Assessing Student Satisfaction and Institutional Efficiency in Dormitory Management: A Qualitative Analysis Based on Student Perspectives
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverview
The article is devoted to the efficiency of student dormitory services, which is an important topic, as a comfortable and supportive campus is a significant factor for student success. The described qualitative research focuses on studying the level of student satisfaction in dormitory management, maintenance, security and handling administrative data. The authors use personal interviews with students living in dormitories to study the current level of management in the dormitories and uncover pain points.
General comments
1. In the Introduction, the authors justify the importance of information management and efficient service in dormitories. In my opinion, this information should be accompanied by an overview of the current state of affairs concerning the efficiency of dormitory management in global or national practice. Several articles cited by the authors can become a good source of information for such a review.
2. The article lacks a description of the institutional context of the work. Nothing is mentioned about the universities included in the study, the number of dormitories examined, or the distribution of students selected for interviews among the dormitories and universities. However, this information is extremely important to assess the reliability, as well as the breadth of applicability of the research results.
3. The title of the article and the research questions outlined in the Introduction do not align clearly with the methods implemented, and the conclusions made:
· The first research question is “What is the current status of information management processes applied in student dormitories?” However, the research methodology includes neither a descriptive analysis of the technologies used for dormitory information management nor a quantitative measurement of its efficiency. Considering that the authors rely solely on the results of student interviews for their analysis, it seems doubtful that this research question can be fully addressed in the work.
· The authors mention “Enhancing Institutional Efficiency Based on Student Satisfaction” in the title and in the abstract, which leads the reader to expect that the article will introduce some work resulting in an improvement in institutional efficiency or at least propose a plan for improvement. The scientific value of the article would benefit from proposing specific measures for improving dormitory management and discussing the challenges associated with their adoption.
4. I recommend shortening Section 3, Findings, as it contains duplicative information. The authors first address each of the themes identified in the participants’ responses and then restate the same ideas in other words, which takes up from half a page to a whole page. It would be better to replace these paragraphs with a brief summary or a proposal for specific measures to address the identified deficiencies.
5. According to Section 3, Findings all the 150 interviewees were pre-service teachers. Please explain why students from other fields of study were not included in the research. Does this not compromise the representativeness of the sample of those living in student dormitories?
Specific comments:
1. Please provide the formula mentioned in lines 212-213 and explain how you got an average reliability of 91% for your research.
2. I suggest excluding the first column (“Category”) from Tables 1-4 since only one category is presented in each table. Moreover, the information about the categories is included in the titles of the tables.
3. Line 339: The phrase “How is the situation of student satisfaction…” sounds strange from the lexical viewpoint. You might consider revising the phrase to: "What is the level of student satisfaction..."
4. Table 2: The meaning of the phrase “In the dormitories, completely traditional methods are applied” is not entirely clear. You might consider revising it to ” In the dormitories, exclusively traditional methods of management are applied” if such a replacement fits the intended meaning.
5. Table 2: It is not clear what you mean under editing cinema films in the context of dormitories management.
6. Table 2: What is meant by the code 'support'? Please elaborate on the idea.
7. In the bibliography, unnecessary line breaks need to be removed.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI suggest that the manuscript should undergo a thourough English revision. More attention should be devoted to choosing proper lexics.
Author Response
General comments
-----------------------
1. In the Introduction, the authors justify the importance of information management and efficient service in dormitories. In my opinion, this information should be accompanied by an overview of the current state of affairs concerning the efficiency of dormitory management in global or national practice. Several articles cited by the authors can become a good source of information for such a review.
Authors >>> A new section [1.3 Current Practices and Efficiency in Dormitory Management: A brief Global and National Perspective] has been added.
---------------------
2. The article lacks a description of the institutional context of the work. Nothing is mentioned about the universities included in the study, the number of dormitories examined, or the distribution of students selected for interviews among the dormitories and universities. However, this information is extremely important to assess the reliability, as well as the breadth of applicability of the research results.
Authors >>>
Institutional Context has been added under 2.3. We are not able to reveal the real name of the dormitories as they can think we are judging their service quality.
