Hindawi

Education Research International

Volume 2018, Article ID 7194106, 14 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7194106

Research Article
Investigating Determinants of Student Satisfaction in the First
Year of College in a Public University in the State of Qatar

Bothaina Al-Sheeb ,1 Abdel Magid Hamouda,2 and Galal M. Abdella3

1
Business Services Coordinator, Qatar Foundation, Doha, Qatar
2
Acting Dean of College of Engineering, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
3
Assistant Professor of Quality Management, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Correspondence should be addressed to Bothaina Al-Sheeb; [email protected]

Received 10 August 2018; Accepted 20 September 2018; Published 8 November 2018

Academic Editor: Gérard Lassibille

Copyright © 2018 Bothaina Al-Sheeb et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.

Purpose. A first-year student’s life is a web of interrelated academic and social experiences. Most universities have rigorous
processes to achieve excellence or reach high-quality standards, with “Student Satisfaction” being the central focus of all of higher
education aims for excellence. This study examined the influence of various academic, social, and environmental aspects on the
overall satisfaction of first-year students. Design. A questionnaire was designed and administered to first-year students, and the
resulting data were analyzed using correlation, linear regression, binary logistic regression, and artificial neural networks.
Findings. The findings suggested that three of the five factors explored—100-level course satisfaction, a sense of belonging, and
citizenship knowledge and skills—were the best determinants of the level of first-year student satisfaction. Originality. This study
examined the influence of academic, social, and environmental factors on overall student satisfaction with the college experience.
Many studies have focused on how factors such as student attitudes, perceptions, and academic and social engagements impact
first-year student success and retention; however, few studies have attempted to explore the influence these factors have on student
satisfaction and their overall perceptions of the college experience. Discussion and Conclusion. This study has provided a snapshot
of some of the key determinants of the overall student satisfaction of the first-year experience. This study can assist college
administrators and instructors in their quality assurance initiatives which may include reviewing the current system, setting
college priorities, and planning and allocation of future resources to better achieve higher levels of student satisfaction.

1. Introduction to adapt to college life and to give guidance to those who are
underperforming. The “first-year experience” initiative has
First-year student retention and success is challenging for included programs and activities such as student orienta-
many higher education institutions. Many universities tions, first-year seminars, and success workshops. An im-
around the world including Qatar University have made portant part of this initiative was to measure and explore the
significant changes to their admissions policies, which have five factors contributing to overall first-year student satis-
resulted in significantly larger first-year intakes. For uni- faction. A questionnaire was designed to provide a snapshot
versities to fulfill their role of developing their nation’s of overall student satisfaction and to assess the correlation
economies by improving student success and retention, it is with the three dimensions and five identified factors: aca-
necessary to determine the factors that contribute to overall demic (course effectiveness and citizenship knowledge and
student satisfaction. To this end, ensuring that first-year skills), social (a sense of belonging and interaction with key
students graduate is a critical issue for this university, as it is college members), and environmental (student awareness
for many higher education institutions. One of the major and utilization of campus resources). These factors, which
strategies adopted by this institution was to implement were based on Astin’s interaction theory and Tinto’s model
a “first-year experience” initiative to assist first-year students of departure, have been found to be the most important
2 Education Research International

elements in first-year college life. This study sought to gain quality [5–8]. However, many studies have argued that the
a greater insight into the contributions these factors had on customer concept in higher education has not yet been
overall first-year student satisfaction. To achieve this aim, the clearly defined (e.g., Marzo Navarro et al. [9]), “which makes
questionnaire was administered to 282 first-year students, these institutions difficult to manage from a marketing point
and the resulting data were analyzed using regression of view.” Elliot [10] believed that evaluating student satis-
analysis and artificial neural networks. In line with previous faction was a daunting task due to the complex nature of
research, it was found that student course ratings were the higher education and because of the “confusion concerning
best predictors of overall college satisfaction, with student students as customers” (p. 2).
citizenship knowledge and skills and a sense of belonging also
found to be highly correlated. In contrast to previous research,
however, this study found that student interactions with key 2.2.2. Decrease of Student Attrition and Loss of Resources.
members such as faculty, school administrators/staff, and Another important reason that student satisfaction is of
other students and an awareness and utilization of campus importance is that dissatisfied students often withdraw
resources were not highly correlated with overall student during their first year at college. From a financial per-
satisfaction. spective, it has been found that retaining students is more
efficient than recruiting new students. Tinto [11] found that
2. Literature Review a failure to retain current students was a waste of both
human and financial resources and was a primary concern
2.1. Definition of Student Satisfaction. Student satisfaction for major stakeholders such as higher education leadership
definitions have varied widely depending on the research students and parents. Elliot [10] also claimed that many
approach and focus. In this study, student satisfaction was universities were aware that it was more efficient to “invest
examined from an educational perspective. Elliott and Healy now (retain students) than to invest later (attract new
[1] defined student satisfaction as a “short-term attitude students),” arguing that retaining students was less costly
resulting from an evaluation of a student’s educational than admitting a new one (p. 199). Schertzer and Schertzer
experience” (p. 2) and claimed that student satisfaction was [12] also found that as higher education students were
achieved when their actual experiences or performances met “consumer oriented,” attrition was increasing and that the
or exceeded their initial expectations. Aldridge and Rowley failure to retain students was both costly and ineffective.
[2] divided student satisfaction evaluations into two cate-
gories, with the first being focused on classroom teaching
2.2.3. Importance of the First-Year Experience Assessment.
and learning evaluation and the second being focused on the
“Student satisfaction” is one of the most important di-
comprehensive student experience. For the purpose of this
mensions for the assessment of first-year experiences. For
study, student satisfaction was defined as student happiness
this reason, it is essential to explore the determinants or
or contentment with their overall college experience. Stu-
factors that influence overall first-year student satisfaction. It
dent satisfaction was assessed based on the extent of positive
has been found that a student’s perceptions and experiences
ratings given to the education quality at the institution, the
during their first college year lay the foundation for future
overall college experience, whether students would choose to
success and graduation. This notion is supported by the
register again at the same college if they had the choice to
work of Barefoot [13]. Therefore, student evaluations of the
start over, and whether the other courses they took had
social and academic aspects of the college community can
assisted them to adapt to college life; therefore, this defi-
provide institutions with important insights into the stu-
nition combined a measure of both overall student satis-
dents’ overall college experiences.
faction and the intention to persist.
This study used a selective student satisfaction evaluation
model in which certain student satisfaction determinants 2.3. Student Satisfaction Is Complex and Multidimensional.
linked to the college learning outcomes for successful first- Evaluating first-year student experiences and satisfaction is
year experiences were explored. This model is described in a complex process because “student life is seemingly a web of
more detail in Conceptual Framework. interrelated activities and experiences” (Elliott [10], p. 1).
Schrader and Brown [14] believed that as educational ser-
2.2. Importance of Student Satisfaction in Higher Education vices were complex in nature, service quality perception was
based on complex interactions that require “multidimen-
2.2.1. Accountability. Student satisfaction is a major concern sional consideration and evaluation” (p. 161).
for higher education institutions. Bryant and Bodfish [3] Previous studies have confirmed the multidimension-
claimed that student satisfaction was a major performance ality of student satisfaction. Hanssen and Solvoll [15] found
indicator for higher education institutions, with many that student satisfaction was a multidimensional process
universities implementing rigorous quality assurance pro- influenced by many factors. Hartman and Schmidt [16]
cesses. Browne et al. [4] noted also that the goal of many explored student and alumni satisfaction from a consumer
universities was to improve accountability by “streamlining perspective (a TQM principle) and found that the satis-
processes and improving services to students, faculty, and faction ratings were influenced by the students’ perceptions
staff” (p.1). There have been several studies on the links of both the college performance quality and the academic
between student satisfaction and higher education service outcomes resulting from that performance.
Education Research International 3

