Anadolu Üniversitesi Örgün Öğrencilerinin Üniversitelerine Bağlılıklarının Öğrenci Memnuniyet Modeli ile İncelenmesi

Year 2016, Volume: 16 Issue: 2, 145 - 158, 12.08.2016

Doç.dr. Köksal Büyük , Yrd.doç.dr. Murat Akyıldız

https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.389234

Cited By: 2

Abstract

 Yükseköğretim kurumlarının performanslarının öğrencilerinin gözünden değerlendirilmesi son yıllarda giderek önem kazanmaktadır. Yükseköğretim kurumları, öğrencilerinin memnuniyet düzeylerini arttırarak kurumun tercih edilirliğini arttırmak ve küresel eğitim pazarından daha çok pay almak istemektedir. Öğrencilerin gözünden incelendiğinde yüksek ve düşük memnuniyet duyulan boyutların belirlenmesi sayesinde yükseköğretim kurumunun sahip olduğu kaynakların memnuniyeti daha çok arttıracak boyutlara aktarılması imkânı kazanılabilir. Bu çalışmada Anadolu Üniversitesi örgün öğrencilerinin üniversiteye bağlılıkları üniversiteye bağlılık modeli bağlamında incelenmiştir. Üniversiteye bağlılık modeli üniversitenin fiziksel imkânlarına, akademik, sportif ve kültürel faaliyetlerine, öğrencilerin bireysel akademik gelişim süreçlerine, üniversitenin zihinsel imajına ve üniversiteye bağlılığa ilişkin algıları içermektedir. Araştırmada test edilen model öğrencilerin üniversitenin fiziksel imkânlarına, faaliyetlerine ve akademik gelişim imkânlarına yönelik algılarının üniversite imajını etkilediğini, bu faktörlerden etkilenen üniversite imajının ise üniversiteye olan bağlılığı etkilediğini varsaymaktadır. Geliştirilen üniversiteye yönelik görüşler ölçeğinin güvenirlik ve geçerliliğini belirleyebilmek amacıyla doğrulayıcı faktör analizi uygulanmışve tüm boyutların ortalama çıkarılan varyans (AVE) ve birleşik güvenirlikleri (Composite Reliability) 

hesaplanmıştır. Ölçeğin yüksek derecede geçerli [Chi square (c2 = 5268.50, df=1444, p<0.001), Chi square/ df (c2/df=3.65), RMSEA (0.034), NFI (0.97), NNFI (0.98), CFI (0.98), IFI (0.98)] ve güvenilir (boyutların birleşik güvenirlik değerleri 0,77-0,96 arasındadır) olduğu görülmüştür. Ölçeğin uygulanmasından elde edilen veriler ile üniversiteye bağlılık model arasındaki uyumun yüksek olduğu görülmüştür Chi square (c2 = 137.82, df=52, p<0.001), Chi square/df (c2/df=2.65), RMSEA (0.027), NFI (0.99), NNFI (0.99), CFI (1.00), IFI (1.00). Modeli iyiliği katsayıları için elde edilen değerler modelin toplanan verilerle çok iyi uyum sağladığını göstermektedir. Test edilen model öğrencilerin üniversiteye olan bağlılıklarını iyi derecede açıklayabilen bir modeldir. 

