The Relationship between Students Facilities and Satisfaction: Evidence in Malaysia

The Relationship between Students Facilities and Satisfaction: Evidence in Malaysia

Siti Noor Aishah Mohd Sidik^*, Nur Aqilah Khairizam, Nik Nur Aqira Zaifulakhma, Nadiatul Nasuha Mohd Kasbi, Nur Sajidah Roslan, Nur Anis Mohd Supian, Ainur Fatimah Mohd Azhar

Faculty Business and Management, University Technology Mara 23000 Dungun, Terengganu, Malaysia

^*Correspondence author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90300386

Received: 14 March 2024; Accepted: 18 March 2025; Published: 23 April 2025

ABSTRACT

Students’ satisfaction has a significant impact on the reputation of the educational institution. The educational landscape is also rapidly changing as students adopt new technologies and instructional methods. Students typically compare university amenities before making the decision to continue their education. They always expect the university to provide enough facilities and a welcoming atmosphere for their studies. This expectation puts the educational institution under challenges to provide the best amenities to the students. This study wants to determine the factors that influence students’ satisfaction at public universities. Basic facilities such as recreation and sports, transportation, and accommodation are all being investigated. Sample size included 136 students in Terengganu and questionnaires were distributed via online. The questionnaire feedback was analysed using SPSS to assess the correlation and regression effect of each research variable. The study discovered that recreation and sport and accommodation are the main factors that influence student satisfaction. Regression analysis also reveals that accommodation is the most important factor influencing students’ satisfaction. The findings serve as a guideline for educational institutions to always improve the facilities available to students. Gathering feedback on students’ satisfaction enables university management to find areas for improvement, whether in teaching techniques, facilities, or administrative procedures. This contributes to a better overall learning environment.

Keywords:  Students Satisfaction, recreation and sport, transportation, accommodation

INTRODUCTION

Higher education (HE) has evolved significantly over the years, with an increasing number of public and private universities in Malaysia. Public institutions compete with private universities as students’ have the freedom to choose the best university. The advance of technology, such as social media, gives an opportunity for them to compare facilities provided by the university before choosing the best place to study. In reality, students are the most essential asset of any educational institution, and the success of every university is measured by their satisfaction (Rahman, Mia, Ahmed, Thongrak, & Kiatpathomchai, 2020). Nowadays, public universities face a lot of issues regarding facilities and infrastructure. Students chose to express dissatisfaction with the facilities on social media by posting a video and negative comments. This reaction indirectly affects the brand image of the institution since the video went viral just by one click. Based on these issues, it is compulsory for all higher educational institutions to give good facilities, amenities, and services that make students extremely satisfied (Oke, Aigbavboa, & Raphiri, 2017).  Previous scholars also argue that students’ satisfaction plays a vital role in influencing academic performance and students’ retention (Bornschlegl & Cashman, 2019; Oja, 2011; Sockalingam, 2013; Limna, Siripipatthanakul, & Siripipattanakul, 2021; Al Hassani & Wilkins, 2022). Students who are satisfied with the university will react positively by engaging in positive WOM and recommending the university to others (Harsono, 2018; Jiewanto, Laurens, & Nelloh, 2012; Rasheed & Rashid, 2024). Therefore, it is important to identify factors that will influence students’ satisfaction. A previous study in Malaysia revealed that factors such as service quality, academic assessment, teaching quality, curriculum quality and information technology are among the predictors that influence students’ satisfaction (Tessema, Ready, & Yu, 2012; Lai, Lau, Mohamad Yusof, & Chew, 2015; Ali, Zhou, Hussain, Nair, & Ragavan, 2016; Tan, Choong, & Chen, 2022; He, & Fu, 2022; Yusof, Asimiran, & Kadir, 2022; Amzat, Najimdeen, Walters, Yusuf, & Padilla-Valdez, 2023; Kairat, Lee, & Jang, 2024). However, the impact of facilities on the satisfaction among students is still less explored. Therefore, this study wants to examine the relationship between accommodation, transportation, sport and recreation facilities and satisfaction among students in public universities in Malaysia.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Satisfaction:

Students satisfaction is an important indicator to evaluate university performance (Butt & Rehman, 2010). Nowadays, students actively engage in social media to express their feelings. Students with a higher level of satisfaction will contribute to the university by providing positive WOM and recommending others to choose the same university (Mihanović, Batinić, & Pavičić, 2016; Gabbianelli & Pencarelli, 2023). The positive review about the university indirectly can build students’ trust and enhance university reputation (Latif, Bunce, & Ahmad, 2021). In fact, the issue of student’s satisfaction has received attention among researchers. The predictors such as service quality, loyalty, perceived trust, and reputation were revealed as factors that influence students’ satisfaction (Borishade, Ogunnaike, Salau, Motilewa, & Dirisu, 2021; Singh & Jasial, 2021; Al Hassani & Wilkins, 2022; Rasheed & Rashid, 2024). However, there is still limited research that focuses on the relationship between facilities and satisfaction among public university students in Malaysia. Therefore, this study wants to examine the relationship between accommodation, transportation, sports, and reaction facilities with students’ satisfaction.

Transportation:

Transportation is an important necessity for the students. In fact, to become a regional education hub and reinforce higher education, Malaysian universities must ensure that campus infrastructure, such as a transport system, is in place in order to satisfy the students (Hashim, Mohamad, Haron, Hassan & Hassan, 2013). Students living on campus rely completely on transportation, such as shuttle buses. Therefore, university management must ensure that students’ travel smoothly around campus. A lack of adequate bus services will influence students’ emotions and they are unable to attend class. Previous studies revealed that transportation is a major element that influences satisfaction and gives positive emotion among the students’ (Charbatzadeh, Chipulu, Marshall, & Ojiako, 2016; Jabin, Al Noman, Parvin, Kader, Aktar, & Uddin, 2022; Sann & Siripipattaworn, 2024). In fact, transportation plays a vital role in shaping students’ satisfaction across diverse universities and the need for further investigation (Hussin, Anuar, Mansor, & Besir, 2024). Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed:

Hypothesis 1: There is a significant relationship between transportation and students’ satisfaction

Recreation and sport:

Recreation and sports facilities are important to shape physical, mental, and social well-being among students. Students who regularly use sports facilities experience greater self-esteem and overall satisfaction with their university life (Pa, Hassan, & Redde, 2022). The availability of adequate sports infrastructure can also lead to increased social interaction among students, fostering a sense of community and belonging. In fact, students who received good sports facilities reported greater satisfaction with their university experience (Manzoor, 2013; Khan, Hussain, & Ijaz, 2022). Key aspects such as cleanliness, availability of equipment, facility design, and the number of sport types offered were found to be significant predictors of satisfaction (Çelik & Akyol, 2015). This is in line with a previous study that realizes recreational and sports facilities contribute significantly to students’ satisfaction and retention (Miller, 2011, Rosete, Candelon, Gandal, Falle, & Vivencio, 2022; Rahman & Nawang, 2022). Recreation and sport facilities also assist in promoting social belonging, place bonding, and increased student retention (Miller, 2011). Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed:

Hypothesis 2: There is a significant relationship between recreation and sport and students’ satisfaction

Accommodation:

Accommodation is one of the important components when it comes to a student’s satisfaction. Student accommodations create an environment that supports the living and learning experience of students while pursuing their studies (Timmerman, & Mulvihill, 2015). In fact, students require a safe and comfortable environment to sleep, study, and recharge their energy after long learning activities. A decent place to stay indirectly reduces stress and gives people a sense of security, which improves their overall health. Previous research also revealed that accommodation necessary facilities to ensure students satisfaction in various universities in Asia (Khozaei, Ayub, Hassan, & Khozaei, 2010; Zasina, & Antczak, 2023; Jrad, 2024; Zaman, & Hosain, 2024). In reality, students who are satisfied with university accommodation will voluntarily engage to reciprocate to the organization by spreading positive WOM to others on social media (Gabbianelli & Pencarelli, 2023). Positive WOM indirectly can influence others potential students to choose a recommended university. Therefore, university management needs to always maintain good accommodation facilities to receive positive feedback from the students. Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed:

Hypothesis 3: There is a significant relationship between accommodation and student’s satisfaction

Based on the discussions above, a conceptual framework is developed, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Factor Influence Students Satisfaction

METHODOLOGY 

Research Design

This study uses correlational research to investigate the relationship between accommodation, transportation, sport and recreation facilities with students’ satisfaction. Quantitative technique and primary data were used to gain information on all research variables.

