INTRODUCTION

There are several conceptions of satisfaction, specifically academic satisfaction; for this work, we take the definition by ^{Kantor and Smith (2015}), who define satisfaction as a type of affective feeling behavior that is a consequence of its interaction with objects, people, or situations, which stimulate pleasant and exciting feelings. In ^{Kantor and Smith’s (2015}) terms, "feeling interactions constitute a good part of our psychological behavior. It follows, therefore, that the stimulus functions for feeling responses reside in every possible type of object and circumstance" (p. 247). That is, the satisfaction feeling is how a person adjusts (affectively) to situations, persons, or objects with which this person comes into functional contact or with which this person was in contact in the past. In the first case, this person manifests in some way what this person is experiencing while interacting, and in the second case, this person reminisces about past events or situations.

In this educational environment, academic satisfaction includes ways in which students value their teaching and learning environment and their educational experiences, especially enjoyment, well-being, social integration, academic adaptation, and academic success, as components of overall life satisfaction (^{Huebner et al., 2001}; ^{Lent & Brown, 2008}; ^{Lounsbury et al., 2004}; ^{Vergara-Morales et al., 2018}). In this sense, students achieve optimal academic satisfaction based on their positive educational experiences, adequate socialization, and success they achieve in their courses.

Likewise, regarding academic satisfaction, studies have been oriented to identify, through self-reports, students' feelings about events, relationships with other people, and their way of acting in in-person or virtual school-based education. Therefore, academic satisfaction has been studied with more emphasis on three main dimensions or aspects: 1) school and the pedagogical environment in general, 2) teaching skills and teaching practices, and 3) student physical and psychological well-being.

Regarding student satisfaction with school and the pedagogical environment, several studies have been reported. One of the studies with a significant impact in the Latin American context for the assessment of academic satisfaction was the questionnaire reported by ^{Sisto et al. (2008}). This instrument identifies as main categories of academic satisfaction in Brazilian university students, the perception of the pedagogical environment, and the affectivity of teaching, among other aspects. Adaptations were made with Argentine students (^{Medrano & Pérez, 2013}) and Peruvian students (^{Tacca-Huamán et al., 2019}; Tacca-^{Huamán et al., 2020a}), obtaining a validated scale of eight items, to identify the student academic satisfaction with the pedagogical environment.

To measure the satisfaction of university students in the Dominican Republic with their educational environment, ^{Tomás y Gutiérrez (2019}) adapted and validated the school satisfaction scale that ^{Nearchou et al. (2014}) validated for the context of basic education in Greece. Similarly, ^{Cornillez (2019}) reported a study on general academic and tuition fee allowance satisfaction in Filipino university students.

From another perspective, the studies conducted by ^{Pecina (2017}), Ebrahim (2020), and ^{Rachmawati et al. (2017}) studied the contextual conditions and considered them predictors of academic satisfaction with teaching, as well as curricular training contents in this discipline. Likewise, the studies conducted by ^{Márquez et al. (2011}), ^{Pecina (2017}), ^{Hysaj et al. (2019}), ^{García et al. (2019}) and ^{Ramírez et al. (2020}) coincide on determining that academic satisfaction can be explained by the supervision or tutoring practice and the didactic strategies of the teacher.

For the study of satisfaction with one's performance as a student, several studies have been reported on the students’ assessment of their satisfaction with their academic development and university experience. Authors like ^{Nauta (2007}) and ^{Urquijo and Extremera (2017}) point out that this type of academic satisfaction expresses the degree of well-being of the students with their performance.

Furthermore, in a study with American Engineering-degree university students, ^{Lent & Brown (2008}) pointed out that student satisfaction can be assessed both in general academic aspects and aspects of their academic experience. In the first case, satisfaction is with general aspects of academic life, for example, "I am satisfied with my university life," while, in the second case, satisfaction is with specific aspects of their academic development, for example, "I am satisfied with my performance in completing my assignments in the course 'x' during this semester." This proposal for measuring academic satisfaction with the student's performance has been adapted and applied in research with Argentine and Chilean students.

In this regard, ^{Medrano & Pérez (2013}) integrated ^{Lent & Brown's (2008}) scale into a computerized system to evaluate academic satisfaction of Argentine university students with the well-being and enjoyment they perceive, as well as academic adaptation when they perform activities linked to their role as students. Likewise, ^{Vergara-Morales et al. (2018}) adapted and validated the academic satisfaction scale of ^{Medrano & Pérez (2013}) in Chilean university students to identify satisfaction with the subjects that students were taking at that time.

Measurement of student performance in academic and tutoring activities has also been planned as a dimension of academic satisfaction. In the Mexican context, ^{Márquez et al. (2011}) reported that medical and psychology students expressed high satisfaction with their role in tutoring, which indicates satisfaction with their performance or function as tutored students. In Peru, ^{Merino-Soto et al. (2017}) validated a scale that evaluates university student satisfaction with 1. their way of studying, 2. their performance, and 3. their overall experience with their studies.

