The Influence of Undergraduate Students’ Academic Involvement and Learning Environment on Learning Outcomes

Abstract

Abstract

This study explores the influence of learning environment factor and academic involvement factor on students’ learning outcomes. The sample includes 3,946 undergraduates in Xi’an Jiaotong University. The variables about learning environment, academic involvement and learning outcomes are constructed in terms of the questionnaire “Xi’an Jiaotong University Undergraduate Experience Survey”. The study results indicate that learning environment and academic involvement significantly influence students’ learning outcomes. Meanwhile, the practical and policy significance of this study results in promoting students’ learning and development is also discussed.

Introduction

The influence of students’ individual factors, educational environment factors and their interactions on students’ learning and development is a key issue on which many researchers have focused their attention. Several researchers have examined the impact of student individual factors, such as individual background, academic involvement/engagement, and so forth, on their learning and development. 2 , 3 Other researchers have explored the impact of the educational environment on students’ learning and development. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 Individual cognitive and emotional developments take place in sequence and by stages, characterized by unevenness and differentiation. Research outcomes may become biased if there is partial emphasis on the impact of individual factors or one specific factor in the educational environment on students’ learning and development. Therefore, a more comprehensive consideration of the influences of individual factors, educational environment factors and their interactions on students’ learning and development is necessary. 8 , 9

Although some researchers have stated that individual factors, educational environment factors and their interactions do impact on students’ learning and development, in mainland China, the lack of data means these influences are rarely verified empirically. Hence, this study, using data from the Xi’an Jiaotong University Undergraduate Experience Survey, presents an empirically based discussion of the impact of campus climate, classroom learning environment and individual factors, such as students’ academic involvement/engagement, on students’ learning outcomes, such as like intellectual skill development and GPA. The analytical tool of structural equation modelling is applied to discuss the relationship between educational environment, students’ academic involvement/engagement and students learning outcomes and to comprehensively and accurately describe the relationships between these factors.

This study mainly addresses the following questions: a) How can we measure learning environment? b) How can we measure students’ academic involvement/engagement? c) What is the relationship between students’ learning environment, academic involvement/engagement and students’ learning outcomes? The first two questions deal with the instruments of measuring learning environments and academic involvement/engagement. The third question is proposed in response to the hypothesis of a structural relationship between learning environment, academic involvement/engagement and students’ learning outcomes, which is the focus of this study.

Literature Review

The Relationship between Learning Environment and Learning Outcomes

The influence of learning environment on learning outcomes is an issue focused on by many researchers. They discussed the influence of learning environment at different levels, including classroom level, faculty level and university level, on learning outcomes. The indicators adopted to describe learning outcomes differ significantly between studies: students’ cognitive development, freshman retention, GPA, the pursuit of graduate education, employment outcomes, and emotional development. Therefore, the exploration of the relationships between learning environment and learning outcomes may involve multiple aspects.

The connection between learning environment and academic achievement has been another focus of attention among researchers. Their researches applied different research methods and sampled different populations (students from different countries, different types of universities and classes, etc.). These researches indicated that students’ perceptions of the learning environment exerted a significant influence on their academic achievements. 10 Fraser’s (1998) meta-analysis of some researches indicated that students had higher learning achievements when the classroom environment was cohesive, satisfactory, targeted, organized and with little conflict between students and teachers. 11

Some research has also found that student-perceived classroom environment influenced students’ academic achievements through its influence on their learning styles. 12 One of our studies also verified this relationship, which found that factors such as teacher-student relationship, interests and satisfaction and cooperation in the student-perceived classroom environment were positively correlated to the application of a deep learning approach applied, while factors such as difficulties and competitiveness were positively correlated to students’ adoption of a surface learning approach. With regard to the relationship between approach to learning and academic achievements, a deep learning approach was positively correlated to students learning achievements while a surface learning approach was negatively correlated to students’ learning achievements. 13

Some researchers have explored the influence of various learning environments on students’ intellectual skills. For instance, Mckeachie (1986) found that the teacher’s encouragement and interaction with and cooperation of students are contributive to students’ critical thinking. 14 Winter (1981) found that freshman and senior students at small-scale, selective colleges of arts performed better in critical thinking than those at non-selective normal universities. 15 Kuh (2006) also found that students who entered selective colleges of arts performed better at participation level, self-reported achievements and intellectual and skill development than those from other types of universities. 16

