Research on factors affecting the student’s
satisfaction: a case study at the Da Nang University
of economics, in Vietnam.
Student : Duong Thi Thu Dieu
Class : SD-MBA1
ID : 11752303
Advisor : Dr. Chiang- Yuan Huang
Co-Advisor: Nguyen Hiep
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
1.
Introduction
q
Research Background/Motive
q
Research Purposes/Objective
2. Literature reviews
3. Research Methods
4. Concluding Remarks
o
References
INTRODUCTION
In the progress of development and integration, education is one of the most important
factors to develop country’s human resources. In order to upgrade quality of education
as well as to meet the expectation of training needs, education becomes more and
more socializing. In that process, under-graduated education plays an important role to
develop high-class human resources.
Nowadays, in a competitive marketplace where businesses compete for customers,
customer satisfaction is considered as a key differentiator and increasingly has become a
key element of business strategy. Thus, all corporations have tried to improve their ability
to meet potential and target customer expectation as well as make them satisfied. In
order to explore key factors that affect customer satisfaction, real surveys are necessary.

are all customers of the education system with a diversity of
requirements.
RESEARCH BACKGROUND
§
Alridge and Rowley (2001) in particular suggested that the perceived service
quality of students is an antecedent to student satisfaction.
§
Hoffman and Bateson (1997) defined SERVQUAL as an attitude that is
established by a long-term assessment on overall performance. Service
quality is about delivery of excellent or high rate of service relative to
customer or exceeds their expectations (Tahar, 2008)
§
Parasuraman et al., (1985) defined service quality as a form of attitude that
is related to customers‟ expectations and perceptions.
§
According to Lassar, Manolis and Winsor (2000), two most prevalent and
widely accepted perspectives on service quality include the SERVQUAL
model and the Technical/Functional Quality framework.
RESEARCH BACKGROUND
§
Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985) however listed ten
determinants of service quality that can be generalized to any type
of service:
- The ten dimensions include tangibility, reliability, responsiveness,
competence, access, courtesy, communication, credibility, security
and understanding.
- In addition, these ten dimensions were then regrouped in the well-
known five dimensions in the SERVQUAL model (Parasuraman et al.,
1990) which include assurance, empathy, reliability, responsiveness
and tangibility.

quality of students is an antecedent to student satisfaction. Hoffman and
Bateson (1997) defined SERVQUAL as an attitude that is established by a long-
term assessment on overall performance.
§
Service quality is about delivery of excellent or high rate of service relative to
customer or exceeds their expectations (Tahar, 2008).
§
Parasuraman et al., (1985) defined service quality as a form of attitude that is
related to customers‟ expectations and perceptions.
LITERATURE REVIEWS
§
According to Lassar, Manolis and Winsor (2000), two most prevalent and widely
accepted perspectives on service quality include the SERVQUAL model and the
Technical/Functional Quality framework.
§
Gronroos (1984) held that service quality is made up of three dimensions "the
technical quality of the outcome", "the functional quality of the encounter" and
“the company corporate image”. He argued that in examining the determinants
of quality, it is necessary to differentiate between quality associated with the
process of service delivery and quality associated with the outcome of service,
judged by the consumer after the service is performed.
§
Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985) however listed ten determinants
of service quality that can be generalized to any type of service. The ten
dimensions include tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, competence, access,
courtesy, communication, credibility, security and understanding. In addition,
these ten dimensions were then regrouped in the well-known five dimensions
in the SERVQUAL model (Parasuraman et al., 1990) which include assurance,
empathy, reliability, responsiveness and tangibility.
LITERATURE REVIEWS

performance.
•
Most student satisfaction study focus on the perspective of customer,
researchers is facing a problem of creating a standard definition for student
satisfaction thus providing a need of customer satisfaction theory to be selected
and modified so that it can explain the meaning of student satisfaction (Hom,
2002).
•
According to Sapri et al., (2009) mentioned that students’ satisfaction is a short-
term attitude that results from evaluation of their experience on education
services that they had received.
•
Kotler and Clarke (1987) define satisfaction as a state felt by a person who has
experience performance or an outcome that fulfill his or her expectation.
§
Many researches on students satisfaction that concerned with quality of courses
and teaching (Mavondo, & Zaman, 2000, & Sapri, et al, 2009).
LITERATURE REVIEWS
§
Service Quality and Students Satisfaction
•
Service quality and customer satisfaction are basically two different issues but
can be highly interrelated.
•
According to Gao & Wei,2004,the key to sustainable competitive advantage lays
in delivering high quality of service that in turn result to customer.
•
Satisfaction is a function of relative level of expectations and perceives
performance. The expectation may go as far as before the students even enter
the higher education, suggesting that it is important to the researchers to

Joseph, 2009
Modified IPA Academic reputation Career
opportunities Programme issues
Cost/time
Physical aspects
Location
Other
(Babar Zaheer Butt and Kashif ur
Rehman,2010)
§
Teachers’ expertise
§
Courses offered
§
Learning environment and
§
Classroom facilities
Aldemir and Gulcan (2004) Institutional factors
Extracurricular activities
Demographic
RESEARCH METHODS
Objectives of research
Information needs collection
Quantitative research
Collective Data
Process Data & Analysis information
Research Result
Observations
Sample Selection
§

Career Guidance
Reasearch model: The conceptual framework of student satisfaction with
different educational services is presented here
Tangibles
Responsiveness
Assurance.
Empathy
Student’s
Satisfaction
(by Parasuraman’s SERVQUAL dimensions)
Reliability
Independent Variable DependentVariable
H1
H5
H4
H2
H3
RESEARCH METHODS
Hypothesis:
H1: Tangibility has positive relationship with Student satisfaction.
H2: Reliability has positive relationship with Student satisfaction.
H3: Responsiveness has positive relationship with Student satisfaction.
H4: Assurance has positive relationship with Student satisfaction.
H5: Empathy has positive relationship with Student satisfaction.
Measureming instrument
This study use quantitative method.
Measurement of components in research model.
Questionaire design will be based on this measurement.
This variables will use 5-point Likert scale, within: (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly
agree.

well as efficiently apply a great deal of solutions for investing in Human
Resources, upgrading and improving current service quality.
REFERENCES (1)
1.
Aldemir, C. and Gulcan, Y. (2004), “Students Satisfaction in Higher Education: A Turkish Case”,
Higher Education Management and Policy,
16(2), 109-122.
2.
Aldridge, S. and Rowely, J. (1998), “Measuring customer satisfaction in higher education”,
Quality
Assurance in Education,
6(4), 197-204.
3.
DeShields Jr., O. W., Kara, A. and Kaynak, E. (2005), “Determinants of business student
satisfaction and retention in higher education: applying Herzberg’s two factor theory”,
International
Journal of Educational Management,
19(2), 28-139.
4. Gruber, T., Voss, R., & Glaser, Z.M. (2010). Examining student satisfaction with higher education
services using a new measurement tool. International Journal of Public Sector Management.
5. Kotler, P. & Clarke, R.N. (1987). Marketing for health care organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
6. O'Neill M.A., & Palmer, A. (2004). Importance–performance analysis: a useful tool for directing
continuous quality improvement in higher education. Quality Assurance Education
7. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. & Zeithaml, V.A. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the
SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing.
8. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and
its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.
REFERENCES (2)
9. Mai, L. (2005), “A Comparative Study between UK and US: The Student Satisfaction in Higher