This research was carried out in three universities in ZONE 4, province of Manabí (Ecuador), and aimed to demonstrate the relationship between the quality of education and the degree of student satisfaction in the universities under study.
In the study, qualitative and quantitative tools are used, among the fundamental ones, we can mention: sampling, surveys, Servqual model, Pearson dispersion coefficient and Spearman coefficient.
For the processing and analysis of the information, the SPSS was used. 21 Among the main results achieved in the research, the following can be cited: The relationship between quality and satisfaction was demonstrated, it was proved that academic programs have a significant relationship with satisfaction, the relationship between the quality of academic management and the infrastructure and satisfaction of university students.
Key words : quality, quality of higher education, customer satisfaction, accreditation
INTRODUCTION
In recent decades, higher education has been subject to different waves of innovation and reform around the world; There have been unprecedented changes in the different legislative areas. The role of the State has been predominant in some countries and has had a positive impact on the quality of education and on the social commitment of the universities.
This situation is leading to a general concern in all areas to guarantee the quality of higher education and to lay new foundations and to transport policies regarding higher education, the main objective being to improve quality.
Quality is an issue that crossed the borders of industrial production companies and service providers to the education sector, generating strategies such as quality assurance systems, which lead institutions to subsequent certification or accreditation of both programs and institutional processes.
To achieve the standards, the countries have undertaken different processes, such as educational reforms, which in some cases are well received and in others generate controversy and polarization in the country, but which in the end, seek to respond to what each nation perceives as quality education.
A first reason that explains the current boom in evaluation is the change registered in the administration and control mechanisms of educational systems, which has paralleled the own transformations experienced by the educational system in recent decades. The results of the evaluation processes can be used for internal purposes, institutional learning and quality improvement.
The quality of higher education can be defined as a historical construction of society that demarcates actions on itself in its own context with particular endogenous conditions and that allows it to build that desired society.
Despite the multiplicity of points of view on quality in higher education, there are aspects in which there is greater consensus, such as the challenges and trends they face.
There is a need for greater knowledge of accreditation processes, to demonstrate how it influences quality, seeking ways to promote responsible innovation, so that they are mechanisms not only for external quality control or assurance, but also for the promotion and encouragement of continuous improvement processes, both in quality and relevance in higher education. Therefore, it is pertinent to determine what is the relationship between the quality of education and the satisfaction of university students? This is the problem underlying the research.
Based on the problem posed, the general objective of the research is defined to demonstrate the relationship between the quality of education and the degree of satisfaction of students in the universities under study. To fulfill the general objective, they are established as specific objectives;
- Carry out a bibliographic review that facilitates the analysis of the state of the art and practice Evaluate the satisfaction of the students in the universities under study Determine the quality of education of the universities under study, based on the evaluation of the accreditation carried out by CEAACES. Analyze the relationship of the criteria used in the CEAACES model and the levels of satisfaction evaluated. Quality in higher education
You are living in a globalized world, where technology is advancing by leaps and bounds; therefore, the university is undergoing profound changes, and it has to adapt to the new training demands that are placed on it. It is a great institutional challenge that involves all institutional structures, from the social, economic and cultural perspective.
According to the Dearing Report of 1997, in the United Kingdom, the concern for the quality of teaching and learning began in the seventies of the previous century, but it was not until the 1990s that concern for it began to spread. receive attention, due to a considerable increase in research on teaching and learning.
Analysts such as Palomares Montero and García Aracil (2010) and Rodríguez Vargas (2005) state:
The university system around the world is undergoing major changes. Experts in the field of higher education affirm that the 21st century will be the period of greatest growth in higher education in the history of education, with qualitative changes in the system, in such a way that universities will be forced to make major adjustments with in order to fit in with the public financial sector management systems.
Starting with Mauri, Coll and Onrubia (2007), the entity of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) has started the development of relevant educational changes that have provided new innovative proposals that allow for sustainable development. The importance of its development is not so much in the fact of the change, but in the possibility of contributing to qualitatively improve teaching practice and, consequently, the process and learning outcomes of students.
From the point of view of González, Gómez, Rodríguez and Aguilera (2009), in this 21st century, from the countries that serve the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), it is planned to position the European university as a benchmark for universities and institutions of higher education from all over the world, which is not possible without training that distinguishes its graduates for their qualities in relation to knowledge.
