University of Wollongong

Research Online

Faculty of Business - Papers (Archive) Faculty of Business and Law

1-1-2015

Dimensions driving business student satisfaction in higher education

Mazirah Yusoff
University of Wollongong

Fraser Mcleay
Northumbria University

Helen Woodruffe-Burton
Northumbria University

Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/buspapers

Part of the Business Commons

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information
contact the UOW Library: [email protected]
Dimensions driving business student satisfaction in higher education

Abstract
Purpose - This study aims to identify the dimensions of business student satisfaction in the Malaysian
private higher educational environment and evaluate the infuence that demographic factors have on
satisfaction.

Design/methodology/approach - A questionnaire was developed and distributed to 1,200 undergraduate

business students at four private higher educational (PHE) institutions in Malaysia. Exploratory factor
analysis was used to identify the underlying dimensions that drive student satisfaction. ANOVA and
t-tests were conducted to evaluate the influence that demographic factors have on the results.

Findings - Factor analysis resulted in the adoption of a 12-factor solution from an original set of 53
satisfaction items. The results also indicated the influence of demographic factors on the level of
business student satisfaction.

Originality/value - This study identified 12 factors or the underlying dimensions that drive business
student satisfaction in the Malaysian PHE. The 12 factors are: professional comfortable environment
student assessments and learning experiences; classroom environment; lecture and tutorial facilitating
goods; textbook and tuition fees; student support facilities; business procedures; relationship with
teaching staff; knowledgeable and responsive faculty; staff helpfulness; feedback; and class sizes.
Understanding these factors could help educational institutions to better plan their strategies and inform
academics interested in studying student satisfaction.

Keywords
student, education, business, driving, higher, dimensions, satisfaction

Disciplines
Business

Publication Details
Yusoff, M., Mcleay, F. & Woodruffe-Burton, H. (2015). Dimensions driving business student satisfaction in
higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 23 (1), 86-104. Quality Assurance in Education

This journal article is available at Research Online: https://ro.uow.edu.au/buspapers/639

 Dimensions driving Business Student Satisfaction in Higher Education

MazirahYusoff
University of Wollongong Programs, INTI International College Subang, Malaysia
Fraser McLeay and Helen Woodruffe-Burton
Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, United Kingdom

Abstract
Purpose – This study seeks to identify the dimensions of business student satisfaction in
the Malaysian private higher educational environment and evaluate the influence that
demographic factors have on satisfaction.
Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire was developed and distributed to
1200 undergraduate business students at four PHE in Malaysia. Exploratory factor
analysis was used to identify the underlying dimensions that drive student satisfaction.
ANOVA and t - tests were conducted to evaluate the influence that demographic factors
have on the results.
Findings – Factor analysis resulted in the adoption of a 12-factor solution from an
original set of 53 satisfaction items. The results also indicated the influence of
demographic factors on the level of business student satisfaction.
Originality/value - This study identified 12 factors or the underlying dimensions that
drive business student satisfaction in the Malaysian PHE. The 12 factors are: professional
comfortable environment; student assessments and learning experiences; classroom
environment; lecture and tutorial facilitating goods; textbook and tuition fees; student
support facilities; business procedures; relationship with teaching staff; knowledgeable
and responsive faculty; staff helpfulness; feedback; and class sizes. Understanding these
factors could help educational institutions to better plan their strategies and inform
academics interested in studying student satisfaction.

Keywords Student satisfaction, underlying dimensions, demographic factors, survey,

private higher education, Malaysia

Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The educational environment is not only extremely dynamic, it is also challenging.
Competition is intensifying in the higher education (HE) sector, in both public and
private provision. Public comparisons between institutions in the form of various ranking
tables are more widely available than ever before. The emergence of global ranking
scales over the last few years has focused considerable attention on higher education. The

1
spotlight is being put on universities that are increasingly being compared nationally and
internationally. To a certain extent, rankings have helped to foster greater accountability
as well as increased pressure on Universities to enhance their management practices
(EUA, 2011). There are six major university ranking systems in the world, of which one
is the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE Rankings). THE
Rankings adopted a new ranking system, which consist of 13 indicators across five broad
categories of which one is teaching-the learning environment (The STAR, 26 September,
2010). This positive development in higher education shows the importance of
educational institutions understanding student satisfaction if they want their ranking to be
favourable. Student satisfaction is a short-term attitude resulting from the evaluation of a
student’s experience with regard to the education services rendered (Elliot and Healy,
2001)
As indicated by Alves and Raposo (2009) identifying the factors that influence student
satisfaction is critical for educational institutions. However, there is a lack of consensus
in the existing literature as to how this can be achieved and previous studies utilise
models that vary in terms of the number of dimensions considered and the methodologies
used to examine the strengths and significance of the relationships (Douglas et al., 2006;
Elliot and Shin, 2002; Guolla, 1999; Gruber et al., 2010; Petruzellis et al., 2006; and
Smith, 2004).

In Malaysia, education is a leading industry and plays a vital role in national

development. The current educational environment in Malaysia is also very dynamic,
competitive and challenging. Public comparisons of Malaysian private higher educational
(PHE) institutions through an official ranking system called SETARA also emphasises
the importance of understanding student satisfaction. The total number of students
enrolled in higher educational institutions in Malaysia stood at 1,134,134 in 2010, of
which 565,403 students (49.9%) are enrolled at the private educational institutions
(MOHE, 2010). Private higher institutions have contributed enormously to the Malaysian
economy via foreign exchange earnings from the influx of foreign students, which made
up of 86, 923 international students from 141 countries. From this figure, 62, 709
students (72%) are enrolled at the private educational institutions (MOHE, 2010).

The objectives of this paper are to identify the underlying dimensions that drive
business student satisfaction in the Malaysian PHE environment and to evaluate the
influence of factors such as gender, year of study, programme of study, semester grade,
and nationality have on the results. We add to and expand upon, previous studies by
providing new insights into the general evaluative dimensions of student satisfaction
which may enable education providers to focus on a smaller set of Key Performance
Indicators (KPI) than some studies would suggest. Such knowledge could assist
educational institutions and academics to better plan the development and
implementation of strategies aimed at satisfying student needs. We provide practical
information about what and how students with different levels of study; different
programmes of study; different academic performances or semester grades; gender; and
nationality consider important in drivers of satisfaction. This information provides
valuable inputs to educational institutions to enhance their quality education and service
levels to meet the different needs of specific types of students and be more competitive.

