Editorial Board

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management

Satisfaction of Students regarding Quality in Higher Education-A Study of Punjabi University Patiala, Punjab (India)

Shelly Sharma

Research Scholar

Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar

Email id:sharmashelly01@yahoo.com

Guneet Singh Bhalla

Assistant Professor

Department of Commerce,

Govt. College, Ajnala (Punjab)

Dr. G S Bhalla

Professor

Guru Nanak Dev. University, Amritsar

Abstract

This research Paper explains the satisfaction of student regarding quality in higher education (A case study of Punjabi university Patiala). Punjabi university Patiala has evolved into largest university in the state of Punjab. Patiala is a city in south-eastern Punjab, in northern India. It is fourth largest city in the state of Patiala. Punjabi university has 274 colleges affiliated to it .It has 70+ teaching and research department. Punjab state has 4 state university, 13 Private university and 5 other institute and university of national importance source: www.pbhe.punjab.gov.inIn the Present study a total of 340 questionnaires had been distributed and 315 questionnaires had been collected out of which 10 questionnaires has been found to be inaccurate and response rate is 89.70%.Exploratory factor analysis has been used for analysis of data. Graphs and tables also used for better Presentation of data. Factors analysis shows 8 factors regarding the satisfaction of students. The result of factors analysis showed that student highly satisfied with academic administration, infrastructure facilities, library facilities, university administration, extracurricular activities, student has neutral response towards student motivation cell and students are dissatisfied with Placements and financial administration.

Keywords: Student, satisfaction, Quality, Higher Education, Punjab

Introduction

If good Primary Education is like the strong stem of any tree of a society, higher education is like the fruits of that tree (Gill 2003, P.56).Indian higher education system is the third largest system in the world. The higher education System is administered by the rules & regulations set by the affiliated university which is based on the guidelines issued by university Grant Commission. As on 23.08.2022, India has 456 state universities, 126 deemed universities, 54 central universities, 421 Private universities and colleges (Source: https://www.ugc.ac.in)After 1991 reforms in higher education system in India, there is decreasing role of government sector and increasing role of Profit earning Private players in every sector including higher education (Singh, Gupta 2019). No doubt this Private Player has fulfilled the increasing demand of higher education. But as a result education is becoming much more of a "Product" with varying customer and stakeholders and what the latter now demanding is satisfaction and value for money (Sahney et al,. 2008). Student's satisfaction is most important in higher education. Satisfaction of students depends upon quality of higher education. It's not only focuses on quality education but also surround campus life in various ways. Student satisfaction includes overall learning experience in the institute. Assessing students satisfaction is defined as opinions of students about the services they received as a student.(Razinkina,Pankova 2018) This may include Teaching facilities ,placement service, library facilities, infrastructure facilities, Extracurricular activities, student motivation etc.

Review of Literature

Khosravi et al. (2013): examined on "determination of factors affecting student satisfaction of Islamic Azad university of IRAN.A sample size of 324 undergraduate and 60 graduate students from 12 colleges of Islamic Azad University had been collected.7 factors were extracted by applying exploratory factors analysis. The study found that academic advising as the most important factors followed by campus support, campus climate, campus life, safety & security and financial aid effectiveness

Anju Gupta (2014): Higher education in India issues and challenges stated that. (a) There should be improvement in curriculum. curriculum according to need of market.(b) quality of teaching faculty is key aspect that has been suffering in India due to direction of selection standard.(c) strong governance and interface by management should be taken to attract bright students after PhD to taken up teaching profession.(d)higher education institutions now become profit making shops. Instead of concentrate on quality they focus on quantity. The study suggested changing such defects and modernizing education system so that higher education moves in right direction.

Kaur&Bhalla (2015): examined the quality of higher education in Punjab from students views Points. A self-administrated questionnaire containing 32 students related to satisfaction of students towards quality in higher education has been used to collect the data. The study concludes that student had highly satisfied with infrastructure, education, environment, extra curriculum activity, student support services, and academic staff but students are dissatisfied with placements and academic failures

Vipin Kumar (2017): investigated the student satisfaction level in higher educational institution-A study of Public institutes in Sirsa. A random sample of 150 students was collected. Percentage and frequency was used for analyzing the data. The study concluded that students are highly satisfied in Public institutes. Majority of students are satisfied on teaching, regularity Parking space, and fee structure and library facilities. The students shows dis-satisfaction regarding lab, use of IT tools and Placement cell

Allam (2018): investigated the student’s perception of quality in higher education. It also showed the relationships between and the effect of outcomes and assessments on aspects of quality of higher education among business and engineering students. Sample size of 91 students was selected, a well-structured questionnaire was designed, and multiple regressions, mean, standard deviation and correlation were used. The study found that all the domains of quality in higher education taken in to the study maintained positive relation between outcome and assessment  admission criteria, institutional factor and teaching and learning resources revealed significance relationship between outcome and assessment.

