Students' attitudes on the quality of university teaching

Students' attitudes on the quality of universityteaching

Dubovicki, Snježana; Banjari, Ines

Source / Izvornik: Sodobna pedagogika, 2014, 65/131, 42 - 58

Journal article, Published versionRad u časopisu, Objavljena verzija rada (izdavačev PDF)

Permanent link / Trajna poveznica: https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:141:720346

Rights / Prava: In copyright

Download date / Datum preuzimanja: 2021-10-26

Repository / Repozitorij:

FOOZOS Repository - Repository of the Faculty of Education

https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:141:720346

http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/

https://repozitorij.foozos.hr

https://repozitorij.foozos.hr

https://repozitorij.unios.hr/islandora/object/foozos:624

https://dabar.srce.hr/islandora/object/foozos:624

42 JOURNALOFCONTEMPORARYEDUCATIONALSTUDIES2/2014 S.DubovickiandI.Banjari

Snježana Dubovicki and Ines Banjari

Students’attitudesonthequalityofuniversityteaching

Abstract: Thequalityofuniversityeducationhasgainedattentioninrecentyears.Ithasbecomenotonlythesubjectofresearchinareascloselyrelatedtoeducation,butalsothetopicofinterdiscipli-naryteaching,writing,andresearcharoundtheglobe.Ensuringthequalityofuniversityeducationhasbecomeaglobaltrendandapriorityofmodernsociety.Inlightofthis,ourresearchhasgrown.Theaimofthisstudywastoexplorestudents’attitudesonthequalityofuniversityteachingviaitscriteria,tolookatelementsthataffectquality,andtoobservedifferencesintheattitudesofstudentsfromdifferentfaculties.Theresults,basedonasampleof173studentsfromfivefaculties,showthattocreateconditionsthatensureandraisethequalityofuniversityteaching,thefollowingcriteriaareimportant:thatthefacultywasstudents’firstchoice,thewaythecontentwouldbepresented,students’regularparticipationincourses,andthepositivesocialandemotionalclimate.

Keywords:evaluation,criteria,quality,students’attitudes,universityteaching

UDC:378

Scientificpaper

Snježana Dubovicki, Ph.D., teaching assistant, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Faculty of Teacher Education, Ulica cara Hadrijana 10, 31000 Osijek, Croatia; e-mail for correspondence: [email protected] Ines Banjari, Ph.D., teaching assistant, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Faculty of Food Technology, Franje Kuhača 20, 31000 Osijek, Croatia; e-mail for correspondence: [email protected]

JOURNALOFCONTEMPORARYEDUCATIONALSTUDIES2/2014,42–59

Students’attitudesonqualityofuniversityteaching 43

Introduction

The importanceof thequalityofuniversityeducation (QUE)hasbeenaddressedworldwide.InCroatia,QUEwasmostlyevaluatedonthebasisofstudents’surveysattheendofeveryacademicyear.Basedonthesecriteria,oneprofessor1wasmoresuccessfulthantheothersindependentlyofhowmanystudents2participatedinhisevaluation.QUEcannotandshouldnotrelysolelyonlyontheresultsofsuchsurveys.RecentlyinCroatia,boardsforqualityassurancehavebeenestablished,withthemainpurposeoffollowing,improving,andevaluatingQUEonalluniversities’ faculties.SignificantdifficultiesinresearchonQUEarisefromthedifferenceindefinitionsandcomprehensionofthequality.Ahugeshiftinthequalityassuranceofhighereducationoccurredwhenthepedagogical-psychologicalanddidactic-methodologicaltrainingofresearchassistantswasintroduced.ThetrainingisdonebytheFacultyofTeacherEducationinOsijektomakemeaningfulimprovementsinQUEattheUniversityofOsijek.

Lookingglobally,thetrendinhigheducationistheimplementationofdifferentsystemsforqualityassurancewithanemphasisoneducation,responsibility,andimprovement(Kovačetal.2002).Thewayinwhichstudents’educationisevaluatedrequiresthesensitivecollectionofqualityindicators,andpoorestimationscanruinotherwisefairlywell-developedcurricula(Dubovicki2013;ErwinandKnight1995).Qualityassuranceinhighereducationiscalledthe“socialgameofitsownsurveillance”withitsmainpurposebeingthattheinterestedpartiescanbesatisfiedwiththeworkofhigheducationinstitutions(Mencer2005).TheneedtoevaluateuniversityeducationwasrecognizedinCroatia,andin1995thenationalprojectThe Quality of Teaching in Higher Educationwasstarted.ItsmaingoalwastolookattheinternationallyacceptedcriteriaofQUE(especiallyatthosecloselyrelatedtouniversityprofessors’competences),inwhatscaledotheyrelatetouniversityeducationinCroatia,andaccordingtothoseresultstodevelopamodelforthedevelopmentofuniversitystaff,whichwouldhavethetaskofbuildinga“cultureofquality.”ThefirstphaseofthisprojectdeterminedthatCroatia’spracticeissignificantlydifferentfrominternationalonesandthatQUE(mainlyobservedfromstudents’aspects)isnotsatisfying.ThesecondphaseincludedthedevelopmentofamodelforimprovinguniversityeducationinCroatia.Thebasicprinciplesusedforthedevelopmentofthatmodelwere:knowledgeisopen,ensuringadynamicsystem,universitystaffdevelopmentshouldbebasedon“reflectivepractitioner”practice,andcontinuousqualityimprovementbasedonthecollegialityofuniversitystaff.Ledićetal.(1999)developedaquestionnairewith15elementstoassessstudents’andprofessors’attitudes.TheresearchwasconductedattheUniversityofRijekaandincludedtheevaluationofperceptionsofidealandrealformsofeducationattheuniversity.Theresultsshowedthattheirattitudesdiffersignificantly,butprofessorsshowahigherlevelofcriticismanddissatisfaction.Itisinterestingthatbothhavesimilarattitudestowardthequalityofteaching.Professorshaveatraditionalviewofeducationquality,especiallywhen

1Theterm“professor”considerspersonsofbothgendersteachinginuniversityprograms.2Theterm“student”presentspersonsofbothgendersattendinglecturesinuniversityprograms.


