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

net/publication/249645832

Student Satisfaction with Hostel Facilities in Nigerian Polytechnics

Article  in  Journal of Facilities Management · September 2013

DOI: 10.1108/JFM-08-2012-0041

CITATIONS READS
70 25,493

2 authors:

Patricia Toyin Sawyerr Nor'Aini Yusof

Kaduna Polytechnic Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Penang, Malaysia
2 PUBLICATIONS   71 CITATIONS    143 PUBLICATIONS   1,538 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

paper at An-Najah University Journal for Research – Humanities 29 (10): 2033 – 2059. View project

Sustainable practice in a Lake-based eco-tourism resorts in Malaysia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nor'Aini Yusof on 22 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1472-5967.htm

JFM
11,4 Student satisfaction with hostel
facilities in Nigerian polytechnics
Patricia Toyin Sawyerr and Nor’Aini Yusof
306 School of Housing, Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to ascertain the adequacy of the facilities provided in the students’
hostels and to also investigate the level of satisfaction of the students to the available facilities.
Design/methodology/approach – A total number of 250 questionnaires were distributed to the
respondents. A cluster sampling method was used in the data collection in which attempt was made to
get a fair representation on each floor of the hostel blocks. The data collected were then analysed using
descriptive statistics such as the mean score and standard deviation.
Findings – The result showed that students were generally dissatisfied with the hostel facilities with
a mean score of 2.42 on a five-point scale which represents 66.6 percent dissatisfaction level. The result
also showed that not all the necessary facilities as noted by other researchers were provided for the
student in the hostel.
Research limitations/implications – This result points to the need for a pragmatic and dynamic
approach towards providing adequate and relevant facilities in the hostel accommodation to meet the
minimum standard as obtained in other higher institution as this will invariably enhance the image of
the institution and make it a top institution of choice to prospective students’.
Originality/value – Previous studies have always tended to focus on the management and
administrative aspects of students housing, this paper provides the students perspective of the
housing facilities thereby giving room for continuous improvement in student housing.
Keywords Customer satisfaction, Level of satisfaction, Polytechnics, Student housing,
Residential satisfaction, Nigeria
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Facilities Management
Vol. 11 No. 4, 2013
pp. 306-322
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1472-5967
DOI 10.1108/JFM-08-2012-0041
Introduction
Student housing forms part of the facilities that students take into consideration
before making a choice of the school they intend to attend among other considerations
(Price et al., 2003) this therefore makes it imperative for schools to give student housing
a top priority while enhancing the reputation of the school among other
contemporaries. As noted by Douglas et al. (2006) schools the world over are in
competition for local and internal students and as such efforts should be made to
improve student satisfaction while curbing student dissatisfaction.
With the world now a global village, demands by student for suitable housing has
increased as housing forms part of students need to perform well in their academic exploits
(Najib and Yusof, 2009; Khozaei et al., 2010; Hassanain, 2008; Najib and Yusof, 2010).
The student housing is said to include facilities such as bedrooms which can serve the
dual purpose of study and sleeping, bathrooms and toilets, kitchen, laundry, recreational
areas and access to internet services as this further enhance the study-learning experience
(Susilawati, 2001; Olujimi and Bello, 2009; Schenke, 2008; Torres-Antonini and
Park, 2008). Abramson (2009) on his part, stated that the student housing can be further
made exciting by providing further facilities such as ATM machines, car park, mini Hostel facilities
markets, bookshops and cafeterias within the precinct of the student housing. in Nigerian
However, student housing in Nigeria has not received the desired attention both
from the government and the management of the institutions as Ubong (2007) observed polytechnics
that hostel accommodation has not received adequate attention in Nigeria although it is
an important component of pupil personnel management. He portrays that this might
be due to the national indifference arising from the people being used to general poor 307
performance of social services. As noted by Adewunmi et al. (2011) that in Nigeria,
inadequate maintenance of the services and infrastructure of hostel accommodation is
very common. There have been reported cases of students taking ill in the hostels as a
result of poor sanitary conditions. Adequate screening of students allocated to rooms
are not carried out which sometimes pose a threat to the life and property of the other
fellow students as criminals find it easy to enter the hostel.
Several researches have been conducted by various researchers into student housing
such as Alkandari (2007) in Kuwait in which students’ perception of the residence hall
was compared with the living environment, the result showed that students were
satisfied with the housing facilities, Douglas et al. (2006) carried out a study on student
satisfaction in the UK, student housing was just a fraction of the factors under
consideration as emphasis was placed more on the teaching and administrative aspect
of the school, Petruzzellis et al. (2006) on student satisfaction in Italian universities
looked at the entire school system such as lecture halls, laboratories, library,
scholarships and so on, it was not concentrated on the student housing, Abbasi et al.
(2011) of students satisfaction in Pakistan also took a wholistic look at the school with
student housing forming a fraction of factors under consideration. There is no much
work done on measuring students’ satisfaction with their housing units provided by the
school as suggested by Amole (2009a, b) in his work, this research work therefore
intends to fill the gap created by previous researchers as it looks into the hostel
accommodation in a polytechnic environment since the polytechnic educational system
is quite different from the university system as there is normally a break in between the
study after the National Diploma (ND) before the students return for the Higher
National Diploma (HND). In the Nigerian context, studies have been carried out by
Amole (2009a, b) where residential satisfaction was measured based on the levels of
environment, Adewunmi et al. (2011) looked at Post Occupancy evaluation while
Ojogwu and Alutu (2009) considered the students learning environment and criteria
considered for allocating hostel to students. In all these, only Amole (2009a, b)
considered the students feelings as they stay in the on campus housing. This study
therefore set out to fill the gap by studying students satisfaction in the northern part of
the country using Kaduna Polytechnic (since the school occupies a prominent position
as a Higher Institution of Learning in Northern Nigeria in particular and the country at
large) where no such study have been conducted in the school to feel the pulse of the
student and know how satisfied they are with the facilities.
More so, the closest study related to Kaduna Polytechnic hostels was conducted by
Mohammed (2010) where he carried out an analysis of the management of the hostel
accommodation and focused mainly on the issue of management of the structures and
building without looking at the student’s personal intake about the whole affair.
This study has mark out the students’ residential satisfaction as expressed by the
students based on their satisfaction with the hostel facilities in relation to their needs,
JFM requirements and experiences and also the factors that accounted for their satisfaction and
11,4 dissatisfaction. In terms of theory, this study contributes to other researches that have been
conducted on student housing by corroborating the student residential satisfaction index.
As previously noted, the polytechnic system is run in such a way that after two
years of study, the student spend one year in industrial training before returning back
for the HND, it is therefore important that the student housing be adequately catered
308 for so as to encourage the students to come back to the school for the continuation of
their studies rather than opting for other schools.
This therefore put a greater responsibility on the school authority to be aware of the
students’ level of satisfaction with the housing facilities and the adequacy of the
provided facilities.
This study will enable the student housing administrators and the school
management to know the areas of dissatisfaction of the students with the facilities and
so improve on it such that the essence of having student housing will be achieved and
therefore make the school an attraction to prospective students.

