Global Journal of Management and Business Research, B: Economics and Commerce, Volume 22 Issue 4

university (Palacio, Meneses & Perez, 2002). In contrary, Carey, Cambiano, and De Vore (2002), believed that satisfaction actually covers issues of students’ perception and experiences during the college years. Meanwhile, the term student residential satisfaction (SRS) refers to the student’s appraisal of the conditions of their residential environment, in relation to their needs, expectations, and achievements (Amérigo, 1990; Amérigo & Aragonés, 1997; Anderson & Weidemann, 1997; Weidemann & Anderson, 1985). It focuses on the perspective of students as customer. Even though it is risky to view students as customer, but given the current atmosphere of higher education marketplace, there is a new moral prerogative that student have become “customer” and therefore can, as fee payers, reasonably demand that their views be heard and acted upon (William, 2002). Researchers argued that SRS must be assessed based on the actual student experience during the residency period on campus student housing (Hassanain, 2008; Amole, 2009a; Riley et al., 2010). Amole (2005) has defined satisfaction with SHFs as a pleasant feeling when the students’ housing needs have been fulfilled especially with the existence of superiority physical features. Amole (2005) also affirmed that satisfaction with SHFs is students’ impression when their privacy needed in a room has been met. Another meaning of satisfaction with SHFs is a good response from the students towards their house environments which promotes positive socialization process, encourages study mood, and has adequate. i. Models to measure student’s residential satisfaction (SRS) A synthesis of 20 studies from 1997 to 2012 gave rise to the model that student living satisfaction is a multidimensional concept that has six (6) dimensions under two (2) subcategories which are: 1) physical attributes comprising of students’ living condition, community facilities and services, and neighborhood physical surroundings; 2) social, financial, management attributes including students’ social activities, cost of living, and students’ preference (Muslim, Karim, & Abdullah, 2012). Students’ living condition consists of type of accommodation, location/proximity, architectural aspects, internal dwelling facilities and features, usability and arrangement of space, size and physical condition of dwelling, dwelling densities, storage and furniture, and maintenance. Community facilities and services indicates accessibility to campus, city center, health services, shopping and municipal services, availability and maintenance of social, recreational, and educational services, ‘Institutionality Facilities’ in student housing, and availability of public/neighborhood facilities. Neighborhood physical surroundings are about personalization and identity, privacy, security, safety, and health. Students’ social activities describe housemate/roommate social interaction, neighborhood interaction, students’ leisure activities, acceptance of student by local resident, and students’ participation on neighborhood activities. Cost of living means financial status, financial behavior, and living expenses. Finally, students’ preference consists of source of information and advice in choosing accommodation, time taken to search for accommodation, length of lease/contract, understanding about preference for private house, building social network and developing friendship, freedom to choose where to live, preferred accommodation features, getting connected and staying safe; and living together ‘in real home’. Consequently, for this research, the model proposed by Muslim, Karim, and Abdullah (2012) was applied in order to determine the SRS as a result of the student experience living in the SHF. Institutions that want to provide students with quality programs and services must be concerned with each aspect of the experience of the students on campus. In other words, the quality of education is not only limited to lectures and notes received in the classroom or advice and guidance given by lecturers during the consultation hours, but also includes the experience of students interacting with the various non- academic staff and components of the university, as well as the physical infrastructure provided by the university. Developing an understanding of SRS is necessary in determining the effect of living environment to students. Further, it will help to determine the extent to which satisfaction with the living environment affects student development. With the various foreign literatures cited regarding student housing and residence life, university of Ibadan with a SHF needs to explore on the SRS index and impact of the SHF in the student life as well as its contribution to the overall education and formation of their graduates. Currently, there are limited local studies focusing on the quality of living environments among Nigeria universities and colleges. This study will be able to provide information on this area of research in order to contribute to the improvement of the current living environments provided to the university students. III. L iterature R eview a) Introduction This chapter discusses the literature related to the relationship between students housing and their academic performance in educational institutions. It will particularly focus on how this affects student’s achievement. This chapter is composed of different sections such as theoretical review, empirical review, methodological review and, finally, the conceptual framework. The Effects of Students' Housing on Academic Performance at the University of Ibadan in Nigeria 60 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXII Issue IV Version I Year 2022 ( ) B © 2022 Global Journals