Mid-term of Scientific Writing

MID-TERM ASSIGNMENRT

_________________________________

Analyzing the factors affect student satisfaction with

dormitory. A case study of International school, Thai

Nguyen University

Date of submit: April 10, 2015

Submitted by: Nguyen Thi Uyen

Full name: Nguyễn Thị Uyên

Eng name: Taylor

ID: IB 2011 - 036

Class : ISIB – K1

Teacher: MBA. Quan Thai Ha

Topic: Scientific of writing

Table of ContentsBrief introduction.......................................................................................3

Research questions:.............................................................................4

Research objectives:.............................................................................4

Conceptual framework:.........................................................................4

Chapter 4: Results and discussion...........................................................5

4.1 Results............................................................................................5

4.1.1 Information of respondents.......................................................6

4.1.1.2 Factors affecting student satisfaction with the dorm of International school...........................................................................8

4.1.3 The relationship between each factor in the model and student satisfaction.......................................................................................21

4.1.4 The differences about student satisfaction level between groups in demographic information.................................................24

4.2 Discussion.....................................................................................25

4.2.1 Information of respondents.....................................................25

4.2.2 Factors affecting student satisfaction with the dorm of International school.........................................................................26

4.2.3 The relationship between each factor in the model and student satisfaction.......................................................................................27

4.2.4 The differences about student satisfaction level between groups in demographic information.................................................28

Appendix.................................................................................................29

Brief introduction

This research topic is about analyzing the factors that affect student satisfaction with

dormitory: A case study of International school, Thai Nguyen University is an

empirical study provides an overview of student dormitory status and the satisfaction

level of international school student. Based on the findings, the policy

recommendations will be suggested to improve the quality and services of dormitory

to meet needs and aspirations of students as well as their parents.

To conduct this research, the researcher has set up a conceptual framework to

answer all research questions and gain all objectives which were expected. They will

be presented below:

Research questions:

What are factors affecting student satisfaction with the dorm of International

school?

Is there any relationship between those factors and student satisfaction?

What are solutions for improving the service quality of the dorm to improve

student satisfaction level?

Research objectives:

Identify factors that affecting the student’s satisfaction for the dormitory of

International School.

Explore the relationship between those factors and student satisfaction.

Purpose solutions for improving service quality in the dormitory to improve

student satisfaction level.

Conceptual framework:

This part will provide the conceptual framework by study the period theories of the

relationship between satisfaction and quality of service, as well as patterns practical

related research in literature review. This section will not only explain the key factors

(variables) and the relationship between models, theories that are mentioned in

chapter 2 but also draw the way how the researcher will do to conduct this research.

Based on what the researcher has found out of literature review, the relationship

between service quality and student satisfaction can be shown in figure 1. The three

service quality dimensions have been selected from SERVQUAL model; those are

responsiveness, empathy and reliability. By studied the previous theories, there are

three more factors have the relationship with student satisfaction: Price, physical

facilities and serving capacity. To determine the level of student satisfaction with

each factor that was mentioned, the author will test six hypotheses below:

H1: Price of the dorm has significant relationship with student satisfaction.

H2: Physical facilities of the dorm have significant relationship with student

satisfaction.

H3: Serving capacity of the dorm has significant relationship with student satisfaction.

H4: Responsiveness has significant relationship with student satisfaction.

H5: Empathy has significant relationship with student satisfaction.

H6: Reliability has significant relationship with student satisfaction.

Chapter 4: Results and discussion

This chapter will present the results of research that were conducted based on the

methodology described in chapter 3. It includes two main sections. The first section

describes a process of analyzing raw data by using some data analysis techniques.

The second section shows a detailed discussion of results that the researcher has

found. This section will discuss about the meaning of findings which is presented in

the first section, the limitation of research and suggestions for further research.

4.1 Results

Result was get from data analysis process which has described in chapter 3.The

structure of this part will be presented according to the research questions/objectives.

4.1.1 Information of respondents

This study was conducted entire population so respondents are all students (k1-k4)

who live in the dorm of IS. The researcher has clarified all responses; both of them

are suitable with the requirement. The demographic statistics are provided within

figure 1, 2, 3 which describe gender, course, and nationality of respondents.

4.1.1.1 Gender

Pie chart above presents the gender of respondent, it can be clearly seen that male

only make up 21.88% in total of student; but the amount of female is about three

times as the male. To find out more detail, please go to appendix 1 for clear statistic.

Figure 4.1.1.1: Percentage of respondent by gender

4.1.1.2 Course

This pie chart illustrates respondent’s kind of course in four categories from course1

to course 4. A significant number of students come from course 1 (35.94%). Amount

respondents who are students of course 2 and 4 is less than a bit with 21.88%. The

lowest percentage of students who response the questionnaire are in course 3

(18.75%).

Figure 4.1.1.2: Percentage of respondents by course

4.1.1.3 Nationality

Figure 3 compares the differences of nationality between students in the dorm. The

majority of population is Vietnamese, it shows 81.2 percent of respondents are

Vietnamese. The dorm includes Pilipino and Lao students because of they are

international student who are joining “exchange student program” .The number of

foreigners is approximate 18,7 percent within 12,5 percent of respondents are

Pilipino and 6,2 percent are Lao.

Figure 4.1.1.3: Percentage of respondents by nationality

4.1.2 Factors affecting student satisfaction with the dorm of International school.Exploratory Factors Analysis (EFA)

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is used to determine the number of continuous

latent variables that are needed to explain the correlations among a set of observed

variables.

Suitable criteria uses for conducting analysis to explore factors that:

Factor Loading > 0.5

0.5 < KMO < 1

Bartlett testing has Sig < 0.05

Total Variance Explained > 50%

Eigenvalue > 1

The original model includes 6 factors and 37 items which is expected to effect to

student satisfaction with service quality of the dorm. All of 37 items will be used for

Exploratory Factors Analysis (EFA) . EFA is conduct by extraction method- Principle

Component analysis, varimax method, testing of KMO (KaiserMeyerOlkin) and

Bartlett .

