Loading...
Back
<javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$MainContentArea$deliveryPrintSaveControl$backButton$lnkBack','')>

1 article(s) will be saved.

The link information below provides a persistent link to the article
you've requested.

Persistent link to this record: Following the link below will bring you
to the start of the article or citation.
Cut and Paste: To place article links in an external web document,
simply copy and paste the HTML below, starting with "<A HREF"

To continue, in Internet Explorer, select * FILE* then * SAVE AS* from
your browser's toolbar above. Be sure to save as a plain text file
(.txt) or a 'Web Page, HTML only' file (.html). In Netscape, select *
FILE* then * SAVE AS* from your browser's toolbar above.


*Record: 1*

*Title:*
    Course work characteristics and students' satisfaction with instruction.
*Authors:*
    Finaly-Neumann, Edith
*Source:*
    Journal of Instructional Psychology; Mar94, Vol. 21 Issue 1, p14, 8p

*Abstract:*
    Examines whether or not various perceived characteristics of course
    work are an important predictor of higher education students'
    satisfaction with their instruction. Predictors of instructional
    satisfaction; Ranking of the causal effects of the dominant
    predictors; Implications for higher education; Suggestions for
    future research.

*Persistent link to this record (Permalink): *
    http://ezproxy.metrostate.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9502236311&site=ehost-live
*Cut and Paste:*
    <A
    href="http://ezproxy.metrostate.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9502236311&site=ehost-live">Course
    work characteristics and students' satisfaction with instruction.</A>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------


  COURSE WORK CHARACTERISTICS AND STUDENTS' SATISFACTION WITH INSTRUCTION

The present study attempted to extend the work on perceived job
characteristics to the higher learning environment and the perceived
characteristics of course work. on the basis of organizational theories,
several characteristics of the learning process as perceived by students
were defined, measured and related to students' satisfaction with
instruction.

The study was conducted in the School for Health Professions and the
sample consisted of a total of 140 students participating in the
academic programs of the School. Regression and path-analytic models
were constructed and tested.

The major findings of the study were: (1) identification of three
dominant predictors of instructional satisfaction: clarity of
instructional tasks, professors' feedback, and identity of instructional
tasks; (2) ranking of the causal effects of the dominant predictors on
instructional satisfaction as follows (from the highest to the lowest):
(a) professors' feedback (0.49), (b) task clarity (0.31), and (c) task
identity (0.19). The implications of the present study for higher
education and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Research on students' satisfaction with their course work has attracted
considerable attention in recent years (Neumann and Finaly-Neumann,
1989; Finaly-Neumann and Neumann, 1992) towards various facets of the
learning experience, which is cumulatively influenced by the students'
experience with (a) different instructors in college and their teaching
and personal styles, (b) different types of courses, and (c)
requirements and assessment criteria.

The overall generalized attitude may have distinct policy implications
for the organization. It may be useful as a predictor of various
outcomes, such as students' future relationship to the college as alumni
(future commitment) and the general attractiveness of the college for
new students (by creating an outside image for the college). Thus,
instructional satisfaction may be important both for policy-makers at
the university level, and for institutional researchers and students of
higher education. The present study attempts to examine whether or not
the various perceived characteristics of course work are an important
predictor of students' satisfaction with their instruction.

Course Work Characteristics <#toc>

Organizational researchers and executives alike have had a vested
interest in understanding how job characteristics relate individual
productivity and job satisfaction. The research on work design has
succeeded in identifying a set of perceived job characteristics that
contribute to job satisfaction. The characteristics most often discussed
in the literature are: autonomy, variety, task identity, task feedback,
supervisor feedback, challenge and role clarity (Griffin, 1987; Moorhead
and Griffin, 1992; organ and Bateman, 1991). This research resulted in
recent efforts to develop job enrichment and job enlargement programs
directed toward redesigning job and work environment to reduce problems
of burnout, boredom and alienation, and to increase motivation,
productivity and job satisfaction.

