731194

research-article2017
ALH0010.1177/1469787417731194Active Learning in Higher EducationPitt et al.

Article

Active Learning in Higher Education

1­–15
An exploratory study of students’ © The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
weekly stress levels and sources of sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1469787417731194
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417731194
stress during the semester journals.sagepub.com/home/alh

Adele Pitt
University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia

Florin Oprescu
University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia

Geraldine Tapia
University of Bordeaux, France

Marion Gray
University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia

Abstract
Studying at university can be a very stressful experience. Although the literature provides some information
regarding different sources of stress among students, studies have not addressed the issue of changes over
the course progression. This study aimed to obtain a deeper understanding of the sources of stress for
first-year students and whether these stressors are more prevalent at different times during the semester.
A mixed-method approach was used. Content analysis was undertaken on longitudinal electronic message
data, and thematic analysis was used for focus group data. Results indicated an increasing trend of stress
over the semester. The major stressors identified were academic, financial/work, personal, family-related,
interpersonal, social support, university/life balance and starting university. A number of stressors were
found to be more prevalent at different times during the semester, including some academic-related stressors
plus starting university, family-related and financial/work-related stressors. This is one of the few studies to
examine the influence of timing of the levels of stress. Importantly, this study suggests that the start and end
of the first semester constitute the riskiest periods for negative stress-related consequences. These results
could be used to assist universities in developing student support programmes.

Keywords
sources of stress, stressor distribution, students, university

Corresponding author:
Geraldine Tapia, EA 4139 – Laboratory of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bordeaux, 3 ter Place de la
Victoire, 33076 Bordeaux Cedex, France.
Email: geraldine.tapia@u-bordeaux.fr
2 Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

Stress and university experience

Stress is an inevitable, normal and requisite result of being alive. It can be described as ‘physical,
mental, or emotional strain or tension’, as well as ‘a condition or feeling experienced when a per-
son perceives that demands exceed the personal and social resources the individual is able to mobi-
lize’ (American Institute of Stress, 2012). Excessive stress interferes with the person’s ability to
function normally. According to the transactional model (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), stress
occurs when an individual appraises a demanding situation as taxing or exceeding his or her coping
resources. The individual evaluates all events in terms of their significance for well-being. Demands
can be environmental or internal and are appraised in terms of harm, loss, threat or otherwise chal-
lenging well-being (Lazarus, 1993, 2006). While stress is considered a fundamental condition of
survival, excessive stress can negatively affect a person’s physical, emotional and psychological
well-being, impeding the body’s functioning, hindering adjustment and increasing the risk of ill-
ness (Selye, 1976). The experience of stress is dependent on an individual’s subjective appraisal of
a situation. Consequently, some situations will be perceived as sources of stress for some individu-
als, but not for others (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). However, the literature suggests that everyday
irritants or hassles are more detrimental to well-being than stressful life events (Weinberger et al.,
1987). Among undergraduates, daily hassles have been shown to be a greater risk factor than life
events in inducing stress (Burks et al., 1985).
Although the health impacts of stress have been recognized since the 1950s, it was not until the
1980s that university student stress became of interest (Szabo et al., 2012). It is internationally
acknowledged that studying at university can be a stressful experience for many individuals
(Larcombe et al., 2016). The transfer into a new physical and social environment is often accom-
panied by new relationships, financial demands and expectations which can increase levels of
psychological distress (Khawaja and Dempsey, 2008). Stressful university experiences can have
negative academic, emotional or health outcomes (Beck et al., 1997). Studies indicate that almost
80% of students report being moderately stressed or burned out which can be seen as alarming
(Larson, 2006; Misra and Castillo, 2004). Furthermore, research suggests that university students
experience a unique group of stressors that result in higher stress levels for students than for their
non-student peers (Ross et al., 1999). As an example of this, the prevalence of psychological dis-
tress among Australian university students surpasses that of the same-age non-student population
and that of the general Australian population (Khawaja and Dempsey, 2008). So far, research has
provided an understanding of the detrimental effects of excessive stress on students’ performance
and well-being (Gomathi et al., 2012; Lin and Huang, 2014).
The first months of university are a time of particular risk for students as they experience a
major life transition, requiring adaptation to a new social and academic environment (Fisher,
1994). New students enter unfamiliar environments, encounter difficult academic and social pres-
sures and leave behind established familial and peer support systems which can result in feelings
of isolation and loneliness impacting a student’s health and learning (Lin and Huang, 2012; Moffat
et al., 2004; Ross et al., 1999). Research on the relationship between stress and achievement in
undergraduates showed that high stress levels are associated with lower levels of achievement
(Baker, 2003; Hojat et al., 2003; McKenzie and Schweitzer, 2001; Robotham and Julian, 2006).
This relation might be explained by the fact that stress is known to impair crucial functions (i.e.
concentration and memory) for learning (Fisher, 1994; Khalsa, 1997).
A number of academic stressors such as assessments, difficulty of study and high workloads
have been identified. While some studies reported only minor academic-related stressors (Ross
et al., 1999), the majority of papers found that academic stressors were the major source of stress
for students (Gomathi et al., 2012; Muirhead and Locker, 2007; Nicholl and Timmins, 2005; Ong
Pitt et al. 3

