Measuring Student Satisfaction of Master Level ...

216

School of Doctoral Studies (European Union) Journal

2012

Measuring Student Satisfaction of Master Level Students; Evidence from University of Sargodha, Pakistan Ammar Kashan

Research Scholar University of Sargodha, Pakistan Email: [email protected]

Abstract During last few years, there are a huge number of increases in Education sector of Pakistan, and simultaneously there is a boost in student’s expectation regarding student satisfaction. This paper focuses on such variables with plays a significant role in maximizing student satisfaction level. Data was collected from a public sector university, University of Sargodha of Punjab province in Pakistan. Data was collected by the source of modified Questionnaire and analyze by the use of SPSS. Cronbach alpha, correlation and regression are the tools which was used for the analysis of data. Findings show that teaching faculty was highly statistically significant factor. Limitations and guideline for future work are also discussed. Key words: Education, Student satisfaction, Master level, University of Sargodha (U.O.S), AVOVA, Teaching faculty, Advisory Staff.

Given that education is an experience good; its efficacy can be measured by evaluating its effect on users (students). Satisfaction level varies from individual to individual and its determinants may also slightly different than other. But there should be standard for everyone in order to measure it. But it is impossible to measure it. This is not necessary that an item/construct, which is substantial in the satisfaction of one individual, might be less substantial for another or there may a possibility that other person may value it less. Satisfaction also varies from society to society due to the rituals and socials values. Because some people are closely related to their cultures, that’s why an item, which are , praised too much in one society, might be less valuable in other society. Early students were strongly attached with two areas that are Engineering and Medical. There was no awareness regarding the other areas of education. There might be some reasons.First the two areas were considered to be socially valuable and members of this society also respect for such degree holders. Second collectivism is very common in this society that’s why people after doing Secondary School Certificates (SSC) start asking different people and family members to join which one area for further education. At that time, family members direct their sons and daughters to the mentioned areas. Although their children lack the interest in such areas still they act on their elders’ statement, because it is conventional to act on the parents’ and elders’ statement. But now this tradition is going to fade away.

Another possibility for choosing these two areas was the lack of opportunities and employment in other areas, because they did not find any flourishing fields for their employment. University of Sargodha (U.O.S), a Pakistani public university, was established in April 2002. University is located in the city of Sargodha. The City of Sargodha lies between 31-300 and 32-350 North latitudes and between 72-050 and 73-150 East latitude. The main purpose of this paper is to measure student satisfaction in master’s level students of university of Sargodha. In Pakistan, there are 132 universities of which 73 (55%) are in public sector, while 59 (45%) are in private sector. The total enrolment in the universities is 948,268; out of which 106,214 (86%) is in public sector and 11,842 (14%) is in private sector. The total male enrolment in the universities is 521547 (55%), whereas, the female enrolment is 426721 (45%). The question arises in this study is whether Pakistani students are satisfied with the academic, administrative, and logistics support provided by their respective higher education institution. To measure personal satisfaction of the university students, this study has been initiated. The University of Sargodha has become a legendary center of Higher Education, in a short span of time, respected nationally as well as internationally for its brilliant performance in teaching and research activities that’s why I select this institute for such kind of research.

