© 2022 by the author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license. Citation: Yap, J. B. H., Hew, Q. L. T., and Skitmore, M. 2022. Student Learning Experiences in Higher Education: Investigating a Quantity Surveying Programme in Malaysia. Construction Economics and Building, 22:1, 1–20. https:// doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB. v22i1.7835 ISSN 2204-9029 | Published by UTS ePRESS | https://epress. lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index. php/AJCEB Construction Economics and Building Vol. 22, No. 1 March 2022 RESEARCH ARTICLE Student Learning Experiences in Higher Education: Investigating a Quantity Surveying Programme in Malaysia Jeffrey Boon Hui Yap1,*, Queennie Lip Tin Hew2, Martin Skitmore3 1 Associate Professor, Department of Surveying, Lee Kong Chian Faculty of Engineering and Science, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR), Kajang, Malaysia, bhyap@utar.edu.my (corresponding author) ORCID: 0000-0003-4332-0031 2 Graduate, Department of Surveying, Lee Kong Chian Faculty of Engineering and Science, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR), Kajang, Malaysia, queennie117@hotmail.com 3 University Professorial Fellow, Faculty of Society and Design, Bond University, Robina QLD 4226, Australia, mskitmor@bond.edu.au ORCID: 0000-0001-7135-1201 Corresponding author: Jeffrey Boon Hui Yap, Department of Surveying, Lee Kong Chian Faculty of Engineering and Science, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR), Kajang, Malaysia, bhyap@utar.edu.my, ORCID: 0000-0003-4332-0031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v22i1.7835 Article History: Received: 25/07/2021; Revised: 14/01/2022; Accepted: 04/02/2022; Published: 21/03/2022 Abstract Higher education institutions (HEIs) play a crucial role in fostering quality education. This paper examines the attributes that influence student learning experiences in a quantity surveying (QS) programme in a Malaysian private HEI and uncovers the underlying factors involved. The significance of these attributes as recognised by the students, obtained through a questionnaire survey, are subsequently presented. The findings reveal that the five most important attributes are closely related to the lecturer, namely the lecturer’s preparedness, responsiveness, interpersonal and communication skills, clarity and academic experiences. An exploratory factor analysis identifies the five major underlying factors to be the quality of academic learning to relate to professionalism and competency of lecturers, quality of academic services and support facilities, interpersonal connections and external considerations, curriculum structure and physical environment and facilities. Understanding these factors could help HEIs to devise effective strategies to enhance the quality of service and programme in higher education, which can result in a greater 1 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING INTEREST The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. FUNDING The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v22i1.7835 https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v22i1.7835 https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v22i1.7835 https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/AJCEB https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/AJCEB https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/AJCEB mailto:bhyap@utar.edu.my mailto:queennie117@hotmail.com mailto:mskitmor@bond.edu.au mailto:bhyap@utar.edu.my https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v22i1.7835 impact on the effectiveness of contemporary QS education and the reputation of the HEI as well as fostering student satisfaction and loyalty. Keywords Quantity Surveying; Student Perspectives; Student Experience; Higher Education Introduction Construction remains a key industry in countries across the world and is one of the largest in the world economy, with the demand for construction professionals expected to stay strong. Quantity surveyors (QSs) are involved in providing financial and contractual management for construction projects at the pre-construction, construction and post-construction phases. The QS profession in most commonwealth countries is practised in a similar pattern to the United Kingdom (UK) (Dada and Jagboro, 2012). In Malaysia alone, the rising demand for professional quantity surveyors has spurred both public and private institutions of higher education to offer QS programmes. QS programmes are offered to students in HEIs to produce competent and professionally trained graduates who can confront challenges on all aspects of the construction process and project life cycle. According to RICS’s Pathway Guide: Quantity Surveying and Construction that was published in 2018, the competencies of a qualified chartered surveyor consist of three distinct categories: mandatory, technical core and technical optional. Against this background, QSs develop a third (34%) of their overall competence through educational training, 45% with professional capability and another 21% through professional development (Dada and Jagboro, 2018). Paradoxically, the competencies of graduate QSs working in developing countries are not to the expected standard (Yogeshwaran, Perera and Ariyachandra, 2018). Given the rapid changes in construction project complexities, the range of QS studies has been diversified into an ever-widening scope of service beyond traditional boundaries. The role of a QS is increasingly concerned with data management (e.g., numerical and data analysis skills) rather than data capture (e.g., the process of gathering data). In recent times, a graduate QS is required to cope with the application of advanced construction technology, materials innovation, management approaches, clients’ expectations and new market requirements within the construction industry (Dada and Jagboro, 2012; Ekundayo, 2020). Some graduates may choose to move into such other construction roles as project management, construction management or cost consultancy. To meet these challenges and enhance QS undergraduates’ professionalism with relevant skills and competencies, HEIs play a vital role in providing satisfactory learning experiences for undergraduates in QS programmes. A study conducted in India reported a significant relationship between education service qualities and undergraduate experiences at HEIs (Chandra, et al., 2018). In today’s competitive learning environment, undergraduate experiences have a strong impact on success in the development of the educational process. This can be explained by educational institutions seeking to obtain prospective benefits in the competitive market that may need to maximise the student level of experiences by providing a high quality of services (Chandra, et al., 2018). Quality in higher education can be conceptualised as purposeful, exceptional, transformative and accountable, with the indicators relating to administrative, student support, instructional and student performance (Schindler, et al., 2015). The focus includes governance and regulation, curriculum design, administration, learning experience and qualification (Harvey and Askling, 2003). Effective teaching and learning in higher education is essential to help students develop the mental capacity to acquire knowledge, skills and competencies. In today’s globally competitive environment, an HEI plays an important role in delivering the continuous improvement of educational services and programmes to students to equip them with adequate skills, competencies, attitudes and necessary values for further career development (Olmos-Gómez, et al., 2020). Hence, to enhance the quality of an HEI, collecting adequate feedback from students’ evaluations can Yap, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 1 March 20222 be considered one of the most effective management tools for understanding the students’ views of their academic programme. As the students’ assessment reflects their educational experience and fulfilment of expectations, the feedback obtained can be used to make appropriate adjustments to the programme. To this end, higher education organisations can develop strategies to cope with identified complications and make continuous quality improvements. The aim of this study is threefold. First, to identify (via a meta-analysis of the literature) the most important attributes influencing quality and learning experiences in HEI, particularly in contemporary QS education. Second, to appraise the significance of these attributes through a survey of QS students from a well-established private HEI in Malaysia. Third, to uncover the underlying factors of student experiences of their programme of learning. This study seeks to contribute to the body of knowledge of the importance of the quality of service and programmes in higher education, which can have a great impact on the effectiveness of academic programmes and services, and the reputation of the HEI, as well as fostering student satisfaction and loyalty. Attributes influencing student experiences in higher education Student experiences refer to student satisfaction with the educational services and programmes offered by HEIs. In this vein, satisfaction means a mental state of enjoyment when a person’s perceived outcome fulfils her/his expectations (Weerasinghe and Fernando, 2017). Tan, Muskat and Zehrer (2016) conducted a meta- analysis of research relating to the quality of student experiences in higher education to assert the need for student-centred initiatives for improving the quality of higher education for students. Considering that fact, the satisfaction obtained by students in higher education predominantly depends on their perceived performance of the quality of the services provided in HEIs, and such satisfaction changes continually due to the learning environment in university life (Shahsavar and Sudzina, 2017). According to Al-Sheeb, Hamouda and Abdella (2018), there are two components to student satisfaction. The first concerns teaching and learning assessment, while the second emphasises comprehensive student experiences in higher education. As a corollary, student satisfaction is generally accepted