FIRST YEAR STUDENT EXPECTATIONS OF AN ...

Journal of Advance Management Research, ISSN: 2393-9664 Vol.05 Issue-05, December2017 (Special Issue) Impact Factor: 4.73

FIRST YEAR STUDENT EXPECTATIONS OF AN UNDERGRADUATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: A SURVEY Dr. G N P V Babu Associate Professor Baba Institute of Technology and Sciences, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh Mr. Rajesh Dorbala Assistant Professor Mittal School of Business, Lovely Professional University Phagwara, Punjab

Abstract: Although much has been written on the first-year experience of students at higher education institutions, less attention has been directed to the expectations of students when they enter an institution for the first time. This paper deliversacumens into the expectations of first year students at largest private university in India and highlight areas in which students’ expectations may not essentiallyline up with the realities of common university practices. By providing chances for students to coherent their expectations, staff are able to use the responses for a fruitful dialogue and work towards a more positive alignment between perceived expectations and levels of student satisfaction with their experience. It highlights that the expectations of the students are beyond traditional teaching methods and it is inclined towards career planning and orientation. Keywords- Student Perception, Career Orientation, Traditional Teaching, Skill Set Introduction: The life of a university student is complex. A student must alter the often-conflicting priorities associated with their current academic, family and social responsibilities in order to complete the university studies successfully, while continuing a lifestyle that satisfies their personal and social needs. Students enrol in university programs for different reasons (Bachelor, 2006; Briggs, 2006) and their reasons for continuing, or discontinuing, their studies are multifaceted (Zepke, 2006). Universities in the entire world are under growing pressure to enhance retention rates for students, particularly between the first and second Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed International Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories

Journal of Advance Management Research, ISSN: 2393-9664 (JAMR)http://www.jamrpublication.com email id- [email protected] Page 104


years of curriculum. Universities are looking to allocate a good amount of resources to record, analyse and respond to first-year student feedback on their experience (Krause, Hartley, James & McInnis, 2005; Wilcox, Winn &Fyvie-Gauld, 2005). Its unparalleled expressions at university culture, and discipline, often provide new and confusing expectations for first year students. The success of this assessment may require different levels of support from the university, family and peers to navigate. Recognizing that there is a major challenge for high school students to transition to universities, many universities now have a specific transition program for new students.In these induction programs students can successfully conduct their conflicting preferences and often have information about their study, work and social life synchronization.Despite considerable research work was undertaken into the first-year experience of the students, fewer studies have focused on student expectations of starting their university studies (Miller, Bender & Schuh, 2005). Kuh, Gonyea& Williams (2005) examined the factors that impact student expectations and concluded that these expectations are strongly cognitive and psychological. These include capacity (expected grades), academic interests (higher degree prospects), inspiration (hours of study) and a positive perspective prior to the university (expectations to like University).Socio-cultural and economic differences accounted for low diversity of expectations, as did the type of institution they have attended. Why should institutions be concerned about student motives? Because students' expectations and their experience in their first year, have a direct impact on student engagement and retention (Longden, 2006). Institutions that are interested in influencing student retention rates must reach the problem from many directions. One of these is to provide good alignment between student expectations and realities of the first-year experience.This setting will be facilitated by changing students 'expectations to further enhance the reality or organization of the university experience by changing some policies of students' engagement to suit the needs of the students. Smith &Wertlieb (2005) compared the students' social and academic expectations for the first year of their experiences in mid-and late-year of their first year of college in the USA. They reported that there is a significant misalignment between students’ academic and social expectations and their first-year experiences; Moreover, academic or social expectations or first-year experiences are not good speculations for the first-year academic achievement.The Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed International Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories



study also revealed that students who have unrealistic academic expectations have lower firstyear grades compared to those who have average or lower expectations. Review of Literature: Joseph SiaKee Ming (2010) conducted a study on “Institutional Factors Influencing Students’ College Choice Decision in Malaysia: A Conceptual Framework” with an aim to identify the factors influencing students’ college choice decision in Malaysia. Independent variables identified to influence students' choice of student selection are location, college reputation, education facilities, cost, availability of financial aid, employment opportunities, representatives and campus visit of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), and advertising. Emad M. Wajeeh& Ted Micceri(1997) in their study on “Factors Influencing Students’ College Choice at Traditional and Metropolitan Universities” identified that college choice is a decision influenced by a number of demographic, economic, social, political, and institutional factors. Various types of students have chosen to attend some universities, one or more factors directly linked to their characteristics and needs. The main reasons for literacy influence are: parental advice, academic fame of the organization, availability of the desired program, availability of financial aid, attendance in the organization, and position of the organization. However, the relative importance of these factors is mainly determined by the student characteristics and university types (metropolitan or traditional). Jacqueline Liza Fernandez (2010)studied“An Exploratory Study of Factors influencing the decision of students to study at UniversitiSainsMalaysia (USM)”. The study examined: (i) the reasons students pursue higher education; (ii) sources of information used by students to help choose a tertiary institution; (iii) factors that influence students' choices of public versus private institutions; and (iv) the factors that influence students' decisions to study at USM. The results of this study indicate that the main reasons for students' higher education is to improve their jobs opportunities, acquire knowledge and gain experience. Research Question: The main aim of this paper is to provide insights into the expectations of students, new to university study. In particular, it highlights areas in which student expectations may not necessarily align with the realities of available resources or with standard university practices. It also provides an opportunity for university teachers to acknowledge, reflect on, Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed International Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories



and ultimately determine which, student expectations can reasonably be met within the available resources. Research Methodology: The statistical method used in analysing the data for this study is Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) which is extensively used in a vast array of contexts (Costello and Osborne, 2005;Basto and Pereira, 2012). It is a multi-stage procedure which seeks to “identify the underlyingfactors that explain the pattern of correlations within a set of observed variables” (Basto andPereira, 2012). In other words, fundamentally, factor analysis is used to "reveal any latentvariables that cause the manifest variables to covary" (Costello and Osborne, 2005). A structured questionnaire was used to conduct the survey at largest private university in India. The questionnaire consists of 13 statements requiring students to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with them on a 5-point Likert Scale and socio-economic profile.The sample size was computed by assuming a 95% confidence interval and 5% margin of error. The questionnaire was administered to 200 students. However, 165 questionnaires were completed and returned representing a response rate of 82.5%. Analysis: The data collected is analysed using SPSS-20. Table-1: Student preferred choice after BBA program Particulars

Number of Responses

Percentage

Higher Studies

88

53.3

Job

31

18.8

Entrepreneurship

44

26.7

Others

2

1.2

Total

165

Table-1 shows the student preferred choice after completion of BBA program. It shows that majority of the students are opting for higher studies. It is followed by Entrepreneurship and Job. Few students have opted for Job after the completion of the course. Cronbach’s alpha (or coefficient alpha) is a way to measure reliability, or internal consistency of a psychometric instrument (Cronbach, 1951). It is most commonly used to see if Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed International Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories



questionnaires with multiple Likert scale questions are reliable. The resulting α coefficient of reliability ranges from 0 to 1 in providing this overall assessment of a measure’s reliability. Although the standards for what makes a “good” α coefficient are entirely arbitrary and depend on your theoretical knowledge of the scale in question, it is recommended that a minimum α coefficient has to be greater than 0.7 to be consider it as acceptable (Tavakol and Dennick, 2011). Table-2: Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items .773

Cronbach's Alpha .777

N of Items 13

The Cronbach’s alpha value is 0.777 for the 13 items, which is greater than 0.7. It indicates that these items are reliable and are likely to give the desired results. Table-3: Descriptive Statistics N Particulars

Mean

Std. Deviation

Valid

Missing

Improve communication skill

165

0

4.68

0.516

Enhance analytical skill

165

0

4.33

0.691

Opportunity for good internship

165

0

4.28

0.901

Get a global exposure

165

0

4.23

0.921

Obtain skills to get placed

165

0

4.20

0.878

Learn software skills like SPSS, SAP

165

0

4.07

0.849

Develop personal code of values or ethics

165

0

3.99

0.819

165

0

3.98

0.924

165

0

3.95

0.945

Have opportunity to go abroad

165

0

3.85

1.119

Theoretical knowledge

165

0

3.76

0.869

Prepare for competitive examination

165

0

3.75

1.101

Strengthen research orientation

165

0

3.75

0.902

Opportunity to participate in co-curricular activities Opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities

Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed International Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories



In order to proceed for conducting factor analysis, Kaiser-Meyer-Olking Measure of Sampling Adequacy should be greater than or equal to 0.5. The closer it is to 1, the better is the adequacy.

