Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The Complete State model of mental health differentiates between the dimensions of psychiatric disorders and wellbeing. The latter dimension is consistent with educators proactively creating learning-supportive curricular environments by, for example, translating the Basic Needs Satisfaction (BNS) theory into practical curricular strategies. One gap in the literature on curricular approaches to supporting student wellbeing is descriptions of innovations in the design of specific units focusing entirely on the psychological science of student self-management, success and wellbeing. The aim of this report was to address this gap by describing the nature and student evaluations of two such units. The curricula of these units, whose design and delivery were guided by BNS theory, are described. Institutional unit evaluation surveys over four years and eight unit deliveries revealed that the units were well received by students, regardless of variations in internal (e.g., online vs. flipped classroom mode of delivery) and external (e.g., presence of COVID-19 pandemic) factors. Moreover, students agreed with the statement that the unit “provided me with knowledge and skills I can apply”. By considering BNS theory during curriculum design and delivery, the success and wellbeing of students were supported while they learned about the science of wellbeing.

Keywords

Wellbeing basic needs satisfaction self-determination theory psychological literacy COVID-19 pandemic self-management academic success complete state model of mental health student evaluation

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

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

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

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

Method

Science of Wellbeing Units

This section addresses Question 1, by describing the design and implementation of two units on the science of wellbeing. One of the internal factors relevant to Question 3 is mode of delivery, which was different across the two units (flipped-classroom vs. totally online), and there were some minor differences in content (see https://www.psy.unsw.edu.au/current-students/undergraduate/course-outlines/course-outlines-2019 for sample unit outlines of PSYC1031 [Flipped] and PSYC1062 [Online]).

The content of the Psychological Science of Resilience unit (first delivered in 2013) was informed by an extensive review of the literature on resilience, self-management, and wellbeing (e.g., APA, 2020); the teaching and assessment strategies were informed by the higher education best-practice literature at that time (e.g., Carroll et al., 2018). The rationale for these courses is that resilience (self-management) skills constitute a type of graduate capability, which should not only help students survive the stressors of university life, but also help them thrive in all aspects of their personal and professional lives at university and beyond. This course is designed to enhance students’ psychological literacy, in particular, the capacity to utilise psychological knowledge, skills and attitudes about resilience in a constructive manner, and use these skills not only to help themselves but also to respond to others, thus creating a “resilience ripple effect”, and helping to “give psychology away” to society at large.

The main expected learning outcomes were to articulate and apply diverse theoretical and experimental approaches to major psychological issues relating to: wellbeing, resilience, and student success, including self-knowledge; motivation; emotional regulation; academic competencies and metacognition; positive psychology; connectedness & communication. Students were also expected to individually and collaboratively apply key research methodology skills, communication skills, and reflective, analytical, critical and creative thinking skills. As such, the unit was designed specifically to focus on general and student-specific theory, research, and skills necessary to support psychological wellbeing, with emphasis on sequenced topics: (1) introduction/resilience/wellbeing/research; (2) stress; (3) positive psychology; (4) motivation, goal attainment, competence, and study strategies; (5) communication and relatedness; and (6) emotional regulation (Morris et al., 2018b). Prior to each weekly 2-h face-to-face tutorial, students were expected to have undertaken homework tasks which then became the focus of highly interactive in-class activities (relevant to competence and relatedness).

Unit assessment consisted of (a) weekly scaffolded homework tasks designed to meet the need for competence; (b) a report on a structured goal-pursuit project (relevant to autonomy and competence); (c) a group assignment whereby a video demonstrating a chosen topic/skill (featured in the unit) was created to meet marking rubric criteria (relevant to autonomy, competence, and relatedness); and (d) a final exam consisting of multiple-choice questions and a ‘transfer of learning’ short essay question. The homework tasks comprised diverse activities such as pre-readings, videos, reflections, and research designs. The individual report assessment required students to set a goal, identify the evidence-base for the strategy they were undertaking, and reflect on and document their progress towards goal attainment regularly over a 4-week period, culminating in a written reflection on this process and its outcome. The group assignment required small groups of students to select one area of self-management (e.g., time-management, emotional regulation) and develop an evidence-based video and an app design to support students in the acquisition of this skill, which they presented to the class in the final week.

