OrganizaCjão. Recursos Humanos e Planejamento

STUDENT STRESSAND OUAllTY OFEDUCATION

Letícia PenaAssociate Professor

Department of ManagementUniversity of Wisconsin - La Crosse

E-mail: pena@mai/.uwlax.edu

Dayr ReisProfessor and Chair

Department of ManagementUniversity of Wisconsin - La Crosse

E-mail: reis@mai/.uwlax.edu

RESUMO: Os autores apresentam um artigo exploratório sobre o stress do estudante. Após examinar a relaçãoentre trabalho e stress, o artigo passa a analisar o modelo de McLeansobre contexto, vulnerabilidade e fatoresque causam o stress. Esse modelo serve de quadro de referência para a pesquisa elaborada, tendo em vistaavaliar como um grupo de estudantes de administração enfrenta o stress cotidiano. O artigo também sugere medi-das para reduzir os efeitos prejudiciais do stress no estudante e na qualidade de ensino.

ABSTRACT: Today,managers are increasingly interested in knowing how the work in organizations aftects employees'health. Less common ls the interest in stress erupting in the academic community - among students, faculty andadministrators. The authors present a reflection paper focused on student stress. In this paper, they first examineMcLean 's model of context, vulnerability and stressors. This model provides the framework for the student surveysand for the entire paper. 8ased on the students surveys, an assessment is made of how a smal/ group of studentsare coping with stress. The paper final/y suggests what can be done by students, faculty, and administrators to instaI/and/or improve social support systems that might reduce the harmful eftects of stress on students and thus impactthe quality of education.

KEY WORDS: student stress, mental fadigue, mental tension, quality of education.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE: stress do estudante, fadiga mental, tensão mental, qualidade do ensino.

16 RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas São Paulo, v. 37, n. 4, p. 16-27 Out./Dez. 1997

STUDENT STRESS AND OUALlTY OF EDUCATlON

In the past, business leaders did notreadily accept the notion that work couldadversely affect both mind and body. Today,managers express interest in knowing howtheir organizations affect employees' health.Concern about job stress, executive stress,and the like now abounds. Witness, forexample, the stress prevention seriespublished by the United Nation'sInternational Labor Org anizat ion.!Unfortunately, less common is the interestin stress erupting in academic environments

among students, faculty, andadministrators. This paper begins to fill thatgap. The authors present a reflection paperfocused on student stress, drawing on adescriptive analysis of two surveys of a smallsample of undergraduate business studentsin the United States. The surveys were aimedat identifying ongoing sources of stress andassessing how the students were coping withstress in their daily lives.

lhe five-polnt ldeollzedmodel for effectively

coplnq with stress portrevsa person who knows

orl··rounded ond multi-

aproductive.

The results of the surveys point to majorsources of stress that may be prevalent inother university settings and might inspireothers to do further research. Basic statisticsshow that students are not coping effectivelywith stress which may impact the quality oftheir academic work. We think that facultyand administration can positively interveneto provide adequate social support systemswhich could reduce students' vulnerabilityto more potent stressors.

This paper will first examine the betterknown relationship between work and stress,inc1uding some common psychosomatic

reactions discussed in research, clinical casesand medical experience. In a second section,the authors examine Alan McLean's model ofcontext, vulnerability and stressors. Thismodel provides the theoretical basis of thestudent surveys and constitutes a very usefulframework for the entire paper. The thirdsection discusses the results of the surveys andassesses how students are coping with stress.The final section suggests what can be doneby students, faculty and administrators to createand improve social support systems that mightreduce the harmful effects of stress and thusimpact the quality of education.

Stress and work

We live a good part of our lives in worksettings. While work is, potentially, a sourceof many forms of gratification, it can cause usmuch harm. Stress at work is sufficientlywidespread to be accepted as part of thenecessary frustration of daily living. Similarly,stress in students'lives is no different.

An enormous amount of researches hascentered around work stress. The researchhighlights the relationship between jobstressors and physical and emotional changesin individuaIs. Numerous studiesdemonstrate that psychological stressorsproduce altered measurements of variousbodily chemicals, hormones, and organicfunctions, along with altered levels ofanxiety. Whereas many stressors are simplyannoying, some lead to serious disability,while others may actually cause death. Notehighlights of three early research studies(primary sources) related to work stress thatmay help us shed light on student stress.

In several studies, John French andRobert Caplan at the University of Michiganshowed that work overload can produce atleast nine different kinds of psychologicaland physiological signs of strain in theworker. Four of these signs (jobdissatisfaction, a high cholesterol level,elevated heart rate, and smoking) are riskfactors associated with heart disease. Theyconclude that reducing work overload willreduce heart disease.

