Factors of Students Satisfaction of the Educational Process (on the example of the study of Taras Shevchenko National University students)
The article discusses the cognitive capabilities of factorial design in the study of factors affecting student satisfaction with the learning process. The main focus is on the interpretation of the concept of “learning process” (including based on the results of focus group interviews) and operatio-nalization of the concept of “satisfaction with the learning process”, methodological and methodological features of using factorial design to study the chosen subject and justify the feasibility of using the method to study satisfaction learning process.
Summarizing the factors and available theoretical work on the given problem in the course of focus group studies, we have allocated such measurements and their levels for the formation of vignettes (preliminary divided into objective and subjective ones).
That is, the total space of vignettes consists of various 2048 experimental situations of the block “objective factors” (1–10), and 243 experimental situations in the case of block analysis “subjective factors” (11–15). As a result of the study, it was found that, in general, among the objective factors, the level of teachers' qualifications and the comprehensibility of teaching materials, the sufficiency of technical equipment are most affected by the educational process. Among the subjective factors, the students' satisfaction with the educational process is most influenced by the relationships in the group, the mutual understanding with the teachers and the level of mutual support among the group members.
To find out the most significant factors by obtained ranks, the final score (“score”) was calculated for each of the factors. Correspondingly, to obtain orderly ranks Borda count was used.
The most important factors identified as a result of ranking are: content of teaching subjects, qualifications of teachers and the complexity of academic disciplines.
The less important factors in this case were the prestige of universities, the availability of free faculties in universities and the development of cultural events.
2. Bean, J. & Bradley, R. (1986). Untangling the satisfaction performance. Journal of Higher Education, 57(4), 393–412.
3. Benjamin, M. & Hollings, A. (1997). Student Satisfaction: Test of an Ecological Model. Journal of College Student Development, 38(3), 213–228.
4. Corts, D., Lounsbury, J., Saudargas, R. & Tatum, H. (2000). Assessing Undergraduate Satisfaction With An Academic Department: A Method And Case Study. College Student Journal, 34, 34(3), 399–410.
5. Duque, L. & Weeks, J. (2010). Towards a model and methodology for assessing student learning outcomes and satisfaction. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(2), 84-105. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881011035321.
6. Elliot, K. & Healy, M. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment and retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1300/j050v10n04_01
7. Elliott, K. & Shin, D. (2002). Student Satisfaction: an alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24, Vol. 24, 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1360080022000013518
8. Kandemir, A. & Budd, R. (2018). Using Vignettes to Explore Reality and Values With Young People. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 19(2), 1-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-19.2.2914.
9. R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved December 10, 2018 from https://www.R-project.org/.
10. Rossi, P. H. & Nock, S. S. (1982). Measuring Social Judgments: The Factorial Survey Approach: Sage.
11. Shih, T. & Fan, X. (2008). Comparing Response Rates from Web and Mail Surveys: A Meta-Analysis. Field Methods, 20(3), 249–271, https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X08317085.
12. Vasilyeva, E., Tomilova, M. Gaikina, M. (2014). Evaluation of training conditions and quality of training. LAMBERT Academic Publishing, p. 43.
13. Marchenko, A., Sydorov, M. (2014). Methodical specificity of factorial surveys (on the example of pilot study of the role of ideological issues in friendships). Methodology, theory and practice of sociological analysis of modern society. Vol. 20, 166–122.
14. Puzanova, J. Tertyshnikova, A. (2015). Method of vignettes in sociological research: methodological principles and methodical solutions. Bulletin of RUDN. Series: Sociology, Vol. 15, No 4, 44–56.