Studies in Educational Evaluation 60 (2019) 199–204

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Studies in Educational Evaluation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/stueduc

Relations between academic performance, student engagement and student T

burnout: A cross-lagged analysis of a two-wave study
⁎
Ramona Paloș, Laurenţiu P. Maricuţoiu , Iuliana Costea
Department of Psychology, West University of Timișoara, Romania

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Academic performance and student well-being are two desired outcomes of any learning and instruction process.
Academic performance The purpose of the present study was to test the temporal order of the relationships between academic per-
Student engagement formance and two forms of student well-being (i.e., student engagement and burnout) in a specific context. 142
Student burnout psychology undergraduate students completed self-reported measures of student engagement and student
Cross-lagged relations
burnout in two waves, during a semester. Also, we included their grades from two intermediate evaluations. Path
analysis models suggested that academic grades could be considered antecedents of student engagement and
student burnout, while the well-being measures cannot be considered antecedents of the academic performance.
These findings provide additional knowledge regarding the relationships between academic well-being and
academic performance.

1. Introduction
The performance of an education system is currently defined in
terms of academic achievement and student well-being (OECD, 2017),
and the existence of both characteristics describes high-performing
education (Lindfors, Minkkinen, Rimpela, & Hotulainen, 2018). In his
meta-synthesis, Wilder (2014) showed that the measurement of the
academic performance generally involves the assessment of student
knowledge (i.e., grades), but it can also include non-standardized
achievement tests (e.g., teacher ratings of student academic behaviors
and attitudes), homework completion rate, student study habits and
skills, student conduct. From a general perspective, subjective well-
being describes how individuals generally evaluate their lives (Diener,
1984). In an occupational context, employee well-being includes four
types of variables as follows: work engagement, happiness at work,
workaholism, and burnout (Bakker & Oerlemans, 2011).
In an occupational context, two dimensions are identified as being
related to well-being: (1) activation, ranging from exhaustion to vigor,
and (2) identification, ranging from cynicism to dedication. Hence,
burnout is characterized by a combination of exhaustion (low activa-
tion) and cynicism (low identification), whereas engagement is char-
acterized by vigor (high activation) and dedication (high identification)
(Schaufeli, Martínez, Pinto, Salanova, & Bakker, 2002; Schaufeli,
Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002).
The researchers that used this perspective in educational settings
argued that school is a central element of adolescents’ and youths’ lives,
and defined well-being in relation to the school context (Tuominen-
Soini, Salmela-Aro, & Niemivirta, 2012). In this framework, student
engagement and student burnout are positive and negative facets of
well-being that are connected to school activities (e.g., studying, at-
tending classes). Research studies (e.g., Lindfors, Minkkinen, Rimpelä,
& Hotulainen, 2018; Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013) that investigated
the relationships between student engagement, student burnout, and
academic performance used scales for academic engagement (Schaufeli,
Martínez et al., 2002; Schaufeli, Salanova et al., 2002) or scales for
student burnout (Schaufeli, Martínez et al., 2002; Schaufeli, Salanova
et al., 2002).
In a recent meta-analysis, Bücker, Nuraydin, Simonsmeier,
Schneider, and Luhmann, (2018) concluded that the correlation be-
tween academic performance and student well-being is small to
medium and that there is a need for more evidence regarding the re-
ciprocal relationships between student performance and student well-
being. In this vein, Ng, Huebner, and Hills, (2015) reported reciprocal
relationships between life satisfaction and academic performance. Also,
Steinmayr, Crede, McElvany, and Wirthwein, (2016) concluded that
academic performance is an antecedent of life satisfaction (i.e., the
cognitive component of subjective well-being, which is strongly asso-
ciated with high engagement and low burnout), but the components of
subjective well-being did not predict later changes in students’ aca-
demic performance.

⁎
Corresponding author at: West University of Timișoara, Department of Psychology, 4 Vasile Pârvan Blvd., Room 303, 300223, Timișoara, Romania.
E-mail address: laurentiu.maricutoiu@e-uvt.ro (L.P. Maricuţoiu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.01.005
Received 8 September 2018; Received in revised form 14 January 2019; Accepted 18 January 2019
0191-491X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Paloș et al.
