How Does Student Satisfaction Influence Student Loyalty

–From the Relationship Marketing Perspective

Yu-Fen Chen1, Chin-Hui Hsiao2, Wen-Ching Lee3

ABSTRACT
Due to the Education Reform in Taiwan, the number of higher education
institutes has increased rapidly during past 10 years. In a competitive environment
with declining enrollments, Technology and Vocational Education (TVE)
administrators or policy makers should address the question of attracting these
students with more aggressive marketing programs. This study, adopting relationship
marketing” perspective, was conducted to find the relationship between “student
satisfaction” and “student loyalty” (the students’ future willingness to recommend
their institutes to others). 600 TVE seniors of Great Taipei area were surveyed in this
study, and Regression Analysis was performed to establish a model to predict “student
loyalty” using “student satisfaction” as independent variables. The result indicates
that factors revealed from the satisfaction scale could explain a significant amount of
variance in student loyalty, and four factors （ school administration, academic
activities, interpersonal relationships, physical facilities ） are the significant
predictors. Accordingly, the researcher provides some discussions and implications
for school administrators and policy makers.

Keyword: student satisfaction, student loyalty, relationship marketing, regression

analysis

Introduction
Taiwan is becoming a developed country and a leading exporter of technical
products. “It is generally recognized that Technology and Vocational Education (TVE)
has played an important role in Taiwan’s economic transformation”
(www.edu.tw/english/index.htm, July 25, 2005, The Information Web of
Technological and Vocational Education). The TVE system in Taiwan, a “second
educational avenue,” parallels the avenue of conventional university, and provides
another choice for students.
According to the findings of The Seventh National Educational Conference, a
five-year education reform program was implemented in 1998 at a cost of NT$157

1
Yu-Fen Chen, Associate Professor, Department of Business Education, National Changhua University
of Education, Changhua, Taiwan
2
Chin-Hui Hsiao, Associate Professor, Department of Finance, Chihlee Institute of Technology, Taipei,
Taiwan
3
Wen-Ching Lee, Ph.D. Student, Department of Business Education, National Changhua University of
Education, Changhua, Taiwan
billion (www.edu.tw, July 25, 2005, Ministry of Education). One of the policies, the
number of higher education institutes (including conventional and TVE institutes)
should increase to fit the needs of general public and promote the quality of the
nation. Accordingly, the number of higher education institutes has increased from 50
to 142 during past 10 years (www.edu.tw, July 25, 2005, Ministry of Education).
Most of them are private TVE institutes. Attracting and holding students has become
a very important issue for TVE administrators because of increased competition and
unprecedented consumerism. Institutions should address “the question of attracting
these students with more aggressive marketing programs” (Hendry, 1983, p. 48).
Therefore, applying effective marketing strategies to pursue permanent operating is
becoming an important issue for TVE administrators.
Customer satisfaction and customer loyalty are the key concepts in planning
marketing strategies. The importance of customer satisfaction has already been
recognized by private industry. Successful and innovative companies, such as Procter
and Gamble and American Express, are increasing their efforts to monitor and
improve satisfaction, because they realize the value of these activities in enhancing
their images, understanding their markets, and increasing their profits (Hennig-
Thurau, Gwinner & Gremler, 2002). Same as education business, student satisfaction
can have a very important impact on future behavior. An abundance of researches
were conducted to measure student satisfaction during past 20 years (Betz, 1970;
Mangano & Conado, 1979; Hendry, 1983; Chadwick & Ward, 1987; Nord, 1997;
Belcheir, 1999; Chen, 2000; Guo, 2004). Betz (1970), one of the earlier researchers in
this field, used a five-choice Likert-type scale to measure six dimensions of student
satisfaction: Policies and Procedures, Working Conditions, Compensation, Quality of
Education, Social Life, and Recognition. The later researchers developed many
satisfaction scales through factor analysis to measure student satisfaction, and the
number of satisfaction factors varied three to nine, however, most of them obtained
the similar structures with Betz (1970).
This study adopts “relationship marketing” perspective to find empirical evidence
of the relationship between “customer (student) satisfaction” and “customer (student)
loyalty” of TVE system in Taiwan. Customer loyalty is a primary goal of relationship
marketing and sometimes even equated with the relationship marketing concept itself
(Sheth 1996). Two main ideas referred to customer loyalty are “customer’s repeat
purchase behaviors” or “customer word-of-mouth communication” (Hennig-Thurau,
Gwinner & Gremler, 2002).
Students are among the principal concerns of a school; hence the level of student
satisfaction influences the success or failure of the school operation greatly. In the
past few years, more and more academicians (Betz, Klingensmith, & Menne,, 1970;
Mangano & Conado, 1979; Hendry, 1983; Chadwick & Ward, 1987; Hallwell, 1996;
Nord, 1997; Belcheir, 1999) conducted studies on the different aspects of student
satisfaction, as well as presented some recommendations on this matter for the
references of education and related establishments. However, until so far, most studies
about loyalty and customer satisfaction were emphasized on studying the correlation
between both subjects for business companies. There are few studies focused on
educational areas. Therefore, this study is attempted to found on the consumer
behavior theory in delving into the correlation between customer (student)
satisfaction” and “customer (student) loyalty” of TVE system in Taiwan.

Research Purposes
This study was conducted to investigate the relationship between student
satisfaction and their “loyalty” which was defined as “the willingness to recommend
the TVE institutes they were currently attending to others.” The main purposes of this
study are briefly described as follows,
1. To construct a valid and reliable scale to understand the level of student
satisfaction.
2. To explore the correlation of student satisfaction and their “loyalty”, where
student satisfaction is independent variable and “loyalty” is dependent
variable.
3. Accordingly, provide some discussions and implications for policy makers and
institute administrators.
Definition of Terms
1. Referral inclination: The concept of “referral inclination” is used to represent
“loyalty” in this study, which refers to the inclination that the graduating students of
the four-year college of a particular year recommend their school to other students
after they graduate or urge other students to pursue their education in their school.
The scale used to measure loyalty is ranged from 9, highest loyalty, to 1, lowest
loyalty.
2. Student satisfaction: The term “student satisfaction” in this study is based on the
scores responded by surveying students in the “TVE Senior Student Satisfaction
Survey”, a self-developed instrument to achieve the research purposes.
3. Survey respondents: The term “survey respondents” herein refers to the 600
graduating students, randomly selected among the different schools (that is, Taipei
City and Taipei County) in Metropolitan Taipei, in the four-year college programs in
the year of 2005.
Research Procedures
This study employed the Questionnaire Survey methodology. Hence, research
was conducted through the distribution of survey questionnaires. The methods and
procedures are shown in the following:
1. Make a comprehensive study of all related documents and literatures to
determine research topic and structure.
2. Compile and analyze related documents to produce self-developed
questionnaires.
3. Conduct pre-testing on the self-developed questionnaires.
4. Revise questionnaires and print formal questionnaires.
5. Conduct formal questionnaire survey and perform statistical analysis.
6. Draw a research conclusion and present implications and recommendations
based on the findings.
Limitations of the Study
This study is subject to the following limitations:
1. Subject: In this study, because of the limitation of cost and time, the data are
collected from a sample rather than a census of a population. Generalization
from the present study is limited because of the sample size.
2. Respondents: This study is limited to the extent to which respondents are willing
to report their feelings and beliefs.
3. Scope: Generalizations of the findings of this study must be limited by the fact
that the subjects were TVE senior students in Taipei, Taiwan.
4. Instrument: The instrument was designed through a precise procedure; however,
it is not possible to avoid some subjective opinions and ideas of the researcher.
Moreover, the items and scales used in the instrument are in no way exhaustive
of the many factors that can interact to influence student satisfaction.
Literature Review

