Results of the 2004/2005

University of Alberta Graduate Studies Survey

&
Graduate Student CVs

Prepared for the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research

at the University of Alberta
Introduction
In order to measure the progress made towards FGSR’s key strategic initiative to
“promote and maintain excellence in graduate programs,” set out in the 4-year strategic
business plan, FGSR developed two projects. First, in August 2003, FGSR introduced a
smaller survey to complement the more comprehensive Graduate Studies Exit Survey.
This project was undertaken in order to try to increase the rate of return in student
evaluations by asking students to complete the survey at the FGSR counter when they
were handing in their final copy of their thesis. This process has had a 69.6% rate of
return for doctoral convocants, and a 39.8% rate of return for master’s convocants.
Second, in March 2003, FGSR Council approved the mandatory submission of student
CVs at the time of thesis submission. This was done both to obtain measurement of the
number of awards, presentations, performances and exhibitions, and to provide some
essential information about the impact graduate students at the U of A are having in the
academic and broader communities by capturing information on their research and
volunteer activities. As a result of these projects, 610 short surveys and 615 CVs were
collected throughout the 2004-05 academic year. These were analyzed in this report
which has been prepared by Murray Bessette, a summer research assistant. This year’s
report has added value over that of last year as the results of the 2004-05 academic year
have been compared with those of the previous year. These projects have allowed FGSR
to measure performance in a number of areas dealing with graduate education at the
University of Alberta. The information will be shared with departments and plans are to
continue the projects with a new report to be prepared next summer.

Note on the Scope of the Survey

Given that the respondents to this year’s survey were almost evenly split between
graduates of the Fall 2004 (51.1%) and Spring 2005 (48.9%) terms, it seems reasonable
to conclude that the survey results will reflect accurately the opinions of graduates from
the 2004-05 academic year. There were 418 graduates of thesis-based master’s programs
at the U of A who completed the survey in the 2004-05 academic year, this number
represents 39.8% of the 1050 thesis-based and course-based master’s students who
convocated this year. Only one course-based Master’s student completed the survey. This
lack of course-based respondents is due to the fact that course-based students do not have
to submit their final project to FGSR, and thus are not provided with the opportunity to
complete the “University of Alberta Graduate Studies Survey.” Thus, as was the case last
year, the opinions expressed by the survey results do not reflect those of course-based
master’s students. Because course-based students do not have the opportunity to complete
the survey, FGSR continues to miss out on an important opportunity: to compare the
performance of the course-based master’s programs to their thesis-based counterparts.
The U of A received completed surveys from 192, or 69.6%, of the 276 doctoral students
who convocated in the 2004-05 academic year.

2
Table 1: Change in survey ratio of thesis-based master’s and doctoral graduates by Faculty
Faculty Master’s to Doctoral Change
(04/05) (03/04)
Agriculture, Food & Home Economics 2.0 to 1 2.5 to 1 - 20%
Arts 4.0 to 1 1.6 to 1 + 150%
Business 0.33 to 1 N/A N/A
Education 0.6 to 1 0.2 to 1 + 200%
Engineering 3.3 to 1 4.5 to 1 - 27%
Law N/A N/A N/A
Medicine & Dentistry 1.9 to 1 1.5 to 1 + 27%
Nursing 4.5 to 1 5.0 to 1 - 10%
Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences 0.7 to 1 N/A N/A
Physical Education & Recreation 2.2 to 1 1.8 to 1 + 22%
Rehabilitation Medicine 6.0 to 1 N/A N/A
Science 2.2 to 1 1.1 to 1 + 100%

Students from eleven faculties completed the survey, an increase of three over the
previous year. Five of the eight faculties from which graduates of both thesis-based
master’s and doctoral programs completed the survey in both years saw the ratio of
thesis-based master’s to doctoral graduates increase: Arts (+ 150%), Education (+200%),
Medicine & Dentistry (+ 27%), Physical Education & Recreation (+ 22%) and Science (+
100%). On the other hand, Agriculture, Forestry & Home Economics (- 20%),
Engineering (- 27%) and Nursing (- 10%), saw a decrease in the same ratio. Of those
faculties that had graduate students who completed the survey, only the Law Faculty had
no doctoral respondents, which is expected as they do not have a doctoral program.

Note that for the remainder of the report when comparing data across faculties
some faculties will be grouped together. This has been done both to maintain consistency
with last year’s results and to facilitate comparisons between the results of both years.

The groupings, with the number of students in brackets, are as follows:

o Group 0: N/A, respondent provided no method of identifying their Faculty (2);
o Group A: Agriculture, Forestry & Home Economics and Physical Education &
Recreation (80);
o Group B: Arts, Business, Education and Law (134);
o Group C: Medicine & Dentistry, Nursing, Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences
and Rehabilitation Medicine (100);
o Group D: Engineering (146);
o Group E: Science (148).

The rationale behind the grouping of certain faculties last year was two-fold. First,
was the numerical size of the group; more equivalent sizes allowed for more effective
comparisons, and a smaller margin of error in statistical analysis. Second, the natures of
the faculties were taken into account when a group includes more than one, e.g., the
Faculties of Agriculture, Forestry & Home Economics and Physical Education &
Recreation both have programs in the social and natural sciences.

3
Recommendations:

o FGSR may wish to make the submission of a properly formatted CV a requirement of

all convocating students, in order to provide course-based students an opportunity to
complete the “University of Alberta Graduate Studies Survey.”

