"Keep the Customer Satisfied"

A longitudinal Study of Students' Emotions, Experiences and Achievements

at the University of Joensuu

Rautopuro, Juhani & Vaisanen, Pertti

Email: Juhani.Rautopuro@Joensuu.fi & Pertti.Vaisanen@Joensuu.fi

Introduction

In our era of close accountability, when governments require quality assurance from publicly funded institutions, universities have become prime targets of economic scrutiny. In addition to these accountability requirements, there has always been a more important and fundamental reason for having more systematic ways of paying attention to quality in educational environments. Educational institutions have the provision of education of the highest possible quality as one of their primary purposes and obligations to their customers, i.e., to the community and their students. Rapid social, technological and economic changes mean that educational institutions constantly need to evaluate their programs, structures and processes and strive to ensure that they serve the changing needs of the community and the students. Stressing the importance of quality in developing higher education in Finland, the Committee of the Principals of the Finnish Universities started in Spring 1999 a common quality project of the universities (Lajunen & Sohlo 2000).

To get the whole picture of quality in higher education we have, according to Boyle and Bowden (1997), to identify and define as clearly as possible the different interest groups' (including society, employers, teachers, students) views of and criteria for judging quality. However, the articulation of who the customers are (Cortada & Woods 1995, 106 - 107; Åhlberg 1997, 57) and what is to be regarded as high quality is a difficult though necessary task, which the educationists have to face (see Boyle & Bowden 1997). By and large, because of the multi-dimensionality of quality in education, we should use multiple forms of evaluation, i.e., student-evaluations, peer reviews, self- and co-evaluations, as suggested by Dochy & Segres (1999) and other research, to find out the needs and areas of development. Among the various kinds of evaluations taking place in universities in Finland, one increasingly recommended procedure is to obtain students' perceptions of their study program experience and their satisfaction with it, which is the focus in our study.

In order to provide some background information for the improvement of study programs at Joensuu University, the purpose of this study was to examine the changes in study experiences of one cohort of students (N = 916) during their four years of studies and try to establish the most complete statistical models for predicting the outcome variables, i.e., overall program satisfaction and study achievements of the student cohort in different phases of the studies. This multi-method follow-up study also comprised qualitative data (Rautopuro & Väisänen 1999), but because of the shortage of space here, we shall concentrate on the quantitative findings. As predictors of the outcome variables we apply attributes both used in the previous studies conducted within various research traditions (e.g., Astin 1995; Donald & Denison 1999; Entwistle 1998; House 1999; Ramsden 1992; Tinto 1993; Wilson & Lizzio 1997; Wintre & Yaffe 2000) and detected by us. These variables include students' entry characteristics, career commitment and orientations, perceptions of the quality of the teaching and learning environment, and emotions and feelings which operate as indicators of the psychological well-being evoked by the study environments.

In spite of its history as a world-wide research topic or variable, student satisfaction is frequently overlooked in contemporary discussions of higher education outcomes (Astin 1993). Given the considerable investment of time and energy most students make in attending university, Astin suggests that their perceptions of the value of their experience should be given substantial weight and that student satisfaction cannot be legitimately subordinated to any other educational outcome. Since the degree of satisfaction with the university experience is much less dependent on students' entering characteristics than is the case with other outcomes, Astin (1993) argues that satisfaction levels are much more susceptible to the influence of the university environment and thus provide a clearer reading of its effects.

Although it is suggested in literature that student satisfaction with their educational experiences is an important dimension in the assessment of institutional effectiveness and the quality of teaching, students' ability to evaluate good teaching is often doubted by faculties (see McKeachie 1990). However, research has established students' evaluations as valid, reliable and useful indicators of teaching quality (see Marsh 1987). They also have the value of being a direct measure of consumer satisfaction with higher education (Ramsden & Martin 1996).

According to Donald and Denison (1996), students are the ones who experience the curriculum as designed by institutions and enacted in teaching and are in the best position to describe how they interpret and experience the curriculum they are required to take. Thus we agree with Donald & Denison that the importance of student satisfaction should not be questioned. However, while students may not be able to comment on all aspects of teaching, for example, on the accuracy of the content, there is no doubt that they can make valid comments on the effectiveness of teaching from their own perspective.

The students' own perspective has been emphasised particularly in a research paradigm that focuses on a student's subjective learning experiences as accounting for the outcomes of learning. Accordingly, research has revealed that students' learning environment perceptions account for appreciable amounts of the variability in their learning outcomes, often beyond that attributable to student background characteristics (see, e.g., Fraser 1994). However, it has been reported consistently that the correlations between attitudinal outcomes and learning environment dimensions are stronger than those between the cognitive outcomes and the learning environment (Wong et al. 1997).

Additionally, current movements towards quality assurance in higher education have led to attempts to define high quality teaching. A great deal of research has focused on the themes of effective teaching or "good teaching/teachers" (see e.g., Forest 1998; Patrick & Smart 1998; Ramsden 1992; Ramsden & Martin 1996; Watkins 1998) with a noticeable overlap in definition, but there appears to be a lack of clarity because of the difference in emphasis researchers place on the various aspects of effective teaching (e.g., organization and presentation skills, interpersonal rapport and genuine respect for students, intellectual stimulation and challenge, and personality characteristics).

