Master Thesis Yifan Yu

Eindhoven University of Technology
MASTER
Disentangling the Relationships between Student Well-being and Academic Performance in

Online Learning
Yu, Y.
Award date:
2021
Link to publication
Disclaimer
This document contains a student thesis (bachelor's or master's), as authored by a student at Eindhoven University of Technology. Student
theses are made available in the TU/e repository upon obtaining the required degree. The grade received is not published on the document
as presented in the repository. The required complexity or quality of research of student theses may vary by program, and the required
minimum study period may vary in duration.
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
Eindhoven, 09-2021
Disentangling the Relationships between Student
Well-being and Academic Performance in Online
Learning
by Yifan Yu
identity number 1374753
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
in Human-Technology interaction
Supervisors:
Uwe Matzat
Chris Snijders
STUDENT WELL-BEING AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 2
Content
Abstract............................................................................................................................................3
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................4
2 Literature Review .......................................................................................................................6
2.1 Academic engagement and performance ........................................................................7
2.2 Academic burnout and performance ................................................................................9
2.3 The mediation effect of well-being on performance ................................................. 14
3 Method ...................................................................................................................................... 20
3.1 Participants ........................................................................................................................... 20
3.2 Procedure .............................................................................................................................. 21
3.3 Measures................................................................................................................................ 21
3.4 Data analysis ......................................................................................................................... 22
4. Results ...................................................................................................................................... 24
4.1 Descriptive statistics of study variables ......................................................................... 24
4.2 Regression analysis ............................................................................................................. 27
4.3 The effect of obstacles and facilitators on the performance/well-being ............. 30
5. Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 33
6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 39
Reference ..................................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix A: survey questions ................................................................................................. 47
Appendix B: Tables of regression analysis ........................................................................... 48
Appendix C: Analysis for smaller sample (N=96) ............................................................... 51
Abstract
Under the COVID-19 health edicts, many universities or colleges were forced to
fundamentally change their teaching methods. Online learners were confronted with
specific problems, such as a lack of attention, procrastination in learning, or low learning
efficiency due to this pandemic and a long period of quarantine. This study investigated
the temporal relations between well-being (academic engagement and student burnout)
and academic performance. Besides, it also studied the relationships between learning
obstacles/facilitators, well-being, and performance which were gained for traditional
(offline) learning still are valid for online learning and which new obstacles and
facilitators show up. Two waves of data were collected among 117 students from TU/e
and the results showed that there was no significant relationship between well-being and
academic performance during online education. Facilitators and obstacles in online
learning influenced academic engagement and performance. The findings addressed the
role of learning obstacles and facilitators in online learning, as well as gives practical
suggestions for students in online learning during the pandemic.
Key words: engagement, burnout, performance, obstacles, facilitators