Recent research studies that used Bakker and Oerlemans (2011)
perspective on well-being in the educational context (i.e., student en-
gagement, student burnout) also had difficulties in establishing a clear
answer regarding the reciprocal relationships between academic per-
formance and subjective well-being. Some researchers argued that
student engagement is an antecedent of academic performance (Seibert,
Bauer, May, & Fincham, 2017 Study 1; Salanova, Schaufeli, Martínez, &
Bresó, 2010; van Beek, Kranenburg, Taris, & Schaufeli, 2013). These
studies had some shortcomings, as follows. Some studies used a cross-
sectional research design and assumed that student engagement (van
Beek et al. (2013) or student burnout (Seibert et al., 2017, Study 1) are
antecedents of academic performance. Salanova et al. (2010) used a
longitudinal design to test the temporal order using cross-lagged cor-
relation analyses and reported significant results for one possible order
(i.e., student engagement as the antecedent of academic performance)
without analyzing the other possible order (i.e., academic performance
as an antecedent for student engagement).
Based on the evidence presented above, we can assume that re-
searchers favor the idea that subjective well-being is an antecedent of
academic performance, and that the possibility of having a two-way
temporal order relation is generally overlooked. Therefore, the purpose
of the present research paper was to fill this gap and to test both pos-
sible temporal relations. Using cross-lagged analyses, we are particu-
larly interested in investigating a possible time order between academic
performance and student engagement, and between academic perfor-
mance and student burnout. Previous research recruited their students
from different faculties and studies (social and behavioral sciences,
chemistry, engineering, law, etc.). The present study was conducted
only with Psychology students involved in Educational Psychology
courses and can improve our understanding of the relationships be-
tween academic performance and student well-being variables in a
particular educational context. Also, this study investigates whether the
outcomes in a specific academic area are different from the outcomes
found in a sample with mixed academic areas. Consequently, our results
should provide support for interventions focused on well-being (as an
antecedent for academic performance) or for interventions focused on
academic performance (as an antecedent for student well-being) in a
specific academic environment.
1.1. Academic performance
Academic performance is a central issue of educational practice
(Mahimuang, 2005). Researchers have linked academic performance to
some behavioral, psychological, and social outcomes (Chen, 2005).
There is a consensus regarding the impact of academic performance
upon school adaptation or social integration (Rienties, Beausaert,
Grohnert, Niemantsverdriet, & Kommers, 2012), future outcomes
(Chen, 2005), or future jobs performance (Sonny & Sherman, 1989).
Converging empirical evidence suggests that students who perform well
academically tend to experience positive schooling (Marks, 2010), po-
sitive adjustment, life satisfaction (Crede, Wirthwein, McElvany, &
Steinmayr, 2015) and general well-being (Nordlander & Stensöta,
2014). In turn, academic performance and motivation are influenced by
the feedback that students receive in the learning process (Denton,
2014; Fishbach, Zhang, & Koo, 2009). Feedback helps them to know
how far or how close are by their goals, to increase their self-efficacy
beliefs (Beatson, Berg, & Smith, 2018), and to adjust their effort in
studying for an exam or in pursuing academic goals (Carrillo-de-la-
Peña et al., 2009).
1.2. Student engagement
Upadyaya and Salmela-Aro (2013) delimitate between two ap-
proaches regarding student engagement: (1) an American perspective,
where engagement is defined as a multidimensional construct which
includes students’ behavior, emotions, and cognitions while studying;
200
Studies in Educational Evaluation 60 (2019) 199–204
and (2) an European perspective based on the Bakker and Oerlemans
(2011) perspective, which defines engagement as a positive, fulfilling,
work-related state of mind characterized by vigor (or energy), dedica-
tion, and absorption. In the present study, we adopted the European
perspective described by Upadyaya and Salmela-Aro (2013). In this
vein, to be academically engaged means to be willing to invest effort in
your study work, to have high levels of energy and mental resilience
while studying (vigor); to be characterized by a sense of significance,
enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge (dedication); to be fully
concentrated and happily engrossed in your study work (absorption)
(Schaufeli, Martínez et al., 2002). Also, students’ engagement has a
positive impact on their adjustment in the academic context and on
their overall success (Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013).
