UNIVERSITY STUDENT WORKER PRODUCTIVITY: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS PDF Free Download
1 / 191/191
100%
Murray State's Digital Commons Murray State's Digital Commons
Murray State Theses and Dissertations Student Works
2024
UNIVERSITY STUDENT WORKER PRODUCTIVITY: A QUALITATIVE UNIVERSITY STUDENT WORKER PRODUCTIVITY: A QUALITATIVE
ANALYSIS ANALYSIS
Amanda S. Mans>eld
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/etd
Part of the Advertising and Promotion Management Commons, Business Analytics Commons,
Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons,
Educational Leadership Commons, Higher Education Commons, Higher Education Administration
Commons, Holistic Education Commons, Leadership Commons, and the Other Education Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Mans>eld, Amanda S., "UNIVERSITY STUDENT WORKER PRODUCTIVITY: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS"
(2024).
Murray State Theses and Dissertations
. 389.
https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/etd/389
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Murray State's Digital
Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Murray State Theses and Dissertations by an authorized
administrator of Murray State's Digital Commons. For more information, please contact
msu.digitalcommons@murraystate.edu.
UNIVERSITY STUDENT WORKER PRODUCTIVITY: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
by
Amanda S. Mansfield
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Faculty of
The College of Education and Human Services
Department of Educational Studies, Leadership, and Counseling
at Murray State University
In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements
For the Degree of Doctor of Education
P-20 & Community Leadership
Specialization: Postsecondary Education
Under the supervision of Dr. Benjamin Littlepage
Murray, KY
May 2024
ii
Acknowledgements
This work is dedicated to all of those who helped me get here. First, to my wonderful
husband, Billy, who supported me throughout this journey, I would have never dreamed I would
be where I am today without your encouragement and love. All three of my children, Marissa,
Maria, and Gibson, whether you know it or not, I was able to do this, in part, because of you. My
father-in-law, Jim and my mother-in-law, Debbie, who are no longer with us, always believed in
me, helped to guide me, and helped me see what I was capable of. My mom and dad, thank you
for all you’ve done to support me.
A special thank you to my dissertation chair, Dr. Ben Littlepage. You encouraged me
when I needed to be encouraged. You got excited with me when I found some new piece of
information that was relevant to the study. When I needed a break, you gave me space and time
to get over my research fatigue. Most importantly, though, you believed, without a shadow of a
doubt, that I was capable of this endeavor. Your faith in me never wavered, no matter how many
times I tried to write creatively instead of academically. For all you’ve done, thank you from the
bottom of my heart.
Thank you, also, to the rest of my committee, Dr. Don Robertson, you said to be careful
and give myself grace because my research topic encompassed a lot of components, and you
were absolutely right. So, thank you for your wisdom and encouraging self-care. Matt Purdy,
thank you for all your encouraging words during my late-night writing sessions in my office, and
thank you for always sharing relevant sources. Sheila Bourland, thank you so much for helping
me obtain information for my study.
There are a few special classmates I would also like to thank for their support, Josie,
Marc, and Michelle. Thank you for being there for me.
iii
Last, but not least, I want to thank two special women who share a first name and who
both guided me throughout my entire journey in higher education, since the very first day I
began as a Freshman when I was 35 years old and had two kids, one who was only five months
old. Stephanie Sellers and Stephanie Mueller – thank you so much for being there in the
background cheering me on, giving me sound advice, and being the mentors that I needed to help
me navigate college, from beginning to end.
iv
Abstract
Student worker productivity is an important aspect of higher education, since many functional
units rely on student employees to operate. Student workers communicate with all stakeholders
of universities, including incoming and current students and their families, alumni, faculty, staff,
and community members. Universities facing issues related to budgeting, enrollment, retention,
and employability of their graduates can combat those issues by strengthening the largest labor
pool on campus, student workers. The study explored what it means to be a productive university
student worker within the framework of Social Exchange Theory and Grounded Theory. The
study sought to provide recommendations to universities in order to optimize the use of their
student employees in various functional units. The study found that a productive student worker
is a representative of their university and their functional unit who is professional and helpful,
exhibiting dependability, initiative, a balanced approach to work and academics, and strong
communication skills. The researcher found that many of the attributes that define a productive
student worker are the same qualities that employers seek in recent college graduates. The
researcher found that professionalism is a cornerstone of productivity for student workers. The
study found that productivity is not formally being measured for university student workers.
However, qualitative measures are beneficial, especially when used in a standardized manner.
The study found that direct supervisors set expectations of student workers with some input from
the students themselves. The knowledge gained from the study will help inform future research
regarding productivity in student workers.
v
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... ii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures and Tables............................................................................................................. xii
Chapter I: Introduction .....................................................................................................................1
Context and Significance .....................................................................................................7
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................10
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework Guiding Research .....................................................11
Social Exchange Theory ........................................................................................12
Grounded Theory ...................................................................................................13
Happy-Productive Student and Happy-Productive Worker .......................13
Research Questions ............................................................................................................14
Definitions of Terms and Abbreviations............................................................................15
Summary ............................................................................................................................18
Chapter II: Literature Review ........................................................................................................19
University Student Identity ................................................................................................20
Social Identity ........................................................................................................20
Identity Adaptation ................................................................................................21
Depersonalization and Class-Based Identity .........................................................22
Prominence and Salience of Identity .....................................................................24
Familial Influences.................................................................................................25
Social Norms ..........................................................................................................26
Procrastination ...........................................................................................26
vi
Workplace Identity.............................................................................................................27
Individualization ....................................................................................................27
Representation........................................................................................................28
Organizational Culture and Expectations ..............................................................29
Onboarding ................................................................................................30
Professional Development .........................................................................31
Productivity ................................................................................................31
Productivity in Higher Education ..................................................32
Evaluations and Feedback..........................................................................35
Working College Students .................................................................................................35
Student Work at the University..............................................................................36
Types of Student Work ..............................................................................37
Undergraduate Student Work ........................................................37
Graduate Student Work..................................................................38
College Students’ Motivations ...........................................................................................39
Student Motivation for On-Campus Employment .................................................40
Motivation Purity Bias ...............................................................................40
Financial Motivations ............................................................................................41
International Student Motivations ..........................................................................42
Professional Networking Opportunities .................................................................42
High-Quality Student Work ...............................................................................................43
Work Related to Academic Programming .............................................................45
Development of Key Soft Skills ............................................................................47
vii
Progressive Responsibilities and Leadership .............................................47
Significance of Student Work on the University ...............................................................48
Recognition of Students’ Needs and Wants...........................................................48
On-Campus Employment: Persistence, Retention, and Graduation ......................49
Future Employer Consideration for University Students...................................................49
Career-Readiness Competencies ............................................................................50
Productivity Considerations for Future Employers ...............................................51
Summary ............................................................................................................................51
Chapter III: Methodology ..............................................................................................................53
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................53
Research Design.................................................................................................................54
Research Questions ............................................................................................................56
Population ..........................................................................................................................57
Participants .........................................................................................................................59
Sampling Procedures and Data Collection ............................................................60
Risk, Voluntary Participation, Confidentiality, Anonymity, and Data Security ...............62
Document Review ..............................................................................................................63
Interviews and Focus Groups.............................................................................................64
Procedures for Data Analysis.............................................................................................66
Summary ............................................................................................................................67
Chapter IV: Findings and Analysis ................................................................................................69
Document Review ..............................................................................................................70
“Professionalism” in Documents ...........................................................................71
viii
Summary ....................................................................................................74
“Representative” in Documents .............................................................................74
“Helpful” in Documents ........................................................................................76
Campus-Wide Documents .....................................................................................77
Definition of “Student Worker” in Documents .....................................................78
Additional Questions for Participants ....................................................................78
Document Analysis ............................................................................................................81
Participants .........................................................................................................................81
Recruitment ............................................................................................................82
Focus Group and Interview Questions ...................................................................84
Student Workers.........................................................................................86
Question 1 ......................................................................................86
Professionalism ..................................................................86
Academic Balance .............................................................91
Question 2 ......................................................................................92
Checklists ...........................................................................92
Setting Own Expectations ..................................................93
Handbooks and Written Policies ........................................96
Face-To-Face Meetings .....................................................97
Peer-To-Peer ......................................................................98
Question 3 ....................................................................................100
Pay....................................................................................100
Resume Building ..............................................................102
ix
Flexibility .........................................................................103
Purpose and Being Involved on Campus .........................105
Questions 4 and 5 .........................................................................106
It Depends ........................................................................106
Question 6 ....................................................................................108
Responsibilities ................................................................108
More Engagement from Faculty and Staff.......................109
More Pay ..........................................................................110
Nothing ............................................................................111
Direct Supervisors ....................................................................................112
Question 1 ....................................................................................112
Professionalism ................................................................112
Question 2 ....................................................................................113
Direct Supervisors Determine and Share .........................114
Question 3 ....................................................................................116
Handbooks .......................................................................116
In-Person and Electronic Training ...................................117
Question 4 ....................................................................................118
None .................................................................................118
Question 5 ....................................................................................120
Personal Tasks .................................................................120
Work First, Then Homework ...........................................121
Effect on Productivity ......................................................122
x
Indirect Supervisors .................................................................................123
Question 1 ....................................................................................124
Professionalism ................................................................124
Showcasing Unique Skills ...............................................125
Questions 2 and 3 .........................................................................126
Direct Supervisors’ Expectations and Training ...............126
Question 4 ....................................................................................129
Ideas for Improvement Involving Students......................129
Question 5 ....................................................................................131
Professionalism ................................................................131
Question 6 ....................................................................................132
More Engagement from Faculty and Staff.......................132
Theoretical Framework with Focus Groups and Interviews ....................133
Primary Research Question..............................................................................................134
Secondary Research Questions ........................................................................................135
Chapter V: Conclusions and Discussion ......................................................................................137
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................137
Relationship of Conclusions to Other Research ..............................................................140
High-Quality Student Worker Positions ..............................................................140
Identity and Engagement .....................................................................................141
Social Exchange Theory ......................................................................................143
Productivity ..........................................................................................................144
Career-Readiness Competencies ..........................................................................145
xi
Discussion ........................................................................................................................145
Practical Significance.......................................................................................................146
Implications for Practice ..................................................................................................147
Student Employee Handbooks .............................................................................147
Address Productivity ............................................................................................148
Address all Career-Readiness Competencies.......................................................149
Streamline Training and Onboarding...................................................................151
Increase Engagement ...........................................................................................152
Evaluate Job Descriptions and Pay ......................................................................154
P-20 Implications .................................................................................................155
Innovation ................................................................................................155
Diversity ...................................................................................................156
Technology ..............................................................................................156
Implementation ........................................................................................156
Limitations of the Study...................................................................................................156
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................158
References ....................................................................................................................................160
Appendix A ..................................................................................................................................175
Appendix B ..................................................................................................................................176
Appendix C ..................................................................................................................................178
xii
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1.1: Perception of Career Readiness by Recent Graduates and Employers .........................2
Table 1.1: Hours Per Week Undergraduate Students Spend Working on Campus ........................4
Table 1.2: Hours Per Week Undergraduate Students Spend Working off Campus ........................5
Table 3.1: Breakdown of Student Workers in the Study’s Population ..........................................59
Table 4.1: Minimum Cumulative GPA to Remain Eligible for On-Campus Work ......................78
Table 5.1: Example Likert Scale to Measure Career Readiness in Student Workers ..................151
1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
According to a recent poll of hiring managers and decision-makers at companies across
the United States, new college graduates struggle with essential career-readiness skills (National
Association of Colleges and Employers [NACE], 2023). Gallup survey data from nearly a
decade ago also show universities’ failures to adequately equip students for success in the
workplace (Busteed & Seymour, 2015). The most significant disparities between employers’
perceptions of new college graduates’ essential skills and college graduates’ own perceptions of
their abilities are in professionalism, leadership, and communication (NACE, 2023). NACE links
the concept of productivity directly to professionalism/work ethic through communication.
According to NACE (2022), professionalism/work ethic refers to demonstrating effective work
habits, including punctuality and working productively with others. Therefore, productivity is an
essential aspect of career readiness.
Postsecondary educators and administrators often do not recognize that their students
lack necessary career-ready skills (Busteed, 2014). Ten years ago, 96% of chief academic
officers believed their colleges and universities effectively prepared students for the workforce.
However, Busteed found that at the time, only 11% of surveyed business professionals strongly
agreed that college graduates were prepared for the workforce. More recent data show a closer
representative of students’ career readiness with 52% of university provosts believing their
institutions are very effective at preparing students for professional work (Inside Higher Ed,
2022). However, the employers who hire new graduates were surveyed and reported lower levels
of proficiency on many career-readiness skills, as illustrated in Figure 1.1 (National Association
of Colleges and Employers [NACE], 2023). The college graduates themselves often rate
themselves higher on key skills than their employers’ ratings. For example, 84.6% of recent
2
college graduates rated their professionalism skills “very proficient” or “extremely proficient.”
Yet, only 50.0% of employers rated recent college graduates “very proficient” or extremely
proficient” in their professionalism skills. Employers also rated recent graduates much lower in
the area of communication (55.2% versus 89.4%), which is one of the top three career-readiness
competency that employers seek.
Figure 1.1
Perception of Career Readiness by Recent Graduates and Employers
Note. Data derived from Job outlook 2024 by National Association of Colleges and Employers
(2023). *The percentages are that of responding recent graduates and employers that rate recent
graduates either “very proficient” (4) or “extremely proficient” (5) in the respective career-
readiness competency.
36.8
47.1
81.7
50.0
70.8
78.1
55.2
66.1
68.5
63.9
68.1
84.6
81
86.9
79.4
81.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Leadership
Career & Self Development
Technology
Professionalism
Equity & Inclusion
Teamwork
Communication
Critical Thinking
Percent of Respondents*
Career Competency
Recent Graduate Perception Employer Perception
3
Hiring managers seek well-rounded employees with key soft skills. The most important
skills sought on applicants’ resumes are communication, teamwork, and critical thinking (NACE,
2023). Colleges and universities should help students become career-ready individuals who
demonstrate key skills and contribute to a productive work environment.
College students report that the main reasons for completing their college degrees are
related to their careers (Gallup, 2018). The majority, 58%, of college students report that career-
related goals is their number one reason for completing their degree, while 23% say their number
one reason is related to gaining more knowledge, 12% say their number one reason is fulfilling
family or societal expectations, and 6% say their number one reason is due to access and
affordability. College students have other issues to face as well, such as fitting in, discovering
their identity, and paying for school. College students can work while in school to help cover the
costs of earning their degrees and to help build essential skills. High-quality and productive on-
campus employment programs can assist multiple stakeholders by supporting institutional
missions and developing a competent workforce.
In October 2022, 42.4% of full-time college students were in the workforce, and 81.0%
of part-time college students were in the workforce (United States Bureau of Labor and Statistics
[BLS], 2023). The study that produces the BLS data each year does not differentiate between
students who work for their institutions and students who work outside their institutions. Indiana
University collects nationwide data annually on first-year and senior undergraduate students. In
2018, 22.8% of first-year respondents worked on their campuses, and 32.7% worked off their
campuses (National Survey of Student Engagement [NSSE], 2018). In the same year, 30.1% of
senior respondents worked on their campuses, and 59.0% worked off their campuses. Table 1.1
displays aggregated data of the number of students and the number of on-campus work hours per
4
week. Table 1.2 displays aggregated data of the number of students and the number of off-
campus work hours per week. An important distinction must be made between on-campus and
off-campus employment for students due to differences in inputs and outputs for the students,
their universities, their direct employers, and their future employers. Student workers find
fulfillment in on-campus employment programs that support student identity and increase
educational value (McClellan et al., 2018). Universities also value student workers who
successfully develop, organize, and execute their academic and support offerings.
Table 1.1
Hours Per Week Undergraduate Students Spend Working on Campus
First-Year Students
Seniors
Count
Percentage
Count
Percentage
0 hours
76,806
77.2%
87,936
69.9%
1-5 hours
4,610
4.6%
6,538
5.2%
6-10 hours
7,645
7.7%
10,757
8.5%
11-15 hours
5,087
5.1%
8,165
6.5%
16-20 hours
3,396
3.4%
7,873
6.3%
21-25 hours
1,196
1.2%
2,228
1.8%
26-30 hours
303
0.3%
784
0.6%
30+ hours
483
0.5%
1,479
1.2%
Total
99,526
100.0%
125,760
100.0%
Note. Data derived from NSSE 2018 U.S. summary frequencies by class and sex by the National
Survey of Student Engagement [Unpublished report] (2018).
5
Table 1.2
Hours Per Week Undergraduate Students Spend Working Off Campus
First-Year Students
Seniors
Count
Percentage
Count
Percentage
0 hours
66,933
67.3%
51,532
41.0%
1-5 hours
4,827
4.8%
6,493
5.2%
6-10 hours
5,289
5.3%
8,043
6.4%
11-15 hours
5,583
5.6%
8,669
6.9%
16-20 hours
5,761
5.8%
11,455
9.1%
21-25 hours
4,070
4.1%
8,850
7.0%
26-30 hours
2,339
2.4%
6,718
5.3%
30+ hours
4,708
4.7%
24,072
19.1%
Total
99,510
100.0%
125,832
100.0%
Note. Data derived from NSSE 2018 U.S. summary frequencies by class and sex by the National
Survey of Student Engagement [Unpublished report] (2018).
The history of on-campus student employment can be traced back to the 1650s at Harvard
University, where a future astronomer named Zecharia Brigden worked his way through college
as a tutor (Gorman, 1964; McClellan et al., 2018). The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 brought an
influx of college campuses in rural areas. On-campus employment later developed into the
functions we see today, such as students working in dining and residence halls (McClellan et al.,
2018).
The Great Depression and the subsequent New Deal were catalysts that brought new
opportunities for students to work on their campuses while taking classes (Corley, 1993). The
National Youth Administration (NYA) began as part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Works Progress
6
Administration (WPA) to provide work for young Americans between the ages of 16 and 25. All
academic institutions participating in the NYA had a quota to establish jobs for their students.
The student workers were not allowed to replace staff members, and undergraduates could work
up to 30 hours per week, earning approximately $15 per month. Additionally, each position filled
by a student had to be relevant to the student’s academic interests. The NYA classified the
following categories for student workers: clerical, construction, departmental service, library
work, duplication, grounds and building maintenance, research and surveys, home economics,
art, laboratory assistance, recreation, and miscellaneous.
Today, the title of student worker can range from an on-campus food service worker to a
professional graduate teaching assistant. Various specialized grants, departmental budgets, and
federal work-study programs fund student workers’ wages. Student workers can be local students
who work on-site, online students working remotely, traditional, nontraditional, and international
students – or any intersection of demographics. International student workers can enhance the
campus work environment by bringing new perspectives to the institution as well as other
students’ experiences (McFadden & Seedorff, 2017).
All stakeholders should recognize student employees’ roles, their contributions, and the
outcomes they produce. Institutions must establish clear expectations and productivity measures
to assess student workers’ contributions. Students should seek to incorporate quantifiable
productivity measures on their professional resumes to optimize their chances of entering
competitive fields. On-campus student work allows students to hone their skills and contribute to
university goals through productive high-quality student worker positions.
The study will explore what it means to be a productive university student worker. The
primary and secondary research questions will be interpreted through the perspectives of the
7
student workers, the functional units, the university, and future employers. The researcher will
explore the primary research question by answering five supporting questions that explore
expectations of productivity. First, the researcher will seek to define student worker/employee
accurately. Henceforth, the terms student worker and student employee will be used
interchangeably. The researcher will explore relevant literature and conduct a qualitative study to
determine best practices for incorporating clear expectations of productive student workers in a
higher education institution.
Context and Significance
A substantial percentage of students work on campus during their undergraduate and
graduate programs of study. There is no clear-cut definition of what being a university student
worker entails. Productivity measures are also not explicitly defined for student workers.
Productivity is generally defined as a ratio between inputs and outputs (Krugman, 1994).
Productivity is a significant indicator of economic growth and competitiveness. An accurate
definition of productivity for student workers can help university leaders’ decision-making. A
study by Parce (2014), which looked at the economic impact of student agricultural cooperative
experiences, indicated that the assumptions about student worker productivity limited the results.
Parce recommended further research to examine student worker productivity to benefit the
knowledge that informed that study’s output. The researcher will focus on students who work on
campus as opposed to those engaged in a cooperative work experience. The acknowledgement
and problem noted by a previous researcher, that no such data exists regarding student worker
productivity, is significant to the research.
Students appreciate work with meaning that ties to their academic interests (McClellan et
al., 2018). Happy-Productive Student Theory (Pidgeon et al., 2017) and Happy-Productive
8
Worker Thesis (Garcia-Buades et al., 2019) correlate student engagement and worker
productivity to satisfaction, respectively. University administrators must determine productivity
measures for student workers to ensure satisfactory outcomes and maintain student engagement
in the work placements.
The University of Iowa’s (n.d.) Iowa GROW© (Guided Reflection on Work) program
systematically structures on-campus student worker positions. The program has been recognized
by notable higher education organizations, such as NASPA - Student Affairs Administrators in
Higher Education, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and Inside Higher Ed. The program’s
founders understand the importance of connecting student employment to academics and future
careers. Other universities, such as the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and Elon
University, have implemented the GROW© program with success (Felton et al., 2021;
McNeeley, 2022). Productivity is not an aspect of the Iowa GROW© program, but the NACE
career-readiness competencies are incorporated.
Productivity measures are essential to universities. The National Research Council (NRC,
2012) briefly mentions student work on campus in its guide to productivity in higher education.
Alas, the guide only mentions student work as an experience of the student rather than a means
to support productivity. The NRC recognizes that university productivity measures are difficult
to capture accurately due to the complexities of services offered. However, the NRC’s core
productivity assessment guidelines state that the difficult-to-measure elements should not be
ignored. Quantifying the productivity of student workers might pose a challenge, but universities
should prioritize student worker productivity in strategic planning, akin to considering other
measures.
9
The researcher will conduct the study at a four-year public university in western
Kentucky. The university is classified as a Master’s University with larger programs, according
to the American Council on Education (ACE)’s Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher
Education (Murray State University, 2022). The most recent NSSE survey the university
participated in indicates that 24.4% of first-year students work on campus, and 35.26% of seniors
work on campus (NSSE, 2018). Both categories of students working on campus in 2018 were
higher than the national percentage of 22.8% for first-year students and 30.1% for seniors
(National Survey of Student Engagement, 2018).
The study holds significance in light of the dynamic nature of educational institutions.
Economically, educational institutions are responsible for prudently and strategically planning
and implementing student support programs and activities. Furthermore, higher education
institutions should be cognizant of each department’s influence on enrollment and retention.
Enhanced strategic planning can occur through an examination of the productivity of one of the
most abundant labor pools accessible to higher education institutions.
The National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) examined how
higher education institutions utilize student employment funds to support retention, exploring
aspects of student impact (Burnside et al., 2019). The study identified the top five goals of
student employment: equipping students with career-readiness competencies, improving their
financial security, enhancing retention and completion rates, cultivating a connection to the
campus, and promoting student learning. However, the study did not expand on the direct
impacts of student employment on universities and their functional units. Moreover, the study
found that universities face four key barriers: funding constraints, limited time and capacity of
full-time staff, lack of standardization and consistency in practices, and a need for clear visions
10
of student employment. These findings highlight the evident challenges associated with student
employment, promoting the need for further investigation into on-campus student work and the
potential use of productivity measures to enhance student employment programs.
Factors such as the number of hours worked and the type of employment undertaken
influence the academic success of students who work while in college (Pike, 2008). Students
who work on campus 20 hours per week or less have significantly higher grades than students
who work more than 20 hours per week on campus, students who work off campus, and students
who do not work at all. After controlling for factors such as backgrounds and levels of
engagement, Pike found that students who work 20 hours or less on campus are more engaged,
and engagement is correlated to higher grades.
Engagement for college students includes a student’s active participation in academics,
on-campus cocurricular activities, interaction with faculty, civic engagement, and participation in
service learning (American Institutes for Research, n.d.). Through an analysis of student worker
productivity, the researcher will seek to add to the knowledge surrounding student employment
and its potential effects on student engagement, which affects students’ grades as well as
retention and graduation rates.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to investigate the perceptions and evaluations of productivity
among university student workers. The researcher aims to address knowledge gaps concerning
paid on-campus student work focusing on expectations of student workers and measures of
productivity. The researcher intends to establish a framework that can aid university leaders in
developing effective student-worker programs. Through qualitative analysis, the researcher will
11
provide recommendations to benefit students, functional units, universities, and potential future
employers.
Benefits to the student workers include professional development and opportunities to
build skills related to their academic and professional interests. Benefits to functional units at
universities include task completion that positively impacts revenues, expenditures, and
departmental missions. Benefits to universities include positive effects on enrollment, retention,
and graduation rates. Benefits to future employers include a robust and productive workforce.
A comprehensive understanding of productive student work can potentially impact
student employee recruitment, hiring, training, and mentoring processes. Additionally, a deeper
comprehension of student work can support universities in transitioning from reactive budgeting
practices to a more balanced approach that recognizes the valuable contributions student workers
can make to a productive learning environment.
Eighty percent of institutions either do not mandate student-employee evaluations or
delegate the decision to evaluate student workers to supervisors or departments (Burnside et al.,
2019). The researcher will examine university-wide documents and departmental documents
related to student work. Following document review, the researcher will study the perceptions of
productivity and evaluations by interviewing student workers, their direct supervisors, and the
leaders of functional units. The researcher will seek to understand how student worker
productivity is perceived, expected, and evaluated.
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework Guiding Research
Social Exchange Theory will guide the research and facilitate the development of a
grounded theory. The researcher will employ Social Exchange Theory to analyze participants,
acknowledging the significance of social identity and how different roles shape and reflect
12
various identities. The researcher will also explore the mutual benefits of student workers for
their universities and the advantages universities can offer their student workers. Creswell and
Creswell (2022) make two separate cases pertaining to grounded theory, one for a guide to shape
a qualitative study and one for an outcome deriving from qualitative research. The researcher
will integrate these dual aspects of grounded theory into the design.
Social Exchange Theory
Social Exchange Theory has guided psychologists and sociologists studying profit-
centered economics for decades (Stafford, 2008). Social Exchange Theory offers insight into the
motivations and obligations involved in social settings. Social Exchange Theory, first proposed
by psychologists and sociologists in the 1950s, assesses the risks and rewards involved in social
interactions. Social Exchange Theory has been referenced in research exploring diverse
sociological relationships, from marriages and social networking to business interactions.
Students expect to gain skills from their college experiences, and universities expect to
gain value by employing students on campus (McClellan, et al., 2018). Likewise, employees
expect to gain skills from their jobs through professional development (NACE, 2022). The
college campus offers a unique environment beyond academic and work-related aspects, as it
provides opportunities for engagement beyond the classroom and workplace. Consequently,
students experience social exchanges throughout their entire college experience.
Student employees make valuable contributions to institutions’ capacities (Kemp et al.,
2021). Students advance their workplaces’ projects and action plans in ways that are impossible
with the limited time and resources of full-time staff. Students participate in meaningful and
enriching projects, such as building reports, creating and administering presentations, and
collecting and analyzing data. Students’ contributions accelerate the timelines of staff workloads,
13
which is a valuable asset. Moreover, the advantages of hiring students outweigh the time and
effort invested in planning for and supervising them as employees.
Kemp et al.’s (2021) study, utilizing Social Exchange Theory, revealed a significant
correlation between explicitly valuing students for their work and establishing trust between
students and their university. Students who perceive their work as undervalued harbor negative
sentiments towards the units they work for as well as their university. The researcher will apply
Social Exchange Theory to examine the cost-benefit dynamics among fundamental stakeholders,
including student workers, departments, universities, and future employers.
Grounded Theory
Creswell and Creswell (2022) define grounded theory as “a qualitative strategy in which
the researcher derives a general, abstract theory of a process, action, or interaction grounded in
the views of participants in a study” (p. 264). Researchers attempting to construct meaning from
data to better understand the world value the grounded theory method (Williams & Moser,
2019). The researcher intends to explore the productivity of student workers by examining the
respondents’ perceptions. The researcher will seek to develop a theory firmly grounded in the
participants’ viewpoints on student worker productivity.
Happy-Productive Student and Happy-Productive Worker
Two theories guided by Social Exchange Theory and relevant to the study are the Happy-
Productive Student Theory and the Happy-Productive Worker Thesis. These theories suggest that
higher levels of happiness are associated with increased productivity. Pigeon et al. (2017) found,
in research based on Happy-Productive Student Theory, that students who perceive a stronger
sense of connection to their institutions tend to have more favorable academic experiences.
Cotton et al. (2002) synthesized the Happy-Productive Worker Thesis and applied the theory to
14
students. Students who experience happiness in various dimensions, such as physically,
mentally, academically, and socially, tend to perform better in their coursework.
Cropanzano and Wright (2001) point to a few abstract productivity measures in their
review and refinement of Wright’s original Happy-Productive Worker Thesis. Cropanzano and
Wright view productivity as taking advantage of work opportunities, demonstrating helpfulness
to colleagues, and showing a positive and optimistic outlook. Gallup (2022) acknowledges the
impact of employee well-being on engagement and productivity, highlighting its influence on
important organizational outcomes such as revenue generation, turnover rates, and associated
costs.
Various researchers have synthesized the Happy-Productive Worker Thesis since its
outset (Cropanzano & Wright, 2001). However, existing studies have yet to provide a
comprehensive and detailed account of productivity perceived by distinct stakeholders. Workers,
managers, owners, and community members all likely have different ideas of productivity. The
literature review that follows will address subsequent research on student worker productivity,
highlighting the existing gaps that the study will seek to address.