as a “short term attitude resulting from an evaluation of student’s educational experience” (Elliott and Healy, 2001, p.2). Pedro, Mendes and Lourenço (2018) however, opine that student experiences reflect the degree of contentment of the educational programme and services provided if their expectations are achieved or exceeded. Students tend to be satisfied when the quality of the service provided is higher than anticipated. On the other hand, students tend to have negative feelings when there is a mismatch between these expectations and their actual experience. In appraising the influence of facilities performance, Abdullahi and Wan Yusoff (2019) found that student satisfaction can be perceived as a reflected contemplation of life experience; it refers to the subjective evaluation of their learning experiences pertaining to educational activities. However, the concept of student experiences is relative as it encompasses a wide range of determinants that influence their overall satisfaction level associated with the educational programme offered (Yusoff, McLeay and Woodruff-Burton, 2015). Table 1 summarises the 20 most highly cited attributes in previous research that can influence students’ learning experiences in HEIs. These attributes are well known and for the purposes of brevity are grouped under four generic factors, viz. course, personal, lecturer and institution. Research methodology A quantitative positivist approach is used to enable objective reality to be captured and interpreted using statistical analyses (Hair, et al., 2019). The study is explanatory while bivariate and multivariate statistical techniques are utilised to estimate the relationships involved. The data collection instrument is a structured Yap, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 1 March 20223 Table 1. Identification of attributes and sources Ref Attributes Previous studies (B u tt a n d R e h m a n , 2 01 0) (L e tc h e r a n d N ev e s, 2 01 0) (A m o s a n d H a ss a n , 2 01 7) (Y u so ff , M cL e a y a n d W o o d ru ff -B u rt o n . 2 01 5) (C h a n d ra , e t a l. , 2 01 8) (P e sc a ru , 2 01 7) (B a la k ri sh n a n a n d L o w , 2 01 6) (S p o o re n , M o rt e lm a n s a n d C h ri st ia e n s, 2 01 4) (P e d ro , M e n d e s a n d L o u re n ço , 2 01 8) (G h a za l, A l- S a m a rr a ie a n d A ld o w a h , 2 01 8) (J e re b , J e re b ic a n d U rh , 2 01 8) (A ra m b e w e la a n d H a ll 2 01 3) (V e la e t a l. 2 01 6) (M a rt ir o sy a n e t a l. 2 01 4) (T si n id o u , G e ro g ia n n is a n d F it si li s, 2 01 0) (A sh ra f, O sm a n a n d R a ta n , 2 01 6) (F a jč ík ov á a n d U rb a n co vá , 2 01 9) (C lo ss , M a h a t a n d I m m s, 2 02 1) A Course factor A1 Course content √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ A2 Programme flexibility √ √ √ √ √ √ √ A3 Activities and workshop availability √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ A4 Quality of study material √ √ √ √ √ A5 Counselling services √ √ √ √ √ √ √ B Personal factor B1 Peer relationships √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ B2 Living arrangements √ √ √ B3 Self-evaluations √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ B4 Family encouragement √ √ B5 Financial considerations √ √ √ √ √ √ √ C Lecturer factor C1 Lecturer’s academic experiences √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ C2 Lecturer’s clarity √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ C3 Lecturer’s interpersonal and communication skills √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ C4 Lecturer’s preparedness √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ C5 Lecturer’s responsiveness √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ D Institution factor D1 Classroom environment √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ D2 Computer and lab facilities √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ D3 Recreation facilities √ √ √ √ √ D4 Library services √ √ √ √ √ √ √ D5 Ancillary services √ √ √ Yap, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 1 March 20224 questionnaire, which is economical and practical for a large sample (Hair, et al., 2019). Both descriptive and inferential statistical tools are used for the analysis using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 23), which include both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses. Factor analysis is used to uncover the underlying factors that influence the academic experiences of QS students. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY Based on the literature review, a questionnaire was designed and distributed to undergraduates of a prominent private HEI in Malaysia. The survey questionnaire contains two sections. Section A solicits the respondent’s level of study (Year 1 to Year 4), and Section B solicits the perceived importance of the attributes influencing student experiences of the programme on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important). ACADEMIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS A total of 125 students were approached, out of whom 123 completed the questionnaire, giving a good response rate of 98.4% − a typical response rate for a face-to-face survey of this kind. The academic profile of the respondents consisted of (30 Year 1, 30 Year 2, 32 Year 3 and 31 Year 4), showing an equal spread over the four levels (Years 1 to 4). Results ANALYSIS AND RANKING OF PERCEIVED ATTRIBUTES Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is 0.883 for the 20 attributes evaluated, which is greater than the 0.7 needed for internal consistency reliability (Hair, et al., 2019). Table 2 presents the ranking, mean scores and standard deviation of the importance ratings for each attribute according to the category of attributes. Overall, the mean scores range from 3.309 to 4.374 with the five most significant attributes being lecturer’s preparedness (4.374), lecturer’s responsiveness (4.366), lecturer’s interpersonal and communication skills (4.358), lecturer’s clarity (4.309) and lecturer’s academic experiences (4.293). Intriguingly, all five leading attributes are associated with the lecturer. On the other hand, the three least influential attributes are counselling services (3.309), ancillary services (3.309) and recreation services (3.480). From the Year 1 student perspective, course- and personal-related attributes are ranked the lowest while Year 4 students perceived these to be more important than institutional-related attributes. With regard to the association between ranks, Spearman’s rank-order correlation tests reveal strong statistically significant correlations between the four groups of students. The highest is Group 5: Year 3-Year 4 (rs = 0.855, p < 0.01), while the lowest is Group 1: Year 1-Year 2 (rs = 0.778, p < 0.01). The Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test reveals that the perceptions of respondents concerning ‘course content’, ‘activities and workshop availability’ and ‘peer relationship’ have statistically significant differences between the four respondent types (Table 2). To identify the differences between two independent groups, Mann- Whitney U tests are further employed, and the results are presented in Table 3. Notably, Group 3: Year 1-Year 4 contributes to the statistical differences in the opinions for all three attributes. FACTOR ANALYSIS Factor analysis is a multivariate technique widely used for data reduction and summarisation purposes involving a large number of significantly correlated variables to enable appropriate interpretation (Field, 2013; Hair, et al., 2019). In this study, this technique is useful for investigating the clustering effects of the variables so that they can be grouped together. The KMO for the 20 variables is 0.810, which is above Yap, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 1 March 20225 Ta bl e 2. R an ki ng o f a tt ri bu te s R e f A tt ri b u te s O ve ra ll (N =1 23 ) Ye a r 1 st u d e n t (n =3 0) Ye a r 2 st u d e n t (n =3 0) Ye a r 3 st u d e n t (n =3 2) Ye a r 4 st u d e n t (n =3 1) K ru sk a l- W a ll is H A sy m p to ti c si g n if ic a n ce M e a n S D R a n k M e a n S D R a n k M e a n S D R a n k M e a n S D R a n k M e a n S D R a n k A C ou rs e- re la te d A 4 Q u a li ty o f st u d y m a te ri a l 4. 08 1 0. 81 6 6 4. 00 0 0. 83 0 8 3. 93 3 0. 74 0 8 4. 00 0 0. 84 2 8 4. 38 7 0. 80 3 5 7. 50 4 0. 05 7 A 1 C o u rs e c o n te n t 4. 07 3 0. 79 1 7 3. 76 7 0. 93 5 9 3. 83 3 0. 74 7 10 4. 21 9 0. 65 9 5 4. 45 2 0. 65 9 3 15 .3 72 0. 00 2* * A 2 P ro g ra m m e f le xi b il it y 3. 62 6 0. 74 0 16 3. 46 7 0. 73 0 16 3. 50 0 0. 77 7 18 3. 62 5 0. 70 7 15 3. 90 3 0. 70 0 15 6. 06 2 0. 10 9 A 3 A ct iv it ie s a n d w o rk sh o p a va il a b il it y 3. 57 7 0. 86 8 17 3. 40 0 0. 81 4 18 3. 60 0 0. 77 0 16 3. 37 5 0. 90 7 18 3. 93 6 0. 89 2 14 8. 01 0 0. 04 6* A 5 C o u n se ll in g s e rv ic e s 3. 30 9 0. 92 4 19 3. 20 0 0. 92 5 20 3. 26 7 0. 94 4 20 3. 34 4 1. 03 5 20 3. 41 9 0. 80 7 20 1. 20 8 0. 75 1 B P er so na l- re la te d B 3 S e lf -e va lu a ti o n s 3. 91 1 0. 76 8 9 3. 70 0 0. 83 7 11 3. 90 0 0. 71 2 9 4. 00 0 0. 80 3 7 4. 03 2 0. 70 6 12 2. 31 9 0. 50 9 B 5 F in a n ci a l co n si d e ra ti o n s 3. 91 1 0. 92 3 10 3. 53 3 1. 07 4 14 4. 10 0 0. 84 5 6 3. 84 4 0. 92 0 10 4. 16 1 0. 73 5 9 7. 40 6 0. 06 0 B 1 P e e r re la ti o n sh ip s 3. 84 6 0. 80 0 12 3. 66 7 0. 92 2 12 3. 66 7 0. 75 8 14 3. 75 0 0. 71 8 12 4. 29 0 0. 64 3 8 13 .4 29 0. 00 4* * B 4 F a m il y e n co u ra g e m e n t 3. 76 4 0. 98 4 14 3. 50 0 1. 10 6 15 3. 96 7 0. 85 0 7 3. 68 8 0. 99 8 14 3. 90 3 0. 94 4 16 3. 39 0 0. 33 5 B 2 L iv in g a rr a n g e m e n ts 3. 66 7 0. 82 6 15 3. 43 3 0. 81 7 17 3. 76 7 0. 81 7 12 3. 78 1 0. 70 6 11 3. 67 7 0. 94 5 17 4. 03 0 0. 25 8 C L ec tu re r- re la te d C 4 L e ct u re r’ s p re p a re d n e ss 4. 37 4 0. 74 0 1 4. 36 7 0. 76 5 1 4. 23 3 0. 85 8 3 4. 50 0 0. 67 2 1 4. 38 7 0. 66 7 4 1. 57 7 0. 66 5 C 5 L e ct u re r’ s re sp o n si ve n e ss 4. 36 6 0. 73 9 2 4. 26 7 0. 82 8 4 4. 20 0 0. 76 1 4 4. 46 9 0. 62 1 3 4. 51 6 0. 72 4 1 4. 17 3 0. 24 3 C 3 L e ct u re r’ s in te rp e rs o n a l a n d co m m u n ic a ti o n s k il ls 4. 35 8 0. 82 1 3 4. 33 3 0. 84 4 2 4. 20 0 0. 92 5 5 4. 50 0 0. 71 8 2 4. 38 7 0. 80 3 5 1. 84 6 0. 60 5 C 2 L e ct u re r’ s cl a ri ty 4. 30 9 0. 80 1 4 4. 30 0 0. 70 2 3 4. 26 7 0. 82 8 1 4. 18 8 0. 96 5 6 4. 48 3 0. 67 7 2 1. 68 9 0. 63 9 C 1 L e ct u re r’ s a ca d e m ic ex p e ri e n ce s 4. 29 3 0. 81 7 5 4. 26 7 0. 82 8 4 4. 23 3 0. 77 4 2 4. 28 2 0. 88 8 4 4. 38 7 0. 80 3 5 0. 93 9 0. 81 6 D In st it ut io n- re la te d D 2 C o m p u te r a n d l a b f a ci li ti e s 3. 76 4 0. 98 4 8 4. 16 7 0. 69 9 6 3. 83 3 0. 83 4 11 3. 93 8 0. 75 9 9 4. 09 7 0. 87 0 11 3. 06 1 0. 38 2 D 1 C la ss ro o m e n vi ro n m e n t 3. 87 0 0. 87 7 11 4. 13 3 0. 86 0 7 3. 70 0 0. 91 5 13 3. 62 5 0. 90 7 17 4. 03 2 0. 75 2 13 6. 82 3 0. 07 8 D 4 L ib ra ry s e rv ic e s 3. 82 1 0. 94 1 13 3. 73 3 0. 98 0 10 3. 66 7 0. 92 2 15 3. 75 0 0. 91 6 13 4. 12 9 0. 92 2 10 4. 96 1 0. 17 5 D 3 R e cr e a ti o n s e rv ic e s 3. 48 0 0. 89 0 18 3. 56 7 0. 93 5 13 3. 53 3 0. 89 6 17 3. 34 4 0. 90 2 19 3. 48 4 0. 85 1 19 1. 01 3 0. 79 8 D 5 A n ci ll a ry s e rv ic e s 3. 30 9 0. 92 4 19 3. 40 0 1. 22 1 19 3. 36 7 0. 92 8 19 3. 62 5 0. 70 7 15 3. 58 1 1. 02 5 18 1. 72 7 0. 63 1 N ot e: * *. T he m ea n di ff er en ce is s ig ni fi ca nt a t th e 0. 01 le ve l *. T he m ea n di ff er en ce is s ig ni fi ca nt a t th e 0. 05 le ve l the 0.50 threshold for sample adequacy (Field, 2013; Hair, et al., 2019). The result of the Bartlett’s test of sphericity is 1175.3 (p < 0.001), indicating the presence of correlations among the attributes and that the correlation matrix is not an identical matrix (Field, 2013; Hair, et al., 2019). The above tests substantiate the appropriateness of the factor model. Subjecting the 20 attributes to principal component analysis and varimax with Kaiser normalisation yields a five-factor solution with eigenvalues greater than 1, explaining 66.68% of the total variance – exceeding the 60% required for adequate construct validity (Hair, et al., 2019). All 20 attributes obtain factor loadings above the threshold level of 0.50 and are significant in contributing to the interpretation of the principal factors (Hair, et al., 2019). In Table 4, all of the extracted factors have good reliability with Cronbach’s coefficient alpha values of above 0.70. The five factors were named by combining the meanings of these attributes with the highest loadings in the cluster. The factors are ordered based on the variance shared by each factor which indicates their level of significance and their influence on student satisfaction. The five manifested factors are determined (Table 4). The average mean scores of each underlying factor’s attributes are also calculated. Factor 1 attained the highest score of 4.340 while the lowest is Factor 2 with 3.480. An average mean score higher than 3.0 indicates that the factor is regarded as important in the rating scale. Discussion RANKING OF ATTRIBUTES The findings suggest that undergraduates believe that the preparation done by a lecturer is significantly related to their satisfaction level towards the QS programme provided by the HEI. In a Pakistani study, the instructors’ expertise is the most sensitive factor affecting student satisfaction by 39% (Butt and Rehman, 2010). In another study, Siming, Gao and Xu, (2015) collected a sample of 200 students to observe that student learning experiences are enormously influenced by how much the lecturer prepares and assembles before conveying the lecture. Students perceive academic quality to be considerably spoiled with a disorganised lecturer who prepares insufficiently before teaching in the classroom. The lecturer’s preparedness involves the timely assembly of lecture notes and assignment briefs, which are associated Table 3. Mann-Whitney test on attributes Undergraduate level grouping Asymptotic significance (2-tailed) Course content Activities and workshop availability Peer relationship Group 1 Year 1 Year 2 0.680 0.214 0.930 Group 2 Year 1 Year 3 0.036* 0.892 0.807 Group 3 Year 1 Year 4 0.003** 0.021* 0.005** Group 4 Year 2 Year 3 0.026* 0.212 0.720 Group 5 Year 3 Year 4 0.141 0.020* 0.003** Note: As Table 2. Yap, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 1 March 20227 Table 4. Rotated component matrix Attributes Component 1 2 3 4 5 Professionalism and competency of lecturers Lecturer’s preparedness (C4) 0.848 Lecturer’s responsiveness (C5) 0.837 Lecturer’s interpersonal and communication skills (C3) 0.820 Lecturer’s academic experiences (C1) 0.697 Lecturer’s clarity (C2) 0.617 Quality of academic services and support facilities Ancillary services (D5) 0.896 Recreation facilities (D3) 0.772 Library services (D4) 0.764 Counselling services (A5) 0.559 Interpersonal connections and external considerations Family encouragement (B4) 0.727 Living arrangements (B2) 0.688 Financial considerations (B5) 0.656 Self-evaluations (B3) 0.629 Peer relationships (B1) 0.606 Curriculum design and course content Programme flexibility (A2) 0.763 Activities and workshop availability (A3) 0.738 Course content (A1) 0.663 Quality of study materials (A4) 0.540 Physical environment and facilities Classroom environment (D1) 0.863 Computer and lab facilities (D2) 0.746 Cumulative variance explained (%) 17.25 14.45 13.17 12.00 9.81 Cronbach’s α 0.870 0.817 0.752 0.770 0.767 Average mean scores (based on overall) 4.340 3.480 3.820 3.839 3.817 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.810 Bartlett’s test of sphericity (approximate χ2) 1175.308 Degree of freedom (df) 190 Significance (ρ-value) 0.000 Note: Extraction method = principal component analysis; rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization. Rotation converged in 7 iterations. Yap, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 1 March 20228 with the learning outcomes of the particular subject. For instance, lecture notes that are not released before class may trigger a negative influence on student’s interest in a particular subject. Some notes may be outdated and not reflect the latest scientific facts in the field. To enhance learning, lecturers can try to find local problems that the QS students can solve and/or design problem-based tasks that tie to the learning objectives of the course. As Kamardeen (2015) suggests, case studies and real world examples are effective module delivery methods. As Wrenn and Wrenn (2009) highlight, lecturers of professional degree programs need to demonstrate to students the importance of a solid grounding in theory in order to achieve excellence in their professional practice. A variety of teaching styles can be used – quizzes, simulations, games, discussion groups, etc. (Kamardeen, 2015). The lecturer’s prompt response to questions or requests has a crucial effect on student satisfaction (Amos and Hassan, 2017), with students tending to be frustrated whenever the lecturer fails to respond to questions or consistently refuses to be involved in discussions. In this regard, the lecturer’s ability to respond spontaneously to the student is a key determinant in facilitating a positive learning environment. The lecturer’s reluctance to answer students’ questions leads them to perceive that the lecturer is insufficiently qualified to teach, and such behaviour subsequently engenders a negative perception throughout the learning experiences. It is worth noting that classroom discussions provide a stimulating and interactive environment for students to talk and listen to each other’s responses to questions and stimulate small-group interactions (Wrenn and Wrenn, 2009). Although questioning is an integral part of meaningful learning and scientific inquiry, the lecturer holds the key to the classroom climate (Chin and Osborne, 2008). For instance, there is a situation where lecturers choose to ignore student feedback or complaints made, such as merely reading PowerPoint slide words and lecturing with poor handwriting. Such circumstances may cause academic isolation among students, particularly those who lack proficiency and competency in their medium of instruction. In such cases, students failed to understand the lectures, thus affecting the students’ intentions to pursue higher education (Ghazal, Al-Samarraie and Aldowah, 2018; Lim and Vighnarajah, 2018). Previous studies have evaluated the interpersonal and communication skills of a lecturer having the strongest correlation with undergraduates’ learning experiences (Ng, 2018; Tsinidou, Gerogiannis and Fitsilis, 2010). Interpersonal and communication skills may refer to the lecturer’s practice of interacting impartially with students by providing necessary encouragement and support in a timely fashion throughout the learning experiences (Ghazal, Al-Samarraie and Aldowah, 2018). Lecturers who are approachable and amiable, as well as having a positive attitude towards students, are likely to have a huge impact on student performance and satisfaction, as good affiliation with students can stimulate their interest in the course programme and the willingness to continue with HEI (Amos and Hassan, 2017). To increase interaction in the class, lecturers may adopt creative course delivery, such as giving real-life examples relating to course content. Such course discussions help students to avert negative feelings towards the educational programme, thus providing an effective learning experience (Ng, 2018). The ability of lecturers to express themselves clearly has a positive influence on student learning experiences (Ng, 2018). Students assert that greater clarity in lecturing is more significant than expertise in a particular subject matter. To better understand student perceptions of a good lecturer, Martín (2019) administered a questionnaire survey to collect responses from 269 students to emphasise that the lecturer’s presentation is a key attribute in conveying the subject knowledge to students. It has been further argued that mere competence in the subject area is not enough to deliver the lecture, but also involves the way how the lecturer captures the students’ attention in the class. Moreover, the lecturer’s clarity also refers to the various teaching styles demonstrated by the lecturer that may stimulate the students’ enthusiasm towards the course programme throughout the learning process. Effective interactive and innovative teaching techniques adopted by the lecturer when delivering