Satisfaction-drivers of Students Enrolled in Higher Education in

Bangladesh and Comparisons in the Global Context

Course Title: Research Methods

Course Code: K503

Course Instructor: Dr. Syed Saad Andaleeb

Distinguished Visiting Professor
Institute of Business Administration
University of Dhaka

Submitted by: Depressed Millennials

Fatima Nafsia Taslim [14]

Irfan Ahnaf [29]
G.M. Asif Ahmed [54]
Khaled Atifi [55]
Saad Feroz Mehdi [59]

Batch –MBA 61D

MBA Program, Spring 2020

Institute of Business Administration (IBA), University of Dhaka

May 18, 2020

Acknowledgments
We would like to start by acknowledging that unconditional Praise and Thanks are due only to
the Almighty.

We wish to convey our gratitude to Professor Syed Saad Andaleeb, Ph.D. - Distinguished
Professor Emeritus, Pennsylvania State University, USA. He was our Course Instructor for the
Research Method Course for which this study was conducted. He has instilled in us a passion for
research that has made some of the more “boring” aspects of this study more tolerable. He has
also provided us with an appreciation for brevity and clarity. These were especially important
amidst all the data we were exposed to.

The study would not have been possible without the 373 respondents who took time out of their
schedule to respond to the survey.

Lastly, technological advancements giving rise to platforms such as Zoom, which enabled us to
continue with our classes even during the COVID-19 lockdown, communicate with Sir and store
the information he disseminated, as well as Grammarly, which helped us improve the quality of
our writing made this study possible.

i
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................................... i
Abstract .........................................................................................................................................................................1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................2
Origin of the Report ..................................................................................................................................................2
Research Questions ...................................................................................................................................................2
Scope .........................................................................................................................................................................2
Managerial Relevance ...............................................................................................................................................3
Structure of the Report .............................................................................................................................................3
Theoretical Framework..................................................................................................................................................4
Data Reduction ..........................................................................................................................................................4
Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................................................4
Literature Review ..........................................................................................................................................................6
Definitions of Key-Terms ...........................................................................................................................................6
Increased Focus on Student Satisfaction ..................................................................................................................6
Some Empirical Findings............................................................................................................................................7
Higher Education in Bangladesh................................................................................................................................8
Time for a Shift in Focus ............................................................................................................................................8
The Future Can Be Better ..........................................................................................................................................9
Methodology ...............................................................................................................................................................10
Research Design ......................................................................................................................................................10
Survey Instrument ...................................................................................................................................................10
Sampling ..................................................................................................................................................................12
Data Collection Method ..........................................................................................................................................13
Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................................................................14
Descriptive Statistics ...............................................................................................................................................14
Hypothesis Testing and Correlations.......................................................................................................................16
Regression Model ....................................................................................................................................................19
Comparative Study ......................................................................................................................................................20
Findings ........................................................................................................................................................................23
Managerial Implications ..............................................................................................................................................25
Conclusion and Recommendations .............................................................................................................................26
Limitations ...................................................................................................................................................................27
References ...................................................................................................................................................................28

ii
Abstract
The research primarily focused on the key satisfaction-drivers of students pursuing higher
education in Bangladesh. Whilst a lot of research has been done on this topic globally, not enough
has been done in Bangladesh. The necessity of localized research is further established when we
look into the wide array of tests conducted on this topic and find that the results have not been
uniform across different geographic locations and periods.

Bangladesh is a country where a significant amount of its population is under the age of 25. These
are the people who need to be properly trained so that they possess the necessary skills to take the
country forward in multiple domains.

The results were then compared to those of studies conducted abroad to make for a more holistic
understanding which is all the more important in the increasingly globalized world of today. We
no longer operate in a vacuum and as such, it stands to reason that what happens in one portion of
the globe will have a bearing on what happens in Bangladesh.

An online survey was conducted on students enrolled in higher education in Bangladesh. A lot of
statistical tests were conducted on the results of the survey to unearth the significance of the
responses.

Campus climate, pedagogy of faculties, comprehensive and effective curriculum, sense of

community and involvement, and relevance to the job market are all significant factors that drive
students’ satisfaction in Bangladesh. The most significant of these factors is the sense of
community and involvement, followed by faculty parameters. Students want to feel like they
belong – they want to feel a bond with their peers and their faculties that extend beyond the
mundane mechanical academic obligations. Students enjoy their experience more if the faculties
are well-versed, eloquent, and qualified.

Comparing our results with those from studies conducted elsewhere, we find that Bangladeshi
students have quite a lot in common with their foreign counterparts. It seems that faculty
parameters are universally significant when it comes to shaping up the students’ learning
experience.

1
Introduction
Origin of the Report
The current students are the future leaders of our country. Globally there has been a shift in
teaching styles – teaching is now much more a student-centric approach than it used to. To that
end, a lot of studies have been done worldwide on the key satisfaction-drivers of students pursuing
higher education. Unfortunately, not enough has been done in Bangladesh.

This study looks to unearth how students in Bangladesh perceive their higher-educational
experience and form conclusions based on that. It then goes one step further and compares the
results to those of studies conducted elsewhere to present a more complement understanding of
student satisfaction-drivers.

Research Questions
The objectives of this report stem primarily from these research questions. The big research
question of the study is:

• What are the factors in higher education that drive students’ satisfaction and how can it be
measured??

The specific research questions that follow the big research questions are:

• Which issues/factors should be prioritized while providing students with an improved

learning experience?
• Does satisfaction vary with demographic variables??
• Are the variables associated with students’ satisfaction in western countries (available from
secondary research) aligned with those in Bangladesh?

Scope
The scope of this report is to focus on the satisfaction drivers of university students of Bangladesh
to unearth information and insights into the matter that could potentially aid in a more enjoyable,
as well as a more fruitful, learning experience.

2
Managerial Relevance
The findings of this report are relevant to those involved in academia as it provides an insight into
the minds of the students and what they are looking for with regards to higher education. They are
also relevant to the Government of Bangladesh and in particular the education ministry. The
government will be able to see if there is any misalignment between their expectations and those
of the students and see if there is any way to remedy this by working in tandem with both the
teachers and the students.

The government and those in academia will also be able to compare the satisfaction drivers of
Bangladeshi students and Western students, this will provide a tangible frame of reference based
on which the situation in Bangladesh can be improved upon in the long-run.