Research Questions
The study seeks to answer the following primary question: RQ1: What does it mean to be
considered a productive university student worker? The primary research question guided the
development of the secondary research questions.
The study seeks to answer the following secondary questions:
RQ2: How is “student worker” defined?
RQ3: How are the expectations of student workers determined?
RQ4: How are expectations shared with student workers?
15
RQ5: How is productivity defined for student workers?
RQ6: How is productivity measured for student workers?
The secondary research questions were developed to complement the primary research
question, aiding the researcher in constructing a focused topic that can be thoroughly explored.
Definitions of Terms and Abbreviations
Common terms must be defined in order for the reader to comprehend the significance
and the purpose of the study, as well as the research design and the respondents.
Key terms are:
1. Achieved statuses “are not assigned to individuals from birth but are left open to be filled
through competition and individual effort” (Linton, 1936, p. 115).
2. Ascribed statuses “are those which are assigned to individuals without reference to their
innate differences or abilities. They can be predicted and trained for from the moment of
birth” (Linton, 1936, p. 115).
3. Collectivism is defined using Werth and Brownlow’s (2018) definition: “the way in which
interests, orientations and behaviors are based on predominantly group rather than
predominantly individual reference points and involve cooperation with other members of
that group” (p. 149).
4. Engagement amongst college students is defined as “the psychological investment a student
makes in learning. This includes the degree to which a student actively participates in
academic and cocurricular activities on the campus, pursuing contact with faculty outside the
classroom, involvement in civic activities and service learning, and participation in
cocurricular learning” (American Institutes for Research, n.d.).
16
5. F-1 Visa allows international students to enter the United States as a full-time student
(Students and employment, n.d.).
6. Grounded Theory is defined using Creswell and Creswell’s (2022) definition: “a qualitative
strategy in which the researcher derives a general, abstract theory of a process, action, or
interaction grounded in the views of participants in a study” (p. 264).
7. Member checking (also known as participant validation or respondent validation) is defined
as “systematically soliciting feedback about your data and conclusions from the people you
are studying” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 126).
8. Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 were enacted to create colleges to benefit agriculture and
mechanic arts in the United States by using funds obtained through the sale of federally
owned land (National Archives and Records Administration, 2022).
9. Onboarding is defined as “the act or process of orienting and training a new employee”
(Merriam-Webster, n.d.).
10. Organizational culture, work culture, and workplace culture are used interchangeably and
are defined as “a set of shared mental assumptions that guide interpretation and action in
organizations by defining appropriate behavior for various situations” (Fiol, 1991; Louis,
1983; Martin, 2002; as cited in Ravasi & Schultz, 2006, p. 437).
11. Productive is defined, for the purposes of the study, as “yielding results, benefits, or profits”
(Merriam-Webster, n.d.).
12. Productivity is defined not by units produced divided by hours labored but, for the purposes
of the study, as “the quality or state of being productive” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.).
13. Purposeful selection is defined as a sampling technique in which particular settings, persons,
or activities are selected deliberately to provide information that is particularly relevant to
17
your questions and goals, and that can’t be gotten as well from other choices” (Maxwell,
2013, p. 97).
14. Retention is defined, for the purposes of the study, as enrollment by a student at one
institution from the point of matriculation until completion of a degree (Habley et al., 2012).
15. Social identity “describes those aspects of a person’s self-concept based upon their group
memberships together with their emotional, evaluative and other psychological correlates”
(Turner & Oaks, 1986, p. 240).
16. Student employee/worker is defined by the researcher, for the purposes of the study, as a part-
time or full-time undergraduate or graduate student enrolled in a program of study who works
on campus and is not considered a staff or faculty member by the university. Student worker
and student employee will be used interchangeably. A conclusive definition of student worker
will be sough by the study.
17. Winnowing the data is defined as focusing in on some of the data, disregarding the rest, and
narrowing the aggregate data into themes (Creswell & Creswell, 2022).
Common abbreviations must also be defined in order for the reader to easily recognize
sources of information and governing bodies significant to the study.
Key abbreviations are:
1. ACE stands for the American Council on Education.
2. ACHA stands for the American College Health Association
3. BLS stands for the Bureau of Labor Statistics
4. NACE stands for the National Association of Colleges and Employers.
5. NASPA stands for the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
6. NCES stands for the National Center for Education Statistics.
18
7. NRC stands for the National Research Council.
8. NSSE stands for the National Survey of Student Engagement.
Summary
Productivity and what it means to be a productive student worker is one missing
component of the understanding of high-quality student work. Productivity among college
student workers is a concept that has yet to be comprehensively defined. College students and
employers expect universities to equip students with essential career-readiness skills (NACE,
2022). However, disparities exist between the reality of employers’ expectations and new
graduates’ abilities (NACE, 2023). On-campus student employment can serve as an experiential
learning opportunity that can act as a conduit, bridging the experiences in the classroom to
professional work. A study that views student work through social exchange and grounded
theory with a multi-level case study and document review will assist university administrators
who seek to implement productive student worker programs.
19
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
The following literature review delves into the existing knowledge regarding the
identities and productivity of university students serving as on-campus student workers. The
literature review examines the potential impacts that productive student workers can have on
universities and future employers. The research is vital for universities that seek to utilize student
workers effectively. The literature review synthesizes various aspects of a university student
worker, including their college student identity, workplace identity, motivations, and
professional development related to career readiness. Each section addresses the research
questions related to student-worker productivity and expectations while stressing the importance
of providing high-impact and productive student-worker programs. High-impact and productive
student-worker programs aim to complement academic and professional growth while
contributing to university and departmental productivity goals.
A college student’s identity revolves around social norms (Kaufman, 2014). College
students’ social norms, including high levels of procrastination, lead to unproductive behavior
(Peper et al., 2014). Workplace identity encompasses aspects of collective well-being and team
productivity. College students who work on campus develop a sense of belonging within the
university community (McClellan et al., 2018), and this sense of belonging has been found to
contribute to student retention (Pike, 2008). The motivations to work on campus provide a rich
source of information that administrators can utilize to create productive, high-impact student
employment programs. Universities play a vital role in shaping student workers into professional
adults with transferable soft skills, preparing them for the demands of the workforce.
The forthcoming research serves as a valuable framework for developing, implementing,
and strengthening high-impact and productive student-worker programs. Universities can tailor
20
their student worker programs to serve the student population, align with the institution’s
strategic plan, and contribute to the community’s workforce.
University Student Identity
The identity of a university student comprises both ascribed statuses and achieved
statuses, which contribute to the formation of social identity. Ascribed statuses are inherent traits
generally present at birth, such as age, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, socioeconomic status,
sexual identity, and sexual orientation (Linton, 1936). On the other hand, achieved statuses are
acquired or developed over time through personal efforts and accomplishments, such as
athleticism, intelligence, creativity, relationship status, and career-related positions. Ascribed and
achieved statuses interact and shape an individual’s social identity within the university context.
Social Identity
Social identity provides members of society a way to define themselves and others
(Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Personal identity, which encompasses the individual’s view of their
own physical characteristics, abilities, psychological traits, and other statuses, is a component of
social identity. The determination of social identity by others is also important, as external
perspectives contribute to the construction of traits, which may fail to capture the complexity of
an individual’s identity fully. Furthermore, individuals might exhibit different social identities
depending on their context and surroundings (Cheng et al., 2014). Therefore, the identity of a
college student can manifest in various forms, influenced by the roles and environments in which
they find themselves. For instance, a student may embody a reflective intellectual persona in the
classroom while displaying a competitive and lively demeanor on the court or field. A student
might seem careless or capricious in one setting while demonstrating a methodical and analytical
approach in another.
21
Settings and experiences influence students’ social identity; in turn, a student’s social
identity can shape their experiences within specific settings. Various aspects of a student’s
identity, such as race, ethnicity, nationality, and gender, can serve as predictors of their
participation and engagement in peer discussions, both within and outside the classroom (Eddy et
al., 2015) Consequently, universities can utilize predictions based on identity to inform the
development of productive student-worker programs, guiding their initiatives to create inclusive
and supportive environments.
University staff who employ student workers have the opportunity to facilitate students’
reflection on their social identities (McClellan et al., 2018). Staff can contribute to the
development of students by assisting them in understanding themselves and fostering
professional interactions in the workplace. Students who engage in reflective practices within a
productive work environment can better comprehend their contributions to the university.
Identity Adaptation
Identity adaptation is an aspect of social identity shaped by self-perception, others’
perceptions, and interpersonal interactions (Smith et al., 2017). Administrators should consider
the role of identity adaptation in shaping student identity when developing student worker
programs. For example, if student workers are expected to demonstrate professional behavior,
they should be treated as a professional team members. Similarly, if a student worker is expected
to be a source of knowledge in a teaching position, they should be treated as such in interactions
with faculty and staff. University employees influence students, and students explore and
experiment with various identities through role models and social networks. Role models play a
crucial part in solidifying student identity through identity adaptation.
22
Students who develop solid social identities linked to their academic disciplines also
cultivate deeper approaches to learning (Bliuc et al., 2011). A deeper approach to learning
correlates with higher academic achievement through enhanced comprehension of new concepts
and information. A better understanding of new ideas and information fosters an appreciation for
the underlying intentions of academic programs. University staff who employ and engage with
student workers have an opportunity to facilitate academic growth while enabling students to
showcase their qualities and abilities that align with the objectives of functional units and the
university.
A college student’s identity extends beyond their academics and learning behaviors.
Students hold high expectations that their university will equip them with necessary skills and
worthwhile experiences (Smith et al., 2017). Extracurricular activities, including student
employment, should be considered when addressing student expectations. Employers of student
workers can engage in productive dialogues with students, highlighting how their roles
contribute to skill development. Students can develop a sense of accomplishment, even in menial
tasks, if given the tools to recognize their impact.
Depersonalization and Class-Based Identity
Turner and Oakes (1986) examined the concept of social identity, which involves
depersonalizing individuals as representatives of groups, where people become symbols of the
groups they are affiliated with rather than seen as individuals - “they do not represent, they are”
(p. 250). Universities often exhibit depersonalization through common phrases and slogans, such
as “We are (insert mascot name here)!” and “It’s a Great Day to Be a (insert mascot name
here)!” The symbols associated with attending college play a role in shaping the students’
identities (Kaufman, 2014). Kaufman notes that traditional college years coincide with a
23
transitional phase of personal development. The college environment is significant as it
influences both personal and social identity formation.
College prepares students for a professional career while solidifying class-based identity
(Kaufman, 2014). Professional transitions are smoother for students from middle- or upper-class
backgrounds. Regardless of socioeconomic status, maintaining achieved statuses that form social
identity requires the reflection of preferred identity by others. Students who do not receive their
desired identity reflected onto them by others will only hold that identity if they engage in active
identity work to reinforce their social status.
Kaufman (2014) emphasizes the impact of faculty and staff influences on students’ social
identities. Faculty and staff who work directly with students must recognize their responsibility
in reflecting students’ desired identity back to them during this critical phase of identity
development. Students who aspire to be perceived as competent adults should have their identity
as such acknowledged and affirmed by those with whom they interact. Recognition of identity
becomes particularly significant for staff members working with student employees, as these
students actively learn professionalism in the workplace. Therefore, university staff should
exercise great care in reflecting a professional identity back onto their student employees,
reinforcing their development as competent professionals.
Mackay et al. (2019) discovered that students commonly express negative experiences
regarding feeling alienated from their academic institutions. Students convey the desire to belong
and to feel a part of the larger group, but not necessarily to feel a part of the university as a
whole. A well-planned productive student worker program can offer students ways to feel a
sense of belonging to the departments and the university community. Consistent feelings of
24
belonging are linked to more openness, willingness to perform, and productivity (Garcia-Buades
et al., 2019).
Prominence and Salience of Identity
Brenner et al. (2014) investigated the relationship between prominence and salience of
identity. According to identity theory, the likelihood of expressing a specific aspect of a person’s
identity depends on the perceived importance of that aspect compared to others.
Identity salience refers to the likelihood of a person expressing a particular identity in a given
social interaction. Prominence refers to the value attributed to a specific identity relative to other
identities. The more important an identity is to a person, the more likely they will act out the
identity or find situations to show the valued aspect of their identity. Cheng et al. (2014) note the
notion of prominence and salience of identity in college students by acknowledging that their
identities can vary depending on the environment and how others perceive them.
The subjective value of identities precedes identity performance, implying that college
students must be aware of the anticipated outcomes of adopting particular identities (Brenner et
al., 2014). Administrators should consider the subjective value of student programs for
successful implementation and engagement. College students are not likely to participate in
activities deemed invaluable or detrimental to their social identity. University programming that
fosters connections to socially desirable identities can benefit from a comprehensive
understanding of the prominence and salience of identity. McClellan et al. (2018) agree and
elaborate by arguing that student worker programs should provide suitable positions that are
perceived as desirable for professional young adults.
Different people perceive valuable positions in various ways. Some students prioritize
positions that allow them to apply and enhance their academic knowledge. On the other hand,
25
some students appreciate less demanding tasks that provide respite from academic pressures.
Bliuc et al. (2011) suggest implementing thoughtfully integrated frameworks that emphasize the
social and psychological dimensions of learning within academic contexts. The frameworks can
be extended to non-academic environments, including student employment. Opportunities for
meaningful social interactions that also contribute to the objectives of the functional unit are
essential in cultivating productive student employees.
Familial Influences
The influence of families on a college student’s social identity is important to recognize.
First-generation college students often have lower expectations, competence, and confidence
compared to their non-first-generation peers (Watson et al., 2019). First-generation students may
internalize feelings of inadequacy and adopt negative qualities as part of their identity formation.
University staff who have direct contact with student workers should encourage first-generation
students to demonstrate their abilities and their impact on productivity. Staff members should
also effectively communicate the positive impacts of students’ work performance to help build
confidence.
Supportive families that refrain from imposing excessive expectations on students tend to
foster higher academic and overall life satisfaction (Vautero et al., 2021). An example of this
finding in practice might include students with family pressuring them to achieve and sustain a
very high GPA while providing minimal support. The result, according to Vautero, would likely
be lower satisfaction which could lead to reduced productivity. Conversely, students who benefit
from full familial support would likely exhibit heightened levels of productive behaviors,
according to Vautero’s findings.
26
Social Norms
Social norms are relative to different groups, times, and settings (Xentitidou & Edmonds,
2014). College students tend to shape their identities by embodying the norms upheld by their
respective social groups (Kaufman, 2014). The American College Health Association (ACHA,
2022) compiled data regarding normative behavior among undergraduate students related to their
overall physical and mental health and well-being. Survey findings from the ACHA survey
underscore the recurring pattern of procrastination as a normative behavior among college
students.
Procrastination. Procrastination is widespread among students and the general
population (Peper et al., 2014). Moreover, age is correlated to procrastination, indicating that
younger people tend to exhibit higher levels of procrastination (Beutel et al., 2016; Nomura &
Ferrari, 2018; as cited in Asio, 2021). Individuals with elevated rates of procrastination often
display pessimistic and negative attitudes toward past events (Asio, 2021). Therefore,
procrastination can perpetuate a cycle of unhappiness. The most recent survey conducted by the
American College Health Association (ACHA, 2022) affirms the elevated levels of unhappiness
among college students, evident through increased levels of anxiety, depression, and stress.
University personnel aiming to improve student-worker programs should understand
normative student behavior to leverage the behaviors effectively. Unproductive behavior is
linked to procrastination (Peper et al., 2014), with younger individuals exhibiting higher levels of
procrastination (Beutel et al., 2016; Nomura & Ferrari, 2018; as cited in Asio, 2021). Moreover,
procrastination is associated with unhappiness (Asio, 2021). Therefore, one can deduce that the
younger a person is, the less productive they will be. Likewise, an inference can also be made
that a social norm among university students involves exhibiting unproductive behaviors.
27
Universities that seek to develop and implement effective student worker programs can use the
knowledge that students are generally unproductive to mold positions that can counteract
procrastination and encourage productivity, resulting in happier students. High-impact and
productive student worker programs can establish structured goals for each student worker that
align with the mission of the functional unit. The goals for each student worker should also
consider each student’s identity, which will inform administrators on how best to utilize each
student productively.
Workplace Identity
Social classification, or identification, plays a crucial role in the self-definition of identity
and societal positioning (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Workplace identity serves as a facet of social
identity, enabling individuals to position themselves and others within the organizational and
social hierarchy. Student workers’ positions on the university hierarchy contribute to their
personal identity. Consequently, employers of student workers hold the power to shape students’
perceptions of their workplace identity, which can influence work satisfaction, engagement, and
productivity.
Individualization
The concept of individualism in the workplace led to the term individualization.
According to Turner and Oaks (1986), individualism is a byproduct of social influence on the
psyche. Therefore, what is perceived as individuality is actually a social construct.
Individualization encompasses two distinct dimensions: structure and action (Genov, 2018).
Structure refers to the social spaces that individuals utilize to exercise autonomous decision-
making and take action. Action pertains to the steps that individuals take to make decisions and
28
act independently. Positive outcomes of actions within social spaces are achieved by enhancing
skills and abilities.
One of the primary motivations for students to pursue higher education is to enhance their
skills and abilities for future employment (Gallup, 2018). Consequently, skill advancement
becomes an important consideration in student employment positions. Student worker programs
can foster productivity aligned with individual and organizational goals by promoting skill
development.
Employers of student workers should consider students’ individual and social identities to
comprehend factors driving productivity. According to Genov (2018), individualization
encompasses multiple dimensions, including a person’s present social context, historical actions,
and future aspirations, all of which have significant social influences. Employers of student
workers can effectively enhance productivity among student workers by understanding the
students’ backgrounds, social experiences, and professional goals.
Peetz (2018) takes an individualistic perspective on individualism, focusing on personal
rather than social aspects. Nevertheless, Peetz acknowledges the influence of collectivism on
individuals, particularly through the process of collective bargaining. Collectives, including
student worker groups, have the potential to shape workplace identity within the university
context and throughout early career development. Actively engaged student collectives can
significantly influence university outcomes and the performance of functional units in which
students are employed.
Representation
Representation of people in positions of power can influence the workplace experience
(McClellan et al., 2018). The presence of equitable representation can encourage increased
29
productivity, especially when implemented as part of a high-impact practice. Specifically,
women who have supervisors who are also women or individuals from underrepresented ethnic
backgrounds who have supervisors or mentors of the same ethnicity may experience a greater
sense of empowerment in the workplace, which can lead to increased productivity.
Another significant aspect of workplace identity is ability, which encompasses various
factors such as chronic illnesses, physical limitations, mental health conditions, and
developmental delays (Beatty & McGonagle, 2018). Circumstances related to abilities are crucial
in shaping both workplace and social identities. For instance, an employee treated differently due
to a physical condition, such as a broken arm, might internalize the treatment and assimilate the
limitations imposed upon them. If the employee is treated as though they should not engage in
certain tasks because of the broken arm, their life outside of work could be affected.
Similarly, the treatment of students in the workplace can significantly impact their self-
perception and their position within the collective group. The manner in which students are
treated by departmental supervisors, particularly in relation to perceived physical, mental, or
social limitations, can profoundly affect the productivity of those students.
Organizational Culture and Expectations
Employees of any organization develop expectations through the culture of their
workplace. Onboarding, professional development, productivity considerations, evaluations, and
feedback are all integrated into organizational culture. Contributions to organizational
productivity are vital to help foster positive work culture (Gupta, 2020). Corporate recruiters aim
to enlist highly talented individuals who align with the work environment and contribute to the
organization’s prosperity and productivity.
30
Universities can establish and maintain productivity measures throughout the student
employment lifecycle, beginning with effective onboarding and integration into the workplace
culture. Therefore, university administrators should incorporate productivity expectations as an
integral part of the organizational culture when designing and implementing impactful and
productive student employment programs. McClellan et al. (2018) emphasize the significance of
regular communication of expectations to student workers, preferably every week.
Onboarding. Effective onboarding is the most accurate predictor of a successful training
program (Wiseman et al., 2022). Effective onboarding involves understanding the employee’s
past, present, and future in the industry as well as the employee’s level of education, experience,
and understanding of the position. Wiseman et al. (2022) studied salespeople, but the researcher
finds the study applicable to student workers since student work positions are oftentimes
customer-facing roles. Employers who onboard through a decentralized program rather than a
highly centralized program find they produce more favorable outcomes in productivity and
engagement. Wiseman et al. (2022) emphasize that a more focused socialization process occurs
through decentralized onboarding, which contributes to higher success levels amongst employees
in decentralized onboarding programs.
The findings of Wiseman et al.’s (2022) study complement the findings of Mackay et
al.’s (2019) study, which suggests that belonging to the work department is more important than
belonging to the overarching organization. Therefore, productive student worker programs
should emphasize department-specific onboarding and training rather than relying on a
university-wide approach. However, faculty and staff overseeing student workers can undergo
centralized training to disseminate university-related information to their student workers.
31
Professional Development. Students can develop their professional identity by
participating in professional development activities, such as formal education, workshops,
discussions, presentations, special assignments, and portfolio building (Smith et al., 2014).
Students enhance their professional identity through natural maturity and by engaging in
opportunities to connect with others who can influence their profession (Bebeau & Monson,
2012). Students should be allowed to observe societal expectations of professionals in their fields
of study, which will help them mature in their professions. High-impact student worker programs
should also regularly implement professional development opportunities that include
conversations about ethics and role modeling (McClellan et al., 2018).
The guidance and support of personal and professional mentors hold significant value for
students as they seek inspiration and professional development (Bebeau & Monsoon, 2012).
Mentors can help students in self-assessment, identification of personal strengths, and promotion
of reflecting on personal growth. Educators and employers have opportunities to engage students
on a deeper level to facilitate their maturation through relevant professional development
initiatives. A high-impact and productive student worker program can serve as a foundation that
empowers students to cultivate professional networks and nurture their professional growth.
Productivity. Various industries encompass diverse perspectives on productivity.
Performance metrics like efficiency and effectiveness generate outcomes such as profit margins
and investment returns. The Happy-Productive Worker Thesis recognizes that happier employees
are more productive workers (Cotton et al., 2002; Garcia-Buades et al., 2019). Additionally,
collective well-being is positively correlated to group performance in a team environment (Peetz,
2018). However, the ambiguity of a happy-productive teams concept suggests that further
32
research is needed to analyze alternatives, such as happy-unproductive teams and unhappy-
productive teams, to determine other possible significant patterns (Garcia-Buades et al., 2019).
The inclusion of a culture of fun in the workplace has faced criticism, particularly when
extracurricular activities occur during times when employees expect to have personal freedom
away from work. Some employees experience positive emotions from fun activities in the
workplace, while others experience negative emotions from those activities (Michel et al., 2019).
The scrutiny of organizational culture extends to the potential exploitation of individual interests
and personal spaces by incorporating them into the workplace to enhance productivity
(Maravelias, 2003; as cited in Fleming, 2014). For instance, adopting mandatory yoga or
meditation practices to improve workplace productivity can be seen as appropriating aspects of
Indian culture.
The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) language models, such as ChatGPT, has
garnered significant attention and has become a notable aspect of workplace culture as
organizations strive to enhance productivity. Ongoing research is needed to explore the
implications of AI technology, with a particular emphasis on its impact on workplace
productivity. A range of perspectives exists among university students regarding the utility of AI
language models in professional settings. As 2023 graduates enter the workforce, they are
divided between apprehension about the unknown and optimism about the potential of AI tools
like Chat GPT to augment their productivity in the workplace (Handshake, 2023).
Productivity in Higher Education. The National Research Council (NRC, 2012)
provides four recommendations regarding the assessment of productivity within the context of
higher education. First, “productivity should be a central part of the higher education
conversation” (NRC, 2012). University administrators should consider productivity when
33
formulating long-term planning strategies. Administrators should also consider student worker
productivity in long-term planning, as student worker positions are integral to each unit’s overall
outputs.
“Conversations about the sector’s performance will lack coherence in the absence of a
well-vetted and agreed-upon set of metrics, among which productivity is essential” (NRC, 2012).
All members of strategic planning committees should reach a consensus on a comprehensive
range of measurable outcomes encompassing various levels of productivity, including highly
desirable, acceptable, marginally acceptable, and unacceptable measures. In addition, university
administrators should actively incorporate student work and integrate high-impact productive
student-worker programs into macro-level conversations about productivity.
“Quality should always be a core part of productivity conversations, even when it cannot
be fully captured by the metrics” (NRC, 2012). Administrators should consider the quality of
events contributing to the community’s well-being or enhancing the institution’s visibility.
Administrators should also integrate measures that directly influence enrollment, engagement,
persistence, retention, and graduation. Decision-makers should acknowledge the impact of
student workers while discussing both qualitative and quantitative measures.
“The inevitable presence of difficult-to-quantify elements in a measure should not be
used as an excuse to ignore those elements” (NRC, 2012). Measuring university-wide student
worker productivity poses difficulties. However, administrators should pay close attention to the
productivity of student workers despite the inherent difficulties in quantifying their contributions.
University administrators should actively seek to simplify elements that are difficult to measure.
The concept of productivity in higher education is multifaced and continuously evolving.
University leaders are encouraged to evaluate statistical indicators to identify suitable
34
productivity measures (National Research Council [NRC], 2012). According to the NRC, higher
education productivity encompasses the number of degrees awarded, the allocation of labor and
financial resources, community engagement, the impact of athletics, research endeavors, and
economic contributions. Professionals in higher education administration also gauge productivity
by examining financial inputs and outputs, such as tuition, fees, grants, endowments, and
government funding.
Schierenbeck (2012) recognizes the controversy surrounding the idea of productivity in
higher education. Faculty members, for instance, might express reservations about assessing
productivity solely based on financial gains, whereas trustees and financial officers recognize the
value of such measures. Productivity measures within institutions of higher education include
cost-related measures, such as cost per credit hour and return on investment, which compare
tuition expenses with students’ potential earning capacity.
The concept of lean production seeks to eliminate anything that does not add value from
the consumer’s perspective (Womack et al., 1990; as cited in Schierenbeck, 2012). The lean
production model, which originated in the manufacturing sector, can be applied to higher
education and student worker positions. Schierenbeck (2012) notes that students waste learning
time in three ways: learning inefficiently, learning the wrong information, and forgetting
previously learned material. Student workers should be encouraged to eliminate waste and strive
for a lean model by actively acquiring the skills they need to enhance their professional
identities. Employers of student workers should ensure effective time utilization, enabling
students to contribute to the university while gaining the necessary skills for their future
professional endeavors.
35
Evaluations and Feedback. Evaluations and feedback can help shape professional
identity and provide a means to increase productivity and positive outcomes. Murray and Merla
(2022) recognize the importance of effective communication in the workplace. Effective
communication in the workplace between employers and employees involves active listening,
recognizing personal traits, building relationships, expressing healthy disagreements, coaching
through difficult times, building effective teams, and transforming employees into leaders. An
evaluation and feedback process that supports open, focused conversation is important in
providing advanced supervisory practice that is valued in the workplace (Harris, 2020). Perozzi
(2019) notes that people who evaluate student employees should include more than what would
be included in a traditional employee evaluation. Student-worker evaluations should be holistic,
analyzing not only direct productivity and contributions to the university but also the impact on
the student’s academic and career goals. Holistic evaluations can better align student-worker
roles with individual goals and provide a comprehensive assessment of their benefits.
Working College Students
Approximately 80% of college students are employed at some time during the course of
their academic pursuits (Burnside et al., 2019). Students attending a four-year university are less
likely to be employed than students attending a 2-year university, but only by 11.5 percentage
points – 44.0% versus 55.5% (Bureau of Labor and Statistics [BLS], 2023). Traditional college
students work as a way to earn spending money and explore career paths, while nontraditional
college students often work to maintain their working identity and to support their families
(Perna, 2010). Students frequently come to college expecting to balance work alongside their
academic and extracurricular activities.
36
Students can choose where they work, either on campus or off campus. Off-campus
positions often pay significantly more than on-campus jobs, providing students with immediate
benefits that on-campus employment may not provide (Empie, 2012). Both on-campus and off-
campus employment can yield positive outcomes and negative consequences. Research
conducted by Pike et al. (2008) indicates that students who engage in employment exceeding 20
hours per week demonstrate lower academic performance, suggesting a direct causal
relationship. Douglas and Attewell (2019) discovered that college students who work while
pursuing their education receive higher post-graduation earnings than their counterparts who do
not work during their college years. Students who work while in college build skills and
experiences that differentiate them from students who do not work, setting them apart and
justifying higher earnings.
Student Work at the University
University student-worker programs can provide college students with advantages related
to student success. A positive correlation exists between working on campus for 20 hours per
week or less and student success (Pike et al., 2008). Persistence, retention, and graduation rates
are positively correlated with student involvement in activities like on-campus work due to
psychological and sociological phenomena (McClellan et al., 2018). Students develop a sense of
belonging through on-campus employment, leading to increases in student success. Student
workers also benefit from the flexibility of work hours and the availability of professional
development opportunities. In addition, students who work on campus are more likely to pursue
postgraduate education (Ehrenberg & Sherman, 1987).
37
Types of Student Work. The United States federal government, which supplies a needs-
based work-study program, recommends that student employment positions align with students’
academic programs of study (Federal Student Aid, n.d.). Types of university student work vary
based on the functional unit and the student’s level of study and position. Federal work-study
positions are primarily located on campus, but there are instances where they are held off-
campus through agreements with specific employers.
Undergraduate Student Work. Higher education institutions employ undergraduate
student workers across multiple departments and functional units. On-campus employment
allows students to hold multiple positions throughout their academic careers to gain diverse
experiences. Resident advisors (RAs), peer tutors, and recruitment leaders or ambassadors are
just a few examples of positions available to undergraduate students.
