Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling undergraduate STEM students’ satisfaction with their programs in China: an empirical study

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Education Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several major reform areas attempted by ‘New Engineering Education’ (NEE), China’s most recent engineering education reform initiative at university level, are examined for their direct and indirect impact on Chinese STEM-major students’ satisfaction with their programs in this study. With data collected from a sample of 619 Chinese undergraduate students, the measurement and structural models both display good model fits. The structural results indicate that course satisfaction fully mediates the impact of classroom instruction method on program satisfaction, while partially mediates the impact of support from faculty members and alternative assessment methods on program satisfaction. The impact of resource and service on program satisfaction, however, is direct without any mediating effect in between. Multigroup analyses show that the impact of alternative assessment methods on course satisfaction is significantly stronger for first-tier university students than for non-first-tier university students. Furthermore, there is stronger impact of resource and service on program satisfaction for junior and senior students than for freshmen and sophomores. Practical implications are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Matthew effect refers to the phenomenon that those who already have status are often placed in situations where they gain more, and those that do not have status typically struggle to achieve more. (Source: https://study.com/academy/lesson/matthew-effect-definition-examples.html)

References

  • Almarghani, E. M., & Mijatovic, I. (2017). Factors affecting student engagement in HEIs-it is all about good teaching. Teaching in Higher Education,22(8), 940–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, M., Buchinsky, M., & Sovero, V. (2016). Decomposing the racial gap in STEM major attrition: A course-level investigation.

  • Bedggood, R. E., & Donovan, J. D. (2012). University performance evaluations: What are we really measuring? Studies in Higher Education,37(7), 825–842. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.549221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butt, B. Z., & Rehman, K. (2010). A study examining the students satisfaction in higher education. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences,2(2), 5446–5450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, A., Ross, B., Phelan, L., Lindsay, K., Drew, S., Stoney, S., et al. (2015). Course evaluation matters: Improving students’ learning experiences with a peer-assisted teaching programme. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,40(2), 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM Fields. Statistical analysis report. NCES 2014-001. National Center for Education Statistics.

  • Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D. R., & Edström, K. (2014). Rethinking engineering education. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05561-9.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dearing, R. (1997). The Dearing Report. The National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education.

  • DeChenne, S. E., Enochs, L. G., & Needham, M. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduate teaching assistants teaching self-efficacy. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,12(4), 102–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devinder, K., & Datta, B. (2003). A study of the effect of perceived lecture quality on post-lecture intentions. Work Study,52(5), 234–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorman, J. P. (1998). The development and validation of an instrument to assess institutional-level environment in universities. Learning Environments Research,1(3), 333–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, J., Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university. Quality Assurance in Education,14(3), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880610678568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elhadary, O. (2016). Student satisfaction in STEM: An exploratory study. American Journal of Educational Research,4(2), 195–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,24(2), 197–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,18, 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grace, D., Weaven, S., Bodey, K., Ross, M., & Weaven, K. (2012). Putting student evaluations into perspective: The course experience quality and satisfaction model (CEQS). Studies in Educational Evaluation,38(2), 35–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, R. (2018). The global state of the art in engineering education. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, H. J., Hood, M., & Neumann, D. L. (2015). Predictors of student satisfaction with university psychology courses: A review. Psychology Learning & Teaching,14(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725715590959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & William, C. (Ed.). (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haller, M. (2006). Emerging technologies of augmented reality: Interfaces and design: Interfaces and design. Igi Global.

  • Hallinger, P., & Lu, J. (2013). Learner centered higher education in East Asia: Assessing the effects on student engagement. International Journal of Educational Management,27(6), 594–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, Y., Lomas, L., & MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education,11(1), 15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holdren, J., Lander, E., & Varmus, H. (2010). Report to the president prepareandinspıre: K-12 educatıon in scıence, technology, engıneerıng, andmath (STEM) for Amerıca’s future.

