Investigating the relationships between loneliness and learning burnout

Abstract

Loneliness is a common problem for many students. Research indicates that loneliness is associated with relatively poor physical health and depression among students. Burnout in students is also an important issue since it adversely affects students’ learning as well as their health and well-being. Both loneliness and learning burnout are related to negative psychological health, and there might exist a relationship between them. This study is to understand the current situation of students’ loneliness and learning burnout and further to explore the relationships between the two. The ‘Loneliness Scale’ and ‘Learning Burnout Scale’ are used as research tools, and data from 1788 students were collected. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software was utilized to analyze the data, and the major findings shed light on whether there are differences between males and females with regard to experiencing higher loneliness and learning burnout symptoms. Results also show the relationship of the level of student loneliness and its correlation or otherwise with factors of learning burnout such as low sense of achievement and negative learning emotion.

Keywords

emotional exhaustion interpersonal alienation learning burnout loneliness low sense of achievement negative learning emotion

Loneliness and learning burnout

Loneliness is a common problem for many students (Ponzetti, 1990; Shaver et al., 1985; Wiseman et al., 1995). It has been defined as an unpleasant experience that derives from important deficiencies in the lonely person’s network of social relationship (DiTommaso and Spinner, 1997; Jones et al., 1981; Russell et al., 1980). Research indicates that loneliness is associated with relatively poor physical health (Arkar et al., 2004) and depression (Wei et al., 2005) among students. Long-term loneliness can easily have adverse effects on students, such as low satisfaction for life and learning achievements, and a negative impact on their physical and mental health (Wang, 1989). Given the impact that loneliness has on how students learn, it is clear that this is an important issue that needs to be paid attention to if we are to better aid our learners in their learning.

Loneliness is a negative emotion characterized by feeling empty, isolated, and worthless. A lack of belonging in the group, feeling lonely, and self-denial are three major factors that cause loneliness (Wang, 1989). The feeling of loneliness comes from an individual’s dissatisfaction with their interpersonal social life, the gap between expectations and the reality of social status, or lack of emotional connection (Bauminger and Kasari, 2000). In brief, when an individual experiences surrounding social interaction that is not what they expected, loneliness will occur. Loneliness is not just limited to social isolation; it is possible that an individual can still feel lonely among groups (Pinquart and Sorensen, 2001).

Studies related to burnout focused primarily upon professionals who help others or people whose work requires them to have a close interaction with others. In recent years, the number of studies about burnout has increased significantly, and the study of burnout has been extended to almost every job, and even to nonoccupational samples, for example, students (Balogun et al., 1996; Chang et al., 2000; McCarthy et al., 1990; Yang, 2004). Learning burnout is one of the experiences that some students may face in higher education (McCarthy et al., 1990; Meier and Schmeck, 1985). It is the extension of career burnout, meaning that students become burned out in their learning process because of academic pressure, homework overload, or other individual psychological factors such as emotional exhaustion, negative attitudes, and the phenomenon of low personal accomplishment (Balogun et al., 1996; Lingard et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2007).

Burnout has been the focus of a substantial body of research, primarily as a psychological phenomenon related to the context of work within the occupational structure. It is characterized by three dimensions: overwhelming exhaustion, feelings of cynicism and detachment, and a sense of ineffectiveness on the job (Maslach et al., 2001). Although, formally speaking, students are neither employed nor do they hold jobs from a psychological perspective, their core activities can be considered as ‘work’. Thus, just as with workers, students will show symptoms of burnout, and student populations will suffer academic burnout (Balogun et al., 1996; Jacobs and Dodd, 2003). This issue is very important for several reasons. First, student burnout may be the key for understanding a wide range of student behaviors during their studies. Second, student burnout may also influence their relationships, present and future, with their institution and with their fellow students, lecturers, and others. Third, the phenomenon of student burnout may affect the general attractiveness of the institution for new students with potential ramifications for present and future enrollments (Neumann et al., 1990). Therefore, student burnout is an important aspect of an institution’s effectiveness and as such may have distinct policy implications for institutions of higher learning.

