postgraduate international students from asia

7/31/2019 Postgraduate International Students From Asia

1/24

Postgraduate International

Students from Asia:

Factors Influencing Satisfaction

Rodney Arambewela

John Hall

Segu Zuhair

ABSTRACT. The growth in the international education market within

the next two decades will be dominated by Asia, accounting for almost

70% of the global demand for international higher education (Bohm et

al., 2002). The market attractiveness with significant pecuniary and

non-pecuniary gains from full-fee paying students will result in a more

competitive environment for higher educational institutions around the

world seeking to improve their market position. Student satisfaction is a

key strategic variable in maintaining such a competitive position with

long-term benefits arising from student loyalty, positive word of mouth

(WOM) communication and image of the higher educational institutions

to meet the challenges of increasing global competition, rising studentexpectations of quality, service, and value for money. This process re-

Rodney Arambewela, PhD, is a Lecturer in Marketing and Unit Chair in MarketingResearch at Deakin University, Bowater School of Management and Marketing, Fac-ulty of Business and Law, Geelong Victoria, 3217, Australia (E-mail: [email protected]). John Hall, PhD, is AssociateProfessorof Marketingat DeakinUniver-sity, Deakin Business School, Deakin University, Toorak Campus, 336 GlenferrieRoad, Malvern, Victoria, 3144 (E-mail: [email protected]). Segu Zuhair, PhD,is Senior Lecturer in the School of Applied Economics and Coordinator of Postgradu-ate Research Programs at Victoria University, School of Applied Economics, VictoriaUniversity, P.O. Box 14428, Melbourne VIC 8001, Australia (E-mail: [email protected]).

Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 15(2) 2005Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JMHE

2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J050v15n02_05 105
http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JMHEhttp://www.haworthpress.com/web/JMHE


2/24

quires educational institutions to carefullyanalyse thesekey factors con-

tributing to student satisfactionand therefore develop strategiesaccordingly.

Using logistic regression analysis with factor scores and aggregated

satisfaction scores, this study examines the relative importance of fac-

tors and their impact on the satisfaction levels of international postgrad-

uate studentsfrom four Asian countries studying in Australian universities.

Thestudy concludes that thedominant factors that impact on student sat-

isfaction are quality of education, student facilities, reputation of the in-

stitutions, the marketability of their degrees for better career prospects,

and the overall customer value provided by the universities. [Article cop-ies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-

HAWORTH. E-mail address: Website: 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights re-served.]

KEYWORDS. International education, customer satisfaction, servicequality, customer value

INTRODUCTION

A recent forecast by International Development Programs (IDP) inAustraliaestimates a fourfold increase in the global demand for interna-tional education with approximately 7.2 million students by 2025, rep-

resenting a 5.8% compound growth rate during this period. Accordingto this study, Asia will remain the major growth region contributingover 70% of this demand with China and India emerging as two majorsources of international students, while non-Asian countries such asTurkey, Morocco and Iran will become new sources of internationalstudents in the near future in view of the increasing demand foroverseaseducation in these countries. In comparison, the study estimates that thedemand from traditional countries like Europe and the USA would de-cline over the years (Bohm et al., 2002).

USA, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are currently the ma-jor study destinations of international students with USA and the UK at-tracting nearly 80% of the international student population. USA is byfar the leadingprovider of educational services to international students

who accounted for over 586,000 during 2002/2003 (IIE, 2003). Thougha relatively small player with around 9% of the international studentmarket, Australia has shown a significant growth in student enrollments

106 JOURNAL OF MARKETING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION


3/24

since the early 1990s. After a relatively slow pace of growth, the foreignstudent enrollments in Australia rose by 67,000 or 79% between theyears 1993 and 1997. By 1997, there were over 151,000 internationalstudents studying in Australia, and during 1999, 157,834 internationalstudentswere enrolled in Australian educational institutions, 7.3%higherthan 1998 (AEI, 2000). Between 1998 and 1999, the overall growth wasover 15% compared to 2% in USA, 2.6% in the UK, 8% in Canada and8.2% in New Zealand (AEI, 2000) (see Table 1).

While undergraduate programs dominate in the delivery of Austra-lian international educational services, a significant growth in the post-graduate sector has been evident. Currently international postgraduatestudents account for 25% of all foreign students in higher education and

the numbers are expected to grow significantly with the growth in de-mand in countries such as China and India (Bohm et al., 2002; AEI,2000). The student groups from China, India, Indonesia, and Thailandselected for this study are from countries that represent 61% of all Asianpostgraduate students studying in Australia and have shown a potentialfor further growth (AEI, 2000).

Despite these positive trends, the Australian international educationindustry is not without challenges. The increasing domestic andinterna-tional competition from other higher education provider countries suchas USA, UK, and the impact of other global environmental issues haveled to market fragmentation and shifts in international student mobilityworldwide. Australia continues to face direct competition from the tra-ditional study destinations such as USA, UK, and Canada, and indirect

competition from source countries due to the shifts in push factors,which were responsible for students seeking education overseas. Theaftermath of September 11th and the war in Iraq would also have signif-icant political, economic, and social impact on the mobility of interna-tional students in the short to medium term.The Australian governmenthas been very responsive to this challenge by committing $113 millionin its May 2003 budget to support several initiatives to promote and ex-pand the countrys vital international education industry (DEST, 2003).A part of this campaign is to ensure that Australian universities remaincompetitive as attractive study destinations for internationalstudents. Inthese circumstances, increasing student satisfaction is a critical successfactor for market competitiveness of the universities.

