Volume 15, Issue 55 (5-2026)
Haft Hesar J Environ Stud 2026, 15(55): 5-14 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Aslani P, Zandi K. Identification, Prioritization, and Evaluation of Educational Activities Quality Components from Students’ Perspective
(A Study of Architecture and Urban Planning Engineering Departments at the University of Kurdistan). Haft Hesar J Environ Stud 2026; 15 (55) :5-14
URL: http://hafthesar.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-2358-en.html
URL: http://hafthesar.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-2358-en.html
Abstract: (15 Views)
Extended abstract
Introduction: In recent decades, the quality of teaching and learning has emerged as a strategic issue in
higher education systems worldwide, and improving the quality of university education has become a
central focus of many discussions in higher education management across countries. The primary
objective of this study was to evaluate students’ satisfaction with the quality of educational activities in
the Department of Architecture and Urban Planning at the University of Kurdistan. To achieve this
objective, it was first necessary to validate and assign weights to the components representing the
quality of educational activities and then to measure students’ satisfaction with the status of these
components.
Methodology: The study was applied in terms of purpose and employed a descriptive-survey research
method. Using a stratified random sampling technique, a sample of 244 students was selected and
studied. The data collection instrument was a questionnaire on satisfaction with the quality of
educational activities consisting of 24 items and six components: instructor characteristics, content,
teaching methods, assessment of academic achievement, educational facilities, and course organization.
The face validity of the questionnaire was confirmed based on experts’ opinions, and its reliability was
verified using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. In another part of the study, the components representing
the quality of educational activities were prioritized using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The
data collection instrument in this section was a pairwise comparison matrix questionnaire administered
to 30 experts. The validity of these comparisons was confirmed through the calculation of the
inconsistency ratio. Data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis, the Analytic Hierarchy
Process technique, a one-sample t-test, and an independent-samples t-test.
Results: The findings confirmed the construct validity of the questionnaire on satisfaction with the
quality of educational activities comprising six components. The most important components
representing the quality of educational activities, in descending order of importance, were content,
instructor characteristics, assessment methods, facilities, teaching methods, and course organization.
Students’ satisfaction with the quality of educational activities overall, as well as with the four
components of instructor characteristics, facilities, teaching methods, and course organization, was
above average, whereas satisfaction with content quality and assessment methods was reported to be at
an average level. Finally, no significant difference was observed between the quality of educational
activities in the Architecture and Urban Planning groups.
Conclusion: The findings of this study highlight the importance of the quality of curriculum content and
the enhancement of instructors’ competencies in increasing students’ satisfaction
Introduction: In recent decades, the quality of teaching and learning has emerged as a strategic issue in
higher education systems worldwide, and improving the quality of university education has become a
central focus of many discussions in higher education management across countries. The primary
objective of this study was to evaluate students’ satisfaction with the quality of educational activities in
the Department of Architecture and Urban Planning at the University of Kurdistan. To achieve this
objective, it was first necessary to validate and assign weights to the components representing the
quality of educational activities and then to measure students’ satisfaction with the status of these
components.
Methodology: The study was applied in terms of purpose and employed a descriptive-survey research
method. Using a stratified random sampling technique, a sample of 244 students was selected and
studied. The data collection instrument was a questionnaire on satisfaction with the quality of
educational activities consisting of 24 items and six components: instructor characteristics, content,
teaching methods, assessment of academic achievement, educational facilities, and course organization.
The face validity of the questionnaire was confirmed based on experts’ opinions, and its reliability was
verified using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. In another part of the study, the components representing
the quality of educational activities were prioritized using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The
data collection instrument in this section was a pairwise comparison matrix questionnaire administered
to 30 experts. The validity of these comparisons was confirmed through the calculation of the
inconsistency ratio. Data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis, the Analytic Hierarchy
Process technique, a one-sample t-test, and an independent-samples t-test.
Results: The findings confirmed the construct validity of the questionnaire on satisfaction with the
quality of educational activities comprising six components. The most important components
representing the quality of educational activities, in descending order of importance, were content,
instructor characteristics, assessment methods, facilities, teaching methods, and course organization.
Students’ satisfaction with the quality of educational activities overall, as well as with the four
components of instructor characteristics, facilities, teaching methods, and course organization, was
above average, whereas satisfaction with content quality and assessment methods was reported to be at
an average level. Finally, no significant difference was observed between the quality of educational
activities in the Architecture and Urban Planning groups.
Conclusion: The findings of this study highlight the importance of the quality of curriculum content and
the enhancement of instructors’ competencies in increasing students’ satisfaction
Keywords: Quality of Educational Activities, Students, Content, Instructor Characteristics, Architecture and Urban Planning Departments
Type of Study: Research |
Received: 2024/12/29 | Revised: 2026/06/4 | Accepted: 2025/05/2 | Published: 2026/06/4 | ePublished: 2026/06/4
Received: 2024/12/29 | Revised: 2026/06/4 | Accepted: 2025/05/2 | Published: 2026/06/4 | ePublished: 2026/06/4
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