Student Self-Identification
Question 2 of the survey asked respondents to identify two things: their home
department and their specialization. Students listed 64 of the 65 departments offering
graduate programs (note, four respondents failed to specify their department). Further,
166 separate specializations were listed by our graduates. This is a good indication of the
substantial diversity of inquiry on the University campus.

Program Interruption & Time to Completion

Question 3 asked: in what year did you begin studying for this degree? Except for
six respondents (who provided no response), all survey participants began their studies
between the years 1991 and 2004. As expected, the proportion of thesis-based master’s
vis-à-vis doctoral graduates increases with every year until thesis-based master’s students
almost exclusively compose the graduating cohort (see Table 2, below).

Table 2: Year graduates began study for their current degree (raw number & percentage)
Year Total # of Graduates Master’s (thesis) Doctoral
N/A 6 4 2
1991 1 0 1
1992 1 0 1
1994 2 0 2
1995 3 0 3
1996 13 2 11
1997 19 2 17
1998 44 5 39
1999 62 14 48
2000 87 39 48
2001 105 91 14
2002 227 221 6
2003 36 36 0
2004 4 3 1

The maximum interruption of any program of ten terms was experienced by one
student, while twelve students experienced an interruption of one term. It is notable that
all seven of the doctoral students who began studying prior to 1996 experienced a
program interruption of between four and ten terms. The proportions of students who
experienced a program interruption by year of program start can be found below in Table
3.

4
Table 3: Program interruption by the year students began their studies (raw number & percentage)
Year Total # of Graduates # Who Experienced an Interruption
N/A 6 2
1991 1 1
1992 1 1
1994 2 2
1995 3 3
1996 13 2
1997 19 5
1998 44 9
1999 62 5
2000 87 12
2001 105 7
2002 227 5
2003 36 0
2004 4 0

From the information collected by the survey, we can estimate the time to
completion for each program. Note, the following numbers are generalizations, not exact
times, as students do not all start and finish at the same time (e.g., students in Spring
Convocation in June can finish as far back as October the previous year), nor did the
survey ask whether students completed their program full- or part-time. Thus, these
estimates ought to be regarded as the upper-limit when examining time to completion.
When we analyze the data, we see that it takes approximately 2.97 years for students to
complete a thesis-based master’s program. However, if we exclude those students who
interrupted their program, then this time decreases to 2.85 years (a difference of about 44
days). Doctoral programs, on the other hand, require approximately 5.77 years for
completion. Again, the exclusion of those students who happened to experience a
program interruption decreases this time to 5.54 years (a difference of about 84 days).
These estimated times compare favorably with those of last year: 3.44 years for thesis-
based master’s programs and 5.83 years for doctoral programs.

Table 4: Estimated time to completion by group (in years)

Group* Master’s Change Doctoral Change
2004-05 2003-04 2004-05 2003-04
A 2.92 3.43 - 0.51 5.63 5.69 - 0.06
B 2.93‡ 3.74 - 0.81 6.44#β 6.24 + 0.20
C 3.48†‡ 4.04 - 0.56 5.81 5.85 - 0.04
D 2.70† 3.02 - 0.32 5.09# 5.27 - 0.18
E 2.99 3.40 - 0.41 5.60β 6.21 - 0.61
All 2.97 3.44 - 0.47 5.77 5.83 - 0.06
* Group A = AFHE and Phys Ed; Group B = Arts, Business, Ed and Law; Group C = Medicine &
Dentistry, Nursing, Pharm and Rehab Medicine; Group D = Engineering; Group E = Science.
‡ There is a marginally significant difference (P=0.054).
† There is a significant difference (0.000).
# There is a significant difference (0.011).
β There is a marginally significant difference (0.087).

Comparing completion times for the thesis-based master’s program across

faculties one finds three below (Group A at 2.92 years, Group B at 2.93 years and Group
D at 2.70 years) and two above (Group C at 3.48 and Group E at 2.99 years) the average

5
estimated completion time of 2.97 years. When these completion times were analyzed
statistically, a significant difference was found in the completion rates of Groups C and D
(3.48 versus 2.70). There was also a marginally significant difference between Groups C
and B (3.48 versus 2.93; see Table 4 above and Figure 1 below).

Figure 1: Estimated Time to Completion by Group

All
Science
Engineering
Master's
Med/Nurs/Rehab
Arts/Bus/Ed/Law
AFHE/Phys Ed
2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5
Years

Likewise, for the doctoral programs one finds three groups below (Group A at
5.63 years, Group D at 5.09 years and Group E at 5.60) and two above (Group B at 6.44
years and Group C at 5.81 years) the average estimated completion time of 5.77 years. At
the doctoral level there was a significant difference in the rates of completion between
Groups B and D (6.44 versus 5.09) and a marginally significant difference between
Groups B and E (6.44 versus 5.60; see Table 4 above and Figure 2 below).

Figure 2: Estimated Time to Completion by Group

All
Science
Engineering
Doctoral
Med/Nurs/Rehab
Arts/Bus/Ed/Law
AFHE/Phys Ed
5 5.25 5.5 5.75 6 6.25 6.5
Year

Finally, it is important to note that there is a significant negative correlation

between the overall satisfaction of the student with their graduate experience and the rate
of completion at the doctoral level (- 0.271), a trend which is to be expected as it
indicates that the faster students complete their program the more satisfied they tend to be
with their program overall. There was no significant correlation at the master’s level.