The aim of this paper is to determine the key factors influencingpost- choice satisfaction of full fee paying Asian postgraduate interna-tional students from China, India, Indonesia, and Thailand studying inAustralian universities. Drawing on the expectations/perceptions para-

Arambewela, Hall, and Zuhair 107


4/24

TABLE1

.InternationalComparisonofStuden

tEnrolments

Australia

UnitedStates

UnitedKingdom

Canada

NewZealand

Source

Country

1998

1999

%

change

98-99

97/98

98/9

9

%

change

98/99

97/98

98/99

%

change

98/99

1998

1999

%

change

98/99

96/97

97/98

98/99

%

c

hange

98/99

Malaysia

13

,637

14

,269

4.6

3

14

,597

11,5

57

20

.8

16

,791

12

,032

28

.3

1,0

19

852

16

.3

2,4

76

2,0

78

1,5

75

24

.2

Si

ngapore

13

,269

15

,546

17

.2

3,8

43

4,0

30

4.9

5,9

71

5,6

17

5

.9

389

361

7

.2

197

182

215

18

.1

HongKong

11

,229

12

,781

13

.8

9,6

65

8,7

35

9

.6

7,2

08

7,5

10

4.2

2,6

99

2,1

76

18

.6

339

359

397

10

.5

Indonesia

6,9

31

8,0

88

16

.7

13

,282

12,1

42

8

.6

1,0

85

986

9

.1

383

397

3.6

353

312

397

27

.2

India

2,9

27

3,0

60

4.5

33

,818

37,4

82

10

.8

2,9

34

3,3

17

13

.1

720

745

3.8

46

54

74

37

.0

Th

ailand

2,4

17

2,5

17

4.1

15

,090

12,4

89

17

.2

2,6

47

2,3

64

10

.7

184

198

7.6

410

367

390

6.3

China

3,2

20

4,2

91

33

.3

46

,958

51,0

01

8.6

2,8

58

3,8

50

34

.7

1,7

31

2,3

12

33

.6

87

101

467

362

.4

Ta

iwan

2,0

03

2,2

79

13

.8

30

,855

31,0

43

0.6

3,1

48

3,4

81

10

.6

647

733

13

.3

323

357

376

5.3

Ko

rea(South)

1,5

86

1,7

27

8.9

42

,890

39,1

99

8

.6

2,2

81

2,0

69

9

.3

745

775

4.3

396

297

362

21

.8

Ja

pan

1,5

89

1,6

27

2.9

47

,073

46,4

06

1

.4

5,3

26

5,5

58

4.4

1,3

08

1,4

14

8.8

663

719

760

5.7

Eu

ropean

Union

1,7

18

2,1

76

26

.6

39

,810

45,8

14

15

.1

93

,083

97

,311

4.5

6,7

48

7,3

56

9.0

350

399

484

21

.3

OtherMarkets

11

,657

14

,750

26

.5

183

,399

191,0

35

4.2

64

,439

69

,024

7.1

16

,715

18

,645

11

.5

1,9

47

1,9

96

2,3

20

16

.2

TO

TAL

72

,183

83

,111

15.1%

481

,280

490,9

33

2%

207

,771

213

,119

2.60%

32

,905

35

,556

8.06%

7,5

87

7,2

21

7,8

17

8.25%

108


5/24

digm based on the SERVQUAL instrument (Parasuraman et al., 1988and 1985), this paper analyses the relative satisfaction among differentstudent groups. The analysis examines the relationship between threesatisfaction scores (calculated from questionnaire feedback), and thefactor scores (generated from the factor analysis of student satisfactionratings), to establish the importance of these factors in explaining stu-dents satisfaction.

Education is a service that is experienced by students and other stake-holders of educational institutions who form judgments about servicedelivery performance in terms of its quality and consistency, which arebasic properties of a service. The present paper uses an adaptation of amodel used to study services with students as the recipients or custom-

ers of the service who would expect educational institutions to satisfytheir needs following the service-recipientparadigm (Havarnek andBrodwin, 1998). According to the paradigm ofservice-recipientwhichconsiders students as customers (Havarnek and Brodwin, 1998), uni-versities need to be highly student-focused in their service delivery. Inrelation to the theory of customer satisfaction, customers rely heavilyon psychological inputs such as expectations, which play an importantrole in framing satisfaction evaluations (Oliver, 1996). The evaluationof the quality and performance of a service such as university education,can take place only after experiencing or consuming because customershave limited tangible pre-choice cues. The perceptions formed duringthis evaluative process are key indicators of customer satisfaction or

dissatisfaction (Halstead et al., 1994). In the present paper, the termspre-choice expectations andpost-choiceperceptions are operationalisedin order to investigate student satisfaction.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Customer satisfaction is the cornerstone of the marketing conceptand one of the most widely studied and embraced constructs in market-ing. It is a major outcome of marketing activity and serves to link pro-cesses, culminating in purchase and consumption with post-purchasephenomena such as attitude change, repeat purchase, and brand loyalty(Churchill and Suprenant, 1982). A satisfied customer is viewed as an

indispensable means of creating sustainable advantage for the organiza-tion in the current competitive environment (Patterson, Johnson, andSpreng, 1997).



6/24

In the current context of services marketing such as education, satis-faction becomes a key to customer retentionandpositive Word of Mouth(WOM) Communication (Harvis et al., 2000). When a customer is sat-isfied with a service encounter, the tendency is to form a positive atti-tude towards the service and similarly if a customer is dissatisfied, anegative response is expected. Guolla (1999) indicates that the degreeof satisfaction determines the nature and the effects of WOM whether itis positive or negative.Dissatisfiedcustomers would engagein negativeWOM, which will have harmful effects on the reputation of the organi-zationand its products, resulting in loss ofcustom. As an outcome of thepost-consumption process in an educational environment, it is expectedthat the highly satisfied students would engage in positive word of

mouth (WOM) communication such as recommending theuniversity orcourse to a friend or relative or, from a broader perspective, would con-tinue to be patrons of the university by returning for further studies, re-cruiting prospective students or becoming a proactive alumni (Guolla,1999). Similarly, dissatisfaction could lead students of a university toengage in negative WOM, which would have major implications on thereputation of the university and its enrolments. Given the mobility andchoices available to the retention of current students could be a chal-lenge to universities. A study of an Australian university by Athiyaman(2000), confirmed the strong relationship that exists between studentsatisfaction and WOM and its impact on students choice process andthe significant link that exists between WOM and customer retention. Itis therefore imperative for universities to improve satisfaction levels of

students ensuring positive WOM among students in order to enhancetheir attractiveness to current and potential students and to maintain acompetitive edge in the international market place (Harvis et al., 2000;Yau, 1994; Halstead et al., 1994).