There is an inconsistencyregarding the relationship between student
engagement and academic performance. For instance, previous re-
search reported that student engagement is positively related to student
performance (Fiorilli, De Stasio, Di Chiacchio, Pepe, & Salmela-Aro,
2017; Schaufeli, Martínez et al., 2002; Schlenker, Schlenker, &
Schlenker, 2013) or predicts academic performance (van Beek et al.,
2013). Interestingly, Wang, Chow, Hofkens, and Salmela-Aro, (2015)
reported that the correlation between student engagement in the 9th
grade and their GPA in 11th grade (r = .19) is smaller than the corre-
lation between GPA in the 9th grade and the engagement in the 11th
grade (r = .46). This result suggests that it is more likely for GPA to be
the antecedent of student engagement, not the other way around.
1.3. Student burnout
Considered as an erosion of student engagement (Fiorilli et al.,
2017; Schaufeli, Martínez et al., 2002; Zhang, Gan, & Cham, 2007),
student burnout refers to feeling exhausted because of study demands
(emotional exhaustion), having a cynical and detached attitude toward
one’s study (depersonalization, or cynicism), and feeling incompetent as a
student, having the tendency to evaluate the educational context ne-
gatively (low personal accomplishment) (Schaufeli, Martínez et al.,
2002). Because the exhaustion and the depersonalization components
are strongly correlated, researchers suggested that a general factor –
core burnout, should be used in research studies (Green, Walkey, &
Taylor, 1991; Schaufeli, 2003).
The relationship of student burnout with performance is incon-
sistent. On the one hand, some studies reported that academic perfor-
mance is negatively related to student burnout (May, Bauer, & Fincham,
2015; Schaufeli, Martínez et al., 2002). Students with a high level of
academic burnout obtain lower levels of academic performance (Fiorilli
et al., 2017). Also, students’ burnout affects their capacity to cope with
events of school life and has a positive effect on depressive symptoms
(Fiorilli et al., 2017). Similarly, Salmela-Aro, Kiuru, Leskinen, and
Nurmi, (2009) reported a negative association between academic per-
formance and the cynicism toward the meaning of school and sense of
inadequacy at school experienced by adolescents. Also, Salmela-Aro
and Read (2017) showed that cynicism and inadequacy increase gra-
dually with the number of years of study, in the case of university
students. On the other hand, Salanova et al. (2010) found no significant
association between student burnout and future academic performance.
2. The present study
The idea that knowing own performance (i.e., performance feed-
back) can be an antecedent for student well-being is not new (Beatson
et al., 2018; Fishbach, Eyal, & Finkelstein, 2010). The performance
feedback received by students produce specific emotions and moods
(positive or negative), making them feel good or bad, and consequently
influencing their behavior in response to feedback (Fishbach et al.,
2010). For example, the positive mood can cause disengagement when
students interpreted it as a signal that they have done enough, or it can
increase goal engagement when is interpreted as a signal that they like
R. Paloș et al.
the task (Fishbach et al., 2010).
Therefore, the objective of the present research study was to in-
vestigate the evidence regarding the temporal relations between aca-
demic grades and the two forms of student well-being (i.e., student
engagement and student burnout) in a specific academic context (i.e.,
Psychology educational courses). Because previous research studies did
not provide converging evidence regarding the order of these variables,
we formulated the following hypotheses:
H1. There is a reciprocal relation between academic grades and student
engagement.
H2. There is a reciprocal relation between academic grades and student
burnout.
3. Method
Every Department of Psychology in Romania has its entrance re-
quirements. Usually, the main criterion of student selection is the mean
of baccalaureate exam, which account in various ratio. Because the
competition for study places is high, every faculty can add its criteria. In
our university, students who want to follow courses of Psychology
specialization have to meet two criteria: the mean of baccalaureate
exam (which account for 67% from the entrance mean), and a test
which assesses their linguistic and cognitive competencies. This test
accounts for 33% of the admission mean. There are 250 places per year,
and only 50 of them are without tuition fees. The rate of dropout after
the first university year is almost 30%.
3.1. Participants
162 Romanian psychology freshman students signed up for this
research, but 20 of them failed to complete the questionnaires in both
measurement moments. Regarding their initial levels of engagement
and burnout, the 20 students (15 female) that dropped out of the study
were not significantly different from the students that were included in
this study. Therefore, the final research sample consisted of 142 first-
year Psychology students (76.06% females), who received extra credits
for their participation. The age of the participant ranged from 19 to 55
years (M = 21.34; SD = 5.37).
