20
First-year student survey:
con�dence in students success and
expectations and experiences regarding feedback
KU Leuven, TU Delft, and TU Graz, 2016-2017
Written by
Tinne De Laet
KU Leuven, Belgium
STELA Erasmus+ project (562167-EPP-1-2015-1-BE-EPPKA3-PI-FORWARD)
"The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an
endorsement of the contents which re�ects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot
be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein."
2
Contents
Contents
1 Goal and methodology 4
1.1 Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.2 Data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.3 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3.1 KU Leuven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.3.2 TU Delft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.3.3 TU Graz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.5 Statistical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 Survey results 8
2.1 Con�dence in study success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.1.1 Con�dence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.1.2 Required skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 Reasons for success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.3 Feedback in �rst year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3.1 Feedback want to receive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.3.2 Feedback content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4 Feedback in transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152.4.1 Feedback received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152.4.2 Feedback useful and motivating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3 Conclusion 19
3
Chapter 1. Goal and methodology
Chapter 1
Goal and methodology
1.1 Goal
The goal is to learn more about students in the transition from secondary to higher education. Thisparticular report focuses on students in the �rst weeks in engineering programs at KU Leuven, TUDelft, and TU Graz.This reports handles the following topics:
• the con�dence students have in study success,
• the academic activities they believe to be important for study success,
• the feedback they would like to receive in the �rst year of higher education,
• the feedback they received in the transition from secondary to higher education.
Moreover, the report studies the di�erences between the three institutes.
1.2 Data collection
Data was collected at the three institutes in the academic year of 2016-2017 in a manner that compliedbest with the local situation. At KU Leuven a paper-and-pencil questionnaire was executed in the�rst weeks of the academic year. TU Delft performed an online questionnaire in the �rst weeks of theacademic year. TU Graz organized a paper-and-pencil questionnaire during the welcome week.
2,127 students �lled in the questionnaire. Figure 1.1 shows how the students are divided over thedi�erent institutes.
Remark that at KU Leuven also other �rst-year students from non-engineering programs �lled inthe survey. They are however not included in this report, as the goal was to compare similar studentsacross the di�erent countries. Results from 1,509 KU Leuven students and comparison between thedi�erent KU Leuven STEM programs are provided in a separate report titled `First-year student
survey: con�dence in students success and expectations and experiences regarding feedback, KU Leuven
2016-2017'.
1.3 Context
This section elaborates on the context of the di�erent institutes, as this context is essential wheninterpreting the survey results provided in Chapter 2.
1.3.1 KU Leuven
KU Leuven is a general university. The students of KU Leuven in this study are the �rst-year engi-neering students, i.e. the students in the �rst year of the Bachelor of Engineering Science.
4
Chapter 1. Goal and methodology
Figure 1.1: Number of students that �lled in questionnaire over di�erent institutes.
At Flemish level, the Bachelor of Engineering Science is considered as one of the most abstractand prestigious bachelors. Therefore, the program overall attracts highly quali�ed students with astrong mathematical background. Most students enter the program directly after �nishing secondaryeducation (age 17-18). For 97% of the new students the Bachelor of Engineering Science is their �rstexperience in higher education.
However, due to the open entrance in the Flemish (Belgium) higher education system (any studentwith a secondary education diploma can enter the program), still a substantial part of the �rst-yearstudents enters without the right quali�cations. This might explain the overall drop-out rate of around40% in the bachelor program. After the �rst year around 43% of the new students have full studyprogress (i.e. they do not have to retake any of the �rst year courses in the second year). After the�rst year, 60% of the new �rst-year students obtain a study e�ciency (number of credits obtaineddivided by the number of credits booked) of 80% or higher. Around 26% of the new students obtainsa study e�ciency of lower than 30%. 26% is also the drop-out rate during or after the �rst year.
Around 58% of the students obtain the bachelor degree within �ve years or less. 58% of thesestudents obtained the degree in three years (nominal duration) or less.
1.3.2 TU Delft
Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) is a technological university. Most students enter the pro-gram directly after �nishing secondary education (age 17-18): this group comprises about 95% of thetotal �rst-year population. Admission requirements for degree programmes depend on previous edu-cation and chosen Bachelor's programme, but require all students to have at least a pre-university cer-ti�cate in mathematics and usually another technical subject (i.e. biology, chemistry, and/or physics).The overall drop-out rate is around 17% during the �rst year, and 24% in the Bachelor program.After the �rst year around 59% of all �rst year Bachelor students receive a binding positive recom-mendation on continuation of studies. Around 21% of the new students obtains a binding negativerecommendation on continuation of studies after the �rst year.
