Education | Studies, essays, thesises » Dang Quoc Anh - Student Burnout and Engagement

Source: http://www.doksinet Student Burnout and Engagement Thesis By Dang Quoc Anh Submitted in Partial fulfilment Of the Requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Psychology State University of New York Empire State College 2016 Reader: Ronnie Mather, Dr. Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to my mentor, Professor Ronnie, who guided every step. Without his help and encouragement, it would have been extremely difficult to complete the current research project. I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Aguilera, who guided every step with precise instructions. Without his help, it would have been extremely difficult to complete the current research project. Particularly, his instructions helped me think about the statistical analysis and the steps necessary to get results. I greatly appreciate supports, concerns and encouragements from my family and friends, who have been

considerate and understanding. They were cheering me up when I have had difficulties. And my girlfriend without whom it would be equally impossible to finish this thesis. I’d love to also thank parents for supply of chia seeds, which have proven to be a nice energy boost for sleepless nights along with various energy drinks brands. 1 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Contents Acknowledgements . 1 1. Introduction . 5 2. Burnout . 7 2.1 Etymology of Burnout . 7 2.2 Concepts of Burnout . 7 2.21 Freudenberger Stage Model . 7 2.22 Cary Cherniss Process Model . 9 2.23 Gombiewski phase model of psychological burnout . 11 2.24 Leiter’s Developmental process of burnout . 12 2.25 Christine Maslach’s Burnout. 13 2.3 The definition of burnout . 14 2.4 Burnout Phases . 17 2.5 Antecedents of Burnout . 18 2.6 Causes of burnout . 20 3. Engagement . 22 3.1 Concepts. 22 3.11 Kahn Work Engagement . 22 3.12 Engagement as an

antithesis to burnout . 25 3.13 Work Engagement . 26 3.2 4. Antecedents of Engagement . 27 Model used in the current research . 29 2 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 5. Hypotheses . 31 6. Design . 32 6.1 Participants. 33 6.2 Materials . 33 6.3 Analysis . 35 7. Findings . 35 7.1 Results of the application of the method . 35 7.2 Descriptive Statistics of main variables . 36 7.21 7.3 Overall Descriptive statistics of main variables . 36 Descriptive statistics of main variables by gender. 37 7.31 Descriptive statistics of variable personal burnout by gender . 37 7.32 Descriptive statistics of variable school-related burnout by gender . 38 7.33 Descriptive statistics of variable colleague-related burnout by gender . 38 7.34 Descriptive statistics of variable teacher-related burnout by gender . 38 7.35 Descriptive statistics of variable engagement score by gender . 39 7.4 7.41 Normality assessment of various variables .

39 Normality assessment of variable personal burnout score and subsequently by gender 39 7.42 Normality assessment of variable school-related burnout score and subsequently by gender . 40 7.43 Normality assessment of variable colleague-related burnout score and subsequently by gender . 40 3 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 7.44 Normality assessment of variable teacher-related burnout score and subsequently by gender . 41 7.45 Normality assessment of variable sum of engagement score and subsequently by gender. 41 7.5 8. Test of Hypotheses. 42 Discussion. 44 8.1 Discussion of descriptive analysis . 44 8.2 Discussion of Hypothesis. 45 8.3 Conclusion . 46 8.4 Implications . 47 8.5 Limitations . 47 8.6 Suggestions for future research. 48 References . 49 Appendix . 58 4 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 1. Introduction Past few decades with the rise of positive psychology, the paradigm has

shifted from treatment to enrichment. Burnout is a serious issue for organisation. The presence of burnout impacts the organisation from many aspect: lower productivity, more absenteeism, lower turnover and intentions and overall lower commitment and enjoyment of the work (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). In short, burnout is stress in workplace that is not handled well and should be resolved. As burnout comes in phases of exhaustion, cynicism and low perceived personal accomplishment, and consists for reduction of energy, of identification and of efficacy (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, Job burnout, 2001). It also impacts the work environment and thus erodes the organisation (Kristensen, Borritz, Villadsen, & Christensen, 2005). However, with the paradigm shift, a concept that would serve as an opposite to burnout was inquired for. The burnout, definition, used in this paper will be one proposed by Kristensen, who defined the core of the construct to be personal,

school-related, colleague-related and teacher-related burnout, gathered mainly as a perception. Engagement, was thought to be an antithesis to burnout on the same continuum (Maslach & Leiter, 1997), but it has been lately more thought of as a separate construct, related to burnout (Demerouti, Bakker, & Nachreiner, 2010). It consists of vigor, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002). It consists of high level of energy, identification and high efficacy in work. It too is a reaction to work like burnout, thus the idea of being of same continuum (Maslach & Leiter, 1997). 5 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout In this particular context, the student engagement is in question as well as student burnout. Students are often overlooked, worse ridiculed if they burnout However, has become a problem in universities and other higher education

institutions (Jacobs & Dodd, 2003) and is increasingly becoming more visible as more institutions are aware of this problem (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002). Students too are capable of experience disappointment in school work and school as it gives nothing meaningful. Their expectations can stay unfulfilled Their social support can fall apart throughout the years or not even have any at the beginning of the path. The demands of the school work can become overwhelming and overbearing, causing distress. Subsequent loss of confidence and drive is what leads to burnout However, at the same time, they can find meaning in their school and the work they do. Their social circle widens as they become proactive and befriends many of their classmates, and teachers. They can experience many accomplishments, which then later on becomes a motivation to study. They develop an interest in what they study and make it their intrinsic motivation. Their engagement with

studying can also increase and develop. The current study examined whether the presence of burnout and its domains, measured with Copenhagen Burnout Inventory will influence the overall engagement within the students. It is an imperative to disclose what influences engagement in students. Additionally, the factor of gender will be included as a predictor of engagement level. The constructs will be defined more precisely both for burnout and engagement in order to determine, whether burnout dimensions can predict engagement in university. 6 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 2. Burnout 2.1 Etymology of Burnout The word burnout was first used in 1940 according to Merriam-Webster dictionary (2016). Its usage was limited to describing a state of a jet motor’s functions’ cessation mainly due to fuel (Burnout, 2016). It was used to convey a loss of function from lack of energy, which nowadays is used in similar manner, but in relation to a human. It

was also used to describe drug users as slang then later on adopted by Freudenberger in his Staff Burn-out (1974). However, it has been used as such to describe a person state by Graham Greene in his novel Burnt-out case, which was written in 1960, a decade before Freudenberger coined it to what it is known now. 2.2 Concepts of Burnout 2.21 Freudenberger Stage Model The first to coin the term and thus used as a medical term was Freudenberger, as mentioned previously, back in 1974 within his Staff Burn-out, and most likely have been taken from the Greene’s novel as already said. Apart from the journal article, Freudenberger and Richelson also uses the term in his book called Burnout: The high cost of high achievement written in 1980. Freudenberg (1974) after observing volunteers related the term, and thus defined it as well, to the “exhaustion by excessive demands on energy, strength or resources” (p.159) Exhaustion is mainly caused by the 7 Source: http://www.doksinet

Student Engagement and Student Burnout loss of enthusiasm and motivation, furthermore it is in something that they are emotionally involved. The antecedents for the losses is a non-fulfilment or lack of fulfilment of expected reward (Freudenberger & Richelson, 1980). Freudenberger notes that the burnout has to specifically come from a job to which the person is highly devoted to. The root cause of the burnout or rather its onset is the realisation or rather the being of unrealistic expectations (Freudenberger & Richelson, 1980). There are twelve stages to the burnout, within those Freudenberger shows his criteria from which burnout stems from: 1. The need to show one self’s worth 2. Working Harder 3. Ignoring or neglect of others’ need 4. Displacing one’s problems and need 5. Revision and changing one’s values often as result of denial of needs 6. Denial of problems and increase stubbornness 7. Withdrawal, cynicism and lack of direction 8. Noticeable change in

behaviours 9. Depersonalisation and losing perception of self and needs 10. Emptiness, obsessive thinking and anxiety 11. Depression, lack of interest, lack of meaningfulness 12. Burnout, the physical exhaustion (Honzák, 2013) From the criteria, it is visible that there are several factors that cooperates to both cause and sustain burnout. Most central issue are the needs, sense of fulfilment and 8 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout interest, all of which Freudenberg consider the fuel to work, without which burnout is reached: very much like a motor without any fuel. 2.22 Cary Cherniss Process Model Cherniss based his model on observations and interviews he made from a sample of 28 starting professionals of four professions: high school teachers and three different nursing, mental and public health, and poverty law (Cherniss, Staff Burnout - Job Stress in the Human Services, 1980). It is one of the more comprehensive models as it consists of four

distinct parts, each having its own purpose, but all remain interconnected and important (Burke, Shearer, & Deszca, 1984; Cherniss, Staff Burnout - Job Stress in the Human Services, 1980). Cherniss attributes burnout as a result of imbalance between the elements from four parts. The four parts are: 1. Work settings 1.1 Orientation 1.2 Stimulation 1.3 Workload 1.4 Autonomy 1.5 Leadership 1.6 Scope for client contact 1.7 Institutional goals 2. Person 2.1 Career Orientation 9 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 2.2 Support vs Demands 2.3 Outside of Work 3. Sources of Stress 3.1 Doubts over competence 3.2 Problems with clients 3.3 Interference from bureaucracy 3.4 Lack of stimulation and fulfilment and collegiality 4. Attitude changes 4.1 Work Goals 4.2 Personal responsibility for outcomes 4.3 Idealism vs Realism 4.4 Emotional detachment 4.5 Work alienation 4.6 Self-interest (Cherniss, Staff Burnout - Job Stress in the Human Services, 1980)

