Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education: an empirical study in Muscat

Abstract

Advising systems play an important role not only in the student development process but also in student retention. Academic scholars across the world have been emphasising the presence of an effective student advising system as one of the requirements of a standard educational set up. To ensure student satisfaction with the advising system, institutions conduct satisfaction studies to monitor the effectiveness of their system and to understand key issues such as influencing factors and the association between demographic and influencing variables. The current paper addresses these key issues. A survey was conducted during Fall 2012 with students from across the GCC at three colleges in Muscat, Oman, to identify the factors influencing student satisfaction with advising system. In our study twenty-six variables were formed into five factors. The results show that student satisfaction with the advising systems is highly influenced by ‘feel good’, ‘critical situations’ and ‘IT’ factors. It was also found that satisfaction is independent of gender but not of the education level: lower level students were found to be more satisfied with advising systems than the students at the higher level. Student satisfaction has a significant positive correlation with training/orientation on advising and perceived quickness in solving students’ problems.

Full text

Al-Asmi, K. & Thumiki, V.R.R. (2014). Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education:
an empirical study in Muscat. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1).
http://lthe.zu.ac.ae
3
Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher
education: an empirical study in Muscat
Khalfan Al-Asmi
Venkat Ram Raj Thumiki
Modern College of Business and Science, Oman
Abstract
Advising systems play an important role not only in the student development process but also in
student retention. Academic scholars across the world have been emphasising the presence of an
effective student advising system as one of the requirements of a standard educational set up. To
ensure student satisfaction with the advising system, institutions conduct satisfaction studies to
monitor the effectiveness of their system and to understand key issues such as influencing factors
and the association between demographic and influencing variables. The current paper addresses
these key issues. A survey was conducted during Fall 2012 with students from across the GCC at
three colleges in Muscat, Oman, to identify the factors influencing student satisfaction with advising
system. In our study twenty-six variables were formed into five factors. The results show that
student satisfaction with the advising systems is highly influenced by ‘feel good’, ‘critical situations’
and ‘IT’ factors. It was also found that satisfaction is independent of gender but not of the education
level: lower level students were found to be more satisfied with advising systems than the students
at the higher level. Student satisfaction has a significant positive correlation with training/orientation
on advising and perceived quickness in solving students’ problems.
Introduction
Higher educational institutions realize the significance of student satisfaction for functioning and
progress (Tessema et al., 2012) and hence are increasingly conducting student satisfaction surveys
on a regular basis (Hester, 2008). Various dimensions are considered in student satisfaction studies,
viz., satisfaction with amenities and facilities (Shahid et al., 2012), satisfaction with teaching
methodologies and instructional effectiveness (Cox, 2009), satisfaction with courses offered
(Bolliger, 2004), satisfaction with counselling services (Kangai et al., 2011), satisfaction with after-
education services such as placements and alumni services and satisfaction with the student
advising system adopted by the institution (Hale et al., 2009). Letcher & Neves (2010) stated that
educational institutions and universities consider all of the above and even more dimensions for
ensuring student satisfaction.
According to Coll & Draves (2009) and Hester (2008), the student advising system has emerged as
one of the key ingredients of a modern education system. All educational institutions need to have
a clearly defined advising policy framed into clearly worded statements but not all of them do
(Habley, 1993). A written statement of advising policy is required because advising has proven to be
effective in such cases (Creamer & Scott, 2000). According to Winston & Sandor (2002), a properly
defined advising system would provide
a systematic process of student-advisor relationship, aimed at achieving educational, career
and personal goals of the students. (p. 8)
One should not understand academic advising as a mere administrative function or a
supplementary activity to the education process (Ender, 1983) but as a greater combination of all
these aiming at an overall development of the students (Virginia et al., 2011).

Al-Asmi, K. & Thumiki, V.R.R. (2014). Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education:
an empirical study in Muscat. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1).
http://lthe.zu.ac.ae
4
Academic advising is a systematic and planned collaboration between the student and advisor
(Kramer, 1988). Academic advising can be described as a teaching function (Crookston, 1972)
emphasizing advisors, as their attitude may affect the advising process (Ford & Ford, 1989).
According to Fielstein & Lammers (1992) student advising is aimed at improving study skills to
explore career options of the students. It helps students in choosing educational programs to
achieve their total potential (O’Banion, 1972). Available literature on student advising places this
function beyond just signing forms and giving information (King, 2005) and mentions that student
preferences and personal priorities must be addressed (Winston & Sandor, 1984; Fielstein, 1989).
According to the National Academic Advising Association (NACADA), USA, that supports and
promotes academic advising in higher education, “academic advising must essentially address three
key issues, viz., curriculum, pedagogy and learning outcomes” (Figure 1). Institutions must make
academic advising intrinsic to their mission of transforming students into learned individuals in
society (ibid).
Figure 1: Fundamentals of academic advising.
In an effective advising system, student interaction with campus personnel, directly face-to-face or
online appears to be imperative (Nutt, 2003) even in this Internet world. Furthermore, various
contexts and elements in the campus have an impact on student advising (Grites, 1979). Advising
style can be understood as a specific method adopted and a specific way of dealing with the
situation during the advising process by an advisor (O’Banion, 1972; Crookston, 1972, p. 13) and
this may vary from advisor to advisor (Winston et al., 1982; Beasley-Fielstein, 1986).
Available literature on advising styles mentions that an advisor, in order to be affective, may pursue
the parenting style of advising (Coburn & Treeger, 2003). Winston & Sandor (1984) attempted to
list and explain different advising styles, based on some characteristics from the Academic Advising
Inventory (AAI), such as decision-making by advisor, content of the advising, personalization,
behaviour of the advisor, etc. According to them, an advisor may adopt one or more or all of a
variety of advising styles, including counsellor style (an emphasis on personal issues), scheduler style
(an emphasis on academic issues) or teacher style (an emphasis on both personal and academic
issues). Other styles include directing, coaching, supporting and delegating (Centre for Student
Involvement, Advising manual, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee). However, advising style is just
one element: the students are equally responsible for decision making and play an important role
in the whole process of effective advising (O’Banion, 1972).
Having established an academic or developmental advising system, institutions would like to know
whether they have been able to continuously and effectively advise their students in general. Thus

Al-Asmi, K. & Thumiki, V.R.R. (2014). Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education:
an empirical study in Muscat. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1).
http://lthe.zu.ac.ae
5
arises the need for conducting an assessment of the advising activity (Dautch, 1972). According to
Hurt (2004) an effective advising assessment must include a study of student satisfaction with the
advising system: student satisfaction surveys seem to be imperative in the process of developing
the existing academic advising systems (Fierk, 2012; Coll, 2007).
Need for the study
Colleges need to track student satisfaction from time to time regarding various academic and non-
academic aspects of student life (Fielstein & Lammers, 1992). One of the key ingredients of
satisfaction studies is the study of influencing factors (McGovern & Hawks, 1986; Tessema et al.,
2012). Though studies are conducted on student satisfaction related to various aspects of advising
viz., advising styles (Hale et al., 2009), relationship with student self-confidence (Coll, 2007),
effectiveness of advisors (Dautch, 1972), etc., there is a need to conduct similar studies across
various geographical areas, education institutions and systems (Coll & Zalaquett, 2008). The current
study is an extension to many such studies and focuses on factors influencing the student
satisfaction with advising systems adopted by various educational institutions in Muscat, Oman.
The study also investigated various aspects related to student satisfaction through correlation and
association tests.
Objectives of the study
The current research was carried out to achieve the following objectives:
 To identify the factors influencing student satisfaction with the existing advising system in
Muscat area.
 To study the association between student satisfaction with advising and their demography.
 To study the relationship between student satisfaction with the advising system and the
variables that will be found as influencing their satisfaction.
Hypotheses
To meet the above objectives, it was decided to conduct association tests and correlation analyses.
For this purpose, the following null hypotheses were set to conduct the association tests:
1. Ho: Training or orientation to students on advising has no impact on student satisfaction.
2. Ho: Advising style has no impact on student satisfaction.
3. Ho: Student satisfaction with the advising system is independent of gender.
4. Ho: Student satisfaction with the advising system is independent of education level.
Along with the above, the following five hypotheses were set to test the correlation between
variables by using Pearson’s r with an alpha of 0.05.
1. Students who are satisfied with the advising system reported that they received training or
orientation on advising.
2. Students who are satisfied with the advising system reported that their problems are
solved quickly.
3. Students who are satisfied with the advising system reported that their advisor’s advising
style is good.

Al-Asmi, K. & Thumiki, V.R.R. (2014). Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education:
an empirical study in Muscat. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1).
http://lthe.zu.ac.ae
6
4. Students who are satisfied with the advising system reported that the duration of their
advising sessions is reasonable.
5. Students who indicated that their advisors’ advising style is comfortable also indicated that
their advisor’s ability in advising is high.
Research methodology
The survey focused on Muscat, capital of the Sultanate of Oman, which has students from almost
all parts of the Arab world (Oman Observer, 2012). It was decided to use convenience sampling and
to choose a sample of 375 respondents. According to Katz (1953), convenience sampling can be
chosen in cases of non-availability of sampling frames (in the current research, lists of students
from various colleges was not available). In factor analysis, the sample (or number of subjects) must
be at least 5 times the number of variables in the questionnaire (Hatcher, 1994). The literature
available on sample size for factor analysis mentions that even if the number of variables is less
than 20, the minimum sample size required is 100 (MacCallum et al., 1979; Arrindell & Ende 1985,
pp. 166). Thus, in the current study, as there are 26 variables included, the sample should be more
than 130. According to Field (2005), although sample size in factor analysis depends on various
considerations, in general above 300 is adequate. This is satisfied in the current paper: out of 375
administered questionnaires, 336 questionnaires were fully completed and filled by the students of
three different colleges in Muscat city. One college uses an American education system and the
other two colleges follow the UK system of education. The authors studied the advising systems in
the selected colleges and found that all three colleges have similar advising systems in place. The
sample unit comprised of all undergraduate students of various streams of education.
Secondary data
Secondary data was collected from various supplementary sources such as websites of universities
and colleges, accreditation agencies, books and articles on academic advising, reports and theses
sourced from libraries (Green et al., 2008). However, the Internet is the major source of secondary
data. Information related to the advising system in the colleges studied is taken from their
respective websites.
Primary data
In order to study variables that influence the student satisfaction with the advising system, primary
data was collected by administering a structured questionnaire (Appendix G), translated into the
regional language, Arabic, for the convenience of some of the respondents. The survey instrument
consisted of 26 statements on potentially influencing variables, 2 questions on demography
(gender and education level) and 1 question on satisfaction level. The influencing variables were
presented in the form of statements on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 (1= Strongly Disagree; 2= Disagree;
3= Neutral; 4= Agree; 5= Strongly Agree). And the respondents were asked to rate each statement
on the Likert scale presented at the end of each sentence.
Data analysis tools and techniques
SPSS software (version 17.0) was used to analyse the data. Factor Analysis was conducted to
identify the factors that influence student satisfaction with the academic advising system and to
analyse other findings of the research (Luck & Rubin, 2007). While correlation tests were conducted
to find out the relationship between influencing variables and student satisfaction, Chi-square and
crosstabulation analyses were conducted to understand the association between the demography
of the students and their satisfaction with the advising system (Green et al., 2008).

Al-Asmi, K. & Thumiki, V.R.R. (2014). Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education:
an empirical study in Muscat. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1).
http://lthe.zu.ac.ae
7
Testing of the questionnaire
A pilot study was conducted to test the questionnaire for validity and reliability purposes (Cudeck &
O’Dell, 1994). The questionnaire was circulated among 71 respondents, students of Modern College
of Business & Science, Muscat. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic that measures the reliability
and validity of the instrument was 0.762, which is an acceptable level to proceed further with the
factor analysis (Cudeck & O’Dell, 1994). Following the Eigen Value method, the study variables were
formed into 6 factors covering a total variance of 71.03%. The pilot study results were encouraging
and provided initial clues and support for conducting the final survey. The questionnaire was also
tested for reliability using Cronbach’s Alpha (.881) and the Guttman Split-Half Reliability statistic
(.930).
Variables influencing student satisfaction with the advising system
For the purpose of understanding the influencing factors, the following 26 variables were identified,
based on the literature review (Table 1):
Table 1: Variables expected to influence students’ satisfaction with their advising system.
1
Availability of advisor
2
Speed of advising website
3
Helpful and supportive attitude of advisor
4
Attitude of support staff (staff of registration department and computer lab)
5
Attractiveness of website
6
Friendly and sociable nature of advisor
7
Training & orientation given by college in (self) advising
8
Help and support of support staff
9
Knowledge of advisor about courses and program of the advisee
10
Extended support and help of college in case of new programs/new courses
11
Attitude of advisor
12
Availability of support staff
13
Advisor's help and support at the time of troubles faced by advisees/students during
registration or throughout the advising process
14
Ability of advisor to advise and counsel - student’s understanding and perception
15
Guidance of website while navigating during advising process
16
Knowledge of advisor about issues related to academic advising - student’s understanding and
perception
17
Advisor’s understanding of the advisee's problems
18
Ease in navigating the advising website
19
Friendly nature of support staff
20
Advisor’s support and help in case of new courses
21
Change of advisor
22
Department of advisor (advisor may or may not belong to the advisee’s department)
23
Easily understandable (not complicated) advising system
24
Advising style of the advisor
25
Length of advising sessions
26
Quickness in solving advising related problems

Al-Asmi, K. & Thumiki, V.R.R. (2014). Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education:
an empirical study in Muscat. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1).
http://lthe.zu.ac.ae
8
Discussion of the results
Sample characteristics
The survey was conducted during the academic period, Fall-2012. A total of 336 valid
questionnaires were completed and filled out by male and female respondents pursuing different
educational programs such as Business Management, Aviation Management, Economics and
Computers and from different levels/years in the undergraduate programmes of three colleges in
Muscat. Characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 2 below:
Table 2: Sample characteristics (N=336)
Characteristics of sample
No.
Percentage
Total
Gender
Male
161
47.9
100%
Female
175
52.1
Education level
Level 1: Foundation
30
8.9
100%
Level 2: Freshman
22
6.5
Level 3: Sophomore
142
42.2
Level 4: Junior
86
25.6
Level 5: Senior
56
16.7
Analysis of student satisfaction with their existing advising system
To ensure that the students are satisfied with the advising system is one of the key components of
achieving overall student satisfaction (Alexander et al, 2010). From the current research, it is
evident that the satisfaction levels are not high (Figure 2). Only 39.3% of the respondents are
satisfied with their respective advising systems. A major proportion (16.7%) of the students could
not conclude whether their advising system is satisfactory, and the largest segment of the students
(44%) are dissatisfied with the student advising system. This finding calls urgently for more detailed
study of student satisfaction with advising systems (Kangai et al, 2011). Further in the analysis
(Appendix C) it can be understood that within gender 44.6% of female respondents and 57.8% of
male respondents are dissatisfied with their respective advising systems.
Figure 2: Student satisfaction with advising system.

Al-Asmi, K. & Thumiki, V.R.R. (2014). Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education:
an empirical study in Muscat. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1).
http://lthe.zu.ac.ae
9
Factors influencing student satisfaction
The KMO statistic that measures the sampling adequacy needs to be more than 0.8 to be
acceptable for continuing the factor analysis (Kaiser, 1974). The KMO value in the current analysis is
0.840, which is classified by Kaiser as ‘meritorious’ and means that factor analysis is worth pursuing
(Appendix A). After initial analysis of reliability of the questionnaire and the grounds for conducting
Factor Analysis, the next task is to identify factors that influence student satisfaction with the
advising system. Five factors with Eigen value greater than 1 are considered as common factors
(Nunnally, 1978). Results of the factor analysis are presented in Table 3:
Table 3: Factors influencing student satisfaction with their advising system.
No.
Label
Variables
Variable
no.
Factor
loadings
1
FEEL GOOD
FACTOR
Support staff attitude
4
.905
Advising style comfortable
24
.826
Advisor friendly and sociable
6
.786
Duration of advising sessions reasonable
25
.779
Support staff friendly
19
.727
Advisor’s attitude
11
.658
Ability of advisor
14
.653
Advisor not frequently changed
21
.641
2
SUPPORT FACTOR
Advisor helpful and supportive in general
3
.922
Orientation by college in advising
7
.921
Support staff help and support regarding
advising
8
.862
Quickly problems are solved
26
.850
Advisor belongs to same department
22
.831
Advisor more help in case of new courses
20
.606
3
CRITICAL
SITUATION FACTOR
Advisor knows about programs and courses I
am studying
9
.864
Advisor help and support during trouble
times
13
.794
Advisor understands my problem
17
.736
Advisor is knowledgeable about advising
16
.701
College more help in case of new
programs/courses
10
.659
4
IT FACTOR
Website speed
2
.907
Website guides in navigation
15
.848
Website easy to navigate
18
.807
Website attractive
5
.734
5
ACCESSIBILITY
FACTOR
Advisor available, personal and
approachable
1
.903
Advising system not complicated. Easily
understandable
23
.844
Support staff available
12
.820
Table 3 presents suggested factor labels, different variables falling into various factors, their serial
number in the questionnaire along with their respective factor loadings. Each factor describes the
key variables that influence student satisfaction with the advising system. These five factors explain

Al-Asmi, K. & Thumiki, V.R.R. (2014). Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education:
an empirical study in Muscat. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1).
http://lthe.zu.ac.ae
10
a total variance of 70.03%, which is considered acceptable in the area of applied research (Silva &
Fernandes, 2012). Factor description is presented in Appendix F along with variance explained by
each factor.
Factor 1 refers to creating a comfortable zone for the students in the overall advising process.
Variables such as duration of the advising sessions, advising style (0.826 factor loading) and friendly
attitude of the advisor and support staff create a Feel Good environment and become major
influencers of student satisfaction by explaining 27.35% of the variance. Factor 2, labelled Support,
explains a variance of 16.32% and is a result of quickness in solving problems that may arise in the
advising process, orientation provided by the college in advising (factor loading of 0.921) and
advisor belonging to the same department that the student belongs to. Critical Situation factor
explains a variance of 11.84% with variables such as advisor’s knowledge about students’ programs
and courses (0.864 factor loading), advisor’s awareness of the advising process and his advi sees’
problems particularly in the case of new courses and programs such as Aviation Management or
Health & Safety Management. The other two factors namely, the IT Factor (9.28%) and the
Accessibility Factor (5.24%) together with the first three factors explain a total variance of 70.03%.
Reliability analysis
Reliability analysis needs to be conducted to measure the internal consistency of the variables in
each factor derived from factor analysis (Santos, 1999). Cronbach’s alpha can be used here to
measure the internal consistency and reliability of the instrument (Cronbach, 1951). Hence, it was
decided to test the reliability of all variables and also each of the factors formed. The value of
Cronbach’s Alpha should be as close as possible to 1: a higher number indicates higher correlation
among the variables in the model. In the current research, the Cronbach’s Alpha for all variables (26
items) is 0.881. Similarly, for each of the factors the Cronbach’s Alpha is higher than 0.7 which
indicates the significance of the model (ibid). Details are presented in Appendix E.
Hypothesis testing
Association tests: Chi-square (χ2) tests of Independence
i) Impact of individual variables on satisfaction
ii) Association between demographic characteristics of students and influencing variables
Available literature (Schiffman & Kanuk, 1998; Letcher & Joao, 2010) indicates that the marketers
(college authorities in this case) must understand the association between the demographics of
their target customers (students) and variables that influence their behaviour and also the impact
of individual variables on satisfaction. This calls for application of association tests & tests of
independence. The current research contains data pertaining to two demographic variables: gender
and education level. After reviewing related literature, the following null hypotheses were set:
Ho: Training or orientation on advising has no impact on student satisfaction
Since the chi-square value is significant at 95% level of confidence, this hypothesis is rejected (Table
4): it appears that an orientation on advising does impact on student satisfaction with the advising
system. Further from the crosstabulation (Appendix B), it can be understood that those who
received orientation on advising are more satisfied with the advising system (56.25% of those who
received orientation). This finding helps us to understand the relationship between the orientation
on advising and student satisfaction with the advising system, and indicates the need for student
orientation on the advising system.

Al-Asmi, K. & Thumiki, V.R.R. (2014). Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education:
an empirical study in Muscat. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1).
http://lthe.zu.ac.ae
11
Ho: Advising style has no impact on satisfaction
As the chi-square value is not significant at 95% confidence level (Table 4), this hypothesis is
accepted: the perceived advising style appears to have no impact on satisfaction.
Ho: Satisfaction with the advising system is independent of gender
As the chi-square value of 3.098 is not significant at 95% confidence level, this hypothesis cannot be
rejected (Table 4): student satisfaction with their existing advising system appears to be
independent of gender. It cannot be concluded that males are more satisfied than females or vice-
versa.
Ho: Satisfaction with the advising system is independent of year/level of the student
As the chi-square value of 32.369 is significant at 95% confidence level (Table 4), the hypothesis
cannot be accepted. Thus, it cannot be concluded that students in a particular year of study are
more satisfied or dissatisfied.
Table 4: Summary of Chi-square (χ2) test results (Dependent variable: satisfaction).
Influencing/
independent
variable
Hypotheses
Significance
Chi-Square
statistics
Conclusion
(crosstabulation)
Orientation
given on
advising
Training/orientation on
advising has no impact
on student satisfaction
Significant
Ho: Rejected
χ2 Value:
29.606
P- value: 0.000
Dof: 8 α: 0.05
More satisfaction
among those who
received orientation on
advising
Advising style
Advising style has no
impact on satisfaction
Not significant
Ho: Accepted
χ2 Value:
10.199
P- value: 0.251
Dof: 8 α: 0.05
***
Gender
Satisfaction with advising
system is independent of
gender
Not significant
Ho: Accepted
χ2 Value: 3.098
P- value: 0.212
Dof: 2 α: 0.01
***
Year/level of
the student
Satisfaction with advising
system is independent of
year/level
Significant
Ho: Rejected
χ2 Value:
32.369
P- value: 0.000
Dof: 8 α: 0.01
Satisfaction levels are
relatively higher in
lower years of education
Relationship between student satisfaction and influencing variables - Correlation
analyses
Ho: Students who are satisfied with the advising system reported that they received training in
advising
Correlation analysis presents a significant positive strong correlation (.872) between training on
advising and satisfaction with advising system (Table 5). It can be interpreted that if the students
are aware of various aspects of advising, they will be more satisfied.
Ho: Students who are satisfied with the advising system reported that their registration problems
are solved quickly
With a Pearson Correlation coefficient of .792 (significant at 95% confidence level), it can be
concluded that there is a strong positive correlation between quickness in solving registration
related problems and satisfaction with the advising system (Table 5).

Al-Asmi, K. & Thumiki, V.R.R. (2014). Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education:
an empirical study in Muscat. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1).
http://lthe.zu.ac.ae
12
Ho: Students who are satisfied with the advising system reported that their advisor’s advising style is
good
There is no significant correlation between student satisfaction with the advising system and the
advising style (Table 5).
Ho: Students who are satisfied with the advising system reported that the duration of their advising
sessions is reasonable
There is no significant correlation between the duration of the advising sessions and student
satisfaction with the advising system (Table 5).
Ho: Students who indicated that their advisors’ advising style is comfortable also indicated that their
advisors’ ability in advising is high
As presented in Table 5, there is a significant positive correlation between the student perception
of advisors’ ability and comfortable advising style (.803). It can be interpreted that if the advisors
adopt a comfortable advising style, they can be perceived positively and as expert in advising.
Table 5: Correlation analyses.
Hypotheses
Variable 1
Variable 2
Correlation
coefficient
Students who are satisfied with the
advising system reported that they
received training on advising
Satisfaction
Training/orientation
on advising
.872**
Students who are satisfied with the
advising system reported that their
registration problems are solved quickly
Satisfaction
Quickness in
problem solving
.792**
Students who are satisfied with the
advising system reported that their
advisor’s advising style is good
Satisfaction
Advising style
.084
Students who are satisfied with the
advising system reported that the
duration of their advising sessions was
reasonable
Satisfaction
Duration of advising
sessions
.059
Students who indicated that their
advisors’ advising style is comfortable
also indicated that their advisors’ ability
in advising is high
Advising style
Ability of advising
.703**
** Correlation is significant at 0.05 level
Conclusions and recommendations
To ensure student satisfaction, institutions need to understand various aspects that influence their
satisfaction. As the overall satisfaction levels are low, with 42.3% (142 out of 336) respondents
dissatisfied with their advising system, it is recommended for institutions to understand various key
aspects such as advising style, website and online experience, proper orientation on advising,
support and help needed, so that higher scores can be secured on student satisfaction with the
advising system. It is recommended to create a ‘Feel Good’ environment for the students (Factor 1
explaining 27.35% variance). As students depend upon support staff such as staff of the registration
department and computer labs (.905 factor loading), these staff must be trained and motivated to
provide better services as a part of the advising system. The advisor should not be changed

Al-Asmi, K. & Thumiki, V.R.R. (2014). Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education:
an empirical study in Muscat. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1).
http://lthe.zu.ac.ae
13
frequently (.641 factor loading). However this becomes inevitable when the advisor leaves the job,
so it can be understood that faculty turnover can lead to these types of problems as well. The
management must be cautious about this issue and must ensure that good advisors are retained.
Students look for support in the form of training (.922 factor loading and .872 correlation
coefficient), quickness in solving the problems (.850 factor loading and .792 correlation coefficient);
also, in the case of new courses (Critical Situation factor, variable 10), and one expects especially
with junior students, advisors’ help and guidance significantly influences students’ satisfaction with
the advising system. Hence, the institutions must regularly provide orientation and training to the
students on the advising system. It may not be appropriate to assume that the system is easy, clear
and can be understood by the students. Instead, the colleges must regularly provide input on self-
advising and other key aspects of advising system to ensure student satisfaction.
The advisor should have an idea of his/her advisees’ courses and program of study (Critical
situation factor, variable 9, factor loading .864). Variable 15 is featured in the IT factor with a factor
loading of .848, indicating that even the advising system website has a crucial role to play in
advising students. Hence, institutions need to design a better and more usable advising website. All
the five factors explained a variance of 70% in the behavior of the students with reference to
satisfaction with their advising system, with the Feel Good factor emerging as the most important
factor; this suggests that the managements of institutions should make greater efforts to create a
feel good environment.
Since, it is found that the student satisfaction with the advising system is independent of gender
(Table 5), the managers need not be too concerned about gender variations. Advising style did not
emerge as an important variable influencing the student satisfaction (.084 Correlation Coefficient);
hence it is recommended not to emphasize the advising style and instead to look into various other
key aspects influencing the student satisfaction. As the advising style does not influence male and
female students differently, the advisors need not change their advising styles in an effort to cater
to different genders. On the other hand, as lower year students are more satisfied with their
advising system than the higher year students (Appendix D), there is a need to maintain this
satisfaction and increase the satisfaction levels. Another key finding is that the duration of the
advising sessions is not very important (insignificant correlation coefficient of .059). It cannot be
concluded that longer the duration of advising sessions, higher will be the satisfaction levels;
instead, the advisors should quickly facilitate solutions for their advisees’ problems.
Student advising is the key to student improvement and empowerment, and is a necessary
ingredient of the functioning of an institution. With 42.3% students dissatisfied with their advising
system, this calls for immediate attention. Management of the institutions should emphasize
creating a better advising system for the benefit of the student. Some of the immediate aspects to
look into include providing training on advising, creating a ‘feel good’ environment for the students
and supporting the students during the crucial times such as registration and choice of new
courses.
Future scope
Assessment should not be limited to students; advisors' experiences are crucial for the successful
advising process and need to be explored (Cuseo, 2003). This calls for understanding and capturing
advisors’ opinions and experiences relating to advising (Hogan & Rogol, 2012). There is a need to
look into the whole process from the advisors’ viewpoint. Also separate studies can be conducted
in further geographic locations (Shahid et al., 2012) as well as with students of different
nationalities.

Al-Asmi, K. & Thumiki, V.R.R. (2014). Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education:
an empirical study in Muscat. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1).
http://lthe.zu.ac.ae
14
References
Alexander, M.W., Kukowski, D. & Dexter, L. (2010). Students’ beliefs and attitudes about a business
school’s academic advising process. Research in Higher Education Journal, 8.
Arrindell, W. A., & van der Ende. J. (1985). An empirical test of the utility of the observations-to-
variables ratio in factor and components analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 165 -
178.
Beasley-Fielstein, L. (1986). Student perceptions of the advisor-advisee relationship. NACADA
Journal, 6(2), 107-117.
Bolliger, D.U. (2004). Key Factors for Determining Student Satisfaction in Online Courses.
International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 61-67.
Coburn, K. L., & Treeger, M. L. (2003). Letting go: a parents’ guide to understanding the college
years. Harper Collins, New York.
Coll, J. E., & Draves, P. (2009). Traditional age students: worldviews and satisfaction with advising: a
homogeneous study of students and advisors. The College Student Affairs Journal, 28(2), 215–
216.
Coll, J.E. & Zalaquett, C. (2008). The relationship of worldviews of advisors and students and
satisfaction with advising: a case of homogenous group impact. Journal of College Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice, 9(3), 273-281.
Coll, J.E. (2007). A study of academic advising satisfaction and its relationship to student self-
confidence and worldviews. Graduate School Theses and Dissertations.
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/677
Cox, R. D. (2009). I would have rather paid for a class I wanted to take: utilitarian approaches at a
community college. Review of Higher Education, 32(3), 353-382.
Creamer, E. C., & Scott, D. W. (2000). Assessing individual advisor effectiveness. In V.N. Gordon, W.
R. Habley, & Associates. Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, 339-348.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-
334.
Crookston, B.B. (1972). A developmental view of academic advising as teaching. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 13, 12-17.
Cudeck, R. & O’Dell, L.L. (1994). Applications of standard error estimates in unrestricted factor
analysis: significance tests for factor loadings and correlations. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 475–
487.
Cuseo, J. (2003). Assessment of academic advisors and academic advising programs. Retrieved
August 31, 2010, from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/Links/assessment.htm
Dautch, S.E. (1972). Advisee’s self-reported satisfaction with academic advisors and effectiveness of
advisors. Dissertation Abstracts International, 33, 2706-2707.
Ender, S.C. (1983). Assisting high academic-risk athletes: Recommendations for the academic
advisor. NACADA Journal, October, 1-10.
Field, A.P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.

Al-Asmi, K. & Thumiki, V.R.R. (2014). Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education:
an empirical study in Muscat. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1).
http://lthe.zu.ac.ae
15
Fielstein, L. (1989). Student priorities for academic advising: Do they want a personal relationship?
NACADA Journal, 9(1), 33-38.
Fielstein, L.L. & Lammers, W.J. (1992). The relationship of student satisfaction with advising to
administrative support for advising services. NACADA Journal, 12(1), 15-21.
Fierke, K.K. (2012). ‘Rounding’ with students: a model for class advising and leadership building.
Research in Higher Education Journal, Vol. 18.
Ford, J., & Ford, S. S. (1989). A caring attitude and academic advising. NACADA Journal, 9(2), 43-48.
Frank, C. P. (1988). The development of academic advising programs: Formulating a valid model.
NACADA Journal, 8, 11-28.
Gordon, V.N., Habley, W.R. & Grites, T. J. (2011). Academic advising: a comprehensive handbook.
San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Green, P.E., Tull, D.S. & Albaum, G. (2008). Research for marketing decisions. New Delhi: Prentice
Hall.
Grites, T. J. (1979). Academic advising: getting us through the eighties. Higher Education Report, 7,
Wasington D.C: AAHE-ERIC.
Habley, W. R. (1993). Fulfilling the promise? Final report, ACT fourth national survey of academic
advising, American College Testing Program, Iowa City.
Hale, M. D., Graham, D. L., & Johnson, D. M. (2009). Are students more satisfied with academic
advising when there is congruence between current and preferred advising styles? College
Student Journal, 43(2), 313–324.
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the sas® system for factor analysis and
structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
Hester, E. J. (2008). Student evaluations of advising: moving beyond the mean. College Teaching,
56(1), 35–38.
Hogan, E. & Rogol, E. (2012). Development of a measure of students’ expectations of advising.
Research in Higher Education Journal, Vol. 16.
Hurt, B. (2004). Using the balanced scorecard approach for program assessment of faculty advising,
NACADA Journal, 24(1 & 2), 124–127.
Kaiser, H.F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
Kangai, C., Rupande, G. & Rugonye, S. (2011). Students’ perceptions on the quality and
effectiveness of guidance and counselling services at the Zimbabwe Open University. The African
Symposium, 11(1), 11-32.
Katz, D. (1953). Field studies. In L. Festinger & Y. D. Katz (Eds.), Research methods in the behavioral
sciences. New York, NY: Dryden, 56-98.
King, M. C. (2005). Developmental academic advising. NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising
Resources. http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/dev_adv.htm
Kramer, G. L. (1988). Enhancing the role of academic advising on the college campus. NACADA
Journal, 8(1), 3-6.
Letcher, D.W. & Neves, J.S. (2010). Determinants of undergraduate business student satisfaction.
Research in Higher Education Journal, Vol. 6.

Al-Asmi, K. & Thumiki, V.R.R. (2014). Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education:
an empirical study in Muscat. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1).
http://lthe.zu.ac.ae
16
Luck, D.J. & Rubin, R.S. (2007). Marketing research. New Delhi: Prentice Hall.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Preacher, K. J., & Hong S. (2001). Sample size in factor analysis:
the role of model error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 611-637.
McGovern, T. V., & Hawks, B. K. (1986). The varieties of undergraduate experience. Teaching of
Psychology, 13, 174-181.
NACADA [National Academic Advising Association] (2006). NACADA concept of academic advising.
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/Concept-Advising.htm
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nutt, C. L. (2003). Academic advising and student retention and persistence. NACADA
Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources.
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Advising-and-Student-
Retention-article.aspx
O’Banion, T. (1972). An academic advising model. Junior College Journal, 42 (6), 66-69.
Santos, J.R.A. (1999). Cronbach's alpha: a tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of
Extension, 37(2). www.joe.org/joe/1999april/tt3.php
Schiffman, L.G. & Kanuk, L.L. (1998). Consumer Behavior. Prentice Hall.
Shahid, B., Hussain Sarki, I. & Samidi, J. (2012). Students’ perception on the service quality of
Malaysian universities’ hostel accommodation. International Journal of Business & Social
Science, 3(15), 213-222.
Silva, F. & Fernandes, P.O. (2012). Empirical study on the student satisfaction in higher education:
importance-satisfaction analysis. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 66,
1192-1197.
Tessema, M.T., Ready, K. & Yu, W.C. (2012). Factors affecting college students’ satisfaction with
major curriculum: evidence from nine years of data. International Journal of Humanities & Social
Science, 2(2), January, 34-44.
Winston, R.B., Enders, S.C. & Miller, T.K. (1982). Developmental approaches to academic advising,
New Directions for Student Services, 17.
Winston, R. B., & Sandor, J. A. (1984). Developmental academic advising: What do students want?
NACADA Journal, 4(1), 5-13.
Winston, R. B., & Sandor, J. A. (2002). Evaluating academic advising: manual for the Academic
Advising Inventory. National Academic Advising Association.