6
 Included in the estimated time to completion is any program interruption that
students may have experienced. Of all graduates surveyed in question 4 (since beginning
study for this degree, did you interrupt your studies for a term or more?), only 8.5% (or
52 students) had interrupted their studies during the course of their degree, and of these
53.8% (or 28 students) only interrupted them for 1-2 terms. On the basis of the survey,
the proportion of thesis-based master’s students who experienced an interruption in their
graduate program was lower than that of doctoral students (Master’s: 7.7% vs. Doctoral:
10.4%).

Recommendations:

o FGSR may wish to research both the common causes of program interruptions and
the decisions to return to complete one’s program.
o FGSR may wish to inquire how this compares to graduate programs across Canada.

Satisfaction with Departments, FGSR, GSA & Program

Question 7 of the survey (seen below) asked graduates to rate their satisfaction
with various aspects of their university experience, from the services provided by their
home department and FGSR, to those provided by the Graduate Students’ Association, to
the content and instruction of their graduate courses and their graduate program
generally.

7. Please rate your satisfaction with the following:

a) Program advice from your Department Office
b) General communication with Department Office staff
c) Orientation services provided by your Department
d) Your graduate coordinator

Table 5: Satisfaction with program advice from Department Office (Raw Scores; 5 = highest)
1 2 3 4 5 N/A Average Change from 2003-04
2004-05 7 23 116 271 181 12 4.00 - 0.11
Percentage 1.1 3.8 19.0 44.4 29.7 1.97 - -

Table 6: Satisfaction with general communication with Department Office staff (Raw Scores; 5 = highest)
1 2 3 4 5 N/A Average Change from 2003-04
2004-05 6 14 98 254 228 10 4.14 - 0.21
Percentage 1.0 2.3 16.1 41.6 37.4 1.6 - -

Table 7: Satisfaction with orientation services provided by Department (Raw Scores; 5 = highest)
1 2 3 4 5 N/A Average Change from 2003-04
2004-05 9 44 170 245 132 10 3.75 - 0.03
Percentage 1.5 7.2 27.9 40.2 21.6 1.6 - -

Table 8: Satisfaction with Graduate Coordinator (Raw Scores; 5 = highest)

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Average Change from 2003-04
2004-05 8 19 97 223 248 15 4.15 -
Percentage 1.3 3.1 15.9 36.6 40.7 2.5 - -

7
 Student responses revealed that the satisfaction of graduates with their home
department is reasonably high (74.5% - or almost three-quarters – of students who
answered questions 7 a-d rated it at either 4 or 5 out of 5). Specifically, when asked to
rate their satisfaction with the program advising on the part of their department, the
average rating was 4.00 out of a possible 5, with 75.6% of respondents rating their
satisfaction as 4 or 5, and only 5.0% rating it as 1 or 2. When asked about the general
communication with the departmental staff the average rating was 4.14 out of 5, with
80.3% providing a score of either 4 or 5, and only 3.3% providing a score of 1 or 2. We
found that students were least satisfied with departmental orientation services, which
received an average rating of 3.75 out of 5, with 62.8% of students rating it as 4 or 5, and
8.8% scoring it at 1 or 2. Finally, this year’s survey included a new question which
inquired about student satisfaction with their graduate coordinator, who received an
average rating of 4.15 out of a possible 5, with 79.2% of respondents rating their
satisfaction as 4 or 5, and only 4.5% rating it as 1 or 2.
Furthermore, this year’s larger sample size allowed us to determine whether there
was a significant difference in departmental satisfaction across Groups. This analysis
revealed a significant difference in the responses to one question only: satisfaction with
the communication of departmental office staff. The significant difference (P=0.031) was
between Group C (Medicine & Dentistry, Nursing, Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences
and Rehabilitation Medicine) and Group E (Science), where Group C and Group E had
average scores of 3.93 (-0.21 from average) and 4.26 (+0.14 from average) respectively.
It is important to note both that the average satisfaction rating of each question
decreased slightly from 2003-04, and that satisfaction with orientation services, which are
extremely important, continues to have the lowest rating.

Recommendations:

o Orientation services remain the major area in which departments must improve.
• FGSR may wish to play a more active role in the GSA, International Centre
and departmental orientations.
• Orientation services provided by the departments could be more effectively
combined with those of the GSA.
• FGSR, in conjunction with the departments and the GSA, could survey
students in order to determine what they think is necessary for orientation to
be as effective as possible. Further, given the special requirements of
international students, FGSR could conduct a more specialized survey with
the aid of the International Centre.

7. Please rate your satisfaction with the following:

e) Services provided by Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research
f) Services provided by the Graduate Students' Association

Table 9: Satisfaction with FGSR services (Raw Scores; 5 = highest)

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Average Change from 2003-04
2004-05 2 6 112 275 203 12 4.12 - 0.21
Percentage 0.3 1.0 18.4 45.1 33.3 1.97 - -

8
 Question 7 also asked students to rate their satisfaction with the services provided
by FGSR. The results of this year were reasonably high. FGSR received an average score
of 4.12 out of a possible 5, with 79.9% of respondents rating their satisfaction at either 4
or 5, and only 1.3% of respondents rating it at either 1 or 2! It should be noted that there
was a marginally significant difference (0.067) between the satisfaction of Group B
(4.04) and Group D (4.29). Finally, FGSR’s average score, like those of its departmental
counterparts, decreased when compared to that of last year.

