Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Üniversite Kampüslerinde Öğrenci Yaşantısının Kalitesi: GTÜ Çayırova Kampüsü Örneği

Yıl 2021, , 53 - 60, 20.04.2021
https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.826763

Öz

Yaşam kalitesi, bir toplumdaki yaşam koşullarını değerlendirmek için yaygın olarak kullanılan bir teorik çerçevedir. Bireyin ve toplumun herhangi bir konudaki ihtiyaçlarının karşılanma düzeyi olarak özetleyebileceğimiz memnuniyet düzeyi arttıkça, o toplumun yaşam kalitesinin de arttığı söylenebilmektedir. Kentsel mekâna yönelik ihtiyaçlar karşılandığında, mekândan duyulan memnuniyet yükselmekte ve bu durum kentsel yaşam kalitesi algısını olumlu yönde etkilemektedir. Bu bağlamda kentsel kullanım alanlarının birçoğuna kıyasla yüksek bir kullanıcı kitlesine hitap etmekte olan “üniversite kampüslerindeki yaşam kalitesi” konusu da kentsel yaşam kalitesi çalışmalarında ele alınabilecek konulardan biridir.
Bu çalışmada Gebze Teknik Üniversitesi öğrencilerinin kampüs memnuniyetlerine etki eden faktörler belirlenmiş ve bu faktörlerin kampüs yaşam kalitesi algısı üzerindeki etkisinin tespit edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma kampüs yaşam kalitesi gibi bir kentsel tasarım ölçeğindeki kullanıcı algısını analitik bir yaklaşımla açıklamaktadır.
Gebze Teknik Üniversitesi’nde lisans öğrenimi görmekte olan ve tabakalı örneklem yöntemi ile seçilen 355 öğrenci ile kampüsten memnuniyeti ve kampüs yaşam kalitesi algısını ölçen bir anket çalışması yapılmıştır. Anket çalışmasına ilişkin yanıtlar, SPSS 20.0 programına aktarılmış olup, üniversite yaşam kalitesine ilişkin tanımlayıcı istatistikler, güvenilirlik analizi, faktör analizi, tek yönlü varyans (ANOVA) analizi ve regresyon analizi yapılmıştır.
Analizler sonucunda kampüs memnuniyetinde üç faktörlü bir yapının var olduğu görülmüştür. Öğrencilerin akademik ve idari yönden duydukları memnuniyet yüksek, hizmetler yönünden duydukları memnuniyet orta, sosyal faaliyetler yönünden duyulan memnuniyet ise düşük düzeydedir. Öğrencilerin, akademik ve idari yönden, imkânlar ve hizmetler yönünden ve sosyal ve kültürel yönden memnuniyetleri arttıkça kampüs yaşam kalitesi algılarının da arttığı tespit edilmiştir.

