Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
STUDENT SATISFACTION AND ACADEMIC ACHIVEMENT: ARE THEY RELATED?:
THE CASE OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING
Huam Hon Tat a,ψ, Ang Magdalene Chooi Hwa b and Muhamad Jantan c
a
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia
b
Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia
c
Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
______________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
The increased attention given to the topic of student satisfaction within the background of higher education
warrants the writing of this paper. Further, the continual changes in students’ preferences and
demographics definitely deserve serious research attention if we are to move forward in the higher
education reforms. In this paper, we focus on one aspect of change, namely the notion of academic
achievement. This aspect is highlighted with the aim to ascertain whether student satisfaction is related to
academic achievement in the context of higher learning. Accordingly, the paper addresses the question:
“Are student satisfaction and academic performance related?” Specifically, the purpose of this paper is twofold: To (i) review the extant literature on the relationship between student satisfaction and academic
performance; and (ii) propose a plausible theoretical approach to elucidate the relationship between these
two variables in the context of institutions of higher learning.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Keywords: Student satisfaction; Academic achievement; Higher education.
JEL Classification Codes: I21; M31.
1. Introduction
The constantly changing market environment in today’s competitive market, coupled with actions by firms
to gain market advantage, requires companies to understand their customers (Cravens & Shipp, 1991). It is
critical to understand one’s customers thoroughly in order to make decisions on how to satisfy and retain
them (Clark et al., 1999). In the service business, customer satisfaction is a crucial performance indicator
along with measures of unit productivity and administrative effectiveness (Adsit et al., 1996). Private
companies, nonprofit organizations, institutions, and government agencies are all increasingly driven by
customer satisfaction (Bryant & Cha, 1996).
In this light, customer satisfaction is no longer just a buzzword; it’s the driving strategy of more and more
businesses as they struggle to compete in an era of slow growth, overcapacity, and product proliferation
(Edelman, 1993). Among service marketers customer satisfaction is not just the latest fad, but a concept
that is likely to remain an important force in the foreseeable future (Richard, 1993). According to Cravens
and Shipp (1991), understanding customer satisfaction requires accurate tracking of the needs and wants of
all participants in the entire distribution chain, including suppliers, manufacturers, middlemen, and end
users. In a nutshell, all members of the distribution network must strive to satisfy the individuals or
organizations that ultimately consume the product or service.
2. Student satisfaction
Rising costs in education, accompanied by declining performance and productivity, indicates a need for
higher education providers to be more responsive to students’ needs that will in turn maximize provision of
services to students, increase student satisfaction, and minimize costs for the institutions (Havranek &
Brodwin, 1998). Student satisfaction has become a key factor in the strategic work of many universities
towards the increasing competition regarding student recruitment (Wiklund & Wiklund, 1999).
Abadi (1999) defined student satisfaction as “the degree to which a student is satisfied with the academic,
social, personal, and financial aspects of life. It results from a sense of ease and accomplishment arising
from successfully overcoming cultural hurdles, achieving academic success, and developing a network of
ψ
Corresponding author. Huam Hon Tat. Faculty of Management and Human Resource Development,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia. Email: [email protected]
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
associations.” High student satisfaction can increase the support of graduates as they become alumni and
practicing professionals, helping to maintain the vitality of institutions (Prentice, 1999). According to
Trudeau (2000), student satisfaction is an important consideration for many institutions of higher education.
This is true due to the volatile economic climate in higher education, increased demands for accountability
from external and internal constituents, and the need to examine satisfaction as an outcome of higher
education. Wiers-Jenssen et al. (2002) indicate that approaches to student satisfaction may be a tool for
building a bridge between more traditional and academic views on how to improve the quality of higher
education.
In recent years, data from student ratings of instructional activities of faculty have occupied an increasingly
conspicuous role in tenure, promotion, salary exercise, and even in influencing crucial administrative
decisions (Nerger et al., 1997). As the service provided to students is complex and multi-faceted, the
development of a service template to measure student satisfaction would be a complex task, quite unlike the
original templates which had been used in other service areas (Long et al., 1999). Although evaluation of
instruction is a highly complicated, it is a worthy activity (Nerger et al., 1997). In business, the
consequences of unmanageable levels of dissatisfaction or the failure to adequately reduce dissonance can
result in lost sales and profits. In higher education, the results could be lower levels of student satisfaction
and academic achievement, and a higher rate of attrition (Wiese, 1994).
