AN ANALYSISO·F AC.

ADEMICPERFORMANCE
OF WORKING AND NON-WORKING
STUDENTS ON ACADEMIC PROBATION AT
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

Jerry D. Augsburger

The relationship or effect, if any, of part-time employment to the academic

performance of full-time, undergraduate students who are on academic pro-
bation at Northern Illinois University (NIU) is currently of considerable
importance to the Committee on Student Employment and the Office of
Student Financial Aids at that institution.
The Committee on Student Employment is composed' of administrators, fac-
ulty, and students, and is directly responsible for establishing policy and
regulations pertaining to on-campus employment for students. The Office of
Student Financial Aids is responsible for implementation of policy and ad-
ministering the on-campus student employment program.

Jerry Augsburger has been Assistant Director of Stu-

dent Financial Aids at Northern Illinois University.
OeKalb, Illinois, since 1967. During the past year, he
has been on leave from NIU and has assisted in the
Financial Aids Office at the University of Missouri-
Columbia while completing doctoral course work at
that institution. Mr. Augsburger served as a teacher
and counselor in the public schools for several years
prior to entering student personnel work in higher
education.

VOL. 4, NO.2, JUNE, 1974

 Students on academic probation . at .. NIU were prohibited from working
on-campus prior to fall semester, 1969-70, under the assumption· that work-
ing would further jeopardize their academic performance. At that time, the
Committee on Student Employment revised the student employment regu-
lations so that students on academic probation would be allowed to work
up to 20 hours per week, providing approval was first secured by the stu~
dent from the Office of Student Financial Aids. The only procedure through
which a student may secure a recommendation of approval for on-campus
employment is to corriplete a personal information sheet, and be interviewed
and counseled by a staff person in the Office of Student Financial Aids.
No information has been available in the past with regard to the extent
and effect of off-campus student employment. Off-campus employment for
students is in no way governed or controlled by the university or its ag-
ents. However, the Office of Student Financial Aids does attempt to main-
tain a working relationship with off-campus employers and potential em-
ployers as well as students seeking off-campus. employment. This service
is normally rather minimal due to the fact that the number of students
seeking off-campus employment usually greatly exceeds the number of off-
campus positions available. Consequently, from past experience nUinerous off-
campus employers expect to fill available positions from among the many
student applicants who are actively seeking the available jobs. As a result,
many employers do not feel the need to contact the Office of Student Fi-
nancial Aids for additional applicants.
Related Literature
Several articles and studies have been published whieh deal with the
general topic of the relationship of part-time employment to the aca-
demic performance of full-time students. However, none of the studies has
dealt with the specific problem area of the relationship. of part-time em-
ployment to the academic performance of full-time, undergraduate students
who are on academic probation.
Trueblood (1957) found that working while enrolled as a full-time student
did not adversely affect academic performance of students at Indiana Uni-
versity. He concluded that part-time employment did not have a significant
pOSItiVe or negative effect upon academic performance, and that it was not
possible to establish a relationship between maximum number of hours
worked per week and the maintenance of a given grade point average.
Hay (1969) examined student work patterns and the relationship to ac-
ademic performance of students at Pennsylvania State University-Ogontz Cam-
pus. Findings indicated that the academic performance of students who
worked fifteen hours per week or less was not adversely affected; however,
grades tended to suffer if the job involved sixteen or more hours per
week. It was found that academic performance was higher i( the student's
job was relevant to his major fielp. of study.
Henry (1967) studied the academic performance of working and non-
working freshmen at the University of Missouri-Columbia. He found no sig-
nificant differences between the mean grade point averages of the workers