To date, most research has explored student learning burnout in relation to the following three factors: low sense of achievement, depersonalization, and emotional exhaustion (Balogun et al., 1996; Lingard et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2007). Low sense of achievement refers to a decline in feelings of competence and successful achievement in academic learning. Depersonalization refers to a negative, callous, or excessively detached response to other people. Emotional exhaustion refers to feelings of being emotionally overextended and depleted. In addition to these three widely discussed and agreed factors, there may be a fourth factor of learning burnout, namely, ‘negative learning emotion’ (Huang and Lin, 2010). Negative learning emotion refers to negative attitudes, emotion, or behaviors about everyday learning.

Burnout in students is an issue of concern due to the various demands of university life and the probable adverse impact on their learning and well-being. Research has focused upon examining various aspects of students’ lives, such as academic studies and achievement, and identified factors including workload and personality that correlate with student burnout (Hardy and Dodd, 1998; Jacobs and Dodd, 2003; Weckwerth and Flynn, 2006). Loneliness is a common negative emotion and a precursor to many mental illnesses (Heinrich and Gullone, 2006; Russell and Cuttrona, 1991). Loneliness makes people feel empty, isolated, and meaningless, and without proper care and adjustment, emotional disorders can easily follow. When a person is lonely, it often leads to more psychological distress and creates health issues (Mahon et al., 1993). Both loneliness and learning burnout are related to negative psychological health, and there may be a relationship between them.

Loneliness is often associated with various psychological difficulties in adults (Dellinger-Ness and Handler, 2007). Particularly, it might exacerbate some of the difficulties that students face when adjusting to university, perhaps leading some students to feel too tired to learn. It is suggested that there is a correlation between loneliness and dropout rates in higher education (Cacioppo et al., 2006; Medora and Woodward, 1986), implying that there may be some relationship between loneliness and learning burnout. Although loneliness has been associated with a number of negative consequences for students, thus far, there has been no research to our knowledge that has investigated its relationship to learning burnout, and given its importance to learners and their learning, as well as to their mental and physical health and well-being, it is clear that research is warranted. As loneliness is a common problem for many students, it would be useful to know whether lonely students are more likely to suffer or to be at risk of burnout than students who are not (or who claim not to be) lonely. It is reasonable to wonder how much of loneliness might actually be depression. Early research indicates that loneliness and depression are correlated but they are clearly different constructs; neither is a direct cause of the other (Weeks et al., 1980). However, there is evidence that loneliness and depression often co-occur. Correlations between measures of these two constructs range from 0.4 to 0.6 in populations of university students (Russell et al., 1978, 1980). Loneliness and depression are overlapping but are distinct experiences. Other research has shown a positive relationship between loneliness and depression, and demonstrates that loneliness and depression are distinct phenomena, that neither is the cause of the other, and that they seem to share some common causal origins (Horowitz et al., 1982; Russell et al., 1980; Weeks et al., 1980). Whatever the link or relationship between depression and loneliness, it is nonetheless the case that there is more that we need to understand about both, given that both are associated with negative emotions.

The question is whether loneliness triggers negative emotions that cause a certain degree of impact on academic learning, or whether loneliness makes an individual more susceptible to burnout in terms of their academic learning. It is clear that there is more that we need to understand about the relationship between student learning burnout and loneliness. It is argued that the more we know, the better faculty members will be able to deal with their students in their classrooms. However, it is not only faculty who engage with students. Personal tutors, advisors, administrators, and others come into contact with students outside the classroom in order to offer guidance and support to students, and it is argued that they, too, would be better placed to engage with students if they had greater insight into the relationship, if any, between learning burnout and loneliness. Given this, the main purpose of the study is

To find out the current situation of loneliness and learning burnout in students

To explore the relationship between student learning burnout and loneliness

To compare the differences in learning burnout with different levels of loneliness

Methods

Sample and setting

A total of 100 college students from National Chung-Hsing University and Tunghai University of Taiwan were used as pretrial subjects. Pilot samples used in this study were to help understand the applicability of the Loneliness Scale and Learning Burnout Scale for the subjects and also as preparation for preliminary screening. The final questionnaires were completed after item analysis, reliability testing, and the removal of inappropriate questions.