A book was written by Morris et al. (2018a) which, from mid-2018, served as the text for both units.

The Psychological Science of Wellbeing unit (first delivered in 2019) was designed with three fundamental differences compared to the original flipped classroom unit: (1) it was online (see Cranney et al., 2020, whereby this unit was briefly described including minimal 2019 statistics); (2) it was based primarily on the content of the Morris et al. (2018a) textbook; and (3) the individual report assignment was dropped, and the group video assignment became an individual assignment. The unit was created to increase accessibility to the material, even in the absence of high value face-to-face interaction between students, and between students and the highly experienced instructors (i.e., less of an experiential emphasis on relatedness ). The expected learning outcomes were to demonstrate knowledge, comprehension, and skills to adequately maintain psychological health and wellbeing, including as applied to: self-management; self-knowledge; motivation; emotional regulation; academic competencies and metacognition; positive psychology; connectedness & communication. They were expected to (a) apply knowledge and skills of psychology in a reflexive manner; (b) demonstrate a willingness to critically examine assumptions underlying their own and others’ beliefs and reports regarding human behaviour; (c) consider multiple perspectives regarding human behaviour, and (d) analyse, critique, and communicate theory and research in the discipline of psychology.

As part of this online unit, four modules were designed, focusing on: (1) Imperfect Mind (e.g., dysfunctional thinking, research methods), Know Thyself (e.g., strengths, beliefs); (2) Getting Motivated (e.g., study strategies, time-management); (3) Flexible Mind (e.g., emotional regulation strategies) and Stress (prevention/reduction strategies); (4) Positivity (e.g., growth mindset), Connecting (e.g., active listening), and Moral Mind (e.g., moral foundations). Unit assessment consisted of (a) the submission of homework tasks for each 2-week module (designed to scaffold development of competence, facilitated by rapid feedback); (b) a video assignment similar to the flipped classroom unit, except that it was individual (it involved choosing one self-management tool from the textbook, and making a short, engaging video designed to illustrate this strategy for other students, including the evidence-base for the strategy, and examples of how to use it); and (c) a final exam (all multiple-choice questions, with at least half of an applied nature). Autonomy was emphasised throughout, with students encouraged to approach each module in whatever manner suited them, and the assignment allowed choice in topic and approach taken. After the first offering, increased emphasis was placed on building a sense of a learning community (relatedness), for example by (a) icebreaker activities (e.g., forum posts in which they wrote 5 things about themselves, and found something in common and commented on 3 other students’ posts), and (b) asking students to comment on each other's posts (e.g., finding common study strategies; critiquing each other's research designs). Note that throughout these units, the instructor set expectations for student-instructor interactions, for example constructive feedback and respectful interactions.

As an example of the kind of teaching and assessment activities in this unit, in Module 2 on Getting Motivated, students did activities pertaining to goal setting (setting a SMART goal), time management (planning a weekly schedule, and reflecting subsequently on the extent to which they adhered to this), identifying study strategies and whether they aligned with a given research paper into effective study strategies, designing a study to evaluate one of their peer's study strategies, critiquing a peer's research design, and summarising research that evaluates one self-management strategy from the assigned textbook chapter.

Student Evaluations and Campus/Curriculum Context

This section is relevant to Questions 2 and 3. From the start of the second-last class contact week until the beginning of examinations (approx. 17 days), students could choose to anonymously evaluate their units through a survey which has standard university-wide items, sometimes Faculty-specific items, and sometimes a unit-specific item (see footnote to Table 1 in the Appendix). Students chose from one of 6 rating options: strongly disagree (1); disagree (2); moderately disagree (3); moderately agree (4); agree (5); strongly agree (6). In order to answer Questions 2 and 3, we report in the Results section only the Overall Satisfaction ratings as well as ratings regarding a specific ‘application’ statement. The results of other unit evaluation items that may be of interest to the reader, but are not central to answering the three research questions, are presented in the Appendix. Nevertheless, for simplicity and completeness, the methodology for all ratings is presented here.

