Research on the Quality of Undergraduate Programs of Universities in Chongqing:

[a]College of International Studies， Southwest University & Center for Studies of Education and Psychology of Ethnic Minorities in Southwest China， Southwest University， Chongqing， China.

*Corresponding author.

Supported by the Research Project of 2012 Chongqing Graduate Education Reform “the Research of the Mechanism of Transforming the Humanities and Social Science Research into Teaching” （yjg123053）.

Received 10 March 2014； accepted 19 July 2014

Published online 26 September 2014

Abstract

The reform of universities contributed remarkably to the development of China’s higher education. Contrastively， problems pertaining to their teaching quality have aroused much attention and anxiety from the society in the meantime. After defining the ‘satisfaction of teaching quality’， this research analyzes samples consisting of college students. On this basis， this thesis studies students’ satisfaction of teaching in universities in Chongqing from the following five dimensions curriculum， in-class teaching， professional training， teaching facilities and management. It is concluded that at present， specialty-curriculum plan and professional training are the two factors discouraging students’ satisfaction of the quality of undergraduate programs. Besides， the factor of grade has a marked influence on students’ satisfaction， as students of lower grades are more satisfied with their teaching quality than those of higher grades. At last， there is no stark difference in terms of students’ satisfaction in different universities and they are relatively satisfied with the quality of undergraduate programs in general.

Key words： Institutions of higher education； Students’ satisfaction； Quality of undergraduate programs

Yu， X. G. （2014）. Research on the Quality of Undergraduate Programs of Universities in Chongqing： From the Perspective of Students’ Satisfaction. Higher Education of Social Science， 7（2）， -0. Available from： URL： http：///index.php/hess/article/view/5477

DOI： http：///10.3968/5477

INTRODUCTION

According to the Outline of National Medium-and-Long-Term Program for Educational Reform and Development， the goal of China’s higher education is to improve the quality of higher education in an all-round manner and to enhance that of personnel cultivation. Meanwhile， Chinese government will continue to implement the Project of Reforming the Teaching Quality and Pedagogy of Undergraduate Programs. This will be taken as a fundamental strategy to improve the quality of China’s higher education. Against the backdrop of a mass higher education， it is argued that the quality of higher education is degrading， and hence the call for an amelioration of the situation. The quality of higher education is of crucial importance to higher education； furthermore， the quality of undergraduate programs is the essence of that of higher education （Xu， 2008）. At present， many studies concentrate on the quality of higher education， but few of them showed expertise in the quality of undergraduate programs and fewer in a systematic study in this field. It is likely that the study of the former appears to shadow the importance of the latter.

Quality is the sum of specialties which reflects the ability of an object （a product， process or an activity， etc.） to meet explicit or implicit demands （Wu， 1996）. The quality of undergraduate programs refers to a collection of features that undergraduate education programs are able to satisfy explicit and implicit demands of different subjects. The quality is ultimately presented by degrees to which subjects’ needs are fed. Obviously， different subjects understand the quality in different ways. On the basis of student’s perspective， my research will focus on students’ satisfaction of the teaching quality of higher education institutions in China. This would prove to be an important way to monitor the teaching quality of higher education institutions and the standard of personnel training. It is of great theoretical and practical significance for improving the mode and level of teaching. Therefore， in terms of textbooks， teaching content， teaching methods and teaching environment， etc.， this research selected relevant variables to establish a comprehensive evaluation system； besides， from a perspective integrating the quality of in-class and practical teachings with that of autonomous learning， I also investigate the formation mechanism of students’ satisfaction of the quality of undergraduate programs and construct a research model for students’ satisfaction. Involving undergraduates in Chongqing， this research analyzed factors that influence students’ satisfaction with the quality of undergraduate programs. Hence， conclusions drawn from the study can provide theoretical support and reference to enhance the quality of undergraduate programs and promote personnel cultivation.

