Türkiye’de Yükseköğretim Kurumlarında Öğrenci Memnuniyeti: Eğitim Fakültesi Örneği

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 4, 1328 - 1344, 31.10.2019

Şakir Çınkır , Sevgi Yıldız

Öz

Bu çalışmada üniversiteye devam eden öğrencilerin aldıkları eğitim-öğretim, sınav süreçleri ve
destek hizmetlerine yönelik memnuniyetlerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma
grubu, Türkiye’de beş eğitim fakültesinin sekiz programında öğrenimlerine devam eden toplam 500
öğrenciden oluşmaktadır. Araştırmanın verileri araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen ve öğrencilerin
deneyimlerinden oluşan hikayelere dayalı olarak kritik olaylar üzerine odaklanılan veri toplama aracı
ile toplanmıştır. Öğrencilerden elde edilen veriler NVivo programı aracılığıyla içerik analizine tabi
tutulmuştur. Araştırma bulgularına göre eğitim fakültesi öğrencilerinin eğitim-öğretim, sınavlar ve
destek hizmetlerde memnuniyet durumlarında sırasıyla tutum, işlevsellik ve yeterlik temalarında yer
alan yaşantıların kritik olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca sosyalleşme, iletişim ve erişim temalarında yer
alan yaşantılar öğrencilerin bu hizmetlerden memnuniyet duymalarını sağlarken; yönetim, güvenlik
ve ödeme temalarında yer alan yaşantılar memnuniyetsizlik kaynakları olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu
sonuçlara göre yükseköğretim kurumlarının memnuniyet araştırmalarından elde edilen sonuçlara göre
politikalarını gözden geçirerek iyileştirme ve geliştirme faaliyetlerinde bulunmaları önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Öğrenciler, kritik olay tekniği, yükseköğretim, öğrenci memnuniyeti, fakülte, eğitim fakültesi

Student Satisfaction at Higher Education Institutions in Turkey: A Case of Faculty of Education

Öz

This study aims to explore the satisfaction of students studying at university with the
education and learning, examination and support services they receive. The study group of the
research is comprised of 500 students in total studying in eight programs at five faculties of education
in Turkey. Research data was collected using a data collection instrument developed by the
researchers and focusing on the critical incidents based on student experiences. Data acquired from
the students was subjected to content analysis through NVivo program. According to the research
findings, student experiences in attitude, functionality and proficiency themes, respectively, were
found to be critical in their satisfaction with education-learning, exams, and support services. Also,
while experiences in socializing, communication and access themes enable students to feel satisfied
with these services, experiences in management, safety, and payment themes were found to be the
sources of dissatisfaction. According to these results, higher education institutions are recommended
to do improvement and development activities by reviewing their policies based on the results derived
from the satisfaction research.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Students, critical incident technique, higher education, student satisfaction, faculty, faculty of education