School of Doctoral Studies (European Union) Journal - 2012

2012

Ammar Kashan

Literature Review Education Education has many service attributes as they are vague, abstract, varied, “Produced” & “Consumed” at a same time in between the student & professor (Shank et al. (1995)). It is commonly stated that educational institutions are more than one customer; i.e. staff, benefactor, students and others. Seymour (1972) states that the main aim of higher education will be to make number of satisfied customers who; may be students, their parents, faculty staff or industry employer (Seymour (1972)). Education’s efficacy can be calculated by only valuating its result on customers (students) because it’s a type of experienced good. The level of quality in higher education is a very complicated idea and still has to be researched. Education institutions are greatly forced to create a student focused environment due to highly increasing trend of competitors and customers. Students are the most important customers of educational institutions (Marzo-Navarro et al. (2005a)). Paid students are more likely to act as a consumer & require “Value for Money” (Watson (2003) & Narasimhan (2001)). Now a days Universities try to compete globally to attract students from all over the world (Altbach, 1998; Arambewela and Hall, 2009). As Universities are a type of public administration, it is very crucial to measure universities performance in terms of employed resources and the caliber of service provided by them as they are the highest education provider institutes. Due to world economic conditions Public universities and government colleges are largely increasing their dues because Government funds for students are highly decreasing and at a same time student satisfaction is getting more importance by universities due to a number of challenges faced by universities in constantly changing educational environment (Usman, 2010; Altbach, 1998; Arambewela and Hall, 2009). Normally higher educational institution student demands more quality education and idol scheme of study place because it fulfills their admiration and trains them to be a good educational personality. Another important issue is high rate of population; number of students trying to get higher education is very high while in response numbers of institutions are alarmingly low.

Dependent Variables Satisfaction: Quality and satisfaction is becoming more and more important for gaining competitive advantage and

217

succeeding consumer preferences in globalized economy. Customer satisfaction is the most important function of any service. Organizational success can be achieved by customer satisfaction and commitment and this comes when customer’s needs are fully focused. Satisfied customers repeatedly purchase the product/service and are a positive messenger about it through referring others (Abu Hasan et al., 2008; Petruzzellis et al, 2006; Arambewela and Hall, 2009). Satisfaction is defined as Exact Similarity between customer’s expectation and their experience is simply stated as satisfaction by Arambewela and Hall (2009). When the service is under anticipation then customers become dissatisfied and passing negative comments about the product while when the service match with their anticipation, they are satisfied and satisfaction level increases when the service goes beyond their anticipations and finally totally satisfied when they got more than their expectations. Customer satisfaction can be achieved by matching their anticipation to the performance of product/ service. It is, when the customer enjoys the use of service or feels bad about the service/product, and then this phase is called satisfaction (Kotler, P., & Keller, K.L. 2006). Anything which has a significant effect on satisfaction of one person may be less significant for others; i.e. the other one may be less prefer it. Satisfaction can be measured only at consumer’s end because it’s the consumer who describes his experience of consumption as a delightful or worst (Oliver (1997)). Student Satisfaction: Students are satisfied with quality of education when they undergo college life positively. Student satisfaction is continuously structured by different events and experiences in university life (Elliot & Shin (2002)). Student satisfaction is the satisfaction and contentment of students from the service quality of their institution. It is measured by the questionnaire developed by Atheeyaman (1997). All the responses are recorded on a five point likert type scale.

Independent Variables Teaching Faculty: An important factor to motivate, satisfy and to increase student's impartiality is teacher's functioning inside and outside the class. As according to Pozo, teaching faculty acts main role in campus’s life (PozoMunoz et al. (2000)). A permanent and highly qualified teaching faculty satisfies student’s more than inexperienced and visiting teaching faculty. Educational activities

Kashan A. - Measuring Student Satisfaction of Master Level Students; Evidence from University of Sargodha, Pakistan

218


organized by professors have a great impact on students. According to (Rodie and Kleine 2000) if institutions have all necessary educational facilities and also have an efficient faculty for teaching and training then their students will be highly motivated, loyal with their institution and be a good performers (Rodie and Kleine 2000) while when we talk about teaching staff, according to Shevlin, Banyard, Davies and Griffith (2000) those teachers are more popular in students who teach them with accuracy, logical way and in a friendly atmosphere (Davies and Griffith (2000)). Advisory Staff: Consolatory staff of any institution directly affects the students overall institution experience. For enabling students to go forward through their institution in an effective way, guidance and providing information is a crucial service and to perform this service institution has to highly promote their advising faculty. Student satisfaction is highly increased by exact and proper counseling offered by the advisory staff; hence we can say that they are a major factor of student satisfaction or dissatisfaction. If the faculty is uncompassionate and harsh then a large number of students get de-motivated so, advisory staff has a great effect on student satisfaction. Class Environment: Another important factor for determining student satisfaction is class environment. Student Satisfaction will be increased, if their course of study is scheduled in good order, actual world examples are used in classes and case studies/projects are allocated to students related to their study and class conditions like temperature, sitting facility, noise conditions are facilitating otherwise students are demotivated.