Kaynakça

  • Abd-Razak, M., Utaberta N., and Handryant A.N. (2012). A study of students’ perception on sustainability of campus design: A case study of four research universities campus in Malaysia. Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences, 4(6): p. 646-657.
  • Aldemir, C. and Gülcan Y. (2004). Student satisfaction in higher education. Higher education management and policy, 16(2): p. 109-122. https://doi.org/10.1787/17269822.
  • Arslan, S., ve Akkas, O. A.. (2014). Quality of college life (QCL) of students in Turkey: Students’ life satisfaction and identification. Social Indicators Research, 115(2), 869-884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0235-9.
  • Bahari, N.B. ve Said, I.B. (2008). A Greenway Network for University Campus. Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia.
  • Baltaci, A. (2018). Nitel araştırmalarda örnekleme yöntemleri ve örnek hacmi sorunsalı üzerine kavramsal bir inceleme. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(1): p. 231-274.
  • Cenkseven, F. ve Akbaş, T. (2004). Üniversite ögrencilerinde öznel ve psikolojik iyi olmanin yordayicilarinin incelenmesi. Yayimlanmamis doktora tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana.
  • Cha, K. H. (2003). Subjective well-being among college students. Social Indicators Research. 62(1-3): p. 455-477, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022669906470.
  • Chang, S., Saha, N., Castro-Lacouture, D., Yang, P. (2019). Multivariate relationships between campus design parameters and energy performance using reinforcement learning and parametric modeling. Applied Energy, 249: p. 253-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.109.
  • Chow, H.P. (2005). Life satisfaction among university students in a Canadian prairie city: A multivariate analysis. Social indicators research, 70(2): p. 139-150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-004-7526-0.
  • Clemes, M.D., Gan, C.E. ve Kao, T.H. (2008). University student satisfaction: An empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17(2): p. 292-325. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841240801912831.
  • Çelik, A.K. ve Akyol, K. (2015). Predicting Student Satisfaction with an Emphasis on Campus Recreational Sports and Cultural Facilities in a Turkish University. International Education Studies, 8(4): p. 7-22.
  • Çitil, M., İspir, E., Söğüt, Ö. ve Büyükkasap, E. (2006). Fen edebiyat fakültesi öğrencilerinin profilleri ve başarılarını etkilediğine inandıkları faktörler; KS Ü. örneği. Erzincan Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(2): p. 69-81.
  • Dost, M.T. (2006). Subjective well-being among university students. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(31): p. 188-197.
  • Fachrudin, H.T., Fachrudin, K.A. ve Utami, W. (2019). Education Activities to Realize Green Campus. Asian Social Science, 15(8).
  • Huesman, R., Brown, A., Lee, G., Kellogg, J., ve Radcliffe, P. (2007). Modeling student academic success: Does usage of campus recreation facilities make a difference? Paper presented at the National Symposium of Student Retention, Milwaukee.
  • İbili, E. and Uyanık, H. (2018). Öğrencilerin Yurt Memnuniyet Düzeyleri ile Kişisel Gelişim Yönelimleri Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi. Yükseköğretim Dergisi,. 8(3): p. 293-300.
  • İlhan, N., Batmaz, M. ve Akhan, L.U. (2010). Üniversite öğrencilerinin sağlıklı yaşam biçimi davranışları. Maltepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Bilim ve Sanatı Dergisi, 3(3): p. 34-44.
  • Kayaalp, G.T., Güney, M.Ç. ve Cebeci, Z. (2015). Çoklu Doğrusal Regresyon Modelinde Değişken Seçiminin Zootekniye Uygulanışı. Çukurova Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(1): p. 1-8.
  • Lau, S. ve Yang, F. (2009). Introducing Healing Gardens into a Compact University Campus: Design Natural Space to Create Healthy and Sustainable Campuses. Landscape Research, 34(1): p. 55-81. DOI: 10.1080/01426390801981720. Lee, D. J. (2008). A model of quality of college life (QCL) of students in Korea. Social Indicators Research, 87(2), 269-285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9172-9.
  • Lee, Y. J. (2008). Subjective quality of life measurement in Taipei. Building and Environment, 43(7), 1205-1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.11.023.
  • Low, L. (2000). Are College Students Satisfied? A National Analysis of Changing Expectations. New Agenda Series [TM]. Matloob, F.A., Sulaiman, A. B., Ali, T.H., Shamsuddin, S. ve Mardyya, W.D. (2014). Sustaining campuses through physical character–the role of landscape. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 140: p. 282-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.421.
  • Matloob, F.A. 2016. Sustainable Campus Desgin in Baghdad University, Iraq. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Mills, R.J., Grasmick, H.G., Morgan, C.S. ve Wenk, D. (1992). The effects of gender, family satisfaction, and economic strain on psychological well-being. Family Relations, p. 440-445. DOI: 10.2307/585588.
  • Napitupulu, D., Rahim, R., Abdullah, D., Setiawan, M.I., Abdillah, L.A., Ahmar, A.S., Simarmata, J., Hidayat, R., Nurdiyanto, H. ve Pranolo, A. (2018). Analysis of student satisfaction toward quality of service facility. in Journal of Physics: Conference Series. IOP Publishing. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/954/1/012019.
  • Neal, J.D., Uysal, M. ve Sirgy, M.J. (2007). The effect of tourism services on travelers' quality of life. Journal of travel research, 46(2): p. 154-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287507303977.
  • Ozben, S. (2013). Social skills, life satisfaction, and loneliness in Turkish university students. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 41(2): p. 203-213. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.2.203.
  • Razak, M.Z.A., Abdullah, N.A.G., Nor, M.F.I.M., Usman, I.M.S. ve Che-Ani, A.I. (2011).Toward a sustainable campus: comparison of the physical development planning of research university campuses in Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(4): p. 210. doi: 10.5539/jsd.v4n4p210.
  • Ren, W. (2009). A research on the subject well-being of regional college students. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 1(1): p. 51-53. https://doi.org/10.18826/useeabd.598909.
  • Sirgy, M.J. (2012). The psychology of quality of life: Hedonic well-being, life satisfaction, and eudaimonia. Vol. 50. Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Sirgy, M. J., Grzeskowiak, S. ve Rahtz, D. (2007). Quality of college life (QCL) of students: Developing and validating a measure of well-being. Social Indicators Research, 80(2), 343-360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-5921-9.
  • Staeger-Wilson, K. ve Sampson, D.H. (2012). Infusing JUST Design in Campus Recreation. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(3): p. 247-252.
  • Tho, N. D. (2019). Business students’ hardiness and its role in quality of university life, quality of life, and learning performance. Education+ Training, 61(3), 374-386. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-03-2018-0068 .
  • Tinto, V. (1990). Principles of effective retention. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 2(1): p. 35-48.
  • Üstün, B. (2016). Örnekleme Yöntemleri. Retrieved from https://www.phdernegi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/%C3%B6rnekleme_yontemleri.pdf.
  • Wiers-Jenssen, J., Stensaker, B. r., ve Gr⊘ gaard, J. B. (2002). Student satisfaction: Towards an empirical deconstruction of the concept. Quality in higher education, 8(2), 183-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/1353832022000004377.
  • Zizzi, S., Ayers, S.F., Watson II, J.C. ve Keeler, L. (2004). Assessing the impact of new student campus recreation centers. NASPA Journal, 41(4): p. 588-630. DOI: 10.2202/0027-6014.1390.

