Description
1 Assignment: Proposal
Expectation: The objective of this assignment is to conduct a critical literature review focusing on relevant scholarly sources related to your questionnaire design. Through this review, you will explore studies in order to inform the development of a robust questionnaire for your upcoming project. You are to write a 3-page (double spaced) research proposal literature review on your chosen topic.
NOTE: You are required to write in APA format, use a minimum of 4 peer reviewed articles to support your information. Use 12-point Times New Roman font. This paper does not require a title page, but you do need to include a reference page and in-text citations (standard margin and font size). Reference pages will not count towards the page limit.
TOPIC:
Topic: Educational stress in the younger population
Population of interest: young adults/ college students
Causes of stress: Time management, heavy workload, classroom environment, lack of support, financial instability, parental pressure, lived community
Affects of the stress: not maintain their class schedule, dropping out of school, suffer in silence: effects their health
2nd Assignment
The Expectation: Answer the prompt using the textbook to support your perspective. Your response has to be one complete paragraph, five complete sentences.
Prompt: What are the four areas that prevention programs in schools need to address? Use examples from the textbook and cite the book.
Source: Miller, C. L., Perrin, R. D., Renzetti, C. M. (2020) Violence and Maltreatment in Intimate Relationships, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
3rd Assignment
The Expectation: Answer the prompt using the video(s) to support your perspective.
Prompt: What advice would you give your teenage self, if you could go back in time? Would you listen?
Source: Preventing Teen Dating Violence from the Inside Out | Briana Neben | TEDxCarsonCity
@katiecouric: Teen Dating Violence
4th Assignment
Step 1: Please start off by reading reviewing your responses to Toy Project Worksheet #1 to remind yourself what you wrote (and read any feedback I left you)
Step 2: Select ONE cognitive skill you listed in question #3 or #4 of Worksheet #1. You will be focusing the rest of your project on this cognitive skill so pick carefully!
Step 3: Select one of the following age groups you will be focusing your assignment on. This age group should be appropriate for the toy the you selected:
Infancy
Ages 0-1
Toddlerhood
Ages 1-3
Preschool
Ages 3-4
Early childhood
Ages 4-6
Middle Childhood
Ages 6-11
Adolescence
Ages 12-18
Step 4: If you have never used the CSULA library to find a research article, please visit the welcome module and review the “Finding Articles Through the Library” sources. Now, start researching. Look for one empirical article that explores the development of the skill you selected with the age group you selected.
Step 5: Answer the following questions in a word document and attach your document to this assignment:
1. What cognitive skill and age group did you select?
2. Please summarize the article that you found by filling in the following information:
Title of Article:
Authors:
Year study was published:
What question(s) was the research study attempting to answer?
Who were the participants? (please state the # of participants and their ages)
What cognitive skills were measured in the research study? How were they measured?
Summarize the results of the study. What do these suggest about when and how the cognitive skill you have selected develops (please write a full paragraph):
3. How does the study you found relate to the toy you chose?
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Advertisement
Google Cloud
Google Cloud Platform (GCP)
Back
OPEN
Stress and Health / Volume 29, Issue 4 / p. 275-285
Research Article
Full Access
College Student Stressors: A Review of the Qualitative Research
Carrie S. Hurst , Lisa E. Baranik, Francis Daniel
First published: 01 October 2012
https://doi-org.mimas.calstatela.edu/10.1002/smi.2465
Citations: 107
Abstract
A total of 40 qualitative studies were reviewed and coded according to the college
student stressors they represented. These studies utilized a variety of qualitative
methods to examine stressors representing the following themes: relationships,
lack of resources, academics, the environment, expectations, diversity, transitions
and other stressors. Relationship stressors were the most commonly reported
theme and covered areas including stress associated with family, romantic, peer
and faculty relationships. Three of the themes (relationships, diversity and other)
are novel categories of stressors compared with quantitative reviews on the topic,
highlighting the importance of gathering both quantitative and qualitative pieces of
information. This review contributes to the stress literature by synthesizing and
identifying trends in the qualitative student stress research. Copyright © 2012 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
:
Stressor–strain theory (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Spector, 1998) posits that
exposure to stressors can negatively impact individuals’ health, resulting in
behavioural, physical or psychological strains (Jex & Beehr, 1991). Research addressing
student stressors is particularly important considering several potential stressors are
rising for college students. For example, college students are paying more for college
than ever before. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that the cost of
tuition, room and board at public four-year institutions for the 2009–2010 academic
year was $12,804, representing an increase of 37% over the past decade
(www.nces.ed.gov). Likewise, the debt burden used by students to “nance these costs
has increase by 400% in the same period (www.collegeboard.org). The National
Center for Education Statistics also projects a 20% increase in college enrolment of
students over the age of 25 years by 2018, suggesting that many more adults with
children may be going back to school to begin or “nish an education. Thus, in addition
to the stressors traditionally found in college, such as academic pressures, students
today face more “nancial stressors and may have to work additional jobs to
supplement their incomes while also managing work–family con#ict. Moreover, the
frequency and the severity of mental health problems reported by students are
increasing (Kitzrow, 2009), and advancements in technology are changing the
landscape of the typical college classroom (e.g. increased use of distance education),
making the study of college students’ stressors a timely and important issue.
