University Students’ Satisfaction with the Educational Environment and Services: An Analytical SERVQUAL-Based Study Across Faculties at a Private Egyptian University (New Giza University)

Main Article Content

Ahmed Sameh Farid
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8388-185X
Prof. Lamis Ragab
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0986-5567
Dawlat Salem
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9052-4893

Abstract

Background and Aims: Student satisfaction has become a critical indicator of educational quality, institutional effectiveness, and competitiveness in higher education. In private universities, where students and their families make substantial financial investments, expectations extend beyond academic excellence to include high-quality administrative services, learning resources, and a supportive campus environment. Despite the growing emphasis on service quality in higher education, limited research has examined variations in student satisfaction across faculties within the same institution, particularly in the context of private universities in Egypt. This study aimed to evaluate undergraduate students’ satisfaction with academic and non-academic service quality dimensions, examine differences in satisfaction levels across faculties, and identify areas for institutional improvement using a SERVQUAL-based framework.


Methodology: A quantitative descriptive-analytical design was employed. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire administered to 579 undergraduate students representing eight faculties at a private Egyptian university (New Giza University). The instrument measured seven service quality dimensions, including registration and student support, administrative services, student life activities, campus environment, learning resources, program content, and teaching staff performance. Descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, and one-way ANOVA with post-hoc comparisons were conducted using SPSS version 26.


Results: The findings revealed generally high levels of student satisfaction with teaching staff performance, administrative services, program content, and campus safety. In contrast, student life activities, food services, and certain learning facilities received comparatively lower ratings. Significant differences in satisfaction were observed across faculties in all service quality dimensions (p < .05), particularly regarding student engagement, learning resources, and specialized learning spaces. Teaching staff performance emerged as the highest-rated dimension, while student life activities recorded the lowest satisfaction scores.


Conclusion: Student satisfaction is a multidimensional construct influenced by both academic and non-academic dimensions of service quality. While the university demonstrated strong performance in core academic areas, improvements in student engagement initiatives, learning resources, and campus support services are needed to enhance the overall student experience. The findings provide evidence-based insights for quality assurance, strategic planning, and continuous improvement in private higher education institutions.

Article Details

How to Cite
Farid, A. S., Ragab, L. ., & Salem, D. . (2026). University Students’ Satisfaction with the Educational Environment and Services: An Analytical SERVQUAL-Based Study Across Faculties at a Private Egyptian University (New Giza University). Journal of Education and Learning Reviews, 3(4), e3419. https://doi.org/10.60027/jelr.2026.e3419
Section
Articles
Author Biographies

Ahmed Sameh Farid, New Giza University, Egypt

President of New Giza University, Egypt.

Prof. Lamis Ragab, New Giza University, Egypt

Vice President of New Giza University, Egypt.

References

Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(2), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080022000013518

El-Tantawi, H., Mobarak, A., & Elsotouhy, M. (2024). Neural network and student satisfaction in Egyptian universities. Egyptian Journal of Business Studies, 48(4), 1434–1469. https://doi.org/10.21608/alat.2024.448444

Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505

Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0099

Mainardes, E. W., Rosa, C. A., & Nossa, V. (2020). Determinants of student satisfaction and loyalty in higher education: A systematic review. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 30(1), 120–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2019.1672035

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). Education at a glance 2023: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en

Roushdy, A. S., & El-Ansary, O. (2017). Measuring students’ perception of E-SERVQUAL in Egyptian universities. Scientific Journal of Economics and Commerce, 47(2), 583–614. https://doi.org/10.21608/jsec.2017.40514

Saleh, A. A., Sobh, M. M., & Mostafa, T. A. (2024). The influence of e-learning transition on student satisfaction in Egyptian universities. Journal of Environmental Science, 53(6), 1551–1577. https://doi.org/10.21608/jes.2024.271971.1742

Santini, F. O., Ladeira, W. J., Sampaio, C. H., & Costa, G. S. (2017). Student satisfaction in higher education: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Management, 31(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-03-2016-0050

Shah, M. (2021). Quality in higher education: Contemporary issues and challenges. Routledge.

Teeroovengadum, V., Kamalanabhan, T. J., & Seebaluck, A. K. (2019). Service quality, student satisfaction, and loyalty in higher education: A higher education service quality model (HESQUAL). Quality Assurance in Education, 27(4), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-01-2019-0003

Wilkins, S., Balakrishnan, M. S., & Huisman, J. (2016). Student satisfaction and student loyalty at international branch campuses. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(5), 413–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315316663510