Academic stress and burnout among distance education students in a Ghanaian higher education institution

Abstract

In the field of modern education, the meteoric rise in distance learning in higher education has brought unprecedented convenience and accessibility. Yet, beneath the surface of this educational revolution lies the issues of academic stress and burnout among students, particularly distance education students. Therefore, this study examined academic stress and burnout among distance education students at the University of Education, Winneba, Cape Coast Study Center. A quantitative approach was adopted in this study, employing a descriptive cross-sectional survey design. In total, 231 students were selected for this study. The Academic Stress Inventory and Academic Burnout Inventory were adapted as the data collection instruments for this study. Descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages) and inferential statistics (Two-way MANOVA) were used to analyse the data. This study revealed that distance education students had moderate levels of academic stress and burnout. Additionally, there were no significant gender differences in academic stress and burnout. Conversely, the study discovered significant differences in academic stress, personal burnout, and studies-related burnout based on programme of study. In addition, it was revealed that the interaction effect of gender and programme of study had no significant influence on distance education students’ academic stress and burnout. Consequently, it was recommended that educational institutions should consider creating support programmes tailored specifically for distance education students. These programmes can offer guidance on stress management techniques, time management skills, and resources to help students cope with the demands of their programme.

Keywords:

• Academic burnout
• academic stress
• distance education
• face-to-face interaction
• personal burnout
• studies-related burnout

Reviewing Editor:

• Stephen Darwin, Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile

Subjects:

• Higher Education
• Study of Higher Education
• Teaching & Learning
• Teachers & Teacher Education
• Open & Distance Education and eLearning
• Education - Social Sciences

Introduction

The landscape of higher education has undergone a significant transformation in recent years, with the advent of distance education emerging as a prominent alternative to traditional classroom-based learning (Xiao, 2018). Distance education, as defined by Amundsen (2005), refers to an educational platform in which educational materials are sent to learners who are physically separated, often by both space and time. The practical implementation of distance education varies across nations. In more developed countries, distance education is commonly identified through online interactions and learning, and is characterised by the absence of in-person engagement between teachers and students (Sumaila et al., 2020).

In Ghana, distance education diverges from the conventional model; it incorporates limited online interaction and instruction, coupled with substantial face-to-face engagement during specified times and days (Segbenya & Anokye, 2023; Sumaila et al., 2020). The operational method involves conducting in-person classes, referred to as face-to-face sessions, exclusively on weekends (specifically, Saturdays and Sundays), utilising diverse classroom facilities in senior high schools, colleges, and universities as satellite campuses or study centers (Segbenya & Anokye, 2023). Students receive course content, termed modules, in advance, allowing them to study before participating in face-to-face sessions with their tutors on the weekends.

Distance education students in Ghana, predominantly adults who are married and parents, face significant time constraints due to their various roles and responsibilities (Mends-Brew & Asabere, 2016). The multitude of obligations encompassing psychological, socio-religious, and financial/economic aspects has the potential to present challenges for these students (Dankyi et al., 2022; Siabi-Mensah et al., 2009). Juggling with the demands of personal life, academic pursuits, and employment could create difficulties in achieving a harmonious balance. The inability to address the requirements of these three facets (life, education, and work) may lead to conflicts between work and personal life among distance learners, ultimately contributing to elevated stress and burnout levels and impacting academic performance (Segbenya & Peniana, 2021).

Academic stress refers to psychological and emotional strain resulting from the demands of academic responsibilities (Berdida & Grande, 2023; Tharaldsen et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023). Burnout is a state of chronic physical and emotional exhaustion, often accompanied by feelings of cynicism and detachment from academic pursuits (Ghods et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2023). Burnout is also characterised as a psychological condition that arises in response to persistent emotional and interpersonal stressors in the workplace. It comprises three key components: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment (Maslach et al., 2001). Emotional exhaustion entails the depletion of emotional reserves, resulting in the feeling of being emotionally overextended, exhausted, and drained. Depersonalisation, often characterised by cynicism, involves the harboring of negative attitudes toward others, such as colleagues, patients, or clients. Reduced personal accomplishment refers to a decline in satisfaction, diminished sense of competence, and successful achievement (Koutsimani et al., 2019). Meanwhile, the onset of burnout in students is closely linked to prolonged and excessive stress arising from a combination of mounting academic work, scholastic demands, depleted energy levels, diminished enthusiasm for academic tasks, lack of positive attitudes, and lower academic achievement (Charkhabi et al., 2013; Rahmati, 2015).

In Ghana, where distance education is predominantly characterised by face-to-face interactions (Segbenya & Anokye, 2023), the levels of academic stress and burnout among distance education students are likely influenced by the unique dynamics of this educational model. Despite the classification as distance education, the emphasis on face-to-face components introduces a distinctive set of challenges for students (Dankyi et al., 2022; Sumaila et al., 2020). The hybrid nature of the programme, blending traditional classroom settings with remote learning, may result in a complex balance for students as they navigate between physical attendance in lectures and the independent demands of distance education. This duality could contribute to the observed levels of academic stress and burnout as students contend with the expectations and pressures associated with both modes of instruction. Given the unique nature of distance education, which requires students to navigate self-directed learning, utilise online resources, and manage competing responsibilities, it is imperative to investigate academic stress and burnout among distance education students in Ghana, particularly in higher education.

