UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA
Stress Among UiTM Students
MOHAMMAD ZIA UR REHMAAN
[email protected]
FACULTY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
APRIL 2010
1
Abstract
University students are prone to stress due to the intensive nature of university life. High levels of stress are believed to affect students’ health as well as their academic performance. The aims of this study were to identify stressors and reactions to stressors among UiTM students, ways that UiTM students distress themselves and to identify stressors and reactions to stressors among science-based and non-science-based students. Student-life Stress Inventory (SSI) was used to measure the stressors and reactions to stressors. The final sample consisted of 100 students. Descriptive methods via Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 16.0 were used such as means and standard deviations to find out stressors and reactions to stressors. Results indicated that the highest group of stressors experienced by students were ‘self -imposed’ stressors followed by ‘pressures’ and reactions to stressors were group of reactions to stressors ‘emotional’ followed by ‘physiological’. There was no significa significant nt difference between the way the science-based and the non-science-based students in terms of stressors and reactions to stressors. For both group of students the most prevalent stressor and reactions to stressors were ‘self -imposed’ and ‘emotional’ respectively. respectively. The most common ways the UiTM students distress themselves were watching movies, listening to music and playing video games. Stress management, self-help courses, time management and counseling sessions will be effective in reducing stress experienced by students.
2
1.0 Introduction
1.1
Background
“I believe in work, hard work and long hours of work. Men do not break down from overwork, but from worry and dissipation” (Charles E. Hughes, 1996)
This study aims at assessing stress among UiTM students. Nowadays stress has become an important issue in the academic circle as well as in our modern society. The stressful nature of university students’ roles and expectations are not secret to anyone. University is a stressful time for many students as they go through the transitional phase of adhering to the new educational and social environments after finishing high school. This study is based on relevant information obtained from previous studies by many experts. Firstly, according to Rees and Redfern, 2000; Ellison, 2004; Ongori and Agolla, 2008; Agolla, 2009, many scholars in the field of behavioural science have carried out extensive research on stress and its outcomes and concluded that the topic needed more attention. Secondly, from Smith, 2002; Tweed et al., 2004; Stevenson and Harper, 2006, stress in academic institutions can have both positive and negative consequences if not well managed. Academic institutions have different work settings compared to nonacademic and therefore one would expect the difference in symptoms, causes, and consequences of stress in the two set up (Elfering et al., 2005; Chang and Lu, 2007). Thirdly it is important to the society that students should learn and acquire the necessary knowledge and skills that will in turn make them contribute positively to the development 3
of the general economy of any nation. However, the intricate academic environment sometimes poses great medical problems to the students’ lives (Danna and Griffin, 1999; Dyck, 2001; Grawitch et al., 2007; Ongori, 2008) that tend to negate the positive gains that one would expect after completion of University. Lastly, students at the university have different expectations, goals, and values that they want to fulfil at the university, which is only possible if the students’ expectations, expectations, goals, and values are integrated with that of the university (Goodman, 1993). Students’ expectations vary with respect to their personality and their backgrounds. Therefore it is important for the university to maintain well balanced academic environment conducive for better learning, with the focus on the students’ personal ne eds. By browsing through the previous studies, it is found that much attention is required towards the scholars’ assertion for the needed stress management in the university to be effective. Subsequently we were encouraged to come up with a study on this particular subject matter in UiTM.
Stress
There are many definitions of stress. The one we have found simple is ‘stress occurs when pressure exceeds your ability to cope’ (Palmer (Palmer et. al, 2007). ‘The usual descriptions of stress involve something happening (the stressor) and the body responding with some predictable physiological and psychological reactions (the stress response)’ (Rugg et. al, 2008).
4
1.2
Terms of reference reference
th
On the 28 of January 2011, Assoc. Prof Norlaila binti Yahya requested her students to conduct a research and to come up with a report on the study of stress among UiTM students. The report includes background information and detailed statistical data with clear cut findings alongside conclusions and recommendations and is due on the 21
st
of
April 2011.
1.3
Problem Statement
It is found that the need for stress management has be effective in the university. Therefore, a research study is performed to investigate about the current status quo of stress among students in UiTM.
