See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242344310

What matters most: An exploratory multivariate study of

satisfaction among first year hotel/hospitality management
students

Article  in  Quality Assurance in Education · July 2012

DOI: 10.1108/09684881211240303

CITATIONS READS
32 70

1 author:

Finian O'Driscoll
Shannon College of Hotel Management
1 PUBLICATION   32 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Finian O'Driscoll on 27 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Quality Assurance in Education
What matters most: An exploratory multivariate study of satisfaction among first year
hotel/hospitality management students
Finian O'Driscoll,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Finian O'Driscoll, (2012) "What matters most: An exploratory multivariate study of satisfaction among first
year hotel/hospitality management students", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 20 Issue: 3, pp.237-258,
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881211240303
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881211240303
Downloaded on: 27 June 2018, At: 03:10 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 68 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1722 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"Does higher education service quality effect student satisfaction, image and loyalty?: A study of
international students in Malaysian public universities", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 24 Iss 1 pp.
70-94 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-02-2014-0008">https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-02-2014-0008</a>
(2015),"Dimensions driving business student satisfaction in higher education", Quality Assurance
in Education, Vol. 23 Iss 1 pp. 86-104 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-08-2013-0035">https://
doi.org/10.1108/QAE-08-2013-0035</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:361835 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm

Hotel/hospitality
What matters most management
An exploratory multivariate study of students
satisfaction among first year hotel/hospitality
management students 237
Finian O’Driscoll
Shannon College of Hotel Management, Shannon, Republic of Ireland

Abstract
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

Purpose – This study presents institutional research and aims to explore the underlying factors that
contribute to hospitality management students’ satisfaction and perceptions of service quality at a
higher education college in Ireland. Research focusing on hospitality and leisure management
education argues for greater cognisance of the relevance of students’ experience with third level
education. Therefore, the current paper seeks to address the issue of student feedback and satisfaction
measurement in light of recent proposals.
Design/methodology/approach – The responses to a “course satisfaction questionnaire” taken
from a database of first year students (n ¼ 263) were factor-analysed using the principal component
technique, the purpose of which was to identify latent explanatory variables of the student satisfaction
concept as applied in a hospitality management context. Descriptive analysis was used to examine the
level of satisfaction within the data. Tests for gender and nationality differences were conducted.
Correlational analysis along with multiple regression techniques were applied to the data set to explore
the salient relationships between satisfaction variables.
Findings – Analysis reveals a multidimensional structure of student satisfaction. Six underlying
factors accounted for a high percentage of variance in explaining student satisfaction. Academic
support, welfare support and course communication structures are identified as being significant
determinants while differences based on nationality are observed, particularly in relation to
pre-placement support.
Practical implications – Issues such as quality of student life and other non-institutional factors
need to be accounted for in offering a more comprehensive explanation of student satisfaction. The role
of pre-work placement preparation is emphasised. The potential to chart the level and structure of
student satisfaction throughout the whole institution is suggested. Furthermore, the prospect of
conducting longitudinal research serves as a unique opportunity. The use of quantitative techniques,
bolstered by qualitative methods, is recommended as a future direction for data collection, analysis
and synthesis.
Originality/value – This paper attempts to fill a gap in student satisfaction research from a
hospitality and tourism management perspective.
Keywords Higher education, Quality assurance, Student satisfaction, Hospitality management,
Multivariate analysis, Service quality assurance, Ireland
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The presence of quality assurance (QA) systems are features of the contemporary
educational environment and the appraisal of student feedback regarding their
experiences has emerged as a central pillar of the quality assurance process (Tsinidou Quality Assurance in Education
Vol. 20 No. 3, 2012
et al., 2010; Zineldin et al., 2011). Gruber et al. (2010, p. 107) note that “educational pp. 237-258
services play a central role in students’ lives and students require huge amounts of q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0968-4883
motivation and intellectual skills to attain their goals”. A satisfied student population DOI 10.1108/09684881211240303
 QAE is a highly sought after competitive advantage for higher education institutions,
20,3 lending itself to desirable outcomes such as positive word of mouth communication,
retention and student loyalty (Thomas and Galambos, 2004; Arambewela and Hall,
2009). Efforts by higher education institutions to improve the quality and standards of
educational services have progressed through the use of various forms of student
feedback and methods of evaluation in an attempt to understand what matters to
238 students’ regarding their educational experience (Wiers-Jensen et al., 2002; Harvey,
2003; Gruber et al., 2010) and more importantly, if the institution meets their
expectations. As Leckey and Neill (2001, p. 23) state:
. . . filling in satisfaction questionnaires about teaching performance, the course/module
effectiveness and overall student experience is now common practice throughout higher
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

education.
As such, comprehending the components of student satisfaction has become the raison
d’etre for many educational administrators. In fact, it is the combination of diverse
research methodologies, the variety measurement techniques and the differing
perceptions of the “student satisfaction” concept that have contributed to a complex
debate between the basis of service quality in academia and the pedagogical role of
education. This debate also forms the backdrop context for the key stakeholders in the
hospitality industry.
While the attainment of service quality standards has become an important
managerial mantra for most tertiary institutions providing general academic
programmes, equally so, it has evolved to permeate the service delivery
requirements of “niche” education providers. Hospitality education in Ireland and in
general is not immune to the challenges faced in third level education(O’Connor, 2001)
and institutions providing education and training in this field have had to react,
respond and re-organise in the face of quality assurance demands and industry
expectations. The supply of tourism and hospitality courses has grown considerably
over the past three decades given the expansion of the industry and governmental
acknowledgement of the sector’s economic potential (Dale and Robinson, 2001). The
evolution of hospitality curricula from vocational/job-specific training to a more
managerial/soft-skill focus remains a key and moot development in this area during
the past number of years (O’Connor, 2001; Connolly and McGing, 2006) which in turn
has impacted on the nature, purpose and delivery of hospitality education both
nationally and internationally (Morrison and O’Mahony, 2003). For institutions
providing hospitality education, the value attached to “quality service delivery” serves
as a dual credo on which to ensure a quality educational experience for its students as
well as a philosophy on which the students themselves are expected to adhere to and
deliver in their professional lives.
Therefore, the purpose of this research is to gain an insight into the factors that
explain and contribute to the satisfaction of first year undergraduate hotel/hospitality
management student at the Shannon College of Hotel Management. Additionally, it
seeks to delineate the key elements which impact the most on their first year experience
in third level education. This study offers the following aspects: firstly, it coincides
with recommendations from national authorities to measure and evaluate the student
experience vis-à-vis the issue of service quality in a third level institution. Secondly, the
study adds to and expands on previous research on the concept and measurement of
 student satisfaction. Third, the study solely focuses on the First Year experience Hotel/hospitality
because “a positive first-year student experience is crucial to achieving the goals of management
higher education; failure to address the challenges encountered contributes to high
drop-out and failure rates” (Department of Education & Skills, 2011, p. 56). Finally, students
while many excellent and larger scale studies of student satisfaction exist in a general
sense, the current study takes as its focus, students participating on a degree in
International Hotel Management in the West of Ireland. Like most institutions, the 239
College has a vested interest in finding out what it does and does not do well in terms of
providing a satisfying educational experience to its students. Three research questions
guided this study:
RQ1. What are the dimensions of student satisfaction among a cohort of
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

hospitality management students?

RQ2. Which factor or factors contribute most to explaining and predicting
student satisfaction?
RQ3. Are there differences in both the levels of, and factors which predict, student
satisfaction based on Gender and Nationality?

Quality assurance in higher education

Pervasive competitive pressures to attract and retain prospective education consumers
have aligned national and international tertiary education systems to pay more
attention to quality issues (Douglas et al., 2008; Law, 2010). Notwithstanding the
constrained budgetary environment that third level institutions face, factors such as
greater managerial accountability for the efficient use of scarce resources, larger and
more diverse student populations, greater expectations of fee-paying students and an
explosion in course offerings are identified as key forces driving institutions toward a
more quality-focused delivery of education (Becket and Brookes, 2006). As Zineldin
et al., 2011, p. 232) cogently state:
In higher education there are problems of structure, personalities, students, academic staff,
university staff and management. All this creates a complex situation in which higher
education is assessed as to how well students are satisfied, what is valued by students, how
students perceive the quality of education and how these can be improved.
As such, “in the intensely competitive global environment, the economic fortunes of
every country are increasingly determined by the quality of its national education and
innovation systems” (Department of Education & Skills, 2011, p. 31). In this context,
third level institutions have increasingly adopted approaches to managing and
enhancing service delivery systems where “a customer focus has become a core value”
(Brookes, 2003, p. 18).
From an Irish perspective, the edict of the Bologna Process (1999) dominates the
European educational environment within which higher education institutions are
obligated to ensure that the necessary quality assurance mechanisms are in place; and
where each member state is responsible for establishing “good practices” based on a
common set of quality standards and supported by relevant internal and external audit
structures (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 2005).
Various reports mandating the role and importance of delivering quality educational
services in Ireland are noted. For example, in Ireland, the Higher Education Authority
 QAE (HEA, 2004, p. 19) emphasised that “a quality culture should permeate throughout each
20,3 institution and underpin the range of activities provided for students, e.g. teaching,
learning, research, library, computer services, health and leisure facilities, etc.” Further,
“the Irish third level system should provide its students with a high quality service
which is comparable with best international standards. . . and effective QA procedures
and processes, benchmarked against international standards, are essential for success
240 in this area.” (HEA, 2004, p. 19).
In a follow-up review of quality assurance practices in third level institutions in
Ireland, the Higher Education Authority recommended the necessity “to put in place
systematic student feedback processes covering the quality of both the teaching and
learning environment and other support services provided for students” (HEA, 2005).
This was further emphasised by the most recent report on the state of Ireland’s third
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

level sector which highlighted the utility of developing “internal systems for
monitoring and enhancing quality” (Department of Education & Skills, 2011) and
espoused the efficacy of generating, evaluating and responding to student feedback. As
a key recommendation, each and all third level institutions should put in place a
system of student feedback that facilitates prompt responses to student concerns.
Furthermore, at the time of writing this paper, national authorities were embarking on
a process of developing a “National Student Survey” evaluation programme in
collaboration with all third level institutions (Department of Education & Skills, 2011,
p. 17).

The “student as consumer” debate

However, the drive for service quality, the establishment of quality management
systems in higher education and the salience given to monitoring student feedback has
given rise to the debate about the true purpose of education, learning and the
relationship between the academic establishment and its students in the modern era
(Schwartzman, 1995; Kaye et al., 2006; Lomas, 2007; McCulloch, 2009). In terms of
service satisfaction in higher education; the foundations of consumer behaviour theory
have been extrapolated to discern and apply the concept in higher education environs
(Richardson, 2005). Similarly, Wiers-Jensen et al. (2002) note that research has followed
a “consumer-orientated” focus in that students’ experiences with education is akin to
contemporary service encounters in other fields. Athiyaman (1997) and Einarson and
Matier (2005) further give credence to the benefit of treating the student-college
relationship as a service encounter such that the service provider can determine
whether or not it has “delivered” to its customers (the students) through the evaluation
of student feedback mechanisms. Given that students (and their families) invest a
considerable amount of time, effort and money to enter higher and stay in higher
education, Einarson and Matier (2005, p. 641) assert that “colleges should give credence
to students’ evaluations of the worth of these expenditures.”
Kaye et al. (2006, p. 86) suggest that “the image of the student as consumer derives
from the prevalence of what has come to be known as consumerism in modern western
society.” McCulloch (2009, p. 173) asserts that this approach “has given a new
perspective from which ‘an institution’ can be examined, managed and strategically
developed, and has, undoubtedly, helped improve some aspects of the student
experience.” Further, the metaphor of “student as consumer” has had implications in
the way academic institutions engage with their students to the point where education
 is regarded as a commoditised product (McCulloch, 2009). Referring to the Hotel/hospitality
relationship-marketing literature, Bowden (2011) argues that academic institutions management
embracing this approach help foster strong bonds between student and institution and
improves retention rates. As such, the “student as consumer” metaphor has been taken students
as a central premise on which to approach quality management in education.
For example, customer satisfaction refers to a subjective appraisal of the pleasure
and displeasure experienced from consumption (Oliver, 1999, p. 34) such that 241
“consumption fulfils some need, desire, goal, or so fourth”. Giese and Cote (2000, p. 3)
assert that customer satisfaction is a “summary, affective and variable intensity
response centred on specific aspects of acquisition and/or consumption and which
takes place at the precise moment when the individual evaluates the object.”
Athiyaman (1997, p. 259) further asserts that consumer satisfaction is a
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

transaction-specific, short term, overall attitude where “attitude can be defined as an

overall evaluation of the goodness or badness of a concept or object.” In terms of
education consumption, satisfaction has been defined by Elliot and Shin (2002, p. 198)
as “the favourability of a student’s subjective evaluation of the various outcomes and
experiences associated with education. . .and being shaped continually by experiences
with campus life.” Similarly, student satisfaction can be described as a short-term
attitude derived from their experience with and evaluation of the education service
provided (Elliott and Healy, 2001).
Conversely, the view that students in third level are treated as “consumers” and
“customers” of education has been criticised for re-directing its primary developmental
role to nothing more than a marketing exercise and short-term economic transactions
(Schwartzman, 1995; Finney and Finney, 2010). The thrust of this argument warns of
treating education as a consumer-service transaction which de-limits the experience of
learning to nothing more than short-term, intermittent exchanges during the student’s
academic life. The application of management concepts such as total quality
management (TQM) and relationship marketing principles has, for Schwartzman
(1995), put at odds the managerial need to balance high quality service delivery
requirements against the learning, intellectual and developmental tenets of education.
For Schwartzman (1995, p. 221), “the idea of quality in relation to student-customers is
ideologically naive.” As Kaye et al., (2006, p. 93) argue:
. . . education is not seen just as the vehicle for imparting knowledge, but also as a principal
means of holding society together...(and) performs a whole variety of different jobs.
However, as Lomas (2007) highlighted, while academics may be uncomfortable with
this development, they nonetheless acknowledge the growing influence that fee-paying
students have in relation to what they expect from an institution in terms of service
quality.
Critics of the customer-focused approach have further emphasised the problems
associated with applying management concepts and metaphors to the measurement
and evaluation of student experiences in educational environments. While
acknowledging the perceived benefits of employing systems of quality evaluation,
Schwartzman (1995, p. 222) contests that “the cost of treating students as customers
carries mixed blessings... they deserve more from educators than instant gratification”.
This has implications for the manner in which institutions and educators approach the
teaching and assessment of students in their subject areas and has contributed to the
 QAE “emerging image of higher education as job-rather than life-related” (Kaye et al., 2006,
20,3 p. 86). Additionally, “if students are envisioned only or primarily as consumers, then
educators assume the role of panderers, devoted more to immediate satisfaction than to
offering the challenge of intellectual independence” (Schwartzman, 1995, p. 222).