2.4. Common Student Satisfaction Surveys. Most colleges image, expectations, perceived quality, perceived value, and
measure student satisfaction by administering student sat- loyalty. In another study, Alam Malik et al. [25] explored
isfaction surveys such as CIRP (Freshmen Survey), NSSE student perceptions and expectations in a business school
(National Survey of Student Engagement), SSI (Student through the assessment of factors such as teaching expertise,
Strength Inventory), and Noel Levitz survey. Billups [17] the courses offered, the learning environment, and the
claimed that these surveys were useful to higher education classroom facilities and found that academic facilities were the
leaders as they could be used to determine the areas that most important aspect of overall student satisfaction; how-
needed improvement as well as to propose new programs. ever, significant differences were found between male and
Furthermore, as student satisfaction has often been linked to female student satisfaction levels. Parahoo et al. [26] also
student persistence, such surveys give administrators valu- investigated whether gender was a factor in measuring overall
able insights into how the institution’s quality is perceived by student satisfaction using three dependent satisfaction mea-
the different stakeholders, which can assist in institutional sures: global satisfaction, willingness to recommend the
strategic planning and goal setting. However, many of these college, and satisfaction with the value they had received from
surveys are costly and not readily available to college their overall academic experiences, and found that university
personnel. reputation was the only significant predictor for female
students, while both reputation and academic faculty com-
petence were significant for male students.
2.5. Student Satisfaction and Student Retention. As highly Several other studies have concentrated on specific as-
satisfied students are more likely to persist in their studies pects of college life. Yang et al. [27], for example, explored
and graduate, it is important to regularly evaluate student how classroom attributes affected student satisfaction and
satisfaction. Schertzer and Schertzer [12] and Styron [18] performance in higher education classrooms and found that
explored the relationships between student satisfaction and student perceptions relied heavily on spatial characteristics
college graduation, with Styron [18] finding that retention such as visibility and furniture and ambient characteristics
was correlated with several social and academic involvement such as air quality and temperature, which were significantly
factors and that students who had withdrawn had signifi- impacted by classroom design, management, and
cantly lower social involvement and faculty approachability maintenance.
satisfaction than students who had continued with their Other studies have attempted to use more creative ap-
studies. proaches to determine student satisfaction. Douglas et al.
[28] assessed student experiences as being satisfying or
2.6. Student Satisfaction and Student Success/Academic dissatisfying from handwritten narratives by first-year and
Performance. Satisfaction can motivate students to work senior students that focused on the teaching and learning
harder, achieve success, and persist until graduation. Oja and the support service environment, from which a number
[19] found that student performance was statistically related of new overall quality determinants were identified: moti-
to student satisfaction ratings for several institutional as- vation, reward, social engagement, usefulness, value for
pects. In another study, Bryant and Bodfish [3] explored money, and fellow student behavior. Bates et al. [29] ex-
student satisfaction and student graduation rates in four plored student satisfaction using photographic elicitation,
different higher education institutions and concluded that with the thematic analysis of the student interviews revealing
the higher the student satisfaction level, the higher the that the themes related to students’ satisfaction were the
number of graduating students. Similarly, Dhaqane and learning environment, work-life balance, and the wider
Afrah [20] found that satisfaction promoted both academic university community.
achievement and student retention; however, Bean and
Bradley’s [21] examination of the “reciprocity” between 2.8. Factors Impacting Student Satisfaction in This Study
satisfaction and performance found that student perfor-
mance had no positive impact on overall satisfaction. 2.8.1. Student 100-Level Course Ratings. Student satisfaction
is usually associated with academic experience evaluations
and teaching effectiveness perceptions. For example, Marzo
2.7. Recent Related Literature. Studies that have utilized Navarro et al. [9] concluded that student perceptions of the
comprehensive approaches to student satisfaction include faculty, teaching techniques, and course administration were
Gruber et al. [22] and Butt and ur Rehman [23]. Gruber et al. the key elements to student satisfaction and college loyalty.
[22] designed a student satisfaction instrument for a German Elliot [10] examined the aspects of student academic ex-
university that covered fifteen dimensions such as admin- perience that were most likely to influence student satis-
istrative and student services, student atmosphere, the faction and found that “instructional effectiveness” was a key
courses, and lecturer support. Similarly, Butt and ur Rehman determinant for overall student satisfaction.
[23] examined student satisfaction on four education di-
mensions: teaching expertise, the offered courses, the
learning environment, and classroom facilities. Temizer and 2.8.2. Citizenship Knowledge and Skills. This determinant
Turkyilmaz [24] developed a Student Satisfaction Index (SSI) refers to the student knowledge and skills required to be
model for higher education institutions that measured stu- a successful citizen, which we believe could influence student
dent satisfaction from different aspects such as institutional satisfaction. In higher education, students are expected to
4 Education Research International