The purpose of the current article is to review the “ndings of qualitative research
examining college student stressors in order to understand the major categories of
stressors facing college students today. Qualitative stress research often appears in a
wide range of journals across a variety of disciplines that stress researchers might not
typically access (Mazzola, Schonfeld, & Spector, 2011). By reviewing this literature, we
contribute to stress research by identifying stressors that may not be identi”ed
:
through quantitative methods, and ensure that they are not overlooked. Although
often used as a starting point for new theories, qualitative research can also be useful
with well-developed and well-tested theories by pointing out the nuances involved in
those theories, particularly the context and meaning of individuals’ experiences (e.g.
Kidd, 2002; Lee, Mitchell, & Sablynski, 1999; Van Maanen, 1979). Despite these
bene”ts, compared with quantitative research, qualitative studies appear far less
frequently in published journal articles, with estimates of between 1% and 3% of
published research being qualitative (e.g. Eby, Hurst, & Butts, 2009; Kidd, 2002; Munley
et al., 2002). More importantly, in-depth reviews of research on stress typically focus
only on quantitative research (e.g. Chida & Hamer, 2008; Hausser, Mojzisch, Niesel, &
Schulz-Hardt, 2010; Robotham, 2008; Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, 1998). Schonfeld
and Farrell (2009), however, recently argued that the stress literature needs more
qualitative research, as few researchers have utilized qualitative methods to identify
overlooked stressors, nuances in theory and the importance of context. One exception
is the review of Mazzola et al. (2011) of the qualitative research on occupational stress,
which synthesized the research related to workplace stressors, strains and coping
strategies. Although this qualitative piece represents an important addition to the
literature, the researchers focused on the workplace. To our knowledge, there is no
review of the qualitative literature on stressors occurring in academic environments.
We are aware of only one focused review of the literature on student stress.
Robotham (2008) identi”ed seven major categories of student stress, which included
stressors related to studying, examinations, the transition to the university, being in a
di$erent country and “nancial pressures, as well as students’ responses to stress and
stress management. However, Robotham observes that research on student stress is
often limited to quantitative research and a narrow range of subject groups. Only two
studies of student stress that adopted a qualitative methodology (Aherne, 2001;
Hamill, 1995) are mentioned in his review. A more focused search speci”cally designed
to identify qualitative studies on student stressors might highlight additional research
on the topic and o$er a more complete picture of college student stressors.
In the current study, we use Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) concept of cognitive
appraisal as a theoretical framework. The authors de”ne cognitive appraisal as a
process individuals use to determine why and to what extent a particular situation is
:
signi”cant for one’s well-being, and by extension, a potential stressor. Since qualitative
research relies on situation-speci”c di$erences in individual perceptions, it may be
useful for uncovering the variety and nuance of this individual-level construct. Relying
primarily on quantitative measures to capture perceptions of stress ‘may lead to the
rejection of subjective, anecdotal, and impressionistic information’ (Robotham, 2008,
p. 738) that cognitive appraisal depends upon. The purpose of the present review is to
synthesize the qualitative research on college student stressors in order to identify
trends among student stressors that may further our understanding of college
students’ cognitive appraisals of stressors. We present in the succeeding texts metathemes and sub-themes from the results of this review, along with information about
the methodology used in the research and a discussion of the implications of this
review for research and practice.
