Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Chinese undergraduates’ perceptions of teaching quality and the effects on approaches to studying and course satisfaction

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The quality of undergraduate teaching is an issue under heated dispute in China. This study examined Chinese undergraduate students’ perceptions of teaching quality and the effects on their approaches to studying and course satisfaction. A sample of 2,043 students from two full-time universities in mainland China responded to a questionnaire comprising three scales adopted from widely used instruments. The results showed that the Course Experience Questionnaire is a valid instrument for assessing the teaching quality in Chinese universities. The study also revealed the desirable effects of clear goals and standards, an emphasis on independence, generic skills, and an appropriate workload on students’ approaches to studying (measured by the Study Process Questionnaire) and course satisfaction (measured by the Overall Satisfaction Scale). However, good teaching and appropriate assessment were found to have an unexpected effect. Specifically, good teaching was found to only have a positive impact on surface motive, while appropriate assessment was found to negatively influence students’ deep as well as surface approaches. These findings highlighted the need to re-examine the role of teacher-centered pedagogy and the nature of student assessment in university teaching. The results’ implications for improving undergraduate teaching in China are suggested.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Biggs, J. B. (1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Education Research & Development, 8(1), 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boekaerts, M. (2003). How do students from different cultures motivate themselves for academic learning? In F. Salili & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Teaching, learning, and motivation in a multicultural context (pp. 13–32). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G. T. L., & Wang, Z. (2013). Illustrating assessment: How Hong Kong university students conceive of the purposes of assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 38(7), 1037–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, M., & Flood, B. (2003). Assessing the teaching quality of accounting programmes: An evaluation of the course experience questionnaire. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. W. (2007). Hong Kong teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs and their relations with conceptions of learning and learning strategies. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 16(2), 199–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diseth, A., Pallesen, S., Hovland, A., & Larsen, S. (2006). Course experience, approaches to learning and academic achievement. Education & Training, 48(2/3), 156–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eley, M. (2001). The course experience questionnaire: Altering question format and phrasing could improve the CEQ’s effectiveness. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(3), 293–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fryer, L. K., Ginns, P., Walker, R. A., & Nakao, K. (2012). The adaptation and validation of the CEQ and the R-SPQ-2F to the Japanese tertiary environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 549–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginns, P., Prosser, M., & Barrie, S. (2007). Students’ perceptions of teaching quality in higher education: The perspective of currently enrolled students. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 603–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grace, D., Weaven, S., Bodey, K., Ross, K., & 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 