Table 4.1.2.1: Results of the first time Factors Analysis:

Value Comparison

KMO 0.527 0.5<0.527<1

Sig in Bartlett’s test 0.000 0.000<0.005

Total Variance Explained 81.696% 81.696 > 50%

Eigenvalue 1.529 1.529>1

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

ser27 .836

ser28 .791

em29 .789

ser25 .739

em31 .720

res23 .692

res24 .667

em30 .633 .515

em32 .594

fac12 .854

fac9 .818

fac13 .788

fac11 .771

fac8 .701

fac16 .692

fac15 .662 .521

fac14 .545

res17 .532 .507

reli36 .825

reli37 .792

reli35 .778

reli34 .698

em33 .618

res22 .732

pri6 .711

ser26 .634

pri5 .570

res20 .568

res19 .793

res18 .741

res21 .618

pri4 .868

pri3 .703

pri2 .795

pri1 .625

fac7 .578

fac10 .545

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 12 iterations

Based on the above result, after conducting EFA, factors can be grouped into 9

groups. All evaluable criteria are statistical below:

KMO =0.527 so factor analysis is suitable.

Sig. (Bartlett's test) = 0.000 (sig. <0.05) proved that variables are correlated in

population.

Eigenvalues = 1.529> 1 represent the fraction of variation explained by each factor,

the extracted factor has the most meaningful of information summary.

The total variance explained:

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings (Cumulative %) = 81.696% >50%. This proves

that 81.696%of the data variance is explained by 7 new factors.

Factor loading coefficient of item Em30 explain for both factor 1 and factor 3, item

fac15 also explain for 2 factors (1 and 8), factor loading coefficient of item Res17

has deviation <0.3 so cannot identify which factors it will explain.

=> So that the researcher will analyze factor the second time. However, it will be

quite long for all analysis and present all time of analyzing. Wherefore, the

researcher just presents the final results of analyze factors. The more details will be

presented in appendix 4.

Table 4.1.2.2 :Results of the last time Factors Analysis:

Criteria Value Comparison

KMO 0.586 0.5<0.586<1

Sig in Bartlett’s test 0.000 0.000<0.005

Total Variance Explained 79.776% 79.776 > 50%

Eigenvalue 1.232 1.232>1


Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ser27 .806

em29 .797

em31 .794

ser28 .750

res24 .738

res23 .726

ser25 .711

em32 .683

fac9 .849

fac12 .814

fac11 .795

fac8 .789

fac13 .755

fac16 .714

fac14 .537

reli36 .859

reli37 .814

reli35 .718

reli34 .680

em33 .527

res19 .822

res18 .709

res21 .672

res20 .566

ser26 .523

pri5 .807

pri6 .677

res22 .638

fac10 .546

pri4 .880

pri3 .735

pri2 .834

pri1 .696



a. Rotation converged in 11 iterations.

Thus, after conducting EFA, factors can be grouped into 7 groups. All evaluable

criteria are statistical below:

KMO =0.586 so factor analysis is suitable.

Sig. (Bartlett's test) = 0.000 (sig. <0.05) proved that variables are correlated in

population.

Eigenvalues = 1.232 > 1 represent the fraction of variation explained by each factor,

the extracted factor has the most meaningful of information summary.

The total variance explained:

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings (Cumulative %) = 79.776 % >50%. This proves

that 79.776 % of the data variance is explained by 7 new factors.

Factor loading coefficient of all items is > 0.5

Testing of Cronbach’s alpha

Using Cronbach’s alpha to test the reliability of the scales used in the research.

Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients will use for testing and correlation of total

variables.The variable does not guarantee reliable models will be excluded from the

study and does not appear when exploratory factor analysis.

Criteria for evaluating the reliability of the scales are:

Minimum alpha is 0.6

Corrected Item-Total Correlation minimum is 0.3.

After finish EFA measurement to extract unsuitable items out of the model, the

researcher tests the reliability of the scale include seven factor are listed below:

1. Serving capacity and empathy

2. Physical facilities

3. Reliabilities

4. Responsiveness

5. Service price

6. Price

7. Compared price

In addition, the researcher tests Cronbach’s alpha for dependent variable is student

satisfaction with the dorm of International School, Thai Nguyen University. Summary

table of Cronbach’s alpha is presented below:

(For more details about result of testing Cronbach’s alpha please go to appemdix 5)

Table 4.1.2.3: Cronbach’s alpha results of dependent and independent variables

No

.

Dependent and

independent

variables

N of

items

Cronbach’s alpha The smallest corrected

item-total correlation

1 Serving capacity

and empathy

8 0.925 0.671

2 Physical

facilities

7 0.895 0.559

3 Reliability 5 0.908 0.733

4 Responsiveness 5 0.805 0.509

5 Service price 4 0.713 0.426

6 Price 2 0.782 0.642

7 Compared price 2 0.793 0.660

8 Student

satisfaction

7 0.855 0.326

Through this table of Cronbach’s alpha results, all Cronbach’s alpha is > 0.6 as well

as all Corrected Item-Total Correlation are > 0.3. Hence, the scale of research is

reliability enough to conduct.

=> Thus, after testing Cronbach’s alpha, 33 items appeared after finished EFA are

suitable and none of them has to out of the model. Based on EFA and Cronbach

testing, research model has to adjust to suitable with following analyzing. Adjusted

model is presented in figure 4.2.1 below:

In a result, after doing factor analysis process, 33 items are gathered into 7 groups. A

table of grouping and naming is set up below:

Table 4.1.2.4: New grouping and naming factor

Factor Items Description Group name

X1 Ser27 The protecting employees check the

situation of the dorm regularly

Serving capacity

and empathy

Em29 Closing and opening time of the dormitory

are reasonable.

Em31 You feel comfortable when they are talking

with the dorm’s manager.

Ser28 The dorm’s manager answers students

enthusiastically.