Cherniss’ model instigates a relationship between all of these elements and each interact within an individual’s career. It is a process, which encompasses stress and its weight and how one reacts to it, using coping strategies and other tools to counterweight the stress. However, it is to be noted that it is the last group, which is the manifestation of burnout, as all of the processes converges into and ends with the Attitude change, which happens when all available coping strategies are depleted. Cherniss’ definition of burnout thus follows “a process that leads to an individuals attitudes and behaviour change in negative ways in response to work stress” (1980). 10 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 2.23 Gombiewski phase model of psychological burnout Cherniss model was about process of burnout, while Freudenberger gave us the initial definition of burnout. Gombiewski model of burnout tries to put phases within the processes. Gombiewski

do not consider the objective stress levels within the working space as an important factor for burnout, but rather the subjective perception and appraisal of the stress at the given moment, the severity as well as how much of a burden it is (Gombiewski, 1996). Gombiewski phases are somewhat similar to Maslach’s burnout, due to the fact that he somewhat based his criteria on Maslach’s, using three subdomains: depersonalisation, emotional exhaustion and loss of selfperceived efficacy. However earlier version, which Gombiewski created along with Munzenrider and Carter in 1983, were similar to Cherniss’ early proposed model. The major difference between Gombiewski et al.’s model (1983) was that burnout starts depersonalisation. This instils a loss of locus of control and autonomy, threatening their self-image and self-expectations. One way to solve depersonalisation is to detach oneself from the stress situation or the job, which is a positive solution. However, this may lead to

a non-closure and the feeling of exhaustion might persist, another problem with the solution is the consequent detachment from others (e.g co-workers and family), which acts as a social support, which ultimately leads to further loss of motivation and closer to emotional exhaustion. Rather than viewing burnout as a step by step procedure or process-driven, Gobiewski et al. sees burnout in levels, each being an indication of burnout severity. The central idea of Gobiewski (1996) burnout revolves around 11 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout depersonalisation and detachment of oneself, which leads to lack of any personal enjoyment and perceived achievement. 2.24 Leiter’s Developmental process of burnout While this developmental approach was proposed by Maslach in cooperation with Leiter, his name is mainly used in this case. Leiter’s burnout model uses the same subdomains are many previous model, most notably not yet mentioned Maslach’s burnout,

however its emphasis is on the development of the emotional exhaustion rather than the relationship between the subdomains. Thus, if burnout is described only through depersonalisation and is without presence of emotional exhaustion, then it is not burnout yet, compared to Gobiewski’s or Freudenberger’s (Leiter, 1991). In his model, Leiter attributes burnout to the emotional exhaustion, while depersonalisation is a one of the cognitive reactions. Parallel to emotional exhaustion, a sense of personal accomplishments, which is the second cognitive reaction, diminish mainly due to the environmental demands. Leiter does not consider cognitive reactions as important The three components of Leiter’s model, emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and loss of sense of accomplishment, are interconnected and constantly affect each other. However apart from them there are other factors, social factors and settings and personal growth or life situations, that are ever-present and thus can

influence the three components at any time. Such factors can be lack of autonomy and responsibilities as well as having no power to make decisions, non-cooperative to outright conflict-ridden relationship with clients or co-workers, lack of effective or even use of ineffective 12 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout emotion regulation techniques, increasing amount of stress load, and lack of social support within all levels of community, all of these contributes to the burnout onset (Schaufeli, Leiter, & Maslach, 2008; Hazell, 2010). This model integrates one important aspect of life, which the previous have not, which is the time continuity. Similarly, to Gobiewski, people are not either burnout or not burnout, but rather there is an increasing spectrum and an accumulation towards it, an existence of a gradual process towards it (Leiter, 1993). 2.25 Christine Maslach’s Burnout The most used and cited definition of burnout is given to us by

Christine Maslach in her book written in 2003. She describes burnout as a tri-dimensional construct made of emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and decreased perception of accomplishment. She constructed the social interaction focus based theory of burnout with Leiter, who already mentioned, researched burnout as a developmental process. Maslach, however, emphasises the social causes of the emotional depletion (Leiter & Maslach, 1988; Maslach & Leiter, The Truth about Burnout, 1997). Thus, her main concern is for the professions which involves a lot of interaction with others. Maslach (2003) theorises that the central cause for burnout in overload of emotions and the consequential exhaustion of it. Working with people is highly exhausting work, mainly emotional side of it, especially if the individuals are deeply committed. One and the most often used way to avoid the feeling of exhaustion is to ignore it, or denial of such state. This is the first stage to

depersonalisation This somewhat also reinforces the 13 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout idea that interaction with people is negative and exhaustive, which in itself is a protective mechanism to shield us from more emotional exhaustion, but leads to behaviour change as well as a change in the perception of others. However, there is a problem with the coping strategy, because it will inherently impact any other interactions, including those that are positive and bring restorative value to the exhaustion. This pushing away of all interactions might cause a guilt and distress, which stem from the treatment of the ones which are positive. Not only that the lack of positive relationships already caused increase reinforcement of the negative attitude, and absence of support and feeling of it increases detachment. Without the sharing and lack of one’s accomplishments, a feeling of competency is decreased and inadequacy in helping others is increased,

which leads to loss of motivation and belief that one has failed in their very profession. Burnout syndrome is born (Maslach C , 2003) 2.3 The definition of burnout There are many definitions of burnout as we can see on many conceptualisations of burnout. However, it is important to thus note that each adds a certain aspect to the definition of burnout. Despite that yet, it does not help us to easily identify the disease both on methodological and theoretical grounds, as the consensus does not appear to be present (Beemester & Baum, 1984). On the other hand, there is a description of burnout in the ICD-11 Beta Draft under the code Z73.0 (WHO, 2016) “Burn-out is the result of chronic stress (at the workplace) which has not been successfully dealt with, characterized by exhaustion and depersonalization (negativism/cynicism) and is found predominantly in caring and social 14 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout professions (e.g social workers,

teachers, nurses, doctors, dentists) Burn-out refers to job stressors and the resulting mental health problems that may occur. It is defined as a three-dimensional syndrome, characterized by energy depletion (exhaustion), increased mental distance from one’s job (cynicism) and reduced professional efficacy (WHO, 2016).” Similarly, to my thesis, the first definition mentioned of burnout would be one given by Freudenberger, who released his paper two years before Maslach (Křivohlavý, 1998; Freudenberger H. J, 1974; Honzák, 2013) Despite both coming to same findings of burnout in different contexts, it was Maslach who subsequently created a questionnaire to measure burnout. The questionnaire has become the most widely used globally to detect burnout at least 90% of empirical studies on burnout (Maslach & Schaufeli, Historical and Conceptual Development of Burnout, 1993; Kristensen, Borritz, Villadsen, & Christensen, 2005; Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998). Due to a

predicament, that burnout has been more thoroughly researched in emotionally exhausting occupations and continues to have the pre-existing construct, that burnout occurs in occupations with human services. Freudenberg (1974) identified the state of being burnout in volunteering social workers. It has led to a certain direction of the definition. Evidently, from ICD-10 definition, we can identify the threedimensional structure which Maslach describes and follows (Maslach & Jackson, 1986) Alas, burnout is thought to be: a syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and reduced personal accomplishment (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). The definition has been also updated and changed around and many more definitions are being used: 15 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Burnout is a process that begins with excessive and prolonged levels of job tension, which causes the stress producing a strain in the worker (feelings of tension,

irritability and fatigue). When workers defensively cope with the job stress by detaching themselves psychologically from the job and becoming rigid, cynical, and apathetic. In the end of the process, of being burnout, one becomes completed (Cherniss, 1995; 1980) Burnout is “a progressive loss of idealism, energy and purpose experiences by people in the helping professions as a result of their work conditions” (Edelwich & Brodsky, 1980, p. 166, in Beemsterboer & Baum, 1984) Legassie et al. (2008)defines itself using Maslach Burnout Inventory scores, where one is required to score high on all: namely emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation, and low personal accomplishment. However, while one can score highly on all dimensions, the cause is not known, proving that the construct is heterogeneous and continuous: resulting in individualistic manifestation. Showing one of the weaknesses of MBI, that it is only an indicator. Burnout is “a state of physical, emotional and mental

exhaustion caused by a longterm involvement in situations that are emotionally demanding” (Pines & Aronson, 1988, pp. 11-13) Burnout as much as it is a “flat battery state” (Kristensen, Borritz, Villadsen, & Christensen, 2005, p. 196), it is not just a fatigue and exhaustion in general, but rather a specific attribution of the fatigue and exhaustion to a specific domain of one’s life. 16 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 2.4 Burnout Phases Freudenberger’s stages of burnout has already been mentioned as his proposed model of burnout at the same time, however it is the division of burnout into phases, which has been proposed by Christina Maslach (2003), who divides burnout into four stages, is the one that many authors use and base theirs upon. First phase is called the enthusiasm, also could be described as idealistic. In the first stage the individual in highly motivated and engaged within the job, spends most of the available

energy to help others and is everywhere that it is possible to be. The state of the being is highly energetic and this is conjoined with high standards and expectations for one self. The stage that follows enthusiasm, is the exhaustion or depletion, both physically and emotionally, which cause all the standards and aims seem very far and complicated, problems become unsolvable and the very attitude towards others change shifts from being helpful to a more of a neutral stance. The feeling of being overwhelmed is already surfacing and lack of energy becomes evident. The third phase is cynicism, in which the attitude shifts to negative, especially towards the clients or patients. They are viewed as a threat and the compulsivity to help them is non-existent. Social contacts are not viewed as support and is minimised to the least amount possible. Avoidance of co-workers and clients, even of family circle and individual closes into seclusion. And lastly, the burnout, the fourth stage, the

pinnacle of the burnout and the rock bottom of the individual where one is psychologically, emotionally and physically 17 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout exhausted, even cognitive processes fail to function clearly. A common signal is an onset of apathy (Maslach C. , 2003; Weber & Jaekel-Reinhard, 2000; Křivohlavý, 1998) According to Maslach and Leiter (1997) throughout the phases it is possible to observe the three domains in action; the emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalisation (DP) and sense of personal accomplishment (PA). The first stage is the correlated with the EE, as a consequence of the energy expenditure and high expectations, which is sustained at the beginning of the career or the activity. This also causes a decrease in self-esteem and in profession/career choice. This leads to a compulsion to flee from the failures and others, to hide away the disappointment and failure, most importantly to not having have to face the

problems that are there, which is the conflict between one’s values and self-perception and the reality. Such action leans toward depersonalisation, which ensures disconnect from the inner thoughts. And at the end the very lack of selfappraisal as well as the competency lowered by the previous stages impacts the personal accomplishments. Maslach later changes this part due to increase in number of factors that are present in the burnout as she finds out herself, mainly the ones of social nature, be it support or more stress, but all of these are not accounted in what has been described but are found to be equally important with later experiments (Schaufeli, Leiter, & Maslach, 2008). 2.5 Antecedents of Burnout Several predictors of burnout have been researched as a possible onset of the process. They can be divided into two groups, situational and individual. Situational antecedent of burnout was identified and called job demand (Demerouti, Bakker, De Jonge, Jansenn, &

Schaufeli, 2001). Lee and Ashforth (1996) describes 18 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout them as work pressure and load stressful events, role conflict and ambiguity. The latter components of job demands are directly disabling the individual from being able to enjoy the work and self-actualise. Bakker, Le Blanc and Schaufeli (2005) associated job demands with both physiological and psychological costs, former includes higher levels of blood pressure and heart rate, and increase in hormonal activity, while latter consists of fatique and need to thwart. Extensive period of the symptoms lead nurses to become emotionally and physically exhausted and a need to distance themselves from their work. All in all, burnout was experienced An antithesis of job demands, would be job resource. Bakker and Demerouti (2007) would describe them as aspects of the job that promotes personal growth, learning and development and directly reduces the impact of job demands.