Student housing
Various names have been attributed to the student housing by the different parts of the
world and writers. Amole (2005) and Wiens (2010) postulated that the Western world
calls student housing as halls of residence while Kaya and Erkip (2001) and
La Roche et al. (2010) views student housing as student dormitory, Martin and Allen
(2009) view student housing as campus apartments. Meir et al. (2007) defines student
housing as student accommodation units and to Abramson (2010), student housing can
be called college housing.
Student housing is seen as an integral part of facilities provided by higher learning
institutions to enable students expand their intellectual capabilities, as such Amole
(2009a, b) view student housing to be made up of bedroom units including other shared
utilities such as bathrooms, kitchens, laundry, toilets, recreation rooms and canteens
which can be situated either on each floor or block or for the entire student housing
accommodation. Najib and Yusof (2009) sees student housing as a place that offers
security and privacy in which the university housing administrators can meet the
student needs and expectations by renting such spaces to them.
From all the foregoing therefore student housing can be said to be a set of
accommodation provided by the school authority within the campus to house the
students with rules and obligations put in place to monitor the behaviours of the said
students and a chargeable fees paid by them to have access to the use of these
accommodations. These accommodations are fitted with shared facilities that may be
based on floor levels or between certain numbers of rooms.
Ubong (2007) stated that a campus housing comprises of a particular type of
building which as well as being a shelter for students attending the university ought to
present extra significant necessity, i.e. an atmosphere that is comfortable and amenable
to learning and academic success. To succeed in this regard, the student housing
amenities, as a designed environment must be able to provide the needed indoor
environmental criteria that affect the efficiency and productivity of its occupants.
It can therefore be said that the function of on campus student housing goes beyond
just providing accommodation for the students but it also enhances their interpersonal
relationship.
 Hassanain (2008) in his research stated that the availability of on campus housing can Hostel facilities
make the student to reach the intellectual competence they need in forming a character in Nigerian
and personal development which will lead to a fulfillment of living experience.
On campus student housing therefore plays the function of bringing out the best in the polytechnics
students in their academic pursuits as it satisfy both a physical and psychological need
for the students to attain their primary purpose of being in the school in the first place.
In any housing facilities, the main point is the provision of shelter but then it goes 309
beyond just protection from the elements of the weather such as rain, sun, wind and dust
to include the social aspects of being able to interact and socialize with friends this
therefore tend to be the reason for the demand of housing facilities and services in student
housing. This was further buttressed by Willoughby et al. (2009) that an appropriate
residential amenities in student housing should make for a suitable environment that
promotes togetherness among the students and security; and at the same time should
bring about a sense of sharing (Curley, 2003); and this in return will enable the students to
develop social cohesion and become responsible citizens (Hassanain, 2008). Liu (1999) and
Vera-Toscano and Ateca-Amestoy (2007) also corroborated this by stating that an
individual will want a home that can provide a feeling of safety, seclusion, status, good
interactions, neighborhood, jointly shared facilities with people of like background, easy
commuting to and from work and can manage the surroundings.
In Nigeria however, and Kaduna Polytechnic in particular, the study-bedrooms is
what is obtainable in which four students are officially assigned to a room with the
provision of two double bunk bed. This is in consonant with Mellor et al. (2008) that
living alone might lead to loneliness which can negatively impact on the mental health
of the person. According to La Roche et al. (2010), Martin and Allen (2009) and Kaya
and Erkip (2001) the double bedroom provides relief for the student from isolation and
enables intellectual communication and socialization. The construction of the double
study-bedroom is cost effective as oppose to a set of rooms where sleeping areas are
designated separate from study-living area.
It is imperative to provide an on campus housing that will meet comfort, safety and
conveniences requirement of the students. To do this therefore (Koch et al., 1999;
Hassanain, 2008; Amole, 2009a, b) proffers that the department in charge of hostel
accommodation should provide rooms furnished with mattresses and pillows, paper
boards, tables and chairs for studying, wardrobes, air-conditioner or ceiling fans, shoes
racks, railings where towels can be hung, mirrors for dressing, waste bins, effective
lighting system and adequate electrical outlets. For the purpose of safety, the doors
should be provided with effective security locks, the buildings fenced round and
burglary proof provided on the windows (Amole, 2005, 2009a, b; Hassanain, 2008;
Olujimi and Bello, 2009; La Roche et al., 2010). Room accommodation, wash room,
pantry and common room also known as recreation room have been identified by
previous study as the four main types of facilities provided in the student housing unit.
In some instances however, it can include minor facilities such as ATM machines,
parking lots, mini market, cafeterias and others which come under the support services.
For student housing facilities therefore, the study-bedrooms should be encouraged
more than the set of rooms as the study bedroom accommodates more students and its
building is far more cost effective than the set of rooms.
Students lives on campus is not limited to just room accommodation, washroom,
pantry and common and recreation rooms, there are other facilities that will enhance
JFM a quality stay for them hence these facilities can also be known as support services
11,4 (Najib, 2011), as it contributes to meeting the needs and expectations of the student.
As noted by Radder and Han (2009), Wallace et al. (2004) and Koch et al. (1999) there
is the need to provide students with their parking space therefore becomes imperative
as most student come to school with their cars and expects that there will be adequate
parking lot for them to avoid a situation where they take over the parking space meant
310 for the lecturers.
Furthermore, according to Abramson (2009) and La Roche et al. (2010), there is need
for cafeteria, mini market or bookshop and banking system inclusive of automated
teller machine (ATM machines) within the vicinity of the student housing. This has
however been countered by Najib et al. (2011a, b) that it will be expensive for the
developing countries to be able to meet with all this and also an indication that the
students are too demanding. Aside from these, there is also the need to provide
adequate water supply, garbage disposal, fire safety, CCTV cameras, 24 h security
guards on duty, adequate fencing of the student housing, provision of burglary proof
on the windows, as all these will ensure the students safety (Koch et al., 1999; Olujimi
and Bello, 2009; Curley, 2003; Hassanain, 2008; Abramson, 2009).
In summary therefore, student housing facilities comprise of mainly five
components namely; accommodation room, washroom, pantry, common and
recreation room; and support services. The availability of all these in the right
proportion and location will further enhance the students stay to be comfortable and
better performance in their academic activities as opined by Amole (2005) and
Hassanain (2008) that students will excel in their academic activities when provided
with a decent and standard accommodation in a good state of repair.