2
We focus on business student satisfaction as business programmes are a popular choice
among students in Malaysia as compared to other programmes (MOHE, 2007).
Despite criticisms (Arambewela and Hall, 2009; Bigne et al., 2003; Prugsamatz et al.,
2006; Shekarchizadeh et al., 2011; and Yunus et al., 2009), most studies on student
satisfaction in Higher Education and in Malaysia have utilised SERVQUAL and
SERVPERF models to measure student satisfaction. We take a different approach from
these studies by adopting and adapting the “service-product bundle” by Douglas et al.,
(2006) which we argue is more comprehensive and suitable for both the Malaysian PHE
and the wider HE market. The strengths of the “service-product bundle” is that, unlike the
SERVQUAL and SERVPERF models, it includes a greater range of variables that may
influence student satisfaction; it has not been criticised in the higher education context;
and it was specifically designed for the higher education sector.
This paper is organised as follows. The next section presents a review of literature
which is then followed by the methodology, and the results section. The final section of
this paper discusses the conclusion, providing some implications as well as addressing
the limitations and future research directions.

Literature Review
Student Satisfaction
According to Elliott and Shin (2002), student satisfaction refers to the favourability of a
student’s subjective evaluation of the various outcomes and experiences associated with
education. HE institutions are focusing on understanding the factors that influence
student satisfaction as well as attempting to improve it. Recent research on student
satisfaction has developed models for examining student satisfaction in the HE sector.
The relationship between student learning outcomes and satisfaction has been assessed
and attempts have been made to deconstruct the overall concept of student satisfaction
(Duque and Weeks, 2010; Gruber et al., 2010; Wiers-Jenssen et al., 2002).Researchers
such as Rowley, (2003) and Tapp et al., (2004) believe that higher educational
institutions will benefit from developing relationships with their students as this will
provide a competitive edge. According to O’ Driscoll (2012), issues such as quality of
student life and other non-institutional factors need to be accounted for in offering a more
comprehensive explanation of student satisfaction.
Alves and Raposo (2009) suggest that understanding the formation process of student
satisfaction, as well as valid and reliable ways to measure it, should be the task of
educational institutions. Reliable measurements of student satisfaction will enable
educational institutions to have a clear view of their existing situation and allow
comparisons with other educational institutions. Elliot and Shin (2002) note that focusing
on student satisfaction enables universities to re-engineer their organizations to adapt to
students’ needs and at the same time create a system that allows continuous monitoring of
the effectiveness of meeting or exceeding their needs. They further indicate that student
satisfaction provides an avenue through which a competitive advantage could be
achieved in HE institutions. Khosravi et al., (2013) add that addressing the demands and
needs of students is critical for higher educational institutions if they want to be
competitive. According to Elliott and Shin (2002), student satisfaction refers to the
favourability of a student’s subjective evaluation of the various outcomes and
experiences associated with education. It is being shaped continually by repeated

3
experiences in campus life. Student satisfaction is a complex concept consisting of
several dimensions (Marzo-Navarro et al., 2005a, b; Richardson, 2005). Appleton-Knapp
and Krentler, (2006) state that a variety of factors seem to influence student satisfaction
and the factors fall into personal factors related to the student (gender, temperament,
preferred learning styles and grade point average) and institutional factors related to the
educational experience (instructor teaching style and quality of instruction). The
following subsection examines service quality and student satisfaction as measuring
student satisfaction requires adopting a suitable service quality model.

Service Quality and Student Satisfaction

Satisfaction is an outcome of service quality (Bolton and Drew, 1991) Relating service
quality to student satisfaction; Helgesen and Nesset (2007) indicate that the management
of the educational institutions should focus on service quality, information, and facilities
to increase the satisfaction and loyalty of the students. Purgailis and Zaksa’s (2012)
findings suggest that student-perceived quality correlates with factors such as academic
staff, study content, readiness for labour market and acquired skills which consequently
have an influence on student loyalty to higher educational institutions. A study by Gruber
et al., (2010) indicates that student satisfaction reflects the perception of service quality
differences exhibited by the educational institutions. According to Alves and Raposo
(2010), perceived quality develops a favourable image in the minds of students which
subsequently leads them to satisfaction. Sultan (2013) suggests there are three core
aspects of service quality evaluation namely: academic, administrative, and facilities in
the context of sample institutions.
Among the popular models utilised to measure student satisfaction are SERVQUAL
and SERVPERF. Studies in higher education adopting SERVQUAL and SERVPERF are
summarised in Table I. Both models utilised five generic dimensions comprising of
tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, empathy, and assurance. SERVQUAL considers
both the expectations and perceptions of its customers’ evaluation but SERVPERF
merely considers the perceptions of the customers. Despite criticisms, what could be
observed is that SERVQUAL is able to analyse customer expectations, which are
required in making strategic decisions, and SERVPERF can also guide future decision
making through assessing performance perceptions.

Insert Table I Studies in Higher Education adopting SERVQUAL and SERVPERF

Models

Other models of service quality and student satisfaction have also been adopted by
researchers and are summarised in Table II. The models vary in terms of the number of
dimensions considered and the methodologies used to examine the strengths and
significance of the relationships. Douglas et al., (2006) utilised 60 variables, grouped
under the “service-product bundle.” Namely: physical and facilitating goods; implicit
service; and explicit service. Unlike the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF models, it
provides a more comprehensive range of variables that influence student satisfaction.
Elliot and Shin (2002) measure student satisfaction using a survey instrument called
Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) consisting of 11 dimensions with 116 items. Among

4
the dimensions are academic advising effectiveness, campus climate, campus life,
campus support services, concern for individual, instructional effectiveness, recruitment
and financial aid effectiveness, registration effectiveness, campus safety and security,
service excellence, and student centeredness. This study indicates that measuring student
satisfaction accurately is not an easy task as there are issues that could influence the
results of the study such as the manner the questions asked as well as the measurement
timing. Petruzellis et al., (2006) developed a questionnaire based on 19 educational
services which consists of both the teaching and non-teaching aspects offered at a
University in Italy. The outcomes of this study indicate that universities have to focus
efforts on improving the quality teaching and non-teaching aspects so as to respond to the
needs of the students.