Although there is a wealth of research on this subject worldwide, the inconsistent results highlight the necessity for additional inquiry, especially considering the limited number of studies (e.g. Amponsah, 2019; Kwaah & Essilfie, 2017) conducted on this matter in Ghana. This study contributes to the literature on academic stress and burnout among distance education students. First, it examines the levels of academic stress and burnout among distance education students in the Cape Coast of the Central Region of Ghana. Additionally, the current study investigated the interaction effect of distance education students’ gender and programme of study on their academic stress and burnout.

Empirical studies

A plethora of studies (e.g. Alkhawaldeh et al., 2023; Amponsah, 2019; Barbayannis et al., 2022; Garcia-Martinez et al., 2023; Kwaah & Essilfie, 2017; Radwan et al., 2021) have explored academic stress among students. Some of these studies focused on perceived stress (e.g. Radwan et al., 2021) and academic stress (e.g. Alkhawaldeh et al., 2023; Garcia-Martinez et al., 2023) among university students. However, with a few exceptions that concentrate on distance education students (e.g. Kwaah & Essilfie, 2017; Radwan et al., 2021), it appears that the majority of these studies (e.g. Alkhawaldeh et al., 2023; Amponsah, 2019; Barbayannis et al., 2022) centered on university and college students rather than distance education students. For example, Kwaah and Essilfie (2017) examined the stress and coping strategies of distance education students at the University of Cape Coast, while Radwan et al. (2021) investigated perceived stress among distance learning students in Gaza.

Other studies have explored academic burnout among university students (e.g. Andrade et al., 2023; Fynn, 2022; Ghods et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2023; Toubasi et al., 2023; Tran et al., 2023). These studies have focused on diverse student populations in higher education. For instance, Ghods et al. concentrated on undergraduate nursing students in Iran, Tran et al. investigated academic burnout among general university students, and Toubasi et al. explored burnout specifically among university students engaged in distance learning. Moreover, the findings on academic burnout have been inconclusive; some studies (e.g. Andrade et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2023; Ghods et al., 2023; Tran et al., 2023) have revealed high burnout levels, while others have reported low burnout (Fynn, 2022; Toubasi et al., 2023).

Regarding differences in academic stress and burnout based on gender, Amponsah (2019) found no significant differences in university students’ stress based on gender. In contrast, Jordan et al. (2020) observed that female medical students experienced higher stress than their male counterparts did. Currently, there is no consensus in the literature regarding the sex differences linked to burnout (Andrade et al., 2023). However, in China, Liu et al. (2023) revealed that males had higher burnout than females. Contrary to the findings of Liu et al., Rusandi et al. (2022) found that female students experienced higher burnout than male students. These findings confirm that there is no consensus regarding gender variation in students’ academic burnout. Additionally, it appears that these studies have not focused on the interaction effect of gender and the programme of study on distance education students’ academic stress and burnout, creating a gap in the literature that the current study intends to fill.

Purpose of the study

The main purpose of the study was to examine academic stress and burnout among distance education students in Cape Coast Study centre of the University of Education, Winneba. Specifically, the study sought to:

1. determine the levels of academic stress among distance education students in the selected study centre.

2. examine the levels of academic burnout among distance education students in the selected study centre.

3. ascertain whether there are any statistically significant differences in academic stress and burnout of distance education students based on their gender and programme of study.

Materials and methods

Research design

This study employed a descriptive cross-sectional survey design. The design was utilised to examine academic stress and burnout among distance education students at the University of Education, Winneba, Cape Coast Study Centre. The use of a cross-sectional survey design was warranted as the study refrained from manipulating variables instead of assessing the prevailing situation of academic stress and burnout (Saunders et al., 2019; Yidana et al., 2022; Yidana & Arthur, 2023). For example, Saunders et al. asserted that a cross-sectional survey is appropriate when the researcher does not intend to manipulate the study variables.

Population and sampling

The study population comprised all Distance Education students from the University of Education, Winneba, Cape Coast Study Center. The total population consists of students pursuing different programmes in education in diploma, degree, and post graduate diploma in education (PGDE). The census method was utilised to involve all 312 students in the study. Ogah (2013) suggested that, in cases of a relatively small population size, it is advisable to collect data from every individual within the population. In addition, Field (2018) pointed out that a larger sample size corresponds to enhanced predictive accuracy.

Measures

The study adapted two key measures to assess distance education students’ academic stress and burnout: an academic stress inventory consisting of 10 items (Arip et al., 2015) and the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory student version, a comprehensive instrument with 25 items encompassing dimensions such as personal burnout, studies-related burnout, colleague-related burnout, and instructor-related burnout (Kristensen et al., 2005). Utilising a five-point Likert scale, participants were asked to rate their responses on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always), providing a nuanced evaluation of the frequency with which they experienced academic stress and burnout across various domains.

Validation of measures

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the two measures, namely the Academic Stress Inventory and Academic Burnout Inventory, using Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS). In this context, Samuels (2017) and Smith and Zelkowski (2023) recommend employing Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to validate the factors once again, given the modifications made to certain items on the instruments. The validation process considered various fit indices, including Chi-square (${\chi }^2$), standardized root mean residual (SRMR), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), and comparative fit index (CFI).