THE JOURNAL OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID 31

and non-workers at any ability level. He concluded that freshmen who need
financial assistance may be employed part-time up to fifteen hours per week
without sacrificing academic achievement.
Budd (1956) in an earlier study of freshmen at Western Washington Col-
1ege reached similar conclusions. No significant relationship between em-
·ployment and academic adjustment of the entering freshmen was found.
In general, he states, employment outside of college· class hours shou\<i not
be an academic handicap.
MacGregor (1966) investigated the part-time work habits of Brooklyn Col~
lege undergraduates. Approximately twenty-five percent of the working stu-
dents felt that part-time employment had lowered their academic grade
point average or otherwise interfered with their learning. This implies
that seventy-five percent of the working students felt that employment had
not adversely affected· their academic performance. Also revealed was
the fact that fifty percent of the students who did not work as undergradu-
.ates made this choice because they believed that part-time employment would
interfere with their academic or co-curricular work.
Baker (1941) found in a study at Friends University that academic per-
formance of students was not adversely affected if employment did not
.exceed twenty-seven hours per week. For those students working more than
twenty-seven hours per week on the average, academic performance tended
to suffer accordingly;
The Study

The research question to be answered by this study asked: Is there· a sig-

nificant difference in the fall semester academic performance of the fol-
lowing groups of full-time, undergraduate students on academic proba-
tion during fall semester, 1970-71, at Northern Illinois University: (1)
those students not employed on-campus or off-campus; (2) those stude:qts
.employed on-campus; and, (3) those students employed off-campus? The
null hypothesis was: There is no significant difference in the academic
performance as indicated by fall semester grade point average achieved by
:students in Groups 1, 2, and 3, for fall semester, 1970-71.
Method

Selection of Participants
The undergraduate academic probation list compiled by the university at
the conclusion of spring semester, 1969-70, provided a starting point for se-
lection of students eligible to participate in this study. As shown by data
in Table 1, this list included 760 students, however, for various reasons
indicated, 513 students were considered ineligible leaving a total of 247
students meeting the eligibility criteria for this project. In addition to be-
ing on academic probation, all of the eligible students had been on campus
at least one semester and had attempted ten or more semester hours of
course work during fall semester, 1970-71.

32 VOL. 4, NO.2, JUNE, 1974

 TABLE 1
SUMMARY DATA OF STUDENTS INCLUDED ON
SPRING SEMESTER (1969-70) PROBATION LIST
Sub-totals Totals
Spring Semester (1969-70) Probation List ________________________________________________________________________ 760
Students Not Eligible For Inclusion In Study
A. Did Not Enroll Fall Semester 1970-71 ____________________________________________ 284
B. Temporary Probation (i.e.: student had
incomplete course, not low GPA) ____________________________________________________ 98
C. Attempted Less Than 10 Semester Hours __________________________ ,_________ 84
D. Removed Probationary Status During Summer Session ____________ 29
E, Withdrew Fr<>:ID NIU During Fall Semester ____________ .. _____________________ 18
Total Students Not Eligible For Study ____________________________________________________________________________ 513
Students Eligible For Inclusion In Study _________________ ,______________________________________________________ 247
Eligible Students Not Contacted
A. Questionnaire Returned - Address Unknown ___________________ ,________ 4
B. Did Not Respond to Questionnaire or Telephone Contact ____ 5
---
Total Eligible Students Not Contacted ____________________________________________________________________ '________ 9
Total Students Included In Study ____________________________________________________________________________________ 238

Instrument
A brief questionnaire was formulated for the purpose of answering three
basic questions: Was the student employed during fall semester, 1970-71?; if
employed, where was the location of employment?; and, if employed, how
many hours per week on the average did the student work? All other basic
information utilized in the study was -verified from university records.
Collection Of Data
The questionnaire with a cover letter was mailed t6 all of the 247 eligible
students; and at intervals of approximately three weeks., two follow-up ques-
tionnaires with appropriate cover letters were sent followed by an attempt-
ed telephone contact. This procedure produced contact with 238 students
represeritjng 96.4 percent of the total eligible students. The 238 participat-
ing students were represented by group as follows: 161 students not em-
ployed on-campus or off-campus; 33 students employed part-time on-campus;
and 44 students employed part-time off-campus.
Variables
The independent variable was whether or not students were working, and if
so~ the location of the work:
a. Group 1: Students are not employed on-campus or off-campus.
b. Group 2: Students are employed part-time on-campus.
c. Group 3: Students are employed part-time off-campus.
The dependent variable was academic performance as indicated by grade
point average of students for fall semester, 1970-71.
Statistical Technique Used
A one-way analysis of variance was applied utilizing Duncan's New Multiple
Range Test. The following analyses were made:
a. Comparison of cumulative grade point average of students in Groups
1 ,2, and 3, prior to bll semester, 1970-71.

