Wellness in Engineering Education: An Investigation into the Impact of Degree Plan Length and Its Association with Student Wellness

Abstract

Undergraduate engineering programs are associated with high stress and heavy workloads that impact the wellness of students. One university offers a unique undergraduate engineering education program structure offering two degree plan lengths, four or five years, with both involving the same number of courses. These options offer an opportunity for students to select the degree plan length they prefer. The purpose of this research is to explore the motivations for selecting degree plan length and how plan length may be associated with student wellness. An ethics-approved survey of 189 undergraduate students was conducted. Participants responded to a variety of questions that asked about their motivations for selecting their degree plan length and their state of wellness. Mann–Whitney U tests, thematic analyses, and chi-squared tests were used to analyze quantitative and qualitative responses. Results highlighted that there were statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.001) between the motivators (4 of 8 factors) and perceived wellness (3 of 5 indicators) of students on the four- vs. five-year plans. Overall, it appears that each degree plan length may serve different student needs. Additionally, results suggest that the five-year plan offers the opportunity to reduce the workload and correlates with a better state of perceived wellness.

1. Introduction

During 2022/2023, approximately 43% of Canadian youths between the ages of 18 and 24 were enrolled in college (13%) or university (30%) programs (Statistics Canada, 2025b). Of the domestic population (Statistics Canada, 2025a), this equates to over 1.5 million Canadian youths attending post-secondary education, with just over 1 million attending university (Statistics Canada, 2025a).

University is a vulnerable period, in part because youth are still at an age where mental health concerns may not yet have been identified and tend to surface (Reavley & Jorm, 2010; Upsher et al., 2023). In addition to the emergence of mental health challenges, students entering post-secondary schooling are faced with a new school system accompanied by new freedoms as they begin to experience life as adults. They learn to live and operate as independent individuals with a newfound autonomy in responsible decision making for personal, financial, social, health, and career wellbeing (Macaskill, 2013; Upsher et al., 2023). The stress accompanying the transition to independence may be detrimental to mental wellbeing and may impact their ability to learn (Hamaideh, 2011; Upsher et al., 2023), which is counterproductive to their pursuit of post-secondary education.

To understand how students are coping in post-secondary education, the 2016 National College Health Assessment (NCHA) conducted a survey of 41 Canadian post-secondary institutions (American College Health Association, 2016). This study captured over 43,000 student voices, almost 37,700 of whom were in undergraduate programs. Results revealed that 58% of students found their academics difficult to handle or traumatic (48% male and 62% female), with 18% (10.5% male, 21% female) and 15% (10% male, 16% female) of respondents being treated for anxiety and depression, respectively. When comparing these results to the entirety of the Canadian population (5.2% with generalized anxiety disorders and 7.6% with major depressive episodes (Statistics Canada, 2023)), there is a higher proportion of post-secondary students seeking help for mental health concerns than among average Canadians.

The caveat in the above statistics is that not all students experiencing mental health concerns will have sought professional attention. The results of all NCHA respondents (American College Health Association, 2016) identified in the 12 months leading up to the study indicated that students experienced:

-

Feeling overwhelmed by all to be done: 90% (81% male, 93% female)

-

Feeling overwhelming anxiety: 65% (51% male, 70% female)

-

Feeling depressed: 44% (38% male, 46% female)

-

Serious consideration of suicide: 13% (11.5% male, 13% female)

In addition to identifying that post-secondary students are experiencing a high proportion of mental health challenges, results from both NCHA and Statistics Canada highlight that students identifying as females, particularly between the ages of 15 and 24, have the highest levels of mood and anxiety disorders. While these snapshot statistics are informative, there is also evidence that the overall mental health, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation, of young people is continuing to worsen (Council of Ontario’s Universities, 2020; Duffy et al., 2019; K. Jensen, 2021; Lipson et al., 2018; Statistics Canada, 2023).

Of interest in this paper are undergraduate engineering programs, known for their difficult curricula (Golsteyn & Nino, 2018), with students perceiving their ‘horrific workload’ (Godfrey & Parker, 2010; K. Jensen, 2021) to be the most stressful part of their program (Bayarsaikhan & EUS Mental Health Committee, 2018; Golsteyn & Nino, 2018; K. J. Jensen et al., 2023). This perception has translated into an ‘engineering stress culture’, where the workload and expectations create an environment of suffering and hardship (Godfrey & Parker, 2010; K. J. Jensen et al., 2023; K. J. Jensen & Cross, 2021), high stress levels are considered a norm (K. J. Jensen et al., 2023; K. J. Jensen & Cross, 2021), and students anticipate enrollment in the program to come with poor mental health (K. Jensen & Cross, 2019). This perceived ‘stress culture’ amplifies the problem by elevating the stress and mental health challenges of students (Danowitz & Beddoes, 2020).

Studies conducted with engineering students have found moderate to severe levels of stress, anxiety, and depression (K. J. Jensen et al., 2023; K. J. Jensen & Cross, 2021), and, strikingly, that they are twice as likely to suffer from mental health challenges than their peers (Danowitz & Beddoes, 2020). While justification for concern over the mental wellbeing of engineering students has been demonstrated, the concern is further amplified given that engineering students with mental health challenges are also less likely to seek and receive the support or treatment they need (K. J. Jensen et al., 2023; K. J. Jensen & Cross, 2021; Lipson et al., 2018).