It would be significant to say that they have both negative correlation and are strongly related. Furthermore, Bakker, Demerouti and Euwema (2005) found that combination of high demands and low job resource has been found to be imperative in predicting burnout. Specifically lack of managerial and colleague support in combination of high word load and demands, both physical and psychological, stimulates and onset of burnout. However, they also found out that even if there is high workload, emotional and physical demand, and home-related interference, but the invidiual is autonomous, has social support and positive relationship with supervisors, and receives constructive feedback, these individuals do not experience burnout. Most common individual antecedent is personality, which has been found to influence the onset of burnout. Alacorn, Eschleman and Bowling (2009) has found that the Big five influences the burnout onset. Extraversion, emotional stability, conscientiousness and

agreeableness are negatively correlated to three dimensions of 19 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout burnout. In terms of job demands and resources: extraversion should impact the job resources. Being of a nature to be able to seek social help and socialise expands a circle of social support, which decreases the stress load. Not only that, in combination with conscientiousness, the work environment is more positive and a healthier relationship with management increase resources and decrease demands. Addtionally, extraversion increases the perception of belonging and thus eases the settling into the job’s role, easing the transition process, this also requires the emotional stability to mitigate the change. Additionally, type A behaviour has been found to be positively correlated with burnout. Type A behaviour, consists of behavioural patterns encompassing hostility, impatience, urgency, competitiveness, and ambitions. The need for achievement would

mitigate the level of burnout, depending on which component of behaviour would lead. The components impatiences, hostility, if scored higher, would lead to probable higher levels of burnout. (Hallberg, Johannsson, & Schaufeli, 2007) 2.6 Causes of burnout As there is the lack of consensus on causes as well, it is hard to determine the cause, but rather what contributes to burnout. Maslach, Leither and Bakker (2014) shifted the focus from an individual to situations that an individual is put it, thus antecedents are deemed more important. However, there are some factors that influences the antecents One of such is age, which in itself has mixed evidence. If age is thought of as experience for the given job, then increasing experince, ergo age, decreases the chance of onset of burnout (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). That is also followed with stability of job role and its crystalisation, thus descreasing the overall job demands. 20 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and

Student Burnout Another, which is most logical, is occupation. As mentioned, inability to either adapt or adopt job demands, roles, expectations leads to increase stress and subsequently burnout. While today, we can experience burnout in any aspect of our life (ie. study as there are many student versions) Maslach and Leiter (1997) modelled the possible cause of burnout into six domains, in which if an individual fails the chance of burnout is high. First domain is work overload, which occurs when demands exceed one’s limits, that is lack of time and with lack of resources. Followed by lack of contact/autonomy, which disallows one to become involved in their work in their own pace or way. Next is lack of external and internal rewards, there is a lack of value in the work and meaning for the individual. Another is breakdown of community, when both there is a disconnect between colleagues and a discontent, this decreases job resources and increases demand. Another domain is absence of

fairness and mutual respect, which encourages inequity in workload (demand) or pay (reward). And lastly, value conflict Not to do with one’s expectations and reality of job, but rather personal principles one adhere to are in conflict with the very job one does. This promotes burnout due to mental strain, which has much higher impact on burnout (Burke, Shearer, & Deszca, 1984). Lastly, not a straight up cause, but rather a factor. It has been found that prevalence of any dimension in either of gender is inconsistent at best and the existing confounding factors are too many to take into the account (Greenglass, 1991). Despite so, girls and women are more likely to experience higher levels of stress (Reiseberg, 2000) and were more likely to experience burnout (Kiuru, Aunola, Nurmi, E, & Salmela-Aro, 2008). One possible explanation might be the negative response to competitiveness that becomes increasingly more evident in higher educations. (Salmela-Aro & Kunttu, 2010) 21

Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 3. Engagement Being an antithesis of burnout, with the emergence of positive psychology, engagement is shift of paradigm from the illness to betterment of the existing conditions. By examining engagement, one presumably is trying to investigate the on-going positive regard one has towards occupation. 3.1 Concepts There are four concepts that are used to describe engagements. The most known one is work engagement and its survey Utrecht Work Engagement Scale by Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, and Bakker (2002). But one of the earliest conceptualisations of engagement was introduced by Kahn (1990). 3.11 Kahn Work Engagement Kahn (1990) proposes that engagement is not the attitude of the organisation or job itself, but rather the connection one has towards the working, tasking performance. An individual who is engaged invests themselves into the work: their energy, time and can emotionally connect with the work. It has

to have all three aspects of a process, cognitive, physical and emotional. It is somewhat a polar opposite of burnout, as an engaged individual has energy, positive mind-set and is attached to their work, they can invest all of them (Christian, Garza, & Slaighter, 2011). His work are the only concept and evidence of engagement until the year 1997 and is vital as foundation to the existing work engagement concept. Kahn (1990) thus defines engagement as the usage of one (self) as part of the organisation to for its purpose; in terms of engagement, the workers are involved with organisation and show it physically, cognitively and emotionally as they fulfil their role. He also then defines the un-engagement as a disconnect of self from the roles, 22 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout physically, emotionally and cognitively, and show an apprehension towards fulfilling one’s role. According to Kahn, one’s need to express one’s self, as part of

Maslow’s need theory, is critical to the being, both as role of a worker and self. The idea of roles is very similar to Goffman’s presentation of self in dramaturgical sense, where one adopts a role. As previously said, Kahn puts an importance on three aspects of engagement: physical, cognitive and emotional, which with combination of self-expression and the overall connection with the work indicates the work engagement. Kahn further explores the psychological conditions that further influences engagement: meaningfulness, safety, and availability, which can further be divided into four “distractors” (Kahn, 1990, p. 706). Meaningfulness would be closely tied to the roles and the overall connectivity with the work place and organisation. Kahn, along with the context of Maslow’s need theory, states that there is an inherent need for meaning and consequently the need to satisfy the existential demands. Due to the nature of the meaningfulness, the role given by work has to

satisfactory and fulfilling and be in concordance with one’s values as Goffman states as well, to not cause role conflict and friction (Goffman, 1959). Therefore, those who feel that their work role gives them meaning, or rather is meaningful, will be more engaged (Kahn, 1990; Renn & Vanderberg, 1995; May, 2003). Safety consists of personal interactions and relationships with co-workers and upper-management. The main purpose of the safety, however, is the availability to express one’s self without the worry for one’s self-image, status or standing in company, as such of any negative repercussion. In terms of interpersonal relationships, the feeling of safety shows as flexibility, support, and trustworthiness. All of these characteristics 23 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout should allow for a place of safety for failure without negative consequences and nurturing place instead. This not only applies for co-workers, but also managers

Managers as long as they do not abuse their power, are consistent and predictable in terms of demands, this allows for an easily manageable workload and thus prevents exhaustion, mental and physical. Another way to look at safety, is through group dynamics where roles are set, given, and do not clash, this allows for a smooth running between groups without conflicts (Kahn, 1990; Edmondson, 1996; Oldham & Cummings, 1996) Lastly, availability is the belief that the one possesses the capability, emotional, physical and psychological, to fulfil one’s role and if necessary to even go beyond. These aspects somewhat depend on previous experience, both work- and life-related. The energy to work, both physical and emotional, are highly needed to be engaged and carry working, they are the first and second distractors of availability. Third distractor is self-doubt. A certain level of confidence is required to be able to work without worry and be immersed in one’s work. Apart from work

quality, confidence in one’s standing within firm and fulfilling of one’s given role influences the engagement. Last distractor is life: in case of life being overwhelming, it is to be expected from the worker to be unable to immerse in the work fully and efficiently (Kahn, 1990; Morris & Feldman, 1996; Rothbard, 2001). Lastly, Kahn (1992) includes an aspect of “immersion” in his paper To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Which only surfaces if most of the previously mentioned aspects are fulfilled. The theory of engagement from Kahn has been empirically shown to be present May et. al (2004), who found out that all three psychological conditions were found to 24 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout be correlated with work engagement. The conditions were further correlated with new domains: meaningfulness with job enrichment and work role, safety with rewarding coworkers and supportive employers or anyone of higher management,

and lastly availability with accessible resources and participation in non-work related personal activities. 3.12 Engagement as an antithesis to burnout A model proposed by Maslach and Leiter in year 1997, when they were working on burnout. They wanted to expand on the concept of burnout, as well as under influence of positive psychology, they proposed engagement as an antithesis to burnout on a continuum. (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996) While burnout characterised by, as previously mentioned, exhaustion, depersonalisation/cynicism and lack of personal accomplishment feeling, engagement is clear-cut opposite with energy (as a contrast to exhaustion), involvement (as a contrast to depersonalisation/cynicism) and sense of efficacy (as a contrast to lack of sense of personal accomplishment). At first Maslach tried to measure engagement by a low score indication on the MBI score with the assumption that a low indication of given construct can be interpreted as the opposite. However,