1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The theoretical basis of studies on students’ satisfaction originates from customer satisfaction， while its basis in reality derives from the transformation of students’ role. In 1966， American Council on Education carried out the first research on students’ satisfaction through CIRP （Cooperative Institutional Research Program）. In late 1990s， the notion of customer satisfaction was introduced into China. Furthermore， with the reform of higher education in China， students’ status has been ascended continuously； accordingly， the study of students’ satisfaction has gradually drawn increasing attention from scholars. In terms of college students’ satisfaction， the present literature in China mainly focuses on qualitative study attaching importance to humanistic care over students， yet few are done by quantitative approach. Moreover， only a handful of them are of reference value， among which Tian Xizhou and Wang Xiaoman investigated college students’ satisfaction （Tian & Wang， 2007）； Oyang and He studied students’ appraisal of the service of higher education institutions empirically （Oyang et al.， 2008）. These are notable studies done by empirical approach in China. However， they only managed to investigate students’ satisfaction with the quality of higher education or the service of higher education institutions in a general way. There is still a short of specific and in-depth investigation and analysis of the teaching quality of undergraduate education. Given these， it is of vital theoretical and practical significance to study the teaching quality of undergraduate programs on the basis of students’ satisfaction.

Classical satisfaction is a cause-effect model comprised of structural variables like customer expectation， quality perception， value perception， customer satisfaction， customer complaint， etc.. Among these variables， customer satisfaction is the target variable； customer expectation， quality perception and value perception are antecedent variables to customer satisfaction； and customer complaint and loyalty are outcome variables to customer satisfaction. To be specific， customer expectation refers to quality estimation made by a customer before using or purchasing one product or service. In addition， the perceived quality of customer means the actual experience of a customer after using one product or service， including customers’ perception of the degree to which the product is of high quality， reliable and compatible to their needs. Customers’ perceived value refers to customers’ perception of products’ quality at given prices vice versa. And customer satisfaction encompasses the gap between their expected quality and actual feeling of a product or service， that between their actual feeling and their idealized products and customers’ general satisfaction. This model is specialized in analyzing how customer expectation， quality perception and value perception affect customer satisfaction and loyalty. Hence， it is widely employed in service industry to investigate customer satisfaction. In accordance with the classical satisfaction model， students’ satisfaction of the teaching quality of their undergraduate programs should cover their satisfaction with specialty and curriculum， in-class teaching， professional training， teaching facilities and management， etc..

2. RESEARCH DESIGN

To avoid an over-generalized understanding of teaching quality and to ensure the pertinence of the research， teaching quality was redefined as the sum of provided teaching standards and conditions able to meet students’ needs in specific teaching situations. It embodies the following 5 structural indicators： a） specialty and curriculum， b） in-class teaching， c） professional training， d） teaching facilities， and e） teaching management. This research， through the analysis of the above indicators， will adopt closed questions， so as to make a questionnaire about students’ satisfaction with undergraduate programs. In order to guarantee the accuracy and inclusiveness of each index， the author， by way of Delphi Method， consulted experts and scholars from Southwest University and Chongqing University for the constitution of single indexes （see Table 1）. Meanwhile， the questionnaire applied Likert scale for scoring； and each single index is divided into five ordered response levels： unsatisfied （score 1）， relatively unsatisfied （score 2）， neutral （score 3）， relatively satisfied （score 4） and satisfied （score 5）.