2. Background

Clearly there is a ubiquitous mental health crisis plaguing academic institutions. In response to this crisis, many organizations and institutions have researched student wellbeing and are attempting to provide services to students. Houghton and Anderson (2017) note that the Higher Education Academy (HEA) proposes that wellbeing should be integrated into course curricula, including wellbeing content, teaching strategies, active learning, and autonomy. Redesigning courses, teaching, and assessment practices (Baik et al., 2019; Upsher et al., 2023), teaching study skills (Putwain et al., 2013; Upsher et al., 2023), increasing guidance and supports (Burgess et al., 2009; Upsher et al., 2023), and creating wellness programs (K. Jensen, 2021; Ott-Holland et al., 2019) could provide other avenues for improving wellbeing.

Travia et al. (2022) explored wellbeing offerings across campuses in North America through the “Healthy Campus Initiative 2020”. Findings suggested that there are numerous stress management supports offered, with a greater number of programs offered to help support healthy lifestyles, including promoting physical activity and healthy eating. A study by Amaya et al. (2019) highlighted that some of the best practices for enhancing wellbeing are helping students to set boundaries and expectations surrounding work (K. Jensen, 2021), including a mental health statement in the course syllabus (Flaherty, 2017) and integrating wellness into the curriculum (Miller & Jensen, 2020; Paul et al., 2020). Additionally, in work conducted by Baik et al. (2019), students suggested that ways to improve their wellbeing could include efforts by instructors to adjust teaching practices, provide more services and supports, and improve the environment, culture, and communication. The “Education for Mental Health” (Hughes et al., 2022; Upsher et al., 2023) and Faculty Toolkit (Centre for Innovation in Campus Mental Health, 2020) provide frameworks to help instructors support wellbeing in their administration of curricula and their approach to pedagogy and assessments.

One Potential Factor Contributing to the Problem

Reflecting on the wellness crisis and the services and supports being implemented, it is evident that all of the responses are taking a reactive approach to addressing the wellness crisis. Students are being taught how to manage and reduce stress, eat healthy, set boundaries for work, and the importance of including physical activity in their routines. Faculty are being educated on how to offer support in the classroom, restructure courses and assignments, and teach in ways to better support students. Universities and colleges are making significant investments in wellness initiatives and providing mental health and other services to students around campuses.

These are all excellent ways of supporting students and critical in maintaining personal wellness, but they are reactionary, helping students deal with and manage stress, and are addressing the ‘symptoms’ of an underlying issue. Statistics have demonstrated that mental health concerns are continuing to rise despite the additional supports and strategies available to students and being implemented into curricula. The question arises as to why the mental health crisis is being exacerbated in post secondary institutions, rather than being reduced, given the enhanced awareness, strategies, and supports available?

The demanding workload on engineering students makes time a valuable commodity that must be carefully allocated. When workloads become demanding, engineering students may feel increasing stress on their time, finding it harder to focus on eating well, physical exercise, participating in counseling or other services that foster wellbeing, and, therefore, exacerbate their stress. This could be a contributing factor as to why engineering students are at higher risk for mental health struggles and less likely to seek treatment (Danowitz & Beddoes, 2020; K. J. Jensen et al., 2023; K. J. Jensen & Cross, 2021; Lipson et al., 2018). In effect, the services and supports offered to address and manage stress are not readily accessible to engineering students since it creates another problem when students try to find space in their time-intensive academic schedules to participate in stress mitigation strategies.

One approach for enhancing engineering student wellbeing could start by addressing the demanding workload, which could provide a two-fold benefit in addressing the wellness crisis. First, addressing the workload could help to directly reduce stress, and second, it could provide students with more time to properly care for themselves and access the services and supports available to enhance their wellness. This approach is being modeled at the University of Prince Edward Island (UPEI) in the Faculty of Sustainable Design Engineering (FSDE), which offers an option to complete a bachelor’s degree in engineering over an extended duration.

Traditional engineering programs offer an intense workload over a four-year undergraduate degree. Some universities offer degrees over five years, but this added year comes from incorporating work terms or added education (ex. minor, specialty) into the degree and does not reduce the workload during academic semesters for students. By contrast, the UPEI FSDE actively promotes both four- and five-year undergraduate engineering education to incoming and current students and freely advertises the course schedule for both degree plans. The five-year program covers the same number of courses as the four-year plan but spreads the course load over an additional year, thereby reducing student workload. This model has been advertised for a number of years, so FSDE undergraduate students are aware and are actively participating in both degree plan options. The challenge is that little is known as to who is taking which degree plan option and if any wellness benefits are being realized from the five-year degree plan reducing student workload. The goal of this study is to investigate if degree plan length has an impact on engineering student wellness.

The initial findings of this study were published, following peer review, as part of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) 2024 Conference proceedings (Shaw & Spencer, 2024). The focus of Shaw and Spencer (2024) was a preliminary analysis of the demographic information of students taking four- or five-year degree plans and to determine key motivations for their plan length selection. The current paper builds on the previous work and will explore the impacts of degree plan length on student wellness and perform a thematic analysis of the qualitative data.

