Engineering education. A comparative analysis of burnout syndrome in theoretical and practical university academic staff

Abstract

The objective was to develop a comparative analysis in the measurement of Burnout Syndrome in university teachers who teach theoretical subjects compared to those who teach practical subjects in engineering education. As a hypothesis, it is proposed that practical subjects have a greater stressful component than theoretical ones, as a risk factor for suffering this syndrome, in the teaching of one of the most complex sciences. This was a quantitative, field study of correlational level, developed with a purposive sample of 60 teachers who teach in 3 engineering subjects (20 industrial, 20 mechanical and 20 electronics), in a public university in Cúcuta-Norte de Santander. The CBP-R scale was used as an instrument, in the variable stress and burnout processes, Factor I "burnout", sub-scales: "personal exhaustion" (8 items), "depersonalization" (4 items) and "lack of fulfillment" (7 items), with a reliability of 0.8. The sample divided into 2 groups (theory teachers - practice teachers) revealed that the teaching of mechanical engineering in theory and practice presents a high scale of burnout. The teaching of electronic engineering in theory and industrial engineering in practice presented a high scale of depersonalization, mostly low, with electronic engineering having a slight tendency to medium-high. The theoretical and practical teaching of the three engineering subjects presents a high scale in terms of lack of fulfillment. It is concluded around the hypothesis of the study, that for the dimissions exhaustion and depersonalization, a directly proportional relationship is found in the theoretical and practical teaching of the three engineering. With an α<0.05, it is concluded that this correlation is highly significant, being highly statistically determinant for the generation of SB. For the dimension lack of accomplishment, a directly proportional relationship is found in the theoretical and practical teaching of the three engineering degrees under study; however, by obtaining an α>0.05, it is concluded that this correlation is not statistically significant. In general, in the inferential statistical analysis of significance for the three dimensions, an α<0.05 is obtained, which implies a highly significant relationship in SB between the three dimensions, the two study groups (theory and practice), and three types of engineering.