Next, seven different public and private universities in Taiwan including the National Taichung University of Education, National Chung-Hsing University, National Taiwan College of Physical Education, National Chin-Yi University of Technology, Tunghai University, Feng-Chia University, and Providence University were selected. Target students were selected from different grades, departments, and classes among these universities. The questionnaires were administered in classes during the period between May 2010 and July 2010. The research assistants handed out the questionnaires to students at the end of the class. A consent letter was attached on the top of the questionnaire to ensure voluntary and anonymous participation. The students were informed that all the data would remain confidential and would only be reported by group. The students were permitted to leave at any time during the survey. A total of 2238 questionnaires were collected, and of these, a total of 1788 were considered valid. Of the participants who completed a survey providing demographic and anecdotal information, 55.6% were female and the proportions of the first year to the fourth year students were 22.9%, 36.9%, 24.9%, and 15.3%, respectively. Table 1 shows characteristics of the participants.

Table 1.

Sample distribution according to gender and grade

		First year (freshmen)	Second year (sophomore)	Third year (junior)	Fourth year (senior)	Total
Male	N	170	311	173	139	793
	Total (%)	9.5	17.4	9.7	7.8	44.4
Female	N	240	349	272	134	995
	Total (%)	13.4	19.5	15.2	7.5	55.6
Total	N	410	660	445	273	1788
	Total (%)	22.9	36.9	24.9	15.3	100

Instruments

Loneliness Scale

The Loneliness Scale used in this study was revised from that of Tsai (2006). This scale was originally developed by Russell et al. (1978), and since then the tool has been translated and revised and is now in widespread use around the world. Tsai (2006) modified its revised Chinese version for Taiwanese students, and the scale has also been identified to possess highly internal consistence and good validity. There are a total of 20 questions in the scale, half positive and half negative, using a Likert four-point scale, with ratings from ‘never’, ‘seldom’, ‘sometimes’, to ‘often’, assigned 1, 2, 3, and 4 points, respectively, so that the higher the score, the stronger the degree of loneliness. There are three subscales that are named as ‘lonely and helpless’, ‘low sense of belonging’, and ‘lack of friendship’, respectively. The subscale ‘lonely and helpless’ means an individual feels unhappy because they have no one close to rely on or to share things with. The ‘low sense of belonging’ means an individual feels a low sense of belonging in groups. The ‘lack of friendship’ means an individual lacks friends and someone to feel close to.

After the pretrial, the data were analyzed by those conducting the research. Questions selected were those with a critical ratio value that is greater than 3; factors were processed, reliability analysis carried out, and the 15th item removed since its factor loading was lower than 0.5. Formal questionnaires were identified (a total of 19 questions), sampled, collected, and processed. Confirmatory factor analysis was carried out for the purpose of validating and confirming the goodness of fit of the Loneliness Scale. The fit was evaluated using the chi-squared test that helps indicate appropriate data model fit (when the result of the test is not significant); however, due to its sensitivity to sample size, as the chi-squared test always produces a significant result, it was necessary to complement it with other indices: goodness-of-fit index (GFI ≥ 0.90), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR ≤ 0.08), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA ≤ 0.08), normed fit index (NFI ≥ 0.90), comparative fit index (CFI ≥ 0.90), and adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI ≥ 0.90).

Consequently, the results showed all the indices of goodness of fit are good except the chi-squared test (χ² = 1491.77, df = 149, p < 0.001; NFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97; GFI = 0.92; AGFI = 0.90; SRMR = 0.04; RMSEA = 0.07). The Cronbach α coefficients for each dimension were 0.91, 0.84, and 0.89, respectively, and the overall coefficient was 0.91. As can be seen, the Loneliness Scale has good reliability and validity.

Learning Burnout Scale

This scale was revised based on Maslach Burnout Scale (Maslach et al., 1996) and Huang and Lin’s (2010) research tools. The latter include 21 questions, using a Likert five-point scale, with ratings from ‘always’, ‘often’, ‘sometimes’, ‘seldom’, to ‘never’, assigned 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 points, respectively, so that the higher the score, the stronger the degree of learning burnout. The scale consists of four parts that are named as ‘low sense of achievement’, ‘interpersonal alienation’, ‘negative learning emotion’, and ‘emotional exhaustion’, respectively. The subscale ‘low sense of achievement’ describes students who say that they feel unsatisfied in their academic achievement, feel disappointed, or feel that university life is meaningless. The ‘interpersonal alienation’ describes students who are passive and alienated toward their interpersonal relationships at the university, with such students tending to have indifferent attitudes toward teachers and other students. ‘Negative learning emotion’ describes students who are tired of school work, bored, and lack enthusiasm. Finally, ‘emotional exhaustion’ describes students who mentally feel frustration, failure, and that no one cares about them. The first and second factors emphasize cognitive and behavior aspects, respectively; the third factor emphasizes academic emotional aspects; and the fourth factor refers to the psychological aspects of an individual’s emotional development.