Kaur,Bhalla (2018): examine the demographic factors in the evaluation of student’s satisfaction towards quality in higher education. A sample size of 369 students from the government colleges of Punjab was conducted. The study was analysis using mean value, T-Test and analysis of variable (Annova). The study revealed that bachelor students were most satisfied for instructor, placement on the basis of lowers stream significant difference were found between commerce and science groups. Researcher shows the significant difference was found in extra curriculum activities and financial administration of colleges.

Panigrahi(2018) States: that institutional financing critically analysis the policy changes impacting financing of public higher education institutions in India. So researcher revealed the policy changes impact on higher education analysis of 2 periods (2010-2011 and 2014-2015) was carried out to understand the changing source of financing of select state universities in India. The study found that with expanding enrolments there is need for special attention to financing higher education. The gradual decline in public funding both by central and state government has negative implications for the growth and development of higher education institutional

Singh and Gupta (2019): examine the perceived service quality in higher education A comparative study of public and private universities. A sample size of 400 students relating to public and private universities were used i.e. 200 from public and 200 from Private university were collected. The study concluded that Private universities in Punjab score better than Private universities except five items and study also reveals that five items in which Public universities is better than Private universities (a) Knowledge and expertise of teaching faculty, teaching methodology, communication skill of faculty, Provisions of scholarship to needy students, reasonableness of tuition fees and locality of university

Sunitha(2021): focus on measuring the student satisfaction on higher education: a study of govt. colleges in Vijayawada. A self-designed questionnaire containing sample size of 150 students were selected from different stream. Convenient sampling method is used for study. The study concludes that students are more satisfied with teaching, communication, access to the teacher determines, sports, library and Parking but on other hand students are not satisfied with Physical appearance

Kanwar,Sanjeeva (2022): focus on student satisfaction survey: a key on quality improvement in the higher education institution, a sample size of 500 students were selected from one college in all the three stream (arts commerce, science). The variable under study is responses obtained from the students, responses for effectiveness of the teacher, Quality of library services, cultural activities. The data concludes that students are highly satisfied with effectiveness of teaching; quality of library .students is less satisfied with cultural activities

.

On the basis of above literature some theoretical model has been developed for the study

Source: Author self-developed

Objective of the study: The main objective of the study is:-

1 To study the satisfaction of student regarding quality in higher education.

2 To know which factors effects most on satisfaction of student towards higher education quality.

Need and importance of the study: The study focus on "student satisfaction towards quality in higher education" is limited to Punjab only. In the state of Punjab student strength in higher education is decreasing for the last few years. More and more students in every year in Punjab Prefer to going to abroad for higher education due to more job opportunities and better future(Singh,Gupta2019).Presently Management of all the Public and Private universities trying to improve the quality in higher education. Academic and administrative staff also tries to improve their infrastructure and other facilities so that more students attract to join the higher education. Overall academician needs to improve better facilities in higher education. These facilities will increase the quality in higher education and quality increase the satisfaction of the student in current changing environment in the nation

Research methodology:Primary data has been collected for achieving the objectives of the study. The study has been conducted in Punjabi university Patiala campus. A well-structured self-developed questionnaire has been used. Data has been collected from different department. A total of 340 Questionnaire have been distributed and 315 has been collected out of which 10 questionnaire has been found to be inaccurate for study and the response rate is 89.70%.

Tools of analysis: Exploratory factor analysis has been used for the student.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin: KMO measure the adequacy of sample.KMO value lies between 0.8 and 1.If value is less than 0.6 it means sample is unaccepted.

Bartlett's test of sphercity: It is a test which is used to measure that variable is uncorrelated in the Population.

Communalities: It is a value which explains how items are correlated with all other items.

Eigen value: Eigen value describes the total amount of variance that can be explained by a given principal component. It can be positive or negative in theory but in Practice it can be positive variables.

