Master thesis. Service quality about higher education at National university

Hanoi, November 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The rapid development of international/ partner-ship master programs in Vietnam hassignificantly increased the competition among public universities and private educationinstitution like European Excellence in Management Education (CFVG) in order to enrollstudents Most of them has to put more effort in their marketing program to recruitstudents, provide more programs to meet students’ needs, improve the quality service tokeep the customer’s satisfaction Among these, improving the service quality is always atop concern of training institutions, not only in Vietnam but also in the world High orlow training quality is the result of many processes, many objective and subjective factorsthat existed in the education system of education institutions.

CFVG has three master programs and one doctoral program in two locations in Hanoi

and Hochiminh city After 25 years operation with the relentless efforts, CFVG has

achieved a significant success However, like many other education institutions, CFVG isalso facing many challenges and difficulties It is essential to analyze the service qualityand regularly improve the service quality to meet higher and higher demands of students.Therefore, the author selected the topic for the thesis – “HIGHER EDUCATIONSERVICE QUALITY: A STUDY OF THE MASTER PROGRAMS AT CFVG HANOI”to assess and improve the service quality at CFVG This thesis focused only on theservice quality of the three Master programs because they are considered as the mainactivities at CFVG

The thesis aims to achieve the following specific research objectives:

 To review relevant concepts and theory related to higher quality education service. To evaluate the current status of service quality of master programs at CFVG HN  To determine the relationship between CFVG HN master students’ satisfaction

and service quality of master programs at CFVG HN

 To propose recommendations to improve service quality of CFVG HN masterprograms and enhance students’ satisfaction.

Basing on Fidaus's modified HEdPERF model, the theoretical basis of studentsatisfaction for the quality of training service, the study proposed five factors, consistingof 33 variables that influenced the quality service at CFVG HN Master Students were:non-academic aspects; academic aspects; reputation; access and program issues

This research used qualitative research method to evaluate service quality at CFVG HN.After measurement reliability of the scale by Cronbach's Alpha coefficient and EFA

factor analysis, the study found that service quality of CFVG HN was governed by fourfactors: Lecturers; Non-academic; Teaching Documents and Reputation So the researchmodel and the research hypotheses were changed and corrected to adapt with the newfactors The author also used regression to discover the relationship between the fourfactors of service quality with CFVG master students’ satisfaction After doingregression, the Teaching document was removed and the biggest effect to CFVG HNmaster students’ satisfaction was Reputation, following by Lecturer and then Non-academic factor

Follow these findings, solutions have been provided to improve the service qualityat CFVG as below:

 Improving Reputation factor Improving Academic factor Improving Non-academic factor

ABBREVIATION

CFVG : European Excellence in Management EducationMBA : Master of Business Administration

MEBF : Master of Banking and Finance

MMSS : Master of Marketing, Sales and ServiceSPSS : Statistical Package for the Social SciencesSERVPERF : Perceived Service Quality instrumentSERVQUAL : Service quality

HEfPERF : Higher Education PerformanceEFA : Exploratory Factor Analysis

KMO :Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Service quality in higher education from researchers 16Table 2 Questionaire development about service quality 24

Table 3 Questionaire about students' satisfaction 24

Table 4 Number of master students from 2012-2016 at CFVG 29

Table 5 Characteristics of respondents 30

Table 6 Cronbach’s Alpha test 33

Table 7 Cronbach’s Alpha - SATISFACTION factor 33

Table 8 EFA 1st time 36

Table 9 EFA final results 38

Table 10 New factors after EFA 38

Table 11 Cronchbach’s Alpha for new factors (n = 203) 40

Table 12 Cronbach Alpha – Satisfaction factor 40

Table 13 Overal assesment of students about CFVG education service 41

Table 14 Evaluation service quality of Non-Academic factor 43

Table 15 Evaluation service quality of Lecturer factor 44

Table 16 Evaluation service quality of Lecturer factor 45

Table 17 Evaluation service quality of Reputation factor 45

Table 18 Regression Linear 48

Table 19 Indepedent T test 52

Table 20 ANOVA test 53

LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1 Research process 21

Figure 2 Relationship between Students' satisfaction and service quality at CFVG 25

Figure 3 Modified Model testing 47

TABLE OF CONTENTABBREVIATION 5

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 8

1.1 Rationale 8

1.2 The Aim of this research 10

1.3 Research objectives 11

1.4 Structure of the report 11

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 12

2.1 Characteristics of service and service in higher education 13

2.1.1 Characteristics of service 13

2.1.2 Service in higher education 14

2.3 Service quality in higher education and students’ satisfaction 15

2.3.1 Service quality in higher education 15

2.3.2 Model of service quality in higher education 17

4.2 Research sample analysis 29

4.3 Scale reliability tests and validity assessment 31

4.3.1 Cronbach’s Alpha 31

4.3.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis-EFA 34

4.5 Service quality assessment of Master programs at CFVG HN 41

4.5.1 Assessment of service quality in general 41

4.5.2 Assessment of service quality by factors 42

4.6 Relationship between CFVG HN master students’ satisfaction with service quality 464.7 The comparison of CFVG HN master students’ satisfaction with service quality across the demographic variables 51

4.7.1 The satisfaction by Sex, Marriage status, Ages Groups and Student groups 51

4.7.2 The students’ satisfaction by Program, Income and Working experience groups 52

CHAPTER V: RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE SERVICE QUALITY AT CFVG 54

5.1 Improving the Reputation factor 54

5.2 Improving the Academic factors 55

5.3 Improving non-academic factor 57

Appendix 1: Questionaire 63

Appendix 2 General Description 67

Appendix 3: Cronbach’s Alpha 69

Appendix 4: EFA ( Evaluation Factors Analysis) 75

Appendix 5 Test reliability for new factors 87

Appendix 6: Pearson correlation 90

Appendix 7: Regression model 91

Appendix 8: Independent T Test 95

Appendix 9 ANOVA Test 99

Appendix 10: Descriptive Statistics 104

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION1.1 Rationale

Education has become a key determinant of the growing importance of intellectual capitalin today’s increasingly competitive global socioeconomic landscape Higher education

institutions have always been affected by international trends and operated on a broaderinternational community of academic institutions, scholars, and research Vietnam, anemerging country, is not an exception The potential education market of Vietnamnowadays is actually the “gold mine” to attract special attention of investors, bothdomestic and foreign It’s quite easy to found out that the key elements to create thispotential market is the analysis of the advantages of Vietnam: a young populationcountry, the traditional hospitality of the Vietnamese people, the steady growth of theeconomy, the increase in people’ income, as well as in awareness of young people aboutthe vital role of education for their future.

