1. Introduction
The tourism sector is on the first ranks among the sectors which are fastest growing and increasing their share in today’s world economies. In this respect, the consistent increase in the contributions of the tourism sector to the world and national economies [
1] has revealed the need for a qualified labor force by increasing the competition in national and international tourism markets [
2]. Being able to ensure the quality of service required by today’s contemporary tourism understanding and to achieve quality relations between the tourist and employees serving the tourist are largely based on the high levels of vocational and technical education of the employees working in the sector [
3,
4]. Therefore, the labor force at the estimated quality can only be achieved through an active and high-quality tourism education and training.
Tourism education provided by the higher education institutions which offer education at undergraduate level has an important role in training candidate managers and meeting the need for qualified labor in tourism sector. In this respect, educational institutions which provide tourism education at undergraduate level should be sensitive to the requests and needs of students who receive educational services in terms of the quality of the service provided. Learning the expectations, perceptions, and satisfaction levels of the students, who are the subjects of tourism education, about tourism education is of paramount importance in terms of revealing the quality of the current tourism education, identification of the shortcomings, detecting the problems and solving them. This study is unique in revealing that the determination and fulfillment of expectations of students has a very important effect on the satisfaction of the given academic tourism education. In this context, the findings obtained in this study show that the tourism education curriculum for sustainable tourism education should be prepared to determinate and to meet the expectations of the students.
Tourism education in Turkey officiates important task in terms of corroborating the development of tourism and ensuring the quality of human resources continuously. Tourism education in Turkey is carried out in two ways: formally and informally. Educational institutions providing formal education consisting of schools offering vocational tourism education at secondary and tertiary levels. Informal tourism education includes short-term vocational courses offered by both official and private institutions [
5].
According to Amoah and Baum, schools offering sustainable tourism education emerged to fulfill the needs, such as informing the sector by following the technology and trends for the tourism establishments operating in a challenging environment, providing the need for qualified staff that is always needed, improving the career image in tourism, providing employment to the new and growing tourism sector, creating employment regulations, reducing the number of foreign employees working in the new and growing tourism sector, and meeting the customers’ growing demand for service and communication [
6]. The remainder of this study is organized as follows:
Section 2 provides a background on sustainability, expectations, perceptions, and satisfaction in tourism education;
Section 3 illustrates the sample and research method;
Section 4 outlines the main findings; and
Section 5 comments on the achieved results and presents our conclusions and recommendations.
4. Findings
This section presents the information obtained as a result of the data analysis of the study.
4.1. Validity and Reliability Findings
The alpha (α) model (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient) was applied, which is used in the reliability analyses of the scales. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was found to be 0.94 in the general validity and reliability analysis of the scales; Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.90 for the Satisfaction of Academic Education scale; it was 0.87 for the Expectation of Tourism Education scale; and it was 0.87 for the Perception of Tourism Education scale. These Cronbach’s alpha values indicate high reliability for the scales used in the study.
4.2. Factor Analysis for the Satisfaction of Academic Education and Scale Validation Findings
Factor analysis was performed in order to test the construct validity of the satisfaction of academic education scale. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test was carried out to test the adequacy of the sample size and the Barlett sphericity test was conducted to determine whether the variables had normal distributions or not. The KMO value of the satisfaction of academic education scale was 0.906, and the Barlett sphericity test results were significant. After factor analysis and varimax rotation were carried out, four dimensions whose eigenvalue of the satisfaction of academic education scale was greater than one were identified and the four dimensions accounted for 67.728% of the total variance.
Table 1 shows under which factors satisfaction of academic education gathered.
The statements with values below 0.50 in the factor analysis, are 3 (Overall, I am satisfied with my school and department), 4 (The instructors from whom I receive my education have sufficient professional knowledge and experience), 5 (Food and beverage services provided at university are adequate), and 9 (The physical equipment of the school like classroom and computer labs are sufficient), and were excluded from the analysis. The fact that Cronbach’s alpha values for the factors were positive and over 60% indicates that the scale is quite reliable. The validities for the dimensions of the scale were identified as 0.82 in the factor of satisfaction of vocational education, 0.85 in the factor of satisfaction of personal development, 0.73 in the factor of satisfaction of university and, finally, 0.70 in the factor of satisfaction of school.
