Intern
ati
o
n
a
l
Jo
urn
a
l
o
f
E
v
al
ua
ti
o
n
and
Rese
arch in
Education (I
JE
RE)
V
o
l.2
,
No
.2
,
Jun
e
2
013
, pp
. 78
~84
I
S
SN
: 225
2-8
8
2
2
78
Jo
urn
a
l
h
o
me
pa
ge
: h
ttp
://iaesjo
u
r
na
l.com/
o
n
lin
e/ind
e
x.ph
p
/
IJERE
Student Satisfaction in Privat
e and Public Universities in
Bangladesh
Quamrul H.
Maz
u
mder
Departm
e
nt o
f
M
echani
cal
Eng
i
neering
,
Univ
ers
i
t
y
of
M
i
chig
an-
F
lint,
US
A
Article Info
A
B
STRAC
T
Article histo
r
y:
Received Dec. 29, 2012
R
e
vi
sed
M
a
rc
h 1, 2
0
1
3
Accepte
d
Marc
h 5, 2013
To compare and contrast th
e quality
of high
er edu
cation in public
and private
universities of
Banglad
esh, a
stud
y
wa
s cond
ucted
,
to eva
l
u
a
te
stud
ent
s
a
tis
fac
tion in t
h
es
e
ins
t
itut
i
ons
.
The s
t
ud
y
us
ed a m
odified Noel-Lev
itz
student satisfaction survey
, co
nsisti
ng of twenty
two questions which
m
easured stude
nt satisfa
ction
leve
ls in fou
r
differen
t
ar
e
a
s: facu
lt
y,
curricu
lum
,
res
ources
, and c
a
m
pus
environm
ent.
The s
u
rve
y
als
o
m
eas
ured
the students’ ov
eral
l lev
e
l of sat
i
sfact
ion with th
e institut
i
on. Da
ta col
l
ec
ted
from different
private and pub
lic un
iv
ers
i
t
i
es
s
howed overal
l
s
a
tis
fac
tion
level to be high
er among private unive
rsity
stu
d
ents than public univers
ity
s
t
udents
.
Th
e d
a
ta
als
o
indi
cat
e
d
that
stud
ents f
r
om priv
ate uni
vers
iti
es
are
more satisfied
th
an those of pub
lic univers
ities
.
Finally
,
comparison of data
from
male and female st
udents showed higher leve
l of satisfaction among
fem
a
le stud
ents.
Keyword:
Stu
d
e
n
t
Satisfactio
n
Qu
ality in
High
er Edu
cation
B
a
ngl
a
d
esh
Pub
lic Un
iv
ersity
Priv
ate Un
iv
ersity
Copyright ©
201
3 Institut
e
o
f
Ad
vanced
Engin
eer
ing and S
c
i
e
nce.
All rights re
se
rve
d
.
Co
rresp
ond
i
ng
Autho
r
:
Quam
rul H.
M
azum
d
er,
Depa
rt
m
e
nt
of
M
echani
cal
E
n
gi
nee
r
i
n
g
Un
i
v
ersity of
Mich
ig
an-Flin
t
303
East Kea
r
s
l
ey Street, Flint. MI
48502,
USA.
Em
a
il: q
m
azu
m
d
e@u
m
flin
t.
ed
u
1.
INTRODUCTION
Th
e Pri
v
ate Un
iv
ersities Act o
f
19
92
was p
a
ssed
in
Bang
lad
e
sh
. Th
is h
a
s allo
wed
for th
e rise o
f
man
y
p
r
iv
ate un
iv
ersities in
Ban
g
l
ad
esh
creatin
g
m
o
re
o
p
tio
n
s
, as well as co
m
p
etit
io
n
a
m
o
n
g
st u
n
i
v
e
rsities.
Thi
s
i
s
be
ne
fi
ci
al
t
o
st
ude
nt
s,
t
h
e p
u
b
l
i
c
, an
d t
h
e
nat
i
o
n.
Ho
we
ver
,
t
h
e
r
e i
s
no
re
gul
at
ory
a
g
ency
wi
t
h
p
o
w
e
r
to
co
n
t
ro
l qu
al
ity an
d
co
sts. On
e of th
e pu
b
lic p
e
r
ceptions is that in Bangla
d
es
h, private uni
versiti
es are
u
s
ing
b
u
sin
e
ss m
o
d
e
ls to
m
a
x
i
mize p
r
o
f
it an
d th
erefo
r
e, effecting
q
u
a
lity o
f
edu
catio
n. On
th
e o
t
h
e
r h
a
n
d
,
p
u
b
lic un
iv
ersities are resistan
t to
ch
ang
e
th
eir leg
acy syste
m
o
f
ed
ucatio
n
and
th
erefo
r
e
u
n
willin
g
t
o
i
m
p
r
ov
e th
e qu
ality. Th
e percep
tion
o
f
hig
h
e
r edu
ca
tion
stak
eh
o
l
d
e
rs is th
at so
m
e
p
r
iv
ate
u
n
i
v
e
rsities
p
r
ov
id
e
b
e
tter edu
cation
a
l serv
ices th
an
pu
b
lic
un
iv
ersities [1
]. Yet
it rem
a
in
s to
be d
e
term
in
ed
wh
et
h
e
r
stu
d
e
n
t
satisfactio
n
lev
e
ls are h
i
gh
er in
private u
n
i
v
e
rs
ities.
Determ
in
in
g
wh
et
h
e
r
studen
t
satisfaction lev
e
ls
are h
i
gh
er in
p
r
i
v
ate u
n
i
v
e
rsities, an
d
in
wh
ich
categ
o
r
ies (p
rofesso
r
, cu
rricu
l
u
m
, u
n
i
v
e
rsity resou
r
ces an
d
ex
tracu
r
ricu
lar activ
ities), is
u
s
efu
l
for two reaso
n
s.
On
e, it
m
a
y d
e
termin
e wh
eth
e
r
h
i
g
h
e
r co
sts at
priv
ate
u
n
i
v
e
rsities are actu
a
lly j
u
stified
.
Two
,
it may p
r
ov
id
e a fram
e
wo
rk
for o
t
h
e
r
u
n
i
v
e
rsities to
fo
llo
w. The
p
r
ev
iou
s
stud
ies av
ailab
l
e in th
e literature
main
ly fo
cused
o
n
q
u
a
lity
man
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
in
g
e
n
e
ral and with
i
n
in
stitu
tio
n
s
, tho
ugh
at least on
e stud
y
n
o
t
ed th
e lack
o
f
quality
man
a
g
e
men
t
in
d
i
stan
ce edu
catio
n
prog
ram
s
[2]
.
T
h
e st
u
d
y
prese
n
t
e
d i
n
t
h
i
s
pa
per at
t
e
m
p
t
s
t
o
eval
ua
t
e
l
e
vel
of q
u
al
i
t
y
i
n
hi
gher e
ducat
i
o
n
usi
n
g
st
ude
nt
satisfactio
n
levels with
in, an
d
acro
s
s,
un
iv
ersities
As early as the 19
80
s,
p
r
incip
l
es of To
tal Qu
ality Man
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
(TQM) were ado
p
ted
fro
m
the
b
u
s
i
n
ess
wo
rl
d, and
in
corpo
r
ated
in
to
i
n
stitu
tio
ns of
h
i
gher edu
cation
.
In
reg
a
rd
s to
TQM, stud
en
ts
were
thought of as t
h
e cust
om
ers. Howe
ve
r
,
m
a
ny
educat
o
r
s
di
d n
o
t
wel
c
om
e TQM
,
as “t
he
cust
om
er i
s
alway
s
right” [3].