Factor Loadings:Factor loadings are the correlation between factors and variables.

Data analysis and interpretation:

Scale Refinement: In the initial stage of scale refinement, content and face validity was checked to purify the scale. The items of student satisfaction scale were analysed by two experts from the university administration and they suggest for the improvement of content of the questionnaire. On the recommendation of the experts some items were modified, removed and reworded for more clarity. Further, in the next stage cronbach alpha and corrected items to total correlation were computed. The value of cronbach alpha was 0.67, which was below the recommended limit of 0.7 (Nunnally,1978). In order to improve the value of alpha, items which showed low corrected items to total correlation (<.30) were removed from the scale (Nunnally,1978). After the elimination of items, the value of alpha improved to 0.823, which also satisfy the condition of reliability of the data. The results are reported in Table 2

Table 1

Reliability statistics

Factor Analysis: Factor analysis was used for defining the unidimentionality of the factors affecting the satisfaction of students towards university administration. The Kaiser-Meyer Olkin Measure (KMO) of Sampling Adequacy and Bartlett test of sphericity check the data appropriateness for factor analysis. The KMO value was found to be 0.913 above the recommended value of 0.6 (Kaiser and Rice, 1974), which indicate that the sample is adequate for factor analysis. Bartlett test of sphericity was also found significant (χ2= 16419.518, P<.05) TABLE.

Table: 2

Factor Structure: Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used with principal component analysis (PCA) method with varimax rotation. It is important to examine communalities to access the appropriateness of the data. If variable communalities are low (less than 0.5), then that variable may load significantly on any factor. The communalities (h2) of all the items should be larger than 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010). The communalities (h2) of all the items were relatively larger than 0.5. Factor loading less than 0.40 were eliminated (Hair et al. 2010). Cross loadingstatements were also eliminated to improve the factor structure. Finally, factor analysiswas conducted on the remaining 54 items. Eight factors comprising 54 items, all havingEigen value 1 were retained and results shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Factor Structure

Source: Compiled from Primary Data

A final eight factor model explained 76.57% of the total variance. The reliability ofall the eight factors were found above the recommended value of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2010).The first factor ‘Academic Administration’ accounts for 15.61% variance havingEigen value 15.382. Factor loadings ranged from 0.851 to 0.796. The overall mean scoresshowed that students respond satisfaction for academic administration of the university. Table 3 shows that under first factor the respondents has been found satisfied with aa4 ‘Teachers are very enthusiastic in their teaching’ (Mean = 4.08, S.D = 0.852), aa3‘Teachers are able to inspire the students for study’(Mean=4.03, S.D = 0.872), aa6 ‘Healthy and interactive communication is established between student and teacher’ (Mean=3.94, S.D = 0.850), aa8 ‘Healthy and interactive communication is established between student and teacher’ (Mean=3.90, S.D = 0.854).

Second factor ‘Infrastructure facilities’ explained 12.97% variance with 7.621eigen value. Mean score showed that students are satisfied with ‘Infrastructure facilities’ ofthe university. The students were satisfied with If5 ‘University has open green area with colourful plants’ (Mean = 4.12, S.D = 0.826), If1 ‘University has well maintained sports ground’ (Mean = 4.08, S.D = 0.818), If2 ‘Well maintained study Rooms, committee rooms and common rooms are available’ (Mean = 4.07, S.D = 0.797), If7 ‘Facilities of canteen / mess are available’ (Mean = 4.04,S.D = 0.817), If8 ‘Health Care facilities are provided by the university’(Mean=4.01, S.D = 0.770), If6 ‘University has Research centre for promotion of Research’ (Mean=3.98, S.D = 0.827), If4 ‘Facilities of fresh drinking water and wash rooms are available’(Mean = 3.91, S.D = 0.797), If3 ‘Transport facility is sufficient in campus area’(Mean = 3.90, S.D = 0.804) and If9 ‘Proper space is available for parking’ (Mean = 3.85, S.D = 0.740).