Resident advisors are responsible for maintaining residence halls, enforcing rules,
promoting community, and helping students navigate college life (Wu, 2008). RAs not only
assist students and act as mentors, but RAs also work and reside in the same living spaces as the
students they serve. Wu analyzed RAs and their performance evaluations to understand the traits
that contribute to their productivity. RAs’ self-ratings of their performance do not align with the
ratings provided by others. RAs tend to rate themselves lower on evaluations than others rate
them. Wu points to the power dynamics inherent in the relationships between RAs and other
students. Consequently, administrators should acknowledge that RAs might perceive their own
productivity inaccurately. Productivity assessments conducted by peers and supervisors of RAs
can offer valuable insights.
University-employed tutors play a crucial role in enhancing student success by equipping
students with the necessary tools to complete their degrees. Problem-based learning is a
38
pedagogical approach that prompts students to analyze case studies, enhancing their critical
thinking abilities (Bligh, 1995). An assessment conducted by medical students regarding
problem-based learning tutors revealed that 75% of students who utilize tutoring services
perceive the tutor’s role as vital, but only 58% of students demonstrate a clear understanding of a
tutor’s responsibilities (AlHaqwi, 2014). Thus, student evaluations of tutors’ productivity might
not accurately reflect their effectiveness, and a comprehensive approach would be appropriate.
Students who work to recruit other students can have a direct impact on a useful
productivity measurement of a university: enrollment statistics. Students who work as
ambassadors can also be positively affected and are more likely to be retained themselves
(Green, 2018). Green also found that employing student ambassadors with lower socioeconomic
statuses positively affects the students’ entire educational careers. Therefore, a holistic
assessment for student ambassadors should include impacts on enrollment metrics as well as
various impacts on the student employees themselves.
Graduate Student Work. Graduate teaching assistants (TAs), as well as undergraduate
TAs, in STEM courses primarily oversee laboratory courses (Ruder & Stanford, 2018), while
graduate TAs in courses without laboratory components lecture and assess students (Magrino &
Sorrell, 2014). Graduate students might also take on the role of a research assistant. Generally,
research assistants gather and analyze data, test research tools, and create interpretive
presentations (Zippia, n.d.). Research on graduate assistant (GA) productivity is scarce.
However, university leaders might incorporate a 360-degree view of GAs incorporating
qualitative assessments, student outcomes, results of faculty-led projects, and analyses of
professional development.
39
College Students’ Motivations
The most commonly known types of motivations are intrinsic, extrinsic, and a
combination of the two. Extrinsic motivations affect intrinsic motivations, and vice versa
(Derfler-Rozin & Pitesa, 2020). Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000) is an
approach to looking at intrinsic and extrinsic motivations through the lens of a natural inclination
for human advancement coupled with the external resources to facilitate such advancement.
Student workers exhibit diverse motivations, including financial necessity, immigration
considerations, and prospects for professional networking, all stemming from the principles of
self-determination.
Deep intrinsic motivations for wanting to achieve, related to academic performance,
illustrate positive correlations between altruistic life goals and a deep approach to learning
(Wilding & Andrews, 2006). Conversely, a positive correlation is also identified between wealth
and status-oriented life goals and a surface-level approach to learning. Wilding and Andrews
concluded that a more comprehensive approach to academics forms a broader outlook on life.
Hence, strong intrinsic motivations foster a balanced and wholesome approach to life.
Universities can provide training and professional development workshops to explore the
motivations of their staff and student employees. Such initiatives can benefit student workers,
potentially enhancing their productivity and overall performance since healthy motivations have
been found to correlate positively with academic achievements (D’Lima et al., 2014).
Student Motivation for On-Campus Employment
In October 2022, 42.4% of full-time college students were actively engaged in the labor
force through employment or job-seeking (Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2023). Financial
considerations are major driving forces for students who choose to work while pursuing their
40
degrees. Sharp (2021) found that financial burdens contribute more significantly to students
leaving school than academic factors. However, insufficient data on motivations for seeking on-
campus employment limits conclusions about motivations for on-campus work.
Menges et al. (2017) established a connection between motivation and job performance
by building upon Yeager et al.’s (2014) study on motivations related to academic performance.
Family motivation emerged as a particularly influential factor, as positive influences of family
motivations make students’ work feel meaningful (Menges et al., 2017). Students who perceive
their work as meaningful tend to experience greater happiness and higher productivity.
University staff should recognize the impact of family motivation on student workers when
facilitating students’ on-campus employment.
People often analyze motivations through applications and interviews during search and
hiring processes. University administrators who hire student workers should consider
motivations and other factors to gain a more comprehensive understanding of an employee’s
performance related to productivity during their employment.
Motivation Purity Bias. Motivation purity bias refers to a phenomenon observed during
hiring practices, where unfair assumptions are made by exhibiting a preference for intrinsic
motivations over extrinsic motivations (Derfler-Rozin & Pitesa, 2020). Derfler-Rozin and Pitesa
(2020) give an example of a woman named Taylor Barnes who applied with a small start-up
company. After Barnes interviewed with the company, she emailed her interviewer to inquire
about salary expectations. The hiring manager responded to Taylor’s inquiry by emailing back
that Taylor’s priorities were not in line with the company’s and that employees should display
intrinsic motivation. The hiring manager also canceled Taylor’s second interview in the same
email.
41
Derler-Rozin and Pitesa (2020) go on to explain that the bias associated with assigning
value to intrinsic motivations is considered counterproductive to organizational goals.
Consequently, institutions of higher education should demonstrate awareness and actively avoid
motivation purity bias. Administrators who recruit and promote student workers should strive to
prevent unfair practices and instead cultivate a productive and diverse work environment. Failing
to acknowledge and address motivation purity bias can adversely impact well-intentioned
employees, and students can suffer as a result of the prejudice.
Derfler-Rozin and Pitesa (2020) further explain that strong extrinsic motivations do not
negate the presence of intrinsic motivations. Therefore, academic units that prioritize intrinsic
values, such as societal impact or environmental sustainability, should refrain from disqualifying
prospective student workers solely on the basis of their pronounced extrinsic motivations.
Financial Motivations
Students often express financial motivations as a significant impetus to seek employment
while attending college. Students often require funds, irrespective of scholarships and grants, to
cover the costs of supplies and living expenses. Ergo, university students tend to work to
augment their disposable income. However, financial motivations can exert a dual influence on a
student’s academic outcomes and work performance. Generally, aspirations for wealth and status
have been found to affect academic performance negatively (Wilding & Andrews, 2006), while
extrinsic motivations rooted in wealth have been associated with positive effects on work
performance (Derfler-Rozin & Pitesa, 2020). Simply desiring wealth does not give students
enough motivation to succeed academically, but a goal of future prosperity may contribute to
enhanced job performance.
42
International Student Motivations
On-campus student employment offers notable advantages for international students
studying in the United States on an active F-1 status (McFadden & Seedorff, 2017). International
students with an F-1 visa often pursue on-campus employment to facilitate the application for a
United States social security number and to make progress toward obtaining citizenship.
According to the United States’ Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), on-campus student employment is defined as “employment pursuant to the
terms of a scholarship, fellowship, or assistantship [that is deemed to be part of the academic
program of a student otherwise taking a full course of study” (U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, n.d.). It is worth noting that, at present, international students are ineligible for
federal work-study employment. Students with an F-1 visa are not allowed to work off-campus
during the first academic year (Students and employment, 2023).
Universities should provide services for international students’ career goals, especially if
the students were recruited to meet enrollment goals. On-campus work experience can help
international students secure off-campus work after graduation (McFadden & Seedorff, 2017).
Therefore, motivations for on-campus employment for international students are different than
students who are United States citizens studying in the United States.
Professional Networking Opportunities
Employers of student workers should recognize the connection between students’
approaches to academics and their approaches to other areas of life, including employment
(Wilding & Andrews, 2006). A social purpose can enhance perseverance and retention when
students encounter mundane academic tasks (Yeager et al., 2014, as cited in Menges et al.,
2017). Therefore, incorporating a social purpose in student workers’ roles could impact
43
productivity, particularly in monotonous positions. Further research is needed, however, to
determine the effects of a social purpose on student work. However, an example of a social
purpose that might benefit student workers is the opportunity for professional networking.
Jackson and Bridgstock (2020) recommend professional networking embedded with deep
engagement in the student’s field of study.
High-Quality Student Work
Mitola et al. (2018) studied literature related to student employment in academic libraries
and noted the importance of high-impact student work. The data identified six characteristics of
effective student employment practices:
1. Time and Effort
2. Faculty and Peer Interaction
3. Diversity
4. Formal and Informal Feedback
5. Integration, Synthesis, and Application
6. Connection
Mitola et al.’s (2018) study provides valuable insights into the strengths, weaknesses, and
areas for future research regarding utilizing student workers in academic libraries. The study
highlights several strengths, including the allocation of time and effort and the valuable
interactions between student workers, faculty, and peers within the library setting. However, the
study also identifies areas of weakness, particularly in relation to promoting student success by
fostering skills that extend beyond the scope of student employment. Enhancing the student
worker’s experience can be achieved by effectively conveying the significance of their work and
its broader impact.
44
Barbalace et al. (2022) reinforce the findings of Mitola et al. (2018) by demonstrating
that student library workers exhibit higher productivity levels when reminded of the significance
of their work and the library’s mission. It is crucial for supervisors in various functional units,
including libraries, to remind student workers about the importance of their contributions. These
supervisors can also play a pivotal role in developing and exemplifying the unit’s mission,
vision, and core values.
Mitola et al. (2018) underscore the importance of student productivity in academic
libraries, which is a key consideration in determining the areas where student workers can be
effectively utilized. Hiring and deploying student workers based on productivity measures not
only result in reduced wage costs for libraries but also ensure the efficient completion of routine
tasks. Similarly, functional units employing student workers can quantify the impact of these
individuals as they engage in tasks that enhance the unit’s functionality.
Several areas warranting further research exist, such as the effect of using formal and
informal feedback mechanisms and evaluation measures (Mitola et al., 2018). Additionally, there
is a need for enhanced transparency and discussion regarding student employment. Engaging in
conversations between functional units regarding the utilization of student workers may lead to
more productive outcomes for both the units themselves and the universities that aim to establish
high-quality student worker programs.
The Iowa GROW© (The University of Iowa, n.d.) program is a comprehensive student
worker program that leverages structured conversations to facilitate the integration of classroom
skills with on-campus work experiences. Four specific questions guide the structured
conversations:
1. How does the student’s on-campus job fit with their academic program?
45
2. What is the student learning in their on-campus job that is helping them in their academic
program?
3. What is the student learning in their academic program that they can apply to their on-
campus job?
4. What are some examples of things the student has learned in their on-campus job that they
might use in their future career?
The rationale behind the Iowa GROW© (The University of Iowa, n.d.) program is that
students appear to understand the skills they are learning in on-campus positions and how those
skills transfer to the workforce, but they cannot articulate how their academic programs are
incorporating these skills. McClellan et al. (2018) showcase the importance of incorporating
academics into on-campus student work, and the Iowa GROW© program seeks to deliver a
method for supervisors of student workers to connect academics to on-campus work. The Iowa
GROW© program does not explicitly incorporate productivity measures that showcase
quantifiable achievements.
Further research is imperative to develop a precise and comprehensive definition of
student worker productivity. The studies conducted by Barbalace et al. (2022) and Mitola et al.
(2018) and the literature they examined did not clearly describe how productivity was
conceptualized and measured. Consequently, there is a critical gap in the literature concerning
the operationalization of student worker productivity, emphasizing the need for the forthcoming
study to establish a well-defined framework and assessment criteria.
Work Related to Academic Programming
High-quality on-campus work includes tasks related to academic programming
(McClellan et al., 2018). In contrast, Empie (2012) contends that the relevance of student work
46
to their academic program or future career is not essential for impacting persistence. However,
McClellan et al. (2018) counter this argument by asserting that students are more likely to
persevere when they can discover personal significance and applicability in their work.
Supervisors should strive to integrate academic principles that promote meaningful connections
into on-campus work. Connections between academics and on-campus work could result in a
higher level of persistence compared to the impact generated by on-campus work that does not
connect with academics.
Borin (2001) conducted a study focusing on student workers in a library setting and
recommends the integration of professionalism into students’ academic programs. A correlation
exists between academics and student work, and this connection should be acknowledged by all
who employ student workers on campus.
Educators who teach curricula that integrate employability qualities should ensure that
students are aware of those qualities and any professional resources available beyond the
confines of the classroom (Smith et al., 2017). Faculty members who deliberately prioritize
cultivating career readiness within their instructional approach can yield a favorable return on
investment. Programs incorporating hands-on experiences, like internships, co-operatives, and
practicums, should emphasize the importance of skills that enhance students’ marketability to
prospective employers. Fede et al. (2018) recognize the potential for educators to leverage
student employment as a model for experiential learning, thereby aligning with the findings of
Smith et al. (2017) regarding employability. Supervisors overseeing student workers should
emphasize the value of activities that promote both academic and professional growth.
47
Development of Key Soft Skills
Employers place valid importance on the showcasing of key soft skills, yet many recent
college graduates exhibit deficiencies (National Association of Colleges and Employers
[NACE], 2022). Students aspiring to pursue professional careers should seek out opportunities
that allow them to develop key soft skills (Fede et al., 2018). Students can develop soft skills in
the classroom and the workplace. Universities have a unique role in facilitating the development
of key soft skills among students, offering opportunities for growth in both academic and work
settings through student employment. Employers value soft skills such as leadership,
communication, time management, collaboration, and critical thinking when evaluating potential
candidates (NACE, 2022).
A significant correlation exists between students’ use of their university career centers
and academic success (Clayton et al., 2019). First-year students who engage with career service
centers have a graduation rate that is 15% higher compared to those who do not utilize career
services. Career centers play a vital role in supporting students not only in their academic and
career development but also in facilitating student employment initiatives. Career centers and
other institutional units can enhance student persistence by promoting programs that address time
management and the art of balancing academic commitments with work responsibilities (Gupton
et al., 2009; as cited in Empie, 2012).
Progressive Responsibilities and Leadership. Employers consistently prioritize
leadership qualities when hiring recent college graduates (NACE, 2022). A robust student
employment program should focus on progressive leadership development (Perozzi, 2019).
Student workers can cultivate leadership skills by engaging in mentoring initiatives during their
college careers. Peer-to-peer mentoring within on-campus positions can yield progressive
48
leadership qualities when mentors help facilitate a unit’s hiring, onboarding, training, and
evaluation functions.
Significance of Student Work on the University
Student workers play a pivotal role in handling day-to-day operational responsibilities,
allowing full-time staff to focus on higher-level tasks. Additionally, student workers often serve
as the frontline representatives of university departments. Mitola et al. (2018) discovered that a
substantial majority (84.49%) of student positions within academic libraries involve customer
service and assistance duties. Moreover, student workers serve as valuable conduits for
administrators to comprehend the evolving needs and desires of the student population they
serve. Student employers can optimize the efficiency and productivity of their teams by
effectively utilizing student workers across diverse tasks while benefiting from their valuable
insight.
Recognition of Students’ Needs and Wants
The expectations and experiences of students strongly influence their persistence and
retention. (Mackay et al., 2019; Tinto, 2012). Student workers serve as valuable sources of real-
time insights into the needs and preferences of the student body. Student workers might represent
a small sample size compared to the overall student population, but their perspectives are crucial
as student workers often provide honest and candid opinions. Student affairs units play a pivotal
role in developing and implementing programs that cater to the diverse needs of the student body
and adapt to their evolving requirements (McClellan et al., 2018). University administrators can
strategically harness the potential of student workers to maximize student engagement in
programs that positively impact enrollment, persistence, and retention.
49
On-Campus Employment: Persistence, Retention, and Graduation
Administrators must strive to effectively design student-worker programs for optimal
student engagement and university productivity outcomes. Effective student-work positions have
been found to contribute to positive student engagement, increased retention rates, and enhanced
career readiness (Burnside et al., 2019).
Research suggests universities can enhance student retention by offering on-campus
student positions requiring 20 hours or less per week (Pike et al., 2008). McClellan et al. (2018)
propose an even shorter time commitment of 10-15 hours per week for student workers. Students
who engage in on-campus work during their first year of college are twice as likely to be retained
compared to those who do not work on campus (Bluml, 2019). Tinto (2012) found a positive
correlation between both living and working on campus – particularly during the first year of
college – and increased retention rates. Bluml’s (2019) study further suggests that working on
campus is a stronger predictor of retention than solely living on campus.
Future Employer Considerations for University Student Workers
Employers expect high levels of professionalism and leadership capabilities from recent
college graduates (NACE, 2022). Employers projected a 26.6% increase in new-graduate hires in
2023. However, employers express that they are encountering a significant gap between their
expectations and the proficiency of recent college graduates’ job skills. For instance, 98.5% of
employers deem communication skills very or extremely important on a Likert scale. Yet, only
54.3% of employers believe recent college graduates are very or extremely proficient in
communication skills. The pattern of key skills in recent college graduates is consistent across all
of NACE’s career-readiness competencies, as shown in Chapter I, Figure 1.1.
50
University administrators possess a unique opportunity to help address the discrepancies
in career-readiness competencies outlined by NACE (2023), noted in Figure 1.1, through high-
quality on-campus student employment programs. Intentional measurement of the outcomes of
such programs can contribute to the strategic objectives of the universities. Perozzi (2019)
supports this, asserting that universities that actively engage students in leadership development,
including developing soft skills highlighted by NACE and demonstrating successful outcomes,
can attract a larger student population through student employment initiatives.
Career-Readiness Competencies
NACE (2022) provides a comprehensive list and detailed definitions of eight distinct
career-readiness competencies that can be used to provide a clear framework that guides the
assessment of outcomes within academics and through co-curricular activities.
The eight career-readiness competencies, as outlined by NACE, are:
1. Career and Self-Development
2. Communication
3. Critical Thinking
4. Equity and Inclusion
5. Leadership
6. Professionalism
7. Teamwork
8. Technology
The career-readiness competencies were developed by a task force of NACE members
who worked in one of three roles in member universities: career services, university relations,
and recruiting (NACE, 2022). The competencies were developed between 2015 and 2017 and
51
were revised in 2020. Employers indicated, in 2022, that communication and critical thinking
were the most important of the competencies. Therefore, employers of student workers should
emphasize communication and critical thinking skills as they develop high-quality student
employment programs, and the productivity measures of student work should reflect
communication and critical thinking.
Productivity Considerations for Future Employers
Cropanzano and Wright (2001) refined a thesis that correlates happy workers with
productive workers. Cropanzano and Wright underscore the importance of defining what factors
contribute to employees’ happiness. The underlying principle of the investigation remains that
happier employees tend to be more productive compared to unhappy employees. However,
further research is needed to delve into the factors contributing to employee happiness,
particularly in light of the recent Great Resignation phenomenon, when millions left their jobs
following the COVID-19 pandemic (Fuller & Kerr, 2022). Fuller and Kerr also reveal that the
trend of increased resignations has been prevalent for more than a decade, with the pandemic
only intensifying the movement. Therefore, the need for a conducive and happy work
environment, which promotes productivity, seems to have been a long-standing requirement.
Summary
Social norms shape college students’ identities and influence their behavior and
engagement in academic and extracurricular activities. Students who work on campus develop a
sense of belonging within the university community, contributing to their retention and overall
productivity. The role of universities in shaping student workers’ identities is crucial, as they
provide opportunities for skill development and preparation for future professional careers.
52
The social and psychological dimensions of learning and identity formation are necessary
for student worker programs. Employers should recognize the influence of students’ individual,
social, and professional identities and tailor programs accordingly. Creating inclusive and
supportive environments that promote a sense of belonging can increase student workers’
openness, willingness to perform, and overall productivity.
Educators who prioritize cultivating career readiness can yield positive outcomes.
Integrating professionalism into students’ academic programs is recommended, as is integrating
professional interests into student work. Furthermore, programs that provide hands-on
experience should emphasize developing skills that enhance students’ marketability. Functional
units can contribute to student success by promoting student worker programs that address key
soft skills, such as critical thinking, leadership, and effective communication.
More qualitative data regarding student worker productivity is needed to support
universities’ strategic goals. Measures that are difficult to capture, such as student worker
productivity, should not be ignored simply because it is hard to identify. The forthcoming study
will aim to address the difficult-to-measure concept of student-worker productivity.
53
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
The preceding literature review explored high-quality student work and emphasized the
importance of developing essential soft skills to contribute to productivity. The literature review
identified specific areas in student work performance that can enhance career-readiness
competencies and benefit future employers, specifically tying student work to academics and
providing areas for professional growth. This chapter elucidates the approach and techniques
adopted to investigate and generate meaningful insights for the study. The current chapter
outlines the methodology that will be utilized to address the research questions.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to examine and establish a comprehensive understanding of a
productive university student worker. The existing literature on the topic presents notable gaps,
particularly regarding the productivity of student workers. Therefore, the researcher aims to
analyze existing productivity measures and expectations to develop a framework pertaining to
productive university student workers. The findings from the study will serve as a valuable
resource for leaders and decision-makers who are invested in the placement of productive
student workers. The study will culminate with recommendations that can benefit the following
groups of stakeholders:
• Students - Benefits to the student workers include knowledge of how their roles impact the
units as well as the university, professional development and skill building, and opportunities
to relate their work to their academic and professional interests.
• Functional Units - Benefits to academic and support functional units include task completion
that positively impacts revenues and expenditures and support of departmental missions.
54
• Universities - Benefits to universities include positive effects on enrollment, retention, and
graduation rates.
• Future Employers - Benefits to future employers include a robust and productive workforce.
University administrators who understand what it means to be a productive student
worker could positively impact their recruiting, hiring, training, promoting, and mentoring
opportunities for students. Further, the study has the potential to guide universities in shifting
from a reactive budgeting approach to a more balanced and proactive method that recognizes and
leverages the contributions of productive student workers.
Research Design
The study’s primary objective is to provide a comprehensive definition of a productive
university student worker. Therefore, the researcher will examine existing documentation
pertaining to on-campus student employment while conducting interviews and focus groups with
student workers, their direct supervisors, and their indirect supervisors. The study employs a
qualitative, multi-level case study methodology, incorporating document review and analysis and
a grounded theory design. Qualitative research is appropriate as it allows for an in-depth
exploration of specific situations of individuals’ experiences (Maxwell, 2013). A case-study
approach is appropriate because it will encompass various facets of student worker productivity
through multiple distinct experiences, giving a holistic understanding to the study.
Cardno (2018) states that educational leaders must analyze policy documents to gain
deeper insights into complex issues. Document review and analysis is a cost-effective and
manageable method for researchers to triangulate their case study findings. The researcher will
perform document review prior to one-on-one interviews and focus groups. Documents will
inform the researcher on perceptions of student work prior to interviews and focus groups.
55
Documents will inform the interview and focus group questions. Documents regarding university
student employment will assist the study by providing additional data to compare and contrast
with the information gathered from the case study participants. Therefore, the case study will be
enriched by the inclusion of document review and analysis, strengthening its overall validity.
Researchers value the grounded theory method as it helps derive meaning from data and
advance their understanding of the world (Williams & Moser, 2019). Grounded theory is defined
as “a qualitative strategy in which the researcher derives a general, abstract theory of a process,
action, or interaction grounded in the views of participants in a study” (Creswell & Creswell,
2022, p. 264). The primary objective of grounded theory is to facilitate researchers in
constructing new theories that enrich existing knowledge (LaRossa, 2005). Grounded theory
empowers researchers to engage in critical thinking while analyzing textual information obtained
from documents and case studies. The flexibility of the grounded theory method allows
researchers to adapt and modify its procedures to align with their specific research objectives and
requirements.
LaRossa (2005) gives five specific principles of the grounded theory method:
1. A researcher must thoroughly and unbiasedly analyze all written text because our social lives
revolve around language.
2. The connection between the written text and the researcher’s mind is often saturated with
relatable lived experiences.
3. Coding must be built on a systematic and empirical foundation.
4. The goal is to describe how variables are related.
5. The researcher can choose one variable to ground the theory, which will be the central focus
of the researcher’s “story.”
56
Grounded theory seeks to tie (or ground) indicators and concepts together (LaRossa,
2005). Grounded theory’s coding procedures play a vital role in the research model. The coding
procedures of grounded theory design involve three specific phases: open coding, axial coding,
and selective coding. Grounded theory coding procedures are appropriate for the study because
they enable the researcher to identify common themes by looking for indicators in documents
and in transcripts gained from participant responses. Grounded theory coding procedures will be
utilized in analyzing documents and interview and focus group transcriptions. Further stratified
coding can then determine what social concepts might answer the research questions. The
researcher will use grounded theory coding procedures to ground indicators and concepts related
to student workers, productivity, and the expectations of three specific stakeholders: student
workers, their direct supervisors, and their indirect supervisors.
Research Questions
The study primarily seeks to understand what it means to be a productive university
student worker by asking RQ1: What does it mean to be a productive university student worker?
The following secondary research questions will support the primary research question.
RQ2: How is a “student worker” defined?
RQ3: How are the expectations of student workers determined?
RQ4: How are expectations shared with student workers?
RQ5: How is productivity defined for student workers?
RQ6: How is productivity measured for student workers?
The primary and secondary research questions were formulated to narrow down the scope
of the study and facilitate a comprehensive exploration of the topic.
57
Population
The researcher will conduct the study at a four-year regional public university in western
Kentucky with a Fall 2022 enrollment of 9,489. The university is classified as a Master’s
University with larger programs, according to the American Council on Education (ACE)’s
Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (Murray State University, 2022). The
state of Kentucky has issued guidance for college students’ workplace-readiness outcomes
similar to the NACE (2022) career-readiness competencies (Kentucky graduate profile, n.d.).
Kentucky state legislators have determined the following 10 essential soft skills college
graduates should possess.
1. Effective Communication
2. Critical Thinking
3. Effective Interaction with Diverse Populations
4. Quantitative Reasoning
5. Adaptability
6. Professionalism
7. Civic Engagement
8. Teamwork
9. Evidence-based Knowledge
10. Informed Decision Making
The university that will be studied participated in the National Survey of Student
Engagement (NSSE), most recently in 2018. The NSSE (2018) indicates that 545 first-year
students and 794 seniors work on campus while pursuing their undergraduate degrees. The
university’s compliance coordinator in the Student Financial Services Office, S. Bourland
58
(personal communication, April 18, 2023), provided additional information regarding the current
breakdown of student workers at this university. The data revealed that 1,869 students are
employed as student workers, representing approximately 20% of the total student population. A
total of 271 students are employed through the Federal Work-Study program, while 1,380
students are employed through departmental funding.
Table 3.1 presents a comprehensive overview of the student workers across the campus.
The departments in which students work are the President’s Office, Academic Affairs, Student
Affairs and Enrollment Management, Athletics, Finance and Administrative Services,
Development, Alumni Relations, and various third-party contracted organizations.
Southeast Service Company (SSC), a third-party organization responsible for custodial
and grounds services, employs 12 students on the campus (B. Key, personal communication,
April 24, 2023). On-campus third-party food and beverage providers employ 105 students (M.
Cochran, personal communication April 24, 2023).
A subset of 91 students employed on the campus was identified by S. Bourland (personal
communication, April 24, 2023) as graduate assistants (GAs). The subset of GAs includes eight
instructional support GAs, 29 teaching GAs, 26 research GAs, 19 administrative GAs, and 19
service GAs.
The inclusion of data regarding third-party on-campus student employment and the
categorization of graduate assistants within the larger group of student workers will provide a
comprehensive view of the employment landscape on the campus. The specific figures will
further enhance the understanding of the various roles and distributions of student workers on the
campus.
59
Table 3.1
Breakdown of Student Workers in the Study’s Population
Department
Number of Student
Workers
Percentage of the Total Number of
Student Workers (1,869)
Academic Affairs
859
45.9%
Student Affairs and Enrollment
Management
409
21.9%
Finance and Administrative
Services
314
16.8%
Athletics
139
7.4%
Third-Party Organizations
117
6.3%
Development
18
0.9%
Alumni Relations
8
0.4%
President’s Office
5
0.3%
Participants
The study will involve three distinct groups of participants: student workers, direct
supervisors, and indirect supervisors. Each group will be considered a collective case within a
multi-level case study. The study’s student participants consist of undergraduate and graduate
students engaged in on-campus employment. Full-time university employees who are also taking
classes are not considered student workers, and they will not be considered for the study.
The direct supervisors of student workers will be identified as the individuals to whom
the student workers typically directly report. Direct supervisors commonly hold the
responsibility of overseeing the students’ work duties and monitoring their participation.
Examples of direct supervisors may include administrative assistants, project managers,
coordinators, assistant directors, and directors. Direct supervisors’ insights and perspectives will
60
provide valuable information regarding student workers’ day-to-day supervision and
management.
The study will also involve indirect supervisors who are functional unit leaders within the
university. Indirect supervisors may include managers, coordinators, assistant directors,
directors, department chairs, deans, vice presidents, and provosts. Indirect supervisors’
viewpoints will provide a broader understanding of the organizational and administrative context
within which student workers operate.
The researcher anticipates that including three distinct sets of participants will help
clearly define the roles and expectations of student workers at the university. The approach will
ensure that the perspectives of various stakeholders involved in the employment of students on
campus are captured, contributing to a more nuanced and comprehensive analysis.
Sampling Procedures and Data Collection
The researcher will conduct a thorough document review that will begin prior to
participant interviews and focus groups. The document review will inform the interview
questions by informing the researcher of current written standards. The document review will
encompass both university-wide and unit-specific documents, both publicly available and
internal. The researcher will conduct a website search for any documents related to student work
at the university. The researcher will also request documents from each campus unit that relate to
student work. The researcher aims to identify themes in the documents related to the productivity
and expectations of student workers. The document review will serve as a valuable insight that
will help to inform subsequent interviews and focus groups.
