Print ISSN: 2288-4637 / Online ISSN 2288-4645 doi:10.13106/jafeb.2022.vol9.no4.0391
Factors Affecting Training Quality and Student Satisfaction: An Empirical Study in Vietnam
Duong Thi Hai LE1, Long Duc Bao NGUYEN2, Chau Le Ngoc PHAN3, Tuan Minh VU4, Hien Thu PHAN5
Received: December 30, 2021 Revised: March 08, 2022 Accepted: March 17, 2022
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the factors that influence the training quality of Van Lang University’s Finance Banking faculty (VLU). Another goal was to discover a way to increase training quality and give students the greatest experience possible. To achieve the following goals, qualitative research was used in combination with questionnaires and document reviews. A total of 700 surveys were sent out, with 624 responses. In-depth interviews with 12 graduates were conducted during the qualitative stage to obtain their perspectives on their time at VLU. The impact of five factors (instructor qualification, facility, education program, accessibility, and student interaction) was investigated in this study, and the findings revealed that all of them significantly mediated the relationship with the training quality of VLU’s Finance Banking faculty. The findings show that it is vital to improve the training quality to increase student satisfaction and boost their academic abilities. With the framework from this study, policymakers, researchers, and institutes can cooperate in developing and upgrading the general training quality at higher education institutions in Vietnam. Improving the training quality of a faculty will continue to be a challenge. Therefore, this is a topic that requires continuous research.
Keywords: Training Quality, Qualification of Instructors, Education Program JEL Classification Code: I20, I21, I23
towards the training quality has become the number one priority of Vietnamese universities. Many existing higher education institutions have urgent and critical aims of attracting newcomers and keeping current students (Angell et al., 2008)(Angell, et al., 2008). As a result, colleges must innovate, diversify their structures, and discover innovative methods to enhance their training quality (Rahman et al., 2020; Poturak, 2014; Bakoban & Aljarallah, 2015) (Rahman, et al., 2020).
There have been major improvements in Vietnam’s education and training industry in recent years, with a strong emphasis on training quality. Providing students with high- quality training programs that are tailored to their specific needs is now a requirement for both public and private universities. As a result, VLU’s Finance Banking faculty is responsible for enhancing the quality of their staff and actively altering their training techniques to provide students with the greatest possible experience.
Through a poll of VLU students, this study attempted to assess the training quality. VLU educators and officials will be able to identify the school’s strengths and shortcomings using the data and information gathered from this study, allowing them to make required adjustments or enhancements to fulfill the requirements of students.
1 First Author. Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. ORCID ID: 0000-0002-4631-9549. [Postal Address: 69/68 Dang Thuy Tram, Ward 13, Binh Thanh District, Ho Chi Minh City, 700000, Vietnam]
Email: duong.lth@vlu.edu.vn
2 Corresponding Author. [1] Japan Vietnam Hi-tech R&D Center [2]
Nguyen Tat Thanh University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. ORCID ID:
0000-0002-4631-9549. [Postal Address: 300A Nguyen Tat Thanh Street, Ward 13, District 4, Ho Chi Minh City, 700000, Vietnam]
Email: nglong125@gmail.com
3 Ho Chi Minh City University of Law, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-4354-9445.
Email: phanlengocchau02@gmail.com
4 [1] Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia. ORCID ID: 0000- 0001-7771-9812. [2] Japan Vietnam Hi-tech R&D Center.
Email: tvu.m1010@gmail.com
5 Japan Vietnam Hi-tech R&D Center. ORCID ID: 0000-0002-7105- 4052. Email: th.phan2809@gmail.com
© Copyright: The Author(s)
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
1. Introduction
In today’s aggressive education industry, it is noticeable that the competition between universities in Vietnam is increasing. Because of that, meeting students’ expectations
VLU currently lacks a comprehensive research project on students’ perceptions and expectations of the Finance Banking faculty’s higher education services. As a result, the faculty lacks the necessary data to re-evaluate and improve the quality of their training. As a result, the primary focus of this study is on determining the factors that influence the training quality of VLU’s Finance Banking faculty.
VLU’s executives can use the findings of this study to strategically improve the university’s image and reputation by continuously improving training quality. Furthermore, both inside and outside the university, professors, and students can utilize the research project to reference scientific research methodologies.
Concerning the problem statement above, the study was proposed to answer the research questions below:
• What is the training quality of the Finance Banking faculty of VLU?
• What are the possible factors that positively and negatively affect the training quality of the Finance Banking faculty of VLU?