Insert Table II Other Models of Service Quality and Student Satisfaction

Several studies have been conducted in Malaysia on service quality and student
satisfaction of which most utilised SERVQUAL to measure student satisfaction. A study
by Yunus et al., (2009) evaluated the effect of service quality and perceived value on
student satisfaction at a public university in Sarawak. Poh and Samah (2006) explore
whether undergraduate students are satisfied with the quality of education at an e-learning
university in Kuala Lumpur. Further studies were conducted by Illias et al., (2008) with
regards to the differences of demographic factors on student satisfaction and service
quality. Hishamuddin et al., (2008) explored the relationship between service quality
dimensions and overall service quality with student satisfaction, while Sapri et al., (2009)
evaluated the factors that influence student’s level of satisfaction with regards to higher
educational facilities. Service quality perceptions and the expectations of international
postgraduate students at five Malaysian public universities were examined by
Shekarchizadeh et al., (2011). These studies are summarised in Table III.

Insert Table III Studies conducted in Malaysia on Service Quality and Student
Satisfaction

In summary, various methods, variables, and models have been used to measure student
satisfaction. There are strengths and limitations as well as criticisms of the SERVQUAL
and other models used. The outcomes of previous studies appear to be different
depending on the contexts. In response to these concerns and a critical evaluation of the
literature, this study adopts the “service-product bundle” by Douglas et al., (2006) as it
seems to be more comprehensive and appropriate to be used in the Malaysian PHE
environment. The details of the model will be explained in the methodology section.
Apart from taking a different approach, this paper expands the above findings by
examining the underlying dimensions of student satisfaction in the Malaysian PHE
environment and also evaluates the influence of demographic factors on the results.

The influence of demographic factors on the students

5
In this study, the influence that; gender, year of study, programme of study and
nationality have on the results are analysed. According to Brody and Hall (1993),
Dittmar et al., (2004) and Mattilla et al., (2003), gender may impact on perceptions of
interaction quality, physical environment quality, outcome quality and systems quality
due to gender role socialization, decoding ability, differences in information processing,
traits, and the importance placed on core or peripheral services. Laroche et al., (2000)
suggest that females tend to rely more heavily on the service environment and tangible
cues in their environment to make service evaluations. Males, on the other hand, consider
less information and tend to take shortcuts in making decisions. Males have been found
to be outcome-focussed in valuing efficiency more than personal interaction during a
typical service interaction compared to females (Mattilla et al., 2003). Iacobucci and
Ostrom (1993) find gender differences with regards to the importance placed on core and
peripheral services.
With regards to students’ year of study, Corts et al., (2000) conclude that there is no
significant difference between junior and senior students’ perceptions of satisfaction. Hill
(1995) finds that students’ expectations are stable over time which suggests that they
were probably formed prior to arrival at university. However, students who have been
studying for longer perceived there was a reduction in their quality experience indicating
that this was less stable. Arambewela and Hall’s (2009) findings indicate that the
importance of the quality factors related to both educational and non-educational services
vary among nationality groups.

Methodology
A questionnaire was developed based on Douglas et al’s., (2006) “service-product
bundle” in this study. Based on the results of 2 focus groups containing 6 students
comprising of a mix of local and international students as well as first, second and third
year students, Douglas et al’s., original 60 variables were reduced to a 53-item scale that
were valid in the Malaysian higher education sector. The survey instrument consisted of a
five-point agreement scale linked to statements about satisfaction (ranging from very
unsatisfactory to very satisfactory). Because of high inter-correlations between some of
the 53 items a principal components analysis was used to reduce the items to a small,
more focussed set of underlying satisfaction dimensions or factors.
A quantitative sample of 1,200 students was drawn from 4 institutions and 300
questionnaires were distributed to each. They were chosen based on their strategic
locations relative to the target population, and their accessibility. The survey yielded a
total of 823 usable responses; representing a 69% response rate. Stratified random
sampling was adopted whereby the first level of stratification involved the year of study
(years 1, 2, and 3) and 100 questionnaires have been allocated for each level at each
institution. Respondents were then chosen from programmes and classes within the
business schools of each institution. Classroom administered surveys were conducted and
the classes were randomly selected as this could provide a sample that is representative of
the population being studied, hence allowing generalisation.

Results
Respondents’ Profile

6
The 823 student respondents consisted of 49.9 % male and 50.1% female students
studying for a mixture of Business Administration (25.9%), Accounting (18.1%),
International Business (14.8%), Financial Planning (15.1%), Marketing (18.2%) and
Other (7.9%) undergraduate degrees. Thirty-one percent of the students were in their first
year of study, 36% in their second year and 33.2% in their third year of study. About
69.7% of students were Malaysian national and 30.3% international students.
Approximately 19.3% of students were an A grade average, with 41.9% a B, 30.6% a C
and 8.1% a D grade average. Institution 1 has 29.5% of the respondents, 23.6% came
from institution 2, 24.6% from institution 3, and finally 22% from institution 4.

Underlying Dimensions of Student Satisfaction

Factor analysis was conducted to identify the underlying dimensions of the 53 variables
that drive student satisfaction. A KMO index of 0.697 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity
(Sig = 0.000) indicated that the data was suitable for factor analysis. Twelve factors
explaining 64.6% of the total variation seem to give the best representation of the
underlying dimensions. The initial solution yielded eight factors with eigenvalues of
greater than one. Although many exploratory studies adopt an “eigenvalue greater than
one criterion (Costello and Osborne, 2005), in order to achieve the minimum threshold of
total variance explained of 60 per cent and increase interpretability (Hair et al., 2010), we
added four factors which resulted in a 12 factor solution.
A reliability test using Cronbach’s alpha was used to confirm the internal consistency
of each of the factors and the 53 items in general. The factors are ranked in order based
on the proportion of variance explained and labelled accordingly to their factor loadings
and presented in Table IV.

Insert Table IV Results of Principal Component Analysis-Factor Loadings

Examining the influences of Demographic Factors on the results

A one-way ANOVA (Bonferroni method) was conducted to test the relationships
between factor scores for the 12 underlying dimensions of satisfaction and the
demographic profiles such as year of study; programme of study; and the semester grades
of the students. As for gender and nationality, independent t-tests were adopted.