1 Introduction
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to a significant change in countries all
over the world. Education, the daily life of people, economies, and healthcare systems were
altered in many aspects. For example, people are required to wear mouth masks on public
transport, and people need to keep social distance from each other in the stores. Under this
circumstance, many universities or colleges were forced to switch their teaching methods. Almost
all universities in the Netherlands were closed temporarily or open limitedly and provided
education or other services/support online because of the pandemic, which led to changes in
education-related resources and study demands (van Zly, Rothmann, & Zondervan-Zwijnenburg,
2021). Universities closed libraries, closed buildings on campus, canceled all offline lectures, and
probably delayed exams or assignments, which make the studying situation of students difficult
during the long period of online learning (Meeter et al., 2020).
Online learners were confronted with specific problems, such as a lack of student
attention, procrastination in learning, low learning efficiency, or high exam anxiety (Zhou et al.,
2020; Xu, 2020). Also, a long period of quarantine or isolation experience may have led to
psychological distress which made students difficult to pay attention to or engage in many types
of activities, including social, working, and leisure activities (Brooks et al., 2020). Therefore, it is
important to pay attention to students’ psychological state. Besides, from the view of students’
accomplishments and universities’ educational purposes, it is also indispensable to take students’
academic performance into account besides students’ well-being.
Many researchers have studied the relationships between well-being and academic
performance. There is consensus that students’ well-being has an impact on academic
performance (Taris, 2006; Cazan, 2015; Azimi, Piri, & Zavaar, 2013). Some scholars also
investigated the mutual relationship between well-being and academic performance (Salanova,
Schaufeli, Martinez, & Breso, 2010; Bucker, Nuraydin, Simonsmeier, Schneider, & Luhmann,
2018). Buker et al. (2018) found that there is only a small to a medium correlation between
subjective well-being, of which affective dimension is close to the burnout, and academic
performance in their meta-analysis. Moreover, they concluded that more evidence is needed for
establishing a mutual relationship between subjective well-being and academic performance since
only a quarter of the studies used in the meta-analysis was based on longitudinal studies. Hence,
they conclude that mutual causal influences still need to be clarified. Additionally, their study did
not consider the potentially other relevant factors into account, which may have moderation effect
or mediation effect such as exam anxiety and desire for the academic achievement, and most
studies were conducted among White/Caucasian people. Salanova et al. (2010) tested in a
longitudinal design whether study burnout and engagement had an effect on students’ academic
performance, and whether burnout and engagement mediated the effect of specific performance
obstacles and facilitators on academic performance. They do so by extending the findings of the
job demands-resources model (JD-R model). They found that engagement did have an effect on
performance, and that is was a mediator that explained the effect of several “learning obstacles
and facilitators” on performance. However, they did not find a significant relationship between
burnout and academic performance, which is not in line with many other studies (Sharififard,
Asayesh, Hosseini, & Sepahvandi, 2020; Galbraith, & Merrill, 2015). Their results (lack of an
effect of burnout) might have been affected by the rather large time lag between measurement of
well-being and subsequent academic performance. In our study, we will improve on this. In
addition, we clarify whether previous insights about the relationships between learning
obstacles/facilitators, well-being, and performance that were gained for traditional (offline)
learning still are valid for online learning and which new obstacles and facilitators show up.
Hence our research question is formulated as follows:
How do the students’ psychological well-being (engagement and burnout) and academic
performance influence each other and which obstacles and facilitators for online learning exist?
2 Literature Review
Academic burnout and engagement are common indicators of student well-being.
Engagement in learning refers to the amount of time and effort that students invest in academic
and educational activities and a positive, work-related mental state which is characterized by
energy (Kuh, Buckley, & Bridges, 2006; Bakker, & Oerlemans, 2011). Academic burnout refers
to feeling exhausted emotionally, having a cynical attitude toward one’s learning, and a lack of
accomplishment (Maslach, 1981; Schaufeli, & Bakker, 2004).
With regard to the individual factors related to burnout and engagement, personality as an
intrinsic psychological factor has attracted much attention. A survey conducted by Anuradha and
Jha (2014) among Indian students, in which Eysenck’s personality questionnaire (EPQ) was used,
showed that neurotics personality has a significant tendency to develop burnout-related symptoms
while there was a negative relationship between extraversion personality and student burnout.
Hansen, Villar, and Fracchia (2016) found that burnout syndromes are more likely to be present
in students who had low extraversion and high neuroticism. People regarding performance as
personal value are more sensitive to burnout than people who have a non-contingent sense of self-
value (Hallberg, Johansson, & Schaufeli, 2007). In addition, staff who work in the hospitals and
students who study nursing and medicine are very vulnerable to burnout syndrome since they are
exposed to physical and psychological stressors (Talaei, Mokhberm, Mohanmmad-Nejad, &
Samari, 2008). Many researchers advise to carry out some interventions to reduce the impact of
burnout and lack of engagement for the most vulnerable students.
The following literature review begins with introducing the definition and measurement
tools of student well-being (academic burnout and academic engagement) and then summarizes
the studies on the relationship between burnout and academic performance. By reviewing the
previous studies about well-being in the educational field, summarizing the different conclusions
about the relationships between well-being and academic performance, and discovering the
potential improvements for the previous studies, we finally put forward our own models and
hypotheses about the relationship between well-being and academic performance. In addition, we
introduce the JD-R model, including its factors and the dynamic process, and subsequently
showed its application in the academic situation. In the last part, we discuss potential obstacles
and facilitators for students in online learning.
2.1 Academic engagement and performance
Engagement is an important indicator of student performance that has attracted
considerable attention (Kuh, 2001). Based on the definition from Bakker and Oerlemans (2011),
higher academic engagement means to be willing to put more effort in the study and it is usually
measured via self-reports. For example, Connell and Wellborn (1991) developed the Rochester
Assessment Package for Schools (RAPS), in which the items measuring students’ behaviors and
emotional engagement became the researchers’ main reference scale; Martin (2009) developed
the motivation and engagement scale (MES), which included 44 items; Schuafeli, Martinez, Pinto,
Salanova, and Bakker (2002) developed Utrecht Work Engagement Scale – Student version
(UWES-S) which includes three dimensions (vigor, dedication, and absorption). Study
engagement can be affected by support from teachers, teachers’ behaviors, teachers’ attitudes,
and expectancy towards students (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Ryan, Gheen, &
Midgley, 1998; Meece, 1988). It is known that the COVID-19 pandemic has a huge impact on the
relationship and interaction between students and teachers. Therefore, it is important to study the
content of engagement to get better guidance for future online education.
Study engagement can be linked to student success and enhancing academic performance
(Martinez, & Micket, 2013; van Beek, Kranenburg, Taris, & Schuafeli, 2013). Moilterni, Stasio,
Carboni, and Chiacchio (1990) considered that the nature of cognitive engagement implies the
level of self-regulated learning, which means that students who use more and deeper cognitive
strategies are more engaged in their learning than students who use more shallow learning
strategies, therefore students exerting more mental effort, create, associate actively, and have a
better understanding for studying content. This point may help to explain the causal effect of
study engagement on academic performance. Van Beek et al. (2013) recruited 565 Dutch
university students and found that there is a positive association between study engagement and
performance. But their study is not a longitudinal study, so the temporal order of engagement and
academic performance is not clear in their study. Salanova et al. (2010) showed that student
engagement (vigor and dedication) is the antecedent of academic performance by a longitudinal
study conducted on 527 students from a Spanish university. However, a significant association
between burnout and academic performance was not found in their study, which is not in line
with many other studies (Sharififard et al., 2020; Galbraith, & Merrill, 2015; Van Beek et al.,
2013; Gómez et al., 2015). Although they did not provide a clear time lag, it is probably 5 months
(1 semester) between measurements of well-being and performance according to their method
description. Therefore, the conclusion might be affected by the rather large time lag in their study
and the present study focuses on the mutual relationships between them by two waves of data and
using a shorter time lag.
There are still not many researchers studying whether and how previous academic
performance has an influence on student engagement, although performance feedback (knowing
their own grades) can have an impact on students’ self-efficacy, which is also known as an
indicator of well-being (Bestson, Berg, & Smith, 2018). The longitudinal study of Salanova et al.
(2010) found that previous performance can predict the future engagement. The longitudinal
study of Palos, Maricutoiu, and Costea (2019) also showed that previous grades can influence the
following student engagement among 162 Romanian students. The causal effect of performance
on engagement may be explained by that people with better performance are willing to take more
effort to adjust themselves or adapt to learning life in the following studying since students with
higher performance tend to show better adjustment, motivation, and adaption in school or society
(Rienties, Beausaert, Grohnert, Niemantsverdrist, & Kommers, 2012; Liu, & Hou, 2018;
Steinmavr et al., 2016). Now, we did not know whether this causal effect of performance on the
following student engagement can be held in online learning.
There are no studies about the reciprocal relationship between engagement and academic
performance, besides the mentioned studies from Salanova et al. (2010) and Palos et al. (2019).
Hence, exploration of the mutual relationship, especially the temporal order, between student
engagement and academic performance still needs to be investigated in online teaching. We
assume there is a reciprocal relationship between student engagement and academic performance.
H1(a): previous academic performance has a positive effect on future student engagement.
H1(b): student engagement in the previous period has a positive effect on future
academic performance.
Figure 1. The hypothesized model for engagement and performance
2.2 Academic burnout and performance
Burnout is another common indicator of well-being. The former studies on burnout
usually focus on the vocational field, for example, nurses and doctors in the health care system,
teachers, and social workers, whose work is related to “people” (Maslach, & Jackson, 1981).
Freudenberger (1974) provided a relatively clear definition of the concept of “burnout”:
exhausted, listless, and unable to cope. Pines and Kafry (1980) pointed out that learning burnout
is pretty similar to occupational burnout, in which students become exhausted because of the high
pressure of schoolwork for a long period and they lose interest in academic work gradually. After
that, many scholars began to pay attention to learning burnout. Maslach (1981) developed the
Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) to assess people’s burnout situation. In this inventory, burnout
of people is assessed from three dimensions (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and lack of
personal accomplishment). Gold, Bachelor, and Michael (1989) modified MBI to make it more
suitable to the campus situations to investigate college student’s future burnout. The Oldenburg
Burnout Inventory (OLBI; De Merouti, Bakker, Vardakou, & Kantas, 2003) consists 16 items and
included two dimensions of burnout (exhaustion and disengagement). Slivar (2001) found that
learning burnout can be affected by work overload, lack of control, insufficient reward,
breakdown of community, absence of fairness, and conflicting values. Learning burnout is also
associated with academic pressure, health, and fellowship (Stilger, Etzel, & Lantz, 2001).
Many cross-section studies proved that burnout is negatively related to academic
performance. Azimi et al. (2013) explored the relationship between academic burnout and
academic performance among students (N=379) from Ardabil city high schools and the result
showed that there was a negative relationship between academic burnout dimensions and the
average grade of the academic semester. In the study of May, Baurt, and Fincham (2015) among
American undergraduate students, increased burnout measured by School Burnout Inventory can
be associated with lower GPA. Besides, there is a negative relationship between burnout and
academic cognitive performance which is measured by the Stroop task and serial subtraction task,
which may help to investigate the mechanism of the effect of burnout on academic performance.
However, Sharififard et al. (2020) only found that student burnout measured by MBI is only
weakly related to the mean scores of the whole semesters among 264 nursing and paramedical
students in Iran. Gómez et al. (2015) investigated the relationship between well-being and
academic performance among 277 medical students in Chile, and they only found a significant
association between engagement and academic performance but no association between burnout
and performance. Therefore, the conclusion about the relationship between burnout and
performance remains to be discussed, especially when mentioned studies are all non-longitudinal
studies that cannot disentangle the relationship between student burnout and performance over
time.
There are only a limited number of longitudinal studies focusing on the causal effect of
student burnout on academic performance. The causal effect of burnout on the performance may
be explained as follows: burnout makes students experience ongoing negative emotions, low
motivation, and disengagement (Zhang et al., 2007), so students lose interest in their learning and
display more irresponsible behaviors in academic activities, which probably leads to worse
performance. In the longitudinal study of Salanova et al. (2010), burnout cannot predict future
performance. But one of the dimensions of burnout, “exhaustion”, is negatively related to future
academic performance. Palos et al. (2019) also failed to confirm the predictive effect of burnout
on future performance in a longitudinal design. However, they did not test the relationship
between subscales of burnout and performance. Thus, it is not very clear the specific effect of
burnout on performance, especially in online learning.
Some researchers found that performance achievement can predict burnout (Steinmayr,
Crede, McElvany, & Wirthwein, 2016; Palos et al., 2019) and it may be explained by the fact that
higher achievement fulfills the need for the competence of students that leads to better subjective
well-being (Bucker et al., 2018). As mentioned in the Engagement part, the previous achievement
can influence people’s adjustment (Beston et al., 2018) and motivation (Liu, & Hou, 2018),
therefore it is possible that students will adjust their mood, change learning methods, and so on.
Steinmayr et al. (2016) conducted a longitudinal survey among 290 German high school students
and the result indicated that Grade Point Average (GPA) can positively predict the changes in
subjective well-being. In their study, they chose life satisfaction as the indicator of student well-
being to predict student performance. However, academic engagement and burnout may be more
predictive for students’ performance since engagement and burnout can directly show students’
effort on the study and emotional states and earlier studies also used engagement and burnout as
student well-being. Palos et al. (2019) found that high academic performance can be seen as an
antecedent for high academic engagement and low burnout in a longitudinal study among 162
Romanian college students. However, there is a possible limitation in their study: over three-
quarters of participants are females, and in their results, there is a marginally significant gender
difference of burnout in the second measurement. Therefore, their conclusion can be improved by
a sample with a more balanced structure. Salanova et al. (2010) did not find the association
between burnout and performance. The inconsistency may be caused by the different time lags
between measurements. In the study of Palos et al. (2019), there is a 7-week interval, while
Salanova et al. (2010) did not provide a clear time lag.
There are not many studies disentangling the mutual relationship between student
burnout and performance. Ng, Huebner, and Hills (2015) revealed a reciprocal relationship
between academic performance and life satisfaction whose emotional dimension is close to
burnout by using two waves of data (time lag is 5 months) among 821 students from an American
middle school. Additionally, a meta-analysis conducted by Bucker et al. (2018) examined the
association between academic performance and subjective well-being by analyzing 47 studies
with 38946 participants in total. The results showed that there was only small to medium
correlation between them, which suggested that students with low performance may experience
low well-being and vice versa. Since the emotional dimensions of subjective well-being and
burnout are close, the relationships between burnout and performance, and subjective well-being
and performance can be similar. However, Salanova et al. (2010) did not find any relationship
between burnout and grades by using cross-lagged analysis and Palos et al. (2019) only found that
performance has an effect on burnout in their longitudinal study. Considering that the educational
contexts in offline learning are pretty different from traditional learning and the pandemic has a
huge effect on student well-being, it is necessary to investigate whether there is a relationship
between well-being and academic performance. And it is still not clear that the temporal order of
academic performance and burnout: is burnout the antecedent of performance or vice versa?
Based on the previous studies, we can see that more researchers focused on the causal
effect of well-being on academic performance while only a few studies considered the possibility
that there is a reciprocal relationship between them. The conclusions about the relationship
between academic burnout of students and performance are not consistent: some studies found
there is a negative association between performance and burnout (Azimi et al., 2013; May et al.,
2015) while some scholars did not find significant associations (Salanova et al., 2010). This
inconsistency may be explained in the following way. It is possible that there exist reciprocal
effects between well-being and academic performance, but the casual effect of student well-being
on performance is relatively short, so the previous studies in which the lagged time was always
more than 1 semester cannot find the expected findings. Consequently, our present study will
continue to investigate the mutual relationship between student burnout and academic
performance by using cross-lagged analyses (the lagged time is 1 quartile). And we assumed that
burnout and academic performance can influence each other.
H2(a): previous academic performance has a negative effect on subsequent student
burnout.
H2(b): student burnout in the previous period has a negative effect on subsequent
academic performance.
Figure 2. The hypothesized model for burnout and performance