Structure of the Report

The report starts by providing some background on the work that follows by delving into research
that has already been done on similar topics, thereby making the reader more aware. It then
provides a list of the hypotheses that have been formed. This is followed by details of how the
study was conducted to test the hypothesis. A detailed analysis of the study follows before its
findings and implications are mentioned. The report ends with recommendations and suggestions
based on the findings of the study.

3
Theoretical Framework
The study of students’ satisfaction is one of complexity and subjectivity. But it is very important
as it helps educators and administrators provide a better environment for learning. In this study,
we tried to highlight the factors that contribute to students’ satisfaction from some preconceived
factors provided by literature.

Data Reduction
Items were generated under seven preconceived factors. After getting response from the
respondents a data reduction technique was implemented to confirm and establish the dimensions
needed to understand satisfaction. The factor structure derived from varimax rotation resulted in
ten constructs which were easy to interpret. Among the preconceived factors (questionnaire
included in the appendix) ‘Academic Program’, ‘Faculty’ and ‘Campus Activity’ resulted in more
than one factor. To assess the validity of the measures, the multiple items measuring each construct
were further factor analyzed. In each case, the items always loaded on one factor only, lending
support to their unidimensionality. A graphical model of this analysis is presented in the
“Appendices”.

The contracts that were developed to describe satisfaction were: safety assurance, tangibles,
monetary cost, faculty pedagogy, faculty mentorship, curriculum design, curriculum efficacy,
campus activity, support facility, and social integration. A single item namely ‘job prospect’ was
also used to measure satisfaction.

Hypotheses
Based on the aforementioned factors, and consistent with the literature on students’ satisfaction,
the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1: If safety is assured, students’ overall satisfaction will increase.

H2: If tangibles are maintained properly, overall satisfaction will increase.

H3: If monetary cost is reduced, students’ overall satisfaction will increase.

H4: There is a positive relationship between comprehensive and well-designed curriculum,

4
and overall satisfaction of students.

H5: There is a positive relationship between the efficacy of curriculum and overall satisfaction
of students.

H6: Overall satisfaction is positively affected by pedagogy of faculties.

H7: Overall satisfaction is positively affected by mentorship of faculties.

H8: More campus activities result in higher overall satisfaction.

H7: Student support facilities positively effects students’ satisfaction.

H9: There is a positive relationship between social integration and overall satisfaction of
students.

H10: There is a relationship between relevance to the job market and the overall satisfaction
of students.

H11: Students’ overall satisfaction levels in public and private universities are equal.

H12: Students’ overall satisfaction levels in male and female students are equal.

H13: There is no difference in terms of overall student satisfaction from bachelor’s and
master’s levels of university education.

H14: All the eleven independent variables will significantly explain the variance in overall
students’ satisfaction.

5
Literature Review
Definitions of Key-Terms
Higher education refers to education provided at the college or university level. It is considered to
be one of the most essential tools for an individual as well as a national development in the social
and economic domains. (Mukhtar, 2015) Higher education can be used interchangeably with
tertiary level education, post-secondary education, or third-level education. (contributors, 2020)

Satisfaction has been defined as a feeling of joy that one experiences when his or her needs or
desires have been fulfilled. (Saif, 2014) More specifically, student satisfaction has been defined as
a short-term attitude that results from said student’s educational experiences. (Elliott, 2001)
Student satisfaction is multivariate function – it is dependent on the relative level of experiences
and perceived performance of the educational service (Mukhtar, 2015), during the period of study.
(Carey, 2002)

Increased Focus on Student Satisfaction

Due to increased globalization, universities face extreme competition to differentiate their service
offerings such that they stand out from their rivals from all over the world. To that end, a lot of
studies have been done on the satisfaction of education as perceived by students globally. (IM
Salinda Weerasinghe, 2017) Unfortunately, not enough study has been done with the primary focus
being on Bangladeshi institutions and Bangladeshi students.

Multiple scholars over the decades have exerted a lot of effort in an attempt to satisfy students
enrolled in higher education by considering various components of satisfaction using numerous
frameworks and models. During the initial days, the researchers used industry satisfaction models.
These were of course later fine-tuned to be specific to higher education. These models have been
created using different dimensions to measure students’ satisfaction. They were used on students
across many different geographic locations and periods - the ensuing results weren’t monolithic.
(IM Salinda Weerasinghe, 2017) This farther demonstrates the importance of studying student
satisfaction in higher education specific to Bangladesh in 2020 since the evidence suggests that
students at different places and different periods have been not exhibited uniform responses to

6
specific stimuli. So, it would be foolish to apply the findings in different countries to Bangladesh
without having done some research first to appreciate the differences.

Some Empirical Findings

A study done by Garcl a-Aracil in 11 European countries concluded that student satisfaction
throughout Europe is stable even though the education systems are far from uniform. The study
also established that contact with fellow students, course material, learning material, teaching
quality, etc. have an impact on a student’s satisfaction. (Garcl a-Aracil, 2009)

Closer to home in the UAE, researchers concluded that the quality of lecturers, quality, and
availability of resources as well as the effective use of technology serve as students’ satisfaction
drivers. (Wilkins, 2013)

Another study found that although the physical facilities of a university are not significant drivers
of students’ satisfaction. However, they factor as points of considerations whilst students are
choosing universities. (Douglas, 2006)

A study on Palestinian developing universities found that academic programs have a large enough
bearing on students’ satisfaction. (Kanan, 2006)

Perhaps one of the closest studies to home was conducted on the students of Hailey College of
Commerce, Pakistan. This study looked to evaluate the impact of service quality on students’
satisfaction. The conclusion was that, except for tangibility, dimensions of service quality
significantly impact students’ satisfaction. (Khan, 2011)

A lot of these studies were carried quite a while back, yet similar studies have not been carried out
in Bangladesh at a high enough frequency to establish concrete findings that the education ministry
can work with an attempt to improve the academic experience of a higher-education pursuant. Our
report looks to slightly remedy that.