Beside hundreds of public universities, Vietnamese private higher education is beinggiven an increasingly international focus Multiple partnerships now exist betweenVietnamese universities and universities from other countries, especially Australia, NewZealand, the United States or France Though the tuition fee in partnership programs andforeign universities is very high compared with other domestic alternatives, the presenceof those programs have allowed students to get a good degree at a much lower expense incomparison to studying abroad As the economic development in Vietnam in recent yearshas significantly improved the living standards, especially of middle and upper incomeclass, the presence of foreign undergraduate programs is seen by many as a newlyemerged option for students and their parents in Vietnam – a country where education hasbeen traditionally seen not only as an investment for the future but also an honor andreputation of individuals and their family

European Excellence in Management Education (CFVG), which has three masterprograms: MBA, Master of Finance and Master of Marketing and one PhD program isdeveloped as a non-profit organization and autonomous education institution attached tothe National Economics University (NEU) in Hanoi and the University of Economics HoChi Minh City (UEH) French and European partner institutions CFVG has the missionof offering young Vietnamese managers, university graduates and teachers greatopportunities to access European excellence in management education through a largenetwork of highly ranked In the next year, when CFVG is at the end of the currentintergovernmental agreement between French and Vietnamese governments, it has a planto transform into a higher education institution (HEI) registered in Vietnam with thepassion of becoming the European Management University.

In the context, the directors at CFVG has done some innovations in the admin processwith the aim of improving service quality to add more value to students such as, using

finger print reader for attendant check, asking admin staff to present at class room twosessions per course, asking admin staff to be exam proctor for each course, etc However,students claims are not decreased Some students are not happy with lectures, academicsupport or school facilities What more they complain about? Did CFVG actual listen tostudents?

Hence, the author did this research, which focus on the three Master programs becausethey are considered as the main activities of CFVG to help Directors of CFVG tounderstand the situation of service quality about master programs at CFVG HN and fromthen, they could draw a plan to improve procedure to enhance education service qualityin Hanoi campus

1.2 The Aim of this research

Overall, service and service quality are always top priority for every business, especiallyfor higher education institutions The below reasons are also explained why the project isencouraged by the Directors of CFVG:

Firstly, directors of CFVG realize the importance of the service quality when they heard alot of complains through focus groups, evaluation form after each course or meeting withrepresentative of classes and especially, in the context of decreasing in number ofcandidates recently.

Secondly, in the next few years, CFVG has a strategic plan of developing as theEuropean management institution in Asian CFVG aims to attach more and more studentsboth local and internationals It should be sustainable development Hence, beside theincreasing of the marketing campaign or developing the infrastructure, the need ofimproving service quality should be on the top of priority

Thirdly, when education is a special service, higher education institutions would be asservice providers The “primary customer” of higher education institutions is learners(Crawford, 1991) These special customers directly involve in the entire service processand also as a product of education and training One of the decisive factors for theexistence and development of business organizations in the general and education andtraining institutions in particular are the satisfaction of customers about the quality ofservice - products that the organization supplied Thus, the measurement of servicequality through customer feedback is becoming essential From then, the training centers

or universities, in the case is CFVG, has an objective view of what their students thoughtabout their service and there would be adjustments in providing training serviceaccordingly.

Finally, as a program manager of CFVG HN, the author want to find out the student'ssatisfaction to school's training service, as well as what factors governing the student'sassessment From then, she would draw lessons to serve her students better and attractedmore students to CFVG.

Therefore, research questions included:

1 How do CFVG master students evaluate the quality of service at CFVG HN?2 What is the relationship between CFVG HN master students’ satisfaction andCFVG’s service quality?

3 What are recommendations to improve service quality and enahnce thesatisfaction for the Master students from CFVG HN?

1.4 Structure of the report

Except for the executive summary, reference and appendix, the thesis consists of fivechapters, which are shown below

Chapter one gives the background information about CFVG in particular and the

international education in general and objective of the problem

Chapter two discusses the theories background related to service quality in higher

education and the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction

Chapter three discusses the methodology adopted for research This chapter provides

the guideline to conduct a research work effectively This is the most crucial chapter ofthe research because if the methodology is not designed appropriately it may harm the

results of the research and could make it difficult to derive meaningful results from thestudy

Chapter four comprises the data analysis of this research which explains the results

obtained from the analysis of the data in the form of bar charts and graphs and finally willdiscuss the overall findings of this study and discuss its usefulness for CFVG.

Chapter five of the research which is the final chapter summarizes the objectives of the

research and learning achieved and finally, draws relevant conclusions from the findingsof the research and gives the managerial recommendations.

CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

C Lovelock & J.Wirtz (2011) said that the current market is more oriented towardsservice With every product, a service factor is associated and therefore the economy ischaracterized as a service economy History shows the transition from agriculture toindustry sector and now from industry to service sector as the dominant factor in allindustries This is the reason today goods and service is not separate, but linked with eachother The interconnectedness between goods and service represent the goods-servicecontinuum Education is considered as a special service Due to the economic pressure,the high growth of education and the policy of cutting government funds, educationinstitutions have developed and competed like commercial busines, where service qualityplays an important role Firdau.A( 2005).

2.1 Characteristics of service and service in higher education

2.1.1 Characteristics of service

There are many definitions about service, in which stressed on the characteristics ofVariability, Perishability, Intangibility and inseparability Because of thesecharacteristics, the measurement of service is always difficult.

