1

BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO

ĐẠI HỌC KINH TẾ THÀNH PHỐ HỒ CHÍ MINH

BÁO CÁO TỔNG KẾT

ĐỀ TÀI NGHIÊN CỨU KHOA HỌC THAM GIA XÉT

GIẢI THƯỞNG ‘’NHÀ NGHIÊN CỨU TRẺ UEH’’
NĂM 2024

Learning environment and student commitment at UEH

University. The mediating role of brand equity

Thuộc nhóm chuyên ngành : Marketing

TP. Hồ Chí Minh, tháng 2/2024

 2

ABSTRACT
The main purpose of the research paper is to investigate the impact of Learning
Environment and Student Commitment, with the involvement of the mediating
variable of Brand Equity of University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City.

Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior combined with quantitative research, the
research team has identified three factors: Learning Environment, Brand Equity and
Student Commitment. Brand Equity comprises 3 dimensons: Brand Awareness, Brand
Reputation and Perceived quality. However, no study has discussed the relationship
between these three variables, so the team has undertaken to address this gap.

The research methodology used by the team to validate the measurement model and
research framework. The research team based on Theory of Planned Behavior and
subjectives assessment of the research team to construct questionaire. The formal
research was carried out through a quantitative questionnaire involving 168 students in
University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City.

The results of testing the measurement model indicate that the measurement scales for
research concepts all meet the requirements for reliability and validity (through
Cronbach's alpha testing and exploratory factor analysis).

After analyzing hierarchical regression, the results demonstrated that only learning
environment has direct effect on student commitment in University of Economics Ho
Chi Minh City and perceived quality mediates the direct association between Learning
Environment and Student Commitment. Ultimately, we proposed several theoretical
and managerial implications for future research on student commitment at University
of Economics Ho Chi Minh City.
 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: Introduction............................................................................................7

1.1. Research background and statement of the problem......................................7

1.2. Research Objectives............................................................................................8

1.3. Research Questions.............................................................................................8

1.4. Research Scope and Subjects.............................................................................8

1.5. Research Contribution.......................................................................................9

1.6. Research Methodology.......................................................................................9

1.6.1. Qualitative methods.....................................................................................10
1.6.2. Quantitative methods...................................................................................10

1.7. Research Structure...........................................................................................10

CHAPTER 2: Literature review...................................................................................12

2.1. The Theory of Planned Behaviour..................................................................12

2.2. An overview of Student Commitment.............................................................13

2.3. Research model and hypothesis development................................................14

2.3.1. Learning Environment.................................................................................14
2.3.2. Brand Equity................................................................................................16

2.4. Overview of previous relevant research.........................................................19

CHAPTER 3: Methodology..........................................................................................21

3.1. Research design.................................................................................................21

3.1.1. Research methodology.................................................................................21
3.1.2. Conducted research plan..............................................................................22

3.2. Measurement.....................................................................................................22
3.2.1. Learning environment..................................................................................23
 4

3.2.2. Brand Equity................................................................................................23

3.2.3. Student Commitment...................................................................................24

3.3. The research sample.........................................................................................25

CHAPTER 4: Research Result....................................................................................26

4.1. Overview............................................................................................................26

4.2. Descriptive Statistics.........................................................................................26

4.4. Common method variance...............................................................................29

4.5. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis............................................32

4.6 Hypothesis testing..............................................................................................35

CHAPTER 5: Discussion.............................................................................................39

5.1. Theoretical Implications...................................................................................39

5.2. Practical and Management Implications.......................................................40

5.3. Limitations and Future Research....................................................................42

PREFERENCES..........................................................................................................44

APPENDIX...................................................................................................................48
 5

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Demographics of respondents.....................................................................26

Table 2 Standard deviations and path coefficients (β)............................................29

Table 3 Outer loadings in Stage 1............................................................................30

Table 4 Internal consistency reliability and convergent validity in Stage 1...........32

Table 5 Testing Model Fit in CFA...........................................................................35

Table 6 Alternative mediation testing......................................................................35

Table 7 Testing Mediation Path in Sobel Test and Boostrapping..........................37

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Proposed Research Model............................................................................19

Figure 2. Relationships among factors........................................................................34

 6

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

HFIs Human Factors Information System

AVE Average variance extracted
TPB Theory of Planned Behaviour
e.g. exempli gratia – for example
OWM Overall weighted mean
EFA Exploratory factor analysis

LIST OF SPECIALIZED SYMBOLS

& and
% percent/per cent/percentage
 7

CHAPTER 1: Introduction
1.1. Research background and statement of the problem
Higher education sections are in a globally competitive market, striving to draw in the
greatest number of highly educated students. Intending to encourage student
engagement, achievement, and retention, universities are putting a lot of effort into
improving the student experience. Student has to carefully choose a higher education
institution where they want to be in three or four years. Therefore, universities have a
legitimate interest in producing a committed student community and bringing the best
experience for students. Commitment - which captures students' continuous wish to
maintain a relationship with their place of study - is a crucial concept within higher
education. According to Bowden and Wood (2011), commitment is a powerful
motivator of loyalty in the setting of higher education.

The learning environment is one of the crucial factors leading to student commitment.
According to Silva (2017), similar to users in other segments, students have various
ways to discover an appealing university, such as The Times Higher Education World
University Rankings classification. This classification evaluates universities globally
by considering their core missions: teaching, research, knowledge transfer, and the
learning environment. Consequently, the learning environment significantly influences
students' evaluations of the university brand.

As stated by Keller (2013), "A brand with strong equity is easily recognized and
recalled, and importantly, creates a distinction strong enough to generate favourable
responses toward the brand." Taking a broader perspective, enhancing the recognition
of a university brand is considered a long-term investment. Additionally, the brand
equity derived from this recognition will impact students' evaluations of the university
and contribute to fostering student commitment.

In recent years, there have been some studies that related to our topic. Extant works in
higher education context have also made attempts to study antecedents to student
commitment with HEIs and used various constructs such as student satisfaction
(Nashaat, 2021), organizational identification (Wilkin, 2016) and service quality
(Cinkir, 2022) but only a few use student learning environment as an antecedent.
 8

The relationship between brand equity and commitment has also been meticulously
studied through various research articles. However, research has only focused on
studying the commitment of employees (Kimpakorn, 2010) and customers in the
business context (Iglesias, 2019), with very few studies conducted in the higher
education context.

Therefore, the research group decides to assess student commitment through the
learning environment and, utilizing brand equity as an intermediate variable, examine
its influence on students' evaluations of the university. The topic of this research paper
is “University Learning Environment and Student Commitment. A mediation
model of Brand Equity.”

