What Really Affects Student Satisfaction? An Assessment of Quality through a University-Wide Student Survey

Giuliana Solinas, Maria Dolores Masia, Giorgio Maida, Elena Muresu

Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy.

DOI: 10.4236/ce.2012.31006                

Abstract

The analysis of students satisfaction for their university experience is important within the educational evaluation. In this study was explored the satisfaction of students to identify which aspects of teaching may be cause of dissatisfaction. A survey questionnaire contains items on motivations, teaching quality and services was compiled in anonymous by the students that attending the courses of the Faculty of Science (University of Sassari, Sardinia) during the second semester of the 2009/2010 academic year. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was assessed by Cronbach’s Alpha. A preliminary chi square test at stepwise logistic regression analysis was applied to evaluate the association between student satisfaction and motivation, quality of teacher and services, at a 0.05 significance level. Only 403 questionnaires were considered good with a response rate of 82.6%. The student’s satisfaction is significant different by gender (p = .009). Significant are the items on the interest for scientific studies, the acquisition of the degree as social prestige and future work (p < .05); also, the ability of teacher to stimulate and attract the student, the encouragement, the advice to the students and the his professionality are significantly associated with the students satisfaction (p < .05). In males the main factor associated to the satisfaction is to have achieved always good results in school (OR = 2.84, p = .036); instead, in females, the interest in science (OR = 4.75, p = .023), the title of degree to acquire a social prestige (OR = 2.00, p = .033) and the possibility of a future work (OR = 2.09, p = .028). Although good judgments made by students, however, require further attention, such as such as the abandonment of the university, the time of graduation degree, the future career, for better analysis of aspects related to the satisfaction of the quality of teaching. (Abstract)

Keywords

Student Characteristics, Faculty of Science, Stepwise Logistic Regression

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Athiayaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: The case of university education. European Journal of Marketing, 31, 528-540. doi:10.1108/03090569710176655
[2]	Barbaranelli, C., & Natali, E. (2005). I test psicologici: Teorie e modelli psicometrici. Roma: Carocci.
[3]	Broder, J. M., & Dorfman, J. H. (1994). Determinants of teaching quality: What’s important to students? Research in Higher Education, 35, 235-249. doi:10.1007/BF02496703
[4]	Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555
[5]	Dumont, R. G., & Troelstrup, R. L. (1980). Exploring relationships between objective and subjective measures of instructional outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 12, 37-51. doi:10.1007/BF00991927
[6]	Emerson, J. D., Mosteller, F., &Youtz, C. (2000). Students can help improve college teaching: A review and an agenda for the statistics profession. In S. G. Rao (Eds.), Statistics for the 21st century: Methodologies for applications of the future. New York: Marcel Dekker.
[7]	Fabbris, L., & Gasparotto, C. (2001). Models for assessing the quality of university teaching. In L. Fabbris (Ed.), Quality of teaching and computer-assisted (pp. 27-44). Padova: CLEUP.
[8]	Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1967). The motivation to work. New York, NY: Wiley.
[9]	Likert, R. (1932). Technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychlogy, 22, 1-55.
[10]	Lockheed, M. E., & Hanushek, E., (1994). Concepts of educational efficiency and effectiveness. Human Resources Development and Operations Policy. Working Paper Series.
[11]	Mansfield, P. M., & Warwich, J. (2006). Gender differences in student’s and parent’s Evaluative criteria when selecting a college. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 15, 47-80. doi:10.1300/J050v15n02_03
[12]	Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 253- 388. doi:10.1016/0883-0355(87)90001-2
[13]	McKeachie, W. (1996). American Council of Learned Societies Occasional Paper No. 33. The Professional evaluation of teaching. URL (last check 6 May 2011). http://archives.acls.org/op/33_Professonal_Evaluation_of_Teaching.htm
[14]	MIUR (Ministry of the Education, University and Research). The statistical office. URL (last check 6 May 2011). http://statistica.miur.it
[15]	National Committee for the Evaluation of the University System (2002). URL. http://www.murst.it/observatory
[16]	Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
[17]	Pisati, M. (2002). La partecipazione al sistema scolastico. In A. Schizzerotto (Ed.), Vite ineguali, disuguaglianze e corsi di vita nell’Italia contemporanea. Bologna: II Mulino.
[18]	Remmers, H. H., & Remmers, E. H. (1926). The negative suggestion effect of true-false examination questions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 17, 52-56. doi:10.1037/h0070067
[19]	Schizzerotto, A., & Barone C. (2006). Sociologia dell’istruzione. Bologna: II Mulino.
[20]	Shavit Y., & Blossfeld H. P. (2003). Persistent inequality: Changing educational stratification. In: Thirteen Countries. Boulder, CO: West- view Press.