Keywords

Öğrenci Memnuniyeti, Bağlılık

References

• Atalık Ö. (2006). Havayolu İşletmeleri Örneğinde İşletme İmajının Havayolu İşletmesi Tercihlerine ve Müşteri Bağlılığına Olan Etkisinin Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma, (Çevrimiçi) http:// www.akademikbakis.Org/pdfs/7/Anadolu.pdf, 04.02.2010
• Bagozzi, R. P. & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94.
• Barak, M., Watted, A., & Haick, H. (2016). Motivation to learn in massive open online courses: Examining aspects of language and social engagement. Computers & Education, 94, 49-60.
• Brooks, R., Brooks, S., & Goldstein, S. (2012). The power of mindsets: Nurturing engagement, motivation, and resilience in students. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 541-562). Springer US.
• Clark, R. K., Walker, M., & Keith, S. (2002). Experimentally Assessing the Student Impacts of Out-of- Class Communication: Office Visits and the Student Experience. Journal of College Student Development, 43(6), 824-37.
• Delialioğlu, Ö. (2012). Student engagement in blended learning environments with lecture-based and problem-based instructional approaches. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 310- 322.
• Dixson, M. D. (2012). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging?. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1-13.
• Dolmans, D. H., Wolfhagen, H. A., & Scherpbier, A. J. (2003). From quality assurance to total quality management: how can quality assurance result in continuous improvement in health professions education?. Education for Health (Abingdon, England), 16(2), 210-217.
• Draus, P. J., Curran, M. J., & Trempus, M. S. (2014). The influence of instructor-generated video content on student satisfaction with and engagement in asynchronous online classes. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,10(2), 240-254.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 39-50.
• Gibbs, R., & Poskitt, J. (2010). Student Engagement in the Middle Years of Schooling (Years 7-10): Literature Review, Ministry of Education, New Zealand.
• Guolla, M. (1999). Assessing the teaching quality to student satisfaction relationship: Applied customer satisfaction research in the classroom. Journal of marketing theory and practice, 87-97.
• Hair, F. J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate Data Analysis: A global perspective. 7th ed. New York: Macmillan.
• Healey, M., Flint, A., Harrington, K. 2014. Engagement through partnership: students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education, https:// www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/ engagement_through_partnership.pdf
• Henrie, C. R., Bodily, R., Manwaring, K. C., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Exploring intensive longitudinal measures of student engagement in blended learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3).
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
• Johnston, H. 2008. Extracurricular Activities and Student Achievement: Everyone Gains, http://oregongearup.org/files/research-briefs/extracurricularactivities.pdf
• Jones, R. D. (2008). Strengthening student engagement. International Center for Leadership in Education, 1.
• Joo, K. P., Andrés, C., & Shearer, R. (2014). Promoting distance learners’ cognitive engagement and learning outcomes: Design-based research in the Costa Rican National University of Distance Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(6).
• Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, E. K. (2011). Online university students’ satisfaction and persistence: Examining perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use as predictors in a structural model. Computers & education,57(2), 1654-1664.
• Kahu, E. R., Stephens, C., Leach, L., & Zepke, N. (2013). The engagement of mature distance students. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(5), 791-804.
• Kandampully J. ve H.Hu (2007), “Do Hoteliers Need to Manage Image to Retain Loyal Customers”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(6), 435-443.
• Kandampully J. ve D. Suhartanto (2000), “Customer Loyalty in the Hotel Industry: The Role of Customer Satisfaction and Image”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(6), 346-351.
• Karakütük, K., Tunç, B., Bülbül, T., Özdem, G., Taşdan, M., Çelikkaleli, Ö., & Bayram, A. (2012). The adequacy of physical conditions of public high schools in Turkey according to their sizes. Ankara University, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 45(2), 183-204.
• King, M. C. (1993). Academic Advising: Organizing and Delivering Services for Student Success. New Directions for Community Colleges, Number 82. New Directions for Community Colleges.
• King, M. C. (1993). Academic Advising: Organizing and Delivering Services for Student Success. New Directions for Community Colleges, Number 82. New Directions for Community Colleges.
• Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The Review of Higher Education, 24(3), 309-332.
• Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(1), 16-39.
• Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35-50.
• Liaw, S. S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864-873.
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), 370.
• Massachusetts Task Force Report,(2014). School Safety and Security, Massachusetts Task Force Report of School Safety and Security.
• NCPC, (2003). School Safety and Security Toolkit, 2003 National Crime Prevention Council Washington
• NEALS,(2009). Improving School Sport and Physical Education in your School, Student Learning Division Office of Government School Education Department of Education and Early Childhood Development Melbourne, State of Victoria
• Phan, T., McNeil, S. G., & Robin, B. R. (2016). Students’ patterns of engagement and course performance in a Massive Open Online Course.Computers & Education, 95, 36-44.
• Popli, S. (2005). Ensuring customer delight: A quality approach to excellence in management education. Quality in Higher Education, 11(1), 17-24.
• Shen, D., Cho, M. H., Tsai, C. L., & Marra, R. (2013). Unpacking online learning experiences: Online learning self-efficacy and learning satisfaction. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 10-17.
• Towler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review, Department of Educational Research Lancaster University, https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/ files/studentengagementliteraturereview_1. pdf
• Wilms, J. D. (2000). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation. Results from PISA. Paper of OECD.