1.2. Research Objectives

The goal of this research focuses on determining the influence of learning environment
and student commitment, specifically investigating the impact of brand equity, which
includes three dimensions: brand awareness, brand reputation and perceived quality on
student commitment in higher education institutions. Thereby, evaluating the
mediating role of brand equity on the relationship between the learning environment
and student commitment. This investigation holds the potential to inform strategic
initiatives for higher education institutions seeking to enhance student engagement and
allegiance by understanding and optimizing the branding elements that contribute to a
positive commitment-building process.
1.3. Research Questions
 What is the impact of learning environment on student commitment at the
University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City?
 How does brand equity mediate the relationship between the learning
environment and student commitment at the University of Economics Ho Chi
Minh City?
 How can the University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City optimize brand
awareness, brand reputation, and perceived quality to increase student
commitment?
1.4. Research Scope and Subjects
 9

The research focused on the University Learning Environment and Student

Commitment, incorporating a mediation model of Brand Equity. In response to time
constraints, the investigation was carried out within a defined period, spanning from
January 1, 2024, to January 15, 2024. This timeframe was chosen to efficiently gather
valuable insights within the limitations of the study.
To enhance the survey's practicality, the research was conducted at the University of
Economics Ho Chi Minh City - UEH. The survey process itself was facilitated through
the use of the Google Form platform, providing an accessible and user-friendly means
of data collection.
The primary subjects of the survey were the students of the University of Economics
Ho Chi Minh. By targeting this specific demographic, the research aimed to explore
the intricate dynamics between the university learning environment, student
commitment, and the mediating role of Brand Equity in shaping perceptions and
experiences within the academic context.
1.5. Research Contribution
In the globally competitive market of higher education, universities are increasingly
recognizing the importance of cultivating a committed student community to attract
and retain highly educated individuals. By delving into the dynamics between the
learning environment, Brand Equity, and student commitment, this study provides
valuable insights into factors that influence students' continuous desire to maintain a
relationship with their academic institution. The exploration of the learning
environment as a crucial factor leading to student commitment aligns with existing
literature, emphasizing its significance in shaping students' perceptions of the
university brand.
In the context of existing studies related to student commitment, this research adds a
unique perspective by incorporating the mediation model of Brand Equity and
emphasizing the learning environment as a significant antecedent. While prior works
have explored various constructs such as student satisfaction, organizational
identification, and service quality, only a few have investigated the role of the learning
environment in shaping students' commitment to higher education institutions.
1.6. Research Methodology
 10

A combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches was used in this thesis. The
study utilized qualitative research methods to explore the research model, and
quantitative analysis methods through survey data to test the validity and
appropriateness of the proposed research model.
1.6.1. Qualitative methods
Qualitative research was conducted by summarizing previous studies and theories to
determine research concepts, the proposed research model, and statement of
hypotheses. The measurement scale of the concepts was inherited from previous
studies. Based on previous research, the research team adjusted the survey questions
(observed variables) to form the most appropriate measurement scale for the research
context.
1.6.2. Quantitative methods
Quantitative research was conducted by analyzing survey data collected from the
questionnaire. To test the validity of the measurement scales, several techniques were
used, such as: internal consistency reliability analysis - Cronbach's Alpha, composite
reliability analysis, average variance extracted (AVE) analysis, and common method
variance. To test the hypotheses, the study used partial least squares structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis. The model fit was crosschecked by the R2 coefficient.
The software used for data analysis included Excel 2016 for coding raw data from the
survey, SPSS 20.0 for descriptive statistics analysis, and hypothesis testing.
1.7. Research Structure
The research is organized into 5 chapters, as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction provides an overview of the research, beginning with the
rationale for selecting the topic. It then outlines the objectives, scope, and research
methods. Finally, it discusses the significance of the study and the structure of the
thesis.
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework introduces the theories of Planned Behaviour,
Learning Environment, Student Commitment, Brand Equity, and its components:
Brand Awareness, Brand Reputation, and Perceived Teaching Quality. It presents
hypotheses, the research model, and reviews relevant previous studies.
 11

Chapter 3: Research methodology details the research methods, procedures,

measurement scales, and the formal quantitative research sample.
Chapter 4: Results present the validation of scales and the analysis of the impact of
factors on Student Commitment.
Chapter 5: Conclusion summarizes the main findings of the thesis, its contributions to
the field of education, and the limitations that guide future research directions.
 12

CHAPTER 2: Literature review

2.1. The Theory of Planned Behaviour
The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), introduced by Icek Ajzen in 1991, has
emerged as a powerful framework in the realm of social psychology, offering valuable
insights into understanding human behavior. Building upon the earlier Theory of
Reasoned Action, TPB integrates the concept of perceived behavioral control,
emphasizing the critical role of an individual's perceived ability to control or execute a
specific behavior. One particular area where TPB finds profound relevance is in
studying student commitment within higher education contexts. This study explores
the key concepts of TPB, its functions, and how it is applied to higher education to
explain student behavior, specifically focusing on commitment.
At the core of TPB are three primary components: attitudes, subjective norms, and
perceived behavioral control. Attitudes represent an individual's positive or negative
evaluations of a behavior, subjective norms capture the perceived social pressures
related to the behavior, and perceived behavioral control reflects the perceived ease or
difficulty of performing the behavior. These components together shape behavioral
intentions, which, in turn, guide actual behaviors.
The central function of TPB lies in predicting and explaining human behavior by
understanding the cognitive processes that influence decision-making. TPB posits that
behavioral intentions are the key determinants of actual behavior, and these intentions
are shaped by an individual's attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral
control. By examining these factors, researchers can gain valuable insights into the
factors influencing behavior and design interventions to promote positive behavioral
outcomes.
In the context of higher education, TPB proves to be highly relevant, particularly when
studying student commitment. Attitudes toward academic pursuits, subjective norms
related to educational expectations and societal influences, and perceived behavioral
control in navigating the academic environment all play crucial roles in shaping
students' commitment levels. For example, positive attitudes toward learning,
supportive subjective norms from peers and family, and a strong belief in one's ability
 13

to succeed academically contribute to higher levels of student commitment. However,

previous studies have not clarified the impact of brands on student commitment.
TPB provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the complex interplay of
factors influencing student commitment. Positive attitudes towards academic goals,
shaped by previous experiences or perceived benefits, contribute to stronger
commitment. Subjective norms encompass societal expectations and the influence of
significant others, which can either reinforce or challenge a student's commitment.
Perceived behavioral control incorporates self-efficacy and the perceived ease or
difficulty of fulfilling academic responsibilities, influencing the overall commitment
levels.
In conclusion, the Theory of Planned Behavior is highly relevant in studying student
commitment within higher education. TPB offers a nuanced understanding of the
cognitive processes that shape student behavior by examining attitudes, subjective
norms, and perceived behavioural control. Applying TPB to the study of student
commitment provides researchers and educators with valuable insights that can inform
interventions, policies, and strategies aimed at fostering a positive and supportive
learning environment conducive to higher levels of commitment among students.
More and more universities are developing with many majors and many different
certificates and degrees. Giving students more options to learn and develop. Therefore,
based on the TPB and adding elements of brand equity, we want to evaluate the impact
of the dependent variable, brand equity, on student commitment in the learning
environment at the university.

2.2. An overview of Student Commitment

This topic examines the relationship of impact between student commitment and the
learning environment to demonstrate a direct link between the two. Student
commitment is understood as "an enduring desire to maintain a long-term relationship
with higher education as well as toward a specific university" (Bang Nguyen et al.;
2015). In other words, commitment is the motivation that motivates students to
continue their relationship with their university, perhaps by continuing their studies to
a higher level within the school itself. Usually, there are 3 cases mentioned: the
 14

university has a personal meaning to students and they are proud to attend this
(affective commitment); students feel some kind of obligation to stay at their
university in order not to disappoint their parents, peers, or professors (normative
commitment); students feel tied to the university because they have few other
opportunities to enroll somewhere else or a change would be too costly (continuance
commitment). Positively, both sides will have common interests and motivation to
achieve that goal. Students will become loyal to their university. At the same time, the
reputation of the school will also be increased.
The commitment of students shows their trust and loyalty to the university, it also
shows the level of growth of the university. That is, as students interact with the
university and the relationship grows stronger over time, the university's brand image
will also develop in parallel. According to research by Dacin & Brown (2006); brand
experience is a key factor related to brand image; Applied in Higher Education, good
student experiences (e.g. teaching quality, facilities, etc.) will be a strong driver of
increased commitment (Davis, Golicic, & Marquardt, 2008); thereby developing the
overall brand image of the university. It is postulated that students high in commitment
also show a higher intention to study efficiently, indirectly increasing the university's
reputation in education.
2.3. Research model and hypothesis development
2.3.1. Learning Environment
Research investigating the relationship between the university learning environment
and student commitment, particularly within the framework of a mediation model
involving brand equity, is gaining prominence. Numerous studies have explored the
multifaceted aspects of the university context, emphasizing the importance of the
learning environment in shaping student commitment.
The learning environment catalyzes fostering or hindering student commitment.
Positive environments, characterized by supportive faculty-student relationships, a
sense of community, and effective teaching methods,... enhance students' dedication to
their academic journey. Conversely, a negative or unsupportive environment may lead
to reduced commitment levels, impacting academic success and overall satisfaction.
 15

Previous studies, such as Getzels and Thelen's work (1960) on the impact of
institutional support on student commitment, have identified interactions of personal
needs and expectations of students with their class environment to foresee their
behaviors and outcomes. Findings suggest that a positive learning environment
positively correlates with higher commitment levels among students. Additionally, a
study done in Zimbabwe, for instance, by Nyoni, Nyoni and Bonga (2017) established
that school environment promotes students’ commitment toward learning as a proper
school environment makes the students psychologically comfortable and enhances
students’ motivation in school-related activities, making learning efficient and
interesting. The findings further indicate that teaching and learning become easy when
students are committed due to being comfortable with the school environment, also
revealed that the availability of resources plays an important role in determining
learning effectiveness. According to Ngussa and Nzowa (2019), commitment toward
learning is an additive function related to academic and school issues. They further
argue that commitment is influenced among others by school environmental factors
and that commitment enhances students’ success. Also, a study done at
Wanging’ombe District in Tanzania by Ulugumu (2016) revealed that school
environmental factors may influence or affect the students’ academic achievement and
commitment toward learning. He mentioned some school environmental factors
including teacher-student ratio, teaching and learning environments,... as determinants
of students’ commitment toward learning.
Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to the association between the
university learning environment and student commitment provides a structured
framework for understanding these dynamics. Attitudes within TPB encapsulate a
student's positive or negative evaluations of the learning environment. A positive
learning environment is likely to foster favorable attitudes, contributing to higher
levels of student commitment.
Perceived behavioral control, within the TPB framework, encompasses a student's
belief in their ability to navigate and thrive within the learning environment. Factors
such as access to resources, effective study habits, and a sense of control over the
 16

learning process play a crucial role in shaping perceived behavioral control, thereby
influencing student commitment.
In the mediation model involving brand equity, the TPB framework suggests that a
positive learning environment contributes to a favorable institutional image, which, in
turn, enhances student commitment. This theoretical approach provides a nuanced
understanding of the psychological processes involved in the interplay between the
learning environment, brand equity, and student commitment within a university
setting.

H1: Learning Environment has a direct association with Student Commitment

2.3.2. Brand Equity

There are various definitions of Brand Equity. Aaker (1991) defined brand equity as “a
set of assets such as name awareness, loyal customers, perceived quality, and
associations that are linked to the brand and add value to the product or service being
offered”. There is another definition of BE as “the effect of the brand on consumers’
response to the marketing activities associated with a particular product” (Keller,
1993). It can be concluded that brand is a multidimensional variable (Keller, 2008).
The field of brand equity has attracted a lot of attention from scientists to define,
measure and conceptualize. Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) used some dimensions
such as brand awareness, brand loyalty and perceived quality to measure brand equity.
On the other hand, Feldwick (1996) focused on brand strength, brand evaluation and
brand value. In this paper, to focus on understanding factors that affect the
commitment in higher education market, the research group has analysed the previous
relevant paper to find the dimensions to mediate between learning environment and
commitment. Finally, the authors choose three suitable dimensions, including brand
reputation and perceived teaching quality.
2.3.3. Brand awareness
Aaker (1991) defined brand awareness as the ability of a potential consumer to
recognize the brand as a member of a specific product category and emphasized that
awareness and recognition are essential before attaching attributes to the brand. Aaker
 17

(1996) believes that brand awareness can be analyzed from three different aspects I.e.
recognition, recall, first recall and dominant and he further adds that the consumer is
simply concerned with remembering the brand name. It acts as a beacon, attracting
prospective students by creating a distinct and recognizable identity for the institution.
Moreover, brand awareness in higher education contributes to the recruitment and
retention of top-tier faculty and staff, fostering a positive academic.
To build up a high brand awareness in higher education, manager must focus on
learning environment. A vibrant and innovative educational setting fosters a positive
perception of the institution, creating a lasting impression on students and stakeholders
(Solikha, 2016). A positive learning environment, promoting community, inclusivity,
and supportive relationships, significantly shapes brand perception in higher
education. Students' positive experiences and engagement in collaborative spaces and
extracurricular activities contribute to a favorable brand image. Satisfied graduates
often become passionate brand advocates, sharing their positive experiences and
enhancing overall brand awareness.
Brand Awareness typically leads to a positive attitude in students. Their consistently
favorable attitude towards a higher education brand is likely to result in brand
commitment (Brewer, 2010). Moreover, brand awareness creates a sense of trust
(Sastika, 2016) and connection with the institution. Alikhani, Fadavi and Mohseninia
(2014) found out that trust in an organization has positive and meaningful
contributions to affective, normative and continuance commitment.

H2: Brand awareness mediates the direct association from Learning Environment to
Student Commitment

2.3.4. Brand reputation

Based on different perspectives, the concept of organizational reputation is generally
defined in many different ways: as assessments that many stakeholders make about a
company's ability to meet expectations (Fombrun and Van Riel, 2003), collective
system of subjective beliefs among members of a social group (Bromley, 1993, 2000,
2002), a company's media visibility and favorability (Deephouse, 2000). Building on
 18

the intersection of organizational and corporate definitions of reputation, a university's

reputation can be defined as the collective representation of the university's many
constituents – the internal and external, including media – holdings of the university
over time.
University reputation serves key functions such as attracting prospective students,
securing resources, and fostering pride and engagement among internal stakeholders.
At the same time, university reputation, identified as an important aspect in creating a
strong university brand and brand equity (Black, 2008; Pinar et al., 2011, 2014), is
considered to mediate the relationship between learning environment - a core aspect of
the university, brand equity (Ng and Forbes, 2009; Pinar et al., 2011, 2014) and
student engagement. This proposition is grounded in the literature indicating that
university reputation influences student loyalty behavior (Kaushal and Ali, 2019).
In this proposed model, the learning environment is expected to impact student
commitment directly. Still, this relationship is further strengthened or influenced by
the mediating role of the university's reputation. This suggests that a positive learning
environment contributes to a favorable university reputation, which, in turn, enhances
student commitment.

H3: University reputation mediates the direct association from Learning Environment
to Student Commitment
2.3.5. Perceived quality
The concept of perceived quality in the context of brand equity is defined as “a
consumer's assessment of the overall excellence or superiority of a product” (Zeithaml,
1988, p. 3). Perceived quality is considered an important aspect of building brand
value because it affects the perceived quality purchase of products by consumers
(Kumar et al., 2009).
In the literature review, researchers such as Aaker (1991, 1996), Kim et al. (2003),
Yoo and Donthu (2001) included perceived quality as one of the aspects of Customer
Based Brand Value (CBBE) in their research. Studies highlight the importance of
perceived quality in influencing consumer judgment and decision-making processes.
 19

Perceived quality, which includes aspects such as brand awareness, service quality,
and brand loyalty, has emerged as a key factor influencing students' commitment and
trust in higher education institutions (Perin et al., 2012). This is consistent with Aaker's
(1991) concept of brand equity, where perceived quality is an important core aspect
from a customer perspective.
Furthermore, Aaker's (1996) research on brand loyalty shows that positive brand
perceptions, including perceived quality, contribute to customer loyalty. Shifting this
to an educational context, favorable perceptions of the learning environment will lead
to higher perceived quality, promoting student commitment.

