WHY WELL-BEING?

Well-being—as a topic, as a need, and as a call-to-action—has increasingly been part of the conversation in higher education. Instructors have increasingly become primary contacts for students experiencing crisis, burnout, or challenges that interfere with their academic success. 

But as the Association for College and University Educators note in Creating a Culture of Caring, “We must not lose sight of faculty members’ primary responsibility to students: effective teaching that leads to meaningful learning. Faculty are experts in their disciplines and, for most, mental health is not their field. Although faculty cannot (and should not) be expected to replace the role of mental health professionals, they can take actions as helpers, not clinicians, to support struggling students” (Active Minds, 2020).  

What do we mean when we talk about “well-being,” and what are those actions faculty and GE can take “as helpers, not clinicians” that may also be compatible with their own wellbeing? The toolkit strives to address these questions by briefly synthesizing national and UO-specific data about what well-being is and why it matters, and by offering a range of strategies, pre-made tools, and draft language to support student well-being in the context of your courses. We invite you to explore these strategies and resources with your own needs in mind.

DEFINING WELL-BEING

In the book Well-Being and Higher Education, philosopher Donald Harward (2016) asks “If [well-being] is to be more than a frequent and easy figure of speech, what does well-being mean?” He notes that “there is no specific, single designation or referent for wellbeing. Rather, there is a weave of meaning" and that well-being is a construct made of multiple dimensions. The dimensions might be measurable descriptions of feelings (such as experiencing loneliness or life satisfaction) or they might be relational, pointing to how we engage with learning (such as ability uncertainty, or social support).  

We see examples of these dimensions in the Student Life Office of Assessment and Research’s “Student Well-being and Success Initiative” (SWASI) surveys, which use 10 constructs to measure the student well-being of incoming undergraduates. Their intersecting constructs include Ability Uncertainty, Belonging Uncertainty, Loneliness, Social Support, Stereotype Threat, Health, Life Satisfaction, Stress, Self-Assurance and Sadness. UO’s Duck Nest (which focuses on self-care and life-balance strategies related to stress, food security, physical health, and general wellness) talks about well-being in eight dimensions, including physical, mental, emotional, and social.  

While we are not pointing to a fixed definition of “well-being,” using these constructs offers a way of understanding the well-being of different students with greater nuance, and of identifying the types of supports that are most likely to be effective for specific groups. For the purposes of the Toolkit, we will use some of the SWASI constructs to reflect on and better support UO students. Student-facing resources linked in this toolkit reference Duck Nest dimensions of well-being, as students may already be familiar with them.

HOW WELL-BEING IMPACTS LEARNING

While instructors are not clinicians, student wellbeing impacts learning, and it supports our goals to design with it in mind.

There are many ways in which wellbeing impacts academic success in the learning spaces we've created. For example, the constructs of stereotype threat, sadness, stress, and general health have documented impact on student learning in the form of experiencing stereotype threat, having unmet basic needs such as food insecurity, and having health conditions--particularly mental health conditions--such as depression and anxiety. 

Some of these documented impacts include:

The impact of stereotype threat on test taking and retention

Stereotype threat refers to “the feeling of being at risk of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s group” and disproportionately affects Black, Asian, International students and women (Clark, 2021). Numerous studies (such as "Problems in the pipeline: Stereotype threat and women's achievement in high-level math courses") demonstrate the impact of stereotype threat on academic performance (Good et. al, 2008).

The impact of food insecurity on academic performance

A recent longitudinal study in Public Health Nutrition of undergraduates found that "food insecurity was associated (standardized β, se) with poorer psychosocial health (0·22, 0·03, P<0·0001) and poorer psychosocial health was associated with a lower GPA (-0·21, 0·03, P<0·0001). The indirect effect of food security status on GPA, as mediated by psychosocial health, was significant."

The impact of mental health conditions on academic performance

Students with depression have lower GPAs and are at higher risk of dropping out compared to peers who are not depressed (Eisenberg et. all, 2009). Research demonstrating correlation between depression and poorer academic outcomes appears particularly robust. 47% of UO students surveyed in 2021 screened positive for depression (The Healthy Minds Network, 2021).

A recent longitudinal study of behavioral and emotional health for university students noted that “socioemotional difficulties with adjustment to university life are known to predict attrition as well as academic performance.” Their research focuses on risk factors for attrition, and they find that two consistent predictors--regardless of when in their college experience students drop out--include depressive symptoms and exposure to stressful life events (Thomas et. al., 2021).

Research in the Journal of Affective Disorders examined data from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys International College Student Project and noted that “a wide range of emotional problems--not just depression – have a significant association with lower academic functioning, even after adjusting for a broad set of confounders” (Bruffaerts et all, 2018). 

WELL-BEING-RELATED EQUITY GAPS

Each one of our students has their own struggles, experiences, and successes that impact how they show up on campus. But the systems and communities we live in also spread resources, challenges, and risks unevenly in ways that intersect with students' identities. One strategy or approach is not sufficient for all students.

The data we have on students' experiences indicates equity gaps in several wellbeing domains. As instructor time is not unlimited, we may wish to focus on pedagogical interventions that may help close the wellbeing gaps for specific student populations in our courses.