Summary of Differences (ANOVA)

Thirty-six ANOVA tests have been conducted between the 12 factors driving student
satisfaction and the demographic variables of year of study, programme of study and
semester grade. From the 36 tests, only 9 tests seem to be significant and are presented in
Table V.

Insert Table V Summary of ANOVA Results

Summary of Differences (independent t-tests)

Twenty-four independent t-tests have been conducted between the 12 factors or the
underlying dimensions of student satisfaction and the demographic profiles of gender and

7
nationality respectively. From the 24 tests conducted, only one test is significant for each
profile of gender and nationality and the results are presented in Table VI.

Insert Table VI Summary of independent t-tests results

Discussion
The results of the analysis revealed that the 12 factors or underlying dimensions that
influence business student satisfaction in the Malaysian PHE environment are:
professional comfortable environment; student assessment and learning experiences;
classroom environment; lecture and tutorial facilitating goods; textbooks and tuition fees;
student support facilities; business procedures; relationship with the teaching staff;
knowledgeable and responsive faculty; staff helpfulness; feedback; and class sizes. The
results provide a more thorough understanding of the dimensions that drive satisfaction
and could help educational institutions in their planning and developing appropriate
strategies especially the people, process and physical evidence elements.
Results of the ANOVA tests reported that students are more concerned with factors
such as student support facilities, class sizes, classroom environment, business
procedures, and relationship with the teaching staff as compared to the other factors
towards their educational experiences. Year of study, programme of study, and semester
grade have a significant impact on students’ perceptions of student support facilities and
class sizes. Student support facilities consist of the IT facilities, the learning resources
centre overall, the vending machines overall, the on-campus cafeteria/ canteen facilities
and the recreational facilities. Studies by (Ford et al., 1999; Joseph and Joseph, 1997)
also reported the need for these support facilities in creating conducive learning
environment to the students. A study by Mai (2005) who identified that the IT facilities
caused concern for students also produces the similar findings. A comparative study by
Shah and Nair (2011) conducted in three separate studies at three different institutions in
two countries, two in Australia and one in the UK found that the facilities which they
classify as the learning infrastructure are among their five themes that recur in their
studies.
The findings of Douglas et al., (2006) also show the importance of the IT facilities to
the students but the other underlying dimensions such as vending machines, on-campus
catering facilities, and the recreational facilities do not seem to be high on the students’
preferences. Price et al., (2003) also discuss the impact of the facilities on the students in
their studies. As for the class sizes, Cuseo (2007) indicates that class sizes have impact on
student satisfaction. Coles (2002) discovers that student satisfaction decreases when class
sizes are larger in the students’ earlier cohorts as well as when students are taking the
compulsory core modules rather than the modules that are optional. Another factor,
faculty contacts have received wide attention in student satisfaction studies. Elliot and
Shin (2002) find this factor to be directly impacting student satisfaction with the
university performance. Studies by Douglas et al., 2006; and Elliot and Healy 2001 also
report similar findings.
Students also want educators to be approachable and accessible to them and to show
concern to their needs. According to Kuh et al., (2005), relationships between students

8
and the teaching staff are important towards student success at the educational
institutions. They further state that approachability and accessibility of the teaching staff
inside and outside the class is required for effective student learning to take place.
Classroom environment and business procedures are the other two factors that the results
revealed to be significant. Students want the classroom environment to be conducive for
learning as the variables that load highly on this factor include the decoration, layout,
furnishings, teaching and learning equipment, lighting, level and cleanliness and the
lecture and tutorial rooms overall. As stated earlier by Oldfield and Baron (2000) and
Wakefield and Blodgett (1994), students spend a lot of time within the classroom
environment, as such; they would prefer an environment which is comfortable and
conducive for learning. Another significant factor in this study is the business procedures,
which involve the students’ interaction with the various business offices at the
educational institutions. Some measures have to be taken to ensure that students are
happy and satisfied with the interactions as those will lead to their forming of their
perceptions of the respective educational institutions.
Further observation on the results of the ANOVA tests showed that in this study, year 1
students are more satisfied with the student support facilities and the class sizes as
compared to the year 2 and year 3 students. Nasser et al., (2008) conduct a study on
student satisfaction in Lebanese educational institutions and find that there is an inverse
relationship between the class levels and the satisfaction levels; that is, the higher the
levels, the lower the ratings of the satisfaction levels. The situation is similar in this study
too. Corts et al., (2000) conclude in their study that there is no significant difference
between junior and senior students’ perceptions of satisfaction. Hill (1995) finds that
students’ expectations are stable over time, which suggests that they were probably
formed prior to arrival at the university. However, students who have been studying for
longer perceived there was a reduction in their quality experience indicating that this was
less stable.
Munteanu et al., (2010) conduct a study with regards to the influence of the programme
of study on student satisfaction factors and find that differences exist among
specialisations of study and the most satisfied students are those in the business
information systems and marketing. The students in the commerce-tourism and also the
international business programme seem to be less satisfied. In this study, international
business students seem to be less satisfied too. This situation provides some indication to
the educational institutions, which will be addressed by this study in the subsequent
section.
This study also reported the influence of semester grade on the level of student
satisfaction with regards to the student support facilities and the class sizes. Better
performing students are more satisfied with the student support facilities and class sizes
than the poor performers. Wilson’s (2002) study shows that there is no statistical
difference between student performance and the class sizes. Liu and Jung (1980) observe
some moderate relationships in their study. Lavin (1965) as well as Centra and Rock
(1983) discover a significant relationship between grades and student satisfaction. Aitken
(1982) concludes that academic performance is one of the factors that can determine
satisfaction. Pike (1991) discovers an inverse relationship between satisfaction and the
grades. Another related observation is by Oldfield and Baron (2000) who confirm that the
mean score of the final year students was lower than those of the first year thus