H4: Perceived quality mediates the direct association from Learning Environment to
Student Commitment
Figure 1. Proposed Research Model

2.4. Overview of previous relevant research

 20

While commitment has been extensively studied within the realms of human behavior
and psychology (Mahmood Aziz, 2021; Edward 2020; McNally, 2010), there exists a
notable gap in understanding the nuanced interplay between the university learning
environment, student commitment, and the mediating role of brand equity. The current
literature underscores the significance of commitment in shaping student success and
institutional effectiveness, but a focused exploration into the specific mechanisms
through which brand perception influences commitment remains notably absent.
According to the research of Khaola (2014), a positive and statistically significant
correlation was observed between students' commitment and the Overall Weighted
Mean (OWM), as well as academic performance both prior to and following the
survey, at the second-year and third-year levels, respectively. This implies that
students who expressed higher levels of commitment exhibited superior academic
performance compared to those with lower commitment levels.
The existing research landscape emphasizes the psychological and behavioural aspects
of commitment in higher education, yet fails to address the potential impact of a
university's brand equity on fostering and reinforcing student commitment. This
research gap is particularly salient as no prior studies have delved into the mediation
model that elucidates how brand equity, as perceived by students, may serve as a
critical intermediary in shaping their commitment to their university.
 21

CHAPTER 3: Methodology
3.1. Research design
3.1.1. Research methodology
This study comprises two main stages: (1) the research team researched and created a
scale based on previous research articles and (2) formal quantitative research. The
research team focuses on university students as the target demographic. As the
research topic is closely tied to student commitment, this also encompasses the youth
demographic, which constitutes a significant portion of the population in Ho Chi Minh
City and nationwide. This demographic represents the formal workforce, influencing
the economy, environment, and politics of Vietnam extensively. The research team
also relies on the reputation of universities to assess the impact of the learning
environment on student commitment, utilizing the secondary factor of university brand
equity. The learning environment influences the psychology of students, with a
conducive learning environment likely yielding positive academic outcomes and
garnering commitment from students. Simultaneously, the learning environment also
has an impact on the university's brand, creating a healthy learning environment that
attracts numerous students, contributing to the university's perceived success in
building its brand.

The development of factors and measurement scales is based on previous research and
the subjective assessment of the authoring team in the Ho Chi Minh City area. Firstly,
drawing from prior studies, it is established that brand equity impact consumer
behavior, as grounded in the theoretical framework of the theory of planned behavior
(Bang, 2016; Musa et al., 2013; Sudhana, 2020). Additionally, the influence of the
learning environment on the university's brand has been noted in research (Musa,
2020). Subsequently, applying this relevance to the context of Ho Chi Minh City, the
authoring team observed that the learning environment varies among different
universities. Some lecture halls accommodate over 100 students, while others have
fewer than 50 students per class. Some environments use English as the primary
language of instruction, while others do not. This illustrates that the learning
environment can indeed shape the brand assets of a university. Similarly, upon
 22

examining each factors brand awareness, brand reputation, perceived quality, the
authors identified the impact of the university brand equity on student commitment.

Formal research is conducted using quantitative methods through survey

questionnaires. This study is used to retest the measurement model as well as the
theoretical model and hypotheses in the model. The official scale is used for
quantitative research anda is tested using the Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient
method and EFA exploratory factor analysis. The subjects invited to be interviewed
were students who have been studying at universities in Ho Chi Minh City. Research
results were processed using SPSS 16.0 software.

3.1.2. Conducted research plan

3.2. Measurement
As explained in previous sections, the scales in this study are based on existing
theories and scales worldwide. They have been adjusted and supplemented to suit
students at the University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City based on the results of
qualitative research with group discussion techniques. There are 5 research concepts
 23

used in this study: (1) Learning environments, (2) Brand awareness, (3) Brand
reputation, (4) Perceived teaching quality and (5) Student Commitment. During the
survey, respondents expressed their level of agreement with provided statements by
choosing from a five-point Likert scale, where 1 represents 'Strongly agree,' 2 stands
for 'Agree,' 3 is 'Neutral,' 4 means 'Disagree,' and 5 denotes 'Strongly disagree’ to
overcome respondent's frustration and enhance the quality of data (Dawes, 2008;
Nauman, Malik, & Jalil, 2019). Moreover, the survey included demographic questions
of gender, age, class level and major.
3.2.1. Learning environment
The understanding of how the learning environment affected brand equity and student
commitment was assessed using a set of six items from a questionnaire developed by
Pinaret al. (2014). These items are designed to determine if students feel satisfied with
UEH's learning environment.
LE_1: The university has a supportive learning environment
LE_2: The university is known as a respected institution
LE_3: The university has high academic standards
LE_4: The university offers well-known degree programs
LE_5: The university has a well-known academic reputation
LE_6: Based on the cost of tuition, the university offers a good educational
value
3.2.2. Brand Equity
3.2.2.1. Brand Awareness
The Brand Awareness Scale aims to measure the level of recognition of students
towards the UEH University brand. Brand awareness particularly influences a student's
perception of the University and the level of competitiveness of that university
compared to other universities.
The assessment is based on the five-item scale (Lassar et al., 1995; Aaker, 1996;
Netemeyer et al., 2004; Buil et al., 2008; Tong and Hawley, 2009), denoted from OI_1
to OI_5:
BA_1: The university is well-known
BA_2: The university’s logo is instantly recognizable
 24

BA_3: The university is among the first to come to mind when one thinks of all
universities in the country
3.2.2.2. Brand Reputation
The six-item scale was adopted by Wong and Saunders (1993) to measure the
reputation of UEH University. This scale aims to determine the influence of factors
affecting brand reputation and simultaneously assess how brand reputation affects
students.
BR_1: The university has a good reputation for providing appropriate courses
and services
BR_2: Our university’s reputation is based on offering value from the
experience of the staff
BR_3: At our university, the reputation serves as a competitive advantage
BR_4: Our university’s reputation sends a strong signal to its students
BR_5: Our university’s reputation shapes the perception of stakeholders
BR_6: Our University’s reputation influences student choices
3.2.2.3. Perceived teaching quality
The scale that measures how perceived teaching quality mediates the relationship
between learning environment and student commitment was assessed using a set of six
items from a questionnaire developed by Musa and Paul (2013). These items are
designed to determine if the faculty at UEH University impressed students and
satisfied them.
PQ_1: The university’s faculty are knowledgeable in their fields
PQ_2: The faculty are willing to help students
PQ_3: The faculty are accessible for students’ questions and concern
PQ_4: The faculty care about students’ needs
PQ_5: The faculty are responsive to student needs
PQ_6: The faculty are polite in responding to students
3.2.3. Student Commitment
The four-item scale developed by Morgan and Hunt (1994) is used in this paper to
measure how students feel committed to UEH University. Moreover, it also
 25

determines if students want to continue their relationship with the university even
when they graduate.
SC_1: I feel committed to maintaining a relationship with the university
SC_2: I feel that the relationship with the university is important
SC_3: I intend to continue my relationship with the university
SC_4: I plan to maintain a relationship with the university
3.3. The research sample
Non-probability sampling method is a convenience sampling technique, used for this
study. The study was conducted by collecting 168 samples and all the samples were
valid - they are all student that study in University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City.
The survey was conducted in an online form, the survey questionnaire was designed
using the Google Form and the link to participate in the survey was sent to students in
University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City in order to serve as a basis for the authors
to carry out analysis, statistics, and hypothesis testing to serve the research topic.
 26