7
Higher Education in Bangladesh
There has been a monumental growth in the number of students pursuing higher education in
Bangladesh. In 1972, there were only 31,000 enrolled in tertiary education in Bangladesh. Contrast
that to the 3.2 million students pursuing higher education in Bangladesh in 2017 – in 45 years the
number has increased by more than 100 times! (Mannan, 2017)

According to the UN, nearly half the population of Bangladesh lies below the age of 24. These are
the individuals that can help turn the fortunes of the country if properly nurtured through quality
higher education. (Mannan, 2017)

Time for a Shift in Focus

A lot of focus has been put on the experience as perceived by students, as opposed to the same by
the teachers. This is because today’s andragogy emphasizes a learner-centric academic model, as
opposed to the teacher-centric model that was so prevalent for so long. (Andaleeb, 2019)

In Bangladesh, a lot of academic practices nationwide have been antiquated as so many of the
schools in the country choose to dwell on yesterday’s methods whilst the world is moving forward.
As such, it is very difficult to stick to the vision of The Strategic Plan for Higher Education in
Bangladesh. On page 10, it states that they envision higher education graduates to be “crucial,
conceptual, and reflective thinkers” who possessive advanced technical competence, effective
communication, management, and problem-solving skills and are committed to the pursuit of
excellence. (Andaleeb, 2019) In short, the goal is to process the youth of immense potential into
leaders who take the country forward into hitherto unchartered territory while performing and
leading by example.

To that end, the changes can hardly take place overnight. Shifting the focus to the students’
satisfaction drivers (as opposed to the teacher’s, for example) will pave the way for the
Government of Bangladesh to work in tandem with tangible goals to pursue. These goals will
become clearer when sufficient research is done in this field. The government can then work in
tandem with those involved in academia to gradually create an academic model that attracts
students, empowers them with knowledge and skills, as opposed to just certificates, and prevent
brain drain in this increasingly globalized market.

8
The Future Can Be Better
The economy of Bangladesh grew by 8.15% in the fiscal year 2018-19. This is a record. During
the same period, the per capita income reached USD 1,909. (BSS, 2019) The economy of this
country, contrary to expectations upon Liberation in 1971, has been growing significantly for quite
a long time. But to sustain this growth for years to come, a long-term strategy must be formed with
the youth of today (and the leaders of tomorrow in mind). As has already been stated, nearly half
of Bangladesh’s large population is under the age of 24. Unearthing the huge potential in the
nation’s human capital should be the focus of the current leaders of the country. But Bangladesh
has to find its specific answers, it can no longer rely solely on the hard work of others before it.
As the education sector of Bangladesh improves, so shall Bangladesh. (Andaleeb, 2020)

9
Methodology
Research Design
The study is confirmatory research wherein hypotheses were tested based on the information
collected. The study can also be described as correlational research as we looked to establish links
between students’ satisfaction and other variables at play. Perhaps most tellingly, this is
exploratory research - we explored how students’ satisfaction with regards to higher-educational
experience can be measured in Bangladesh in the presence (or absence to varying degrees) many
different metrics based on the correlations we formed coupled with information gathered from
secondary sources.

Survey Instrument
Questionnaire Design

A structured questionnaire comprising mostly closed-ended questions with a few open-ended ones
was used for the survey, which was based on secondary research and extensive brainstorming. The
factors that emerged as most important were quite consistent with the theoretical framework laid
by existing research on the topic.

The items were measured on 7-point Likert scales with strongly agree reflecting the highest
favorable response and strongly disagree indicating the least favorable response. Additional
questions were asked on students’ employment prospect, switching intention, receiving financial
aid, academic experience, quality of institution, and effect of COVID-19 on academia.
Demographic variables such as gender, education level, student status, location, CGPA, university
category, and major pursued students were tapped by direct single questions to profile the
respondents and for partitioning the data. The final questionnaire was pretested on several
randomly selected respondents from the MBA class. The questionnaire was deemed to be concise,
well-structured and unambiguous.

Variables and Measures

Overall satisfaction: The dependent variable indicated the extent to which individuals feel content
about their respective institutions during their time of study. Five items were developed to measure

10
this variable, a sample item being: “I would recommend my academic institution to others.” The
measure had convergent and discriminant validity, and Cronbach’s alpha for the five items for this
sample was 0.89.

Safety assurance: The independent item was measured using a three-item measure, a sample item
being: “My institution cares about the safety of its students.” Cronbach’s alpha for the measure for
this sample was 0.79.

Tangibles: This was tapped by four item which asked respondents about various aspect of tangible
appearance of their institution. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.71 for this sample.

Monetary cost: A five-item measure was used to find out the perception of students about the
monetary cost they bear for their education. Cronbach’s alpha for the five items for this sample
was 0.78.

Curriculum design: The independent item was measured using a ten-item measure, sample items
being: “The goals of my academic program are clearly stated.”, “Analysis and problem-solving is
quite common in the program” etc. Cronbach’s alpha was found to be 0.92 for the measure for this
sample.

Curriculum efficacy: This independent variable was used to measure the extent to which
curriculum are implemented as perceived by the students using four items. An example item is
“Courses in the program require memorization.” Cronbach’s alpha for the measure for this sample
was 0.78.

Faculty pedagogy: This independent variable indicates the method and practice of teaching and
the competence of the teachers. Eight items were developed to measure this variable, a sample
item being: “Faculty members are generally well-prepared for their classes” and the Cronbach’s
alpha was 0.90 for this sample.

Faculty mentorship: This variable measures the influence that a faculty plays to inspire and
motivate the students. A four-item scale was developed and the Cronbach’s alpha was found to be
0.81 which is pretty reliable.

11
Campus activities: This factor measures student’ engagement in cocurricular and extracurricular
activities. Four-item scale rendered a Cronbach’s alpha of .70 for the sample. An example item is:
“There aren’t enough extracurricular activities; we mostly attend classes and study.”

Support facilities: This was tapped by using two items which asked respondents to indicate their
reception of career counseling and training for employment. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.76 for
the sample.

Social integration: Being from a nation which highly values camaraderie, this variable measures
the important factor: the relationship students share with the stakeholders of the institution. Four
items were used to tap the variable an example item being: “Students here have a strong sense of
community.” The measure resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.81 for the sample.

i This independent variable measures the perception of competitiveness among students using a
direct question.

Sampling
The population of the study comprises all he currently enrolled students in different universities
all around Bangladesh. Among them 373 respondents form our sample. Snowball sampling was
used to reach them. A mixture probability and convenience sampling methods were pursued where
the research participants circulated the questionnaire among their peers to get responses. The
lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic greatly inhibited the participants’ ability to pursue a
more random sampling approach.

Descriptive statistics of respondents: Of the 373 respondents, 256 identified as males (amounting
to 68.6%), and 111 identified as females (amounting to 29.8%). An overwhelming majority of
respondents (274) identified as public university students, while only 79 identified as private
university students. 64.3% of the students identified as those pursuing a Bachelor’s degree while
approximately 28% of respondents claimed to be pursuing a Master’s degree. A large proportion
of the students are in the 20-25 age group.

Based on these descriptive statistics one can assume that the average respondent is a male
Bachelor’s student nearing the age of 25.