Quality of Student Life in University Campuses: Case of Gebze Technical University in Çayırova

Yıl 2021, , 53 - 60, 20.04.2021
https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.826763

Öz

Quality of life is a widely used as the theoretical framework for assessing living conditions in a society. It can be said that as the level of satisfaction increases, which can be summarized as the level of meeting the needs of the individual and society in any subject, the quality of life of that society also increases. When the needs of people for urban space are met, the satisfaction with the place increases. This positively affects the perception of urban life quality. As the university campuses have higher number of users compared to many urban areas, the topic of “quality of life in university campuses” is one of the research motivations that can be addressed in quality of urban life studies. In this study, factors affecting the campus satisfaction and perception of quality of campus life of Gebze Technical University students were determined. The study explains an urban design issue with an analytical approach. The stratified sampling method was adopted in selecting 355 undergraduate students from Gebze Technical University who were subjected to questionnaire survey. The results from the survey were put onto SPSS 20.0 program where descriptive statistics, reliability analyses, factor analyses, one-way variance (ANOVA) analyses and regression analyses relating to university quality of life were run. As a result of the analysis, there is a three-factor structure in campus satisfaction. Students’ academic and administrative satisfaction is high, their satisfaction with the services is moderate, and their satisfaction with social activities is low. As students’ satisfaction on academic and administrative opportunities, services, and social and cultural aspects increase, their perception of quality of campus life also increases. 

