Search results

Transitions to and within university studies can be associated with heightened distress in students. This study focusses on the less studied transition from a bachelor’s to a master’s degree. During a master’s degree, study requirements and autonomy increase compared to bachelor’s studies. The present study examines how students’ experiences of study-related burnout, their approaches to learning and their experiences of the teaching and learning environment (TLE) change during this transition. Moreover, the study examines how approaches to learning and the TLE can affect study-related burnout.

Questionnaire data were collected from 335 university students across two timepoints (bachelor’s degree graduation and the second term of their master’s degree).

The results show that students’ overall experience of study-related burnout increases, as does their unreflective learning, characterised by struggling with a fragmented knowledge base. Interestingly, students’ experiences of the TLE seem to have an effect on study-related burnout in both master’s and bachelor’s degree programmes, irrespective of learning approaches. These effects are also dependent on the degree of context.

The study implies that students’ experiences of study-related burnout could be mitigated by developing TLE factors during both bachelor’s and master’s degree programmes. Practical implications are considered for degree programme development, higher education learning environments and student support.

Karin Aronsson is a professor at the Department of Child and Youth Studies, Stockholm University, and before that at Linköping University (1988–2008). Her work focuses on how talk is used to build social organization, with a particular focus on children's peer groups, institutional encounters, and identity-in-interaction. Other research interests include children's play, informal learning, and bilingual conversations. She publishes internationally, and her most recent papers appeared in Language in Society and Discourse & Society. A recent book is: Hedegaard, M., Aronsson, K., Højholt, C., & Skjær Ulvik, O. (Eds.). Children, childhood and everyday life: Children's perspectives. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Disputes in everyday life – Social and moral orders of children and young people has papers written by researchers whose interests lie in studying children's everyday interactions, with a balance of papers from emerging and well-established researchers in this field. The volume draws on scholarship from Australia, England, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, United States of America (USA), and Wales, investigating everyday practices of children's disputes in Australia, England, Italy, Sweden, USA, and Wales. The papers themselves speak to the theme of the volume, so we only briefly summarize their contents.

An employee engagement/disengagement typology is presented to visually illustrate their possible constructive and destructive effects within the workplace, and identify some of the contextual drivers that may lead to these occurrences.

A narrative literature review was conducted during 2020–2023 to gain a comprehensive overview of employee engagement and disengagement processes and theories since 1990. Content analysis enabled the findings to be grouped into their destructive and constructive behavioural effects to produce a new typology.

The typology shows that not all employee engagement is constructive and that not all disengagement is destructive. This more accurately reflects organisational life. Destructive employee engagement in particular, demonstrates that there can be “too-much-of-a-good-thing”.

The typology may help inform future research designs to further understand the impact of contextual factors on both constructs, the pluralist interests involved and which interventions are likely to encourage constructive engagement and disengagement within specific contexts.

It is recommended that employee engagement and disengagement are incorporated into leadership and management training and that practices to foster constructive employee engagement (or permit temporary constructive disengagement to allow recovery) endorse the principles of mutuality and reciprocity. Interventions to prevent destructive employee engagement and disengagement are also advisable, particularly when there are adverse internal and external contextual issues which risk disengagement.

The typology is the first to classify engaged and disengaged behaviours within the workplace across two dimensions. In doing so, this helps to evaluate employee engagement and disengagement theory by challenging the normative assumptions held within these constructs. This categorisation more accurately represents both constructs and visually illustrates that within the workplace, not only is employee engagement sometimes destructive but also that sometimes disengagement is constructive. Furthermore, it demonstrates that purposive destructive employee disengagement responses may be passive or active.