Student Satisfaction: A Tool to ensure Quality in

Asian Research Consortium Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management Vol. 4, No. 7, July 2014, pp. 87-93. ISSN 2249-7307

Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management www.aijsh.org

Student Satisfaction: A Tool to ensure Quality in Management Education Nandini Borah*; Sudeshna Pahari**; Bitopi Gogoi Malakar*** *Assistant Professor, Royal School of Business, Royal Group of Institutions, Guwahati, India. **Assistant Professor, Royal School of Business, Royal Group of Institutions, Guwahati, India. ***Assistant Professor, Royal School of Business, Royal Group of Institutions, Guwahati, India.

Abstract The north-eastern region of India has witnessed a significant growth in the number of management institutes. The quality of management education affects not only the performance of the students, but also the economy and the society at large. The purpose of this paper is to determine the satisfaction level of the management students, both at the undergraduate and post graduate level. The study also aims to highlight the service dimensions of management education which, are considered important by the students.

Keywords: Management education, Quality, Students satisfaction. _______________________________________________________________________________

Introduction The North-East region of India has witnessed a rapid growth in the number of business schools. Today we can find a host of educational institutions imparting management education. Many colleges and institutions of Assam which were earlier offering traditional courses have ventured

87

Borah et al. (2014). Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management, Vol. 4, No. 7, pp. 87-93.

into this area of the education spectrum and have launched this subject as one of their flagship courses. However, of utmost importance is the concern for ‘Quality’. The perfect tuning between ‘quality of inputs’ and ‘quality of outputs’ forms the basic performance indicator of management education. Thus, maintaining quality is of prior importance while considering this fundamental concept of Input, Output as well as the Process. The thrust area of this research is mainly concentrated in trying to gauge the satisfaction level of management students of private management institutes (affiliated to Gauhati University only) and effectively finding out newer prospects and scope in maintaining the quality standards. The focus of the study has been on the aspects of concern mainly from the students’ point of view regarding these programs and their end results.

Literature Review Quality, according to Juran (1988), is “fitness for use”. The American Society for Quality Control defines quality as, “the totality of features & characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs”. Cheng (2003) has described education quality as the character of an input, process and output of the education system that satisfy both internal and external stakeholders by meeting their explicit and implicit expectation. According to Jagadeesh (2000), education quality can be defined from the perspective of knowledge base and skill set of the graduates. With the help of student satisfaction, institutions can identify their strength and areas of improvement (study by Noel-Levitz, 2003:1). Satisfaction has also been defined as, “evaluation of the perceived discrepancy between prior expectations and the actual performance of the product” (Tse & Wilton, 1988, Oliver 1999). In the service sector, satisfaction and quality and performance are highly inter-related and the nature of their relationship is cyclical in nature (Cronin et. al., 2000; Bitner and Hubert, 1994). Higher customer satisfaction serves as an indicator of superior quality service. Satisfaction is a mental state where according to the customer his/her expectations have been met or surpassed by the service provider. Thus, customer satisfaction is a very dynamic factor as the level of expectations varies from person to person. Students are the ‘primary customers’ of any educational institution as they are the direct recipients of the service provided. As a result, students’ feedback is sought by many educational institutions (Douglas, Douglas and Barnes, 2006). According to Rowley (2003), student feedback helps provide evidence that students had the opportunity to comment and reflect on their courses and learning. In addition to this, it helps the institutes to determine the satisfaction level of the students and provide benchmark and indicators for the various services. Petruzzellis et. al.(2006) assessed the satisfaction concerning services provided and quality perceived by students at University of Bari and found that the university needs to concentrate their efforts on improving quality of teaching as well as non-teaching services. Douglas, Douglas and Barnes (2006) in their study utilized the concept of service-product bundle and found that satisfaction is linked to teaching and learning factors as compared to the physical facilities.

Methodology The various aspects impacting student satisfaction and the degree to which they satisfy the students were assessed through a student satisfaction survey. The concept of service quality and customer 88


satisfaction was utilized to design the survey questionnaire. The data has been analysed and presented in the form of tables and figures for better understanding. Quadrant analysis (Dillon et. al, 1993), a graphical technique was used to analyze importance and attribute ratings, was performed to determine areas of high priority and high satisfaction as well as high priority but low satisfaction.

Analysis To analyse the satisfaction level of the students on various parameters and to ascertain the importance of each parameter a standard questionnaire was developed and administered. The questionnaire comprised of 48 questions sub-divided into four main categories, viz., programme features, learning outcomes, quality of the course instructors and access to general facilities. Both satisfaction and importance was measured using a 5-point scale. Participants of the survey were students from private management institutions affiliated to Gauhati University. All participants were assured that the data will be treated anonymously. A total of 550 students were approached, of whom 500 completed the entire questionnaire.

Results Based on the analysis of the responses, Table I shows the demography of the respondents.

Table I. Demographic Mix of the respondents

Gender

Age of the respondents

Programme

Male Female 15-20 years 21-25 years 26-30 years 31-35 years BBA MBA

Percentage 56% 44% 54% 37% 9% 0% 64% 36%

An analysis of the satisfaction of the students with respect to the programme features revealed that subject content, the practical orientation and practical application of the subject, assessment criteria and the basic infrastructure in the lecture halls required immediate attention. Another item requiring improvement is the overall value of the course as it can be seen that majority of the students (70.5%) are discontented with the value for money they receive in the end. Satisfaction of the students’ vis-à-vis learning outcomes was assessed through a set of ten statements and it can be inferred that the students are not satisfied with their skill acquisition and development. An examination of the variables related to quality of course instructors showed a number of interesting differences in the students response. A large majority of the students are satisfied with 89


the course instructors in terms of their knowledge (62%), and communication skills (58.6%) and responsiveness to queries (60.6%). However, a striking finding is that students are dissatisfied with the course instructors’ enthusiasm level (58.2%), and most importantly their ability to generate interest in the course (61%) and integrate the course contents with the current issues (58.4%). Satisfaction of the students was also measured with respect to access to general facilities in their institutions. And it was observed that majority of the students are satisfied with the IT facilities however, dissatisfied with the library services. Figure I, II, III, and IV illustrates the Satisfaction and Importance Grid for the four dimensions, namely, programme features, learning outcomes, course instructors’ quality, and access to general facilities. Quadrant A on the grid represents the areas of improvement. Quadrant B lists all the factors high on importance as well as on satisfaction and thus their quality needs to be maintained. Quadrant C contains those aspects which are of both low priority and low satisfaction and deemed least important by the students. Whereas, Quadrant D covers those aspects which are of low importance but majority of the students are satisfied with them. The institutions may be overemphasising on these factors and ignoring some important factors listed in quadrant B.

Quadrant A-Attention required High

Up-to-date subject content

Quadrant B- Maintain status quo Opportunity to interact with people from industry

Linking theory to practice Opportunity to work in teams Useful practical application Provides good value for money Importance

Quadrant C- Low priority

Quadrant D- Over emphasized

Fair and just assessments

Opportunity to participate in events organized by other colleges

Has desirable level of discipline Have appropriate college timings

Accurately described in the prospectus

Has properly designed time-table Low Low

Satisfaction

High

Figure I. Satisfaction and importance Grid for Programme features

90


High

Quadrant A-Attention required

Quadrant B- Maintain status quo

Development of knowledge and skills required by industry.