Job characteristics are defined at the perceptual level. They are the
perceived attributes of the job. They are measured in most studies by
the notion of need fulfillment, i.e., the response to a "How much is
there now" item for a particular facet of job characteristics. The
dominant paradigm and research findings have clearly indicated that not
the objective characteristics of the job but how the individual
perceived his or her job is the salient predictor of an individual's job
satisfaction.

The present study attempts to extend the work on perceived job
characteristics to the higher learning environment and the perceived
characteristics of course work. In other words, on the basis of
organizational theory, several characteristics of the learning process
as perceived by students are defined, measured and related to students'
satisfaction with instruction. Course work characteristics are derived
from previous studies on organization.

Seven dimensions of course work characteristics are defined as follows:

Clarity of instructional tasks is defined by two complementary facets:
(1) the predictability of the outcomes of or the responses to students'
behavior, and (2) the existence of clarity of behavioral requirements to
guide behavior and provide knowledge that the behavior is appropriate.

Challenge derived from instructional tasks is defined as the degree to
which the knowledge, skills, and abilities of students are perceived to
be engaged and enlarged by instruction and the learning process.

Identity of instructional tasks is defined as the extent to which
students can clearly identify the results of their learning.

Feedback derived from instructional tasks is the degree to which
students receive information from their learning experience as they are
studying which reveals how well they are performing in their course work.

Feedback derived from professors is defined similarly to the previous
dimension but students receive the information from their professors.

Autonomy in instructional tasks is the extent to which students have a
major say in scheduling their studies and selecting their courses and
instructors.

Variety in instructional tasks is the extent to which the learning
process requires students to perform a wide range of activities in their
course work and experience diversity in their topics and subjects of study.

This study examined the model in which instructional satisfaction is the
dependent variable, and task clarity, challenge, identity, task
feedback, professors' feedback, autonomy and variety are the independent
variables.

Method <#toc>


        Sample

The present study was conducted in the two academic programs of the
School for Health Professions at a small university: (1) the Department
of Nursing, and (2) the Department of Physical Therapy. The sample
encompasses a total of 140 students participating in those two programs.
All respondents were interviewed by means of a questionnaire.


        Variables

Students' satisfaction with instruction was measured by an instrument
with fourteen items which was derived from Keaveny and McGann (1978).
This instrument was designed to cover the relevant aspects of students'
satisfaction with college instruction. Table 1 presents all scale items
used, their means, standards deviations, and correlations with the
summative scale. Students were asked to rate how satisfied they were
with each aspect of their course work. Five-point scales were used
(1-very dissatisfied; 2 - dissatisfied; 3 - neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied; 4 - satisfied; 5 - very satisfied). A summative scale of
instructional satisfaction was constructed by adding together all
fourteen items. The summative scale ranges from 14 to 70 with a mean of
48.92 and standard deviation of 6.37.

Table 2 presents all scale items of course work characteristics, their
means, standard deviations and correlations with school year and average
grade. The items for the various course work characteristics were
derived from the instrument of job characteristics used by Walsh, Taber
and Beehr (1980), and were modified to fit the higher learning
environment. The eighteen items belong to seven different domains. Each
item is measured on a five point scale (1- strongly disagree; 2
disagree; 3 - neither agree nor disagree; 4 agree; 5 - strongly agree).
Clarity of instructional tasks is a summative scale of the first three
items. Challenge derived from instructional tasks consists of two items
(No. 6 and No. 7) and the scale was created by adding these two items.
Feedback derived from instructional tasks includes item 8 and item 9.
-Feedback derived from professors is the summ of items 10, 11 and 12.
Autonomy in instructional tasks was composed by adding 13, 14 and 15.
Variety in instructional tasks is a summative scale of the last three
items (16-18).


