Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

1|

Full title: Authors:

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM Mohammad Alhamwan Matric no. 94610 PhD Student Universiti Utara Malaysia e-mail: malhamwan@yahoo.com Khan Sarfaraz Ali Matric no. 94373 PhD Student College of Business Universiti Utara Malaysia e-mail: sarfarazbim@gmail.com Abdo Ali Homaid Matric no. 93090 PhD Student Universiti Utara Malaysia e-mail: a3hd2000@yahoo.com

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships of several factors for students satisfaction. Students satisfaction is considered a vital link and aspiration to education success, credibility and gradual development in an academic institution. From the literature, six antecedents of students satisfaction are identified. Each variable is measured using 5-point interval scale: facilities (5 items), study content and planning (5 items), acquired skills (5 items), perceived quality (4 items), collectivism culture (5 items) and satisfaction (5items). Using primary data collection method, 250 questionnaires were distributed to target respondents of both graduate and post-graduate students of Universiti Utara Malaysia. The responses collected were 203 completed questionnaires representing 81.2 percent response rate. The data were analyzed using Structural equation modeling (SEM) using AMOS 7. Confirmatory factor analysis of measurement models indicate adequate goodness of fit after a few items were eliminated through modification indices verifications. Goodness of fit for the revised structural model shows adequate fit. This study has established five direct causal effects: (1) facilities and students satisfaction; (2) study content and planning and students satisfaction (3) acquired skills and students satisfaction; (4) perceived quality and students satisfaction and (5) collectivism culture and students satisfaction. Interestingly, this study also manage to present first time findings on four mediating effects: (1) perceived quality mediates relationship between facilities and students satisfaction; (2) perceived quality mediates relationship between study content and planning and students satisfaction; (3) perceived quality mediates relationship between acquired skills and stude nts satisfaction and (4) perceived quality mediates the relationship between collectivism culture and students satisfaction. The findings are discussed in the perspective of International students and their view towards foresaid factors. Keywords: student satisfaction, facilities, study content and planning, acquired skills, perceived quality, collectivism culture Correspondence to: Mohammad Alhamwan Telephone: 60194808390 Khan Sarfaraz Ali Telephone: 60174899542 Abdo Ali Homaid Telephone: 60124014925

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

2|

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM Mohammad Alhamwana, Khan Sarfaraz Alib & Abdo Ali Homaidc
a, b, c

PhD Student, Universiti Utara Malaysia

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships of several factors for students satisfaction. Students satisfaction is considered a vital link and aspiration to education success, credibility and gradual development in an academic institution. From the literature, six antecedents of students satisfaction are identified. Each variable is measured using 5-point interval scale: facilities (5 items), study content and planning (5 items), acquired skills (5 items), perceived quality (4 items), collectivism culture (5 items) and satisfaction (5items). Using primary data collection method, 250 questionnaires were distributed to target respondents of both graduate and post-graduate students of Universiti Utara Malaysia. The responses collected were 200 completed questionnaires representing 80 percent response rate. The data were analyzed using Structural equation modeling (SEM) using AMOS 7. Confirmatory factor analysis of measurement models indicate adequate goodness of fit after a few items were eliminated through modification indices verifications. Goodness of fit for the revised structural model shows adequate fit. This study has established five direct causal effects: (1) facilities and students satisfaction; (2) study content and planning and students satisfaction (3) acquired skills and students satisfaction; (4) perceived quality and students satisfaction and (5) collectivism culture and students satisfaction. Interestingly, this study also manage to present first time findings on four mediating effects: (1) perceived quality mediates relationship between facilities and students satisfaction; (2) perceived quality mediates relationship between study content and planning and students satisfaction; (3) perceived quality mediates relationship between acquired skills and students satisfaction and (4) perceived quality mediates the relationship between collectivism culture and students satisfaction. The findings are discussed in the perspective of International students and their view towards foresaid factors. Keywords: student satisfaction, facilities, study content and planning, acquired skills, perceived quality, collectivism culture 1. Introduction Student satisfaction is one of the major goals of universities. A satisfied student population is a source of competitive advantage with outcomes such as positive word of mouth (WOM) communication, student retention and loyalty. The creation and the delivery of superior customer value become important in creating a sustainable advantage in the highly competitive international education market (Kotler and Fox, 2002). Universities are expected to cope with the challenges of cultural diversity, varied learning styles, the changing demands of students who are presented with a much wider choice of study destinations, educational programs and study environments than before. The international education market has become very attractive to universities in terms of pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefits to the respective institutions and the country and, like many other organizations, universities are, therefore, concerned with market share, productivity, return on investment and the quality of services offered to their customers (LeBlanc and Nha, 1997). In earlier works, Oliver (1989) identified several types of satisfaction: satisfaction-as-contentment, satisfaction as pleasure, satisfaction-as-relief, satisfaction-asnovelty and satisfaction-as-surprise. Later, the same author depicted another definition for satisfaction. He pointed out that satisfaction is the consumers fulfillment response. It is a judgment that a product or service feature, or the product or service itself, provided (or is providing) a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment, including levels of under-or-over fulfillment (Oliver, 1997). More and more universities have gradually adopted a marketing approach as they compete to attract and retain top