While early research considered the satisfaction construct as a formof attitude, research in the 1980s revealed that satisfaction is more com-plex involving numerous measurement issues. Some researchers lamentedthat most of the Customer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction (CS/D) re-search is focused on conceptual issues and underlying processes givinglittle attention to the pragmatic task of measurement (Yuksel andRimmington, 1998).

One of the widely discussed and tested approaches in measuring cus-tomer satisfaction is Olivers (1980) expectancy-disconfirmation model

or one of its variants. Expectancy-disconfirmation is a derivative of ad-aptation-level theory and suggests that customers compare the actualproduct and service performance with their prior expectations. The par-



7/24

adigm postulates that customer satisfaction is related to the size and di-rection of disconfirmation, which is defined as the difference betweenan individuals prepurchase (prechoice) expectations (or some othercomparison standard) and postpurchase (postchoice) performance ofthe product as perceived by the customer (Test et al., 1990). When ex-pectations are met or exceeded, the customer is satisfied. If the perfor-mance falls short of the expectations, the customer is dissatisfied. Thisapproach is relevant to education as students are customers of an educa-tional service and have prior expectations of the level of service theywould ideally like to receive from an educational institution.

Despite the limitations in the approach of using difference or gapscores, the expectancy-disconfirmation paradigm has gained increas-

ing acceptability as a basis for assessing postpurchase evaluations andhas secured the endorsement of a number of researchers since it wasfirst introduced (Bolton et al., 1999; Spreng et al., 1996; Oliver, 1996;Parasuraman et al., 1994 and 1985). The development of several vari-ants of the model using the paradigm or the use of some form of thestandard performance disconfirmation paradigm in which actual choiceis compared to an internal standard during satisfaction formation is afurther indication of its popularity as a measurement approach (Parkand Choi, 1998). Moreover, the model has had strong support across awide variety of products and services (Tse et al., 1990). The main ra-tionale behind the model is that it provides a comparison standard tofacilitate confirmation or disconfirmation (Yi, 1990), and is based onthe matching of service outcomes with previous experiences. Such

comparisonsare undertaken in the consumers mind to establish a calcu-lated disconfirmation which influences subjective disconfirmation(Ueltschy and Krampf, 2001). Anderson, Fornell, and Lehmann (1994)acknowledge this perspective in several ways by claiming that satisfac-tion should be viewed as a judgment based on cumulative experiencerather than transaction-specific exposure. Its relevance to education isclear in that student satisfaction is linked to student expectations and cu-mulative experience of service received by students.

The application of CS/D has received wide recognition in the educa-tional services industry. The increasing interest of higher educationalinstitutions in student satisfaction research has contributed positively tosatisfaction research on services in general (Gael, 2000). The StudentSatisfaction Approach developed by the Centre for Research into

Quality at the University of Central England (UCE) to evaluate studentfeedback for quality improvement, which is being practiced by a num-ber of universities in the world, is a case in point. It deals with the key



8/24

variables to be tested and the mechanism involved in the implementa-tion. This trend, according to Townley (2001), is spurred by the need tomaintain a competitive advantage and build a market share in order tosecure government fundingbased on the concept of full-timeequivalentstudents. For example, the recognition of the total student experienceis apparent in much of the literature relating to student feedback (Gael,2000). As Harvey et al. (1997, p. 11) point out, students as participantsin a process of education consider that the student satisfaction approachshould assess what is important to students, rather than those aspectsthat the producers think are of concern.

The research on post-choice satisfaction in international education,however, is still very limited and studies focusing on international post-

graduate students are rare. The studies by DETYA (2000 and 1999);Kwan (1999); Tomovick et al. (1996); Haussler et al. (1995); Halsteadet al. (1994), and Burke (1986), were largely focused on perceptions ofundergraduate students on university life and facilities or their experi-ence on individual study programs. The available research on postgrad-uate students was also confined to specific issues such as quality ofprograms, research environment, and supervision, and no attempt hadbeen made on a comparative analysis of the postchoice decision-mak-ing behaviour of students from different countries of origin.

METHODOLOGY

Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used in whatTashakkori and Teddlie (1989) refer to as a sequential mixed methoddesign where . . . theresearcher conductsa qualitative phase of a studyand then a separate quantitative phase, or vice versa . . . (p. 46). Thisapproach was deemed suitable because of the partly exploratory natureof the study(Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1989) and its advantages over sin-gle method approaches (Marshall and Rossman, 1995).

The first phase of the study involved focus groups. Focus groupdiscussions were used to verify and refine variables identified bypast research in terms of exploring the relationships among variablesinfluencing the pre- and postchoice behaviour of internationalpostgrad-uate students studying in Australia, and their relevance to measurepostchoice satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The use of focus group dis-

cussions assisted in identifying those issues that were relevant and havea direct bearing on their satisfaction levels. These included issues re-lated to administration, benefits of university education, teaching staff,



9/24

teaching methods, quality, cost factors, university facilities, and ser-vices.

Much of the earlier research focused on the choice of study destina-tions, and it was necessary to ascertain whether these choice variablescould be justified as input variables in modelling postchoice satisfactionanddissatisfaction. Thefocus groupswere also aimed at identifying addi-tional factors with regard to student expectations of studying overseas,examining the importance of factors influencing choice of destinationand the differences in the ranking of these factors by the target students.The opportunity was also used to develop hypothesis to address the re-search objectives. Three focus group interviews were conducted withthe participation of 31 postgraduate international students from three

different Australian universities in the state of Victoria (see Table 2).The study, therefore, has included in its analysis some issues of concernto students identified in thequalitative phase in addition to those alreadyidentified by earlier researchers.