From this perspective, ^{Merino-Soto et al. (2017}) show that an important source of academic satisfaction is the way of studying, that is, the use of efficient strategies to study. It is precisely this variable that has been studied the least when analyzing academic satisfaction. An exception is the work reported by ^{Dominguez-Lara y Campos-Uscanga (2017}) on the relationship between satisfaction with studies and academic procrastination in Peruvian psychology students as they found that the higher the satisfaction, the lower the procrastination. Thus, they note that academic satisfaction is also a motivational source for the timely fulfillment of activities.

METHOD

RESULTS

The majority of students assessed high their academic satisfaction (76%) and the performance of their teachers (82%). The learning support strategies dimension was the one with the highest frequency of learning strategies, with 41% predominance in the sample.

Table 1 shows the results of the linear regression analysis considering learning strategies and teacher performance as predictor variables and academic satisfaction of psychology students at two public universities in Lima as variables to be predicted. A coefficient of determination R² = 0.228 was obtained, indicating that 22.8% of the total variability observed in academic satisfaction can be attributed to the teacher performance and learning strategies variables.

According to the results in Table 1, a p-value < .001 was obtained, thus rejecting the null hypothesis of no relationship between the variables and suggesting that learning strategies and teacher performance (as perceived by the students) have a statistically significant influence on self-assessed academic satisfaction.

Regarding the influence of learning strategies and teacher performance on academic satisfaction in two public universities in Lima, using the ANOVA model, a regression of 11.976 was found, with a degree of freedom 2, a quadratic mean of 5.998, and an F value of 23.271, significant at .000.

Table 1 Influence of learning strategies and teacher performance on academic satisfaction in two public universities in Lima. 

*Predictor variables: (Constant), Strategies, Performance.

** Dependent variable: Y Satisfaction.

Source. Elaborated by the author.

The results of the predictive capacity of the relationship between learning strategies and academic satisfaction are showed based on the students’ gender. An explained variance of 16% attributed to learning strategies in predicting academic satisfaction is identified in male students, an influence that shows statistical significance (p = .006). In this case, the null hypothesis of no relationship is rejected. The variance attributed to learning strategies is 7% for female students, and statistical significance is also observed (p = .005), implying the rejection of the null hypothesis of no relationship with learning strategies. The details of this result can be found in Table 2.

Table 2 Linear regression between learning strategies and academic satisfaction according to gender 

Source. Elaborated by the author.

Table 3 shows the results of the regression analysis designed to examine whether learning strategies influence academic satisfaction, according to the university of origin. The findings indicate that learning strategies have a 9% attributed influence on academic satisfaction for students from university 1 (p = .005). For students from university 2, 10% of the variance in academic satisfaction was explained by learning strategies (p = .008). There was statistical significance in both cases, so the null hypothesis of this relationship is rejected.

Table 3 Linear regression between learning strategies and academic satisfaction according to university of origin 

Source. Elaborated by the author.

Regarding the relationship between academic performance and academic satisfaction, Table 4 and Table 5 present the results of the regression analysis between these two variables, considering gender and university of origin.

Table 4 shows that considering the students’ gender, the perception of teacher performance predicts the academic satisfaction of students at two public universities in Lima, both in the male and female groups. A p-value < .05 was obtained in both cases.

In the first case, the coefficient of determination R² (35.4) indicates that approximately 35% of the variation in academic satisfaction is attributed to teacher performance perceived by the male students, and in the second case, a coefficient of determination R2 = 14.3 was obtained, indicating that approximately 14% of the variation in academic satisfaction is attributed to teacher performance perceived by the females.

Table 4 Linear regression between teacher performance and academic satisfaction according to gender 

Source. Elaborated by the author.

Table 5 presents the results of regression analysis between teacher performance and academic satisfaction of students according to their university of origin. The following regression coefficients were found for University 1, 20% of the variability of academic satisfaction is attributed to teacher performance, while for University 2, 16% of the variability of academic satisfaction was attributed to teacher performance. The relationships found were statistically significant for both universities.

Table 5 Linear regression between teacher performance and academic satisfaction according to university of origin 

Source. Elaborated by the author.

DISCUSSION

According to the primary objective of this study, the results obtained support the assumption that the learning strategies self-assessed by the students and the teacher performance (perceived by the students), collectively, influence moderately on the academic satisfaction of psychology students at two public universities in Metropolitan Lima. It is also evident that, independently, the learning strategies and teacher performance variables are predictors of academic satisfaction. They even predict such satisfaction according to gender and university of origin.

A first possible explanation for these results may be the fact that students who perceive that they have better study strategies are more likely to feel more satisfied with their performance during their university studies. As thirdand fourth-year students (6th and 8th terms), it is more feasible that they value, based on their experiences and academic attainment, their academic satisfaction as an effect of studying with better resources ("cognitive and metacognitive") (^{Barbosa et al., 2019}; ^{De la Fuente & Justicia, 2017}; ^{Román & Gallego, 1994}; ^{Weinstein et al., 1987}). Thus, their satisfaction with their role as a student and their way of studying and performing their university activities (^{Márquez et al., 2011}; ^{Medrano & Pérez, 2013}; ^{Merino-Soto et al., 2017}) would be influenced by their experience and mastery of such strategies and skills, and the role development as a university student.

