ÖĞRENCİ MEMNUNİYETİ KRİTERLERİ ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN İNCELENMESİ: DEMATEL VE KANONİK KORELASYON ANALİZİ TEMELLİ BİR HİBRİT MODEL

Year 2021, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 277 - 293, 19.07.2021

Seda Abacıoğlu , Büşra Ayan

https://doi.org/10.33416/baybem.910999

Abstract

Bu çalışma, çok kriterli karar verme (MCDM) tekniği ve çok değişkenli istatistiksel teknik ile özgün bir yaklaşım sunan hibrit bir model aracılığıyla, öğrenci memnuniyeti kriterleri arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Veri seti, 192 üniversite ve 39.386 öğrenciden oluşan Türkiye Üniversite Memnuniyet Anketi (TÜMA) 2020’den alınmıştır. TÜMA’nın altı faktörü vardır: "yerleşke ve yaşamının doyuruculuğu", “akademik destek ve ilgi”, “öğrenme imkan ve kaynaklarının zenginliği”, “kişisel gelişim ve kariyer desteği”, “öğrenim deneyiminin tatminkârlığı” ve “kurumun yönetim ve işleyişinden memnuniyet”. DEMATEL, neden sonuç ilişkisini anlamak ve bu faktörleri bağımlı ve bağımsız kümeler olarak iki kategoriye ayırmak için uygulanmıştır. Bu gruplar arasındaki ilişkiyi daha derinlemesine incelemek için Kanonik Korelasyon Analizi (KKA) gerçekleştirilmiştir. KKA sonuçları, kanonik ağırlıklar, kanonik yükler, kanonik çapraz yükler, açıklanan varyans oranı ve gereksizlik indeksi ile yorumlanmıştır. Bu çalışmanın bulguları, kuruma yönelik genel memnuniyetin artırılması için akademik destek ve ilginin yanı sıra kişisel gelişim ve kariyer desteğinin çok dikkatli bir şekilde araştırılması gerektiğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

Öğrenci Memnuniyeti, Türkiye Üniversite Memnuniyet Araştırması, DEMATEL, Kanonik Korelasyon Analizi

INVESTIGATING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENT SATISFACTION CRITERIA: A HYBRID MODEL BASED ON DEMATEL AND CANONICAL CORRELATION ANALYSIS

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the relationship between students’ satisfaction criteria with a hybrid model, conducting both DEMATEL and Canonical Correlation Analysis. The dataset is obtained from Turkey University Satisfaction Survey (TUSS) 2020, consisting of a total of 192 universities and 39,386 students. TUSS has six factors, namely, "campus and the fulfilment of campus life”, “academic support and interest”, “richness of learning opportunities and resources”, “personal development and career support”, “satisfaction with the learning experience”, and “satisfaction with the institution’s management and operation”. DEMATEL is conducted to understand the cause and effect relationship and group these factors into two categories as dependent and independent sets. To investigate the relationship between these sets more deeply, Canonical Correlation Analysis is (CCA) carried out. The results of CCA are interpreted through canonical weights, canonical loadings, canonical cross-loadings, the proportion of explained variance, and redundancy index. The findings of the study suggest that to increase the overall satisfaction towards the institution, academic support and interest, as well as personal development and career support, should be delved into very carefully.

Keywords

Student Satisfaction, Turkey University Satisfaction Survey, DEMATEL, Canonical Correlation Analysis

