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