Browsing by Subject "oikeustieteen opiskelijat"

Objectives: In previous studies, working during studying has been found to have both negative and positive effects on studies and studying but the interrelation between working during studying and the quality of learning has been only little explored. The study aimed to explore how the constructs reflecting the quality of learning, namely approaches to learning and experiences of the teaching-learning environment, are related to each other at the Faculty of Law. The aim was then to examine how working during studying is related to approaches to learning and experiences of the teaching-learning environment. The study also took the nature and amount of the work into account. Methods: The data were collected from the Faculty of Law by the researchers of the Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education. The data were collected via online questionnaire during years 2015–2016. The data were gathered using HowULearn questionnaire that has been developed at the University of Helsinki. The participants were 179 master's degree law students. Factor analysis was used to form scales measuring approaches to learning and experiences of the teaching-learning environment. Pearson's correlations and regression analysis were used for examining the relation between approaches to learning and experiences of the teaching-learning environment. Independent samples t-test, ANOVA variance analysis and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to examine how working during studying is related to approaches to learning and experiences of the teaching-learning environment while taking into account the nature and amount of work. Results and conclusions: Approaches to learning and experiences of the teaching-learning environment were related to each other. The surface approach to learning was related to more negative experiences of the teaching-learning environment than the deep approach and organised studying. There were no statistically significant differences in approaches to learning and experiences of the teaching-learning environment between students who were and were not working during their studies. The examination was then continued by addressing the differences in the nature of work and amount of work. There were no statistically significant differences with respect to the nature of work. The amount of work was related to approaches to learning. Students who worked more than 20 hours a week scored lower on the surface approach than students who worked less than 20 hours a week. It is important to further examine the interaction between working during studying, approaches to learning and experiences of the teaching-learning environment to get more thorough understanding of how working is related to the quality of learning.