Asia Pacific Education Review (2020) 21:211–225

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09620-1

Modeling undergraduate STEM students’ satisfaction with their

programs in China: an empirical study
Tengteng Zhuang1   · Alan C. K. Cheung1 · Winnie Tam2

Received: 23 January 2019 / Revised: 6 September 2019 / Accepted: 2 November 2019 / Published online: 26 November 2019
© Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2019

Abstract
Several major reform areas attempted by ‘New Engineering Education’ (NEE), China’s most recent engineering education
reform initiative at university level, are examined for their direct and indirect impact on Chinese STEM-major students’
satisfaction with their programs in this study. With data collected from a sample of 619 Chinese undergraduate students, the
measurement and structural models both display good model fits. The structural results indicate that course satisfaction fully
mediates the impact of classroom instruction method on program satisfaction, while partially mediates the impact of support
from faculty members and alternative assessment methods on program satisfaction. The impact of resource and service on
program satisfaction, however, is direct without any mediating effect in between. Multigroup analyses show that the impact
of alternative assessment methods on course satisfaction is significantly stronger for first-tier university students than for
non-first-tier university students. Furthermore, there is stronger impact of resource and service on program satisfaction for
junior and senior students than for freshmen and sophomores. Practical implications are discussed.

Keywords  Program satisfaction · Higher STEM education · Education reform · Chinese higher education · New
engineering education

Introduction Student satisfaction has been examined in different coun-

Higher STEM education is internationally recognized as a
driver for technological breakthroughs and economic devel-
opment, but STEM subjects are more often than not per-
ceived ‘difficult to complete’ (Baird et al. 2016) and cause
tremendous attrition (Chen 2013). Higher education institu-
tions worldwide therefore have launched initiatives to reform
their STEM programs (Graham 2018; NVAO 2017) in order
to address the attrition issue and improve overall quality.
Among many specific mission goals, improving student sat-
isfaction constitutes an important one for universities (Elliott
and Shin 2002) as satisfaction has a close link to students’
retention and recruitment in STEM fields after their gradu-
ation (Douglas et al. 2006; Sum et al. 2010).
* Tengteng Zhuang
tengteng_zhuang@link.cuhk.edu.hk
1
Department of Educational Administration and Policy, The
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
2
Center for University School Partnership, The Chinese
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
tries such as Australia (Grace et al. 2012), Britain (Douglas
et al. 2006), China (Yin and Wang 2015), Pakistan (Butt and
Rehman 2010), and the USA (Elhadary 2016), with numer-
ous predictors identified including teaching and learning
quality (Douglas et al. 2006), instructors’ expertise (Butt
and Rehman 2010), course experience (Grace et al. 2012),
faculty’s relationship with students (Hill et al. 2003), assess-
ment methods (O’Donovan 2017), and so forth.
It’s worth noting that most of the extant literature on
student satisfaction was focused on course satisfaction,
and much fewer studies directly investigated antecedents of
program satisfaction. There are, however, substantive dif-
ferences between ‘course’ and ‘program.’ In many parts of
the world except several countries, courses refer to classes
that usually last for one semester or one academic term,
while programs are degree-oriented that involve broader
connotations. In ‘Chapter Nine: The Nature of Programs’
of the famous British Dearing Report (Dearing 1997), the
broadness of programs is explicitly illustrated by the line
‘employers are also concerned about the general capabilities
and potential of those with higher education qualifications,
not just about the subject they have studied,’ indicating that

