Student satisfaction and marks

Investigating the relationship between average marks and student satisfaction is a challenge in many aspects. Since the evaluation was anonymous and the marks derived from Neptun database, we had to compile a new database. The new database consists of 81 items. Each item shows the seminar leaders’ group average over three semesters.

Even though the correlation analysis indicated a middle-strong correlation between average marks and satisfaction with seminars (,538) and between average marks and

general satisfaction with the subject (,543), the causal relationship is not evident. There are two different explanations for the medium-strength correlation. There is an excellent teacher who motivates undergraduates appropriately. Students will receive good marks for their excellent work, and they will also be happy with the seminar leader and course. The other explanation could be that the teacher is permissive and the undergraduates are satisfied with him because they can easily get a good mark. In this case, the mark could be a distortion factor in the evaluation of teachers.

For a more in-depth analysis we conducted a cluster analysis. Variables based on cluster analysis were not just “Satisfaction with the seminar” according to in-house course assessment, and average group mark derived from Neptun database, but “Students’ self-evaluation” according to in-house course assessment and “I learned a lot from my seminar leader” derived from HALVEL database. Three clusters were identified. 47.5% of the courses belonged to “Excellent” cluster, where the student satisfaction was very high according to in-house course assessment as well as HALVEL, the average group marks and the students’ self-evaluation were the highest compared with other clusters. It is assumed that the groups of teachers are more stringent than the average belonged to

„Satisfied” cluster. In this cluster, the average marks and the rate of self-evaluation were lower than in the „Excellent” cluster. The student satisfaction was high but significantly lower than in the „Excellent” cluster. Good marks may distort teacher ratings upwards, but the „Satisfied” cluster showed that students willing to give a good rate to teachers independently of their own performance. “Average” cluster represents those courses where the rate of students’ self-evaluation is higher than the rate of seminar leaders evaluation. These are the courses the students were not satisfied with.

Table 3 Average marks and student satisfaction – results of cluster analysis (final cluster centers) (n= 80)

"Excellent"

n=38, 47.5% "Satisfied"

n=32, 40% „Average”

n=10, 12.5%

Satisfaction with the seminar (group average) 4.68 4.31 3.44

“I learned a lot from my seminar leader”

(HALVEL) 4.65 4.29 3.24

Average group marks 4.1 3.53 3.46

Students' self-evaluation 4.16 3.87 3.67

5. Conclusion

Undergraduates’ feedback has an important role in the quality assurance process in higher education. The degree of student satisfaction with seminars can be well explained by teaching methodology, quality of education, and the relationship between the seminar leader and the students. Based on our research, we can suggest that seminar leaders should focus on two main goals in parallel to achieve student satisfaction. These goals are exciting characteristics of the seminars and seminar support for students to acquire the course material. Consciously designed lesson plan and appropriate time management are needed to achieve these two goals in the meantime. Satisfaction with seminars has the highest impact on general satisfaction with the course. In addition, the significant impact of the textbook and lectures on student satisfaction were confirmed, but we cannot create an appropriate mathematical model to explain the relationships. The question often arises which factors can distort student feedback. Grading could be a potential distortion factor.

We found a middle-strong correlation between average marks and student satisfaction.

Cluster analysis confirmed that students willing to give a good rate to the teachers independently from their own performance, but the distortion effect of grading could not be denied. Overall, course evaluation is an important but not the only element of quality assurance. Leadership decisions should not be made on this basis alone.

References

Aquario, D. (2009): The Active Participation of Students in Teaching Evaluation Processes within Universities. In A. Lazinica and C. Calafate (Eds.) Technology Education and Development (pp. 39 -56).

https://www.intechopen.com/books/technology-education-and-development/the-active-participation-of-students-in-teaching-evaluation-processes-within-universities (Downloaded 30.12.2018)

Chikán, A. (2003): Vállalatgazdaságtan. Aula Kiadó 2005 Chikán, A. (2008): Vállalatgazdaságtan. Aula Kiadó 2008

Chikán, A. (2017): Vállalatgazdaságtan. Vállalatgazdasági Tudományos és Oktatási Alapítvány, Budapest

Chikán, A. and Czakó, E (2018): Az üzleti vállalkozás társadalmi tevékenység – avagy Kornai János munkássága és a vállalatgazdaságtan. Köz-Gazdaság 2018/1. pp.

91- 98.

Czakó, E. and Kazainé Ónodi, A. (2017): Egy oktatás- és oktatásfejlesztési rendszer – avagy minőségmenedzsment egyetemi intézeti keretek között. Magyar Minőség XXVI. évf. 11. 2017. november. pp. 64 – 69.

(https://quality-mmt.hu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017_11_MM.pdf

Dean, A. and Gibbs, P.: (2015): Student satisfaction or happiness? A preliminary rethink of what is important in the student experience. Quality Assurance in Education Vol.23 No.1, 2015 pp.5-19

Eagle, L. and Brennan, R.: (2007): Are students customers? TQM and marketing perspectives. Quality Assurance in Education Vol. 15 No. 1, 2007 pp. 44-60 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.976760 (Downloaded 06.08.2017) http://web.stanford.edu/group/ncpi/documents/pdfs/6-03b_qualityassurance.pdf

(Downloaded 06.08.2017)

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2bd6/df15d930799193a6633679ba3ec5ea14891f.pdf (Downloaded 30.12.2018)

Nicholson, K. (2011): Quality Assurance in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature.

http://cll.mcmaster.ca/COU/pdf/Quality%20Assurance%20Literature%20Review.pdf Downloaded at 06.08.2017

Petruzellis, L et al. (2006): Student satisfaction and quality of service in Italian universities Managing Service Quality, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 349-364.

Stalmeijer, R - Whittingham J., Grave D. - Dolmans D. (2016) Strengthening internal quality assurance processes: facilitating student evaluation committees to contribute, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41:1, 53-66, DOI:10.1080/02602938.2014.976760

The World Bank (2010): Quality Assurance in Higher Education: A Comparison of Eight Systems. Europe and Central Asia Knowledge Brief 2010. nov. Volume 35.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTECALEA/Resources/ECA_KB35_Quality_As surance_in_Higher_Education.pdf (Downloaded 06.08.2017)

Wilger, A.: (1997): Quality Assurance in Higher Education: A Literature Review. National Center for Postsecondary Improvement

Yusoff, M. (2015): Dimensions driving business student satisfaction in higher education.

Quality Assurance in Education Vol.23 No.1,2015 pp.86-104

Perspectives on Teachers’ Professional Development and