According to Gronroos (1990), service is an activity or series of activities that are moreor less intangible, in which there is interaction between customers and employees incontact with customers, material resources, merchandise or service delivery systems,

Kotler & Armstrong (2004) defined service is as an activity or benefit that a businesscould offer its customers to establish, consolidate and expand long-term partnerships withtheir customers.

In summary, service is a process that involves the activities that customers and serviceproviders interact with in order to satisfy the needs of the customer in the way that thecustomer desire and create value for them.

The characteristics of service are as follows:

 Variability - One of the key characteristics in service is heterogeneity or variability.Service is consumed simultaneously This meaned each service is unique With thevariety in service, the service, generally are never repeated by the same serviceprovider There is heterogeneity in the service offered to the customers, even by thesame service provider Whereas the products or goods are many a time produced inbatch or mass and therefore homogeneity is maintained which is not true in case ofservice For instance, all the coffee served at Starbucks is similar for each customer orhomogenous but the staff courtesy and behavior may not be the same every time andthus the service offered at Starbucks outlet to two separate customers is heterogeneousin nature.

 Perishability - Service is consumed as and when produced Therefore the service isperishable The service cannot be stored or saved Neither can they be resold orreturned to the service provider Also, once the service is offered to a customer, he/shehas to consume it completely and couldn’t transfer to another customer For instance,the service availed at a restaurant or beauty salon couldn’t be returned to the serviceprovider The dissatisfied customer could decide not to visit the shop further but hecouldn’t return the service.

 Inseparability - The production and consumption of service are inseparable from each

other This states that service has to be consumed as soon as they are produced Forinstance, a haircut is simultaneously consumed and couldn’t be stored as in case ofany product like cakes Therefore there is simultaneity in the production andconsumption of service unlike the products.

 Intangibility - Unlike product, service does not carry any physical characteristics i.e.the touch and physical presence is missing in service For instance the financialservice couldn’t be touched It is intangible Therefore it is vital to check the qualityof the service before deciding to consume it.

2.1.2 Service in higher education

Ruben (1995) and many other researchers have confirmed that in education industry,institutions are considered as service provider and students are customers with the samecharacteristic of service The education service is directed as people (their minds ratherthan their bodies) It is primarily ‘people based’ rather than ‘equip-ment based’ andinvolves largely intangible actions More importantly education,particularly highereducation,is a highly intangible, complex professional service As noted by T Mazzarol& G Soutar&V Thein (2001), a professional service needed to be delivered by well-qualified people and required that person to possess high levels of credence within themarket and an independence from other goods or service providers They also pointed outthe five characteristics of education service as follows:(1) Educational service is people based, especially their intelligence, rather than tools;(2) Relationship with customers, especially with students is formal and long-term;(3) Some service required highly specialized and familiar;(4) The needs of service could be large or small depending on the type of training;(5) The method of service delivery depended on the customer: the service providers couldmove to reach the customer or the customer could move to meet service providers.

(Boyer, 1994, A48) cited in Ruben (1995) confirmed: higher education is a “ serviceindustry”, the core of the service is generating, intergrating and communicatingknowledge for a variety of audiences-academic, profesional, students and public In otherwords, an education institution has to manage a complex array of subsidiary servicebusinesses These include dining and building facilities, parking service, personal andprocurement service.

In general, education service is a process that involves activities that are oriented,organized by the customer - the learner and the training institution interacting with oneanother to meet the needs of learners in a way that learners gradually achieve theeducational objectives.

2.3 Service quality in higher education and students’ satisfaction

2.3.1 Service quality in higher education

Ruben(1995) confirmed that the long-term health of a higher education institutiondepends on providing excellent and value in its service and being recognized as doing so.He also pointed out that there are three dimensions of service quality in an educationinstitution, which are: Academic quality (instruction, research, lecturer), Administrativequality (Processes, systems, procedures, information flows) and relationship quality(interpersonal relations among administrators, faculty, staff and between these individualand public)

Robert and Higgins (1992), Mazelan et al (1992), Hill (1995) and Aldridge and Rowley(1998) cited in Clewes (2003) had different views in assessment service quality in highereducation as below :

Table 1 Service quality in higher education from researchers

As can be seen, Roberts and Higgins (1992) evaluated service in higher education basedon activities of students: studying, school facilities and lecturing, Mazelan et al (1992)added some other services in education institutions need to evaluate like food andaccommodation, financial and social life of students and Hill (1995) included personalcontact with academic staff, career service or other supports in service assessment.Aldirdge and Rowley (1998) divided higher education service by grouping, such asService/facilities for students (accommodation, careers, health care…), Teaching andlearning, Communication etc.

Clewes (2003) identified the important of evaluating about service quality andstudents’expectations He used the Servqual instrument to build the concept of servicequality basing on three phares, the pre-course position, in-course experience and, post-course service value assessment

However, Firdaus (2006), after comparing the three models in service: SERPERF,HEdPERF and SERPERF-HEdPERF had other view, which is broader and cover allaspect of service quality in higher education That is, he assured that the perceivedservice which actual happened during the time students studied is important There arefive dimensions of education service qualities, which are non- academic, academic,reputation, access and program issues Improvement those factors would help to improveservice quality in any education institution

2.3.2 Model of service quality in higher education

 Service quality models

Parasuraman et al has developed a method of measuring service quality in serviceindustries in 1988 that they called the SERVQUAL framework This framework suggeststhat customer satisfaction is a result of multiple factors rather than one factor and that itcould be measured by the help of five dimensions These are tangibles, reliability,responsiveness, assurance and empathy based on 22 service attributes SERVQUALmeasured the difference between what is expected from a service encounter and theperception of the actual service encounter (Parasuraman et al., 1988) It is globallyconsidered as a reliable method of measuring service quality and customer satisfaction inseveral cultures

SERVQUAL model tested service quality by comparing the perceptions of servicereceived with expectations, while SERVPERF (Cronin and Taylor, 1992) maintained

only the perceptions of service quality There are still 22 attributes with five dimensions(tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy) to evaluate service qualitybut the workload is decreased by 50% because only the perceptions of service quality ismentioned.