For example, in Ramsden's (1991) study conducted in Australia (N=1083) perceptions of good teaching measured by the CEQ (Course Experience Questionnaire) instrument, which in Australia and in the UK is widely used as a measure of quality of the students' learning experiences and quality of teaching (see Wilson & Lizzio 1997), correlated moderately (Pearson's correlation, r = .60) with students' overall satisfaction with their department. A study of Wilson & Lizzio (1997) conducted in the UK with three different samples of university students lends support to the original findings of Ramsden concerning overall course satisfaction (r = .64). Significant positive correlations, though lower than the former, were also found between all scales of the CEQ and academic achievement (GPA) and generic skills. Because of their well demonstrated construct and criterion validity and feasibility in use (e.g., Ramsden 1991; 1992; Wilson & Lizzio 1997), the CEQ instrument, its forerunner CPQ (Entwistle & Ramsden 1983) and a Finnish version used in the doctoral thesis of Väisänen (1993) were applied as a basis for the development of the questionnaire in our study.

Good university teaching is important. It is undeniable that good teaching improves the quality of students' learning, encouraging the development of both specialist knowledge and more general competencies. When students find teaching good and relevant for their goals, they will be satisfied and motivated to do better work. Through helping students to develop skills of lifetime learning, such as self-directed and autonomous learning, independent and critical thinking and capacity to learn, it enhances the capacity of graduates to contribute to the working life and the well-being of the society in which they live. While all interest groups in the Finnish universities admit the importance of good university teaching, there are, however, some negative trends that give cause for concern. In the last few years higher education has expanded to include a wider range of students; at the same time, there has been an unprecedented emphasis on the quality of education provision.

Although there is an increasing demand for university teachers in Finland to do more/better teaching, research and public service, the higher education sector suffers at the same time from decreased financial resources - the dilemma shared in most of the western countries (see, e.g., Soliman & Soliman 1997) The context of this paper is the emerging paradox between the growing students enrollment rates and the demands for a better quality of academic work with the same or lower funds and its implications for students' satisfaction with their university experience. Should we approve the possible decrease of quality as a given fact or try to find out better and more effective ways of teaching in higher education? The interest here is to describe how we have succeeded in meeting the needs of our students at the University of Joensuu. When the quality of programs and degrees completed at the universities may best be evaluated by the accountability or customer satisfaction studies with alumni, as argued, e.g., by Halstead and Hartman (1994), we aimed at examining with a longitudinal survey if there is to be found any changes in the quality of teaching and learning experiences perceived by the students during a four-year study period, not afterwards, but when this experience is ongoing and authentic.

To conclude, it would be beneficial to take a closer look at the students' learning experiences and the determining factors in order to understand how to help facilitate the creation of an environment that best meets their educational and personal needs. Questions worth a closer study are what determines students' "fit" in the academic and social systems of their institution, what are the prerequisites for student satisfaction and the quality of learning outcomes, and how these can be examined.

Review of the Literature

Student Satisfaction

Research on students' satisfaction with their study programme has paid considerable attention in recent years various facets of the learning experience, which is cumulatively influenced by the students' experience with (a) different instructors in university and their teaching and personal styles, (b) different types of courses, and (c) requirements and assessment criteria. (Finaly-Neumann1994.)

It has been proposed that there are many factors that promote or hinder the success of students in higher education. Among these factors, achievement motivation and satisfaction with the study experiences have been linked to students' attrition and performance (Lamport 1993). However, although substantial research has been completed on achievement motivation and satisfaction with the study experiences, the results have been inconsistent as researchers have used various operational definitions as the basis of investigation (see Donohue & Wong1997).

It has been theoretically argued that student satisfaction is necessary for continued motivation. Furthermore, Bean and Bradley (1986, 403) demonstrated that "satisfaction had a greater influence on performance than performance had on satisfaction" indicating that satisfaction with university studies can be a predictor of academic success.

In his short review of literature on students' learning experiences and satisfaction, House (1999) summarized some entry factors of students affecting their learning in the university setting. According to House, the importance of students' affective characteristics, such as academic self-concept, motivation, and achievement expectancies for instructional design, has been much discussed. However, it has been suggested that there is a need to explore the effects of student motivation on subsequent instructional outcomes. Further, on the basis of his review, several studies have found that both academic background and cognitive-motivational characteristics are related to grade performance - and to withdrawal from university as a measure of student satisfaction. With regard to students' academic background, research has shown that achievement in a high school is a significant predictor of several types of outcomes including grades in specific courses, overall grade point average (GPA), and withdrawal. Similarly, admissions test scores have been found to be significant predictors of course performance and withdrawal. In addition, several types of student goals are related to student success. Thus, according to House (1999), these results indicate that an assessment of the effects of student characteristics on instructional outcomes should simultaneously consider both prior achievement and cognitive-motivational variables.

Recent research has examined also the effects of several aspects of the university environment, i.e, academic and social environment, such as instructional activities, quality of teaching, ethos, and social interactions with faculty, staff and other students as well as extracurricular activities and out-of-class experiences, e.g., getting a job, on students' academic outcomes (e.g., Astin 1993; 1995; Donald & Denison 1996; Finaly-Neumann 1994; House 1999; Kuh 1993; Milem & Berger 1997). Research has found strong ties between the faculty charactristics, student satisfaction, and the academic success of students in their studies. These studies have identified the following faculty factors that influence student satisfaction and academic performance in course work: presentations and lectures, tests and assignments, human relations with teachers, and techniques of teaching. For example, participation in cooperative learning activities, or learning activities that require individual student involvement, are related to improved grade performance and continued enrollment (Astin 1993) and professors' feedback, task clarity, and task identity explain instructional satisfaction (Finaly-Neumann 1994).

Further, involvement in social activities appears to be related to students' satisfaction with the college and with their intention to continue their studies (Milem & Berger 1997). Also social support from other students and the faculty often has been noted as an essential component of student satisfaction (Pascarella & Terenzini 1991). According to Lamport (1993), peer groups continue to be a primary source of satisfaction, but interaction with faculty members is also significant. Particularly social support is one of the most important protective factors for beginning students' adjustment to university (Solberg & Villarreal 1997). Support is positively associated with greater life satisfaction and fewer negative feelings, such as loneliness, anxiety, and depression (Hunsberger et al. 1994). Although previous research has accumulated considerable knowledge about social support, there are also many questions still to be answered.

In a Finnish study of Tiilikainen (2000) of first-year university students' (n=583) study experiences it was found that the accumulation of credits during the first study year could be explained by students' satisfaction with their guidance, teaching and teachers, their own study skills and the community of students. No gender or age differences were found, but the accumulation of credits by the working students and students who had not got in the field of education of their primary choice was smaller than that of the other students.

Also some subjective, "hard to measure" attributes have impact on students' perceptions on the environment and outcomes of learning. These include the ethos of the institution, i.e., belief and value systems, educational mission and philosophy, and student and faculty cultures (Kuh 1993) and the teaching/learning cultures (Ramsden 1991) or cognitive-epistemological systems (Ylijoki 1998) of different fields of education or disciplines of university.

In summary, judgments of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with educational programs are likely to be influenced by two major factors: students' entry characteristics and university performance characteristics. These findings suggest that learning activities and social involvement have positive impacts on student satisfaction and achievements while activities those draw students away from their academic efforts have negative impacts on these. But how can these factors be modelled theoretically? In the next two sections we will look more closely at the Input-Environment-Outcome model by Astin (1995), which is grounded on the Northern American research tradition, and the Students' Perceptions in Learning Environment model originated mainly in Europe and Australia (e.g., Entwistle & Ramsden 1983; Entwistle 1998).

Input-Environment-Outcome Assessment Model

The input-environment-outcome (I-E-O) assessment model by Astin (1995) has been proposed as a framework for analysing the unique effects of students' entering characteristics and college environmental factors on subsequent outcomes. Briefly, input variables represent the characteristics that the student brings to the instructional setting while environmental variables represent the breadth of experiences (instructional, social, and personal) that occur during university studies. The I-E-O assessment model enables the researcher to simultaneously evaluate the effects of input and environment variables on student outcomes. A limited number of previous studies have used the I-E-O model to consider input and environment variables.

Using this model, House (1999) investigated the contributions of entering characteristics and academic experiences on student satisfaction and achievement. The sample of the study included 594 fifth-year students, who were surveyed for information regarding their study experiences. A number of specific input and environmental variables, for example, grades in high school, self-ratings of overall academic ability and expectations of graduating with honours as well as working in a group project in a classroom, were significantly correlated with student satisfaction and achievement.

Further, when the input and environmental variables were considered in a multiple regression model, it was found that several environmental variables were significantly related to student satisfaction and achievement even after controlling for the effects of students' entering characteristics. The overall multiple regression models were significant for explaining students' satisfaction with their studies in the university and their achievement outcomes when the effects of both input and environmental variables were considered.

These results suggest that the distinct effects of students' entering characteristics and their study experiences on subsequent instructional outcomes should be considered simultaneously, and the I-E-O model provides a useful method for assessing those effects.

Focus on Students' Learning Experiences: The Learning Environment Paradigm

Studies of learning environments, particularly during the past 25 years, have been the interest of many educational researchers and theorists. In recent decades, a large number of studies of learning environments concerned with conceptualization and theory development, measurement, a unit of analysis issues, meta-analyses, and utilization of research findings for curriculum development and for monitoring and improving education have been completed. The emerging diversity of approaches and the use of multiple methodologies provide new and enriched understandings. (See, e.g., Biggs 1988; 1996; Entwistle 1998; Forest 1998; Ramsden 1992; Wilson & Lizzio 1997.)

From the perspective of the research tradition of students' experiences of learning, it is important to look at teaching from the learners' point of view and ask what aspects of teaching and the overall environment of learning contribute to effective and high quality learning. This tradition introduces a coherent set of concepts derived from the research on student learning, carried out mainly in Europe and Australia. There are also many other alternatives in examining study experiences based on other theories, concepts, and research results as cited above (see, e.g., Janssen 1996).

The leading principle in the model of learning experiences is that learning outcomes depend on an interaction between 1) the characteristics of the student, 2) the teaching style and methods of the teacher, 3) the policies, practices, and the ethos of the department or institution (Entwistle 1998, 73) and 4) learning tasks (contents) (Biggs 1985). According to Entwistle (1998, 73), this approach is more fruitful in trying to explain students' outcomes of learning than the use of traditional variables such as the personality, abilities or motivation of students.

In this paradigm, which can be traced back to Lewin's ideas of a person in a situation, it is thought that behaviour is a function of the interaction between the environment and the person. The model suggests that a person's perceptions within a certain environment will lead to specific behaviours and that new behaviours often modify existing perceptions, as happens in a longitudinal process. According to Wong and Young (1997), the person-environment fit perspective in exploring student learning postulates that students learn better when there is congruence between the actual and the student preferred learning environment.

Just as students do not enroll in universities with the similar motivational readiness, university environments do not all have the same readiness to nurture student development. Some environments may be more conducive than others to producing certain outcomes, and students in the same environment may have entirely different experiences of that environment because their attributes and behaviours evoke different environmental responses. (Côté & Levine 1997; Väisänen 1993.)