The utility of student feedback

242 Elemental to establishing and maintaining systems of quality assurance in third level
is the collection and analyses of student opinion. Harvey (2003, p. 3) states that
feedback “refers to the expressed opinions of students about the services they receive
as students. . .which may include perceptions about the learning and teaching, the
learning support facilities, the learning environment, support facilities and (other)
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

external aspects.” He further points to the functions of student feedback as serving

both an internal guide for educational improvement and externally as a source of
information to other stakeholders (Harvey, 2003). Similarly, Richardson (2005) asserts
that feedback can provide diagnostic evidence for all stakeholders associated with the
institution and its collection and evaluation contributes to educational quality
management (Rowley, 2003).
Student feedback can be measured by means of informal, qualitative methods such
as general conversations or formalised through specific focus groups; and structured
survey instruments via questionnaires (Harvey, 2003; Rowley, 2003; Richardson, 2005)
with the latter being the most common survey medium. Aldridge and Rowley (1998)
note that student satisfaction evaluation methods can be generalised into two types:
methods that focus on assessing teaching and learning; and methods that assess the
total student experience. Harvey (2003) identified five levels of student satisfaction
feedback: institutional-level; faculty/departmental-level; degree/educational
programme-level; module/subject-level and teacher/lecturer evaluation. Similarly, in
a review of the literature, Richardson (2005) identified students’ evaluation of teaching,
evaluation of course modules, perceptions of academic quality and general/global
student satisfaction experiences as typical measurement foci. Each approach attends to
a certain aspect of the quality and satisfaction measurement of student experiences;
however Richardson (2005) highlights the utility of taking a “holistic” institutional
perspective to student satisfaction in that the student’s “total experience” is appraised.
Such an orientation he contends generates a rich tapestry of data for institutional
information by evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of institution-wide service
delivery systems (Harvey, 2003; O’ Neill and Palmer, 2004; Richardson, 2005). This can
then be used to identify the underlying factors constituting student satisfaction.
Consequently, the current study reflects an institutional level analysis concerning
students’ overall college experience rather than a micro-evaluation of teaching and
module quality.

Research methodology
The present study forms part of an on-going quality assurance process at the Shannon
College of Hotel Management in County Clare, Ireland. The goal of this process is the
monitor, evaluate and where feasible, respond to the issues that students may have
with respect to their experiences in college.
The institution provides vital education and training for the national and
international hotel/hospitality industry through the delivery of a Level 8 Bachelor of
 Business Degree in International Hotel Management. A balanced combination of Hotel/hospitality
business and industry-specific subjects are buttressed by two, year-long industry management
placements which students experience prior to graduation. The presence of industry or
co-operative placements are common elements of current-day hospitality management students
programmes and serve to impart the necessary professional and work-life skills
expected from graduates by industry leaders (Connolly and McGing, 2006; Nolan et al.,
2010). Further, the internationalisation of the institution is reflected in the diverse 243
nationalities studying at the college with students from India, China, Russia and other
European countries.
The data used for this research stems from a database of student responses to a
course satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ) which is administered to all students during
the final week of the teaching year. The CSQ database was initiated four years ago by
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

the institution in an attempt to account for and chart the perceptions of the student
body with the purpose of monitoring quality standards on the degree programme
within and between the various classes. This approach is similar to other research
efforts in that it offers a “spherical point-of-view” about the institution and the
possibility of identifying group differences (Oldfield and Baron, 2000; Tsinidou et al.,
2010, p. 233). The use of questionnaires facilitates the collection of responses from a
large population, quickly and efficiently and incorporates objectivity in terms of
analytical generalisations (Salkind, 2003; Blumberg et al., 2005). Accordingly, “they
provide an opportunity to obtain feedback from the entire population of students; and
they document their experiences in a more or less systematic way” (Richardson, 2005,
p. 401). Each of the years (except the Year 2 cohort who are on industrial placement) is
informed of the purpose of the survey prior to the week of its administration and a
purposive-convenience sampling technique is applied (Blumberg et al., 2005).
Furthermore, this approach allows for students to complete the questionnaire during
lectures and the immediate collection therein (Gruber et al., 2010). Anonymity and
confidentiality is emphasised as is the survey’s voluntary participation.

Measurement instrument: the “Course Satisfaction Questionnaire”

The CSQ instrument was designed specifically to measure students’ satisfaction with
various aspects of their degree course and services offered by the college. The intention
was to tap into those dimensions thought to be important in determining and
explaining the construct. A review of the available literature assisted in the design and
content of the instrument.
The extant literature indicates that student satisfaction is a multidimensional
construct (Richardson, 2005; Navarro et al., 2005, Aracil, 2009) influenced by a variety
of contextual factors such that it varies in composition and explanatory significance.
Wiers-Jensen et al. (2002) suggest that this is to be expected given the variety of
programmes offered; the location; size and management structures of institutions that
can all influence student satisfaction analyses. Quantitative, qualitative and to a lesser
degree, mixed-method paradigms have been used to explicate the factors constituting
the student satisfaction concept.
For example, Wiers-Jensen et al. (2002) examined third level student satisfaction in
Norway, based on a sample of ten thousand students. Logistic regression analysis
revealed that teaching, physical facilities and administrative staff services were strong
predictors. Additionally, the authors emphasised the explanatory power of social
 QAE climate as an important factor for student well-being. Thomas and Galambos (2004)
20,3 identified academic experience, social integration and campus services and facilities as
significant predictors of student satisfaction at a public research university in North
America. Navarro et al. (2005) found a strong correlation between the level of student
satisfaction and loyalty/intention to stay at the college. Furthermore, teaching quality,
the administration of the programme, support from teaching staff and college
244 infrastructures explained most of the variance in student satisfaction. Arambewela
and Hall (2009) utilised exploratory factor analysis of the SERVQUAL instrument
which revealed that feedback from lecturers, the quality of teaching and access to
facilities were the predominant predictors of satisfaction. Gruber et al. (2010)
emphasised the importance of teaching, school placements, college facilities, lecturer
support and college reputation as important explanatory factors of German student
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

satisfaction. Similarly, factors such as curriculum structure, administrative services,

academic staff support and institutional facilities explained Greek students
satisfaction with their third level experience (Tsinidou et al., 2010).
Hill et al. (2003) conducted six focus groups across a range of programmes at their
institution. The analysis of the interviews revealed four major themes linked to student
satisfaction: quality of lecturer, student engagement with the course curriculum, the
role of social and personal support systems and ICT/Library resource facilities. In a
mixed-method study, Lagrosen et al. (2004) generated questionnaire items from
29 semi-structured interviews. These were then factor analysed which revealed
11 underlying factors associated with quality dimensions at UK, Austrian and Swedish
institutions. Sample factors included course offering, campus facilities, teaching
quality and methods, library resources and communication/information
responsiveness. Finally, Douglas et al. (2008) analysed the experiences of 163
students from the business and law faculties at the Liverpool John Moores University.
Using the Critical Incident Technique (Flanagan, 1954), a number of positive and
negative critical episodes relating to the degree and form of communication with
students, the relevance of course content, usefulness of library facilities and the general
social climate of the institution were identified as salient factors contributing to student
satisfaction.
For this study, the CSQ instrument included 26 items designed to measure
satisfaction levels across a range of areas such as college facilities, teaching quality,
course content, welfare support services and academic support. All items were
measured on a five point Likert scale (1 ¼ very dissatisfied to 5 ¼ very satisfied).
Sample items include:
. Quality of academic guidance.
.
Quality of teaching.
.
Professional subjects.
.
Learning facilities.