        Results

Table 3 presents the course characteristics scales, their means,
standard deviations, interrelationships and reliability coefficients.
Since the present study is the first one to use the concept of course
characteristics, adopted from the organizational literature, the
performance measures of the various scales are reported for future
studies' comparison purposes. In order to compare the true means of each
scale, the mean summative scale was divided by the number of items in
each scale. The true means usually reflect the nature of the program as
perceived by the students. In the present case, identity of
instructional tasks has the maximal mean (4.06 out of a five point
scale), whereas autonomy in instructional tasks has the lowest mean
(1.87). Four out of the seven scales have means around 3.50 (+ 0.2).
These scales are: (1) clarity of instructional tasks; (2) challenge
derived from instructional tasks; (3) feedback from instructional tasks,
and (4) feedback derived from professors.

The reliability coefficients for the various scales range from 0.59
(task feedback) to 0.84 (autonomy) where the median reliability is 0.72.
The correlations among the various scales range from -0.07 to 0.68 and
the median correlation is 0.32. The maximum correlation (0.68) was
observed between professors' feedback and task clarity. It may be the
case that feedback received from professors contributes to upgrading the
level of task clarity. Another relatively strong correlation was found
between task identity and challenge (0.56). The identification of the
results of one's learning is positively associated with enlarging the
knowledge and skills of the individual. All other correlation
coefficients are smaller than 0.5.

Table 4 presents the regression model where the dependent variable is
the summative instructional satisfaction scale and the independent
variables are course work characteristics scales. The seven independent
variables explain thirty-five percent of the variation in instructional
satisfaction. (p<.001). The two best predictors of instructional
satisfaction are feedback derived from professors, and task clarity with
respective beta weights of 0.28 and 0.26 (p<.01). The two other
variables with statistically significant direct effect on course work
satisfaction are variety and task identity with respective beta weights
of 0.19 and 0.18 (p<.05). These four variables have a positive impact on
the dependent variables. The other three variables (challenge, task
feedback, and autonomy) have only a negligible and statistically
non-significant role in predicting students' satisfaction with
instruction. In all three cases, the direct effect's absolute value is
smaller than 0.1.

Table 5 (a) presents an adapted regression model where the independent
variables are: task clarity, task identity, professors' feedback and
variety, i.e., the independent variables with non-negligible direct
effects on instructional satisfaction (non-negligible direct effects are
those whose absolute values are greater than 0.1). The four predictors
explain thirty-four percent of instructional satisfaction variation. The
difference between the two models in explained variation is only 0.01.
In other words, the two models reach a similar level of predictability
despite the substantial reduction in the number of independent
variables. Thus, three independent variables do not play an important
role and were removed from the analysis. Among the four remaining
independent variables, two groups of variables were identified. The
first group includes the two dominant predictors: clarity and
professors' feedback (respective beta weights are: 0.26 and 0.24;
p<.01). The second group consists of two predictors: task identity and
variety, whose beta weights are considerably smaller than those of their
dominant counterparts (0.15 and 0.14; n.s.). In order to examine whether
an additional reduction is possible, a step-wise partitioning of the
explained variation was performed. The increment of the explained
variation in instructional satisfaction due to clarity, identity and
professors' feedback are statistically significant at 0.05 level. The
increment of the explained variation of instructional satisfaction due
to variety is statistically non-significant. In other words, a three
independent variable solution resulted in explained variation of 0.325
which is approximately the same as the four independent variable
solution (0.34), and the two coefficients of determination (R^2 ) are
not statistically different from one another. Thus, we decided to use a
reduced model with three independent variables.

Table 5 (b) presents the result of the reduced model where task clarity,
task identity. and professors' feedback are the determinants of
students' satisfaction with instruction. All beta weights in the reduced
model are statistically significant: the direct effect of task identity
is significant at the 0.05 level while the two other coefficients are
statistically significant at the 0.01 level. Clarity of instructional
tasks and professors' feedback account for eighty percent of the
explained variation in the fair-share partitioning scheme (0.26 out of
0.325) whereas task identity's share is twenty percent (0.0965 out of
0.325).