3.2. Procedure
All participants were enrolled in a compulsory semester course in
Educational Psychology. A semester has 14th weeks and the assessment
is summative (i.e., at the end of the semester). For this research, stu-
dents had a midterm evaluation (T1, in the 7h week of the semester)
from the first seventh lectures content and another final evaluation (T2,
in the 14th week of the semester) from the other seventh lectures
content. All participants were informed regarding the results of the T1
in the 8th week of the semester. Therefore, they were aware of their
performance in T1 when they prepared for the T2 evaluation. The
students that failed the midterm evaluation (T1, the grade was less than
5) were not allowed to participate to the final evaluation (T2 – this was
the reason why 20 of them did not complete the second measurement).
The exam consisted of a mix of multiple-choice items and situational
problems. The final grade for the Educational Psychology exam was the
average of the two assessments. Participants completed paper-and-
pencil measures at two moments, before each evaluation. Before
starting filling in the questionnaires, the participants had to read an
introduction where the aims and the procedure of the study were ex-
plained. Their answers indicated their agreement to be part of the
study. Although the time between the two assessments seems to be
short, previous research (Ouweneel, Le Blanc, & Schaufeli, 2011) re-
ported significant cross-lagged effects using a 4-week interval.
201
Studies in Educational Evaluation 60 (2019) 199–204
3.3. Measures
The academic performance measure was the student's grades on
Educational Psychology, on each of the two evaluations (i.e., T1 - the
7th and T2 - 14th week of the semester), and the correlation between
these two measurement moments was .62. In the Romanian educational
system, grading scale runs from 1 to 10. The grades 5 (lowest) to 10
(highest) are all passing grades, whereas for grades below 5 indicate
failed exams.
Regarding the well-being measures, we choose the educational
versions of two scales that are most popular in the occupational health
domain. For the two questionnaires, their Romanian versions were
successfully used in previous studies on Romanian students’ samples
(Sulea, van Beek, Sârbescu, Vîrga, & Schaufeli, 2015).
Student engagement was assessed with 17-items Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale – Student version (UWES-S, Schaufeli, Martínez
et al., 2002). Although the questionnaire has three dimensions (i.e.,
vigor, dedication, and absorption), we have chosen to assess engage-
ment as a composite score because of the strong correlations (i.e., va-
lues above .70) between these scales. Items were scored on a 7-point
scale (0–never; 6–always), and the larger scores indicate higher levels
of engagement. The reliability of the scale was α = .93 in both mea-
surement moments. The items and instructions were contextualized to
be relevant to the Educational Psychology course (e.g., Time flies when I
am studying Educational Psychology).
Student burnout was measured with 15-items Maslach Burnout
Inventory – student survey (MBI-SS, Schaufeli, Martínez et al., 2002),
adapted for educational context. For this study, the items and instruc-
tions were contextualized to be relevant to the Educational Psychology
course (e.g., Studying or attending a class of Educational Psychology is
really a strain for me). Following the approach suggested by Green et al.
(1991), we computed a general score for core burnout using the items
from the exhaustion and depersonalization scales. All items are scored
on a 7-point frequency rating scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always),
and the internal consistency alphas are .76 (at T1) and .81 (at T2).
3.4. Data analysis
We used structural equation modeling to analyze the latent struc-
ture of our outcomes. Firstly, we tested two alternative measurement
models to assess whether the common variance of student engagement
and student burnout can be specified i) in twolatent factors, one for
each measurement moment; or ii) in two latent factors, one for each
measure. In the first structural model, we specified a latent factor for
the variables measured in T1, another latent factor for the variables
measured in T2, and we allowed these two latent factors to correlate.
The fit indices of this measurement model were poor (CFI = .69,
RMSEA = .64, SRMR = .13); therefore we concluded that engagement
and burnout could not be seen as measures of a common latent variable
(e.g., general student well-being). In the second structural model, we
specified a latent factor for both measurement moments of student
engagement, and another latent factor for both measurement moments
of student burnout. The fit indices of this model were also poor
(CFI = .85, RMSEA = .25, SRMR = .09) For this reason, we treated
engagement and burnout separately in our analyses.
