faye huie, adam winsler, and anastasia kitsantas george mason university

Think. Learn. Succeed.

Self-Regulation and Academic Achievement Among Employed College Students: Does Cutting Back on Number

of Work Hours Help?

Faye Huie, Adam Winsler, and Anastasia Kitsantas

George Mason University


AbstractStudents often work in order to meet the monetary requirements for college. Universities can no longer expect that students will devote their full attention exclusively to meeting academic demands (Riggert, Boyle, Petrosko, Ash, & Rude-Parkins, 2006). Employment takes time away from academic studies which may hinder performance (Furr & Elling, 2000). This study examines whether motivation and self-regulation concepts explain potential achievement differences between employed and unemployed students and whether reductions in hours worked translate to better performance. 591 first-year college students completed surveys at the beginning of the first semester (T1), end of the first semester (T2), and end of the second semester (T3) and work status and GPA were also obtained. Students who worked did poorer in college by the end of their first year than those who did not work, and reducing number of hours worked over the first year lead to increases in academic performance. There were no differences in motivation and self-regulated learning between working students and non-working students. First year students as a whole became more self-efficacious over time but they also adopted more performance approach goals, used poorer time-management strategies, and regulated their studying efforts less over time.


Introduction• Nationally, 1 in 4 college freshmen (27%) do not return for their

Sophomore year, and only about 50% eventually graduate.

• 85% of part-time students and 49% of full-time college students are employed.

• Knowledge about the motivational and self-regulatory patterns of students who work can help colleges implement better assessment and intervention strategies for retaining and teaching students.

• Studies on motivation and self-regulation in college students have typically involved rather homogenous Caucasian samples, have not been longitudinal, and have not specifically examined students who work.

• Full-time or part-time work, in addition to school, may make it difficult for employed students to find study time (Hammer, Grigsby, & Woods, 1998).


Work-School Conflict• Research on work-school conflict is mixed. Some find hours worked to be negatively

related to achievement (Furr & Elling, 2000), yet others find employment does not conflict with academic demands (Bradley, 2006) and has no effect on academic performance (Watts, 2002).

• Unexamined differences in working student motivation and self-regulation may explain the above mixed findings in the literature.

• Effective management of time may help students better balance both work and school (Hammer, Grigsby, & Woods, 1998) while self-regulatory processes such as metacognitive self-regulation, effort regulation, and help-seeking may maximize performance as well as increase effective study time.

• This study seeks to better understand the effects of employment on student achievement motivation and self-regulation over time.


Self-Regulation and Motivation• Self-regulated learning is a collection of various behaviors, cognitions, and

motivations that enhance learning (Zimmerman, 2008)

• Motivational beliefs include: • Self-efficacy: beliefs in one’s ability to successfully accomplish a goal (Bandura, 1986)• Goal orientation: Reasons why one chooses to achieve (Ames, 1992)

– Mastery: Deeper understanding and learning– Performance-approach: to appear competent– Performance-avoidance: to not appear incompetent

• Self-regulatory processes include: • Metacognitive self-regulation: ability to think about, plan, and regulate one’s own cognitions

while learning (Zimmerman, 2008)• Time-management: effective management of time for school (Briton & Tesser, 1990)

• Effort regulation: ability to control and expend effort in the face of distractions (Pintrinch, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991)

• Help seeking: ability to seek help from others when needed (Pintrich et al., 1991)


Research Questions1. Does GPA differ between employed and unemployed students across the

first year of college study?2. Are there differences between employed students and non-employed

students on measures of motivation (e.g., self-efficacy and goal orientation) and processes of self-regulated learning (metacognition, time-management, effort regulation, and help seeking) within and across time?

3. Are there differences between high and low achieving employed students on measures of motivation and processes of self-regulated learning within and across time?

4. Is GPA different for students who increased or decreased their number of work hours across the first year of studies?

5. Are there differences on measures of motivation and self-regulated learning between students who decreased or increased their number of work hours across the first year of studies?

6. Does work status (yes/no) moderate relations between motivation/self-regulation variables and achievement (GPA)?


Methods

Participants (N = 591)• 62.5% Female Age M = 18.9• 62% White, 7% Black, 5% Hispanic, 17% Asian, 9% Other/Mixed• 94% 1st sem. Freshman, 4% 2nd sem., 2% Sophomore• 54% working (M = 16.5 hrs/wk, SD = 9.5, range = 1-80 hrs)• 79% English native language• 49% receive financial aid

Data collected over three time periods 1. T1 (Beginning of first semester) N = 5912. T2 (End of the first semester) N = 243 (41%)3. T3 (End of second semester) N = 96 (16%)


Methods Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich et al., 1991)

• Metacognitive Self-Regulation (k=12, = .74)• Management of Time and Environment (k=8, = .71)• Effort Regulation (k=4, = .66)• Help Seeking (k=4, = .50)

The Patterns for Adaptive Learning Scale (PALS; Midgley et al., 2000) • Academic Self-Efficacy (k=5, = .75)• Goal Orientation

• Mastery (k=5, = .79)• Performance-Approach (k=5, = .87)• Performance-Avoidance (k = 4, = .70)

Working status variables• Dichotomous working status at T1, T2, T3 (yes/no)• Change in hours worked (Increased/Same = hours stayed the same or went

up over time; Decreased = hours went down or stopped working)Cumulative GPA split into two groups:

• High GPA = > 3.0 Low GPA = < 3.0


ResultsResearch Question 1: (Differences in GPA for

employed and unemployed students) Independent samples t-test

• No differences in semester 1 GPA between working and non-working students

• Marginal differences in semester 2 cumulative GPA• Working students received lower grades than non working

students at T3 (t (88) = -1.93, p = .057: *Mnw = 3.17, SD = 0.58; Mw = 2.95, SD = 0.53)

* nw = nonworking; w = working


ResultsResearch Question 2: (Motivation/Self-regulation differences for employedand non employed students)

Two repeated measures one way MANOVAs (1:Motivation vars; 2: Self-regulation vars) with one between-subjects factor - work status) and onewithin-subjects factor (time- T1 and T2)• Motivation: Significant time effect (F(4,223) = 5.78, p < .001) no group

effect or interaction• Regardless of employment status, both groups of students experienced

increases in efficacy across T1 to T2 (MT1 = 3.97, MT2 = 4.18, p < .05), and increases in performance-approach goals (MT1 = 2.62, MT2 = 2.89, p < .01)

• Self-Regulation: Significant time effect F(4,233) = 15.77, p < .001) no group effect or interaction• Regardless of employment status, both groups of students experienced a

decrease from T1 to T2 in time-management (MT1 = 5.06, MT2 = 4.69, p < .001), effort regulation (MT1 = 4.98, MT2 = 4.65, p < .001), and help-seeking (MT1 = 4.47, MT2 = 4.20, p < .001)


Table 1. Motivation and Self-Regulation as a Function of Work Status Across the First Semester


ResultsResearch Question 3 (Motivation/Self-regulation differences for workingstudents with high vs. low GPA)

Two repeated measures one way MANOVAs (1: Motivation vars; 2: Self-regulation vars) with one between-subjects factor (High/Low GPA) and onewithin-subjects factor (time- T1 and T2)

• Motivation: Significant time effect (F(4,63) = 2.68, p < .05) and group effect (F(4,63) = 2.74, p < .05)• Regardless of GPA, both groups of students experienced increases in efficacy

from T1 to T2 (MT1 = 3.96, MT2 = 4.20, p < .10), and performance-approach goals (MT1 = 2.53, MT2 = 2.84, p < .10)

• Regardless of time, low achieving students displayed more performance approach goal orientation than high achieving students (High: MT1 = 2.21, MT2 = 2.32; Low: MT1 = 2.77, MT2 = 3.21 p < .01)

• Self-Regulation: Significant time effect F(4,67) = 4.60, p < .01) no group effect or interaction• Regardless of GPA, both groups of students experienced decreases from T1 to

T2 in time-management (MT1 = 5.04, MT2 = 4.67, p < .001)


Table 2. Motivation and Self-Regulation as a Function of High and Low GPA Across the First Semester


ResultsResearch Question 4: (GPA for those who increased or decreased work

hours)

Independent samples t-test

• Marginal difference in semester 1 GPA between students who increased and decreased their hours worked from T1 to T2 (t (119) = -1.90, p = .06: *Md = 3.02, SD = 0.57; Min = 2.80, SD = 0.69)

