development of the model of foreign student loyalty
TRANSCRIPT
iv
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL OF FOREIGN STUDENT LOYALTY STUDYING IN THAILAND
SHUANG WEI
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of Master of Business Administration Department of International Business
International College University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce
2012
14
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL OF FOREIGN STUDENT LOYALTY STUDY IN THAILAND
SHUANG WEI
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of Master of Business Administration Department of International Business
International College University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce
2012
© Copyright by University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce
15
THESIS APPROVAL INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE
Master of Business Administration Degree
International Business Major Field
Title Development of the Model of Foreign Student Loyalty Studying In Thailand
Shuang Wei 2012 Name Graduation Year Accepted by International College, University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master’s Degree.
.......................................... Dean, Graduate School (Dr. Jakarin Srimoon) Thesis Committee ........................................... Chairperson (Dr. Pussadee Polsaram)
........................................... Thesis Advisor (Dr. Phusit Wonglorsaichon)
.......................................... Member (Dr. Suthawan Chirapanda)
.......................................... Member (Dr.Theeranuch Pusaksrikit)
......................................... External Committee
(Assoc. Prof. Sriaroon Resanond)
iv
Thesis Title Development of the Model of Foreign Student Loyalty Studying In Thailand Name Shuang Wei Degree Master of Business Administration Major Field International Business Thesis Advisor Dr. Phusit Wonglorsaichon Graduate Year 2012
ABSTRACT The objectives of this study are fourfold (1) to develop the model of foreign
student loyalty studying in Thailand, (2) to study the effect of the foreign student expectation on foreign student satisfaction and university reputation, (3) to study the effect of the foreign student satisfaction on university reputation and foreign student loyalty, and (4) to study the effect of the university reputation on foreign student loyalty. The conceptual framework of this study is developed from Oliver, Churchill, Surprenanr and Ajzen concept. The model is analyzed empirically by using 406 questionnaires which are collected from foreign student loyalty who visit boutique hotels in Bangkok. Linear Structural Relationship (LISREL) statistics is used to test the model.
Result of the study revealed that the vast majority of foreign student respondents were male, Chinese, age between 21-25 years who studied at ABAC, in business administration faculty, hold the bachelor’s degree and most of them are studying the first year. Most of them have agreed that service quality and accommodation are the most important factors among the five factors: service quality, teacher, technology, learning environment and university accommodation. And most of them have greed level about foreign student expectation, university, and foreign student loyalty. The outcome of the empirical study discovered that each construct has significant positive direct effect on foreign student loyalty apart from foreign student expectation. Moreover, university reputation is the most important significant direct effect on foreign student loyalty equivalent 0.64.
v
The findings of this study indicate that foreign student intent to study and introduce friends/ Acquaintance come to study in Thailand depends on the level of student satisfied in service quality, teacher, technology, learning environment and university accommodation, and how good the university reputation that the student perceive. Universities should improving standardize, learn the exact expectations of the student and manage those well, pay attention to reputation building in other countries to attract foreign students’ interesting and know the value of the university and try their best to satisfied the foreign student satisfied then loyalty.
vi
ACKNOWLEDEMENTS
First, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Phusit Wonglorsaichon who provided his time and knowledge. I am also grateful to the committee member Dr. Pussadee Polsaram, Dr. Suthawan Chirapanda, Dr. Pitsamorn Kilenthong and Associate Professor Sriaroon Resanond for their good suggestion and helpful comments.
Secondly, I would like to thank to all staffs of The Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC) Bureau of International Cooperation Strategy Ministry of Education, Thailand for their contributions to the surveys and their help.
Of course many thanks go to the foreign student who helped me to finish the questionnaire.
Especially, loves and thanks to my dear parents who always have given me encouragement to help me through this Master Degree.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ABSTRACT................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ vi TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. vii LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................... x LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background of the Study ………… .................................................... 1 1.2 State of the Problem….......................................................................... 5 1.3 Research Objective................................................................................ 6 1.4 Research Questions................................................................................ 6 1.5 Benefits of the Study ............................................................................. 7 1.6 Scope of the Study................................................................................. 7 1.7 Operation Definition................................................................................ 8 2. Literature Review ……………………………………………………………………. 10 2.1 Customer satisfaction theoretical model – Expectation Model.............. 10 2.2 The theory of planned behavior............................................................. 13 2.3 Literature Review…………………………………………………………… 15 2.3.1 Foreign Student Loyalty…………………………………………………. 15
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page 2.3.2 Retention………………………………………………………………….. 20 2.3.3Word of Mouth...…………………………………………………………… 21 2.3.4 Foreign Student Satisfaction…………………………………………….. 22 2.3.5 Reputation….....…………………………………………………………… 25 2.3.6 Foreign Student Expectations…………………………………………… 27 2.3.7 Service Quality...…………………………………………………………… 28 2.3.8 Teacher………...…………………………………………………………… 30 2.3.9 Technology ...………………………………………………………………. 31 2.3.10 Learning Environment ….………………………………………………... 32 2.3.11 University Accommodation ....…………………………………………… 34 2.4 Literature Framework..….…………………………………………………… 35 2.5 Conceptual Framework ….…………………………………………………. 37 3. Research Methodology………………………………………………………………… 39 3.1 Research Design………………………………………….…………………… 40 3.1.1 Population and Sample ……………………………………………………. 41 3.2 Variable of the Research ……………………………………………………. 42 3.3 Research Instrument…..……………………………………….……………. 43 3.4 Reliability and Validity….……………………………………………………. 44 3.5 Data Collection…………………………………………………….……..… 48 3.6 Data Analysis …………………………………………………………….. 48 4. Data Analysis and Results.................................................................................... 50 4.1 Demographic Characteristic...................................................................... 51 4.2 Analysis of the Level of Agreement .......................................................... 53 4.3 Data Analysis and Findings...................................................................... 54 4.3.1 Correlation Analysis……....................................................................... 55 4.3.2 Factor Analysis…………....................................................................... 57
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page 4.3.3 Structural Equation Model (SEM)........................................................... 61 4.3.4 Hypothesis Testing………...................................................................... 70 5. Conclusion, Discussion and Recommendation.................................................. 73
5.1 Conclusion.………………………………………….…………………….…… 74 5.2 Discussion.…………………………………………………….………………. 75 5.3 Implication of the Study……...................................................................... 80 5.4 Limitation of the Study……....................................................................... 83 5.5 Future Research……………...................................................................... 84
REFERENCES……………........................................................................................... 85 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 110 A. IOC........................................................................................................ 111 B. List of Thai University and College by Name....................................... 116 C. Questionnaire…….................................................................................. 122 BIBIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................... 128
x
LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1.1 The number of foreign student study in Thai universities during 2008- 2010 2 2.3.1 The three item of different authors use to measure student loyalty............... 19 2.3.4.1 The dimensions of student satisfaction........................................................ 24 2.3.5.1 The way that use to measure reputation……………………………………… 26 3.1.1 The sampling size of each group………………………………………............... 42 3.4.1 Item – objective congruence result.................................................................. 46 3.4.2 Reliability test using Cronbach’s alpha………………………………………… 47 4.1 Respondent characteristics.……………………………………………................. 52 4.2 Level of agreement of foreign student loyalty, university reputation, foreign student expectation and foreign student satisfaction........................................... 53 4.3. Level important of among the five variables……………………………………… 54 4.4 Definition of variable………………..………………………………………............... 55 4.5 Correlation matrix.................................................................................................. 57 . 4.6 Extraction of communalities ………………………………………………………… 58 4.7 Total variance explained…………..………………………………………............... 59 4.8 Summarized result of rotated analysis................................................................ 60 4.9 Goodness of fit Statistic ……………………...……………………………………… 62 4.10 Parameters of Statistic table …..………………………………………............... 66 4.11 The Standardized total effect, direct effect and indirect effect......................... 68 . 4.12 Summary of path analysis for hypothesis testing.……………………………… 72
xi
LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1.1 The expectancy disconfirmation model of customer satisfaction………....... 12 2.2.1 The theory of planned behavior framework................................................... 14 2.3.1.1 The model link student satisfaction, reputation and loyalty………..…....... 17
2.3.1.2 The model that reputation is an antecedent of satisfaction…..………....... 18 2.4.1 The overall framework………………………………………………..………....... 36 2.5.1 The conceptual framework………………….................................................... 38 4.1 The full structural model……………………………………………………..…....... 69
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
In the age of globalization, many companies are operating business in a
global competitive environment level. They need employees with global awareness.
Thus, it is vitally important that students who understand the global environment which
they will work, including both the similarities and differences among countries, cultures,
languages, and work practices. In other words, study abroad is more and more popular
and needing (Harris, Belanger, Loch, and Murray, 2011).
Thailand is one of Southeast Asian emerging markets. Thus it also can’t
avoid the impact of globalization. Besides, there are many of advantages for foreign
students study in Thailand. Liu (2008) pointed out that the advantages for foreign
students study in Thailand are consisting as following:
1. The situation is stable, the climate is suitable, the scenery is beautiful and the
learning environment is good.
2. No racial discrimination.
3. Visa rate is high, almost 100%. The application cycle is also short.
4. Using the original materials of European and American universities, and its
diploma is also recognized by around the world.
2
5. Students can transfer credits in half-way to the European and American
universities to pursue further studies in higher academic.
There were a large number of foreign students came to study due to these
reasons. The Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC) conducted a survey
on enrolment of foreign students in Thai higher education institutions. The survey
indicated that the top sending countries are China, Laos and Myanmar. The result of
the survey showed in the table 1.1 that there were 16,361 foreign students enroll in
Thai higher education institutions in 2008. For this number, Chinese students were 44.6%
of total number; Laos students were 7.9% while Myanmar students were 6.1%. There
were 19,052 foreign students enroll in Thai higher education institutions in 2009. For
this number, Chinese students were 47.2% of total number; Laos students were 6.5%
while Myanmar students were 6.3%. In 2010 the number of foreign students enrolled
had been 20,155 persons. For this number, the percentage of total number for China,
Laos and Myanmar was 46.2%, 6.6% and 6.4%. In other words the trending of foreign
students came to study in Thai was increasing during 2008-2010, the increasing
proportion was 23%.
Table 1.1 the number of foreign student study in Thai universities during 2008-2010.
Year Total China Percentage Laos percentage Myanmar Percentage 2008 16,361 7301 44.6% 1,301 7.9% 999 6.1% 2009 19,052 8993 47.2% 1,254 6.5% 1,205 6.3% 2010 20,155 9329 46.2% 1,311 6.5% 1,310 6.4%
Source: Foreign students in Thai Higher Education Institutions in 2008, 2009 and 2010.
http://inter.mua.go.th/main2/list.php?id=pu04
3
More and more foreign students come to study in Thailand is a good trend
for Thai to achieve the goal which have been decided. Talking about the goal of Thai
higher education, people would talk to the latest development of Thai higher education.
The OHEC indicates that currently, Thai higher education is undergoing the second
decade of the national education reform with the goal to aspire toward quality of
education. The ultimate goal of Thailand is aiming to become a regional education hub
in South-East Asia with the aim of increasing the number of foreign students in Thailand
up to 100,000 from the current figure of 20,000. In so doing, the Thai Ministry of
Education has kicked off a National Research University initiative with an ambitious goal
for the country to become a world-class regional academic and education hub. This is a
part of the 15-Year National Plan for Higher Education Development for 2008 to 2022
formulated by OHEC (OHEC Bureau of International Cooperation Strategy Ministry of
Education, Thailand, Overview of Current Thai Higher Education Development, 2008).
It is truth that the number of foreign students come to study in Thailand is
increasing. But compare with the number of foreign students come to study in Thai in
the goal of Thailand aiming, the distance of the truth and the goal is still very long. Thus
the Thai government pays more attention to the education sector. The Thai OHEC has
therefore set up a number of national strategic policies.
In the terms of Thai national strategic policy framework on higher education,
OHEC launched two higher education policy papers, one is the roadmap for higher
education quality development another one is the Second 15-Year Long Range Plan on
Higher Education (2008 – 2022).
4
The prime objective of Thai higher education quality development roadmap
is to produce good quality graduates and researchers who will contribute to the country
social and economic development. It focuses on improvement of higher education in
four aspects, namely:
1. Quality of graduates
2. Quality of faculty members
3. Quality of researches
4. Quality of education provision.
The quality is the main issues of Thai higher education system which be
focused in The Second 15-Year Long Range Plan on Higher Education. The production
and development of graduates of quality, capable of life-long work and adjustment is the
result of such system. The development of knowledge and innovations, basic and
critical to the country’s competitiveness and supportive of sustainable development of all
sectors in Thailand is the major outcomes of the Plan. By using management
mechanisms and measures of good governance, financing management, higher
education standards and university networking to achieved the quality system. Thus, it
is reasonable for The Royal Thai Government has given a high priority to upgrade
quality of Thai universities to achieve international standards of excellence (OHEC
Bureau of International Cooperation Strategy Ministry of Education, Thailand, Thai high
education; policy and issue, 2008).
5
1.2 State of the problem
Nowadays, quality became more and more important for higher education
institutions (Pile and Teixeira, 1997). One reason of it is that quality is one expectation
of student. If a university’s education quality meets the student expectations or in other
words if the gap between the expectations and perceptions is within the tolerance limit,
it means that students are satisfied (Smith and Hopkins, 2005; Laing, 2005).While
student satisfaction is supposed to be positively related to university reputation (Selnes,
1993; Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998; Johnson, 2001). In addition, student
satisfaction is a precondition of student loyalty (Dick and Basu, 1994). And reputation is
the one factor that has the most influence on student loyalty in higher education
(Eskildsen, 1999). A student loyalty has two behaviors: intent to repurchase or people’s
recommendations by positive word-of-mouth (WOM). Both two behaviors are benefit for
Thai to easy to achieve the 15- Year National Plan for Higher Education. Not just in the
past, now there are many studies also have proved that student loyalty is a very
important strategic theme for higher education institutions (Thurau 2001; Navarro, 2005).
All of these are obvious tell us that student loyalty is worth of study areas.
Certainly, there were many studies have been done in the area of student
loyalty in other countries. But it may be not fit for using the results of these researches
to analyze the foreign student loyalty in Thailand. In addition, in Thailand, there was
also having many researchers study the student satisfaction, for example
(Kaewcharoensuk, 2006) and (Wongpaiboon, 2010), but only a few people continue to
do in-depth research from student satisfaction into student loyalty, especially in the
6
foreign student loyalty area. Thus, this research aims to develop the model of foreign
student loyalty in Thailand to improve policies suitably to foreign students for future
increased more and more foreign students come to study in Thailand universities.
1.3 Research objective
1.3.1 To develop the model of foreign student loyalty studying in Thailand.
1.3.2 To study the effect of the foreign student expectation on foreign student
satisfaction.
1.3.3 To study the effect of the foreign student satisfaction on reputation.
1.3.4 To study the effect of the foreign student satisfaction on foreign student loyalty.
1.3.5 To study the effect of the reputation on foreign student loyalty.
1.3 Research questions:
1.4.1 How is the model linking foreign student satisfaction and reputation of Thai
university to foreign student loyalty?
1.4.2 How is the effect of the foreign student expectation on foreign student
satisfaction?
1.4.3 How is the effect of the foreign student satisfaction on reputation?
1.4.4 How is the effect of the foreign student satisfaction on foreign student loyalty?
1.4.5 How is the effect of the university reputation on foreign student loyalty?
7
1.5 Benefits of the study
1.5.1 The result of this study would help to increase the number of foreign students to
come to study in the universities in Bangkok so that it can successfully complete
the goal that increasing the number of foreign students in 2020 in Thailand up to
100,000 from the current figure of 20,000 and become a world-class regional
academic and an education hub so that Thailand can successfully complete the
15-Year National Plan for Higher Education Development for 2008 to 2022
which formulated by OHEC.
1.5.2 To apply the data of foreign students’ satisfaction that has been found in the
questionnaires, for setting up the suitable strategies in competition with other
Universities.
1.5.3 The results of this study can be the reference for the other researchers to
conduct further studies.
1.6 Scope of the study
1.6.1 The population: The foreign students studied in Bangkok, Thailand in 2012.
1.6.2 The samples of this study are the foreign students who studying at Assumption
University (ABAC), Hua Chiew Chalermprakiest University (HCU) and The
University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce (UTCC).
1.6.3 Area Research: The research was planned to study the student’s expectation in
service quality, technology and learning environment, relate to foreign student
satisfaction and university reputation, and also the foreign student satisfaction
8
and university reputation relate to foreign student loyalty, and the foreign student
loyalty would be retention and used word-of-mouth commendation. The data
source would be analyzed by a structural equation modeling approach.
1.7 Operation definition
Foreign student loyalty is a form of behavior of a student who would
recommend the university to friends/acquaintances and attend the same university if
starting from fresh or attending further education at the university. It consisted of the
retention and word-of-mouth.
Retention is the behavior of student who keeps studying in one university
by not reduces their number of courses or drop out from the school until graduation.
Word- of- mouth is an activity of student that contains thoughts, ideas and
information about a university which be shared among other persons.
Reputation is the summary of the impressions perceptions of a university. It
consists of university reputation and reputation of their specific study program.
University reputation is the total impressions and perceptions of a
university, what it stands for, what it is associated with, and what may be supposed
students to enroll a university.
Reputation of study program is the total impressions and perceptions of
their specific study program.
Foreign student satisfaction is an overall feeling, or attitude of a student
has about a service after it has been enrolled.
9
Foreign student expectation is a probability of the occurrence of event that
a student anticipates or looks forward to. It includes five items: service quality, teacher,
technology, learning environment and university accommodation.
Service quality is an attitude of overall judgment regarding service
superiority.
Teacher is someone who teaches or imparts knowledge, and the most
importantly, a teacher is someone responsible for shaping and molding the minds and
hearts of all those whom they teach.
Technology is the methods, systems and tools which are the result of
scientific knowledge being used for satisfying students. Technology is thus viewed as
the use of computing devices, such as desktop computers, laptops, handheld
computers, software or Internet in universities for satisfying students.
Learning environment is the total of the internal and external
circumstances and influences surrounding and affecting a person’s learning. Internal
circumstance means inside the classroom and university. External circumstance means
the classmates.
University accommodation is the buildings or rooms which is located on or
near campus and is administered by the university or an affiliated body.
10
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter includes two relevant theories and discuses literature in 11
areas: customer loyalty, retention, WOM, customer satisfaction, reputation, customer
expectations, service quality, teacher, technology, learning environment and university
accommodation. In addition, the theories framework and conceptual framework will be
presented.
2.1 Customer satisfaction theoretical model – Expectation Model
Customer satisfaction research was raised in the 1970s; the earliest
literature can be traced back to 1965, Cardozo's "customer inputs, expectations and
experimental study".
Expectations model is the abbreviation of the Expectation-Disconfirmation
Model. The theoretical is based on 1970s the social psychology and organizational
behavior. Olshavsky and Miller (1972) published an article about “customer expectations,
product performance and perceived product quality ". Later Anderson (1973) published
another article-" customer dissatisfied: disconfirmation expectations and perceived
quality effect. Both of them are exploration of the expectations - disconfirmation theory
11
of the basic framework. These two studies and Cardozo together constitute the basis of
this model.
Expectation model indicated that, satisfaction is achieved through a two-
stage process. The first stage is before buying, customer form expectations by the
product performance (the product will provide a variety of interest and utility). After
purchased, the customer obtained the true level of performance. Then compare the
resulting gap between the expectation and perception, it known as “disconfirmation ". In
the second stage, the customer would base on the different situation of “disconfirmation
" to give different "satisfactory" response: When the actual performance and
expectations are the same, it means that " disconfirmation " is zero, the customer is
"moderate satisfaction"; when the actual performance exceeds expectations, namely "
disconfirmation " is positive, leading to a "satisfactory"; while the actual performance
can’t reach the expectations that is " disconfirmation " is negative, resulting in
"unsatisfactory". Thus, expectation model includes three basic variables: expectation,
disconfirmation and satisfaction. The expectation is that customer expectations of
product performance, disconfirmation is the difference between performance and
expectations, while the performance is the interests which customer get. Satisfaction is
the ultimate customer attitudes and evaluation. Expectations model is the basis of the
theory of customer satisfaction. It can be showed in the following figure:
Figure 2.1.1 the Expectancy Disconfirmation Model of Customer Satisfaction
12
A summary of the empirical support for six linkages (from Oliver1997, Churchill and
Surprenant, 1982)
Expectations - Performance Linkage Expectations - satisfaction Linkage
Boulding, William, Kalra, Staelin and Zeitharnl (1993) Olshavsky and Miller (1972)
Expectations - Disconfirmation Linkage Anderson (1973)
Churchill and Surprenant (1982) Oliver (1977, 1980)
Olson and Dover (1979)
Performance - Disconfirmation Linkage Churchill and Surprenant (1982)
Swan and Trawick (1981) Oliver and Desarbo (1988)
Bolton and Drew (1991) Tse and Wilton (1988)
Churchill and Surprenant (1982) Bone Shimp, and Sharma (1990)
Anderson and Sulbvan (1993) Szajna and Scamell (1993)
Olson and Dover (1976)
Disconfirmation – Satisfaction Linkage Performance – Satifaction Linkage
Olson and Dover (1976) Swan and Trawick (1981)
13
Churchill and Surprenant (1982) Churchill and Surprenant (1982)
Oliver (1977, 1979, 1980, 1993, 1994) Anderson and Sulbvan (1993)
Oliver, Balakrishnan and Barry (1994) Oliver (1993, 1994)
Simester (2000)
2.2 The theory of planned behavior
In the psychology, the theory of planned behavior (TPB) is a theory about
the link between attitudes and behavior. The theory was proposed by Icek Ajzen in
1985 through his article "From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior." The
theory was developed from the theory of reasoned action (TRA), which was proposed
by Martin Fishbein together with Icek Ajzen in 1975 (Ajzen and Fishbein,1980).
Due to TRA has difficulty in explaining behaviors in which a person does not
have volitional control over it. Ajzen(1985) extended the TRA to be TPB by adding the
perceived behavioral control. Three conceptually independent determinates of intention
are be postulated in the TPB. That is “attitude toward the behavior," "subjective norm,"
and "perceived behavioral control". Attitude toward the behavior refers to the degree to
which person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation of the behavior. Subjective
norm refers to the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior.
While perceived behavioral control refers to the perceived ease or difficulty of
performing the behavior and it is assumed to reflect past experience as well as
anticipated impediments and obstacles (Ajzen, 1991).The theory states that “attitude
toward the behavior," "subjective norm," and "perceived behavioral control" lead to the
14
formation of a "behavioral intention" (Ajzen, 2002). In particular, "perceived behavioral
control" is presumed to not only affect actual behavior directly, but also affect it
indirectly through behavioral intention (Zimmerman, 2005). Ajzen (1985) stressed that
as a general rule, the more favorable the attitude toward behavior and subjective norm,
and the greater the perceived behavioral control, the stronger the person's intention to
perform the behavior in question should be.
TPB model has been successfully tested in a variety of contexts, including
financial services, tourism and electronic commerce (Bansal & Taylor, 2002; Lam & Hsu,
2004; Lim & Dubinsky, 2005). Some studies also use the TPB to predict youth’s
customer loyalty (Murphy and Swilley, 2009). There also have people to use TPB to
explain why customers switch (Wen, 2009). Thus, it can say like this, the theory model
is a very powerful and predictive model for explaining human behavior. The Theory of Plan
Behavior Framework can be show as follow:
Figure 2.2.1The Theory of Planned Behavior Framework
Source: Ajzen (1991) “The Theory of Planned Behavior”
15
2.3 Literature Review
2.3.1 Foreign Student Loyalty
Customer loyalty has been defined in various ways (Reynolds, 1974;
Reichheld and Sasser, 1990; Dick and Basu, 1994). One of these definition ways is
customer loyalty is deeply held commitment to re-buy a preferred product or service
consistently in the future, and this behavior would not be influenced by any situations
(Oliver, 1997; Kotler and Keller, 2006).
Dick and Basu’s (1994) customer loyalty model is “an elegant
conceptualization of the combined effects of attitude and behavior”. Early researches
on customer loyalty have been focused on consumer goods (Gremler and Brown,
1996).At the same time, researcher emphasis on behavioral approach (de Ruyter,
Wetzels and Bloemer, 1998). Researchers pointed out that “Behavioral approach refers
to repeat purchasing behaviors” (Gremler and Brown, 1996; Dick and Basu, 1994).
However, in the past few decades，with the expansion of service industries,
there are other authors argued that only behavioral approach may not give a
comprehensive understanding of loyalty. Thus, they indicated that “the behavioral
approach should be supplemented with the attitudinal approach to reflect relative
attitudes towards the product or services" （Dick and Basu, 1994). Oliver (1999) gave
the meaning to attitudinal approach as "a liking or attitude towards the provider based
on satisfactory experience with products or services”; the customers are more willing to
recommend the provider to other customers (Gremler and Brown, 1996).
16
Certainly, apart from the above definitions, there are still have large number
people gave the meaning to customer loyalty. For example, customer loyalty is the
customer continuous purchase merchandise or services of a certain company (Day,
1977 and Griffin, 1996).Similarly, authors also described it as the overall attachment or
deep commitment of a buyer to a product, service, brand or organization (Lam, Shankar,
Erramilli and Murthy, 2004). There are other authors who agree on loyalty base on
product and service price. In this view, a loyal customer means that the willing to pay
higher prices for he or she desired services and products (Kotler and Keller, 2008).
About customer loyalty, in addition to the information above this, Oliver
(1997) also pointed out that Customer loyalty is formed by four steps: cognitive loyalty,
affective loyalty, conative loyalty and action loyalty. Cognitive loyalty is formed by the
information that taken from the past experiences or information. Affective loyalty is
about the degree of liking the product, brand or company. In the Co native-behavioral
loyalty, because of the positive emotion about the product, brand or company, the
consumer would repurchase as a result of the recurrent events. In the action loyalty, the
steady consumer is ready to purchase or purchasing again in all cases. At the same
time, the action would not be influenced by any situation.
Recently researchers are giving more and more interest in studying student
loyalty, and student loyalty has become an important concern for higher education
(Thurau, 2001; Navarro, 2005). Analyzing student loyalty can bring advantage to higher
education institutions (Navarro, 2005). Thurau( 2001) pointed out that the advantages
for analyzing student loyalty are including as the following:
17
1. Students are one of the main finance sources of university with enrolments.
2. Loyal student is influencing teaching quality in a positive indirection through
active participation and a committed behavior (Rodie and Kleine, 2000).
In addition of these advantages, loyal customers have a positive behavior
toward word of mouth (Kumar and Shah, 2004). A loyal student can be a good
advocate for using WOM to recommend the institution to friends/acquaintances. Besides,
in order to update their knowledge more and more students are returning to higher
education institutions (Navarro, 2005).
Many models and antecedents or drivers have been introduced in order to
explain variations in satisfaction, reputation and loyalty (Johnson, 2001; Seth, 2004;
Williams, 2005). Helgesen and Nesset (2007) proposed and validated a model which
linking student satisfaction, reputation and loyalty. This model indicates that reputation
of the institution is a mediating variable between student satisfaction and loyalty. This is
model can be shown in the following figure:
Figure 2.3.1.1 the model link student satisfaction, reputation and loyalty (Helgesen
and Nesset, 2007)
Student satisfaction
Reputation Student loyalty
18
While there are many arguments in literature argue that reputation is an antecedent of
satisfaction. Lim (2000) point out that reputation has a strong influence on satisfaction.
It can be shown in the following figure:
Figure 2.3.1.2 the model that reputation is an antecedent of satisfaction.
This paper proposed the following model:
In the previous researches, most researchers use three items to measure
by student loyalty. These three items are showed in the following table:
Reputation Student
satisfaction
Student loyalty
Foreign Student satisfaction
Foreign student loyalty
Reputation Retention WOM
19
Table2. 3.1 The three item of different authors use to measure student loyalty
Name Items
Dick and
Basu(1994);Oli
ver(1997)
1. Probability of recommending the university college to
friends/acquaintances.
2. Probability of attending the same university college if starting
from fresh.
3. Probability of attending new courses/further education at the
university college.
Bettencourt
(1997)
1. I say positive things about this university to others.
2. I encourage friends and acquaintances to attend this
university.
3. I care about this university’s reputation.
Nguyen and
LeBlanc(2001)
1. I would attend degree courses at my college if it offers degree
courses in future.
2. I would attend the advanced courses at my college if it offers
them in the coming years.
3. If I had to apply for associate degree or higher diploma
courses now, my college would be my first choice.
In this study, two dimensions are used to measure student loyalty. One is WOM,
another is retention.
20
2.3.2 Retention
The concept of customer retention has been described by some scholars
with using the term “future behavioral intentions" (Zeithaml, 1996). Cronin (2000)
literature treats “behavioral intentions" and “customer retention" as synonymous
constructs. Customer retention is the propensity of a customer to stay with the service
provider in future (Ranaweera and Prabhu, 2003). Customer retention is also often
conceptually and operationally defined "with respect to the behavioral intention to return
to an organizational establishment and the willingness to recommend that organization"
(Swan & Oliver, 1989; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasurman, 1996). In the education area
retention is defined as the number of students who successfully received a degree from
University (Wong, 1997). Berge and Huang (2004) also indicated that retention is a
student continued to participate in a learning event until completion. It could be a
course, program, institution, or system in higher education.
Students' retention at the course, program or degree level has been a
forever concern of educators. In fact, nationally there have been about 3,000 studies
conducted in the last 20 years (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991). There is one common
denominator in these studies: it is necessity for institutions to build a system to monitor
retention statistics (Wong, 1997). Since the lack of retention, or dropout, is the historical
challenged of educational systems (Berge and Huang, 2004). "Studies have shown that
it is much more expensive to recruit a new student than it is to keep a current one”
(Wong, 1997). Gemme (1997) also point out "Past research consistently demonstrates
that it costs more to attract a new customer than it does to retain an existing customer".
21
Wills (2009) also reported that obtaining a new customer costs more than five times as
much than to keep an existing one. Apart from these, some researchers also argue that
reducing costs is one of important means to reduce “customer turnover’’ and increase
customer retention (Carter, 2009). Some people also said that retention is so important,
it should be used as a college outcomes assessment parameter and that it be
considered as a measure of the abilities of faculty and teachers to design programs of
that meet market and customer expectations (Wong, 1997).
2.3.3 Word Of Mouth
Recently there have been a great number of studies about WOM (Gruen,
2006; Walker, 2001; Wangenheim 2005; Wangenheim and Bayón 2007). Arndt (1967)
indicated that word of mouth is “oral, person-to-person communication between a
perceived non-commercial communicator and a receiver concerning a brand, a product,
or a service offered for sale." While other authors gave the meaning of word of mouth is
an activity that contains thoughts, ideas, and information being shared among
customers from their personal incidents (Mikkelsen, 2003). Harrison and Walker (2001)
believed that “word-of-mouth is an informal communication tool among person to
person".
Word of mouth is considered to divide into two general types: negative and
positive word of mouth. Positive word of mouth is viewed to be encouraging a choice,
while negative word of mouth is viewed to be discouraging a choice. It is believe that
22
word of mouth is a very powerful effect on the behavior that customers show regarding
the decisions they are willing to take (Ghorban and Tahernejad, 2012).
Liao, Chimg, Hung, and Widowati (2010) believed the relationship among
satisfaction, loyalty and WOM. Prior to this, authors argue that the consequence of
satisfaction and loyalty is word of mouth (Sweeney and Swait, 2008; Erdem and Swait,
2004). Hjalte and Larsson (2004) refer it in their study again that "the relationship
among word of mouth and loyalty is acceptable." in addition, it is also being proved that
loyal customers have a positive behavior toward word of mouth (Ktimar and Shah,
2004).
2.3.4 Foreign Student Satisfaction
The satisfaction concept is perceived and defined in various ways
(Hausknecht, 1990; Giese and Cote, 2000; Wiers-Jenssen , 2002). Oliver (1997) view
satisfaction as “the perception of pleasurable fulfillment of a service”. While others
defined satisfaction is a whole feeling or attitude of a person who has about a product
or service after it has been purchased (Solomon, 1994). There has been defined
satisfaction as a “summary, affective and variable intensity response centered on
specific aspects of acquisition and/or consumption and which takes place at the precise
moment when the individual evaluates the object” (Giese and Cote, 2000). There also
have been other authors argue that "Satisfaction is an internal feeling of a person that
is resulted by comparing the quality of a perceived performance or a delivered good to
what extend he or she expected before" (Jalali,2011) .
23
Customer satisfaction frameworks have been popular among researchers
(Oliver, 1997; Giese and cote, 2000; and Jenssen, 2002). It has been survey in many
contexts, including higher service quality, technology and student residential in higher
education sectors (Alves and Raposo, 2007; Carter, 2009; Beckert, and Olsen, 2009;
Najib, Yusof and Abidin, 2011). Student satisfaction is an important issue for college
administrators. Due to a student who satisfied with the service received may grow into
various attitudes and behaviors by the indicative of loyalty (Browne, 1998; Guolla, 1999;
Mavondo and Zaman, 2000; Tsarenko and Mavondo, 2001). For example, show the
intention to return to participate in other courses offered by the same university or use
WOM to recommend the university to friends/ acquaintances (Parasuraman, 1994;
Patterson 1997; Lervik and Johnson, 2003).
Thus, many researchers argued that the concepts of loyalty and satisfaction
are closely related to each other. The same causal relationship between loyalty and
satisfaction can be established (Martensen, 1999; Alves and Raposo, 2004; Gonc and
alves, 2004). Loyalty is the result of customer satisfaction (Fornell, 1992; Fornell, 1996;
Chan, 2003). Satisfaction is a precondition of student loyalty. There are still having the
similar speaking way like satisfaction and loyalty are closely related in general service
and where satisfaction is an antecedent variable of loyalty (Dick and Basu, 1994). Apart
from this, customer satisfaction is both positively related to customer loyalty and
corporate image, corporate reputation and brand reputation also (Selnes, 1993;
Anderson1994; Johnson and Gustafsson, 2000; Johnson 2001; Oliver, 1980).
24
In the past researches, the dimensions of student satisfaction are showed in
many contexts. They are being present in Table 2.3.4.1:
Table 2.3.4.1 the dimensions of student satisfaction
Name The dimensions of student satisfaction Harvey (1995) Library services
Computer services Refectories Accommodation Course organization and assessment Teaching staff and teaching style Teaching methods Student workload and assessment Social life Self-development Financial circumstance University environment
Elliot and Healy (2001)
Academic advising effectiveness Campus climate Campus life Campus support services Concern for the individual Instructional effectiveness Recruitment and financial aid effectiveness Registration effectiveness Campus safety and security Service excellence Student centeredness
Jenssen (2002) Teaching Support facilities Physical facilities Social climate Leisure activities
25
2.3.5 Reputation
Reputation has been get received an extraordinary amount of attention in
recent years (Fombrun, 1996; Dowling, 2001; Fombrun and van Riel, 1997, 2003). The
reputation has been defined in various ways (Theus, 1993; Fombrun and van Riel, 1997;
Weiss, 1999). Reputation refers to “summary of the impressions or perceptions of a
company” or the views of both internal and external stakeholders (Chun, 2005).
Fombrun (1996) also said reputation is “the overall estimation in which a company is
held by its constituents” It also be understanding as the overall perception of a company,
what it stands for, what it is associated with, and what may be supposed to get when
buying the products or using the services of the company (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990;
MacMillan 2005). Many people view reputation as that can be formed by different
constituencies about many different entities such as products, brands, organizations or
institutions and even countries (Fombrun, 1996; Lemmink , 2003; and Passow , 2005).
For university reputation may be form by students with both their university college and
their specific study program (Selnes, 1993; Johnson, 2001; and MacMillan, 2005).
Reputation building is also looked upon as very important for attracting and
retaining students (Bush, 1998; Standifird, 2005). Mullin (1995) and Nesdale (1995)
highlighting that an attracted university lies with its reputation in the home country as a
recognized institution, it would be as the study destination of international students.
“Customer satisfaction is supposed to be positively related to corporate
reputation "(Selnes, 1993; Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998; Johnson et al., 2001).
While there were also have researchers proved that it is positively related to loyalty if a
26
student who get a favorable perception (Selnes, 1993; Johnson, 2001and MacMillan,
2005). Eskildsen (1999) also refers that reputation is really the one factor that has the
most influence on student loyalty in higher education.
Reputation is measured in many different ways (Fombrun, 1996; Lemmink,
2003; Helm, 2005). These ways are showed in the Table 2.3.5.1:
Table 2.3.5.1The ways that use to measure reputation
Name Measure items
Fombrun,(1996);
Chun, (2005)
University reputation
1. The students’ perception of the university college among her
/ his circle of acquaintances.
2. The students’ perception of the university college among the
general public.
3. The students’ perception of the university college among
employers.
Reputation of study program
1. The students’ perception of the university college among her
/ his circle of acquaintances.
2. The students’ perception of the university college among the
general public.
3. The students’ perception of the university college among
employers.
Helgesen and
Nesset(2007);
Thomas(2011)
1. The students’ perceptions of the general reputation of the
university college.
2. The students’ perceptions of the reputation of their chosen
study program at the university college.
27
In this study the reputation is measured by 6 items which describe in the questionnaire.
2.3.6 Foreign Customer Expectations
In the dominant paradigm in the Customer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction
literature, expectations are viewed as predictions made by customers about what would
happen during a future transaction or exchange. Olson and Dover (1979) defined
customer expectations are pretrial beliefs about a product of the customers that serve
as standards or reference points to use for judging product performance. Oliver (1981)
stated," It is generally agreed that expectations are consumer-defined probabilities of
the occurrence of positive and negative events if the consumer engages in some
behavior." Gigliotti (1987) states that expectation is “a prediction about what will happen
in some situation, it is a probability judgment based on previous learning” (Parasuraman,
Zeithaml, and Berry 1988) also defined expectation as customers’ desires or wants.
It is important for universities to learn the exact expectations of the students
since the higher education institutions can gain an important advantage to realize their
expectations and to manage those well by understanding the student expectations
(Voss, 2007).Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988, 1994) found that expectations
were an important moderating variable in the relationship between service quality and
customer satisfaction. O’Donnell (2011) also directly indicated that expectation becomes
an important concept in the quality terminology since expectation forms the reference
framework which is used to determine the satisfaction degree. Thus, satisfaction can
define as "Meeting the expectations or a judgment, an attitude or a psychological
28
situation resulted meeting those expectations". Satisfaction level is determined by the
difference between customer perceived service performances and customer expects
(Parasuraman，1986).
In the previous researches, the exactly of student expectations are showed
in many contexts. Davies (2002) points out that these student expectations include:
1. Provide a flexibility and choice of education
2. Provide a two way communication process between students and with the
university
3. Using the cutting edge technology
4. “Honesty with respect to whether their needs can be met or not”
And so on. In addition, another three student expectations are added (Long
and Tricker, 2004). They are including as following;
1. In the provision service, should provide quality and professionalism
2. A suitably qualified teachers and appropriate learning support
3. “Value of study to career prospects”
In this research, customer expectations are including three areas: service
quality, technology and learning environment. These three areas are the dimensions to
measure student expectation.
2.3.7 Service Quality
Service quality has been measure in many contexts, including service
industries such as hospitality (Saleh and Ryan, 1992), car servicing (Bouman and Wiele,
29
1992), banking (Kwon and Lee, 1994; Wong and Perry, 1991), and hospitals (Youssef,
1996). Besides these, service quality issues are also important to higher education
(Carter, 2009). Pariseau and McDaniel (1997) state, “Service quality is a newly
emerging field of concern, and is just starting to get the attention of higher education.”
Although there has been some researches in higher education area recently ，
understanding services in this area is still need to continue (Alves &Raposo, 2007;
Knapp & Krentler, 2006).
Service quality has been defined differently by many researchers.
Parasuraman (1988) defines service quality as “a function of the difference between
service expected and customers’ perceptions of the actual service delivered”. Kasper
(1999) indicated that service quality is “the extent to which the service, the service
process and the service organization can satisfy the expectations of the user”. But most
common definition of service quality is attitude, which results from a comparison of
customers’ expectations with perceptions of performance (Parasuraman, Berry and
Zeithaml 1985, Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry 1988). About quality in higher
education, the definitions of it have been collated by Sahney (2002); “value addition in
education” (Feigenbaum, 1951), “conformance of education output to planned goals,
specifications and requirements” (Gilmore, 1974; Crosby, 1979), “defect avoidance in
education process” (Crosby, 1979) and “excellence in education” (Peters and Waterman,
1982). Later, Parasuraman (1985) have defined quality in education as “meeting or
exceeding customer’s expectations of education”; and Reynolds (1986) and Tang and
30
Zairi (1998) have defined it as “fitness for purpose.” “Fitness of educational outcome
and experience for use” is the definition of quality in education given by Juran (1988).
In the services sector one of the important issues for business management
is perfect customer service and higher customer satisfaction. Service quality is defined
as the degree of meeting individual needs and expectations in every event or
experience (Hung, 2003). If a university’s education quality meets the student
expectations or in other words if the gap between the expectations and perceptions is
within the tolerance limit, it means that students are satisfied, students would make their
university's advertisement. In this situation, the potential of other students liking this
university increases (Smith and Hopkins, 2005; Laing, 2005).
2.3.8 Teacher
"Teacher is a role model for students. He/she is that person who transfers his/her
knowledge in students mind in a very systematic way" (Mohsin, 2011). A teacher is
someone who teaches or imparts knowledge, and the most importantly, a teacher is
someone responsible for shaping and molding the minds and hearts of all those whom
they teach (Bugwadia, 2010). Blair (1988) said that a professional teacher is a member
of a team, he /she acknowledges the expertise of other professionals and seeks their
advices or help when necessary.
Wyles (1998) said that teachers have received a comparatively positive student
evaluation in teaching. It is proved that teachers play an important role in the teaching
process in enhancing student learning (Nyquist et al., 1991). An effective teacher has
31
knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and skills, which develop authentic relationships with their
students. Chairs (1989) said that effective teaching is essentially connected with how
best to bring about the desired pupil learning by some educational activity. An effective
teacher improve student learning and lead to higher levels of student satisfaction with
their learning experiences at university.
2.3.9 Technology
Some people defined technology is the tool (Lincoln 2008; Terreri and
Simons, 2005). Similarly, there have been others authors agreed that“Technology is a
recognized part of the overall tools for supporting and enhancing teaching and learning”
(Mcvey, Murphy and Wook, 2006). While there also have some people point out that
technology is the system (Bransford, Brophy and Williams, 2000). For example,
interactive technology is to been called as audience- responsible system or student
system (Lincoln 2008; Terrei and Simons, 2005). Apart from these, there also have
people defined technology as a means. For example, interactive technology is a means
that use to improve undergraduate students’ satisfaction with a consumer behavior
course (Iyer and Eastman, 2011).
Hooper and Rieber (1995) pointed out that technology was divided into two
main types in education： “product technologies" and "idea technologies." Product
technologies include:" hardware, or machine-oriented, the technologies which people
most use in education have bath traditional equipment such as film strips, movies,
audiocassette player/ recorders and contemporary such as computers, software
32
technologies, and computer software. “In contrast, idea technologies do not have such
tangible forms. Of course idea technologies are usually represented in or through some
product technology.”
Using technology has been done research in many difference education
areas, only one kind technology- interactive technology has already been " used to
obtain feedback from a variety of different groups, including meeting attendees " (Hatch
2003; Krantz 2004) and students in a classroom (Kurdziel 2005). Davies (2002) also
points out that access technology is one of expectation of students. At university, for
now most of postgraduate courses including philosophy, mathematics, engineering,
architecture, physics, computer science, psychology, and medicine require using
computers. It can be said like this that a high education institutions within modern and
adequate computer facilities can enhance the attractiveness of universities among
students (Carnaghan and Webb, 2005; Merritt 2000; Arambewela and Hall, 2009).
There are not only people said that using technology pays a key role in the satisfaction
of students (Harvey, 2001). Iyer and Eastman (2011) also point out that using
technology is the ways that can keep students’ attention, encourage better preparation
for class and improve students’ attitudes and satisfaction.
2.3.10 Learning Environment
Over the past twenty years, learning environment researching has become a
firmly established form in research on teaching and learning (Fraser, 1998; Fraser &
Walberg, 1991; Haertel, Walberg & Haertel, 1981). Different people give learning
33
environment with different meaning. Hannafin, Land and Oliver, (1999) said learning
environments are ‘typically constructivist in nature, engaging learners in "sense-making"
or reasoning about extensive resource sets’. It consists of at least four components: an
enabling context, resources, a set of tools, and scaffolds. Khalid and Rehman (2010)
described learning environment as “conducive environment, participation encouraged,
well structured course, satisfactory classrooms”. Elsevier (2009) defined learning
environment as “the sum of the internal and external circumstances and influences
surrounding and affecting a person's learning.”
Recently learning environment has been done survey in many fields,
including student expectation, English language course, and E-learning (Tricker, 2002;
Khalid and Rehman, 2010; Orvis and Brusso, 2011). In other words, learning
environment is very important. There is a significant relationship between the student
satisfaction and learning environment (Rand, 1968). Thus, when analyzing student
satisfaction, both internal environment and external environment of campus must be
considered in it (Navarro,Iglesias andTorres 2005).
About learning environment, for now students expects a flexible learning
environment, due to many students work part time while studying in university (Tricker,
2002). It is important for universities to learn the exact expectations of the students
since the higher education institutions can gain an important advantage to realize their
expectations and to manage those well by understanding the student expectations
(Voss, 2007).
34
2.3.11 University accommodation
Accommodation refers to buildings or rooms where people live or stay. While
University accommodation in this study is understood as accommodation that is located
on or near campus and is administered by the university or an affiliated body (Paltridge,
Mayson and Schapper, 2010). University accommodation is different with family housing.
"University accommodation comprises of basic bedroom units with other shared facilities
such as bathrooms, toilets, laundry, kitchens, common lounges and cafeterias located
either per floor level, per block or for the whole student housing accommodation"(Amole,
2009).
In regard to accommodation, International students expect university provide
student accommodation with minimum standards of comfort and at reasonable cost. It is
also an expectation that such student accommodation is available when required
(Arambewela and Hall, 2008). In addition, there some studies suggest that living in
university accommodation may have a positive impact on the experiences of
international students. Forbes-Mewitt and Nyland (2008) are also said that when the
international students arrival in their host country, the international students would
benefit from living in university accommodation. Daryl LeGrew, the lead Vice-Chancellor
on international issues for UA, also has expressed that university accommodation is
safer than alternative forms of accommodation (Banham & Gilmore, 2009).
35
2.4 Literature Framework
For finishing this study, there are more than 60 papers have been studied. The
relevant theories and other information which is present at above are come from figure
2.4.1 literature framework. About 60 papers’ variables are form this literature framework.
Furthermore, in the research, foreign student expectation, foreign student satisfaction,
university reputation and the foreign student loyalty are choose to be the variable for
study and all these variables are organized the conceptual framework( see in the figure
2.5.1).
36
37
37
2.5 Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of this study is constructed basis of the previously
theories which have been presented above and according to the objective of the research.
A crucial influence is drawn from the model linking foreign student loyalty to foreign
student satisfaction and reputation of the university combines with foreign student
expectation.
38
Figure 2.5.1 Conceptual Framework
Service quality
Teacher
Technology
Foreign student expectation
Foreign student satisfaction
Foreign student loyalty
Reputation Retention WOM
39
Learning environment
University accommodation
Service quality
Teacher Technology Learning environment
University accommodation
University reputation
Reputation of study program
39
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter includes information about the methodology of the
study. It consists of following items:
3.1 Research Design
3.1.1 Population and Sample
3.2 Variable of the Research
3.3 Research Instrument
3.4 Reliability and Validity
3.5 Data Collected
3.6 Data Analysis
40
3.1 Research Design
The study was completed by using quantitative research method by collecting
primary data which according to the objectives of the study. In order to finish the
research, the information was compiled from the foreign students who studying in three
universities in Bangkok. These three universities are Assumption University (ABAC),
Hua Chiew Chalermprakiest University (HCU) and The University of the Thai Chamber
of Commerce (UTCC). The ABAC is the university which has highest number of
international students. HCU is the first and the only one university in Thailand which
runs by the founded that contributes by Chinese. It is the only one university that
received the name and presided the opening ceremony by Thailand Bhumibol Emperor
His Majesty. The motto of it is “Training personnel to serve the community “. While
UTCC, originally known as the College of Commerce, is the private university that was
founded by the Thai Chamber of Commerce in 1940 to provide education for business
to Thai youth. On October 24, 1984, this institution was accredited as a university and
the name was changed to the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce. The vision
of it is being one of the leading universities in education for business in the Asia. As of
January 2007, UTCC has 19,472 undergraduate and 1,710 graduate students. This total
number includes international students from different countries. It is being the reliable
source of academic services in the area of business for the society.
41
3.1.1 Population & Sample
The samples were selected by sampling from the foreign student who was
studying in 2011. With the source of the list of Thai universities’ names showed in the
appendix 1, there were totally 79 universities in Thailand. In this study, this three target
universities: ABAC, HCU and UTCC.
According the total number of the foreign students studying in Thailand were
20155, the numbers of samples were calculating from number of population by using
the formula of Yamane (1973)
n =
When e = Deviation of random sampling
N = Number of population unit
n = Size of sampling population
Set sampling deviation to 5 percents or 0.05 therefore
n = ,
, .
= 392
Size of sampling = 392 foreign students
In this research, sampling size is at least 392 students
42
Table3.1.1 The sampling size of each group
University Total Number of sampling of each
group
Percentage
ABAC 4,179 281 69%
HCU 235 63 16%
UTCC 217 62 15%
Total 4,631 406 100%
Source: Foreign students in Thai Higher Education Institutions in 2011.
3.2 Variable of the research
The variable of the research in this study includes two parts: dependent
variable and independent variable.
Dependent variable
Dependent variables: foreign student satisfaction and the five measure
variables service quality, teacher, technology, learning environment and university
accommodation, reputation, foreign student loyalty, and the two measure variables:
retention and word of mouth were measured by using one item that required responds
on a five-point Likert-scale where “1”= the least favorable responds alternative (Highly
dissatisfied/very poor reputation/never recommended etc.) and “5”= the most favorable
response alternative (very satisfied/very good reputation/strongly recommend etc.)
43
Independent variable
Independent variables: student expectation and the five measure variables-
service quality, teacher, technology, learning environment and university accommodation
were measured by using one item that required responds on a five-point Likert-scale
where “1”= the least favorable responds alternative (Highly dissatisfied/ very poor
reputation/never recommended etc.) and “5”= the most favorable response alternative
(very satisfied/very good reputation/strongly recommend etc.)
The variable were divided into latent variables and observed variables.
Observed variables were external variables, which could be measured through the
questionnaires which collected from respondents. Moreover, latent variable were internal
variables, which could not be measured by questionnaires data without observed
variables.
3.3 Research instrument
In this study, the research instrument use for collecting data was the
questionnaires. It composes of five parts:
Part 1 General background information sampling consisted of question about gender,
age, nationality, university, and faculty, the level of education, year.
Part 2 Question about the arrangement of the important level among the five variables
(service quality, teacher, technology, learning environment and university accommodation).
Part 3 Questions about student loyalty:
44
In this study, student loyalty is measured by two dimensions. One is word-
of-mouth, another is attention. For WOM, one of the three items of Bettencourt (1997): I
say positive things about this university to others is be add. And another three items are
including in the questionnaire. For the retention, four items are being showed in the
questionnaire: I would keep studying in this university; I would update my knowledge in
this university in future. I would not reduce the number of course until graduation. I
would not drop out from this school until graduation. Thus, there are totally 8 items be
described in the questionnaire.
Part 4 Questions about reputation:
In this study the university reputation is measured by 6 items of Fomburn,
(1996) and Chun, (2005).
Part 5 Questions about student expectation and perception:
In this part of the study, service quality, teacher, technology, learning
environment and university accommodation are the dimensions of the foreign student
expectation and perception. Totally 23 items of each are be described in the
questionnaire. In this study, foreign student satisfaction is measured by foreign student
perception minus foreign student expectation.
3.4 Reliability and Validity
Validity Test
Validity concerns the test and assessment procedures and the extent to which
these measure what they purpose to measure. It refers to the degree to which evidence
45
and theory support the interpretations of test scores entailed by proposed uses of tests.
The validity of this instrument was checked by using index of Item-Objective
Congruence (IOC) developed by Rovinelli and Hambleton, (1997).
The validity test was the items-Objective Congruence (IOC) > 0.75 (Hair et
al., 2006). IOC is a process to content the experts’ rate the individual items on the scale
to the question which used to measure the exact objectives of the individual items on
the scale. The content experts evaluated the validity of each research instruments, the
items are done with a ranging of +1 (for congruence or for clearly measuring), 0 (for the
measure with unclear), and -1 (for congruence or for not measuring) as pursues each
objectives.
The IOC test was done by three persons of the lecturers who helped making
comments, giving scores, reviewing and making corrections.
Here is an index evaluation (Revinelli and Hambleton, 1997);
Over 0.75 – the items are valid
Equal 0.75 – the items with objective congruence
Below 0.75 – the items are invalid
The index of IOC was used as follows (Hair et al, 2006):
IOC =∑
46
Table 3.4.1 Item – Objective congruence result
Item Variable IOC results
1 Foreign student loyalty
WOM 0.833
Retention 0.833
2 University Reputation 1
Reputation Of Study Program 1
3 Foreign student expectation
Service Quality 1
Teacher 1
Technology 0.75
Learning Environment 1
University Accommodation 0.833
The IOC result shows that the variables have rating greater than 0.75 cut-off
index which range from 0.75 to 1. Therefore, the questions are considered valid and it
measures the research objectives.
After the pretest, the questionnaires used in the thesis were modified
according to latest information, opinions and recommendations given by foreign
students who are studying in three universities.
47
Reliability Test
The reliability of the questionnaires was measured by using the Cronbach's
Alpha coefficient; it indicates the level of the items is correlated to each another. It
establishes the internal reliability of the questionnaire responses (Fink and
Jaruwacgirathanakul, 2005). The Cronbach's Alpha value with greater than 0.7 will be
reliable enough used in the data collection. The score in the table 3.4.2 was ranked
from 0.703 to 0.870; it can imply that the data were acceptable.
Table 3.4.2 Reliability test using Cronbach’s alpha
Factor N of Item
Cronbach’s
alpha
(pretest 1)
Cronbach’s
alpha
(find)
Word-of-mouth (WOM) 3 0.882 0.870
Retention (R) 4 0.772 0.770
Reputation (RP) 3 0.796 0.812
Reputation of Study Program
(ROSP) 3 0.765 0.784
Service Quality (SQ) 5 0.924 0.806
Teacher (T) 7 0.857 0.833
Technology (Ty) 4 0.706 0.703
Learning Environment (LE) 3 0.885 0.705
University Accommodation (UA) 4 0.946 0.769
48
3.5 Data collection
Data for this research was collected through questionnaires. The
questionnaires were directed from 406 sampling foreign students with 3 universities,
Assumption University (ABAC), Hua Chiew Chalermprakiest University (HCU) and The
University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce (UTCC).
For the objective of this study, the respondent was sample from various
foreign students who studying in three universities: Assumption University (ABAC), Hua
Chiew Chalermprakiest University (HCU) and The University of the Thai Chamber of
Commerce (UTCC). All the questionnaires were distributed by researcher. The
researchers distributed 500 sets of questionnaires to foreign students who studying in
the three target universities. The response rate is 81.2%.
3.6 Data analysis
Five point Likert scale being one of the most reliable measurement scales
and very popular in Thailand, this scale is applied to the present study. Interval with five
point scale is calculated using the following formula,
(5-1)/5=0.80
Based on the above calculation, the scores fall between the ranges of:
4.21-5.00 are considered as strongly agree
3.41-4.20 are considered as agree
2.61- 3.40 are considered as neutral
1.81- 2.60 are considered as disagree
49
1.00- 1.80 are considered as strongly disagree
In the data analysis part of this study, for the personal data which was
collected and was analysis with descriptive statistic. The confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) and correlations were conducted to evaluate the underlying structure follows the
data using statistical program.
Structure Equation Model (SEM) is used to examine the postulated
hypothesis (research questions). The structural relationships among foreign student
expectation, foreign student satisfaction, university reputation and foreign student loyalty
were analyzed by LISREL 8.8 (Joreskog and Sorbom 2006).The purpose of LISREL 8.8
is using to evaluate the goodness of fit, as the absolute fit indices like chi-square ( ),
goodness of fit index (GFI), and average goodness of fit index (AGFI), and root means
square error of approximation (RMSEA) index is used. In addition, good-of-fit also
incremental and decrement indices such as norm fit index (NFI), non-norm fit index
(NNFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and norm chi-square ( ) are used to assess the
goodness-of-fit.
50
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
In this chapter presents the results of analysis and the interpretation of the
data obtained from the research questionnaires based on the conceptual framework
which we mentioned in previous chapters. Both descriptive and the statistical tools were
used to analyze the findings of the study. This chapter would describe the points as
below:
4.1 Demographic Characteristic
4.2 Analysis of the Level of Agreement
4.3 Data Analysis and Findings
4.3.1 Correlation Analysis
4.3.2 Factor analysis
4.3.3 Structural Equation Model (SEM)
4.3.4 Hypothesis Testing
51
4.1 Demographic Characteristic
In the table, there are 7 main items were considered in the statistic, which are
gender, age group, nationality, university, faculty, education level and studying year.
In the first category, the most participated in the survey are male with 57.10%
of respondents, while the percentage of female participated in the survey is 42.9%.
In the terms of age, the most respondents for age category are between 21 to
25 years old being 56.40% of the total number of respondents. The second more
respondents for age category are between 16 to 20 years old being 33.30% while the
age between 26 or more years being 10.30% as the least respondents for age category.
In the terms of nationality, Chinese was the largest group of responded
sample responding by 44.30%. While Indian, Vietnamese, USA and Japanese are
6.40%, 4.70%, 4.20%, and 2.00%. At the same time, there are 38.40% respondents are
from other countries.
In the terms of university, there is 69.20% of respondents are from ABAC,
15.50% of respondents are from UTCC and 15.30% are the foreign students of HCU.
For the terms of faculty, there are 47.30% of respondents are studying in
business administration, 18.70% of respondents are studying in art, 7.65% of
respondents are studying in engineering, 6.90% of respondents are studying in
marketing, 1.20% of respondents are studying in accounting while there are 18.20% of
respondents are studying in other faculty.
In the terms of education level, there is 80.04% of respondents are bachelor
degree, 18.97% are master degree while only 0.99% are in doctoral.
52
For the terms of studying year, there is 30.30% of respondents are studying in
the first year, 26.40% of respondents are studying in the second year, 25.40% of
respondents are studying in the third year while 18% of respondents are studying the
fourth year or over. The numbers of respondents in each category are show in the table
4.1.
Table 4.1 Respondent characteristics
Characteristics Number of Samples (406) Percentage
Gender Male 232 57.10% Female 174 42.90%
Age 16 – 20 135 33.30% 21 – 25 229 56.40%
26 or over 42 10.30%
Nationality
Chinese 180 44.30% Indian 26 6.40%
Vietnamese 19 4.70% USA 17 4.20%
Japanese 8 2.00% Other 156 38.40%
University ABAC 281 69.20% UTCC 63 15.50% HCU 62 15.30%
Faculty
Business administration 192 47.30% Art 76 18.70%
Marketing 28 6.90% Engineering 31 7.65% Accounting 5 1.20%
Other 74 18.20%
Education level Bachelor degree 325 80.04% Master degree 77 18.97% Doctoral degree 4 0.99%
Year 1st year 123 30.30% 2ed year 107 26.40% 3rd year 103 25.40%
4th or over 73 18.00%
53
4.2 Analysis of the Level of Agreement
An analysis demonstrates degree of agreement of the respondents on foreign
student expectation, foreign student satisfaction, foreign student loyalty and university
reputation being shown in Table 4.2. In addition, an analysis demonstrates degree of
important of the respondents on the five factors: service quality, teacher, technology,
learning environment and university accommodation being shown in table 4.3.
Based on the table 4.2, the results indicated that the respondents totally
agree with foreign student loyalty, university reputation and foreign student expectation,
which coming from the mean value of foreign student loyalty is 3.86 and SD. is 0.90.
Which with the mean value of reputation is 3.71 and SD. is 0.89. And with the mean
value of foreign student expectation is 3.93 and SD. is 0.91. For the foreign student
satisfaction, the respondents are neutral with the foreign student satisfaction which with
mean value of satisfaction is 2.83 and the SD. is 1.01.
Table 4.2 Level of agreement of foreign student loyalty, university reputation,
foreign student expectation and foreign student satisfaction.
Factor Mean Std.
Deviation
Level of
Agreement
Foreign student loyalty 3.86 0.90 agree
Reputation 3.71 0.89 agree
Foreign student expectation 3.93 0.91 agree
Foreign student satisfaction 2.83 1.01 neutral
54
Based on the table 4.3, the results indicated that the level of important
among service quality, teacher, technology, learning environment and university
accommodation are totally important to respondents. Which with the mean value of
service quality is 3.96 and SD. is 0.87. With the mean value of teacher is 4.12, and SD.
is 0.86. With the mean value of technology is 4.06 and SD. is 0.82. With the mean
value of learning environment is 4.19 and SD. is 0.82. And with the mean value of
accommodation is 3.84 and SD. is 0.87.
Table 4.3 Level important of among the five variables
Factor Mean Std. Deviation Level of Important
Service quality 3.96 0.87 important
Teacher 4.12 0.86 important
Technology 4.06 0.82 important
Learning environment 4.19 0.82 important
Accommodation 3.84 0.87 important
4.3 Data Analysis and Findings
The data analysis was included the progress of model adjustment, correlation
analysis, hypothesis testing and summary of the hypothesis result.
In this study, all the variables used for analysis performed as following table
4.4.
55
Table 4.4 Definition of Variables
Latent Variables Observed Variables
SE Foreign student expectation
AVGESQ SQ1- SQ5 AVGET T1 - T7 AVGETy Ty1 - Ty4 AVGELE LE1 - LE3 AVGEUA UA1 - UA4
SS Foreign student satisfaction
AVGSSQ SQ1- SQ5 AVGST T1 - T7 AVGSTy Ty1 - Ty4 AVGSLE LE1 - LE3 AVGSUA UA1 - UA4
UR Reputation AVGUR UR1 – UR3 AVGROSP ROSP1 – ROSP3
SL Foreign student loyalty
AVGWOM WOM1 WOM2 WOM3
AVGR
R1 R2 R3 R4
4.3.1 Correlation Analysis
Correlation is a statistical tool to measure strength of relationship between two
variables. It can be used to measure a liner relation between two or more variables. A
sign and an absolute vale correlation coefficient r are used to describe a direction and a
magnitude of the relationship between two variables. However, usages of correlation in
this study are list as follows:
4.3.1.1 A value of the correlation coefficient r ranges between -1 to 1.
4.3.1.2 The greater the absolute value of correlation coefficient, the stronger the
relationship.
56
4.3.1.3 The weakest relationship is indicated by correlation coefficient equal to 0.
4.3.1.4 The positive correlation means if one variable becomes bigger, the other
variable tends to directly become bigger too (direct relation).
4.3.1.5 The negative correlation means if one variable becomes bigger, the other
variable tends to inversely become smaller (inverse relation).
A correlation matrix in table 4.5 shows relationship among foreign student
expectation, foreign student satisfaction, reputation and foreign student loyalty. An
interpretation of the correlations is based on a significant of the correlation among the
independent variables.
The foreign student satisfaction (SS) based on the correlation matrix as
tabulated in Table 4.6, and the correlation is significant at 0.01 levels. It has positive
correlation with reputation (r= 0.32, p= 0.01), foreign student loyalty (r=0.40, p=0.01). It
has negative correlation with foreign student expectation (r=-0.39, p=0.01).
The reputation (RP) has significant correlation at 0.01 levels. It has positive
correlation with foreign student loyalty (r=0.71, p=0.01). The reputation has negative
correlation with foreign student expectation (r=-0.13, p=0.01).
The foreign student loyalty (SL) has significant correlation at 0.01 levels. It
has negative correlation with foreign student expectation (r=-0.16, p=0.01).
Conclusively, the correlation matrix revealed that all the variables specified
above were related and significant with each other such as foreign student expectation
related with reputation, foreign student loyalty and foreign student expectation. While
57
the reputation related with foreign student loyalty and foreign student expectation. And
foreign student loyalty related with foreign student expectation.
Table 4.5 Correlation matrix
SS RP SL SE
SS 1.00
RP 0.32** 1.00
SL 0.40** 0.71** 1.00
SE -0.39** -0.31** -0.16** 1.00
Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
4.3.2 Factor Analysis
In this study, the factor analysis shows in table 4.6. The first variable to be
tested by factor analysis is foreign student expectation which consisting five
components: service quality, teacher, technology, learning environment and university
accommodation. The second variable is foreign student satisfaction which consists of
five components which are service quality, teacher, technology, learning environment
and university accommodation. The third variable is reputation consists of two
components: university reputation and reputation of study program. The last variable is
foreign student loyalty consists of 2 components: word-of-mouth and retention.
Table 4.6 present the information about how much the variable in items
explained. Hair, (1998) argued that the item does not fit well with other items in its
component when the communities’ value with less than 0.3. The communalities for this
58
study in the table 4.6 range from 0.329 to 0.878. While component of foreign student
expectation have values range from 0.597 to 0.744, foreign student satisfaction
components range from 0.329 to 0.577, reputation components range from 0.854 to
0.878 and foreign student loyalty components range from 0.771 to 0.804 where all the
degree of confidence in the factor solution is permissible.
Table 4.6 Extraction of communalities
Variables Components Initial Extraction
Foreign student expectation
AVGESQ 1 0.649 AVGET 1 0.744 AVGETy 1 0.647 AVGELE 1 0.597 AVGEUA 1 0.646
Foreign student satisfaction
AVGSSQ 1 0.568 AVGST 1 0.577 AVGSTy 1 0.335 AVGSLE 1 0.498 AVGSUA 1 0.329
Reputation AVGUR 1 0.878 AVGROSP 1 0.854
Foreign student loyalty AVGWOM 1 0.771 AVGR 1 0.804
Table 4.7 shows the information about the initial eigenvalues (statistic for
each factor before) and rotation sums of squared loadings (after the components were
extracted) for each factor.
The before rotation of the component, foreign student expectation accounted
the percentage of variance for 65.581% while after rotation accounted the percentage
of variance for 65.673%. Foreign student satisfaction accounted the percentage of
variance for 44.692% while after rotation accounted the percentage of variance for
59
44.148%. Reputation accounted the percentage of variance for 86.641% while after
rotation accounted the percentage of variance for 86.594%. Foreign student loyalty
accounted the percentage of variance for 78.792% while after rotation accounted the
percentage of variance for 78.746%.
Table 4.7 Total variance explained
Model Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings Total % of
variance Cumulative % total % of variance cumulative%
Foreign student
expectation 1.818 65.581 65.581 3.284 65.673 65.673
Foreign student
satisfaction 1.243 44.692 44.692 2.207 44.148 44.148
Reputation 0.970 86.641 86.641 1.732 86.594 86.594 Foreign student loyalty
0.903 78.792 78.792 1.575 78.746 78.746
Table 4.8 revealed that AVGESQ, AVGET, AVGETy, AVGELE and AVGEUA
are rotated significantly in component one and are grouped in foreign student
expectation (SE) factor. The factor loading for SE factor has loading of 0.767, 0.735,
0.491, 0.712 and 0.634 respectively for AVGESQ, AVGET, AVGETy, AVGELE and
AVGEUA.
Secondly, AVGSSQ, AVGST, AVGSTy, AVGSLE and AVGUA are rotated
significantly in component two and are grouped in foreign student satisfaction (SS). The
factor loading for SS has loading of 0.754, 0.760, 0.484, 0.706 and 0.574 respectively
for AVGSSQ, AVGST, AVGSTy, AVGSLE and AVGUA.
60
Thirdly, AVGUR and AVGROSP are rotated significantly in component three
and are grouped in reputation (RP). The factor loading for RP has loading of 0.937 and
0.924 respectively for AVGUR, and AVGROSP.
Lastly, AVGWOM and AVGR are rotated significantly in component four and
are grouped in foreign student loyalty (SL) factor. The factor loading for SL factor has
loading of 0.878 and 0.897respectively for AVGWOM and AVGR.
Table 4.8 Summarized result of rotated analysis
No. Component Variable
Factor loadings
Favtor1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
1 Foreign student expectation
AVGESQ 0.767 AVGET 0.735 AVGETy 0.491 AVGELE 0.712 AVGEUA 0.634
2 Foreign student satisfaction
AVGSSQ 0.754 AVGST 0.760 AVGSTy 0.484 AVGSLE 0.706 AVGSUA 0.574
3 Reputation AVGUR 0.937
AVGROSP 0.924 4 Foreign student loyalty
AVGWOM 0.878 AVGR 0.897
61
4.3.3 Structural Equation Model (SEM)
For the purpose of testing the research model showed in Figure 4.1 the
structural equation model was performed to investigate the relationship between the
criterion variable foreign student loyalty and the respective predictor variables of foreign
student satisfaction and university reputation.
Base on the Goodness of fitness statistics, compared with the standard value,
the analysis model was sufficiently matched with the conceptual framework of this study.
It is clearly shows that the Chi-Square as 12.80, with p-value as 0.80, which was
absolutely much than the standard as more than 0.05.
Secondly, the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) represents overall degree of fit
without adjusting for degree of freedom. The standard need the value approached to 1.
The Goodness of fitness of this research is 0.99. The Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index
(AGFI) of this study was 0.97 were almost approached to 1.
The standardized root mean square (RMR) is the standardized difference
between the observed covariance and predicted covariance. The standard need SMR
approached to 0. RMR is zero indicates the model perfect fit with the conceptual
framework. The RMR of this study was 0.012. For the standard of root means square
error approximation (RMSEA) also need to approached to 0. In this study RMSEA was
0.00, represents perfect fit. The result was matching the conceptual framework of this
study.
62
Table 4.9 Goodness of fit Statistic
FIT Index Acceptable threshold levels Value
Chi-square relative to df with p-value (0.05)
Chi-square: 12.80
P-value = 0.80
(RMSEA) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation Values < 0.05 0.00
(GFI) Goodness of Fit Index Values > 0.95 0.99 (AGFI) Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index Values > 0.95 0.97
(RMR) Root Mean Square Residual Good model have small RMR 0.012
Note: 1. df = Degree of Freedom
2. p = Normal Theory Weighted Least Squares Chi-Square
Table 4.10 shows the parameters of statistic analysis. There are 4 parts in
this section: LAMBDA-X, LAMBDA-Y, GAMMA and BETA. LAMBDA-X tell the weight of
how the X side, namely, the X side is the latent variable foreign student expectation, or
SE in table 4.5, then as the observed variables could measure the related latent
variables. SE has five observed variables. The service quality (AVGESQ) had weight of
0.60 (st=0.60, SE= 0.05, t= 11.60) of the measurement on foreign student expectation,
which indicated that the level of positive side of service quality could present the 60% of
positive level of foreign student expectation. The teacher (AVGET) had weight of 0.69
(st=0.69, SE=0.06 and t=11.74) of the measurement on foreign student expectation,
which could be described that the level of positive side of teacher could present the 69%
of positive level of foreign student expectation. The technology (AVGETy) had weight of
63
0.51 (st=0.51, SE=0.05 and t=10.54) of the measurement on foreign student expectation,
which could be described that the level of positive side of technology could present the
51% of positive level of foreign student expectation. The learning environment (AVGELE)
had weight of 0.42 (st=0.42, SE=0.05 and t=9.04) of the measurement on foreign
student expectation, which could be described that the level of positive side of learning
environment could present the 42% of positive level of foreign student expectation. The
university accommodation (AVGEUA) had weight of 0.46 (st=0.46, SE=0.05 and t=9.61)
of the measurement on foreign student expectation, which could be described that the
level of positive side of university accommodation could present the 46% of positive
level of foreign student expectation.
Secondly, for the parameters of statistic on LAMBDA-Y, there were 13
observed variables, which were distribute as 5 dimensions for foreign student
satisfaction, 6 dimensions for reputation and 2 dimensions for foreign student loyalty
(same as table 4.5 below). The service quality (AVGSSQ) had weight of 0.56 (st=0.56)
of the measurement on foreign student satisfaction, which indicated that the level of
positive side of service quality could present the 56% of positive level of foreign student
satisfaction. The teacher (AVGST) had weight of 0.56 (st=0.56, SE=0.11 and t=5.17) of
the measurement on foreign student satisfaction, which could be described that the
level of positive side of teacher could present the 56% of positive level of foreign
student satisfaction. The technology (AVGSTy) had weight of 0.30 (st=0.30, SE=0.07
and t=4.26) of the measurement on foreign student satisfaction, which could be
described that the level of positive side of technology could present the 30% of positive
64
level of foreign student satisfaction. The learning environment (AVGSLE) had weight of
0.58 (st=0.58, SE=0.14 and t=4.21) of the measurement on foreign student satisfaction,
which could be described that the level of positive side of learning environment could
present the 58% of positive level of foreign student satisfaction. The university
accommodation (AVGSUA) had weight of 0.26 (st=0.26, SE=0.06 and t=4.14) of the
measurement on foreign student satisfaction, which could be described that the level of
positive side of university accommodation could present the 26% of positive level of
foreign student satisfaction.
Thirdly, the reputation (AVGRP) had weight of 0.64 (st=0.64) of the
measurement on reputation, which indicated that the level of positive side of reputation
could present the 64% of positive level of reputation. The Reputation of study program
(AVGROSP) had weight of 0.63 (st=0.63, SE=0.04 and t=14.46) of the measurement on
reputation, which could be described that the level of positive side of Reputation of
study program could present the 63% of positive level of reputation.
The word-of-mouth (AVGWOM) had weight of 0.62 (st=0.62) of the
measurement on foreign student loyalty, which indicated that the level of positive side of
WOM could present the 62% of positive level of foreign student loyalty. The retention
(AVGR) had weight of 0.53 (st=0.53, SE=0.05 and t=11.33) of the measurement on
foreign student loyalty, which could be described that the level of positive side of word-
of-mouth could present the 53% of positive level of foreign student loyalty.
Fourth, the parameter of BETA was the level of weight that the endogenous
variable as independent variable (which was foreign student satisfaction) could measure
65
the endogenous variables as dependent variable (which was reputation and foreign
student loyalty). Hence the BETA was on foreign student satisfaction, reputation and
foreign student loyalty. The foreign student satisfaction (SS) had weight of 0.32 (st=0.32,
SE= 0.09, t= 3.57) of measurement on reputation, which could be described that the
level of positive side of foreign student satisfaction could present the 32% of positive
level of reputation. The foreign student satisfaction (SS) had weight of 0.20 (st=0.20,
SE= 0.08 t= 2.47) of measurement on foreign student loyalty, which could be described
that the level of positive side of foreign student satisfaction could present the 20% of
positive level of foreign student loyalty. In this part of this study, reputation also as
independent variable could measure the endogenous variables as dependent variable
(which was foreign student loyalty). Therefore the BETA was on reputation and foreign
student loyalty. The reputation (RP) had weight of 0.64 (st=0.64, SE= 0.06, t= 10.25) of
measurement on foreign student loyalty, which could be described that the level of
positive side of university reputation could present the 64% of positive level of foreign
student loyalty.
Finally, for GAMMA parameters, which was present the weight of exogenous
variables, or the foreign student expectation in this study, could measure the related
endogenous variable (which were foreign student satisfaction in this study). The foreign
student expectation (SE) had weight of 0.39 (st=0.39, SE= 0.07, t= 5.38) of
measurement on foreign student satisfaction, which could be described that the level of
positive side of foreign student expectation could present the 39% of positive level of
foreign student satisfaction.
66
Table 4.10 Parameters of Statistic table
Variables Factor Loading b Std. Solution
SE t
Measurement Model LAMBDA-Y SS AVGSSQ 0.56 0.56 --- --- AVGST AVGSTy AVGSLE AVGSUA
0.56 0.30 0.58 0.26
0.56 0.30 0.58 0.26
0.11 0.07 0.14 0.06
5.17 4.26 4.21 4.14
UR AVGUR AVGROSP
0.64 0.63
0.64 0.63
--- 0.04
--- 14.46
SL AVGWOM AVGR
0.62 0.53
0.62 0.53
--- 0.05
--- 11.33
LAMBDA-X SE AVGESQ 0.60 0.60 0.05 11.60
AVGET 0.69 0.69 0.06 11.74 AVGETy AVGELE AVGEUA
0.51 0.42 0.46
0.51 0.42 0.46
0.05 0.05 0.05
10.54 9.04 9.61
BETA SS UR 0.32 0.32 0.09 3.57 SL 0.20 0.20 0.08 2.47 UR SL 0.64 0.64 0.06 10.25 GAMMA SE SS 0.39 0.39 0.07 5.38 Note: LAMBDA= relationship between observed variables; BETA= relationship to dependent variables; GAMMA= relationship from independent variables; b= LISREL Estimate (Maximun Likelihood); St = completely standardized solution; SE= erron; t= regression co efficiency
67
The analysis was using LISREL 8.8 (Joreskog and Sorbom 2006) to
accomplish. The LISREL model assumes that casual structure among the set of
dependent and independent variable are specified. There are set of observed variable
and latent variables, that the latent variable appear the all of the observed variable. The
straight arrows depict the effect of independent variables on the dependent variables.
The absolute fit measure which is a combination of increment fit measure
and parsimonious fit measure are used to test the model. The absolute fit measure
determines the degree to which the all model predicts the observed correlation or
covariance matrix and the incremental fit measure compare the proposed measure to
some baseline model referred to as the null model. The parsimonious fit measure relates
the goodness of fit of the model into the number of estimated coefficient required to
achieve the level of fit. The maximum likelihood parameter estimate and overall maximum
goodness of fit for the model were used to determine the path of variable. The maximum
likelihood estimation (MLE) is ordinarily manipulated in structural equation models.
The researcher can develop a lot of structural equation to construct the
structural model and can be used for testing the hypothesis. The structural equation of
this study can be show in table 4.11.
Table 4.11, the foreign student expectation has negative direct effect to
foreign student satisfaction at 0.39, and has negative indirect effect to university
reputation at 0.13 and also has both negative indirect effect to foreign student loyalty at
0.16, hence foreign student expectation has significant in structural model.
68
The foreign student satisfaction has a positive direct effect to university
reputation at 0.32, and also has both positive indirect effects to foreign student loyalty at
0.21 and direct effect to foreign student loyalty at 0.19. It implies that foreign student
satisfaction has a significant and direct effect to structural model.
In addition, university reputation has a positive direct effect to foreign student
loyalty at 0.64. It can describe that university has significant in structural model.
Table 4.11 The Standardized total effect, direct effect and indirect effect.
Effect Cause
SS UR SL
TE IE DE TE IE DE TE IE DE
SE
-0.39 0.00 -0.39 -0.13 -0.13 0.00 -0.16 -0.16 0.00
Effect Cause
UR SL
TE IE DE TE IE DE
SS
0.32 0.00 0.32 0.40 0.21 0.19
Effect Cause
SL TE IE DE
UR
0.64 0.00 0.64
Note: TE = effect DE = direct total effect ID = indirect effect
The full structural model shown in Figure 4.1 represents for the final model of
the foreign student loyalty to study in Thailand. It was derived from the six hypotheses
since the proposed measurement relationships were consistent with the data.
69
Figure 4.1 The full structural model
70
70
Note:
1. AVGESQ= average of foreign student expectation in service quality
2. AVGET= average of foreign student expectation in teacher
3. AVGETy= average of foreign student expectation in technology
4. AVGELE= average of foreign student expectation in learning environment
5. AVGEUA= average of foreign student expectation in university accommodation
6. AVGSSQ= average of foreign student satisfaction in service quality
7. AVGST= average of foreign student satisfaction in teacher
8. SE= foreign student expectation
9. SS= foreign student satisfaction
10. SL= foreign student loyalty
11. UR= reputation
12. AVGSTy= average of foreign student satisfaction in technology
13. AVGSLE= average of foreign student satisfaction in learning environment
14. AVGSUA= average of foreign student satisfaction in university accommodation
4.3.4 Hypothesis Testing
The summary of path analysis for hypothesis testing or relationship among
the latent variables was presented as following table 4.12:
Hypothesis 1:
Ho: Foreign student loyalty model is not fit.
Ha: Foreign student loyalty model is fit.
71
Base on the data of table 4.10, the Chi-square of this study is 12.80 and the
p-value of this study is 0.80 which was absolutely much than the standard as more than
0.05, Therefore, the Ho that foreign student loyalty model is not fit was rejected. Thus,
this supported the Ha, which proved foreign student loyalty model is fit.
Hypothesis 2:
Ho: Foreign student expectation has no effect on foreign student satisfaction.
Ha: Foreign student expectation has effect on foreign student satisfaction.
Based on the data of table 4.12, foreign student expectation had direct effect
to foreign student satisfaction as β= -0.39, which was significantly strong negative
relationship. Therefore, the Ho that foreign student expectation has no effect on foreign
student satisfaction was rejected. Thus, this supported the Ha, which proved foreign
student expectation has negative effect on foreign student satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3:
Ho: Foreign student satisfaction has no effect on reputation.
Ha: Foreign student satisfaction has effect on reputation.
According to table 4.12, foreign student satisfaction has direct effect on
reputation as β= 0.32, which was positive relationship. Therefore, the Ho that foreign
student satisfaction has no effect on reputation was rejected. Thus, this supported the
Ha, which proved foreign student satisfaction has positive effect on reputation.
Hypothesis 4:
Ho: Foreign student satisfaction has no effect on foreign student loyalty.
Ha: Foreign student satisfaction has effect on foreign student loyalty.
72
Based on the data of table 4.12, foreign student satisfaction had direct effect
to foreign student loyalty as β= 0.19, and had indirect effect to foreign student loyalty
as β = 0.21, which was considered as strong positive relationship. Therefore, the Ho
that foreign student satisfaction has no effect on foreign student loyalty was rejected.
Thus, this supported the Ha, which proved foreign student expectation has positive
effect on foreign student loyalty.
Hypothesis 5:
Ho: Reputation has no effect on foreign student loyalty.
Ha: Reputation has effect on foreign student loyalty.
According to table 4.12, reputation has direct effect on foreign student loyalty
as β= 0.64, which was positive relationship. Therefore, the Ho that reputation has no
effect on foreign student loyalty was rejected. Thus, this supported the Ha, which proved
reputation has positive effect on foreign student loyalty.
Table 4.12 Summary of path analysis for hypothesis testing
DV SS RP SL
IV TE IE DE TE IE DE TE IE DE
SE β -0.39 <--> -0.39 -0.13 -0.13 <--> -0.16 -0.16 <--> st -0.39 <--> -0.39 -0.13 -0.13 <--> -0.16 -0.16 <-->
SS β <--> <--> <--> 0.32 <--> 0.32 0.40 0.21 0.19 st <--> <--> <--> 0.32 <--> 0.32 0.40 0.21 0.19
RP β <--> <--> <--> <--> <--> <--> 0.64 <--> 0.64 st <--> <--> <--> <--> <--> <--> 0.64 <--> 0.64
73
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION
In this chapter, the conclusion, discussion and recommendation of this study
will be presented. The main topics of this chapter have been present as the following:
5.1 Conclusion
5.2 Discussion
5.3 Implication of the study
5.4 Limitation of the study
5.5 Future research
74
5.1 Conclusion
The main purposes of this study were (1) to develop the model of foreign
student loyalty studying in Thailand. (2) To study the effect of the foreign student
expectation on foreign student satisfaction. (3) To study the effect of the foreign student
satisfaction on reputation and foreign student loyalty. (4) To study the effect of the
reputation on foreign student loyalty. The major findings reported in chapter 4 can
summarized as below.
There were 406 copies collected from respondents and these copies were
usable for the study. Among the respondents, female participated in the survey by 42.9%
while males participated by 57.1% which is slightly higher than that of female. In the 406
copies, there is 69.2% of respondents are from ABAC, 15.5% of respondents are from
UTCC and 15.3% are the foreign students of HCU. Furthermore, there is 80% of
respondents are bachelor degree, 19% are master degree while only 1% are in doctoral.
The research model was analyzed by using the structural equation model
(SEM) which revealed a good fit for research model (Chi-square (χ2) = 12.80, df = 18, p =
0.80; GFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.00; CFI =1.00; NFI= 1.00). Therefore, all the above
indexes presented the good fit for the model.
An examination of the standardized path coefficients among variables
showed that foreign student expectation have statistically significant negative effects on
foreign student satisfaction where foreign student expectation has direct effect
equivalent -0.39 consequently, foreign student satisfaction have direct effect on
reputation and foreign student loyalty equivalent 0.32 and 0.19 consequently. In addition,
75
significant direct effect on foreign student loyalty for university reputation was 0.64. The
significant, positive signs of all structural paths also supported all five hypotheses.
5.2 Discussion
The research aimed to develop and validate the model of foreign student
loyalty studying in Thailand, in order to increase the number of foreign students to come
to study in the universities in Bangkok. So that it can successfully complete the goal
that increasing the number of foreign students in 2020 in Thailand up to 100,000 from
the current figure of 20,000. And become a world-class regional academic and an
education hub. In this section, this study would discuss the foreign student expectation,
foreign student satisfaction, university reputation and foreign student loyalty.
5.2.1 Foreign student expectation
According to the literature review, expectations were an important moderating
variable in the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction
(Parasuraman, 1988; Zeithaml and Berry, 1994). O’Donnell (2011) also directly
indicated that expectation becomes an important concept in the quality terminology
since expectation forms the reference framework which is used to determine the
satisfaction degree. Appleton-Knapp and Krentler (2006) also found that student’s
satisfaction varied by their expectation level. Carter (2009) argued that “if expectations
are very high, then it is likely that it will be harder to generate a high level of
76
satisfaction”. Eskilden (1999); Alves and Raposo( 2007) found that the influence of
expectation and satisfaction was negative.
In the study, foreign student expectation involved service quality, teacher,
technology, learning environment and university accommodation. The outcome of this
research reveals that service quality, teacher, technology, learning environment and
university accommodation had mean value which can present the agree level of
agreement. Dependent on the Matrix statistic data, the relationship between foreign
student expectation and its five dimensions, presented the value of LISREL estimates,
which had the highest relationship with foreign student expectation; it can say that
learning environment can presented the 69% of negative level of foreign student
expectation. The foreign students consider the teacher much more than other variables.
If the universities want to increase the foreign student satisfaction decrease the foreign
students expect in teacher will be the most efficient way. Service quality had the value
as 0.60, technology had the value as 0.51, learning environment had the value as 0.42
and university accommodation had the value as 0.46.
For the relationship between independent variable with dependent variables,
between foreign student expectation and foreign student satisfaction they had the
negative relationship, which foreign student satisfaction can present the 39% of
negative level of foreign student expectation. If the foreign student expectation had the
high value the foreign student satisfaction will decrease, so if the universities want to
increase the foreign student satisfaction, they need to manage the student’s
expectations; that is, university may need to decrease the student’s expectations.
77
5.2.2 Foreign student satisfaction
According to the literature review, Student satisfaction is an important issue
for college administrators. Due to a student who satisfied with the service received may
grow into various attitudes and behaviors by the indicative of loyalty (Browne, 1998;
Guolla, 1999; Mavondo and Zaman, 2000; Tsarenko and Mavondo, 2001). Many
researchers also argued that the concepts of loyalty and satisfaction are closely related
to each other. The same causal relationship between loyalty and satisfaction can be
established (Martensen, 1999; Alves and Raposo, 2004; Gonc and alves, 2004). Loyalty
is the result of customer satisfaction (Fornell, 1992; Fornell, 1996; Chan, 2003).
Satisfaction is a precondition of student loyalty. Apart from this, customer satisfaction is
both positively related to customer loyalty and corporate image, corporate reputation
and brand reputation also (Selnes, 1993; Anderson1994; Johnson and Gustafsson,
2000; Johnson 2001; Oliver, 1980).
In this study, foreign student satisfaction insisted five dimensions which were
the five questions of it. The result of analysis revealed that teacher, technology, learning
environment and university accommodation presented the neutral level of agreement.
Dependent on the matrix statistic data, the relationship between foreign student
satisfaction and its five dimensions which were five questions of it, among these five
dimensions, learning environment with the value as 0.58, which is the highest among
those five dimensions, it presents that if the university want to increase the foreign
student loyalty, they need to increase the foreign student satisfaction, if university want
78
to increase foreign student satisfaction, they can pay attention to the learning
environment.
For the relationship to dependent variables between foreign student
satisfaction and university reputation and foreign student loyalty which are positive.
Foreign student satisfaction can presented the 63% of positive level of foreign student
loyalty. If the university wants the foreign students keep studying in their university or
want the foreign students say positive things about the university and introduce their
friends to study in the university, they have to increase the foreign student satisfaction.
For the relationship between foreign student satisfaction and university
reputation, they had the value as 0.32, which is positive relationship, which means
foreign student satisfaction can presented the 32% of positive level of university
reputation. If the university wants to get more reputation, they have to increase the
foreign student satisfaction.
5.2.3 Reputation
According to the literature review, Reputation building is also looked upon as
very important for attracting and retaining students (Bush, 1998; Standifird, 2005). Mullin
(1995) and Nesdale (1995) highlighting that an attracted university lies with its
reputation in the home country as a recognized institution, it would be as the study
destination of international students.
“Customer satisfaction is supposed to be positively related to corporate
reputation "(Selnes, 1993; Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998; Johnson et al., 2001).
79
While there were also have researchers proved that it is positively related to loyalty if a
student who get a favorable perception (Selnes, 1993; Johnson, 2001and MacMillan,
2005). Eskildsen (1999) also refers that reputation is really the one factor that has the
most influence on student loyalty in higher education.
The result of analysis revealed that university reputation had mean value
which presented the agree level of agreement. Dependent on the matrix statistic data,
the relationship between university reputation and its two dimensions which were six
questions of it, among these two dimensions, university reputation the value as 0.64,
which is the highest among those two dimensions, it means that if the university want to
increase foreign student loyalty, they need to increase the university reputation.
For the relationship between reputation and foreign student loyalty, they had
the value as 0.64, which is positive relationship, which means reputation can present
the 64% of positive level of foreign student loyalty. If the university wants to get more
foreign student loyalty, they have to increase the reputation.
5.2.4 Foreign student loyalty
According the literature review, student loyalty is a form of behavior of a
student who would recommend the university to friends/acquaintances and attend the
same university if starting from fresh or attending further education at the university. In
this study, foreign student loyalty insisted two dimensions.
The result of the analysis revealed that foreign student loyalty had mean
value which present the agree level of agreement. Dependent on the Matrix statistic
80
data, the relationship between foreign student loyalty and its two dimensions, WOM as
the value 0.62, which is the highest among these two dimensions, it means that if the
foreign student loyalty increased, most foreign students will pay attention the WOM.
5.3 Implication of the study
This study has purpose to develop the model of foreign student loyalty
studying in Thailand, in order to attract more foreign student go to study in Thailand.
This section would show the meaning of the research on the foreign student expectation,
foreign student satisfaction, university reputation and foreign student loyalty.
University reputation is the most important significant positive direct effect on
foreign student loyalty to study in Bangkok among three components. This indicates that,
if the university reputation in the home country as a recognized institution, in other word,
the university reputation is good, it would be as the study destination of international
students. That is to say, the university reputation is good; the foreign student loyalty is
increasing. Therefore, universities and researchers should pay more attention on
university reputation building as the first component of predicting foreign student loyalty.
Foreign student satisfaction is the subordinate component having positive
direct effect on foreign student loyalty to study in Thailand. It can imply that if the
foreign students satisfy with studying in Thailand, the propensity that foreign student
loyalty to study in Thailand turns to highly increasing. The students would recommend
the university to friends/acquaintances and attend the same university if starting from
fresh or attending further education at the university. University and researchers should
81
realize on foreign student satisfaction as the second component of predicting foreign
student loyalty.
The last component having significant negative indirect effect on foreign
student loyalty to study in Thailand is foreign student expectation. This implies that the
higher expectation of foreign student on universities in Thailand, the slightly lower
increasing of foreign student loyalty to study in Thailand. Therefore, the universities and
researchers should realize on foreign student expectation as the last component of
predicting foreign student loyalty.
5.3.1 Implication for universities in Thailand
Knowledge from this study can be used to improve universities in Thailand in
many aspects which are listed as follows:
1. University should first concentrate on improving standardizes in order to
create a completive advantage among universities in Thailand, Asia or even universities
of the entire world. Model obtained from this study can be utilized to a multifaceted
approach for university management team. Study factors which are foreign student
expectation, foreign student satisfaction, university reputation and foreign student loyalty
can be applied in ordering of a level of important of each factor can be implementing to
improve strategy of the university management team.
2. For the foreign student expectation, university management team should
learn the exact expectations of the student and manage those well, so that what
universities do can meet the student’s need. For example, base on the model in the
82
study, among the five factors in foreign student expectation, teacher had a highest
weight on measurement the foreign student expectation. Thus, the university
management team should give an important to teacher. Try to provide the student a
kindly, friendly, enthusiastic, high-quality and high-education teacher so that foreign
student satisfies with the university and loyalty to the university. In addition to the
university accommodation, university management team also has to pay attention to the
other four dimensions: service quality, technology and learning environment and
university accommodation. It is quite clear that all this provide to students by the
employees of university, thus, a strategic planning should extend to providing more
periodical training programs to every employee to make sure everyone can perform in
the same direction, to ensure everyone can clearly understand standard of their own
task, and to ensure everyone strictly follow the standard, be more competent and
provide consistency services, provide a good quality of teaching, provide a good
learning environment to make the student satisfy with the university providing and then
loyal to the university.
3. For the reputation, university should pay attention to reputation building
to attract foreign students’ interesting and know the value of the university. For example,
putting the university advertisement on each web. Of course, the most efficiency
method is cooperation with universities in other countries and then sending university
representative to the universities to introduce the universities to the foreign students
face to face. So that forms a good reputation.
83
5.3.2 Implication for the academician and researcher
1. The empirical findings of the present research confirm that the model of foreign
student loyalty studying in Thailand is fitted for testing of foreign student loyalty to study
in universities in Thailand. Application and adaption of the model based on the findings
from this study offers academician and researchers who are interested in the field of
student satisfaction and student loyalty. This model also can be well used in other area.
2. Academicians and researchers should focus on the foreign student expectation
along with foreign student satisfaction and foreign student loyalty. It can be extend more
dimensions into foreign student expectation which could help other researchers
understand foreign student satisfaction, foreign student loyalty more clearly.
5.4 Limitation of the study
1. The sampling group of this study focused on three universities (ABAC,
UTCC and HCU) in Thailand. It may be argued. There might be
universities destination and different loyal level in other foreign student
who study in other universities.
2. The dimensions of the foreign student expectation in this study only focus
in five points (service quality, teacher, technology, learning environment
and university accommodation).
3. The questionnaire of this study was designed in English due to the target
sampling group are foreign students and the fact that English is the
language most commonly understand among foreign students. However,
84
with the practical reasons, some foreign students like some Chinese,
Vietnamese students and so on who come to study Thai language are
not familiar with English were unable to complete or misinterpret the
survey, which could have resulted in response biases.
4. The questionnaire was too much. Therefore, the sampling group had to
spend their time to fill out the questionnaire. Sometime, the respondents
were in a hurry, the answers may not correspond to their feeling, so that
some of questionnaires that I got from the respondents cannot use.
5.5 Future research
1. In this study, foreign student expectation has five dimensions: service quality, teacher,
technology, learning environment and university accommodation. But in fact, social,
economic, safe and other factors are also as very important factors to affect the
foreign students’ satisfaction. Thus, it will be considerable for the future research.
2. The future research should provide the questionnaire in other languages such as
Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean and so on to ensure the respondents can
understand the questionnaire meaning as well.
3. The future research should provide an appropriate quantity of questions in the
questionnaire and ask the respondents to take seriously the questionnaire.
85
REFERENCE
Ajzen, I. (1985). From Intention to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In J. Kuhl &
J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action Control: From Cognition to Behaviour.Berlin:Springer.
Ajzen, I., & Driver, B.E. (1991), Prediction of leisure participation from behavioral,
normative, and control belief: An application of the theory of planned behavior
Journal of Leisure Science, 13(4).
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. Availabe at
http:// www. 12 manage.com/methods_ajzen_theory_planned_behavious.html.
Access on 3rd October 2010.American Education Research Association,
American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in
Education (1999), Standards for educational and psychological testing,
Washington, D. C, American Educational Research Association.
AliReza, J. Md. A. I., & Ku Halim Ku Ariffin (2011).Service Satisfaction: The Case of a
Higher Learning Institution in Malaysia. Journal Education studies, 4(1):
February 2011.
Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2007). Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher
education. Total Quality Management, 18(5), 571-588.
Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2004). La medicio´n de la satisfaccio´n en la ensen˜anza
universitaria: elejemplo de la Universidade da Beira Interior, Revista
Internacional de Marketing Pu� blico y No Lucrativo, 1 1, June,
73-88.A new management element 523
86
Amole, D. (2009a). Residential satisfaction and levels of environment in students’
residences, Environment and Behaviour, 41(6), 1-14.
Anderson, R. E. (1973). Customer Dissatisfaction: The Effects of Disconfirmed
Expectancy on Perceived Product Performance, Journal of Marketing
Research, 10, (February), 38-44.
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction,
market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden , Journal of
Marketing, 58, 53 – 66.
Anderson, E. W., & Mary W. S. (1993). The Antecedents and
Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for Firms. Marketing Science, 12,
(Spring), 125-143.
Andreassen, T.W., & Lindestad, B. (1998). Customer loyalty and complex services:
the impact of corporate image on quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty
for customers with varying degrees of service expertise, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(1), 7-23.
Appleton-Knapp, S. L., & Krentler, K. A. (2006). Measuring student expectations and
their effects on satisfaction: The importance of managing student expectations.
Journal of Marketing Education, Dec, 28(3), 254-264.
Arndt, J. (1967). Word-of-mouth advertising and informal vommunication. In D. Cox
(Ed.), Risk taking and information handling in consumer behaviour. Boston:
Harvard University
87
Athiayaman, A. (2000). Perceived service quality in the higher education sector: an
mpirical analysis, Proceedings of the Conference de ANZMAC, Gold
Coast, 28 NoEvember-1 December.
Banham, C., & Gilmore, H. (2009, June 3). Rudd forms Indian violence task force.
Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved December 10, 2009, from
http://www.smh.com.au/national/rudd-forms-indianviolence- taskforce-
20090602-buek.html.
Bansal, H. S., & Taylor, S. F. (2002). Investigating Interactive Effects in the Theory of
Planned Behaviour in a Service-Provider Switching Context. Psychology and
Marketing, 19(5), 407-425.
Bettencourt, L. A. (1997). Customer voluntary performance: customers as partners in
service delivery Journal of Retailing, 73 (3), 383-406.
Blair, T, R. (1988). Emerging Patterns of Teaching: from Methods to Field Experiences,
Columbus: Merrill Publishing Company.
Bolton, R. N. ,& James H. D. (1991). A Multistage Model of Customers’
Accessments of Service Quality and Value, Journal of Customer Research,
17, (March), 375-384.
Boun, P. F.,Terence A. S., & Subhash S. (1990). Assimilation and Constrast Effects in
Product, Performance Perception: Implications for Public Policy, Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing, 9, 100-110.
Boulding, W., Ajay K., Richard S., & Valaric A. Z. (1993). A
Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral
Intentions, Journal of Marketing Research, 30, (February), 7-27.
88
Bouman, M., & Van D. W.T. (1992). Measuring Service Quality in the car
service industry: building and testing an instrument, International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 3(4), 4-16.
Bush, V., Ferrell, O.C., & Thomas, J.L. Jr (1998). Marketing the business school:
an exploratory investigation, Journal of Marketing Education, 20(1), 16-23.
Bransford, J., Brophy, S., & Williams, S. (2000). When computer technologies
meet the learning sciences: Issues and opportunities. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 59–84.
Brdem, T., & Swait, J. (2004). Brand Credibilify and its Role in Brand Choice and
Consideration. Joumal of Consumer Research. 31(1), 191-199.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/383434
Browne, B., Kaldenberg, D., Browne, W., & Brown, D. (1998), Student as
customer: factors affecting satisfaction and assessments of institutional
quality, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 8( 3 ), 1-14.
Carnaghan, C., & Alan W. (2005).Investigating the Effects of Group Response Systems
on Learning Outcomes and Satisfaction in Accounting Education, Working
Paper, School of Accountancy, University of Waterloo, July (available at
http://accounting.uwaterloo.ca/research/
publications/carnaghan_webb_aaa_working_paper.pdf).
Chan, L. K., Hui, Y. V., Lo, H. P., Tse, S. K., Two, G. K. F., & Wu, M.
L. (2003) Consumer satisfaction index: new practice and findings’,
European Journal of Marketing, 37 (5/6), 872 – 909.
89
Charis, K. (1989). Effective teaching in school.London: Prentice Hall, Inc
Chun , R . (2005). Corporate reputation: Meaning and measurement’, International
Journal of Management Reviews, 7 (2), 91 – 109.
Churchill, G. A., Jr & Carol S. (1982). An Investigation into the
Determunants of Customer Satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research, 19,
(November), 491-504.
Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K., & Hult, G.T.M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality,
value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service
environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00028-2
Crosby, P.B. (1979). Quality is Free, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Davies, S. (2002). Marketing in higher education: matching promises and reality to
expectations. Responding to Student Expectations, OECD report, 103-14.
Day, R.L. (1977). Extending the Concept of Consumer Satisfaction. Advances in
Consumer Research,4(1), 149-154.
de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., & Bloemer, J.(1998). On the Relationship between
Service Quality, Service Loyalty and Switching Cost, International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 9(5), .436-453.
Dick, A.S., & Basu, K. (1994) Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual
framework, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, Spring,
pp. 99-113.
90
Dowling, G. R. (2001). Creating Corporate Reputations, Oxford University Press,
NY, USA.
Elliot, K.M., & Healy, M.A. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction
Related to recruitment and retention, Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 10(4), 1-11.
Elsevier. Mosby’s Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009,
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/learning+environment
Eskildsen, J. (1999). Benchmarking student satisfaction in higher education
based on the ECSI methodology, Proceedings of the TQM for Higher
Education Institutions Conference: Higher Education Institutions and the
Issue of Total Quality. Verona, 30–31 August, 385–402.
Feigenbaum, A.V. (1951). Quality Control: Principles, Practice and Administration,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and
Corporate strategy, Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233-58.
Fombrun, C. (1996). Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image, Harvard
BusinessSchool Press, Boston, MA.
Fombrun , C ., & van Riel , C . B. M. (1997). The reputational landscape ,
Corporate Reputation Review, 1 (1 and 2), 5 – 13.
Fombrun , C ., & van Riel , C . B. M. (2003). Fame & Fortune: How Successful
Companies Build Winning Reputations, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ, USA.
91
Forbes-Mewitt, H., & Nyland, C. (2008). Cultural diversity, relocation, and the security of
international students at an internationalised university. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 12(2), 181–203.
Fornell , C . ( 1992 ). A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish
experience, Journal of Marketing , 56 , 6 – 21 .
Fornell , C . , Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E.
(1996). The American customer satisfaction index: Nature, purpose, and
findings, Journal of Marketing , 60 , 7 – 18 .
Fraser, B. J. (1998). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and
determinants. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of
science education (. 527–564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (1991). Educational environments: Evaluation,
antecedents and consequences. London: Pergamon
Friedrich, A. H. 1972)., The Road to Serfdom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
Gabby, B.(2010).Teaching Without Tears by Arty Pereira .
Gemme, E. M. (1997). Retaining Customers in a Managed Care Market,
Marketing Health Services Fall, 19-21.
Giese, J.L., & Cote, J.A. (2000). Defining customer satisfaction, Academy of
Marketing Science Review, 00 (01), 1-34.
Gigliotti, R. J. (1987). Are they getting what they expect? Teaching Sociology 15
(October) 365-375.
Gilmore, H.L. (1974). Product conformance, Quality Progress, Vol. 7 No. 5.
92
GLORIA J. M., PAMELA R.M., & SUNG W. Y. (2006). Good Practices in Accounting
Education: Classroom Configuration and Technological Tools for Enhancing
the Learning Environment, an international journal, 17(1), 41–63, March 2008
Guolla, M. (1999). Assessing the teaching quality to student satisfaction relationship:
Applied customer satisfaction research in the classroom, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(3), 87-98.
Gonc¸alves, C., Souza, R., & Inacio, A. (2004). Satisfaction, quality royalty, value
And expectations in higher education institutions: an empirical study,
Proceedings of Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM
Conference, Cancun, 30 April-3 May.
Gremler, D.D., & Brown, S.W. (1996). Service Quality: Its Nature, Importance, and
Implications, Advancing Service Quality - A Global Perspective, New York:
ISQA, pp.171-180.
Griffin, J. (1996). Customer Loyalty. Simon and Schuster Inc.
Gruen, T. W., Osmonbekov, T., & Czaplewski, A. J. (2006). eWOM: the impact of
customer-to-customer online know-how exchange on customer value and
loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 59 (4), 449–456.
Haertel, G. D., Walberg, H. J., & Haertel, E. H. (1981). Socio-psychological
environments and learning: A quantitative synthesis. British Educational
Research Journal, 7, 27–36.
93
Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999), learning environments: Foundations,
methods, and models. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and
Models (pp. 115-140).
Harris, B.L., & Murray (2011). Study Abroad as an Education Experience:
Challenges, Realizations, and Lessons Learned, 28, 17-30.
Harrison, W. L. J. (2001). The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and
investigation of service qualify and customer commitment as potential
antecedents. Joumal of Service Research. 4(1), 60-75.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109467050141006
Hausknecht, D.R. (1990), Measurement scales in consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction,
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior,
3, 1-11.
Harvey, L. (1995). Student satisfaction, The New Review of Academic Librarianship,
1, 161-73.
Harvey, L. (2001b). Getting Student Satisfaction. The Guardian November 27.
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (2001). Quality
Assurance in Higher Education: Proposals for Consultation, 01/45 July.
Hatch, S. (2003). ARS Systems: Creativity and Planning Required, Corporate Meetings
& Incentives, 22 (11), 35.
Helena, A. and MARIO R. (2007). Conceptual Model of Student Satisfaction in Higher
Education, Total Quality Management, 18(5), 571–588, July 2007
94
Helgesen, W., & Nesset,L.(2007). What accounts for students' loyalty? Some
field study evidence, International Journal of Educational Management,
21 Iss: 2. 126 – 143
Helm, S. (2005). Designing a formative measure for corporate reputation, Corporate
Reputation Review, 8(2), 95-109.
Henning-Thurau, T., Lager, M.F., & Hansen, U. (2001). Modelling and managing
student loyalty: an approach based on the concept of relationship quality”,
Journal of Service Research, 3(1), 331-44.
Hjalte, S., & Larsson, S. (2004). Managing customer loyalfy in the automotive industry:
Two case studies. Mastere thesis. Lulea Universify of Technology. [Online]
Available:
http://epubl.luth.se/1404-5508/2004/074/LTU-SHU-EX-04074-SE.pdf
Hung, Y. H. M. L. Huang, K. S., & Chen (2003). Service Quality Evaluation by
Service Quality Performance Matrix”, Total Quality Management 14(1), 79-89.
Jacqueline K., Eastman, R. I., & Kevin L. E. (2011). Improving Undergraduate Student
Satisfaction with the Consumer Behavior Course: Will Interactive Technology
Help? Marketing Education Review, 21( 2) (summer 2011),139–149.
Johnson, M. D., & Gustafsson , A . (2000). Improving Customer Satisfaction,
Loyalty and Profit: An Integrated Measurement and Management System,
Jossey-Bass, SanFrancisco, CA, USA.
Johnson, M.D., Gustafsson, A., Andreassen, T.W., Lervik, L., & Cha, J. (2001).
The evolution and future of national customer satisfaction index models,
Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 217-45.
95
Juran, J.M. (1988). Juran on Planning for Quality, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Karin A. O., & Robert C. B (2011). E-nabled for E-Learning? The Moderating Role of
Personality in Determining the Optimal Degree of Learner Control in an E-
Learning Environment, Human Performance, 24:60–78, 2011
Kasper, H., Van Helsdingen, P., & De Vries, V. (1999). Services Marketing Management,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Kopalle, P. K., & Lehmann, D. R. (2001). Strategic management of expectations: The
role of disconfirmation sensitivity and perfectionism. Journal of Marketing
Research, 36, 386–394.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K.L. (2006). Marketing Management, 12th ed., New York: Prentice-
Hall.
Kotier, P., & Keller, K. L. (2008). Marketing Management. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Krantz, M. (2004). Audience Response Systems = Marketing Tools. Meeting News, 28
(5), 5.
Kumar, V., & Shah, D. (2004). Building and sustaining profitable customer loyalty for the
21st century. Journal of Retailing, 80(4),
317-329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2004.10.007
Kurdziel, J. (2005).Using Large-Classroom Response Systems to Engage and Interact
with Students, University of Michigan Center for Research on Learning and
Teaching Provost Seminar 2005, University of Michigan Lecture Archives, Ann
Arbor (http://lecb.physics.lsa.umich.edu/CWIS/browser. php? Resourced=3109/).
96
Kwon, W., & Lee, T.J. (1994). Measuring service quality in Singapore retail
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., and Berry, L. L. (1994, January)
‘Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service
quality’, Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 111-124.
Laing, C., Robinson, A., & Johnston, v. (2005). Managing the Transition into Higher
Education: An On-line Spiral Induction Programme, Active Learning in
Higher Education 6(3), 243-253.
Lam, S. Y., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M. K., & Murthy, B. (2004). Customer
value, satisfaction, loyalty, and switching costs: An illustration from a
Business-to business service context, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 32 (3), 293 – 311.
Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2004). Theory of Planned Behavior: Potential Travelers from
China. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 28(4), 463-482.
Lee, R., Murphy, J., & Swilley, E. (2009). The Moderating Influence of Hedonic
Consumption in an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior, Service Industries
Journal, 29(4): 539-555.
Lemmink, J., Schuijf, A., & Streukens, S. (2003). The role of corporate image and
companyemployment image in explaining application intentions, Journal of
Economic Psychology, 24, 1-15.
Lervik, L., & Johnson, M.D. (2003). Service equity, satisfaction and royalty: from
transaction-specific to cumulative evaluations, Journal of Service Research,5(3).
184-95.
97
Liao, S. H., Chung, Y. C, Hung, Y. R., & Widowati, R. (2010). The impacts of brand
trust, customer satisfaction, and brand loyalty on word-of-mouth. Paper
presented at
the Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), 2010 IEEE
Intemational Conference.
Lim, H. & Dubinsky, A. J. (2005). The Theory of Planned Behaviour in E-Commerce:
Making a Case for Interdependencies between Salient Beliefs. Psychology and
Marketing, 22(10), 833-855.
Lim, K.H., Benbasat,I. & Ward, L.M.(2000). The Role of Multimedia in Changing First
Impression Bias. Information Systems Research, (11)2, 115-136.
Lincoln, D. J. (2008). Teaching with Clickers in the Large- Size Principles of Marketing
Class, Marketing Education Review, 18 (1), 39–45.
Liu, Z.Y. (2008). The advantages for studying in Thailand September, 2008
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_51bd94730100aesl.html.
Peter, L., & Tony, T. (2004). Do First Year Undergraduates Find What They Expect? 16-
18, September, 2004.
Peters, T.J., & Waterman, R.H. (1982). In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row, New
York, NY.
MacMillan, K., Money, K., Downing, S., & Hillenbrand, C. (2005), Reputation in
relationships: measuring experiences, emotions and behaviors, Corporate
Reputation Review, 8(2), 214-32.
98
Martensen, A., Gronholdt, L., Eskildsen, J., & Kristensen, K. (1999). Measuring
student orientedquality in higher education: application of the ECSI
methodology, Conference Proceedings from TQM for Higher Education
Institutions. “Higher Education Institutions and the Issue of Total Quality”,
Verona, 30-31 August.
Mary M. Dwyer, Ph.D., & Courtney K. P. (2004). The Benefits of Study Abroad
Mavondo, F., & Zaman, M. (2000). Student satisfaction with tertiary institutions
And recommending it to prospective students, Proceedings of the Conference
of ANZMAC,Gold Coast, 28 November-1 December.
Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M., & Rivera-Torres, P. (2005a). A new
management element for universities: satisfaction with the offered courses,
International Journal of Educational Management, 19(6), 505-26.
Merritt, M. (2000). What Are They Thinking? Presentations, 14 (4), 86–89.
Mikkelsen, M., Van D.J., & Carrie, D. G. (2003). Viewers talking about television
advertising: a supplimentary measure of advertising effec- tiveness. Paper
presented at the Paper presented at the 32nd EMAC.
M. Pile, J.P. Teixeira, I.C., & Teixeira. (1997). the importance of quality assessment in
higher education institutions, Oct.97.
Mullins, G., Qunintrell, N., & Hancock, L. (1995). The experiences of international and
local students at three Australian Universities’, Higher Education Research and
Development, 14(2), 201-31.
99
Navarro, M.M., Iglesias, M.P., & Torres, P.R. (2005). A new management element for
universities: satisfaction with the offered courses, International Journal of
Educational Management, 19(6), 505-526.
Nesdale, D., Simkin, K., Sang, D., Burke, B., & Frager, S. (1995). International students
and immigration. Canberra: AGPS. Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (2001). Image and Reputation of Higher Education
Institutions in Students ‘Retention Decisions, The International Journal of
Educational Management, 15(6), 303-311.
Nurul, U. M.N., Nor ' A. Y., & Nazirah, Z. A. (2011). Emerald Article: Student residential
satisfaction in research universities, Journal of Facilities Management, 9(3),
2011, 200-212.
Nyquist, J.D., Abbot, R.D., Wulff, D.H., & Sprague, J. (Eds.). (1991). Preparing the
professoriate of tomorrow to teach (40–51). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
O’Donnell, H. (2011). Expectations and Voluntary Attrition in Nursing Student, Nurse
Education in Prectise 11, 54-63.
Oliver, R. L. (1977). Effect of Expectation and Disconfirmation on Postexposure Producl
Evaluations:An Alternative Interpretatlom, Journal of Apphed
Psychology ,62,(August),480-486.
Oliver, R. L. (1979). Product Satisfaction as a Function of Prior Expectation and
Subsequent Disconfirmation: New Evidence. in Ralph L.Day and H.Keith
Hunt,(eds.)New Dimensions of Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining
Behavior, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press,66-71.
100
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction decisions ,Journal of Marketing Research , 17 , 460 – 469 .
Oliver, R. L. (1980b). Theoretical Bases of Consumer Satisfaction Research: Review,
Critique, and Future Direction. In Charles W. Lamb, Jr. and Patrick M. Dunne
(eds.) Theoretical Developments in Marketing, Chicago, All-American
Marketing Association, 206-210
Oliver, R. L. (1981b). Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction Processes in
Retail Settings. Journal of Retailing 57(fall): 25-48.
Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive Affective, and Attribute Bases of the Satisfaction
Response Journal of Consumer research, 20,(December),418-430.
Oliver, R. L. (1994). Conceptual Issues in the Structural Analysis of Consumption
Emotion.Satisfaction and Quality: Evidence in a Service Setting, in Chris T.
Allen and Deborah Roedder john, (eds.) Advances in Consumer Research 21,
Assoclation for Consumer Research, Provo, UT.16-22
Oliver, R.L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, New
York: The McGraw-hill Companies, Inc.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing 63
(Special Issue): 33-44.
Olshavsky, R. W., & John A. M. (1972). Customer Expectations, Product
Performance, and Perceived Product Quality, Journal of Marketing Research,
9. (February), 19-21.
101
Olson, J. C., & Philip, D. (1979). Disconfirmation of Consumer Expectations
Through Product Trial. Journal of Applied Psychology 64 (April): 179-189.
Olson, J. C., & Philip, D. (1976). Effects of Expectations Creation and
Disconfirmation on Belief Elements of Cognitive Structures, in Beverlee
Anderson, (ed), Advances in Consumer Research, Cincinnati, OH: Association
of Customer Research, 168-175.
O’Sullivan, M. (2006). Lesson Observation and Quality in Primary Education as
Contextual Teaching and Learning Processes, International Journal of
Educational Development 26,246-260.
Ozaki, R. (2003). Customer-focused approaches to innovation in housebuilding,
Construction Management and Economics, 21, 557-64.
Patterson, P.G., Johnson, L.W., & Spreng, R.A. (1997). Modeling the Determinants of
Customer Satisfaction for Business-to-Business Professional Services,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (1), 4-17.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1985). A conceptual model of
service quality and its implications for future research, Journal of Marketing,
49, 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1986). SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring customer expectations of service quality. Report No. 86 – 108,
Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Parasuraman, A., Valarie Z., & Leonard B., (1988). SERVQUAL: A
Multiple-Item Scale for Meassuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality.
Journal of Retailing 64 (spring): 12-40
102
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., & Zeithaml, V.A. (1991). Refinement and
reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale, Journal of Retailing, 67(4),420-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1994). Alternative Scales for
Measuring Service Quality: A Comparative Assessment Based on
Psychometric and Diagnostic Criteria. Journal of Retailing, 70(3), 201-230.
Pariseau, S.E., & McDaniel, J.R.(1997). Assessing service quality in schools of business.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 14(3): 204-218.
Pascarella, E. T., & P. T. Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How College Affects Students, Jossey-
Bass, Inc., San Francisco, CA 1991.
Passow, T., Fehlmann, R., & Grahlow, H. (2005). Country reputation: from
measurement to management: the case of liechtenstein, Corporate
Reputation Review, 7(4), 309-26.
Pizam, A., & Ellis, T. (1999). Customer satisfaction and its measurement in
Hospitality enterprises, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 11(7), 326-39.
Qamar, B. M. (2011). Effect of project and lecture methods of teaching on students’
achievement in social studies in Rural Area. Interdisciplinary Journal of
contemporary research in business, 2(11).
Ranaweera, C., & Prabhu, J. (2003). The influence of satisfaction, trust and switching
barriers on customer retention in a continuous purchasing setting. International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 14(4), 374-395.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564230310489231
103
Reichheld, F.F., & Sasser, W.E. (1990) Zero defections: quality comes to services,
Harvard Business Review, 68(5), 105-11.
Reynolds, F.D., Darden, W.R., & Martin, W.S. (1974). Developing an image of the
Store-loyal customer, Journal of Retailing, 4, 73-84.
Robert, E. C, (2009). The impact of Perceived Service Quality on MBA
Student Satisfaction and Recommendations: Do Expectations Matter?”
Journal marketing research. 8(4).
Rodney, A., & John, H. (2008). A Model of Student Satisfaction: International
Postgraduate Students from Asia, European Advances in Consumer Research,
Votume 8, © 200.
Rand, L. P. (1968). Effect on college choice satisfaction of matching students and
colleges. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 47, 34-39.
Reynolds, D. (1986), Academic Standards for Universities, CVCP, London
Rodney, A. & John, H. (2009). An empirical model of international student
satisfaction, AsiaPacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21(4),555 – 569.
Rodie, A.R., & Kleine, S.S. (2000). Customer participation in services production and
delivery, in Swartz, T.A. and Iacobucci, D. (Eds), Handbook of Service
Marketing and Management, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 111-25.
Ryan, M.J., Buzas, T., & Ramaswamy, V. (1995). Making CSM a power tool:
composite indices boost the value of satisfaction measures for decision
making”, Marketing Research, 7(3), 11-16.
104
Sahney, S. (2002). Total quality management in higher education in India – a diagnostic
study of select engineering and management institutions, unpublished,
Department of Management Studies, IIT.
Saleh, F., & Ryan, C. (1992). Analysing service quality in the hospitality industry
using the SERVQUAL model, Service Industries Journal, 11(3), 324-43.
Sam Thomas (2011). What Drives Student Loyalty in Universities: An Empirical Model
from India, Journal Business Research, (8)2; April 2011.
Sander, P., K. Stevenson, M. K., & Coates, D. (2000). University Students'
Expectations of Teaching, Studies in Higher Education 25(3), 309-323.
Selnes, F. (1993). An examination of the effects of product performance on brand
reputation,satisfaction and loyalty, European Journal of Marketing, 27(9),19-35.
Seth, N., Deshmukh, S.G., & Vrat, P. (2004). Service quality models: a review,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 22(9), 913-49.
Simeser, Duncan I., John R. Hauser, B. W., & Roland, T. R. (2000). Implemening
Quality Improvement Program Designed to Enhance Customer Satisfaction:
Quasi- Experiments in the United Stated and Spain, Journal of Marketing
Research, 37, (February), 102-112.
Simon, H., & Lloyd, P. R. (1995). Teaching with Technology.
Smith, K., & Hopkins, C. (2005). Great Expectations: A-level Perceptions of Degree
Level English, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 4(3), 304-314.
Solomon, M.R. (1994). Consumer Behavior, 2nd ed., Allyn & Bacon, London.
105
Song, Y., & Yan, Z. (2006). Customer satisfaction theory applied in the housing
industry: an empirical study of low-priced housing in Beijing, Tsinghua
Science and Technology, 11(6), 667-74.
Shazia, I. K., & Kashif, U.R. (2010). Student Satisfaction in English Language Course: A
Case of Pakistan, Interdisciplinary journal of contemporary research in business,
2(5), SEPTEMBER 2010.
Standifird, S.S. (2005). Reputation among peer academic institutions: an investigation
of the USNews and World Report’s rankings, Corporate Reputation Review,
8(3), 233-44.
Stauss, B., & Neuhaus, P. (1997). The qualitative satisfaction model, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(3), 236-49.
Suchunya, K. (2006). The satisfaction of students studying in international in private
university in Bangkok, Thailand.
Swan, J. E., & Frederick, I. T. (1981). Disconfirmation of Expectations and
Satisfaction with a Retail Service, Journal of Retailing, 12(5), (fall), 49-67.
Swan, J. E., & Oliver, R. L. (1989). Postpurchase communications by consumers.
Journal of Retailing, 65(4), 516–533.
Sweeney, J. C, & Swait, S. (2008). The effects of brand credibilify on customer loyalfy.
Joumal of retailing and consumer services,
15,179-193. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2007.04.001
106
Szajna, B. & Richard, W. S. (1993). The Effects of Information System Use
Expectations on Their Performance and Perceptions on the Their Performance
and Perceptions, MIS Quarterly, 17(4), (December), 493-516.
Tang, K.H., & Zairi, M. (1998). Benchmarking quality implementation in a service
context: a comparative analysis of financial services and institutions of higher
education – Part III, Total Quality Management, 9(8), 666-79.
Tektaş, N., Tektaş, M. Polat, Z., & Topuz, A. S. (2010). Comparing the Expectations
of Undergraduate and Graduate Degree Student, Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences 2, 1244-1248.
Terreri, A., & T. Simons. (2005). What Are They Thinking? Presentations, 19 (2), 36.
Theus, K.T. (1993). Academic reputations: the process of formation and decay, Public
Relations Review, 19(4), 277-91.
Toby, P., Susan, M., & Jan, S. (2010). The contribution of university accommodation to
international student security. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 32(4), August 2010, 353–364.
Troy E. B., Elizabeth, F., Kaelin, O. (2009). Clicker Satisfaction for Students in Human
Development: Differences for Class Type, Prior Exposure, and Student
Talkativity, North American Journal of Psychology, 2009, 11(3), 599-612.
Tsarenko, Y., & Mavondo, F.T. (2001). Resources and capabilities as determinants
of student satisfaction: do foreign and local students differ, Proceedings of
the Conference ANZMAC, Auckland, 1-5 December.
107
Tse, David K., & Peter C. W. (1988). Models of Consumer Satisfaction Formation: An
Extension, Journal of Marketing Research, 25, (May), 204-212.
Voss, R., T. G., & Szmigin, I. (2007). Service Quality in Higher Education: The
Role of Student Expectations, Journal of Business Research 60, 949-959.
Wangenheim, F. v. (2005). Postswitching negative word of mouth. Journal of Service
Research, 8(1), 67–78.
Walker, L. J. (2001). The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an
investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential
antecedents. Journal of Service Research, 4(1), 60–75.
Wangenheim, F. v., & Bayón, T. (2007). The chain from customer satisfaction via word-
of-mouth referrals to new customer acquisition. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 35(2), 233–249.
Weiss, A.M., Anderson, E., & MacInnis, D.J. (1999). Reputation management as a
motivation for sales structure decisions, Journal of Marketing, 63(3), 74-89.
Wen, Y. L. (2009). Customers Switch Behavior- A Case of Travel Agencies.
Wiers-Jenssen, J., Stensaker, B., & Grøgaard, J.B. (2002). Student satisfaction:
towards an empirical deconstruction of the concept, Quality in Higher Education,
8(2), 183-95.
Williams, R.J., Schnake, M.E., & Fredenberger, W. (2005). The impact of corporate
strategy on a firm’s reputation, Corporate Reputation Review, 8(3), 187-97.
108
Wills, B. (2009). The business case for environmental sustainability (Green): Achieving
rapid returns from the practical integration of lean & green. Business Case for
Environmental Sustainability. Retrieved June, 2010,
http://www.leanandgreensummit.com/LGBC.pdf
Williams, R.J., Schnake, M.E., & Fredenberger, W. (2005). The impact of corporate
strategy on a firm’s reputation, Corporate Reputation Review, 8(3), 187-97.
Wong,Y. (1997). An Engineering Student Retention Study, Journal of Engineering
education, 16(3).
Wongpaiboon ( 2010). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth: empirical evidence of
Chinese students in Thailand, Review of business research, 10(4).
Wong, S.M., & Perry, C. (1991). Customer service strategies in financial retailing,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 9(3), 11-16.
Wyles, B.A. (1998). Adjunct faculty in the community college. Realities and challenges,
new directions-for-higher-education: The growing use of part-time faculty.
Understanding Causes and Effects, 26(4), 89–93.
Youssef F. N., (1996). Health care quality in NHS hospitals, International Journal
of Health Care Quality Assurance, 9(1),15-28.
Zahra, S. G., & Hossein, T. (2012). A Study on Effect of Brand Credibility on Word of
Mouth: With Reference to Internet Service Providers in Malaysia. Journal of
Marketing Studies, 4(1), February 2012.
109
Zamzuri, N.H., Mohamed, N., & Hussein, R. (2008). Antecedents of customer
satisfaction in repurchase intention in the electronic commerce environment,
International Symposium on Information Technology (ITSim 2008), Kuala
Lumpur, 22-26 August, IEEE Xplore, 1-5.
Zane, L. B., & Huang,Y.P. (2004). A Model for Sustainable Student Retention: A Holistic
Perspective on the Student Dropout Problem with Special Attention to e-
Learning.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of
service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(3),
April, 31-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251929
110
APPENDICES
111
APPENDIX A
ITEM-OBJECTIVE CONGRUENCE INDEX (IOC) FORM
112
ITEM-OBJECTIVE CONGRUENCY (IOC) FORM
TOPICE: Development of the model of foreign student loyalty studying in
Thailand
The research objectives are mentioned as following:
1. To develop the model of foreign student loyalty studying in Thailand.
2. To study the effect of the foreign student expectation on foreign student satisfaction.
3. To study the effect of the foreign student satisfaction on reputation and foreign
student loyalty.
4. To study the effect of the reputation on foreign student loyalty.
Please read whether the research questions match with the objective or not? Kindly tick
in the box against each question
+1 If the question match with my objective.
0 If you are not sure or cannot make a decision.
-1 If the question do not match my objective.
113
Foreign Student Loyalty (SL)
No. Word-Of-Mouth(WOM) -1 0 +1
3.1 I share the positive thoughts about this university with others.
3.2 I share the positive ideas about this university with others.
3.3 I share the positive information about this university with others.
3.4 I say the positive things about this university to others.
No. Retention (R) -1 0 +1
3.5 I would keep studying in this university.
3.6 I would update my knowledge in this university in future.
3.7 I would not reduce the number of course until graduation.
3.8 I would not drop out from the school until graduation.
No. Reputation (RP) -1 0 +1
4.1 I perceive the university reputation among my friend circle.
4.2 I perceive the university reputation among the general public.
4.3 I perceive the university reputation among employers
No. Reputation Of Study Program (ROSP) -1 0 +1
4.4 I perceive the reputation of study program among my friend circle.
4.5 I perceive the reputation of study program among the general public.
4.6 I perceive the reputation of study program among employers
114
Foreign Student Expectation
N0. Service Quality (SQ) -1 0 +1
5.1 The staffs of this university are willing to help students
5.2 The staffs of this university are very friendly and easy to approach
5.3 The staffs of this university are easy to found and available
5.4 The staffs of this university eager to solve students’ problems
5.5 The staffs of this university work very efficiently
No. Teacher (T) -1 0 +1
5.6 The teachers of this university make issues attractive, contemporary
and understandable
5.7 The teachers of this university provide examples enabling student to
understand the issue better
5.8 The teachers of this university offer the course in a proper speed and
understandable voice tone
5.9 The teacher of this university can provide satisfied answers to the
questions which asked by students
5.10 The teachers of this university offer information and help outside the
classroom
5.11 The teachers of this university consider students’ views and thoughts
5.12 The teachers of this university observe the contemporary
developments, should convey them to the students
115
No. Technology (T) -1 0 +1
5.13 The teachers of this university use computer facilities to teach/ explain
problems.
5.14 The technology in the classroom enables me to do web research.
5.15 I can use free internet in the university and accommodation.
5.16 The teachers of this university would use E-mail or SMS to inform me
some information, for example change the class time/room
No. Learning Environment (LE) -1 0 +1
5.17 The classrooms of this university are clean, comfortable and fit for
studying.
5.18 The environment of the campus is quiet and beautiful.
5.19 The classmates of this university are friendly and willing to help each
other.
No. University Accommodation (UA) -1 0 +1
5.20 The university provides accommodation for student.
5.21 The accommodation of this university is near the campus.
5.22 The accommodation of this university is clean, convenient and
comfortable.
5.23 The cost of the accommodation is reasonable.
Sign: ________________________
116
APPENDIX B
LIST OF THAI UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE BY NAME
117
Appendix B
List of Thai Universities and college by name
No The Name of The Universities
1 Asian Institute of Technology
2 Asian University
3 Asia-Pacific International University
4 Assumption University of Thailand
5 Bangkok University
6 Burapha University
7 Chaopraya University
8 Chiang Mai Rajabhat University
9 Chiang Mai University
10 Chiang Rai Rajabhat University
11 Christian University of Thailand
12 Chulalongkorn University
13 Dhonburi Rajabhat University
14 Eastern Asia University
15 Hatyai University
16 Huachiew Chalermprakiet University
17 Kasem Bundit University
118
No The Name of The Universities
18 Kasetsart University
19 Khon Kaen University
20 King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang
21 King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok
22 King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi
23 Krirk University
24 Lampang Rajabhat University
25 Mae Fah Luang University
26 Maejo University
27 Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University
28 Mahamakut Buddhist University
29 Mahidol University
30 Nakhon Pathom Rajabhat University
31 Nakhon Phanom University
32 Naresuan University
33 Nation University
34 National Institute of Development Administration
35 North Chiang Mai University
36 North Eastern University
37 Pathumthani University
119
No The Name of The Universities
38 Payap University
39 Prince of Songkla University
40 Princess of Naradhiwas University
41 Rajabhat Mahasarakham University
42 Rajamangala University of Technology Isarn
43 Rajamangala University of Technology Krungthep
44 Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna
45 Rajamangala University of Technology Phra Nakhon
46 Rajamangala University of Technology Ratanakosin
47 Rajamangala University of Technology Srivijaya
48 Rajamangala University of Technology Suvarnabhumi
49 Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok
50 Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi
51 Ramkhamhaeng University
52 Rangsit University
53 Ratchathani University
54 Rattana Bundit University
55 Saint John's University
56 Shinawatra University
57 Siam University
120
No The Name of The Universities
58 Silpakorn University
59 Sisaket Rajabhat University
60 South-East Asia University
61 Srinakharinwirot University
62 Sripatum University
63 Stamford International University
64 Suan Dusit Rajabhat University
65 Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University
66 Suranaree University of Technology
67 Thaksin University
68 Thammasat University
69 The Far Eastern University
70 The University of Central Thailand
71 Thonburi University
72 Ubon Ratchathani University
73 University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce
74 Uttaradit Rajabhat University
75 Vongchavalitkul University
76 Walailak University
77 bster University Thailand
121
No The Name of The Universities
78 Western University
79 Yala Islamic University
Source: http://www.4icu.org/th/thai-universities.htm
122
APPENDIX C
QUESTIONNAIRES
123
QUESTIONNAIRE No. ___
My name is Shuang Wei. I am a student who studies MBA Program in International
Business at The University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, in Bangkok, Thailand. I
am doing a research, as the topic of my thesis is “The loyalty of foreign students study
in Thailand”. No word can express my gratitude if you could take a few minutes of your
valuable time to complete this questionnaire. I will never forget your help. Thank you!
Part 1: personal data (instruction: please checking only one answer for each
question listed below)
1. Gender ___ 1) Male ___ 2) Female
2. Please indicate your age ___ years
3. Nationality
___1) Chinese ___2) Indian ___3) Vietnamese
___4) USA ___5) Japanese ___6) other…………..
4. Which university are you studying?
___1) ABAC ___2) UTCC ___3) HCU
5. Which faculty are you studying in?
___1) Business Administration ___2) Art ___3) Marketing
___4) Engineering ___5) Accounting ___6) other
6. What the education level are you?
___1) Bachelor degree ___2) Master degree ___3) Doctoral degree
7. What year you are studying?
___1) 1st year ___2) 2ed year ___3) 3rd year __5) 4th or over
124
Please check the arrangement of the important level among the five variables base on
the university that you are studying. Please tick (√) one of the boxes below in the following: scale: 1= strongly unimportant; 2=unimportant; 3=neutral; 4=important; 5=strongly important Part 2: Please tell me the arrangement of the important level among the
five variables
5 4 3 2 1
2.1 Service Quality
2.2 Teacher
2.3 Technology
2.4 Learning Environment
2.5 University Accommodation
Please check the degree that best describe you’re agree or disagree with the statements in the following, base on the university that you are studying.
Please tick (√) one of the boxes below in the following scale: 1= strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=neutral; 4=agree; 5=strongly agree Part 3: Foreign Student Loyalty (SL) 5 4 3 2 1
No. Word-Of-Mouth(WOM)
3.1 I share the positive ideas about this university with others.
3.2 I share the positive information about this university with others.
3.3 I say the positive things about this university to others.
No. Retention (R)
3.4 I would keep studying in this university.
3.5 I would update my knowledge in this university in future.
125
No. Retention (R) 5 4 3 2 1
3.6 I would not reduce the number of course until graduation.
3.7 I would not drop out from the school until graduation.
Part 4: Reputation (RP)
4.1 I perceive the university reputation among my friend circle.
4.2 I perceive the university reputation among the general public.
4.3 I perceive the university reputation among employers
No. Reputation Of Study Program (ROSP)
4.4 I perceive the reputation of study program among my friend circle.
4.5 I perceive the reputation of study program among the general
public.
4.6 I perceive the reputation of study program among employers
126
Please check the degree that best describe you’re agree or disagree with
the statements in the following, base on the university that you are studying.
Please tick (√) one of the boxes below in the following scale:
1= strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=neutral; 4=agree; 5=strongly agree
Part 5 Student Expectation Expectation Perception
5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 No. Service Quality (SQ)
5.1 The staffs of this university are willing to help students
5.2 The staffs of this university are very friendly and easy to approach
5.3 The staffs of this university are easy to found and available
5..4 The staffs of this university eager to solve students’ problems
5.5 The staffs of this university work very efficiently
No. Teacher (T)
5.6 The teachers of this university make issues attractive, contemporary and understandable
5.7 The teachers of this university provide examples enabling student to understand the issue better
5.8 The teachers of this university offer the course in a proper speed and understandable voice tone
5.9 The teacher of this university can provide satisfied answers to the questions which asked by students
127
Part 5 Student Expectation Expectation Perception
5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5.10 The teachers of this university offer information
and help outside the classroom
5.11 The teachers of this university consider students’ views and thoughts
5.12 The teachers of this university Observe the contemporary developments, should convey them to the students
No. Technology (Ty) Expectation Perception 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1
5.13 The teachers of this university use computer facilities to teach/ explain problems.
5.14 The technology in the classroom enables me to do web research.
5.15 The internet is provided around the university. 5.16 The teachers of this university would use E-mail
or SMS to inform me some information, for example change the class time/room
No. Learning Environment (LE) 5.17 The classrooms of this university are clean,
comfortable and fit for studying.
5.18 The environment of the campus is quiet and beautiful.
5.19 The classmates of this university are friendly and willing to help each other.
No. University Accommodation (UA) 5.20 The university provides accommodation for
student.
5.21 The accommodation of this university is near the campus.
5.22 The accommodation of this university is clean, convenient and comfortable.
5.23 The cost of the accommodation is reasonable.
128
BIOGRAPHY
Ms. Shuang Wei was born on 14th August 1987. She received a Bachelor
Degree in Master of Business Administration from University of the Thai Chamber of
Commerce in 2012.
She got a Master Degree in International Business in 2012. She has been
working for http://www.4seasonsumbrella.com until now.