further research showed that while the opposite constructs are related, they are nonetheless separate (Demerouti, Bakker, & Nachreiner, 2010). Most notably study by Schaufeli and Bakker (2004), who create a separate scale for engagement Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, measured the antithetical constructs and found out two separate dimensions that were negatively correlated rather than a unidimensional continuum. Schaufeli and Bakker, thusly proposed that the model of burnout and engagement being antithetical is wrong and they are two different constructs that requires to be measured separately. Their claim is further supported by 25 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 26 Crawford, LePine and Rick (2010) through meta-analysis that two constructs are not opposites. 3.13 Work Engagement Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma and Bakker define their work engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind” (2002, p. 295) Considered as

the newest model, which both lacks a polar opposite and is a separate measureable construct, consisting of three dimensions: vigour, dedication and absorption. Schaufeli et al., as mentioned, created their own separate scale which encompases the definition of work engagement and new the Job Demand-Resouces model. Their full definition is: “Engagement is a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Rather than a momentary and specific state, engagement refers to a more persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or behavior. Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort in one’s work, and persistence even in the face of difficulties. Dedication refers to being strongly involved in ones work and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and

challenge. Absorption, is characterized by being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from work” (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003, pp. 4-5) Accordingly, vigor and dedication are the core of the work engagement and thus are the opposite of exhaustion and depersonalisation, but the dimension absorption is different and not an opposite of the burnout’s lack of sense of peronal achievement. The dimension absorption is linked to the more recent positive psychology theory: flow. Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Flow is characterised as a state of being where attention is solely concentrated on the given task, while the percepetion of time is distorted and a faint presence of enjoyment is concurrent with rest (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Furthermore, the absorption does not serve the purpose as opposite of work efficacy due to the recent findings suggesting

efficacy being not important in role of burnout (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, Job burnout, 2001). During creation, Schaufeli et al supported the claim that there is a relationship between burnout and engagement, but rather only of a negative correlation. Acknowledging that there is a uniqueness to either constructs and while face validity would suggests one continuum relationship, research and theory proves otherwise (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). 3.2 Antecedents of Engagement Similarly, to burnout, the antecedents, particularly job demand and resources are applicable to work engagement as well. That includes the Big Five factors First, individual antecedents, that influences work engagement levels. Mäkikangas, Feldt, Kinnunen, and Mauno (2013) shows that extroversion, conscientiousness and emotional stability are related consistently with higher work engagement. They are that person with emotional stability coupled with optimism and conscientiousness can deal with the stressors

and job demands. They are capable of working under duress and see it as part of life and journey Type A behaviour has been studied in relation with work engagement as well. Hallberg, Johannsson and Schaufeli (2007) found that type A behaviour, known for achievement striving, ambitious and competitiveness, predicted higher levels of work engagement in Swedish consultants. However only the component achievement striving is positively corredated while others such as impatiences were negatively correlated. 27 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Bakker, Tims, and Derks (2012b) investigated the relationship between proactive personality and work engagement. They showed that proactive personality would encourage a crafting in their jobs. These individuals would work on increasing their job resources (all aspects of Kahn’s psychologcal conditions) while still maintaining the high demand, which facilitates usage and improvement of resources. This process,

crafting, leads to high level of engagement., as it involves all all three aspects from Schaufeli’s definition. Not only they adapt to the environment, they also are likely to influence and even change their environment, including co-workers, these changes facilitates job resources. Lee and Ashforth’s (1996) meta-analysis shows that while job demands are an aspect of a job that influences work engagement, they are more impactful on burnout than they are on work engagement. It was rather lack of job resources, which were more likely to show low engagement levels. Whereas mentioned job demands were the predictor of burnout, their opposite job resources are the situational predictor of engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Job resources can be divided into intrinsic and extrinsic motivators according to Deci and Ryan (1985). Each of them also impacts different aspects of engagement Intrinsic motivators would be closest to fulfilment of needs, most notably the needs that Maslow

uses, and thus encourages a self-improvement, self-actualisation. On the other hand, extrinsic motivators would be encouraging in sense of accomplishment of the given role and work load. Mauno, Kinnunen, and Ruokolainen (2007) conducted a longitudinal study on Finish healthcare personal found that employess with higher job resources would report higher scores in vigour, dedication, and absorption two years later. 28 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Apart from having job resources, their salience also impacts on how engaged the individual is (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). If the job resource is valued, the individual is more likely to be highly protective of it and would impart as much effort as possible to keep and protect the resource. In case of having multiple job resources it could even lead to resources interaction, such as giving resource part of another to keep former sustainable, such as helping another person, who is important to the

individual as a resource. Bakker and Demerouti (2008) further expand the salience; personal resources These are internal resources, such as self-esteem and other self-assessments. Their purpose is to control the job demands and its impact, any negative effects job demands can have. Hakanen, Bakker and Demerouti (2005) explores the combination of high job demands and similarly high job resources, and how it impacted work engagement in Finnish dentists. The hypothesis was that job resources would be highly beneficial and would maintain work engagement despite the high job demand conditions, eg. excessive workload, following the Conservation of Resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989). According to Conservation of Resources theory an individual will seek to both maintain and acquire resources, both materialistic and non-tangible as a counter weight to stress. Hakanen et al. concludes that at least 17 out of 40 were significant interactions, such as professional skills mitigated the negative

effects of demanding workload. 4. Model used in the current research In this project, we employed the Schaufeli’s burnout concept of burnout, whose definition is identical to Pines and Aronson from 1988: “A state of physical and emotional exhaustion caused by long-term involvement in situations that are emotionally demanding” (Pines & Aronson, 1988, p. 9) which is used as a foundation for The Copenhagen burnout inventory. The said inventory has two parts dedicated to 29 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout the domain of personal burnout and work related burnout, in our case school as work. Personal burnout is defined as “Personal burnout is the degree of physical and psychological fatigue and exhaustion experienced by the person.” (Kristensen, Borritz, Villadsen, & Christensen, 2005, p. 197) It simply measures the overall feeling of exhaustion and fatigue. Second domain measured is the work/school-related burnout as is defined as

“The degree of physical and psychological fatigue and exhaustion that is perceived by the person as related to his/her work” (Kristensen, Borritz, Villadsen, & Christensen, 2005, p. 197) It is important to be able to distinguish burnout cause, in case where personal would be high while work is low, and burnout was present then it is most likely due to personal reasons such as family demands. In the original version, an additional domain is present: client-related which is defined as “The degree of physical and psychological fatigue and exhaustion that is perceived by the person as related to his/her work with clients” (Kristensen, Borritz, Villadsen, & Christensen, 2005, p. 197) Kristensen et al. wants to be able to see whether people can attribute their burnout to more specific domain of their work. Since I am using a student version, another domain is included: teacher-related burnout. As students have to interact with both the school as place, there is also the

teacher with whom they have to build rapport and somewhat use for social support. It is important to note that CBI is built upon theory of causal attribution, Kristensen et al. wanted to see how people perceive, understand and interpret their symptoms Kristensen et al. believes that people will try to explain and understand their symptoms as would create a certain idea of schema. The main idea still lies within the causal attribution and, which is the most appropriate and best analyses we as researcher can get without qualitative research. The dander, however, lies within the people as we depend on their perceptions to analyse their own problem. 30 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout However, such dependence may not be bad as mentioned as it would follow another model of illness: situational. Alonzo (1979) believes that many illness can be described through everyday social situations as they are contained within the construct of time and place. Human

as creature of habit would take notes of when symptoms arise and note down the situational factors and thus be able to pinpoint the onset of symptoms quite precisely. Alonzo stressed that “there is a need to ask how individuals actually manage health status deviations in everyday typical social situations, not how they think they would manage them. By using this approach, we may begin to understand the lower part of the illness iceberg.” (Alonzo, 1979, p 403) We will be using Schaufeli and Bakker model of engagement as we will be using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. As previously discussed 5. Hypotheses The purpose of the current study is to investigate the relation between the students’ engagement and burnout. We attempt to answer the research question: Does student burnout has an impact on the student’s engagement and whether former predicts the latter in relation to gender? In order to answer the research question, it is hypothesised that: H01: There is no

statistically significant correlation between work engagement and subscales burnout Ha1: There is a statistically significant correlation between work engagement and subscales burnout 31 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout H02: None of the predictors (personal, school-related, colleague-related and teacherrelated burnout, and gender) is useful in predicting the engagement in participants. Ha2: At least one of the predictors (personal, school-related, colleague-related and teacher-related burnout) is useful in predicting the engagement in participants. H03: The predictor personal burnout does not contribute in this model. Ha3: The predictor personal burnout does contribute in this model. H04: The predictor school-related burnout does not contribute in the model. Ha4: The predictor school-related burnout does contribute in this model. H05: The predictor colleague-related burnout does not contribute in the model. Ha5: The predictor colleague-related

burnout does contribute in the model. H06: The predictor teacher-related burnout does not contribute in the model. Ha6: The predictor teacher-related burnout does contribute in the model. H07: The predictor gender does not contribute in the model. Ha7: The predictor gender does contribute in the model. 6. Design The research is an explanatory study to investigate the relationship between burnout and engagement. We utilised a non-experimental quantitative method using regression analysis. We examined whether burnout and gender predict engagement The independent variable were sub-scales of burnout; personal burnout, school-, colleague-, and teacher-related burnout and gender. Burnout was operationalized in terms of independent and distinct working of three dimensions as ‘‘a state of physical, emotional and mental exhaustion that results from long-term involvement in work situations that 32 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout are emotionally

demanding’’ caused by a specific domain of situation (Schaufeli & Greenglass, Introduction to special issue on burnout and health, 2001, p. 501) Burnout was thus measured in terms of attribution of fatigue and exhaustion. Moreover, the dependent variable was engagement. It was measured in terms of, again, attitude towards one’s work concerning the antithetical domains of burnout: vigor, dedication and absorption. 6.1 Participants The randomly sampled students from University of New York in Prague and Charles University, Czech Republic. We collected 128 answer sheets However, two were incomplete. Thus, these two participants were dropped from the analysis The mean age of the sample was 22.24 and the age of participants varied (SD= 3280) There were 28 male students, (22.22%) and 98 female students (778%) Majority of participants were from Czech (44.4%) while the rest of participants were from rest of Europe (29.4%), Asia (175%), and other continents (87%) Most were studying