THE JOURNAL OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID 33

 h. Comparison of semester grade point average of students in Groups
1, 2, and 3~ for fall semester, 1970-71.
c. Comparison of differences between cumulative grade point average and
fall semester grade point average of students in Groups 1, 2, and 3.
Data Analysis and Findings
Grade point averages used III this study have been computed on the basis
of a 4.0 system.
The first operation was to determine if the cumulative grade point
averages of students in Groups 1, 2, and 3, differed significantly prior to
fall semester, 1970-71. As indicated by data in Table 2, a one-way analysis
of variance was applied and the null hypothesis· of no difference between
groups on the basis of cumulative grade point averages prior to fall semester
was accepted.
TABLE 2
SUMMARY DATA AND ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON NIU
ACADEMIC PROBATIONARY STUDENTS' CUMULATIVE GRADE
POINT AVERAGES PRIOR TO FALL SEMESTER, 1970-71
Groups of Probationary Students
Not Employed Employed
Employed On-Campus Off-Campus
Number of Students 161 33 44
Mean 1.768 1.836 1.785
Standard Deviation 0.210 0.173 0.171
Source df s.s m.s. F
Between Groups 2 0.129 0.065 1.636 n.s.
Within Groups 235 9.280 0.040
Total 237 9.409
The next step was to apply a one-way analysis of variance to the semester
grade point average of students in Groups 1, 2, and 3, for fall senIester, 1970-
71. As indicated by data in Table 3, the null hypothesis was acceptj:!d that
there was no significant difference in the academic performance as indicat-
ed by semester grade point averages achieved by students in Groups 1, 2,
and 3, for fall semester, 1970-71.
TABLE 3
SUMMARY DATA AND ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON NIU
ACADEMIC PROBATIONARY STUDENTS' FALL
SEMESTER GRADE POINT AVERAGES
Groups of Probationary Students
Not Employed Employed
Employed On-Campus Off-Campus
Number of Students 161 33 44
Mean 2.199 2.330 2.254
.standard Deviation 0.600 0.458 0.687
Source df s.s m.s. F
.Between Groups 2 0.506 0.253 0.704 n.s.
Within Groups 235 84.540 0.360
Total 237 85.046

34 VOL. 4, NO. 2, JUNE, 1974

 As a further check on the academic performance of students in the_
three groups for fall semester. 1970-71, a one-way analysis of variance was
applied to the difference between cumulative grade point average and semes-
ter grade point average of students in the three groups. Again the null
hypothesis was accepted that there was no significant difference in the
academiC performance as shown by differences in grade point average
achieved by students in Groups 1, 2, and 3 (See Table 4) .

TABLE 4
SUMMARY DATA AND ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON NiU
ACADEMIC PROBATIONARY STUDENTS' FALL
SEMESTER GPA MINUS CUMULATIVE GPA
Groups of Probationary Students
Not Employed Employed
Employed On-Campus Off-Campus
Number of Students 161 33 44
Mean 0.430 0.493 OA70
Standard Deviation 0.595 0.467 0.641
Source df s.s m.s. l'
Between Groups 2 0.141 0.071 0.204 n.s.
Within Groups 235 81.342 0.346
Total 237 81.483

At this point in the analysis of data, there were no significant differ-

. ences between the three groups of students on the measures of cumulative
grade point average, fall semester grade point average, or difference between
the two grade point averages. On the basis of these findings, it may well
be conjectured that students who were on academic probation and who
were employed, whether on-campus or off-campus, performed no differently
on the basis of fall semester grades than those students who were not em-
ployed. However, a further examination of the academic performance of
employed students separated into categories based on average hours worked
per week indicated that further investigation in this area might prove fruit-
ful. A visual inspection of .Table 5 indicated that cumulative grade point
averages of all categories of working and non-working students differed very
little. Further, it appeared that those students working on-campus and off-
campus on the average of 20 hours or less per week were somewhat similar
in their fall semester academic performance while those students employed
more than 20 hours per week off-campus appeared to differ considerahly. Al-
so, it appeared that the non-working student group differed considerably
in its fall semester grade point average from the group working over 20
hours per week while differing to a smaller degree in relation to the com-
bined group of students working 20 hours or less per week.