Discussion <#toc>


        Towards a Causal Mode

Walsh, Taber and Beehr (1980) suggested a causal model of job
characteristics and job satisfaction based on the distinction between
the information component (supervisor feedback, task feedback, task
clarity, task identity) and the action component (variety, autonomy, and
challenge) and causal ordering considerations within each component.
Interestingly,alldominant predictors of instructional satisfaction in
our study belong to the information domain. Based on the results of the
present study, the preliminary hypothesis indicated that instructional
satisfaction is a function of three independent variables: task clarify,
task identity, and professors' feedback. Following Walsh, Taber and
Beehr's causal ordering, the following contingencies can be derived: (1)
task clarity depends on the feedback received from professors - the
stronger the feedback, the higher the level of task clarity of
instructional tasks; (2) task identity assumes the presence of some
degree of task clarity and an adequate level of information, guidance
and supervision received from professors. Figure 1 presents the
preliminary causal model of course work characteristics and
instructional satisfaction. The causal effects of the various work
characteristic variables on instructional satisfaction can be ranked as
follows (from highest to the lowest): (1) professors' feedback (0.49),
(2) task clarity (0.31) and (3) task identity (0.19). Thus, despite the
impressive overall correlation between task clarity and instructional
satisfaction (r = 0.50), only one portion (0.31) is causal (direct
effect = 0.26, and indirect effect = 0.05), while another portion (0.19)
is non-causal, i.e., due to the existence of a prior variable, namely
professors' feedback. Similarly, the total correlation of task identity
on instructional satisfaction 0.33, whereas the causal portion is only
0.19. The examination of the two direct effects on task clarity revealed
that the direct effect of professors' feedback on task clarity is only
0.05 (N.S.). Therefore, this path was empirically eliminated from the
model.

Figure 2 presents the revised causal model of course work
characteristics and instructional satisfaction. The causal effects of
the various course work characteristic variables on instructional
satisfaction are about the same as before. Moreover, within each pair of
relationships where instructional satisfaction is the dependent
variable, the differences between implied correlations and observed
correlations are zero. This finding suggests that the revised model
accurately describes the causal scheme of students' satisfaction with
instruction (based on the premises upon which the model was
constructed). Conclusions

This study defined the core dimensions of course work characteristics,
designed an instrument to measure those dimensions, and related them to
students' satisfaction with instruction. Afte rexamining the
predictability of the defined core dimensions, they were reduced, on the
basis of their relative contribution to the explained variation of
instructional satisfaction. Then, preliminary and revised causal models
of instructional satisfaction were identified and tested. Several
conclusions can be drawn.

First, the seven core dimensions of course work characteristics account
for thirty-five percent of the explained variation of instructional
satisfaction. on the basis of the relative size of the beta weights,
three variables were found to have statistically non-significant direct
effects on instructional satisfaction: (1) challenge derived from
instructional tasks, (2) task feedback, and (3) autonomy in
instructional tasks. Another independent variable, variety in
instructional tasks, was eliminated due to statistically non-significant
increment of the explained variation in a step-wise partitioning method.
Thus, the findings of the present study reveal three dominant predictors
of instructional satisfaction: clarity of instructional tasks,
professors' feedback, and identity of instructional tasks.

Second, a preliminary causal model of instructional satisfaction
determinants was constructed, tested, and then revised. The causal
effects of the various predictors on instructional satisfaction reflect
their level of influence on the dependent variable. The policy
implication derived from the revised model is quite clear. The major
determinant of instructional satisfaction is professors' feedback with a
causal effect of 0.49. The second most important predictor is task
clarity (causal effect = 0.31). Thus, the academic program can engage
itself in an organizational change by upgrading the level of feedback
professors give to their students and by clarifying the various
instructional tasks, either through the increment of the predictability
of outcomes, or through setting clear behavioral requirements to guide
student behavior.

