Search

Graduate students suffer from issues with mental and emotional wellbeing at a high rate. While most commonly understood as an individual issue, the high prevalence of mental health problems suggests that their causes may extend beyond personal factors. A closer look at the environment that a graduate student operates in suggests systemic or organizational factors that exert notable pressures that students have to cope with. This article examines four levels of systems that create a structural environment that negatively impacts mental health and wellbeing among graduate students: (1) the academic system, (2) the institutional and departmental systems, (3) lab or cohort systems, and (4) the social‐economic system. In light of this analysis, we propose a model of how systemic stress affects mental health. This model sheds light on the systems‐level process improvements that can be instituted to help universities prevent mental health issues among graduate students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This meta-analysis investigates the effects of four instructional dimensions rated on a scale from more Teacher-centered (T-C) to more Student-centered (S-C) plus several coded moderator variables on the achievement of undergraduate students in science education courses. More student-centered conditions served as the 'treatment' while more teacher-centered conditions were considered the 'control.' Hedges' g, operationalized as the adjusted standardized differences between treatment and control means, served as the outcome measure. The weighted average difference between groups was g? = 0.34, k = 140 (random effects analysis), indicating an overall difference in favor of student-centered instruction. Out of four rated dimensions (Pacing, Teacher's Role, Flexibility, and Adaptation) only Flexibility was significant in metaregression as a negative predictor of effect size. Two demographic variables (i.e., class size & subject matter), and one instructional moderator variables (i.e., technology use) were also significant when added to Flexibility, producing a model that accounted for 36% of total variation in effect size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]