3. Methodology

3.1. Understanding Wellness

Both ‘wellness’ and ‘wellbeing’ are terms that may be used interchangeably throughout this work to describe the holistic health of an individual, inclusive of both mental and physical aspects (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024; Global Wellness Institute, 2024; World Health Organization, 2024).

Discussions and assessments of wellness are increasingly commonplace in many work, school, and community settings. The challenge with the volume of wellness assessments is that many studies define wellness differently. Within the academic world, wellness literature is becoming increasingly available. Despite this, there still exists a gap in the research focused on undergraduate engineering students and, therefore, it is challenging to find examples or establish consistency on how wellness is evaluated for these students.

Of note are the studies by Golsteyn and Nino (2018) and K. J. Jensen and Cross (2021), who explored wellness in engineering students. These studies provide a foundation for understanding wellness, relevant vocabulary, and approaches to assessing wellness for engineering students. K. J. Jensen and Cross (2021) focused on stress, mental health, and inclusion in their understanding of the ‘engineering stress culture’, focusing primarily on the mental and spiritual side of wellbeing and did not encompass physical health indicators. Golsteyn and Nino (2018) generated a list of indicators to look at the ‘state of wellness of engineering undergraduate students’ at the University of British Columbia, which encompassed the physical, mental, and spiritual aspects of wellbeing. These indicators give a holistic picture of wellness and, as such, the five main wellness indicators that have been adapted for use in this study include:

-

Physical health

-

Mental health

-

Stress

-

Inclusivity

-

Belonging

3.2. Survey Creation

To investigate the wellness of FSDE undergraduate students, with respect to degree plan length, a survey was developed, received ethics approval (REB #6012130) from the UPEI research ethics board, and was administered during the Fall 2023 semester. The survey was hosted online via MS Forms through the UPEI student portal to ensure data security.

The survey was delivered to the undergraduate population via classes selected from each year, which allowed for maximum exposure to students and reduced overlap between the four- and five-year degree plans. The survey was presented to students in class, with dedicated class time to complete it if they voluntarily engaged with the survey. Surveys were administered in October and November 2023, the midpoint of the semester when the workload is often the heaviest and students are acutely feeling the pressures of their academic commitments on their wellbeing.

The survey consisted of 38 questions, in various styles: short and long-form responses, multiple choice, and Likert-scale questions. Student anonymity was achieved by having students create a unique, easily remembered identifier that would be re-used for additional survey data collection periods and longitudinal analysis. The survey was organized into three distinct sections: demographics, degree plan selection motivation, and wellness indicators. This was done not only for the purposes of organization and analysis but to help focus student responses.

3.3. Results Analysis and Interpretation

To facilitate a statistical analysis of the survey results, Likert-scale responses were converted to a numerical scale. Factors having ‘no’ to ‘little’ importance in decision making are reflected by negative numbers, −2 and −1, respectively; those of ‘moderate importance’ are rated as 0; and those that are ‘important’ or ‘extremely important’ correspond to numerical scores of +1 or +2, respectively. Similarly, impacts of degree plan length on wellness were rated on a Likert scale ranging from strong negative (−2) to strong positive (+2), and realized state of wellness as poor (−2) to excellent (+2). Mann–Whitney U tests were then conducted on the survey responses to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the responses of four- and five-year plan students. Statistical significance is normally decided based on a p < 0.05 significance level, but performing multiple U tests may increase the possibility of false positives (type I error). One approach for reducing the number of false positives is to apply a Bonferroni correction to adjust the p-value, although this may be overly conservative. Applying the Bonferroni correction across all tests (30 in total) executed in this study adjusted the p-value to 0.0017.

Where participants elected to provide written responses to short and long-form questions, qualitative responses were collected, and a thematic analysis was used to identify key themes. The analysis followed the basic 6-step process outlined by Clarke and Braun (2013), whereby the data were reviewed, coded, and then combined, reviewed for themes and refined, and then analyzed to identify themes of significance. The review step was completed twice before refining to help ensure all themes were captured. Thematic analysis was selected due to its flexibility, but it is important to be aware of the subjective nature of generating codes and themes (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017).

Following the thematic analysis, the chi-squared ($x^2)$ test was used to determine uniformity in theme responses. The chi-squared test is used to determine if options (responses) are chosen more often than others (i.e., are the responses uniformly spread across the whole group, or is one option noted more often).

The chi-squared ($x^2$) statistic is calculated as follows:

$$x^2= \sum \left({\displaystyle \frac{{\left(O_i-E_i\right)}^2}{E_i}}\right)$$

(1)

where: $O_i$ = observed frequencies, $E_i$ = expected frequencies

In this context, the frequency refers to the count of each option.

This differs from the U test, since instead of determining whether a value is different from another value, the chi-squared test examines whether an option (i.e., how respondents answer) is more or less likely to be chosen over another.

Performing a chi-squared analysis of the themes allowed for a comparison of text-based qualitative responses both within and between the two degree plan length groups. The findings from this analysis denoted whether, for a given question, there was consensus among respondents regarding their answers.