2.3 The mediation effect of well-being on performance
2.3.1 The JD-R model
The JD-R framework is the most popular theoretical framework to study the relationship
between the well-being of employees and job performance, and it shows the dynamic interactions
between job demands and resources which have an influence on occupational engagement
(Bakker, Demerouti, De Boer, & Schaufeli, 2003). “Job demands” are related to the requirement
from psychological, social, physical, or organizational aspects. These include, for example, high
work pressure, and a poor working environment. “Job resources” refers to things that can reduce
job demands, function in completing tasks, and motivate personal growth. These include, for
example, the support from supervisors, and pay. Employee well-being usually consists of work
engagement, burnout, happiness at work, and workaholism (Bakker, & Oerlemans, 2011).
According to the model, lack of job resources and excessive job requirement will lead to
occupational burnout and will finally have a negative impact on employees and organizations, for
example, negative performance, recurrent absence and low organizational commitment. In turn,
enriched job resources will lead to higher engagement and finally have a positive impact on
employees and organizations, such as high performance, and high retention commitment.
Although there are various jobs in society, the JD-R model still shows its good generalizability
across different working environments which may be caused by the fact that all jobs have
corresponding job demands and job resources (Shaufeli, & Bakker, 2004). Therefore, it is useful
to apply the JD-R model in the non-occupational field, for example, in our study, in the
educational field.
2.3.2 The JD-R model in education
One of the propositions in the JD-R model is that enriched job demands will impair
employees’ job resources and then lead to worse psychological well-being while poor job
resources will impede people’s job accomplishment and then lead to quitting from work (Bakker
et al., 2003), which implies mediating relationships among job demands/resources, psychological
well-being, and performance. Furthermore, a number of previous studies also are in line with this
conclusion (Hakanen, Schaufeli, & Ahola, 2008; Llorens, Bakker, Schaufli, and Salanova, 2006).
In their studies, burnout and engagement of employees can mediate the relationship between job
demands/resources and negative/positive performance in the working environment. Salanova et al.
(2010) extended the findings of the JD-R model to the educational field by replacing job
resources and job demands with performance obstacles and performance facilitators. In their
study, “obstacles” refers to the tangible characteristics restricting performance, such as “the
printer is broken”, “financial issues”, or “too many tasks to do everything well”; facilitators are
the factors which can enhance performance, such as “social support from family and friends”,
“personal expectations for success in studies”, or “tutoring time available”. Finally, their results
indicated that psychological well-being, especially academic engagement, mediated the effect of
obstacles and facilitators on future performance (GPA). The mediating effect of burnout is not
shown in their study, but obstacles and facilitators have a significant impact on academic burnout.
Gusy, Worfel, and Lohmann (2016) pointed out that the characteristics shared by
working and studying contexts are similar. For example, students and staff in companies are
doing pressure-related activities (studying for assignments or exams vs working for tasks) in an
organized and structured place. So, there are other studies focusing on the mediation effect of
well-being on academic achievement by applying the JD-R model in line with the study of
Salanova et al. (2010). In the study of Akkermans, Paradnike, Heijden, and De Vos (2018)
conducted in Lithuania, the career adaptability and career competencies (facilitators) are
positively and indirectly related to academic performance of 672 undergraduate students from 9
different colleges in the following sense. The effect of the facilitators on performance is mediated
by study engagement. However, they used the grades of the previous semester as academic
performance, which may not reflect the performance in the current semester correctly. So, the
conclusion about the mediation effect of well-being on the grades can be improved. Lesener,
Pleiss, Gusy, and Wolter (2020) conducted a survey among a large sample of German university
students (N=5660) to study the JD-R model in education and concluded that “bad things”, such as
“lacking time to do study-related tasks”, at university can significantly predict the burnout of
students whereas “good things”, such as “getting advice from lecturers regarding study-related
issues” can predict students’ engagement and burnout. But they only tested how student
engagement and burnout mediated the relationship between facilitators/obstacles and self-
reported satisfaction for working and learning that they used as the indicator for health and
performance. It remains unclear how academic performance (GPA), as an objective and relatively
long-term outcome, is affected in similar ways as self-reported satisfaction. Many studies also
came to the similar conclusion that study resources and study demands are associated with
burnout and engagement (Mokgele, & Rothmann, 2014; Robins, Roberts, & Sarries, 2015). On
the whole, JD-R model is applied and developed well in the education field and many “study
demands” and “study resources” have shown up, like psychological flexibility, time pressure, and
support from teachers (Robins et al., 2015; Lesener et al., 2020). However, most previous studies
investigated the mediation effect of well-being on long-term academic performance (one semester
or one academic year) and effects over a shorter period of time have never been tested and these
results are all confirmed in traditional learning (on-campus). Hence, our current study used one
quartile as the lagged time and examine the mediation effect in online learning.
There is another reason to study the effects of facilitators and obstacles again. During the
long lockdown led from COVID-19, the role of obstacles and facilitators probably need to be paid
more attention to because the types or effects of these facets may have changed. Gao et al. (2020)
showed that people are experiencing lower sleep quality although people spend more time in bed
in their report and people are obsessed with social media. The hours being spent on academic
assignments or lectures and the motivation of students are affected by increasing stress during the
pandemic (González-Sanguino et al., 2020). Therefore, it is important to study the obstacles and
facilitators in the online learning environment, especially during the long lockdown. Also, based
on the earlier research, we can hypothesize that student well-being can mediate the effect of
obstacles and facilitators on academic performance in online learning.
Figure 3. The hypothesized model for well-being, obstacles/facilitators, and academic

performance
H3: Students’ well-being mediates the effect of obstacles/facilitators on the academic
performance.
2.3.3 potential obstacles and facilitators during online learning
Online learning has become an important means for students to complete their studies
during COVID-19. One crucial change for students from offline learning to online learning is the
housing situation, especially as people are advised to stay home and traveling is restricted. A
survey among Albanian students (N=627) showed that students had a more positive attitude to the
classroom learning environment since they had to be confronted with the unavailability of the
internet during the lectures and held the view that online learning cannot replace the role of
classroom (Xhelili, Ibrahimi, Rruci, & Sheme, 2021). Students will get access to the technology
devices and course materials easily on campus as almost all universities have libraries and offer
photocopying devices while it may be hard to have continuous access to online resources for
some students at home because of the places they live. Also, long-term learning at home means
that students always have to stay with their parents and their siblings in a house all the time. In
this situation, it may be difficult for students to concentrate on their studying since there are
possible noises from the streets or caused by chatting, noisy neighbors, and screaming younger
siblings. Ramane, Devare and Kapatkar (2021) also confirmed that students get distracted due to
disturbances including surrounding noises and accessibility of the internet. Besides, during the
pandemic, people are nervous and pay more attention to the health of their own and families
(Dhaheri et al., 2021), which makes people emotionally burnout and hard to take effort into
learning (engagement), especially if any family member in the home is sick. Therefore, in our
study, we regard the housing situation as a very important obstacle, which refers to a lack of
dedicated study space, a lack of internet connectivity and care work for family members.
The first facilitator we are going to investigate is the support from instructors. Online
learning has certain weakness that it is troublesome for teachers and students to communicate
directly with each other due to the limitations of the current technology. Under this situation,
support from instructors plays a crucial role in students’ learning experience (Kwon, Liu, &
Johnson, 2014; Chi, 2017). In traditional teaching, the positive teaching style of lecturers
contributes to a sense of belonging to a group or community and is able to make students more
active and effective in their learning (Kwon et al., 2014). Chi (2017) also reported that teacher
autonomy support, emotional support, and competence support all have significant effects on the
study engagement through analysis of 758 questionnaires from Chinese students. Salanova et al.
(2010) regarded “tutoring time available” and “good social relationships with teachers” as
facilitators and found social facilitators are positively related to engagement and negatively
related to burnout. The direct effect of teacher support on academic achievement has also been
proved by some studies in on-campus teaching (Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 1998; Kwon et al.,
2014). In online learning, Molinillo, Aguilar-lllescas, Anaya-Sánchez, and Vallespín-Arán (2018)
concluded that interaction between students and teachers can influence active learning of students
which required a high level of academic engagement. The study of Luo, Zhang, and Qi (2017)
showed that student-teacher interaction can significantly influence students’ sense of community,
which is an important factor of well-being and can have a crucial effect on students’ satisfaction.
Based on the mentioned studies, in online learning, it is possible that support from instructors can
positively affect academic engagement and negatively affect the burnout of students by solving
difficulties students have in the learning process, improving students’ sense of community and
enhancing active learning. Hence, we include the support from instructors as a facilitator in our
model.
The second facilitator included in this study is autonomy. Autonomy is associated with
individual will and refers to the need that students perceive to be in the experience of behavior as
voluntary and self-endorsed. The effect of autonomy on well-being can be explained by Self-
determination theory (SDT). SDT is a theory of human personality and motivation (Ryan, & Deci,
2000). It assumes that people are striving to satisfy their basic psychological needs of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness when they are interacting with the environment. The type of
motivation (intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external
regulation) will be determined by how these needs are fulfilled (Ryan, & Deci, 2004). Autonomy
addresses that people do something because they want to do it (e.g., I study medicine because I
want to heal other people) and it is important for the level of motivation: the more autonomously
a behavior is regulated, the higher the motivation (Ryan, & Deci, 2000; Ryan, & Deci, 2004).
Students need the chance to experience a sense of autonomy, so they are more likely to know the
value of courses and then become more engaged in the learning tasks (Deci, Ryan, & Williams,
1996). The effect of autonomy on well-being has been shown in some studies (Nahrgang,
Morgeson, and Hofmann, 2011; Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010; Ljubin_golub, Rijavec, & Olčar,
2020). In a meta-analysis about job safety Nahrgang et al. (2011) agreed that job autonomy, as
one job resource, is positively related to job engagement. The study of Jang et al. (2010) also got
a similar conclusion in education, i.e., there is a positive relationship between the autonomy of
students and engagement. The study of Ljubin-Golub et al. (2020), conducted among 213
Croatian university students, indicated that students who perceived more autonomy experienced
more autonomous learning and subsequently led to less burnout. In all, the autonomous learning
makes students motivated and, in a result, students will invest more effort and feel less burnout.
Hence, autonomy is a possible facilitator to improve academic performance in our model.
In summary, we hypothesized that the housing situation, support from instructors, and
autonomy have an effect on the academic performance which can be mediated by well-being
(Figure 4). Hence, H3 can be organized as:
H3(a): The more difficult the housing situation of a student the worse the performance,
and this effect is mediated by engagement and burnout.
H3(b): Support from instructors has a positive effect on performance, and this effect is
mediated by engagement and burnout.
H3(c): Autonomy has a positive effect on performance, and this effect is mediated by
engagement and burnout.
Figure 4. The hypothesized model including specific obstacles and facilitators
3 Method
3.1 Participants
1819 and 1902 students from Industrial Engineering and Innovation Science (IE & IS)
department at Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) were invited for the Q1 survey and the
Q2 survey, respectively. 309 students (17.0%) replied in Q1 and 317 students (16.7%) replied in
Q2. Only data of students who completed the questionnaires in both measurement moments and
spent more than 5 minutes on each of both surveys will be used in the data analysis, so 200
participants were removed from data and the final sample size is 117 (69 males, 48 females). The
age of sample ranged from 17 to 25 years (M= 19.3; SD=1.7).
3.2 Procedure
At the end of Q1 in 2020-2021 academic year (T1), all students in IE & IS department
were sent an invitation via email to fill in a questionnaire. At the end of Q2 in 2020-2021
academic year (T2, i.e., 3 months later), all students received an invitation again. Both
questionnaire studies received approval of the ethical review board and were conducted in line
with the relevant privacy regulations.
3.3 Measures
Burnout We used a subscale of the adapted version of Oldenburg Burnout Inventory
(OLBI-S) (Resi, Xanthopoulou, & Tsaousis, 2015) to assess student burnout (exhaustion), which
included 8 items (e.g., “There were days when I felt tired before I joined the online class or
started studying”). All the items scored on 7-Likert point: from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). Scores on item 3, 5,7 and 8 (E3, E5, E7, & E8 in Appendix A) were reversed.
The internal consistency is 0.85 at T1and 0.84 at T2. The arithmetic mean of the eight items
constitutes the burnout score. A higher score implies a higher academic burnout of students.
Engagement We measured student engagement via an adapted version of Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (UWES-9) (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006) with 4 items. All items (e.g.,
“When I was studying, I felt bursting with energy”) are answered on a Likert scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The internal consistency is 0.81 at T1 and 0.82 at T2.
The arithmetic mean of the four items constitutes the engagement score. Higher score means
higher academic engagement.

