2nd Draft - Oanh My

NATIONAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

MANAGEMENT OF QUALITY AND INNOVATION
RESEARCH REPORT
Factors influencing student satisfaction in higher education:

A case study of National Economics University in Vietnam.
Students : Cao Thị Oanh – 11204130

Nguyễn Trà My - 11206202
Major : Quality and Innovation

Management - EMQI
Intake : 62
Class : EMQI 62
Supervisor : Assoc. Prof. Dr. Đỗ Thị Đông
Ha Noi, 11/2022
i
DECLARATION
This research is written by ourselves and all information collected from

questionnaire is permitted to use in the study by all respondents.
ii
Contents
DECLARATION........................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................3
1. Rationale...................................................................................................3
2. Research questions...................................................................................3
3. Structure of the report..............................................................................3
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
...................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Literature review.....................................................................................4
1.1.1 Satisfaction...............................................................................................4
1.1.2 Higher education......................................................................................4
1.1.3 Student Satisfaction..................................................................................5
1.1.4 Measurement of student satisfaction........................................................5
1.2 Hypothesis development and Proposed model........................................11
1.2.1 Hypothesis development..........................................................................11
1.2.2 Proposed model.......................................................................................16
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY....................................................18
2.1 Research procedure..............................................................................................18
2.2. Sample and data collection.................................................................................18
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS..........................................................................................20
3.1. Introduction of National Economic University......................................20
3.2. Characteristic of the sample...................................................................22
3.3 Descriptive Statistics.............................................................................................22
3.4 Results of hypothesis testing................................................................................28
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION.................................29
3
INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
In this era of globalization, higher education is considered a type of service. This
may include teaching method, facilities or technology within campus. All educational
institutions have to adapt to the changing environment with a view to offering the best
service to their students. Quality accreditation, quality information disclosure, ranking
and benchmarking are the key tools to ascertain the quality of higher education in
Vietnam. Students are always the main customers of any university (Douglas, Douglas,
& Barnes, 2006), therefore, it is necessary for educational institutions to gain a deep
understanding of students’ satisfaction.
It is stated that people spending money for their services are no longer the
“passive recipients” of whatever they are paying for (T. Wright, Wright, & Ngan,
2004). Therefore, identifying the factors contributing to students’ satisfaction in higher
education is critical(Alves & Raposo, 2009). Although several studies have been
conducted on students’ satisfaction, there is a lack of consistency in the factors as well
as dimensions of the problem. In the context of Vietnam, moreover, such studies were
limited to each single educational institution.
Given that, this study aims to identify the underlying dimensions which generate
students’ satisfaction in higher education. In the paper, we add some new insights to the
general dimensions and more specific factors in the context of Vietnam education
industry, specifically National Economics University. Such findings can facilitate
strategy development of education providers, thus strengthening their quality education
to meet various needs of students who are their primary customers.
2. Research questions
Thus, the research question of the review is as follows:
 Which factors are found to influence student satisfaction in collaboration in
higher education?
 How do these factors influence students satisfaction in NEU?
 What are the implications of this research for university administrators?
3. Structure of the report
This paper have 4 main parts as follows:
Chapter 1: Literature review and hypothesis development. This chapter presents a
review of literature as well as develops the hypothesis and proposes the conceptual
framework.
Chapter 2: Research methodology. This chapter will extract the measurement and
original items used in the research. In addition, it provides a clear procedures of
conducting this research.
Chapter 3: Results. This chapter shows the result of the regression model and conclude
the hypothesis testing results.
Chapter 4: Discussion and recommendations. This chapter aims to discuss the
conclusion, providing some implications, as well as addressing the limitations and
future research directions.
4
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

1.1 Literature review
1.1.1 Satisfaction
Satisfaction is a feeling of happiness and joy that individuals obtain when they
have fulfilled their human needs and desires (Saif, 2014). Those definitions implies that
people tend to expect what they receive. Generally, satisfaction is viewed as an attitude-
like assessment made after making a purchase or in response to a number of consumer-
product interactions(Yi, 1990). Therefore, satisfaction can be perceived as an
experience of fulfilment when a person achieves his or her expectation (Rajabalee &
Santally, 2021). According to Locke (1976) , an emotional reaction or affection toward
an object is what is meant by satisfaction. A higher level of satisfaction may lead to
customer loyalty.
Giese and Cote (2000) determine three fundamental distinguishing factors after
carefully examining the key definitions that had been reviewed above:
(1) The type of response which can be whether cognitive, affective or conative.
(2) The focus or subject of this response, which may be based on an assessment
of the product standards, on consumer experiences with the product, or on
purchase-related characteristics like the sales staff.
(3) The point in time when the evaluation is made; this point in time could be
before or after the decision is made, after consumption, after a person has had
time to accumulate experiences, or at any other time.
1.1.2 Higher education

Higher education is regarded as one of the most crucial tools for the individual,
social, and economic development of a country. It is defined as instruction at the college
or university level (Mukhtar, Anwar, Ahmed, & Baloch, 2015). To meet the needs of
society's future workforce and to ensure that graduates are fully able to participate in the
new global economy, universities today are required to provide their students with the
knowledge, skills, and ethical responsibility(Spellings, 2006). Thus, it is believed that
higher education is both "an industry for enhancing national competitiveness and as
well as a lucrative service that can be sold in the global marketplace" (Naidoo, 2003).
Higher education may be seen as a lucrative investment opportunity that can be taken
advantage of in the same way as any other (Levine, 2001).
Globalization now has a significant impact on the higher education sector.
Higher education is a significant industry, by any measure. It is a crucial institution in
contemporary society (Barnett, 1990). The need to differentiate themselves from their
rivals in order to attract in as many students as possible while also meeting the needs
and expectations of current students has increased competition among higher education
institutions. The factors influencing student satisfaction in higher education have thus
been the subject of numerous studies.
5
1.1.3 Student Satisfaction
Student satisfaction is a temporary mindset that results from an assessment of a
student's educational experience.(Athiyaman, 1997). Similarly, according to Elliott and
Shin (2002) , student satisfaction is a state of mind determined by an individual's
subjective assessment of their educational experience and results. Student satisfaction is
the favorability of a student's subjective assessment of the various educational outcomes
and experiences (Oliver, 1989).
According to Alves and Raposo (2009), educational institutions should be tasked
with figuring out how student satisfaction develops as well as valid and reliable ways to
measure it. Educational institutions will be able to clearly see their current situation and
make comparisons with other educational institutions thanks to reliable measurements
of student satisfaction.
Higher education institutions are concentrating on comprehending the factors
that affect student satisfaction and working to increase it.
Universities have demonstrated their dedication to student satisfaction through
their mission statements, goals, and marketing plans. This focus on student satisfaction
is partly a result of the beneficial effects it has on student retention, recruitment, and
fundraising efforts. Universities can continuously assess how well they are meeting
student expectations by concentrating on student satisfaction.
Measuring student satisfaction is seen as a strategic issue for educational
institutions. Providing students with knowledge, skills, and specific abilities should
result in high levels of satisfaction, which should result in significant financial gains for
the university. Because student satisfaction is the ultimate goal and the ultimate goal is a
reflection of high levels of service quality, students will be satisfied with their academic
progress and their university experience and will speak favorably of the college..
Additionally, they should be able to determine the major influences on student
satisfaction and establish the priorities for improvement efforts with the aid of weighted
importance ratings. These priorities appear to be able to assist universities in choosing
where to focus their limited resources and how to work together to improve the
educational qualities that students value most (Elliott & Shin, 2002).
1.1.4 Measurement of student satisfaction

Throughout history, many scientists have studied the topic of student satisfaction.
Student satisfaction is a multidimensional term. This section will review previous
studies done on student satisfaction and provide models that have been used so far.
Through this section, the reader will understand the dimensions of student satisfaction
and the factors affecting student satisfaction.
Traditionally, the most well-known and widely applied service quality model is
SERVQUAL which has been used to gauge student satisfaction all over the world. In
order to assess the level of customer satisfaction and service quality of a company,
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985) created the SERVQUAL questionnaire in. It
takes into account five different factors, including tangibility, reliability, empathy,
responsiveness and assurance. Two administrations of the questionnaire were
conducted, the first to gauge customer expectations and the second to ascertain their
perception [63]. even though it is frequently used in industry, the model is not widely
used for higher education literature. The fact that a government university operates in a
non-profit service sector makes it challenging to use a business-focused service quality
model to gauge student satisfaction.
6
Figure 1:SERVQUAL model