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

3|

quality students. As higher education meets all the classical features of services (Cherubini, 1996; Pellicelli, 1997; Zeithaml and Bitner, 2002), the concepts of service quality and customer satisfaction are directly applicable, moving the universities closer to their market needs. Since new generation students have more influence and greater awareness as consumers, becoming more interactive and selective as regards their future, it becomes even more difficult to attract them (Sigala and Baum, 2003). With this merger and acquisition exercise, Universities will need to increase their services and image to attract more International students. For Universities to adequately monitor their students related programs, academic services need to be updated of the drivers of students satisfaction in education sector. This is the main impetus of doing this research. Thus, the objective of this study is to examine the causal relationships of several antecedents of students satisfaction in the context of a University in Northern Malaysia. This paper is structured as follows. First, we review the academic literature on the antecedents of students satisfaction: facilities, study c ontent and planning, acquired skills, perceived quality, and collectivism culture. Next, we present the research framework, methods, measures and findings. Finally, the results were discussed in terms of its contribution to the development of education services and recommendations for future research. 2. Literature Review Much of the original work on students satisfaction defines student satisfaction level has been found to be one of the factors that affects the quality and overall effectiveness of a university program (Aitken, 1982; Astin, Korn, & Green, 1987; Bailey, Bauman, & Lata, 1998; Love, 1993; Suen, 1983). In addition, student recruitment and retention have always been the core activities of higher educational institutions. Student satisfaction has been identified a factor that affects student recruitment and retention (Hatcher, et al., 1992; Love, 1993). This basically implies that the higher the level of satisfaction with the educational environment, the higher the likelihood that the student will stay at the educational institution and recommend the institution to others. As a result, student satisfaction has been integrated as a part of the discussion in respect of institutional effectiveness and student outcomes (Astin, Korn, & Green, 1987; Bailey, Bauman, & Lata, 1998). For instance, state systems are now putting policies in place to obligate state educational institutions to provide data and evidence to show that they are offering quality education and education-related activities to students in an effective and efficient manner (Hatcher, Prus and Fitzgerald, 1992; Redd, 1998). Student outcomes, student retention, attrition, and graduate rates are some of the key measures of the quality and overall effectiveness of the higher educational institution (Hatcher, et al., 1992; Redd, 1998). The implementation of these policies provides incentives and encouragement for higher educational institutions to study factors that affect the quality and overall effectiveness of their programs. Increased competition, dynamic educational environment, challenges such as budget cut, higher costs in obtaining college education, changing demographics in the population, declining enrollments, and a general public call for accountability have educational institutions realize the importance of student satisfaction (Cheng & Tam, 1997; Kotler & Fox, 1995). Studies have shown student satisfaction to have a positive impact on student motivation, student retention, recruiting efforts and fundraising (Borden, 1995; Frazer, 1999). The students positive feeling and satisfaction is contingent to the students academic and social experiences obtained at the particular institution (Aitken, 1982; Betz, Menne, Starr, & Klingensmith, 1971; Danielson, 1998; Hatcher, et al., 1992; Stikes 1984; Tinto, 1993). As a result, student satisfaction among graduate students is assumed and only usually considered when competition affects enrolment. There is need for more research in higher education that focuses more on student needs and concerns for the purposes of improving academic programs. In addition, extrinsic factors need to be considered as well. Being able to identify and address students needs and expectations allows educational institutions to attract and retain quality students as well as improve the quality of their programs (Elliott & Shin, 2002). Therefore, it is vital for educational institutions to determine and deliver what is important to students.