Academic performance The students’ final exam grades in specific courses of Q1 and Q2
are used as the indicator of academic performance. According to the Dutch educational system,
the grading scale runs from 0 to 10 and passing grades should be not lower than 5.5.
Housing situation We assessed the housing situation by 5 self-constructed items, (e.g.
“After the transition, a lack of dedicated study space limited my opportunities to follow”), of
which 4 questions are answered on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)
and one question (“In order to complete {course name}, did you have access to reliable
information technology and/or equipment?”) is answered on a six-point scale from 1 (always) to
6 (never). For each 7-point item, students get a point if they agree somewhat, agree or strongly
agree with that statement. For the 6-point item, students get a point if they choose “never”, “most
of the time I did not” or “rather often I did not”. Higher scores on housing situation means they
have more difficulties in online education due to the housing situation.
Instructor support We assessed support from instructors by a shortened and adjusted
version of Kang and Im (2013). There are 3 items in total (items J.4 to J.6 in appendix A), which
are answered on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The mean is the
instructor-support score. The internal consistency is 0.70 at T1 and 0.75 at T2.
Autonomy We assessed support from instructor by 6 items, four of which are from
adapted version of items from the Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction and Frustration Scale
(BPNSFS, Chen et al., 2015). Another two items are new (“I could decide on my own where to
study during the course” & “There were too many deadlines in the course”). All of them are
answered on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The average score is
autonomy score. The internal consistency is 0.68 at T1 and 0.72 at T2.
3.4 Data analysis

3.4.1 Power analysis
With available participants, a sensitivity analysis was performed in G*Power to examine
the effect of burnout and engagement on the subsequent academic performance and the effect of
academic performance on the subsequent well-being that can reliably be detected (α=0.05, 1-
β=.9). The available sample size is 117. For the multiple regressions, the minimal effect size that
we can reliably detect is 0.09 which is a small to medium effect size. In the study of Palos et al.
(2019), the effect size they detected is 0.1, so our sample size is enough to detect the effect.
3.4.2 Analytical approach
First, we checked potential coding errors and outliers using histograms. Thereafter, the
dependent variables were checked on normality by the Shapiro-Wilk test and the Skewness and
Kurtosis test. In this step, the normality was not violated in all dependent variables. Subsequently,
descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of academic engagement, burnout, and grades at T1
and T2 were analyzed in STATA 16.0. P<.05 (two-tailed test) was considered statistically
significant.
To evaluate the effect of engagement/burnout on the academic performance, a multiple
linear regression was conducted with grades at T2 as the dependent variable and
engagement/burnout at T1 as predictors. Besides, grades at T1, age and gender were also included
in the regression as control factors. Likewise, to evaluate the effect of performance on the
engagement/burnout, a multiple linear regression was conducted with engagement/burnout at T2
as the dependent variable and grades at T1 as predictors. Besides, engagement/burnout at T1, age
and gender were also included in the regression as control factors.
If the effect of well-being on academic performance was shown in the aforementioned
step, the direct effect and indirect effect of obstacles and facilitators on the academic performance
will be tested. And bootstrap would be used in mediation analysis. Otherwise, we were going to
test the effect of facilitators/obstacles on engagement, burnout and performance.

4. Results
4.1 Descriptive statistics of study variables

Table 1 provides an overview of study variables.
Table1
Overview of the study variables
Scale Mean SD Minimum Maximum
Burnout (T1) 1-7 4.39 .50 3.38 6.75
Burnout (T2) 1-7 4.46 .54 2.75 6.38
Engagement (T1) 1-7 4.09 1.00 1 6.25
Engagement (T2) 1-7 3.73 0.99 1 7
Grades (T1) 1-7 6.57 1.83 0.8 10
Grades (T2) 1-7 6.24 2.14 0.3 10
Autonomy (T1) 1-7 4.99 0.81 2.67 6.83
Autonomy (T2) 1-7 4.79 0.96 1.83 7
Support of instructors (T1) 1-7 4.72 1.13 1.67 7
Support of instructors (T2) 1-7 4.17 1.26 1 7
Housing situation (T1) 0-5 0.69 0.82 0 4
Housing situation (T2) 0-5 0.55 0.88 0 4
Note. N=117
Burnout The mean scores of burnout in quartile 1 and quartile 2 are 4.39 (SD=.50) and
4.46 (SD=.54), respectively. It means the burnout level is relatively moderate. Compared to
burnout at T1, academic burnout is higher at T2, which means students suffered more burnout in
quartile 2. In general, among 117 students, 3 students (2.6%) at T1 and 3 students (2.6%) at T2
reported high level of academic burnout (the scale score >=5.5), which shows that there were not
too many students suffering from high burnout.
Engagement The mean scores of academic engagement of students in these two quartiles
are 4.04 (SD=1.01) and 3.73 (SD=0.99), respectively. It means the engagement of students during
quartile 1 and quartile 2 is relatively moderate. Compared to academic engagement at T1,
academic engagement is higher at T2, which means that the lack of engagement is more often in
quartile 2. Overall, among 117 participants, 10 students (8.5%) at T1 and 14 students (12.0%) at
T2 reported that they often suffered from lack of engagement (the scale score <=2.5). On the
other hand, only 6 students (5.1%) at T1 and 2 students (1.7%) at T2 reported high level of
engagement (the scale score >=5.5).
Grades Average grades of students at T2 is lower than it at T1, so it is shown that
students performed a bit worse in quartile 2. According to the Dutch grading system, in our study,
there are 84 (71.8%) and 72 (61.5%) students passing the exams at T1 and T2 in this exam,
respectively. Besides, the midpoint of grades at T1 (6.7) is higher than it at T2 (6.4). Therefore,
the number of low-performance students increases over time. The large variation at T1 (1.83) and
T2 (2.14) are remarkable, and there are 11 students (9.4%) at T1 and 19 students (16.2%) at T2
scoring lower than 4. It is probably due to the different attitudes of students to the exams. Some
students may not take this exam seriously because of many reasons (e.g., busy on other subjects
and get ill). They may just want to have a look at the exams to prepare for the future resit.
In addition, students perceived less supports from instructors (4.72 vs 4.17), less
autonomy (4.99 vs 4.79) and housing situation became worse (0.69 vs 0.55) over time.
Table 2 and Table 3 present the correlations between variables. The results in Table 2
shows that in our sample, burnout and engagement of students are not related in each of both
quartiles (p>.05). Besides, the result shows the significant longitudinal correlation between
burnout at T1 and T2 (r=.37, p<.001). Students’ engagement at T1 and T2 is also positively and
significantly related (r=.53, p<.001). So, it seems that students’ burnout and engagement are
relatively stable in quartile 1 and quartile 2: there is no significant change in students’ burnout
and engagement over time in our study. In Table 3, grades at T1 is significantly related to
autonomy (r=.19, p<.05). Grades at T2 is also significantly related to autonomy (r=.34, p<.05).
Besides, the relationship between grades at T2 and housing situation is significant statistically
(r=-.26, p<.05). Hence, academic performance of students in quartile 1 and quartile 2 is related to
some of obstacles and facilitators we put forward (especially the autonomy) but the correlations is
relatively small.
Table 2
Correlations between study variables of main research question
Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
(1) Burnout (T1) 1
(2) Engagement (T1) .07 1
(3) Grades (T1) .06 .07 1
(4) Burnout (T2) .37** -.03 .05 1
(5) Engagement (T2) 0 .53** -.02 -.03 1
(6) Grades (T2) .1 .02 .24* .18 0.13 1
Note. N=117, *p<.05; **p<.001
Table 3
Correlations between study variables
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
(1) Housing situation (T1) 1
(2) Autonomy (T1) -.08 1
(3) Support of instructors (T1) -.07 0.17 1
(4) Engagement (T1) -.27* -.42** 0.28* 1
(5) Burnout (T1) -.06 .03 -.14 -.07 1
(6) Grades (T1) -.07 .19* .02 0.07 0.06 1
(7) Housing situation (T2) .49** -.11 -.10 -.08 .09 -.14 1
(8) Autonomy (T2) -.19* .31* .30* .28* -.14 .07 -.17 1
(9) Support of instructors (T2) .06 .08 .33* .15 -.01 -.15 -.00 .24* 1
(10) Engagement (T2) -.16 .18 .24* .53** 0 -.02 -.15 .44** .17 1
(11) Burnout (T2) .09 -.07 .09 -.03 .37** .05 .07 0 .13 .03 1
(12) Grades(T2) -.16 .14 -.07 .07 .10 .24* -.26* .34* .10 .13 .17 1
Note. N=117, *p<.05; **p<.001

4.2 Regression analysis

To examine H1 (a), the effect of performance on the subsequent engagement was tested
by multiple regression analysis. The results (see Table 4) showed that engagement at T1 can
significantly predict engagement at T2 (β=0.51, SE=0.08, t=6.31, p<.001) after controlling
demographic covariates (gender and age). However, the predictive effect of grades at T1 on the
subsequent engagement of students is not significant (p>.05). Hence, in our result, H1(a) is
rejected, which means previous academic performance did not have an impact on subsequent
academic engagement.
To examine H1 (b), the effect of engagement on the subsequent academic performance
was tested by a multiple regression analysis. The results (see Table 5) showed that grades at T2
can be predicted by grades in T1 (β=0.39, SE=0.11, t=3.61, p<.001) and age has a negative
influence on academic performance at T2 (β=-0.43, SE=0.12, t=-3.59, p<.001). However, the
effect of engagement at T1 on the grades at T2 is not significant (p>.05), which means previous
engagement did not have significant effect on the future performance. Hence, this result did not
prove H1(b).
Table 4
Multiple regression analysis for performance (T1) as a predictor of engagement (T2)
Engagement (T2)
Variables β SE t p
Constant 2.80 1.03 2.72 *
Age -.05 .05 -.99
Gender -.17 .16 -1.09
Grades (T1) -.02 .04 -.48
Engagement(T1) .51 .08 6.31 **
Note. N=117, *p<.05; **p<.001

