IQRA UNIVERSITY

Key Determinants of Student satisfaction

Literature Review

4/17/2011

Submitted to: Dr.Imtiaz Subhani

Submitted by:
Syeda Kulsoom Fatima (11809)
Najam-us-Saqib Qasmi (12034)
Ghufran NIsar (11153)
Muhammad Jazil (10762)
Usama Naeem (10727)
LITERATURE REVIEW:

Students are dynamic and can be considered as consumers and product both looking from
different angles. Their satisfaction is necessary when looked from marketing eyes in the era of
competition. This study focuses on student satisfaction (Badiyani, 2009).

Student life is seemingly a web of interrelated activities and experiences. This examines which
aspects of a student’s educational experience are more important in influencing student
satisfaction. The findings suggest that “student centeredness” and “instructional effectiveness”
are key determinants of how satisfied a student is with his/her overall educational experience
(Elliott, 2003).

Tinto (1987) proposed the dynamic Model of Institutional Departure, stating that the student
retention process is clearly dependent on the student's institutional experiences.

For decades, scholar and academic administrators have examined the impact that college has on
students and student satisfaction. Seminal works by Feldman and Newcomb (1969) and
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) explore the relationship between the student college experiences
and learning, development and satisfaction. Scholars have long understood the impact of
subunits within colleges and universities on students and have concluded that they often produce
quite different influences on student development (Baird,1988; Chickering,1969).

More specifically, several authors have noted the impact that departmental culture and climate
have on student learning and satisfaction (Cameron and Ettington, 1988; Hartnett and Centra,
1977).

College impact research has extensively studied the relationship between student-faculty
interaction and students’ outcomes, revealing wide-ranging benefits in terms of student academic
and social integration, self-confidence, satisfaction, retention, and longer-term educational
aspirations (Pascarella 1980; Terenzini 2005).

According to the literature, faculty members do influence student outcomes both positively and
negatively (Endo and Harpel ,1981; Jacob, 1957; Theophilides and Lorang, 1984).

Though research on college outcomes has increased, there are few empirical studies on student-
faculty interaction. As a result, researchers know that certain general type of college experiences
may be associated with certain general outcomes, yet little is understood about the specific
nature of the interaction which leads to the observed outcomes (Pascarella, 1985).

Jacob’s (1957) summary of the literature on the impact of teachers cites evidence that the quality
of teaching has little effect on the value outcomes of general education for the majority of
students. Elsewhere Jacob concedes that some teachers do exert a profound influence on some
students.

Some researchers bears out the impact of college culture is a prime agent of student socialization
Chickering (1969) identifies three main factors in college enculturation:
(1)students entry characteristics,
(2) structural and environmental factors of college,
(3)interactions between students and the primary agents of socialization on campus(i.e., faculty
and peers).

Teixeira and Davey (2008) concluded that higher education students who responded the survey
recognized in fact that their interest in new venture creation would be improved if their schools
brought students in contact with the network needed to start a new business and put
entrepreneurial students in contact with each other.

This corroborates the idea that entrepreneurship is a learned phenomenon and, as such,
entrepreneurs can be created by their experience as they grow and learn, being influenced by
teachers, parents, mentors and role models throughout their growth process (Volery, 2004; Van
Auken et al., 2006).

However, students seem not to relate the quality of teaching of a particular subject matter to
general satisfaction with a business program, Finally, it seems that satisfaction with advising
does not impact the overall satisfaction with the business program in any of the three forms in
which overall satisfaction was measured (Letcher and Neves, 2008).

According to results teachers’ expertise is the most influential factor on the students’ satisfaction,
whereas courses offered and learning environment are next important factors and classroom
facilities is the least important factor among all the variables, this means that teachers’ expertise,
courses offered and learning environment do a good job of enhancing students’ satisfaction in
higher education (Zaheer and Rehman, 2010).

Kosor (2009) worked on existing non-completion assessments in three, important aspects. First,
the focus was on first year leavers, estimating the probability that a student will drop out of
university during his/her first year of study that has been identified as the "make or break year".
Secondly, peer effects and student effort were used as potentially important variables in
modeling non-completion in Croatian HE. Third contribution to knowledge is that part-time
versus full time students are examined, whereas in most of the empirical work this distinction
was overlooked and this issue ignored. The empirical work established that mature students and
the ones paying a tuition fee are more likely not to complete their studies, suggesting that any
policy designed to reduce non-completion rates should be particularly sensitive to these students
in order to help them progress. On the other hand, attending a gymnasium, having high
secondary school grades, studying a related subject in secondary school, having a high score at
the admission exam, being a full time student, and having parents with a university degree has a
negative and significant effect, i.e. discourages non-completion.