12
Data Collection Method
Method: Primary information was collected via the circulation of the questionnaire (attached in
the “Appendices” section of this report). The questionnaire was circulated online among
Bangladeshi university students. There were 373 responses and these were then stored as an SPSS
Data Document and tests were conducted on these responses via the SPSS software.

Secondary information was collected from multiple sources online. A significant portion of this
report deals with secondary information, as one of the research questions, and hence one of the
specific objectives, that this report deals with is a comparison between the satisfaction drivers of
students in Bangladesh vis-à-vis the same of the students in Western Countries.

Likewise, information on Bangladeshi students was necessary to understand what the country’s
end goal is with the leaders of the future. This makes it easier to understand the rationale behind
the academic curricula available to the students.

Secondary research done is expanded upon in the chapter titled Literature Review. Apart from
these, the References at the end of the report serve as a list of all the cited sources of information
used in this report.

13
Data Analysis
Descriptive Statistics
After determining the reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) for the measures for this sample, frequency
distributions for the demographic variables were obtained. These maybe seen in Table 01-04.

Table 01: University Type

Frequency Percent Table 02: Education Level
Valid Public 274 73.5 Frequency Percent
Private 79 21.2 Valid Bachelor 256 68.6
Internationa 1 .3 Masters and 106 28.4
l above
Total 354 94.9 Not answered 11 2.9
Missing System 19 5.1 Total 373 100.0
Total 373 100.0

Table 03: Gender Frequency Percent

Valid 6 1.6
Female 111 29.8
Male 256 68.6
Total 373 100.0

Table 04: Age

Frequency Percent
Valid 18-22 141 37.8
23-26 176 47.2
27-30 35 9.4
32-45 5 1.3
Unanswered 1 .3
Total 358 96.0
Missing System 15 4.0
Total 373 100.0

14
For the composite variables derived from factor analysis, means and standard deviations of
dependent and independent variables are presented in Table 05. The mean for satisfaction for the
full sample was 4.54 on a 7- point scale, which reflects a weak positive evaluation. Similarly, the
mean scores for the metrics reflect neutrally (about 4 on a 7-point scale) on satisfaction. However,
‘safety assurance’ and ‘social integration’ fared better compared to the rest having mean scores of
5.36 and 5.16. ‘Curriculum efficacy’ (2.92), ‘support facilities’ (3.52), ‘campus activities’ (3.53),
and ‘job prospect’ (3.92) performed poorly in particular. These findings were not particularly
surprising as everyone knows the complaints of students regarding the education services in
Bangladesh. However, they establish a benchmark against which future services could be
compared. From the data it can be clearly inferred that the respondents are substantially satisfied
with any of the satisfaction dimensions.

Table 05: Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
JobProspect 369 1.00 7.00 3.4932 1.45623
SafetyAssurance 369 1.00 7.00 5.3622 1.34738
Tangibles 369 1.00 7.00 4.8871 1.29540
MonetaryCost 369 1.00 7.00 4.0052 1.33257
CurriculumDesign 368 1.00 7.00 4.5217 1.36120
CurriculumEfficacy 366 1.00 7.00 2.9265 1.33597
FacultyPedagogy 362 1.00 7.00 4.7494 1.34709
FacultyMentorship 362 1.00 7.00 4.2514 1.44806
CampusActivities 359 1.00 7.00 3.5323 1.30924
SupportFacilities 359 1.00 7.00 3.5223 1.69729
SocialIntegration 351 1.00 7.00 5.1567 1.27266
OverallSatisfaction 356 1.00 7.00 4.5402 1.63622
Valid N (listwise) 350

15
Hypothesis Testing and Correlations
A Pearson correlation matrix was obtained for the twelve independent and dependent variables.
This may be seen in Table 06. It is to be noted that no correlation exceeded 0.7 except the one of
‘faculty pedagogy’ with ‘curriculum design.’

Each hypothesis was tested. The correlation matrix provided the answer to the first eleven
hypotheses. All of them hypnotized that the independent variable has a positive correlation with
the dependent variable namely ‘overall satisfaction’, except the one with ‘monetary cost’ which is
believed to hold a negative correlation. Interestingly, all the hypotheses mentioned were proven
and was significant at the 0.01 level (p < 0.01) except the one that stated if monetary cost is
reduced, the overall satisfaction will go up. Although negative correlation of -0.38 was observed,
the p value obtained for this hypothesis was 0.47 which indicated it was not statistically significant.
‘Curriculum design’ and ‘faculty pedagogy’ were observed to have the strongest correlation with
the value of 0.64. ‘Safety assurance’ and ‘campus activities’ showed weak correlations of 0.38 and
0.31 respectively. The other six independent variables – ‘tangibles’, ‘curriculum efficacy’, ‘faculty
mentorship’, ‘support facilities’, ‘social integration’, and ‘job prospect’ - showed moderate
positive correlation.

To test the hypotheses among demographic groups independent sample several t-tests were
performed. It was hypothesized that students’ satisfaction level is uniform between public and
private university students. However, the null hypothesis was rejected assuming unequal variances
and 95% confidence level (F test: p=0.001; t test: p=0.049). It was observed with statistical
significance that private university students are more satisfied with their institution compared to
their public counterparts.

Then, the hypothesis that stated male and female students experience the same level of satisfaction
was tested. The null hypothesis could not be rejected assuming equal variances and 95%
confidence level (F test: p=0.001; t test: p=0.552). So, there was no statistically significant
difference between the overall satisfaction between male and female students.

Another hypothesis based on demography stated that same level of satisfaction is experienced by
students pursuing bachelors and graduates pursuing higher degrees. The null hypothesis was
rejected assuming equal variances and 95% confidence level (F test: p=0.515; t test: p=0.000). It

16
can be concluded that graduates pursuing higher degrees are statistically significantly more
satisfied than those pursuing bachelors. It might be counterintuitive given the infrastructure of post
graduate programs in the country. But it can be rationalized as graduates are more sensible and
accustomed to the reality, the expect less from the institutions to begin with.