Table 5
Multiple regression analysis for engagement (T1) as a predictor of performance (T2)
Grades (T2)
Variables β SE t p
Constant 12.20 2.17 5.36 **
Age -0.43 .12 -3.59 *
Gender -.29 .40 -.74
Engagement (T1) -.06 .20 -.30
Grades (T1) .39 .11 3.61 **
Note. N=117, *p<.05; **p<.001
Likewise, H2(a) and H2(b) were tested by multiple regression analysis as well. Regarding
H2 (a), the effect of performance on the subsequent burnout was not confirmed by the results
(Table 6). It showed that burnout of students at T2 can be predicted by burnout at T1(β=0.41,
SE=0.10, t=4.33, p<.001). But there is no longitudinal effect of performance on burnout (p>.05).
Regarding H2(b), the effect of performance on the subsequent burnout was not confirmed, neither.
The results (Table 7) showed that grades at T2 can be predicted by grades at T1 (β=0.38, SE=0.11,
t=-3.61, p<.001). But it did not show that there is a causal effect of burnout at T1 on the academic
performance at T2, which suggested that previous burnout did not affect subsequent performance
in our sample. Therefore, both H2(a) and H2(b) were rejected.
Table 6
Multiple regression analysis for performance (T1) as a predictor of burnout(T2)
Burnout(T2)
Variables β SE t p
Constant 3.05 .64 4.76 **
Age -.03 003 -.09

Gender -.01 .10 -.15
Grades (T1) .02 .03 .59
Burnout(T1) .41 .10 4.33 **
Note. N=117, *p<.05; **p<.001
Table 7
Multiple regression analysis for burnout (T1) as a predictor of performance (T2)
Grades (T2)
Variables β SE t p
Constant 9.81 2.64 3.72 **
Age -.43 .12 -3.66 *
Gender -.28 .39 -.71
Burnout(T1) .52 .39 1.33
Grades (T1) .38 .11 3.61 **
Note. N=117, *p<.05; **p<.001
Hence, our hypotheses about mutual relationship were not supported: the result suggests
that there is not any significant causal effect of well-being and performance on each other, which
indicates that previous well-being has no predictive effect on the subsequent academic
performance and previous performance has no predictive effect on the subsequent well-being.
Then we were interested in that whether high burnout or low engagement reduces
academic performance, so we dichotomized the engagement variable and burnout variable.
Students who scored higher than 4 on the engagement scale were regarded as students with high
engagement and their scores on engagement were recoded as 1 while others’ scores are recoded
as 0. Likewise, students scoring higher than 4 on the burnout scale are regarded as students with
high burnout and scores are recoded as 1 while the scores of other students on the burnout are
recoded as 0. Then again, the multiple regression was performed. According to the results (Table
1 & Table2 in Appendix B), there is no significant linear relationship between well-being and
academic performance in our study, which means well-being of students did not have effect on
the subsequent academic performance.
4.3 The effect of obstacles and facilitators on the performance/well-being
In this part, we tested the direct effect of housing situation, autonomy and support from
instructors through linear regression since we did not find the effect of well-being on the
performance in the previous part. First, we checked the relationship between facilitators/obstacles
and performance at T1 and T2, respectively (Table 8 & 9). After controlling gender and age, we
can see that support from instructors at T1 is associated with grades at T1 positively (β=0.28,
SE=0.14, t=2.00, p<.05), but there is no significant relationship between support at T2 and the
grades at T2 (p>.05). It means that students with more support from instructors performed better
in final exams in quartile 1 but it was not shown in quartile 2. Besides, performance at T2 is
negatively related to housing situation at T2 (β=-0.62, SE=0.21, t=-2.94, p<.05) and positively
related to students’ autonomy at T2 (β=0.59, SE=0.20, t=3.01, p<.05). It shows that students with
better housing situation and higher autonomy performed better in final exams in quartile 2 but it
was not shown in quartile 1.
Subsequently, we tested if there is longitudinal effect of obstacles/facilitators on the
academic performance (see Table 10). Regarding H3(a), the relationship between housing
situation at T1 and grades at T2 was significant (β=-0.48, SE=0.22, t=-2.23, p<.05), which means
future performance can be affected by students’ current housing situation. Regarding H3(b), we
did not find the significant relationship between support from instructors at T1 and the grades at
T2 (p>.05). For H3(c), the relationship between autonomy of students at T1 and the grades at T2
is not significant (p>.05). In summary, H3(a) is partially confirmed (students with difficult
housing situation perform worse in learning) while the results of H3(b) and H3(c) are not
expected.
Table 8
Multiple regression analysis for obstacles/facilitators (T1) as a predictor of performance at T1
Grades (T1)
Variables β SE t p
Constant 7.3 2.30 .32
Age .24 .10 2.48 *
Gender -.50 .31 -1.61
Housing situation -.07 .20 -.36
Autonomy .14 .19 .71
Support from instructors .28 .14 2.00 *
Note. N=117, *p<.05; **p<.001
Table 9
Grades (T2)
Variables β SE t p
Constant 5.21 2.42 2.15 *
Age -.03 .10 -.31 *
Gender -.52 .34 -1.53
Housing situation -.62 .21 -2.94 *
Autonomy .59 .20 3.01 *
Support from instructors -.01 .13 -.05
Note. N=117, *p<.05; **p<.001
Table 10
Grades (T2)
Variables β SE t p
Constant 5.86 2.54 2.30 *
Age -.13 .11 -1.19 *
Gender -.51 .35 -1.47
Grades (T1) .38 .12 3.13 *
Housing situation -.48 .22 -2.23 *
Autonomy .39 .21 1.87
Support from instructors -.13 .16 -.79
Note. N=117, *p<.05; **p<.001
In addition, we explored the cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships between
obstacles/facilitators and well-being by multiple regression analysis. According to Table 11 and
Table 12, we found that autonomy at T1 is significantly related to the academic engagement at
T1(β=0.40, SE=0.11, t=3.53, p<.05) and autonomy at T2 is significantly related to academic
engagement at T2 (β=0.37, SE=0.11, t=3.24, p<.05). Other relations were not significant. The rest
of results (longitudinal effects on engagement; cross-sectional and longitudinal effects on burnout)
are shown in Appendix B (Table 3 to Table 6). Hence, students with higher autonomy will show
higher engagement but future engagement cannot be predicted by their previous autonomy.
Table 11
Multiple regression analysis for obstacles/facilitators (T1) as a predictor of engagement (T1)
Engagement (T1)
Variables β SE t p
Constant 3.34 1.35 2.47 *
Age -.10 .06 -1.76
Gender -.44 .42 -1.04
Housing situation -.20 .12 -1.72
Autonomy .40 .11 3.53 *