Psychology field (34.9%), second largest group were of Business (333%), other (19.8%) and Natural Sciences (119%) Majority were in their Bachelor degree (81%), rest in Master (19%). At that moment, there were students who had a job (452%) and those who did not have (54.8%) The sample consists only of students because they are the focus group of the research. The over-representation of females is due to female comprising the majority due to majors the participants were drawn from. 6.2 Materials The participants completed the following questionnaires: Copenhagen Burnout Inventory-Student Version and Utrecht Engagement Scale – 17 items. Each of them 33 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout measures burnout sub-scales of personal, school-, colleague- and teacher-related construct and engagement by three domains, vigor, dedication and absorption. Regarding the direct and indirect aggression scales, we measured perceived burnout by using the Copenhagen

Burnout Inventory (CBI) created by Borritz, M., Rugulies, R, Bjorner, J., Villadsen, E, Mikkelsen, O, and Kristensen, T (2006) The CBI is a 25item scale consisting of six items (α =864) of personal burnout, seven items school burnout (α = .750) and six items (α= 918) of colleague-related burnout and six items (α= 907). We used this scale, created as a self-reported questionnaire for the students experiencing university study, to assess the levels of burnout in them. We kept the items as they were given to us from the original adoption from Duarte Bonini Campo, Carlotto and Marôco (2013) We included the quarter-point rating scale ranging from never (0) to always (1) that was used in the original one non-adaptation. Regarding perceived engagement, we used Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), created by Schaufeli W. and Bakker A (2003, 2004) The UWES is a 17-item scale, consisting of 6 items of vigor (α =.791), 5 items of dedication (α =815) and 6 items of absorption (α =.862)

The focus of our study is engagement, we had to make sure it reflects what we are measuring. Due to lack of student version in English, we changed the word work into school. For example, “At my work, I feel bursting with energy” is changed to “At school, I feel bursting with energy” or “My job inspires me” to “My field of study inspires me”. We included the 7-point Likert rating scale, used in the original scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (Always). To add, the scale work 34 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout engagement, more specifically the sub-scales has been found to be negatively correlated with burnout, specifically the sub-scales. 6.3 Analysis We put the data into SPSS. We performed the overall descriptive statistics of all variables and the same analysis by gender to review the data. Furthermore, we tested for normality to determine whether variables in the sample were normally distributed or not. Additionally, we analysed

the relationships between engagement, sub-scales of burnout and gender utilising multiple regression analysis to examine whether sub-scales of burnout and gender predict engagement. 7. Findings The findings include the results of the application of the method, the descriptive statistic on the sub-scales of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: personal burnout, school-related burnout, colleague-related burnout and teacher-related burnout, their normality assessments 7.1 Results of the application of the method A simple correlation was run using Pearson to assess the relationship betweenthe relationship between Copenhagen Burnout Inventory and Utrecht Engagement Score. This was necessary in order to see the overall relationship between the sub-scales of both instruments. A multiple regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between the subscales of Copenhagen Burnout Inventory and the Utrecht Engagement Score. It was 35 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and

Student Burnout necessary and suitable to use multiple regression analysis in order to be able to see the relationship between the independent (burnout sub-scale scores: personal burnout, school-related burnout, colleague-related burnout and teacher-related burnout) and dependent (engagement scores) variables. 7.2 Descriptive Statistics of main variables 7.21 Overall Descriptive statistics of main variables Hundred twenty-six subjects voluntarily participated in our study. The mean of the sums of personal burnout score, the first sub-scale of CBI, was 2.80 similar to their median score (Mdn = 2.75) The most frequent score was 225 and 325 The scores ranged from 0.50 to 525 The standard deviation and variance were moderate (SD = 1.04, S2 = 109), considering the large standard deviation and variance (see Table 1) The second sub-scale of CBI, the mean of the sums of school-related burnout score was 3.43, which is a slightly higher score than of the personal burnout Its median was around

the mean, in the similar manner as of personal burnout, (Mdn = 3.25) The most frequent score was 3.25 The score ranged from 100 to 650 Same as personal burnout, school-related burnout did have a high variation (SD = 1.10, S2 = 122) (see Table 2). The third sub-scale of CBI, the mean of the sums of colleague-related burnout score was 2.24, which was slightly higher than its median (Mdn = 200) The most frequent score was 2.25 The scores ranged from 000 to 550 Out of the four sub-scale, 36 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout colleague-related burnout score has highest standard deviation and thus variation (SD = 1.36, S2 = 184), suggesting a high variation in scores (see Table 3) The fourth and last sub-scale of CBI, the mean of the sums of teacher-related burnout score was 1.60, which is the lowest score of sub-scales Its median is the only one, which is higher than the mean (Mdn = 1.75) The most frequent score was 175 The score ranged from 0.00 to 400

It has lowest standard deviation and variation, with its range it suggests that the scores were not as varied as in the other sub-scales (SD = 1.10, S2 = 122) (see Table 4) The mean of the sum engagement score, Utrecht engagement scale, was 55.06 Its median was close to the mean (Mdn = 54). The most frequent scores were 46 and 54 The scores ranged from 7 to 98. The standard deviation and variation are not overtly large and thus shows a normatively expected variation (SD = 17.31, S2 = 29964) (see Table 5). 7.3 Descriptive statistics of main variables by gender 7.31 Descriptive statistics of variable personal burnout by gender Hundred twenty-six subjects voluntarily participated in our study, consisting of 28 males and 98 females. Male participants had slightly lower average personal burnout scores (M = 2.41) compared to the female ones (M = 2.92) The median score was 250 in males and 300 in females. The scores ranged from 5 to 45 in males and from 75 to 525 in females Based on the

similar and moderate standard deviation and variance in males (SD = 1.01, 37 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout S2 = 1.01) and in females (SD = 101, S2 = 103), it looks like the personal burnout scores did not vary. (see Table 6 and 7) 7.32 Descriptive statistics of variable school-related burnout by gender Male participants had a lower average school-related burnout scores (M = 3.23) compared to the female ones (M = 3.38) The median score was 300 in males and 338 in females. The scores ranged from 125 to 500 in males and from 075 to 525 in females. Based on the similar and moderate standard deviation and variance in males (SD = .94, S2 = 090) and in females (SD = 106, S2 = 113), it looks like the schoolrelated burnout scores did not vary, despite males being lower than females (see Table 8 and 9) 7.33 Descriptive statistics of variable colleague-related burnout by gender Male participants had a similar average colleague-related burnout scores (M =

2.16) compared to the female ones (M = 218) The median score was 225 in males and 2.0 in females The scores ranged from 000 to 50 in males and from 0 to 550 in females. Based on the standard deviation and variance in males (SD = 142, S2 = 201) and in females (SD = 1.29, S2 = 168), it looks like the colleague-related burnout scores did vary both in females and males, but in latter it varied more. (see Table 10 and 11) 7.34 Descriptive statistics of variable teacher-related burnout by gender Male participants had a higher average teacher-related burnout scores (M = 1.77) compared to the female ones (M = 1.54) The median score was 175 in males and 15 in females. The scores ranged from 000 to 400 in males and from 000 to 375 in females Based on the standard deviation and variance in males (SD = 1.08, S2 = 116) and in females (SD = 0.97, S2 = 094), the teacher-related burnout scores did not vary both in females and males, but in former it varied less. (see Table 12 and 13) 38 Source:

http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 7.35 Descriptive statistics of variable engagement score by gender Male participants had a similar engagement scores (M = 55.22) compared to the female ones (M = 55.40) The median score was 53 in males and 565 in females The scores ranged from 30.00 to 9800 in males and from 700 to 9000 in females Based on the standard deviation and variance in males (SD = 13.95, S2 = 194640 and in females (SD = 18.30, S2 = 33490), the engagement scores varied more in females than in males (see Table 14 and 15) 7.4 Normality assessment of various variables 7.41 Normality assessment of variable personal burnout score and subsequently by gender Personal burnout scores were distributed with a skewness of 0.074 (SE = 222) and kurtosis of -.438 (SE = 440) The personal burnout scores were normally distributed as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p > 0.5) The scores even through visual inspection of histograms stays as normally distributed. (see

Table 16) Personal burnout scores by gender, however, for males had a skewness of 0.496 (SE= .448) suggesting a low skew to the left, and kurtosis of 148 (SE= 872) Female scores on the other hand had close to none skewness of -.028 (SE= 251), and kurtosis of -.359 (SE= 498) Both were normally distributed as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk’s test, males (p > 0.05) and females (p > 005) Even through the visual assessment, they both possess a normal distribution bell curve. (see Figure 2 and 3) 39 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 7.42 Normality assessment of variable school-related burnout score and subsequently by gender School-related burnout scores were distributed with a skewness of 0.074 (SE = .222) and kurtosis of -438 (SE = 440) The school-related scores were normally distributed (p > .05) as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p > 05) The scores even through visual inspection of histograms stays as normally distributed. (see Table 17)

