Next Article in Journal
Notes on Developing Research Review in Urban Planning and Urban Design Based on PRISMA Statement
Previous Article in Journal
A Spatial Analysis of the Voting Patterns in the South Korean General Elections of 2016
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 11
Issue 9
10.3390/socsci11090390
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

First-Year Experience in the COVID-19 Situation and the Association between Students’ Approaches to Learning, Study-Related Burnout and Experiences of Online Studying

by
Henna Asikainen
* and
Nina Katajavuori
*
HYPE, Centre for Teaching and Learning, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11(9), 390; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11090390
Submission received: 27 June 2022 / Revised: 23 August 2022 / Accepted: 24 August 2022 / Published: 31 August 2022
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of this study was to explore the association between students’ approaches to learning and their experiences of study-related burnout in their first year of higher education. The objective was also to explore these association with a person-oriented approach by examining various learning profiles and their relation to experiences of study-related burnout and experiences of studying during the COVID 19-situation. The participants in this study were 384 first-year life sciences students who answered a questionnaire at the end of first year with Likert-type and open-ended questions. K-means clustering and ANOVA analyses were used to examine the profiles and differences in their perceptions of burnout. Students’ experiences of studying were analysed qualitatively and differences between profiles were examined with Chi Square analysis. The results of this study show that an unreflective approach to learning is most strongly related to experiences of burnout and that experiences of online studying differed between profiles.

