Student Satisfaction

Student Satisfaction in the Context of Higher Education Services
There is a large body of literature on the concept of customer’s satisfaction. The growing importance of studies on customer’s satisfaction is a result of worldwide business competition. According to (Nicholls et al. 1998), customers are the lifeblood of any organization, be it private sector business or public sector government and satisfaction is particularly important in relation to organizations that deliver services rather than goods.
In the case of higher educational services, far fewer studies on customer’s satisfaction have been conducted (Hall, 2001). According to Navarro et al. (2005), numerous attempts have been made by researchers to define the concept of satisfaction in relation to services offered in higher education. They acknowledge that satisfaction is the final state of psychological process. Elliot and Healy (2001) indicated that student’s satisfaction is a short-term attitude that results from the evaluation of their experience with the education service received. It should be highlighted that most of the studies on this issue were carried out within the context of analyzing student’s satisfaction for the main services or the core business offered by universities (Harvey, 1995; Hill 1995). However, Aldridge and Rowley (1998) pointed out that many higher educational institutions perform some evaluation on other expects of students experience beyond the assessment of the quality of teaching and learning.
Sirvanci (2004) classifies HEIs’ services into two categories, namely academic program and facilities. His model depicts student’s flow in higher education, from admission to graduation. In this context, he has postulated that, those services will give an impact on student’s teaching and learning experience.


Figure 1: Student’s flow in higher education (Source: Sirvanci, 2004)

Based on the literature review of HEIs, this study holds the view that facilities are important resources to higher educational institutions in providing for their core business. The teaching and learning factor is not something that occurs solely in the classroom but it integrates with the facilities. These two factors (teaching and learning, and facilities) are linked to each other and becoming ever more central to student’s total experience and attitude towards a particular institution and this is termed as value chain. Therefore, in assessing student’s satisfaction, these two categories of services are interrelated.




Factors that Influence Student’s Level of Satisfaction for Higher Educational Services

To analyse student’s satisfaction for higher educational services, the rank order of factors based on mean score was computed. The respondents were asked to rate the degree of importance of each factor that influences their level of satisfaction for a five-equal interval scale as discussed before.
Corresponding to section two of the questionnaire, 58 variables or factors that were perceived to be influencing the student’s level of satisfaction were analysed. The results show that the most important factor that influences the student’s level of satisfaction was teaching quality followed by teaching attitude, course content, teaching style, library, laboratory–PC, library services – all with a mean value score above 4.1 (Table 3).
The results show that students were most concerned about teaching staff as they perform the core business of a higher educational institution. This was not surprising as the previous study conducted by (Price et al., 2003) and (Douglas et al., 2006) have identified similar results. Therefore, this study can make a case that it is important to explore further on factors that influence teaching staff’s performance as it will give an impact on student’s learning.
Table 3: Factors that influence student’s level of satisfaction for higher educational services (ranking based on mean value score below 4.1)

Ranking Variables Mean Std. Deviation
1 Teaching quality (e.g. skill, knowledge of staff) 4.4978 0.82578
2 Teaching attitude (e.g. approachability of staff) 4.3326 0.84548
3 Course content 4.2941 0.83495
4 Teaching style (e.g. a manner or a way of performing) 4.2 0.81863
5 Library 4.183 0.97862
6 Laboratory – PC 4.159 0.91493
7 Library services 4.1394 0.90254
8 Overall campus environment 4.0349 0.84554
9 Laboratory- PC services 4.0327 0.98516
10 Examinations method (e.g. paper base, verbal) 4.0284 0.90541
11 Application level between theory and practice (e.g. work base problem vs. theory) 4.0043 0.79485


The second major group of factors that influence student’s level of satisfaction for higher educational services was those reflecting facilities management functions. Factors such as library, laboratory, and overall campus environment were of concern to students and, thus, these factors were important in the operations of higher education’s core business. This result was parallel to the finding by (Price et al. 2003) who discovered that other than teaching and learning, facilities was the second factor that gave an impact on the undergraduate students in their choices of university. Other study by (Coles 2002) found that student’s level of satisfaction would have decreased when class size was larger. (Douglas et al., 2006) found that students have ranked IT facilities highly in their contribution to student’s satisfaction level.
Table 4: The least important factors that influence the student’s level of satisfaction for higher education services (ranking based on mean value score below 3.50)