Res2

4

Public services (security, sanitation ...) are

guaranteed.

Res2

3

The security situation (theft, fighting,

gambling) is solved well.

Ser25 The dorm board of management is

enthusiastic with work.

Em32 The school is always concern about

student’s life.

X2 Fac9 Room size is large enough for bathroom

function.

Physical facilities

Fac12 Location and hanging area are convenient

and spacious.

Fac11 Room design ensures for ventilation and

lighting.

Fac8 Room size is large enough for learning

function.

Fac13 The dorm was built standard (non-cracked

walls, impermeable cap).

Fac16 The dorm ensures the requirements of fire

prevention.

Fac14 Electric and water are provided stability.

X3 Reli3

6

Time overcome these problems quickly. Reliability

Reli3

7

You believe in the commitment of the

Dormitory staffs

Reli3

5

.When you appeal or complain, the

Dormitory resolved quickly and flexibly.

Reli3

4

When facilities (bed, lamps, toilet ...)

damaged, the Dormitory keeps timely to

repair.

Em33 The school listens student’s idea regularly.

X4 Res1

9

Catering services are fit the needs of

students

Responsiveness

Res1

8

Health care for students is always met fully.

Res2

1

The valet parking is safe and spacious.

Res2

0

Refreshment (canteen) is fit the needs of

students.

Ser26 Canteen’s staffs are cheerful and friendly.

X5 Pri5 Prices in canteen at the dorm is suitable. Service price

Pri6 Valet parking prices at the dorm is suitable

Res2

2

The power and water problems are

processed quickly.

Fac10 The room’s equipment (bed, chair, table,

lamp,..) is provided sufficiently.

X6 Pri4 Water prices at the dorm is suitable. Price

Pri3 Electric prices at the dorm is suitable.

X7 Pri2 The dorm’s price is suitable compared to

other inn houses.

Compared price

Pri1 The dorm’s price is suitable with given

service by the school.

Adjusted research model:

Adjusted hypotheses:

H1: Serving capacity and empathy has significant relationship with student

satisfaction.

H2: Physical facilities have significant relationship with student satisfaction.

H3: Reliability has significant relationship with student satisfaction.

H4: Responsiveness has significant relationship with student satisfaction.

H5: Service has significant relationship with student satisfaction.

H6: Price has significant relationship with student satisfaction.

H7: Compared price has significant relationship with student satisfaction.

Correlation coefficient analysis

Correlation is a technique for investigating the relationship between two quantitative,

continuous variables. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) is a measure of the strength

of the association between the two variables. However if there is strong correlate

between 2 independent variables, it may leads to multicollinearity problem when

analyze regression.

Study need to consider multicollinearity when doing regression analysis if correlation

coefficient >0.3.

The meaning of correlation coefficient r

r < 0.2 : no correlation

r from 0.2 to 0.4 : weak correlation

r from 0.4 to 0.6 : average correlation

r from 0.6 to 0.8 : strong correlation

r from 0.8 to < 1 : very strong correlation

The researcher will create new variables represent for each group of variable

(average mean):

X1 represents for Ser27, Em29, Em31, Ser28, Res24, Res23, and Ser 25.

X2 represents for Fac12, Fac11, Fac8, Fac13, Fac16, and Fac14.

X3 represents for Reli36, Reli37, Reli35, Reli34, and Em33.

X4 represents for Res19, Res18, Res21, Res20 and Ser26.

X5 represents for Pri5, Pri6, Res22 and Fac10.

X6 represents for Pri4 and Pri3.

X7 represents for Pri2 and Pri1.

Unstandardized regression equation of model follows this type:

Y = β0+ β1*X1 + β2*X2+β3*X3+ β4*X4+ β5*X5 + β6*X6 + β7*X7

Result of coefficient correlation analysis

Correlations

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 Y

serving

capacity

and

empath

y

physical

facilities

reliability responsivenes

s

Servic

e price

price student

satisfaction

X1serving

capacity

and

empathy

Pearson

Correlation1 .258* .642** .565** .145 .086 .677**

Sig. (2-tailed) .039 .000 .000 .253 .501 .000

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

X2

physical

facilities

Pearson

Correlation.258* 1 .396** .078 .308* .349** .569**

Sig. (2-tailed) .039 .001 .542 .013 .005 .000

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

X3

reliability

Pearson

Correlation.642** .396** 1 .439** .337** .348** .797**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .000 .007 .005 .000

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

X4

responsiven

ess

Pearson

Correlation.565** .078 .439** 1 .282* .118 .247*

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .542 .000 .024 .353 .049

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

X5

Service

price

Pearson

Correlation.145 .308* .337** .282* 1 .216 .346**

Sig. (2-tailed) .253 .013 .007 .024 .087 .005

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

X6 price Pearson

Correlation

.086 .349** .348** .118 .216 1 .318*

Sig. (2-tailed) .501 .005 .005 .353 .087 .010

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

Y

student

satisfaction

Pearson

Correlation.677** .569** .797** .247* .346** .318* 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .049 .005 .010

N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

After finished coefficient analysis, factor X7 - compared price does not appear in the

model. So after testing correlation coefficient X7 is removed out of the model.

All sig. value between independent variables and student satisfaction is <0.05, some

couple of variables also has sig. value <0.05 but some has sig. value >0.05.

Student satisfaction has biggest correlation coefficient with X3- reliability (0.797) and

smallest with X4-responsiveness (0.247).

Correlation coefficient of some couple of variables is quite big (> 0.6).

4.1.3 The relationship between each factor in the model and student

satisfaction.

Regression analysis

The researcher use regression analysis to analyze the relationship between

independent variables (6 factors) and dependent variable (student satisfaction) in this

part. Regress model will help to describe type of relationship and to predict

dependent variable value when independent variables value is known.

After testing correlation, X7 was removed out so that he researcher sets up

hypothesis to examine the relationship between independent variables and

satisfaction (6 hypotheses):

Table 4.1.3.1: Hypothesis to test the relationship

Hypothesis Content

H1 Serving capacity and empathy has no relationship with student

satisfaction.

