2 measuring student satisfaction in publ

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND BUSINESS RESEARCH INTERDISCIPLINARYVolume 13 Issue 3 Version 1.0 Year 2013Type: Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal Publisher: Global Journals Inc. (USA)Online ISSN: 2249-4588 & Print ISSN: 0975-5853

Measuring Student Satisfaction in Public and PrivateUniversities in Pakistan

By Hasnain ManzoorMohammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad

Abstract - Purpose - This specific study is aimed to find the specific factors which affect thesatisfaction of the students in universities in Pakistan and to find these factors relationshipeither positive or negative with the satisfaction.

Design/Methodology/Approach - Different statistical tools were used during the study,which were compatible with our study such as Reliability analysis, Multiple RegressionAnalysis and ANOVA. In our questionnaires we used Likert Scale to get the more accurateand specific results and views from the respondents.

Findings - The results of this study suggest that the facilities provided to the studentsregarding the sports facilities and the transportation facilities have significant effect on thesatisfaction of the students in universities, while the accommodation facilities dont have anysignificant effect on the satisfaction of the students.

Research implications/limitations The limitations of the research are that we onlyincluded the non-educational facilities regarding the universities providing to the students.

Keywords : student satisfaction, universities, service quality.GJMBR-G Classification : JEL Code: P36

MEASURINGSTUDENTSATISFACTIONINPUBLICANDPRIVATEUNIVERSITIESINPAKISTAN

Strictly as per the compliance and regulations of:

2013. Hasnain Manzoor. This is a research/review paper, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), permitting all non-commercial use,distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Measuring Student Satisfaction in Public andPrivate Universities in Pakistan

Hasnain Manzoor

Abstract - Purpose - This specific study is aimed tofind the specific factors which affect the satisfaction ofthe students in universities in Pakistan and to findthese factors relationship either positive or negativewith the satisfaction.

Design/Methodology/Approach - Differentstatistical tools were used during the study, whichwere compatible with our study such as Reliabilityanalysis, Multiple Regression Analysis and ANOVA. Inour questionnaires we used Likert Scale to get themore accurate and specific results and views from therespondents.

Findings - The results of this study suggestthat the facilities provided to the students regardingthe sports facilities and the transportation facilitieshave significant effect on the satisfaction of thestudents in universities, while the accommodationfacilities dont have any significant effect on thesatisfaction of the students.

Research implications/limitations Thelimitations of the research are that we only included thenon -educational facilities regarding the universitiesproviding to the students.Keywords : student satisfaction, universities,service quality.

9. INTRODUCTION

Education plays an important role in thedevelopment of any country, in the economicbetter of that country, upgrading the standards of

living of people etc. In the education highereducation is even more necessary as all the

professionals are produced by the highereducation. Every country tries to develop such

institutions which produce high qualityprofessionals in every field. Pakistan is a

developing country and also trying to developits people with respect to their standard of living

by delivering more and more education by settingup education institutions especially higher

education institutions are focused. The number ofinstitutions delivering higher education in Pakistan

has increased in last few years, as well as theenrollment in these institutions has increased very

much(HEC Pakistan 2010).

The number of students has increasedmany times because high technology sectors andbusiness are now demanding at least a collegedegree for their jobs. According to Sedgwick (2005)Pakistan has to accommodate about 1.3 mstudents in the higher education institutions ofPakistan. Higher education institutions areconsidering their students as customers andtreating this service as a genuine business service.

Author : Department of Management Sciences MohammadAli Jinnah University, Islamabad. E-mail :

[email protected] As the satisfying theneeds of ultimatecustomers which arehere students of thesehigher educationinstitutions is the basicgoal of these institutions,they are trying to meetthe increasing number ofexpectations and trying tomeet the high quality ofthe students demandedat this higher level ofeducation (DeShields etal, 2005).

The success ofthese higher educationinsti-tutions dependsupon the satisfaction oftheir students as well asthis satisfaction is usedby these institutions tosearch out their strengthsand weaknesses.Student satisfaction doesnot depend upon only onthe teaching but anextensive analysis of thefactors which contributeto the satisfaction of thestudents regarding theirinstitutions as well astheir programs. Thehigher educationinstitutions have becomerelational services, theseservices are in whichservice provider i.e.education institutions andservice receiver i.e.students, interact forimproving and designingthe outputs which satisfythe both parties. Theseinstitutions face highnational as well asinternational competitionin the field of educationso they choose the samestrategies which themostly genuine businessfirms do (Jarvis, 2000).

There are a lotofhighereducation institutionsin Pakistan.F

rom the 18 billion populations, only 2.6 percentof population is enrolled in the higher educationinstitutions in Pakistan while adult literacy rate isonly 43%. Even then besides of having thesebleak statistics, there is a tremendous increasein the enrollment of student and so in thenumber of higher education institutions. Thereare two set of educational institutions inPakistan, Public government owned and thePrivate which are owned locally by differentpeople. These institutions are not onlyaccommodating the huge rush to theseinstitutions but also trying to provide qualityeducational services to the students enrolled(HEC Pakistan, 2010).