Table 06: Pearson Correlation Matrix

OverallS Curriculu

atisfactio JobPros SafetyAs Tangi Monetary FacultyP FacultyM Curriculu mEfficac Campus SupportF SocialInt

n pect surance bles Cost edagogy entorship mDesign y Activities acilities egration

OverallSati Pearson 1 .550** .382** .410** -.038 .642** .565** .637** .505** .313** .512** .552**

sfaction Correlation

Sig. (2- .000 .000 .000 .475 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

tailed)

N 356 356 356 356 356 354 354 356 356 355 355 351

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
JobProspec Pearson .550 1 .335 .320 -.029 .484 .482 .498 .483 .230 .445 .389**

t Correlation

Sig. (2- .000 .000 .000 .575 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

tailed)

N 356 369 369 369 369 362 362 368 366 359 359 351

** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
SafetyAssu Pearson .382 .335 1 .528 .089 .558 .449 .520 .323 .080 .374 .295**

rance Correlation

Sig. (2- .000 .000 .000 .088 .000 .000 .000 .000 .131 .000 .000

tailed)

N 356 369 369 369 369 362 362 368 366 359 359 351

Tangibles Pearson .410** .320** .528** 1 -.076 .439** .376** .447** .351** .245** .309** .174**

Correlation

Sig. (2- .000 .000 .000 .147 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001

tailed)

N 356 369 369 369 369 362 362 368 366 359 359 351

MonetaryC Pearson -.038 -.029 .089 -.076 1 .120* .035 .153** -.017 -.017 .120* -.029

ost Correlation

Sig. (2- .475 .575 .088 .147 .022 .504 .003 .745 .743 .023 .593

tailed)

N 356 369 369 369 369 362 362 368 366 359 359 351

** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** **
FacultyPed Pearson .642 .484 .558 .439 .120 1 .686 .785 .536 .288 .625 .520**

agogy Correlation

Sig. (2- .000 .000 .000 .000 .022 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

tailed)

17
 N 354 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 357 357 350

FacultyMe Pearson .565** .482** .449** .376** .035 .686** 1 .606** .637** .312** .468** .412**

ntorship Correlation

Sig. (2- .000 .000 .000 .000 .504 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

tailed)

N 354 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 357 357 350

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
Curriculum Pearson .637 .498 .520 .447 .153 .785 .606 1 .533 .273 .684 .500**

Design Correlation

Sig. (2- .000 .000 .000 .000 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

tailed)

N 356 368 368 368 368 362 362 368 366 359 359 351

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
Curriculum Pearson .505 .483 .323 .351 -.017 .536 .637 .533 1 .298 .517 .290**

Efficacy Correlation

Sig. (2- .000 .000 .000 .000 .745 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

tailed)

N 356 366 366 366 366 362 362 366 366 359 359 351

CampusAct Pearson .313** .230** .080 .245** -.017 .288** .312** .273** .298** 1 .295** .205**

ivities Correlation

Sig. (2- .000 .000 .131 .000 .743 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

tailed)

N 355 359 359 359 359 357 357 359 359 359 359 351

SupportFac Pearson .512** .445** .374** .309** .120* .625** .468** .684** .517** .295** 1 .430**

ilities Correlation

Sig. (2- .000 .000 .000 .000 .023 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

tailed)

N 355 359 359 359 359 357 357 359 359 359 359 351

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
SocialInteg Pearson .552 .389 .295 .174 -.029 .520 .412 .500 .290 .205 .430 1

ration Correlation

Sig. (2- .000 .000 .000 .001 .593 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

tailed)

N 351 351 351 351 351 350 350 351 351 351 351 351

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

18
Regression Model
To test the final hypothesis that all eleven independent variables will significantly explain the
variance in students’ satisfaction, the eleven independent variables were systematically regressed
against the dependent variable. However, this hypothesis is not substantiated as few of the
independent variable in the initial model was found to be statistically insignificant. Finally, a
model was developed with six from the eleven independent variables. The results, which are shown
in Table 07, indicate that the model is a good fit (F=76.20). The adjusted R2 value of 0.564 at a
significance level of p<0.001, with df (6), confirms that 56.6% of the variance in students’
satisfaction is significantly explained by the seven independent variables. None of the factors had
a VIF value greater than 5, which indicates multicollinearity was not observed. The greatest beta
value (0.321) was obtained from ‘social integration’ construct, which implies for a unit change in
social integration 32% change in satisfaction is expected. For an exploratory study of this nature,
especially considering that the scales were previously untested in the country, the results are very
satisfying.

Table 07: Regression Results

Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) -.895 .301 -2.97 .003
JobProspect .180 .047 .173 3.870 .000 .624 1.603
Tangibles .134 .051 .107 2.633 .009 .753 1.328
FacultyPedagogy .237 .075 .195 3.150 .002 .325 3.080
CurriculumDesign .182 .075 .152 2.437 .015 .323 3.096
CurriculumEfficacy .165 .056 .134 2.953 .003 .610 1.640
SocialIntegration .321 .055 .249 5.824 .000 .682 1.466
Note. F = 76.20 = 152.09, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .564

19
Comparative Study
On one side, the need for continuous research on and development in the educational sector is
instigated through globalization and student mobility, and therefore the importance of quality
development and considering the feedback for taking further corrective measures is growing. On
the other side, research findings on student satisfaction can differ significantly in terms of the most
important drivers of student satisfaction such as environment, quality of academics, faculties,
tangibles, or even the location of the university concerning different settings, cultures, demography
or perceptive attitude. Despite there have been hundreds of research works conducted and many
more to be conducted around the world by different researchers on quality of educational institutes
and student satisfaction, these researches were done on different samples which belong to different
community, country, race, culture, different education system or exist under different strategic
management.

Several models of student satisfaction were constructed to define the overall satisfaction in terms
of different variables and we could find congruence with recent studies. According to a study on
student satisfaction in Armenia, Martirosyan stated that academic experience, faculty services,
campus life & social integration, student support facilities, and demographics are the five main
conceptual ideas to define the one multivariate function- student satisfaction. Through our data
analysis, it was imminent that faculty pedagogy (factor F1), curriculum design (factor AP1), and
social integration (factor U1) significantly affect student satisfaction. The relevance was also found
where the public university students and the private university students showed different levels of
satisfaction. (Martirosyan, 2015)

Interpreting our data, it was found that private university students are significantly more satisfied
than public university students which are corroborated by the study Martirosyan did. According to
the final model predicting the satisfaction dimensions constructed by Martirosyan, faculty services
play a crucial role in overall student satisfaction. The variables that are equally important in both
the Armenian and Bangladeshi contexts for defining satisfaction are- fair treatment by the faculty,
knowledgeable faculty, and faculty teaching style. The teaching style of the faculty can be defined
by parameters such as good communication skills, making the class enjoyable, being well-
prepared, being helpful, inspiring, up-to-date, and friendly, overall meeting individual needs. The
more knowledgeable the faculty, the more the satisfaction level. Again, the more the faculty is