Data and Methodology

2012

remains Pakistan’s one of the most attractive universities by recruiters especially in the field of Economics, Business Management, Chemical Industry, IT Industry, Pharmacy, Pharmaceuticals, Social Services, and NGOs. During the last few years, the University has gone through a number of institutional reforms aimed at quality assurance in teaching and research.A number of newly emerging disciplines have been added to make the University education relevant to the future needs of the society.

Hypothesis Three hypotheses are made in this research which is as under. H1: Teaching Faculty is positively related to student’s overall satisfaction. H2: Advisory Staff is positively related to student’s overall satisfaction. H3: Class Environment is positively related to student’s overall satisfaction.

Data Collection Questionnaire was distributed to students inside their classes, briefed them about the topic and collected back after 20 minutes. Questionnaire is self-made. Most of the items are extracted from “STUDENTS SATISFACITON QUESTIONNAIRE TEST VERSION May 2005” designed by the Finnish national Board of Education. However some other items are also added to the questionnaire from other sources.

Measures

This study aims to measure student satisfaction in master level students. Data was collected from university of Sargodha. The University of Sargodha has become a legendary center of Higher Education, in a short span of time, respected nationally as well as internationally for its brilliant performance in teaching and research activities. its programs are very much part of research context, with students enjoying the benefits of working with research scholars, who are not only teaching but also ensuring that the latest developments are integrated into study programs at different levels. The University of Sargodha

Questionnaire was based on 5 scale likert scale of 1 to 5 where: 1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = neutral; 4 = disagree, and 5 = strongly disagree.

Research Framework The dependent variable in this study is student satisfaction while independent variables are different factors under consideration who affect satisfaction which were Teaching Faculty, Advisory Staff and Class Environment.


2012

219

Ammar Kashan

Teaching Faculty

Advisory Staff

Overall Satisfaction

Class Environment

Population and Sample Sample in this study were master level students of university of Sargodha. A number of 120questionnaires were distributed and 120 number of questionnaire are returned so, the response rate was 100%.

Research Instrument The Software used for data analysis is Statistical Package for Social Science SPSS version 16

Analysis and Results

Table 1: Profiles of Respondents

Valid

Male

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

107

89.2

89.2

89.2 100.0

Female

13

10.8

10.8

Total

120

100.0

100.0

Cronbach’s Alpha This analysis measures the reliability of the variables. Range of cronbach alpha is from 0-1. The reliability of each variable is as under.

Profiles of Respondents Table 1 shows that from total 120 respondents, 107(89.2%) are male respondents while remaining 13(10.8%) are female respondents.

Frequency

Table 2: Cronbach’s Alpha Dimension

Alpha

Teaching Faculty

.720

Advisory Staff

.767

Class Environment

.795

Overall Satisfaction

.868


220


The above three are independent while last one is dependent variable. The cronbach alpha value for variables will be more than .7 which states that variable is reliable but in some cases 0.5 is also considered as reliable. Our all values are more than .7 which means that they are reliable.

Correlation Analysis Correlation describes the direction and value of relation. Table 3 shows a positive relation among overall satisfaction and independent variables. Correlation of satisfaction with teaching faculty is .748, advisory staff is .597 and with class environment is .646. Correlations are taken at 0.01 level of significance means that there are only 0.01 chances that our hypothesis is wrong and it is at 1 tailed. Teaching faculty has highest value and highly correlates with overall satisfaction so, it has a great impact on overall satisfaction. Class environment stands at 2nd number while the third variable advisory staff has lowest value of .597 but it doesn’t means that it has to be ignored. Correlation analysis clearly shows that students give value to all the independent variables use in this study. So to satisfy their students, university administration has to take care of all these variables.