Academic stress inventory (ASI)

The factor loadings for academic stress construct ranged from .357 to .669 (see Table 2), which met the recommended threshold of .30 (Pallant, 2020), and all the regression estimates were significant (p < .001) [Awang, 2015; Hair et al., 2010]. Cronbach’s alpha (α = .785), composite reliability (CR = .785) and MacDonald omega (ω = .789) are above the acceptable threshold of .60 or .70 (Ab Hamid et al., 2017; Awang, 2015). These results provide adequate evidence of the internal consistency of the academic stress construct. The average variance extracted (AVE = .320) is below the recommended threshold of .50 (Kline, 2015). However, the CR value is above .60, which, according to Fornell and Larcker (1981), indicates that the convergent validity of the construct is adequate. Hence, convergent validity of the construct was achieved. In addition, the goodness-of-fit indices serve to determine the viability of an exact fit (non-significant ${\mathrm{\chi }}^2$) or an approximate fit (SRMR ≤ 0.08) (Asparouhov & Muthen, 2018). From Table 1, all indices indicate that the ASI demonstrates an approximate fit (SRMR ≤ 0.08). Figure 1 shows the CFA model of academic stress.

Figure 1. CFA model for academic stress.

Table 1. Goodness of fit indices for Academic Stress Inventory (ASI) and Academic Burnout Inventory (ABI).

	ASI	ABI
Fit Indices	Estimates	Estimates	Threshold	References
${\chi }^2$	39.877 (p = .005)	289.114 (p < .001)	> .05	Hair et al. (2019)
CMIN/DF	1.994	1.980	$\le$ 2 or 3	Schreiber et al. (2006)
CFI	.946	.923	$\ge .$90	Kline (2013)
NFI	.900	.857	$\ge .$90	Kline (2013)
IFI	.947	.924	$\ge .$90	Kline (2013)
TLI	.925	.910	$\ge .$90	Kline (2013)
RMSEA	.066	.065	$\le .$08	Schreiber et al. (2006)
SRMR	.045	.050	$\le .$08	Kline (2016)
GFI	.961	.888	$\ge .$90	Kline (2013)
AGFI	.929	.854	$\ge .$90	Kline (2013)

Note: ${\chi }^2$ = Chi-square; CMIN/DF: Ratio of ${\chi }^2$to df; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; NFI = Normed Fit Index; IFI = Incremental Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardised Root Mean Residual; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; AGFI = Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index.

Table 2. Item loadings, AVE, composite reliability, Cronbach alpha and MacDonald omega for ASI and ABI.

Factors/Constructs	Items	No. of Items	Factor Loading	AVE	CR	Cronbach alpha (α)	McDonald’s ω
Academic Stress	AS2	8	.357***	.320	.785	.785	.789
	AS3		.560***
	AS4		.542***
	AS5		.630***
	AS6		.469***
	AS7		.617***
	AS8		.669***
	AS9		.616***
Academic Burnout
PB	PB2	4	.401***	.291	.616	.618	.627
	PB3		.529***
	PB5		.602***
	PB6		.601***
SRB	SRB1	6	.391***	.317	.729	.724	.726
	SRB2		.552***
	SRB3		.463***
	SRB5		.568***
	SRB6		.712***
	SRB7		.632***
CRB	CRB1	4	.738***	.528	.816	.813	.816
	CRB2		.770***
	CRB4		.616***
	CRB5		.772***
IRB	IRB1	5	.689***	.616	.889	.888	.889
	IRB2		.770***
	IRB3		.794***
	IRB4		.813***
	IRB5		.849***
Overall ABI		19		–	–	.917	.921

Note: AS = Academic Stress; PB = Personal Burnout; SRB = Studies-Related Burnout; CRB = Colleague-Related Burnout; and IRB = Instructor-Related Burnout.

*** p < .001.

Academic burnout inventory (ABI)

In Table 2, all the factor loadings for the dimensions of academic burnout (.391 to .849) are within the suggested threshold of .30 (Pallant, 2020). In addition, the Cronbach’s α (${\alpha }_{\mathit{\text{PB}}}$ = .618, ${\alpha }_{\mathit{\text{SRB}}}$ = .724, ${\alpha }_{\mathit{\text{CRB}}}$ = .813, ${\alpha }_{\mathit{\text{IRB}}}$ = .888), composite reliability (${\mathit{\text{CR}}}_{\mathit{\text{PB}}}$ = .616, ${\mathit{\text{CR}}}_{\mathit{\text{SRB}}}$ = .729, ${\mathit{\text{CR}}}_{\mathit{\text{CRB}}}$ = .816, ${\mathit{\text{CR}}}_{\mathit{\text{IRB}}}$ = .889) and MacDonald omega (${\omega }_{\mathit{\text{PB}}}$ = .627, ${\omega }_{\mathit{\text{SRB}}}$ = .726, ${\omega }_{\mathit{\text{CRB}}}$ = .816, ${\omega }_{\mathit{\text{IRB}}}$ = .889) for the burnout dimensions were within the recommended threshold of .60 or .70 (Awang, 2015). Moreover, except for the AVEs for PB and SRB constructs (see Table 2), the rest of the AVE values (${\mathit{\text{AVE}}}_{\mathit{\text{CRB}}}$ = .528, ${\mathit{\text{AVE}}}_{\mathit{\text{IRB}}}$ = .616) were above the threshold of .50 (Hair et al., 2019). Furthermore, in Table 1, all model fit indices reveal that ABI exhibits an approximate fit (SRMR ≤ 0.08). Figure 2 depicts the CFA model of academic burnout.

Figure 2. Four-factor academic burnout CFA model.

Table 1 shows the goodness of fit indices for academic stress inventory and academic burnout inventory.

Table 2 presents the item loadings, CR, Cronbach α, AVE, and MacDonald ω for academic stress and burnout dimensions.