In recent years, some researchers have started to focus on the relationship between the learning environment and students’ emotional development. For example, Wong and Fraser (1996) found significant associations between the nature of the chemistry laboratory classroom environment and the students’ attitudinal outcomes. Apart from the physical environment, the four factors of students’ cohesion, openness of questions, engagement, and the existence of specific rules in a chemistry experiment environment significantly influenced students’ scientific attitudes. 17 Wolf and Fraser’s (2008) research found that learning environment was a significant predictor of students’ attitudes related to science. 18 Majeed, Fraser and Aldridge’s (2002) study in Brunei indicated that solidarity, difficulty and competition in math classrooms were correlated to students’ satisfaction. In particular, the solidarity in the classroom was highly positively correlated to students’ satisfaction. 19

The Relationship between Learning Environment and Academic Involvement/Engagement

Entwistle and Peterson (2004) pointed out that research on learning environment has mainly focused on its influence on students’ academic involvement/engagement. 20 Study results indicated that learning environment had a significant impact on students’ academic involvement/engagement. For example, Umbach and Wawrzynski (2005) found that faculty practices had significant influences on students’ engagement. 21 Students reported higher levels of engagement at institutions where faculty members used active and collaborative learning techniques, engaged students in experiences, emphasized higher-order cognitive activities in the classroom, interacted with students, challenged students academically and valued enriching educational experiences. In addition, Ryan and Patrick (2001) pointed out that the so-called higher-order classroom social environment factor led to significant changes in all motivation and engagement outcomes. This factor consists of the four dimensions, i.e. teacher support, promoting interaction, promoting mutual respect and promoting performance. 22 Wu and Huang (2007) found that in teacher-centered (TC) and student-centered (SC) technology-enhanced classrooms, students’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement differed significantly. 23

The Relationship between Academic Involvement/Engagement and Learning Outcomes

Researchers have discussed widely the relationship between learning engagement and learning outcomes, with some arguing that learning engagement plays a crucial role in promoting the development of student critical thinking and other cognitive skills. 24 , 25 Learning engagement has also been shown to affect students’ skills development in acquiring knowledge and solving problems. 26 The more engaged students were, the higher their achievements were and the better their operating skills and their ability to apply techniques to new areas. 27 , 28 Some researchers found that many measures of student engagement were linked positively with such desirable learning outcomes as critical thinking and grades, with the lowest-ability students benefitting more from engagement than their higher-ability classmates; first-year students and seniors converted different forms of engagement into academic achievement, and certain institutions more effectively converted student engagement into higher performance on critical thinking tests.

The Relationship between Learning Environment, Academic Involvement/Engagement and Learning Outcomes

Some researchers have argued that it is not enough merely to consider the impact of learning environment or academic involvement/engagement on learning outcomes and the comprehensive effect of learning environment, academic involvement/engagement on students learning outcomes must be considered. For example, Pike and Kuh (2005) argued that academic engagement, social involvement, and campus climate directly impacted on students’ gains and academic engagement, and social involvement indirectly impacted students’ learning gains by integration of these various experiences. 29

Research Design

Sample

The research data were collected through a survey of 14,759 undergraduate students (omitting international students and those whose studies were extended beyond four years) by means of an on-line questionnaire. 5,188 questionnaires were collected, accounting for 35.15%, among which 3,946 were valid, accounting for 76.06%. The general characteristics of the sample are listed in Table 1.

Survey Instrument

The research uses the questionnaire “Xi’an Jiaotong University Undergraduate Experience Survey” which is based on the SERU-I by UC Berkeley. The questionnaire is divided into three parts. Part A consists of the core items including academic involvement/engagement, student life, learning objective and individual characteristics. Part B includes items concerning the use of techniques, global skills and cognition. Part C comprises items specifically designed for Asian countries/universities including general education and classroom learning environment. In our survey, the contents of part A and B are directly cited from SERU-I. In part C, we added content about classroom learning environment.

Table 1:

The Basic Characteristics of the Sample.

In this questionnaire, items measuring learning environment can also be divided into two parts including 54 items to measure classroom learning environment and 9 items for campus climate. There are 34 items for academic involvement/engagement measurement. The items measuring learning outcomes also consist of two parts including students’ intellectual skill development with 20 items (each item involves students’ status when they just entered university and their current status) and student satisfaction with learning experience including 18 items.

