Snježana Dubovicki and Ines Banjari 
Students’ attitudes on thequality of universityteaching 
Abstract: Thequalityofuniversityeducationhasgainedattentioninrecentyears.Ithasbecomenot only the subject of research in areas closely related to education, but also the topic of interdiscipli­naryteaching, writing, andresearch around the globe. Ensuring thequalityof universityeducation has become a global trend and a priorityof modern society. In light of this, our research has grown. Theaimofthisstudywastoexplorestudents’ attitudesonthequalityofuniversityteachingviaits criteria,tolookat elementsthataffectquality,andtoobservedifferencesinthe attitudesofstudents from differentfaculties. Theresults, based ona sampleof173studentsfromfivefaculties, show that to create conditions that ensure andraise thequalityof university teaching, thefollowing criteria areimportant: that thefaculty wasstudents’first choice, thewaythe contentwouldbepresented, students’ regular participation in courses, and the positive social and emotional climate. 
Keywords: evaluation, criteria,quality, students’ attitudes, universityteaching 
UDC:378 
Scientific paper 
Snježana Dubovicki, Ph.D., teaching assistant, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, 
Faculty of Teacher Education, Ulica cara Hadrijana 10, 31000 Osijek, Croatia; 
e-mail for correspondence: sdubovicki@ufos.hr 

Ines Banjari, Ph.D., teaching assistant, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Faculty of Food Technology, Franje Kuhača 20, 31000 Osijek, Croatia; e-mail for correspondence: ibanjari@ptfos.hr 
JOURNALOFCONTEMPORARYEDUCATIONALSTUDIES 2/2014, 42–59 
Introduction 
The importance of thequality of university education (QUE) has been addressed worldwide. In Croatia, QUE was mostly evaluated on the basis of students’surveysattheendofeveryacademicyear.Basedonthesecriteria,one professor1wasmoresuccessfulthantheothersindependentlyofhowmanystudents2 participatedinhisevaluation.QUE cannotand shouldnotrely solelyonlyonthe results of such surveys.Recently in Croatia, boardsforquality assurance have been established, with the main purposeoffollowing,improving, andevaluating QUEon all universities’faculties.Significantdifficultiesin research onQUE arisefromthedifferenceindefinitionsand comprehensionofthequality.Ahuge shiftinthequalityassuranceofhigher education occurredwhenthe pedagogical-psychological and didactic-methodological training of research assistants was introduced.ThetrainingisdonebytheFacultyofTeacher EducationinOsijekto make meaningfulimprovementsinQUEattheUniversityofOsijek. 
Looking globally,the trend in high education is the implementation of different systemsforquality assurance with an emphasis on education, responsibility, and improvement (Kovač et al. 2002). The way in which students’ education is evaluatedrequiresthe sensitivecollectionofqualityindicators,andpoorestimations canruinotherwisefairlywell-developed curricula (Dubovicki2013;Erwin and Knight1995). Quality assurance in higher education is called the “social game of its own surveillance” with its main purpose being that the interested parties can be satisfied with the workof high education institutions (Mencer 2005). The needtoevaluate universityeducationwasrecognizedinCroatia,andin1995the national project The Quality of Teaching in Higher Education was started. Its maingoalwastolookattheinternationally acceptedcriteriaofQUE(especially at those closely related to universityprofessors’ competences), in what scale do they relateto universityeducationinCroatia,and accordingto thoseresultsto developa modelfor thedevelopmentof university staff, whichwouldhave the taskof buildinga “cultureofquality.”Thefirstphaseofthisprojectdetermined that Croatia’s practice is significantly different from international ones and that QUE(mainlyobservedfromstudents’aspects)isnotsatisfying.Thesecondphase includedthedevelopmentofamodelforimprovinguniversityeducationinCroatia. The basic principles usedforthedevelopmentof that modelwere:knowledgeis open, ensuring a dynamic system, university staffdevelopment should be based on“reflectivepractitioner”practice,and continuousqualityimprovement based onthe collegialityofuniversitystaff.Ledićetal.(1999)developedaquestionnaire with15elementsto assessstudents’ andprofessors’ attitudes. Theresearchwas conductedattheUniversityofRijekaand includedtheevaluationofperceptionsof idealandrealformsof educationattheuniversity.Theresultsshowedthattheir attitudes differ significantly, but professors show a higher level of criticism and dissatisfaction.Itisinterestingthatbothhavesimilar attitudestowardthequality ofteaching.Professorshaveatraditionalviewof educationquality,especiallywhen 
1Theterm“professor” considerspersonsofbothgendersteachinginuniversityprograms. 2Theterm“student”presentspersonsofbothgendersattending lecturesinuniversityprograms. 
“respectforstudents’ individual differences,respondingtostudents’feedback,and askingforfeedback” had thelowest ranging. 
It can be concluded that professors’ primaryinterests were themselves and their courses, whilestudents did nottypicallypresent the mainfocusof their interest. On the other hand, students did notdiffer much in their perceptions as well. They hada high opinionofprofessors who areexpertsin theirfield, and thosewhogradethemhonestlyandfairly.In addition,studentsreallyappreciated well-preparedprofessorsandtheavailabilityofresources.Even moreinteresting was thatstudents andprofessors considered thefollowing leastimportant: askingforfeedback,respondingtostudents’feedback, andrespectforstudents’ individual interests. Thesefindings pointed out thatstudents lack interest, which was confirmedbytheir commentsthroughoutthe wholequestionnaire,inother wordsexpressing negativeand pessimistic attitudes withoutanysignor desireof change,inthe sensethatanyattempttochangewouldbeatotalwasteof time. The elementsof thisquestionnaire are highly coveredin ours. 