Because research has provided evidence that students' achievements can be regarded as a function of person-environment fit we have to focus on students' subjective perceptions and interpretations of their teaching-learning environments, that is, elements of the learning context, rather than some 'objective' measure (Ramsden 1992, 62-63). These mediating interpretations and perceptions lead to the learning activities students employ and the outcomes of learning (Entwistle & Tait 1990; Ramsden 1992). It is important to notice that the students' perception of the aspects of a course and studies can often differ considerably from or contradict the intentions of the curriculum designer or the expectations of the teacher.

Learning activities are also influenced by students' approaches to learning, their learning conceptions and learning orientations partly evoked by the environment (Entwistle 1998; Lonka & Lindblom-Ylänne 1996). The orientations refer to the whole domain of students' personal goals, intentions, motives, expectations, attitudes, concerns and doubts. They seem to have an influence on the learning activities students employ mainly through affective processes, especially the values students attach to a learning situation or task. (Vermunt & Verloop 1999.)

Research shows that students' approaches to learning and their learning outcomes are influenced by the teaching-learning environment involving a number of interrelated components such as the teaching method and assessment, course structure, curriculum, workload, and teacher effectiveness (Biggs 1988; Entwistle & Ramsden 1983; Ramsden 1992; Väisänen 1993).

Bringing together the findings from these very various studies, we may conclude that there are real differences in teaching quality and that these variations can be measured. Concern for and availability to students; enthusiasm and interest of teachers; clear organisation and goals; feedback on learning; the encouragement of student independence and active learning; an appropriate workload and relevant assessment methods; the provision of a suitably challenging academic environment; co-operative and collaborative learning; vocational and personal relevance are among the key factors defining "good teaching" in higher education. On most of these factors students are able to make valid comments.

A heuristic model of student learning developed on the basis of a synthesis of the literature cited in the above two sections (e.g., Astin 1995; Entwistle 1998; House 1999; Ramsden 1992) is described in Appendix 1 (Figure 1). In the model students' learning outcomes are assumed to result both directly from the personal entry characteristics (input variables) and indirectly from the interplay between the learning environment and students perceptions of it (environment variables). These perceptions are supposed to be affected by students' expectations, goals, and orientations, thus causing different mediating interpretations that lead, on the one hand, to the learning activities and approaches to learning students employ, and on the other hand, to students' experiences of meaning and relevance and congruence/incongruence with the learning environment and, as a consequence, to satisfaction or dissatisfaction with it. Finally, these cognitively charged learning activities (e.g., deep approach/surface approach) and more emotionally tuned experiences of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the teaching-learning environment lead to different quality of learning outcomes. Of course, these outcomes have an influence on students' future learning activities, perceptions of the environment, and intentions of learning.

Data and Methods

Students' orientation to studying (cf., Beaty et al. 1997; Santa Rita 1996) consisted of two main sub-scales. First, the scale occupational orientation included three reasons for selecting the field of study: "I wanted an occupation", "a well paid job in the future" and "a secure post". Second, the scale research orientation consisted of items "science is interesting", "education itself" and "self-enhancement".

The items used to measure emotions and affects were computed as the scale positive study experiences, consisting of positive emotions like "delight", "happiness" and "self-confidence", and the scale negative study experiences, consisting of emotions like "disappointment", "stress" and "despair". Some researchers (Tinto 1993; Wintre & Yaffe 2000) have suggested that psychological well-being is directly and positively related to social adaptation and academic achievement.

Students' experiences of the academic environment and organisational characteristics, i.e., satisfaction at teaching and the atmosphere of their departments (cf., Tinto 1997), were reduced into three sub-scales. First, traditionality of teaching included opinions that the teaching in students' own department is too theoretical and lectures without modern teaching methods are overvalued. Second, the scale students' integration to their department included students' opinions about encouragement to critical thinking and integration of students into research projects of the department. Third, the scale satisfaction at teaching consisted of opinions like "teachers are inspiring", "teachers are able to select right level of teaching" and "teaching is well organised". The scale satisfaction at teachers' guidance included "the guidance of the teacher", "the teacher is willingness to help students" and "the teacher can be reached", for example. The scale satisfaction at information services consisted of items concerning general information services of the institute like "information of the subject" and "information of library services" and "information of studies abroad". Finally, the scale commitment consisted of students' statements of their institutional and goal involvement, i.e., assurance of the field of study and future occupation.

The study experiences and the changes in them were described by arithmetic means. The statistical significance in changes in these experiences during studies were measured by the analysis of variance for repeated measures (Hand & Taylor 1987). When analysing the relationship between the students' satisfaction at different stages of their studies (satisfaction at the beginning, overall satisfaction at the beginning and overall satisfaction at the end of the studies), the multinomial logistic regression analysis (Hosmer & Lemeshow 1989) was applied. In order to carry out the multinomial logistic regression analysis, the dependent variables (the variables measuring students' satisfaction) were classified into three-level (low-moderate-high) ordinary scale variables. The scales constructed for students' study orientations, study experiences and commitment and the background information collected were used as explanatory variables. When predicting the overall satisfaction at the end of the studies the three measurements of study experiences were combined as mean experiences (mean commitment and mean positive study experiences, for example) within the study period.

Results

The changes in positive and negative study experiences in different faculties during the study period are shown in Appendix 2 (Figures 2 and 3). In Figure 2, we can find that there exists a slight decrease in positive experiences, only the faculty of sciences has the opposite trend. However, the changes are very small and the only statistically significant change (p = 0.005) has occurred at the faculty of education after autumn 1996.

The changes in negative study experiences (figure 3) confirm the trend in positive experiences. There seems to be a slight increase in negative experiences during the study period. As in the case of positive experiences the changes are quite small. The change that has taken place at the faculty of education during the period is statistically significant (p = 0.003). Also the change at the faculty of humanities is significant (p = 0.007).

The affective learning activities, which students employ to cope with emotions that arise during learning, lead to a mood that may have a positive, neutral or negative effect on the learning processes. One way of improving learning is to generate, maintain and restore positive feelings of self-confidence and commitment, and help people cope with negative emotions, such as anxiety, fear, anger, stress, uncertainty, doubt, frustration and helplessness. (See Snow, Corno & Jackson 1996.)

The changes in students' opinions concerning traditionality of teaching are shown in Figure 4. In the figure we can see that students have found teaching more and more traditional during the studies, with the exception of the faculty of forestry. Once again the only statistically significant changes occur at the faculty of education (p = 0.000) and at the humanities faculty (p = 0.000). The seemingly obvious change at the faculty of forestry is not statistically significant due to the small number of students at the faculty.

The changes in integration into students' own department (Figure 5) do not show as clear a trend as the other scales of study experiences. At the faculties of forestry and science the students' integration seems to increase during studies and at the other three faculties the trend is the opposite. Statistically significant changes (decrease) have occurred at the faculty of education (p = 0.011) and also at the faculty of social sciences (p = 0.010). The increasing trends in integration into one's department at the faculty of science (p = 0.072) and at the faculty of forestry (p = 0.187) are not statistically significant.

The changes in satisfaction at teaching are shown in Figure 6. Although the changes, once again are quite small, some statistically significant changes can still be found. The declining trend during the whole research period (from 1995 to 1998) at the faculty of education is statistically significant (p = 0.006). At the faculty of humanities the decline during 1995 and 1996 is significant (p = 0.018). Also the decline in whole research period (from 1995 to 1998) is significant (p = 0.006). The changes that have occured at other faculties are not statistically significant.

The results of the multinomial regression analysis (the final models) are shown in Table 1., Table 2. and Table 3.

Table 1. Predicting the satisfaction at the beginning of studies

Dependent variable: Satisfaction at the beginning
(reference category: high satisfaction)

On the basis of the Table 1 we can draw the conclusion that the main factors of satisfaction at the beginning of the studies are the satisfaction at teaching (p = 0.000), the satisfaction at information services (p = .005) and positive study experiences (p = 0.034). When studying the multinomial regression coefficients more closely we can see that those students who have positive study experiences and who consider that their teaching and information services are sufficient are not very likely to have low satisfaction at the beginning of their studies. Those students who find their teaching too traditional (p = 0.016) and those who are research orientated (p = 0.068) are more likely to evaluate their satisfaction at the beginning low. The regression coefficients according to the faculty also have an interesting pattern. Although the differences between faculties are not statistically significant it seems that the students at the humanities (p = 0.052) are more likely to rate their satisfaction low in the beginning.

Table 2. Predicting the overall satisfaction at the beginning

Dependent variable: Overall satisfaction at the beginning
(reference category: high satisfaction)

From Table 2 we can see that some factors that predict the satisfaction at the beginning are the same that predict the overall satisfaction, satisfaction at teaching and the traditionality of teaching. However, some interesting differences can also be seen. According to these data, those students whose mothers have little formal education are less likely to give low or moderate scores in overall satisfaction at the beginning of their studies than the students whose mothers have a university degree.

Table 3. Predicting the overall satisfaction at the end of the studies

Dependent variable: Overall satisfaction at the end

(reference category: high satisfaction)

The results in Table 3 are quite interesting when we compare them with the conclusions drawn from Tables 1 and 2. The differences between the faculties in overall satisfaction at the end of the studies are obvious and statistically significant. Students studying at the faculties of education, humanities and social sciences are much more likely to give low or moderate scores in satisfaction than the students at the faculties of sciences or forestry. The main factor that predicts the overall satisfaction is the satisfaction at teachers' guidance. Those students who are satisfied with the guidance are not likely to give low or moderate scores.

Conclusions and Discussion

The aim of the study was to collect information in order to develop teaching at the University of Joensuu. The results are shown as arithmetic means concerning whole faculties, so the influence of one single teacher or even one single department does not show in them. The most obvious result concerning the changes in study experiences is that they show a slightly negative trend during the study period. Although the study experiences measured in this research are on the "right side of the mean" and some differences between faculties exist, the changes cannot be ignored. When interpreting the results, the reader has to bear in mind that we are dealing with the students' own perceptions of teaching and guidance, and not with 'objective' facts. This differential, reciprocal response between person and context is the focus of research efforts informed by the goodness-of-fit model. Because of different expectations, intentions and motivations, students may have different perceptions of the learning environment - and these perceptions may vary between different discipline cultures (Ramsden 1991) - as was found in the results. The overall falling trend in satisfaction with studies could also be explained by the increase of students' criticalness towards the end of the studies, and decrease in financial resources of the university departments which means larger student groups and unfavourable teacher/student ratio in instruction. As a matter of fact, these interpretations were partly confirmed by the students' free comments on the questions: "What are the weaknesses and shortcomings of teaching and guidance?" and "How would you improve teaching at your university department?"

It could be assumed that close to their preparation students begin to mirror their studies against the requirements of the working life and employment, and consequently this influences their ratings of teaching and satisfaction. In fact, in the free statements of students 13% of all responses dealt with the wishes to promote vocational relevance of studies, for example a student of economics wrote: "Teaching is too theoretical and detached from the current requirements of the working life. I wish to get more concrete examples and connections with work. Also the meaning of entrepreneurship should be stressed more." The above interpretation is also supported by House (1999), who writes that, regardless of the nature of the comparison standard, i.e., expectations as desires vs. expectations as predictions of future performance, research has found that students' expectations of the effect of their university education on career preparation appear to be well formed, unambiguous, and of critical importance in the determination of their satisfaction.