Unit evaluation reports contain comparisons with the average University ratings across all units (which in the evaluations are referred to as “courses”), which we report here, unless the statements are Faculty-specific, whereby we report comparisons with average Faculty (of Science) unit ratings (see Appendix Table 1). There are five statements which have remained relatively constant, in particular “Overall I was satisfied with the quality of the course” (this is the only item with variability statistics provided), and statements about learning community, feedback, course resources, and assessment (see Appendix Table 1). During the first two terms of the pandemic (T1-T2 2020), there were university-wide statements about online learning experience, and Faculty-specific statements about unit structure and whether the teaching was inclusive (see Appendix Table 1). Institutional ethical approval was acquired (UNSW HREAP C #3398).

Relevant to Question 3 and the potential negative influence of external factors on student satisfaction ratings, it should be noted that prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, delivery of units was primarily in blended mode (i.e., mostly face-to-face lectures and tutorials/practicals/labs), with each unit having an LMS site with variable resource offerings. Between 2019 and 2020, the academic calendar changed from two semesters (S) with 4 units per semester full-time load, to three terms (T) with three units per term full-time load. T1 2020 involved a whole-of-university mid-term ‘pivot’ to online learning, and from that point onwards, only the online unit has been offered. T2 and T3 2020 university units were all online; T1 2021 involved some on-campus units/classes; T2 2021 involved a whole-of-university ‘pivot’ to online in the middle of term. With the impact of the pandemic on face-to-face learning, it was fortuitous that this unit was available online because learning these self-management tools was likely very useful.

Results

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

Figure 1.
Mean (overall satisfaction) agreement rating of the university-wide statement “overall I was satisfied with the quality of the course” as a function of when the unit was offered (S = semester; T = term), and whether flipped classroom (flipped) or online mode of delivery. Error bars = SEM.

Relevant to Question 2 are the ratings, on three occasions, to the author-selected Unit-specific statement “This course provided me with knowledge and skills I can apply”. There was 100% agreement (means: S2 2018 = 5.88; T3 2020 = 4.29; T1 2021 = 5.72), thus providing further support for an affirmative answer to Question 2. Again relevant to Question 2 are example open responses from the Online Unit students to the question “What were the best things about the course?” (see also Appendix):
“Being able to learn very practical things that can be used to maintain a healthy and functional mindset in all stages of life: study, work, family life.”

“This course explored various methods of challenging thinking, new ways to approach tasks and look at problems. More than one method is explored and the homework tasks that involved application of this method to own problems were very useful. In particular, I liked the use of ACT–related techniques in re–framing thinking, as these are less popularly explored in other courses, and I found those very helpful.”

“As for the content of the course I found it really relevant to students’ lives and found many of the tips applicable for managing stress, enhancing study techniques and time management.”

“I loved that the learning in this course was easily applicable to real–world/beyond uni life. Too often you hear about people learning things which they find pointless (because it really is only useful for the exam and nothing beyond that). However, this course was useful, real–world knowledge and I enjoyed studying it for the sake of my own being rather than studying it for the sake of my degree. It was great that this course helped me to work on my person outside of academics. I feel so much more in–tune with who I am, who I want to be and how to get there which is really invaluable education.”

“I am not a psychology student and I chose this course as a general education course and it is so well structured and the book is so well written that anyone can read and understand it as well as enjoy it.”

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge funding from (a) the Australian Federal Government Office for Learning and Teaching that supported the creation of the flipped classroom unit, and (b) the UNSW Pro-Vice-Chancellor Education Portfolio that supported the creation of the online unit. We acknowledge the contributions of colleagues and co-authors over several years who have contributed to the thinking behind this paper, including Dana Dunn, Peter Baldwin, Leigh Mellish, and Annette Krochmalik/Olschewski. We especially thank all of our students for helping us to continue to learn.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Australian Government Office for Teaching and Learning, (grant number ID12-2381).

