The Impact of Sleep on Academic Performance in UBC Undergraduate Students
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Sleep is essential to an individual's health. Canada’s 24 hour movement guidelines state adults aged 18-64 should get seven to nine hours of quality sleep every night (24-Hour Movement Guidelines, 2021). University students who experience poor sleep quality may experience adverse effects on their academic performance and cognitive functioning (Barnes et al., 2000; Hamblin, 2007). Negative sleep behaviours, including phone time, substance abuse, and stress, directly impact sleep quality (Schmickler et al., 2023; Rathakrishnan et al., 2021); consequently leading to negative repercussions on academic performance. Sleep quality encompasses a number of various aspects of sleep habits including sleep disturbances and sleep duration. UBC Recreation disclosed that there is limited information regarding sleep amongst UBC students. We aim to investigate the relationship of sleep and GPA in undergraduate students attending the University of British Columbia, identify at-risk student groups, and provide recommendations to UBC Recreation. We expect to discover significant findings regarding the relationship between sleep and academic performance to make recommendations for UBC Recreation. We hope to enable students to engage in healthy sleep behaviours, improving their academic performance. Our guiding question is: How is sleep specifically related to academic performance among upper year students attending UBC? Secondary guiding questions include investigating unique aspects of sleep as well as differences between GPA in academic faculties. Third and fourth year undergraduate students at UBC aged 18-25 was the target population for this study. Students who have pre-diagnosed sleep disorders and/or take prescribed sleep medication, or who actively work night shifts were excluded from this study. We received 109 responses and stopped recruitment on April 1st, 2024 — after application of exclusion criteria 89 participants were used for analysis. Participant recruitment consisted of creating a recruitment poster and QR code, posting on social media, and reaching out to UBC clubs and varsity teams to share recruitment materials. The survey included both Quantitative and Qualitative Questions. Question format included multiple choice, Likert sliders, and text entry. Topics surrounded perceived sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, stress levels, sleep disturbances, and screen time. Completion of the survey offered the chance to win prizes. Analysis was done through descriptive statistical analysis and descriptive qualitative analysis. We imported our data into JASP software where we labeled our measurements, examined the data, conducted calculations, and created figures. Stress and screen time were consistently reported as sleep behaviors that impact sleep quality. Reducing screen time was overwhelmingly the most reported strategy needed. Good, very good, and excellent sleep quality was conducive with higher GPA’s. Poor and fair sleep quality was prevalent in those with lower GPA’s. Many students experience daytime sleepiness and report their sleep quality is impacted by feeling exhausted upon wake-up. Sleep duration was not significantly associated with GPA. However, students with a lower GPA slept 2 hours more during the weekend vs week whereas students with a higher GPA slept 51 minutes longer; having a consistent routine with minimal sleep duration fluctuation can contribute to improved academic performance. Lastly, lower GPAs indicated higher prevalence of sleep disturbances. We propose three recommendations for UBC Recreation. First of all, the creation of a UBC Sleep Website that provides education and resources for healthy sleep habits. Second, future research should be conducted to investigate the relationships between sleep, mental health outcomes, and academic performance. Third, the development of a UBC Sleep application could translate knowledge while using push notifications to decrease screen time and sleep tracking. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».