Support from instructors .14 .08 1.72
Note. N=117, *p<.05; **p<.001
Table 12
Engagement (T1)
Variables β SE t p
Constant 3.37 1.40 2.41 *
Age -.08 .06 -1.36
Gender -.11 .20 .54
Autonomy .37 .11 3.24 *
Support from instructors .03 .07 .43
Note. N=117, *p<.05; **p<.001
5. Discussion
To deal with the uncertainties caused by the pandemic, almost all universities and colleges
switch traditional learning to fully online learning. Students were suffering from loss of well-
being (Zhou et al., 2020) and urgent research is needed to find immediate and effective solutions
to protect students’ well-being. The present study investigated the bidirectional relations between
well-being (i.e., academic engagement and burnout) and academic performance (i.e., students’
grades) in online learning during the COVID-19 through a longitudinal study. Besides, it
examined the effect of learning obstacles and facilitators existing in online learning on academic
performance and well-being. Our central finding is that well-being (engagement and burnout) is
not the antecedent for academic performance in online learning and performance cannot be
considered an antecedent for well-being neither. Besides, we found that obstacles and facilitators
we tested, to some extent, can influence students’ well-being and performance in online learning.
Concerning the effect of engagement on academic performance, although some cross-
sectional research reported the positive association between academic engagement and
performance (Martinez, & Micket, 2013; van Beek et al., 2013) and some longitudinal studies
found that engagement has a positive effect on the performance (Salanova et al., 2010), we did
not find the significant association and predictive effect of engagement on performance in our
sample. However, our result is in line with the research of Palos et al. (2019), who did not find
the significant effect of engagement on performance neither. A possible reason is due to the
different sample sizes: there were 527 students in the final sample in the study of Salanova et al.
(2010) and 565 students in the study of van Beek et al. (2013). Besides, the sample sizes of our
study and the study of Palos et al. (2019) were relatively small (117 and 142, respectively). Our
regression coefficient is close to the one reported by Salanova et al. (2010), so it is possible that
larger sample size would provide sufficient statistical power.
In addition, although Palos et al. (2013) and Salanova et al. (2010) found that academic
performance can predict future engagement, our result shows that performance was not able to
predict subsequent engagement. The inconsistency may be led by the different learning methods:
previous researches focused on traditional learning while the present study tested the relationships
in online learning. In traditional learning, after knowing their past grades, students with high
grades tend to show better adjustment, motivation and adaption (Rienties et al., 2012; Liu, & Hou,
2018; Steinmavr et al., 2016) and finally increase engagement (Saeed, & Zyngier, 2012).
However, in online learning setting, especially in a long-time quarantine, students showed a lower
level of motivation (Hermida, 2020), which finally may influence the effect of performance on
the engagement.
Also, we found that burnout has no significant effect on subsequent performance. Our result
agrees with the conclusions reported by Salanova et al. (2013), who found that previous academic
burnout does not make an effect on future performance. Besides, Palos et al. (2019) also found
that burnout was not the predictor of future academic performance. Although there are some
cross-sectional studies showing that burnout is negatively related to academic performance, (May
et al., 2015; Azimi et al., 2013), our results addressed the causal effect of burnout but in our study,
burnout did not affect the performance in a long period time (1 quartile).
However, when we tested the effect of performance on the burnout of students, we found
that performance has no significant effect on burnout. Salanova et al. (2010) also made a similar
conclusion. However, our conclusion is not in line with the finding reported by Palos et al. (2019),
whose results showed that high grades could predict low academic burnout. The inconsistency
may be led by different time lags. Salanova et al. (2010) used 5 months as the lagged time and we
used 3 months while the time lag in Palos et al. (2019) was 7 weeks. Hence, it is possible that the
temporal effect of performance on burnout of students is relatively short and it only can be tested
in a short time.
Subsequently, we focused on discussing the direct effect of obstacles/ facilitators on
performance and well-being rather than the mediation effect of well-being since we did not find
that well-being can influence the future performance in our sample. As expected, our results
implied that the obstacle was negatively associated with grades and facilitators were positively
related to grades. In addition, autonomy, as a facilitator, can influence engagement: although
previous autonomy can be associated with engagement and predict future performance, the effect
of engagement on the performance is not confirmed, which means engagement did not mediate
the effect of autonomy on the performance.
Interestingly, autonomy, support from instructors, and the housing situation can influence or
associate with performance and well-being, but they played different roles. For example, support
from instructors was associated with grades but it could not influence the future performance
while the housing situation was significantly related to grades and future grades. It is possibly
because the housing situation of students was relatively stable over time and the effect of housing
situation may exist for a long time but support from instructors somewhat depended on the
instructors and course content. For example, instructors’ prior exposure to online teaching and
technological knowledge will influence the support they offer (Tamah, Triwidayati, & Utami,
2020). The instructors’ support perceived by students is affected by teachers’ learning styles as
well, the number of students, course formats, and students’ learning styles (Lee, Srinivasan, Trail,
& Lewis, 2011).
Another fact is that none of the obstacles/facilitators we tested had an effect on burnout of
students. Specifically, regarding autonomy, our results agree with the findings reported by
Sokmen and Kilic (2019) who did a survey among teachers and found that emotional exhaustion
(closed to burnout) was not significantly related to teachers’ autonomy, but it is not in line with
some previous papers, who found burnout of students is related to autonomy (Nahrgang et al.,
2011). According to SDT (Ryan, & Deci, 2004), a higher motivation level of students with high
autonomy reduces burnout and increase engagement which was proved in some papers about
offline learning (Ljubin-Golub et al., 2020; Jang et al., 2010). However, compared to offline
learning in which teachers make more demands on students during the lectures (e.g., pushing
students towards deeper understanding), online learning requires higher level of autonomous
learning which is not a preferred learning method for students, and it may increase extra learning
demands and students’ burnout. On a more general level, our findings of obstacles/facilitators are
not in line with the study from Salanova et al. (2010), who found burnout reported by students
was positively related to obstacles and negatively related to facilitators. The inconsistency
probably results from the ways to select obstacles and facilitators. Salanova et al. (2010) chose
obstacles and facilitators by interviewing 40 students from a Spanish university who had a chance
to take part in their following survey. In this case, the obstacles and facilitators they used were
possibly more influential to their sample and the overall learning environments of students taking
part in the survey were similar (they were in the same university). Besides, obstacles/facilitators
they used included many factors that only existed in offline learning (e.g., “library with few
books”, “insufficient photocopying service on campus” and “living in the city where they are
studying”). In contrast, the specific situation of our sample about online learning is pretty
complex. Therefore, new lists of learning resources and learning demands can be done in future
work to investigate the JD-R model in the education field.
In summary, we did not find any relationships between well-being and academic
performance in our study, no matter the longitudinal effects or the cross-sectional relations. The
inconsistency with some previous studies is probably led from different teaching methods (online
learning and traditional learning), besides the sample size and time-lagged aforementioned.
Online learning during COVID-19 is an alternative means of traditional learning to limit the
gathering, but the learning atmospheres are different because of the classroom environment
including physical (e.g., setting of the classroom) and psychological (e.g., caring, praise, and
feedback from teachers and peers) factors. Mullen and Runnels (2016) reported that the physical
difference (online vs offline) influenced the perception of students to the learning atmosphere.
Students in offline learning reported a higher level of support and they are willing to use more
sophisticated learning strategies and higher thinking skills in learning, compared to the students in
online learning (Turner et al., 2002). Since the nature of cognitive engagement is self-regulated
learning and students using more sophisticated learning strategies are more engaged in the
learning (Moilterni et al., 1990), the learning atmosphere in online learning may decrease the
deeper mental effort of students, which may lead to changes in the relationship between academic
performance and well-being students reported (i.e., self-reported scores on engagement did not
show a deeper level of thinking in online learning). Besides, online learning during COVID-19
led to unexpected challenges for college students who already had a high rate of negative mood in
previous normal times (Grubic et al., 2020). So, it may limit the positive effect of high
engagement and low burnout on academic performance.
Besides, the present study agrees with the JD-R framework, to some extent, which assumes
that job resources and job demands can influence the outcome through well-being. Although our
result did not confirm the causal effect of well-being on the performance directly, the facilitators
and obstacles in learning did affect students’ well-being and performance which helps to provide
potentials for the application of the JD-R model in the educational field. In fact, after filtering out
students whose grades are lower than 3.5 as some students might not treat the exams seriously,
the effect of engagement on future performance is significant (Table 2 in Appendix C). Besides,
we found that engagement did mediate the effect of autonomy and support from instructors on the
subsequent performance (Table 5 in Appendix C). It appears that facilitators in online learning
can possibly affect engagement, in turn, induces better academic performance. Due to the
predictive effect of engagement on the subsequent performance disappeared when we used other
cut point (e.g., 3, 4, and 5), our answer to the main research question did not change (i.e., there is
no significant relation between well-being and performance). However, the positive effect of
engagement on the subsequent performance probably existed, and it is probably significant for
certain students. For example, Rashid, and Asghar (2016) have reported that students’
engagement has an indirect effect on academic performance through self-directed learning in
offline learning and technology use can be positively related to self-directed learning. So, the
relationship between engagement and performance may be influenced by self-directed learning
and technology use including media and technology usage, and attitudes to them, especially
during COVID-19 when media and technology are playing a significant role in online learning.
Limitations and future research
There are some limitations in this study that can be taken into consideration in future
research. First, we used the grades of final exams as the indication of academic performance, but
many students may not take the first exams seriously since they have another three resits. Besides,
the scores of many courses in universities usually consist of assignments and final exams, which
means the grades of final exams showed students’ academic performance partially. In contrast,
GPA or the grades in the same course is a better indication for performance in learning.
Academic performance is not the only factor we need to address in online learning. Therefore,
future research can include GPA and some other variables, for example, satisfaction. Second,
because some of our results are different from some previous research, especially the relationship
between well-being and academic performance, future research can investigate it by increasing
measurement moments or decreasing time lagged to see how the effects change over time.
Besides, online learning caused by the pandemic is different from normal online learning, since
people are suffering from panic, long-term travel restrictions. Also, with the development of
technology, blended teaching may be a popular teaching method after the pandemic is lessen or
over. Future research can focus on the difference in these different types of online learning and
offer targeted suggestions.
6. Conclusion
Because of the COVID-19, almost all universities/colleges were forced to close and switch
traditional education to online education, which led to many difficulties and challenges for
students in studying. And it is still unclear that when students and teachers can go back to normal
education anytime soon. So, there is an urgent need to investigate the relationship between
students’ performance and well-being in online learning during this pandemic, which can help to
provide corresponding suggestions for society, school, and students. This study mainly focused
on disentangling the causal effects of well-being and performance on each other. Besides, it
examined whether obstacles and facilitators in online learning exist. By conducting two surveys
among students, we analyzed two waves of data. Only the hypotheses about obstacles and
facilitators were partially supported. With regard to well-being and performance, we did not find
any relationship between them, no matter the longitudinal or cross-sectional relations.
From a practical perspective, the present study aimed to contribute to online education by
paying attention to students’ mental health and academic performance. Although we saw there
was no effect of well-being on performance and no effect of performance on well-being,

obstacles/facilitators can influence students’ engagement and performance. Obstacles and
facilitators in learning changed under the long-term quarantine during COVID-19, for example,
students in online learning possibly meet the technology problem, which is not a common
obstacle in offline teaching. Hence, our study suggested that schools, lecturers, and students can
improve students’ well-being and performance by augmenting facilitators and reducing obstacles
(creating a more dedicated study space). To do so, teachers can use asynchronous forms of
teaching to offer higher quality of support and better online communication (e.g., regular email
and online discussion forums). Teachers also can use praise/effective feedback to higher students’
self-regulated learning and improve their interest in learning contents to improve students’
autonomy. On the part of parents and students, they can create a better learning space at home
during the long period of online learning.

Reference
Aguilera-Hermida, A. P. (2020). College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online
learning due to COVID-19. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1, 100011.
Al Dhaheri, A. S., Bataineh, M. A. F., Mohamad, M. N., Ajab, A., Al Marzouqi, A., Jarrar, A.
H., ... & Cheikh Ismail, L. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 on mental health and quality of life:
Is there any effect? A cross-sectional study of the MENA region. PloS one, 16(3), e0249107.
Akkermans, J., Paradniké, K., Van der Heijden, B. I., & De Vos, A. (2018). The best of both
worlds: the role of career adaptability and career competencies in students’ well-being and
performance. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1678.
Anuradha, G., & Jha, M. (2014). Personality as a predictor of students' academic burnout. Indian
Journal of Health & Wellbeing, 5(9).
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent:
Autonomy‐enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students' engagement
in schoolwork. British journal of educational psychology, 72(2), 261-278.
AZIMI, M., PIRI, M., & ZAVAAR, T. (2013). Relationship of academic burnout and self-
regulated learning with academic performance of high school students.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands‐resources model: State of the
art. Journal of managerial psychology.
Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. G. M. (2011). Subjective well-being in organizations. In K. S.
Cameron, & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational
Scholarship (pp. 178-189). Oxford University Press.
Bücker, S., Nuraydin, S., Simonsmeier, B. A., Schneider, M., & Luhmann, M. (2018). Subjective
well-being and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in
Personality, 74, 83-94.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., De Boer, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Job demands and job
resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of vocational
behavior, 62(2), 341-356.
Beatson, N. J., Berg, D. A., & Smith, J. K. (2018). The impact of mastery feedback on
undergraduate students’ self-efficacy beliefs. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 58-66.
Cazan, A. M. (2015). Learning motivation, engagement and burnout among university
students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 187, 413-417.
Connell, J. P. , & Wellborn, J. G. . (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: a
motivational analysis of self-system processes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65.
Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Duriez,
B. Lens, W., Matos, L., Mouratidis, A., Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Soenens, B., Van
Petegem, S., & Verstuyf, J. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration,
and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 216-236.
Chi, X. (2017). A study on the effects of teacher support on college student engagement based on
self-determination theory. Unpublished PhD thesis. Tianjin University.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Williams, G. C. (1996). Need satisfaction and the self-regulation of
learning. Learning and individual differences, 8(3), 165-183.
Freudenberger, H. J. . (2010). Staff burnout. Journal of Social Issues, 30(1), 159-165.
Fredricks, J. A. , Blumenfeld, P. C. , & Paris, A. H. . (2004). School engagement: potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
Galbraith, C. S., & Merrill, G. B. (2015). Academic performance and burnout: An efficient
frontier analysis of resource use efficiency among employed university students. Journal of
further and Higher Education, 39(2), 255-277.
Gao, J., Zheng, P., Jia, Y., Chen, H., Mao, Y., Chen, S., ... & Dai, J. (2020). Mental health
problems and social media exposure during COVID-19 outbreak. Plos one, 15(4), e0231924.
Gh, P. , C. Pérez V., Pp, P. , L., O. M. , & Mk, A. . (2015). Academic achievement, engagement
and burnout among first year medical students. Revista Medica De Chile, 143(7), 930-937.
Gold, Y. , Bachelor, P. , & Michael, W. B. . (1989). The dimensionality of a modified form of the
maslach burnout inventory for university students in a teachertraining program. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 49(3), 549-561.
Gómez, H. P., Pérez, V. C., Parra, P. P., Ortiz, M. L., Matus, B. O., McColl, C. P., ... & Meyer, K.
A. (2015). Academic achievement, engagement and burnout among first year medical
students. Revista medica de Chile, 143(7), 930-937.
González-Sanguino, C., Ausín, B., Castellanos, M. Á., Saiz, J., López-Gómez, A., Ugidos, C., &
Muñoz, M. (2020). Mental health consequences during the initial stage of the 2020
Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) in Spain. Brain, behavior, and immunity, 87, 172-176.
Grubic, N., Badovinac, S., & Johri, A. M. (2020). Student mental health in the midst of the
COVID-19 pandemic: A call for further research and immediate solutions. International
Journal of Social Psychiatry, 66(5), 517-518.
Gusy, B., Wörfel, F., & Lohmann, K. (2016). Exhaustion and commitment in studying. Journal
of Health Psychology .
Hallberg, U. E., Johansson, G., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). Type A behavior and work situation:
Associations with burnout and work engagement. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 48(2), 135-142.
Hansen, G. V., D'Urso Villar, M., & Fracchia, L. N. (2016). Burnout-engagement and personality
factors in medical students at a public university. Vertex (Buenos Aires, Argentina), 27(129),
325-331.
Hakanen JJ, Schaufeli WB, Ahola K. The Job Demands-Resources model: A three-year cross-
lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work & Stress.
2008 Jul 1;22(3):224-41.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not
autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of educational
psychology, 102(3), 588.
Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning inside the national survey of
student engagement. Change: The magazine of higher learning, 33(3), 10-17.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. L., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to
student success: A review of the literature (Vol. 8). Washington, DC: National
Postsecondary Education Cooperative.
Kwon, K., Liu, Y. H., & Johnson, L. P. (2014). Group regulation and social-emotional
interactions observed in computer supported collaborative learning: Comparison between
good vs. poor collaborators. Computers & Education, 78, 185-200.
Lee, S. J., Srinivasan, S., Trail, T., Lewis, D., & Lopez, S. (2011). Examining the relationship
among student perception of support, course satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online
learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 158-163.
Lesener, T., Pleiss, L. S., Gusy, B., & Wolter, C. (2020). The Study Demands-Resources
Framework: An Empirical Introduction. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 17(14), 5183.
Ljubin-Golub, T., Rijavec, M., & Olčar, D. (2020). Student flow and burnout: The role of teacher
autonomy support and student autonomous motivation. Psychological Studies, 65(2), 145-
156.
Llorens S, Bakker AB, Schaufeli W, Salanova M. Testing the robustness of the job demands-
resources model. International Journal of stress management. 2006 Aug;13(3):378.
Liu, Y., & Hou, S. (2018). Potential reciprocal relationship between motivation and achievement:
A longitudinal study. School Psychology International, 39(1), 38-55.
Luo, N., Zhang, M., & Qi, D. (2017). Effects of different interactions on students' sense of
community in e-learning environment. Computers & Education, 115, 153-160.
Maslach C, Jackson SE. The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of organizational
behavior. 1981 Apr;2(2):99-113.
Maslach, C. . (1981). Maslach Burnout Inventory. Research edition.
Meece, B. . (1988). Special issue: schoolwork and academic tasks || task factors, teacher behavior,
and students\" involvement and use of learning strategies in science. Elementary School
Journal, 88(3), 235-250.
Martinez, S. , & Mickey, E. . (2013). The effects of participation in interscholastic sports on
latino students' academic achievement. Journal for the Study of Sports & Athletes in
Education, 7(2), 97-114.
Mokgele, K. R., & Rothmann, S. (2014). A structural model of student well-being. South African
Journal of Psychology, 44(4), 514-527.
Moliterni, P. , Stasio, S. D. , Carboni, M. , & Chiacchio, C. D. . (1990). Motivational and self-
regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. EUCEN
CONFERENCE 2010 - LIFELONG LEARNING FOR THE NEW DECADE (Vol.82, pp.33-
40). American Psychological Association (APA).
Martin, & A., J. . (2009). Motivation and engagement across the academic life spana
developmental construct validity study of elementary school, high school, and
university/college students. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 69(5), 794-824.
Meeter, M., Bele, T., den Hartogh, C., Bakker, T., de Vries, R. E., & Plak, S. (2020). College
students’ motivation and study results after COVID-19 stay-at-home orders.
Molinillo, S., Aguilar-Illescas, R., Anaya-Sánchez, R., & Vallespín-Arán, M. (2018). Exploring
the impacts of interactions, social presence and emotional engagement on active
collaborative learning in a social web-based environment. Computers & Education, 123, 41-
52.
Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Safety at work: A meta-analytic
investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and
safety outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 71–94.
Ng, Z. J., Huebner, S. E., & Hills, K. J. (2015). Life satisfaction and academic performance in
early adolescents: Evidence for reciprocal association. Journal of school psychology, 53(6),
479-491.
Paloș, R., Maricuţoiu, L. P., & Costea, I. (2019). Relations between academic performance,
student engagement and student burnout: A cross-lagged analysis of a two-wave study.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 60(September 2018), 199–204.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.01.005
Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement
and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63,
604-612.
Reis, D., Xanthopoulou, D., & Tsaousis, I. (2015). Measuring job and academic burnout with the
Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI): Factorial invariance across samples and countries.
Burnout Research, 2(1), 8-18.
Robins, T. G., Roberts, R. M., & Sarris, A. (2015). Burnout and engagement in health profession
students: the relationships between study demands, study resources and personal
resources. The Australasian Journal of Organisational Psychology, 8.
Rienties, B., Beausaert, S., Grohnert, T., Niemantsverdriet, S., & Kommers, P. (2012).
Understanding academic performance of international students: The role of ethnicity,
academic and social integration. Higher education, 63(6), 685-700.
Ryan, A. M. , Gheen, M. H. , & Midgley, C. . (1998). Why do some students avoid asking for
help? an examination of the interplay among students' academic efficacy, teachers' social–
emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3),
528-535.
Saeed, S., & Zyngier, D. (2012). How motivation influences student engagement: A qualitative
case study. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(2), 252-267.
Salanova, M. , Schaufeli, W. , I Martínez, & E Bresó. (2010). How obstacles and facilitators
predict academic performance: the mediating role of study burnout and engagement. Anxiety
Stress & Coping, 23(1), 53-70.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: A multi‐sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The
International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and
Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The Measurement of Work Engagement
With a Short Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
Sharififard, F., Asayesh, H., Hosseini, M. H. M., & Sepahvandi, M. (2020). Motivation, self-
efficacy, stress, and academic performance correlation with academic burnout among
nursing students. Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Sciences, 7(2), 88.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Valås, H. (1999). Relations among achievement, self-concept, and motivation
in mathematics and language arts: A longitudinal study. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 67(2), 135-149.
Slivar, B. . (2001). The syndrome of burnout, self-image, and anxiety with grammar school
students. Psihološka obzorja / Horizons of Psychology, 10(2), 21-32.
Steinmayr, R., Crede, J., McElvany, N., & Wirthwein, L. (2016). Subjective well-being, test
anxiety, academic achievement: Testing for reciprocal effects. Frontiers in psychology, 6,
1994.
Stilger, V. G. , Etzel, E. F. , & Lantz, C. D. . (2001). Life-stress sources and symptoms of
collegiate student athletic trainers over the course of an academic year. J Athl Train, 36(4),
401-407.
Tamah, S. M., Triwidayati, K. R., & Utami, T. S. D. (2020). Secondary school language teachers’
online learning engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Journal of
Information Technology Education: Research, 19, 803-832.
Taris, T. W. (2006). Is there a relationship between burnout and objective performance? A critical
review of 16 studies. Work & Stress, 20(4), 316-334.
Talaei, A., Mokhber, N., Mohammad–Nejad, M., & Samari, A. A. (2008). Burnout and its related
factors in staffs of university hospitals in Mashhad in 2006. Koomesh, 9(3), 237-246.
Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M., Kang, Y., & Patrick, H.
(2002). The classroom environment and students' reports of avoidance strategies in
mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal of educational psychology, 94(1), 88.
van Beek, I., Kranenburg, I. C., Taris, T. W., & Bufeli, W. B. (2013). BIS-and BAS-activation
and study outcomes: A mediation study. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(5), 474-
479.
van Zyl, L. E., Rothmann, S., & Zondervan-Zwijnenburg, M. A. (2021). Longitudinal trajectories
of study characteristics and mental health before and during the COVID-19
lockdown. Frontiers in psychology, 12.
Wang, J., Bu, L., Li, Y., Song, J., & Li, N. (2021). The mediating effect of academic engagement
between psychological capital and academic burnout among nursing students during the
COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study. Nurse Education Today, 102, 104938.
Xhelili, P., Ibrahimi, E., Rruci, E., & Sheme, K. (2021). Adaptation and perception of online
learning during COVID-19 pandemic by Albanian university students. International Journal
on Studies in Education, 3(2), 103-111.
Xu, J., (2020). Responses to COVID-19 and challenge to large-scale online learning for global
education system: findings and insights based on results from OECD survey across nations.
International and comparative education. 42(06), 3-10.
Zhou, X., Snoswell, C. L., Harding, L. E., Bambling, M., Edirippulige, S., Bai, X., & Smith, A. C.
(2020). The role of telehealth in reducing the mental health burden from COVID-
19. Telemedicine and e-Health, 26(4), 377-379.
Appendix A: survey questions

