Recreational Sports Journal, 2013, 37, 136-146
© 2013 Nirsa Foundation
Official Journal of the NIRSA Foundation
www.RSJ-Journal.com
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Influence of Campus Recreation
Employment on Student Learning
Stacey L. Hall
This study examined the influence of part-time employment at a campus recreational
sports department on full-time college students’ learning. The student employees
indicated they attributed their experience working in a campus recreational sports
department to their perceived gains in critical thinking, integrative learning,
appreciation of diverse perspectives, collaboration skills, and communication
skills. Students working at a campus recreational sports department were invited to
complete an online survey, which was developed for this project. The questionnaire,
containing rating scales and open-ended questions, captured the perceptions of
change by the student employees regarding their learning. A concurrent triangulation mixed-method design was used to analyze the data. The quantitative data were
analyzed using multiple regression for each of the learning outcomes and one-way
ANOVA analyses were conducted to identify differences between the positions.
The qualitative data were analyzed using open coding to identify themes. The data
were triangulated with job recruitment materials. The student employees indicated
they attributed their perceived gains in learning to their experience working in a
campus recreational sports department. The multiple regression analysis resulted in
two significant predictors, which included collaboration skills and communication
skills. While the one-way ANOVA analyses was not able to be conducted between
the positions held by the students, the results showed students attribute their experience working in a campus recreational sports department to their perceived learning
in specific areas. These results demonstrate the need for more in-depth study of
each of the learning outcomes to gain more thorough understanding of the impact
of students who work in a campus recreation department.
Keywords: student employment, student learning outcomes, on-campus employment
Student learning outcomes in higher education have been emphasized (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2007; Keeling, 2004), yet little is
known about whether students achieve these desired outcomes (Baxter Magolda,
2001; Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Serra Hagedorn, & Terenzini, 1998). Lundberg
(2004) argues the need for research on the “value of the workplace as a learning
venue” (p. 210) for college students. Authors also called for research on smaller,
The author is with the Dept. of Campus Recreation, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New
Hampshire.
136
Influence of Campus Rec Employment 137
specific work contexts within student employment to better understand outcomes
(Flowers, 2010; Hughes & Mallette, 2003; Moore & Rago, 2009; Riggert, Boyle,
Petrosko, Ash, & Rude-Parkins, 2006). These gaps in the literature prompted this
study, which attempted to understand the impact of working in a campus recreation
department on college students’ learning.
Most positions within campus recreation departments are filled by students
(Mull, Bayless, & Jamieson, 2005). Therefore a campus recreation department
provides an opportunity to study a large, yet specific work setting of student
employees. A theoretical framework is needed when conducting research on student employment outcomes (Pusser, 2010; Riggert et al., 2006). Thus, this study
used the student learning outcomes outlined in Learning Reconsidered (Keeling,
2004), which is based on Transformative Learning Theory (Mezirow, 2000). The
problem of the study was to examine how part-time work at a campus recreation
department contributes to gains in students’ learning outcomes.
Related Literature
There is little known about what students learn from working in campus recreation
departments. Studies on campus recreation employment looked at aspects of morale
(DiMonda & Smith, 1994; Kellison & James, 2011; T. Miller, 1993), position
responsibilities (G. L. Miller & Grayson, 2006), job satisfaction (Johnson, Kaiser,
& Bell, 2012; Pack, Jordan, Turner, & Haines, 2007), and affinity to the institution
(Fresk & Mullendore, 2012). Hackett (2007) conducted an exploratory study on the
academic success of undergraduates working part-time in campus recreation. The
overall results were mixed, with some groups of employees having a statistically
significant higher grade point average than the general student population. Carr’s
(2005) exploratory case study sought to understand what students learned from their
experiences working in campus recreation. This study found three overall themes,
which were: informal learning, skill development, and work environment. Students
indicated “they had experienced some sort of personal growth and development as a
result of their own on-campus work experience . . . each study participant reported
that they had developed skills that could transfer into other work environments”
(Carr, 2005, p. 170).
There is considerably more literature on student employment in general, rather
than focusing on a specific type of work. Researchers examined the relationship
between student employment and grade point average (Canabal, 1998; Pike, Kuh, &
Massa-McKinley, 2008) and retention (Kulm & Cramer, 2006). Others focused on
understanding the relationship between student employment and work/life balance
(Bradley, 2006; Brooks, 2006; Watts & Pickering, 2000), institutional engagement
(Flowers, 2010; Furr & Elling, 2000; Kuh, 1995; Lundberg, 2004; McCormick,
Moore, & Kuh, 2010; Moore & Rago, 2009; Ziskin, Torres, Hossler, & Gross,
2010), and cognitive development (Pascarella et al., 1998; Umbach, Padgett, &
Pascarella, 2010).