Next, we used path analysis to investigate the cross-lagged relations.
We used an approach similar to the one used previously by Hakanen,
Schaufeli, and Ahola, (2008). We estimated the fit of four path analysis
models: the autonomy model (i.e., auto-correlations from T1 to T2), the
grades as predictor (i.e. the autonomy model, and the grades at T1
predicting all measures in T2), the engagement as predictor (i.e. the
autonomy model, and engagement at T1 predicting all measures in T2),
and the burnout as predictor (i.e. the autonomy model, and burnout at
T1 predicting all measures at T2).
We conducted all our analyses in the R package lavaan (Rosseel,
2012), using the maximum likelihood estimation method. Regarding
R. Paloș et al. Studies in Educational Evaluation 60 (2019) 199–204

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations between study variables.
min max m SD Gender Age Grade1 SE T1 SB T1 Grade2 SE T2 SB T2

Gender — −.215* .171* .106 −.116 .187* .05 −.204 *

Age 19 55 21.34 5.36 — −.013 .131 −.059 −.058 .067 −.039
Grade1 5 10 7.62 1.27 — .037 −.058 .618*** .157 −.173 *
SE T1 1.76 6.94 4.37 1.08 .93 −.375*** .085 .678 *** −.315 ***
SB T1 1.10 5.40 3.09 0.94 .76 −.004 −.231 ** .623 ***
Grade2 3.75 10 7.28 1.64 — .119 −.069
SE T2 1 6.52 4.37 1.02 .93 −.347 ***
SB T2 1.20 5.70 3.16 0.93 .81

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Gender (1-male, 2-female); SE T1 = Student engagement at T1, SB T1 = Student burnout at T1, SE T2 = Student
engagement at T2, SB T2 = Student burnout at T2. Internal consistency indices (i.e., Cronbach’s alphas) are presented in italics on the diagonal.

model fit, we used the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis
index (TLI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and
the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Hu and Bentler
(1999) recommended that acceptable models should have CFI and TLI
values above .95 indicate good fit, RMSEA values below .06, and the
SRMR values should be less than .08 to consider the model as appro-
priate. We compared the alternative models using the Δχ² statistical test
for nested models. Furthermore, we conducted post-hoc statistical
power analyses (Preacher & Coffman, 2006) to investigate the ability to
detect significant differences between our models at a .05 alpha level.
4. Results
that high academic performance can be seen as an antecedent of high
student engagement and low student burnout. In conclusion, our results
did not support the hypotheses of this research study, which anticipated
reciprocal relations between academic grades and student engagement
(Hypothesis 1), or reciprocal relations between academic grades and
student burnout (Hypothesis 2).
The model that assumed that grades are antecedents of student
engagement and burnout is presented in Fig. 1. In this model, the high
grades at T1 have an incremental effect on high student engagement
(B = .106, SE = .049, p = .029, β = .13) and on low student burnout
(B = -.102, SE = .048, p = .034, β = -.14), beyond the auto-regression
effects of each variable.

4.1. Correlations between study variables

5. Discussion
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and the zero-order corre-
lation matrix of the variables included in this study, at the two mea- This research aimed to investigate the possible temporal order be-
surement moments. The results of the first academic evaluation (stu- tween academic performance (i.e., student grades) and two forms of
dents’ grades) correlated significantly with student engagement at T2 (r student well-being: student engagement and student burnout in a spe-
(140) = .16, p = .06) and student burnout at T2 (r(140) = −.17, cific academic context (i.e., Psychology educational courses). Previous
p = .04). The second evaluation of academic performance (students’ research studies, which included students from various academic areas,
grades) did not correlate with engagement or burnout at any moment. did not provide a clear direction for this temporal order. Therefore we
tested both possible relations: grades as a consequence of student well-
being, and student well-being as a consequence of academic perfor-
4.2. Model comparisons
mance (i.e., grades).
One central finding of this study is that high academic grades can be
We presented the fit indices for all models in Table 2. Although the
considered an antecedent for high student engagement and low student
values of most fit indices indicated good fit in the case of all our models,
burnout. Although some cross-sectional research studies reported that
the RMSEA index had indicated acceptable fit only for the model that
increased burnout is associated with smaller GPA (e.g., May et al.,
assumed that grades are an antecedent of student engagement and
2015), our results are convergent with the findings reported by
student burnout.