Student housing in Nigeria

Accommodation of student in Nigeria is not a statutory obligation of the school as the
school is not obligated to providing housing accommodation to her students unlike
what obtains in other developed nations. However, some schools still provide halls of
residence to cater for the students housing needs and in most cases, the provided
accommodation is insufficient to cater for all the students hence students stay off
campus and commute to school from other places. This may affect student’s
performance as stated by Hassanain (2008) in his research that the availability of on
campus housing can make the student to reach the intellectual competence they need in
forming a character and personal development which will lead to a fulfillment of living
experience.
This therefore means that there is the needs to provide on campus housing for the
students to enable them face the task of studying in a comfortable environment.

Measuring satisfaction in student housing

Several models have been used in measuring satisfaction in relation to student
housing. SERVQUAL and POE are normally used in this regard which is based on
the student’s actual experience while residing on the on campus student residence
(Hassanain, 2008; Amole, 2009a, b; Riley et al., 2010) this also include looking at the
interactions of the students among themselves and in relation to their space (Amole,
2007). Weidemann and Anderson (1985) model is not suitable in the context of this
study as student normally reside in the hostel allocated to them throughout the
academic session and as such do not have a say as to how long they intend to stay in Hostel facilities
the room since it has already been determined. The SERVQUAL model which is based
on expectation and the actual experience has been criticized as having shortcomings of
in Nigerian
inability of getting the actual expectations of the residents. polytechnics
This led to the modification of the residential satisfaction index by Amole (2009a) to
relative satisfaction (RSAT) index; this was to make it fit into the student housing
context by still using the same questions as used by Weidemann and Anderson (1985) 311
but with modification. The overall satisfaction questions thus became based on the
general level of satisfaction of living in the hostel as a whole, and how the students
would rate the bedroom based on sleeping, studying, relaxing and entertaining of
friends whereas the dependability and reliability questions was now based on whether
the student plan to move to a different accommodation in the future.
Najib et al. (2011a, b) came up with a model that included the overall satisfaction and
loyalty behavior, for the purpose of this study, the model developed by Najib (2011) was
adapted but leaving out the loyalty behavior since as earlier stated in the Nigerian
context; payment is made at once for the entire session while payment is made on
monthly basis in the Malaysian context. This model was adapted since it encompasses
the entire housing satisfaction and as Malaysia shares the same climate and weather
conditions as Nigeria and both countries are in the emerging economies of the world.
The model for this study therefore includes the measurement of the physical
characteristics of the facilities, the social characteristics and the overall satisfaction
(Figure 1).