In the late
1990s, i
t
becam
e clear
that, re
gardless
of
what educa
t
ors thought
a
b
out treating st
udents
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
S
t
ud
en
t
Sa
tisfactio
n
in Priva
t
e an
d Pu
b
lic
Un
iversities in
Ba
ng
lad
e
sh
(Qua
mru
l
H.
Ma
zumd
er)
79
as custom
ers, reform
in highe
r
ed
ucat
i
on
wa
s neede
d
. T
h
er
e was al
so m
o
re dem
a
nd am
on
gst
st
u
d
ent
s
t
o
be
treated as custom
ers [4].
Though quality assura
nce (Q
A) measure
s
have a place in
post
-
seconda
r
y educ
ation,
t
h
ey
oft
e
n fai
l
t
o
pro
d
u
ce m
eani
n
gf
ul
res
u
l
t
s
due t
o
t
h
e “l
ack of ri
go
ro
us t
h
eo
ret
i
cal
fo
u
ndat
i
o
ns …
[and]
d
e
m
a
n
d
s
o
f
satisfyin
g
ex
ternal ag
en
das,” lead
ing
to
d
i
fferen
ces b
e
t
w
een th
e “rh
e
to
ric” an
d
“reality.” It is
clear th
at m
o
re research in
t
o
stud
en
t
satisfactio
n
lev
e
ls i
s
n
e
ed
ed
, as
m
o
st p
o
s
t-secon
d
a
ry in
stitu
ti
o
n
s
u
s
e
quality assura
nce m
e
thods to m
onitor issues of acc
ou
nta
b
ility rather than student c
o
ncerns. T
h
e st
ude
nt
feedb
a
ck
qu
est
i
o
n
n
a
ire (SFQ) h
a
s
b
een
u
s
ed to
i
m
p
r
ov
e the q
u
a
lity o
f
teach
ing
,
to assess th
e staff, and
to
meet stan
d
a
rd
s of
q
u
a
lity assuran
c
e [5
].
Th
e
N
o
el-
L
ev
itz Stu
d
e
n
t
Sati
sf
actio
n Inv
e
n
t
o
r
y
(
S
SI
) is
on
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
opular
and
v
a
lid
i
n
stru
m
e
n
t
s
u
s
ed
to
assess stu
d
e
n
t
s’ p
e
rcep
tio
n
o
f
teach
e
r
q
u
a
lity an
d
o
t
h
e
r qu
ality facto
r
s in
in
stitu
tio
n
s
o
f
h
i
gh
er
ed
u
cation
.
Then
th
ese p
e
rcep
tio
ns of
quality an
d
m
e
a
s
u
r
es of st
u
d
e
n
t
satisfaction are
u
s
ed
to
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
serv
ices. Th
e
No
el Lev
itz SSI is wi
d
e
ly u
tilized
in
No
rt
h
Am
erica [6
]. In
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e im
p
o
r
tan
ce-
satisfactio
n
g
a
p
is a
b
e
n
e
fici
al featu
r
e of t
h
e SSI,
b
ecause it allo
ws
un
iv
ersities to
ascertain
h
o
w
m
u
ch
a
p
a
rticu
l
ar lev
e
l
o
f
satisfaction o
r
d
i
ssatisfactio
n actu
a
lly m
a
tters to
st
u
d
e
n
t
s. Th
e ad
d
ition o
f
th
e im
p
o
r
tan
ce-
satisfactio
n
m
e
asu
r
em
en
ts to
th
e SSI co
n
s
titu
tes th
e reas
o
n
in
g
fo
r m
a
n
y
research
ers, in
clu
d
i
ng
th
e au
t
h
o
r
of
th
is stu
d
y
on
p
u
b
lic and
priv
ate un
iv
ersities, to
u
s
e it ab
ov
e
o
t
h
e
r
Stu
d
e
n
t
Satisfact
io
n
Inv
e
n
t
o
r
ies [7
].
Because
of the i
m
porta
nce-satisfaction m
easurem
ents,
i
n
stitutions ca
n “identify
a
s
pects of the
stude
nts’
ex
p
e
rien
ce where th
e in
stitu
t
i
o
n
s
are
failing
to m
eet th
eir exp
ectatio
n
s
” [8
]. No
el-Levitz’s 20
00
study also
recomm
ends that there are “
f
our a
r
eas of in
teraction
b
e
t
w
een
im
p
o
r
tance an
d
satisfactio
n
,
” in
clud
i
n
g
“h
igh
im
port
a
nce/
l
o
w sat
i
s
fact
i
o
n,
” w
h
i
c
h
su
g
g
e
s
t
s
an a
r
ea c
o
m
m
a
ndi
ng
p
r
o
m
pt
att
e
nt
i
on,
“hi
g
h i
m
port
a
nce/
hi
g
h
satisfactio
n
,
” an
area wh
ich
co
u
l
d
b
e
ben
e
ficial
in
mark
etin
g th
e in
stitu
tio
n, “lo
w
im
p
o
r
tance/h
i
g
h
sat
i
s
fact
i
on,”
a
n
a
r
ea i
n
w
h
i
c
h
reso
u
r
ces
m
i
ght
be
rea
llocated t
o
a
n
a
r
ea
with “
g
rea
t
er nee
d
,”
and “low
im
port
a
nce/
l
o
w sat
i
s
fact
i
o
n,
” an
area
w
h
i
c
h s
h
oul
d c
ont
i
nue
t
o
be
m
oni
t
o
re
d [
9
]
.
The
i
m
port
a
nce-sat
i
sfact
i
o
n
g
a
p h
a
s b
e
en
criticized
du
e to
th
e
fact th
at
g
a
p scor
es someti
mes d
o
n
o
t effectiv
ely pred
ict ov
erall st
u
d
e
n
t
satisfaction, a
nd
beca
use the gap sc
ores
in each
area
may lead to recommenda
tions that are counte
r
-
p
r
od
u
c
tiv
e [1
0]. Howev
e
r, they are still u
s
efu
l
fo
r m
a
n
a
g
e
rs [1
1
]
.
In m
a
ny cases, the SSI is use
d
only to
m
easure sa
tisfaction with
in
a un
iv
ersity, n
o
t
to
com
p
are an
d
co
n
t
rast on
e univ
e
rsity with
o
t
h
e
r
u
n
i
v
e
rsities. Th
is is u
s
eful in
th
at ad
min
i
strato
rs can
fo
cu
s on
streng
th
s an
d
weakn
e
sses of th
eir in
stitu
tio
n
;
h
o
wev
e
r,
b
y
assessing
th
e exp
e
rien
ces o
f
stud
en
ts at o
t
h
e
r
u
n
i
v
e
rsities,
ad
m
i
n
i
strato
rs
may b
e
ab
le to i
m
p
r
ov
e th
eir
co
m
p
etitiv
en
ess. There are some stu
d
i
es th
at
h
a
v
e
co
m
p
ared
an
d
cont
rasted student satisfaction levels
across institutions
, by type of in
stitut
i
on.
Am
ong these are the Nat
i
onal
St
ude
nt
Sat
i
s
f
act
i
on R
e
p
o
r
t
s
of
2
0
0
2
a
n
d
20
0
3
[
1
2]
. A
n
ot
he
r st
u
d
y
as
sesses t
h
e
di
f
f
e
rence i
n
sat
i
s
fact
i
o
n
lev
e
ls and
q
u
a
lity co
n
t
ro
l
b
e
tween
a cam
p
u
s
-b
ased
p
r
og
ra
m
an
d
a
d
i
stan
ce ed
u
cation
pro
g
ram
wit
h
in
a
u
n
i
v
e
rsity [13
]
. On
e stud
y is p
a
rticu
l
arly relev
a
n
t
to
th
i
s
st
udy
o
f
t
h
e di
f
f
e
rence
bet
w
ee
n sat
i
s
fact
i
on l
e
vel
s
at
p
u
b
lic an
d pri
v
ate
u
n
i
v
e
rsities in Bang
ladesh
, an
alyzi
ng
th
e satisfactio
n
lev
e
ls
of stu
d
e
n
t
s at ten
p
r
i
v
ate
u
n
i
v
e
rsities in Ban
g
l
adesh,
an
d
find
ing
that stu
d
e
n
t
s
correlate “facu
lty cred
en
tials,
… cam
p
u
s
facilities
,
research
facilities an
d
co
st
o
f
ed
u
cati
o
n
… with
qu
a
lity ed
u
cation
,
”
b
u
t
th
at th
e co
st of th
ese
priv
ate
u
n
i
v
e
rsities is still u
n
r
easo
n
a
b
l
e, d
e
sp
ite the h
i
gh
er
q
u
a
lity o
f
th
e ed
u
c
atio
n
[1
4
]
.