Another research study? connectedperceived occupational stressors with diseaseor the risk of disease. After studying 1540executives of a major company, Weimandemonstrated that executives who are bored

© 1997, RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas / EAESP / FGV, São Paulo, Brasil.

1. INTERNATICIONAL LABORORGANIZATION (ILO). (1) Stressprevention in tne oftshore oif and gasexploration and production industry. (2)Occupational stress and stressprevention in air traftic control. (3)Work-related stress in nursing:Control/ing the risk to health. (4)Occupational stress and stressprevention for bus drivers. (5) Stressprevention for blue cal/ar workers inassembly line production. Geneva:International Labor Office, 1996.

2. WEIMAN, Clinton. Journal otoccupational medicine. February, 1977.

17

3. SELYE, Hans. Stress without distress.New York: J. B. Lippincott, 1974.

4. Idem, ibidem

5. MCLEAN, Alan. ~rk stress. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley PublishingCompany, 1979.

6. INTERNATIONAL LABORORGANIZATION (ILO). Op. clt.

18

or under-stimulated and those who feelhighly pressured represent two ends of acontinuum, each extreme exhibiting anelevated number of symptoms. This researchconfirmed the hypothesis that therelationship between stressors and disease iscurvilinear, for too little or too much pressurecan induce stress.

The work of Hans Selye also deservesmention, for no single individual hascontributed more to both scientific and popularthinking on stress than Professor Selye, of theUniversity of Montreal. It is illuminating tounderstand how Selye defines stress.According to Selye, stress is a nonspecificresponse of the body to any demand made uponit.3 Selye demonstrated that essentially differentthings like cold, heat, drugs, hormones, SOITOW,

and joy can provoke an identical biochemicalreaction in the body, As far as back in the1930s, he named this phenomenon the "generaladaptation syndrome" or G.A.S __Selye notedthat G.A.S. may not necessarily produceharmful effects. Its effect depends on theintensity of the demand made upon the adaptivecapacity of the body. Any kind of normalactivity - a game of chess or even a passionateembrace - can produce considerable stresswithout causing any harmful effect."

Might work overload, boredom and under-stimulation, along with demand intensity alsobe found in student stress? Let us see how theseseminal research findings can inform ouranalysis of stressful factors in a student's life.First of all, let us create framework for lookingat the impact of such stressors on students bytaking into consideration the environment andthe individual vulnerability to stressors asdenoted by McLean.

Context, vulnerability and stressors

According to Alan Mcl.ean,' two factorsdetermine whether a specific stressor willproduce symptoms: (a) the context orexternal environment in which the interactiontakes place, and even more important, (b) thevulnerability of the individual at the time, asnoted in Figure 1.

Unless the stressor itself is very powerful,stressors produce deleterious symptoms onlywhen the context and individual vulnerabilitybecome counterproductive. One canwithstand otherwise harmful stressors if thecontext is deemed supportive and the

vulnerability low. Let us keep this frameworkor schemata in mind for the remainder of thepaper as we aim to better understand thisdynamic triadic relationship.

The "context" variable

The external environment, or context, maybe as broad as an economy or as small as a familyunit. It is the influence of the community, thefamily, the economy, and society at large whichthe organization member brings to work. Atwork, the organization member is furtherinfluenced by peers, subordinates, and superiors,who all help to create a corporate culture asdefined by management policy and practices.

Like employees, students do not leave theinfluences of their nonacademic lives at theuniversity door. Students bring to the universitythe influences offamily, community, economyand society at large. As these external factorschange, so do students' attitudes and behaviorsat school. Students are further conditioned byfaculty, administrators and their peers inuniversity settings. Since many studentsincreasingly have to work for a living to paytuition and other educational costs, we can seethe full complex of overlapping stresses in thenonacademic and academic settings that forma part of many students' daily lives.

Figure 1: McLean's basic framework

/ \Source: MCLEAN, Alan A. Work Stress. MA:Reading, 1979, p. ix.

The economy also can affect both employeeand student attitudes, their confidence, and theirperformance. This is especially true whencountries experience high unemployment orinflation, reduced productivity, and slow ratesof growth. According to the World Employment1996-97,6 nearly one-third ofthe world's laborforce is either unemployed or underemployedin most regions of the world, except in East Asia.Although unemployment levels vary from

RAE • v. 37 • n. 4 • Out./Dez. 1997

STUDENT STRESSAND OUAlITY OF EDUCATlON

country to country, the fear of unemploymentconstitutes a very potent stressor. Brenner?showed that mental disorder and lack of workare correlated. Unemployment affects students'families and the students themselves. Manycountries - both developed and developing-have set as a goal to make education moreaccessible to their citizens. However, low ratesof growth and high unemployment have beenhindering the immediate utilization ofgraduates' newly acquired skills. Consequently,economic concerns can compound fear andanxiety among temporarily displacedemployees, employees who fear loosing theirjobs, and students who cannot find challengingjobs in a stagnant economy.

One indication of increasing environmentalcynicism can be noted in how students' attitudestoward work and the meaning of work havechanged over time. In the sixties, the majorityof American students answered "yes" to thequestion "Does hard work always pay off?" Bythe seventies and eighties, the majority ofstudents answered "no" to the same questionoThis perceptual reversal shows how the valueof a college education has depreciated in thelast twenty years. One recent study shows thatdiscouragement may come about as a result ofthe growing gap between the higher skillrequirements needed in organizations and theleveI of training offered even at the collegeleveI. 8 The change in the meaning of educationand work in Western societies also seems tobring increasing suspicion of and disrespect forauthority and institutions. We have seen thischange in schools where the students openlyconfront their teachers, and in the work placewhere young workers refuse to take orders fromtheir managers if they disagree.

In addition, the changing family structure- from single to serial marriages, fromheterosexual to homosexual marriages, andfrom one to dual career families where bothpartners share the financiaI responsibility -all provide a different context in whichstressors take place and affect work andfamily life. These same factors also influencestudents' life.

Given the above socioeconomicenvironmental changes, is it not accurate tosay that society is changing faster, muchfaster than the workplace and the academia?The bureaucracies of business, government,the military and universities remainrecalcitrant and seem impervious to such

RAE • v.37 • n.4 • Out./Dez.1997

changes. An accumulation of thesecontextual factors prompted McLean tohighlight their potentially negative impact onindividual stress, in addition to what hetermed the vulnerability factor which wenow explain.

The individual "vulnerability"variable

According to Mc Lea n ," individualvulnerability to specific stressors varieswidely and it is even more important thancontext in determining the reaction tospecific factors in a work environment.Generally speaking, people dislike and fearchange. Nonetheless, change is a commondenominator. Stressors appear to in volve

Heovy courseprocrcstinction, money

problems, outsidecommitments confflctinqwith school work, ond

uncertainty about careerobjectíves were found tobe the causes·

of student

change in some way. It has beendemonstrated that the occurrence of severalimportant changes at once may contribute toincreased individual vulnerability andthereby lead to illness. The work of Dr.Thomas Holmes and Richard Rahe at theUniversity of Washington is considered theseminal effort in measuring changes basedon life events.'?

Holmes and Rahe constructed a Scheduleof Recent Events (SRE) questionnaire todocument life events reported by 400 researchsubjects during the years prior to developingmajor illnesses. The forty-three questionsabout life-changes, contained in the SRE, werescaled and assigned a numerical value basedon the life-change-unit (LCU) value given bythe subjects for the remaining life-changeevents. For the analysis, marriage was used asa reference point worth an arbitrary value of500, to which other changes, such as the loss

7. BRENNER. H. M.Menlalillnessandlheeconomy. Gambridge. MA: HarvardUniversity Press. 1973.

8. MURNANE, Richard and LEVY, Frank.Teaching lhe New Basic Skills. New York:Simon and Shuster, 1996.

9. MGLEAN, Alan. Op. cil.

10. HOLMES, T. H. and RAHE, R. H. Socialreadjustment rating scale. Journal ofpsychosomatic reseercn, 11: 213, 1967.

19

of a spouse or a change in residence, werecompared. This process was repeated for eachof the life-change events in the SREquestionnaire. In spite of marked diversity ofage, sex, race, religion, and educationalbackground, considerable agreement was foundon values among the subjects. Figure 2 showsthe life events and their values.

As noted in Figure 2, the death of aspouse, divorces, and marital separations aredramatic life changes that heighten thevulnerability of individuaIs, whether theyworkers or students. When individuaIs gothrough numerous life changes at once, theresearch found that an increase in the LeUvalues was positively correlated with the

Figure 2: The Holmes-Rahe schedule of recent life events.Rank event value

RANK EVENT VALUE

01 Death of spouse 10002 Divorce 7303 Marital separation 6504 Jall term 6305 Death of close family member 6306 Personal injury or iIIness 5307 Marriage 5008 Flred from work 4709 Marital reconcilliation 4510 Retirement 4511 Change in family member's health 4412 pregnancy 4013 5ex difficulities 3914 Addltlon to family 3915 Business readjustment 3916 Change in financiai status 3817 Death of close friend 3718 Change to dlfferent Uneof work 3619 Change in number of marital arguments 3520 Mortgage or loan over $10,000 3121 Foreclosure of mortgage or loan 3022 Change In work responslbllitles 2923 50n or daughter leaving home 2924 Trouble with In-Iaws 2925 Outstanding personal achievement 2826 5pouse begins or stops work 2627 5tarting or finishing school 2628 Change In IIvlng condltions 2529 Revision of personal habits 2430 Trouble wlth boss 2331 Change in work hours, conditions 2032 Change in resldence 2033 Change in schools 2034 Change In recreational habits 1935 Change in church activities 1936 Change in social activlties 1837 Mortage or loan under $10,000 1738 Change In sleeping habits 1639 Change in number of family gatherings 1540 Change in eating hablts 1541 Vacation 1342 Christmas season 1243 Minor violation of the law 11

Source: HOLMES,T.H. and RAHE R. H. Social readjustment rating seale. In: Journal of PsychosomaticResearch, v.11 p. 213, 1967.

20 RAE • v. 37 • n. 4 • Out./Dez. 1997

STUDENT STRESS AND OUALlTY OF EDUCATlON

onset of illness. Notice that the likely sumof life events for colIege entrants includingstarting school, and changes in livingconditions, work hours, number of familygatherings, social activities, and recreational,sleeping, and eating habits rises to 154 LeUvalues. These changes are above thethreshold level Holmes and Rahe foundacceptable. They found that subjects withLeU values ranging between 150 and 300reported an ilIness during the folIowing yearsin about 50% ofthe cases. Those who scoredmore than 300 LeU per year, reported anillness during the folIowing year in 70% ofthe cases. In contrast, the majority of subjectswho recorded a total of 150 Leu or less inthe preceding year reported good health onthe folIowing year. Over time, the results ofthe SRE questionnaire have beenstrengthened, finding support from a widerange of people from different countries andcultures.

Another study relating individualcharacteristics to propensity to stress reactionscan be traced to the work of Drs. Friedmanand Rosenman, two San Franciscocardiologists." Their research distinguishestwo personality types: "Type A" and "TypeB" personalities. They found that aggressiveachievers, whom they described as exhibiting"Type A" behavior, are more vulnerable toheart attacks than those at the opposite endof the personality spectrum, or those of "TypeB" orientation. "Type A" behavior is anaction-emotion complex that can be observedin any person who is aggressively involvedin a chronic, incessant struggle to achievemore and more in less and less time, and ifrequired, to do so against the opposing effortsof other things or other persons.

In short, the work of Friedman andRosenman, along with that of Holmes andRahe have c1ear implications for thestudying of student stress. Holmes andRahe's life change units are useful becausethey enable us to assess how a recentbuildup of major changes makes theaverage individual, including the student,more vulnerable to subsequent illnesses. Itis also very likely that students with "TypeA" personalities may experience morestress as they strive to over achieve in theclassroom setting. Let us now review someimportant stressors that may be found in thedaily lives of students.

RAE· v.37 • n.4 • Out./Dez.1997

Stressful events

In addition to work overload andboredom as stressors already identified in theearly studies, evaluations, mass instruction,and intrinsic conditions related to universitylife are likely to increase students' stress.

Administrators, faculfyond students can octivelyseek to further alleviate

student sfress byengaging in the

formation of socialsupport systems, makingthe context of learningmore supportive andreducing individual

vulnerability to stress.

Like performance appraisals in worksettings, evaluations surface as majorstressors in academic environments.Evaluations tend to be interpreted as arelative test of one's adequacy in comparisonto others. Examinations fall into the categoryof evaluations. Although they compose a partof our lives since childhood, examinationanxiety can be harmful when used in apunitive way.

Similarly, many cite assembly lineproduction as stressful because of itsfragmentation of work and the lack ofemployee participation in decisionsimpacting the work process." Researchershave connected poor mental health andcoronary disease with assembly line work.In many large public universities, we findthe analogue of assembly line work: largeclasses, with mass examinations resemblingmass inspections, especialIy in the first twoyears of college. This hazing process,derived from a productivity model ofteaching, was condemned by Deming, givenits focus on quantitative versus qualitativepedagogical orientation.

Furthermore, five conditions thatresearchers have deemed stressful in a worksetting!' also have their equivalents in thetypical academic setting. These stressors

11. FRIEDMAN, M. and ROSENMAN, R. H.Type A:yourbehaviorandyourheart. NewYork: Knopl, 1974.

12. INTERNATlONAL LABORORGANIZATION (ILO). Op. cit.

13. COOPER, Cary L. and MARSHALL,Judy. Occupalional sources 01 stress: Areview 01lhe llterature relaling lo coronaryhearl disease and menlal ill heallh.Occupational psychology, v. 49, pp. 11·28,1976.

21

inc1ude: factors intrinsic to a job, role inorganization, career development, relationships

at work, and organizational structure/c1imate.What analogues does each have in academia?

FIGURE 3: McLean's coping with stress checklist.

Read each of the following twenty statements. Assess the extent to which each statementdescribes the way you are now (or will probably be in a future job). Circle the appropriate numberin each line.

VERV QUITE SOMEWHATNOTVERY NOTATTRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE ALLTRUE

1 I roll with the punches when problems 1 2 3 4 5come up.

2 I spend almost ali of my time thinking 5 4 3 2 1about my work.

3 I treat other people as individuais and 1 2 3 4 5care about their feelings.

4 I recognize and accept my own limitations 1 2 3 4 5and assets.

5 There are quite a few -people I could 1 2 3 4 5descrlbe as "good frlends."

6 I enjoy using my skills and abilities 1 2 3 4 5both on and oH the job.

7 I get bored easily. 5 4 3 2 18 I enjoy talking with people who 50 have 1 2 3 4 5

diHerent ways of thinking about the world.9 Often in my job I bite oH more than I 5 4 3 2 1

can chew.10 I'm usually very active on weekends 1 2 3 4 5

with projects or recreation.11 I prefer worklng with people who are very 5 4 3 2 1

much likeme.12 I personally work primarily because I have 5 4 3 2 1

to survive, not because I enjoy what I do.13 I belleve 13 I have a reallstic picture of 1 2 3 4 5

my strengths and weaknesses.14 Often I get into arguments with people 5 4 3 2 1

who don't think my way.15 Often I have trouble getting much done 5 4 3 2 1

on myjob.16 I'm interested in a lot of diHerent topics. 1 2 3 4 517 I get upset when thlngs don't go my way. 5 4 3 2 118 Often l'm not sure how I stand on a 5 4 3 2 1

controversial topic.19 I'm usually able to find a way around 1 2 3 4 5

anything that blocks me from animportant goal.

20 I often disagree with my boss or others 5 4 3 2 1at work.

Scoring directions: Add together the numbers you circled for the four questions contained in each of fivecoping scales listed below.

COPING ADD TOGETHER VOUR VOUR SCORESCALE RESPONSESTO THESE QUESTIONS (WRITE IN)

KnowsseH 4, 9, 13, 18Many interests 2, 5, 7, 16Varlety of reactions 1, , 17, 19Accepts other's values 3, 8, 14, 20 Total scoreActive and productive 6, 10, 12, 15Source: MCLEAN, Alan A. WorkStress. MA.: Reading, 1979, p.127.

22 RAE • V. 37 • n. 4 • Out./Dez. 1997

STUDENT STRESSAND OUAlITY OF EDUCATlON

Factors intrinsic to a job, refers toquantitative and qualitative overloadpreviously discussed. Quantitative overloadrefers to having too much to do. Qualitativeoverload means that the work is beyond one'sability or comprehension. As we shall note inthe following section, qualitative andquantitative overloads plague the lives ofstudents as well as the lives of employees.

Role in organization presents theparadoxical situation of having the students'learning be the primary concem of universitiesin theory, although that may actually end upobfuscated in the priority list of faculty andadministration.

Although career development is thebusiness of universities, it can elude manystudents who realize that each progressiveyear of college may have better equipped themto identify professions which definitely do notinterest them rather than the contrarysituation.

Relationship at work refers to one'srelationship with his/her superior,subordinates, and peers in a work setting,who are analogous to faculty, administratorsand other students in an academic setting.Again, as we shall soon note, the interactionmay create conditions identified as sourcesof stress.

Finally, organizational structure/climaterefers to the degree of participation indecision-making processes related to one'sjob, restrictions on flexibility of workbehavior, and interference with desirablecommunication processes. The absence ofparticipation in decision-making was foundto be significantly related to (1) overall poorphysical health, (2) escapist drinking, (3)depressed mood, (4) low self-esteem, (5) lowjob satisfaction, (6) low motivation to work,and (7) intention to leave one's job. Mightlack of participation in decisions that affectemployees produce similar symptoms and

Figure 4: Coping with stress scale: summary of organizational behavior class.

STUDENT KNOWS MANY VARIETY OF ACCEPTS OTHERS ACTIVE AND TOTALSELF INTERESTS REACTIONS VALUES PRODUCTIVE SCORE

1 10 8 8 7 7 402 7 8 10 6 11 423 8 6 9 6 9 384 9 9 13 7 9 475 5 9 13 12 12 516 14 14 13 10 12 637 9 10 15 7 12 538 11 10 11 7 11 509 10 7 10 9 8 4410 7 10 14 17 12 6011 10 11 12 9 9 5112 12 12 15 12 13 6413 10 8 12 7 6 4314 9 11 12 10 14 5615 10 11 12 11 9 5316 10 16 13 11 12 6217 11 12 12 12 12 5918 9 10 11 10 8 4819 11 12 14 9 13 5920 8 7 12 10 6 4321 15 12 10 9 12 5822 10 11 12 11 9 5323 14 11 12 8 9 5424 14 13 13 12 14 6825 15 16 15 12 17 75

Mean 10.32 10.56 12.2 9.64 10.64 53.36Std. Dev. 2.56 2.03 1.89 2.53 2.69 9.21Scores on each of the five areas can range between 5 to 20. Scores of 12or above suggest that itmight be use fuI to direct more attention to the area. The overall total score can range between 20 and100. Scores of 60 or more may suggest some difficulty in coping on the dimensions covered.

RAE • v. 37 • n. 4 • Out./Dez. 1997 23

14. KINDLER, Herbert S. Personal stressassessment inventory - Student Edition,in D. Mareie edition 01 OrganizationalBehavior: Experiences and Cases, SI.Paul: West Publishing Company, 1989.

24

harmful consequences in the studentpopulation? In the next section we presentand discuss the results of our surveys onstudent stress.

How students are coping with stress

Following Alan McLean's model, wesurveyed an Organizational Behavior c1assof 25 upper division business studentsenrolled in a state university in the UnitedStates to roughly measure individualvulnerability, one's personal context, andindividual perception of specific stressorswhich may be active at any given point intime. In order to assess how the studentswere coping with stress, we used the McLeanchecklist noted in Figure 3.

The checklist in Figure 3 assesses the extentto which students are coping with stress relativeto an ideally successful person who can adaptto a challenging work environment and yetbe productive without extraordinary sideeffects. McLean describes five characteristicsof such persons:1. They know themselves at all leveIs,

accept their strengths and weaknesses,and capitalize on their important skills.

2. They develop numerous interests awayfrom work.

3. They vary their responses to stressfulsituations and learn to bounce backquickly.

4. They acknowledge and accept differencesamong people.

5. They remain active and productive atwork as well as at home and in thecommunity.Summing up, the five-point idealized model

that effectively copes with stress portrays aperson who knows himself or herself, is well-rounded and multi-dimensional, whorecognizes and embraces different valuesystems, and finally, is active and productive.As Figure 4 demonstrates, that profile was notreflective of the students surveyed.

Generally speaking, the coping scalesummary in Figure 4 shows that studentsneed to improve on four or the five scales,except for the "accepting other people'svalues" point. In particular, studentssurpassed the recommended 12 pointthreshold on the third scale representing"variety of responses." As Figure 4 shows,the mean score for this factor was 12.2,

illustrating that the upper division businessstudents were not able to: (1) rolI with thepunches when problems arose, (2) enjoyworking with people different fromthemselves, (3) not get upset when thingsdid not go their way, and (4) find a wayaround concerning anything blocking themfrom an important goal. Furthermore, meanscores of 10.5 and above in the second andfifth scales also point to student need forgreater development of interests away fromschool and active and productive activitiesat home and in the community.

Assessing the emotional impact ofthe context

In another survey using a checklistsuggested by.!" we asked the same studentsin the Organizational Behavior c1ass toassess the emotional impact theyexperience, concerning several ongoingsources of stress, as shown in Figure 5.

For each of the events that occurred during thepast month or so, the students indicated theiremotional impact score ("I" for low impactto "lO"for major impact). After assessing their emotionalimpact conceming each criteria, the studentsnoted whether each criteria was intrinsicalIywithin their power to change (Column B), notwithin their power to change (Column A), or(c) split (between Columns A and B). Studentswere asked to score the items only if they hadexperienced the events in questiono

In this survey, over 50 total scores suggestthe need for more active confrontation whendealing with ongoing irritants. Furthermore,when column A scores are much higher thancolumn B scores, one may want to take moreresponsibility for events in one's life in orderto feelless helpless and "victimized," that is,greater intemallocus of control is calIed for.

Major ongoing sources of stress

Although the complete data of theOrganizational Behavior c1ass are not shownin this paper, the average number of points perstudent was 71.7, with a standard deviation of24. 7 points and a modal score of 66.5 points.The maximum and minimum scores were 148and 28 points respectively. More importantly,student scores felI below the 50 point thresholdin only two out of 25 cases, highlighting thepervasive need for students to confront stress

RAE • v. 37 • n. 4 • Out./Dez. 1997

a. My course load or study requlrements feelexcesslve.

b. I find some instructors boring, or I feelinadequately challenged.

c. I haven't enough qulet to study, or have too manydistractlons.

d. My outside commitments conflict with school work.

Column AEvents Beyond MyPower to Change

Column BEvents Within MyPower to Change

STUDENT STRESS AND OUAlITY DF EDUCATlDN

FIGURE 5: Checklist for ongoing sources of stress.

Instructions: For each of the events that occurred during the past month or so, indicate your emotionalimpact score ("1 low impact, to '10" major impact). Place the number in either column A or B, whicheveris applicable. EMOTIONAL IMPACT SCORE

e. My class schedule creates problems.f. I feel too much peer or parent pressure.g. I question what value I get from going to school.h. My procrastlnatlon or crammlng create excessive

pressure.i. I have continuing problems with one or more

teachers, teaching assistants or the administration.[, I am uncertain about my career objectives,

or future plans.k. I don't find school socially rewarding, or my

standards and preferences conflict with otheractivities.

I. I miss social support from a relationship, familyor roommate.

m. I don't have adequate privacy.n. My budget is too tlght.o. Transportation creates problems for me

(e.g., commuting,mobility).p. I am concerned with security on or off campus.q. Getting the kind of food I prefer is a problem.r. I don't have easy access to my preferred forms

of recreatlon.s. School facilities, such as the library, health care,

or the computer center are inadequate.t. I feel self-consclous aOOuta personal problem

(such as weight, pimples, social ease).If not covered above, add on two emotional/y unsettlingevents that occurred during the past month or so(positive or negative).u.v.Total for Emotional Impact Score:

Total scores of over 50 suggest the need for more active confrontation in dealing with theseongoing irritants.

more actively. Figure 6 shows the total scoresfor the ten major sources of stress (indecreasing order) given by the OrganizationalBehavior students.

According to the survey results - whichare outlined in Figure 6 - the highestemotional impact is caused by heavy courseload or excessive study requirements.

KINDLER, Herbert S., Personal Stress Assessment Inventory. In: MARCIC, Dorothy.Organizational Behavior: experiences and cases. SI. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1989, pp. 293-296.

RAE· v.37 • n.4 • Out./Dez.1997 25

15. HOUSE, J. S. Work Stress and SocialSupport, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,1981.

26

FIGURE 6: Ten major sources of stress ranked by emotional impact on students.

SOURCE OF STRESS COLUMN A COLUMN B TOTAL RANK(Beyond (Within SCORE

Student Control) Student Control)Heavy course load 60 73 133 1Procrastlnation 10 113 123 2Money problems 64 51 115 3Outside commltments 34 59 93 4Career uncertainty 26 59 85 5Perceived quality of teaching 58 27 85 6Value of higher education 25 54 79 7Qulet study place 8 68 76 8Facilities inadequate 58 3 61 9Personal problems 15 41 56 10Where the Column A scores are appreciably higher than Column B scores, one may want to takemore responsibility for events in one's life in order to feel less helpless and victimized.

Procrastination was found to be the secondmajor source of stress, followed by moneyproblems, outside commitments conflictingwith school work, and uncertainty about careerobjectives. Although to a lesser degree, theperceived quality of teaching, the value ofhigher education, inadequacy of schoolfacilities and personal problems were alsomatters of concern for the students. Notice,too, that, of the ten major sources of stress,three of them - the personal budget, theperceived quality ofteaching, and inadequacyof school facilities - were considered beyondthe student's power to change. Might someof these results be indicative of the largerstudent population?

What can be done?

It may be impossible or even undesirableto eliminate stress from universities. However,it can be managed productively. We think thatmuch can be done that is not being doneeffectively at present, or is not being done atall by faculty, administration, and studentsalike. Students could try active measures forself-control of stress including physicalexercise, progressive relaxation, biofeedback,and professional help. We fully endorse theircontribution. Although we will not digress toextol the utility and virtues of each of thesemeasures, which are better addressed byspecialized literature, we acknowledge thatthese activities can be very costly for the usuaIlytight budget of the typical student. Universityadministrators can greatly contribute bymaking some or all of these active ways of

coping with stress available to the studentpopulation at affordable costs. In addition,administrators, faculty and students canactively seek to further alleviate student stress.Each cohort can try to engage in the formationof social support systems by making the contextof leaming more supportive and by reducingindividual vulnerability to stress.

Social support systems. No simple advicecan be presented to change personality traits orcoping mechanisms. However, there are waysof improving one's ability to cope with the threatof stressors - to reduce, to some extent, one' svulnerability. We offer one major approachwhich House and his colleagues at DukeUníversity" tested. They have perceived thatstressors bear little or no relationship to ill healthwhen a person enjoys high leveis of socialsupport. People are said to have social supportif they have a relationship with one or morepersons that is characterized by frequentinteractions, by strong and positive feelings, andby a capacity and a determination to provide andreceive emotional and/or practical assistance intrying times. We would like to expand on howfaculty, administrators, and other students couldoffer four forms of social support: instrumental,informational, evaluative, and emotional.

Instrumental support includes pitching into help a student who is having troublecompleting a task. This type of support wouldbe especially important for students who feeloverwhelmed by heavy course loads andexcessive study requirements. They maygenuinely not understand the nature of theassignments or the most efficient way tocomplete the task. Accessability and modeling

RAE • v. 37 • n. 4 • Out./Dez. 1997

STUDENT STRESSAND OUAlITY OF EDUCATlON

would be particularly helpful. One-on-oneinteraction with the professor or teamworkwith colleagues, in groups where collaborationis valued and acknowledged might supply trustfor individual vulnerability while the studentlearns to ask the necessary questions to allowcreativity to enter in. For more than fifty years,behavioral scientists and other expertsconcerned with job satisfaction have urgedincreasing workers participation in definingand programming their tasks. In the late 1940s,Coch and French demonstrated that themastering of a new task best occurs undersupportive conditions.

Informational support involves giving aperson information that lets her more easilyhandle task demands. An invitation from theinstructor for students to participate in theplanning, design, and implementation of acourse, or parts of it, acts as a powerful supportto students' self-esteem. Establishing apsychological contract about the future coursedirection can also bring down the barrierscreated by procrastination. Lack of control overthe learning process is replaced by ownershipof relevant learning. We can argue that anysupport to self-esteem facilitates learning andindividual coping with stress factors. Facultycan also contribute by assigning work which ismore supportive to the student, with the goal ofbuilding a system in which students perceivethemselves genuinely valued.

Appraisal support gives information to aperson about his/her performance. Instructorscan aim to make learning and teaching morecollaborative instead of more competitive. Thegrade "phobia" should be minimized by usingevaluations as feedback loops to reorient studentawareness to development opportunities ratherthan having them be threatening and punitive.Attaining excellence should be the goal for alIstudents and faculty not only for the top ten ortwenty percent of the class. Students withdifferent learning rates or different learningpaths should be given time to achieve the onlypossible goal of education: EXCELLENCE.Just as Dr. Deming stated at one point that, inthe name of quality, fear should be driven outof the work place, we say today that fear shouldbe banned from the classroom.

Emotional support includes caring andempathic listening to a person who feelstroubled.

Discussion is also useful in coping withthe stress of change. In a typical business firm,

RAE • v. 37 • n. 4 • Out./Dez. 1997

talking with one's peers, supervisors, andsubordinates allows people to vent whateverfeelings of anger, tension, and grief they maybe experiencing. There is reassurance insharing, in discovering that others have thesame apprehensions, anxieties etc. A valuabletechnique is to enlist the involvement of all whoare facing similar types of stresses together infurther planning. Discussion can be fomentedin the academic setting, especially by creatingnatural meeting places where students can enjoymeeting with their counterparts, their teachersand supportive administrators.

In short, support systems for the student bodyin the academic organization have to stem frompolicies and administrative practices. In industry,Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) helpemployees cope with personal problems that areinterfering with their job performance, such asdrug and alcohol abuse, financial difficulties, andfamily relationship concerns." EAPs can helpemployees suffering from anxiety and stress. Forexample, EAPs played a useful role in recenttimes, by helping to ease the effects oforganizational restructuring and downsizing onemployees.'? Universities can create StudentAssistance Programs (SAPs) to facilitate similarcoping strategies.

Where EAPs focus on treating troubledemployees, Wellness Programs focus onpreventing health problems. These programsencourage employees to change their life stylesthrough exercise, good nutrition, and healthmonitoring. They help employees to identifypotential health risks through screening andtesting. Finally, they educate employees abouthealth risks such as high blood pressure,smoking, poor diet, and stress."

Although some universities have similarprograms, they stilllag far behind industry inscope and budget. From an ethical point ofview, some organizations feel that wellness andemployee assistance programs should beevaluated on a cost-benefit basis anddiscontinued if it cannot be demonstrated thattheir benefits exceed their costs. Otherorganizations feel that since they contribute tocreate many of the stressful conditions thatcause employee health problems, they areethically bound to continue providing thesetypes of programs. The same argument can bemade used in the case of universities. Don't theycreate many of the stressors in the daily life ofstudents instead of creating learningcommunities? O

16. KIRRANE, D. EAPs: Dawning of a newage. HR Magazine, v. 35, n.1, pp. 30-34,1990.

17. WISE, D. Employee assislanceprograms expand lo fil companies needs.Business and Health, April, 1993, pp. 40-45.

18. BUNCH; D. Coors Willness Cenler-Helping lhe bailam line. In: Employerbenefitsjournal, v.14. march 1992.

27