MELJUN CORTES MBA Thesis

7/27/2019 MELJUN CORTES MBA Thesis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/meljun-cortes-mba-thesis 1/33

1

SIGNIFICANT FACTORS AFFECTING

SATISFACTION AND PARTONAGE OF

GRADUATE SCHOOL STUDENTS TOJOSE RIZAL UNIVERSITY

MELJUN CORTES



Background of the Study

Students‟ satisfaction with their total learning

experience, once barely considered, has become a

central concern for many institutions of higher

education world-wide and in many different countries

with different higher education systems, institutionsare increasingly using the instrument of the feedback

survey in order to establish how far their students are

satisfied with aspects of their total learning

experience, Harvey, (2010). In such a climate, it is essential for comparisons to

be made that transcend national boundaries in order

to help us to understand more fully „the different

properties related to [student satisfaction, Wiers-

2



Such comparisons are undoubtedly interesting

academically but they may help in improving aspects of

the student learning experience within a wider context. AsGuy Neave, (2010, p. 197) has recently reminded us,

Europe‟s many and varied systems have been in a state

of turmoil for the best part of fifteen years‟. As a result,

comparisons may help in the search for solutions to themany problems confronting European higher education.

In the context of the Bologna Process comparisons

between higher education systems across the EU are

particularly pertinent at a time of increasing integrationand harmonization, although it is a task that has largely

been avoided by researchers. Some excellent research

has already made international comparison of the

satisfaction of students, but this has been primarilybetween An lo-Saxon models of hi her education. Ford et

3

Background of the Study (CONT’N)



Mai, (2010) conducts a survey to compare the levels

of satisfaction between UK and US business schools

students. In contrast, the present study aims atopening debate on student satisfaction in higher

education cross-culturally, but specifically across

Europe.

With the expansion of the university sector and

concerns with quality and the growing „consumerism‟

of higher education, there has been a significant

growth of, and sophistication in, processes designedto collect views from students, Harvey, (2010).

Students‟ views on all aspects of their higher

education experiences are now being widely

regarded as essential to the effective monitoring of

4




Most higher education institutions, around the

world, collect some type of feedback from students

about their experience of higher education.„Feedback‟ in this sense refers to the expressed

opinions of students about the service they receive

as students. According to Harvey (2009), this may

include perceptions about the learning andteaching, the learning support facilities such as;

libraries, computing facilities, the learning

environment; lecture rooms, laboratories, socialspace and university buildings, support facilities;

refectories, student accommodation, health

facilities, student services and external aspects of

being a student such as; finance, and transport

5




Student satisfaction is seen as students‟

assessment of the services provided byuniversities and colleges Wiers-Jenssen et al.,

(2010) and refers to the favorability of a

student‟s subjective evaluation of the various

outcomes and experiences associated with

education Oliver & DeSarbo, (2009). Teaching

and learning is not something that occurs only

in the classroom or under the tutor‟s directsupervision and the total student experience is

becoming ever more central to the students‟

attitudes to the institution Rowley, ( 2008).

6




Elliott & Shin, (2010) argue that student satisfaction is

being shaped continually by repeated experiences in

campus life. Moreover, the campus environment isseemingly a web of interconnected experiences that

overlap and influence students‟ overall satisfaction. What

happens to students in the classroom is not independent

of all other experiences relating to campus life. For example, Browne et al. (2008) found that global

satisfaction with a university was driven by a student‟s

assessment of the quality of the course and other

curriculum-related factors associated with that university.

Research suggests that customer satisfaction is of

strategic importance. Patterson et al. (2009) demonstrate

empirically a very strong link between customer

satisfactions and repurchase intentions. Babin & Griffin7




Theoretical Framework

The theory in which this study was based in Lewin‟s

Topological and Vector theory. The theory waspostulated by Kurt Lewin‟s.

Lewin‟s basic premise is that every object exists in a

“field of forces” that move to change it, define it, or

give it a degree of stability and substance.Furthermore, the behavior of an individual at a given

moment is the result of existing forces operating

simultaneously in his life space. The ideas,

expectations, feelings, attitudes, and needs of the

individual constitute the external forces, while

everything in the physical would include other human

beings with which the internal forces interact at aiven moment constitute the external forces.8



9

Figure 1

Theoretical Framework: Kurt Lewin’s Topological and Vector Theory

of Learning

Significant Factors Affecting Students’ Satisfaction and Patronage of

Theoretical Framework (CONT’N)



The Lewin’s Topological and Vector theory of

Learning (Assessment) become the foundation of the

study because the student as a human being

constitutes the internal and external forces. The

internal forces which is actually the behavior of thestudents or satisfaction and patronage of the

students’ is shape by the external forces. The

external forces as described in the study as thefactors affecting the student’s satisfaction and

patronage to Jose Rizal University of Graduate

School Students.10

Theoretical Framework (CONT’N)



Conceptual Framework One very useful approach to educational evaluation is

known as the CIPP, or Context, Input, Process, Product

approach, developed by Stufflebeam (1983).