A li
mited
n
u
m
b
e
r of
st
udi
es we
re p
e
rf
orm
e
d t
o
ev
al
uat
e
t
h
e qual
i
t
y
of hi
ghe
r educat
i
o
n i
n
B
a
ngl
a
d
es
h as repo
rt
ed i
n
t
h
e a
v
ai
l
a
bl
e
literatu
re.
Challen
g
e
s and
op
portun
ities related
to
h
i
gh
er
ed
u
cation
qu
ality i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
b
a
sed
on
a su
rv
ey
of
uni
versi
t
y
f
acul
t
y
sho
w
e
d
t
r
ai
ni
n
g
t
o
i
m
pro
v
e cu
rri
c
u
l
u
m
and fac
u
l
t
y
m
o
ti
vat
i
on t
o
be t
w
o m
o
st
im
port
a
nt
factors
[15].
These barriers can
be
elim
inated by
provi
di
ng
syste
m
atic and
re
gula
r
tr
a
i
ning on teachi
ng a
n
d
l
earni
n
g
m
e
t
hodol
ogi
es
. C
o
m
p
arat
i
v
e a
n
al
y
s
i
s
of l
ear
ni
n
g
s
t
y
l
es of st
ud
ent
s
of B
a
ngl
a
d
es
h an
d
US
A res
u
l
t
e
d
no
si
g
n
i
f
i
cant
di
ffe
re
nce bet
w
een
t
h
em
as
t
h
e di
ffe
ren
ces were base
d on
m
a
jor
fi
el
d o
f
st
udy
[1
6]
p
u
r
s
ued
by
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l studen
t
. A stud
y on
g
l
ob
alizatio
n o
f
eng
i
n
e
ering cu
rricu
lu
m
in
USA exp
l
ored
th
e ex
istin
g
q
u
ality
issues a
n
d
how to a
d
dress
the
m
effectively [17]
The c
u
rrent
study c
o
m
p
ares
and contrasts s
t
ude
nt satis
fact
i
on l
e
vel
s
at
t
w
o
di
f
f
ere
n
t
pr
i
v
at
e an
d
pu
bl
i
c
u
n
i
v
e
rsities in
Ban
g
l
ad
esh, to d
e
term
in
e wheth
e
r t
h
e h
i
g
h
er costs at private u
n
i
v
e
rsities are
j
u
stified
,
an
d
i
n
wh
at
ways t
h
ese pu
b
lic an
d
p
r
iv
ate un
iv
ersities m
i
g
h
t
i
m
p
r
ov
e.
2.
R
E
SEARC
H M
ETHOD
The st
u
d
y
was
per
f
o
r
m
e
d usi
ng t
h
e
Noel
L
e
vi
t
z
St
u
d
ent
Sat
i
s
fact
i
on
In
vent
ory
(
S
S
I),
whi
c
h w
a
s
fo
u
nd t
o
be i
n
t
e
rnal
l
y
an
d e
x
t
e
r
n
al
l
y
rel
i
a
bl
e [
17]
.
Si
x
ad
di
t
i
onal
qu
est
i
ons
were
a
dde
d at
t
h
e e
n
d
of t
h
e
survey, t
o
e
v
aluate stude
n
ts overa
ll satisfacti
o
n and e
x
pectations, and t
o
s
o
licit comments about
the st
rengt
h
and
areas
o
f
i
m
provem
e
nt
n
eeds
of
t
h
e
un
i
v
ersi
t
y
.The
fi
rst
st
ep c
o
nsi
s
t
e
d o
f
t
h
e
co
m
put
at
i
on o
f
m
ean o
f
sco
r
es in
fo
ur
categ
ories (p
rofessor, curricu
lu
m
,
u
n
i
v
e
rsity reso
urces and ex
tracu
r
ricu
lar activ
ities) for bo
th
th
e Ch
ittago
ng Veteri
n
a
ry and
An
im
al Scie
n
ces
Un
i
v
ersity (CVASU),
a pu
b
lic co
lleg
e
, and
Ah
sanu
llah
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l.
2
,
N
o
.
2
,
Jun
e
201
3 :
7
8
– 84
80
Un
i
v
ersity of
Scien
ce and
Tech
no
log
y
(AUST), a priv
at
e college
. Res
u
lts we
re t
h
en analyzed usi
n
g
One
-
W
a
y ANO
VA
.
An
alysis
was
p
e
rform
e
d
to
determin
e th
e
mean
satisfactio
n rating and
t
h
e m
ean
im
p
o
r
tan
ce
rati
ng
u
s
ing
th
e sati
sfactio
n-im
p
o
r
tan
ce p
a
irs.
On
e-way
ANOVA
was pe
rform
e
d in order t
o
exam
ine the
relatio
n
s
h
i
p b
e
tween th
e m
ean
sco
r
es
for imp
o
rtan
ce and satisfactio
n
fo
r
p
r
o
f
essors, curricu
l
u
m
, un
iv
ersities
an
d
ex
tra-curri
cu
lar activ
ities fro
m
stu
d
e
n
t
s in
d
i
fferen
t
un
iv
ersities. Paired
sam
p
les t-
tests were p
e
rfo
rm
ed
bet
w
ee
n i
m
por
t
a
nce an
d sat
i
sfact
i
o
n
rat
i
n
g
s
fo
r eac
h
gr
o
up
o
f
s
u
r
v
ey
que
st
i
ons
. T
h
e
sur
v
ey
i
n
cl
ud
ed
21
que
st
i
ons
di
v
i
ded i
n
t
o
fo
ur
di
f
f
ere
n
t
cat
ego
r
i
e
s:
p
r
ofess
o
r, c
u
r
r
i
c
ul
um
, uni
ver
s
i
t
y
resou
r
ces
, an
d
ex
tracu
r
ricu
lar activ
ities. In
th
e surv
ey
q
u
e
stio
n
s
, se
ven
are related to
professo
rs, fiv
e
are
related
to
cu
rricu
l
u
m
, six are related to
u
n
i
v
e
rsity services, and th
ree are related to
ex
tracu
r
ricu
lar activ
ities.
A
seven
poi
nt
Li
ke
rt
scal
e was us
ed
o
n
t
w
o di
m
e
nsi
ons
f
o
r eac
h
of
t
h
e q
u
est
i
o
ns
as fol
l
o
ws:
(1
)
not
i
m
port
a
nt
at
al
l
,
(2
) n
o
t
very
i
m
port
a
nt
, (
3
)
som
e
what
u
n
i
m
port
a
nt
, (
4
)
neut
ral
,
(
5
)
so
m
e
what
i
m
port
a
nt
, (
6
) i
m
por
t
a
nt
,
(
7
)
very
i
m
port
a
nt
, a
n
d
N/
A
–
n
o
t
a
ppl
i
cabl
e
.
One
o
f
t
h
e
di
m
e
nsi
ons
was
im
port
a
nce
,
a
n
d t
h
e
ot
he
r
di
m
e
nsi
o
n
was sat
i
s
fact
i
o
n l
e
vel
o
f
t
h
e
st
ude
nt
s.