 Service quality in higher education model

In 2005, Firdaus proposed HEdPERF model (Higher Education PERFormance-only),with 41 attributes dividing into 6 dimensions This model is considered a new and morecomprehensive performance-based to evaluated service quality in higher educationsector The 6 dimensions, which are non-academic aspects, academic aspects, reputation,access, program issues and understanding have covered almost all activities of aneducation institution

However, in 2006, Firdaus proposed a modified HEdPERF model, which consisted onlyfive dimensions: non-academic aspects, academic aspects, reputation, access, programissues He confirmed that this is the most suitable model for those who want to analysisthe service quality in education after comparing the three models: SERPERF, HEdPERFand SERPERF-HEdPERF.

According to Firdaus (2006), the five dimensions of service quality in every educationinstitution should be accessed to determine which dimensions need change andimprove.Hence, they can allocate their resource better to giving an excellent service totheir students

 Factor 1: non-academic aspects This factor refers to all aspects which carried outby education institution staff to support students during their study at school suchas willingness, interest care, equal treatment, respect students…

 Factor 2: academic aspects This factor contains variables belonged toresponsibility of lecturers such as positive attitude to students, goodcommunication skills and providing sufficient consultation to students.

 Factor 3: reputation This factor shows the importance of building the image andreputation of an education institution.

 Factor 4: access This factor refers to accessibility, ease of communication andconvenience when a student want to contact with staff, teachers or giving feedbackto the institution.

 Factor 5: program issues This factors refer to the importance of providingdiversified programs with flexible structure, which help students have more choiceand convenience when studying.

Through the analyses above, there are some models of research on service quality as wellas education service quality In this paper, the author decided to use the modifiedHEdPERF model to measure student satisfactions of training quality because; firstly, it isuse for education industry and secondly, it is more concentrate and suitable with thefactors the author wanted to discuss.

2.3.2 Students’ satisfaction

In general, there are many factors to evaluate service quality of an education institutionand the points of view about service quality are different between groups: lecturers,students, managers, dean or parents, etc Each group also has the different satisfactionsabout education service quality Lecturers satisfy about high remuneration, good students,enough teaching equipment provided Parents satisfy about the reputation of institution,which help their boys and girls to find job easily after graduate and dean or managers ateducation institution apparently have other views of satisfaction: there may be largecampus, large number of faculties and students In this research, the author want todiscover the student’s satisfaction only.

It would be helpful to view each class in which the student enrolled as a transaction orservice encounter According to William (2002), students could be view as customers andtherefore, their demands should be heard Thus, the author will go through someliterature’ review about customer’s satisfaction first to deeply understand students’satisfaction.

Customer satisfaction is an abstract concept and hence there is no specific or scientificways of measuring it Its complexity makes this even more difficult and research isongoing to determine the best way of doing it (Gilbert & Veloutsou, 2007) This has ledto the proposal of several theories that can be used to measure customer satisfaction.Some of the better known theories amongst are SERVQUAL and SERVPERF, which theauthor mentioned above.

An ongoing debate exists amongst the scholars of the field who argued on whethercustomer satisfaction is the cause of service quality or vice versa As mentioned before,

most scholars favored the view that service quality is the accumulation of customersatisfaction and therefore it is the cause of service quality (Bolton & Drew, 1991) Thereare however many who support the opposite view and say that customer satisfaction canonly exist if service quality exists (Gonzálea and Brea, 2005) Studies undertaken byGonzálea and Brea (2005) have proved with the assistance of recursive models andempirical evidence that customer satisfaction is achieved by means of service quality.The primary thrust behind this argument is as (Parasuraman, 1990) points out, thatservice quality is merely a part of the greater whole which is customer satisfaction Thisbeing a wider concept deserves to be granted greater priority than service quality, whichfocuses only on “dimensions of service”

In the case of higher education, there are also some argurments if students’ expectationaffects to students’ satisfaction Kotler and Clarke (1987) cited in Hasan et al ( 2009)defined satisfaction was a feeling of fullfill that person’ expectation His/her expectationcould appear before the actual transactions occurred, in case of students, the expectationmay have before that student study This could raise a question that researcher shouldfind out about students’expectation before they enter a higher education institution Incontrary, Carey, Cambiano and De Vore (2002) cited in Hasan et al ( 2009), believed thatstudents’satisfaction would be effected during their experience at higher educationinstitutions Firdas (2005) also mentioned about the relationship between quality serviceand student’s satisfaction in higher education He also stated that the higher the qualityservice is, the higher student’s satisfaction will be

In summary, basing on above literature review, service quality in higher education has 5dimensions: Non-academic, Academic, Reputation, Access and Program ( Firdaus, 2006).The result of many researchers indicated that the overall service quality has asignificantly effect on overall customer’ satisfaction This statement is the same in thehigher education industry With the purpose of evaluating the status service quality ofmaster programs at CFVG HN and determine the relationship between CFVG HN masterstudents’ satisfaction with CFVG’s training service, the author used the modifiedHEdPERF to analyze for the research

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research methodology provides the basic principle to explain how, what, when theresearch is conducted With the purpose of assessing the present scenario of the CFVGHN customer service, various techniques and instruments are used in the process ofexecuting the research and in order to obtain effectual and evocative output from theresearch The entire procedure to research tactics which are composed of the following:

3.1 Research process

The purpose of the study is to assess the present scenario of the CFVG HN servicequality and master students’ satisfaction The data is collected from secondary andprimary sources Explaining for this selection is that while secondary data (reports,previsous surveys, meeting report with students) applied to find out the variablesinfluencing on students, quantitative method used to collect data and apply statisticalanalysis The below figure provides a clear roadmap of researching which is built up as aguideline for all of the steps taken during the research

Figure 1 Research process

independent T-test/ANOVA Analysis

Preparing researchdesign Data collection

Cronbach’s Alpha

Define researchproblem

- Existing student’s satisfaction survey results through EPAS accreditation or CGE