ORCID iD

Jacquelyn Cranney

Author Biographies

Dr. Sue Morris has a passion for enhancing students’ success and wellbeing, with an emphasis on positive psychology and resilience. Over 25 years of undergraduate teaching at UNSW, she has focused on developing innovative and engaging learning experiences for students, emphasising collaboration and connectedness, as well as providing staff development for educators across the university. She is co-author of the book The Rubber Brain: A toolkit for optimising your study, work, and life, which, together with her courses on wellbeing, are designed to help students to optimise their thinking and behaviour, particularly in response to the challenges of university. She applies psychological literacy in her teaching, with a goal to “optimise the world, one Psychology student at a time”. Her interest and expertise in enhancing student learning has been recognised through numerous awards.

Jacquelyn Cranney (Honorary Professor, UNSW Sydney, Australia) has extensive undergraduate education experience, for which she has won numerous UNSW, national and international awards. She has published research on student learning and motivation, and on psychology education. She has contributed to and led national and international psychology education committees as well as communities of practice for educators. She has attracted several UNSW and National education Fellowships and grants, through which she and her colleagues have driven institution- (eg https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/HealthyUni) and nation-wide change in terms of undergraduate students learning to apply evidence-based psychological strategies to support success and wellbeing. Jacky is a fervent believer in George Miller’s (1969) exhortation to “give psychology away”, particularly through providing opportunities to undergraduate students to develop psychological literacy (= the intentional values-driven application of psychological science to meet personal, professional and societal needs; www.psychliteracy.com), a part of which is evidence-based self-management (= the capacity to effectively pursue valued goals, and to be flexible in the face of setbacks; eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbGzNLTmH5g&feature=youtu.be).

Appendix

This additional Results and Discussion section relates to the ratings of additional items in the formal student evaluation of the units. See the Method section for more detail regarding procedure and materials.

Appendix Table 1 presents the mean agreement ratings from Semester 2 2018 until Term 2 2021 (no variance statistics were available). In S2 2018, all university-wide Unit ratings appear to be above the averages across all University units.

In T1 2019, for the first offering of the Online Unit, the Community rating appears less than the average across all University units, which includes all modes of unit delivery (blended, flipped, online). All Faculty-specific Unit ratings appear to outperform the averages across all Faculty units. In T2 2019, for the Flipped Unit, all university-wide Unit ratings appear to outperform the averages across all University units, and all Faculty-specific Unit ratings appear to outperform the averages across all Faculty units.

In T1 2020, for the Online Unit, all Unit ratings appear to outperform those of the University. In T2 2020, for the Online Unit, all university-wide Unit ratings appear to outperform those of the University, except for the Feedback statement, where ratings were comparable. In T3 2020, for the Online Unit, all university-wide Unit ratings appear to outperform those of the University, and all Faculty-specific Unit ratings appear to outperform those of the Faculty.

In T1 2021, all university-wide Online Unit ratings appear to outperform those of the University, except for the Community statement, and all Faculty-specific Unit ratings appear to outperform those of the Faculty, except for the Inclusive statement. In T1 2021, all Online Unit ratings appear to outperform those of the University, and all Faculty-specific Unit ratings appear to outperform those of the Faculty.

It should be acknowledged that a major limitation of this study is the occasionally low number of student respondents and response percentages, possibly associated with the timing of the evaluation (during the high-stress final weeks) and the expectation of students to complete evaluations for all units each term. Term 2 2021 is a positive exception.

As expected, the learning community rating appears to be less for the initial offerings of online compared to flipped, with this difference reducing over time, and for the most recent offering (T2 2021) the online ratings appear to be substantially higher than the University average. This is likely due to several factors, including increased effective effort to build student-to-student and student-to-educator relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000), particularly after the pandemic onset (Kumar et al., 2021), for example, asking students to respond to one another's posts (thus creating a sense of ‘getting to know’ one another), and emphasising the value of peer feedback on learning (i.e., relatedness).