Donald and Denison (1996) suggest, however, the use of alumni evaluations in attempting to improve university teaching because graduates are more aware of the strengths and shortcomings of their formal education than undergraduates. Their argument is that alumni can provide valuable insights, since they have the benefit of hindsight and can evaluate university and work experiences and their relative importance. In contrast with undergraduates, who can only speculate about the utility or significance of various aspects of their educational experience, graduates can report their actual significance in relation to their current employment or life status. Donald and Denison conclude that, for these reasons, the use of feedback from graduates in reviews of academic programs is increasing. We also do agree that retrospective evaluations which relate undergraduate experience to subsequent employment or further study may provide more concrete and operational advice for improving some aspects of undergraduate education than have specific measures of instruction, but it doesn't diminish the value and importance of reflection on authentic and ongoing study experiences. However, in order to provide the retrospective evaluations (Rautopuro & Väisänen 1999), we also administered the questionnaire to students who had already taken their degrees. Despite, students' evaluations have been found to positively correlate with the ratings by alumni as cited by Wachtel (1998) in his review on student evaluations of university teaching.

The downward trend found in the positive study experiences and the opposite trend in the negative experiences between the first and second years of studies could be explained with a discrepancy between the university studies and expectations about them suggested by Pancer and Hunsberger (2000). On the level of the whole university, especially the negative affects (Figure 3), such as disappointment and stress, increased more between the first and the second year of studies (mean score 2.02--> 2.20) than from the second to the fourth year (2.20 --> 2.29). Although many of the expectations of the students are certainly realized, the positive affective tone that characterizes their pre-university expectations is often replaced by feelings that are more negative after the student has spent some time at a university.

Quoting from the literature, Pancer and Hunsberger (2000) use the term "freshman myth" to describe the "naive, enthusiastic and boundless idealism", which is claimed to characterize students' expectations about university. It is suggested and also supported by research that these expectations are a myth because students' positive expectations are rarely realized; their experiences in the first weeks and months of university are usually much more stressful and challenging than they ever anticipated.

The greatest decline in student's feelings about university life seems to occur during their first year, when the perceived discrepancy between the expectations and reality is likely to be the most salient. All in all, this process of academic adaptation, consisting of phases of separation, transition, and incorporation, as described by Tinto (1993), creates foundation for successful study experiences and persistence in higher education. Although some students experience this transition as a challenge to personal growth, others are overwhelmed by the changes and experience emotional maladjustment and depression (Wintre & Yaffe 2000). The importance of psychological well-being (measured, for example, by perceived stress, depression, and self-esteem) for social adaptation and academic achievement in the first year of university studies is well demonstrated in research. (Tinto 1993; Wintre & Yaffe 2000.)

Halstead and Hartman (1994) provide another possible interpretation for the cautiousness of the beginning students' ratings of their learning experiences and their "neutral" satisfaction with studies found in our study. According to Halstead's and Hartman's quotations from customer satisfaction literature, the intellectual environment offered in university may represent an attribute that is referred to as an "experience property" of a merchandise or a service. Experience properties are those attributes that the customer can only evaluate after purchase or during consumption. In other words, they cannot be discerned before the experience itself. Similarly, beginning students' ratings about the learning environment may be just opinions without actual experience of its different aspects. Services that are high in experience properties are more difficult to evaluate due to the absence of predetermined attribute expectations.

The overall decreasing trend in positive affects and increasing trend in negative affects, such as stress and powerlessness, throughout the four years of studies could be explained against the nature of academic studies. At the beginning of the university experience, studies are composed of general and basic studies which are not so demanding as the subject and advanced studies of the minors and majors. Consequently, for many students the strengthening requirements towards the end of studies usually cause more work and more stress. Among the practical implications of this study, there is the importance of maintaining the psychological well-being of students.

There is also some other criticism in the students' answers concerning teaching and tutoring that we have to take into serious consideration. This criticism seems to be consistent with the previous research (e.g., Entwistle & Ramsden 1983; Väisänen 1993; Franz & Ferreira 1996), which has highlighted several factors which are likely to impede deep approach and meaning orientation to learning. These were included and found also here: for instance, a perceived lack of relevance, lack of tutorial support, heavy workload and otherwise inconvenient learning environments.

Over several decades one of the most consistent criticisms against the quality of teaching provided by universities has been the over-dependence on one way of teaching and learning, the formal lecture. The results of the study indicated that students, on average, "somewhat agreed" that teaching is traditional at their department, and the trend was rising, except in Forestry.

Consistently, a slightly opposite trend was found in students' academic integration, which included both encouragement of students into critical thinking and independent learning and integration into departments' research projects. Here again, especially at the faculty of Forestry, but also at the faculty of Sciences, the trend was opposite to the other faculties. This maybe reflects the differences between the discipline cultures. However, as stated in literature (Ramsden 1992; Vermunt & Verloop 1999), good teaching occurs when students are actively engaged and use deep approaches to their learning. Students are less likely to adopt a deep approach when 'the teaching flow' is one-way, as usual in the formal lecture.

Tynjälä (1998) suggests that the constructivist view of learning offers an approach of creating a learning environment that requires students to engage actively in their studies. However, comparative studies between different forms of teaching have, according to Tynjälä (1998), not proved particularly effective in explaining the differences in students' learning outcomes. She concludes that this may be due to the problems connected with the assessment methods rather than to the absence of real differences between the outcomes of learning. If we change teaching methods, we should also change assessment methods accordingly. This includes assessment methods that are integrated into the learning process itself and, as a result, leads to qualitative changes in students' learning and knowledge structures that meet the requirements of professional expertise of the modern working life.