Third, this study was conducted in a School for Health Professions of a
single university. Thus, the results are only valid for similar schools
in the Israeli system. We believe that the approach can be generalized
to other schools and other western countries although the results may
not be the same. Findings of this research and other studies that may
follow can be used to design strategies of organizational change in
universities. Future studies are needed to assess the impact of course
work characteristics on student satisfaction with instruction in various
types of universities.

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations of Instructional Satisfaction Items
and Correlations with the Summative Scale

Instructional Satisfaction Items       Means   S.D.   Scale Corr

1.  Professors lead classes through
    a logical sequence of material      3.44   0.60      0.47

2.  Prompt feedback is given of
    tests and homework                  3.47   0.82      0.58

3.  Lectures are lively and
    interesting                         3.61   0.65      0.43

4.  Professors are knowledgeable
    and up to date in the field         4.12   0.81      0.53

5.  Professors present material
    in a way that students understand   3.50   0.75      0.57

6.  Real world examples are
    incorporated in the course          3.66   0.84      0.41

7.  Homework contributes to
    students' understanding             3.68   0.99      0.45

8.  Students are encouraged to ask
    questions in class                  3.37   0.98      0.50

9.  Professors are considerate
    indealing with students             2.98   0.92      0.56

10. Individual students are treated
    fairly by professors                3.48   0.81      0.64

11. Professors help students having
    trouble with the course             3.03   1.00      0.58

12. Tests cover material stressed
    in class                            3.56   0.90      0.58

13. Thest are free of confusing and
    ambiguous questions                 3.27   1.03      0.64

14. The quality of instruction is
    emphasized by this university       3.77   0.72      0.54

Table 2

Means, S.D.'s of Course Work Characteristics Items and
Correlation With School Year and Average Grade

                                               Corr. w/  Corr. w/
                                               School    Avg
                                   Mean  S.D   Year      Grade

1.  It is clear what is expected
    from me at school?             3.62  0.74   0.21      0.11

2.  My professors make it clear
    how I should study             3.50  0.98   0.08      0.06

3.  I know what performance
    standard is expected of me     3.85  0.96   0.03      0.11

4.  At school, I get a chance to
    use my skill and abilities     3.68  1.00   -0.16     0.09

5.  I keep learning new things
    which open new horizons for
    me                             3.68  0.98   -0.25     0.02

6.  My studies make a visible
    impace on my personal growth   4.18  0.91   -0.21     -0.13

7.  I can see the results of my
    studies                        3.94  0.88   -0.08     0.01

8.  I can tell myself how well I
    am doing at my studies         3.46  1.02   -0.09     0.02

9.  At school, there is a clear
    link between efforts and
    success                        3.50  1.14   -0.21     -0.90

10. Our professors meet with us
    regularly, tell us their
    assessment criteria, and
    discuss our performance        3.42  0.94   -0.13     0.11

11. I fully understand the
    criteria professors use in
    assessing us                   3.35  0.93   -0.02     0.17

12. Our professors judge
    accurately our performance
    using clear criteria           3.35  0.93   -0.02     0.17

13. I have some influence in
    selecting my courses           1.89  1.26   -0.16     0.07

14. I have some influence in
    selecting my courses           1.72  1.13   -0.21     0.11

15. I have some influence in
    determining my load of
    studies                        2.02  1.34   -0.14     -0.02

16. There is enough diversity in
    the various courses in the
    program                        2.05  1.19   -0.28     -0.07

17. I do a large number of
    different things in my
    course work                    2.95  0.97   -0.19     -0.05

18. In most courses there is a
    wide range of topics which
    do not repeat themselves       3.58  0.96   0.01      0.09

Table 3

Mean's, S.D.'s, Reliability Coefficients and Intercorrelations
of Course Work Characteristic Scales

                             Clarity        Challenge  Identity
                             of             derived    of
                             Instructional  from
Instructional
                             Tasks          Tasks      Tasks

Challenge Derived from
Instructional Tasks          0.41

Identity of
Instructional Tasks          0.31           0.56

Feedback from                                         0.33
Instructional Tasks          0.32           0.35