“respectforstudents’individualdifferences,respondingtostudents’feedback,andaskingforfeedback”hadthelowestranging.

Itcanbeconcludedthatprofessors’primaryinterestswerethemselvesandtheircourses,whilestudentsdidnottypicallypresentthemainfocusoftheirinterest.Ontheotherhand,studentsdidnotdiffermuchintheirperceptionsaswell.Theyhadahighopinionofprofessorswhoareexpertsintheirfield,andthosewhogradethemhonestlyandfairly.Inaddition,studentsreallyappreciatedwell-preparedprofessorsandtheavailabilityofresources.Evenmoreinterestingwasthatstudentsandprofessorsconsideredthe following least important:askingforfeedback,respondingtostudents’feedback,andrespectforstudents’individualinterests.Thesefindingspointedoutthatstudentslackinterest,whichwasconfirmedbytheircommentsthroughoutthewholequestionnaire,inotherwordsexpressingnegativeandpessimisticattitudeswithoutanysignordesireofchange,inthesensethatanyattempttochangewouldbeatotalwasteoftime.Theelementsofthisquestionnairearehighlycoveredinours.

The paradigm change toward QUE

Authorsfromthefieldofeducationresearchhavedevelopedanumberofdefinitionsofquality,andtheyhavedifferentunderstandingsofwhichconditionsareneededtoensureQUE.Asoneofthemainconditionsforuniversityeducationqualityassurance,Greene(1994)stressesthechangeinparadigm.“Paradigm[...]isamentalmodelonhowtherealworldfunctions–itisinsomeway‘theclosestguessing’basedonourexperienceandinformationwehavegot.Ourbeliefs,valuesandactionsdetermineourparadigms.Whenwereceivenewinformationourparadigmscanbechanged,andwhenthathappens,wewillprobablychangethewaywethinkandact.”(Ibid.,p.13)

Thatisreallythecase.Ifwestartteachingwithanattitudethatstudentsarenotsufficientlyinterestedinourcourse,ifwethinkofthemaslazyandnotsufficientlyactive,thatwillsurelymaketeachingsomewhatdifficultandcreateanatmosphereinwhichweonlydoourlecturesmerelytodothem,withoutfindingpersonalsatisfactioninourjob.Ifwesethighstandardsforstudents,expectingthemtogivetheirbest:“[...]ifstudentssethighstandardsforthemselves,goodchancesarethattheywillachievethesehighstandards[...].Whenyouaimforthebest, ‘satisfying’willbeachievedonitsown.”(Ibid.,p.15)Therefore,it isnecessarytoactivelyincludeourselvesinmotivatingstudentstoensurequalitywillnotabsent.Intheirviewonquality,HarveyandGreen(1993)thinkthatatransformationisneededintermsofthepartiesincludedintheentireeducationprocessandintermsofself-improvementbywhichstudentsgetmorejurisdictionovertheresponsibilityandmanagementofeducationprocess.Students’feedbackcangreatlyaffectQUE.“Placingalearneratthecentershiftstheemphasisfromthevalue-addedmeasuresofenhancementtoempowerment.” (Ibid.,p.25)Studentsshouldgetcontrolovertheireducationbybeingabletochooseprogramsuitableforthem,aswellaselectivecoursesthatwouldsuittheirinterestsandneeds.


Qualityassuranceofuniversityeducationshouldbeoneofthemostimportantpermanentgoals,notaone-timeevent.HarveyandGreen(1993)suggestedthatqualityisusedinfivewaysinthehighereducationdebate:excellence,perfection,fitnessforpurpose,valueformoney,andtransformation.Theydefinedqualityasatraditionalnotionofquality,qualityasperfectionorconsistency,andqualityasfitnessforpurpose.The Traditional Notion of Quality isrelatedtoaterm“highclass,”somethingspecial,excellent,butwithoutdeterminingtheguidelinesbywhichQUEshouldbeevaluated.The Quality as Perfection or Consistencyapproachseesqualityasconsistent,intolerable,andaskingtosetupthingsaccordingtoteachingoutcomes;itiscloselyrelatedtoacultureofqualitythatsetsupequalresponsibilityofallpartiesforQUE.Quality as Fitness for Purposeisanapproachsuggestingthatqualityhasmeaningonlyiftheproductorservicehasapurpose.Still,aroundworldaswellasinCroatia,nofirmcriteriahavebeendefinedbywhichqualityshouldbeevaluated.“Ifwewanttofindcorecriteriaforassessingqualityinhighereducationitisessentialthatweunderstandthedifferentconceptionsofqualitythatinformthepreferencesofdifferentstakeholders.”(Ibid.,p.29)

MaguireandGibbs(2013)attempttoclarifythemeaningofquality:“Qualityassessmentcanbecultureorcontextbound,discriminatory,subjective,basedonprejudiceasmuchandasoftenasitcanbeseentobeobjectiveandethical.”(Ibid.,p.42)Theauthorsemphasizetheimportanceofclarifyingtheterm.MembersoftheacademiccommunityareinvitedtodefineclearcriteriabywhichQUEshouldbeevaluated,consideringallspecificanddifferentenvironmentalinfluencesbetweencountries(ibid.).Thatwouldimprovecollaborationintermsofencouragement,improvement,andevaluationofqualityamongfacultiesaroundtheworld(ibid.).

Kramar(2006)saysthatdidacticanalysishasasignificantroleintermsofdevelopingQUEanddefinesitasan“importantactivityoftheteacherrelatedtothewholeteachingprocessandencompassesallitsaspects,pointsandphases.Broader,itrelatestoconstantknowingofteachingcharacteristicstogetaclearinsightinitsstructure,flow,qualityandefficacy.Thisisallinevitablyneededforasuccessfulperformanceoftheeducationalprocess.”(Ibid.,p.107)

TheimportanceofdidacticanalysiswasemphasizedlongagobyKlafki(1958).Didacticanalysisisdirectedtowardknowing,clarifying,andevaluatingtheoveralleducational-teachingprocess,andinitsindividualdidacticcomponents.Inaddition,thedidacticanalysisofteachingincludesdiagnostic-prognostic,aimed-correctional,evaluation,motivational,anddevelopmentalfunctionsthattheteachingprocessapproachesfromdifferentaspects.Kramar(2006)notesthatthedidacticanalysisofteachingshouldaimataschool’svisiondevelopmentcontributingtoanewQUEandtheprofessionaldevelopmentofteachersandstudents.Thiscanbeadoptedinthecontextofuniversityteaching,wheredidacticanalysiscouldgivebetterbasicguidelinesinfurtherplanningandasafunctiontoimprovethequality,aswellastosupporttheprofessionaldevelopmentofbothstudentsandprofessors.