20
communicative and fair, the more the students are satisfied with the service. Another most
important factor is a reasonable and well defined academic program that was observed through
variables such as clarity in the learning outcomes, alignment with job prospects, and clearly
defined goals of the program. (Martirosyan, 2015)

“According to Kuh et al. (2005), relationships between students and the teaching staff are
important towards student success at the educational institutions. They further state that
approachability and accessibility of the teaching staff inside and outside the class are required for
effective student learning to take place.” (Mazirah Yusoff, 2015) Ensuring quality and
effectiveness has been the most crucial concept lately. A comparative study was done to observe
the satisfaction level among the students of Malaysia. Out of 53 variables, 12 factors were
extracted that had high factor loading. If we compare our study with the preconceived idea, that
friendly relationship between teacher and student makes the faculties approachable and accessible
for the students and gives them a feeling of comfort, unity, and satisfaction, it has a strong
implication in the context of Bangladesh. We can state that the sense of community and
involvement (factor U1) significantly increases the satisfaction among students. Some other
parameters found in the context of Malaysia that is also relevant to our study: fairness of the
faculty, classroom environment or campus climate, knowledgeable faculty, promptness of
feedback, course workload, the difficulty of subject content and learning experience. (Mazirah
Yusoff, 2015)

Empirical research findings emphasize faculty parameters, academic program parameters,

environment, job prospects, and sense of community and involvement the most to ensure quality
and efficiency. As an effect of globalization customer retention has become a challenge and
students are customers for the educational institutes, who expect the institute to satisfy their
individual needs. If the perceived performance doesn’t match the expectation, student satisfaction
goes down. According to the study, “Key Factors Influencing Student Satisfaction Related to
Recruitment and Retention”, campus climate, campus service, and student-centeredness are few
of the significant factors of student satisfaction which are aligned to our study. (Kevin M. Elliott,
2001)

As we move towards the western education system, the determinants of student satisfaction differ
greatly from our context. Among the various constructs, teaching quality, course content, student-

21
teacher relation, peer to peer relationships, and provision of work placement are the most common
factors that are significant for Bangladesh perspective as well as the western environment. Adela
Garcia-Aracil’s study report says that factors that are responsible for higher satisfaction level
among European graduates are- academic advice offered in general, assistance for your final
examination, course content, variety of courses offered, design of the program, grading systems,
opportunity to choose courses and so on. (Garcia-Aracil, 2008)

“According to Seymour (1993), developing many happy satisfied customers, whether they are
students, parents of students, alumni, or company and government employers, should be a primary
goal of higher education. Thus, focusing on enhancing customer satisfaction at colleges and
universities is crucial in developing customer value.” (Oscar W. DeShields Jr, 2006)

Some of the researchers have considered SERVQUAL as a measurement instrument for

interpreting the service quality and perceived value of any educational service. The constructs were
measured to find out the perceived value consisting of several factors that define satisfaction.
Student satisfaction leads to loyalty. (Brown, 2006) In another comparative study between the UK
and the US, the researcher considered SERVQUAL as a basis for measuring quality perception.
Li-Wei Mai believes in two different approaches in terms of educational quality evaluation-
humanistic and mechanistic; the mechanistic approach is conducted by experts whereas the
humanistic approach focuses on views of students. Lecturers' knowledgeability, whether the
faculty is up-to-date or not, the readiness of the faculty, the overall design and delivery of the
program, etc. are a few of the constructs that are significant in building the perceived value of
service that are also similar to our study. (Mai, 2010)

Despite a few of the academic program parameters and faculty parameters that are omnipresent in
every context, there is quite a gap between the factors in Bangladesh's perspective and the western
perspective that are influencing students to be loyal to the educational institute. It can be interpreted
from our research that belonging to a different socio-cultural and demographic structure, the sense
of community and involvement is the most valuable construct behind the satisfaction among
university students in Bangladesh, which is a different scenario from the western region.

22
Findings
Students’ satisfaction can be positively influenced by enhancement of any the constructs (safety
assurance, tangibles, faculty pedagogy, faculty mentorship, curriculum design, curriculum
efficacy, campus activity, support facility, and social integration) developed in the theoretical
framework section except monetary cost. According to this study, overall satisfaction does not
vary with gender but varies with institution type and level of education.

A regression model is used to test the relationship between the composite factors and overall
satisfaction of the students. The standardized beta coefficient suggests which dimensions of
students’ experiences and expectations need to be improved to pave the way for greater satisfaction
among students.

Tangibles, faculty pedagogy, curriculum design, social integration, curriculum efficacy, job
prospect—all these factors are significant in explaining student satisfaction. The result is satisfying
considering the uniqueness of this test in Bangladesh perspective.

Standardized beta scores indicate that Faculty pedagogy and social integration have the greater
impact on student satisfaction in the context of Bangladesh. Social integration has the greatest
impact on student satisfaction. Students do not want their respective educational institution a mere
class-exam-home hub. They want to be a part of their institutions’ legacy and expect camaraderie
among themselves and with the faculties.

Faculty pedagogy has the second greatest impact on student satisfaction. Students feel that
qualified, well versed and eloquent faculties are important for the betterment of learning
experience. Students are also aware of the fact that fair evaluation and timely feedback on
assignments/exams are necessary for a wholesome education experience. Students do not want to
feel education a burdensome experience as they feel faculties should inspire critical thinking.

Bangladesh faces an enormous challenge in creating jobs. Unemployment rate is currently standing
at 4.37% (BSS, 2018). About 46% of the total unemployed youth are university graduates. The
Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) also noted the rising unemployment rate among the relatively
more educated labor force. Students are not oblivious to this fact as relevance to the job market
has the third greatest impact on student satisfaction in the context of Bangladesh.

23
Curriculum design holds the fourth highest impact on this survey as students seek higher
satisfaction and better learning experience. Students feel that the betterment of overall learning
experience can be improved if academic program is designed in a way that challenges students’
aptitude and improves problem solving ability. Nevertheless, this factor has the comparatively
lower impact, it implies that students are well aware of the quality of their respective academic
programs.

Greater satisfaction can be attained by addressing issues incorporated in curriculum efficacy factor.
Students feels that academic program can be rendered futile if it imposes memorizing, narrow and
outdated course content. ‘Tangibles’ is of the lowest impactful factor of this study as we feel
students want a wholesome learning experience characterized by rest of the five factors and expect
more or less a decent campus experience.