Table 1

Indicators of College Students’ Satisfaction With the Teaching Quality of Undergraduate Programs

Structure indicators

College students’ satisfaction with the teaching quality of undergraduate programs Specialty and curriculum Rationality of specialty； formulation of teaching plans； current curriculum and teaching plans； quality of textbooks

In-class teaching Teaching content； teacher’s attitude； teaching methods； students’ in-class performance； student-teacher interactions

Professional training Content and arrangement of professional training； facilities and bases available； improvement of students’ mastering of expertise and practical skills

Teaching facilities Campus； classrooms； library； computer and language labs； sports facilities

Teaching Management System of teaching management and service； teaching reform； establishment and execution of the rules and regulations of teaching； supervision over teaching quality

Having the questionnaire as investigation tool， this research was conducted from December， 2013 to April， 2014 in 3 universities at 3 different layers （Project “985”， Project “211” and provincial university respectively） in Chongqing. 600 questionnaires were handed out at random and anonymously （200 for each university）. Among the 576 questionnaires collected back， 531 of them were valid， with a recovery rate of 96% and an effective return ratio of 88.5%. For the convenience of data analysis， this research applied spss20.0 for the input and statistical processing of data. For basic information， see Table 2.

Table 2

Basic Information of Research Samples

Types Frequency Percentage Effective percentage Cumulative percentage

Gender Male 295 55.6 55.6 55.6

Female 236 44.4 44.4 100.0

Grade 1st 123 23.2 23.2 23.2

2nd 139 26.2 26.2 49.4

3rd 147 27.7 27.7 77.1

4th 122 22.9 22.9 100.0

Type of university Project “211” 194 36.5 36.5 36.5

Project “985” 187 35.2 35.2 71.7

Provincial 150 28.2 28.2 100.0

3. DATA PROCESSING AND RESULTS

3.1 Satisfaction With Single Indexes

In order to process all single indexes about students’ satisfaction with undergraduate programs， spss20.0 was used to calculate the average and the standard deviation of it， with averages in an incremental sequence. Results are showed in Table 3.

Table 3

Scores of Single Indexes

Single indexes （satisfaction with…） Average Standard deviation

Classroom resources 3.60 1.062

Library resources 3.90 .964

Laboratorial resources 3.26 1.123

Teachers’ cultivation 3.47 .985

Teachers’ attitude 3.54 1.002

Teaching approaches 3.12 .912

Teaching effect 3.23 .910

Effect of management 3.21 .913

Managerial methods 3.01 1.012

Public selective courses 3.10 1.134

Experimental courses 3.12 .981

Administrant 3.11 1.053

Administrative system 3.01 1.073

Selective courses pertaining to certain major 3.02 1.056

Base for professional training 2.92 1.023

Structure of curriculum 2.90 1.031

Compulsory courses pertaining to certain major 2.94 1.053

Internship 2.76 1.032

Social activities 2.75 1.053

As is depicted in Table 3， the top 5 single indexes are： library resources， classroom resources， teachers’ attitude， teachers’ cultivation and laboratorial resources， all scored between 3 to 4. This indicates students are relatively satisfied with these indexes. The least-scored 5 indexes are compulsory courses pertaining to certain major， structure of curriculum， bases for professional training， internship and social activities， which are scored between 2 to 3. This indicates that students are relatively unsatisfied with these respects. The result of single indexes is in line with the status quo of the development of higher education in China. In recent years， the expanded scale of China’s higher education is accompanied with a great improvement of infrastructure in higher education institutions. Thanks to large sums of investment in infrastructure， resources of libraries， classroom and laboratories in these institutions are enriched to a large extent. In the meantime， social values have become more diverse than before as a result of social transformation. This stimulates college teachers to attach more importance to the integration of knowledge and humanity in their teaching. Both students’ academic performance and extracurricular capabilities are emphasized. Thus， students tend to have a higher level of satisfaction with their in-class teaching. Nevertheless， it is notable that students’ professional competence has always been a weak point of China’ higher education. The situation becomes worse after the expansion of college enrollment. Accordingly， China’s higher education institutions will confront bigger challenges when organizing professional training and internships. Hence， the quality of professional training in universities is more difficult to be ensured. It is proved again in this research that this weak point is still a bottleneck in improving the quality of undergraduate education in China.