THE JOURNAL OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID 35

 TABLE 5
SUMMARY DATA OF STUDENTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO
LOCATION OF WORK AND NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED
PER WEEK INCLUDING NON-WORKING STUDENTS

Cum. Sem.
Group No. GPA GPA
Non-Working 161 1.768 2.199
Working On-Campus 33 1.836 2.330
Working Off-Campus (20 hours or less) 32 1.815 2.447
Working Off-Campus (More than 20 hours) 12 1.706 1.737
Working On-Campus and Off-Campus
(20 hours or less per week) 65 1.826 2.388

In order that a meaningful comparison might be accomplished, a fourth

group of students was formed including only those students who were em-
ployed off-campus for more than 20 hours per week on the average. A one-
way analysis of variance was applied to the fall semester grade point av-
erage of the four groups of students - students who were not employed; stu-
dents employed on-campus 20 hours or less per week on the average; stu-
dents employed off-campus 20 hours or less per week on the average; and
students employed off-campus more than 20 hours per week on the average.
As indicated by data in Table 6, the null hypothesis of no difference in the
fall semester academic performance between the four groups of students
was rejected. Duncan's New Multiple Range Test indicated that the fall se-
mester academic performance of the group of students employed off-campus
more than 20 hours per week waS significantly lower than that of the other
three student groups.

TABLE 6
SUMMARY DATA AND ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON NIU
ACADEMIC PROBATIONARY STUDENTS' FALL
SEMESTER GRADE POINT AVERAGES
Groups of Probationary Students
Not Employed Employed Employed
Employed On-Campus Off-Campus Off-Campus
(20 hours (20 hours (More than
or less) or less) 20 hours)
No. of Students 161 33 32 12
Mean 2.199 2.330 2.448 1.737
Stand. Dev. 0.560 0.458 0.570 0.728
:Source df s.s m.s. F
Between Groups 3 4.917 1.639 4.786*
Within Groups 234 80.130 0.342
Total 237 85.047
·Significant at .01 level

36 VOl. 4. NO 9 TTTNF 1 Q'74-

 At this point, a fmother analysis seemed to be in order involving the fall
semester academic performance of those students employed 20 hours or less
per week on-campus and off-campus combined in one group, compared
to the group of students not employed. A one-way analysis of variance was
.applied and the null hypothesis of no difference between the two groups of
students on the basis of fall semester academic performance was reject-
ed. As indicated by data in Table 7, those students employed 20 hours or
less per week, on-campus and off-campus combined, performed significantly
higher than those students who were not employed on the basis of fall se-
mester grade point average.

TABLE 7
SUMMARY DATA AND ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON NIU
ACADEMIC PROBATIONARY STUDENTS' FALL
SEMESTER GRADE POINT AVERAGES
Groups of Probationary Students
Not Employed On-Campus
Employed and Off-Campus
(20 hours or less)
Number of Students 161 65
Mean 2.199 2.388
Standard Deviation 0.560 0.516
Source df s.s m.s. F
Between Groups 1 1.652 1.652 4.964*
Within Groups 224 74.533 0.333
Total 225 76.185
*Significant at .05 level

Discussion
In answer to the originally stated research question, it can be declared that
there was apparently no significant difference between students not em-
ployed, students employed on-campus,· and students employed off-campus on
the basis of their cumulative grade point averages prior to fall semester,
their fall semester grade point averages, and the difference between the
two. The two groups of working students, on-campus and off-campus,
achieved a slightly higher fall semester grade point average than the non-
working students; however, these differences were not significant. These
findings tend to support those of Trueblood (1957) in his work at Indiana
University.
In pursuing a new direction for additional study, those students employed
more than 20 hours per week off-campus were placed in a separate group
for further analysis. It was found that this group of students achieved a
significantly lower fall semester grade point average than the other three
groups of students. Thus, it appears that a student's grades may tend to
suffer if he attempts to work mote than 20 hours per week regularl)1. This
conclusion tends to support the findings of Hay (1969), Henry (1961), and
Baker (1941).