These items serve as potential independent variables for multivariate analyses and
were derived from a combination of institutional requirements and the service quality
literature. Overall student satisfaction serves as the primary dependent variable and is
measured with one global estimate: “Overall, how satisfied are you with the course”.
All responses are coded and input into SPSS (version 15) for all subsequent analyses.
 The internal reliability of the instrument returned a Cronbach Alpha of 0.86 which is Hotel/hospitality
above the standard accepted threshold of 0.7 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). management
Student sample students
A database of Year 1 student feedback was selected for analyses in line with
suggestions proposed by recent reports (Department of Education & Skills, 2010, 2011,
p. 56) given that “a positive first-year student experience is crucial to achieving the 245
goals of higher education”. A sample size of 263 students was included for analysis and
is distinguished by gender and nationality (Table I). The distribution of students by
gender was 42.6 per cent male and 57.4 per cent female. In terms nationality, 54 per
cent were EU students and 46 per cent non-EU. In order to determine group
independence and thus explore the possibility of group influence in terms gender and
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

nationality, a Pearson chi-square test was conducted and indicated that both groups
were not significantly associated x 2 (1, N ¼ 263Þ ¼ 0:014, p ¼ 0:906). This avoids the
issue of confounding results derived from the statistical analyses.

Factor analysis
Exploratory factor analysis was applied to identify elements that explain and
contribute to a student’s satisfaction with their educational course and general college
experience. Factor analysis is a data reduction technique that groups items into
clusters or factors that have similar psychometric characteristics (Nunnally and
Bernstein, 1994). The factor analytic method is a powerful multivariate technique that
explores the structure of the interrelationships among a large set of observable
measures and creates a set of highly correlated variables known as factors (Hair et al.,
2006; Fabgrigar et al., 1999). These factors represent the latent dimensions of the
construct being investigated and allows for a more parsimonious representation of the
phenomena (Kline, 1994; Fabgrigar et al., 1999). Previous research has utilised this
approach as an effective method for uncovering the hidden or latent dimensions of
quality in academia (for example: Soutar and McNeil, 1996; Navarro et al., 2005;
Debnath et al., 2005; Gallifa and Batallé, 2010). Furthermore, factor analysis has the
added benefit of mitigating the problems of multicollinearity that exist when variables
are highly correlated with each other (Hair et al., 2006; Miles and Shevlin, 2006).
Various guidelines facilitated the decision to conduct and use factor analysis output
(see Table II). A minimum sample size to item ratio of 5:1 is usually deemed acceptable
for factor analyses (Hair et al., 2006). This level was satisfied for the present study. An
important criterion on the efficacy of factor analysis is the quantity and strength of
correlations between the measured items.
The present study indicated that all intercorrelations between the questionnaire
items were greater than the 0.3 minimum threshold. This result is further buttressed by

% EU (n ¼ 142) % Non-EU (n ¼ 121) % Total

% Male (n ¼ 112) 22.8 19.8 42.6

% Female (n ¼ 151) 31.2 26.2 57.4
% Total 54 46 100 Table I.
Demographic
Note: n ¼ 263 characteristics
 QAE the level of sampling adequacy of the data which was above the minimum acceptable
20,3 level. The presence of a sufficient number of significant inter-item correlations as
indicated by Bartlett’s test of significance (P , 0:001) confirmed the applicability of
factor analysis. The communalities of the variables reached the minimum acceptable
level of 0.4 (Hair et al., 2006) indicating that all variables in the analysis explain a
reasonable amount of factor variance. The Kaiser criterion for selecting factors with
246 an eigenvalue greater than 1 was employed. The purpose of this rule ensures that
only factors which account for a meaningful level of variance greater than or equal to
1 are retained (Hair et al., 2006). Only those factors that contributed between 50 per cent
to 60 per cent or more to explained variance were kept. As a final selection criterion,
items which had a factor loading of 0.4 or less were excluded from the analysis (Kline,
1994; Hair et al., 2006) and any evidence of items cross-loading on one or more factors
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

were deleted from the analysis.

Results and discussion

Factor analysis
Table III details the relevant eigenvalues, variances and factor solutions. Six factors
with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted from the data accounting for a
variance of 64.32 per cent. The following labels were given as:
.
Factor 1: Facilities.
.
Factor 2: Academic support.
.
Factor 3: Welfare support.
.
Factor 4: Feedback.
.
Factor 5: Placement support.
.
Factor 6: Organisation communication.

The first three factors contribute nearly half (50 per cent) of the total variance in
student satisfaction dimensionality of which the facilities factor accounted for the
highest percentage at 32.23 per cent. Academic/Pedagogical Support represented
9.19 per cent in variance with welfare support, placement preparation/support,
feedback and organisation communication accounting for the balance in variance.
Student satisfaction can be explicated by the importance of and satisfaction with the
provision of adequate learning and infrastructural facilities (F1); the presentation of
relevant course content supported by quality teaching (F2); benefit from supportive,
concerned staff for student wellbeing (F3); receiving feedback and communication
from lecturers regarding their performance (F4); are properly prepared for their
industrial placement programme (F5) and are clearly and effectively communicated to

Acceptable level Present study

Cases – item ratio 5:1 10:1

Minimum Inter-item r $0.3 $0.31
Bartlett’s test of Significance P , 0:05 P , 0:001
Table II. KMO sampling adequacy $0.7 0.83
Decision criteria Minimum communality $0.4 $0.51
 Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
Facilities for learning and teaching 0.76
IT systems and support 0.75
Availability of software to aid courses 0.71 Facilities
Access to networked computers 0.63
Equipment/professional facilities 0.59 }
Library and information services 0.57
Academic subjects 0.76
Subject relevance 0.76
Quality of teaching 0.68 Academic
Academic guidance 0.63 support
Professional subjects
Welfare support
0.55
} 0.79
Welfare
Support from staff 0.76
Year tutor support 0.73 } support
Feedback from assignments 0.72
Helpfulness of feedback 0.69
Help from lecturers 0.66 Feedback
Lecturers stimulated my interest 0.61 }
Staff-student communication 0.46
Preparation for placement 0.76
Level of support while on placement 0.72 Placement
Relevance of placement 0.60 } support
Communication effectiveness 0.72
Organisation of programme 0.70 Organisation
Scheduling of exams/assessments 0.65 } communication
Books, journals and other media 0.48
Eigenvalue 8.7 2.48 2.16 1.62 1.3 1.1
% of Variance 32.23 9.19 7.99 6.02 4.81 4.08
% Cumulative Variance 32.23 41.42 49.41 55.43 60.24 64.32
Cronbach a 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.84 0.65
Notes: Extraction method: Principal component analysis; Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalisation; Rotation converged in 15 iterations;
n ¼ 263
Hotel/hospitality
management
students

Factor solution
Table III.
247
 QAE about the organisation, structure and requirements of their educational programme
20,3 (F6). Summated scales were created for each dimension and internal reliability
measures were calculated using Cronbach’s Alpha. This test determines whether or not
the scale items are measuring the same construct. An accepted minimum threshold for
scale reliability is 0.7 (Hair et al., 2006). All but one of the satisfaction dimensions
reached acceptable levels. Organisation Communication returned a lower reliability
248 score (a ¼ 0:65) but was included for all analyses given that it offers practical and
theoretical relevance.
Table IV details the means, standard deviation and inter-factor correlations for all
students (n ¼ 263). Students were asked to form a global assessment of their
satisfaction with the college, the course and general experience. Overall, Year 1
students are satisfied with their educational programme (M ¼ 3:95, SD ¼ 0:77).
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