  • Han, H. (1992). The status of classroom lecture and the teaching reform in tertiary institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 13(3), 75–79. (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, E., van der Meer, J., & Fokkens-Bruinsma, M. (2013). Validation and use of the CEQ in the Netherlands. Quality Assurance in Education, 21(4), 330–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, D. C. S., & Meyer, J. H. F. (2011). Adaptation and validation of the course experience questionnaire in the context of post-secondary education in Hong Kong. Quality Assurance in Education, 19(1), 50–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. C. K., Huang, Y. X., & Zhong, B. (2012). Friend or foe: The impact of undergraduate teaching evaluation in China. Higher Education Review, 44(2), 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leng, Y. (1996). From the dependence on classroom lecture to self-study. Journal of Higher Education, 17(2), 59–65. (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, M. Y., Chen, D., & Liu, A. M. M. (2014). Impact of values on the learning approaches of Chinese construction students in Hong Kong. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 21(5), 481–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, D. Y., Ginns, P., & Kember, D. (2008a). Examining the cultural specificity of approaches to learning in universities in Hong Kong and Sydney. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(3), 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, M. Y., Lu, X., Chen, D., & Lu, M. (2008b). Impacts of teaching approaches on learning approaches of construction engineering students: A comparative study between Hong Kong and mainland China universities. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(2), 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, W. S., & Hui, S. K. F. (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), 185–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, P. M., & Hendry, G. D. (2002). The use of the course experience questionnaire as a monitoring evaluation tool in a problem-based medical programme. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(4), 339–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Ginns, P., Morin, A. J. S., Nagengast, B., & Martin, A. J. (2011). Use of student ratings to benchmark universities: Multilevel modeling of responses to the Australian course experience questionnaire (CEQ). Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 733–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, L., Richardson, J. T. E., Robinson, B., Ding, X., Sun, X., & Han, C. (2011). Approaches to studying and perceptions of the academic environment among university students in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 31(2), 159–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, N., & Sachs, J. (1999). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Chinese version of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(6), 1016–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. T. E. (2005a). Students’ perceptions of academic quality and approaches to studying in distance education. British Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. T. E. (2005b). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: A review of the literature. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 387–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. T. E., Slater, J. B., & Wilson, J. (2007). The national student survey: Development, findings and implications. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 557–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadlo, G., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of the academic environment in students following problem-based and subject-bases curricula. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(3), 253–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, J. B., Stage, F. K., King, J., Nora, A., & Barlow, E. A. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, G., Kwan, C. Y., Bian, Z., Tai, B., & Wu, Q. (2005). Exploratory thoughts concerning educational reform with problem-based learning in China. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 17(4), 382–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taher, A. M. M., Chen, J., & Yao, W. (2011). Key predictors of creative MBA students’ performance. Journal of Technology Management in China, 6(1), 43–68.

    Article  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 

  • Ullah, R., Richardson, J. T. E., & Hafeez, M. (2011). Approaches to studying and perceptions of the academic environment among university students in Pakistan. Compare, 41(1), 113–127.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, K., 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 

  • Yin, H., Lee, J. C. K., & Zhang, Z. (2009). Examining Hong Kong students’ motivational beliefs, strategy use and their relations with two relational factors in classroom. Educational Psychology, 29(6), 685–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, H., & Lu, G. (2013). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing mathematics classroom environment in tertiary institutions. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(3), 455–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, H., Lu, G., & Wang, W. (2014). Unmasking the teaching quality of higher education: Students’ course experience and approaches to learning in China. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 949–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. (2006). Preferred teaching styles and modes of thinking among university students in mainland China. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(2), 95–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, H., Foskett, N., Wang, D., & Qu, M. (2011). Student satisfaction with undergraduate teaching in China: A comparison between research-intensive and other universities. Higher Education Policy, 24(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Chinese University of Hong Kong under Grant No. 4058017.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong SAR, China

    Hongbiao Yin

  2. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, School of Education, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510631, Guangdong, China

    Wenlan Wang

  3. School of Foreign Languages and Literature, Shandong University, Jinan, 250100, Shandong, China

    Jiying Han

Authors
  1. Hongbiao Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wenlan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jiying Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wenlan Wang.

Appendix: The scales used in the study

Appendix: The scales used in the study

The Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ)

Clear goals and standards

  1. 1.

    It’s always easy here to know the standard of work expected.

  2. 8.

    You usually have a clear idea of where you’re going and what’s expected of you.

  3. 18.

    It’s often hard to discover what’s expected of you in the program.

  4. 24.

    The aims and objectives of the program are not made very clear.

  5. 35.

    The staff here make it clear right from the start what they expect from students.

Generic skills

  1. 2.

    This program has helped me to develop my problem-solving skills.

  2. 6.

    This program has sharpened my analytic skills.

  3. 11.

    This program has helped develop my ability to work as a team member.

  4. 12.

    As a result of doing this program, I feel more confident about tackling unfamiliar problems.

  5. 13.

    This program has improved my written communication skills.

  6. 28.

    This program has helped me develop the ability to plan my own work.

Emphasis on independence

  1. 3.

    There are few opportunities to choose the particular areas you want to study.

  2. 15.

    The program has encouraged me to develop my own academic interests as far as possible.

  3. 16.

    Students have a great deal of choice over how they are going to learn in this program.