CHAPTER 4: Research Result

4.1. Overview
This chapter will present the results of the research process, specifically including the
following content:
(1) Description and analysis of the collected samples
(2) Results of testing the measurement scales
(3) Multivariate regression analysis results
(4) Testing the impact of categorical variables
4.2. Descriptive Statistics
 Regarding Gender: The results show that there were 58 male students and 110
female students participating in the survey. This indicates that the number of
male students is less than that of female students. This is still an acceptable
result because the number of female students at the University of Economics
Ho Chi Minh City is higher than the number of male students.
 Regarding Age and Level: The surveyed students are mainly aged between 18 -
20 years old (63.1%) and the majority of them are bachelor students (93.5%).
The number of students aged 21 - 25 years old accounts for a significant
percentage (29.2%), and the rest are students over 25 years old. Masters and
doctoral students participating in the survey account for a relatively small
percentage, at 4.2% and 2.3% respectively.
 Regarding Year: Survey results show that the majority of surveyed students are
third-year students (54.8%) and second-year students (20.8%), with the
remainder being distributed almost evenly among first-year students, fourth-
year students, and students who have finished their studies.
 Regarding Major: Since the authors are students of the Faculty of Management
at the University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, the survey sample mainly
comes from students of the Faculty of Management (44.6%). Another
significant portion comes from students of the International Business -
Marketing department and the Finance department. The remaining students are
scattered across other departments.
Table 1 Demographics of respondents
 Frequenc Frequency rate Accumulative rate
y (%) (%)

Age 27

18 – 20 106 63.1 63.1

21 – 25 49 29.2 92.3

>25 13 7.7 100

Total 168

Gender

Male 58 34.5 34.5

Female 110 65.5 100

Total 168

Level

Bachelor 157 93.5 93.5

Master 7 4.2 97.7

Doctor 4 2.3 100

Total 168

Year

First year 18 10.7 10.7

Second year 35 20.8 31.5

Three year 92 54.8 86.3

Fourth year 11 6.5 92.9

Finished 12 7.1 100

Total 168

Major

Management 78 46.4 46.4

Accounting 9 5.4 51.8

 28

4.3. Assessments of Measure Scales

Table 2 Standard deviations and path coefficients (β)

Mean SD LE BA BR PQ CM

Learning
Environment 4.3581 0.55402 1

Brand Awareness 4.2242 0.70120 0.530** 1

Brand Reputation 4.3214 0.61480 0.481** 0.728** 1

Perceived Quality 4.1200 0.63101 0.393** 0.470** 0.588** 1

Commitment 4.2202 0.63506 0.443** 0.471** 0.502** 0.635** 1

Note(s): Scale: 1= Very Disagree to 5= Very Agree

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

According to the Table 2 the mean value of the variables is in the range (4.12 -
4.3581), in which the largest average value is for the learning environment and the
smallest is for perceived quality. Here the standard deviation (SD) is also shown, this
number is in the range (0.55 - 0.7), the largest is brand awareness (0.70120) and the
smallest is learning environment (0.55402). In addition, Table 2 also shows that the
correlation coefficient between the variables that create the model of the research
article all have p < 0.01 level, and the structure also shows a high correlation between
university brand equity, learning environment and student commitment. The
significant path coefficients ranged from 0.393 to 0.728

4.4. Common method variance

Common method bias is a common problem in a behavioural study when the same
respondents assess both predictor and criterion variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003). To
address the common method bias issue, we conducted Harman’s one-factor test (Mittal
and Dhar, 2015). According to Podsakoff and Organ (1986), Harman’s one-factor
 29

analysis is a useful method to identify possible common method bias. Following the
suggestion of Mittal and Dhar (2015), we entered all variables as one principal
component factor in factor analysis. It is recommended that the outcome of un-rotated
factor analysis has to be lower than 50% (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The result of our
Harman’s one-factor analysis was 37.131%. Therefore, common method bias is not a
problem in this study.

Table 3 Outer loadings in Stage 1

 30

Total Variance Explained

Factor Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
LE1 9,895 39,580 39,580 9,283 37,131 37,131
LE2 2,454 9,816 49,396
LE3 1,870 7,479 56,875
LE4 1,273 5,093 61,968
LE5 ,937 3,748 65,716

LE6 ,808 3,231 68,947

BA1 ,711 2,844 71,791

BA2 ,697 2,789 74,580

BA3 ,651 2,604 77,183

BR1 ,636 2,545 79,728

BR2 ,549 2,198 81,925

BR3 ,535 2,141 84,066

BR4 ,484 1,937 86,003

BR5 ,451 1,806 87,809

BR6 ,406 1,623 89,432

PQ1 ,362 1,449 90,881

PQ2 ,347 1,387 92,267

PQ3 ,318 1,272 93,539

 31

PQ4 ,295 1,181 94,721

PQ5 ,287 1,149 95,870

PQ6 ,250 1,002 96,872

CM1 ,237 ,949 97,820

CM2 ,220 ,879 98,700

CM3 ,170 ,681 99,381

CM4 ,155 ,619 100,000

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

4.5. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis

For the EFA process, we run the factor loading of each item to the rotated construct
and test the construct validity using composite reliability and average variance
extracted value. Table 4 shows that all the factor loadings surpassed the cutoff value
of 0.5, which indicates that convergent validity was attained. The composite
reliabilities (CR) estimates exceeded the minimum cutoff value at 0.60. The average
variance extracted (AVE) values ranged from 0.520 to 0.612, which exceeds the
benchmark of 0.50. Therefore, discriminant validity was supported.

Table 4 Internal consistency reliability and convergent validity in Stage 1

Factor loading Cronbach alpha CR AVE
BR6 0.763 0.843 0.844 0.520
BR3 0.739
BR5 0.700
BR1 0.634
BR4 0.619
BA1 0.692 0.756 0.783 0.550
 32

BA3 0.630
BA2 0.612
PQ3 0.793 0.882 0.885 0.562
PQ4 0.799
PQ2 0.731
PQ5 0.700
PQ6 0.680
PQ1 0.605
LE3 0.782 0.851 0.854 0.596
LE2 0.752
LE6 0.719
LE4 0.702
LE1 0.696
LE5 0.637
CM3 0.809 0.862 0.863 0.612
CM2 0.729
CM4 0.724
CM1 0.633
Note: CR2 was removed during EFA process for factor loading less then 0.5

CFA was performed to test the fit between the data and the five-factor theoretical
model. CFA was conducted to test the fit of the data to our model. The results of CFA
in Table show that the hypothesized five-factor model reveals a good fit (χ2/df = 1.826
< 2, IFI = 0.907, TLI = 0.892, CFI = 0.906, and RMSEA = 0.070). In particular, the
index χ2/df indicates the overall fit level of the entire model. The lower and closer
χ2/df is to 1, the better. The acceptable threshold is below 2. The result of 1.826 of the
research model shows a very good overall fit between the proposed model and the
collected data. The IFI, TLI and CFI indices compare the model fit to the original
model with no relationship between the variables. The closer the value is to 1, the
 33

better. The acceptance threshold is above 0.9. All 3 indexes showed good matching
results, exceeding the required threshold. This shows that the proposed model has a
superior fit compared to the initial independence assumption. RMSEA estimates the
error relative to the perfect model. The smaller the RMSEA the better, the threshold is
below 0.08. The result of 0.07 shows that the model is almost perfect, the error is very
small.

To assess the distinctiveness of the five constructs, we compared the hypothesized

five-factor model to the other simplified models (3 factors, 2 factors and 1 factor).
Confirming that the 5-factor model has a good fit with the data (χ2/df = 1.826; TLI =
0.892; CFI = 0.906...), other models with fewer factors are compared. The 3-factor
model, which incorporates some of the original mediators, provides a significantly
poorer fit (χ2/df = 2.641; TLI = 0.786; CFI = 0.807). Similarly, the 2-factor and 1-
factor models also showed a large decrease in fit compared to the original.