Around 56% of the students obtain the bachelor degree within four years or less; 27% of thesestudents obtained the degree in three years (nominal duration) or less.
1.3.3 TU Graz
Graz University of Technology (TU Graz) is a public university with seven faculties. All topics arestrongly related to study programs in (technical) sciences. Students of TU Graz in this study are�rst-year engineering students entering one of the programs. Each faculty o�ers their own bachelorstudies. In summary 19 di�erent bachelor studies can be joined to get a Bachelor of Science (BSc) afterthree years. At Austrian level, the Bachelor of Science is considered similar to the other countries asone of the most abstract and prestigious bachelors. Of course strong mathematical background is veryhelpful for incoming freshmen. Most students enter the program directly after �nishing secondaryeducation. In Austria this happens around the age of 18-19. Therefore 88% of students �lled inthe survey are 18-21 years old. 96% of the participants are �new� students, in the sense that thereare entering Higher Education for the �rst time. On the other way round 4% of them have already
5
Chapter 1. Goal and methodology
began a study on another university. Finally, not surprising and rather typical for technical studyprograms 70% of the participants are male and only 30% are female. Most female students are joiningarchitecture or biomedical engineering. 7% of TU Graz beginners are not coming from Austria � mostof the non-Austrian students are from Germany, Slovenia, Croatia etc.
It is very important to notice that in Austria a free university admission is possible to studentswho �nished the secondary level (in a typical or non-typical manner). Only few study programs arerestricting the number of beginners, mainly because of a huge number of students and lack of personnel.For sure the best-known example are medical programs, which have been closed a couple of years ago.The open access often leads to high drop out rates in the �rst semester or over the bachelor programas such. For example in the study of computer science about 400 students enter the �rst year andonly 150-200 end up with a bachelor degree.
Another important issue is the educational system in Austria. In Austria the secondary level is verycomplicated. Beside the world-wide and well-established high schools, a more or less second parallelsystem has been established to enter higher education. For example there exists Federal SecondaryColleges of Engineering (HTLs) who lead also higher education entrance quali�cations. Those collegeslast �ve years and end up with additional practical experiences of three years with the degree `engineer'.On international level those degrees are at the same level as bachelor degrees since 2017 without anacademic acceptance. Anyway, it is important to point out that nearly 40% of the beginners at TUGraz are coming from those schools with a high pre-knowledge in the speci�c �eld of studies, becausethe schools are in the area of engineering (civil engineering, mechanical engineering, computer science,etc.)
1.4 Survey
The survey, containing 16 questions, was presented to both KU Leuven and TU Graz �rst-year engi-neering students using a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. The KU Leuven students got a Dutch andthe TU Graz students a German version. At TU Delft four questions of the original survey were in-cluded in a bigger online survey, which was sent to all students from 12 Bachelor of Science programs,all with a technological focus (e.g. Computer Science, Mathematics, etc.). The number of studentsthat �lled in a the complete survey (16 questions for KU Leuven and TU Graz and 4 questions for TUDelft) di�ers substantially. As a comparison the percentage of complete responses to the four commonquestions is shown in Figure 1.2. The percentage of complete questionnaires is only 50% for TU Delft,while both KU Leuven and TU Graz reach 99%. This di�erence is explained by the medium used. Atboth KU Leuven and TU Graz a paper-and-pencil questionnaire was provided to students in the �rstweek of the academic year or the welcome week at moments were almost all new students are present.At TU Delft the survey was online and non-obligatory.
The questionnaire used a �ve-point Likert scale ranging from `not at all typical', over `not typical',`somewhat typical', `typical', to `very typical'.
The report uses diverging stacked bar charts to visualize the results (Richard Heiberger and NaomiRobbins; Design of Diverging Stacked Bar Charts for Likert Scales and Other Applications; Journalof Statistical Software; 57 (1), 2014). Figure 1.3 shows a sample of a diverging stacked bar chart.
1.5 Statistical analysis
This report summarizes the descriptive analysis of the survey results. The di�erence between institutesare analyzed.
