Asian Journal of Distance Education

http://www.AsianJDE.org
© 2012 The Asian Society of Open and Distance Education
ISSN 1347-9008 Asian J D E 2011 vol 10, no 1, pp 52 - 60

Graduate Student Stress and Coping Strategies

in Distance versus Traditional Education
Jose A. RAMOS, & Bernadette BORTE
University of Iowa, USA
[email protected]

ABSTRACT :

The purpose of this study was to explore the differences in perceived stress and coping styles
among nontraditional graduate students in both brick-and-mortar and distance-learning
institutions. This study used a quantitative causal-comparative design that involved collecting
survey data. The sample for this research study were 36 nontraditional graduate students that
were enrolled in distance learning classes as well as 36 nontraditional students that attend
traditional on-campus courses in a graduate campus. t test and multiple linear regression
analysis was conducted to simultaneously assess the effects of group membership and all
demographic variables on each of the dependent variables (stress and each coping style). An
alpha level of .05 was used to establish statistical significance. Overall, we concluded that there
is no significant difference between the coping styles and the perceived stress levels of graduate
nontraditional students enrolled in distance-learning and in brick-and-mortar institutions.

1. INTRODUCTION : students in brick-and-mortar schools were

explored..The four research questions were
Research has shown that college students, as follows.
including nontraditional graduate and 1) Is there a significant difference in the
distance learning students, are prone to perceived stress levels of nontraditional
stress (D’Zurilla & Sheedy, 1991). Students graduate students in distance learning versus
entering graduate school programs must those nontraditional graduate students in
adjust to time management demands and brick-and-mortar schools ?
higher academic expectations than they 2) Is there a significant difference in the
dealt with during their undergraduate coping styles of nontraditional graduate
studies. students in distance-learning versus those
Furthermore, nontraditional students are nontraditional graduate students in brick-
often faced with additional stresses such as and-mortar schools ?
raising a family and working a fulltime job, 3) Is there a significant relationship
which can increase stress levels. Although between demographics (e.g., variables of
these stressors do not cause anxiety and age, gender, marital status, employment) and
stress by themselves, stress results from the perceived stress in nontraditional
direct interaction with stressors and graduate students ? and
individual perceptions (Romano, 1992). 4) Is there a significant relationship
Thus, in order to create effective between demographics (e.g., variables of
intervention programs, stressors of age, gender, marital status, employment) and
nontraditional graduate students in distance- the perceived coping styles in nontraditional
learning programs, nontraditional graduate graduate students ?