Methodology
This study covered all the hostels in the three campuses of Kaduna Polytechnic which
include the 17 blocks located in the main campus and two blocks located outside the
main campus; these hostels accommodate both male and female students. The hostel
blocks were actually named after some of the states in the country. The blocks of hostel
that accommodates the female students include; Abuja, Kaduna, Kano, Kwara, Lagos,
Niger, Plateau, and Sokoto blocks; the block of hostel in College of Environmental
Studies, (CES) Barnawa bringing the total number of hostels for female students to
nine blocks. While the blocks of hostel for male students include Bauchi, Bendel,
Benue, Borno, Gongola, Imo, Ogun, Osun and Rivers all located in the main campus

Physical characteristics

Bedroom
Toilet and Bathroom
Common room
Other services Overall satisfaction

Social characteristics

Population using the

facilities
Convenience of use Figure 1.
Research model
JFM and a block of hostel located in the College of Business and Management Studies
11,4 (CBMS), Angwa Rimi bringing the number of hostels for male students to ten.
This therefore leads to a total number of 19 blocks of hostel in the entire school.
The designs of the entire blocks are the same as it comprise of four floors on each
block with 14 rooms on each floor, bringing the total number of rooms on each block to
56 rooms which will give a total number of rooms in the entire 19 blocks to one 1064.
312
Research instrument
In order to achieve the aim of this research, a structured questionnaire was used. The
questions were in two sections: Section A consists of personal data of the respondent
which include questions on gender, academic level, student status, the hostel block in
which they reside and the number of people that share the room while Section B consist
of questions about the availability and adequacy of the facilities, the questions were
based on the five essential facilities; bedroom, washroom, common and recreation
room, pantry and other services in student housing (Hassanain, 2008; Pace, 2007;
La Roche et al., 2010; Koch et al., 1999; Radder and Han, 2009). The respondents in this
study were ND students and HND students both new and continuing students. Post
graduate students were not included in this study since no special provisions are made
for the post graduate students.
A total of 250 questionnaire was used for the purpose of data collection while 224 was
dully filled and useful for the data analysis, this therefore represent a response rate of
89.6 percent which is in accordance with Kelley et al. (2003), that 65 percent response is an
acceptance rate for self completion postal questionnaire. A five-point Likert scale was used
for the purpose of this research work, there was no neutral option this was to enable the
respondents have a stand in answering the questions. This was as posited by several
researchers in their work. Jagun et al. (1990), Hill (1996), Paris and Kangari (2005) and
Hassanain (2008). The scale ranges from one (1) to five (5) based on the level of
satisfaction. The representation of the scale is given as follows: (1) – strongly dissatisfied,
(2) – dissatisfied, (3) – slightly satisfied, (4) – satisfied and (5) – strongly satisfied.

Cronbach’s a reliability test

In other to ascertain the reliability of the items in the questionnaire, a Cronbach’s a
reliability test was conducted on all the items as observed by Pallant (2005) that a
Cronbach’s a coefficient of 0.7 gives an ideal reliability of an item. Hence each section
of the questionnaire was tested. The result is as shown in Table I.
From the above, it can be seen that the Cronbach’s a coefficient ranges from 0.67 to
0.92, this is in line with other researchers that came up with a scale of 0.52 to 0.86 in
their satisfaction scale which showed good internal consistency (Foubert et al., 1998;
Khozaei et al., 2010).

Facilities No. of items a coefficient

Room 13 0.929
Bathroom 6 0.820
Table I. Television room 4 0.813
Reliability test Other services 3 0.671
Result Hostel facilities
Section A
From the respondents, a total number of 123 were male representing a total 54.9 percent
in Nigerian
while 101 were female representing a total of 45.2 percent. This therefore show that a polytechnics
higher percentage of the respondents were male students (Figures 2 and 3).
Out of the total number of the respondents, 118 were ND students while 106 were
HND students (Figure 4). 313
From the respondents, 75 were new students which make up 33 percent while 148,
representing 66.1 percent were continuing students. The new students comprise of
ND 1 and HND 1 while the continuing students comprise of ND 2 and HND 2.
There are 19 hostel blocks where students are resident in the school. The students
are given their room allocation with no particular pattern as a ND student can be a
roommate to a HND students. Also, students are allocated to any floor of the block
without recourse to any pre arranged plan.
Figure 5 shows the breakdown of the total respondents from each of the block and
the percentages they represent on the whole.
Figure 6 shows the number of students that share room with the respondent in the
hostel blocks. It can be seen from this that a large proportion of the students stay in
rooms with more than one person, as 46.9 percent of the respondents share their
rooms with four other persons, while 36.2 percent of the respondents share their room
with more than four persons, 14.3 percent share their rooms with three persons and
only 2.7 percent of the respondents actually share their rooms with two persons
(Tables II and III).