4. Results

4.1. Initial Study Summary

As previously discussed, of the approximately 290 students enrolled in the UPEI FSDE in Fall 2023, around 210 students were present in class when the surveys were presented (Shaw & Spencer, 2024). A total of 189 complete survey responses were captured, representing 64% of the total FSDE undergraduate population and approximately a 90% response rate from attendees in class.

4.1.1. Demographics

Survey responses highlighted the following demographic data:

• Nationality:

  ○

  60% Domestic

  ○

  39% International

  ○

  2% Not Identified

• Gender:

  ○

  72% Man

  ○

  25% Woman

  ○

  3% Other, Prefer not to specify

• Degree Plan Length:

  ○

  23% Four-year plan

  ▪

  39% Domestic

  ▪

  59% International

  ▪

  2% Other

  ○

  77% Five-year plan

  ▪

  67% Domestic

  ▪

  32% International

  ▪

  1% Other

  ○

  Interestingly, both the four- and five-year degree plan lengths had the same gender distribution: 72–73% male, 25% female, and 2–3% other.

The demographics of the survey participants correlated well with the FSDE administrative data, which stated that students were (nationality) 57% domestic and 43% international, and (gender) 70% male, 20% female, and 10% other. There was a slight bias in the number of survey participants from the four-year plan participants (23% of respondents), as the administrative data estimated 12% enrollment in the four-year program. This bias allowed for a more robust analysis of the four-year students’ motivations and impacts of the shorter degree plan length. Due to the similarities in demographic information, the responses were deemed representative of the voices of the entire FSDE undergraduate population.

4.1.2. Primary Motivation for Selecting Degree Plan Length

To understand the motivations for why students selected their degree plan length, a series of nine options (eight scripted plus an option to enter an ‘other’ response) were provided. Students highlighted that academic workload (48%), wellbeing (11%), and financial (8%) considerations were the primary motivations for their selected degree plan path. Further statistical analysis found that there was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between motivations for selecting specific degree plan lengths. Students on the four-year plan were motivated by financial factors (30%), followed by professional goals (23%) and academic requirements (18%). By contrast, workload emerged as the most significant motivation for students on the five-year plan, with over 60% of students identifying it as the primary motivation. Wellbeing was the second, but less substantial, motivator for these students (14%).

4.1.3. Impact on Wellness

A preliminary analysis of the perceived impact of degree plan length on student wellness was also presented in the initial study, in which there was a statistically significant difference in responses between four- and five-year path students who felt a negative and positive impact on their wellness, respectively (Shaw & Spencer, 2024). These results, and others, will be further explored in this paper.

4.2. Current Analysis

4.2.1. Influence of Motivating Factors for Selecting Degree Plan Length

To further explore the specific motivations for selecting degree plan length, Mann–Whitney U tests were performed comparing the four- to five-year path responses. Participants were asked to “Please rate the influence the following factors had on your decision to follow your current degree plan length (i.e., what are the reasons you chose to follow a 4- or 5-year degree plan length?)” from “not important” to “extremely important” across a variety of factors. The results are provided in

Table 1. Motivations for selecting degree plan length for four- and five-year degree plan length respondents.

Motivation in Selecting Degree Plan Length	Mann–Whitney U Test	Four-Year		Five-Year
	p	Count	Mean	Count	Mean
Academic workload	<0.001	44	−0.09	145	1.47
Financial	<0.001	44	0.75	143	−0.22
Wellbeing	<0.001	44	−0.14	144	0.99
Extracurricular	0.006	44	−0.64	144	−0.02
Personal	0.134	43	0.07	144	0.39
Academic goals	0.155	43	0.35	145	0.01
Academic requirements	0.175	44	0.48	144	0.15
Professional goals	0.001	44	0.93	143	0.22

Note: Likert scale conversion: +2 = Extremely Important, +1 = Important, 0 = Moderately Important, −1 = Low Importance, −2 = Not Important. Grey cells indicate statistically significant results (p ≤ 0.0017) between the degree plan length responses with the Bonferroni Correction (conservative), and yellow indicates a result that would be statistically significant under the standard Mann–Whitney U Test (p < 0.05).

. Of the eight scripted options, five were statistically significant (p < 0.05) between the four- and five-year paths, with academic workload, financial, wellbeing, extracurricular, and professional goals having different levels of influence in the decision-making process. It should be noted that if the Bonferroni correction was made to adjust the p-value for significance (i.e., p < 0.0017), the difference in extracurricular motivations was no longer significant.

As can be seen in Figure 1, as the degree of importance in decision making increased for the four-year plan students, there was a relative decrease in importance for students who selected the five-year plan. On the extremes, academic workload had low importance in deciding to follow the four-year plan but was important for deciding to enroll in the five-year program. Similarly, financial motivations were important in electing to follow the four-year path, but of low importance for those on the five-year plan.

Participants were then asked, “If applicable, please specify what ‘other’ factor may have influenced your choice of degree plan length”. Thematic analysis of the “other” motivators for selecting degree plan length identified the following themes:

-

Four-year plan

• Finishing quickly
• Personal and professional goals
• No choice in picking the path

One piece of insight that captured the essence of the ‘other’ motivators was provided by this student on the four-year degree plan: “I just wanted to complete it as fast as possible to be done and start working towards my next goals”.

