Influencing Factors on Students’ Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM 1 | Full title: Influencing Factors on Students’ Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM Authors: Mohammad Alhamwan Matric no. 94610 PhD Student Universiti Utara Malaysia e-mail: [email protected]Khan Sarfaraz Ali Matric no. 94373 PhD Student College of Business Universiti Utara Malaysia e-mail: [email protected]Abdo Ali Homaid Matric no. 93090 PhD Student Universiti Utara Malaysia e-mail: [email protected]Abstract: The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships of several factors for students‟ satisfaction. Students‟ satisfaction is considered a vital link and aspiration to education success, credibility and gradual development in an academic institution. From the literature, six antecedents of students‟ satisfaction are identified. Each variable is measured using 5-point interval scale: facilities (5 items), study content and planning (5 items), acquired skills (5 items), perceived quality (4 items), collectivism culture (5 items) and satisfaction (5items). Using primary data collection method, 250 questionnaires were distributed to target respondents of both graduate and post-graduate students of Universiti Utara Malaysia. The responses collected were 203 completed questionnaires representing 81.2 percent response rate. The data were analyzed using Structural equation modeling (SEM) using AMOS 7. Confirmatory factor analysis of measurement models indicate adequate goodness of fit after a few items were eliminated through modification indices verifications. Goodness of fit for the revised structural model shows adequate fit. This study has established five direct causal effects: (1) facilities and students‟ satisfaction; (2) study content and planning and students‟ satisfaction (3) acquired skills and students‟ satisfaction; (4) perceived quality and students‟ satisfaction and (5) collectivism culture and students‟ satisfaction. Interestingly, this study also manage to present first time findings on four mediating effects: (1) perceived quality mediates relationship between facilities and students‟ satisfaction; (2) perceived quality mediates relationship between study content and planning and students‟ satisfaction; (3) perceived quality mediates relationship between acquired skills and students‟ satisfaction and (4) perceived quality mediates the relationship between collectivism culture and students‟ satisfaction. The findings are discussed in the perspective of International students and their view towards foresaid factors. Keywords: student satisfaction, facilities, study content and planning, acquired skills, perceived quality, collectivism culture Correspondence to: Mohammad Alhamwan Telephone: 60194808390 Khan Sarfaraz Ali Telephone: 60174899542 Abdo Ali Homaid Telephone: 60124014925
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Influencing Factors on Students’ Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM 1 |
Full title: Influencing Factors on Students’ Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM
student recruitment and retention have always been the core activities of higher educational institutions.
Student satisfaction has been identified a factor that affects student recruitment and retention (Hatcher, et
al., 1992; Love, 1993). This basically implies that the higher the level of satisfaction with the educational
environment, the higher the likelihood that the student will stay at the educational institution and
recommend the institution to others. As a result, student satisfaction has been integrated as a part of the
discussion in respect of institutional effectiveness and student outcomes (Astin, Korn, & Green, 1987;
Bailey, Bauman, & Lata, 1998).
For instance, state systems are now putting policies in place to obligate state educational institutions to
provide data and evidence to show that they are offering quality education and education-related
activities to students in an effective and efficient manner (Hatcher, Prus and Fitzgerald, 1992; Redd,
1998). Student outcomes, student retention, attrition, and graduate rates are some of the key measures of
the quality and overall effectiveness of the higher educational institution (Hatcher, et al., 1992; Redd,
1998). The implementation of these policies provides incentives and encouragement for higher
educational institutions to study factors that affect the quality and overall effectiveness of their programs.
Increased competition, dynamic educational environment, challenges such as budget cut, higher costs in
obtaining college education, changing demographics in the population, declining enrollments, and a
general public call for accountability have educational institutions realize the importance of student
satisfaction (Cheng & Tam, 1997; Kotler & Fox, 1995). Studies have shown student satisfaction to have
a positive impact on student motivation, student retention, recruiting efforts and fundraising (Borden,
1995; Frazer, 1999). The students‟ positive feeling and satisfaction is contingent to the students‟
academic and social experiences obtained at the particular institution (Aitken, 1982; Betz, Menne, Starr,
& Klingensmith, 1971; Danielson, 1998; Hatcher, et al., 1992; Stikes 1984; Tinto, 1993). As a result,
student satisfaction among graduate students is assumed and only usually considered when competition
affects enrolment. There is need for more research in higher education that focuses more on student
needs and concerns for the purposes of improving academic programs. In addition, extrinsic factors need
to be considered as well. Being able to identify and address students‟ needs and expectations allows
educational institutions to attract and retain quality students as well as improve the quality of their
programs (Elliott & Shin, 2002). Therefore, it is vital for educational institutions to determine and
deliver what is important to students.