1. Introduction

Transition to online teaching during the pandemic in universities was forced and sudden during the pandemic COVID-19 in Spring 2020. The terms online teaching, remote teaching, online learning and distance education are used to describe teaching and learning involving interactions that are mediated through using digital technology (Greenhow et al. 2022; Maestrales et al. 2022). This transition has caused difficulties for students and teachers in universities, resulting in many unfortunate outcomes. These include a negative effect on student engagement (Petillion and McNeil 2020) their well-being (e.g., Huckins et al. 2020; Kaparounaki et al. 2020; Wang and Zhao 2020; Zimmermann et al. 2020; Baticulon et al. 2021) and also their experiences of the teaching-learning environment (Parpala et al. 2021). During the pandemic, students were found to suffer from loneliness and have experienced a lack of interaction between other students and teachers in online studying (Baltà-Salvador et al. 2021; Trang et al. 2021) Prolonged stress and other problems in well-being may lead to study-related burnout which has negative effects on student well-being and the students’ studying achievements (Madigan and Curran 2021; Räisänen et al. 2021). Study-related burnout or school burnout has been defined through three components: study-related-exhaustion (feeling burdened or exhausted because of the overtaxing studying), cynicism (lack of interest or experiences of indifference about studying) and lack of study-related efficacy (experience of incompetence in studying) (Salmela-Aro et al. 2009; Salmela-Aro and Kunttu 2010). All these aspects of study-related burnout have been found to be related to university students’ study engagement (Maricuțoiu et al. 2017; Salmela-Aro and Upadyaya 2017; Salmela-Aro 2017), their approaches to learning (Asikainen et al. 2020) and academic achievement (Madigan and Curran 2021).
Research concerning the relationship between student learning processes and study-related burnout is scarce, but recent research has shown that the way students go about learning is related to their experiences of study-related burnout (Asikainen et al. 2020, 2022). One way to explore qualitatively different ways of going about learning and studying is the students’ approaches to learning (SAL) tradition (Asikainen and Gijbels 2017; Entwistle 2009; Lonka et al. 2004). Traditionally approaches to learning are divided into deep and surface approaches to learning: a deep approach to learning emphasises aiming to understand and applying critical thinking and relating ideas in learning when studying, and an unreflective (or surface) approach to learning, which emphasises memorising, struggling with the fragmented knowledgebase and lack or reflection (Lindblom-Ylänne et al. 2019; Lonka et al. 2004). A third approach to learning, namely organised studying has also been distinguished. It emphasises time management, organised studying and effort in studying (Entwistle and McCune 2004) and it has been found to be important in study success and study progression at university (Hailikari and Parpala 2014; Hailikari et al. 2018; Rytkönen et al. 2012). The need for good time management and effort management skills has also been emphasised in earlier research regarding student exhaustion, as it has been shown that students who have trouble managing their studying experience high levels of stress, exhaustion and lack of interest in studying (Heikkilä et al. 2012). As during online studying, students have been found to experience challenges in managing their learning with all the distractions they face at home (Baltà-Salvador et al. 2021). It could be assumed that time and effort management skills are particularly important in successful online studying. Furthermore, because students have been found to experience challenges in their well-being during online learning (Huckins et al. 2020; Kaparounaki et al. 2020; Wang and Zhao 2020; Baticulon et al. 2021) it would be important to study how students’ approaches to learning are related to these experiences.
The perceived quality of teaching and support offered for students with their fellows and from teachers has been found to be important in successful implementation in online teaching and in students’ positive experiences of online teaching (Aristovnik et al. 2020; Baltà-Salvador et al. 2021). It is noteworthy that students’ approaches to learning are also closely related to the way students experience their teaching-learning environment. The deep approach and organised studying are positively related, and the unreflective approach is negatively related to perceptions of the teaching learning environment (Parpala et al. 2010; Richardson 2005). Studies have also shown that students who represent different learning profiles may have differing experiences of burnout as well as of the teaching-learning environment during the pandemic (Parpala et al. 2021). However, no qualitative studies which consider students’ study profiles have been conducted