  4. 21.

    Students here are given a lot of choice in the work they have to do.

  5. 30.

    We often discuss with our lecturers how we are going to learn in this program.

  6. 34.

    There’s very little choice in this program in the ways you are assessed.

Good teaching

  1. 4.

    The teaching staff of this course motivate students to do their best work.

  2. 9.

    Staff here put a lot of time into commenting on students’ work.

  3. 20.

    The staff make a real effort to understand difficulties students may be having with their work.

  4. 22.

    Teaching staff here normally give helpful feedback on how you are going.

  5. 23.

    Our lecturers are extremely good at explaining things to us.

  6. 25.

    Teaching staff here work hard to make subjects interesting.

  7. 31.

    Staff here show no real interest in what students have to say.

  8. 33.

    This program really tries to get the best out of all its students.

Appropriate workload

  1. 5.

    The workload is too heavy.

  2. 14.

    It seems to me that the syllabus tries to cover too many topics.

  3. 19.

    We are generally given enough time to understand the things we have to learn.

  4. 27.

    There’s a lot of pressure on you as a student here.

  5. 36.

    The sheer volume of work to be got through in this course means you can’t comprehend it all thoroughly.

Appropriate assessment

  1. 7.

    Lecturers here frequently give the impression they have nothing to learn from students.

  2. 10.

    To do well on this course all you really need is a good memory.

  3. 17.

    Staff seem more interested in testing what you’ve memorized than what you’ve understood.

  4. 26.

    Too many staff ask us questions just about facts.

  5. 29.

    Feedback on student work is usually provided only in the form of marks and grades.

  6. 32.

    It would be possible to get through this program just by working hard around exam times.

The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F)

Deep motive

  1. 1.

    I find that at times studying gives me a feeling of deep personal satisfaction.

  2. 5.

    I feel that virtually any topic can be highly interesting once I get into it.

  3. 9.

    I find that studying academic topics can at times be as exciting as a good novel or movie.

  4. 13.

    I work hard at my studies because I find the material interesting.

  5. 17.

    I come to most classes with questions in mind that I want answering.

Deep strategy

  1. 2.

    I find that I have to do enough work on a topic so that I can form my own conclusions before I am satisfied.

  2. 6.

    I find most new topics interesting and often spend extra time trying to obtain more information about them.

  3. 10.

    I test myself on important topics until I understand them completely.

  4. 14.

    I spend a lot of my free time finding out more about interesting topics which have been discussed in different classes.

  5. 18.

    I make a point of looking at most of the suggested readings that go with the lectures.

Surface motive

  1. 3.

    My aim is to pass the program requirements while doing as little work as possible.

  2. 7.

    I do not find my program very interesting so I keep my work to the minimum.

  3. 11.

    I find I can get by in most assessments by memorizing key sections rather than trying to understand them.

  4. 15.

    I find it is not helpful to study topics in depth. It confuses and wastes time, when all you need is a passing acquaintance with topics.

  5. 19.

    I see no point in learning material which is not likely to be in the examination.

Surface strategy

  1. 4.

    I only study seriously what’s given out in class or in the course outlines.

  2. 8.

    I learn some things by rote, going over and over them until I know them by heart even if I do not understand them.

  3. 12.

    I generally restrict my study to what is specifically set as I think it is unnecessary to do anything extra.

  4. 16.

    I believe that lecturers shouldn’t expect students to spend significant amounts of time studying material everyone knows won’t be examined.

  5. 20.

    I find the best way to pass examinations is to try to remember answers to likely questions.

Overall Satisfaction Scale (OSS)

  1. 1.

    Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of this program.

  2. 2.

    Overall, I would recommend this program to others.

  3. 3.

    Overall, this is one of the best learning experiences I have had.

  4. 4.

    Overall, this program does not need improvement.

  5. 5.

    Overall, I enjoyed taking this program.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9887-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation