Mediating Model of Hypothesized Effect of Academic & Institutional Services

on Student Satisfaction Influencing Student Achievement and Loyalty

By Shazia Kousar

Ph.D. Scholar Superior University Lahore, Pakistan

Email: shazia.kousar@superior.edu.pk

M. Ilyas

Associate Professor, Superior University Lahore, Pakistan

Email: ilyas58@yahoo.com

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of my study is to propose and test a model on the mediating

mechanism of academic institutional services and student achievement and loyalty across

the wide numbers of HEIs in Lahore.

Design/methodology/approach – The quantitative approach under positivism paradigm is

used to fulfillment the objectives of the study. The Self administrative survey approach was

used to collect the data through questionnaire from 400 students of 29 public and private

universities in Lahore. In order to check the validity of construct (convergent and

discriminant validity), services analysis was conducted using PCA technique with varimax

rotation method. Regression analysis has been used to determine the effect of academic

and institutional services on mediating variable (S.S, S.M) and to determine the effect of

mediating variables on student achievement and loyalty.

Findings – the results of direct relationship of academic and institutional services on student

achievement and loyalty suggest that all academic and institutional services positively and

significantly affect the student achievement and student loyalty but academic and

administrative services strongly affect the student success and retention. Student

satisfaction and student motivation partially mediates the relationship between academic&

institutional services and success and retention of enrolled students. Moreover, student

satisfaction and motivation capture maximum effect of academic and institutional services.

Research limitations/implications – By focusing on antecedents of student satisfaction,

institute can align their organizational structure, processes and procedures to become more

Customer-oriented. Small sample size and self-explicated retention data are the limitations

of this study.

Practical implications – It is recommended in this study that the changing nature of the

higher education marketplace encourages college academia and administrators to apply the

customer-oriented principles that are used in profit-making institutions.

Originality/value – Mediating Model of Hypothesized Effect of Academic & Institutional

Services on Student Satisfaction Influencing Student Achievement and Loyalty.

Key words – student satisfaction, motivation, achievement, loyalty, organization, academic

and institutional services

Introduction:

Higher education institution are increasingly known as services industry, competitive

environment in education industry provide many options to the students that makes the

survival of the institute difficult. Only those institutes will stay alive who give importance to

the expectations and needs of their potential customers, the students, and help them in

realization of their goals. So the services, that can affect the students’ expectations, needs

and make them successful and loyal with the institute, should be seriously studied. In order

to have competitive edge in the future, private organization must develop effective

behaviors which create a resilient association between institution and student. The higher

education institutions must recognize the expectations and need of their target market, the

students, modify their policies to meet the desired level of satisfaction and achievement, by

providing them the quality of services (Kotler & Fox, 1995). Various methods to evaluate

student Satisfaction have been used in European higher education institutions. One of them

is the improved quality of teaching and learning (Wiers-Jenssen & Stensaker). Restructuring

of the organization also helps to meet the customers’ expectations and goal (FRASER, 1999).

Addressing the expectation of the students is very important for the higher education

institution because satisfaction is like an election held every day, and the student vote with

their feet, If dissatisfied they walk (sometimes run) to the competitor.

The services which can influence the student satisfaction are: a) campus environment (b)

academic services (Campbell, Medina-Jerez, Erdogan, & Zhang, 2010) student demographic

services (Ilias, Hasan, & Rahman, 2009). Therefore, the student satisfaction and loyalty serve

as competitive advantage for educational institutions, sustainable advantage can be

obtained by providing customers superior quality of services (Kotler & Fox, 1995). In the

literature the term quality of services is broadly debated but still ambiguous and needed to

be studied (Berry, 1995; Dill, 2007; D. Green, Brannigan, Mazelan, & Giles, 1994). According

to (Ten Eyck, Tews, & Ballester, 2009; Witowski, 2008), in academia the student satisfaction

is well researched topic, but still important and sensitive because satisfaction is a dynamic

concepts and needed to be re searched. in the light of data on student satisfaction

universities can formulate the policies which in turn help to produce successful and loyal

students who can enhance their institution’s worth in the market, for which each institution

striving. According to (Lazar et al., 2003), services which can effect student satisfaction and

student achievement are important and should be discovered. So with the help of new

measurement tool, new dimension of student satisfaction can be explored. Survey at

institutional level can provide better understanding of student satisfaction and more

important services can be explored.