FEMALE
45% MALE
(101 PERSONS) 55%
(123 PERSONS)

Figure 2.
Respondents gender

HIGHER NATIONAL NATIONAL

DIPLOMA DIPLOMA
47% 53%

Figure 3.
Respondents level
JFM
11,4
NEW
33%

314
CONTINUING
67%

Figure 4.
Respondents status

18

16

14

12

10

0
BA JA

BE HI

BE EL
BO E
O

NG S
LA

KA MO
NA

KW O

LA A

NI S
ER
UN

AT N
U

SO RS
TO
NU

M
CE

AR

EA
PL U
RN

N
UC
U

ND

KO
DU

VE
G

Figure 5.
CB

KA
I
AB

O
O

RI

Respondents hostel block

O
G

This table clearly show that not all the necessary facilities are provided in the on
campus housing for the student, as laundry room, ceiling fan, window curtains and
kitchen are not provided. This is in contrast to Hassanain (2008) where he stated that
the provision of window blinds allows the occupants of the room to control daylight
and heat that is needed in the room. This therefore imply that only the basic facilities
are provided due to lack of fund as observed by Najib et al. (2011a, b) that providing all
the necessary facilities will be quite expensive for the government. Ubong (2007) also
observed that increasing the hostels is difficult for the government and also the
provision of adequate fund for the maintenance.
 2 PERSONS Hostel facilities
3%
in Nigerian
3 PERSONS polytechnics
14%
MORE THAN 4
36%
315

4 PERSONS
47%

Figure 6.
Number of people
sharing room

Facilities Availability Adequacy

Bedroom Provided Grossly inadequate

Bathroom Provided Grossly inadequate
Television viewing room Provided Grossly inadequate
Other services Provided Barely adequate
Laundry Not provided
Kitchen Not provided
Ceiling fan Not provided Table II.
Window curtains Not provided Availability and
Internet facilities Not provided adequacy of the facilities

Type of housing facilities Total average index Response

Bedroom 2.11 Dissatisfied

Bathroom 1.85 Dissatisfied
Common room 2.41 Dissatisfied
Other services 2.27 Dissatisfied Table III.
Overall satisfaction 2.42 Dissatisfied Student satisfaction

The overall satisfaction level with living in the hostel and the entire facilities has an
average mean score of 2.42 which denotes dissatisfaction with living in the hostel and
its facilities. This is further broken down into the respective facilities to include
bedroom, bathroom and toilets, common room and other services (Table IV).
In determining the students’ satisfaction for the bedroom, 23.6 percent of the
respondents were satisfied with sleeping in the room which has an average score of
2.79. Only 24 percent of the students were satisfied with relaxing and resting in the
room giving an average score of 2.67 while 18.7 percent of the respondents are
comfortable with studying in the room which has an average score of 2.42.
Entertaining friends in the room have a response of 15.6 percent which has an average
JFM
Frequency
11,4 Item 1 2 3 4 5 Average index Percentage of satisfaction

Sleeping 44 55 51 53 21 2.79 23.6

Relaxing and resting 61 43 47 54 19 2.67 24
Studying 57 76 40 42 6 2.42 18.7
316 Entertaining friends 68 68 41 35 12 2.35 15.6
Number of persons 81 59 37 31 13 2.26 13.8
Security of property 63 90 49 19 3 2.15 21.8
Privacy 91 59 41 22 11 2.12 9.8
Capacity of wardrobe 97 49 42 27 9 2.12 12
Study table with chair 105 41 43 27 8 2.07 12
Towel railings 138 62 16 7 1 1.53 3.1
Ceiling fan and socket 139 70 11 3 1 1.47 1.3
Table IV. Dressing mirror 150 65 6 2 1 1.39 0.9
Satisfaction with
the bedroom Note: Total average index: 2.11 “dissatisfied”

score of 2.35 while 13.8 percent are satisfied with the number of persons they are
sharing the room with and 21.8 percent are slightly satisfied with the security of
property in the room; 8.4 percent are satisfied and 1.3 percent are strongly satisfied.
Only 9.8 percent respondents are satisfied with the privacy of the room which has an
average score of 2.12; 12 percent are satisfied with the capacity of the wardrobe which
has an average score of 2.12; 12 percent are satisfied with the study table and chair
which has an average score of 2.07; 3.1 percent are satisfied with towel railings which
has an average score of 1.53; 1.3 percent are satisfied with the sockets which has an
average score of 1.47, ceiling fans are not provided for in the hostel; and 0.9 percent are
satisfied with the dressing mirror which has an average score of 1.39.
On the whole, the level of satisfaction for the room accommodation is 2.11 which
therefore translate that the students are dissatisfied with the room accommodation. They
are only slightly satisfied with sleeping in the room and relaxing and resting in the room.
This is quite in contrast with previous studies which regards the bedroom as a means
of sleeping, entertaining friends, study and relax and rest (Hassanain, 2008 had 3.31 on a
scale of 4; Schenke, 2008 and Najib, 2011 had 2.96 on a scale of 4). The result though is in
line with Amole (2009a) whose 2.70 out of five points scale was poor (Table V).
For the bathroom, the students are not satisfied with the location of the bathroom
as only 18.7 percent of them were satisfied with it giving an average score of 2.42, this
is as a result of the design of the hostel as the bathroom is located at the far end of the