To explore the structure of factors including learning environment, academic involvement/engagement and learning outcomes, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is applied to analyze the items (principal component analysis is used to extract factors).

The result of EFA on student-perceived classroom learning environment in the dimension of learning environment (as shown in Table 2) indicates that the student-perceived classroom learning environment can be measured by 9 factors. The items included in factor 1 are about how teachers motivate students’ interests and promote their intellectual development, which is called intellectual motivation. Items in factor 2 involve the relationship between teachers and students, called teacher-student relationship. The items in factor 3 are mainly about student mutual assistance, cooperative learning, information sharing, called cooperation. The contents of factor 4 contain students’ perceptions of courses or homework, called learning difficulty. Items in factor 5 involve teachers’ organization of courses, called course organization. Factor 6 includes whether the teacher gives students rights to choose learning content, method and speed, called autonomous selection. In factor 7, the items are mainly about innovation in teaching and whether students’ innovation in learning is encouraged, called teaching innovation. The items in factor 8 involve teachers’ encouragement at appropriate times, called encouraging students. In factor 9, the items are about mutual competition of students, called peer competition. The results of reliability analysis indicate that the reliability coefficients of the 9 factors range from 0.779 to 0.924.

Table 2:

The Results of Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis on Student Perceived Classroom Learning Environment.

Table 3:

The Results of Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis on Student Perceived Campus Climate.

The results of factor analysis on student-perceived campus climate in the dimension of learning environment (as shown in Table 3) indicate that the student-perceived campus climate can be measured by 3 factors. The items included in factor 1 discuss students’ perceived degree to which the university attaches importance to students and undergraduate education, called student concerning. Items in factor 2 involve students’ perceived social communication and integration, called social network. The items in factor 3 discuss whether the university pays more attention to scientific research and neglects teaching and learning, called teaching drifting. The results of reliability analysis indicate that the reliability coefficients of these 3 factors range from 0.506 to 0.803.

The results of factor analysis on the dimension of academic involvement/engagement (as shown in Table 4) indicate that academic involvement/engagement can be measured by 8 factors. The items included in factor 1 are about the interaction between students and teachers in and out of class, called student faculty interaction. Items in factor 2 involve students’ critical thinking in their learning process, called critical thinking. The items in factor 3 are mainly about students’ accomplishment of challenging task, called academic challenge. The contents in factor 4 involve students’ engagement out of class, called extracurricular engagement. Items in factor 5 involve student incapability to finish their reading tasks or assignments or unpunctuality, called lack of engagement. Factor 6 includes students’ understanding and application of what they have learned, called understanding and analysis. In factor 7, the items are mainly about the situation of students completing heavy learning tasks, called heavier learning load. The items in factor 8 involve students completing light learning tasks, called lighter learning load. The results of reliability analysis indicate that the reliability coefficients of the 8 factors range from 0.620 to 0.849.

To explore the structure of intellectual skills in the dimension of learning outcomes, EFA is applied to analyze the construct validity of two groups of data which separately measure the status of students when they just entered university and their current status. In the two groups of data, the number of factors extracted and the number of items in each factor are the same. Table 5 presents the results of factor analysis on the developing status of intellectual skills for students when they just entered university. The results indicate that these intellectual skills are measured by 3 factors. The items included in factor 1 discuss students’ capacities such as speaking, writing, thinking and understanding, called core skills. Items in factor 2 involve students’ research capacities by using computers, networks and the library, called research skills. The items in factor 3 discuss students’ self-cognition and their enjoyment of and communication within human society, called self-cognition and social communication. The results of reliability analysis on internal consistency of the items included in 3 factors indicate that the reliability coefficients of 3 factors range from 0.844 to 0.852. The increased value of students’ intellectual skills development (which is call intellectual skills development variable) is constructed by using students’ current intellectual development status score minus the scores for the same construct when they just entered university.

Table 4:

The Results of Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis on Academic Involvement/Engagement.

Table 5:

The Results of Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis on Student Intellectual Skills Development.

Table 6:

The Result of Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis on Students’ Satisfaction with Perceived Learning Experience.