F
o
r
exam
pl
e, one
of t
h
e
que
st
i
o
n
s
aske
d
w
h
et
h
e
r p
r
ofess
o
rs a
r
e fa
i
r
an
d unb
iased
in
th
eir treatmen
t o
f
i
n
d
i
vid
u
a
l stud
en
ts. Stud
en
ts
were ask
e
d
to
rat
e
ho
w im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
th
e
p
r
o
f
essors’ fai
r
and
u
n
b
i
ased
t
r
eatm
e
n
t
was to
th
em
, and
t
h
eir lev
e
l
o
f
satisfactio
n with it.
Each stude
n
t’s
responses to questions we
re
avera
g
e
d
f
o
r e
ach o
f
t
h
e f
o
ur
cat
egori
e
s
fo
r
im
port
a
nce
and satisfaction. For exam
ple, the avera
g
e
of re
sponse
s to th
e first sev
e
n q
u
e
stion
s
was u
s
ed
as im
p
o
r
tan
ce
an
d satisfaction
m
easu
r
es
o
f
stu
d
e
n
t
s’ attitud
e
toward
t
h
e p
r
o
f
essor, resultin
g
in
four
d
i
fferen
t
av
erag
e v
a
lu
es
fo
r l
e
vel
of sat
i
s
fact
i
on f
o
r e
ach st
ude
nt
. Ave
r
a
g
e va
l
u
e
s
fal
l
i
ng bet
w
e
e
n zero a
nd se
ven
were use
d
i
n
t
h
e
an
alysis o
f
th
e d
a
ta. Th
e statisti
cal analysis
com
p
ared the relations
hi
p
between
im
p
o
r
tan
ce and
satisfactio
n
for each category. Com
p
arativ
e analysis was perform
e
d between
public
and private unive
r
sities, and
betwee
n
m
a
l
e
and
fem
a
l
e
st
ude
nt
s.
At
t
h
e en
d o
f
t
h
e su
rvey
q
u
est
i
o
ns, c
o
m
m
e
nt
s from
st
ude
nt
we
re c
o
l
l
ect
ed usi
n
g
si
x ad
di
t
i
ona
l
q
u
e
stio
n
s
: t
h
e
ad
d
ition
a
l qu
estio
n
s
in
cl
ud
es a) how th
e
univ
e
rsity was ab
le to
m
eet ex
p
ectatio
n
s
, b)
o
v
e
rall
satisfactio
n
w
ith
th
e un
iv
ersi
ty, b
y
p
e
rcen
tag
e
of 0
t
o
100 (%), c) wh
et
her th
e stud
en
t w
ill reco
mm
en
d
th
is
u
n
i
v
e
rsity to
oth
e
rs, d)
wh
et
h
e
r t
h
e cu
rren
t un
iv
ersity was th
eir
first cho
i
ce fo
r ad
m
i
ssio
n
, e) wh
at
was th
e
b
e
st exp
e
rien
ce at th
e in
stitu
tio
n
,
and
f) what wou
l
d
th
e st
u
d
e
n
t
lik
e to
see ch
ang
e
d
.
Th
e last two
q
u
estio
ns
were free res
p
ons
e questions
, and
were
us
ed in orde
r to d
e
term
in
e th
e
stren
g
t
h
s
and weakn
e
sses
of th
e
uni
versi
t
y
.
3.
RESULTS
A
N
D
DI
SC
US
S
I
ON
The res
u
lts of
the curren
t study are summ
ar
ized alongwit
hcom
pr
ehe
n
sive
discussi
on. The anlaysis
results a
r
e
pres
ented
usi
n
g appropriate fi
gures an
d
tab
l
es fo
r pr
op
er
in
terp
r
e
tation
[2
],
[5
].
3.
1.
An
al
ysi
s
o
f
t
h
e
Da
ta
The a
n
al
y
s
i
s
p
r
esent
e
d i
n
t
h
i
s
pa
per i
s
base
d o
n
2
1
6
su
rv
ey
resp
o
n
ses,
out
of
w
h
i
c
h
9
6
res
p
on
se
s
were fro
m
a p
u
b
lic un
iv
ersity, an
d
1
2
0
from a p
r
iv
ate u
n
i
v
e
rsity. Data co
llected
fro
m
Ch
ittag
o
n
g
Veterin
a
ry
an
d
An
im
a
l
Scien
ce Un
iv
ersity (CVASU), a p
u
b
lic un
iversity an
d
Ah
san
u
llah
Un
iv
ersity o
f
Scien
c
e an
d
Technol
ogy (AUST), a private unive
r
s
ity lo
cated
in
Dh
ak
a, th
e cap
ital o
f
Bang
ladesh
.
A few stu
d
e
n
t
s
ch
oo
se
no
t t
o
r
e
spon
d
t
o
so
m
e
q
u
e
stio
ns, th
er
eb
y s
h
o
w
i
ng
di
f
f
ere
n
t
n
-
val
u
es
in th
e an
alysis. Data was
col
l
ect
ed f
r
om
fi
rst
y
ear t
o
fi
n
a
l
y
ear st
ude
nt
s i
n
an e
f
f
o
rt
t
o
re
pre
s
ent
a
w
i
de ra
nge
o
f
st
ude
nt
s
wi
t
h
di
f
f
ere
n
t
lev
e
ls of exp
e
rien
ce at t
h
e
u
n
i
v
e
rsities.
Th
e
d
a
ta sets i
n
clud
ed
6
2
first year st
u
d
e
n
t
s, 45
secon
d
year
stu
d
e
n
t
s,
3
3
t
h
ird
year
st
u
d
e
n
t
s,
76
fou
r
th
year
stud
en
ts, w
ith
13
no
t rep
o
r
ting
th
eir
year
lev
e
l. Ou
t
o
f
21
6
st
ud
en
t
s
, 159
were
m
a
l
e
and
47
we
re
fem
a
le st
u
d
ent
s
,
wi
t
h
10
n
o
t
rep
o
rt
i
ng
ge
nde
r.
3
.
2
.
Limita
t
i
ons of
t
h
e
Study
It is im
p
o
r
tan
t
to
no
te th
at t
h
ere were so
me li
m
ita
tio
n
s
t
o
th
is stud
y.
On
e is t
h
at th
e
meth
o
d
o
l
og
y
was i
n
fl
ue
nced
by
l
ack o
f
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
dat
a
. Whe
n
st
ude
nt
s
failed
to
rate
a p
a
rticu
l
ar
questio
n
in
each
categ
ory,
the response was not include
d
. Scale scores
not re
ported
were recognized
as null value a
nd
were not include
d
in
co
m
p
u
t
atio
n. As th
e n
u
m
b
e
r o
f
nu
ll respo
n
s
es were small, th
e in
flu
e
nce o
n
ov
erall resu
lt was n
e
g
lig
ib
le.
Ano
t
h
e
r li
m
ita
tio
n
is th
e sam
p
le
size o
f
n
u
m
b
e
r of un
iv
ersities.
Wh
ile care was tak
e
n
to
su
rv
ey
d
i
v
e
rse
stu
d
e
n
t
s fro
m
a n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
i
fferen
t
p
u
b
lic an
d
priv
ate un
i
v
ersities, in
cl
usio
n
o
f
d
a
ta fro
m
m
o
re u
n
i
versities
co
u
l
d
im
p
r
ov
e
v
a
lid
ity o
f
th
e
resu
lts.
3.
3 Resul
t
s
Statistical an
al
ysis was
p
e
rform
e
d
u
s
ing
SPSS so
ft
wa
re, a
n
d the
res
u
lts are prese
n
ted i
n
Ta
bles
1-5
in
th
e
fo
llo
wi
ng
section
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
S
t
ud
en
t
Sa
tisfactio
n
in Priva
t
e an
d Pu
b
lic
Un
iversities in
Ba
ng
lad
e
sh
(Qua
mru
l
H.