Consortium (2002) concerned about appropriate levels of student satisfaction in the online
environment because it can impact student motivation and therefore student success and
completion rates, we need to continue to focus on faculty satisfaction because it affects faculty
motivation. Student and faculty satisfaction are two critical pillars of quality in online education.

In a study conducted by Hogan and McKnight (2007) online instructors in university settings
experienced average emotional burnout levels, high levels of depersonalization, and low levels of
personal accomplishment. These results should be of concern to administrators because the
success of online programs rests on the commitment of the faculty and their willingness to
continue the development and delivery of online courses (Betts, 1998).

Positive student outcomes are highly correlated with faculty satisfaction as suggested by
(Hartman et al 2000) then administrators will need to pay close attention to levels of faculty
satisfaction, because there may be an interaction effect. The development, implementation, and
maintenance of online courses and programs are certainly not inexpensive.

Boettcher (2004) estimated that an instructor requires 10 hours to design and develop one hour of
online instruction. This estimate does not include the hours instructors spend on faculty training
and development. It will be costly to replace experienced instructors who choose to discontinue
teaching in the online environment. Faculty satisfaction is one of the pillars of quality
(Consortium, 2002). It is important and needs to be continuously assessed to assure quality
online educational experiences for faculty and students.

PSQ, satisfaction, trust, and commitment were examined by Rojas-me´ndez, Vasquez-parraga

Kara, and Cerda-urrutia (2009) within a model that is assumed to be comprehensive enough to
explain loyalty. The results demonstrate that commitment is the most influential factor mainly
because of its direct and strong relationship to loyalty. The other factors have only indirect
effects on loyalty and direct relationships in the following sequence: PSQ to satisfaction,
satisfaction to trust, and trust to commitment, as hypothesized and corroborated.

Most college students spend considerable time, money, and effort in obtaining a quality
education and should perceive their postsecondary educational experiences as being of high
value (Knox, Lindsay, and Kolb, 1993).

Jenssen, Stensaker, Gr é Gaard examined about the student satisfaction: toward an empirical
deconstruction of the concept in this study examines how overall student satisfaction in Norway
can be broken down into component assessments referring to broader aspects of the students’
learning experience. The analysis reveals that the academic and pedagogic quality of teaching is
crucial determinants of student satisfaction, pointing to a potential overlap between student
satisfaction surveys and surveys on student assessment of teaching. However, the analysis also
demonstrates that social climate; aesthetic aspects of the physical infrastructure and the quality
of services from the administrative staff should not be underestimated when trying to improve
student satisfaction and opportunity for learning.

As an attempt to improve the quality of teaching and learning, most European institutions of
higher education have implemented some sort of student evaluation of teaching. The pedagogical
and academic quality of the teaching given are closely scrutinized through various assessments,
in which students express their view on the quality of a given education or study programmed.
Even if such assessments give valuable and valid feedback on issues related to teaching and
instruction, these processes could be seen to have a too narrow focus of attention. They do not
take into account that student learning depends on individual hallmarks as prior merits and
cognitive skills, personal motivation and individual effort as well as related group characteristics
of the students entering a particular study programmed. Such potential peer-group effects on
learning have been termed `the balance of intake scores’ (Rutter et al., 1987/1979).

Grunewald and Peterson examined institutional factors that promote faculty satisfaction with
instructions approach to and support for student assessment and that are related to faculty
involvement in their institution support practices and in their own engagement with student
assessment in their class room. This study examines institutional factors that promote faculty
satisfaction with their institution's approach to and support for student assessment and that are
related to faculty involvement in their institution's support practices and in their own engagement
with student assessment in the classroom. The study is based on a survey of faculty from 7
institutions that vary by type, control, and accrediting region. The institution's student assessment
purposes, its administrative support patterns, and its faculty instructional impacts are significant
predictors of faculty satisfaction with their institution's approach to and support for student
assessment. External influences on, faculty uses, and perceived benefits of professional
development practices for student assessment are significant predictors of faculty involvement
with student assessment in their institution and their classes.