Abstract
Acquiring a thorough grasp of the factors influencing students’ academic quality of life is essential for educators, administrators, and legislators to successfully support students and foster an environment centered on their well-being and growth. Utilizing Tinto’s model of student integration and the theory of social support (theories selected because they focus on the importance of academic and social integration in promoting student retention and engagement, and on how supportive relationships help students manage stress and improve their well-being), this article’s objective is to analyze the outcomes of a qualitative bottom-up research involving 69 Romanian undergraduate students. The students are enrolled in social sciences programs at a mid-size public university in the Western Region of Romania. The study aimed to understand the students’ perspective on the institutional factors that influence the quality of their academic life, and how these factors interact and intertwine to shape their academic experience. We focused on the main stressors, as well as the main supportive factors that facilitate the attainment of students’ academic goals. The thematic analysis of the data collected through eight focus-groups revealed four main areas that influence students’ quality of academic life: economic and financial; access to infrastructure and facilities; administrative and organizational processes; and the educational process. We discuss the two types of factors (stressors and supportive) in relationship with each of these areas. We explore how to stimulate the promotion of positive factors, that reduce negative influences, and improve the quality of students’ lives through changes at the institutional level.
Keywords
Introduction
The concept of quality of life, as applied to higher education, encompasses the overall wellbeing of students and represents a complex notion that includes psychological wellbeing (Baik et al., 2019), physical health (Çiçek, 2018; Joseph et al., 2014), positive social relationships (Tinto, 2017), a sense of belonging (Ahn & Davis, 2023), and the satisfaction with the quality of the environment in which they study (Kahu & Nelson, 2018; Yildirim et al., 2013). The student’s satisfaction with academic life is linked to increased motivation (Lyndon et al., 2017), and productivity (de Matos Pedro et al., 2022) in academic activities.
Academic experience can be stimulating, characterized by intellectual advancement and personal maturation. However, it is also well known for its rigorous and challenging environment, which imposes considerable pressure on students (Murff, 2005).
Academic institutions have a crucial influence on the experiences and results of students in higher education (Huang, 2012). Institutional factors that shape their daily well-being and satisfaction can influence outcomes like academic performance, persistence, and overall success.
Although academic endeavors are typically linked to cognitive advancement and individual progress (Magolda, 2006), students face numerous challenges and stressors that can greatly affect their overall wellbeing and achievements (Pascoe et al., 2020).
Various institutional, environmental, relational, and personal factors contribute to the stress experienced by students in higher education (Essel & Owusu, 2017; Mofatteh, 2020).
Institutional stressors have a substantial impact on students’ academic experiences, mental health, and overall well-being (Iurea & Safta, 2018; García-Ros et al., 2012). This impact can be both negative and positive.
Regarding the negative impact, research consistently shows that several institutional factors contribute to student stress, impacting their quality of life negatively. These stressors range from academic pressures to financial constraints and environmental issues within the institution.
Factors such as heavy course loads (Tonsing & Tonsing, 2022), demanding examination and grading systems (Watling, 2015), or unclear expectations (Chernomas, 2013) are associated with increased stress and worry among students. The intensity and volume of academic work can be overwhelming. Medical students, for example, often face demanding schedules that leave them with less resting time and limited opportunities for socializing and leisure activities (Naiyar et al., 2023). Similarly, students in other fields may experience stress due to the breadth and depth of the curriculum, especially when it requires exclusive dedication (Tempski et al., 2012). The perception of high costs associated with education can also negatively affect students’ well-being. The burden of tuition fees and living expenses can be a major stress factor for students (Elmouhib et al., 2024). Financial dependence on family can exacerbate this stress, particularly for students from low-income backgrounds (Naiyar et al., 2023). Inadequate facilities, such as lack of proper cafeteria facilities and healthy refreshment options can also be a significant source of anxiety (Naiyar et al., 2023). These environmental factors can directly impact students’ physical and mental well-being.
Regarding the positive impact, there are studies that show institutional interventions and support programs provided by the universities are effective in reducing stress and worry and overall enhancing the students’ quality of life (Olsson et al., 2024; Winzer et al., 2018).
Supportive faculty members play a crucial role in enhancing student well-being (Naiyar et al., 2023). Positive student-teacher relationships can significantly improve students’ quality of life (Xu, 2025). Frequent communication with faculty and easy access to campus resources were found essential for students’ effective management of academic stress (Lieberman et al., 2018).
Active teaching methodologies were found useful in improving students overall experience (Divaris et al., 2008).
Mental health support and counseling can help students address issues such as anxiety, depression, and stress (Vescovelli et al., 2017). Encouraging students to build healthy interpersonal networks can support their overall development (Xu, 2025). Peer support programs and group activities can significantly improve students’ ability to cope with challenges, by fostering a sense of community and belonging (Naiyar et al., 2023).
Therefore, academic institutions have a key role to play in shaping students’ quality of academic life. This is the reason why understanding the factors that shape the students’ quality of academic life is crucial for institutions aiming to foster a healthy academic environment, focused on students’ wellbeing and development.