Frequency
Item 1 2 3 4 5 Average index Percentage of satisfaction

Location 68 63 37 42 14 2.42 18.7

Cleanliness 92 72 42 10 3 1.91 4.4
Number of people 100 80 34 8 2 1.80 0.9
Shower and toilet 121 66 29 7 1 1.67 3.1
Table V. Sinks and mirror 141 67 13 2 1 1.46 3.6
Satisfaction level
of bathroom Note: Total average index: 1.85 “dissatisfied”
building such that students staying at the other end of it have to travel a long distance Hostel facilities
to get to and from the bathroom hence only the few students whose rooms are located in Nigerian
close to the bathroom are satisfied with the location whereas Hassanain (2008) noted
that there should be close proximity of the bathroom to rooms. On cleanliness of the polytechnics
bathroom, the students are not satisfied as only 4.4 percent are satisfied with it giving
an average score of 1.91, this abysmal score is partly due to the number of people using
the facility and also due to the lackadaisical attitude of the cleaners. This is in contrast 317
to what Hassanain (2008) stated that cleanliness is important since hygienic
environment promotes healthy life. Only 0.9 percent of the respondents are satisfied
with the number of people that are sharing the toilets and bathrooms giving an average
score of 1.80 while 3.1 percent are satisfied with the number of showers and toilet
having an average score of 1.67. For the number of sinks and mirrors only 3.6 percent
are satisfied with an average score of 1.46. Hence the total average mean score stand at
1.85 which denotes dissatisfaction with the bathroom (Table VI).
For the common room, only 4.9 percent of the respondents are satisfied with the
cleanliness of the common room having an average score of 2.67 while 6.2 percent are
satisfied with the arrangement of the room with an average score of 2.50. 4.9 percent of
the respondents are satisfied with the adequacy of chairs, lightings and ceiling fan with
an average score of 2.49 while the number of television have an average score of 1.99.
The overall satisfaction level is 2.41 giving an interpretation of dissatisfaction
(Table VII).
The various services investigated include the cafeteria and shops within the hostel
precinct, water supply and garbage disposal, fire safety and security surveillance.
These were investigated as they form a major part of what determines the student
satisfaction with on campus housing (Foubert et al., 1998; Hassanain, 2008),
34.7 percent of the students are satisfied with the cafeteria and shops giving an average
score of 2.68 while 24 percent of the students are satisfied with the water supply and
garbage disposal which therefore have an average score of 2.26. Security surveillance

Frequency
Item 1 2 3 4 5 Average index Percentage of satisfaction

Cleanliness 13 51 57 24 2 2.67 4.9

Room arrangement 22 51 56 14 4 2.50 6.2
Chairs, lightings and ceiling fans 13 64 57 11 2 2.49 4.9
Number of television 50 57 32 8 0 1.99 Table VI.
Satisfaction level for the
Note: Total average index: 2.41 “dissatisfied” common/recreation room

Frequency
Item 1 2 3 4 5 Average index SD (%)

Cafeteria and shops 30 66 78 46 4 2.68 34.7

Water supply and garbage disposal 57 85 54 22 6 2.26 24
Security surveillance 65 94 47 16 2 2.09 20.9
Fire safety 83 81 45 11 3 2.06 20 Table VII.
Satisfaction level
Note: Total average index: 2.27 “dissatisfied” of other services
JFM has satisfaction of 20.9 percent with an average score of 2.09 while 20 percent are
11,4 satisfied with fire safety giving an average score of 2.06. The overall satisfactions
mean score is 2.27 which represent a level of dissatisfaction with the services.

Conclusion
This study considers the students’ residential satisfaction as expressed by the students
318 based on their satisfaction with the hostel facilities in relation to their needs,
requirements and experiences. The students satisfaction level were measured based on
the bedroom, bathroom, common room and other services within the hostel precincts.
The result shows that the students are dissatisfied with these facilities as they are
grossly inadequate and as such do not meet with the intended purposes of their
provision. This therefore implies that the on campus housing program in the school is
not effective enough as the available facilities cannot cater for the student population
and as such necessary steps should be taken to address these inadequacies by
engaging private developers such that a partnership scheme is evolved to provide a
better on campus housing scheme which will meet the growing needs of the students.
The result of this study is also in line with the result of Amole (2009a) which was
also carried out in Nigeria showing a level of dissatisfaction of the students with the
hostel facilities.
This study is limited to students’ satisfaction with the hostel facilities; however,
further studies can be carried out to investigate the administrative management of the
hostel and other learning facilities in the school since the totality of this give a complete
outlook of the school.