A unique study by Lewis and Contreras, Jr. (2009) considered employment in
a student union. Student employees and their supervisors reported students learning
in specific areas, such as “people skills, teamwork, leadership, customer service, and
problem solving through their positions” (p. 55). The work by Lewis and Contreras,
Jr. (2009) and Carr (2005) provided foundations for this study.
138 Hall
Methods
A concurrent, triangulation mixed-method design (Jones, Torres, & Arminio,
2006) was used to research student employees in a campus recreation department
at a large, residential, public institution in the Midwest. Students with at least one
semester and a minimum of 15 hr of work experience were invited to participate
in the study to ensure the student worked at least one shift after training. Subjects
had to be full-time students, to provide consistency with previous studies (Carr,
2005). This study examined student employees’ perceptions of change in learning
outcomes through a one-time web based questionnaire containing rating scales
and open-ended questions.
Since this study was not aimed at identifying objective learning measures,
self-reported data were appropriate to find the types of learning outcomes that
students experienced while working in campus recreation (Gonyea & Miller, 2011;
Pike, 2011). The instrument was created using outcome information provided by
Keeling (2004), by AAC&U (2007), and by Carr’s (2005) study. Survey items were
developed to be comprehendible, to ensure students could retrieve a response, and
to have inclusive and appropriate response options to enhance validity (Gonyea,
2005). Developing the instrument included a pretest review and pilot study. The
instrument includes items focused on the outcomes of critical thinking, integrative
learning, appreciating diverse perspectives, collaboration, and communication.
The responses to most of the quantitative items used a five-point Likert-type scale
ranging from strong positive change to strong negative change.
Reliability of the survey items was checked using Chronbach’s alpha. The first
analysis of the quantitative responses was to determine if students reported positive changes since they came to the university. If the results showed that working
for campus recreation had a positive influence for a majority of students on any of
the learning outcomes, then each learning outcome was analyzed. Multiple linear
regression was conducted using the combined scores of the individual items that
comprised the learning outcomes. This new score for the outcome(s) was used as
the dependent variable.
The survey included two qualitative questions that asked what the student
employee had learned about other people and how working had impacted their
career preparation. Responses to these items were read three times before the open
coding process, where each word was examined for its understanding and then
coded by the researcher. These codes were also grouped into categories (Jones et al.,
2006; Merriam, 2009). To ensure internal validity, peer reviewers (Merriam, 2009)
were used to provide feedback on the data analysis. Lastly, the data collected via
the questionnaire was compared with job descriptions and job recruitment session
content to see if the campus recreation department communicated that learning
could take place while working (Lewis & Contreras Jr., 2009).
Results
Of the 442 hourly employees receiving the survey, 218 employees responded,
producing a 49% response rate. After removing incomplete cases, checking for
abnormalities in the data, and outliers of the multiple regression, this number was
reduced to 163 respondents or a 37% completion rate. This exceeded the minimum
response of 110 cases needed (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Influence of Campus Rec Employment 139
There were more females (n = 89, 54.6%) than males (n = 73, 44.8%) and
most respondents were between 18–22 years old (n = 140, 85.8%). The respondents
included first-year undergraduates (n = 17, 10.4%), second-year undergraduates (n
= 37, 22.7%), third-year undergraduates (n = 50, 30.7%), four-or-more year undergraduates (n = 43, 26.4%), and graduate students (n = 16, 9.8%). Most employees
reported working 5.0–9.9 hr per week (n = 57, 35.0%) or 10.0–19.9 hr per week
(n = 57, 35.0%) in campus recreation.
The first step to understand the self-reported learning outcomes was to analyze
the survey responses regarding the experiences students had since enrolling at the
institution, to see if students reported gains during their experience in school. For
each item, most employees reported they had experienced somewhat positive change
or strong positive change to each outcome since attending the university. With this
result, the analysis shifted to whether working for campus recreation had contributed
to that change. Employees indicated that working at campus recreation influenced
a positive change in each item. The percentage of responses that indicated a strong
positive change ranged from 22.1%–55.2%.