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

212
a program functions much more than a course or a subject.
This is substantiated by another line in the same report
‘higher education was constrained by a tradition of rela-
tively narrow educational experiences,’ which also signals
that the nature of a program is supposed to involve broader
educational experiences than merely providing courses.
In the Chinese context, the National Standards of Teach-
ing Quality for Undergraduate Programs (National Stand-
ards hereafter) issued by the Ministry of Education in 2018
recognizes that program is a higher-level unit than course.
A program defined in National Standards has exogenous
and endogenous components, with exogenous components
including teaching goals, years of schooling, faculty stu-
dent ratio, institutional support of the program, and so forth,
while endogenous components being more about courses.
Courses of a program are categorized into gateway courses,
prerequisite courses, core courses, special courses, labo-
ratory courses, and so forth (MOE 2018a). For example,
the National Standards require that public higher educa-
tion institutions must ensure that their telecommunication
engineering programs, if provided, include core courses of
‘fundamentals of circuit analysis,’ ‘analogue electronics
technique,’ ‘digital electronic technique,’ ‘high-frequency
electronic circuit,’ and 12 other core courses (MOE 2018b,
p. 311). As such, ‘course’ is conceptualized as only part of
a ‘program’ in this study with the understanding that pro-
grams involve various non-course elements such as skill
acquisition, development of capabilities, and adaptability
cultivation, whereas a course is mostly subject-related with
its major focus on knowledge acquisition or theory build-
ing. This study therefore attempts to directly investigate
undergraduate STEM students’ program satisfaction to fill
the research gap. Our research is carried out in the context
of China’s New Engineering Education (NEE) initiative in
which improving STEM students’ program satisfaction con-
stitutes one of the major reform goals.
STEM higher education reform in Chinese
context: new engineering education (NEE)
China joined other 14 countries and regions to become a
formal signatory of the Washington Accord (WA) in 2016.
After joining other WA signatories, China’s Ministry of Edu-
cation launched the NEE initiative in 2017 to systematically
upgrade the country’s undergraduate-level engineering pro-
grams and cultivate STEM graduates in accordance with
internationally substantially equivalent standards.
13
T. Zhuang et al.
For a significant period, Chinese higher education has
been criticized for the dominance of teacher-centered lec-
turing (Ye 2011), the scant interaction between faculty
members and students (Leng 1996), and the demotivating
assessment and examination systems (Li and Hui 2007).
To address these concerns, several areas are especially
emphasized in NEE, including upgrading teaching meth-
ods, increasing faculty support to students outside classes,
employing multiple methods to assess student learning, and
further improving necessary hardware resources and edu-
cational service.
For example, in one of the NEE official documents
‘Tianda Action’ (MOE 2017), a salient subhead in bold reads
‘Studying students’ interest to change instruction methods,
in order to innovate teaching approaches and measures for
engineering education’ (Paragraph Six of ‘Tianda Action’),
followed by:
(We should) enhance faculty–student interaction,
reform teaching and assessment methods to form a
learner-centered engineering education pattern. (We
should) promote deeper integration of information
technology and education, develop and publicize
online learning, and employ technologies such as vir-
tue reality to innovate teaching methods. (We should)
also improve a system of “creativity-innovation-
entrepreneurship” for new engineering education, and
extensively build platforms for praxis education. (p. 1)
In NEE, China bases its engineering education reform
on several understandings. Firstly, it matters to understand
how students learn efficiently and employ multiple teach-
ing means to cater to students’ learning needs in contempo-
rary times when students tend to rely on various sources for
knowledge acquisition. Secondly, it is important to increase
the faculty–student interaction and provide more support to
facilitate students’ active learning. Thirdly, multiple assess-
ment methods should be employed to complement the exist-
ing examination mechanism to effectively investigate learn-
ing outcomes. Fourthly, necessary resources such as praxis
education platforms, information technology, and other
hardware devices need to be guaranteed.
Furthermore, China’s higher education sector has experi-
enced dramatic quality stratification along with quantitative
expansion over the past two decades. Universities funded by
the Ministry of Education’s ‘985 Project’ and the ‘211 Pro-
ject’ are usually regarded as first-tier institutions. Their capa-
bility of attracting resources from various stakeholders such
as the government, industry, society, and alumni is extremely
strong, while non-first-tier institutions are struggling for
every progress they can make (Zhuang and Xu 2018). With
Modeling undergraduate STEM students’ satisfaction with their programs in China: an empirical…
respect to the curriculum system of engineering programs,
Chinese higher education institutions normally offer basic
theoretical courses to students of first 2 years, while offering
more specialized courses for third- and fourth-year students.
Freshmen and sophomores tend to spend much time adapt-
ing to the learning environment and studying theories, while
junior and senior students work intensively on their capstone
projects and internships.
Against such a backdrop, we attempt to explore three
specific research questions related to China’s higher STEM
program reform measures:
(1) Do variables representing major aspects of China’s
reform initiative (classroom instruction method, sup-
port from faculty members to students, alternative
assessment methods, and institutions’ resources and
service) significantly impact STEM-major students’
satisfaction with their programs?
(2) If so, to what extent do these variables explain program
satisfaction?
(3) Are there any other factors mediating the impact of
those variables on program satisfaction?
The aforementioned distinctive features of universities
and students at different levels also lead the study to exam-
ine whether the impact of relevant antecedents on students’
program satisfaction varies across tiers of universities and
across academic years.
Literature review and proposed hypotheses
A wealth of research indicates that great instructors and
instruction matter most in ensuring excellence of learn-
ing STEM subjects (Holdren et al. 2010; Ortiz and Srira-
man 2015). In China, students were found less likely to
quit what they were learning if they felt positive about the
way they were taught (Xu 2015), but more likely to make
complaints when the teaching method was primarily lec-
turing (Ye 2011). Chinese academia has called for replac-
ing traditional teacher-centered pedagogy with diversified
instruction means (Yin and Wang 2015) and employing a
‘student-focused’ approach in classroom instruction (Hal-
linger and Lu 2013) to enhance teaching effectiveness and
student satisfaction. Internationally, Navarro et al. (2005)
found that course administration and teaching methods
were key elements to determine Spanish students’ satis-
faction and their subsequent subject loyalty. In Australia,
electrical engineering program’s students’ satisfaction
increased by as much as 32% when teaching laboratories
were leveraged to complement normal teaching practices
(Nikolic et al. 2015) as in laboratories instruction was no
longer confined to lecturing and listening, but involved
213
tremendous student agency. In the USA, the use of infor-
mation technology such as virtue reality to teach in uni-
versity classrooms was also found positive in predicting
more student satisfaction (Smith et al. 2007). Different
means of instruction influences students’ different level
of engagement in learning (Newmann and Wehlage 1993).
Apart from instruction, the social–cultural perspective
of student learning holds that learning is enhanced through
socially supportive interactions (National Research Coun-
cil 2003) and through substantive faculty–student con-
nections beyond classrooms (Tam et al. 2009). Faculty
members’ encouragement was found positively predicting
students’ overall satisfaction (Yin et al. 2016), so was the
emphasis on independent learning (Yin and Wang 2015).
Showing genuine concerns for students’ learning (Husband
2013), having high expectations of students (Newmann
and Wehlage 1993), and providing beyond-classroom sup-
port to students such as timely feedback to assignments
and guiding undergraduate research experiences (National
Research Council 2003) were all regarded as important
yardsticks to measure the quality of university education.
Scholars have also investigated the roles of assessment
in student learning and satisfaction. Yin and Wang (2015)
found a negative effect that appropriate assessment had
on academic efficacy and no significant effect on students’
overall satisfaction, while other scholars concluded that
students’ approaches to learning were impacted by their
perceptions of how they would be assessed (Wilson et al.
1997). Usually, the traditional summative assessment
methods like exams are believed not conducive in culti-
vating students’ competence and often leads to a surface
learning approach (Kreber 2003; Webster et  al 2009),
while the process-focused formative assessment methods
or alternative assessment methods are deemed appropriate
to gather comprehensive evidence of student achievement,
especially in application-focused STEM fields (Crawley
et al 2014). The driving effect of assessment on student
learning and satisfaction was substantiated by other studies
as well (Ramsden 2003; Rust et al. 2003).
Moreover, tangible hardware resources and intangible
service provided by higher education institutions such
as infrastructure, technical assistance, welfare provision,
accommodation, and physical and psychological care have
also been shown to influence student satisfaction (Knight
2008; Marginson 2011; Price et al. 2003). For instance,
Price et al (2003) revealed that availability of computers,
quality of library facilities, the availability of areas for self-
study, and friendly staff and administrators were among the
top reasons why students decided to enroll in a program.
Similarly, Yin and Wang (2015) revealed that the role of
IT facilities in promoting course experiences was positive.
The extant literature adequately suggests that each rel-
evant factor reviewed above has an impact on student
13