This scale used the same approach as the Loneliness Scale for the pretest questions, receiving a total of 20 questions for the formal scale after deleting the fourth question because of low factor loading. The survey was conducted, collected, and processed. For the valid sample, confirmatory factor analysis was carried out for the purpose of validating and confirming the goodness of fit of the Learning Burnout Scale. Similar to the Loneliness Scale, the results showed that all the indices of goodness of fit are good except the chi-squared test (χ² = 1533.14, df = 164, p < 0.001; NFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97; GFI = 0.92; AGFI = 0.90; SRMR = 0.05; RMSEA = 0.07). The Cronbach α coefficients for each dimension were 0.80, 0.83, 0.90, and 0.89, respectively, with an overall coefficient of 0.93. As can be seen, the Learning Burnout Scale also has acceptable reliability and validity.

Data analysis

Valid questionnaires were processed for coding, inputting, and verifying. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software package, and in addition, the LISREL 8.70 was used to perform the confirmatory analysis. We used SPSS for data analysis including descriptive statistics analysis for students’ loneliness and learning burnout situation, and canonical correlation analysis for exploring the correlations between the two. Finally, the independent t test was applied to compare the differences of high and low levels of loneliness in learning burnout.

Results

Current situation of student loneliness and learning burnout

The mean scores of student loneliness and learning burnout are given in Table 2. From Table 2, we can see that male students showed higher levels of loneliness and learning burnout symptoms in each, and overall factors of Loneliness and Learning Burnout Scales when compared with female students. Furthermore, students in the second and third year also experienced higher levels of loneliness and learning burnout compared with those in their first year (freshmen) and final year (senior students).

Table 2.

Mean scores of students’ loneliness and learning burnout

	Sex		Grades
	Male	Female	1	2	3	4
Lonely and helpless	2.07	2.01	2.01	2.07	2.03	1.98
Low sense of belonging	2.16	1.95	2.01	2.09	2.01	2.03
Lack of friendship	2.16	1.87	1.92	2.05	1.98	2.01
Overall loneliness	2.11	1.96	1.99	2.07	2.01	2.00
Low sense of achievement	3.04	2.90	2.86	2.99	3.02	2.95
Interpersonal alienation	2.54	2.38	2.38	2.48	2.51	2.40
Negative learning emotion	3.04	2.87	2.85	2.94	3.08	2.86
Emotional exhaustion	2.68	2.56	2.59	2.67	2.61	2.51
Overall learning burnout	2.82	2.67	2.67	2.77	2.81	2.67

The mean scores and standard deviations for all subjects in Loneliness and Learning Burnout Scales are represented in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. In Table 3, we also showed the first 27% and last 27% of the samples from the Loneliness Scale score, representing the levels of scale for study subjects who are highly lonely and less lonely. As can be seen from Table 3, the overall average scores for research subjects’ loneliness are around 2.03 and at a degree of ‘seldom feels this way’. In addition, the overall loneliness score for the first 27% sample is as high as 2.60, and the average score for ‘low sense of belonging’ is even as high as 2.87: a stark demonstration that some of the students tend to have loneliness symptoms.

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics of students’ Loneliness Scale scores

	All subjects		Higher group		Lower group
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Lonely and helpless	2.04	0.58	2.69	0.35	1.35	0.23
Low sense of belonging	2.04	0.67	2.87	0.39	1.22	0.21
Lack of friendship	2.00	0.66	2.82	0.38	1.23	0.23
Overall loneliness	2.03	0.50	2.60	0.25	1.41	0.20

SD: standard deviation.

Table 4.

Descriptive statistics of students’ Learning Burnout Scale score

	M	SD
Low sense of achievement (Y1)	2.96	0.77
Interpersonal alienation (Y2)	2.45	0.75
Negative learning emotion (Y3)	2.94	0.83
Emotional exhaustion (Y4)	2.61	0.79
Overall learning burnout	2.74	0.63

SD: standard deviation.

