University Students’ Aims in Life, Educational Goals,Expectations from the University and their State of Satisfaction

Abstract

Background. The students in Turkey have to follow a difficult path to have a right to get university education.These students are obliged to prefer the departments in which they are partly or not interested in order to find a job or guarantee their lives. On the other hand, their satisfaction in their departments and fulfillment of their expectations in life is not only important for themselves but also for the society they live in. In addition, university students have educational, social, cultural, and sporting expectations. Having an education process which provides a qualified education that is appropriate for university students' expectations and goals may also serve to meet the needs and expectations of the society. Although student satisfaction is a perfect tool to evaluate the effect of university on students (Umbach & Porter, 2002), there has not been enough research on it. Individuals may have different aims in their lives; such as, using their abilities and tendencies, being creative, a status in society, earning money, leading, experiencing adventure, and helping others. According to some psychologists such as White, McClelland and Maslow, individuals are motivated by improving their self-capacities and any opportunities for self-improvement. Aims of individuals cause several expectations from their families, the society, and the institutions. These expectations lead the individuals in planning to meet their needs and fulfill their aims (Aydın, 1991).However, meeting these needs, aims and expectations depend on the appropriate environments and facilities. It is thought that discerning students' opinions related to life and universities are important since they are the directors and workers of the future. Purpose. The purpose of this research is to discern the university students' aims in life, educational goals, and their expectations from the university and their state of satisfaction related to their departments. The research questions were as follows: 1. What are the opinions of university students related to the importance of a series of aims in life? 2. What are the opinions of university students related to their educational goals? 3. Is there a significant difference between their opinions in terms of their gender and class level? 4. What are the opinions of university students related to their expectations of university education? 5. What are the opinions of university students related to (a) their preference of departments, (b) changing departments, and (c) causes of changing departments? Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Yaşam Amaçları 6. What are the opinions of university students related to their state of satisfaction in terms of their experiences in their departments? 7. Is there a significant difference between their opinions in terms of gender and class level? Method. Descriptive research was used in this study. The data was gathered from 1839 freshmen and seniors of 13 state universities. The students were from 26 departments of 33 different faculties. “The Expectations and Problems of University Students” scale was used in the study. This scale was developed by Açıkgöz (1993), who studied on a scale which was formerly used by Daigle in a study on the students of California State University. There are items related to personality, ordering and grading types of items and open-ended questions in the scale. Therefore, it is possible to gather both qualitative and quantitative data with the scale. Cronbach Alpha Reliability of this Likert scale is 0.89. Frequency, percentage and χ² tests were used in analyzing quantitative data. Results and Discussion. 1. Among the series of aims in life given, the students chose “using their special abilities and tendencies” (91.2%) as the first and “being creative” (90.6%) as the second one. “Experiencing adventure” (45%) and “being a leader” (57.6%) were chosen as the least important aims in their lives. This finding is consistent with Açıkgöz's (1993) study. The last two aims may sign an enterprising personality. A cultural analysis may explain why students chose “experiencing adventure” as the least important aim. For example, Hofstede (as cited in Şişman, 2002) stated that people avoid the unknown in Turkish culture. Avoiding risks is one of the characteristics of these societies. According to Hofstede (1993) in countries which the unknown is avoided the opinion “different one is dangerous” is dominant whereas in other countries difference is something sought. 2. 13.3% of the participants aimed BA, 27.7% of them aimed MA, and 33.4% of them aimed PhD degrees. 24.5% of the participants said that they had not decided. In addition, 1.1% of them did not have any educational goals. 60% of the participants aimed graduate studies. This result may be caused by university's lacking “job training” function. Students may have chosen graduate studies as they thought university was not good enough to meet their needs. In another point of view, a raise in the number of institutions where graduate education is given and the idea that MA and PhD degrees may be taken with a little work might have affected the result. The percentages of the female and male students who did not have any educational goals were equal and the percentages of the females and males who had not decided on their educational goals were close. 9.8% of the females aimed BA, 29.3% aimed MA degree. 17% of the males aimed BA, 26.1% aimed MA degree. Females (35.3%) wanted a PhD degree more than males (31.4%) did. As Yıldırım (2007) stated females consider education more important than males do. This finding may show that females are in the need of proving their worth. The percentages of freshmen and seniors who did not have any educational goals or did not decide on their educational goals were close to each other. Seniors wanted completing BA (17.4%) and MA (29.8) degrees more than freshmen. In contrast, freshmen (37.4%) wanted to have a PhD degree more than seniors. It seems that seniors move their goals towards reality.Having more realistic goals and participating in working life may be the reasons of this finding. 3. Students expected university to provide functions “job training” (52.5%), and “personal improvement/knowing him/ herself” (21.7%). This may be caused by the high unemployment rate among the university students. In addition, this tendency among the students might have emerged since universities have isolated themselves from their intellectual and cultural identities and functions (Açıkgöz, 1993). 4. The first cause of choosing their departments was “interest in the field of study” (71%) and the following was “job facilities” (66%). Exam system, unemployment, and being a respected person may have affected their choice of fields. 15.7% of the participants wanted to change their departments whereas 66.5% of them were pleased with their departments. 17.8% of them were not sure about it. 28.12% of them thought that the department was not appropriate for their abilities so they wanted to change their departments. “Job facilities” (26.39%), “a better university” (18.06%), and “being a different person” (14.93) were among the other reasons of change. 5. 47.7% of the participants were pleased and 22.3% of them were not pleased about their departments. 28% of them had no opinion. In their study Yaylalı et al. (as cited in Okçabol, 2007) found that 30% of university students are pleased in their departments. Choosing departments to guarantee their lives instead of choosing departments in which they are interested in may be reason of this finding. Freshmen are more pleased in their departments compared to seniors. Seniors may experience that their expectations have not been met in four years. Since freshmen do not experience such a disappointment, they may be more optimistic.

