Student Satisfaction with University Facilities and Services and its Impact on Academic Performance: A Study in Higher Education

Student Satisfaction with University Facilities and Services and its Impact on Academic Performance: A Study in Higher Education | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Student Satisfaction with University Facilities and Services and its Impact on Academic Performance: A Study in Higher Education OLADAGBA STEPHEN BOLATIMI, FOLARIN EMMANUEL BOLATIMI This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6359552/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between student satisfaction with university facilities and services and its impact on academic performance Design/methodology/approach – The study employs a quantitative research design using an online survey methodology to collect data from a sample of 253 students. Pearson’s product-moment correlation analysis is used to explore the strength and direction of relationships among variables related to student satisfaction and academic performance. Findings – The findings reveal significant positive correlations between teaching methods, classroom environment, and library facilities with students' academic performance, indicating that improvements in these areas can enhance student satisfaction and academic outcomes. Originality/value – This study comprehensively investigates the impact of student satisfaction with university facilities and services and its impact on academic performance: A study in higher education in Ghana. Student Satisfaction University Facilities and Services Library Facilities Teaching Method Classroom Environment Academic Performance Figures Figure 1 INTRODUCTION Higher education system significantly contributes to a nation's development, encompassing social, economic, and industrial progress (Ramli et al, 2018 ). Higher education serves as a crucial driver of national development, equipping individuals with advanced skills and competencies vital for progress. Its role becomes even more significant in the era of globalization and the transition to knowledge-based economies (Abdullahi & Wan Yusoff, 2019 ). Globally, higher education is widely regarded as a fundamental instrument for fostering development and societal advancement (Abdullahi & Wan Yusoff, 2019 ). According to Weerasinghe & Fernando ( 2018 ) students are a key asset to universities, and their satisfaction is crucial in attracting future enrollments in a competitive environment. Student satisfaction is a temporary feeling derived from evaluating educational experiences, services, and facilities encountered during the learning process (Weerasinghe & Dedunu, 2017 ). Ensuring student satisfaction is a crucial aspect of higher education, as it not only contributes to the overall well-being of students but also has a direct impact on their academic performance. (Torres & Manuzon, 2020 ). Previous studies have shown that inadequate facilities can lead to poorer test scores in schools (Crampton, 2009 ; Tanner, 2008 ). Kapur ( 2018 ) in his study on factors influencing the student's academic performance, revealed that schools must provide essential resources such as textbooks, classroom environment, notes, learning materials, handouts, technology, library access, and laboratory facilities to enhance students' academic performance. Factors such as poor classroom lighting, noise, low air quality, and substandard building conditions negatively impact student performance (Cheryan et al, 2011 ; Berner, 1993 ). Research indicates that students perform better in well-constructed and equipped buildings compared to poorly designed ones. Additionally, classroom design is highlighted as a critical factor in enhancing student achievement (Cheryan et al, 2011 ). Research findings on student satisfaction with university facilities indicate that the key factors most strongly affecting overall satisfaction include lecture room facilities, library services, accommodation, employment resources, and entertainment options at regional state universities (Hopland & Nyhus, 2015 ; Zaman & Hosain, 2024 ; Ikram & Kenayathulla, 2023 ; Weerasinghe & Fernando, 2018 ).Norton ( 2023 ) concluded that availability of essential facilities (eg, academic, residential life, athletics, recreation, student unions, libraries, and attractive campus) plays a part in student satisfaction, engagement, and, ultimately, academic success and retention. At Koforidua Technical University, students interact with various facilities that are crucial to their satisfaction and academic performance, including library facilities, classroom environments, and teaching methods. Given the significant impact these facilities and services have on student satisfaction and academic performance, it is essential to assess their quality and availability. According to Bueno ( 2023 ) well-maintained and accessible facilities contribute to a conducive learning environment, enhancing students’ ability to engage with coursework effectively and perform better academically. Despite the increasing emphasis on library facilities in higher education institutions globally, there is a noticeable gap in understanding how these facilities, combined with teaching methods and classroom environments, impact student satisfaction and ultimately academic performance. This gap is particularly evident at Koforidua Technical University in Ghana, where the relationship between library facilities, teaching methods, classroom environments, and student satisfaction has not been comprehensively explored. This study aims to investigate the role of library facilities, teaching methods, and classroom environments in shaping student satisfaction and how this, in turn, affects academic performance. The objective is to examine how these independent variables interact with student satisfaction, and how this mediates the impact on academic performance. Research Question Are current university students satisfied with various aspects of campus facilities and services (Library Facilities, Teaching Method, Classroom Environment)? How does student satisfaction mediate the relationship between the quality of library facilities, teaching methods, classroom environment, and students' academic performance? LITERATURE REVIEW Teaching Method The concept of teaching methods in higher education is a topic of critical importance, as the quality of instruction can significantly impact student learning outcomes and the overall effectiveness of the educational system (Mohiuddin et al., 2020). Zendle et al (2018) identified a wide range of instructional approaches that can be employed in the university setting, each with its own strengths and limitations. One key factor influencing the choice of teaching methods is the specific learning objectives and content being covered in a course (Colclasure et al., 2022). Some teaching methods are more suitable for imparting factual knowledge, while others are better suited for developing problem-solving skills or critical thinking abilities (Zendle et al, 2018). According to Colclasure et al (2022) the most commonly taught teaching methods in pre-service teacher education programs include the problem-solving approach, discussion, demonstration, and field trips These methods have been shown to be effective in engaging students and promoting active learning (Colclasure et al., 2022). Zendle et al (2018) research on the effectiveness of various teaching methods provides further insights. He found that methods such as microteaching, reciprocal teaching, feedback, problem solving, direct instruction, and cooperative learning have particularly high effect sizes, suggesting they are highly impactful on student learning Classroom Environment The classroom environment is a crucial aspect of the educational experience in higher education, as it can significantly impact student engagement, learning outcomes, and overall academic success. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the physical design and layout of a classroom can either facilitate or hinder the learning process, highlighting the need for intentional consideration of the classroom environment. (Pedro et al., 2017; Cheryan et al., 2014). According to Pedro et al (2017) a crucial factor that has been identified is the classroom environment's ability to convey the intended activities and learning objectives. A classroom with fixed individual desks may convey a more traditional, lecture-based approach, while a space with movable tables and flexible seating can encourage collaboration and active learning. (Pedro et al., 2017) Additionally, the incorporation of instructional technology and the overall quality of the indoor environment, such as lighting, acoustics, and temperature, have been shown to influence student performance and productivity. (Mohammed & Abdou, 2019). The impact of the classroom environment extends beyond just the physical aspects, as non-classroom factors, such as gender, seating location, academic performance, and expected course grade, have also been found to shape student perceptions of the learning environment (Pedro et al., 2017; Mohammed & Abdou, 2019). Library Facilities Library facilities is a fundamental aspect of the library ecosystem, as it encompasses the physical and virtual spaces that enable the effective storage, organization, and access to knowledge resources. In the digital age, the traditional model of library facilities, characterized by reading rooms and dark rooms separated by piles of books, is no longer compatible with the needs of modern library users. (KOCA & Stanković, 2019). Libraries, particularly university libraries, have evolved from being mere repositories of books and printed materials to become dynamic information institutions that leverage digital technologies and communication platforms to enhance user experience and democratize knowledge. (Bugrov et al., 2021). Academic libraries have the potential to play a pivotal role in supporting the core missions of teaching, research, and service within educational institutions. (Stoffle et al., 1984). STUDENT SATISFACTION WITH CAMPUS FACILITIES AND SERVICES Student satisfaction with campus facilities and services in higher education is a critical focus area as institutions aim to enhance the quality of the educational experience. According to Kanwar and Sanjeeva (2022), student satisfaction significantly influences retention rates and institutional reputation. Satisfied students are more engaged in academics, participate actively in campus life, and feel a stronger sense of belonging. Kärnä and Julin (2015) emphasized the importance of a comfortable learning environment, highlighting the role of public spaces and campus accessibility. Similarly, Weerasinghe et al. (2018) identified lecture halls, libraries, accommodations, employment opportunities, and entertainment facilities as key drivers of satisfaction at regional universities. Norton (2023) further stressed that essential facilities, such as academic and library spaces, contribute to student satisfaction, engagement, and retention, with 87% and 86% of respondents valuing these resources for their education. Kärnä and Julin (2015) also noted that improving teaching and research spaces positively impacts satisfaction for both students and staff. Bueno (2023) concluded that access to quality services and facilities enhances student well-being, motivation, and commitment, shaping a favorable perception of the institution. STUDENT SATISFACTION WITH UNIVERSITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES AND IT EFFECT ON ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE Bueno (2023) highlighted that student satisfaction with services and facilities plays a crucial role in academic success at the graduate level. Ramli et al. (2018) found that factors such as e-learning systems, teaching aids, library environments, hostels, sports facilities, and transportation infrastructure collectively contributed 51.5% to students’ academic achievement. Oliso et al. (2024) reported a strong positive correlation (r = 0.712) between education service quality and student satisfaction, with service quality explaining 71.2% of the variations in satisfaction. The study also demonstrated that service quality indirectly influenced academic performance through student satisfaction, accounting for 12.7% of the variations in academic success. Hopland and Nyhus (2015) identified a modest but significant link between satisfaction with school facilities and exam results, while Munajat Zurainan et al. (2021) showed that specific facility areas have a notable impact on academic achievement. H1: Teaching Methods Influence Students’ Academic Performance Through Satisfaction Research highlights the crucial role teaching methods play in shaping students' academic performance and satisfaction. Poudyal (2023) examined the impact of audio-visual interactive media (AVIM) on student satisfaction and performance in blended AP courses. The findings revealed that higher satisfaction levels were associated with effective learning, driven by interactive sessions and supplementary resources. Similarly, Bhasin & Gupta (2024) identified five key factors educator support, student engagement, technology integration, course content and design, and administrative support that significantly enhance student satisfaction. The study demonstrated a positive correlation between satisfaction and academic success. Christopoulos et al (2022) explored augmented reality (AR)-supported teaching in medical education, comparing traditional methods with AR-enhanced instruction. Results indicated significantly higher satisfaction and academic performance among students exposed to AR-based learning, emphasizing the value of interactive and experiential teaching approaches. Román-Sánchez et al (2023) further supported this, linking active and experiential teaching methods, such as virtual simulations, to improved learning outcomes, deeper understanding, and greater psychological well-being. Additionally, Lopez et al (2024) found a strong relationship between online learning satisfaction and academic performance in mathematics, with teacher characteristics playing a pivotal role in student success. These findings collectively affirm that teaching methods profoundly impact students' academic