From Table 4, we can find that the average values for student learning burnout are between 2.45 and 2.96, that is, between ‘seldom the case’ and ‘happens sometimes’, with the two factors of ‘low sense of achievement’ and ‘negative learning emotion’ obtaining the higher average scores. This means that student learning burnout is considered to be at a medium level.

Canonical correlation analysis for loneliness and learning burnout

Canonical correlation analysis was used to examine the relationship between the variables of loneliness and learning burnout. There are three sets of canonical correlation in all; however, only the first canonical correlation was significant (Wilks’s lambda = 0.49; F = 120.32, p < 0.001). The first canonical correlation was 0.71 (50% of variance), the second was 0.08 (0.60% of variance), and the third canonical correlation accounted for less than 0.10% of variance. Hence, we discuss only the result of the first set. Table 5 shows correlation between the variables and the canonical variate, standardized canonical variate coefficients, within-set variance accounted for by the canonical variate (% of variance), redundancies, and canonical correlation. Figure 1 shows the clear relationship between the two sets of variables. The X group variables, ‘lonely and helpless’(X1), ‘low sense of belonging’(X2), and ‘lack of friendship’(X3), were found to influence the Y group variables, ‘low sense of achievement’(Y1), ‘interpersonal alienation’(Y2), ‘negative learning emotion’(Y3), and ‘emotional exhaustion’(Y4) through the canonical factor (χ1). Viewed in terms of the factor loading, students with higher scores in ‘lonely and helpless’, ‘low sense of belonging’, and ‘lack of friendship’, scored higher on the factors in ‘low sense of achievement’, ‘interpersonal alienation’, ‘negative learning emotion’, and ‘emotional exhaustion’. That is, according to the data shown, the stronger the feelings of ‘lonely and helpless’, ‘low sense of belonging’, and ‘lack of friendship’, the more serious the learning burnout symptoms in all aspects.

Table 5.

Summary of canonical correlation analysis

X group variable	Canonical variable	Y group variable	Canonical variable
	χ ₁		η ₁
X1	−0.98	Y1	−0.49
X2	−0.51	Y2	−0.79
X3	−0.52	Y3	−0.50
		Y4	−0.96
Extract the percentage of variation (%)	49.94	Extract the percentage of variation (%)	50.91
Overlap (%)	25.16	Overlap (%)	25.65
		ρ ²	0.50
		Canonical correlation coefficient	0.71***

***

p < 0.001.

Figure 1.

Structure of canonical correlation analysis for loneliness and burnout.

Comparison for different levels of college students’ loneliness in learning burnout

In order to explore whether students with a higher/lower degree of loneliness experience higher/lower learning burnout, we extracted the samples from the highest scoring 27% groups and the last 27% groups of the Loneliness Scale and used an independent t test to test whether there is significant difference in the ‘learning burnout’. The results are demonstrated in Table 6. We can see that regardless of the overall scale or the three factors of loneliness, when students suffer a higher degree of loneliness, it is easy to feel burnout in their academic learning process; this includes low sense of achievement, interpersonal alienation, negative learning emotion, and emotional exhaustion.

Table 6.

Test for the differences of three dimensions of loneliness and overall in learning burnout

	Mean		Mean difference	t value
	Higher group	Lower group
Lonely and helpless
Y1	3.28	2.67	0.61	12.95***
Y2	2.90	1.95	0.95	23.63***
Y3	3.30	2.61	0.69	13.76***
Y4	3.21	2.00	1.21	30.42***
Overall	3.17	2.30	0.87	25.75***
Low sense of belonging
Y1	3.09	2.73	0.36	7.10***
Y2	2.74	2.06	0.68	14.56***
Y3	3.05	2.70	0.35	6.49***
Y4	2.92	2.17	0.75	15.31***
Overall	2.95	2.42	0.53	13.29***
Lack of friendship
Y1	3.13	2.76	0.37	7.36***
Y2	2.72	2.15	0.57	12.60***
Y3	3.10	2.73	0.37	6.85***
Y4	2.92	2.22	0.70	14.89***
Overall	2.97	2.46	0.51	12.90***
Overall loneliness
Y1	3.23	2.65	0.58	12.04***
Y2	2.94	1.93	1.01	24.46***
Y3	3.23	2.59	0.64	12.32***
Y4	3.16	1.99	1.17	27.51***
Overall	3.14	2.29	0.85	23.85***

Note: Y1 is ‘low sense of achievement’, Y2 is ‘interpersonal alienation’, Y3 is ‘negative learning emotion’, and Y4 is ‘emotional exhaustion’.

***

p < 0.001.

Conclusion

This study sought to understand student loneliness and the degree of learning burnout, to explore the correlations between the two, and to compare the impacts of different levels of loneliness on learning burnout. We can see from the results that male students experienced a higher level of loneliness and learning burnout when compared with female students. Students in the second and third year showed higher scores on loneliness and learning burnout than others (those in their first or final year of study). Student loneliness is at a level of ‘seldom happens’, and the average scores of loneliness for highly lonely students are much higher than for students who feel less lonely. Students might be burdened with many social expectations such as the need to face interpersonal, academic, employment, and other issues. For example, students who have been isolated and ignored in their interpersonal social life cannot establish intimacy with others and often face loneliness and alienation. Hence, without proper interpersonal social support and resources, loneliness might have an adverse impact on their self-identity, and physical and mental development.

This study also shows that the person who has a high degree of loneliness has a stronger feeling of learning burnout than the average person. Furthermore, there is a significant correlation between loneliness and learning burnout for students. When a person feels lonely, there are more mental distractions, and it often reflects on their physical and mental health (Mahon et al., 1993). Life in the university should be characterized as being a stage at which we are in the prime of our lives, with the mission of an individual in this stage mainly being to build good loving relationships with others and to start to build a close and promising relationship. Loneliness is an unpleasant emotional situation; it is easy to see how experiencing long-term loneliness will have a negative adaptive impact, such as low sense of life and learning satisfaction, which in turn will impact an individual’s physical and mental health (Heinrich and Gullone, 2006; Wang, 1989). When an individual suffers long-term loneliness, it burdens him or her with many mental negative feelings. Without proper adjustments, a long-term cumulative effect of loneliness may result in a serious impact on personal life.

The results also found that negative attitude, feelings, and behaviors accompanied by loneliness appear to be reflected in the academic study of students. There appears to be a significant factor correlation between the combination of different aspects of loneliness and the combination of different aspects of learning burnout. Compared with the students who claim to experience less loneliness, the students who have a higher degree of loneliness obviously feel burnout in the academic learning process, and the symptoms of a low sense of achievement, interpersonal alienation, negative learning emotion, and emotional exhaustion appear more often.

There are naturally limitations that may influence the generalization of the results. First, the allocation of participants was not uniform across years of study. In terms of grades, the second year students scored a little more highly and the fourth year students scored a little less than those in other years. With regard to gender, females slightly outnumbered males. These factors might affect the conclusions drawn from the results. Second, participants comprised those from a, single country; all participants were Taiwanese students. Given these limitations, future research should examine how or if loneliness changes over time, that, time at the university, and what might influence such a change, if any. Research should explore the effect or otherwise of academic performance (as measured by grades) on loneliness and how loneliness is experienced, perhaps differently, according to gender. Clearly, given that the results of this study were gathered from students in only one country, future research should explore whether or not this varies according to country or culture, or what other country-specific factors may or may not influence feelings of loneliness and/or burnout. In addition, there should be longitudinal research carried out to investigate the change, if any, in loneliness from high school to university as this could provide some clarity about what role, if any, loneliness plays in the development of learning burnout. Loneliness and learning burnout were used as outcome variables, and the study described focused on the relationship between these. It is suggested that finding the variables between the two in order to mitigate the mutual effect of them could be the subject of future investigation. Finally, additional studies are also needed to longitudinally examine student burnout and its correlates.

The outcomes of this study suggest some immediate implications for those of us in higher education settings. First, we should look at how we might help our students to find ways to reduce loneliness, or encourage them to face and accept loneliness. If students can apply some strategies to cope with their feelings of being lonely, it might help them to avoid learning burnout. At the same time, faculty members and others who engage with students, whether as administrators, student counselors, or those in other roles, could give more guidance to students who feel lonely in their life and who have been depressed or troubled by it, by helping them understand the possible causes of their loneliness, assisting them in finding different interpersonal resources such as their family and peers, and encouraging students to take full part in the social and learning environment. Involvement in the community and participation in some social activities are different ways to reduce being alone and may perhaps serve to lessen feelings of being lonely. But on the other hand, those who like being loners and/or have poor social interaction skills can be helped to recognize this and to deal with it appropriately. Although loneliness is a negative emotional experience, learning how to coexist with loneliness can help find a positive aspect to this negative experience. That said, staff must clearly be offered training in order to recognize what is within their competence to deal with and what is not. If staff are not suitably trained to deal with those who face perhaps significant mental health issues, with loneliness being but one issue, then they may make things worse, not better, for the student. While it is good to be well meaning, ‘doing good’ does not necessarily follow. So, if a faculty member or anyone else believes that the student might be in need of professional support from, say, a counseling service, then they should be given knowledge about such services on campus or elsewhere and training in how to direct students to such services.

In addition, for those students who have low willingness and efficiency of learning, teachers may provide guidance that might help them reduce their learning burnout. The study found that student burnout in ‘low sense of achievement’ and ‘negative learning emotion’ occurs more frequently. There are many different factors to cause this phenomenon, such as low learning willingness, psychological factors, emotional distress, learning inefficiency, and others. For some students, it could be argued that the academic tasks associated with traditional learning and teaching practices are rarely intrinsically interesting, that is, they find the tasks to be boring or unmotivating. It is argued that classroom instructional methods that help increase interest and motivation will go a long way toward providing the most global and effective strategy to reduce the levels of burnout among students. An intervention program could be developed to reduce increased academic burnout that, if well designed and appropriately delivered, might assist students in relieving them of severe emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment. In the ‘normal’ classroom, teachers could find ways to increase students’ interest in learning, enhance their learning motivation, and stimulate their willingness to learn, which may further improve their learning achievements.

Furthermore, strategies need to be formulated not only according to the level of loneliness from which the student suffers, but also to the level of the seriousness of burnout. Different interventions need to be targeted according to need, that is, what is suggested depends on the level or nature of loneliness (e.g. different strategies are appropriate to those suffering from a low level of loneliness to those who report feeling extremely lonely). Among the strategies available, we can offer to involve students in activities such as taking part in departmental forums, seminars, and special events. Consequently, such students may feel they are not isolated and instead feel that they are a real part of their academic programs, and their levels of involvement in academic and interpersonal interaction may increase.

The study described here raises awareness of an issue that has to date received little or no attention, that is, that burnout is a legitimate psychological aspect of university life for some of our students. It is argued that if we better understand it, all who come into contact with students at universities, whether faculty members or anyone else, will be better placed to offer appropriate, targeted support and guidance to students who experience loneliness, burnout, or both. The study described here also offers a theoretical foundation on which future research can begin to explore burnout in students from a person–context perspective.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Biographical notes

Shu-Hui Lin is an Associate Professor in the Department of Insurance and Finance at the National Taichung Institute of Technology, Taiwan. She has a doctorate in statistics. Her research mainly focuses on statistical methodology, statistical applications, college student education, psychology, and counseling. Address: Department of Insurance and Finance, National Taichung Institute of Technology, 129 Section 3, Sanmin Road, Taichung City 404, Taiwan [email: suelin@ntit.edu.tw]

Yun-Chen Huang is an Associate Professor in the Department and Graduate School of Accounting Information at the National Taichung Institute of Technology, Taiwan. She has a Master’s degree in applied mathematics. Her research interests include student retention, student engagement, student decision making, adult literacy, language and numeracy, and self-assessment. Address: Department and Graduate School of Accounting Information, National Taichung Institute of Technology, 129 Section 3, Sanmin Road, Taichung City 404, Taiwan [email: minnie@nutc.edu.tw]

References

Arkar

Sari

Fidaner

(2004) Relationships between quality of life, perceived social support, social network and loneliness in a Turkish sample. Journal of Psychiatry, Neurology, and Behavioral Sciences 42(1): 20–7.

Balogun

Helgemoe

Pellegrini

. (1996) Academic performance is not a viable determinant of physical therapy students’ burnout. Perceptual and Motor Skills 83: 21–2.

Bauminger

Kasari

(2000) Loneliness and friendship in high-functioning children with autism. Child Development 71(2): 447–56.

Cacioppo

Hughes

Waite

. (2006) Loneliness as a specific risk factor for depressive symptoms: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Psychology and Aging 21(1): 104–51.

Chang

Rand

Strunk

(2000) Optimism and risk for job burnout among working college students: Stress as a mediator. Personality and Individual Differences 29(2): 255–63.