become involved in civil engagement activities. For example, college satisfaction or perceptions of the overall quality of
at this university, students are expected to gain the the college experience.
knowledge, values, and skills necessary to be responsible
citizens; therefore, it was expected that a student who had
2.9. Conceptual Framework. Astin’s input-environment-
these positive behaviors would be motivated to graduate
output (IEO) model and Tinto’s theory of student de-
from college and would have a positive view toward higher
parture formed the basis for the conceptual framework in
education in general and toward the institution in particular.
this study.
Frederick [30] defined the responsible citizen, some ele-
Astin [39] claimed that student outcomes were a func-
ments of which were a strong understanding of the nation’s
tion of three important components: inputs (student pre-
history and political processes, knowledge on recent events,
college background characteristics), environment (the
an embracing of democratic values, and engagement in civil
various experiences offered on campus: programs, policies,
activities, which were divided into six elements: knowledge,
education, and social experiences), and outcomes (student
values, skills, engagement, identity, and a sense of efficacy.
persistence, success, and satisfaction). Figure 1 shows the
adapted conceptual model.
2.8.3. A Sense of Belonging. A sense of belonging in this Tinto’s theory of student departure or Tinto’s “Model of
study refers to feeling a part of the campus community and Institutional Departure” states that to persist, students need
a commitment toward the institution. Strayhorn [31] to be integrated into formal (academic performance) and
claimed that college students’ sense of belonging came from informal (faculty/staff interactions) academic systems and
their perceptions regarding social support, a feeling of formal (extracurricular activities) and informal (peer-group
connectedness, and a feeling of being accepted, respected, interactions) social systems [40]; therefore, this model states
and valued by others (group or campus community) (p. 4). that both academic and social engagement are essential for
Hurtado and Carter [32] claimed that the sense of belonging student persistence. Burtner [41] stated that “theories of
measure differed from social integration as it was related to persistence” confirmed that it was the college experience,
an attachment to the campus community as a whole. Re- more than other precollege characteristics, which was re-
search has tended to confirm that a sense of belonging is sponsible for a student’s decision to stay until graduation (p.
strongly related to overall satisfaction with the college ex- 1). Similarly (as cited in Elliot and Shin [42]), Sevier [43]
perience [33–35]. confirmed that “an institution’s product is the sum of the
student’s academic, social, physical, and even spiritual
experiences.”
2.8.4. Interaction with Key Members. Several studies have
confirmed the impact of student-faculty interactions on
higher education academic and social outcomes and overall 2.10. Research Gaps. This study examined the influence of
student satisfaction [36, 37]. Interactions with the college several social and academic engagement factors on overall
environment as a whole and with key individuals in par- student satisfaction with the college experience; therefore,
ticular have been found to shape student views on higher this study was not intended to evaluate student satisfaction
education and on judgments as to whether to continue. Elliot as a whole but rather to investigate the influence of some
[10] and Billups [17] both found that student contact with factors on student satisfaction. The factors examined were
faculty, staff, and other students had a positive impact on those that have been highlighted in previous research as
student decisions to continue as well as on their overall being essential for new students to adapt to university life.
satisfaction with the college experience. This study roughly classified these factors into three di-
mensions: academic (student 100-level course evaluation
and citizenship skills and knowledge obtained), social (a
2.8.5. Awareness and Utilization of Campus Resources. sense of belonging and interactions with key university
This section discusses whether student knowledge and the members), and environmental (awareness and utilization of
utilization of available support services influence satisfaction campus resources). Many studies have focused on how
with the college experience. Nasser et al. [38] examined the factors such as student attitudes, perceptions, and academic
relationship between student knowledge on college services and social engagements impact first-year student success
and programs and overall satisfaction and concluded that and retention; however, few studies have attempted to ex-
knowledge was a significant satisfaction factor and that “the plore the influence these factors have on student satisfaction
higher the knowledge, the more satisfied the students are and their overall perceptions of the college experience.
likely to be” (p. 1). Hanssen and Solvoll [15] examined which
college facilities had the greatest impact on student satis-
2.11. Research Questions. This study sought to fill a research
faction and found that the quality of social areas, the au-
gap and offer greater understanding of the elements that
ditorium, and libraries were the most important facilities
have been strongly associated with overall student satis-
related to student satisfaction. Bryant and Bodfish [3] also
faction. Specifically, the study sought to answer the following
found that schools with better campus facilities were more
research questions:
likely to have higher student satisfaction and higher grad-
uation rates. However, there have been few studies on the (1) What is the correlation strength to overall student
relationship between actual resource utilization and student satisfaction for each of the five factors?
Education Research International 5

Input Environment Output

HS grade Academic dimension

Overall student
(i) Student evaluation of course satisfaction with the
Gender (male effectiveness first-year college
vs female) experience
(ii) Citizenship skills and
knowledge obtained
Residency
status (local
vs resident) Social dimension
(iii) Sense of belonging
(iv) Student interactions with key
college members

Environmental dimension
(v) Awareness and utilization of
campus resources

Figure 1: Conceptual model for student satisfaction adapted from Astin’s I-E-O model.

(2) How do these five factors contribute to the variances and improved skills, and whether they would recommend
in overall student satisfaction? the course to a friend. The second section (citizenship
(3) How can binary logistic regression and artificial knowledge and skills) had five statements focused on the
neural networks be used to predict overall student knowledge that participants had of the local community and
satisfaction (satisfied and less satisfied)? Which development and whether they were aware of the available
method provides the best overall accuracy value? research funding and training opportunities. The third
section had four broad statements about the students’ sense
3. Method of belonging focused on whether the student felt part of
campus life and felt willing to continue with their education
3.1. Research Design and Context. This study explored the at this college. The responses for sections 1–3 were recorded
influence of the academic, social, and environmental factors on a 5-item Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to
on first-year college student satisfaction, for which re- (5) strongly agree. The fourth section focused on the fre-
gression and classification methods were used to explore the quency of interaction (by phone, email, and SMS and
capacity of these factors to predict overall student satis- personally) with key higher education members such as
faction. The focus of this study was on first-year students at faculty, academic advisors, close friends, and teaching as-
a public four-year institution. sistants on a six-item scale: “never,” “once or twice a se-
mester,” “once or twice a month,” “once a week,” “two or
three times a week,” or “daily.” Each scale was assigned
3.2. Participants. A questionnaire was developed and ad-
a specific value to facilitate data analysis, which is shown in
ministered to 282 first-year students during three 100-level
Table 2. The fifth section had a list of campus resources, and
course lectures in Spring 2014, all of which were from the five
students were required to indicate whether they were aware
general college requirements or “core courses.” In this
of each service or the support provided on campus by
university, core courses are part of the five high-impact
selecting “yes” or “no” and also rated their frequency of use
practices for the first-year experience, which means that
of these services by selecting “frequently,” “occasionally,” or
these courses have high first-year student enrolments. With
“not at all.”
an initial sample of 300 students, the overall response rate
was 94%.
3.4. Data Collection Procedure. Three courses: DAWA 111
3.3. Instrument. The questionnaire had several sections, as “Islamic Culture,” MATH 103 “Intermediate Algebra,” and
shown in Table 1. The first few questions gathered in- ENGL 110 “English I,” from the 100-level courses were
formation about general demographics: age, gender, na- selected for the survey. These three courses were selected
tionality, college, high school type, and credit hours from the five courses identified by the college adminis-
registered. The first section focused on “course evaluation” tration as “high-impact” practices, which meant that there
and included statements related to several course evaluation was a high first-year enrolment as these were important
aspects: timing, duration, content, and lesson delivery, elements of the first-year experience. An email was sent to
whether the course encouraged participation and in- instructors to seek permission for the researcher to ad-
teraction, enhanced motivation and academic performance, minister the survey in the last 10 minutes of class time.
6 Education Research International

Table 1: Items used for each variable.