References
Abramson, P. (2009), “Downsizing residence halls: space and costs”, Living on Campus, 2009
College Housing Report, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 20-27.
Abramson, P. (2010), “Green and growing: sustainability and amenities are increasing in new
residence hall projects”, Living on Campus, 2010 College Housing Report, Vol. 13 No. 5.
Adewunmi, Y., Omirin, M., Famuyiwa, F. and Frinloye, O. (2011), “Post-occupancy evaluation of
postgraduate hostel facilities”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 29 Nos 3/4, pp. 149-168.
Alkandari, N. (2007), “Students’ perceptions of the residence hall living environment at Kuwait
University”, College Student Journal, Vol. 41 No. 2, p. 327.
Amole, D. (2005), “Coping strategies for living in student residential facilities in Nigeria”, Journal
of Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 200-219.
Amole, D. (2007), “A study of the quality of student residential facilities in Nigeria”, Planning for
Higher Education, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 40-50.
Amole, D. (2009a), “Residential satisfaction and levels of environment in students residences”,
Journal of Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 1-14.
Amole, D. (2009b), “Residential satisfaction in students’ housing”, Journal of Environment
Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 76-85.
Curley, P. (2003), “Residence halls: making campus a home”, American School & University,
Vol. 75 No. 12, pp. 245-256.
Foubert, J.D., Tepper, R. and Morrison, D.R. (1998), “Predictors of student satisfaction in
university residence halls”, Journal of College and University Student Housing, Vol. 27
No. 1, pp. 41-47.
Hassanain, M.A. (2008), “On the performance evaluation of sustainable student housing Hostel facilities
facilities”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 212-225.
in Nigerian
Jagun, A., Brown, D.R., Milburn, N.G. and Gary, L.E. (1990), “Residential satisfaction and
socio-economic and housing characteristics of urban Black adults”, Journal of Black polytechnics
Studies, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 40-51.
Kaya, N. and Erkip, F. (2001), “Satisfaction in a dormitory building: the effects of floor height on
the perception of roo size and crowding”, Journal of Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 33 319
No. 1, pp. 35-53.
Kelley, K., Clark, B., Brown, V. and Sitzia, J. (2003), “Good practice in the conduct and reporting of
survey research”, International Journal for Quality in Health Care, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 261-266.
Khozaei, F., Ayub, N., Hassan, A.S. and Khozaei, Z. (2010), “The factors predicting students’
satisfaction with university hostels, case study, Universiti Sains Malaysia”, Asian Culture
and History, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 148-158.
Koch, D., Wesse, D. and Stickney, R. (1999), “New trends in campus housing”, Facilities Manager
Magazines, Vol. 15 No. 3.
La Roche, C.A., Flanigan, M.A. and Copeland, P.K. Jr (2010), “Student housing: trends, preferences
and needs”, Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education Research, Vol. 3 No. 10.
Liu, A. (1999), “Residential satisfaction in housing estates: a Hong Kong perspective”,
Automation in Construction, Vol. 8, pp. 511-524.
Martin, J. and Allen, M. (2009), “Students in my backyard: housing at the campus edge and other
emerging trends in residential development”, Planning for Higher Education, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 34-43.
Meir, I., Motzafi-Haller, W., Kruger, E., Morhayim, L., Fundaminsky, S. and Oshry-Frenkel, L.
(2007), “Towards a comprehensive methodology for post occupancy evaluation (POE):
a hot dry climate study”, 2nd PALENC Conference and 28th AIVC Conference on Building
Low Energy Cooling and Advanced Ventilation Technologies in the 21st Century, Crete
Island, Greece, Vol. 2, 27-29 September, pp. 644-653.
Mellor, D., Stokes, M., Firth, L., Hayashi, Y. and Cummins, R. (2008), “Need for belonging
relationship satisfaction, loneliness and life satisfaction”, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 45, pp. 213-218.
Mohammed, Y. (2010), An Analysis of Management of Students Hotels: A Case Study of Ahmadu
Bello University, Zaria and Kaduna Polytechnic Main Campus, Zaria.
Najib, N.U.M. (2011), “Residential satisfaction of student housing facilities in Malaysian public
universities”, MSc thesis dissertation.
Najib, N.U.M., Yusof, N. and Abidin, N.Z. (2011a), “Student residential satisfaction in research
universities”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 200-212.
Najib, N.U.M., Yusof, N. and Osman, Z. (2011b), “Measuring satisfaction with student housing
facilities”, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 52-60.
Ojogwu, C.N. and Alutu, A.N.G. (2009), “Analysis of the learning environment of university
students on Nigeria: a case study of University of Benin”, Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 69-73.
Olujimi, J.A.B. and Bello, M.O. (2009), “Effects of infrastructural facilities on the rental values of
residential property”, Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 332-341.
Pace, M.E. (2007), “Green luxury student housing: a real estate feasibility study”, MSc thesis,
Massachusetts Institute Cambridge, available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/42033
JFM Pallant, J. (2005), SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS
Version 12.
11,4
Paris, D.E. and Kangari, R. (2005), “Multifamily affordable housing: residential satisfaction”,
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 138-145.
Petruzzellis, L., D’Uggento, A.M. and Romanazzi, S. (2006), “Student satisfaction and quality of
services in Italian universities”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 349-364.
320 Price, I., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L. and Agahi, H. (2003), “The impact of facilities on student choice
of university”, Journal of Facilities, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 212-222.
Radder, L. and Han, X. (2009), “Service quality of on-campus student housing: a South African
experience”, The International Business & Economics Research Journal, Vol. 8 No. 11,
pp. 107-119.
Schenke, J. (2008), “Purdue students prefer to go solo”, College Planning and Management, Vol. 11
No. 6, pp. 62-64.
Susilawati, C. (2001), “Student dormitory development plan with linear programming method”,
PRRES 7th Annual Conference 2001, Adelaide, Australia: PRRES Conference Proceeding
21-24 January, pp. 1-8.
Torres-Antonini, M. and Park, N.-K. (2008), “Sustainable student campus housing in the US”,
International Journal of Spatial Design and Research, Vol. 8, pp. 29-38, Asia Interior Design
Institute association (AIDIA), Seoul, Korea.
Ubong, B. (2007), Hostel Accommodation in Tertiary Educational Institutions in Nigeria: To Be
Or Not To Be, available at: www.basseyubong.com/HOSTEL%20ACCOMMODATION.
pdf (accessed 28 July 2009).
Vera-Toscano, E. and Ateca-Amestoy, V. (2007), “The relevance of social interactions on housing
satisfaction”, Springer Netherlands, Vol. 86 No. 92, pp. 257-274.
Wallace, B., Maire, B. and Lachance, A. (2004), Aboriginal Post-secondary Student Housing:
Research Summary, Bridges and Foundations Project on Urban Aboriginal Housing Report,
Saskatoon.
Weidemann, S. and Anderson, J. (1985), Developing and Utilising Models of Resident
Satisfaction.
Wiens, J. (2010), “Furniture evolution”, College Planning and Management, Vol. 13 No. 3.
Willoughby, B.J., Carroll, J.S., Marshall, W.J. and Clark, C. (2009), “The decline of in loco parentis
and the shift to coed housing on college campuses”, Journal of Adolescent Research, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 21-36.