Method
Literature search and criteria for inclusion
We located peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2000 and 2012
examining student stress using qualitative or mixed-method (qualitative and
quantitative) approaches. Given the recent changes in students’ stressors (e.g.
increased “nancial stressors, work–family con#ict, mental health and technology
advancements), we chose 2000 as a cuto$ date to ensure a focus on only the most
relevant stressors for current students. The following terms were entered into ERIC,
PsycINFO and Business Source Premier databases in order to identify qualitative or
mixed-method studies: qualitative, narrative, interview, case study, content analysis,
ethnography, focus group, participant, phenomenology, symbolic interactionism,
interpretive inquiry, hermeneutic inquiry, thematic analysis, unobtrusive, diary, diaries,
open-ended, open ended and grounded theory. We searched for articles containing the
term stress and the term education or student. The same literature search process and
terms were used in each of the databases.
The search criteria resulted in 909 articles. To be included in the current study, two
trained coders searched for articles that used undergraduate students who were 18
years old or older as the target population, contained at least one form of qualitative
analysis, and examined stressors. A total of 40 articles met the search criteria (Table 1).
Articles captured by the search terms that were later excluded were rejected because
they studied populations other than undergraduates, such as high school students
(e.g. Dunning, James, & Jones, 2005) or graduate students (e.g. Duncan, 2005). Other
articles were rejected because they focused on other aspects of the stress process,
such as coping (e.g. Toyin & Akporaro, 2009) or strains (e.g. Ben-Tsur, 2009), but not
stressors. Still, other articles were excluded because they did not report any “ndings
on the basis of qualitative data (e.g. Davey, Bright, Pryor, & Levin, 2005). Three trained
researchers coded the articles for methodology and stressor themes. Some studies
were coded as representing more than one theme (Table 2). Coders began with a
deductive approach, attempting to apply Robotham’s (2008) “ve categories of student
stressors to the data. These categories included studying, examinations, the transition
:
to the university, being in a di$erent country and “nancial pressures. However, many
of the stressors identi”ed in the articles we reviewed did not “t into these categories,
necessitating an inductive approach that allowed themes to emerge naturally from the
descriptions of the qualitative “ndings (e.g. McCleese, Eby, Scharlau, & Ho$man,
2007). Coe%cient kappa was calculated regarding the stressor themes and
methodology for all of the coded studies. Coe%cient kappa was 0.76 for stressor
themes and 0.83 for methodology. Disagreements were later resolved through a
discussion and involved referring back to the passage of text and clarifying which
speci”c stressor was represented. All coders discussed the discrepancies until a
decision was reached.
Table 1. Final list of studies included in review
Authors
Journal
Sample
Method
Sub-theme
Agolla and
Educational
Undergraduate
Open-ended
Academics, family,
Ongori
Research and
students in
survey
romantic relationships,
(2009)
Reviews
Botswana
lack of money and
technology,
expectations from self
and others, disruptive
environment, career
Aherne
Irish Journal of
Undergraduate
Narrative,
Academics, family,
(2001)
Psychology
students in
open-ended
romantic relationships,
Ireland
survey
transition to the
university
Al Kadri et
Advances in
Saudi Arabian
Interview,
Expectations of others,
al. (2011)
Health Science
undergraduate
focus group
faculty relationships,
Education
medical
lack of support
students
Allan and
Education and
Students taking
Open-ended
Peers, expectations of
Lawless
Training
online courses
survey,
others, lack of
in the United
diary,
technology, classes
Kingdom
interview
International
Interview
(2003)
:
Calderwood,
Journal of
Racial minority
Harper, Ball,
Ethnic and
undergraduates
Note. Full references appear in the References section, denoted by an asterisk.