Maxwell (2013) argues that researchers are justified in selecting samples for a case study
based on the study’s goals. Purposeful selection/sampling is best suited for small-scale
61
qualitative case studies, as opposed to random sampling, which is too unpredictable. Maxwell
makes a distinction between purposeful selection and convenience sampling, which is neither
purposeful nor strategic. Therefore, the researcher will utilize purposeful selection by contacting
the university’s student financial services compliance officer to obtain a list of current students
employed by the university. The researcher will also personally invite staff and faculty of the
university who directly or indirectly supervise student workers.
The researcher will invite all who are identified as either a student worker, a direct
supervisor of student workers, or an indirect supervisor of student workers to sign up for either a
small-scale focus group (less than 10 participants) or a one-on-one interview. The researcher will
organize face-to-face interviews and focus groups in order to gain greater participation and more
data. The researcher will identify several separate blocks of time within a two-month period that
respondents can choose from for either a focus group or a one-on-one interview. The researcher
will ask the respondents to submit their preferred meeting times electronically. If the researcher
finds that there is too little participation for in-person interviews and focus groups, the researcher
will conduct interviews and focus groups via Zoom, an online video chat tool. The researcher
will initially email each potential participant an invitation, and if too little response is received
after three business days, the researcher will follow up with a phone call. The researcher will
email all who signed up for a focus group or interview a reminder one business day prior to their
scheduled session.
The researcher will use information gathered from the interviews and focus groups to
serve as case studies. Case studies will include the student worker(s), the department or unit in
which they work on campus, their direct supervisor(s), and their indirect supervisor(s). The case-
study groups represent a breadth of the intended population. The sample is clearly defined, which
62
reduces the potential for researcher bias in selecting participants. Additionally, recruiting a larger
sample size will help increase the sample’s diversity and reduce the impact of outliers.
Therefore, the potential self-selection bias is minimized by inviting all student workers, all direct
supervisors of student workers, and all indirect supervisors of student workers.
The researcher will not use any exclusion criteria, and all voluntary participants’
responses will be analyzed. The researcher will digitally record in-person and potential Zoom
interviews and focus groups. Any Zoom recordings will be transcribed using Zoom transcribing
software. The digital recordings from in-person interviews and focus groups will be transcribed
using Otter.ai online software. Transcriptions will be verified by the researcher and by the
participants.
Risk, Voluntary Participation, Confidentiality, Anonymity, and Data Security
The purposeful selection of research participants poses some social and confidentiality
risks. The researcher knows the participants’ identities. However, responses will be kept
confidential throughout the research process. No physical, economic, or academic risks are
associated with the study. Overall, there are minimal risks associated with taking part in the
study. The researcher will obtain and properly document informed consent from each
prospective participant.
All participants will be studied voluntarily, and the researcher will notify each participant
that they can remove themselves from the study at any time. The researcher anticipates no
conflicts of interest or problems of undue interest with the study. The researcher will not
compensate participants of the study, and there will be no benefits to participating in the study.
Participants of focus groups will be required to sign a confidentiality agreement to
address the confidentiality and anonymity concerns associated with focus group participation.
63
The researcher will audio record participants during their interviews and focus groups. Minimal
risk is associated with audio recording and transcribing interviews and focus groups.
Nevertheless, the researcher will discard the names of participants after the transcription is
approved by the participant and entered, replacing each name with a unique identifier related
only to the position the participant holds: student, direct supervisor, or indirect supervisor.
Department information will be redacted from documents after analysis. The researcher will not
collect any demographic data, as it is irrelevant to the study. The research questions do not
address any demographic information, and collecting such data can be considered unethical.
The researcher sought and gained Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval before
contacting potential participants. IRB approval was confirmed on May 1, 2023. The researcher
will give all participants a copy of the approved IRB consent form prior to participation. The
researcher will advise all participants that all recorded data will remain stored on a password-
protected external hard drive by the faculty mentor at Murray State University. The researcher
will inform participants that data will be maintained for three years upon completion of the
study.
Document Review
Documents pertaining to student employment at the research site will provide valuable
information to inform the researcher’s interview questions and assist with any clarifying
questions. Documents can enable researchers to understand the language and words that
interview participants might use (Creswell & Creswell, 2022). The researcher will review
documents at the university and the departmental levels that pertain to student employment prior
to conducting interviews and focus groups. The document review will include publicly available
and internal student training and evaluation materials. According to recent NASPA data, 80% of
64
institutions either do not require student evaluations or leave it to the discretion of supervisors or
departments (Burnside et al., 2019). Therefore, document review is appropriate in the study since
it is likely that each functional unit will have varied concepts related to student worker
productivity. The researcher will later analyze public and internal documents related to student
employment, coding and generating themes to assist with defining a productive university
student worker.
Interviews and Focus Groups
The researcher will interview three groups of participants either individually or as part of
a focus group. Groups will not comingle. The researcher will ask the following questions, along
with clarifying questions. The questions are subject to change pending the document review.
1. Student workers - Current university student workers, undergraduate and graduate level, will
be asked the following questions:
• “What is your idea of a productive student worker at this university?”
• “How do you define ‘student worker’?”
• “What are the expectations of you, as a student worker?”
• “Were any expectations of you discussed with you by your supervisor or department
head?”
• “To your knowledge, were there any expectations given to you by your department in
a written form?”
• “What is your idea of ‘productivity’ or ‘being productive’?”
• “Would you say your productivity is currently being measured by your department? If
so, how?”
• “What were your motivations for seeking student employment on campus?”
65
• “What would make your student employment experience more fulfilling?”
2. Direct Supervisors - Employees who directly supervise student workers will be asked the
following questions:
• “What is your idea of a productive student worker at this university?”
• “How do you define ‘student worker’?”
• “What are the expectations of the student workers you supervise?”
• “Are expectations of student workers discussed with your students by you or anyone
else on staff?”
• “To your knowledge, are there any expectations given to your student workers in a
written form?”
• “What is your general idea of ‘productivity’ or ‘being productive’?”
• “Would you say your student workers’ productivity is currently being measured by
your department? If so, how?”
3. Indirect Supervisors - Functional unit leaders, who work with student workers, will be asked
the following questions:
• “What is your idea of a productive student worker at this university?”
• “How do you define ‘student worker’?”
• “What are the expectations of the student workers you supervise?”
• “Are expectations of student workers discussed with your students by you or anyone
else on staff?”
• “To your knowledge, are there any expectations given to your student workers in a
written form?”
• “What is your general idea of ‘productivity’ or ‘being productive’?”
66
• “Would you say your student workers’ productivity is currently being measured by
your department? If so, how?”
Lindheim (2022) recognizes the importance of participant validation, also known as
member checking, in research about values in a work environment. The study will utilize
member checking to determine the accuracy of transcripts so that researcher bias can be avoided.
The researcher will transcribe responses to interview questions and focus groups and then email
transcriptions to each participant to determine the accuracy of the transcripts.
Procedures for Data Analysis
Data analysis will include document analysis and transcript analysis derived from
interviews and focus groups with student workers, direct supervisors, and indirect supervisors.
The researcher will analyze documents pertaining to student employment by winnowing the data,
which will result in approximately five themes. The researcher will hand code themes after a
thorough read of the documents. Hand coding is the process of organizing aggregate data by
segmenting chunks of information and titling each chunk with a specific theme related to the
research question (Creswell & Creswell, 2022).
The grounded theory method utilizes a three-phase coding technique to generate theory
(LaRossa, 2005). The researcher will use open coding first to create broad, thematic, conceptual
domains. The researcher will identify and organize similar words and phrases into codes from
the documents and transcripts. The researcher will then note themes that emerge. The researcher
will use axial coding next to further refine and align themes. The researcher will then finalize
categories by comparing themes to determine relatability, creating an axis point from which to
work. Finally, the researcher will utilize selective coding to integrate themes into more
67
meaningful concepts. The researcher will establish and adhere to consistent coding procedures
throughout the analysis.
The researcher will protect the identity of all functional units and all participants by
assigning pseudonyms to documents and research participants. Documents will be referred to as
Doc1, Doc2, Doc 3, etc. All documents will remain confidential and will not be cited in text nor
listed in the reference list, because doing so would compromise anonymity, which is acceptable
in a qualitative case study (American Psychological Association, 2020). Participants who are
student workers will be referred to as S1, S2, S3, etc. Participants who are direct supervisors of
student workers will be referred to as D1, D2, D3, etc. Participants who are indirect supervisors
of student workers will be referred to as I1, I2, I3, etc.
Summary
The study aims to fill gaps in the existing literature by examining productivity measures
for productive student worker programs. The methodology includes a qualitative, multi-level
case study using document review and analysis, interviews and focus groups with student
workers, their direct supervisors, and their indirect supervisors. The researcher will utilize
grounded theory hand coding procedures to analyze the data. The research questions focus on
defining a student worker, determining expectations, and understanding student worker
productivity. The study will be conducted at a regional public university in western Kentucky.
The study will include a review of any documentation related to student work along with focus
group and interview transcripts from undergraduate and graduate student workers and their direct
and indirect supervisors. The researcher will use purposeful sampling. The researcher will ensure
voluntary participation and data security. The researcher will keep documents confidential, and
identifying information will be redacted from transcripts.
68
The study will contribute to the development of an emerging theory and expand the
understanding of student worker productivity. The study holds the potential to pave the way for
future studies, enabling further strengthening of the emerging theory and broader insights into
the topic. The study also holds the potential to inform practitioners on best practices and possible
improvement of university student worker programs.
69
CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
The study investigates the perceptions and evaluations of productivity among university
student workers. The researcher aims to address knowledge gaps related to on-campus student
work, focusing on productivity measures and expectations. The researcher intends to construct a
comprehensive framework that can assist university leaders in developing effective student-
worker programs.
The primary research question was:
RQ1: What does it mean to be a productive university student worker?
The secondary research questions were:
RQ2: How is “student worker” defined?
RQ3: How are the expectations of student workers determined?
RQ4: How are expectations shared with student workers?
RQ5: How is productivity defined for student workers?
RQ6: How is productivity measured for student workers?
Social Exchange Theory and Grounded Theory served as the guiding theoretical
frameworks for this qualitative study. The study involved document review and analysis as well
as focus groups and individual interviews with three distinct groups of stakeholders: student
workers, direct supervisors, and indirect supervisors of student workers.
The researcher conducted the study at a four-year regional public university in western
Kentucky, with a total enrollment of 9,489 in the 2022/2023 academic year. The researcher
included all on-campus student workers in the investigation, encompassing undergraduate and
graduate students and those working in various capacities such as departmental, Federal Work-
70
Study, third-party entities, academic affairs, student affairs, and finance and administrative
services.
Document Review
The researcher contacted 50 distinct functional units on campus to obtain documents
related to student work in the offices and departments (e.g., functional units, units) across the
campus. The researcher obtained 26 individual sets of documentation spanning 28 functional
units. The researcher discovered that two units used identical replicas of documentation already
utilized by other related units. Additionally, 19 units confirmed the absence of written documents
pertaining to on-campus student employment. The researcher hand-coded the documents,
looking for themes and seeking to answer the research questions. Documents were given
pseudonyms Doc1 – Doc 26. The researcher noted the following codes during the document
review:
• Professionalism - noted in 13 documents
• Representatives of the functional unit - noted in eight documents
• Representatives of the university - noted in eight documents
• Dress code policies - noted in 16 documents
• Assigned shifts - noted in 18 documents
• Communication/Teamwork - noted in 15 documents
• Earbud/Headphone policies - noted in eight documents
• Visitor policies - noted in 13 documents
• Food/Drink policies - noted in 12 documents
• Cell phone/Social media policies - noted in 14 documents
• Homework policies - noted in 13 documents
71
• Telephone answering procedures - noted in 21 documents
• Greeting visitors - noted in 17 documents
• Checklists/To-do lists - noted in 16 documents
• Importance of never giving a wrong answer/Importance of asking for help or clarification -
noted in eight documents
FERPA/Confidentiality - noted in 18 documents
The researcher encountered two refusals to provide documentation related to on-campus
student work. One functional unit attributed the refusal to concerns about sensitive information
in the student-worker documents, such as usernames, passwords, and specific procedures.
Another functional unit produced no documents despite the researchers’ multiple email and
phone attempts. However, a representative acknowledged that the unit does have written
procedures for student workers.
The researcher hand-coded documents in relation to the primary and secondary research
questions within the context of the Social Exchange Theory and Grounded Theory frameworks.
After winnowing the data, the researcher identified three overarching themes: Student workers
are to show professionalism, act as representatives of the unit and the university, and be helpful
by performing operations specific to their unit.
“Professionalism” in Documents
The terms professional or professionalism were used in 13 of the 26 documents received,
although no documents defined professionalism. Therefore, interpretation of professionalism is
subjective. For instance, the functional unit associated with Doc1 notes that its student workers’
objectives are to “provide information and guidance for appropriate professional conduct when
serving as representatives of [the unit].” Doc1 also encourages students to “Be friendly and
72
professional” when answering phones and to “Show professional behavior” by following a dress
code while on duty. Doc1, however, does not explicitly define professionalism, nor does any
other document that the researcher received and reviewed. Merriam-Webster’s (n.d.) most
applicable definition of professionalism in the research context is “exhibiting a courteous,
conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace.” The researcher noted many
recurring aspects of the researcher’s interpretation of professionalism for student workers
through document review, and one is appropriate dress.
The document review revealed that student workers must dress modestly while on duty.
Among the 26 documents received, 16 included dress code policies or statements. Some units,
such as those that supplied Doc10 and Doc11, have adopted detailed and specific guidelines
regulating the length of shorts and skirts, the acceptability of certain types of shirts, and
restrictions on tank tops and strapless garments. Although this section of the respective
documents was identical between Doc10 and Doc11, other units varied in their dress code
policies. For instance, the unit that provided Doc5 streamlines the dress code by providing
sanctioned polo shirts to their student workers, indicating, “Students who are on the clock need
to be wearing their [functional unit] polo or business professional clothing.”
The document review revealed other aspects of student worker professionalism, such as
punctuality and staying on task. The document review revealed that student workers must adhere
to their designated shifts and fulfill tasks assigned by their direct supervisors. Among the 26
documents received, 18 contained phrases relating to working assigned shifts. For example,
Doc4 states, “Please strive to work the hours you are assigned. Arrive on time and do not leave
early.”
73
Tasks and special projects are often passed from one student worker to another due to
short shifts. In such cases, effective communication and teamwork between student workers and
between students and staff become essential for the team’s overall productivity. Fifteen of the 26
documents received included phrases regarding completing tasks within a team environment.
Doc18 advises, “If you are working on a special project for someone, be sure to explain it to the
next person who comes in so they know what is going on.” Additionally, Doc20 emphasizes, “If
you must leave before a task is complete, be sure the administrative assistant knows what has
been finished and what remains to finish.”
Student workers are subject to policies prohibiting or restricting distractions during their
shifts. Among the 26 documents received, eight included earbud/headphone policies, with some
employing emphatic statements like Doc18’s “ABSOLUTELY NO EAR BUDS CAN BE
WORN WHILE AT WORK!!” Conversely, other functional units permit earbuds, provided they
do not cause distractions. For instance, Doc20’s policy stipulates:
Earbuds/airpods are allowed during work but refrain from using them to watch videos on
your phone. If the device is causing you to be distracted from the task at hand, you will
be asked to put it and the earbuds/airpods away.
Student workers are also expected to limit visitors, as indicated in 13 of the 26 documents
received, each containing policies addressing this matter. For example, Doc13’s policies
emphasize that interactions with visitors, including conversations with coworkers, should not be
disruptive or include inappropriate content like profanity or gossip. Additionally, Doc13 clarifies
that office visits from non-staff members are permissible for brief periods while still reminding
student workers to prioritize their responsibilities.
74
Furthermore, maintaining a professional and non-distracting working environment for
student workers sometimes requires adherence to a food and drink policy. Twelve of the 26
documents contained statements regarding food and drink. Doc20’s policy, for instance, advises
against eating meals at the desk while allowing for small snacks and beverages.
Thirteen of the 26 documents received contain specific homework policies. The
researcher found that 12 functional units that provided written documentation stipulate that
homework, coursework, or studying should be reserved until after work duties are completed. In
contrast, only one unit strictly prohibits studying or homework during working hours.
Summary. The researcher explored professionalism across various campus documents,
yet none explicitly defined professionalism. Therefore, interpretation of professionalism is
subjective. Merriam-Webster's definition of professionalism is relevant, but understanding
student worker professionalism encompasses many aspects. Professionalism includes conduct,
dress code, punctuality, teamwork, and adherence to policies on distractions and homework.
Other aspects of professionalism include effective communication, punctuality, teamwork, and
specific policies on distractions such as earbuds, visitors, food and drink, and homework.
Professionalism for student workers is formed by expectations of full-time faculty and staff and
include a combination of behaviors, policies, and procedures.
“Representative” in Documents
Document review revealed that student workers represent their functional units and their
university. Eight of the 26 documents explicitly acknowledge that student workers represent the
unit, while eight state that student workers represent the university. Notably, these statements
originate from eight different documents. An example of a statement related to student workers
representing their unit comes from Doc4 and reads, “You are our ambassadors with our
75
customers and visitors. The first impression a student or visitor will have of the [unit] is through
you.” Some units, such as that which provided Doc15, also prohibit students from wearing other
university attire because student workers represent the university where they work.
Doc5 states that the functional unit provides polos to their student workers, recognizing
that when wearing them outside of work, students continue to represent both the unit and the
university. Doc5 specifies, “You can wear your [functional unit] polo to class, lunch, etc.
However, please understand that you are still representing [the unit] and [the university] when
you are in uniform.”
Students who answer telephones and greet visitors are often seen as the first point of
contact from outsiders to the unit and sometimes to the university. Twenty-one of the 26
documents received by the researcher include formal telephone answering procedures, while 17
of the 26 documents include procedures for greeting visitors. Doc9 states:
NEVER just put a caller on hold. When you have more than one line ringing, be
professional. Take the first call and after your opening, “ASK” the caller, “Can you hold
a moment please?” and wait for a response. Then move to the next call and do the same;
after all lines have stopped ringing, go back to the first call and handle in the order taken.
Doc19 instructs student workers to always remain positive and courteous when
answering the telephone in the office. In addition, Doc19 warns against giving too much
information over the phone by stating:
Be careful and professional about giving out information. Please be aware that there may
be certain information that should not be discussed over the phone: Example: “She is out
of the office” rather than “She is on vacation” and “He is away from his desk” versus “He
is in the restroom.”
76
“Helpful” in Documents
The documents reveal that student workers are regarded as helpful resources. Student
workers are helpful to those outside and inside the organization. Sixteen of the 26 documents
provided to the researcher contain checklists or to-do lists designed for student workers. For
example, Doc17’s checklist guides student workers on tasks such as sanitizing door knobs, light
switches, and kitchen appliances at the start of each day. Doc17’s checklist also instructs student
workers to refill paper in the copier, clean the microwave, and empty the dehumidifier at the end
of each day. These seemingly simple tasks, if neglected by full-time staff, could lead to disorder
and unsafe work environments over time if left unattended. Other documents, such as Doc18,
instruct student workers to be aware of changing to-do lists by stating, “Be sure to check the
schedule for daily assignments.”
Doc2 has specific telephone messaging procedures tailored to each full-time staff
member in the office. For instance, if a student worker has a message for one particular staff
member who is out of the office, the student is to send a text message. On the other hand, if a
student worker has a message for another staff member who is away from the office, the student
is to send an email and place the message on the staff member’s keyboard. Clear-cut instructions
such as these aim to facilitate effective communication between students and their colleagues.
Eight of the 26 documents emphasize the importance of providing correct information,
never stating that they do not know an answer, and asking for help finding answers to questions.
Student workers are always to be as helpful as possible, as illustrated in Doc19’s statement, “If
you do not know the answer to a question, please seek out someone who can assist you. Do not
provide inaccurate information to visitors or callers - ask questions if you are unsure!”
77
Campus-Wide Documents
Campus-wide documents regarding student employment provide valuable insight into the
research question of how student workers are defined. According to a university-wide document
designated as Doc27, the studied university offers student employment to those enrolled at least
half-time who are ineligible for Federal Work Study. Conversely, another campus-wide
document, Doc28, stipulates that “any student enrolled during the term may work on the
University Student Employment Program.” Doc28 does not specify the required number of credit
hours for eligibility. As outlined in Doc28, students eligible for the Federal Work-Study program
must maintain Satisfactory Academic Progress. A third campus-wide document, labeled Doc29,
reveals that all student workers, including Federal Work-Study student employees and those
funded by the university, must have Satisfactory Academic Progress. Satisfactory Academic
Progress entails maintaining a specific GPA, depending on the number of hours completed, and
progressing toward degree fulfillment. The minimum cumulative GPA for students to retain on-
campus work eligibility is outlined in Table 4.1. Additionally, students must successfully
complete a minimum of 67% of the total number of attempted hours throughout their entire
academic journey to remain eligible for on-campus work. Furthermore, accumulating more than
two withdrawals renders students ineligible to continue working on campus.
78
Table 4.1
Minimum Cumulative GPA to Remain Eligible for On-Campus Work
GPA Hours Attempted
Cumulative GPA Required
1-32
1.5
33-64
1.7
65-79
1.9
80+
2.0
Note. Data derived from Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) – Financial Aid by Murray State
University (2019).
Definition of “Student Worker” in Campus-Wide Documents
Reviewing documents concerning on-campus student work provides a preliminary
answer to the RQ2: ‘How is student worker defined?’ The tentative definition derived from the
analysis is as follows: A student worker is a student enrolled at their academic institution holding
a paid position contingent upon their enrollment status and successful academic progress.
Forthcoming interviews and focus groups will further construct a comprehensive definition of
student worker as part of the ongoing research. Therefore, the researcher will not ask any
participant their definition of student worker.
Additional Questions for Participants
The review of documents revealed codes, prompting the formulation of additional
questions for participants in the focus groups and interviews. The researcher integrated the
following questions into the existing focus group and interview questions listed in Chapter 3.
Student Workers:
● In an average work week, what percentage of time is spent working on class assignments or
other coursework during your shift?
79
o The inclusion of this question was prompted by examining 26 functional units’
documents, revealing that 13 contained policies addressing whether student
employees are permitted to work on coursework during their shifts. Among the 13
units with such written policies, 12 allow students to do homework during their shifts,
provided they have fulfilled all their work responsibilities.
● In an average work week, what percentage of time is spent on personal tasks, like eating,
checking social media, or talking to friends during your shift?
o This question was introduced based on the results of the researcher examining 26
functional units’ documents, revealing that 12 contained policies concerning food and
drink, which might divert students from completing their assigned duties. Similarly,
14 documents addressed using personal phones and checking social media during
work hours, while 13 documents addressed the limitation of personal visitors while
on duty.
Direct Supervisors:
● What is your policy on working on homework or personal tasks during shifts (i.e., eating,
social media, visiting with friends, or using earbuds), and how does this affect students’
productivity?
o The researcher added this question because 46% of documents have written policies
stating that student workers were allowed to work on coursework during their shifts.
While 50% of documents contain policies limiting visitors, some are ambiguous. For
example, Doc7 states, “Don’t make personal phone calls and plan visits with friends
during work hours.” Visits that are not planned do not fall under this policy as it is
written.
80
Indirect Supervisors:
● What kind of training do your student workers undergo?
o This question was included because some documents received were merely
checklists, giving little information. For example, Doc26 is a checklist for supervisors
of student workers, not the student workers themselves. One of the items on Doc26 to
be checked off is “Student Worker Guidelines.” Another item on Doc26 states,
“Explain your area’s security plans with your new student worker.” Similarly, Doc25
is also simply a checklist for the supervising colleague. Items such as
“Communication,” “Code of Conduct,” and policies related to eating, sitting, and
attire are listed but not described.
● How do your expectations of professionalism affect your student workers?
o The researcher included this question because professional or professionalism was
noted in 50% of the documents, but the documents did not contain a clear definition
of professionalism. For example, Doc9 contains an exhaustive list of various
attributes of what one might consider professionalism, such as personal appearance,
dress, mannerisms, voice, and attitude. Doc22 states that successful student workers
must conduct themselves in a professional manner, be professional regarding
confidential information, and maintain a professional attitude in interactions, but
Doc22 does not include any dress code policy.
● What more could student workers do to elevate the overall productivity of your department
or office?
81
o This question was added due to the need for more productivity measures noted during
the document review. The researcher discovered zero key performance indicators and
no notation of any metric associated with productivity for student workers.
● What more could be done in your department or office to provide your student workers with
a more fulfilling experience?
o The researcher added this question due to the percentage of units surveyed with no
written policies or procedures for student workers. Additionally, the researcher
discovered zero references to academic alignment in student work, which is a critical
component of a high-quality student employment position (McClellan et al., 2018).
Document Analysis
The researcher formally analyzed available documents in conjunction with interviews and
focus groups. The researcher discovered codes from the documents, including student worker
handbooks across multiple functional units, job descriptions, checklists, and interview questions.
The central theme derived from the documents was the notion of professionalism.
Participants
Participants in focus groups and interviews were either student workers, direct
supervisors of student workers, or indirect supervisors of student workers. Direct supervisors of
student workers are either graduate students or full-time employees who the student workers
directly report to. Direct supervisors include graduate assistants, administrative assistants, project
managers, coordinators, assistant directors, and directors. Indirect supervisors of student workers
are full-time staff or faculty members who lead functional units. Indirect supervisors include
assistant directors, directors, managers, department chairs, deans, vice presidents, and provosts.
The researcher did not exclude anyone in any category from the study. The researcher chose to
82
collect data from these three distinct groups in order to objectively analyze the perceptions of
student work and student worker productivity.
Recruitment
The researcher recruited direct and indirect supervisors of student workers
simultaneously, but the researcher organized focus groups so that the two groups did not
commingle. First, the researcher contacted each dean at each college within the university to
inform them of the study and allow them the opportunity to schedule focus groups during or after
a planned monthly meeting to limit interference with the employees’ regular duties. The
researcher was given support in scheduling focus groups but was encouraged to hold the focus
groups outside of monthly meeting times for fear of interfering with meeting agendas. The
College of Nursing and Health Professionals was the only unit that offered to schedule focus
groups for the researcher. However, the focus group that was scheduled intermingled direct and
indirect supervisors. Therefore, the researcher, with the support of the chair, chose to allow a
committee member to conduct the direct supervisor focus group for the functional unit, while the
researcher conducted the indirect supervisor focus group for the functional unit.
The researcher scheduled all subsequent supervisor focus groups through email and a
polling website (Doodle) to determine the optimal days and times to schedule focus groups. The
researcher recruited all direct and indirect supervisors that the researcher could easily identify at
the university. The university’s student financial services compliance officer provided all
functional units that employ student workers, and the researcher contacted all persons who could
be identified as potentially being a direct or indirect supervisor of student workers to participate
in a focus group.
83
The researcher attempted to contact 155 university staff members identified as potential
respondents. Seven emails were flagged as no longer employed at the university. Two potential
respondents emailed back, stating they had no student workers currently. Three employees
emailed back, stating they were unavailable during the days the focus groups were scheduled,
which were two back-to-back days for indirect supervisors and two back-to-back days for direct
supervisors. One direct supervisor was a no-show to the focus group but later apologized for
forgetting about the session.
The researcher attempted to contact 1,059 student workers, whose names and email
addresses were provided by the university’s student financial services compliance officer. The
researcher sent students an invitation to sign up for a focus group. Groups were scheduled over
six weekdays within an eight-day period with 30-minute blocks, separated by 30-minute blocks,
between 9:00 AM and 8:00 PM. There were 270 slots for students to sign up (6 slots per time
period, 45 time periods). The researcher shared a Google Sheet that contained six tabs indicating
dates. Students were notified in the email invitation that each day was on a separate tab of the
Google Sheet. However, it became apparent to the researcher that most students did not open
subsequent tabs. After three days, the researcher combined time slots that had students signed up
on separate tabs into one tab. The researcher scaled the focus groups down to three days and sent
a follow-up email to students who had yet to register for a focus group. The scaled-down version
of the Google Sheet held 72 slots for students to sign up for a focus group. Fifty-two students
signed up to participate, and 36 students attended the focus group for which they signed up. The
researcher interviewed two students one-on-one because other students who signed up for the
focus groups did not attend.
84
One day prior to each focus group, an email reminder was sent, to all who indicated they
would participate, that included a digital copy of the informed consent and the confidentiality
agreement. During the start of each focus group and interview, respondents were asked to review
and sign the informed consent as the researcher summarized the contents. During the start of
each focus group, respondents were asked to review and sign the confidentiality agreement as the
researcher summarized the contents. During the focus groups, the researcher read each question
out loud and projected each question through PowerPoint. The researcher did not add any
commentary to any question to introduce as little bias as possible into the data. The researcher
asked clarifying questions and probing questions as needed.
After conducting the focus groups, the researcher recognized that the data was becoming
saturated. The researcher found little new data emerging with each subsequent focus group.
Therefore, the researcher did not schedule any other focus groups with student workers, direct
supervisors, or indirect supervisors.
Focus Group and Interview Questions
The researcher held two focus groups with direct supervisors of student workers, while a
committee member held one focus group with direct supervisors. The researcher conducted one
interview with a direct supervisor of student workers. The researcher held three focus groups
with indirect supervisors of student workers. The researcher held nine focus groups with student
workers and two one-on-one interviews with student workers. The researcher collected data from
12 direct supervisors, 15 indirect supervisors, and 36 student workers. The researcher audio-
recorded all focus groups and interviews with the permission of all respondents. The researcher
asked specific questions of each set of respondents based on their place in the study: student
worker, direct supervisor of student workers, and indirect supervisors of student workers.
85
The researcher assigned pseudonyms D1 – D12 to direct supervisors, I1 – I15 to indirect
supervisors, and S1 – S36 to student workers. The researcher gave each participant a card noting
their pseudonym prior to the focus groups and interviews. The card was brightly colored and
remained on the table during each focus group and interview. The researcher took notes during
each focus group, notating each participant’s first word or phrase and their pseudonym to
distinguish the voices heard during the audio recordings.
The researcher transcribed each interview and focus group, first utilizing an online
transcription tool called otter.ai. The researcher then listened to each audio recording within two
days of each session, verifying the transcription and editing as needed. The researcher emailed
each participant a copy of the transcription for validation. There was one instance in which a
participant was credited with a statement that another participant in the focus group said. The
researcher verified that information with the recording and corrected the transcription. Another
participant clarified an acronym used to describe the participant’s functional unit. The researcher
made the appropriate correction to the transcription. Finally, the researcher had trouble hearing
one statement which was clarified by the respondent who made the statement. The statement was
regarding the methods used in hiring student workers for their unit. The researcher edited the
transcription and noted the clarification.
The researcher utilized Nvivo to help hand-code the transcriptions and documents to
validate the researcher’s perceptions of the emerging codes and themes. The researcher did not
use Nvivo to develop any codes or themes. The researcher used Nvivo to verify the codes nad
themes discovered and organize the themes within the documents and transcriptions.
86
Focus groups were as follows:
• Student workers - Group 1: S1-S4; Group 2: S5-S9; Group 3: S10-S14; Group 4: S15-S18
(S15 left the focus group after answering Question 3); Group 5: S19-S23; Group 6: S24-S25;
Group 7: S26-S29; Group 8: S31-S33; and Group 8: S35-S36. S30 and S34 were individually
interviewed.
• Direct supervisors - Group 1: D1-D3; Group 2: D5-D10; and Group 3: D11-D12. D4 was
interviewed individually.
• Indirect supervisors - Group 1: I1-I4; Group 2: I5-I10; and Group 3: I11-I15.
Student Workers
The researcher collected data from nine focus groups and two interviews with a total of
36 on-campus student workers. The researcher did not seek to ask student workers about their
specific positions on campus, but many volunteered the information. The researcher found that
the respondents work in various functional units, including third-party dining services, residence
halls, recruitment, academic affairs, and student affairs. The respondents were a mix of
undergraduate student workers and graduate student workers.
Question 1
The first question the researcher asked all student workers was, “How would you define a
productive student worker?” The researcher gathered two main themes from the data:
“professionalism” and “academic balance.”
Professionalism. The main themes derived from “professionalism” are showing
initiative, dependability, adaptability, effective communication, and teamwork. S12 stated, “a
productive student worker is someone who does a good job of executing the… orders.” S12 went
on to say, “… in their time where they don’t necessarily have anything to do, they are still, like,
87
productive and, like, show initiative, and, like, doing things to benefit the office.” S11 agreed
with S12 regarding dependability and initiative by stating:
Following the tasks given by, like, your supervisor, your advisors, and even those, like,
you know… in certain offices, you have people you have to work with that, like, have
been there longer than you… you’re on the same level, but they may have too much on
their hands.
S19 stated, “I think a productive student worker just can be evaluated or defined based on
their ability to meet the demands of the specific student worker position, and that varies from
position to position.” S20 said, “I would say it’s being adaptable.” S20 went on to explain that
being adaptable means “kind of open to doing any kind of different work.” S21, who self-
identified as a teaching assistant, stated, “Meeting the expectations and, like, the things that you
have to do every week, like making sure that students’ papers are graded.”
S23, who self-identified as a clinical graduate assistant, stated:
We have some high stakes, so I need to be professional. And I need to make sure that
we’re meeting the clients where they’re at, and I’m going to stop things that are going to
go wrong. And so, if that means I do X, Y, and Z, I do X, Y, and Z.
S23 also described a productive student worker as being proactive and taking initiative by
saying:
... be aware of your surroundings… maybe that means, like, nobody’s explicitly told you
that you need to answer the phones, or nobody’s explicitly told you, like, “Hey, we’re
low on handouts, you should probably print more.” But you’re not waiting for somebody
to tell you to do those things; you’re going out and finding it.
88
S3, who self-identified as a tutor, responded to the question by stating that a productive
student worker should meet the job expectations and requirements by stating:
A productive tutor is one that aids someone who’s studying specific things in their classes
and helping them with their base stuff and probably giving them problems that are similar
to what they’re working on but not actually working on the problems they’re assigned.
S1 had a similar answer, saying, “So, productivity for me is just completing projects.” Both of
these answers are related to dependability to perform the job functions. S26, who was in a
different group than S3 and S1, self-identified as a teaching assistant and had a similar answer
related to the job functions but seemed to express the bigger picture of the importance of the
position as it relates to the students they serve. S26 stated, “I feel like for me, being a productive
TA would be like furthering someone’s knowledge in the subject that I’m helping teach.” S26
went on to say, “I feel like as long as you know that people that are in my lab know more about a
certain subject than when they came in, I’ve done my job to a certain degree, you know?”
S29, who self-identified as a current teaching assistant and a prior student worker at a
university-affiliated golf course, said of the teaching assistant position, “It really just depends
from person to person, in my opinion.” S29 reflected on the teaching assistant position, saying,
“I go around, help them troubleshoot,” and on the golf course position, saying, “Being
productive there just really consisted of doing exactly what I was asked to do and in the best
order I could conduct myself.”
S28, who self-identified as a graduate assistant in the university’s testing center for
students with disabilities, stated, “I would feel like I’ve done my job if I make it very easy, or as
easy as I possibly can, for them to get through that process because it can be somewhat
intimidating for some people.” S28 also self-identified as having a second on-campus job in one
89
of the university’s third-party food service providers. S28 noted that for the food service
position, being productive meant, “I get the food out.”
S4 agreed and elaborated:
... working to, like, 100%. Like, getting it done right the first time… So, I’d say that’s
being productive, instead of just trying to rush through it and get people out as quick as
possible, and just helping to the best of your ability.
S2 mentioned helping out when full-time staff are unable to do so by stating, “Also, like, helping
where we’re needed, and, like, doing things that I guess a full-time staff can’t really do on, like,
the grounds that we’re students also.” S4 extrapolated, “Filling in the gaps.”
S24’s answer to what a productive student worker is was “Someone who gets the job
done in a timely manner, not passed the due date or not finished.” S25 agreed, saying, “I would
say someone who gets their work done and does it efficiently and effectively.”
S32 said that a productive student worker is “someone who does their job… if they work
in a group setting, then works well in a group and a team… just doesn’t slack, I guess.” S33
agreed and added, “Good at communication.” S31 also agreed, “Definitely, like, reliable is a key,
I think, in my opinion. You’re not constantly having to have others pick up their hours or do their
job.”
S34 stated:
I would say a productive student worker would be someone that is aware of, or makes an
effort to be aware of, their tasks at hand coming up… and that if they are unsure of
anything, they are contacting whoever they need to be.
90
S5 believes a productive student worker takes initiative, stating, “You don’t just do XYZ
because it’s expected. You do XYZ, ABC because by doing XYZ, you realize ABC needs done
too.”
S36, who self-identified as a desk worker who has a hard time staying engaged because
of the lack of responsibility, said, “I will define, when you’re, like, being productive during your
work means you’re fully awake and you’re doing your work, like, efficiently.”
S6 believes they are most productive when they can do their homework while being there
in case someone comes in and needs something. “So, for me, that’s me being productive… when
I’m working, and I’m able to help people that come in and ask for certain things.” S7 agreed,
saying, “I’m sitting there until something happens. That’s that.”
S9, who self-identified as holding a previous student worker position in the procurement
office, disagreed, saying:
Whenever I could actually see that I was helping with the workload of my boss, I think I
felt most productive because I wasn’t… it wasn’t like I was just sitting at my desk,
twiddling my thumbs waiting for her to tell me to do something. Like, I was solving my
own problems as well.
S7 seemed to agree with S9, saying, “If I see something wrong, I fix it.”
S8 stated, “I think productivity in a student worker means that you get stuff done.” S8
went on to say, “If I get a few things checked off that actually make a difference or actually, like,
needed to get done, as well as get all my studying done, that’s very productive.”
S30 said that a productive student worker was organized and on-task. S30, however, also
acknowledged that student workers have to balance their academics, which was the second main
theme that derived from asking this question to student workers.
91
Academic Balance. The main themes derived from “academic balance” are keeping
grades up, time management, and showcasing unique skills that are tied to academics in the
workplace. S30 summarized this by saying, “Well, yeah, we’ll just stay organized and just in
general, because they (student workers) have to balance both schoolwork and working for the
university.” S17 stated that a productive student worker is “someone who can definitely keep up
with their grades, and also be able to meet the responsibilities that are required to do the job.”
S16 said:
I think the most important thing about being a student worker is that first word, ‘student.’
You know, it’s one, keeping up with grades, but then I think the employer should
recognize that this person first came to college to acquire an education.
S15 stated, “I think the big thing about the fact that it should mesh with your education versus
like being a whole separate part.”
S20, who made a statement regarding meeting expectations, also stated:
... it is also a balancing act with other things that you have to do. So, I don’t know, I
guess taking into account like, yes, you’re a student worker… but you’re a student…
worker. And, so making sure that you’re meeting your work expectations, but also your
school expectations.
S3 stated, in response to this question, “I’m not tutoring anyone if they don’t come in. So
usually I work on my homework and trying to be productive for myself. So, I try to be
productive on my own.”
S27, a self-identified teaching assistant, stated, “I feel like I’m the most productive as a
student worker whenever… because it’s not just worker, it’s student worker too. Whenever I’m
both contributing to the product as a whole and also learning myself.” S33 said that a productive
92
student worker is “someone who, like, well, does their job and also, like, takes care of
themselves as a student.” S35 said a productive student worker is “someone who goes to class
and works at the same time, basically.”
S7 stated, “I think a productive student worker is one that can balance the work and study
life of [university], like being able to keep on top of classes, because school comes first always.”
S17 stated, “The work should relate to the major the student is in.” S15 agreed, saying:
I do try to connect it (work) to my major a lot, because I feel like in education (the
student’s major), you gotta, like, put on your best “customer service” for, like, parents
and students. I think finding those little, like, similarities also helps. That also is, like,
what I feel like could be a productive thing… if you can find some enjoyment
Question 2
The second question the researcher asked all student workers was, “How are day-to-day
expectations of you as a student worker determined and shared?” The researcher gathered more
data regarding the sharing of expectations over determining expectations. Expectations are
shared with student workers through peers in the functional unit as well as direct supervisors and
other faculty and staff members as needed, sometimes verbally and sometimes through written
means. Student workers also tend to set their own expectations, depending on the nature of the
position.
Checklists. Expectations are often shared through checklists. S15 stated:
So, where I work, we have, like, a little daily check sheet… And, so I come in, and, like,
we just have to check off that list if we do certain tasks, but I have the entire day to get as
much done.
93
S11 stated:
We go in first thing and just look at making sure we have the emails up-to-date. So, we
kind of have, like, our schedule of what we do every day. And then if there’s anything
extra, we get that from, like, all the advisors above us.
S13 also has emails to check daily, but those emails are instructions for labs that the student
oversees.
S26 also receives emails with duties and expectations but says, “It’s pretty informal,
pretty chill as far as that goes.” S28 says their expectations are very formal, however, saying:
We have to schedule tests every day, we have to check our email every minute as long as
we’re at work. You can’t miss anything, because it will be to the detriment of the student.
So, basically, we already have kind of a schedule, check your emails, print out the exam
log in the morning, so you can proctor exams. And then we have our supervisor come in
once or twice to let us know if there’s anything to add.
S8 said:
[Functional Unit] also has a weekly debrief. You know, like, our director, he sends out a
newsletter… “This is what’s going to be happening, we want to get this stuff done.” And
then, our [administrative] assistant… she says, “Oh, we also need to do this, and do this,
and do this.”
Setting Own Expectations. S10 sets their own expectations, depending on what must be
done daily. “It’s just what needs to be done.” S12 agreed, saying, “It’s kind of like we have a
regular pattern of management. Like, come in, do the regular things.”
94
The TAs recalled a common theme of expectations being determined and shared by the
professors with whom they teach and also by themselves, as far as when they accomplish their
tasks. S18 explained:
My expectations vary because the professors are all different for those classes (a lower-
level course and an upper-level course). On Fridays, we (upper-level professor and
student) meet. We have a TA meeting where we talk about what went well, what didn’t
go well, and then prepare us for the week next.
S18 went on to say:
And for the other one (lower-level course), that professor just emails the materials, which
is not always comprehensive. And that one is mostly run by us. There’s three TAs for
that. And we have a lead TA. We’re the ones that choose exactly what activities they
(students enrolled in the course) do in the lab. So my expectation is kind of set from what
I created the expectation for myself when I took the class.
S29, who is also a TA, said something similar:
So, on Monday, I’ll prepare for my lab… make sure that the lab has all the stuff out for
the students to experiment with, or the software uploaded on computers properly. And
then, the day of, I’ll just assist the students in the lab. And then, the day after, I’ll
typically grade the assignments.
S25, another self-identified TA, said, “At the beginning of the semester, I was given a, like, a list
of all my duties as a TA.” The researcher probed this participant, asking more about how the list
of expectations is determined. S25 said, “I have a lab every week, and then I grade papers.” The
researcher restated the question regarding how expectations are determined. S25 said, “I have the
95
professor I TA for, and then I have my boss. So, the lab was a set time, but I get to determine
when I read the lab and when I grade papers.”
S27, yet another TA, agreed regarding expectations, saying:
I have my labs, and then we’re also responsible for grading. So, just whenever we get
around to that before the next lab, and responding to student emails. We’re the first point
of contact for students about any lab issues or questions or anything like that.
S27 also acknowledged that such responsibilities can sometimes be challenging, especially if
professors expect too much. S27 recalled a time when a professor left abruptly, and they were
expected to take the lead on a course’s capstone project, which required more of them than a
typical TA. “I don’t feel like I had enough support to be doing that,” they said.
S31, a self-identified student radio news reporter, said:
My supervisor doesn’t really tell me what I have to do each week. Like, I come up with
the stories for my section. If my supervisor has anything to give me for that, she will. But
other than that, I’m entirely in charge of my job.
S17 had similar things to say regarding setting their own expectations, saying, “I think also, we
set up expectations ourselves too.” But, S17 also acknowledged, “I’m quite sure it’s what your
boss can expect from you as well.” S17, a self-identified international student, stated that
expectations must be realistic, and “... the employer should make me feel that he wants me to
meet good goals. Like, they expect me to be good… and I will do my best, do better to meet
those expectations.”
S18 took this question in a similar direction, saying, “If they can tell me in an effective
way, then I more likely will understand what they’re expecting from me.” S17 agreed, saying:
96
Exactly, and it also involves constructive criticism. For example, if I’m doing something
wrong, if you just say like, ‘Oh, you’re doing everything wrong; stop doing that,’ I’m just
going to be like, ‘Okay.’ I’m probably going to just stop, and I’m not going to care
anymore. However, if you show me that you care, that you still have expectations for me,
even though I do something wrong, you’re going to try to, for me to train again, to correct
me and pull me away where I’m going to meet those expectations.
The researcher took this information, along with similar statements, such as that from S36, who
admitted to often “spacing out” due to lack of expectations, and concluded that student workers
desire to have concrete expectations, which they often are not receiving which begin with
engagement from supervisors.
Handbooks and Written Policies. Expectations are sometimes shared through
handbooks or policy manuals. S16 recognizes the importance of written documentation, saying:
What helps as well is we have a wonderful little handbook that every first-time [student
worker] gets to keep on their desk for about a couple of months, and it has basically the
‘101’ of how to do your job.
S16 also acknowledges that those who determine expectations should also recognize that student
workers are students first. “The day-to-day expectations were made from knowing, like, ‘Hey,
we’ve hired you to do this job; we want you to do this job. But we also understand that you’re a
student. So, we’re going to meet in the middle.’” S6 says their expectations are always the same.
“It’s like the same every single time I go into work. So, like, my expectations were established,
like whenever I had my orientation, like at the beginning of the semester.”
97
Face-to-Face Meetings. Expectations are often shared through face-to-face meetings.
S16 stated:
Every start of the semester, we have, like, intake meetings, I guess you could call them,
where we meet with the [direct supervisor] and we just have a ‘Hey, you know, here’s a
reminder of what we would love to see this semester. Do you have any goals that you
want to work on?’ And so, we’ll talk about, like, career goals… or goals for that
semester… So, it’s, the expectations are done out of an understanding from both parties.
S15 said something similar. “A lot of the times, like, I do my class work and stuff, and they
understand that I have to get my classwork and stuff done.”
S4 said, “The first thing we do is let somebody know we’re here. We don’t just sneak
into the building and start doing our own thing.” S4 went on to say that training is mainly done
verbally or face-to-face, but some expectations are written or emailed as needed. S4 also said, “I
would say just overall, there’s never a day where we don’t know what we’re doing. We always
get told.” S2 stated, “Usually, the full-time staff gives us some small projects to do like
marketing efforts or, like, kind of helping with event planning.”
S3 agreed with S2, saying:
I would say it’s very similar for me. Like, the full-time assistant who’s always there, and
they’re in charge of telling us, the student workers, what needs to be done, if we need to
deliver something or help a teacher… It just depends on if someone comes in and needs
help.
S30 stated, “It’s just day-to-day, my supervisor will tell me what I need to do.” S32 also said that
their supervisor either tells them verbally each day or leaves them notes.
98
S20 said:
We have very good relationships. I just go in and say, like, ‘Hey, do I need… is there
anything I need to… like, what kind of tasks need to be done around the office today?’ I
know I can walk into her (direct supervisor) office, and she’s gonna give me, like, the
tasks for the day.
S34 said, “I meet with [direct supervisor] every Thursday, briefly, just so she can let me know,
like, ‘Hey, this is what’s coming up.’” S9 said of a previous on-campus position, “On Thursday
afternoon, whenever I was there, my boss and I would talk about what we had done that week.”
Peer-To-Peer. Expectations are sometimes shared between student workers. S19 stated:
It’s really just shared among the student workers. So, there’s a cohort of us. So, it gets
distributed, kind of, among us, and then other things will be brought to us by the other
people in our office to work on.
S21 echoed that statement, reflecting on their past experience working as a residential advisor
(self-identified). “We had those, I think it was monthly, either monthly or weekly meetings
where we would meet up and talk about it. And then also keeping in contact with, like, your
coworkers, like you (S19) were saying.” S35, who self-identified as a current residential advisor,
had a similar experience. “I sit down with a group of people. We make our schedule; we talk
about what we can do, when we’re available, when we’re not available.” The researcher asked a
clarifying question regarding who was included in the group of people. S35 said the group
consisted of coworkers and two supervisors. S35 also stated, “I have bi-weekly one-on-ones with
my residential director.”
S35 also reflected on how expectations of RAs encompassed their public appearance,
saying:
99
Like, it’s college. Like, if you go out and party or anything like that, you cannot be seen
with, like, an alcohol, like, cup in your hand… like, you can’t be in a picture with
somebody who is drinking alcohol.
S35 went on to say, “They communicate that, like, on, at, like, the very beginning before we start
working and everything.” S7, another self-identified RA, agreed, saying:
During my interview, I was told as an RA, that my life would be like… anywhere I go on
campus, or even off campus, I’m held to expectations. I can’t be acting crazy and expect
people to respect me in the building that I work for.
S28 reflected on her food service position, saying:
When you first come in, they assign you to somebody, and then the person teaches you.
Everybody else can teach you, but that person just kind of shows you what to do. And
then whatever you forget, you just ask anybody, and they usually are very helpful.
S8 agreed with peer-to-peer expectations sometimes being set by saying:
And I think it’s like a shared workload and how people split up automatically. ‘Oh, I do
this, I do this, I do this,’ you know? Like how certain people have their certain tasks that
they always do when something arises. But, I think it’s like a little tiny community.
S23, who self-identified as a GA, reflected on their perspective of setting the expectations
for the other GAs they work with who have just begun by saying:
There’s a couple of GAs that just started working. And so, telling them, like, what the
expectations are, and, like, teaching them, and then I’m also doing scheduling, so, like,
doing the calendar… So, most of the time, it’s me emailing my directors, I guess, and
telling them, “This is what I’m doing.”
100
Question 3
The third question the researcher asked all student workers was, “What were your
motivations for seeking student employment on campus?” The researcher developed four main
themes in answers to this question. The first theme is pay. Student workers seek financial
compensation for the work they do. The second theme is resume building. Student workers
recognize the importance placed on experience in a professional setting. The third theme is
flexible work schedules. Student workers recognize they are students first, and having positions
on campus that allow them to schedule work hours around student obligations is important. The
fourth theme is a sense of purpose and being involved on campus.
Pay. S14 said, “Mine (motivation) was money, and I wanted to work on my public
speaking skills.” S17’s answer to this question was simply, “Money. That’s basically it.” S17
went on to explain that they were an international student and, “… so, that’s my only, like,
option to actually make some money and then pay for my living.” S36 also self-identified as an
international student and said, “I feel sorry to ask my parents to give me pocket money, so I
needed a job. But because of our visa, we cannot work off campus. So, the only options are the
jobs on campus.”
S15 was also very blunt, saying, “My motivation for my student worker job was money,
very blatantly.” S15 explained the need for funds to cover a study abroad program with an out-
of-pocket expense of nearly $4,000. S7 said matter-of-factly, “Can I just say that I’m poor?” S7
went on to say, “I mean, that’s what it comes down to.”
S19 said, “Getting some spending money, and also just developing.” S23 also said very
bluntly, “Money was a big motivator.” However, S23 also acknowledged that another motivator
was the ability to obtain clinical hours for their degree while also working on campus.
101
S4 said:
For me, I’m only taking 13 credit hours this semester, and so I thought I would have a lot
of free time. So, I wanted to get a job and also just extra spending money. I use this for
groceries, gas, and it’s kind of just the basics.
S2 agreed with S4, saying, “For the same reasons you (S2) did, for convenience and extra
spending money.” S25 answered curtly as well, saying, “My main motivator was money, pretty
much.” S24 agreed, saying, “Like [S25] said, I needed money for college.” S6 said, “For me, it
was about being able to buy groceries and not having to worry about spending too much.”
S28, who held two current on-campus positions, said, “My first, well with [third-party
food service provider], it was pay.” S29, a self-identified TA, agreed, “The TA position was a bit
of the money situation… and it helps me brush up on stuff that, like, I keep on using.” S26, who
also holds a current off-campus job, said, “Number one, pay.”
S30, a self-identified Federal Work-Study student, stated, “Honestly, when I had went to
my financial aid section… I was like, ‘Well, I guess I gotta have a job.’ So… if not, I guess I
don’t receive it.” S30 went on to summarize, “Just extra money.” S33 said, “Mine was, like,
money for sure, because they provide a housing scholarship for us. That’s most definitely a
plus.”
S34 said, “So, part of it was, I knew that there was a little stipend, I guess I’ll call it, for
being a graduate assistant, I think it’s about $5,000 spread over this semester and next.” S34
went on to say, “One of my classes next semester will be free, which is nice. So, there were good
financial benefits for it.”
102
Resume Building. S13 said, “I wanted to bolster my resume for grad school
applications.” S11 agreed, saying, “Putting more onto my resume…” But, S11 also recognized
the financial aspect, saying, “… but also paying off things for college…” S10 said, “My job has
got me published research, and I’m just a sophomore. So, I guess the resume thing, too…” Like
S11, S10 also acknowledged finances by saying, “… But I also needed income.” S12 said, “So it
will look good on a resume and all that, because I didn’t have to do it for my program, but it was
highly recommended.”
S18 stated that they took a pay cut in order to gain a more valuable experience. S18 went
on to say:
I didn’t necessarily seek out the student worker position; they kind of searched me out…
the idea is they want me to be in a graduate assistantship once I’m finally enrolled in
graduate school. So, they’re kind of using this school year for me as a test run to see what
I can do.
S19, who stated money was one motivator, also said, “I guess a working relationship that
you can put on a resume or do something like that, after college, you know, to show I’ve had
continuous work experience.” S21 agreed, saying to S19, “Yeah, that’s (resume building) kind of
what originally motivated me because at first I was an RA…” S21 went on to say of their current
TA position, “I was like, ‘Well, you know what? This will look really good on a resume, and just
like, the skills that come along with it.’” S21 went on to say that for them, “It definitely wasn’t
about the money.” S21, however, also acknowledged their privileged standpoint and stated, “I
was lucky enough to be in a position, or I am lucky enough to be in a position where money is
not an issue.”
103
S22 noted various skills they were building, which they will work into their resume and
future career, such as networking, managing students, communication, and fundraising
experience. S25 also recognized that the experience is a resume builder, stating, “I thought it
would look very nice on my resume, and it’s a very nice job to have as an experience.”
S28, who also holds a food-service job on campus, said of their GA position, “I wanted
something more official, and something that was… because my concentration in school is health-
wise, so I wanted to kind of be in that field a little bit.”
S29, a self-identified TA, said in addition to money, “Another reason is I want to go to
grad school… and for engineering… like, wanting to go to grad school, it looks really good to
have TAed as an undergrad or done undergraduate research.” S27, who wants to be an educator,
said, “I genuinely really enjoy education and teaching, and when I go to grad school and beyond,
I want to work in some form of public education.”
S9 said, “I’ve worked food service, and I’ve done retail. And, so, according to my
resume, those are the only things that I have experience in, and those are the only things I would
be qualified to do.” S9 went on to say, “But now that I’ve had time to work on campus, like, I’ve
done clerical work, and I’ve been an assistant to a manager, and I’ve managed my own time.”
Flexibility. S10 said that in addition to income, they also liked having a “flexible
schedule.” S16, a self-identified musical theater major, said they sought an on-campus position
due to the busy schedule associated with the major. S16 went on to say:
I didn’t want to work, like, evenings because I also wanted to keep that open for
rehearsals and as a performer… So, I knew I needed an on-campus job that was going to
work and fit into my nine-to-five class schedule.
S32, a self-identified music major, had a similar motivator. S32 stated:
104
I needed something since I’m a music major… So, a lot of my time will be spent
practicing… so I have a lot of time that I just can’t utilize outside of school hours. So, I
just really can’t get a job off campus with it to still work with my schedule.
S20 said, “I think just the flexibility with the student worker jobs on campus is just very
valuable, because I didn’t want to have, like, a full-time (job) where I couldn’t fully enjoy my
college experience.” S20 went on to say, “Student worker jobs are very, like, flexible, working
with your school schedule, and I think that’s really valuable.” S35, who left an off-campus job
that paid more, said they saved money on gas by taking an on-campus position. “With, like,
traveling and, like, you know, being on campus and staying on campus, like I could go down
from, like, the eighth floor and then go to the desk, and I would be at work.”
S3 also took the position for flexibility, leaving an off-campus job that paid more, seeing
it as a valuable trade-off. “The person who’s in charge of me, he’s very lenient on whether I need
time off, or something, so it was more convenient, and it made it a lot less stressful.” S3 also
attributed the unit’s homework policy to this idea of flexibility. “If no one comes in, you’re at
least allowed to do your homework.” S2 also recognizes the flexibility of their unit’s policy on
homework as a motivator, saying, “So I could regulate my schoolwork and stuff… If no one
comes in, then I have… I’m here, I might as well get my homework done.”
S24’s first reaction was to answer “money,” but after talking about it, they added, “…
also, I figured it would give me time to work on my schoolwork; it was something related to my
major as well.” S5 stated, “Semester to semester, classes change, schedules change, and the
flexibility to adjust that as needed was a really big push for me.”
105
Purpose and Being Involved on Campus. S8 left a higher-paying off-campus position to work
on campus because “I would rather do this than, you know, not have the opportunity to be
involved on campus. So, I wanted this position, and I absolutely adore it.” S20 likes having the
opportunity to “serve my office.”
S19 said, in addition to resume building, “I had a lot of free time on my hands, you know,
and I wanted something to do other than being in my dorm room.” S21, a self-identified RA who
began during the COVID-19 outbreak and subsequent lockdowns, said they felt a sense of
purpose in “bring[ing] students together in that time where everyone was feeling really isolated.”
S21 also recognizes the importance of making connections on campus. Similarly, S16 found a
greater purpose in their position as a self-identified student radio news reporter. “The fall of my
freshman year, the [nearby town] tornado happened, which was a big news event. So, that took
on an even more significant meaning.” S16 went on to say, “Even if I never work a journalism
job after today, I know being in this job, I’ve probably done something right. So, that ability to
give back… it’s another big motivator.”
S33,a self-identified RA, said:
I also like the community… I feel like it’s a good community. Also, I didn’t have a good
RA my first, like, two years. So, I feel like it would have been a good opportunity for me
to be like someone they (students) can come talk to and someone they can confide in.
S1’s motivation for their on-campus position is being able to work with a respected
faculty member. “I do this because I very much respect [faculty member], and I want to see him
succeed… and having access to, like, know what’s going on at [university] is cool to me.” S22
agrees, saying that the position is an “awesome opportunity to network with people in a field
where I was very interested in.”
106
Questions 4 and 5
The fourth question the researcher asked all student workers was, “In an average work
week, what percentage of your time on the job is spent working on class assignments or
studying?” The fifth question the researcher asked all student workers was, “In an average work
week, what percentage of your time on the job is spent on personal tasks unrelated to school?”
It Depends. The data gathered from these two questions was dependent on the positions
held. Teaching assistants, for example, spend no time on their own homework or personal tasks.
S18, a self-identified TA, said, when asked about homework, “I would say 0% of my time from
my own course load is spent during that time.” S18 said, when asked about personal tasks, “I
would say probably about 10% is just eating, and it’s just, like, that personal time is having lunch
because I’m just always on the go.” S21, who was in a different focus group, concurred with
S18’s estimation of time spent on homework during working hours, saying, “As a TA, it’s
definitely no time. When you’re working, you’re working.” S21 also said they spent no time on
any personal tasks while working. S23 simply said, “Zero” when asked about homework and
“None. Most of the time I don’t have time to eat lunch,” when asked about personal tasks. S25,
another TA in another focus group, said, “For the TA position, I don’t get any schoolwork done
while on the job because I’m not allowed to work on it.” S26, S27, and S28, who were all in the
same focus group, responded that they spend 0% of their work time on homework and generally
0% on personal tasks.
S25, however, has another job on campus in which they say they spend nearly all of their
time working on school work. S25 said, “For my desk job, I pretty much do school work
throughout the entirety of it.” The researcher asked the clarifying question, “You’re saying the
entire time. So would you say 100%?” S25 said, “I would just say, like, more like probably…
107
more like 90%.” S25 then said, when asked about personal tasks, “Probably like 10%. If I’m not
working on school work or anything, that’s what I’ll be doing.” S3, a self-identified tutor, said
they spent about 80-90% of their time on homework, and 30 minutes of that is also spent eating
at the beginning of their shift. S35 said they spend about 75-80% of their time on school work
and another 10% on personal tasks. S36 said they spend 90% of their time on school work, and
the rest of the time is spent on personal tasks, such as watching YouTube videos because they sit
at the desk waiting for someone to tell them what to do.
Other student workers, such as office workers, spend anywhere from 10-90% of their
time working on their own school work or personal tasks, such as scrolling social media,
watching television or movies, eating, or talking to friends. The time spent on tasks outside of
job duties depends on the projects that occur during certain times of the year. For example, S11
said when asked about homework, “It kind of depends on the week just because some weeks
we’re busier than others… So, it can be like 80% of the time, and then other (times), it’s like 2%
of the time.” S12, a career services student worker, agreed, “It depends on the week. Career Fair
week, 0%... But on a regular week, I’d say anywhere from 20 to 40% of the time, maybe.” S4,
who was in a separate focus group but also a career services student worker, stated the
percentage of time spent on homework outside of Career Fair week was approximately 60-75%,
and time spent on personal tasks was about 5-10%. S2 simply said, “I’d say half and half” when
asked about homework and said, “I think I spend about, like, 30% of my time on personal tasks.”
S19, who was in a separate focus group, has had a similar experience. S19 explained:
There’s some flexibility… if there’s no upcoming events… all the daily stuff that we
have to do has already been worked through… So, I would say normally, I work 10 to 15
108
hours a week. So, maybe, I spend about one hour - ish a week on that. But, some weeks,
there’s none, no time to work on anything outside of just the work.
Question 6
The sixth question the researcher asked all student workers was, “What would make your
student employment experience more fulfilling?” Four main themes emerged from the data. The
first theme is responsibilities; some student workers expressed the desire for more, while others
wanted fewer responsibilities on the job. The second theme is engagement from faculty and staff
supervisors and coworkers. Student workers crave acknowledgment and interaction from those
with whom they work. The third theme is pay. Students are struggling with making minimal
amounts of money while only being allowed to work a few hours each week. The fourth theme
regarding fulfillment is that many students express they are truly fulfilled with their on-campus
student work experience, and they express that they can think of nothing that would make the
experience more fulfilling.
Responsibilities. The researcher found a possible correlation between students spending
more time on personal tasks or homework and students who would be more fulfilled with more
responsibilities. More research would be needed to find a correlation. For example, S36, a self-
identified international student, who stated they sit at the desk and wait for someone to tell them
what to do, stated, “In my case, when they give me more tasks, I think that will make my student
worker experience more fulfilling.” The researcher notes that no one in the focus group with S36
stated that showing initiative, rather than waiting for a task to be assigned, made for a productive
student worker, as some participants stated in other focus groups. S34, who was in a different
focus group, said, “[Supervisor] has me do things, but she’s also very much just like, if it needs
to be done, she’s probably going to do it herself in that moment.” S34 also stated, in regards to
109
this question, “I’m a graduate student, like, I would love to help somebody with their research, or
you know, like, help somebody, like, gather research materials… instead of just, you know,
physical labor or posting stuff on social media.” S17, another self-identified international
student, had similar things to say, such as, “Definitely knowing my supervisor expects something
from me, expect for me to do good.” S12 said job shadowing with full-time staff would make
their experience more fulfilling.
One group of student workers, RAs, said their positions would be more fulfilling if they
had fewer responsibilities. S21 said:
Whenever I was an RA, we got paid, I think it was 20 hours a week, so just the max you
can get paid as a student worker. But, we’re working, you know, around the clock. Like,
if somebody comes to you at, like, 11 PM, you have to talk to them. Like, you always
work more than the hours you’re getting allotted.
More Engagement from Faculty and Staff. The researcher also found that student
workers would appreciate more engagement from the staff and faculty members with whom they
work. S5 stated they would like to see a student worker appreciation initiative. S5 went on to say,
“All student workers should feel welcomed in their workplace. All student workers should feel
nurtured in their environment.” S8 agreed and said, “You know, a ‘thank you,’ ‘thank you for
doing that.’ I don’t want that every single day; I don’t want that every single time. But you know
what, maybe once in a while.” S35 gave an insightful answer regarding engagement from
coworkers, saying, “People, when they are productive in, like, their space, they give off… it’s
almost like an infectious, like, type of energy. And it affects people around them, makes them
want to do something, makes them happy.”
110
S26, a self-identified TA, said the position would be more fulfilling if they knew if they
made a difference. Faculty engagement, in this aspect, could look like sharing statistical
information on grades or anonymous survey data that is collected. S14 said something similar,
“I’m thinking evaluation… It’s good to have a kind of eye-opening on how you’re doing your
job.”
S21 wants their suggestions for improvement to be taken into consideration. S21 stated,
“I guess, making sure that, like, accommodations that would make my life easier are actually
getting implemented instead of talked about, because that would take a lot of pressure off of me.”
S19, who was in a different focus group, had a similar answer. S19 stated:
There are certain things that we know just don’t work in terms of reaching students, you
know, like flyering, for example… the consensus among the student workers, you know,
in the office, is that it doesn’t work, and students aren’t able to be reached.
S19 went on to say, “It’s something very minor, you know, but, like, there’s just, like, no room
to debate that or even, like, make any change in how we do anything.” S21 also said something
similar:
We came to the head of our department, and we had a list of, I guess you could say,
demands that, like, we wanted to be met… We went through it with the head of our
department, and she looked at it, and she said, ‘That’s not possible, none of those are
possible.’ But our demands weren’t crazy.
More Pay. Finally, the researcher found that more pay would make student workers’ job
experiences more fulfilling. S6 said, “For me, to make it more fulfilling, it’s probably just to get
paid a little more.” S32 said, “A bit more pay would be truly grand.” S32 explained, “I’m only
able to work about a max of 10 hours for, like, each school week… I’m only earning $80 a week,
111
paid every other week.” S31 agreed with S32, saying, “I also get paid $8 an hour and make about
10 hours a week, and it… given all the things I have to pay for… I wish today was Friday so I
could get paid.” S33 also agreed, saying, “More pay. We have to deal with a lot.”
S27, a self-identified TA who works with more than one professor, stated that one of the
professors they work with puts their work off on the TA. S27 said, “Even though I’m being paid
$8 an hour, I feel like I’m being forced to do his job for him.” S27 also recalled another time
they were taking up the slack for a professor who quit suddenly, saying, “I was doing essentially
the job of a professor… I feel like I wasn’t prepared for that, and I wasn’t compensated for that.”
S3 also said more pay would make the position more fulfilling by stating:
I would say $8 right now barely covers one meal without tipping. And with tipping, it
does not. And so, one hour of our time would barely cover one meal, and you have three
meals a day. And, so, I would say money-wise, it’s not good for the cost of living right
now.
S18 stated, “I think pay is a big one. I realistically have no control over it, and that is very
defeating.”
Nothing. Several student workers stated they could not think of anything that would
make their positions more fulfilling. S4 said, “I’m pretty content with stuff. I feel like because I
do 50/50 work, I’m not going to overshoot myself. For me, I think I’m being paid, like, a good
amount for what I do.” S28 said, “I think everything is the way it should be. We have a very
supportive environment in both my jobs… I feel like it’s okay.” S7 also said, after S8 mentioned
more pay would make the job more fulfilling, “I mean, I get a scholarship, but it’s only half. So,
yeah, I really can’t complain.” S25 stated, “Really, I mean, it gave me what I was looking for.”
S24 agreed with S25, saying, “Same here. It gave me what I needed in a job for school, and I was
112
working in my major and on my homework while I work. So, that’s pretty beneficial.” S16 said,
“Yeah, I’m pretty fulfilled with my job. Like I said, I love my job, and I think my job loves me,
which is very nice.” While S16 is fulfilled in their job, they did state they researched student
worker wages across the state of Kentucky and found that the university in which the research
was conducted “ranked lowest out of all the state.” S16 went on to say that the university ranked
lowest in pay growth over the last five years.
Direct Supervisors
The researcher gathered data from 12 direct supervisors of student workers through three
focus groups and one interview. One focus group was composed of direct supervisors from the
same college. Two focus groups included direct supervisors from various functional units.
Question 1
The first question the researcher asked all direct supervisors was, “How would you define
a productive student worker?” The data showed one main theme that emerged from this question.
The researcher found that, much like the student workers themselves, direct supervisors believe a
productive student worker shows professionalism.
Professionalism. The main themes derived from this data set regarding
“professionalism” are punctuality, dependability, showing initiative, staying busy, working
independently, and effective communication. D4 stated:
Somebody that shows up on time, that you can depend on, to tell them or give them a
task… you have faith that they’re going to execute it to the best of their ability,
somebody that’s not clock watching, they’re making good use of their time, even if it’s
slower time, they’re willing to do other things that aren’t necessarily directly related to
what their direct title is, but helping out in other areas.
113
D12 responded similarly, saying, “Those that, like, continuously want to stay busy and
ask, like, if they’re bored, they want to stay busy.” D11 agreed with D12, adding:
I would say probably a student worker who takes the initiative to go above and beyond
what’s asked of them, and really having the autonomy to just start doing the work before
they’re asked and asking for work to do.
D1 stated, “One that has good time management… appropriate communication skills,” and D2
said, “Anyone that meets the mission, whatever’s been asked of them, they’re task-oriented.” D3
added, “willingness to adapt to any task or situation… willingness, in general.”
D8 answered, “I would say reliable. They always have a set schedule when they’re going
to be in, and any communication if they’re not going to be in at that time.” D8 added, “Work
independently unless there’s a special project.” D5 agreed with D8, stating, “I would agree
working independently is usually very important.” D5 later added, “I would say, also, being able
to receive feedback is important.” D7 added that they appreciated willingness to take initiative to
ask what could be done, “or at least being, like, aware of what’s happening…” D9 added, “They
have to do all those things and also be customer-service oriented.” D5 said that even if they
aren’t customer-facing, it is important to be able to communicate with supervisors and coworkers
professionally.
Question 2
The second question the researcher asked all direct supervisors was, “How are your
expectations of student workers determined and shared?” The data show that direct supervisors
believe they determine the expectations of their student workers. Some outside sources were
mentioned, but the majority of expectations are determined by the direct supervisors with the
assistance of the indirect supervisors, such as department chairs and directors.
114
Direct Supervisors Determine and Share. Expectations are shared through the
interview process, onboarding and training, continuous emailing, texting, electronic chats, and
in-person discussions with full-time staff, peer supervisors, and mentors.
D8 said:
I have, like, a procedure book I usually have them read through, very first thing. And it’s
always in their desk in case they need to refer back to that. So, they have that, and then
we go over their daily tasks.
D7 said, “On top of that, we determine them (expectations) as a team. So, I have a five-member
staff, and we sat down and created kind of a handbook for our student workers.”
D6 responded, “It’s kind of the same thing; It’s usually just [director of the unit] and me.”
D10 said, “It’s just my chair and I.” D10 also stated that the student worker handbook they use
was passed down when they first started in the position. D10 also mentioned that expectations
are shared during the interview process as well as through onboarding and training.
D9 mentioned that expectations change each semester because “our world changes that
fast. So, we set our expectations every semester, and then there’s a little bit of ebb and flow as
we go.” D9 added:
And if we need to communicate a change, it can be through email… Email and texting is
usually how our communication goes out. And then multiple people in the office will
check in with them when they come in after that communication has gone out to make
sure they received it. Because, the other thing is, they don’t check their email.
D6 responded, “Yes, I’ve run into that a lot.” D7 replied, “So, that goes back to being a good
student worker is checking your email,” and D7 added, “We use chat a lot.” D5 said, “We use
Google Chat a lot to communicate, like, daily tasks, things that need to be done.” D8 responded,
115
“In my office, I just think it’s easier for it all to run through me… I don’t want, like, too many
people throwing stuff at them and getting them confused on what they’re supposed to be doing.”
D1 mentioned a student worker manual that D2 created. D1 said, “We have personality
training (researcher interprets this as “professionalism” training) for just as far as how to respond
and interact with professors. So, we talk about that, and just the program in general.” D1 went on
to say, “Etiquette is definitely important… Last fall, I had to show one of the students how to
address an envelope.” D2 replied, “Me too!” and added, “So, we try to give them actual life
skills they’re actually going to use when they go out into the world.”
D2, the author of the handbook, also recognized that not all student workers learn their
expectations in the same way. D2 said:
I have one student worker who has a learning disability. And, so, for her, I typically only
give her one or two items at a time and typically put it in writing… I have another one
who is really amazing, but she also has ADHD. So, again, two or three things… But she
can get her messages verbally, whereas the other one needs it (written)... communicating
it in a way that they can receive it and live up to the expectation.
D12 mentioned an in-person meeting at the beginning of each semester as well as a
handbook that D12 produced. D12 said, “I go over the handbook with them and just set down
their expectations and the rules and just the guidelines.” D11 also sets expectations. D11 said,
“The expectations are determined with myself and then our director, of course.” D11 added,
“This past spring, our intern created an onboarding program, and we’ve tried to implement that a
little bit, but we’re still kind of growing in that way.” D11 said about sharing expectations, “It’s
shared from the internal, or like, full-time staff, but also their peers. So, the ones that are
116
returning, the more experienced student workers, they kind of help set that expectation for the
ones that are coming in.”
D4 has a handbook they created with input from a national organization affiliated with
D4's functional unit. D4 also has experienced student workers who help share expectations with
other student workers. D4’s unit utilizes a mentoring program in which graduate assistants
supervise undergraduate student workers, and experienced student workers train inexperienced
student workers.
Question 3
The third question the researcher asked all direct supervisors was, “What kind of training
do your student workers undergo?” The researcher discovered that the main training for student
workers is the delivery of a handbook during initial training and onboarding, which includes
instructions on how to perform the job functions. All student workers also undergo FERPA
training, and some student workers undergo Title IX training as well. Additionally, some
functional units utilize a combination of in-person and electronic training.
Handbooks. D1 and D2 rely mainly on their unit’s handbook, which D2 created. D1,
however, also recognizes that modeling professional behavior is important. D1 says, “I think you
get more out of them if they see you doing it too. Like, I’m not going to ask you to do anything I
wouldn’t do, for sure.”
D10 also stated that they rely on the handbook. D10 also verbally highlights the most
important aspects. D10 explained, “On their first day, I kind of run them through… It’s a small
office, and it’s a small department… So, we just kind of run through the tasks that are most
common.” D10 added, “And, honestly, I just kind of take it as it comes. So, if there’s a new task
that they haven’t done yet, I just walk them through it when it arises.” D5 agreed, saying, “A lot
117
of what they do, it changes throughout the semester. So, we might just have to, like, talk about
how we’re going to complete certain things or certain tasks.” D6 agreed, “Yeah, I agree. We go
over the most common tasks the first day.” D8 and D9 also verbally review their handbook that
lists procedures for the job. D9 stated that they also sit down and review the dress code, which is
very important for the position.
D9 also trains student workers to give campus tours effectively and interact with potential
students and their families. D9 said:
They get a separate manual for tours and are trained on the locations of every building on
campus, how to drop people off, where to drop them off… because occasionally, they’ll
have to escort families back to academic appointments. So, they have to know everything
about here… so, it’s a lot. It usually takes about two weeks to feel like a student worker is
okay to be doing what they need to do on their own.
In-Person and Electronic Training. D4 stated, “In the beginning of the semester, we do
the first-day orientation, which is usually the day before classes start. Then, within that first week
or two each semester, we do a front desk review.” D4 added, “What I really want to work on is
developing leadership skills and developing specific skills that employers are looking for after
they graduate.” D4 explained that the unit holds in-service days throughout the semester focusing
on some of the top skills employers seek.
D12 said most training happens during the student workers’ shifts with full-time staff
members and more experienced students. D12’s unit consists of several different areas, and “A
lot of our students are cross-trained in all areas… there’s a manager in every one of the areas…
the managers train students, and other students do train the students too.”
118
D11 recognized similarities and said, “Similar situation in our department… it’s mostly
falling on the more experienced student workers to train up their peers.” D11 went on to explain,
“I don’t think we have the staffing to be able to pull the full-time people away, really, from their
normal duties to give the student workers that come in as much training as they need.” D11
added, “The most recent development is a Canvas course (that) kind of helps familiarize them
with the content, if they take it upon themselves to read it.” D11 went on to explain, after the
researcher asked a clarifying question:
So, the Canvas course kind of goes over the content in the handbook so that they are, you
know, kind of accountable for knowing that information. And then it gives them a quiz
too, you know, to test their knowledge. Based on the results from the course, they did not
read the handbook. So, once we get past our busy period, we’re going to try to have some
more, like, one-on-one consulting with each one, so we can, kind of, make sure that
they’re up to par with what they need to know to run the office smoothly.
D12 stated they liked the idea of that Canvas course by saying, “I like that idea of, like, a course
for the student. I wrote that down.”
Question 4
The fourth question the researcher asked all direct supervisors was, “Would you say your
student workers’ productivity is currently being measured by your department or office? If so,
how?” The focus group participants were unaware of any productivity measures they were
currently measuring.
None. D1, D2, and D3 expressed a lack of official productivity measures. D2 explained,
“I don’t think it’s actually measured. It’s just that things are accomplished. And, so, I mean, we
119
see some that go above and beyond, are always willing to help. And those students stand out,
especially in the long term.” D2 also said:
It’s just said, we know that we could not survive without student workers because I don’t
have two hours to go over and deliver stuff all over campus and accomplish what I need
to do. So, we’re grateful for that service they provide, just answering the phones and
directing traffic… and checking out laptops, making copies… or formatting something or
making a presentation… we’re grateful for what they do. But, I don’t think there’s an
actual measurement tool.
D4 said, “That’s something I really wish we could do better with, to be honest with you.”
D4 went on to say that if something was brought to their attention, they would go back and look
at security cameras to see what they were doing. D4 expressed the need for a full-time staff
member to help with those measures, saying, “Most [functional unit] departments have a student
employee or full-time person as part of their job where they’re responsible for all the training, all
the evaluating, things like that. We don’t really have that person, necessarily.”
D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, and D10 also expressed a lack of official productivity measures.
However, D7 stated, “I would say, anecdotally, I think we check on the team, we check in with
each other, just how it’s going.” D9 said, “We see if you’re working or not, if it got done or not.”
D9 went on to say, “It’s pretty easily measured by just being in the office and seeing.”
D12 expressed a lack of official productivity measures as well, also adding, “I don’t even
know how to do that.” But, D11 did state that their functional unit had some measures of
productivity in place. D11 explained, “We do have an appointment platform… we’re able to
gauge how many appointments they’ve taken in the week or in a month or a semester.” D11
added, though, “Outside of those appointment blocks, there’s a lot of tasks that they take on that
120
there’s not really a good way to measure it that I’m aware of at this point, other than just
observation.”
Question 5
The fifth question the researcher asked all direct supervisors was, “What is your policy
on working on homework or personal tasks during shifts, and how does this affect student
workers’ productivity?” The researcher found that most direct supervisors who participated in
the focus groups do allow student workers to work on their coursework. The researcher also
found that most direct supervisors did not attribute their policies on homework and personal
tasks to decreased productivity.
Personal Tasks. D1 said:
The rule for us has always been you take care of the office tasks first. And, then, if
there’s nothing for you to do at that point, you can do your homework… And also,
(during) their shifts, sometimes they have to go to study groups or mandatory advisor
(meetings). And… I mean, they’re here for academics, not for $8 an hour.
D2 admitted to not being fond of certain social media trends, such as Be Real - an app in which
users show their surroundings in real-time - because of privacy concerns. D2 explained, “‘Show
your surroundings.’ So, like, if you’re in the middle of doing something or you’re with a client,
or… yeah, it’s just… just not a fan of that stuff.” D3 said they have rules against social media
during work. D3 explained:
You know, when you’re at work, it’s for work. It’s because we had students that were
recording, you know, doing Snapchat, recording conversations… things that, you know,
should be confidential, and sending it to whomever. So, we have to say, you know, ‘No’
to social media.
121
Work First, Then Homework. D4 allows homework as long as it does not interfere with
work. D4 rationalizes the policy, saying, “If you say no to homework… they’re going to find
something to occupy their time. If it’s slow, I’d rather them occupy their time with homework
than playing on their phone or whatever else.” D4 went on to say:
And it helps with retention, too. I noticed when I first got here, there was a No
Homework policy in place. But, the turnover rate was crazy, people just quitting all the
time. So, then I conducted a mini-survey back then. That’s what people said is that they
would rather have a job where they could work on their homework when there were slow
times.
D5, D6, D7, and D8 all allow homework to be done during work hours. D8 said, “My
students are very independent. So, they know what, you know, what is supposed to be done.” D5
agreed and added, “If everything is completed, or they’re just at work for their hours, then I
encourage them to do their homework. I think it’s a good time for them to do their homework.”
D7 agreed and added, “It’s a perk.”
D9 added that when the student workers get used to working on homework and a task
comes up, they must be reminded that work comes first. D9 explained, “We do have to re-
communicate often… if they’re not doing what they’re supposed to be doing, we have to swing
by and say ‘I know we let you before, but now…’” D10 also agreed, saying:
Because our office really is very slow, very often, they get really accustomed to, like,
taking for granted that they have time to work on something. And, maybe, they’ve put
something off, like, ‘I’ll just work on that while I work.’ But, then, they show up, and
there’s something really important that needs to be done… We just kind of have to push
them back on task.
122
D6, D7, and D9 agreed with that statement. D5 added that since multiple student workers are on
their shifts at one time, sometimes they will reassign something to another student worker who
does not have homework.
D10 also allows student workers to call in if they have an academic issue or something
related to academics that comes up. D10 said, “I always tell them, ‘Your academics come first,
like you’re here to be a student. Like, so, if you, you know, have to call in because XYZ related
to school, like, please do that.’” D5 agreed, saying, “Yeah, you know, I just encourage them to
let me know if there’s something like that they need to do.”
Effect on Productivity. The researcher probed further into this question at this point and
asked how the leniency on homework during work hours affected productivity. D8 said, “I don’t
feel it affects it because they have to, my stuff has to come, the work and the office has to come
first.” D6 added, “Yeah, I’ve never had any pushback. If something pops up, they drop whatever
they’re working on, personally, to do what needs to be done.” D5 added, “When you, like,
respect their needs, I think they reciprocate that back to you. So, in a way, I think probably, it
makes productivity better.” D8 agreed, saying, “Yeah, they’re treated with respect. So, they
show it back.”
D11 admitted, “They are at a desk most of the time they are in the office. So sometimes,
there is nothing to do.” D11 went on to say that ideally, the only time student workers should be
allowed to work on school work or personal tasks is when everything for that week and the
following week are caught up. “That is the ideal situation where they would work on their
homework.” D11 also said, regarding productivity:
It does affect productivity, because it seems like they prioritize that over making sure that
there’s nothing to do. So, maybe if they need time away from the office to study or do
123
homework, then maybe we should let them have the day off instead of them working on
stuff in the office. I have noticed, though, if they do work on homework in the office and
a student walks in, they drop it immediately, and they go to work. So, they’re not putting
it above their productivity, necessarily. But, they have to have somebody pretty much
giving them instruction… So, yes, it affects their productivity, slightly, yeah.
The researcher recognizes that, based on the previous question, a productive student
worker shows initiative. If a student worker must wait to be told what to do, they are not showing
initiative and, therefore, not being productive.
The researcher only encountered one direct supervisor who did not allow homework or
personal tasks during work hours. D12, whose functional unit is very customer-focused, stated,
“We don’t allow it.” D12 added, “So, they can’t have their homework out or read a book or have
their earbuds in or their phone out.” D12 also said that any student worker caught doing such
things would be fired.
Indirect Supervisors
The researcher gathered data from 15 indirect supervisors through three focus groups.
One focus group was composed of supervisors from the same college. Two focus groups
included indirect supervisors from various functional units. The researcher encountered a
technical malfunction with the recording device during one of the focus groups that included
indirect supervisors from various functional units. Therefore, the researcher, along with a
committee member who happened to be a part of the focus group, created a document notating
themes that emerged from each focus group question. The implications of this limitation were
small due to the researcher’s swift action and robust methodology.
124
Question 1
The first question the researcher asked all indirect supervisors was, “How would you
define a productive student worker?” The data showed two main themes that emerged from this
question. The researcher found that, like direct supervisors and student workers, indirect
supervisors believe a productive student worker is one who shows professionalism, which is
characterized by showing initiative, punctuality, and dependability. Additionally, indirect
supervisors recognize the unique skills that student workers possess. Therefore, the second main
theme that emerged from this question is showcasing unique skills.
Professionalism. I4 stated, in response to the question, “One who comes to work on
time, that’s important, to have some accountability of their work.” I2 added, “Eager to learn their
role and who they represent… they learn about the programs and how to effectively direct
inquiries and support to the right person.” I3 stated, “I’d say asking, kind of, regularly if we need
help, versus just sitting there doing homework and hoping to not have to do anything.” I1 added:
A productive student worker should be someone who shows up on time, someone who
seeks opportunities to complete particular tasks… someone who’s motivated… being
able to pick up on those cues of when assistance may be needed, I think, would be
important for a productive student worker.
I2 agreed with I1 and added, “And with a good attitude, you know, willing to help and to learn to
do things with eagerness and a good attitude. Even in answering the phone…” I3 said, “Even,
like, greeting people. I mean that could be the first person they see that comes into our office. So,
if they’re not kind or not hospitable… that could shine a negative light on our program.”
125
The researcher noted themes deriving from I5 through I10 were punctuality, showing
initiative, asking questions, answering phones and greeting people professionally, and
responding to email.
I14 stated to the question, “(One who) actually comes to work” and someone who will
“let you know when they’re done with something, instead of you constantly having to check on
them.” I11 added, “(One who) maintains a consistent schedule.” and someone who “just shows
initiative, willing to pick up when they see others in the office doing something, they offer to
help finish a task, that kind of thing.” I15 added, “Someone who is busy doing some type of
work besides just their homework or something.” I12 said, “Yeah, if there’s downtime, asking,
‘Hey, is there anything else I could be doing?’ or ‘How else can I help?’”
I14 noted that the bar was set low since the COVID-19 pandemic, and I15 noted that it
“falls on us, not them, if we’re not giving it (work) to them.” I14 and I15 both stated that the
student workers’ direct supervisors, administrative assistants, or supervising professors are the
ones who actually oversee the student workers and, therefore, might have a better idea of the
concept of productivity.
Showcasing Unique Skills. I3 said of a current student worker, “She just revamped our
whole lab and just, like, took it upon herself as a project, and it was super helpful, saved us a lot
of time… organizing, if I had to do it, I’d be like *shrug*.” I2 agreed, saying:
I think that’s important is identifying skills. Student workers and, you know, students
have particular skills. Maybe it’s web suggestions or organizing… or helping create
graphic types of things; I think that’s very helpful when you can identify a student that
can assist with those types of specific skills as well.
126
I13, who was in a different focus group, mentioned something similar, saying, “When
they are willing to bring their own skills that they may have that are unique to them… that would
be productive.” I13 went on to explain, “We have, one of our student workers is really good
with, like, creative stuff and marketing, and she helps with us with our flyers and things. So, that
kind of thing.”
Questions 2 and 3
The second question the researcher asked all indirect supervisors was, “How are
expectations of student workers determined and shared?” The researcher discovered one main
theme regarding this question. According to indirect supervisors, student workers’ direct
supervisors, usually administrative assistants, are responsible for determining and sharing
expectations. The third question the researcher asked all indirect supervisors was, “What kind of
training do your student workers undergo?” The researcher found that direct supervisors relied
on the student workers’ indirect supervisors, usually administrative assistants, to facilitate
training. So, indirect supervisors were not as keenly aware of the types of trainings student
workers undergo.
Direct Supervisors’ Expectations and Training. I4 stated, “I don’t know that I ever
have expectations or checklists for the student workers. I always, kind of, leave that to our
Admin (Administrative Assistant) downstairs.” I2 said:
They have a little binder of information about the programs, who to contact, who’s the
go-to person for whatever the individual may need… There’s a list of tasks, potential
tasks, and it’s shared through a way. I think they typically communicate work schedules
and all that kind of stuff.
127
The researcher asked a clarifying question at this point, “So, are the Admins determining
the expectations there?” I2 said, “I would say, based on guidance from… yeah.” I4 intercepted
12’s statement by saying:
We’ve reviewed the student worker handbook the students are given at orientation
whenever they’re employed. So, we do have a handbook, and the administrative assistant
will go over the professional expectations… So, they are oriented whenever they begin to
work here, and their schedule is set by, they share that with the administrative assistant,
and then they figure out their schedule. But, I would say the expectations are
communicated through the administrative assistants and shared with the students.
I1 referenced FERPA training as well as the handbook that student workers are given. I1
also said, “We have notecards by the telephone and the computer. ‘If so-and-so calls, this is what
you do.’ So, they have some guidance, immediate guidance, for situations that may come up.”
The researcher gathered the following themes from I5-I10 regarding the questions: The
administrative assistant does training through a manual, but it is not clear where the information
is obtained - it could be from the Dean; A list of expectations is printed and discussed; They are
upfront about expectations during the interview process; Expectations change throughout the
year, depending on projects; An issue is that student workers have only 20 hours or less per week
in the position, so sharing expectations is difficult; Student workers undergo FERPA training,
Title IX training, job shadowing, and role-playing to practice situations.
I11 stated that since their office handles confidential information, a confidentiality
agreement is signed by every student worker. I11 also stated:
128
We try to go over all of those expectations, kind of, on the first day, and just do a brief,
like, onboarding with the students and, kind of, explain what all the expectations are…
So, we try to lay out what that would look like on the front end.
After the researcher asked a probing question regarding how expectations are determined, I11
said, “We’ve had a dress code that we’ve, kind of, established… Depending on the student
workers’ schedule, and how often they will be able to work, that’s kind of how we assign tasks.”
I13 said, “Our Admin has an onboarding, kind of, process she does with each of them,
and we have a student worker handbook that is kept updated that she goes over with them.” I13
then gave a scenario they witnessed that day:
We had someone come in to tell us our elevator was not working. And our Admin
stopped, and was like, “Alright, student worker, if I wasn’t here, what would you do right
now?” And she, kind of, went over, like, you know, “Who would you call for that?”
I12 said:
Yeah, similar with us, just our Admin, and a couple employees in our office, deal with
the student workers and just, you know, assign them duties and just have them do
things… We do some formal trainings too, dealing with data and processing paperwork
and recording data and things like that.
I14 said, “We also did a manual, and that was decided… about every four or five years, it
actually goes to all the supervisors, including me, and all the Admins, and we revamp it so that it
covers all the areas.”
I14 also questioned the best way to select effective, and in turn productive, student
workers, saying, “Are we expected to have high expectations and be selective? Or anyone who
qualifies, are we, kind of, supposed to find them a spot?” I11 answered, “I would think that you
129
would want to hire students that would meet your expectations for your department… So, I don’t
feel like you’re obligated to hire any certain person.”
I15 noted:
I would really like for the whole department to know that they can utilize them (student
workers) to help them, where it seems as though the Admin Assistant has been the only
one that’s even giving the person any work.
I11, however, disagreed, saying:
Since we have so many people who supervise work study… we actually don’t want them
mixing or assuming they can mix…. We want the supervisor to give permission.
Otherwise, it gets abused. We’ve had that, “I don’t have enough people today, I’m going
to take yours.” “No, you’re not!”
I11 said, “I can see where that would be an issue.”
Question 4
The fourth question the researcher asked all indirect supervisors was, “What more could
student workers do to elevate the overall productivity of your department or office.” The themes
that emerged from this question were showing more initiative, showcasing specific skills,
becoming more familiar with the university, and having the ability to hire more student workers
to fill in the gaps.
Ideas for Improvement Involving Students. I2 said, “They’ve got specific talents and
skills, share those.” I4 said:
We have had limited student workers with budget cuts or budget restraints. And I think if
we were allowed to have funds or utilize funds where we could have student workers
who have longevity here - we could train student workers to help in the labs… I think we
130
struggle with that. So, basically, they have been sitting at the desk, answering the phones
- I don’t think that’s productive. And I think there are other things that we could do at this
university that would help us utilize students in a better way, in my opinion.
I2 agreed, saying, “Yes, absolutely. And I think, even, recruitment efforts… ‘You’re not working
at this time? Let’s run over to the [student center]. We’re having a health fair.’” I4 expanded,
“We cannot be at every recruiting event. But, if we were able to hire students in our majors or
areas who could go out and help us go to high schools, that would impact these students in our
recruiting, our admission numbers.” I2 said, “I think hearing from students, it’s exciting - there’s
some things that can happen.” I4 agreed, saying, “You know, peer-to-peer is much more
impactful than me.” I1 added, “Yeah, I mean they (student workers) will understand about
housing and where - where should they live? And how should they schedule classes?”
I2 added another idea:
Would it be something that, it could be created - here’s some general, across campus,
maybe, modules that they would go through that would, maybe, you know… We go
through Canvas modules for certain things. But, maybe, you’re hired as a student
worker… maybe something you have to complete, and they talk about soft skills. And
then, more specific to the area that you’re going to be working in, I mean, they’re
representatives of the university… if anybody from within the university or outside the
university were to interact with them, then they’re representing… So, I mean, maybe that
would help them with productivity.
I1 and I3 agreed with this statement.
The researcher gathered the following themes from respondents I5 through I10: Check in
with staff and their needs, respond to messages, and take initiative. The focus group with
131
respondents I11 said student workers should “continue to be present,” and I14 agreed saying,
“showing up.” I12 and I13 all nonverbally agreed with these statements.
Question 5
The fifth question the researcher asked all indirect supervisors was, “How do your
expectations of professionalism affect your student workers?” The researcher found that the
dress code policies were important to indirect supervisors. The researcher also found that being
present in the moment and showing interpersonal skills were an important part of
professionalism. Modeling professional behavior is important to indirect supervisors, according
to the data that the researcher collected.
Professionalism. I1 said:
We have had students with tank tops, in short shorts… and for our programs - our health
care programs - where we’re bringing in families and students, the student workers are
typically the first person that our families see. And I don’t think that presents a good
image of who we are as healthcare professionals. We certainly wouldn’t dress like that in
our jobs.
I3 recalled a recent event saying:
I went upstairs to use the copier, or something, and I didn’t know any of the student
workers. But, they didn’t even, like, look up, acknowledge me. I’m like, ‘I could be
anybody.’ And so, it’s like, engaging is professionalism, and acknowledging, and asking
if I need help. Instead, they’re, like, looking down, like in their books.
I1 added, “And speak. Communicate with people coming in through the door.” I4 said to this,
“Role modeling is important.”
132
I11 also recognized that modeling professional behavior is important, saying, “We want
to set that example, for what they’re going to see when they actually enter the workforce… So, I
think just making sure that they understand real-world expectations.”
Question 6
The sixth question the researcher asked all indirect supervisors was, “What could be done
in your department or office to provide your student workers with a more fulfilling experience?”
The main theme that emerged from this question reflected what the student workers reported that
they wanted: more engagement from staff and faculty.
More Engagement from Faculty and Staff. I3 said, “I think, showing them gratitude
helps them feel fulfilled, like they’re serving a purpose.” I3 also added, “Trying to find
something for them to do, so they feel purposeful… but, they probably just like doing
homework.” I1 agreed with the first part of what I3 said:
I think engaging with them and saying, you know, just, ‘How’s school going? How are
your classes? Home okay?’ Just checking in on them a little bit. Because we do care
about the [student] workers], and they’re sometimes scared, you know? There’s this
boundary, but you just check in.
I2 said:
I think having these things that they can do, that they can say that they’re proud of, that
maybe they can build their resume, or maybe they will help work on some particular
things… that shows leadership, that shows some things that could help them strengthen
their resume or whatever they’re moving toward.
I4 added, “I do think you have to identify what’s a fulfilling experience for them. And to do that,
you have to have a relationship with them to figure out where they’re at.”
133
I1 later added a story about a student worker who was answering phones, but they later
discovered that they were proficient at digitally organizing data. “She helped us scan some of the
old contracts, put them into a digital format, and she was good at that, and she seemed to enjoy
the organizational piece of it.” I1 added, “But we were just using her here, you know, just to
answer phones, and it didn’t make good use of her time.” I2 then added a story about a similar
situation in which a student was talented in utilizing various technology. “So, yeah, I agree.
Having a particular - ‘Here’s what we could use’ - ‘What could you contribute?’”
Respondents I5 through I10 discussed themes related to setting expectations early, asking
students what they want out of the experience, letting students know they are part of the team,
providing perks such as takeout, and sending notes to others about their accomplishments.
I13 said, “Maybe ask them if there’s anything that can be done to make it more
fulfilling.” I11, I12, and I15 all liked that idea. I15 added, “Asking them what skills they have
that might be beneficial to the department.” I16 said, “Opening up more communication.”
I12 said, “Maybe just give them a little more direction in terms of, you know, what we’re
asking them to do and why they’re expected to do that.” I11 agreed, saying, “Making them
understand, like, how important they are to the department.”
Theoretical Framework with Focus Groups and Interviews
Social Exchange Theory recognizes the motivations and benefits of social interactions.
On-campus student work is a social interaction that benefits the student workers, the university,
and future employers. Students express that an important motivation for on-campus work is pay.
Students recognize that on-campus work does not provide enough pay to fully meet their needs.
Students can take jobs off campus in addition to jobs on campus to supplement their income.
Off-campus jobs that exceed 20 hours per week have a negative impact on retention, (Pike et al.,
134
2008), thereby negating the benefits of students’ secondary on-campus jobs’ positive impacts on
retention.
Students see the benefits of on-campus employment in their academics, especially when
the positions allow them time to focus on coursework. When asked what could make their
student employment experience more fulfilling, many students cited pay as well as more
engagement from faculty and staff.
Direct and indirect supervisors realize that student workers positively contribute to the
functions of the university. Students and supervisors also realize that on-campus work has the
potential to benefit future employers through skill building. Students who work on campus also
benefit other students. On-campus student workers are seen as helpers and mentors, either to the
students they work with or the students they serve. Students helping other students is a benefit to
the university. Student workers can affect other students’ outlook and image of the university by
often being the first point of contact a potential student or parent has with the university.
Primary Research Question
The primary research question (RQ1) is what does it mean to be a productive university
student worker. The answer to the primary research question has three main parts:
professionalism, academic balance, and utilization of skills.
First, a productive student worker must appear professional at all times. This theme
emerged from the document analysis as well as from interviews and focus groups with student
workers, their direct supervisors, and their indirect supervisors. To be professional, student
workers must be dependable, show initiative, and represent the university in a mature way
through appropriate dress and effective communication.
135
Secondly, a productive student worker is a productive student first. Academic balance is
another prevalent theme in regards to defining a productive student worker. Academic balance
was most recognized by the student workers themselves. However, some direct and indirect
supervisors did acknowledge that student workers are students first.
Finally, a productive student worker should be able to showcase their unique skills on the
job. Student workers alluded to this theme when asked how their experience could be more
fulfilling, but mainly indirect supervisors were the ones from which this theme emerged.
Secondary Research Questions
The first secondary research question (RQ2) is how is “student worker” defined. A
student worker is a student first and a worker for the university second. This definition of student
worker aligns with the answer to the primary research question. This definition also aligns with
the definitions that emerged through the literature review and document analysis.
The second secondary research question (RQ3) is how are expectations of student
workers determined. Expectations of student workers are determined primarily through their
direct supervisors with some input from the student workers themselves. Expectations of student
workers vary across functional units depending on the area in which students work, the positions
students hold, and the ability of each student worker.
The third secondary research question (RQ4) is how are expectations shared with student
workers. Expectations are largely shared through physical and electronic handbooks and
checklists. The handbooks are shared with students during training and onboarding, which occurs
at the beginning of each semester. Expectations are also shared through continuous and as-
needed in-person interactions or interactions that occur through electronic means such as emails
and text messages.
136
The fourth secondary research question (RQ5) is how is productivity defined for student
workers. Productivity is defined through many factors that relate to professionalism. Punctuality,
dependability, teamwork, effective communication, time management, customer service, and
showing initiative are some of the most prevalent qualities of productivity for student workers.
Professional qualities are only one aspect of productivity when it comes to student workers.
Another aspect of productivity for student workers, especially from the student workers’
perspectives, is the ability to balance work and academics.
The fifth secondary research question (RQ6) is how is productivity measured for student
workers. The data gathered from documents and focus groups did not provide a clear answer to
this question. Quantifiable productivity is not prioritized in on-campus student work. Qualitative
productivity, however, is recognized but not measured.
137
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
The study explored how university student worker productivity is perceived and
evaluated. The researcher conducted the study at a four-year regional public university in
western Kentucky with approximately 9,500 students enrolled and approximately 1,850 students
employed on campus. The researcher reviewed and analyzed documents regarding university
student work, such as handbooks, policy manuals, checklists, job descriptions, and interview
questions. The researcher conducted focus groups and interviews with three distinct sets of
respondents: university student workers and their direct and indirect supervisors.
The researcher conducted the study using a grounded theory design and social exchange
theory as its theoretical construct to answer the following primary research question:
RQ1: What does it mean to be a productive university student worker?
The researcher sought to answer the following secondary research questions to
complement and expand upon the primary research question:
RQ2: How is “student worker” defined?
RQ3: How are the expectations of student workers determined?
RQ4: How are expectations shared with student workers?
RQ5: How is productivity defined for student workers?
RQ6: How is productivity measured for student workers?
Conclusions
The literature review, the document review and analysis, the interviews, and the focus
groups provided an answer to R2: How is “student worker” defined? A student worker is an
hourly-paid student employee who holds an on-campus work position dependent upon
enrollment. The researcher sought to define student worker prior to exploring what it means to be
138
a productive student worker because in order to explore the primary research question
objectively, the researcher must first understand the definition of those whom the researcher
seeks to explore.
The document review and analysis, along with interviews and focus groups, provided an
answer to RQ1: What does it mean to be a productive university student worker? The
overarching theme of a productive student worker is one who is professional, helpful, and a
positive representative of both the functional unit with which they serve and of the university
with which they attend.
The researcher winnowed the data regarding professionalism since no document provided
any definition of professionalism. Professionalism for student workers is formed by expectations
of full-time faculty and staff and include a combination of behaviors, policies, and procedures.
Professionalism, as it pertains to student workers, includes many aspects. The most prominent
aspects of professionalism for student workers are dependability, showing initiative, creating a
good balance between work and academics, and strong communication skills, including
customer service and teamwork. A productive student worker is a student first, and the positions
held by student workers must acknowledge that for someone to be a productive student worker,
they must also be a productive student.
Therefore, a productive student worker is a representative of their university and their
functional unit who is professional and helpful, exhibiting dependability, initiative, a balanced
approach to work and academics, and strong communication skills, including customer service
and teamwork.
The document review and analysis, along with interviews and focus groups, provided an
answer to RQ3: How are expectations of student workers determined? Expectations of student
139
workers are primarily determined by their direct supervisors. A total of 52 references were made
during interviews and focus groups to direct supervisors determining expectations for student
workers. Students often have input into defining their expectations. A total of 38 references were
made during interviews and focus groups to students having input into their own expectations,
whether that be scheduling or job duties. Peer mentors, indirect supervisors, and other faculty
and staff also influence determining expectations for student workers. A total of 57 references
were made during interviews and focus groups to either peer mentors, indirect supervisors, or
other faculty and staff determining expectations for student workers. Therefore, direct
supervisors set expectations for student workers with input from student workers in areas such as
scheduling and job duties. Peer mentors, indirect supervisors, and other faculty/staff sometimes
influence expectations.
The researcher recognizes that many student workers do not have a clear understanding
of who actually determines their expectations. The researcher further recognizes that many direct
and indirect supervisors also do not have a clear understanding of how expectations of student
workers are determined.
The document review and analysis, along with interviews and focus groups, provided an
answer to RQ4: ‘How are expectations of student workers shared?’ Expectations of student
workers are shared primarily through continuous in-person discussions as well as initial training
and onboarding. Handbooks and policy manuals that include checklists are also frequently used.
Electronic means, such as email, messaging apps, and course-management systems are used to
share expectations of student workers as well. Expectations are shared with student workers in
ways that are most beneficial to them. The researcher found that written materials, such as
140
handbooks and policies, have been passed down, shared, and edited to fit functional units’ needs,
with no citations made to the origins of such documents and policies.
The document review and analysis, along with interviews and focus groups, provided
answers to RQ5 and RQ6: ‘How is productivity defined for university student workers?’ and
‘How is productivity measured for university student workers?’ University student worker
productivity is mainly qualitative. Quantitative metrics and key performance indicators are not
currently used to measure student worker productivity. Therefore, productivity is neither defined
nor measured for university student workers.
Relationship of Conclusions to Other Research
The study builds upon prior research exploring student worker productivity from various
angles. First, the study connects student worker productivity with the concept of a high-quality
student worker program. Secondly, the study delves into the relationship between the identity of
student workers and perceived engagement levels. The study also highlights the dynamics of
social exchange within university student employment. Lastly, the study reveals how workplace
productivity and other career-readiness competencies directly tie into the central focus on student
worker productivity.
High-Quality Student Worker Positions
Burnside et al. (2019) found four key barriers to providing student employees with
positions that enhance students’ career goals while providing them financial relief: funding
constraints, lack of consistent and standardized practices, limited capacity for full-time staff, and
clear visions for student employment. The researcher found the same barriers during the study.
Nonetheless, high-quality and intentional student work that focuses on career readiness and
complements academics is important to students, their universities, and potential future
141
employers (Fede et al., 2018; McClellan et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2017; The University of Iowa,
n.d.).
Perozzi (2019) discussed the importance of leadership development in student
employment. Eight student respondents stated they would like more job responsibility, while
eight other students would appreciate a less demanding role. There were two sects of students
who longed for a less demanding role. The first sect was residential advisors who believed they
were poorly compensated for their duties and demands regarding being on-call throughout the
night. The second sect was teaching assistants who believed they were poorly compensated for
teaching students who could not learn from their professors. The student workers who wanted
more responsibilities were graduate assistants who longed for more leadership or research
opportunities or international students who believed they were not being given enough support to
perform in high-functioning roles.
One of the main drivers for students to pursue higher education is to build skills for future
employment (Gallup, 2022). Therefore, on-campus job performance should be taken into
consideration. Means by which to determine and measure key performance indicators are
necessary for students’ expectations and outcomes.
Identity and Engagement
Many student respondents stated they would like more engagement from staff and faculty
with whom they interact on the job. A total of 34 references to more staff and faculty
engagement, including being given more feedback, were noted in the transcripts.
Identities are shaped through the interactions people have with others in various settings
(Smith et al., 2017). Students interact with university staff members regularly, and student
workers engage with their direct and indirect supervisors in a professional setting. The researcher
142
found that student worker engagement with staff and faculty is lacking, which could harm
student development. The researcher also noted a lack of engagement through many functional
units admittedly not possessing any documentation related to student workers even though they
employ them. Nineteen of 50 functional units stated they have no written materials related to
their student staff at all.
Mackay et al. (2019) found that students desire to feel a part of the larger group. The
researcher found that student workers desire to feel a part of the functional unit they serve. If
students sense that they are not valued, by feelings of isolation through a lack of engagement,
students’ productivity could be negatively impacted. Additionally, since students procrastinate,
and their productivity is affected by procrastination (Peper et al., 2014), students could benefit
from more engagement to combat procrastination. Contributions to work productivity help build
a strong work culture (Gupta, 2020). Students who participate in engaging activities at work can
help shape the culture of the functional unit and the overall productivity.
Marginalized groups of student workers are particularly vulnerable to adverse impacts
associated with a lack of supervisor engagement. First-generation students often feel inadequate
(Watson et al., 2019). A lack of engagement from faculty and staff members who supervise first-
generation student workers in their on-campus jobs could compound those feelings of
inadequacy. Representation of people in positions of power can influence student workers in
their positions (McClellan et al., 2018). Representation amongst first-generation students,
various ethnicities and races, genders, and abilities are the building blocks to forming strong ties
within functional units that could lead to higher levels of engagement and productivity.
143
Social Exchange Theory
Social Exchange Theory, first introduced by psychologists and sociologists in the 1950s,
acknowledges the risks and rewards inherent in all social interactions, such as relationships and
business communications. Social Exchange Theory’s principles are relevant for university
student workers navigating various social dynamics on campus.
The researcher found that the three main desired attributes of student workers are to be
professional, a representative (of the functional unit and of the university), and helpful. The three
prominent attributes are communicated to student workers through handbooks and other forms of
communication. All three attributes demonstrate elements of social exchange.
For example, student workers must dress appropriately and uphold a professional
demeanor. In return, student workers receive respect from their supervisors and gain firsthand
experience of how professional offices operate. Professional student workers contribute to the
university’s reputation, creating positive impressions on visitors and enhancing the institution’s
overall image.
Student workers act as ambassadors to visitors and clients as representatives of their
functional unit and university. Student workers are expected to embody the values and mission
of the institution. Student workers contribute to the reciprocity inherent in social exchange by
positively representing the university. In return for their role as influential representatives,
student workers gain valuable interpersonal skills and opportunities to network with visitors and
possible future employers. The mutual exchange of positive representation develops a sense of
belonging and loyalty within the university community, reinforcing the social bonds that
underpin Social Exchange Theory.
144
Likewise, the helpful nature of on-campus student workers is intertwined with Social
Exchange Theory. Student workers are often entrusted with various tasks and responsibilities
contributing to their units’ and universities’ productivity. Student workers provide support to
colleagues, supervisors, and visitors. The presence of student workers in their roles nurtures a
spirit of community and cooperation. Student workers receive acknowledgment, gratitude, and
opportunities for skill development and personal growth by offering their time, skills, and
dedication. The cycle of helpfulness and appreciation creates a positive environment where
everyone’s contributions are valued, reinforcing the bonds of social exchange within the
university setting.
A specific example of social exchange comes from Doc20, which clearly outlines what
students can expect in return for their service to the unit. Doc20 states, “We want you to be a
stronger work candidate than you were when you first started in our office. The skills and
knowledge that you develop in your time with us should translate to a stronger resume and more
confidence in your future job hunts.” The unit also provides students with concrete rewards, such
as letters of recommendation from the director and the coordinator.
Productivity
NACE (2022) defines professionalism as the comprehension and manifestation of
effective work habits while prioritizing the welfare of the workplace. Such effective work habits
are correlated with heightened productivity. Hence, student workers who consistently exhibit
professional conduct will likely generate work that positively impacts universities and their work
units. Professionalism emerges as a prevalent theme in the reviewed documents. However,
interpretation of professionalism is subjective, since no document that the researcher reviewed
provided a definition of the term. Productivity measures were infrequent occurrences in the data,
145
but the researcher noted that direct and indirect supervisors show an interest in learning how to
measure student worker productivity properly.
Career-Readiness Competencies
Career-readiness competencies, as outlined by NACE (2022), such as interacting with
diverse populations, communication, and time management were recurring codes in the data.
However, several other career competencies, like critical thinking, quantitative reasoning, civic
engagement, evidence-based knowledge, and informed decision-making, were not commonly
addressed in the data.
Discussion
The study answered the primary research question and all of the secondary research
questions. Additionally, the study provided insight into some of the motivations for students
seeking on-campus work. Finally, the study offered several recommendations to enhance on-
campus student work.
Nineteen out of 50 functional units reported they provide absolutely no written policies or
other documentation for their student workers. Professionalism is a cornerstone of being
considered a productive university student worker, but the term is subjective with no clear-cut
definition. Functional units do not utilize any key performance indicators to determine
productivity for their student workers. In addition, functional units do not acknowledge the
significance of tracking qualitative measures of productivity.
Student-worker programs have the potential to produce positive results for all
stakeholders involved. Students come to college to gain skills for their careers. Many students
are burdened with financial limitations, and on-campus jobs can fill students’ financial needs.
However, student workers report frustration with what they deem unfair wages and restrictions
146
on how many hours they are allowed to work. Student workers also desire engagement and
recognition by their on-campus work colleagues and supervisors. Finally, student workers in
some positions yearn for positions that allow them to take on more responsibility that is aligned
with their academics. However, student workers in other positions believe they take on too much
responsibility and feel the pressure associated with taking on tasks meant for full-time staff.
Practical Significance
Productivity measures are important to businesses and to employees to track progress. A
high-quality student worker position, as examined by McClellan et al. (2018), encompasses
various aspects that the study supports, such as academic balance, engagement, belonging, and
identity support. The study addresses research gaps pertaining to high-quality student work by
incorporating an examination of productivity.
Productivity can be measured and tracked in various ways, both quantitative and
qualitative. A productive, high-quality student worker program can only be achieved through a
focused effort with clear guidelines and adequate oversight. One long-term possibility that might
arise from a successful program geared toward high-quality student work is a more abundant
labor pool for postsecondary education administration positions. The state of Kentucky, where
the research was conducted, has a “Grow-Your-Own” initiative to introduce high school students
to the educational field, paving the way for a seamless transition into postsecondary education
(Grow-Your-Own Programs, 2023). The data gathered from the research suggests that a similar
program for university student workers who might transition to postsecondary administration
programs might be beneficial.
147
Implications for Practice
The researcher concludes that effective and productive student worker programs can
benefit the students as well as the university and even future employers of student workers.
However, a strategic plan must be implemented to develop, create, strengthen, and utilize the
student worker program to benefit all stakeholders. The researcher has made several
recommendations that could be coordinated or managed by one overseeing functional unit.
Student Employee Handbooks
The researcher recommends that an overseeing functional unit of universities should first
provide a framework for student employee handbooks with university-specific wording
consistent with the mission and long-range plan of the university. The handbooks should include
uniform policies and procedures throughout the university. The overseeing functional unit should
provide language for handbooks, much like universities supply language for course syllabi. The
Provost office or another functional unit that specializes in compliance would be ideal to advise
on student employee handbook language.
The overseeing functional unit should define professionalism at the university level and
advise a definition for student employee handbooks. The recommendation supports the findings
of this study and is contemporarily relevant given the NACE (2023) report that found a contrast
in new graduates’ and employers’ perceptions of professionalism.
All functional units that employ student workers should adopt university-wide language
for their respective student employee handbooks. Each functional unit should form an ad-hoc
committee to review job descriptions for student work positions, existing handbooks, and other
relevant documents. The purpose of the review is to determine the functions of the student work
position and whether relevant documents align with what is expected. Such a review can help
148
identify what the functional unit needs from its student workers and compile a handbook that
contains pertinent information beneficial for recruiting new student workers, onboarding and
training the candidate, assessing their performance, and addressing any necessary corrective
measures.
Each written document in the handbook should be noted and cited with academic
research to support policies relating to each functional unit and the university’s missions and
goals. Written documents should also include the name(s) of each document’s author(s), the year
the document was last updated, and a summary of updates to the previous version. The
documentation will enhance transparency, accountability, and adherence to scholarly standards
in developing and maintaining essential materials.
Address Productivity
The researcher recommends that each functional unit develop its own key performance
indicators. Direct and indirect supervisors should regularly provide measurable qualitative and
quantitative productivity measures to student workers. Student workers will benefit by
understanding their impact on the unit and the university. Additionally, student workers will
acquire knowledge of their direct and indirect impacts to relay to potential future employers on
their resumes and during job interviews.
Examples of quantitative metrics that might be used to measure student worker
productivity include tracking engagement with stakeholders and quantifying impact on budgetary
matters such as saving money with a low-cost, high-impact outreach event. Examples of
qualitative metrics that might be used to measure student worker productivity include
testimonials from stakeholders and results of a Likert scale to measure career readiness. An
example of a Likert scale to measure career readiness in student employees is listed in Table 5.1.
149
The researcher also recommends that each functional unit facilitate regular meetings with
student workers to gather and supply information. Supervisors who regularly discuss student
workers’ achievements have the ability to give students a sense of accomplishment while
collecting information to improve their areas. The researcher also recommends facilitating exit
interviews with all student employees, no matter their reason for departure. Regular discussions
and exit interviews can provide valuable insight for the functional unit and future student
workers.
Supervisors of student workers can consider the following recommendations for topics of
discussion during exit interviews:
• Overall level of satisfaction in the position
• Level of satisfaction with training and onboarding
• Level of satisfaction with communication and engagement with full-time staff and faculty
• Level of satisfaction with communication and engagement with fellow student workers
• Alignment of the position to the student workers’ academics
• Alignment of the position to the student workers’ career goals
• Overall perceptions of productivity in the position
Address all Career-Readiness Competencies
Several career-readiness competencies, like critical thinking, quantitative reasoning, civic
engagement, evidence-based knowledge, and informed decision-making, were not commonly
addressed in the data from the study. Therefore, the researcher recommends that each functional
unit incorporate career-readiness competencies in each student worker position. Career-readiness
competencies should be noted in student employee handbooks, in evaluation materials such as
the Likert scale in Table 5.1, and in exit interviews.
150
Examples of how to incorporate each career competency, as outlined by NACE (2022),
are as follows:
• Critical Thinking – Student workers can show critical thinking skills by participating in the
functional unit’s team meetings and offering solutions to the problems the unit might be
facing.
• Communication – Student workers can show communication skills by effectively relaying
information regarding projects to the functional unit’s team.
• Teamwork – Student workers can show teamwork skills by successfully working with other
student workers to produce positive outcomes for the functional unit.
• Equity & Inclusion – Student workers can show equity and inclusion skills by actively
recruiting marginalized student populations to engage with the functional unit.
• Professionalism – Student workers can show professionalism skills by consistently being a
professional representative of the functional unit and the university.
• Technology – Student workers can show technology skills by utilizing and teaching others to
utilize new technology for the benefit of the functional unit.