There was high agreement with the statement “The teaching in this course was inclusive of students of diverse backgrounds”. Inclusivity is emphasised in unit ‘announcements that are designed to acknowledge diversity (thus likely increasing student-instructor relatedness), as well as in the autonomy provided in the course (thus reducing any sense of ‘one size fits all’).

There are many limitations to the conclusions that can be drawn from this study, given the non-experimental design. Nevertheless, it is clear from the ratings that students appreciate and value what they learn in these units. The comments in Appendix Table 2 illustrate that appreciation, and are congruent with the theoretical underpinnings and practical intent of these units on the psychological science of student self-management, academic success and wellbeing.

References

American Psychological Association (2020). Building your resilience. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/topics/resilience.

Bahrami

Cranney

(2018). Integrated conative model of well-being: From motives to well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(4), 961–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9845-2

Baik

Larcombe

Brooker

Wyn

Allen

Brett

Field

James

(2017a). A framework for promoting student mental wellbeing in universities. Enhancing Student Wellbeing: Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education. http://unistudentwellbeing.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/MCSHE-Student-Wellbeing-Framework_FINAL.pdf.

Baik

Larcombe

Brooker

Wyn

Allen

Field

James

(2017b). Enhancing student mental wellbeing: A handbook for academic educators. Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education. melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/2408604/MCSHE-Student-Wellbeing-Handbook-FINAL.pdf.

Carroll

Lodge

Bagraith

Nugent

Matthews

Sah

(2018). Higher education learning framework matrix – an evidence informed model for university learning. The University of Queensland. https://itali.uq.edu.au/files/5325/Projects-SLRC-HELF-Summated-Matrix.pdf.

Choi

J. H.

Chung

K.-M.

(2012). Effectiveness of a college-level self-management course on successful behavior change. Behavior Modification, 36(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445511418102

Coulson

Homewood

(2016). Developing psychological literacy: Is there a role for reflective practice? Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 13(2), 1–18. Retrieved from https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol13/iss2/5. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.13.2.5

Cranney

Cejnar

Nithy

(2016). Developing self-management capacity in student learning: A pilot implementation of blended learning strategies in the study of business law. In Coleman

Flood

(Eds.), Enabling reflective thinking: Reflective practices in learning and teaching (pp. 354–369). Common Ground Publishing. ISBN 978-1612298689.

Cranney

Dunn

D. S.

Hulme

J. A.

Nolan

S. A.

Morris

Norris

(in press). Psychological literacy and undergraduate psychology education: An international provocation. Frontiers in Educational Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.790600

10.

Cranney

Morris

Krebs-Lazendic

Hutton-Bedbrook

(2020). Back to the education future – evidence-based student-centred approaches to online curriculum design and delivery. In McKenzie

Garivaldis

Dyer

K. R.

(Eds.), Tertiary online teaching and learning: Total perspectives and resources for digital education (pp. 119–128). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8928-7_10

11.

Dunn

D. S.

Hammer

E. Y.

Weiten

(2015). Psychology of adjustment: An opportunity for teaching and promoting psychological literacy. In Dunn

D. S.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of undergraduate psychology education (pp. 431–438). US Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199933815.013.031

12.

Enhancing Student Wellbeing (2016, October 16). Module 3: Teaching Practice . http://unistudentwellbeing.edu.au/teaching-practice/.

13.

Field

Duffey

Huggins

(2019). Lawyering and positive professional identities. LexisNexis Butterworths. ISBN 978-0409350494.

14.

Halpern

(2010). Introduction: A call to action. In Halpern

D. F.

(Ed.), Undergraduate education in psychology: A blueprint for the future of the discipline (pp. 3–7). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12063-000

15.

Hulme

J. A.

Winstone

N. E.

(2017). Do no harm: Risk aversion versus risk management in the context of pedagogic frailty. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 9(3), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2017.09.016

16.