---------------------
3. The title of the article and the research questions outlined in the Introduction do not align clearly with the methods implemented, and the conclusions made:
· The first research question is “What is the current status of information management processes applied in student dormitories?” However, the research methodology includes neither a descriptive analysis of the technologies used for dormitory information management nor a quantitative measurement of its efficiency. Considering that the authors rely solely on the results of student interviews for their analysis, it seems doubtful that this research question can be fully addressed in the work.
Authors >>>
To address this comment, we have refined the title, research questions, and methodology to ensure better alignment:
Revised Title:
Assessing Student Satisfaction and Institutional Efficiency in Dormitory Management: A Qualitative Analysis Based on Student Perspectives
Revised Research Questions:
The research questions can be revised to align with the qualitative nature of the study:
How do students perceive the current information management processes applied in dormitories?
What are the key factors influencing student satisfaction in dormitory management?
How can dormitory management improve efficiency based on student feedback?
Methodology Section Adjustment:
Revised Methods Section: "In this study, we focused on gathering student perspectives to explore their perceptions of the information management processes applied in dormitory management. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect qualitative data on how students experience and perceive these processes. Rather than performing a technical or quantitative assessment of the information management technologies, we aimed to understand how these systems impact student satisfaction and institutional efficiency from the user’s point of view. This qualitative approach allowed for a deeper insight into student experiences and their suggestions for improving dormitory management practices."
---------------------
· The authors mention “Enhancing Institutional Efficiency Based on Student Satisfaction” in the title and in the abstract, which leads the reader to expect that the article will introduce some work resulting in an improvement in institutional efficiency or at least propose a plan for improvement. The scientific value of the article would benefit from proposing specific measures for improving dormitory management and discussing the challenges associated with their adoption.
Authors>>>
To address this comment, we have revised both the abstract and the conclusion of the article to propose specific measures for improving dormitory management based on the findings from the student interviews. Additionally, we have included a discussion on the challenges associated with implementing these measures.
Revised Abstract:
This research examines the information management processes implemented in student dormitories and evaluates the enhancement of institutional efficiency based on student satisfaction. The study involved 150 students residing in dormitories across two universities, and data were collected through participant interviews. The findings indicate that while dormitory management is perceived as effective in some areas, there are significant opportunities for improvement in information management, communication, and service quality. Based on the student feedback, this article proposes several strategies to enhance dormitory management, including the adoption of digital platforms for better communication, regular maintenance schedules, and improved transparency in financial management. The challenges of implementing these measures, such as resource constraints and institutional resistance to change, are also discussed. These recommendations aim to improve student satisfaction and, consequently, institutional efficiency.
We have also revised the conclusion section.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis of student feedback, this study identifies several areas where dormitory management can be improved to enhance institutional efficiency. Dormitory management should adopt digital platforms such as dedicated mobile apps or intranet systems to facilitate more effective communication between staff and students. These platforms could be used to streamline announcements, maintenance requests, and feedback collection, improving responsiveness and transparency. A regular maintenance schedule for dormitory facilities, such as bathrooms, furniture, and security systems, should be established to ensure that issues are addressed promptly. Additionally, upgrading outdated furniture and increasing security measures (e.g., installing more cameras and employing additional guards) will improve the overall living conditions and security in dormitories.
To address student concerns regarding dormitory fees, management should provide clear and detailed breakdowns of fee structures and how funds are allocated. This would enhance trust and potentially improve satisfaction with the dormitory services. Organizing regular social activities and events can help create a more engaging and community-oriented dormitory environment. Such activities could include monthly movie nights or student-run events, which will improve the student experience. Implementing these improvements comes with challenges. Resource constraints, especially financial limitations, may hinder regular maintenance and upgrades. Additionally, the adoption of new digital communication platforms may face resistance from institutions that are slow to adapt to technological changes. Dormitory management teams may also struggle with balancing the administrative workload and the additional responsibilities of managing new systems. Therefore, a phased approach to implementation, starting with small-scale pilot programs, may be a more practical way to introduce these improvements.