One of the famous studies on student satisfaction lies in the research conducted
by Arambewela and Hall (2009). In this study, the author studied the perceptions of
international students about the impact of educational and non-educational services on
their satisfaction. Findings indicate that the importance of service quality factors related
to both educational and noneducational services has a differential impact on student
satisfaction.
The theoretical framework in the study is based on based on the expectancy-
disconfirmation paradigm (Oliver, 1980) and the SERVQUAL (Service Quality) model
to measure the satisfaction of students. Seven constructs were developed in the model
which includes: education, social, technology, economic, accommodation, safety,
prestige and image. The findings showed that all constructs were influential towards
student satisfaction. However, there were significant differences in all variables except
for perceptions regarding teaching quality. To summarize, the results underlie the
importance of both educational and non-educational issues represented by seven
constructs in the study – education, social, technology, economic, accommodation,
safety, prestige and image – as significant predictors of student satisfaction.
7
Economic
considerations Accommodation
Education Safety
Satisfaction
Technology Image and

Prestige
Social
Figure 2: Model of International Student Satisfaction

Elliott and Shin (2002) developed a model to compute students’ overall satisfaction via
a multiple-attribute method. Using the Student Satisfaction Inventory, which is
distributed by USA Group Noel-Levitz. The model consists of the following
dimensions: (1) academic advising effectiveness (5 items), (2) campus climate (17
items), (3) campus life (15 items), (4) campus support services (7 items), (5) concern for
the individual (6 items), (6) instructional effectiveness (14 items), (7) recruitment and
financial aid effectiveness (6 items), (8) registration effectiveness (5 items), (9)
campus safety and security (4 items), (10) service excellence (8 items), and (11) student
centeredness (6 items). This index includes all services offered to students by academic
and non-academic staff, as well as physical facilities and other services that may be of
environment.
interest to students in a school environment.
Academic advising Recruitment and

effectiveness financial aid effectiveness
Campus climate Registration effectiveness
Campus life Campus safety and

Student satisfaction security
Service excellent
Campus support services
Student centeredness
Concern for the
individual
Instructional
effectiveness
Figure 3: Model of student satisfaction: an alternative approach
8
In 2006, Douglas et al. (2006) developed the “Service Product Bundle” to
measure the level of student satisfaction in higher education. The questionnaire was
composed of 60 questions that were divided into the different categories of the service-
product bundle, such as lecture and tutorial facilities, ancillary facilities, the facilitating
goods, the explicit service, and the implicit service, and were informed by earlier
research studies. The author took 12 dimensions in consideration, including:
professional and comfortable environment, student assessments and learning
experiences, classroom environment, lecture and tutorial facilitating goods, textbooks
and tuition fees, student support facilities, business procedures, relationship with
teaching staff, knowledgeable and responsiveness of faculty, staff helpfulness, feedback
and class sizes. Compared with the SERVQUAL model, the Service Product Bundle
method offers a wider range of variables that affect student satisfaction in higher
education.
Professional and comfortable Professional and comfortable
environment environment
Student assessments and Professional and comfortable

learning experiences environment
Classroom environment Professional and comfortable

environment
Student satisfaction
Lecture and tutorial Professional and comfortable
facilitating goods environment
Textbooks and tuition fees Professional and comfortable

environment
Student support facilities Professional and comfortable

environment
Figure 4: Service Product Bundle Model
Martirosyan (2015) presented a conceptual framework based on Astin’s (1999)

theory of student involvement, (Tinto, 1975) retention theory, as well as a number of
conceptual models developed and tested by other educators (Alves & Raposo, 2007;
Douglas, McClelland, & Davies, 2008; Gremler & McCollough, 2002; Schertzer &
Schertzer, 2004). The conceptual framework includes 5 dimensions contributing to
student satisfaction: (1) academic experience; (2) student support facilities; (3) campus
life and social integration; (4) demographics; (5) faculty services. The result shows that
when it comes to overall student satisfaction in Armenian higher education, faculty
services are crucial. Higher student satisfaction resulted from having teachers who treat
students fairly and impartially. Additionally, knowledgeable faculty, faculty teaching
styles, and graduate teaching assistants have a negative influence on student
satisfaction. In terms of the program, the students were more satisfied when the
requirements were clear and reasonable.
9
Figure 5: Conceptual framework based on Astin’s (1999) theory of student involvement,

Tinto’s (1975) retention theory
Weerasinghe and Fernando (2018) recently have conducted research to study
about “Critical factors affecting student satisfaction with higher education in Sri
Lanka”. The study developed an “SSMHE” (Student Satisfaction Model for Higher
Education)
instrument and model to explain the student satisfaction levels at state universities in Sri
Lanka. In the model, the author incorporating six variables: The quality of academic
staff, the quality of the university facilities, the quality of the degree programs and the
quality of the university administrative staff. The results shows that facilities, such as
lecture rooms, library facilities, computer labs, social areas, hostel facilities and student
cafeterias, work as major determinants of student satisfaction levels at state universities
in the context of Sri Lanka.
Figure 6: Student satisfaction model for higher education

10
In summary, various methods, variables and models have been used to measure
student satisfaction. Other models of student satisfaction have also been adopted my
researchers and are presented in the table below:
Author and Study Methodology and Variables

Year model
Elliott and Student Questionnaire Academic advising
Shin (2002) satisfaction: An distribution effectiveness, Campus
alternative Utilized top 20 climate, Campus life,
approach to educational Campus support
assessing this attributes (SSI) services, Concern for the
important concept. individual, Instructional
effectiveness, Recruitment
and financial aid
effectiveness, Registration
effectiveness, Campus
safety and security,
Service excellence,
Student centeredness
Douglas et al. Measuring student Focus groups Professional Environment,
(2006) satisfaction at a UK Service Product Student assessment and
university Bundle Method Learning experiences,
Classroom environment,
Lecture and tutorial
facilitating goods,
Textbooks and tuition fees,
Student support facilities,
Business procedures,
Relationship with the
teaching staff,
Knowledgeable and
responsive faculty, Staff
helpfulness, Feedback,
Class sizes
Arambewela An empirical model Focus groups Education, Social,
and Hall of international Expectancy- technology, Economic,
(2009) student satisfaction disconfirmation Accommodation, Safety,
paradigm (Oliver, Prestige, Image
1980) and the
modified
SERVQUAL
(Service Quality)
Wilkins and Assessing student Questionnaire Lecturers, Program,
Balakrishnan satisfaction in distribution Assessment and Feedback,
(2013) transnational Service Product Resources,
higher education Bundle Method; Technology, Facilities and
SERVQUAL Social Life.
Martirosyan An examination of Self-reported Academic experience,
(2015) factors contributing questionnaire Student support facilities,
11
to student Noel-Levtiz Campus life & social
satisfaction in Student integration, Demographics,
Armenian higher Satisfaction Faculty services
education Inventory (SSI)
(Kärnä & A framework for Questionnaire Workspace facilities,
Julin, 2015) measuring student distribution Laboratory facilities,
and staff Importance – Teaching facilities,
satisfaction with satisfaction General purpose facilities,
university campus analyses(Martilla
Facility maintenance,
facilities & James, 1977)Campus
accessibility and
movement, Outdoor areas
(Weerasinghe Critical factors Student Quality of academic staff;
and Fernando affecting students’ Satisfaction Model Quality of university
(2018)) satisfaction with for Higher facilities; Quality of
higher education in Education degree programs; Quality
Sri Lanka (SSMHE) of university
administration; University
location; University image
Table 1: Summery of Satisfaction Models
1.2 Hypothesis development and Proposed model