Ontheotherhand,authorsfromtheUnitedKingdom(Nahaiandösterberg2012)notethatthechangeinperspectiveintermsofputtingstudentsinprofessors’position,andprofessorsinapositionoftheonehelpingwouldresultinmultiplegainsforbothgroups,aswellassociety.Theseauthorsdescribeindetailhowto


implementStudents’QualityCircles(SQCs)inuniversities,originatingfromtheproductionsectorinJapan.In2009,aSQCwasinitiatedattheKingstonUniversityLondon,seeingeducationascurrency,asademocraticprocessthatstrengthensabottom-upapproachtoinnovationsandproblem-solvingpractice.

Overview of earlier studies

Theaimofthestudyoverviewistodeterminefactorsthathavebeenfoundtosignificantlyaffectstudents’attitudesonthequalityofuniversityteaching(QUT),aswellasthosethatshouldbeincludedasQUTcharacteristics.FernándezandMateo(1992)intheearly90sintensifiedtheneedtofollowandevaluatetheQUT,conductingaseriesoflarge-scalestudiesonstudentsandprofessorsfromSpanishuniversities.Theydevelopedaquestionnaireof39elementsthatcoverssomeofthebasicvariablesrelatedtoQUT.Furtheronitwasadaptedtotestteachingcompetenceandteachers’motivation.ThedevelopmentofsuchinstrumentswasjustifiedwithintensiveresearchonQUTfromthelate80swhen“theopinionsofuniversitystudentsarebecomingakeyandnecessity,althoughbynomeanssufficient,intheevaluationofteachingexcellence.Studentshaveshownthemselvesascapableofidentifyingsignificantdimensionsofeffectiveandefficientteaching.Theiropinionsseemtocorrelatetoahighdegreewiththoseofotherimportantagentsinvolvedinthesameteaching/learningsettings,whileremainingrelativelyconstantovertime.Moreover,students’evaluationofteachingtheyreceiveseemstobearsomerelationtoadegreeoflearningachieved.”(Ibid.,p.676)

ResearchbyZerihunetal.(2011)ontwoEthiopianuniversitiesshowedthatteachers’performancerepresentsoneofthemaindeterminantsinQUT,bybothstudentsandprofessors.Moreover,bothgroupspredominantlyseeteachingasknowledgetransferandestimationbasedontherecalloffactualknowledge.ItshouldbestressedthatinstitutionalpracticeinEthiopiaisteacher-dominatedandcontent-oriented,andthesystemissupportedbythecurrentpracticeofevaluatingsuccessfulteaching.Theteacher-orientedapproachtolearningisrelatedtostudents’reproducingorientation(Trigwelletal.1999),whichinvolvestherecalloffirmfacts,withoutinterpretingthemorcorrelatingthemtoearlieradoptedknowledge(Zerihunetal.2011).Thesamegroupofauthorsstressedtroublinginformationthatthemajorityofstudents(71%)considertheirroleinthelearningprocesstobeexclusivelypassive,andtherecommendationistoencouragestudentstogainfeedback.PracticeinEthiopiainvolvesgettingfeedbackattheendofacourse.Thesamegroupofauthorsdevelopedaquestionnairetoenablestudentstoevaluatelearningfromaspectsofthepersonallearningprocess(Zerihunetal.2012).

Experience in examining students’ attitudes on QUT

EarlierstudiesonQUT(Hilletal.2003;Lagrosenetal.2004;VossandGruber2006)reportedthatstudentsevaluatecontentastheleastimportantandfocusmoreonotheraspectssuchastheirrelationshipwiththeirprofessor(interms


ofhis/heraccessibility,enthusiasm,andgoodmood)andhowmuchteachinghelpsthemtopassexamsandtofindemployment.TheheterogenicapproachtotheseissuesinvolvesthewholesphereofexaminingQUT,anditiscalledthe“discourseofquality”claimingthat:“[...]changesshouldbemadeinawiderangeofoperationalaspectsofeducationalinstitutions,includingstructuralchanges(suchastheestablishmentoforganizationalunitsthatcutacrosstraditionalfrontiers,suchasqualitycommittees),theintroductionoftoolstoimprovethemanagementofbothteachingandadministrativetasks(suchasmanagementbyprocesses),theestablishmentofproceduresfortheassessmentandcontrolofqualityandinformationsystemsbywhichtheycanbeoperated(suchasstaffassessmentprograms)andthepromotionofculturalchangeamongacademicstoimprovetheattitudeofteachingstafftowardstherenewalofteachingmethodsandcateringfortheneedsoftheirstudents.”(Barandiaran-Galdósetal.2012,pp.93–94)

FurnhamandMcManus(2004)conductedastudyon1033students,examiningtheirattitudestowardQUT.Studentscompletedaquestionnaireconsistingof32questionsbasedonaLikertscale(1-definitelyno,2-probablyno,3-probablyyes,4-definitelyyes).Theresultsshowedthatstudentshighlyagreeonthefollowing:

– socialandlifeskillsgainedonthefacultyareofgreatimportance,– thereputationoftheuniversityisanimportantfactorinthefinalchoiceof

faculty,– highereducationisseenasenhancingtheirpossibilityofgettingabetter

paidjob,– theirhighereducationwillbeusefulforsociety,– socialaspectsoffacultiesareequallyimportantasacademicdevelopment,and– gaininga“goodreputation”foraspecificfacultyisstillundertheinfluence

ofstudents’evaluationonQUT(ibid.).