Quality in the educational institutions cantbe achieved unless there is a continuousassessment as well as measures are taken toimprove the performance of the teachers. Teachersin higher education institutions especially in theuniversity have the responsibility of deliveringquality education through finding the better ways ofdelivering knowledge, researches, reviewing andupdating their knowledge as well as improving thecurriculum to satisfy the students as the students isthe customers of the institutions. In Arab, it is foundthat the current evaluating studies focus onpreparation and knowledge of teachers, theirtraining of teaching and a

5

IVer

sion

IIIIs

sue

XII

IVol

ume

Glo

bal J

ourn

al o

f Man

agem

ent a

nd B

usin

ess R

esea

rch

2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)

MEASURING STUDENT SATISFACTION IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES IN PAKISTAN

6

IVer

sion

IIIIs

sue

XII

IVol

ume

Glo

bal J

ourn

al o

f Man

agem

ent a

nd B

usin

ess R

esea

rch

( G )

bit emphasis on the research knowledge of teachers is given (

Said et al, 1979).The purpose

of this study is tohave a look on thevariables whichcontributes towardsthe satisfaction of thestudents in theuniversities ofPakistan either theyare public or private.We will define whatthe satisfaction doesmean, which are thefactors which areimportant forimproving studentssatisfaction,education as aservice, educationalinstitutional as aservice businessentities etc. Themethod used in thisstudy for evaluatingstudents satisfactionin differentuniversities isQuestionnaires. Wewill take the opinionsof different studentsof differentuniversities throughstructuredquestionnaires. Thenthe results oropinions which will becollected will be put inthe SPSS. First of allwe check thefrequency ofrespondents, thenreliability test andfinally regressionanalysis andconclude results.

35. LITERATUREREVIEW

The studies

of satisfaction havebeen conducted indifferent countries butmain focus of studentsatisfaction in thehigher studiesespecially in theuniversities is presentin these studies, thatswhy we arementioning here thereresults and findings inorder to support ourresults and findings.The institutions whichare providing highereducation services arenow realizing that theirservices of educationcan be regarded asthe services same asthe business services,so these institutionsare focusing now notonly to meet the studyrequirement of studentbut are trying toexceed theserequirements in orderto satisfy their ultimatecustomers which aredefinitely the students.This changing trend isidentified especially inthose countries whichare basically followingtuition based model ofstudies, (DeShields etal., 2005).

In Germany,there was first timeintroduction of thetuition fees foruniversities when alaw was passed forthe charging of thefees in January 2005.It is now believed thatafter this law, whenuniversities arecharging fees from thestudents, they will beservice provider to thestudents and willactively react to theneeds of the students,(Williams andCappuccini-Ansfield,2007). The

introduction of tuition fees inGermany will also change thebehavior of the students towardseducation as they will turn from afree recipient of education towardsthe consumer of these universitiesbecause now they are paying feesto these universities, this was saidby Rolfe (2002). It is expected thatfee paying student now will feelvalue of money, and will act as theconsumers of these educationinstitutions, (Watson, 2003 andNarasimhan, 2001).

Thomas and Gal ambos,(2004) give views, that now whenthe student are being consideredthe consumers of highereducation institutions, theirsatisfaction is becoming moreimportant to these institutionsespecially the institutions whichare going to get new students foradmissions in them. The

satisfaction ofthe students as wellas learning ofthese students

should be importantfor the institutions astheir outcome,(Applenton-Knappand Krentler 2006).

From theyear 2010, aBologna process isadopted also in theGermany thepurpose of which isto implement thesame level ofeducation standardsthroughout theEurope. The twolevels of educationbachelors andmasters are adoptedin Germany also toachieve the purposeof the abovementioned process.So, it is possible forthe students inGermany tocomplete theirbachelors andmaster leveleducation atdifferent universities.This will make theuniversities to treattheir students ascustomers and try toretain their studentsbecause it is farmore difficult andexpensive than theirretention, (Joseph etal, 2005).

Helgesenand Nesset (2007)emphasize theimportance ofretention thestudents equal to therecruitment of newstudents. Highereducation can becategorized as apure service,(Oldfield and Baron2000). Hennig-Thurau (2001) saysthat educationalservices are the fieldof servicesmarketing. Someauthors alsodifferentiatededucational services

from other servicesas education playsan important role inthe life of a studentas well asmotivational forceand intellectual skillsare also necessary.There is a basicfocus on theperceived quality inservices studies. Thisperceived quality canbe measured bycomparing theexpectations of thecustomers withactual services,(Zeithaml 1990).

There aremany characteristicsof services found ineducational servicessuch as they areintangible,heterogeneous, andperishable and areconsumed at the spothen produced (Shank1995). These are thecharacteristics whichmake the educationalservices unique(Zeithaml 1985).These characteristicsmake the servicequality impossible tomeasure objectively(Patterson andJohnson 1993).

Everyparticipant in theeducational serviceshas its own definitionof service quality. Theresult is that the bestdefinition of servicequality as well as itsway of measuring thisquality doesnt exist(Clewes 2003). As theservices are intangibleand complex innature, there is a lot ofdebate on this issue ofmeasuring the qualityfrom over last 25years (Prabha 2010).He further said that tomeasure the quality ofthe educationalservices, there also is

very much debate and research inthe studies and researchesconducted. The three variablesquality, satisfaction andperformance are in close andinterrelated relationship to eachother and are used synonymously(Cornin 2000, Bitner and Hubert1994).