Table 10: Satisfaction with Graduate Students’ Association (Raw Scores; 5 = highest)
1 2 3 4 5 N/A Average Change from 2003-04
2004-05 16 37 231 214 94 18 3.56 -
Percentage 2.6 6.1 37.9 35.1 15.4 3.0 - -

For the first time, this year’s survey asked about student satisfaction with the
Graduate Student’s Association. The results, seen in Table 10 above, differ quite notably
from those of either the departments or FGSR, and perhaps seem to reflect a lack of
familiarity with the GSA. The GSA’s average score of 3.56 out of a possible 5 is the
lowest rate of satisfaction recorded by this year’s survey. Further, we see that only a
slight majority (50.5%) of respondents rated their satisfaction with the GSA at either 4 or
5, and that 8.7% of respondents rated their satisfaction at either 1 or 2. The large number
of students who rated the GSA services at 3 may also be indicative of indifference to, or a
lack of knowledge about, the services provided by the GSA.

7. Please rate your satisfaction with the following:

g) The content of your graduate courses
h) The instruction you received in your graduate courses
i) Your graduate program

Table 11: Satisfaction with course content (Raw Scores; 5 = highest)

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Average Change from 2003-04
2004-05 3 38 115 296 149 9 3.91 - 0.10
Percentage 0.5 6.2 18.9 48.5 24.4 1.5 - -

Table 12: Satisfaction with course instruction (Raw Scores; 5 = highest)

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Average Change from 2003-04
2004-05 2 22 97 282 190 17 4.07 - 0.09
Percentage 0.3 3.6 15.9 46.2 31.1 2.8 - -

Table 13: Satisfaction with graduate program (Raw Scores; 5 = highest)

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Average Change from 2003-04
2004-05 3 13 68 321 191 14 4.15 - 0.02
Percentage 0.5 2.1 11.1 52.6 31.3 2.3 - -

Question 7 also asked the students both how satisfied they were with the content
and instruction of their graduate courses, and how satisfied they were with their program
generally. The average rating of student satisfaction with their course content was 3.91
out of a possible 5, with 74.0% rating it at either 4 or 5, and 6.7% rating it at 1 or 2. At
4.07, the average student satisfaction with course instruction was higher than that of

9
course content. Further, 79.6% rated their satisfaction with the instruction of their
graduate courses as either 4 or 5, while only 4.1% rated it at 1 or 2. We should note that
in both these cases there was a significant difference when scores were compared across
Groups. There was a marginally significant difference in the case of course content
(0.081) between Group B (4.07) and Group E (3.79), while a significant difference
between the scores for course instruction (0.008) was between Group B (4.24) and Group
C (3.88). Finally, with respect to the question of general satisfaction with their graduate
program, the average student rating was 4.15 out of 5, with 85.9% of respondents rating
their satisfaction as either 4 or 5 out of 5, and only 2.6% rating it at 1 or 2.
As in the case of student satisfaction with departmental and faculty services, there
was a general decline in the level of expressed satisfaction with graduate courses when
compared to 2003-04, as revealed by the percentage of respondents who rated their
satisfaction as either 4 or 5 (course content: 74.0% versus 80% last year; course
instruction: 79.6% versus 85.8% last year). However, while the average rating of overall
satisfaction with graduate programs decreased, the rate of satisfaction revealed by the
percentage of respondents who rated their satisfaction as either 4 or 5 increased (overall
program: 85.9% versus 83.1% last year).

Satisfaction with Other Aspects of Graduate Programs

8. How satisfied were you with your supervisor?

Question 8 asked students about their satisfaction with their supervisor. As can be
seen in Table 14 below, the average respondent rating was 4.34 out of a possible top
score of 5, but what truly is notable in these numbers is that a substantial majority of
students (59.1%) rated their satisfaction as 5 out of 5. General satisfaction with
supervision was very high with 83.5% rating it as either 4 or 5, while 6.5% rating their
satisfaction with their supervisor at 1 or 2. Further, we find a marginally significant
difference between the satisfaction of Group B: Arts, Business, Education and Law
(4.49), and Group C: Medicine & Dentistry, Nursing, Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical
Sciences and Rehabilitation Medicine (4.15). Finally, this year’s results represent an
increased level of satisfaction with supervision when compared to that recorded last year.

Table 14: Satisfaction with supervisor (Raw Scores; 5 = highest)

Item 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Average Change from 2003-04
2004-05 16 24 58 150 359 3 4.34 + 0.10
Percentage 2.6 3.9 9.5 24.6 58.9 0.5 - -

Recommendations:

o It may be helpful to have better orientation for new faculty who will be supervising,
or to find more incentives to encourage new faculty to attend the graduate supervision
workshops already offered by FGSR.

While the numbers above reflect a very good assessment of the quality of
supervision at the U of A, this is not entirely surprising. One should expect that the

10
relationship between most supervisors and students would be a healthy one. Regardless,
there must be improvement, especially given the pivotal role which supervisors play in
the educational program of graduate students. An overall satisfaction rating (indicated by
a score of 4 or 5), of 90% or above does not seem to be an unrealistic goal.

9. Did you complete Comprehensive Examinations (i.e. not candidacy examinations, but
exams which test your general knowledge in a broad area of your discipline) in your
program? If Yes, how satisfied were you with them?

