检索历史 清除

目的:调查硕士研究生学业奖学金政策满意度及其影响因素，为激发研究生学习动力、提高政策实施成效提供理论依据。方法:2023年4月至5月，采用方便抽样方法，选取北京中医药大学701名硕士研究生开展学业奖学金政策满意度问卷调查，收集其一般资料、对学业奖学金评选全流程满意度和整体满意度等信息。以描述性统计、 t检验、方差分析、多元线性回归等方法，分析硕士研究生学业奖学金政策满意度及其影响因素。 结果:硕士研究生对学业奖学金政策整体、政策内容制定、政策执行过程和政策执行效果的评分分别为(3.54±0.99)分、(3.71±0.96)分、(3.89±0.93)分、(3.84±1.03)分。对学业奖学金总体覆盖范围[(3.40±1.35)分]、各等级金额设置[(3.50±1.24)分]等的评分较低。多元线性回归结果表明，学位类型、获奖学金等级、家庭年均收入、政策了解程度是硕士研究生学业奖学金政策整体满意度的影响因素( β值分别为0.103、0.235、0.129、0.093，均 P<0.05)。 结论:硕士研究生对学业奖学金政策整体满意度处于中等偏上水平，但在学业奖学金覆盖范围、等级金额设置合理性等方面的满意度较低，应当通过拓宽资金来源、合理设置学业奖学金覆盖范围和等级金额等方式进一步完善学业奖学金政策。不同学位类型、获奖学金等级、家庭年均收入、政策了解程度的硕士生表现出学业奖学金政策满意度差异，后续学业奖学金政策实施应当加大对专业学位研究生、未得奖学金研究生、低收入家庭研究生的关注力度，同时加强学业奖学金政策宣传。

Objective:To investigate the satisfaction with the academic scholarship policy for master′s students and its influencing factors, to inform how to better stimulating postgraduates′ learning motivation and improving the effectiveness of policy implementation.Methods:From April to May 2023, using convenient sampling, 701 master′s students from Beijing University of Chinese Medicine were enrolled to take part in a satisfaction questionnaire survey on the academic scholarship policy. Information on their general background, satisfaction with the entire process of academic scholarship selection, and overall satisfaction were collected. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, analysis of variance, and multiple linear regression were used to analyze the satisfaction of master′s students with the academic scholarship policy and its influencing factors.Results:The satisfaction scores of master′s students with the overall academic scholarship policy, policy content formulation, policy implementation process, and policy implementation effects were (3.54±0.99), (3.71±0.96), (3.89±0.93), and (3.84±1.03) respectively. Satisfaction with the overall coverage of academic scholarships[ (3.40±1.35) ]and the setting of amounts for each grade [(3.50±1.24) ]was lower. Multiple linear regression results showed that the type of degree, scholarship level, annual family income, and degree of policy understanding were influencing factors on the overall satisfaction of master′s students with the academic scholarship policy ( β values were 0.103, 0.235, 0.129, and 0.093 respectively, all P<0.05). Conclusions:Master′s students′ satisfaction with the academic scholarship policy is at an above-average level, but their satisfaction is low in terms of the coverage of academic scholarships and the rationality of the setup for grade and amount. It is necessary to further improve the academic scholarship policy by broadening the sources of funds, and by setting a reasonable coverage and grade amount for academic scholarships. There are differences in the satisfaction of master′s students with the academic scholarship policy among different degree types, scholarship levels, average annual family income, and policy understanding. Subsequent implementations of the academic scholarship policy should pay more attention to professional graduate students, postgraduates who have not received scholarships, and postgraduates from low-income families, while also enhancing the publicity of the academic scholarship policy.