Advertisement

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

  • Tengteng ZhuangEmail author
  • Alan C. K. Cheung
  • Winnie Tam
Article
  • 37 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Program satisfaction Higher STEM education Education reform Chinese higher education New engineering education 

Notes

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baird, M., Buchinsky, M., & Sovero, V. (2016). Decomposing the racial gap in STEM major attrition: A course-level investigation.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dearing, R. (1997). The Dearing Report. The National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Devinder, K., & Datta, B. (2003). A study of the effect of perceived lecture quality on post-lecture intentions. Work Study,52(5), 234–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elhadary, O. (2016). Student satisfaction in STEM: An exploratory study. American Journal of Educational Research,4(2), 195–199.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,18, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graham, R. (2018). The global state of the art in engineering education. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & William, C. (Ed.). (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
  20. Haller, M. (2006). Emerging technologies of augmented reality: Interfaces and design: Interfaces and design. Igi Global.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Hill, Y., Lomas, L., & MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education,11(1), 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Husband, T. (2013). Improving the quality of instruction through a service teaching framework. Journal of Effective Teaching,13(2), 73–82.Google Scholar
  27. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  30. Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of internationalization. Brill Sense.Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marginson, S. (2011). Imagining the global. In Handbook on Globalization and Higher Education, 10–39.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Undergraduate research experiences for STEM students: Successes, challenges, and opportunities. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  41. National Research Council. (2003). Evaluating and improving undergraduate teaching in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership,50(7), 8–12.Google Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (McGraw-Hill Series in Psychology) (Vol. 3). McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  46. NVAO. (2017). Delft University of technology advisory report. The Hague, Netherlands: NVAO, Department The Netherlands, Institutional Audit.Google Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Price, I., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L., & Agahi, H. (2003). The impact of facilities on student choice of university. Facilities,21(10), 212–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education,11(3), 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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
  67. Zhuang, T., & Xu, X. (2018). 'New engineering education' in Chinese higher education: Prospects and challenges. Tuning Journal for Higher Education,6(1), 69–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Administration and PolicyThe Chinese University of Hong KongHong Kong SARChina
  2. 2.Center for University School PartnershipThe Chinese University of Hong KongHong Kong SARChina

Personalised recommendations