52
 ASIAN JOURNAL of DISTANCE EDUCATION

2. METHODS : with 0 = never, and 4 = very often (Cohen,

Kamarack & Mermeistein, 1983).
The population of interest for this The second instrument that was used in
research was graduate students enrolled in this study was the Moos Coping Responses
distance-learning and brick-and-mortar Inventory (CRI-Adult). This instrument uses
institutions. The sample consisted of 36 a 48-item self report measure of coping
nontraditional students enrolled in distance- responses. The CRI is a 48-item self report
learning classes as well as 36 nontraditional measure of coping responses. It appraises
students enrolled in traditional on-campus items on a 4-point scale, ranging from
courses. A total of 72 participants were definitely no to definitely yes. Furthermore,
recruited from two Midwestern it assessed whether respondents have enough
Universities. For this study, nontraditional time to prepare for the focal stressor,
students were defined as students 25 years whether they viewed it as a threat, and
or older, enrolled in part or full time and whether they viewed it as a challenge. The
maintaining further responsibilities such as CRI is measured by summing response to
family, employment and other the logical analysis and guidance/support
responsibilities associated with adult life. seeking subscales and divided them by the
For this matter, this study only sampled sum of the problem solving and positive
students who meet the nontraditional reappraisal subscales.
student criteria. This study used a Furthermore, the CRI-Adult is designed to
quantitative causal-comparative design that measure eight different types of coping
involved collecting survey data. responses to stressful life circumstances.
Distance learner students participants These responses are measured by eight
were recruited via a web posting posted in subscales – Logical Analysis (LA), Seeking
their online learning platform. Before the Guidance and Support (SG), Positive
study took place, distance-learning Reappraisal (PR), Problem solving (PS),
instructors were contacted by the researcher Cognitive Avoidance (CA), Seeking
and were asked for permission to post the Alternative Rewards (SR), Acceptance or
web posting in their online learning Resignation (AR) and Emotional Discharge
platform. Because this study employed (ED). The first four scales measure approach
convenience sampling, interested students coping and the second four set of scales
who meet the inclusion criteria were measure avoidance coping (Moos, 1997).
allowed to participate. A link to the survey
web site was included in the recruitment
web posting. For those students who were 3. RESULTS :
enrolled in brick and mortar, the researcher
established contact with the graduate school The sample frame for the study was
instructors and asked permission to make an selected using a convenience sampling
announcement before or after each class. method which consisted of 36 samples
The announcement consisted of outlining enrolled in distance learning and 36 samples
the study and asked interested students to from the brick and mortar institutions as
stay after class for additional study determined by the power analysis.
information. As seen in Table 1 below, only 35.8% of
The first scale used in this study was the the respondents were female. Most of the
Perceived Stress Scale-14 (PSS), which respondents were in the younger generation
measures student's individual perception of with their ages in the range of 25-30 years at
stress. The PSS-14 is a paper and pencil 38.3% of the sampled population and 47.5%
questionnaire consisting of fourteen of the students are working on a full-time
questions. Each item is designed to identify basis with approximately 40 hours or above
how unpredictable, uncontrollable or a week. On the other hand, 43.3% of the
overloaded the respondent has found his or students were white, and overall there were
her life to be within the last month. 31.7% who were married.
Responses are assessed on a five-point scale

53
RAMOS & BORTE

Table 1 : Student Characteristics (n=72)

Characteristic Number Percentage

Female 43 35.8
Gender
Male 29 24.2
Age 25-30 46 38.3
31-35 8 6.7
36-40 10 8.3
41-45 4 3.3
46-50 3 2.5
Older 1 0.8
Ethnicity AA 9 7.5
African 1 0.8
Asian 7 5.8
Hispanic 2 1.7
Other 1 0.8
White 52 43.3
Marital Status Divorced 5 4.2
Married 38 31.7
Other 2 1.7
Separate 1 0.8
Single 26 21.7
Employment Full-time 57 47.5
Unemployed 4 3.3
Part-time 11 9.2

Table 2 : Statistics of Study Variables (n=72)

Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Std Dev

LA 8.00 24.00 18.0083 3.11280
SG 6.00 24.00 18.1361 3.77670
PR 10.00 22.00 15.9972 2.78234
PS 10.00 52.00 19.2917 4.81031
CA 7.00 23.00 14.8028 3.52144
SR 6.00 21.00 13.4056 3.41743
AR 6.00 24.00 14.6194 3.57758
ED 7.00 22.00 13.2444 3.04024
PSS 27.00 55.00 39.9583 6.78324

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics Acceptance or Resignation (AR),

of the study variables for the stress and Emotional Discharge (ED) and Perceived
coping styles of students engaged in the two Stress Scale (PSS). The mean values for the
programs. The abbreviations are: Logical first four variables which represent the
Analysis (LA), Seeking Guidance and measure of coping are above a score of 15
Support (SG), Positive Reappraisal (PR), while the avoidance to cope scores is
Problem solving (PS), Cognitive Avoidance generally lower than a score of 15. The mean
(CA), Seeking Alternative Rewards (SR), PSS Score is at 39.9583.

