Rethinking Student Wellbeing in Higher Education: A Multifaceted Approach to Stress Management

1. Introduction

The increasing prevalence of psychological distress among students has prompted global concern about how educational systems might promote student wellbeing. In educational settings, stressors may include academic workload, performance expectations, social integration, and financial pressures (Beiter et al., 2015). Stress occurs when individuals perceive an imbalance between external demands and their coping resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Stress, as an inescapable part of academic life, when chronic or poorly managed, could pose a significant risk to students’ wellbeing, performance, and long-term development (Pascoe et al., 2020). Particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic, which introduced heightened levels of stress due to disrupted social networks, abrupt shifts in learning environments, and loss of routine structures, rates of anxiety, depression, and burnout among students have not diminished; rather, with the fading of the pandemic, they have continued to rise (Aristovnik et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2022; Kaparounaki et al., 2023).

Recent discourse has emphasised the importance of early identification of stressors as well as timely and destigmatised intervention (Xu et al., 2018). Alongside such awareness, a range of evidence-based coping strategies (e.g., mindfulness, time management, exercise, and social support) have been promoted as practical tools for stress reduction and emotional regulation (e.g., Galante et al., 2021; Regehr et al., 2013). At a broader level, educational institutions are being called upon to take greater responsibility for student wellbeing. This includes not only offering accessible counselling services but also ensuring flexible academic structures, inclusive environments, and proactive mental health policies (OECD, 2024). At the same time, digital technologies have emerged as a double-edged sword. While platforms such as social media can amplify stress through comparison and overload (Keles et al., 2020), digital tools such as mental health apps and online peer networks also offer scalable support. A growing body of longitudinal and interdisciplinary research further highlights the lasting impact of stress habits on cognitive development, identity formation, and adult wellbeing (Sawyer et al., 2018). Insights from neuroscience and educational psychology suggest that sustainable stress management must be embedded in both pedagogy and policy.

Against this backdrop, this Special Issue explores how stress is experienced, managed, and shaped within educational environments. It aims to deepen understanding of the mechanisms that support or hinder wellbeing and to inform future strategies to create more supportive learning systems at both individual and institutional levels. While the classic transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) remains relevant, several studies in this Special Issue stretch its boundaries by incorporating reciprocal processes (e.g., stress and vocational indecision: Flores-Buils & Mateu-Pérez [Contribution 1]), contextual vulnerabilities (e.g., the demands of long-term internships: Homann & Ehmke [Contribution 2]), and temporal changes in stress experiences (e.g., first-semester shifts in motivation: Schladitz et al. [Contribution 3]). Instead of focusing solely on which coping strategies are effective, these papers explore when, why, and for whom certain strategies succeed. A consistent pattern emerges: proactive and help-seeking approaches are linked to more favourable outcomes, while avoidant coping often predicts poorer wellbeing (Ren et al. [Contribution 4]). The distinctive contribution of these findings lies in their integration with broader psychological constructs—such as self-efficacy (Lizarte Simón et al. [Contribution 5]) and grit (Katsarou & Chatzipanagiotou [Contribution 6]), pointing toward more holistic psychological models of student functioning.

Altogether, while varying in designs, contexts, and populations, the 13 studies converge around four interrelated themes: (1) coping strategies and psychological regulation, (2) the impact of academic and life transitions, (3) the role of social and institutional support networks, and (4) the influence of structural and perceived fairness in educational environments. Together, they demonstrate that effective stress management requires both individual and systemic responses. We will discuss the cutting-cross themes as follows and demonstrate how they can shape our future research landscape in stress management and student wellbeing.

2. Academic Stress and Coping Strategies

The first prominent theme across the articles is the multifaceted nature of academic stress, which is shaped by academic demands, transitional challenges, and institutional factors. Ren et al. identified eight sources of stress during the COVID-19 pandemic, including disruptions from shifting between online and in-person learning, aligning with Pascoe et al.’s (2020) findings on the impact of academic pressures on student mental health. Similarly, Herr et al. (Contribution 7) highlighted organisational inefficiencies and perceived unfairness as stressors, resonating with Robotham and Julian’s (2006) critical review of institutional systems that can contribute to student stress. These studies extend the transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) by emphasising the role of individual appraisal and illustrating how stress responses are shaped by both internal and external conditions. This contributes to the theoretical discourse by underscoring the need for context-specific models that acknowledge the institutional settings in which stress occurs.

In facing different sources of stress, coping strategies form another critical theme in this Special Issue, with studies distinguishing between adaptive and maladaptive approaches. Homann and Ehmke, for instance, examined pre-service teachers during long-term internships and found that positive self-instruction supports wellbeing, while rumination exacerbates stress. Their intervention workbook, however, had limited impact—highlighting the complexity of translating theory into practice. Similarly, Ren et al. showed that proactive and help-seeking strategies lead to more effective stress regulation during the COVID-19 pandemic, while avoidant behaviours correlate with poorer outcomes. Building on this, Lizarte Simón et al. extended the conversation by focusing on the psychological mediators, showing that self-efficacy and wellbeing could buffer the impact of academic anxiety on student engagement. Unlike externally driven interventions, this study underscored the importance of individual psychological readiness as a foundation for effective coping.

Beyond individual behaviours, Schladitz et al. explored how intrinsic motivation supports the adoption of adaptive coping strategies, while Katsarou and Chatzipanagiotou linked grit and personality traits to wellbeing profiles. They revealed that intrinsic motivation or high consistency of interests, which are typically seen as a strength, may actually reduce wellbeing. These findings suggest that not all coping traits are universally beneficial. Their effects depend on subgroups of students, contexts, flexibility, and emotional awareness. As coping strategies shape immediate and long-term outcomes, they also interact with key transitional periods, highlighting the next layer of complexity in student stress experiences.

3. Navigating Academic and Developmental Transitions

Transitions, whether from high school to university, into postgraduate study, or between online and in-person learning, are periods of heightened vulnerability, as students face new roles, expectations, and uncertainties. Flores-Buils and Mateu-Pérez explored how vocational indecision among adolescents contributes to academic stress, with reciprocal effects that undermine confidence and performance. Importantly, the authors identified resilience as a key buffer. This study added a developmental lens to the literature by situating stress within the broader process of identity formation and future planning, both of which are central challenges in late adolescence. In doing so, it underscored that educational transitions are not limited to institutional boundaries (e.g., from high school to university) but also encompass psychological shifts related to purpose, direction, and adult role formation. Geertshuis and Liu (Contribution 8) shifted focus to working postgraduate students, whose transitions are shaped by adult responsibilities such as employment, caregiving, and financial obligations. Their research revealed that enthusiasm positively influenced self-regulated learning behaviours and academic performance, while anxiety moderates this relationship, often impairing students’ capacity to sustain effective study habits. These findings highlight the complexity of stress experiences in non-traditional students, whose academic journeys are embedded in the realities of full-time work, caregiving, and financial responsibility.

For international students, the stress of transition is amplified by cultural dislocation and administrative complexity. Parmar et al. (Contribution 9) examined postgraduate health students in online learning contexts, revealing that peer support was a key buffer against emotional stress—helping students feel connected despite the isolating effects of digital learning. Breitenstein et al. (Contribution 10) showed that college students with prior bullying experiences faced persistent mental health challenges during their transition into higher education, particularly in the absence of robust support systems.

These findings underscore that transitional stress is not a temporary hurdle but a structural feature of contemporary education. This stress is intensified by systemic factors such as digital fragmentation, uneven institutional practices, and limited visibility of support. Addressing these challenges requires more than short-term orientation programmes—it calls for embedded, ongoing, and culturally responsive approaches that actively scaffold students through developmental change.