Students’responseswereequalintheirattitudethattheyshouldnotpaymoreforaprestigiousfacultyandthatfacultiesshouldnothavetherighttodecideonscholarshipsbycriteriaofprestigeorakindofranging.Manystudents(68.7%,definitelyno+probablyno)reportedthattheirfamilies’expectationsoftheirdecisiontochooseacertainfacultydidnotsignificantlyinfluencetheirdecision.

Professors’ research experience influencing attitudes on QUE

Barandiaran-Galdósetal. (2012)wereoneofthefirstgroupofauthorsinSpainstudyingattitudesofuniversityprofessorsonuniversity teachingdeterminations.Theybelievethattheconditionswithwhichstudentsenterandcarryonafterhighereducationhaveasignificantinfluenceontheresults,whichwealsoconsideredanextremelyimportantfactorandaddressedinthefirstpartofourstudy.BasedonthetenmostimportantfactorsforQUTfrom


thestudents’perspective,motivationishighlypositioned.Motivationshouldbepromotedmoresinceitisthemostimportantconditionneededtoaccomplishallotherconditions,andtoachievethefinalresult.Importantly,professorsthinkthatthemostimportantfactorrelatedtoQUTistheircompetenceandabilitytoapproachstudentsoncontent,whilestudentsthinkthatthemostimportantfactoristheirrelationshipwithprofessors.StudentsalsoaddressQUTfromtheaspectoffutureemployment.Differentpointsofviewoneducationareobvious,butjustasimportantisthefactthatbothpartiesreallyappreciateandnourishtheQUEprocessitself.

AreviewofthestudiesfromLatviasuggeststhatstudents’evaluationisdeterminedbysubjectiveimpression,andthemostofnegativecommentsrelatetotheknowledgeevaluation(VevereandKozlinskis2011).Inaddition,alecturer’spersonaltraitshaveastronginfluenceonstudents’motivationandlearningprocess.Theauthorsemphasizetheneedtousevalidatedquestionnairestoensurethestandardizedevaluationofstudents.Thesequestionnairesshouldinclude:knowledgetransfer,knowledgeevaluation(learned),theavailabilityofprofessors,andtheirpersonalfeatures.Theprofessor-studentrelationshipwasunexpectedlyshownasakeycomponent,showntobeakeydriverinstudents’motivationinfluencingspecificstudies,research,andtheirresearchinterests.

Self-evaluation of QUT

QUTshouldbeoneofthebasicfactorsbywhichstudentsdecidewhatfacultytheywillchoose.Afterstudyingstudentswhoparticipatedintheevaluationofteachingindifferentways,Ntombela(2013)showedthatstudentsevaluateQUTonthebasisofpreviousexperiencetheybringfromearliereducation.Universityprofessorsshoulddeterminetheinterestsandneedsoftoday’sstudents,andbasedonthatcombinedifferentstylesofteaching.Still,themajorityofprofessorsareledbyapersonalformulaofwhattheybelievestudentsshouldknow/learn,anditisnotrareforlecturestobedoneusingauniformstyleoflearningthatisdominantandcharacteristic(well-known)ofaspecificfaculty,course,orprofessor(ibid.).

AuthorsfromSpainemphasizethatstudents’one-wayevaluationofprofessorsisnotappropriate(Díaz-MéndezandGummesson2012),andthereasonliesinthefactthatthecomplexityoftheentireuniversityeducationsystemincludesall itsparties:students,professors,andotherstaff.Theyfoundthatstudentsconsiderthemselvesincompetenttoevaluatetheknowledgeofprofessors,andtheydonotagreewiththeideathatprofessorsshouldbepaidaccordingtotheirsuccesswithstudents(ibid.).Studentsalsothinkthatthiscouldleadtofewerdemandsbyprofessors,whichwouldpresentathreattotheirprofessionalskillsandreputation,causatively influencingtheir future(ibid.).Earlierresearch,alsoconductedinSpainbyGallifaandBatallé(2010),showshowimportantistoconsiderservicequalitywhileevaluatinguniversityeducation.Itcouldalsodistinguishsomedimensionsinbrandingtheuniversity.TheirresearchintegratedallfiveaspectsofservicequalitydeterminedbyParasuramanetal.(1991).This


enabledtheseparateevaluationofcampusesinrelationtothewholeuniversity.Importantinsightsweregainedforthequalityofservice,whichcouldbeusedforbrandingandoverallbetterevaluationbystudents.GallifaandBatallé(2010)notethatthisisaninterestingapproachonhowtoaddressthestudentpopulation’sperceptionofquality,particularlyinthecaseofamulti-campussystem.

Theself-evaluationofteaching(independentlyonthatwhichsideisdoingit)isundoubtedlyimportantforqualityimprovementsinceoftentheseresultsarethefirstsourceofinformationonthequalityofteaching.Differentmethodsareusedtocollectthesedata:diaries,evaluationcharts,students’questionnaires,tapingcourse,debates,arguments,numericalscoring,andothers.Themoredifferentevaluationactivitiesweuseinourteaching,themoreobjectivetheresultswillbe.Still,continuousfeedbackfromstudentsisimportantforthe(self)evaluationofuniversityteaching.

Empirical research

Inthissection,wewillpresentthemainfindingsoftheempiricalresearchconductedintheacademicyear2012/2013.Themainresearchaimsweretoexaminestudents’attitudesonQUT,toexaminecriteriaforQUT,andtolookatthedifferencesinattitudesofstudentscomingfromdifferentfaculties.

Research question and hypothesis

Accordingtothestatedresearchaims,themainresearchquestionwas:WhataretheattitudesofstudentsfromdifferentfacultiesonQUT?Wemadefourhypotheses:– H1:Studentsstudyonthefacultythatwastheirfirstchoice.– H2:Themajorityofstudentsregularlyattendcourses.– H3:Forstudents,contentisoneofthemaincriteriabywhichtheyevaluate

QUT.– H4:Studentsconsidersocialclimateanimportantcriterionfortheimprovement

ofQUT.