Feedback from
Professors                   0.68           0.45       0.24

Autonomy in
Instructional Tasks         -0.01          0.09       -0.07

Variety in
Instructional Tasks          0.20           0.36       0.30

 Mean Scale                 10.98           7.36       8.12
 S.D.                        2.16           1.75       1.50
 No. of Items                3              2          2
 Mean Divided by Number      3.66           3.68       4.06
 of Items
 Spearman-Brown              0.74           0.72       .060
 Reliability Coefficients

                           Feedback         Feedback
                           of               from
                           Instructional    Professors
                                            Tasks

Challenge Derived from
Instructional Tasks

Identity of
Instructional Tasks

Feedback from
Instructional Tasks

Feedback from
Professors                    0.42

Autonomy in
Instructional Tasks           0.26             0.20

Variety in
Instructional Tasks           0.33             0.28

 Mean Scale                   6.96             9.92
 S.D.                         1.76             2.40
 No. of Items                 2                3
 Mean Divided by Number       3.48             3.31
 of Items
 Spearman-Brown               0.59             0.82
 Reliability Coefficients

                              Autonomy         Variety
                              of               in
                              Instructional    Instructional
                              Tasks            Tasks

Challenge Derived from
Instructional Tasks

Identity of
Instructional Tasks

Feedback from
Instructional Tasks

Feedback from
Professors

Autonomy in
Instructional Tasks

Variety in
Instructional Tasks           0.42

 Mean Scale                   5.62             8.55
 S.D.                         3.23             2.13
 No. of Items                 3                3
 Mean Divided by Number       1.87             2.84
 of Items
 Spearman-Brown               0.84             0.67
 Reliability Coefficients

Table 4

Regression Model: Dependent Variable - Summative Instructional
Satisfaction Scale: Independent Variables - Course Work
Characteristic Scales

Independent Variables                       Beta Weight  Simple r

Clarity of Instructional Tasks                0.26[**]      0.50

Challenge Derived from Instructional Tasks   -0.09          0.30

Identity of Instructional Tasks               0.19[*]       0.33

Feedback from Instructional Tasks            -0.03          0.25

Feedback from Professors                      0.28[**]      0.49

Autonomy in Instructional Tasks              -0.06          0.04

Variety in Instructional Tasks                0.18[*]

R[sup2]                                       0.35[**]

[*] p<.05

[**] p<.01

Table 5(a)

An Adapted Regression Model: Dependent Variable - Instructional
Satisfaction; Independent Variables - Task Clarity, Task
Identity, Professors' Feedback, and Variety

Legend for Table:

A - Beta Weight
B - Simple r
C - Partitioning of R2 Fair-Share

Independent Variables                         A        B      C

Clarity of Instructional Tasks (X[sub1])   0.26[**]   0.50   0.13
Identity of Instructional Tasks (X[sub2])  0.15       0.33   0.05
Professors' Feedback (X[sub3]) .24[**]     0.49       0.12
Variety of Instructional Tasks (X[sub4])   0.14       0.30   0.04

R[sup2]                                    0.34

[**] p<0.1

"Fair Share" Partitioning of R2 = Beta X Simple r
Step-wise partitioning of R2:
R[sup2] (Y.X[sub1] = 0.25;
R[sup2] (Y.X[sub2]X[sub3]) = 0.29;
R[sup2] (Y.X[sub1]X[sub2]X[sub3]) = 0.325;
R[sup2] (Y.X[sub1]X[sub2]X[sub3]X[sub4]) = 0.34

Table 5(b)

A Reduced Model: Dependent Variable - Instructional Satisfaction;
Independent Variables - Clarity, Identity, Professors' Feedback

Legend for Table:

D - Beta Weight
E - Simple r
F - Partitioning of R2 Fair-Share

Independent Variables                         D        E      F

Clarity of Instructional Tasks (X[sub1])   0.26[**]   0.50   0.13
Identity of Instructional Tasks (X[sub2])  0.19[**]   0.33   0.65
Professors' Feedback (X[sub3]) .24[**]     0.27[**]   0.49   0.13