1.2.1 Hypothesis development
Since universities are in the business of offering higher education, it is reasonable
to assume that a key factor in determining how satisfied students are with their
education is their classroom experience. Hill, Lomas, and MacGregor (2003) conducted
a study to determine what students in the UK believed quality education to be, and they
discovered that relationships between lecturers and students in the classroom and the
caliber of feedback given to students during lessons and on assignments were the most
crucial elements. According to (García-Aracil, 2009) study, which looked at student
satisfaction in 11 different European nations, satisfaction levels were mostly steady
despite the region's varied educational systems. The course material, equipment and
library supplies, interactions with other students, and teaching quality were the factors
with the highest degrees of effect.
Lectures
The study's definition of lecturers quality includes lecturers' depth of subject
knowledge, their ability to effectively facilitate students' learning, and their evaluation
skills. According to Yusoff, McLeay, and Woodruffe-Burton (2015) , academic faculty
quality and their actions have a big influence on how satisfied students are with their
higher education experience. Numerous research have further supported the association
(Douglas et al., 2006; García-Aracil, 2009; Kärnä & Julin, 2015; Wilkins &
Balakrishnan, 2013)
There haven't been many studies done in the past looking at how teaching
experience affects student satisfaction. The research Prieto and Altmaier (1994) and
Shannon, Twale, and Moore (1998) conducted is noteworthy. In their study of the
impact of prior teaching experience on graduate students at universities, the authors
discovered that lecturers with prior teaching experience are rated more favorably than
lecturers without such experience. More recently, (Madsen & Cassidy, 2005)
investigated how different levels of teaching experience affect perceptions of teaching
12
effectiveness and student learning, coming to the conclusion that teaching is an
important profession.
Cheng and Tam (1997) found out that a lecturer's commitment is a significant
predictor of their work performance, absenteeism, and turnover. Additionally, according
to S. Park, Henkin, and Egley (2005), teacher commitment is the most efficient way to
increase organizational success. Research from the past has suggested a connection
between lecturers' dedication and students' learning (Coladarci, 1992; Ware &
Kitsantas, 2007). Evaluations of student teachers were found to be correlated with
perceptions of teachers' personalities by Appleton-Knapp and Krentler (2006).
According to Patrick (2011), enthusiastic lecturers are devoted to their work, and
research has linked lecturer enthusiasm to student evaluations. Students are likely to
believe that committed lecturers are providing higher-quality instruction because
committed lecturers typically put more effort into lesson planning, resource allocation,
and classroom delivery. Although previous research (I. Park (2005), for instance)
looked at the relationship between teacher commitment and student achievement, there
hasn't been much investigation into the relationship between teacher commitment and
student satisfaction. We hypothesise that there is a link between the quality of lectures
and student satisfaction in higher education. Hence:
H1. The quality of lecturers, as perceived by students, will have a positive
influence on students’ satisfaction in National Economics University.
Programme
A well-established, flexible curriculum created by the institution to give students
a variety of information and abilities in a particular sector was the study's definition of a
quality degree program. The degree to which students are satisfied with the program is
another way to gauge the university's success rate. Customer satisfaction is the primary
metric used in the business world to assess the quality of a good or service(Fornell,
1992).. There is a statistically significant favorable influence of the academic program
on student satisfaction (Athiyaman (1997); Farahmandian, Minavand, & Afshardost,
2013; Navarro, Iglesias, & Torres, 2005).
For example, many higher education institutions have been enlarging their global
reach over the past few decades by establishing research centers, outreach offices, and
international branch campuses abroad. The ability of an international branch campus to
offer programs and courses that are consistent with what is being offered by the home
institutions, however, has been questioned by critics of transnational higher education
(Altbach, 2010). Well-designed program has a positive impact on the job opportunity of
students. In other words, the better the programme is designed, the higher chance
students may get a good job after graduation. According to Lien and Wang (2012), an
international branch campus typically cannot duplicate the breadth of the programs
offered by the parent institution and opts to only offer common disciplines (such as
business management and information technology). This practice exacerbates
socioeconomic inequities by only enrolling students who can afford the high tuition
fees.
Customers may be satisfied with different aspects of the product or service, so
even though customer satisfaction is important, it can be difficult to create a unified
measure (Athiyaman, 1997; LeBlanc & Nguyen, 1999). Hence:
H2. The quality of programme will have a positive influence on students’
satisfaction in National Economics University
Assessment and feedback
Winstone and Boud (2022) claimed that the main purposes of assessment are for
evaluation and certification. While carrying out a task can be a worthwhile learning
13
experience in and of itself. Feedback is defined as “the method by which a learner
become aware of their performance that will advance their education”. Hill et al. (2003)
conducted a study to determine what quality education meant to students in the UK.
They discovered that relationships between lecturers and students in the classroom and
the quality of feedback provided to students during lessons and on assignments were the
most crucial elements.
Clear goals and standards for assessment are important predictors of student
satisfaction, as are appropriate assessment and workload(Ginns, Prosser, & Barrie,
2007). By identifying typical performance at each grade level and using objective
assessment criteria like grading rubrics, psychology students' satisfaction was predicted
(r =.36;Malouff, Hall, Schutte, and Rooke (2010). Similarly, (Richardson, Slater, &
Wilson, 2007) found that in a national undergraduate student sample, clear and fair
assessment (r =.54), development of generic skills (r =.50), and feedback (r =.47) were
more strongly related to satisfaction than workload (r =.17).
The promptness and specificness of lecturers' feedback was a predictor of
satisfaction in UK undergraduates (Richardson et al., 2007), and international
postgraduate business students (Arambewela & Hall, 2009), as well as online learners
(Eom, Wen, & Ashill, 2006). Although students did take class size into consideration,
Douglas et al. (2006) stated that "promptness" is perceived as receiving feedback within
three weeks of submission.
Depending on how satisfaction was measured, it's possible that the perceived
assessment fairness played a mixed role. Fair and objective professors were found to be
the least significant factor influencing overall satisfaction by Elliott and Shin (2002).
But according to Feldman (1983), there are significant links between perceived fairness
and student or teacher satisfaction. The majority of the variation in students' ratings of
teachers among psychology majors was explained by perceptions of fairness (Wendorf
& Alexander, 2005).
Students who believe their academic performance to be above average may also
fall into the category of those who are most likely to get some feedback from the
academic staff. In order to determine whether contact with academic staff is a factor that
may affect student satisfaction, it would be interesting to conduct research. Hence:
H3. The quality of assessment and feedback will positively influence students’
Resources
Wilkins and Balakrishnan (2013) found that students at are primarily concerned
with their classroom experiences and their access to, and use of, learning resources. The
availability, value, and relevance of the material offered in the courses by the university
are referred to as learning resources. Mavondo, Tsarenko, and Gabbott (2004) identified
resources–such as educational technology which encompasses classrooms, computers
and related facilitators to learning–and specifically discussed library facilities in
recognition of advances in technology and the increasing role of librarians in servicing
students. These are the tangible resources. Zaheer, Babar, Gondal, and Qadri (2015)
demonstrates how happy the students were with the quality and accessibility of the
offered online learning resources. In this modern age, digital learning resource are
increasingly used in education.
Because libraries frequently review their operations and search for useful
performance indicators, library facilities are included in the model as a separate item.
More and more libraries are focusing on their patrons, and they regularly gauge their
satisfaction. Special librarians and subject experts in university libraries, as mentioned
by Hernon and Altman (2010), probably come closer to treating their users as clients.
14
This has resulted in the idea of library value-adding, service quality, and customer
satisfaction as a new language in library services. To access information resources,
librarians use cutting-edge technology. Their position as crucial resources for students is
strengthened by this access to technology. To assist students in developing information
literacy, a professional vocabulary, and efficient use of library resources, teaching staff
collaborate closely with librarians in academic settings. Libraries are crucial for
academic success, but international and domestic students have different perspectives
on how important they are (McSwiney, 1995). According to the reseach, local students
were more self-directed, did not have language barriers, and had greater confidence than
international students when it came to efficiently retrieving and using information
resources.
Therefore, the questioned raised is whether the availability of learning resources
at school affects student satisfaction. Hence:
H4. The quality of resources will positively influence students’ satisfaction in
National Economics University
Technology
The learning-teaching experience is significantly altered by the use of various
technological tools in the educational process, particularly through communication,
interaction, and data transfer. Technology including both hardware and software may be
a source of satisfaction. A wide range of amenities, such as classrooms, air
conditioning, aesthetics, educational tools, and computers, are intended to be covered by
this variable. The learning-teaching experience is significantly altered by the use of
various technological tools in the educational process, particularly through
communication, interaction, and data transfer.
The use of sophisticated software packages and new modes of course delivery
are made easier by technology (Benbunan-Fich, Lozada, Pirog, Wisenblit, & Priluck,
2001; Celsi & Wolfinbarger, 2002). According to Guolla (1999), "... instructors may not
have the resources necessary to improve the poor quality of classroom facilities, which
may affect students' satisfaction".
In comparison to students in small classes, students in large classes "perform
worse in terms of content of knowledge," according to (Karakaya, Ainscough, &
Chopoorian, 2001). Despite being more cost-effective to run, large classes foster an
extremely impersonal environment that could de-individualize students and result in
their dissatisfaction. The technology that is available might also be a source of pleasure.
It can be very satisfying to develop specific skills required for future career success
when using up-to-date hardware and software that enables professors and students to
take advantage of the advances of emerging technologies.
In addition, those technological resources enable student to develop essential
skills for their future career(Benbunan-Fich et al., 2001; Celsi & Wolfinbarger, 2002).
Related to this, the available technology might be a source of satisfaction. Modern
hardware and software that enables instructors and students to take advantage of
technological advancements can be intriguing. Hence:
H5. The quality of technology will positively influence students’ satisfaction in
National Economics University
Safety and security
The safety and security of the school environment can be understood as ensuring
that the school’s physical space provide well-maintained and safe facilities, which most
importantly, prevent injuries and provide safety and security as well as limit the
occurrence of unbecoming behaviours that negatively impact the psychosocial school
spaces. It is the responsiveness of the university to maintain personal security and the
15
campus environment. Safety can be understood as a situation or condition that is not
dangerous and or that is devoid of threats.
Ammigan and Jones (2018) demonstrates that the sense of safety and security at
their institution was what satisfied international students the most. According to
Flannery and Quinn-Leering (2000), university campuses are generally safe places to
learn. According to them, violent crimes occur ten times more frequently in the
neighborhoods where universities are located than they do on university campuses.
However, many university students encounter threatening behavior while they are on
campus, either as perpetrators or victims or both.
Campus safety is crucially important when it comes to particular aspects of
safety perceptions or developing preventative measures, but more knowledge is required
regarding the overall physical environment of campuses (Fischman & Foster, 2007).
Johnson (2009) argues that the social environment of the campus defines the types of
interactions, or social norms, that take place between students and other university
personnel within the campus' physical environment and that this social environment has
an effect on students' behavior both individually and collectively. At the personal level,
a student's beliefs, commitments, involvement, and attachment to their social
environment have an impact on their behavior. On a collective level, campuses with a
unified, consistent set of social norms have a social atmosphere that encourages group
action among students. It is crucial to take into account both the campus as a physical
and social environment when researching campus safety because the physical and social
environments are inextricably linked.
Xaba (2014) found that inadequate implementation of safety measures at schools
and advised that schools should start doing proper strategic planning for safety and
security. Campus security services, according to other studies, vary significantly among
college campuses, but the majority of them state that campus security offers some
combination of security patrol, safety escort service, emergency phone system (also
known as blue lights), and emergency phone numbers. Students will only reach a sense
of satisfaction when the school environment is secure or perceived as being secure.
According to Franzosa (2009), students are more likely to be aware of and take
part in campus safety measures if it is made clear that campus security is on the lookout
and is prepared to act in any circumstance. Students should be made aware of the risks
without becoming overly anxious around campus. The best way to combat campus
insecurity is to keep resources accessible, increase awareness of threats, and keep lines
of communication open rather than instilling fear or restricting freedom. However, there
have been many instances where violent crimes such as robberies and other violent acts
have put students' ability to study in danger. Therefore, it is important to pay attention
to the issue of campus safety. Hence:
H6. The safety and security environment will positively influence students’
Student Centeredness
The term “student centeredness” or “student focus,” is defined as the
organisation’s willingness to serve its students the best service and thus creating
superior value for their current and future students
Student centeredness, which communicates a strong institutional focus on
fostering positive student experiences, is one sign of an inviting institutional climate
(Elliott & Shin, 2002). Campuses that put students first and create a satisfying
environment for them to learn in show that they care about them . Such settings convey
to students a strong commitment to their welfare as well as the idea that they have a
place in the campus community. He also shows that a school's commitment to putting
16
students first affects how happy its students are with their overall educational
experience. For first-year students, taking advantage of the opportunities that college
has to offer may depend critically on their perception of their interactions with faculty.
Students may be more motivated to participate in activities that are pertinent to their
courses when teachers are approachable. Personal interactions between faculty and
students must have low thresholds for social integration to take place.
According to Weimer's theory, adopting learner-centered method can have
positive influence on the class. Tertiary institutions are no longer insulated from
competition and are required to understand the strengths and limitations of themselves.
Weimer's working hypothesis is that college and university classrooms are overly
instructor-centered, which prevents students from developing into successful, mature
learners. Although their level of awareness varies from those who are aware of the
specific problem areas to those who simply have a sense that something is amiss in the
educational process, she claims that many instructors are aware of this and are making
changes in the direction of becoming more student-centered. The teacher-centeredness
of the classroom is evident in five areas, according to Weimer: the power dynamic, the
function of the content, the teacher's role, the student's responsibility for learning, and
the goals and evaluation procedures.
G. B. Wright (2011) reported that higher education is becoming more and more
interested in student-centered learning, and many institutions now have websites with
online resources for professors. Research suggests there is a strong link between student
centeredness and student satisfaction (Narver & Slater, 1990). Hence:
H7. There is a positive correlation between student centeredness and students’
1.2.2 Proposed model

