Students’ work experience in relation to their career engagement and metacognitive awareness

ABSTRACT

Higher education students in Finland and all over the world are often engaged in a paid job alongside their studies. The purpose of the present study is to explore how humanities students’ work experience is related to their career engagement and metacognitive awareness. More precisely, the aim is to investigate how the nature and amount of work are associated with career engagement and metacognitive awareness. A total of 302 master’s students filled out the questionnaire. The data were analysed by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, Pearson correlations, independent samples t-test and One-Way ANOVA. The results showed that working students had higher scores on networking than non-working students. In addition, the study revealed that the amount of work and work related to the study field were positively related to career engagement (career planning and networking). Regarding metacognitive awareness, the amount of work matters. Full-time working students had higher scores on both dimensions of metacognitive awareness, namely knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. In addition, work related to one's own study field was connected with the perceived relevance of work. The present study indicates that students’ working can enhance students’ career engagement and their metacognitive awareness.

KEYWORDS:

• work experience
• career engagement
• metacognitive awareness
• nature of work
• amount of work
• higher education

Introduction

Many higher education students are engaged in a paid job alongside their studies in Finland and other countries (Official Statistics of Finland, 2023; Passaretta & Triventi, 2015; Sanchez-Gelabert et al., 2017). The reason for working is mostly financial and also gaining work experience (e.g., Dundes & Marx, 2006; Holmes, 2008). Students understand the importance of having work experience and creating networks already during their studies (Tuononen & Hyytinen, 2022), and thus they work alongside studies. In particular, this is important in the study fields considered non-professional, such as humanities (Jackson & Tomlinson, 2022). Previous research has shown that work experience can increase students’ employability and reduce the likelihood of facing unemployment (Passaretta & Triventi, 2015). Transition to working life requires active career engagement already during university studies (Haase et al., 2012; Tuononen & Hyytinen, 2022). Career engagement includes, for example, career planning, identifying one’s own interests and recognising future job possibilities (Hirschi et al., 2014). Students recognise their responsibility for actively managing their careers and thus they put more effort into career planning (Jackson & Tomlinson, 2022). In addition, higher education institutions invest in students’ career engagement and employability during studies by providing career-related courses, networking events, career guidance and internships (Jackson & Tomlinson, 2022). However, little is known about how students’ work experience is associated with their career engagement. As many studies of students’ paid work focus on the impacts of academic achievement (Genett, 2017; Salamonson et al., 2020), there is a need for research which investigates students' working from other perspectives as well.

Working a paid job alongside studies means that students need to combine studying and working. This requires metacognitive awareness, which refers to an ability to recognise and be aware of one’s own learning as well as an ability to plan and set learning goals, and to monitor their thoughts and actions to attain the goals (Kallio et al., 2021; Schraw & Dennison, 1994). Therefore, students need metacognitive awareness to be able to monitor their studies and work alongside studies, as well as to see the relevance of work experience and to apply their learning to practice in the work context (Tuononen et al., 2017). Previous studies show the variation in students’ metacognitive awareness (Tuononen et al., 2023) and how they perceive the relevance of work (Tuononen et al., 2017). Therefore, it is important to explore how students’ work experience of paid jobs contributes to their career engagement and metacognitive awareness.

In addition, many studies of the perceived relevance of work have been conducted in Australia, Canada, and the USA (e.g., Drewery & Pretti, 2021; Stringer & Kerpelman, 2010). Furthermore, these studies explored the relevance of work in internships or work-integrated learning (WIL) contexts. Therefore, there is a need for research exploring the perceived relevance of paid jobs in Scandinavia. The present study explores master’s students in humanities. These students may face greater challenges transitioning to working life compared to those in professional fields (Okay-Somerville & Scholarios, 2017; Puhakka et al., 2010). The studies from the UK and Australia indicate that humanities students had less work experience than students from other fields which indicates fewer opportunities for practical experience (Jackson & Tomlinson, 2022). Therefore, it is important to explore humanities students’ perceptions of the relevance of work experience and how it is related to their career engagement and metacognitive awareness. With this information, higher education institutions can support students to make better use of their work experience and develop their career engagement and metacognitive awareness which help them later in their working life transition.

