The Adult Student and Course Satisfaction: What Matters Most? George F. Howell & Jeffrey M. Buck # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 Abstract Student satisfaction with a course is important because it can contribute to student retention, and it can also be used as one way to assess faculty effectiveness. This investigative work suggests that course satisfaction among non-traditional, adult students seeking business degrees is positively influenced by giving attention to four specific service-based factors. Based on feedback from 1,725 such students and 214 instructors at five institutions of higher education, a service-based model of course satisfaction is proposed. This model focuses on four manageable variables that are observed as influencing adult students’ satisfaction with a business course: relevancy of subject- matter, faculty subject-matter competency, faculty classroom management, and student workload. Key words Student satisfaction . Services marketing . Adult education Understanding and meeting student expectations can result in improved levels of student satisfaction (Elliott and Shin 2002; Kress 2006; Wright and O'Neill 2002). Improved student satisfaction is important for higher education institutions serving non-traditional, adult Innov High Educ DOI 10.1007/s10755-011-9201-0 George Howell is Associate Professor of Marketing in the School of Business & Leadership at Indiana Wesleyan University. He holds a B.A. in Economics from Ripon College, an M.B.A. from Indiana Wesleyan University, and a D. B. A. from Anderson University. His research and teaching interests include services marketing, customer satisfaction, and adult education. Jeffrey Buck currently serves as Professor of Marketing and Director of M.B.A. programs in the Falls School of Business at Anderson University. He holds B.S. and M.B.A. degrees from Ball State University and a Ph.D. from the University of Mississippi. His research and teaching interests include services marketing, strategic management, and organizational loyalty and change. G. F. Howell (*) School of Business & Leadership, Indiana Wesleyan University, 1900 West 50th Street, Marion, IN 46953-9393, USA e-mail: [email protected]J. M. Buck Falls School of Business, Anderson University, 1303 East 5th Street, Anderson, IN 46012, USA e-mail: [email protected]
Transcript
The Adult Student and Course Satisfaction:What Matters Most?
George F. Howell & Jeffrey M. Buck
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract Student satisfaction with a course is important because it can contribute tostudent retention, and it can also be used as one way to assess faculty effectiveness. Thisinvestigative work suggests that course satisfaction among non-traditional, adult studentsseeking business degrees is positively influenced by giving attention to four specificservice-based factors. Based on feedback from 1,725 such students and 214 instructors atfive institutions of higher education, a service-based model of course satisfaction isproposed. This model focuses on four manageable variables that are observed asinfluencing adult students’ satisfaction with a business course: relevancy of subject-matter, faculty subject-matter competency, faculty classroom management, and studentworkload.
Key words Student satisfaction . Services marketing . Adult education
Understanding and meeting student expectations can result in improved levels of studentsatisfaction (Elliott and Shin 2002; Kress 2006; Wright and O'Neill 2002). Improved studentsatisfaction is important for higher education institutions serving non-traditional, adult
Innov High EducDOI 10.1007/s10755-011-9201-0
George Howell is Associate Professor of Marketing in the School of Business & Leadership at IndianaWesleyan University. He holds a B.A. in Economics from Ripon College, an M.B.A. from Indiana WesleyanUniversity, and a D. B. A. from Anderson University. His research and teaching interests include servicesmarketing, customer satisfaction, and adult education.
Jeffrey Buck currently serves as Professor of Marketing and Director of M.B.A. programs in the FallsSchool of Business at Anderson University. He holds B.S. and M.B.A. degrees from Ball State Universityand a Ph.D. from the University of Mississippi. His research and teaching interests include servicesmarketing, strategic management, and organizational loyalty and change.
G. F. Howell (*)School of Business & Leadership, Indiana Wesleyan University, 1900 West 50th Street,Marion, IN 46953-9393, USAe-mail: [email protected]
J. M. BuckFalls School of Business, Anderson University, 1303 East 5th Street, Anderson, IN 46012, USAe-mail: [email protected]
students because it has the potential to become a distinctive advantage in an environment thatis highly competitive.
An institution can set itself apart from others by being familiar with, and acting upon, theservice-related issues that are important to non-traditional, adult students. Unfortunately,there currently exists an insufficient understanding of course related service activities andthe influence they can have on satisfaction among non-traditional, adult students.Specifically, there is limited understanding as to what course related service issues mattermost to the non-traditional, adult student.