In this study, we used some factors presented in the mode developed by
(Wilkins & Balakrishnan, 2013) which includes: Lectures, Programme, Assessment
and feedback, Resources, Technology. Furthermore, we add another two factors from
the Noel-Levitz SSI (Student Satisfaction Inventory): Safety and security, student
centeredness. The dependent variable is student satisfaction. These factors which
influence student satisfaction will be clearly explained below. The relationship
between the factors will be presented in Figure 1.1
17
Lectures (LECT)
Programme (PROG)
Assessment and feedback (ASST)
Resources (RESO) Satisfaction (SATN)
Technology (TECH)
Safety and security (SECU)
Student Centeredness (STCENTER)

18
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
2.1 Research procedure
Identify the Develop Choose the

research scope, hypotheses and appropriate
problem. conceptual models. instrument.
Discuss the result,

address limitation Conduct data Create survey,
and give analysis. collect responses.
recommendation.
2.2. Sample and data collection
2.2.1. Sample size
The researchers' model includes seven independent variables and one dependent
variables. The research team conducted an online survey and collected 200 votes. After
analyzing the selected types of inappropriate survey questionnaires, we got 171 valid
votes (excluding illogical or irrelevant samples to ensure the objectivity and accuracy of
the research). Collected data is aggregated into deep analysis sections that have met the
minimum sample size requirement for this study.
2.2.2. Measurment
Factors Items Reference
LECT My lecturers make the subjects interesting. Wikins, S.,
My lecturers are experts in their fields. Balakrishnan, M. S.
My lecturers use language that I understand. (2011). "Assessing
I have as much contact with my lecturers as I student satisfaction
need. in transnational
19
My lecturers are sympathetic if I have problems higher education."
that affect my work.
Course content is made relevant to Vietnam.
My course is relevant to my intended future
PROG
employment.
My course is intellectually stimulating.
Modules/units are assessed using a variety of
methods.
My course involves coursework/on-going
assessment.
ASST
I receive detailed and helpful feedback on my
work.
The library meets all of my learning needs.

The course materials satisfy all of my learning
needs.
RESO Technology is used to provide learning resources
outside of lessons.
I can always find a computer to work on when
needed.
All teaching/lecturing rooms have good audio-
visual facilities.
My lecturers use technology well in their
TECH
teaching.
I use ICT when undertaking research and to
present my work.
Security staff respond quickly to calls for
assistance.
Parking lots are well-lighted and secure.
SECU
The campus is safe and secure for all students.
The amount of student parking space on campus
Noel Levitz.
is adequate.
College Student
The campus staff are caring and helpful.
Inventory (CSI).
Students are made to feel welcome here.
Administrators are available to hear students'
STCENTER
concerns.
I seldom get the "run-around" when seeking
information on this campus.
So far, my course has met all of my expectations. Wikins, S.,
I am very satisfied with my university and would Balakrishnan, M. S.
definitely choose it again. (2011). "Assessing
SATN
My choice of university was a wise decision. student satisfaction
My programme offers good value for money. in transnational
I would recommend my university to friends. higher education."
2.2.3. Data collection

The primary data was taken from a study on student satisfaction (Wilkins &
Balakrishnan, 2013) The questionnaire consists of 31 items that cover a full range of
university experiences: Lecturers, Programme, Assesment and Feedback, Resources,
20
Technology, Safety and Security, Student Centeredness. The items were Likert-type
statements on a seven-point scale ranging from (1) “Strongly Disagree” to (7) “Strongly
Agree”. Since the main survey subjects of this study are students of National Economic
University Vietnam, the research questionnaire has been translated into Vietnamese.
The language is also simplified to the maximum but still must keep the meaning of the
original scale so that the participants can understand and answer the question correctly.
2.3. Data analysis
Primary data analysis method: After collecting the answer sheets and filter
invalid answers; The research team encodes the necessary information questionnaire,
data entry and data analysis using SPSS software.
2.3.1. Reliability of the scale
According to Campbell and Fiske (1959), we can judge a measure as reliable if it

accurately measures what is to be measured or if the measure is absent from both
systematic and random types of error. And to measure the reliability of a measurement
accurately, the team calculates Cronbach's coefficient. The group used the Alpha-
coefficient for the evaluation of the internal consistency of a model and it is well suited
to Likert questions in most of the surveys that they gave.
To evaluate this coefficient, Hair et al. (2006) gave the following rules:
 < 0.6: Insufficient scale