about students’ experiences of studying during the pandemic. The phenomenon of school burnout has been studied extensively but there is a gap in research concerning the relationship between student learning processes and burnout. According to the demand-resources model (Salmela-Aro and Upadyaya 2017; Schaufeli and Bakker 2004) an imbalance between demands and resources can lead to burnout. In the present study, we expect that the way students study and learn will also have an effect on their perceptions of the demands of the environment during online learning. Earlier studies have shown that students who apply an unreflective approach to learning experience more negative emotions in studying, experience heavier workloads and have systematically more negative perceptions of the teaching-learning environment than students with a deep approach to learning (Kuittinen and Meriläinen 2011; Kyndt et al. 2011; Trigwell et al. 2012). In addition, we suggest that applying a deep approach to learning and organised studying can also act as a personal resource and through interest, lower the risk of burnout as a deep approach as well as organised studying are positively related to perceptions of the teaching-learning environment (Parpala et al. 2010), interest (Kyndt et al. 2011) and negatively related to burnout (Asikainen et al. 2020) and workload (Kyndt et al. 2011). Furthermore, person-oriented research on burnout is needed (Salmela-Aro and Read 2017) to capture how this relationship is manifested by different students. The aim of this study is to explore the relationship between first-year students’ approaches to learning and their experiences of study-related burnout. The objective is also to explore these associations with a person-oriented approach by examining various learning profiles and their relationship with experiences of study-related burnout and experiences of studying during the COVID-19 situation.
Based on previous evidence, we expect that students’ approaches to learning are related to their experiences of burnout comprising a positive relationship between the unreflective approach to learning and components of burnout (Asikainen et al. 2020; Kuittinen and Meriläinen 2011; Kyndt et al. 2011; Trigwell et al. 2012). We also expect to find a range of learning profiles among the students (Parpala et al. 2010) and expect that different students experience online studying and burnout differently (Asikainen et al. 2022).

2. Materials and Methods

A total of 382 first-year Life Sciences students responded to the questionnaire and gave their permission for the research at the end of first year (April–May 2021). The total sample comprised students from Biological and Environmental Sciences (N = 98), Pharmacy (N = 108), Veterinary Sciences (N = 55) and Agriculture and Forestry (121). Of these students, 229 provided open-ended data about their experiences of online studying. All these students had studied all their first year online.
Approaches to learning were measured using a LEARN questionnaire comprising scales measuring a deep approach, an unreflective approach and organised studying (Parpala and Lindblom-Ylänne 2012). The questionnaire has a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Totally disagree, 5 = totally argee) and each these scales include 4 items. In addition, study-related burnout including three measures exhaustion (4 items), cynicism (3 items) and inadequacy (2 items) was measured with the 6-point Likert-scale (1 = totally agree, 6 = totally disagree) School burnout questionnaire (SBI) modified for the higher education context (Salmela-Aro et al. 2009; Salmela-Aro and Read 2017). In addition, as part of the questionnaire students answered an open-ended question about how they had experienced online studying during the pandemic as follows: How has you experience of online studying been? Has it affected your learning and studying?
The relationship between approaches to learning and study-related burnout was analysed with Pearson correlation coefficient. To explore the various student profiles based on approaches to learning, K-means clustering was conducted on the data and ANOVA and Tuckey’s test were conducted to explore the differences in their perceptions of burnout. Qualitative data of students’ responses to the open-ended question concerning their experiences were analysed by following the principles of inductive content analysis (Elo and Kyngäs 2008). All the variation in students’ experiences of remote learning was classified into the categories consisting of similar kinds of experiences (Graneheim and Lundman 2004). In this process, 17 sub-categories were formed. Then these sub-categories were grouped into four larger categories which consisted of the similar sub-categories. The comparison between the categories and discussion between the authors happened throughout the analysis process. The categories were quantified, and the differences in students experiences of online studying between the different profiles were analysed with Chi square test.