Keywords

• university students , aims in life , educational goal , expectation ,

Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Yaşam Amaçları, Eğitsel Hedefleri Üniversite Öğreniminden Beklentileri ve Memnuniyet Durumları

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı; üniversite öğrencilerinin yaşam amaçlarını, eğitsel hedeflerini, üniversite öğreniminden beklentilerini ve okudukları bölüme ilişkin memnuniyet durumlarını ortaya koymaktır.Araştırmanın verileri, 13 kamu üniversitesinin birinci ve son sınıf öğrencilerinden hem nicel hem de nitel yolla toplanmıştır. Ölçek 1839 öğrenciye uygulanmıştır. Araştırmada ulaşılan sonuçlardan bazıları şunlardır: Öğrencilerin yaşamlarında en çok önemsedikleri amaç; “özel yetenek ve eğilimlerini kullanma”dır Öğrencilerin yarısından fazlasının hedefledikleri eğitim düzeyi, lisansüstü eğitim almaktır. “Mesleğe hazırlama”, öğrencilerin üniversiteden gerçekleştirmesini bekledikleri birinci öncelikli işlevdir.Öğrencilerin okudukları bölümü tercih etmelerindeki en önemli iki etken; “okudukları alanı sevme” ve “mezun olunca iş bulma kolaylığı”dır. Öğrencilerin yaklaşık yarısının okudukları bölümdeki yaşantılarından memnun oldukları saptanmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• üniversite öğrencileri
• yaşam amacı
• eğitsel hedef
• beklenti

Kaynakça

1. Abowitz, D.A., & Knox, D. (2003). Life goals among Greek college students. College Student Journal, 37(1), 96-100.
2. Açıkgöz, K. (1988a). Üniversite (eğitim bilimleri) öğrencilerinin eğitimlerine ilişkin görüş ve önerileri. Yayımlanmamış araştırma raporu, Malatya.
3. Açıkgöz, K. (1988b). Üniversite (eğitim bilimleri) öğrencilerinin eğitimlerine ilişkin beklentileri, doyum düzeyleri ve sorunları. Yayımlanmamış araştırma raporu, Malatya.
4. Açıkgöz, K. (1993). Üniversite etkililiği ve üniversite öğrencilerinin eğitsel amaçları, doyumları ve sorunları. Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Yayın Organı 2(4), 83–123.
5. Aydın, M. (1991). Eğitim yönetimi (3. Baskı). Ankara: Hatiboğlu.
6. Bacanlı, H. (2000). Üniversite öğrencilerinin değer tercihleri. Eğitim Yönetimi, 20, 597–610.
7. Baker, J.A. (1998). The social context of school satisfaction among urban, low-income, African American students. School Psychology Quarterly, 13(1), 25-44.
8. Balcı, A. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: Yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler. Ankara: Pegem A.

