COMPARISON ANALYSIS BASED ON STUDENTS’ SATISFACTION: UNIVERSITY VS GRADUATE TECHNOLOGICAL...

8/13/2019 COMPARISON ANALYSIS BASED ON STUDENTS SATISFACTION: UNIVERSITY VS GRADUATE TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION INSTITUTE

1/27

Graduate Technological Education Institute of Piraeus

COMPARISON ANALYSIS BASED ON STUDENTS

SATISFACTION: UNIVERSITY VS GRADUATE

TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION INSTITUTE

N. Tsotsolas, A.Bouranta and P. Kyriazopoulos

Graduate Technological Education Institute of Piraeus

Department of Business Administration

Marketing Laboratory

[email protected]


2/27

Researchs Objectives:The Objectives of the present research are:

the evaluation of services provided by academic

institutions using students (as internal customers)

satisfaction analysis

a comparison analysis of a University and a Graduate

Technological Education Institute (TEI)

the determination of weak and strong points of theseacademic institutions as well as on the identification

of possible distinctive variations amongst them


3/27

Structure: General Concept

Questionnaire

Methodology

Sample

Results

Comparisons

Conclusions


4/27

General ConceptStudent satisfaction barometers are of vital importance

for the education institutes because they promote theirinternal re-organization, strengthen their image and

emphasize on meeting the expectations and needs ofstudents.

The satisfaction of the students who are the main judgesof the quality of provided services will be used as theprimary criterion for the educational institutionsperformance.

General Concept (1)


5/27

Relevant Studies Students satisfaction is influenced not only by the quality of

teaching provided, but also by other benefits that they receive

from the university

Oliver and DeSarbo(1989), Browene et al.(1998), Vavra(1997)Sevier (1996)

Students however are not the only customers of the academic

organisationHoffman et al.(1991), Stafford(1994), Hwang and Teo (2001) Hittman(1993)

Dimensions of quality, apart from the learning process, include

also: campus life, emotional involvement, campus support

services, university reputaion, etcGatfield et al.(1999), Harvey(1995), Hill(1995), Athiyaman (1997), Aldridge and

Rowley(1998), Elliott Shin (2002)

General Concept (2)


6/27

TEI vs Universities 4 years ago the Greek Ministry of Education issued a law

with which TEI became equivalent to Universities. Untilthen TEI had 3 years of studies and 6 months of training-

practice. Nowadays, both have 4 years of studies.

the two educational institutions have different orientationand educational value. University focuses on academic

education whereasTEI provides more applied science.

the implementation of a comparison process should allowTEI to compare its performance with another organizationwhich supposed to have better performance.

General Concept (2)


7/27

Construct measurement

Questionnaire (1)

The main satisfaction criteria:

Education: this criterion concerns the programme ofstudy and the teaching quality factors

Tangibles: refers to the accommodation and technicalequipment of the building and of the laboratories

Administrative Support: examines the knowledge andthe faculty of the personnel who works in the supportive

services

Image of the academic department: refers to thereliability, prestige and the recognition of it.


8/27

Questionnaire

Questionnaire (2)

In view of above criteria a questionnaire which consists of 27questions (criteria and sub-criteria) was drawn. The completiontime of the questionnaire varied from 10 to 12 minutes


9/27

MUSA

(Multicriteria Satisfaction Analysis)

Deals with qualitative data

Its application is easy and simple

It has been successfully applied in similar surveys

The validity of its results has been verified in

relation to usual statistical methods

Provides important information for the behaviour of

the internal customer

Methodology (1)


10/27

By using MUSA we estimate: Global satisfaction of the students in the range [0%, 100%]

Criteria/Sub-criteria satisfaction indices that show in a range

of 0% to 100% the level of partial satisfaction of the studentsfor each criterion/sub-criterion

Weights of criteria/sub-criteria that they show the relative

importance within a set of criteria or sub-criteria

Demanding level of students that takes values in

[-100% (not demanded at all),100% (very demanded)].

Methodology (2)


11/27

MUSA MethodThe main objective of the method is the aggregation of individual judgements

into a collective value function assuming that clients global satisfaction

depends on a set of ncriteria representing service characteristic dimensions.

Customers Global Satisfaction

Satisfaction

according to the

1-st criterion

The MUSA method assesses global and partial satisfaction functions Y* andX*I

respectively, given customers judgements Y andXi.

1b

XbY

n

1ii

n

1i

*

ii

*

where the value functions Y* andX*Iare normalised in the

interval [0,100], and biis the weight of the i-th criterion

Satisfaction

according to the

2-nd criterion

Satisfaction

according to the

n-th criterion

Methodology (3)


12/27

MUSA Method

Methodology (4)

CRITERIA GLOBAL

PREFERENCE

disaggregation

aggregation

Aggregation

Model

Aggregation

Model?

MUSA uses a preference disaggregation model. In the traditional aggregation

approach, the criteria aggregation model is known a priori, while the global

preference is unknown. On the contrary, the philosophy of disaggregation

involves the inference of preference models from given global preferences.


13/27

MUSA Method

Methodology (5)

Customer's global satisfaction

y1 y2 ym y

y*2

y*m

Y*

Yy*1

.

.

.

.

.

.

y*

... ...

Global Added Value Function

Satisfaction according to the 1st criterion

x1

1 x1

2 x1

k x11

x1

*2

x1

*m

X1

*

X1

x1*i

x1

*1

.

.

.

.

.

.

... ...

Satisfaction Function for

the 1st Criterion

Satisfaction according to the 2nd criterion

xi1 x

i2 x

ik x

ii

xi*2

xi*m

Xi*

Xi

xi*i

xi*1

.

.

.

.

.

.