School-related burnout scores by gender, however, for males had a skewness of 0.183 (SE= 448, and kurtosis of -570 (SE= 872) Female scores on the other hand had close to none skewness of -.007 (SE= 251), and kurtosis of -384 (SE= 498) Both were normally distributed as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk’s test, males (p > 0.05) and females (p > 0.05) (see Figure 4 and 5) 7.43 Normality assessment of variable colleague-related burnout score and subsequently by gender Colleague-related burnout scores were distributed with a skewness of 0.561 (SE = .222) and kurtosis of -121 (SE = 440) The colleague-related scores were not normally distributed (p < .05) as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk’s test, having significance of 0.002 The scores even through visual inspection of histograms did not show a bell curve due to a peak at the lower end. (see Table 18) Colleague-related burnout scores by gender, however, for males had a skewness of 0.113 (SE= 448), and kurtosis of -927 (SE= 872) Female scores on

the other hand had close to none skewness of .733 (SE= 251), and kurtosis of 206 (SE= 498) Only male sample was normally distributed as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk’s test, males (p > 0.05), while female was not normally distributed (p < 005), with significance of 001 (see Figure 6 and 7) 40 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 7.44 Normality assessment of variable teacher-related burnout score and subsequently by gender Teacher-related burnout scores were distributed with a skewness of 0.240 (SE = .222) and kurtosis of -510 (SE = 440) The teacher-related scores were not normally distributed (p < .05) as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk’s test, with the significance of 0005 The scores through visual inspection of histograms did not show a normal distribution due to a peak at the lower end, similar to colleague-related burnout. (see Table 19) Teacher-related burnout scores by gender, however, for males had a skewness of .073 (SE= 448), and kurtosis of

154 (SE= 872) Female scores on the other hand had close to none skewness of .273 (SE= 251), and kurtosis of -453 (SE= 498) Only male sample was normally distributed as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk’s test, males (p > 0.05), while female was not normally distributed (p < 005), with significance of 014 (see Figure 8 and 9) 7.45 Normality assessment of variable sum of engagement score and subsequently by gender Sums of engagement scores were distributed with a skewness of -0.284 (SE = .222) and kurtosis of -710 (SE = 440) Sums of engagement scores were not normally distributed (p < .05) as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk’s test, they had significance of 0.035 The scores even through visual inspection of histograms had a nearly normative bell curve. (see Table 20) Sums of engagement scores by gender, however, for males had a skewness of 1.370 (SE= 448), and kurtosis of 2724 (SE= 872) Female scores on the other hand had close to none skewness of -.483 (SE= 251), and kurtosis of 441 (SE=

498) Only male sample was not normally distributed as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk’s test, males (p 41 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout < 0.05) with significance of 005, while female was normally distributed (p > 005) (see Figure 10 and 11) 7.5 Test of Hypotheses A correlation was run in all participants to predict whether there is a relationship between the sum score of engagement, and sub-scales of engagement score, vigor, dedication, and absorption, with sub-scales of burnout, personal burnout, schoolburnout, colleague-related and teacher-related burnout. In table shows that most of the sub-scales of different instruments indicated a moderate negative correlation (-.476 > r > -0.200; large practical effect; p ≤ 005) A positive sub-scale correlation was observed, in UWES: vigor and dedication were r (126) = .709, p < 05, while vigor with absorption were r (102) = 804, p < 05, and dedication with absorption r (126) = .764, p

< 05 Similarly, in CBI: personal burnout with school-related were r (126) = .736, p < 05 While with colleague-related the r (126) = .346, p < 05, and with teacher-related r (126) = .326, p < 05 School-related had r (126) = 435, p < 05 with colleague-related and r (126) = .474, p < 05 with teacher-related Colleague-related had r (126) = 362, p < .05 with teacher-related However, the correlation between two different instruments were negative and two were not statistically significant. Vigor was moderately negatively correlated with personal burnout r (126) = -.476, p < .05, school-related r (126) = -453, p < 05 and teacher-related r (126) = -308, p < 05, 42 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout and had not statistically significant low negative correlation with colleague-related r (126) = -.171, p > 05 Dedication was moderately negatively correlated with all sub-scales, personal burnout r (126) = -.464, p < 05,

school-related r (126) = -474, p < 05, colleaguerelated r (126) = -347, p < 05, and with teacher-related r (126) = -357, p < 05 Absorption was correlated in a similar manner as vigor with sub-scales of burnout, having one with low negative correlation which was not statistically significant, with personal burnout r (126) = -.333 p < 05, school-related r (126) = -364 p < 05, with teacher-related r (126) = -.259 p < 05, and with colleague-related r (126) = -156 p > 0 The sum score of UWES was moderately negatively correlated statistically significantly with all sub-scales of burnout instrument: with personal burnout r (126) = .456 p < 05, school-related r (126) = -464 p < 05, colleague-related burnout r (126) = -.236 p < 05, and lastly teacher-related r (126) = -330 p < 05 (see Table 21) Thus, we can rejected first null hypothesis, that states that there is no relationship between the sub-scales of burnout with sub-scales and total score of engagement. A

multiple regression was run in all participants to predict the engagement score from the personal burnout, school-related, colleague-related and teacher-related burnout, and gender. The assumption of linearity, independence of errors, homoscedasticity, unusual points and normality of residuals were met. Personal, school-related, colleaguerelated and teacher-related burnout, and gender did statistically significantly predict student engagement, F (5, 113) = 8.30, p < 0001, adj R2 = 246 Therefore, we can reject the second null hypothesis that states that none of the predictors (personal, school-related, colleague-related and teacher-related burnout, and gender) is useful predicting work engagement in the whole sample. 43 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout The predictor personal burnout did add statistically significantly to the prediction, p = .38 Thus, we can reject the third null hypothesis that states that the personal burnout does not contribute

in this model. The school-related burnout did impact the prediction, but not statistically significant, p = .069 Thus, we cannot reject the fourth null hypothesis that states that the predictor school-related burnout does not contribute in this model. The predictor colleague-related burnout did not add statistically significantly to the prediction, p = .865 Thus, we cannot reject the fifth null hypothesis that states that the predictor colleague-related burnout does not contribute in this model. The predictor teacher-related burnout did not add statistically significantly to the prediction, p = .180 Thus, we cannot reject the sixth null hypothesis that states that the predictor teacher-related burnout does not contribute in this model. (Weber & Jaekel-Reinhard, 2000). The predictor gender did not add statistically significantly to the prediction, p = .483 Thus, we cannot reject the seventh null hypothesis that states that the predictor gender does not contribute in this model. (see

Table 22) 8. Discussion 8.1 Discussion of descriptive analysis In this research, male participants were found to be the minority of the study. Their burnout scores were slightly lower than females. Particularly, their personal burnout score is slightly lower than females, while the other sub-scales they were more or less similar. The results are consistent with the results of other studies which show that females are more likely to experience school-related burnout (Kiuru, Aunola, Nurmi, E, & Salmela-Aro, 2008). Coincided, the engagement scores were slightly higher in 44 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout females too, which too has been noted as well (Vasalampi, Salmela-Aro, & Nurmi, 2009). Comparison of my results of sub-scales of CBI with Kristensen, Borritz, Villadsen, and Christensen (2005), shows similarlity. Both personal burnout and work-related scores of females were found to be higher than of males, similarly was found in Kristensen

et al. (2005) On the other hand, males were higher in scores involving with clients, which would be comparable to combination of colleague-related and teacherrelated in student version, and on average, males scored higher than females in teacherrelated burnout. Utretch Work engagement scores were found to be not different in gender factor, difference of .18 Similarly was found that the difference was insignificant of 005 (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003, p. 32) 8.2 Discussion of Hypothesis In the research, we focused mainly on the predictability of the sub-scales of the CBI on work engagement. Schaufeli and Bakker (2003) found that those with high level of engagement would be full of energy and positivity despite the problems within the work. However, we have found out that those with higher personal burnout score would often have lower work engagement score. Similarly, the higher school-related burnout would have an impact on work engagement. This would agree with the theory that

engagement requires both vigor and dedication, both of which would be negatively affected if burnout, that the person would perceive stems from personal antecedents and school-related antecedent. This would also be linked to Lekutle and Nel (2012) who stated that those with dedication and absorption would be able to find sense of enthusiasm, pride, challenge, and inspiration in their work. Thus, those who would 45 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout attribute school as source of their burnout would be unable to stay and be dedicated to It, resulting into lower score of work engagement. We were also unable to reject the null hypotheses of client-related, teacher-related burnout and gender, additionally that had a moderate impact on the overall work engagement score. This would mean, that while they are not a predictor they are a mitigating factor that needs to be included within the controlled factors. Following Kahn’s theory (1990) and Bakker,

Demerouti and SanzVergel (2014), the importance of social support is significant as both job demand and resource. We found out that they do work as independent measures, suggesting that despite the student not liking the school, they would still try to keep a good relationship either or both with the teachers and their colleagues. After all, it has been shown that one would try to improve their job resources and have their salience grow, an upward spiral. Lastly, gender had a mitigating effect on the overall work engagement score One of the explanation would be, most likely due to females attributing much greater importance to academic achievements in comparison to males (Berndt & Miller, 1990) and thus often achieve higher results than boys, but would often more be stressed and burnt out (Pomerantz, Alternatt, & Saxon, 2002; Kiuru, Aunola, Nurmi, E, & Salmela-Aro, 2008). On the positive side, however, females would also experience higher school and study engagement than

males at the cost of exhaustion (Vasalampi, Salmela-Aro, & Nurmi, 2009). 8.3 Conclusion Main conclusion is, that burnout sub-scales do predict work engagement, not only so they do have negative correlative relationship. The main predictors are personal burnout and school-related burnout, while colleague-related and teacher-related burnout were a mitigating factor, meaning they are both job resource and demand. Secondly, 46 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout females are likely to be both more engaged and burnout than males, thus making gender another mitigating factor. 8.4 Implications We hypothesised, whether burnout sub-scales and gender would predict work engagement. We found out that core concepts of burnout, which coincide with engagement, were predictors as they were of a same continuum. Thus we can see that if there is an indication of exhaustion from students, it will most likely have a negative impact on their engagement and consequently

their work and achievements. However the other two sub-scales of CBI, colleague- and teacher-related, were found only to be a mitigating factor, which was explained as due to them having nature of possibly being both, a job demand and job resource. Due to the nature of negatively worded items in CBI, it is hard to infer whether the colleague and teacher were job resource, and thus would only show as having a lower bearing. The findings also should serve as an indication of burnout presence within the universities, mostly due to personal and school-related. If teacher-related burnout were to be significant and had higher scores, it would indicate problems within teacherstudent relationship. Similarly could be said about colleague-related if there was high score, this would indicate hostile environment for the individual, most likely be bullied, anxious or hostile towards others. 8.5 Limitations We had limited amount of participants only of 126. Our aim was to sample 200 students. Thus

these findings cannot be generalised to the population of students in the universities. 47 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Additionally, while our theory dictates that the burnout instruments measures perceived and attributed burnout, it is hard to determine whether the individual is burnout or not. Thus, we can only identify them as a person with high score and not knowing definitely, whether the individual is burnt-out or not. Secondly, both instruments are self-reported questionnaires, which in themselves can be affected by many factors, giving rise to concern regarding the accuracy. The simplest, mood at the given moment can affect the perception of burnout attribution, which can both skew the score to either side. 8.6 Suggestions for future research When studying students’ engagement, it would a good idea to include whether the participants work as well, which would increase the personal burnout and can somewhat skew the results of

colleague-related as they might include in as well, if they misunderstand the instruction or they do not adhere to operational definition. Additionally, I did not study whether subject studied influences work engagement, which should have been included as one of the predictors. Also whether a year studied, and degree, eg. bachelor, master or doctorate, would have an impact on work engagement. It would be interesting to run a longitudinal study on development of social support, resources, and coping skills, as they develop throughout the course of study. It would be also recommended to include personal characteristics to determine whether they would have a predictive nature while working along other factors. Potentially, a differentiation between personal, work resources could show salience of each and how they impact the engagement, this could also be applied to demands. 48 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout References Alacorn, G., Eschleman, K,

