program Evaluations reveal that students are least satisfied with the ability to learn new job skills, and with the amount of feedback on their performance. Students cited reasons for not working on campus such as higher wages available off-campus, the ability to learn job skills more closely related to future areas of employment, and a perceived lack of jobs for students without a work study grant. Some survey respondent comments indicate that they may have liked to work on campus but

because they did not have a grant, they were unable to find an opportunity to do so. As some commented:

“I couldn’t work on campus because there were very few opportunities available to students who were not eligible for work study. I wish I had been able to work on campus, because then I wouldn’t have to spend so much time traveling to and from work, nor would I have to spend so much on gas.” “I wanted to work on campus but was unable due to Drury’s policy that only work-grant students could therefore I had to find work off campus which was extremely difficult due to my schedule. What jobs I did end up with I had to terminate because when my schedule changed, the store couldn’t help me out. They had other employees that came first”

implicatiONS FOr uNiVerSitieS aNd StudeNtemplOymeNt admiNiStratOrSIn sum, student employment does not predict student retention. However, this research illus-trates that for the 2004 cohort at Drury, there is a slight to moderate but solid relationship between these two variables and this relation-ship deserves further examination. The differ-ence between retention for students who work on campus but do not have work study grants over their counterparts who have received a grant also deserves greater scrutiny. The Department of Education recommended that schools identify promising practices for retention (GAO, 2003). This study identifies student employment on campus as a promising practice for student retention at Drury University for the 2004 cohort of first-time incoming fresh-men. While the results from this one study can-not be generalized to other populations, such as all colleges and universities or even all private not-for profit four year institutions, it does dem-onstrate an effective approach to studying the relationship between the two variables. Recommendations for future areas of research include a study of several cohorts over time in order to identify whether a relationship consistently exists between other cohorts of stu-dents. A study of several cohorts would increase the reliability of this study. The validity of this study in its ability to expand implications of findings to other populations could be enhanced through a study of several different types of institutions based on several variables, such as whether the institution is public or private, a two-year or four-year institution, the size of the insti-tution, whether the school is located in a rural versus urban area, and even the unemployment rate at the time of the study. Does on campus employment matter more when there are fewer opportunities to work off campus? Expanding this study might help us to answer why student

tab.4.1


QueS

tiON

aggr

egat

era

Nk20

03-0

4 ra

tiNg

(N=1

33)

raNk

2004

-05

rati

Ng(N

=218

)

raNk

2006

-07

rati

Ng(N

=101

)

raNk

My

wor

k sc

hed

ule

was

flex

-ib

le t

o m

eet

my

acad

emic

ne

eds.

4.79

14.

801

4.82

14.

712

My

hour

s w

ere

accu

rate

ly

revi

ewed

and

rep

orte

d, a

l-lo

win

g m

e to

sub

mit

them

to

pay

roll

on t

ime.

4.79

14.

772

4.78

24.

811

My

sup

ervi

sor

has

assi

gned

ta

sks

and

pro

ject

s th

at

are

rele

vant

to

my

pos

ition

w

ithin

the

dep

artm

ent.

4.71

24.

684

4.73

34.

703

**M

y w

ork

assi

gnm

ents

en

able

d m

e to

lear

n ne

w jo

b

skill

s.

4.30

124.

2013

4.36

114.

3211

**M

y su

per

viso

r co

nduc

ted

re

gula

r fe

edb

ack

sess

ions

an

d t

imel

y re

view

of m

y w

ork/

job

per

form

ance

.

4.31

114.

3612

4.33

124.

2112

table 4.1 Student Program Evaluation


employment matters. What does this imply for student employ-ment and university administrators? Should resources be invested to make more student employment opportunities available to all students in order to increase retention? When viewed through the framework of Tinto (1987, 1993) and Astin (1993), student employment can provide one more opportunity to connect with a student through his involvement in student employment. Student employment and univer-

sity administrators are wise to consider student employment programs as part of the overall student experience and as well as an oppor-tunity to harvest the ties a student makes with the university. Strong ties to the university likely lead to strong retention and completion rates. Certainly, the greater the involvement on cam-pus, and the bonds that are formed as a result, cannot hurt efforts to garner more active support from alumni.

reFereNceSAstin, Alexander W., What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited, San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993.

Babbie, Earl The Practice of Social Research 11th ed., Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth,

2007.

Babbie, Earl, Fred Haley, Jeanne Zaino, Adventures in Social Research: Data Analysis Using

SPSS 11.0/11/5 for Windows 5th ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2003.

Clippinger, Frank W., The Drury Story, Springfield, MO: Drury College, 1982.

Cohen, Jodi S. “Tracking of College Students Opposed: 62% in Survey Oppose a Federal Data-

base,” Chicago Tribune, July 7, 2006, accessed through EBSCO host #2W62W6920598123,

accessed 22 March 2008.

Drury University, “Drury University at a Glance,” available at http://www.drury.edu/multinl/story.

cfm?ID=339&NLID=39 , accessed 29 March 2008.

Drury University Office of the Registrar, “Retention Study of First Time Entering Freshmen,”

February 15, 2008.

Habley, Wesley R. and Randy McClanahan “What Works in Student Retention: Four-Year Col-

leges”, Commissioned by ACT: Information for Life’s Transitions, available at http://www.

act.org/path/postsec/droptables/pdf/FourYearPublic.pdf, accessed 11 February 2008.

Hexter, Holly, “Students Who Work: A Profile,” Research Briefs for Division of Policy Analysis

and Research, American Council on Education, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1990) as cited by Kincaid,

Rick in Student Employment: Linking College and the Workplace (see full citation under

“*Kincaid).