References

• Ayçin, E. (2020). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Bilgisayar Uygulamalı Çözümler. 2. Baskı, Ankara: Nobel Yayın.
• Barnes, B. J. & Randall, J. (2012). “Doctoral Student Satisfaction: An Examination of Disciplinary, Enrollment and Institutional Differences”. Research in Higher Education, 53(1), 47-75.
• Bolliger, D. U. (2004). “Key Factors for Determining Student Satisfaction in Online Courses”. International Journal on E-learning, 3(1), 61-67.
• Butt, B. Z. & Ur Rehman, K. (2010). “A Study Examining the Students Satisfaction in Higher Education”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5446-5450.
• Dericks, G., Thompson, E., Roberts, M., & Phua, F. (2019). “Determinants of PhD Student Satisfaction: The Roles of Supervisor, Department and Peer Qualities”. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(7), 1053-1068.
• Douglas, J., Douglas, A. and Barnes, B. (2006). “Measuring Student Satisfaction at a UK University”. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(3), 251-267.
• Elliott, K.M. (2002). “Key Determinants of Student Satisfaction”. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 4(3), 271-279.
• Elliott, 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.
• Gabus, A. & Fontela, E. (1972). “World Problems, An Invitation to Further Thought within the Framework of DEMATEL”. Battelle Geneva Research Centre, Geneva, Switzerland.
• Gibson, A. (2010). “Measuring Business Student Satisfaction: A Review and Summary of the Major Predictors”. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(3), 251-259.
• González-Rogado, A. B., Rodríguez-Conde, M. J., Olmos-Migueláñez, S., Borham, M., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2014). “Key Factors for Determining Student Satisfaction in Engineering: A Regression Study”. International Journal of Engineering Education (IJEE), 30(3), 576-584.
• Grebennikov, L. & Shah, M. (2013). “Monitoring Trends in Student Satisfaction”. Tertiary Education and Management, 19(4), 301-322.
• Green, H. J., Hood, M., & Neumann, D. L. (2015). “Predictors of Student Satisfaction with University Psychology Courses: A Review”. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 14(2), 131-146.
• Hanssen, T. E. S., & Solvoll, G. (2015). “The Importance of University Facilities for Student Satisfaction at a Norwegian University”. Facilities, 33(13/14), 744-759.
• Harvey, L. (1995). “Student Satisfaction”. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 1(1), 161-173.
• Hotelling, H. (1936). “Relations Between Two Sets of Variables”. Biometrika, 28(3-4), 321–377.
• Johnson, R. A., & Wichern, D. W. (2007). Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. 6th Ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Karemera, D., Reuben, L. J., & 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(2), 298-309.
• Karadağ, E. & Yücel, C. (2017). “Türkiye Üniversite Memnuniyet Araştırması [TÜMA-2017]: Rapor Özeti”. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 7(2), 132-144.
• Karadağ, E. & Yücel, C. (2020). Türkiye Üniversite Memnuniyet Araştırması 2020. Üniar Yayınları.
• Kärnä, S. & Julin, P. (2015). “A Framework for Measuring Student and Staff Satisfaction with University Campus Facilities”. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(1), 47-66.
• Koilias, C. (2005). “Evaluating Students’ Satisfaction: The Case of Informatics Department of TEI Athens”. Operational Research, 5(2), 363-381.
• Letcher, D. W. & Neves, J. S. (2010). “Determinants of Undergraduate Business Student Satisfaction”. Research in Higher Education Journal, 6, 1-26.
• Manly, B. F. & Alberto, J. A. N. (2016). Multivariate Statistical Methods: A Primer. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
• Mazuruse, P. (2014). “Canonical Correlation Analysis”. Journal of Financial Economic Policy, 6(2), 179-196.
• Naralan, A. & Kaleli, S.S. (2012). “Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Üniversiteden Beklentileri ve Bölüm Memnuniyeti Araştırması: Atatürk Üniversitesi Örneği”. Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(1), 1-11.
• Sherry A. & Henson R. K. (2005). “Conducting and Interpreting Canonical Correlation Analysis in Personality Research: A User-Friendly Primer”. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(1), 37–48.
• Solinas, G., Masia, M. D., Maida, G., & Muresu, E. (2012). “What Really Affects Student Satisfaction? An Assessment of Quality Through a University-Wide Student Survey”. Creative education, 3(1), 37-40.
• Tacq, J. (1997). Multivariate Analysis Techniques in Social Science Research: From Problem to Analysis. Sage Publications.
• Tayyar, N. & Dilşeker, F. (2012). “Devlet ve Vakıf Üniversitelerinde Hizmet Kalitesi ve İmajın Öğrenci Memnuniyetine Etkisi”. Muğla Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 28, 184-203.
• Thompson, B. (2000). Canonical Correlation Analysis. In L. Grimm & P. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 285-316.
• Tuan, N. M. (2012). “Effects of Service Quality and Price Fairness on Student Satisfaction”. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(19), 132-150.
• Tütüncü, Ö. & İpekgil Doğan, Ö. (2003). “Müşteri Tatmini Kapsamında Öğrenci Memnuniyetinin Ölçülmesi ve Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Uygulaması”. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(4), 130-151.
• Umbach, P. D., & Porter, S. R. (2002). “How Do Academic Departments Impact Student Satisfaction? Understanding the Contextual Effects of Departments”. Research in Higher Education, 43(2), 209-234.
• Uniar. (2021, January). Turkey University Satisfaction Survey. https://www.uniar.net/tuma
• Van Den Wollenberg, A. L. (1977). “Redundancy Analysis an Alternative for Canonical Correlation Analysis”. Psychometrika, 42(2), 207-219.
• Weerasinghe, I. M. S. & Fernando, R. L. S. (2018). “University Facilities and Student Satisfaction in Sri Lanka”. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(5), 866-880.
• Wiers-Jenssen, J., Stensaker, B. & Gr⊘gaard, J.B. (2002). “Student Satisfaction: Towards an Empirical Deconstruction of the Concept”. Quality in Higher Education, 8(2), 183-195.
• Williams, J. & Cappuccini‐Ansfield, G. (2007). “Fitness for Purpose? National and Institutional Approaches to Publicising the Student Voice”. Quality in Higher Education, 13(2), 159-172.
• Wu, W.W. & Lee, Y.T. (2007). “Developing Global Managers’ Competencies Using the Fuzzy DEMATEL Method”. Expert Systems with Applications, 32, 499-507.
• Yang, Z., Becerik-Gerber, B., & Mino, L. (2013). “A Study on Student Perceptions of Higher Education Classrooms: Impact of Classroom Attributes on Student Satisfaction and Performance”. Building and Environment, 70, 171-188.
• Zineldin, M., Akdag, H. C., & Vasicheva, V. (2011). “Assessing Quality in Higher Education: New Criteria for Evaluating Students’ Satisfaction”. Quality in Higher Education, 17(2), 231-243.