Johnston

M. M.

Finney

S. J.

(2010). Measuring basic needs satisfaction: Evaluating previous research and conducting new psychometric evaluations of the basic needs satisfaction in general scale. Contemporary Education Psychology, 35(4), 280–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.04.003

17.

Keyes

C. L.

(2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: A complementary strategy for improving national mental health. American Psychologist, 62(2), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.2.95

18.

Kumar

N. N.

Summerell

Spehar

Cranney

(2021). Experiences of honours research students and supervisors during the COVID-19 pandemic: A pilot study framed by self-determination theory. Frontiers in Education, 6, 758960. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.758960

19.

Lee

. (n.d.). Guidelines on learning - that inform teaching . http://www.guidelinesonlearning.com/.

20.

Miller

G. A.

(1969). Psychology as a means of promoting human welfare. American Psychologist, 24(12), 1063–1075. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028988

21.

Morris

Cranney

Baldwin

Mellish

Krochmalik

(2018a). The rubber brain: A toolkit for optimising your study, work and life. Australian Academic Press. ISBN 978-1925644081.

22.

Morris

Cranney

Olschewski

(2018b). A unit on the science of self-management. In Taylor

Hulme

J.A.

(Eds), International edition of the psychological literacy compendium (pp. 16–17). University of Bournemouth. http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/30425/1/International%20edition%20Psychological%20Literacy%20Compendium%20Final.pdf.

23.

Morris

Norris

Cranney

(2021). Psychological literacy. In Dunn

D. S.

(Ed.), Oxford Bibliographies in psychology (pp. 1–24). Oxford University Press.

24.

J. Y.

Ntoumanis

Thøgersen-Ntoumani

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

Duda

J. L.

Williams

G. C.

(2012). Self-Determination theory applied to health contexts: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(4), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612447309

25.

Niemiec

C. P.

Ryan

R. M.

(2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318

26.

Orygen (2017). Under the radar: The mental health of Australian university students. Orygen, The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health. Retrieved from https://www.orygen.org.au/Policy/Policy-Reports/Under-the-radar#:∼:text=Titled%20'Under%20the%20Radar%3A%20The,the%20needs%20of%20this%20group.

27.

Rapanta

Botturi

Goodyear

Guàrdia

Koole

(2020). Online university teaching during and after the COVID-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 923–945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y

28.

Routledge

K. M.

Williams

L. M.

Harris

Schofield

P. R.

Clark

C. R.

Gatt

J. M.

(2018). Genetic correlations between wellbeing, depression and anxiety symptoms and behavioral responses to the emotional faces task in healthy twins. Psychiatry Research, 264, 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.03.042

29.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68.

30.

Sheldon

K. M.

Elliot

A. J.

(1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.482

31.

Stallman

H. M.

(2011). Embedding resilience within the tertiary curriculum: A feasibility study. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(2), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.509763

32.

Stone

. (2017). Opportunity through online learning: Improving student access, participation and success in higher education. Retrieved from https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CathyStone_EQUITYFELLOWSHIP-FINAL-REPORT-1.pdf.

33.

Teaching at UNSW Sydney (2021). UNSW Healthy Universities Initiative . https://www.teaching.unsw.edu.au/healthyuni-main.

34.

van Gijn-Grosvenor

E. L.

Huisman

(2020). A sense of belonging among Australian university students. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(2), 376–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1666256

35.

Wilson

T. D

. (2009). Know thyself. Perspectives in Psychological Science 4(4), 384–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01143.x.

36.

Yang

Zeng

Wang

Shen

Lin

(2020). Resilience, social support, and coping as mediators between COVID-19-related stressful experiences and acute stress disorder among college students in China. Applied Psychology. Health and Well-Being, 12(4), 1074–1094. https://doi.org//10.1111/aphw.12211

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

Abstract

Keywords

Method

Science of Wellbeing Units

Student Evaluations and Campus/Curriculum Context

Results

Discussion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

Appendix

References