International Student Satisfaction: Role of Resources and Capabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigates service marketing in higher education by examining influence of resources and capabilities in international students' satisfaction with a higher education institution and likelihood of their recommending it to prospective students. The results suggest that, of six hypothesized antecedents to student satisfaction, four were significant. For students to recommend a tertiary educational institute, only two of five hypothesized antecedents were significant. Finally, we hypothesized that student satisfaction mediates relationship between capabilities and recommending institution. Three hypotheses out of six were supported. The data is analyzed through path modeling, which results in a holistic perspective of relationships among constructs. Finally, we discuss implications of these results to university administrators. Introduction There has been unprecedented demand for higher education because global wealth is concentrated less and less in factories and land, and more and more in knowledge and skills (Power 2000). Universities in most developed economies have responded to these challenges through expansion of knowledge delivery options and through appealing to different sets of potential students. The 'global' dimension of higher education makes universities part of world markets with a new system of relationships (Marginson 2000). It is associated with the rise of all sorts of entrepreneurial activities (Pratt and Poole 1999/2000). This has gradually transformed universities into largely self-funded enterprises where value is created through forming, packaging and delivering content to students to meet international market demand for specialized training and education. The rapid growth of international students in traditional classrooms suggests that, in their striving for higher education, students pursue values that differ from cost saving on education since cheaper alternatives are available. This pursuit of different values may be because face-to-face education in a foreign country achieves several objectives. These include improving students' language skills, providing an opportunity for independence from parents, experiencing different cultures and generally gaining new life experiences. It is noteworthy that five main education exporters USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (Marshall 2002) are all English-speaking countries. This shows that English is not only a widely accepted international business language but also a medium for many curriculum programs. The increase in demand for slots by international students, at least in Australia, has given universities more opportunities in selecting international students with better academic qualifications, rather than emphasizing students' ability to pay. This allows for raising and/or maintenance of standards and, for protecting university name and reputation, which are essential for competition for students and university financial prosperity. As overseas student numbers have grown, universities have increasingly paid attention to cultural, individual and national differences. This has led to development of educational programs and organizational support structures within universities that facilitate learning and ease of adjustment to local environment. Foreign students contribute a significant proportion of revenue to many universities suggesting there is a need to closely examine drivers of student satisfaction to enable university administrators to more effectively deploy their resources and capabilities. The Role of Student in Educational Setting To define drivers of student satisfaction, one needs to initially understand role of student in an educational setting. Despite fact that topic of higher education evaluation has been studied extensively from different perspectives such as student satisfaction with quality of courses and teaching (Athiyaman, 1997; Oldfield & Baron, 2000; Yanhong Li & Kaye, 1998) or student evaluations of teaching process (Simpson & Siguaw, 2000; Marks, 2000), previous research has not contributed to development of a holistic model of student satisfaction within higher education institutions. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".