Theoretical framework

Students’ work experience

When talking about students working paid jobs alongside studies, the focus is quite often on how it affects their study success, study progress or dropout, and the results showed contradictory evidence indicating that it can have both positive and negative effects on study success or no effect at all (Brooks & Youngson, 2016; Sanchez-Gelabert et al., 2017; Sawhney & Bansal, 2015; Tuononen et al., 2016). However, work experience can have effects not only on studies but also on students’ employability. Work experience enhances students’ employability and thus it is important in the phase of transition as it enhances readiness to work life (Monteiro et al., 2016). Students are also aware of its importance and thus acquire work experience during their studies (Tuononen & Hyytinen, 2022). Work experience can increase self-efficacy and self-confidence which are important in their working life transition (Shaw, 2012; Tuononen et al., 2017). In addition, working provides opportunities to apply study matters in practice and develop various generic skills such as collaboration and communication skills (Blackwell et al., 2001; Tuononen et al., 2017).

Previous research shows that the amount and nature of work are important factors to consider when exploring students’ work (Brooks & Youngson, 2016; Tuononen et al., 2016). Research indicates that work experience related to the field of study increases the likelihood that skills fit in future employment (Passaretta & Triventi, 2015). In addition, working can also promote learning processes as it has been found that academic work is related to deep learning and non-academic work to unreflective learning (i.e., difficulties in forming a coherent whole of the matters and integrating it into the previous knowledge) (Tuononen et al., 2016). Therefore, work related to the study field can help students to reflect and recognise their competencies and what they have learned in their studies as they can use knowledge and skills in different contexts. However, students are doing a lot of work which is not related to their studies. For example, Jackson and Tomlinson (2022) found that only one-half of students’ extra-curricular work experience was relevant to the students’ future careers. It has been said that the students’ ability to recognise the usefulness of work and learn from it determines the overall quality of work experience (Blackwell et al., 2001). The previous studies, however, have indicated that graduates’ experiences vary in how they can recognise the usefulness of their work experience (Tuononen et al., 2017). Some students were able to see only the practical relevance of work, such as seeing it had enhanced communication skills, whereas some students also perceived higher-level cognitive benefits such as linking theory to practise, applying knowledge, or developing their own thinking. The difference was partly explained by their metacognitive skills, i.e, ability to reflect, because the nature of work was not an explaining factor for all students (Tuononen et al., 2017). There is also evidence that students have difficulties in identifying the skills they have gained at work (Neill et al., 2004).

Perceived relevance of work is subjective and can vary among students depending on their work, academic studies and career goals (Drewery et al., 2016; Nevison et al., 2017). For example, students perceive greater relevance of work if the work offers appropriate challenges and if their work corresponds to their future work plans (Drewery & Pretti, 2021).

The amount of work is usually explored in relation to students’ study success or dropouts (e.g., Moulin et al., 2013; Salamonson et al., 2020; Triventi, 2014). Thus, there is a need for research that explores how the amount and nature of work and perceived relevance of work experience are associated with students’ career engagement and metacognitive awareness. Next, these concepts and how they are related to working and work experience are explained in more detail.

Students’ career engagement

Career engagement refers to the degree to which someone is actively developing his or her career. It covers actions such as career planning, career self-exploration, environmental career exploration, networking, skill development, and positioning behaviour (Hirschi et al., 2014). Career engagement is important already for students as it predicts job satisfaction after graduation (Hirschi et al., 2013). Career engagement can evolve and change over time (Hirschi et al., 2014). It increases as studies progress: second-year students evaluated higher career engagement than first-year students (Hirschi & Freund, 2014). Universities can enhance students’ career engagement by providing career guidance, career-related workshops, networking events and mentoring for students (Jackson & Tomlinson, 2022).