-

Five-year plan

• Personal wellbeing
• Curriculum (preferred 5 years)
• In no rush to complete degree

A representative sentiment was captured in this five-year plan student’s voice: “I wanted to enjoy my life and not be stressed out 24/7. All my friends in the four years basically have no life outside of school, and I did not want that for myself”.

Chi-squared analysis was performed across the qualitative responses. There was a uniform distribution of themes from responses received from four-year plan participants (X²(4, N = 10) = 1, p = 0.91), but the distribution was not uniform from five-year plan participants (X²(6, N = 34) = 25.29, p < 0.01), who placed greater emphasis on the ‘curriculum’ component. This component represents factors identified by students related to curriculum, for example, implications in scheduling due to prerequisite requirements or availability of courses.

Respondents were prompted to elaborate on any additional reasoning that factored into their degree plan length selection. Chi-squared analysis of the four-year respondent themes identified only a few themes (less time in school, financial, other), and the responses were uniformly distributed across themes (X²(3, N = 18) = 3.8, p = 0.28). By contrast, the five-year plan responses were quite numerous (nine themes in total) and non-uniformly distributed (X²(8, N = 49) = 28.69, p < 0.01), with wellbeing and curriculum design being the most predominant, followed by financial considerations.

To complement the understanding as to why students were selecting a particular degree plan, a secondary question was posed as to whether “the degree plan you are enrolled in is currently meeting your primary motivation”. A total of 173 participants, 92% of survey respondents, agreed that their degree plan selection was aligning with their intended motivation.

It is interesting to note that there were students on both the four- and five-year degree plans, approximately 10% in each group, that stated their plan selection was not meeting their primary motivation. For those in this group, the following question was posed, “Please provide further information to clarify how this reason is not being met,” and responses were collected, demonstrating that motivations may remain unmet or that priorities may change once in the program:

-

Four-year plan student originally motivated by ‘professional’ goals: “The four-year plan is very tedious and I don’t see the point of finishing early anymore as I am still relatively young”.

-

Five-year plan student who identified ‘wellbeing’ as the primary motivation: “I still struggle with my wellbeing even though I take less courses than I would in the four-year program”.

-

Five-year plan student who identified ‘personal (non-academic)’ as the primary motivation: “I chose 5 years so I could have time to work so I could pay to be here but I’m working almost every day or time I’m not in school and still behind on bills”.

There was a clear distinction between the motivating factors for the four- and five-year degree plan lengths. Students on the four-year plan were motivated by finances and spending less time in school. By contrast, academic workload and wellbeing were the dominant motivating factors for students on the five-year plan.

Despite students having primary motivations that influenced their degree plan length selection, and the fact that many students felt their motivations were met by their choice, they still encountered challenges. Participants were asked, “Have you faced any unexpected challenges as a result of the degree plan length you are enrolled?” and, if the answer was ‘yes,’ a follow up question was posed, “Please provide further explanation on what challenges you have faced as a result of your degree plan length”. Students on the four-year plan elaborated on their challenges, a thematic analysis of responses identified ten themes, and a non-uniform distribution (X²(9, N = 24) = 73.5, p < 0.01) was confirmed through chi-squared analysis, with ‘workload increase’ as the primary challenge they faced. The same process was followed for the responses collected for students on the five-year plan. It should be noted that some students on the five-year plan may not have had a choice in their degree plan selection due to the semester when they enrolled or if they failed a course and were not able to meet the prerequisites to stay on the four-year plan. This was confirmed through chi-squared analysis, which identified a non-uniform distribution for five-year plan respondents (X²(4, N = 28) = 22.35, p < 0.01), in which “curriculum design (pre-requisites, scheduling, etc.)” was the most commonly highlighted challenge.

4.2.2. Perceived Impact on Wellbeing

As previously mentioned, the survey was administered in October and November 2023, midway through the fall semester, at a time when students are acutely aware of their academic workload, stress, and pressures being placed on their wellness.

Part of the survey included asking students to rate the impact of their degree plan length on their perceived wellness in the five categories used by Golsteyn and Nino (2018) with the following question “Please indicate how your choice of engineering degree plan length (i.e., 4 vs. 5 years) directly impacts the following wellness indicators”. Ratings spanned from ‘strongly negative’ (−2) to ‘strongly positive’ (+2) impacts, and the Likert scale was adapted to facilitate statistical analysis. Results from the Mann–Whitney U test comparing the two degree plan lengths are provided in

Table 2. Perceived impact of degree plan length on wellness indicators for four- and five-year degree plan length respondents.

Degree Plan Length Impact on Wellbeing	Mann–Whitney U Test	Four-Year		Five-Year
	p	Count	Mean	Count	Mean
Mental Health	<0.001	44	−0.43	145	0.5
Stress	<0.001	44	−0.91	145	0.41
Physical Health	<0.001	44	−0.34	144	0.48
Inclusivity	0.360	44	0.21	143	0.38
Belonging	0.952	44	0.30	144	0.33

Note: Likert scale conversion: +2 = Strongly Positive Impact, +1 = Generally Positive Impact, 0 = Neutral or Unsure, −1 = Generally Negative Impact, −2 = Strongly Negative Impact. Grey cells indicate statistically significant results between degree plan length responses (p ≤ 0.0017) with the Bonferroni Correction (conservative) applied to the Mann-Whitney U test.