H2 Physical facilities have no relationship with student satisfaction.

H3 Reliability has no relationship with student satisfaction.

H4 Responsiveness has no relationship with student satisfaction.

H5 Service price has no relationship with student satisfaction.

H6 Price has no relationship with student satisfaction.

Multi-regression analysis will be applied in the model by using enter method

Regression analysis result

Model Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. Collinearity Statistics

Beta Tolerance VIF

1

(Constant) 1.567 .123

serving capicity and empathy .430 4.911 .000 .448 2.231

physical facilities .236 3.451 .001 .733 1.364

reliability .496 5.693 .000 .452 2.210

responsiveness -.268 -3.583 .001 .614 1.629

Service price .112 1.698 .095 .787 1.271

price .034 .514 .609 .788 1.269

a. Dependent Variable: student satisfaction

Based on regression table, there are two variables have significant level Sig. (p-

value) don’t attain significant level 5% =0.05: Service price(X5) = 0.095 and Price(X6)

=0.609.

So that for all listed hypotheses:

Model not rejects H5 and H6, it means Service price and Price don’t affect student

satisfaction with the dorm of International School.

Model rejects H1, H2, H3 and H4, it means Serving capacity and empathy, physical

facilities, facility and responsiveness affect student satisfaction with the dorm of

International School.

After extract two variables has sig. >0.05 (X5 and X6) out of regression model, run

model again with variables which are kept and the result is shown below:

Model Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. Collinearity Statistics

Beta Tolerance VIF

1

(Constant) 2.467 .017

serving capicity and empathy .391 4.614 .000 .487 2.053

physical facilities .272 4.185 .000 .828 1.207

reliability .541 6.577 .000 .518 1.929

responsiveness -.233 -3.196 .002 .659 1.517


Thus, after regression analysis process, all of variables has suitable significant value

(<0.05). Consequently, the model rejects H1, H2, H3, H4 and H5, it means service

capacity and empathy, physical facilities, reliability and responsiveness really affect

student satisfaction with the dorm of International School.

Through statistic result, all variables has Tolerance>0.0001, and VIF < 10. These

variables are suitable in this model, the standardized regression model is presented:

Y= 0.391X1 +0.272X2 + 0.541X3 -0.233X4.

Table 4.1.3.2: Summary of regression analysis result (more detail in appendix 6)

Criteria Value Comparison

R 0.891

R Square (R^2) 0.793

Adjusted R^2 0.779

Testing sig. of F 0.000 0.000 < 0.05

Durbin- Watson coefficient 1.791 1 < 1.791< 4

Standardized regression

model

Y= 0.391X1 +0.272X2 + 0.541X3 -0.233X4.

F- test uses in analysis of variance is a method of hypothesis testing about the

suitability of multi-regression model. In this case, F has sig. = 0.000 <0.005, so the

used model is suitable and data can be used. Adjusted R square = 0.779 =77.9%. It

means in 100 vary of satisfaction, there are 77,9% vary of satisfaction that is

explained by 4 factors in service quality. Thus, the model can explain very well in

reality.

Durbin- Watson coefficient = 1.791 (belong interval from 1 to 4) it is also suitable for

this model.

=> Final standardized regression model of this research:

Y= 0.391X1 +0.272X2 + 0.541X3 -0.233X4

4.1.4 The differences about student satisfaction level between groups in

demographic information.

ANOVA analysis –Analysis of variance

Hypothesis H1: There is no difference about satisfaction level between male and

female.

Hypothesis H2: There is no difference about satisfaction level between different

courses.

Hypothesis H3: There is no difference about satisfaction level between different

countries.

To test three hypotheses above, the researcher using ANOVA analysis to test

Leneve statistic and the results is listed in appendix 7)

For H1: Levene testing shows that significant level sig. of all independent variables in

analysis of variance are greater than 0.05 (> 0.05). Therefore, H1 is not rejected; it

means there are no differences about satisfaction level between male and female.

Result shows that H2, H3 aren’t rejected, too. It means that students are in any

course or come from any country; there are no differences about satisfaction level

between them.

4.2 Discussion

This part will provide an overview of what were findings and its meaning in the study

by the researcher. Discussion part also helps the researcher make sense for his/her

findings for the result and present it logically. This part will be presented follow the

order which is written in results part.

4.2.1 Information of respondents

4.2.1.1 Gender

The result shows that there are more female live in the dorm than male. This may

explain based on characteristic of students. Male students have free psychology than

female student so they would rather live outside than live in the dorm.

4.2.1.2 Course

The amount of respondents distribute quite steadily in four courses. It may lead a

good result in this study because the proportion of respondent divide by course is

balance rate.

4.2.1.3 Nationality

Vietnamese student account for a very big proportion of respondents compare to the

number of foreign student. This result can completely explain because the amount of

foreign students who are exchange student is quite small.

4.2.2 Factors affecting student satisfaction with the dorm of International

school.

EFA was conduct to serves to identify a set of latent constructs underlying a battery

of measured variables. After analyze the result, factors was grouped into 7 new

groups. It means suggested model has to adjust for suitable with EFA results.

After testing Cronback’s alpha of reliability, all variables are suitable with setting up

condition (Cronbach’s alpha is > 0.6 as well as all Corrected Item-Total Correlation

are > 0.3). It means that the scales used in the research are reliability and

standardized.

In correlation coefficient analysis (Pearson test), all sig. value between independent

variables and student satisfaction is <0.05, it means that between them has

correlation. Student satisfaction has biggest correlation coefficient with X3- reliability

(0.797), and smallest with X4-responsiveness (0.247). It demonstrates that reliability

has strongest correlation with satisfaction.

Some couple of variables also has sig. value <0.05, between them has correlation

with each other. In addition, correlation coefficient of some couple of variables is

quite big (> 0.6), it may lead to multicollinearity problem when analyze regression.