Higher learning provides the greatest level of education. It is thus very important to assess student
satisfaction in the context of higher education, since students are the real consumers though some would
argue that the real consumers to education is the society. Additionally, the outcomes of the evaluation serve
as an indicator for students’ future recommendations of their attended institution. But they can also be the
best indicator for that particular institution’s future profits or performance (Chan et al., 2003; Mai, 2007).
As noted by Douglas et al. (2006), “Students’ opinions about all aspects of academic life are now sought by
educational institutions worldwide, generally, in the form of a satisfaction feedback questionnaire.” The
area of student satisfaction has received considerable attention in the marketing and higher education
literature. However, little is known if student’s satisfaction is in any way related to their achievements. Past
studies on student satisfaction and academic achievement are discussed in the next section.
3. Academic achievement
Over the years, faculty, students, and administrators have speculated about the reason for differences in
student performance, such as performance in prerequisite courses, standardized admissions test scores, age,
gender, race, and so forth (Henebry, 1997). Universities have a history of attempting to predict the
academic performance of applicants in their programs through standardized test scores, performance in
previous academic work, and other information required in the application form (Arnold et al., 1996). In
1975, Tinto (cited in Corbin, 1998) designed a model to explain why students either persist or drop out of
college. This model briefly suggested that students enter college with certain background characteristics,
interact both socially and academically with the institution, develop a degree of satisfaction with college
life, which in turn influences the level of commitment to persist in college. Research in this area has
received considerable attention in the literature. Past studies on this subject area are discussed next.
In 1992, an empirical study conducted by Knox et al. (1992) to examine student satisfaction and report of
their experiences as outcomes of higher education show that grades have a strong relationship to many of
the responses to the academic side of college experience. They affect not only academic satisfaction but
also the perceptions of college experience most powerfully. In 1997, Martin and Bray assessed customer
satisfaction with a MBA program. Specifically, they investigated the potential moderating effect of
students’ cumulative grade point average (GPA) on the overall program satisfaction. Their findings indicate
that as GPA increases, satisfaction with the core curriculum has a diminishing influence on overall program
satisfaction. In other words, for the program’s “best” students (if “best” is defined as those students at the
upper end of the grade distribution), satisfaction with the program’s core academic offerings plays a lesser
role in overall opinions of the program.
In an empirical study conducted by Donohue and Wong (1997) to examine the relationship between
achievement motivation and satisfaction with college among traditional and non-traditional students, they
found that traditional and nontraditional students differ in the pattern of correlations between satisfaction
with the college experience and achievement motivation. Besides that, the relationships between individual
dimensions of achievement motivation and college satisfaction were supported by correlational analysis.
109
109
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
Similarly, another empirical study by Summers and Biner (1997) on the relative academic performance and
its relation to facet and overall satisfaction with interactive tele-courses found that students exhibiting the
highest level of relative academic performance were those who were (1) most satisfied with the
technological aspects of the courses, and (2) most satisfied with the promptness of material exchange with
the instructor. The findings provide support for the notion that reported course satisfaction levels among
students enrolled in college-level telecourses will be predictive of the relative academic achievement of
those students.
In addition, Corbin (1998) suggest that that students who had higher scores associated with personal
academic satisfaction and school importance rated their academic achievement higher than students with
lower scores on the foregoing variables. In his study, social and academic integration is defined as the
quality of students' intellectual development, peer group and faculty interactions. On the contrary, an
empirical study by Cheung and Kwok (1998) to investigate activities and academic achievement among
first-year undergraduate students in Hong Kong reported a non-significant relationship between
interaction with faculty and expected grade point average.
In Johnson and Romanoff’s (1999) empirical study, it was found that although not statistically significant,
Russel scholars who had higher Grade Point Average (GPA) earned more credits, and were generally more
satisfied with their experiences at their institutions than were the control group students. The Russel
Scholars Program (RSP) is a residential community at the University of Southern Maine designed to serve
a population of students who are motivated to learn by collaboration with faculty and other students. In
another study by House (1999) to investigate the several effects of the college environment such as
instructional activities and out-of-class experiences, on students’ academic outcomes, the findings indicate
that students who had high school grades were more likely to work on a group project in class, spend more
hours per week on studying/homework, and were more satisfied with the overall quality of instruction in
college. In other words, this study supports that the notion that high school GPA is a significant predictor of
students’ satisfaction with their college.