Al-Asmi, K. & Thumiki, V.R.R. (2014). Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education:
an empirical study in Muscat. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1).
http://lthe.zu.ac.ae
17
Appendix A
Classification of KMO values
KMO Value
Degree of Common Variance
0.90 to 1.00
Marvellous
0.80 to 0.89
Meritorious
0.70 to 0.79
Middling
0.60 to 0.69
Mediocre
0.50 to 0.59
Miserable
0.00 to 0.49
Don't Factor
Source: Kaiser, H.F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
Appendix B
Satisfaction & orientation in advising (Crosstabulation)
Received orientation in advising
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
Total
Dissatisfied
Count
56
33
55
4
9
157
% within Satisfaction
35.7
21.0
35.0
2.5
5.7
100.0
% within Orientation
60.9
43.4
52.9%
16.7
22.5
46.7
Can't say
Count
14
10
16
6
10
56
% within Satisfaction
25.0
17.9
28.6
10.7
17.9
100.0
% within Orientation
15.2
13.2
15.4
25.0
25.0
16.7
Satisfied
Count
22
33
33
14
21
123
% within Satisfaction
17.9
26.8
26.8
11.4
17.1
100.0
% within Orientation
23.9
43.4
31.7
58.3
52.5
36.6
Count
92
76
104
24
40
336
% within Satisfaction
27.4
22.6
31.0
7.1
11.9
100.0
% within Orientation
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Al-Asmi, K. & Thumiki, V.R.R. (2014). Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education:
an empirical study in Muscat. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1).
http://lthe.zu.ac.ae
18
Appendix C
Satisfaction with advising system (gender-wise analysis)
Satisfaction * Gender Crosstabulation
Gender
Total
Female
Male
Satisfaction
Dissatisfied
Count
78
93
171
% within Gender
44.6%
57.8%
50.9%
Can't say
Count
34
24
58
% within Gender
19.4%
14.9%
17.3%
Satisfied
Count
63
44
107
% within Gender
36.0%
27.3%
31.8%
Total
Count
175
161
336
% within Gender
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Appendix D
Satisfaction * Education level Crosstabulation
Education level
Total
Foundation
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Dissatisfied
Count
8
11
55
43
40
157
% within Satisfaction
5.1
7.0
35.0
27.4
25.5
100.0
% within Education
26.7
50.0
38.7
50.0
71.4
46.7
Can't say
Count
8
4
21
13
10
56
% within Satisfaction
14.3
7.1
37.5
23.2
17.9
100.0
% within Education
26.7
18.2
14.8
15.1
17.9
16.7
Satisfied
Count
14
7
66
30
6
123
% within Satisfaction
11.4
5.7
53.7
24.4
4.9
100.0
% within Education
46.7
31.8
46.5
34.9
10.7
36.6
Total
Count
30
22
142
86
56
336
% within Satisfaction
8.9
6.5
42.3
25.6
16.7
100.0
% within Education
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Al-Asmi, K. & Thumiki, V.R.R. (2014). Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education:
an empirical study in Muscat. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1).
http://lthe.zu.ac.ae
19
Appendix E
Reliability of five factors that influence student satisfaction with the advising system
Reliability
Cronbach’s Alpha
No. of variables
Overall reliability
0.881
26
Reliability of factor 1
0.901
8
Reliability of factor 2
0.922
6
Reliability of factor 3
0.868
5
Reliability of factor 4
0.860
4
Reliability of factor 5
0.867
3
Appendix F
Factor description and variance explained
Factor
Description
Variance
explained
1. Feel Good factor
Good feeling and comfort level of the students in the
whole advising process
27.35%
2. Support Factor
Supportive scenario in the college regarding advising
16.32%
3. Critical Situation Factor
Advising rendered during critical situations such as
wrong & late registration
11.84%
4. IT Factor
Role of Internet and ICT
9.28%
5. Accessibility Factor
Availability of required personnel and degree of
complexity of the advising system
5.24%
Total variance
70.03%

Al-Asmi, K. & Thumiki, V.R.R. (2014). Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education:
an empirical study in Muscat. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1).
http://lthe.zu.ac.ae
20
Appendix G
Questionnaire
1. Name: (optional)___________________________________________________
2. Gender: ☐ Female ☐ Male
3. Level:
☐ Foundation ☐ Freshman ☐ Sophomore ☐ Associate ☐ Bachelors
4. Are you satisfied with the existing advising system:
☐ Dissatisfied ☐ Can’t say ☐ Satisfied
Please provide your response for the statements presented below. Kindly follow the scale in giving
your response.
1
Strongly Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neutral
4
Agree
5
Strongly Agree
No.
Description
1
2
3
4
5
1
My advisor is always available for me regarding advising. He/she is personal and
approachable to me.
1
2
3
4
5
2
The advising website is reasonably speedy in navigation.
1
2
3
4
5
3
My advisor is helpful and supportive.
1
2
3
4
5
4
Support staff like employees of registration department and IT staff have the
attitude to help the students regarding advising.
1
2
3
4
5
5
The advising website is attractive.
1
2
3
4
5
6
My advisor is friendly and sociable
1
2
3
4
5
7
I have received training/orientation on advising.
1
2
3
4
5
8
Support staff extend their help and all kinds of support regarding advising.
1
2
3
4
5
9
My advisor knows about the program and courses that I am studying.
1
2
3
4
5
10
In case of relatively new courses/program, college extends more help in advising.
1
2
3
4
5
11
My advisor has the attitude to help.
1
2
3
4
5
12
Support staff like registration department and IT staff are available whenever
needed.
1
2
3
4
5
13
My advisor extends his help and support during trouble times in advising.
1
2
3
4
5
14
I am assigned to an able advisor (ability of the advisor in advising-student’s
understanding)
1
2
3
4
5
15
The advising system website guides me while I am navigating.
1
2
3
4
5
16
My advisor has an overall knowledge of the advising system and proper advising
1
2
3
4
5

Al-Asmi, K. & Thumiki, V.R.R. (2014). Student satisfaction with advising systems in higher education:
an empirical study in Muscat. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 11(1).
http://lthe.zu.ac.ae
21
(advisor’s overall knowledge-student’s understanding).
17
My advisor will have a clear understanding of my problem whenever it arises.
1
2
3
4
5
18
The advising website is easy to navigate.
1
2
3
4
5
19
Support staff like registration & staff of computer lab are friendly.
1
2
3
4
5
20
My advisor extends more help in advising in case of relatively new courses.
1
2
3
4
5
21
I am assigned to only one advisor and my advisors are not frequently changed.
1
2
3
4
5
22
My advisor belongs to my/same department.
1
2
3
4
5
23
The overall advising system is not complicated and easily understandable.
1
2
3
4
5
24
My advisor’s advising style is very comfortable (it is not complicated and matches
with my level of understanding.)
1
2
3
4
5
25
Duration of my advising sessions is reasonable that I get proper advising.
1
2
3
4
5
26
Problems related to my registration or other advising related problems are solved
quickly and not much time is consumed in solving my problems.
1
2
3
4
5