Salanova et al. (2010), who found that burnout has no significant effect
Model comparison analyses indicated that the autonomy model is
on future performance. In our alternative model, burnout was not a
significantly inferior only to the model that assumed grades as ante-
predictor of future student grades. However, when we tested the op-
cedents of engagement and well-being (Δχ²(2) = 7.323, p = .026;
posite temporal relation, our results showed that high academic per-
ΔRMSEA = .077, statistical power = .996 for detecting RMSEA differ-
formance (i.e., grades) could predict future low student burnout. Si-
ences a .05 alpha level). Our results suggested that the autonomy model
milarly, Salmela-Aro et al. (2009) found that adolescents experienced
does not have superior fit as compared with the model that assumed
more cynicism toward the meaning of school and more sense of in-
student engagement as antecedent of all T2 variables (Δχ²(2) = 2.673,
adequacy at school, as they had lower GPA and lower school engage-
p = .263), or as compared with the model that assumed student
ment.
burnout is an antecedent of all T2 variables (Δχ²(2) = 0.336, p = .845).
Also, previous studies showed that student engagement positively
Taken together, the results of the model comparison analyses suggested
predicts student grades (Schlenker et al., 2013; van Beek et al., 2013).
Likewise, Salanova et al. (2010) reported that engagement has a sig-
Table 2
Fit indices of the four models tested.
nificant incremental effect on student grades. In our analyses, the value
of the regression coefficient is very similar to the one reported by
Model χ² (df) CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Salanova et al. (2010), but our smaller sample size did not provide
(with 90% confidence
interval)
sufficient statistical power to reach statistical significance. However, we
had found significant results when we tested the alternative temporal
Autonomy model 11.070 (6) .980 .950 .077 (.000–.147) .058 direction: high student grades significantly predicted future high student
Grades as antecedent 3.747 (4) .999 .999 .001 (.000–.123) .027 engagement. In a similar vein, Fishbach et al. (2009) suggested that
Engagement as 8.397 (4) .983 .935 .088 (.000–.172) .048
students will focus on their academic work if they get a high mark on an
antecedent
Burnout as antecedent 10.734 (4) .973 .900 .109 (.031–.190) .061 exam and interpret this is the result of their commitment. Conse-
quently, students are inclined to give up to their academic work if the

202
R. Paloș et al.
Fig. 1. Standardized coefficients of the model that assumed grades are antecedents of engagement and burnout.
mark is low. To sum up, our results showed that student grades could
lead to future student burnout and significantly predict future student
engagement.
5.1. Limitations and future directions
This study has some limitations that should be taken into con-
sideration. Firstly, we didn’t take into account the way students inter-
pret and relate to the feedback they got from the first evaluation. We
already know that feedback makes people feel good or bad (Fishbach
et al., 2010) and influences their motivation to reach a goal (Fishbach
et al., 2009). Consequently, although we know that grades are the first
feedback that teachers gave to students, we don’t know if the academic
grades or the student interpretation of the feedback are causes for
student burnout and engagement. Therefore, a future direction for re-
search should investigate the feedback effect to see if and how it
mediates the relation between grades and academic well-being.
A second possible limitation is the fact that we only had two mea-
surement moments for a specific discipline (i.e., Educational
Psychology), over the course of one semester. But beyond this, a strong
point of this study is precisely the longitudinal analysis over the se-
mester. At this moment, it is unclear whether the effects presented in
this paper can be linked with academic grades in other disciplines from
this semester. Because some of our outcomes were different from pre-
vious studies, to get a clearer image on the relationships between
academic performance and student well-being variables future research
should investigate whether such effects can be observed from one dis-
cipline to another (also compulsory and optional), or from one semester
to another.
Finally, the structure of the sample (i.e., the imbalance between
men and women, size) might be a possible limitation of this research
study. Although we did not find significant differences between male
and female students regarding engagement, we found some marginally
significant gender differences regarding the grades in both measure-
ment moments and the level of burnout in the second measurement
moment. Although these differences are marginally significant
(p > .01), we encourage future research studies to include gender
differences in the analysis of the relationships between academic per-
formance and student well-being. Because of the limited number of the
students involved, our findings should be considered with caution.
