Recent changes in university financing in Austria raise the importance of measures to improve the share of successful students. While other countries as for example several states in the United States have more experience in holding universities accountable for their students’ success (Berger, Ramirez, & Lyons, 2012, p. 30; Tandberg & Hillman, 2014, p. 224; Tinto, 2006, p. 5), this is a rather new phenomenon in the Austrian university system. In 2018 a change in university law integrated student performance as one central criterion for the calculation of the university budget (UG, 2002). This change requires students to achieve at least 16 ECTS credits per year in order to count as an active student for the budget of their university. 

Therefore, the Vienna University of Business and Economics (WU), one of the largest business schools in Europe, for example, defined as one main goal in its development plan for the period 2019 to 2022 to improve the number of active students throughout all study programs (Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, 2018, p. 29). This is a relevant goal for all universities in Austria at the moment.

Based on the considerations above, the main aims of this study is to explore which factors are supportive or hindering for student success in business study programs as well as in a business teacher training program. Furthermore, it is studied how the factors influencing student success differ across study programs. In detail, the difference between regular business study programs and a program targeted toward business teacher education will be analysed.

Based on these aims, the following research questions will be answered:

1. How do the students perceive institutional factors?
2. How do individual background factors and institutional factors influence student success?
3. How do business teacher training students differ according to their perception of institutional factors and study success from regular business students?

Thiel, Blüthmann, Richter and Csonka (2010) suggest a model which is based on school-related quality models such as the Offer- and Use-Model for Teaching Effectiveness Model by (Helmke, 1998). Blüthmann (2012, p. 26) describes the model as follows: The student success is defined as the explained variable and consists of satisfaction with the study, dropout possibility, subject-specific and employment-related competences. Next to student-related prerequisites such as sociodemographic variables or motives for choice of study, also the student’s life situation is integrated in the model. Additionally, the offer made by the university is integrated in the model as study conditions. All three factors influence the students’ study and learning which in turn influences the student success. This model provides the theoretical base for an online survey.

The concept of student success is be the central outcome variable in this study. Student success in this study is understood as not being limited to academic achievement. In detail, it comprises qualitative as well as quantitative factors. Quantitative student success factors are ECTS credits and average grades, while qualitative factors include the satisfaction of the students as well as their perceived learning outcomes.

In order to answer the research questions defined above, a questionnaire was developed based on the theoretical model by Thiel et al. (2010) and existing instruments were scanned and adapted. The questionnaire was validated through experts and students in order to ensure the quality of the questions. Finally, an online survey was conducted in the summer term 2020. A sample of 668 students filled out the online survey.

The results of this study provide valuable input for measures to support the success of business students from a university perspective, which is a pressing issue for all universities. Furthermore, the findings provide insights for future curriculum developments as well as the provision and conception of trainings for university staff. In addition, the study contributes to the research on student success by empirically testing theoretical assumptions and by providing further empirical insights from the perspective of business students and business teacher training students.

Berger, J. B., Ramirez, G. B., & Lyons, S. (2012). Past to present: A historical look at retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (2 ed., pp. 7–34). United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefield. Blüthmann, I. (2012). Studierbarkeit, Studienzufriedenheit und Studienabbruch: Analysen von Bedingungsfaktoren in den Bachelorstudiengängen. (Doctoral Dissertation). Freie Universität Berlin, Helmke, A. (1998). Hochschulsozialisation. In D. H. Rost (Ed.), Handwörterbuch Pädagogische Psychologie (pp. 188–192). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union. Tandberg, D. A., & Hillman, N. W. (2014). State higher education performance funding: Data, outcomes, and policy implications. Journal of Education Finance, 71(4), 222–243. Thiel, F., Blüthmann, I., Richter, M., & Csonka, N. (2010). Ergebnisse der Befragung der Studierenden in den Bachelorstudiengängen. Retrieved from https://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/studium/Qualitaetssicherung/Ressourcen/FU_bachelorbefragung_2010.pdf Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 1–19. Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien. (2018). Entwicklungsplan der Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien. Retrieved from https://www.wu.ac.at/universitaet/ueber