Further reading
Khozaei, F., Hassan, A.S. and Khozaei, Z. (2010), “Undergraduate students’ satisfaction with
hostel and sense of attachment to place: case study, universiti sains Malaysia”, American
Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 516-520.

Corresponding author
Patricia Toyin Sawyerr can be contacted at: toyinsawyerr66@gmail.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
Appendix. Survey instrument Hostel facilities
SECTION A: STUDENT’S PROFILE in Nigerian
1. Sex Male Female polytechnics
2. Student Level: ND HND PGD

3. Student status New Continuing

321
4. State the name of your hostel block

5. How many people do you share your room with?

2 3 4 More than 4 people

SECTION B

Strongly Dissatisfied Slightly Satisfied Satisfied Strongly

Dissatisfied Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5

1. STUDY-BEDROOM 1 2 3 4 5
a. Are you satisfied with studying in your room?
b. Are you satisfied with sleeping in your room?
c. Are you satisfied with relaxing and resting in your
room?
d. Are you satisfied with the number of persons in
your room?

e. Are you satisfied with entertaining friends in your

room?
f. How satisfied are you with the privacy in your
room?
g. How satisfied are you with the bedroom amenities provided?
i. Study table with chair
ii. Capacity of wardrobe
iii. Towel railings
iv. Dressing mirror
v. Ceiling fan and socket
h. How satisfied are you with the security of the
property in your room?
i. Overall satisfaction of the provided room

2. BATHROOM 1 2 3 4 5
a. Are you satisfied with the location of the
bathroom from your room?
b. Are you satisfied with the number of people you
share the bathroom & toilet with?
d. How satisfied are you with the cleanliness of the
bathroom & toilet?
e. Overall satisfaction of the bathroom
(continued)
JFM Strongly Dissatisfied Slightly Satisfied Strongly
Satisfied
11,4 Dissatisfied Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5

322
3. Do you have Laundry Room in your hostel building? If Yes No
No, please proceed to the next questions
1 2 3 4 5
a. How satisfied are you with the location of the laundry
room from your room?
b. How satisfied are you with the amenities provided?

Do you have Television viewing room in your hostel? Yes No

4. If No, please proceed to the next question
a. Is it shared with other hostel blocks? Yes No
b. How satisfied are you with the amenities provided in the room

1 2 3 4 5
i. Number of television?
ii. Adequacy of chairs, lighting and ceiling fan?
iii. How satisfied are you with the cleanliness of the
TV room?
iv. How satisfied are you with the TV room
arrangement?
c. Overall satisfaction of the provided TV room

5. OTHER SERVICES 1 2 3 4 5
a. How satisfied are you with the security surveillance?
b. Overall perception of the cafeteria and shops within
the hostel area
c. How satisfied are you with the water supply and
garbage disposal?
d. How satisfied are you with the fire safety provided?

OVERALL SATISFACTION EVALUATION 1 2 3 4 5

1. How satisfied are you with living in the hostel?
2. How satisfied are you with the overall facilities
provided in the hostels?

View publication stats