Two key frameworks were used to support the current study: (1) Tinto’s Student Integration Model (SIM) and (2) the Theory of Social Support. Tinto’s model (1975, 2017) highlights the importance of academic and social integration in fostering student retention and engagement, with institutional mechanisms such as mentoring, advising, and involvement in campus life playing a central role (Braxton et al., 2013; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). This theory was chosen for its relevance in identifying how such institutional practices shape students’ quality of academic life, being important for understanding how support systems (or the lack thereof) impact students’ academic satisfaction. In addition, the Theory of Social Support emphasizes how relationships with peers, family, and faculty contribute to students’ ability to manage stress and enhance well-being (Lakey & Cohen, 2000; McLean et al., 2023). This theory was selected for its focus on how supportive relationships help students manage stress and enhance well-being.
Starting from these theoretical ideas, and given the complexity and subjective nature of students’ academic experiences, the study explores, using qualitative methods, the institutional factors that shape their academic life, including those that contribute to stress and worry, as well as those that offer support and enhance well-being. It further investigates how these factors interact within the broader institutional environment and what kinds of structural arrangements may be necessary to reduce negative influences while strengthening positive ones.
The study was conducted within the context of a mid-sized public university in Eastern Europe, where institutional efforts to improve student wellbeing are increasingly recognized as strategic priorities. Having a bottom-up approach, by centering students’ own perspectives on institutional factors that shape their academic quality of life—both positively and negatively—the current research offers a more nuanced understanding on how support structures and stressors coexist and interact, contributing to new insights on student well-being and institutional contributions to it in higher education.
By centering students’ direct perspectives, this research addresses a gap in existing literature, which has predominantly relied on top-down approaches to define factors shaping student well-being.
Methods and Materials
Previous research dedicated to this topic has mainly used a top-down approach, where the factors shaping the students’ quality of life were defined a priori by the research team. In this research we propose a different approach: a bottom-up study having as its main objective to understand the students’ perspective on the most significant institutional factors that influence the quality of their academic life, and how these factors interact and intertwine to shape their academic experience. This study seeks to drive institutional change by pinpointing and promoting policy reforms and concrete measures that reduce negative influences, strengthen positive experiences, and ultimately enhance students’ academic quality of life.
The research questions that guided data collection and interpretation process were:
What are the most important institutional factors that shape the students’ quality of academic life, from their perspective? What are the institutional factors that negatively impact the students’ quality of life by generating stress and worry? What are the institutional factors that positively impact the students’ quality of life?
How do these factors interact with each other in the larger institutional context? Are there any institutional arrangements that are needed to tackle the negative effects of stressors and enhance the positive effects of the institutional support factors?
Study Participants and Procedure
This work was approved by the Scientific Council of the university in which the study was conducted (number of approval 26312/27.04.2023). All participants at the study expressed their informed consent before participating in the focus-groups.
For the data collection process, focus groups were conducted between May and June 2023, based on a topic guide aimed at facilitating focus group discussions.
The participants at the study were undergraduate students at the Social Sciences Faculty of a mid-size university in the Western Region of Romania. The four departments within this faculty provide in total eight Bachelor-level specialization programs, each with a 3-year duration. The average number of students who enroll each year is approx. 600, but, due to dropout rates, the average number of students who graduate each year is approx. 500.
The research team planned at least one focus group for each specialization in order to capture the program-specific experiences and ensure representativeness and inclusivity. Without using a specific sampling strategy, we invited all students from all 3 years of study at each specialization to participate in the research. The students received an email invitation (on their institutional address) to attend the study. The email contained information about the purpose of the study and a RSVP link to confirm their attendance. When accessing the link, they were asked to fill in a small anonymous questionnaire meant to collect data about their socio-demographic profile. No selection criteria were further applied. In total, eight focus groups with 69 participants were conducted (see Table 1).
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Focus Groups Participants.
Source. Generated by the authors.
The focus groups lasted from 60 to 120 min. They were conducted in Romanian, audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The relevant quotes provided in this paper were translated into English after the data analysis and interpretation phase was completed. Each focus group coordinator followed a pre-established succession of steps, meant to keep the structure of the focus group as similar as possible.
The largest part of the discussion was dedicated to exploring students’ lived experiences in relation to different dimensions of their academic life (teaching process, examinations, collaboration and communication with teaching staff; practical training internships; university infrastructure; daily routines regarding academic activities; communication with support services; institution regulations and methodologies; relationship with student organizations). All students attending the focus groups were encouraged to take part in the discussions and share their own experience, without feeling pressure about reaching an agreement.
The researchers involved in the study were at different stages of their career and had also teaching experience varying between 1 and 20 years. Involving researchers/teachers at different career stages was a strategic decision meant to bring distinct insights shaped by their length of experience, roles, and evolving relationships with institutional structures and students. The research team also comprised students enrolled in the BA programs provided by the faculty at that time. Their role was to act as “expert consultants” on the topic, and, as such, they contributed with inputs during the data collection and data interpretation phases.
The qualitative data collected through focus groups was analyzed using thematic analysis, following the established guidelines of Braun and Clarke (2006, 2012) and further informed by Maguire and Delahunt (2017) and Dawadi (2020).