and Cheong, 2009). Interpersonal and intrapersonal stressors have been reported in this population
(Al-Sowygh et al., 2013; Gomathi et al., 2012; Lin and Huang, 2012). Interpersonal difficulties
with peers, university staff and housemates often arise from the increased stress related to studying,
coupled with the emotional experience of exposure to diverse and new forms of relationships
found at university (Christie et al., 2008; Frymier and Houser, 2000; Ong and Cheong, 2009). In
addition, these novel experiences, together with the competitive nature of university, increase the
incidence of intrapersonal stressors for students such as a student’s fear of failure or the future and
a lack of belief in their own self-efficacy (Al-Sowygh et al., 2013; Gomathi et al., 2012; Moffat
et al., 2004). Academic ‘burnout’ in students – a state of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization
and reduced personal accomplishment – has been linked to academic stressors, as well as interper-
sonal stressors and anxiety about the future (Lin and Huang, 2014). Regarding psychological dis-
tress, an example of this comes from an Australian study which showed that the number of hours
spent studying per week and the number of hours spent caring for family members were all strongly
associated with severe levels of psychological distress (Larcombe et al., 2016). High academic
workload, perceived personal failure, competing priorities and personal and financial difficulties
have been found to be key reasons why students consider withdrawing from university studies
(Xuereb, 2014).
The incidence of financial stress for students has increased in recent years (Muirhead and
Locker, 2007; Robotham, 2008). Increased financial stress has resulted in greater numbers of stu-
dents working while studying, adding another element for students to balance in their life. For
example, in the United Kingdom, the government has steadily decreased funding for students
while widening participation in university education, thus increasing the financial pressures on
students (Robotham and Julian, 2006). In Australia, data on financial stress among tertiary students
confirmed the poorer financial position of students found elsewhere (Ryan, 2014). Stress involved
with clinical placements embedded into curricula has also been acknowledged (Cilingir et al.,
2011; Nicholl and Timmins, 2005; Tucker et al., 2006). Some of the clinical stressors identified
relate to difficulty with learning procedures, receiving criticism and inconsistent feedback
(Al-Sowygh et al., 2013). However, other research involving participants from programmes with
clinical components have failed to identify significant clinical stressors. One such study suggested
that their lack of significant clinical stressors may be related to their smaller class sizes or curricu-
lum factors (Walsh et al., 2010).
While it has been identified that commencing university can be particularly stressful, there
has been little research done on the impact of cumulative stressors over a period of time. Research
has shown that the effect stressors have on the immune system may be increased when there is
perceived stress due to other events. More particularly, students who are taking examinations
show weaker immune responses if they also report stress due to daily hassles (Graham et al.,
2006). Similarly, there is little information on how the perception of stress changes over time as
students adapt to new experiences. While there are a significant number of studies showing lev-
els and contributors to stress among students, there is little evidence of how these levels change
over time (Edwards et al., 2010). The stressors and stress level of students, however, can occur
at different time periods during a semester or years in college. Bewick et al. (2010) showed that
levels of strain are particularly high during semester 1, with significant reduction from semester
1 to semester 2. These results showed fluctuation in students’ mental health throughout the
degree course. However, contrary to those previous findings, Denovan and Macaskill (2017)
showed that stress scores measuring at different time points (i.e. the beginning of the academic
year and 6 months later) remained relatively stable over the first academic year. Those mitigate
results indicate that additional research is required for a more complete understanding of the
impacts of stress over time.
4 Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

This study aims to identify sources of stress during the critical period of first few weeks of the
first semester of the first year of a course and examine whether the stressors identified are more
prevalent at different times during the semester.

Methodology
Research design
This study used a mixed-methods design and collected both quantitative and qualitative data con-
currently over the length of the semester (Creswell, 2014). The primary researcher was a university
student from a different discipline to the participants, and the research was done as part of an hon-
ours degree. No relationships existed between participants and the researchers prior to or after the
research, and no incentives were provided to encourage participation, reducing potential researcher
or volunteer biases.
The study involved two phases of data collection: collection of electronic text messaging data
(quantitative and qualitative data) and a focus group (qualitative data). Qualitative data were used to
explore in more depth sources and timing of stress. Electronic messaging required weekly responses
from participants for the full 13 weeks of the semester. Focus group participants met twice during
the semester in week 9 and after final examinations at the end of the semester. Ethics clearance was
gained from the university’s Human Research Ethics Committee, and all participants provided
informed consent and were informed they could withdraw at any time without explanation.