4.3. Findings Concerning Personal Information
In data regarding the personal information of the participants show that 56.1% of the participants were male and 43.6% of them were female. In total, 20.6% of the participants were 21 years old, 17% of them were 19 years old, 17% of them were 20 years old, 12.4% of them were 22 and, finally, 12.3% of the students were 18 years old. When their classes were examined, it is seen that 31.7% of the participants were in first year, 21.8% of them were in second year, 22.1% of them were in third year and, finally, 24.3% of the students were in fourth year. In addition, 40.1% of the students participating in the study were graduates of standard high schools, 32.4% of them were graduates of Anatolian high schools, and 16.3% of the participants graduated from vocational high schools offering tourism education. The analysis of the departments of the participants indicated that 57.8% of the students studied in the department of tourism management, 16.9% of them were in the department of gastronomy and culinary arts, 5.2% of them were in the department of tourist guiding, 9.9% of them were in the department of hospitalization management and, finally, 10.2% of the participants were in the department of travel management. When the faculty preference order of the students were examined, it was found out that 36.9% of the participants preferred the tourism faculty in the 1st rank, 15.1% of the participants preferred tourism faculty in the 2nd rank, 10.5% of them preferred it in the 3rd rank, 7.0% of them preferred it in the 4th rank and, finally, 5.1% of the participants preferred it at the 5th rank.
4.4. Findings Regarding the Research Hypotheses
The findings and interpretations related to the research hypotheses are presented below.
4.4.1. The Difference in Satisfaction of Academic Education Based on Gender
According to
Table 2, no difference in the mean values of the female (
) and male (
) students’ perceptions of satisfaction of academic education was revealed, however, it can be stated that male students have a higher satisfaction compared to female students. In this case, hypothesis H1 “
There is a statistically significant difference between the students’ perceptions of satisfaction and their gender.” was rejected.
According to the t-test carried out to determine the significance between the students’ gender and their perceptions of academic education satisfaction, the difference between the students’ academic education satisfaction and their genders (t = −0.55, p > 0.05) was not significant.
4.4.2. The Difference in Satisfaction of Academic Education Based on Age
When
Table 3 is analyzed, it is seen that the attitudes of satisfaction of academic education differ based on age (F
(15;615) = 4.327,
p < 0.05). In this case, hypothesis H2 “
There is a statistically significant difference between the students’ perceptions of satisfaction and their ages.” was accepted.
When
Table 4 is analyzed, it is seen that the highest mean values of the satisfaction of academic education according to age groups belonged to the 17 (
), 26 (
), and 28 (
) age groups. The lowest mean values of the satisfaction of academic education belonged to the 22 (
), 23 (
), and 24 (
) age groups.
4.4.3. The Difference in Satisfaction of Academic Education Based on Class
In
Table 5 it is seen that the attitudes of satisfaction of academic education differ based on class (F
(3;670) = 18.121,
p < 0.05).In this case, the hypothesis H3 “
There is a statistically significant difference between the students’ perceptions of satisfaction and their classes.” was accepted.
When
Table 6 is examined, it can be seen that within the mean values of the satisfaction of academic education, the first year (
), second year (
), and third year (
) students had higher mean values, but fourth year (
= 2.8380) students had lower mean values. It can be stated that while satisfaction of academic education is higher in the first year, it decreases towards upper levels.
4.4.4. The Difference in Satisfaction of Academic Education Based on Departments
According to
Table 7, the attitudes of satisfaction of academic education differ based on department (F
(4;670) = 16.597,
p < 0.05). In this case, the hypothesis H4 “
There is a statistically significant difference between the students’ perceptions of satisfaction and their classes.” was accepted.
When
Table 8 is examined, it is clearly seen that within the mean values of satisfaction of academic education based on departments, Tourist Guiding (
), Tourism Management (
), and Gastronomy and Culinary Arts (
) students had higher mean values, but Hospitality Management (
) and Travel Management (
) students had lower mean values.
4.4.5. The Relationship between Expectation, Perception, and Satisfaction of Academic Education
The relationship between expectation of academic education, perception of academic education, and satisfaction of academic education in
Table 9 was examined through Pearson’s correlation technique. In the correlation
Table 9 are seen the mean values were found as (
) for the expectation of academic education, (
) for the perception of academic education, (
) for the satisfaction of academic education, (
) for the satisfaction of vocational education, (
) for the satisfaction of personal development, (
) for the satisfaction of university, and (
) for the satisfaction of school. The mean values indicate that the mean value of the satisfaction of academic education is lower than the mean values of the other variables. There is a positive relation between expectation of academic education and perception of academic education (expectation tourism education (
r = 0.530,
p > 0.01). In addition, there is a positive relation between satisfaction of academic education, and its dimensions and the expectation of academic education (satisfaction of academic education (
r = 0.047,
p > 0.01), satisfaction of vocational education (
r = 0.398,
p > 0.01), satisfaction of personal development (
r = 0.391,
p > 0.01), satisfaction of the university (
r = 0.293,
p > 0.01), and satisfaction of the school (
r = 0.347,
p > 0.01)). There is a positive relation between satisfaction of academic education, and its dimensions and perception of academic education (satisfaction of academic education (
r = 0.693,
p > 0.01)), satisfaction of vocational education (
r = 0.540,
p > 0.01), satisfaction of personal development (r = 0.533,
p > 0.01), satisfaction of the university (
r = 0.467,
p > 0.01), and satisfaction of the school (
r = 0.562,
p > 0.01)).
Considering these results, students’ tourism education expectation and perception are positively related with their satisfaction that is their satisfaction increases or decreases in line with their expectations and perceptions. In this context, the hypothesis H5 “There is a positive relationship between the students’ expectation, perception and satisfaction.” was accepted.
4.4.6. The Impact of Perception of Tourism Education on Satisfaction and Its Dimensions of Satisfaction of Academic Education
According to
Table 10, the F values indicate that the models are significant as a whole at all levels (Sig. = 0.000). In the
Table 10, it seems from the statistical t values of the parameters that each variable included in the model is individually significant (5% significance level). Satisfaction of the school with a ß value (0.684) is the dimension that is most affected by perception. Students’ levels of perception explain their satisfaction of vocational education at the rate of 0.291 (R
2 = 0.29), satisfaction of personal development at the rate of 0.284 (R
2 = 0.28), satisfaction of the university at the rate of 0.218 (R
2 = 0.21), and satisfaction of the school at the rate of 0.315 (R
2 = 0.31). In this case, hypothesis H6 “
Students’ perceptions affect satisfaction positively.” was accepted.
According to this result, the 29% of the change in satisfaction of vocational education, the 28% of change in satisfaction of personal development, the 21% of the change in satisfaction of the university, and the 31% of change in satisfaction of school are explained by the perception of tourism education variable. In this case, hypothesis H7 “Students’ perceptions affect the dimensions of satisfaction positively.” was accepted.
4.4.7. Regression Analysis of the Mediating Role of Perception in the Relationship between Expectation and Satisfaction
The F value (197.597) in the relation between the independent variable “expectation” and the dependent variable “satisfaction” indicates that the model is significant as a whole at all levels (Sig. = 0.000). In
Table 11, it seems from the statistical t values of the parameters that each variable included in the model is individually significant (1% significance level). The expectation affects satisfaction and explains 23% of the satisfaction level (R
2 = 0.22). Expectation (ß = 0.481) affects satisfaction positively (
Table 11). In this case; hypothesis H8 “
Students’ expectations affect their satisfaction positively.” was accepted.
In the context of fulfilling the three conditions identified in the method addressed; in the first step, the F value (260.823) shows that our model is significant as a whole at all levels (Sig. = 0.000). In the
Table 11, it seems from the statistical t values of the parameters that each variable included in the model is individually significant (1% significance level). The expectation of tourism education with a ß value (0.623) affects the perception of tourism education positively. This means that when students’ expectations of tourism education increase, their perceptions will increase as well. The expectation level, which affects perception of tourism education, explains the level of perception at the rate of 0.281 (R
2 = 0.28). In this case, hypothesis H9 “
Students’ expectations affect their perceptions positively.” was accepted.
In the second step, the F value (614.566) indicates that our model is meaningful as a whole at all levels (Sig. = 0.000). It is seen from the statistical t values of the parameters that each variable included in the model is individually significant (1% significance level). The perception of tourism education with a ß value (0.594) affects the satisfaction of academic education positively. This means that when students’ perceptions of tourism education increase, their satisfactions will increase as well. The perception level, which affects students’ satisfaction of academic education, explains the level of satisfaction at the rate of 48% (R2 = 0.48).
In the third and last step, regression analysis was performed to predict the role of the mediator variable in the relation between the independent variable “expectation” and the dependent variable “satisfaction”. The F value (328.552) indicates that the model is significant as a whole at all levels (Sig. = 0.000). It seems from the statistical “
t” values of the parameters that each variable included in the model is individually meaningful (1% significance level). Expectation explains 49% of the satisfaction level together with perception, which is the mediator variable that affects satisfaction (R
2 = 0.49). In addition, when expectation and the mediator variable perception are handled together, the relationship between expectation and satisfaction increases (β = 0.424,
p < 0.001). This suggests that perception partially mediates the relationship between expectation and satisfaction. Whether perception has a partial mediating effect depends on the significance level of the amount of increase in beta values. The significance level of the increase in the beta values was assessed using the Sobel test. The Sobel test is a test developed to determine whether the indirect effect of the independent variable (via the mediator variable) on the dependent variable is significant [
45].
The Sobel test, formulated as Z = ab/[b2(sa)2 + a2(sb)2 + (sa)2 (sb)2]1/2, was performed by entering the unmodified regression coefficients (β) of the relevant variables and their standard error values. a, b, and c are path coefficients. a = raw (unstandardized) regression coefficient for the relationship between independent variable and mediator. b = raw coefficient for the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable (as the independent variable is also a predictor of the dependent variable).Values in parentheses are standard errors (sa = standard error of a and sb = standard error of b) of those path coefficients. The fact that Sobel, Aroian, and Goodman test results were significant (S = 13.42, A = 13.41, G = 13.43, p < 0.01, respectively) showed that perception had a partial mediating effect on the relation between expectation and satisfaction. Thus, expectation affects satisfaction both directly and through perception. In line with this finding; hypothesis H10 “Perception has a partial mediator role in the relation between expectation and satisfaction.” was accepted.
When multiple regression analysis was used to examine the effects of factors expectation (β = 0.424) and perception (β = 0.155) on satisfaction, it was found that the factor “perception” is more effective than the factor “perception”. The factors (expectation and perception) that affect students’ satisfaction of academic education explain the level at the rate of 0.497 (R
2 = 0.49). According to this result, 49% of the change in satisfaction of academic education is explained by the factors (expectation and perception) of the academic education variables. In this case, hypothesis H11 “
Students’ expectations affect their satisfaction more than perception positively.” was accepted. In the multiple regression formula this can be shown by the following:
5. Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations
In the scope of the current research carried out at the Faculty of Tourism of a state university in the province of Antalya, the intent was to determine the impact of students’ expectations regarding the education they received and the educational environment on determining their perceptions emerging during their experience, and their educational satisfaction in terms of sustainable tourism education. Within this framework, the relation between the educational satisfaction of the tourism faculty students and their demographic features was revealed. When the relation between the educational satisfaction and demographic features was examined, it was determined that the satisfaction of the academic education did not change based on gender, however, there were some changes based on age, class, and department variables.