Sample

StudentsincludedinthestudywerefromfivefacultiesoftheUniversityofOsijek:theFacultyofCivilEngineering(GF),theFacultyofFoodTechnology(PTF),theFacultyofLaw(PFO),theFacultyofAgriculture(PFOS),andtheAcademyofArts(UA).Allparticipatingstudentscamefromdifferentcultural,educational,sociological,andeconomicbackgrounds,andtheseconfounding factorsarechallengingtoeliminate.Ontheotherhand,thesefactorsensuredarandomizedsampleoftheentireuniversity’sstudentpopulation.Basiccharacteristicsofthe


participatingstudents(includingdemographicandindividualdataongender,andage)areshowninTable1.Theoverallnumberofstudentsthatfilledinthequestionnairewas173,withahigherprevalenceoffemalestudents(66.5%,Table1).Theaverageagewas20.3yearswitharangeof18to29years,andonestudentfromtheAcademyofArtswith42yearsofage.Regardingthedistributionbetweenfaculties,thelargestnumberofstudentscomesfromtheFacultyofCivilEngineering(GF)andtheFacultyofFoodTechnology(PTF),whilefewerstudentsfromtheFacultyofLaw(PFO),FacultyofAgriculture(PFOS),andtheAcademyofArts(UA)participated(Table1).

Characteristics f f%

GenderMales 58 33.5Females 115 66.5

Faculty

GF 54 31.2PTF 61 35.5PFOS 21 12.1PFO 22 12.7UA 15 8.7

Livingconditions

Witharoommate 78 45.1Withparents 57 32.9Alone 34 19.7Married 4 2.3

Student’sstatusFullsupportoftheMSES 135 77.9PartialsubventionoftheMSES 32 18.6Self-financinginfull 6 3.5

Table 1: General characteristics of all students participating in the study (N=173)

Accordingtotheir livingconditions,mostof theparticipatingstudentslivewitharoommate(45.1%),andalargenumberalsolivewiththeirparents(32.9%).Students’studyingstatusshowthat77.9%areunderthefullsupportoftheMinistryofScience,Education,andSports(MSES),18.6%ofstudentsareunderthepartialsubventionoftheMSES,while3.5%ofstudentsarefinancingtheirstudiesinfull(Table1).

Data collection

Theresearchconsistedofanindependentfillofananonymousquestionnaire.Thequestionnairewasdevelopedspecificallyforthestudyandconsistedof12questions,11ofwhichhadmultiplechoiceanswers.ThelastquestionwasdirectlyrelatedtoQUTandresultedfromtheinitialstatusontheUniversityofOsijek.StudentsevaluatedthesecriteriaonthebasisofLikert’sscale,giving1fordonotagreeatall,2partiallyagree,3neitheryesnorno,4partiallydonotagree,5donotagreeatall.Intheselectionofcriteriathatwereincludedinthequestionnaire,wetookcaretocovertheaimsofteaching,itsorganization,content,methodsof


work,didacticmaterial,socialclimate(professor-studentrelationship),outcomesofteaching,andeconomicaspectsofteaching.

Theresearchprotocolincludedprimarycontactandthearrangementoftheexactdateandtimewithseveralprofessors.Professorswerecontactedrandomlyandbasedontheirdecisiontoallowornotallowinvestigatorstoapproachstudents,andexactdateswereset.Onthearrangeddate,investigatorscamebeforethelectureofaparticularcourse,gavequestionnairestoallstudentsthatcameforthelecturesthatday,andexplainedthemainaimsandhowtofillinthequestionnaire.Then,15minuteswereleftforstudentstofillinthequestionnaire.Beforestarting,studentscouldaskadditionalquestionsaboutthequestionnaireandcouldaskforadditionalexplanation.Allquestionnaireswerefilledinindividually,withouttheinfluenceofathirdparty.Theanonymityofallsubjectswasensuredatalltimes,andthroughdataanalysistheywereallcodedwithnumbers.Theresearchwasconductedinaccordancetoallethicalprinciplesandhumanrights.

Research method and data analysis

Themethodusedintheempiricalpartoftheresearchwascausalandnon-experimental.

StatisticalanalysiswasdonewithsoftwaretoolStatistica12.0,atasignificancelevelofp=0.05.ThenormalityofdatadistributionwastestedbythenonparametricKolmogorov-Smirnovtestforthecomparisonofmediansandarithmeticmeansaswellashistogramplotting.DescriptivestatisticalanalysiswasperformedwithKruskal-WallisorFriedman’stestandSpearman’srankorderCorrelations,sincetheoveralldatadidnotshowanormaldistribution.Forcategoricaldata,Fischer’sexacttestwasused.MSOfficeExcelwasusedforothercalculationsandgraphs.

Results and Discussion

QUTitselfisrelatedtothechoiceoffaculty.Itisofgreatrelevancewhetherastudentstudiesonafacultythatwashis/herfirstchoiceornot.Ourresultsshowthat60%ofstudentsreallydostudywiththefacultythatwastheirfirstchoice,for30.8%itwastheirsecondchoiceandfor9.2%theircurrentfacultywastheirthirdorevenlowerchoice.Amongthosestudents,numberonechoicesweremainlyfacultiesofmedicalsciences(i.e.,medicine,stomatology,andpharmacy).Themajorityofstudents(N=39)whodidnotgettheirfirst-choicefacultysaiditwasbecausetheydidnotsatisfyenteringquotes,thansmallquotesofthatparticularfaculty(N=18),andbadfinancialstatusoftheirparents(N=8).Basedonthedescriptionanalysis,wecanconcludethatourfindingsconfirmH1: Students study on the faculty that was their first choice.Thereasonsbehindthisshouldbeanalyzedinmoredepthviafuturestudies.Itisimportanttostressthatthesedataconfirmtheneedtolookmoreintostudents’motivationattheirentrylevelatauniversity,asshownbyBarandiaran-Galdósetal.(2012).LowmotivationintermsofstudentsnotstudyingwiththefacultytheywantedpresentsastartingproblemintermsofQUE.IftheoverallQUEprocessremainsatthetraditional


level,asfoundbyLedićetal.(1999),improvementinstudents’satisfactionandmotivationshouldbeexpected.Therefore,anevenhigherinfluenceofstudents’subjectiveimpressioncanbeexpected,consequentlyresultinginlowevaluationscores.Thisiswhereuniversityprofessorsshouldtakeactionandimproveoveralloutcomes,firstoftheirstudentsandthenoftheentireuniversity.