To assess the signi�cance of the di�erences between the di�erent institutes a two-step analysis wasperformed. First, a Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test was used to test the overall signi�cance of di�erencesbetween groups. Second, a pairwise Wilcoxon test was used to test the signi�cance between di�erentgroups. For the pairwise Wilcoxon test the correction proposed by Benjamini, Hochberg, and Yekutieliwas used to accommodate for multiple testing (Benjamini, Y., and Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controllingthe false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society Series B 57, 289�300).
6
Chapter 1. Goal and methodology
Figure 1.2: Number of students that �lled in questionnaire over di�erent institutes combined withcompletion rate of four common questions in the questionnaire over four institutes.
Figure 1.3: Example of diverging stacked bar chart as used in this report to visualize the surveyresponses. To the left of the graph, the question text is shown. The di�erent colors represent thepercentage of students that used that particular answer category from the �ve-point Likert scale. Theword `diverging' refers to the central position of the `neutral' (in this case `somewhat typical') answer,and the percentage of `negative' answer categories shown left and of `positive' answer categories shownright of the `neutral' answer. The graphs in this report add on the left side the sum of the percentagesof the `negative' answers (`not at all typical' or `not typical') and on the right side the sum of thepercentages of the `positive' answers (`typical' or `very typical').
7
Chapter 2. Survey results
Chapter 2
Survey results
2.1 Con�dence in study success
2.1.1 Con�dence
The survey question was "I feel very con�dent to successfully complete the �rst year." .Figure 2.1 summarizes the responses. Overall 71% of the students express that feeling very con�dentto successfully complete the �rst year is typical or very typical for them. While 7% of the studentsexpress that feeling very con�dent to successfully complete the �rst year is not typical or not at alltypical for them.
Figure 2.2 shows the responses for the di�erent institutes. The Kruskal-Wallis test indicatedstatistically signi�cant di�erences between the responses on the survey question by the students in thedi�erent institutes (chi-squared=477.81, df=2, p-value < 2.2e-16). Table 2.1 compactly presents theoutput of the pairwise Wilcoxon-test. There are signi�cant di�erences between the three institutes.
KU Leuven TU Delft TU Graz
"I feel very con�dent to successfully complete the �rstyear."
a b c
Table 2.1: Table showing the institutes for which the responses on the question "I feel very con�dent to
successfully complete the �rst year." are signi�cantly di�erent using a compact letter display. Institutessharing a letter are not signi�cantly di�erent (Wilcoxon test, p-value threshold 0.05).
2.1.2 Required skills
The survey questions regarding the required skills were "I possess the necessary prior knowledge
and academic skills (intelligence, time management, etc.) to be successful in the �rst
year." and "My prior knowledge and academic skills are good in comparison with the
Figure 2.1: Stacked boxplot for responses on "I feel very con�dent to successfully complete the �rst
year.".
8
Chapter 2. Survey results
Figure 2.2: Stacked boxplot for responses on "I feel very con�dent to successfully complete the �rst
year." for di�erent institutes.
Figure 2.3: Stacked boxplot for responses on "I possess the necessary prior knowledge and academic
skills (intelligence, time management, etc.) to be successful in the �rst year." and "My prior knowledge
and academic skills are good in comparison with the other new students.".
other new students." . Figure 2.3 summarizes the responses. Overall 70% of the students considerit typical or very typical to them to possess the necessary prior knowledge and academic skills to besuccessful in the �rst year. 51% of the students consider it typical or very typical to them that theirprior knowledge is good in comparison with the other new students.
Figure 2.4 shows the responses for the di�erent institutes. The Kruskal-Wallis test indicatedstatistically signi�cant di�erences between the responses on the two survey questions by the studentsin the di�erent institutes (chi-squared=26.68, df=1, p-value=2.402e-07; chi-squared=53.066, df=1,p-value=3.225e-13). For the question "I possess the necessary prior knowledge and academic skills(intelligence, time management, etc.) to be successful in the �rst year." there are signi�cant di�erencesbetween KU Leuven and TU Graz, with the TU Graz students being more con�dent to possess therequired knowledge and skills. For the question "My prior knowledge and academic skills are good incomparison with the other new students." there are signi�cant di�erences between KU Leuven andTU Graz, with the latter group believing to have better knowledge and skills with respect to the othernew students.
9
Chapter 2. Survey results
Figure 2.4: Stacked boxplot for responses on "I possess the necessary prior knowledge and academic
skills (intelligence, time management, etc.) to be successful in the �rst year." en"My prior knowledge
and academic skills are good in comparison with the other new students." for di�erent institutes.