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

4|

Theoretical framework Facilities and Students Satisfaction In general the literature does not treat facilities as a potential differentiator or subject them to separate research (Price et al., 2003). The paradox of facilities Managements (FM) claims for strategic or value adding status on the one hand, and the subjects largely operational rhetoric on the other (Grimshaw, 1999), has become widely recognized in recent years. Facilities could for example be essential to attract key research personnel, or to provide environments for faster knowledge creation. Its impact on student perceptions of their pedagogic experience (Fleming and Storr, 1999) is not widely appreciated in the literature on lecture theatre design or pedagogy. Most University marketing surveys pay comparatively little weight to facilities-related factors, despite evidence of their impact on the student experience (Green et. Al, 1994, cited in Yorke, 2000) and by reviews of literatures on lecture theatre design and learning experience, which found a wide (an unbridged!) gulf between the architectural and pedagogical approaches (Fleming and Storr, 1999). Characteristics of the student should fit with the ability of the institutions to respond adequately to those characteristics, ultimately leading to increased student satisfaction, academic achievement and personal growth. This study investigates the degree to which facilities influence on student satisfaction. Study Content & Planning and Students Satisfaction Measuring student satisfaction is not an easy task to attempt. Therefore, the indicators that are used differ from one author to another. For example, Browne et al. (1998) found that global satisfaction within a university was driven by a students assessment of course quality and other curriculum -related factors associated with a university. Borden (1995) found that student satisfaction is related to the match between student priorities and the campus environment (Elliott & Shin, 2002). Therefore, it is vital for educational institutions to determine and deliver what is important to students. Being able to identify and address students needs and expectations allows educational institutions to attract and retain quality students as well as improve the quality of their programs (Elliott & Shin, 2002). For the purpose of the present research, student satisfaction is defined as an evaluating summary of educational experience, based on the discrepancy between prior expectation and the performance perceived after passing through the educational cycle. Acquired Skills and Students Satisfaction In general, all the authors suggest evaluating the quality of the service process as such and only the study by Brady and Cronin (2001) suggests (in Mris and Zaksa, 2012) including also the evaluation of the service result. In the case of higher education the result of the study process are the acquired skills and readiness for the labour market. The higher education reforms require introducing the student-centred and study result-oriented education. Accordingly, when assessing the student-perceived quality the higher education institution managers also have to require the study result assessment. As a result of the study process the student acquires the added value new knowledge and skills that, in their turn, enhance his competitiveness in the labour market. Consequently, by becoming aware of the gains from the service after its completion the student can evaluate the acquired results (Mris and Zaksa, 2012). This study aims at looking into the degree to which acquired skills influence on student satisfaction. Perceived Quality and Students Satisfaction In general, the perceived quality is defined as the customers judgment about an entitys overall excellence or superiority (Rowley, 1997). Parasuraman et al. (1991) support the notion that service quality is an overall evaluation similar to attitude. Besides, the customer perception of the quality may differ from the one described in the quality standards or regulatory documents for the provision of the service. It also relates to students. Many researchers state that customer assessments of continuously provided services may depend on performance. A performance-based measure may explain more of the variance in an overall measure of service quality (Oliver, 1989; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Boulding et al., 1993). Marketing research conducted before has proved that customer loyalty is affected by the customer-perceived quality, satisfaction and overall image of the organization (Kotler and Fox, 1995;

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

5|

Zeithaml, 2000; Helgesen, 2006). In the area of higher education Elliot and Healy describe satisfaction as a short-term attitude that has arisen after evaluating ones acquired experience during the use of the higher education service (Elliot and Healy, 2001). Walker believes that students being incapable of assessing the higher education quality as a whole more focus on the quality of environment and classes delivered by the academic staff (Walker 1995). Rossiter (1995) argues that the functional relationship between perceived quality and satisfaction is exponential. To put it another way, (dis)satisfaction with more recent encounters will have a larger impact on perceived quality than (dis)satisfaction with previous encounters. As Johnson et al. (2001) point out; the customer-perceived quality can be composed by a multitude of diverse factors. The previously created customer-perceived quality and satisfaction models contain essential drawbacks and along with the change of times and environment as well as acquisition of new knowledge the models of perceived quality and satisfaction evaluation must be updated and adapted to the new conditions. Collectivism Culture and Students Satisfaction Collectivistic values are required to maintain good relationships with the students family and primary in-group identification, whereas individualistic values and behavioral competences may be required for success in a college environment that is becoming so closely aligned with the North American model. In what has proven to be a very influential review, LaFromboise, Coleman, and Gerton (1993) described bicultural competence as the ability to develop and maintain competence in two cultures. They considered knowledge of cultural beliefs and values as a distinct dimension of bicultural competence along with positive attitudes toward both cultures, confidence in ones continued well-being, communication ability, mastery of culturally appropriate roles and behaviors, and a well-developed social support system in both cultural groups. In the study of bicultural competence of college students in Hawaii, Yamada and Singelis (1999) defined the living experience in both collectivistic and individualistic culture as one of the indicators of bicultural competence. LaFromboise et al.s review described the extensive benefits of bicultural competence for healthy adjustment and effective functioning in both cultures. In a recent study (David, Okazaki, & Saw, 2009), bicultural competence was positively associated with life satisfaction and negatively associated with depression in a mixed U.S. sample of Asian American, African American, Latino/a, multiracial, and international undergraduate students. A study that sampled high school students, college students, and adults from South Korea reported that collectivistic values were positively related to trust toward professionals in seeking professional help while individualistic values were negatively associated with stigma tolerance related to mental health (D.-H. Lee & Yoo, 2000). 3. Methodology This study formulates the antecedents of students satisfaction as shown in Fi gure 2. In the research framework, it shows that facilities, study content and planning and acquired skills have direct influence on students satisfaction while perceived quality mediates the relationship and collectivism culture influences the relationship. The literature indicates that facilities, study content and planning and acquired skills are direct antecedents of students satisfaction. Collectivism culture is an indirect antecedent of students satisfaction through perceived quality. When this research framework is translated into the hypothesized model (see Table 2), the manifesting variables are drawn with the error terms for each latent variables. The four exogenous variables contain four and five (observed) variables respectively. For endogenous latent variables Students Satisfaction the manifesting variables are five. The subsequent error terms are labeled as in the diagram. Table 1 summarizes the operational definitions of all latent variables used in this study. Afterwards, eight hypotheses are derived from the structural model for the study (see Table 2).

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

6|

Sampling and instrument A total of 250 international students were requested to complete a questionnaire that contained measures of the constructs of concern. The questionnaires were distributed to the respondents at their workplace by using purposive sampling method. A response rate of about 81.2% was collected back corresponding to 203 responses. Each variable is measured using previously developed instrument as follows: 5-point interval-scale of (1)-strongly disagree to (5)-strongly agree. There are also five demographic questions included in the instrument which use ordinal and nominal scale such as name, age, gender, education, and marital status. Data Screening and Analysis The 203 dataset were coded and saved into SPSS version 16 and analyzed using AMOS version 7.0. Several statistical validity tests and analysis were further conducted such as reliability (Cronbachs alpha) and composite reliability tests, validity tests using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for construct convergent, discriminant, and nomological validities. Subsequently, the data was subjected to descriptive analysis, correlation and structural equation modeling analysis. The steps in SEM analysis are CFA analysis, measurement analysis, discriminant analysis (average variance extracted), composite reliability analysis, and direct indirect impact analysis (mediating effects), testing the fit for the hypothesized structural model, revised model, competing model, and comparison of nested model analysis. 4. Results Demographic Profile of the Respondents The respondents ages ranged from twenty to above forty years old maximum having age between 20 and 29 years old. There are more female (65.5%) than male respondents (34.5%). The respondents are mostly single students (67%%) followed by married (32%%) and divorced (1%). Their qualification varies from Under graduate (42.2%), Masters Degree (22.7%), and PhD/DBA (35%) (Table 9). Descriptive Analysis of Variables The research framework consists of four exogenous and one endogenous variable (Table 8). Each construct shows Cronbach alpha readings of acceptable values of above 0.68, well above Nunnally, (1970) recommendation of 0.60 limit. Composite reliability shows similar high readings for variables above 0.87. The CR for Student Satisfaction is 0.942985 and Cronbachs alpha is .81. Here, the highest CR and Cronbachs alpha among the IVs I for Acquired Skills (0.964069 and .85). While, the lowest Cronbachs alpha is Collectivism Culture (.68). Facilities have lowest CR (0.87748). Perceived Quality has CR 0.900853 and Cronbachs alpha .75. Study Content & Planning have 0.915175 as CR and .78 as Cronbachs alpha. Convergent Validity (Confirmatory Factor Analysis -CFA) From the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) result in Table 10, it is observed that the regression estimates or factor loadings of all manifesting observed variables or items are adequate ranging from 0.91 to 0.99. The factor loadings of latent to observed variable should be above 0.50 (Hair et al., 2006).This indicates that all the constructs conform to the construct convergent validity test. After deletions were made using modification indices suggestions, the remaining numbers of items for each construct are as follows: facilities (5 items), study content and planning (5 items), acquired skills (5 items), perceived quality (4 items) and students satisfaction (5 items).

