SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 24

Student Satisfaction Levels of Faculty Life Based on Course Times, Program Type and Reason to Prefer the Faculty

Öğrencilerin Öğretim Türü, Program Türü ve Fakülteyi Tercih Nedenlerine Göre Fakülte Yaşamından Aldıkları Doyum Düzeyleri

Sevgi ÖZGÜNGÖR
Pages
80–91
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the results, general satisfaction level was low.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aims of this study were; to determine the satisfaction levels of Pamukkale University, Department of Education students,to determine the faculty services that students satisfaction levels are the lowest and highest, and to test if the satisfaction levels of the students differ based on the program type, course times (daytime, evening classes) and the reason to prefer this faculty.
📊
Key Findings & Data:According to the results, general satisfaction level was low.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finaly, satisfaction levels were the lowest for the students who chose this faculty as a result of parental pressure.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aims of this study were; to determine the satisfaction levels of Pamukkale University, Department of Education students,to determine the faculty services that students satisfaction levels are the lowest and highest, and to test if the satisfaction levels of the students differ based on the program type, course times (daytime, evening classes) and the reason to prefer this faculty. According to the results, general satisfaction level was low. While the services that the students reported having the highest satisfaction levels were dormitory and meal services and academic quality, the lowest satisfaction levels were reported for campus experiences and technological and library services. Also, while students attending to the evening classes reported higher levels of satisfaction for academic quality, day time students reported higner levels of satisfaction for campus experiences. Finaly, satisfaction levels were the lowest for the students who chose this faculty as a result of parental pressure.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi öğrencilerinin fakülte yaşamına ilişkin doyum düzeylerini, doyumun düşük ve yüksek olduğu alanları ve doyum düzeylerinin öğretim türü (1. ve 2. öğretim), program türü ve fakülteyi tercih etme nedenlerine göre değişip değişmediğinin belirlenmesiydi. Bulgular genel olarak öğrencilerin fakülteden aldıkları doyum düzeylerinin düşük olduğunu, en yüksek doyumu yurt ve yemekhane servislerini takiben akademik kalite ve öğretim üyeleri ile öğrenciler arası ilişkilerden aldıklarını, buna karşılık en düşük doyumun kampus yaşantısı ve teknoloji ve kütüphane servislerine ilişkin olduğuydu. Birinci öğretim öğrencilerinin kampüs yaşantısına ilişkin doyum düzeyleri ikinci öğretim öğrencilerinin doyum düzeyinden yüksek iken akademik kaliteye ilişkin algılar tam tersi yönündeydi. Öğrencilerin doyum düzeyleri hem program türüne, hem fakülteyi tercih nedenlerine göre faklılaşmakta ve özellikle aile zoru ile bu fakülteyi seçenlerin doyum düzeylerinin düşük olduğu görülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZGÜNGÖR, S. (2022). Student Satisfaction Levels of Faculty Life Based on Course Times, Program Type and Reason to Prefer the Faculty. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 24, 80–91. https://ajindex.com/articles/587302

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Aldemir, C ve Gülcan, Y. (2004). Student satisfaciton in higher education: A Turkish case. Higher Education Management and Policy, 16 (2), 109-122.
  2. Aitken, N. D. (1982). College student performance, satisfaction, and retention: Specification and estimation of a structural model. Journal of Higher Education, 53, 32-50.
  3. Bean, J. P. ve Bradley, R. K. (1986). Untangling the satisfaction-performance relationship for college students. General Hospital Psychiatry, 57, 393–412.
  4. Cohen. J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nded.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Doğanay, A. ve Sarı, M. (2006). Öğrencilerin Üniversitedeki Yaşam Kalitesine İlikin Algılarının Demokratik Yaşam Kültürü Çercevesinde Değerlendirilmesi. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(2), 107-128.
  5. Donohue, T. L. ve Wong, E. H. (1997). Achievement motivation and college satisfaction in traditional and nontraditional students. Education, 118(2), 237-244.
  6. Elliot, K. M. ve Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: an alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24 (2), 197-209.
  7. Ensari, H. ve Onur, V.(2003). Kaliteye İlişkin Öğrenci Beklentileri: Eğitim Fakülteleri Örneği, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 36(3), 145-153.
  8. Graham, S.W. ve Gisi, S.L. (2000). The effects of instructional climate and student affairs on college outcomes and satisfaction. Journal of College Student Development, 41(3), 279-291.
  9. Hatcher, L., Kryter, K., Prus, J. S. ve Fitzgerald, V. (1992). Predicting college student satisfaction, commitment, and attrition from investment model constructs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1273-1296.
  10. Karemera, D., Reuben, L. J. ve Sillah, M. R. (2003). The effects of academic environment and background characteristics on student satisfaction and performance: The case of South Carolina State University's School of Business. College Student Journal, 37, 298-308.
  11. Klien, J. D. (1990). An analysis of the motivational characteristics of college reentry students. College Student Journal, 24(3), 281-286.
  12. Lamport, M. A. (1993). Student-faculty interaction and the effect on student outcomes: A review of the literature. Adolescence, 28, 971-990.
  13. Oliver, R. L. ve Desarbo, W. S. (1989). Processing of the satisfaction response in consumption: a suggested framework and research proposition. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 2,1-16.
  14. Özyürek, R. ve Atıcı K. M. (2002). Üniversite öğrenciler