The satisfaction of the

students

in the context ofeducational servicecan be referred ashow the studentsevaluate theiroutcomes regardingthe education andexperiences in theeducational

institutions (Oliver andDesarbo 1989).Borden (1995) insistedthat satisfaction of thestudents relates tocomparison betweenstudent priorities andthe environment whichthey perceive in the



institution. In 2002 Wiers-Jenssen stated that thesatisfaction of the students canbe used as a main tool tocompare the traditional view ofimproving higher education andmarket oriented goals.

A study conducted byMamun and Das (1999) exploredsome interesting factors in thesatisfaction of the students inhigher education institutions. Thefactors which they included arefacilities of library, facilities oflabs. And the factor that howmuch assistance is provided tothe students for their internshipprograms. A very nice study inthe context of educationalservices and studentssatisfaction was conducted byZahid, Chowdhry and Sogra(2000). They took differentvariables for studying thesatisfaction of students in highereducation institutions. Thesevariables included the system ofexamination and course i.e.Annual System or SemesterSystem, the quality of teachersand their delivery of knowledgeto the students, the medium ofteaching either it is English orlocal language, where thecampus is located and its size,accommodating facilities for thestudents, the facilities which areprovided to the students in thecampus such as auditorium,parking facilities, canteen etc.They considered these variablesas key factors for measuringstudents satisfaction.

In a different studyregarding student satisfaction,same factors and variables wereused which are mentioned aboveas well as in this study quality ofteaching, method used forteaching, teachers support to thestudents in their studies and thefacilities provide to the studentswere considered as the basicfactors of satisfaction (Majid,Mamun and Siddique 2000). Thecurriculum which adds skills inthe students and the quality ofteaching are the two mainfactors, should be considered instudents satisfaction (Ahmad

and Anwar 2000).Satisfaction of thecustomer can betreated as the feelingor attitude which thecustomer has afterusing the service orproduct (Metawa andAlmossawi 1998).

Someresearchers treatcustomer satisfactionrelated to thevariables like qualityof service providedand the facilitiesassociated with theservice such asconvenience and thelocation of the service.Higher education canbe treated as aprofessional servicewith the features ofthe intangibility,inseparability andvariability (Bateson1989, Lovelock 1983).Service performancedue to its variabilitymay be varying daily,according to changein location or evenseveral times in a day.So this variability ofservice makes themeasuring studentssatisfaction difficult.Sapri, Kaka and Finch(2009) said that theinstitutions dealing inhigher educationshould have properinfrastructure asbuildings, facilities,recreation centers etc.Students are generallysatisfied if the qualityand facilities providedmeet theirexpectationsotherwise, they aredissatisfied from theeducations as well asthe institutionsproviding them theservices (Petruzzellis,Uggento andRomanazzi, 2006).The students, whohave got

satisfaction,commentpositively and recommend the new students

to get admissions in theseinstitutions.

Service quality may bestated as a form of attitude,evaluation on long term basis butthe service satisfaction is specificto a transaction (Parasuraman1988). Due to this way ofdefinition, perceived service qualitywas said to be a global measureand satisfaction to service qualitywas the direction of the causality.There is a need of measuring theexisting relationship between allthe three factors, customers,service quality and ultimately thesatisfaction at three different levelsof measurements. These levelsare Cognitive, affective andbehavioral (Oliver 1997,Parasuraman 1985).

Satisfaction related toservice has an apparent dimensionof transactions which is related toperception and hence emotionalside (Iacobucci 1994), while thequality of service process isresulted from the rational orcognitive process, and hencereferred to sensing and evaluatingthe external stimuli (Bitner 1990and Christou 2001). The consumerand organization satisfactionemphasizing concept of marketing,in different studies are applied tohigher education institutions suchas universities (Amyx and Bristow1999, Zafiropoulos 2005). As thereis growing competition amongdifferent universities, they areusing marketing concepts forattracting as well as retaining thestudents. Due to close resembleswith services (Cherubini 1996,Pellicelli 1997 Zeithaml and Bitner2002), higher education is being

applied on, theconcepts of servicequality and thesatisfaction of ultimatecustomer. As the newstudents arebecoming more awareand have knowledgeabout the institution aswell as quality of theeducation, they aremore interactive aswell as selective totheir future, so it isbecoming moredifficult for theinstitutions to attractthem (Sigala andBaum 2003).

Due to theincreasing demandsand expectations ofthe students toeducation as well asinstitutions has led theeducational systemsto change from thetraditional systemtowards a customerbased market ofeducation(Sigala2002, 2004). Ifthe teacher is morecompetent, studentsget more satisfaction.Lunenberg andOrnstein (2004)described thecompetency ofteacher as theknowledge and theability a teacherpossesses. Teachercompetency is theskill, ability and

knowledge of theteacher (Mondy andNoe 2005).Competency of ateacher is not onlyknowledge, abilityand skill but alsocomplex mentalability of processingas well asmobilization (Oliva2009). Theperformance of ateacher is directlyaffected by hisknowledge as well asability of the teacher(Cheng 1995). As thecompetency ofteachers have directeffect on thesatisfaction ofstudents, so wedefined competencyby different writersand researchers. Inmany studiesstudents satisfactionis described as thepositive feelings ofthe student towardshis program andinstitution (Sum et al.,2010; Qui et al.,2010).