The results of factor analysis on student perceived satisfaction with learning experience (as shown in Table 6) indicate that the student perceived satisfaction with learning experience can be measured by 4 factors. The items included in factor 1 discuss students’ satisfaction with the subsidy they receive, library, medical care, meals and accommodation and safety, called environmental support. Items in factor 2 involve students’ satisfaction with courses and time arrangement, called quality of course. The items in factor 3 discuss students’ holistic satisfaction with their academic experience and social experience at university, called campus life. Items in factor 4 are concerned with whether students have a sense of belonging, called sense of belonging. The results of reliability analysis on internal consistency of the items included in these 4 factors indicate that the reliability coefficients of 4 factors range from 0.746 to 0.847.

The results of EFA and reliability analysis on learning environment, academic involvement/engagement and learning outcomes indicate that those factors could validly and reliably measure learning environment, academic involvement/engagement and learning outcomes.

Analysis Method

Structural equation modelling is applied in this study to simultaneously and holistically discuss the influence of learning environment and academic involvement/engagement on learning outcomes.

Results

Analysis of Basic Characteristics of Student-Perceived Classroom Learning Environment

Table 7 lists the results of the analysis of the basic characteristics of the student-perceived classroom learning environment. Response options describing the extent to which students agree with the measured items of classroom learning environment are scaled into 6 levels, “strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “slightly disagree”, “slightly agree”, “agree”, “strongly agree”. Students’ responses to these scale options are coded 1~6 point(s) and each factor score is the mean of all item scores. As shown in Table 7, average scores of factors of student-perceived teacher-student relationship, cooperation, intellectual motivation, and peer competition range from 4.0 to 4.5, namely, students’ options are above the level of “slightly agree”. The mean scores of student-perceived course organization, teaching innovation, student encouragement and autonomous selection range from 3.5 to 3.9, i.e., students’ options are likely to be around “slightly agree”. The mean score of student-perceived learning difficulty is 3.44, which indicates that students tend to “slightly disagree”. The results in Table 7 indicate that students’ perceptions of the classroom learning environment as a whole are good. In the course learning, they could acquire knowledge, enhance their capacity and applied what they have learned to practice. Students won respect and help from their teacher and established good relationship with them. Student cooperated with peers smoothly, being assisted by and giving a hand to others. They considered course not so difficult or heavy and they could understand classroom content and complete assignment. They considered course organization reasonable and capable of meeting the needs of individual development. They could select the contents and rate of learning autonomously. In the teaching process, to a certain extent, teacher took innovative teaching methods and encouraged students’ creative and critical thinking.

Table 7:

The Basic Characteristics of Student Perceived Classroom Learning Environment.

Analysis on Basic Characteristics of Student Perceived Campus Climate

Table 8 reports the analysis on the basic characteristics of student-perceived campus climate. The extent to which students agree with the measured items of campus climate is scaled into 6 levels, “strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “slightly disagree”, “slightly agree”, “agree”, “strongly agree”. Responses by student to these options are coded 1~6 point(s) and each factor score is the mean of all item score. Table 8 indicates that the mean of factors of student perceived social network is 4.45, which indicates that student’s options are above the level of “slightly agree”. The mean score for the factor student-perceived student concerning is 4.08, i.e., students’ opinions are inclined to be “slightly agree”. The mean score of student-perceived teaching drift is 2.73, which means students tend to choose “slightly disagree”. The result shows that students’ perceptions of the campus climate as a whole is good. While learning and living on campus, students experienced diverse cultures, established and maintained personal social networks. Students felt that they were valued and respected at university, where the phenomenon of teaching drift was considered not serious.

Table 8:

The Basic Characteristics of Student Perceived Campus Climate.

Table 9:

The Basic Characteristics of Student Academic Involvement/Engagement.