Kaynakça

• Adeyemi, T. O. (2009). Causes, consequences and control of students’ crises in public and private universities in Nigeria. Educational Research and Review, 4(4), 156-163.
• Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2009). The measurement of the construct satisfaction in higher education. The Services Industries Journal, 29(2), 203-218.
• Appleton Knapp, S. L., & Krentler, K. A. (2006). Measuring student expectations and their effects on satisfaction: the importance of managing student expectations. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(3), 254-264.
• Arambewela, R., & Hall, J. (2009). An empirical model of international student satisfaction. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21(4), 555-569.
• Asera-Nuamah, P. (2017). International students’ satisfaction assessing the determinants of satisfaction. Higher Education for the Future, 4(1), 44-59.
• Bandeviča, L., & Līgotne, A. (2014). Higher education study programme quality assessment. Regional Formation and Development Studies, 7(2), 6-18.
• Barutcu Yildirim, F., Yerin Guneri, O., & Capa Aydın, Y. (2015). University students’ satisfaction level and related variables. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 11(2), 521-533.
• Bianchi, C. (2013). Satisfiers and dissatisfiers for international students of higher education: an exploratory study in Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(4), 396- 409.
• Coles, C. (2002). Variability of student ratings of accounting teaching: Evidence from a Scottish business school. International Journal of Management Education, 2(2), 30-39.
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative ınquiry and research design: Choosing among the five. Thousand Oaks, CL: Sage.
• Cinkir, S. & Yildiz, S. (2018). The study of Bologna evaluation: Analysis of attainments of qualifications in educational administration graduate programme. Journal of Higher Education, 8(1), 55-67.
• Cokluk, O., & Yilmaz, K. (2007). Analysis of University students’ views about the quality of faculty life using various variables. Ankara University, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 40(2), 179- 204.
• Deshields, Jr. O, Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: applying Herzberg’s two-factor theory. International Journal of Educational Management, 19, 128–139.
• Douglas, J. Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(3), 251-267.
• Douglas, J. McClelland, R., & Davies, J. (2007). The development of a conceptual model of student satisfaction with their experience in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(1), 19- 35.
• Duong, M. Q. (2015). University experiences and satisfaction of Vietnamese university students. Journal of Studies in Education, 5(4), 90-99.
• Elliot, K. M., & Healy, M. A. (2001). Key factors influencing students’ satisfaction related to recruitment and retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(4), 1-12.
• Elliot, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(2), 197-209.
• Erdogan, M., & Usak, M. (2005). The development of prospective science teachers’ satisfaction scale. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Faculty of Education, 25 (2), 35-54.
• Guo, S., Teng, F., Guo, J., & Sun, Y. (2014). The construction of college student’s satisfaction model based on structural equation model. Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research, 6(6), 164- 169.
• Harvey, L. (2006). Impact of quality assurance: Overview of a discussion between representatives of external quality assurance agencies. Quality in Higher Education, 12(1), 287–90.
• Johnston, R. (1995).The determinants of service quality: Satisfiers and dissatisfiers. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 6(5), 53-71.
• Kane, D., Williams, J., & Cappuccini-Ansfield, G. (2008). Student satisfaction surveys: The value in taking an historical perspective. Quality in Higher Education, 14(2), 135-155.
• Karimi, F. (2008). Student satisfaction and empowerment through complaining in institutions of higher learning. Doctoral Dissertations. 160. http://repository.usfca.edu/diss/160.
• Law, K. K., & Cheung, R. (2013). Mearsuring student satisfaction in distance education in Hong Kong. Business and Information. 7-9, 443-470.
• Lawson, A. Leach, M., & Burrows, S. (2012). The implications for learners, teachers and institutions of using student satisfaction as a measure of success: A review of the literature. Education Journal, 138, 7-11.
• Lomas, L. (2007) Are students customers? Perceptions of academic staff. Quality in Higher Education, 13(1), 31-44.
• Machado, M. L. Brites, R. Magalhães, A. & José Sá, M. (2011). Satisfaction with higher education: Critical data for student development. European Journal of Education, 46(3), 415-432.
• Miles, M. B, Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Third Edition). Thousand Oaks, CL: Sage.
• O’Driscoll, F. (2012). What matters most: An exploratory multivariate study of satisfaction among first year hotel/hospitality management students. Quality Assurance in Education, 20(3), 1-21.
• Oluseye, O. O. Tairat, B. T., & Emmanuel, J. O. (2014). Customer relationship management approach and student satisfaction in higher education marketing. Journal of Competitiveness, 6(3), 49-62.
• Ozturk, S. A. (2000). A new approach to measuring service quality: Critical events technique. Anatolia: Journal of Tourism Research, 11, 57-68.
• Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of the literature. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 387-415.
• Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Rowley, J. (2003). Designing student feedback questionnaires. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(3), 142-9.
• Sarrico, C. S., & Rosa, M. J. (2014) Student satisfaction with Portuguese higher education institutions: the view of different types of students. Tertiary Education and Management, 20(2), 165-178.
• Secilmis, C. Kiliclar, A., & Sarı, Y. (2012). The relation between the perception of satisfaction and academic success in students from Turkic world: the case of tourism students. Milli Eğitim, 195, 118-130.
• Sahin, A. E. (2009). Assessing service quality in faculty of education via student satisfaction scale (FESSS). H. U. Journal of Education, 37, 106-122.
• Taylor, J. S., & Machado, M. L. (2006). Higher education leadership and management: From conflict to interdependence through strategic planning. Tertiary Education and Management, 12, 137–160.
• Tayyar, N., & Dilseker, F. (2012). The effect of service quality and image on student satisfaction at state and private universities. Mugla University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 28, 184-203.
• Waggoner, D. & Goldman, P. (2005) Universities as communities of fate. Institutional rhetoric and student retention policy. Journal of Education Administration, 43, 86–101.
• Wilkins, S., & Balakrishnan, M. S. (2013). Assessing student satisfaction in transnational higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(2), 143–156.
• Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yontemleri. Ankara: Seckin Publishing.
• Yildız, S., & Gizir, S. (2018). A phenomenological study of the perceptions of candidate teachers about the concepts of school, teacher and student in their dreams. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), pp. 309-324.
• Yilmaz, V., Filiz, Z., & Yaprak, B. (2007). Service quality measurement in the Turkish higher education system with SERVQUAL method. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences. 7 (1), 299-316.
• Yorke, M. (1999). Assuring quality and standards in globalised higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 7 (1), 14-24.
• Yusoff, M. McLeay, & F. Woodruffe-Burton, H. (2015). Dimensions driving business student satisfaction in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(1), 86 – 104.
• Higher Education Counsil (2017). YOK’un yaptıgı anket sonuclandi: Bilincli tercih, istihdam, kalite. Retrieved from http://www.yok.gov.tr/web/guest/yok-tercih-anketi-sonuclandi
• Zineldin, M., Akdag Camgoz, H., & Vasicheva, V. (2011) Assessing quality in higher education: New criteria for evaluating students’ satisfaction. Quality in Higher Education, 17(2), 231-243.