In Nielbuhr’s (1999) study, he found that the student/teacher relationship is of particular importance in
ensuring academic success. According to him, some of the necessary quality conditions in the classroom
such as teachers allowing their students to know them and, hopefully, like them, will lead to students
working harder that will in turn result in academic success. Similarly, the findings of another study by
Woodside et al. (1999) that investigates the relations among academic achievement, self-concept, and
student-faculty interactions show that student-faculty interactions were predictive of students' academic
achievement and scholastic self-concept.
According to Gulino and Valentine (1999), curriculum and the curriculum experience that parallel the
“developmental readiness’ concept make schooling a more satisfying experience for students. To take the
concept a step further, if students have positive and satisfying experience, their academic self-concept and
success will likely to be enhanced. Rosenthal et al. (2000) conducted an empirical analysis to examine the
characteristics of positive and negative one-to-one student-faculty interactions with non-traditional and
traditional undergraduates. One of their findings show that students who had a positive one-to-one
interaction with a professor felt that the interaction affected their student rating of instructors and their
academic performance. However, in another empirical study by Corts et al. (2000) to assess undergraduate
satisfaction with an academic department, the researchers found that student grades are not related to
overall student satisfaction. In 2000, Pimparyon et al. conclude that students with low academic
achievement are characterized by more of the use of surface learning, less of deep learning and less
satisfaction with educational environment than students with high academic achievement. Another study
conducted by Schwartz and Washington’s (2002) study indicates that significant relationship between
grades and students' academic performance and retention. Chow’s (2003) study, on the other hand, provides
evidence for the positive association between educational experience and academic performance.
Chumney and Ragucci (2006) evaluated the academic experience and satisfaction of students enrolled in
the dual PharmD/MBA degree program by the South Carolina College of Pharmacy and The Citadel's
School of Business Administration. They found that students enrolled in the dual degree program did better
academically than their counterparts and indicated an overall high level of satisfaction with the program.
Bear et al. (2006) measured students' perceptions of their teachers' caring, concern and discipline. Their
findings suggest that there are no significant differences between academic achievement and intellectual
110
110
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
ability, and self-report measures such as students’ global self-worth, satisfaction about reading and
behavior, and relations with teachers.
The results of Mustafa and Chiang (2006) suggest that students with low GPA perceive that course content
can be improved by teacher's superior performance, whereas students with high GPA believe that the
quality of education can be enhanced by better course content. Another empirical study by Yin and Lei
(2007) shows that hospitality undergraduate students who regularly participated in campus activities tend to
have a lower over-all GPA compared to students who do not participate in campus activities. Besides that,
the study also reveals that more campus involvement does not increase an overall student satisfaction in
campus activities. In 2007/08, Stewart suggests that school climate, in particular the sense of school
cohesion felt by students, teachers, and administrators, is important to successful student outcomes.
4. Recommendations and conclusion
Based on the literature review, undoubtedly, student satisfaction and academic performance are two
inextricably related educational experiences. As noted earlier, the majority of studies (e.g., Chumney &
Ragucci, 2006; Mustafa & Chiang, 2006; Stewart, 2007/08) have indeed reported a positive relationship
between student satisfaction and academic achievement. Yet, there are some (e.g., Bear et al., 2006;
Corts, 2000; Johnson & Romanoff, 1999) that found no significant relationships between the two. Based
on the assumption that quality education is our educational goal, we propose a plausible theoretical
approach (see Figure 1) to explain the above phenomenon. As depicted in Figure 1, the significant
relationship between academic performance and student satisfaction could be explained by using a
model suggested by Tinto (1975), whereas the self-regulated learning theory (Zimmerman, 1989) could
be used to elucidate the insignificant relationship between the two variables.
According to Tinto’s model, “Students enter college with certain background characteristics, interact
both socially and academically with the institutions, develop a certain degree of satisfaction with college
life, which in turn, influences the level of commitment to persist in college” (Corbin, 1998). This model
provides a plausible explanation for the significant relationship between overall satisfaction and
academic achievement. Applying this concept to students of higher learning, it can be surmised that
students who are satisfied with their affiliated educational institutions will tend to perform better
academically. In other words, student satisfaction is expected to account for the behavior related to their
academic achievement.
Are student satisfaction and academic achievement related?