Table 15: Satisfaction with comprehensive examinations (Raw Scores; 5 = highest)

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Average Change
2004-05 1 3 20 69 55 3 4.18 + 0.36
Percentage 0.7 2.0 13.2 45.7 36.4 2.0 - -

Comprehensive examinations, which test students’ general knowledge in a broad

area of their discipline, are an important part of many doctoral programs. Question 9 of
the survey indicated that 24.8% of all graduate students completed comprehensive
examinations. The proportion of positive responses was larger in those who had just
completed a doctoral program, where 51.6% of graduates indicated that they had written
comprehensive examinations, while only 12.4% of master’s students indicated the same.
Given that comprehensive exams are not a requirement of master’s programs, it is
possible that these students reflect doctoral students who have moved down to a master’s
degree. The average rating of satisfaction was 4.18 out of a possible 5. Notably, of those
respondents who did complete comprehensive exams, 82.1% rated their satisfaction at 4
or 5 out of 5, meaning that a very large majority of students were satisfied or very
satisfied with their exams. Equally notable, only 2.7% of students indicated that they
were dissatisfied (score of 2), or very dissatisfied (score of 1) with their comprehensive
examinations. When compared to the results of last year, this year’s results represent both
a marked increase in the level of general satisfaction (82.1% versus 65% last year), and a
marked decrease in the level of general dissatisfaction (2.7% versus 10% last year).

Recommendations:

o A separate question which asks both whether students completed candidacy exams,
and if so, how satisfied they were with them should be added to the survey for next
year.

Table 16: Satisfaction with financial support (Raw Scores; 5 = highest)

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Average Change from 2003-04
2004-05 25 47 112 189 210 27 3.87 -
Percentage 4.1 7.7 18.4 31.0 34.4 4.4 - -

10. How satisfied were you with the financial support you received during your graduate
program?

Question 10 was added to this year’s survey to get an idea of student satisfaction
with the financial support they receive during their studies. While the average score was
only a 3.87 out of a possible 5 (the third lowest score of the survey), the distribution of

11
the responses (seen in Table 16 above) reveals a positive trend. Notably, over a third of
respondents (36.0%) indicated that they were ‘very satisfied’ (score of 5 out of 5) with
their financial support. Similarly, 32.4% of students indicated that they were ‘satisfied’
(score of 4 out of 5). Together, over two-thirds of students (68.4%) provided a positive
response, while only 12.3% provided a negative one (a score of 1 or 2 out of 5). In light
of the unusually large number of students who did not answer the question (27), one may
wish to consider a possible re-formulation of the question being asked.

Figure 3: Satisfaction with Financial Support

All
Science
Engineering
Group
Med/Nurs/Rehab
Arts/Bus/Ed/Law
AFHE/Phys Ed

3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Score (out of 5)

It is important to note that there was a significant difference in the satisfaction of

Group E (Science) and the satisfaction of both Group B (Arts, Business, Education and
Law) (P=0.007), and Group D (Engineering) (P=0.002) (see Figure 3 above). The
satisfaction of students in Group E regarding their financial support was 4.20, making
Group E the only group where satisfaction was rated higher than 4. The satisfaction
ratings of Groups B and D, on the other hand, were 3.74 and 3.70 respectively. Finally,
there was a significant negative correlation between of expressed funding satisfaction and
rate of completion at both the master’s (- 0.133) and doctoral (- 0.128) levels, indicating
that the faster a student completed their program the more likely they were to have been
satisfied with their financial support.

11. Overall, how satisfied are you with the graduate education you received at the
University of Alberta?
12. If you could choose again, would you choose the same program in graduate studies?
13. Would you refer your graduate program to a friend?

Table 17: Satisfaction with graduate education (Raw Scores; 5 = highest)

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Average Change from 2003-04
2004-05 4 11 61 295 237 2 4.23 - 0.04
Percentage 0.7 1.8 10.0 48.4 38.9 0.3 - -

Question 11 of the “University of Alberta Graduate Studies Survey” asked about

the general satisfaction with the graduate education students receive at the University of

12
Alberta. As revealed by this year’s results, satisfaction with graduate education is high,
with an average rating of 4.23. Further, 87.5% of respondents replied that they were
either satisfied or very satisfied (score of 4 or 5 out of 5) with the education they received
at the University of Alberta, while only 2.5% replied that they were either dissatisfied or
very dissatisfied (score of 1 or 2). Overall student satisfaction was strongly correlated
with student satisfaction with their financial support (0.401), as was the correlation
between overall student satisfaction and student satisfaction with coursework (0.452), and
between overall satisfaction and student satisfaction with their supervisor (0.510).

Table 18: If you could choose again, would you choose the same program (1 = No, 3 = Maybe, 5 = Yes)
1 2 3 4 5 N/A Average Change from 2003-04
2004-05 35 32 111 149 282 1 4.00 - 0.14
Percentage 5.7 5.2 18.2 24.4 46.2 0.2 - -

When we compare student responses to question 11 with those of questions 12,

we see a recurring trend from last year. When it came to student satisfaction with their
graduate education, 87.5% of respondents replied that they were either satisfied or very
satisfied (score of 4 or 5 out of 5), while in comparison only 71.5% of students indicated
the same with regard to their again choosing the same program. As expected, there was a
very strong correlation (0.539) between overall satisfaction and whether or not a student
would re-choose their program.
As seen in Table 19 below, the responses to question 13 (would you refer your
graduate program to a friend?) were very positive, with a large number of students
indicating that they would definitely refer their graduate program to a friend. Almost half
of those who answered the question (47.7%) gave a score of 5 out of a possible 5, while
almost three-quarters (74.9%) of students rated this question a 4 or 5 out of 5. What is
most notable, however, is that there is a very strong correlation between overall
satisfaction with one’s graduate education and the likelihood that a student would refer
their program to a friend (0.631).

