Assessment of Students Satisfaction with Universities Services - Research Paper Example

Business Data Analysis Report Assessment Satisfaction with Universities’ Services and Purpose of this Research This is a report on the satisfaction levels among students concerning the services afforded them by the universities at which they attend. Specifically, the problems this study sought to address are the following: 1. Using the entire data set (Table One), what aspect of the universities did the students find most satisfying? What aspect is the least satisfying? 2. Using descriptive measures of dispersion, what aspect (teaching quality, sport facilities, or accommodation) generates the greatest difference of opinion among the students? 3. Do any of the three universities have better levels of satisfaction than the others? 4. What additional descriptive statistics and insights can you point to in terms of learning about and improving satisfaction in the three aspects of the universities? Research Methodology A random survey was conducted dealing on three aspects of university performance: (1) teaching quality, (2) sports facilities, and (3) accommodation. A total of fifty students from three universities were polled on their satisfaction level in each category, which was rated on a scale of zero to 100%. The data was analyzed with the use of sums, means, and descriptive measures of dispersion (range, mean deviation, standard deviation, variance, and coefficient of variation.) Frequency distribution tables and charts were used to aid in the analysis of findings. Presentation of Data The survey responses were analyzed as a single group (Tables One and One-A), and grouped according to universities (Tables Two and Two-A) Statistical tools used in analysis In analyzing the data, the following statistics were used: 1. Sum Total – This refers to the arithmetic sum of all the scores in the category for that group 2. Mean – This is a measure of central tendency; it is the mathematical average of the sample scores. The mean is taken to represent the group and a standard that characterizes it. Measures of dispersion describe how far values are spread out in a sample. The following are the measures of dispersion that are used in this study. 3. Range – The simplest and most straightforward measure of dispersion, it is the difference between the extremes – the maximum and the minimum scores – in the sample. 4. Mean Deviation – More representative than the range, it averages the deviation of each sample score from the mean 5. Standard Deviation – The most commonly used measure of dispersion, it is an adaptation of the mean deviation. It is ‘the root of the mean of the squares of deviations from the common mean’ of a set of values. (Cooney, 2009, p. 51) 6. Variance – This is the square of the standard deviation and used in much the same instances as the standard deviation. 7. Coefficient of Variation - A measure used to compare two different distributions with regard to variability; it is the standard measure of relative variation. (Cooney, 2009, p. 60) 8. Skewness – A statistical measure of the asymmetry of a distribution around its mean. Positive skewness indicates an asymmetric tail tending toward more positive values, and negative skewness indicates a tail extending toward more negative values. Findings of the Study 1. Using the entire data set (Table One), what aspect of the universities did the students find most satisfying? What aspect is the least satisfying? Table One-B summarizes the results of Table One, showing the sum total and mean scores for all the 50 respondents. Highest scores are highlighted in yellow, lowest in turquoise. Among the three aspects, students were most satisfied with the Teaching Quality of their universities, and were least satisfied with their Sports Facilities. 2. Using descriptive measures of dispersion, what aspect (teaching quality, sport facilities, or accommodation) generates the greatest difference of opinion among the students? Table One-C is the summary of the results of Tables One and One-A, showing the measures of dispersion. Gold highlights indicate least values (narrowest dispersion), while blue highlights indicate highest values (widest dispersion). Results show the narrowest dispersion for teaching quality, indicating that students agree most in their satisfaction on teaching quality. On the other hand, students agree least on how much they are satisfied with the accommodation in their universities. Taking this in consideration with Table One-B, students agree most that they are most satisfied with Teaching Quality, making this a highly reliable finding. On the other hand, students agree to a lesser degree that they are least satisfied with Sports Facilities, but they have a slightly higher level of agreement in this matter than their level of satisfaction with Accommodation. This means that the finding that students are least satisfied with Sports Facilities is more reliable than the finding that students are more satisfied with their Accommodation. 3. Do any of the three universities have better levels of satisfaction than the others? Table Two-B is a summary of the results of Table Two for the sum totals and means of the scores when grouped according to Universities. Gold highlights indicate highest scores while turquoise indicate lowest scores among the three universities, per aspect. University B gathered the highest total scores in all aspects; however, there are a different number of respondents per university – University A had 14, B had 19, and C had 17. It is therefore not remarkable that University B should have the highest total scores, because they had the most number of respondents. When the mean scores were taken, the highest means were distributed among the three universities: A had the highest mean score in Sports Facilities, B in Accommodation, and C in Teacher Quality. On the other hand, A had the lowest mean score in Accommodation and B in the other two aspects. 