Moreover, some of the results presented in this paper are marginally
significant and, therefore, more research studies are needed to confirm
our findings.
6. Conclusions
The fact that this study is a longitudinal analysis over a semester it
allowed us to compare both directions of the temporal order directly
and to emphasize not only the effect of well-being on academic per-
formance but also the effect of academic performance on well-being.
203
Studies in Educational Evaluation 60 (2019) 199–204
From a theoretical perspective, our findings are important because they
provide additional knowledge regarding the direction of the relations
between academic well-being and academic performance in a particular
academic context. Therefore, more research studies in different aca-
demic areas are needed to clarify these divergent findings.
From a practical perspective, the results are useful especially for
instructors and educational practices. For example, if teachers are
aware of the factors that influence students’ engagement and burnout
levels, they can design an optimal learning environment to support
students’ needs. Moreover, to prevent emotional exhaustion and cynical
attitudes towards learning, instructors could help students to manage
their effort in dealing with learning demands and could adjust their
workloads (Noh, Shin, & Lee, 2013). Also, our students had some feed-
back regarding their academic performance because they knew their
academic grades two weeks before they completed the wellbeing scales
for the second measurement moment. Previous research pointed out
that the absence of feedback regarding their academic performance
(Schaufeli, Martínez et al., 2002) or poor performance feedback from
the teacher (Carrillo-de-la- Peña et al., 2009) may be related to the
cynical attitude of students towards study (i.e., depersonalization) .
Therefore, teachers should pay more attention to the evaluation process
and how they offer performance feedback no matter their educational
area.
Acknowledgments
The first and the second authors contributed equally; order of au-
thorship is arbitrary. This work was partially supported by a grant from
the Romanian Ministry of Education, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number
108BM/2017. This organization had no role in the design and im-
plementation of the study.
References
Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. (2011). Subjective well-being in organizations. In K. S.
Cameron, & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of positive organizational
scholarship (pp. 178–189). New York: Oxford University Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.03.002.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.02.007.
Carrillo-de-la- Peña, M. T., Baillès, E., Caseras, X., Martínez, A., Ortet, G., & Pérez, J.
(2009). Formative assessment and academic achievement in pre-graduate students of
health sciences. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 14, 61–67.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-007-9086-y.
Chen, J. J.-L. (2005). Relation of academic support from parents, teachers, and peers to
Hong Kong adolescents’ academic achievement: The mediating role of academic
engagement. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131(2), 77–127.
https://doi.org/10.3200/MONO.131.2.77-127.
Crede, J., Wirthwein, L., McElvany, N., & Steinmayr, R. (2015). Adolescents’ academic
achievement and life satisfaction: The role of parents’ education. Frontiers in
Psychology, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00052.
Denton, D. W. (2014). Using screen capture feedback to improve academic performance.
R. Paloș et al.
TechTrends, 58(6), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0803-0.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542.
Fiorilli, C., De Stasio, S., Di Chiacchio, C., Pepe, A., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2017). School
burnout, depressive symptoms and engagement: Their combined effect on student
achievement. International Journal of Educational Research, 84, 1–12. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijer.2017.04.001.
Fishbach, A., Zhang, Y., & Koo, M. (2009). The dynamics of self-regulation. European
Review of Social Psychology, 20, 315–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10463280903275375.
Fishbach, A., Eyal, T., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2010). How positive and negative feedback
motivate goal pursuit. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(8), 517–530.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00285.x.
Green, D. E., Walkey, F. H., & Taylor, A. J. W. (1991). The three factor structure of the
Maslach Burnout Inventory. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 453–472.
Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Ahola, K. (2008). The job demands-resources model: A
three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work en-
gagement. Work and Stress, 22, 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02678370802379432.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,
6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Lindfors, P., Minkkinen, J., Rimpelä, A., & Hotulainen, R. (2018). Family and school
social capital, school burnout and academic achievement: A multilevel longitudinal
analysis among Finnish pupils. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 23,
368–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2017.1389758.
Mahimuang, S. (2005). Factors influencing academic achievement and improvement: A
value-added approach. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 4, 13–26. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10671-005-0677-1.