Influencing Factors on Students’ Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM 4 |
Theoretical framework
Facilities and Students’ Satisfaction
In general the literature does not treat facilities as a potential differentiator or subject them to separate
research (Price et al., 2003). The paradox of facilities Management‟s (FM) claims for strategic or value
adding status on the one hand, and the subject‟s largely operational rhetoric on the other (Grimshaw,
1999), has become widely recognized in recent years. Facilities could for example be essential to attract
key research personnel, or to provide environments for faster knowledge creation. Its impact on student
perceptions of their pedagogic experience (Fleming and Storr, 1999) is not widely appreciated in the
literature on lecture theatre design or pedagogy. Most University marketing surveys pay comparatively
little weight to facilities-related factors, despite evidence of their impact on the student experience
(Green et. Al, 1994, cited in Yorke, 2000) and by reviews of literatures on lecture theatre design and
learning experience, which found a wide (an unbridged!) gulf between the architectural and pedagogical
approaches (Fleming and Storr, 1999). Characteristics of the student should fit with the ability of the
institutions to respond adequately to those characteristics, ultimately leading to increased student
satisfaction, academic achievement and personal growth. This study investigates the degree to which
facilities influence on student satisfaction.
Study Content & Planning and Students’ Satisfaction
Measuring student satisfaction is not an easy task to attempt. Therefore, the indicators that are used
differ from one author to another. For example, Browne et al. (1998) found that global satisfaction
within a university was driven by a student‟s assessment of course quality and other curriculum-related
factors associated with a university. Borden (1995) found that student satisfaction is related to the match
between student priorities and the campus environment (Elliott & Shin, 2002). Therefore, it is vital for
educational institutions to determine and deliver what is important to students. Being able to identify and
address students‟ needs and expectations allows educational institutions to attract and retain quality
students as well as improve the quality of their programs (Elliott & Shin, 2002). For the purpose of the
present research, student satisfaction is defined as an evaluating summary of educational experience,
based on the discrepancy between prior expectation and the performance perceived after passing through
the educational cycle.
Acquired Skills and Students’ Satisfaction
In general, all the authors suggest evaluating the quality of the service process as such and only the study
by Brady and Cronin (2001) suggests (in Māris and Zaksa, 2012) including also the evaluation of the
service result. In the case of higher education the result of the study process are the acquired skills and
readiness for the labour market. The higher education reforms require introducing the student-centred
and study result-oriented education. Accordingly, when assessing the student-perceived quality the
higher education institution managers also have to require the study result assessment. As a result of the
study process the student acquires the added value – new knowledge and skills that, in their turn,
enhance his competitiveness in the labour market. Consequently, by becoming aware of the gains from
the service after its completion the student can evaluate the acquired results (Māris and Zaksa, 2012).
This study aims at looking into the degree to which acquired skills influence on student satisfaction.
Perceived Quality and Students’ Satisfaction
In general, the perceived quality is defined as the customer‟s judgment about an entity‟s overall
excellence or superiority (Rowley, 1997). Parasuraman et al. (1991) support the notion that service
quality is an overall evaluation similar to attitude. Besides, the customer perception of the quality may
differ from the one described in the quality standards or regulatory documents for the provision of the
service. It also relates to students. Many researchers state that customer assessments of continuously
provided services may depend on performance. A performance-based measure may explain more of the
variance in an overall measure of service quality (Oliver, 1989; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Boulding et al.,
1993). Marketing research conducted before has proved that customer loyalty is affected by the
customer-perceived quality, satisfaction and overall image of the organization (Kotler and Fox, 1995;
Influencing Factors on Students’ Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM 5 |
Zeithaml, 2000; Helgesen, 2006). In the area of higher education Elliot and Healy describe satisfaction
as a short-term attitude that has arisen after evaluating one‟s acquired experience during the use of the
higher education service (Elliot and Healy, 2001). Walker believes that students being incapable of
assessing the higher education quality as a whole more focus on the quality of environment and classes
delivered by the academic staff (Walker 1995). Rossiter (1995) argues that the functional relationship
between perceived quality and satisfaction is exponential. To put it another way, (dis)satisfaction with
more recent encounters will have a larger impact on perceived quality than (dis)satisfaction with
previous encounters. As Johnson et al. (2001) point out; the customer-perceived quality can be
composed by a multitude of diverse factors. The previously created customer-perceived quality and
satisfaction models contain essential drawbacks and along with the change of times and environment as
well as acquisition of new knowledge the models of perceived quality and satisfaction evaluation must
be updated and adapted to the new conditions.