This study indented to determine the expectations, perceptions, and satisfaction of the students regarding the tourism education provided in a tourism faculty offering academic tourism education in Antalya, which is the most important city in the Turkish tourism sector in terms of the number of present tourism establishments, the quality of the establishments, the number of incoming tourists, and the amount of tourism revenues obtained. It is thought that the studies carried out will contribute to the schools providing tourism education in terms of questioning, renewing, and improving themselves. Above all, schools giving tourism education have to ensure that the students with a high level of expectation prefer their schools. These schools should ask themselves the questions “What kind of school must we be?” and “What kind of tourism education must we offer the students?” As a result, satisfaction of the academic education can be obtained by determining, fulfilling, and exceeding of students expectations.
In this study, it is understood that students attend the school with an above-average level of tourism education. Although the educational perception of the students starting to receive tourism education was relatively low at the end of the experience compared to educational expectation, it is clearly seen that it was above average. In addition, it was revealed that, regarding the school preferred and tourism education provided, the students with a high level of expectation have a high level of perception, the students with a moderate level of expectation have a moderate level of perception, and the students with a low level of expectation have a low level of perception. According to this finding, it can be stated that there is a significant and positive relation between the level of expectation and the level of perception existing at the end of the experience.
In this context, it is clearly understood that the educational institution offering tourism education met the students’ expectations, however, it could not create a perception above the expectations. Among the reasons why perception above the expectations could not be created, there may be students’ attitudes towards the sector and tourism education provided, inadequate research, lack of communication between the academic, and administrative staff who are in direct contact with the students and the management, the reluctance of the management about raising the quality, the impossibility perception, insufficient service standards and not setting a goal, role ambiguity, lack of teamwork, or misleading attitude policies. Firstly, the school should make an effort to raise the level of student expectations and increase the current efforts in order to have students at the desired quantity and quality.
In this study it was found that there is a highly positive relation between the perception and satisfaction of academic tourism education. It is understood that expectation is more effective on student satisfaction than perception emerging at the end of the experience. Tourism schools should make efforts to inform and help the conscious students who have a high expectation of academic education (like having a good career in the tourism sector) to prefer their schools. A study conducted by Demir revealed that student expectations and perceptions arising had an important effect on ensuring student satisfaction of educational services [
46].
In addition, in this study, the indirect relationship between the expectation of academic education and satisfaction of academic education has been examined. This research has shown that perception of academic education plays a mediating role between expectation and satisfaction of academic education in terms of sustainability in education. That is, the positive effects of expectation on satisfaction are higher in students with a high positive perception. According to these results, it can be said that students will be more satisfied with the given academic education if they perceived that the academic education was better than expected. At the same time, it seems that expectation has more influence on satisfaction than perception.
As a result of the factor analysis performed on the satisfaction of academic education scale created within the scope of the relevant literature, a four-factor structure, including satisfaction of vocational education, satisfaction of personal development, satisfaction of the university, and satisfaction of the school, emerged. When the level of relation between satisfaction of academic education and its sub-dimensions was examined, it was revealed that, based on the level of relation, there was a highly positive relation between satisfaction of academic education and satisfaction of personal development, satisfaction of vocational education, satisfaction of the school, and satisfaction of the university, respectively. In addition, the students receiving tourism education had an above-average level of satisfaction of academic tourism education. When the sub-dimensions of the satisfaction of academic tourism education offered were examined, it was seen that the mean values of the satisfaction of vocational education were below average and the mean values of the other three dimensions, which were satisfaction of personal development, satisfaction of the university, and satisfaction of the school, were above average.
In conclusion, it is understood that in order to ensure the sustainability of tourism education in the direction of the findings obtained, besides fulfilling the expectations of the tourism sector, it is very important to determine and fulfill the expectations of the tourism education students. It was determined that the students whose expectations were met had a positive perception and that their tourism education satisfaction levels were higher.
As in any research, a number of limitations require a more careful evaluation of the research results in this study as well. This study was carried out in a single faculty and cannot be generalized, but the findings obtained are expected to contribute to future research. There is no doubt that this study should be carried out again with more detailed studies, including more schools and more students, by conducting this research in other cities and other schools providing tourism education. In this context, by evaluating the results obtained as a result of the studies conducted, it will be ensured that students are highly satisfied with the sustainable tourism education provided.