- Meeting report with students every year. Primary data

In order to collect the primary data, the author used quantitative method (customersurvey) The survey is conducted from September to October to discover how masterstudents rate service quality at CFVG HN

3.3 Questionnaire development

Based on the view of Firdaus (2006) about the modified HEdPERF model, the authordesigned the questionnaire to capture master student assessments of service quality atCFVG Modified HEdPERF – a multidimensional scale for measuring students’evaluation reflects the five dimensions of service quality, each dimension containingmultiple items that evaluate the fundamental indicators of service

The questionnaire is divided into 2 parts:

The first part is composed by the questions: the purpose is to collect the informationabout service quality of master program in Hanoi through 5 dimensions: Non-academic,academic, access, reputation and program issues All the questions in the second partused are measured on the Likert scale, five points changed from 1 "Strongly disagree" tofive "Strongly agree" They are designed clearly, shortly and simply in order to makecustomers feel easy and comfortable to answer the questions without spending theirmuch time

The second part used nominal scale to capture student’s general information, such as: ageranges, working experience, Program and intake, income range, etc

There is also an open question, that is “ other comments” for students to write theiridea/comments or feedback.

The below table is the mainly part of the questionaire:

Non Academic factor

1 CFVG staff efficiently & promptly deal with request fromstudents

4 CFVG staff care about each student ( individualized ) NonA4

7 Students have equal treatment and respect by CFVG staff NonA7

Academic factor

11 Lecturers are caring and courteous to students Aca112 Lecturers have high levels of knowledge and expertise Aca213 Lecturers have a positive attitude towards students Aca314 Lecturers have good communication and language skill Aca415 Course documents are provided clearly and fully to Students Aca516 Course documents are provided in time to the students Aca617 Lecturers build a positive learning atmosphere, in-cooperation

with students

Aca718 Lecturers regularly update new knowledge in their teaching

Aca819 Lecturers encouraged students to discuss and work in groups Aca9

Reputation factor

20 CFVG is a good reputation education center Rep1

21 CFVG has modern facilities and equipment meet the needs oftraining and learning

Rep222 Other support service from CFVG ( parking, tea break, job

sharing…) are good

24 CFVG has good relations with businesses and alumni network Rep525 CFVG graduates are easily promoted as well as finding other

suitable management jobs

Access factor

26 Students can easily contact with admin person Acc127 Students can easily contact lecturers when needed Acc2

28 Students easily give feedback for improvement to CFVG Acc3

29 Students easily access to information of school's alumni team Acc4

Program factor

33 The master programs of CFVG have an excellent quality Pro4

Table 2 Questionaire development about service quality

The author also analyses the general satisfaction of students to find out the relationshipbetween master students’ satisfaction with the service quality at CFVG HN.

Table 4.2 Satisfaction of students

Table 3 Questionaire about students' satisfaction

The information gathered from secondary source of information and the results collectedfrom questionnaire survey would bring a clear picture of CFVG HN master students’opinions about service quality and meeting the established objectives to do the thesis;finding out the service quality at CFVG HN basing on 5 factors and if five factors affectto the CFVG HN students’ satisfaction as the figure below:

The Satisfaction of masterstudents about education service

at CFVG HNReputation

ProgramNon-academic

Figure 2 Students' satisfaction and service quality at CFVGHN

3.3 Sample and data collection

Questionnaires were delivered to nearly 400 students, in which 203 valid responses werereceived The author chose to take the surveys from the three master programs of the lastthree intakes to take the evaluation of fresh graduates and current students

- Students from Master of Business Administration-MBA:MBA 23 (2014-2016)- Graduated on December 2016MBA 24 (2015-2017)

MBA 25 (2016-2017)

- Students from Master of Finance and Banking- MEBF:MEBF 12 (2014-2016) Graduated in October 2016MEBF 13 ( 2015-2017) Graduated in October 2017MEBF 14 (2016-2018)

- Students from Master of marketing, sale and service - MMSS:MMSS 9 (2014-2016)- Graduated in July 2016

MMSS 10 (2015-2017)- Graduated in July 2017MMSS 11 (2016-2018)

The author uses the results to analysis the quality service at CFVG HN

 Sample size

Estimating the number of sample size required is an extremely important step in thedesign of research that ensures scientific relevance It determines the success or failure ofthe research If the number of subjects is insufficient, the conclusions drawn from the

study are not highly accurate and even inconclusive On the other hand, if the number istoo large comparing to the number of samples needed, resources, money and time arewasted.

According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), the sample size is guaranteed by the formula:n> = 8m +50 (n is the sample size, m is the independent variable in the model).According to Harris RJ Aprimer (1985), n> = 104 + m (where m is the independentvariable in the model)

In case of using the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) method, Hair et al (1998)suggested that the sample size should be at least 50, preferably 100, and the rate ofobservation / measurement variable is 5/1, meaning that for every measurement variablethere should be at least 5 observations

This study use the EFA exploratory factor analysis and has 33 variables, so according toHair et al, the minimum sample size needed for the study is 33 * 5 = 165 This researchhas 203 respondents, which is matched with the theory.

3.5 Data analysis

Once collected, all data would be imported as an Excel file and recoded as showed in thetable 2 & 3 above That is the service quality scale of CFVG HN master students is basedon the Modified HEdPERF scale, consisting of 33 variables In which, non-academicfactor, coded as NonA, is measured by 10 observation variables, symbols from NonA1 toNonA10 Academic factor, coded as Aca , is measured by 9 observation variables,symbol from Aca 1 to Aca9 Reputation factor, coded as Rep, is measured by 6observation variables, symbol from Rep1 to Rep6 Access Factor, coded as Acc, ismeasured by 4 observation variables symbol from Acc1 to Acc4 Program factor, codedas Pro, is measured by 4 observation variables, symbol from Pro1 to Pro4

The SPSS version 20.0 data processing software is used to process and analyze the datathrough the following analysis: descriptive statistics, assessment of validities andreliabilities of scales, exploratory factor analysis and regression A preliminaryassessment of reliabilities and validities with scale values are performed using theCronbach Alpha coefficient and EFA discovery factor analysis with the purpose of givingoff the variables do not meet the requirements The regression will be used to discoverthe relationship between CFVG HN master students’ satisfaction and quality service The

independent T test as well as one way ANOVA are also used to find out if there is astatistically different in satisfaction between groups of age, sex or income, etc

In general, the research use both secondary and primary data sources to answer theresearch’s objectives and questions The quantitative methods are employed to evaluatethe service quality at CFVG HN The author also use SPSS software to check the validityand scale reliability of factors and the relationship between the service quality andsatisfactions of CFVG HN master students The research findings are presented in thefollowing chapter.

