Measuring satisfaction amongst university students can take many approaches. A narrower approach involves focusing on specific areas for example, university services such as student housing, or individual courses. On the other hand, satisfaction measures can also take the format of a total university experience that looks at a student’s overall or total experience with the university taking into account areas such as academic, non-academic, social, and other factors specific to the university. Extensive research into student satisfaction has looked at how these specific factors influence satisfaction (Letcher & Neves, 2010: 2-3).
Choosing a broader perspective of student satisfaction, Gruber et al. (2010:109-111) cite studies such as where student satisfaction surveys are used. These satisfaction surveys take many forms and could involve evaluating lecturers, courses, faculties, and the institution as a whole with emphasis on the total experience of a student. It is noteworthy that their preference is for an institution-wide survey of satisfaction, which is believed to provide more complete information on satisfaction as opposed to a survey of just a module, or course, which could be limited in information. Through extensive research of the student satisfaction literature, these authors developed a student satisfaction questionnaire covering “administrative and student services;
atmosphere among students; attractiveness of the surrounding city; computer equipment; courses;
library; lecturers; lecture theatres; refectory/cafeteria; relevance of teaching to practice; reputation of the university; school placements; support from lecturers; the presentation of information; and university buildings.” Moreover, to add to the aforementioned list, a question on the “general satisfaction with the university was included” Gruber et al. (2010:109-111).
Similarly, in adopting a broader perspective into student satisfaction, Arambewela and Hall (2009:562) studied the satisfaction of international students at a university, and found that the following seven factors played an important role in influencing student satisfaction:
1. Education: made up of - valuable feedback from teaching staff, effective access to academic staff, and high teaching standards with excellent lecturers.
2. Social orientation: made up of - counselling service, social events, close working associations with students, universal orientation programmes.
78 3. Economic considerations: made up of – non-permanent jobs, living expenses, prospects for
relocation.
4. Safety: made up of - safety issues and life-style.
5. Image and stature: made up of image and esteem or prestige all over the world, image and esteem in Australia, “image and prestige in home country”.
6. Technology : made up of – being able to have accessibility to facilities such as computing and up-to-date technology.
7. Accommodation: made up of equitable cost, and good standards.
Closely paralleling the results of the studies above, especially in terms of facilities provided by a university, is Douglas et al. (2006:253) who cite studies over time impacting on the choice and hence satisfaction of a university by students stating the main reasons to be as follows: courses were right, computer facilities were available, good quality library amenities, reputable lecturing methods, access to areas that have some silence, accessibility to places for personal study, good public transport system in the area, and students treated in a pleasant way. It is evident from the aforementioned main reasons provided for satisfaction that facilities provided by a university are one of the key satisfaction factors prompting students to enrol at the university. Furthermore, Douglas et al. (2006:253) cite Coles (2002) who found students will be less satisfied as the size of classes increase and as the number of compulsory core courses increases compared to optional courses.
Similarly, Eom and Wen (2006:225) found significant associations between student satisfaction and six issues which were personal-motivation of students, the study methods of students, the knowledge of the instructor, the feedback from the instructor, student interactions, and the course structure, again emphasizing on the importance of the ‘education’ factor in student satisfaction.
However, unlike the other studies alluded to above, facilities do not feature as important in Eom and Wen’s (2006) study.
Whilst the studies alluded to above did not specifically try to single out a most important factor influencing student satisfaction, a study at a university in Saudi Arabia, by Sohail and Shaikh (2004) discovered that “contact personnel” were the most significant to students in evaluating the
79 university although “physical environment, layout, lighting, classrooms, appearance of buildings and grounds and the overall cleanliness” were also deemed to be important.
Similarly, in Galloway’s (1998) study of a UK university as cited in Douglas et al. (2006:254), the administrative office of the faculty had a very strong influence on the quality perceptions that students formed about the university with the key predictors being “office has a professional appearance; staff dress smartly; never too busy to help; and opening hours are personally convenient.”
In yet another study in trying to highlight a single most important influencer of student satisfaction, a different outcome was obtained as compared to the study by Sohail and Shaikh (2004), where the lecture played the most significant role in influencing satisfaction. For example, in a study by Banwet and Datta’s (2003), reported in Douglas et al. (2006: 254), students gave greater emphasis to the lecture outcome (“knowledge and skills gained, availability of class notes and reading material, coverage and depth of the lecture and teacher’s feedback on assessed work”) than on other issues.
Furthermore, various other factors that have been found to influence student satisfaction. For example, Moro-Egido and Panades (2010) found less satisfaction amongst part-time students, and greater satisfaction levels amongst women students and those registered for specialist programs.
In addition, Umbach and Porter (2002), Grunwald and Peterson (2003), and Thomas and Galambos (2004) “focused on faculty and department roles in shaping student satisfaction, concluding that the department where faculty focus on research, students report higher levels of satisfaction” cited in (Letcher & Neves, 2010:2-3).
An important perspective on measuring student satisfaction is provided by Rapert et al. (2004) who distinguished between process quality and functional quality. Process quality deals with how effectively services are provided, e.g. the effectiveness of teaching and advising, and the like.
Functional quality, in contrast pertains to the outcome of the outcome of the procedure in helping customers to realize other goals, e.g. educational value to advance in a career and achieve intellectually. According to these authors, it was found that most satisfaction studies in higher education emphasise process quality aspects i.e. on the operational aspects of the learning exercise
80 and the authors advise that educational functional quality should also be measured in student satisfaction studies.
More recently, a comprehensive study into student satisfaction by Grebennikova and Shah (2013:6) summarises the most important factors contributing to student satisfaction based on issues that recurred from a number of different studies cited. In order of importance, the factors were as follows:
“a range of learning support services provided to students, such as library, IT facilities and academic advice;
quality of teaching, including teaching ability of staff, subject expertise and staff approachability;
course outcomes, particularly the extent to which undertaking the course enables attainment of generic and job-specific skills;
assessments, including clarity of expectations, assessment standards, marking, timely and constructive feedback on learning;
online learning technology and ease of its use;
learning resources, including online access to learning and supplementary materials;
opportunity to undertake work experience or work placement while studying.”
Hence, based on the discussion above, student satisfaction is a broad, subjective multi-dimensional construct and consequently, there are many different issues that have a bearing on it. However, in order to improve student satisfaction, it must be measured effectively.