This study aimed to explore the correlation between the student satisfaction (that
is, customer satisfaction) and the degree of their loyalty (that is, referral inclination).
Accordingly, the subjects, presented in the following, are student satisfaction, post-
purchase behaviors, and loyalty and customer/student satisfaction in sequence.
Customer/Student Satisfaction
The concept of a student satisfaction is derived from the concept of customer
satisfaction. Customer satisfaction not only plays an essential role in marketing, but
also a critical factor in persuading consumers to make repurchases (Churchill &
Surprenant, 1982). However, in conflict with the traditional concept of consumer
satisfaction, Oliver & Swan (1989) argued that satisfaction is an emotional factor.
Thus, satisfaction can be considered as a reflection of life experience: it is a subjective
view based on personal experience, individual beliefs and relationships. Parasuraman,
Zeithaml and Berry (1990) proposed that the concept of satisfaction could be equated
to the gap between real-life experiences and expectations. However, all the concepts
mentioned above are from a business operation viewpoint to discuss customer
satisfaction. Stone and Thomson (1987) indicated that the notion and the contents of
customer satisfaction should be modified for educational application. It should
include constitutional amendments, administrative policies, educational goals and
educational processes.
Tough (1982) defined student satisfaction as the following: student satisfaction
refers to the student’s perception or attitude towards the learning activities. Where the
student is happy with his/her studies or adopts an aggressive learning attitude, student
is deemed to be “satisfied”; where the student is unhappy or adopts negative or
passive attitude, student is deemed to be “dissatisfied”. Hence, student satisfaction
could be perceived as the student’s positive feelings or attitude towards his/her
learning activities. The degree of student satisfaction is as the margin between “level
of anticipation” and “actual results”. A smaller margin would mean greater
satisfaction and a larger margin would mean lower satisfaction.
The mission of education is not only to impact knowledge but also to enhance
the student’s total development (Astin, 1993). One of the ways education institutions
accomplish this mission is by continuously collecting information on student
satisfaction, defined by various authors as an “ever-present campus variable” (Betz,
Menne, Starr & Klingensmith, 1971), a key outcome of education (Astin, 1993;
Sanders & Chan, 1996), and a “quality enhancement tool designed to improve the
quality of the student experience” (Harvey, Plimmer, Moon & Geall, 1997).
Colleges and universities use student satisfaction data to better understand,
improve and change campus environments, thereby creating settings more conducive
for student development. In this sense, student satisfaction is an indicator of the
institution’s responsiveness to students’ needs and a measure of institutional
effectiveness, success, and vitality (Hallenbeck, 1978; Low, 2000; Nichols, 1985;
Upcraft & Schuh, 1996).
Post-purchase Behavior
Post-purchase behavior could be expressed in several aspects. On the positive
side, it may be referred as “brand loyalty”. The “referral inclination” used in this
study is one form of brand loyalty in post-purchase behaviors. On the negative side, it
is manifested in the forms of complaints, brand replacement, or negative publicity,
etc. The following discussions are focused on the positive side of post-purchase
behaviors, especially on “brand loyalty”.
 According to Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1994), loyalty may be exhibited
by the following five aspects: 1. commend the company to other persons; 2.
recommend the company to inquirers; 3. encourage people to consume with the
company; 4. regularly do business or shop with the company; and 5. give priority
consideration to the company in the next shopping or business opportunity.
Griffin (1995) deemed that loyal customers would behave as following: 1. make
purchases regularly; 2. be willing to purchase all types of products offered by the
company; 3. be willing to build up a good image for the company; and 4. quite
immune to the sales or marketing campaigns of other companies.
As for Jones & Sasser (1995), they perceived that loyalty is performed through
the following three behaviors: 1. willingness to purchase again; 2. primary behaviors:
including the number of times, frequencies, amounts, and quantities consumed by the
customer most recently; and 3. secondary behaviors: willingness to recommend or
introduce the company to other parties.
Fredericks (2000) indicated that loyalty may be expressed through the following
behaviors: 1. large volumes of purchases; 2. high frequency of purchases; 3. less
sensitivity on price; and 4. brings new customers to the company.
Chaudhuri & Holbrook (2001) defined loyalty under the following two
dimensions: faithful devotion (meaning the customer strongly identify with the
brand), and loyal behavior (meaning the customer is willing to make repeat
purchases).
In summary of the above, the study defines brand loyalty through two types of
post-purchase behaviors: 1. repeat purchases: the willingness of doing purchases with
the same company again, and 2. referral inclination: the willingness of recommending
or introducing the company to others. For educational market, the concerns of brand
loyalty in this study is mainly focused on the latter one, referral inclination.
Loyalty and customer/student satisfaction
Most studies about loyalty and customer satisfaction were focused on studying
the correlation between both subjects for business companies. The following presents
a compilation of the findings about the correlation of loyalty and customer
satisfaction. Through these research conclusions, it is apparent that a positive
relationship does exist between customer satisfaction and loyalty.
According to the empirical research by Oliva & Macmillan (1992), there is a
non-linear relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty. Their study found
that the critical point of satisfaction is related to the customer’s willingness of making