Analysis of Basic Characteristics of Student Academic Involvement/Engagement

Table 9 lists the analysis of the basic characteristics of academic involvement/engagement. The extent to which students agree with the items of academic involvement/engagement are classified into 6 levels, “never”, “hardly”, “sometimes”, “frequent”, “often”, “very often”. Students’ responses to these scale options are coded 1~6 point(s); each factor score is the mean of all item scores. As shown in Table 9, average scores for extracurricular engagement, understanding and analysis, and lighter learning load range from 3.5~3.7, which means students’ choices tend to be “frequent”. The mean of student faculty interaction, critical thinking, academic challenge and heavier learning load range from 2.7~3.4, i.e., student’s choices are inclined to be “sometimes”; the mean score of lack of engagement is 2.44 which implies that students’ options are closer to “hardly”. The results show that the overall students’ academic involvement/engagement is good. They involved themselves more in extracurricular activities and those for understanding and analysis, even lighter load learning activities. Students had some interactions with faculty, engaged to some extent in critical thinking, academic challenge and heavier learning load and the phenomenon of “lack of engagement” is hardly presented.

Table 10:

The Basic Characteristics of Student Self-Reported Intellectual Development.

Analysis of the Basic Characteristics of Student Reported Intellectual Skill Development

Table 10 indicates the results of the analysis of basic characteristics of student self-reported intellectual development. A six level scale namely “very poor”, “poor”, “fair”, “good”, “very good”, “excellent” is taken to measure students’ assessment of their current level of intellectual skill development in some fields compared with that when they first started their university. Students’ responses to these options are coded 1~6 point(s); each factor score is the mean of all item scores. From table 10 we can see, according to their own assessment, average score of students’ intellectual skill when starting their college ranges from 2.5~3.3, which indicates that students’ choices tend to be “fair”; whereas the mean of students’ current intellectual skill ranges from 3.6~4.1 and students’ choices are inclined to be “good”. In terms of the added value of students’ intellectual skill development, students make some progresses in all three factors, amongst which research skills shows the highest gain. T-test results indicate that there is significant difference between the current development status in terms of core skills, research skills, self-cognition and social communication skills and that when students started university.

Table 11:

The Basic Characteristics of Student Perceived Satisfaction of University Learning Experience.

Analysis of Basic Characteristics of Student-Perceived Satisfaction of University Learning Experience

Table 11 presents the analysis on the basic characteristics of students’ perceptions of satisfaction with their university learning experience. Response options describing the extent to which students agree with the items of perceived satisfaction of learning experience are scaled into 6 levels, “very dissatisfied”, “dissatisfied”, “fairly dissatisfied”, “fairly satisfied”, “satisfied”, “very satisfied”. Students’ responses to these scale options are coded 1~6 point(s); each factor score is the mean of all item scores. As seen in Table 11, the means of the two factors of student-perceived environmental support and sense of belonging are greater than 4, i.e., students tend to be more than fairly satisfied with environmental support and report fairly high levels of a sense of belonging on average. The mean of student perceived quality of course and campus life range from 3.6~3.9, which indicates that students are inclined to have the options of “fairly satisfied”. As the results show, students are fairly satisfied with their overall education experience.

SEM Analysis on the Impact of Learning Environment, Academic Involvement/Engagement on Learning Outcomes

In order to find out the impact of university students’ perceptions of classroom learning environment, campus climate and student academic involvement/engagement on their intellectual skill development and the level of student-perceived satisfaction of university learning experience, structural equation modeling was used to analyze the relationship. Figure 1 presents the results of this exercise. (The diagram shows that the significance level of regression coefficients for each path reaches P<0.05 or higher) The goodness-of-fit results for the model χ²=77052.55 (df=314, P<0.001, because of the large sample size of this study [n=3946], χ² easily reaches significant level), RMSEA=0.074, TLI=0.830, CFI=0.848, which reveals a good overall fit of the data to the model.

Figure 1:

(In Fig.1, F1~F9 refers to factors in each dimension, the Letters before each factor are the acronyms of various dimensions, e.g. AE stands for academic involvement/engagement)

As seen from Fig.1, (1) student-perceived learning environment, level of academic involvement/engagement, their intellectual skill development and satisfaction with university learning experience are positively correlated. That is, students who had better perceptions of the learning environment reported higher levels of academic involvement/engagement, better intellectual skill development and greater satisfaction with the university learning experience. Within the learning environment factor, student-perceived classroom learning environment and campus climate are positively correlated. The better students’ perception of campus climate is, the better they feel about their classroom learning environment, and vice versa. However, while comparing the influence of students-perceived classroom learning environment with that of student-perceived campus climate, we can see that student-perceived classroom learning environment has direct and greater impact on the level of their academic involvement/engagement, intellectual skill development and satisfaction with university learning experience. (2) The level of students’ academic involvement/engagement is positively correlated to their intellectual skill development whereas negatively related to student-perceived satisfaction of university learning experience, which indicates more academic involvement/engagement would benefit students’ intellectual skill development but may raise their expectations and requirements of university education. Thereby, more engaged students might report lower levels of satisfaction with their university learning experience. (3) Undergraduate intellectual skill development is positively associated with their perceived satisfaction of university learning experience. That means students who performed better on intellectual skill development reported a higher level of satisfaction with their university learning experience.