1.4
Objectives
1.4.1
To investigate the main factors leading to stress among UiTM students.
1.4.2
To find out the main reactions to various stressors among UiTM students.
1.4.3
To investigate about different ways students employ to distress themselves.
1.4.4
To investigate the effects of stress among science based and non-science based students.
5
1.5
Significance of study
Student life consists of several strands namely stress, the academic world and student life. This research investigates these three strands together and also gives conclusions and recommendations how to improve upon the actual status quo to positive well-being.
1.6
Limitation
The maximum number of respondents for this research is limited to 100.
1.7
Methodology
1.7.1
Sample
The sample consisted of 100 respondents in this case study. The respondents were from four faculties namely Engineering, Medical, Law and Business.
6
1.7.2
Secondary sources
Literature review in terms of students’ stress and the questionnaire were effectuated mainly from related articles, journals, and books.
1.7.3
Instrumentation
Student-life Stress Inventory (SSI) was modified and used to collect data. The th
th
survey started on Monday 27 of March and lasted until Tuesday 4 of April. The SSI is a 51-item Likert-type response format questionnaire with possible responses ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = occasionally, 4 = often, 5 = most of the time) (Gadzella et al., 1991). However, for the practicability of this research, the SSI was reduced to 37-item questionnaire and adapted eventually. The SSI is a self-administered instrument that consists of two parts: stressors and reactions to stressors. The stressor parts comprise of 20 items measuring four categories of stressors (frustrations, pressures, changes and selfimposed stressors). The reactions to stressor parts comprise of 17 items measuring three categories of reactions to stressors (physiological, emotional and behavioral). The SSI been reported to have an acceptable internal consistency reliability as evidenced by Cronbach’s α = 0.684, a statistical measure done in Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 16.0 to check the consistency of the questionnaire thus confirming its applicability to this case study.
7
2.0
FINDINGS
2.1
Descriptive Results of demographic variables
2.1.1
Gender
Gender
49% 51% Male Female
Figure 1: Pie chart representing gender Figure 1 shows the pie chart of gender. There are 51% female students and 49% male students who participated in the study.
8
2.1.2
Age
Age 2% 1% 9%
10%
19 20 36% 42%
21 22 23 24
Figure 2: Pie chart representing Age
Figure 2 shows the percentage of respondents based on age. It was found that the majority of the respondents are 22 years old and noted to be 42%. Then it is followed by 36 % which is 21 years old, 10 % of the students are 23 years old, 9 % are 20 years old, 2 % are 24 years old and only 1% of the total is 19 years old.
9
2.1.3
Faculty
Faculty
25%
25% Medical Law Business
25%
25%
Engineering
Figure 3: Pie chart representing faculty
Figure 3 represents the faculty of the respondents. All respondents come equally (25%) from the four faculties as shown above namely Medical, Law, Business and Engineering.
10
2.1.4
Current Semester
Semester 2% 13%
25%
Sem 2 Sem 3
5%
Sem 4 55%
Sem 5 Sem 6
Figure 4: Pie chart showing the current semester
Figure 4 shows the percentage of students in their respective current semesters. A remarkable majority of 55% of the total number of respondents are actually pursuing their fourth semester. Then it is followed by semester 6 with 25 % of the respondents. Semesters 3, 5 and 2 have a percentage of 13, 5 and 2 respectively.
11
2.1.5
Transport
Transport
14%
24%
Car Motorcycle 19%
43%
Bus Others
Figure 4: Pie chart representing Transport
It is observed from the above pie chart that most of the respondents come by motorcycle (43%) followed by others (24%) and bus which is 19%. The lowest percentage of students comes to UiTM by car (14%).
12
2.2
Testing internal consistency of questionnaire
Reliability analysis is a type of statistical technique to test the internal consistency of the questionnaire. A value called Cronbach’s alpha value is used to assess the reliability of the questionnaire. According to Hair et al., 2000, a coefficient of less than 0.6 indicates marginally low internal consistency.
Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.684
37
Figure 5: Reliability analysis in SPSS
The reliability analysis was performed in SPSS on all the questions in the questionnaire. Since the value of .684 is higher than the benchmarked value of .6, this means that the questionnaire was reliable and consistent.
13
2.3
To investigate the most prevalent stressor among UiTM students
Category
Mean
S.D
Number of items
Self-Imposed
3.62
1.81
6
Pressures
3.22
.69
4
Frustrations
2.83
.65
7
Changes
2.71
.74
3
Emotional
3.00
.82
4
Physiological
2.66
.63
7
Behavioural
2.13
.59
6
Stressors
Reactions to Stressors
Table 1: Means and standard deviations of stressors and reactions to stressors
According to Table 1, the most prevalent group of stressors experienced by the students were those related to ‘self-imposed ‘self-imposed’’ stressors mean = 3.62, SD = 1.81). Examples of ‘self’‘self’-imposed’ stressors were ‘I like to compete and win’ and ‘I like to be noticed and be loved by all’. The second most common group of stressors was those resulting from ‘pressures’ (mean = 3.22, SD = .69). Examples of ‘pressures' stressors were ‘My stress resulted from competition (on grades, work and relationship with friends)’ and ‘My stress due to an overload (attempting to do many thin gs at one time)’. The third most common
14
group was those resulting from ‘frustrations’ (mean = 2.83, SD = .65). The groups of stressors experienced least were those relating to ‘changes’ (mean = 2.71, SD = .74).
2.4
To found out the most common reaction to stressor among UiTM students
According to Table 1, the results revealed that the respondents react to the experienced stressors in different ways, including emotional, physiological and behavioral. Emotional stressors is found to be the most prevalent reaction among students (mean = 3.00, SD = .82). Examples of particular responses to stressors are ‘Fear, Anxiety, worry and Anger’. Physiological responses are found to be the second most common responses to stressors (mean = 2.66, SD = .63). Examples of particular par ticular responses are ‘Sweating, Stuttering, Trembling’. The least common responses to stressors are Behavioral (mean = 3.47, SD = 1.1). Examples of particular responses are ‘Cried, Abused others, Abused self’.
15
2.5
Finding out how students distress themselves
Ways Ways students distress themselves Yes
No 83
78
67
59
53 41
47
50 50 33
22
17
Figure 6: Bar charts showing ways students distress themselves
From Figure 6, it is observed that most of the students watch movies, listen to music, play video games (78%) to distress themselves followed by sleeping (67%), hanging out with friends (59%), surfing the web (53%), physical activities (50%). The least prevalent way students distress themselves is smoking (83%).
16
2.6
Comparison of stress between science-based science-based and non science-based students
Mean Category
S.D
Science-based
Non science-
Science-based
Non science-
students
based students
students
based students
Self-imposed
3.92
3.32
2.43
.71
Pressures
3.47
2.97
.67
.62
Frustrations
2.89
2.76
.78
.78
Changes
2.70
2.73
.76
.76
Emotions
5.00
3.07
.86
.77
Physiological
3.86
2.83
.68
.66
Behavioral
3.67
2.11
.58
.60
Stressors
Reactions to stressors
Table 2: Means and standard deviations of stressors and reactions to stressors among sciencebased and non science-based students
According to Table 1, the most prevalent group of stressors experienced by both sciencebased and non-science- based non-science- based the students were those related to ‘self -imposed’ stressors. Likewise, the most common responses to stressors for both science-based and non science- based the students are ‘emotions’. Both statements are explained by the highest mean for both groups as bolded in Table 2.
17
3.0
Conclusions
Based on the findings, these are some of the conclusions that can be further looked into:
The most prevalent stressor which is self-imposed among UiTM students is due to the fact that the students are very ambitious.
The most common reaction to stressor is emotional (fear, anxiety, worry, anger, guilt, grief, depression) and this can be attributed to the fact that competitions in this new era of globalized economy are fierce.
The majority of UiTM students choose to watch movies, listen to music and play video games to distress themselves.
The most common stressor among science-based students and non-science-based students is self-imposed. This is due to the fact that both groups of students are enrolled in courses of what will make them involve in the top most ladder of society.
The most frequent reaction to stressor among both science and non-science based students is emotional. Both science and non-science based faculties are labor intensive, thus explaining why such reactions are predominant among them.
18
4.0
Recommendations
Stress among university students cannot be eliminated completely, but a lot should be done to prepare students to positively manage stress in order to maximize their opportunities to effectively learn and grow during their student life and achieve success in both the academic and social environments (Misra et al., 2000).
Stress management programmes specific to the needs of students should be considered by university administrators.
Effective communication between students and the lecturers should be promoted. This could help students find appropriate stress reduction methods to improve their academic and social performance.
Emotional reactions to stressors can be targeted through self-help programmes such as time management, motivation, self-discipline and so on.
19
REFERENCES
Agolla, J.E., & Ongori, H., (2009). An assessment of academic stress among undergraduate students: The case of University of Botswana. Educational Research and Review Vol. 4 (2), pp. 063-070.
DeDeyn, R. (2008). A Comparison of Academic Stress Among Australian and International Students. Journal of Undergraduate Research XI. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E, Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate Data th Analysis (5 ed). New Jersey: Prentice Hall International.
Landow, M. V. (2006). Stress & mental health of college students, 1-28
nd
Palmer, S. & Cooper, C., (2008). How to deal deal with stress. 2 Edition. The Sunday Times. pp. 1-21
Rugg G., Gerrard S. & Hooper S. (2008). Stress -free guide to studying at university, 1-11
Sulaiman, T., Hassan, A., Sapian, M. V., Abdullah, K. (2009). The Level of Stress Among Students in Urban and Rural Secondary Schools in Malaysia. European Journal of Social Sciences.
Travers, J., & Cooper, C.L. (1996). Teachers under pressure:Stress in the teaching profession, 36-45.
20
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Questionnaire
Dear respondents, This survey is carried out for the resear ch titled ‘A study on stress stress among UiTM UiTM students’. All information given is confidential and for research purposes only. Please tick (√) one answer in the box
for each question. If you are unsure about how to answer the question, please give the best answer you can. We rely on your sincere response for it is the main contribution for our research. Thank you for your time and cooperation.
Faculty:
Engineering
Medical
Law
Business
Age: .......................
Gender:
Male
Female
Means Of Transportation:
Car
Motorcycle
Current Semester: .............. ..............
21
Bus
Others
AMOUNT OF STRESS STRESSORS
Never
Seldom
Occasionally
Often
Most of the time
A. As a student (frustrations):
1. I have experienced frustrations due to delays in reaching my goals.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
4. I have experienced failures in accomplishing the goals that I set.
1
2
3
4
5
5. I have not been accepted socially (became a social outcast). outcast).
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
2. I have experienced daily hassles which affected me in reaching my goals. 3. I have experienced lack of sources (money for auto, books, etc.).
6. I have experienced dating frustrations. 7. I feel I was denied opportunities opportunities in spite of my of my qualifications.
B. I experienced pressures:
8. As a result of competition (on grades, work, relationships with spouse and/or friends).
1
2
3
4
5
9. Due to deadlines (papers due, payments to be made, etc.).
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
10. Due to an overload (attempting too many things at one time). 11. Due to interpersonal relationships (family and/or friends, expectations, work responsibilities).
C. I have experienced (changes):
12. Rapid unpleasant changes. 13. Too many changes occurring at the same time. 14. Change which disrupted my life and/or goals.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
D. As a person (self-imposed):
22
15. I like to compete and win. 16. I like to be noticed and be loved by all. 17. I worry a lot about everything and everybody. 18. I have a tendency to procrastinate (put off things that have to be done). 19. I feel I must find a perfect solution to the problems I undertake. 20. I worry and get anxious about taking tests.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
E. During stressful situations, I have experienced the following (physiological):
21. Sweating (sweaty palms, etc.).
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
23. Trembling (being nervous, biting fingernails, etc.).
1
2
3
4
5
24. Rapid movements (moving quickly, from place to place).
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
22. Stuttering (not being able to speak clearly).
25. Exhaustion (worn out, burned out, tired). 26. Weight loss (can't eat). 27. Weight gain (eat a lot).
F. When under stressful situations, I have experienced (emotional):
28. Fear, anxiety, worry. 29. Anger. 30. Guilt. 31. Grief, depression.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
G. When under stressful situations, I have (behavioral):
32. Cried.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
34. Abused self (used drugs, etc.).
1
2
3
4
5
35. Smoked excessively.
1
2
3
4
5
33. Abused others (verbally and/or physically).
23
36. Was irritable towards others.
37. Separated myself from others.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
38. Things I do to distress myself (you may tick more than o ne): Watching movies, listening to music, or playing video games Hanging out with friends (eat,shopping,etc) Surfing the web (chat, social network, games, etc) Physical activities (sports, outdoor activities) Smoking Sleep
Source: Adapted and modified from the Student-Life Stress Inventory (Gadzella, 1991).
24
Appendix B: SPSS Outputs
Faculty Cumulative Frequency Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Engineering
25
25.0
25.0
25.0
Medical
25
25.0
25.0
50.0
Law
25
25.0
25.0
75.0
Business
25
25.0
25.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
Total
Age Cumulative Frequency Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
19
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
20
9
9.0
9.0
10.0
21
36
36.0
36.0
46.0
22
42
42.0
42.0
88.0
23
10
10.0
10.0
98.0
24
2
2.0
2.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
Total
Gender Cumulative Frequency Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Male
49
49.0
49.0
49.0
Female
51
51.0
51.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
Total
25
Transport Cumulative Frequency Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Car
14
14.0
14.0
14.0
Motorcycle
42
42.0
42.0
56.0
Bus
19
19.0
19.0
75.0
Others
24
24.0
24.0
99.0
1
1.0
1.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
99 Total
Semester Cumulative Frequency Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
2
2
2.0
2.0
2.0
3
13
13.0
13.0
15.0
4
55
55.0
55.0
70.0
5
5
5.0
5.0
75.0
6
25
25.0
25.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
Total
watch movies, listening to music, playing video games Cumulative Frequency Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
not ticked
22
22.0
22.0
22.0
ticked
78
78.0
78.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
Total
26
hanging out with friends (eat, shopping) Cumulative Frequency Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
not ticked
41
41.0
41.0
41.0
ticked
59
59.0
59.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
Total
Surfing the web (chat, social network, games etc) Cumulative Frequency Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
not ticked
47
47.0
47.0
47.0
ticked
53
53.0
53.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
Total
Physical activities (sports, outdoor activities) Cumulative Frequency Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
not ticked
50
50.0
50.0
50.0
ticked
50
50.0
50.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
Total
Smoking Cumulative Frequency Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
ticked
17
17.0
17.0
17.0
not ticked
83
83.0
83.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
Total
27
Sleep Cumulative Frequency Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
not ticked
33
33.0
33.0
33.0
ticked
67
67.0
67.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
Total
Descriptive Statistics N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
frustrations
100
1.43
4.71
2.8286
.65324
Pressures
100
1.50
5.00
3.2175
.68595
Changes
100
1.00
4.67
2.7133
.73858
Self_imposed
100
1.50
20.17
3.6183
1.80523
Valid N (listwise)
100
Descriptive Statistics N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Physiological
100
1.29
3.86
2.6614
.63293
Emotional
100
1.00
5.00
3.0000
.81650
Behavioral
100
1.00
3.67
2.1250
.58717
Valid N (listwise)
100
Science-based
Descriptive Statistics N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Frustration
50
1.57
4.71
2.8943
.78289
Pressures
50
2.00
5.00
3.4650
.66817
Changes
50
1.00
4.00
2.7000
.76265 .76265
Self_Imposed
50
2.00
20.17
3.9167
2.42863
Valid N (listwise)
50
28
Descriptive Statistics N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Physiological
50
1.29
3.86
2.5514
.68421
Emotional
50
1.25
5.00
2.9250
.86344
Behavioral
50
1.00
3.67
2.1367
.58485
Valid N (listwise)
50
Non-science-based
Descriptive Statistics N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
frustrations
50
1.43
3.71
2.7629
.49031
Pressures
50
1.50
4.00
2.9700
.61578
Changes
50
1.33
4.67
2.7267
.72120 .72120
Self_Imposed
50
1.50
4.67
3.3200
.71018
Physiological
50
1.43
5.29
2.8286
.66319
Emotional
50
1.00
5.00
3.0750
.76806
Behavioral
50
1.00
3.33
2.1133
.59518
Valid N (listwise)
50
29