Daniel Stufflebeam introduced the CIPP Model in 1966 to

guide mandated evaluations of U.S. federally funded

projects because these emergent projects could not meet

requirements for controlled, variable-manipulating

experiments, which then were considered the gold standard

for program evaluations. Since then, the model has been

widely applied and further developed.

This provides a systematic way of looking at many different

aspects of the curriculum development process. There is a

risk, however, that it may be directed only by „experts‟ or

„outsiders‟, and for this reason it is vital to identify ways in

which various stakeholders can be meaningfully involved.11



12

Figure 2: Context, Input, Process, Product (CIPP) Model

Introduced by Daniel Stufflebeam

The CIPP Model (Context, Input, Process, Product) for evaluation is a

comprehensive framework for guiding formative and summative

evaluations of programs, projects, personnel, products, institutions,

and systems.

The classic C.I.P.P. model was used in this study, presented as

Conceptual Framework (CONT’N)



13

Figure 3: Conceptual Framework

Significant Factors Affecting Satisfaction and Patronage of Graduate School Students to Jose Rizal University

Conceptual Framework (CONT’N)



Research Paradigm

For further understanding, the researcher formulated a research paradigm which

served as Figure 4, that show the

interrelationships of specific variables

included in this study.

14



Figure 4: Research Paradigm

Significant Factors Affecting Students’ Satisfaction and Patronage of Graduate School Students to Jose Rizal University 15

Research Paradigm (CONT’N)



Statement of the Problem

Considering the environmental problems confronting

countries all over today, together with the

environmental consciousness prevailing among

educational institutions, the researcher attempted todetermine the significant factors affecting

satisfaction and patronage of Graduate School

Students to Jose Rizal University, for the SY 2013-

2014.

16



Specifically, the researcher aimed to answer

the following questions:

What is the demographic profile of the

respondents in terms of:

1.1. Age;

1.2. Gender;

1.3 Civil Status;

1.4 Course;

1.5 Distance of JRU from workplace/homeplace;and

1.6 Allowance

17

Statement of the Problem (CONT’N)



2. What is the respondents‟ ratings interms of the four factors of marketing mix

(4P‟s) which are:

2.1 Product/Service;

2.2 Price/Tuition Fee;

2.3 Promotion/Patronage; and

2.4 Place/Strategic Location?

18

Statement of the Problem

(CONT’N)



3. What is the level of satisfaction of the

respondents/the JRU Graduate Schoolstudents to Jose Rizal University with

respect to:

3.1 Faculty and Instruction; 3.2 Student Affairs;

3.3 Classrooms and Laboratories;

3.4 Library;

3.5 Facilities;

3.6 Security;

3.7 Student Services; and

3.8 Overall Rating.19




4. Is the level of satisfaction of the respondentsto JRU, independent of their profile?

5. Is there a significant relationship between

the level of satisfaction of the respondents toJRU, with the level of patronage of the

respondents to J.R.U.?

6. What are the significant factors affectingstudents‟ satisfaction and patronage to

Jose Rizal University (JRU)?

20




Hypotheses of the Study

The researcher used the “Null Hypotheses” or

“hypotheses of present thinking” (H0), stated as

follows:

There is no significant relationship between the

profile of the respondents and the level of satisfaction of the respondents to JRU;

There is no significant differences in the

respondents‟ ratings in terms of the four factors of

marketing mix, for their patronage to JRU; and

There is no significant relationship between the level

of satisfaction of the respondents to JRU, and the

level of patronage of the respondents to JRU.21



Study

This study aimed to determine the significant

factors affecting satisfaction and patronage of

Graduate School Students to Jose RizalUniversity.

22



Scope: The population of this study are roughly all

the students enrolled for the third (3rd) Trimester

(Summer of 2013), SY 2012 –2013. These areapproximately about one hundred and forty –eight

(148) Graduate School Students enrolled from the

Masters Degree Courses (MBA, MPA, MAED) to the

Doctorate Degree Courses (DBA, DPA, E.Ed.) offeredat Jose Rizal University. “Stratified random sampling”

is utilized. The respondents of the study were

determined using “Slovins formula”, which is about

one hundred and forty (140) Graduate School

Students from the given population.