3.2 Satisfaction With Structural Indexes

The results of processing structural indexes are seen in Table 4. From Table 4， it is evident that among the 5 indexes， teaching facilities is ranked the highest， but professional training the lowest. Furthermore， the latter is scored “relatively unsatisfied”. The results are in line with the scoring of single indexes， proving the data is relatively accurate and reliable. However， this also reveals the drawbacks of China’s higher education. For instance， specialty and curriculum are ranked the last but 2. To some extent， this score is connected with the structural unemployment of college students in China. Through the interviews， the author discovered that many college students criticized the low relevance between their majors and curriculum and the demand of market， as the former is thought as of little practical value. This also displays students’ dissatisfaction with their major and curriculum， indirectly.

Table 4

Scores of Structure Indexes

Types In-class teaching Professional training Teaching facilities Teaching management Specialty and curricula

N Effective missing 531 531 531 531 531

0 0 0 0 0

Average 3.3565 2.9032 3.4890 3.1345 3.0132

3.3 Influence of Project Types on Students’ Satisfaction With Structural Indexes

Project types in this research are categorized genders， grades， and types of universities. In order to further judge the effect of each project type on students’ satisfaction with structural indexes， the author conducted Independent-Sample T Test on students’ satisfaction with each structural index from the perspective of gender， and one-way ANOVA in terms of grades and types of universities.

3.3.1 Effect of Gender on Structural Indexes

Table 5 shows that male and female students have similar satisfactory standard toward each structural indexof a prominent level of 0.05. Among the 5 indexes， gender only exerts bigger influence on satisfaction with teaching management， with a prominence probability of 0.043. The phenomenon implies that gender can result in differences in students’ comment on teaching management in universities； and female students are more satisfied with it than their male counterparts. This may be connected with the general difference between characters of male and female students. Contrastively， female students are relatively more likely to accept administration and regulations from universities.

Table 5

Influence of Gender on Structural Indexes

Structural indexes Gender N Average Standard deviation T Prominence

Specialty and curriculum Male 295 3.0124 .84031 -.008 .995

Female 236 3.0131 .77152

In-class teaching Male 295 3.3205 .75587 -1.523 .128

Female 236 3.4056 .75332

Professional training Male 295 2.9063 .77751 -.372 .709

Female 236 2.9280 .79056

Teaching facilities Male 295 3.4715 .77190 -1.142 .252

Female 236 3.5369 .75862

Teaching management Male 295 3.0861 .83892 -2.052 .043

Female 236 3.2123 .80534

3.3.2 Influence of Grade on Students’ Satisfaction With Structural Indexes

In Table 6， it is noticed that grade has a considerable influence on students’ satisfaction with structural indexes， except for teaching facilities. In terms of specialty and curriculum， students in grade 1 and 2 are more content with it than those in grade 3 （that is， 1>3， 2>3）； in light of in-class teaching， students in grade 1 are more content than those in grade 3 and 4 （that is， 1>3， 1>4）， and students in grade 2 are also more satisfied than those grade 4 （that is， 2>4）； in terms of professional training， students in the 1st grade are more satisfied than those in the 3rd and 4th grade （that is， 1>3， 1>4）； in terms of teaching management， students in grade 1， 2 and 4 are more content than students in grade 3 （that is， 1>3， 2>3， 4>3）. The result indicates that there is disparity among students in different grades when evaluating specialty and curriculum， in-class teaching， professional training and teaching management.

Table 6

Influence of Grade on Structural Indexes

Structural indexes Grade N Average Standard deviation Homogeneity of variance Probability of F value Difference in detail