---------------------
4. I recommend shortening Section 3, Findings, as it contains duplicative information. The authors first address each of the themes identified in the participants’ responses and then restate the same ideas in other words, which takes up from half a page to a whole page. It would be better to replace these paragraphs with a brief summary or a proposal for specific measures to address the identified deficiencies.
Authors >>>
We have revised this section and, as another reviewer had suggested, divided it into Findings and Discussion to bring clarity to this section.
---------------------
5. According to Section 3, Findings all the 150 interviewees were pre-service teachers. Please explain why students from other fields of study were not included in the research. Does this not compromise the representativeness of the sample of those living in student dormitories?
Authors >>>
We have added the rationale behind selecting only pre-service teachers as participants in the methodology:
Rationale for Selecting Pre-Service Teachers as Participants:
The decision to focus solely on pre-service teachers as participants in this study was driven by the unique perspective they offer regarding institutional management, education, and administrative efficiency. Pre-service teachers are trained to critically evaluate educational processes and often have a deeper understanding of institutional structures compared to students in other fields. Therefore, their insights are valuable in assessing the effectiveness of dormitory management and the relationship between information management processes and student satisfaction.
However, we acknowledge that limiting the sample to pre-service teachers may affect the overall representativeness of the findings. Students from other fields of study may have different priorities or experiences regarding dormitory life, and their inclusion could provide a more comprehensive view of the issues related to dormitory management. The focus on pre-service teachers was intended to provide a focused and in-depth analysis, but future research could expand the sample to include a wider range of disciplines to ensure broader applicability of the findings.
---------------------
Specific comments:
1. Please provide the formula mentioned in lines 212-213 and explain how you got an average reliability of 91% for your research.
Authors >>>
We have explained the formula and the reliability calculation:
Inter-rater Reliability Calculation
To ensure the reliability of the qualitative data coding process, we calculated inter-rater reliability using the following formula:
Reliability = Number of agreements / (Number of agreements + Number of disagreements) × 100
In our research, the coders agreed on 82 instances, with only 8 instances of disagreement. Applying the formula:
Reliability = 82 / (82 + 8) × 100
= 91.1 %
This indicates an average reliability of 91%, which is considered highly reliable for qualitative research. Reliability calculations above 70% are generally regarded as acceptable, ensuring that our coding process accurately reflects the participants' responses.
---------------------
2. I suggest excluding the first column (“Category”) from Tables 1-4 since only one category is presented in each table. Moreover, the information about the categories is included in the titles of the tables.
Authors >>> All the four tables have been revised by removing the redundant "Category" column.
-----------------------
3. Line 339: The phrase “How is the situation of student satisfaction…” sounds strange from the lexical viewpoint. You might consider revising the phrase to: "What is the level of student satisfaction..."
Authors >>> This has been revised. (the line number is changed now, it is under Dimension II)
Original: “How is the situation of student satisfaction in student dormitories?”
Revised: “What is the level of student satisfaction in student dormitories?”
---------------------
4. Table 2: The meaning of the phrase “In the dormitories, completely traditional methods are applied” is not entirely clear. You might consider revising it to ” In the dormitories, exclusively traditional methods of management are applied” if such a replacement fits the intended meaning.
Authors >>> This has been revised.
Original: “In the dormitories, completely traditional methods are applied”
Revised: “In the dormitories, exclusively traditional methods of management are applied”
---------------------
5. Table 2: It is not clear what you mean under editing cinema films in the context of dormitories management.
Authors >>> This has been revised.
Original: “Dormitories should not only have events and entertainment at the beginning of the year but at least once a month, and cinema films should be edited.”
Revised: “Dormitories should not only organize events and entertainment at the beginning of the year but also hold monthly activities, such as movie screenings.”
This revised version makes it clear that the suggestion is about regular social activities, including movie nights, which are common in dormitory settings.
---------------------
6. Table 2: What is meant by the code 'support'? Please elaborate on the idea.
Authors >>> This has been revised.
Original: "Support"
Revised: Institutional support for dormitory management: This refers to the need for adequate backing from senior management, both in terms of resources and decision-making authority, to ensure dormitory operations run smoothly and meet student expectations.