Marks, G. N. (2010). What aspects of schooling are important? School effects on tertiary
entrance performance. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 267–287.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09243451003694364.
May, R. W., Bauer, K. N., & Fincham, F. D. (2015). School burnout: Diminished academic
and cognitive performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 42, 126–131. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.015.
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, 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.09.004.
Noh, H., Shin, H., & Lee, S. M. (2013). Developmental process of academic burnout
among Korean middle school students. Learning and Individual Differences, 28, 82–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.09.014.
Nordlander, E., & Stensöta, H. O. (2014). Grades – For better or worse? The interplay of
school performance and subjective well-being among boys and girls. Child Indicators
Research, 7, 861–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-014-9233-y.
OECD (2017). PISA 2015 results (Volume III): Students’ well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). Flourishing students: A long-
itudinal study on positive emotions, personal resources, and study engagement. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2011.
558847.
Preacher, K. J., & Coffman, D. L. (2006). Computing power and minimum sample size for
RMSEA [Computer software]. May, Available fromhttp://quantpsy.org/.
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, 685–700. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10734-011-9468-1.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more.
Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.
18637/jss.v048.i02.
204
Studies in Educational Evaluation 60 (2019) 199–204
Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W. B., Martínez, I., & Bresó, E. (2010). How obstacles and fa-
cilitators predict academic performance: The mediating role of study burnout and
engagement. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 23, 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10615800802609965.
Salmela-Aro, K., & Read, S. (2017). Study engagement and burnout profiles among
Finnish higher education students. Burnout Research, 7, 21–28. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.burn.2017.11.001.
Salmela-Aro, K., Kiuru, N., Leskinen, E., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2009). School-Burnout inventory
(SBI). Reliability and validity. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(1),
48–57. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.25.1.48.
Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Past performance and future perspectives of burnout research. SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(4), 1–15.
Schaufeli, W. B., Martínez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002).
Burnout and engagement in university students. A cross-national study. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022022102033005003.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The mea-
surement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic
approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1015630930326.
Schlenker, B. R., Schlenker, P. A., & Schlenker, K. A. (2013). Antecedents of academic
engagement and the implications for college grades. Learning and Individual
Differences, 27, 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.06.014.
Seibert, G. S., Bauer, K. N., May, R. W., & Fincham, F. D. (2017). Emotion regulation and
academic underperformance: The role of school burnout. Learning and Individual
Differences, 60, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.10.001.
Sonny, A. S., & Sherman, T. A. (1989). Employee education and job performance: does
education matter? Public Personnel Management, 18(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/
009102608901800101.
Steinmayr, R., Crede, J., McElvany, N., & Wirthwein, L. (2016). Subjective well-being,
test anxiety, academic achievement: Testing for reciprocal effects. Frontiers in
Psychology, 6, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01994 1994.
Sulea, C., van Beek, I., Sârbescu, P., Vîrga, D., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2015). Engagement,
boredom, and burnout among students: Basic need satisfaction matters more than
personality traits. Learning and Individual Differences, 42, 132–138. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.018.
Tuominen-Soini, H., Salmela-Aro, K., & Niemivirta, M. (2012). Achievement goal or-
ientations and academic well-being across the transition to upper secondary educa-
tion. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lindif.2012.01.002.
Upadyaya, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013). Development of school engagement in associa-
tion with academic success and well-being in varying social context. A review of
empirical research. European Psychologist, 18(2), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1027//
1016-9040/a000143.
van Beek, I., Kranenburg, I. C., Taris, T. W., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). BIS- and BAS-
activation and study outcomes: A mediation study. Personality and Individual
Differences, 55, 474–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.04.013.
Wang, M.-T., Chow, A., Hofkens, T., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2015). The trajectories of student
emotional engagement and school burnout with academic and psychological devel-
opment: Findings from Finnish adolescents. Learning and Instruction, 36, 57–65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.11.004.
Wilder, S. (2014). Effects of parental involvement on academic achievement: A meta-
synthesis. Educational Review, 66(3), 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.
2013.780009.
Zhang, Y., Gan, Y., & Cham, H. (2007). Perfectionism, academic burnout and engagement
among Chinese college students: A structural equation modelling analysis. Personality
and Individual Differences, 43, 1529–1540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.
010.