. Visualizations of these results are provided in Figure 2.

Overall, students on the five-year plan felt that their degree plan length had a positive impact on their wellbeing, but the responses were varied across categories for students on the four-year plan. Of the five wellness indicators, the results from the perceived impact of program length on feelings of inclusivity and belonging were not statistically significant between the four- and five-year plan respondents (p > 0.05). Both groups of students felt that their feelings of inclusivity and belonging were positively impacted by their degree plan length selection. This suggests that degree plan length may not influence a student’s ability to feel included and of belonging to their academic community.

However, statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) were found for stress, mental, and physical health indicators. In these categories, students on the four-year program felt that their degree plan negatively impacted their wellness. By contrast, a generally positive perceived impact on wellness was the consensus from those on the five-year plan.

In addition to rating the perceived impacts of degree plan length on wellness, students were allowed to generate a written response to document their unique perceptions of how wellbeing is positively or negatively impacted by their chosen degree plan length by answering the following question, “Please describe how your selection of engineering degree plan length impacts your overall wellbeing (i.e., how is your wellbeing positively or negatively impacted by choosing to follow a 4- or 5-year degree plan)”.

Chi-squared analysis of the qualitive responses from the four-year plan students were, again, uniformly distributed across respondents (X²(4, N = 16) = 9.24, p = 0.055), revealing negatively perceived impacts on overall student wellness, stress, wellbeing and workload. An illustrative quote taken from a four-year plan student is as follows: “Choosing to follow a 4-year plan has caused a lot of stress because of the amount of work”.

By contrast, a perceived ‘positive impact’ due to ‘workload’ was the overwhelming theme from students on the five-year plan. Chi-squared analysis identified a non-uniform distribution (X²(10, N = 97) = 236.29, p < 0.01), with ‘workload’ representing the highest number of counted responses from the thematic analysis (47 of 97 total responses). The other two major themes were ‘positive’ impacts on both ‘stress’ (23 counts) and ‘wellbeing’ (13 counts). This was supported by a five-year plan student who noted: “Less stress on workload means more time to yourself, which directly impacts your mental health”.

Some 5-year plan students still indicated negative impacts. However, these responses accounted for a total of 5% of the comments provided. One student indicated that they would prefer having summer course options so that they did not have to convert to a five-year plan in case they had to repeat a course or missed a prerequisite.

4.2.3. Realized State of Wellbeing

While students may perceive an overall positive or negative impact on their wellbeing as a result of degree program length selection, the realized impacts on wellbeing may be different. Students were asked to self-assess their state of wellness in different categories on a Likert scale ranging from poor (−2), to average (0), to excellent (+2), through the following question “Please rate the following wellness indicators based on how you are currently feeling”. Students rated their current/realized state of overall mental health, in addition to five mental health subcategories, and overall physical health, alongside four physical health subcategories. They were also asked to rate their stress level and a series of five factors used to assess feelings of inclusivity and belonging. The results are shown in

Table 3. Realized state of wellness based on the self-assessment of four- and five-year degree plan length respondents.

Self-Assessed Wellness	Mann–Whitney U Test	Four-Year		Five-Year
	p	Count	Mean	Count	Mean
Overall Mental Health	0.756	43	−0.07	144	0.007
Ability to Cope	0.574	43	0.37	143	0.32
Ability to Concentrate	0.298	43	−0.07	142	−0.25
Anxiety/Worry	0.235	43	−0.61	144	−0.36
Feeling Overwhelmed	0.473	43	−0.51	143	−0.34
Depression/Unhappiness	0.792	43	0.28	144	0.29
Overall Physical Health	0.476	42	0.05	143	0.20
Exercise/Physical Activity	0.290	42	−0.19	143	0.08
Nutrition/Diet	0.019	42	−0.48	144	−0.01
Sleep	0.235	42	−0.38	143	−0.64
Energy Level	0.373	42	−0.29	144	−0.47
Stress Level	0.076	43	−0.67	143	−0.34
Feeling of Belonging	0.144	42	0.33	144	0.65
Feeling Comfortable	0.250	42	0.41	144	0.73
Community is Inclusive	0.128	42	0.48	143	0.81
Professional Relationships with Peers	0.147	42	0.64	144	0.92
Peers are Supportive	0.145	42	0.60	144	0.88

Note: Orange cells indicate indicators where five-year plan students rated their wellness lower than four-year students.

.

Notably, there were no statistically significant differences between the realized state of wellbeing between the two degree plan length cohorts across the wellness indicators. While there was no statistically significant difference across the majority of wellness indicators, it is interesting to note that there were instances where students on the five-year plan had, on average, rated their wellness lower than that of students on the four-year plan. The realized ability to cope, ability to concentrate, sleep, and energy level were, on average, rated lower by students on the five-year degree plan.