Ranking Variables Mean Standard Deviation
1 Childcare 2.6149 1.28948
2 Teaching appearances (e.g. dressing, tidiness) 2.6500 1.10717
3 Childcare services 2.7533 1.22262
4 Off-campus accommodation services 3.1157 1.09791
5 Off-campus accommodation 3.1572 1.17475
6 Cafeteria 3.2505 1.15046
7 Student union services 3.2527 1.08451
8 On-campus accommodation 3.2549 1.21236
9 On-campus accommodation services 3.2571 1.14425
10 Welfare rights services 3.2810 1.09857
11 Enrolment period 3.3137 .99213
12 Parking Area 3.3508 1.31379

The factors with lesser degrees of importance are listed in Table 4. Factor such as childcare and off-campus accommodation were among the factors that were not rated as influential to student’s level of satisfaction for receiving facilities at higher learning institutions. One reason for the low rating of childcare aspect among the respondents could be that most of them were in the range of 17 to 23 years old and, therefore, the service was not important to them. As for the rather low rating of off-campus accommodation among the respondents, the sole reason could be the fact that most of them stayed on-campus.

Factors that Influence Student’s Level of Satisfaction for Higher Educational Services Using Factor Analysis
In this section, Factor Analysis is adopted as a data reduction technique whereby the most important groups of factors that influencing student’s level of satisfaction were examined.
From the VARIMAX factor matrix, 62.99% of variance explained the 58 higher educational attributes that were captured in the 12 factors. High factor loadings signal a strong correlation of the variables with the factors on which they were loaded. To assess the reliability of the factor identities, a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index was used. A KMO of 0.871 indicates high sampling adequacy.
However, in using Factor Analysis, to depend only on KMO criterion which can be explained by factors with high eigenvalue (>1) is rather unsaved. By using KMO’s criterion, too many components were extracted – twelve in this study. Therefore, it is important to look at screeplot provided by SPSS (Pallant, 2005). Furthermore, according to Pallant (2005) in order to decide on the number of appropriate component we need to look for a change (or point of elbow) in the shape of the plot. Only component above this point were retained. Figure 3 illustrates the screeplot of each variance associated with each factor.

Figure 3: Screeplot of Factor Components in the Study
Figure 3 shows a clear distinction between the first and the second components. Components one and two capture much more of the variance than the remaining components. Besides, there was a little break after component three. Components four, five, and six are situated
much closer to each other. As such, on the basis of recommendation by (Pallant, 2005), this study extracts or retains factors that influence student’s level of satisfaction for higher educational services into six factor components.
Table 5 shows the results of the factor analysis in terms of factor name, the variables loading on each factor, and the variance explained by each factor. The results of Cronbach’s reliability coefficient are also shown. The loaded variables of the each component were ranked according to their factor values.





Table 5: Six Higher Education Sectors Identified by Principle Component Analysis

Code Variables Factor loading Percentage of variance explain Cronbach’s alpha
Factor 1: Teaching and learning delivery 22.206 884
C4 Course content 0.757
A3 Teaching staff quality (e.g. skill, knowledge) 0.685
C5 Examinations method (e.g. paper base, verbal) 0.623
A2 Teaching staff attitude (e.g. approachability of staff) 0.615
A5 Teaching style (e.g. a manner or a way of performing) 0.611
C6 Assignment method (e.g. coursework, in class test, oral presentation, group work) 0.568
C3 Course organization (e.g. timetabling) 0.551
B7 Extent and distribution of subject (e.g. correct level/ pace of work, relevance to your ‘end’ profession) 0.516
A1 Co-ordinations between subject expertise 0.517
D1 Library 0.501
Factor 2: Support services facilities 8.717 0.885
F18 Outside Activities (e.g. socialising/sport/music) 0.737
F15 Recreation and sport services 0.674
D12 Student union building 0.657
D11 Recreation and sport 0.623
F10 Student union services 0.556
F17 Career services 0.51
Factor 3: Accommodation and social facilities 4.508 0.886
D3 On-campus accommodation 0.71
F3 On-campus accommodation services 0.701
F4 Off-campus accommodation services 0.682
D4 Off-campus accommodation 0.646
D6 Child care 0.504
Factor 4: Course administration 3.683 0.808
E2 Form of payment 0.775
E3 Enrolment period 0.761
E4 Registration process 0.728
E1 The enrolment process 0.625


Factor 5:Teaching and learning facilities

3.488 0.87
F8 Laboratory - science services 0.634
F1 Library services 0.563
D8 Laboratory- science 0.556
Factor 6: Teaching and learning service environment 2.949 0.777
B9 Size of classroom 0.772
B8 The condition of lecture room (e.g. cleanliness, space allocation, furniture arrangement) 0.71
A4 Teaching appearances (e.g. dressing, tidiness) 0.552
B10 Visual equipment (e.g. delivery of lecture material such as power point, OHP, Acetates) 0.534


The six new factors that influence student’s level of satisfaction can be interpreted as follows: Factor 1”teaching and learning delivery”, Factor 2 “support services facilities”, Factor 3 “accommodation and social facilities”, Factor 4 “course administration”, Factor 5 “teaching and learning facilities”, and Factor 6 “teaching and learning service environment”.