Yes
No
Zimmerman’s SelfRegulated Learning
Theory
(1989)
Tinto’s Model
(1975)
Figure 1: Application of models to the relationship between student satisfaction
and academic achievement
On the other hand, the basic premise of the self-regulated learning perspective concerns students’
intrinsic motivation to seek information (Paris & Byrnes, 1989). The theory has it that activities that are
self-regulated contribute to academic achievements, whereas activities that do not reflect self-regulated
learning do not contribute to academic achievement (Cheung & Kwok, 1998). Self-regulated activities
include studying and elaborative learning; the latter includes interacting with faculty, participating in
organizations, interacting with friends and so forth. Hence, this theory offers a plausible explanation to
the insignificant relationship between student satisfaction and academic achievement. It signals that
students’ academic achievement may not be a result of their level of satisfaction with their affiliated
educational institutions. It would then be expected that students’ self-regulating learning behavior is
likely to be the main factor in obtaining academic achievement and success.
111
111
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
In conclusion, the proposed model, though helpful to some extent, still needs to be fine-tuned before it
can be usefully applied to the context of higher learning. As such, an in-depth study in this area needs to
be undertaken by education or marketing researchers. For instance, in the Malaysian context, our
researchers may want to examine undergraduate and postgraduate students in both public and private
universities in terms of the similarities and differences in their perceptions towards the student
satisfaction-academic achievement relationship. The goal of postgraduate students usually is to acquire
new knowledge and skills to be applied in the workplace. Thus, they are less likely to be driven by
academic achievement since their goal is to mainly enhance their capabilities in the work environment.
In contrast, undergraduate students are usually fresh school leavers and may still conform to the
traditional academic evaluation system in which the norm is to compete and excel academically. In
other words, student satisfaction may be a function of academic success or vice versa. In addition, a
comparison of undergraduate and postgraduate students from varied disciplines in terms of their
perceptions towards educational services can also be done. As noted by Kwan and Ng (1999),
examining a large sample of students with diverse backgrounds can provide even richer results for
analysis that can ultimately contribute to the existing literature in this topic.
References
Abadi, J. M. (1999) Satisfaction with Oklahoma State University among selected groups of international
students. Unpublished EdD dissertation, Oklahoma State University, USA.
Adsit, D. J., London, M., Crom, S. and Jones, D. (1996) Relationships between employee attitudes,
customer satisfaction and departmental performance. The Journal of Management Development,
15, 62.
Arnold, L. R. and Chakravarty, A. K. (1996) Applicant evaluation in an executive MBA program. Journal
of Education for Business, 71, 277-283.
Bear, G. G., Kotering, L. J. and Braziel, P. (2006) School completers and noncompleters with learning
disabilities: Similarities in academic achievement and perceptions of self and teachers. Remedial
and Special Education, 27, 293-300.
Bryant, B. E. and Cha, J. (1996) Crossing the threshold. Marketing Research, 8, 20-28.
Chan, L.K., Hui, Y.V., Lo, H.H. and Tse, S.K. (2003), Consumer satisfaction index: New practice and
findings", European Joumal of Marketing, 37, 872-909.
Cheung, C. and Kwok, S. (1998) Activities and academic achievement among college students. The
Journal Genetic Psychology, 159, 147-162.
Chow, H. P. (2003). Exploring the predictors of educational experience and academic performance among
university students in Regina. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 49.
Chumney, E. C. G. and Ragucci, K. R. (2006) Student satisfaction and academic performance in a dual
PharmD/MBA degree program. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70, F1-F4.
Clark, L. A., Cleveland, W. S., Lorraine, D. and Liu, C. (1999) Competitive profiling displays. Marketing
Research, 11, 24-26.
Corbin, S. S. (1998) The relationship of students' social and academic integration in high school to selfperceptions of academic achievement. Educational Research Quarterly, 21, 28-36.
Corts, D. P., Lounsbury, J. W., Saudargas, R. A. and Tatum, H. F. (2000) Assessing undergraduate
satisfaction with an academic department: A method and case study. College Student Journal, 34,
399-409.
Cravens, D. W. and Shipp, S. H. (1991) Market-driven strategies for competitive advantage. Business
Horizons, 34, 53-61.
Donohue, T. L. and Wong, E. H. (1997). Achievement motivation and college satisfaction in traditional and
nontraditional students. Education, 118, 237-243.
Douglas, J., Douglas, A. and Barnes, B. (2006) Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university. Quality
Assurance in Education: An International Perspective, 14, 251-267.
Edelman, D. C. (1993) Satisfaction is nice, but share pays. Marketing Management, 2, 8-13.
Gulino, J. and Valentine, J. W. (1999) Middle school programmatic practices and student satisfaction with
school. NASSP Bulletin, 83, 90-99.
Havranek, J.E. and Brodwin, M.G. (1998). Restructuring universities and colleges: The student-focused
paradigm. Education, 119, 115-119.