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

7|

Composite Reliability The calculations of composite reliability based on the standardized factor loadings obtained from the final revised structural model. The equation for composite reliability is as follows: Composite reliability = ( standardized loading)2 standardized loading)2 + j

The readings of composite reliability of all exogenous latent constructs are well above 0.87 (Table 11). Discriminant Validity To substantiate discriminant validity, average variance extracted (AVE) is compared to correlation squared of the interrelated variables of concerned (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) (see table 12). The variance extracted is calculated and presented in Table 13. The AVE is derived from the calculation of variance extracted using the following equation: Variance Extracted (VE) = (standardized SMC2 ) (standardized SMC2) + j

Nomological Validity Nomological validity examines whether the correlations between constructs in the measurement theory makes sense such that correlations must be positive or negative according to theory stipulated (Hair et al. 2006). From 14, it is observed that all directions of correlations are in the hypothesized direction as stipulated in the hypotheses in accordance to theory. Thus, it can be deducted that nomological validity is substantiated for all measures used in this study. Goodness of Fit of Structural Model To arrive to the structural model, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on every construct and measurement models (Table 10). The goodness of fit is the decision to see the model fits into the variance-covariance matrix of the dataset. The CFA, measurement and structural model has a good fit with the data based on assessment criteria such as GFI, CFI, TLI, RMSEA (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). All CFAs of constructs produced a relatively good fit as indicated by the goodness of fit indices such as CMIN/df ratio (<2); p-value (>0.05); Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) of >0.95; and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of values less than 0.08 (<0.08) (Hair et al., 2006). Table 10 shows that the goodness of fit of generated or revised model is better compared to the hypothesized model. This is expected as hypothesized model is usually strictly confirmatory (Byrne, 2001). GFI of revised model is 0.96 compared to GFI of hypothesized model of 0.95. Root mean square Error Approximation (RMSEA) also shows a better readings of 0.18 for revised model compared to 0.042 for hypothesized model (<0.08). Hypotheses Results Since the results of hypothesized model (Figure 3) did not achieve model fit (p<0.000), hence, the explanation of hypotheses result will be based on generated or revised model (Figure 4). The result demonstrates that facility is a significant positive antecedent of students satisfaction. Hence, study content and planning has a positive significant impact on students satisfaction (CR=4.861; P<0.001) or H2 is asserted. Acquired skills have a positive and direct impact on students satisfaction. (CR=2.267; P<0.001), i.e H3 is also asserted. Study content and planning has a positive and direct impact on

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

8|

students satisfaction (CR=4.861; p<0.05), i.e H2 is asserted. Similarly, alternatively, hypotheses H1and H5 are not asserted (insignificant Beta). Thus these hypotheses are rejected. Mediating Effect Analysis of Revised Model Table 7 shows the indirect effect estimates to test the mediating effects of customer satisfaction. From the result, H2, H3, and H4 are supported. For H1: perceived quality mediates the relationship between facilities and students satisfaction. There are significant increases of indirect effects for these relationships compared to direct impacts. Alternatively, H1 was not supported because the indirect impact is less than the direct impact. This means that perceived quality does not mediate the relationship between collectivism culture and students satisfaction but rather perceived quality is directly related to students satisfaction. Overall Comparison between structural models Figure 3 and figure 4 indicate the overall comparison between two structural models (hypothesized and revised) derived from the study. It shows that hypothesized model produces four significant direct impacts while revised model produces three significant direct impacts. Even though there are more significant direct impacts in hypothesized model, the results could not be generalized due to nonachievement of p-value (p<0.05). It seems that three significant direct impacts of acquired skills to students satisfaction (H2), Study content and planning to students satisfaction (H3) and facilities to students satisfaction (H4) are consistently significant across the two structural models. Alternatively, one direct path i.e. the path from collectivism culture to students satisfaction (H1) is consistently insignificant across the structural models. 5. Discussion This study attempts to examine the causal relationships between four antecedents of students satisfaction in the education sector. The conceptual underpinning used is that of the Herzbergs twofactor theory explaining satisfaction (Herzberg, 1959). As expected, the hypothesized model do not achieve model fit (p value=0.000, p <0.001). This implies that hypothesized model could not be generalized to the population. This is expected because the sample was only concentrated in one University only. This new finding for this study indicates that quality of services offered by Universities should be given priority since it can directly affect the students satisfaction. This study has found very interesting findings regarding several significant indirect paths effects or mediating paths. This indirect path is justified to compensate for the insignificant direct paths found earlier (e.g: facilities and students satisfaction; study content and planning and students satisfaction acquired skills and students satisfaction; perceived quality and students satisfaction). All direct paths are mediated by one mediator proposed in this study which is perceived quality. For example, the relationship between facilities and study content will be very much improved if the satisfaction and acquired skills have been taken into consideration by students. Likewise, perceived quality is another important mediator needed to improve relationship between facilities, study content and acquired skills. It is therefore necessary to ensure that University provides satisfactory services to students to gain satisfaction. 6. Suggestion for Future Research The findings could not be generalized for the whole University of Malaysia because it was only conducted in the Universiti Utara Malaysia. This model has shown some interesting findings which could be applied for utilization in research on a bigger scale to include the whole of Malaysia and Asian region.