Hughes, Patrick and Bruce I. Mallette, “A Survey of Student Term-Time Employment: Choosing

Subpopulations for Further Study,” National Association of Student Financial Aid Adminis-

trators Journal of Student Financial Aid, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2003).

Kincaid, Rick (Ed.), National Student Employment Association/The Freshman Year Experience,

Student Employment: Linking College and the Workplace, Columbia: University of South

Carolina, 1996.

*Kincaid, Rick “Working Through College,” in Ryan, Merle (Ed.) The Work Book, National Student

Employment Association. (1997).

Kulm, Tracy L. and Sheran Cramer, “The Relationship of Student Employment to Student Role,

Family Relationships, Social Interactions, and Persistence,” College Student Journal, Vol.

40, No. 4 (2006).

Lederman, Douglas “Federal Budget Blahs,” Inside Higher Education December 28th, 2007,

available at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/12/28/approps, accessed 15 Feb-

ruary 2008.

Lipka, Sarah, “More Students Seek Campus Jobs as Work-Study Positions Dwindle,” Chronicle

of Higher Education, Vol. 53 No. 21 (2007).

McCarten, Anne-Marie, “Students Who Work,” Change, (September/October 1988) as cited by

Kincaid, Rick in Student Employment: Linking College and the Workplace (see full citation

under “*Kincaid).

Missouri State University, “Typical Yearly Costs for Undergraduate Students,” available at http://

www.missouristate.edu/admissions/cost.htm, accessed 29 March 2008.

National Center for Education Statistics, Data Analysis System, “Baccalaureate and Beyond

Longitudinal Cohort Study 2000/01” available at http://nces.ed.gov/dasolv2/tables/main-

page.asp?mode=NEW&fileNumber=20 accessed 22 March 2008.


Noel-Levitz, “Student Retention Practices at Four-Year Institutions,” available at http://www.

noellevitz.com/retentionpractices, accessed 7 February 2008.

Mulugetta, Yuko and Dennis Chavez, (1996) “National Student Employment Survey: Why Stu-

dents Choose to Work and their Perceptions of the Academic Year Work Experience,” In

Rick Kincaid (Ed.) Student Employment Linking College and The Workplace, Columbia, SC:

University of South Carolina, 1996, (pp. 43-56).

Pavel, D. Michael “Assesing Tinto’s Model of Institutional Departure Using American Indian and

Alaskan Native Longitudinal Data,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the As-

sociation for the Study of Higher Education (Boston, MA, October 31-November 3, 1991)

available through the Education Resource Information Center, Eric # ED339324, accessed

22 March 2008.

Perna, Laura W. and Chunyan Li, “College Affordability: Implications for College Opportunity,”

National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Journal of Student Financial

Aid, Vol. 36, No. 1 (2006).

Pollack III, Phillip H., An SPSS Companion to Political Analysis 2nd Ed, Washington D. C.: CQ

Press, 2005.

Porter, Julie, W. Richard Fossey, William E. Davis, Michael F. Burnett, Janice Stuhlmann, and

Patricia A. Suchy, “Student Perceptions of Factors that Affect College Funding Decisions,”

National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Journal of Student Financial

Aid, Vol. 36, No. 1 (2006).

Posavac, Emil J. and Raymond G. Carey Program Evaluation: Methods and Case Studies 7th

ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2007.

Rosenbaum, J.E. and J.L. Stephan, “College Degree Completion: Institutional Effects and

Student Propensity” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological

Association, Marriot Hotel, Loews Philadelphia Hotel, Philadelphia, PA, Aug 12 2005, avail-

able (through purchase) on-line at http://www.allacademic.com/one/www/www/index.php

?cmd=Download+Document&key=my_account_file&file_index=1&pop_up=true&no_click_

key=true&attachment_style=inline&PHPSESSID=0bf290fcfefd76b78ecc237dbe857b59

accessed 28 April 2008.

Ryank, Merle, ed. Kincaid, Rick, “Working Through College,” The Work Book, National Student

Education Association, Hadly, MA: Common Wealth Printing, 1997.

Tinto, Vincent, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1987 as cited by D. Pavel.

Tinto, Vincent, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition 2nd ed.,

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.

United States Department of Education, “Federal Work-Study Program,” available at http://www.

ed.gov/programs/fws/index.html accessed 22 March 2008.

United States General Accounting Office, “Report to Congressional Requestors: College

Completion- Additional Efforts Could Help with Its Completion Goals” May 2003, available

at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03568.pdf, accessed 22 March 2008.

United States Office of Management and Budget, “Detailed Information on the Federal

Work-Study Assessment,” available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/de-

tail/10001031.2003.html, accessed 16 February 2008.

Van de Water, Gordon, “The Effect of Part-Time work on Academic Performance and Progress,”

The Journal of Student Employment, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1989) as cited by Kincaid, Rick in Stu-

dent Employment: Linking College and the Workplace (see full citation under “*Kincaid).

Wilikie, Carolyn and Marquita Jones, “Academic Benefits of On campus Employment to First-

Year Developmental Educational Students,” Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, Vol.

6, No. 2 (1994) as cited by Kincaid, Rick in Student Employment: Linking College and the

Workplace (see full citation under “*Kincaid).

VOl. xii OF StudeNt NO. emplOymeNt€¦ · All materials contained in this publication are the...

Documents

Transcript of VOl. xii OF StudeNt NO. emplOymeNt€¦ · All materials contained in this publication are the...