Third factor ‘Library Facilities’ found with 12.65% of variance with Eigenvalue 3.900 and factor loading ranged from 0.928 to 0.867. Students gave satisfied response towards lf1 ‘There is congenial environment for study’ (Mean = 3.69, S.D,=1.183), lf2 ‘Proper monitoring and evaluation system are there to keep education and learning material under review’ (Mean = 2.83.674, S.D = 1.172),lf3 ‘Study material is available for students’ (Mean = 3.62, S.D = 1.148),lf5 ‘Library informed students regularly about the updating of Library’ (Mean = 3.62,S.D = 1.094), lf4 ‘Web connection is available’ (Mean=3.61,S.D = 1.104). Students respond somewhat satisfied towards lf6 ‘Library is rich and updated with latest material related to student’s subjects’ (Mean = 3.53, S.D = 1.121) and lf7 ‘Library staff is co-operative’ (Mean = 3.52,S.D = 1.086).

University administration such as timely accessibility of staff, security and discipline in the campus and availability of scholarships to deserving students play an important role. The fourth factor ‘University Administration’ explained 10.16% variance with 3.387 Eigen value. The students respond satisfied with university administration factor. The students were more satisfied with items ua3 ‘Security and discipline is well maintained’ (Mean=3.82 S.D = 0.890), ua6 ‘Administration maintains accurate and retrieval records’ (Mean = 3.76 S.D = 0.902) and ua5 ‘Administration staff accessible during office hours’ (Mean = 3.72 S.D = 0.934) than ua7 ‘Fee charged from students is reasonable’ (Mean=3.65 S.D = 0.941) and ua2 ‘Scholarship is available for deserving students’ (Mean = 3.68 S.D = 0.908).

The fifth factor was labelled as ‘Placement service’ accounts for 8.43% of variance. Items were loaded from 0.799 to 0.851 with 2.627 Eigen value. The overall mean score reveals that students are highly dissatisfied with placement service of the university. The items describing this factor included pa1‘Carrier counselling is conducted regularly’ (Mean=2.38, S.D = 1.006), pa2 ‘Ratio of placement in campus is higher’ (Mean=2.38, S.D = 0.971), and pa5 ‘Past Placements records are high’ (Mean = 2.46,S.D = 0.955) showed students are less satisfied with these items than pa3 ‘Placement seminars are organized Regularly’ (Mean = 2.51,S.D = 1.042)and pa4 ‘Student participate actively in the placement services’ (Mean = 2.57,S.D = 1.024). The students showed great resentment towards the placement cell of the university

Students were found satisfied with the sixth factor ‘Extracurricular Activity’ which is consisted of four items that explained 6.23% of variance, with Eigen value 2.008. Factor loading ranged from 0.834to 0.765. Students have shown satisfied response towards ea2 ‘University makes emphasis on developing sports activities’ (Mean = 4.04, S.D = 0.799), ea1 ‘University encourage students to participate in extracurricular’ (Mean = 3.90, S.D = 0.838), ea4 ‘Deserving students get scholarship for participate in extracurricular activities’ (Mean = 3.85, S.D = 0.847), and ea3 ‘University organized NCC/NSS Camps regularly’(Mean = 3.77, S.D = 0.801). Overall students are satisfied with the extra-curricular activities provided by the college.

The seventh factor ‘Students motivation cell’ of the university, which explained 5.61% variance and Eigen value, is 1.381.Mean value of the items smc2 ‘University has grievance Redressal cell’ (Mean = 3.91,S.D = 0.841), smc4 ‘IQAC cell work properly’(Mean = 3.80, S.D = 0.824), smc1 ‘Grievances are solved properly’ (Mean = 3.79, S.D = 0.826), and smc3 ‘The university has intellectual quality assurance cell (IQAC)’ (mean = 3.76, S.D = 0.809) showed somewhat agreement of the students towards ‘Students motivation cell’ factor of the student satisfaction towards university administration. The overall responses of the students showed that students are satisfied with motivation cell.

The eighth factor ‘Financial Administration’ of the university administration accounts for 4.90% of total variance and 1.312 Eigen value with factor loadings from 0.762 to 0.710. The mean scores reveal that students are less satisfied with the financial administration. Three items under this factor fa3 ‘The Government makes agenda for higher education and funding reduction cause universities to operate like business’ (Mean = 2.75, S.D = 0.819), fa2 ‘To what extent there is well divide financial crises and the main reason the government is reducing spending on higher education is to help survive the recession’ (Mean = 2.63, S.D = 0.848), and fa1 ‘There is further reduction in higher education funding by government in next year also’ (Mean=2.61, S.D=0.861) show dissatisfaction of the students towards financial structure of university.

