DESCRIPCIÓN DE LAS TAREAS A REALIZAR

As noted above (section 5.1.2), finance has been cited as a factor in withdrawal (Schedvin, 1985; Fontana et al., 1986; Thomas et al., 1996; Johnston, 1997; Yorke, 2000; Harrington et al., 2001; Hall, 2002). Other studies look more broadly at financial constraints and their impact on first-year progression. In addition, there are some studies that have explored the impact of paid work on student

performance. However, there were far fewer published studies on the impact of part- time, term-time work on first-year students than expected. Most of the term-time work studies do not concentrate on the first year but report on the impact at all levels. The newer studies are from the UK and Australia where there is significant concern about the changed student culture. In the United States, where learning and earning has been a way of life, studies that touch on the impact tend to be subsumed under the umbrella of retention studies.

5.5.1 Finance

In research conducted, in the UK, prior to the replacement of student grants by loans and the introduction of tuition fees, Ozga and Sukhnandan (1997) found that

financial hardship had an impact on early withdrawal, and students from the two lowest socio-economic groups were more likely to withdraw because of financial difficulties than students from the top two social groups. Christie and Munro’s (2003) qualitative study showed that middle-class students take a university education for granted and are cushioned from debt by parental support, while working-class seek to minimise the risk of going to university by living at home and maintaining links with a local labour market.

Woodrow (2000) and Callender (2001) noted the regressive nature of student funding for higher education in England, which favours ‘traditional’ affluent groups, and penalises low-income students. Research by Dodgson and Bolam (2002), Callender and Kemp (2000) and Knowles (2000) highlighted the impact of the changed funding arrangements on the retention of students from lower socio- economic groups, and certain ethnic minority groups.

Christie et al. (2001) explored the ways in which the current financial regime for supporting students affected the choices they make while studying for their first degree. It focused particularly on the financial choices students made (or felt forced to make) in relation to work, debt and economising. They argued that the degree of discretion students have was crucially related to the financial support they received from their parents. However, even where parents were generous, most students sought an additional source of income to increase their autonomy in spending decisions. There was a financially vulnerable group of students whose fragile financial position largely resulted from their parents being unable to offer much financial support; this group in particular found their time at university characterised by considerable amounts of paid work and increasing debt.

Research by the Institute for Access Studies (Thomas, 2002a) identified three key ways in which financial pressures impacted on students, and further research (in progress) on mature students identified a fourth issue. These are, first, absolute lack of money, debt and fear of debt; second, comparative lack of money, in relation to previous income levels, and peers not attending higher education; third, part-time employment; fourth, transition from benefits to student finance arrangements.

However, despite the poverty, high levels of debt and term-time and vacation employment, these students still valued entering higher education and intended to persist to completion. Thomas argued that finance can be a contributory factor to early withdrawal from higher education but it is not the only reason, or even the main reason. In a recent exit survey of approximately 200 students (unpublished) only 20% of students cited financial issues as a reason for leaving.

In the study by the University of Teesside Retention Team (2005), of mainly non- traditional students, participants were asked to discuss and comment on issues relating to funding their studies. Very few participants addressed this issue directly and funding was not a particularly common theme within the data set as a whole. This was surprising given the many references in the literature that identified financial issues as a key factor in student withdrawal (McGivney, 1996;Yorke, 1999;Christie, et al., 2001).

Hatt et al. (2005) used quantitative and qualitative data from two UK institutions to compare the student experience of those with and without bursary awards. At these two institutions, students with bursaries were more likely to be retained and to perform well during the first year than those without bursaries. The study found that bursaries can ease financial pressures during their transition to higher education and that institution-specific bursaries can affect students’ perceptions of an institution and their commitment to succeed. After 2006, those institutions wishing to charge

variable fees will be required to provide bursary support for low-income students. The findings from this study suggested that institutions should consider the timing of the bursary payments and the implicit message the bursary sends to applicants.

5.5.2 Paid work

Curtis and Sham (2002) explored whether students’ studies were adversely affected by their part-time employment. Although not just about the first-year experience this provides a useful context. A survey of 359 students at an English university indicated that more students were working compared to survey results from one year earlier. There were adverse effects on study in the form of missed lectures, and students’ perceptions were that coursework grades were lower than they would have been had they not been working. Nevertheless, students highlighted the benefits of working, which were not only monetary but included the development of skills, greater understanding of the world of business and an increase in confidence, all of which were advantageous to their studies, both at the present time and in the future. Broadbridge and Swanson (2005) echo this in their review of studies that have investigated the relationship between earning and learning. They noted that the overall focus has been on the negative impact on adjustment to university life, poorer academic performance, social inclusion and psychological well-being. They proposed a psychological transactional approach focusing on both positive and negative

outcomes of role interrelationships, which would more accurately inform universities, student bodies and employers of optimal ways of combining study and employment Curtis and Klapper’s (2003) study of the extent to which financial status affected the student experience in England and France provides a useful comparative

perspective. They noted, following the introduction of fees, that early indications were that even first-year English students have considerable debts, but appear to adopt the social role of the student as a rational adult choosing to finance themselves through higher education, and perceive that the excess of expenditure over income is not a debt, but an investment in their future. This has considerable implications for

future students’ perceptions of the affordability and do-ability of higher education. If, as hypothesized, French students spend more time in class and working on

assessed and non-assessed assignments, they may be benefiting more from their educational experience than English students, some of whom spend as much time engaged in low-level work in their part-time jobs as they do in lectures.

Curtis and Klapper suggested that the UK system may be more efficient and more equitable than the French but UK students get less out of the experience. They suggested that it seems that English students were motivated by the qualification itself, whereas French students were motivated by the engagement in getting a good education.

Callender and Kemp (2000) found that part-time employment was a contributory factor in early withdrawal. A US study suggested that students who work off-campus more than 15 hours per week had lower persistence rates (Choy, 2002). However, Wilkie and Jones (1994) had shown that that working part-time on campus for an average of eight hours per week during the entire first year of college resulted in significantly higher rates of retention and higher academic achievement for traditional-age developmental education students. University of Teesside

Retention Team (2005) noted that although part-time work has recently become a key feature of students’ lives and employment is seen as the norm for most students as one way to manage their financial difficulties, very few students in their study referred to funding or part-time working as an issue. This may have been because students were surveyed in the first semester and had not yet perceived financial issues as impacting significantly on their studies. However, the authors stated that ‘it is almost certain that juggling part-time work and study has associated effects on the quality of the student experience’.

McInnis et al. (2000) also reported a 9 per cent increase in part-time working among Australian first-year students between 1994 and 1999 as well as a 14 per cent increase in the mean number of hours they worked. Fewer students spent five days per week at university. However, they drew no inferences about the effect of this increase, noting that some paid employment may reflect a desire to gain work experience to enhance future employment prospects.

Not all studies show part-time working to have a detrimental effect on grades. Watts (2001) used semi-structured interviews with twelve first-year, full-time ‘traditional’ business studies undergraduates at a new English university to explore the effects of part-time paid employment on academic performance. Their academic results were also compared with a group of 19 similar students who did not work in part-time employment. No significant difference was found between these two sets of marks. Several key issues regarding the students’ experience of working part-time during term-time emerged. Students wanted more compacted timetables so they had more free time to work. Watts argued that, full-time study along with substantive paid work can result in a lack of clear commitment to both. Any limit the university might place on the number of hours deemed appropriate for students to undertake part-time employment during term-time would have little effect. The prevailing student culture is that it is up to the individual to balance the demands of combining academic study with paid employment. If this is the case, the onus is on individual students to

achieve this balance and serious consideration must be given to how that might be done.

An Australian study, though, showed that engagement can be affected by part-time work when linked to other responsibilities, or lack of them. Zimitat (2003) compared

the first-year experiences at an Australian university of full-time students with

different work and family responsibilities. The three groups were students not in paid employment (Group 1, n=576), students in full-time paid employment with some family or caring responsibilities (Group 2, n=298), and students in full-time paid employment who are primary income earners and primary carers in their household (Group 3, n=63). There were no differences between the three groups in perceptions of teaching and learning, first semester grades or frequency of use of technologies. However, Group 2 students spend less time on campus than the other groups, find less interest and value in lectures, have more difficulty with motivation to study, spend less time preparing for and attending scheduled teaching activities and are significantly more likely to consider leaving study. Group 3 students reported significantly stronger motivation and higher levels of home access to websites that they considered as essential learning resources.

5.5.3 Summary of the impact of paid work and financial

situation on performance and persistence

• Finance has been a factor in early withdrawal particularly for non-traditional students, although some research downplays this link. However, finance is rarely the only reason for withdrawal.

• Financial disadvantage is not always an absolute measure but is also judged relative to peers (within and outside higher education) previous income levels and sources of income.

• Financial security does appear to enhance a student’s performance.

• Paid work can impact on involvement, engagement and adjustment in the first year.

• The impact of part-time work is not always negative despite most analysis suggesting it is detrimental.

• Part-time employment is a contributory factor in early withdrawal. Although there is little evidence to suggest that moderate amounts of part-time working

significantly adversely affect performance (grades).