CHAPTER IV : RESEARCH RESULT AND FINDINGS

In this chapter, the author will introduce CFVG background and reports keyfindings pertaining to service quality of Master programs at CFVG The results of thestudents survey provided a rich picture of service quality

4.1 CFVG overview

CFVG (Centre Franco-Vietnamien de formation à la Gestion) is founded in 1992 by anagreement between the governments of Vietnam (the Ministry of Education andTraining) and France (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development),and is operated by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Paris Ile-de-France (CCIP).Located Vietnamese partners are National Economics University and Hochiminh CityUniversity of Economics, which are the 02 best national universities in Economics andManagement of Vietnam

With time, CFVG become a very high ranked higher education institution in Vietnam.This material investment (financial and technical support) and intangible (academicexpertise, "brands" of diplomas and quality label of the best French business schools) hasconditioned the success and recognition that currently benefits to CFVG The CCI ParisIle de France, the University Paris Dauphine and the Graduate school of University ParisSorbonne have created specific master programs in management to educate theVietnamese managers CFVG currently runs three Master programs and one PhDprogram, which offer young Vietnamese managers, university graduates and teachersgreat opportunities to access European excellence in management education through alarge network of highly ranked French and European partner institutions Nowadays all

CFVG programs are delivered in English and on a part-time basis that allows necessaryflexibility and adaptation to the students’ professional and personal obligations TheCFVG’s programs are pioneers in terms of international accreditation:

 The MBA program is the first program EPAS accredited in Vietnam since 2008; The MEBF program is a Specialized Master of the Conférence des Grandes Écoles

in France It is jointly delivered by the ESCP Europe and Paris DauphineUniversity, both EQUIS accredited;

 The MMSS program is jointly delivered by IAE Paris-Sorbonne with Qualicertcertification and ESCP Europe with EQUIS accreditation;

 The PhD program is monitored by a consortium of four institutions: ESCP Europe,Paris Dauphine (both EQUIS accredited), Lille Nord de France, and Strasbourg Since December 2015, CFVG has been recognized as a Grande Ecole by the Conférencedes Grandes Ecoles, and is the unique business school in Asia to do so.

In this research, the author wanted to focus on the Master group in Hanoi location only,which contributed around 98 % of activities at CFVG.

Below is the number of students from 2011 to 2016 of the three programs

Table 4 Number of master students from 2012-2016 at CFVG

As can be seen, the total number of students is decreasing year by year, which raises a lotof concern to directors of CFVG

4.2 Research sample analysis

With nearly 400 questionnaires are sent to students, the author has 203 responses Thedetailed table below show the percentage for each groups of students, who answered thesurvey:

Characteristics Frequency % of Total

< 5 years workingexperience

Table 5 Characteristics of respondents

By the result, we know that :

 The percentage of female ( 73.4%) is nearly triple comparing with male(26.6%)

 Number of students who got marriage is more than single students, but it isnot significant ( 58% comparing with 42%)

 Students who are below 30 is 103 and students above 30 is 97, in which theage range 26-35 is the biggest number with 82 %

 Students who have more than 5 years experience and managers contributethe large portion in the sample, which counted for 70% Following bystudents who have below 5 years experience with 18 % and director/CEOwith 9.5%

 Due to the fact that the MBA class size is always larger than MMSS andMEBF so students who belong to MBA counted for 49% Following byMMSS and MEBF who has the same percentage of 25.5%.

 In the sample size, the current students are MBA 24,MBA 25, MEBF 13,MEBF 14 and MMSS11, which counted for 65.5 % and the other 35.5 %belonged to alumnus, which is MBA 23, MEBF12, MMSS9 and MMSS10. Students studying at CFVG has a very high salary, which 44.8% of students

has average income each month is above 21.000.000 VND

4.3 Scale reliability tests and validity assessment

To assess the scales used in this study, Cronbach coefficient alpha and EFA (PCA withVarimax rotation) were conducted.

4.3.1 Cronbach’s Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha which is developed by Lee Cronbach in 1951, measured the reliability,or internal consistency “Reliability” is how well a test measures what it should Highreliability means it measures the scale’s objective, while low reliability means itmeasures something else (or possibly nothing at all) In other words, Cronbach’s alphatests to see if multiple-question Likert scale surveys are reliable Hoang Trong et al(2011) agreed that the Cronbach Alpha coefficient is between 0.8 and 1.0, is consideringa good measure and from 0.6 to 0.8 is usable.

However, Cronbach's Alpha does not assure which variable should be removed andwhich variable should be retained So in addition to the Cronbach's Alpha coefficient, theitem-total correlation is used and if this item-total correlation <0.3, that variable wouldbe removed

With this research, the author will retain the variables with Cronbach Alpha> = 6 andremoved the item-correlation <0.3.

As can be seen in Appendix 9, Scale « Non- academic » has the Cronbach’s Alpha

reliability score is 0.922, which is excellent However, the variable NonA 6 has the

Corrected Item-Total Correlation below 0.3 so this variable should be removed Afterremoving NonA 6, the Cronbach's Alpha if this Item Deleted is 0.935, greater than 0.922and all other Corrected Item-Total Correlation > 0.3 so all other variables are retainedbecause they ensure the reliability.

The table below shows the results for all five factors reliability test:Variables Corrected It

Cronbach's Alphaif Item DeletedNon academic

(After removeNonA6)

Program Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.827

Table 6 Cronbach’s Alpha test

Cronbach’s Alpha of “ Academic”, “ Reputation”, “Access” and “ Program” has theCronbach’s Alpha reliabilities are 0.898, 0.937, 0.827, 0.792 respectively which are goodand the Corrected Item-Total Correlation for all variables are above 0.3 so all thesevariables will be remained.

Cronbach’s Alpha of « SATISFACTION » factorVariables Corrected It

Cronbach's Alphaif Item DeletedSatisfaction Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.621

Table 7 Cronbach’s Alpha - SATISFACTION factor

Scale SATISFACTION has the Cronbach’s Alpha reliability is 0.621, which isacceptable and the Corrected Item-Total Correlation for all variables are above 0.3 so allthese variables can be used.

4.3.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis-EFA

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is used to measure a scale or to abbreviate a set.Criterias for applying and selecting variables for the EFA exploratory factor analysisinclude:

 KMO coefficient used to evaluate the suitability of EFA EFA is calledappropriate when 0.5 = <KMO <= 1 Kaizer (1974) cited in Hoang Trong et al( 2011), in which, KMO> = 0.9 is very good, KMO> = 0.8 is good, KMO> = 0.7

is quite good, KMO> = 0.5 is excepted and KMO< 0.5 is bad and KMO is notacceptable At the same time, the Bartlett's test would show us if this test isstatistically significant (Sig <0.05) In that case, variables are correlated in theoverall.

 Eligibility criteria include the Eigenvalue index (representing the varianceexplained by the factors) and the Cumulative index, which shows how many % offactors could be explained and how many % could not According to Gerbing &Anderson (1988 ), if Eigenvalue is <1, factors will not have a better summaryeffect than the original variable (the latent variable in the scale before EFA).Hence, when the Eigenvalue is> 1 and and the Cumulative is> 50% would beaccepted Hoang Trong et al ( 2011) suggested if after the analysis of EFA isregression analysis, the Principal components with Varimax rotation could beused.

 Factor loading express the single correlation between the variables and the factorsand it used to evaluate the significance level of the EFA According to Hair et al.(1998), Factor loading> 0.3 is considered the minimum, Factor loading> 0.4 isconsidered important, Factor loading> 0.5 is considered to be practical At thesame time, Hair et al (1998) also advised, if the Factor loading> 0.3, the samplesize should be at least 350, if the sample size larger than 100, then Factor loading>0.5, if the sample size is about 50, then the factor loading> 0.75 An exception canbe kept with a Factor Loading <0.3, but the variable must have a content value.

For this study, the author uses the Principal components extraction method with Varimaxrotation, extracting the factors of Eigenvalue> 1 with the 0.5 <= KM0 <= 1 and Bartlett'stest (Sig.) <0.05 and removing variables with Factor loading = <0.5.

After evaluating the reliability of 5 dimensions, the variable NonA6 was removed due toit is unreliability The remaining 32 variables were used to evaluating factors Below isthe result of the 1st running EFA, which has four factors with Eigenvalue> 1 drawnextract Total variance is more than 62% indicated that these five factors explain 62%variance of the data The coefficient of KMO = 0.940 (> 0.5) and Bartlet's Test (Sig.) = 0(<0.05) so the variables are correlated Observations have Factor loading> 0.3 to get theminimal standard for each items The reason why the author did not put 0.5 at thebeginning to ensure that each item has the same chance to be considered before beingmoved

Rotated component matrix

Cumulative%

Table 8 EFA 1st time

The consideration process to keep or remove one variable has taken place as below: Checking if the KMO > 0.6 and Barlett’s test ( sig <0.05)

 One variable appeared in 2 or more components: that variable would belong to thecomponent which has higher Factor loading For example NonA7, Aca7, Rep4,Aca9…

 One variable would be removed if they belong to two or more components withlow score of Factor loading For example: Acc2, Acc4, Pro1

 Considering the meaning and suitable of each variable before moving Forexample, Rep4 belong to Aca component and one other unidentified componentbut the author still keep Rep4 because it is about the lecturer, which is suitablemeaning with Aca component.

For each consideration, the author would run EFA again That is, the author run EFAthe 2nd time after moving Pro1,Acc2, Acc4 and then Pro2,Pro3, Pro4, Rep1, Rep5.The last run AFA, the author put the loading factor >0.5 and has the final rotatedmatrix as below:

Table 9 EFA final results

As can be seen, the remaining 24 variables have been divided into 4 components withEigenvalue> 1 Total variance is more than 65.6%, the coefficient of KMO = 0.936 (>0.5) and Bartlet's Test (Sig.) = 0 (<0.05)

Factor name and explanation

The explanations and group variables basing on the component group after run EFA.Thus, regarding to the table above, the CFVG HN education service scale, including 24variables is divided into 4 main factors, which renamed as below:

ComponentFactor nameVariables included

1 Non-academic NonA1, NonA2, NonA3, NonA4,NonA5, NonA7, NonA8, NonA9,NonA10, Acc1, Acc3

2 Lecturers Aca1, Aca2, Aca3,Aca4, Aca7, Aca9,Rep43 Teaching document Aca5, Aca6, Aca8

Table 10 New factors after EFA

Comparing with the questionnaires, the new four factors are suitable in the whole Thatis: Non-academic factor would be included 2 others variables: Acc1, Acc2, which isabout: how student can contact with CFVG HN staff to share feedback, comment, etc.Academic factor included Rep 4, which is about experience and high quality lecturers.Teaching Document is about: How teaching documents are prepared and provided tostudents Reputation factor is reduced to 3 main variables only The Cronbach’s Alpharun again to check the reliability of the new factors

Constructs and the scale items Mean S.D. Factorloadings

Non- Academic (Cronbach’s Alpha =.945)3.713

CFVG staff efficiently & promptly deal with request from

CFVG staff actively & enthusiastically response to

CFVG staff sincerely interest in solving problem with

CFVG staff care about each student ( individualized ) 3.276 1.0063 772

Students have equal treatment and respect by CFVG staff 4.128 7335 636

CFVG staff have positive attitude to students 3.901 8146 866Standardized and simple procedures 3.596 9035 770