Kaynakça

  • Abd-Razak, M., Utaberta N., and Handryant A.N. (2012). A study of students’ perception on sustainability of campus design: A case study of four research universities campus in Malaysia. Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences, 4(6): p. 646-657.
  • Aldemir, C. and Gülcan Y. (2004). Student satisfaction in higher education. Higher education management and policy, 16(2): p. 109-122. https://doi.org/10.1787/17269822.
  • Arslan, S., ve Akkas, O. A.. (2014). Quality of college life (QCL) of students in Turkey: Students’ life satisfaction and identification. Social Indicators Research, 115(2), 869-884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0235-9.
  • Bahari, N.B. ve Said, I.B. (2008). A Greenway Network for University Campus. Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia.
  • Baltaci, A. (2018). Nitel araştırmalarda örnekleme yöntemleri ve örnek hacmi sorunsalı üzerine kavramsal bir inceleme. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(1): p. 231-274.
  • Cenkseven, F. ve Akbaş, T. (2004). Üniversite ögrencilerinde öznel ve psikolojik iyi olmanin yordayicilarinin incelenmesi. Yayimlanmamis doktora tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana.
  • Cha, K. H. (2003). Subjective well-being among college students. Social Indicators Research. 62(1-3): p. 455-477, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022669906470.
  • Chang, S., Saha, N., Castro-Lacouture, D., Yang, P. (2019). Multivariate relationships between campus design parameters and energy performance using reinforcement learning and parametric modeling. Applied Energy, 249: p. 253-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.109.
  • Chow, H.P. (2005). Life satisfaction among university students in a Canadian prairie city: A multivariate analysis. Social indicators research, 70(2): p. 139-150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-004-7526-0.
  • Clemes, M.D., Gan, C.E. ve Kao, T.H. (2008). University student satisfaction: An empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17(2): p. 292-325. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841240801912831.
  • Çelik, A.K. ve Akyol, K. (2015). Predicting Student Satisfaction with an Emphasis on Campus Recreational Sports and Cultural Facilities in a Turkish University. International Education Studies, 8(4): p. 7-22.
  • Çitil, M., İspir, E., Söğüt, Ö. ve Büyükkasap, E. (2006). Fen edebiyat fakültesi öğrencilerinin profilleri ve başarılarını etkilediğine inandıkları faktörler; KS Ü. örneği. Erzincan Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(2): p. 69-81.
  • Dost, M.T. (2006). Subjective well-being among university students. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(31): p. 188-197.
  • Fachrudin, H.T., Fachrudin, K.A. ve Utami, W. (2019). Education Activities to Realize Green Campus. Asian Social Science, 15(8).
  • Huesman, R., Brown, A., Lee, G., Kellogg, J., ve Radcliffe, P. (2007). Modeling student academic success: Does usage of campus recreation facilities make a difference? Paper presented at the National Symposium of Student Retention, Milwaukee.
  • İbili, E. and Uyanık, H. (2018). Öğrencilerin Yurt Memnuniyet Düzeyleri ile Kişisel Gelişim Yönelimleri Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi. Yükseköğretim Dergisi,. 8(3): p. 293-300.
  • İlhan, N., Batmaz, M. ve Akhan, L.U. (2010). Üniversite öğrencilerinin sağlıklı yaşam biçimi davranışları. Maltepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Bilim ve Sanatı Dergisi, 3(3): p. 34-44.
  • Kayaalp, G.T., Güney, M.Ç. ve Cebeci, Z. (2015). Çoklu Doğrusal Regresyon Modelinde Değişken Seçiminin Zootekniye Uygulanışı. Çukurova Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(1): p. 1-8.
  • Lau, S. ve Yang, F. (2009). Introducing Healing Gardens into a Compact University Campus: Design Natural Space to Create Healthy and Sustainable Campuses. Landscape Research, 34(1): p. 55-81. DOI: 10.1080/01426390801981720. Lee, D. J. (2008). A model of quality of college life (QCL) of students in Korea. Social Indicators Research, 87(2), 269-285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9172-9.
  • Lee, Y. J. (2008). Subjective quality of life measurement in Taipei. Building and Environment, 43(7), 1205-1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.11.023.