The paradigm change toward QUE 
Authorsfrom thefieldof education researchhavedevelopeda numberof definitionsofquality,andtheyhavedifferent understandingsof which conditions areneededtoensureQUE.Asoneofthemain conditionsforuniversityeducation qualityassurance,Greene(1994)stressesthechangeinparadigm.“Paradigm[...] is a mental model on how the real world functions – it is in some way‘the closest guessing’ based on our experience and information we have got. Our beliefs, values and actions determine our paradigms. When we receive new information ourparadigmscanbe changed,andwhenthat happens,wewillprobablychange theway we think and act.” (Ibid.,p.13) 
Thatisreallythe case.Ifwestartteaching withan attitude thatstudents are not sufficiently interested in our course, if we think of them as lazy and not sufficiently active, that will surely maketeaching somewhat difficult and create anatmosphereinwhichweonlydoourlecturesmerelytodothem, withoutfinding personal satisfactionin ourjob.Ifwesethighstandardsforstudents,expecting themtogive theirbest: “[...]ifstudentssethighstandardsfor themselves,good chances are that theywill achieve these highstandards [...]. Whenyou aimfor the best, ‘satisfying’ willbe achieved on itsown.” (Ibid.,p.15) Therefore,itis necessaryto actively include ourselvesinmotivatingstudentsto ensurequality willnot absent.In theirviewonquality,HarveyandGreen(1993) thinkthata transformationis neededintermsoftheparties includedinthe entire education processandintermsofself-improvementbywhichstudentsgetmorejurisdiction overtheresponsibilityandmanagementofeducationprocess.Students’feedback cangreatlyaffectQUE. “Placingalearneratthecentershiftstheemphasisfrom thevalue-added measuresof enhancementtoempowerment.” (Ibid.,p.25)Students shouldget controlover their educationbybeing ableto chooseprogram suitable for them, as well as elective courses that would suit their interests and needs. 
Qualityassurance of universityeducation should be one of the mostimportant permanent goals, not a one-time event. Harveyand Green (1993) suggested that qualityisusedinfivewaysinthehigher educationdebate:excellence,perfection, fitnessforpurpose,valuefor money,andtransformation.Theydefinedqualityas atraditionalnotionofquality,qualityasperfectionor consistency,andqualityas fitnessfor purpose. TheTraditional Notion of Quality isrelatedtoaterm “high class,” somethingspecial,excellent, but withoutdetermining the guidelinesby whichQUE shouldbeevaluated.The Quality as Perfection or Consistency approach seesquality as consistent,intolerable,andaskingtosetup things accordingto teachingoutcomes;itis closelyrelatedtoa cultureofqualitythatsetsupequal responsibilityofallpartiesforQUE.Quality as Fitness for Purpose isanapproach suggesting thatqualityhas meaningonlyiftheproductor servicehasapurpose. Still,aroundworldaswellasinCroatia,nofirmcriteriahavebeendefinedbywhich qualityshouldbeevaluated.“Ifwewanttofindcorecriteriafor assessingquality inhigher educationitis essentialthatweunderstandthedifferentconceptionsof qualitythat inform the preferences of different stakeholders.” (Ibid., p. 29) 
MaguireandGibbs(2013)attempttoclarifythe meaningofquality:“Quality assessment can be culture or context bound, discriminatory, subjective, based on prejudiceasmuchandasoftenasitcanbe seentobeobjectiveandethical.” (Ibid., 
p.42)The authorsemphasizetheimportanceof clarifyingtheterm. Membersofthe academic communityareinvitedtodefineclearcriteriabywhichQUEshouldbe evaluated, consideringallspecificanddifferentenvironmentalinfluencesbetween countries (ibid.). That would improve collaboration in terms of encouragement, improvement,andevaluationofqualityamongfacultiesaroundtheworld (ibid.). 
Kramar (2006) says that didactic analysis hasa significantroleintermsof developingQUEanddefinesitasan“important activityoftheteacherrelatedto the whole teaching process and encompasses all its aspects, points and phases. Broader,itrelatesto constantknowingofteaching characteristicstoget a clear insightinitsstructure,flow,qualityandefficacy.Thisisallinevitably neededfor a successful performanceof the educationalprocess.” (Ibid.,p.107) 
Theimportanceof didacticanalysiswasemphasizedlongagobyKlafki(1958). Didacticanalysisisdirectedtowardknowing, clarifying,andevaluatingtheoverall educational-teachingprocess,andinits individual didacticcomponents.In addition, the didactic analysisofteaching includes diagnostic-prognostic, aimed-correctional, evaluation, motivational, anddevelopmental functions that theteachingprocess approaches from different aspects. Kramar (2006) notes that the didactic analysis ofteaching shouldaimataschool’svisiondevelopment contributingtoanewQUE andtheprofessionaldevelopmentofteachersandstudents.This canbeadopted in the context of university teaching, where didactic analysis could give better basic guidelinesin further planning and asa functiontoimprove thequality, as well asto supporttheprofessionaldevelopmentofbothstudents andprofessors. 
Ontheotherhand, authorsfromtheUnited Kingdom(Nahaiandösterberg 2012)notethatthechangeinperspectiveintermsof puttingstudentsinprofessors’ position, and professors in a position of the one helping would result in multiple gainsforbothgroups,aswellas society. These authors describeindetailhowto implementStudents’ QualityCircles (SQCs)in universities, originatingfromthe productionsectorinJapan.In2009,aSQCwasinitiatedattheKingstonUniversity London, seeing education as currency, as a democratic process that strengthens abottom-up approachto innovations andproblem-solvingpractice. 

Overview of earlier studies 
Theaimofthestudyoverviewistodeterminefactorsthathavebeenfoundto significantlyaffectstudents’ attitudesonthequalityofuniversityteaching(QUT), aswellas those that shouldbe includedasQUT characteristics.Fernándezand Mateo(1992)inthe early90sintensifiedtheneedtofollowandevaluatetheQUT, conductingaseriesoflarge-scalestudiesonstudentsandprofessorsfrom Spanish universities.Theydevelopedaquestionnaireof39 elements thatcovers someof the basicvariablesrelatedtoQUT.Furtheronitwasadaptedtotestteaching competence andteachers’ motivation. Thedevelopmentof such instrumentswas justified with intensive research on QUT from the late 80s when “the opinions of university students are becomingakeyand necessity, althoughby no means sufficient,intheevaluationofteachingexcellence.Studentshaveshown themselves as capableof identifyingsignificant dimensionsofeffectiveandefficientteaching. Their opinions seemto correlatetoahighdegree with thoseofotherimportant agentsinvolvedinthe sameteaching/learningsettings,whileremainingrelatively constantover time.Moreover,students’evaluationofteachingtheyreceiveseems to bear somerelationtoa degreeof learning achieved.” (Ibid.,p.676) 
ResearchbyZerihunetal.(2011)ontwo Ethiopian universitiesshowed that teachers’performancerepresents oneofthemaindeterminantsinQUT,byboth students and professors. Moreover, both groups predominantly see teaching as knowledgetransferandestimation basedontherecalloffactualknowledge.It shouldbestressedthatinstitutionalpracticein Ethiopiaisteacher-dominatedand content-oriented,andthesystemis supportedbythecurrentpracticeofevaluating successfulteaching.Theteacher-orientedapproachtolearningisrelatedtostudents’ reproducing orientation(Trigwellet al.1999), whichinvolves therecalloffirm facts, without interpreting them or correlating themtoearlier adopted knowledge (Zerihun et al. 2011). The same group of authors stressed troubling information that the majorityofstudents(71%) consider theirrolein the learningprocessto beexclusively passive, and therecommendationisto encouragestudentsto gain feedback.PracticeinEthiopiainvolvesgettingfeedbackat the endofacourse. The samegroupof authorsdevelopedaquestionnaireto enablestudentstoevaluate learning from aspects of the personal learning process (Zerihun etal. 2012). 
Experience in examining students’ attitudes on QUT 
EarlierstudiesonQUT (Hilletal. 2003;Lagrosenetal.2004;VossandGruber 2006)reportedthatstudentsevaluate contentastheleastimportantandfocus more on other aspects such as their relationship with their professor (in terms of his/her accessibility, enthusiasm, and good mood) and how much teaching helps them topass exams and tofind employment.The heterogenic approach to these issues involves the whole sphere of examining QUT, and it is called the “discourseofquality”claiming that:“[...] changes shouldbe madeinawiderange of operational aspects of educational institutions, including structural changes (such as the establishment of organizational units that cut across traditional frontiers, such asquality committees), the introductionoftoolstoimprove the management of both teaching and administrative tasks (such as management byprocesses), the establishment ofprocedures for the assessment and control ofqualityandinformationsystemsbywhichthey canbeoperated(suchasstaff assessmentprograms)andthepromotionof cultural change among academicsto improvethe attitudeofteachingstafftowardstherenewalofteachingmethods and cateringfor the needsof theirstudents.” (Barandiaran-Galdós et al.2012, pp. 93–94) 
Furnhamand McManus(2004)conductedastudyon1033students,examining their attitudestowardQUT.Students completedaquestionnaire consistingof32 questions based ona Likertscale (1-definitely no, 2-probably no, 3-probablyyes, 4-definitelyyes). Theresults showed thatstudents highly agree on thefollowing: 
–	 
socialandlifeskills gainedonthefaculty areofgreatimportance, 

–	 
thereputationoftheuniversityisanimportantfactorinthefinal choiceof faculty, 

–	 
higher education is seen as enhancing their possibility of getting a better paid job, 

–	 
their higher education will be usefulfor society, 

–	 
socialaspectsoffacultiesareequallyimportantasacademicdevelopment,and 

–	 
gaininga “goodreputation”foraspecificfacultyisstill undertheinfluence of students’ evaluation on QUT (ibid.). 


