Promoting Student Wellbeing Through Dedicated Units on the Psychological Science of Wellbeing: Rationale,Nature,and Student Evaluations

In the past decade there has been increasing concern regarding student distress in the higher education sector (e.g., Orygen, 2017), and this has been exacerbated by the stressors associated with the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Kumar et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2020). Both before and after the onset of the pandemic, institutions have attempted to assist distressed students through extracurricular strategies such as Counselling Services and website resources. These efforts have been primarily reactive and focused on the ‘treatment’ end of the assumed unidimensional mental health/ill-health spectrum (where the latter reflects the presence of psychiatric disorders). In contrast, the theoretical framework for the work described in this paper draws on Keyes’s (2007) Complete State Model of Mental Health which asserts that mental health is influenced by two correlated but distinct dimensions: psychological wellbeing and psychiatric disorders. In this model, poor wellbeing may exist even in the absence of diagnosed psychiatric disorders. This model is empirically supported, despite the complexity of each dimension (e.g., Keyes, 2007; Routledge et al., 2018). Keyes (2007) defines wellbeing as positive emotions and positive functioning. Many have argued that educators should draw on evidence-based principles from psychological research regarding wellbeing, to design and deliver curricular environments that support student academic success, and thus enhanced wellbeing (e.g., Baik et al., 2017a; Baik et al., 2017b). Such curricular approaches should facilitate early intervention and prevention regarding the psychiatric disorders dimension, as well as promote student success and thus wellbeing. Moreover, it can be argued that all students must engage with the curriculum, whereas the most vulnerable students may be least likely to engage with extracurricular services (Baik et al., 2017a; Baik et al., 2017b).

Self-determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), particularly the sub-theory of Basic Needs Satisfaction (BNS; e.g., Johnston & Finney, 2010), has been successfully implemented and supported in multiple contexts including education (e.g., Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). A key premise is that the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs leads to increased psychological wellbeing (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999): competence, the feeling of being effective in accomplishing valued tasks (such as learning; this has been the traditional focus for educators); autonomy, the feeling of being ‘in control’ of one's own behaviour (often identified as key to student engagement, e.g., Carroll et al., 2018; Lee, n.d.); and relatedness, the feeling of being understood and cared for by others, which in tertiary contexts, includes relatedness with student peers, teaching staff, and the institution (i.e., belonging; Ng et al., 2012; van Gijn-Grosvenor & Huisman, 2020). The creation of curricular environments that allow students to effectively strive toward achieving realistic academic goals leads to goal achievement, the satisfaction of psychological needs, and thus increased wellbeing, which then fuels further engagement (Bahrami & Cranney, 2017; Baik et al., 2017b; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999).

Transdisciplinary practical resources are available to guide educators in providing students with opportunities to succeed academically and thus experience wellbeing (e.g., Enhancing Student Wellbeing, 2016; Field et al., 2014). Educators often focus on discipline-specific competencies, however there are also generic self-management competencies that facilitate both academic and career success. Self-management is the capacity to effectively strive toward valued goals, and to be flexible in the face of setbacks (Cranney et al., 2016). For students, key self-management skills include goal-setting, time-management, study skills, and emotional regulation (e.g., knowing how to reduce procrastination). Educators in any discipline can be supported to integrate self-management skills in their curriculum, and there has been some work in this broad area (e.g., Teaching at UNSW, 2021).

One gap in the literature on curricular approaches to supporting student wellbeing, however, is descriptions of innovations in the design, implementation and evaluation of specific units focusing entirely on the psychological science of student self-management, success and wellbeing. The aim of this report was to address this gap by describing the nature and student evaluations of two units on the science of wellbeing. The curricula of both a flipped classroom and an online unit, whose design and delivery were guided by BNS theory, are described. To guide the structure of this descriptive report in addressing the knowledge gap, three exploratory research questions were posed: (1) What are the intended learning outcomes and teaching and assessment strategies in science of wellbeing units framed by BNS theory; (2) Are students generally satisfied with the delivery of such units; and (3) Are such units consistently evaluated by students, regardless of internal factors such as mode of delivery, and external factors such as pandemic conditions?

Method

Results

Figure 1 presents the mean Overall Satisfaction rating for the Flipped and Online units from S2, 2018 until T2, 2021, as well as the average for all University units for each relevant time-point. Firstly, ratings for these units all appear to be above the University average, which answers Question 2 in the affirmative; that is, students were highly satisfied with their experience of this kind of unit. Secondly, there was not a significant difference between satisfaction with the S2 2018 Flipped unit and that of the T1 2019 Online unit (t[47] = 1.80, p = .08), suggesting no adverse effect given change of mode of delivery. There was also no difference between S2 2018 Flipped and T2 2019 Flipped Unit evaluations (t[37] = −8.12, p = .422), suggesting no effect of change from Semester to Term in academic calendar. Moreover, there was no difference between the T1 2019 pre-pandemic and T1 2020 post-pandemic Online Unit ratings (t[37] = −0.616, p = .542), suggesting no effect of the pandemic on student ratings. Thus, it appears that students were satisfied with their experience in these online units, regardless of changes in internal factors (e.g., mode of delivery, including minor differences in content and teaching/assessment strategies), and in academic calendar and pandemic conditions.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Mean (overall satisfaction) agreement rating of the university-wide statement “overall I was satisfied with the quality of the course” as a function of when the unit was offered (S = semester; T = term), and whether flipped classroom (flipped) or online mode of delivery. Error bars = SEM.

