2012 the earli sig 4 higher education conference

11.04.2023 1Yusuke SAKURAI, Doctoral student, Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education

[email protected]/yliopisto

Factors affecting international doctoral students’ academic progress, satisfaction, and dropping outYusuke Sakurai, Kirsi Pyhältö & Sari Lindblom-Ylänne

University of Helsinki

2Yusuke SAKURAI, Doctoral student, Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education


1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

International doctoral students in Finland

2,1532009

Yusuke SAKURAI, Doctoral student, Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education 3


Factors contributing to doctoral students’ study progress

Advisors

FacilitiesColleague

s Financing

Family

Language

Paper work

Teaching

research

研究

Cultural



What factors promote international doctoral students’ studies?;

What factors hinder international doctoral student engagement?

Which factors are significantly associated with students’

satisfaction with their studies? and ;

Which factors are significantly associated with their considering

dropping out?

Research tasks



Dissertation, coursework, & public defence

Monograph or article-based dissertation

6 - 7 years – university recommendation: 4 years

Work individually, in group or both

No tuition fees

Finnish doctoral education



Online survey (March 2011) - “Questionnaire on doctoral education and the implementation of guidelines for postgraduate degrees at the University of Helsinki”

Saari, S. & Moilanen, A. 2012. International Evaluation of Research and Doctoral Training at the University of Helsinki 2005–2010. University of Helsinki, Administrative Publications 81.http://goo.gl/08ku9

Instrument



“Name the three most important factors that

have contributed/hindered to the

progress of your postgraduate studies and

doctoral dissertation”.

“Have you considered withdrawing from

your doctoral studies?”

Survey items



My studies required for the doctoral degree have supported the research work conducted for the doctoral dissertation.

My studies required for the doctoral degree have provided skills for research

work.

My studies required for the doctoral degree have provided skills for other

expert assignments.

My studies required for the doctoral degree have provided skills necessary on

the labour market outside academia.

My studies required for the doctoral degree have progressed as planned.

My studies required for the doctoral degree are of appropriate scope so that full-time

students are able to complete the degree in four years.

1=fully disagree - 5=fully agree

Please assess the level of your satisfaction with your doctoral education.

1=very dissatisfied - 5=very satisfied

Survey items

Satisfaction scale

a =.83



120 students

Response rate -20%

62(52%) women

85(71%) full-time 78% - age from 25 to 34

No information about students’ nationalities

Respondents (1)



Respondents (2)Faculty Dropping out Satisfactory level

considerednot

considered M SDAgriculture and Forestry 6 18 3.64 0.9Biological and Environmental

4 10 3.43 0.56

Medicine 5 11 3.31 0.59Science 5 10 3.38 0.95Social Sciences 6 7 3.26 0.87Arts 3 6 2.9 0.9Pharmacy 4 3 3.26 0.8Law 4 3 2.81 1.51Behavioural Sciences 1 4 3.63 0.52Veterinary Medicine 2 1 3.48 0.73Theology 0 0 - -Unknown 0 1 3.14 -

Total 40 74 3.35 0.84



Respondents (3) Dropping out Satisfactory level

considered

not considered M SD

Student status Full time 28 52 3.35 0.91Part time 12 22 3.34 0.67

Gender Women 20 38 3.44 0.81Men 19 36 3.30 0.84

Science vs. Humanities

Science26 53

3.45 0.76

Humanities

14 203.13 0.98



Factors affecting study progress (1)

Themes SubthemesScholarly Community

Supervision , Academic colleagues, Conferences

Departmental issues Financing, Facilities, Administrative duties, Information, Teaching, Structural

Subject Matter Courses, Research activity, Expertise, Writing

Emotional Self-discipline, Motivation, Interest

Cultural Language, Foreignness

Private Domain Student status, Family, Living condition, Support from others, Physical condition

Miscellaneous



Factors affecting study progress (2)

Promoting Hindering

Themes f % f %Scholarly Community 139 41.0 55 19.4

Departmental issues 68 20.1 97 34.2Subject Matter 55 16.2 53 18.7Emotional 55 16.2 15 5.3Cultural 4 1.2 31 10.9Private Domain 8 2.4 21 7.4Miscellaneous 10 2.9 12 4.2Total 339 284



Regression analysis

Departmental

Supervision

Subject Matter

Cultural

Emotional

Faculty - Arts or not

Private Domain

Student statusFormat – monograph or not

GenderResearch group - individualResearch group - group

Faculty - Medicine or notFaculty - Law or not

Format – article-based or not

Faculty - … or not

Colleague

Independent variables - dummy variables

Satisfactory levelMultiple regression analysis

Consideration of dropoutLogistic regression analysis

Dependent variables



Factors affecting academic satisfaction

b SEStandardise

d b 95% CIIntercept 3.19** 0.14 2.90-3.48Promoting factor (identified=1, not identified=0)Supervision 0.33* 0.16 0.19 0.01-0.64

Private domain 0.55† 0.32 0.17-0.08-1.17

Hindering factor (identified=1, not identified=0)

Supervision -0.34† 0.18 -0.17-0.69-0.02

Faculty

Arts (1, other faculties=0) -0.48† 0.28 -0.16-1.04-0.09

Thesis formatUndecided (1, monograph/article-based=0)

0.41* 0.20 0.19 0.01-0.81

**. p<.001; *. p<.05; †. p<.10




b SEStandardised

b 95% CI

Correlation

SATIS P-SV P-PD H-SV HU UDIntercept 3.19*** 0.14 2.90-3.48 -Promoting factor (identified=1, not identified=0)

Supervision 0.33* 0.16 0.19 0.01-0.64 .269** -Private domain 0.55† 0.32 0.17 -0.08-1.17 .166† .142 -