The Most Important FM Factors that Influences Students Satisfaction Using Weightage Analysis
The primary objective of this research was to identify the major determinants of student’s level of satisfaction and future intentions with respect to the key performance indicator for facilities services. Further analysis was required in identifying the ultimate FM factors within HEI setting that influence student’s level of satisfaction. Such analyses can be used for developing facilities performance indicator which is the subject of an on-going research.
In determining the most important FM factors that influence student’s level of satisfaction, six statistical criteria have been used based on the descriptive analysis and Factor Analysis previously discussed. The criteria are: value chain concept ‘value’; value chain concept ‘percentage’; facilities management function ‘value’; facilities management function ‘percentage’; average mean value, and higher mean value.
Table 6 presents the six factors that have already been identified by using Factor Analysis with the tabulation of weightage values. It clearly shows that Factor 1 (“teaching and learning delivery”) carries 6 points for FM function value, 26% for FM function ‘percentage’, 4 points for value chain concept ‘value’ and 66.6% for value chain ‘percentage’. It also carries an average mean value of 3.959 and Library was an FM factor that places itself at a higher order based on higher mean value. Factors 2 through 6 follow the order of importance according to the six descriptive criteria. Table 6 also shows the most important FM factors within higher educational institutions that influence student’s level of satisfaction, namely library, overall campus environment, recreation and sport, cafeteria and lecture room.
Finally, to corroborate the above analysis, the most important FM factors that influence student’s level of satisfaction (based on weightage values of six statistical criteria) needs to be identified in order to rank the FM factors. As depicted in Table 7, it shows that ‘overall campus environment’ was in the first rank under two criteria, namely FM function ‘value’ and FM function ‘percentage’. Library was in the first rank three times in terms of value chain ‘value’, average mean value, and higher mean value. Lecture room was in the first rank in terms of value chain ‘percentage’ criteria.

Table 6: The weightage values for the six factors

Factor FM function (value) FM function
(%) Value
chain (value) Value chain
(%) Average mean value The higher order facilities for each factor based on higher mean value
Teaching and learning delivery 6 26 4 66.6 3.959 Library
Support services facilities 12 75 3 25 3.536 Overall campus environment
Accommodation and social facilities 7 63.6 0 0 3.182 Recreation and Sport
Course administration 1 10 0 0 3.508 Cafeteria
Teaching and learning facilities 11 73 5 45.4 3.606 Library
Teaching and learning service environment 5 55.5 4 80 3.543 Lecture room

The result shows that library was found to be the most important FM element of higher educational services, (was placed three times in the first rank). Moreover, the result stipulated at the second rank has revealed the fact that library was the most important FM factor that could have influenced student’s level of satisfaction. Thus, this finding concludes the study.

Table 7: Rank order of FM factor base on six statistical criteria

Rank order FM function (value) FM function
(%) Value chain (value) Value chain
(%) Average mean value Higher mean value
1 Overall campus environment Overall campus environment Library Lecture room Library Library
2 Library Library Library Library Library Library
3 Recreation and Sport Recreation and Sport Lecture room Library Lecture room Overall campus environment
4 Library Lecture room Overall campus environment Overall campus environment Overall campus environment Lecture room
5 Lecture room Library Recreation and Sport Recreation and Sport Cafeteria Recreation and Sport
6 Cafeteria Cafeteria Cafeteria Cafeteria Recreation and Sport Cafeteria