An inductive approach was adopted within a constructionist epistemological framework, which allowed the research team to focus on how sociocultural and structural factors shape participants’ narratives, rather than on individual psychologies or personal motivations. The analysis involved a systematic process of identifying, defining, and interpreting themes that emerged from the data.
The analytical process involved two consecutive readings of all focus groups transcriptions: one by each researcher involved, and a second one conducted in teams (each comprising a mix of older and younger researchers). In the first round, each party identified key findings related to the institutional factors that shape the students’ quality of academic life. Subsequently, the team members met to synthesize results through collaborative discussion. Recurrent patterns, connections, and divergences were discussed. A provisional list of themes emerged. In the second round, two teams were formed. With the provisional list in mind, they did a second reading of the focus groups, to check if the themes were correctly identified and supported by the material. Subsequently, the two teams met to synthesize the results and solve the discrepancies or ambiguities encountered. Through collaborative coding and iterative discussion, the researchers established the final four overarching themes that encapsulate key aspects of students’ academic experiences: (1) economic and financial pressures; (2) access to infrastructure and facilities; (3) administrative and organizational processes; (4) educational process. Each theme was examined through a dual lens: as a potential source of stress (as factors that generate or increase students’ level of stress) and as a potential source of support (factors that help students cope with stress and diminish stress level), revealing the complex and sometimes contradictory nature of students’ interactions with their academic environments (see Table 2).
Institutional Sources of Stress and Support Identified in the Study.
Source. Generated by the authors.
Results
This study aimed to provide a bottom-up understanding of the institutional factors influencing Romanian undergraduate students’ quality of academic life. Our qualitative inquiry, guided by Tinto’s model of student integration and the theory of social support, answered the research questions by revealing four interconnected areas that significantly impact students’ academic experience: economic and financial aspects, administrative and organizational processes, the educational process, and access to infrastructure and facilities. Within each area, specific institutional factors were identified as either negatively impacting student quality of life by generating stress and worry, or positively impacting it by offering support and enhancing well-being. Furthermore, our analysis elucidates how these factors interact within the broader institutional context and highlights necessary institutional arrangements to mitigate stressors and amplify supportive elements.
Economic and Financial Pressures
Although not immediately apparent in students’ discourses, economic and financial pressures were often evoked under different names or related to various contexts. The most common among them referred to the increased level of expenses during university studies and the competition for the support provided by the university.
Increased Expenses During University Studies
In Romania, there are three main types of expenses that students who attend university programs must cover: tuition fees, accommodation costs (for those who move out of their parents’ home when starting university), and daily living costs. Regarding tuition fees, university students are divided into two main categories: (1) students who pay tuition fees and (2) students who occupy government subsidized places. The cost of the tuition fees varies according to the type of program, it’s paid on a yearly basis and can be roughly between one and four average monthly salaries. Regarding accommodation costs, because almost half of Romania’s population (48%) lives in rural areas and the universities are regionally distributed in large urban centers, most of the university students must leave their parents’ homes and move once they begin their studies, having to cover rent, which is often very high, utilities, and daily living costs.
Competition for the Economic and Financial Support Provided by the University
To decrease the financial burden related to participation in higher education, Romanian educational policies allow universities to provide their students three main types of economic support: (1) free education (under the form of “subsidized places”); (2) scholarships; and (3) subsidized accommodation in student dormitories. Most of the students who come from middle-class families and enroll in university studies hope to be able to access one or more of these types of support. Although there are some criteria that prioritize the access of students from socially vulnerable categories to all three types of measures, the main criterion for deciding which students receive them is related to their academic performance, measured through their grades. More specifically, based on their academic performance, students are ranked with a certain frequency (annually for subsidized places and accommodation and each semester for scholarships) and their place in the ranking decides if they will be the recipients of these types of support.
All these institutional procedures regarding periodic ranking bear a lot of weight in the eyes of the students, because they ensure or cut access to the financial support provided by the university, aspect that was underlined by the students participating in the focus groups: “It was hard when I realized that I lost the scholarship, just because of (one discipline). I worked very, very hard in the first semester to get a scholarship, …for the second semester, only (one discipline) affected my score. I lost my scholarship by a small difference and it really hurt, you know… hurt very, very hard.” Therefore, students’ place in the ranking system is a permanent source of stress, especially for those whose families lack the financial means to support them.
The financial/economic factor, with its implications related to competition for scholarships, subsidized places and subsidized accommodation, is the one that largely influences the quality of student life, by posing a large amount of stress on students, as focus groups’ participants stated: “At one point, I thought of dropping out, because I had no place to stay and I couldn’t afford rent.” For a large part of the students, economic pressure is essential and subordinates, motivates and regulates a whole range of behaviors: study time, teamwork, fair play, participation in classes, etc.
While some of the issues discussed in this category are of national or regional concern (for example, the price of rent in large cities, the average family income) and cannot be managed by the universities, others are under their control, at least to some extent. Due to HEI’s autonomy under the Romanian legislation, universities have a relatively high degree of control over the number and amount of scholarships offered, the amount of the study fees charged to students, as well as the number of subsidizes accommodation places for them. Therefore, Romanian universities have the capacity to manage most of those economic and financial aspects that have a lot of influence on the students’ quality of life (study fees, scholarship, accommodation).
Administrative and Organizational Processes
Administrative and organizational procedures are all encompassing when it comes to students’ academic life. Based on the interviewees’ accounts, the most notable effects of these procedures are of practical nature and manifest through the rules and regulations that govern their academic activities, the chaotic course and exam schedule that impact their daily activities, and the challenges in accessing the administrative support services.
Dense and Complicated Regulations
The entire organizational and administrative process is based on a series of procedures and regulations that dictate the functioning of the services, as well as the rights and obligations of students. These procedures are approved by the Senate of the university, based on the National Education Law, are transmitted to students by institutional email, and posted on the university/faculty website. Moreover, there is a Student Code which is transmitted to all students at the beginning of the academic year, under which teaching and professional activity of students is regulated. Although they are public, and can be consulted at any time, for students these procedures are quite dense and difficult to understand, especially when they do not read them in full, or lack the understanding of some bureaucratic expressions and concepts: “Some are not so clear for us,” said one of the focus groups’ participant. Students have to comply with these regulations and procedures, and those having difficulty understanding them need to contact their student tutors, the year tutor or the Student Information Center for clarification. The student organization operating within the university also offers support if students have any questions regarding the university regulations.
Chaotic Academic Schedule
Although the university has a platform with all the teaching spaces, where the occupancy rate for each room is registered in real time, the insufficient number of rooms causes an unfair distribution of hours for students. Lack of space results in disorganized timetables, which can disrupt what would be a normal flow of teaching activities by inserting one or more breaks between classes. A focus group respondent said: “What makes it difficult for us is that there are so many windows in our program and we have an hour and a half between classes or 3 hrs. We don’t even have time to do something for us, like an appointment or to go at least to do some homework.” These breaks are often not sufficient for students to get home and back or are not even enough for them to change location, as sometimes consecutive classes may take place in locations from different areas of the city. To support students and remedy this situation, due mainly to the increase in the number of students, in recent years the university has acquired and arranged spaces for teaching activities in other areas in the city, where entire faculties have been relocated. Teaching spaces still remain a challenge for the university, included in its development strategy for the following years. Regarding the scheduling of exams, sometimes the number of exams per session is high, which creates a stressful atmosphere for students. According to a focus groups participant, “there are semesters in which you have to do 5 to 6 projects every week; the next week 5 to 6 essays, or colloquiums or exams after exams throughout the semester, and somehow the time does not allow you to give 100% performance in all.”
Delayed Response from Administrative Support Services
The Student InfoCenter is a support service responsible for communicating with students for all administrative processes. It oversees taking requests from students, issuing student ID cards, student certificates upon request, providing information on the educational process and its related activities. Students have the possibility to request and receive the necessary information through the online platform, without going to the university headquarters, but the long response time from the staff employed at the Student InfoCenter can become a stress factor for students, especially if they urgently need the requested documents, as one of our respondents mentioned: “There were certain situations where maybe you needed a certificate or something very urgent and the InfoCenter would answer in 3, 4, 5 days, a week.” Students can report these situations to the year tutor, department director, faculty dean, or student organization, who can intervene to effectively manage the situation.
While the aspects raised here are not descriptive of a general organizational problem in terms of student management and administration, their exploration from the students’ perspective allows us to understand how they can impact negatively the quality of the students’ life. This, in turn, allows university managers to optimize management and administration procedures and regulations in the future, in order to make them more accommodating to the students’ needs.
Educational Process
The educational process has a lot of impact on the ways in which students perceive their academic experiences. The inconsistencies between initial requirements and final assessments, the inadequate or insufficient feedback from teachers, requirements perceived as unjust, inadequate teaching methods, and improper attitudes and communications with teachers were among the factors that negatively impacted students’ experiences. On the other hand, close and supportive relationships with teachers that show congruent behaviors with professional principles were among the institutional support factors that helped students overcome their negative experiences.
Course Requirements
The details about each course (form of organization, teaching and learning contents, attendance, teaching methods, and assessment practices) are set out in the course syllabus and communicated to students at the beginning of the semester. The inconsistency between what is stated in the syllabus and what happens in teaching and/or practical activities in terms of planned scientific content and assessment is an issue that displeases and confuses students, especially in situations where assessment criteria, rules and deadlines are changed during the semester. A participant said that “there are people who had zero attendance, and entered the exam, although we were told that if we don’t have the required attendance, we don’t enter the exam.”
The group work tasks for students also raise issues of perceived inequity from several perspectives: (1) the group of students is heterogeneous in terms of members’ abilities, so higher performing students feel there is a risk of receiving a grade below their level because other group members (considered lower performing) drag down the quality of the assignment; (2) there is a risk of missing submission deadlines, because not all group members meet deadlines; (3) workload is not evenly distributed among group members, so individual contributions may not be recognized with an appropriate grade: “If one person in my team fails, for example, I also fail, that is, the whole group, which does not seem normal to me, because in the end the evaluations should be done, in my opinion, individually, because it is up to me as individual what performance I achieve.”
Assessment and Feedback
Each course in the curriculum is completed with an assessment. The provision of clear instructions on assessment tasks and assignments, grading criteria or possible models for solving them, from the beginning of the semester, are appreciated by students, while their lack, late information or spontaneous modification creates confusion. One focus group respondent mentioned that “we had an exam where we had certain assessment criteria in the syllabus, which we complied to. After the grades were awarded and practically more than half of us failed the exam, we received another other assessment criteria.” Students valued teachers who provided them with examples of solving assessment tasks, because it allowed them to understand teachers’ expectations.
Evaluation and assessment are also connected with the role played by feedback. Lack of, or delayed delivery of feedback by the teacher creates situations where students cannot track their learning progress and are dissatisfied because they discover too late that their academic performance is unsatisfactory. On the other hand, students appreciate situations where they get feedback and have the opportunity to redo their assessment tasks to get a better grade. As one student pointed out: “this is an aspect that, from my point of view, would help tremendously—to receive feedback, to know what we can improve, to know where we went wrong, what we did [right].”
Teaching Methods
The selection of teaching methods shapes students’ academic experiences. Students were generally critical of reading information written on slides overloaded with text, the non-use of visual materials during teaching, the fast pace of teaching without giving students the opportunity to ask clarifying questions, and the insufficiently structured content according to students’ needs and level of preparation, because they do not understand the material taught and it is difficult to prepare for the assessment: “I have a complaint about the write-after-dictation method. An hour and a half to listen and write while the teacher talks, it’s practically torture, and the ideas get mixed up and I can no longer structure my material, how it should be structured, and I mean strictly dictating without the help of a PowerPoint or a visual course support.” Students are attracted to courses focusing on interactive teaching methods, where scientific content is accompanied by explanations and practical examples: “It seems to me that for absolutely everything you can bring some more concrete examples or a minimum of interaction, because personally, when I spent half an hour just reading from the slides and it was just simply dictated information, I lose my attention.”
Teacher-Student Relationship
Students tend to categorize the relationship with teachers into opposite categories: close (teachers who are empathetic, openly communicating with students) versus distant (teachers who are unavailable, respond late or not at all to students and have poor communication with them); supportive (available to talk to and listen to students; open to support students) versus punitive (threaten students; berate and criticize students in front of peers; students who do not respect the rules imposed by the teacher are marked absent); congruent with professional principles (teachers who show seriousness, involvement; provide prompt answers; emphasize the usefulness and practical applicability of knowledge) versus incongruent with professional principles (lack of punctuality; teachers who make discriminatory remarks—sexist, xenophobic, etc.): “The closeness to the teachers, at least I liked that a lot… If I had a problem, I knew I could ask and I knew I could get an answer without being that wall where I am a teacher, and you are the student.”
The university has a feedback mechanism for evaluating teachers that is practiced at the end of the semester. Theoretically, this mechanism should persuade teachers to be more accommodating to students’ needs. However, some teachers are not influenced by these mechanisms and still have improper attitudes and communications with students, as one participant pointed out: “There are students who are part of the LGBT community and there was a lot of discrimination from the teachers and there was a lot of offending language, not only from the teachers but also from the other students. […] And not only about sexuality, but also about religion and ethnicity.”
Access to Infrastructure and Facilities
Two main types of infrastructure were referenced in the students’ discourses: the physical (or tangible) and the IT infrastructure.
When referring to the physical infrastructure, students mentioned their frustrations with aspects such as: inadequate size of classrooms (too small for the number of students hosted): “We don’t have classrooms, many times we had to find another place to do our classes or they overlapped because the schedule overlapped, we kicked each other out, it was a very confusing environment,” coupled with inadequate accessibility of all teaching spaces, especially for students who use a wheelchair: “Some of the classes are at the 7th floor, while the elevator reaches only until the 6th floor”; insufficient spaces for extracurricular activities, where students can meet up and work together; insufficient number of subsidized places in the university dormitories, distributed mainly based on the students’ academic performance: “Many who had really good grades did not get a place in the dormitory”; insufficient learning resources (especially printed books) in the university library and insufficient equipment (PCs) in the university laboratories; low price-quality-quantity ratio of the food served in the university’s main canteen, which is subcontracted to a single private provider: “There is a huge difference between our university’s canteen prices and others… I mean, the prices are even triple sometimes… I also noticed that the food at other university canteens is much healthier and at much more affordable prices than at ours.”
These student complaints are known to the university decision makers and some steps were recently taken to alleviate the situation. Among them, the most important are: increasing the accessibility of some buildings, by installing ramps, tactile carpets and tactile maps of the interior; the construction of two new structures (a students’ dormitory, and a building complex with modernized teaching spaces and sports facilities); the remodeling and modernizing of some of the buildings already in use. These improvements will enhance the quality of the facilities and, by it, the quality of students’ life, allowing them access to an appropriate amount and quality of study spaces, more conducive to performance in learning.
When referring to the IT infrastructure, students’ dissatisfactions were mainly related to: the delays in receiving their credentials (especially in the 1st year of study), which is the only gateway to access all the IT facilities provided by the university, such as: free Wi-Fi inside the university spaces, online student accounts, the e-learning platform (used by most professors to upload course materials, additional bibliography, course syllabus, requirements, assignments, feedback, etc.), and all other services and applications that are integrated into the software package provided by the university: “We had problems with the IT department, at the beginning when some colleagues did not receive the email addresses… and it was problematic, because they did not answer us… It took about a month until the problem was solved, that is half of the semester.” The inadequate optimization of the e-learning platform for mobile devices was also an aspect raised: “Sometimes it creates problems for us, in the sense that not all data appear. They appear on the computer, but not on the phone.” Any delay or error in the functioning of the platform produces dysfunctionalities both in the communication and in the academic activity of teachers and students. Lastly, the improper functioning of the Wi-Fi network (low signal or frequent interruptions) in the university buildings and dormitories was also mentioned as affecting students’ academic activities: “There were times when we didn’t have internet in the dormitories for a whole week, which is very difficult. It’s very hard for me to keep up with what’s going on. Even an email doesn’t come in if I don’t have internet.”
The management of the administrative departments that handle these aspects is aware of the technical problems encountered by students and is working to improve the situation. A technical support service, accessible via email, is available 24/7 for students and staff. However, if one has problems accessing their email address, they obviously cannot access this service either.
Discussions and Conclusions
Based on these findings, emanating from students’ direct experiences, we can further analyze the interactions of these factors with each other in the larger institutional context and their intertwinement and contribution to shaping the students’ quality of academic life (see Figure 1).
Institutional influences on students’ quality of academic life.
The Administrative and Organizational Processes Appear to Have the Most Influence Over the Other Areas, Without in Turn Being Influenced By Any of Them
First, we observe the students’ economic and financial situation is influenced by the procedures and regulations on the awarding of subsidized places, scholarships and accommodation. The assurance of compliance with all the procedures and regulations, the fear of not missing any deadlines, coupled with the lack of any guarantees of receiving these types of support, pose a lot of pressure on students. These findings are supported by Bernal et al. (2024), who pointed out that changes in regulations on awarding a scholarship in Colombia caused a decrease in the interest of low-income students to pursue university studies, and also by Salazar-Fernandez et al. (2024), who underlined that educational policies on granting scholarships exert great influence on academic performance and students’ dropout.
Second, the educational process is heavily influenced by regulations, methodologies and procedures that define the academic and administrative functioning. The centralized elaboration of schedule, managed under the limitations of the physical infrastructure, shapes the entire daily program of students, limiting their use of personal time. The scheduling of the exam session sets their learning pace and often puts pressure on them. The procedures and regulations dictate their specific rights and obligations and set inflexible standards regarding their academic activity. Performance in final and mid-term assessments, and the fulfillment of administrative criteria related to class attendance are important stress factors for students. Intensive workloads, inflexible grading standards, the scheduling of the exams, stringent attendance rules can intensify students’ sense of pressure and inadequacy (Chernomas, 2013; Tonsing & Tonsing, 2022; Tempski et al., 2012), resulting in reduced academic involvement and dissatisfaction (González-DeHass et al., 2005; Goulas & Megalokonomou, 2020; Ma et al., 2015).
Third, the students’ access to infrastructure and facilities is also influenced by administrative and organizational processes, which dictate the eligibility rules and the steps to be taken in order to be granted such access. One positive aspect regarding this relationship is that rules are transparent and are set for all students, thus eliminating subjectivity and inconsistency in ensuring the rights of access. On the other hand, the negative aspect is that the steps imposed by the rules are many and any delay or oversight of a certain step or deadline produces dysfunctionalities that take time to solve. Additionally, when access to infrastructure and facilities is dictated under limiting circumstances (such as insufficient or inadequate teaching spaces), by administrative rationalities, and not with the needs of students in mind, the hope of overcoming these limitations in the future is reduced, affecting students’ academic engagement, performance and well-being. Such conclusions were also drawn by Fagbohunka (2017), Mugizi (2021), and Anuar et al. (2024), who pointed out that students’ access to adequate infrastructure positively influences their academic performance and organizational commitment.
The Access to Infrastructure and Facilities has an Influence Over the Economic and Financial Aspects, and Also on the Educational Process
Receiving a subsidized place in the university dormitories lifts a high financial burden from the students’ shoulders, who can in turn focus more on their studies and not feel pressured to generate an income during their study years. Students who benefit from accommodation and tuition fees do not list economic and financial factors among stressors, finding previous supported by Alkhawaldeh et al. (2023).
The access to technology is central to the learning process, shaping modern academic experiences and facilitating the preparation of students for the demands of the labor market. The e-learning resources and other platforms used in the teaching-learning-evaluation process allow students’ access to courses, teaching materials, examinations, notifications and communication, creating an attractive learning environment adapted to their needs. Ensuring lectures, seminar and laboratory rooms have sufficient space for all students, and supplying them with the necessary technical equipment is crucial to providing an appropriate learning environment. Insufficient study and teamwork spaces in the university limit the collaboration and collective learning of students, which could lower academic performance. Overcrowded classrooms create an uncomfortable environment where students cannot concentrate, be motivated, focus on learning and performance and properly interact with their peers and teachers, these findings being supported by previous studies of Mustafa et al. (2014), Marais (2016), Likuru and Mwila (2022), and Khutso Pitso (2023), who underlined negative consequences of overcrowded classrooms on both teachers and students. The internet connection allows students to quickly access online resources, to attend virtual teaching activities, to communicate with teachers and colleagues or to do research. When the Wi-Fi in the university does not work well it creates technical interruptions and impedes effective work. The availability of a sufficient number of copies of books, specialized journals and other learning resources in the university library allows students to complete their knowledge and deepen their study topics; when they are insufficient, student access to information is limited, and so is students’ academic success, intensifying stress and impeding their overall educational experience. These ideas are also supported by Samo and Agcito (2024), who show that students receiving support from the library report higher levels of academic well-being.
There is a Continuous Feedback Loop in Terms of Influence Between the Economic and Financial Aspects, and the Educational Process
The economic and financial aspects shape the educational process through motivating students to achieve good results, so they can rank higher in hierarchy, and thus secure the most consistent forms of financial support. Due to this financial motivation, students are more inclined to comply with the administrative and academic requirements set by teachers, to increase their chances of getting good grades. Students who aim to access financial support from the university will not settle with meeting the minimum requirements for a specific discipline, but will aim for the highest grade, and thus strive to achieve objectives such as perfect attendance scores, or getting involved in extracurricular tasks, which bring them additional points in evaluation. Students from low-income families are disproportionately affected by this relationship between the two dimensions, because they may have difficulties in affording tuition fees, accommodation or other fees that may arise during their studies, and this could make them drop out. Additionally, participating in some courses may require ancillary costs, and these may be unaffordable for some students, preventing them from opting for their favorite discipline. The lack of financial resources can create difficulties in purchasing teaching materials, books or other necessary educational resources. Academic participation involves the use of modern technology and specialized IT equipment. Students with low financial resources cannot always purchase modern devices or specialized software, or they purchase ones with lower performance. Most of the time they use mobile phones, which do not always have adapted applications to be used properly in their academic training. Some students are forced to work to support themselves during university studies, which reduces the time for study and participation in academic activities. Financial concerns can put pressure on students, which can affect their ability to focus and perform academically. Our findings are supported by Davenport (2018), Fosnacht and Calderone (2017), Mohamad Idaris et al. (2022), and Negonde and Jeri (2024) who pointed out these negative effects that financial stress has on students.
However, the educational process also shapes the economic and financial aspects through its outcomes: the results of the assessment in each discipline contribute to the final grades, which ultimately establish who gets financial support. Therefore, students who were highly involved in the educational process, did their best effort, got good grades, and based on them, managed to access one or more forms of financial support, are reinforced in their behavior and will try to replicate this recipe of success, by keeping at high levels their motivation and involvement. Students with remarkable academic results can often benefit from the opportunity to be invited to participate in various scientific research projects, alongside the teaching staff, an activity that can be remunerated, thus contributing not only to the increase in income, but also to the acquisition of experience and the development of professional skills. However, due to the scarcity of such opportunities, the competition is fierce and creates an opposite effect on some of the students: those who get highly involved in the educational process do their best effort, get good grades, but, in spite of this, will not manage to access the desired form of financial support, will get demotivated and spiteful regarding both the educational process and the administrative one. When investing their time in study, most students are both hopeful and fearful regarding their outcomes at the end of the academic year/semester: they hope they will find themselves in the first category and fear they will end up in the second one. Students frequently encounter anxiety associated with exams, assignments, deadlines, course requirements, teamwork, teachers’ behavior, academic performance, and fear of failure. The apprehension of not achieving desired outcomes and the burden of attaining success can result in substantial stress, adversely affecting the mental well-being and overall academic journey of students. These findings are supported by studies of Awadalla et al. (2020), Nandamuri and Gowthami (2011), Al-Shahrani et al. (2023), Yikealo et al. (2018), and Akhtar and Akhtar (2024), who pointed out that assessments, academic workload, fear of failing or not receiving a high grade are among the factors negatively influencing students stress level and mental health state.
Thus, the analysis indicates that the students’ aims and intentions in relationship with the higher education program are constantly altered through interactions with the institution and its academic and social frameworks, making it a dynamic process (Schreiber et al., 2014). As a result, when students encounter difficulties in achieving their academic objectives (such as graduation), they may be at risk of disengaging from the program. On the contrary, when they feel supported in their endeavor, they will increase their motivation and engagement with their academic objectives. Therefore, HEIs have an important role and responsibility in providing students with the necessary support to achieve academic engagement and performance.
Recommendations and Practical Implications
The findings highlight the highly interconnected nature of various institutional factors. This suggests that theoretical models of student quality of life should adopt a more holistic and systemic perspective, recognizing that addressing issues in one area (e.g., financial aid) may have limited impact if underlying administrative or infrastructural barriers persist.
In order to reduce the negative impact of factors that generate stress and worry to students, universities should implement mental health support services for students. Counseling programs implemented by universities were found to help students cope with academic pressures (Vescovelli et al., 2017). These programs can include workshops on time management, study skills, and mindfulness techniques. Also, building resilience and coping strategies can equip students to handle daily stressors and promote their well-being (Gheihman et al., 2021). Institutions should ensure that these services are known by potential beneficiaries and accessible to them, to encourage students to seek help when needed.