Motivated by a number of factors, institutions of higher education are becoming more andmore attentive to student enrollment issues (Holley and Harris 2010; Kranzow and Hyland2011; Wright and O'Neill 2002). Institutions are increasingly interested in examining theeffects of student satisfaction and its contribution to student retention (Kress 2006; Quayand Quaglia 2004). Correspondingly, there is the practice and acceptance of portraying andtreating students as consumers of a service (Desai et al. 2001; Pitman 2000).
Scholarly research in the discipline of marketing provides several recommendationsrelated to the dimensions and delivery of a quality service experience. The Journal ofService Management, the Journal of Service Research, the Journal of Services Marketing,the Journal of Services Research, the Services Industry Journal, and Managing ServiceQuality are just a few examples of peer reviewed journals that focus on the subject. Ofparticular relevance for higher education, the application of these marketing insights andperspectives can assist in developing a better understanding of the meaningful roles andinfluences associated with various stakeholders. Toward this end, the faculty, students, andthe institution itself can be viewed as contributors to service experiences and thus worthy ofexploration.
Faculty members, or course instructors, can be perceived as service providers with theability to influence student experiences through the manipulation of actions within theircontrol. Research suggests that a quality education experience is influenced by the front-line provider, which in the classroom is the faculty member (Wright and O'Neill 2002). Afaculty member’s competency, approach to classroom management, and desire to interactwith students are important contributions toward the student experience.
Students also have an influence on the service aspects of education. Ultimatelystudents are co-producers of the classroom experience. Student-driven service aspects canbe defined as those dimensions that are under the direct control of the student. Thesedimensions include grade expectations, perceived effort, and perceptions related tofaculty expertise. These student contributions have the potential to impact an individual’slevel of satisfaction.
Institution-driven service aspects can be defined as those remaining service-relatedelements that are not directly influenced by the faculty member or student. As such, theseare factors under the direct control of an institution’s administration. Examples of theseelements are decisions regarding class size, class location, and the decision whether or notto use full-time or adjunct faculty members to instruct a class.
The expanding, albeit controversial, perspective of the student as a consumer of a servicerequires an improved understanding regarding the various faculty-driven, student-driven,and institution-driven aspects of service as they relate to student course satisfaction.Combining existing research in the areas of services marketing and student satisfaction
Innov High Educ
creates an appropriate foundation for the development of a conceptual framework whichcan be used for investigating the potential impact that service-based activities can have oncourse satisfaction among adult students. Figure 1 illustrates a conceptual framework that isderived from the convergence of research in these areas.
As with any proposed conceptual framework, several topics emerge as areas worthy offurther detailed study; and there is a need for clarity regarding terminology and variabledefinition. As such, operational definitions are provided for the variables presented in thisproposed conceptual framework.
Class Location This is the physical location where a class meets. An institution can haveclasses meeting in facilities on its campus or meet at an offsite location not owned by theinstitution such as a hotel conference room or corporate facility. In this work, classlocation is categorized as either on-campus or off-campus. The scope of this studyexamined onsite students; the investigation of online students is an area for futureresearch.
Class Size This represents the number of students in a class. For the purpose of this study,class size becomes a student perception measurement and is captured through a rawnumeric response provided by the student.
External Customer Mindset of Faculty Kennedy et al. (2002) described customer mind-set,as the “extent to which an individual employee believes that understanding and satisfyingcustomers, whether internal or external, is central to the proper execution of his or her job”(p. 159). An external customer is a consumer, and in this research it is the student. Amodified version of the Kennedy et al. external customer mind-set construct is used toquantify and measure this variable.
Faculty Status Defined as either full-time or adjunct. Full-time faculty member describes anindividual hired full-time to instruct classes, as well as other activities, such as research andcommittee work. An adjunct faculty member is an individual hired part-time and on acontract basis to teach classes.
Faculty-Student Interaction This term describes the interaction activities initiated by thefaculty member in the classroom. Such interaction might include one-to-many interactionwith the class as a whole such as in lectures and class discussion, interaction with smallerstudent groups such as project teams, or interaction with students on a one-to-one basissuch as clarifying requirements for assignments during a break in the class. It is one of thefour major areas of effective instruction as defined by Desai et al. (2001), and we used theirfaculty-student interaction measure for our study.