performance, mediated by their satisfaction. H2: Classroom Environment Influences Students’ Academic Performance Through Satisfaction The classroom environment plays a vital role in shaping students’ academic success and overall satisfaction. Gietz and McIntosh (2014) found a significant association between students’ perceptions of their school environment and academic achievement, even when accounting for external factors like poverty and district disparities. Similarly, Erdem and Kaya (2024) emphasized that both classroom and school climates are critical correlates of academic performance, with their meta-analysis highlighting the positive impact of well-maintained classroom climates on educational outcomes. Adewale et al. (2021) demonstrated that students' comfort and satisfaction with classroom facilities and physical components directly influence their academic performance. A classroom environment fostering mutual respect, safety, and effective teaching practices was also identified by Qadeer (2024) as a significant contributor to improved academic outcomes. Furthermore, Choi et al. (2014) underscored the importance of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) factors, such as lighting, air quality, thermal conditions, and furnishings, in promoting positive academic results. These findings collectively suggest that a well-designed and supportive classroom environment significantly enhances students' satisfaction and academic performance. H3: Library Facilities Influence Students’ Academic Performance Through Satisfaction Recent studies have highlighted the significant role played by library facilities in enhancing students' academic productivity and success. Eyenaka et al. (2024) found that students with consistent access to laboratories and libraries displayed greater interest, higher levels of engagement, and improved academic performance in physics compared to those with limited access. The study attributed this to the ability of laboratory and library facilities to foster students' interest and enhance their performance in the subject. Similarly, Jean (2021) explored the impact of school library resources on academic achievement and concluded that the availability and effective use of library services significantly improve students’ academic performance. Pagalilauan et al. (2023) emphasized the importance of the library environment, revealing that factors such as cleanliness, resource availability, adequate lighting, and supportive staff greatly influence students’ study habits and academic success. Furthermore, Kabanda (2020) identified a moderate positive correlation between the staffing of school libraries and students' academic outcomes, highlighting the critical role of adequate library management in supporting academic achievement. These findings collectively affirm the substantial impact of library facilities on students’ academic performance, mediated by their satisfaction with these services. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The conceptual framework for the present study is designed based on the literature reviewed on student satisfaction with university facilities and services and its impact on academic performance. The review thus incorporates the conceptual belief that student satisfaction with university facilities and services influences students’ academic performance. In the study, the university facilities and services (library facilities, teaching method and classroom environment) are treated as independent variables (IV), students’ satisfaction is considered as a mediating variable (MV) and students’ academic performance is treated as a dependent variable. The following Figure 1 briefly summarizes the conceptual framework of this study. Research Methodology The present study adopted a quantitative research approach to gather insights from students at Koforidua Technical University in Ghana. This approach is effective for collecting and analyzing numerical data to describe, predict, or control relevant variables. According to Creswell (2014), quantitative methods are valuable for testing causal relationships between variables, making predictions, and generalizing findings to larger populations. The study's target population included over 3,000 undergraduate students from various faculties: Faculty of Applied Science and Technology, Faculty of Health and Allied Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of Business and Management Studies, and Faculty of Built & Natural Environment. A random sampling technique was used to select 253 students from these faculties. Random sampling ensures that the sample represents the broader population. Participants were chosen from different age groups, genders (male and female), academic levels (100, 200, 300, and 400 levels), and faculties (Business and Management Studies, Engineering, Applied Sciences and Technology, Health and Allied Sciences, and Built and Natural Environment) to capture a wide array of perspectives. Data collection was conducted via an online survey, using a questionnaire predominantly composed of closed-ended questions designed to align with the study's objectives. The questionnaire was developed using established survey instruments from prior research (Mueni, 2024; Weerasinghe & Fernando, 2018; Oliso et al., 2024; Annamdevula & Bellamkonda, 2016). Descriptive analysis, along with both descriptive and inferential statistics, was used to analyze the collected data using SPSS IBM v.20. This approach was selected for its effectiveness in offering a comprehensive view of the data, allowing for the identification of patterns, trends, and central tendencies within the variables being studied (Loeb et al., 2017). RESULT ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 Respondents’ Profile Variables Frequency N=253 Percentage (%) Sex Male 129 51.0 Female 124 49.0 Age (Years) 16-20years 95 37.5 21-30years 104 41.1 31-40years 33 13.0 41years and above 21 8.3 Educational level Degree 116 45.8 HND 107 42.3 Others (Diploma and Certificate) 30 11.9 Faculty Applied Science and Technology 75 29.6 Built and Natural Environment 32 12.6 Business and Management Studies 46 18.2 Engineering 36 14.2 Health and Allied Science 64 25.3 Source(s): Table by authors The study sample includes 129 male respondents, making up 51.0% of the total, and 124 female respondents, accounting for 49.0%. The majority of respondents fall within the 21-30 years age range, which comprises 104 individuals (41.1%). The next largest group is aged 16-20 years, with 95 respondents (37.5%). There are 33 respondents (13.0%) in the 31-40 years age category, and the smallest group is those aged 41 years and above, with 21 respondents (8.3%). In terms of educational attainment, the highest proportion of respondents holds a Degree (45.8%), closely followed by those with a Higher National Diploma (HND) at 42.3%. The remaining 11.9% of respondents have qualifications such as Diplomas and Certificates. The faculty distribution within the study shows that the largest group belongs to the Applied Science and Technology faculty, with 75 respondents (29.6%). This is followed by the Health and Allied Science faculty with 64 respondents (25.3%). Other faculties are represented with Built and Natural Environment at 32 respondents (12.6%), Business and Management Studies at 46 respondents (18.2%), and Engineering at 36 respondents (14.2%). Table 2 Reliability Test (Cronbach Alpha test) Cronbach's Alpha N of Items Comment Student Satisfaction with Teaching Method .909 8 Reliable Student Satisfaction with Classroom Environment .871 8 Reliable Student Satisfaction with Library Facilities .887 8 Reliable Students' Academic Performance .826 4 Reliable Source(s): Table by authors The reliability test results show strong internal consistency across all variables: Student Satisfaction with Teaching Method (.909), Student Satisfaction with Classroom Environment (.871), Student Satisfaction with Library Facilities (.887), and Students’ Academic Performance (.826), all with Cronbach’s Alpha values above 0.70, indicating reliable survey instruments. Correlation Analysis The researcher used Pearson product-moment correction analysis to test the strength of linear association among the variables. The statistical significance of the correction was evaluated using a p-value ≤ 0.05. The results are found in below Table 3 Teaching Methods Influence Students’ Academic Performance Through Satisfaction Students’ Academic Performance Teaching Methods Pearson Correlation .786 ** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 253 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Source(s): Table by authors H1: Teaching Methods Influence Students’ Academic Performance Through Satisfaction Hypothesis H1 suggests that Teaching Methods Influence Students’ Academic Performance Through Satisfaction. The Pearson Correlation between Teaching Methods and Students’ Academic Performance is .786, significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). This indicates a strong positive relationship between teaching methods and students’ academic performance, suggesting that effective teaching methods are likely to enhance student satisfaction and, consequently, their academic performance. Table 4 Classroom Environment Influences Students’ Academic Performance Through Satisfaction Students’ Academic Performance Classroom Environment Pearson Correlation .759 ** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 253 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Source(s): Table by authors H2 : Classroom Environment Influences Students’ Academic Performance Through Satisfaction Hypothesis H2 suggests that Classroom Environment Influences Students’ Academic Performance Through Satisfaction. The Pearson Correlation between Classroom Environment and Students’ Academic Performance is .759, significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). This indicates a strong positive relationship between classroom environment and students’ academic performance, suggesting that conducive and well-designed classroom environments are likely to enhance student satisfaction and, consequently, their academic performance. Table 5 Library Facilities Influence Students’ Academic Performance Through Satisfaction Students’ Academic Performance Library Facilities Pearson Correlation .813 ** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 253 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Source(s): Table by authors H3: Library Facilities Influence Students’ Academic Performance Through Satisfaction Hypothesis H3 suggests that Library Facilities Influence Students’ Academic Performance Through Satisfaction. The Pearson Correlation between Library Facilities and Students’ Academic Performance is .813, significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). This indicates a strong positive relationship between library facilities and students’ academic performance, suggesting that library facilities are likely to enhance student satisfaction and, consequently, their academic performance. Table 6 Model Summary b Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .820 a .672 .668 1.72066 a. Predictors: (Constant), Library Facilities, Classroom Environment, Teaching Methods b. Dependent Variable: Students’ Academic Performance Source(s): Table by authors The model demonstrates a strong explanatory power (R² = 67.2%), indicating that the predictors are significant factors in influencing students' academic performance. The close values of R² and adjusted R² suggest that the model is reliable and not overly complex. Table 7 ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 1510.471 3 503.490 170.060 .000 b Residual 737.205 249 2.961 Total 2247.676 252 a. Dependent Variable: Students’ Academic Performance b. Predictors: (Constant), Library Facilities, Classroom Environment, Teaching Methods Source(s): Table by author The ANOVA table evaluates the overall significance of the regression model and confirms that the predictors (Library Facilities, Classroom Environment, and Teaching Methods) collectively have a significant impact on students' academic performance. The model explains a substantial portion of the total variation, as indicated by the regression sum of squares (1510.471) compared to the residual sum of squares (737.205). The high F-statistic (170.060) and the corresponding p-value (.000) demonstrate that the regression model is statistically significant, meaning the predictors are meaningful in explaining students' academic performance. Table 8 Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) .641 .755 .849 .396 Teaching Methods .716 .161 .814 2.580 .000 Classroom Environment .090 .089 .166 1.010 .005 Library Facilities .808 .128 1.458 6.318 .000 a. Dependent Variable: Students’ Academic Performance Source(s): Table by author The coefficients table indicates that teaching methods, classroom environment, and library facilities significantly influence students' academic performance. A one-unit increase in teaching methods leads to a 0.716 increase in performance (p = .000), while a one-unit increase in classroom environment results in a 0.090 increase (p = .005). However, library facilities have the most substantial positive impact, with a one-unit increase leading to a 0.808 rise in academic performance (p = .000). These results highlight the critical roles that both physical and instructional resources play in enhancing academic outcomes. Table 9 One-Sample Test t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Teaching Method 71.652 252 .000 26.32411 25.6006 27.0477 Classroom Environment 74.392 252 .000 25.73123 25.0500 26.4124 Library Facilities 78.223 252 .000 26.52174 25.8540 27.1895 Source(s): Table by author The One-Sample Test results in Table 9 reveal significant positive impacts of teaching methods, classroom environment, and library facilities on students' academic performance. The high t-values (71.652, 74.392, and 78.223) and p-values of .000 for each factor indicate that these elements significantly contribute to student outcomes, aligning with the hypotheses that effective teaching methods, supportive classroom environments, and well-maintained library facilities are crucial for enhancing academic success. DISCUSSION The correlation analysis in this study employed