 0.6 - 0.8: Acceptable scale
 0.8 - 0.9: Suitable scale
 ≥ 0.95: acceptable but not good, need to consider the phenomenon coincidence
among observed variables
2.3.2. EFA
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is used to check the convergence and evaluate the
discriminant value of the scale. Method. This quantitative analysis reduces a set of
many interdependent measures into a smaller group of variables (called factors) so that
they make more sense but still contain most of the information content of the initial set
of variables (Hair et al., 2009). According to Hair et al. (2009), to ensure the practical
significance of EFA, we calculate the Factor loading factor - factor coefficient or factor
weight - with the standard as follows:
 Factor loading > 0.3 is considered a minimum
 Factor loading > 0.4 is considered important
 Factor loading > 0.5 is considered to be practical significance
The necessary conditions for exploratory factor analysis to have statistical significance
are:
 Factor loading > 0.5
 0.5 KMO coefficient (Kaiser-Meyer Olkin) ≤ 1: used to consider the suitability
of factor analysis
21
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS
3.1. Introduction of National Economic University
National Economics University is a pioneer in the field of economics and

management universities in Vietnam's north, specializing in the training of economic
experts for the country at the undergraduate and graduate levels. The university is also a
center for intensive economic research, consulting on macroeconomic policies for the
Vietnamese state, and transferring and consulting technology in management and
administration.
The National Economics University was established under Decree No. 678-TTg
dated January 25, 1956, with the name “School of Economics and Finance”. According
to The Prime Minister's Decree No. 252-TTg dated May 22, 1958, the university
changed to the the Ministry of Education. In January 1965, the university was rename as
University of Planning Economics. On October 22, 1985, Minister of Universities and
Vocational Colleges Nguyen Dinh Tu issued Decision No. 1443/QD-KH to change the
school's name to National Economics University.
In over 60 years of construction and growth, the National University of

Economics has constantly risen to successfully complete all tasks assigned by the Party,
State and People. Each step of the school is associated with the development of the
country, leaving a mark on the cause of education and training in the country. The Party
and State have recognized the outstanding achievements and contributions of the
University and have awarded it many noble awards: the title of Labor Hero in the
renovation period (2000); Ho Chi Minh Medal (2001, 2011); Independence Medal
(First, Second, Third); Labor Medal (First, Second, Third); and other noble awards.
National Economics University is the training place for many top leaders for the
Communist Party of Vietnam and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, many famous
businessmen are also alumni and PhD students. of the school such as Mr. Nguyen Xuan
Phuc - 10th President, former Prime Minister of Vietnam; Nguyen Duc Kien - Vice
Chairman of National Assembly of Vietnam; Pham Quang Dung - Chairman of
Vietcombank; Duong Cong Minh - Chairman of Sacombank; Tran Dinh Long -
Chairman of Hoa Phat Group…
22
The National Economics University focuses on developing comprehensive and
extensive international cooperation activities. Currently, National Economics University
is a reliable partner of over 100 universities and research centers in over 30 countries
worldwide, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Austria, the Netherlands,
Belgium, France, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan,
Singapore, Thailand, and many others. National Economics University is implementing
comprehensive international cooperation activities in all aspects, including scientific
research cooperation, exchange of lecturers and students, cooperation in building and
developing joint training programs. create. National Economics University has
exchange and cooperation relations with many renowned universities, research
institutes, and international organizations from countries such as Russia, China,
Bulgaria, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, France, the United
States, Australia, Japan, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Canada, Korea, and Thailand... In
particular, the school also received funding from other countries. international
organizations such as Sida (Sweden), UNFPA, CIDA (Canada), JICA (Japan), Dutch
Government, ODA (United Kingdom), UNDP, World Bank, Ford Foundation (United
Kingdom), Hanns Seidel Foundation (Germany), etc. to organize research, develop
training programs, and open master's training courses at the School of Economics,
Management, and Business Administration and refresher courses about market
economy... At the same time, the university also has relationships with many foreign
companies in training, research, and scholarships for students. Joint training is one of
the activities that the university focuses on in the international cooperation development
strategy. Up to now, the University has been implementing 15 joint training programs at
bachelor, master, and doctoral levels with partners from the UK, France, USA,
Australia, Germany, and Korea. These are prestigious, high-quality programs that are
highly valued by employers and society.
The above information shows that National Economics University is a

prestigious university in Vietnam, so they need to pay more attention and care about the
school's service quality and student satisfaction.
3.2. Characteristic of the sample

3.2.1. Sample size
The official sample size was 171 observations to include in the analysis.
Information about the survey sample collected is shown in Table.
Table 1: Summary profile of respondents
Categories Number %
Male 78 45.6
Gender Female 93 54.4
Junior 57 33.3
Sophomore 57 33.3
Level of study Freshman 27 15.8
Senior 30 17.5
3.3 Descriptive Statistics

23
Evaluation of the scale by Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient
The reliability of the scale was assessed by Cronbach's Alpha coefficient. The results of
Cronbach's Alpha test for groups of variables in the research model show that:
The scale of LECT components includes 5 main components and the measurement
results of the reliability value (Generalized value of the scale) have a reliability of
0.852, which must be greater than 0.6; the correlation coefficients of the scale
components are all greater than 0.3; Cronbach's Alpha coefficient when all variables are
smaller than the original Cronbach's Alpha coefficient.
The scale of PROG components consists of 3 main components and the measurement
0.733, meeting the requirement that it must be greater than 0.6; the correlation
coefficients of the scale components are all greater than 0.3; Cronbach's Alpha
coefficient when all variables are smaller than the original Cronbach's Alpha
coefficient.
The scale of ASST components includes 3 main components and the measurement
0.780, which has to be greater than 0.6; the correlation coefficients of the scale
The scale of RESO components consists of 4 main components and the measurement
0.776, which has met the requirement that it must be greater than 0.6; the correlation
coefficients of the scale components are all greater than 0.3; Cronbach's Alpha
coefficient when all variables are smaller than the original Cronbach's Alpha
coefficient.
The scale of components TECH includes 3 main components and the results of
measurement of the reliable value (Generalized value of the scale) have a reliability of
0.873, which must be greater than 0.6; the correlation coefficients of the scale
The scale of SECU components consists of 4 main components and the measurement
results of the reliable value (Generalized value of the scale) have a reliability of 0.869,
meeting the requirement that it must be greater than 0.6; the correlation coefficients of
the scale components are all greater than 0.3; Cronbach's Alpha coefficient when all
variables are smaller than the original Cronbach's Alpha coefficient.
The scale of components STCENTER consists of 4 main components and the

measurement results of the reliable value (Generalized value of the scale) have a
reliability of 0.861, which must be greater than 0.6; the correlation coefficients of the
scale components are all greater than 0.3; Cronbach's Alpha coefficient when all
variables are smaller than the original Cronbach's Alpha coefficient.
24
The scale of components of the dependent variable SATN includes 5 main components
and the results of measurement of the reliability value (Generalized value of the scale)
with a reliability of 0.899 have met the requirement that it must be greater than 0.6; the
correlation coefficients of the scale components are all greater than 0.3; Cronbach's
Alpha coefficient when all variables are smaller than the original Cronbach's Alpha
coefficient.
Table 2: The results of Cronbach's Alpha test of the independent variable
Scale Corrected
Scale Mean if Cronbach’s Alpha
Items Variance if Item-Total
Item Deleted if Item Deleted
Item Deleted Correlation
Factor LECT; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0,852
LECT1 14.91 5.916 0.744 0.799
LECT2 14.92 6.424 0.593 0.840
LECT3 14.91 6.485 0.626 0.831
LECT4 14.88 6.574 0.617 0.833
LECT5 14.90 5.949 0.738 0.800
Factor PROG; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0,733

PROG1 7.36 1.574 0.607 0.584
PROG2 7.38 1.802 0.519 0.690
PROG3 7.28 1.709 0.546 0.659
Factor ASST; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0,780

ASST1 7.49 1.851 0.644 0.672
ASST2 7.51 1.910 0.560 0.769
ASST3 7.36 1.962 0.653 0.667
Factor RESO; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0,776

RESO1 10.83 3.506 0.548 0.741
RESO2 10.78 3.700 0.601 0.712
RESO3 10.92 3.482 0.630 0.694
RESO4 10.94 3.802 0.544 0.739
Factor TECH; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0,873

TECH1 7.35 2.111 0.750 0.828
TECH2 7.32 2.076 0.790 0.795
TECH3 7.40 1.866 0.741 0.843
Factor SECU; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0,869

SECU1 11.18 3.832 0.756 0.819
SECU2 11.14 3.921 0.729 0.829
SECU3 11.27 3.763 0.758 0.817
SECU4 11.27 4.033 0.644 0.863
Factor STCENTER; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0,861

25
STCENTER1 11.05 3.986 0.686 0.834
STCENTER2 11.08 3.864 0.741 0.809
STCENTER3 11.05 4.344 0.738 0.812
STCENTER4 11.10 4.525 0.682 0.834
Factor SATN; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0,899

SATN1 14.84 7.287 0.799 0.867
SATN2 14.90 7.278 0.723 0.883
SATN3 14.79 7.473 0.698 0.888
SATN4 14.94 6.825 0.804 0.865
SATN5 14.99 7.235 0.730 0.881
Validity test by Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

The validity test by Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is only accepted when:
(1) Factor loading of factors > 0.5 means that the items are valid and reliable.
(2) Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy: The data is suited for
Factor Analysis if 0.5 ≤ KMO ≤1 (O'Hair, Friedrich, & Dixon, 1998)
(3) Sig. = 0.000 of Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity helps to see if there is a certain
redundancy between the variables that we can summarize with a number of factors.
(4) Cumulative variance > 50% shows that items are suitable for Factor Analysis
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
Results of EFA test for independent variables.
The result of EFA test for independent variables shows that KMO = 0.787 >0.05
and Sig.= 0.000<0.05, then we can conclude that the items in the measurement are
correlated and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is suited in this research.
The result also shows that the Total Variance Explained = 70.152%>50%, the
breakpoint of the seventh factor is 1.256>1. Therefore, seven factors are extracted from
the analysis.
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
LECT1 0.842
LECT5 0.819
LECT4 0.772
LECT3 0.727
LECT2 0.704
SECU1 0.829
SECU2 0.821
26
SECU3 0.801
SECU4 0.747
STCENTER3 0.858
STCENTER2 0.857
STCENTER4 0.818
STCENTER1 0.814
TECH2 0.846
TECH3 0.828
TECH1 0.797
RESO3 0.827
RESO2 0.781
RESO4 0.708
RESO1 0.653
ASST1 0.812
ASST3 0.784
ASST2 0.749
PROG3 0
PROG1 0
PROG2
KMO
Eigenvalue
Sig Barlett
Extration Sum of Variance
Table 2: Rotated Component Matrix
Result from Rotated Component Matrix of the EFA analysis shows that 6 groups
of items have Factor Loading >0.5, then all the items are valid.
The result from the analysis concluded that 6 factors are suited for research from
the original factors in the data.
- The first factor includes 5 items, belonging to LECT

- The second factor includes 4 items, belonging to SECU
- The third factor includes 4 items, belonging to STCENTER
- The fourth factor includes 3 items, belonging to TECH
- The fifth factor includes 4 items, belonging to RESO
- The sixth factor includes 3 items, belonging to ASST
- The seventh factor includes 3 items, belonging to PROG
Results of EFA test for dependent variable.

27
The factor loading of all items in the SATN construct is >0.5. KMO, P-value of
Bartlett=0.0000 which satisfies the requirement, therefore, those items will be used for
the linear regression model.
The EFA test of dependent variable shows that KMO =0.861>0.5;
Sig.=0.000<0.05. Therefore, it is concluded that the items in the measurement are
correlated and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is suited in this research.
The result also shows that the Total Variance Explained = 71.418%>50%, the
breakpoint of the factor is 3.571>1. Therefore, no item is removed and all items are kept
in the construct SATN.
The result from EFA analysis indicates that the scale for all items is valid.
Therefore, no factors are extracted and the proposed model remains the same.
No. Name Value Condition Conclude
1 KMO 0,861 ≥0,5 Valid