Supervision -0.34† 0.18 -0.17 -0.69-0.02 -.188† -.084 -.148 -Faculty

Arts (1, other faculties=0) -0.48† 0.28 -0.16 -1.04-0.09 -.163† -.162† .192* -.090 -Thesis format

Undecided (1, monograph/article-based=0)

0.41* 0.20 0.19 0.01-0.81 .190† -.036 -.120 -.015 -.138 -

Notes. SATIS=satisfactory level; P-SV=promoting factor in supervision; P-PD=promoting factor in private domain; H-SV=hindering factor in supervision; HU=Faculty of Arts; UD=Thesis format undecided. ***. p<.001; **. p<.01; *. p<.05; †. p<.10

Promoting factors in

supervision 0.33†↑private domain

0.55†↑Thesis format – not decided

0.41*↑

Hindering factors in:

supervision 0.34*↓

Arts students 0.38†↓

Study satisfaction

Stepwise method (entry:p<.05; removal>.10), Adjusted R2 = 13%, unstandardised b values, *. p<.05; †. p<.10

Format undecidedScience

Humanities

1683

1 .36

monograph

work individually

89

9 .10



Coefficient (b)

SE WaldOdds Ratio

95% CI p

Intercept -1.600.41

15.55

Hindering factor in supervision

Unidentified (0)

Reference

- - - - -

Identified (1) 1.430.47

9.40 4.161.67-10.37

0.00

Hindering factor in departmental issues

Unidentified (0)

Reference

- - - - -

Identified (1) 0.920.45

4.20 2.511.04-6.07

0.04

Forward & backward methods (entry:p<.05; removal>.10), 69% classfication rate

Factors affecting consideration of dropout



Hindering factors in departmental issues

2.51 times more likely

Factors affecting consideration of dropoutHindering factors in supervision

4.16 times more likely

Consideration of dropout

Forward & backward methods (entry:p<.05; removal>.10), 69% classfication rate, Supervision: 95% CI =1.67-10.37, p<.01, departmental issues: 95% CI =1.04-6.07, p<.05,



Little association with wider scholarly communities?

Departmental resources (e.g., financing) & responsibilities (e.g.,

paper work & teaching) – need careful monitoring

Balancing between academic work and private matters

Reflections



Methodological limitations

Other reflections



41% of “promoting” comments were about scholarly community.

34% of “hindering” comments were about departmental resources and responsibilities.

Hindering factors in supervision: 0.34*↓

Arts students: 0.38†↓

Promoting factors in supervision: 0.33†↑

Promoting factors in private domain: 0.55†↑

Thesis format – not decided: 0.41*↑

Hindering factors in supervision: x 4.16

Hindering factors in departmental: x 2.51

Major results

Yusuke SAKURAI, Doctoral student, Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education




2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

International students

Worldwide3,673,9252009

Europe1,672,4222009

OECD. (2011). Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators: OECD Publishing.



Increase of international students

Attracting more international doctoral

students

Background



Rationale

Personal

Environmental

Learning outcomePreventing dropoutMeaningful work

BehaviouralEmotional

Cognitive

Engagement construct

demands-resources



Content analysisPromoting Hindering

Themes f % Subthemes (f) f % Subthemes (f)

Scholarly Community

139 41.0 Supervision (69), Academic colleagues (68),Conference (13)

55 19.4 Supervision (34), Academic colleagues (25),Conference (0)

Departmental 68 20.1 Financing (35), Facilities (30), Administrative duties (0), Information (1), Teaching (3), Structural (2)

97 34.2 Financing (47), Facilities (18), Administrative duties (22), Information (8), Teaching (5), Structural (4)

Subject Matter 55 16.2 Courses (16), Research activity (19), Expertise (19), Writing (4)

53 18.7 Courses (23), Research activity (16), Expertise (12), Writing (2)

Emotional 55 16.2 Self-discipline (24), Motivation (16), Interest (16)

15 5.3 Self-discipline (6), Motivation (7), Interest (2)

Cultural 4 1.2 Language (2), Foreignness (2) 31 10.9 Language (23), Foreignness (9)

Private Domain 8 2.4 Student status (2), Family (5), Living condition (0), Support from others (1), Physical condition (0)

21 7.4 Student status (8), Family (5), Living condition (4), Support from others (0), Physical condition (4)

Miscellaneous 10 2.9 12 4.2

Total 339 284




b SEStandardised

b 95% CI

Correlation

SATIS P-SV P-PD H-SV HU UD

Intercept3.19**

*0.14

2.90-3.48

-

Promoting factor (identified=1, not identified=0)

Supervision 0.33* 0.16 0.190.01-0.64

.269** -

Private domain 0.55† 0.32 0.17-0.08-1.17

.166† .142 -


Supervision -0.34† 0.18 -0.17-0.69-0.02

-.188† -.084 -.148 -

Faculty

Arts (1, other faculties=0) -0.48† 0.28 -0.16-1.04-0.09

-.163† -.162† .192* -.090 -

Thesis formatUndecided (1, monograph/article-based=0)

0.41* 0.20 0.190.01-0.81

.190† -.036 -.120 -.015 -.138 -

Notes. SATIS=satisfactory level; P-SV=promoting factor in supervision; P-PD=promoting factor in private domain; H-SV=hindering factor in supervision; HU=Faculty of Arts; UD=Thesis format undecided. ***. p<.001; **. p<.01; *. p<.05; †. p<.10



Analytical procedures

Content analysisPromoting/hindering factors

Preliminary analysisMultiple regression analysisSatisfactory level as dependent variable

t-test - Satisfactory level faculties, gender, thesis format & student status

Logistic regression analysisConsideration of dropout as dependent variable

Chi-square test - Consideration of dropout faculties, gender, thesis format & student status

Regression analysis