9
suggesting that as students become more experienced in the higher educational settings,
they seem to be more critical in their perceptions of the service quality.
Results of the independent t-tests showed that the only factor which is significant is
textbooks and tuition fees. The tuition-based model has been significant in many
educational institutions. According to Rolfe (2002), the introduction of the tuition fees
may affect the students from being free recipients to “customers”. When students feel that
they are customers, they may expect “value for money” (Narasimhan, 2001; and Watson,
2003). In view of that, their satisfaction should be important to the educational
institutions (Thomas and Galambos, 2004). Students also want value for their
investments in purchasing the textbooks, availability in the local bookstores, as well as
usefulness in enhancing the modules. The study of Douglas et al’s., (2006) reported
similar findings.
With regards to gender, the results of this study reported that males are more satisfied
than the females on the factor. Many studies on gender and satisfaction produce mixed
results. Soutar and Mc Neil’s (1996) study indicates that there is a significant relationship
between gender and satisfaction. With regards to the satisfaction levels between males
and females, studies by Renzi et al., (1993) and Umbach and Porter (2002) indicate that
males are more satisfied than females and the finding is similar in this study too. As for
nationality, the results of this study showed that international students are more satisfied
than the local students on the textbook and tuition fees issues. Arambewela and Hall’s
(2009) study on international students’ satisfaction indicates that the importance of the
quality factors related to both educational and non-educational services varies among
nationality groups. Their study discovered the variations of the level of satisfaction with
university services, and students from China and Indonesia seem to be more satisfied
with the services as compared to the Indian or Thai students. Their study also highlights
the importance of considering the diversity of cultures, language and values in
determining the level of student satisfaction.
In summary, factor analysis resulted in 12 factors being identified from the 53
satisfaction items. The results of the ANOVA tests revealed five factors to be significant
between student support facilities, class sizes, classroom environment, business
procedures, and relationship with teaching staff and the demographic profiles of year of
study, programme of study, and the semester grade. The results of the independent t-test
showed that only the textbooks and tuition fees factor seems to be significant with gender
and nationality.

Conclusion and Implications

In conclusion, this study has identified several underlying dimensions of business student
satisfaction in the Malaysian PHE environment. The influences of demographic factors
on the results were also highlighted.

By identifying the factors that drive student satisfaction, we provide new insights into
the general evaluative dimensions of student satisfaction. Through increased
understanding of these factors or underlying dimensions that contribute to student
satisfaction, education providers may be able to focus on a smaller set of Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) than some studies would suggest. Whereas Douglas et al.,
(2006) identify 60 variables that influence student satisfaction, we suggest that there are

10
in fact 12 broad areas that are important to students. Such knowledge may assist
educational institutions to improve their strategies with regards to the people, process,
physical evidence, service environment and other factors aimed at satisfying student
needs.
The results also revealed the influence the demographic factors have on the levels of
business student satisfaction in the Malaysian PHE environment. As year of study,
programme of study and semester grades have significant impact on factors such as
student support facilities and class sizes, providing good support facilities and
determining reasonable class sizes are crucial. Positive students’ experiences are very
important and from the educational institution’s point of view, satisfied students are more
likely to stay with the institution and stand more chance to excel in their studies. Gender
and nationality tend to have significant impact on textbooks and tuition fees. Students are
the recipients of the educational services, as such; they want value for the textbooks that
they purchased and the tuition fees that they paid. The fees charged should therefore,
reflect the value delivered. Towards generating revenue, the educational institutions
should not overlook the possibilities of losing students to competitors if students are not
satisfied with the fees imposed on them.
This study provides useful insights into the dimensions of business student satisfaction;
however, care must be taken when generalising the results as this study was undertaken
in the context of the Malaysian private educational environment. Future studies could be
undertaken to identify the dimensions of student satisfaction in other contexts as well.

References

Aitken, N., (1982) “College student performance, satisfaction, and retention:

Specification and estimation of a structural model”, Journal of Higher Education,
53 (1), pp32-50

Alves, H., and Raposo, M., (2009) “The measurement of the construct satisfaction in
higher education”, The Services Industries Journal, 29 (2), pp 203-218

Alves, H., and Raposo, M., (2010) “The influence of university image on students
behaviour”, International Journal of Educational Management, 24 (1), pp 73-85

Appleton-Knapp, S.L., and Krentler, K.A., (2006) “Measuring student expectations and
their effects on satisfaction: The importance of managing student expectations”,
Journal of Marketing Education, 28 (3), pp 254-264

Arambewela, R., and Hall, J., (2009) “An empirical model of international student
satisfaction”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing, 21 (4), pp 555-569
Athiyaman. A., (1997) “Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the
case of university education”, European Journal of Marketing, 31 (7), pp 528-540

11
Bartlett, M.S., (1954) “A note on multiplying factors for various chi-squared
approximations”, Journal of the Royal Statistical society, Series B, 16, pp 296-
298

Bigne, E., Moliner, M.A., and Sanchez, J., (2003) “Perceived quality and satisfaction in
multiservice organisations: the case of Spanish public services”, Journal of
services Marketing, 17 (4), pp 420-442

Bolton, R., and Drew, J.H., (1991) “A Multistage Model of Customers’ Assessments of
Service Quality and Value”, Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (March 1991), pp
375-384

Brochado, A., (2009) “Comparing alternative instruments to measure service quality in

higher education”, Quality Assurance in Education, 17 (2), pp 174-190

Brody, L., and Hall, J.A., (1993) “Gender and emotion” in Lewis, M., and Haviland, J.,
(Eds), Handbook of Emotions, Guildford Press, New York, NY

Centra, J.A., and Rock, D., (1983) “College Environments and Student Achievement”,
American Educational Research Journal, 8, pp 623-634

Coles, C., (2002) “Variability of student ratings of accounting teaching: evidence from a
Scottish business school”, International Journal of Management Education, 2 (2),
pp 30-39

Corts, D.P., Lounsbury, J.W., Saudargas, R.A., and Tatum, H, E., (2000) “Assessing
undergraduate satisfaction with an academic department: a method and case
study”, College student Journal, 34 (3), pp 399-408

Cuseo, J., (2007) “The empirical case against large class size: Adverse effects on the
teaching, learning, and retention of first-year students”, The Journal of Faculty
Development, 22 (1), pp 5-21

Cuthbert, P.F., (1996a) “Managing service quality in HE: is SERVQUAL the answer?
Part 1”, Managing Service Quality, 6 (2), pp 11-16

Cuthbert, P.F., (1996b) “Managing service quality in HE: is SERVQUAL the answer?
Part 2”, Managing Service Quality, 6 (3), pp 31-35