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

9|

7. Conclusion This study has established four direct causal effects: (1) facilities and students satisfaction; (2) study content and planning and students satisfaction (3) acquired skills and students satisfaction; (4) perceived quality and students satisfaction. Interestingly, this study also manage to present first time findings on three mediating effects: (1) perceived quality mediates relationship between facilities and students satisfaction; (2) perceived quality mediates the relationship between study content and students satisfaction; and (3) perceived quality mediates the relationship between acquired skills and students satisfaction. 8. References Aitken, N. D. (1982). College student performance, satisfaction and retention. Journal of Higher Education, 53, 32-50. Astin, A., Korn, W., & Green, K. (1987, Winter). Retaining and satisfying students. Educational Record, 36-42. Bailey, B. L., Bauman, C., & Lata, K. A. (1998). Student retention and satisfaction: The evolution of a predictive model. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 424797). Borden, V. M. H. (1995). Segmenting student markets with a student satisfaction and priorities Survey. Research in Higher Education, 36(1), 73-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02207767 Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). A dynamic process model of service quality: from expectations to behavioural intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, pp.30, 7-27. Browne, B. A., Kaldenberg, D. O., Browne, W. B., & Brown, D. (1998). Students as customers: factors affecting satisfaction and assessments of institutional quality. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 8(3), 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J050v08n03_01 Cherubini, S. (1996), Marketing dei servizi, Franco Angeli, Milano. Cronin, J. J. and Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, pp.56, 5568. David, E. J. R., Okazaki, S., & Saw, A. (2009). Bicultural self-efficacy among college students: Initial scale development and mental health correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(2), 211 226 Elliot, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(2), 2002. Elliot, K.M. and Healy, M.A. (2001), Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment and retention, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp.11. Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction; an alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24, 197209.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360080022000013518 Fleming, D and Storr, J. (1999). The impact of lecture theatre design on learning experience, Facilities, Vol: 17. No. 7/8. Pp: 231-6.

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

10 |

Green, D. with Branningan, C., Mazelan, P. and Giles, L. (1994), Measuring student satisfaction: a method of improving the quality of the students experience, in Hazelgrove, S. (Ed.), The Student Experience, Open University Press, Buckingham. Grimshaw, B. (1999). Facilities management: the wider implications of managing change, Facilities, Vol: 17. No. 1/2, pp: 24-30. Johnson, M.D., Gustafsson, A., Andreassen, T.W., Lervik, L. and Cha, J. (2001). The evolution and future of national customer satisfaction index models. Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 22, pp.21745. Hatcher, L., Kryter, K., Prus, J. S., & Fitzgerald, V. (1992). Predicting college student satisfaction, commitment and attrition from investment model constructs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(16), 1273-1296. Helgesen, . (2006), Are loyal customers profitable? Customer satisfaction, customer (action) loyalty and customer profitability at the individual level, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22, pp. 24566. Kotler, P. and Fox, K.F. (1995), Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 395412. LeBlanc, G. and Nha, N. (1997), searching for excellence in business education: an exploratory study of customer impressions of service quality, The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 72-80. Lee, D.-H., & Yoo, S.-K. (2000). An exploratory study on attitudes toward seeking professional help among Koreans. Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy, 12(2), 5568 Love, B. J. (1993). Issues and problems in the retention of Black students in predominately White institutions of higher learning. Equity and Excellence in Education, 26(1), 27-37. Mris, P. and Zaksa, K. (2012). The impact of perceived service quality on student loyalty in higher education institutions, in Journal of Business Management, 2012, No.6 ISSN 1691-5348 Oliver, R. L. (1989). Processing of the Satisfaction Response in Consumption: A Suggested Framework and Research Propositions. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 2, 1-16. Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York: The Mc Graw-Hill Companies, Inc. Oliver, R. L., Swan, J.E., (1989). Equity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on Merchant and product satisfaction. Journal of consumer research, Vol.16, No.3, pp.372383. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1991). Refinement of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for further research. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp.42050. Redd, K. E. (1998). Historically black colleges and universities: Making a comeback. New directions for higher education (pp. 33-43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

11 |

Rossiter, J.R (1995), Buyer Behavior from the Marketing Managers Perspective, Australian Graduate School of Management, University of New South Wales. Rowley J. (1997). Beyond service quality dimensions in higher education and towards a service contract. Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 5, no1, pp.714. Sigala, M. and Baum, T. (2003), Trends and issues in tourism and hospitality higher education: visioning the future, Tourism and Hospitality Research. The Surrey Quarterly Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 367-76. Suen, H. K. (1983). Alienation and attrition of Black college students on a predominately white campus. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24(2), 117-121. Pellicelli, G. (1997). Marketing dei servizi, Utet, Torino. Walker J. (1995). Service encounter satisfaction: constructualized. Journal of Services Marketing, 9 (1), pp.514. Yorke, M. (2000), Benchmarking the student experience, in Jakson, N. and Lund, H. (Eds), Benchmarking for Higher Education, Open University Press, Buckingham, pp: 67-84. Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitter, M.J. (2002). Il marketing dei servizi, McGraw Hill, Milano. Zeithaml, V.A. (2000), Service quality, profitability, and the economic worth of customers: what we know and what we need to learn, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 6785.

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

12 |

Figure 1: Two-Factor Satisfaction Model (Herzberg, 1959) This study is based on Herzbergs two-factor theory explaining satisfaction: the factor group motivators contributed to the rise of satisfaction and the factor group hygiene factors ensured the avoidance of dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1959).

Figure 2: RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

13 |

Figure 3: Hypothesized Model

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

14 |

Table 1: Operational definition of Variables Facilities Facilities could for example be essential to attract key research Fleming and personnel, or to provide environments for faster knowledge Storr (1999) creation.

Study Content & Quality and other curriculum-related factors associated with a Browne et al. Planning university. (1998) Acquired Skills Perceived Quality Collectivism Culture Becoming aware of the gains from the service after its completion the student can evaluate the acquired results Mris and Zaksa (2012)

The perceived quality is defined as the customers judgment about Rowley (1997) an entitys overall excellence or superiority. Bicultural competence as the ability to develop and maintain LaFromboise, competence in two cultures. Coleman, and Gerton (1993)

Table 2: Hypotheses Formulation H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 Collectivism culture is related positively with students satisfaction Acquired skills is related positively to students satisfaction Study contents and planning are related positively to students satisfaction Facilities are related positively to students satisfaction Perceived quality mediates relationship between facilities and students satisfaction. Perceived quality mediates relationship between study content and planning and students satisfaction H7 H8 Perceived quality mediates relationship between acquired skills and students satisfaction. Perceived quality mediates the relationship between collectivism culture and students satisfaction.

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

15 |

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Variables N F C SK QU CU S Valid N (listwise) 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 Minimum 2.33 1.50 2.00 2.25 2.28 1.60 Maximum 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Mean 3.6470 3.5517 3.5655 3.6293 3.7600 3.7192 Std. Deviation .62020 .59684 .54190 .53141 .54051 .60475

Table 4: Average Variance Extracted (AVE) Matrix of Exogenous Variables

Table 5: Correlation & Correlation square Matrix among Exogenous Variables

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

16 |

Table 6: Squared Multiple Correlations: (Group number 1 Default model) Endogenous variables Perceived Quality Students Satisfaction Cu1 Cu4 SK4 SK5 C2 C3 F3 F4 Qu1 Qu2 S5 S4 Squared Multiple Correlation (SMC) = R2 .540 .597 .444 .379 .573 .655 .520 .691 .642 .287 .326 .555 .684 .479

Table 7: Indirect Effect of Variables Interaction

Collectivism Culture Perceived Quality Students Satisfaction

Acquired skills

Study Content & Planning

Faciliti es

Perceived Quality

Students Satisfaction

.000 -.023

.000 .117

.000 .223

.000 .052

.000 .000

.000 .000

Table 8: Total Effect of Mediating Variable

Exogenous H H1 H2 H3 H4 Collectivism Culture Acquired skills - Mediated Perceived Quality Perceived Quality Perceived Quality Perceived Quality Endogenous Students Satisfaction Students Satisfaction Students Satisfaction Students Satisfaction

Indirect + Direct Effects (-.51+000) (.254+ 000) (.486+000) (.114+000)

Total Effect -.051 .254 .486 .114

- - - -

- Study Content & Planning - Facilities -

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

17 |

Table 9: The Profile of Respondents (N=203) Demographics Gender: Male Female Status: Married Single Divorced Education: Graduate Master Ph.D/ DPA Graduate Age: less than 20 between 20-29 between 30-39 above than 40 Frequency 70 133 65 136 2 Valid Percent 34.5 65.5 32.0 67.0 1.0

86 46 71 86

42.4 22.7 35.0 42.4

29 149 15 10

14.3 73.4 7.4 4.9

Table 10: CFA Of All Measurement and Structured Model (Goodness-of Fit Indices) (N =203) Ite ms 5 4 5 5 5 5 9 20 29 29 Items remaining 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 9 12 12 Chisquare 3.470 10.910 19.853 4.159 3.067 7.195 5.221 32.277 41.437 55.589 DF CMIN/ DF 1.735 5.455 9.927 2.080 1.533 0.027 1.305 1.537 1.062 1.356 CFI GFI AGFI NFI RMSE A 0.61 0.150 0.212 0.074 0.052 0.115 0.039 0.052 0.18 0.042 Pvalue 0.176 0.004 0.000 0.125 0.216 0.027 0.265 0.055 0.365 0.064

Variables Student satisfaction Perceived quality Facilities Study content planning Acquired skills Collectivism culture ENDO EXO MEASU HYPO

2 2 2 2 2 2 4 21 39 41

0.994 0.954 0.912 0.988 0.994 0.954 0.994 0.971 0.996 0.976

0.99 1 0.72 0.95 3 0.99 0 0.99 3 0.98 3 0.99 0 0.96 4 0.96 7 0.95 4

0.955 0.862 0.765 0.951 0.963 0.914 0.962 0.924 0.935 0.913

0.986 0.945 0.905 0.979 0.985 0.939 0.977 0.924 0.938 0.919

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

18 |

Table 11: Cronbachs alpha

Variable Name Student Satisfaction (1) Perceived Quality (2) Facilities (3) Study Content & Planning (4) Acquired Skills (5) Collectivism Culture (6)

CR 0.942985 0.900853 0.87748 0.915175 0.964069 0.882262

Cronbachs alpha .81 .75 .72 .78 .85 .68

Table 12: Average Variance Extracted (AVE)

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

19 |

Table 13: Variances (Group number 1 - Default model)

Facilities Study content &Planning Acquired skills Collectivism Culture e33 e32 e4 e5 e9 e10 e12 e13 e19 e20 e22 e23 e28 e31

Estimate S.E. .399 .109 .329 .066 .344 .063 .250 .086 .138 .049 .180 .050 .326 .045 .206 .050 .241 .051 .289 .036 .514 .070 .223 .094 .192 .049 .304 .046 .181 .043 .202 .037 .283 .057 .313 .079

C.R. 3.677 5.014 5.477 2.895 2.811 3.573 7.265 4.113 4.726 8.069 7.322 2.361 3.919 6.599 4.235 5.506 4.917 3.965

P *** *** *** .004 .005 *** *** *** *** *** *** .018 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Label par_20 par_21 par_22 par_23 par_24 par_25 par_26 par_27 par_28 par_29 par_30 par_31 par_32 par_33 par_34 par_35 par_36 par_37

Table 14: Correlation Matrix

Influencing Factors on Students Satisfaction: A Study on International Students of UUM

20 |

Figure 4: Final Generated Fit Model