repeat purchases. When level of satisfaction is higher than the critical point, the
customer’s inclination would rapidly increase as customer satisfaction grows. Where
the contrary is manifested, inclination would drop quickly.
 In the “service – profit chain” study, Heskett, Jones, Lovemen, Sasser &
Schlesinger (1994) also discovered a positive relationship between customer loyalty
and customer satisfaction.
Jones & Saaser (1995) conducted a study on automobile companies, telephone
service companies, airline companies, hospitals, and personal computer dealers to
understand the correlation between customer satisfaction and loyalty. Their study
findings showed that the competition in business environment and the specific type of
industrial structure would significantly affect the degree of customer satisfaction on
customer loyalty; hence, in industries where a strong monopoly dominates the
industry, customer loyalty would also become stronger.
Parasuraman, Zeithmal & Berry (1994) proposed three kinds of behaviors which
customers may adopt whenever they feel dissatisfied after purchases made: 1. take
business away: customers would do purchasing of the products or services from other
suppliers or companies; 2. external reaction: customers would air complaints to other
individuals or organizations rather than the company; and 3. internal reaction:
customers would directly react or complain to the company or supplier.
Chaudhuri & Holbrook (2001) conducted a study on the correlation among
customer satisfaction, willingness of making repeat purchases, and customer loyalty.
This study revealed that customer satisfaction will have a positive effect on the
customer’s willingness of making repeat purchases, and the willingness of making
repeat purchases could be regarded as an expression of the customer’s loyalty. Hence,
they concluded that there is a positive correlation between customer satisfaction and
customer loyalty.
According to the above research findings, this study was founded on the theory
of relationship marketing in delving into the correlation between student (customer)
satisfaction and student loyalty (post-purchase behavior).
Methodology
Population and Sample
All senior students enrolled at Technology and Vocational Education (TVE)
institutes in Greater Taipei area, Taiwan constituted the defined population for this
study.
To conduct the survey, the Greater Taipei area (including Taipei City and
Taiwan County) was divided into four districts: southern, northern, western, and
eastern. In each district, two private TVE institutes were randomly chosen. In each
school, 75 senior students were randomly chosen as the samples. As a result, a total of
600 participants who enrolled at TVE institutes in May 2005 were surveyed in this
study.
Instrumentation and Scale Purification
A “TVE Senior Student Satisfaction Survey” instrument, based on the review of
literature in this area, was self-developed for use in the study. There were three
sections in this instrument, including (1) background characteristics, (2) student
satisfaction scale, responses for the student satisfaction scale were made on five-point
Likert-type scale. (3)student loyalty: the respondents were asked to replied to the
question using nine-point scale, “If you were going to recommend a TVE institute to a
person who had an interest, how strongly would you recommend the institute you are
currently attending?” (Chadwick & Ward, 1987)
Reliability and Validity
To establish the reliability and construct validity of the survey instrument, the
instrument was pilot tested.
A pilot test of “TVE Senior Student Satisfaction Survey” instrument was
conducted with 150 randomly chosen TVE senior students who enrolled in two TVE
institutions in the Greater Taipei area, Taiwan. A total of 108 students completed and
returned the pilot test instrument. Item Analysis (the Criterion of Internal Consistency
and Correlation Analysis), Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient, and Factor Analysis were
used to pilot test data of the “TVE Senior Student Satisfaction Survey” to establish the
reliability and construct validity of the instrument.
In assessing Item Analysis, the Criterion of Internal Consistency and Correlation
Analysis were used in the pilot data. The score of each respondent for the student
satisfaction scale was added, and arranged in order from highest to lowest score. The
highest 25% respondents and the lowest 25% respondents were selected to do the T-
test of equality of means for each item. As a general rule, the items with Critical Ratio
> 3 (or < -3) and P < .05 were kept; others were deleted. Also, the Person Correlation
Coefficient was computed to test the significance (P< .05) for each item of the scale to
decide whether the item should be retained or not. The details of Item Analyses were
shown in Table 1.
. Secondly, Factor Analysis was performed to construct validity of the scale. five
factors that Eigen values greater than one were revealed by the Student Satisfaction
Scale factor pattern matrix. As a general rule, the items with factor loadings greater
than .40 have been retained; others were deleted. All 31 items in Student Satisfaction
Scale were retained, because all factor loadings are greater than .40. Five factors
revealed by the Factor Analysis are listed below: Factor 1: School Administration;
Factor 2: Academic Activities; Factor 3: Physical Facilities; Factor 4: Campus
environment; Factor 5: Interpersonal Relationships
The items for each factor, their factor loadings, Eigen-values, explained
percentage of variance, and the cumulative percentage of variance were shown as
Table 2.
Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient shown in Table 3 contains the reliabilities that
range from 0.76 to 0.90. The alpha for the entire scale used in the pilot study was
almost 0.90, a relatively high reliability coefficient. All of the factor alphas were at
least .70, which means the Student Satisfaction Scale is a well-designed measure of
student satisfaction of the survey respondents. These results support the internal
consistency of the responses to the Student Satisfaction Scale items that contributed to
the generation of the constructs.

Collection of Data
To collect the data, the researcher contacted the school presidents and instructors
previously by letter and/or telephone. The instructors were asked to participate in this
study and to help the distribution of the instruments to their senior students. With the
instructors’ permission, the researcher personally delivered the questionnaires to the
instructors on those campuses, and explained the purpose of this study and the
instructions of the questionnaire. The researcher provided her contact information for
instructors to ask questions if they had any. The researcher also promised to share the
results of the study with the instructors as soon as the study was completed.
The instructors were given two weeks to distribute and collect the questionnaires
in either class time or out-of-class time. After administering the questionnaires, they
were returned by mail. The instructors had been provided with a pre-addressed
stamped envelope in which to return their questionnaires.
Six hundred senior students who enrolled in 8 private TVE institutes in the
Greater Taipei area participated in this study. A total of 503 questionnaires were
verified to be useable among the 522 returned questionnaires. The returned
questionnaires with unclear, missing, out-of-range or outlier data were discarded.

Table 1 The Result of Item Analysis on Student Satisfaction Scale

Itme # Critical Ratio P (sig.) Pearson P (sig.)
(t) Correlation
1 12.349 .000 0.607 .000
2 14.106 .000 0.655 .000
3 12.679 .000 0.709 .000
4 12.316 .000 0.705 .000
5 11.051 .000 0.727 .000
6 13.657 .000 0.726 .000
7 14.691 .000 0.718 .000
 8 13.925 .000 0.653 .000
9 17.304 .000 0.785 .000
10 16.923 .000 0.754 .000
11 15.995 .000 0.728 .000
12 14.691 .000 0.763 .000
13 12.261 .000 0.704 .000
14 12.270 .000 0.721 .000
15 12.623 .000 0.701 .000
16 12.876 .000 0.718 .000
17 11.984 .000 0.687 .000
18 13.014 .000 0.645 .000
19 13.342 .000 0.713 .000
20 13.936 .000 0.704 .000
21 9.641 .000 0.654 .000
22 14.462 .000 0.750 .000
23 15.480 .000 0.722 .000
24 12.081 .000 0.652 .000
25 11.555 .000 0.705 .000
26 12.893 .000 0.761 .000
27 11.554 .000 0.695 .000
28 12.861 .000 0.501 .000
29 14.003 .000 0.729 .000
30 11.085 .000 0.633 .000
31 11.024 .000 0.752 .000