Students’responseswereequalintheir attitudethattheyshouldnotpaymore foraprestigiousfacultyand thatfaculties should nothave the rightto decide on scholarshipsbycriteriaofprestigeora kindofranging.Many students (68.7%, definitely no + probably no) reported that their families’ expectations of their decisionto choosea certainfacultydid notsignificantly influence their decision. 
Professors’ research experience influencing attitudes on QUE 
Barandiaran-Galdós et al. (2012) were one of the first group of authors in Spainstudying attitudesof universityprofessors on university teaching determinations. They believe that the conditions with which students enter and carry on after higher education have a significant influence on the results, whichwe also considered anextremelyimportantfactor and addressedin the firstpartof ourstudy. Basedontheten mostimportantfactorsforQUTfrom the students’ perspective, motivation is highly positioned. Motivation should be promoted more sinceitis the mostimportant condition neededto accomplish all other conditions, andto achieve thefinalresult.Importantly,professors think thatthe mostimportantfactorrelatedtoQUTis their competenceand ability to approach students on content, while students think that the most important factoris theirrelationshipwithprofessors.StudentsalsoaddressQUTfromthe aspect of future employment. Different points of view on education are obvious, butjust asimportantisthefactthatbothpartiesreallyappreciateand nourish the QUE process itself. 
A review of the studies from Latvia suggests that students’ evaluation is determinedbysubjectiveimpression,andthe mostof negative commentsrelate totheknowledgeevaluation(VevereandKozlinskis2011).In addition,alecturer’s personal traits have a strong influence on students’ motivation and learning process. The authors emphasize the need to use validated questionnaires to ensure the standardized evaluation of students. Thesequestionnaires should include: knowledge transfer, knowledge evaluation (learned), the availabilityof professors, and their personalfeatures. Theprofessor-studentrelationshipwas unexpectedly shown asakey component, showntobeakeydriverinstudents’ motivation influencing specific studies, research, and their research interests. 

Self-evaluation of QUT 
QUTshouldbe oneofthebasicfactorsbywhichstudentsdecidewhatfaculty theywill choose. After studying students who participated in the evaluation of teaching in different ways, Ntombela (2013) showed that students evaluate QUT on the basisofpreviousexperience theybringfrom earlier education.University professorsshoulddeterminetheinterestsandneedsoftoday’sstudents,andbased onthat combinedifferentstylesofteaching.Still,the majorityofprofessorsareled bya personalformulaof what theybelievestudents should know/learn, anditis notrarefor lecturestobe done usingauniformstyleof learning thatis dominant and characteristic(well-known)ofaspecificfaculty, course, orprofessor (ibid.). 
AuthorsfromSpain emphasizethatstudents’ one-wayevaluationofprofessors is not appropriate (Díaz-Méndez and Gummesson 2012), and the reason lies in thefact that the complexity of the entire university education system includes all its parties:students,professors, andotherstaff. Theyfound thatstudents consider themselves incompetent to evaluate the knowledge of professors, and theydo notagree with the idea thatprofessors shouldbe paid accordingto their success withstudents (ibid.).Students also think that this could leadtofewer demandsbyprofessors, whichwouldpresenta threatto theirprofessionalskills and reputation, causatively influencing their future (ibid.). Earlier research, also conducted in Spainby Gallifa and Batallé (2010), shows how important is to consider servicequality whileevaluating university education.It could also distinguishsome dimensionsinbrandingtheuniversity.Theirresearchintegrated allfiveaspectsof servicequalitydeterminedbyParasuramanetal.(1991). This enabled the separateevaluationof campusesinrelationto the whole university. Important insightswere gainedforthequalityof service, which couldbe usedfor brandingandoverallbetterevaluationbystudents. GallifaandBatallé(2010)note that this is an interesting approach on how to address the student population’s perceptionofquality, particularlyin the caseofa multi-campussystem. 
Theself-evaluationofteaching (independentlyonthatwhichsideisdoingit) is undoubtedlyimportantforqualityimprovement sinceoften theseresultsarethe firstsourceofinformationonthequalityofteaching.Differentmethodsare used to collect these data: diaries,evaluation charts,students’questionnaires,taping course, debates, arguments, numerical scoring, and others. The more different evaluation activities we use in our teaching, the more objective the results will be.Still, continuousfeedbackfromstudentsisimportantfor the (self)evaluation of universityteaching. 

Empirical research 
In this section,we willpresentthe mainfindingsoftheempiricalresearch conductedin the academicyear2012/2013. The mainresearch aimswereto examinestudents’ attitudesonQUT,toexaminecriteriaforQUT,andtolookat the differencesin attitudesofstudents comingfrom differentfaculties. 
Research question and hypothesis 
Accordingto thestatedresearch aims, the mainresearchquestionwas: What are the attitudesofstudentsfrom differentfaculties on QUT?We made fourhypotheses: 
–	 
H1:Studentsstudy on thefacultythatwas theirfirstchoice. 

–	 
H2: The majorityof students regularly attend courses. 

–	 
H3:Forstudents, contentis oneof the main criteriabywhich they evaluate QUT. 

–	 
H4:Students consider social climateanimportant criterionfortheimprovement of QUT. 


Sample 
Students includedinthestudywerefromfivefacultiesoftheUniversityof Osijek:theFacultyofCivil Engineering(GF),theFacultyofFoodTechnology(PTF), theFacultyofLaw(PFO), theFacultyofAgriculture(PFOS), and theAcademyof Arts (UA). All participating students came from different cultural, educational, sociological, and economic backgrounds, and these confoundingfactors are challengingto eliminate.Ontheother hand, thesefactors ensuredarandomized sample of the entire university’s student population. Basic characteristics of the participating students (including demographic and individual data on gender, and age) are shown inTable1. Theoverall number ofstudents thatfilled in thequestionnairewas173, witha higherprevalenceoffemalestudents (66.5%, Table1).Theaverageagewas20.3yearswitharangeof18to29years,and one studentfromtheAcademyofArts with42yearsof age.Regardingthedistribution betweenfaculties,thelargestnumberofstudents comesfromtheFacultyof Civil Engineering(GF)andtheFacultyofFoodTechnology (PTF), whilefewerstudents from theFacultyofLaw(PFO),FacultyofAgriculture(PFOS), and theAcademy of Arts (UA) participated (Table 1). 
Characteristics  f  f%  
Gender  Males  58  33.5  
Females  115  66.5  
Faculty  GF  54  31.2  
PTF  61  35.5  
PFOS  21  12.1  
PFO  22  12.7  
UA  15  8.7  
Living conditions  With a roommate  78  45.1  
With parents  57  32.9  
Alone  34  19.7  
Married  4  2.3  
Student’s status  Full supportof the MSES  135  77.9  
Partial subvention of the MSES  32  18.6  
Self-financing in full  6  3.5  