knowledge can change the students’ perceptions of their learning experience. Both synchronous (e.g., in-class Q&A, video conferencing, live-streamed lectures) Yap, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 1 March 20229 and asynchronous (e.g., pre-recorded video content, online discussion boards, collaborative documents in the cloud) learning methods and tools may also be capitalised on to accommodate different learning styles, guide students to specific points of interest and help students to achieve their full potential. Concurrent with the increasing use of information technology and electronic learning (e-learning) approaches, the flipped classroom (FC) pedagogical model with active learning has gained popularity in higher education worldwide. In investigating the effects of flipped classrooms in China, He, et al. (2019) found that this approach improved student performance, increased lecturer-student interaction and generated positive student attitudes towards the experience when compared with lecture-based learning (LBL). In the classic LBL model, the lecturer is regarded as a highly knowledgeable leader (‘sage on the podium’) to communicate solid theoretical knowledge and basic content to the students who are usually viewed as passive recipients by listening to lectures. As such, this passive learning process can lead to boredom and fail to engage current cohorts of students. Contrariwise, FC is a type of blended learning where students are introduced to the learning material before class with classroom time then being used to deepen their understanding through discussion with peers and lecturer-facilitated problem-solving activities (Lage, Platt and Treglia, 2000). For example, practice problems as homework and active group-based problem- solving activities using such real-world examples as current issues affecting the global construction industry are inherently engaging and needed to provide concrete opportunities to apply knowledge and skills learned in the classroom (Kibwami, et al., 2021). Some interesting videos, such as how modern methods of construction (MMC) can be used to reduce construction time and improve site safety can be shared asynchronously to make the content available on-demand and transform students into “active self-explorers of knowledge” with active participation in the learning process. Nonetheless, a recent survey involving 310 QS students of a private HEI in Malaysia found they are generally satisfied with a blended learning environment but the majority are more supportive of face-to-face sessions than the online platform, indicating that they are more inclined towards attending physical classroom sessions with the lecturers (Kamarazaly, et al., 2020). A good lecturer needs to be an expert in certain subject knowledge and skills to be delivered to students during lecturing (Martirosyan, 2015; Yusoff, McLeay and Woodruff-Burton, 2015). In this vein, the lecturer’s expertise in the subject matter has a positive influence on the students’ perception of their learning experience. Students expect a lecturer to be a subject matter expert and knowledgeable enough to enhance their learning effectiveness, thus leading to a higher satisfaction with their learning experiences. To stay relevant, lecturers have to be keeping up to date with theory and practice in the field. Collaborative action research with industry partners can be leveraged for continual learning and progressive problem- solving. Lecturers need to continually learn new skills and familiarise themselves with the diversification of professional QS roles and the changing business environment (Chandramohan, Perera and Dewagoda, 2020; Yap, et al., 2021). The heterogeneous opinions between Year 1 and Year 4 students (Group 3 in Table 3) towards the ‘course content’ attribute when assessing their learning experience is probably due to the lack of enthusiasm and interest towards QS programmes from Year 1 students. Some first-year students might still feel ambiguous when choosing their degree course or are forced to study a particular course for the sake of a family business, and thus parents might be involved in their career development and selection. Consequently, some students are not keen on understanding the course content and the learning outcomes of the subject course. Many of the first-year students have not been exposed to field practice. Having pursued the programme for over 4 years and returned to campus after 6 months of industrial attachment, the final-year students (Year 4) realise the importance of course content as the knowledge and skills learned from a particular subject could be applicable in their future quantity surveying profession. Regarding the ‘activities and workshop availability’ attribute, the occurrence of dissimilar viewpoints may be due to Year 1 students being more associated with the theory-based subjects of QS courses such as construction materials, building services, Yap, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 1 March 202210 construction technology and technical drawings. Therefore, they place greater emphasis on having lectures instead of activities and workshops; thus, the availability of activities and workshops has little effect on their satisfaction with the educational experience. In contrast, Year 4 students perceive that this attribute can reasonably affect their satisfaction towards the QS programme as they demand more practical experiences instead of the fundamental knowledge they have learned in previous years. Furthermore, final-year undergraduates anticipate developing a deeper understanding of the course by attending more workshops and seminars, which can effectively improve their learning experiences in an educational institution (Ghazal, Al-Samarraie and Aldowah, 2018). The differing viewpoints obtained for the ‘peer relationship’ attribute is probably due to the unfamiliarity of first-year students with the surrounding people and environment. From the perspective of Year 1 students, the social connection between students is deemed less critical towards their learning experiences as they perceive lecturers to be the ones who can facilitate the learning process more effectively than their peers. Conversely, Year 4 students perceive that social engagement can enhance their productivity through group discussions and meetings. During the discussions, they assist and learn from each other as well as completing assignments together instead of separately. Such social interactions potentially trigger the students’ motivation and satisfaction towards their experiences of the QS programme. FACTOR ANALYSIS RESULTS Factor 1: Professionalism and competency of lecturers This first factor has the largest total variance of 17.25% and consists of the five most important attributes relating to a lecturer’s professional knowledge and academic proficiency, all with a factor loading above 0.60. Academic and pedagogical qualities are highly associated with the teaching staff (their qualification, competence, behaviours, attitudes and teaching style). For a professional programme such as Quantity Surveying, a multi-disciplinary team of expert faculty members involving leading academicians and seasoned industry practitioners are needed for cultivating practical skills and imparting solid theoretical knowledge as well as ensuring students have the necessary skills to meet the expectations of their future employers. Student experiences of a course are largely dependent on how the lecturers disseminate the subject knowledge, reinforce theoretical content, assign adequate practical exercises and clear up doubts (Arrieta and Avolio, 2020; Jereb, Jerebic and Urh, 2018). The professionalism of lecturers is synthesised in the situation where lecturers can promote a conducive academic environment by radically understanding the roles of educators as a profession (Schuck, Gordon and Buchanan, 2008; Susanto, 2019). In investigating the perceived value of private HEIs in Bangladesh, teaching competence is measured with lecturing expertise, knowledge and qualification of the subject matter, availability for consultation and impartiality in assessments (Hossain, Hossain and Chowdhury, 2018). Their study found that teaching competence, being a quality dimension, is important to influence the students’ perception of the value of the academic programme, which in turn affects their satisfaction. According to Latif, et al. (2019) lecturer quality, which measures the extent to which students are satisfied with the quality of lecturers in their HEI, is a significant service quality factor as the quality of teaching significantly enhances student impartiality, motivation and satisfaction. In light of the above considerations, students are satisfied when their lecturers are approachable, friendly, passionate and understand their needs, provide assignments that are aligned with course learning outcomes, prepare quality lecture notes, organise various types of class activities to encourage student participation, ensure fairness and consistency in marking assessments, give valuable and constructive feedback, are punctual, deliver interesting lectures and are knowledgeable (Kamardeen, 2015; Pedro, Mendes and Lourenço, 2018; Yusoff, McLeay and Woodruff-Burton, 2015). Lecturers who are active in construction research and industrial consultancy work can embed the local context as teaching resources and demonstrate real-life applications. As such, students can be exposed to real challenges in practice. As HEIs continue Yap, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 1 March 202211 to become more competitive, there is an increasing need for lecturers to continuously evolve through professional development initiatives and be informed of different teaching methods in the new era of information technology in their quest to continuously improve service quality (Arrieta and Avolio, 2020; Martirosyan, 2015). Factor 2: Quality of academic services and support facilities This factor accounts for the second-largest variation of 14.45% and contains four attributes that explain the importance of student support services and facilities as well as service quality standards in enhancing student satisfaction on a university campus. The factor loadings of the variables range from 0.559 to 0.896. Academic services and support facilities such as ancillary services, recreation facilities, library services and counselling services have a great impact on student experiences (Siming, Gao and Xu, 2015). Ancillary services are one of the student facilities that aim to support core functions and aid them in achieving educational goals. For example, the quality of cafeteria facilities and security measures, number of vending machines and versatility of parking services that are operated and coordinated in serving and supporting the HEI could potentially enhance student experiences and satisfaction levels (Yusoff, McLeay and Woodruff- Burton, 2015). Recreational facilities such as sports centres and gymnasia are relatively crucial for student experiences as they act as non-educational activities provided by the HEI to entertain them, thus evoking positive satisfaction through their enjoyment (Manzoor, 2013). Therefore, the quality and availability of sufficient sports facilities and equipment are believed to have a significant influence on the experiences of students ( Jereb, Jerebic and Urh, 2018). Additionally, students perceive the approachability and accessibility of academic advisors as not only providing knowledge but as necessary in enhancing their educational progress (Yusoff, McLeay and Woodruff-Burton, 2015). An effective academic counselling service dealing with career management, time management and stress management can engender the students’ positive perceptions in pursuing higher education (Pescaru, 2017). Factor 3: Interpersonal connections and external considerations This factor comprises five attributes with a total variance of 13.17%, relating to emotional, social and financial support in navigating the challenges of graduate education. Interpersonal connections refer to family engagement as well as peer support, and these connections have a salient effect on student experiences. Parental support in motivating and encouraging students in their career development is vital in helping students become resilient in coping with difficulties associated with their academic goals, thus fostering successful growth intellectually in their learning process (Vela, et al., 2016). Moreover, good peer interaction between the students plays a pertinent role in boosting their enthusiasm in the pursued programmes. It could therefore be elucidated that social integration is influential in affecting student experiences of QS programmes, as social responsibility is established among them by spending time together, studying and helping each other in pursuing their academic careers ( Jereb, Jerebic and Urh, 2018). Social aspects particularly refer to students adjusting to varsity life, living apart from friends and family in a new environment within a short period of time and integrating with their peer groups and faculty. According to Tinto (1975), academic integration is defined by students’ academic performance, level of intellectual development and perception of having a positive experience in academic settings, while social integration is defined by their involvement in extracurricular activities and positive relationships with peers. Against this background, the students’ emotional and cognitive reactions to stress are greatly influenced by the extent to which they can cope with the demands and challenges faced during their course of study (Kausar, 2010). Positive experiences with the academic and social systems strengthen students’ academic and social integration and lead them to persevere in their courses and programs (Lakhal, et al., 2020). With a sample size of 309 undergraduate students from Malaysian private higher education institutions, Ganesh, Yap, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 1 March 202212 Haslinda and Raghavan (2017) reported that academic and social integration significantly moderates student satisfaction and retention; this is supported by two underpinning theories of Perceived Performance and Tinto’s Interactionist. Other than academic services provided by the HEI itself and interpersonal connections, external influences are believed to have a significant impact on student experiences. External considerations are associated with accommodation issues, financial considerations, as well as self-assessment (Ravindran and Kalpana, 2012). Living arrangements pertain to the location of the HEI, as these could be a concern for students. For instance, accessibility of the HEI, cost of transportation, bus stop locations, upkeep of cycleways and walkways, as well as car parking provision, are pivotal in affecting student experiences ( Jereb, Jerebic and Urh, 2018). Financial aspects may be discerned by students as an influential factor in assessing their experiences of the educational programme, as the tuition fees and cost of academic materials can be a pressure for them (Yusoff, McLeay and Woodruff-Burton, 2015). Apart from this, self-evaluation is an external factor influencing student experiences of QS programmes as it refers to the confidence of one’s ability to pursue academic goals in HEIs (Vela, et al., 2016). Hence, students may trigger different perceptions towards learning experiences of an educational programme based on their own perceived values (Pedro, Mendes and Lourenço, 2018). Factor 4: Curriculum design and course content Factor 4 comprises four attributes with a total variance of 12.00%, relating to programme design and curriculum content. In formal education, the curriculum is interpreted as a course programme offered to the student for the fulfilment of educational goals. For QS, this comprised the mandatory and technical competencies outlined by RICS (RICS, 2018), which are critical aspects for the accreditation of QS degree programmes. In the case of Malaysia, a recognised QS programme requires full accreditation from the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) and the Board of Quantity Surveyors Malaysia (BQSM). Nonetheless, the recognition by the Royal Institution of Surveyors Malaysia (RISM) and such distinguished international professional bodies as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) is also eminently valuable. The core competencies expected of graduate quantity surveyors include measurement, professional practice, technology in construction, management in construction, economics and law, which remain consistent through most HEIs in Malaysia. For the curriculum to remain relevant and responsive to the evolving demands of industry, the curriculum needs to be periodically updated to include such emerging technologies as 3&4D Building Information Modelling (BIM), automation of BIM quantity take-off, prefabrication, smart wearables, virtual and augmented reality, robotics and cloud-based collaboration tools (CIDB, 2020). Suitable teaching strategies such as lectures, workshops, collaboration, an open learning platform and project-based learning can be utilised to incorporate these emerging technologies into the curricula (Yap and Aziz, 2020). With respect to the evaluation system, both formative (e.g., coursework) and summative (e.g., final examination) assessments need to be constructively aligned with the learning outcomes. Alumni and industry advisory panels also need to be regularly consulted to provide a link with external representatives and advise on the relevance of the curriculum to the industry. The curriculum is one of the significant factors influencing student experiences (Bell and Brooks, 2018). Continuing on this line, benchmarking with other local and international HEIs is needed for quality assurance and to gauge academic standards. The curriculum dimension comprises programme flexibility, activities and workshop availability, course content, internship placements and quality of educational material. The flexibility of the programme refers to how the lecture timetable is organised (Yusoff, McLeay and Woodruff-Burton, 2015). An inadequately planned academic schedule by the HEI interrupts the students’ routine flow of studies and consequently affects the overall learning experiences of the course programme (Ashraf, Osman and Ratan, 2016). Therefore, a robust and versatile course schedule that adapts to the students’ rhythm and needs of their studies by offering various Yap, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 1 March 202213 elective modules can directly engender a positive perception of the experiences (Farahmandian, Minavand and Afshardost, 2013). Some value-added electives to enhance both technical and tactical skills include current construction issues, digital technology use in construction, sustainable construction, value and risk management and international procurement. Final year project (FYP), on the other hand, provides students with the opportunity to stretch their intellectual and technical skills – required students to take responsibility for their own learning and to encourage both clarity and depth of thought in that the project involves analysis of a problem and the development of a logical sequence of ideas. Each individual project is supervised by a lecturer and assessed via written reports and presentations. A compulsory internship for 6 months, however, offers opportunities for students to gain insight into actual problems, accumulate valuable work experience and provide adequate industry exposure with industry partners that support student participation in employer projects, addressing actual industry issues and identifying practical solutions. This gives students the opportunity to contact potential employers and industries before graduation – increasing the marketability of graduates. Given that today’s students tend to be visual learners, laboratory classes allow them touch, feel and listen to what they are learning. Field trips to construction sites, however, are interactive experiences that enhance student understanding of real construction practices. Additionally, guided tours to factories producing building materials such as cement, water proofing products and glass also help students gain a better understanding of related topics. Activities and workshops should also be included in curriculum dimensions to provide students with some practical experiences associated with QS programmes (Ghazal, Al- Samarraie and Aldowah, 2018). These could help develop their enthusiasm towards the course programme by having such class activities as role-playing, group discussion and problem-solving case studies; thus, the theoretical knowledge they learned during lectures can be applied practically in class activities and workshop sessions. These help to develop the critical thinking skills needed in working life. For instance, one course in particular (Integrated Project) makes students aware of the overall process within which development projects are conceived, designed, built and handed over, enhancing students’ appreciation of the interdependency and interdisciplinary nature of the construction industry. Group-based assignments simulating real-world scenarios were designed to provide formative assessment. According to Kamardeen and Wales (2014), such formative assessments enable lecturers to evaluate higher-order cognition, thinking abilities and problem-solving skills. Furthermore, the delivery of interesting module content is pertinent in the curriculum dimension (Farahmandian, Minavand and Afshardost, 2013). Course content that includes a clear course objective at the beginning of the semester helps provide students with a comprehensible orientation about the learning outcome of a subject and cultivates motivation and interest in pursuing the QS programme. Moreover, high-quality study materials asserted in the course content have a notable impact on student experiences (Tsinidou, Gerogiannis and Fitsilis, 2010). For instance, constructs such as the suitability of page layout and design, presentation of PowerPoint slides, supplementary lecture handouts, clarity of subject matter and integration of support illustrations can assist students to understand the content of the course, thus facilitating their overall educational experiences (Dargusch, Persaud and Horsley, 2011). Factor 5: Physical environment and facilities Classroom environment (factor loading = 0.863) and computer and lab facilities (factor loading = 0.746) create this final factor, with a total variance of 9.81%, revealing the important role of physical in-class environments on student satisfaction with the course. HEI’s physical facilities represent an influential determinant in promoting a conducive environment for classroom teaching and learning (Kärnä and Julin, 2015). The physical facilities of the classroom are crucial in enhancing the academic atmosphere, as students spend most of their time in the classroom and thus tend to prefer a comfortable learning space for academic activities. A favourable learning environment comprises such dimensions as the lighting and Yap, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 1 March 202214 layout of lecture and tutorial rooms, teaching and learning aids used, overall cleanliness and air-conditioning systems as well as the comfort and versatility of seating. In South Korea, Han, et al. (2018) observed that the ambient conditions of the classroom and its spatial layout and functionality can significantly boost the student experience, which results in both the enhanced cognitive and affection evaluation of student satisfaction. In Canada, the desired physical properties include a window view to outdoors, seating comfort and interactive seating arrangement (Douglas and Gifford, 2001). According to Rae and Sands (2013), a classroom layout that helps reduce students’ apprehension and increase participation tends to increase student engagement and academic performance. For QS, measurement and technical drawing studios need to be equipped with drafting tables and/or tables large enough for A1-size drawings for students to perform measurement works ergonomically. Construction materials courses will include practical lab sessions for the testing of various materials used in construction. These features have a direct impact on the students’ educational experiences. Additionally, class size is revealed to significantly influence student experiences of course programmes (Yusoff, McLeay and Woodruff-Burton, 2015). For example, large class sizes can result in such problems as overcrowding of lecture halls and inadequate seating, resulting in students being dissatisfied with the learning environment (Abdullahi and Wan Yusoff, 2019). A popular programme like QS can have classes as large as 200 students necessitating improvements in teaching and mode of delivery. Tutorials, however, are limited to 30 students for effective student engagement and prompting reflective thought, as tutors can work more closely with each student while students can support each other in the problem-solving process. Working in small groups makes the students active, confident and independent in their learning. Furthermore, the endowment of computer laboratory facilities plays an important role in satisfying the students’ information technology needs in their learning process. BIM-based quantity take-off and estimating are fast gaining popularity (e.g., CostX, Cubicost) to replace time-consuming and error-prone manual computation (Yap, et al., 2021) but require lab-based practical sessions for the hands-on experience of using the software. Digital literary and technology skills are becoming essential in today’s computer- centric world. Accessible and adequate computer laboratories with a stable internet connection and advanced technologies tend to result in a positive perception towards the overall experiences of educational programmes (Pescaru, 2017). Concluding remarks The meta-analysis of the literature revealed 20 pertinent attributes influencing the quality of student learning experiences in higher education. The opinions of Year 1 to Year 4 quantity surveying students concerning the significance of these attributes were obtained through a questionnaire survey of a major Malaysian private HEI. The principal aim of prioritising these attributes is to increase the understanding of the determinants of quality QS education and to be useful in devising effective strategies for continuous improvements and enhancing student satisfaction. Overall, the findings reveal that the competencies and professionalism of lecturers are the major aspects influencing student learning experiences. Hence, HEI should place this as a top priority in the development of an educational programme by continuously enhancing the quality of lecturers and make appropriate adjustments to the aspects that result in student dissatisfaction. Differing viewpoints exist between Year 1 and Year 4 students, indicating the heterogeneous expectations between freshmen and final-year students of the learning requirements and outcomes involved. Better student engagement may be needed to enhance student-centric learning for first-year students and include more practical aspects to expose students to the context of construction and the diversified QS roles. Group-based assignments engender cooperative learning and develop group working skills – an essential employment skill. It is predominantly accepted that professional education and training requires the integration of knowledge with practical skills. The factor analysis revealed five main groups of factors that Yap, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 1 March 202215 provide useful insights into the dimensions driving student satisfaction in higher education, particularly QS programmes, which relate to people, curricula, environment, services and facilities aspects. The outcomes from this study can be used to guide HEIs in devising policies, practices and a culture that supports quality teaching and learning among both lecturers and students, particularly contemporary QS education. In this light, the attributes and underlying factors uncovered in this study can be further developed into a comprehensive index system to measure the students’ academic experiences in higher education in Malaysia and beyond. For a professional degree programme like QS, learning is facilitated through observing, reflecting, sharing and applying course material in the classroom and practical settings. In addition, HEI management can focus on developing a reputation for its university by recognising the needs of its students and attracting the brightest and the best. Given the significance of the lecturer-factor, efforts should be made to induct, train and retain qualified and expert lecturers for promoting quality higher education. Students have different levels of motivation, different attitudes about teaching and learning and different responses to specific classroom environments and instructional practices. Lecturers therefore need to teach thinking and augment problem-based learning. QS curricula, on the other hand, should be responsive to recent advances in industry practices. Although e-learning is underutilised in most developing countries, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced educational institutes globally to shift to online learning platforms to maintain academic activities while adhering to social and physical distancing. Nonetheless, the sense of such physical, emotional and social distance from others has generated a number of challenges, stressors and negative experiences (Al- Kumaim, et al., 2021). Compared to face-to-face learning, the major disadvantages of e-learning are lack of interaction, technical problems and lack of practical applications, while the advantages are time efficiency and convenience (Gherheș, et al., 2021). Intriguingly, the majority of students would prefer to return to face-to-face learning after the COVID-19 pandemic ends. Given this situation, the future is likely to involve blended learning as a form of hybrid learning system combining face-to-face teaching with online teaching. References Abdullahi, I. and Wan Yusoff, W.Z., 2019. Influence of facilities performance on student’s satisfaction in northern Nigerian universities: results from interim study. Facilities, 37(3–4), pp.168-81. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-08-2017-0088 Al-Kumaim, N.H., Alhazmi, A.K., Mohammed, F., Gazem, N.A., Shabbir, M.S. and Fazea, Y., 2021. Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on university students’ learning life: an integrated conceptual motivational model for sustainable and healthy online learning. Sustainability, 13(5), pp.1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052546 Al-Sheeb, B., Hamouda, A.M. and Abdella, G.M., 2018. Investigating determinants of student satisfaction in the first year of college in a public university in the state of Qatar. Education Research International, 2018, 7194106. https://doi. org/10.1155/2018/7194106 Amos, P.I. and Hassan, Z., 2017. Quality of teaching and its influence on student satisfaction and intention to continue with institution. International Journal of Education, Learning and Training, 2(1), pp.1–11. Arambewela, R. and Hall, J., 2013. The interactional effects of the internal and external university environment, and the influence of personal values, on satisfaction among international postgraduate students. Studies in Higher Education, 38(7), pp.972–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.615916 Arrieta, M. del C. and Avolio, B., 2020. Factors of higher education quality service: the case of a Peruvian university. Quality Assurance in Education, [e-journal ahead of print]. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-03-2020-0037 Yap, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 1 March 202216 https://doi.org/10.1108/F-08-2017-0088 https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052546 https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7194106 https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7194106 https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.615916 https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-03-2020-0037 Ashraf, M.A., Osman, A.Z.R. and Ratan, S.R.A., 2016. Determinants of quality education in private universities from student perspectives: A case study in Bangladesh. Quality Assurance in Education, 24(1), pp.123–38. https://doi. org/10.1108/QAE-09-2013-0040 Balakrishnan, B. and Low, F.S., 2016. Learning experience and socio-cultural influences on female engineering students’ perspectives on engineering courses and careers. Minerva, 54(2), pp.219–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9295- 8 Bell, A.R. and Brooks, C., 2018. What makes students satisfied? A discussion and analysis of the UK’s national student survey. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(8), pp.1118–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1349886 Butt, B.Z. and Rehman, K.U., 2010. A study examining the students satisfaction in higher education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), pp.5446–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.888 Chandra, T., Ng, M., Chandra, S. and Priyono, P., 2018. The effect of service quality on student satisfaction and student loyalty: An empirical study. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 9(3), 109–31. Chandramohan, A., Perera, B.A.K.S. and Dewagoda, K.G., 2020. Diversification of professional quantity surveyors’ roles in the construction industry: the skills and competencies required. International Journal of Construction Management, [e-journal]. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1720058 Chin, C. and Osborne, J., 2008. Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), pp.1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260701828101 CIDB, 2020. Construction 4.0 strategic plan (2021-2025): Next revolution of the Malaysian construction industry. [pdf ] Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Available at: . Closs, L., Mahat, M. and Imms, W., 2021. Learning environments’ influence on students’ learning experience in an Australian Faculty of Business and Economics. Learning Environments Research, pp.1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10984-021-09361-2 Dada, J.O. and Jagboro, G.O., 2012. Core skills requirement and competencies expected of quantity surveyors: Perspectives from quantity surveyors, allied professionals and clients in Nigeria. Construction Economics and Building, 12(4), pp.78–90. https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v12i4.2808 Dada, J.O. and Jagboro, G.O., 2018. A framework for assessing quantity surveyors’ competence. Benchmarking, 25(7), pp.2390–03. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-05-2017-0121 Dargusch, J., Persaud, N. and Horsley, M., 2011. Judging the quality of educational materials – a research project on student voice. IARTEM [e-Journal], 4(2), pp.45–62. Douglas, D. and Gifford, R., 2001. Evaluation of the physical classroom by students and professors: A lens model approach. Educational Research, 43(3), pp.295–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880110081053 Ekundayo, D.O., 2020. Quantity surveying education and the benchmark for future needs. PhD. University of Salford. Elliott, K.M. and Healy, M.A., 2001. Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment and retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(4), pp.1–11. https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v10n04_01 Fajčíková, A. and Urbancová, H., 2019. Factors influencing students’ motivation to seek higher education-a case study at a state university in the Czech Republic. Sustainability, 11(17), pp.1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174699 Farahmandian, S., Minavand, H. and Afshardost, M., 2013. Perceived service quality and student satisfaction in higher education. Journal of Business and Management, 12(4), pp.65–74. https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-1246574 Field, A., 2013. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: Sage Publications Inc. Yap, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 1 March 202217 https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-09-2013-0040 https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-09-2013-0040 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9295-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9295-8 https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1349886 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.888 https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1720058 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260701828101 https://www.cream.my/my/media/com_eshop/attachments/Construction%204.0%20Strategic%20Plan%202021-2025.pdf> https://www.cream.my/my/media/com_eshop/attachments/Construction%204.0%20Strategic%20Plan%202021-2025.pdf> https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09361-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09361-2 https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v12i4.2808 https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-05-2017-0121 https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880110081053 https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v10n04_01 https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174699 https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-1246574 Ganesh, R., Haslinda, A. and Raghavan, S., 2017. An investigation of academic and social integration in private higher education institution in Malaysia as a moderating variable in relations to satisfaction toward students’ retention. International Review of Management and Business Research, 6(4), pp.1543–60. Ghazal, S., Al-Samarraie, H. and Aldowah, H., 2018. ‘I am still learning’: Modeling LMS critical success factors for promoting students’ experience and satisfaction in a blended learning environment. IEEE Access, 6, pp.77179–201. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2879677 Gherheș, V., Stoian, C.E., Fărcașiu, M.A. and Stanici, M., 2021. E-learning vs. Face-to-face learning: Analyzing students’ preferences and behaviours. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(8), pp.1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084381 Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E., 2019. Multivariate data analysis. Hampshire, United Kingdom: Cengage Learning. Han, H., Kiatkawsin, K., Kim, W. and Hong, J.H., 2018. Physical classroom environment and student satisfaction with courses. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(1), pp.110–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1299 855 Harvey, L. and Askling, B., 2003. Quality in higher education. In: R. Begg, ed. The Dialogue between Higher Education Research and Practice. Dordrecht: Springer. Ch.6. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-48368-4_6 He, Y., Lu, J., Huang, H., He, S., Ma, N., Sha, Z., Sun, Y. and Li, X., 2019. The effects of flipped classrooms on undergraduate pharmaceutical marketing learning: A clustered randomized controlled study. PLoS ONE, 14(4), pp.1–22. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214624 Hossain, M.A., Hossain, M.M. and Chowdhury, T.H., 2018. Understanding the success of private universities: an empirical investigation from graduates’ perspective. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 35(1), pp.145–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-02-2015-0031 Jereb, E., Jerebic, J. and Urh, M., 2018. Revising the importance of factors pertaining to student satisfaction in higher education. Journal of Management, Informatics and Human Resources, 51(4), pp.271–85. https://doi.org/10.2478/orga- 2018-0020 Kamarazaly, M.A., Tan, K.X., Raml, M.A., Soon, L.T., Yaakob, A.M. and Chin, S.A.L., 2020. Quantity surveying students’ learning styles in blended learning environment. Malaysian Construction Research Journal, 9(1), pp.134–50. Kamardeen, I., 2015. Critically reflective pedagogical model: A pragmatic blueprint for enhancing learning and teaching in construction disciplines. Construction Economics and Building, 15(4), pp.63–75. https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB. v15i4.4607 Kamardeen, I. and Wales, N.S., 2014. Stimulating learning with integrated assessments in construction education. Construction Economics and Building, 14(3), pp.86–98. https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v14i3.4152 Kärnä, S. and Julin, P., 2015. A framework for measuring student and staff satisfaction with university campus facilities. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(1), pp.47–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-10-2013-0041 Kausar, R., 2010. Perceived stress, academic workloads and use of Coping strategies by university students. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 20(1), pp.31–45. Kibwami, N., Wesonga, R., Manga, M. and Mukasa, T., 2021. Strategies for improving quantity surveyors’ education training in Uganda. International Education Studies, 14(2), p.33. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v14n2p33 Lage, M.J., Platt, G.J. and Treglia, M., 2000. Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), pp.30–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220480009596759 Yap, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 1 March 202218 https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2879677 https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084381 https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1299855 https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1299855 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-48368-4_6 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214624 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-02-2015-0031 https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2018-0020 https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2018-0020 https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v15i4.4607 https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v15i4.4607 https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v14i3.4152 https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-10-2013-0041 https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v14n2p33 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220480009596759 Lakhal, S., Mukamurera, J., Bédard, M.E., Heilporn, G. and Chauret, M., 2020. Features fostering academic and social integration in blended synchronous courses in graduate programs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(5), pp.1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-0180-z Latif, K.F., Latif, I., Farooq Sahibzada, U. and Ullah, M., 2019. In search of quality: measuring Higher Education Service Quality (HiEduQual). Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 30(7–8), pp.768–91. https://doi.org/10 .1080/14783363.2017.1338133 Letcher, D. and Neves, J., 2010. Determinants of undergraduate business student satisfaction. Research in Higher Education Journal, 6, 1–26. Lim, S.Y.J. and Vighnarajah, 2018. Influence of student isolation on students’ university learning experiences: Perspectives of academic, social and psychological development. SHS Web of Conferences, 53, 05005. https://doi. org/10.1051/shsconf/20185305005 Manzoor, H., 2013. Measuring student satisfaction in public and private universities in Pakistan. Global Journal of Management and Business Research Interdisciplinary, 13(3), pp.5–15. Martín, P.A., 2019. Student perceptions of a good university lecturer. Educacao e Pesquisa, 45( July), e196029. Martirosyan, N., 2015. An examination of factors contributing to student satisfaction in Armenian higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(2), pp.177–91. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-09-2013-0143 Martirosyan, N.M., Saxon, D.P. and Wanjohi, R., 2014. Student satisfaction and academic performance in Armenian higher education. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 4(2), pp.1–5. Ng, C.G., 2018. The impact of lecturers’ competencies on students’ satisfaction. Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 1(2), pp.74–86. Olmos-Gómez, M. del C., Suárez, M.L., Ferrara, C. and Olmedo-Moreno, E.M., 2020. Quality of higher education through the pursuit of satisfaction with a focus on sustainability. Sustainability, 12(6), pp.1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12062366 Pedro, E., Mendes, L. and Lourenço, L., 2018. Perceived service quality and students’ satisfaction in higher education: The influence of teaching methods. International Journal for Quality Research, 12(1), pp.165–92. Pescaru, T.-G., 2017. Analysis of the main factors influencing student satisfaction towards the university environment. Journal of Educational Sciences & Psychology, 7(1), pp.40–50. Rae, K. and Sands, J., 2013. Using classroom layout to help reduce students’ apprehension and increase communication. Accounting Education, 22(5), pp.489–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2013.835534 Ravindran, S.D. and Kalpana, M., 2012. Student’s expectation, perception and satisfaction towards the management educational institutions. Procedia Economics and Finance, 2, pp.401–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(12)00102-5 RICS, 2018. Pathway guide: Quantity surveying and construction. London, UK: RICS. Schindler, L., Puls-Elvidge, S., Welzant, H. and Crawford, L., 2015. Definitions of quality in higher education: A synthesis of the literature. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(3), pp.3–13. https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc. v5i3.244 Schuck, S., Gordon, S. and Buchanan, J., 2008. What are we missing here? Problematising wisdoms on teaching quality professionalism in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(5), pp.537–47. https://doi. org/10.1080/13562510802334772 Shahsavar, T. and Sudzina, F., 2017. Student satisfaction and loyalty in Denmark: Application of EPSI methodology. PLoS ONE, 12(12), pp.1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189576 Yap, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 1 March 202219 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-0180-z https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1338133 https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1338133 https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185305005 https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185305005 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-09-2013-0143 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062366 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062366 https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2013.835534 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(12)00102-5 https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v5i3.244 https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v5i3.244 https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510802334772 https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510802334772 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189576 Siming, L., Gao, J. and Xu, D., 2015. Factors leading to students ’ satisfaction in the higher learning institutions. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(31), pp.114–18. Spooren, P., Mortelmans, D. and Christiaens, W., 2014. Assessing the validity and reliability of a quick scan for student’s evaluation of teaching. Results from confirmatory factor analysis and G Theory. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 43(December), pp.88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.03.001 Susanto, R., 2019. Lecturers’ professionalism in shaping students’ perceptions and commitments. Journal of Education Research and Evaluation, 3(1), pp.25–38. https://doi.org/10.23887/jere.v3i1.17768 Tan, A.H.T., Muskat, B. and Zehrer, A., 2016. A systematic review of quality of student experience in higher education. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 8(2), pp.209–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-08-2015-0058 Tinto, V., 1975. Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), pp.89–125. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089 Tsinidou, M., Gerogiannis, V. and Fitsilis, P., 2010. Evaluation of the factors that determine quality in higher education: An empirical study. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(3), pp.227–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881011058669 Vela, J.C., Ikonomopoulos, J., Hinojosa, K., Gonzalez, S. L., Duque, O. and Calvillo, M., 2016. The impact of individual, interpersonal, and institutional factors on latina/o college students’ life satisfaction. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 15(3), pp.260–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192715592925 Weerasinghe, S. and Fernando, R.L., 2017. Students’ satisfaction in higher education literature review. American Journal of Educational Research, 5(5), pp.533–39. Wrenn, J. and Wrenn, B., 2009. Enhancing learning by integrating theory and practice. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), pp.258–65. Yap, J.B.H., Skitmore, M., Lim, Y.W., Loo, S.C. and Gray, J., 2021. Assessing the expected current and future competencies of quantity surveyors in the Malaysian built environment. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, [ahead of print]. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-01-2021-0091 Yap, P.X. and Aziz, N.M., 2020. Teaching strategies in integrating BIM education for the quantity surveying courses in Malaysian higher education institution. Malaysian Construction Research Journal, 9(1), pp.126–33. Yogeshwaran, G., Perera, B.A.K.S. and Ariyachandra, M.R.M.F., 2018. Competencies expected of graduate quantity surveyors working in developing countries. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 23(2), pp.202– 20. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMPC-06-2017-0019 Yusoff, M., McLeay, F. and Woodruffe-Burton, H., 2015. Dimensions driving business student satisfaction in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(1), pp.86–104. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-08-2013-0035 Yap, et al. Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 22, No. 1 March 202220 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.03.001 https://doi.org/10.23887/jere.v3i1.17768 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-08-2015-0058 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089 https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881011058669 https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192715592925 https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-01-2021-0091 https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMPC-06-2017-0019 https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-08-2013-0035