Stakeholders’ Satisfaction toward CvSU Program Outcomes: Insights for Continuous Quality Improvement

Stakeholders’ Satisfaction toward CvSU Program Outcomes: Insights for Continuous Quality Improvement

Mildred A. Sebastian and Dr. Ma. Agnes P. Nuestro 

Cavite State University, Philippines 

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9020003

Received: 16 January 2025; Accepted: 23 January 2025; Published: 26 February 2025

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on determining the stakeholder satisfaction with Cavite State University’s (CvSU) program outcomes along the 11 key dimensions of curriculum and learning outcomes, assessment and feedback, support services, and personal and professional growth. The study adopted a descriptive-comparative and correlational research design that gathered data from students, alumni, faculty, staff, administrators, and industry partners. Findings show overall satisfaction but expose areas of improvement, including support services, integration of technology, and total well-being. Statistically significant differences in the level of satisfaction among the various stakeholder groups and very strong associations between general satisfaction and specific dimensions, such as flexibility and adaptability, are indicative that strategies should be differentiated. The results suggest the need for differentiated strategies to address the diverse needs and expectations of stakeholders. Actionable recommendations are proposed to enhance CvSU’s program outcomes and align them with institutional goals and stakeholder expectations, contributing to continuous quality improvement.

Keywords: stakeholder satisfaction, program outcomes, continuous quality improvement, higher education, Cavite State University

INTRODUCTION

In the highly competitive and dynamic higher education landscape, universities are continually challenged to ensure that their academic programs meet the standards of accreditation, industry expectations, and stakeholder needs. The need for quality assurance in higher education has increased much, as higher education institutions compete to produce students with the required knowledge, skills, and values that will allow them to compete effectively in the rapidly changing global economy (Biggs, 2011; UNESCO, 2023; de Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2020). As higher education institutions align themselves with international standards, the assessment of program outcomes serves as a crucial measure of institutional effectiveness and educational quality (Spady, 1994; Goss, 2022).

Cavite State University (CvSU) has taken this challenge as part of its academic excellence, research, and community engagement. Its vision is “a premier university in historic Cavite globally recognized for excellence in character development, academics, research, innovation, and sustainable community engagement” (Cavite State University, 2023). One of the indicators of the university’s success in fulfilling this vision is the level of stakeholder satisfaction with program outcomes, which reflects the institution’s ability to prepare students for professional and personal success. Through systematic evaluation of stakeholder perceptions, universities can foster a culture of continuous quality improvement (CQI), ensuring that their academic offerings remain relevant, responsive, and globally competitive (CHEd, 2014; Marginson, 2018).

The program outcomes serve as a benchmark for determining the extent to which an institution’s educational objectives meet stakeholder needs and labor market demands. They actually measure the knowledge, technical adequacy, and professions acquired by the graduates for improvement in any profession (Spady, 1994; Barrie, 2012). However, while these assessments are essential, many higher education institutions struggle to systematically evaluate program outcomes because of the lack of validated, context-specific assessment tools (Biggs, 2011; Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Shavelson, R. & Kuhn, C. (2015). CvSU, like most institutions, faces the pressures of meeting rigorous accreditation standards while addressing the diverse expectations of students, alumni, faculty, administrators, and industry partners (CHEd, 2014; UNESCO, 2023).

This study aims to fill the gaps with the evaluation of stakeholder satisfaction with CvSU’s program outcomes across multiple dimensions, including curriculum and learning outcomes, assessment and feedback, support services, and professional growth. The findings will be valuable as they provide evidence of areas of strength and opportunity for improvement toward guiding institutional decision-making in educational quality and stakeholder engagement (Tight, 2020).

Moreover, the study has broad implications for the institutional goals of CvSU: in community engagement, sustainable development, and graduate employability. Having a strong assessment of stakeholder satisfaction promotes accountability and transparency, which strengthens the reputation of excellence in CvSU. It also enables the university to be standardized with national and international standards while innovating based on the stakeholder’s opinions (Hazelkorn, 2011).

This research aligns with Sustainable Development Goal 4, which emphasizes inclusive and equitable quality education and the promotion of lifelong learning opportunities (United Nations, 2015). By systematically assessing and improving its program outcomes, CvSU ensures its graduates remain globally competitive and socially responsible, thereby strengthening its position as a leading institution in higher education (OECD, 2019).

With a data-driven and stakeholder-focused approach, CvSU is at the forefront of quality education. This study affirms satisfaction among stakeholders and underlines the commitment of the university towards continuous improvement and innovation. With the analysis of stakeholder feedback, identification of key areas for enhancement, and targeted interventions, CvSU can further solidify its role as a top-tier academic institution dedicated to excellence, service, and societal impact (Zhao & Watterston, 2021).

Thus, this study was conducted to analyze stakeholders’ satisfaction toward CvSU program outcomes and provide actionable insights for continuous quality improvement. It specifically aimed to:

1. measure the level of satisfaction of CvSU stakeholders (students, alumni, faculty, staff, administrators, and industry partners) with the following dimensions of program outcomes:
   • curriculum and learning outcomes;
   • assessment and feedback;
   • support services and resources;
   • personal and professional growth;
   • inclusivity and diversity;
   • technological integration and innovation;
   • flexibility and adaptability;
   • community engagement and extracurricular activities;
   • global perspective;
   • student holistic well-being; and
   • general program satisfaction

3. identify the strengths and areas for improvement of CvSU’s program outcomes as perceived by stakeholders across the dimensions of the survey;
4. analyze significant differences in satisfaction levels among various stakeholder groups (e.g., students, alumni, faculty, industry partners) across the measured dimensions;
5. explore relationships between general program satisfaction and specific dimensions (e.g., curriculum, assessment, and support services); and
6. provide actionable recommendations for improving CvSU program outcomes based on stakeholder satisfaction data.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework (Figure1) for this study is structured using the Inputs-Process-Outputs-Outcomes (IPO-O) model, providing a comprehensive and systematic approach to evaluating and improving program outcomes based on stakeholder satisfaction. This framework allows for a clear understanding of how stakeholder feedback informs institutional decision-making and program enhancement, ultimately contributing to CvSU’s mission of academic excellence and relevance. This IPO-O framework provides CvSU with a structured and data-driven approach to evaluate and enhance its program outcomes. With the integration of stakeholder feedback into its quality assurance processes, CvSU can ensure continuous improvement, maintain its commitment to academic excellence, and sustain relevance in the dynamic landscape of higher education.

The inputs represent the base components of the framework. These include diverse stakeholder groups—students, alumni, faculty, staff, administrators, and industry partners—whose perceptions are central to the analysis. The program outcomes are also measured through 11 key dimensions, namely curriculum and learning outcomes, assessment and feedback, support services and resources, personal and professional growth, inclusivity and diversity, technological integration and innovation, flexibility and adaptability, community engagement and extracurricular activities, global perspective, student holistic well-being, and general program satisfaction. Data from the CvSU Program Outcomes Satisfaction Survey were the primary sources of information to evaluate these dimensions, reflective of stakeholder experiences and expectations.

The process systematically applies methods of analyzing feedback from stakeholders to achieve the objectives of the study. Satisfaction levels for each dimension are measured to identify areas of strength and areas requiring improvement. A gap analysis compares what the stakeholders expect and their perception of the actual output of the program. Such an analysis will pinpoint particular areas in which CvSU falls short. Statistical tests, including ANOVA or t-tests, determine significant differences in satisfaction levels among various stakeholder groups. Correlation analysis would also determine the relationship between general program satisfaction and the specific dimensions such as curriculum relevance, assessment practices, and support services. These analyses are synthesized to generate actionable recommendations that align with stakeholder needs and institutional goals.

Outputs include the immediate results of the process. These are the satisfaction profiles detailing the performance of each program dimension, gap analysis results showing the strengths and weaknesses, and insights into differences in satisfaction levels among stakeholder groups. In addition, the study provides evidence-based relationships between general program satisfaction and specific dimensions, providing a basis for targeted improvements. Practical recommendations are provided to fill gaps, improve stakeholder satisfaction, and make CvSU’s programs responsive to global education standards and industry requirements.

The results are the long-term effects of implementing these recommendations. Better program outcomes result from curriculum improvement, better assessment practices, and upgraded support services that are responsive to stakeholder feedback. Increased stakeholder satisfaction enhances the trust and relationship between CvSU’s internal and external partners. The graduates that are more employable and ready to face the rest of the world help contribute to the reputation of the institution as a responsive and innovative academic institution. It finally supports sustainable institutional development since the framework aligns the programs of CvSU to its mission, vision, and broader global goals such as Sustainable Development Goal 4, which advocates for inclusive and equitable quality education.

Figure 1. Research concept frame

METHODOLOGY

The study utilizes a structured methodology aligned with the Inputs-Process-Outputs-Outcomes (IPO-O) framework to comprehensively assess stakeholder satisfaction and provide actionable recommendations for program enhancement. The methodology integrates descriptive, comparative, and correlational approaches to address the research objectives.

Research Design

The study employs a descriptive-comparative and correlational research design. The descriptive component measures satisfaction levels across 11 program dimensions, while the comparative aspect analyzes significant differences in satisfaction among stakeholder groups, including students, alumni, faculty, staff, administrators, and industry partners. The correlational design explores relationships between general program satisfaction and specific dimensions, such as curriculum, assessment, and support services, providing insights into which factors most influence overall satisfaction.

Participants and Sampling

Participants for the study include the various stakeholders of CvSU which consist of students, alumni, faculty members, employees, administrators, and industry partners. They were selected for being a total representation of people or organizations that are directly affected by CvSU’s program results. The researchers used convenience sampling to collect data from the target population. Convenience sampling is another non-probability technique whereby participants are chosen based on their availability and willingness to participate during the data collection period. Convenience sampling, therefore, comes in handy whenever time or resources are limited, giving the researchers a chance to collect data within the shortest period possible while getting meaningful insight from a different stakeholder group. To minimize potential biases inherent in convenience sampling, the targeted responses from a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that the data reflects a broad spectrum of experiences and perceptions within the CvSU community.

Research Instrument

The primary data collection instrument is the CvSU Program Outcomes Satisfaction Survey. This instrument measures satisfaction in 11 dimensions: curriculum and learning outcomes, assessment and feedback, support services and resources, personal and professional growth, inclusivity and diversity, technological integration and innovation, flexibility and adaptability, community engagement and extracurricular activities, global perspective, student holistic well-being, and general program satisfaction. The instrument used in the survey used 4-point Likert-scale items to quantify satisfaction, with open-ended questions used for qualitative feedback regarding strengths, areas for improvement, and feedback. For validity purposes, the instrument underwent content validation by education experts and was tested for reliability using Cronbach’s alpha during a pilot test. Cronbach’s alpha computed ranged from 0.909 to 0.949 indicating highly reliable test items.

Data Collection Procedures

Google Forms was utilized to collect data for the study. The survey designed to obtain satisfaction through the CvSU Program Outcomes Satisfaction Survey and across 11 dimensions-including curriculum and learning outcome, assessment and feedback support services and resources, personal and professional growth, and inclusivity and diversity on technological integration and innovation. It also measured flexibility and adaptability in community engagement with extracurricular activities, global perspective, student holistic well-being, and general program satisfaction. The survey included 4-point Likert-scale items to collect quantitative data and open-ended questions for qualitative feedback. Before data collection, the instrument was validated by education experts and institutional assessment professionals to ensure that it accurately captured the intended dimensions. A pilot test was conducted with a small group of stakeholders to assess its reliability using Cronbach’s alpha. The results of the pilot were used to make adjustments to improve the clarity and accuracy of the survey items.

The survey was conducted online using Google Forms, which made it accessible to participants in a digital format. Invitations to participate were sent via email and institutional communication channels, such as social media channels and official chat groups. The survey provided clear instruction on how to respond, and reminder notifications were periodically sent to increase response rates. The participants had two weeks to complete the survey. Responses were monitored in real time to identify any underrepresented groups, prompting additional outreach to encourage participation. After the data collection period, responses were downloaded and consolidated into a secure database for analysis. The data was further cleaned of any duplicate and also incomplete entries, thus making it consistent for further analysis.

Data Analysis

Data analysis techniques involved the integration of the statistical techniques: descriptive, inferential, and correlational types that helped systematically address each research objective. Levels of stakeholder satisfaction across the 11 dimensions of program outcomes were summarized through descriptive statistics, such as mean and standard deviation. This helped give a sharp overview of trends in terms of satisfaction and highlighted some high and low satisfaction spots with the stakeholders.

Strengths and areas for improvement were determined through gap analysis where mean scores for each of the dimensions were compared. The higher the mean scores are, the more those are classified as strengths, but if relatively low scores, then identified as an area needing immediate action. Differences in satisfaction levels among various stakeholder groups, including students, alumni, faculty, staff, administrators, and industry partners, were analyzed through inferential statistics. One-way ANOVA was used to check for statistically significant differences across groups. In cases where the assumptions of ANOVA were violated, non-parametric tests, such as the Kruskal-Wallis H test, were applied as an alternative.

The relationships between general program satisfaction and specific dimensions were analyzed using correlation and regression analyses. Pearson r coefficients were calculated to assess the strength and direction of the relationships, while multiple regression analysis identified which dimensions significantly predicted overall satisfaction. These analyses provided insights into priority areas that had the most substantial impact on general program satisfaction, offering a data-driven basis for targeted improvements.

Qualitative data based on open-ended survey questions were analyzed thematically to augment the quantitative results. This served to add depth to an understanding of stakeholder experience and expectations, thus enhancing interpretation of the results. Results from descriptive statistics, gap analysis, ANOVA, correlation, and regression analyses were synthesized to develop evidence-based recommendations. Recommendations targeted the gaps, improvement of the low-scoring dimensions, and the strengthening of areas with great impact on overall satisfaction. Results were interpreted in the context of CvSU’s institutional goals so that recommendations made would always align with the mission and vision of the university for continuous quality improvement.

Ethical Standards Consideration

Ethical considerations were strictly adhered to in the conduct of the study to ensure participants’ rights and privacy are protected. Participation was voluntary, and there were no penalties for non-participation. Informed consent was sought before participation. There was a consent form attached to the Google Form which stated the purpose of the study, procedures, and the rights of the participants including confidentiality and the right to withdraw at any given time without any consequences. Dataset involved identification concealment, and all information was kept in password-accessed files. Convenience sampling techniques were used for recruitment because they targeted students, former alumni, faculty, staff members, administrators, and partner industry people who were approachable and willing to cooperate. Recruitment materials included mailings and announcements through communication media of the institution by means of encouraging diverse groups and representation. These measures ensured that ethical standards were upheld, and that trust and transparency prevailed throughout the research process.

RESULTS

Results from the study offer a summary result of stakeholder satisfaction on outcomes of Cavite State University’s programs across 11 key areas. Findings provide implications on levels of satisfaction between different stakeholder groups consisted of 1,867 students, 129 alumni, 232 faculty members, 38 non-academic staff, 34 administrators and 25 industry partners – to its strengths and weaknesses. Through statistical analyses, significant differences in satisfaction levels across groups are examined, and relationships between general program satisfaction and specific dimensions are explored. The findings provide insights into the influences of factors on stakeholder satisfaction and form the basis of actionable recommendations to improve program outcomes at CvSU aligned with institutional goals.

Satisfaction of Program Outcomes

The survey results give an in-depth assessment of stakeholder satisfaction with Cavite State University’s (CvSU) program outcomes across 11 dimensions, including curriculum and learning outcomes, assessment and feedback, support services and resources, and personal and professional growth. The data, gathered from students, alumni, faculty, staff, administrators, and industry partners, reveal overall satisfaction levels, highlight specific strengths, and pinpoint areas needing improvement. The survey results provide valuable guidance for CvSU’s continued quality improvement initiatives by taking into account satisfaction trends, differences among stakeholder groups, and relationships between general program satisfaction and specific dimensions.

Students. Table 1 presents the student satisfaction on the outcome of the program, with scores measured by a 4-point Likert scale. A total of 1,867 students were surveyed. Overall, the degree of satisfaction level obtained using a general program weighted mean of 3.38 manifests that students are very satisfying with the learning experience and the outcomes of the programs. A standard deviation of 0.65 signifies moderately varied responses, an indication of consistency of perceptions among the students. Among these outcomes, Inclusivity and Diversity had the highest satisfaction rating, M = 3.48, SD = 0.63, indicating the strength of the program in promoting an inclusive and diverse environment. Community Engagement and Extracurricular Activities and Curriculum and Learning Outcomes also had the same positive outlook with even a similar M = 3.41, SD = 0.63.

Table 1. Student satisfaction toward program outcomes

Students also expressed satisfaction with the program’s focus on Personal and Professional Growth (M = 3.38, SD = 0.64) and its emphasis on Flexibility and Adaptability (M = 3.37, SD = 0.64), which are critical in addressing evolving educational needs. High scores on Technological Integration and Innovation (M = 3.36, SD = 0.64) and Assessment and Feedback (M = 3.36, SD = 0.63) indicate that the program includes active modern practices and gives useful feedback to better learn. Areas such as Support Services and Resources received relatively lower scores on this scale (M = 3.28, SD = 0.66), while Student Holistic Well-being (M = 3.28, SD = 0.72) also scored low. These results also exhibited greater variability, suggesting some level of inconsistency in the fulfillment of student needs.

Overall, the results indicate the effectiveness of the program in attaining its intended outcomes, especially in creating inclusivity, diversity, and community engagement. Slightly lower satisfaction levels in a few areas serve as opportunity points for improving those areas, such as support services and overall well-being. Findings could inform action for further enhancement of program quality toward continued alignment with student expectations and institutional goals.

Faculty. Analysis of faculty satisfaction (n = 232) with program outcomes is shown in Table 2. Overall weighted mean for general program satisfaction results was found to be 3.61, which signified that faculty are Highly Satisfied about the program outcomes. Standard deviation was 0.57, signifying relatively congruent responses from faculty and further indicating that the faculty shared a positive perception of program effectiveness.

Table 2. Faculty satisfaction toward program outcomes

Among the program outcomes, Inclusivity and Diversity scored the highest satisfaction rating (M = 3.71, SD = 0.49), emphasizing the program’s strength in fostering a welcoming and diverse environment. In the same light, even Community Engagement and Extracurricular Activities (M = 3.65, SD = 0.56) together with Assessment and Feedback (M = 3.64, SD = 0.54) recorded high ratings, an indicator that the faculty valued the program’s focus on engaging meaningfully and assessment practices that were quite effective. Faculty also reported high level of satisfaction on Personal and Professional Growth (M = 3.60, SD = 0.54) and Flexibility and Adaptability (M = 3.58, SD = 0.57), which shows that the program has contributed to both their development and adaptability into the continuously changing demands of education.

While all the program outcomes scored Highly Satisfied, though slightly lower weighted mean ratings exist in Support Services and Resources (M = 3.48, SD = 0.59) and Technological Integration and Innovation (M = 3.49, SD = 0.60), this may still indicate potential areas for refinement, particularly to enhance the support for teaching and learning resources and technologies.

The results overall underscore the faculty’s confidence in the program’s ability to effectively achieve its intended outcomes. The high satisfaction ratings across all categories suggest that program outcomes are well-aligned with faculty expectations in their roles as educators and that these outcomes support their efforts. These results can be valuable insights for maintaining identified strong areas such as inclusivity and community engagement, while addressing features like support services and technological integration to ensure continuous improvement.

Alumni. Table 3 presents an analysis of the alumni satisfaction with program outcomes, assessed using a 4-point Likert scale taken from 129 alumni. The overall weighted mean for general program satisfaction is 3.50, categorized as Highly Satisfied, with a standard deviation of 0.70, reflecting moderate variability in alumni responses. This indicates a generally positive perception of the program’s ability to meet its intended objectives, as experienced by its graduates.

Table 3. Table 3. Alumni satisfaction toward program outcomes

The highest satisfaction rating was given to Inclusivity and Diversity (M = 3.63, SD = 0.62), thus indicating that the program was able to create an inclusive environment during their period of study. High marks in satisfaction scores were observed with Curriculum and Learning Outcomes, at M = 3.55, SD = 0.63, and Community Engagement and Extracurricular Activities, at M = 3.55, SD = 0.66, which reflect the strengths of the program in delivering relevant educational content as well as meaningful opportunities in student involvement beyond academics.

Other areas are Assessment and Feedback (M = 3.49, SD = 0.64) and Flexibility and Adaptability (M = 3.48, SD = 0.68), which were also rated highly, indicating support for alumni in developing skills in responding to variations and flexibility. However, these higher satisfaction levels were not evident for Support Services and Resources (M = 3.27, SD = 0.79) and Student Holistic Well-being (M = 3.36, SD = 0.76). The higher SDs for these outcomes indicate that the range of responses is wider, giving an indication that alumni experiences regarding these aspects do differ.

Overall, the findings reflect the perception of the alumni in describing that the program is effective in preparing them for personal and professional success towards issues, like inclusivity, relevance, and engagement opportunities in the curriculum. However, slightly lower ratings on support services and well-being offer some lessons to be learned for future improvement to enhance alumnus experiences, ensuring graduates will remain supported by a well-rounded educational and supportive environment.

Non-Academic Staff. Table 4 presents an analysis of the 38 non-academic stakeholders’ satisfaction with program outcomes, using a 4-point Likert scale. The general program satisfaction recorded a weighted mean of 3.71, categorized as Highly Satisfied, with a standard deviation of 0.40, indicating a high level of consistency in responses. This suggests that non-academic stakeholders perceive the program outcomes as being effectively aligned with its goals.

Table 4. Non-academic satisfaction toward program outcomes

The most significant score in satisfaction occurred for Inclusivity and Diversity (M = 3.77, SD = 0.34), reflecting strong approval over the program’s ability to foster an environment that is inclusive and equitable. Both Support Services and Resources and Community Engagement and Extracurricular Activities (both M = 3.70) scored extremely high and signify tremendous strength in delivering enough support and in opportunities for engagement beyond academics.

Those included areas such as Assessment and Feedback which scored at M = 3.69, SD = 0.41, and Personal and Professional Growth that was at M = 3.66, SD = 0.45, with high satisfaction scores indicating the effectiveness of the program in supporting non-academic stakeholders in contributing to student success and growth. Though highly rated, scores for Technological Integration and Innovation were somewhat lower at M = 3.59, SD = 0.45 and for Flexibility and Adaptability, M = 3.60, SD = 0.45. There is a possibility here that, while these aspects are going well, incremental effort could be invested in improving areas like these to even further enhance stakeholder satisfaction.

Overall, the results indicate that non-academic stakeholders have a positive view of program outcomes, notably with regard to inclusivity and the provision of robust supportive services. Sustained high levels of satisfaction across all outcomes point to how well the program serves the needs of its non-academic contributors. However, maintaining and furthering technological integration and adaptability could strengthen support from the program toward evolving institutional needs.

Administrators. Table 5 provides program outcome satisfaction among 34 administrators. That table involved using a 4-point Likert scale. General program satisfaction achieved a weighted mean of 3.62, which falls under the rating of Highly Satisfied. The standard deviation found was 0.82, which shows the overall general outcome having some variation in response; however, still positive and uniform on the different program outcomes.

Table 5. Administrators’ satisfaction toward program outcomes

Among the program outcomes, the highest degree rating was recorded on Inclusivity and Diversity (M = 3.63, SD = 0.82), a testament to the strength of the program in creating an inclusive environment that adheres to values espoused by an institution. Also, Community Engagement and Extracurricular Activities (M = 3.61, SD = 0.82) and Curriculum and Learning Outcomes (M = 3.61, SD = 0.83) scored high, again indicating the program’s focus on providing pertinent academic content and genuinely engaging its community.

Other results included Assessment and Feedback (M = 3.58, SD = 0.79), as well as Flexibility and Adaptability (M = 3.59, SD = 0.77). These were rated highly, indicating the program’s competence in using judgement processes to evaluate, assess, and adapt itself according to the change that would manifest education. This group is still categorized as Highly Satisfied. Lowest scores were obtained for the factors Technological Integration and Innovation (M = 3.50, SD = 0.77) and Global Perspective (M = 3.54, SD = 0.80), suggesting that these are areas that may require further polishing to meet higher administration’s expectations.

Overall, administrators are highly satisfied with how the program is able to meet its intended outcomes. The high ratings across all dimensions affirm the program’s effectiveness in cultivating inclusivity, providing quality education, and engaging the community. Slightly lower satisfaction levels on technological integration and global perspective indicate areas of improvement, which can better position the program for alignment with the institutions’ goals and priorities.

Industry Partners. Table 6 illustrates industry partners’ (n = 34) satisfaction with program outcomes, evaluated on a 4-point Likert scale. The general program satisfaction achieved a weighted mean of 3.80, categorized as Highly Satisfied, with a standard deviation of 0.35, indicating consistent positive feedback from industry partners. This high level of satisfaction reflects the program’s effectiveness in meeting industry expectations and aligning with workforce requirements.

Table 6. Industry partners’ satisfaction toward program outcomes

Among the specific outcomes, the strongest rating was on Community Engagement and Extracurricular Activities, at M = 3.74 and SD = 0.40, noting the program’s strong commitment to fostering active collaboration with the community and enhancing practical and interpersonal skills of students. Equally high scorers are Curriculum and Learning Outcomes (M = 3.71, SD = 0.49) and Student Holistic Well-being (M = 3.71, SD = 0.43). The program therefore offers a solid curriculum as well as maintains the overall well-being of students, all of which are essential for producing competent graduates.

Other outcomes that received very good ratings are Assessment and Feedback (M = 3.69, SD = 0.47), Support Services and Resources (M = 3.69, SD = 0.38), Technological Integration and Innovation (M = 3.69, SD = 0.47), and Flexibility and Adaptability (M = 3.69, SD = 0.47). These scores indicate that the program truly delivers pertinent support services, integrates technology into teaching/training to ensure that students have a platform to adapt to changing industry needs, and effectively prepares its graduates to face more professional challenges.

While still reporting under the Highly Satisfied category, lower ratings were noted in particular for Global Perspective (M = 3.60, SD = 0.50) and Inclusivity and Diversity (M = 3.63, SD = 0.48). These areas afford opportunities for further strengthening in keeping with the demands of increasingly globalized industries and to further inclusiveness.

Overall, the very high satisfaction level of industry partners underscores the success of the program in delivering graduates with all the knowledge, skills, and values needed for workforce input. It is found that there is a sound alignment of outcomes of the program with industrial expectations; however, areas such as global perspective and inclusivity present avenues for refinement in maintaining and improving upon relevance and impact in the professional landscape.

Emerging Themes from Stakeholders’ Responses

The emerging themes across all questions highlight the strong commitment to the students, filling the gaps in the availability of resources and innovation, and its effect on personal and professional development of stakeholders. These insights are helpful guidance for sustaining strengths while improving areas of concern.

CvSU program’s strengths are shown to encompass competent faculty, community engagement, and a global outlook. Areas for improvement include technological advancements, curriculum alignment with industry demands, and enhanced communication. The program’s broader impact on ethical values, resilience, and relationship-building underscores its role in shaping well-rounded individuals. Addressing these themes will ensure the program continues to meet and exceed stakeholder expectations.

Strengths of the Program. The conducive learning environment, reputation, and focus on students have been some of the key strengths that stakeholders frequently have pointed out for the program. These responses suggest the following themes:

• Student-Centered Approach: Many responses emphasized how the program caters to student needs and supports their academic and professional growth. Stakeholders recognize efforts to deliver a curriculum that is relevant and accessible to the students.
• Credibility and Efficiency: The program is known for its credibility and good reputation in the community. The association of the name, CvSU to quality education increases stakeholder confidence in the program.
• Inclusive and Responsive Setting: Stakeholders have often reminded the program of the creation of an easy and resourceful setting in which students find support all the way through their study period.
• Competent Faculty and Staff: Stakeholders frequently mentioned the expertise and dedication of educators and support staff as a strong point. Faculty members’ ability to guide students effectively enhances the program’s credibility.
• Community Engagement and Extracurricular Opportunities: The program is praised for its efforts to engage students in community service and extracurricular activities, fostering holistic development and real-world connections.
• Global Perspective and Diversity: Some responses highlight the program’s ability to expose students to global perspectives and inclusive practices, preparing them for a multicultural and interconnected world.

These themes show that CvSU’s program is seen as well-rounded, providing not only academic growth but also opportunities for practical and cultural development. They indicate that CvSU strengths relate to its emphasis on student success, institutional integrity, and cultivating an environment of inclusion.

Areas for improvement. The themes that emerged from the stakeholders’ perceptions are also indications of the potential areas for improvement, such as resources, student-centric improvements, and innovation:

• Resources Distribution: Major concerns include lack of sufficient funds, good infrastructure, and resource access. This provides the university with an avenue to address budgetary and infrastructural constraints.
• Student-Centric Innovations: Even though the stakeholders acknowledge that the program adopts a learner-centered approach, there is a call to make more improvements in other areas, such as mental health provision, adaptive learning strategies, and career guidance.
• Program Innovation: Suggestions for embracing modern practices, particularly in technology and pedagogy, emphasize the need for continuous innovation to meet evolving educational and industry demands.
• Technological Integration: Stakeholders highlighted the need for improved access to technology and digital tools. Suggestions included integrating more advanced platforms for learning, research, and communication.
• Curriculum Updates: Some stakeholders suggested that the curriculum could be further modernized to align with current industry trends and emerging fields of study.
• Enhanced Career Support: Alumni and industry partners pointed out a need for better career services, such as internships, networking opportunities, and guidance for transitioning into the workforce.
• Communication and Feedback Mechanisms: The need for more transparent and responsive channels for stakeholder feedback, particularly between students and administrators, was highlighted.

These themes emphasize the importance of targeted investments and program enhancements to address stakeholders’ concerns and future-proof the program. They also highlight the adaptability of the program to contemporary challenges, ensuring it remains relevant and impactful.

Overall Feedback. Stakeholders shared reflections on how the CvSU program has impacted them, revealing themes related to development, impact, and satisfaction:

• Personal Development: Priced with the help of the program, a huge positive contribution was seen in personal development, enhancing individuals’ skills, confidence, and critical thinking.
• Professional Impact: Alumni, faculty, and industry partners all acknowledged how the program prepares one for their roles. This theme therefore resonates with the repositioning of academic outcomes alongside industry expectations.
• General Satisfaction and Recommendations: All of the feedback is positive. At the same time, some of the stakeholders give constructive recommendations aimed at improving holistic students’ support or increasing global perspectives in the program.
• Civic and Ethical Values: Several stakeholders noted how the program instilled a strong sense of social responsibility and ethical values, which they now apply in their personal and professional lives.
• Resilience and Adaptability: Alumni and faculty emphasized how the program prepared them to navigate challenges, fostering resilience and adaptability in various settings.
• Networking and Relationships: The program was recognized for creating an environment where students, faculty, and industry partners could build meaningful professional and personal networks.
• Balanced Development: Stakeholders appreciated how the program promoted both academic rigor and emotional well-being, contributing to a balanced development of its participants.

These ideas reveal how transforming the program can be while still providing insight into areas where fine-tuning might amplify its influence on stakeholder success. The themes also highlight the program’s broader contribution to stakeholders’ character and professional networks, while also pinpointing opportunities for refining its overall impact.

Significant Differences in Satisfaction Levels among Various Stakeholder

Significant differences in the level of satisfaction between different groups of stakeholders have been analyzed. Through this analysis, students, alumni, faculty, staff, administrators, and industry partners are enlightened on their respective perceptions about CvSU’s program outcomes. By means of ANOVA, satisfaction across 11 dimensions including curriculum, assessment, support services, and inclusivity, variations of the experiences of the different stakeholder groups have been ascertained. The results show statistically significant differences in the levels of satisfaction, pointing out the need to address different expectations and experiences of various stakeholder groups for fair and consistent program outcomes.

Table 7. Test of significant differences among the stakeholders’ satisfaction on the dimensions of program outcomes using ANOVA

Table 7 reports the ANOVA results for determining significant differences in the satisfaction levels of stakeholders in the various dimensions of program outcomes. The F-values and their corresponding significance values show that the satisfaction levels of the stakeholder groups (students, alumni, faculty, staff, administrators, and industry partners) are statistically different for all the dimensions analyzed.

The dimension Assessment and Feedback exhibited the highest F-value (13.456) and p-value of 0.000, which suggests some differences in how stakeholders experienced assessment and feedback practices. The same applies to dimensions like Community Engagement and Extracurricular Activities (F = 9.438, p = 0.000), Student Holistic Well-being (F = 9.396, p = 0.000), and others in terms of stakeholder’s experiences and expectations. Curriculum and Learning Outcomes and Inclusivity and Diversity also depicted considerable differences and had F-values of 8.601 and 8.606, respectively.

While all dimensions were seen with significant differences, Global Perspective (F = 3.519, p = 0.004) had relatively lower F-values than others, and so was Technological Integration and Innovation (F = 4.235, p = 0.001). That means the differences might not be that high in these two compared to assessment, community engagement, and holistic well-being dimensions.

The general satisfaction dimension also exhibited significant differences (F = 10.235, p = 0.000), meaning that the stakeholders have different perceptions of the overall program effectiveness of CvSU. The findings underscore the requirement for stakeholder-specific strategies in order to deal with stakeholder-specific concerns and bring more consistency in satisfaction levels among different groups. By dealing with these differences, CvSU can further improve its program outcomes and make them better aligned with the expectations and needs of its stakeholders.

Relationships between General Program Satisfaction and Specific Dimensions

The analysis of the relationships between general program satisfaction and specific dimensions of CvSU’s program outcomes provides valuable insights into the factors that most influence the stakeholders’ overall perceptions. By examining the correlations between general satisfaction and dimensions such as curriculum, assessment, support services, and inclusivity, the study identifies which areas significantly contribute to overall satisfaction. These findings highlight priority dimensions for targeted improvements to enhance stakeholders’ experiences and satisfaction with CvSU’s programs.

Table 8. Test of relationship between general program satisfaction and specific dimensions

Table 8 presents the Pearson correlation analysis results, which test the relationship between the general program satisfaction and the specific dimensions of CvSU’s program outcomes. The results are highly significant across all dimensions, as indicated by the strong positive correlation coefficients (Pearson R) and significance values (p < 0.001).

The dimension Flexibility and Adaptability displayed the strongest association with overall program satisfaction (r = 0.849, p = 0.000), which indicates that the more stakeholders perceive programs in the university as flexible and adaptable, the higher will be their levels of reported general satisfaction. Personal and Professional Growth (r = 0.843, p = 0.000) and Student Holistic Well-being (r = 0.839, p = 0.000). Likewise, both of them indicate strong correlation, while implying these dimensions play a highly relevant role in shaping stakeholder perceptions about the general efficiency of the university.

Other dimensions, in Technological Integration and Innovation (r = 0.830, p = 0.000), Community Engagement and Extracurricular Activities (r = 0.824, p = 0.000), and Global Perspective (r = 0.821, p = 0.000), also showed strong correlations positively, indicating their remarkable contribution to general satisfaction. Moreover, the other basic elements of Curriculum and Learning Outcomes (r = 0.801, p = 0.000), Assessment and Feedback (r = 0.793, p = 0.000), and Support Services and Resources (r = 0.785, p = 0.000) were significantly correlated with general satisfaction and therefore are an essential part of the educational experience in general.

The results emphasize that all the specific dimensions are highly influential in determining stakeholders’ general satisfaction with CvSU’s programs. The strong correlations imply that improving any of these dimensions is likely to have a very positive effect on general program satisfaction. Of these, Flexibility and Adaptability, Personal and Professional Growth, and Student Holistic Well-being were found to be the most influential factors, hence the critical areas for focused improvement to maximize general stakeholder satisfaction.

Actionable Recommendations for CvSU Continuous Quality Improvement

The actionable recommendations matrix (Table 9) represents targeted strategies for improvement of Cavite State University’s (CvSU) program outcomes based on stakeholder satisfaction data. Each dimension of the program outcomes has been analyzed to identify key findings and specific areas for enhancement, thus leading to practical recommendations designed to address stakeholder concerns and promote continuous quality improvement.

Table 9. Actionable recommendations for CvSU continuous quality improvement

Stakeholders indicated a high satisfaction level for Curriculum and Learning Outcomes. Industry demands dictate that such documents be consistently revised to maintain relevance. It is therefore recommended that the curriculum be revised and updated periodically, taking into account feedback from industry partners and alumni to retain its pertinence and applicability to the job market.

Differences in stakeholder satisfaction for the dimension of Assessment and Feedback indicate inconsistency in how assessments were conducted and how feedback was provided. To address this issue, there is a need for the university to create standardized mechanisms for giving feedback and train the faculty in ways to better enhance assessment effectiveness with consistency.

In relative terms, Support Services and Resources had much lower satisfaction ratings indicating a perception of a lack of available resources and facilities. Upgrading facilities to increase the availability of academic support services and in general, improving the infrastructure of CvSU are recommended investments to improve stakeholder needs.

For Personal and Professional Growth This is a strong dimension that impacts overall satisfaction; it will need more effective mentorship programs and career guidance and personal development opportunities. More programs in these would help the various stakeholders achieve their personal and professional goals.

In terms of Inclusivity and Diversity, the findings suggest that while diversity initiatives are well-received, they can be strengthened. Recommendations include conducting workshops on how to create inclusive policies, conducting activities that promote diversity and inclusion within the university community, among others.

Technological Integration and Innovation had lesser satisfactions, while the problem was the bad access to and integration with technology. Giving more resources would upgrade technological infrastructure and proper training in using this technology would remedy these concerns and make things better for the digital experience by all users.

Flexibility and Adaptability was a key driver of satisfaction. The overall satisfaction level was good, but it is recommended to provide more flexible learning paths such as hybrid and modular approaches to meet different learning needs and time constraints.

Community Engagement and Extracurricular Activities area of satisfaction is high, but different experiences of stakeholder groups in this area call for a more inclusive approach to planning and implementation. The active engagement of stakeholders in community projects and extracurricular planning would improve their participation and satisfaction.

For Global Perspective, although significant, this dimension had less pronounced differences and thus indicated scope for further integration of international collaborations and global perspectives in academic and co-curricular programs.

Student Holistic Well-being was highly correlated with overall satisfaction, and this again points to the fact that initiatives that promote mental health and overall wellness need to be encouraged. This includes comprehensive wellness programs, mental health support, and activities that foster holistic development.

This matrix gives CvSU a blueprint for addressing stakeholder-specific concerns in light of existing strengths. These targeted interventions will help the university to improve satisfaction, promote equity among the different stakeholder groups, and reach its goals for continuous quality improvement and global competitiveness.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Findings from this research would shed more light into stakeholders’ perceptions about program outcomes at Cavite State University (CvSU), leading to continued improvement for better quality. It addresses stakeholders’ satisfaction based on the outcome of 11 dimensions across both strength and weaknesses areas, so implications emanate there, and are thus vital to determine strategies by which CvSU is going to upgrade the level of education in their establishments for its congruence with desired institutional and stakeholder needs.

Satisfaction ratings across dimensions revealed that, in general, the levels of satisfaction are high. Inclusivity and Diversity, Community Engagement, and Flexibility and Adaptability were among the top scores by stakeholders. It indicates that CvSU programs do really create an inclusive environment where there is a chance for meaningful engagement and adaptability as education and professional demands change. These findings are in line with the ideology of student-centered learning that insists on inclusiveness and responsiveness as keys to stakeholder satisfaction (Biggs, 2011).

However, there were areas such as Support Services and Resources, Technological Integration, and Student Holistic Well-being which recorded lower satisfaction ratings. It seems that there is an imperative for improvement in these dimensions to ensure that all stakeholders get proper support, modern facilities, and holistic development chances. According to UNESCO (2023), technological integration and access to resources are critical elements of quality education, especially in promoting equitable learning experiences and preparing students for a rapidly changing global landscape.

The analysis of significant differences among stakeholder groups further underscores the importance of tailoring strategies to meet diverse needs. Statistically significant variations were found across groups in several areas, especially in the areas of Assessment and Feedback and Community Engagement. It follows that though some of these program features are strongly favored by one set of stakeholders, other stakeholders might need stronger efforts to get their expectations and experiences more aligned. Discrepancies should therefore be addressed for the satisfaction to become uniform and to allow the stakeholders to experience an equal sense of fairness and justice (CHEd, 2014).

More importantly, the overall strength of correlations between program general satisfaction and specific dimensions, Flexibility and Adaptability, Personal and Professional Growth, and Student Holistic Well-being, means that these factors are fundamental to how overall stakeholder perception would be. These will then have to be of the most focus in all of CvSU’s drives toward the improvement of these programs. For example, offering a more flexible learning option, and investing in programs of professional growth and holistic well-being, can do much to enhance stakeholder satisfaction and engagement (Spady, 1994).

These findings also have implications beyond program improvement for the immediate. By redressing the gaps identified and using the strengths, CvSU could align its programs more closely with global education standards and the demands of industry. This alignment not only enhances the reputation of the university but also ensures that its graduates are equipped with the knowledge, skills, and values needed to succeed in a competitive and interconnected world. As outlined in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 4, ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education is critical for fostering lifelong learning opportunities and social mobility (United Nations, 2015).

The research emphasizes the need to sustain quality improvement in higher education through stakeholder-driven feedback. By addressing strengths and weaknesses, CvSU can continue to maintain its position as the top institution serving academic excellence and community engagement. This ensures that, by implementing the aforementioned targeted interventions on technological integration and support services as well as constant efforts towards strengthening influential dimensions, CvSU would indeed respond to the changing needs of its stakeholders while positioning it to successfully confront future challenges.

Based on the results, a matrix of actionable recommendations for improving CvSU program outcomes based on stakeholder satisfaction data is presented in the following table.

REFERENCES

1. Barrie, S.C. (2012). A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy. Higher Education Research & Development, 31, 79 – 92.
2. Biggs, J. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
3. Cavite State University. (2024). Vision and Mission statement. Cavite State University. https://www.cvsu.edu.ph
4. Commission on Higher Education. (2014). Policies, standards, and guidelines for the implementation of outcome-based education (OBE) in Philippine higher education institutions. Commission on Higher Education.
5. de Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2020). Internationalization in higher education: global trends and recommendations for its future. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 5(1), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2020.1820898
6. Goss, H. (2022). Student Learning Outcomes Assessment in Higher Education and in Academic Libraries: A Review of the Literature. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 48 (2). 102485
7. Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence. Palgrave Macmillan.
8. Marginson, S. (2018). The new geo-politics of higher education. Center for Global Higher Education.
9. OECD (2019), Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en.
10. Spady, W. G. (1994). Outcome-based education: Critical issues and answers. American Association of School Administrators.
11. Tight, M. (2020). Student retention and engagement in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44, 689 – 704.
12. (2023). Reimagining higher education for sustainable development: Policy brief. UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org
13. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
14. Zhao, Y. & Watterston, J. (2021). The changes we need: Education post COVID-19. Journal of Educational Change. 22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09417-3.
15. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Shavelson, R. & Kuhn, C. (2015). The international state of research on measurement of competency in higher education. Studies in Higher Education. 40. https://doi.org.10.1080/03075079.2015.1004241.