54
 ASIAN JOURNAL of DISTANCE EDUCATION

Table 3 : Hypotheses tested using the One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Null Hypothesis sig

1 distribution of LA is normal with mean 18.008 and sd 3.113. 0.124
2 distribution of SG is normal with mean 18.136 and sd 2.782. 0.214
3 distribution of PR is normal with mean 15.997 and sd 4.81. 0.490
4 distribution of PS is normal with mean 19.292 and sd 4.81. 0.001
5 distribution of CA is normal with mean 14.803 and sd 3.521. 0.258
6 distribution of SR is normal with mean 13.406 and sd 3.417. 0.526
7 distribution of AR is normal with mean 14.619 and sd 3.578. 0.205
8 distribution of ED is normal with mean 13.244 and sd 3.04. 0.277
9 distribution of PSS is normal with mean 39.958 and sd 6.783. 0.330
significance level 0.05

Prior to conducting tests to determine the insignificant except for Emotional

differences of means between the scores of Discharge. Graduate students from brick and
the respondents, it is essential to perform mortar institutions had higher scores for this
the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to determine subscale.
whether the sample data is normally • Generally, the demographics had no
distributed. Table 3 presents the hypothesis relationship with the perceived stress and
test summary of the tests conducted. This coping styles of graduate students from these
shows that all except PS are normally two groups.
distributed. Thus, the independent sample t- In order to examine the differences
test could be run to determine whether there between the perceived stress levels of non-
are differences between the means of the traditional graduate students in distance
coping and stress styles. learning and in brick and mortar institutions,
On the other hand, for the PS score, since a t-test for independent samples was run.
this is not normally distributed, an ANOVA As seen in Table 4, the Levene’s test for
table will be generated to test whether there equality of variance is at 0.376 which is
is a significant difference between the two greater than 0.05. This makes it safe to
groups. This would be employed since this assume that the samples have equal
type of statistical test does not require the variances. Moreover, the two-tailed
samples to be normal. The above analyses significance is at 0.524 which means that
suggest that: there is no significant evidence to reject the
• The difference between the perceived null hypothesis that the means are equal.
stress of graduate students enrolled in Thus, the difference between the perceived
distance learning and in brick and mortar stress levels of students in these two groups
institutions was statistically insignificant. could be left to chance since it is not
• The difference between the coping statistically significant.
styles of students on the eight subscales was

Table 4 : Independent t-test for Equality of Mean Scores of Perceived Stress Level

Levene’s Test sig. mean s. e. 95% 95%

F Sig. t df 2-tailed dif dif lower upper
PSS 0.795 0.376 0.64 70 0.524 1.02778 1.60551 -2.1743 4.22987
significance level 0.05

55
RAMOS & BORTE

Table 5 : Independent t-test for Equality of Mean Scores of Other Variables

Levene’s Test sig. mean s. e. 95% 95%

F Sig. t df 2-tailed dif dif lower upper
LA 0.387 0.536 -0.278 70 0.782 -0.20556 0.73851 -1.67846 1.26735
SG 0.885 0.35 1.767 70 0.082 1.55 0.87716 -0.19944 3.29944
PR 3.2 0.078 1.355 70 0.18 0.88333 0.65198 -0.417 2.18366
CA 0.085 0.772 -1.079 70 0.284 -0.89444 0.82906 -2.54794 0.75905
SR 1.456 0.232 -0.715 70 0.477 -0.57778 0.80828 -2.18985 1.0343
AR 5.876 0.018 -1.102 70 0.274 -0.92778 0.84197 -2.60704 0.75149
ED 0.182 0.671 2.129 70 0.037 1.48889 0.69941 0.09396 2.88381
significance level 0.05