2.2 Reasons for success
The survey questions regarding the reasons for success was formulated as a main question "To be
successful in the �rst year it is important that I will" with four subquestions: "study hard.",
"attend classes.", "prepare classes.", and "meticulously follow the communication of
teachers and faculty sta� through email and the virtual learning environment." . Figure 2.5summarizes the responses. Overall 93% of the students beliefs that studying hard is important forstudy success. For attending classes this is 91%, for preparing classes this is 80%, and for meticulouslyfollowing the communication of teachers and faculty sta� through email and the virtual learningenvironment this drops to 50%.
Figure 2.6 shows the responses for the di�erent institutes. The Kruskal-Wallis test indicated sta-tistically signi�cant di�erences between the responses on the survey questions "study hard.", "attendclasses.", "prepare classes.", and "meticulously follow the communication of teachers and faculty sta�through email and the virtual learning environment." (chi-squared=17.885, df=2, p-value=0.0001307;chi-squared=263.68, df=2, p-value < 2.2e-16; chi-squared=330.61, df=2, p-value < 2.2e-16; chi-squared=81.558, df=1, p-value < 2.2e-16).
Table 2.2 compactly presents the output of the pairwise Wilcoxon-tests. For all questions thedi�erences between the institutes are signi�cant. For the question "study hard." there are signi�cantdi�erences between (TU Graz) and (KU Leuven & TU Delft). The latter believe studying hard ismore essential. For the question "attend classes." there are signi�cant di�erences between the threeinstitutes. KU Leuven students agree most that attending class is important for study success, with theTU Delft students on the other end. For the question "prepare classes." there are signi�cant di�erencesbetween (TU Delft) and (KU Leuven & TU Graz), with the latter group believing preparing classes ismore important for study success. For the question "meticulously follow the communication of teachers
10
Chapter 2. Survey results
Figure 2.5: Stacked boxplot for responses on "To be successful in the �rst year it is important that I
will" with four subquestions: "study hard.", "attend classes.", "prepare classes.", "meticulously follow
the communication of teachers and faculty sta� through email and the virtual learning environment.".
and faculty sta� through email and the virtual learning environment." there are signi�cant di�erencesbetween (TU Graz) and (KU Leuven), with the latter believing following the communication is moreimportant for study success.
"To be successful in the �rst year it is important thatI will"
KU Leuven TU Delft TU Graz
"study hard." a a b"attend classes." a b c"prepare classes." a b a"meticulously follow the communication of teachersand faculty sta� through email and the virtual learningenvironment."
a - b
Table 2.2: Table showing the institutes for which the responses on the question "To be successful in the
�rst year it is important that I will" with four subquestions: "study hard.", "attend classes.", "prepareclasses.", "meticulously follow the communication of teachers and faculty sta� through email and the
virtual learning environment." are signi�cantly di�erent using a compact letter display. Institutessharing a letter are not signi�cantly di�erent (Wilcoxon test, p-value threshold 0.05).
11
Chapter 2. Survey results
Figure 2.6: Stacked boxplot for responses on "To be successful in the �rst year it is important that I
will" with four subquestions: "study hard.", "attend classes.", "prepare classes.", "meticulously follow
the communication of teachers and faculty sta� through email and the virtual learning environment.".for di�erent institutes.
2.3 Feedback in �rst year
2.3.1 Feedback want to receive
The survey questions regarding the reasons for success was formulated as a main question "Which
feedback would you like to receive during the �rst year of your study? Feedback con-
cerning:" with two subquestions: "my academic engagement and activities (attend classes,
time used for studying, etc.)." and "my academic performance (test grades, exam grades,
etc.)." . Figure 2.7 summarizes the responses. Overall 69% of the students indicate that it is typical orvery typical for them that they received feedback concerning their academic engagement and activitieswhile this is 87% for feedback concerning their academic performance.
Figure 2.8 shows the responses for the di�erent institutes. The Kruskal-Wallis test indicatedsigni�cant di�erences between the responses on the questions "my academic engagement and activities
(attend classes, time used for studying, etc.)." (chi-squared=16.118, df=5, p-value=0.006515) but noton the question "my academic performance (test grades, exam grades, etc.)." (chi-squared=1.8279,df=1, p-value=0.1764). For the question "my academic engagement and activities (attend classes,time used for studying, etc.)." TU Graz students are more willing to receive feedback on their academicengagement.