There is variation in students’ career engagement and how important they perceive it to be. Students perceived personal preparation (gaining practical experiences and understanding personal value), interests, abilities, and weaknesses as the most important elements of career engagement, whereas industry participation, such as participating in career workshops or other activities and visiting potential workplaces, was perceived to be less important (Dopson et al., 2022). Tuononen and Hyytinen (2022) found a variation in students’ career engagement in terms of how much they had planned their careers and created networks and contacts during their studies and it was associated with their early career success.

Work experience is one important factor which can enhance students’ career engagement (Forsyth & Cowap, 2017; Jackson & Tomlinson, 2022). Working students perceived stronger employability and higher career planning (Jackson & Tomlinson, 2022). Work that was related to one’s own field of study helped students to clarify their career aspirations and plans during the final study year (Jackson & Collings, 2018). In addition, enhancing future employment, providing career insights, developing skills, gaining experience and creating contacts and networks were perceived as benefits of paid work by students (Forsyth & Cowap, 2017; Salamonson et al., 2020). Jackson and Tomlinson (2022) found that working was perceived to be most useful for a CV and personal profile but less so for creating contacts with potential employers. All these above-mentioned benefits are important elements of career engagement.

Students’ metacognitive awareness

Metacognitive awareness is about being aware of thinking and learning strategies, as well as of how, when and why to use them to successfully execute an appropriate procedure or process (Harrison & Vallin, 2018). Hence, metacognitive awareness is commonly divided into two interrelated dimensions, knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognition (Kallio et al., 2018; Schraw & Dennison, 1994; Tuononen et al., 2023).

Knowledge about cognition consists of declarative knowledge (i.e., one knows about the contents of learning and learning strategies), procedural knowledge (i.e., one knows how to do things and apply learning strategies) and conditional knowledge (i.e., one knows why and when to use strategies to accomplish tasks; Harrison & Vallin, 2018). Taking together, knowledge about cognition enables students to be more aware of what they know, what they can do, and how and when to use the knowledge and skills in various situations (Kallio et al., 2018; Tuononen et al., 2023).

Regulation of cognition is about planning, monitoring, and evaluating one's thoughts, feelings and actions to attain one’s goals (Usher & Schunk, 2018). It takes place across three phases of learning: (1) goal setting and planning learning before taking any action, (2) monitoring thinking and actions during the performance, and (3) evaluating and reflecting on their performance during and after the action (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2012). Students with versatile self-regulation skills can analyse the situation, set goals, and motivate themselves to act to reach the set goals (Hyytinen et al., 2021).

Metacognitive awareness is needed in study and working life contexts. It is also needed in the career planning and job search process (Merino-Tejedor et al., 2016; Song et al., 2020). It makes up an important aspect of employability (Jackson & Tomlinson, 2022). Various challenges may emerge in students’ educational path and transition to working life if students have problems with their metacognitive awareness (Räisänen et al., 2021; Tuononen et al., 2017; 2019). Research shows that undergraduate students’ metacognitive awareness varies (Tuononen et al., 2023). The study, in which also students in humanities participated, showed that students often evaluated knowledge about cognition higher than regulation of cognition indicating that students struggle more with the regulation of cognition (Tuononen et al., 2023). On the other hand, another study has found that students had higher scores on the regulation of cognition than knowledge about cognition (Sawhney & Bansal, 2015).

There is some evidence that work experience contributes to metacognitive awareness as Lumma-Sellenthin (2012) found that work experience in one's own field (health service) was positively connected with students’ knowledge of cognition. Therefore, it seems that practical work experience may help students to get a clear picture of future work and enable them to structure the study contents and therefore enhance their awareness of their own learning (Lumma-Sellenthin, 2012). In addition, working students may develop their metacognitive skills as it provides opportunities to apply knowledge and recognise competencies (Ehiyazaryan & Barraclough, 2009; Tuononen et al., 2017). In addition, the study of Grozev and Easterbrook (2022) found that students adopted different practical and cognitive strategies such as reducing the amount of working hours, combining studies with work, and having clear priorities to combine working and studying successfully. Therefore, it can be argued that working can also enhance students’ metacognitive skills as students need to combine study and work. Regulation skills are especially needed in demanding tasks (Hyytinen et al., 2021); the more things the students must do, the more important regulation skills and awareness of these skills are.