Much of the student learning in higher education takes place privately, outside the doors of lecture halls or demonstration classes. The recent shift of focus from teaching onto the learning process (or from teacher-centred to student/customer-centred model) doesn't mean that teaching is unimportant. Rather, this means a new kind of balance between different theoretical and practical approaches to teaching (i.e., teaching as conveying knowledge and teaching as facilitating the students' independent learning). Admitting that teaching is a complex task combining both content and process yields the best quality in education. The learning process is not seen as an end in itself, but an important vehicle for the assimilation of the content. (See Patrick & Smart 1998.) It also means new roles, challenges and responsibilities for teachers and students. It is the students, not the teachers, who do the learning. The role of the teacher is to provide the subject expertise, the course design and management, the teaching, support and the assessment in such a way that students are encouraged to develop the skills and values that will foster independent learning and intellectual independence (Candy et al. 1994).

Many writers have emphasised the importance of ethos or climate (Kuh 1993) or various "cultures" (Lamport 1993) of the university departments on the learning of the students. As found in the results, students' satisfaction with their teachers, teaching and the atmosphere of the department (Figure 6) was on the "better side" of the mean score (3.00) throughout the studies both on the level of the whole university and in each faculty. The trend was, however, slightly downwards (3.43 -> 3.32 -> 3.26). In their extensive review of literature, Pascarella and Tererenzini (1991, 652 - 653) conclude that students are more often positively affected by their learning environment when the faculty and students share common attitudes and values, where interpersonal exchanges are frequent, friendly, and not rigidly hierarchical, and where there is a departmental "esprit de corps". It is suggested in the literature that the role of the instructor should shift from the more traditional imparter of information into that of a mentor and supporter.

In addition to these change patterns in the study experiences of the student cohort we examined, the results of the study indicate that we can model students' overall satisfaction with the studies moderately. The overall classification percentage of the statistical models rose from 56.3 % at the beginning of studies to 71.7 % at the end. The predictors of the satisfaction scores somewhat varied during studies but the results strongly show the importance of the academic learning environment also suggested in previous research drawing from different paradigms (Astin 1995; Entwistle 1998; House 1999; Ramsden 1992)

In conclusion, when the aim of education is understood to be the development of the whole person rather than the acquisition of knowledge, the central element of good teaching becomes the provision of care and sustenance of psychological well-being of students, which also creates prerequisites for academic integration and learning. The role of the mentor-teacher is to stand behind the students as a fellow learner providing them with a supporting learning environment. Is this a reality or a dream in higher education? How can the teachers take on these new roles, which focus on interaction with individual students, when, at the same time, the student enrollment rate rise and the funding at universities fall? Thus less time may be devoted to individual students' support and advising, which results in students' experiencing it as a peripheral activity. In fact, guidance has been identified as one of the weakest links in the university experience (Broadbridge 1996; Tiilikainen 2000), which was also confirmed here (compare Table 3). By these conclusions we hope to deliver a message to be taken into serious consideration among the policy makers and administrations as well as among teachers at universities. Of course, we cannot generalize these results without any caution but we believe that similar patterns could be found also elsewhere. Additionally, the consistency of the findings with previous research sustains this conclusion. After all, there is a need for further research in order to find out what the main obstacles are for quality teaching and quality learning in higher education, and how we can remove these obstacles.

References

Afifi, A. & Clark, V. 1990. Computer-aided multivariate analysis. New York: Chapman & Hall.

Ary,D. & Jacobs, L.C. & Razavieh, A. 1996. Introduction to Research in Education.

Harcourt Brace College Publishers.Philadelphia.

Astin, A.W. 1993. What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A.W. 1995. Introduction to IEO model and the College Student Survey (CCS). In analyzing CIRP data. A Hands-on assessment workshop reference guide. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute and UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information studies.

Bean, J.P. & Bradley, R.K. 1986. Untangling the satisfaction-performance relationship for college students. Journal of Higher Education 57 (4), 393 - 412.

Biggs, J. 1985. The role of metalearning in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology 55, 185 - 212.

Biggs, J. 1988. Approaches to learning and essay writing. Teoksessa Schmeck, R. (toim.) Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press, 185 - 228..

Biggs, J.1996. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education 32, 347 - 364.

Boyle, P. & Bowden, J. 1997. Educational quality assurance in universities: An enhanced model. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 22 (2), 111 - 121.

Broadbridge, A. 1996. Academic advising - Traditional or developmental approaches?: Student perspectives. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 24 (1), 97 - 112.

Candy, P., Crebert, G. & O'Leary, J. 1994. Developing lifelong learners through undergraduate education, NBEET Commissioned Report No. 28 (Australian Government Printer).

Cortada, J. & Woods, J. 1995. The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of quality terms and concepts. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Côté, J. & Levine, C. 1997. Student motivations, learning environments, and human capital acquisition: Toward an integrated paradigm of student development. Journal of College Student Development 38 (3), 229 - 243.

Donald, J.G. & Denison, D.B. 1996. Evaluating undergraduate education: The use of broad indicators. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 21 (1), 23 - 39.

Dochy, F. & Segres, M. 1999. The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education 24 (3), 331 - 350.

Entwistle, N. 1998. Improving teaching through research on student learning. In J. Forest (Ed.) University Teaching. International perspectives. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc.,74 - 112.

Entwistle, N. & Ramsden, P. 1983. Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm.

Entwistle N. & Tait, H. 1990. Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education 19, 169 - 194.

