Rethinking Learning Experience: How Generally Perceived Life Stress Influences Students' Course Perceptions in Different Learning Environments

Abstract

Previous research work has already demonstrated that both the form of teaching as well as different teaching methods directly influence students' learning experience along with their psychobiological responses at the endocrine and autonomic level. Aiming to gain deeper insights into the constitution of the learning experience, this study examined the influence of external factors such as generally perceived life stress and self-efficacy on the immediate learning experience in different learning environments. Therefore, a randomized experimental field study was conducted in which both psychological constructs and physiological data (heart rate variability) were collected from healthy first-year medical students (n = 101) during the COVID-19 pandemic. In an effort to determine the consistency of the effects across various teaching formats, the same content of a practical histology course was carried out in a face-to-face setting as well as in passive and active online teaching. While self-efficacy was a strong predictor for positive course perceptions in all learning conditions (Pearson's r = 0.41-0.58), generally perceived worries correlated with higher anxiety during passive online learning and face-to-face learning (Pearson's r = 0.21-0.44), a finding supported by the negative correlation between the level of perceived life demands and enjoyment during the learning unit (Pearson's r = -0.40--0.43). Here, we additionally report initial evidence pointing towards the role of reduced general life stress as a resilience factor for the expression of physiological stress parameters in an academic context (small-sized effect; Pearson's r = 0.18). The data gathered in this study illustrate the relevance of emerging emotional manifestations-either aversive; negative effect or positive; protective effect-for the immediate learning process and thus establish a connection between medical education and the importance of mental health and wellbeing-especially discussed against the background of current social and political challenges in increasingly complex societal structures.

Keywords: digital learning environments; medical education; stress and learning.

Figure 1

Passive online learning; a correlation matrix displaying bivariate scatter plots of the adjacent factors below the diagonal, histograms of the data distribution of the respective factors on the diagonal and the Pearson correlation above the diagonal. Ellipses specify the direction of the correlation; confidence intervals are displayed in gray. The information on the relation between two selected variables is always at right angles to each other. SIAS: Social Interaction Anxiety Scale. Ellipses indicate the direction of the correlation; confidence intervals are highlighted in gray. Asterisks indicate: * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001.

Figure 2

Interactive online learning; a correlation matrix displaying bivariate scatter plots of the adjacent factors below the diagonal, histograms of the data distribution of the respective factors on the diagonal and the Pearson correlation above the diagonal. Ellipses specify the direction of the correlation; confidence intervals are displayed in gray. The information on the relation between two selected variables is always at right angles to each other. SIAS: Social Interaction Anxiety Scale. Ellipses indicate the direction of the correlation; confidence intervals are highlighted in gray. Asterisks indicate: * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01.

Figure 3

Face-to-face learning; a correlation matrix displaying bivariate scatter plots of the adjacent factors below the diagonal, histograms of the data distribution of the respective factors on the diagonal, and the Pearson correlation above the diagonal. Ellipses specify the direction of the correlation; confidence intervals are displayed in gray. The information on the relation between two selected variables is always at right angles to each other. SIAS: Social Interaction Anxiety Scale. Ellipses indicate the direction of the correlation; confidence intervals are highlighted in gray. Asterisks indicate: * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001.

Figure 4

Visualization of the correlation analysis between general joy of life and heart rate during course participation (n = 95). The respective data distribution is visualized by bar charts. The blue line represents the line of best fit. The 95% confidence interval is highlighted in grey.

Figure 5

Visualization of the correlation analysis between general joy of life and the standard deviation of all RR intervals (SDNN) as a parasympathetic marker during course participation (n = 95). The blue line represents the line of best fit. The 95% confidence interval is highlighted in grey.