  • Holdren, J. P., Marrett, C., & Suresh, S. (2013). Federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education 5-year strategic plan. National Science and Technology Council: Committee on STEM Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y., Pang, S.-K., & Yu, S. (2018). Academic identities and university faculty responses to new managerialist reforms: Experiences from China. Studies in Higher Education,43(1), 154–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1157860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husband, T. (2013). Improving the quality of instruction through a service teaching framework. Journal of Effective Teaching,13(2), 73–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ives, G., & Rowley, G. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: Ph.D. students’ progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 535–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500249161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of internationalization. Brill Sense.

  • Kreber, C. (2003). The relationship between students’ course perception and their approaches to studying in undergraduate science courses: A Canadian experience. Higher Education Research & Development,22(1), 57–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leng, Y. (1996). Cong Jiangshou Weizhu Dao Zixue Weizhu [From the dependence on classroom lecture to self-study]. Journal of Higher Education,17(2), 59–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, W. S., & Hui, K. F. S. (2007). Conceptions of assessment of mainland China college lecturers: A technical paper analyzing the Chinese version of CoA-III. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,16(2), 185.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research,39(1), 99–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (2011). Imagining the global. In Handbook on Globalization and Higher Education, 10–39.

  • McCluskey, F. B., & Winter, M. L. (2012). The idea of the digital university: Ancient traditions, disruptive technologies and the battle for the soul of higher education. Washington, DC: Westphalia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MOE. (2017). Xingongke Jianshe 'Tianda' Xingdong [‘Tianda Action’ for ‘New Engineering Education’ Development]. Retrieved December 31, 2018 from https://www.moe.edu.cn/s78/A08/moe_745/201704/t20170412_302427.html

  • MOE. (2018a). Jieshao Putong Gaodeng Xuexiao Benke Zhuanyelei Jiaoxue Zhiliang Guojia Biaozhun Youguan Qingkuang [Briefng on National Standards of Teaching Quality for Undergraduate Programs]. Retrieved September 2, 2019 from https://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/xw_fbh/moe_2069/xwfbh_2018n/xwfb_20180130/201801/t20180130_325928.html

  • MOE. (2018b). Putong Gaodeng Xuexiao Benke Zhuanyelei Jiaoxue Zhiliang Guojia Biaozhun [National Standards of Teaching Quality for Undergraduate Programs]. Beijing: Higher Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Undergraduate research experiences for STEM students: Successes, challenges, and opportunities. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.

  • National Research Council. (2003). Evaluating and improving undergraduate teaching in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navarro, M., Pedraja I, M., & Rivera T, P. (2005). A new management element for universities: Satisfaction with the offered courses. International Journal of Educational Management,19(6), 505–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership,50(7), 8–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikolic, S., Ritz, C., Vial, P. J., Ros, M., & Stirling, D. (2015). Decoding student satisfaction: How to manage and improve the laboratory experience. IEEE Transactions on Education,58(3), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2014.2346474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (McGraw-Hill Series in Psychology) (Vol. 3). McGraw-Hill, New York.

  • NVAO. (2017). Delft University of technology advisory report. The Hague, Netherlands: NVAO, Department The Netherlands, Institutional Audit.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donovan, B. (2017). How student beliefs about knowledge and knowing influence their satisfaction with assessment and feedback. Higher Education,74(4), 617–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0068-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education,25, 85–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohland, M. W., Sheppard, S. D., Lichtenstein, G., Eris, O., Chachra, D., & Layton, R. A. (2008). Persistence, engagement, and migration in engineering programs. Journal of Engineering Education,97(3), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00978.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz, A. M., & Sriraman, V. (2015). Exploring faculty insights into why undergraduate college students leave STEM fields of study-A three-part organizational self-study. American Journal of Engineering Education,6(1), 43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, I., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L., & Agahi, H. (2003). The impact of facilities on student choice of university. Facilities,21(10), 212–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rust, C., Price, M., & O’donovan, B., (2003). Improving students’ learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,28(2), 147–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. S., Saunders, K. P., Antonenko, P., Green, T., Peterson, N., & Thompson, D. (2007). Experiences in using virtual reality in design and graphics classrooms. International Journal of Engineering Education,23(6), 1192.