Addressing financial stressors is also crucial for improving student the students’ quality of academic life. Institutions can provide financial aid, scholarships, and grants to alleviate financial burdens (Naiyar et al., 2023). Financial and economic support from universities proves extremely important for students, especially those in developing countries, and those from low-income groups. This type of support acts as a motivating factor for students and helps them keep engaged with their academic path.
The results of the study show that students feel comfortable with an educational process that is predictable and reliable, especially in cases when this process is assessment oriented. Based on this, we consider that universities need to increase the awareness of teachers about their role in shaping students’ quality of academic life, through their behavior in and outside the classroom. Moreover, teachers may need periodic training programs about specific issues like providing consistency between teaching contents and assessment methods; formulation of feedback for improving learning; ensuring fair assessments; new teaching methods; improving their communication skills to accommodate more empathy, cultural sensitivity, and political correctness. In order to foster positive student-teacher relationships, universities should regularly train their faculty members to be supportive and approachable by students (Xu, 2025). They should also establish procedures that encourage faculty to provide regular feedback, offer guidance, and create a supportive learning environment (Naiyar et al., 2023).
In order to create a more supportive and comfortable environment, HEIs should strive to improve campus facilities, including cafeterias, libraries, and recreational areas. They should also ensure that facilities are accessible, well-maintained, and meet the needs of all students, including those with diverse needs (Naiyar et al., 2023).
Thus, the study shows that improving students’ academic quality of life is not a matter of isolated fixes but requires systemic, cross-functional institutional approach.
Reflecting on the institutional support factors that have resulted as important for the students in our study, we would like to highlight the following: since administrative and organizational processes bear a lot of direct and indirect influence over the academic experience of students, we recommend universities to conduct such processes using a “development mindset” (i.e., having in mind the needs and wellbeing of students, and thus seeking to develop and overcome the immediate limitations), as opposed to a “limitations-bound mindset” (having in mind the limitations they are confronted with and trying to answer student needs within these limits).
Taking into account the needs of students in the management of institutional aspects (administrative, infrastructure, financial, and educational), HEIs can considerably contribute to increasing retention, reducing dropout, reducing stress levels and increasing well-being, in other words to improving the quality of life of students.
Strengths and Limitations of the Study and Future Research Directions
This study presents several significant strengths that enhance its reliability and the importance of its findings. Firstly, through its bottom-up approach, the research addresses a gap in the current literature by prioritizing students’ firsthand experiences, and providing a nuanced understanding of the coexistence and interaction of support structures and institutional stressors that shape student well-being in higher education. Secondly, the sample size and its variability allowed the exploration and integration of very diverse perspectives and experiences, making the data rich in information. Thirdly, the involvement in the research team of researchers at different stages of their career and of students who acted as “expert consultants” on the topic, reduces the risk of bias in the interpretation of the findings and enhances the reliability of the results. Fourthly, the examination of each theme through a dual lens (source of stress and source of support) allows for a balanced discussion and reveals the potential malleability of HE institutional arrangements in aiming to improve the students’ quality of life.
However, the study also presents specific limitations that must be considered when analyzing its results and their significance. The first one relates to the generalizability of the findings, which is limited and context-specific. As mentioned, the students were recruited from one university in the Western Region of Romania and they were all enrolled at the Social Sciences Faculty. Students from a single university may possess particular demographic, cultural, or academic traits that do not reflect the broader student population across other universities or areas. Also, the findings may not comprehensively represent students from other faculties, as their academic experiences, professional orientations, and learning settings may vary. The second one relates to the focus of the study: by concentrating specifically on the most important institutional factors that shape the students’ quality of academic life, the study inevitably leaves out other factors (psychological, family-related, social, health and life-style etc.) that work in the same direction. This approach potentially overlooks important interactions between these categories of factors.
Based on these observations, future research dedicated to this topic could benefit from: (1) integrating the bottom-up approach in the exploration of students lived experiences, in order to enhance the understanding on the mechanisms and processes at work, from within; (2) involving in the research team persons with diverse experiences, as well as students; (3) extending the investigation to include broader student populations across different programs, universities, and geographical areas; (4) dedicating a closer examination to the ways in which the administrative and organizational processes at university level specifically shape the academic experience of students leading to satisfaction/performance or disengagement/dropout; (5) examining the interactions between different categories of factors (institutional, psychological, family-related, social, health and life-style etc.) in order to better understand their joint effects on issues like: students’ quality of life, academic success, dropout; (6) using a comparative perspective in assessing the impact of small and large-scale educational policies on these issues.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
This article was elaborated under the research project “Student life at FSP. Students’ Perspective,” implemented by the Faculty of Sociology and Psychology from the West University of Timisoara, Romania. The publication fees were supported by the West University of Timisoara, Romania.
ORCID iDs
Ethical Considerations
This work was approved by the Scientific Council of the Western University of Timisoara (number of approval 26312/27.04.2023).
Consent to Participate
All participants at the study expressed their informed consent before participating in the focus-groups.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design, to the material preparation, data collection and analysis. All authors contributed all versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article was realized with the Faculty of Sociology and Psychology (West University of Timisoara) financial support.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study (transcript of the focus-groups) are available at request, in Romanian language.