It is feasible to emphasize that the new university teaching must be focused on learning and student work, which must seek autonomous work modalities, which must be organized around competencies.
It is essential to find contrasting paths that lead to these purposes. And that's where university teaching plays an essential role in training in the new knowledge society.
Since the Bologna Declaration, on May 19, 2001, the Ministers of Education of 32 countries reaffirmed their commitment to establish an EHEA, developing each of the objectives prior to it. At that time, the following additional lines were also defined (Prague Declaration, 2001):
- Lifelong learning The active role of Universities, higher education institutions and students in the development of the convergence process The promotion of the attractiveness of the EHEA through the development of systems of guarantee of the quality and certification and accreditation mechanisms.
Under the principle of institutional autonomy, it is considered necessary to establish common criteria and methodologies that must incorporate the national quality assurance systems of the different countries.
LITERATURE REVIEW
All these substantial changes bring with them new evaluation and accreditation systems. The pressure generated by demand implies a need for expansion of higher education, which has been reflected in the lack of quality of educational services. Hence the need to create indicators, strategies, policies, procedures and the search for certifications by authorized entities, not only to improve education, but also research and response to the requirements of the labor market.
The accreditation of quality in Higher Education aims to carry out the positive evaluation of an institution or a program, that these can be recognized as valid and with reliable results for society, according to a pre-existing definition of what is quality.
The quality of higher education can be defined as a historical construction of society that demarcates actions on itself in its own context with particular endogenous conditions and that allows it to build that desired society.
Despite the multiplicity of points of view on quality in higher education, there are aspects in which there is greater consensus, such as the challenges and trends they face.
All these substantial changes bring with them new evaluation and accreditation systems. The pressure generated by demand implies a need for expansion of higher education, which has been reflected in the lack of quality of educational services. Hence the need to create indicators, strategies, policies, procedures and the search for certifications by authorized entities, not only to improve education, but also research and response to the requirements of the labor market.
The accreditation of quality in Higher Education aims to carry out the positive evaluation of an institution or a program, that these can be recognized as valid and with reliable results for society, according to a pre-existing definition of what is quality
Models for evaluating the quality of higher education
Two decades ago, quality controls were applied intensively in some production systems; in 1950 the assurance of this quality is analyzed; and in 1970 total quality management begins.
It begins with standards contrasted with each of the production systems; then others like UNE and ISO appear, which are accompanied by quality controls and standards. Thus, in Japan (1950), Europe and the United States (1980), in order to stimulate improvements, quality awards are created, which then become the quality management system and become benchmarks for the continent.
Today ISO 9001 is applied as the universal quality management system. At the same time, Japan, the United States and Europe have decided to create these quality awards and, being the most important powers, have become the world benchmark; such as: the Deming Model, in Japan; Malcolm Baldrige, in the United States; and EFQM, in Europe. In addition, there is the Organizational Spaces Verification model, in the process of adaptation to educational organizations (VERO).
Table N.1: Quality evaluation models (See PDF)
From the point of view of Jiménez González (2011), student satisfaction is a key element in evaluating the quality of education, since it reflects the efficiency of academic and administrative services: their satisfaction with the learning units, with interactions with your teacher and classmates, as well as with facilities and equipment.
For Mejías (2009), measuring customer satisfaction makes sense as long as it is accompanied by actions that induce improvement and innovation; that is why measuring the satisfaction of students in a consistent, permanent and adequate way, would guide the correct decision-making that allows increasing their strengths and correcting their weaknesses.
It is vitally important to keep in mind that satisfaction is reflected in all the services provided by the institution, which are reflected in the interaction of students, teachers, and the community in general, in this way the degree of satisfaction of the student establishing the criteria of quality and utility as the best to define whether the satisfaction received by the client is efficient and effective.
Methodology
The investigation is carried out using a procedure that consists of 4 stages, which are detailed below:
First stage. Preparation and organization. It aims to create the working group, define the scope of the research and object of practical study, and carry out the bibliographic review. As a result of this stage, the organization of the analysis group is achieved, the three universities under study, the population to be studied are defined, and the bibliographic review facilitated the preparation of the instruments for evaluating and analyzing the information to be used.