12
Chapter 2. Survey results
Figure 2.7: Stacked boxplot for responses on "Which feedback would you like to receive during the
�rst year of your study? Feedback concerning:" with two subquestions: "my academic engagement
and activities (attend classes, time used for studying, etc.).", "my academic performance (test grades,
exam grades, etc.).".
Figure 2.8: Stacked boxplot for responses on "Which feedback would you like to receive during the�rst year of your study? Feedback concerning:"with two subquestions: "my academic engagement and
activities (attend classes, time used for studying, etc.)." and "my academic performance (test grades,
exam grades, etc.)." for di�erent institutes.
2.3.2 Feedback content
The survey questions regarding the reasons for success was formulated as a main question "With
this feedback during the �rst year I would like to receive information concerning:" with
13
Chapter 2. Survey results
Figure 2.9: Stacked boxplot for responses on "With this feedback during the �rst year I would like toreceive information concerning:"with two subquestions: "my position with respect to fellow students.","the expected impact on my future study pathway or study success.".
two subquestions: "my position with respect to fellow students." and "the expected impact
on my future study pathway or study success.". Figure 2.9 summarizes the responses. Overall58% of the students indicates it is typical or very typical for them to desire feedback concerning theirposition with respect to fellow students while this is 79% for feedback regarding the expected impacton his/her future study pathway or study success.
Figure 2.10 shows the responses for the di�erent institutes. The Kruskal-Wallis test indicatedsigni�cant di�erences between the responses on the two survey questions "my position with respectto fellow students." and "the expected impact on my future study pathway or study success."(chi-squared=5.7608, df=1, p-value=0.01639; chi-squared=21.316, df=1, p-value=3.894e-069). For thequestion "my position with respect to fellow students." TU Graz students are more divided on whetherreceiving feedback regarding their position with respect to fellow students is desired. For the question"the expected impact on my future study pathway or study success." KU Leuven students are mostrequesting feedback regarding the impact on their study pathway.
14
Chapter 2. Survey results
Figure 2.10: Stacked boxplot for responses on "With this feedback during the �rst year I would like to
receive information concerning:" with two subquestions: "my position with respect to fellow students."
and "the expected impact on my future study pathway or study success." for di�erent institutes.
2.4 Feedback in transition
2.4.1 Feedback received
The survey questions regarding the reasons for success was formulated as a main question "Whichfeedback did you receive before the start of the academic year? I received feedback concerning:" withthree subquestions: "the prior knowledge and academic skills I need to be successful in the
institute.", "if I possess the required prior knowledge and academic skills to be successful
in the institute.", and "how my prior knowledge and academic skills compare to the other
new students.". Figure 2.11 summarizes the responses.Overall 51% of the students indicate that they received information on the prior knowledge and
skills they need to be successful in the institute, and 43% indicated that they received information onwhether they possess the required knowledge and skills. Only 24% of the students indicates that theycould compare their prior knowledge and skills to other new students.
Figure 2.12 shows the responses for the di�erent institutes. The Kruskal-Wallis test indicated sig-ni�cant di�erences between the responses on the three survey questions "the prior knowledge and aca-demic skills I need to be successful in the institute.", "if I possess the required prior knowledge and aca-demic skills to be successful in the institute.", and "how my prior knowledge and academic skills com-pare to the other new students." (chi-squared=30.067, df=1, p-value=4.175e-08; chi-squared=55.967,df=1, p-value=7.368e-14; chi-squared=14.371, df=1, p-value=0.0001501). KU Leuven students con-sistently report to have received more feedback in the transition from secondary to higher educationcompared to TU Graz students.
15
Chapter 2. Survey results
Figure 2.11: Stacked boxplot for responses on "Which feedback did you receive before the start of theacademic year? I received feedback concerning:" with three subquestions: "the prior knowledge andacademic skills I need to be successful in the institute.", "if I possess the required prior knowledge andacademic skills to be successful in the institute.", and "how my prior knowledge and academic skillscompare to the other new students.".
2.4.2 Feedback useful and motivating
The survey questions regarding the reasons for success was formulated as a main question "The
feedback I received before the start of the academic year:" with two subquestions: "was
useful." and "was motivating.". Figure 2.13 summarizes the responses. Overall 51% of the studentsindicate that it is typical or very typical for them that the feedback they received before the start ofthe academic year was useful, while only 41% agrees it was typical or very typical for them that thefeedback was motivating.
