How do we measure academic entitlement? (and should we?)
1. How Do We MeasureAcademic Entitlement? (and should we?)
Dr Katherine J. Haxton @kjhaxton
Background and Methods:
Student Engagement and Success in Physical Sciences (SEaSiPS)
This project is designed to evaluate and compare aspects relating
to student engagement, motivation, retention and achievement.
A questionnaire was developed from existing instruments, using a
mixture of 5 or 7 point Likert scales and a semantic differential
instrument. No free text responses were included. Items were
adapted by rewording for the UK Higher Education context to
ensure terminology recognisable to the students was used (tuition
= tuition fees; tests = exams; professor = lecturer). A favourable
ethical opinion was obtained.
Key aspects:
- reasons for studying subject and for selecting Keele University
- experiences of outreach and recruitment
- self reported grades and attendance (2nd and 3rd year only)
- attitude towards subject of study (semantic differential
instrument)
- academic, academic enjoyment, maths self-concept inventory
- study skills and learning including academic entitlement
This was distributed to Chemistry (n = 109), Forensic Science (n =
198), Physics/Astrophysics (n = 18) students across 1st, 2nd and 3rd
year in October 2019 as part of a pilot study. The questionnaire
was administered online where feasible, and by hard copy where
not.
The data is currently being analysed and the questionnaire will be
refined for September 2020. The intention is to follow the 19/20
and 20/21 cohorts through their studies.
If you would be willing to give the revised questionnaire to your
students in 20/21, please get in touch!
Academic entitlement is defined as ‘students who believe they deserve positive academic outcomes independent of performance’ (Sessoms, Finney and Kopp 2016). Aspects
of the Academic Entitlement Questionnaire (AEQ, Kopp and Finney 2013) was adapted and included in the larger SEaSIPS project questionnaire and administered to 325
students in October 2019.
Academic
Entitlement
Exploratory
factor analysis
showing factor
loadings
If I miss an exam, I
should be given the
opportunity to take the
exam again.
0.471
Because I pay tuition
fees, I deserve passing
grades.
0.699
I should be given the
opportunity to submit
my coursework again to
improve my mark
0.558
It is the lecturer's
responsibility to make
it easy for me to
succeed
>0.4
If a lecture does not
cover material in class, I
should not be expected
to learn it
0.483
Analysis of the academic entitlement aspects have been carried out using the approach demonstrated by Mistry and Gorman (2020).
Independent samples T-tests were carried out to test for differences between year groups before analysing the combined data. There was a significant difference in
the scores for If a lecturer does not cover material in class, I should not be expected to learn it 1st year (M=4.600, SD=1.760) and 2nd year (M=3.854, SD=1.696)
conditions; t(94)=-2.087, p = 0.04
Reliability Analysis: Cronbach’s 𝛼 All 𝛼 = 0.645, 1st year 𝛼 = 0.615, 2nd year 𝛼 = 0.675
Pearson correlation coefficients:
All years
Submit coursework - pay tuition r(96) = .38, p<.001
Cover material - pay tuition r(96) =.37, p<.001
Miss exams - pay tuition r(95) = .32, p =.002
1st year
Cover material - pay tuition r(55) = =.44, p<.001
Second year
Submit coursework - miss exams r(41) = .47, p=.002
Miss exams - pay tuition r(40) = .44, p =.005
Discussion: The introduction of tuition fees is anecdotally
held responsible for the increasing perceptions amongst
staff that students exhibit more behaviours that might be
categorised as academic entitlement. This sentiment is fed
by the approach of the press to the marketization of higher
education.
Initial analysis of the combined 1st and 2nd year data shows
that there are correlations between the tuition fee item and
items related to re-submitting coursework to improve
marks, additional opportunities to take exams, and
coverage of content by lecturers. Exploratory factor analysis
shows those four items clustering.
The only significant difference between 1st and 2nd year
students was coverage of content by lecturers (distribution
shown below) and relates to the proportion of students
selecting the disagree option between years.
References: Kopp J. P. and Finney S. J., (2013), Linking academic entitlement and student incivility using latent means modeling. J. Exp. Educ., 81(3), 322–336.
Mistry N. and Gorman S. G., (2020), What laboratory skills do students think they possess at the start of University? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. :DOI: 10.1039/c9rp00104b
Acknowledgements: Prof. Mike
Watkinson, Dr Tess Phillips, Staff
who helped administer
questionnaires, and students for
their time completing it.
Editor's Notes
Attitudes of 1st and 2nd year chemistry students have been compared.
Initial analysis:
Descriptive stats of all items
TTests to determine if there is a difference between 1st and 2nd years
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Correlation