A study on Students Perceived Learning Gains from a Master's Degree

The topic revolves around understanding and analyzing the perceived educational and personal advancements that master's students report during their academic programs.
The survey covers gains in broad learning domains that are important aims for master's-level study. The findings will allow comparisons between different groups of students. By better understanding master's students' self-reported learning outcomes, steps can be taken to improve their educational experience and ability to succeed after graduation.
This survey assesses master's students' perceptions of how much they have gained in key areas like subject knowledge, critical thinking, research skills, and overall learning through their graduate program.
The results will help identify strengths and weaknesses in the program's curriculum, instruction, and support services. Feedback from students on their learning gains provides valuable insights that can guide efforts to enhance the quality of master's education.

1. Master's Students' Perceived Learning Gains Mayank Ranjan 2348041 MDS272

2. Introduction The topic revolves around understanding and analyzing the perceived educational and personal advancements that master's students report during their academic programs. This survey assesses master's students' perceptions of how much they have gained in key areas like subject knowledge, critical thinking, research skills, and overall learning through their graduate program. The results will help identify strengths and weaknesses in the program's curriculum, instruction, and support services. Feedback from students on their learning gains provides valuable insights that can guide efforts to enhance the quality of master's education. 

3. Survey Design and Data Collection: Develop a survey instrument and Collect responses from master's students, ensuring representation Data Cleaning and Preparation: Clean the dataset by addressing missing values, outliers, and any inconsistencies in responses. Convert relevant columns to numeric format for quantitative analysis. Explore the distribution of variables and identify potential issues. Descriptive Analysis: Provide summary statistics for demographic variables. Generate visualizations to depict the distribution of key variables. Formulating Objectives: Based on the responses received, formulating objectives around the data and testing the formulated hypothesis to better understand the association of the problem. Reporting and Interpretation: Summarize key findings for each objective. Provide visualizations to support the interpretation of results. Discuss the implications of the findings for program improvement. Limitations and Future Work: Acknowledge any limitations in the study, such as the reliance on self-reported data. Suggest potential areas for future research and improvements in survey design. Conclusion: Summarize the overall insights gained from the analysis. Emphasize the relevance of the findings for program administrators and educators. Methodology

4. SURVEY! The survey covers gains in broad learning domains that are important aims for master's-level study. The findings will allow comparisons between different groups of students. By better understanding master's students' self-reported learning outcomes, steps can be taken to improve their educational experience and ability to succeed after graduation.

5. Survey link is attached on the classroom

6. Responses

7. DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

8. OBJECTIVE Assessing the Impact of Program Structure on Likelihood of Recommendation Examine the Relationship Between Program Duration and Research Skills Investigate the Impact of Program Status on Overall Learning Experience 1 3 2

9. Assessing the Impact of Program Structure on the Likelihood of Recommendation 1 The objective is to investigate whether there is a significant relationship between students’ satisfaction with the overall structure and curriculum of the master’s program and their likelihood of recommending the program to prospective students.

10. Objective - 1 The objective is to investigate whether there is a significant relationship between students' satisfaction with the overall structure and curriculum of the master's program and their likelihood of recommending the program to prospective students. This investigation is crucial for understanding how the program's design and organization influence students' perceptions and, consequently, their advocacy for the program. Test: Chi-Square Test of Independence R Analysis: Apply a chi-square test to examine the association between the satisfaction with program structure and the likelihood of recommending the program. Hypothesis: The satisfaction with the overall structure and curriculum of the master's program is associated with the likelihood of recommending the program to prospective students. Null Hypothesis (H ) : There is no significant association between satisfaction with the overall structure and curriculum of the master's program and the likelihood of recommending the program to prospective students. Alternative Hypothesis (H 1 ): There is a significant association between satisfaction with the overall structure and curriculum of the master's program and the likelihood of recommending the program to prospective students .

11. Analysis Code

12. Inferences of the Objective The p-value of 0.007167 is less than the commonly used significance level of 0.05. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis, indicating a significant association between satisfaction with the program structure and the likelihood of recommending the program. The chi-squared statistic is 27.227 with 12 degrees of freedom. This indicates a significant association between the variables in the contingency table. In practical terms, this means that the likelihood of recommending the master’s program to prospective students is dependent on satisfaction with the overall structure and curriculum of the program. The relationship observed in the data is unlikely to be due to random chance.

13. Examine the Relationship Between Program Duration and Research Skills 2 The primary goal is to investigate whether there are significant differences in perceived gains, including subject knowledge, critical thinking, research skills, and overall learning, across various degree programs within the master’s program.