Direct comparisons between the four- and five-year degree plan lengths were provided in some comments from students reflecting on the lived experience of switching from a four- to five-year plan program. These individuals captured some of the realized impacts on wellbeing resulting from a switch to a longer degree plan length:

-

Positive impact on ‘physical health—sleep’: “When it was 4 years, I was always up way later than I am in the 5 year, the 4 year I was up till 2–3 am but in the 5 year I am up till 11–1 am”.

-

Positive impact on ‘physical health—exercise’ and ‘belonging’: “Time for personal well being, such as exercise and social interactions, has increased since switching from 4 to 5”.

-

An important observation from this study indicated that UPEI FSDE students on the four-year plan were predominantly of international background, whereas domestic students tended to pursue the five-year plan. Coupling this knowledge with the fact that financial reasons were identified as the primary motivator for students who enrolled in the four-year degree program suggests that higher international student fees, along with the associated living costs for each year of study, are placing financial pressures on international students and are steering them toward selecting the shorter degree plan length option. This was supported by the thematic analysis of written responses of four-year plan students, where ‘spending less time in school’ and ‘financial’ themes arose and are captured by the following sentiments: “International student fees hit me like a truck so I decided to just “speed-run this video game””.

-

“Would like to finish as fast as possible to be honest. The tuition fees for us international students are crazy high and would rather not pay an extra $22,000 a year”.

-

“I wanted to be done as soon as possible to avoid paying international fees over 5 years so I initially chose the 4-year plan”.

Students on the five-year plan said that financial motivations were of low importance in their degree plan length selection and, instead, identified workload, followed by wellbeing, as being the main motivations for selecting their degree plan length. These findings were supported by both the statistical and qualitative analysis of the respective Likert-scale and written responses, such as “My wellbeing is positively impacted by choosing a 5-year degree plan due to a smaller workload and a greater ability to engage in extracurriculars”.

5. Discussion

Interestingly, when the motivations for degree plan length were plotted from least important to most important for the four-year plan students, the level of motivation for the five-year plan students was approximately reversed. This illustrated that the factors motivating students on each degree plan length were opposite and may indicate that the four- and five-year degree plans are serving distinct sets of needs of the undergraduate student groups. For example, despite many of the perceived negative motivations of the four-year degree plan, students acknowledged some of the benefits it has offered:

-

“Choosing the 4-year program has helped me achieve a lot of my professional goals”

-

“Choosing the 4-year plan (has been) beneficial from a financial standpoint and a timeliness standpoint as well”

As discussed, the majority of students found that their program length was meeting their primary motivation for selecting a particular program duration. It is helpful to know that the primary motivation and reasons the students selected a degree plan length aligned with their lived experiences and that the options were not being misinterpreted or miscommunicated to incoming students.

A significant portion of the survey focused on the impact of degree plan length on student wellness, both perceived and realized impacts.

There was a clear divide in the perceived impacts of program length on wellness, with students on the four-year plan associating negative impacts from program length on their overall wellness, whereas students on the five-year plan perceived a positive impact. Students used a Likert scale to rate the impact of degree plan length on different wellness indicators, and there were statistically significant results between the four- and five-year degree plan students for stress and mental and physical health, associated with negative and positive impacts, respectively.

The thematic analysis of the written responses supported the Likert results that high workload increases stress (four-year plan) or a reduction in course load allows students to better manage their wellbeing (five-year plan). These results may provide insight into explaining the popularity of the five-year plan option among undergraduate engineering students. A few respondents directly compared what they believed the four- and five-year degree plan experiences offer:

-

Four-year plan student: “I have less time for myself than I would have if I had chosen the 5-year plan. So, I can’t do as many things to relax/take time for myself”.

-

Five-year plan student: “I follow the 5-year plan. I know I am not as stressed as my peers”.

-

Five-year plan student: “I feel that if I had taken the 4-year plan, I would be much more overwhelmed and stressed out”.

Inclusivity and belonging garnered positive responses from both cohorts of participants. This is a promising result that may suggest there is little bias or stigma on students taking either degree plan and that the culture of the UPEI FSDE is supportive, encouraging, and facilitates finding a sense of place and community for all undergraduate students, regardless of the degree plan they choose to follow.

As previously stated, students on the five-year plan perceived a benefit to their wellness resulting from their degree plan selection, in contrast to students on the four-year plan who perceived a negative impact. Yet when students were asked to rate their realized state of wellness, there was no statistical difference between the wellness of four- or five-year students across all wellness indicators. The differences between perceived and realized wellness results may be suggestive of an active influence of the social comparison effect on the perception of the students. Students were aware that the intent of the study was a focus on degree plan length and wellness. This may have initiated a tendency for a comparison mindset in the four- and five-year degree plan length participants to automatically perceive their wellness in either a negative or positive light, respectively, when compared to the other degree plan length group.

On average, all students felt that their overall mental and physical health were at average levels. Students rated their level of overwhelm, anxiety, sleep, energy, stress, exercise, and ability to concentrate as below average, whereas there was a consensus that their ability to concentrate, level of depression/unhappiness, sense of belonging, comfort, inclusivity, relationships, and support were all above average. These results indicate that, while students perceived a positive or negative impact of degree plan length on wellness, their realized state of wellbeing during the demanding season of their program was consistent.