Procedure for data collection

The researchers enlisted the services of three research assistants for the duration of the study. These assistants received comprehensive briefings covering all aspects of the instrument and research ethics. Each assistant was assigned to a specific programme of study group and visited the study center to administer the instrument. Distance education students were allocated a time frame of 30 to 35 minutes to respond to the items on the questionnaire. Subsequently, the collected filled questionnaires underwent a rapid review for completeness. In total, the research assistants gathered 231 completed questionnaires out of the 312 administered to the participating students. As a result, the return rate was calculated at 74.04%.

Data processing and analysis

The information underwent screening to detect and exclude incomplete or invalid questionnaires. Subsequently, the data underwent coding and entry into Statistical Product for Service Solution (SPSS) version 28 to facilitate data processing. Descriptive statistics (frequency and percentage) were used to analyse research questions one and two. Additionally, multivariate analysis of variance (Two-way MANOVA) was utilised to analyse the last research question.

Ethical considerations

In this study, ethical considerations formed a critical aspect, particularly in relation to maintaining confidentiality and anonymity. Ensuring the privacy and protection of participants’ identities is paramount, reflecting their commitment to ethical research practices (Akuffo, 2023; Joseph, 2023; Turcotte-Tremblay & Mc Sween-Cadieux, 2018). Additionally, obtaining informed consent is a key ethical obligation, emphasising the need to inform participants about the study’s purpose, procedures, and potential risks before their involvement (Joseph, 2023; Konken & Howlett, 2023). These ethical principles collectively contribute to the responsible and respectful conduct of research involving distance education students, fostering trust and upholding the integrity of the study. Participants signed an informed consent form and voluntarily agreed to participate in the study after being fully informed about its content and goals. Participation in this study was not obligatory.

Results

This section presents the results of the study concerning the demographic characteristics of students and the research objectives posed to guide the study.

Demographic characteristics of students

This section focuses on the demographic profile of students based on their gender and programme of study. Figure 3 shows that more than half (n = 129, 56.0%) of the distance education students were female, while 102 (44.0%) were male. In addition, from Figure 4, the majority (n = 159, 68.8%) of the students were pursuing degree programme; however, a minority (n = 31, 13.4) of the students were reading PGDE programme.

Figure 3. Gender of DES.

Figure 4. Programme of study of DES.

Note: DES = distance education students; PGDE = post graduate diploma in education.

Academic stress among distance education students

The academic stress experienced by distance education students was also examined. The questionnaire was 5-point; thus, never = 1, rarely = 2, sometimes = 3, frequently = 4, and always = 5. The items were transformed, and low, moderate, high, and very high levels were computed using frequencies and percentages against the score ranges of 8–16, 17–24, 25–32, and 33–40. Table 3 shows the levels of academic stress among distance education students.

Table 3. Levels of academic stress among distance education students (n = 231).

Academic Stress (AS) Level	Score Range	Frequency (N)	Percentage (%)
Low	8–16	45	19.5
Moderate	17–24	104	45.0
High	25–32	72	31.2
Very High	33–40	10	4.3
Total		231	100.0

In Table 3, the majority of students (n = 104, 45.0%; range = 17–24) exhibited a moderate level of academic stress, while 72 (31.2%; range = 25–32) demonstrated a high level of academic stress. These results showed that most distance education students had moderate level of academic stress.

Academic burnout among distance education students

This research objective examined academic burnout among distance education students. The questionnaire was 5-point; therefore, 'never’ was assigned 1, 'rarely’ 2, 'sometimes’ 3, 'frequently’ 4, and 'always’ 5. The items were then modified, and subsequently, low, moderate, high, and very high levels were computed using frequencies and percentages against score ranges of 19–38, 39–57, 58–76, and 77–95 for overall academic burnout. Table 4 displays the level of academic burnout among distance education students.

Table 4. Levels of academic burnout among distance education students (n = 231).

Levels	Score Range	Frequency	Percentage
Personal Burnout
Low	4–8	21	9.1
Moderate	9–12	117	50.6
High	13–16	85	36.8
Very High	17–20	8	3.5
Studies Related Burnout
Low	6–12	48	20.8
Moderate	13–18	113	48.9
High	19–24	62	26.8
Very High	25–30	8	3.5
Classmate/Colleague-Related Burnout
Low	4–8	116	50.2
Moderate	9–12	55	23.8
High	13–16	53	22.9
Very High	17–20	7	3.0
Instructor-Related Burnout
Low	5–10	101	43.7
Moderate	11–15	71	30.7
High	16–20	47	20.3
Very High	21–25	12	5.2
Total Academic Burnout
Low	19–38	55	23.8
Moderate	39–57	112	48.5
High	58–76	56	24.2
Very High	77–95	8	3.5

Table 4 reveals that the majority of students had a moderate level of academic burnout (n = 112, 48.5%; range = 39–57), while the minority had a very high level of academic burnout (n = 8, 3.5%, range = 77–95). Specifically, more than half (n = 117, 50.6%, range = 9–12) of the students exhibited a moderate level of personal burnout. The majority (n = 113, 48.9%, range = 13–18) of the students had a moderate level of studies-related burnout. Finally, the majority of students had low levels of colleague-related burnout (n = 116, 50.2%, range = 4–8) and instructor-related burnout (n = 101, 43.7%, range = 5–10).

Differences in distance education students’ academic stress and academic burnout based on gender and programme of study

This research objective determined the differences in distance education students’ academic stress and burnout based on their gender and programme of study. After establishing the correlation between the dependent variables (AS, PB, SRB, CRB, and IRB), we performed a MANOVA test. This was a crucial step given that MANOVA is particularly advantageous when dependent variables are correlated, as elucidated by Tabachnick and Fidell (2019). Table 5 presents the correlation findings for the dependent variables.

Table 5. Correlation matrix for the dependent variables.

Constructs	AS	PB	SRB	CRB	IRB
AS	1
PB	.418**	1
SRB	.454**	.545**	1
CRB	.437**	.501**	.661**	1
IRB	.417**	.538**	.679**	.789**	1

** Correlation is significant at .01 level (2-tailed).

The significant correlations among the dependent variables are presented in Table 5. Consequently, MANOVA was employed to investigate variations in academic stress and burnout levels, with a focus on gender and programme of study. The MANOVA results are detailed in Table 6.

Table 6. Differences in distance education students’ academic stress and academic burnout based on gender and programme of study.

Effect		Value	F	Hypothesis df	Error df	Sig	Partial Eta Squared (${\eta }_p^2)$
G	Pillai’s Trace	.019	.844	5.000	221.000	.520	.019
	Wilks’ Lambda	.981	.844	5.000	221.000	.520	.019
	Hotelling’s Trace	.019	.844	5.000	221.000	.520	.019
	Roy’s Largest Root	.019	.844	5.000	221.000	.520	.019
P	Pillai’s Trace	.090	2.086	10.000	444.000	.024	.045
	Wilks’ Lambda	.911	2.117	10.000	442.000	.022	.046
	Hotelling’s Trace	.098	2.148	10.000	440.000	.020	.047
	Roy’s Largest Root	.093	4.118	5.000	222.000	.001	.085
G * P	Pillai’s Trace	.050	1.139	10.000	444.000	.331	.025
	Wilks’ Lambda	.950	1.142	10.000	442.000	.329	.025
	Hotelling’s Trace	.052	1.146	10.000	440.000	.326	.025
	Roy’s Largest Root	.046	2.055	5.000	222.000	.072	.044

The examination of the homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices was carried out through Box’s M test (Friendly & Sigal, 2018; Huang, 2020; Smith et al., 2020). The test results revealed no statistically significant differences (M = 104.614, F [75, 2712.568] = 1.166, p = .158), affirming the fulfillment of the assumption concerning variance-covariance matrices. Subsequently, the Wilk’s Lambda (${\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\mathrm{W}}$) test was applied to assess statistical significance. In Table 6, the results reveal that there are no significant differences in academic stress and burnout based on gender. However, significant differences were observed in students’ academic stress and burnout based on their programme of study, F (10, 442.000) = 2.117, p = .022; ${\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\mathrm{W}}$ = .911, ${\eta }_p^2\mathrm{ }$= .046. Moreover, the results indicated that the interaction of gender and programme of study had no significant influence on academic stress and burnout. This suggests that there were no significant variations in academic stress and burnout based on gender and programme of study. The univariate outcomes are detailed in Table 7.

Table 7. Tests of between-subjects effects.

Source	Dependent Variable	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig	Partial Eta Squared
Corrected Model	AS	9.236	5	1.847	3.587	.004	.074
	PB	5.221	5	1.044	2.526	.030	.053
	SRB	9.221	5	1.844	3.172	.009	.066
	CRB	4.802	5	.960	.916	.471	.020
	IRB	4.126	5	.825	.743	.592	.016
Intercept	AS	749.369	1	749.369	1455.351	.000	.866
	PB	921.834	1	921.834	2229.932	.000	.908
	SRB	740.857	1	740.857	1274.154	.000	.850
	CRB	558.782	1	558.782	533.172	.000	.703
	IRB	557.781	1	557.781	501.947	.000	.690
Programme of Study	AS	6.401	2	3.201	6.216	.002	.052
	PB	4.866	2	2.433	5.886	.003	.050
	SRB	6.049	2	3.025	5.202	.006	.044
	CRB	3.063	2	1.531	1.461	.234	.013
	IRB	3.663	2	1.832	1.648	.195	.014
Error	AS	115.854	225	.515
	PB	93.013	225	.413
	SRB	130.826	225	.581
	CRB	235.807	225	1.048
	IRB	250.028	225	1.111
Total	AS	1898.250	231
	PB	2202.813	231
	SRB	1890.194	231
	CRB	1544.188	231
	IRB	1558.920	231
Corrected Total	AS	125.090	230
	PB	98.234	230
	SRB	140.047	230
	CRB	240.609	230
	IRB	254.154	230

Bonferroni Adjustment at p < .01 (0.05/5).

In Table 7, the results indicate that there were significant differences in distance education students’ academic stress (F[2, 225] = 6.216, p = .002 < .025; ${\eta }_p^2$ = .052), personal burnout (F[2, 225] = 5.886, p = .003 < .025; ${\eta }_p^2$ = .050), and studies-related burnout (F[2, 225] = 5.202, p = .006 < .025; ${\eta }_p^2$ = .044) based on their programme of study. However, no significant variations were observed in colleague-related burnout and instructor-related burnout based on programme of study. Table 8 shows the multiple comparison results.

Table 8. Multiple comparison.