Conclusions and Suggestions

According to the survey of undergraduates in Xi'an Jiaotong University, the following conclusions are drawn:

1. Students perceive the classroom learning environment and campus climate to be good. In their perceptions of all aspects of classroom learning environment, the factors of teacher student relationship, cooperation and intellectual motivation obtain the highest scores. The factors of peer competition, course organization, teaching innovation, and encouraging students are rated more highly whereas the factors of autonomous selection and learning load need to be improved. In the factors of campus climate, the student-perceived level of social networks is rated most highly. The student-perceived level of university’s student-concerning comes second but is still rated highly, whereas students tend not to agree that there is teaching drift in their university.

2. The level of undergraduates’ academic involvement/engagement is high. Students engage frequently in extracurricular activities as well as understanding and analysis activities. They sometimes take on heavy-load learning tasks and they perform a certain level of engagement in teacher-student relationship, critical thinking and academic challenge. The phenomenon of “lack of engagement” hardly exists.

3. Students report their intellectual skill development as being good with regard to the amount of value-added. Among the three factors of intellectual skill development, research skills are perceived to be best developed, with self-cognition and social communication skills in the middle and core skills being the least developed.

4. Undergraduates are fairly satisfied with their university learning experience, with most satisfaction being for environmental support and sense of belonging, followed by course quality, whereas the factor of campus life remains to be enhanced.

5. Learning environment and the level of student academic involvement/engagement have positive effects on undergraduates’ learning outcomes. Student-perceived learning environment is positively correlated to the levels of academic involvement/engagement, intellectual skill development and student perceived satisfaction of university learning experience. There exists a positive association between the two levels of learning environment, but in terms of their impacts on student academic involvement/engagement, intellectual skill development and student perceived satisfaction of university learning experience, students’ perceptions of classroom learning environment is directly-affected and more influential. Undergraduates’ academic involvement/engagement is positively correlated to their intellectual skill development, but negatively related to perceptions of their satisfaction of university learning experience. Student intellectual skill development is positively related to perceptions of their satisfaction of university learning experience.

Based on the above analysis, the following policy suggestions are proposed to improve student intellectual skill development and increase their satisfaction of university learning experience:

1. Establishing a good learning environment. Compared with campus climate, classroom learning environment which is closer to students’ learning and living has greater impact on student intellectual skill development and their perceived satisfaction with learning experience. In classroom teaching, the emphasis should be on motivating students intellectually, giving students more freedom to choose, and adjusting the learning load adequately to establish a better classroom learning environment. Campus climate has significant influence on student intellectual skill development and satisfaction with learning experience, though weaker than the impact from classroom learning environment, so the university is expected to increase their concern over students to build better campus climate.

2. Further strengthening student-faculty interaction, raising the academic challenge to promote student academic involvement/engagement. As seen from the results of the analysis, within the dimension of student academic involvement/engagement, student-faculty interaction and academic challenge are to be further strengthened; student learning load should be adequately increased. Thus, through the advancement of students’ academic involvement/engagement, students’ learning and development can be promoted effectively.

3. Enhancing the core skill training to achieve better intellectual skill development. This is one of the key objectives of university education in promoting students’ intellectual skill development. Viewed from the students’ perceptions, within the duration of university learning, research skills are perceived to be best developed, followed by self-cognition and social communication. The amount of value-added of core skills, such as expression, writing, thinking and understanding is least and needs to be improved in the course of talent cultivation of university.

4. Optimizing the campus life to increase students’ satisfaction of their university learning experience. From the analysis of students’ perceived satisfaction of their university learning experience, we can see the factor of campus life needs to be improved. Undergraduates are satisfied with their university environment and courses and have a sense of belonging. Whereas, they are not so satisfied with the overall academic experience, social experiences and gains compared with the tuition fee paid.