Finaly-Neumann, E. 1994. Course work characteristics an d students' satisfaction with instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology 21 (1), 14 - 21.

Forest, J. 1998. University teachers and instruction. Important themes for a global discussion. In J. Forest (Ed.) University Teaching. International perspectives. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 35 - 72.

Halstead, D. & Hartman, D. 1994. Multi-source effects on the satisfaction formation process. Journal of the Academy and Marketing Science 22 (2), 114 - 129.

Hand, D. & Taylor, C. 1987. Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Repeated Measures. London: Chapman and Hall.

Harvey, L. & Green, D. 1993. Defining quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 18 (1), 9 - 34.

Hosmer, D.W. & Lemeshow,S. 1989. Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley & Sons.

New York.

House, J.D. 1999. The effects of entering characteristics and instructional experiences on student satisfaction and degree completion: An application of the input-environment-outcome assessment model. International Journal of Instructional Media 26 (4), 423 - 434.

Hunsberger, B., Pancer, S. M., Pratt, M. & Alisat, S. 1994. The transition to university: Is religion related to adjustment? Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion 7, 81 - 99.

Janssen, P 1996. Studaxology: The expertise students need to be effective in higher education. Higher Education 31, 117 - 141.

Lajunen, L. & Sohlo, S. 2000. Yliopistojen kehittämisessä laatu keskeistä. Yliopistotieto 1, 32-35.

Kuh, G.D. 1993. Ethos. Its influence on student learning. Liberal Education 79 (4), 22 - 31.

Lamport, M.A. 1993. Student-faculty informal interaction and the effect on college student outcomes: A review of the literature. Adolescence 28 (112), 971 - 990.

Lonka, K. & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. 1996. Epistemologies, conceptions of learning, and study practices in medicine and psychology. Higher Education 31, 5 - 24.

Marsh, H. 1987. Students' evaluations of university teaching: research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research 11, 255 - 388.

McKeachie, W. 1990. Research on college teaching: The historical background. Journal of Educational Psychology 82 (2), 189 - 200.

Milem, J.F. & Berger, J.B. 1997. A modified model of college student persistence: Exploring the relationship between Astin's theory of involvement and Tinto's theory of student departure. Journal of College Student Development 38, 387 - 400.

Pancer, S.M. & Hunsberger, B. 2000. Cognitive Complexity of Expectations and Adjustment to University in the First Year. Journal of Adolescent Research 15 (1), 38 57.

Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. 1991. How college affects students: Findings and insight from 20 years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Patrick, J. & Smart, R. 1998. An empirical evaluation of teacher effectiveness: The emergence of three critical factors. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 23 (2), 165 - 178.

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

Ramsden, P. 1992. Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.

Ramsden, P. & Martin, E. 1996. Recognition of good university teaching: Policies from an Australian study. Studies on Higher Education 21 (3), 299 - 315.

Rautopuro, J., Väisänen, P. & Kuittinen, M. 1999. Opiskelijakohortin opintokokemukset opintojen loppuvaiheessa ja niissä opintojen aikana tapahtuneet muutokset. Joensuun yliopiston hallintoviraston raportteja ja selvityksiä N:o 25.

Snow, R., Corno, L. & Jackson, D. 1996. Individual differences in affective and conative functions. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.) Handbook of Educational Psychology. New York: Simon and Scuster Macmillan, 243 - 310.

Solberg, V.S. & Villarreal, P. 1997. Examination of self-efficacy, social support, and stress as predictors of psychological and physical distress among Hispanic college students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 19, 182 - 201.

Soliman, I. & Soliman, H. 1997. Academic workload and quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 22 (2), 135 - 157.

Tiilikainen, A. 2000. Uusi opiskelija ja yliopisto. Opiskelijoiden ensimmäisen opintovuoden kokemukset ja vastaanotto yliopistolla. Opiskelijajärjestöjen tutkimussäätiö Otus rs 17.

Tinto, V. 1993. Leaving college. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Tynjälä, P. 1998. Traditional studying for examination versus constructivist learning tasks: Do learning outcomes differ? Studies in Higher Education 23 (2), 173 - 189.

Vermunt, J. & Verloop, N. 1999. Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction 9, 257 - 280.

Väisänen, P. (1993) Merkityksiä vai merkintöjä? Tutkimus opettajaksi opiskelevien opiskelun suuntautumistavoista ja niihin yhteydessä olevista tekijöistä. Joensuun yliopiston kasvatustieteellisiä julkaisuja N:o 12. Joensuu.

Wachtel, H.K. 1998. Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: A brief review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 23 (2), 191 - 211.

Watkins, D. A cross-cultural look at perceptions of good teaching: Asia and the West. In J. Forest, (Ed.) University Teaching. International perspectives. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 19 - 34.

Wintre, M.G. & Yaffe, M. 2000. First-year students' adjustment to university life as a function of relationships with parents. Journal of Adolescent Research 15 (1), 9 - 37.

Wong, A. & Young, D. et al. 1997. A multilevel analysis of learning environments and student attitudes. Educational Psychology 17 (4), 449 - 470.

Ylijoki, O-H. 1998. Akateemiset heimokulttuurit ja noviisien sosialisaatio. Tampere: Vastapaino.

Åhlberg. M. 1997. Jatkuva laadunparantaminen korkealaatuisena oppimisena. University of Joensuu. Research Reports of the Faculty of Education Nr. 68.

FIGURE 1 A heuristic model of students' learning experiences as determinants of outcomes.

Figure 2. Changes in positive study experiences

Figure 3. Changes in negative study experiences

Figure 4. Changes in the traditionality of teaching 

Figure 6. Changes in the satisfaction at teaching