Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Academic boredom and self-compassion are among the numerous variables that affect the academic life quality of university students, although the literature investigating these variables together is scarce. In this study, we develop a model to indicate the direct and indirect relationships and effects between academic boredom, self-compassion, and the quality of academic life of university students. The research sample comprised 478 male and female students from the Faculty of Education at Assiut Al-Azhar University. Academic boredom, academic quality of life, and self-compassion scales were used for data analysis. The results revealed that the proposed structural model achieved a satisfactory goodness-of-fit level with the participants’ data and that the research variables had direct and indirect relationships and effects. The findings also demonstrated that self-compassion partly mediated the relationship between academic boredom and academic quality of life. Recommendations and research suggestions are also provided.

Keywords

academic boredom quality of academic life self-compassion university students

Introduction

The higher education stage is one of the most crucial periods that influences a student’s quality of life, where they experience many problems and life strains that may negatively affect their professional and social lives. Academic boredom is one of the most prominent psychological problems that university students face. It reduces students’ enthusiasm and interest in educational activities and courses, lowers their motivation to learn, and distracts their attention. In addition, it impairs their ability to effectively manage their time and increases their dropout rates (Lee & Zelman, 2019; Sanchez-Martin et al., 2018; Sharp et al., 2018). It also leads to drug abuse, feelings of depression, anxiety, anger, poor concentration, gambling, academic procrastination, reduced mental alertness, and emotional regulation problems (Isacescu & Danckert, 2018; Raffaelli et al., 2018; Struk et al., 2017).

Academic boredom of university students

Academic boredom is an unpleasant emotional state that dissuades the learner from studying, provides a feeling of laziness when carrying out activities, and leads to a low level of self-motivation, willingness, and perseverance to complete assignments (Sanchez-Martin et al., 2018). Nett et al. (2011) defined academic boredom as an overwhelming and unpleasant emotion in which an individual feels low arousal and an impulse to change activities or leave the situation. When learners experience boredom, they feel indifferent to the learning topics and situations, do not focus on them, and perceive time length, boredom, and fatigue when engaging in activities and performing assignments, thereby creating the desire to avoid learning and turning away (Abu Ghanima, 2019). Academic boredom is a multifaceted concept comprising five components: emotional (negative and unpleasant feelings), physiological (insufficient level of arousal), cognitive (lack of attention, wasting time), motivational (unwillingness toward a certain activity/situation), and expressive (drowsiness, a slouched posture) components (Eastwood et al., 2012; Macklem, 2015).

Boredom has been attributed to different causes: (a) external circumstances/environment, (b) student traits, or (c) a combination of these two aspects (Mercer-Lynn et al., 2014). Students who suffer from academic boredom are described as careless, oblivious, having a tendency to commit suicide, attributing one’s mental state to external conditions, suffering from a feeling of emptiness and monotony, feeling downgraded, and losing significance when one is unable to predict a significant future (Lee & Zelman, 2019; O’Brien, 2014). A bored person may suffer from dissatisfaction with life, poor ability to solve problems, and emotional incompatibility. They also fall under the control of monotony, meaninglessness, and have no desire to discover significance in life. In addition, academically bored students suffer from apprehension and a lack of interest in unpleasant activities, and feel exhausted.

Several studies have investigated the prevalence of this phenomenon as one of the most significant emotional problems, reflected in a negative psychological state, provoking the feeling of fatigue and making one less excited. Mann and Robinson’s (2009) study reported that a majority (59%) of university students expressed that nearly half of their lectures were uninteresting, while 30% of them admitted that they felt bored during most of their lectures. In addition, 40% to 59% of university students expressed feeling bored (Finkielsztein, 2020). Sharp et al. (2019) found that a majority of students suffer from high levels of boredom, indicating in recent studies that it negatively affects undergraduate students’ engagement, performance, and achievement (Sharp et al., 2020).

Academic boredom is a common issue in educational settings that attract researchers to explore its impact on student learning and achievement. Van van Tilburg and Igou (2017) documented that a strong desire to change the assigned activity or flee away from duties was one of the most obvious features of boredom. This motivational dimension may render this phenomenon significantly dangerous in an educational setting because learning, whether inside or outside the classroom, demands an individual’s enduring motivation and attention. The control-value psychological theory of Pekrun et al. (2002) contended that specific feelings can impact students’ cognitive abilities, learning attitude and motivation, and learning strategies, and consequently, academic performance. The authors found a strong mutual correlation between achievement motivation and academic achievement. According to this view, boredom incorporates a deactivating feeling that harms individuals’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to learn and achieve their goals. This theory hypothesized that boredom pushes students to avoid or escape from an academic setting (Pekrun, 2006).

This perspective has been supported by numerous studies. Results from longitudinal studies within a school setting (Putwain et al., 2018) and university samples (Pekrun et al., 2014) reported a mutual negative impact between boredom and academic achievement. The results of these studies indicated that a higher academic boredom level predicted weaker performance, and poor academic performance could predict later boredom levels. Additionally, Hemmings et al. (2019) revealed that students who are more exposed to boredom are more likely to follow a surface approach rather than a deep or strategic approach to learning.

Boredom corrupts students’ learning motivation, thus, impairing their academic achievement. Pekrun et al. (2002)conducted a series of diary-based, cross-sectional, and longitudinal studies in secondary schools and universities. They discovered a negative relationship between boredom and multiple variables related to motivation including involvement, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, academic effort, and overall learning motivation. Furthermore, Pekrun et al. (2014) revealed a negative correlation between boredom, intrinsic motivation to learn, and performance scores.

Academic boredom is a phenomenon with various complications (Finkielsztein, 2020) and appears to be a result of three main causes: mental processes, experimental components, and psychological causes (Eastwood et al., 2012). Consequently, to reduce the level of boredom among university students, attention must be paid to the related psychological variables that may affect students’ positive lives. Perhaps, the most important of them is self-compassion, which reflects a recent concept in the field of positive psychology and operates as a variable that serves to eliminate the effect of the negative variables and enhance that of the positive ones.

Self-Compassion of University Students

American professor Neff (2003a) presented the self-compassion concept as a pity for oneself in situations of suffering and pain, involving feelings of care and kindness to oneself without any bitter self-criticism in cases of inefficacy or failure, not judging oneself, and one’s admission and understanding that experiences are only a component of the human experience. He described it as a prominent dimension of an individual’s psychological construction and an important trait of positive psychology, or a psychological barrier against stressful life events that the individual encounters at the time of failure or personal insufficiency to solve their problems (Neff, Kirkpatrick et al., 2007). Self-compassion includes two dimensions, a positive dimension of self-warmth (common general humanity, self-kindness, and mindfulness) and a negative dimension of self-coldness (isolation, self-judgment, and over-identification) (Gilbert et al., 2011; Potter et al., 2014).

Highly self-compassionate individuals are typically more flexible, more open to experiences, more rational in dealing with all aspects of negative experiences, can form social bonds smoothly, are reluctant to break them, and have high self-motivation and low anxiety. Self-compassion is linked to happiness, optimism, a mature personality, and psychological quality of life. It is more than just self-love, as it reflects experiencing painful self-experience with high mental alertness and without emotional exaggeration (Ahmed, 2019; Neff, 2003a, 2003b; Neff & Costigan, 2014; Neff, Rude et al., 2007;).

The literature interprets the significance of self-compassion, stating that it is considered a psychological variable that can encounter the negative effects of stress on individual faces. It strongly supports individuals in times of failure, particularly in students’ learning situations, and frees them from feelings of anxiety and depression (Brophy et al., 2020; Jarrett, 2018; Neff & Costigan, 2014). It improves the level of optimism, enhances social relationships, suppresses negative thoughts and self-criticism, and helps one to engage in self-related and other-related experiences. It is also positively linked to psychological happiness, social unity, and familial support (Gill et al., 2018; Neff, 2003a; Neff et al., 2007a; Neff & McGehee, 2010; Potter et al., 2014), helping students better adapt to life when they move to the university (Terry et al., 2013; Yıldırım & Demir, 2020).

In addition, self-compassion helps students face difficulties and problems, intensifying their insistence on performing tasks after repetition of failure, thus decreasing the factors associated with academic boredom (Landgraf, 2013) and the level of academic stress while increasing academic resilience among university students (Al-Minshawi, 2016). Accordingly, self-compassion is an alternative approach to psychological well-being (Neff & Costigan, 2014). Numerous studies agree on the positive impacts of self-compassion on an individual’s quality of life and ability to adapt to university academic problems (Beaumont et al., 2016; Brophy et al., 2020; Van Dam et al., 2011).

Quality of academic life within the university context

Recent years have witnessed an increasing interest in the examination of the concept of quality of life and related variables, such as satisfaction with life, happiness, life meaning, self-efficacy, and satisfaction of needs within the framework of positive psychology. Diener et al. (1999) argued that quality of life represents a dynamic concept that includes many subjective, social, and psychological dimensions. They further contended that it is viewed as a general umbrella under which all positive mental health elements fall and is linked to the attempt to monitor how individuals perceive various aspects of their psychological life, the extent of their ability to control their personal lives, and the extent to which individuals feel that they have reciprocal positive social relationships with others. Shoukier (2010) defined quality of life as the good condition of an individual’s life and enjoyment of physical, mental, and emotional health to a degree of acceptance and satisfaction. Students with a high quality of academic life are highly self- and socially-efficient, satisfied with their family, professional, have a community life, fulfill their needs and ambitions, confident, and have self-esteem that makes them live happily and encourages and motivates them to be optimistic about the present and the future. Others have defined it as an integrated system of different dimensions that reflect students’ feelings and feelings of contentment, happiness, good condition, academic and emotional fulfillment, familial and temporal life, and how time is perceived and managed (Al-Banna & Tahoun, 2019). For this study, the academic quality of life refers to students’ feeling of satisfaction and happiness in their academic environment by realizing what they do, enjoying academic integration, having good social relationships, and managing time effectively. University students’ awareness of their quality of academic life affects their academic achievement and motivation to achieve subjective and objective goals (Ahmed, 2019; Ali, 2013). Besides, the quality of academic life predicts leadership performance and helps them solve problems, make decisions, and orient themselves toward the future (Maddi, 2004). Hohls et al. (2019) demonstrated a negative correlation between the quality of academic life and anxiety and depression and that quality of life can be predicted by the level of anxiety and depression. In addition, Peters et al. (2018) confirmed a negative correlation between non-adaptive strategies for emotional regulation and the quality of academic life. Despite the above-mentioned significance, Abdel Razek (2018) and Ahmed (2019) explain that university students greatly miss the quality of their academic lives.

Few studies have examined the association between academic boredom and quality of academic life within the university context. For example, Gerritsen et al. (2015) argued that boredom negatively affects the quality of life in general, as boredom proneness is related to low quality of life, particularly with leisure activity dissatisfaction and a lower sense of financial well-being.

As highlighted above, several studies have investigated the variables of academic boredom, self-compassion, and the quality of academic life with other psychological factors. However, no study has dealt with these three variables collectively in one study. Hence, in this study, we seek to highlight the correlation between these three variables among university students by discovering the factors that have the most effective predictor or mediator roles. This study is expected to provide indications to stakeholders and higher education managers as a starting point to enhance students’ academic lives.

Objectives and research hypotheses

We aim to develop a model indicating the direct and indirect relationships and effects between academic boredom, self-compassion, and quality of academic life among university students. Thus, we formulate the following hypothesis: There is no fitness to the proposed structural model of self-compassion with its two dimensions (self-warmth and self-coldness) as a mediator variable between academic boredom (passive agitation, lack of external and internal stimulation, and monotony and lack of time awareness) as an independent variable and the quality of academic life (good social relationship, fun academic engagement, meaning perception, effective time management) as a dependent variable among university students.

This hypothesis incorporates the following sub-hypotheses:

Academic boredom along with its dimensions has a significant direct effect on self-compassion (self-warmth and self-coldness) among university students.

Academic boredom along with its dimensions has a significant direct impact on the quality of academic life and its dimensions among university students.

Self-compassion (self-coldness–self-warmth) has a direct and significant effect on the quality of academic life and its dimensions among university students.

Academic boredom along with its dimensions has indirect significant effects on the quality of academic life and its dimensions through self-compassion (self-warmth–self-coldness) as a mediator variable among university students.

Proposed Research Model

In this study, we attempt to discover the best structural model that can explain the relationships (direct and indirect effects) between academic boredom, self-compassion, and the quality of academic life of university students. Thus, the proposed model encompasses the following variables: the independent (or predictor) variable is academic boredom and its dimensions (passive agitation, lack of external and internal stimulation, and monotony and lack of time awareness), the mediator variable is self-compassion and its two dimensions (self-warmth and self-coldness), and the dependent variable is the quality of academic life with its dimensions (good social relationships, full academic engagement, meaning perception, and effective time management), as depicted in Figure 1

Figure 1.

The proposed model of self-compassion. B is the mediating variable between academic boredom (A) and quality of academic life (C).

Method

We adopted a descriptive-analytic approach. A structural equation model was utilized to test the correlations between academic boredom, self-compassion, and quality of academic life.

Sample

A total of 125 (57 males, 68 females) second-year university students from the Arabic language department, Faculty of Education, Assiut Al-Azhar University (mean age = 21.230, standard deviation [SD] = 0.891) were selected to ensure the psychometric properties of the research tools. The basic research sample comprised 478 students (male and female) who applied the research tools (mean age = 21.349, SD = 1.034) in the academic year 2019 to 2020.

Data Collection Tools

Self-compassion scale—short version

This scale was originally developed by Neff (2003a) and modified by Raes et al. (2011). It comprised 12 statements divided into self-warmth (common humanity, self-kindness mindfulness) and self-coldness (isolation, self-judgment, over-identification) dimensions. The scale is a 5-point Likert rating type scale with five alternatives, starting with strongly agree to strongly disagree (5,4,3,2,1) respectively for self-warmth items, and vice versa (1,2,3,4,5) for self-coldness items. The score on the scale ranged between 12° and 60°. The total score was obtained by summing the self-warmth and inverse of the self-coldness scores. High levels of total self-compassion were characterized by high self-warmth and low self-coldness. The scale’s validity and reliability within the context of this study were verified.

Academic boredom scale

We developed an academic boredom scale for university students after reviewing related studies and measures (Fahlman, 2009; Mazloum, 2014; Vodanovich & Watt, 1999). The scale comprises 18 items divided into three dimensions: passive agitation, monotony and lack of time awareness, and lack of internal and external stimulation. It is a 5-point Likert scale where the items are estimated by the following: “strongly agree-1,”“agree-2,”“neutral-3,”“disagree-4,” and “strongly disagree-5.” The total score was obtained by summing the scores for all the dimensions. High scores refer to highly academically bored students and low scores indicate less academically bored students. The validity and reliability of the scale were verified.

Quality of academic life scale

We developed the scale for the quality of academic life for university students after reviewing related previous studies and measures (Al-Otaibi, 2014; Al-Sayed, 2019; Gentry & Owen, 2004; Williams et al., 2003). The scale comprised 20 items divided into the following 4 dimensions: good social relationship, fun academic engagement, meaning perception, and effective time management, with five alternatives in front of each item. The scale is a 5-point Likert-type scale. The items are scored as “strongly agree-1,”“agree-2,”“neutral-3,”“disagree-4,” and “strongly disagree-5.” The total score was obtained by summing the scores for the four dimensions. High scores indicated a high quality of academic life and low scores indicated a low quality of academic life. The scale’s psychometric properties were verified.

Exploratory factor analysis and reliability test of the academic boredom, self-compassion, and quality of academic life scales

To ensure the appropriateness of the three scales for exploratory factor analysis, Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s tests were utilized. The KMO results should be.60 and over and Bartlett’s test results must be statistically significant (Büyüköztürk, 2010). The test results revealed that KMO values on the academic boredom, self-compassion, and quality of academic life scales were 0.814, 0.869, and 0.801, respectively. Furthermore, the results of the Bartlett test were also statistically significant (p < .01) for all research scales. Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that the limit value for item loads within their factors was 0.40. The maximum likelihood analysis method and varimax technique were also utilized to reveal the items with the highest relation to the factors and interpret the factor ease coefficients.

Statistical Analysis

All data were entered in an Excel sheet. Data description and analysis were performed using SPSS 25.0, and Amos 24.0. Descriptive statistics, including the mean and SD, were calculated for self-compassion, academic boredom, and quality of academic life variables and the scores on each scale. Pearson’s coefficient was calculated to analyze the statistical correlations between self-compassion, academic boredom, and quality of academic life. Structural equation modeling was used to investigate the mediating effect of self-compassion on the relationship between academic boredom and quality of academic life. In addition, a standard path coefficient was employed to clarify the direct and indirect effects of self-compassion, academic boredom, and quality of academic life. The model used the maximum likelihood estimation method. Different indices were calculated to define the model fit: chi-square statistic/degree of freedom (χ²/df), chi-square statistic (χ²), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), incremental fit index (IFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). If the original model did not fit well, it was modified using the critical ratio (CR) and modification index (MI). All tests were two-sided and P-values less than 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

Correlational Analysis

Pearson’s coefficients were calculated to analyze the correlation between the quality of life and other research variables. Pearson’s coefficients for self-compassion, academic boredom, and quality of academic life are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Correlations for Self-ComPassion, Academic Boredom, and Quality of Academic life (N = 478).