Class_ Environment

Overall_ Satisfaction

.790**

.855** .748**

Pearson Correlation

.000

.000

.000

120

120

120

120

.790**

1

Sig. (1-tailed)

.000

N

120

Pearson Correlation

120

.855** .907**

Sig. (1-tailed)

.000

.000

N

120

120

Pearson Correlation

Overall_ Satisfaction

Class_ Environment

1

Sig. (1-tailed) N

Advisory_ Staff

Advisory_ Staff

Teaching_ Faculty

Pearson Correlation

Teaching_ Faculty

Table 3: Correlations among variables

.748** .597**

Multiple Regression Analysis According to model, the correlation coefficient is. 748 which tells the overall relationship of dependent variable with independent variables while r square represents coefficient of determination square whose value is .560. R square explains that how much variation will be occurring in satisfaction by changing the independent variables. According to table 4, 56% variation occurred in dependent variable will be due to independent variables while remaining 44% will be due to other factors which are not included in this model. Table 4: Model Summary Model

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

Sig. F Change

DurbinWatson

1

.748a

.560

.549

1.16029

.000

2.362

b. Dependent Variable: Overall_Satisfaction

Variance Analysis (ANOVA) ANOVA table is mainly used to check the significance of variance. In table 5, column of Df represents degree of freedom. In this column the number 3 represents number of independent variables while the lower cell number 116 represents the number of responses minus number of independent variables less one(N-3-1). Now in the last column, significance of variance is checked. The lower the value, the better is value. Normally .005 is the maximum value for significance of ANOVA. Table shows sig. value is .000 which means that the value of F which is 49.228 is significant at 0.0001 level. ANOVA result shows that our dependent variable is anticipated by independent variables.

.907** .597** .000

.000

120

120

1

.646**

Table 5: ANOVA Model

Df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

49.228

.000a

Regression

198.823

3

66.274

Residual

156.169

116

1.346

120

120

Total

354.992

119

.646**

1

.000

.000

.000

N

120

120

120

120

1

Sum of Squares

.000

Sig. (1-tailed)

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level 1-tailed).

2012

a. Predictors: Advisory_Staff

(Constant),

Class_Environment,

b. Dependent Variable: Overall_Satisfaction


Teaching_Faclty,

2012

221

Ammar Kashan

Table 2: Regression Coefficients Unstandardized Coefficients

Mode

B

1

Standardized Coefficients

Std. Error

(Constant)

.529

.758

Teaching_Faculty

.376

.061

Advisory_Staff

.001

Class_Environment

.008

t

Correlations

Sig.

Beta

Zero-order

Partial

Part

.698

.487

.730

6.123

.000

.748

.494

.377

.049

.002

.011

.991

.597

.001

.001

.067

.020

.118

.906

.646

.011

.007

a. Dependent Variable: Overall_Satisfaction

Standardized coefficients describe relative strength of different variables. These coefficients are called beta coefficient and measured in standard deviations. Teaching faculty has the largest beta value of .730 and the advisory staff has lowest of .002. These values describe that how much standard deviation will increase in overall satisfaction, if one standard deviation will increase in this variable keeping others constant. An important issue is Sig. value which is best for teaching faculty but for other variables it’s not good. Why is it? As in above correlation table we see that these are significant values. This is because multiple regression looks at the combination of these three variables to predict the outcome. So if we remove any variable which is not significant then it will affect the other variables significance also. According to above table teaching faculty is highly significant while other two variables have no significant value which means that they are less contributing and their estimates are not reliable.

Limitations of the Paper The main limitation is that this paper focuses on master level studies only. The other fields of studies are neglected. Secondly data is limited as it is collected from just one public sector university of Pakistan and sample size is just 120.

Conclusion and Future Work This paper measures the Student Satisfaction Level based on different variables which are teaching faculty, advisory staff and class environment in university of Sargodha, Pakistan. All the hypothesis are supported by statistical data and shows the satisfaction level of student of university of Sargodha, Pakistan.

This study helps in future research work in other aspects of study other than master’s level of education across public and private sector of universities. Conducting research on large levels by using large samples can enhance its study findings.