214
satisfaction separately. Thus, we might reasonably establish
the first hypothesis as follows:
H1:  Method of instruction (H1a), support from faculty
members (H1b), alternative assessment methods (H1c), and
resources and service (H1d) separately impact STEM-major
students’ program satisfaction significantly and positively.
For students registered in a program, course is the most
important tangible product for which they pay tuition fees.
On the one hand, course works as a major source of stu-
dents’ judgement of the quality of an institution (Devinder
and Datta 2003) and perceptions of educational effectiveness
(DeChenne et al. 2012; Husband 2013). Improving course
quality seems a key to resolving many existing educational
problems. On the other hand, course improvement also rests
upon prerequisite factors related to faculty, assessment, and
many others (Green et al. 2015; So and Brush 2008). As
such, course seems to play a mediating role between various
influencing factors and students’ ultimate satisfaction with
their educational experiences. As course and program are
two different concepts distinguished in previous sections,
this study considers the possible mediating role of course
and makes hypotheses as follows:
H2:  Course satisfaction significantly and positively impacts
STEM-major students’ program satisfaction.
H3:  Course satisfaction mediates the impact of relevant
antecedents such as method of instruction (H3a), support
from faculty members (H3b), alternative assessment meth-
ods (H3c), and resource and service (H3d) on program
satisfaction.
Methodology
Prior to collecting the data, the study design was reviewed
by the Survey and Behavioral Research Ethics Committee
of all the three authors’ affiliation and granted the ethical
approval for carrying it out after approximately 1 month of
being reviewed. In the section of ‘Instruction’ on the first
page of the questionnaire, we articulated that the data col-
lected would only be used for academic purposes, and the
questionnaire only needed to be completed anonymously.
Furthermore, we stated a line ‘Please start to answer ques-
tions only after you agree to participating in our study’ at the
end of ‘Instruction’ session of the questionnaire to ensure
that every participant would take part in our study on an
entirely voluntary basis.
We administered our survey through a widely used
Chinese online survey platform ‘Wenjuanxing (Ques-
tionnaire Star)’ for the convenience of sample students’
13
T. Zhuang et al.
participation. As the online survey platform could bind
with the most widely used cellphone app in China—
WeChat, it allowed every participant to answer survey
questions on their smartphones easily. We took several
measures to ensure the quality of submitted answers. For
example, we set on the online platform that each par-
ticipant was allowed to select only one option from ‘1’
(strongly disagree) to ‘6’ (strongly agree) for each item
to prevent any outliers. Meanwhile, we set that every sub-
mission could only be made after a participant finished
answering all the questions. In addition, we deliberately
set that the submission of the survey could be done only
once through one device to avoid duplicate submissions by
the same participant, hence the authenticity of the survey
answers.
We firstly relied on four faculty members teaching at four
Chinese universities to forward our online survey to some
WeChat groups comprising of STEM-major students at their
universities. The four faculty members as instructors asked
their students in the WeChat group to answer survey ques-
tions and asked them to further forward the survey to their
fellow students in and outside their institutions in a snowball
manner. They emphasized that the survey should be only
forwarded to STEM-major students, and one background
question in the survey ‘What is your major’ allowed us to
eliminate submissions from non-STEM-major students later
when conducting data analysis, if any. The survey was car-
ried out between mid-January to the end of February 2018.
Participants
Among a total of 670 submissions, unengaged responses
were eliminated according to three criteria: (1) obvious
non-sense responses such as ‘Let me take a look’ or ‘You
Guess’; (2) responses from non-STEM-major students; and
(3) responses with a standard deviation of zero, indicating
the questions were answered hastily and perfunctorily. After
this process, 619 participants from 75 Chinese universities
provided effective responses.
Among all, 80.3% of the participants (497) came from
7 universities (two located in Beijing, two in Jiangsu, the
other three in Guangdong, Hubei, and Hebei Provinces,
respectively) and the remaining 19.7% (122) scattered in the
remaining 68 universities across 20 Chinese provinces. One
hundred and forty-three students were from first-tier univer-
sities (‘985’ and ‘211’ Project university) and 476 were from
non-first-tier institutions (‘Non-985’ nor ‘Non-211’ Project
university). There were 155 freshmen, 175 sophomores, and
209 junior and 80 senior students, respectively. Two hundred
and fifteen (34.7%) students were enrolled in a science (S)
or math (M) program, while 404 (65.3%) were studying in a
technology (T) or engineering (E) program.
Modeling undergraduate STEM students’ satisfaction with their programs in China: an empirical…
Instruments
Classroom instruction method (CIM)
Informed by literature on the application of the latest
information technology into higher education instruction
(Haller 2006; O’Flaherty and Phillips 2015), 6 items were
used to measure how instructors generally teach students
in the classroom. Do they generally use traditional lectur-
ing as the main method or does teaching much happen in
labs or praxis spots? Are industry professionals invited to
teach in class, and is the latest technology like VR/AR used
to facilitate teaching and learning? Item examples include
‘Instructors generally teach in laboratories or praxis bases’
and ‘Instructors generally adopt flipped classroom to deliver
course instruction.’
Support from faculty members (SFFM)
Students’ perceptions of how much support they got from
their instructors or faculty members for learning were meas-
ured in a 5-item scale, adapted from the factor Teacher Sup-
port from Yin and Lu’s (2014) validated 10-item Univer-
sity Mathematics Classroom Environment Questionnaire
(UMCEQ). Adhering to the spirit of the original items, 5 of
the items, after being paraphrased to better fit the vernacular
context in China, formed this new dimension to measure to
what extent faculty members valued students’ learning. Sam-
ple items include ‘Instructors generally value the importance
of students’ academic performances and improvements’ and
‘Instructors generally encourage students to innovate ways
of learning and overcome learning barriers’.
Alternative assessment methods (AAM)
Informed by literature on assessment method in STEM fields
(Crawley et al. 2014; National Academies of Sciences, Engi-
neering, and Medicine 2017) and the factor Appropriate
Assessment of the course experience questionnaire (Wilson
et al. 1997), 5 items were proposed to measure other forms
of assessment of students’ learning than the prevalent exami-
nations and tests. Example items include ‘Multiple assess-
ment methods are used to assess students’ learning outcomes
besides exams (e.g., using oral exams, praxis capability test,
and so on)’ and ‘Group projects generally influence students’
final course grades.’
Resources and service (RS)
Four items adapted from Supportive Facilities in the Univer-
sity-level Environment Scale (Dorman 1998) were employed
to examine students’ access to hardware and personnel ser-
vices such as learning devices, counseling, and medical care,
215
which constituted an integral part of the educational environ-
ment (Yin et al. 2016; Zepke and Leach 2010). Sample items
include ‘I can get access to necessary hardware resources
(e.g., facilities and devices) from the university when
needed’ and ‘I benefit a great deal from library resources
at the university.’
Course satisfaction (CS)
According to Grace et  al (2012), the Course Experi-
ence Questionnaire (CEQ) (Wilson et al. 1997) should be
expanded in terms of its dimension of satisfaction with
courses for a better psychometric quality. Originally, CEQ
contained just one item to measure the overall satisfaction,
which was believed inadequate. Informed by this sugges-
tion, based on using the original item on course satisfaction
in CEQ, we developed two other items to investigate more
aspects of satisfaction, such as whether students were satis-
fied with the roles of program courses in helping them build
a solid theoretical and practical foundation.
Program satisfaction (PS)
Grace et al’s (2012) scale’s overall satisfaction item was
firstly adapted to measure program satisfaction in this study.
Then we developed another item to investigate whether stu-
dents would recommend the program to future students.
Moreover, as retention and persistence are key to measur-
ing the quality of STEM programs (Holdren et al. 2013;
Ohland et al. 2008), another item ‘The program makes me
willing to pursue further study in my major or field’ was
also developed, thus forming a three-item scale to assess
students’ program satisfaction.
All the items underwent translation and back translation
and were proofread by native speakers to ensure participants
understood the items accurately. Each item was scored on
a 6-point Likert scale from ‘1’ (strongly disagree) to ‘6’
(strongly agree). The full-scale CFA results and the reli-
ability and validity results of all the six measures are shown
in following sections, indicating that all the dimensions
employed in this study are well validated.
Kline (2011) argues that a typically enough sample size for
structural equation modeling (SEM) is 200 cases, and it can be
considered even more adequate if the ratio of cases (N) to the
number of model parameters (q) reaches 10. However, Kline
maintains that this standard is not one that must be absolutely
adhered to. Hair et al. (2014) hold that if models have seven or
fewer constructs, 300 cases can be the minimum sample size.
In this study, N (619) is far greater than the recommended 200
or 300, and the N/q ratio is very close to 10 (619:69). Moreo-
ver, power analysis was also conducted to detect the minimum
sample size needed in our case. Assuming power of .80, alpha
of .05, degree of freedom of 242, null RMSEA of .05, and
13

216 T. Zhuang et al.

Table 1  Results of the Construct Item Std. FL Composite reli- AVE

measurement model ability

Classroom instruction method (CIM) CIM1 0.772 0.888 0.574

CIM2 0.828
CIM3 0.830
CIM4 0.823
CIM5 0.630
CIM6 0.631
Support from faculty members (SFFM) SFFM1 0.814 0.912 0.676
SFFM2 0.771
SFFM3 0.880
SFFM4 0.831
SFFM5 0.810
Alternative assessment method (AAM) AAM1 0.829 0.877 0.589
AAM2 0.821
AAM3 0.701
AAM4 0.682
AAM5 0.792
Resource and service (RS) RS1 0.784 0.907 0.663
RS2 0.879
RS3 0.858
RS4 0.844
RS5 0.691
Course satisfaction CS1 0.880 0.896 0.743
(CS) CS2 0.846
CS3 0.859
Program satisfaction (PS) PS1 0.897 0.891 0.732
PS2 0.885
PS3 0.779

setting alternative RMSEA of .08 (for close-fit hypothesis) and Results

.01 (for non-close-fit hypothesis), respectively, the minimum
sample size required for the model in our study was calculated
as 74.8 and 107.6, respectively (https​://quant​psy.org/rmsea​/
rmsea​.htm). Our actual sample size (N = 619) far outnumbered
these minimum standards, thus supporting the feasibility of
using SEM. The total 27 items are listed in the Appendix.
Data analysis
SPSS 23.0 was used to calculate descriptive statistics includ-
ing mean and standard deviation. Then using AMOS 20.0, we
tested psychometric quality of the instruments and performed
SEM models.
Test of the measurement model
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was firstly run on
all factors (including CIM, SFFM, AAM, RS, CS, and
PS) used in this study and the results showed a good fit
for the CFA model (χ2 = 874.452, df = 309, χ2/df = 2.743,
GFI = .908, TLI = .951, CFI = .956, RMSEA = .053 [.049,
.057]). As shown in Table  1, all the items were well
loaded on their respective latent variables with standard
factor loadings for each item ranging from .630 to .897.
The reliability of each construct was proven good with