Faculty Subject-Matter Competency This describes students’ perception of an instructor’sexpertise and organization of the course subject matter. In this study these perceptions weremeasured by the aggregate of five items used in prior studies on faculty performance. Thefive items are depth of knowledge regarding the subject (Summers et al. 2005; Weinrauchand Matejka 1973; Yanhong Li and Kaye 1999), awareness of recent developments in thefield (Anderson et al. 2002), ability to explain and clarify difficult aspects of the subject(Anderson et al. 2002; Summers et al. 2005), organization of course materials, andinstructor’s preparation for class (Krehbiel and McClure 1997; Seiler and Seiler 2002;Summers et al. 2005).
General Classroom Management This is a measure of classroom structure and control asexhibited by the instructor. General classroom management is one of four critical successfactors of good instruction as developed by Desai et al. (2001), and we used their generalclassroom management measure.
Grade This represents the grade a student expects to receive at the completion of a course.For this study, the student self-reported the final grade they believed they would receive inthe referenced course.
Innov High Educ
Relevancy of Subject Matter This term describes student perceptions of the practicalapplication of course material. Relevancy of subject matter is measured by the aggregatescore of four items examined in previous research. These items include the usefulness ofthis course in personal career development (Tan and Kek 2004), the apparent practicalapplication of course subject-matter (Anderson et al. 2002), the helpfulness of the course inpreparing for a job (Harvey 2001), and overall personal relevance and usefulness (Mustafaand Chiang 2006; Summers et al. 2005).
Student Satisfaction Overall student satisfaction summarizes the following attributes: thecourse as a whole, assessment of the instructor, and course content. Specific items used tomeasure this attitude come from prior research and practice. They include overall qualityof course (Hamilton et al. 2002; Summers et al. 2005); overall quality of instructor(Indiana Wesleyan University 2006); overall quality of classroom and facilities (Harvey2001; Bastova et al. 2004; Shank et al. 1995; Wiers-Jenssen et al. 2002); the intent torecommend the school to a friend (Indiana Wesleyan University 2006; Wiers-Jenssen etal. 2002; and projective behavior based on experience, in other words, knowing what thestudent knows, would they choose this course again (Indiana Wesleyan University 2006;Wiers-Jenssen et al. 2002).
Student Workload This describes the student’s perceptions regarding the amount of workand time to complete course assignments, study, and prepare for a class. Student workloadis measured by the aggregate score of five items used in previous studies: reasonableness ofwork in this course (Mustafa and Chiang 2006; Summers et al. 2005), volume of work inthe course (Mustafa and Chiang 2006; Richardson 2005), amount of course content for thetime period of the course (Hill 1995; Mustafa and Chiang 2006; Tan and Kek 2004), timingand scheduling of course assignments (Harvey 2001), study time and class preparation(Hamilton et al. 2002).
The Study
A review of the conceptual framework generates a number of questions worthy ofexploration. The systematic testing of these questions provides a progressive step increating an enhanced understanding of the potential impact that service-based activities canhave on course satisfaction among adult students. These fundamental questions and relatedhypotheses are summarized in Table I.
Survey Instruments and Sample Groups
To address the research questions and hypotheses, we analyzed primary data collectedthrough survey research. We employed two distinct and different survey instruments tocollect the primary data – one survey instrument designed for faculty and one designed forstudents. Both instruments were reviewed, modified, and assessed through a series of pilotstudies. We obtained approval for human subject research through the InstitutionalReview Board (IRB) at the home institution of the lead author. Participating schoolseither accepted this IRB approval or provided their own approval to conduct humansubject research.
Schools affiliated with the Consortium for the Advancement of Adult Higher Education(CAAHE) were identified, contacted, and invited to provide participants for this study. At
Innov High Educ
the time of this study there were twenty member schools in CAAHE. There is one memberinstitution of CAAHE that we did not invite to participate in this study because it is a for-profit institution. Since it is possible that the marketing and management philosophies differbetween for-profit and not-for-profit institutions, a decision was made to exclude thisschool and limit participation to only not-for-profit institutions. Ultimately, five CAAHEinstitutions, out of the remaining nineteen institutions, agreed to provide subjects for thestudy. Each of the institutions providing subjects for the study are categorized by theCarnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as “4-year or above [and] not-for-profit” (n. d.). These five schools are geographically dispersed, representing the pacificnorthwest, the midwest, the upper east coast, and the southeastern regions of the UnitedStates.