Table 19: Would you refer your program to a friend (1 = No, 3 = Maybe, 5 = Yes)
1 2 3 4 5 N/A Average Change from 2003-04
2004-05 25 20 106 166 291 2 4.12 -
Percentage 4.1 3.3 17.3 27.1 47.5 0.3 - -

Taken together, these results could be seen as confirmation of what was

tentatively concluded last year, that student satisfaction with both their degree program
and the education they received are not absolute indicators of each other. This conclusion
is consistent with the fact that some students develop different interests over the course of
their studies from those which they had when they first undertook them, and that in light
of these, they may wish that they had enrolled in another program more inline with these
new interests – a sort of “if I knew then what I know now” phenomenon, and thus an
indication of intellectual growth. Conversely, it could also be a reflection of the evolution
of programs while students are in them.

13
Recommendations:

o The U of A would benefit from asking students about what they consider to be the
defining factor in their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their graduate education.
o It may be beneficial to ask those students who would not choose the same program
again what program they would choose and why.
o It may also prove to be beneficial to compare the results of the survey with the ratings
of the graduate program reviews.

Note on the Data Concerning Student Research Productivity

Question 5 of the “University of Alberta Graduate Studies Survey” asked student
about their research contributions during the course of their studies here at the U of A.
The question divided research contributions into four categories:
o Conferences: Presented Paper, Presented Poster, Attended;
o Publications: Articles, Chapters/Books, Submitted, In Progress;
o Appearances: Performances, Exhibitions, Invited Talks;
o Development: Patents
Regrettably, this information cannot be examined simultaneously with the data collected
from the CVs which students were asked to submit along with their completed theses.
The reason for this is two-fold. First, in response to the survey questions dealing with
research contributions many respondents simply indicated that they had completed some
of the contributions listed (either by a checkmark or by writing ‘yes’), without indicating
the number of each they had completed, and as such, cannot be effectively quantified and
compared. Second, the data collected in either case are in response to a different question.
On the one hand, the survey asks for students to state how many research contributions
they made during the course of their most recent degree, while on the other hand, the
CVs provide how many research contributions the student has made over the course of
their entire academic and professional careers, both during their last degree and previous
to it. As a final note, those students who simply marked ‘yes’ have been excluded from
the following statistical analysis.

The Categories
According to their CVs the graduate students at the University of Alberta are
responsible for 6887 separate external research contributions over the course of their
academic and professional careers, for an average of 11.2 contributions per student (an
increase over last year of 0.9 contributions per student). The research contributions listed
in the 615 student CVs have been placed into the following 4 categories and 23 sub-
categories:
o Publications (3059):
o Refereed Journal (592);
o Non-Refereed (1468);
o Abstract (540);
o Submitted (140);
o In Progress (147);
o Book (23);
o Chapter (49);

14
 o Conference (78);
o Translations (2);
o Editing (20);
o Conferences (2701):
o Refereed Presentations (172);
o Non-Refereed Presentations (1717);
o Attended (299);
o Proposals (6);
o Panels Chaired (507);
o Invited Presentations (1112):
o Lectures (244);
o Papers/Reports (387);
o Talks (390);
o Exhibitions (35);
o Performances (56);
o Inventions/Patents (15):
o Patents (5);
o Patent Applications (6);
o Inventions (4).
The categories listed above are not those uniformly used by students in their CVs but are
rather the most appropriate groupings that can comprise all of their research
contributions.

External Research Productivity of Students As Indicated in Their CVs

As expected, the majority of research contributions (69.6%) come from
graduating doctoral students (compared to 70% last year), who compose 38.4% of the
graduating students who submitted CVs (this proportion is different from the one given
by the analysis of the “University of Alberta Graduate Studies Survey” where doctoral
graduates only composed 31.5% of respondents). In every category above, save one,
doctoral students were responsible for either the majority or all of the items listed. The
one exception was exhibitions where only 40.0% were listed by doctoral graduates, this
represents an increase over the 27.3% that were listed by doctoral students last year. In
three of the categories above, doctoral graduates were responsible for 100% of the listed
contributions: translations, patents, and inventions.
Above it was stated that graduating students averaged 11.2 external research
contributions over their academic and professional careers, but this number should be
further differentiated by separating those who have just completed a master’s program
from those who have just completed a doctoral program. If we do so, we find that on
average a graduating master’s student has 5.5 external research contributions (a decrease
of 0.1 from last year), while a graduating doctoral student has almost four times as many,
or 20.3 on average, which represents an increase of 3.9 from last year.
These numbers reflect a very strong research capability in the majority of
graduate students, but what notable is that only 23.5% of master’s students (versus 23.8%
last year) and 4.2% of doctoral students (compared to 7% last year) do not have any listed
research contributions.

15
Recommendations:

o Offer training sessions on how to publish academic papers.

o Conference attendance could be facilitated by a combination of both more frequent
travel grants and better communication with regard to the current availability of travel
grants.
o Examine methods of increasing student-supervisor collaboration in the areas of
publications and presentations, or the funding of University of Alberta based
conferences and journals.
o Increasing the awareness of Master’s students with regard to the importance of
participation within the research community of their discipline is important.