the Pearson product-moment correction to examine the strength of linear associations among variables related to students' academic performance. The results presented in Table 3 , Table 4 , and Table 5 show significant positive correlations between teaching methods, classroom environment, and library facilities with students' academic performance through satisfaction. Specifically, teaching methods (r = 0.786, p < 0.01), classroom environment (r = 0.759, p < 0.01), and library facilities (r = 0.813, p < 0.01) all exhibited strong positive relationships with students’ academic performance, underscoring the critical roles these variables play in enhancing student satisfaction and academic outcomes. Literature supports these findings, highlighting the profound influence of effective teaching methods on student engagement and academic success. Poudyal ( 2023 ) and Bhasin & Gupta ( 2024 ) illustrate that interactive and engaging instructional methods significantly enhance student satisfaction, which, in turn, boosts academic performance. The augmented reality (AR)-enhanced teaching methods explored by Christopoulos et al ( 2022 ) and Román-Sánchez et al ( 2023 ) also demonstrate that experiential learning approaches can lead to higher student satisfaction and improved academic outcomes. This aligns with the study’s findings where a well-structured and engaging teaching methodology contributes to students’ satisfaction and better academic results. Regarding classroom environment, the results align with previous research indicating that physical and psychological aspects of the classroom play a crucial role in student learning. Gietz and McIntosh ( 2014 ), and Erdem and Kaya ( 2024 ) underscore the importance of a conducive learning environment that fosters mutual respect, safety, and effective teaching practices. Qadeer (2024) and Choi et al ( 2014 ) highlight that factor such as indoor environmental quality (IEQ), including lighting, air quality, and comfortable furnishings, significantly impact students' academic achievements. These elements are vital in creating an optimal learning atmosphere that supports student satisfaction and academic performance. The role of library facilities was also confirmed to be significant. Eyenaka et al ( 2024 ), Jean ( 2021 ), and Pagalilauan et al ( 2023 ) all emphasize that access to and satisfaction with library resources directly influence student performance. Adequate library management and a supportive environment enhance study habits and academic outcomes, as highlighted by Kabanda ( 2020 ). These studies underscore the importance of effective library facilities in fostering student satisfaction, which in turn, positively impacts their academic performance. The One-Sample Test results demonstrate a strong positive influence of teaching methods, classroom environment, and library facilities on students' academic performance. Teaching method showed a significant impact with a t-value of 71.652 and a p-value of .000, supporting Hypothesis H1. This finding aligns with previous research, such as Poudyal ( 2023 ) and Christopoulos et al ( 2022 ), which highlight the importance of effective teaching methods in improving student engagement and performance. Classroom Environment also played a critical role, with a t-value of 74.392 and a p-value of .000. This result corroborates earlier studies by Gietz and McIntosh ( 2014 ) and Erdem and Kaya ( 2024 ), which underscore the importance of a conducive classroom. Similarly, Library Facilities results, with a t-value of 78.223 and a significant p-value, reinforce the importance of accessible, well-maintained libraries. These results are consistent with studies by Eyenaka et al. ( 2024 ) and Pagalilauan et al. ( 2023 ), which highlight the critical role of accessible and well-maintained libraries in enhancing student engagement and learning. These findings validate the model in thus study, underscoring the critical roles of teaching methods, classroom environments, and library facilities in enhancing student satisfaction and academic performance. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION This study highlights the significant influence of teaching methods, classroom environment, and library facilities on students' academic performance. The correlation analysis revealed strong positive relationships between these variables and student satisfaction, with teaching methods, classroom environment, and library facilities all contributing substantially to enhancing academic outcomes. These findings are consistent with existing literature, emphasizing the importance of engaging instructional methods, conducive learning environments, and well-maintained library resources in fostering student success. It is recommended that universities invest in improving teaching methods, optimizing classroom environments, and upgrading library facilities to foster an optimal learning experience for students. Faculty members should adopt more interactive and engaging teaching methods, while campuses should be designed to enhance the physical and psychological comfort of learning spaces. Additionally, universities should prioritize well-maintained libraries equipped with diverse resources to support student learning. Implementing these recommendations will not only boost student satisfaction but also contribute to better academic outcomes, aligning with the overall goal of higher education institutions. LIMITATIONS AND SCOPE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The study’s sample size is limited to 253 students from a single higher education institution in Ghana, which may not be representative of the broader student population in other regions or institutions. This limits the generalizability of the findings to other contexts or educational settings. Future research could explore additional variables influencing student satisfaction and academic performance, such as social interactions, mental health support, and campus culture. Investigating the impact of technological advancements in teaching and learning environments could also provide valuable insights Declarations Funding Declaration This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Declaration of interest The authors report no conflicts of interest. Ethics and Consent to Participate Declarations This study relies solely on primary data collected directly from respondents. Ethical considerations were strictly observed throughout the data collection process. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before their involvement in the study, ensuring their voluntary participation and confidentiality. No human or animal experimentation was involved, and all procedures adhered to relevant ethical guidelines. Competing Interests Declaration The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate The study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the General Studies Department of Koforidua Technical University. All participants provided informed consent prior to their participation in the study. Participation was voluntary, and responses were kept confidential and used solely for academic purposes. References Abdullahi, I., & 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), 168-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/F-08-2017-0088 Adewale, B., Jegede, F., Okubote, F., & Olagbadegun, M. (2021, March). Impact Of Classroom Environments’ On The Academic Performance Of Architecture Students In Covenant University. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 665, No. 1, p. 012017). IOP Publishing. http://eprints.covenantuniversity.edu.ng/14196/1/2.pdf Annamdevula, S., & Bellamkonda, R. S. (2016). Effect of student perceived service quality on student satisfaction, loyalty and motivation in Indian universities: Development of HiEduQual. Journal of Modelling in Management, 11(2), 488-517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JM2-01-2014-0010 Bhasin, G. K., & Gupta, M. (2024, March). Virtual Education in Management Institutions: Investigating Its Influence on Student Satisfaction and Academic Achievements in Higher Education. In International Conference On Emerging Trends In Expert Applications & Security (pp. 191-218). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-3991-2_17 Berner, M. M. (1993). Building conditions, parental involvement, and student achievement in the District of Columbia public school system. Urban Education, 28(1), 6-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085993028001002 Bueno, D. C. (2023). Enhancing Graduate School Experience: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Student Satisfaction with Services and Facilities. Online Submission, 4, 1-22. https://iajournals.org/articles/iajsse_v2_i4_20_53.pdf Bugrov, V., Sitnicki, M. W., & Serbin, O. (2021). Strategic management of creative industries: A case study of university information institutions. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 19(2), 453. http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(2).2021.36 Cheryan, S., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kim, S. (2011). Classrooms matter: The design of virtual classrooms influences gender disparities in computer science classes. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1825-1835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.004 Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Plaut, V. C., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2014). Designing classrooms to maximize student achievement. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214548677 Choi, S., Guerin, D. A., Kim, H. Y., Brigham, J. K., & Bauer, T. (2014). Indoor Environmental Quality of Classrooms and Student Outcomes: A Path Analysis Approach. Journal of Learning Spaces, 2(2), 2013-2014. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1152654.pdf Christopoulos, A., Pellas, N., Kurczaba, J., & Macredie, R. (2022). The effects of augmented reality‐supported instruction in tertiary‐level medical education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(2), 307-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13167 Colclasure, B., Thoron, A., & Dempsey, J. (2022). Factors relating to agriculture teachers’ perceived use of instructional methods. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 3(4), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.235 Crampton, F. E. (2009). Spending on school infrastructure: does money matter?. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(3), 305-322. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230910955755 Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications. https://eduq.info/xmlui/handle/11515/19498 Djudin, T. (2018). The effect of teaching method and lecture program on students’ satisfaction rates and academic achievement. Journal of Education, Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 121-128. Erdem, C., & Kaya, M. (2024). The relationship between school and classroom climate, and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. School Psychology International, 45(4), 380-408. Eyenaka, F. D., Nsit, A., Umoren, F. A., & Bichi, K. (2024). LABORATORY AND LIBRARY FACILITIES: INVESTIGATING THEIR POTENCIES IN PROMOTING STUDENT INTEREST AND PERFORMANCE IN SCIENCE SUBJECT. INFORMATION SCIENCE, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343231202923 Gietz, C., & McIntosh, K. (2014). Relations between student perceptions of their school environment and academic achievement. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 29(3), 161-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573514540415 Hopland, A. O., & Nyhus, O. H. (2015). Does student satisfaction with school facilities affect exam results? An empirical investigation. Facilities, 33(13/14), 760-774. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-09-2014-0076 Ikram, M., & Kenayathulla, H. B. (2023, March). Education quality and student satisfaction nexus using instructional material, support, classroom facilities, equipment and growth: Higher education perspective of Pakistan. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 8, p. 1140971). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1140971 Jean, B. (2021). School Library Facilities and Students Academic Performance in Secondary Schools in Nyamasheke District-Rwanda. Journal of Education, 4(1). https://www.stratfordjournal.org/journals/index.php/journal-of-education/article/view/734 Kabanda, A. (2020). Management of school library and student academic performance in secondary schools: a case of Nabweru division, Nansana municipality, Wakiso district (Doctoral dissertation, Kyambogo University). https://kyuspace.kyu.ac.ug/xmlui/handle/20.500.12504/376 Kakaba, C. F., & Emechebe, S. N. (2020). SCHOOL PHYSICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT AND THEIR IMPACT ON STUDENTS LEARNING IN KANO STATE PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS. African Journal of Educational Management, 21(1), 21-34. Kanwar, A., & Sanjeeva, M. (2022). Student satisfaction survey: a key for quality improvement in the higher education institution. Journal of innovation and entrepreneurship, 11(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00196-6 Kärnä, S., & Julin, P. (2015). A framework for measuring student and staff satisfaction with university campus facilities. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(1), 47-66. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-10-2013-0041 Kapur, R. (2018). Factors influencing the students academic performance in secondary schools in India. University Of Delhi, 7(11), 575-587. KOCA, I., & Stankovic, D. (2019). Theoretical And Methodological Foundations Of Architecture-Architectural Organization Of Modern Libraries. Архитектура. Строительство. Образование, (1), 3-9. Lopez, K. R. G., Sanchez, J. G. L., Cataraja, V., & Baluyos, G. (2024). Students’ Online Learning Satisfaction in Relation to their Academic Performance in Mathematics. ARRUS Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(1), 85-95. Mohammed, M. A., & Abdou, A. A. (2019). The Framework Model for the Implementation of Collaborative and Interactive Learning in the University Classroom. Asian Journal of Education and e-Learning (ISSN: 2321–2454), 7(05). https://doi.org/10.24203/ajeel.v7i5.3548 Mohiuddin, K., Islam, M. A., Sharif, M., Nur, S., Talukder, M. S., & Alghobiri, M. A. (2020). Enumeration of Potential Teaching Methods in Higher Education: A Cross‐Disciplinary Study. Education Research International, 2020(1), 8870412. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8870412 Munajat Zurainan, A., Mat Nazir, E. N., & Md Sabri, S. (2021). The impact of facilities management on students’ academic achievement. Jurnal Intelek, 16(1), 27-39. https://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/69314/ Norton, T. (2023). The Influence of Campus Facilities on the Satisfaction and Retention of Students in a Higher Education Setting. https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/hied_etds/70/ Oliso, Z. Z., Alemu, D. D., & Jansen, J. D. (2024). The impact of educational service quality on student academic performance in Ethiopian public universities: a mediating role of students’ satisfaction. Journal of International Education in Business, 17(2), 340-370. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-07-2023-0042 Pagalilauan, J. B., Buco, J. T., & Daquioag, E. R. (2023). Library Environment Affecting the Study Habits and Academic Performance of Students of SJCB. American Journal of Education and Technology, 2(3), 51-57. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajet.v2i3.1751 Pedro, N., Baeta, P., Paio, A., Pedro, A., & Matos, J. F. (2017). Redesigning classrooms for the future: gathering inputs from students, teachers and designers. In 11th International Technology, Education and Development Conference (pp. 7908-7917). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2017.1861 Poudyal, P. (2023). Impact of Audio-Visually Enhanced Pedagogy on Student Performance and Satisfaction in the Blended Anatomy and Physiology Classroom. https://scholarworks.bellarmine.edu/tdc/167/ Qadeer, A., Shahid, S. H., & Ullah, N. (2024). Student’s Satisfaction and Academic Achievement Nexus Using Physical Facilities and Classroom Environment in Secondary Schools. Journal of Asian Development Studies, 13(2), 1595-1608. https://doi.org/10.62345/jads.2024.13.2.125 Ramli, A., Zain, R. M., Campus, C., Chepa, P., & Bharu, K. (2018). The impact of facilities on students’ academic achievement. Sci. Int.(Lahore), 30(2), 299-311. Román‐Sánchez, D., De‐La‐Fuente‐Rodríguez, J. M., Paramio, A., Paramio‐Cuevas, J. C., Lepiani‐Díaz, I., & López‐Millan, M. R. (2023). Evaluating satisfaction with teaching innovation, its relationship to academic performance and the application of a video‐based microlearning. Nursing Open, 10(9), 6067-6077. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.1828 Sharma, S., & Sharma, P. (2015). Indian higher education system: Challenges and suggestions. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 3(4), 6. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1179&context=ejie Stoffle, C. J., Guskin, A. E., & Boisse, J. A. (1984). Teaching, research, and service: The academic library’s role. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 18, 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219841803 Tanner, C. K. (2008). Explaining relationships among student outcomes and the school's physical environment. Journal of advanced academics, 19(3), 444-471. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2008-812 Torres, M. V., & Manuzon, E. P. (2020). Facilities and Services: An Assessment of Academic Institutions in Nueva Ecija. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science, 7(6). https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.76.4 Weerasinghe, I. M. S., & Fernando, R. L. S. (2018). University facilities and student satisfaction in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(5), 866-880. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2017-0174 Weerasinghe, I. M. S., & Dedunu, H. (2017). University Staff, Image and Students' Satisfaction in Selected Regional Universities in Sri Lanka. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), 19(5), 34-37. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2971465 Zaman, F. U., & Hosain, M. S. (2024). Student accommodation characteristics, perceived overall satisfaction and academic performance: evidence from six Scottish universities. On the Horizon: The International Journal of Learning Futures. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OTH-02-2024-0006 Zendler, A. M., Seitz, C., & Klaudt, D. (2018). English Teachers Assess Instructional Methods Supporting Knowledge Processes. International Journal of English Language Education, 4(2), 76-86. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijele.v6i1.12580 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6359552","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":437322274,"identity":"93f51340-f27e-40b5-94ca-825b958e62ec","order_by":0,"name":"OLADAGBA STEPHEN BOLATIMI","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Koforidua Technical University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"OLADAGBA","middleName":"STEPHEN","lastName":"BOLATIMI","suffix":""},{"id":437322275,"identity":"b9e623ec-c391-4299-9bbf-d0afe8cf2b05","order_by":1,"name":"FOLARIN EMMANUEL BOLATIMI","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Koforidua Technical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"FOLARIN","middleName":"EMMANUEL","lastName":"BOLATIMI","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-02 09:11:33","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6359552/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6359552/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":80241772,"identity":"420cdf23-e7f1-446b-b664-61fffd940b9f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-09 14:56:10","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17144,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConceptual Framework\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource: Generated from literature review\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6359552/v1/b5e91e0b73841d59b3d4d36e.png"},{"id":80242953,"identity":"9ffc115a-0c46-4aa2-bbee-8a8e9c9776e7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-09 15:12:10","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1033242,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6359552/v1/44ee5ddc-788b-4b12-a3fc-6c1969e2bc2e.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eStudent Satisfaction with University Facilities and Services and its Impact on Academic Performance: A Study in Higher Education\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eHigher education system significantly contributes to a nation's development, encompassing social, economic, and industrial progress (Ramli et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Higher education serves as a crucial driver of national development, equipping individuals with advanced skills and competencies vital for progress. Its role becomes even more significant in the era of globalization and the transition to knowledge-based economies (Abdullahi \u0026amp; Wan Yusoff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Globally, higher education is widely regarded as a fundamental instrument for fostering development and societal advancement (Abdullahi \u0026amp; Wan Yusoff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Weerasinghe \u0026amp; Fernando (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) students are a key asset to universities, and their satisfaction is crucial in attracting future enrollments in a competitive environment. Student satisfaction is a temporary feeling derived from evaluating educational experiences, services, and facilities encountered during the learning process (Weerasinghe \u0026amp; Dedunu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Ensuring student satisfaction is a crucial aspect of higher education, as it not only contributes to the overall well-being of students but also has a direct impact on their academic performance. (Torres \u0026amp; Manuzon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious studies have shown that inadequate facilities can lead to poorer test scores in schools (Crampton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Tanner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Kapur (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) in his study on factors influencing the student's academic performance, revealed that schools must provide essential resources such as textbooks, classroom environment, notes, learning materials, handouts, technology, library access, and laboratory facilities to enhance students' academic performance. Factors such as poor classroom lighting, noise, low air quality, and substandard building conditions negatively impact student performance (Cheryan et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Berner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). Research indicates that students perform better in well-constructed and equipped buildings compared to poorly designed ones. Additionally, classroom design is highlighted as a critical factor in enhancing student achievement (Cheryan et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch findings on student satisfaction with university facilities indicate that the key factors most strongly affecting overall satisfaction include lecture room facilities, library services, accommodation, employment resources, and entertainment options at regional state universities (Hopland \u0026amp; Nyhus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Zaman \u0026amp; Hosain, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Ikram \u0026amp; Kenayathulla, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Weerasinghe \u0026amp; Fernando, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).Norton (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) concluded that availability of essential facilities (eg, academic, residential life, athletics, recreation, student unions, libraries, and attractive campus) plays a part in student satisfaction, engagement, and, ultimately, academic success and retention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt Koforidua Technical University, students interact with various facilities that are crucial to their satisfaction and academic performance, including library facilities, classroom environments, and teaching methods. Given the significant impact these facilities and services have on student satisfaction and academic performance, it is essential to assess their quality and availability. According to Bueno (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) well-maintained and accessible facilities contribute to a conducive learning environment, enhancing students\u0026rsquo; ability to engage with coursework effectively and perform better academically.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the increasing emphasis on library facilities in higher education institutions globally, there is a noticeable gap in understanding how these facilities, combined with teaching methods and classroom environments, impact student satisfaction and ultimately academic performance. This gap is particularly evident at Koforidua Technical University in Ghana, where the relationship between library facilities, teaching methods, classroom environments, and student satisfaction has not been comprehensively explored. This study aims to investigate the role of library facilities, teaching methods, and classroom environments in shaping student satisfaction and how this, in turn, affects academic performance. The objective is to examine how these independent variables interact with student satisfaction, and how this mediates the impact on academic performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch Question\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAre current university students satisfied with various aspects of campus facilities and services (Library Facilities, Teaching Method, Classroom Environment)?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow does student satisfaction mediate the relationship between the quality of library facilities, teaching methods, classroom environment, and students' academic performance?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"LITERATURE REVIEW","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTeaching Method\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe concept of teaching methods in higher education is a topic of critical importance, as the quality of instruction can significantly impact student learning outcomes and the overall effectiveness of the educational system (Mohiuddin et al., 2020). Zendle et al (2018) identified a wide range of instructional approaches that can be employed in the university setting, each with its own strengths and limitations. \u0026nbsp;One key factor influencing the choice of teaching methods is the specific learning objectives and content being covered in a course (Colclasure et al., 2022). Some teaching methods are more suitable for imparting factual knowledge, while others are better suited for developing problem-solving skills or critical thinking abilities (Zendle et al, 2018).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to Colclasure et al (2022) the most commonly taught teaching methods in pre-service teacher education programs include the problem-solving approach, discussion, demonstration, and field trips These methods have been shown to be effective in engaging students and promoting active learning (Colclasure et al., 2022). Zendle et al (2018) research on the effectiveness of various teaching methods provides further insights. He found that methods such as microteaching, reciprocal teaching, feedback, problem solving, direct instruction, and cooperative learning have particularly high effect sizes, suggesting they are highly impactful on student learning\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClassroom Environment\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe classroom environment is a crucial aspect of the educational experience in higher education, as it can significantly impact student engagement, learning outcomes, and overall academic success. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the physical design and layout of a classroom can either facilitate or hinder the learning process, highlighting the need for intentional consideration of the classroom environment. (Pedro et al., 2017; Cheryan et al., 2014). According to Pedro et al (2017) a crucial factor that has been identified is the classroom environment's ability to convey the intended activities and learning objectives. A classroom with fixed individual desks may convey a more traditional, lecture-based approach, while a space with movable tables and flexible seating can encourage collaboration and active learning. (Pedro et al., 2017)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the incorporation of instructional technology and the overall quality of the indoor environment, such as lighting, acoustics, and temperature, have been shown to influence student performance and productivity. (Mohammed \u0026amp; Abdou, 2019). The impact of the classroom environment extends beyond just the physical aspects, as non-classroom factors, such as gender, seating location, academic performance, and expected course grade, have also been found to shape student perceptions of the learning environment (Pedro et al., 2017; Mohammed \u0026amp; Abdou, 2019).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLibrary Facilities\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLibrary facilities is a fundamental aspect of the library ecosystem, as it encompasses the physical and virtual spaces that enable the effective storage, organization, and access to knowledge resources. In the digital age, the traditional model of library facilities, characterized by reading rooms and dark rooms separated by piles of books, is no longer compatible with the needs of modern library users. (KOCA \u0026amp; Stanković, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLibraries, particularly university libraries, have evolved from being mere repositories of books and printed materials to become dynamic information institutions that leverage digital technologies and communication platforms to enhance user experience and democratize knowledge. (Bugrov et al., 2021). Academic libraries have the potential to play a pivotal role in supporting the core missions of teaching, research, and service within educational institutions. (Stoffle et al., 1984).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTUDENT SATISFACTION WITH CAMPUS FACILITIES AND SERVICES\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudent satisfaction with campus facilities and services in higher education is a critical focus area as institutions aim to enhance the quality of the educational experience. According to Kanwar and Sanjeeva (2022), student satisfaction significantly influences retention rates and institutional reputation. Satisfied students are more engaged in academics, participate actively in campus life, and feel a stronger sense of belonging. \u0026nbsp;Kärnä and Julin (2015) emphasized the importance of a comfortable learning environment, highlighting the role of public spaces and campus accessibility.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimilarly, Weerasinghe et al. (2018) identified lecture halls, libraries, accommodations, employment opportunities, and entertainment facilities as key drivers of satisfaction at regional universities. Norton (2023) further stressed that essential facilities, such as academic and library spaces, contribute to student satisfaction, engagement, and retention, with 87% and 86% of respondents valuing these resources for their education. \u0026nbsp;Kärnä and Julin (2015) also noted that improving teaching and research spaces positively impacts satisfaction for both students and staff. Bueno (2023) concluded that access to quality services and facilities enhances student well-being, motivation, and commitment, shaping a favorable perception of the institution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSTUDENT SATISFACTION WITH UNIVERSITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES AND IT EFFECT ON ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBueno (2023) highlighted that student satisfaction with services and facilities plays a crucial role in academic success at the graduate level. Ramli et al. (2018) found that factors such as e-learning systems, teaching aids, library environments, hostels, sports facilities, and transportation infrastructure collectively contributed 51.5% to students’ academic achievement. Oliso et al. (2024) reported a strong positive correlation (r = 0.712) between education service quality and student satisfaction, with service quality explaining 71.2% of the variations in satisfaction. The study also demonstrated that service quality indirectly influenced academic performance through student satisfaction, accounting for 12.7% of the variations in academic success. \u0026nbsp;Hopland and Nyhus (2015) identified a modest but significant link between satisfaction with school facilities and exam results, while Munajat Zurainan et al. (2021) showed that specific facility areas have a notable impact on academic achievement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH1: \u003cem\u003eTeaching Methods Influence Students’ Academic Performance Through Satisfaction\u003c/em\u003e \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch highlights the crucial role teaching methods play in shaping students' academic performance and satisfaction. Poudyal (2023) examined the impact of audio-visual interactive media (AVIM) on student satisfaction and performance in blended AP courses. The findings revealed that higher satisfaction levels were associated with effective learning, driven by interactive sessions and supplementary resources. Similarly, Bhasin \u0026amp; Gupta (2024) identified five key factors educator support, student engagement, technology integration, course content and design, and administrative support that significantly enhance student satisfaction. The study demonstrated a positive correlation between satisfaction and academic success. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChristopoulos et al (2022) explored augmented reality (AR)-supported teaching in medical education, comparing traditional methods with AR-enhanced instruction. Results indicated significantly higher satisfaction and academic performance among students exposed to AR-based learning, emphasizing the value of interactive and experiential teaching approaches. Román-Sánchez et al (2023) further supported this, linking active and experiential teaching methods, such as virtual simulations, to improved learning outcomes, deeper understanding, and greater psychological well-being. Additionally, Lopez et al (2024) found a strong relationship between online learning satisfaction and academic performance in mathematics, with teacher characteristics playing a pivotal role in student success. These findings collectively affirm that teaching methods profoundly impact students' academic performance, mediated by their satisfaction. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH2: Classroom Environment Influences Students’ Academic Performance Through Satisfaction\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe classroom environment plays a vital role in shaping students’ academic success and overall satisfaction. Gietz and McIntosh (2014) found a significant association between students’ perceptions of their school environment and academic achievement, even when accounting for external factors like poverty and district disparities. Similarly, Erdem and Kaya (2024) emphasized that both classroom and school climates are critical correlates of academic performance, with their meta-analysis highlighting the positive impact of well-maintained classroom climates on educational outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdewale et al. (2021) demonstrated that students' comfort and satisfaction with classroom facilities and physical components directly influence their academic performance. A classroom environment fostering mutual respect, safety, and effective teaching practices was also identified by Qadeer (2024) as a significant contributor to improved academic outcomes. Furthermore, Choi et al. (2014) underscored the importance of indoor environmental quality (IEQ) factors, such as lighting, air quality, thermal conditions, and furnishings, in promoting positive academic results. These findings collectively suggest that a well-designed and supportive classroom environment significantly enhances students' satisfaction and academic performance.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH3: Library Facilities Influence Students’ Academic Performance Through Satisfaction \u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent studies have highlighted the significant role played by library facilities in enhancing students' academic productivity and success. Eyenaka et al. (2024) found that students with consistent access to laboratories and libraries displayed greater interest, higher levels of engagement, and improved academic performance in physics compared to those with limited access. The study attributed this to the ability of laboratory and library facilities to foster students' interest and enhance their performance in the subject. Similarly, Jean (2021) explored the impact of school library resources on academic achievement and concluded that the availability and effective use of library services significantly improve students’ academic performance. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePagalilauan et al. (2023) emphasized the importance of the library environment, revealing that factors such as cleanliness, resource availability, adequate lighting, and supportive staff greatly influence students’ study habits and academic success. Furthermore, Kabanda (2020) identified a moderate positive correlation between the staffing of school libraries and students' academic outcomes, highlighting the critical role of adequate library management in supporting academic achievement. These findings collectively affirm the substantial impact of library facilities on students’ academic performance, mediated by their satisfaction with these services. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe conceptual framework for the present study is designed based on the literature reviewed on student satisfaction with university facilities and services and its impact on academic performance. The review thus incorporates the conceptual belief that student satisfaction with university facilities and services influences students’ academic performance.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the study, the university facilities and services (library facilities, teaching method and classroom environment) are treated as independent variables (IV), students’ satisfaction is considered as a mediating variable (MV) and students’ academic performance is treated as a dependent variable. The following Figure 1 briefly summarizes the conceptual framework of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Methodology\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present study adopted a quantitative research approach to gather insights from students at Koforidua Technical University in Ghana. This approach is effective for collecting and analyzing numerical data to describe, predict, or control relevant variables. According to Creswell (2014), quantitative methods are valuable for testing causal relationships between variables, making predictions, and generalizing findings to larger populations. The study\u0026apos;s target population included over 3,000 undergraduate students from various faculties: Faculty of Applied Science and Technology, Faculty of Health and Allied Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of Business and Management Studies, and Faculty of Built \u0026amp; Natural Environment. A random sampling technique was used to select 253 students from these faculties. Random sampling ensures that the sample represents the broader population. Participants were chosen from different age groups, genders (male and female), academic levels (100, 200, 300, and 400 levels), and faculties (Business and Management Studies, Engineering, Applied Sciences and Technology, Health and Allied Sciences, and Built and Natural Environment) to capture a wide array of perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData collection was conducted via an online survey, using a questionnaire predominantly composed of closed-ended questions designed to align with the study\u0026apos;s objectives. The questionnaire was developed using established survey instruments from prior research (Mueni, 2024; Weerasinghe \u0026amp; Fernando, 2018; Oliso et al., 2024; Annamdevula \u0026amp; Bellamkonda, 2016). Descriptive analysis, along with both descriptive and inferential statistics, was used to analyze the collected data using SPSS IBM v.20. This approach was selected for its effectiveness in offering a comprehensive view of the data, allowing for the identification of patterns, trends, and central tendencies within the variables being studied (Loeb et al., 2017).