Collectivism Culture and Student’s Satisfaction
Collectivistic values are required to maintain good relationships with the students‟ family and primary
in-group identification, whereas individualistic values and behavioral competences may be required for
success in a college environment that is becoming so closely aligned with the North American model. In
what has proven to be a very influential review, LaFromboise, Coleman, and Gerton (1993) described
bicultural competence as the ability to develop and maintain competence in two cultures. They
considered knowledge of cultural beliefs and values as a distinct dimension of bicultural competence
along with positive attitudes toward both cultures, confidence in one‟s continued well-being,
communication ability, mastery of culturally appropriate roles and behaviors, and a well-developed
social support system in both cultural groups. In the study of bicultural competence of college students in
Hawaii, Yamada and Singelis (1999) defined the living experience in both collectivistic and
individualistic culture as one of the indicators of bicultural competence. LaFromboise et al.‟s review
described the extensive benefits of bicultural competence for healthy adjustment and effective
functioning in both cultures. In a recent study (David, Okazaki, & Saw, 2009), bicultural competence
was positively associated with life satisfaction and negatively associated with depression in a mixed U.S.
sample of Asian American, African American, Latino/a, multiracial, and international undergraduate
students. A study that sampled high school students, college students, and adults from South Korea
reported that collectivistic values were positively related to trust toward professionals in seeking
professional help while individualistic values were negatively associated with stigma tolerance related to
mental health (D.-H. Lee & Yoo, 2000).
3. Methodology
This study formulates the antecedents of student‟s satisfaction as shown in Figure 2. In the research
framework, it shows that facilities, study content and planning and acquired skills have direct influence
on students‟ satisfaction while perceived quality mediates the relationship and collectivism culture
influences the relationship. The literature indicates that facilities, study content and planning and
acquired skills are direct antecedents of student‟s satisfaction. Collectivism culture is an indirect
antecedent of student‟s satisfaction through perceived quality.
When this research framework is translated into the hypothesized model (see Table 2), the manifesting
variables are drawn with the error terms for each latent variables. The four exogenous variables contain
four and five (observed) variables respectively. For endogenous latent variables Students‟ Satisfaction
the manifesting variables are five. The subsequent error terms are labeled as in the diagram. Table 1
summarizes the operational definitions of all latent variables used in this study. Afterwards, eight
hypotheses are derived from the structural model for the study (see Table 2).
Influencing Factors on Students’ Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM 6 |
Sampling and instrument A total of 250 international students were requested to complete a questionnaire that contained measures
of the constructs of concern. The questionnaires were distributed to the respondents at their workplace
by using purposive sampling method. A response rate of about 81.2% was collected back corresponding
to 203 responses.
Each variable is measured using previously developed instrument as follows: 5-point interval-scale of
(1)-strongly disagree to (5)-strongly agree. There are also five demographic questions included in the
instrument which use ordinal and nominal scale such as name, age, gender, education, and marital status.
Data Screening and Analysis The 203 dataset were coded and saved into SPSS version 16 and analyzed using AMOS version 7.0.
Several statistical validity tests and analysis were further conducted such as reliability (Cronbach‟s
alpha) and composite reliability tests, validity tests using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for
construct convergent, discriminant, and nomological validities. Subsequently, the data was subjected to
descriptive analysis, correlation and structural equation modeling analysis. The steps in SEM analysis
are CFA analysis, measurement analysis, discriminant analysis (average variance extracted), composite
reliability analysis, and direct indirect impact analysis (mediating effects), testing the fit for the
hypothesized structural model, revised model, competing model, and comparison of nested model
analysis.