• How do these influential factors affect the attitude of Finance Banking majored students in VLU?
• What recommendations can be given to increase the training quality of the Finance Banking faculty of VLU?
2. Literature Review
2.1. The Definition of Training Quality
With more and more private universities opening every year in Vietnam, higher education institutions must find ways to improve their training quality to provide the best services to current students and attract newcomers (Nguyen et al., 2020).
In a school setting, the training quality is similar to service quality since high-quality educational programs or facilities will lead to better services for the pupils. For the concept of higher education training quality, there have been many different approaches from many researchers so far without any agreement on this concept (Thanh, 2005). However, in comparison to the commercial sector, research on service quality in the education sector is relatively recent (Sultan & Wong, 2010).
Over the last decade, higher education institutions around the world have undergone several innovations and improvements in education, concentrating on meeting and exceeding learners’ expectations (Gruber et al., 2010).
Students are customers, while higher education institutions are instructional service providers, according to this view- point. Many higher education institutions recognize the fact that they have to compete with each other to attract students in both domestic and international markets (Paswan &
Ganesh, 2009).
2.2. The Influence of Training Quality on Students
Training or service quality has also become the key to competitive advantage for service-providing organizations and education sectors. According to Mulyono et al. (2020), the quality of service has a direct influence on pupils.
Long et al. (2021) and Annamdevula and Bellamkonda (2016) also found that this is a deciding factor in student satisfaction.
Furthermore, according to Lukić and Lukić (2018), student satisfaction is demonstrated by their willingness to promote their preferred university to others. The value dimensions for training quality can assist campus management in allocating suitable financial and human resources to offer high degrees of training quality (Paul &
Pradhan, 2019).
Student satisfaction will also result in student loyalty, as suggested by Alves and Raposo (2007), Annamdevula and Bellamkonda (2016), Zeithaml (1988), and Carter and Yeo (2016). Loyalty in higher education refers to when a student is persistent in their study until graduation and willing to return long-term benefits to the university (Carter & Yeo, 2016). It requires developing a solid relationship with students. So, universities will profit not only from maintaining present students but also from previous students’ loyalty.
2.3. Previous Studies
2.3.1. Instructors’ Qualification
Students are influenced by academic factors, for instance, knowledge of teaching materials, educational level, and experience of the lecturers (Mulyono et al., 2020). Students prefer lecturers who have a firm grasp of the subject when teaching. In addition, they want the lecturers to have a sufficient degree of education and teaching experience.
Research from Mai (2005) and Meyer et al. (2002) also stated that the most effective indicators of student satisfaction were shown to be the overall perception of education quality, instructors’ knowledge and enthusiasm in their topic, the accessibility and quality of IT facilities, and the ability to further the future careers of students (Huynh et al., 2019).
Other factors that might boost student happiness include the lecturers’ ability to communicate in class and their concern for the pupils. This demonstrates that students value instructors who can communicate effectively and care about their needs and difficulties. As a result, instructors must increase their academic talents and communication skills and build empathy for student issues (Arrivabene et al., 2019).
The amount of quality that the pupils experience is dependent on the faculty’s recruitment, selection, and
training process in order to increase lecturer empathy with students. It is an integral component of higher education institutions’ efforts to succeed (Calvo-Porral et al., 2013).
2.3.2. Facility
The facility plays a vital role in facilitating and supporting student study activities (Hoang & Hoang, 2006).
There are many ways to define the facilities in universities.
According to Farahmandian et al. (2013), faculty buildings, lecture halls, university theaters, exam rooms, auditoriums, libraries, and technological facilities are examples of university facilities. Aldridge and Rowley (1998) and Yusoff et al. (2015) stated that university facilities also contain computer rooms, playgrounds, parking, study areas. Health services, counseling services, financial aid services, and sports facilities are equally important (Nasser et al., 2008; Ngoc & Ngoc, 2008). Additionally, workshop facilities, laboratory facilities are also considered the critical types of university facilities (Karna & Julin, 2015) (Karna & Julin, 2015).
Either way, the university’s facilities must meet the requirement of the students in terms of readiness and cleanliness. Students would feel more at ease if the amenities they require were available in the immediate vicinity. And when the students are pleased with the accessibility of their school’s facilities, they can influence potential students’ decision to enroll in the university. In the end, the university’s reputation will be bolstered by its comprehensive instructional facilities (Dora, 2017; Doan, 2021; Elliott & Shin, 2002).