Henebry, K. (1997) The impact of class schedule on student performance in a financial management
course. Journal of Education for Business, 73, 114-120.
House, J. D. (1999) The effects of entering characteristics and instructional experiences on student
112
112
Proceedings of Applied International Business Conference 2008
satisfaction and degree completion: An application of the input-environment-outcome assessment
model. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26, 423-434.
Johnson, J. L. and Romanoff, S. J. (1999) Higher education residential learning communities: What are the
implications for student success. College Student Journal, 33, 385-399.
Knox, W. E, Lindsay, P. and Kolb, M. N. (1992) Higher education, college characteristics, and student
experiences. Journal of Higher Education, 63, 303-328.
Kwan, P. Y. K. And Ng, P. W. K. (1999) Quality indicators in higher education – Comparing Hong Kong
and China’s students. Managerial Auditing Journal. 14, 20-27.
Long, P., Tricker, T. Rangercroft, M. and Gilroy, P. (1999) Measuring the satisfaction gap: Education in
the market-place. Total Quality Management, 10, S772-S778.
Mai, L. (2005) A comparative study between UK and US: The student satisfaction in higher education and
its influential factors. Journal of Marketing Management, 21, 859-878.
Martin, G. S. and Bray, J. K. (1997) Assessing customer satisfaction with a master of business
administration program: Implications for resource allocation. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 8, 15-28.
Mustafa, S. T. and Chiang, D. (2006) Dimensions of quality in higher education: How academic
performance affects university students’ teacher evaluations. Journal of American Academy of
Business, 8, 294-303.
Nerger, J. L., Viney, W. and Riedel II, R. G. (1997) Student ratings of teaching effectiveness: Use and
misuse. The Midwest Quarterly, 38, 218-233.
Niebuhr, K. E. (1999). An empirical study of student relationships and academic achievement. Education,
119, 679-681.
Paris, S. G. and Byrnes, G. M. (1989) The constructive approach to self-regulation and learning in the
classroom. In B. J. Zimmerson & D. H. Schunk (Eds). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic
Achievement: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 169-200). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pimparyon, P., Roff, S, McAleer, S., Poonchai, B. and Pemba, S. (2000) Educational environment, student
approaches to learning and academic achievement in a Thai nursing school. Medical Teacher, 22,
359-364.
Prentice, D. (1999) The relationship between personality and university and program satisfaction of
accounting students. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Alabama, USA.
Rosenthal, G. T., Alleman, N. W., Boudrelaux, D., Soper, B. and Bergen, C. V. (2000) The one-to-one
survey: Traditional versus non-traditional student satisfaction with professors during one-to-one
contacts. College Student Journal, 34, 315-320.
Richard, K. (1993) Customer satisfaction: An integrative approach. Marketing Research, 5, 4.
Schwartz, R. A. and Washington, C. M. (2002) Predicting academic performance and retention among
African American freshmen men. NASPA Journal, 39, 354-370.
Stewart, E. B. (2007/2008) Individual and school structural effects on African American high school
students’ academic achievement. The High School Journal, 91, 16-34.
Summers, Biner, P. M. (1997) A factor analytic investigation of the microteaching rating scale, College
Student Journal, 31, 409-417.
Tinto, V. (1975. Dropout for higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of
Educational Research, 45 , 89-125.
Trudeau, C. S. (2000) A study of overall student satisfaction and the factors influencing satisfaction at a
midwestern church-related college. Unpublished EdD dissertation, Indiana University, USA.
Wiers-Jenssen, J., Stensaker, B. and Grøgaard, J. B. (2002) Student satisfaction: Towards an empirical
deconstruction of the concept. Quality in Higher Education, 8, 183-195.
Wiese, M.D. (1994). College choice cognitive dissonance: Managing student/institution fit. Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education, 5, 35-47.
Wiklund, P. S. and Wiklund, H. (1999) Student focused design and improvement of university courses.
Managing Service Quality, 9, 434-443.
Woodside, B. M., Wong, E. H. and Weist, D. J. (1999) The effect of student-faculty interaction on college
students' academic achievement and self concept. Education, 119, 730-733.
Yin, D. and Lei, S. A. (2007) Impacts of campus involvement on hospitality student achievement and
satisfaction. Education, 128, 282-294.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989) Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In B. J.
Zimmerson & D. H. Schunk (eds.). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theory,
Research, and Practice (pp. 1-125). New York: Springer-Verlag.
113
113