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESULT ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eRespondents\u0026rsquo; Profile\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"660\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrequency N=253\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e129\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e124\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge (Years)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16-20years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21-30years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e104\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31-40years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41years and above\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducational level\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDegree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e116\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHND\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e107\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOthers (Diploma and Certificate)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFaculty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eApplied Science and Technology\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBuilt and Natural Environment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBusiness and Management Studies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEngineering\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealth and Allied Science\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource(s): Table by authors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study sample includes 129 male respondents, making up 51.0% of the total, and 124 female respondents, accounting for 49.0%. The majority of respondents fall within the 21-30 years age range, which comprises 104 individuals (41.1%). The next largest group is aged 16-20 years, with 95 respondents (37.5%). There are 33 respondents (13.0%) in the 31-40 years age category, and the smallest group is those aged 41 years and above, with 21 respondents (8.3%). In terms of educational attainment, the highest proportion of respondents holds a Degree (45.8%), closely followed by those with a Higher National Diploma (HND) at 42.3%. The remaining 11.9% of respondents have qualifications such as Diplomas and Certificates. The faculty distribution within the study shows that the largest group belongs to the Applied Science and Technology faculty, with 75 respondents (29.6%). This is followed by the Health and Allied Science faculty with 64 respondents (25.3%). Other faculties are represented with Built and Natural Environment at 32 respondents (12.6%), Business and Management Studies at 46 respondents (18.2%), and Engineering at 36 respondents (14.2%).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eReliability Test (Cronbach Alpha test)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"654\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 336px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026apos;s Alpha\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN of Items\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 336px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent Satisfaction with Teaching Method\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.909\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReliable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 336px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent Satisfaction with Classroom Environment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.871\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReliable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 336px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent Satisfaction with Library Facilities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.887\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReliable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 336px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudents\u0026apos; Academic Performance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.826\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReliable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource(s): Table by authors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe reliability test results show strong internal consistency across all variables: Student Satisfaction with Teaching Method (.909), Student Satisfaction with Classroom Environment (.871), Student Satisfaction with Library Facilities (.887), and Students\u0026rsquo; Academic Performance (.826), all with Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha values above 0.70, indicating reliable survey instruments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCorrelation Analysis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe researcher used Pearson product-moment correction analysis to test the strength of linear association among the variables. The statistical significance of the correction was evaluated using a p-value \u0026le; 0.05. The results are found in below\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3 Teaching Methods Influence Students\u0026rsquo; Academic Performance Through Satisfaction\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"625\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 373px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 252px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudents\u0026rsquo; Academic Performance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeaching Methods\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 199px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 252px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.786\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 199px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 252px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 199px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 252px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e253\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 625px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource(s): Table by authors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH1: \u003cem\u003eTeaching Methods Influence Students\u0026rsquo; Academic Performance Through Satisfaction\u003c/em\u003e \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHypothesis H1 suggests that Teaching Methods Influence Students\u0026rsquo; Academic Performance Through Satisfaction. The Pearson Correlation between Teaching Methods and Students\u0026rsquo; Academic Performance is .786, significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). This indicates a strong positive relationship between teaching methods and students\u0026rsquo; academic performance, suggesting that effective teaching methods are likely to enhance student satisfaction and, consequently, their academic performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4 \u003cem\u003eClassroom Environment Influences Students\u0026rsquo; Academic Performance Through Satisfaction\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"637\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 385px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 252px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudents\u0026rsquo; Academic Performance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClassroom Environment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 234px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 252px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.759\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 234px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 252px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 234px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 252px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e253\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 637px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource(s): Table by authors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH2\u003c/em\u003e:\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Classroom Environment Influences Students\u0026rsquo; Academic Performance Through Satisfaction\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHypothesis H2 suggests that Classroom Environment Influences Students\u0026rsquo; Academic Performance Through Satisfaction. The Pearson Correlation between Classroom Environment and Students\u0026rsquo; Academic Performance is .759, significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). This indicates a strong positive relationship between classroom environment and students\u0026rsquo; academic performance, suggesting that conducive and well-designed classroom environments are likely to enhance student satisfaction and, consequently, their academic performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5 Library Facilities Influence Students\u0026rsquo; Academic Performance Through Satisfaction \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"631\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 330px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 301px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudents\u0026rsquo; Academic Performance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 169px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLibrary Facilities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 301px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.813\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 301px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 301px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e253\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 631px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource(s): Table by authors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH3: Library Facilities Influence Students\u0026rsquo; Academic Performance Through Satisfaction \u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHypothesis H3 suggests that Library Facilities Influence Students\u0026rsquo; Academic Performance Through Satisfaction. The Pearson Correlation between Library Facilities and Students\u0026rsquo; Academic Performance is .813, significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). This indicates a strong positive relationship between library facilities and students\u0026rsquo; academic performance, suggesting that library facilities are likely to enhance student satisfaction and, consequently, their academic performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 6 Model Summary\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"576\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR Square\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 163px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdjusted R Square\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStd. Error of the Estimate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.820\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.672\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 163px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.668\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.72066\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 576px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ea. Predictors: (Constant), Library Facilities, Classroom Environment, Teaching Methods\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 576px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eb. Dependent Variable: Students\u0026rsquo; Academic Performance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource(s): Table by authors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe model demonstrates a strong explanatory power (R\u0026sup2; = 67.2%), indicating that the predictors are significant factors in influencing students\u0026apos; academic performance. The close values of R\u0026sup2; and adjusted R\u0026sup2; suggest that the model is reliable and not overly complex.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 7 ANOVA\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"582\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 133px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSum of Squares\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean Square\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegression\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1510.471\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e503.490\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e170.060\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResidual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e737.205\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e249\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.961\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 98px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2247.676\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 67px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e252\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 582px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ea. Dependent Variable: Students\u0026rsquo; Academic Performance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 582px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eb. Predictors: (Constant), Library Facilities, Classroom Environment, Teaching Methods\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource(s): Table by author\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe ANOVA table evaluates the overall significance of the regression model and confirms that the predictors (Library Facilities, Classroom Environment, and Teaching Methods) collectively have a significant impact on students\u0026apos; academic performance. The model explains a substantial portion of the total variation, as indicated by the regression sum of squares (1510.471) compared to the residual sum of squares (737.205). The high F-statistic (170.060) and the corresponding p-value (.000) demonstrate that the regression model is statistically significant, meaning the predictors are meaningful in explaining students\u0026apos; academic performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 8 Coefficients\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"714\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnstandardized Coefficients\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandardized Coefficients\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStd. Error\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBeta\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Constant)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.641\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.755\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.849\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.396\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeaching Methods\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.716\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.161\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.814\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.580\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClassroom Environment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.090\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.089\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.166\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLibrary Facilities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.808\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.128\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.458\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.318\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 714px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ea. Dependent Variable: Students\u0026rsquo; Academic Performance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource(s): Table by author\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe coefficients table indicates that teaching methods, classroom environment, and library facilities significantly influence students\u0026apos; academic performance. A one-unit increase in teaching methods leads to a 0.716 increase in performance (p = .000), while a one-unit increase in classroom environment results in a 0.090 increase (p = .005). However, library facilities have the most substantial positive impact, with a one-unit increase leading to a 0.808 rise in academic performance (p = .000). These results highlight the critical roles that both physical and instructional resources play in enhancing academic outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 9 One-Sample Test\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"660\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 498px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean Difference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% Confidence Interval of the Difference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLower\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUpper\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeaching Method\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71.652\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e252\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.32411\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.6006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.0477\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClassroom Environment\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e74.392\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e252\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.73123\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.0500\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.4124\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLibrary Facilities\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78.223\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e252\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.52174\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.8540\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.1895\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource(s): Table by author\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe One-Sample Test results in Table 9 reveal significant positive impacts of teaching methods, classroom environment, and library facilities on students\u0026apos; academic performance. The high t-values (71.652, 74.392, and 78.223) and p-values of .000 for each factor indicate that these elements significantly contribute to student outcomes, aligning with the hypotheses that effective teaching methods, supportive classroom environments, and well-maintained library facilities are crucial for enhancing academic success.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe correlation analysis in this study employed the Pearson product-moment correction to examine the strength of linear associations among variables related to students' academic performance. The results presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, and Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e show significant positive correlations between teaching methods, classroom environment, and library facilities with students' academic performance through satisfaction. Specifically, teaching methods (r = 0.786, p \u0026lt; 0.01), classroom environment (r = 0.759, p \u0026lt; 0.01), and library facilities (r = 0.813, p \u0026lt; 0.01) all exhibited strong positive relationships with students’ academic performance, underscoring the critical roles these variables play in enhancing student satisfaction and academic outcomes. Literature supports these findings, highlighting the profound influence of effective teaching methods on student engagement and academic success. Poudyal (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and Bhasin \u0026amp; Gupta (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) illustrate that interactive and engaging instructional methods significantly enhance student satisfaction, which, in turn, boosts academic performance. The augmented reality (AR)-enhanced teaching methods explored by Christopoulos et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and Román-Sánchez et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) also demonstrate that experiential learning approaches can lead to higher student satisfaction and improved academic outcomes. This aligns with the study’s findings where a well-structured and engaging teaching methodology contributes to students’ satisfaction and better academic results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding classroom environment, the results align with previous research indicating that physical and psychological aspects of the classroom play a crucial role in student learning. Gietz and McIntosh (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), and Erdem and Kaya (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) underscore the importance of a conducive learning environment that fosters mutual respect, safety, and effective teaching practices. Qadeer (2024) and Choi et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) highlight that factor such as indoor environmental quality (IEQ), including lighting, air quality, and comfortable furnishings, significantly impact students' academic achievements. These elements are vital in creating an optimal learning atmosphere that supports student satisfaction and academic performance. The role of library facilities was also confirmed to be significant. Eyenaka et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), Jean (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), and Pagalilauan et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) all emphasize that access to and satisfaction with library resources directly influence student performance. Adequate library management and a supportive environment enhance study habits and academic outcomes, as highlighted by Kabanda (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). These studies underscore the importance of effective library facilities in fostering student satisfaction, which in turn, positively impacts their academic performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe One-Sample Test results demonstrate a strong positive influence of teaching methods, classroom environment, and library facilities on students' academic performance. Teaching method showed a significant impact with a t-value of 71.652 and a p-value of .000, supporting Hypothesis H1. This finding aligns with previous research, such as Poudyal (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and Christopoulos et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), which highlight the importance of effective teaching methods in improving student engagement and performance. Classroom Environment also played a critical role, with a t-value of 74.392 and a p-value of .000. This result corroborates earlier studies by Gietz and McIntosh (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) and Erdem and Kaya (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), which underscore the importance of a conducive classroom. Similarly, Library Facilities results, with a t-value of 78.223 and a significant p-value, reinforce the importance of accessible, well-maintained libraries. These results are consistent with studies by Eyenaka et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) and Pagalilauan et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), which highlight the critical role of accessible and well-maintained libraries in enhancing student engagement and learning. These findings validate the model in thus study, underscoring the critical roles of teaching methods, classroom environments, and library facilities in enhancing student satisfaction and academic performance.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study highlights the significant influence of teaching methods, classroom environment, and library facilities on students' academic performance. The correlation analysis revealed strong positive relationships between these variables and student satisfaction, with teaching methods, classroom environment, and library facilities all contributing substantially to enhancing academic outcomes. These findings are consistent with existing literature, emphasizing the importance of engaging instructional methods, conducive learning environments, and well-maintained library resources in fostering student success. It is recommended that universities invest in improving teaching methods, optimizing classroom environments, and upgrading library facilities to foster an optimal learning experience for students. Faculty members should adopt more interactive and engaging teaching methods, while campuses should be designed to enhance the physical and psychological comfort of learning spaces. Additionally, universities should prioritize well-maintained libraries equipped with diverse resources to support student learning. Implementing these recommendations will not only boost student satisfaction but also contribute to better academic outcomes, aligning with the overall goal of higher education institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLIMITATIONS AND SCOPE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study’s sample size is limited to 253 students from a single higher education institution in Ghana, which may not be representative of the broader student population in other regions or institutions. This limits the generalizability of the findings to other contexts or educational settings. Future research could explore additional variables influencing student satisfaction and academic performance, such as social interactions, mental health support, and campus culture. Investigating the impact of technological advancements in teaching and learning environments could also provide valuable insights\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding Declaration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors report no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics and Consent to Participate Declarations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study relies solely on primary data collected directly from respondents. Ethical considerations were strictly observed throughout the data collection process. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before their involvement in the study, ensuring their voluntary participation and confidentiality. No human or animal experimentation was involved, and all procedures adhered to relevant ethical guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests Declaration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval and Consent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the General Studies Department of Koforidua Technical University. All participants provided informed consent prior to their participation in the study. Participation was voluntary, and responses were kept confidential and used solely for academic purposes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAbdullahi, I., \u0026amp; 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), 168-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/F-08-2017-0088\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAdewale, B., Jegede, F., Okubote, F., \u0026amp; Olagbadegun, M. (2021, March). Impact Of Classroom Environments’ On The Academic Performance Of Architecture Students In Covenant University. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 665, No. 1, p. 012017). IOP Publishing. http://eprints.covenantuniversity.edu.ng/14196/1/2.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAnnamdevula, S., \u0026amp; Bellamkonda, R. S. (2016). Effect of student perceived service quality on student satisfaction, loyalty and motivation in Indian universities: Development of HiEduQual. Journal of Modelling in Management, 11(2), 488-517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JM2-01-2014-0010\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBhasin, G. K., \u0026amp; Gupta, M. (2024, March). Virtual Education in Management Institutions: Investigating Its Influence on Student Satisfaction and Academic Achievements in Higher Education. In International Conference On Emerging Trends In Expert Applications \u0026amp; Security (pp. 191-218). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-3991-2_17\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBerner, M. M. (1993). Building conditions, parental involvement, and student achievement in the District of Columbia public school system. Urban Education, 28(1), 6-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085993028001002\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBueno, D. C. (2023). Enhancing Graduate School Experience: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Student Satisfaction with Services and Facilities. Online Submission, 4, 1-22. https://iajournals.org/articles/iajsse_v2_i4_20_53.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBugrov, V., Sitnicki, M. W., \u0026amp; Serbin, O. (2021). Strategic management of creative industries: A case study of university information institutions. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 19(2), 453. http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(2).2021.36\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCheryan, S., Meltzoff, A. N., \u0026amp; Kim, S. (2011). Classrooms matter: The design of virtual classrooms influences gender disparities in computer science classes. Computers \u0026amp; Education, 57(2), 1825-1835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.004\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Plaut, V. C., \u0026amp; Meltzoff, A. N. (2014). Designing classrooms to maximize student achievement. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214548677\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChoi, S., Guerin, D. A., Kim, H. Y., Brigham, J. K., \u0026amp; Bauer, T. (2014). Indoor Environmental Quality of Classrooms and Student Outcomes: A Path Analysis Approach. Journal of Learning Spaces, 2(2), 2013-2014. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1152654.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChristopoulos, A., Pellas, N., Kurczaba, J., \u0026amp; Macredie, R. (2022). The effects of augmented reality‐supported instruction in tertiary‐level medical education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(2), 307-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13167\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eColclasure, B., Thoron, A., \u0026amp; Dempsey, J. (2022). Factors relating to agriculture teachers’ perceived use of instructional methods. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 3(4), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.235\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCrampton, F. E. (2009). Spending on school infrastructure: does money matter?. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(3), 305-322. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230910955755\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCreswell, J. W., \u0026amp; Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications. https://eduq.info/xmlui/handle/11515/19498\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDjudin, T. (2018). The effect of teaching method and lecture program on students’ satisfaction rates and academic achievement. Journal of Education, Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 121-128.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eErdem, C., \u0026amp; Kaya, M. (2024). The relationship between school and classroom climate, and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. School Psychology International, 45(4), 380-408.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEyenaka, F. D., Nsit, A., Umoren, F. A., \u0026amp; Bichi, K. (2024). LABORATORY AND LIBRARY FACILITIES: INVESTIGATING THEIR POTENCIES IN PROMOTING STUDENT INTEREST AND PERFORMANCE IN SCIENCE SUBJECT. INFORMATION SCIENCE, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343231202923\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGietz, C., \u0026amp; McIntosh, K. (2014). Relations between student perceptions of their school environment and academic achievement. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 29(3), 161-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573514540415\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHopland, A. O., \u0026amp; Nyhus, O. H. (2015). Does student satisfaction with school facilities affect exam results? An empirical investigation. Facilities, 33(13/14), 760-774. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-09-2014-0076\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIkram, M., \u0026amp; Kenayathulla, H. B. (2023, March). Education quality and student satisfaction nexus using instructional material, support, classroom facilities, equipment and growth: Higher education perspective of Pakistan. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 8, p. 1140971). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1140971\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJean, B. (2021). School Library Facilities and Students Academic Performance in Secondary Schools in Nyamasheke District-Rwanda. Journal of Education, 4(1). https://www.stratfordjournal.org/journals/index.php/journal-of-education/article/view/734\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKabanda, A. (2020). Management of school library and student academic performance in secondary schools: a case of Nabweru division, Nansana municipality, Wakiso district (Doctoral dissertation, Kyambogo University). https://kyuspace.kyu.ac.ug/xmlui/handle/20.500.12504/376\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKakaba, C. F., \u0026amp; Emechebe, S. N. (2020). SCHOOL PHYSICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT AND THEIR IMPACT ON STUDENTS LEARNING IN KANO STATE PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS. African Journal of Educational Management, 21(1), 21-34.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKanwar, A., \u0026amp; Sanjeeva, M. (2022). Student satisfaction survey: a key for quality improvement in the higher education institution. Journal of innovation and entrepreneurship, 11(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00196-6\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKärnä, S., \u0026amp; Julin, P. (2015). A framework for measuring student and staff satisfaction with university campus facilities. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(1), 47-66. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-10-2013-0041\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKapur, R. (2018). Factors influencing the students academic performance in secondary schools in India. University Of Delhi, 7(11), 575-587.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKOCA, I., \u0026amp; Stankovic, D. (2019). Theoretical And Methodological Foundations Of Architecture-Architectural Organization Of Modern Libraries. Архитектура. Строительство. Образование, (1), 3-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLopez, K. R. G., Sanchez, J. G. L., Cataraja, V., \u0026amp; Baluyos, G. (2024). Students’ Online Learning Satisfaction in Relation to their Academic Performance in Mathematics. ARRUS Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(1), 85-95.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMohammed, M. A., \u0026amp; Abdou, A. A. (2019). The Framework Model for the Implementation of Collaborative and Interactive Learning in the University Classroom. Asian Journal of Education and e-Learning (ISSN: 2321–2454), 7(05). https://doi.org/10.24203/ajeel.v7i5.3548\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMohiuddin, K., Islam, M. A., Sharif, M., Nur, S., Talukder, M. S., \u0026amp; Alghobiri, M. A. (2020). Enumeration of Potential Teaching Methods in Higher Education: A Cross‐Disciplinary Study. Education Research International, 2020(1), 8870412. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8870412\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMunajat Zurainan, A., Mat Nazir, E. N., \u0026amp; Md Sabri, S. (2021). The impact of facilities management on students’ academic achievement. Jurnal Intelek, 16(1), 27-39. https://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/69314/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNorton, T. (2023). The Influence of Campus Facilities on the Satisfaction and Retention of Students in a Higher Education Setting. https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/hied_etds/70/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOliso, Z. Z., Alemu, D. D., \u0026amp; Jansen, J. D. (2024). The impact of educational service quality on student academic performance in Ethiopian public universities: a mediating role of students’ satisfaction. Journal of International Education in Business, 17(2), 340-370. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-07-2023-0042\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePagalilauan, J. B., Buco, J. T., \u0026amp; Daquioag, E. R. (2023). Library Environment Affecting the Study Habits and Academic Performance of Students of SJCB. American Journal of Education and Technology, 2(3), 51-57. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajet.v2i3.1751\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePedro, N., Baeta, P., Paio, A., Pedro, A., \u0026amp; Matos, J. F. (2017). Redesigning classrooms for the future: gathering inputs from students, teachers and designers. In 11th International Technology, Education and Development Conference (pp. 7908-7917). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2017.1861\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePoudyal, P. (2023). Impact of Audio-Visually Enhanced Pedagogy on Student Performance and Satisfaction in the Blended Anatomy and Physiology Classroom. https://scholarworks.bellarmine.edu/tdc/167/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eQadeer, A., Shahid, S. H., \u0026amp; Ullah, N. (2024). Student’s Satisfaction and Academic Achievement Nexus Using Physical Facilities and Classroom Environment in Secondary Schools. Journal of Asian Development Studies, 13(2), 1595-1608. https://doi.org/10.62345/jads.2024.13.2.125\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRamli, A., Zain, R. M., Campus, C., Chepa, P., \u0026amp; Bharu, K. (2018). The impact of facilities on students’ academic achievement. Sci. Int.(Lahore), 30(2), 299-311.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRomán‐Sánchez, D., De‐La‐Fuente‐Rodríguez, J. M., Paramio, A., Paramio‐Cuevas, J. C., Lepiani‐Díaz, I., \u0026amp; López‐Millan, M. R. (2023). Evaluating satisfaction with teaching innovation, its relationship to academic performance and the application of a video‐based microlearning. Nursing Open, 10(9), 6067-6077. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.1828\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSharma, S., \u0026amp; Sharma, P. (2015). Indian higher education system: Challenges and suggestions. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 3(4), 6. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1179\u0026amp;context=ejie\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStoffle, C. J., Guskin, A. E., \u0026amp; Boisse, J. A. (1984). Teaching, research, and service: The academic library’s role. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 18, 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219841803\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTanner, C. K. (2008). Explaining relationships among student outcomes and the school's physical environment. Journal of advanced academics, 19(3), 444-471. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2008-812\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTorres, M. V., \u0026amp; Manuzon, E. P. (2020). Facilities and Services: An Assessment of Academic Institutions in Nueva Ecija. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science, 7(6). https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.76.4\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWeerasinghe, I. M. S., \u0026amp; Fernando, R. L. S. (2018). University facilities and student satisfaction in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(5), 866-880. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2017-0174\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWeerasinghe, I. M. S., \u0026amp; Dedunu, H. (2017). University Staff, Image and Students' Satisfaction in Selected Regional Universities in Sri Lanka. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), 19(5), 34-37. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2971465\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZaman, F. U., \u0026amp; Hosain, M. S. (2024). Student accommodation characteristics, perceived overall satisfaction and academic performance: evidence from six Scottish universities. On the Horizon: The International Journal of Learning Futures. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OTH-02-2024-0006\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZendler, A. M., Seitz, C., \u0026amp; Klaudt, D. (2018). English Teachers Assess Instructional Methods Supporting Knowledge Processes. International Journal of English Language Education, 4(2), 76-86. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijele.v6i1.12580\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Student Satisfaction, University Facilities and Services, Library Facilities, Teaching Method, Classroom Environment, Academic Performance","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6359552/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6359552/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePurpose –\u003c/strong\u003eThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between student satisfaction with university facilities and services and its impact on academic performance\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDesign/methodology/approach – \u003c/strong\u003eThe study employs a quantitative research design using an online survey methodology to collect data from a sample of 253 students. Pearson’s product-moment correlation analysis is used to explore the strength and direction of relationships among variables related to student satisfaction and academic performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFindings –\u003c/strong\u003eThe findings reveal significant positive correlations between teaching methods, classroom environment, and library facilities with students' academic performance, indicating that improvements in these areas can enhance student satisfaction and academic outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOriginality/value\u003c/strong\u003e – This study comprehensively investigates the impact of student satisfaction with university facilities and services and its impact on academic performance: A study in higher education in Ghana.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Student Satisfaction with University Facilities and Services and its Impact on Academic Performance: A Study in Higher Education","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-09 14:56:05","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6359552/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"0b26b5ab-397a-42bc-8600-485ffde376e0","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 9th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-06-27T17:08:20+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-09 14:56:05","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6359552","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6359552","identity":"rs-6359552","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}