Further, in terms of academic support (M ¼ 3:96, SD ¼ 0:56) and the concern from
staff for their welfare (M ¼ 3:73, SD ¼ 0:84), student satisfaction is relatively strong.
Students are less satisfied with the placement aspect of their experience (M ¼ 3:17,
SD ¼ 0:84).
All dimensions were significant and positively correlated with overall satisfaction
at the p , 0:01 significance level. Of the six factors, academic support had the largest
correlation (r ¼ 0:57) and explains approximately 32 per cent (r2 ¼ 0:32) of the
variance in overall student satisfaction. Welfare support (r ¼ 0:54, r2 ¼ 0:29),
Feedback (r ¼ 0:52, r2 ¼ 0:27) and organisation communication (r ¼ 0:50, r2 ¼ 0:25)
each reflect moderate to strong correlations and variances while college
facilities(r ¼ 0:45, r2 ¼ 0:20) and placement support (r ¼ 0:31, r2 ¼ 0:09) returned
weak to moderate correlation-variances respectively.
Further inspection of the correlation matrix revealed that the Feedback dimension
was highly correlated with Academic support (r ¼ 0:61) and Welfare support
(r ¼ 0:62). This would suggest that students view the form and means of
communication received from staff as comprising of both professional and personal
salience to their overall experience. This supports prior research such that the welfare
and social support offered by teachers serves as an important source of internal
satisfaction. Additionally, the placement dimension returned lower correlations with
other factors, namely Academic support (r ¼ 0:27) and Feedback (r ¼ 0:33).

Demographic analysis: gender and nationality

Gender and nationality characteristics were examined to determine if differences
existed between groups based on the mean scores across satisfaction dimensions

Variable Mean SD DV F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6

DV Overall satisfaction 3.95 0.77 1

F1 Facilities 3.69 0.70 0.45 1
F2 Academic 3.96 0.56 0.57 0.49 1
F3 Welfare 3.73 0.84 0.54 0.39 0.46 1
F4 Feedback 3.78 0.68 0.52 0.46 0.61 0.62 1
Table IV. F5 Placement 3.17 0.96 0.31 0.38 0.27 0.39 0.33 1
Means, standard F6 Org. communication 3.74 0.62 0.50 0.52 0.46 0.45 0.57 0.36 1
deviations and dimension
correlations Notes: All Correlations are significant at p , 0:01 level (two-tailed); n ¼ 263
 (Tables V and VI). Overall, both male (M ¼ 3:96, SD ¼ 0:77) and female (M ¼ 3:94, Hotel/hospitality
SD ¼ 0:76) students appear equally satisfied with the services and experience offered management
at the college with no significant differences recorded (p ¼ 0:797). This pattern of
scores for both groups appears similar in direction across all dimensions. The low students
satisfaction with the Placement support factor for males (M ¼ 3:19, SD ¼ 0:95) and
females (M ¼ 3.16, SD ¼ 0.97) also returned the larger deviations in satisfaction.
In terms of nationality, EU students are generally more satisfied with the course 249
than their Non-EU peers (t ¼ 3:14, p ¼ 0:000) with significant differences across
Academic and Welfare support dimensions. Furthermore, compared with Non-EU
students, the EU group are statistically less satisfied with the Placement element of
their course (t ¼ 22:98, p ¼ 0:003). These findings highlight certain issues that are
beyond the scope of the current paper. However, satisfaction differences based on
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

nationality could be attributed to the fact that Non-EU students pay considerably more
in the way of fees and may feel that they should be getting more for their money.

Multiple regression analysis

A series of regressions were run to determine the explanatory power of the dimensions
on overall student satisfaction. Separate regressions were run for gender and
nationality. A third, hierarchical regression focused on the collective effect of the five
dimensions while controlling for gender and nationality. The standardised regression
results are presented in Tables VII-IX.

Male (n ¼ 112) Female (n ¼ 151)

Variable Mean SD Mean SD t Sig.

Overall satisfaction 3.96 0.77 3.94 0.76 0.26 0.797

Facilities 3.71 0.71 3.68 0.70 0.43 0.667
Academic 4.00 0.47 3.93 0.62 1.05 0.294
Welfare 3.72 0.89 3.75 0.80 20.27 0.790
Feedback 3.80 0.65 3.76 0.70 0.48 0.629 Table V.
Placement 3.19 0.95 3.16 0.97 0.31 0.757 Mean differences by
Org. communication 3.75 0.61 3.74 0.62 0.10 0.922 gender

EU Non-EU
(n ¼ 142) (n ¼ 151)
Variable Mean SD Mean SD t Sig.

Overall satisfaction 4.09 0.75 3.79 0.75 3.14 0.000 * * *

Facilities 3.76 0.62 3.61 0.79 1.68 0.094 ns
Academic 4.03 0.53 3.87 0.58 2.40 0.017 * *
Welfare 3.83 0.89 3.62 0.76 1.95 0.052 *
Feedback 3.85 0.63 3.70 0.73 1.73 0.084 ns
Placement 3.01 0.95 3.36 0.95 22.98 0.003 * *
Org. communication 3.79 0.59 3.69 0.65 1.35 0.178 ns
Table VI.
Notes: * Significant at p , 0:05; * * significant at p , 0:01, * * * significant at p , 0:001; ns ¼ not Mean differences by
significant nationality
 QAE
Male (n ¼ 112) Female (n ¼ 151)
20,3 Variable Beta t Sig. Beta t Sig.

Facilities 0.04 0.48 0.64 0.12 1.44 0.15

Academic 0.37 3.77 0.00 * 0.25 3.08 0.00 *
Welfare 0.18 1.83 0.07 0.29 3.63 0.00 *
250 Feedback 20.08 20.77 0.44 0.16 1.60 0.11
Placement 0.06 0.65 0.51 0.01 0.17 0.87
Org. communication 0.26 2.93 0.00 * 0.04 0.50 0.62
R 0.68 0.70
R2 0.46 0.49
R 2D 0.46 0.49
Table VII. Sig. F D 0.000 0.000
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

Multiple regressions by
gender type Note: * Significant at the p , 0:01 level

EU (n ¼ 142) Non-EU (n ¼ 121)

Variable Beta t Sig. Beta t Sig.

Facilities 0.06 0.77 0.44 0.08 0.84 0.41

Academic 0.24 3.01 0.00 * 0.39 3.79 0.00 *
Welfare 0.32 3.76 0.00 * 0.13 1.33 0.19
Feedback 0.09 1.02 0.31 20.06 2 0.48 0.63
Placement 0.01 0.09 0.93 0.17 1.75 0.08
Org. communication 0.15 1.83 0.07 0.16 1.68 0.10
R 0.68 0.67
R2 0.47 0.45
R 2D 0.47 0.45
Table VIII. Sig. F D 0.000 0.000
Multiple regressions by
nationality type Note: * Significant at the p , 0:01 level

Model 1 Model 2
Variable Beta t Sig. Beta t Sig.