Table 1: General characteristics of all students participating in the study (N=173) 
Accordingto their living conditions, mostof the participating students live with a roommate (45.1%), and a large number also live with their parents (32.9%).Students’ studyingstatus show that77.9% are under the full support of the Ministryof Science, Education, and Sports (MSES),18.6%ofstudents are underthepartialsubventionofthe MSES, while 3.5%ofstudentsarefinancing their studies in full (Table 1). 
Data collection 
Theresearch consistedofan independentfillofan anonymousquestionnaire. Thequestionnairewasdevelopedspecificallyfor thestudy and consistedof12 questions,11of whichhad multiple choice answers.Thelastquestionwasdirectly relatedtoQUTandresultedfromthe initialstatusontheUniversityofOsijek. Studentsevaluated thesecriteriaonthe basisofLikert’sscale, giving1fordonot agreeatall,2partiallyagree,3neitheryes norno,4partiallydonotagree,5do notagreeatall.Inthe selectionofcriteriathatwereincludedinthequestionnaire, wetook careto cover the aims ofteaching, its organization, content, methods of work,didactic material, social climate(professor-studentrelationship), outcomes ofteaching, and economic aspectsofteaching. 
Theresearchprotocol includedprimarycontactandthearrangementofthe exactdateandtimewithseveralprofessors.Professorswere contactedrandomly andbasedontheir decisiontoallowornotallowinvestigatorstoapproachstudents, and exact dates were set. On the arranged date, investigators came before the lectureofaparticular course,gavequestionnairestoallstudentsthat cameforthe lecturesthatday,andexplainedthemainaimsandhowtofillinthequestionnaire. Then,15minuteswereleftforstudentstofillinthequestionnaire.Beforestarting, students could askadditionalquestions about thequestionnaireand could askfor additionalexplanation.Allquestionnaireswerefilledinindividually,withoutthe influenceofathirdparty.The anonymityofallsubjectswas ensuredatalltimes, and through data analysis they were all coded with numbers. The research was conductedin accordanceto allethical principles and human rights. 
Research method and data analysis 
The method used in the empirical part of the research was causal and non-experimental. 
StatisticalanalysiswasdonewithsoftwaretoolStatistica12.0,atasignificance levelofp=0.05.Thenormalityofdatadistributionwastestedbythenonparametric Kolmogorov-Smirnovtestfor the comparisonof medians and arithmetic means aswellashistogramplotting. Descriptivestatisticalanalysiswasperformedwith Kruskal-Wallis orFriedman’stestand Spearman’srank order Correlations, since theoveralldatadidnotshowanormaldistribution.Forcategoricaldata,Fischer’s exacttest was used.MSOfficeExcelwas usedforother calculations andgraphs. 
Results and Discussion 
QUT itselfisrelatedto the choiceoffaculty.Itisofgreatrelevance whether astudentstudies onafaculty thatwas his/herfirst choice or not. Ourresults show that 60%ofstudentsreallydostudy with thefacultythatwas theirfirst choice,for30.8%itwastheir second choiceandfor9.2%theircurrentfacultywas theirthirdorevenlower choice.Amongthosestudents,numberone choiceswere mainlyfacultiesof medical sciences (i.e., medicine,stomatology, and pharmacy). The majorityofstudents (N=39) who did notget theirfirst-choicefaculty said itwas because they did not satisfy enteringquotes, than smallquotes of that particularfaculty(N=18),andbadfinancialstatusof theirparents(N=8). Based on the description analysis,wecan conclude that ourfindings confirm H1: Students study on the faculty that was their first choice. The reasons behind this should beanalyzedin moredepthvia futurestudies.Itisimportanttostressthat these dataconfirmtheneedtolookmoreintostudents’motivationat their entrylevel ata university,asshownbyBarandiaran-Galdósetal.(2012).Lowmotivationin termsofstudents not studying with thefacultythey wantedpresentsastarting problemintermsof QUE.IftheoverallQUEprocessremainsatthetraditional level,asfoundbyLedićetal.(1999),improvementinstudents’ satisfactionand motivation should be expected. Therefore, an even higher influence of students’ subjective impression can be expected, consequently resulting in low evaluation scores.Thisiswhereuniversityprofessorsshouldtakeactionandimproveoverall outcomes,firstof theirstudentsandthenofthe entireuniversity. 
Otherquestions included students’ attitudes on separate criteria that are importantforQUT, whichweregroupedineightcategories basedonstudents’ opinions. 