Student overall satisfaction (Likert scale used: strongly agree “5”; agree “4”; neutral “3”; disagree “2”; strongly disagree “1”)
Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of my first-year experience.
I think Qatar University is offering high-quality education to its students.
Other courses I registered for this semester helped me adapt to university life.
I would choose to register at QU if I had the choice to start over again.
I plan to continue to study at Qatar University.
100-level course evaluation (Likert scale used: strongly agree “5”; agree “4”; neutral “3”; disagree “2”; strongly disagree “1”)
Overall course experience
Overall, I had a good experience with this course.
Timing and duration
The course session durations were adequate.
The timing of the course sessions was appropriate.
Content and lesson delivery
The content delivered in this course was adequate.
The sessions were delivered as outlined in the syllabus.
Participation in activities
This course helped me adapt to college life easily after high school.
This course helped me become aware of the various activities taking place on campus.
Interactions with others
This course encouraged me to interact both academically and socially with my classmates.
The course has increased my interactions with faculty members and staff (course instructor, academic advisor, etc.).
Motivation and academic performance
This course had increased my motivation to excel in my higher education degree.
This course has endorsed my academic performance.
Improvement in skills and awareness
The knowledge I gained in this course helped me have clear objectives about my involvement in QU.
This course has given me the opportunity to develop my writing skills.
This course has given me the opportunity to develop my presentation skills.
This course has improved my time management skills.
This course has given me the tools and skills to succeed in college.
This course has helped me recognize my career preferences.
Perceived importance
This course is important for first-year students.
Citizenship skills and knowledge (Likert scale used: strongly agree “5”; agree “4”; neutral “3”; disagree “2”; strongly disagree “1”)
I have good knowledge of Qatar’s National Vision 2030.
I have good knowledge of Qatar’s National Development Strategy.
I am aware of the UREP∗ program for undergraduate students.
I plan to achieve change and development in my future career.
I know how to develop my leadership skills through the services and activities offered by QU.
Sense of belonging (Likert scale used: strongly agree “5”; agree “4”; neutral “3”; disagree “2”; strongly disagree “1”)
I feel part of college campus life.
I feel responsible for my own education and learning.
I feel capable to continue my academic studies.
Interaction (scale used: never “0”; 1-2 times per semester “1”; 1-2 times per month “2”; once a week “3”; 2-3 times per week “4”; daily “5”)
How often have you interacted with this course instructor outside class?
How often have you interacted with your other course instructors outside class?
How often have you interacted with academic advisors/counselors?
How often have you interacted with close friends at this institution?
How often have you interacted with graduate students/teaching assistants?
Awareness and utilization of support services
Are you aware of each of the following campus resources/support services? (“Yes”/“no”)
How often have you utilized each of the following campus resources/support services? (“Frequently,” “occasionally,” and “not at all”)
Printing and photocopying service
Financial aid
Transportation (e.g., campus express)
Student call center
Academic advice
Textbooks
Group therapy
Student Learning Support Center (e.g., writing labs)
Education Research International 7

Table 1: Continued.
Qatar University Center for Volunteer Work
Career services
Library
Student counsel
International students
Student employment
Student clubs
Sport activities
Voluntary work and community service
Awareness (0, 1)
Frequency of utilization (1, 2, 3)

Table 2: Descriptive statistics by course and gender. 4. Results

Gender
4.1. Preliminary Analysis. There were 105 males and 177
Male Female Frequency Percent females in the sample. The sample included around 30% of
ENGL 110 36 66 102 36.2 the evaluations for each course (Table 2).
Course name MATH 103 43 51 94 33.3 Descriptive statistics were conducted on the dependent
DAWA 111 26 60 86 30.5
variable (overall college satisfaction) and the five predictive
Total 105 177 282 100.0
independent variables. Table 3 displays the means, standard
deviations, and minimum and maximum values for each of
the predictive variables.
Participation in this paper-and-pencil survey was volun-
Bivariate correlational analyses (Table 4) were conducted
tary, and it was made clear that students do not have to
to explore the associations between overall student college
answer if they had already answered the survey in another
satisfaction and the five factors. It was found that three of the
class. The survey was administered in Arabic to make it
five factors: student course satisfaction, citizenship knowl-
more accessible, and completed questionnaires were
edge and skills, and a sense of belonging, were strongly
returned to the researcher at the end of the class.
correlated with overall student college satisfaction, with the
respective Pearson’s correlation values being 0.579, 0.354,
and 0.537. The frequency of student interactions was less
3.5. Data Analysis Procedure. The independent variable in
strongly correlated with overall student satisfaction, and
this study was overall student satisfaction. There were five
student awareness and resource utilization were not found to
dependent variables: course effectiveness evaluations, citi-
be correlated.
zenship knowledge and skills, a sense of belonging, in-
teraction with key college members, and awareness and
utilization of campus resources. 4.2. Predictive Models
Data were analyzed using SPSS v. 24. First, descriptive
statistics were generated to gain an overall idea of the 4.2.1. Regression. A linear regression was generated for the
sample collected, after which Pearson’s correlation co- five independent variables and the dependent variable
efficient was used to explore the relationships between the (overall college satisfaction) to determine the independent
variables. Multiple linear regression analyses were per- variables most likely to influence overall student satisfaction.
formed to calculate the total variance in student satisfaction The model summary table (Table 5) shows that the initial
that could be explained by the five factors, and then the model reported an R value of 0.667 and an R-square value of
overall student satisfaction data were used to classify 0.445. The R-square value or the coefficient of determination
students based on their satisfaction level (satisfied or less shows how well a model fits the data; in this case, it indicated
satisfied). Binary logistic regression and artificial neural that the five independent variables explained 44% of the
network predictive analytic procedures were then used to variance in “overall college satisfaction.” It can be seen from
check the capabilities of the five factors to predict student Table 5 that the relationship between the dependent and
satisfaction levels and to group the students into one of the independent variables was statistically significant, which was
two satisfaction level categories. The predictive accuracy of also confirmed in the ANOVA table (Table 6; here, the p
the two models was determined using the value of the value was less than 0.05).
overall percentage of correct predictions calculated by each The coefficients table (Table 7) indicated that the two
model. variables “student course evaluation” and “a sense of be-
The initial analysis of the data indicated that there were longing” were the most significant predictors of the de-
no statistically significant differences based on gender (male pendent variable “overall college satisfaction.”
vs female) or residency status (local vs resident). As the The aforementioned multiple linear regressions were
inclusion of gender and residency did not increase the based on a continuous value for overall student satisfaction.
prediction accuracy of the models, these factors were not In addition to modeling student satisfaction using
used in the subsequent analyses. linear regressions, other regression models based on
8 Education Research International

Table 3: General descriptive statistics—minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation.