The number and the size of each focus group are given below.The main quantitative method used by the study is factor analysis

employed to group the significant variables affecting student satisfac-tion, which are then used in a logisticmodel to predict satisfactionbasedon personal traits. The quantitative data used in this study was derivedfrom a mail survey conducted among international postgraduate stu-dents from China, India, Indonesia, and Thailand studying in five uni-versities in the state of Victoria, Australia. The survey instrument wascomprised of three parts; the first part of the questionnaire was aimed atobtaining student responses with regard to the expectations and percep-tions of the university as a study destination, the second part was aimedat eliciting the overall impressions of students in the form of their mostsatisfactory and most unsatisfactory experience at the university.The final part was used to gather demographic, classificatory, and otherinformation regarding the status of the students.


TABLE 2. Focus Group Representation

Nationality Male Female

China 3 2

India 4 3

Indonesia 3 2

Thailand 3 4

Others 4 3


10/24

The questionnaire was an adaptation of the SERVQUAL instrumentdeveloped by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1994, 1991, and 1988)and was designed to measure the gap between student responses on ex-pectations and perceptions of the university as a study destination on aseven point bipolar scale. The questions were direct and responses wereobtained on a multi-measure bipolar (continuous) scale, similar toSERVQUAL, which has been well validated (Bearden and Netemeyer,1999; Oliver, 1981; Westbrook, 1980; Oliver, 1996). The scale has beenadapted to a number of service industries, including retailing (Baker,Grewal, Parasuraman, 1994; Finn and Lam, 1986; Jones, 1993; Brownand Swartz, 1989), and higher education (Davis and Allen, 1990;Hampton, 1993; Tomovick et al., 1996). Given the strong arguments for

the validity of the scale, along with the scales acceptance and use bymany researchers, an adaptation of the refined SERVQUAL scale wasconsidered appropriate for this study. The scale comprised of twomatched sets of 36 items, each describing expectations and perceptionsof the services provided by the university as a study destination. Bothsets of items were operationalised using 7 point bipolar scales labelled1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The respondents wereexpected to indicate their choice by circling a number along this scale. Ifthe respondents consider that the item was not relevant, they were re-quested to circle the number 9 (not applicable). The responses weresought on 36 statements representing aspects of the operations and ser-vices of the university under desired (ideal) expectations of choice andpostchoice perceptions, with the introductory phrase reading, The

university of my choice would have . . . , followed by the list of 36statements. The desired expectations are considered to have a betterexplanatory power than the predictive expectations used by many re-searchers (Spreng et al., 1996). The same statements were repeated withthe postchoice perceptions of performance with the introductory phrase,The university of my choice has . . . followed by the same list of 36statements. The statements covered a wide range of issues related to stu-dent satisfaction and reflected a total student experience of their post-graduate studies. The variables associated with these statements wereconstructed with input from previous studies and focus group inter-views.

The questions in the second part were open-ended and the objective ofthis part of the questionnaire was to provide an opportunity for respon-

dents to comment on any issue that was of concern to them. To overcomeany language difficulties that overseas students might experience, verysimple language was used in phrasing these questions (Jones, 1989).



11/24

These comments were considered as additional confirmation of theresponses and provide additional input that would be useful in the anal-ysis of the satisfaction levels of students.

The questionnaire was pretested on 12 international postgraduatestudents representing all of the countries under investigation in thisstudy to identify any flaws in the design and correct them prior to its ad-ministration (Malhotra et al., 2002; Churchill and Iacobucci, 2002).

Of the 573 useable responses received, the sample for this study wasreduced to approximately uniform sample size from each country andeach university, employing a systematic random sampling approach,which produced 371 respondents. This was to ensure equality of vari-anceacross the student groups for the same variables (Hair et al., 1995).

SATISFACTION SCORES

As indicated earlier, the measurement approach followed in thisstudy is an adaptation of the seminal expectancy disconfirmation para-digm (Oliver, 1996), and of the difference (gap) scores to measure CS/D(Parasuraman et al., 1991 and 1985). The key requirement is to ensurethat the measurement should be able to encapsulate the relativity of theinformation presented in the data on a comparative basis. To this end,this study supplements the gap scores with satisfaction scores derivedfrom using a ratio method of calculation.

The measurement criteria in this study is therefore based on three dif-ferent satisfactionscores namely, (a) the raw difference (gap) score (b) thearithmetic average of the ratio score, and (c) the geometric average of theratio score, following the weighted average concept of SERVQUALmeasurement approach (Parasuraman et al., 1991 and 1985). Each scoreis described below:

Gap scores: The first approach was to calculate the difference(gap) between perceptions (P) and expectations (E) as an aggre-gated score.

Ratio scores: The second approach was used to calculate satisfac-tion scores as a ratio of P to E. The hypothesis here is that the ratiobetter encapsulates the relative nature of the satisfaction than thatis provided by the differences. The analysis then included an arith-

metic average and geometric average of the ratios in order to com-pute the aggregate satisfaction level. A ratio value of 1 was takenas the minimum level of satisfaction.



12/24

MEASUREMENT OF SATISFACTION

The factor scores generated from factor analysis were used to mea-sure satisfaction of students. Factor scores are composite measure foreach factor representing the characteristicsof each subject, and have theadvantage of representing a composite of all variables loading on thefactor (Hair et al., 1995). In order to assess the usefulness of the factorscores in predicting student satisfaction, the factor scores were em-ployed in a logistic regression with a dichotomous qualitative variablerepresenting student satisfaction. These dichotomous variables werederived from the original satisfaction scores that were measured as de-scribed earlier.