    Google Scholar 

  • So, H.-J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education,51(1), 318–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sum, V., McCaskey, S. J., & Kyeyune, C. (2010). A survey research of satisfaction levels of graduate students enrolled in a nationally ranked top-10 program at a mid-western university. Research in Higher Education Journal,7, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tam, K. Y., Heng, M. A., & Jiang, G. H. (2009). What undergraduate students in China say about their professors’ teaching. Teaching in Higher Education,14(2), 147–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, B. J., Chan, W. S., Prosser, M. T., & Watkins, D. A. (2009). Undergraduates’ learning experience and learning process: Quantitative evidence from the East. Higher Education,58(3), 375–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, K. L., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and application of the course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education,22(1), 33–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Y. J. (2015). Attention to retention: Exploring and addressing the needs of college students in STEM majors. Journal of Education and Training Studies. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i2.1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ye, X. (2011). Cong Meiguo Daxue Jiaoxue Tedian Kan Woguo Daxue Jiaoxue Mangdian [Exploring the weaknesses of China’s University teaching from the characteristics of university teaching in the US]. Journal of Higher Education (Chinese),32(11), 68–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, H., & Lu, G. (2014). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing mathematics classroom environment in tertiary institutions. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,23(3), 655–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0138-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, H., & Wang, W. (2015). Assessing and improving the quality of undergraduate teaching in China: The course experience questionnaire. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,40(8), 1032–1049. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.963837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, H., Wang, W., & Han, J. (2016). Chinese undergraduates’ perceptions of teaching quality and the effects on approaches to studying and course satisfaction. Higher Education,71(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9887-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education,11(3), 167–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Xue, L., & Lu, R. (2013). Jiyu Xuesheng Shijiao De Daxue Ketang Jiaoxue Zhuangtai Diaocha Yanjiu [Investigating the University classroom teaching from the perspective of students]. Higher Education Research & Appraisal,9, 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhuang, T., & Xu, X. (2018). 'New engineering education' in Chinese higher education: Prospects and challenges. Tuning Journal for Higher Education,6(1), 69–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Administration and Policy, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

    Tengteng Zhuang & Alan C. K. Cheung

  2. Center for University School Partnership, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

    Winnie Tam

Authors
  1. Tengteng Zhuang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alan C. K. Cheung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Winnie Tam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tengteng Zhuang.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: factors and items

Appendix: factors and items

Classroom Instruction Method 课程授课方式 (6 items).

(Composite Reliability = 0.888, M = 3.952, SD = 1.152).

  1. 1.

    Instructors generally teach in laboratories or praxis bases.

    授课主要在实验室、实习或实训场所进行.

  2. 2.

    Instructors generally teach via the Internet.

    授课主要在互联网进行.

  3. 3.

    Instructors generally adopt ‘group learning’ to facilitate teaching and learning in the class.

    授课教师会普遍采用 “小组学习”的方式开展课堂教学.

  4. 4.

    Instructors generally adopt simulation software, application programs, and technology of virtual reality(VR) or augmented reality (AR) to deliver course instruction.

    授课教师会普遍利用模拟软件、应用程序、虚拟现实技术 (VR), 增强现实技术 (AR) 等信息技术开展课堂教学.

  5. 5.

    Instructors generally adopt flipped classroom to deliver course instruction.

    授课教师会普遍采用“翻转课堂”模式开展教学.

  6. 6.

    Instructors generally invite industry or business experts to teach or lecture in class.

    授课教师会普遍聘请行业/企业专家到课堂授课或开设讲座.

Support from Faculty Members 教师对学生的学业支持情况 (7 items).

(Composite Reliability = .912, M = 4.797, SD = .859).

