Testing the Differences in Student Satisfaction with the Quality of Training Services at the Faculty of Tourism, University of Industry

Non-dimensional aspect

academic

Academic aspect

Reputation

Student satisfaction with the quality of training services at the Faculty of Tourism, University of Industry

Ho Chi Minh City

Training program

create

Figure 4.4: Calibrated research model

4.5 Testing the difference in student satisfaction with the quality of training services at the Faculty of Tourism, Ho Chi Minh City University of Food Industry

4.5.1 Testing for gender differences

The author uses the Independent samples t-Test method (mean test with independent samples) to test the difference in student satisfaction between the two groups of male and female students. The author performs this test as follows:

 Step 1: First, to be able to perform the t-Test, we must perform the Levene's Test first to see if there is a difference in variance between X and Y (where X is student satisfaction and Y is gender). Thus, we set the hypothesis Ho: There is no difference in variance between X and Y. Then use the Levene's test to evaluate, if Sig. < 0.05 then reject Ho, otherwise accept Ho.

 Step 2: The author sets up the hypothesis for the t-Test. Hypothesis Ho: There is no difference in mean between X and Y. Then, the author proceeds to read the results for the t-Test corresponding to the Levene's test in step 1.

to conclude. If Sig. in t-test < 0.05 then reject Ho, that is there is a significant difference in mean between X and Y, otherwise accept Ho.

Table 4.13: Test results of the difference in student satisfaction with training quality between the two groups of male and female students

Independent sample testing

		Levene's Test, equal variance test		t-Test (equality of means)
		F	Sig.	t	df	Sig.(2-tailed)
SATISFIED	Assume equal variances	1,574	0.211	1,144	206	0.254
SATISFIED	Assume unequal variances			0.974	50,493	0.335

Maybe you are interested!

(Source: Author processed data using SPSS software)

The result we have in the Levene test for equality of two variances is Sig.

= 0.211 > 0.05, accept the hypothesis H0, meaning there is no difference in variance. Therefore, the author will use the t-test results in the Equal variances assumed section. In the t-test, the sig. value = 0.254 > 0.05, so accept the Ho hypothesis, it can be concluded that there is no difference in student satisfaction with the training quality service at the Faculty of Tourism, HUFI between the two groups of male and female students. Therefore, we can say that we do not need to pay attention to the gender of students when making implications and recommendations related to student satisfaction with the training quality service at the Faculty of Tourism, HUFI.

4.5.2 Testing for differences by school year group

Similar to above, but because the qualitative variable is 3 groups of students with different years of study (year 1, year 2, year 3), that is, this qualitative variable has 3 values, so the author uses ANOVA test (One-Way Anova method) to test the difference in student satisfaction with CLDVĐT.

Table 4.14: Test for equality of variances between groups

Student satisfaction with CLDVĐT

Levene Statistic	df1	df2	Significance level (Sig.)
1,145	2	205	0.320

(Source: Author processed data using SPSS software)

Similar to section 4.5.1, the analysis results of table 4.14 show the results of the test for equality of variances between groups. With the significance level Sig. = 0.320 > 0.05, it shows that the variance of student satisfaction with CLDVĐT in each school year is the same.

Table 4.15: Analysis of variance

ANOVA

	Total variance	df	Mean variance	F	Significance level (Sig.)
Between groups	2,590	2	1,295	3,411	0.035
In the same group	77,835	205	0.380
Total	80,425	207

(Source: Author processed data using SPSS software)

In addition, the results of table 4.15 present the results of variance analysis with a significance level of Sig. = 0.035 < 0.05, showing that there is a statistically significant difference in the satisfaction level of respondents belonging to different school year groups.

	Sample	Medium	Standard deviation	Standard error	Reliability 95%		Smallest	Biggest
	Sample	Medium	Standard deviation	Standard error	Short best	High best	Smallest	Biggest
Year 1	31	3,9892	0.55434	0.09956	3,7859	4,1926	2.33	5
Year 2	65	3,7538	0.71511	0.08870	3.5767	3,9310	1	5
Year 3	112	3,6637	0.56861	0.05373	3,5572	3,7702	2.33	5
Total	208	3,7404	0.62332	0.04322	3,6552	3,8256	1	5

Table 4.16: Descriptive statistics for each group Description

(Source: Author processed data using SPSS software)

Table 4.17: Comparison table of mean values according to pairs of qualitative variables (Post Hoc Tests)

School year (I)

School year (J)	Difference of Means (I – J)	Standard error	Significance level	95% Confidence
School year (J)	Difference of Means (I – J)	Standard error	Significance level	Lowest	Highest
Year 1	Year 2	0.234540	0.13450	0.82	-0.0298	0.5006
Year 1	Year 3	0.32556	0.12505	0.010	0.0790	0.5721
Year 2	Year 1	-0.23540	0.13450	0.82	-0.5006	0.0298
Year 2	Year 3	0.09016	0.09608	0.349	-0.0993	0.2796
Year 3	Year 1	-0.32556	0.12505	0.010	-0.5721	-0.0790
Year 3	Year 2	-0.09016	0.9608	0.349	-0.2796	0.0993

(Source: Author processed data using SPSS software)

Table 4.16 shows that if we consider the average value, we see that the variation of the average value ranges from 3.66 to 3.98, showing that first-year students have a higher level of satisfaction than second-year and third-year students. However, in Table 4.17, we see that only the satisfaction between the two groups of first-year and third-year students has a Sig. value of 0.01 < 0.05, proving that among the three groups of students with different years of study, only the two groups of first-year and third-year students have a statistically significant difference in satisfaction. All tests of difference are shown by the author in Appendix 13.

4.6 Discussion of research results

Through the implementation of the stages in the research process along with the combination of two research methods, qualitative research and quantitative research, in the evaluation and analysis of collected data, the author has identified the factors and the level of influence of each factor on student satisfaction with the training service quality at the Faculty of Tourism, HUFI and this is also the research objective of this thesis. The research results showed that there are 4 factors affecting student satisfaction with the training service quality, in which the factor with the strongest impact is the Academic Aspect factor, the remaining 3 factors are arranged in order from high to decreasing level: Non-academic Aspect; Training Program and finally Reputation. The Access factor was removed from the model when the author conducted regression analysis because the survey subjects had a fairly high level of satisfaction with this factor compared to the other 4 factors of the model. Descriptive statistics show that the average satisfaction level of the Access factor is 4.0859, quite high compared to the average value of the 4 factors retained in the model with adjacent values: reputation factor is 3.8077; academic factor is 3.7853; training program factor is 3.7151 and non-academic factor is 3.7103. Therefore, it is reasonable to remove the Access factor from the model.

The study also met the criteria for selecting sample size based on the theoretical framework of Tabchnich and Fidell (1996) combined with sampling according to Hair et al. (2006), the minimum sample size to perform factor analysis.

The sample size for EFA should be 130 students, while the study was analyzed and evaluated with a sample size of 208 students. Therefore, according to the above two criteria, the sample size is representative enough for the whole population.

The study also showed that there was no difference in student satisfaction with the training quality service according to the gender of the survey subjects. On the other hand, there was a difference in student satisfaction with the training quality service between first-year and third-year students, in which, if considering the mean value, third-year students (mean = 3.6637) had a lower level of satisfaction than first-year students (mean = 3.9892).

From the results of the above research data analysis, it can be seen that when applying the revised HEdPERF model of Abdullah (2006) to evaluate student satisfaction with the training quality service in the research conditions at the Faculty of Tourism, HUFI, the model has been adjusted compared to the original model. Specifically, the revised HEdPREF (2006) contains 5 scales affecting student satisfaction with the training quality service, while for this study, the access factor is removed from the model. This shows that for different cultural environments, at different research times, the factors affecting student satisfaction are also different. However, the revised HedPERF model still exerts its positive effects in helping the author identify the 4 factors affecting student satisfaction as mentioned above. The model also contributed to explaining 76.8% of the satisfaction with the quality of tourism services of students of HUFI Faculty of Tourism, the rest was due to errors and other influencing factors. From there, it also contributed to the school in building policies to help improve student satisfaction with the quality of tourism services.

Chapter 4 Summary

In chapter 4, the author analyzes data using SPSS 20.0 software to test the Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient of the scale, analyzes the EFA exploratory factor and runs the regression model. Next, the difference between student satisfaction with CLDVĐT and qualitative variables is tested by t-Test; ANOVA analysis.

From 29 observed variables in 6 (groups) of factors, the author analyzed the data and evaluated the Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient of the scale. The results of all 29 observed variables met the requirements; the author continued to use the EFA method to test the value of the scales, the results of EFA analysis from 29 observed variables of 5 independent variables and 3 observed variables of dependent variables, the number of observed variables was reduced to 21 variables of 5 independent factors and there were still 3 observed variables of 1 dependent variable; the author ran the regression.

The regression results show that there are 4 factors that positively affect student satisfaction with training quality (after excluding the access scale from the model). Then the author continues to test the difference in student satisfaction with training quality between student groups according to qualitative variables using T-test and ANOVA analysis methods. The results obtained are that there is no difference in student satisfaction by gender, and there is only a difference between the 2 groups of students in year 1 and year 3.

Next, chapter 5 will be the general conclusion and propose some managerial implications on student satisfaction with the training service quality at the Faculty of Tourism, Ho Chi Minh City University of Food Industry.

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

In chapter 4, the author presented the entire research results of the thesis, and also briefly identified the factors that affect the satisfaction of students of the Faculty of Tourism with the CDLVĐT as well as the level of influence of each factor. This is the basis for the author to be able to make suggestions to the school's leadership in general and the Faculty of Tourism in particular. Before presenting the contributing managerial implications, the author will give some general conclusions for this study.

5.1. General conclusion on satisfaction with the quality of training services of students at the Faculty of Tourism, Ho Chi Minh City University of Food Industry

From the initially proposed research model, there are 5 factors affecting student satisfaction with training quality services, including (1) Academic aspects; (2) Non-academic aspects; (3) Reputation; (4) Access; (5) Training programs, with a total of 41 sub-criteria. After conducting preliminary research using qualitative research methods such as interviews with academic experts, the author established a draft scale table including 6 scales and 42 sub-criteria. Next, the author conducted preliminary quantitative research using a pilot survey of 36 students at the Faculty of Tourism, resulting in the number of remaining factors being 6 factors and 29 sub-criteria. Therefore, the final result is to establish an official model and scale including 1 dependent variable "Student satisfaction with training quality services", 5 independent variables including (1) Academic aspects; (2) Non-academic aspects; (3) Reputation; (4) Access; (5) Training program and there are 26 observed variables in total.

Then, the reliability of the scale was assessed, and the EFA exploratory factor analysis was conducted. The results showed that all scales were reliable and after 6 runs of EFA, 5 observed variables belonging to the independent factor were eliminated and the remaining variables were converged to 5 factors with discriminant value. Thus, there were 21 observed variables belonging to 5 independent variables and 1 dependent variable including 3 observed variables.

Comment