The participating institutions provided subjects representing two groups of individuals:1) faculty members serving as instructors of record for a business course in an adultbusiness degree program and 2) students who were enrolled in courses designed for non-traditional, adult business degree-seeking students. The potential faculty sample groupincluded both full-time and adjunct business professors teaching in business degree
Table I Summary of research questions and testable hypotheses
Research Question Hypothesis
Is there a relationship between the external customermind-set of full-time professors and studentperceptions of the general management of theclassroom?
H1: There is no statistically significant relationshipbetween the external customer mind-set of full-timefaculty and the student rating of general classroommanagement.
Is there a relationship between the external customermind-set of adjunct professors and studentperceptions of the general classroom managementof the classroom?
H2: There is no statistically significant relationshipbetween the external customer mind-set of adjunctfaculty and the student rating of general classroommanagement.
Is there a difference between full-time faculty andadjunct faculty in regards to external customermind-set?
H3: There is no statistically significant differencebetween the external customer mind-set of full-timefaculty and the external customer mind-set ofadjunct faculty.
Is there a relationship between the number ofstudents in a class and student satisfaction?
H4: There is no statistically significant relationshipbetween class size and student satisfaction.
Does class location (on-campus versus off-campus),effect student satisfaction?
H5: There is no statistically significant relationshipbetween class location and student satisfaction.
Is there a relationship between the generalmanagement of a classroom and studentsatisfaction?
H6: There is no statistically significant relationshipbetween general classroom management andstudent satisfaction.
Is there a relationship between faculty subject-mattercompetency and student satisfaction?
H7: There is no statistically significant relationshipbetween faculty subject-matter competency andstudent satisfaction.
Is there a relationship between faculty-studentinteraction in the classroom and studentsatisfaction?
H8: There is no statistically significant relationshipbetween faculty-student interaction in theclassroom and student satisfaction.
Is there a relationship between an anticipated gradefor a class and student satisfaction?
H9: There is no statistically significant relationshipbetween grades and student satisfaction.
Is there a relationship between student workload andstudent satisfaction?
H10: There is no statistically significant relationshipbetween student workload and student satisfaction.
Is there a relationship between the relevancy ofsubject-matter and student satisfaction?
H11: There is no statistically significant relationshipbetween the relevancy of the subject-matter andstudent satisfaction.
Innov High Educ
completion programs that utilize classroom settings; this group included 50 full-time and374 adjunct faculty members. The potential student sample included 5,520 adult studentswho were enrolled in these same face-to-face classes as identified by the institution. Thedecision was made to forgo a detailed analysis of the course syllabi for these courses sinceCAHHE affiliated schools offer similar programs and curricula targeted toward workingadults. While this could be viewed as a limitation of the study, the design and scope of thisstudy was to examine course satisfaction of non-traditional, adult, business degree seekingstudents; and these courses provided an appropriate sample group.
Response Rates
Data collection occurred during a 60-day time period. A volunteer school representativedelivered the survey packets, with the faculty survey and student surveys, to the instructorin the course, with instructions on how to administer the student surveys, approximately 2to 3 weeks before the end of a course. Thus, the surveys were completed in the last, or next-to-last, class session of a course.
The response rate for the faculty represents a unique faculty member submission. Ifmultiple surveys were received from the same faculty member teaching multiple classesduring this time, an averaging procedure was utilized; and ultimately their feedback wastreated as a single response. A 78% response rate among full-time faculty membersresulted in 39 participants, and a 47% response rate among part-time adjunct facultymembers resulted in an additional 175 participants. In total 214 instructors participated inthe study. These instructors represented each of the five selected institutions, andstatistical analyses indicated no differences in participants based upon institutionaffiliation or faculty status.
The student surveys were first examined for completeness, and surveys were eliminatedif they were incomplete. In addition, student surveys were matched with their instructor;and student surveys that could not be matched with a faculty member’s response wereeliminated. The elimination of incomplete and non-matching surveys resulted in 1,725student responses, which represents a 31% response rate. As with the instructor responses,analyses were conducted to determine the likely influence of a single institution; and theanalyses indicate no institution-based effect.