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. deviation
Y Overall college satisfaction 1.00 5.00 3.6333 0.76176
X1 100-level course evaluations 1.00 5.00 3.6313 0.68003
X2 Citizenship knowledge and skills 1.00 5.00 3.3064 0.78447
X3 Sense of belonging 1.00 5.00 3.9185 0.75753
X4 Student interaction 0.00 3.00 0.6290 0.50215
X5 Awareness and utilization of campus resources 0.00 5.00 2.5794 1.21644

Table 4: Pearson’s correlation between overall student satisfaction and the five factors.
Citizenship
Overall college 100-level course Sense of Awareness and utilization
knowledge and Interaction
satisfaction evaluations belonging of campus resources
skills
Overall college satisfaction 1 0.579∗∗ 0.354∗∗ 0.537∗∗ 0.171∗∗ 0.107
100-level course ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗
0.579 1 0.299 0.440 0.276 0.014
evaluations
Citizenship knowledge and
0.354∗∗ 0.299∗∗ 1 0.555∗∗ 0.279∗∗ 0.112
skills
∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗
Sense of belonging 0.537 0.440 0.555 1 0.205 0.015
Interaction 0.171∗∗ 0.276∗∗ 0.279∗∗ 0.205∗∗ 1 0.031
Awareness and utilization
0.107 0.014 0.112 0.015 0.031 1
of campus resources
∗∗
Note: correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 5: Model summary. In this section, two supervised learning regression

methods: binary logistic regression and artificial neural
R Adjusted R Std. error of the
Model R networks, were applied.
square square estimate
1 0.667 0.445 0.434 0.57298
Note: predictors: (constant), awareness and utilization of campus resources, 4.2.2. Binary Logistic Regression. Student satisfaction was
100-level course evaluations, student interaction, citizenship knowledge
and skills, and sense of belonging. Dependent variable: overall college modeled using binary logistic regression on IBM SPSS v. 24.
satisfaction. Binary logistic regression is a predictive analysis used to
describe data and explain the relationships between the
dependent binary variable and the other independent var-
Table 6: ANOVA. iables. The data were examined to assess the multicollinearity
Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. between the predictors. As can be seen in the correlation
matrix in Table 4, there were no high correlations found
Regression 66.146 5 13.229 40.295 0.000
1 Residual 82.405 251 0.328 between the variables. Tabachnick and Fidell [44] suggested
Total 148.551 256 that the value of the correlation coefficients between in-
Note: dependent variable: overall college satisfaction. Predictors: (constant),
dependent variables should be less than 0.9.
awareness and utilization of campus resources, 100-level course evaluations, Table 9 presents the model summary for the logistic
student interaction, citizenship knowledge and skills, and sense of regression model and gives the values for the two methods
belonging. used to calculate the variation: Cox and Snell R square and
Nagelkerke R square. Based on this summary, the explained
variation in the dependent variable (student overall satis-
a dichotomous dependent variable were also applied. The faction) ranged from 32.4% to 43.3%. Many studies have
purpose of this step was to investigate whether the student preferred to report the Nagelkerke R-square value.
satisfaction modeling could be further simplified and op- The classification table (Table 10) shows the ability of the
timized. The dependent variable (Table 7) “overall student model to predict actual outcomes, as it can be seen 77% of
satisfaction” was transformed into a dichotomous variable the outcomes were correctly predicted by the model. The
with two values: 1 (less satisfied) and 2 (satisfied). When the note under the table states that the “cutoff value is 0.500,”
average score was greater than 3.5, the student was which indicates that if the probability of a case being
classified as 2 or “satisfied”; otherwise, if the score was less classified in the “satisfied” category was greater than 0.500,
than 3.5, the student was classified as 1 or “less satisfied.” then that particular case was classified as “satisfied”; oth-
Table 8 shows the number of students in each category and erwise, the case was classified as “less satisfied.”
the associated percentages; around 45% of the students The variation in the equation table (Table 11) shows the
were found to be less satisfied, with 53.2% expressing contribution of each independent variable to the model and
satisfaction. the respective statistical significances, for which the Wald test
Education Research International 9

Table 7: Coefficient of determination.

Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity
Correlations
coefficients coefficients statistics
Model
Std. Zero
B Beta t Sig. Partial Part Tolerance VIF
error order
Constant 0.335 0.241 1.388 0.166
100-level course evaluations 0.480 0.060 0.429 8.003 0.000 0.579 0.451 0.376 0.770 1.299
Citizenship knowledge and skills 0.039 0.056 0.040 0.687 0.493 0.354 0.043 0.032 0.653 1.531
1 Sense of belonging 0.333 0.061 0.331 5.489 0.000 0.537 0.327 0.258 0.608 1.645
Student interaction −0.044 0.076 −0.029 −0.578 0.564 0.171 −0.036 −0.027 0.881 1.135
Awareness and utilization of campus
0.058 0.030 0.093 1.954 0.052 0.107 0.122 0.092 0.984 1.016
resources

Table 8: Overall student satisfaction classification.

Cat # Scale Label Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
1 <3.5 Less satisfied 127 45 45.8 45.8
Satisfied 150 53.2 54.2 100.0
≥3.5
Total 277 98.2 100.0
2
5 1.8
Missing
Total 282 100.0