1. Gender 2 0.02 20.26 0.8 0.01 0.2 0.84

Nationality 2 0.19 2 3.13 0.00 * * 2 0.1 2 1.97 0.05 *
2. Facilities 0.08 1.3 0.19
Academic 0.3 4.72 0.00 * *
Welfare 0.25 4.05 0.00 * *
Feedback 0.03 0.47 0.64
Placement 0.05 0.89 0.38
Org. communication 0.16 2.6 0.01 * *
R 0.19 0.68
R2 0.04 0.47
R 2D 0.04 0.43
Sig. F D 0.010 0.000
Table IX. Notes: Gender ¼ Female; Nationality ¼ Non-EU; *significant at p , 0.05 level; * *significant
Hierarchical regression p , 0.01 level
 The six dimensions explained 46 per cent (R 2 ¼ 0:46) of the variance in male Hotel/hospitality
satisfaction and 49 per cent (R 2 ¼ 0:49) for females, returning two statistically management
significant factors for both genders. Academic support (Beta ¼ 0:37, t ¼ 3:77,
p ¼ 0:00) and Communication (Beta ¼ 0:26, t ¼ 2:93, p ¼ 0:00) were the main students
predictors of male satisfaction, with the former having the greater influence. For
females, again, Academic support (Beta ¼ 0:25, t ¼ 3:08, p ¼ 0:00) and Welfare
support (Beta ¼ 0:29, t ¼ 3:63, p ¼ 0:00) were the primary predictors, with the latter 251
having the greater impact. While both genders value the importance of a sound
academic support structure, compared to males; females place an equal importance on
the personal/wellbeing services provided at the college.
In terms of nationality, the six factors accounted for 47 per cent (R 2 ¼ 0:47) and
49 per cent (R 2 ¼ 0:49) of EU and Non-EU satisfaction respectively. Academic support
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

(Beta ¼ 0:24, t ¼ 3:01, p ¼ 0:00) and Welfare support (Beta ¼ 0:32, t ¼ 3:76, p ¼ 0:00)
are the dominant factors in predicting EU students’ satisfaction while Academic
support (Beta ¼ 0:39, t ¼ 3:79, p ¼ 0:00) is the singular predictor for Non-EU
students. Though not statistically significant in this study, it could be argued that
Placement support is approaching a point where it becomes a salient factor for Non-EU
students’ satisfaction. Further, Non-EU students are less satisfied with the level of
Feedback they receive.
A final hierarchical regression was run to examine the overall effects of the six
satisfaction dimensions while controlling for gender and nationality (Table IX).
In the first step, demographic variables were entered and explained only 4 per cent
of the variance in student satisfaction (R 2 ¼ 0:04), with gender and nationality having
negative coefficients. Nationality was the main significant predictor (Beta ¼ 20:19,
t ¼ 23:13, p ¼ 0:00). This result supports the findings based on the mean difference
analysis where Non-EU students were significantly less satisfied than their EU peers.
In step two, all six dimensions were block-entered into the regression equation and
explained 47 per cent (R 2 ¼ 0:47) of the variance in student satisfaction, representing a
43 per cent increase in explanatory power over and above the variance explained by
gender and nationality. Furthermore, while these factors had a positive impact on
gender, nationality remained (less) negative and statistically significant
(Beta ¼ 20:10, t ¼ 21:97, p ¼ 0:05). Of the six dimensions, Academic support,
Welfare support and Organisation Communication were the most significant factors.
Figure 1 presents the final model of student satisfaction along with overall variance
values and factor Beta scores.

Conclusions
The collection and use of student feedback relating to educational services offered in
third level is an important quality monitoring practice. Richardson (2005) highlights
the utility of taking a “holistic” institutional perspective to student satisfaction in that
the student’s “total experience” is appraised. As Debnath et al. (2005, p. 141) state
“focussing on student satisfaction enables the institution to adapt to student needs and
also develop a system for continuously monitoring how effectively they meet or exceed
these needs”. A number of key findings emerged from the study.
The overall results confirm that student satisfaction is a multidimensional
construct, composed of a number of interrelated factors. Principal component analysis
revealed a multidimensional; six-factor solution accounting for over 60 per cent in
 QAE
20,3

252
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

Figure 1.
Theoretical model of
hospitality students’
satisfaction

explained variance linked to the student satisfaction concept. This finding

compliments previous studies (for example Wiers-Jensen et al., 2002; Navarro et al.,
2005; Gruber et al., 2010) which emphasised the complexity of the concept. Overall,
students are relatively satisfied with their first year experience in a higher education
environment. The level of satisfaction experienced by students is influenced by the
availability of relevant infrastructural, academic, welfare and communication support
systems. However, Non-EU students appear to be less satisfied in general. This is an
important finding given the importance that the overseas market holds for the college
and could be related to their fee-paying status. This would need to be investigated in
the future in terms of a “value for money” appraisal and other factors not covered in the
present research.
Multiple regression analyses revealed certain commonalities in explanatory power
among the satisfaction dimensions. Across all groups, Academic support is an
important predictor of satisfaction. This result reflects similar findings from previous
research. This is not surprising as the role of faculty interactions with students and the
teaching quality provided contributes to better learning environments and improved
student experiences (Umbach and Wawrzynski, 2005). No significant gender
differences were reported suggesting that gender is not a significant correlate. While
the communication factor is important to the male group, females place more
significance on the emotional/welfare support services offered in the college. EU
students were generally more satisfied with Academic and Welfare support systems
compared to their Non-EU class mates. For non-EU students, only the academic
support dimension was a significant predictor, suggesting that these students place a
 greater importance on receiving and being satisfied with, sufficient academic and Hotel/hospitality
pedagogical support. As Zopiatis and Constanti (2007) assert:
management
. . . the quality of the student-faculty interaction is crucial since it provides the most reliable students
route to exchange information, provide advice, highlight problems and opportunities, and
alleviate students’ worries, all of which can shape management styles and help nurture
realistic industry expectations.
In total, the three factors of Academic, Welfare and Communication were the most
253
important predictors of student satisfaction in first year, accounting for 47 per cent of
the variance in student satisfaction.
An interesting finding relates to the Facilities factor which was a primary
dimension extracted from factor analysis. This was not a significant predictor of
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

satisfaction suggesting that while the provision of basic infrastructural facilities such
as ICT, classrooms and library access are important services that students would
naturally expect to be provided, they seem to attribute greater significance to the less
tangible aspects that contribute to their college experience. This is an area in need of
further investigation but does highlight the important role of intangible student
services such as socio-emotional support offered in the institution. Research suggests
that students who have a sense of belonging and benefit from social engagement are
more likely to be satisfied with their educational experience (Einarson et al., 2005).
Though an underlying factor in student satisfaction, the Placement dimension accrued
the least satisfaction among the students. Furthermore, the Non-EU cohort were
statistically more satisfied with the Placement structure than the EU group. This is
noteworthy given that the combination of classroom and practical training in first year is
supplemented with a period of industry-focused work experience in second year.
Cooperative work placements are an important feature of contemporary hospitality
management programmes and offer realistic exposure to the industry (Waryszak, 1998,
1999). Ultimately, “degree programmes in hospitality management have a role in
preparing students for industry” (Alexander, 2007, p. 215). If the pre-placement induction
and support programme offered by the institution is an issue for students during their first
year, this may have a bearing on their co-op performance and overall college experience
going forward. Recent evidence suggests that many students who join hospitality type
programmes do not have realistic perceptions as to the nature, environment and work
demands associated with the industry (O’Driscoll, 2005; Sloane, 2006; Zopiatis and
Constanti, 2007). For example, Jenkins (2001) conducted an investigation which analysed
the attitudes, perceptions, job expectations and career commitment of hospitality students
at different stages of their studies. The main conclusion from that study was that as
students progressed with their education (inclusive of any work/placement experience),
the percentage of those definitely wishing to seek employment in the industry
post-graduation, falls. He observed that 71 per cent of first year students would definitely
be looking for a job in the industry, where only 45 per cent and 13 per cent of second and
third years respectively would do the same (Jenkins, 2001).
Given the professional orientation of the degree programme, sufficient
pre-placement support from the institution combined with realistic expectations of
the industry and placement hotel would help mitigate any doubts students would have
(Connolly and McGing, 2006; Sloane, 2006; Zopiatis et al., 2007). In fact, research
conducted in the Shannon College of Hotel Management highlighted the potential of
making direct links with secondary schools around the country in an effort not only to
 QAE promote the institution, but to educate the students regarding the profile of and
20,3 employment opportunities in the industry (Sloane, 2006). As a result, the management
at the College developed the “Schools Liaison Officer” role as a response.
Additionally, that Non-EU students are more satisfied with the placement system
compared to their EU peers suggests the need for further investigation. This finding
highlights the need to account for cultural variances regarding third level service
254 satisfaction experiences (Arambewela et al., 2009). Finally, while the six dimensions
contributed nearly 50 per cent to student satisfaction, the remaining (unexplained)
variance is absent from the analysis. This in itself is an important result which entreats
the question, what is missing from the analysis?
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