A specific comparison of the above data clearly shows that the original 5 independent
factor model provides the optimal fit. The results show that the proposed 5-factor
model always fits better than the restricted models, proving that the 5 factors are
completely distinct and independent of each other.

Figure 2. Relationships among factors

 34

Table 5 Testing Model Fit in CFA

CFA model χ2 df Δχ2 IFI TLI CFI RMSEA

5-factors: Hypothesized 441.985 242 1.826 0.90 0.892 0.906 0.070
model 7
3-factors: combined 657.689 249 2.641 0.81 0.786 0.807 0.099
mediators 0
2-factors: Combined 779.709 251 3.106 0.75 0.726 0.751 0.112
predictors 4
1-factor: Null model 978.505 252 3.883 0.66 0.625 0.657 0.131
1
Note: N=168

4.6 Hypothesis testing

A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to test the hypotheses by adding the
main variables and control variables in the regression model step by step. The results
of the hierarchal regression analysis are shown in Table 6.
Table 6 Alternative mediation testing
 35

BA BR PQ Student Commitment
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
Age -0.110 -0.078 -0.054 -0.003 0.039
Gender 0.045 0.092 -0.031 -0.007 0.001
Level -0.065 0.024 -0.037 -0.029 -0.003
Year 0.054 0.012 0.016 0.001 -0.015
Faculty -0.007 -0.022 0.039 -0.051 -0.069
Major 0.012 0.012 -0.049 0.029 0.052
Direct effect
LE 0.381*** 0.303** 0.249*** 0.280*** 0.101*
*
BA 0.080
BR 0.022
PQ 0.318***
Note: N= 553, ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05

To test H1, H2, H3 and H4, we employed the method of mediation analysis suggested
by Baron and Kenny (1986). According to this method, a mediation effect is
established if these three conditions are satisfied: first, the independent variable must
affect the mediator in the first equation; second, the independent variable must be
shown to affect the dependent variable in the second equation; and third, the mediator
must affect the dependent variable in the third equation” (Baron and Kenny, 1986, p.
1,177).
Learning environment results in a positive association with the three variables,
β=0.381 Model 1, β=0.303 Model 2, β=0.249 Model 3, p<0.001. Therefore, condition
1 is met for all three hypotheses. Second, Learning environment also showed a
significant effect on commitment (β=0.280, p<0.001, Model 4) before controlling the
mediators, hence condition 2 is met. However, the 3 rd condition of mediation effect is
only satisfied by the positive association between perceived quality and commitment
 36

(β=0.318, p<0.001, Model 5). The other two mediator’s effects on commitment were
not significant.

To further test the mediation effect in an overall conceptual model, we applied two
alternative test proposed by Sobel, and Hayes for separate and joint mediation within
the predictors effect. Table … illustrates the results of alternative mediation testing.
While Sobel test proposed that BA, BR, and PQ are significant as a mediator (Z-value
was significant for all three mediators), Hayes’s process macro contrasts these results
by revealing that only PQ has separated full mediation on the direct effect from LE to
CM where the confident interval through this path did not contain Zero.

Since there’s a contradiction between the two results, we made double and triple path
mediation to examine whether the mediation effect of each predictor support or cancel
each other. While the three double mediation paths are non-significant (which
signified a cancel association among pair mediation), the triple path showed a
significant mediation effect on the overall model. The results of the triple and single
mediation path through PQ signified that PQ alone play a full mediation role within
the model, and whether there is a combination mediation, PQ need to mediate with
both BA and BR in a partial mediation model. Hence, while concluding that H4 is
fully supported, H2 and H3 are not supported. An interest condition of triple mediation
also implied the potential support roles of BA and BR.

Table 7 Testing Mediation Path in Sobel Test and Boostrapping

Mediation Path Sobel test Bootstrapping 5000 (Percentile 95%

confidence interval)
Standardized Z-value Indirect Standard Lower Upper
error effect error
coefficient
LE→BA→CM 0.054 3.725*** 0.0719 0.0628 - 0.2027
0.0448
LE → BR → CM 0.050 4.130*** 0.0077 0.233 - 0.0682
 37

0.0285
LE → PQ → CM 0.053 4.662*** 0.0743 0.0462 0.0023 0.1834
1.LE→BA→BR 0.0203 0.0404 - 0.1044
→ CM 0.0559

2.LE → BA → PQ 0.0114 0.0255 - 0.0569

→ CM 0.0445

3.LE→BR→PQ 0.0363 0.0271 - 0.0970

→ CM 0.0094

4.LE→BA→BR 0.0960 0.0318 0.0369 0.1592

→ PQ →CM

Note: ***p<0.001
 38

CHAPTER 5: Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Implications
In the realm of higher education, understanding the dynamics of student behavior and
their perceptions towards university brands is paramount. Our study delves into the
theoretical implications of applying the planned behavior theory within this context,
shedding light on students' attitudes and behaviors towards university brands and their
quality.

Contrary to previous studies (Brewer, A. and Zhao, J. (2010), Alikhani et al., (2014),
Pinar et al., (2014), Irene C. L. Ng & Jeannie Forbes (2009), our results contradict the
notion that Brand Awareness and Brand Recognition do not mediate between Learning
Environment (LE) and Commitment (CM). Surprisingly, students do not perceive
university brand as a definitive indicator or predictor of their commitment. Today,
students often prioritize various facets of their education differently from previous
generations. While university brand might have been a significant factor in the past,
present-day students tend to prioritize factors such as program quality, faculty
expertise, campus culture, and opportunities for personal and professional growth to a
greater extent.

On the other hand, our research validates the mediating role of Perceived Quality (PQ)
between LE and CM. This corroborates existing literature (Perin et al., (2012),
emphasizing PQ as a crucial determinant of commitment among students. PQ reflects
students' perceptions of the quality of education, services, and overall experience
offered by the institution. When students perceive high quality in these areas, they feel
satisfied with their educational journey, thereby fostering a stronger commitment. For
example, when students perceive the quality of lecturers in higher education to be
high, there will be commitment, and at the same time, a good learning environment
will be recognized as a good quality of training. This finding underscores the
significance of PQ as an identifier of commitment within the higher education
landscape.

Most notably, our study unveils a significant theoretical implication: while University
Brand alone may not directly influence CM when integrated with PQ in a triple
 39

mediation path, it significantly mediates the relationship between LE and CM. This
novel insight highlights the intricate correlation between university brands and quality
perceived by students, reshaping our understanding of the factors that drive
commitment among university students. If a student only perceives the university
brand but does not feel the quality, they will not commit to the university. This
suggests that students consider not only the reputation and visibility of the university
but also the tangible aspects of quality such as academic programs, faculty expertise,
facilities, and overall educational experience. However, when combining these factors,
they are more confident and proud of their school. The finding emphasizes the
interconnectedness of the university brand and PQ in shaping student commitment. It
suggests that the perceived quality of an institution may enhance or detract from the
impact of its brand on student commitment, and vice versa.

In conclusion, our research results underscore the evolving nature of student

perceptions of university brands and their quality, urging educators and policymakers
to reconsider traditional paradigms. By recognizing the interplay between university
brand, perceived quality, and commitment, institutions can better cater to the needs
and expectations of their student body, fostering a more enriching and fulfilling
educational experience.