Dependent Variable	(I) P	(J) P	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig	95% Confidence Interval
						Lower Bound	Upper Bound
AS	Diploma	Degree	−.4664*	.12569	.001	−.7629	−.1698
		PGDE	−.3284	.17079	.135	−.7313	.0746
	Degree	Diploma	.4664*	.12569	.001	.1698	.7629
		PGDE	.1380	.14088	.591	−.1944	.4704
	PGDE	Diploma	.3284	.17079	.135	−.0746	.7313
		Degree	−.1380	.14088	.591	−.4704	.1944
PB	Diploma	Degree	−.3450*	.11262	.007	−.6107	−.0793
		PGDE	−.4579*	.15303	.009	−.8190	−.0969
	Degree	Diploma	.3450*	.11262	.007	.0793	.6107
		PGDE	−.1130	.12623	.644	−.4108	.1849
	PGDE	Diploma	.4579*	.15303	.009	.0969	.8190
		Degree	.1130	.12623	.644	−.1849	.4108
SRB	Diploma	Degree	−.4882*	.13356	.001	−.8033	−.1731
		PGDE	−.4380*	.18149	.044	−.8662	−.0098
	Degree	Diploma	.4882*	.13356	.001	.1731	.8033
		PGDE	.0502	.14971	.940	−.3030	.4034
	PGDE	Diploma	.4380*	.18149	.044	.0098	.8662
		Degree	−.0502	.14971	.940	−.4034	.3030
		Degree	.0084	.20697	.999	−.4799	.4967

Bonferroni Adjustment at p < .01 (0.05/5).

Table 8 reveals that Turkey’s HSD post-hoc test identifies statistically significant distinctions in academic stress among distance education students reading ‘Degree’ and ‘Diploma’ programmes. Additionally, a significant difference was observed in personal burnout between those enrolled in ‘Degree’ and ‘Diploma’ programmes. Furthermore, a significant variation was found in personal burnout between Diploma and PGDE students. In terms of studies-related burnout, significant differences were identified between ‘Diploma’ and ‘Degree’ students, as well as ‘Diploma’ and ‘PGDE’ students.

Discussion

In contemporary education, the remarkable surge in distance learning has introduced unparalleled convenience and accessibility. However, challenges such as academic stress and burnout among distance education students have emerged beneath the veneer of this educational transformation. This research explored academic stress and burnout among distance education students in Ghana. The first research objective was to examine the levels of academic stress among distance education students. The findings of this study revealed that the majority of distance education students had moderate levels of academic stress. This could imply that students encounter a reasonable degree of challenges and pressures, possibly associated with academic workload, deadlines, or examinations, but manage to cope without succumbing to excessive stress (Fernandez 2023). Distance education often introduces unique challenges that contribute to stress, such as the need for self-discipline, effective time management, and a heightened sense of responsibility for learning. Additionally, the flexibility afforded by distance education, while advantageous, can be a double-edged sword. While students appreciate the ability to tailor their learning schedules to accommodate personal and professional commitments, blurred boundaries between academic and personal life may result in a constant juggling act. Meeting assignment deadlines, participating in virtual discussions, and managing competing priorities can create a significant workload, leading to a moderate level of stress among distance education students.

The findings of the current study contradict those of certain studies (e.g. Alkhawaldeh et al., 2023; Amponsah, 2019) that found high levels of stress among university students. Conversely, Radwan et al. (2021) discovered moderate to high levels of perceived stress among primary and secondary school students. There are several reasons for the disparities in the results regarding academic stress among distance education students compared to other studies (e.g. Alkhawaldeh et al., 2023; Amponsah, 2019). The sample population in the current study may differ significantly from that in the studies conducted by Alkhawaldeh et al. (2023), Amponsah (2019) and Radwan et al. (2021). Factors, such as age, academic level, cultural background, and geographical location, can influence stress levels. The studies mentioned might focus on different educational levels (e.g. university students and primary and secondary school students). Academic stress can vary based on academic rigor, expectations, and responsibilities associated with each educational level. Moreover, the educational systems and structures in different regions or countries can contribute to variations in stress levels. For instance, primary and secondary school environments may have different stressors than higher education settings.

In addition, the findings indicated that distance education students had a moderate level of academic burnout. This implies that, on average, students grapple with a discernible degree of exhaustion or fatigue in their academic pursuits. A moderate level of academic burnout may be linked to various factors, such as the demands of coursework, assignments, and challenges associated with distance learning (Van Slyke et al., 2023; Wider et al., 2023). The students’ ability to cope with this moderate level of burnout might reflect a balance between the academic demands they face and their resilience in managing stressors, potentially indicating the need for targeted interventions to support students in navigating these challenges more effectively. This finding is contrary to that of Chen et al. (2023), who found that junior nursing students had relatively high levels of burnout. Moreover, the findings of the present study diverge from several other studies (e.g. Andrade et al., 2023; Fynn, 2022; Ghods et al., 2023; Toubasi et al., 2023; Tran et al., 2023) that reported varying levels of burnout among both regular and distance learning students. The disparity between the current study and these previous works may stem from differences in the study context, study population, and burnout assessment instruments employed. It is noteworthy that most of these studies utilised the Maslach Burnout Inventory, whereas our study employed the Copenhagen Academic Burnout Inventory. Consequently, caution should be exercised when interpreting differences between these studies.