Lo (2010)described thestudents satisfactionas their perceptionabout theenvironment in whichthey

7

IVer

sion

IIIIs

sue

XII

IVol

ume

Glo

bal J

ourn

al o

f Man

agem

ent a

nd B

usin

ess R

esea

rch



8

IVer

sion

IIIIs

sue

XII

IVol

ume

Glo

bal J

ourn

al o

f Man

agem

ent a

nd B

usin

ess R

esea

rch

( G )

are getting education and it closely relates the role of both

teachers andstudents. Studentsatisfaction can bedescribed as howstudents perceiveand evaluate theservices and facilitiesprovided in theinstitutions (Qi et al2010). Studentsatisfaction can bedescribed as thefeedback whichstudents give towardsthe campus andprogram (Gibson,2010). Studentsatisfaction and theirpositive feelings arecontingent to theexperiences andacademicperformance in theinstitution (Sum et al,2010).

Studentssatisfaction is directlyaffected by the howmuch the teachersare competent, theinstitutional orcampus environmentand attitude and thecurriculum of theprogram (Qi et al,2010). Palmer andHolt (2009)considered that therelationship and theinteraction betweenthe students andteachers havepositive relationshiptowards thesatisfaction of thestudents.

61. DATAANDMETHODOLOGY

1) Data The study is

conducted usingboth type of data,Primary andSecondary. Primarydata is used for thebasic study about

the perception ofstudents regardingthe facilities providedthem in the highereducation institutionsin Pakistan eitherthey are satisfied ornot while theSecondary data isused to build thestudy framework andanalysis system.

b) Primary Sources of Data

Questionnaires are being used asa primary source tocollect the dataregarding thesatisfaction ofstudents about thefacilities provided tothem in universities.

c) QuestionnairesA sample of

300 students wasdistributed among300 well structuredquestionnaires tocollect theirperception viewsabout the facilitiesprovided to them inuniversities. Studentsfrom differentdepartments anddifferent universitieswere selected as asample and theywere givenquestionnaires togive their perceptionabout the facilities ofthe universitiesprovided to them andwere asked if theywere satisfied fromthem or other. Theresponse from thestudents of samplewas appreciable andthey supported ingiving their fair viewsand perceptionsabout the facilities.

d) SamplingAs we know

that it is impossiblefor any researcher to

collect the responses from awhole population, so he selectsa sample which justifies andrepresents the whole population.In this research study, weselected a sample of 300students from 6 private andpublic universities.

These 6 universitiesUniversity of Sargodha, PunjabUniversity Lahore, University ofEngineering and TechnologyFaisalabad, University of Lahore,Hajvery University Lahore andNFC University Multan. From

these universities 300 respondent

s were selected fromdifferent level ofeducation,Bachelors, Mastersand others whichhave passed at least1 year in thatuniversity.

e) MethodologyDifferent

statistical tools wereused during thestudy, which werecompatible with ourstudy such asReliability analysis,Multiple RegressionAnalysis andANOVA. In ourquestionnaires weused Likert Scaleto get the moreaccurate andspecific results andviews from therespondents. I usedthe questionnaires ofROSLINA BINTIABDULLAH.

IV.

CONCEPTUA

L FRAMEWORKThe main

purpose ofconducting this studyis to find the affect ofdifferent factors thesatisfaction of thestudents in highereducation institutionsespecially inUniversities. In orderto conduct this studythe dependentvariable StudentsSatisfaction wasselected. The otherindependentvariables which wereselected are:

a) Independent Variables1Recreation and

Sports facilitiesin the campus forStudents

2Accommodationfacilities for theStudents

3TransportationFacilities for theStudents



Sports Facilities

AccommodationFacilities

TransportationFacilities

Although the main focusof any educational institution ison the basic purpose which isdefinitely the studies andeducation of the students butthere is also a need to providethe students with extracurricularactivities which evokes andpolish the students extra skillsand knowledge as well as theirtalent seeks the right direction.These activities include thesports for which the universitiesprovide the required goodfacilities to the students.

Accommodation facilities,is the second main variable of thisstudy with relationship to thestudents satisfaction. It isnecessary for the universities toprovide the accommodation andliving facilities for the students whoare from the distant areas or fromother cities and who have thedifficulties in coming to theuniversity daily. This will definitelyaffect the students satisfaction.

Similarly, transportationfacilities for the students who liveaway from the university in thesame city are necessary. Eachstudent cant afford to come to

university daily fromthe distant locationso its theresponsibility of theuniversity to providethem transportationfacilities.

b) Dependent Variable

The onlydependent variablein this study is thestudent satisfaction.We are going tostudy the factorswhich affect thesatisfaction of thestudents such asrecreation and sportsfacilities provided tothe students in thecampus can play animportant role for thestudents satisfaction.So, we took therecreation and sportsfacilities asindependent variableand the studentssatisfaction as thedependent variable.Similarly,accommodation andtransport facilitiesprovided to thestudent may playsome role to affectthe satisfaction of thestudents, so they arealso taken as theindependentvariables andstudents satisfactionis kept as dependenton them.