Ma
zumd
er)
81
Tab
l
e 1
.
Im
p
o
r
tan
ce
and
Satisfactio
n
in
Pub
l
ic
an
d
Priv
ate Un
i
v
ersities
(N=2
16)
Criteria
Un
iv
ersity
CVASU (Pu
b
lic)
AUST (Priv
a
t
e
)
Mean
95 %
Conf
i
d
ence
In
terv
al f
o
r Me
an
F Sig.
Lo
wer
Bound
Upper
Bound
Professor
Im
por
tance
CVASU 5.
81
5.
59
6.
02
0.
08
0.
768
AUST 5.
85
5.
66
6.
04
Satisfaction
CVASU 3.
54
3.
31
3.
76
87.
83
0.
000
AUST 5.
02
4.
81
5.
23
Cu
rricu
lu
m
Im
por
tance
CVASU 5.
65
5.
41
5.
88
6.
39
0.
012
AUST 6.
03
5.
84
6.
22
Satisfaction
CVASU 3.
84
3.
59
4.
09
55.
66
0.
000
AUST 5.
03
4.
83
5.
23
Cam
pus
Resour
ces
Im
por
tance
CVASU 6.
19
6.
00
6.
38
4.
48
0.
035
AUST 5.
90
5.
71
6.
09
Satisfaction
CVASU 3.
99
3.
75
4.
22
25.
03
0.
000
AUST 4.
84
4.
60
5.
07
Extra -curr
i
cular
Activities
Im
por
tance
CVASU 5.
60
5.
33
5.
87
0.
22
0.
639
AUST 5.
69
5.
43
5.
94
Satisfaction
CVASU 3.
22
2.
93
3.
50
34.
03
0.
000
AUST 4.
40
4.
12
4.
68
The rel
a
t
i
o
ns
hi
p bet
w
een i
m
port
a
nce an
d sat
i
sfact
i
on
of
2
1
6
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
i
s
p
r
esent
e
d i
n
Ta
bl
e 1
fo
r al
l
fo
ur cat
e
g
o
r
i
e
s. Am
ong al
l
fo
ur cat
e
g
o
r
i
e
s, cam
pus re
sou
r
ces
were
con
s
i
d
ere
d
t
o
be m
o
st
im
p
o
rt
a
n
t
(m
ean=5.9
0 a
n
d 6
.
1
9
)
,
f
o
l
l
o
w
e
d by
c
u
r
r
i
c
ul
um
(
m
ean=5.8
8 an
d 6
.
0
3
)
,
pr
ofess
o
r (m
ean=5.
81 a
n
d 5
.
8
5
)
, an
d
ex
tracu
r
ricu
lar activ
ities (
m
e
a
n
=
5.60
an
d
5
.
6
9
). St
u
d
e
n
t
s’
respon
se sh
owed
lower levels o
f
satisfaction in
all
fo
ur
cat
eg
ori
e
s:
Pr
ofe
ssor
s
(
m
ean
=3
.5
4
an
d 5.02
), cu
rr
icu
l
u
m
(m
ean=3.84 and
5.03), cam
pus re
sources
(m
ean
=3
.99
and
4
.
8
4
) and
ex
t
r
acurricu
lar act
iv
ities (m
ean
=3
.2
2 an
d 4.40).
Th
e ro
le
o
f
professo
rs was
rated
as im
port
a
nt
,
wi
t
h
sco
r
es ra
ngi
ng
bet
w
ee
n
5.
59 a
nd
6.
0
4
,
wi
t
h
a m
a
xim
u
m
possi
bl
e
score
of
7.
0.
H
o
we
ve
r,
th
e lev
e
l o
f
satisfactio
n
with p
r
ofesso
rs
was lo
wer
(m
ean
=3
.3
1
an
d
3.76
) in
pub
lic u
n
i
v
e
rsities, con
t
rasted
with
priv
ate un
iv
ersities (m
e
a
n
=
4.
81
an
d
5.23
).
Th
e d
i
fferen
ce b
e
tw
een
im
p
o
r
tan
ce
an
d
satisfacti
o
n
was
calcu
lated
to determin
e wh
eth
e
r th
ere
is a
n
agreem
ent bet
w
een them
. If
stude
nts
report
ed a c
a
tegory
as ve
ry
im
portant, a
r
e they also highly satisfied?
T
h
e diff
ere
n
ce
betwee
n im
portance and satis
faction
was greater
am
ong
p
u
b
l
i
c
uni
versi
t
y
st
u
d
e
nt
s.
Tabl
e 1 s
h
ow
s
t
h
e res
u
l
t
s
of
one
-
w
ay
AN
OV
A f
o
r i
m
p
o
rt
a
n
ce an
d sa
t
i
s
fact
i
on o
f
e
ach g
r
ou
p
o
f
su
rv
ey qu
estion
s
(p
rofesso
r
,
cu
rricu
l
u
m
, cam
p
u
s
resou
r
ce
s, and
ex
t
r
acurricu
l
ar activ
ities) fo
r
bo
th
p
ublic and
p
r
i
v
ate u
n
i
v
e
rsities. Resu
lt
s sh
owed
no
sig
n
i
fican
t
d
i
fferen
ces in
i
m
p
o
r
tan
ce of p
r
o
f
essor and ex
tra-
cu
rricu
l
ar activ
ities b
e
tween p
u
b
lic
an
d
priv
ate un
iv
ersities (fo
r
p
r
ofesso
r, p
=
0
.
76
8, fo
r ex
tra-curricu
l
ar
activ
ities, p
=
0.6
39).
Howev
e
r, si
g
n
i
fi
can
t
differen
ces
were ob
serv
ed
in
cu
rricu
l
u
m
(p=0
.0
12) and
ca
m
p
us
resources (p
=0.03
5
). Stud
en
ts
at
bo
th
un
iversities
fe
lt these catego
r
ies to
b
e
eq
u
a
lly i
m
p
o
r
tan
t
to
th
em
.
Ho
we
ver
,
si
g
n
i
f
i
cant
di
ffe
r
e
nces we
re o
b
ser
v
e
d
i
n
l
e
vel
of sat
i
s
fa
ct
i
on bet
w
een
pu
bl
i
c
and
pri
v
at
e
u
n
i
v
e
rsities in
all fou
r
categories (professo
r
:
F=87
.38
,
p =0.00
0
;
Curricu
l
u
m
:
F=5
5
.
66
4, p =
0
.
0
0
0
;
Cam
p
u
s
resources: F=
2
5
.038
,
p
= 0.00
0
;
Ex
tracurri
cu
lar activ
ities:
F =
3
4
.03
,
p =
0
.
0
00).
Tab
l
e
2
.
Ov
erall Stu
d
e
n
t
Satisfactio
n in
Pub
l
ic an
d Priv
ate
Un
i
v
ersities (N=2
16)
Criteria
Na
m
e
of University
Mean
95% Conf
idence Interval of
Mean
F Sig.
Lo
wer
Bound
Upper
Bound
How Well
the
E
xpectations wer
e
me
t
CVASU (public)
2.
33
2.
65
2.
93
23.
02
0.
000
AUST (p
riv
a
te)
2.
79
2.
48
2.
68
Overall Sat
i
sf
action
CVASU (public)
54.
55
51.
68 %
59.
41 %
17.
01
0.
000
AUST (p
riv
a
te)
66.
70
63.
03 %
70.
38 %
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l.
2
,
N
o
.