Table 2. Stressor theme frequencies
Meta-theme
Relationships
Lack of Resources
Expectations
Academics
Sub-theme
Family
15 (38)
Romantic
13 (33)
Peers
11 (28)
Faculty
9 (23)
Time
15 (38)
Money
7 (18)
Support
6 (15)
Skills
5 (13)
Technology
2 (5)
Sleep
2 (5)
Self
15 (38)
Other
15 (38)
General academics
16 (40)
Exams
8 (20)
Classes
3 (8)
Studying
3 (8)
Note. Based on N = 40 studies. Some studies were coded as having more than one theme.
:
Results
Frequency
Sample characteristics
The third column of Table 1 lists sample characteristics of the students studied and
lists the countries in which the studies took place. The majority of this research (55%)
occurred in the United States (55%), Canada (10%), the United Kingdom (8%), Iran (5%)
and Korea (5%) with one study (3%) taking place in each of the following countries:
Australia, Botswana, France, Ireland, Israel, the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia. Unless
otherwise noted in the succeeding texts, results refer to students studying in the
United States.
Qualitative methodology
Table 1 shows the types of methodology and stress coding appearing in each of the
studies. Interviews were the most frequently used qualitative method (56%), followed
by open-ended surveys (38%) and focus groups (25%). Less utilized methods included
journal (10%), narrative (8%), observational (8%) and case study (5%). Finally, one study
used experience sampling (3%).
Stress themes
Relationships
A majority of the studies in the present review were coded with themes of relationship
stressors. Relationship themes appeared 48 times in the articles that were reviewed,
addressing students’ stressors from their family (38%), romantic (33%), peer (28%) and
faculty (23%) relationships. Family stressors were mentioned for a number of reasons,
including leaving family behind to go to school, feeling academic pressure from
parents and caring for family members. Romantic relationships stressors included
concerns about developing romantic relationships, missing a signi”cant other,
managing a dysfunctional relationship and ending romantic relationships. In terms of
peers, students mentioned concerns with developing strong relationships with peers,
leaving friends behind to go to school and feeling judged or isolated from peers.
Finally, regarding faculty relationships, students expressed concern with developing
mature relationships withauthorities and also noted stressors related to their desires
:
for respect and support from faculty members. Some students reported being
sensitive to faculty displaying di$erential levels of engagement and support to
students, with students in the United Kingdom citing email responsiveness and a
willingness to make time to see students as examples.
Lack of resources
A lack of resources appeared 37 times in the articles, including a lack of time (38%),
money (18%), support (15%), skills (13%), technology (5%) and sleep (5%). Students felt
that even low-load activities became stressful owing to a lack of time. Others admitted
to struggling with work–life balance, time-management and procrastination issues.
Challenges stemming from a lack of money were cited, sometimes generally and
sometimes focusing on speci”c issues, such as working a side job and trying to pay to
study abroad (U.S. students studying in France). Lack of support was most often
mentioned in the context of faculty relationships, but students also reported stressors
pertaining to a lack of support from classmates and teammates, especially on
collegiate sports teams. The lack of skills mentioned included a lack of language skills
and preparation when in a di$erent country, which were reported by international
students on internships and attending college in the United States, as well as the study
abroad students in France. Nursing students studying in Iran reported concerns about
harming a patient owing to a lack of skills.
Expectations
Trying to live up to expectations, both from self (38%) and others (38%), was reported
as a stressor 30 times in the reviewed articles. Students reported that stressors were
generated by their own goals and expectations for themselves, with some speci”cally
noting perfectionism. In addition, students mentioned di%culties managing multiple
roles (e.g. child versus parent), whereas some focused on speci”c individuals’
expectations, such as their parents and friends. Students in study abroad
programmes, including U.S. students, reported perceiving stressors when their study
abroad cities (e.g. Paris) did not meet their expectations. Other research found that
second-generation students experienced stressors due to the high expectations of
their college-educated parents, and “rst-generation college students reported stress
associated with not knowing what to expect in college. Higher expectations were also
a driver in the stress levels of Black male college students, owing to the students’
perceptions that the majority population expected or wanted Black men to fail.
:
Academics
Academic themes appeared 30 times in the studies that were reviewed, including
stressors pertaining to general academics (40%), exams (20%), classes (8%) and
studying (8%). Studies were coded as addressing general academics when they used
terms such as ‘academics’, ‘coursework’ or did not provide enough detail to determine
the speci”c source of academic stress. Students reported that exams were a source of
stress; interestingly, it was often the time-constrained nature of the exams that
appeared to be the primary source of stress for students reporting this.
Environment
Environment as a stressor was reported 22 times in the reviewed articles.
Environments were coded as disruptive/hostile (33%), unfamiliar (10%), a di$erent
country (8%) and military (5%). Disruptive/hostile environments took many forms,
ranging from the relatively benign (e.g. military, highly competitive or unpredictable
atmospheres) to the overtly aggressive, including societal and institutional racism.
Being in an unfamiliar environment, such as completing service-learning projects and
local internships, is novel enough to create stress for some students. International
environments were stressors for college students in the United States and France. It is
interesting to note that the quantitative survey speci”cally designed to measure
student stressors among international students in the United States failed to detect
any signi”cant stressors, and it was only in the open-ended questions that the
students’ stressors related to discrimination, loneliness and academic concerns were
captured.
Other
There were 15 cases of stressors coded as belonging to the ‘other’ category. This
category includes career (18%), extracurricular activities (10%), health (8%) and
personal appearance (3%). Interviews and open-ended survey responses revealed
concerns about students “nding their “rst jobs, obtaining accurate career-related
information and attaining future career success. Extracurricular activities appeared as
a stressor among a sample of student athletes and were reported more often as
stressors among Black students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities
:
compared with those at Predominately White Institutions. Health stressors included
general concerns about health as well as stressors related to alcohol use. Personal
appearance appeared as a stressor in only one study, although it is interesting to note
that 8% of the Korean sample reported it as a concern.
Diversity
Many of the studies we reviewed sought a better understanding of the stressors
experienced by a particular demographic or group of people, with diversity themes
occurring 12 times in the articles. The most prevalent was race and ethnicity (18%),
and others included being a student with disabilities (5%), being a “rst-generation
college student (5%) and sexual orientation (3%). The relatively small number of Black
men in prestigious colleges perceived themselves as shouldering a particularly heavy
burden to succeed, given the legacy of discrimination in the United States. In addition,
students with learning disabilities in the United Kingdom and Israel reported seeing
themselves as fundamentally di$erent from everybody else and often felt isolated.
They believed that having a disability a$ected how others saw them, interacted with
them, and understood them. First-generation students faced unique hurdles as well.
They perceived having little experience, vicarious or otherwise, to draw from in
preparing to make the transitions to a university life. Siblings and friends rarely
provided the direction needed to avoid stressors, but they did help encourage
persistence. More often than not, the “rst-generation students reported taking on the
dual role of trailblazer and role model. Lastly, students also reported stressors
experienced as a result of their sexual orientation, with some noting the di%culties
integrating various aspects of their identities tied to race/ethnicity and sexual
orientation.
Transitions
The reviewed articles mentioned transitions six times (15%) as a stressor, all of them
focusing on transitioning to the university setting. For example, students in the United
Kingdom who were transitioning from a foundation degree programme to an honours
programme experienced di%culties adjusting to the new environment, including being
viewed negatively and treated di$erently because they were transfer students. Other
research found that students perceived developing independence from home as a
stressor.
:
Discussion
The qualitative stress research reviewed in the current study used a variety of
qualitative methods, with interviews being the most frequently reported method. The
stressors reported by students in this review represented eight major categories,
including relationships, lack of resources, expectations, academics, environment,
diversity and transitions. Many of these stressors occur primarily at the individual level
(i.e. academic stressors, expectations, lack of resources and transitions), whereas
others occur at the dyadic level (relationships) and at the group level (environment
and diversity stressors). Each of the categories of stressors reported in Robotham’s
(2008) review of the student stress literature appeared in the research we reviewed,
but the present review also highlighted several novel categories of stressors. These
include relationships, diversity and other sources of stress. As such, the qualitative
studies reviewed here revealed important dyadic-level and group-level sources of
stress.
Topics revealed by qualitative research
It is somewhat surprising that the relationship category of stressors appeared as the
most commonly reported theme in the qualitative research but was not a category of
stressors among the quantitative research review (Robotham, 2008). Although
relationships are most often examined in stress research as being helpful (e.g. Van der
Doef & Maes, 2007), researchers have known for quite sometime that relationships
can also be a source of stress for individuals (e.g. Eby et al., 2000). This prevalence of
relationship stressors in the present review is consistent with results of a review of
stress occurring in the work domain (Mazzola et al., 2011), which reveal interpersonal
con#ict as the most frequently reported workplace stressor across occupations.
Results from the current study show that college students in education domains also
perceive relationships to be one of their most signi”cant stressors, showing that
college students’ cognitive appraisals (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) of relationships
indicate a signi”cant threat to their well-being.
Among relationship categories, family stressors were most commonly reported in the
present review, which might re#ect current trends, such as increasing numbers of
:
non-traditional students attending college (www.nces.ed.gov), resulting in a growing
number of students who are caring for young children, ageing parents or both.
Therefore, increasing responsibilities may be one reason for higher instances of
relationship stressors relative to other categories. In addition, qualitative research
allows the participant to dictate what is and is not important, and this may be an
instance where the participant’s point of view sheds light on an important stressor
that may otherwise be missed. In the present review, some of the reasons mentioned
by students were that the family had unrealistic expectations, that the family had
changing roles (e.g. divorcing parents) and that the student experienced loneliness.
These speci”c aspects of relationships may get lost in standard quantitative
assessments of social relationships, which instead may focus on social support or
social con#ict. Although our review of qualitative research uncovered nuanced views
of stress and relationships, it is important to highlight the pervasiveness of
relationship stressors. Although emerging in di$erent forms, the majority of college
students perceived signi”cant relationship stressors of some form during their college
education.
Regarding diversity, several of the qualitative studies in the present review were aimed
at understanding stressors among speci”c groups of college students. In some cases,
stressors that were less frequently reported among one sample were more frequently
reported among another. For example, Korean college students reported future
career plans as a top stressor (Lee et al., 2005), whereas college students in the
majority group in the United States did not mention this concern (Dusselier et al.,
2005). When considering college student stress, it is important to consider meso-level
factors such as culture, diversity and college campus environments.
Lastly, the other category addressed several stressors that, although important, did
not appear to “t elsewhere, including stressors related to students’ concerns about
their careers, extracurricular activities, health and personal appearance. Compared
with relationships and diversity, the stressors representing the other category appear
to be more individual in nature. It is not surprising that this category of stressors does
not appear in the review of quantitative research on student stress (Robotham, 2008)
since it describes “ndings from the qualitative studies that simply did not “t with other
categories. Although the stressors in this category occurred relatively infrequently in
this review, we believe it is important to point out that the relative severity of the
stressors for students remains unknown and that the severity may increase across
time, as college environments change. Identifying these areas demonstrates the
importance of using qualitative techniques to identify nuances in participants’
:
perceptions.
Implications for practice
Because faculty and students are acquainted with one another in a speci”c context,
faculty may be aware of academic stressors, such as exam period, but be less aware of
other stressors that students face. Owing to the wide range of stressors reported in
the qualitative research, we recommend that faculty, administrators, student health
centre sta$ and internship advisors help create opportunities for students to manage
stress. Faculty could promote meaningful interactions with students both inside and
outside of class. For example, faculty could require students to meet with them during
o%ce hours once a semester, use class time to discuss stress management and
incorporate humour and caring into lectures to help the faculty seem approachable.
Providing advice on successfully navigating the workplace and ‘soft skills’ training, as
well as facilitating positive interaction between students and potential employers
could help reduce the stress associated with internships and employment. Finally,
faculty could lead class activities and discussions aimed at alleviating service-learning
or language-related anxiety associated with studying abroad. Because many faculty
struggle with managing teaching, research and service requirements while attempting
to foster such student interactions, departments and universities should provide
incentives for developing stress-reducing faculty–student relationships.
The “nding of novel categories of stress via the qualitative research reviewed here
suggests these categories should be incorporated in future surveys, needs analyses
and interventions addressing student stress. Lastly, this review highlights the
importance of adopting qualitative research methods in stress research, and we
encourage researchers as well as college and university administrators to use both
qualitative and quantitative research methods in order to understand the full range of
stressors experienced by students and their impact.
Areas for future research
Qualitative research can also be useful for understanding coping since cognitive
appraisals of a given situation determine whether and to what extent coping is
appropriate (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Therefore, an area worthy of future research
concerns understanding how students cope with some of the novel categories of
stressors identi”ed in the present review, such as relationships or diversity. Another
:
area for future research would be to interview faculty and school administrators to
learn more about methods that are currently being used to help students manage
stress. Importantly, it would be helpful to examine how individuals are able to balance
helping students in addition to the many other responsibilities that come with working
at a university.
Limitations and conclusions
It is important to note that qualitative methods may not be appropriate for addressing
some research questions and, like all research methods, is subject to limitations
including a lack of attention to researcher bias and overreliance on convenience
sampling. On the other hand, qualitative methods often fare well at addressing
important aspects of the scienti”c method, such as observation, description and
triangulation of data sources, methods and researchers (Eby, et al., 2009). Overall,
consistent with methodological review of Eby et al. of qualitative research, the
research we reviewed did tend to utilize samples of convenience. However, in terms of
minimizing researcher bias, there were several studies in the present review that
attempted to do so through the use of participant veri”cation. Similar to quantitative
research, we encourage researchers to evaluate the appropriateness of qualitative
methods in relation to the research question.
Some limitations are also worth noting in terms of the range of stressors identi”ed.
Firstly, the results of this review are limited to research published from 2000 to 2012.
These “ndings are important for understanding current thinking and research on
student stressors, but since a review of all literature was beyond the scope of this
study, some important qualitative “ndings may have been overlooked. Likewise, the
review was limited to published articles and may have overlooked important stressors
identi”ed in unpublished research, such as conference proceedings or other
unpublished manuscripts. Lastly, considering changes occurring in the classroom such
as increased technology and globalization, we also expect that student stressors will
change across time.
REFERENCES
:
Agolla, J. E., & Ongori, H. (2009). An assessment of academic stress among undergraduate
students: The case of University of Botswana. Educational Research and Reviews, 4, 63–70.
Retrieved from http://www.academicjournals.org/err/
Google Scholar
Aherne, D. (2001). Understanding student stress: A qualitative approach. Irish Journal of
Psychology, 22, 176–187. Retrieved from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/riri
Google Scholar
Al Kadri, H. M. F., Al-Moamory, M. S., Elzubair, M., Magzoub, M. E., AlMutairi, A., Roberts, C., &
van der Vleuten, C. (2011). Exploring factors a$ecting undergraduate medical students’ study
strategies in the clinical years: A qualitative study. Advances in Health Science Education, 16,
553–567. DOI: 10.1007/s10459-010-9271-2
PubMed
Web of Science®
Google Scholar
Allan, J., & Lawless, N. (2003). Stress caused by on-line collaboration in E-learning: A
developing model. Education and Training, 45, 564–572. doi: 10.1108/00400910310508955
Google Scholar
Ben-Tsur, D. (2009). Academic studies amid violent con#ict: A study of the impact of ongoing
con#ict on a student population. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 7(4), 457–472. DOI:
10.1080/14767720903412259
Google Scholar
Calderwood, K., Harper, K., Ball, K., & Liang, D. (2009). When values and behaviors con#ict:
Immigrant BSW students’ experiences revealed. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in
Social Work, 18, 110–128. DOI: 10.1080/15313200902874995
Google Scholar
:
Chavajay, P., & Skowronek, J. (2008). Aspects of acculturation stress among international
students attending a university in the USA. Psychological Reports, 103, 827–835. DOI:
10.2466/PR0.103.3.827-835
PubMed
Web of Science®
Google Scholar
Chida, Y., & Hamer, M. (2008). Chronic psychosocial factors and acute physiological
responses to laboratory-induced stress in healthy populations: A quantitative review of 30
years of investigations. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 829–885. DOI: 10.1037/a0013342
PubMed
Web of Science®
Google Scholar
Choi, B. Y., Park, H., Nam, S. K., Lee, J., Cho, D., & Lee, S. M. (2011). The d