Each learning outcome was analyzed individually. Standard multiple regression
analysis was conducted on the quantitative items using six independent variables
(length of employment, number of weekly hours worked for campus recreation,
year in school, cumulative grade point average, gender, and whether this was
students’ first job).
For items focused on the learning outcome of critical thinking skills, multiple
regression analysis resulted in no significant prediction [F(6, 156) = .603, p = .727].
The multiple regression analysis conducted on the items focused on the learning
outcome of integrative learning resulted in no significant prediction [F(6, 156) =
.867, p = .520]. Additional integrative learning items asked students to recall how
often they noticed their experience working in campus recreation helped them
learn material in their academic classes. Table 1 contains the frequencies of their
responses. Almost a third of respondents indicated they experienced this at least
weekly (n = 49, 30.1%) and an additional third experienced this at least monthly
(n = 49, 30.0%).
Another aspect of the integrative learning outcome is career decidedness.
All but 13 (n = 163) of the respondents indicated working for campus recreation
had influenced their preparation for careers. The open-coding analysis revealed
three themes, which showed the students gained experience in specific areas they
anticipated needing in their chosen career. The themes were working with people,
leadership skills, and communication skills.
The first theme, working with people, was the most frequent response to this
question. A group exercise instructor learned she “want[s] to work with people
now.” Another example came from a swim instructor, who stated “working as a
swim instructor gives me valuable experience with children and families that will
aid me in my future as a physician.”
A second theme that emerged was leadership skills. A facility manager provided this insight:
Rec Sports has helped me learn how to relate to people and become a better
leader. Becoming a leader isn’t simply about being put in an authority position
but rather getting those people to respect you and enjoy working with you. I
think I’ve been able to become a better delegater of tasks and have earned the
respect of my peers and will try to carry that into the “real world.”
140 Hall
Table 1 During the Current School Year, How Often Have You
Noticed That Working in Campus Recreation Helped You Learn
Academic Course Material?
More than once per day
Almost every day
A few times a week
About once a week
Two or three times a month
About once a month
Less than once a month
A few times a year
Once a year or less
Total
Number of subjects
Percentage within
sample
4
7
22
16
25
24
9
22
34
163
2.5%
4.3%
13.5%
9.8%
15.3%
14.7%
5.5%
13.5%
20.9%
100%
The third theme was gaining communication skills which students anticipated
needing in their respective career. A lifeguard wrote “the communication experience at Rec Sports has prepared me to better communicate with my patients in my
nursing career.” An intramural sports official said the position “has helped me learn
interpersonal communication skills which I will need in the business world one
day.”
For the items focused on the learning outcome of appreciation of diverse perspectives, multiple regression analysis resulted in a not significant prediction [F(6,
156) = .739, p = .619]. While the multiple regression analysis was not significant
in predicting gains, responses to the open-ended item described many ways they
learned about other people by working in campus recreation. Three themes emerged
in their responses; including everyone is different, importance of communication
skills, and building relationships.
The theme of everyone is different was expressed as people having different ideas, opinions, and viewpoints. It was also expressed as different moods
and emotions, learning styles, and varying work ethic. For example, one facility
manager stated “Although I’ve learned that there are many people who don’t share
my definition of quality work, I’ve also learned that there are quite a few that do.”
As a result of understanding these differences, some students also identified
several strategies to mediate these differences. One strategy was to adapt to others,
as explained by one intramural sports official, “working at Rec Sports I have learned
that everyone is different and reacts to situations in different ways. I have learned
to deal with this and change the way I would react so that I can better help them
in their situation.”
Another strategy frequently identified by respondents was to use different
opinions to make informed decisions. “I have learned that there are many different
views and ideas about a subject, and in order to develop the best view or idea of a
concept is to get multiple viewpoints on it to build a more solid understanding of the
Influence of Campus Rec Employment 141
concept” said one intramural sports official. After learning that people have different
learning styles, one swim instructor wrote “different people learn and understand
material in different ways and you have to adjust your teaching methods for each
individual. This requires preparation and you need to plan for this.”
Other respondents’ strategies involved keeping an open mind and not making
assumptions or judging others. An informal sports supervisor shared, “I have definitely learned that not everyone is the same and we were all raised a completely
different way. Being around other people, who don’t necessarily think or believe
the same as myself, has helped me realize I have to always keep an open mind and
remember that we are all not alike. By doing this, it makes it really easy to work
with others even if we don’t always see eye to eye.” A group exercise leader wrote
that she “learned that stereotypes I have previously had are very much not true. It
is important to keep an open mind and not judge people before you get a chance
to know them.”
By keeping an open mind, many students shared the importance of treating
everyone equally and with respect. A strength and conditioning consultant said,
“you do not necessarily have to agree with someone, but it is important to look at
every human being as highly valuable and respecting them for the individual they
are, despite how similar or different they are from you.” A group exercise leader
“learned that despite your level of fitness, ability or bodily awareness, everyone
deserves the same amount of attention and respect. The most fit person might come
to a class and try significantly less than someone who may be struggling with weight
who is putting in a lot of effort, there are so many circumstantial factors that play
a role in why people are at the state that they are. Treat everyone equally!”
A second theme was the importance of communication, particularly when
employees needed to explain policies or what was happening in the facilities.
Students shared the need to have patience, flexibility, and to stay calm. “Everyone
responds to incidents and remarks differently, so as a leader on the field I must
use my communication skills to effectively and correctly address individuals and
the concerns” described an intramural sports official. A team leader wrote “I have
learned that having a diverse group of people working together and collaborating
is important to find successful answers to problems. Having diversity brings in
many different viewpoints.”
The third theme was building relationships and engaging participants, which
the employees indicated produced better understanding among people so employees sought to develop those relationships. An intramural sports supervisor wrote
“although we all come from different backgrounds, there is almost always something
you can find in common with the participants that use our facilities if you just take
the time to engage with them.” An intramural sports official said they “have learned
that they respect you a lot more if you try to make a relationship with them and
respect their values as well. Talking to them and having a positive attitude during
the game is an important factor.”
The next items focused on the learning outcome of collaboration skills. The
multiple regression analysis was conducted, which resulted in the following regression equation to predict gains in collaboration skills: 2.712 – .097 (total hours
worked at campus recreation) + .075 (year in school) – .074 (cumulative GPA). The
amount of variance for the combination of the six independent variables was 8.9%
(5.4% when adjusted for sample size and number of predictors). Results showed
142 Hall
students who reported more positive gains in collaboration skills also reported
more total hours worked in the campus recreation department (β = –.097, p < .01),
reported higher cumulative GPA (β = –.74, p < .05), and had less years in school
(β = .075, p < .05). See Table 2 for more information on the results.
The next items focused on the learning outcome of effective communication skills. The multiple regression analysis was conducted, which resulted in
the following regression equation to predict gains in communication skills: .798
– .031 (total hours worked at campus recreation) – .049 (cumulative GPA). The
amount of variance for the combination of the six independent variables was
8.0% (4.4% when adjusted for sample size and number of predictors). Results
showed students who reported more gains in communication skills also reported
more total hours worked in the campus recreation department (β = –.031, p < .05)
and reported higher cumulative GPA’s (β = –.049, p < .01). See Table 3 for more
information.
The final aspect of data analysis was reviewing the job descriptions. The goal
was to see if the job descriptions informed the employees of the potential gains
in learning they could experience by working in the position. After reviewing the
documents, no mention of outcomes was found. The researcher then viewed the
job recruitment video for similar content. The content did include a reference to
the opportunity for students to meet new people, but nothing about potential learning outcomes.
Table 2 Summary of Standard Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting
Students’ Self-Reported Gains in Collaboration Skills (N = 163)
Variable
Total hours worked per week for campus
­recreation department
Year in school
Cumulative GPA
B
SE B
β
p
–.097*
.075*
–.074*
.037
.030
.037
–.220
.260
–.157
.010
.013
.047
Note. R2 = .089; Adjusted R2 = .054.
* p < .05.
Table 3 Summary of Standard Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting
Students’ Self-Reported Gains in Communication Skills (N = 163)
B
SE B
β
p
Total hours worked per week for campus
­recreation department
–.031*
.016
–.170
.046
Cumulative GPA
–.049**
.015
–.247
.002
Variable
Note. R2 = .080; Adjusted R2 = .044.
* p < .05; ** p <.01.
Influence of Campus Rec Employment 143
Conclusion
Taking into consideration the limitations of this study, including respondents accurately answering the questions and reliance on student perceptions of their learning, several conclusions can be made. Campus recreation provided an opportunity
for students to make positive gains in learning outcomes from their experience
working in the department. These findings supported earlier work of Carr (2005)
where student employees of a campus recreation department developed transferable skills, appreciation of diverse perspectives, interpersonal skills, and problem
solving skills. These results were supported by Lewis and Contreras Jr. (2009)
where student employees at a student union experienced learning in all the areas
measured in the study. The findings were also supported by Pascarella et al. (1998)
and O’Brien (1993) who argued that college students who work could learn from
these experiences. However, these results contradict recent findings by McCormick,
Moore, and Kuh (2010) where there was little evidence of learning by students
who work while in school.
Standard multiple regression was conducted using independent variables identified in previous research (Hackett, 2007) and resulted in two significant findings.
First, positive gains in collaboration skills were predicted by students who worked
more hours for the campus recreation department, students with higher cumulative
grade point averages, and students who were upperclassmen. Second, positive gains
in communication skills were predicted by students who worked more hours for
the campus recreation department and students with higher cumulative grade point
averages. While these findings were unique with regard to the factors that predicted
the outcome, the findings were supported by previous research (Kuh, 1995; Watts
& Pickering, 2000). Students also reported working for campus recreation provided
opportunities to 1) learn academic material; 2) gain skills for their career, such as
working with people, leadership skills, and communication skills; 3) learn about
other people, including recognizing differences, importance of communication
skills, and building relationships.
Implications
Results of this study provide implications for both practitioners and researchers.
Practitioners have believed student employees grow and develop from their work
experiences in campus recreation (Mull et al., 2005). This study builds on Carr’s
(2005) work to provide empirical evidence to this long held claim. For researchers,
this study provides initial insight into understanding the experience of students who
work for a campus recreation department and provides a platform for more in depth
studies using the student learning outcomes as outlined in Learning Reconsidered
(Keeling, 2004), specifically studying all dimensions of each outcome. Researchers
should seek to understand the impact of components of the employee lifecycle that
was not included in this study, including the hiring process (are professional staff
selecting students who are more likely to gain student learning outcomes?), the training provided for staff (content, delivery, and timing of training before starting work
and during employment), the level of responsibility the student employees have,
and the performance assessments staff receive during their employment. Studies are
144 Hall
needed to determine the impact of departmental philosophies on student learning
outcomes by comparing philosophies and outcomes at different institutions. For
example, comparison of whether differences exist if a campus recreation department is housed in the intercollegiate athletics department as opposed to divisions
of student affairs needs to be considered.
Practitioners can expand the understanding of student learning by adding
questions to performance assessments and exit interview tools to document what
students report gaining from their work experience. Practitioners should review
student employee training plans to ensure adequate training is provided to equip
students for their responsibilities, particularly policy enforcement. Since students
shared a variety of challenging situations they faced while working, practitioners
need to be available for student staff to help students debrief such situations.
Lastly, as recommended by Lewis and Contreras, Jr. (2009), practitioners should
include the types of learning outcomes students could gain from employment
in job descriptions and related materials to inform students of the benefits of
employment.
References
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). In A.A.C.&U. (Ed.), College
learning for the new global century. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Baxter Magolda, M.B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher
education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Bradley, G. (2006). Work participation and academic performance: A test of alternative propositions. Journal of Education and Work, 19(5), 481–501. doi:10.1080/13639080600988756
Brooks, R. (2006). Learning and work in the lives of young adults. International Journal of
Lifelong Education, 25(3), 271–289. doi:10.1080/02601370600697144
Canabal, M.E. (1998). College student degree of participation in the labor force: Determinants and relationship to school performance. College Student Journal, 32(4), 597–605.
Carr, J.W. (2005). An exploration of how learning and development emerge for student
employees during the on-campus work experience. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
DiMonda, S., & Smith, J.L. (1994). Student-employee morale. NIRSA Journal, 18(3), 8–11.
Flowers, L.A. (2010). Effects of work on African American college students’ engagement.
In L.W. Perna (Ed.), Understanding the working college student: New research and
its implications for policy and practice (pp. 213–233). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishers.
Fresk, K.L., & Mullendore, R.H. (2012). Connecting student employment, involvement,
and alumni affinity. Recreational Sports Journal, 36(1), 140–151.
Furr, S.R., & Elling, T.W. (2000). The influence of work on college student development.
NASPA Journal, 37(2), 454–470.
Gonyea, R.M. (2005). Self-reported data in institutional research: Review and recommendations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 127(3), 73–89. doi:10.1002/ir.156
Gonyea, R.M., & Miller, A. (2011). Clearing the AIR about the use of self-reported gains
in institutional research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 150(2), 99–111.
doi:10.1002/ir.392
Hackett, M.W. (2007). Exploring the relationship between recreational sports employment
and academic success. Recreational Sports Journal, 31(1), 69–74.
Hughes, P., & Mallette, B.I. (2003). A survey of student term-time employment: Choosing subpopulations for further study. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 33(3), 41–62.
Influence of Campus Rec Employment 145
Johnson, J.E., Kaiser, A.N., & Bell, R.J. (2012). An examination of variables related to student
employment in campus recreation programs. Recreational Sports Journal, 36(1), 78–90.
Jones, S.R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J.L. (2006). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues. New York, NY:
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Keeling, R.P. (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience.
Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA)
and American College Personnel Association (ACPA).
Kellison, T.B., & James, J.D. (2011). Factors influencing job satisfaction of student employees
of a recreational sports department at a large, four-year public institution: A case study.
Recreational Sports Journal, 35(1), 35–44.
Kuh, G.D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student
learning and personal development. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), 123–155.
doi:10.2307/2943909
Kulm, T.L., & Cramer, S. (2006). The relationship of student employment to student role,
family relationships, social interactions and persistence. College Student Journal,
40(4), 927–938.
Lewis, J.S., & Contreras, S, Jr. (2009). Student learning outcomes: Empirical research as
the bridge between theory and practice. In B. Perozzi (Ed.), Enhancing student learning through college employment (pp. 45–66). Indianapolis, IN: Dog Ear Publishing.
Lundberg, C.A. (2004). Working and learning: The role of involvement for employed students. NASPA Journal, 41(2), 201–215.
McCormick, A.C., Moore, J.V., & Kuh, G.D. (2010). Working during college: Its relationship
to student engagement and educational outcomes. In L.W. Perna (Ed.), Understanding
the working college student: New research and its implications for policy and research
(pp. 179–212). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishers.
Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (Ed.). (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in
progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, G.L., & Grayson, T.E. (2006). Student employees and recreational sports administrators: A comparison of perceptions. Recreational Sports Journal, 30(1), 53–69.
Miller, T. (1993). Job enrichment and its motivational effect on student employees in a college recreational services setting. NIRSA Journal, 17(2), 20–25.
Moore, J.V., & Rago, M. (2009). The impact of employment on student engagement: Results
from NSSE. In B. Perozzi (Ed.), Enhancing student learning through college employment (pp. 87–107). Indianapolis, IN: Dog Ear Publishing.
Mull, R.F., Bayless, K.G., & Jamieson, L.M. (2005). Recreational sport management (4th
ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
O’Brien, E.M. (1993). Outside the classroom: Students as employees, volunteers, and interns.
American Council on Education Research Briefs, 4(1), 1–12.
Pack, S.M., Jordan, J.S., Turner, B.A., & Haines, D.J. (2007). Perceived organizational
supports and employee satisfaction and retention. Recreational Sports Journal, 31(2),
95–106.
Pascarella, E.T., Edison, M.I., Nora, A., Serra Hagedorn, L., & Terenzini, P.T. (1998). Does
work inhibit cognitive development during college? Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 20(2), 75–93.
Pike, G.R. (2011). Using college students’ self-reported learning outcomes in scholarly
research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 150(2), 41–58. doi:10.1002/ir.388
Pike, G.R., 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.
146 Hall
Pusser, B. (2010). Of a mind to labor: Reconceptualizing student work and higher education.
In L.W. Perna (Ed.), Understanding the working college student: New research and its
implications for policy and practice (pp. 134–155). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishers.
Riggert, S.C., Boyle, M., Petrosko, J.M., Ash, D., & Rude-Parkins, C. (2006). Student
employment and higher education: Empiricism and contradiction. Review of Educational
Research, 76(1), 63–92. doi:10.3102/00346543076001063
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Umbach, P.D., Padgett, R.D., & Pascarella, E.T. (2010). Impact of working on undergraduate
students’ interactions with faculty. In L.W. Perna (Ed.), Understanding the working college student: New research and its implications for policy and practice (pp. 235–257).
Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishers.
Watts, C., & Pickering, A. (2000). Pay as you learn: Student employment and academic
progress. Education + Training, 42(3), 129–134. doi:10.1108/00400910010372670
Ziskin, M., & Torres, V. Hossler, D., & Gross, J.P.K. (2010). Mobile working students.
In L.W. Perna (Ed.), Understanding the working college student: New research and
its implications for policy and practice (pp. 67–92). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.