Likewise, in order to compare the Further, to test whether there is a

difference of means between the groups in relationship between the demographics and
terms of their coping styles, an independent the study variables, a Multiple Regression
samples t-test for equality of means was Analysis was conducted. The responses of
run. For all the coping styles subscales as respondents were translated to numerical
seen in Table 5, it could be observed that format to run the regression analysis. This
the Levene’s test provided a significance of made use of the ranks for each demographics
greater than 0.05 which means that the to determine the numerical value. For
samples have equal variances. However, the example, the age of 25-30 is 1, 31-35 is 2
significance level for the two-tailed test was and so on.
deemed to be significance for Emotional Shown in Table 7 is the Regression Table
Discharge (ED). This means that among all which lists the significance levels of the
the coping styles, the difference is only relationships between the demographic
significant for this subscale at 0.037. Thus, variables and the stress and coping styles of
students in brick and mortar institutions respondents. The dependent variable LA is
have higher ED scores than those enrolled related to the ethnicity of the respondent
in distance learning by a mean difference of with a p-value of 0.025. On the other hand,
1.48889. the age of the respondents could predict its
On the other hand, the Problem Solving score on PR. Moreover, the PSS level is
Score (PS) is run through an ANOVA table. significantly related to the demographic
It could be seen in Table 6 that the variables such as graduate program enrolled
significance is at 0.827 between groups. to, the ethnicity and employment. The
This means that there is no significant regression model for this is significant at
difference between the PS scores of 0.002 as seen in Table 8 which means that
students enrolled in Distance Learning and this model could predict the score of
Brick and Mortar Institutions. respondents on the perceived stress level.

Table 6 : ANOVA Table of PS Score between Distance Learning and Brick-and-Mortar

sum mean
df F Sig.
sqs sq
PSS Grad Program between groups 1 1.125 .048 .827 4.22987
within groups 70 23.454
Total 71
significance level 0.05

56
 ASIAN JOURNAL of DISTANCE EDUCATION

Table 7 : Multiple Regression Analysis for Stress Level and Coping Styles vs. Demographics

95% 95%
LA coef s. e. t p-value
lower upper
Intercept 15.789 2.865 5.512 0.000 10.068 21.510
Grad Program 0.197 0.746 0.265 0.792 -1.292 1.686
Age 0.348 0.303 1.147 0.255 -0.258 0.953
Gender -0.137 0.753 -0.182 0.856 -1.642 1.367
Ethnicity 0.611 0.266 2.294 0.025 0.079 1.142
Marital Status 0.173 0.445 0.388 0.700 -0.717 1.062
Employment -0.539 0.646 -0.834 0.408 -1.829 0.752
95% 95%
SG coef s. e. t p-value
lower upper
Intercept 16.062 3.547 4.529 0.000 8.977 23.147
Grad Program -1.696 0.919 -1.845 0.070 -3.533 0.141
Age 0.433 0.375 1.155 0.252 -0.316 1.181
Gender -0.045 0.930 -0.048 0.962 -1.903 1.814
Ethnicity 0.400 0.328 1.219 0.227 -0.256 1.056
Marital Status 0.766 0.551 1.389 0.170 -0.335 1.866
Employment 0.263 0.803 0.327 0.745 -1.342 1.868
95% 95%
PR coef s. e. t p-value
lower upper
Intercept 14.712 2.535 5.803 0.000 9.647 19.777
Grad Program -0.711 0.657 -1.082 0.284 -2.024 0.602
Age 0.647 0.268 2.417 0.019 0.112 1.182
Gender 0.443 0.665 0.665 0.508 -0.886 1.771
Ethnicity -0.062 0.235 -0.264 0.793 -0.531 0.407
Marital Status -0.635 0.394 -1.612 0.112 -1.422 0.152
Employment 0.681 0.574 1.186 0.240 -0.466 1.829
95% 95%
PS coef s. e. t p-value
lower upper
Intercept 15.902 2.710 5.868 0.000 10.488 21.315
Grad Program 0.533 0.702 0.759 0.451 -0.870 1.937
Age -0.092 0.286 -0.321 0.749 -0.664 0.480
Gender -0.096 0.711 -0.135 0.893 -1.516 1.324
Ethnicity 0.269 0.251 1.072 0.288 -0.232 0.770
Marital Status 0.666 0.421 1.581 0.119 -0.176 1.507
Employment 0.047 0.614 0.077 0.939 -1.179 1.273
95% 95%
CA coef s. e. t p-value
lower upper
Intercept 13.998 3.322 4.214 0.000 7.361 20.635
Grad Program 0.730 0.861 0.847 0.400 -0.991 2.450
Age 0.021 0.351 0.060 0.953 -0.680 0.722
Gender -0.103 0.871 -0.119 0.906 -1.844 1.638
Ethnicity -0.228 0.308 -0.741 0.462 -0.842 0.387
Marital Status 0.720 0.516 1.395 0.168 -0.311 1.752
Employment -0.139 0.753 -0.185 0.854 -1.642 1.365
significance level 0.05