Participants
First-year Bachelor of Nutrition students from a regional Australian university participated in the
study. Participants were recruited via a presentation by the primary author during the week 1 lec-
tures for this cohort (n = 388) in February/March 2014. A recording of this presentation and project
information was also made available to potential participants through the university intranet learn-
ing management system. To be included in the study, potential participants had to have felt stressed
at least once since starting university. Of the cohort targeted, 21 participants were nominated for
the study and were involved in the electronic messaging phase of the research. Of these, 11 partici-
pated for the full 13 weeks of the semester. Participants for the focus group were recruited from this
sample by electronic invitation to nominate for the group. Six participants from the original 21
were nominated to be part of the focus group. The demographic details for participants are shown
in Table 1. The majority of participants for all parts of the study were full-time female students,
studying a nutrition-related bachelor degree. With regard to the participant group, the majority of
electronic messaging participants who provided demographic data (77%, n = 10) were over the age
of 25 years, with 30% (n = 4) over the age of 45 years. All of the focus group participants were over
the age of 25 years. Only one participant was male.

Data collection
As part of the data collection process, participants were informed stressors could be university or
non-university related. Socio-demographic information was gathered using a questionnaire devel-
oped by the primary author which covered details of age, whether or not English was their first
language, gender, programme, whether or not they were the first in their family to go to university,
number of years of being a student, enrolment status (full-time or part-time), whether or not they
acted as a carer for someone and hours worked outside university.
Pitt et al. 5

Table 1.  Participant’s demographic details.a

Variable Electronic message, N Focus group, N (%)

Gender
 Male 1  
 Female 12 6 (100)
Age (years)
 17–24 3  
 25–34 3 4 (66.7)
 35–44 3 1 (16.7)
 45–64 4 1 (16.7)
Programme studying
 Nutrition 7 4 (66.7)
  Paramedic science 1  
  Exercise science  
  Other health/science 5 2 (33.3)
 Journalism/communication/legal/education  
Study load
 Full-time 11 6 (100)
English first language
 No 1 2 (33.3)
First in family at university
 Yes 4 2 (33.3)
Carer
 Yes 5 2 (33.3)
Years been at university
 1st 3 1 (16.7)
 2nd 4 1 (16.7)
  3 or more 6 4 (66.7)
Average hours worked/week
 0 6 3 (50)
 <10 3 1 (16.7)
 10–20 1 1 (16.7)
 >20 3 1 (16.7)
aSeven electronic message participants did not provide demographic details.

Electronic messages.  Data gathering via text messages was selected because research shows this is
an efficient and effective method to use with young adults (Kew, 2010). Two text messages or an
email were sent to participants weekly on Fridays (excluding the mid-semester break) for the
13 weeks of the first semester in the academic year 2014. A follow-up message was sent if no reply
had been received by the following Monday. Participants were asked to respond every week to the
electronic text message since semesters in Australian universities are divided into a weekly basis
and each week has different courses, assignments and importance over the semester.
Participants were required to rate (using a 1- to 10-point Likert scale) their perceived level of
stress for each week and nominate a major stressor for them that week (open-ended response). To
minimize risk for participants, messages also included a positive quote and Lifeline’s phone num-
ber. Participants were asked ‘What stressed you most this week? How stressed have you felt this
week?’ Responses were collated weekly. Participants reporting a high level of stress (9–10) were
6 Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

sent an encouraging reply (e.g. Start with the necessary and the rest will simply follow; Believe and
you can achieve) and advised to seek assistance if needed (e.g. Call Lifeline if you need help
131114).

Focus groups.  Focus groups were used to confirm and extend the data gathered via text messages.
According to Morse (1995) and Guest et al. (2006), the sample size used should be adequate to
reach data saturation, where no new concepts or themes are expected to be discovered in additional
participants. As data saturation was reached, the sample size used in this study (n = 6) was consid-
ered sufficient. Questions included what things or situations had caused students the most stress so
far (either a university- or non-university-related source of stress), were there any other reasons
they had felt stressed since the start of the university semester, which week(s) had been the most
stressful and why, what types of things had they done to deal with this stress, how well did they feel
that they had coped with or bounced back from this stress, were any sources of stress easier for
them to cope with than others and, if so, which ones or situations were easier and why. Participants
were asked whether they could come to some consensus about the most stressful weeks and also
the top, say, five sources of stress.
The first focus group was held during week 9 and the second after final examinations in a pri-
vate study room within the university. Groups were semi-structured and facilitated by the primary
author. Open-ended questions were used to gain in-depth information on participant’s major stress-
ors and weekly stress levels during the semester. Examples of questions included the following:
‘What week or weeks have been the most stressful this semester’ and ‘What about the middle of
the semester, what made that time stressful, remember it does not only have to be uni related’.
Sessions lasted between 70 and 100 minutes, including the time taken to explain group rules and
complete consent and demographic forms. Sessions were audiotaped for verbatim transcription.

Data analysis
Electronic messaging data.  For reliability reasons, those who provided data for 2–6 weeks only were
excluded from the analysis. Data from 13 participants out of original 21 were included for analysis.
Content analysis was used for qualitative electronic message data. This approach was appropriate
to identify word relationships and frequencies in the concise electronic message data (Grbich,
2013). Analysis started with identifying common codes, followed by recording the number of
times each code appeared in the data set (Grbich, 2013). Similar codes were then grouped and
themes identified.
SPSS 21 software package was used for quantitative data analysis, including descriptive statis-
tics such as means and standard deviations (SDs). All statistical analyses were conducted after
elimination of outliers. Week 7 data were excluded (values >2 SD of group means). It was assumed
that the anomalous result of week 7 was largely influenced by the mid-semester break. It is possible
that when messages were received on Friday, participants had already started their holiday, there-
fore providing an indication of their holiday stress level rather than their stress level during week
7. Normality of data was verified using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (p = 0.20). Pearson’s corre-
lations were computed to investigate the relationship between the level of stress and semester
week. The threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.

Focus group data.  Focus group transcripts were analysed using a thematic analysis approach. Tran-
scripts were initially read multiple times, followed by the recording of initial concepts and codes.
Codes were then reviewed and refined, and emerging categories and themes were identified (Braun
and Clarke, 2006). Deductive analysis was then undertaken to ensure no themes had been
Pitt et al. 7

overlooked, followed by further refining of themes via the grouping of commonalities. Qualitative
data analysis was initially completed by the primary researcher prior to co-researchers scrutinizing
the process and results. Discussion between researchers resulted in a consensus for qualitative data
analysis results. This process and the similarities between electronic message and focus group
participant’s results provide support for the argument of the credibility of these findings (Grbich,
2013).

Findings
Sources of stress
Types of stressors and frequency of reporting by participants in electronic messaging are shown in
Table 2. Stressor types were identified as academic, finances/work, personal, family-related, uni-
versity, interpersonal and environment-related stressors. Academic stressors were reported by the
greatest number of participants and five times more often than other types of stressors. Assessments,
workload and then examinations were the most frequent academic stressors. The second highest
reported stressors were those relating to university experience. ‘Starting university’ was reported
as a stressor by more than half of the participants.
The themes identified by focus group participants as stressors were lack of social support, uni-
versity/life balance, assessments and moving or starting university.

Lack of social support

All focus group participants identified the importance of social support in relation to stress levels.
Having insufficient social support resulted in an increase in stress. For example, Alice described
that she felt stressed when she was ‘… not getting support from like your friends or your partner
…’. Others explained that having social support reduced feelings of stress. Cassie explained that
‘… having someone to talk to, anybody … took the stress off’ during her long days at university.
Establishing supportive friendships within university was seen as, especially, important by most
participants.

University/life balance
Two participants described the stress of balancing university demands and having to undertake
paid work. This theme was expanded on by Alice who added a range of other life issues that needed
to be balanced with university demands such as ‘social, and like all that other stuff, like exercising,
and eating right and looking after yourself …’. A lack of balance was seen to negatively affect
sleep and family life and resulted in feelings of guilt when participants were involved in activities
aside from studying. For example, Lucy explained that ‘although I was already studying … every
day, whatever I was doing, even if I was just watching a movie with my partner, I still felt guilty
because I should have been studying’.

Assessment
Numerous stressors related to assessment pieces were reported by participants. Stress relating to
unclear assignment tasks was discussed in both focus groups. Alice reported stress when ‘everyone
thinks they’ve done … something really well, and then the whole grade gets their results back and
they’re [rubbish] …’. Examination-related stress was a prominent theme. Participants described
8 Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

Table 2.  Summary of electronic message participant’s stressors and percentage of participants reporting
each stressor.

Stressor Times stressor % of participants

reported reporting this stressor
Academic 122 94.4
 Assessments 34 83.3
 Workload 27 55.6
 Examinations 16 38.9
  Time management 11 44.4
  Being behind 9 44.4
  Difficult university work 7 16.7
  Waiting for results 5 22.2
 Other 15 50
Finances/work 24 38.9
 Finances 11 33.3
 Work 8 16.7
  University/work balance 5 22.2
Personal 23 50
 Health 17 44.4
 Other 6 11.1
Family-related 19 50
 Family-related 14 38.9
  University/family balance 5 22.2
University 17 66.7
  Starting university 10 55.6
 Other 7 22.2
Interpersonal 16 22.2
 Partner 7 16.7
 Other 9 11.1
Environment 10 22.8
 Transport 7 22.2
 Other 3 16.7

how examination stress prevented them from functioning normally. As Karla stated, ‘… for three
days after my last exam … I would just feel physically like, so exhausted’.
Group assessments and assessments worth a higher percentage of marks also caused stress for
most focus group participants. Group assessment stress was seen to result from different effort and
mark expectations among group members, and a lack of individual control over the quality of joint
work. Alice described this by saying, ‘no matter how much work I put into this group assignment,
I still can’t make everyone do it right’. Alternatively, group work at the start of a semester was
identified as a good way to find friends and social support. Assessments worth a high percentage
of marks were also seen as more stressful than those worth less. Increased stress resulted from the
fear that doing badly on an assessment worth high marks would prevent them obtaining the subject
result they wanted. A sub-theme of workload stressors was identified within assessment stressors.
Workload stress associated with multiple assessments being due was identified by all participants.
Karla described how this reduced her satisfaction with the finished assessment by saying this made
her feel like she could not ‘give my best to the assessment tasks in that particular week’.
Pitt et al. 9

Moving or starting university

The final focus group theme identified was moving or starting university. While some participants
found starting university exciting, others reported finding their way around and not following the
standard degree pathway stressful. Multiple participants also found it difficult to make new friends
when transferring part way through a course. As Karla identified, ‘I was like trying to like make
friends, it was really difficult. At least in year one everyone wants to meet … it was just really
awkward’.

Weekly stress levels

Data from both electronic messaging and focus group participants were used to identify the timing
of different stressors across the semester. For electronic messaging participants, Pearson’s correla-
tion revealed that perceived stress scores were positively associated with semester weeks, indicating
that stress levels increased significantly throughout the semester (r = 0.63, p = 0.028; see Figure 1).
Focus group participants described more stress during the second part of the semester, with one
participant saying some of the later weeks were ‘super-stressful’. All members of the second focus
group also identified the pre-examination study week and examination weeks as very stressful. For
example, a participant indicated that she ‘… couldn’t eat coz I was so anxious and stressed (during
final examinations)’. Only one focus group member explained after week 9 that she felt less
stressed as she was ‘on track’ with her assignments and was looking forward to the end of the
semester.
While stressors were identified as occurring throughout the semester, the source of stress dif-
fered at different times. The beginning of semester and commencing university was identified as a
stressful time by both electronic message participants and focus group members. Stress relating to
multiple assessments was more frequently reported towards the middle and end of semester by
focus group participants. Stress related to assessment was consistently reported by electronic mes-
saging participants from early in the semester (commencing in week 3) until the end of the

Figure 1.  Electronic message participant’s mean weekly stress levels.

10 Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

Figure 2.  Week stressors were reported more commonly during the semester.

semester; however, assessment workload stress increased towards the later weeks of the semester
(see Figure 2).

Discussion
Although research has identified major sources of stress among university students, no other stud-
ies seem to have examined student-related stressors at the critical period of the first few months of
the academic year and whether these stressors are more prevalent at different times. The stressor
themes identified by electronic message participants in order of frequency were academic, univer-
sity, interpersonal, personal, family-related, finances/work and environment-related stressors. A
number of similar stressors were identified by focus group participants. These themes included
social support, university/life balance, assessments and moving or starting university. Significant
academic-related stressors were identified by most participants. The finding that assessments,
workload and examinations are frequent academic stressors is consistent with other research
(Robotham, 2008; Tucker et al., 2006). Group work–related stress was also described as important
by focus group participants. While some studies have reported low group work–related stress
(Moffat et al., 2004), others have also reported significant stress related to this academic activity
(Cilingir et al., 2011; Ong and Cheong, 2009). It is not unexpected that academic and interpersonal
stressors are associated with working closely with others on assessment tasks. While intrapersonal
stressor themes have been reported by others (Al-Sowygh et al., 2013), they were generally not
identified as major stressors for participants. In this study, these stressors included thinking about
assessments, stress over students’ expectations for marks and a fear of failure.
The theme of university-related stressors was mostly reported early on in the academic year and
starting university (in some cases for the first time). According to Robotham (2008), starting uni-
versity-related stress results from changes such as to routines and social support and due to stu-
dents’ fear of the unknown. Participants discussed feeling stress especially from changes in social
support and everything being different when they started or moved universities. This is important
for student support services because transitioning to university involves an emotional process of
Pitt et al. 11

adjustment to a new set of relationships and community and can have an impact on the develop-
ment of the student as a learner (Christie et al., 2008; Lin and Huang, 2012).
Maintaining a balance between university and other life demands was also a prominent stressor.
This lack of balance was experienced between university and family, work, health related and
social demands. As with previous research, a lack of balance was found to negatively affect stu-
dent’s family life, continuation of personal health routines and led to feelings of guilt (Christie
et al., 2008; Gomathi et al., 2012). A lack of balance was also connected to financial and work
stress (i.e. some participants either stopped working due to a lack of balance or considered their
ability to continue studying due to financial concerns). This finding is consistent with research
showing significant financial and work-related stressors (Muirhead and Locker, 2007; Robotham,
2008). Therefore, first-year students might be at greater risk for financial and work stress due to the
challenging early adjustment time period of the first semester, and relevant information could be
provided as part of the university orientation sessions.
This study also aimed to examine whether some stressors are more prevalent at different times
during the critical period of first few weeks into the first semester. Generally, findings indicated
that the actual week of the semester has a significant relationship with stress level. This stress trend
is in line with findings indicating, that students were more stressed towards the end of the semester
(Moffat et al., 2004). However, the reason for this stress trend over the semester is unclear. The
majority of stressors reported closer to the end of the semester were academic related. It may be
that this trend is more indicative of an accumulation of perceived stress over the semester. According
to the ‘general adaptation syndrome’ (Selye, 1936), this increase in perceived stress might indicate
that the end of semester is a riskier period for negative stress-related consequences. Furthermore,
in the study described here, a number of stressors were found to be more prevalent near the start of
the semester, including adjusting to university life, difficult university work, and reading and
assessment workload. This result suggests that students early in the academic year are initially
overwhelmed due to the multiple changes and lack of familiarity with university or programme
expectations (Christie et al., 2008).
A pattern of assessment stressors was also identified. Assessment stressors were spread over
most of the semester, which is consistent with findings that assessment stress includes the time
taken to prepare for assessments (Nicholl and Timmins, 2005; Robotham, 2008). This pattern is
also consistent with the fact that participants were enrolled in different classes and would therefore
have assessments due at different times during the semester. Assessment workload stress also reap-
pears after the middle of the semester, indicating a period where multiple assessments were due.
These cumulative stressors result in increased stress (Muirhead and Locker, 2007) and potentially
amplified negative outcomes (Graham et al., 2006; Selye, 1936, 1976).
An increased prevalence of family-related stress was observed around week 3. This may indi-
cate that after a few weeks, the additional demands of university caused tension within partici-
pants’ family perhaps due to students’ inability to continue their family routines and roles. This
may be of particular relevance to the participants in this study as the majority of electronic mes-
saging participants and all of the focus group members were over the age of 25 years and therefore
more likely to be involved in established relationships or family networks. Tucker et al. (2006)
reported significant family stress due to dramatic changes in lifestyle and reduced time spent with
family while at university. A possible explanation for the later reduction in this stress is that stu-
dents were able to renegotiate family roles and responsibilities, reducing the prominence of this
stressor.
Financial and work stressors were seen more commonly between weeks 4 and 10. The initial
increase in this stressor is possibly associated with students using up their financial reserves cou-
pled with additional university-related expenses (Robotham, 2008). Assessment-related stress also
12 Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

increases in prevalence around this time. This finding could indicate that students are beginning to
focus on preparing assessments and would therefore have less time available to earn additional
money.
Some limitations of this study need to be acknowledged. Although statistically significant
results were seen for the increasing stress trend over the semester, the sample size was small. The
greater percentage of females compared to the wider student body and the fact that the research
was conducted over one semester at one university, within one particular discipline and within one
country may reduce the generalizability of these results. Additionally, volunteer bias may be pre-
sent with more stressed students possibly being less inclined to volunteer for the research (Hartman
et al., 2002). This study also had the potential to bias participants towards believing studying at
university is stressful. The data collection tools (electronic messaging questionnaire and weekly
questions) were not standardized, and therefore, reliability and validity were not confirmed.
Recommendations for further research include the replication of the study over longer duration in
larger sample sizes in which gender is relatively evenly spread. Cross-sectional research across
different universities in different countries is also recommended, as is the examination of stressors
across all years of study and within different disciplines.
This is one of the few studies to examine the source of stress levels for students and examine the
influence of semester time on levels of stress. The research identified a number of significant
sources of stress such as academic, finances/work, personal, family-related, interpersonal and
social support similar to other studies. It also identified others such as university/life balance and
moving or starting university. Importantly, this study suggests that the start and end of the first
semester constitute the riskiest periods for negative stress-related consequences because of multi-
ple overlapping stressors. This finding has implications for the development and delivery of sup-
port programmes for students, indicating that intervention to alleviate student stress should
particularly target both ends of the semester. The timing and range of stressors experienced by
students can be used in first-year university orientation programmes to better prepare students for
the semester ahead. Teaching and learning strategies can also be informed by the timing of particu-
lar stressors. Coordination of assessment tasks and the provision of support and information by
university staff could assist in better student management of stressors at particular times in the
semester.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References
Al-Sowygh ZH, Alfadley AA, Al-Saif MI, et al. (2013) Perceived causes of stress among Saudi dental stu-
dents. King Saud University Journal of Dental Sciences 4(1): 7–15.
American Institute of Stress (2012) Definition of stress. Available at: http://www.stress.org/Definition_of_
stress.htm
Baker SR (2003) A prospective longitudinal investigation of social problem-solving appraisal on adjust-
ment to university, stress, health, and academic motivation and performance. Personality and Individual
Differences 35(3): 569–91.
Beck DL, Hacket MB, Srivastava R, et al. (1997) Perceived level and sources of stress in university profes-
sional schools. Journal of Nursing Education 36(4): 180–86.
Bewick B, Koutsopoulou G, Miles J, et al. (2010) Changes in undergraduate students’ psychological well-
being as they progress through university. Studies in Higher Education 35(6): 633–45.
Braun V and Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology
3(2): 77–101.
Pitt et al. 13

Burks N, Martin B and Martin MA (1985) Every day’s problems and life change events: Ongoing versus
acute sources of stress. Journal of Human Stress 11(1): 27–35.
Christie H, Tett L, Cree VE, et al. (2008) ‘A real rollercoaster of confidence and emotions’: Learning to be a
university student. Studies in Higher Education 33(5): 567–81.
Cilingir D, Gursoy A, Hintisan S, et al. (2011) Nursing and mid-wifery college students’ expectations of their
educators and perceived stressors during education: A pilot study in Turkey. International Journal of
Nursing Practice 17(5): 486–94.
Creswell J (2014) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Denovan A and Macaskill A (2017) Stress and subjective well-being among first year UK undergraduate
students. Journal of Happiness Studies 18(2): 505–525.
Edwards D, Burnard P, Bennett K, et al. (2010) A longitudinal study of stress and self-esteem in student
nurses. Nurse Education Today 30(1): 78–84.
Fisher S (1994) Stress in Academic Life: The Mental Assembly Line. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Frymier AB and Houser ML (2000) The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship.
Communication Education 49(3): 207–19.
Gomathi KG, Ahmed S and Seedharan J (2012) Psychological health of first-year health professional students
in a medical university in the United Arab Emirates. Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal 12.
Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3327568/
Graham JE, Christian LM and Kiecolt-Glasser JK (2006) Stress, age and immune function: Toward a lifespan
approach. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 29(4): 389–400.
Grbich C (2013) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction, 2nd edn. London: SAGE.
Guest G, Bunce A and Johnson L (2006) How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data satura-
tion and variability. Field Methods 18(1): 59–82.
Hartman JM, Forsen JW, Wallace MS, et al. (2002) Tutorials in clinical research: Part IV: Recognizing and
controlling bias. The Laryngoscope 112: 23–31.
Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Erdmann JB, et al. (2003) Medical students’ cognitive appraisal of stressful life
events as related to personality, physical well-being and academic performance: A longitudinal study.
Personality and Individual Differences 35(1): 219–35.
Kew S (2010) Text messaging: an innovative method of data collection in medical research. BMC Research
Notes 3: 342.
Khalsa DS (1997) The Ageless Mind: New Developments in the Prevention and Reversal of Memory Loss.
Hilton: Head Island.
Khawaja NG and Dempsey JA (2008) Comparison of international and domestic tertiary students in Australia.
Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling 18: 30–46.
Larcombe W, Finch S, Sore R, et al. (2016) Prevalence and socio-demographic correlates of psychological
distress among students at an Australian university. Studies in Higher Education 41(6): 1074–91.
Larson EA (2006) Stress in the lives of college women: ‘Lots to do and not much time’. Journal of Adolescent
Research 21(6): 579–606.
Lazarus RS (1993) From psychological stress to the emotions: a history of changing outlooks. Annual Review
of Psychology 44: 1–21.
Lazarus RS (2006) Stress and Emotion: A New Synthesis. New York: Springer.
Lazarus RS and Folkman S (1984) Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.
Lin S and Huang H (2012) Investigating the relationships between loneliness and learning burnout. Active
Learning in Higher Education 13(3): 231–43.
Lin S and Huang H (2014) Life stress and academic burnout. Active Learning in Higher Education 15(1):
77–90.
McKenzie K and Schweitzer R (2001) Who succeeded at university? Factors predicting academic perfor-
mance in first year Australian university students. Higher Education Research and Development 20(1):
21–33.
Misra R and Castillo L (2004) Academic stress among college students: Comparison of American and inter-
national students. International Journal of Stress Management 11(2): 132–48.
14 Active Learning in Higher Education 00(0)

Moffat KJ, McConnachie A, Ross S, et al. (2004) First year medical student stress and coping in a problem-
based learning medical curriculum. Medical Education 38(5): 482–91.
Morse JM (1995) The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research 5(2): 147–9.
Muirhead V and Locker D (2007) Canadian dental students’ perceptions of stress. Journal of the Canadian
Dental Association 73(4): 323–9.
Nicholl H and Timmins F (2005) Programme-related stressors among part-time undergraduate nursing stu-
dents. Journal of Advanced Nursing 50(1): 93–100.
Ong B and Cheong K (2009) Sources of stress among college students – The case of a credit transfer program.
College Student Journal 43: 1279–86.
Robotham D (2008) Stress among higher education students: Towards a research agenda. Higher Education
56(6): 735–46.
Robotham D and Julian C (2006) Stress and the higher education student: A critical review of the literature.
Journal of Further and Higher Education 30(2): 107–17.
Ross SE, Niebling BC and Heckert TM (1999) Sources of stress among college students. College Students
33: 312–8.
Ryan C (2014) Youth Allowance and the Financial Position of Young Australians. Australian Economic
Review 47(1): 115–123.
Selye H (1936). A syndrome produced by diverse nocuous agents. Nature 138 (3479, July 4): 32.
Selye H (1976) Forty years of stress research: Principal remaining problems and misconceptions. Canadian
Medical Association Journal 115(1): 53–6.
Szabo S, Tache Y and Somogyi A (2012) The legacy of Hans Selye and the origins of stress research: A ret-
rospective 75 years after his landmark brief ‘letter’ to the editor of Nature. Stress 15(5): 472–8.
Tucker B, Jones S, Mandy A, et al. (2006) Physiotherapy students’ sources of stress, perceived course
difficulty, and paid employment: Comparison between Western Australia and United Kingdom.
Physiotherapy: Theory and Practice 22(6): 317–28.
Walsh JM, Feeney C, Hussey J, et al. (2010) Sources of stress and psychological morbidity among under-
graduate physiotherapy students. Physiotherapy 96(3): 206–12.
Weinberger M, Hiner SL and Tierney WM (1987) In support of hassles as a measure of stress in predicting
health outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 10(1): 19–31.
Xuereb S (2014) Why students consider terminating their students and what convinces them to stay. Active
Learning in Higher Education 15(2): 145–56.

Author biographies
Adele Pitt holds a Bachelor of Nursing (with Distinction) and Bachelor of Occupational Therapy (Honours).
Address: T4 16B building T 90 Sippy Downs Drive, Sunshine Coast, Queensland 4556, Australia. [email:
adele_pitt@hotmail.com]
Florin Oprescu is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Science, Health and Education at the University of the
Sunshine Coast. He is a health promotion and communication specialist. His formal qualifications include
medicine (MD), public health (MPH, PhD), business management (MBA) and education (Grad Cert). He
works on initiatives, including health promotion education, health communication, injury prevention and
translation of scientific findings into practical and accessible public health content, especially for vulnerable
populations and limited resource settings. Address: T3.34 building T 90 Sippy Downs Drive, Sunshine Coast,
Queensland 4556, Australia. [email: foprescu@usc.edu.au]
Geraldine Tapia is an Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology at the Faculty of Psychology in the University
of Bordeaux in France. She developed a strong interest for the link between trauma and substance use behav-
iours: people who experienced a trauma are more prone to substance use and other health-damaging behav-
iours. Address: EA 4139 – Laboratory of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bordeaux, 3 ter
Place de la Victoire, 33076 Bordeaux Cedex, France. [email: geraldine.tapia@u-bordeaux.fr]
Marion Gray is currently the Discipline Leader of Occupational Therapy and Leader for the Cluster for Health
Improvement at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland. She undertook her undergraduate study in
Pitt et al. 15

occupational therapy before undertaking postgraduate study in ethics and public health all in Otago, New
Zealand. Prof. Gray completed her postdoctoral training in environmental epidemiology at the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology in Washington, DC before taking up a teaching and research position for 5 years at
James Cook University, followed by the University of the Sunshine Coast. Her research interests include
allied health education and practice, Indigenous health, chronic disease management, and prostate cancer
epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. Address: T3.29 building T 90 Sippy Downs Drive, Sunshine Coast,
Queensland 4556, Australia [email: marion.gray@usc.edu.au]