Pathways to industry: Work practices of undergraduate students in construction programs in Australia

Mills, A; Lingard, H; McLaughlin, P and Iyer-Raniga, U (2012) Pathways to industry: Work practices of undergraduate students in construction programs in Australia. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 8(3), pp. 159-170. ISSN 1557-8771

Abstract

This research reports the impact of work on undergraduate students enrolled in construction programs. Students responded to a questionnaire on the nature of their paid work while enrolled in full-time study in six universities across Australia. The results indicate that students are working on average 19 hours per week during semester time. The results indicate that students in the early years tend to undertake casual work that is not related to their degree. However, this pattern changes in the later years of the program, where students switch to roles in construction that does relate to their coursework. The students start working on average 16 hours in the first year of their degree, and the number rises to 24 hours in their final year. Past research suggests that students may be working to an extent beyond what is considered beneficial to their studies. Past research has shown that working long hours has a negative effect on the study patterns of undergraduate students. The implications of the amount of time working and the type of work are discussed. The paper concludes by suggesting that universities need a greater awareness of the impact of paid employment on student engagement.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: construction education; student employment; work-study conflict
Index terms: undergraduate, Australia, employment, questionnaire, work practice, program, construction education, student engagement
Subjects: curriculum development, professional education, Geography, data collection methods, student development, management, software systems
Topics: Education, Geographical Context, Organizational Design, Human Resources, Digital Applications, Research Practice
Descriptive scope: 3 PCA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here