• Career & Self-Development – Student workers can show career and self-development skills
by actively seeking to hone the skills they learn in the classroom in the functional unit they
serve.
• Leadership – Student workers can show leadership skills by mentoring newly hired student
workers in their functional unit.
Streamlined processes, such as setting clear goals and competencies, will assist functional
units and the university in determining the effectiveness of student employment programs.
Universities can address any gaps in skills to help students successfully transition into the
151
workforce upon completion of their degree. Institutions of higher education are often held
accountable for their graduates’ success, and assessing career readiness with student workers will
allow institutions to demonstrate their value in preparing students for successful careers.
Table 5.1
Example Likert Scale to Measure Career Readiness in Student Workers
Career-Readiness Competencies: 5=Excellent 4=Good 3=Average 2=Below Average 1=Poor
Career & Self
Development
Student worker is committed to career development
and self-development.
5 4 3 2 1
Communication
Student worker shows effective communication.
5 4 3 2 1
Critical Thinking
Student worker demonstrates critical thinking skills
on the job.
5 4 3 2 1
Equity & Inclusion
Student worker is committed to equity and inclusion.
5 4 3 2 1
Leadership
Student worker regularly showcases leadership
abilities.
5 4 3 2 1
Professionalism
Student worker shows professionalism at all times,
including dependability, initiative, and being a
positive representative of this functional unit and of
this university.
5 4 3 2 1
Teamwork
Student works well with others.
5 4 3 2 1
Technology
Student utilizes appropriate technology to solve
problems.
5 4 3 2 1
Note. The researcher suggests a Likert scale to measure productivity for student workers since
direct supervisors associate productivity measures with quantitative metrics while minimizing
the effectiveness of qualitative measures. Table 5.1 is an example of a Likert scale that measures
career readiness in student workers.
Streamline Training and Onboarding
The researcher recommends each functional unit, that employs student workers,
coordinate training to include university-wide knowledge that applies to all positions on campus,
152
while advising their student workers on how to perform their duties efficiently. An effective
strategy might be the use of a mentoring program in which graduate assistants supervise
undergraduate student workers while upperclassmen train underclassmen.
A solid onboarding and training regimen with mentoring aspects has the ability to
positively affect each functional unit’s productivity, while encouraging students to develop
leadership skills they can use in their future careers. Supervisors should recognize that students
have varying schedules and commitments. Therefore, the researcher recommends a flexible self-
paced training module, broken into phases. One phase may include information such as FERPA
and Title IX training. Another phase would include pre-recorded presentations and videos that
coincide with information contained in student employee handbooks and other documentation.
Another phase may include shadowing or pairing student workers with a mentor or the direct
supervisor to learn duties and technologies unique to the functional unit. The development of
technology skills, a fundamental career-readiness competency, can empower student workers to
engage in learning and teaching through electronic means.
Increase Engagement
The data suggest that student employees appreciate engagement and recognition in a
professional environment. Therefore, the researcher recommends that supervisors and colleagues
intentionally incorporate student workers into affairs of the unit, whenever appropriate, to help
grow career-readiness competencies. Organizational culture can be shared with student workers
by engaging them in activities such as team meetings, professional development, and special
events. Supervisors and colleagues of student workers should seek to connect with student
workers, especially those with whom they share commonalities. In addition, functional units
should facilitate regular strategic discussions, such as those included in the Iowa GROW© (The
153
University of Iowa, n.d.) program, which focuses on academic alignment. The researcher
recommends that in addition to academic alignment, functional units focus on productivity
measures and career-readiness competencies in their discussions.
Functional units that employ student workers can facilitate alumni connections and
networking opportunities that might benefit the students as they navigate the professional world.
Additionally, those who supervise student workers can offer opportunities for their student
workers to participate in community events in which they can impact the local community and
network with people outside of the university setting. Cross-functional collaboration with various
functional units is another important recommendation to bolster students’ diversity and inclusion
skills. Finally, supervisors of functional units can offer special projects that hold significance to
the student worker. For example, supervisors can provide opportunities for research projects that
are aligned with the student’s interests and support conference proposals or scholarship
applications.
The researcher also recommends recognition for a job well done, either formally or
informally. An informal recognition might include a sincere “thank you” and a cup of coffee. In
contrast, a formal recognition might include a nomination for an award or acknowledgment in a
departmental newsletter or on social media. The researcher recognizes, however, that not all
students respond to formal recognition positively. Therefore, it is imperative that permission is
granted prior to a formal recognition.
Functional units that proactively engage with their student workers cultivate a talent pool
of high-caliber candidates for future positions. Meaningful interactions and investment in the
professional development of student workers position functional units to be known for their
154
commitment to the growth and advancement of their members, thereby enhancing their
reputation as the premier destination for prospective employees.
Evaluate Job Descriptions and Pay
The researcher recommends the university reassess the pay scale for student workers,
aligning it more closely with the paid opportunities off campus. In light of prevailing economic
considerations and to address the expressed dissatisfaction with current pay structures, it is
important to recognize the significance of competitive compensation as it relates to attracting and
retaining skilled student workers.
Additionally, the researcher recommends functional units establish precise, compelling
job descriptions, alongside effective interview questions, for each student worker position. The
job descriptions should include specific, actionable goals as well as alignment with academics
and career readiness. This approach aims to enhance the overall attractiveness of student worker
positions, positioning the university as a favorable workplace for students seeking meaningful
employment.
The university, where the study was conducted, pays undergraduate student workers a
minimum wage of $8.00 per hour and sets the maximum number of hours a student can work at
20. The data reveal that some functional units fall short of this baseline by only allowing students
to work 10 hours per week, perhaps due to budget constraints. These limits result in a monthly
income of less than $350 for some students. The researcher recommends that functional units
recognize the economic implications of such limitations to address the financial concerns of
student workers and enhance the overall appearance of on-campus student work opportunities.
155
P-20 Implications
The P-20 implications of the study support the idea that postsecondary education should
not exist in a silo. The Grow-Your-Own program for high school students in Kentucky should
feed into the programs at the research site that focus on postsecondary education and
administration. Student-worker programs that focus on productivity and academic alignment can
help build a community of career-ready and competent educators for future generations.
The leadership aspect of P-20 can be strengthened through a high-impact and productive
student workforce by incorporating a mentorship program that will also take some of the day-to-
day duties off of full-time staff, freeing them up to focus on higher-level tasks such as strategic
planning and growth of the unit and the university. Student workers will become leaders in our
communities outside of higher education. Therefore, it is important that each functional unit
provide opportunities for its student workers to showcase their leadership capabilities through
mentoring programs, research opportunities, and collaboration with others. In addition, the P-20
implications of the study encompass all four overarching themes of P-20 leadership in
postsecondary education, which are innovation, diversity, technology, and implementation.
Innovation. Allowing student workers to contribute new ideas and approaches to their
positions in their respective functional units, dependent upon their own skills and academic
goals, could provide innovative insight into the student population that universities serve. The
research suggests that student workers want their supervisors and colleagues to engage with them
more. Supervisors and colleagues should create a platform where student workers can showcase
their innovative ideas to suggest and implement improvements. Since student worker
productivity is largely determined through qualitative means, such as showing initiative and
being dependable, this is an effective way to allow students to be productive in their roles.
156
Diversity. The student body on a college campus is often more diverse than the staff and
faculty at the same institution (Johnson & Williams, 2019) Therefore, effective student worker
programs should intentionally strive to reflect the student population. In addition, since the
student body is diverse, cultural competency training can be an effective method to deliver
strategies that include understanding and awareness of diverse perspectives.
Technology. The researcher noted instances in which supervisors reflected on their
student workers’ various unique skills, which positively impact their functional units.
Technological skills such as effective use of social media, graphic design, and engineering are
useful to many higher education functional units. Leaders can leverage the skills of their student
workers to market and implement their programming effectively.
Implementation. Productive student workers are the key to successfully implementing
various campus programming and daily functions. Student workers are often the first point of
contact that potential students and families encounter. Productive student workers can be given
more insight into the importance of their work through effective engagement from faculty and
staff with whom they work, thereby increasing the productivity of implementing day-to-day
functions and special projects.
Limitations of the Study
Limitations of the study include methodology. According to Creswell and Creswell
(2022), qualitative studies provide specific details and nuances rather than generalizations. The
study was limited to only qualitative data, ignoring any metric that could have been a useful
quantitative tool. Research with additional respondents utilizing quantitative data might provide
generalized findings regarding the productivity of student work.
157
The single research site and its rural location also limited the study. The researcher
concludes that additional research encompassing a metropolitan area might complement the
research and provide a more diverse data set. In addition, more research at various institutions
that employ student workers, such as private universities, two-year colleges, and R1 institutions,
will provide more comprehensive data to strengthen the study.
The respondents who participated in the study were limited in the timeframe of the
scheduled focus groups. In addition, the method in which the Google Sheet was shared limited
initial responses. A future focus-group study might strategically invite random or purposeful
student workers to participate instead of inviting all student workers on campus to commit to a
group that might not work with their own schedule or that might have filled up before they had a
chance to respond.
One focus group’s conversation was not recorded due to a technical error. The researcher,
along with a committee member who happened to be a part of the focus group, worked together
to highlight specific codes that came out of the focus group. But, since there was no recording,
the researcher did not have access to any transcript from that particular group during coding.
Another limitation is that direct supervisors were caught off guard when asked about
measures of productivity. Direct supervisors did not realize qualitative information could be
used, and they only focused on quantitative measures. The researcher might have benefited from
rewording the question to allow supervisors to speak more openly about some qualitative
measures of productivity that are in place.
Finally, indirect supervisors seemed to undervalue their role. Indirect supervisors
revealed that their administrative assistants would be better to be interviewed. Perhaps the
158
researcher should have included a brief verbal statement regarding methodology so indirect
supervisors would understand the significance of their own perceptions.
Recommendations for Future Research
The study has laid a solid foundation for future research regarding student worker
productivity on college campuses. The researcher did not directly address the issue of student
worker pay. However, the theme of low pay for student workers became prevalent throughout
the interviews and focus groups. Therefore, further research on student worker pay related to
productivity would benefit all stakeholders. Many student worker positions allow a significant
amount of time for homework and personal tasks. Therefore, a study that compares these two
themes might be worthwhile.
The researcher recommends more research on graduate assistants and their contributions
to the universities they serve. Graduate assistants could be utilized in roles that support their
academics more effectively and that align with their career goals. The research showed that
many graduate assistants are not utilized in this way at the university that was studied.
The researcher recommends additional quantitative research regarding the impact that
faculty and staff engagement has on procrastination and student worker productivity. The
research findings indicate a lack of engagement from direct and indirect supervisors, which
might impact students’ work performance and productivity. The researcher also recommends
further research to determine a correlation between the type of student work and the level of
satisfaction the student worker feels.
The researcher recommends further research regarding representation and productivity in
student worker positions. Student respondents were not asked to self-identify any demographic
data, as this type of data was not relevant to the study. However, the researcher recognizes the
159
importance of such data and recommends future research to explore the demographic makeup of
functional units and their student workers as it relates to productivity and expectations.
Demographic data, such as age, gender, sexual identity and orientation, race, ethnicity, ability,
first-generation status, parental status, etc., are important to providing a familiar setting in which
student workers can relate, which might lead to increased productivity.
The researcher recommends further research on student worker productivity as it relates
to the expectations of direct supervisors. The researcher recommends further research on student
worker productivity as it relates to the types of trainings that students undergo. The researcher
recommends a study on how expectations, trainings, and evaluations of student workers vary
from institution to institution and between regions. The researcher also suggests further research
on direct supervisors’ cultural influences in creating expectations for student workers,
particularly dress codes, which was heavily noted throughout the document analysis.
160
References
AlHaqwi, A.I. (2014). Learning outcomes and tutoring in problem based-learning: How do
undergraduate medical students perceive them? International Journal of Health Sciences,
Qassim University, 8(2), 125-132. https://doi.org/10.12816/0006078.
American College Health Association. (2022). National college health assessment III:
Undergraduate student reference group executive summary spring 2022. American
College Health Association. https://www.acha.org/NCHA/ACHA-
NCHA_Data/Publications_and_Reports/NCHA/Data/Reports_ACHA-NCHAIII.aspx.
American Institutes for Research. (n.d.). Student engagement. National Center on Safe
Supportive Learning Environments. https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/training-
technical-assistance/education-level/higher-education/strategic-planning/student-
engagement.
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American
Psychological Association. (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.
Ashforth, B. & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.
Asio, J.M.R., (2021). Procrastination and work productivity of academic staff: Implications to
the institution. International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities, 9(1) 46-53.
https://doi.org/10.34293/sijash.v9i1.4068.
Barbalace, R., Maharjan, T., & Lotts, M. (2022). Bringing the federal work-study program
home: The Rutgers University Libraries - New Brunswick student worker program goes
virtual. College & Research Libraries News, 83(2), 54-58.
161
Beatty, J.E. & McGonagle, A.K. (2018). Chronic health conditions and work identity from a
lifespan development frame. In Werth, S. and Brownlow, C. (Eds.), Work and identity:
Contemporary perspectives on workplace diversity. (pp. 147-169). Palgrave McMillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73936-6_2.
Bebeau, M.J, & Monson, V.E. (2012). McKee, A. & Eraut, M. (Eds.). Learning trajectories,
innovation and identity for professional development. Springer.
Bligh, J. (1995). Problem-based learning in medicine: An introduction. The Fellowship of
Postgraduate Medicine, 1995(71), 323-326. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/pgmj.71.836.323.
Bliuc, A., Ellis, R.A., Goodyear, P., & Hendres, D.M. (2011). Understanding student learning
in context: Relationships between university students’ social identity, approaches to
learning, and academic performance. European Journal of Psychology in Education,
2011(26), 417-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0065-6.
Bluml, J. (2019). On-campus employment and retention of first-time, full-time college students.
[Doctoral dissertation] Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection.
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/6973/.
Borin, J. (2001). Training, supervising, and evaluation student information assistants. The
Reference Librarian, 72(1), 195-206. https://doi.org/10.1300/J120v34n72_16.
Brenner, P.S., Serpe, R.T., & Stryker, S. (2014). The causal ordering of prominence and
saliency in identity theory: An empirical examination. Social Psychology Quarterly,
77(3), 231-252.
Burnside, O., Wesley, A., Wesaw, A., & Parnell, A. (2019). Employing student success: A
comprehensive examination of on-campus student employment. The National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), Inc.
162
Busteed, B. (2014, February 25). Higher education’s work preparation paradox. Gallup.
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/173249/higher-education-work-preparation-
paradox.aspx.
Busteed, B. & Seymour, S. (2015, September 23). Many college graduates not equipped for
workplace success. Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/education/243389/college-graduates-
not-equipped-workplace-success.aspx.
Cardno, C. (2018). Policy document analysis: A practical educational leadership tool and a
qualitative research method. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 24(4),
623-640. https://doi.org/10.14527/kuey.2018.016.
Cheng, J.T., Tracy, J.L., & Anderson, C. (2014). The psychology of social status. Springer.
Clayton, K., Wessel, R.D., McAtee, J., & Knight, W.E. (2019). KEY Careers: Increasing
retention and graduation rates with career interventions. Journal of Career Development,
46(4), 428-442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845318763972.
Corley, F.F. (1993). The National Youth Administration in Georgia: A new deal for young
blacks and women. The Georgia Historical Quarterly, 77(4), 728-756.
Cotton, S.J., Dollard, M.F., & De Jonge, J. (2002). Stress and student job design: Satisfaction,
well-being, and performance in university students. International journal of stress
management, 9(3), 147-162. https://www.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015515714410.
Creswell, J.W. & Creswell, J.D. (2022). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Lacos Beino.
163
Cropanzano, R. & Wright, T.A. (2001). When a “happy” worker is really a “productive”
worker: A review and further refinement of the Happy-Productive Worker Thesis.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. 53(3), 182-199.
https://www.doi.org/10.1037//1061-4087.53.3.182.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
Derfler-Rozin, R. & Pitesa, M. (2020). Motivation purity bias: Expression of extrinsic
motivation undermines perceived intrinsic motivation and engenders bias in selection
decisions. Academy of management journal, 63(6), 1840-1864.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0617.
D’Lima. G.M., Winsler, A., & Kitsantas, A. (2014). Ethnic and gender differences in first-year
college students’ goal orientation, self-efficacy, and extrinsic and intrinsic motivation.
The Journal of Educational Research, 107(1), 341-356.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.823366.
Douglas, D. & Attewell, P. (2019). The relationship between work during college and
post college earnings. Frontiers in Sociology, 4(78), 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00078.
Eddy, S.L., Brownell, S.E., Thummaphan, P., Lan, M., & Wenderoth, M.P. (2015). Caution,
student experience may vary: Social identities impact a student’s experience in peer
discussions. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 14(1), 1-17.
Ehrenberg, R.G. & Sherman, D.R. (1987). Employment while in college, academic achievement,
and post college outcomes: A summary of results. The University of Wisconsin Press
Journals Division 22(1), 1-23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/145864.
164
Empie, M. J. (2012). How graduates make meaning of their on-campus employment: A
retrospective view. [Doctoral dissertation]. Iowa State University.
https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/entities/publication/16fcf7a5-7b33-47db-b900-18ed8a94e833.
Fede, J.H., Gorman, K.S., & Cimini, M.E. (2018). Student employment as a model for
experiential learning. Journal of Experiential Education, 41(1), 107-124.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825917747902.
Federal Student Aid. (n.d.). Federal Work-Study jobs help students earn money to pay for
college or career school. https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/types/work-study.
Felten, P., Gardner, J.N., Chroeder, C.C., Lambert, L.M, & Barefoot, B.O. (2021, January 25).
The undergraduate experience. Center for Engaged Learning.
https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/books/the-undergraduate-experience/.
Fleming, P. (2014). When life itself goes to work: Reviewing shifts in organizational life through
the lens of biopower. Human Relations, 67(7), 875-901.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713508142.
Fuller, J. & Kerr, W. (2022, March 23). The great resignation didn’t start with the pandemic.
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2022/03/the-great-resignation-didnt-start-with-
the-pandemic.
Gallup. (2018). Why higher ed? https://news.gallup.com/reports/226457/why-higher-ed.aspx.
Gallup. (2022, November 10) Employee wellbeing is key for workplace productivity.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/215924/well-being.aspx.
165
Garcia-Buades, M.E., Peiro, J.M., Montanez-Juan, M.I., Kozusznik, M.W., & Ortiz-Bonnin, S.
(2019) Happy-productive teams and work units: A systematic review of the ‘Happy-
Productive Worker Thesis.’ International journal of environmental research and public
health, 17(69) 1-39. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010069.
Genov, N. (2018). Challenges of individualization. Palgrave MacMillan.
Gorman, M. (1964). Gassendi in America. History of Science Society, 55(4), 409-417.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/228311#metadata_info_tab_contents.
Green, A. (2018). The influence of involvement in a widening participation outreach program
on student ambassadors’ retention and success. Student Success, 9(3), 25-36.
https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v9i3.464.
Grow-Your-Own Programs. Kentucky Department of Education. (2023).
https://www.education.ky.gov/teachers/NxGenProf/Pages/Grow-Your-Own-
Programs.aspx.
Gupta, M. (2020). Management practices for engaging a diverse workforce: Tools to enhance
workplace culture. CRC Press.
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/murraystate/reader.action?docID=6288311.
Habley, W.R., Bloom, J.L., & Robbins, S. (2012). Increasing persistence: Research-based
strategies for college student success. Jossey-Bass.
Handshake. (2023). The class of 2023 prepares for a future of work, disrupted. Handshake:
Network Trends. https://joinhandshake.com/network-trends/.
Harris, T. (2020). Successful supervision and leadership: Ensuring high-performance outcomes
using the PASE(™) model. Productivity Press.
166
Inside Higher Ed. (2022). Provosts stand firm in annual survey.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/provosts-stand-firm-annual-survey.
Jackson, D. & Bridgstock, R. (2020). What actually works to enhance graduate employability?
The relative value of curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular learning and paid
work. Higher Education, 2021(81), 723-739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00570-
x.
Johnson, K. & Williams, Q. (2019, March 28). Diversity on campus or lack thereof. Bradley
University News Lab. https://com.bradley.edu/newslab/2019/03/28/diversity-on-campus-
or-lack-thereof/.
Kaufman, P. (2014) The sociology of college students’ identity formation. New Directions for
Higher Education, 2014(166), 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20093.
Kemp, C., Van Herwerden, L., Molloy, E., Kleve, S., Brimblecombe, J., Reidlinger, D., &
Palermo, C. (2021). How do students offer value to organisations through work
integrated learning? A qualitative study using Social Exchange Theory. Advances in
Health Sciences Education, 2021(6), 1075-1093. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-021-
10038-x.
Kentucky graduate profile. Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education. (n.d.).
https://cpe.ky.gov/ourwork/kygradprofile.html.
Krugman, P. (1994). The age of diminishing expectations. MIT Press.
LaRossa, R. (2005). Grounded theory methods and qualitative family research. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 67(1), 837-857.
167
Lindheim, T. (2022). Participant validation: A strategy to strengthen the trustworthiness of your
study and address ethical concerns. In Espedal, G., Jelstad, L.B, Sirris, S., & Waeraas, A.
Eds.), Researching values: Methodological approaches for understanding values work in
organizations and leadership (pp. 225-239). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90769-3.
Linton, R. (1936). The study of man: An introduction. Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.
Mackay, J.R.D., Hughes, K., Marzetti, H., Lent, N., & Rhind, S.M. (2019). Using National
Student Survey (NSS) qualitative data and social identity theory to explore students’
experiences of assessment and feedback. Higher Education Pedagogies, 4(1), 315-330.
Magrino, W. & Sorrell, P. (2014). Professionalizing the amateur: Social media, the “myth of the
digital native,” and the graduate assistant in the composition classroom. Journal of
Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 3(1), 76-94.
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage
Publications.
McClellan, G.S., Creager, K., & Savoca, M. (2018). A good job: Campus employment as a
high-impact practice. Stylus Publishing.
McFadden, A. & Seedorff, L. (2017). International student employment: Navigating
immigration regulations, career services, and employer considerations. New Directions
for Student Services, 158(1), 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20218.
McNeeley, M. (2022, March 29). UTC offers Mocs Grow program for students. University Echo.
https://www.theutcecho.com/news/utc-offers-mocs-grow-program-for-
students/article_4f101bc4-ae4c-11ec-ae27-db6de1708401.html.
168
Menges, J.I., Tussing, D.V., Wihler, A., & Grant, A.M. (2017). When job performance is all
relative: How family motivation energizes effort and compensates for intrinsic
motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 695-719.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0898.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Onboarding. Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/onboarding.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Productive. Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/productivity.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Productivity. Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/productivity.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Professionalism. Merriam-Webster.com dictionary.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professionalsim.
Michel, J.W., Tews, M.J., and Allen, D.G. (2019). Fun in the workplace: A review and expanded
theoretical perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 29(1), 98-110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.03.001.
Mitola, R., Rinto, E., & Pattni, E. (2018). Student employment as a high-impact practice in
academic libraries: A systematic review. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(1),
352-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.03.005.
Murray State University (2019). Satisfactory academic progress (SAP). Murray State University.
https://www.murraystate.edu/admissions/financialaid/SatisfactoryAcademicProgress.aspx
.
169
Murray State University. (2022). The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of
Higher Education. https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/institution/murray-state-
university/.
Murray, W.J. & Merla, E. (2022). Communicate, lead, and transform: Behaviors to break free
from your mental wheel ruts. J. Ross Publishing.
National Archives and Records Administration. (2022, May 10). Morrill Act (1862). National
Archives and Records Administration. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-
documents/morrill-act.
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2023). Job outlook 2024. National
Association of Colleges and Employers.
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2022). Career readiness: Development and
validation of the NACE career readiness competencies. https://www.naceweb.org/career-
readiness/competencies/career-readiness-defined/.
National Research Council. (2012). Improving measurement of productivity in higher
education. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13417.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2018) NSSE 2018 U.S. summary frequencies by class
and sex. [Unpublished report]. Postsecondary Research, Indiana University School of
Education. Bloomington, Indiana.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2021). College student employment. Center for
Postsecondary Research, Indiana University School of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_ssa.pdf.
170
NSSE. (2018). Murray State University.
https://www.murraystate.edu/about/administration/PresidentsOffice/institutional-
effectiveness/ OfficeOfInstitutionalResearch/Surveys/NSSE/index.aspx.
Parce, L.M. (2014). The ripple effect: The economic impact of Arizona supervised agricultural
experiences. [Master’s thesis, The University of Arizona]. Maynooth University Research
Archive Library. https://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/9688/1/LParce_Thesis_FInal.pdf.
Peetz, D. (2018). Are collective identity and action being squashed by individualism? In Werth,
S. and Brownlow, C. (Eds.), Work and identity: Contemporary perspectives on
workplace diversity. (pp. 147-169). Palgrave McMillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-73936-6.
Perna, L.W. (2010). Understanding the working college student. American Associate of
University Professors, 9(4), 30-32. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20744590.
Perozzi, B. (2019). Leadership development through transforming the student employment
process. New Directions for Student Leadership, 162(1), 23-36.
https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20331.
Peper, E., Harvey, R., Lin, I.M., & Duvvuri, P. (2014). Increase productivity, decrease
procrastination, and increase energy. Biofeedback, 42(2), 82-87.
https://doi.org/10.5298/1081-5937-42.2.06.
Pidgeon, A.M., Davies, N.L. & Stapleton, P. (2017). Factors influencing university students’
academic experience: An international study. International Journal of Multidisciplinary
Perspectives in Higher Education, 2(2017), 1-8.
171
Pike, G.P., Kuh, G.D., & Massa-McKinley, R. (2008). First-year students’ employment,
engagement, and academic achievement: Untangling the relationship between work and
grades. NASPA Journal, 45(4), 560-582.
https://www.academia.edu/3265758/First_Year_Students_Employment_Engagement_an
d_Academic_Achievement_Untangling_the_Relationship_Between_Work_and_Grades.
Ravasi, D. & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the
role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 433-456.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.21794663.
Ruder, S.M. & Stanford, C. (2018). Strategies for training undergraduate teaching assistants to
facilitate large active-learning classrooms. Journal of Chemistry Education, 95(12),
2126-2133. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00167.
Schierenbeck, C. (2012) Fixing higher education: A business manager’s take on how to boost
productivity in higher education. Springer Gabler.
Sharp, N. (2021). Opportunity costs: Affording the true costs of college in NYC. Center for an
Urban Future. https://nycfuture.org/research/opportunity-costs-nontuition-barriers.
Smith, S., Smith, C., Taylor-Smith, E., & Fotheringham, J. (2017). In search of graduate
employability: An exploration of student identity. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative
Education, 18(1), 15-24.
Smith, S., Sobolewska, E., & Smith, I. (2014). From employability attributes to professional
identity: Students transitioning to the workplace. IEEE Frontiers in Education
Conference Proceedings, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2014.7044183.
172
Stafford, L. (2008). Social exchange theories. In L.A. Baxter & D.O. Braithwaite (Eds.),
Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 377-387).
Sage Publications, Inc.
Students and employment. (2023, March 31). United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services. https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/students-and-exchange-
visitors/students-and-employment.
Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. University of Chicago
Press.
Turner, J.C. & Oaks, P.J. (1986). The significance of the social identity concept for social
psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 1986(25), 237-252.
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2023, April 26). College Enrollment and Work
Activity of Recent High School and College Graduates Summary.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm.
The University of Iowa. (n.d.) Iowa GROW©. Division of Student Life.
https://studentlife.uiowa.edu/initiatives/iowa-grow%C2%AE/.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (n.d.). SEVP’s Governing Regulations for Students
and Schools. https://www.ice.gov/sevis/schools/reg#f.
Vautero, J., do Ceu Taveria, M., Silva, A.D., & Fouad, N.A. (2021). Family influence on
academic and life satisfaction: A social cognitive perspective. Journal of Career
Development, 48(6), 817-830. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845320902270.
173
Watson, R.M., Nuhfer, E., Moon, K.N., Fleisher, S., Walter, P., Wirth, K. & Cogan, C. (2019).
Paired measures of competence and confidence illuminate impacts of privilege on college
students. University of South Florida Scholar Commons, 12(2).
https://doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.12.2.2.
Werth, S. & Brownlow, C. (2018). Work and identity: Contemporary perspectives on workplace
diversity. Palgrave MacMillan. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73936-6.
Wilding, J. & Andrews, B. (2006) Life goals, approaches to study and performance in an
undergraduate cohort. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2006(76), 171-182.
Williams, M. & Moser, T. (2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative
research. International Management Review, 15(1), 45-55.
Wiseman, P., Ahearne, M., Hall, Z., & Tirunillai, S. (2022). Onboarding salespeople:
Socialization approaches. Journal of Marketing, 2022(1), 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429221076437.
Wu, M.B. (2008). Resident advisor general intelligence, emotional intelligence, personality
dimensions, and internal belief characteristics as predictors of rated performance.
[Thesis]. Wesleyan University. https://digitalcollections.wesleyan.edu/object/ir-1449.
Xenitidou, M. & Edmonds, B. (2014). The complexity of social norms. Springer.
Yeager, D.S., Henderson, M.D., Paunesku, D., Walton, G.M., D’Mello, S., Spitzer, B., &
Duckworth, A.L. (2014). Boring but important: A self-transcendent purpose for learning
fosters academic self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4),
559-580. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037637.
174
Zippia. (n.d.). What does a graduate research assistant do? Zippia: The Career Expert.
https://www.zippia.com/graduate-research-assistant-jobs/what-does-a-graduate-research-
assistant-do/.
175
Appendix A
176
Appendix B
177
178
Appendix C