Dittmar, H., Long, K., and Meek, R., (2004) “Buying on the internet: gender differences
in online and conventional buying motivations”, Sex Roles, 50 (5/6), pp 423-444

Douglas, J., Douglas, A, and Barnes, B., (2006) “Measuring student satisfaction at a UK
university”, Quality Assurance in Education, 14 (3), pp 251-267

12
Duque, L.C., and Weeks, J.R., (2010) “Towards a Model and Methodology for Assessing
Student Learning Outcomes and Satisfaction”, Quality Assurance in Education,
18 (2), pp 84-105

Elliot, K.M and Healy, M. A., (2001) “Key factors influencing student satisfaction related
to recruitment retention”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10 (4), pp
1-11

Elliot, K.M., and Shin, D., (2002) “Student Satisfaction: An alternative approach to
assessing this important concept”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 24 (2), pp 197-209

European University Association (EUA Report on Rankings 2011) Global University

Rankings and their Impact

Ford, J.B., Joseph, M., and Joseph, B., (1999) “Importance-performance analysis as a
strategic tool for service marketers: the case of service quality perceptions of
business students in New Zealand and USA”, The Journal of Services Marketing,
13 (2), pp 171-186

Gruber, T., Fub, S., Voss, R., and Zikuda, M.G., (2010) “Examining student satisfaction
with higher education services-Using a new measurement tool”, International
Journal of Public Sector Management, 23 (2), pp 105-123

Guolla, M., (1999) “Assessing the teaching quality to student satisfaction relationship:
applied customer satisfaction research in the classroom”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 7 (3), pp 87-97

Hair, Jr. J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., and Anderson, R.E., (2010) Multivariate Data
Analysis, A Global Perspective, (7th edition), New Jersey, Pearson, Prentice Hall

Helgesen, O., and Nesset, E., (2007) “What accounts for students’ loyalty? Some field
study evidence”, International Journal of Educational Management, 21 (2), pp
126-143

Hill, F.M., (1995) “Managing Service Quality in Higher Education: The Role of the
Student as Primary Consumer”, Quality Assurance in Education, 3 (3), pp 10-21

Hishamuddin Fitri, A.H., and Illias, A., (2008) “Service Quality and Student Satisfaction:
A Case Study at Private Higher Education Institutions”, International Business
Research, 1 (3), pp 163-175

Iacobucci, D., and Ostrom, A., (1993) “Gender differences in the impact of core and
relational aspects of services on the evaluation of service encounters”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 2 (3), pp 257-286

13
Illias, A., Hishamuddin Fitri, A.H., Abdul Rahman, R.., and Yasoa’, A.R (2008) “Student
Satisfaction and Service Quality: Any Differences in Demographic Factors?”
International Business Research, 1 (4), pp 131-143

Joseph, M., and Joseph, B., (1997) “Service Quality in Education: a student perspective”,
Quality Assurance in Education, 5 (1), pp15-21

Khosravi, A.A., Poushaneh, K., Roozegar, A., and Sohrabifard, N., (2013)
“Determination of factors affecting student satisfaction if Islamic Azad
University”, Procedia social and Behavioral sciences, 84, pp 579-583

Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E.J., and Associates (2005) Student success in
college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Laroche, M., Saad, G., Cleveland, M., and Browne, E., (2000) “Gender differences in
information search strategies for a Christmas gift”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 17 (6), pp 500-514

Lavin, D.E., (1965) The Prediction of academic Performance: Sage Publication

LeBlanc, G., and Nguyen, N., (1997) “Searching for excellence in business education: An
exploratory study of customer impressions of service quality”, International
Journal of Education Management, 11 (2), pp 72-79

Liu, R., and Jung, L., (1980) “The Commuter Student and Student Satisfaction”,
Research in Higher Education, 12 (3), pp 215-226

Mai, L., (2005) “A comparative study between UK and US: The student satisfaction in
higher education and its influencing factors”, Journal of Marketing Management,
21, pp 859-878

Marzo-Navarro, M.M., Iglesias, M.P., and Torres, M.P.R., (2005a) “Measuring customer
satisfaction in summer courses”, Quality Assurance in Education, 13 (1), pp 53-65

Marzo-Navarro, M.M., Iglesias, M.P., and Torres, M.P.R., (2005b) “A new management
element for universities: satisfaction with the offered courses”, International
Journal of Educational Management, 19 (6), pp 505-526

Mattila, A.S., Gradey, A.A., and Fisk, G.M., (2003) “The interplay of gender and
affective tone in service encounter satisfaction”, Journal of Service Research, 6
(2), pp 136-143

MOHE (2010) Ministry of Higher Education: Macro Data of Higher Education

Available at http://www. mohe. gov.my Date accessed 22 July 2011

14
Munteanu, C., Ceobanu, C., Bobalca, C., and Anton, O., (2010) “An analysis of customer
satisfaction in a higher education context”, International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 23 (2), pp 124-140

Narasimhan, K., (2001) “Improving the climate of teaching sessions: the use of
evaluations by students and instructors”, Quality in Higher Education, 7 (3), pp
179-190

Nasser, R.N., and Khoury, B., and Abouchedid, K., (2008) “University students’
knowledge of services and programs in relation to satisfaction”, Quality
Assurance in Education, 16 (1), pp 80-97

Oldfield, B.M., and Baron, S., (2000) “Student perception of service quality in a UK
university business and management faculty”, Quality Assurance in Education, 8
(2), pp 85-95

O’Driscoll, F., (2012) “What matters most: An exploratory multivariate study of

satisfaction among first year hotel/ hospitality management students”, Quality
Assurance in Education, 20 (3), pp 1-21

Petruzellis, L., D’Uggento, A.M., and Romanazzi, S., (2006) “Student satisfaction and
quality of service in Italian universities”, Managing Service Quality, 16 (4), pp
349-364

Pike, G., (1991) “The effects of background, coursework, and involvement on students’
grades and satisfaction”, Research in Higher Education, 32 (1), pp 15-31

Pike, G., (1991) “The effects of background, coursework, and involvement on students’
grades and satisfaction”, Research in Higher Education, 32 (1), pp 15-31

Poh, J.P., and Samah, A.J., (2006) “Measuring Students’ Satisfaction for Quality
Education in E-Learning University”, Unitar E-Journal, 2 (1), pp 11-21

Price,I.,Matzdorf, F., Smith, L. and Agahi, H., (2003) “The impact of facilities on
student choice of universities”, Facilities, 21 (10), pp 212-222

Prugsamatz, S., Pentecost, R., and Ofstad, L., (2006) “The influence of explicit and
implicit service promises on Chinese students’ expectations of overseas
universities”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing, 18 (2), pp 129-145

Purgailis, M., and Zaksa, K., (2012) “The impact of perceived service quality on student
loyalty in higher education institutions”, Journal of Business Management, 6, pp
138-152

15
Renzi, B.M., Allen, M.J., Sarmiento. Y.Q., and McMillin, J.D., (1993) “Alumni
perceptions of the impact of gender on their university experience”, Journal of
College Student Development, 34, pp 154-157

Richardson, J.T.E., (2005) “Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of the
literature”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30 (4), pp 387-415

Rolfe, H., (2002) “Students’ demands and expectations in an age of reduced financial
support: the perspectives of lecturers in four English Universities”, Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management, 24 (2), pp 171-182

Rowley, J., (2003) “Designing student feedback questionnaires”, Quality Assurance in

Education, 11 (3), pp 142-149

Sapri, M., Kaka, A., and Finch, E., (2009) “Factors that influence Student’s Level of
Satisfaction With Regards to Higher Educational Facilities Services”, Malaysian
Journal of Real estate, 4(1), pp 34-51

Shah, M., and Nair, C.S., (2011) “Trends in the quality of the student experience: an
international perspective based on studies in three universities”, Proceedings of
the IETEC 2011 Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Shekarchizadeh, A., Rasli, A., and Huam, H.T., (2011) “SERVQUAL in Malaysian
universities: perspectives of international students”, Business Process
Management Journal, 17 (1), 9967-81

Smith, A., (2004) “Off-campus support in distance learning-how do our students define
quality?”, Quality Assurance in Education, 12 (1), pp 28-38

Soutar, G., and McNeil, M., (1996) “Measuring service quality in a tertiary institution”,
Journal of Educational Administration, 34 (1), pp 72-82

Sultan, P., (2013) “Antecedents and consequences of service quality in a higher education
context”, Quality Assurance in Education, 21 (1), pp 70-95

Tapp, A., Hicks, K., and Stone, M., (2004) “Direct and database marketing and customer
relationship management in recruiting students for higher education”,
International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 9 (4), pp
335-345

The STAR (2010) “Seeing better results in future”, 26 September, 2010

Thomas, E.H., and Galambos, N., (2004) “What satisfies students? Mining student-
opinion data with regression and decision-tree analysis”, Research in Higher
Education, 45 (3), pp 251-269

16
Umbach, P.D., and Porter, S.R., (2002) “How do academic departments impact student
satisfaction? Understanding the contextual effects of departments”, Research in
Higher Education, 43 (2), pp 209-234

Wakefield, K.L., and Blodgett, J.G., (1994) “The importance of service scapes in leisure
service settings’, Journal of Services Marketing, 8 (3), pp 66-76

Watson, S., (2003) “Closing the feedback loop: ensuring effective action from student
feedback”, Tertiary Education and Management, 9, pp 145-157

Wiers-Jenssen, J., Stensaker, B., and Grogaard, J.B., (2002) “Student satisfaction:
towards an empirical deconstruction of the concept”, Quality in Higher Education,
8 (2), pp 183-195

Wilson, A., (2002) “Exogenous Determinants of Student Performance in First Finance

Classes”, Financial Decisions, Spring, Article 3

Yunus, N.K.Y., Ishak, S., and Razak, A.Z.A., (2010) “Motivation, Empowerment,
Service Quality and Polytechnic Students’ Level of Satisfaction in Malaysia”,
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 1 (1), pp 120-128

17
Dimensions driving Business Student Satisfaction in Higher Education

Appendix 1

Table I Studies in Higher Education adopting SERVQUAL and SERVPERF

Models
Author/ Year/Title Journal Methodology

Cuthbert (1996a,b) Managing Service Questionnaire distribution

“Managing service quality in HE: is SERVQUAL the answer? Part 1” Quality Modified SERVQUAL
“Managing service quality in HE: is SERVQUAL the answer? Part 2”
Oldfield and Baron (2000) Quality Assurance Focus groups
“Student perceptions of service quality in a UK university business and in Education Questionnaire distribution
management faculty” Modified SERVQUAL
Bigne et al., (2003) “Perceived quality and satisfaction in multiservice Journal of Services Focus groups
organisations: the case of Spanish public services” Marketing Questionnaire distribution
SERVPERF
LeBlanc and Nguyen (1997) “Searching for excellence in business International Journal Focus groups
education: an exploratory study of customer impressions of service of Educational Modified SERVQUAL
quality” Management
Soutar and McNeil (1996) Journal of Questionnaire distribution
“Measuring service quality in a tertiary institution” Educational Modified SERVQUAL
Administration
Athiyaman (1997) “Linking student satisfaction and service quality European Journal of Focus groups
perceptions: the case of university education” Marketing Modified SERVQUAL
Prugsamatz et al., (2006) Quality Assurance Questionnaire distribution
“Comparing alternative instruments to measure service quality in higher in Education SERVQUAL
education’, Quality Assurance in Education
Arambewela and Hall (2009) Asia Pacific Journal Questionnaire distribution
“An empirical model of international student satisfaction” of Marketing Modified SERVQUAL
Mai (2005) “A comparative study between UK and US: The student Journal of Questionnaire distribution
satisfaction in Higher Education and its influential factors” Marketing Modified SERVQUAL
Management
Brochado (2009) “Comparing alternative instruments to measure service Quality Assurance Questionnaire distribution
quality in higher education” in Education SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, HedPERF

1
 Appendix 2

Table II Other Models of Service Quality and Student Satisfaction

Author/ Year/Title Journal Methodology

Elliot and Shin (2002) “Student Satisfaction: an Journal of Education Policy Questionnaire distribution
alternative approach to assessing this important concept” and Management Utilised top 20 educational attributes (SSI)
Guolla (1999) Journal of Marketing Theory Questionnaire distribution
“Assessing the teaching quality to student satisfaction and Practice Utilised SEEQ instrument with 7 attributes
relationship: Applied customer satisfaction research in
the classroom”, Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice
Smith (2004) Quality Assurance in Questionnaire distribution
“Off-campus support in distance learning-how do our Education Structured and unstructured elements of
students define quality?”, Quality Assurance in student perceptions –components of an off-
Education campus support system and the factors
determining the quality of off-campus
support system
Petruzellis et al., (2006) “Student satisfaction and quality Managing Service Quality Questionnaire distribution
of service in Italian universities” 19 service attributes of the university were
used
Gruber et al., (2010) “Examining student satisfaction International Journal of Public Questionnaire distribution
with higher education service -Using a new Sector Management 15 dimensions were utilised
measurement tool”
Douglas et al., (2006) Quality Assurance in Questionnaire distribution, followed by
“Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university” Education focus groups
Three elements of a “service-product
bundle” were used

Appendix 3

Table III Studies conducted in Malaysia on Service Quality and Student Satisfaction
Author/ / Year/ Title Journal Methodology

Yunus et al., (2009) “Service quality IBEJ In-depth interviews

dimensions, perceive value and customer Questionnaire distribution
satisfaction: ABC Relationship model testing” Modified SERVQUAL
Poh and Samah (2006) “Measuring Students’ UNITAR E-Journal Questionnaire distribution
Satisfaction for Quality Education in E- Modified SERVQUAL
Learning University”
Illias et al., (2008) “Student Satisfaction and International Business Questionnaire distribution
Service Quality: Any Differences in Research SERVQUAL
Demographic Factors?”
Hishamuddin et al., (2008) “Service Quality and International Business Questionnaire distribution
Student Satisfaction: A Case Study at Private Research SERVQUAL
Higher Education Institutions”
Sapri et al., (2009) “Factors that influence Malaysian Journal of Real Questionnaire distribution
Student’s level of satisfaction with regards to Estate Model of Value Chain concept derived from
higher education facilities services” review of literature in facilities management

Shekarchizadeh et al., (2011) “SERVQUAL in Business Process Management Questionnaire distribution

Malaysian Universities: perspectives of Journal Modified SERVQUAL
international universities”

Appendix 4

2
 Table IV Results of Principal Component Analysis -Factor Loadings
Underlying Dimensions that Drive Student Satisfaction Factor % of Variance Cronbach’s
Loading Explained Alpha
Factor 1: Professional Comfortable Environment 8.789 0.897
The sense of competence, confidence and professionalism conveyed by the ambience in the tutorials 0.704
The feelings that your best interests are being served 0.685
The sense of competence, confidence and professionalism conveyed by the ambience in the lectures 0.655
The feelings that rewards-marks/ grades gained are consistent with the efforts you put into assessment 0.608
The university environment’s ability to make you feel comfortable 0.574
The competence of staff 0.560
The availability of staff 0.531
The respect for your feelings, concerns and opinion 0.507
Factor 2: Student Assessments and Learning Experiences 7.556 0.849
The appropriateness of the method of assessment-coursework and/ or examination 0.714
The appropriateness of the style of assessment- individual and/ or group work 0.693
The course workload 0.671
The level/ difficulty of subject content 0.603
The appropriateness of the quantity of assessment 0.601
The way your time table is organised 0.419
Factor 3: Classroom Environment 7.231 0.847
The decoration 0.744
The layout 0.703
The furnishings 0.695
The teaching and learning equipment, for example, projectors, screens, whiteboards 0.587
The lighting 0.547
The level of cleanliness 0.543
The lecture and tutorial rooms overall 0.456
Factor 4: Lecture and Tutorial Facilitating Goods 6.580 0.879
Supplementary tutorial materials/ handouts 0.779
Supplementary lecture materials/ handout 0.773
The tutorials overall 0.606
The power point/ slides presentation- where applicable 0.599
The lectures overall 0.519
Factor 5: Textbooks and Tuition Fees 5.625 0.787
The textbook value for money 0.665
The tuition fees 0.646
The textbooks’ availability in local bookstores 0.645
The textbooks’ usefulness in enhancing understanding of the modules 0.617
The recommended core textbooks overall 0.576
Factor 6: Student Support Facilities 5.466 0.784
The IT facilities overall 0.696
The learning resources centre overall 0.684
The vending machines overall 0.609
The on-campus cafeteria/ canteen facilities 0.487
The recreational facilities overall 0.472
Factor 7: Business Procedures 5.019 0.766
The availability of parking 0.704
The security measures overall 0.671
The registration procedures 0.578
The toilet facilities overall 0.510
The accommodation facilities/ services overall 0.493
Factor 8: Relationship with teaching staff 4.668 0.861
The approachability of teaching staff 0.716
The friendliness of teaching staff 0.697
The concern shown when you have a problem 0.551
Factor 9: Knowledgeable and Responsive Faculty 4.339 0.821
The teaching ability of staff 0.624
The consistency of teaching quality irrespective of the lecturer 0.579
The responsiveness of teaching staff to requests 0.454
The subject expertise of the staff 0.386
Factor 10: Staff Helpfulness 3.771 0.743
The helpfulness of administrative staff 0.754
The helpfulness of technical staff 0.613
Factor 11: Feedback 2.953 0.778
The usefulness of feedback on your performance 0.615
The promptness of feedback on your performance 0.607
Factor 12: Class sizes 2.576
Class sizes 0.694

3
Appendix 5

Table V Summary of ANOVA Results

Satisfaction Dimensions (Factors) Descriptive Variables Sig. Differences( at five per cent
significance level)
Student Support Facilities Y1>Y2
Year of Study Y1 >Y3

Class sizes Y1>Y3

Y2>Y3
Classroom Environment OT>AC
OT>IB
Student Support Facilities
Programme of Study OT>IB
Business Procedures BA>IB
AC>IB

Relationship with teaching staff MK>IB

Class sizes FP>IB

Student Support Facilities A>B
Semester Grade A>C

Class sizes B>D

Appendix 6

Table VI Summary of independent t-tests results

Satisfaction Dimensions (Factors) Descriptive Variables Sig. Differences (at five per cent
significance level)
Textbooks and Tuition Fees Gender M>F
Textbooks and Tuition Fees Nationality I>L