BUSCADOR RECOLECTA

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have required substantial adjustments in terms of university teaching–learning processes. The aim of this study was to verify whether there were significant differences between the academic year of 2020 and the two preceding years in factors and symptoms and stress. A total of 642 university students (ages 18–25 years) participated by filling out validated self-reports during the months from March to August 2020. Using an ex post facto design, SEM analyses and simple and multiple ANOVAs were performed. Structural results showed that stress factors from the teaching process had a predictive value for the learning process, emotions, and academic burnout, and being a man was a factor predicting negative emotion. In a similar way, inferential results revealed no significant effect of academic year but did show an effect of gender on stress experiences during the pandemic. Aside from certain specific aspects, there was no significant global effect of the year 2020 on factors and symptoms of stress. The results showed that studying in the year of the COVID-19 outbreak did not have a significant effect on stress triggered by the teaching process. From these results, we draw implications for specific guidance interventions with university teachers and students., This research was funded by the R&D Project PGC2018-094672-B-I00, University of Navarra (Ministry of Science and Education, Spain), and the R&D Project UAL18-SEJ-DO31-A-FEDER (University of Almería, Spain), and the European Social Fund.

The SRL vs. ERL TheoryTM predicts that regulation-related factors in the student and in
the context combine to determine the student's levels in emotional variables, stress, and
coping strategies. The objective of the present research was to test this prediction in the
aspect of coping strategies. Our hypothesis posed that students' level of self-regulation
(low-medium-high), in combination with the level of regulation promoted in teaching
(low-medium-high), would determine the type of strategies students used to cope with
academic stress; the interaction of these levels would focus coping strategies either
toward emotions or toward the problem. A total of 944 university students completed
validated questionnaires on self-regulation, regulatory teaching, and coping strategies,
using an online tool. ANOVAs and MANOVAs (3 1; 3 3; 5 1) were carried out, in
a quasi-experimental design by selection. Level of self-regulation and level of regulatory
teaching both had a significant effect on the type of coping strategies used. The most
important finding was that the combined level of self-regulation and external regulation,
on a five-level scale or heuristic, predicted the type of coping strategies that were used.
In conclusion, the fact that this combination can predict type of coping strategies used
by the student lends empirical support to the initial theory. Implications for the teaching-
learning process at university and for students' emotional health are discussed., This work was supported by R&D Project PGC2018-094672-B-I00 (Ministry of Science and Education, Spain), UAL18 SEJ-DO31-A-FEDER (University of Almería, Spain), and the European Social Fund.

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to establish predictive relationships of the Big Five personality factors (according to their self-regulatory level), together with resilience (proactive and reactive factors), for factors and symptoms of academic stress related to teaching and learning in the University context. A total of 405 female undergraduate students were selected, and completed questionnaires that had been previously validated in Spanish University students (Big Five personality factors, resilience, and academic stress symptoms and factors). A linear, ex-post facto design was used, including linear regression, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), and mediational analyses. Specific linear regression showed the expected gradation: that self-regulatory personality factors (conscientiousness, extraversion) were positive linear predictors of proactive resilience, as well as significant negative predictors of stress factors and symptoms of academic stress; while the non-regulatory personality factors (openness to experience, agreeableness) showed little relationship. By contrast, the dysregulatory personality factor (neuroticism) was a negative predictor of proactive resilience, a positive predictor of reactive resilience, and positively predicted academic stress factors in the teaching and learning process, as well as stress symptoms. SEM general analysis showed that personality factors positively predicted resilience, and resilience negatively predicted factors and symptoms of academic stress. Specific mediational model analysis, with each personality factor, confirmed the different mediating relationships that appeared in the linear regression analyses. These results are discussed from the perspective of promoting resilience and healthy personalities in the University context. Implications for addressing academic stress at University are discussed., This study was supported by R&D Project PGC2018-094672-B-I00, University of Navarra, Ministry of Education and Science (Spain), and the European Social Fund (EU); R&D Project UAL18- SEJ-DO31-A-FEDER. University of Almería (Spain), and the European Social Fund (EU).

The aim of this research was to delimit the predictive and mediational model of resilience between character strengths to predict flourishing, in a sample of undergraduate students. After signing their informed consent, 642 university students completed three validated scales (i.e., character strengths, resilience, and flourishing). Using an ex post facto design, regression, structural modeling, and mediation analyses were carried out, in order to construct a multi-causal predictive model. Results indicated a consistent predictive direct effect of character strengths on resilience and flourishing and of resilience on flourishing. As hypothesized, resilience also showed a mediating effect on the relationship between character strengths and flourishing. Additionally, results also revealed that the reactive and proactive factors of resilience were explained by different character strengths (e.g., emotional strength/cognitive, interpersonal strengths), reinforcing the idea that the two directions are complementary and necessary. Finally, several implications were established for the practice of positive psychology., This research was funded by the R&D Project PGC2018-094672-B-I00, University of Navarra (Ministry of Science and Education, Spain), the R&D Project UAL18-SEJ-DO31-A-FEDER (University of Almería, Spain), and the European Social Fund.