Article Sidebar

Submitted
February 3, 2019
Accepted
March 12, 2019
Published
March 23, 2019
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 528 Download : 454

Main Article Content

Abstract

One way to evaluate various services at the university is seen from the level of student satisfaction. The purpose of this study is to measure how much the level of student satisfaction in the university environment, especially in the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Islam Indonesia (FMIPA UII) and future expectations of students focusing on their respective study programs. 6 aspects were used to find out how much satisfaction the students had, namely: (1) Tangible, (2) Reliability, (3) Responsiveness, (4) Assurance, (5) Empathy, and (6) Information. The research method used is descriptive analysis method related to satisfaction represented by the Cartesian diagram. The study was conducted in a period of 3 months with the sample used being active students in the 2016 and 2017 FMIPA classes proportionally in each study program (study program). The data used are primary data consisting of 2 main assessments, namely performance assessment and importance assessment. The results of the level of satisfaction / suitability are classified into the Cartesian diagram which consists of 4 priorities, namely: top priority, achievement priority, low priority, and excessive. The results of the study obtained overall levels of satisfaction in Mathematics as much as 90% of students were satisfied with the level of performance provided. However, there are still 2 indicators that are included in the priority, namely problems in the key-in process and ease of communication for parents of students to consult. In addition to the contents of each indicator, an analysis of suggestions for improvement in the FMIPA environment using text mining based on barplot and wordcloud is associated with the dominant words appearing to describe the general expectations of students

Keywords

performance importance cartesian diagram

Article Details

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
How to Cite
Fauzan, A., Kurniawan, M. H. S., & Nugraha, J. (2019). Study of Student Satisfaction Level in the Faculty Based on Performance Assessment and Interest Level. EKSAKTA: Journal of Sciences and Data Analysis, 19(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.20885/eksakta.vol19.iss1.art8
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. (2015). Likert Scale: Explored and Explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 396-403.
  2. Kartono, K. (1987). Pemimpin dan Kepemimipnan: Apakah Kepemimpinan itu Abnormal. Jakarta: Rajawali.
  3. Mittal V & Kamakura, W. (2001). Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent, and Repurchase Behavior: Investigating the Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38(1), 131-142.
  4. Motefakker, N. (2016). The Study of the Level of Satisfaction of the Students of the Faculty of Social Sciences with Welfare Services of Imam Khomeini International University of Qazvin. Procedia Economics and Finance, 399-407.
  5. Nassaji, H. (2015, February). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. Language Teaching Research, pp. 129-132.
  6. Nasution, M. (2001). Manajemen Kualitas Terpadu. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.
  7. P.Kotler. (2000). Marketing Management. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International,Inc.
  8. Parasuraman A., Z. B. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, Vol.49,Fall, 41-50.
  9. Rahmawati, D. (2013). Analisis Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi Kepuasan Mahasiswa. Jurnal Economia Vol.9,No.1, 52-65.
  10. Siami, S., & Gorji, M. (2012). The measurement of service quality by using SERVQUAL and quality gap model. Indian Journal of Science and Technology Vol.5 No.1, 1956-1960.
  11. Supranto, J. (2006). Pengukuran Tingkat Kepuasan Pelanggan untuk Menaikan Pangsa Pasar. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
  12. Suryana, D. (2014). Kepuasan Mahasiswa Terhadap Pelayanan Akademik di Jurusan Pendidikan Guru Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini Fakultas Ilmu Pendidikan Universitas Negeri Padang. Padang: Universitas Negeri Padang.
  13. Wei, C. C., & Ramalu, S. S. (2011). Students Satisfaction towards the University: Does Service Quality Matters? International Journal of Education Vol.3,No.2:E 15, 1-15.
  14. Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics, An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Ed. New York: Harper and Row.