	Variables		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
AB	1	PT	1.0
	2	LEIS	.685**	1.0
	3	MLAT	.551**	.573**	1.0
SC	4	Sw	−.133**	−.108*	.112*	1.0
SC	5	Sc	−.205**	.170**	−.163**	−.350**	1.0
QAL	6	GSR	−.559**	−.404**	−.439**	.086	−.180**	1.0
	7	FAE	−.590**	−.538**	−.608**	.154**	−.143**	.550**	1.0
	8	PM	−.515**	−.419**	−.423**	.135**	−.120**	.424**	.515**	1.0
	9	ETM	−.536**	−.464**	−.533**	.027	−.156**	.491**	.595**	.492**

Note. PA = passive agitation; LEIS = lack of external and internal stimulation; MLAT = monotony and lack of awareness of time; Sw = self-warmth; Sc = self-coldness; GSC = good social relationship; FAE = fun academic engagement; PM = perception of meaning; ETM = effective time management; AB = academic boredom; SC = self-compassion; QAL = quality of academic life.

* = 0.05 significance level, ** = 0.01 significance level.

A constructive model that explains the relationships between these variables in light of previous research and studies was proposed to verify this hypothesis. Before conducting the analysis, all the assumptions and conditions suitable for path analysis were examined. The most important factor is finding a matrix of correlation coefficients between research variables. High correlations were found between the model dimensions. We experimented with several models until reaching the best model that fit the correlation matrix between the research variables, as illustrated in Figure 2, which indicated that most oaths were statistically significant. To conduct this analysis, we used Amos v.24 to calculate model fit indices for the proposed model data. The original model (Figure 1) did not fit well (χ² = 119.497, χ²/df = 2.655, IFI = 0.875, GFI = 0.885, TLI = 0.898, RMSEA = 0.088, and CFI = 0.917), as shown in Table 2. The original constructive model was adjusted according to the MI and CR values. The final model is presented in Figure 2. In addition, the fit index values of the final model in Table 2 indicate that the model had a good fit: χ² = 10.16, χ²/df = 2.54, GFI = 0.962, IFI = 0.961, TLI = 0.954, CFI = 0.960, and RMSEA = 0.052.

Figure 2.

Standardized direct effects for the mediation model (the final model, *p < .05, **p < .01).

Table 2.

Model Fit Summary for the Mediation Model.

Fit index	$χ^{2}$	$df$	$χ^{2} / df$	GFI	IFI	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
Suggested value	p < .05		<3	≥0.95	≥0.95	≥0.95	≥0.95	≤0.06
The original model	58.72	7	8.39	0.871	0.867	0.841	0.865	0.159
The final model	10.16	4	2.54	0.962	0.961	0.954	0.960	0.052

Note. CFI = comparative fit index; df = degree of freedom; χ² = chi-square statistic; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

As evident from Table 2, all values of the fit indices are within the acceptable threshold levels, thus reflecting a good match between the dimensions of the modified structural model: academic boredom along with its dimensions as an independent variable and the quality of academic life along with its dimensions as a dependent variable among university students through self-compassion along with its two dimensions (self-defense and self-coldness) as a mediator variable; Figure 2 indicates the modified mediation constructive model.

Figure 2 shows the direct effects of the relationship between academic boredom along with its dimensions as an independent variable and the quality of academic life along with its dimensions as a dependent variable through self-compassion with its two dimensions (self-warmth and self-coldness) as a mediating variable among university students.

To validate the first sub-hypothesis, the direct effects, standardized and non-standardized regression coefficients, standard errors, and CR values were calculated and are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Direct Effects, Standardized and Non-standardized Regression Coefficients of Academic Boredom with Its Dimensions on Self-compassion With Its Two Dimensions (Self-warmth and Self-coldness).

			Estimate
Variables			$β$	$B$	SE (B)	CR	p Value
PA	→	Self-warmth	−.174	−0.130	0.052	−2.486	.013*
PA	→	Self-coldness	−.102	−0.063	0.044	−1.429	.153
LEIS	→	Self-warmth	−.063	−0.062	0.071	−0.865	.387
LEIS	→	Self-coldness	.168	0.136	0.060	2.270	.023*
MLAT	→	Self-warmth	.016	0.012	0.061	0.201	.841
MLAT	→	Self-coldness	−.022	−0.014	0.051	−0.268	.789

Note. SE = standard error; PA = passive agitation; LEIS = lack of external and internal stimulation; MLAT = monotony and lack of awareness of time; CR = critical ratio.

p < .5.

Table 3 shows a significant negative direct effect at the 5% significance level for negative emotions on self-warmth, where the “z” value was (−2.486). Moreover, the lack of external and internal stimulation had a significant direct effect on self-coldness at the 5% significance level, where the “z” value was 2.270.

To verify the second sub-hypothesis, the direct effects, standardized and non-standardized regression coefficients, standard error, and the “z” value of the responses of the main research sample (478) of male and female students were calculated, and are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Direct Effects, Standardized and Non-standardized Regression Coefficients of Academic Boredom and Its Dimensions on the Quality of Academic Life With Its Dimensions.

		Estimate
Variables		$β$	$B$	SE (B)	CR	p Value
PA	PM	−.429	−0.259	0.037	−7.073	.000**
PA	GSR	−.510	−0.320	0.037	−8.724	.000**
PA	FAE	−.298	−0.211	0.037	−5.644	.000**
PA	ETM	−.288	−0.209	0.042	−4.921	.000**
LEIS	PM	−.143	−0.113	0.050	−2.282	.022*
LEIS	GSR	−.059	−0.048	0.050	−0.973	.332
LEIS	FAE	−.127	−0.117	0.050	−2.328	.020*
LEIS	ETM	−.077	−0.073	0.057	−1.269	.208
MLAT	PM	−.010	−0.006	0.042	−0.139	.897
MLAT	GSR	−.022	−0.014	0.042	−0.326	.749
MLAT	FAE	−.318	−0.228	0.043	−5.299	.000**
MLAT	ETM	−.265	−0.195	0.049	−3.978	.000**

Note. PA = passive agitation; LEIS = lack of external and internal stimulation; MLAT = monotony and lack of awareness of time; GSR = good social relationship; FAE = fun academic engagement; PM = perception of meaning; ETM = effective time management; β = standardized; B = unstandardized; CR = critical ratio.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 4 indicates that the negative emotions variable has a statistically significant negative direct effect on the perception of meaning (z = −7.073), good social relationship (z = −8.724), fun academic engagement (z = −5.644), and effective time management (z = −3.978). All of them were significant at the 1% significance level. Moreover, the monotony variable and lack of perception of time had a negative and statistically significant direct effect on effective time management (z = −5.299) and fun academic engagement (z = −3.978) at the 1% significance level. A negative statistically significant direct effect also existed for the lack of internal and external stimulation variables on the perception of meaning (z = −2.282) and fun academic engagement (z = −2.328) at the 5% significance level.

To verify the third sub-hypothesis, the direct effects, standardized and non-standardized regression coefficients, standard error, and the “z” value of the responses of the main research sample (478) of male and female students were calculated, and are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Direct Effects, Standardized, and Non-standardized Regression Coefficients of Compassion in Its Two dimensions (Self-warmth and Self-coldness) on the Dimensions of the Quality of Academic Life.

		Estimate
Variables		$β$	$B$	SE (B)	CR	p Value
Self-coldness	GSR	−.178	−0.181	0.040	−4.475	.000**
Self-warmth	GSR	.036	0.030	0.034	.880	.379
Self-coldness	FAE	−.124	−0.142	0.041	−3.447	.001**
Self-warmth	FAE	.145	0.137	0.034	3.965	.000**
Self-coldness	PM	−.113	−0.110	0.040	−2.731	.006**
Self-warmth	PM	.094	0.076	0.034	2.247	.025*
Self-coldness	ETM	−.133	−0.156	0.047	−3.345	.001**
Self-warmth	ETM	.023	0.022	0.039	.560	.575

Note. GSR = good social relationship; FAE = fun academic engagement; PM = perception of meaning; ETM = effective time management; β = standardized; B = unstandardized; CR = critical ratio.

p < .05, **p < .01.

Table 5 clarified that a significant negative direct effect existed for the self-coldness variable on good social relationships (z = −4.475), a direct negative effect on fun academic engagement (z = −3.447), a significant direct negative effect on the perception of meaning (z = −2.731), a direct negative effect on effective time management (z = −0.345), and all of them were significant at the 1% significance level. A significant positive direct effect also existed for the self-warmth variable on fun academic engagement (z = 3.965), which was significant at the 1% significance level, and a statistically significant positive direct effect of the self-warmth variable on the perception of meaning (z = 2.247), which was significant at the 5% significance level.

Regarding the fourth sub-hypothesis, the direct effects, standardized and non-standardized regression coefficients, standard error, and the “z” value of the responses of the main research sample (478) of male and female students were calculated, and are presented in Table 6.

Table 6.

Indirect Effects, Standardized and Non-standardized Regression Coefficients of Dimensions of Academic Boredom on the Quality of Academic Life Dimensions Through Self-compassion as a Mediating Variable Among University Students (N = 478).

			Indirect estimate
Indirect path			$β$	$B$	95% CI lower limit	95% CI upper limit	p-Value
PA	SW	GSR	−.006	−0.004	−0.003	0.017	.320
PA	SW	FAE	−.025	−0.018	−0.006	−0.037	.002**
PA	SW	PM	−.016	−0.010	−0.002	−0.026	.019*
PA	SW	ETM	−.004	−0.003	−0.005	0.015	.459
LEIS	SW	GSR	−.002	−0.002	−0.001	0.017	.282
LEIS	SW	FAE	−.009	−0.008	−0.006	0.029	.336
LEIS	SW	PM	−.006	−0.005	−0.002	0.021	.247
LEIS	SW	ETM	−.001	−0.001	−0.002	0.013	.440
MLAT	SW	GSR	.001	0.000	−0.010	0.002	.565
MLAT	SW	FAE	.002	0.002	−0.019	0.013	.822
MLAT	SW	PM	.002	0.001	−0.013	0.007	.717
MLAT	SW	ETM	.000	0.000	−0.008	0.003	.658
PA	SC	GSR	−.018	−0.011	−0.029	0.001	.128
PA	SC	FAE	−.013	−0.009	−0.025	0.000	.121
PA	SC	PM	−.011	−0.007	−0.021	0.000	.093
PA	SC	ETM	−.014	−0.010	−0.028	0.000	.115
LEIS	SC	GSR	−.030	−0.025	−0.007	−0.052	.012*
LEIS	SC	FAE	−.021	−0.019	−0.005	−0.044	.035*
LEIS	SC	PM	−.019	−0.015	−0.004	−0.035	.016*
LEIS	SC	ETM	−.022	−0.021	−0.006	−0.045	.027*
MLAT	SC	GSR	.004	0.002	−0.021	0.014	.774
MLAT	SC	FAE	.003	0.002	−0.017	0.012	.772
MLAT	SC	PM	.002	0.002	−0.014	0.009	.739
MLAT	SC	ETM	0.003	0.002	−0.017	0.013	.761

Note. PA = passive agitation; LEIS = lack of external and internal stimulation; MLAT = monotony and lack of awareness of time; Sw = self-warmth; Sc = self-coldness; GSC = good social relationship; FAE = fun academic engagement; PM = perception of meaning; ETM = effective time management; β = standardized; B = unstandardized; CI = confidence intervals.

** = 0.01 significance level and * = 0.05 significance level.

Table 6 illustrates a significant negative indirect effect for the negative emotions variable on fun academic engagement at the 1% significance level through self-warmth as a mediating variable. A significant negative indirect effect also existed at the 5% significance level for the negative emotions variable on the perception of meaning variable through self-warmth as a mediating variable. Moreover, a significant negative indirect effect existed at the 5% significance level for the lack of external and internal stimulation variable on the dimensions of academic life (good social relationships, fun academic engagement, perception of meaning, and effective time management) through self-coldness as a mediating variable.

Discussion

According to the above-mentioned results, the main hypothesis can be interpreted by the fact that students who suffer from academic boredom experience a low level of quality of academic life, and that self-compassion works as a mediating variable. Therefore, a high level of self-compassion through its positive dimension of self-warmth decreases negative academic boredom and increases the feeling of the quality of academic life.