Overall

Satisfaction

c) HypothesisWe made

three hypothesesregarding therelationship ofindependentvariables to thedependent variables.These hypotheseswere as follows.

H1:Recreation andSports facilities havesignificant effect onthe studentssatisfaction in theuniversities.

H2:Accommodation facilities have significanteffecton the studentssatisf

action in the universities.H3: Transportation

facilities have significant effecton the students satisfaction inthe universities.

The null hypotheses ofall these hypotheses are thatthese facilities dont have anyeffect on the studentssatisfaction in the universities.

22. FINDINGS ANDRESULTS

1) Reliability Analysis The reliability factor of all

the variables is following:1. Sports Facilities 2. Accommodation Facilities 3. Transportation Facilities

To measure thereliability, Cronbachs alpha wascalculated. The given tableshows different values fordifferent variables we used in thestudy. The data from Likert Scalewas put in the SPSS to calculatethe reliability of these scales inthe form of Cronbachs alpha.Values of alpha are between 0to 1. The higher the value ofalpha, the higher the reliability is.Values of alpha which aregreater than 0.70 show morereliability, on the other hand, thevalues which are less than 0.60show poor reliability. In our studythe values are in the acceptablerange and the table shows that.

9

IVer

sion

IIIIs

sue

XII

IVol

ume

Glo

bal J

ourn

al o

f Man

agem

ent a

nd B

usin

ess R

esea

rch



iv. Reliability Statistics

Variables Cronbach's Alpha

Sports Facilities .832

Accommodation .776FacilitiesTransportation .748Facilities

In this studywe used three types ofvariables which wererecreation and sportsfacilities,accommodationfacilities andtransportation facilities.The alpha value wecalculated fromanalysis for recreationand sports facilitieswas 0.832. The value

of alpha calculated foraccommodationfacilities, was 0.776.And the last variabletransportationfacilities have thevalue of 0.748. Allthe values calculatedfor all the variableswe used were aboveacceptable range, sowe can say that ourscales were reliable.

Yea

r 201

3

10X

III I

ssue

III V

ersi

on I 5. Summa

ry ofRespondents

Type of Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent CumulativeRespondents Percent

male 177 59.0 59.0 59.0Gender female 123 41.0 41.0 100.0

Total 300 100.0 100.018-25 171.0 57.0 57.0 57.0

Age 26-30 105.0 35.0 35.0 92 .0above 30 24.0 8.0 8.0 100.0

Total 300.0 100.0 100.0Master 210 70.0 70.0 70.0

Qualification bachelor 76 25.0 25.0 95.0other 14 4.0 4.0 100.0Total 300 100.0 100.0

Glo

bal J

ourn

al o

f Man

agem

ent a

nd B

usin

ess R

esea

rch

( G )

Volu

me

The tableshowsthat thefrequencies of therespondents andthe datacollectedof 300respondents inwhich177,(300)59% aremale and123,(300)41% arefemales .Most ofthestudentsin which

57% are18 to 25years,and 26 to30 yearsare 35%and 8%areabove 30years.Thequalification of therespondents isthatmostlystudentsaremasters70% and25%studentsarebachelorand few

stVI. RESULTS OF CORRELATION A

NALYSIS

Correlation analysisis used to findtherelationshipbetween twoor more setsof variables. Italso tells thedirection aswell as howmuchrelationshipexist betweenthesevariables.

In thisstudy we usedPearsonscoefficient ofcorrelationwhich is one ofthe mostpopular

meTh

facilitiesand thestudentssatisfaction. Itmeansthat ifmoreandgoodsportsfacilitiesareprovided tostudents theyaremoresatisfied.Similarly, thesecondindepen

dentvariableofaccommodationfacilitiesalso hasapositivecorrelation of0.223with thedependentvariablestudentssatisfaction.

The thirdand lastindependentvariablein our

study is thetransportationfacilitiesprovided tostudents byuniversities.This variablealso has apositiverelationshipwith thedependentvariable ofstudentssatisfaction andthe value ofcoefficient ofcorrelation is0.230. All theindependentvariables usedin our studyhave a positiverelationshipwith dependentvariable whichshows that theysignificantlyaffect positivelythe dependentvariable.

Significance level of allresults is at0.02. It showsthat only 0.02chances arepresent thatour hypothesismay not beaccepted orrejected. It canalso be saidthat there are90% chancesof ourhypothesis tobe accepted.


Variable Title

Pearson Student Satisfaction

Correlation Sport Facilities

Accommodation Facilities

Transportation Facilities

Sig. (1-tailed) Student Satisfaction

Sport Facilities



N Student Satisfaction

Sport Facilities



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

VIII. MULTIPLE REGRESSION

The given table shows the Multiple Regressionresults. (R) In the table shows theCorrelation Coefficient. The value of Multiple CorrelationCoefficients of all the independent variables is 0.678. It

Model RR Adjusted R

Square Square

.460 .4551 .678a

1. Predictors: (Constant),Transportation Facilities,Sport Facilities,Accommodation Facilities

2. Dependent Variable: StudentSatisfaction

Yea

r 201

3

11

Jour

nal o

f Man

agem

ent a

nd B

usin

ess R

esea

rch

( G )

Volu

me

XII

I Iss

ue II

I Ver

sion

I

IX. ANALYSIS OFVARIANCE (ANOVA)

ANOVA isthe analysis ofvariance. The cell dfshows the degree offreedom whichmeans the number ofindependentvariables which arethree. The number296 shows the totalnumber of casesminus 3 minus onei.e. (N-3-1). The valueof F is 84.138 at0.0001 levels whichshow that thedependent variablestudent satisfaction issignificantlyinfluences andpredicted by theindependentvariables (sportsfacilities, accommo-

dation facilities and transportation facilities). Theresults of ANOVA support our hypothesis.