It may be a limitation of research; this limitation appears when the correlation

between couple of variables are > 0.3. ; multicollinearity is a state of very high

intercorrelation or inter-associations among the independent variables. It is therefore

a type of disturbance in the data, and if present in the data the statistical inferences

made about the data may not be reliable.

The cause of multicollinearity may come from nature of variables: available

relationship between variables in the model. For instance, responsiveness= f( serving

capacity and empathy, physical facilities).

For further research, to reduce multicollinearity , research can extract variable

through 2 steps:

Step 1: Test a couple of variables has strong correlation

Suppose that X1 has strongly correlate with X2 => Many information about Y belong

to X1 also belong to X2 => extract X1 or X2.

Step 2: Calculate R square or Standardized R square in regression:

For example, R^2 of Y for X1, X2, X3,…Xn = 0.978

R^2 when extract X1 = 0.899

R^2 when extract X2 = 0.911 => extract X2

4.2.3 The relationship between each factor in the model and student

satisfaction.

Based on the standardized regression equation that the researcher has founded in

regression analysis: Y= 0.391X1 +0.272X2 + 0.541X3 -0.233X4, student satisfaction

depends on 4 factors:

X1 – Service capacity and empathy

X2- Physical facility

X3- Reliability

X4- Responsiveness

Based on regression model, standardize beta coefficients of X1, X2, X3 >0, it means

these independent variables have positive relationship with satisfaction. So that

when each factor (service capacity and empathy/ physical facilities/ reliability)

develops positively, student’s satisfaction also increases by positive way. By

contrast, standardized beta coefficient of X4 <0, it expresses a negative relationship

between responsiveness and satisfaction. It means, when all factors are unchanged,

if responsiveness develops positively, student satisfaction will decrease, and vice

versa.

This equation will help the dorm manager improve student satisfaction level by adjust

factors in this model as its way of affecting.

This result of research is different from previous studies in this field and also not

expect by the researcher. Previous models shows that responsiveness has positive

relationship with satisfaction ( Nguyen Thi Kim Bau, 2012), (Nguyen Thi Thuy Giang,

2012). This finding is not expected by the researcher because in fact, this may be

unreasonable. It may lead a future research to make clearly about this finding

because this research is conducted as a case study of International school.

Research can not apply for other cases in this field.

4.2.4 The differences about student satisfaction level between groups in

demographic information.

Results get from ANOVA analysis shows that there is no difference between

satisfaction level of student between each of demographic information (gender,

course and nationality).

It means that levels of requirements about service quality of students are not

depending on these demographic factors.

AppendixAppendix 1: Questionnaire

Dear Guys,

My name is Uyen, an international school student, are undertaking a thesis to graduate my course. To this end I kindly request you complete the following short questionnaire regarding to your experience, your thinking and feeling about international school’s dormitory. It should take no longer than 15 minutes of your time. Your response is utmost important to me. It not only helps me to complete excellently our subject but also help you exchange your opinions, your thinking and your feeling about our school dormitory. Your response will help describe the dorm quality status and the relationship between each factor to identify your satisfaction level.

Please do not enter your name or contact details on the questionnaire. It remains anonymous.

Kindly return the completed questionnaire to me as soon as possible.

Should you have any queries or comments regarding this survey, you are welcome to contact me telephonically at 01656665515 or email me at [email protected].

Best regard,

Nguyen Uyen

mailto:[email protected]

QUESTIONNAIRE TO SURVEY THE FACTORS AFFECTING STUDENT SATISFACTION TO THE DORMITORY OF INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, THAI

NGUYEN UNIVERSITY.

Part 1: Interviewer’s opinion

(Start with Questions in Part A to G )

You circle the numbers below to select the level of assessment of you for the followinginformation, with the minimum value of 1 and the maximum of 5:1 - Strongly disagree5 - Strongly agree

Stro

ngly

dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Cer

tain

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

agr

ee

A. Price1. The dorm’s price is suitable with given service by the school.

1 2 3 4 5

2. The dorm’s price is suitable compared to other inn houses.

1 2 3 4 5

3. Electric prices at the dorm is suitable. 1 2 3 4 5

4. Water prices at the dorm is suitable. 1 2 3 4 5

5. Prices in canteen at the dorm is suitable. 1 2 3 4 5

6.Valet parking prices at the dorm is suitable 1 2 3 4 5

B. Physical facilities7. Room size is large enough for sleeping space.

1 2 3 4 5

8. Room size is large enough for learning function.

1 2 3 4 5

9. Room size is large enough for bathroom function.

1 2 3 4 5

10. The room’s equipment (bed, chair, table, lamp,..) is provided sufficiently.

1 2 3 4 5

11. Room design ensures for ventilation and lighting.

1 2 3 4 5

12. Location and hanging area are convenient and spacious.

1 2 3 4 5

13. The dorm was built standard (non-cracked walls, impermeable cap).

1 2 3 4 5

14. Electric and water are provided stability. 1 2 3 4 5

15. The drainage system of dormitory is good. 1 2 3 4 5

16. The dorm ensures the requirements of fire prevention.

1 2 3 4 5

C. Responsiveness17. Health services are provided fully. 1 2 3 4 5

18. Health care for students is always met fully. 1 2 3 4 5

19. Catering services are fit the needs of students.

1 2 3 4 5

20. Refreshment (canteen) is fit the needs of students.

1 2 3 4 5

21. The valet parking is safe and spacious. 1 2 3 4 5

22. The power and water problems are processed quickly.

1 2 3 4 5

23. The security situation (theft, fighting, gambling) is solved well.

1 2 3 4 5

24. Public services (security, sanitation ...) are guaranteed.

1 2 3 4 5

D. Serving capacity 25. The dorm board of management is enthusiastic with work.

1 2 3 4 5

26. Canteen’s staffs are cheerful and friendly. 1 2 3 4 527. The protecting employees check the situation of the dorm regularly.