2
,
Jun
e
201
3 :
7
8
– 84
82
Tw
o o
f
t
h
e si
x
free
res
p
onse
que
st
i
ons
at
t
h
e en
d
of t
h
e s
u
rvey we
re a
n
alyzed usi
n
g
ANOVA, as
sh
own
in
Tab
l
e 2
.
Th
ese questio
n
s
were an
im
p
o
r
tan
t
determin
an
t o
f
q
u
a
lity an
d
st
u
d
e
n
t
satisfactio
n
,
as
respon
ses
were sou
g
h
t
abou
t h
o
w
well th
e un
iv
ersities were
ab
le to
m
eet
th
eir exp
ectatio
n
s
, an
d
t
h
eir l
e
v
e
l
of
o
v
e
rall satisfactio
n
.
Th
ere
was a sign
ifican
t
d
i
fferen
c
e
obs
er
ved
i
n
t
h
e res
p
onses
t
o
t
h
ese
t
w
o
qu
est
i
ons
,
b
e
tween
p
u
b
lic
and
priv
ate u
n
i
v
e
rsities. Ho
wev
e
r,
th
e
lev
e
l of
o
v
e
rall satisfactio
n
was
h
i
gh
er i
n
p
r
i
v
ate
u
n
i
v
e
rsities th
an
p
u
b
lic un
iversities.
Tabl
e
3.
Im
por
t
a
nce an
d
Sat
i
s
fact
i
o
n
bet
w
ee
n M
a
l
e
a
n
d
Fe
m
a
l
e
St
ude
nt
s
(N=
2
0
6
)
Criteria
Gen
d
e
r
Mean
95 % Co
nf
idence
In
terv
al f
o
r Me
an
F Sig.
Lo
wer
Bound
Upper
Bound
Professor
Im
por
tance
M
a
le 5.
83
5.
65
6.
00
0.
27
0.
603
Fem
a
le 5.
73
5.
47
5.
99
Satisfaction
M
a
le 4.
43
4.
21
4.
64
0.
09
0.
765
Fem
a
le 4.
36
4.
06
4.
66
Cu
rricu
lu
m
Im
por
tance
M
a
le 5.
88
5.
70
6.
05
0.
28
0.
596
Fem
a
le 5.
78
5.
43
6.
12
Satisfaction
M
a
le 4.
52
4.
30
4.
73
0.
31
0.
576
Fem
a
le 4.
64
4.
34
4.
93
Cam
pus
Resour
ces
Im
por
tance
M
a
le 6.
04
5.
88
6.
19
0.
20
0.
655
Fem
a
le 5.
96
5.
65
6.
27
Satisfaction
M
a
le 4.
42
4.
21
4.
63
2.
66
0.
104
Fem
a
le 4.
77
4.
45
5.
08
Extra-cur
r
icular
Activities
Im
por
tance
M
a
le 5.
63
5.
41
5.
84
0.
35
0.
557
Fem
a
le 5.
76
5.
39
6.
12
Satisfaction
M
a
le 3.
83
3.
58
4.
08
2.
87
0.
092
Fem
a
le 4.
27
3.
85
4.
68
Co
m
p
ariso
n
between
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
ce and
satisfactio
n of
m
a
le an
d
fem
a
l
e
st
ude
nt
s at
b
o
t
h
pu
bl
i
c
a
n
d
p
r
i
v
ate u
n
i
v
e
rsities are p
r
esen
ted
in
tab
l
e 3. Th
e nu
m
b
er o
f
respo
n
d
e
n
t
s was 20
6
com
p
ared
to
2
16 to
tal
resp
o
n
ses, as
10 st
ude
nt
s di
d n
o
t
resp
o
n
d
t
o
t
h
e gen
d
e
r
q
u
est
i
o
n
.
A
m
ong al
l
fou
r
cat
egori
e
s
,
cam
pus
reso
u
r
ces
were
co
nsi
d
e
r
ed
t
o
be m
o
st
im
port
a
nt
by
b
o
t
h
m
a
l
e
(6
.0
4)
, a
n
d f
e
m
a
l
e
(5.
9
6
)
,
s
t
ude
nt
s f
o
l
l
o
w
e
d
by
cur
r
i
c
ul
um
. S
a
t
i
s
fact
i
on l
e
v
e
l
was
hi
g
h
est
f
o
r
cu
rri
c
u
l
u
m
(
m
al
e:
4.5
2
,
Fem
a
l
e
:
4.64
)
f
o
l
l
o
we
d
by
c
a
m
pus
r
e
sour
ces (
m
al
e: 4
.
42
, Fem
a
l
e
: 4
.
77
). Stud
en
t satisf
ac
tio
n
lev
e
l was th
ird fo
r
p
r
o
f
essors’ con
t
ribu
tion
to
th
e
l
earni
n
g
p
r
oc
e
ss (m
al
e:
4.43
,
Fem
a
l
e
: 4.3
6
)
.
In g
e
ne
ral
,
female stu
d
e
n
t
s are slig
h
tly
mo
re satisfied
than
th
e
m
a
l
e
st
udent
s.
Di
ffe
rence
bet
w
ee
n i
m
port
a
nce a
nd sat
i
sfact
i
on l
e
vel
was hi
ghest
fo
r m
a
l
e
st
ud
ent
s
i
n
ex
tracu
r
ricu
lar activ
ities cate
g
ory (1
.8
0), and
lowest for
female stu
d
e
n
t
s in
curricu
lu
m
c
a
teg
o
ry (1.14
)
. Th
is
can be
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
e
d as,
fem
a
le st
ude
nt
s are
m
o
re sat
i
s
fi
e
d
wi
t
h
t
h
e c
u
r
r
i
c
ul
um
,and m
a
l
e
st
ude
nt
s ar
e l
e
ss
satisfied
with
ex
tra-curricu
lar activ
ities.
Resu
lts o
f
on
e-way ANOVA fo
r im
p
o
r
tan
c
e an
d
satis
factio
n
of each
gro
u
p
of surv
ey
q
u
e
stion
s
(professo
r
, curricu
l
u
m
, ca
m
p
u
s
resou
r
ces, an
d
ex
tracu
r
ricular activ
ities) b
e
tween
m
a
le a
n
d
fem
a
le
stu
d
en
ts is
prese
n
t
e
d
i
n
T
a
bl
e 3
.
N
o
si
g
n
i
f
i
cant
di
ffe
re
nce i
n
i
m
port
a
nce a
nd sat
i
s
fa
ct
i
on
was o
b
se
rve
d
am
ong t
h
e fo
ur
categ
ories. There was also no
sign
ifican
t d
i
fferen
c
e in
how well
th
e u
n
i
v
e
rsities were ab
le
to
m
eet
stu
d
e
n
t
s’
ex
p
ectation
s
.
Howev
e
r, th
e
o
v
e
rall satisfactio
n
lev
e
l s
h
o
w
ed
a si
gni
ficant di
ffe
rence
(p=
0
.
0
07
).
The
fem
a
le
stu
d
e
n
t
s were
m
o
re satisfied
th
an
th
e m
a
le stu
d
e
n
t
s in
b
o
t
h
pub
lic an
d
priv
ate un
iv
ersities. Stud
en
ts at b
o
t
h
u
n
i
v
e
rsities fel
t
th
ese categ
ories to
b
e
eq
ually i
m
p
o
r
tan
t
to
th
em
. Ho
wev
e
r, si
g
n
i
fican
t
d
i
fferen
ces were
o
b
s
erv
e
d
b
e
tween
lev
e
l o
f
satisfactio
n
b
e
tween
pub
lic
an
d
p
r
i
v
ate un
iv
ersities in
all fo
u
r
catego
r
ies
(p
ro
fess
or:
F=
87
.3
8,
p =
0
.
0
0
0
;
C
u
rri
cul
u
m
:
F=5
5
.
6
64
, p
=
0.