To sum up, there is a need for research which explores the relationship between students’ work experience, career engagement and metacognitive awareness. This knowledge would broaden our understanding of students working and how it can support students’ career engagement and the ability to reflect and regulate their learning process, which are all important determinants in successful studying and transition to the labour market.

Aims

The present study aims to explore how humanities master’s students’ work experience of paid jobs is related to career engagement and metacognitive awareness. The research questions are

1. How is students’ employment status related to their career engagement and metacognitive awareness?

2. How are the amount and nature of work related to career engagement and metacognitive awareness?

3. How is the experienced relevance of work related to the nature of work, career engagement and metacognitive awareness?

Methodology

Context

This study was conducted in a research-intensive Finnish university in the Faculty of Arts. The faculty comprises dozens of disciplines, six bachelor’s programmes and 12 master’s degree programmes. Students can study, for example, history, art research, gender research, languages, and cultures. Bachelor’s degrees consist of at least 10 credits of working life courses and practical training. In addition, all master’s degrees include working life orientation and career planning. In practice, the working life period can be compensated by participating in a relevant course or work experience that students have gained outside the university.

Participants and data collection

A total of 302 master’s students from the Faculty of Arts filled in the questionnaire. All students, who are at the same level in their master’s studies, received the questionnaire from the Unihow system which is a digital reflection tool and feedback system used in the present university. The system provides individual feedback for students based on their scores. The students were asked for permission to use the data for research, and only the responses of those who were granted permission were used in the present study. The response rate varied from 9% to 36% between the degree programmes (mean was 23%).

Materials

The questionnaire included questions about work experience, career engagement and metacognitive awareness. Students’ employment status was measured by asking whether she/he has worked during studies and how many hours per week she/he has worked in the past year. Nature of work was measured by the item ‘My work is related to my field of study’ on a 5-point Likert scale. It was recoded as a categorical variable so that agree and agree were combined as indicating having work experience in one’s study field and disagree and disagree indicating no study-related work experience. In addition, the questionnaire included two questions relating to the relevance of work: (1)‘ The requirement level of my current job corresponds to my university education’ and (2) ‘I can utilise things I have learnt at the university in my current job’. Items are measured on a 5-point Likert format scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree). The items were modified based on the previous study (Tuononen et al., 2019).

Career Engagement was measured by seven items (see Appendix 1). The shortened version of the Career Engagement Scale (Hirschi et al., 2014) was used. Items are measured on a 5-point Likert format scale (1 = not much, and 5 = a great deal). One-factor structure has been used in previous studies (Baluku et al., 2021; Hirschi & Freund, 2014; Nilforooshan & Salimi, 2016).

The items measuring students’ metacognitive awareness were based on the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) (Craig et al., 2020; Harrison & Vallin, 2018; Kallio et al., 2017; Kallio et al., 2018; Kallio et al., 2021; Schraw & Dennison, 1994; Tuononen et al., 2023). We used a shortened 18-item version of the instrument, to measure two major components of metacognitive awareness: (1) knowledge about cognition and (2) regulation of cognition. This shortened version has been used and validated in different contexts (see Kallio et al., 2017; Kallio et al., 2018; Tuononen et al., 2023). A 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, and 5 = totally agree) was used to measure metacognitive awareness.

Analysis

First, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted for the items measuring career engagement because the instrument has not been explored and validated in this Finnish context. Exploratory factor analysis (maximum likelihood with direct oblimin) was used to analyse the factor structure of seven items measuring career engagement. The Kaiser-Meyer Olkin test shows the sampling being adequate (KMO = 0.84). The analysis indicated a two-factor solution which was labelled as planning (4 items) and networking (3 items) (see Appendix 1). Loadings varied from .50 to .95 which are above the desired .32 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2014). Communalities varied from low to high and one item (sincerely thought about personal values, interests, abilities, and weaknesses) remained below the desired .40 (Costello & Osborne, 2005). However, we did not remove the item because it was important in terms of content and only three items would have been left in the factor (Beavers et al., 2013).