13
Modeling undergraduate STEM students’ satisfaction with their programs in China: an empirical… 217

Table 2  Discriminant validity AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6

results
1. Classroom instruction method (CIM) .574 (.758)
2. Support from faculty members (SFFM) .676 .547 (.822)
3. Alternative assessment method (AAM) .589 .551 .746 (.767)
4. Resource and service (RS) .663 .614 .726 .777 (.814)
5. Course satisfaction (CS) .743 .709 .728 .711 (.690) (.862)
6. Program satisfaction (PS) .732 .601 .743 .776 (.768) .756 (.856)
Mean / 3.952 4.797 4.777 4.611 4.346 4.610
Std / 1.152 .859 .856 .951 1.036 1.006

Values in parentheses on the diagonal are the square roots of AVE. The lower triangular is the correlation
matrix for all the factors

composite reliability (CR) for each variable ranging from
.877 to .912, all greater than the recommended .700 (Nun-
nally and Bernstein 1994). The average variance extracted
(AVE) values for all constructs ranged from .574 to .743,
which evidenced good convergence validity as an AVE of
.500 or higher suggests adequate convergence (Fornell and
Larcker 1981). Therefore, no item needs to be deleted for
investigating structural models.
The discriminant validity was examined by the correla-
tion of one construct with the remaining five constructs.
According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), if a construct’s
AVE is greater than the square of the construct’s correla-
tions with other constructs, then the discriminant validity
can be proven. The correlation matrix (Table 2) showed that
for each construct except ‘alternative assessment method’
(AAM), the square root of its AVE value was greater than
all the correlations between the construct itself and other
constructs, indicating every construct significantly discri-
minant from other variables. The scrutiny of AAM revealed
that its AVE square root value was indeed greater than its
correlation with most variables including CIM, SFFM, and
CS and was only slightly lower than its correlation with RS
and PS. In fact, the items of RS investigated the hardware
and service resources while AAM examined how students
were assessed on their academic performances. Thus, the
observed variables of these two constructs focused on dis-
tinctive aspects of students’ learning process. For AAM and
PS, as PS was a key-dependent variable rather than a predic-
tor, and the observed variables of AAM and PS examined
distinct aspects, then AAM as a predictor was kept as it was.
Overall, the discriminant validity of all constructs was at an
acceptable level.
CFI = .957, RMSEA = .055. All predictors such as CIM
(β = .131, p < .001), SFFM (β = .241, p < .001), AAM
(β = .318, p < .001) , and RS (β = .266, p < .001) were found
to positively and significantly impact PS (Table 3), thus sup-
porting H1a, H1b, H1c, and H1d.
To test other hypotheses, CS was put in as a hypothesized
mediator between CIM, SFFM, AAM, RS, and PS to form
a new structural model (Fig. 2). Model 2 also exhibited
a good data fit with χ2 = 874.452, df = 309, χ2/df = 2.743,
GFI = .908, TLI = .951, CFI = .956, RMSEA = .053.
Seen from Table 4, CS was a significant predictor of PS
(β = .258, p < .001), thus proving H2 that course satisfaction
significantly and positively impacts program satisfaction.
CIM was found a non-significant predictor of PS (β = .033,
p > .05) but a significant predictor of CS (β = .380, p < .001),
illuminating that classroom instruction method’s impact on
program satisfaction was totally through course satisfaction,
supporting H3a. As the variance of CS was significantly
explained by SFFM (β = .312, p < .001), and PS was also
predicted by SFFM (β = .161, p < .01), it indicates that fac-
ulty support to students has a significant but indirect effect
on program satisfaction. That means, course satisfaction
partially mediates the impact of support from faculty mem-
bers on program satisfaction, thus supporting H3b. The same
CIM
SFFM
PS

AAM
Structural model results

SEM was conducted on AMOS 20.0. Model 1 (Fig. 1) was RS

firstly examined to see the direct impacts of CIM, SFFM,
AAM, and RS on PS. The model was proven good with
χ2 = 698.773, df = 242, χ2/df = 2.887, GFI = .915, TLI = .951, Fig. 1  Hypothesized SEM Model (Model 1)

13

218 T. Zhuang et al.

Table 3  Results for structural Model 1

Unstd. coeffi (B) Std. coeffi (B) S.E Z value

Classroom instruction method (CIM)  →  Program satisfaction ( PS) 0.119 0.131 0.034 3.462***
Support from faculty members (SFFM)  →  Program satisfaction ( PS) 0.307 0.241 0.063 4.851***
Alternative assessment methods (AAM)  →  Program satisfaction ( PS) 0.387 0.318 0.070 5.540***
Resources and service (RS)  →  Program satisfaction ( PS) 0.276 0.266 0.058 4.732***

CIM CIM R2 = .695

.380
CS .312 CS
SFFM SFFM .230
.161 Significant
.258
Non-significant
AAM AAM
.259
PS PS

RS .252 R2 = .729
RS

Fig. 3  Overall SEM model results (Model 2)

Fig. 2  Hypothesized SEM Model (Model 2)

effects as a triangulation because it yields the most accu-

applied to AAM which significantly predicted CS (β = .230,
p < .001) and PS (β = .259, p < .001) in Model 2, thus illus-
trating that part of alternative assessment method’s influence
on program satisfaction was also through course satisfac-
tion, hence H3c proven. RS, however, did not significantly
predict CS (β = .052, p > .05) but significantly predicted PS
(β = .252, p < .001), which revealed that course satisfaction
did not impinge on the impact of resource and service on
program satisfaction at all, thus rejecting H3d. The model
paths with statistical results are presented in Fig. 3. Overall,
72.9% of the variance of PS was explained by the other five
components.
Bootstrap estimation procedure (bootstrap sam-
ple = 1000) was used to test the significance of the indirect
rate effect result (MacKinnon et al. 2004). As shown in
Table 5, CIM, SFFM, AAM, and CS all have significant
total and indirect effects on PS, indicating that CS medi-
ates CIM-PS, SFFM-PS, and AAM-PS. For RS, its total
effects on PS are significant, but no indirect effects exist.
This means CS does not mediate between RS’ impact on
PS. The results generated from the bootstrap estimation
procedure fully substantiates the significant/insignificant
paths in Fig. 3, thus supporting H3a, H3b and H3c and
rejecting H3d again.