Table 9: Logistic regression model summary. network diagram generated by SPSS (Figure 2) shows the
student satisfaction outcomes (less satisfied � 1 and satisfied
Cox and Snell R Nagelkerke R � 2) predicted from the five factors and the five input nodes,
Step −2 log likelihood
square square
the three hidden nodes, and the two output nodes for each
1 252.087a 0.324 0.433 student satisfaction category (less satisfied or satisfied).
a
Estimation terminated at iteration number 6 because parameter estimates The model neural network summary in Table 14 gives the
changed by less than 0.001.
training results and the application of the final network to
the test sample. There were a low percentage of incorrect
(“Wald” column) was used. From this table, it can be seen that predictions in the training set (21.8%) and an even lower
the 100-level course evaluation (0.00) and sense of belonging percentage in the test set (16.5%).
(0.00) added significantly to the model/predictions, but that A results summary is shown in the classification table
citizenship knowledge and skills (0.970), student interactions (Table 15). For the training dataset, the model was able to
(0.101), and awareness and utilization of campus resources predict 90% of the “less satisfied” cases and 69.5% of the
(0.265) did not. “satisfied” cases, with an overall correct percentage of 78.2%.
For the test dataset, the model was able to predict 86.7% of
the “less satisfied” cases and 80.4% of the “satisfied” cases,
4.2.3. Artificial Neural Network (Multilayer Perceptron).
with the overall percentage of correct cases classified in the
In this section, a predictive model was developed using IBM
test sample being 83.5%.
SPSS artificial neural networks, which uses nonlinear data
Independent variable importance is a measure of the
modeling to explore the complex relationships in the data to
degree to which the network model is able to predict value
gain greater insights.
changes for the independent variables. The normalized
The Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) module of IBM SPSS
importance in the independent variable importance table
v. 24 was used to build the neural network model and check
(Table 16) was simply the importance values divided by the
the prediction capacity of the five independent variables. The
largest importance values and expressed as percentages,
case-processing summary (Table 12) shows the number of
from which it can be seen that student course evaluation was
cases assigned to the training sample and the number
the most important independent variable (100%) in this
assigned to the test sample. 64.5 percent of the samples were
prediction model followed by a sense of belonging (85.6%)
allocated to the training set and 35.5% were allocated to the
and student interactions (47.8%). The analysis was based on
test set. The training dataset was used to determine the
the combined training and test samples.
weights and to construct the model, and the test set was used
to determine the errors and prevent overtraining during the
training process. 5. Discussion and Conclusion
The network information table (Table 13) gives in-
formation about the neural network, which was used to Various student experiences in the first-year college lay the
ensure all specifications were correct. foundation for future success and final graduation. Student
A hyperbolic tangent was used for the activation func- perceptions about the academic, social, and environmental
tion in the hidden layer, which included three units. The aspects of the college community can have a significant
10 Education Research International

Table 10: Classification table.

Predicted
Observed Overall college satisfaction Percentage correct
Less satisfied Satisfied
Less satisfied 80 35 69.6
Overall college satisfaction
Step 1 Satisfied 24 117 83.0
Overall percentage 77.0

Table 11: Variables in the equation.

95% CI for Exp
B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B) (B)
Lower Upper
100-level course evaluations 2.013 0.357 31.712 1 0.000 7.483 3.714 15.077
Citizenship knowledge and skills −0.030 0.257 0.014 1 0.906 0.970 0.586 1.605
Sense of belonging 1.421 0.320 19.684 1 0.000 4.143 2.211 7.762
Step 1a
Student interaction −0.561 0.342 2.690 1 0.101 0.571 0.292 1.116
Awareness and utilization of campus resources 0.148 0.133 1.243 1 0.265 1.159 0.894 1.504
Constant −12.678 1.788 50.247 1 0.000 0.000
a
Variables entered in step 1: 100-level course evaluations, citizenship knowledge and skills, sense of belonging, student interaction, and awareness and
utilization of campus resources.

Table 12: Case-processing summary. which supported studies by Thomas and Galambos [34],
Billups [17], Gibson [47], and Fleming et al. [33]. Billups [17]
N Percent demonstrated that one of the best predictors for student
Training 165 64.5 satisfaction and retention was the “student’s identification
Sample
Testing 91 35.5 and integration with the campus community” (p. 13).
Valid 256 100.0 Similarly, Gibson [47] found that noncognitive factors such
Excluded 26 as students’ feelings of belonging contributed significantly to
Total 282
overall satisfaction. Course effectiveness and sense of be-
longing were also confirmed by Elliott and Healy [1], who
impact on overall college experiences. Using IBM SPSS v. 24, found that “student centeredness,” “campus climate,” and
data from a developed questionnaire were explored and “instructional effectiveness” had a significant impact on
analyzed, and bivariate correlations, linear regressions, and the overall student satisfaction with their educational
artificial neural networks were employed to determine the experiences.
relationships and the capabilities of these factors to predict The third factor was student citizenship knowledge and
overall student college satisfaction. skills. Knowledge about the local community and the
It was found that student perceptions of the academic, training and research opportunities available were found to
social, and environmental aspects were positively correlated contribute to feelings of satisfaction with the first-year
with overall satisfaction with the college experience. The college experience. The more the knowledge about the so-
regression analyses found that the students were satisfied ciety, the nation, and the world the student had, the more
with the quality of their first-year experience when the positive their views toward higher education. In contrast to
courses offered assisted them in adapting to college life, previous studies, student interactions and student resource
helped them participate in social and academic activities, awareness and utilization were found to be less correlated
increased their motivation, and improved their academic with the overall student college experience, which was in
skills. This finding was consistent with studies conducted by contrast to findings by Astin [48] and by Endo and Harpel
Mai [45], Douglas et al. [46], and Gibson [47]. Douglas et al. [36].
[46] concluded that the most critical factors related to The fifth factor, student awareness and utilization of
student satisfaction were those associated with the quality of campus resources, was found to have less predictive power
teaching and learning. Similarly, Gibson [47] found that than the other factors. While this finding was consistent with
academic aspects such as teaching and learning quality that by Mariani et al. [49] and Thomas and Galambos [34], it
were the most significant determinants of overall student was contrary to that by Hanssen and Solvoll [15] and Nasser
satisfaction. et al. [38].
The other factor that was found to be highly correlated The five factors were found to contribute 44% to the
with overall student college satisfaction was students’ sense variance in overall student satisfaction with the first-year
of belonging. Feeling part of the college community was college experience. The binary logistics regression revealed
found to contribute significantly to student satisfaction, an overall predictive accuracy of 77%, with student course
Education Research International 11

Table 13: Network information.

1 100-level course evaluation
2 Citizenship knowledge and skills
Covariates 3 Sense of belonging
Input layer 4 Student interaction
5 Awareness and utilization of campus resources
Number of unitsa 5
Rescaling method for covariates Standardized
Number of hidden layers 1
Hidden layer(s) Number of units in hidden layer 1a 3
Activation function Hyperbolic tangent
Dependent variables 1 Overall college satisfaction
Number of units 2
Output layer
Activation function Softmax
Error function Cross-entropy
a
Excluding the bias unit.

Bias

Students
evaluation of
course Bias
effectiveness

Citizenship Overall college

knowledge H(1:1) satisfaction
and skills 2 – 1.00

Overall college
Sense of
H(1:2) satisfaction
belonging
2 – 2.00

Student
H(1:3)
interaction

Awarenessa
and
utilization
of resources

Hidden layer activation function: hyperbolic tangent

Output layer activation function: softmax

Synaptic weight > 0

Synaptic weight < 0

Figure 2: Network diagram.