3. Results

Reliability analysis of the scales showed that the scales measuring approaches to learning and study-related burnout had acceptable Crohnbach’s alfs values. Descriptives, Cronbach alfas and sample items can be seen in Table 1.
The correlation analyses showed that the unreflected approach correlated positively and the deep approach negatively with all the components of burnout (see Table 2). In addition, organised studying correlated negatively with inadequacy and cynicism but the correlation with exhaustion was not significant.

3.1. Person Oriented Approach

Different learning profiles based on students’ approaches to learning in the second measurement were conducted. We found three learning profiles: Students representing a deep approach (N = 134), Organised students (N = 135) and Students representing an unreflective approach (N = 113). The cluster centers can be seen in Table 3.
Differences in experiences of study-related burnout were found between the profiles. Tuckey’s test showed that for the students applying an unreflective approach the scores on experiences of all the components of burnout and the overall burnout were higher than with organised students or students applying a deep approach. In addition, organised students experienced statistically significantly more exhaustion than students who apply a deep approach. No other differences were found (see Table 4).

3.2. Students’ Experiences of Online Teaching and Learning

Students’ experiences of online teaching and learning were divided into four main categories which were (1) Experiences of teaching, (2) Experiences of studying and learning, (3) Well-being, and (4) Interaction (Table 5). All these main categories included negative and positive comments. A total of 124 students had positive experiences and 196 students had negative experiences. Ninety-six students had both positive and negative experiences (see Table 5).
The first category, Experiences of teaching, included all the comments related to teaching, teaching arrangements, its quality and implementation. Negative experiences (n = 21) included student comments about technical problems in remote teaching or poor or varying quality of teaching or poor teaching arrangements, including problems in group works. Positive experiences (n = 35) included student comments about positive experiences of recorded lectures and option to study and learn several times if needed. Thus, it was hoped that recorded lectures would be continued intothe future. On the other hand, some students (n = 6) felt that practical exercises should not be taught online.
The second category, Studying and learning, included all the comments related to students’ experiences of online studying. A total of 128 students had negative experiences of studying comprising experiences of poorer learning in online studying (n = 64) and problems in concentration when studying online (n = 28). Negative experiences also included student comments of decreased study-motivation (n = 44) and challenges in time-management comprising lack of routines and procrastination (n = 36). Some students (n = 12) felt that their learning suffered because they had to be at home and were not able to go to library to study, for example. Students (n = 107) had also positive comments related to studying and learning. Students felt that their learning and studying had progressed well and smoothly (n = 55) and that they liked online studying. Students (n = 72) also acknowledged the flexibility of studying online because it was possible to schedule and manage their time usage and they appreciated that they did not have to travel to campus, because then the time saved could be devoted to other activities. Eight students commented that online teaching had no effect on their learning, and 12 students commented that first they had liked online studying but afterwards it had become difficult for them.
The third category consisted of student comments related to their well-being. Many of the students (n = 58) felt that their well-being had decreased during online learning and they felt the time had been hard for them, even leading to depressive feelings and anxiety. However, some students (n = 7) commented that their well-being had improved. These students felt that because time was saved from traveling to campus, they had more time for themselves and for sleeping.
The fourth category consisted of student comments related to interaction. Almost half of the students (n = 106) commented that they missed the interaction with other students and with teachers. The student community was also lacking. Four students commented that the interaction with their peers during online teaching had been good and had helped them in their studying.
Next, we explored if there were any differences between the learning profiles in students’ experiences of online teaching and learning (see Table 6). The results showed that organised studying had more overall positive experiences as 67% of the students mentioned them, compared to just 40% of the unreflective students. In addition, organised students also had more positive experiences about studying (62%) compared to the other profiles (35–41%). In addition, students representing unreflective students had more negative overall experiences (91.7%) than organised students (79.7%) and more negative experiences of studying (70%) than students in other profiles (46–56%) namely students representing deep approach and organised students. No statistically significant differences were found on overall experiences of teaching.
To explore the differences in students’ experiences between the learning profiles, these were explored in more detail based on 17 sub-categories. The results showed that there were statistically significant differences in experiences of categories Decreased study motivation and flexibility in studying and scheduling. organised students had fewer experiences of decreased study motivation and had more positive experiences of flexibility in studying and scheduling during online learning than the two other profiles (Table 7). No other statistically significant differences were found.

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to explore the association between students’ approaches to learning and their experiences of study-related burnout, and further, to explore these associations with a person-oriented approach by examining different learning profiles and their relation to experiences of study-related burnout and experiences of studying during the COVID-19 situation.
Our results showed that having an unreflective approach to learning was most strongly associated with experiences of burnout. In addition, a negative correlation with the components of burnout and deep approach was found (Table 2). In addition, students applying an unreflective approach experienced all the components of burnout more strongly than deep and organised students (Table 4). These results are in line with our expectations that students with an unreflective approach to learning experience more negative emotions in studying, experience heavier workloads and have systematically more negative perceptions of the teaching-learning environment and thus can experience the demands of the environment more strongly than students with a deep approach to learning (Kuittinen and Meriläinen 2011; Kyndt et al. 2011; Trigwell et al. 2012. In addition, a negative relationship between organised studying and cynicism and inadequacy was found but interestingly, no statistically significant relation was found with exhaustion. Although time management has been seen as a strategy for reducing burnout (e.g., Bruce 2009), similar results have been found in earlier studies where no corelation between burnout and time management was found (Kordzanganeh et al. 2021).
We assumed that students in different learning profiles experience studying during the pandemic differently. The open-ended answers of students’ experiences of online teaching and studying (Table 5) reinforce this finding, as students with an unreflective approach also had more negative overall experiences of teaching and studying and fewer positive experiences than the organised students and students with a deep approach (Table 6). Earlier studies have also shown that an unreflective approach is negatively related to experiences of the teaching learning environment (Parpala et al. 2010; Richardsson 2005). Thus, based on the results of this study, having a fragmented knowledge base and finding it to be difficult to reflect can lead to feelings of exhaustion, inadequacy and cynicism more often during the pandemic and also result in more negative experiences of studying during the pandemic.
On the other hand, our results emphasised the role of organised studying in experiencing the learning environment positively, as in this study, students with an organised approach most often had overall positive experiences of teaching and studying and the least negative experiences of teaching and studying than students in the other profiles. This is in line with earlier findings showing that organised studying is positively related to perceptions of the teaching-learning environment (Parpala et al. 2010). Previous studies have also shown that in online teaching and learning, students easily experience problems in their scheduling and in academic achievement (Bdair 2021; Baticulon et al. 2021; Petillion and McNeil 2020). This has most likely been the case during the pandemic, that students have been more responsible for their own studying as they stayed at home. The results of the qualitative data showed that some of the students experienced problems in taking responsibility for their time usage and had problems with procrastination. Furthermore, organised students reported the least decline in study motivation and valued most often the flexibility of studying than students within the other profiles, and that way they seemed to take the flexibility, along with being able to schedule their studying, as an option and resource in their studying and learning. It has been shown that organised studying comprising good time management skills is related to better progression and achievement (Asikainen et al. 2014) and that good time management skills can also hinder motivation and concentration problems (Rytkönen et al. 2012), so the results of this study are in line with those earlier studies.
The results of this study also showed that most often students brought up experiences related to their studying and learning as well as lack of interaction in their comments. Less was commented on about teaching arrangements. First-year and second-year students have been found to be less capable of using online learning (Baticulon et al. 2021), so our results are in line with this, as our study was conducted among first-year students. Furthermore, the lack of interaction with other students and teachers had also been found in earlier studies regarding online teaching and learning (Kedraka and Kaltsidis 2020; Baltà-Salvador et al. 2021; Trang et al. 2021). Thus, supporting students’ online studying and organised studying with skills to schedule their studying and learning, as well as supporting students’ interaction with their peers should be considered when implementing online teaching
There are some limitations of our study. First, the measurements were made with self-report data. Students’ experiences of their well-being were thus their own experiences. In addition, we had a relatively small sample in our study. Not all the students responded to the questionnaire and of these students, not all gave an open-ended response concerning their experience with studying. However, we should acknowledge that the students who did answer could have somehow differed from the students who did not answer. This should be studied further. Furthermore, the study focused on first-year students in the Life sciences. Research has shown that students in different disciplines can differ in their approaches to learning and their experiences of teaching and learning (Parpala et al. 2010). Thus, future research should also explore students’ experiences in a range of disciplines and also when they are further into their study program. Furthermore, students’ experiences are just one aspect of exploring studying during the pandemic. Experiences of the teachers and the way teaching was arranged was not included in the analysis. Future research should also explore the experiences of teachers during the pandemic.

5. Conclusions

As unreflective approach was most strongly related to burnout and negative experiences of studying, teaching should support teaching methods which support active learning which will support reflection and can hinder the unreflective approach. In addition, time management skills should also be considered when studying at university. Not all the students entering the university have good time management skills and, thus, these skills should also be practiced during studies. For example, courses which support both well-being and study skills can support student well-being as well as time management and study skills in a range of ways (Asikainen and Katajavuori 2021; Katajavuori et al. 2021). In addition, as many students experienced a lack of interaction in their studying, we conclude that in online teaching, students’ and teachers’ interaction should be supported more. Online teaching should also support discussion and collaboration between students and teachers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.A., N.K.; methodology and analysis H.A., N.K., writing—original draft preparation, H.A., N.K.; writing—review and editing, H.A., N.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

Open access funding provided by University of Helsinki.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aristovnik, Aleksander, Damijana Keržič, Dejan Ravšelj, Nina Tomaževič, and Lan Umek. 2020. Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on life of higher education students: A global perspective. Sustainability 12: 8438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Asikainen, Henna, and David Gijbels. 2017. Do students develop towards more deep approaches to learning during studies? A systematic review on the development of students’ deep and surface approaches to learning in higher education. Educational Psychology Review 29: 205–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Asikainen, Henna, and Nina Katajavuori. 2021. Development of a web-based intervention course to promote students’ well-being and studying in universities: Protocol for an experimental study design. JMIR Research Protocols 10: e23613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Asikainen, Henna, Anna Parpala, Sari Lindblom-Ylänne, Gert Vanthournout, and Liesje Coertjens. 2014. The development of approaches to learning and perceptions of the teaching-learning environment during bachelor level studies and their relation to study success. Higher Education Studies 4: 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Asikainen, Henna, Katariina Salmela-Aro, Anna Parpala, and Nina Katajavuori. 2020. Learning profiles and their relation to study-related burnout and academic achievement among university students. Learning and Individual Differences 78: 101781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Asikainen, Henna, Juuso Henrik Nieminen, Jokke Häsä, and Nina Katajavuori. 2022. University students’ interest and burnout profiles and their relation to approaches to learning and achievement. Learning and Individual Differences 93: 102105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Baltà-Salvador, Rosó, Noelia Olmedo-Torre, Marta Peña, and Ana-Inés Renta-Davids. 2021. Academic and emotional effects of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic on engineering students. Education and Information Technologies 26: 7407–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Baticulon, Ronnie E., Jinno Jenkin Sy, Nicole Rose I. Alberto, Maria Beatriz C. Baron, Robert Earl C. Mabulay, Lloyd Gabriel T. Rizada, Christl Jan S. Tiu, Charlie A. Clarion, and John Carlo B. Reyes. 2021. Barriers to Online Learning in the Time of COVID-19: A National Survey of Medical Students in the Philippines. Medical Science Educator 31: 615–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bdair, Izzeddin. 2021. Nursing students’ and faculty members’ perspectives about online learning during COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study. Teaching and Learning in Nursing 16: 220–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bruce, Susan. 2009. Recognizing stress and avoiding burnout. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 1: 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Elo, Satu, and Helvi Kyngäs. 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62: 107–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Entwistle, Noel. 2009. Teaching for Understanding at University: Deep Approaches and Distinctive Ways of Thinking (Universities into the 21st Century). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  13. Entwistle, Noel, and Velda McCune. 2004. The conceptual bases of study strategy inventories. Educational Psychology Review 16: 325–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Graneheim, Ulla, and Berit Lundman. 2004. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today 24: 105–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Greenhow, Christine, Charles Graham, and Matthew Koehler. 2022. Foundations of online learning: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Psychologist 57: 131–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hailikari, Telle, and Anna Parpala. 2014. What impedes or enhances my studying? The interrelation between approaches to learning, factors influencing study progress and earned credits. Teaching in Higher Education 19: 812–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hailikari, Telle, Tarja Tuononen, and Anna Parpala. 2018. Students’ experiences of the factors affecting their study progress: Differences in study profiles. Journal of Further and Higher Education 42: 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Heikkilä, Annamari, Kirsti Lonka, Juha Nieminen, and Markku Niemivirta. 2012. Relations between teacher students’ approaches to learning, cognitive and attributional strategies, well-being, and study success. Higher Education 64: 455–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Huckins, Jeremy, Alex DaSilva, Weichen Wang, Elin Hedlund, Courtney Rogers, Subigya Nepal, Jialing Wu, Mikio Obuchi, Eilis Murphy, Meghan Meyer, and et al. 2020. Mental health and behavior of college students during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic: Longitudinal smartphone and ecological momentary assessment study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 22: e20185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kaparounaki, Chrysi, Mikaella Patsali, Danai_priskila Mousa, Eleni Papadopoulou, Konstantina Papadopoulou, and Konstantinos Fountoulakis. 2020. University students’ mental health amidst the COVID-19 quarantine in Greece. Psychiatry Resrearch 290: 113111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Katajavuori, Nina, Kimmo Vehkalahti, and Henna Asikainen. 2021. Promoting university students’ well-being and studying with an acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT)-based intervention. Current Psychology, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kedraka, Katerina, and Christos Kaltsidis. 2020. Effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on university pedagogy: Students’ experiences and considerations. European Journal of Education Studies 7: 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kordzanganeh, Zahra, Saeed Bakhtiarpour, Fariba Hafezi, and Zahra Dashtbozorgi. 2021. The Relationship between Time Management and Academic Burnout with the Mediating Role of Test Anxiety and Self-efficacy Beliefs among University Students. Journal of Medical Education 20: e112142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kuittinen, Matti, and Matti Meriläinen. 2011. The effect of study-related burnout on student perceptions. Journal of International Education in Business 4: 42–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kyndt, Eva, Filip Dochy, Katrien Struyven, and Eduardo Cascallar. 2011. The direct and indirect effect of motivation for learning on students’ approaches to learning through the perceptions of workload and task complexity. Higher Education Research & Development 30: 135–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lindblom-Ylänne, Sari, Anna Parpala, and Liisa Postareff. 2019. What constitutes the surface approach to learning in the light of new empirical evidence? Studies in Higher Education 44: 2183–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lonka, Kirsti, Erkki Olkinuora, and Jarkko Mäkinen. 2004. Aspects and prospects of measuring studying and learning in higher education. Educational Psychology Review 16: 301–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Madigan, Daniel, and Thomas Curran. 2021. Does burnout affect academic achievement? A meta-analysis of over 100,000 students. Educational Psychology Review 33: 387–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Maestrales, Sarah, Rachel Marias Dezendorf, Xin Tang, Katariina Salmela-Aro, Kayla Bartz, Kalle Juuti, Jari Lavonen, Joseph Krajcik, and Barbara Schneider. 2022. US and Finnish high school science engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Psychology 57: 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Maricuțoiu, Laurentiu, Coralia Sulea, and Alina Iancu. 2017. Work engagement or burnout: Which comes first? A meta-analysis of longitudinal evidence. Burnout Research 5: 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Parpala, Anna, and Sari Lindblom-Ylänne. 2012. Using a research instrument for developing quality at the university. Quality in Higher Education 18: 313–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Parpala, Anna, Sari Lindblom-Ylänne, Erkki Komulainen, Topi Litmanen, and Laura Hirsto. 2010. Students’ Approaches to Learning and Their Experiences of the Teaching-Learning Environment in Different Disciplines. British Journal of Educational Psychology 80: 269–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Parpala, Anna, Nina Katajavuori, Anne Haarala-Muhonen, and Henna Asikainen. 2021. How Did Students with Different Learning Profiles Experience ‘Normal’and Online Teaching Situation during COVID-19 Spring? Social Sciences 10: 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Petillion, Riley, and Steven McNeil. 2020. Student experiences of emergency remote teaching: Impacts of instructor practice on student learning, engagement, and well-being. Journal of Chemical Education 97: 2486–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Räisänen, Milla, Liisa Postareff, and Sari Lindblom-Ylänne. 2021. Students’ experiences of study-related exhaustion, regulation of learning, peer learning and peer support during university studies. European Journal of Psychology of Education 36: 1135–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Richardson, John T. E. 2005. Instruments for obtaining student feedback: A review of the literature. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 30: 387–415. [Google Scholar]
  37. Rytkönen, Henna, Anna Parpala, Sari Lindblom-Ylänne, Viivi Virtanen, and Liisa Postareff. 2012. Factors affecting bioscience students’ academic achievement. Instructional Science 40: 241–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Salmela-Aro, Katariina. 2017. Dark and bright sides of thriving–school burnout and engagement in the Finnish context. European Journal of Developmental Psychology 14: 337–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Salmela-Aro, Katariina, and Kristina Kunttu. 2010. Study burnout and engagement in higher education. Unterrichtswissenschaft 38: 318–33. [Google Scholar]
  40. Salmela-Aro, Katariina, and Sanna Read. 2017. Study engagement and burnout profiles among Finnish higher education students. Burnout Research 7: 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Salmela-Aro, Katariina, and Katja Upadyaya. 2017. Co-development of educational aspirations and academic burnout from adolescence to adulthood in Finland. Research in Human Development 14: 106–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Salmela-Aro, Katariina, Noora Kiuru, Esko Leskinen, and Jari-Erik Nurmi. 2009. School burnout inventory (SBI). reliability and validity. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 25: 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Schaufeli, Wilmar, and Arnold Bakker. 2004. Job demands, job resources, and theirrelationship with burnout andengagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25: 293–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Trang, Nguyen, Camila Netto, Jon Wilkins, Pia Bröker, Elton Vargas, Carolyn Sealfon, Pipob Puthipiroj, Katherine Li, Jade Bowler, Hailey Hinson, and et al. 2021. Insights into Students’ Experiences and Perceptions of Remote Learning Methods: From the COVID-19 Pandemic to Best Practice for the Future. Frontiers in Eduction. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Trigwell, Keith, Robert A. Ellis, and Feifei Han. 2012. Relations between students’ approaches to learning, experienced emotions and outcomes of learning. Studies in Higher Education 37: 811–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wang, Chongyung, and Hong Zhao. 2020. The Impact of COVID-19 on Anxiety in Chinese University Students. Frontline Psychology 11: 1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Zimmermann, Martha, Casandra Bledsoe, and Anthony Papa. 2020. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on College Student Mental Health: A Longitudinal Examination of Risk and Protective Factors. PsyArXiv Preprints. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Descriptives and sample items of the scales.
Table 1. Descriptives and sample items of the scales.
Sum ScaleMSdαSample Item
Deep approach3.770.610.72I try to relate new material to my previous knowledge
Unreflective approach2.790.740.75Much of what I learned seems no more than unrelated bits and pieces
Organised studying3.310.810.75I organise my study time carefully to make best use of it.
Exhaustion3.261.130.81I feel overwhelmed by the work related to my studying
Cynisism2.481.310.74I feel that I am losing interest in my studying
Inadequacy3.761.400.89I often have feelings of inadequacy in my studying
Table
Table 2. Correlations between the variables.
Table 2. Correlations between the variables.
Sum ScaleDAUAOSEXCYIA
DA Deep approach1
UA Unreflective approach−0.36 ***1
OS Organised studying0.24 ***−0.19 ***1
EX Exhaustion−0.10 *0.56 ***−0.051
CY Cynicism−0.25 ***0.43 ***−0.50 ***0.37 ***1
IA Inadequacy−0.23 ***0.62 ***−0.34 ***0.66 ***0.61 ***1
*** = p < 0.001, * = p < 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Cluster centres.
Table 3. Cluster centres.
Sum ScaleStudents Representing a Deep ApproachOrganised
Students		Students Representing an Unreflective Approach
Deep approach4.013.893.33
Unreflective approach2.252.733.50
Organised studying3.024.112.71
Table
Table 4. Experiences of study-related burnout between the profiles.
Table 4. Experiences of study-related burnout between the profiles.
P1
Deep
Students		P2
Organised
Students		P3
Unreflective Students		FpEffect Size
M (Sd)M (Sd)M (Sd)
Exhaustion2.81 (1.02)3.29 (1.22)3.74 (0.94)23.19<0.0010.37
Cynicism2.25 (1.20)2.04 (1.06)3.30 (1.33)38.01<0.0010.50
Inadequacy3.32 (1.32)3.37 (1.41)4.75 (0.90)50.54<0.0010.60
Burnout2.74 (0.96)2.89 (1.03)3.82 (0.75)47.12<0.0010.50
Tuckey’s test: Burnout: 3 > 2,1 ***. Exhaustion: 1 < 3 ***, 1 < 2 < 3 **. Cynicism: 1,2 < 3 ***. Inadequacy: 1,2 < 3 ***.
** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001.
Table
Table 5. Categories describing students’ experiences of remote teaching and learning.
Table 5. Categories describing students’ experiences of remote teaching and learning.
CategoryNegative Experience
Sub-Categories		N/%Positive Experience
Subcategories		N/%
TeachingTechnical problems
Quality of teaching poor
Teaching implement poor		21/9%Positive experience of
teaching
Recorded lecturers		35/15%
Studying and
learning		Problems in learning
study-motivation decreased
Problems in time-management and concentration in studying		128/56%Improved learning
and studying
Flexibility of studying
and scheduling
Saving in time		107/47%
Well-beingWell-being decreased,
Depression and anxiety		58/25%Improved well-being,
less stress		7/3%
InteractionLack of interaction and
peer support
Lack of social environment		106/46%Support of peers important4/2%
Table
Table 6. Overall positive and negative experiences of studying during the pandemic in different profiles.
Table 6. Overall positive and negative experiences of studying during the pandemic in different profiles.
P1 (N = 90)
Deep Students		P2 (N = 79)
Organised Students		P3 (N = 60)
Unreflective Students		χ2p
Overall positive experience47 (52.2%)53 (67.1%)24 (40.0%)10.300.006
Overall negative experience78 (86.7%)63 (79.7%)55 (91.7%)4.070.131
Studying and learning—positive experiences37 (41.1%)49 (62.0%)21 (35.0%)11.880.003
Studying and learning—negative experiences50 (55.6%)36 (45.6%)42 (70.0%)8.260.016
Table
Table 7. Experiences of online teaching and learning in different learning profiles.
Table 7. Experiences of online teaching and learning in different learning profiles.
P1 (N = 90)
Deep Students		P2 (N = 79)
Organised Students		P3 (N = 60)
Unreflective Students		χ2p
Decreased study
motivation		22 (24.4%)8 (10.1%)14 (23.3%)6.450.040
Flexibility in studying and scheduling20 (22.2%)37 (46.8%)15 (25.0%)8.660.013
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Asikainen, H.; Katajavuori, N. First-Year Experience in the COVID-19 Situation and the Association between Students’ Approaches to Learning, Study-Related Burnout and Experiences of Online Studying. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 390. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11090390

AMA Style

Asikainen H, Katajavuori N. First-Year Experience in the COVID-19 Situation and the Association between Students’ Approaches to Learning, Study-Related Burnout and Experiences of Online Studying. Social Sciences. 2022; 11(9):390. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11090390

Chicago/Turabian Style

Asikainen, Henna, and Nina Katajavuori. 2022. "First-Year Experience in the COVID-19 Situation and the Association between Students’ Approaches to Learning, Study-Related Burnout and Experiences of Online Studying" Social Sciences 11, no. 9: 390. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11090390

APA Style

Asikainen, H., & Katajavuori, N. (2022). First-Year Experience in the COVID-19 Situation and the Association between Students’ Approaches to Learning, Study-Related Burnout and Experiences of Online Studying. Social Sciences, 11(9), 390. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11090390

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop