Match between Student Educational Expectations and Realities as Predictors of Student Satisfaction and Academic Achievements
Author(s):
Natalia Maloshonok (presenting / submitting) Evgeniy Terentev (presenting)
Conference:
ECER 2016
Format:
Paper

Session Information

22 SES 04 B, Students' Readiness and Expectations

Paper Session

Time:
2016-08-24
09:00-10:30
Room:
NM-Theatre O
Chair:
Jani Petri Ursin

Contribution

The period between school graduation and the first months of study in a university is characterized by high level of stressfulness and uncertainty for applicants and students. A college life requires from freshmen a higher level of independence, self-regulation, and initiative in comparison with a school (Bryde & Milburn, 1990). Most researchers concerned with the analysis of student experience in higher education institutions agree that different aspects of student behavior in a university such as engagement and investment in curricular and extracurricular activities, communication with faculty and administrative workers, social activity etc., are inevitably linked with pre-university educational expectations and it’s (in)congruence with actual experience. According to [Chapman 1981], educational expectations refer to student perception of what he or she will be doing or will have accomplished during study at university and involves an estimate of reality and future performance. Students do not enter university tabula rasa. They come with some socio-economic background and academic experience, which shape their attitudes about higher education in general and a certain institution in particular. Mismatches between expectations and real student experience can lead to difficulties in adaptation to university life, dissatisfaction with study, and finally withdrawal decisions. Therefore, the difference between educational expectations about student life and real student experience at university is a topic of great concern among scholars, who interested in transition from school to college. Many research projects in this field were focused on measuring solely (mis)match between expectations and reality (for example, Cook, Leckey 1999). Other studies tried to investigate factors influenced student’s expectation or their match with reality. The third group of research examined the effect of expectations on learning outcomes, student satisfaction and some psychological characteristics like optimism. There are few studies that develop complex models of student transition and specifically the role of educational expectation in it, which include (1) factors that influence forming student expectations, (2) match between expectations and reality, and (3) effects of differences between expectations and reality on satisfaction with learning and academic outcomes. This article goes on to offer such a complex model of the role of educational expectations in the student transition process.

Background

A lot of freshman studies were dedicated to exploring student expectations about their future experience at university and actual experience in a higher education institution. They found that student expectations are more positively toned than their real first year experience (Stern 1966; Berdie 1968; Buckley 1971; Herr 1971; Pate 1970; Schoemer 1973; Watkins 1978). This empirical fact was called “freshman myth” (Baker, McNeil, Siryk 1985). Contrary, some studies (for instance: Cook, Leckey 1999) indicated that student’s expectations are lower than estimates of real student experience.

Some research in this field indicated that mismatch between student pre-university expectations and reality of the first year of study negatively affects the process of adaptation to higher education (Tranter 2003, Smith & Hopkins 2005). In the theoretical model developed by Chemers, Hu, and Garcia (2001), academic expectations were considered as moderator variables through which academic self-efficiency and optimism indirectly influence classroom performance, stress, health, and overall satisfaction and commitment to remain in university.

Mainardes, Alves and Raposo (2014) considered the extent to which a university meets student expectations as an indicator of its efficiency that is measured by the level of student satisfaction. According to them, educational expectations are a main prerequisite for satisfaction with study. They found the correlation between student expectations and overall satisfaction. In addition, they showed that this relationship depends on the institutional characteristics. For example, it was observed, that the link between expectations and satisfactions is stronger for smaller-scale universities (Mainardes, Alves, & Raposo 2014).

Method

The longitudinal study was conducted among students of one Russian university (National Research University Higher School of Economics). The first wave of the survey was carried out from 1st to 15th September 2014 (the first two study weeks). The link to the Web survey was mailed to the first-year students. The sample has 283 respondents (RR1=30%) and consists of 42% male and 58% female students, who enrolled in undergraduate educational programs in Economics (27.6%), Psychology (10.1%), Sociology (20.2%), Political Science (9.7%), Software Engineering (9.8%), and Applied Mathematics (22.6%). The second wave of the survey was conducted from 8th to 30th April 2015. The panel sample after the second wave of the study has 257 respondents. All participants were paid 300 Russian rubles reward for participating in both surveys. The first survey was dedicated to exploring students’ expectations about their learning activities, time allocation, grades in 1st semester, difficulties during study, and also about input characteristics, and motivation. The second survey contained questions about their real activity in the first year of study, which were similar to questions about educational expectations, and about students’ satisfaction with learning. The data about grades in the first semester was derived from the university statistical dataset. In this research, according to the Achievement Goal Orientation Theory (Elliot, Dweck 1988, Ames 1992), the following motivation aspects were measured: mastery goal orientation (four items, α= 0.514), performance-approach orientation (six items, α= 0.631), performance-avoidance orientation (three items). In addition, social and co-curricular orientation (three items, α=0.589) and social and demographic characteristics were included in the first wave of the research. The satisfaction with study were measured by two items (α=0.697). In order to assess differences between student educational expectations and reality, we employ multiple indicators that refer to the following aspects: • Expected and real estimates of university activities that lead to high achievement (8 items); • Expected and real estimates of grades in 1st semester (1 item); • Expected and real estimates of time allocation (spending time on curricular and co-curricular activities, work and education outside the university) (5 items); • Expected and real estimates of learning activities at university (6 items); • Expected and real estimates of difficulties during study at university (10 items);

Expected Outcomes

The descriptive analysis of the longitudinal data showed that “freshman myth” is an actual problem for Russian students. In the beginning of the study first-year students expected to spend in average 61.2% of their time to curricular activities and 14.3% on extra-curricular activities at university. In reality their spend 51.9% and 9.5%, respectively. About 22% of freshmen overestimated their time spent on curricular activities by 20% and more. For extracurricular activities this share is accounted 14%. In the beginning of the study year, more than a quarter of students (28.8%) planned to do additional study work related to learning courses and didn’t do it during this academic year. However, 35.4% of students realized such plans. According to our data, expectations about 1st year grades match the real grades for 40.4% of students. Only 16.6% of respondents underestimated their academic performance. And for 43% of freshmen real grades were lower than they expected in the beginning of the study year. The most underestimated difficulties with which students confronted are the following (student didn’t think that they would have trouble with it, however, in reality, they found it difficult): (1) difficulties with attending classes because student’s way from home to university is to long (21.5% didn’t expect this); (2) difficulties with living in dormitory (20%); (3) difficulties with mathematical courses (17.2%). According to these findings, about 20% of first year students arrive at the University with overestimated expectations about their future student experience. Our next step will be testing the construct validity of the suggested conceptual model by using structural equation modelling. This analysis will allow us to check our hypothesis and appropriateness of indicators developed for measuring student educational expectations and reality. The results of this analysis will be presented on the Conference.

References

Baker R.W., McNeil O.V., Siryk B. (1985). Expectation and Reality in Freshman Adjustment to College. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 32(1). P. 94-103. Berdie R.F. (1968). Changes in university perceptions during the first two college years. Journal of College Student Personnel. 9. P. 85-89. Briggs A.R.J., Clark J., Hall I. (2012) Building bridges: understanding student transition to university. Quality in Higher Education. 18(1). P. 3-21. Bryde J.F., Milburn C.M. (1990). Helping to make the transition from high school to college. In R. L. Emans (Ed.), Understanding undergraduate education (pp. 203-213). Vermillion, SD: University of South Dakota Press. Buckley H.D. (1971). A comparison of freshman and transfer expectations. Journal of College Student Personnel. 12. P. 186-188. Chapman D.W. (1981) A Model of Student College Choice. The Journal of Higher Education. 52(5). P. 490-505. Chemers M.M., Hu L., Garcia B.F. (2001) Academic Self-Efficacy and First-Year College Student Performance and Adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology. 93(1). P. 55-64. Cook A., Leckey J. (1999). Do Expectations Meet Reality? A survey of changes in first-year student opinion. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 23(2). P. 157-171. Herr E.L. (1971). Student needs, college expectations, and “reality” perceptions. Journal of Educational Research. 65. P. 51-56. Mainardes E., Alves H., Raposo M. (2014). Using expectations and satisfaction to measure the frontiers of efficiency in public universities. Tertiary Education and Management. 20(4). P. 339-353. Pate R.H. Jr. (1970). Student expectations and later expectations of a university enrollment. Journal of College Student Personnel. 11. P. 458-462. Schoemer J.R. (1973). Higher education misrepresented – Who is responsible? NASPA Journal. 10. P. 192-197. Smith, K. & Hopkins, C., 2005, ‘Great expectations: sixth-formers’ perceptions of teaching and learning in degree-level English’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 4(3), P. 304–18. Smith J.S., Wertlieb E.C. (2005). Do First-Year College Students’ Expectations Align with their First-Year Experiences? NASPA Journal. 42(2). P. 153-174. Stern G.G. (1966). Myth and reality in the American college. AAUP Bulletin 52. P. 408-414. Tranter, D., (2003). ‘“Fish out of Water”: students from disadvantaged schools and the university experience’, paper presented at Creating Spaces: interdisciplinary writings in the Social Sciences Conference, Australian National University, Canberra, 17–18 July. Watkins D. (1978). A note on student satisfaction with university: A case study. Education Research and Perspectives. 5. P. 45-53.

Author Information

Natalia Maloshonok (presenting / submitting)
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Moscow
Evgeniy Terentev (presenting)
National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russian Federation

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.