Figure 2.14 shows the responses for the di�erent institutes. The Kruskal-Wallis test indicated sig-ni�cant di�erences between the institutes for "was useful." (chi-squared=64.59, df=1, p-value=9.222e-16) but not for "was motivating." (chi-squared=5.5509, df=1, p-value=0.01847). KU Leuven studentsagree more that the feedback they received was useful.
16
Chapter 2. Survey results
Figure 2.12: Stacked boxplot for responses on "Which feedback did you receive before the start of the
academic year? I received feedback concerning:" with three subquestions: "the prior knowledge and
academic skills I need to be successful in the institute.", "if I possess the required prior knowledge and
academic skills to be successful in the institute.", and "how my prior knowledge and academic skills
compare to the other new students." for di�erent institutes.
Figure 2.13: Stacked boxplot for responses on "The feedback I received before the start of the academicyear:"with two subquestions: "was useful." and "was motivating.".
17
Chapter 2. Survey results
Figure 2.14: Stacked boxplot for responses on "The feedback I received before the start of the academicyear:"with two subquestions: "was useful." and "was motivating." for di�erent institutes.
18
Chapter 3. Conclusion
Chapter 3
Conclusion
The goal of the report was to learn more about students in the transition from secondary to highereducation for engineering students in three European universities. This particular report focused onstudents in the �rst weeks in higher education. This reports handled the following topics:
• the con�dence students have in study success,
• the academic activities they believe to be important for study success,
• the feedback they would like to receive in the �rst year of higher education,
• the feedback they received in the transition from secondary to higher education.
Big di�erences exist between the self-reported con�dence in study success between �rst-year engi-neering students in three European universities: KU Leuven, TU Delft, and TU Graz. Surprisinglythis con�dence does not correlate with the percentage of successful students in the �rst year (see Sec-tion 1.3). A small elaboration is needed to explain the higher con�dence of TU Graz students, despitethe drop out rate in a long run being similar to KU Leuven and TU Delft. Bearing in mind the specialsituation of Austria and the high percentage of school children coming from Federal Secondary Collegesof Engineering the pre-knowledge of what can be expected from the study seem to be quite good forthose kinds of students. Those beginners for sure have strong domain knowledge. Nevertheless in along run the experience shows that this is not a good predictor for study success, due to the di�erencebetween secondary and higher education is quite high and is underestimated by those beginners.
Overall, when asked to indicate whether particular academic activities are important for studysuccess, students indicate that all of them are important for study success. They considering studyinghard most important (93% positive, 1% negative). Meticulously following the communication throughemail and the virtual learning environment is considered less important (50% positive, 17% negative).TU Delft students indicate less often that attending classes and preparing classes is important.
Students indicate they would like to receive both feedback on their academic engagement (69%positive, 7% negative) and their academic performance (87% positive, 3% negative). Students mainlywant to learn about the expected impact on their study pathway (79% positive, 8% negative) ratherthan on their position with respect to fellow students (positive 58%, 19% negative).
The responses of students show improvement can be made regarding the feedback provided inthe transition from secondary to higher education regarding the required knowledge and skills. Thisconcerns both the communication of required knowledge and skills (51% positive, 21% negative), thepersonal feedback to students if they possess the required knowledge and skills (43% positive, 27%negative), and the comparison with other new students (20% positive, 46% negative). There are mixedfeelings about the usefulness (51% positive, 19% negative) and the motivational aspect (41% positive,21% negative).
Future work on feedback should consider why students indicate not wanting to receive feedbackon their academic engagement and their academic performance. Additionally, the higher reluctance toreceive feedback regarding their position with respect to fellow students should be understood better.Finally, the feedback in the transition can and should be improved. Care should be taken not todecrease motivation of students that have the potential to be successful in the program.
19
Chapter 3. Conclusion
Explaining the di�erences between the institutes in detail is beyond the scope of this report as itrequires careful consideration of the context of the institutes, the background and culture of students,and the actions of the institutes towards future and beginning �rst-year students.
As future work, the di�erences between institutes should be taken into account when designingfeedback. Additionally, the results can be used by the di�erent institutes to compare how their practicesin�uence the perceptions of students.
20