24
Managerial Implications
The result from the research provides opportunities for university management to improve the
weaknesses in the services offered to the student thus ensuring that the quality of services provided
to the student is at the highest level and students get optimal satisfaction when studying in the
particular higher learning institution. We hope that this research would stimulate more research
attention on how the qualities of services provided in the universities could help higher
International Journal of Education.

Some of our findings may be of interest to the university to maintain and perhaps to improve the
students’ experiences during their time at the university. For example, the relatively low rating of
2.92 on the mean perception of “curriculum efficacy” in Table 05 indicates that the university may
have some improvement potential in this aspect. With a mean satisfaction rating of 4.54, the
students are not satisfied with this aspect of the service they receive from university authorities.
However, the highest mean perception was found in the “safety assurance” composite variable,
with a mean value of 5.36. Apart from that, “social integration” variables showed an
overwhelmingly positive response with a mean score of 5.16. This construct mostly involved
questions like “I feel I am a part of my academic institution”, “students here have a strong sense
of community” etc. This shows that the staff and the authorities as a whole care about the students
when it comes to making the students feel integrated and socially involved.

On the contrary, an overwhelmingly low mean score (2.92) in “curriculum efficacy” means that
the students feel that both their lecturers and staff do not have the right competence. Suggestively,
it would be important to the university to maintain and perhaps improve these ratings. This could
have other effects, like image, trust, and other aspects which were not investigated. There were
also some students from other universities from whom we could not get any insights due to
constraints associated with the time and covid19 pandemic. Those students could have had
completely different opinions which in turn could have affected the results. Some students who
we surveyed may also have rated low results on all the variables since they did not care and did
not put their whole mind into it which could also have affected the results.

25
Conclusion and Recommendations
The Government of Bangladesh working in tandem with the academic institutes of the country
should put a greater focus on the students’ higher learning experience. A more enhanced learning
experience will not only limit brain drain, but it will also get more people interested in pursuing
higher education in Bangladesh.

The students can be made to feel like they belong in the university - and by extension - in the
country. Competent teachers should build in them a life-long desire to learn. They should foster
their talents and aid them in building skills that will be essential to drive the country forward in
multiple fields for years to come.

26
Limitations
The limitations of this report include, but is not limited to:

1. Primary data collection was done during the lockdown. As such, all information was
collected online and the respondents are not a representative sample of the population nor
were they randomly selected. As such, conclusions formed might not apply large-scale on
the university students of Bangladesh.
2. This report is largely a quantitative study – it attempts to explain relationships between
many variables and establish correlation. Further work needs to be done before one can
establish causal links.
3. The report was prepared during an unprecedented global pandemic that induced a
lockdown in many places worldwide, including many places in Bangladesh. The widescale
repercussions of such a global pandemic are still largely unknown. The impact of this on
the data collected and subsequent work done must be factored in before further work is
done in this field.
4. 86% of the students surveyed were from Dhaka city. Therefore, insights and perspectives
from the students studying in other cities and districts of Bangladesh are not present in this
study.

27
References

Andaleeb, S. S., 2019. Future readiness of Bangladesh's higher education institutions. [Online]
Available at: https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/education/news/future-readiness-bangladeshs-higher-
education-institutions-1702786
[Accessed 18 May 2020].

Andaleeb, S. S., 2020. Education and employability in the digital age. [Online]
Available at: https://www.thedailystar.net/supplements/29th-anniversary-supplements/digitisation-and-
inclusivity-taking-everyone-along/news/education-and-employability-the-digital-age-1869625

BSS, 2019. BD’s economic growth hits record 8.15pc in FY19. [Online]
Available at: https://thefinancialexpress.com.bd/economy/bds-economic-growth-hits-record-815pc-in-
fy19-1575976234
[Accessed 18 May 2020].

Carey, K. C. R. &. D. V. J., 2002. Student to faculty satisfaction at a Midwestern university in the USA.
pp. 93-97.

contributors, W., 2020. Higher Education. [Online]

Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Higher_education&oldid=957152892
[Accessed 18 May 2020].

Douglas, J. D. A. &. B. B., 2006. Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university. Quality Assurance in
Education, pp. 251-267.

Elliott, K. &. H. M., 2001. Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment and
retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,, pp. 1-11.

Garcl a-Aracil, A., 2009. European graduates’ level of satisfaction with higher education. Journal of
Higher Education, pp. 1-21.

IM Salinda Weerasinghe, R. L. S. F., 2017. Students’ Satisfaction in Higher Education Literature Review.
American Journal of Educational Research, Volume 5, pp. 533-539.

Kanan, H. M. &. B. A. M., 2006. Student satisfaction with an educational administration preparation
program. Journal of Educational Administration,, pp. 159-169.

28
Khan, M. M. A. I. &. N. M. M., 2011. Student’s Perspective of Service Quality in Higher Learning
Institutions. An evidence Based Approach. International Journal of Business and Social Science, pp. 159-
1

Mannan, A., 2017. Achieving our higher education targets. [Online]

Available at: https://www.thedailystar.net/education-employment/achieving-our-higher-education-targets-
1366513
[Accessed 18 May 2020].

Mukhtar, U. A. S. A. U. &. B. M. A., 2015. FACTORS EFFECTING THE SERVICE QUALITY OF

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR UNIVERSITIES COMPARATIVELY: AN EMPIRICAL
INVESTIGATION. Journal of Arts, Science & Commerce, pp. 132-142.

Saif, N. I., 2014. The Effect of Service Quality on Student Satisfaction: A Field Study for Health Services
Administration Students.. Issue International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, pp. 172-181.

Wilkins, S. &. B. M. S., 2013. Assessing student satisfaction in transnational higher education.
International Journal of Educational Management, pp. 146-153.

Brown, R. M., 2006. Factors Driving Student Satisfaction and Loyalty in Australian Universities: The
Importance of Institutional Image, s.l.: anzam.org.

Garcia-Aracil, A., 2008. European graduates' level of satisfaction with higher, s.l.: Springer.

Kevin M. Elliott, M. A. H., 2001. Key Factors Influencing Student Satisfaction Related to Recruitment and
Retention, s.l.: Journal of Marketing for Higher Education.

Mai, L.-W., 2010. A Comparative Study Between UK and US: The Student Satisfaction in Higher
Education and its Influential Factors. Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 21.

Martirosyan, N., 2015. An examination of factors contributing to student satisfaction in Armenian higher
education, Texas: International Journal of Educational Management.

Mazirah Yusoff, F. M. ,. H. W.-B., 2015. Dimensions driving business student satisfaction in higher
education, UK: emerald insight.