THE JOURNAL OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID 37

 An additional analysis was accomplished by combining all students who
worked 20 hours or less per week, on-campus and oft-campus, in one group
and comparing the fall semester grade point averages to those of the non-
working student group. It was found that those students who worked 20
'hours or . less, whether on-campus or off-campus; achieved significantly high-
er fall semester grades than those students who were not employed.. This
finding would suggest that those students on academic probation may tend
ito improve their academic performance significantly by choosing to work
up to 20 hours per week. This. is apparently a new finding not previously
reported or supported in the literature.
The implications of the findings discussed above are rather brief but
meaningful. Students on academic probation should not be discouraged frpm
seeking part-time employment. Rather, they should be encouraged and given
assistance in seeking part-time employment. However, students on academic
probation should be discouraged from working more than 20 hours 'per week
off-campus, and not allowed to work more than 20 hours per week on-campus.
To permit or allow this to happen is to enable the student to commit aca-
demic suicide in most cases.
There appears to be very little difference in the fall semester academic
performance of those probationary students working 20 hours or less per
week whether on-campus or off-campus. Consequently, there seems to be no
basis in fact for requiring the probationary student seeking part-time, on-
campus employment to first procure approval from the Office of Student
Financial Aids before being allowed to work. Possibly, removing potential
roadblocks such as this might encourage more students on academic pro-
bation to seek employment.
There are several limitations to this study which should be examined.
The number of students who were employed on-campus and off-campus was
rather small; however, all potentially eligible students who met the specific
criteria of the study were included.
Only students on academic probation were utilized in this study. The
project might possibly have been more meaningful if matching groups of
non-probationary students had been included.
No attempt was made to include such factors as motivation, personality,
reason for working, family background, and other possibly pertinent fac-
tors. Findings from this study would undoubtedly have been enhanced had
factors such as these been taken into consideration and included in the an-
alysis of data.
In conclusion, it appears that further study in the area of student employ-
ment and academic achievement in as comprehensive a fashion as possible
would be an appropriate and meaningful topic to pursue in greater depth.

VOL. 4, NO.2, JUNE, 1974

38
REFERENCES
Baker) H. B. The working student and his grades. Journal of Educational Research}
1941, 35, 28-35.
Budd, W. C. The effect of outside employment on initial academic adjustment ill
college. College and Unive'fsity, 1956, 31, 221-3.
Hay, J. E.. How part-time work affects academic performance. Journal of College
Placement, 1969, 29 (4), 104.
Henry, J. B. Part-time employment and academic performance of freshmen. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 1967, 8, 257-60.
MacGregor, A. Part-time work - good or bad? Journal of College Placement, 1966,
26(3), 127-32.
Trueblood, D. L. Effects of employment on academic achievement. Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 1957, 36, 112-5.

FINANCIAL.AID Explained and Simplified

with Overhead Projector Presentation.
Can be used with a group or individuals. 22
transparencies printed on heavy, long-lasting
acetates.

60 minute cassette t?pe is keyed to (al"!d amplifies) visuals.

T~J:?e can be used In group presentation or given to in-
dividuals to take home to help while filling out forms.
L:==:::;:~=~=.=1:rDIVIDED INTO 3 PARTS FOR EASIER COMPREHENSION:
1st part explains what financial aid is and how need is
determined. 2nd part describes sources of financial aid
and Federal programs. 3rd part gives detailed instructions
for filling out the ACT Family Financial Statement.

Order from: PICTOGRAPH CORP., P. O. Box 2099

Boulder, Colorado 80302
Postage paid on all orders accompanied by check or money order.
Purchase order or other school orders will be billed plus postage.

~ o EXPLAINING FINANCIAL AID AND THE ACT

SUPilltmltllltat Edm:utitlilai
OPllllrtunily Grant Pnl$!rUlll
NEED ANALYSIS SYSTEM
22 visualS, 60 min. tape program ........ $23.00 Tape only, $5.00
Colorado residents include 3 1/2% sales tax or tax exempt number.

THE JOURNAL OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID 39