Conciliation études-travail et performance : une étude exploratoire des effets de la dérogation temporaire des restrictions d'heures de travail hors campus pour les étudiants internationaux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entre novembre 2022 et avril 2024, le gouvernement canadien a temporairement suspendu la limite de 20 heures de travail par semaine pour les étudiants internationaux, leur permettant de travailler sans plafond horaire. L’objectif général de ce mémoire vise à identifier et décrire les pratiques de conciliation études-travail mobilisées par les étudiants internationaux durant cette période de flexibilité, ainsi qu’à évaluer l’influence de ces pratiques et du changement réglementaire sur leur vécu quotidien et leur résultat académique. La recherche adopte une démarche qualitative exploratoire réalisée auprès de 14 étudiants internationaux de l’UQAC, issus de cycles, de disciplines et d’origine variés. Les données ont fait l’objet d’une analyse thématique appuyée par des cadres théoriques croisés, mobilisant la théorie des besoins (Maslow), l’intégration culturelle (Berry, 1997, 2005), le conflit de rôles (Merton, 1997) et l’autorégulation (Zimmerman, 2002 ; Pintrich, 2000 ; Boekaerts, 1997, etc.). Les résultats montrent que la levée de la limite a été une « bouffée d’air » financière pour plusieurs des participants, mais à double tranchant, car sans encadrement, plusieurs ont fortement augmenté leurs heures de travail pouvant atteindre des pics de 60 à 80 h/semaine. Ce qui a entraîné plusieurs effets notamment la fatigue, le stress, le glissement des priorités et parfois la baisse ponctuelle d’efficacité académique. Le retour au plafond horaire a été difficile pour plusieurs, pris dans des engagements contractés durant la période sans limite. Malgré cela, la plupart maintiennent des résultats stables grâce à des stratégies combinées entre planification, routines hebdomadaires, etc. Environ 57 % des étudiants ont ressenti que leur performance académique était fragilisée pendant certaines périodes de surcharge. Pourtant, 93 % n’ont pas échoué en cours. Cette réussite relative repose sur quatre grandes familles de pratiques de conciliation, parfois coûteuses sur le plan personnel. Cette recherche, bien qu’exploratoire, montre les mécanismes invisibles de cette conciliation fragile. Ainsi, les étudiants qui s’en sortent le mieux ne sont pas ceux qui travaillent le moins, mais ceux qui disposent de marges de manœuvre, d’outils de planification et d’un environnement favorable. Le problème n’est donc pas le travail en soi, mais l’absence de règles lisibles, de soutien institutionnel et d’espace pour respirer. Between November 2022 and April 2024, the Canadian government temporarily suspended the 20-hour weekly work limit for international students, allowing them to work without any hourly restrictions. The overall objective of this study is to identify and describe the work-study balance practices adopted by international students during this period of flexibility, as well as to assess the influence of these practices and the regulatory change on their daily lives and academic performance. The research adopts a qualitative exploratory approach conducted with 14 international students at UQAC from various programs, disciplines, and origins. The data were subjected to thematic analysis supported by cross-referenced theoretical frameworks, drawing on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Berry's cultural integration (1997, 2005), Merton's role conflict (1997), and Zimmerman's self-regulation (2002; Pintrich, 2000; Boekaerts, 1997, etc.). The results show that the lifting of the limit was a financial “breath of fresh air” for many of the participants, but it was a double-edged sword, because without supervision, many significantly increased their working hours, reaching peaks of 60 to 80 hours per week, leading to fatigue, stress, shifting priorities, and sometimes a temporary decline in academic performance. The return to the hour limit was difficult for many, who were caught up in commitments made during the period without limits. Despite this, most maintained stable results thanks to a combination of strategies including planning and weekly routines. Approximately 57% of students felt that their academic performance was weakened during certain periods of overload. However, 93% did not fail their courses. This relative success is based on four main types of work-life balance practices, which can sometimes be costly on a personal level. Although exploratory and limited in scope, this research reveals the invisible mechanisms of this fragile work-life balance. Thus, the students who fare best are not those who work the least, but those who have flexibility, planning tools, and a consistent environment. The problem is therefore not work itself, but the lack of clear rules, institutional support, and space to breathe.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".