Concluding Remarks
One of the challenges facing higher educational institutions is to provide services that fulfil customers’ requirements and expectations as these factors influence their satisfaction. Students as main customers of higher education have their own preferences and opinions on the factors that affect their levels of satisfaction. As higher educational institutions become more concerned about meeting their students’ satisfaction due to commercialisation of scholarships, identifying these factors will positively contribute to the decision-making with respect to provision of educational services (Sapri, Kaka and Finch, 2008).
The results from this study have disclosed that factors associated with teaching and learning were the most important factors that could have influenced student’s level of satisfaction. Therefore, higher educational institutions should provide quality teaching and learning services. This finding did not surprise anyone as a number of studies conducted in this field have shown similar results. The findings by Banwet and Datta (2003) and Hill et al (2003) postulated that lectures, attainment of knowledge, class notes and materials and classroom delivery were the most important aspects of the core services provided by higher educational institutions.
However, this study discovered that ‘teaching and learning’ factor was not only focusing on course materials or subject contents but also teaching staff capability in delivering teaching and learning services. This finding was in support of a previous study by Douglas et al. (2006) who found that the most important aspects of university under study were the ability of teaching staff, followed by subject expertise of the staff. To the delight of this study, the Government White Paper has recommend that all newly recruited university teaching staff starting from year 2006 to obtain a teaching qualification that incorporates agreed professional standards (HEFCE et al., 2003).
The model of value chain concept developed in this study has explained the FM function within the teaching and learning environment of higher education. The model has demonstrated that student’s learning experience is influenced by three major factors, namely service provider’s performance e.g. the lecturer; service or process that is involved in delivery of the service; and facilities which act as an enabler and support the core business process. These three factors will give an impact on student’s learning experience and will lead to satisfaction levels pertaining to service performance. All these activities take place during the delivery of the service. Thus, it is important for the higher educational institutions to look into the factors that influence teaching staff’s performance given their key contribution to student’s overall level of satisfaction. The results of this study also suggested a significant relationship between teaching staff’s performance and student’s level of satisfaction. Therefore, this study proposed that the value chain concept be adopted as a strategy to meet student’s expectations. Figure 4 shows the value chain concept postulated from this study.
This study, however, has some limitations. The results have represented students’ opinions about higher educational services only from a few selected universities. Therefore, care must be taken not to generalize results to all institutions. Notwithstanding this, most of the results in this study were similar to some previous research findings. It has contributed to the amplification of knowledge and information. Apart from that, has provided higher educational institutions with useful decision-making tools to improve their core business, i.e. education.
In terms of researching technique, the random sample of respondents and the administration of the questionnaire have some caveats. The instrument was handed out to students at the beginning of lecture sessions and collected at the end. At this time, student minds could have been occupied with lectures. As such, these elements could have influenced the revelation of their opinions.









Factors Influencing Students’ Satisfaction with Regard to Higher Educational Facilities Services

Swine Flu Effect

As we all know, protecting humanity from the deadly disease "SWINE FLU" is the biggest problem in front of the world. So far Delhi has accounted for 50.7% of India's confirmed H1N1 cases since Dec 3. Total infected H1N1 is 21,929 till Dec 10 & caused deaths 670.
According to this report, the H1N1 cases in Delhi is a serious mater to think for Indian govt. Mostly Delhi is infected, if govt. will not take step against the spread of this deadly disease than day is not far when every state will infected like Delhi. A problem can be solved easily when it is simple but once it gets complicated difficult to handle. I think this increase in H1N1 cases is nothing but the carelessness & poor medical facility of India or some how, our dirty politics. As I am practically experienced the poor medical facility of Delhi. After completing my treatment in SIR Ganga Ram hospital, once I went to a famous govt. hospital of Delhi for check up only. As I have seen the worst condition of patients, nobody is their to attend them. Doctors left the life of patients on the God's hand & the behavior of doctors & staffs equivalent to a Butcher. To see this horrible site, I got fainted & when I came into sense one of the doctor told me" yaha keyo aa gaye, Ganga Ram to best tha" means "why you come here? From Ganga Ram". Now think it seriously, how poor our medical facility is? Even the doctor of the same hospital criticising it, not to talk about others.
In spite of developing our medical facility our Honorable Health Ministers statement that "Ridha Shaikh (the first victim of swine flue in India) has spread this H1N1 to other people". After a lot of controversy he publicly apologised for his statement. My Dear Health Minister for your kind information "Ridha never visited any H1N1 infected foreign country & H1N1 came to India through those people have history to visit of H1N1 infected country. How can you say this without thinking! At last I would like to say that this increase in H1N1 cases in India is the result of poor medical facility provided by Govt Hospitals of India. That's why no one likes to go to the Govt Hospital for treatment & this is another reason for increase in such cases. I think you politicians are indirectly involved behind this deadly condition of common people. So please please improve the medical facility of Govt Hospitals to save our India from "SWINE FLUE".