Specialty and curriculum 1 123 3.1025 .81163 .429 .044 1>3

2>3

2 139 3.0529 .77749

3 147 2.8678 .77915

4 122 3.0218 .87364

In-class teaching 1 123 3.4982 .77328 .730 .002 1>3

1>4

2>4

2 139 3.4186 .76695

3 147 3.2796 .70822

4 122 3.2267 .74617

Professional training 1 123 3.0864 .70002 .126 .006 1>3

1>4

2 139 2.9296 .84581

3 147 2.7954 .76208

4 122 2.8674 .76440

Teaching facilities 1 123 3.6314 .73310 .071 .061 No big difference

2 139 3.4534 .81875

3 147 3.4218 .70806

4 122 3.5148 .77175

Teaching management 1 123 3.2547 .80194 .875 .007 1>3

2>3

4>3

2 139 3.1796 .81472

3 147 2.9572 .81039

4 122 3.1570 .85859

3.3.3 Influence of the Types of University on Structural Indexes

As is shown in Table 7， though homogeneity test of variance has proved that it is proper to have multiple comparison of students’ satisfaction from the perspective of types of universities， the influence of it on students’ satisfaction with structural indexes is insignificant， as the prominence probabilities in all 5 dimensions are larger than 0.05. Therefore，

Table 7

Influence of Types of Universities on Structural Indexes

Structural indexes Type of universities N Average Standard deviation Homogeneity of variance Probability of F value

Specialty and curriculum Project “211” 194 3.0187 .79725 .999 .672

Project “985” 187 2.9775 .82973

Provincial 150 3.0411 .81067

In-class teaching Project “211” 194 3.3874 .73669 .132 .512

Project “985” 187 3.3124 .72995

Provincial 150 3.3669 .79883

Professional training Project “211” 194 2.9687 .75991 .854 .150

Project “985” 187 2.8398 .78884

Provincial 150 2.9420 .79413

Teaching facilities Project “211” 194 3.5083 .76769 .667 .209

Project “985” 187 3.4345 .75820

Provincial 150 3.5541 .77263

Teaching management Project “211” 194 3.1551 .84531 .302 .309

Project “985” 187 3.0751 .84479

Provincial 150 3.1840 .79002

3.3.4 Students’ Satisfaction With the Quality of Undergraduate Programs in General

After addressing 531 samples， the average score of students’ overall satisfaction with the quality of undergraduate programs is 3.19. Therefore， students are relatively content with it. But this also suggests there is a large room to improve the current situation and a lot of work remains to be done. Besides， the result is out of line with the primary speculations of those who claimed the quality of China’s higher education has slid. This means we cannot simply replace the judgment of undergraduate programs with that of higher education； on top of this， we cannot blindly claim that the quality of China’s higher education is going downward without any thorough academic study. In fact there has existed a long-term debate over this issue in China （Liu & Ye， 2003）.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of empirical investigation， this research deals with students’ satisfaction with the teaching quality of undergraduate programs by data processing and statistical analysis. Through the above analysis， it is safe to come to the following conclusions：

A. The research shows that major and curricula and practical teaching are the 2 factors degrading the quality of students’ satisfaction with undergraduate programs. Therefore， the first priority is to readjust the structure of specialty and curriculum for undergraduate programs， so as to improve the quality of practical teaching.

B. The research indicates that grade is an important factor affecting students’ satisfaction and students in lower grades are more content with the quality of undergraduate education. So it is advisable to further supervise the teaching quality in higher grades so as to enhance it.

C. Students’ satisfaction with the quality of undergraduate programs varies little among universities in different layers. Generally， students feel relatively satisfied with the quality of undergraduate programs.

REFERENCES

Liu， X.， & Ye， Q. X. （2003）. Educational standards for the efficiency of higher education. Modern University Education， （03）

Oyang， H.， & He， L.， et al. （2008）. Empirical research of students’ evaluation of the service quality of higher education. Modern University Education， （06）.

Tian， X. Z.， & Wang， X. M. （2007）. Investigation on and analysis of college students’ satisfaction. Higher Education Exploration， （05）

Wu， A. （1996）. Quality management （p.2）. Guangzhou： Jinan University Press.

Xu， H. （2008）. Five key points for enhancing the quality of undergraduate programs. Heilongjiang Research on Higher Education， （5）.