1 2 3 4 5

28. The dorm’s manager answers students enthusiastically.

1 2 3 4 5

E. Empathy29. Closing and opening time of the dormitory are reasonable.

1 2 3 4 5

30. The board of manager regularly hold talks, meeting to meet the needs of students.

1 2 3 4 5

31. You feel comfortable when they are talking with the dorm’s manager.

1 2 3 4 5

32. The school is always concern about student’s life.

1 2 3 4 5

33. The school listens student’s idea regularly. 1 2 3 4 5F. Reliability

34. When facilities (bed, lamps, toilet ...) damaged, the Dormitory keeps timely to repair.

1 2 3 4 5

35.When you appeal or complain, the Dormitory resolved quickly and flexibly.

1 2 3 4 5

36. Time overcome these problems quickly. 1 2 3 4 5

37. You believe in the commitment of the Dormitory staffs.

1 2 3 4 5

G. Evaluate generally 38. Generally, you are satisfied with the dorm’s price.

1 2 3 4 5

39. Generally, you are satisfied with the dorm’s physical facilities.

1 2 3 4 5

40. Generally, you are satisfied with the dorm’s serving capacity.

1 2 3 4 5

41. Generally, you are satisfied with the dorm’s responsiveness.

1 2 3 4 5

42. Generally, you are satisfied with the dorm manager’s empathy.

1 2 3 4 5

43. Generally, you are satisfied with the concerns of international school.

1 2 3 4 5

44. You are willing to introduce International school dorm to other international students who have need of finding resident.

1 2 3 4 5

Part 2: M. Interviewee information

45. Gender Male □

Female □

46. Course K1 □

K2 □

K3 □

K4 □

47. Nationality Vietnamese □

Filipino □

Lao □

Timor □

Appendix 2: Coding table

Main survey (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree)Price1 Pri1 Pri1”The dorm’s price is suitable with given service by

the school.”2 Pri2 Pri2 ” The dorm’s price is suitable compared to other

inn houses”3 Pri3 Pri3” Electric price at the dorm is suitable.”

4 Pri4 Pri4 “Water prices at the dorm is suitable.”

5 Pri5 Pri5 “Prices in canteen at the dorm is suitable.”

6 Pri6 Pri6 “Valet parking prices at the dorm is suitable.”

Physical facilities7 Fac7 Fac7 “Room size is large enough for sleeping space.”

8 Fac8 Fac8 “Room size is large enough for learning function.”

9 Fac9 Fac9 “Room size is large enough for bathroom function.”

10 Fac10 Fac10” The room’s equipment (bed, chair, table, lamp,..) is provided sufficiently.”

11 Fac11 Fac11” Room design ensures for ventilation and lighting”

12 Fac12 Fac12” Location and hanging area are convenient and spacious”

13 Fac13 Fac13” The dorm was built standard (non-cracked walls, impermeable cap)“

14 Fac14 Fac14”Electric and water are provided stability.”

15 Fac15 Fac15”Customer service staff is always ready to help you.”

16 Fac16 Fac16”The dorm ensures the requirements of fire prevention”

Responsiveness17 Res17 Res17 “Health services are provided fully.”

18 Res18 Res18 “Health care for students is met fully.”

19 Res19 Res19”Catering service are fit the needs of students.”

20 Res20 Res20 “Refreshment (canteen) is fit the needs of students”

21 Res21 Res21” The valet parking is safe and spacious.”

22 Res22 Res22” The power and water problems are processed quickly.”

23 Res23 Res23” The security situation (theft, fighting, gambling) is solved well.”

24 Res24 Res24” Public services (security, sanitation ...) are guaranteed.”

Serving capacity25 Ser25 Ser25 “The dorm board of management is enthusiastic

with work”26 Ser26 Ser26” Canteen’s staffs are cheerful and friendly”27 Ser27 Ser27”The protecting employees check the situation of

the dorm regularly ”28 Ser28 Ser28 ”The dorm’s manager answers students

enthusiastically”Empathy 29 Em29 Em29 “Closing and opening time of the dormitory are

reasonable”30 Em30 Em30”The board of manager regularly hold talks,

meeting to meet the needs of students”31 Em31 Em31”You feel comfortable when they are talking with

the dorm’s manager”32 Em32 Em32”The school is always concern about student’s

life.”33 Em33 Em33”The school listens student’s idea regularly.”Reliability34 Reli34 Reli34 “When facilities (bed, lamps, toilet ...) damaged,

the Dormitory keeps timely to repair”35 Reli35 Reli35”When you appeal or complain, the Dormitory

resolved quickly and flexibly.”36 Reli36 Reli36”Time overcome these problems quickly.”37 Reli37 Reli37”You believe in the commitment of the Dormitory

staffs.”Evaluate generally38 Eva38 Eva38”Generally, you are satisfied with the dorm’s

price.”39 Eva39 Eva39”Generally, you are satisfied with the dorm’s

physical facilities..”40 Eva40 Eva40”Generally, you are satisfied with the dorm’s

serving capacity.”41 Eva41 Eva41”Generally, you are satisfied with the dorm’s

responsiveness.”42 Eva42 Eva42 “Generally, you are satisfied with the dorm

manager’s empathy”43 Eva43 Eva43 “Generally, you are satisfied with the concerns

of international school”44 Eva44 Eva44 “You are willing to introduce International school

dorm to other international students who have need of finding resident”

Interview information45 Gender Gender(1=male, 2=female)46 Course Course(1=K1, 2=K2, 3=K3, 4=K4)47 Nationality Nationality(1= Vietnamese, 2=Filipino, 3=Lao, 4=Timor)