to be continued on next page

57
RAMOS & BORTE

continued from previous page

95% 95%
SR coef s. e. t p-value
lower upper
Intercept 9.301 3.317 2.804 0.007 2.675 15.926
Grad Program 0.614 0.860 0.714 0.478 -1.104 2.331
Age -0.033 0.350 -0.095 0.925 -0.733 0.667
Gender 1.377 0.870 1.583 0.118 -0.361 3.115
Ethnicity -0.055 0.307 -0.180 0.858 -0.669 0.558
Marital Status -0.283 0.515 -0.549 0.585 -1.312 0.747
Employment 0.674 0.751 0.897 0.373 -0.827 2.175
95% 95%
AR coef s. e. t p-value
lower upper
Intercept 14.936 3.423 4.363 0.000 8.097 21.774
Grad Program 0.550 0.887 0.620 0.537 -1.222 2.323
Age -0.012 0.362 -0.034 0.973 -0.735 0.710
Gender -1.158 0.898 -1.289 0.202 -2.952 0.636
Ethnicity -0.234 0.317 -0.738 0.463 -0.867 0.399
Marital Status 0.275 0.532 0.517 0.607 -0.787 1.338
Employment 0.476 0.776 0.614 0.541 -1.073 2.026
95% 95%
ED coef s. e. t p-value
lower upper
Intercept 18.310 2.818 6.499 0.000 12.681 23.939
Grad Program -1.456 0.730 -1.993 0.051 -2.915 0.004
Age -0.503 0.298 -1.690 0.096 -1.097 0.092
Gender -0.011 0.739 -0.015 0.988 -1.488 1.465
Ethnicity -0.225 0.261 -0.861 0.392 -0.746 0.296
Marital Status -0.282 0.438 -0.644 0.522 -1.156 0.593
Employment -0.158 0.638 -0.248 0.805 -1.434 1.117
95% 95%
PSS coef s. e. t p-value
lower upper
Intercept 36.148 4.382 8.250 0.000 27.395 44.902
Grad Program -2.315 1.136 -2.038 0.046 -4.585 -0.046
Age 0.746 0.463 1.611 0.112 -0.179 1.670
Gender 0.781 1.149 0.679 0.500 -1.516 3.077
Ethnicity 1.509 0.406 3.718 0.000 0.698 2.319
Marital Status -0.683 0.681 -1.003 0.319 -2.043 0.677
Employment 2.025 0.993 2.039 0.046 0.041 4.008
significance level 0.05

As a whole, the analysis of data has nontraditional female versus non-traditional

supported the null hypotheses of this study male students; and that students who work
which states that there is no significant part-time have less stress when compared to
difference between the coping styles and the students who work full-time.
perceived stress levels of graduate students Moreover, the demographics do not affect
enrolled in distance learning and in brick the overall scores of respondents in terms of
and mortar institutions. their coping styles and stress levels. Thus,
As for the expected findings, this analysis being enrolled in either of the two graduate
did not prove that there was any significant programs would yield the same coping style
difference in perceived stress between the and perceive the same stress level.