4. What additional descriptive statistics and insights can you point to in terms of learning about and improving satisfaction in the three aspects of the universities? Table Two-C summarizes the results of Tables Two and Two-A for measures of dispersion, when grouped according to University, for each aspect. Gold indicates the narrowest dispersion (highest level of agreement among respondents for that aspect), while blue indicates the widest dispersion (lowest level of agreement among respondents for that aspect). This means that students of University B agree most that their Accommodations are most satisfactory (highest mean), and that their Sports Facilities are least satisfactory (lowest mean). On the other hand, while students from University C felt the highest satisfaction (highest mean) for their university’s Teaching Quality, there is the least degree of agreement on this, probably because of divergence in students’ expectations or standards of satisfaction. In obtaining observations for this study it is also useful to employ frequency distribution for the different aspects for the total sample (50 respondents). Table Three-A to C are frequency distributions for scores in ranges of 10-percentage points, for each of the aspects, based on Table One. Table Three-A shows the frequency distribution for the scores for Teacher Quality, with the histogram immediately following. The histogram shows that scores are concentrated at the 70%-90% area, indicating a high level of agreement among the 50 students that they experienced the highest level of satisfaction in the Teaching Quality of their respective universities. This is evident from the congestion of a high number of high-level scores within a tight 20% range, and with the full range only within the highest 40% (60%-100%) of the distribution scale. Table Three-B that follows is a table of the frequency distribution for Sports Facilities, with data drawn from Table One. The histogram of this frequency distribution is presented immediately after. What is immediately evident is the wider spread of this distribution, with the range spanning eight intervals or 80% (20 to 100%). Central tendency shows the mean within the 50-60% interval, which is significantly lower than the mean for Teacher Quality. The wider dispersion thus indicates that there is a lower consensus among respondents concerning Sports Facilities. This may be caused by differing expectations among respondents, some finding the Sports Facilities satisfactory enough, and some expecting more but not finding it. Table Three-C is a table of the frequency distribution of scores for Accommodations, and the graph that follows is the histogram of that frequency distribution. The histogram shows that the scores are even more dispersed than the two previous histograms. The data is spread over a range of nine intervals, or 90%, of the distribution, with majority of the scores falling within 40% to 80%. It is also clear that the highest incidence of scores is concentrated within the 50-60% interval, within which the mean of the distribution is most likely situated. Again, since the scores are based on how satisfied students are with their accommodations, it is possible that the wide range may be due to differences in the expectations of students concerning accommodations, by which they measure their university’s facilities. For purposes of comparison, the frequency distribution for all three aspects shall be presented in a single histogram in order to draw conclusions of each aspect relative to each other. In the graph, the blue boxes show the distribution of scores for Teacher Quality, the red for Sports Facilities, and the white for Accommodation. Clearly evident is the fact that Teacher Quality scores are situated higher in the scale than both Sports Facilities and Accommodation, showing the higher level of satisfaction of the students in this aspect. There is also a narrower spread for this aspect, showing that there is a greater consensus in this than in the other two aspects. While both Sports Facilities and Accommodations have, per the histogram, the same level of satisfaction (50-60%), and about the same range (about 8 to 9 intervals), there is a difference to their skewness that is already evident in the histogram. The distribution of Sports Facilities has an asymmetric tail that extends to the right (toward more positive values) and thus is said to be positively skewed. On the other hand, Accommodation had an asymmetric tail that extends to the left (toward more negative values) and thus is said to be negatively skewed. This is shown by Table One-D, which is drawn from Table One. Conclusion From the foregoing data, it may be concluded that the students are most satisfied with their university’s teaching quality, and are least satisfied with its Sports Facilities, but only slightly less than its Accommodations. Among the three universities, it is in University B that the strongest consensus is formed among the students, and this is that they are least satisfied with their Sports Facilities, and most satisfied with their Accommodations. Students at University C are most satisfied with their school’s Teaching Quality, and students at University A, with their Sports Facilities, but there is less consensus with either of these than there is with University B. Recommendations 1. From analysis of the cumulative data given for all respondents as a group, in what area(s) should improvements be made? Definitely, it is in the areas of Sports Facilities and Accommodations where the Universities should, as a rule, concentrate their innovations on. It is in these areas that the mean scores were lower/lowest, compared to Teaching Quality. It also appears that on the whole, students’ expectations in these areas are diverse, so there is a need to survey what students expect of their University in these aspects so that the latter could more effectively provide changes to merit their satisfaction. 2. From analysis of the data differentiated per university, provide recommendations for improvement. For University A, students seem most satisfied with their Sports Facilities; for B, their Accommodations, and C their Sports Facilities. Thus, for University A, improvement may be made in Teaching Quality, but moreso in Accommodations where it was lowest. For University B, improvement should be made in both Teaching Quality and Sports Facilities, where it scored lowest among the three universities, and especially in Sports Facilities because the greatest consensus was taken there. University C can improve in its Sports Facilities and Accommodation which, while they did not garner the highest scores, are not the lowest scores either. However, because of the dispersion in the scores gathered on this matter, it appears that students have different expectations in these areas, and so a survey should be taken so that the University can take the proper innovations to satisfy its students’ expectations. REFERENCE Cooney, M 2009 Statistical Measures. Accessed 16 August 2009 from Read More