Furthermore, a closer examination of the specific dimensions of burnout revealed that the majority of students exhibited moderate levels of both personal and studies-related burnout. This suggests that factors related to personal well-being and the demands of academic studies contribute significantly to the overall burnout experience among distance education students in the chosen study center. In addition, the prevalence of moderate levels of both personal and studies-related burnout among the majority of distance education students could be attributed to several interconnected factors. Firstly, the nature of distance learning often introduces unique challenges, such as increased self-discipline and motivation requirements, potential feelings of isolation, and difficulties in managing competing personal and academic responsibilities (Segbenya & Anokye, 2023; Segbenya & Peniana, 2021). Secondly, the flexibility inherent in distance education, while beneficial in many respects, can also present challenges. Students in distance learning programmes often juggle multiple commitments, including work, family, and personal responsibilities (Mends-Brew & Asabere, 2016). This intricate balance may lead to heightened stress levels as students strive to meet academic requirements while managing various life demands. The moderate levels of burnout could signify the culmination of these pressures, emphasising the need for targeted support mechanisms tailored to the unique circumstances of distance education students.

Interestingly, the findings also highlight that students experienced comparatively lower levels of burnout in the areas of colleague-related and instructor-related burnout. This implies that interpersonal aspects of academic experience, such as relationships with colleagues and instructors, may positively contribute to students’ overall well-being. Recognising and fostering these positive social connections can be leveraged as a protective factor against burnout, and institutions may consider strategies to strengthen their sense of community and support within the distance education environment.

The findings of the study showed that there were no statistically significant differences in distance education students’ academic stress and burnout based on their gender. This implies that, on average, male and female students are experiencing comparable levels of academic stress and burnout. The lack of significant gender differences underscores the importance of recognising common stressors and challenges shared by students regardless of gender. There is currently no consensus in the literature regarding sex differences linked to burnout (Andrade et al., 2023). Certain studies (e.g. Jordan et al., 2020; Radwan et al., 2021; Rusandi et al., 2022) revealed that females are more prone to experiencing exhaustion and elevated stress levels compared to males, whereas others contend that there is no discernible distinction between the sexes (male and female) in terms of exhaustion and stress (Amponsah, 2019; Lin & Huang, 2014; Schmidt & Hansson, 2018). The findings of the current study are not consistent with that of Andrade et al. (2023), who observed a correlation between gender and the burnout dimension related to colleagues, supporting the assertion that females are more prone to experiencing burnout.

However, significant differences were found in distance education students’ academic stress, personal burnout and studies related burnout based on their programme of study. This suggests that the nature and demands of specific academic programmes play a significant role in shaping the stress and burnout experiences of distance education students. In particular, distance education students enrolled in 'Degree’ programmes exhibited higher levels of academic stress compared to those in 'Diploma’ programmes. The distinct nature of the coursework and academic requirements (Allen et al., 2021) in 'Degree’ programmes compared to 'Diploma’ programmes could contribute to the higher levels of academic stress experienced by 'Degree’ students. The depth, complexity, and volume of the material covered in degree programmes might present additional challenges, resulting in increased stress levels for students pursuing these academic paths (Allen et al., 2021).

Moreover, 'Degree’ students experienced greater personal burnout than their counterparts in 'Diploma’ programmes. The higher personal burnout reported by 'Degree’ students compared to those in 'Diploma’ programmes may be linked to the extended duration and potentially greater intensity of degree programmes. 'Degree’ students may face a longer academic journey with more demanding coursework, which could impact their personal well-being. Additionally, the perceived importance and pressure associated with achieving a higher academic qualification may contribute to the elevated personal burnout experienced by 'Degree’ students.

Additionally, PGDE students demonstrated higher levels of personal burnout than Diploma students. The higher levels of personal burnout observed in PGDE students compared to Diploma students may be connected to the specific demands and responsibilities associated with teacher education programmes. The unique challenges of preparing for a career in education, which often involves a combination of theoretical study and practical teaching experiences, may contribute to the heightened personal burnout among PGDE students.

Regarding studies-related burnout, 'Degree’ students reported higher levels compared to 'Diploma’ students. This discrepancy may be linked to the nature and intensity of the coursework, research requirements, and the overall academic workload associated with degree programmes. The pursuit of more in-depth knowledge and specialised skills in degree programmes might contribute to increased stress and burnout related to academic studies. Lastly, PGDE students exhibited higher studies-related burnout compared to Diploma students. The higher studies-related burnout exhibited by PGDE students compared to Diploma students suggests that the specific demands of a postgraduate teaching programme may intensify the stress related to academic studies. The inclusion of teaching practice, research components, and the expectation of pedagogical excellence may contribute to the elevated studies-related burnout observed among PGDE students.

Lastly, the interaction effect of gender and programme of study had no significant influence on students’ academic stress and burnout. This implies that the combination of gender and the specific programme pursued does not exacerbate or alleviate the stress and burnout levels experienced by students. While individual factors such as program requirements may impact stress levels, the absence of a significant interaction effect suggests that the overall experience of stress and burnout is not significantly influenced by the combination of gender and programme of study. Additionally, it is plausible that the academic programmes under investigation share comparable levels of workload, challenges, and stressors across genders, minimising the potential for gender-specific impacts. Additionally, individual differences in coping strategies and personal circumstances within each programme might overshadow any gender-related effects.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this study has unveiled significant insights into the nuanced landscape of academic stress and burnout among distance education students. The predominant revelation of a moderate level of academic stress aligns with broader discourse on the challenges faced by students engaged in distance education. This finding underscores the need for targeted interventions and support mechanisms to address and alleviate stressors experienced by this cohort.