14. Objective - 2 The primary goal is to investigate whether there are significant differences in perceived gains, including subject knowledge, critical thinking, research skills, and overall learning, across various degree programs within the master’s program. Understanding these potential differences can offer insights into how the effectiveness of the master’s program varies among different academic disciplines. Statistical Test: One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is chosen because it allows us to compare the means of more than two groups simultaneously. In this context, it helps determine if there are significant differences in mean perceived gains across various degree programs. Hypotheses: Null Hypothesis (H ) : There is no significant difference in perceived gains (subject knowledge, critical thinking, research skills, overall learning) across different degree programs. Alternative Hypothesis ( H 1 ): There is a significant difference in perceived gains (subject knowledge, critical thinking, research skills, overall learning) across different degree programs.

15. Analysis Code

16. Inferences of the Objective ANOVA: Indicates that there are significant differences among the mean ratings for at least one learning aspect across different degree programs. This factor has a significant effect on the mean ratings for at least one of the learning aspects (p-value < 0.05). Now we will do post hoc tests to find the variability within each group. The table shows the differences between the means of different degree programs. Tukey's HSD: Highlights specific significant differences between pairs of degree programs: Significant Differences: Engineering-Other professional programs Engineering-Psychology Psychology-Other professional programs Psychology-Sciences (marginally significant, p-value close to 0.05) Sciences-Engineering (marginally significant, p-value close to 0.05)

17. Investigate the Impact of Program Status on Overall Learning Experience 3 This objective aims to explore whether there is a significant difference in the overall learning experience between master’s students with ongoing and finished programs.

18. Objective - 3 We have to investigate the Impact of Program Status on Overall Learning Experience. This objective aims to explore whether there is a significant difference in the overall learning experience between master’s students with ongoing and finished programs. By conducting an independent samples t-test, we can compare the mean overall learning experience scores between these two program statuses. Test: independent samples t-test Variables Required: Status of the degree (Categorical: Ongoing, Finished) , Overall learning experience ratings Hypothesis: Null Hypothesis (H ): There is no significant difference in overall learning experience between master’s students with ongoing and finished programs. Alternative Hypothesis (H 1 ): There is a significant difference in overall learning experience between master’s students with ongoing and finished programs.

19. Analysis Code

20. Inferences of the Objective The Welch Two Sample t-test was conducted to assess the difference in the mean overall learning experience scores between master's students with finished and ongoing programs. Here are the key findings: Test Statistic (t): 1.7512 Degrees of Freedom ( df ): 20.873 P-value: 0.09459 Interpretation: The p-value of 0.09459 suggests that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the mean overall learning experience scores are significantly different between master's students with ongoing and finished programs.

21. Conclusion Let's summarize the conclusions for each of the three objectives: Objective 1: The analysis reveals a significant association between students' satisfaction with the overall structure and curriculum of the master's program and their likelihood of recommending the program to prospective students. Implications: This finding is valuable for program evaluation and improvement, suggesting that enhancing satisfaction with the program structure could impact students' likelihood of recommending the program. Further exploration and targeted improvements may be considered based on this result. Objective 2: The ANOVA indicates significant differences in perceived gains (subject knowledge, critical thinking, research skills, and overall learning) across different degree programs. Tukey's HSD identifies specific pairs of degree programs with significantly different mean ratings for overall learning. Notable differences exist between Engineering-Other professional programs, Engineering-Psychology, Psychology-Other professional programs, and Psychology-Sciences (marginally significant). The results provide insights into programs that perform differently, guiding further investigation or intervention to enhance specific aspects of the master's program. Objective 3: The Welch Two Sample t-test does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude a significant difference in the mean overall learning experience scores between master's students with finished and ongoing programs. The analysis suggests that, at the 5% significance level, the overall learning experiences of students in finished and ongoing programs are not significantly different. Program status alone may not be a critical factor in determining overall learning experiences, and other variables may need consideration in future investigations.

22. Future Implications Continuous Improvement: Implement targeted enhancements based on satisfaction levels and specific program elements to continuously improve the overall structure and curriculum. Tailored Interventions: Develop interventions tailored to the unique needs of degree programs exhibiting significant differences in perceived gains. Curriculum Adjustments: Consider adjusting curriculum elements for programs with lower perceived gains, focusing on areas identified in the analysis. Longitudinal Studies: Explore changes in the impact of program status over time and across program milestones through longitudinal studies. Student Support Strategies: Develop targeted support strategies for students in both ongoing and finished programs, considering factors beyond program status. Benchmarking: Explore benchmarking against similar programs at other institutions to identify best practices and areas for improvement. Qualitative Insights: Enhance data collection by incorporating qualitative insights through interviews or focus groups for a deeper understanding of student experiences. Marketing Strategies: Utilize positive student experiences for effective marketing, emphasizing program strengths and aspects contributing to high satisfaction. Ongoing Feedback Mechanisms: Establish continuous feedback mechanisms to monitor changes in satisfaction levels and adjust program elements accordingly. In-depth Exploration: Conduct more in-depth investigations to identify additional factors influencing overall learning experiences, beyond program status.

23. THANKS! Feel free to ask any doubts, if any.