DATA ANALYSIS

Factor analysis was performed using Principal Components and Or-thogonal (VARIMAX) method to identify the communalities of thevariables and these resulted in four factorsEducation standards and fa-cilities (UNISAT1), Communication and Guidance (UNISAT2), Cus-tomer value and study outcomes (UNISAT3) and Image, prestige andrecognition (UNISAT4). There were nine variables associated with thefirst factor UNISAT1 and these were directly associated with academicpursuits of students while the variables in the second factor UNISAT2,which comprised of seven variables were related to the exchange of in-

formation and guidance provided by the universities or its agents/repre-sentatives to ensure a successful educational outcome for students. Thethird and the fourth factors UNISAT3 and UNISAT4 comprised six andfive variables respectively, and dealt with additional value provided byuniversities in relation to students educational study experience. Theseranged from cost effectiveness (value for money), relevance of coursesfor career prospects to image and recognition of universities and itsstudy programs. The loadings on each dimension were significant rang-ing between 0.531 and 0.803. This suggested a strong correlation be-tween the variables in each of the factors. Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 list factorvariables and their respective loadings.

All variables were tested for inter-item reliability and consistency ofthe questionnaire using Cronbachs alpha, and all factors had an accept-

able alpha greater than 0.87. The overall significance of the correlationmatrix was significant with a p-value of < 0.01, and a Bartlett Test ofSphericity value of 7632.2, which indicated that the data matrix had suf-



13/24

ficientcorrelation to conduct factor analysis.Moreover, the overall Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sample adequacy had highly accept-able value of 0.948 (Hair et al., 1995).

The selection of factors was based on eigenvalues above 1, and thetotal variance explained by these values. All four factors identified hada minimum eigenvalue of 1, and the values of the selected factors.ranged from 1.258 to 13.891 accounting for 66.5% of the total varianceexplained as shown in Table 7. Further examination of the initial statis-tics reveals that the first factor, UNISAT1 is predominant with aneigenvalue of 13.9, followed by the other factors with eigenvalues rang-ing from 1.8 to 1.2. Based on these results, it can be surmised that the

factor UNISAT 1: education standards and facilities is the most sig-nificant component influencing CS/D of international postgraduate stu-dents fromChina, India, Indonesia, andThailand. This factor accounted


TABLE 3. Factor 1Variables and Loadings, Education Standards and Facilities

(UNISAT1)

Variables Loadings

Modern library facilities. 0.803

Good operating hours of library access. 0.791

Modern computer facilities. 0.775

Good access to computer labs. 0.751

High standard of teaching with quality lecturers. 0.653

Provides valuable feedback from lecturers. 0.622

Good access to lecturers. 0.600

High standard of lecture material. 0.591

Manageable class sizes. 0.531

TABLE 4. Factor 2Variables and Loadings, Communication and Guidance

(UNISAT2)

Variables Loadings

International orientation programs. 0.802

Social activities. 0.793

Counselling services. 0.769

Information available compared to other universities. 0.634

Information available through the Internet. 0.632

Complaints process for services and facilities. 0.578

Overseas consultants for information and guidance. 0.540


14/24

for 49.6% of the total variance explained by all factors, further validat-ing its strength. These results were further tested in subsequent regres-

sion analysis.The third criterion was the factor loadings, which indicated the high

correlation of variables with the respective factors as indicated earlier.


TABLE 6. Factor 4Variables and Loadings, Image/Prestige, and Recognition

(UNISAT4)

Variables/Factors Loadings

High image and prestige internationally. 0.833

High image and prestige within Australia. 0.828

High image and prestige within own country. 0.822

Academic courses recognised in own country. 0.604

Academic courses appropriate to own needs. 0.591

TABLE 5. Factor 3Variables and Loadings, Customer Value and Study Out-

comes (UNISAT3)

Variables Loadings

Competitive fees. 0.776

Flexible timetables. 0.681

Fees that offer good value for money 0.644

Recognition of prior learning. 0.579

Academic courses relevant to future job prospects. 0.518

Completion of academic courses suited to own needs. 0.501

TABLE 7. Eigenvalues, Variance of Factors, and Reliability Alpha

Factors Eigenvalues

% of Variance Rel iability

alphaIndividual

%

Cumulative

%

UNISAT1:

Education Standards and Facilities

13.891 49.610 49.610 0.94

UNISAT2:

Information and Guidance

1.808 6.458 56.067 0.90

UNISAT3:

Customer Value and Study Outcomes

1.671 5.968 62.036 0.87

UNISAT4:

Image/Prestige and Recognition

1.258 4.492 66.527 0.90

ExtractionMethod: PrincipalComponent Analysis.Rotation Method: Varimax withKaiser Normalization. Rotation convergedin 7 iterations


15/24

LOGISTIC REGRESSION

The logistic regression model is a useful tool in modelling the predic-tive power of variables. The prediction is in the form of probabilities. Itsgeneral form is:

Zi = a + bxj

Where Zi is the log of the odds of a student being satisfied, a and b arethe regression coefficients, xj are the factor scores. Ideally on should beable compute the probabilitiesof being satisfiedusing thepredicted val-ues of Z. In the current situation, however, we are only interested in thedirection and the strength of the contribution because of the nature of

the explanatory variables. The estimated form of the model is:

S = bo + b1 F1 + b2 F2 + b3 F3 + b4 F4

Where:S is the qualitative satisfactionscore,bis are the regression coef-ficients and the other variables are as defined earlier. Two regressionwere estimated; one with the gap scores (SD) and the other with averageof the ratio scores (SR) as the dependent variable.

Both models showed that all four factors had a positive impact, andthree factors: F1, F3 and F4 were significant at least at the 1% level andF2 was significant at least at the 5% level. The estimates of the logisticregression model are given below:

Difference score (SD)

SD = 1.7887 + 0.5687 F1*** + 0.2228 F2** +0.8002 F3*** + 0.5214 F4***

Geometric average of the ratio score (SR)

SR = 1.6818 + 0.7034 F1*** + 0.2270 F2** +1.0554 F3*** + 0.5794 F4***

(** Denotes significance at least at 0.05, and ***denotes significance atleast at 0.01)

The R2 values of the two equations were greater than 0.70, furthersupporting the significance of all of the factors in predicting student sat-isfaction. The logistic regression results provide evidence that the most



16/24

useful predictive factors are the quality of education, student facilities,reputation or the brand name of the institutions, the marketability oftheir degrees for better career prospects, and the overall customer valueprovided by the universities. Aspects of communication and guidanceappear to have more limited usefulness.

Past research on university students has highlighted a variety of com-mon factors that influence student satisfaction such as university facili-ties, teaching quality andstudy outcomes, whichhave been validatedbythis study. However, the present study presents additional dimensionsrelated to customer value sought by students, which will have a directinfluence on student satisfaction formation.

A Chi-square contingency test showed that the three factors: F1, F3,

and F4 were all significant (p < 0.01), and therefore positively related tosatisfaction. Factor F2, however, was insignificant at that level, al-though its impact on postchoice satisfaction cannot be ignored nor un-derestimated. It was clear that the students concerns were mainlydirected at the quality of education, student facilities, reputation of theinstitutions, the marketability of their degrees for better career pros-pects, and the overall customer value provided by the universities.

The estimated logistic equations will be useful in developing strate-gies and formulating policies with regard to services, which have agreater impact on student satisfaction. While the analysis of factorscores provide an overall picture of the key factors to be considered,given that they are based on correlations ofall the variables in the factor,

which are likely to be less than one, scores are considered only approxi-mations of the factors.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The factors that have a major impact on satisfaction of internationalpostgraduate students from Asia were the main focus of this study andthe results would be of particular interest to universities specializing inthis market segment. The research provides an insight into the post-choice behaviour of students and the major factors contributing to theirsatisfaction. It also identifies the satisfaction variables that compriseeach of these factors and the relative importance of the variables in

forming satisfaction among students. The findings are useful for educa-tional institutions in prioritizing action to achieve positive outcomes inthesatisfactionlevelsof students andtheir choiceof study destinations.



17/24

The findings of this research indicated that the quality of education,adequacy of student facilities, reputation of the institutions, marketabil-ityof degrees for better careerprospects, and theoverall customer valueprovided by the universities were the most important factors that had astrong impact on student satisfaction.

It was revealed that students, in general, were satisfied with teachingquality and the quality of lecturers, but were unhappy with the univer-sity support and facilities. This was in concert with the findings ofSmith, Morey, and Teece (2002) related to international students whocompleted a course in 1999. Wakefield and Blodgett (1996) also havefound that an inadequacy of facilities such as library and computer labscontribute to student dissatisfaction given that students spend a con-

siderable proportion of their time using these facilities. The majorgrievance of students was that universities have not improved or up-dated these facilities in conjunction with the increase in student num-bers enrolled in universities. The negative student evaluations of suchservices have a bearing on the perceived quality of the overall univer-sity experience, which shouldbe of concern to university management.

The study found that there is a significant relationship between per-ceived quality and image and prestige (reputation) of the universities. Itis therefore necessary for universities to enhance their national and in-ternational standing that reflects a level of excellence in quality of edu-cation by continuously monitoring and reporting the quality of teachingandresearch. It is also important foruniversities to sustain their nationaland international reputation through credible actions by each member

of the organisation (Herbi et al., 1994; Bitner, 1980) which would in-crease thecapacity of universities to position themselves in theminds ofstudents as being innovative, up to date, involved with the businesscommunity and having students needs at heart (LeBlanc and Nha,1997). A well-developed network of alumni can also have a strong in-fluence in building a sustainable reputation for universities (Allen andDavis, 1991).

The study also provided insights into the role of faculty and adminis-trative staff in forming perceptions of quality. The process-related activi-ties such as enrollments, recognition of prior learning, and timetablingcan have a strong influence on student satisfaction and it is, therefore,necessary that the quality standards of these services should be basedupon students perspective. Front line employees can significantly in-

fluence the degreeof satisfaction thatstudents experienceby being polite,knowledgeable, helpful, and courteous (Bitner et al., 1990). Compared toacademic services, quality control of these services are much easier to



18/24

administer and it would be necessary for all contact personnel to be in-volved in setting goals and quality standards for the institution as itwould be a responsibility of the faculty as a whole (Shetty, 1988)

The marketability of degrees with regard to career opportunities is ofvital importance to prospective students. This could be achieved by not-ing students who have successful or prominent careers and also by pre-senting statistics relating to positive employment outcomes. Coursesthat have relationships with, or provide opportunities for, interactionand/orexperience with keyindustry players shouldalso be noted. In thiscontext, it is important for universities to develop marketing strategiesthat create strong brand equity and confidence in the quality of theirproduct.

Universities must also be aware of the fact that there is an increasingdiversity of overseas students from a variety of Asian countries. It is im-portant for universities to recognize that Asia is a differentiated mar-ketplace where students from different countries and different culturalbackgrounds have somewhat different needs and wants to satisfy. Thedevelopment of a segmented approach in targeting services to studentsfrom different countries should be part of the organizational strategy.The success of such an approach will depend on the cross cultural un-derstanding of all employees of the university. Training sessions andseminars on cross cultural awareness, effective teaching methods aimedat students from differentcultures andlearning stylesandregular courseevaluations are among strategic initiatives in addressing student diver-sity and overall quality improvement (Brightman et al., 1993).

Another important finding of the study was the high student expecta-tions shared by all groups of students. Students develop expectationsthrough information acquisition and universities should exercise extracaution in developing artificially inflated expectations of university ser-vices through their promotional material and overseas agency networks.Student expectations should be carefully examined and analyzed in orderto manage expectations through the delivery of objective information(Swartz and Brown, 1989). Universities will also benefit by conductinginternal marketing research to ensure both management and faculty ex-pectations of service delivery are in line with student expectations (Can-non and Sheth, 1994).