4. The Power of Support Networks: Social, Emotional, and Institutional

A recurring insight throughout this Special Issue is that stress does not occur in isolation. Rather, it is shaped by the availability, quality, and type of support they receive embedded within their social and institutional environments (Fang & Brown, 2024). For example, Payne and Leslie (Contribution 11) identified that students’ mental health literacy and willingness to seek help were influenced by peer norms, personal stigma, and how visible support services were on campus. In particular, peer support, whether through formal programmes (e.g., Parmar et al.) or informal connections (e.g., Breitenstein et al.), consistently emerges as a stabilising factor. Yet what these studies suggest is that support does more than buffer stress; it actively constructs wellbeing, particularly for international and marginalised students. This perspective aligns with socio-ecological models (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), which position universities as social ecosystems, not just academic institutions. Such insight is particularly timely in light of post-pandemic hybrid learning environments (e.g., Ren et al.), where physical isolation and digital disconnection have blurred the boundaries of social belonging. The implication is not just to offer more support services but to design academic environments where meaningful connection is an integral feature of learning.

Together, these papers argue that support is not merely remedial but also formative. When structured intentionally, social and institutional support systems become critical mediators of student resilience. However, support systems alone cannot compensate for harmful or inadequate systemic practices. This leads to the final, more structural theme: the importance of fairness, inclusion, and trust within educational institutions.

5. Building Trust Through Curriculum: Equity, Engagement, and Student Support

Finally, a subset of studies emphasises the institutional and systemic dimensions of student stress, highlighting how perceptions of injustice, disorganisation, and inequity exacerbate psychological distress. Herr et al. detailed how administrative inefficiencies, inconsistent communication, and perceived favouritism contributed to a climate of institutional unfairness, undermining both wellbeing and student engagement. Payne and Leslie reported that misalignment between students’ expectations and the university’s support systems created a sense of confusion and marginalisation, particularly for international and minority students.

These systemic issues not only heighten stress but also limit students’ ability to access support and stay engaged. In response, several studies call for stress management and self-regulated learning strategies to be embedded within the curriculum. Simón-Grábalos et al. (Contribution 12) advocated for intracurricular interventions, such as workshops and virtual tools, which demonstrate greater success in enhancing self-regulated learning (SRL) compared to extracurricular approaches. Similarly, Martini et al. (Contribution 13) explored mindfulness meditation in a first-year engineering course, noting its potential to reduce stress and enhance focus, though specific exercises, such as dynamic breathing, elicited mixed responses. These findings build on Durlak et al.’s (2011) meta-analysis, which highlights the efficacy of curriculum-based social-emotional learning interventions in improving student outcomes. They reflect a broader shift in intervention design: “bolt-on” solutions—those offered outside core academic structures—often fail to engage students already under strain. The most effective approaches are those that are co-designed, embedded within the curriculum, and responsive to students’ academic and emotional contexts.

All in all, the overarching message is clear. Stress is not simply a personal failing but a systemic signal. Fairness, transparency, and institutional care are not ancillary to academic life but are central to it.

6. Extending the Field: Theoretical and Methodological Contributions

Beyond practical implications, this Special Issue advances the field forward conceptually and methodologically. Several studies expand the stress-wellbeing nexus by incorporating emergent constructs such as grit dimensions (e.g., Katsarou & Chatzipanagiotou), perceived institutional injustice (e.g., Breitenstein et al.), and learning behaviours among working adults (e.g., Geertshuis & Liu). These additions enrich the psychological literature by recognising how individual traits interact with contextual demands to shape wellbeing outcomes. From a methodological standpoint, the use of mixed methods (e.g., Ren et al.) and longitudinal designs (e.g., Homann and Ehmke) helps capture the temporal dynamics of stress and coping—an approach still underused in higher education research. Notably, techniques such as cluster analysis (e.g., Katsarou and Chatzipanagiotou) and thematic analysis (e.g., Parmar et al.) provide nuanced profiles of student experiences, reinforcing the need for personalised and context-sensitive approaches.

