Pedagogical Factors Behind University Students’ Study-related Well-being

Author(s):

Anu HaapalaMatti Meriläinen

Conference:

ECER 2010

Network:

22. Research in Higher Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

22 SES 10 C, Teaching, Learning and Assesment in Higher Education

Paper Session

Time:

2010-08-27

10:30-12:00

Room:

M.B. SALI 16, Päärakennus / Main Building

Chair:

Mari Karm

Contribution

University students’ well-being and satisfaction have got a lot of attention lately. Researchers have been interested in students’ health and healthy behavior, on the other hand interest has been focused in studying experiences and how studies are regarded. Also proceeding of studies and problems of dropping them out have been in researchers’ focus. University students’ perceptions of a good university teaching and teachers have been investigated in several studies. Despite this, it is not usual to clarify, why and what are the reasons, students appreciate just those things in teaching they have revealed for researches. Due to Voss and Kruber (2006, 230) students appreciate that teaching and teachers promote and maintain indirectly also students’ well-being and security.

The interdisciplinary aim of this study is by combining pedagogical and medical approach to find factors that are related to the nature of studying at university and study environment those factors have a connection with well-being the university students have perceived and which probably also promote the capability to study (Audin, Davy & Barkham 2003).

The first aim of this study was to find out what university students perceived capability to study is and how perceived studying capablity, physical health and psychic health are connected to students’ study related burnout. The second aim was to reveal how students’ sense of coherence (Antonovsky, 1979), achievement motivation (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000, 68) and university teaching learning environments (Entwistle, McCune & Hounsell, 2002, 2004; Manninen ym., 2007, 35–41) predict study related burnout. These factors are defined to be the factors of the pedagogical well-being.

Method

In this study the first year university students’ (N=338) perceived well-being and satisfaction were surveyed in the spring 2007 in the faculty of education in the University of Joensuu in Finland. The questionnaire included five modules: background information, conceptions of university as teaching learning environment, achievement motivation, well-being and sense of coherence. The questionnaire contained 197 items (attitude scales) and open-ended questions. Both web-based questionnaire and post questionnaire were exploited. The response rate was 46 % (n = 156). The sample included 82 % women and 18 % men whereas the data included 90 % women and 10 % men. Also in the spring 2009 university students’ (N ~ 24 000) perceived well-being and satisfaction were surveyed nationally and also the national data will be anticipatory considered.

Expected Outcomes

Students’ perceived studying capability (0-10) was quite good (Mean 7,3). Three students of four perceived his/her studying capability to be 7 or even better (n=117). One quarter perceived it 0–6 (n=37). Based on the results of the factor and regression analysis it seems that there are seven evident factors that predict university students’ study-related burnout: grip of studies, personal belief of studying abilities, appreciation of university studies, psychological contract of studying and learning, deep approach to learning, workload and meaning of life. These factors are named to be the factors of pedagogical well-being. Also some preliminary results based on national data will be considered for clarifying the relation between teaching learning environment and study-related burnout.

References

Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress, and coping. 2. pr. 1980. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Audin, K., Davy, J. & Barkham, M. (2003). University Quality of Life and Learning (UNIQoLL): An approach to student well-being, satisfaction and institutional change. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27, 365-382. Entwistle, N., McCune V. & Hounsell, J. (2002). Approaches to studying and perceptions of university teaching learning environments: concepts, measures and preliminary findings. luettu 14.1.2009, http://www.ed.ac.uk/etl/. Entwistle, N., McCune, V. & Hounsell, J. (2004). Investigating ways of enhancing university teaching-learning environments: Measuring students` approaches to studying and perceptions of teaching. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle & J. von Merriënboer. 2004. (eds.) Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions. Amsterdam: Pergamon, 89–107. Manninen, J., Burman, A., Koivunen, A., Kuittinen, E., Luukannel, S., Passi, S. & Särkkä, H. (2007). Oppimista tukevat ympäristöt: johdatus oppimisympäristöajatteluun. Helsinki: Opetushallitus. Salmela-Aro, K. & Näätänen, P. (2005). Koulu-uupumusmittari BBI-10. Helsinki: Edita. Voss, R. & Gruber, T. (2006). The desired teaching qualities of lecturers in higher education: a means end analysis. Quality Assurance in Education 14 (3), 217–242. Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy – value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25 (1), 68–81.

Author Information

Anu Haapala

Mikkeli University of Applied Sciences

Humanities and Education

Mikkeli

Matti Meriläinen

University of Eastern Finland, Finland

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.