Table 2 The Results of Factor Analysis on Student Satisfaction Scale

Factor and Item Factor Eigen % of Cumulative %
Loadings Values Variance of Variance
School Administration
0.775
26. The policy for students to express their
ideas or opinions
12. The registration procedure 0.742
13. The process of applying for documents 0.697
(such as transcripts)
11. The availability of providing up-to-date 0.659
information about the job market or
 advanced study
27. The respect shown for the ideas of 0.683 6.145 18.821 18.542
students
14. The special help available to resolve 0.652
personal, urgent problems
10. The quality of counseling about students’ 0.645
life or personal matters
8. The opportunity to get help in career 0.631
design
25. The friendliness of office staff to students 0.616
23. The variety of elective course offerings 0.604
Academic Activities
0.821
18. Instructors’ teaching ability
0.797
17. Instructors’ professional knowledge
0.754
19. Instructors enthusiasm for students’
4.591 16.541 35.362
questions, and answering effectively and
in a friendly way
0.725
20. The fairness of the marking system
0.687
22. The usefulness of required courses
0.573
24. The helpfulness of courses in your job
and life
0.511
21. Instructors’ availability outside of class
Physical Facilities
0.827
2. Library support, such as book resources,
0.814
journal resources, reading area
3.211 13.082 48.444
3. The equipment of laboratories
0.762
4. Multimedia facilities, such as computer,
TV, VCR, and projection
0.545
1. The facilities of classrooms, such as
space, desks, chairs, light, board
Campus Environment
0.687
5. The cleanliness and quiet of your school
0.652
6. The availability of places to relax between
3.117 9.998 58.442
classes
0.632
7. Sport facilities and activities in the school
0.551
8. The quality of meal services available
0.478
16. The open hours of facilities in your school
Interpersonal Relationships
0.786
30. The relationship among students in out-
of-class time
0.721
28. The friendliness of students toward each
2.845 9.011 67.453
other in school
0.563
31. Social interaction with faculty or staff in
out-of class time
0.468
29. The concern of faculty and staff for
students
0.417
15. The number of extracurricular activities
provided

Table 3 Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient on Student Satisfaction Scale

Factors  Coefficient Items
School administration 0.8828 26, 12, 13, 11, 27,
14, 10, 9, 25, 23
Academic activities 0.8714 18, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 21
Physical facilities 0.8351 2, 3, 4, 1
Campus environment 0.7821 5, 6, 7, 8, 16
Interpersonal relationships 0.7625 30, 28, 31, 29, 15
Entire scale 0.8986

Analysis of Data

Student Satisfaction
As indicated in Table 4, senior student participants are satisfied most with
“Academic Activities” (mean = 3.0156) and dissatisfied most with “Campus
Environment” (mean = 2.5928). Each of other remaining factors has a mean below 3
(neither satisfied nor dissatisfied =3 in Likert-type scale.)

Table 4 Student Satisfaction Situations on Satisfaction Factors

Number of Standard
Rank Factor Mean
Respondents Deviation
Academic
1 503 3.0156 0.6041
Activities
 Interpersonal
2 503 2.9229 0.5831
Relationship
Physical
3 503 2.8776 0.6782
Facilities
School
4 503 2.7485 0.6814
Administration
Campus
5 503 2.5928 0.5496
Environment

Regression Analysis
In order to realize the correlation between student satisfaction and student
loyalty, the regression model was constructed. Five student satisfaction factors,
revealed from student satisfaction scale, were used as predictors of student loyalty
(the willingness to recommend the institutes they were currently attending to others).
Multiple regression analyses were performed to determine which combination of the
five predictor variables were the best predictors.
Y＝β 0 ＋β 1 X 1 ＋β 2 X 2 ＋β 3 X 3 ＋β 4 X 4 ＋β 5 X 5 ＋ε

Where Y: students’ “loyalty” which is defined as “the willingness to

recommend the TVE institutes they were currently attending to
others.
X 1 : School administration, X 2 : Academic activities,
X 3 : Physical Facilities, X 4 : Campus Environment,
X 5 : Interpersonal Relationship
Table 5 The Results of Regression Analysis
Variable β Standard Error t P
β0 3.0945 0.03553 101.54 0.0001***

X1 0.3753 0.03351 5.498 0.0001***

X2 0.2854 0.03314 6.594 0.0001***
X3 0.1997 0.03681 5.673 0.0001***
X4 0.0954 0.03417 0.934 0.3841
X5 0.2161 0.03321 4.684 0.0001***
R ＝0.6954，Adjusted R = 0.6897
2 2

F-value=28.324, P=0.0001***, D-W＝1.71

* P< .01, ** P< .05, *** P< .001
The regression of satisfaction factor scores against rated willingness to
recommend the institute show that all satisfaction factors (school administration,
academic activities, physical Facilities, interpersonal Relationship) have significant
influence on their “loyalty” except “campus environment.” It indicates that students’
loyalty is predicted significantly (P< .05) by four of five satisfaction factors, and its
adjusted R 2 = 0.6897 means which accounted for high variability in student
satisfaction; no multicollinearity and autocorrelation exits (D-W=1.71, VIF<10). The
results are consistent with the findings of previous studies, which provided evidence
for the significantly positive influence of satisfaction on loyalty/word-of-
communication (Fornell, 1992; Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Hallowell, 1996;
Anderson, 1998).

Discussions and Implications

This study was conducted to investigate the relationship between student

satisfaction and student loyalty. Six hundred TVE senior students in 8 private TVE
institutes in Taipei, Taiwan were surveyed to understand their satisfied level with their
institutes and their willingness to recommend the institutes.
Firstly, establish a regular survey system within the formal organization structure
of institutes. According to the survey results (Table 4), the average scores of all
satisfaction factors were below 3 except “academic activities” (just 3.0156), which
indicates private TVE students were not satisfied with the institutes/departments they
were currently attending. Therefore, the institutes should establish a regular survey
system to understand the level of student satisfaction and evaluate whether the
problems of dissatisfaction are impelled or improved or not. Moreover, students were
dissatisfied most with “Campus Environment.” It can be explained that all
respondents were from private TVE institutes, which they provide smaller campus
and weaker facilities than public institutes do. Government should consider that the
quality of public and private institutes should be balanced, and provide reasonable
subsidy to the private institutes with high reputation.
Secondly, 4 satisfaction factors, school administration, academic activities,
interpersonal relationship and physical facilities, have positive influence on student
“loyalty” according the results of regression analysis. “School administration” has the
strongest influence on student loyalty, which indicates that graduating students
emphasize the needs of “career-orientated” services institutes can provide, such as
easy processing on applying for documents, up-to-date information about the job
market or advanced study, and getting help in career design. TVE administrators
should not neglect the quality of student advising. Advisors should not only monitor
academic progress, but also provide career guidance, especially offering instruction in
course selection to obtain more professional licenses and certificates. Graduating
students who have received careful career advice should tend to feel better about their
schools because of their improved prospects for a preferred job. (Chadwick & Ward,
1987). The second powerful predictor for student loyalty is “academic activities,”
which indicates that reasonable class sizes, accessible and knowledgeable faculty and
specialized courses are the key components to satisfied students. TVE institutes
should provide training courses or discussion group meetings for faculty to improve
their knowledge, professional expertise, and the ability to explain and demonstrate.
Moreover, TVE institutes should establish a tutorial system for students to make up
for the lack of instructors’ availability outside of class.
According to the previous researches (Fornell, 1992; Anderson & Sullivan, 1993;
Hallowell, 1996; Anderson, 1998), customer satisfaction is the antecedent of
relational outcomes, such as customer loyalty and positive word-of-mouth advising.
Testimonials from successful former students might be one of particularly effective
strategies to market the institutes.
Reference