Further research
This study demonstrated the institutional benefit of collecting and evaluating student
feedback about their perceptions of service quality and has uncovered issues that
heretofore lacked finer analysis. Its efficacy as a service evaluation template going
forward is recognised. Further, it should be acknowledged that students are
co-producers of educational experiences as well as educational services (Kotzé and du
Plessis, 2003) and their feedback facilitates the aspiration of providing a satisfactory
educational environment. The quantitative approach followed in this paper reveals
certain fundamental factors important to the student body, but fails to account for
other elements that may be of salience to students. Research employing qualitative
methods in support of quantitative findings would better explicate the underlying
experiences of students during their first year by adding greater depth to important
satisfaction dimensions not evident in this study. Research focusing on cultural
differences and specifically the perceptions towards the college placement system and
the responsibility of the institution is warranted.
Another direction which would be fruitful is in the area of “psychological contract”
development among students. A psychological contract is “an individual’s beliefs
regarding the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement between that
focal person and another party” (Rousseau, 1989, p. 123). The contract is a subjectively
orientated belief based on an implicit promise that some future benefit will be conferred
and reciprocated between the two focal agents (Robinson and Rousseau, 1994). Taking
the student-college relationship as the level of analysis, it would be quite interesting to
explore the nature and process of psychological contract development in this context.
Previous research has suggested that prior to entering third level; students may
already have a developed sense of expectations regarding the academic institution and
the type of education they expect to receive (Zwaal and Otting, 2007). But what
happens after the students arrive? What and how do their interactions with the college
affect their psychological contract and ultimately their level of satisfaction?
Collecting, evaluating and responding to students’ feedback contribute to vital
institutional knowledge about educational service provision. Knowing what satisfies
the consumers of education is necessary for twenty-first century learning
environments. More importantly, awareness of the hidden factors not evident in this
study could be construed as those which matter most to students’ satisfaction. From a
hospitality management perspective, understanding the elements constituting the
student-college relationship and their respective expectations, serves as an important
foundation on which to deliver a stimulating and career-focused learning experience.
 References Hotel/hospitality
Aldridge, S. and Rowley, J. (1998), “Measuring customer satisfaction in higher education”, management
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 197-204.
students
Alexander, M. (2007), “Reflecting on changes in operational training in UK hospitality
management degree programmes”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 211-20.
Aracil, A.G. (2009), “European graduates’ level of satisfaction with higher education”, Higher 255
Education, Vol. 57, pp. 1-21.
Arambewela, R. and Hall, J. (2009), “An empirical model of international student satisfaction”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 555-69.
Athiyaman, A. (1997), “Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the case of
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

university education”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 528-40.

Becket, N. and Brookes, M. (2006), “Evaluating quality management in university departments”,
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 123-42.
Blumberg, B., Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. (2005), Business Research Methods, McGraw-Hill,
Maidenhead.
Bowden, J. (2011), “Engaging the student as a customer: a relationship marketing approach”,
Marketing Education Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 211-28.
Brookes, M. (2003), “Evaluating the ‘student experience’: an approach to managing and
enhancing quality in higher education”, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism
Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 17-26.
Connolly, P. and McGing, G. (2006), “Graduate education and hospitality management in
Ireland”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 50-9.
Dale, C. and Robinson, N. (2001), “The theming of tourism education: a three-domain approach”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 30-4.
Debnath, R.M., Kumar, S., Shankar, R. and Roy, R.K. (2005), “Students’ satisfaction in
management education: study and insights”, Decision, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 139-55.
Department of Education & Skills (2011), National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030 Report,
Department of Education & Skills, Dublin.
Douglas, J., McClelland, R. and Davies, J. (2008), “The development of a conceptual model of
student satisfaction with their experience in higher education”, Quality Assurance in
Education, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 19-35.
Einarson, M.K. and Matier, M.W. (2005), “Exploring race differences in correlates of seniors’
satisfaction with undergraduate education”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 46 No. 6,
pp. 641-76.
Elliott, K.M. and Healy, M.A. (2001), “Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to
recruitment and retention”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 1-11.
Elliott, K.M. and Shin, D. (2002), “Student satisfaction: an alternative approach to assessing this
important concept”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 197-209.
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (2005), Standards and
Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area, European
Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), Helsinki.
 QAE Fabgrigar, L.R., Wenger, D.T., MacCallum, R.C. and Strahan, E.S. (1999), “Evaluating the use of
exploratory factor analyses in psychological research”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 4 No. 3,
20,3 pp. 272-99.
Finney, T.G. and Finney, R.Z. (2010), “Are students their universities’ customers? An exploratory
study”, Education þ Training, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 276-91.
Flanagan, J.C. (1954), “The critical incident technique”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 51 No. 4,
256 pp. 327-58.
Gallifa, J. and Batallé, P. (2010), “Student perceptions of service quality in a multi-campus higher
education system in Spain”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 156-70.
Giese, J.L. and Cote, A. (2000), “Defining customer satisfaction”, Academy of Science Review, No. 1,
pp. 1-34.
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

Gruber, T., Fub, S., Voss, R. and Glasser-Zikuda, M. (2010), “Examining student satisfaction with
higher education services: using a new measurement tool”, International Journal of Public
Sector Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 105-23.
Hair, F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data
Analysis, 6th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harvey, L. (2003), “Student feedback”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 3-20.
HEA (2004), Higher Education Authority Strategy Statement 2004-2007, report, Higher
Education Authority, Dublin.
HEA (2005), Review of Quality Assurance Procedures in Irish Universities, Higher Education
Authority, Dublin.
Hill, Y., Lomas, L. and MacGregor, J. (2003), “Students’ perceptions of quality in higher
education”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 15-20.
Jenkins, A.K. (2001), “Making a career of it? Hospitality students’ future perspectives:
an Anglo-Dutch study”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 13-20.
Kay, T., Bickel, R. and Birtwistle, T. (2006), “Criticizing the image of student as consumer:
enhancing trends and administrative responses in the US and UK”, Education and Law,
Vol. 18 Nos 2-3, pp. 85-129.
Kline, P. (1994), An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis, Routledge, London.
Kotzé, T.G. and du Plessis, P.F. (2003), “Students as ‘co-producers’ of education: a proposed
model of student socialisation and participation at tertiary institutions”, Quality Assurance
in Education, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 186-201.
Lagrosen, S., Seyyed-Hashemi, R. and Leitner, M. (2004), “Examination of the dimensions of
quality in higher education”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 61-9.
Law, D.C.S. (2010), “Quality assurance in post-secondary education: the student experience”,
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 250-70.
Lecky, J. and Neill, N. (2001), “Quantifying quality: the importance of student feedback”, Quality
in Higher Education, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 19-32.
Lomas, L. (2007), “Are students customers? Perceptions of academic staff”, Quality in Higher
Education, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 31-44.
McCulloch, A. (2009), “The student as co-producer: learning from public administration about the
student-university relationship”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 171-83.
Miles, J. and Shevlin, M. (2006), Applying Regression and Correlation: A Guide for Students and
Researchers, Sage Publications, London.
 Morrison, A. and O’Mahony, G.B. (2003), “The liberation of hospitality management education”, Hotel/hospitality
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. Vol., Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 38-44. management
Navarro, M., Inglesias, M.P. and Tores, P.R. (2005), “A new management element for universities: students
satisfaction with offered courses”, International Journal of Educational Management,
Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 505-26.
Nolan, C., Conway, E., Farrell, T. and Monks, K. (2010), “Competency needs in Irish hotels: 257
employer and graduate perspectives”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 34
No. 5, pp. 432-54.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed, McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