Furthermore, the results of this study are supported by the theoretical perspective of ^{Huebner et al. (2001}) and ^{Lent & Brown (2008}), assert that the learning strategies that students employ in university influence how they value their well-being and satisfaction with their academic experience and their performance in university.

Thus, academic satisfaction is understood as a term that describes ways in which students value their learning environments and their educational experiences, such as well-being and enjoyment, academic adaptation, social integration, persistence, academic performance and success, and permanence in the formative processes, as a component of overall satisfaction with life (^{Morales & Chávez, 2019}; ^{Tomás & Gutiérrez, 2019}).

Likewise, for the hypothesis of the influence of teacher performance on academic satisfaction, there is evidence that the perception of teacher performance that meets their expectations and that is always or nearly always of high-quality influences high academic satisfaction linked to their training in the school. Thus, it can be analyzed, based on several studies, that a teacher who creates and organizes meaningful learning opportunities and is perceived as a teacher with good performance promotes academic satisfaction in their students. This is supported by the research conducted by ^{Sánchez et al. (2022}) who found evidence of a relationship between higher teacher job performance associated with a higher level of motivation for studies and higher academic satisfaction of students. In this sense, the socioemotional interaction and the teacher pedagogical interaction become essential to improve student satisfaction with their learning attainments and other university experiences, contributing to their professional training at psychology schools.

For example, considering that always or nearly always in their classes, "The teacher teaches different ways in which the criteria of the attainment of classroom activities can be met," or "After the explanation of the class and the practice, the teacher gives us suggestions to improve our performance," may make it more likely that the students sustain a high frequency of satisfaction with the academic training they receive, for example, "I am satisfied with the opportunities provided by the teacher to express my opinions in the classroom activities," or "I am satisfied with the quality of the strategies applied by the teacher because they meet my expectations about the course."

Findings from other studies have showed that university students have reported using self-reports good indexes of reliability and validity, their assessment of the performance of their teachers in university teaching, not only in terms of its quality but also in terms of didactic competencies and their influence on the learning and academic attainment of university students from different degree programs (^{Bazán-Ramírez & Velarde-Corrales, 2021}; ^{Nasser-Abu, 2017}; ^{Simpson & Bester, 2017}; ^{Van de Grift et al., 2017}).

It has been noted the influence of teacher performance and learning strategies on academic satisfaction at a predictive level of 22%. The remaining explanatory variability may reside in other variables, such as the infrastructure of the educational institution, its extracurricular benefit offerings, the social-cultural environment that can be generated in university spaces, etc. (^{Morales & Chávez, 2019}). It is crucial to consider that the academic satisfaction variable is complex, so the influence of other variables may be present. Even so, there are some studies in which teacher performance is also valued by the students as part of an academic context that meets expectations of a good curricular structure, facilities, and educational resources that will influence good teaching (^{Mohammed, 2020}; ^{Pecina, 2017}; ^{Rahmatpour et al., 2021}) and also as sources of supervision and tutoring in their professional training (^{García et al., 2019}; ^{Hysaj et al., 2019}; ^{Márquez et al., 2011}; ^{Pecina, 2017}; ^{Ramírez et al., 2020}).

Although the contributions of this study allow an understanding of the academic satisfaction of university students as an effect of the learning strategies they apply and their perception of the good performance of their teachers, future studies should expand those of this study, related, for example, to the lack of analysis of sources of factorial invariance by gender and university of origin, and also include the year of study as possible sources of variation in the measurement of these three variables of the study.

Regarding the gender variable, the variation in academic satisfaction is attributed to teacher performance perceived mainly by the group of male students (35%) and, in the second case, only half of this percentage of the variation in academic satisfaction is attributed to teacher performance perceived by the female group. These differences imply that while male students' academic satisfaction depends significantly on teacher performance, females find other sources of academic satisfaction more potent, which according to the aforementioned studies could be their academic performance and peer socialization experiences.

As a conclusion of this study, it can be stated that the results support the hypothesis that both self-assessed learning strategies and teacher performance perceived by students have a significant predictive effect on self-assessed academic satisfaction. This is inferred by exploring the causal relationship between these variables in the context of psychology students at two public universities in Metropolitan Lima.

The findings indicate that students who employ advanced cognitive strategies, such as the creation of mental and conceptual maps and active reflection on their learning efficacy, tend to experience higher academic satisfaction.

In addition, the use of affective self-regulatory strategies to maintain motivation toward academic attainment is also positively related to academic satisfaction.

Likewise, students' perception of teacher performance competence in their socioemotional and pedagogical interaction is a predictor of academic satisfaction. This influence relationship highlights the importance of effective communication and strong teacher-student interaction in fostering a healthy environment with a positive emotional climate for learning.

One of the limitations of this study was how the sample was obtained because, for reasons of coordination with the authorities, we worked only with some classrooms and did not have access to others for academic reasons.

A future line of research could include the analysis of other personal and contextual conditions taken from the source of students and, separately, teachers to directly evaluate preferences and performance and their influence on each other to promote a higher quality education that positively impact the socioemotional and pedagogical development of the teacher, and the life of students.