Glo

bal



Yea

r 201

3

12

( G )

Vol

ume

XIII

Issu

e II

I Ver

sion

I

Anova(b)

ModelSum of

df Mean Square F Sig.Squares

1 Regression 134.820 3 44.940 84.138 .000(a)

Residual 158.100 296 .534

Total 292.920 299a. Predictors: (Constant), Transportation Facilities, Sports Facilities, Accommodatio Facilitiesb. Dependent Variable: Student Satisfaction

X. RESULTS OF COEFFICIENTS independent variables are tested in this table given

The three hypotheses we made about thebelow.

positive relationship among dependent variables and

Coefficients(a)

Unstandardized CoefficientsStandardizedCoefficients t Sig.

ModelB Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 1.010 .318 3.171 .002Sports Facilities 1.762 .119 1.079 14.783 .000Accommodation -1.198 .135 -.719 -8.889 .000FacilitiesTransportation Facilities .166 .095 .101 1.757 .008

a. Dependent Variable: Student Satisfaction

Glo

bal J

ourn

al o

f Man

agem

ent a

nd B

usin

ess R

esea

rch

In the table it can be seen that

beta for the sports facilities ishighest which reveals that itis the most important variablecontributing to the studentssatisfaction. The students ofthe higher educationinstitutions are more satisfiedfrom the facilities provided bythe universities when theyare properly provided with therecreation and sportsfacilities more than otherfacilities like accommodationand transportation facilities.As in the campus they areentertained only through therecreation and sportsfacilities and these facilitiesare important with thestudies, so students rankedthese facilities better for theirsatisfaction with respect toother facilities. Similarly,accommodation is not a bigproblem in the universities,as most of the studentsbelong to the same city oreven when the students arefrom other cities or locations,they are mature enough tofind and adjust the facilities ofaccommodation near thecampuses, so they dont give

im

ults in thetable showsin the formof negativebeta. Thethird type offacilities isthetransportation facilities.Thesefacilitiesalthough aresignificantlyimportantbut are notso much asthe sportsfacilities asthe studentsasuniversitieslevelsmostly

have theirowntransportation facilitieswhen theyare from thesame cityand whenthey arefrom othercities andlive inhostels theydont needso muchtransportation facilities.So, in thisstudystudentsgaveimportancetotransportation facilitiesbut not asmuch as thesportsfacilities.

Inthese resultswe can say

that our hypothesisnumber first andthird aboutrecreation andsports facilities andtransportation wereproved significantlycorrect while the nullhypothesis numbertwo regardingaccommodationfacilities standscorrect.

XI.

CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

The studyconducted aboutstudents satisfactionregarding the facilitiesprovided by theuniversities other thanthe facilities ofeducation. Wecollected theperception of thestudents fromdifferent universitiesregarding the facilitiesthrough distributingquestionnairesamong them. Thenwe used differentstatistical measuresto find the results.The results of thisstudy suggest that thefacilities provided tothe studentsregarding the sportsfacilities and thetransportation


facilities have significant effecton the satisfaction of thestudents in universities, whilethe accommodation facilitiesdont have any significant effecton the satisfaction of thestudents.

This study recommendsthe universities to provide somefacilities to satisfy theircustomers, the students toprovide them the good andundifferentiated facilities whichare helpful in satisfying them.They universities should focusto provide the students therecreation and sports facilitiesso that they are more satisfywith the institutions. Moreover,transportation facilities also helpin satisfying the students. Therecommendations are basedonly on the basis of the natureof the study, and of course thebasic purpose of the universitiesis education and if they fulfilltheir responsibility, definitelystudents are satisfied to them.

XII.LIMITATIONS

The main limitation ofthis research study it theshortage of time, due to which ahuge sample could not be taken.Secondly, questionnaireinstrument has its ownlimitations which cannot beoverruled. Research biasness isalso a problem which was triedto be minimized by instructingstudents related to researchpurpose and questionnaire. Costfactor is also very importantbecause researchers have toface huge cost for conductingresearch survey.

REFERENCES RFRENCES REFERENCIAS

1. Ahmed, M. Ahmed, M. andAnwar, S. F.: Bridging theGap between Expectations ofthe Business Community andDelivery of the BusinessSchools in Bangladesh,Journal of BusinessAdministration, 26, pp. 47-66, 2000.

2. Amyx, D. andBristow, D.N.(1999), Themarketingconcept in anacademicsetting:assessing andcomparing theneeds ofAsian/PacificIslander and Anglo consumers of the educational product,Journal of Customer Service in Marketing and Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 65-80.

3. Appleton- Knapp,S.L and Krentler,K.A (2006),Measuringstudentexpectations andtheir effect onsatisfaction: theimportance ofmanaging studentexpectations,journal ofMarketingEducation, Vol.28 No. 3, pp.254-64.

4. Bateson, J.E.G(1989)ManagingServicesMarketing, TheDryden Press.

5. Lovelock, C (1983)Classifyingservices to gainstrategic marketinginsights, Journalof Marketing, 47.

6. Bitner, M.J.(1990),Evaluatingserviceencounters: theeffect of physicalsurroundingsand employee

respon-ses,Journal ofMarketing, Vol.54, pp. 69-82.

7. Borden, V. M.(1995),Segmentingstudent marketswith a studentsatisfaction andprioritiessurvey, Research in Higher Education, 36(1),pp. 7388.

8. Cheng Y. C. (1995), Function and effectiveness of educati

on, Wide Angel Press,Hong Kong.

9. Cherubini, S. (1996),Marketing dei servizi, FrancoAngeli, Milano.

10. Christou, E. (2001),Exploring the definitions ofservice quality in tourism: aconceptual approach, TheTourism Review, Vol. 56 No.2, pp. 120-35.

11. Cronin, J., Brady, M. and Hult,T. (2000), Assessing theeffects of quality, value andcustomer satisfaction onconsumer behavioralintentions in service environ-ments, Journal of Retailing,Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218.

12 . DeShields, O., Kara, A. andKaynak, E. (2005),Determinants of businessstudent satisfaction andretention in Highereducation: applyingHerzbergs two factortheory, international journalof Educational Management,Vol, 19 No.2 pp.128-39.

13 . Gibson Allen (2010),Measuring business studentsatisfaction: a review andsummary of the majorpredictors, Journal ofHigher Education Policy andManagement, Vol. 32, No. 3,pp. 251 259.

14. Helgesen, O. and Nesset, E.(2007), What accounts forstudent loyalty? Some fieldstudy evidence,international Journal ofEducational Management,Vol. 21 No. 2 pp.126-43 .

15 . Henning-Thurau, T., Langer,M.F and Hansen, U. (2001),Modeling and managing

student loyaltyreview of theliterature onhigher educationmarketing,Internationaljournal of PublicsectorManagement.Vol.19 No. pp.316-38.

16. Iacobucci, D.,Grayson, K.A.and Ostrom, A.(1994), Thecalculus ofservice qualityand customersatisfaction:theoretical andempiricaldifferentiation andintegration,Advances inService MarketingandManagement, Vol.5, pp. 1-44.

17. Lovelock, C (1983)Classifyingservices to gainstrategic marketinginsights, Journalof Marketing, 47.

18. Lo C. Celia(2010), Howstudentsatisfactionfactors affectperceivedlearning, Journalof Scholarship ofTeaching andLearning, Vol. 10,No. 1, pp. 47 54.

19. Majid A. K. M. S.,

Mamun, M. Z.and Siddique, S.R.: Practices ofTeachingMethods, Aidsand StudentsPerformanceEvaluation,InternationalJournal, 2000.

20. Mamun, M. Z.and Das,S.:Total QualityManagement forNon-GovernmentUniversities ofBangladesh,Proceedings ofAnnualConvention ofBangladeshSociety for TotalQualityManagement inAssociation withDepartment ofIndustrial andProductionEngineering,BUET, Dhaka,December 3-4,1999, pp. 23-29,1999.

21. Metawa, S. A.and Almossawi,M.: BankingbehaviorofIslamic bankcustomers:perspectivesandimplications,InternationalJournal of BankMarketing, 16(7), 299-313,1998.

Yea

r 201

3

13

Glo

bal J

ourn

al o

f Man

agem

ent a

nd B

usin

ess R

esea

rch

( G )

Volu

me

XII

I Iss

ue II

I Ver

sion

I



Yea

r 201

3

14

Glo

bal J

ourn

al o

f Man

agem

ent a

nd B

usin

ess R

esea

rch

( G )

Volu

me

XII

I Iss

ue II

I Ver

sion

I

22. Mondy R. W. and Noe R. A. (2005), Human Resource Management, 9t

h

edition,PearsonPrentice Hall.

23. Narasimhan, K.(2001),Improving theclimate ofteachingsession: the useof evaluation bystudents andinstructors,Quality inHigherEducation, Vol.7 No. 3, pp.179-90.

24. Oliver, R.L.(1997),satisfaction: Abehavioralperspective onthe consumer,McGraw.HillEducation, NewYork, NY.

25. Oliver, R andDesarbo, W. S.(1997),Processing ofthe satisfactionresponse in asuggestedframework andresearchproposition,Journal ofConsumerSatisfaction,DissatisfactionandComplainingBehavior, 2, pp.1-16.

26. Parasuraman,A., Berry, L. andZeithaml, V.(1985), Aconceptualmodel of servicequality and its implications for future research,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 41-50.

27. Parasuraman,A., Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L. L.

(1988)."SERVQUAL: AMultiple-ItemScale forMeasuringConsumerPerceptions ofService Quality,"Journal ofRetailing, vol.64, 12-40.

28. Parasuraman,A., Zeithaml,V.A. and Berry,L.L.,SERVQUAL: AMultiple-ItemScale forMeasuringCustomerPerceptions ofService Quality,1988, Journal ofRetailing, vol.64, no. 1, pp. 12-24.

29. Patterson, P.G.and Johnson,L.W. (1993),Disconfirmationof expectationand the gapmodel of servicequality: anintegratedparadigm,Journal ofsatisfaction,Dissatisfactionand ComplainingBehaviour, Vol.6, pp. 90-9.

30. Palmer R. S.and Holt M. D.(2009),Examiningstudentsatisfaction withwholly onlinelearning, Journal ofComputerAssistedLearning, Vol.25, pp. 101 113.

31. Pellicelli, G.(1997),Marketing deiservizi, Utet,

Torino. 32. Petruzzellis, L., DUggento, A.

M. & Romanazzi, S. (2006).Student Satisfaction andQuality of Service in ItalianUniversities, ManagingService Quality, 16

(4). 349-364. 33. Prabha Ramseook-

Munhurrun, PerunjodiNaidoo, Pushpa Nundlall(2010), A proposed modelfor measuring service qualityin secondary education, International Journal ofQuality and ServiceSciences, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp.335-351.

34. Qi Guosheng, ChenMeifeng, Liu Xiao and DingBangyou (2010), Anempirical study of studentsatisfaction and itsinfluencing factors Schoolof Continuing Education ofGuangzhou University, International Journal ofContinuing Education andLifelong Learning, Vol. 2,No.2, pp. 29 40.

35. Sapri, M., Kaka, A. & Finch,E. (2009). 'Factors thatInfluence Students Level ofSatisfaction with

Regards to HigherEducational Facilities Services,'Malaysian Journal of Real Estate, (1).34:51.

36. Sedgwick,R.(2005),Private Univ

ersities inPakistan, WorldEducation Newsand Reviews,18(1).

37. Sigala, M.(2002), Theevolution ofinternetpedagogy:benefits fortourism andhospitalityeducation,Journal ofHospitality,Leisure, Sportsand TourismEducation, Vol. 1No. 2, pp. 29-45.

38. Sigala, M. andBaum, T. (2003),Trends andissues in tourismand hospitalityhighereducation:visioning thefuture, Tourismand HospitalityResearch. TheSurrey QuarterlyReview, Vol. 4No. 4, pp. 367-76.

39. Sigala, M.(2004a),Investigatingthe factors determining e-learningeffectiveness intourism andhospitalityeducation,Journal ofHospitality &TourismEducation, Vol.16 No. 2, pp. 11-21.

40. Sigala, M.(2004b), TheASP-Qualmodel:measuring ASPservice quality inGreece, ManagingService Quality,Vol. 14 No. 1, pp.103-14.

41. Shan, M.D., Walker, M. and Hayes, T. (1995),Understanding professional service expectations: do we regression and decision treeanalysis, Research inHigherEducation, Vol.45 No. 3, pp.251-69.

42. Shank, M.D.,Walker, M. andHayas, T .(1995),Understandingprofessionalserviceexpectations: dowe know whatour studentsexpect in aquality education?, journal of professional ServicesMarketing, Vol. 13 No. 1 pp.71-83.

43. Sum Vichet,McCaskey J.Stephen andKyeyuneCatherine (2010),A surveyResearch ofsatisfaction levelsof graduatestudents enrolledin a nationallyranked top-10program at a mid-westernuniversity, Research inHigherEducation.

44. Thomas, E.H.and Galambos,N. (2004), Whatsatisfiesstudents? Miningstudents-opiniondata withregression anddecision tree

analysis, Research in HigherEducation, Vol. 45 No.3, pp.251-69.

45. Watson, S. (2003), Closingthe feedback loop: ensuringeffective action from studentfeedback, Tertiary education andManagement, Vol.9, pp.145-57.

46. Zafiropoulos, C., Fragidis,G., Kehris, E., Dimitriadis, S.and Paschaloudis, D.

(2005), Service

QualityAssessment inHigherEducation: theCase ofTechnologicalEducationalInstitute ofSerres, paperpresented at the9th InternationalConference onMarketing andDevelopment(ICMD), Thess-aloniki, 8-11

June. 47. Zahid, J. R.,

Chowdhury G. M.and Sogra. J.:Present Statusand FutureDirection ofBusinessEducation inBangladesh,Journal ofBusinessAdministration,26, pp.11-24,2000.



48. Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A and Berry, L.L(1985), Problems and Strategies in servicesmarketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp,33-46.

49. Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L.(1990), Delivering Quality Service: BalancingCustomer Perception and Expectations, The FressPress, NewYork, NY.

Yea

r 201

3

15

Glo

bal J

ourn

al o

f Man

agem

ent a

nd B

usin

ess R

esea

rch

( G )

Volu

me

XII

I Iss

ue II

I Ver

sion

I



Yea

r 201

3

16

Glo

bal J

ourn

al o

f Man

agem

ent a

nd B

usin

ess R

esea

rch

( G )

Volu

me

XII

I Iss

ue II

I Ver

sion

I

This page is intentionally left blank


2 measuring student satisfaction in publ

Documents