O’Connor, N. (2001), Hospitality Management Education in Ireland: A Study of Curricula in

Hospitality Management at Undergraduate Degree Level in Ireland, Tourism Research
Centre, Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin.
O’Driscoll, F. (2005), “A survey of hotel management students’ perceptions toward the hotel and
hospitality industry”, paper presented at the Tourism and Hospitality in Ireland Research
Conference, University of Ulster, Portrush, Belfast, 14-15 June.
O’Neill, M. and Palmer, A. (2004), “Importance-performance analysis: a useful tool for directing
continuous improvement in higher education”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 39-52.
Oldfield, B.M. and Baron, S. (2000), “Student perceptions of service quality in a UK university
business and management faculty”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 85-95.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 33-44.
Richardson, J.T.E. (2005), “Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of the
literature”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 387-415.
Robinson, S.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994), “Violating the psychological contract: not the
exception but the norm”, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 15, pp. 245-59.
Rousseau, D.M. (1989), “Psychological and implied contracts in organisations”, Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 121-39.
Rowley, J. (2003), “Designing student feedback questionnaires”, Quality Assurance in Education,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 142-9.
Salkind, N.J. (2003), Exploring Research, 5th ed., Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Schwartzman, R. (1995), “Are students customers? The metaphoric mismatch between
management and education”, Education, Vol. 116 No. 2, pp. 215-22.
Sloane, S. (2006), “The contribution of work placement to the Shannon graduate”, MSc thesis,
Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin.
Soutar, G. and McNeil, M. (1996), “Measuring service quality in a tertiary institution”, Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 72-82.
Thomas, E.H. and Galambos, N. (2004), “What satisfies students? Mining student-opinion data
with regression and decision tree analysis”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 45 No. 3,
pp. 251-69.
Tsinidou, M., Gerogiannis, V. and Fitsilis, P. (2010), “Evaluation of the factors that determine
quality in higher education: an empirical study”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 227-44.
Umbach, P.D. and Wawrzynski, M.R. (2005), “Faculty do matter: the role of college faculty in
student learning and engagement”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 153-84.
 QAE Waryszak, R.Z. (1998), “Before, during and after: international perspective of students’
perceptions of their cooperative education placements in tourism”, Journal of Cooperative
20,3 Education, Vol. 35 Nos 2/3, pp. 84-94.
Waryszak, R.Z. (1999), “Students’ expectations from their cooperative education placements in
the hospitality industry: an international perspective”, Education þ Training, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 33-40.
258 Wiers-Jensen, J., Stensaker, B. and Grogaard, J.B. (2002), “Student satisfaction: towards an
empirical deconstruction of the concept”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 183-95.
Zineldin, M., Akdag, H.C. and Vasicheva, V. (2011), “Assessing quality in higher education: new
criteria for evaluating students’ satisfaction”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 231-43.
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

Zopiatis, A. and Constanti, P. (2007), “And never the twain shall meet: investigating the
hospitality industry-education relationship in Cyprus”, Education þ Training, Vol. 49
No. 5, pp. 391-407.
Zwaal, W. and Otting, H. (2007), “Hospitality management students’ conceptions of education”,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 256-68.

Further reading
Diamantis, G.V. and Benos, V.K. (2007), “Measuring student satisfaction with their studies in an
international and European studies department”, Operational Research: An International
Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 47-59.
Garcı́a-Aracail, A. (2009), “European graduates’ level of satisfaction with higher education”,
Higher Education, Vol. 57, pp. 1-21.
Kane, D., Williams, J. and Cappuccini-Ansfield, G. (2008), “Student satisfaction surveys: the value
in taking an historical perspective”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 135-55.

About the author

Finian O’Driscoll is a Lecturer in Economics and Management at the Shannon College of Hotel
Management, Republic of Ireland. Finian O’Driscoll can be contacted at:
finianodriscoll@shannoncollege.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Eman A. Mahmoud. 2018. Is Private Higher Education on the Right Path? The Case of Hotel Studies
Education in Egypt. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education 30:1, 19-35. [Crossref]
2. Joanna Poon. 2017. Examining graduate built environment student satisfaction in the UK. What matters
the most?. International Journal of Construction Education and Research 2, 1-19. [Crossref]
3. Anoop Patiar, Emily Ma, Sandra Kensbock, Russell Cox. 2017. Students' perceptions of quality and
satisfaction with virtual field trips of hotels. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 31, 134-141.
[Crossref]
4. Dale Thompson, Jill Poulston, Lindsay Neill. 2017. How satisfying is real work? An analysis of student
feedback on applied learning in a hospitality degree. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism
Education 20, 110-121. [Crossref]
Downloaded by National University of Ireland Galway At 03:10 27 June 2018 (PT)

5. Heather Lea Harvey, Sanjai Parahoo, Mohammad Santally. 2017. Should Gender Differences be
Considered When Assessing Student Satisfaction in the Online Learning Environment for Millennials?.
Higher Education Quarterly 71:2, 141-158. [Crossref]
6. Fernando de Oliveira Santini, Wagner Junior Ladeira, Claudio Hoffmann Sampaio, Gustavo da Silva Costa.
2017. Student satisfaction in higher education: a meta-analytic study. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education 27:1, 1-18. [Crossref]
7. Stephen Carter, Amy Chu-May Yeo. 2016. Students-as-customers’ satisfaction, predictive retention with
marketing implications. International Journal of Educational Management 30:5, 635-652. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
8. Sanjai K Parahoo, Mohammad Issack Santally, Yousra Rajabalee, Heather Lea Harvey. 2016. Designing
a predictive model of student satisfaction in online learning. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education
26:1, 1-19. [Crossref]
9. Joanna Poon. 2015. A study of real estate student satisfaction in Australia. Pacific Rim Property Research
Journal 21:3, 215-233. [Crossref]
10. Joanna Poon, Michael Brownlow. 2015. Real estate student satisfaction in Australia: what matters most?.
Property Management 33:2, 100-132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Mazirah Yusoff, Fraser McLeay, Helen Woodruffe-Burton. 2015. Dimensions driving business student
satisfaction in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education 23:1, 86-104. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
12. Mohamed A. Abou-Shouk, Ayman S. Abdelhakim, Mahmoud M. Hewedi. 2014. Factors Affecting the
Development of Target Competencies Among Final-Year Tourism and Hospitality Students in Egypt.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education 26:4, 178-187. [Crossref]
13. Sanjai K. Parahoo, Heather L. Harvey, Rana M. Tamim. 2013. Factors influencing student satisfaction in
universities in the Gulf region: does gender of students matter?. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education
23:2, 135-154. [Crossref]

View publication stats