Table 4  Results for structural Model 2

Unstd coef- Std coefficient S.E Z value
ficient

Classroom instruction method (CIM)  →  Course satisfaction (CS) .372 .380 .04 9.247***
Support from faculty members (SFFM)  →  Course satisfaction (CS) .429 .312 .071 6.05***
Alternative assessment methods (AAM)  →  Course satisfaction (CS) .300 .230 .076 3.92***
Resources and service (RS)  →  Course satisfaction (CS) .058 .052 .064 .906
Course satisfaction (CS)  →  Program satisfaction (PS) .241 .258 .053 4.547***
Classroom instruction method(CIM)  →  Program satisfaction (PS) .03 .033 .039 .762
Support from faculty members (SFFM)  →  Program satisfaction (PS) .207 .161 .066 3.134**
Alternative assessment methods (AAM)  →  Program satisfaction (PS) .315 .259 .07 4.51***
Resources and service (RS)  →  Program satisfaction (PS) .262 .252 .057 4.622***

13
Modeling undergraduate STEM students’ satisfaction with their programs in China: an empirical… 219

Table 5  Standardized total Point estimate SE Z value Bias-corrected percen- p

and indirect effects of the tile 95% CI
hypothesized model (bootstrap
sample = 1000) Lower Upper

Std. total effects

 CIM-PS 0.131 0.042 3.119 0.048 0.206 0.003(**)
 SFFM-PS 0.242 0.082 2.951 0.087 0.411 0.004(**)
 AAM-PS 0.318 0.099 3.212 0.087 0.483 0.009(**)
 RS-PS 0.265 0.095 2.789 0.072 0.445 0.011(*)
 CS-PS 0.258 0.082 3.146 0.098 0.417 0.002(**)
Std. indirect effects
 CIM - PS 0.098 0.034 2.882 0.038 0.169 0.002(**)
 SFFM-PS 0.08 0.034 2.353 0.03 0.164 0.001(***)
 AAM-PS 0.059 0.033 1.788 0.008 0.143 0.015(**)
 RS-PS 0.013 0.027 0.481 -0.034 0.077 0.525

Table 6  Comparison of students of first-tier (n = 143) and non-first- Table 7  Comparison of higher-academic year students (n = 289) and
tier (n = 476) Chinese universities lower-academic year students (n = 330) of Chinese Universities
Model Δdf ΔCMIN(χ2) p Model Δdf ΔCMIN (χ2) p

Fully constrained 9 19.23 .023* Fully constrained 9 12.325 .196

CIM-CS constrained
SFFM-CS constrained
AAM-CS constrained
RS-CS constrained
CS-PS constrained
CIM-PS constrained
SFFM-PS constrained
AAM-PS constrained
RS-PS constrained
1 2.528 .112 CIM-CS constrained 1 .004 .951
1 .576 .448 SFFM-CS constrained 1 .222 .638
1 5.863 .015* AAM-CS constrained 1 3.229 .072
1 2.046 .153 RS-CS constrained 1 .956 .328
1 1.858 .173 CS-PS constrained 1 1.971 .160
1 .140 .709 CIM-PS constrained 1 .420 .517
1 .001 .974 SFFM-PS constrained 1 .002 .966
1 2.447 .118 AAM-PS constrained 1 .008 .930
1 1.641 .200 RS-PS constrained 1 4.382 .036*

(Assuming model unconstrained to be correct) (Assuming model unconstrained to be correct)

Comparing students’ program satisfaction more influenced by how varied their learning outcomes are
across different tiers of Chinese universities assessed.

Multigroup analysis was conducted across students of dif-
ferent tiers of universities given the participants’ affiliation
backgrounds. Compared against the unconstrained model,
the model comparison results in Table 6 indicate that the
fully constrained model is significantly different from the
unconstrained model ( 𝜒diff2
(9) = 19.230, p = .023), indicating
that students of first-tier universities and non-first-tier uni-
versities are different at the model level. Scrutinizing it path
by path, such difference is derived from a significant dif-
ference in the path of AAM-CS ( 𝜒diff 2
(1) = 5.863, p = .015),
namely alternative assessment method’s impact on course
satisfaction. There are no other significant path differences
found. As the path coefficient of AAM to CS for first-tier
university students (.389) is greater than that for non-first-
tier university students (.158), it means for students of more
prestigious universities, their satisfaction with courses is
Comparing students’ program satisfaction
across academic years
For multiple group analysis across academic years, fresh-
men and sophomores were labeled ‘lower-academic year
students’ while juniors and seniors were ‘higher-academic
year students.’ The model comparison results in Table 7
shows that the fully constrained model is not significantly
different from the unconstrained model ( 𝜒diff2
(9) = 12.325,
p = .196), indicating that higher-academic year students
and lower-academic year students are not different at the
model level. It’s worth noting that in terms of the path of
RS-PS, there exists significant difference between ‘juniors
and seniors’ and ‘freshmen and sophomore.’ As the path
coefficient of RS-PS for lower-academic year students (.186)
is smaller than that for higher-academic year students (.366),