Table 14: Model summary for the neural network results.

Cross-entropy error 71.055
Percent incorrect predictions 21.8
Training
Stopping rule used 1 consecutive step with no decrease in errora
Training time 0:00:00.07
Cross-entropy error 37.224
Testing
Percent incorrect predictions 16.5
Note: dependent variable: overall college satisfaction. aError computations are based on the testing sample.

satisfaction and sense of belonging being the best de- factors. In the training dataset, the multilayer perceptron
terminants of overall student satisfaction. The artificial model showed the capabilities of the five factors to predict
neural network results further confirmed these significant “satisfied” and “less satisfied” students with an accuracy rate
correlations and the prediction capacities of the investigated of 78.2% for the training sample and 83.5% for the test
12 Education Research International

Table 15: Classification table.

Predicted
Sample Observed
Less satisfied Satisfied Percent correct
Less satisfied 63 7 90.0
Training Satisfied 29 66 69.5
Overall percent 55.8 44.2 78.2
Less satisfied 39 6 86.7
Testing Satisfied 9 37 80.4
Overall percent 52.7 47.3 83.5
Dependent variable: overall college satisfaction.

Table 16: Independent variable importance.

Importance Normalized importance (%)
100-level course evaluations 0.360 100.0
Citizenship knowledge and skills 0.055 15.4
Sense of belonging 0.308 85.6
Student interaction 0.172 47.8
Awareness and utilization of campus resources 0.105 29.3

sample, with the normalized importance chart indicating organizing more support service department workshops and
that student course satisfaction was the most important training sessions, developing first-year seminars into more
factor in this model, followed by the students’ sense of specialized courses, and providing professional development
belonging. Based on the overall prediction accuracy value, it opportunities for the faculty members who are teaching
was concluded that the artificial neural network out- first-year students.
performed the binary logistic regression. Elliot and Shin [42] An area for future research is to further explore the
claimed that “focusing on student satisfaction not only influence of other personal and attitudinal factors on stu-
enables universities to reengineer their organizations to dents’ perceptions and satisfaction with the quality of their
adapt to student needs but also allows them to develop college experience and whether these associations differ by
a system for continuously monitoring how effectively they gender.
meet or exceed student needs.” Grebennikov and Shah [50]
suggested that student satisfaction data could be utilized by
Data Availability
institutions to further enhance their high-performing areas as
well as to highlight those areas needing improvement. They The data used to support the findings of this study are
further proposed that taking a systematic approach to student available from the corresponding author upon request.
feedback and acting quickly on the results could substantially
strengthen student involvement and satisfaction.
This study indicated that overall student college satis- Conflicts of Interest
faction could be improved by enhancing those elements that The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
could change students’ attitudes and perceptions and make
them feel happier and more satisfied with their overall first-
year experiences. In this case, more emphasis needs to be References
given to the learning experiences offered through the 100-
[1] K. Elliott and M. Healy, “Key factors influencing student
level courses, and these courses should continue to enhance satisfaction related to recruitment and retention,” Journal of
their content and delivery. Some important elements under Marketing for Higher Education, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1–11, 2001.
the course satisfaction factor were encouraging students to [2] S. Aldridge and J. Rowley, “Measuring customer satisfaction
participate in academic and social activities and assisting in higher education,” Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 6,
students to improve their writing, presentation, career, and no. 4, pp. 197–204, 1998.
time management skills. [3] J. Bryant and S. Bodfish, “The relationship of student satis-
faction to key indicators for colleges and universities,” 2014
National Research Report, Noel-Levitz, Inc., Cedar Rapids,
5.1. Recommendations and Future Research. These student IA, USA, 2014.
survey results can be used to identify areas of strength and [4] B. Browne, D. Kaldenberg, W. Browne, and D. Brown,
“Student as customer: factors affecting satisfaction and as-
weakness in the first-year student experience. The results
sessments of institutional quality,” Journal of Marketing for
related to student satisfaction can also assist college leaders Higher Education, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1–14, 1998.
in setting appropriate goals and prioritizing initiatives for [5] A. Athiyaman, “Linking student satisfaction and service
first-year students. Several steps are recommended based on quality perceptions: the case of university education,” Euro-
the results: extending student orientation sessions, pean Journal of Marketing, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 528–540, 1997.
Education Research International 13

[6] G. Hampton, “Gap analysis of college student satisfaction as [24] L. Temizer and A. Turkyilmaz, “Implementation of student
a measure of professional service quality,” Journal of Pro- satisfaction index model in higher education institutions,”
fessional Services Marketing, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 115–128, 1993. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 46, pp. 3802–
[7] H. Hasan, A. Ilias, R. Rahman, and M. Razak, “Service quality 3806, 2012.
and student satisfaction: a case study at private higher edu- [25] S. Alam Malik, S. Hassan, and M. Zahid Iqbal, “Measuring
cation institutions,” International Business Research, vol. 1, students’ perceptions and expectations in business schools of
no. 3, 2009. Pakistan,” Asian Education and Development Studies, vol. 1,
[8] L. Petruzzellis, A. M. D’Uggento, and S. Romanazzi, “Student no. 3, pp. 222–236, 2012.
satisfaction and quality of service in Italian universities,” [26] S. K. Parahoo, H. L. Harvey, and R. M. Tamim, “Factors
Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, vol. 16, influencing student satisfaction in universities in the Gulf
no. 4, pp. 349–364, 2006. region: does gender of students matter?,” Journal of Marketing
[9] M. Marzo Navarro, M. Pedraja Iglesias, and P. Rivera Torres, for Higher Education, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 135–154, 2013.
“A new management element for universities: satisfaction [27] Z. Yang, B. Becerik-Gerber, and L. Mino, “A study on student
with the offered courses,” International Journal of Educational perceptions of higher education classrooms: impact of
Management, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 505–526, 2005. classroom attributes on student satisfaction and perfor-
[10] K. Elliott, “Key determinants of student satisfaction,” Journal mance,” Building and Environment, vol. 70, pp. 171–188, 2013.
of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, [28] J. A. Douglas, A. Douglas, R. J. McClelland, and J. Davies,
vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 271–279, 2002. “Understanding student satisfaction and dissatisfaction: an
[11] V. Tinto, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of interpretive study in the UK higher education context,”
Student Attrition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 329–349, 2015.
USA, 1987. [29] E. A. Bates, L. K. Kaye, and J. J. McCann, “A snapshot of the
[12] C. B. Schertzer and S. M. Schertzer, “Student satisfaction and student experience: exploring student satisfaction through the
retention: a conceptual model,” Journal of Marketing for use of photographic elicitation,” Journal of Further and Higher
Higher Education, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 79–91, 2004. Education, pp. 1–14, 2017.
[13] B. O. Barefoot, “Current institutional practices in the first [30] A. P. Frederick, “Preparing students for lives of responsible
college year,” in Challenging and Supporting the First Year citizenship: a higher education civic Blueprint for the state of
Student: A Handbook for Improving the First Year, M. Upcraft, New Jersey,” Dissertation and Thesis, 2007.
[31] T. L. Strayhorn, College Students’ Sense of Belonging: A Key to
J. Gardner, and B. Barefoot, Eds., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA,
Educational Success for All Students, Routledge, Abingdon,
2005.
UK, 2012.
[14] P. G. Schrader and S. W. Brown, “Evaluating the first year
[32] S. Hurtado and D. Carter, “Effects of college transition and
experience: students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors,”
perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino college
Journal of Advanced Academics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 310–343,
students; sense of belonging,” Sociology of Education, vol. 70,
2008.
no. 4, p. 324, 1997.
[15] T. Hanssen and G. Solvoll, “The importance of university
[33] A. Fleming, K. Oertle, A. Plotner, and J. Hakun, “Influence of
facilities for student satisfaction at a Norwegian University,”
social factors on student satisfaction among college students
Facilities, vol. 33, no. 13-14, pp. 744–759, 2015. with disabilities,” Journal of College Student Development,
[16] D. Hartman and S. Schmidt, “Understanding student/alumni
vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 215–228, 2017.
satisfaction from a consumer’s perspective: the effects of [34] E. H. Thomas and N. Galambos, “What satisfies students?
institutional performance and program outcomes,” Research Mining student-opinion data with regression and decision
in Higher Education, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 197–217, 1995. tree analysis,” Research in Higher Education, vol. 45, no. 3,
[17] F. D. Billups, “Measuring college student satisfaction: a multi- pp. 251–269, 2004.
year study of the factors leading to persistence,” in Proceedings [35] C. W. Yao, Sense of Belonging in International Students:
of Northeast Educational Research Association Annual Making the Case against Integration to US Institutions of
Conference, Rocky Hill, CT, USA, October 2008. Higher Education, Vol. 45, Faculty Publications in Educa-
[18] R. Styron Jr., “Student satisfaction and persistence: factors tional Administration, USA, 2015.
vital to student retention,” Research in Higher Education [36] J. Endo and R. Harpel, “The effect of student-faculty in-
Journal, vol. 6, p. 1, 2010. teraction on students’ educational outcomes,” Research in
[19] M. Oja, “Student satisfaction and student performance,” Higher Education, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 115–138, 1982.
Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, vol. 19, [37] P. T. Terenzini and E. T. Pascarella, “Student/faculty re-
no. 1, pp. 47–53, 2011. lationships and freshman year educational outcomes: a fur-
[20] M. K. Dhaqane and N. A. Afrah, “Satisfaction of students and ther investigation,” Journal of College Student Personnel,
academic performance in Benadir university,” Journal of vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 521–528, 1980.
Education and Practice, vol. 7, no. 24, pp. 59–63, 2016. [38] R. N. Nasser, B. Khoury, and K. Abouchedid, “University
[21] J. Bean and R. Bradley, “Untangling the satisfaction- students’ knowledge of services and programs in relation to
performance relationship for college students,” Journal of satisfaction: a case study of a private university in Lebanon,”
Higher Education, vol. 57, no. 4, p. 393, 1986. Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 80–97, 2008.
[22] T. Gruber, S. Fuß, R. Voss, and M. Gläser-Zikuda, “Examining [39] A. Astin, What Matters in College?, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
student satisfaction with higher education services: using CA, USA, 1993.
a new measurement tool,” International Journal of Public [40] V. Tinto, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of
Sector Management, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 105–123, 2010. Student Attrition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL,
[23] B. Z. Butt and K. ur Rehman, “A study examining the students USA, 1993.
satisfaction in higher education,” Procedia-Social and Be- [41] J. Burtner, “Critical-to-quality factors associated with engi-
havioral Sciences, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 5446–5450, 2010. neering student persistence: the influence of freshman
14 Education Research International

attitudes,” in Proceedings of 34th Annual Frontiers in Edu-

cation, IEEE, Savannah, GA, USA, October 2004.
[42] K. Elliott and D. Shin, “Student Satisfaction: an alternative
approach to assessing this important concept,” Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management, vol. 24, no. 2,
pp. 197–209, 2002.
[43] R. A. Sevier, Those Important Things: What Every College
President Needs to Know about Marketing and Student
Recruiting, College and University, Spring, Washington, DC,
USA, 1996.
[44] B. G. Tabachnick and L. S. Fidell, Using Multivariate Statistics,
Pearson, Essex, UK, 6th edition, 2014.
[45] L. Mai, “A comparative study between UK and US: the student
satisfaction in higher education and its influential factors,”
Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 21, no. 7-8, pp. 859–
878, 2005.
[46] J. Douglas, A. Douglas, and B. Barnes, “Measuring student
satisfaction at a UK university,” Quality Assurance in Edu-
cation, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 251–267, 2006.
[47] A. Gibson, “Measuring business student satisfaction: A review
and summary of the major predictors,” Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 251–259,
2010.
[48] A. W. Astin, “Student involvement: a developmental theory
for higher education,” Journal of College Student Personnel,
vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 297–308, 1984.
[49] P. Mariani, E. Rancati, and N. Gordini, “Student satisfaction
in higher education: empirical evidence from university of
Milano-Bicocca,” in Proceedings of Toulon-Verona Conference
Excellence in Services, Palermo, Italy, 2015.
[50] L. Grebennikov and M. Shah, “Monitoring trends in student
satisfaction,” Tertiary Education and Management, vol. 19,
no. 4, pp. 301–322, 2013.
 Child Development
Research

Autism
Research and Treatment
Pathology
Research International
Nursing
Research and Practice
Pain
Research and Management
Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Education Urban Studies

Research International
Hindawi
Research
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Submit your manuscripts at

www.hindawi.com

Behavioural
Neurology
Hindawi
Sleep Disorders
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Current Gerontology
& Geriatrics Research

International Journal of International Journal of Journal of Depression Research

Population Research Alzheimer’s Disease Biomedical Education and Treatment
Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 Hindawi Volume 2018
www.hindawi.com

Psychiatry Parkinson’s
Journal Disease

Journal of Journal of Schizophrenia

Aging Research
Hindawi Hindawi
Addiction
Hindawi Hindawi
Research and Treatment
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018