0
00;
C
a
m
p
u
s
res
o
u
r
ces:
F
=
2
5
.
0
3
8
,
p =
0.
00
0;
Ex
tracu
r
ricu
lar activ
ities: F =
3
4
.03
,
p =
0
.
0
0
0
)
.
Tabl
e
4.
O
v
era
l
l
St
ude
nt
Sat
i
s
fact
i
o
n
bet
w
ee
n M
a
l
e
a
n
d
Fe
m
a
l
e
(N=2
1
5
)
Cr
iter
i
a Gender
M
ean
F
Sig.
How Well the
Expectations Met
M
a
le 2.
57
2.
01
0.
158
Fem
a
le 2.
74
Overall Sat
i
sf
action
M
a
le 60.
03
7.
50
0.
007
Fem
a
le
69.
15
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
S
t
ud
en
t
Sa
tisfactio
n
in Priva
t
e an
d Pu
b
lic
Un
iversities in
Ba
ng
lad
e
sh
(Qua
mru
l
H.
Ma
zumd
er)
83
Tw
o o
f
t
h
e si
x
free
res
p
onse
que
st
i
ons
at
t
h
e en
d
of t
h
e s
u
rvey we
re a
n
alyzed usi
n
g
ANOVA, as
sh
own
in
Tab
l
e 4
.
Th
ese questio
n
s
were an
im
p
o
r
tan
t
determin
an
t o
f
q
u
a
lity an
d
st
u
d
e
n
t
satisfactio
n
,
as
respon
ses
were sou
g
h
t
abou
t h
o
w
well th
e un
iv
ersities were
ab
le to
m
eet
th
eir exp
ectatio
n
s
, an
d
t
h
eir l
e
v
e
l
of
ove
ral
l
sat
i
s
fact
i
on. The
r
e was a si
gni
fi
cant
di
ffe
re
nce
obse
r
ve
d i
n
t
h
e res
u
l
t
s
fr
o
m
bot
h o
f
t
h
e
s
e t
w
o
q
u
e
stio
n
s
, b
e
t
w
een
pu
b
lic an
d
priv
ate un
i
v
ersities.
Howe
v
e
r, th
e lev
e
l
o
f
ov
erall satisfactio
n
was
hig
h
e
r in
p
r
i
v
ate un
iv
ersities th
an
p
u
b
lic un
iv
ersities.
Tab
l
e
5
.
Paired Sam
p
le t-test Between
Im
p
o
r
tan
ce and
Sati
sfactio
n
Criteria
Mean
t
DOF
Signif
i
cance
(2 tailed)
Public
Pr
ofessor
2.
29
14.
76
96
0.
000
Cur
r
i
culu
m
1.
84
10.
20
96
0.
000
Cam
pus
Resour
ces
2.
22
14.
28
96
0.
000
Extracurri
cular
Activities
2.
46
11.
95
95
0.
000
Private
Pr
ofessor
0.
86
8.
91
117
0.
000
Cur
r
i
culu
m
1.
03
9.
06
117
0.
000
Cam
pus Resour
ces
1.
13
8.
87
117
0.
000
Extracurri
cular
Activities
1.
35
7.
81
117
0.
000
Paired s
a
m
p
le
t- tests betwe
e
n im
portance
to sa
tisfaction for each cat
egor
y of s
u
rvey questions
(professo
r
, cu
rricu
l
u
m
, cam
p
u
s
reso
urces an
d ex
t
r
acurri
cu
lar activ
ities) are su
mm
ariz
ed
in Tab
l
e
5
.
The
an
alysis w
a
s
per
f
o
r
m
e
d
fo
r
bo
th
a
pu
b
lic (CVASU) and
a p
r
i
v
ate un
iv
ersity (AUST) to
determ
in
e wh
ether
any significant
differe
n
ce e
x
ists. As
s
h
o
w
n i
n
Tabl
e
5,
si
gni
fi
ca
nt
di
ff
erences
we
re
obs
er
ved
i
n
al
l
fo
u
r
categ
ories, in
reg
a
rd
s to
satisfacti
o
n
lev
e
ls b
e
tween
pub
lic an
d
p
r
i
v
ate
u
n
i
v
e
rsities.
Based
on
th
e
resu
lts in
th
e p
r
ev
iou
s
t
a
b
l
es, stud
en
ts o
f
priv
ate univ
e
rsities ap
p
e
ar to
b
e
m
o
re satisfied
th
an th
o
s
e of th
e
p
u
b
lic
u
n
i
v
e
rsities.
4.
CO
NCL
USI
O
N
A su
rvey
was
con
d
u
ct
ed am
ong
21
6 st
u
d
ent
s
from
one p
u
b
l
i
c
uni
ve
rsi
t
y
and
one
pri
v
at
e uni
ve
rsi
t
y
i
n
B
a
ngl
a
d
esh
,
usi
ng a m
odi
fi
ed N
o
el
-Le
v
i
t
z
st
ude
nt
sat
i
s
fact
i
on su
rvey
. T
h
e su
rvey
q
u
es
t
i
ons we
re g
r
o
u
p
e
d
in
fo
ur
d
i
fferen
t catego
r
ies,
as pr
ofesso
r, cu
rricu
l
u
m
, cam
p
u
s
resources
and
ex
tracu
r
ricu
lar acti
v
ities. Th
e
twenty two question survey use
d
a seven
point Like
rt
scale, with two
diffe
rent res
p
ons
es for each question.
St
ude
nt
s
were
aske
d t
o
rat
e
t
h
e i
m
port
a
nce
of eac
h
of t
h
e
fo
ur cat
e
g
ori
e
s
and t
h
ei
r sat
i
s
fact
i
on
wi
t
h
c
u
rre
nt
lev
e
l
of u
n
i
v
e
rsity
serv
ices.
The s
u
rvey also include
d
questi
ons to m
easure
whethe
r the stude
n
ts’ e
xpectations
we
re m
e
t, and
th
eir ov
erall satisfactio
n
with
th
e
u
n
i
v
e
rsit
y,
m
easu
r
ed
as a p
e
rcen
tag
e
.
Paired
sam
p
le t-test an
d
ANOVA
resu
lts
rev
ealed
th
at
stud
en
ts fro
m
Ch
ittag
ong
Vete
rin
a
ry and
An
im
a
l
Scien
ces
Univ
ersity (p
ub
lic) and
Ah
sanu
llah
Un
iv
ersity o
f
Scien
ce an
d
Tech
no
log
y
(p
riv
a
te) h
o
l
d
si
m
ila
r op
in
ion
s
abou
t th
e i
m
p
o
r
tan
ce of
p
r
o
f
essors, cu
rricu
l
u
m
, ca
m
p
u
s
reso
ur
ces, an
d
ex
tra-cu
rricu
l
ar
activ
ities. Ho
wev
e
r, stu
d
e
n
t
s at th
e p
r
i
v
ate
u
n
i
v
e
rsity were m
o
re satisfied
th
an
at
th
e
pu
b
lic
u
n
i
v
e
rs
it
y, in
all fou
r
categ
o
ries.
Female stu
d
e
n
t
s
ex
pressed
h
i
gh
er lev
e
ls of satisfactio
n
t
h
an
t
h
e m
a
le st
u
d
e
n
t
s in
bo
th
p
u
b
lic and
private u
n
i
v
e
rsities. On
e of th
e
reason
s
m
a
y
be t
h
e e
x
p
ect
at
i
ons
of m
a
l
e
st
ude
nt
s a
r
e
hi
g
h
er
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
fem
a
l
e
st
udent
s.
ACKNOWLE
DGE
M
ENTS
Th
e au
t
h
or wo
u
l
d
lik
e to
th
ank
Dr.Gourg
i
ng
Ch. Ch
and
a
o
f
C
h
ittag
o
n
g
Veterin
a
ry & An
im
a
l
Sci
e
nces U
n
i
v
ersi
t
y
and D
r
. M
.