One open ended questionnaire has been asked to students for suggestions and improvement in student satisfaction in quality education. Majority of the students suggested the good placements facilities in higher education, Improvement in Parking, hostel facilities and skill development courses should be introduced for the satisfaction of the students

Suggestions and conclusion of the study: From the above study the following suggestions has been made for the study: (a) Majority of the students suggested for good Placements record of the university. There is also need for skill development courses for the students(b)Opinions of the student regarding quality of higher education should be observed in every month for improvement in the whole education system of the campus(c)The study further suggested for training in industries should be provided so that students aware about Practical aspect

Conclusions: The study concluded the student satisfaction is directly related to infrastructure facility, library facilities, placement facilities and other student support activities. The study showed that student highly satisfied with academic administration, infrastructure, extracurricular activities, and students has neutral response about student motivation cell and students are dissatisfied with placement and financial administration

Limitations and future perception of the study: The present study has a number of limitations and it can be improved in future research. Firstly present study focuses on student satisfaction in Punjabi university only. In future study can be improved by included other state universities in Punjab and other affiliated colleges and other campus of Punjabi university Patiala could be considered. Secondly our present study focus on student satisfaction of students of Punjabi university Patiala but in future viewpoints of other stakeholders such as teacher, administrative staff and parents of students could be considered in the study. Thirdly respondent were made answer by self-generated questionnaire but in future study could be done with open questionnaire.

Bibliography

Butt, B. Z., & Ur Rehman, K. (2010)A study examining the student's satisfaction in higher education. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2(2), 5446-5450.

Douglas, B.  (2006).Measuring student satisfaction at u.kUniversity. Quality assurance in education, vol 14 no 3 2006, PP 251-267

Gupta, A. (2014). Higher Education in India: Issues and Challenges. Higher Education

Gill, M. S. (Ed.). (2003). Punjab society: perspectives and challenges

Gruber, T., Fuß, S., Voss, R., &Gläser‐Zikuda, M. (2010). Examining student satisfaction with higher education services: Using a new measurement tool. International journal of public sector management.

Hasan, H. F. A., Ilias, A., Rahman, R. A., &Razak, M. Z. A. (2008). Service quality and student satisfaction: A case study at private higher education institutions. International business research, 1(3), 163-175.

harpreetsingh, s. g. (2019, march).  Perceived service quality in higher education.international journal of research in social sciences,  vol.9(3).

IM SalindaWeerasinghe, and R. Lalitha, S. Fernando, “Students’ Satisfaction in Higher Education Literature Review.” American Journal of Educational Research, vol. 5, no. 5 (2017): 533-539. doi: 10.12691/education-5-5-9Kanwar, A., Sanjeeva, M. Student satisfaction survey: a key for quality improvement in the higher education institution. J InnovEntrep 11, 27 (2022).https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00196-6

ill, Frances. (1995). Managing Service Quality in Higher Education: the Role of the Student as Primary Consumer. Quality Assurance in Education. 3. 10-21. 10.1108/09684889510093497

Kaur, H., &Bhalla , G.S. (2015), Satisfaction of Students towards Quality in Higher education- A Study of Higher Education Sector in Punjab (India). Pacific Business Review International, 8 (6), 83- 91

Kumar, V. (2014). Students Satisfaction Level in Higher Educational Institutes: A Study of Public Institutes in Sirsa. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research (IJEMR), 4(2), 145-149.

kaur, Bhalla (2018). demographic factors in the evaluation of students satisfaction towards quality in higher education: a study of government colleges of Punjab. management and labour studies, 1-13.

Kaur, D., &Bhalla, G. S. (2010). College management: Views of students. IUP Journal of Management Research, 9(5), 6.

Khosravi, A. A., Poushaneh, K., Roozegar, A., &Sohrabifard, N. (2013).Determination of factors affecting student satisfaction of Islamic Azad University. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 579-583.

Sharma,S.,&Sharma, P. (2015).Indian higher education system :challenges and suggestions. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 3(4) 6.

Sahney, S., Banwet, D. K.,&Karunes, S. (2008). An integrated framework of indices for quality management in education: a faculty perspective. The TQM journal

Varghese, N. V.,&Panigrahi, J. (Eds.). (2019). India Higher Education Report 2018: Financing of Higher Education. Sage Publications India.

Zineldin, M., Akdag, H. C.,&Vasicheva, V. (2011). Assessing quality in higher education: New criteria for evaluating students’ satisfaction. Quality in higher education, 17(2), 231-243.

Website:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_education_in_India