Development of creativity and ethical values

Development of communication, interpersonal, negotiation, analytical skills Ability to think critically and ability to handle the unexpected Importance



No parameters in this quadrant

No parameters in this quadrant

Low Low

Satisfaction

High

Figure II. Satisfaction and importance Grid for learning outcomes High



Instructors’ enthusiasm about the course, regularity and punctuality

Instructors’ knowledge about the subject

An ability to generate interest and integrate course content with current context

Good communication skills Providing feedback & materials/references Responsiveness to student queries Using audio-visual aids in class room

Importance



Accessibility both inside and outside the classroom

Maintaining discipline in the class

Low Low

Satisfaction

High

Figure III. Satisfaction and Importance Grid for Quality of course Instructor

91


High



Library services

IT facility Tutorial support Medical services

Importance



Cafeteria services

Sports facilities

Transport services Low Satisfaction

Low

High

Figure IV. Satisfaction and Importance Grid for general Facilities From the satisfaction and importance grids along the major dimensions, it can be safely established that students attach more importance to those areas which are associated with teaching and learning and thus form the core services area. Students attach high degree of importance to the course content, practical applications, team work, industry interface, overall value received for their money and all the factors considered in learning outcomes. The grid also highlights that instructors’ knowledge, communication skills, commitment, enthusiasm, responsiveness and ability to generate interest and integrate course content with current issues are considered important by students. Among the general amenities students have rated library services, IT services and tutorial support as the most important services offered by an institution. The management institutions must focus on the areas listed in quadrant A for all the dimensions as they form the part of the core services. Improving the quality in these areas will lead to an overall improvement in the quality of management education. Furthermore, quality of the items listed in quadrant B should be maintained or improved further. Items in the quadrant D along all the dimensions need to be examined further because although low in importance, students are satisfied with them. This may be due to an over emphasis. Instead the institutions may pay more attention to quadrants A and B.

Conclusion It is clear from the study that most of the physical aspects of the services are not important with respect to student satisfaction. Rather, the most important aspects are those associated with teaching, learning and with the course content itself. With respect to quality improvement, institutions must focus on the inputs and the process to produce the desired output. Explicit standards may be introduced as a tool to improve the quality of the inputs and the process for the various core services.

92


Private management institutions are competing for students now-a-days and in order to attract more students and retain them it is very essential to reduce student dissatisfaction to the extent possible. This is possible if all the services are standardized and delivered the same way. Additionally there should be an effective monitoring process as well. Last but not the least student satisfaction surveys should be undertaken on a regular basis as they are the beneficiaries of the service.

References Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the case of university education. European Journal of Marketing, 31: 528-540. Bitner, M. J., & Hubert, A.R. (1994). Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction versus quality, in Rust, R.T., & Oliver, R. L. (Eds), Service quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA : 72-94. Cheng, Y.C. (2003). Quality Assurance in Education: Internal, Interface and Future. Quality Assurance in Education Journal, 11(4): 202-213. Cronin, J., Brady, M., & Hult, T. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76: 193-218. Douglas, J., Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring Student Satisfaction at a UK University. Quality Assurance in Education, 14 :251-267. Gauthier, C., & Dembélé, M. (2004). Quality of Teaching and Quality of Education: A Review of Research Findings. Education for all Global Monitoring Report 2005. Jagadeesh, R. (2000). Assuring Quality in Management Education: The Indian Context. Quality Assurance in Education Journal, 8: 110-119. Juran, J. M. (1988). Juran on Planning for Quality. NY : The Free Press. Mathew, J. M. (2006). Management Education in India: A perspective on Quality Improvement. Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship, 1: 28-46. Noel-Levitz. (2003), National Student Satisfaction Report. Oliver, R.L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty. The Journal of Marketing, 63: 33-44. Petruzzellis, L., D’ Uggento, A. M., & Romanazzi, S. (2006). Student satisfaction and quality of service in Italian Universities. Managing Service Quality, 16: 349-364. Poh, J. P., & Samah, A.J.A. (2006). Measuring Students Satisfaction for Quality Education in a ELearning University. UniTAR E-Journal, 2: 11-21. Rowley, J. (2003). Designing student feedback questionnaires. Quality Assurance in Education, 11: 142-149. Tse, D. K., & Wilton, P. C. (1988). Models of Consumer Satisfaction Formation: An Extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 25: 204-212.

93