Dimensions for Evaluating Satisfaction with Academic Tutoring: A Systematic Review and Conceptual Framework in Higher Education
Keywords:
Academic tutoring, assessment strategies, higher education, systematic review, formative learning, student satisfaction, construct validity.Abstract
In higher education, student satisfaction with course tutoring is typically assessed using various instruments, with a limited focus on specific dimensions of the tutoring process. This makes it difficult to compare results and make decisions aimed at improvement. In this study, a systematic review of the literature (PRISMA) was conducted to identify recent approaches and instruments and to develop a conceptual framework with key dimensions for evaluating satisfaction with academic tutoring. The search included publications in scientific databases and academic repositories from 2017 to 2025, selecting those with thematic relevance, full-text access, and good editorial quality. After the selection process, 13 studies were analyzed. The synthesis identified five key dimensions for evaluating satisfaction: (1) planning and design of the tutoring, (2) tutor performance, (3) interaction and communication in tutoring, (4) institutional and technological support, and (5) follow-up and perceived outcomes. This conceptual framework provides a solid foundation for the subsequent development and validation of evaluation instruments in future studies.
References
Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & I. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–194). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781498710411
Calderón Zamora, M. J., Cáceres Larreátegui, A. L., & Calderón Zamora, O. J. (2020). Tutorías académicas: Un aporte al proceso formativo universitario. Revista Electrónica Formación y Calidad Educativa, 7(3), 171–192. https://refcale.uleam.edu.ec/index.php/refcale/article/view/319
Consejo de Educación Superior (CES). (2020). Reglamento de tutorías en la educación superior ecuatoriana. https://www.ces.gob.ec
Cukurova, M., Kent, C., Luckin, R., Millán, E., & Clark, W. (2022). A learning analytics approach to monitoring the quality of online one-to-one tutoring. Journal of Learning Analytics, 9(2), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2022.42
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Dekker, I., De Vries, J., Van der Meijden, A., & Jansen, E. (2023). Effects of supplemental instruction on grades, mental well-being, and sense of belonging. Computers & Education, 194, 104657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104657
González-Morga, N., Pérez-Serrano, G., & Rodríguez-Gómez, G. (2024). Academic tutoring and student retention in higher education: An empirical study. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 48(1), 112–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2023.2174538
Hardt, D., Nagler, M., & Rincke, J. (2023). Tutoring in (online) higher education: Experimental evidence. Economics of Education Review, 92, 102296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2023.102296
Lobato Fraile, J., & Guerra Bilbao, R. (2016). Políticas de fortalecimiento de la sociedad del conocimiento en América Latina. Revista Latinoamericana de Educación Superior, 2(1), 33–50.
Luo, J., Zheng, C., Yin, J., & Teo, H. H. (2025). Design and assessment of AI-based learning tools in higher education: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00300-x
Marsh, H. W. (1982). SEEQ: A reliable, valid, and useful instrument for collecting students’ evaluations of university teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1982.tb00897.x
Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), 253–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(87)90001-2
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Rodríguez, A., Pérez, M., & Gómez, L. (2022). Planificación tutorial y percepción de la calidad del acompañamiento académico en educación superior. Revista de Educación Superior, 51(3), 45–60.
Rojas, M., Hernández, L., & Rivera, J. (2020). La interacción tutor estudiante como predictor de la satisfacción académica. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 22, e30. https://doi.org/10.24320/redie.2020.22.e30.2406
Tinto, V. (2017). Through the eyes of students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 19(3), 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115621917
Universidad Técnica de Manabí. (2025). Reglamento de tutorías académicas. https://utm.edu.ec
Yale, R. (2019). Tutoring as a bridge for student engagement and institutional integration in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(6), 611–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1647078
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dayanna Nicole Cedeño Ávila, Cindy Tatiana Bucaran Intriago
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
CC Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObrasDerivadas 4.0
.jpg)
![](https://clustrmaps.com/site/1bhn8" title="Visit tracker"><img src="//www.clustrmaps.com/map_v2.png?d=2WTJsN7QOuRFRD2DOJOZtvZ6v94bxB6RU96I-iXx-_s&cl=ffffff"></a>)