---------------------
7. In the bibliography, unnecessary line breaks need to be removed.
Authors >> References have been formatted as per Journal guidelines.
---------------------
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I suggest that the manuscript should undergo a thourough English revision. More attention should be devoted to choosing proper lexics.
Authors >>> We have done the language editing. Hope it is satisfactory now.
---------------------
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study investigate how information management processes are implemented in student dormitories and their influence on the efficiency of the institution. Using a qualitative study, the study presents four important findings. It identifies areas that need substantial improvements to foster institutional efficiency and student satisfaction as skills development, digital collaboration and strategic planning. The study also found that student satisfaction and institutional efficiency can be enhanced through planning regular events and catering services to the students. Security concerns, outdated facilities, noise and the lack of maintenance issues were found to negatively impact student satisfaction. The study further highlights that dormitory management can improve its administrative processes by reducing dormitory fees, modernizing the administrative systems, effectively using administrative data, simplifying complex procedures, reducing administrative burden and making administrative processes more efficient and transparent.
Overall, the manuscript is written very well in a clear and concise manner. The research contribution to research is present, but would be more impactful if highlighted clearly. The greatest strengths of the paper lie in its methodology and the findings. The methodology is described very well and each step well documented. The findings are also presented in a very clear and concise manner. However, there are some weaknesses that should be addressed to improve the quality of the paper.
1. The manuscript lacks a strong theoretical background. Based on the structure, it may appear as though the theoretical background is skipped entirely. To the reader, it also looks as though the theoretical background is integrated in the introduction section, but the entire section only has 11 references. This is insufficient to provide a solid theoretical base. It would help to enhance the quality of the paper if a separate section is added for theoretical background, and more references are incorporated to build a stronger theoretical foundation.
2. The authors have combined the findings and discussion in section 3. However, the lack of any references in the findings section poses some confusion as it is unclear whether the authors meant to discuss the findings in this section or not. If so, the discussion is insufficient because it lacks references to previous studies. I recommend separating the findings and discussion sections, in line with the journal template, and adding relevant references to support the discussion.
3. All the tables in the manuscript do not follow the template requirements. They should be redrawn as per the template, and the correct font should be used.
4. While the in-text citations adhere to the template, the references in the reference list do not. The reference list should be revised accordingly.
5. In the methods section, the authors explain that they obtained consent from the respondents but there is no statement on the informed consent statement as required by the journal. This should be added. Additionally, the data availability statement should also be added, along with the the declaration of conflicts of interest.
6. The manuscript is not structured well. See below for specific areas with issues.
(i) The structure does not follow the journal template, therefore it should be revised. The template shows the Discussion and Findings as two separate sections – the author’s should do the same.
(ii) The formatting of subsections do not follow the template and should be revised accordingly.
(iii) The conclusion provided is too long making it difficult to understand the main takeaway. I suggest moving some paragraphs and references from the conclusion to the Discussion section. I recommend that the conclusion section is revised and shortened.
Specific comments
Before starting Line 71: I suggest that authors include a paragraph explaining how the manuscript is structured. This would help the reader understand what content is presented in each section. Additionally, section 2, which provides the theoretical foundation, should be added next.
Line 151: ‘Personal interview technique’ is mentioned but not described. I suggest to provide a brief description and relevant reference.
Author Response
Overall, the manuscript is written very well in a clear and concise manner. The research contribution to research is present, but would be more impactful if highlighted clearly. The greatest strengths of the paper lie in its methodology and the findings. The methodology is described very well and each step well documented. The findings are also presented in a very clear and concise manner. However, there are some weaknesses that should be addressed to improve the quality of the paper.
--------------------------------------
1. The manuscript lacks a strong theoretical background. Based on the structure, it may appear as though the theoretical background is skipped entirely. To the reader, it also looks as though the theoretical background is integrated in the introduction section, but the entire section only has 11 references. This is insufficient to provide a solid theoretical base. It would help to enhance the quality of the paper if a separate section is added for theoretical background, and more references are incorporated to build a stronger theoretical foundation.