13

220
it indicates that for junior and senior STEM-major students,
their program satisfaction is more influenced by the diversity
and quality of the hardware resources and service they can
access.
Discussion
This study firstly investigated the impact of relevant vari-
ables, representing aspects of China’s NEE reform measures,
on undergraduate STEM students’ program satisfaction, and
then explored differences in such impact across different stu-
dent groups. The results generally compared favorably with
those yielded by some previous research and yet showed
particular interesting findings in the Chinese context.
Relevant influences of predictors of program
satisfaction
China’s attempt to upgrade the quality of STEM programs
through diversifying means of instruction, as indicated in
NEE documents, seems to make sense. Though Yin and
Wang (2015) concluded that good teaching had no sig-
nificant association with student’s overall satisfaction, this
study reveals that the method of instruction significantly and
positively impacts program satisfaction for STEM students
through course satisfaction. More importantly, CIM proves
to be a very solid predictor of PS, whose total impact on PS
is stronger than that of SFFM, AAM, and RS (Table 5). This
finding identifies with some other previous studies showing
that effective teaching significantly predicts students’ overall
satisfaction (Grace et al. 2012) and that teachers’ effort to
reinvigorate courses enhances student satisfaction (Carbone
et al. 2015). It is also congruent with prior findings that
student satisfaction heavily rests upon their perceptions of
instructors’ expertise (Bedggood and Donovan 2012; Ives
and Rowley 2005). In fact, employing versatile teaching
methods is an important yardstick to measure the quality of
STEM programs in some international frameworks such as
the European Accredited Engineer framework (EUR-ACE)
and ABET Accreditation Framework.
This study also reveals that students’ satisfaction with
their programs significantly derives from the support they
get from faculty members, supporting previous studies
(Newmann and Wehlage 1993; Yin and Wang 2015) that
recognize the prominence of faculty scaffolding students
in learning and the socially supportive interactions that
facilitate learning (National Research Council 2003). For
long, Chinese students have complained that most univer-
sity instructors seem indifferent by just appearing in class
and disappearing when bells ring. Such carelessness has
contributed to a prevalent passive learning climate in which
students seldom discuss course contents outside classes and
13
T. Zhuang et al.
are generally not independent learners (Zhang et al. 2013).
Previous arguments that faculty support and a sound fac-
ulty–student relationship positively predicted overall satis-
faction (Husband 2013; Yin et al. 2016) are congruent with
this study. As STEM fields demand much effort, energy, and
commitment, students’ need of more support outside class-
rooms to keep confidence in learning is understandable.
While no significant relationship between appropriate
assessment and student satisfaction was found by Grace
et al (2012), our study reveals that alternative assessment
methods significantly impact students’ program satisfac-
tion, consistent with Rust et al. (2003) and Ramsden (2003)
who found that students favor being assessed by different
methods. The inconsistence with Grace et al (2012) could be
explained by their own arguments that the measures related
to appropriate assessment they used need redevelopment.
In fact, when assessed by multiple methods, students under-
stand course contents deeply, including how the programs
comprising of these courses can apply in real scenarios, by
learning in a comprehensive way.
In line with some previous studies (Knight 2008; Price
et al. 2003; Yin and Wang 2015), this study substantiates the
direct impact of resource and service on program satisfac-
tion, which indicates that China’s heavy investment in equip-
ping the campus with extensive information technology and
educational infrastructures has largely paid off. The finding
that RS does not significantly impact CS once again high-
lights the time-honored educational thought that the core of
a university is not magnificent buildings but erudite scholars
who teach courses well (Kerr 2001). If a university merely
emphasizes hardware resources and non-academic service
without having the best instructors to teach, students’ pro-
gram satisfaction could increase, but their course satisfaction
may not, as indicated in this study.
The mediating effects of course satisfaction
and group comparisons
The finding that some antecedents’ impact on STEM stu-
dents’ program satisfaction is not direct but mediated by
course satisfaction signals two messages. Firstly, course does
not equate with program. The measures needed to improve
the quality of programs are different from those needed
for course improvement. Resources and service is a salient
example which contributes to program satisfaction but not
course satisfaction. Secondly, courses constitute the most
important position within a program with CS’ total effects
on PS outweighing any other variable’s effect (Table 5). It
substantiates Almarghani and Mijatovic (2017) who argued
that it was all about good teaching and courses regarding
students’ expectations of higher education.
The group comparison results have also revealed interest-
ing empirical findings from China. No significant differences
Modeling undergraduate STEM students’ satisfaction with their programs in China: an empirical…
in the impact of CIM, SFFM, and RS on PS between stu-
dents of different tiers of universities can be explained by
three points. Firstly, the higher rankings and reputations
of first-tier institutions mainly result from their extensive
research-related outputs such as publications, projects, and
grants rather than teaching. Faculty tend to spend minimum
time on teaching and meet the lowest teaching require-
ments under the current evaluation system, irrespective of
whether they are working at first-tier or non-first-tier insti-
tutions (Huang et al. 2018). Secondly, such downplaying of
teaching largely confines faculty’s major support to students
within classrooms, as in the current context of managerial-
ist reforms prioritizing research and administrative power,
few faculty members track student learning after class and
provide extra support. Thirdly, as Chinese higher educa-
tion overall has received heavy funding over the past two
decades, institutions of various rankings have extensively
built and renewed their infrastructures such as the network,
laboratories, facilities, and praxis bases compared with
their own past. As such, students across tiers of universities
all feel direct influences of growing infrastructure on their
learning process in an age of massive development of higher
education. However, first-tier universities have more often
than not used multiple methods such as group learning, oral
examinations, and praxis feedback to assess student learning
due to their deeper internationalization, while non-first-tier
institutions mostly stick to traditional paper examinations,
and  that could explain why there exists significant difference
in the impact of AAM on CS between students of different
tiers of universities.
Regarding comparison in terms of academic years, the
significant differences in the impact of RS on PS between
higher-academic year and lower-academic year students
are understandable. For freshmen and sophomores, their
main tasks are taking basic and prerequisite theoretical
courses such as advanced mathematics and linear algebra.
These fundamental courses must be taught in classrooms to
lay students a solid academic foundation. Not many extra
resources such as laboratory equipment or praxis bases are
needed at this stage. For juniors and seniors, however, no
matter whether it is for conducting experiments, working on
capstone projects, or having internships, they need various
resources outside classrooms to improve their application
and practical capabilities, and hence, there is the difference
of RS’ impact on PS for students across academic years.
Conclusion
The present study reveals the impact of method of instruc-
tion, support from faculty members, alternative assessment
methods, and resources and service on STEM students’
program satisfaction, thus evidencing the reasonability of
221
China’s attempt to reform its engineering education sector
through these aspects. It also shows that course satisfac-
tion mediates the relationship between the above variables
and program satisfaction, as well as the differences across
university tiers and academic years, thus deepening our
understanding of invisible forces that contribute to program
satisfaction in STEM fields at undergraduate level.
We therefore propose several practical implications based
on the above empirical findings. Firstly, educational policy-
makers and institution leadership should always bear in mind
that the core of running a program or carrying out any edu-
cational reform lies in the provision of high-quality courses,
the ‘soul’ of higher education (McCluskey and Winter 2012).
Effort in improving other aspects is supplementary to course
quality improvement. Secondly, as instructors in STEM pro-
grams normally graduate from STEM fields without much
training in pedagogical methods, professional development
for faculty members should be emphasized in all types of
universities, and institutional effort must be made to system-
atically train faculty members to develop various pedagogi-
cal skills and employ various means for instruction. Thirdly,
universities should incorporate instructors’ extracurricular
guidance to students into the evaluation of faculty’s over-
all performance and provide them with substantive rewards.
Fourthly, Chinese universities, especially non-first-tier uni-
versities must develop and employ multiple measures to
assess student learning in complementarity with the prevalent
final-term examination. Knowing that they will be assessed
periodically in various forms will incentivize students to
overcome procrastination and take learning more seriously.
Fifthly, institutions should continue to invest in facilities
regarding learning, experiments, internship, and so forth.
Viewing the system from a larger picture, Chinese gov-
ernment should allocate more resources to non-first-tier
universities as they constitute the majority of the higher
education sector and are in greater need of transformation.
Though this study has found no significant difference in
RS’ impact on STEM undergraduates’ program satisfac-
tion across students of different tiers of universities, it could
result from students’ comparison of their institutions’ cur-
rent infrastructure (i.e., library resources, internet resources,
flipped classrooms, and services) with their own past rather
than comparing them with other institutions when they
filled the questionnaire. However, dramatic gap has been
identified between different tiers of higher education insti-
tutions in attracting external investment and financial sup-
port for development in literature (Zhuang and Xu 2018).
Matthew effect1 not only leads to stratification across tiers
1
 Matthew effect refers to the phenomenon that those who already
have status are often placed in  situations where they gain more,
and those that do not have status typically struggle to achieve more.
(Source: https​://study​.com/acade​my/lesso​n/matth​ew-effec​t-defin​ition​
-examp​les.html)
13