  1. 1.

    Instructors generally value the importance of students’ academic performances and improvements.

    教师普遍重视帮助学生提高学习成绩和效果.

  2. 2.

    Instructors generally are willing to keep communications with students in and outside class.

    教师普遍愿意与学生保持课堂及课外的持续交流.

  3. 3.

    Instructors generally encourage students to innovate ways of learning and overcome learning barriers.

    教师普遍会鼓励学生创新学习方式、突破学业困难.

  4. 4.

    Instructors generally reward students for their innovative ways of thinking and academic achievements.

    教师普遍会奖励学生的创造性思维和学习成就.

  5. 5.

    Instructors generally have high expectations of students in academic performances.

    教师普遍对学生有较高的学业期待.

Alternative Assessment Methods 其他学业评价方式 (5 items).

(Composite reliability = .877, M = 4.777, SD = .856).

  1. 1.

    Multiple assessment methods are used to assess students’ learning outcomes besides exams (e.g., using paper exams, oral exams, thesis, praxis capability test, etc.)

    除笔试外, 学生专业课学习评价方式多元多样 (如包括笔试、口试、论文、实践能力测试等)

  2. 2.

    Group projects generally influence students’ final course grades.

    小组作业对各门课程的学业成绩普遍具有影响.

  3. 3.

    Praxis bases or enterprises generally give feedbacks to students’ professional skills and applying abilities.

    实习基地或企业会对学生的专业应用能力提供较为专业的回馈.

  4. 4.

    Supplementary exams are as strict as first exams for a course.

    补考会像首次考试一样严格.

  5. 5.

    The assessment system motivates students’ learning.

    评价体系确实有助于激励学生认真学习.

Resources and Service 学校资源与服务 (5 items).

(Composite Reliability = .907, M = 4.611, SD = .951).

  1. 1.

    I can get access to necessary hardware resources (e.g., facilities and devices) from the university when needed.

    我在需要时可以及时从学校获得必要的硬件资源 (设备)

  2. 2.

    I can get access to necessary soft resources (e.g., service) from the university when needed.

    我在需要时可以及时从学校获得相关的软件资源 (服务)

  3. 3.

    I’m satisfied with the courses and career counseling service provided by the university.

    我对学校开设的专业课程及就业指导建议感到满意.

  4. 4.

    I’m satisfied with the medical, psychological service and student welfares provided by the university.

    我对学校提供的医疗、福利及心理咨询服务感到满意.

  5. 5.

    I benefit a great deal from library resources at the university.

    学校图书馆的资源对我的专业课学习很有帮助.

Course Satisfaction 对课程的满意情况 (3 items).

(Composite Reliability = .896, M = 4.346, SD = 1.036).

  1. 1.

    After the courses, I generally miss the courses very much.

    课程结束后, 我总体上对课程流连忘返, 意犹未尽。

  2. 2.

    After the courses, I master the theories and knowledge structure of most courses.

    课程结束后, 我掌握了大多数课程的知识体系和理论基础。

  3. 3.

    After the courses, I can proficiently apply what I learn into practice or R&D.

    课程结束后, 我能够熟练地将所学应用到实践或者研发中。

Program Satisfaction 对专业的满意情况 (3 items).

(Composite Reliability = .891, M = 4.610, SD = 1.006).

  1. 1.

    I’m very satisfied with the program in which I’m enrolled provided by the university.

    本校本专业让我非常满意.

  2. 2.

    I’m willing to recommend the program in which I’m enrolled to prospective students.

    我愿意将本校本专业推荐给未来的求学者.

  3. 3.

    The program provided by the university makes me willing to pursue further studies in my major or field.

    本校本专业使我愿意在相关领域进一步学习深造.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhuang, T., Cheung, A.C.K. & Tam, W. Modeling undergraduate STEM students’ satisfaction with their programs in China: an empirical study. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 21, 211–225 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09620-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09620-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation