Chapter 4 Result and Discussion
4.1 Descriptive Analysis
The demographic information contains the following participants’ characteristic: gender, age, nationality, status, purpose of enrolling university, status of enrolment (full-time/part-time), educational level, financial- aid. The demographics information is showed in Table 4-1 based on frequency distributions and percentages. Those 250 respondents in this survey, 112 (44.8%) are male and 138 (55.2%) are females. The calculated mean age of the respondents is 19-27 years old with the majority of the students being 23-27 years old (47.6%). Most of the students are Vietnamese (37.2 %) followed by the others (Taiwanese, Chinese)_(32 %), and the majority purpose for enrolling into university to obtain a professional degree (31.2%) with the full-time courses (83.6%) which was supported financial aid by university (62%).
22
Table 4-1 Profile of Respondents
Variable Frequency (N) Percent (%)
Gender
Under 18 years old 18 to 22 years old
Purpose of Enrolling
To take a few job-related courses To obtain associate degree To take a few new courses To obtain a professional degree
To take courses necessary for transferring to another university
To obtain or maintain a certification
To obtain higher degree for self-improvement Others Educational level obtained before
High school 2 years college 3 years college 4 years university
Graduated or professional college Others
24
Table 4-2 Descriptive Statistic of Measure: Means and Standard Deviations of Questionnaire Statements
Constructs N Mean SD
Service Quality
1. The curriculum in this university is always up to date.
2. The staffs in this university are friendly and courteous.
3. The attitude of the staffs in this university toward student is good.
4. The staffs in this university are willing to give students individual attention.
5. The staffs in this university sincere interest in solving student's problems.
6. The staffs in this university have enough knowledge on rules and procedures.
7. The staffs in this university are capable to solve problems when they arise.
8. The lecturers used collaborative groups/teams in their teaching framework.
9. The lecturers in this university are sympathetic and supportive to the needs of students.
10. The lecturers encouraged students to ask questions.
11. The lecturers challenged students to understand ideas and concepts.
12. The lecturers provided assignment that required students to think creatively and critically.
13. Lecturers are capable to solve problems when they arise.
14. Lecturers treated students fairly in this university.
15. Number of courses offered in this university is suitable for students.
250
16. Generally, the condition of building and facility in this university is
250 3.46 0.706
good.
17. Study areas in this university are well equipped.
18. The library has an extensive collection available (e.g. books, periodicals).
19. This university provides enough dormitory for students to rent.
20. Campus bookstore provides enough book, materials, and lectures to meet the needs of students.
21. Laboratory facilities in this university are well equipped.
22. Classroom facilities in this university are well equipped.
23. Athletic facilities in this university are well equipped.
24. Dormitory facilities in this university are well equipped.
250
25. I am satisfied with my decision to attend this university.
26. I am happy that I enroll in this university.
27. I did the right decision when I decided to enroll in this university.
28. My choice to enroll in this university is a wise one.
29. If I have a choice to do it all over again, I still will enroll in this
30. Students possess the knowledge that the course intended to impart.
31. Students possess the skills that the course intended to impart.
32. The course offered in this university challenged students intellectually.
33. The university prepares students to deal with the labor market after graduation
34. The course offered in this university contains sufficient practical applications.
35. Students have become more professional after studying in this university.
36. Students have developed the ability to function as a member of a team. 250 4.08 0.865
26
37. Students have gained knowledge and skills to enter a particular career.
38. Students had an excellent learning experience in this university.
39. Students have gained transfer of knowledge and skills to obtain their first job.
40. Students have achieved the expected grades.
41. Students have become more competent in the field of study selected.
250 The first research question investigated the relationship between the service quality, teaching quality, learning-environment quality and student satisfaction, perceived value and outcome quality which were shown in table 4-2 by result of descriptive analysis.
Based on result from table 4-2 indicating that although heavily utilized, students was not satisfied with the learning environment quality with the lowest mean score was “Dormitory facilities in this university are well equipped” (mean=2.95; sd=0.854), this may be because of perception of students is a lack of furniture or dis-comfortable. However, of the two highest scores for service quality was “the staffs in this university are friendly and courteous”
(mean=4.16; sd=0.725), and “The attitude of the staffs in this university toward student is good (mean=4.13; sd=0.735), for the teaching quality was “the lecturers used collaborative groups/teams in their teaching framework” (mean=4.28; sd=0.725), and “The lecturers in this university are sympathetic and supportive to the needs of students” which mean that students satisfied with the staff service provide and teaching methods, experiences, knowledge, skill of lecturers.
For the outcome quality, the item "students have developed the ability to function as a member of a team” score the highest (mean=4.08; sd=0.865).
Thus, the unremitting improvement for many higher educational institutions which always balance the implemental mix of courses offered, departmental service, adequate infrastructure or facilities in order to the learner able to finish studying on schedule time.
That is also the best way to increase student satisfaction, because a few small items can also effect to their feeling that indicated in table 4-2 of the statement “ If I have a choice to do it all over again, I still will enroll in this university” (mean=2.87; sd=0.896) was very low.
4.2 Factor Analysis and Reliability
Using the results of KMO coefficient and Bartlet trial to determine the collected data suitability (the independent factors affect to the dependent factors) that shows in table 4-3 below.
The level of measure of sampling adequacy was greater than 0.75 indicating that the collected data situation was good for factorial analysis.
Table 4-3 KMO and Bartlett’s test and significant
Variables KMO
Bartlett’s test
Approx. Chi-Square Df P-value
Independent factor .864 3096.935 24 .000
Dependent factor .847 2422.807 17 .000
*KMO means Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy
Table 4-4 Exploratory Factor of independent variables
Construct items Factor loadings Eigen
value
% of Variance
Cumulative
%
a b c d
1. The curriculum in this
university is always up to date.
.257 6.957 28.986 28.986
2. The staffs in this university are friendly and courteous.
735 4.332 18.051 47.036
3. The staffs in this university are capable to solve problems when they arise.
.687 1.606 6.693 53.729
4. The staffs in this university .756 1.396 5.819 59.548
28 sincere interest in solving
student's problems.
5. The staffs in this university are willing to give students
individual attention
.702
6. The staffs in this university have enough knowledge on rules and procedures.
-.034
7. The attitude of the staffs in this university toward student is good.
9. The lecturers in this university are sympathetic and supportive to the needs of students.
.810
10. The lecturers encouraged students to ask questions.
.644
11. The lecturers challenged students to understand ideas and concepts.
.510
12. The lecturers provided assignment that required students to think creatively and
.682
critically.
13. Lecturers are capable to solve problems when they arise.
.649
14. Lecturers treated students fairly in this university.
.612
15. Number of courses offered in this university is suitable for students.
.599
16. Generally, the condition of building and facility in this university is good.
.686
17. Study areas in this university are well equipped.
.767
18. The library has an extensive collection available (e.g. books, periodicals).
.758
19. This university provides enough dormitory for students to rent.
.676
20. Campus bookstore provides enough book, materials, and lectures to meet the needs of students.
.711
21. Laboratory facilities in this university are well equipped.
.738
22. Classroom facilities in this university are well equipped.
.808
23. Athletic facilities in this university are well equipped.
.794
24. Dormitory facilities in this university are well equipped.
.699
Note: (1) Total variance explained = ; (2) KMO = .846; (3) Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis; (4) Rotation Method Varimax with Kaiser Nomalization
a: Service quality; b: teaching quality; c: environment quality; d: another factor
The independent variables included 24 items with the KMO value is .864 and p-value = 000
< 05, by using Principal Component Analysis and Varimax rotation method, the total variance explained was 59.548% > 50% (at component 4 and Cumulative %), this rate passed the percentage of variance allowance (>50%). Based on the study of Factor loading (Hair & Ctg, 1998, Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall International) proved that: Factor loading > 0.3 (minimum), Factor loading > 0.4 (important), Factor loading > 0.5 (significant). Moreover, exploratory factor analysis that its Factor loading is greater than 0.5. Thus, from the result in table 4-4 the factor loading of the four items (1), (6), (14), (19) was less than 0.5 or greater than 0.5 but they were not the items in one of the factors of independent variables that mean there were only 20 significant items of independent variables (service quality: 5, teaching quality: 7, environment quality: 8)
Table 4-5 Exploratory Factor of Dependent Variables
Construct items Factor loadings Eigen
value
decision to attend this university.
.734 2.220 13.060 53.583
26. I am happy that I enroll in this university.
.778 1.335 7.850 61.433
27. My choice to enroll in this university is a wise one.
.707 1.102 6.480 67.913
28. I did the right decision when I decided to enroll in this university.
.764
29. If I have a choice to do it all over again, I still will enroll in this university.
.720
30. Students possess the skills that the course intended to impart.
.695
31. Students possess the knowledge that the course intended to impart.
.619
32. The course offered in this .786
32 university contains
sufficient practical applications.
33. The university prepares students to deal with the labor market after graduation.
.684
34. Students have become more professional after studying in this university.
.773
35. The course offered in this university challenged students intellectually.
.614
36. Students have gained knowledge and skills to enter a particular career.
.578
37. Students have gained transfer of knowledge and skills to obtain their first job.
.527
38. Students had an excellent learning experience in this university.
.755
39. Students have become more competent in the field of study selected.
.690
40. Students have achieved the expected grades.
.816
41. Students have developed the ability to function as a member of a team.
.640
The dependent variables included 17 items with the value of KMO is .847 and p-value
= .000< .05, by using Principal Component Analysis and Varimax rotation method, the total variance explained was 67.913%% > 50% (at component 4 and Cumulative %), this rate passed the allowance of percentage of variance (>50%). From the result in table 4-5 the factor loading of the item (38) was greater than 0.5 but it was not the items in one of the factors of independent variables that mean there were only 16 significant items of independent variables (student satisfaction: 5, perceived value: 6, outcome quality: 5)
4-6 Statistic of Measure
Variable name N No. of item Means SD
34
In the table 4-6, it shows that the means of outcome quality is 3.64 on a 5-point scale, followed by mean of perceived value and student satisfaction was 3.46 and 3.29 on a 5-point scale. For each element of independents, teaching quality and service quality factor scores the highest (3.93 and 3.87 on a 5-point scale), followed by learning environment quality (3.17 on a 5-point scale). The student satisfaction minimum level is 1.00 showing that a few student felt not meet the expectation and the max score is 5.00 indicating some students satisfied what they received better than expected. Further information may see in the table 3.3 that the highest score of service quality and teaching quality which can be perceived by students are actually satisfied with somewhat about the staff service and lecturers’ knowledge, skill, experiences,…
“What are the critical factors of service quality, teaching quality, learning environment quality that contributes most to the satisfaction of students?” in the table 4-7 result, all of alpha coefficients of variable are over than 0.80 indicating that quite reliable.
Table 4-7 Reliability Result
Variable type Cronbach’s Alpha
Independent Service Quality Teaching Quality Environment Quality
0.827 0.844 0.891 Dependent
Student Satisfaction Perceived Value Outcome Quality
0.838 0.862 0.810
The relationship between these independent variables and dependent variables was showed in the table 4-8 result, it indicated that there are significant
Table 4-8 result prove that the relationship between service quality, teaching quality, learning environment quality to perceived value and outcome quality is positive. From the output, only learning environment quality has the positive relationship with student satisfaction (r=0.576) said that there is a strong relation. The relationship between service quality and student satisfaction is r=0.170 meaning that it has a moderate relationship toward student satisfaction as to teaching quality (r=0.209).
In addition, it also shows that most elements are correlated and significant each other.
Therefore, the results proven that independent variables have a positive relationship with perceived value and outcome quality, only learning environment quality has a positive relationship to student satisfaction.
Table 4-8 Correlation Result
Factor Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Service Quality 3.87 0.57 .827
2. Teaching Quality 3.93 0.52 .547** .844 3. Learning
Environment Quality
3.17 0.58 .163** .225** .891
4. Student satisfaction
3.29 0.60 .170** .209** .576** .838
5. Perceived Value 3.46 0.51 .385** .412** .444** .518** .862
6. Outcome Quality 3.64 0.51 .389** .513** .359** .408** .618** .810 Note: Crobach’s alphas are on the parenthesis for all scales
*: P-value < 0.5; **: P-value < 0.01; ***: P-value < 0.001
36
4.3 Regression Analysis
Table 4-9 The Relationship between Student Satisfaction and Independent Variables Model summary
R R2 Adjusted R2 Std Error of the Estimate Durbin-Watson
.584 .341 .332 .49032 1.793
ANOVA
Model Sum of
squares df Mean square F Sig.(p-value)
Regression 30.535 3 10.178 42.337 .000
Residual 59.142 246 .240
Total 89.677 249
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
T
Sig.
(p-value)
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.021 .282 3.627 .000
Service Quality .050 .066 .047 .764 .445
Teaching Quality .067 .072 .058 .930 .353
Learning Environment Quality
.570 .055 .556 10.441 .000
In the table 4-9, the results show that R2=0.342 (adjusted R2=0.334), said that 34.2% of variance in outcome quality, followed by 34.1% of student satisfaction (R2=0.341; adjusted R2=0.332), 33% of perceived value (R2=0.330; adjusted R2=0.322) are explained by the independent items given in the output.
From the result, the F statistics produced (F=42.337) is significant at the 0.000. From this result, service quality (unstandardized coefficients B is 0.050 at sig.=0.445>0.05, T=0.764), teaching quality (unstandardized coefficients B=0.067 at sig.=0.353>0.05, T=0.930) are not positively related with satisfaction, excepted environment quality positively effect to student satisfaction (B=0.570; T=10.441) at sig=0.000.
However, all of independent variables are positively effect to perceived value with F=40.334 at the significant 0.000. Based on the table 4-10,
Table 4-10 The Relationship between Perceived Value and Independent Variables Model summary
R R2 Adjusted
R2
Std Error of the Estimate
Durbin-Watson
.574 .330 .322 .41720 1.857
ANOVA
Model Sum of
squares df Mean
square F
Sig.
(p-value) Regressi
on 21.061 3 7.020 40.334 .000
Residual 42.817 246 .174
Total 63.878 249
Coefficients
38 Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
T
Sig.
(p-value)
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) .915 .240 3.817 .000
Service Quality .186 .056 .208 3.324 .001
Teaching Quality .212 .062 .218 3.442 .001
Learning Environment
Quality .312 .046 .361 6.725 .000
Service quality (B=0.186; T=3.324) at sig=0.001, teaching quality (B=0.212; T=3.442) at sig=0.001, environment quality (B=0.312; T=6.725) at sig=0.000.
Table 4-11 The Relationship between Outcome Quality and Independent Variables Model summary
R R2 Adjusted R2 Std Error of the
Estimate Durbin-Watson
.585 .342 .334 .41574 1.857
ANOVA
Model Sum of
squares df Mean square F Sig.(p-value)
Regression 22.076 3 7.359 42.575 .000
Residual 42.520 246 .173
Total 64.596 249
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t
Sig.
(p-value)
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) .974 .239 4.079 .000
Service Quality .138 .056 .154 2.490 .013
Teaching Quality .365 .061 .372 5.939 .000
Learning Environment
Quality .218 .046 .250 4.703 .000
And the table 4-11 result, teaching quality (B= 0.365; T=2.490) at sig=0.000, environment quality (B=0.218; T=4.703) at sig=0.000, service quality (B=0.138; T=4.079) at sig=0.013 are positively related to outcome quality.
From those result, it is apparent that learning environment quality significant and positively effects more than the other dimensions (service quality and teaching quality). It means learning environment quality is the main dimension that supports most to students’ satisfaction. Further, the teaching quality is the factor also positively effects to perceived value and outcome quality.
“How do student vote the implementation of the standard of service quality, teaching quality, learning environment quality among student at the university?”
