Evaluation of the satisfaction level of the students of the university student house I with concerning the structural and social aspects of the Federal University of Santa Maria
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X40536Keywords:
Satisfaction, Student house, Sampling, Structural and social aspectsAbstract
The university student house, also known as CEU, is a housing developed for Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM) students. There are two units of the housing in the city: one is located downtown and the other on campus. The present study aims to assess resident’s satisfaction with different structural and social aspects, and propose possible improvements. To this end, a questionnaire designed with 13 questions was applied among students selected through cluster sampling for apartments, with gender (male and female) being the reference variable. The project group members applied all questionnaires at the University Student House I - CEU I, located in downtown of Santa Maria - RS, within three hours of collection, divided into pairs and approaching each apartment sampled and applying the questionnaire to residents of the apartment individually. Inferences were then made in the data collected through multivariate techniques and descriptive analysis. From these analyzes it is suggested that some infrastructure complaints be considered in meetings with PRAE's (Pró-Reitoria de Assuntos Estudantis) senior management to seek solutions to the problems described by the students.
Downloads
References
DE LIMA, Carla Patrícia Novaes. A ARTE DA PARTICIPAÇÃO E A PARTICIPAÇÃO PELA ARTE: UMA EXPERIÊNCIA NAS CASAS DE ESTUDANTES UNIVERSITÁRIAS DA UFPE [1].
FIELD, Andy. Discopering Statistics Using SPSS, Thrid Edition. 2009.
FONAPRACE. Perfil Socioeconômico e Cultural dos Estudantes de Graduação das Instituições Federais de Ensino Superior: Relatório Final da Pesquisa. Fórum Nacional de Pró-Reitores de Assuntos Comunitários e Estudantis. FONAPRACE, Brasília. 2004
GARRIDO, Edleusa Nery et al. A moradia estudantil universitária como tema na produção científica nacional. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, 2013.
GARRIDO, Edleusa Nery. A experiência da moradia estudantil universitária: impactos sobre seus Moradores. Psicologia: ciência e profissão, v. 35, n. 3, p. 726-739, 2015.
HAIR, Joseph F. et al. Análise multivariada de dados. Bookman Editora, 2009.
HUTCHESON, Graeme D.; SOFRONIOU, Nick. The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. Sage, 1999.
KING, Gary. How not to lie with statistics: Avoiding common mistakes in quantitative political science. American Journal of Political Science, p. 666-687, 1986.
LARANJO, Thais Helena Mourão. O Crusp: processos de socialização e consumo de drogas. 2003. Tese de Doutorado. Universidade de São Paulo.
LARANJO, Thais Helena Mourão; SOARES, Cássia Baldini. Moradia universitária: processos de socialização e consumo de drogas. Revista de Saúde Pública, v. 40, p. 1027-1034, 2006.
LORENZO-SEVA, Urbano; TIMMERMAN, Marieke E.; KIERS, Henk AL. The Hull method for selecting the number of common factors. Multivariate behavioral research, v. 46, n. 2, p. 340-364, 2011.
MARTINS, Ana Paula Vosne. Um lar em terra estranha: a casa da estudante universitária em Curitiba e o processo de individualização feminina nas décadas de 1950 e 1960. 2002.
MORGADO, Maria Aparecida. Educação e Juventude: um panorama da assistência estudantil e de seus usuários na UFMT (Cuiabá) ARAÚJO, Denise Pereira de. Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso.
PAIVA, D.; MENDES, G. Onde se pode ficar nu: territorialidade e privacidade na casa do estudante universitário da UNB. Textos do laboratório de psicologia ambiental, v. 6, 2002.
PASQUALI, Luís. Análise fatorial: um manual teórico-prático. Brasília: Editora da UnB, no prelo, 1998.
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
TABACHNICK, Barbara G.; FIDELL, Linda S.; ULLMAN, Jodie B. Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2007.
UFSM. Casa do estudante universitário – CEU I, c2018. Histórico. Disponível em: http://w3.ufsm.br/ceu1/historico.html. Acesso em: 16 de out. de 2018.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