Authors>>>
To address the comment on the lack of a strong theoretical background, we have created a separate section dedicated to the theoretical framework. This section discusses key theories related to dormitory management, student satisfaction, and institutional efficiency.
--------------------------------------
2. The authors have combined the findings and discussion in section 3. However, the lack of any references in the findings section poses some confusion as it is unclear whether the authors meant to discuss the findings in this section or not. If so, the discussion is insufficient because it lacks references to previous studies. I recommend separating the findings and discussion sections, in line with the journal template, and adding relevant references to support the discussion.
Authors >>>
To address this comment, we have separated the Findings and Discussion. In the Findings section, we focus on the results of our study, presenting the data from the interviews without interpretation. The Discussion section follows where we interpret the results, compare them with previous studies, and integrate relevant references.
--------------------------------------
3. All the tables in the manuscript do not follow the template requirements. They should be redrawn as per the template, and the correct font should be used.
Authors>>>
Based on the journal template, all the four tables have been redrawn. They are also placed close to first citation.
--------------------------------------
4. While the in-text citations adhere to the template, the references in the reference list do not. The reference list should be revised accordingly.
Authors>>> The reference list has been revised as per template.
--------------------------------------
5. In the methods section, the authors explain that they obtained consent from the respondents but there is no statement on the informed consent statement as required by the journal. This should be added. Additionally, the data availability statement should also be added, along with the the declaration of conflicts of interest.
Authors >>>
The Informed Consent Statement, Data Availability Statement, and Declaration of Conflicts of Interest sections have been added just before References, in line with the journal's requirements.
Informed Consent Statement:
"Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Participants were fully informed about the purpose of the study, and their voluntary participation was ensured. All data collected were anonymized to maintain confidentiality and were used solely for the purposes of this research."
Data Availability Statement:
"The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author. Due to privacy concerns, the data are not publicly available."
Declaration of Conflicts of Interest:
"The authors declare no conflict of interest."
--------------------------------------
6. The manuscript is not structured well. See below for specific areas with issues.
(i) The structure does not follow the journal template, therefore it should be revised. The template shows the Discussion and Findings as two separate sections – the author’s should do the same.
Authors >>> We have presented the Discussion and Findings as two separate sections for each parameter.
--------------------------------------
(ii) The formatting of subsections do not follow the template and should be revised accordingly.
Authors >>>
We have formatted subsections to align with the journal’s template.
--------------------------------------
(iii) The conclusion provided is too long making it difficult to understand the main takeaway. I suggest moving some paragraphs and references from the conclusion to the Discussion section. I recommend that the conclusion section is revised and shortened.
Authors >>>
The Conclusion section has been made concise, focusing on the main takeaways of the research.
--------------------------------------
Specific comments
Before starting Line 71: I suggest that authors include a paragraph explaining how the manuscript is structured. This would help the reader understand what content is presented in each section. Additionally, section 2, which provides the theoretical foundation, should be added next.
Authors >>>
We have introduced a "Manuscript Structure" paragraph before line 71, as well as reorganize the manuscript to include a Theoretical Foundation section (as suggested in previous comments).
--------------------------------------
Line 151: ‘Personal interview technique’ is mentioned but not described. I suggest to provide a brief description and relevant reference.
Authors >>>
We have provided a brief description of the personal interview technique along with a relevant reference.
Revised Text for Line 151: (the line number is now changed as we have added more information in the article)
"We employed the personal interview technique, which involves conducting face-to-face or virtual interviews to gather in-depth information directly from participants. This method allows researchers to explore participants' experiences, perspectives, and emotions in detail, providing rich qualitative data. Personal interviews are particularly useful for understanding complex behaviors and decision-making processes in specific contexts (Legard, Keegan, & Ward, 2003)."
--------------------------------------
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have done a good job of restructuring the article, analyzing the goals and results of the study. The article now looks much more comprehensible. Hovewer, I have a few minor comments.
Comment 1. The order of paragraph numbering is mixed up - after paragraph 2.4, paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 follow, and then paragraph 3.