5.2. Practical and Management Implications

As the research shows brand alone does not influence student commitment, the
university manager should focus on enhancing student commitment by providing a
better learning environment. Some tactics could include expanding the library's
database and resources to support student research and learning. Additionally, creating
more group study areas and collaborative spaces on campus can encourage discussion
and exchange among students. This helps form a more active and dynamic learning
atmosphere, thereby increasing student engagement and commitment. Along with
those two measures, the university can also invest in improving facilities, equipment
and infrastructure for teaching and learning to boost commitment.
 40

Other approaches are adding more informal gathering spaces for peer learning, holding
extracurricular activities and events to connect students to campus life, and promoting
student organizations and clubs to enable collaborative participation. Refurbishing
outdated classrooms and dormitories can also enhance the learning and living
environment. Comfortable, modern spaces lift spirits and satisfaction. Conducting
yearly surveys to monitor student needs and concerns provides continual feedback for
improvement. An optimal learning environment signals institutional support for
students, meeting their academic and social needs, which translates to greater
commitment and loyalty. The university should leverage campus design, activities,
facilities and atmosphere to foster a sense of community and belonging among
students.

To increase student perceived teaching quality, the university needs to focus on

enhancing the quality of current faculty through measures such as organizing training
on teaching skills, updating subject knowledge so lecturers can improve their
proficiency and instructional abilities. Additionally, the university should encourage
and facilitate opportunities for faculty to pursue PhD degrees, contributing to higher
academic qualifications and research experience. At the same time, the university
should also implement student evaluations of teaching quality to timely identify areas
for improvement. Besides that, the university can attract new highly qualified faculty
with extensive teaching experience to supplement quality human resources. Faculty
mentoring programs should be established in which new faculty are paired with
experienced professors to advise and guide them.. Regular peer evaluations where
faculty observe each other's classes and exchange feedback foster collaborative
improvement. Sending faculty to academic conferences, seminars and workshops
broadens their perspectives. Grants to support research and publishing encourage
knowledge advancements. Reduced teaching loads allow time for professional
development. Clear performance metrics and annual reviews identify high achievers
for rewards and low performers for assistance. Promoting a culture that values
teaching excellence as much as research achievements motivates faculty to prioritize
pedagogical quality. Implementing multifaceted initiatives to continuously enhance
 41

instructor quality will lead to improved teaching that students recognize and
appreciate.

As students' perceptions of university quality and brand image are interconnected, the
university manager should ensure proper alignment between the two for optimal
effectiveness. To have students perceive a robust association between quality and
brand, the university can highlight achievements like rankings, accreditations and
notable faculty research during recruitment and external marketing. Promoting student
success stories and job placements shapes a consistent branding message that quality
leads to outcomes. Campus facilities, resources and infrastructure should align with
the type of learning environment touted in branding - outdated assets undermine
advertised quality. Student surveys help discern if perceptions of quality match brand
claims.

Additionally, brand communications should emphasize the institution's strengths and

advantages over competitors to influence choice. Enhancing actual quality in those
aspects lends credibility. Branding can evoke community, social experiences and
campus life to engage students, which must be delivered through student
organizations, events and extracurricular activities. Ensure organizational values
permeate university operations to maintain authenticity. Keep the brand promise
through continuously improving programs, teaching and research quality. Leverage
alumni as brand ambassadors sharing positive references. Managing tight brand-
quality consistency, engaging in overt signals of quality, and delivering on advertised
differentiators and values will enable students to perceive the university brand as a
trusted marker of a high-quality educational experience.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

The research paper presents promising results to acknowledge and elevate the
importance of the university brand. However, the reported results here still need to be
considered with caution as this study still has some limitations. Firstly, there are
limitations regarding the questions; the questionnaire was set based on previous
studies and translated from English to Vietnamese, so there might be participants who
 42

do not fully understand the questions, leading to inaccurate responses. Secondly, there
are time constraints; the study was conducted within a relatively short period, from
early December 2023 to mid-February 2024. Thirdly, due to the short time frame, the
research team made every effort to gather the maximum number of samples, but 168
samples are still few for a topic requiring objectivity and extensive experience like
this. Therefore, for future studies, researchers may develop this topic by using
qualitative methods for a specific sample group to provide more appropriate
questionnaires for the geographical location of the study. Additionally, extending the
research period to collect more samples and measure changes over time would be
beneficial.
 43

PREFERENCES
Aaker David A. (1991). Brand equity. La Gestione Del Valore Della Marca, 347–356.

Aaker David A. (1996). Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets.
CAUFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 38(3).

Ali Alikhani, Arefeh Fadavi, & Samineh Mohseninia. (2014). An empirical

investigation on relationship between social capital and organizational commitment.
Management Science Letters, 4(2), 373–376.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bowden, J., & Wood, L. (2011). Sex doesn’t matter: the role of gender in the
formation of student-university relationships. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 21(2), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2011.623731

Brewer, A., & Zhao, J. (2010). The impact of a pathway college on reputation and
brand awareness for its affiliated university in Sydney. International Journal of
Educational Management, 24(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541011013033

Brown, T. J. (2006). Identity, Intended Image, Construed Image, and Reputation: An

Interdisciplinary Framework and Suggested Terminology. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 34(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305284969

Communication, K. K.-I., & 2013, undefined. (n.d.). Brand equity and integrated
communication. Taylorfrancis.ComKL KellerIntegrated Communication,
2013•taylorfrancis.Com. Retrieved February 16, 2024, from
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203773475-9/brand-equity-
integrated-communication-kevin-lane-keller

Davis, D. F., Golicic, S. L., & Marquardt, A. J. (2008). Branding a B2B service: Does
a brand differentiate a logistics service provider? Industrial Marketing Management,
37(2), 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.02.003
 44

Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media Reputation as a Strategic Resource: An Integration of

Mass Communication and Resource-Based Theories. Journal of Management, 26(6),
1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600602

Feldwick, P. (1996). What is Brand Equity Anyway, and how do you Measure it?
Market Research Society. Journal., 38(2), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1177/147078539603800201

Fombrun, & van Riel. (2003). The reputational landscape.

Getzels, J. W., & Thelen, H. A. (1960a). The Classroom Group as a Unique Social
System. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 61(10), 53–
82. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146816006101004

Getzels, J. W., & Thelen, H. A. (1960b). The Classroom Group as a Unique Social
System. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 61(10), 53–
82. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146816006101004

Iglesias, O., Markovic, S., & Rialp, J. (2019). How does sensory brand experience
influence brand equity? Considering the roles of customer satisfaction, customer
affective commitment, and employee empathy. Journal of Business Research, 96, 343–
354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.043

Kaushal, M., Ali, M., Sharma, R., & Talwar, D. (2019). Effect of respiratory muscle
training and pulmonary rehabilitation on exercise capacity in patients with interstitial
lung disease: A prospective quasi-experimental study. Eurasian Journal of
Pulmonology, 21(2), 87. https://doi.org/10.4103/ejop.ejop_21_19

Keller. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand

equity. Journal of Marketing.

Keller, Kevin Lane, Tony Apéria, & Mats Georgson. (2008). Strategic brand
management: A European perspective. Pearson Education.

Khaola, P. P. (2014). The relationships among students’ commitment, self-esteem,

organisational citizenship behaviour and academic performance. Africa Education
Review, 11(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2014.927144
 45

Kimpakorn, N., & Tocquer, G. (2010). Service brand equity and employee brand
commitment. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(5), 378–388.
https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041011060486

Kumar, A., Kim, Y., & Pelton, L. (2009). Indian consumers’ purchase behavior toward
US versus local brands. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
37(6), 510–526. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550910956241

Mittal, S., & Dhar, R. L. (2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity.
Management Decision, 53(5), 894–910. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2014-0464

NASHAAT, N., ABD EL AZIZ, R., & ABDEL AZEEM, M. (2021). The Mediating
Role of Student Satisfaction in the Relationship between Determinants of Online
Student Satisfaction and Student Commitment. Journal of E-Learning and Higher
Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5171/2021.404947

Ngussa, B., & Nzowa, G. (2019). Correlation between parental involvement and
students’ commitment toward learning: A case of secondary Schools in arusha district,
Tanzania. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 3(4),
121–127.