The population is made up of all the students who attend the university extensions of the Ecuadorian universities in the province of Manabí, such as: the Eloy Alfaro University of Manabí, Bahía de Caráquez Extension (ULEAM) with 510 students; Pontificia Universidad Católica, Bahía de Caráquez Extension with 199 students; and the Technical University of Manabí, Bahía de Caráquez Extension (UTM) with 250 students, finally making a total of N = 959 students.
The sample is made up of 167 students who were randomly selected from the Ecuadorian universities of the Province of Manabí, such as: Eloy Alfaro University of Manabí (ULEAM), in which 130 students were surveyed, Technical University of Manabí (UTM) 27 students were surveyed and the Pontificia Universidad Católica 10 students were surveyed.
Considering a simple random sampling for proportions with a significance level of 0.05 (5%) and an estimation error of 0.07 (n ≥ 163), finally obtaining n = 167, as indicated above.
The satisfaction evaluation model selected was the survey of difference five of the Servqual Model, which is modified and adapted to the conditions of the object of study (see annex No. 1).
Second stage. Information evaluation and analysis. The objective of this stage is to obtain, process and analyze the required information. The collection of information was by survey of the students, the collected information was analyzed, being interpreted on the basis of the following flow:
- Application of the surveys to the sample established in the present investigation. Review of selected statistical instruments to rule out possible errors. Preparation of a matrix to tabulate the results collected. Tabulation of information based on statistical tables and calculation of statistical indicators. Preparation of conclusions and recommendations on the subject under investigation.
The results obtained were the following:
Figure. 1: Distribution of students according to their degree of satisfaction
The results obtained in the accreditation evaluations in the universities under study are obtained from CEAACES reports
Table No. 2: Descriptive statistics of quality by university (See PDF)
Table No. 3: Descriptive statistics of quality in each of its dimensions
| Half | Minimum | Maximum | |
| ACADEMIC | 62.46 | 26.79 | 100.00 |
| MANAGEMENT | 58.45 | 11.11 | 100.00 |
| INFRASTRUCTURE | 61.53 | 16.67 | 100.00 |
| General Quality | 60.81 | 23.54 | 100.00 |
Source: SPSS.21
Third stage. It is that of analysis, its objective is to establish the relationship between the levels of satisfaction evaluated and the accreditation criteria used by CEAACES to assess the quality of education.
Due to the nature of the information collected, it was decided to use the Pearson and Sperman bivariate correlation coefficients, the results obtained were:
Figure. 2: Scatterplot between the dimensions of quality and satisfaction
Table No. 3: Analysis of the relationship between quality and satisfaction
|
Quality |
Satisfaction
(R Pearson) |
of |
Satisfaction
(Rho de Spearman) |
Significance
(p value) |
|
| Academic quality | 0.363 | 0.347 | 0.00 | ||
| Quality in Management | 0.462 | 0.438 | 0.00 | ||
| Quality
Infrastructure |
in | 0.411 | 0.392 | 0.00 | |
| General Quality | 0.448 | 0.430 | 0.00 |
Source: self made
The significant relationship between academic quality and satisfaction within the university context was evident, finding Pearson's r of 0.363 and Spearman's rho of 0.347. This direct relationship with a p value of 0.00 with a significance level of 5%, which shows that academic programs are of vital importance to students and their satisfaction with which they perceive.
The significant relationship between quality in academic management and satisfaction starting from er Pearson of 0.462 and Spearman's rho of 0.438 is also evident, being this direct relation with a p value of 0.00 with a significance level of 5%. It can be seen that the ratio has increased by approximately 0.10 (10%). This shows that this dimension of quality is important and highly valued by students.
Finally, the significant relationship between the quality of the infrastructure with the satisfaction r Pearson of 0.411 and rho of Spearman of 0.392 is determined, being this direct relationship with a p value of 0.00 with a significance level of 5%. In other words, as you improve the infrastructure of the services provided by the university, it will also have a positive effect on your satisfaction.
Fourth Stage. Summary of the analysis carried out
By synthesizing the results obtained, it was possible to corroborate, statistically, the supposed relationship between the quality of education and student satisfaction. It is observed that the universities with the highest CEAACES accreditation scores present the highest levels of student satisfaction and the significant values of the coefficients used allowed determining the close influence and relationship of university student satisfaction with: the academy, political management and infrastructure.