Interestingly, while there was no statistically significant difference between the four- and five-year plan results for the ability to cope and concentrate, sleep, and energy levels, students on the five-year plan rated lower in these wellness indicators than those on the four-year plan. Although the results were not significant, this could be explored in future work, as the results may suggest a benefit of having a higher workload to help encourage focus, a sense of purpose, better time management, and motivation, which may enhance an individual’s ability to cope, concentrate, and be intentional about sleep and where time and energy are spent.

It is interesting to see that, while students were motivated to select the five-year plan due to the reduced workload, perceiving that it would benefit their wellbeing, they were not realizing a benefit over that of their peers on the four-year plan. This suggests that workload may not be a dominant factor contributing to the poor wellbeing of students, and that there may be other underlying issues contributing to the wellness crisis plaguing post-secondary institutions. Sentiments from two individual five-year plan students include:

-

“I still struggle with my wellbeing even though I take less courses than I would in the four-year program”.

-

“A reduction in course material has allowed me to attend more classes, miss less assignments, and overall feel better about myself. However, I do still struggle with these from time to time, so my degree plan has not mitigated all negative impacts on my wellbeing”.

Therefore, reducing workload by extending the degree plan length is not a ‘quick fix’ for the mental health crisis being experienced by post-secondary students. However, the option does allow student to take control of their learning and select an option that suits their circumstances.

The literature suggests that engineering students may be at higher risk of mental health struggles and feelings of isolation, especially for individuals identifying as female (Golsteyn & Nino, 2018). However, in this study, students, regardless of degree plan length, rated overall mental health as ‘average’ and feelings of depression/unhappiness, inclusivity, and belonging as ‘better than average’. Results suggested that, on average, UPEI FSDE students who participated in the survey were not severely experiencing mental health challenges or feelings of isolation.

Another encouraging collection of responses that arose from this survey was the fact that the five-year program provided assistance to students in need:

-

“Giving myself more time to recover from my health struggles and complete my courses to the best of my ability positively impacted my wellbeing”.

-

“I was in the 4-year program until 2020 I then failed a couple of prerequisite courses for 4th year design. The following year I was diagnosed with MDD and ADHD. I was very close to quitting and even followed some opportunities that’d help me change my major. (On the 5-year program) I’m doing much better now, am confident in my selected path, and I’m proud to say I’ll be graduating next spring”.

-

“I have a hard time learning sometimes so I didn’t want to overwhelm myself and fail out. I really want to complete my degree, so I think it’s necessary for me to do it slower than others”.

-

“My disability makes me a slow writer and doing a 4-year program would not give me the adequate time to complete my course work”.

Future directions for this study could include several different investigations. Current data can be processed according to demographic information, such as gender or nationality. Additionally, there is also the opportunity to administer the survey on an annual basis to create a longitudinal dataset, allowing results to be compared against different cohorts of students and following students across the duration of their degrees. Further work can also be pursued into focused groups to explore the notion that there is no realized difference in the state of wellness between the four- and five-year student groups, as highlighted above.

6. Conclusions

Post-secondary education is a phase of life that is often seen as a vulnerable period for individuals with respect to their mental health and wellbeing. Stress associated with the transition to independence, alongside demanding studies, can be challenging for individuals as they try to cope with increased workloads, expectations, and responsibilities. This is amplified in undergraduate engineering programs, known for having difficult workloads and ‘stress culture’. Generally, undergraduate engineering programs are offered over four years. The UPEI FSDE actively promotes their engineering degree over either four or five years, although little was known about which students take the different degree plan lengths and if there are any impacts on student wellbeing.

After surveying the FSDE undergraduate population, it was found that approximately 23% of the UPEI FSDE survey respondents were enrolled in the four-year program, the majority of whom were from international backgrounds. These students identified finances as the primary motivator for their selection of degree plan length and believed that their degree plan selection had a negative impact on their overall wellbeing. By contrast, there were statistically significant differences compared to the 77% of students on the five-year degree plan, who were primarily of domestic descent, named workload as the primary motivation for selecting the five-year program, and believed the five-year plan to positively impact their wellbeing.

Further analysis was performed to understand the students’ perceived impacts of degree plan length on multiple wellness indicators. Statistically significant differences were found between the four- and five-year plan students who respectively identified negative impacts and positive impacts on their stress, physical, and mental wellbeing. Interestingly, there was no significant difference between respondents when asked about feelings of inclusivity and belonging, suggesting that students did not feel that their degree plan length influenced their ability to find, participate, be included, and belong to the UPEI FSDE community.

Although there were clear differences between perceived impacts on stress, mental, and physical wellbeing between degree plans, this did not translate to the actual realized wellness of the students at the time the survey was completed. All students rated their ability to concentrate, overwhelm, sleep, energy, and stress levels as below average. Similarly, students on both degree plans felt that their levels of exercise and overall mental and physical health were average, with their ability to cope, depression/unhappiness, and sense of inclusivity and belonging rated as above average.

Overall, while there may be perceived benefits of being on the five-year plan, the realized state of wellness of students does not appear to be impacted either positively or negatively. Despite the fact that the realized state of wellness does not appear to be impacted, offering both four- and five-year plans helps to meet the unique set of needs of each group of students.