& Bowling, N (2009) Relationships between personality variables and burnout: a meta-analysis. Work Stress, 23, 244-263 Alonzo, A. (1979) Everyday illness behavior: a situational approach to health status deviations. Social Sciences and Medicine, 13A, 397-404 Bakker, A., & Demerouti, E (2007) The job demands-resources mode: State of the art Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328. Bakker, A., & Demerouti, E (2008) Towards a Model of Work Engagement Career Development International, 13, 209-223. Bakker, A., Demerouti, E, & Euwema, M (2005) Job Resources Buffer the Impact of Job Demands on Burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 170-180 doi:10.1037/1076-8998102170 Bakker, A., Demerouti, E, & Sanz-Vergel, A (2014) Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD-R Approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organization Behavior, 1, 389-411. doi:101146/annurev-orgpsych-031413091235 Bakker, A., Le Blanc, P, & Schaufeli, W (2005) burnout contagion

among nurses who work at intensive care units. Journal of Advenced Nursing, 51, 276-287 Bakker, A., Tims, M, & Derks, D (2012b) Proactive personality and job performance: the role of job crafting and work engagement. Hum Rel, 65, 1359-1378 Beemester, J., & Baum, B (1984) "Burnout" definitions and health care management Social Work in Heath Care, 10(1), 97-109. 49 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Berndt, T., & Miller, K (1990) Expectancies, values and achievement in junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 319-326 Borritz, M., Rugulies, R, Bjorner, J, Villadsen, E, Mikkelsen, O, & Kristensen, T (2006). Burnout among employees in human service work: design and baseline findings of the PUMA study. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 34, 49-58 doi:10.1080/14034940510032275 Burke, R. T, Shearer, J, & Deszca, G (1984) Burnout among men and woman in police work: An examition of the Cherniss Model. Journal

of Health and HUman Resources Administration, 7(2), 162-188. Retrieved from http://www.jstororg/stable/25780191 Burnout. (2016) Retrieved 12 14, 2016, from Merriam-Webstercom: https://www.merriam-webstercom/dictionary/burnout Cherniss, C. (1980) Staff Burnout - Job Stress in the Human Services Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Cherniss, C. (1995) Beyond burnout New York, NY: Routledge Christian, M., Garza, A, & Slaighter, J (2011) Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89-136. Crawford, E., LePine, J, & Rich, B (2010) Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834-848 Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) Flow: The psycholgo of optimal experince New York: Harper. 50 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Deci, E., & Ryan, R (1985) Intrinsic

motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum Demerouti, E., Bakker, A, & Nachreiner, F (2010) Burnout and work engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(3), 209-222. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A, De Jonge, J, Jansenn, P, & Schaufeli, W (2001) Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and contact. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Heath, 279-286. Duarte Bonini Campo, J. A, Carlotto, M S, & Marôco, J (2013) Copenhagen Burnout Inventory - Student Version: Adaptation and Transcultural Validation for Portugal and Brazil. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 26(1), 87-97 Edmondson, A. C (1996) Learning from Mistakes is Easier Said Than Done: Group and Organizational Influences on the Detection and Correction of Human Error. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(1), 5-28. Freudenberger, H. J (1974) Staff Burn-Out Journal of Social Issues, 30(1),

159-165 doi:10.1111/j1540-45601974tb00706x Freudenberger, H. J, & Richelson, G (1980) Burn-out: The high cost of high achievement. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press Goffman, E. (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Golembiewski, R., Munzenrider, R, & Carter, D (1983) Phases of progressive burnout and their work site covariants: critical issues in OD research and praxis. Journal 51 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout of Applied Behavioral Science, 19(4), 461-481. Retrieved from https://www.ncbinlmnihgov/pubmed/10265310 Gombiewski, R. T (1996) Public-sector change and burnout: Phases as antecedent, limiting condition, and common consequence. Public Productivity & Management Review, 20(1), 56-69. Retrieved from http://www.jstororg/stable/3380603 Greenglass, E. (1991) Burnout and gender: theoretical and organizational implications Can Psychol, 32, 562-574. Hakanen, J., Bakker, A, & Demerouti, E (2005) How

dentists cope with their job demands and stay engaged: the moderating role of job resources. European Journal of Oral Sciences, 479-487. doi:101111/j1600-0722200500250x Hallberg, U., Johannsson, G, & Schaufeli, W (2007) Type A behaviour and work situation: Association with burnout and work engagement. Personality and social Sciences, 48, 135-142. Hazell, K. W (2010) Job stress, burnout, job satisfaction, and intention to leave among registered nurses employed in hospital settings in the state of Florida. Retrieved from ProQuest: http://gradworks.umicom/34/06/3406218html Hobfoll, S. E (1989) Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513-524 Honzák, R. (2013) Jak žít a vyhnout se syndromu vyhoření Praha: Vysehrad Jacobs, S., & Dodd, D (2003) Student Burnout as a Function of Personality, Social Support, and Workload. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 291303 doi:101353/csd20030028 52 Source:

http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Kahn, W. (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Monagement Journal, 33(4), 692-724 Kahn, W. (1992) To be fully there: Psychological presence at work Human Relations, 45(4), 321-349. Kiuru, N., Aunola, K, Nurmi, J-E, E, L, & Salmela-Aro, K (2008) Peer group influence and selection in adolescents school burnout: A longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quaterly, 4, 23-55. Kristensen, T., Borritz, M, Villadsen, E, & Christensen, K (2005) The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work & Stress, 192-207. Křivohlavý, J. (1998) Jak neztratit nadšení Praha: Grada Lee, R., & Ashforth, B (1996) A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of three dimensions of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123-133 Legassie, J., Zibrowski, E M, & Goldszmidt, M A (2008) Measuring resident wellbeing impostorism and burnout syndrome in

residency Journal of General Internship Medicine, 1090-1094. Leiter, M. P (1991) Coping patterns as predictors of burnout: The funtion of control and escapist coping patterns. Journal of Organizational behavior, 12(2), 122144 Leiter, M. P (1993) Burnout as a developmental process: consideration of models In W. Schaufeli, C Maslach, & T Marek (Eds), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 237-250) Washington: Taylor & Francis. 53 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Leiter, M. P, & Maslach, C (1988) The impact of interpersonal environment on burnout and organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 9(4), 297-308. doi:101002/job4030090402 Lekutle, M., & Nel, J (2012) Psychometric evaluation of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) and Oldenberg Burnout Inventory (OLBI). Journal of Psychology in Africa, 22(4), 641-656. Mäkikangas, A., Feldt, T, Kinnunen, U, & Mauno, S (2013) Does

personality matter? Research on individual differences in occupational well-being. In In Advances in positive organizational psychology 1 (pp. 107-143) Bingley, UK: Emerald Maslach, C. (2003) Burnout: The cost of caring Los Altos: ISHK Maslach, C., & Jackson, S (1981) The measurement of experienced burnout Journal of Occupational Behavior, 99-113. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S (1986) Maslach Burnout Inventory (2 ed) Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press. Maslach, C., & Leiter, M (2008) Early Predictors of Job Burnout and Engagement Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 498-512. Maslach, C., & Leiter, M P (1997) The Truth about Burnout New York: Jossey-Bass Maslach, C., & Schaufeli, W (1993) Historical and Conceptual Development of Burnout. In V W Schaufeli, C Maslach, & T Marek (Eds), Professional Burnout: Recent Developments in Theory and Research (pp. 1-16) Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis. Maslach, C., Jackson, S, & Leiter, M (1996) MBI: The

Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press 54 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Maslach, C., Leither, M, & Bakker, A (2014) Burnout at work Rotterdam: Erasmus University. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W, & Leiter, M (2001) Job burnout Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422. Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U, & Ruokolainen, M (2007) Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 70, 149-171. May, D. (2003) Fostering the human spirit at work: Toward an understanding of the influences on employees’ experienced meaningfulness at work. Unpublished manuscript. May, D., Gilson, R, & Harter, L (2004) The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11-37 Morris, J., & Feldman, D (1996) The dimensions, antecedents,

and consequences of emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 21, 986-1010 Oldham, G. R, & Cummings, A (1996) Employee Creativity: Personal And Contextual Factors At Work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634 Pines, A., & Aronson, E (1988) Career burnout: Causes and cures New York, NY: Free press. Pomerantz, E., Alternatt, E, & Saxon, J (2002) Making the grade but feeling distressed: Gender differences in academic performance and internal distress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 396-404. 55 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Purvanova, R., & Muros, J (2010) Gender differences in burnout: A meta-analysis Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(2), 168-185. Reiseberg, L. (2000) Student stress is rising, especially among young women Chronicle of Higher Education, 46, 49-50. Renn, R., & Vanderberg, R (1995) The Critical Psychological States: An Underrepresented Component in Job Characteristics Model Research. Journal

of Management, 21(2), 279-303. Richardsen, A. M, & Burke, R J (1995) Models of burnout: Implications for interventions. International Journal of Stress Management, 2(1), 31 Rothbard, N. P (2001) Enriching or Depleting? The Dynamics of Engagement in Work and Family Roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 655-684 Salmela-Aro, K., & Kunttu, K (2010) Study Burnout and Engagement in Higher Education. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 38, 318-331 Schaufeli, W. B, & Bakker, A B (2004) Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293-315. doi:101002/job248 Schaufeli, W. B, & Greenglass, E R (2001) Introduction to special issue on burnout and health. Psychology and Health, 16(501), 501-510 Schaufeli, W. B, Leiter, M P, & Maslach, C (2008) Burnout: 35 years of research and pracite. Career Development International, 14(3), 204-220 Retrieved from www.emeraldinsightcom/1362-0436htm

Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A (2003) Utrecht Work Engagement Scale Preliminary Manual. Utrecht: Occupational Healthy Psychology Unit 56 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Schaufeli, W., & Enzmann, D (1998) The burnout companion to study and practice: A critical analysis. London: Taylor & Francis Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M, Gonzalez-Roma, V, & Bakker, A (2002) The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92 Spreitzer, G. M (1997) A Dimensional Analysis Of The Relationship Between Psychological Empowerment And Effectiveness Satisfaction, and Strain. Journal of Management, 23(5), 679-704. Vasalampi, K., Salmela-Aro, K, & Nurmi, J (2009) Adolescents’ self-concordance, school engagement, and burnout predict their educational trajectories. European Psychologist, 14(4), 332-341. doi:http://dxdoiorg/101027/1016-9040144332 Weber, A., & Jaekel-Reinhard,

A (2000) Burnout syndrome: a disease of modern societes? Occupational Medicine, 512-517. doi:http://occmed.oxfordjournalsorg/content/50/7/512fullpdf WHO. (2016, April 17) QE35 Burn-out Retrieved from ICD-11 Beta Draft: http://apps.whoint/classifications/icd11/browse/lm/en#/http%3a%2f%2fidwhoint%2ficd%2fentity%2f129180281 57 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 58 Appendix Table 1 Descriptive statistics of personal burnout scores in participants Personal burnout scores n M Mdn SD S2 Min Max 126 2.80 2.75 1.04 1.09 2.25 3.25 Notes. n = sample size; M = Mean; Mdn = median; SD = standard deviation; S2 = variance; Min = minimum; Max = maximum Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 59 Table 2 Descriptive statistics of school-related burnout scores in participants School-related burnout scores n M Mdn SD S2 Min Max 126 3.43 3.25 1.10 1.22 1.00 6.50 Notes. n = sample size; M = Mean; Mdn =

median; SD = standard deviation; S2 = variance; Min = minimum; Max = maximum Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 60 Table 3 Descriptive statistics of colleague-related burnout scores in participants Colleague-related burnout scores n M Mdn SD S2 Min Max 126 2.24 2 1.36 1.84 0 5.5 Notes. n = sample size; M = Mean; Mdn = median; SD = standard deviation; S2 = variance; Min = minimum; Max = maximum Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 61 Table 4 Descriptive statistics of teacher-related burnout scores in participants Teacher-related burnout scores n M Mdn SD S2 Min Max 126 1.60 1.75 1.10 1.22 0 4 Notes. n = sample size; M = Mean; Mdn = median; SD = standard deviation; S2 = variance; Min = minimum; Max = maximum Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 62 Table 5 Descriptive statistics of work engagement scores in participants Work engagement scores n M

Mdn SD S2 Min Max 126 55.06 54 17.31 299.64 7.00 98 Notes. n = sample size; M = Mean; Mdn = median; SD = standard deviation; S2 = variance; Min = minimum; Max = maximum Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 63 Table 6 Descriptive statistics of personal burnout scores in male participants Personal burnout scores n M Mdn SD S2 Min Max 28 2.41 2.50 1.01 1.01 0.50 4.50 Notes. n = sample size; M = Mean; Mdn = median; SD = standard deviation; S2 = variance; Min = minimum; Max = maximum Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 64 Table 7 Descriptive statistics of personal burnout scores in female participants Personal burnout scores n M Mdn SD S2 Min Max 98 2.92 3.00 1.01 1.03 0.75 2.25 Notes. n = sample size; M = Mean; Mdn = median; SD = standard deviation; S2 = variance; Min = minimum; Max = maximum Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 65 Table 8

Descriptive statistics of school-related burnout scores in male participants School-related burnout scores n M Mdn SD S2 Min Max 28 3.23 3.00 .94 0.90 1.25 5.00 Notes. n = sample size; M = Mean; Mdn = median; SD = standard deviation; S2 = variance; Min = minimum; Max = maximum Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 66 Table 9 Descriptive statistics of school-related burnout scores in female participants School-realted burnout scores n M Mdn SD S2 Min Max 98 3.38 3.38 1.06 1.13 0.75 5.25 Notes. n = sample size; M = Mean; Mdn = median; SD = standard deviation; S2 = variance; Min = minimum; Max = maximum Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 67 Table 10 Descriptive statistics of colleague-related burnout scores in male participants Colleague-related burnout scores n M Mdn SD S2 Min Max 28 2.16 2.25 1.42 2.01 0.00 5.00 Notes. n = sample size; M = Mean; Mdn = median; SD =

standard deviation; S2 = variance; Min = minimum; Max = maximum Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 68 Table 11 Descriptive statistics of colleague burnout scores in female participants Colleague-related burnout scores n M Mdn SD S2 Min Max 98 2.185 2.00 1.29 1.68 0 5.50 Notes. n = sample size; M = Mean; Mdn = median; SD = standard deviation; S2 = variance; Min = minimum; Max = maximum Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 69 Table 12 Descriptive statistics of teacher-related burnout scores in male participants Teacher-related burnout scores n M Mdn SD S2 Min Max 28 1.77 1.75 1.08 1.16 0.00 4.00 Notes. n = sample size; M = Mean; Mdn = median; SD = standard deviation; S2 = variance; Min = minimum; Max = maximum Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 70 Table 13 Descriptive statistics of teacher-related burnout scores in female participants

Teacher-related burnout scores n M Mdn SD S2 Min Max 98 1.54 1.5 0.97 0.94 0 3.75 Notes. n = sample size; M = Mean; Mdn = median; SD = standard deviation; S2 = variance; Min = minimum; Max = maximum Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 71 Table 14 Descriptive statistics of work engagement scores in male participants Work engagement scores n M Mdn 28 55.52 53 SD S2 13.95 194640 Min Max 30 98 Notes. n = sample size; M = Mean; Mdn = median; SD = standard deviation; S2 = variance; Min = minimum; Max = maximum Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 72 Table 15 Descriptive statistics of work engagement scores in female participants work engagement scores n M Mdn SD S2 98 55.40 56.5 18.30 334.90 Min Max 7.00 9000 Notes. n = sample size; M = Mean; Mdn = median; SD = standard deviation; S2 = variance; Min = minimum; Max = maximum Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and

Student Burnout 73 Table 16 Test of Normality Males Shapiro-Wilk Females df Statistic Personal Burnout Scores Note. * = p < .05 .956 Shapiro-Wilk df Statistic 27 .986 92 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 74 Table 17 Test of Normality Males Shapiro-Wilk Females df Statistic School-related burnout scores Note. * = p < .05 .956 Shapiro-Wilk df Statistic 27 .987 92 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 75 Table 18 Test of Normality Males Shapiro-Wilk Females df Statistic Colleaguerelated burnout scores Note. * = p < .05 .961 Shapiro-Wilk df Statistic 27 .947* 92 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 76 Table 19 Test of Normality Males Shapiro-Wilk Females df Statistic Teacher-related burnout scores Note. * = p < .05 .971 Shapiro-Wilk df Statistic 27 .965* 92 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout

77 Table 20 Test of Normality Males Shapiro-Wilk Females df Statistic Work engagement scores Note. * = p < .05 .882* Shapiro-Wilk df Statistic 27 .974 92 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 78 Table 21 UWES CBI-S Teacher CBI-S Colleague CBI-S School CBI-S Personal UWES Absorption Variable UWES 1 Vigor UWES .709* Dedication UWES .804* Absorption CBI-S -.476* Personal CBI-S -.453* School UWES Dedication UWES Vigor Pearson correlation between CBI-S domains and UWES-S and its dimensions 1 .764* 1 -.464* -.333* 1 -.474* -.364* .736* 1 CBI-S Colleague -.171 -.347* -.156 .346* .435* CBI-S Teacher -.308* -.357* -.259* .326* .474* .362* 1 1 .917* .887* .943* -.456* -.464* -.236* -.330* 1 UWES Notes. N = 126 *p ≤ .001, *p ≤ .01, *p ≤ .05 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout 79 Table 22 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Work engagement scores Model 1 Β

Variable B SE B Intercept 82.032 5.297 Personal burnout -4.289* 2.070 -.255 School-related burnout -4.021 2.189 -.240 .203 1.189 0.15 -2.221 1.648 -.128 2.437 3.464 .059 Colleague-related burnout Teacher-related burnout Gender Adjusted R2 .236 F 8.302 Notes. *p < .05; *p < .001; N = 126; B = unstandardized regression coefficient, SE B = Standard error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Figure 1. Gender of Participants 80 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Figure 2. Personal burnout score in male participants 81 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Figure 3. Personal burnout score in female participants 82 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Figure 4. School-related burnout score in male participants 83 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and

Student Burnout Figure 5. School-related burnout score in female participants 84 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Figure 6. Colleague-related burnout score in male participants 85 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Figure 7. Colleague-related burnout score in female participants 86 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Figure 8. Teacher-related burnout score in male participants 87 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Figure 9. Teacher-related burnout score in female participants 88 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Figure 10. Work engagement score in male participants 89 Source: http://www.doksinet Student Engagement and Student Burnout Figure 11. Work engagement score in female participants 90