CONCLUSIONS
- It was possible to demonstrate the relationship between the quality of education and the degree of satisfaction of the students in the universities under study.The bibliographic review carried out made it possible to theoretically base the research and the selection and application of the evaluation and analysis instruments used. evaluated the level of satisfaction of the students of the universities under study and its correspondence with the scores obtained in the evaluations carried out by CEAACES. The direct relationship of the evaluation criteria used by CEAACES with the satisfaction of the students is established, checking that quality in university management is one of the criteria most valued by students
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Alarcón, Francisco and Julio Luna. (2003). Background, current situation and perspectives of the evaluation and accreditation of higher education in Central America. Buenos Aires. Declaration of Bologna (1999). The European Higher Education Area. Bologna Declaration. Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education. Bologna, June 19, Declaration of Leuven (2009). Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Higher Education, 28/29 April 2009. London Declaration (2007). Towards the European Higher Education Area: responding to the challenges of a globalized world. London, May 18, 2007. Jiménez, B. (ed.), Bordas, I., Coronel, JM, Domínguez, G., Gairín, J., González, Á., Santos, Á and Tejada, J. (1999). Evaluation of programs and centers and teachers. Madrid, Spain: Síntesis.Palomares-Montero, D.,García-Aracil, A. and Castro Martínez, E. (2008). Evaluation of higher education institutions: bibliographic review of indicator system. Spanish journal of scientific documentation, 31 (2), 205-229. http://hdl.handle.net/10261/9625. Marqués Andrés, Susana (2011). Continuing education: Training Tool. Gutiérrez, M. (2006). Manage for quality. Administrative concepts of total quality control. LIMUSA - ITESM (Quality Center). Mexico.Regulation to the Education Law, October, 2000. Academic Regime Regulation of the National System of Higher Education, January 22, 2009, September 2011. Organic Law of Higher Education - LOES, Official Registry No. 298, of October 12, 2010, Mejías, and Martínez, D. (2009).Development of an instrument to measure Student Satisfaction in Higher Education. University Teaching, 10 (2), 29-47.Mejías, A., Reyes, O. and Maneiro. N. (2006). Quality of Services in Mexican Higher Education, Application of SERVQUALing in Baja California. Research and Science, Autonomous University of Aguascalientes, Mexico. Number 34. Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, VA and Berry, LL (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of OECD: Schools and quality of teaching. Barcelona, Paidós, 1991.Mauri, T., Coll, C. and Onrubia, J. (2007, February). The evaluation of the quality of teaching innovation processes A constructivist perspective. University Teaching Magazine, 1 (1). http://www.redu.um.es/Red_U/1/ Regulation to the Education Law, October, 2000.Regulation of the Academic Regime of the National System of Higher Education, January 22, 2009, September 2011. Organic Law of Higher Education - LOES, Official Registry No. 298, of October 12, 2010, Mejías, and Martínez, D. (2009). Development of an instrument to measure Student Satisfaction in Higher Education. University Teaching, 10 (2), 29-47, International Standard ISO 9000: 2005. Quality Management Systems. Concepts and Vocabulary. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, VA and Berry, LL (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of OECD: Schools and quality of teaching. Barcelona, Paidós, 1991.Organic Law of Higher Education - LOES, Official Registry No. 298, of October 12, 2010, Mejías, and Martínez, D. (2009). Development of an instrument to measure Student Satisfaction in Higher Education. University Teaching, 10 (2), 29-47, International Standard ISO 9000: 2005. Quality Management Systems. Concepts and Vocabulary. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, VA and Berry, LL (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of OECD: Schools and quality of teaching. Barcelona, Paidós, 1991.Organic Law of Higher Education - LOES, Official Registry No. 298, of October 12, 2010, Mejías, and Martínez, D. (2009). Development of an instrument to measure Student Satisfaction in Higher Education. University Teaching, 10 (2), 29-47, International Standard ISO 9000: 2005. Quality Management Systems. Concepts and Vocabulary. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, VA and Berry, LL (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of OECD: Schools and quality of teaching. Barcelona, Paidós, 1991.Quality Management Systems. Concepts and Vocabulary. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, VA and Berry, LL (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of OECD: Schools and quality of teaching. Barcelona, Paidós, 1991.Quality Management Systems. Concepts and Vocabulary. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, VA and Berry, LL (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of OECD: Schools and quality of teaching. Barcelona, Paidós, 1991.