  • Low, L. (2000). Are College Students Satisfied? A National Analysis of Changing Expectations. New Agenda Series [TM]. Matloob, F.A., Sulaiman, A. B., Ali, T.H., Shamsuddin, S. ve Mardyya, W.D. (2014). Sustaining campuses through physical character–the role of landscape. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 140: p. 282-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.421.
  • Matloob, F.A. 2016. Sustainable Campus Desgin in Baghdad University, Iraq. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Mills, R.J., Grasmick, H.G., Morgan, C.S. ve Wenk, D. (1992). The effects of gender, family satisfaction, and economic strain on psychological well-being. Family Relations, p. 440-445. DOI: 10.2307/585588.
  • Napitupulu, D., Rahim, R., Abdullah, D., Setiawan, M.I., Abdillah, L.A., Ahmar, A.S., Simarmata, J., Hidayat, R., Nurdiyanto, H. ve Pranolo, A. (2018). Analysis of student satisfaction toward quality of service facility. in Journal of Physics: Conference Series. IOP Publishing. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/954/1/012019.
  • Neal, J.D., Uysal, M. ve Sirgy, M.J. (2007). The effect of tourism services on travelers' quality of life. Journal of travel research, 46(2): p. 154-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287507303977.
  • Ozben, S. (2013). Social skills, life satisfaction, and loneliness in Turkish university students. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 41(2): p. 203-213. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.2.203.
  • Razak, M.Z.A., Abdullah, N.A.G., Nor, M.F.I.M., Usman, I.M.S. ve Che-Ani, A.I. (2011).Toward a sustainable campus: comparison of the physical development planning of research university campuses in Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(4): p. 210. doi: 10.5539/jsd.v4n4p210.
  • Ren, W. (2009). A research on the subject well-being of regional college students. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 1(1): p. 51-53. https://doi.org/10.18826/useeabd.598909.
  • Sirgy, M.J. (2012). The psychology of quality of life: Hedonic well-being, life satisfaction, and eudaimonia. Vol. 50. Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Sirgy, M. J., Grzeskowiak, S. ve Rahtz, D. (2007). Quality of college life (QCL) of students: Developing and validating a measure of well-being. Social Indicators Research, 80(2), 343-360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-5921-9.
  • Staeger-Wilson, K. ve Sampson, D.H. (2012). Infusing JUST Design in Campus Recreation. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(3): p. 247-252.
  • Tho, N. D. (2019). Business students’ hardiness and its role in quality of university life, quality of life, and learning performance. Education+ Training, 61(3), 374-386. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-03-2018-0068 .
  • Tinto, V. (1990). Principles of effective retention. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 2(1): p. 35-48.
  • Üstün, B. (2016). Örnekleme Yöntemleri. Retrieved from https://www.phdernegi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/%C3%B6rnekleme_yontemleri.pdf.
  • Wiers-Jenssen, J., Stensaker, B. r., ve Gr⊘ gaard, J. B. (2002). Student satisfaction: Towards an empirical deconstruction of the concept. Quality in higher education, 8(2), 183-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/1353832022000004377.
  • Zizzi, S., Ayers, S.F., Watson II, J.C. ve Keeler, L. (2004). Assessing the impact of new student campus recreation centers. NASPA Journal, 41(4): p. 588-630. DOI: 10.2202/0027-6014.1390.
Toplam 35 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Tayfun Salihoğlu 0000-0002-9959-6961

Fatma Karasümen Açıkgöz 0000-0003-4778-1951

Yayımlanma Tarihi 20 Nisan 2021
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021

Kaynak Göster

APA Salihoğlu, T., & Karasümen Açıkgöz, F. (2021). Üniversite Kampüslerinde Öğrenci Yaşantısının Kalitesi: GTÜ Çayırova Kampüsü Örneği. Journal of University Research, 4(1), 53-60. https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.826763

Articles published in the Journal of University Research (Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi - ÜAD) are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License 32353.