After that, we tested a two-factor model solution with confirmatory factor analysis (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Schumacker & Lomax, 2016). We find that the two-factor model has an acceptable fit between the model and the observed data based on commonly accepted thresholds (χ2 = 41, df = 13, p < .00, CFI = .97, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .085). Cronbach’s alphas were .84 for planning and .80 for networking.

Then, the instrument for metacognitive awareness (MAI) was investigated. Although a two-factor model of MAI (i.e., knowledge of cognition, and regulation of cognition) has been reported in several studies (see Craig et al., 2020; Harrison & Vallin, 2018; Sawhney & Bansal, 2015; Schraw & Dennison, 1994; Tuononen et al., 2023), also other factor structures have been identified. As an example, a six-factor solution is used in which these two main factors are divided into three subcomponents (Kallio et al., 2017; 2018). Earlier studies have also reported some challenges in the internal structure of the MAI questionnaire, such as communalities of some items being low (e.g., Harrison & Vallin, 2018; Tuononen et al., 2023). Therefore, exploratory factor analysis (maximum likelihood) with direct oblimin rotation was conducted to determine the number of factors for the metacognitive awareness questionnaire. The analysis showed a four-factor solution. One factor was theoretically coherent, representing one of the main components of MAI, namely the regulation of cognition. However, items measuring knowledge of cognition were divided into three factors. One of these factors only consisted of two items. In addition, some items (01, 12) cross-loaded on several factors. Therefore, we tested the original two-factor model (Harrison & Vallin, 2018; Schraw & Dennison, 1994), and conducted a forced two-factor solution. An examination of the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin measure of sampling adequacy suggested that the variables were factorable (KMO = 0.90). All loadings were above the desired .32 mark (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2014). However, some items (1, 12, 13, 15) cross-loaded on both factors, and their loadings were not strong. Additionally, communalities varied from .18 to .60. We decided to remove seven items from subsequent analysis (see Appendix 2) due to low communalities and cross-loadings. These problematic items were the same as reported in previous studies (Harrison & Vallin, 2018; Tuononen et al., 2023).

Acknowledging the findings of the exploratory factor analysis and the findings of previous studies (Harrison & Vallin, 2018; Kallio et al., 2018; Tuononen et al., 2023), we tested the two-factor model using confirmatory factor analysis to understand associations between the main components of metacognitive awareness. We found that the two-factor model has a poor fit to the sample data based on commonly accepted thresholds (χ²= 161, df = 43, p < .00, CFI = .92, TLI = .89, RMSEA = .096; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Cronbach’s alphas were .83 for the knowledge of cognition and .86 for the regulation of cognition.

The relationship between employment status, amount, and nature of work experience to career engagement and metacognitive awareness was explored by independent samples t-test and One-way ANOVA. Pearson’s correlations were used to analyse the relationship between the relevance of work, career engagement and metacognitive awareness. The effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d. Analyses were conducted with SPSS and Amos 28.

Results

First, we looked at the descriptive results. Most of the participants (70%, n = 213) had worked during their studies. The majority of working students worked less than 20 h per week (60%, n = 124), 21% (n = 45) worked 20–34 h, and 19% (n = 39) worked full time in the past year. Almost half of the participants (48%) perceived that their work experience was not related to their study field whereas 42% of students reported having work experience in their study field. In addition, 11% reported having difficulties evaluating the nature of their work experience. In terms of elements of career engagement, students scored higher on career planning than networking. For metacognitive awareness, the results showed that the mean score for the regulation of cognition was average while for knowledge of cognition was higher. (see Table 1).

Table 1. Means and standard deviations of career engagement and metacognitive awareness and their relations to employment status.

Employment status	M	SD	No work experience		Work experience		t	p
			M	SD	M	SD
Career engagement
Planning	3.28	.91	3.15	.90	3.34	.91	−1.65	. 100
Networking	2.48	1.10	2.24	1.02	2.57	1.12	−2.40	.017*
Metacognitive awareness
Knowledge about cognition	3.74	.58	3.69	.57	3.76	.59	-.976	.330
Regulation of cognition	3.15	.77	3.19	.66	3.13	.75	.637	.525

*p < .05.