• Significant differences in semester 2 cumulative GPA between students who increased and decreased their hours worked from T1 to T2 (t (115) = -2.17, p < .05: *Md = 3.02, SD = 0.51; Min = 2.79, SD = 0.63)

• No significant differences in semester 2 cumulative GPA between students who increased and decreased their hours worked from T1 to T3

* in = increased hours; d = decreased hours


ResultsResearch Question 5: (Motivation/Self-regulation differences for students whoincreased/decreased work hours from T1 to T2)

Two repeated measures one way MANOVAs (1: Motivation vars; 2:Self-regulation vars) with one between-subjects factor (increase vs. decrease number of hours worked) and one within-subjects factor (time-T1 and T2)

• Motivation: Significant time effect (F(4,119) = 3.20, p < .05) no group effect or interaction• Regardless of the change in hours worked, both groups of students experienced

increases in performance approach goal orientation from T1 to T2 (MT1 = 2.59, MT2 = 2.89, p < .01)

• Self-Regulation: Significant time effect F(4,124) = 6.11, p < .001) no group effect or interaction • Regardless of change in hours worked, both groups of students experienced

decreases from T1 to T2 in time-management (MT1 = 5.00, MT2 = 4.63, p < .001) and effort regulation (MT1 = 4.88, MT2 = 4.55, p < .001)


Table 3. Motivation and Self-Regulation as a Function of Change in Hours Worked Across the First Semester


Results Research Question 6: Does work status moderate relations between motivation/self-regulation variables and achievement (GPA)? Moderated multiple regressions were used to examine whether motivation and self-regulation variables related to achievement differently for working and non working students

• First model: High school cumulative GPA and gender as controls• Second model: Work status, specific motivation or self-regulation

variable• Third model: Interaction term (work status*motivation/self-regulation

variable)

Interaction term was never statistically significant, indicating no evidence of moderation, however, there was a marginal interaction in the case of performance approach orientation (t = 1.69, p = .09)

• The negative relationship between semester 1 GPA and performance approach goal orientation was higher for working students (r = -.358) than for nonworking students (r = -.06).


Table 4. Motivation and Self-Regulation as a Function of Work Status Across the First Year


Results (T1-T3)Research Question 5: (Motivation/Self-regulation differences for students whoincreased/decreased work hours from T1 to T3?)Two repeated measures one way MANOVAs (1: Motivation vars; 2: Self-regulation vars) with one between-subjects factor (change in work hours from T1to T3) and one within-subjects factor (time- T1, T3)

• Motivation: Significant time effect (F(4,51) = 3.67, p < .05) and interaction (F(4,51) = 3.26, p < .05) (see Figure 1) no significant group effect• Students who increased their work hours over their first year in college showed an

increase in self-efficacy over the same time period, but those who decreased their work hours experienced a decrease in self-efficacy.

• Self-Regulation: Significant time effect F(4,51) = 8.08, p < .001) no group effect or interaction• Regardless of the increase/decrease in hours worked, both groups of students

experienced similar decreases from T1 to T3 in time-management (MT1 = 5.00, MT3 = 4.54, p < .01), effort regulation (MT1 = 4.91, MT3 = 4.60, p < .05) and help-seeking (MT1 = 4.50, MT3 = 4.14, p < .01)


Figure 1. Interaction Between Self-Efficacy and Change in Hours Worked Across the Beginning of the First Semester to the End of the First Year

3.83

4.1

4.19

3.78

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

1 2

Time

Self-Efficacy

Increased

Decreased


Table 5. Motivation and Self-Regulation as a Function of Change in Hours Worked Across the First Year


Results (Including T3)Research Question 3: (Motivation/Self-regulation differences forworking students with high vs. low GPA)Two repeated measures one way MANOVAs (1: Motivation vars; 2:Self-regulation vars) with one between-subjects factor (high/low GPA)and one within-subjects factor (time- T1, T2, and T3)

• Motivation: No significant time or group effect and no notable interaction

• Self-Regulation: Significant time effect (F(8,16) = 3.78, p < .05) and interaction (F(8,16) = 2.60, p < .05) (see Figure 2), no group effect• Students with a high end-of-year GPA remained stable (and relatively

high) or increased their time management skills over the course of the first year, whereas the time management skills of students with lower GPAs diminished considerably over time.


Figure 2. Interaction Between Time-Management and Achievement Across Time

4.85

5.16

4.83

4.29 4.29

5.29

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

5.4

1 2 3

Time

Time-Management

High GPA

Low GPA


Table 6. Motivation and Self-Regulation as a Function of High and Low GPA Across the First Year


Discussion• Students who worked were doing poorer in college by the end of their first

year than those who did not work.• Students who reduced the number of hours they worked over the course of

the first year of college (or who quit working altogether) were doing better in college by the end of the year than those who continued to work the same or greater number of hours.• These findings suggest that students are well advised to not work or to

reduce the number of hours that they work while in college.• There were no overall differences in motivation and self-regulated learning

between working students and non-working students.• There were no overall differences in motivation and self-regulation between

students who increased or decreased the number of hours worked over the course of the first semester.

• First year students as a whole became more self-efficacious over the course of their first year but they also adopted more performance approach goals, used poorer time-management strategies, and regulated their studying efforts less over time.


Discussion• Students who increased their work hours over their first year in college

showed an increase in self-efficacy over the same time period, but those who decreased their work hours experienced a decrease in self-efficacy

• It is unclear from this finding whether it is self-efficacy that is driven choices in work hours, or changes in work hours that drives self-efficacy

• Students who worked more hours felt as though they were able to handle the demands, when in fact, GPA analyses showed that those students actually achieved lower than students who decreased their number of hours worked

• The nature of working is performance-oriented, where workers are usually required to demonstrate their competence in order to do well. Performance approach orientation was negatively associated with GPA.

• Working students who were able to still get good grades were less performance-approach oriented than working students who were getting poorer grades.• It may be especially important for professors to emphasize mastery

oriented learning in the classroom for working students.


Discussion• Students who maintained high levels of time management skills over time

were those who did well academically but those who experienced a decline in time management skills were those who received lower GPAs

• Other self-regulated learning strategies (effort regulation, help seeking) also weakened over the course of students’ first year as well

– Interventions should be in place to emphasize the importance of maintaining good time management skills, help seeking, and study effort regulation throughout the first year in college.

• Future research should:– Examine students who are further along their studies to see if working and not

working students become more differentiated

– Further delineate working students into different groups (e.g., type of work) and examine any differences in terms of GPA, self-regulation, motivation, etc.

– Examine how goal orientation can be shifted across different contexts

– Replicate this study with a larger sample


ReferencesAmes, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–

271.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Bradley, G. (2006). Work participation and academic performance: A test of alternative propositions. Journal of Education

and Work, 19(5), 481-501.Britton, B., & Tesser, A. (1991). Effect of time-management practices on college grades. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 83(8), 405-410.Furr, S. R., & Elling, T. W. (2000). The influence of work on college student development. NASPA Journal, 37, 454-470.Garcia-Ros, R., Perez-Gonzalez, F., & Hinojosa, E. (2004). Assessing time management skills as an important aspect of

student learning: The construction and evaluation of a time management scale with Spanish high school students. School Psychology International, 25(2), 167-183.

Hammer, L., Grisby, T., & Woods, S. (1998). The conflicting demands of work, family, and school among students at an urban university. The Journal of Psychology, 132(2), 220-227.

Hull-Banks, E., Kurpius, S. E. R., Befort, C., Sollenberger, S., Nicpon, M. F., & Huser, L. (2005). Career goals and retention-related factors among college freshmen. Journal of Career Development, 32, 16-30.

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, L. M., Urdan, T., Anderman, E., & Roeser, R. (1998). The development and validation of scales assessing students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology 23, 113-131.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813.

Riggert, S. C., Boyle, M., Petrosko, J. M., Ash, D., & Rude-Parkins, C. (2006). Student employment and higher education: Empiricism and contradiction. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 63-92.

Watts, C. (2002). The effects of term-time employment on academic performance. Education and Training, 44(2/3), 67-75. Zimmerman, B. (2008). Investigating self-Regulated and motivation: Historical background, methodological development,

and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166-183.

faye huie, adam winsler, and anastasia kitsantas george mason university

Documents