Demonstrating Students’ Satisfaction on Institutional Services Capacity: Community College Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65339/ijsis.V1.I3.140Keywords:
Higher Education, Institutional Improvement, Physical Facilities, Registrar Services, Service Quality, Student Satisfaction, Teaching QualityAbstract
This study assessed students’ satisfaction with the institutional service capacity of Buenavista Community College in terms of Registrar Services, Teaching Quality, and Physical Facilities as a basis for institutional improvement. The study was anchored on Stakeholder Theory, Systems Theory, Total Quality Management, the SERVQUAL/HEdPERF framework, Social Capital Theory, and Educational Effectiveness Theory. A descriptive-differential quantitative research design was employed involving 324 undergraduate students selected through stratified random sampling. Data were gathered using a modified student-centered Service Satisfaction Questionnaire with 30 indicators distributed across the three service domains and measured using a four-point Likert scale. The instrument underwent expert validation and pilot testing and obtained Cronbach’s alpha coefficients greater than 0.80. Data were analyzed using frequency, percentage, weighted mean, standard deviation, independent-samples t-test, and one-way analysis of variance at the 0.05 level of significance. Findings revealed an overall institutional satisfaction mean of 3.33 (SD = 0.47), interpreted as Highly Satisfied. Teaching Quality received the highest rating (M = 3.36, SD = 0.50), followed by Physical Facilities (M = 3.32, SD = 0.51) and Registrar Services (M = 3.31, SD = 0.49). No statistically significant differences in satisfaction were found according to age, gender, year level, enrolled program, or enrollment status. The major operational concerns were unstable campus Wi-Fi, delays in transcript processing, peak enrollment congestion, and inconsistent use of learning management systems. The study concluded that institutional services generally met student expectations but required continued improvement in digital infrastructure, registrar workflow automation, queue management, and faculty development. The study supports SDG 4 on Quality Education, SDG 16 on strong and responsive institutions, and, to a supporting extent, SDG 9 on infrastructure and innovation. Its sustainability contribution lies in strengthening educational, institutional, governance, and technological sustainability through evidence-based service improvement.
References
Abdullah, F. (2006). The development of HEdPERF: A new measuring instrument of service quality for the higher education sector. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(6), 569–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00480.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00480.x
Commission on Higher Education. (2013). Enhanced policies and guidelines on student affairs and services (CHED Memorandum Order No. 09, Series of 2013). Republic of the Philippines.
Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203939185 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203939185
Data Privacy Act of 2012, Republic Act No. 10173 (2012) (Phil.).
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Dugenio-Nadela, C., Cañeda, D. M., Tirol, S. L., Samillano, J. H., Pantuan, D. J. M., Piañar, J. C., Tinapay, A. O., Casas, H. M. S., Cometa, R. A., Conson, S. O., Urot, M. V., Ancot, J. M., Nadela, R. L., Dugenio-Terol, I., Baluyot, A. M., Pevida, K., Olivar, J. I., & Decena, E. (2023). Service quality and student’s satisfaction in higher education institution. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 11(4), 858–870. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhrss.2023.114049 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/jhrss.2023.114049
Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act of 2018, Republic Act No. 11032 (2018) (Phil.).
Farihah, U., Arifin, S., Muhith, A., & Ghani, M. F. A. (2024). The influence of academic administration services with the RATER approach on student satisfaction in higher education. Al-Tanzim: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Islam, 8(1), 174–191. https://doi.org/10.33650/al-tanzim.v8i1.6105 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33650/al-tanzim.v8i1.6105
Forid, M. S., Hafez, M., & Khan, W. (2022). Student satisfaction and retention: Impact of service quality and digital transformation. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 13(4), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2022.4-14 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2022.4-14
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Hasan, M., & Hosen, Z. (2022). Influence of university service quality on student satisfaction and loyalty in Bangladesh. The Journal of Quality in Education, 12(19), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.37870/joqie.v12i19.319 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37870/joqie.v12i19.319
Higher Education Act of 1994, Republic Act No. 7722 (1994) (Phil.).
Kanwar, A., & Sanjeeva, M. (2022). Student satisfaction survey: A key for quality improvement in the higher education institution. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 11, Article 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00196-6 Springer DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00196-6
Khoiri, R. A. H., Herawan, E., & Hartini, N. (2023). Implementation of information and communication technology in efforts to improve academic administrative services in STKIP Arrahmaniyah. JUPIIS: Jurnal Pendidikan Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial, 15(2), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.24114/jupiis.v15i2.49658 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24114/jupiis.v15i2.49658
Li, Y., & Pateña, A. D. (2023). Service quality and student satisfaction in one Chinese university. International Journal of Research Studies in Management, 11(11), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsm.2023.1138 Consortia Academia DOI: https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsm.2023.1138
Mustafa, D., Ahsan, S. C., Aris, M., Niswaty, R., & Prasodjo, T. (2022). Service quality and performance of academic administration employees on student satisfaction. Sosiohumaniora, 24(3), 335–342. https://doi.org/10.24198/sosiohumaniora.v24i3.40870 Eprints UNM DOI: https://doi.org/10.24198/sosiohumaniora.v24i3.40870
Othman, A. R., Ruslan, N. A., & Zahrah, W. (2022). Impact of physical learning environment towards students’ performance at Taylor’s University. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 7(19), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.21834/ebpj.v7i19.3099 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21834/ebpj.v7i19.3099
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.361990
Ruranga, C. (2024). Exploring higher education students’ satisfaction for quality improvement: A case study of the African Centre of Excellence in Data Science. International Journal of Education and Practice, 12(3), 719–729. https://doi.org/10.18488/61.v12i3.3750 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18488/61.v12i3.3750
Sasan, J. M., & Baritua, J. C. (2022). Distance learning as a learning modality for education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Science and Education, 3(8), 35–44.
Scheerens, J. (1990). School effectiveness research and the development of process indicators of school functioning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345900010106 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345900010106
Syahmer, V., Nurcahyo, R., & Gabriel, D. S. (2022). Student satisfaction measurement in higher education. Communications in Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.21924/chss.2.1.2022.28 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21924/chss.2.1.2022.28
United Nations. (2024). The Sustainable Development Goals report 2024. United Nations.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller.
Wati, L., Dharma, S., Jadmiko, P., & Sugiarti, T. (2024). Measurement of higher education servive quality using HEdPERF and HIEDQUAL importance performance analysis methods. Jurnal Apresiasi Ekonomi, 12(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.31846/jae.v12i1.700 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31846/jae.v12i1.700
Wilkins, S., Hazzam, J., & Ireland, J. J. (2024). Servicescape in transnational higher education: The effects of campus design, physical environment and facilities on student experience and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 34(2), 992–1011. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2022.2139792 the University of Bath's research portal DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2022.2139792
Wong, W. H., & Chapman, E. (2023). Student satisfaction and interaction in higher education. Higher Education, 85(5), 957–978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00874-0 UWA Research Repository DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00874-0
Zhao, X., & Kanjanapathy, M. (2024). The relationship between service quality and student retention in private higher education institutions in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 14(1), 1102–1112. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i1/20525 DOI: https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i1/20525
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Erlinda L. Johnston, LPT, MAEd (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication. All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License. This license permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, including for commercial purposes, provided that appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and the journal, a link to the license is provided, and any changes made are indicated.