9. Chiandotto, B., Bini, M., & Bertaccini, B. (2007). Quality Assessment of the University Educational Process: an Application of the ECSI Model (43-54). Effectiveness of University Education in Italy: Employability, Competences, Human Capital (Ed. Fabbris, L.). Physica-Verlag A Springer Company.
10. Çitil, M., İspir, E., Söğüt, Ö. ve Büyükkasap, E. (2006). Fen edebiyat fakültesi öğrencilerinin profilleri ve başarılarını etkilediğine inandıkları faktörler; K.S.Ü. örneği. Erzincan Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 8(2), 69–81.
11. Erdoğan, S., Şanlı, H. S. ve Şimşek-Bekir, H. (2005). Gazi Üniversitesi, eğitim fakültesi öğrencilerinin üniversite yaşamına uyum durumları. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 13(2), 479–496.
12. Fine, M. (1986). Why urban adolescents drop into and out of public school. Teachers College Record, 87(3), 393-409.
13. Goodenow, C., & Grady, K.E. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and friend's values to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. Journal of Experimental Education, 62(1), 60-71.
14. Gündoğar, D., Gül, S. S., Uskun, E., Demirci, S. ve Keçeci, D. (2007). Üniversite öğrencilerinde yaşam doyumunu yordayan etkenlerin incelenmesi. Klinik Psikiyatri Dergisi, 10(1), 14–27.
15. Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9–34.
16. Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of management executive, 7(1), 81-94.
17. Kane, D., Williams, J., & Cappuccini-Ansfield, G. (2008). Student satisfaction surveys: The value in taking an historical perspective. Quality in Higher Education, 14(2), 135-155.
18. Karasar, N. (1994). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar, ilkeler, teknikler (6. baskı). Ankara: 3A Araştırma Eğitim Danışmanlık Ltd.
19. Kazgan, G. (2004). Alan araştırmasının genel sonuçları. İçinde, G. Kazgan (Der.). İstanbul gençliği: Gençlik değerleri araştırması (ss. 31–81). İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi.
20. Leite, D., Santiago, R. A. Sarrico, C. S., Leite, C. L., & Polidori, M. (2006). Students’ perceptions on the influence of institutional evaluation on universities. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(6), 625–638.
21. Porter, A.C. (1994). National standards and school improvement in 1990s: Issues and Promise. American Journal of Education, 102, 421-449.
22. Scott, P. (2002). Küreselleşme ve üniversite: 21. yüzyılın önündeki meydan okumalar. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 2(1), 193–208.
23. Şanlıer, N. ve Şener, H. F. (2001). Mesleki eğitim fakültesinin çeşitli bölümlerinde okuyan öğrencilerin eğitim gördükleri bölümlerden memnun olma durumları ve beklentileri. X. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, (1.cilt), 7-9 Haziran 2001. (ss. 1–10). Bolu: Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi.
24. Şişman, M. (2002). Örgütler ve kültürler. Ankara: Pegem A.
25. TUİK (2007). 2007 yılında ÖSYS okul türü ve öğrenim durumuna göre başvuran ve yükseköğretim programlarına yerleşen aday sayıları. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/VeriBilgi.do?tb_id=14&ust_id=5 erişim. 24.10.2010
26. Umbach, P. D., & Porter, S. R. (2002). How do academic departments impact student satisfaction?: Understanding the contextual effects of departments. Research in Higher Education, 43(2), 209-234.
27. Yaylalı, M., Oktay, E., Özen, Ü., Akan, Y., Özer, H., Kızıltan, A., Naralan, A., Doğan, E.M., Özçomak, M.S. ve Aktürk, E. (2006). Üniversite Gençliğinin Sosyo- ekonomik profili araştırması. Erzurum Atatürk Üniversitesi Yayın No: 955.
28. Yıldırım, A. (1997), Gender role influences on Turkish adolescents’ self-identity, Adolescence, 32(125), 217–231.
29. YÖK (2005). Türk yükseköğretiminin bugünkü durumu Kasım 2005 raporu. http://www.yok.gov.tr/egitim/raporlar/raporlar.htm erişim: 03.11.2008
30. YÖK (1998). Üniversite öğrencileri aile gelirleri, eğitim harcamaları, mali yardım ve iş beklentileri araştırması. http://www.yok.gov.tr/egitim/raporlar/ailegel.html erişim: 03.11.2008.