In the first research question, we explored how employment status was related to career engagement and metacognitive awareness. The results showed that students, who had work experience, had statistically significantly higher scores on networking (Table 1). However, the effect size was small 0.31 (Cohen, 1988). There were no significant differences in their metacognitive awareness.

Then, the amount of working hours was taken into account, and the results showed that there were significant differences in career engagement and metacognitive awareness (Table 2). More precisely, Bonferroni’s post hoc test showed that students who worked more than 35 h per week reported higher levels of networking compared to the students who worked less than 20 h. Similarly, students with 35 h of work reported significantly higher levels of knowledge of cognition than students working less than 35 h per week. Regarding the regulation of cognition, students who worked more than 35 h had higher scores than students who worked less than 20 h.

Table 2. The amount of work in relation to career engagement and metacognitive awareness.

The amount of work	Group 1 Less 20 h		Group 2 20–34 h		Group 3 35 or more h		f	p
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Career engagement
Planning	3.29	.89	3.34	1.03	3.52	.85	.970	.381
Networking	2.45	1.03	2.58	1.30	3.06	1.08	4.52	.012*
Metacognitive awareness
Knowledge about cognition	3.73	.55	3.59	.64	4.05	.62	7.09	.001*
Regulation of cognition	3.05	.74	3.08	.80	3.47	.70	4.83	.009*

*p < .05, Statistical differences: Networking: group 3 > group 1; Knowledge about cognition: group 3 > group 1 and group 2; Regulation of cognition: group 3 > group 1.

Next, we explored the relationship between the nature of work, career engagement and metacognitive awareness. The results showed that the nature of work was related to career engagement, but it was not related to two dimensions of metacognitive awareness. More precisely, students, whose work was related to their study field, had higher scores on planning and networking (Table 3). Cohen’s d was .41 for planning indicating a small effect size and .81 for networking which refers to a high effect size.

Table 3. The nature of work in relation to career engagement and metacognitive awareness.

The nature of work	Work related to the study field		Work not related to the study field		t	p
	M	SD	M	SD
Career engagement
Planning	3.55	.83	3.17	.99	−2.84	.002*
Networking	3.00	1.07	2.16	1.01	−5.60	.000**
Metacognitive awareness
Knowledge about cognition	3.82	.61	3.75	.59	-.749	.227
Regulation of cognition	3.12	.83	3.16	.74	.370	.356

*p < .05, ** p > .001.

Our third research question was about the relationship between the perceived relevance of work, the nature of work, career engagement and metacognitive awareness. The results showed that the nature of work was related to the relevance of work (Table 4). More precisely, students, who had work experience related to their study field, experienced that their level of work corresponds better to their education and that they can utilise their studies at work more than students who had no work experience related to their field of study. The effect sizes were large as Cohens’ d was 1.2 for the level of corresponding education and 1.1 for the utilisation of studies at work.

Table 4. The relationship between the nature of work and experiences of the relevance of work.

Relevance of work	Work related to the study field (n = 90)		Work not related to the study field (n = 103)		t	p
	M	SD	M	SD
Level of work corresponds to education	4.04	1.13	1.74	1.24	−13.40	.000
Utilisation of studies at work	4.42	.86	2.10	1.29	−14.91	.000

The results showed that the perceived relevance of work correlated to both dimensions of career engagement, planning and networking. In other words, if students had evaluated that the requirement level of current work corresponds to their university education and that they can utilise things that they have learned at university, they have also had planning and networking activities during the last six months. Regarding metacognitive awareness, the results showed that the relevance of work was related to the one dimension of metacognitive awareness, knowledge about cognition, indicating that the students who evaluated that their work has relevance were also more aware of their learning. Pearson's correlations are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Pearson’s correlations between the relevance of work and career engagement and metacognitive awareness.

Relevance of work	Level of work corresponds to education	Utilisation of studies at work
Career engagement
Planning	.195**	.247**
Networking	.394**	.485**
Metacognitive awareness
Knowledge about cognition	.178**	.135*
Regulation of cognition	.124	.046

*p < .05, ** p > .001.

