The relationship between student employment and study outcomes has been widely researched, yet findings remain inconsistent (Neyt et al., 2019). While certain studies highlight the negative relations and effects of employment on study outcomes (Davis, 2023; Ecton et al., 2023), some reveal positive outcomes under certain conditions (Butler, 2007; Dekker et al., 2024; Scott-Clayton & Minaya, 2014). Applying work-life facilitation and conflict models (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006) in the educational context, Butler (2007) examined the relationship between student employment and study outcomes, referring to the models as work-school facilitation and conflict.

Work-school facilitation refers to the extent to which working conditions provide resources that can enhance study outcomes. Studies based on these models argue that enriching working conditions such as work-study alignment and having colleagues’ support can lead to work-school facilitation and better study outcomes. In contrast, work-school conflict refers to the extent to which engagement in work can lead to strain in study outcomes. For instance, depleting working conditions such as a high amount of working hours are associated with lower study outcomes (Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012; Butler, 2007; Dekker et al., 2024). Scholars also argued that personal resources such as self-efficacy (Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012) can help individuals to take advantage of enriching working conditions enabling them to have better study outcomes.

In the context of teacher education, limited research exists on how employment is related to pre-service teachers' study outcomes. Our study addresses this gap by examining three groups of pre-service teachers in Austria: those working as teachers (early-entry teachers), those employed in non-teaching jobs, and those not working. Drawing on models of work-school facilitation and conflict, we investigate how job conditions, such as work-study congruence, teaching hours, and support from colleagues or mentors are associated with study outcomes of early-entry teachers. Additionally, we explore how self-efficacy moderates the relationship between colleagues and mentors’ support and study outcomes of early-entry teachers, controlling for participants’ level of studies (BA or MA program) and sociodemographic characteristics. We hypothesized that, overall, pre-service teachers who are employed, whether in teaching or non-teaching jobs, would have lower study outcomes compared to those not working. However, early entry teachers were expected to achieve better study outcomes than those in non-teaching jobs due to the alignment between their work and studies. Additionally, we assumed that support from colleagues and mentors would predict better study outcomes among early-entry teachers. Finally, we hypothesized that self-efficacy moderates the relationship between enriching work conditions (e.g., support from colleagues and mentors) and study outcomes.

We employed a quantitative survey design to investigate the relationship between student employment and study outcomes among pre-service teachers and specific job conditions of early-entry teachers in Austria. Data were collected through an online questionnaire distributed across 9 Austrian universities and university colleges of teacher education. After data cleaning procedures, we ended up with 1,643 responses which are the basis for our study. Of these participants, 67% were university students (33% were students in university colleges of teacher education), 75% female, and 61% Bachelor students. The students were on average 26 years old (SD = 6) and 38% taught at a school during their studies. While 41% worked other jobs, 21% did not work during their studies. The questionnaire included a teaching self-efficacy scale, a question measuring teaching hours, a question regarding colleagues’ and mentors’ support, and study outcomes represented by a composite index consisting of the number of exams, credits, and courses taken in the previous semester. We used multiple regression analysis to examine the predictive roles of working status in the study outcomes of pre-service teachers. Then, we examined how support from colleagues and mentors and teaching hours predicted study outcomes among early-entry teachers. Furthermore, moderation analysis was employed to examine the moderating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between support from colleagues and mentors and study outcomes of early-entry teachers.

The findings highlight significant differences in study outcomes among pre-service teachers based on their employment status. Pre-service teachers without a job demonstrated the highest study outcomes in comparison with those with a teaching job (β = -0.76, p<0.001) and those with a non-teaching job (β = -0.25, p<0.001). In contrast, those with teaching jobs had the lowest study outcomes, suggesting that balancing work and study poses substantial challenges. Notably, job-study congruence and support from colleagues or mentors did not predict better study outcomes among early-entry teachers, indicating that alignment between work and study roles or support from colleagues and mentors may not be sufficient to mitigate the negative effects of employment on academic progress. Furthermore, teaching hours emerged as a critical factor negatively associated with study outcomes, meaning that pre-service teachers with higher teaching loads performed worse academically (β = -0.23, p<0.001). Considering the moderating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between support from colleagues and mentors, no significant moderation effect was found (β = -0.15, p = 0.11). These results underscore the importance of managing teaching responsibilities during teacher education programs to ensure that early career demands do not hinder study progress or academic success. Our study contributes to the understanding of the complex dynamics of work-study balance among pre-service teachers and offers implications for teacher education policies, particularly in supporting early-entry teachers.

References Brummelhuis, L. L. ten, & Bakker, A. B. (2012). A resource perspective on the work-home interface: The work-home resources model. The American Psychologist, 67(7), 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027974 Butler, A. B. (2007). Job characteristics and college performance and attitudes: A model of work-school conflict and facilitation. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 500–510. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.500 Davis, A. M. D. (2023). Is Working in College Worth It? How Hours on the Job Affect Postsecondary Outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Article 01623737231210243. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737231210243 Dekker, I., Chong, C. F., Schippers, M. C., van Schooten, E., & Delnoy, L. (2024). The right job pays: Effects of different types of work on study progress of pre-service teachers. Pedagogische Studiën, 101(1), 4–29. https://doi.org/10.59302/ps.v101i1.18782 Ecton, W. G., Heinrich, C. J., & Carruthers, C. K. (2023). Earning to Learn: Working While Enrolled in Tennessee Colleges and Universities. AERA Open, 9, Article 23328584221140410. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221140410 Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of Conflict Between Work and Family Roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4277352 Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When Work And Family Are Allies: A Theory Of Work-Family Enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.19379625 Neyt, B., Omey, E., Verhaest, D., & Baert, S. (2019). DOES STUDENT WORK REALLY AFFECT EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES? A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. Journal of Economic Surveys, 33(3), 896–921. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12301 Scott-Clayton, J., & Minaya, V. (2014). Should Student Employment Be Subsidized? Conditional Counterfactuals and the Outcomes of Work-Study Participation. https://doi.org/10.3386/w20329