Dellinger-Ness

Handler

(2007) Self-injury, gender, and loneliness among college students. Journal of College Counseling 10(2): 142–52.

DiTommaso

Spinner

(1997) Social and emotional loneliness: A reexamination of Weiss’ typology of loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences 22: 417–27.

Hardy

Dodd

(1998) Burnout among university resident assistants as a function of gender and floor assignment. Journal of College Student Development 39(5): 499–501.

Heinrich

Gullone

(2006) The clinical significance of loneliness: A literature review. Clinical Psychology Review 26(6): 695–718.

10.

Horowitz

French

Anderson

(1982) The prototype of a lonely person. In: Peplau

Perlman

(eds) Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research, and Therapy. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 183–205.

11.

Huang

Lin

(2010) Canonical correlation analysis on life stress and learning burnout of college students. International Electronic Journal of Health Education 13: 145–55.

12.

Jacobs

Dodd

(2003) Student burnout as a function of personality, social support, and workload. Journal of College Student Development 44(3): 291–303.

13.

Jones

Freemon

Goswick

(1981) The persistence of loneliness: Self and other determinants. Journal of Personality 49: 27–8.

14.

Lingard

Yip

Rowlinson

. (2007) The experience of burnout among future construction professionals: A cross-national study. Construction Management and Economics 25(4): 345–57.

15.

McCarthy

Pretty

Catano

(1990) Psychological sense of community and student burnout. Journal of College Student Development 31(3): 211–16.

16.

Mahon

Yarcheski

(1993) Health consequences of loneliness in adolescents. Research in Nursing & Health 16(1): 23–31.

17.

Maslach

Jackson

Leiter

(1996) Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

18.

Maslach

Schaufeli

Leiter

(2001) Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology 52: 397–422.

19.

Medora

Woodward

(1986) Loneliness among adolescent college students at a midwestern university. Adolescence 21(82): 391–402.

20.

Meier

Schmeck

(1985) The burned-out college student: A descriptive profile. Journal of College Student Personnel 26(1): 63–9.

21.

Neumann

Finaly-Neuman

Reichel

(1990) Determinants and consequences of students’ burnout in universities. Journal of Higher Education 61(1): 20–31.

22.

Pinquart

Sorensen

(2001) Influences on loneliness in older adults: A meta-analysis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 23(4): 245–66.

23.

Ponzetti

(1990) Loneliness among college students. Family Relations 39(3): 336–40.

24.

Russell

Cuttrona

(1991) Social support, stress, and depressive symptom among the elderly: Test of a process model. Psychology and Aging 6(2): 190–201.

25.

Russell

Peplau

Cutrona

(1980) The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39: 472–80.

26.

Russell

Peplau

Ferguson

(1978) Developing a measure of loneliness. Journal of Personality Assessment 42(3): 290–4.

27.

Shaver

Furman

Buhrmester

(1985) Transition to college: Network changes, social skills, and loneliness. In: Duck

Perlman

(eds) Understanding Personal Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE, pp. 193–220.

28.

Tsai

(2006) The relation between ‘circumplex model of marital and family systems’ and ‘loneliness’ of university students. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Taichung University of Education, Taiwan.

29.

Wang

(1989) The loneliness and related factors for the college students. Chiayi Teachers College Journal 3: 1–53.

30.

Weckwerth

Flynn

(2006) Effect of sex on perceived support and burnout in university students. College Student Journal 40(2): 237–49.

31.

Weeks

Michela

Peplau

. (1980) The relation between loneliness and depression: A structural equation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39(6): 1238–44.

32.

Wei

Russell

Zakalik

(2005) Adult attachment, social self-efficacy, self-disclosure, loneliness, and subsequent depression for freshman college students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling Psychology 52(4): 602–14.

33.

Wiseman

Guttfreund

Lurie

(1995) Gender differences in loneliness and depression of university students seeking counseling. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 23(2): 231–43.

34.

Yang

(2004) Factors affecting student burnout and academic achievement in multiple enrolment programs in Taiwan’s technical-vocational colleges. International Journal of Educational Development 24(3): 283–301.

35.

Zhang

Gan

Cham

(2007) Perfectionism, academic burnout and engagement among Chinese college students: A structural equation modeling analysis. Personality and Individual Differences 43(6): 1529–40.