Discussion

The present study highlights the importance of work experience and its relation to humanities students’ career engagement and metacognitive awareness in Scandinavia. The results showed that working students reported higher career engagement in terms of networking than non-working students. Similarly, it has been found that working enhances students’ contacts and networks (Forsyth & Cowap, 2017). It might also be that working students are active in searching for new work opportunities and thus they have had more networking activities. Interestingly, both working and non-working students had quite high scores on career planning. The studies of these students include career orientation courses which may include career planning activities, such as making plans and goals for the future career, reflecting own values, interest, and abilities as well as collecting and gaining information about potential employers. This kind of courses or career counselling supports students’ career engagement (Nilforooshan & Salimi, 2016; Reese & Miller, 2006).

In the present study, working and non-working students did not differ in terms of their metacognitive awareness. However, the results showed that, in general, master’s students reported higher levels of knowledge about cognition than regulation of cognition. These results are in line with those of a previous study in which final-stage bachelor’s students reported higher levels of knowledge about cognition compared to the regulation of cognition (Tuononen et al., 2023).

The findings of this study indicated that the amount of work was related to career engagement and metacognitive awareness. Students who worked full-time reported higher career engagement and metacognitive awareness. More precisely, these students have had more networking activities as well as higher scores on knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition than students who worked less than 20 h. This may indicate that full-time working students need more regulation skills to combine working and studying as well as they are developing these skills at work. The results indicate that for metacognitive awareness the amount of work matters because the differences among the students were found based on how much they were working.

The present study revealed that the nature of work was related to higher career engagement (planning and networking) which indicates that relevant work experience may increase career engagement. This aligns with the findings of prior research which found that work experience helped students to clarify their career objectives and career aspirations (Jackson & Collings, 2018). In addition, social capital is related to career engagement (Sou et al., 2022) and work experience may enhance students’ social capital (Tomlinson, 2017; Tuononen & Hyytinen, 2022). On the other hand, acquiring contacts and networks can be difficult for students and graduates, which was found in a previous study investigating autistic graduates (Pesonen et al., 2022) and international migrant graduates (Pham et al., 2019).

The present study found no relation between the nature of work and metacognitive awareness. Previous studies have found this relation among medical students but the connection between work and study contents is clear for them (Lumma-Sellenthin, 2012) whereas, for students in humanities, the connection between work and study matters is not necessarily that clear and they might have difficulties to evaluate what kind of work is related to their study field. On the other hand, it can be assumed that when doing any kind of work, metacognitive awareness is important, not depending on the nature of the work.

The results indicated that the perceived relevance of work experience was related to the nature of work. Work experience in students’ own study field was related to experiences that the level of work corresponds better to education and that students can better utilise their studies at work. In addition, the results showed that relevance of work correlated positively to both dimensions of career engagement: planning and networking as well as knowledge about cognition, which is one dimension of metacognitive awareness. This indicates that the students who evaluated that their work has relevance were also more aware of their learning and have had more activities in terms of career planning and networking. In addition, it seems that awareness of one's own learning is important to be able to utilise studies in different contexts. It might also be that these students perceived the relevance of work because they had put effort into planning and networking, and thus got a job that has relevance. However, there is also evidence that any kind of work experience was perceived as useful, for example, by enhancing future employment, providing career insights, developing skills, gaining experience and creating contacts and networks (Forsyth & Cowap, 2017; Salamonson et al., 2020; Tuononen et al., 2017).

Methodological reflections and limitations

The study has a few limitations that should be considered in the interpretation of the results. First, in the present study, career engagement was measured using a shortened version of the Career Engagement Scale (Hirschi et al., 2014). The factor structure was examined through the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis because the scale has not been previously used and validated in this Finnish context. The factor analyses supported the two-factor model. Previous studies have used a one-factor model (Baluku et al., 2021; Hirschi & Freund, 2014; Nilforooshan & Salimi, 2016). The two-factor model differs from the one-factor model in such a way that the two-factor model differentiated factors related to planning and networking, whereas in the previous studies these have been included in the same factor. The instrument of career engagement could be further improved as one item had low communality. Furthermore, it would be important to explore how the instrument works in different contexts.