2.3.3. Education Program
Hoang (2010) carried out a research project that examined the impacts of the education program on the students of the University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City. The results showed that curriculum, subject, or course contents positively influence the satisfaction of university students in Vietnam. In fact, course administration is considered one of the most critical elements in generating
student satisfaction and subsequent loyalty (Navarro et al., 2005; Hom, 2002).
2.3.4. Accessibility
Accessibility has a significant effect on students.
Mulyono et al. (2020) stated that better access would increase their level of satisfaction. It is critical to guarantee that every student has quick access to staff members or their teachers; this will considerably increase the accessi- bility element (Ali et al., 2016). Nowadays, almost every university in Vietnam has a school system where students can look up their personal information or get informed about diplomas, scholarships, tuition fees, training programs, exam schedules, or scholarships. Increasing the dimensions of access would be beneficial if contemporary techno- logies were used and a learning culture was developed at a higher education institution (Ushantha & Kumara, 2016;
Navarro, et al., 2005).
2.3.5. Interaction with Students
The way lecturers or school staff interact with students positively correlates with student satisfaction levels (Mulyono et al., 2020). Wong et al. (2014) also stated that lecturer competency is a crucial factor that contributes to student satisfaction. Lecturer motivation and attitude are intertwined, and they create an environment that is beneficial to both students and lecturers. As a result, students will be inspired throughout the learning process by the instructors’
enthusiasm and energy (Yunus et al., 2010).
3. Research Method
This research is composed based on a questionnaire distributed to current and alumni students of VLU who majored in Banking & Finance. The independent variables identified in this study are the qualification of instructors, facility, education program, accessibility, and interaction with students. The dependent variable is the quality of the program (Figure 1).
Qualification of instructors Facility
Education Program Accessibility Interaction with Students
Training quality
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework
Five hypotheses have been developed under this framework:
H1: There is a positive relationship between the Training quality and Instructors’ Qualification.
H2: There is a positive relationship between the Training quality and Facility.
H3: There is a positive relationship between the Training quality and Education Program.
H4: There is a positive relationship between Training quality and Accessibility.
H5: There is a positive relationship between the Training quality and Interaction with Students.
To achieve the above objectives, questionnaires were sent out to current and past Finance Banking students of VLU, and 624 responses were received. The demographic of these responses were evenly distributed between male and female.
4. Results and Discussion
Our questionnaire divides the participants into four main groups: First and Second-year, Third-year, Fourth-year, and Graduated participants. The responses received were evenly distributed among these groups, with the First &
Second-year group being 31.4%, the Third-year group being 23.6%, the Fourth-year group being 22.4%, and lastly, the Graduated group being 22.6%. The questionnaire also asked the field the participant is currently working in, and most of the participants (84.1%) indicates that they are working in a field related to their majors, with only a small percentage (4.3%) of participants who are working in a field completely different from their majors.
4.1. Reliability Analysis
The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient is used to assess the scale’s reliability across the instrument by excluding contradictory factors. Table 1 illustrates the Cronbach’s Alpha values for the five independent variables. As illustrated, the lowest Alpha is at 0.881 for the Accessibility
factors, and this result is above the acceptable level for the measurement scale (which is usually considered 0.7) hence it is safe to assume here that all the constructs are proven internally consistent.
4.2. Correlation Analysis
The linear correlation between the dependent variable and each independent variable as well as among the independent variables are examined using Pearson corre- lation analysis. Regression analysis is sufficient if the correlation coefficient between the large independent and dependent variables demonstrates that they have either a positive or negative relationship with each other. Table 2 summarizes the findings of the correlation analysis.
The dependent variable for Training Quality has the highest correlation with the independent variable Interaction at 0.546, followed by the Program variable at 0.530 and the Qualification variable at 0.487, respectively.
Notably, all of these variables have a level of significance at the 0.01 level.
4.3. Regression Analysis
The multimodal regression analysis approach is applied with five independent variables since it is the most popular method of OLS. The variables are (1) Qualification factors, (2) Facility factors, (3) Program factors, (4) Accessibility factors, and (5) Interaction factors, and the dependent variable, which is the Training quality. The average value of the measured variables is the value of the factors used to run the regression. The model will be tested using linear regression analysis.
The method for selecting variables is to use the same variables at the same time to determine which ones are appropriate (method enter). The modified R2 factor for this analysis is 0.578. The model’s niche is 57.8% of the volatility on the Quality of the Finance Banking program at VLU, as reflected by the model’s independent variables taken together (Table 3).