Nguyen, B., Yu, X., Melewar, T. C., & Hemsley-Brown, J. (2016). Brand
ambidexterity and commitment in higher education: An exploratory study. Journal of
Business Research, 69(8), 3105–3112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.026

Perin, M. G., Sampaio, C. H., Simões, C., & de Pólvora, R. P. (2012a). Modeling
antecedents of student loyalty in higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 22(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2012.705797

Perin, M. G., Sampaio, C. H., Simões, C., & de Pólvora, R. P. (2012b). Modeling
antecedents of student loyalty in higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 22(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2012.705797

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
 46

recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Sastika, W., Suryawardani, B., & H. Hanifa, F. (2016). Analysis of Website Quality,
Brand Awareness on Trust and its Impact on Customer Loyalty. Proceedings of the
2016 Global Conference on Business, Management and Entrepreneurship.
https://doi.org/10.2991/gcbme-16.2016.87

Silva, M. R., Kleinert, W. L., Sheppard, A. V., Cantrell, K. A., Freeman-Coppadge, D.

J., Tsoy, E., Roberts, T., & Pearrow, M. (2017). The Relationship Between Food
Security, Housing Stability, and School Performance Among College Students in an
Urban University. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice,
19(3), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115621918

Wilkins, S., Butt, M. M., Kratochvil, D., & Balakrishnan, M. S. (2016). The effects of
social identification and organizational identification on student commitment,
achievement and satisfaction in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 41(12),
2232–2252. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1034258

Zeithaml, & Valarie A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a
means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
 47

APPENDIX

QUESTIONNAIRE - VIETNAMESE VERSION

Kính chào quý Anh/chị,

Chúng tôi là nhóm sinh viên đến từ Đại học UEH và hiện đang thực hiện một cuộc
khảo

sát về tác động trung gian của giá trị thương hiệu đối với mối quan hệ giữa môi trường
học tập và sự cam kết của sinh viên Đại học UEH. Mục đích của nghiên cứu này nhằm
cung cấp thông tin về các sáng kiến chiến lược cho các tổ chức giáo dục đại học đang
tìm cách tăng cường sự tham gia và lòng trung thành của sinh viên bằng cách hiểu và
tối ưu hóa các yếu tố thương hiệu góp phần vào quá trình xây dựng cam kết tích cực.
Chúng tôi sẽ rất cảm kích sự giúp đỡ của anh chị bằng cách dành khoảng 5-10 phút để
hoàn thành bài khảo sát này. Chúng tôi xin cam kết bảo mật thông tin cá nhân, và các
câu trả lời chỉ dành cho mục đích học thuật và nghiên cứu.

PHẦN I: THÔNG TIN CÁ NHÂN

1. Tuổi: □ 18-20 □ 21-25 □ <25

2. Giới tính: □ Nam □ Nữ

3. Bạn học hệ Chương trình: □ Đại học □ Thạc sĩ □ Tiến sĩ

4. Bạn học đang học năm:

□ Năm 1 □ Năm 2 □ Năm 3 □ Năm 4 □ Đã

xong

5. Bạn thuộc khoa nào:

□ Quản trị □ Kinh doanh quốc tế - Marketing □ Tài chính

□ Ngân hàng □ Mục khác:...

6. Ngành học của bạn là gì?*

 48

□ Quản trị Kinh doanh □ Kinh doanh Quốc tế □ Marketing

□ Tài chính - Ngân hàng □ Kế toán □ Mục khác

PHẦN II: KHẢO SÁT CHÍNH

‘Vui lòng đọc kỹ từng câu hỏi và cho biết câu trả lời của bạn theo thang điểm 5 sau
đây’:

1 2 3 4 5

Hoàn toàn Không đồng ý Không chắc chắn Đồng ý Hoàn toàn
không đồng ý đồng ý

- Trong một số các trường hợp, có một phần giới thiệu ngắn trước câu hỏi thực tế. Vui
lòng đọc kỹ phần giới thiệu câu hỏi trước khi trả lời. Hãy thử và tìm điểm phù hợp
nhất với ý kiến của bạn trên thang điểm và khoanh tròn lựa chọn của bạn. Một số câu
hỏi có vẻ giống nhau đối với anh/chị, nhưng hãy cứ trả lời chúng. Cảm ơn anh/chị!

PHẦN 1: Môi trường học tập

Đại học UEH có môi trường học tập hỗ trợ 1 2 3 4 5

Đại học UEH được biết đến là một tổ chức đáng tôn trọng
1 2 3 4 5

Đại học UEH sở hữu tiêu chuẩn cao về mặt học thuật 1 2 3 4 5

Đại học UEH cung cấp các chương trình học với bằng cấp nổi tiếng 1 2 3 4 5

Đại học UEH sở hữu danh tiếng lớn về mảng học thuật 1 2 3 4 5

Dựa trên học phí, Đại học UEH mang lại giá trị giáo dục tốt 1 2 3 4 5
 49

PHẦN 2: Nhận thức về thương hiệu

Đại học UEH được biết đến rộng rãi 1 2 3 4 5

Logo của Đại học UEH dễ nhận biết ngay lập tức 1 2 3 4 5

Đại học UEH là một trong những ngôi trường đầu tiên xuất hiện khi ai 1 2 3 4 5
đó nghĩ về tất cả các đại học trong nước

PHẦN 3: Danh tiếng

Đại học UEH nổi tiếng trong việc cung cấp những khoá học và dịch vụ 1 2 3 4 5
thích hợp
Danh tiếng của Đại học UEH được xây dựng dựa trên những giá trị
1 2 3 4 5
được đem lại từ kinh nghiệm của cán bộ giảng viên.

Đối với Đại học UEH, danh tiếng đóng vai trò như một lợi thế cạnh 1 2 3 4 5
tranh

Danh tiếng của Đại học UEH truyền thông điệp mạnh mẽ đến sinh viên 1 2 3 4 5

Danh tiếng của đại học UEH ảnh hưởng lớn đến nhận định của mọi 1 2 3 4 5
người xung quanh

Danh tiếng của đại học UEH ảnh hưởng đến sự lựa chọn của sinh viên 1 2 3 4 5

PHẦN 4: Chất lượng giảng dạy

Giảng viên của Đại học UEH có kiến thức chuyên sâu trong lĩnh vực 1 2 3 4 5
của họ
Giảng viên sẵn sàng giúp đỡ sinh viên
1 2 3 4 5
 50

Giảng viên sẵn sàng trả lời các câu hỏi và mối quan tâm của sinh viên 1 2 3 4 5

Giảng viên quan tâm đến các nhu cầu của sinh viên 1 2 3 4 5

Giảng viên đáp ứng các nhu cầu của sinh viên 1 2 3 4 5

Giảng viên lịch sự trong việc trả lời sinh viên 1 2 3 4 5

PHẦN 5: Sự cam kết

Hoàn toàn không đồng ý Hoàn toàn đồng

ý

Tôi cảm thấy có sự gắn kết trong việc giữ vững mối quan hệ với Đại 1 2 3 4 5
học UEH
Tôi nhận thấy mối quan hệ với Đại học UEH quan trọng
1 2 3 4 5

Tôi mong đợi sẽ tiếp tục mối quan hệ với Đại học UEH 1 2 3 4 5

Tôi dự định sẽ giữ vững mối quan hệ với Đại học UEH 1 2 3 4 5