Relevant to Question 2 are the ratings, on three occasions, to the author-selected Unit-specific statement “This course provided me with knowledge and skills I can apply”. There was 100% agreement (means: S2 2018 = 5.88; T3 2020 = 4.29; T1 2021 = 5.72), thus providing further support for an affirmative answer to Question 2. Again relevant to Question 2 are example open responses from the Online Unit students to the question “What were the best things about the course?” (see also Appendix):

“Being able to learn very practical things that can be used to maintain a healthy and functional mindset in all stages of life: study, work, family life.”

Discussion

In summary, this study addressed three questions. The answer to Question 1, “What are the intended learning outcomes and teaching and assessment strategies in science of wellbeing units that are framed by BNS theory?”, is provided in the Method section. Learning outcomes of both units focused on articulating and applying diverse theoretical and experimental approaches to major psychological issues relating to self-management, academic success, and wellbeing. A major teaching strategy for both units was scaffolding a sense of competence through regular assessable homework (including quizzes); this was supplemented and build upon in-class in the Flipped Unit, whereas in the Online Unit, this was supported by having the activities closely follow the Textbook. In terms of teaching strategies to satisfy a sense of relatedness, this was clearly achieved in the Flipped Unit through the weekly classes and the group assignment; in the Online Unit, specific strategies were put in place to foster student-student and student-instructor interaction. A sense of autonomy was fostered through some choice in the assessment activities, including in the major video assignment.

The answer to Question 2, “Are students generally satisfied with the delivery of such units”, is affirmative, as indicated in Figure 1, and particularly, as compared to the University average. The answer to Question 3, “Are such units robustly evaluated by students, regardless of internal factors such as mode of delivery, and external factors such as pandemic conditions?”, is again affirmative, as there were no differences in Overall Satisfaction ratings across these different kinds of conditions. The lack of a clear negative pandemic impact may be due to (a) the increased relevance of the unit material given the greater number of stressors in students’ lives, and (b) the purposeful increased relevance of teacher ‘presence’, that is, student-instructor relatedness (Stone, 2017; Rapanta et al., 2020; this was indicated by many survey comments, e.g., “…helpful that Sue made herself available for a Live question and answer session each week”; “Sue is one of very few teachers that I felt like actually cared about my mental health and wellbeing and was considerate of the effects of lockdown and other stresses affecting young people”; “…she replies to all my questions quickly”).

There was high agreement with the statement “This course provided me with knowledge and skills I can apply”. This finding is congruent with (a) Miller’s (1969) call to “give psychology away” (p. 1071), and (b) Halpern’s (2010) call for increased psychological literacy ( = the capacity to intentionally apply psychological knowledge to achieve personal, professional, and societal goals; Morris et al., 2021) in the general population. Other Australian universities have created units modelled on ours and international colleagues have created somewhat similar units on the ‘psychology of adaptation’(e.g., Dunn et al., 2015; see also Choi & Chung, 2012; Stallman, 2011); however, this is the first study to describe science of wellbeing units framed by BNS theory, and to provide student evaluation data for those units over several years, thus demonstrating their sustained perceived value. These kinds of units provide one strategy in a whole-of-university approach to supporting student success and wellbeing (Baik et al., 2017a; Baik et al., 2017b). We argue that all students should be offered this kind of unit in the first year of university/college, particularly as it should increase the self-management capacity, and thus academic success and wellbeing, of students in disadvantaged groups (e.g., ‘first-in-family’).

Finally, in terms of psychology education, it has recently been proposed (Cranney et al., in press) that one of the graduate capabilities of the undergraduate psychology programme should be to “apply psychology Knowledge to the Personal Domain, in order to achieve valued personal goals” (see also Wilson, 2009). These science of wellbeing units are designed to support the development of that capability. The associated transdisciplinary pedagogical approach could be described as ‘Self-reflective learning’, whereby the educator values the development of increased student knowledge of self-context relationships, and so explicitly encourages students, often through authentic assessments, experiential learning exercises and reflective practice (Coulson & Homewood, 2016) to apply empirically supported theory and evidence-based practice to themselves. Discipline-specific aspects (including a set of professional values) relevant to ‘Self-reflective learning’ are described by Hulme and Kitching (2017) in their argument that psychological literacy provides the motivation for educators to deliver ‘sensitive topics’ such as aspects of psychological health/illness. As with the two units described in this paper, a safe learning environment must be constructed using a variety of strategies (e.g., confidentiality in tasks that require application to self; scaffolding students’ professionalism in peer interactions; choice in tasks; explicit reminders regarding student support services; compassionate proactive communication with at-risk students). The student comments in the Results section, and in Appendix Table 2, reflect the success of this pedagogical approach.

In conclusion, this study has filled a gap in the psychology literature by describing science of wellbeing units, framed by BNS theory, that consistently receive high overall satisfaction ratings by students, regardless of internal factors such as mode of delivery, and external factors such as pandemic conditions. Recent higher education literature has increasingly focused on student wellbeing issues, and the value of curricular approaches to increasing student success and wellbeing is afforded by consideration of the wellbeing dimension in the Complete State Model of Mental Health (Keyes, 2007). The availability of these science of wellbeing units provides psychology and other students with the opportunity to gain knowledge and skills from psychological science that should promote their academic as well as graduate success. We encourage psychology educators to adapt these units for implementation in their own institutions, as part of their institution-wide strategy to support student academic success and wellbeing.