The relationships (direct and indirect) between the research variables can be explained by discussing the sub-hypothesis results. The results of this study demonstrated that passive agitation (a domain of academic boredom) had a negative impact on self-warmth, and lack of external and internal stimulation (a domain of academic boredom) had a positive impact on self-coldness. These results are consistent with those of previous studies (Beaumont et al., 2016; Hohls et al., 2019; Kugbey et al., 2020; Landgraf, 2013; Neff, 2003a; Neff et al., 2005; Neff, Rude et al., 2007; Van Dam et al., 2011).

Moreover, the feeling of academic boredom contributed to learners’ experience with a negative emotional state that made them uninterested in learning and felt bored and lazy, thereby decreasing their level of academic self-motivation (Sanchez-Martin et al., 2018). In addition, the persistence of learners’ boredom hinders their self-motivation, academic performance, and higher thinking skills (Tze et al., 2016), avoiding others, as well as isolating and downgrading themselves. Consequently, this increases their level of self-coldness. Accordingly, students lacking internal and external stimulation are reluctant to engage in learning and self-criticism.

The results of the second sub-hypothesis are consistent with those of previous investigations (Gill et al., 2018; Hohls et al., 2019; Lee & Zelman, 2019; Sharp et al., 2018). This result can be attributed to the direct negative effect of academic boredom and its dimensions on the quality of academic life and its dimensions; those with high academic boredom are characterized by indifference and suicidal tendencies, a sense of monotony, and aimlessness, have a sense of inferiority, emotional incompatibility, loss of sense of meaning, and are dissatisfied with life. Indeed, these characteristics induce a feeling of a low level of quality of academic life (O’Brien, 2014). The direct negative effect of academic boredom on the quality of academic life can also be attributed to the causes of boredom, including the lack of a sense of challenge in the academic environment and failure to satisfy students’ psychological, mental, and physical needs. The study programs offered in universities do not fit the level of students’ aspirations and tendencies, which generates a great amount of emptiness and boredom and drives them to a sense of aversion and hatred for studying, thereby reducing their quality of academic life (Mann & Robinson, 2009; Preckel et al., 2010). In addition, boredom makes students feel more desperate and socially isolated. It pushes them to delay tasks and weakens their ability to effectively organize and manage time (Sharp et al., 2018), characterizing them by an attribute of aimlessness (Vogel-Walcutt et al., 2012), all of which indicate a decline in the quality of academic life.

The results reported that self-warmth had a positive impact on fun academic engagement, and that perception of meaning and self-coldness had a negative impact on good social relationships, fun academic engagement, perception of meaning, and effective time management. The results of this sub-hypothesis are consistent with those of other studies (Brophy et al., 2020; Neff & Costigan, 2014; Terry et al., 2013; Van Dam et al., 2011; Yıldırım & Demir, 2020). Self-compassion improves the quality of life and reduces the level of negative attributes, such as stress, anxiety, and depression while strengthening social bonds and helping individuals adapt to themselves when encountering difficult life stressors. Students with a high level of self-warmth experience high quality of academic life by forming good relationships and communicating with friends. These students interact with pleasure through the educational process and practice various activities with desire and conviction, realize the significance of what they do without complaining or delaying, and manage their time effectively (Yıldırım & Demir, 2020). High self-compassion also contributes to environmental adaptation, especially when moving to university life, and also enhances the quality of life. Neff and Costigan (2014) and Beaumont et al. (2016) confirmed that self-compassion is a part of psychological well-being and affects the enhancement of quality of life by developing an individual’s ability to face academic problems.

Self-coldness makes them reluctant to participate in the educational process and lose the purpose of their learning and the meaning of their studies. Higher degrees of self-compassion were related to lower levels of exhaustion and higher levels of psychological well-being and quality of life (Beaumont et al., 2016). The results of the fourth sub-hypothesis are consistent with those of previous studies (Hohls et al., 2019; Kugbey et al., 2020; Landgraf, 2013; Neff, 2007a). This result can be explained in light of the role played by self-compassion, as it is a modern concept in the field of positive psychology, which works as a variable that reduces the effects of negative variables (academic boredom) on the individual and enhances the positive effects. Self-compassion helps individuals overcome their academic problems and confront stressful academic situations while reducing symptoms associated with academic boredom, such as educational stress and depression (Fong & Loi, 2016; Landgraf, 2013).

Conclusions

The results of this study confirmed the proposed structural model’s goodness-of-fit to the research participants’ data, the existence of statistically significant correlational relationships among the research variables, and the partial mediation of self-compassion between academic boredom as an independent variable and the quality of academic life as a dependent variable. Hence, the results only partially supported the mediation of self-compassion through some dimensions of academic boredom. The results using the suggested model can be generalized only after this model is employed using variables with different groups of students in different educational stages and settings to affirm the relationships and direct and indirect effects among the research variables used in this study. In conclusion, this study recommends benefiting from the proposed model by developing educational programs and strategies based on self-compassion to reduce academic boredom and raise the quality of academic life, and to use these results to guide university planning officials and stakeholders to enhance academic courses that support students’ psychological needs, reduces their academic boredom, occupies their spare time for their benefit, and trains faculty members to share their ideas with students and help them overcome their psychological problems.

Limitations

The results of this study were limited to the population of students from the Faculty of Education at Assiut Al-Azhar University. Additional research is recommended to explore the differences between students’ academic boredom, self-compassion, and quality of academic life levels according to gender, discipline, and academic average in other countries and under several educational stages. This study also does not address the effect of some mediating variables, such as the family socioeconomic level of students. Therefore, further studies are recommended to illustrate the factors that may affect the levels of self-compassion and academic boredom, such as cognitive load, or variables that may contribute to its development, such as psychological hardiness.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Deanship of Scientific Research at Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for supporting human research in English. We would like to thank Editage () for English language editing.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Mohamed Sayed Abdellatif

References

Abdel Razek

. (2018). The development of Egyptian universities to achieve the quality of academic life in the light of some contemporary indicators: An analytical study [Conference session]. The Second Annual International Conference of the Graduate Studies and Research Sector of the Women’s College, Ain Shams University.