2 Sig, Bartlett’s Test 0,000 ≤0,05 Valid
3 Innitial Eigenvalues 3,571 >1 Valid
Extraction Sums of
4 71.417% ≥50% Valid
Variance
Table 3: EFA Factor Analysis
Component
SATN4 0.884
SATN1 0.879
SATN5 0.829
SATN2 0.825
SATN3 0.805
Table 4: Rotated Component Matrix
Regression Analysis
Enter method of multiple regression was used to test the conceptual model. The
regression results show that the model has R-square R 2 = 0.615 and Adjusted R Square
R2 = 0.598. The result means that the independent factors in the model contribute 59.8
percent to the dependent factor (SATN).
Model R R2 Adjusted Std. Durbin -
R2 Error of Watson
the
28
Estimate
d
1 .784a 0.615 0.598 0.420 2.144
Predictors: (Constant), STCENTER, RESO, LECT, PROG, TECH, ASST,
SECU
Dependent Variable: SATN
Table 5: Model Summary
The F-test statistics shows Sig. = 0.000 < 0,05 from ANOVA analysis, therefore
regression analysis is suitable for the collected data, then regression analysis can be
used in the research.
Sum of Mean
Model df F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 46.014 7 6.573 37.196 .000b
Residual 28.807 163 0.177
Total 74.821 170
Predictors: (Constant), STCENTER, RESO, LECT, PROG, TECH, ASST, SECU
Dpendent Variable: SATN
Table 6: ANOVA Table for Regression Model
The regression result shows that the significant level of all variables has Sig.<0.05.
Therefore, all seven hypothesis H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7 are accepted.
Standar
Unstandardized dized Collinearity
Coefficients Coeffici Statistics
Model t Sig.
ents
Std. Toleranc
B Beta VIF
Error e
(Constant -1.073 0.347 -3.089 0.002
)
LECT 0.124 0.057 0.114 2.151 0.033 0.834 1.198
PROG 0.131 0.057 0.120 2.284 0.024 0.850 1.176
ASST 0.306 0.058 0.303 5.300 0.000 0.725 1.380
RESO 0.118 0.058 0.109 2.029 0.044 0.814 1.228
TECH 0.235 0.057 0.244 4.132 0.000 0.676 1.478
SECU 0.259 0.061 0.251 4.246 0.000 0.677 1.476
29
STCENT 0.123 0.049 0.124 2.487 0.014 0.957 1.045
ER
Table 7: Coefficients of the Regression Model
3.4 Results of hypothesis testing
The unstandardized linear regression model which shows the impact of factors on
SATN is presented below:
SATN = -1,073 + 0,124*LECT + 0,131*PROG + 0,306*ASST + 0,118*RESO
+ 0,235*TECH + 0,259*SECU + 0,123*STCENTER
And the stardardized linear regression model is:
SATN = 0,114*LECT + 0,120*PROG + 0,303*ASST + 0,109*RESO +
0,244*TECH + 0,251*SECU + 0,124*STCENTER
The results show that 7 factors including LECT, PROG, ASST, RESO, TECH,
SECU and STCENTER have positive correlation with SATN. Therefore, all the
proposed hypothesis H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6 and H7 are accepted. The six factors
account for 59.8% of the impact on SATN.
Review of the beta weights indicated that ASST was the strongest weight in the
model for SATN (β = 0.303). The other variables included SECU (β = 0.251), TECH (β
= 0.244), STCENTER (β = 0.124), PROG (β = 0.120), LECT (β = 0.114), and RESO (β
= 0.109). All variables positively contributed to student satisfaction which meant that
the better the quality of the factors are, the higher the student satisfaction.
Results of hypothesis testing
Standardi
Hypothesis zed beta Sig. value Results
coeficient
H1: LECT SATN β = 0.114 < 0,05 Supported
H2: PROGSATN β = 0.120 < 0,05 Supported
H3: ASST SATN β = 0.303 < 0,05 Supported
H4: RESO SATN β = 0.109 < 0,05 Supported
H5: TECH SATN β = 0.244 < 0,05 Supported
H6: SECU SATN β = 0.251 < 0,05 Supported
H7: STCENTER SATN β = 0.124 < 0,05 Supported
30
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of the factors affecting
students in higher education in accordance with the research objectives. According to
the results of the mean analysis, the vast majority of students are pleased with the level
of service provided.
The regression results indicated a statistically insignificant influence of the
quality of Lectures, Programme, Assessment and feedback, Resources, Technology,
Safety and security, Student centeredness on the student satisfaction levels. The
assistance and feedback factor was identified as the strongest predictor. Also, all these
factors have positive and significant impact on satisfaction of students. So, the results of
this study support those of earlier studies. (Elliott & Healy, 2001; Gamage,
Suwanabroma, Ueyama, Hada, & Sekikawa, 2008; Helgesen & Nesset, 2007; Letcher &
Neves, 2010; Tessema, Ready, & Yu, 2012).
In comparison to other modeled variables, the regression result shows that
university facilities (technology and resources) have a statistically significant impact on
student satisfaction levels. This relationship was further supported by evidence(Carey,
Cambiano, & De Vore, 2002; Hanssen & Solvoll, 2015; Yusoff et al., 2015).
Accordingly, the study draws the conclusion that amenities like lecture halls, libraries,
computer labs, social spaces, dorm amenities, and student cafeterias play a significant
role in determining how satisfied students are at National Economics University. The
results of this study also support Arambewela and Hall (2009) finding that that lectures
have an effect on it. In general, teaching variables have a stronger correlation with
student satisfaction than institutional or student variables, making them a logical area to
focus on in order to raise satisfaction. The satisfaction of psychology students depends
on providing them with high-quality instruction, clear assessment standards and criteria,
and fair assessments.
Additionally, the regression results demonstrated a significant impact of the
designed program's quality on student satisfaction levels at National Economics
University. The result was consistent with the outcomes of numerous earlier studies,
such as (Abdullah, 2006; Browne, Kaldenberg, Browne, & Brown, 1998; Farahmandian
et al., 2013). According to Athiyaman (1997), there is a positive correlation between
overall student satisfaction levels and academic curricula's perceived quality, course
quality, and other curriculum-related issues (Browne et al., 1998).
Therefore, based on the results of the study, improving the quality of these
factors may raise the levels of student satisfaction. Therefore, the board of directors in
National Economics University must raise the quality of services they provide to
students in order to increase student satisfaction. To start, college teachers' training and
education should be strengthened to raise their level of proficiency in general. Teachers
in particular need to have the right attitude toward learning as well as an accurate
understanding of their roles and the importance of their work. Then, curriculum design
should be enhanced to ensure that the curriculum system meets practical needs. In order
to meet the actual needs of the students, it should concentrate on selecting the proper
materials. Last but not least, colleges need to improve hardware facility construction.
The tools used in teaching should be updated frequently, have enough practice, creating
favorable environment for learning of students.
Universities could also invest in providing amenities like lecture halls, libraries,
computer labs, social areas, hostel facilities, and student cafeterias in order to increase
student satisfaction levels. The necessary books could be purchased, reading areas could
be upgraded, and e-learning capabilities could be added to the library's offerings. With
the right technical support, the number of computer labs and internet access points
31
could be increased. For undergraduates to be more satisfied, universities must have
sufficient common areas, cafeterias, and housing options.
Additionally, a number of techniques are suggested for improving feedback. Any
new policy at National Economics University, for instance, should emphasize the use of
electronic submission and marking. Students could retain a copy of their work and a
copy of the feedback they receive if they submitted their work electronically. As a
result, it would positively respond to staff criticism of the use of technology and the
provision for students to retain a copy of their work. Staff members should receive
training on the value of feedback and how to provide it in a way that promotes higher
learning. Additionally, students should receive training on how to use feedback, how to
value it, and how to use it to improve future work. They ought to be taught how to
utilize feedback to close the learning gap and cultivate self-evaluation abilities. Students
should be encouraged to become independent learners who can comprehend standards
and the level of performance expected of them through feedback practices.
The study also supports the suggestion that National Economics Unversity
expand their degree programs by including more optional subjects to widen the options
for specializations and continuously revise the existing curriculum every five years in
line with market demands to improve employability and program reputation. In fact,
National Economics University currently has 33 majors with more than 80 different
programmes. With a view to update the changing situation of the labor market,
university managers should pay attention to designing the curriculum with up-to-date
knowledge and embed students with essential skills.
Limitation: This research has several restrictions. First off, this study's findings
are only available from one public university in Vietnam. On the other hand, the study's
sample size, which is just 171 students, is rather tiny. This proves that the research's
conclusions cannot be applied to all Vietnamese public universities as a whole.
Therefore, future research may concentrate on bigger sample sizes and by choosing
more than one public institution in order to get more conclusive evidence. Additionally,
this study just looks at the 7 criteria among students and doesn't go thoroughly into any
aspect of quality. In light of this, researchers can decide which of these aspects to
investigate further in next studies.
Abdullah, F. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning.
Altbach, P. (2010). Why branch campuses may be unsustainable. International Higher Education(58).
Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2007). Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher education. Total
Quality Management, 18(5), 571-588.
Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2009). The measurement of the construct satisfaction in higher education. The
service industries journal, 29(2), 203-218.
Ammigan, R., & Jones, E. (2018). Improving the student experience: Learning from a comparative
study of international student satisfaction. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(4),
283-301.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.
Appleton-Knapp, S. L., & Krentler, K. A. (2006). Measuring student expectations and their effects on
satisfaction: The importance of managing student expectations. Journal of Marketing
Education, 28(3), 254-264.
Arambewela, R., & Hall, J. (2009). An empirical model of international student satisfaction. Asia
Pacific journal of marketing and logistics.
Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the case of
university education. European journal of marketing.
32
Barnett, R. (1990). The idea of higher education: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Benbunan-Fich, R., Lozada, H. R., Pirog, S., Wisenblit, J., & Priluck, R. (2001). Integrating information
technology into the marketing curriculum: A pragmatic paradigm. Journal of Marketing
Education, 23(1), 5-15.
Browne, B. A., Kaldenberg, D. O., Browne, W. G., & Brown, D. J. (1998). Student as customer: Factors
affecting satisfaction and assessments of institutional quality. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 8(3), 1-14.
Carey, K., Cambiano, R. L., & De Vore, J. B. (2002). Student to faculty satisfaction at a Midwestern
university in the United States. Paper presented at the The 25th HERSDA annual conference.
Celsi, R. L., & Wolfinbarger, M. (2002). Discontinuous classroom innovation: Waves of change for
marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(1), 64-72.
Cheng, Y. C., & Tam, W. M. (1997). Multi‐models of quality in education. Quality assurance in
education.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers' sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. The Journal of
experimental education, 60(4), 323-337.
Douglas, J., Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university.
Quality assurance in education.
Douglas, J., McClelland, R., & Davies, J. (2008). The development of a conceptual model of student
satisfaction with their experience in higher education. Quality assurance in education.
Elliott, K. M., & Healy, M. A. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment
and retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(4), 1-11.
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.
Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students' perceived learning outcomes
and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences
Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215-235.
Farahmandian, S., Minavand, H., & Afshardost, M. (2013). Perceived service quality and student
satisfaction in higher education. Journal of Business and Management, 12(4), 65-74.
Feldman, K. A. (1983). Seniority and experience of college teachers as related to evaluations they
receive from students. Research in higher education, 18(1), 3-124.
Fischman, J., & Foster, A. (2007). Campus safety gains sharper vision with new breed of surveillance
cameras. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(34), 13-25.
Flannery, D. J., & Quinn-Leering, K. (2000). Violence on college campuses: Understanding its impact
on student well-being. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 24(10), 839-855.
Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish experience. Journal of
marketing, 56(1), 6-21.
Franzosa, A. (2009). Insecure? Keeping New England Campuses Safe. New England Journal of Higher
Education, 23(3), 20-21.
Gamage, D. T., Suwanabroma, J., Ueyama, T., Hada, S., & Sekikawa, E. (2008). The impact of quality
assurance measures on student services at the Japanese and Thai private universities. Quality
assurance in education.
García-Aracil, A. (2009). European graduates’ level of satisfaction with higher education. Higher
Education, 57(1), 1-21.
Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2000). Defining consumer satisfaction. Academy of marketing science
review, 1(1), 1-22.
Ginns, P., Prosser, M., & Barrie, S. (2007). Students’ perceptions of teaching quality in higher
education: The perspective of currently enrolled students. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5),
603-615.
Gremler, D. D., & McCollough, M. A. (2002). Student satisfaction guarantees: an empirical
examination of attitudes, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of Marketing Education,
24(2), 150-160.
Guolla, M. (1999). Assessing the teaching quality to student satisfaction relationship: Applied customer
satisfaction research in the classroom. Journal of marketing theory and practice, 7(3), 87-97.
Hanssen, T.-E. S., & Solvoll, G. (2015). The importance of university facilities for student satisfaction
at a Norwegian University. Facilities.
Helgesen, Ø., & Nesset, E. (2007). What accounts for students' loyalty? Some field study evidence.
International Journal of Educational Management.
Hernon, P., & Altman, E. (2010). Assessing service quality: Satisfying the expectations of library
customers: American Library Association.
Hill, Y., Lomas, L., & MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education.
33
Quality assurance in education.
Johnson, S. L. (2009). Improving the school environment to reduce school violence: A review of the
literature. Journal of school health, 79(10), 451-465.
Karakaya, F., Ainscough, T. L., & Chopoorian, J. (2001). The effects of class size and learning style on
student performance in a multimedia-based marketing course. Journal of Marketing Education,
23(2), 84-90.
Kärnä, S., & Julin, P. (2015). A framework for measuring student and staff satisfaction with university
campus facilities. Quality assurance in education.
LeBlanc, G., & Nguyen, N. (1999). Listening to the customer’s voice: examining perceived service
value among business college students. International Journal of Educational Management.
Letcher, D. W., & Neves, J. S. (2010). Determinants of undergraduate business student satisfaction.
Research in Higher Education Journal, 6, 1.
Levine, A. (2001). The remaking of the American university. Innovative Higher Education, 25(4), 253-
267.
Lien, D., & Wang, Y. (2012). The effects of a branch campus. Education economics, 20(4), 386-401.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology.
Madsen, K., & Cassidy, J. W. (2005). The effect of focus of attention and teaching experience on
perceptions of teaching effectiveness and student learning. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 53(3), 222-233.
Malouff, J. M., Hall, L., Schutte, N. S., & Rooke, S. E. (2010). Use of motivational teaching techniques
and psychology student satisfaction. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 9(1), 39-44.
Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of marketing, 41(1),
77-79.
Martirosyan, N. (2015). An examination of factors contributing to student satisfaction in Armenian
higher education. International Journal of Educational Management.
Mavondo, F. T., Tsarenko, Y., & Gabbott, M. (2004). International and local student satisfaction:
Resources and capabilities perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 14(1), 41-
60.
McSwiney, C. M. (1995). Essential understandings: International students, learning, libraries: Auslib
Press.
Mukhtar, U., Anwar, S., Ahmed, U., & Baloch, M. A. (2015). Factors effecting the service quality of
public and private sector universities comparatively: an empirical investigation. Researchers
World, 6(3), 132.
Naidoo, R. (2003). Repositioning higher education as a global commodity: Opportunities and
challenges for future sociology of education work. British Journal of Sociology of Education,
24(2), 249-259.
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal
of marketing, 54(4), 20-35.
Navarro, M. M., Iglesias, M. P., & Torres, P. R. (2005). A new management element for universities:
satisfaction with the offered courses. International Journal of Educational Management.
O'Hair, D., Friedrich, G. W., & Dixon, L. D. (1998). Strategic communication in business and the
professions.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions.
Journal of marketing research, 17(4), 460-469.
Oliver, R. L. (1989). Processing of the satisfaction response in consumption: a suggested framework
and research propositions. The Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and
Complaining Behavior, 2, 1-16.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research. Journal of marketing, 49(4), 41-50.
Park, I. (2005). Teacher commitment and its effects on student achievement in American high schools.
Educational Research and evaluation, 11(5), 461-485.
Park, S., Henkin, A. B., & Egley, R. (2005). Teacher team commitment, teamwork and trust: Exploring
associations. Journal of educational administration.
Patrick, C. L. (2011). Student evaluations of teaching: effects of the Big Five personality traits, grades
and the validity hypothesis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2), 239-249.
Prieto, L. R., & Altmaier, E. M. (1994). The relationship of prior training and previous teaching
experience to self-efficacy among graduate teaching assistants. Research in higher education,
35(4), 481-497.
Rajabalee, Y. B., & Santally, M. I. (2021). Learner satisfaction, engagement and performances in an
34
online module: Implications for institutional e-learning policy. Education and Information
Technologies, 26(3), 2623-2656.
Richardson, J. T., Slater, J. B., & Wilson, J. (2007). The National Student Survey: development,
findings and implications. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 557-580.
Saif, N. I. (2014). The effect of service quality on student satisfaction: a field study for health services
administration students. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4(8), 172-181.
Schertzer, C. B., & Schertzer, S. M. (2004). Student satisfaction and retention: A conceptual model.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 14(1), 79-91.
Shannon, D. M., Twale, D. J., & Moore, M. S. (1998). TA teaching effectiveness: The impact of
training and teaching experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(4), 440-466.
Spellings, M. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of US higher education: US Department
of Education.
Tessema, M. T., Ready, K., & Yu, W. (2012). Factors affecting college students’ satisfaction with major
curriculum: Evidence from nine years of data. International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science, 2(2), 34-44.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of
educational research, 45(1), 89-125.
Ware, H., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Teacher and collective efficacy beliefs as predictors of professional
commitment. The journal of educational research, 100(5), 303-310.
Weerasinghe, I., & Fernando, R. (2018). Critical factors affecting students’ satisfaction with higher
education in Sri Lanka. Quality assurance in education.
Wendorf, C. A., & Alexander, S. (2005). The influence of individual-and class-level fairness-related
perceptions on student satisfaction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 190-206.
Wilkins, S., & Balakrishnan, M. S. (2013). Assessing student satisfaction in transnational higher
education. International Journal of Educational Management.
Winstone, N. E., & Boud, D. (2022). The need to disentangle assessment and feedback in higher
education. Studies in Higher Education, 47(3), 656-667. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1779687
Wright, G. B. (2011). Student-centered learning in higher education. International journal of teaching
and learning in higher education, 23(1), 92-97.
Wright, T., Wright, A., & Ngan, P. (2004). A new social contract: from targets to rights in public
services (Vol. 610): Fabian Society.
Xaba, M. I. (2014). A holistic approach to safety and security at schools in South Africa. Mediterranean
Journal of Social Sciences, 5(20), 1580-1580.
Yi, Y. (1990). A critical review of consumer satisfaction. Review of marketing, 4(1), 68-123.
Yusoff, M., McLeay, F., & Woodruffe-Burton, H. (2015). Dimensions driving business student
satisfaction in higher education. Quality assurance in education.
Zaheer, M., Babar, M. E., Gondal, U. H., & Qadri, M. M. (2015). E-learning and student satisfaction.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Asian Association of
Open Universities: New frontiers in ODL.

2nd Draft - Oanh My

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2nd Draft - Oanh My

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NATIONAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

Factors influencing student satisfaction in higher education:

Students : Cao Thị Oanh – 11204130

Major : Quality and Innovation

This research is written by ourselves and all information collected from

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

1.1.2 Higher education

1.1.4 Measurement of student satisfaction

Figure 1:SERVQUAL model

Technology Image and

Figure 2: Model of International Student Satisfaction

Academic advising Recruitment and

Campus climate Registration effectiveness

Campus life Campus safety and

Student assessments and Professional and comfortable

Classroom environment Professional and comfortable

Textbooks and tuition fees Professional and comfortable

Student support facilities Professional and comfortable

Martirosyan (2015) presented a conceptual framework based on Astin’s (1999)

Figure 5: Conceptual framework based on Astin’s (1999) theory of student involvement,

Figure 6: Student satisfaction model for higher education

Author and Study Methodology and Variables

1.2 Hypothesis development and Proposed model

1.2.2 Proposed model

Assessment and feedback (ASST)

Resources (RESO) Satisfaction (SATN)

Safety and security (SECU)

Student Centeredness (STCENTER)

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

2.1 Research procedure

Identify the Develop Choose the

Discuss the result,

The library meets all of my learning needs.

2.2.3. Data collection

2.3.1. Reliability of the scale

According to Campbell and Fiske (1959), we can judge a measure as reliable if it

 < 0.6: Insufficient scale

National Economics University is a pioneer in the field of economics and

In over 60 years of construction and growth, the National University of

The above information shows that National Economics University is a

3.2. Characteristic of the sample

3.3 Descriptive Statistics

The scale of components STCENTER consists of 4 main components and the

Table 2: The results of Cronbach's Alpha test of the independent variable

LECT2 14.92 6.424 0.593 0.840

LECT3 14.91 6.485 0.626 0.831

LECT4 14.88 6.574 0.617 0.833

LECT5 14.90 5.949 0.738 0.800

Factor PROG; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0,733

PROG2 7.38 1.802 0.519 0.690

PROG3 7.28 1.709 0.546 0.659

Factor ASST; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0,780

ASST2 7.51 1.910 0.560 0.769

ASST3 7.36 1.962 0.653 0.667

Factor RESO; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0,776

RESO2 10.78 3.700 0.601 0.712

RESO3 10.92 3.482 0.630 0.694

RESO4 10.94 3.802 0.544 0.739

Factor TECH; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0,873

TECH2 7.32 2.076 0.790 0.795

TECH3 7.40 1.866 0.741 0.843

Factor SECU; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0,869