222
of institutions, but also undermines the possibility of sys-
tematic synergetic reform as NEE proposes. While top-tier
universities nowadays easily recruit top students and gain
financial support, whether lower-tier institutions can catch
up with top ones or at least make progress should be a real
concern for China’s educational administrative bodies.
For non-first-tier institutions to change, they need tangible
resources rather than mere expectations.
One limitation of this study is that it has only explored
one specific direction of causalities as a cross-sectional
study. Apart from the several important aspects of China’s
NEE reform that impact program satisfaction, there could be
other factors exerting influences on program satisfaction as
well. In addition, as China’s hundreds of higher education
institutions produce 1.2 million STEM graduates at under-
graduate level each year, the limit of our sample size may
also limit the generalizability of our findings. Future studies
may consider employing longitudinal research and inves-
tigating other possible causalities by collecting data from
more sampled participants.
Appendix: factors and items
Classroom Instruction Method 课程授课方式 (6 items).
(Composite Reliability = 0.888, M = 3.952, SD = 1.152).
1. Instructors generally teach in laboratories or praxis
bases.
  授课主要在实验室、实习或实训场所进行.
2. Instructors generally teach via the Internet.
  授课主要在互联网进行.
3. Instructors generally adopt ‘group learning’ to facilitate
teaching and learning in the class.
  授课教师会普遍采用 “小组学习”的方式开展课堂
教学.
4. Instructors generally adopt simulation software, applica-
tion programs, and technology of virtual reality(VR) or
augmented reality (AR) to deliver course instruction.
  授课教师会普遍利用模拟软件、应用程序、虚拟
现实技术 (VR), 增强现实技术 (AR) 等信息技术开展
课堂教学.
5. Instructors generally adopt flipped classroom to deliver
course instruction.
  授课教师会普遍采用“翻转课堂”模式开展教学.
6. Instructors generally invite industry or business experts
to teach or lecture in class.
  授课教师会普遍聘请行业/企业专家到课堂授课或
开设讲座.
13
T. Zhuang et al.
Support from Faculty Members 教师对学生的学业支
持情况 (7 items).
(Composite Reliability = .912, M = 4.797, SD = .859).
1. Instructors generally value the importance of students’
academic performances and improvements.
  教师普遍重视帮助学生提高学习成绩和效果.
2. Instructors generally are willing to keep communications
with students in and outside class.
  教师普遍愿意与学生保持课堂及课外的持续交流.
3. Instructors generally encourage students to innovate
ways of learning and overcome learning barriers.
  教师普遍会鼓励学生创新学习方式、突破学业困
难.
4. Instructors generally reward students for their innovative
ways of thinking and academic achievements.
  教师普遍会奖励学生的创造性思维和学习成就.
5. Instructors generally have high expectations of students
in academic performances.
  教师普遍对学生有较高的学业期待.
Alternative Assessment Methods 其他学业评价方式
(5 items).
(Composite reliability = .877, M = 4.777, SD = .856).
1. Multiple assessment methods are used to assess stu-
dents’ learning outcomes besides exams (e.g., using
paper exams, oral exams, thesis, praxis capability test,
etc.)
  除笔试外, 学生专业课学习评价方式多元多样 (如
包括笔试、口试、论文、实践能力测试等)
2. Group projects generally influence students’ final course
grades.
  小组作业对各门课程的学业成绩普遍具有影响.
3. Praxis bases or enterprises generally give feedbacks to
students’ professional skills and applying abilities.
  实习基地或企业会对学生的专业应用能力提供较
为专业的回馈.
4. Supplementary exams are as strict as first exams for a
course.
  补考会像首次考试一样严格.
5. The assessment system motivates students’ learning.
  评价体系确实有助于激励学生认真学习.
Resources and Service 学校资源与服务 (5 items).
(Composite Reliability = .907, M = 4.611, SD = .951).
1. I can get access to necessary hardware resources (e.g.,
facilities and devices) from the university when needed.
  我在需要时可以及时从学校获得必要的硬件资源
­(设备)
Modeling undergraduate STEM students’ satisfaction with their programs in China: an empirical… 223

2. I can get access to necessary soft resources (e.g., ser- Baird, M., Buchinsky, M., & Sovero, V. (2016). Decomposing the
vice) from the university when needed. racial gap in STEM major attrition: A course-level investigation.
Bedggood, R. E., & Donovan, J. D. (2012). University performance
  我在需要时可以及时从学校获得相关的软件资源 evaluations: What are we really measuring? Studies in Higher
­(服务) Education, 37(7), 825–842. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1080/03075​
3. I’m satisfied with the courses and career counseling ser- 079.2010.54922​1.
vice provided by the university. Butt, B. Z., & Rehman, K. (2010). A study examining the students
satisfaction in higher education. Procedia—Social and Behav-
  我对学校开设的专业课程及就业指导建议感到满 ioral Sciences, 2(2), 5446–5450. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspr​
意. o.2010.03.888.
4. I’m satisfied with the medical, psychological service and Carbone, A., Ross, B., Phelan, L., Lindsay, K., Drew, S., Stoney, S.,
student welfares provided by the university. et al. (2015). Course evaluation matters: Improving students’
learning experiences with a peer-assisted teaching programme.
  我对学校提供的医疗、福利及心理咨询服务感到 Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(2), 165–180.
满意. Chen, X. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and
5. I benefit a great deal from library resources at the uni- out of STEM Fields. Statistical analysis report. NCES 2014-001.
versity. National Center for Education Statistics.
Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D. R., & Edström,
  学校图书馆的资源对我的专业课学习很有帮助. K. (2014). Rethinking engineering education. Cham: Springer.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05561​-9.
Course Satisfaction 对课程的满意情况 (3 items). Dearing, R. (1997). The Dearing Report. The National Committee of
(Composite Reliability = .896, M = 4.346, SD = 1.036). Enquiry into Higher Education.
DeChenne, S. E., Enochs, L. G., & Needham, M. (2012). Science, tech-
nology, engineering, and mathematics graduate teaching assistants
1. After the courses, I generally miss the courses very teaching self-efficacy. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and
much. Learning, 12(4), 102–123.
  课程结束后, 我总体上对课程流连忘返, 意犹未 Devinder, K., & Datta, B. (2003). A study of the effect of perceived
lecture quality on post-lecture intentions. Work Study, 52(5),
尽。 234–243.
2. After the courses, I master the theories and knowledge Dorman, J. P. (1998). The development and validation of an instrument
structure of most courses. to assess institutional-level environment in universities. Learning
  课程结束后, 我掌握了大多数课程的知识体系和理 Environments Research, 1(3), 333–352.
Douglas, J., Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satis-
论基础。 faction at a UK university. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(3),
3. After the courses, I can proficiently apply what I learn 251–267. https​://doi.org/10.1108/09684​88061​06785​68.
into practice or R&D. Elhadary, O. (2016). Student satisfaction in STEM: An exploratory
  课程结束后, 我能够熟练地将所学应用到实践或者 study. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(2), 195–199.
Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative
研发中。 approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, 24(2), 197–209.
Program Satisfaction 对专业的满意情况 (3 items). Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
(Composite Reliability = .891, M = 4.610, SD = 1.006). models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Grace, D., Weaven, S., Bodey, K., Ross, M., & Weaven, K. (2012). Put-
1. I’m very satisfied with the program in which I’m ting student evaluations into perspective: The course experience
enrolled provided by the university. quality and satisfaction model (CEQS). Studies in Educational
  本校本专业让我非常满意. Evaluation, 38(2), 35–43.
Graham, R. (2018). The global state of the art in engineering educa-
2. I’m willing to recommend the program in which I’m tion. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
enrolled to prospective students. Green, H. J., Hood, M., & Neumann, D. L. (2015). Predictors of stu-
  我愿意将本校本专业推荐给未来的求学者. dent satisfaction with university psychology courses: A review.
3. The program provided by the university makes me will- Psychology Learning & Teaching, 14(2), 131–146. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/14757​25715​59095​9.
ing to pursue further studies in my major or field. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & William, C. (Ed.). (2014).
  本校本专业使我愿意在相关领域进一步学习深造. Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.
Haller, M. (2006). Emerging technologies of augmented reality: Inter-
faces and design: Interfaces and design. Igi Global.
Hallinger, P., & Lu, J. (2013). Learner centered higher education in
East Asia: Assessing the effects on student engagement. Inter-
References national Journal of Educational Management, 27(6), 594–612.
Hill, Y., Lomas, L., & MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions
Almarghani, E. M., & Mijatovic, I. (2017). Factors affecting student of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education,
engagement in HEIs-it is all about good teaching. Teaching in 11(1), 15–20.
Higher Education, 22(8), 940–956. Holdren, J., Lander, E., & Varmus, H. (2010). Report to the presi-
dent prepareandinspıre: K-12 educatıon in scıence, technology,
engıneerıng, andmath (STEM) for Amerıca’s future.