Abu Ghanima

. (2019). Developing scientific argumentation and reducing science learning boredom in students of the preparatory school using the predict-discuss-explain observe-discuss- explain (PDEODE) strategy. The Egyptian Journal of Scientific Education, The Egyptian Society for Scientific Education, 22(11), 119–165.

Ahmed

(2019). Modeling the causal relationship between quality of academic life, psychological flow, and self-management of university students. The Educational Journal, 66, 527–604. https://doi.org/10.12816/EDUSOHAG.2019.49593

Al-Banna

Tahoun

(2019). Self-efficacy and motivation for mastery and level of ambition as predictors of the quality of academic life among students of the Faculty of Education. Journal of the Faculty of Education, 43(4), 1–78. https://doi.org/10.21608/JFEPS.2019.78136

Ali

(2013). The effectiveness of a training program is based on thinking skills in developing thinking styles and improving the quality of academic life among university students. Journal of the College of Education, 154(2), 625–625.

Al-Minshawi

(2016). A causal model for the interrelationships between self-compassion and both academic fatigue and resilience in a student-teacher. Journal of the Faculty of Education, 26(5), 153–225.

Al-Otaibi

(2014). The measure of the quality of academic life for university students. Reading and Knowledge Magazine, 10(148), 241–280.

Al-Sayed

(2019). Quality of university life as a mediator between psychological alienation and self-esteem among students of King Saud University. International Journal of Educational and Psychological Studies, 5(2), 144–160. https://doi.org/10.31559/EPS2019.5.2.4

Beaumont

Durkin

Hollins Martin

C. J.

Carson

(2016). Compassion for others, self-compassion, quality of life, and mental well-being measures and their association with compassion fatigue and burnout in student midwives: A quantitative survey. Midwifery, 34, 239–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2015.11.002

10.

Brophy

Brähler

Hinz

Schmidt

Körner

(2020). The role of self-compassion in the relationship between attachment, depression, and quality of life. Journal of Affective Disorders, 260(1), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.08.066

11.

Büyüköztürk. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için veri analiz el kitabı [Data Analysis Handbook for Social Sciences] ((11th ed.). PegemA Yayıncılık.

12.

Diener

Suh

E. M.

Lucas

R. E.

Smith

H. L.

(1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.

13.

Eastwood

J. D.

Frischen

Fenske

M. J.

Smilek

(2012). The unengaged mind: Defining boredom in terms of attention. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 482–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612456044

14.

Fahlman

(2009). Development and validation of the multidimensional state boredom scale [Doctoral dissertation]. York University.

15.

Finkielsztein

(2020). Class-related academic boredom among university students: A qualitative research on boredom coping strategies. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(8), 1098–1113. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2019.1658729

16.

Fong

Loi

N. M.

(2016). The mediating role of Self-compassion in student psychological health. Australian Psychologist, 51(6), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12185

17.

Gentry

Owen

S. V.

(2004). Secondary student perceptions of classroom quality: Instrumentation and differences between advanced/honors and non-honors classes. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2004-464

18.

Gerritsen

C. J.

Goldberg

J. O.

Eastwood

J. D.

(2015). Boredom proneness predicts quality of life in outpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 61(8), 781–787. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764015584647

19.

Gilbert

McEwan

Matos

Rivis

(2011). Fears of compassion: Development of three self-report measures. Psychology and Psychotherapy Theory Research and Practice, 84, 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1348/147608310X526511

20.

Gill

Watson

Williams

Chan

S. W. Y.

(2018). Social anxiety and self-compassion in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 69, 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.10.004

21.

Hemmings

Kay

Sharp

J. G.

(2019). The relationship between academic trait boredom, learning approach and university achievement. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 36(2), 41–50.

22.

Hohls

J. K.

König

H. H.

Quirke

Hajek

(2019). Association between anxiety, depression, and quality of life: Study protocol for a systematic review of evidence from longitudinal studies. BMJ Open, 9, e027218. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027218

23.

Isacescu

Danckert

(2018). Exploring the relationship between boredom proneness and self-control in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Experimental Brain Research, 236(9), 2493–2505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4674-9

24.

Jarrett

(2018). Examining relationships through path analysis [Doctoral Thesis]. The University of Nebraska. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dissertations/AAI10842490.

25.

Kugbey

Oppong Asante

Meyer-Weitz

(2020). Depression, anxiety, and quality of life among women living with breast cancer in Ghana: Mediating roles of social support and religiosity. Supportive Care in Cancer, 28, 2581–2588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-05027-1

26.

Landgraf

(2013). Under pressure: Self-compassion as a predictor of task performance and persistence [Doctoral dissertation]. Florida, University of North Florida.

27.

Lee

F. K. S.

Zelman

D. C.

(2019). Boredom proneness as a predictor of depression, anxiety, and stress: The moderating effects of dispositional mindfulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 146, 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.001

28.

Macklem

G. L.

(2015). Boredom in the classroom: Addressing student motivation, self-regulation, and engagement in learning (Vol. 1). Springer.

29.

Maddi

S. R.

(2004). Hardiness: An operationalization of existential courage. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 44(3), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167804266101

30.

Mann

Robinson

(2009). Boredom in the lecture theatre: An investigation into the contributors, moderators, and outcomes of boredom amongst university students. British Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920802042911

31.

Mazloum

(2014). The effectiveness of a counseling program for reducing boredom among sample of university students. Arab Studies in Education and Psychology, Arab Educators Association, 4(52), 223–246. https://doi.org/10.21608/saep.2014.25352

32.

Mercer-Lynn

K. B.

Bar

R. J.

Eastwood

J. D.

(2014). Causes of boredom: The person, the situation, or both? Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 122–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.034

33.

Neff

(2003b). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2(2), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309032

34.