Data collection method

This survey included 136 students from Public University in Terengganu. The questionnaire was issued via WhatsApp group (operation management) after getting permission from the respondents. The random sampling method was used to collect the survey.  The samples were chosen by selecting any three people from a list on the WhatsApp group. However, only 100 questionnaires were gathered and are usable for data analysis. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used to evaluate reliability, descriptive analysis, correlation analysis and multiple regression. The item for all research variables is adapted from Rahman, Mia, Ahmed, Thongrak, and Kiatpathomchai (2020). Respondents assessed their degree of agreement to questions using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree) to 5 (extremely agree).

Reliability Analysis

A reliability test was conducted to examine the internal inconsistency of the instruments employed in this study, which are accommodation, transportation and recreation and sport facilities and student satisfaction. The questionnaire was sent to the 35 students via online. Table 1 shows the result of reliability analysis for each variable.

Table 1: Reliability Analysis for Research Variables.

Transportation has the highest Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.951. This score indicates the strength of association between items is excellent. This was followed by accommodation (0.927), student satisfaction (0.913), and recreation and sport (0.908).

FINDINGS

100 students participated in this study by answering the questionnaire via random sampling. Table 1 lists the demographic profile of the respondents.

Table 2: Demographic Profile of Respondents

Table 2 illustrates 35.0% of male and 65.0% of female students from program operation management responding to the survey. The majority of the respondents age is 23 years (55.0%), followed by 22 years old (21.0%).  Mostly the students are from semester 5 (42.0%) and semester 4 (34.0%).

Table 3: Descriptive Analysis for Research Variables

Table 3 illustrates descriptive analysis for research variables. The mean for student satisfaction is 3.47. Recreation and sport show the highest mean value (3.51), followed by accommodation and transportation with both mean values 3.46.

Correlation Analysis

Table 4: Pearson Correlation Result

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Correlation analysis was run to examine the relationship between the research variables. This study found that all the research variables positively correlated with students’ satisfaction. The R-value for accommodation is (r= 0.724), transportation (r= 0.592), sport and recreation (r=0.691). This indicates that all these variables correlate highly and moderately with student satisfaction.

Regression Analysis

Multiple regression analysis signifies the predictive power of independent variables towards the dependent variables. The coefficient of determination R² value indicates model fit, an R² value of 0.02 indicates poor model fit or weak contribution of the model, an R² value of 0.13 is considered a moderate level of model fit; whereas an R² value of 0.26 and above indicates substantial contribution of the model, or, in other words, it indicates good model fit.

Table 5: Regression Analysis Result

Based on Table 5, the largest beta value is accommodation (β 0.477, ρ≤0.05). This indicates that accommodation is the most important factor that influences students’ satisfaction.  This is followed by recreation and sport facilities (β 0.354, ρ ≤ 0.05). However, transportation negatively influences students’ satisfaction with β -0.017, ρ ≤ 0.05. Based on the R-squared result, all the research variables (accommodation, transportation, recreation and sport facilities) contribute 57.9% toward students’ satisfaction. Which is highly significant, and the model is fit as the F statistic is 63.832 (F≥1) and the ρ-value is 0.000 and less than (ρ≤0.05).

DISCUSSION

This study found that accommodation is the most important factor that affects students’ satisfaction. This is consistent with recent research, which also revealed that accommodation is an important predictor that influences students’ satisfaction in the UK and thirteen universities in Scotland (Jrad, 2024; Zaman & Hosain, 2024). Students who satisfy with accommodation also likely to recommend the university to others (Eun & Lee, 2013; Kazungu & Kubenea, 2023). Therefore, universities must always provide good accommodation to the students and conduct a survey to know students’ feedback and recommendations. Recreation and sport facilities also influence students’ satisfaction indirectly. The good facilities can enhance students’ motivation and encourage them to communicate with each other. This is in line with previous studies, which also found that sports facilities can enhance students’ satisfaction (Osman, Cole, & Vessell, 2006; Lindsey, 2012; Omar, Manaf, & Ali, 2021). However, transportation did not influence satisfaction among students in Terengganu. Therefore, management must pay attention to providing good transportation to the students. The inefficient transportation system indirectly affects the time management of the student. Students may miss classes or find it difficult to join any university activities.  Nowadays, students expect the university to provide excellent transportation facilities for daily activities. Students who have problems with university facilities will use social media to express their feelings. The negative posting regarding university facilities indirectly will affect university reputation. Recent studies also revealed that transportation is essential to develop students’ satisfaction (Omar, Manaf, & Ali, 2021; Sann & Siripipattaworn, 2024). Therefore, the university can upgrade the transportation by providing shuttle buses and facilities for disabled students. In fact, many students depend on the bus service provided on campus to move from one place to another due to the distance between the faculties.

Managerial implication

This study indirectly provides suggestions to governments and educational institutions to always prioritize giving decent amenities to students. In fact, a student is an asset to the university itself. Students’ reactions and feedback can indirectly improve the quality of education in Malaysia. As a result, universities must always listen to students’ feedback and complaints, as they might have an impact on the whole educational experience. Satisfaction is also vital for encouraging students to continue their studies at the same university. Furthermore, this study can provide guidance to the university on how to constantly improve facilities and address students’ concerns. The improvement is significant since the student will express their emotions on social media. Without thinking, the students will post a video expressing his dissatisfaction with the university. The most important thing, with a single click, the video went viral, eliciting many unfavourable reactions from the public. Therefore, to avoid these issues, management must create a strategy to protect the brand image. With the advance of social media, universities can give immediate responses and transparency regarding the problem. The university also can acknowledge the problem quickly by posting any video to explain the issue. Ignoring negative publicity can amplify the issue and effect students trust with university.

Limitation

This study has several limitations, which are that it only focuses on public universities in Terengganu. Therefore, the result cannot be generalized to other public universities in Malaysia. This study also only focuses on the three types of facilities as predictors. Future research may consider classroom environment and student services and support to get a better understanding of students’ satisfaction.

REFERENCES

1. Al Hassani, A. A., & Wilkins, S. (2022). Students’ retention in higher education: the influences of organizational identification and institution reputation on students’ satisfaction and behaviors. International Journal of Educational Management, 36(6), 1046-1064.
2. Ali, F., Zhou, Y., Hussain, K., Nair, P. K., & Ragavan, N. A. (2016). Does higher education service quality effect students’ satisfaction, image and loyalty? A study of international students in Malaysian public universities. Quality assurance in education, 24(1), 70-94.
3. Amzat, I. H., Najimdeen, A. H. A., Walters, L. M., Yusuf, B., & Padilla-Valdez, N. (2023). Determining service quality indicators to recruit and retain international students in Malaysia higher education institutions: Global issues and local challenges. Sustainability, 15(8), 6643.
4. Borishade, T. T., Ogunnaike, O. O., Salau, O., Motilewa, B. D., & Dirisu, J. I. (2021). Assessing the relationship among service quality, students’ satisfaction and loyalty: The Nigerian higher education experience. heliyon, 7(7).
5. Bornschlegl, M., & Cashman, D. (2019). Considering the role of the distance students experience in students’ satisfaction and retention. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 34(2), 139-155.
6. Butt, B., & Rehman, K. (2010). A study examining the students’ satisfaction in higher education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5446–5450.
7. Çelik, A. K., & Akyol, K. (2015). Predicting Students Satisfaction with an Emphasis on Campus Recreational Sports and Cultural Facilities in a Turkish University. International Education Studies, 8(4), 7-22.
8. Charbatzadeh, F., Chipulu, M., Marshall, A., & Ojiako, U. (2016). Determinants of satisfaction with campus transportation services: Implications for service quality. Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management, 10(1), 1-14.
9. Eun, H. K., & Lee, J. H. (2013). The impact of service quality of public sports facilities on citizens satisfaction, image, and word-of-mouth intention. The sport journal, 16(1), NA-NA.
10. Gabbianelli, L., & Pencarelli, T. (2023). On-campus accommodation service quality: the mediating role of students’ satisfaction on word of mouth. The TQM Journal, 35(5), 1224-1255.
11. Harsono, S. (2018). Service recovery and its effect on students’ satisfaction, trust, and WOM communication. International Research Journal of Business Studies, 11(2), 93-112.
12. Hashim, R., Haron, S., Mohamad, S., & Hassan, F. (2013). Assessment of campus bus service efficacy: an application towards green environment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 105, 294-303.
13. He, Y., & Fu, X. (2022). Learning satisfaction of learners and curriculum design under different online teaching platforms. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 17(10), 227-239.
14. Hussin, N. Z. M. H. M., Anuar, A., Mansor, M. N. M., & Besir, M. S. M. (2024). Determinants of Students’s Satisfaction Towards Bus Service Quality in UiTM Cawangan Selangor. Information Management and Business Review ,16 (3), 651-658.
15. Jabin, N., Al Noman, A., Parvin, S., Kader, A., Aktar, T., & Uddin, I. (2022). Transportation Service and Students’ Satisfaction: A Study on Dhaka University. Indian Journal of Social Science and Literature, 1(4), 6-13.
16. Jiewanto, A., Laurens, C., & Nelloh, L. (2012). Influence of service quality, university image, and students’ satisfaction toward WOM intention: A case study on Universitas Pelita Harapan Surabaya. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40, 16-23.
17. Jrad, M. (2024). Effect of sustainability measures on students’ satisfaction regarding accommodation services: practical study from the University of Northampton in the UK. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 25(8), 1662-1680.
18. Kairat, K., Lee, S. J., & Jang, J. M. (2024). The determinants of recommendation intention and student satisfaction in private higher institutions: Empirical evidence from Kazakhstan. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1-21.
19. Kazungu, I., & Kubenea, H. (2023). Customer satisfaction as a mediator of service facility and word of mouth in higher learning institutions. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 15(5), 1649-1663.
20. Khan, Z., Hussain, S., & Ijaz, M. (2022). Assessing the effect of campus support facilities sports programs experiences provided and environmental factors on the students’s satisfaction level using ordinal logistic regression model. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(9), 71-75.
21. Khozaei, F., Ayub, N., Hassan, A. S., & Khozaei, Z. (2010). The factors predicting students’ satisfaction with university hostels, case study, Universiti Sains Malaysia. Asian culture and history, 2(2), 148.
22. Lai, M. M., Lau, S. H., Mohamad Yusof, N. A., & Chew, K. W. (2015). Assessing antecedents and consequences of student’s satisfaction in higher education: Evidence from Malaysia. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 25(1), 45-69.
23. Latif, K. F., Bunce, L., & Ahmad, M. S. (2021). How can universities improve students’ loyalty? The roles of university social responsibility, service quality, and “customer” satisfaction and trust. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(4), 815-829.