Second, regarding the metacognitive awareness, some items of the metacognitive awareness scale had low communalities and, therefore, were removed. In addition, the CFA indicated low fit indices with the MAI questionnaire. Previous studies have also reported challenges in the factor structure of the MAI (Harrison & Vallin, 2018; Tuononen et al., 2023). Thus, further development of the MAI is needed. If the longer scale is used, some items should be improved because the communalities of some items are low, and the factor structure varies in different studies. Third, questions related to work experience, for example, related to the nature of work, are based on students’ own evaluation. Students may evaluate these questions differently and some students may have difficulties in evaluating these questions. However, in humanities, it may be difficult to define what kind of work is related to one’s own field and, therefore, a student’s own evaluation related to work may be more important. Fourth, the response rate was rather low and only one research-intensive university, one study field and one country were represented. Therefore, the results cannot be generalised as such to all students in all fields and other countries.

Practical implications

The present study indicates that students’ work experience has many positive consequences as it can enhance students’ career engagement and metacognitive awareness. The study also revealed that the amount and nature of work matter in terms of whether work experience was related to career engagement, metacognitive awareness, and perceived work relevance. The results have a few practical implications. First, it is important to support students in acquiring work experience, especially work which is related to their study field and has relevance for students. However, it should be taken into account that any kind of work experience is useful and the usefulness of it depends on the students’ ability to perceive the relevance (Tuononen et al., 2017). Relevance of work experience is not necessary but to have experience in different roles in different jobs helps to make career choices (Stringer & Kerpelman, 2010). Second, all activities supporting career engagement are important. Career planning activities are already quite frequently included in higher education institutions and the results showed that it was evaluated quite highly among students. Networking should instead be supported more. Contacts and networks should be ensured for non-working students. There is evidence that career engagement can be related to students’ socio-economic status (Sawitri & Suryadi, 2020) and thus students with low socio-economic status don’t have similar opportunities to gain contacts and networks (De Schepper et al., 2023), and this may lead to inequality among students. Third, students’ metacognitive skills should be supported as they can support combining studying and working and can help students to perceive the relevance of their work. Thus, students should be encouraged and guided to reflect on their strengths and weaknesses as well as make career decisions (Kosine et al., 2008). In the future, it would be essential to examine the relationship between metacognitive awareness and career engagement. Metacognitive awareness plays a significant role in individual growth and development. Research would deepen the understanding of how metacognitive awareness is related to students’ career engagement and could support the development of these skills among students.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Appendices

Appendix 1. Factor loadings and communalities of the career Engagement (modified from Hirschi et al., 2014).

Table

Career engagement items	Factor 1	Factor 2	Communalities
To what extent have you in the past 6 months …
1. actively sought to design your professional future.	. 95		.84
2. developed plans and goals for your future career.	. 93		.82
3. sincerely thought about personal values, interests, abilities and weaknesses.	.50		.26
4. collected information about employers, professional development opportunities or the job market in your desired area.	.59		.53
5. established or maintained contacts with people who can help you professionally.		.65	.58
6. voluntarily participated in further education, training or other events to support.		.63	.50
7. assumed duties or positions that will help you progress professionally.		.90	.68

Appendix 2. Items of the scales of metacognitive awareness (modified from Kallio et al., 2017).

Table

Factors and items
Knowledge about cognition
2. I use my intellectual strengths to compensate for my weaknesses.
3. I know when each strategy I use will be most effective.
4. I am good at organising information.
7. I try to use strategies that have worked in the past.
8. I am aware of what strategies I use when I study.
9. I find myself using helpful learning strategies automatically.
Regulation of cognition
10. I think about what I really need to learn before I begin a task.
11. I set specific goals before I begin a task.
16. I summarise what I’ve learned after I finish.
17. I ask myself how well I accomplish my goals once I’m finished.
18. I ask myself if I learned as much as I could have once I finish a task.