External Research Productivity of Students As Indicated by the Surveys

According to the responses provided to question 5 of the “University of Alberta
Graduate Studies Survey,” only 11.1% of respondents (down from 12% last year)
indicated that they had made absolutely no external research contribution over the course
of the graduate degree that they had just completed. This group of students comprises 62
Master's and 6 Doctoral graduates.
In analyzing the 62 Master’s students, it is helpful to use the groups set out at the
outset of this report. One student that had not made an external research contribution did
not indicate with home department. Group A had 3 Master’s students who reported no
research contributions; these students represent 3.8% of the students who convocated as
members of this group (a substantial decrease from the 11.3% of last year). Group B had
23 Master’s students without external research contributions, representing 17.2% of
graduating students of this group (a marked increase over the 5.8% of last year). Group C
had 6 Master’s students without a research contribution, representing 6.0% (again this
represents a substantial decrease from the 24.4% seen last year). Group D had 19
Master’s students, or 13.0% of their graduates, without a research contribution (an
increase over last year of 4.5%). And finally, Group E had 10, or 6.8%, of Master’s
graduates without an external research contribution (an increase from the 2.9% of last
year). In the case of the Doctoral Students, the 6 students who reported no external
research contributions came from two groups: Group A (1) and Group B (5).
Question 5 (a) asked graduates about various kinds of conference participation
during the course of their last degree. Overall, the students’ responses reveal that a
substantial majority (81.6%) had participated in a conference either by presenting a paper
(55.7%) or a poster (44.3%), or simply by attending (54.9%). Breaking these numbers
down, we see that 95.8% of graduating doctoral students had in someway participated in
a conference either by presenting a paper (74.0%) or a poster (65.1%), or simply by
attending (65.1%), during the course of their studies at the U of A. On the other hand,
75.1% of graduating master’s students either presented a paper (47.4%) or a poster
(34.7%), or simply by attended a conference (50.2%) while studying at the University of
Alberta. The average number of each kind of conference participation per graduate
student (excluding those who simply marked ‘Yes’ or ‘9’) are: 1.4 for presented papers,
1.0 for presented posters and 1.8 conference attendances.
Question 5 (b) asked about four kinds of publications: articles, chapters/books,
submitted and in progress. Student responses to the question reveal that 68.0% of

16
graduates had at least one published article (44.3%) or chapter/book (6.7%), or had
submitted work for publication (26.4%), or had work in progress (37.9%). If we again
break these numbers down, then we see that 92.2% of doctoral students indicated that
they had at least one published article (77.6%) or chapter/book (14.1%), or had submitted
work for publication (40.6%), or had work in progress (52.1%). Conversely, 56.9% of
master’s students responded that they had at least one published article (28.9%) or
chapter/book (3.3%), or had submitted work for publication (19.9%), or had work in
progress (31.3%). On average, graduate students as a whole (excluding those who simply
marked ‘Yes’ or ‘9’) produced 1 article, 0.07 chapters/books, had submitted 0.4 works
for publication, and had 0.6 works in progress.
Unlike the responses to questions 5 (a) and 5 (b), those to questions 5 (c) and 5
(d) indicated that only a small number of students were involved in various kinds of
appearances and development. With respect to appearances, 23.9% of students indicated
that they had made an appearance of one kind or another. Specifically, 3.4% had
participated in a performance, 5.1% had participated in an exhibition, and 20.0% had
made an invited talk. In the case of doctoral students, 5.7% had participated in a
performance, 2.6% had participated in an exhibition, and 29.2% had made an invited talk.
The numbers for master’s students, on the other hand, are 2.4% had participated in a
performance, 6.2% had participated in an exhibition, and 15.8% had made an invited talk.
On average, graduate students (excluding those who simply marked ‘Yes’ or ‘9’)
appeared at 0.1 performances, 0.02 exhibitions, and 0.4 invited talks. With respect to the
question of participation in development, 13 students, or 2.1% of graduate students,
indicated that they had been granted a patent while a student at the University of Alberta.
Of these, all except 1 were graduates of a doctoral program, meaning that 6.3% of
doctoral students have been granted a patent, and 0.2% of master’s students are granted
the same. The number of patents granted per graduate student was 0.02.

Figure 4: Average Number of External Research Contributions

All
Science
Engineering
Master's
Med/Nurs/Rehab
Arts/Bus/Ed/Law
AFHE/Phys Ed

2 3 4 5 6

Combining all of these numbers at the master’s and doctoral levels, we can
express the average number of external research contributions per graduate student. Note,
those students that who simply marked ‘Yes’ or ‘9’ have been excluded. In the case of
master’s students, we see that they average 4.5 research contributions per student. We
should further note that there are some very significant differences between groups. There
is a marginally significant difference between Group B (2.7) and Group A (5.6); and
significant differences between Group B (2.7) and Groups C (5.5) and E (5.9), as well as

17
between Group D (3.7) and Group E (5.9) – see Figure 4 above. At the doctoral level, we
see an average of 14.1 research contributions per student, with only one difference that is
statistically significant between groups (0.063) that between Group B (Arts, Business,
Law) (11.3) and Group C (Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Rehab Med) (18.5) – see
Figure 5 below.