58
 ASIAN JOURNAL of DISTANCE EDUCATION

Table 8 : ANOVA Table for the Regression Model of the Perceived Stress Level

df SS MS F Signif F
Regression 6 515.52 85.92 4.00 0.001827
Residual 64 1373.58 21.46
Total 70 1889.10
significance level 0.05

4 CONCLUSIONS : that graduate students had lower levels of

anxiety when given a proper orientation.
The findings of this study suggest that Thus, if an orientation is implemented by
there are no perceived differences in stress school administrators, this may help
and coping skills between nontraditional nontraditional graduate students be better
graduate students and distance learning equipped to cope effectively with graduate
students and that both types of students school stressors.
perceived high levels of stress and used Not only must faculty and school
approach coping strategies when coping administrators must create stress inoculation
with stressors. Thus, to help nontraditional programs but furthermore, they must assist
graduate students cope with stress them in learning proper coping strategies,
effectively, school administrators must do a specifically approach coping. In their
better job brining to light the effects of findings, Folkman & Lazarus (1985) suggest
stress on graduate school studies. There are that students who used positive thinking
numerous ways that school administrators were more satisfied when coping compared
can do this, for example, for brick-and- to those students who relied on withdrawal
mortar students, they can implement stress and wishful thinking coping strategies,
and coping skills related classes during otherwise known as avoidance coping
campus orientation. Often times, because response. According to Noh & Kaspar
nontraditional students work a full time job, (2003) the most effective form of coping is
they are forced to enroll in evening classes, the use of active approach coping techniques
thus missing out on orientation usually with avoidance coping being less effective.
given during the day. As demonstrated above, Logical Analyses,
Distance-learning administrators could Positive Reappraisal, Seeking Guidance and
implement web seminars, pamphlets or Support and Problem Solving are more
mandatory reading material regarding effective when students have control over a
proper coping techniques at the beginning stressor.
of each semester. They should require Another recommendation to assist
students to read, sign and select a mentor nontraditional graduate students deal and
that will assist them with graduate school cope with stressors is by developing a
stressors. Perhaps, a Perceived Stress Scale mentoring program. Mentors should be
should be given at the beginning and middle selected from faculty or advisors who
of each semester to identify students with understand nontraditional student’s stressors.
high levels of stress. However, it is extremely important that these
Furthermore, they must implement a mentors have appropriate training and
stress inoculation program which advises understanding of perceived stress and
students in advance of the difficulties they appropriate coping strategies to better help
might face as nontraditional graduate nontraditional students. Appropriate training
students and help them develop appropriate must be provided to these mentors before
coping strategies to combat stress. A study engaging in their roles. Moreover,
by Rosenblat & Christensen (1993) reported nontraditional graduate students should be

59
RAMOS & BORTE

advised to seek appropriate help when Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it
encountering stress. According to Gulgoz changes it must be a process- study of
(2001), graduate students do not often ask emotion and coping during 3 stages of a
professors for help when encountering college-examination. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 48(1), 150-170.
stress. He postulates that graduate students
Gulgoz, S. (2001). Stresses and strategies for
assume that it is not appropriate to seek help international students succeeding in
from a faculty or staff. Thus, employing a graduate school: The career guide for
mentoring program may indeed help reduce psychology students. Mahwah: Lawrence
stress and assist non-traditional graduate Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
students employ proper coping mechanism. Moos, R. H. (2003). Coping responses inventory
adult form: Professional manual.
Psychological Assessment Resources.
REFERENCES : Odessa, FL.
Noh, S., & Kaspar, V. (2003). Perceived
discrimination and depression: Moderating
Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. (1983). A
effects of coping, acculturation, and ethnic
Global measure of perceived stress. Journal
support. American Journal of Public Health,
of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385-
93(2), 232-238.
396.
Romano, J. L. (1992). Psychoeducational
Dzurilla, T. J., & Sheedy, C. F. (1992). The
interventions for stress management and
relationship between social problem solving
well-being. Journal of Counseling and
ability and subsequent level of academic
Development, 71(2), 199-202.
competence in college students. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 16(5), 589-599.

Jose A, RAMOS is at the Henry B. Tippie School of Management, College of Business,

University of Iowa, 108 John Pappajohn Business Building, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. Email
[email protected]. Bernadette BORTE is at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics,
Department of Neurology Iowa City, USA.

For copyright / reproducing permission details, email : [email protected]

60