... ...


the 2nd Criterion

Satisfaction according to the n-th criterion

xn

1 xn

2 xn

k xnn

xn

*2

xn

*m

Xn

*

Xn

xn*n

xn

*1

.

.

.

.

.

.

... ...


the n-th Criterion

...


14/27

MUSA Model

The main objective is to achieve the maximum consistency between the value

function Y*and the customers judgements Y.

y1 y2 ym y

y*2

0

y*m

100

Y*

Y

j-

j+

... ...

.

.

.

.

.

.

FminM

1j

jj

s.t.

n

1i

*

ii

* XbY~ , for each customer

100xy *i*

0xy 1*i1*

, normalisation

n1,2,...,i 11,2,...,kfor1,...,2,1for

i

11**

11**

mk

i

k

i

k

i

mmmm

yxxxmyyyy

, monotonicity

Methodology (6)


15/27

Sample

Method: Random Sampling

Size: University Dept.: 325 students

TEI Dept.: 612 students

Sample


16/27

Students Global Satisfaction

Results (1)

3.4% 3.4% 6.5% 6.4%

16.0%

24.2%

52.6%50.5%

21.5%15.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Unsatisfied Moderately Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied/Nor

Unsatisfied

Moderately Satisfied Perfectly Satisfied

Overall Satisfaction

University Dept. TEI Dept.

Students Global Satisfaction Frequencies


17/27

Students Satisfaction

Frequencies per Criterion

Results (2)

Criteria

UnsatisfiedModerately

UnsatisfiedNeither Satisfied/

Nor UnsatisfiedModerately

SatisfiedPerfectly

Satisfied

Education

University Dept. 3.4% 8.6% 26.2% 55.7% 6.2%

TEI Dept. 3.8% 8.8% 29.9% 51.3% 6.2%

Tangibles

University Dept. 2.8% 12.0% 30.2% 49.2% 5.8%

TEI Dept. 1.8% 5.1% 25.2% 54.6% 13.4%

Administrative Support

University Dept. 13.5% 19.7% 39.4% 24.6% 2.8%

TEI Dept. 16.5% 21.2% 29.4% 27.9% 4.9%

Image of the Academic

Department

University Dept. 1.2% 4.3% 19.7% 54.5% 20.3%

TEI Dept. 1.6% 6.9% 31.9% 48.0% 11.6%


18/27

X2test (non-parametric)

Results (3)

Criteria 2 df Observed Signi f icance

Level

Education1.908 4 0.753

Tangibles28.952 4 0.000

Administrative Support11.071 4 0.026

Image of the Academic Departments26.671 4 0.000

Total Satisfaction 11.213 4 0.024

The Hohypothesis of the test is that the degree of satisfaction is not

related to the educational institute in which the students belong.

Correlation between the educational institute and the satisfaction level


19/27

83.2%77.9% 82.7%

85.6%

52.7%

41.3%

91.6%91.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Education Tangibles Administrative

Support

Image of the

Academic Dept.

Satisfaction Level


Criteria Satisfaction Indices

Results (4)

University Global Satisfaction Index: 85.8%TEI Global Satisfaction Index: 83.3%


20/27

Criteria Importance

Results (5)

25.0%

18.8%

25.0%23.8%

12.0%11.3%

38.0%

46.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Support

Image of the

Academic Dept.

Criteria Weights



21/27

Demanding Indices

Results (6)

-60.0%

-46.7%

-60.0%-58.0%

-16.9%

11.3%

-72.8%-78.3%-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Support

Image of the

Academic Dept.

Demanding Indices


University Global Demanding Index: -60%TEI Global Demanding Index: -66.7%


22/27

Action Diagram

(Performance/Importance)

Conclusions (1)

Transfer resources(high performance/low

importance)

Leverage opportunity(high performance/high

importance)

Status quo(low performance/low

importance)

Action opportunity(low performance/high

importance)PERFORMANCE

Low High

Low

High

IMPORTANCE


23/27

Education

Tangibles

Administrative

Support

Image of the

Academic

Dept.

IMPORTANCE

PERFORMANC

E

Action DiagramTEI


Conclusions (2)

High

High

Low

Low

C l i (3)


24/27

Education

Tangibles

Administrative

Support

Image of the

Academic

Dept.

IMPORTANCE

PERFORMANCE

Action DiagramUniversity


Conclusions (3)

High

High

Low

Low

C l i (4)


25/27

Conclusions

Conclusions (4)

Students from the University and TEI appear to havealmost similar attitude regarding the services provided tothem by their academic departments.

The global satisfaction index for the University reaches85.8% and for TEI 83.3%, showing that according tostudents opinion the quality level of the services that areprovided by University and TEI, is quite high.

The average satisfaction indices regarding three of the

quality criteria exceed 75%. The only exception is that ofAdministrative Support,which has a quite low value.

C l i (5)


26/27

Conclusions

Conclusions (5)

As far as the importance of the criteria is concerned, it isobserved that ImageFame of the Academic Departmentis considered by the students as the most important, while

the criterion Administrative Support is considered as theleast important.

Demanding indices shows that students in both educationalinstitutes seem to be non-demanding, in other words thestudents could be satisfied in spite of the fact that a smallproportion of their expectations was fulfilled.

C l i (6)


27/27

Final Conclusions

Conclusions (6)

Because:

students satisfaction is a dynamic parameter of the

operation of a education institute some satisfaction dimensions may become critical in the

near future

There is a necessity of repetition of the survey on a regular basis

(creation of a permanent satisfaction barometer).

COMPARISON ANALYSIS BASED ON STUDENTS’ SATISFACTION: UNIVERSITY VS GRADUATE TECHNOLOGICAL...

Documents

Transcript of COMPARISON ANALYSIS BASED ON STUDENTS’ SATISFACTION: UNIVERSITY VS GRADUATE TECHNOLOGICAL...