Moreover, the identification of a moderate level of academic burnout among distance education students adds a layer of complexity to understanding the psychological toll associated with remote learning. As institutions increasingly embrace distance education models, acknowledging and proactively addressing burnout is imperative for fostering students’ well-being. This finding serves as a clarion call for educational institutions to implement strategies that mitigate burnout, thereby promoting a more conducive and sustainable learning environment.

A nuanced exploration of gender-based differences in academic stress and burnout yields valuable insights into the heterogeneity of experiences within the student population. Although no statistically significant differences were observed based on gender, the discernible distinctions in academic stress, personal burnout, and studies-related burnout underscore the multifaceted nature of these phenomena. This highlights the importance of tailoring support services to address the unique needs of individuals, irrespective of gender, within the broader context of distance education.

Finally, the absence of a significant interaction effect between gender and programme of study on academic stress and burnout suggests that these challenges are pervasive across various academic disciplines. As educational institutions navigate the evolving landscape of distance learning, they must adopt a holistic approach to address stress and burnout, considering the intersectionality of the factors that contribute to the well-being of distance education students. Therefore, this study not only contributes to the scholarly discourse on academic stress and burnout but also provides practical implications for educators, administrators, and policymakers striving to enhance their educational experience in the era of distance education.

Recommendations

First, considering that the majority of students exhibited a moderate level of academic stress, educational institutions should develop and implement intervention programmes aimed at mitigating academic stress. These programmes include stress management workshops, counselling services, and academic support resources. Creating awareness of stress reduction techniques and providing tools for better time management may also prove beneficial.

In addition, given that Distance Education students show a moderate level of academic burnout, it is important to tailor support services specifically for this group. Higher education institutions offering distance education should consider implementing virtual support systems, online counseling services, and resources to enhance distance learners’ overall well-being. Additionally, fostering a sense of community among distance education students can help reduce their feelings of isolation and burnout.

Considering the significant differences in academic stress, personal burnout, and studies-related burnout based on their programme of study, institutions should design comprehensive burnout prevention programmes. These programmes can encompass aspects related to academic workload, personal well-being, and challenges associated with the specific field of study. Additionally, proactive measures such as regular check-ins with students, mentorship programs, and wellness initiatives can contribute to a more supportive academic environment.

Limitations and direction for future studies

This study examined academic stress and burnout among distance education students at the University of Education, Winneba, Cape Coast Study Center. The study involved 231 students, which may not fully represent the diversity within the distance education student population. A larger and more diverse sample size would enhance the generalisability of the findings. Additionally, while the quantitative approach offers valuable numerical data, it may overlook the rich qualitative aspects of student experiences. Future studies should combine quantitative methods with qualitative approaches, such as interviews or focus group discussions, to provide a more holistic view of the factors that contribute to stress and burnout.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their profound gratitude to the research assistants recruited for this study.

Data availability

The data that supported the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Dominic Owusu

Dr. Dominic Owusu is a Doctor of Philosophy holder with specialisation in Guidance and Counselling. He is currently the Head of the Department of Education, OLA College of Education, Cape Coast, who is passionate about research on issues such as stress, burnout, job satisfaction, coping strategies, and Distance Education issues with much interest in emerging issues such as emotional intelligence, educational leadership, and turnover intentions among teachers.

Francis Arthur

Francis Arthur holds a Master of Philosophy degree in Economics Education. He is currently a Ph.D candidate in Economics Education in the Department of Business and Social Sciences Education (DoBSSE) at the University of Cape Coast (UCC) who is passionate about research on issues concerning teaching and learning of Economics with much interest in emerging issues such as pre-service and in-service teachers’ self-efficacy, higher education, academic engagement, application of multiple intelligences approach and artificial intelligence in teaching and learning.

Regina Okyere-Dankwa

Dr. Mrs. Regina Okyere-Dankwa is an academician who holds a PhD in Social Studies. She has over 30 years of teaching experience at all levels in the educational sector. She is currently the Principal of Our Lady of Apostles College of Education, Cape Coast. Her research interests include quality assurance in higher institutions, gender issues, women, education for development in developing countries, and distance education among pre-service and in-service teachers.

Ophelia Affreh

Dr. Ophelia Affreh holds a PhD degree in Education (Qualitative Research Based) from the University of Cape Coast. Presently, she is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Educational Planning and Administration (IEPA), a UNESCO Category II Centre of Excellence at the University of Cape Coast. Her teaching expertise is in the areas of Educational (planning, research, administration in higher education, leadership and human resource development in education). As an educational enthusiast, Dr. Affreh is conscientious, meticulous and adept in logical reasoning in her works and mostly conduct researches in the areas of educational leadership and higher education.

Felix Kwame Kumedzro

Dr. Felix Kwame Kumedzro is a Lecturer and Special Needs Educator at the University of Cape Coast, Ghana. He holds a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) in Special Needs Education from Kenyatta University, Kenya. He also possesses a certificate in Leadership Empowerment from the School of Management, University at Buffalo, USA. His research areas include support services for students with disabilities in higher institutions of learning, Inclusion of learners with special needs in regular classrooms, job satisfaction and teacher retention. Currently he is the Head of postgraduate programmes at the College of Distance Education, University of Cape Coast.

Regina Sally Maison

Dr. Regina Sally Maison holds a Ph.D in Educational Psychology with interest in child and adolescent development. She has taught at all the three levels of education sector in Ghana: basic, secondary, and tertiary. She is currently the Vice Principal of Foso College of Education, Assin Foso. Her research interest includes gender issues, social intelligence, job satisfaction, and coping strategies.