Table-4: KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square

.759 511.461

Df Sig.

78 .000

From Table-4 it can be observed that the KMO registered 0.759 sampling adequacy. This value strongly suggests the use of factor analysis is appropriate. Bartlett's test of sphericity tests whether the correlation matrix is an identity matrix and the variables in the population correlation matrix are uncorrelated. These however indicate that the factor model is inappropriate, since it indicate the strength of the relationship among variables. In order for factor model to be an appropriate analysis of a particular study, the observed significance level must be 0.000, which is small enough to reject the hypothesis. This also concludes that the strength of the relationship among variables is strong. In the Bartlett's test of sphericity, the approx. chi square value is found to be 511.461 with a significance of 0.000. This suggests the use of a factor analysis for the dataset is appropriate.

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Table-5: Total Variance Explained Extraction Sums of Rotation Sums of Squared Initial Eigenvalues Squared Loadings Loadings Total 3.770 1.485 1.241 1.040 .967 .870 .744 .642 .597

% of CumulaVariTotal tive % ance 29.000 29.000 3.770 11.425 40.425 1.485 9.543 49.968 1.241 8.003 57.971 1.040 7.435 65.406 6.690 72.096 5.726 77.822 4.942 82.764 4.596 87.359

% of CumulaVariTotal tive % ance 29.000 29.000 2.687 11.425 40.425 2.095 9.543 49.968 1.463 8.003 57.971 1.291

% of CumulVariative % ance 20.667 20.667 16.118 36.785 11.253 48.038 9.932 57.971




10 .565 4.346 91.705 11 .492 3.786 95.491 12 .349 2.684 98.175 13 .237 1.825 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. From Table-5, it can be interpreted that 4 factors have been extracted by applying factor analysis and they are able to explain 57.971 per cent of the variance which is sufficient to consider the 4 factors. Table-6: Rotated Component Matrixa

Obtain skills to get placed Have opportunity to go abroad Opportunity for good internship Prepare for competitive examination Learn software skills Get a global exposure Opportunity to participate in co-curricular activity Opportunity to participate in extracurricular activity Improve communication skill Enhance analytical skill Theoretical knowledge Develop personal code of values or ethics Strengthen research orientation Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

1 .770 .746 .715 .610 .517

Component 2 3

4

.879 .858 .776 .762 .654 .636 .565

Based on the Rotated component matrix, 4 factors has been extracted and the variables comprised under each factor are stated below: Discussion and Managerial Implications: Table-7: Variables under Each Factor Factor Career Orientation

Variables

Factor Loading

Obtain skills to get placed Have opportunity to go abroad

.770 .746




Opportunity for good internship Prepare for competitive examination Learn software skills like SPSS, SAP Support Activities Opportunity to participate in co-curricular activities Opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities Skill Set Improve communication skill Enhance analytical skill Traditional Learning Theoretical knowledge Develop personal code of values or ethics Strengthen research orientation Note: Get a global exposure is not fitted into any of the factors.

.715 .610 .517 .879 .858 .776 .762 .654 .636 .565

Factor-1: Career Orientation has emerged as one of the factor, which can explain total variance of 20.667 per cent of the expectations by the students. The variables fall under this factor are Obtain skills to get placed (0.770), Have opportunity to go abroad (0.746), Opportunity for good internship (0.715), Prepare for competitive examination (0.610) and Learn software skills like SPSS, SAP (0.517). These variables show the preferences of students towards their careers. Factor-2: Support Activities: It is the second factor extracted from the analysis and it can explain 16.118 per cent of total variance. Opportunity to participate in co-curricular activities (0.879) and Opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities (0.858) falls under this category. These variables show the enthusiasm of the students to take part in the support activities outside the curriculum has been emphasised. Factor-3: Skill set: The third factor observed from the analysis is the “Skill Set”. It is going to explain 11.253 per cent of total variance. The variables falls in this factor are Improve Communication Skills (0.776) and Enhance analytical skills (0.762). These variables focus on enhancement of skill set by the student community. Factor-4: Traditional Learning: It explains 9.932 per cent of total variance. Theoretical Knowledge (0.654), Develop personal code of values or ethics (0.636) and strengthen research orientation (0.565) are the variables falls in this factor. These variables emphasis on the importance of traditional approach for learning by the students. Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed International Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories



Conclusion: Students from different cultural backgrounds may have different level of awareness about higher education-especially the expectations from Teaching-Learning Practices. The method and attitude of students to education will further affect their academic discipline Decisions, Appraisals, and Performance. This paper is one such attempt to identify the expectations of the undergraduate students. The results revealed that the studentsare talking about the need to go beyond their degree to gain the necessary skills and experience for employment, emphasizing the importance of additional academic programs, internships and work placement opportunities. Students are rarely satisfied with centred care services. Institutions, appointments, work experience and skill support, provide more course-level information and best organization with the support available from all industries and sectors to meet the specific needs. Apart from 'product' statistics, more information is required on employment, focusing on 'process' and development opportunities.So in order to meet the expectations of the students’ the educational institutions has to go beyond traditional teaching methods to fulfil these expectations. References: 1. Batchelor, D. (2006). Becoming what you want to be. London Review of Education, 4 (3), 225-238. BCSSE (Beginning College Survey for Student Engagement), http://www.bcsse.iub.edu. 2. Briggs, S. (2006). An exploratory study of the factors influencing undergraduate student choice: the case of higher education in Scotland. Studies in Higher Education, 31 (6), 705-722. 3. Zepke, N. (2006). Being learner centred: one way to improve student retention? Studies in Higher Education, 31 (5), 587-600. 4. Krause, K., Hartley, R., James, R. & McInnis, C. The First Year Experience in Australian Universities: Findings from a Decade of National Studies. Centre for the Study of Higher Education University of Melbourne, Final Report January 2005. http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/pdfs/FYEReport05KLK.pdf.




5. Wilcox, P., Winn, S. &Fyvie-Gauld, M. (2005). It was nothing to do with the university, it was just the people: The role of social support in the first-year experience of higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 30 (6), 707-722. 6. Miller, T.E., Bender, B.E. & Schuh, J.H. (2005). Promoting reasonable expectations: Aligning student and institutional views of the college experience. Jossey Bass, San Francisco,

CA.

NSSE

(National

Survey

of

Student

Engagement)

http://nsse.iub.edu/index.cfm. 7. Kuh, G.D., Gonyea, R.M. & Williams, J.M. (2005). What students expect from college and what they get. In Promoting Reasonable Expectations: Aligning student and institutional views of the college experience. 8. Longden, B. (2006). An Institutional Response to Changing Student Expectations and their Impact on Retention Rates. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28, (2), 173–187. 9. Smith, J.S. &Wertlieb, E.C. (2005). Do First-Year College Students’ Expectations Align

with

their

First-Year

Experiences?

NASPA

Journal,

42

(2).

http://publications.naspa.org/naspajournal/vol42/iss2/art2. 10. Joseph SiaKee Ming (2010),” Institutional Factors Influencing Students’ College Choice Decision in Malaysia: A Conceptual Framework: International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 1 No.3; December 2010,pp.53-58 11. Emad M. Wajeeh& Ted Micceri (1997),” Factors Influencing Students’ College Choice at Traditional and Metropolitan Universities”, in proceeding of 37th Annual Forum of the Association for InstitutionalResearch Orlando, Held on May 18-21, 1997, Florida. 12. Jacqueline Liza Fernandez,” An exploratory study of factors influencing the decision of students to study at university sains Malaysia”, Kajian Malaysia, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2010,pp. 107-136. 13. Costello, A.B. and Osborne, J. (2005). Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for getting the most from your Analysis. Practical Assessment

Research

and

Evaluation,

10(7),

1-9.

Available

online:

http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=7




14. Basto, M. and Pereira, J.M. (2012). An SPSS R-Menu for Ordinal Factor Analysis. Journal

of

Statistical

Software.

vol.

46,

Issue

4.

Available

online:

http://www.jstatsoft.org/v46/i04/paper 15. Cronbach L. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychomerika. 1951; 16 :297-334. 16. Mohsen Tavakol and Reg Dennick. Making Sense of Cronbach’s Alpha. International Journal of Medical Education. 2011; 2:53-55

