Introduction Student success is positively linked to engagement, but negatively linked to emotional exhaustion. Though both constructs have been conceptualized as opposites previously, we hypothesize that students can demonstrate high or low engagement and emotional exhaustion simultaneously. We used quantitative and qualitative data to identify the existence of four student profiles based on engagement and exhaustion scores. Furthermore, we studied how profiles associate to study behaviour, wellbeing and academic achievement, and what risks, protective factors and support requirements students and teachers identify for these profiles. Methods The Student Wellbeing Monitor 2021, developed by Inholland University of Applied Sciences, was used to identify profiles using quadrant analyses based on high and low levels of engagement and emotional exhaustion (n= 1460). Correlation analyses assessed profile specific differences on study behaviours, academic delay, and wellbeing. Semi-structured interviews with students and teachers are currently in progress to further explore the profiles, to identify early signals, and to inspect support requirements. Results The quadrant analysis revealed four profiles: low engagement and low exhaustion (energised-disengaged; 9%), high engagement and low exhaustion (energised-engaged; 15%), low engagement and high exhaustion (exhausted-disengaged; 48%), and high engagement and high exhaustion (exhausted-engaged; 29%). Overall, engaged students demonstrated more active study behaviours and more social connections and interactions with fellow students and teachers. The exhausted students scored higher on depressive symptoms and stress. The exhausted-engaged students reported the highest levels of performance pressure, while the energised-disengaged students had the lowest levels of performance pressure. So far, students and teachers recognise the profiles and have suggested several support recommendations for each profile. Discussion The results show that students can be engaged but at the same time are exhausting themselves. A person-oriented mixed-methods approach helps students and teachers gain awareness of the diversity and needs of students, and improve wellbeing and student success.
MULTIFILE
A decline in both student well-being and engagement were reported during the COVID-pandemic. Stressors and internal energy sources can co-exist or be both absent, which might cohere with different student needs. This study aimed to develop student profiles on emotional exhaustion and engagement, as well as examine how profiles relate to student participation, academic performance, and overall well-being. Survey-data from 1,460 Dutch higher education students were analyzed and resulted in a quadrant model containing four student profiles on engagement and emotional exhaustion scores. Semi-structured interviews with 13 students and 10 teaching staff members were conducted to validate and further describe the student profiles. The majority of the survey participants were disengaged-exhausted (48%) followed by engaged-exhausted students (29%). Overall, the engagedenergized students performed best academically and had the highest levels of well-being and participation, although engaged-exhausted students were more active in extracurricular activities. The engaged exhausted students also experienced the most pressure to succeed. The qualitative validation of the student profiles demonstrates that students and teachers recognize and associate the profiles with themselves or other students. Changes in the profiles are attributed to internal and external factors, suggesting that they are not fixed but can be influenced by various factors. The practical relevance of the quadrant model is acknowledged by students and teachers and they shared experiences and tips, with potential applications in recognizing students’ well-being and providing appropriate support. This study enriches our grasp of student engagement and well-being in higher education, providing valuable insights for educational practices.
In this study self-reported stress and burn-out levels between general and special education teachers in the Netherlands are compared. More than eight hundred teachers were assessed with the Utrechtse Burnout Schaal (UBOS-L/MBI) to determine their levels of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment within the school context. We also used instruments to measure different stress indicators (personal characteristics: self-efficacy, negative affect, and student characteristics: student responsibility and discipline, studentpeer relationships, and class size). Contrary to recent findings in the United States (Shoho, 2002), results regarding burnout did not show any significant differences between general education teachers (n=604) and special education teachers (n=206). However, we do find significant differences in stress indicators explaining burnout. We also looked for factors other than those intrinsic to teaching, by crossnationally comparing teacher stress and burnout. Teachers in the U.S. and the Netherlands differ significantly in burnout level. U.S. teachers experience more burnout.