Burnout
E.1 There were days when I felt tired before I joined the online class or started studying.
E.2 After a class or after studying, I tended to need more time than in the past in order to relax
and feel better.
E.3 I could tolerate the pressure of my studies very well.
E.4 While I was studying, I often felt emotionally drained.
E.5 After a class or after studying, I had enough energy for my leisure activities.
E.6 After a class or after studying, I usually felt worn out and weary.
E.7 I could usually manage my study-related workload well.
E.8 When I studied, I usually felt energized.
Engagement
E.9 When I was studying, I felt bursting with energy.
E.11 I was enthusiastic about my studies.
E.16 I was immersed in my studies.
E.17 I got carried away by the course materials when I was studying.
Housing situation
Q5. In order to complete {course name}, did you have access to reliable information technology
and/or equipment?
B.20 A lack of dedicated study space limited my opportunities to follow (the online part of) the
course.
B.21 My health limited my opportunities to follow (the online part of) the course.
B.22 Care work for family members (including children, etc.) limited my opportunities to follow
(the online part of) the course.
B.23 My work schedule limited my opportunities to follow (the online part of) the course.
Autonomy
L.1. I felt that it was my choice to proceed with the learning activities.
L.2. I felt like I was doing what I wanted to do while I was learning.
L.3. I felt like I was forced to proceed with the learning activities.
L.4 I could decide on my own when to study during the course.
L.5 I could decide on my own what to work on during the course weeks.
L.6 There were too many deadlines in the course.
Support from instructors
J.4 The teacher provided appropriate feedback to my learning outcomes such as assignments,
discussion threads and exam results.
J.5 The teacher kept doing Q & A to check whether I understand the learning content well.
J.6 The teacher actively facilitated my understanding of the learning materials.
Appendix B: Tables of regression analysis

Table 1
Multiple regression analysis for engagement (T1) as a predictor of performance (T2) after
recoding
Grades (T2)
Variables β SE t p
Constant 12.72 2.35 5.41 **
Age -0.45 .12 -3.69 **
Gender -.23 .40 -.58
Engagement (T1) -.46 .43 -1.06
Grades (T1) .39 .11 3.68 **
Table 2
Multiple regression analysis for burnout (T1) as a predictor of performance (T2) after recoding
Grades (T2)
Variables β SE t p
Constant 8.49 2.05 4,13 **
Age -.23 .11 -2.21 *
Gender -.21 .40 -.52
Burnout(T1) .12 .53 .23
Grades (T1) .42 0.12 3.766 **
Table 3
Engagement (T2)
Variables β SE t p
Constant 2.14 1.37 1.56
Age -.02 .06 -.29
Gender -.13 .18 -.72
Engagement (T1) .49 .11 4.57 **
Autonomy -.06 .12 -.47
Note. N=117
Table 4
Multiple regression analysis for obstacles/facilitators (T1) as a predictor of burnout (T1)
Burnout (T1)
Variables β SE t p
Constant 4.01 .80 5.01 **
Age 0 .03 .05

Gender -.07 .11 -.66
Housing situation -.03 .07 .37
Autonomy .06 .07 .85
Note. N=117
Table 5
Burnout (T2)
Variables β SE t p
Constant 5.38 .92 5.88 **
Age -.03 .04 -.76
Gender -.08 .13 -.64
Autonomy -.09 .07 -1.25
Support from instructors .05 .05 1.04
Note. N=117
Table 6
Burnout (T2)
Variables β SE t p
Constant 3.48 .97 3.57 *
Age -.04 .04 -1.03
Gender -.04 .12 -.37
Burnout (T1) .43 .12 3.71 **
Housing situation -.10 .07 1.43

Autonomy -.08 .07 -1.17
Note. N=117
Appendix C: Analysis for smaller sample (N=96)

Considering that the data of grades was from first-trail exams, many students may not
take these final exams seriously, since it is common that students take part in the exams for
having a look at the questions in exams to prepare for the future resits. Therefore, in the following
step, we filtered out the students scoring lower than 3.5. With this smaller sample (N=96), we did
the regression again. According to Table2, engagement at T1 can positively and significantly
predict the academic performance at T2, which means the engagement of students whose grades
were higher than 3.5 can influence the subsequent performance. However, the significant effects
of burnout and performance on each other were still not shown in our results. Hence, in the
following mediation analysis, we used engagement as the only mediator. Grades at T2 is the
dependent variable and obstacles/facilitators are independent variables. Table 5 shows that the
effect of support from instructors and autonomy on the performance can be mediated by
engagement.
Table 1
Multiple regression analysis for performance (T1) as a predictor of engagement (T2)
Engagement (T2)
Variables β SE t p
Constant 2.27 1.21 1.88
Age -.03 .06 -.57
Gender -.12 .17 -.72
Grades (T1) 0 .05 -.13
Engagement(T1) .54 .09 5.92 **
Note. N=96
Table 2
Multiple regression analysis for engagement (T1) as a predictor of performance (T2)
Grades (T2)
Variables β SE t p
Constant 5.84 2.35 2.49 *
Age -.15 .11 -1.34
Gender -.66 .34 -1.96
Engagement (T1) .39 .18 2.21 *
Grades (T1) .37 .11 3.45 *
Note. N=96
Table 3
Multiple regression analysis for performance (T1) as a predictor of burnout(T2)
Burnout(T2)
Variables β SE t p
Constant 2.94 .80 3.66 **
Age -.02 .03 -.62
Gender -.09 .11 -.81
Grades (T1) .01 .03 .36
Burnout(T1) .43 .11 3.96 **
Note. N=96
Table 4
Multiple regression analysis for burnout (T1) as a predictor of performance (T2)
Grades (T2)
Variables β SE t p
Constant 7.22 2.47 2.92 *
Age -.24 .10 -2.32 *
Gender -.51 .33 -1.50
Burnout(T1) .35 .34 1.03
Grades (T1) .42 .11 3.95 **
Note. N=96
Table 5
Mediation analysis in smaller sample
Independent variable Stage1 Indirect effect Stage2 Indirect effect Indirect effect
Support from instructors .26* .45* .12*
Autonomy .57** .58* .33*
Note. N=96

Master Thesis Yifan Yu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master Thesis Yifan Yu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eindhoven University of Technology

Disentangling the Relationships between Student Well-being and Academic Performance in

Disentangling the Relationships between Student

Well-being and Academic Performance in Online

identity number 1374753

in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

specific problems, such as a lack of attention, procrastination in learning, or low learning

obstacles/facilitators, well-being, and performance which were gained for traditional

academic performance during online education. Facilitators and obstacles in online

suggestions for students in online learning during the pandemic.

Key words: engagement, burnout, performance, obstacles, facilitators

during the long period of online learning (Meeter et al., 2020).

accomplishments and universities’ educational purposes, it is also indispensable to take students’

academic performance into account besides students’ well-being.

performance. There is consensus that students’ well-being has an impact on academic

Hence our research question is formulated as follows:

accomplishment (Maslach, 1981; Schaufeli, & Bakker, 2004).

exposed to physical and psychological stressors (Talaei, Mokhberm, Mohanmmad-Nejad, &

burnout and lack of engagement for the most vulnerable students.

and facilitators for students in online learning.

2.1 Academic engagement and performance

Engagement is an important indicator of student performance that has attracted

content of engagement to get better guidance for future online education.

engagement (vigor and dedication) is the antecedent of academic performance by a longitudinal

(1 semester) between measurements of well-being and performance according to their method

using a shorter time lag.

performance has an influence on student engagement, although performance feedback (knowing

following student engagement can be held in online learning.

engagement and academic performance still needs to be investigated in online teaching. We

Figure 1. The hypothesized model for engagement and performance

2.2 Academic burnout and performance

Burnout is another common indicator of well-being. The former studies on burnout

Freudenberger (1974) provided a relatively clear definition of the concept of “burnout”:

Many cross-section studies proved that burnout is negatively related to academic

burnout on performance, especially in online learning.

Salanova et al. (2010) did not provide a clear time lag.

association between academic performance and subjective well-being by analyzing 47 studies

huge effect on student well-being, it is necessary to investigate whether there is a relationship

burnout and academic performance can influence each other.

H2(a): previous academic performance has a negative effect on subsequent student

Figure 2. The hypothesized model for burnout and performance

2.3 The mediation effect of well-being on performance

2.3.1 The JD-R model

2.3.2 The JD-R model in education

demands/resources and negative/positive performance in the working environment. Salanova et al.

obstacles and facilitators on academic performance in online learning.

Figure 3. The hypothesized model for well-being, obstacles/facilitators, and academic

2.3.3 potential obstacles and facilitators during online learning

2014). In online learning, Molinillo, Aguilar-lllescas, Anaya-Sánchez, and Vallespín-Arán (2018)

motivation (intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external

Hence, autonomy is a possible facilitator to improve academic performance in our model.

(Figure 4). Hence, H3 can be organized as:

and this effect is mediated by engagement and burnout.

mediated by engagement and burnout.

engagement and burnout.

Figure 4. The hypothesized model including specific obstacles and facilitators

age of sample ranged from 17 to 25 years (M= 19.3; SD=1.7).

with the relevant privacy regulations.

Engagement We measured student engagement via an adapted version of Utrecht Work

higher academic engagement.

Housing situation We assessed the housing situation by 5 self-constructed items, (e.g.

information technology and/or equipment?”) is answered on a six-point scale from 1 (always) to