Otherquestionsincludedstudents’attitudesonseparatecriteriathatareimportantforQUT,whichweregroupedineightcategoriesbasedonstudents’opinions.

Figure 1: Average scores for all tested criteria for QUT (N=173; Friedman’s test)

Figure1showsthatgenerally,students (basedonaveragescoresofallstudentsforaparticularcriterion)considereconomicaspects(meanscore4.1±0.9)andcontent(3.8±0.7),followedbymethods(3.6±0.7),didacticmaterials(3.6±1.0),aims(3.5±0.8),andoutcomes(3.4±0.9)themostimportantcriteriaforevaluatingQUT.Lessimportantcriteriaaretheorganizationofteaching(3.3±0.9)andtheprofessor-studentrelationship(3.1±0.8),withthelowestscores(Figure1).Basedonthescoresobtainedfortheobservedcriteria,weconfirmH3: Content presents one of the main criteria in QUT according to students.Comparingthemeanscoresforeachofthecriterionbyfaculties,wefoundinterestingresults(Figure2).Infact,nomatterfromwhichfacultystudentscome,theyconsidercontentequallyimportant.ThisadditionallyconfirmsH3.Thehigheststatisticalsignificance(p<0.001)wasfoundforcriteriawiththelowestscores,i.e.,fortheprofessor-studentrelationship


andoutcomes(Figure2).Statisticalsignificanceaccordingtofacultywasfoundfortheorganizationofteaching(p=0.008),aims(p=0.014),anddidacticmaterials(p=0.015).Wehavetostressthatfordidacticmaterials,thegreatestdifferencewasobservedamongstudents,whoconsideredthemextremelyimportantinoverallimprovementinQUT(PTF,PFOS),whilestudentsinsomeotherfaculties(UA)thinkofthiscriteriaascompletelyirrelevant.Theseextremescanpartiallybeexplainedbythespecificaspectsofparticularstudies,anddependingonwhethertheoreticalorpracticalknowledgeandskillsaremorehighlighted.

Figure 2: Evaluation of all tested criteria for QUT overall and by faculties (N = 173)*marksstatisticalsignificanceatp<0.05,Kruskal-Wallistest

AnothercriteriainQUTiscourseattendance.Theresults indicatethat49.4%ofstudentsattendmorethan75%ofallcourses3,and29.1%ofstudentswouldattendallcourseseveniftheywerenotmandatory.Itisinterestingthat7.6%ofstudentsdonotwanttoattendanycourses,buttheyaresinceitisoneoftheconditionsrequiredtogetprofessors’signatureandgainaccesstocompleteacourse’sexam;2.3%ofstudentswouldattendcoursesonlyoftaughtbyspecificprofessors.Accordingtotheabovedescriptiveanalysis,weconfirmH2: The majority of students regularly attend courses.Still,itisinterestingtonotethatFischer’sanalysisdidnotshowanystatisticalsignificancebetweenyearsofstudyandlevelofcourseattendance.Inaddition,nosignificantcorrelationwasfoundbetweencourseattendancebyfaculty,exceptinthecasesofUAandPTF(p=0.033),andGFwhereitreachesalevelofsignificance(p=0.056).Thisisunderstandable

3Thetermincludesallformsofteaching:lectures,seminarsandpracticalwork.


consideringthemajordifferencesamongthesefaculties.ItshouldbenotedthatallstudentsfromUA(100%)saidtheywouldattendallcoursesevenifthecourseswerenotmandatory.TheseresultsconfirmearlierfindingsbyBognarandDubovicki(2012)stressingtheimportanceofthesocialandemotionalclimateincreatingpositivereinforcementforlearning,aswellasforthedevelopmentofcreativityofbothstudentsandprofessors.

Ontheotherhand,eventhoughstudentsfromUAconfirmtheimportanceofsocialclimate,theaveragescorefortheprofessor-studentrelationshipisthelowest(Figure1)atmerely3.10±0.8.Basedontheaveragescoresandstatisticalsignificancefoundfortheobservedcriteria,weconcludethatstudentsdonotrecognizetheimportanceofthisrelation,anddonotconsideritarelevantfactorthatwouldinfluencetheoverallQUT(GF,PFO,PTF);therefore,wehavetodismissH4:Students consider social climate an important criterion for the improvement of QUT.ThesefindingsareincontrasttothosereportedbyBarandiaran-Galdósetal.(2012),,whofoundthatstudentsfromSpanishuniversitiesreallyappreciatetheirrelationshipwiththeirprofessorsandconsideritanimportantfactorinoverallQUE(ibid.).Moreover,lowscoresshowthatprofessorscurrentlystilltendtothinkofuniversityeducationinatraditionalway,aswasshownbyLedićetal.(1999).Thatiswhereactionshouldbetaken,encouragingandhelpingprofessorsinmakingmoreeffortintermsofmakingtheircoursesmoreappealing,moreinterestingandprovokingforstudents,provokingtheircuriosityandinterestintheircourses,whichwouldfinallyresultinhigherinterestforthefacultyaswell.Coursesneedtobefocusedonthedevelopmentofpersonalitythroughsatisfyingtheinterestsandneedsofstudents;otherwisesomeformofrepressionneedstobeused,whichisinconflictwiththeprofessor-studentrelationship(BognarandKragulj2011,p.59;Dubovicki2013).Thisisinlinewiththehumanisticapproach,whichhasbeenemphasizedbymany(Maslow1968,1976;Rogers1969).

Therefore,studentswhodidnothavethechancetostudyontheirfirst-choicefacultystillfindthemselvesandenhancetheirmotivation.Afterall,students’eventualsuccessistherealmeasureofafaculty’ssuccess.