The findings of the ANOVA study indicate a statistically noteworthy difference between variables (Table 4). The F-statistic is also important (F = 171.629) which indicates that all 5 variables collectively contribute significantly to the fitness of the regression model, and they are statistically significant in explaining the variance in the Training Quality at VLU.
Table 5 shows the coefficients for the five predictors on the Training quality. All the independent variables are significantly related to Training quality at VLU. Notably, the Interaction factors have the highest significant and positive relationship (B = 0.253, P < 0.05) with the dependent variable; this factor also has the highest standard error.
Table 1: Reliability Analysis No Independent
Variables Cronbach’s
Alpha N of
Items
1 Qualification factors 0.899 5
2 Facility factors 0.889 5
3 Program factors 0.894 5
4 Accessibility factors 0.881 5
5 Interaction factors 0.897 5
Table 2: Correlation Analysis
Qualification Facility Program Accessibility Interaction Training Quality
Qualification Pearson Correlation 1 0.257** 0.272** 0.095* 0.324** 0.487**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 0.000
N 624 624 624 624 624 624
Facility Pearson Correlation 0.257** 1 0.183** 0.049 0.275** 0.425**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.226 0.000 0.000
N 624 624 624 624 624 624
Program Pearson Correlation 0.272** 0.183** 1 0.269** 0.346** 0.530**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 624 624 624 624 624 624
Accessibility Pearson Correlation 0.095** 0.049 0.269** 1 0.314** 0.389**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.018 0.226 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 624 624 624 624 624 624
Interaction Pearson Correlation 0.324** 0.275** 0.346** 0.314** 1 0.546**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 624 624 624 624 624 624
Training
Quality Pearson Correlation 0.487** 0.425** 0.530** 0.389** 0.546** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 624 624 624 624 624 624
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2–tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2–tailed).
Table 3: Model Summary
Model R R-Square Adjusted R-Square Std. Error of the Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 0.762a 0.581 0.578 0.48409 2.006
aPredictors: (Constant), interaction, facility, accessibility, qualification, program. bDependent Variable: Training quality.
Table 4: ANOVAb Variance Coefficient of Linear Regression
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 201.104 5 40.221 171.629 0.000a
Residual 144.827 618 0.234
Total 345.930 623
aPredictors: (Constant), interaction, facility, accessibility, qualification, program. bDependent Variable: Training quality.
The Qualification factors (B = 0.180, P < 0.05), Facility factors (B = 0.248, P < 0.05), Accessibility factors (B = 0.211, P < 0.05), Education Program factors (B = 0.216, P < 0.05) respectively all have a significant positive relationship with the Training quality at VLU. Through results from data analysis, the five hypotheses of this research are proved to be supported.
4.4. Discussion
In addition to the survey findings, the researcher had a variety of face-to-face discussions with 12 of the 624 respondents, primarily managers or directors, working in different firms in different sectors. As a result, the author has collected many good insights for the study. Interaction
factors, Facility factors, Accessibility factors, Education Program factors, and Instructors’ Qualification factors were identified as having a substantial impact on the training quality of the Finance Banking faculty at VLU, accounting for 68.595 percent of the variances associated with training quality.
Among the determinants for Interaction factors, one of the responses is scripted as follows: “Thanks to the help of the instructors at VLU, I have gotten the opportunity to work at Nam A Bank. The instructors are also well- experienced and well-connected in many areas. This has benefited me a lot in getting an internship at Nam A Bank back to when I was still a student at VLU.”
For Facility factors, an important variable among these factors is the 5S Learning Environment, and an alumnus responded towards the 5S Learning Environment at VLU as follow: “Having gotten used to the 5S working process since I was a student at VLU, I have been able to apply these methodologies in my real-life daily working in my first job as I graduated”.
Furthermore, Education Program factors also prove to have significant contributions to the general quality of VLU. One responder said: “Having a chance to get acquainted with computerized programs not only brought me convenience while studying at VLU, but it has also benefited me in my career. Furthermore, as I was encouraged to work in team projects, I had gotten used to working in projects with different people, and from there, I knew how to work with different colleagues in a working environment.”
Accessibility factors also have a significant influence on the training quality. One responded: “As I am working at a commercial bank, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, I have realized a lot about the benefits of using social media to benefit my works. As a student at VLU, all notifications were notified on different social network sites, so I have gotten used to the functions of these social networks. This knowledge has been very valuable for my job nowadays”.
Lastly, Instructors’ Qualifications also proved to have a positive relationship with the quality of training at VLU.
A respondent’s feedback is recorded as follows: “I am currently a director at HCMC Commodity Trading JSC.
At VLU, I have always been encouraged to think creatively when an issue comes up. This has sharpened my creative thinking process when dealing with any real-life problem in my current job”.
5. Conclusion
The aim of this research is to examine the link between the five factors that can affect the training quality of the Finance Baking faculty at VLU, Vietnam. All identified factors have proven to have a significant and positively correlated relationship with the general training quality of the Finance Banking faculty at VLU. The research helps students to determine the factors that can influence their abilities to get good job opportunities and build a strong and stable career.
A number of suggestions can be made to improve the overall training quality at VLU. One of the writers’ proposals is that the computerization of the university’s training and teaching program be improved further. This enhancement will not only assist VLU to improve its reputation in Vietnam but will also help VLU’s credibility in attracting students from all over the world.
References
Aldridge, S., & Rowley, J. (1998). Measuring customer satisfaction in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 6(4), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889810242182
Ali, F., Zhou, Y., Hussain, K., Nair, P. K., & Ragavan, N. A.
(2016). Does higher education service quality affect student satisfaction, image, and loyalty? A study of international students in Malaysian. Quality Assurance in Education, 24(1), 70–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-02-2014-0008
Table 5: Coefficientsa Regression Factor
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) −0.515 0.140 −3.682 0.000
Qualification 0.180 0.020 0.254 8.955 0.000 0.840 1.190
Facility 0.248 0.029 0.233 8.436 0.000 0.886 1.128
Program 0.216 0.022 0.281 9.770 0.000 0.818 1.222
Accessibility 0.211 0.029 0.204 7.287 0.000 0.868 1.152
Interaction 0.253 0.032 0.238 7.902 0.000 0.745 1.343
aDependent Variable: Training quality.
Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2007). Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher education. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 18(5), 571–588. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14783360601074315
Angell, R. J., Heffernan, T. W., & Megicks, P. (2008).
Service Quality in post-graduate education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3), 236–254. https://doi.org/
10.1108/09684880810886259
Annamdevula, S., & Bellamkonda, R. S. (2016). The effects of service quality on student loyalty: The mediating role of student satisfaction. Journal of Modelling in Management, 11(2), 446–462. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-04-2014-0031 Arrivabene, L. S., Vieira, P. RdC., & Mattoso, C. LdQ. (2019).
Impact of service quality, satisfaction and corporate image on loyalty: A study of a publicly-traded for-profit university.
Services Marketing Quarterly, 40(3), 189–205. https://doi.org /10.1080/15332969.2019.1630174
Bakoban, R. A. & Aljarallah, S. A. (2015). Extracurricular activities and their effect on the student’s grade point average: Statistical study. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(20), 2737–2744.
https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2436
Calvo-Porral, C., Lévy-Mangin, J.-P., & Novo-Corti, I. (2013).
Perceived quality in higher education: An empirical study.
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 31(6), 601–619. https://
doi.org/10.1108/MIP-11-2012-0136
Carter, S., & Yeo, A. C. M. (2016). Students-as-customers’
satisfaction, predictive retention with marketing implications:
The case of Malaysian higher education business students.
International Journal of Educational Management, 30(5), 635–652. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-09-2014-0129
Doan, T. T. T. (2021). The effect of service quality on student loyalty and student satisfaction: An empirical study of universities in Vietnam. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 8(8), 251–258. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.
2020.vol7.no10.929
Dora, Y. M. (2017). Analysis effect of service quality, educational facilities, and method of learning, student satisfaction and loyalty to students - Studies in the University of Widyatama Bandung. European Journal of Social Sciences Education and Research, 10(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.26417/ejser.
v10i1.p16-27
Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(2), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080022000013518 Farahmandian, S., Minavand, H., & Afshard, M. (2013). Perceived
service quality and student satisfaction in higher education.
IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 12(4), 65–74.
https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-1246574
Gruber, T., Fuß, S., Voss, R., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2010). Examining student satisfaction with higher education services using a new journal of Southeast Asian research 10 measurement tool.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(2), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551011022474
Ngoc, H., & Ngoc, C. N. M. (2008). Analyzing research data using SPSS book 1 & 2. s.l.: Hanoi: Hong Duc Publisher.
Hoang, T., & Hoang, T. (2006). Service value and service quality in higher education from a student perspective. Journal of Economic Development, 16, 38–43.
Hoang, T. P. T. (2010). Building service quality-based university image: A case study of the University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City [Thesis] Ho Chi Minh City: University of Economics.
Hom, W. C. (2002). Applying customer satisfaction theory to community college planning of counseling services. iJournal, 1, 1–17. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED481317.pdf Huynh, T. T. S., Do, D. T. & Truong, T. X. D. (2019). The impact
of leadership styles on the engagement of cadres, lecturers and staff at Public Universities – Evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 6(1), 273–280.
https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2019.vol6.no1.273
Karna, S., & Julin, P. (2015). A framework for measuring student and staff satisfaction with university campus facilities. Quality Assurance in Education, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.12691/
education-5-5-9
Long, S., Duang-Ek-Anong, S., & Vongurai, R. (2021). Deter- minants of business education on student satisfaction in higher education: A case study in Cambodia. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 8(3), 1405–1416. https://
doi.org/10.13213/jafeb.2021.vol8.no3.1405
Lukić, V. R., & Lukić, N. (2018). Assessment of student satisfaction model: Evidence of western Balkans. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 31(13–14), 1506–1518.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1489227
Mai, L. (2005). A comparative study between UK and US: The student satisfaction in higher education and its influential factors. Journal of Marketing Management, 21(7–8), 859–878.
https://doi.org/10.1362/026725705774538471
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L.
(2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842
Mulyono, H., Hadian, A., Purba, N., & Pramono, R. (2020). Effect of service quality toward student satisfaction and Loyalty in Higher Education. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(10), 929–938. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.
vol7.no10.929
Nasser, R. N., Khoury, B., & Abouchedid, K. (2008). University students’ knowledge of services and programs in relation to satisfaction. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(1), 80–97.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880810848422
Navarro, M. M., Pedraja Iglesias, M., & Rivera Torres, P.
(2005). A New management element for universities:
Satisfaction with the offered courses. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(6), 505–526. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09513540510617454
Nguyen, D. T., Pham, V. T., Tran, D. M., & Pham, D. B. T.
(2020). Impact of service quality, customer satisfaction,
and switching costs on customer loyalty. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(8), 395–405. https://doi.
org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no8.395
Paswan, A. K., & Ganesh, G. (2009). Higher education institutions:
Satisfaction and loyalty among international students. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19(1), 65–84. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08841240902904869
Paul, R., & Pradhan, S. (2019). Achieving student satisfaction and student loyalty in higher education: A focus on service value.
Services Marketing Quarterly, 40(3), 245–268. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15332969.2019.1630177
Poturak, M. (2014). Private universities’ service quality and students satisfaction. Global Business and Economics Research Journal, 3(2), 33–49.
Rahman, S. M. M., Mia, M. S., Ahmed, F., Thongrak, S., &
Kiatpathomchai, S. (2020). Assessing students’ satisfaction in Public Universities in Bangladesh: An empirical study. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(8), 323–332.
https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no8.323
Sultan, P., & Yin Wong, H. Y. (2010). Service Quality in higher education—A review and research agenda. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 2(2), 259–272. https://
doi.org/10.1108/17566691011057393
Thanh, P. X. (2005). Quality assurance for Higher education:
Application in Vietnam. http://cdcl.hcmuaf.edu.vn/kdcl-13774-
1/vn/dam-bao-chat-luong-giao-duc-dai-hoc-su-van-dung-vao- thuc-tien-viet-nam-pham-xuan-thanh.html.
Ushantha, C. R. A., & Samantha Kumara, P. A. P. (2016). A quest for service quality in higher education: Empirical evidence from Sri Lanka. Services Marketing Quarterly, 37(2), 98–108.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332969.2016.1154731
Wong, J., Tong, C., & Wong, A. (2014). The mediating effects of school reputation and school image on the relationship between quality of teaching staff and student satisfaction in higher education in Hong Kong. British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 4(11), 1557–1582. https://
doi.org/10.9734/BJESBS/2014/11312
Yunus, N., Ishak, S., & Razak, A. (2010). Motivation, empower- ment, service quality, and polytechnic students’ level of satisfaction in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 1(1), 120–128. http://www.ijbssnet.com/
journals/10.pdf
Yusoff, M., McLeay, F., & Woodruffe-Burton, H. (2015).
Dimensions driving business student satisfaction in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(1), 86–104.
https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-08-2013-0035
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22. https://doi.org/
10.1177/002224298805200302