Anderson, E. W. & Sullivan M. W. (1993). The Antecedents and Consequences of

Customer Satisfaction for Firms. Marketing Science, 12, 125-143.
Anderson, E. W. (1998). Customer Satisfaction and Word of Mouth. Journal of
Service Research, 1, 7-15.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Belcheir, M. J. (1999). Satisfaction with College as Viewed by BSU and Other Four-
year College Students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 443341)
Berry, L. L. (1983). “Relationship Marketing” in Emerging Perspectives on Services
Marketing,” Leonard L. Berry, G. Lynn Shostack & Gregory D. Upah, eds.
Chicago: American Marketing Association, 25-28.
Betz, E. L., Klingensmith, J. E., & Menne, J. W. (1970). The measurement and
analysis of college student satisfaction. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance,
3, 110-118.
Betz, E. L., Menne, J. W., Starr, A. M., & Klingensmith, J. E. (1971). A dimensional
analysis of college student
satisfaction. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 4(2), 99-106.
Chadwick, K. & Ward, J. (1987). Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction with
Education: Implications for College and University Administrators. College and
University, 62(3), 236-246.
Chaudhuri, A. M. & Holbrook, B. (2001). The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and
 Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Loyalty, Journal of Marketing
Research, 9, 456-460.
Chen, Jung-Jui (2000). Learning Satisfaction of the Adults Participating in Computer
Education as Secondary Major. Unpublished Master Thesis, National Kaohsiung
Normal University.
Churchill, G. & Surprenant, C. (1982). An Investigation into the determinants of
consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 492-502.
Fornell, C. (1992). A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish
Experience. Journal of Marketing, 56, 6-21.
Fredericks, F. R. & Schefter, P. (2000). E-Loyalty, Harvard Business Review, July
2000, 105-113.
Griffin, Jill (1995). Customer Loyalty, New York: Simmon & Schuster Inc.
Guo, Yung-Shuen (2004). The Study of Learning Satisfaction in Public Senior
Vocational High School Night Classes. Unpublished Master Thesis, National
Dong Hwa University.
Hallenbeck, T. R. (1978). College student satisfaction: An indication of institutional
vitality. N.A.S.P.A. Journal, 16(2), 19-24.
Hallwell, R. (1996). The Relationships of Customer Satisfaction, Customer Loyalty,
and Profitability: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 7(4), 27-42.
Harvey, L., Plimmer, L., Moon, S., & Geall, V. (1997). Student satisfaction manual.
Bristol. PA: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University
Press.
Hendry, A. M. (1983). Measuring Adult Student Satisfaction: A Model. Canadian
Vocational Journal, 19(1), 47-50.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P. & Gremler D. D. (2002). Understanding
Relationship Marketing Outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 4(3), p.230-247.
Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Lovemen, G. W., Sasser, W. E. & Schlesinger, L. A.
(1994). Putting the Service profit Chain to Work. Harvard Business Review, 72(2),
164-174.
Information Web of Technological and Vocational Education (2004). A brief
introduction to the technological and vocational education of the Republic of
China. Retrieved July 25, 2005, from www.edu.tw/english/index.htm.
Jones, T. O. & W. E. Sasser (1995). Why Satisfied Customers Defect. Harvard
Business Review, 73(6), 88-99.
Low, L. (2000). Are college students satisfied? A notional analysis of changing
expectations. The USA Group Foundation New Agenda Series, 2(1). Indianapolis,
IN: USA Group Foundation.
Mangano, J. A. & Conado, T. J. (1979). Adult Students’ Satisfaction at Six Two-year
Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED180563)
Ministry of Education（2005）。Important Educational Statistics. Retrieved July 25,
2005, from www.edu.tw/.
Nichols, H. J. (1985). Black college student satisfaction as a measure of effectiveness
of higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent State University,
Kent, Ohio.
Nord, S. C. (1997). Student Satisfaction in Oregon Community Colleges. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED418763)
Oliva, T. A., Oliva, R. L. & Macmillan, I. C. (1992). A Catastrophe Model for
Developing Services Satisfaction Strategies, Journal of Marketing, 56, 83-95.
Oliver, L. R. & Swan, E. J. (1989). Consumer Perceptions of Interpersonal Equity &
Satisfaction in Transactions: A Field Survey Approach. Journal of Marketing, 53,
21-35.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. & Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering Quality Service,
The Free Press, 23-25.
Parasuraman, A.、Zeithaml, V. A. & Berry L. L. (1994). Improving Service Quality in
America: Lessons Learned. Academic of Management Executive, 8, 32-52.
Sanders, L., & Chan, S. (1996). Student satisfaction surveys: Measurement and
utilization issues. AIR Professional File, 59(2), 1-7.
Sheth, B. M. & Newman, B. I. (1999). Customer Behavior: Consumer Behavior and
Beyond. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden.
Sheth, J. N. (1996). Relationship Marketing: Frameworks and Concepts. Paper
presented at the 1996 International Conference on Relationship Marketing:
Development, Management and Governance of Relationships, March 29-31,
Berlin, Germany.
Stone, M. A. & Thomson, S. (1987). How Far Can Marketing be applied within the
Further Education Sector? The Quarterly Review of Marketing, 16-19.
Tough, A. (1982). Some Major Reasons for Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED033251)
Upcraft, M. L., & Schuh, J. H. (1996). Assessment in student affairs: A guide for
practitioners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.