13

224
Holdren, J. P., Marrett, C., & Suresh, S. (2013). Federal science, tech-
nology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education 5-year
strategic plan. National Science and Technology Council: Com-
mittee on STEM Education.
Huang, Y., Pang, S.-K., & Yu, S. (2018). Academic identities and uni-
versity faculty responses to new managerialist reforms: Experi-
ences from China. Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 154–172.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/03075​079.2016.11578​60.
Husband, T. (2013). Improving the quality of instruction through a
service teaching framework. Journal of Effective Teaching, 13(2),
73–82.
Ives, G., & Rowley, G. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation
and continuity of supervision: Ph.D. students’ progress and out-
comes. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 535–555. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/03075​07050​02491​61
Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university. Cambridge: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of
internationalization. Brill Sense.
Kreber, C. (2003). The relationship between students’ course percep-
tion and their approaches to studying in undergraduate science
courses: A Canadian experience. Higher Education Research &
Development, 22(1), 57–75.
Leng, Y. (1996). Cong Jiangshou Weizhu Dao Zixue Weizhu [From the
dependence on classroom lecture to self-study]. Journal of Higher
Education, 17(2), 59–65.
Li, W. S., & Hui, K. F. S. (2007). Conceptions of assessment of main-
land China college lecturers: A technical paper analyzing the Chi-
nese version of CoA-III. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,
16(2), 185.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confi-
dence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and
resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1),
99–128.
Marginson, S. (2011). Imagining the global. In Handbook on Globali-
zation and Higher Education, 10–39.
McCluskey, F. B., & Winter, M. L. (2012). The idea of the digital uni-
versity: Ancient traditions, disruptive technologies and the battle
for the soul of higher education. Washington, DC: Westphalia
Press.
MOE. (2017). Xingongke Jianshe ’Tianda’ Xingdong [‘Tianda Action’
for ‘New Engineering Education’ Development]. Retrieved
December 31, 2018 from https​://www.moe.edu.cn/s78/A08/
moe_745/20170​4/t2017​0412_30242​7.html
MOE. (2018a). Jieshao Putong Gaodeng Xuexiao Benke Zhuanyelei
Jiaoxue Zhiliang Guojia Biaozhun Youguan Qingkuang [Briefng
on National Standards of Teaching Quality for Undergraduate
Programs]. Retrieved September 2, 2019 from https​://www.moe.
gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/xw_fbh/moe_2069/xwfbh​_2018n​/xwfb_20180​
130/20180​1/t2018​0130_32592​8.html
MOE. (2018b). Putong Gaodeng Xuexiao Benke Zhuanyelei Jiaoxue
Zhiliang Guojia Biaozhun [National Standards of Teaching
Quality for Undergraduate Programs]. Beijing: Higher Educa-
tion Press.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017).
Undergraduate research experiences for STEM students: Suc-
cesses, challenges, and opportunities. Washington D.C.: National
Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2003). Evaluating and improving under-
graduate teaching in science, technology, engineering, and math-
ematics. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
Navarro, M., Pedraja I, M., & Rivera T, P. (2005). A new management
element for universities: Satisfaction with the offered courses.
13
T. Zhuang et al.
International Journal of Educational Management, 19(6),
505–526.
Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic
instruction. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8–12.
Nikolic, S., Ritz, C., Vial, P. J., Ros, M., & Stirling, D. (2015). Decod-
ing student satisfaction: How to manage and improve the labora-
tory experience. IEEE Transactions on Education, 58(3), 151–
158. https​://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2014.23464​74.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (McGraw-
Hill Series in Psychology) (Vol. 3). McGraw-Hill, New York.
NVAO. (2017). Delft University of technology advisory report. The
Hague, Netherlands: NVAO, Department The Netherlands, Insti-
tutional Audit.
O’Donovan, B. (2017). How student beliefs about knowledge and
knowing influence their satisfaction with assessment and feed-
back. Higher Education, 74(4), 617–633. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
s1073​4-016-0068-y.
O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms
in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher
Education, 25, 85–95.
Ohland, M. W., Sheppard, S. D., Lichtenstein, G., Eris, O., Chachra,
D., & Layton, R. A. (2008). Persistence, engagement, and migra-
tion in engineering programs. Journal of Engineering Education,
97(3), 259–278. https​://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb009​
78.x.
Ortiz, A. M., & Sriraman, V. (2015). Exploring faculty insights into
why undergraduate college students leave STEM fields of study-A
three-part organizational self-study. American Journal of Engi-
neering Education, 6(1), 43.
Price, I., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L., & Agahi, H. (2003). The impact
of facilities on student choice of university. Facilities, 21(10),
212–222.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Rust, C., Price, M., & O’donovan, B., (2003). Improving students’
learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria
and processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
28(2), 147–164.
Smith, S. S., Saunders, K. P., Antonenko, P., Green, T., Peterson, N.,
& Thompson, D. (2007). Experiences in using virtual reality in
design and graphics classrooms. International Journal of Engi-
neering Education, 23(6), 1192.
So, H.-J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative
learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning
environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers &
Education, 51(1), 318–336.
Sum, V., McCaskey, S. J., & Kyeyune, C. (2010). A survey research
of satisfaction levels of graduate students enrolled in a nationally
ranked top-10 program at a mid-western university. Research in
Higher Education Journal, 7, 1.
Tam, K. Y., Heng, M. A., & Jiang, G. H. (2009). What undergraduate
students in China say about their professors’ teaching. Teaching
in Higher Education, 14(2), 147–159.
Webster, B. J., Chan, W. S., Prosser, M. T., & Watkins, D. A. (2009).
Undergraduates’ learning experience and learning process:
Quantitative evidence from the East. Higher Education, 58(3),
375–386.
Wilson, K. L., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development,
validation and application of the course experience questionnaire.
Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 33–53.
Xu, Y. J. (2015). Attention to retention: Exploring and addressing the
needs of college students in STEM majors. Journal of Education
and Training Studies. https​://doi.org/10.11114​/jets.v4i2.1147.
Ye, X. (2011). Cong Meiguo Daxue Jiaoxue Tedian Kan Woguo
Daxue Jiaoxue Mangdian [Exploring the weaknesses of China’s
Modeling undergraduate STEM students’ satisfaction with their programs in China: an empirical…
University teaching from the characteristics of university teach-
ing in the US]. Journal of Higher Education (Chinese), 32(11),
68–75.
Yin, H., & Lu, G. (2014). Development and validation of an instrument
for assessing mathematics classroom environment in tertiary insti-
tutions. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(3), 655–669.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4029​9-013-0138-1.
Yin, H., & Wang, W. (2015). Assessing and improving the quality of
undergraduate teaching in China: The course experience ques-
tionnaire. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(8),
1032–1049. https​://doi.org/10.1080/02602​938.2014.96383​7.
Yin, H., Wang, W., & Han, J. (2016). Chinese undergraduates’ percep-
tions of teaching quality and the effects on approaches to studying
and course satisfaction. Higher Education, 71(1), 39–57. https​://
doi.org/10.1007/s1073​4-015-9887-5.
225
Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten
proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(3),
167–177.
Zhang, J., Xue, L., & Lu, R. (2013). Jiyu Xuesheng Shijiao De Daxue
Ketang Jiaoxue Zhuangtai Diaocha Yanjiu [Investigating the
University classroom teaching from the perspective of students].
Higher Education Research & Appraisal, 9, 15–17.
Zhuang, T., & Xu, X. (2018). ’New engineering education’ in Chinese
higher education: Prospects and challenges. Tuning Journal for
Higher Education, 6(1), 69–109.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13