Oscar W. DeShields Jr, A. K. E. K., 2006. Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in
higher education: applying Herzberg’s two-factor theory, s.l.: International Journal of Educational
Management.

29
Brown, R. M., 2006. Factors Driving Student Satisfaction and Loyalty in Australian Universities: The
Importance of Institutional Image, s.l.: anzam.org.

Garcia-Aracil, A., 2008. European graduates' level of satisfaction with higher, s.l.: Springer.

Kevin M. Elliott, M. A. H., 2001. Key Factors Influencing Student Satisfaction Related to Recruitment and
Retention, s.l.: Journal of Marketing for Higher Education.

Mai, L.-W., 2010. A Comparative Study Between UK and US: The Student Satisfaction in Higher
Education and its Influential Factors. Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 21.

Martirosyan, N., 2015. An examination of factors contributing to student satisfaction in Armenian higher
education, Texas: International Journal of Educational Management.

Mazirah Yusoff, F. M. ,. H. W.-B., 2015. Dimensions driving business student satisfaction in higher
education, UK: emerald insight.

Oscar W. DeShields Jr, A. K. E. K., 2006. Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in
higher education: applying Herzberg’s two-factor theory, s.l.: International Journal of Educational
Management.

Brown, R. M., 2006. Factors Driving Student Satisfaction and Loyalty in Australian Universities: The
Importance of Institutional Image, s.l.: anzam.org.

Garcia-Aracil, A., 2008. European graduates' level of satisfaction with higher, s.l.: Springer.

Kevin M. Elliott, M. A. H., 2001. Key Factors Influencing Student Satisfaction Related to Recruitment and
Retention, s.l.: Journal of Marketing for Higher Education.

Mai, L.-W., 2010. A Comparative Study Between UK and US: The Student Satisfaction in Higher
Education and its Influential Factors. Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 21.

Martirosyan, N., 2015. An examination of factors contributing to student satisfaction in Armenian higher
education, Texas: International Journal of Educational Management.

Mazirah Yusoff, F. M. ,. H. W.-B., 2015. Dimensions driving business student satisfaction in higher
education, UK: emerald insight.

30
Oscar W. DeShields Jr, A. K. E. K., 2006. Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in
higher education: applying Herzberg’s two-factor theory, s.l.: International Journal of Educational
Management.

BSS, 2018. bbs.gov.bd. [Online]

31
Appendix A: Factor Analysis Outcome
SPSS Code Preconceived Factors Items/Questions Factors
How satisfied are you that your academic institution helps to make
JobProspect Job prospect
you competitive for the job market?
Scampus I feel safe on campus
SCodeofConduct Safety The authority seriously implements campus code of conduct Safety assurance
SCares My institution cares about the safety of its students
AMaintained The campus facilities are well maintained
ANampc The campus is neat and clean
Atmosphere Tangibles
Apleasant My campus environment is pleasant
Avisual The campus is visually not very attaractive
Ctuition The cost of tution is high
Cbooks The cost of books is high
Chousing Costs The cost of housing is high Monetary cost
CIT Information tehcnology fees are low
CActFee Student activity fees are low.
FCommunic The faculty have good communication skills
FKN The faculty are knowledgable
FFair The faculty is generally fair in their evaluations
FTimely The faculty provide timely feedback on exams/assignments
Faculty pedagogy
FQualified The faculty are academically qualified
FEnjoyClass The faculty try to make the classes enjoyable
Faculty in the program/department/major
FCrtThnk Critical thinking is generally encouraged
FWellPrep Faculty members are generally well-prepared for their classes
Fuptodate The faculty are NOT up to date in their fields
Ffriendly The faculty are friendly
Faculty mentorship
Fhelpful The faculty are not helpful
Finspire The faculty do not inspire me to learn
APChallenging The academic program in my major is challenging
APAlignJobs The program in my major is aligned with job prospects
APGoalsClear The goals of my academic program are clearly stated
APLrnOutcome Course syllabi include clear statemetns of learning outcomes
APExperiential My academic program promoted experiential learning
Curriculum design
APP2P Peer to peer learning is encouraged in my program
APProbSolv Analysis and problem solving is quite common in the program
Academic Program
APVision There is a clear vision of what my program wishes to achieve
APFeedback The feedback we provide are used to improve programs
APGoodQ The program in which I am enrolled is of good quality
APMemory1 Courses in the program require memorization
APContent1 Course contents in my program are not up to date.
Curriculum efficacy
APNarrow1 The program is narrow in its focus and should be broadened
APNotLrnCareer1 I am not learning what I need to learn to build a career
CAAmple There is ample amount of organized student activities
CAWellness The athletics-wellness program is weak
CAMoreClubs There should be more clubs and organizations Campus activities
Other Campus Activities There arent't enough extra-curricular activities; we mostly attend
CAStudyFocus
classes and study
CACounsleing Career counselling is well-developed
Support facilites
CAJobPrep Students are prepared/trained for the job world
UPartofU I feel I am a part of my acadmeic institution
UStuSense Students here have a strong sense of community
Unity-community Social integration
URelnStu There is good relationship among students
URelTchStu There is a good relationship between faculty and students
 Appendix B
Apleasant
Avisual
ANampc
OSSatInst

AMaintained OSRecom
Tangibles
OSLeave

OSEnjoyCl
ass
OSChoose
Job prospect Satisfaction

UPartofU
APContent

Social Integration
APNarrow Curriculum
efficacy
APNotLrnCareer

UStuSense
APMemory URelnStu

FCommunic URelTchStu
Curriculum
design APChallenging
Faculty pedagogy
FKN
APAlignJobs
FWellPrep

APGoalsClear
FFair FTimely FCrtThnk

APLrnOutcome
FEnjoyClass
FQualified

APGoodQ
APVision

APProbSolv APFeedback

Fig 1: Total measurement model APP2P

APExperiential
for confirmatory factor analysis
 Appendix B APMemory

APContent
Curriculum efficacy
AMaintained APNarrow

APNotLr
ANampc nCareer

Apleasant Tangibles

Avisual

UPartofU

UStuSense
Social Integration
Satisfaction
URelnStu

URelTchStu Job prospect

APAlignJobs APChallenging

APGoalsClear

APLrnOutcome Curriculum design

APP2P
Faculty pedagogy

APVision

APProbSolv APGoodQ

APExperiential FCommunic
FEnjoyClass
FKN

APFeedback FFair FTimely

FQualified

FWellPrep
FCrtThnk
Fig 2: Conceptual Model