On top of that, one of the most compelling strengths of this Special Issue is its inclusive focus on a wide array of student populations. The 13 studies in this Special Issue reflect the diverse and evolving demographics of global higher education. They respond to a growing recognition that stress and wellbeing are not experienced uniformly, but are shaped by differences in educational pathways, life stages, and cultural contexts (Thomas & Hanson, 2020). For example, Homann and Ehmke explore stress among pre-service teachers during field placements—contexts often associated with burnout and professional attrition (Riley, 2019). Payne and Leslie addressed postgraduate psychology students’ mental health literacy, tackling stigma and informing policy, while Katsarou and Chatzipanagiotou identified distinct wellbeing profiles among Greek students, highlighting the role of grit and personality traits. These studies contribute to positive psychology frameworks (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) by emphasising strengths-based approaches to wellbeing.

Geertshuis and Liu highlight the lived experiences of postgraduate students, particularly those balancing academic work with full-time employment and caregiving responsibilities. This group is often overlooked in wellbeing research, yet evidence suggests that working postgraduates face elevated risks of anxiety, burnout, and role conflict (Barry et al., 2018; Remenick & Bergman, 2020). Similarly, first-year students’ struggles with transition and identity development (Conley et al., 2014) are echoed in multiple studies, particularly those exploring the experiences of international and minority students navigating cultural dislocation, visa stress, and institutional alienation (e.g., Parmar et al., Breitenstein et al.). These findings align with recent research documenting how marginalisation and institutional alienation contribute to higher psychological distress in these populations (Forbes-Mewett & Sawyer, 2019). Together, these studies reinforce the need to view student transition not as a one-time adjustment but as an ongoing, multifaceted process shaped by systemic and cultural factors.

Finally, the inclusion of students in remote and hybrid learning environments marks an important shift in the literature (e.g., Ren et al.). The COVID-19 pandemic exposed and intensified inequities in access, support, and engagement for students outside traditional classroom settings (Aristovnik et al., 2020). As online and blended modalities become permanent fixtures in higher education, the need to understand the psychosocial implications of virtual learning is more urgent than ever (Bowers & Kumar, 2021).

Collectively, these studies contribute to a more inclusive and realistic understanding of student wellbeing. They emphasise that students are not a homogenous group and that effective support must reflect the complexities of lived experience, including age, caregiving roles, educational pathways, and cultural background. Future research should continue to explore under-represented populations—such as part-time learners, students with disabilities, and those in vocational education—while employing intersectional methods to reflect the full scope of educational wellbeing.

7. Looking Ahead: Reframing Wellbeing as a Shared Responsibility

Taken together, this Special Issue outlines a clear research and policy agenda: one that centres student voice, embraces systems thinking, and redefines educational success around thriving, inclusion, and equity. Firstly, current research on student stress remains fragmented and often limited to cross-sectional snapshots. There is an urgent need for longitudinal and mixed-methods studies that track how stress and coping evolve across academic pathways and life transitions (e.g., Schladitz et al.). Moreover, stress must be studied not only as an outcome but as a dynamic process situated in institutional ecosystems. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological theory remains relevant but must be extended using modern systems-based approaches that account for policy, pedagogy, and community-level variables (Kahu & Nelson, 2018).

Secondly, to build interventions that truly reflect students’ realities, institutions must partner with students as co-designers of wellbeing policy and practice. Participatory models (Cook-Sather et al., 2014; Bovill, 2020) offer not only more culturally responsive solutions but also greater legitimacy and buy-in. Involving students in needs assessment, service design, and policy feedback loops can help reduce marginalisation and increase access, especially for those most vulnerable to structural stressors.

Finally, the definition of educational success must move beyond metrics such as GPA and retention to ask more profound questions: Are students emotionally equipped for life after graduation? Do they feel a sense of belonging and purpose? Are they able to navigate uncertainty with flexibility and support? These questions demand a redefinition of what educational institutions value and how they measure impact (Seligman, 2011; Felten & Lambert, 2020). Thriving must be placed alongside achievement as a central goal of higher education.

Thus, this Special Issue offers a foundation as well as a provocation. The way forward is not to simply manage stress but to transform educational systems into environments where wellbeing and learning are mutually reinforcing.