Students can easily contact with admin person 3.557 8268 770Students easily give feedback for improvement to CFVG 3.768 8447 668

Lecturer (Cronbach’s Alpha =.892)4.028

Lecturers are caring and courteous to students 4.163 6735 785Lecturers have high levels of knowledge and expertise 4.246 6954 748Lecturers have a positive attitude towards students 4.187 6633 802Lecturers have good communication and language skill 3.714 7156 540CFVG has educated and experiment faculty 4.113 6908 643Lecturers build a positive learning atmosphere, in-

Students are encouraged to discuss and work in groups 3.823 610 8254

Teaching documents (Cronbach’s Alpha =.817)4.087

Course documents are provided clearly and fully to

Course documents are provided promptly to the students 4.222

.7002 .724Lecturers regularly update new knowledge in their

Reputation (Cronbach’s Alpha =.701)3.612

Other support service from CFVG ( parking, tea break,

.651CFVG has modern facilities and equipment meet the

CFVG graduates are easily promoted as well as finding

Satisfaction (Cronbach’s Alpha =.621)3.810

Students satisfied about CFVG education service in

Students would recommend the program to their relatives,

Table 11 Cronchbach’s Alpha for new factors (n = 203)

As can be seen in the above table, the four new factors of the CFVG education servicehas the Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.7 and the Corrected Item-Total Correlation score >0.3 soall variables are kept because they are reliability.

The Satisfaction scale

The Satisfaction scale has the KMO = 0.5 (acceptable score), Bartlet’s test ( Sig.) =0,with the Factor loading of 2 variables are > 0.5, the two variables could be retained forfurther analysis.

Table 12 Cronbach Alpha – Satisfaction factor

4.5 Service quality assessment of Master programs at CFVG HN

4.5.1 Assessment of service quality in general

Below are the general assessment from CFVG HN master students basing on thefour dimensions, which mentioned above: Non-Academic, Lecturer, Teaching documentand Reputation.

Table 13 Overal assesment of students about CFVG education service

The mean, or average value, is the most commonly used measure of centraltendency In general, there is a significant difference between four factors at CFVG HN.Among four factors, the highest assessment is Teaching document with mean of 4.087and the value that appear most often is 4.0 It seems reasonable with the fact that almostcourses that delivered to students at CFVG HN has teaching documents with syllabus,case studies and be sent to students by solf copies through email and intranet and hardcopies at class.

Following is the mean of Lecturers factor with 4.028 and the value that appearsmost often is 4.0 It means that students quite satisfiy about the lecturers at CFVG HN.Lecturers have high level of knowledge and care about students.

Non-Academic factor is ranked the third with the mean 3.7134 The value thatappears most often is 4.0 It showed that Non- academic factor, which is mostly aboutadmin staff has the reasonable score Students are supported during their study at CFVG

The lowest ranking is Reputation factor with 3.61 and the value that appear mostoften is 3.5 Students seem not happy about this factor They are not satisfied aboutCFVG HN facilities, equipments or other support service from CFVG HN such asparking, tea break or job sharing.

In general, the mean of Satisfaction factor is 3.81, showing thatstudents’satisfaction about education service at CFVG HN above average but not meetwith the requirement of BoD and the high position- high tuition fee institution whichstudents expected.

The following sessions reported about the survey in more detailed resultsregarding to customer perceptions of each dimension of service quality.

4.5.2 Assessment of service quality by factors

Non-Academic Factor

Constructs and the scale itemsMin MaxMean Std.Deviation

Students have equal treatment and respect by

CFVG staff sincerely interest in solving problem

CFVG staff have positive attitude to students 1.0 5.0 3.901 .8146

Students can easily contact with admin person 1.0 5.0 3.808 .8190

CFVG staff efficiently & promptly deal with

Students easily give feedback for improvement

Standardized and simple procedures 1.0 5.0 3.596 .9035

CFVG staff actively & enthusiastically response

Accurate and retrievable records 1.0 5.0 3.488 .8167

CFVG staff care about each student

Table 14 Evaluation service quality of Non-Academic factor

This factor included nine variables from Non-Academic factor and two variables fromAccess factors They all concentrated on the admin staff at CFVG HN In general, there ishigh distance between the minimum value and maximum value, from 1 to 5, meaning thatsome students are extremely satisfaction about CFVG HN and some are not Manystudents felt good about variable: “Students have equal treatment and respect by CFVG

HN staff” (mean 4.128) and “CFVG HN staff sincerely interest in solving problem with

students” (mean 3.97) Students highly appriciated admin staff when their problem solveand they are treated equally and respectively Students also evaluated admin staff as“positive attitude” when dealing with them, meaning that they always tried to solvestudents’ problem without any personal request The two variables “Students can easilycontact with admin person” and “CFVG HN staff kept promise when working”, has meanaround 3.8 They are reasonable with the fact that CFVG HN students could contact withadmin staff by face-by-face, or email or phone call and the report line at CFVG HN isquite flat between admin staff, sale person, or back office staff with the CFVG HNdirectors CFVG HN Staff also be evaluated as promise keeping when working withstudents

However, admin staff seem not really “efficiently & promptly deal with request fromstudents” ( mean 3.768), meaning that they solved students problem, they treated studentsequally and respectively but with low and long procedure Students could easily contactwith CFVG HN staff but not “easily give feedback for improvement to CFVG HN”because many of their feedback seem not be attended by CFVG HN people or CFVG HNimproved but not promptly action and students did not know about that The remainedfour variables has the lowest mean ranging from 3.2 to 3.5, in which the lowest meanbelonged to “CFVG HN staff care about each student” Students did not appriciate the

individualized when they need support from CFVG HN staff.

Lecturer Factor

Constructs and the scale itemsMin MaxMean Std.Deviation

Lecturers have high levels of knowledge and