Figure 1 shows that generally, students (based on average scores of all studentsforaparticularcriterion) consider economicaspects(mean score4.1±0.9) and content (3.8±0.7),followedbymethods (3.6±0.7), didactic materials (3.6±1.0), aims (3.5±0.8),andoutcomes (3.4±0.9)themostimportantcriteriaforevaluating QUT. Less important criteria are the organization ofteaching (3.3±0.9) and the professor-studentrelationship(3.1±0.8),withthelowestscores(Figure1).Basedon the scores obtainedfor the observed criteria,weconfirm H3: Content presents one of the main criteria in QUT according to students. Comparing the mean scoresfor eachofthecriterionbyfaculties,wefoundinterestingresults(Figure2).Infact, no matterfrom whichfacultystudents come,theyconsider contentequallyimportant. This additionally confirms H3. The higheststatistical significance (p<0.001)was foundforcriteriawiththelowestscores,i.e.,fortheprofessor-studentrelationship and outcomes (Figure2).Statistical significance accordingtofaculty wasfound fortheorganizationofteaching (p=0.008),aims(p=0.014),and didacticmaterials (p=0.015).Wehavetostressthatfor didacticmaterials,thegreatestdifferencewas observed among students, who considered them extremely important in overall improvementinQUT(PTF,PFOS), whilestudentsin someotherfaculties(UA) think of this criteria as completely irrelevant. These extremes can partially be explainedbythespecificaspectsofparticularstudies,and dependingonwhether theoretical or practical knowledge and skills are more highlighted. 

Figure 2: Evaluation of all tested criteria for QUT overall and by faculties (N = 173) 
* marksstatistical significanceat p<0.05,Kruskal-Wallistest 
Another criteria in QUT is course attendance. The results indicate that 49.4% of students attend more than 75% of all courses3, and 29.1% of students would attend all courses even if they were not mandatory. It is interesting that 7.6%ofstudentsdonotwanttoattendanycourses,buttheyare sinceitis oneof the conditionsrequiredtogetprofessors’ signatureandgain accessto complete a course’sexam;2.3%ofstudentswouldattend coursesonlyoftaughtbyspecific professors.Accordingtothe abovedescriptiveanalysis,weconfirm H2: The majority of students regularly attend courses. Still, it is interestingto note that Fischer’s analysisdidnotshowanystatistical significancebetweenyearsofstudyandlevel of course attendance.In addition,no significant correlationwasfoundbetween courseattendancebyfaculty,exceptinthe casesofUAandPTF (p=0.033),and GF where itreachesa level of significance (p=0.056). This is understandable 
3Theterm includes allformsofteaching: lectures, seminars andpracticalwork. 
consideringthemajordifferencesamongthesefaculties.It shouldbenotedthatall studentsfromUA(100%)saidtheywouldattendall coursesevenifthe courseswere not mandatory. Theseresults confirm earlierfindingsbyBognar and Dubovicki (2012) stressing the importance of the social and emotional climate in creating positivereinforcementfor learning,aswellasforthedevelopmentofcreativity of both students and professors. 
Ontheother hand,even thoughstudentsfromUAconfirmtheimportance of social climate, theaverage scorefor theprofessor-studentrelationshipis the lowest(Figure1)at merely3.10±0.8. Basedontheaverage scoresandstatistical significancefoundfor the observed criteria,we conclude thatstudents do not recognize theimportanceof thisrelation, anddo notconsideritarelevantfactor thatwouldinfluencetheoverallQUT(GF,PFO,PTF);therefore,wehavetodismiss H4: Students consider social climate an important criterion for the improvement of QUT. Thesefindings arein contrastto thosereportedbyBarandiaran-Galdóset al.(2012),,whofoundthatstudentsfrom Spanishuniversitiesreallyappreciate theirrelationship with theirprofessors and considerit animportantfactorin overallQUE (ibid.).Moreover,lowscoresshowthatprofessorscurrentlystilltend to thinkof universityeducationinatraditionalway,aswasshownbyLedićetal. (1999).Thatiswhereaction shouldbetaken, encouragingand helpingprofessors in making more effort in terms of making their courses more appealing, more interestingandprovokingforstudents,provoking their curiosityandinterestin their courses, whichwouldfinallyresultin higherinterestforthefacultyaswell. Courses needtobefocused on thedevelopmentof personalitythrough satisfying theinterestsand needsofstudents;otherwise someformofrepression needsto be used, whichisin conflict with theprofessor-studentrelationship (Bognar and Kragulj2011,p. 59; Dubovicki 2013). This is in line with the humanistic approach, which has been emphasizedby many(Maslow1968,1976;Rogers1969). 
Therefore,studentswhodidnothavethe chancetostudyon theirfirst-choice faculty stillfind themselves and enhance their motivation.After all,students’ eventual successisthereal measureofafaculty’s success. 
Interestingly,students who attend 75–100%of courseshave significantly higher scoresthanstudentswhoattendupto50%of coursesorthosewhoregularly attend courses becausetheyare mandatory.A statisticallysignificantdifference betweenthesetwogroupsofstudentswasfoundforcriteriamethodsand didactic materials, whilethegreatestdifferenceswerefoundfor content(3.9vs3.1,p<0.001), the organizationofteaching (3.4vs 2.7, p<0.001),professor-studentrelationship 
(3.2 vs 2.4, p<0.001), and outcomes (3.5 vs 2.7, p<0.001). The results indicate that insisting on course attendance, highlighting that they are mandatoryand/ ora conditionto access the course’sexam, leadstoaworse outcome. Thisresults instudents’worsesubjectiveimpression, leadingtoaworseoveralloutcomefor them, dissatisfaction,andinlowerevaluation scoresforQUT.Earlierfindings are infavor of such conclusion that the social and emotional climate (Bognar and Dubovicki 2012) and students’ subjective impression (Fernandez and Mateo 1992;VevereandKozlinskis2011)playanextremelyimportantrolein theoverall evaluation of QUT. 
Considering the most common grade in their index, students having the most enough (2) grades have, statistically significantly, the lowest scores than other students. This trend is the mostobvious between students with the grades enough (2) and verygood (4). As expected, no significant difference in the scores foranyofthetested criteriawasfoundbetweenstudentshavingverygood(5) and excellent (5) grades. When the overall influence of grades in every tested criterionis observed,astatisticallysignificant correlationwasfoundonlyforthe professor-studentrelationship (p=0.006).Theseresultsconfirmthestronginfluence of students’ subjective impression on professors’ evaluation, and again point out theneedto controlthisconfoundingfactorintheoverallevaluationofprofessors, asemphasizedby many others (Díaz-Méndezand Gummesson2012;Fernández and Mateo1992;Verve andKozlinskis2011). The outcomesofteachinginterms ofthefinalgraderepresents oneofthemain,ifnotthe mostimportantfactorthat influencesoverallprofessors’evaluation, as shownin Figure1, and whichwas confirmedby others(Stehleet al.2012;Tsai and Lin2012).Stehleet al.(2012) foundthatstudents’subjectiveperceptionoflearning significantly correlateswith theirpracticalexamination score.Infavorof these conclusions, Spanish authors Díaz-Méndezand Gummesson(2012)found thatstudents think theirsubjective impression has a strong influence on their overall evaluation of professors and thatit shouldnotbetakenastheoneandonlycriterioninaprofessor’sevaluation. 
Aims  Organization of teaching  Content  Methods  Didactic Materials  Professor-student relationship  Outcomes  
Organization of teaching  0.566  
Content  0.484  0.424  
Methods  0.520  0.350  0.461  
Didactic materials  0.340  0.223  0.407  0.239  
Professor-student relationship  0.445  0.345  0.563  0.368  0.245  
Outcomes  0.308  0.262  0.493  0.353  0.125  0.512  
Economic Aspects  0.268  0.213  0.417  0.287  0.132  0.195  0.351  

Table 2: Spearman’s rank of correlation for all tested criteria for QUT 
Note: allvalues are showingstatistical significance at p<0.05, but onlyvalues that show moderate correlation are marked. 
Spearman’s test of correlation between all scores and tested criteria show thatthe contentandaimsarecorrelatedwith mostofthetestedcriteria(Table2). The highestcorrelationwasfoundbetweentheaimsandorganizationofteaching (r=0.566), the aims and methods (r=0.520), and the content and professor-student relationship (r=0.563). The professor-student relationship shows a statistically significant correlation with outcomes (r=0.512). These results confirm the need tocreatea positive socialand emotional climateto benefitbothparties (Bognar and Dubovicki 2012;Fernandez and Mateo1992;Vevere andKozlinskis 2011), confirming ourfirststatementthatthe highestresponsibilitylieswithprofessors and their engagement with students. 

Conclusions 
This paper deals with QUT. Criteria on which it was based resulted from a broadreviewofdomesticandforeignliteraturethatdealtwiththis issue.Having in mind the complexity of this phenomenon, objectivity was maintained to the extent possible. 
Consideringthefact that40%ofstudents saidthey studyonafacultythat was not theirfirst choice, universityprofessors aretasked with enrolling and motivating ourstudentsfortheworkfor whichtheyarebeingprepared.Participation in coursesisanotherimportant segmentinQUT.Ourresultsshowthatstudents still do notparticipate in courses as much as theyshould, perceiving them as not sufficientlystimulating. Courses thatstudents gladly attend arethose whereevery student candevelophimorherselftothelevelof his/her fullpotential, whichis oneofthe main assumptionsforimprovingQUT. 
The aimof thisstudywas notonlytodetermine the current conditions, but after gaining insight to create a teaching environment that would take care to developademocratic climateand encourage positiveemotions—teachingin which studentswouldbeequalpartnersinthecreationofteaching activities,andteaching thatwouldbemotivatingforallstudents,particularlythosewhoarestudyingwith faculties thatwerenottheirfirstchoice. Considering thefact thatstudents perceive contentasanimportant criteriainQUT, activitiesby whichitispresentedto themareveryimportant.Dataon50%of coursesattendancearenotinourfavor. Therefore,weshouldimproveteachingatthelevelofmotivatingandstimulating students.Wedidnotforgetto addresstheimportanceofsubjectiveimpressions byboth parties, which present not only limitingfactors in the development and improvement of university teaching, but on the other hand can be a motivator for such activities.Subjectiveimpressions areimportantfor any research that cannot diminish all confoundingfactors, but it is importantto limit themto the extent possible. 
Ourresearchhasledtonumerousquestionsthat shouldbeaddressedinthe futureonotherfaculties aswell.Futureresearcherscould considerother possible ways QUT and criteria could be analyzed. Quality teaching should go hand in hand with needs and interests of all included parties, while serving as the basis for creating newrolesforstudents andprofessors. 
Acknowledgments 
The authors wishto thank allstudents whowere willingto participatein ourstudy aswellas universitycolleaguesforbeing open-mindedandtheirappreciationofoureffort toimprove universityteaching. 