Figure 5: Average Number of External Research Contributions

All
Science
Engineering
Doctoral
Med/Nurs/Rehab
Arts/Bus/Ed/Law
AFHE/Phys Ed

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

When comparing the number of research contributions to overall satisfaction with

one’s graduate program we see that there is a significant positive correlation at the
doctoral level (0.185); we do not see the same at the master’s level. This correlation is to
be expected, as those who are actively engaged in research are typically those who are
interested in what they are researching. Further, the number of research contributions was
compared with student satisfaction with financial support. The comparison revealed a
strong positive correlation between the two at both the master’s (0.124) and the doctoral
(0.278) levels.

Student Awards
While the “University of Alberta Graduate Studies Survey” does not ask whether
students had received awards during the course of their most recent graduate degree, and
if so, the number and value of them, this information is provided in the CVs that the
students submitted along with their completed theses or dissertations. Unfortunately,
because a majority of students do not provide the value of awards, one cannot determine
the average amount of awards funding graduate students receive, but one can determine
both the average number of awards received and the proportion of students who are
receiving awards.
In total, those students who submitted a CV along with their thesis or dissertation
were given 3710 separate awards (including fellowships, scholarships, grants, etc.).
Averaged out this provides 6.0 awards per student (up from 5.1 per student last year). The
greatest number of awards won by any graduate student was 66, a marked increase over
last year’s 27. If we separate the master’s students from the doctoral students a different
picture emerges. Master’s students were awarded 1714 awards, an average of 4.5 awards
per student, which represents an increase of 0.5 from last year. The greatest number of
awards won by a master’s student was 38 (a substantial increase from last year’s 18). On

18
the doctoral side of this equation we find that 1996 awards were listed in the 236 doctoral
student CVs, giving an average of 8.5 awards per student (compared to 6.6 last year).

Recommendations:

o It may be useful for the CV to require that the student explicitly state both the total
number and approximate total value of awards won over the course of their most
recent graduate degrees, especially in order to collect data on awards which are not
adjudicated or affiliated with the University of Alberta.

Student Teaching Responsibilities

For the first time, this year’s survey asked students to indicate their teaching
responsibilities during their graduate program. Specifically, it asked whether the student
had been a primary instructor, a lecturer, had conducted seminars or tutorials, or had
engaged in marking. While laboratory TA experience was not asked about due to an
oversight, which has been corrected in the most recent version of the survey, some
students took the liberty to ‘write in’ this answer regardless.

Teaching responsibilities undertaken

Primary Instructor Lecturer Seminars Laboratories Tutorials Marking None
# of Grads 84 132 144 18* 166 292 221
% of Grads 13.7% 21.6% 23.6% 2.95%* 27.2% 47.9% 36.2%
* It is very likely that this number is only a fraction of the actual number as this year’s survey did not
explicitly ask about Laboratory TAs.

The results show that 63.8% of graduates undertook some form of teaching
responsibilities while completing their most recent graduate program. The most common
teaching responsibility was marking (47.9%), followed by tutorials (27.2%), seminars
(23.6%) and lectures (21.6%). The most uncommon teaching responsibility, excluding
labs, was that of primary instructor (13.8%). If we only look at the responses of master’s
students, we see that only 56.9% undertook teaching responsibilities. The most common
form was marking (51.7%), followed by tutorials (27.5%), seminars (22.5%) and lectures
(16.5%). The most uncommon teaching responsibility, excluding labs, was that of
primary instructor (8.6%). In the case of doctoral students, 78.6% undertook teaching
responsibilities of one kind or another. Likewise, the most common teaching
responsibility for doctoral students was marking (39.6%). But, unlike master’s students,
the second most likely form of teaching experience for doctoral students was lecturing
(32.8%), followed by tutorials (26.6%) and seminars (26.0%). Again, like master’s
students, the most uncommon teaching responsibility, excluding labs, was that of primary
instructor (25.0%).
The picture from the CVs is quite different. According to the CVs, 50.2% of
graduate students have undertaken teaching responsibilities at some point during their
academic career. This number, broken down at the master’s and doctoral levels, is 43.3%
and 60.2% respectively. The discrepancy between the numbers provided by the CVs and
those provided by the surveys is likely a result of chosen CV format, i.e., many students
who may be seeking professional, rather than academic, employment may have chosen
not to include their teaching experience in their CV.

19
Conclusions: What is Notable?
While there was an overall slight decrease in the expressed satisfaction of students
(see Figure 6 below), overall the results of this year’s survey continue to show that the
University of Alberta is doing well, that most students are ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’
with their graduate experience. In fact, each of the four questions (7i, 11, 12 and 13)
intended to capture the student’s general impression of their graduate experience had
ratings of 4 out of 5 or better!

Figure 6: Student Satisfaction as Indicated by Survey

Average Score (out of 5)

4.5

4.3

4.1 2004-05
3.9 2003-04

3.7

3.5
7a 7b 7c 7d 7e 7f 7g 7h 7i 8 9 10 11 12 13
Question

With regard to particular questions of satisfaction, a substantial majority of

students continued to indicate that they were satisfied with their supervisors, their
funding, their course content and instruction, and their overall graduate experience.
However, the survey also revealed that orientation services continue to garner the lowest
rating of student satisfaction, indicating that orientation services remain the major area in
which departments must improve. While there are also other obvious places for
improvement, overall students seem to report that they are happy with their graduate
experience at the U of A.

20