Interestingly,studentswhoattend75–100%ofcourseshavesignificantlyhigherscoresthanstudentswhoattendupto50%ofcoursesorthosewhoregularlyattendcoursesbecausetheyaremandatory.Astatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenthesetwogroupsofstudentswasfoundforcriteriamethodsanddidacticmaterials,whilethegreatestdifferenceswerefoundforcontent(3.9vs3.1,p<0.001),theorganizationofteaching(3.4vs2.7,p<0.001),professor-studentrelationship(3.2vs2.4,p<0.001),andoutcomes(3.5vs2.7,p<0.001).Theresultsindicatethatinsistingoncourseattendance,highlightingthattheyaremandatoryand/oraconditiontoaccessthecourse’sexam,leadstoaworseoutcome.Thisresultsinstudents’worsesubjectiveimpression,leadingtoaworseoveralloutcomeforthem,dissatisfaction,andinlowerevaluationscoresforQUT.Earlierfindingsareinfavorofsuchconclusionthatthesocialandemotionalclimate(BognarandDubovicki2012)andstudents’subjectiveimpression(FernandezandMateo1992;VevereandKozlinskis2011)playanextremelyimportantroleintheoverallevaluationofQUT.


Consideringthemostcommongradeintheirindex,studentshavingthemostenough(2)gradeshave,statisticallysignificantly,thelowestscoresthanotherstudents.Thistrendisthemostobviousbetweenstudentswiththegradesenough(2)andverygood(4).Asexpected,nosignificantdifferenceinthescoresforanyofthetestedcriteriawasfoundbetweenstudentshavingverygood(5)andexcellent(5)grades.Whentheoverall influenceofgradesineverytestedcriterionisobserved,astatisticallysignificantcorrelationwasfoundonlyfortheprofessor-studentrelationship(p=0.006).Theseresultsconfirmthestronginfluenceofstudents’subjectiveimpressiononprofessors’evaluation,andagainpointouttheneedtocontrolthisconfoundingfactorintheoverallevaluationofprofessors,asemphasizedbymanyothers(Díaz-MéndezandGummesson2012;FernándezandMateo1992;VerveandKozlinskis2011).Theoutcomesofteachingintermsofthefinalgraderepresentsoneofthemain,ifnotthemostimportantfactorthatinfluencesoverallprofessors’evaluation,asshowninFigure1,andwhichwasconfirmedbyothers(Stehleetal.2012;TsaiandLin2012).Stehleetal.(2012)foundthatstudents’subjectiveperceptionoflearningsignificantlycorrelateswiththeirpracticalexaminationscore.Infavoroftheseconclusions,SpanishauthorsDíaz-MéndezandGummesson(2012)foundthatstudentsthinktheirsubjectiveimpressionhasastronginfluenceontheiroverallevaluationofprofessorsandthatitshouldnotbetakenastheoneandonlycriterioninaprofessor’sevaluation.

Aims Organizationofteaching Content Methods Didactic

Materials

Professor-studentrelationship

Outcomes

Organizationofteaching 0.566

Content 0.484 0.424Methods 0.520 0.350 0.461Didacticmaterials 0.340 0.223 0.407 0.239

Professor-studentrelationship 0.445 0.345 0.563 0.368 0.245

Outcomes 0.308 0.262 0.493 0.353 0.125 0.512EconomicAspects 0.268 0.213 0.417 0.287 0.132 0.195 0.351

Table 2: Spearman’s rank of correlation for all tested criteria for QUTNote:allvaluesareshowingstatisticalsignificanceatp<0.05,butonlyvaluesthatshowmoderatecorrelationaremarked.

Spearman’stestofcorrelationbetweenallscoresandtestedcriteriashowthatthecontentandaimsarecorrelatedwithmostofthetestedcriteria(Table2).Thehighestcorrelationwasfoundbetweentheaimsandorganizationofteaching(r=0.566),theaimsandmethods(r=0.520),andthecontentandprofessor-studentrelationship(r=0.563).Theprofessor-studentrelationshipshowsastatisticallysignificantcorrelationwithoutcomes(r=0.512).Theseresultsconfirmtheneedtocreateapositivesocialandemotionalclimatetobenefitbothparties(BognarandDubovicki2012;FernandezandMateo1992;VevereandKozlinskis2011),


confirmingourfirststatementthatthehighestresponsibilitylieswithprofessorsandtheirengagementwithstudents.

Conclusions

ThispaperdealswithQUT.Criteriaonwhichitwasbasedresultedfromabroadreviewofdomesticandforeignliteraturethatdealtwiththisissue.Havinginmindthecomplexityofthisphenomenon,objectivitywasmaintainedtotheextentpossible.

Consideringthefactthat40%ofstudentssaidtheystudyonafacultythatwasnottheirfirstchoice,universityprofessorsaretaskedwithenrollingandmotivatingourstudentsfortheworkforwhichtheyarebeingprepared.ParticipationincoursesisanotherimportantsegmentinQUT.Ourresultsshowthatstudentsstilldonotparticipateincoursesasmuchastheyshould,perceivingthemasnotsufficientlystimulating.Coursesthatstudentsgladlyattendarethosewhereeverystudentcandevelophimorherselftothelevelofhis/herfullpotential,whichisoneofthemainassumptionsforimprovingQUT.

Theaimofthisstudywasnotonlytodeterminethecurrentconditions,butaftergaininginsighttocreateateachingenvironmentthatwouldtakecaretodevelopademocraticclimateandencouragepositiveemotions—teachinginwhichstudentswouldbeequalpartnersinthecreationofteachingactivities,andteachingthatwouldbemotivatingforallstudents,particularlythosewhoarestudyingwithfacultiesthatwerenottheirfirstchoice.ConsideringthefactthatstudentsperceivecontentasanimportantcriteriainQUT,activitiesbywhichitispresentedtothemareveryimportant.Dataon50%ofcoursesattendancearenotinourfavor.Therefore,weshouldimproveteachingatthelevelofmotivatingandstimulatingstudents.Wedidnotforgettoaddresstheimportanceofsubjectiveimpressionsbybothparties,whichpresentnotonlylimitingfactorsinthedevelopmentandimprovementofuniversityteaching,butontheotherhandcanbeamotivatorforsuchactivities.Subjectiveimpressionsareimportantforanyresearchthatcannotdiminishallconfoundingfactors,butitisimportanttolimitthemtotheextentpossible.

