Work-Study participation and academic performance

 

Carver et al. (2017) argued that funds, including Federal Work-Study funds, can be used directly to employ students, increase GPAs, and encourage students to create a community. In the Carver et al. (2017) OpSTEM study, which was created to help first-generation college students, underrepresented minorities, and women pass precalculus, participants were placed in a summer program where student mentors funded with federal work-study, two National Science Foundation grants, and Cleveland State University, would assist participants. The program resulted in an increased pass rate (Carver et al., 2017). The longitudinal study by Scott-Clayton & Minaya (2014) found that while Federal Work-Study has had little impact on future employment Federal Work-Study reduces hours worked and improves academic outcomes. Scott-Clayton et al. (2017) found that although Federal Work-Study participation may lower participants' first-year GPA, Federal Work-Study may have positive long-term effects on persistence, graduation, and post-college employment, particularly for lower-income students. 

Yu et al. (2020). Scott-Clayton and Minaya (2014) and Carver et al. (2017) purport the positive impact of the Federal Work-Study on academic performance. According to the study by Yu et al. (2020) using a sample of highly diverse students attending a large, urban community college system in Texas, Federal Work-Study participation was positively associated with academic performance. 

Chu et al. (2021) and Creed et al. (2019;2020;) provide evidence concerning the positive relationship between allowing students to facilitate their study/work environments and retention. Role boundary congruence theory used by Chu et al. (2021) states that individuals both seek and fashion their environments in ways that allow them to express themselves while meeting their needs. For example, if a student was overworked or not given space to facilitate their schedule, they may have been forced to reconsider major aspects of their lifestyle; they may stop having to stop going to school because going to school is not putting food on the table. According to Chu et al. (2021), when employers' families allow students to structure their lives in ways that best suit them as students and workers, students experience increased well-being and academic performance. According to Creed et al. (2019;2020;) job crafting by students related to improvements in individual resources in one area that could be applied to another. Students could apply improved work habits to school and vice versa. In summary, the above quantitative and empirical evidence shows that Federal Work-Study funds can be used to allow students to shape their environment and work flexibly. When it is done, well-being, GPA, and retention increase.

As exhibited in studies by Scott-Clayton (2011) and Soliz and Terry Long (2016) study, work can have adverse effects on academics. Scott-Clayton (2011) conducted a study using data from the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission (WVHEPC) comparing Federal Work Study eligible and ineligible students to see if Federal Work Study participation positively impacts academic outcomes. Soliz and Terry Long (2016) conducted a study using data from the Ohio public university system. Soliz and Terry Long (2016) sought to estimate the effect of work-study or on-campus work during the school year on academic outcomes like credits earned and GPA. Soliz and Terry Long (2016) and Scott-Clayton (2011) found a negative, but not statically significant, effect on GPA. Due to both data sets being first-year students, the statistically insignificant negative effects are concentrated in the first years for these first-year college students (Soliz & Terry Long, 2011; Scott-Clayton, 2011). Soliz and Terry Long (2016) found a positive effect on credits earned. Scott-Clayton (2011) found harmful effects on women who enter college directly after completing secondary education, but the study found positive effects for men and older students.

Ramos et al. (2021) and Scott-Clayton (2011) recognize that excessive work hours can lead to poor academic outcomes. Prior research on college students and work has found that students who worked part-time, 10 and 19 hours per week (Ramos et al., 2021), had improved academic success compared to non-working peers and improved employment-related satisfaction. Conversely, working more than these hours negatively impacted the student's academics (Ramos et al., 2021).

Overwork could lead to imbalance. Due to this, Owen et al. (2018) proposed the work-to-study model. With this model, the researchers seek to understand how the effect of workplace conditions on students' academic outcomes and health (Owen et al., 2018). Their framework focuses on work-study facilitation and work-study conflict (Owen et al., 2018). Work-study facilitation occurs when there is an improvement in the student's ability to perform academically because of their participation in work (Owen et al., 2018). The more control students can exert over their work environments, the more they experience improved academic success and career readiness (Marx & Wilson, 2020; Owen et al., 2018; Aikos et al., 2021). Aiko et al. (2021) evidenced these findings in their study of the adaptability of students during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, Aiko and colleagues (2021) saw no significant difference between virtual and in-person employment placements. These findings imply that additional flexibility granted by virtual employment has no negative impact on career development (Aiko et al., 2021).