For example, in our course design, we may wish to consider the wellbeing of students who*:

Experience depression and anxiety

UO's Healthy Minds Survey for Winter/Spring 2021 reported that 47% of students screened positively for depression and 41% of students screened positively for anxiety. In addition, in the past year 14% of students experienced suicidal ideation and 7% made a suicide plan. 25% of students say they are not sure where they can go to get help. 

Experience stereotype threat (disproportionately Black, Asian, International, women)

The Student Well-being and Success Initiative (Jones et al., 2019) notes that “undergraduates experiencing greater stereotype threat at matriculation are more prone to being stressed out at the end of their first year, which leads to being more prone to dropping out their second year.” However, they also note that “Importantly, social support mitigates the effect by disrupting the relationship between stereotype threat and stress.” 

Score high on "ability uncertainty" at UO

Students from lower SES backgrounds, women, International students and/or Dreamers consistently and disproportionately score higher on this construct, identifying concerns about their intellectual fit prior to entering the University (Clark, 2021).

Are nonbinary, trans, and/or queer

SWASI data shows a gap for nonbinary and queer students across every well-being construct in the survey (Clark, 2021). As the Proud and Thriving Report for 2021 notes, “Due to a climate of prejudice and discrimination, trans and non-binary students experience various individual, interpersonal, and structural risk factors that contribute to and/or exacerbate psychological distress. Cissexist stigma and the systemic reinforcement of the gender binary leave trans and non-binary youth to grapple with self-acceptance, navigate dysfunctional healthcare systems and compromised social support networks, and endure significantly higher rates of mental distress and self-injury than their cisgender peers.”  

Are food insecure

The Student Well-being and Success Initiative (Clark & Delgado, 2021) notes that “Undergraduates at the UO experience food insecurity at a higher rate than the national average. Certain populations of students are even more food insecure. As food insecurity is associated with lower wellbeing (more stressed, sadder, less satisfied with life), food security should be considered as an important aspect of student wellbeing.” 22% of students surveyed were food insecure between Spring 2020 and Spring 2021 (using the USDA's definitions of "low" and "very low" food security) and 56% of undergraduates worried about food access during the same time period.

Are disabled, chronically ill, and/or neurodivergent

A systematic review of the literature around neurodiversity and higher education summarizes this succinctly: "the literature suggests that the conditions imposed by academia can challenge neurodiverse students. Emphasis on written assessments and focus on grammar, spelling and punctuation can penalize dyslexic students (12; 20). Students with ASD struggle with traditional teaching and assessment methods (23). Students with ASD and ADHD find coping with academic demands, such as timed homework and quizzes, in-class notes and overall course load testing stressful (25; 30), despite being realistic in expecting to be challenged (27). In general, neurodiverse students report poor treatment, lack of support, inflexibility from lecturers (1; 13; 17; 25; 31) and perceptions of discrimination and judgmental attitudes when they disclose their learning difficulties (15; 25; 38). Such negative teacher attitudes are detrimental to the self-efficacy beliefs of these students (20) in need of institutional advocacy (15; 38)" (Clouder et. al, 2020).

Some of the context summarized above may show up in retention rates and GPAs for neurodivergent students. For example, in "Academic Trajectories of College Students with and without ADHD: Predictors of Four-Year Outcomes," researchers found that of the several hundred undergraduates studied, students with ADHD had both lower GPAs and lower persistence that peers who did not have ADHD (DuPaul et. al, 2021)

Academic performance occurs within learning environments we individually and collectively design for the individuals we expect to be there and the norms we hold; our individual and collective defaults are not neutral.

We can ask ourselves "whose wellbeing are we centering?" with questions like:

• What disparities in well-being do we see in our data at the institutional or departmental level?  
• What pedagogical strategies are more likely to effectively support a particular dimension of well-being? For example, if we want to counter stereotype threat in a Mathematics course, we might design in more opportunities for social support (like brief small-group check-ins) or ensure our examples and materials are inclusive to increase students' senses of belonging (see the changes Portland Community College Math faculty implemented to effectively counter stereotype threat as an illustration) 
• How might students with different identities experience well-being differently within our courses, assessments, activities, or Canvas sites? For example, what might decrease stress or increase belonging in our Canvas sites for students who have web accessibility needs? What activities might we design to social support both for students who experience less stress and more belonging during asynchronous activities and students who are experiencing loneliness and a desire for face-to-face engagement? 

We don't pose these questions to get clear answers but to make perspective shifting, informed by data, a habit. Our hope is that staying curious about the "who" will help us design for more of our students. 

We frequently do not know (or need to know) the details of students' intersecting identities and experiences. These questions are ones to apply as we design for a full class with the assumption that all identities and experiences are present. 

Additionally, the question of "whose well-being" extends to faculty, GEs, and staff.   

Inside Higher Ed reported that “many faculty members report suffering from some of the same health challenges their students do: nearly 30 percent of surveyed professors report having two or more symptoms of depression. Two in 10 professors agree that supporting students in mental or emotional distress has taken a toll on their own mental health. About half believe that their institutions should do more to support the psychological well-being of the faculty" (Flaherty, 2021).  

All the ways in which our students' well-being is challenged by our societal and institutional histories and present also overlap or have correlations for instructors. For example, faculty who identify as female, queer, trans, and/or gender nonbinary are more likely to have had one-on-one conversations with students in crisis (Flaherty, 2021). The labor of contributing to a "culture of caring" (as Active Minds puts it) is significant, and it is not yet evenly shared.  

Back to Top