The study made used of the descriptive evaluation

method using a survey –questionnaire to elicit data on23

Scope and Limitation(CONT’N)



Limitations: The study was limited to

evaluation of the students‟ or respondents‟perception of the factors affecting satisfaction

and patronage of graduate school students to

Jose Rizal University. The profiles of the respondents were simply

considered as information which will represent

the status of the respondents in the university.These profiles were merely

associated/correlated with the factors affecting

the students‟ satisfaction to JRU. 24

Scope and

Limitation(CONT’N)



Research Design

This study utilized the “descriptive method” of research.

Descriptive method of research is a method of researchwhich investigate present facts concerning the nature

and status of anything, a group of persons, a number of

objects, assets or conditions, a class or events, a

system of thought or any kind of phenomena which arecovered in this research. (Good and Scate, 2011)

Descriptive survey was used in the study so that

present information relative to the factors affecting the

students‟ satisfaction and patronage to Jose RizalUniversity, graduate school through the use of

questionnaire checklist.

The researcher applied “quantitative method of research” com limentar to the “researcher–made25



Locale of the Study The study is conducted in Jose Rizal University, Graduate

School.

Jose Rizal University was originally founded as the Far Eastern College School of Accounts, Commerce, and

Finance in 1919 as a non stock, non profit, non - sectarian

private educational institution. Its founder was the late

Vicente Fabella, the first Filipino certified publicaccountant. The name was subsequently changed to Jose

Rizal College in 1992, in honor of the great Filipino Patriot

and martyr who tried to awaken his countrymen in his

writings to the need for academic self-sufficiency andindependence. Then, on October 2, 2000 the Commission

on Higher Education, the highest policy-making of tertiary

education in the Philippines, by unanimous resolution

conferred University status on the college. The University26



Jose Rizal University, as the Philippines‟ oldest

business educational institution, attempted to

meet this demand through the Graduate

School‟s well-structured academic programs,

which does not only develop strong

competency analyses, research, management,communication and information technology but

also inculcates a strong sense of

professionalism, appreciation for hard work,honesty, the importance o individual and team

efforts, the centrality of risk-taking in the pursuit

of innovation and most importantly, service.27

Locale of the Study (CONT’N)

L l f h S d (CONT’N)



These academic programs are Doctor in

Business Administration (DBA), Doctor in Public

Administration (DPA), Doctor of Education(Ed.D), Master in Business Administration (MBA),

Master in Public Administration (MPA), and

Master of Arts in Education (MAED). Under theMPA program, the Graduate School has a

Diploma Course in Local Governance, and MPA

Major in Public Health.

JRU Graduate School is located in the Tower

Building, Jose Rizal University, 80 Shaw

Boulevard, Mandaluyong City. Jose Rizal

University is accessible through many public28

Locale of the Study (CONT’N)



Population and Sampling

Strat i fied random sampl ing is utilized. This is a

type of random sampling that includes surveying aselected group of subjects from a larger group of

people. Through this useful sampling method, most

researchers can sample each subpopulation of the

main population separately. This is an effective andeasy way to get unbiased results from these

populations.

The population of this study are roughly all thestudents enrolled for the third (3rd) Trimester

(Summer of 2013), SY 2012 –2013. These are

approximately about one hundred and forty –eight

(148) Graduate School Students enrolled from the29

P l ti S li (CONT’N)



The respondents of the study were determined

using “Slovin’s formula” . When it is not

possible to study an entire population, a smaller

sample is taken using a random sampling

technique. Slovin's formula allows a researcher

to sample the population with a desired degreeof accuracy. It gives the researcher an idea of

how large his sample size needs to be to

ensure a reasonable accuracy of results. Slovin's formula is written as: n = N / (1 + Ne^2)

n = Number of samples

N = Total population

e = Error tolerance (Margin of 30

Population Sampling (CONT’N)

P l ti S li



Master‟s Degree No. of Respondents

MBA 95

MPA 5

MAED 25

Sub Total 125

Doctor‟s Degree

DBA 5

DPA 7

Ed.D 11 Sub Total 23

Grand Total 148

Table 1

Distribution of Population Per Degree at the Graduate School of JRU

Population Sampling

(CONT’N)

Population Sampling (CONT’N)



32

Master‟s Degree No. of Respondents

MBA 92

MPA 4

MAED 24

Sub Total 120

Doctor‟s Degree

DBA 4

DPA 6

Ed.D 10

Sub Total 20

Grand Total 140

Table 2

Distribution of Respondents Per Degree

at the Graduate School of JRU

Population Sampling (CONT N)

Using “Slovin’s Formula” to determine the number of respondents:

Slovin's formula is written as: n = N / (1 + Ne^2)

= ________148_______ = 140 respondents

1 + (148 x 0.02 x 0.02)



Thank you

33

Documents

MELJUN CORTES MBA Thesis