Results
Hypotheses Testing
Cronbach alpha tests and inter-item correlation matrices analyses demonstrate acceptablereliability for the primary data. Cronbach alphas are in an acceptable range of .771 to .942.Inter-item correlation values are below .80, indicating an absence of potential multi-collinearity. Initial testing for the normality of the data distribution demonstratesacceptability among the study variables with two exceptions. Both the faculty externalcustomer mind-set and general classroom management variables exhibit non-normal datadistribution. Logarithm and squared term techniques are ineffective in transforming thedata for these variables to a normal distribution pattern. Furthermore, identification andelimination of extraordinary observations, or outliers, improves the data distributionnormality for customer mind-set; however the approach is ineffective for addressing thedata distribution normality issue for the general classroom management variable. Despite
Innov High Educ
the existence of two variables with non-normal data distribution, credence is given toWeisberg’s (2005) contention that “…normality is much less important” (p. 204) whenlarge samples are used in regression analysis. Therefore, we considered it appropriate toforgo any data transformation and instead implement a two-phase procedure forhypotheses testing.
To test the hypotheses, we utilized independent sample t-tests and univariate regressionanalyses when appropriate. Subsequently, we examined the rejected hypotheses using thenonparametric Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient test. The analysis of the data led usto reject six of the eleven hypotheses. Tables II, III, and IV summarize the results andassessments related to the various hypotheses.
Multiple Regression Analysis
Based on the results of the hypotheses tests, we identified five variables that havestatistically significant correlations with student satisfaction. A stepwise multipleregression analysis using these variables is helpful in creating a better understanding ofthe interaction and combined strength of the relationships. In the best-fit model, weeliminated the faculty-student interaction variable. As a result, the multiple regressionanalysis calculated an R2 of .703, suggesting that approximately 70% of an observedvariance in student satisfaction with a course can be explained by four variables:relevancy of subject-matter, faculty subject matter competency, general classroommanagement, and student workload. Table V provides the coefficients, significancelevels, and variance inflations factors calculated through the multiple regression testingprocedure.
A Service-Based Model of Student Course Satisfaction
The impetus for this study was to develop an understanding of the course-related servicesthat matter most to the adult student seeking a business degree. Based on the results, wepresent a proposed services-based model of course satisfaction with relevancy of subject-matter, faculty subject-matter competency, student workload, and general classroommanagement as the independent variables effecting student satisfaction with a course.Figure 2 provides an illustration of the proposed model.
The model connects research in services marketing with research on student outcomesand satisfaction. We believe that it is easy to understand, explain, and apply. The value andskills related to good preparation and good classroom management can be translated andgrasped by faculty members. The practice of developing relevant course content while atthe same time requiring an appropriate course workload, are controllable activities to whichfaculty members can give attention if student satisfaction is a desired outcome.
Table II Summary of hypotheses test using t-test of two sample means
Hypothesis Sig. Assessment
H3: There is no statistically significant difference between the external customer mind-setof full-time faculty and the external customer mind-set of adjunct faculty.
.977 Accept
H5: There is no statistically significant relationship between class location and studentsatisfaction.
.793 Accept
Innov High Educ
Recommendations and Conclusions
This study surveyed instructors and students in adult business degree programs at fivedifferent institutions of higher education. The survey methodology resulted in 214 facultyrespondents and 1,725 student participants. Based on the findings, a service-oriented coursesatisfaction model is proposed. This model and the acknowledged limitations of the studygenerate several opportunities and recommendations for practitioners and academicians.
Table III Summary of hypotheses test using univariate regression analysis
Hypothesis R2 Sig. Assessment
H1: There is no statistically significant relationship between the external customermind-set of full-time faculty and student rating of the general classroommanagement.
.016 .022 Accept
H2: There is no statistically significant relationship between the external customermind-set of adjunct faculty and student rating of the general classroommanagement.
.002 .086 Accept
H4: There is no statistically significant relationship between class size and studentsatisfaction.
.002 .107 Accept
H6: There is no statistically significant relationship between general classroommanagement and student satisfaction.
.333 .000 Reject
H7: There is no statistically significant relationship between faculty subject-mattercompetency and student satisfaction.
.461 .000 Reject
H8: There is no statistically significant relationship between faculty-studentinteraction in the classroom and student satisfaction
.287 .000 Reject
H9: There is no statistically significant relationship between grades and studentsatisfaction.
.013 .000 Reject
H10: There is no statistically significant relationship between student workload andstudent satisfaction.
.349 .000 Reject
H11: There is no statistically significant relationship between the relevancy ofsubject-matter and student satisfaction.
.471 .000 Reject
Table IV Summary of hypotheses testing using Spearman’s Rho
Hypothesis Spearman’sRho
Strength ofAssociation
Sig. Assessment
H6: There is no statistically significant relationship betweengeneral classroom management and student satisfaction.
.591 Moderate .000 Reject
H7: There is no statistically significant relationship betweenfaculty subject-matter competency and studentsatisfaction.
.629 Strong .000 Reject
H8: There is no statistically significant relationship betweenfaculty-student interaction in the classroom and studentsatisfaction.
.540 Moderate .000 Reject
H9: There is no statistically significant relationship betweengrades and student satisfaction.
.112 Very Weak .000 Reject
H10: There is no statistically significant relationship betweenstudent workload and student satisfaction.
.591 Moderate .000 Reject
H11: There is no statistically significant relationship betweenthe relevancy of subject-matter and student satisfaction.
.698 Strong .000 Reject
Innov High Educ
Practitioner Implications
General classroom management is shown to have a correlated association with studentsatisfaction, and it is also one of the four explanatory variables in the proposed studentsatisfaction model. Therefore, faculty members should be encouraged to focus on theirperformance related to general classroom management. The general classroom managementitems developed by Desai et al. (2001) provide a useful set of nineteen specific elements onwhich instructors can focus their efforts. Furthermore, developing and using end-of-coursesurveys which include the general customer management construct will allow administratorsthe opportunity to assess faculty performance and contribute to faculty development planswhen student satisfaction is a desired outcome.
The data in this study indicate no statistically significant difference between adjunct and full-time faculty members regarding their external customer mind-set. Moreover, external customermind-set was found to have an inconsequential impact on student course satisfaction. At the
General classroom management
ß = .158p-value (.000)
Faculty Subject-matter Competency
ß = .342p-value (.000)
StudentSatisfaction
Student Workloadß = .151
p-value (.000)
Relevancy of Subject-matter
ß = .343p-value (.000)
Faculty-Driven Service Aspects
Student-Driven Service Aspects
R = .838R Square = .703
df = 1,724Significance = 0.000
Fig. 2 A service-based model of student course satisfaction
Table V Coefficients for the four explanatory variables
same time, the data suggests subject-matter relevancy and faculty member subject-mattercompetency to be significant contributors to student satisfaction. This finding provides supportfor the appropriate use of adjunct faculty in the classroom when the adjunct faculty member’ssubject-matter competency, experience, abilities to make the content relevant, and classroommanagement skills are strong. As a word of caution, the decision to use adjunct faculty shouldbe moderated by other important institutional factors such as an institution’s mission, itsdistinctive features, its core competencies, and its market position strategies.
The analysis of the survey data suggests that student satisfaction is not effected by classroomlocation. In general, being on-campus or off campus makes no difference. While the study didnot measure the quality of specific classroom features such as available technology, size,cleanliness, and safety tied to the geographic location, the findings of the study provide supportfor the appropriate use of off-campus classroom locations. This finding can help administratorsexpand their outreach without making a long-term commitment to investments in infrastructuresuch as new buildings.
Perceived workload by the student was shown to have an influence on student satisfaction. Aworkload that is perceived as too demanding can have a negative impact on satisfaction. Assuch, faculty members teaching a class and administrators marketing the institution’s programsneed to manage student perceptions proactively and ultimately ensure a proper balanceregarding course expectations. In the context of adult students, individuals have multipleresponsibilities that extend beyond their academic studies; and, while this should not diminishacademic rigor in any way, it is a reality associated with this group that should not be ignored.Faculty members can address this in a number of ways, and some examples include providingclear assignment objectives and expectations upfront, as well as giving attention to the timingand scheduling of formative and summative course assignments.
Attempting to understand the external customer mind-set of faculty and then assessinghow that might ultimately influence student satisfaction was a primary objective of thisstudy. While the data does not suggest a direct relationship between a faculty member’sexternal customer mind-set and a student’s perceptions of the instructor’s general classroommanagement, the customer mind-set construct, with its measurement of customer-orientedbeliefs and its linkage to the customer orientation component of market orientation, is still atopic worthy of further exploration.
Analysis of the data identified four variables that can influence student satisfaction with acourse. These independent variables in the proposed student satisfaction model provideopportunities for further research in the context of service marketing and higher education.Conversely, it is worthwhile to try and understand why some of the anticipated factors, such asthe number of students in class, faculty-student interaction, and class location do not seem to beinfluential.
Finally, a recognized limitation of the study is the sample group. The use of a non-probability,convenience sample does potentially limit the generalizability of the findings. As such, themodelneeds to be tested in other settings of higher education, such as adult and traditional studentdegree programs at public universities and community colleges, other private institutions whichare not affiliated with CAAHE, and for-profit institutions of higher education. Future research inthese areas has the potential to broaden the generalizability of the model.