References 
Barandiaran-Galdós, M., Barrenetxea Ayesta, M., Cardona-Rodríguez, A., Mijangos del Campo, J.J. and Olaskoaga-Larrauri, J. (2012). What do teachers think about quality in the Spanish university? Quality Assurance in Education, 20, issue 2, pp. 91–109. 
Bognar, L. and Dubovicki, S. (2012). Emotions in the Teaching Process. Croatian Journal of Educa­tion, 14, issue 1, pp. 135–153. 
Bognar, L. and Kragulj, S. (2011). The Relationship between creativity and self-actualization of University Teaching. In: A. Jurčević Lozančić and S. Opić (eds.). Škola, učenje i odgoj za budućnost. Zagreb: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, pp. 57–70. 
Díaz-Méndez, M. and Gummesson, E. (2012). Value co-creation and university teaching quality. Conse­quences for the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Journal of Service Management, 23, issue 4, pp. 571–592. 
Dubovicki, S. (2013). Correlation Between the Curriculum of Teacher Education and Student Creativity Development. Doctoral work. Zagreb: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb. 
Erwin, T. D. and Knight, P. T. (1995). A transatlantic view of assessment and quality in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 1, issue 2, pp. 179–188. 
Fernández, J. and Mateo, M. A. (1992). Student evaluation of university teaching quality: analysis of a questionnaire for a sample of university students in Spain. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, issue 3, pp. 675–686. 
Furnham, A. and McManus, I.C. (2004). Student attitudes to university education. Higher Education Review, 36, issue 2, pp. 29–38. 
Gallifa, J. and Batallé, P. (2010). Student perceptions on service quality in a multi-campus higher educa­tion system in Spain. Quality Assurance in Education, 18, issue 2, pp. 156–170. 
Greene, B. (1994). New Paradigms for Creating Quality Schools. Chapel Hill: New View Pubns. 
Harvey, L. and Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Educa­tion, 18, issue 1, pp. 9–34. 
Hill, Y., Lomas, L. and MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 11, issue 1, pp. 15–20. 
Klafki, W. (1958). Didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbereitung. Die Deutsche Schule, 50, pp. 450–471. 
Kovač, V., Ledić, J. and Rafajac, B. (2002). Upravljanje visokoškolskim institucijama: problemi i pristupi rješenjima. Društvena istraživanja, 11, issue 6, pp. 1013–1030. 
Kramar, M. (2006). Didactic analysis in the function of developing the quality of teaching. Educational sciences, 8, issue 1, pp. 131–158. 
Lagrosen, S., Seyyed-Hashemi, R. and Leitner, M. (2004). Examination of the dimensions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 12, issue 2, pp. 61–69. 
Ledić, J., Rafajac, B. and Kovač, V. (1999). Assessing the Quality of University Teaching in Croatia. 
Teaching in Higher Education, 4, issue 2, pp. 213–233. Maguire, K. and Gibbs, P. (2013). Exploring the notion of quality in quality higher education assessment 
in a collaborative future. Quality in Higher Education, 19, issue 1, pp. 41–55. 
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Psychology of Being. New York: D.Van Nostrad Company. 
Maslow, A. H. (1976). The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. New York: Penguin Books. 
Mencer,I. (2005).OsiguranjekvaliteteivisokoškolskeustanoveuRH. Ekonomski pregled, 56, issue 3-4, pp. 239–258. 
Nahai,R.andösterberg,S.(2012). Higher educationinastateof crisis:aperspectivefrom aStudents‘ QualityCircle. AI & Society,27, pp. 387–398. 
Ntombela,B.X.S.(2013).QualityinTeachingthroughSelf Assessment. Academic Research International, 4, issue 2, pp. 362–374. 
Parasuraman,A.,Berry,L.L.and Zeithaml,V.A.(1991).Refinementandreassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing,67, issue 4, pp. 420–450. 
Rogers,C.R.(1969).FreedomtoLearn,AViewof What Education Might Become. Colum­bus. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company 
Stehle,S., Spinath,B.andKadmon,M.(2012). Measuringteachingeffectiveness:Cor­respondence between students’ evaluations of teaching and different measures of student learning. Research in Higher Education, 53, pp. 888–904. 
Trigwell,K.,Prosser,M.andWaterhouse,F.(1999).Relationsbetweenteachers’ approaches toteaching andstudents’ approachesto learning.Higher Education,37, issue1, pp. 57–70. 
Tsai,K.C. and Lin,K.(2012).RethinkStudentEvaluationofTeaching.World Journal of Education,2, issue2, pp.17–22. 
Verve,N. andKozlinskis,V. (2011).Students’Evaluation ofTeaching Quality.US-China Education Review, 5, pp. 702–708. 
Voss,R.andGruber,T. (2006).The desiredteachingqualitiesof lecturersin higher educa­tion:ameans end analysis. Quality Assurance in Education,14, issue3, pp.217–242. 
Zerihun,Z., Beishuizen,J.andVanOs,W.(2011). Conceptionsandpracticesinteaching and learning:implicationsfortheevaluationofteachingquality. Quality on Higher Education,17, issue2, pp.151–161. 
Zerihun,Z., Beishuizen,J.andVanOs,W.(2012).Studentlearningexperienceas indica­tor ofteachingquality. Education, Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability,24, pp. 99–111.