Ourresearchhasledtonumerousquestionsthatshouldbeaddressedinthefutureonotherfacultiesaswell.FutureresearcherscouldconsiderotherpossiblewaysQUTandcriteriacouldbeanalyzed.Qualityteachingshouldgohandinhandwithneedsandinterestsofallincludedparties,whileservingasthebasisforcreatingnewrolesforstudentsandprofessors.

AcknowledgmentsTheauthorswishtothankallstudentswhowerewillingtoparticipateinourstudy

aswellasuniversitycolleaguesforbeingopen-mindedandtheirappreciationofourefforttoimproveuniversityteaching.


References

Barandiaran-Galdós, M., Barrenetxea Ayesta, M., Cardona-Rodríguez, A., Mijangos del Campo, J.J. and Olaskoaga-Larrauri, J. (2012). What do teachers think about quality in the Spanish university? Quality Assurance in Education, 20, issue 2, pp. 91–109.

Bognar, L. and Dubovicki, S. (2012). Emotions in the Teaching Process. Croatian Journal of Educa-tion, 14, issue 1, pp. 135–153.

Bognar, L. and Kragulj, S. (2011). The Relationship between creativity and self-actualization of University Teaching. In: A. Jurčević Lozančić and S. Opić (eds.). Škola, učenje i odgoj za budućnost. Zagreb: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, pp. 57–70.

Díaz-Méndez, M. and Gummesson, E. (2012). Value co-creation and university teaching quality. Conse-quences for the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Journal of Service Management, 23, issue 4, pp. 571–592.

Dubovicki, S. (2013). Correlation Between the Curriculum of Teacher Education and Student Creativity Development. Doctoral work. Zagreb: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb.

Erwin, T. D. and Knight, P. T. (1995). A transatlantic view of assessment and quality in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 1, issue 2, pp. 179–188.

Fernández, J. and Mateo, M. A. (1992). Student evaluation of university teaching quality: analysis of a questionnaire for a sample of university students in Spain. Educational and Psychological Measurement,52, issue 3, pp. 675–686.

Furnham, A. and McManus, I.C. (2004). Student attitudes to university education. Higher Education Review, 36, issue 2, pp. 29–38.

Gallifa, J. and Batallé, P. (2010). Student perceptions on service quality in a multi-campus higher educa-tion system in Spain. Quality Assurance in Education, 18, issue 2, pp. 156–170.

Greene, B. (1994). New Paradigms for Creating Quality Schools. Chapel Hill: New View Pubns.Harvey, L. and Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Educa-

tion, 18, issue 1, pp. 9–34.Hill, Y., Lomas, L. and MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education.

Quality Assurance in Education, 11, issue 1, pp. 15–20.Klafki, W. (1958). Didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbereitung. Die Deutsche Schule,

50, pp. 450–471.Kovač, V., Ledić, J. and Rafajac, B. (2002). Upravljanje visokoškolskim institucijama: problemi i pristupi

rješenjima. Društvena istraživanja, 11, issue 6, pp. 1013–1030.Kramar, M. (2006). Didactic analysis in the function of developing the quality of teaching. Educational

sciences, 8, issue 1, pp. 131–158.Lagrosen, S., Seyyed-Hashemi, R. and Leitner, M. (2004). Examination of the dimensions of quality in

higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 12, issue 2, pp. 61–69.Ledić, J., Rafajac, B. and Kovač, V. (1999). Assessing the Quality of University Teaching in Croatia.

Teaching in Higher Education, 4, issue 2, pp. 213–233.Maguire, K. and Gibbs, P. (2013). Exploring the notion of quality in quality higher education assessment

in a collaborative future. Quality in Higher Education, 19, issue 1, pp. 41–55.Maslow, A. H. (1968). Psychology of Being. New York: D.Van Nostrad Company. Maslow, A. H. (1976). The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. New York: Penguin Books.


Mencer,I.(2005).OsiguranjekvaliteteivisokoškolskeustanoveuRH.Ekonomski pregled,56,issue3-4,pp.239–258.

Nahai,R.andösterberg,S.(2012).Highereducationinastateofcrisis:aperspectivefromaStudents‘QualityCircle.AI & Society,27,pp.387–398.

Ntombela,B.X.S.(2013).QualityinTeachingthroughSelfAssessment.Academic Research International,4,issue2,pp.362–374.

Parasuraman,A.,Berry,L.L.andZeithaml,V.A.(1991).RefinementandreassessmentoftheSERVQUALscale.Journal of Retailing,67,issue4,pp.420–450.

Rogers,C.R.(1969).FreedomtoLearn,AViewofWhatEducationMightBecome.Colum-bus.Ohio:CharlesE.MerrillPublishingCompany

Stehle,S.,Spinath,B.andKadmon,M.(2012).Measuringteachingeffectiveness:Cor-respondencebetweenstudents’evaluationsofteachinganddifferentmeasuresofstudentlearning.Research in Higher Education,53,pp.888–904.

Trigwell,K.,Prosser,M.andWaterhouse,F.(1999).Relationsbetweenteachers’approachestoteachingandstudents’approachestolearning.Higher Education,37,issue1,pp.57–70.

Tsai,K.C.andLin,K.(2012).RethinkStudentEvaluationofTeaching.World Journal of Education,2,issue2,pp.17–22.

Verve,N.andKozlinskis,V.(2011).Students’EvaluationofTeachingQuality.US-China Education Review,5,pp.702–708.

Voss,R.andGruber,T.(2006).Thedesiredteachingqualitiesoflecturersinhighereduca-tion:ameansendanalysis.Quality Assurance in Education,14,issue3,pp.217–242.

Zerihun,Z.,Beishuizen,J.andVanOs,W.(2011).Conceptionsandpracticesinteachingandlearning:implicationsfortheevaluationofteachingquality.Quality on Higher Education,17,issue2,pp.151–161.

Zerihun,Z.,Beishuizen,J.andVanOs,W.(2012).Studentlearningexperienceasindica-torofteachingquality.Education, Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability,24,pp.99–111.

Documents

Students' attitudes on the quality of university teaching