Appendix 3: Descriptive statistic of respondents

gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 1 17 26.6 26.6 26.6

2 47 73.4 73.4 100.0

Total 64 100.0 100.0

course


Valid

1 15 35.7 37.5 37.5

2 5 11.9 12.5 50.0

3 10 23.8 25.0 75.0

4 10 23.8 25.0 100.0

Total 40 95.2 100.0

Missing System 2 4.8

Total 42 100.0

nationality


Valid

1 37 88.1 92.5 92.5

2 2 4.8 5.0 97.5

3 1 2.4 2.5 100.0

Total 40 95.2 100.0

Missing System 2 4.8

Total 42 100.0

Appendix 4: EFA results

First timeKMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .527

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 2636.541

df 666

Sig. .000

Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared

Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared

Loadings

Total % of

Variance

Cumulative

%

Total % of

Variance

Cumulative

%

Total % of

Variance

Cumulative

%

1 11.627 31.424 31.424 11.627 31.424 31.424 6.041 16.326 16.326

2 5.461 14.759 46.183 5.461 14.759 46.183 5.659 15.294 31.620

3 3.166 8.557 54.740 3.166 8.557 54.740 4.609 12.457 44.077

4 2.849 7.700 62.441 2.849 7.700 62.441 2.883 7.792 51.869

5 2.041 5.517 67.958 2.041 5.517 67.958 2.634 7.118 58.987

6 1.433 3.873 71.831 1.433 3.873 71.831 2.586 6.990 65.977

7 1.385 3.744 75.575 1.385 3.744 75.575 2.574 6.955 72.933

8 1.162 3.141 78.716 1.162 3.141 78.716 1.714 4.632 77.565

9 1.103 2.980 81.696 1.103 2.980 81.696 1.529 4.131 81.696

10 .963 2.602 84.298

11 .760 2.053 86.351

12 .676 1.828 88.179

13 .577 1.560 89.739

14 .518 1.400 91.138

15 .441 1.191 92.330

16 .407 1.100 93.430

17 .401 1.083 94.513

18 .303 .819 95.333

19 .289 .781 96.114

20 .249 .673 96.787

21 .209 .564 97.351

22 .191 .516 97.867

23 .148 .399 98.266

24 .123 .333 98.599

25 .107 .289 98.888

26 .097 .262 99.150

27 .066 .178 99.327

28 .056 .150 99.478

29 .049 .133 99.610

30 .036 .096 99.707

31 .031 .084 99.790

32 .025 .068 99.858

33 .021 .057 99.915

34 .014 .037 99.952

35 .010 .026 99.978

36 .005 .013 99.991

37 .003 .009 100.000


Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

em33 .836

res24 .776

reli35 .768

reli34 .763

em31 .758

em30 .754

ser28 .734

em32 .732

ser25 .713

reli37 .659 -.522

res23 .646

ser27 .632

fac15 .591 .501

reli36 .588

em29 .586

res18 .569

res17 .534 -.524

fac16 .523 .500

pri1 .516

res19

res21

fac7

fac11 .655

fac8 .626

fac14 .600

fac12 .503 .591

fac9 .535 .590

fac13 .531 .573

fac10 .503 -.502

res20

ser26

pri6 .747

pri5 .573

res22 .541

pri3 .599

pri2 .590

pri4


a. 9 components extracted.


Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

ser27 .836

ser28 .791

em29 .789

ser25 .739

em31 .720

res23 .692

res24 .667

em30 .633 .515

em32 .594

fac12 .854

fac9 .818

fac13 .788

fac11 .771

fac8 .701

fac16 .692

fac15 .662 .521

fac14 .545

res17 .532 .507

reli36 .825

reli37 .792

reli35 .778

reli34 .698

em33 .618

res22 .732

pri6 .711

ser26 .634

pri5 .570

res20 .568

res19 .793

res18 .741

res21 .618

pri4 .868

pri3 .703

pri2 .795

pri1 .625

fac7 .578

fac10 .545




Final time

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .586

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 2102.471

df 528

Sig. .000

Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared

Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared

Loadings

Total % of

Variance

Cumulative

%

Total % of

Variance

Cumulative

%

Total % of

Variance

Cumulative

%

1 10.353 31.372 31.372 10.353 31.372 31.372 5.950 18.032 18.032

2 4.923 14.917 46.290 4.923 14.917 46.290 4.896 14.835 32.867

3 3.071 9.307 55.596 3.071 9.307 55.596 3.800 11.514 44.381

4 2.492 7.551 63.147 2.492 7.551 63.147 3.057 9.264 53.644

5 1.959 5.938 69.085 1.959 5.938 69.085 2.698 8.177 61.821

6 1.329 4.026 73.111 1.329 4.026 73.111 2.480 7.516 69.337

7 1.174 3.559 76.669 1.174 3.559 76.669 2.213 6.705 76.042

8 1.025 3.106 79.776 1.025 3.106 79.776 1.232 3.734 79.776

9 .951 2.882 82.658

10 .746 2.260 84.918

11 .687 2.082 87.000

12 .608 1.843 88.842

13 .521 1.578 90.420

14 .482 1.462 91.882

15 .401 1.215 93.096

16 .369 1.119 94.215

17 .303 .919 95.134

18 .289 .875 96.009

19 .250 .758 96.768

20 .207 .628 97.396

21 .168 .509 97.905

22 .146 .444 98.349

23 .117 .354 98.703

24 .103 .313 99.015

25 .078 .237 99.252

26 .054 .164 99.416

27 .049 .149 99.565

28 .043 .131 99.696

29 .037 .112 99.808

30 .026 .080 99.889

31 .015 .045 99.934

32 .014 .041 99.975

33 .008 .025 100.000


Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

em33 .838

res24 .796

reli35 .791

reli34 .774

em32 .758

em31 .752

ser28 .749

ser25 .747

ser27 .657

reli37 .655 -.518

res23 .647

reli36 .616 -.521

res18 .585

em29 .580

pri1 .534

res19 .514

res21 .511

fac11 .657

fac12 .653

fac14 .645

fac13 .635

fac8 .630

fac9 .630

fac16

ser26

pri6 .743

pri5 .576

res22 .541

pri3 .603

pri2 .501 .591

fac10 .525 -.554

res20

pri4


a. 8 components extracted.


Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ser27 .806

em29 .797

em31 .794

ser28 .750

res24 .738

res23 .726

ser25 .711

em32 .683

fac9 .849

fac12 .814

fac11 .795

fac8 .789

fac13 .755

fac16 .714

fac14 .537

reli36 .859

reli37 .814

reli35 .718

reli34 .680

em33 .527

res19 .822

res18 .709

res21 .672

res20 .566

ser26 .523

pri5 .807

pri6 .677

res22 .638

fac10 .546

pri4 .880

pri3 .735

pri2 .834

pri1 .696




Appendix 5: Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient

Serving capacity and empathy

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

N of Items

.925 8

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance

if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

ser27 24.60 31.818 .777 .915

em29 24.52 31.598 .695 .920

em31 24.52 29.926 .790 .912

ser28 24.48 30.057 .781 .913

res24 24.74 29.277 .797 .912

res23 24.77 29.719 .718 .919

ser25 24.61 30.766 .778 .913

em32 24.66 32.719 .671 .921

Physical facilities


Cronbach's

Alpha

N of Items

.895 7


Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance

if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

fac9 20.52 20.857 .761 .872

fac12 20.47 21.237 .800 .867

fac11 20.38 23.476 .660 .885

fac8 20.55 22.252 .727 .877

fac13 20.53 21.396 .754 .873

fac16 20.27 22.198 .633 .888

fac14 20.73 23.024 .559 .896

Reliability


Cronbach's

Alpha

N of Items

.908 5


Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance

if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

reli36 13.86 11.837 .768 .888

reli37 13.88 10.841 .736 .897

reli35 13.80 11.022 .846 .870

reli34 13.89 12.099 .783 .886

em33 13.83 11.351 .733 .895

Responsiveness


Cronbach's

Alpha

N of Items

.805 5


Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance

if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

res19 13.52 7.460 .745 .725

res18 13.66 7.531 .509 .798

res21 13.83 7.668 .600 .765

res20 13.34 7.721 .568 .775

ser26 13.59 8.023 .563 .776

Service price


Cronbach's

Alpha

N of Items

.713 4


Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance

if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

pri5 9.86 5.043 .685 .540

pri6 9.69 5.837 .449 .680

res22 9.95 5.633 .426 .696

fac10 10.02 5.444 .462 .675

Price


Cronbach's

Alpha

N of Items

.782 2


Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance

if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

pri4 3.66 .959 .642 .

pri3 3.50 .921 .642 .

Compared price


Cronbach's

Alpha

N of Items

.793 2


Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance

if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

pri1 3.84 .832 .660 .

pri2 3.67 .700 .660 .

Appendix 6: Regression results

First time:

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1

Regression 25.202 6 4.200 39.043 .000b

Residual 6.132 57 .108

Total 31.334 63


b. Predictors: (Constant), price , serving capicity and empathy, Service price, physical facilities,

responsiveness, reliability

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. Collinearity

Statistics

B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF

1

(Constant) .475 .303 1.567 .123

serving capicity and

empathy.390 .079 .430 4.911 .000 .448 2.231

physical facilities .215 .062 .236 3.451 .001 .733 1.364

reliability .419 .074 .496 5.693 .000 .452 2.210

responsiveness -.279 .078 -.268 -3.583 .001 .614 1.629

Service price .106 .062 .112 1.698 .095 .787 1.271

price .027 .053 .034 .514 .609 .788 1.269


Second time:

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1

Regression 24.858 4 6.214 56.616 .000b

Residual 6.476 59 .110

Total 31.334 63


b. Predictors: (Constant), responsiveness, physical facilities, reliability, serving capicity and

empathy

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. Collinearity

Statistics

B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) .679 .275 2.467 .017


empathy.355 .077 .391 4.614 .000 .487 2.053

physical facilities .247 .059 .272 4.185 .000 .828 1.207

reliability .456 .069 .541 6.577 .000 .518 1.929

responsiveness -.243 .076 -.233 -3.196 .002 .659 1.517


Appendix 7: ANOVA resultsBy gender

ANOVA

Sum of

Squares

df Mean Square F Sig.


empathy

Between Groups .524 2 .262 .425 .655

Within Groups 37.568 61 .616

Total 38.092 63

physical facilities

Between Groups .255 2 .128 .207 .814


Total 37.948 63

reliability

Between Groups .438 2 .219 .307 .737


Total 43.990 63

responsiveness

Between Groups .122 2 .061 .129 .879


Total 28.839 63

Service price

Between Groups .229 2 .114 .200 .819


Total 35.069 63

price

Between Groups .030 2 .015 .019 .981


Total 48.609 63

student satisfaction

Between Groups .330 2 .165 .325 .724


Total 31.334 63

By course:

ANOVA

Sum of

Squares



empathy

Between Groups 1.513 3 .504 .827 .484


Total 38.092 63

physical facilities

Between Groups 1.107 3 .369 .601 .617


Total 37.948 63

reliability

Between Groups 1.390 3 .463 .653 .584


Total 43.990 63

responsiveness

Between Groups 1.466 3 .489 1.071 .368


Total 28.839 63

Service price

Between Groups .435 3 .145 .251 .860


Total 35.069 63

price

Between Groups .864 3 .288 .362 .781


Total 48.609 63

student satisfaction

Between Groups .282 3 .094 .182 .908


Total 31.334 63

By nationality

ANOVA

Sum of

Squares



empathy

Between Groups .524 2 .262 .425 .655


Total 38.092 63

physical facilities

Between Groups .255 2 .128 .207 .814


Total 37.948 63

reliability

Between Groups .438 2 .219 .307 .737


Total 43.990 63

responsiveness

Between Groups .122 2 .061 .129 .879


Total 28.839 63

Service price

Between Groups .229 2 .114 .200 .819


Total 35.069 63

price

Between Groups .030 2 .015 .019 .981


Total 48.609 63

student satisfaction Between Groups .330 2 .165 .325 .724


Total 31.334 63

Documents

Mid-term of Scientific Writing