References Abu Hasan. H; Ilias, R; Rahman, R. and Abd Razak, .M. (2008), “Service Quality and Student Satisfaction: A Case Study at Private Higher Education Institutions”, International Business Research, Vol.1 No.3, PP.136175. Altbach, P. (1998) Competitive higher education knowledge: the university and development, London: Albex. Arambewela, R. and Hall, J. (2009) "An empirical model of international student satisfaction", Asian Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol.21 No.4, pp.555-569. Atheeyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the case of university education. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), 528-540. Bean, J. P., & Bradley, R. K. (1986). Untangling the Satisfaction-Performance Relationship for C o l l e g e Students. Journal of Higher Education, 57(04), 393-412. Centra, J. A., & Rock, D. (1983). College Environments and Student Achievement. American E d u c a t i o n a l Research Journal, 08, 623-634. Elliot, K.M. & Shin, D. (2002), “Student satisfaction: an alternative approach to assessing this important concept”, Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, Vol.24 No.2, pp.197-209. Holtfreter, R. E. (1991). Student Rating Biases: Is Faculty Fears Justified? The Woman CPA (fall), 59-62. Kotler, P., & Keller, K.L. (2006). Marketing Management, Published by Prentice Hall.


222


Lavin, D. E. (1965). The Prediction of Academic Performance: Sage Publication. Liu, R., & Jung, L. (1980). The Commuter Student and Student Satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 12(03), 215-226. Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making Students' Evaluations of Teaching Effectiveness Effective: The Critical Issues of Validity, Bias and Utility. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1187-1197. Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M. & Rivera-Torres, M.P. (2005a), “Measuring customer satisfaction in summer courses”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol.13 No.1, pp.53-65. Watson, S.(2003),”Closing the feedback loop: ensuring effective action from student feedback”, Tertiary Education & Management , Vol.9, pp. 145-57 McKeachie, W. (1987). Can Evaluating Instruction Improve Teaching? In Aleamoni, L.M. (Ed.), Techniques for Evaluating and Improving Instructions (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.). Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence Consumer Loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.63, pp.33-44. Petruzzellis, L; D’Uggento, A. and Romanazze, S. (2006), “Student satisfaction and quality of service in Italian universities”, Managing Service Quality, Vol.16, No.4, pp.349-364. Pike, G. R. (1991). The Effects of Background, Coursework, and Involvement on Students' Grade and Satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 32(01), 1531. Pozo-Munoz, C, Rebolloso-Pacheo, E. & Fernandoz-Ramirez, N. (2000), “The ‘ideal teacher’: implications for student evaluation of

2012

teacher effectiveness”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol.25 No.3, pp.253-63. Rashid, W .and Jusoff. H. (2009)" Service quality in health care setting" International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance.Vol.22 No.5. PP 471-482. Risch, R. A. & Kleine, S .S. (2000). Customer Participation in Service Production and Delivery. In Handbook of Services Marketing and Management. Eds. Teresa A. Swartz and Dawn Iacobucci. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 111-125. Shank, M.D, Walker, M. & Hayes, T.(1995), “Understanding Professional service expectations: Do we know what our students expect in a quality education?”,Journal of Professional Services Marketing,Vol.13 No.1, pp.71-83 Shevlin, M., Banyard, P., Davies, M. & Griffiths, M. (2000). The validity of student evaluation of teaching in higher education: Love me, love my lectures? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 397-405. Statistics,(2010).http://www.hec.gov.pk/InsideHEC/ Divisions/QALI/Others/Statistics/Pages/Dep artmentofStatistics.aspx, accessed 21 July 2010. Statistics,(2010).http://www.hec.gov.pk/InsideHEC/ Divisions/QALI/Others/Statistics/Pages/Enr ollmentSummary.aspx, accessed 21 July 2010. Statistics,(2010).http://www.hec.gov.pk/InsideHEC/ Divisions/QALI/Others/Statistics/Pages/Enr ollment.aspx, accessed 20 July 2010. Usman, Ali. (2010) ‘‘The Impact of Service Quality on Students’ Satisfaction in Higher Education Institutes of Punjab,’’ Journal of Management Research, Vol.2, No. 2.