R[sup2]                                    0.325

[**] p<.05
[**] p<.01

Legend for Table:


G - Total Correlocation
H - Direct Effect
I - Indirect Effect
J - Causal Effect
K - Non-Causal Effect
L - Difference Between Implied and Observed r

Pair of Relationship    G       H       I     J    K     L

Professors' Feedback-   0.49  0.27[**]  0.22  0.49  0.   Not
Satisfaction                                             Applicable

Task Clarity-           0.50  0.26[**]  0.05  0.31  0.19 Not
Satisfaction                                             Applicable

Task Identity-          0.33  0.19[**]  0.    0.19  0.14 Not
Satisfaction                                             Applicable

[**] p<.01
[*] p<.05

Additional Estimates of Direct Effects

Professors' Feedback on Task Clarity = 0.68 (p<.01)
Professors' Feedback on Task Identity = 0.05 (N S)
Task Clarity on Task Identity = 0.27 (p<.01)

Legend for Table:

M - Total Correlocation
N - Direct Effect
O - Indirect Effect
P - Causal Effect
Q - Non-Causal Effect
R - Difference Between Implied and Observed r

Pair of Relationship    M      N       O     P    Q     R

Professors' Feedback- 0.49  0.27[**]  0.22  0.49  0.    0
Satisfaction

Task Clarity-         0.50  0.26[**]  0.06  0.32  0.18  0
Satisfaction

Task Identity-        0.33  0.19[**]  0.    0.19  0.14  0
Satisfaction

[**] p<.01
[*] p<.05

DIAGRAM: Figure 1: A Preliminary Causal Model of Course Work
Characteristics and Instructional Satisfaction. Decomposition of the
Various Effects on Instructional Satisfaction

DIAGRAM: Figure 2 A Revised Causal Model of Course Work Characteristics
and Instructional Satisfaction. Decomposition of the Various Effects on
Instructional Satisfaction

Additional Estimates of Direct Effects
Professors' Feedback on Task Clarity = 0.68 (p<.01)
Task Clarity on Task Identity = 0.27 (p<.01)

References <#toc>

Finaly-Neumann, E. and Neumann, Y. (1992). Quality of Learning
Experience and Student's College outcome. International Journal of
Educational Management (In Press).

Griffin, R. W., (1967). Toward an Integrated Theory of Task Design. In
L. L. Commity, and B. M. Staus (eds), Research in organizational
Behavior, 79-120. Greenwich, Conn., J A I Press.

Keaveny, T. J., and McGann, A. F. (1978). Behavioral Dimensions
Associated with Students' Global Ratings of College Professors. Research
In Higher Education (9) 333-345.

Moorhead, G. and Griffin, R. W. (1992). organizational Behavior, Third
Edition, Houghton Mifflin.

Neumann, Y., and Finaly-Neumann, E. (1989). Examination of Affirmative
Models of Students' Assessment of Their College. Assessment and
Evaluation In Higher Education, (14) 11-19.

Organ, D.W. and Bateman, T. S. (1991). organizational Behavior, Fourth
Edition, Homeward,IL: Irwin

Walsh, J.T., Taber, T.D., and Beehu., T.A. (1980). An Integrated Model
of Perceived Job Characteristics. organizational Behavior and Human
Performance (25) 252-267.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Edith
Finaly-Neumann, Director of the Center for Policy Research and Evalution
and Professor of Health Sciences CSU-Dominquez Hills, 1000 East Victoria
Street, Cason, California 90747-0005.

~~~~~~~~

By Edith Finaly-Neumann, Ph.D.

Edith Finaly-Neurmann, School of Health, California State Univesity,
Carson, California.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright of Journal of Instructional Psychology is the property of
Educational Innovations and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.


Back
<javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$MainContentArea$deliveryPrintSaveControl$backButtonBottom$lnkBack','')>