References
Anderson, L., Banks, S., & Leary, P. (2002). The effect of interactive television courses on studentsatisfaction. The Journal of Education for Business, 77(3), 164–168.
Innov High Educ
Bastova, J., Menclova, L., Sebkova, H., & Kouhoutek, J. (2004). Czech higher education students:Viewpoints and status. European Journal of Education, 39(4), 507–520.
Canegie Foundation for the Advancment of Teaching (n.d.). Retieved from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/Desai, S., Damewood, E., & Jones, R. (2001). Be a good teacher and be seen as a good teacher. Journal of
Marketing Education, 23(2), 136–144.Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important
concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 24(2), 197–209.Hamilton, D., Pritchard, R., Welsh, C., Potter, G., & Saccucci, M. (2002). The effects of using in-class focus
groups on student course evaluations. The Journal of Education for Business, 77(6), 329–333.Harvey, L. (2001). Student feedback: A report to the higher education funding council for England.
Retrieved from http://www0.bcu.ac.uk/crq/publications/studentfeedback.pdfHill, F. (1995). Managing service quality in higher education: The role of the student as primary customer.
Quality Assurance in Education, 3(3), 10–21.Holley, K., & Harris, M. (2010). Selecting students, selecting priorities: How universities manage enrollment
during times of economic crises. Journal of College Admission, 207(Spring), 16–21.Indiana Wesleyan University (2006). Annual assessment report. Retrieved from http://www.indwes.edu/
CAPS-Institutional-Effectiveness/Assessment-Reports/Kennedy, K. N., Felicia, G., & Goolsby, J. R. (2002). Customer mind-set of employees throughout the
organization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(2), 159–171.Kranzow, J., & Hyland, N. (2011). Marketing climate: New considerations for target marketing in graduate
student enrollment management. Journal of College Admission, 211(Spring), 22–25.Krehbiel, T., & McClure, R. (1997). Using student disconfirmation as a measure of classroom effectiveness.
The Journal of Education for Business, 72(4), 224–230.Kress, A. M. (2006). Identifying what matters to students: Improving satisfaction and defining priorities at
Santa Fe Community College. In J.A. Seybert (Ed.), Benchmarking: An Essential Tool for Assessment,Improvement, and Accountabiliy. New Directions for Community Colleges (134), (pp. 37–46). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mustafa, S., & Chiang, D. (2006). Dimensions of quality in higher education: How academic performanceaffects university students’ teacher evaluations. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge,8(1), 294–303.
Pitman, T. (2000). Perceptions of academics and students as customers: A survey of administrative staff inhigher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 22(2), 165–175.
Quay, S., & Quaglia, R. (2004, February). Creating a classroom culture that inspires student learning.Teaching Professor, 18(2), 1–2.
Richardson, J. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: A review of the literature. Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 387–415.
Seiler, V., & Seiler, M. (2002, Spring). Professors who make the grade. Review of Business, 23(2), 39–45.Shank, M., Walker, M., & Hayes, T. (1995). Understanding professional service expectations: Do we know what
our students expect in a quality education? Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 13(1), 71–89.Summers, J., Waigandt, A., & Whittaker, T. (2005). A comparison of student achievement and satisfaction in
an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics class. Innovative Higher Education, 29(3), 233–250.Tan, K., & Kek, S. (2004). Service quality in higher education using an enhanced SERVQUAL approach.
Quality in Higher Education, 10(1), 17–24.Weinrauch, D., & Matejka, K. (1973, Fall). Are students’ ratings of business communication teachers honest
feedback?. Journal of Business Communication, 11(1), 31–37.Weisberg, S. (2005). Applied linear regression. Hobroken, NJ: Wiley.Wiers-Jenssen, J., Stensaker, B., & Grogaard, J. (2002). Student satisfaction: Towards an empirical
deconstruction of the concept. Quality in Higher Education, 8(2), 183–195.Wright, C., & O'Neill, M. (2002). Service quality evaluation in the higher education sector: An empirical
investigation of students' perceptions. Higher Education Research and Development, 21(1), 23–39.Yanhong Li, R., & Kaye, M. (1999). Measuring service quality in the context of teaching: A study on the
longitudinal nature of student's expectations and perceptions. Innovations in Education and TrainingInternational, 36(2), 145–154.