Overall, table 4-2 shows that student satisfaction with service quality was at medium levels when exploring the relation of service quality criterion and learner satisfaction. But from the teaching quality and learning environment quality provided student also gained high outcome and satisfied with the learning environment. Because both the independent and dependent variables are quantitative, simple linear regression analysis was used.
The regression analysis results demonstrate that the correlation coefficient (R is more than 0.57) indicates there is a positive relation of service quality, teaching quality, learning
40
environment quality and satisfaction, perceived value, outcome quality. Additionally, it shows that (R ² more than 0.325), proving that service quality represented 32.5% of student satisfaction change with a possible error less than 0.05. So, some others factor that influence student satisfaction here. Moreover, the significance of (F) value is less than or equal to 0.05. From those, posited that the service quality influence student satisfaction at medium levels.
These results are consistent with the previous papers that there is an influence of university services on student satisfaction. It also confirmed that the perceived value positively interact to student expectation from the university services.
Figure 2 Model of Service Quality Measurement
Based on results of hypotheses test were formulated in the table 4-12 to answer this question.
The t-calculated values are greater than the tabulated values, and the hypotheses p-value is less than 0.05 (except H1 and H7). These results lead to the conclusion that the services in university are implementing medium-level quality university services.
Table 4-12 Summary of study Hypotheses’ test Result
No. Hypothesis Result
H1 Service quality positively affects student satisfaction Not Supported H2 Service quality positively affects student’s perceived value Supported H3 Service quality positively affects student’s outcome quality Supported H4 Learning environment quality positively affects student satisfaction Supported
H5 Learning environment quality positively affects student’s perceived value
Supported
H6 Learning environment quality positively affects student outcome quality
Supported
H7 Teaching quality positively affects student satisfaction Not Supported H8 Teaching quality positively affects student’s perceived value Supported H9 Teaching quality positively affects student’s outcome quality Supported
42
Chapter 5 Conclusion and Suggestions
This chapter focuses on reviewing the final result and the significances and support from the previous paper.
5.1 Conclusion
The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between service quality, teaching quality, learning-environment quality and student satisfaction and indicate the main elements of service quality, teaching quality, learning environment quality that contributes most to student satisfaction.
A descriptive method approach, factor analysis, and regression method was adopted for this study. This study indicated student perceptions and satisfaction relating the academic environment. The relationship between student satisfaction and university’s service that illustrated the critical mission of student, lecturers, and course.
The relationship between overall independent variables and dependent variables is 0.653 posited that there is strong association and the relationship of learning environment is stronger than teaching quality and service quality it look like the study of Umbach & Porter, (2002) that provided the services much more to increase learner satisfaction. Smith & Ennew, (2001) also agreed that the outside factors and facilities will directly and indirectly affect university evaluation. Those indicated not only service quality factor but also teaching quality and academic environment factor is one of the most important.
It stated that although most of dimensions of service quality, teaching quality, study environment quality are significant in explaining student satisfaction, but not all of items. It has proven that teaching quality and environment quality factors that are positive relationship with student satisfaction. On the other hand, student satisfied with experience, skill, professional they gained.
A medium level of university service quality criterions as relate to medium levels of student satisfaction showed that it has to improve and develop human education level and student expectation more and more implement the service quality.
This researching finding brought out the important strategy provided and indicated the service quality of all the departments in university that make the friendly relationship with student. To improve the aware of the importance of quality in service, university must compare and always upgrade and update training methods for all faculty to improve and upgrade the dormitory facilities is also the most urgent task.
The results indicated that the items of service quality and teaching quality continuing improving the university’ activities. The value information that is institution can be reached to the right strategy to attract learners.
From the results, it is clear that learning environment quality and teaching quality has significant positive relationship with student satisfaction, outcome quality, perceive value. Thus, it confirms what other literature try to suggest here, which is by improving service quality, teaching quality and learning environment quality, it may potentially improve the students’
satisfaction as well and that is the priority of higher educational institutions, especially, of the
satisfaction as well and that is the priority of higher educational institutions, especially, of the