4. Results
Demographic Profile of the Respondents
The respondents‟ ages ranged from twenty to above forty years old maximum having age between 20
and 29 years old. There are more female (65.5%) than male respondents (34.5%). The respondents are
mostly single students (67%%) followed by married (32%%) and divorced (1%). Their qualification
varies from Under graduate (42.2%), Masters Degree (22.7%), and PhD/DBA (35%) (Table 9).
Descriptive Analysis of Variables The research framework consists of four exogenous and one endogenous variable (Table 8). Each
construct shows Cronbach alpha readings of acceptable values of above 0.68, well above Nunnally,
(1970) recommendation of 0.60 limit. Composite reliability shows similar high readings for variables
above 0.87. The CR for Student Satisfaction is 0.942985 and Cronbach‟s alpha is .81. Here, the highest
CR and Cronbach‟s alpha among the IVs I for Acquired Skills (0.964069 and .85). While, the lowest
Cronbach‟s alpha is Collectivism Culture (.68). Facilities have lowest CR (0.87748). Perceived Quality
has CR 0.900853 and Cronbach‟s alpha .75. Study Content & Planning have 0.915175 as CR and .78 as
Cronbach‟s alpha.
Convergent Validity (Confirmatory Factor Analysis -CFA) From the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) result in Table 10, it is observed that the regression
estimates or factor loadings of all manifesting observed variables or items are adequate ranging from
0.91 to 0.99. The factor loadings of latent to observed variable should be above 0.50 (Hair et al.,
2006).This indicates that all the constructs conform to the construct convergent validity test. After
deletions were made using modification indices suggestions, the remaining numbers of items for each
construct are as follows: facilities (5 items), study content and planning (5 items), acquired skills (5
items), perceived quality (4 items) and students‟ satisfaction (5 items).
Influencing Factors on Students’ Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM 7 |
Composite Reliability
The calculations of composite reliability based on the standardized factor loadings obtained from the
final revised structural model. The equation for composite reliability is as follows:
Composite reliability = ( standardized loading)2
standardized loading)2 + j
The readings of composite reliability of all exogenous latent constructs are well above 0.87 (Table 11).
Discriminant Validity
To substantiate discriminant validity, average variance extracted (AVE) is compared to correlation
squared of the interrelated variables of concerned (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) (see table 12). The
variance extracted is calculated and presented in Table 13. The AVE is derived from the calculation of
variance extracted using the following equation:
Variance Extracted (VE) = (standardized SMC2 )
(standardized SMC2) + j
Nomological Validity
Nomological validity examines whether the correlations between constructs in the measurement theory
makes sense such that correlations must be positive or negative according to theory stipulated (Hair et al.
2006). From 14, it is observed that all directions of correlations are in the hypothesized direction as
stipulated in the hypotheses in accordance to theory. Thus, it can be deducted that nomological validity
is substantiated for all measures used in this study.
Goodness of Fit of Structural Model To arrive to the structural model, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on every construct
and measurement models (Table 10). The goodness of fit is the decision to see the model fits into the
variance-covariance matrix of the dataset. The CFA, measurement and structural model has a good fit
with the data based on assessment criteria such as GFI, CFI, TLI, RMSEA (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). All
CFAs of constructs produced a relatively good fit as indicated by the goodness of fit indices such as
CMIN/df ratio (<2); p-value (>0.05); Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) of >0.95; and root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA) of values less than 0.08 (<0.08) (Hair et al., 2006).
Table 10 shows that the goodness of fit of generated or revised model is better compared to the
hypothesized model. This is expected as hypothesized model is usually strictly confirmatory (Byrne,
2001). GFI of revised model is 0.96 compared to GFI of hypothesized model of 0.95. Root mean square
Error Approximation (RMSEA) also shows a better readings of 0.18 for revised model compared to
0.042 for hypothesized model (<0.08).
Hypotheses Results
Since the results of hypothesized model (Figure 3) did not achieve model fit (p<0.000), hence, the
explanation of hypotheses result will be based on generated or revised model (Figure 4). The result
demonstrates that facility is a significant positive antecedent of students‟ satisfaction. Hence, study
content and planning has a positive significant impact on students‟ satisfaction (CR=4.861; P<0.001) or
H2 is asserted. Acquired skills have a positive and direct impact on students‟ satisfaction. (CR=2.267;
P<0.001), i.e H3 is also asserted. Study content and planning has a positive and direct impact on
Influencing Factors on Students’ Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM 8 |