Lingard, H (2005) Balancing study and paid work: The experiences of construction undergraduates in an Australian university. Construction Economics and Building, 5(1), pp. 41-47. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
A questionnaire survey was undertaken among third year studentsenrolled in the University of Melbourne’s Bachelor of Property andConstruction (BPC) programme. The survey explored students’experiences in balancing paid work with study. Hours spent in paidemployment were at least as long and, in many cases, were inexcess of hours spent at university. While work was not perceivedby students to pose a difficulty for attending lectures and tutorials,students indicated that their paid work made it difficult for them toengage in independent learning activities, such as using libraryresources or preparing for classes by reading beforehand. Twoscales, previously used in other countries to measure students’burnout and engagement, were tested. Both scales were foundto be valid and reliable in that the factorial structures foundin previous studies were confirmed and acceptable internalconsistency reliability coefficients were generated for each of thescales' component factors. This opens the way for more in-depthmultivariate analysis to determine the linkages between workhours, work-study conflict and students' burnout or engagementwith university life.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | burnout; engagement; paid work; well-being; work-study balance |
| Index terms: | programme, undergraduate, well-being, questionnaire, survey, burnout, linkage |
| Subjects: | business, data collection methods, occupational health and safety management, mental health and wellbeing, curriculum development, project controls |
| Topics: | Education, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Time Control, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 CEA |
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