In summary, this study contributes to the theory relating to post-choice satisfaction and fills a major gap with regard to the knowledge of

customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction (CS/D) on the choice of a uni-versity as a study destination by international post-graduate businessstudents. The focus of past studies on post-choice satisfaction was ei-



19/24

ther on a single institution or undergraduate students with few issuesrelating to student experiences. The analysis conducted from the per-spective of postgraduate students from four Asian countries: China, India,Indonesia and Thailand will assist in providing a better understandingof the drivers of the postgraduate satisfaction formation process. It isalso significant, given that these four countries have emerged as majorsources of international students to many institutions in the world. Re-cent statistics on student arrivals in the USA show that India, China, In-donesia, and Thailand are among the top ten sources of students withIndia showing a dramatic growth over all other countries (IIE, 2003).

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Despite the contribution of the study to new knowledge in interna-tionaleducationand, in particular, to thearea of post-choicesatisfactionof international postgraduate students studying in Victoria, the follow-ing potential limitations are present. These limitations must be consid-ered when interpreting the research findings. First, the study deals withAustralia and, in particular, five universities in the state of Victoria.Thequestion to consider would be whether the findings could be general-ized. It may be argued, however, that the five institutions selected forthe study are among the largest universities in Australia and these uni-versities have attracted the most number of international students fromthe respective source countries. It can also be argued that the issues

identified in the study seem to have a common appeal and thereforewould be applicable to international students in any study destination.Second, the survey instrument used for this study measured both expec-tations and perceived performance at one point in time, simultaneouslywith the service experience. The criticism against this methodology isthat the expectations would be biased or contaminated by such experi-ence (Carman, 1990; Gronroos, 1993; Getty and Thompson, 1994) inthat overstating or understating of expectations could occur, if the ex-perience is either positive or negative. However, several other re-searchers argue that while pre-purchase (pre-choice) expectation is anessential criterion to validate disconfirmation, familiarity of the ser-vice leads to more realistic expectations (Halstead et al., 1994; West-brook and Newman, 1978) and measuring expectations before the

service encounter can be problematic. Research conducted in the tour-ism and hospitality industry, in particular, has indicated that customersare likely to modify expectations during the service experience, and un-



20/24

anticipated encounters during the consumption of service can have animpact on the level of CS/D (Weber, 1997; Danaher and Mattsson,1994; Gronroos, 1993).

It may also be argued that given the sample included in the study com-prised of more than 50% of students in their first six months of universitystudy, the findings of the study represent a reasonable measurement ofthe student expectations with a minimum degree of contamination of ex-pectations.

Although there is adequate justification for the methodology fol-lowed in the study, future research can be directed to longitudinal stud-ies and to measure student expectations prior to entering an overseasuniversity to provide a comparative benchmark.

REFERENCES

Allen, J. and Davis, D. (1991). Searching for excellence in marketing education: Therelationship between service quality and three outcome variables.Journal of Mar-keting Education, Spring, 47-55.

Anderson, Eugene W.,Fornell,C., andLehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer Satisfaction,Market Share, and Profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing.58(3), 53-67.

Athiyaman, A. (2000). Graduates perception about business education: An explor-atory research,Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25(1), pp. 5-19.

Australian Education International (AEI) (2000). Overseas Student Statistics 1999:Summary of Key Points, News Release, DETYA.

Baker, J.,Grewal, D.,and Parasuraman, A. (1994). The influence of store environment

on quality inferences an store image,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,22 (4), pp. 328-339.

Bearden, W. O., and Netemeyer, R. G. (1999).Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi-item Measures for Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Research, Second Edition,SAGE Publications Inc.

Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. M., and Teteault, M. I. (1990). The service encounter: Diag-nosingfavourableand unfavourable incidents,Journal of Marketing 54 (1), 71-84).

Bitner, M. J. (1980). Evaluating Service encounters: The effects of physical surround-ings and employee responses.Journal of Marketing, April, 69-82.

Bohm, A., Davis, D., Meares, D., and Pearce (2002). Global Student Mobility: Fore-casting of the Global Demand for International Higher Education, IDP Australia.

Bolton, R. N.,and James,H. D. (1999). A Multistage Model of Customers Assessmentof Service Quality andValue.Journal of Consumer Research. 17(March),375-84.

Brightman, H. J., Elliot, M., and Bhada, Y. (1993). Increasing the effectiveness of stu-

dent evaluation of instructor data through a factor score comparative report.Deci-sion Sciences, 24, 192-199.Brown,S. W.,and Swartz, T. A. (1989). A gapanalysis of professional service quality.

Journal of Marketing, 53 (April), pp. 92-98.



21/24

Burke, B. (1986). Experiences of overseas undergraduate students, Bulletin No 18:

University of New South Wales.Cannon, J. P., and Sheth, J. N. (1994). Developing a curriculum to enhance teaching of

relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing Education, Summer, 3-14.Churchill, G. A.,and Iacobucci, D. (2002).Marketing Research Methodological Foun-

dations, Eighth Edition, Harcourt College Publishers.Davis, D., and Allen, J. W. (1990). The use of recipient-based measures of service

quality in business education, Journal of Education for Business, 65, pp. 280-285.Department of Education, Science, and Training, www.dest.gov.au/at_a_glance.htm,

accessed 19 May, 2003.DEST (2003). Budget Information 2003: At a glance, Bulletin, 13 May, Common-

wealth.DETYA (2000). Trends in the First Year Experience. Available from http://www.

detya.gov.au/highered/eippubs/eip00_6, accessed 25 July 2003.DETYA (1999). Evaluationand Validation of the Trial Postgraduate Research Experi-

enceQuestionnaires. 99(10), AustralianCouncil for Education Research, Canberra.Finn, D. W., and Lamb, C. W. (1986). Hospital benefit segmentation, Journal of

Health Care Marketing, 6 (4), pp. 26-33.Geall, V. (2000). The Expectations and Experience of First-Year Students at City Uni-

versity of Hong Kong. Quality in Higher Education. 6(1), 77-89.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), 87-97.Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C. (1995).Multivariate Data

Analysis, Fourth Edition, Prentice Hall International Inc.Halstead, D., Hartman, D., and Schmidt, S. (1994). Multi-source Effects on the Satis-

faction Formation Process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.22 (2),

114-129.Hampton,G. M. (1993). Gapanalysis of college studentssatisfaction as a measure of pro-

fessional service quality, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 9 (1), 37-45.Harvey, L., Plimmer, L., Moon, S., and Geall, V. (1997). Student Satisfaction Manual

(Buckingham, Open University Press).Harvis, B., and Voyer, P. A. (2000). Word of Mouth processes within a services pur-

chase decision context. Journal of Service Research. 3(2), 166-177.Hausler, T., Sharma, R., and Sivagnanam (1995). Australian university experiences of

fee-paying overseas students. Unpublished working paper. Melbourne: Swinburne

University of Technology.Havarnek, J. E., and Brodwin, M. G. (1998). Restructuring Universities and Colleges:

The Student-Focused Paradigm. Education 119 (1), 115-121.Herbib, P., Milewicz, J, and Golden, J. (1994). A model of reputation building and de-

struction, Journal of Business Research, 31, 23-31.Institute of International Education (IIE) (2003). Open Doors Statistical Abstracts, IIE

Network, http://opendoors.iienetwork.org. Accessed 19 February, 2004.Jones, S. I. (1993). Consumers perceptions of sacrifice, service quality, and value in

the health care industry, PhD Thesis, Texas A&M University.

http://www/http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/http://www/


22/24

Jones, P.W. (1989). Overseas Students in Australia: A Profile in Overseas Students in

Australia Policy and Practice, Ed Williams, B. Canberra: International Develop-

ment Program of Australian Universities and Colleges Limited.Kwan, P.Y.K., and Ng, P.W.K. (1999). Quality indicators in higher educationCom-

paring Hong Kong and Chinas students,Managerial Auditing Journal, Bradford,

Vol.14, Issue1/2, pp. 20-27.Malhotra, N. K., Hall. J., Shaw, M., and Oppenheim, P. (2002).Marketing Research:

An Applied Orientation., Second Edition, Pearson Education Australia.Marshall, C and Rossman, G. (1995).Designing Qualitative Research, 2nd ed. Sage,

Thousand Oaks.Mazzarol,T., and Hosie, P. (1999). Australia and New Zealand: Rivals or allies?: Stra-

tegicmarketing issues in international education. Proceedingsof the HERDSA An-

nual International Conference, Melbourne.Nelson, Brendan (2002). EducationreviewpositionsAustraliafor thefuture, Media re-

lease, Minister for Education, Science and Training, 22 May, 2002.Oliver, O. L. (1996). Satisfaction, first edition. New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill.Parasuraman, A., Leonard, B., and Zeithaml, V. (1994). Reassessment of Expectations

as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Further

Research.Journal of Marketing. 49 (Fall), 111-124.______. (1991). Understanding Customer Expectations of Service. Sloan Manage-

ment Review, 32 (3), pp. 420-50.______. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple item scale for measuring consumer percep-

tions of service quality,Journal of Marketing, 64 (1), pp. 12-40.______. (1985). A conceptual Model of Service Quality and its implications forFuture

Research. Journal of Marketing. 59 (Fall), 41-50.______. (1981). Measurement andEvaluation of SatisfactionProcess in RetailSetting,

Journal of Retailing, 57 (fall), pp. 25-48.Park, J., and Jiho, C. (1998). Potential Moderators for Comparison Standards in Con-

sumer Satisfaction Formation: Some Exploratory Findings.Advances in ConsumerResearch, 25, 124-131.

Shetty, Y. K. (1988). Product quality and competitive strategy, Business Horizons,

Spring, 34-38.Spreng, R., Mackenzie, S., and Olshavsky, R. (1996). A Re-examination of the Deter-

minants of Consumer Satisfaction,Journal of Marketing, 60 (July), 15-32.Swartz, T. A., and Brown, S. W. (1989). Consumer and provider expectations and ex-

periences in evaluating professional service quality. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 17 Spring, 185-95.Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (1989).Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative

and Quantitative Approaches, Sage, Thousand Oaks.Tomovick, C. J., Sheila, I., Al-Khativ, Jamal, and Baradwaj, B. (1996). An assessment

of the service quality provided to foreign students at U.S. business schools,Journalof Education for Business. Washington, 71,130-138.

Townley, P. (2001).The constructionof a model of qualitative evaluation to support thedevelopment of the policy and practice of raising student satisfaction in an institu-

tion in the higher education sector, Proceedings of the Higher Education Close Up

Conference 2, Lancaster: Lancaster University,16-18 July.



23/24

Tse, D. K. N.,Franco M.,and Wilton, P. C. (1990). Consumer Satisfactionas a process.Psychology and Marketing, 7(Fall), 177-93.

Ueltschy, L. C., and Krampf., R. F. (2001). Cultural sensitivity to satisfaction and ser-vice quality Measures.Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 9 (3), 14-31.

UNESCO. (2001). World Education Report, UN Economic and Social Cooperation,Paris, Available: www.unesco.org.

Yau, O. H. M. (1994). Consumer behaviour in China: Customer satisfaction and cul-tural values, Routledge, London.

Wakefield, K. L., and Blodgett, J. G. (1996). The importance of servicescapes in lei-sure service settings,Journal of Services Marketing, 8 (3), 66-76.

Westbrook, R. A. (1980). Intrapersonal Affective Influences upon Consumer Satisfac-tion with Products,Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (June), 49-54.

Westbrook,R. A., and NewmanW. (1978). An Analysis of Shopper dissatisfaction forMajor Household Appliances,Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 456-466.

Yuksel, A., and Rimmington, M. (1998). Customer-Satisfaction Measurement, Cor-nell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Dec, 60-66.

Yi, Y. (1990). The Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction: The moderating Role ofAmbiguity.Advances in Consumer Research. 20, 502-506.

Received: 05/17/04Revised: 01/13/05

Accepted: 03/15/05



24/24

postgraduate international students from asia

Documents