Neff

Costigan

(2014). Self-compassion, wellbeing, and happiness. Psychologies in Österreich, 2(3), 114–119.

35.

Neff

K. D.

(2003a). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2(3), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309027

36.

Neff

K. D.

Kirkpatrick

K. L.

Rude

S. S.

(2007a). Self-compassion and adaptive psychological functioning. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.03.004

37.

Neff

K. D.

Rude

S. S.

Kirkpatrick

K. L.

(2007b). An examination of self-compassion in relation to positive psychological functioning and personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4), 908–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.002

38.

Neff

K. D.

Hsieh

Y. P.

Dejitterat

(2005). Self-compassion, achievement goals, and coping with academic failure. Self and Identity, 4(3), 263–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500444000317

39.

Neff

K. D.

McGehee

(2010). Self-compassion and psychological resilience among adolescents and young adults. Self and Identity, 9(3), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860902979307

40.

Nett

U. E.

Goetz

Hall

N. C.

(2011). Coping with boredom in school: An experience sampling perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.003

41.

O’Brien

. (2014). Boredom. Analysis, 74(2), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anu041

42.

Pekrun

(2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9

43.

Pekrun

Goetz

Titz

Perry

R. P.

(2002). “Academic emotions in students” self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and Quantitative Research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3702_4

44.

Pekrun

Hall

N. C.

Goetz

Perry

R. P.

(2014). Boredom and academic achievement: Testing a model of reciprocal causation. Journal of Education & Psychology, 106, 696–710. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036006

45.

Peters

Franke

Tkachenko

Schiffer

Zimmermann

(2018). Einfluss von Emotionsregulation und emotionaler Erregung auf Lebensqualität und Adhärenz bei Paaren nach Nierentransplantation (Impact of emotion regulation and emotional arousal on quality of life and adherence of couples after kidney transplantation). PPmP: Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie, 68(5), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-102012

46.

Potter

Yar

Francis

Schuster

(2014). Self-compassion mediates the relationship between parental criticism and social anxiety. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 14(1), 33–43.

47.

Preckel

Götz

Frenzel

(2010). Ability grouping of gifted students: Effects on academic self-concept and boredom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(Pt 3), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X480716

48.

Putwain

D. W.

Becker

Symes

Pekrun

(2018). Reciprocal relations between students’ academic enjoyment, boredom, and achievement over time. Learning and Instruction, 54, 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.08.004

49.

Raes

Pommier

Neff

K. D.

Van Gucht

(2011). Construction and factorial validation of a short form of the self-Compassion Scale. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18(3), 250–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.702

50.

Raffaelli

Mills

Christoff

(2018). The knowns and unknowns of boredom: A review of the literature. Experimental Brain Research, 236(9), 2451–2462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-4922-7

51.

Sanchez-Martin

Cañada-Cañada

Dávila-Acedo

M. A.

(2018). Emotional responses to innovative science teaching methods: Acquiring emotional data in a General Science Teacher Education Class. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 8(4), 346–359. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.408

52.

Sharp

J. G.

Hemmings

Kay

Atkin

(2018). Academic Boredom, approaches to learning, and the final-year degree outcomes of undergraduate students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(8), 1055–1077. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2017.1349883

53.

Sharp

J. G.

Hemmings

Kay

Sharp

J. C.

(2019). Academic boredom and the perceived course experiences of final year education studies students at university. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(5), 601–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2017.1386287

54.

Sharp

J. G.

Sharp

J. C.

Young

(2020). Academic boredom, engagement and the achievement of undergraduate students at university: A review and synthesis of relevant literature. Research Papers in Education, 35(2), 144–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1536891

55.

Shoukier

(2010). Quality of life criteria diagnostic scale (for normal and abnormal). Anglo-Egyptian Library.

56.

Struk

A. A.

Carriere

J. S. A.

Cheyne

J. A.

Danckert

(2017). A short boredom proneness scale: Development and psychometric properties. Assessment, 24(3), 346–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115609996

57.

Terry

M. L.

Leary

M. R.

Mehta

(2013). Self-compassion as a buffer against homesickness, depression, and dissatisfaction in the transition to college. Self and Identity, 12, 278–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2012.667913

58.

Tze

V. M. C.

Daniels

L. M.

Klassen

R. M.

(2016). Evaluating the relationship between boredom and academic outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9301-y

59.

Van Dam

N. T.

Sheppard

S. C.

Forsyth

J. P.

Earleywine

. (2011). Self-compassion is a better predictor than mindfulness of symptom severity and quality of life in mixed anxiety and depression. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 25, 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.08.011

60.

van Tilburg

W. A.

Igou

E. R

. (2017). Boredom begs to differ: Differentiation from other negative emotions. Emotion, 17(2), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000233

61.

Vodanovich

S. J.

Watt

J. D.

(1999). The relationship between time structure and boredom proneness: An investigation within two cultures. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224549909598368

62.

Vogel-Walcutt

J. J.

Fiorella

Carper

Schatz

(2012). The definition, assessment, and mitigation of state boredom within educational settings: A comprehensive review. Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9182-7

63.

Williams

L. S.

Weinberger

Harris

L. E.

Clark

D. O.

Biller

(2003). Development of a stroke-specific quality of life scale. Stroke, 30(7), 1362–1369. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.30.7.1362

64.

Yıldırım

Demir

(2020). Self-handicapping among university students: The role of procrastination, test anxiety, self-esteem, and self-compassion. Psychological Reports, 123(3), 825–843. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118825099

Modeling the Relationships Between Academic Boredom,Self-Compassion,and Quality of Academic Life Among University Students

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Academic boredom of university students

Self-Compassion of University Students

Quality of academic life within the university context

Objectives and research hypotheses

Proposed Research Model

Method

Sample

Data Collection Tools

Self-compassion scale—short version

Academic boredom scale

Quality of academic life scale

Exploratory factor analysis and reliability test of the academic boredom, self-compassion, and quality of academic life scales

Statistical Analysis

Results

Correlational Analysis

Discussion

Conclusions

Limitations

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References