24. Limna, P., Siripipatthanakul, S., & Siripipattanakul, S. (2021). A conceptual review on the mediating role of student’s satisfaction between twenty-first century learning style and students’ performance-effectiveness. Journal of Management in Business, Healthcare, and Education, 1(1), 1-16.
25. Lindsey, R. R. (2012). The benefits and satisfaction of participating in campus recreational sports facilities and programs among male and female African American students: A pilot study. Recreational Sports Journal, 36(1), 13-24.
26. Manzoor, H. (2013). Measuring students’ satisfaction in public and private universities in Pakistan. Global Journal of Management and Business Research Interdisciplinary, 13(3), 4-15.
27. Mihanović, Z., Batinić, A., & Pavičić, J. (2016). The link between students’ satisfaction with faculty, overall students ‘satisfaction with students’ life and students’ performances. Review of Innovation and Competitiveness,2(1), 37–60.
28. Miller, J. J. (2011). Impact of a university recreation center on social belonging and retention. Recreational sports journal, 35(2), 117-129
29. Oja, M. (2011). Students’ satisfaction and students’ performance. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 19(1), 47-53.
30. Oke, A. E., Aigbavboa, C. O., & Raphiri, M. M. (2017). Students’ satisfaction with hostel accommodations in higher education institutions. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 15(5), 652-666.
31. Omar, M. S., Manaf, M. Z., & Ali, W. A. A. W. (2021). Assessing students’ satisfaction towards campus facilities in Politeknik Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin: An empirical study. Journal of Engineering and Social Sciences, 1(1), 78-85.
32. Osman, R. W., Cole, S. T., & Vessell, C. R. (2006). Examining the role of perceived service quality in predicting user satisfaction and behavioral intentions in a campus recreation setting. Recreational Sports Journal, 30(1), 20-29.
33. Pa, W. A. M. W., Hassan, M. F., & Redde, S. (2022). Quality of Sports Facilities Services and Students Satisfaction During COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 11(2), 115-127.
34. Rahman, M. W. B. A., & Nawang, W. N. H. W. (2022). Relationship between perceived service quality and satisfaction in the sports facility among UPSI students. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12 (11),1204-1212.
35. Rahman, S. M., Mia, M. S., Ahmed, F., Thongrak, S., & Kiatpathomchai, S. (2020). Assessing students’ satisfaction in Public Universities in Bangladesh: An empirical study. The journal of asian finance, economics and business, 7(8), 323-332.
36. Rasheed, R., & Rashid, A. (2024). Role of service quality factors in word of mouth through students’ satisfaction. Kybernetes, 53(9), 2854-2870.
37. Rosete, E. N., Candelon, Z. G., Gandal, A., Falle, J. A., & Vivencio Jr, L. C. (2022). Sports facilities and equipment: Availability and studentss’ satisfaction in the physical education classes. Indonesian Journal of Multidiciplinary Research, 2(2), 377-380.
38. Sann, R., & Siripipattaworn, S. (2024). University public transportation logistics service quality and students’ satisfaction: empirical evidence from Thailand. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2331628.
39. Singh, S., & Jasial, S. S. (2021). Moderating effect of perceived trust on service quality–students satisfaction relationship: evidence from Indian higher management education institutions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 31(2), 280-304.
40. Smith, C., & Worsfold, K. (2014). WIL curriculum design and student learning: a structural model of their effects on student satisfaction. Studies in Higher Education, 39(6), 1070-1084.
41. Sockalingam, N. (2013). The Relation between Students Satisfaction and Students Performance in Blended Learning Curricula. International Journal of Learning: Annual Review, 18(12).
42. Tan, P. S. H., Choong, Y. O., & Chen, I. C. (2022). The effect of service quality on behavioural intention: the mediating role of student’s satisfaction and switching barriers in private universities. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 14(4), 1394-1413.
43. Tessema, M. T., Ready, K., & Yu, W. (2012). Factors affecting college students’ satisfaction with major curriculum: Evidence from nine years of data. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(2), 34-44.
44. Timmerman, L. C., & Mulvihill, T. M. (2015). Accommodations in the college setting: The perspectives of students living with disabilities. The Qualitative Report, 20(10), 1609-1625.
45. Yusof, N. M., Asimiran, S., & Kadir, S. A. (2022). Students Satisfaction of University Service Quality in Malaysia: A Review. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 11(1), 677-688.
46. Zaman, F. U., & Hosain, M. S. (2024). Students’ accommodation characteristics, perceived overall satisfaction and academic performance: evidence from six Scottish universities. On the Horizon: The International Journal of Learning Futures, 32(4), 159-177.
47. Zasina, J., & Antczak, E. (2023). The ‘gown’unconcerned with the town? Residential satisfaction of university students living in off-campus private accommodation. Housing Studies, 38(8), 1536-1559.