S
h
aha
b
u
ddi
n, De
an
, A
h
sa
nul
l
a
h
Uni
v
ersi
t
y
of Sci
e
nce an
d Tec
h
n
o
l
o
gy
,
B
a
ngl
a
d
esh
f
o
r
t
h
ei
r s
u
pp
o
r
t
i
n
c
o
l
l
ect
i
on
of
t
h
e s
u
r
v
ey
res
p
ons
es f
r
o
m
t
h
e st
ude
nt
s.
REFERE
NC
ES
[1]
M.A. Ashraf. “Quality
Education
Manage
m
e
nt
at
P
r
ivate Univ
ers
i
t
i
es
in Bang
lad
e
s
h
: An Explor
ator
y S
t
ud
y.
”
Jur
n
a
l
Pendidik dan
Pendidikan
, Vol. 2
4
, 2009
, pp
. 17-
32.
[2]
M.A. Ma
y. “
A
Com
p
arative Stu
d
y
of Stud
ent Sa
tisfac
tion
with
t
h
e Provision of
Student Servi
ces
in Trad
ition
a
l
a
n
d
Web-Based Env
i
ronments.” Doctoral Disse
rtation
,
Kent State University
Gradu
a
te School of
Edu
c
ation
,
Ohio
, 200
2.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l.
2
,
N
o
.
2
,
Jun
e
201
3 :
7
8
– 84
84
[3]
S. Griffith
. “
U
sing the
Nation
a
l
Surve
y
of Student Eng
a
gement
as a
Tool to
Help Determine Influences of
Overall
Student Satisfa
c
tion with the C
o
lleg
e
Experi
en
ce and Help
Define Student Centeredn
e
ss.
”
Doc
t
oral Disse
rta
t
ion,
The Univ
ersity
o
f
Toledo, Ohio,
2011.
[4]
A. Levin
e
& J.
Cureton
. Wh
en
Hope and Fear
Collide:
A Portr
a
it of Today’s C
o
lleg
e
Studen
t
.
S
a
n Fra
n
c
i
sc
o: Jossey
Bass
Publishers, 1998.
[5]
D.C.S. L
a
w. “
Q
ualit
y
assuran
ce in
post-seco
ndar
y
edu
cation
:
the student experien
ce,”
Qu
ality
Assurance
in
Education
, vo
l.
18, 2010
, pp
. 25
0-251.
[6]
J. T. E. Rich
ard
s
on. “Instruments for Obtaining
Student Feedback: a Review
of the Li
ter
a
ture
.”
Asse
ssme
n
t and
Evaluation
in Higher Educa
tion
,
vol. 30
, 2005
, pp
. 387-415
.
[7]
M.
K.
Rosz
kowski,
“The
Nature of the Im
portanc
e-Satisfa
ct
ion Relat
i
onshi
p in Ratings: Eviden
ce from
the
Norm
ative Dat
a
of the Noel
-Levi
t
z Student Satisfaction I
nventor
y
,
”
Jou
r
nal of Consumer Satisfactio
n,
Dissatisfaction,
and Complainin
g Beha
vior
, vol.
16, 2003
, p
.
212
.
[8]
J. T. E. Rich
ard
s
on. “Instruments fo
r Obtaining
Student Feedback: a Review
of the Liter
a
ture.”
Assessment and
Evalu
a
tion
in
Higher Edu
c
ation,
vol. 30
, 2005
, pp
. 387-415
.
[9]
USA Group Noel-Lev
itz, In
c.
Stu
d
ent Sa
tisfac
tion
Inven
tory.
Iowa City
, Iowa: USA Group, 2000.
[10]
K
.
M
.
Ell
i
ot and
M
.
A
.
H
eal
y.
“
K
e
y
Factors Influ
e
ncing Student Satisfaction
Re
lat
e
d to Recrui
tm
ent
and Ret
e
ntion
.
”
Journal of Marketing
for Higher
Education
, vo
l.
10, 2001
, pp
. 1-
11.
[11]
A. Yuksel
an
d M. Rimmington. “Cus
tom
e
r-Satisfa
ction
Measurem
ent.
”
Cornell Hotel and
Restaur
ant
Administration Quarterly
, vo
l. 3
9
, 1998
, pp
. 60-
70.
[12]
USA Group Noel-Lev
itz,
Na
tion
a
l Stud
ent Sa
tisf
a
ction
Report
, Io
wa City
, Iowa:
USA Group, 2002.
[13]
M.A. Ma
y. “
A
Com
p
arative Stu
d
y
of Stud
ent Sa
tisfac
tion
with
t
h
e Provision of
Student Servi
ces
in Trad
ition
a
l
a
n
d
Web-Based Env
i
ronments.” Do
ctoral Disse
rtatio
n, Kent State Un
iversity
Gr
adua
te School of Edu
cation, Ohio
, p
.
8,
2002.
[14]
M.A. Ashraf. “Quality
Education
Manage
m
e
nt
at
P
r
ivate Univ
ers
i
t
i
es
in Bang
lad
e
s
h
: An Explor
ator
y S
t
ud
y.
”
Jur
n
a
l
Pendidik dan
Pendidikan
, vol. 24
, pp
. 17–32
, 200
9.
[15]
M
azum
d
er, Qua
m
rul H, Karim , Rezaul M
d
.,
Bhui
y
a
n
,
I. S
e
rajul
”
Higher E
ducat
ion Qualit
y Im
provem
e
nt in
Banglad
esh, Pap
e
r no: AC2012-5
127, 119th
ASEE Annual C
onference, June 10-1
3
, 2012
, San
Antonio,
TX, USA
[16]
M
azum
d
er, Qua
m
rul H, Karim
,
R. M
d
.” Com
p
arative An
aly
s
is of Learnin
g
Sty
l
es of Students of USA
and
Banglad
esh, Pap
e
r no: AC2012-5
075, 119th
ASEE Annual C
onference, June 10-1
3
, 2012
, San
Antonio,
TX, USA
[17]
M
azum
d
er, Qua
m
rul H., “
A
Com
p
arative Ana
l
ys
is
and Ev
aluation of Differen
t
Approaches of
Globalization o
f
Engine
ering Cu
rriculum
in the
USA”
Internation
a
l J
ournal of Modern E
ngineer
ing, Volume 10, No.
1,
Spring/Summer 2009
[18]
J. C. Obiekwe.
“
I
dentif
ying the
Laten
t
S
t
ructur
es
of the Noel-Levit
z S
t
ude
nt
Satisfaction Inv
e
ntor
y
(SSI): The
Community
, Jun
i
or,
and Technical Colleg
e Version.” pr
esented
at the Annual
M
eeting of th
e Association
for th
e
Stud
y
of
Higher
Education,
Sacr
amento, Californ
i
a, 2000
.
BI
O
G
R
A
P
HY
OF
A
U
T
HO
R
Dr. Quam
rul Mazum
d
er is
an
As
s
o
ciate P
r
ofe
s
s
o
r
of M
echanical Eng
i
ne
ering
at Univers
i
t
y
o
f
Michigan-Flin
t,
USA. His research areas include
metacognition,
s
t
udent
motivatio
n, engagemen
t
,
teaching and learning sty
l
es of
student in USA and Asia. As an internation
a
l consultan
t
on
teaching and learning
methodolo
g
ie
s, h
e
conducted seminars
and
workshop in U
S
A, Canada and
other
countries
around th
e wor
l
d. Dr. Mazum
d
er
is
a Fulbright scholar in
the eng
i
neering
educa
tion dis
c
ip
line
.
His
curren
t
res
ear
ch in
cl
u
d
es developmen
t of quality
models for higher
education
across
the world.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.