Comment 2. The authors did not thoroughly address my Comment 2 from Report 1, explaining that it is inappropriate to publish the names of the studied dormitories. They only clarified that these were dormitories from two universities. In my opinion, more information about the research subjects could still be presented - how many dormitories were involved in the study, what was the total number of residents, what proportion of residents from each dormitory was included in the study sample.
Author Response
Authors >>> At the outset we thank the reviewer for the great suggestions. They have been very constructive and positive, which helped us to identify the weak spots and revise them suitably. Thank you once again.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have done a good job of restructuring the article, analyzing the goals and results of the study. The article now looks much more comprehensible. Hovewer, I have a few minor comments.
Comment 1. The order of paragraph numbering is mixed up - after paragraph 2.4, paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 follow, and then paragraph 3.
Authors >>> Thanks you for identifying this error. We have corrected the numbering.
To make the new revisions clear, we have highlighted them as light green color. Hope that will be identifiable easily.
Comment 2. The authors did not thoroughly address my Comment 2 from Report 1, explaining that it is inappropriate to publish the names of the studied dormitories. They only clarified that these were dormitories from two universities. In my opinion, more information about the research subjects could still be presented - how many dormitories were involved in the study, what was the total number of residents, what proportion of residents from each dormitory was included in the study sample.
Authors >>>
We have added more information about dormitories in 3.2 Working Group section as Table 1. To make it clearly visible we have highlighted it in light green color. (Since a new table has been inserted, so other tables following this one have been re-numbered)
There are 13 dormitories within the campuses, with a total population of 2,434 residents, of which 150 were selected for the study. Dormitories 5 and 8 had the highest resident counts, each housing over 270 students, while the smaller dormitories, such as dormitory 12 and dormitory 9, accommodated fewer than 130 residents. This distribution emphasizes the variation in dorm sizes and occupancy, reflecting potential differences in the infrastructure and popularity of certain dorms. The dormitories offer inclusive services, ensuring accessibility for students with disabilities and providing facilities for social interaction, cultural exchange, and recreation, such as cafes, swimming pools, and sports areas. This environment fosters a sense of solidarity and supports the social development of students, reinforcing the importance of dormitory life in enriching the overall university experience. The shared use of facilities between university students further enhances this dynamic, promoting inclusivity and collaboration beyond academic settings.
Once again, we are grateful to the Reviewers.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have been very thorough in addressing all provided comments, which has improved the quality of the paper significantly, especially with regards to theoretical background, a much clearer discussion, a concise conclusion and formatting that matches the journal's guidelines. However, I would like to point out some minor comments in the revised manuscript:
(1) Inconsistent numbering:
-The heading in Line 144 should be 2.5 as continuation from previous numbering but it is presented as 1.2.
-The heading in Line 174 should be 2.6 and not 1.3 as it is currently.
(2) Title for section 4: I suggest that section 4 should be named as Findings and Discussions instead of just Findings. The authors presents both the findings and discussion in this section, it would be meaningful if this is reflected in the title of the section.
Author Response
Authors >>> At the outset we thank the reviewer for the great suggestions. They have been very constructive and positive, which helped us to identify the weak spots and revise them suitably. Thank you once again.
To make the new revisions clear, we have light green highlighted them. Hope that will be identifiable easily.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have been very thorough in addressing all provided comments, which has improved the quality of the paper significantly, especially with regards to theoretical background, a much clearer discussion, a concise conclusion and formatting that matches the journal's guidelines. However, I would like to point out some minor comments in the revised manuscript:
(1) Inconsistent numbering:
-The heading in Line 144 should be 2.5 as continuation from previous numbering but it is presented as 1.2.
Authors >>> Thanks for identifying it. We have corrected it now.
-The heading in Line 174 should be 2.6 and not 1.3 as it is currently.
Authors >>> Thanks for identifying it. We have corrected it now.
(2) Title for section 4: I suggest that section 4 should be named as Findings and Discussions instead of just Findings. The authors presents both the findings and discussion in this section, it would be meaningful if this is reflected in the title of the section.
Authors >>> Thanks for suggesting this. We have named it as Findings and Discussions.
Once again, we are grateful to the Reviewers.