Therefore, there is dire need to investigate new academic and institutional services which

contribute in the student satisfaction and how student satisfaction mediate the relationship

between academic and institutional services and student achievement and loyalty, which is

the ultimate goal of institution. Satisfaction is important in the success and retention of

enrolled students and , thus the link between satisfaction and retention should be studied

and managed carefully (DeShields Jr, Kara, & Kaynak, 2005). according to (Gurpinar,

Alimoglu, Mamakli, & Aktekin, 2010), student satisfaction is a vibrant determinant of

educational outcome needed to be explored effectively for giving massage to the student

that organization is seriously listening their issues. Student satisfaction is a multifaceted

construct and influenced by variety of characteristics of students as well as institution

(Thomas & Galambos, 2004). So it is important to explore the academic and institutional

services which affect student satisfaction and how student satisfaction plays mediating role

between academic and institutional services and student success.

Therefore, there are two main objective of my study: 1) Study will divide the quality of

services into four academic and institutional services which probably can affect the student

satisfaction and motivation. 2) Study will also examine mediating relationship of student

satisfaction and motivation between academic and institutional services and student

success and loyalty or retention. The sub objective is to propose a model that describes:

1. The mediating mechanism between academic institutional services and student

achievement.

2. The mediating mechanism between academic institutional services and student

loyalty.

Research Questions

Followings are the research questions of my study

1. Whether the academic & institutional services affect student success and loyalty?

2. Whether the academic & institutional services affect student satisfaction and

motivation?

3. Do the student satisfaction and motivation affect the student achievement and

loyalty?

4. Do the student satisfaction and motivation mediate the relationship between

academic & institutional services and student achievement and loyalty

Research Hypothesis

My research hypotheses are

H1: There is positive relationship between teachers’ related services and student

satisfaction.

H2: There is positive relationship between teachers’ related services and student

motivation.

H3: There is positive relationship between administrative services and student

satisfaction.

H4: There is positive relationship between administrative services and student

motivation.

H5: There is positive relationship between campus environment and student

satisfaction.

H6: There is positive relationship between campus environment and student

motivation.

H7: There is positive relationship between student services and student satisfaction.

H8: There is positive relationship between student services and student motivation.

H9: Student satisfaction mediates the relationship between teacher services and

student achievement.

H10: Student satisfaction mediates the relationship between administrative services

and student achievement.

H11: Student satisfaction mediates the relationship between campus services and

student achievement.

H12: Student satisfaction mediates the relationship between student services and

student achievement.

H13: Student satisfaction mediates the relationship between teacher services and

student loyalty.

H14: Student satisfaction mediates the relationship between administrative services

and student loyalty.

H15: Student satisfaction mediates the relationship between campus services and

student loyalty.

H16: Student satisfaction mediates the relationship between student services and

student loyalty.

H17: Academic and institutional services positively related with student

achievement.

H18: Academic and institutional services positively related with student loyalty.

Significance of Study

My study will significantly contribute in literature by proposing and testing a

mediating model of academic institutional services and student achievement and

loyalty.

Fewer study has been investigated the impact of academic services on student

achievement and loyalty, particularly in Pakistan, but ignore the institutional

services. So my study will examine that what services affect the student satisfaction

and motivation and how satisfaction and motivation mediate the effect between

academic institutional services and student achievement and loyalty.

This study also divides the academic and institutional services into four main

constructs and also discusses the reliability and validity issues of these construct.

Our provincial govt. gives slogan Parah Likha Punjab to attract the people. For this

purpose Punjab govt. propose favorable policies toward HEI. As a result the

competition among HEI has been increased. Survival of institution heavily dependent

on its output. So better understanding in these areas, institutions, administrators,

researchers, and policymakers will better understand which services has greatest

impact on student achievement and loyalty. This will also enable researchers and

policymakers to design more effective intervention programs to influence the

services which are highly significant with student achievement and loyalty.

Study examine the student satisfaction in higher education institutions from more

customer oriented perspective introduce new additional dimension to the

educational planning activities of colleges and universities.

Literature Review

The main aim of this part of my study is to overview the literature about student

satisfaction and identifies the academic & institutional services which can affect the

student satisfaction. In this era of cutthroat competition among higher education

institutions, the universities spend heavy fund on researched indicators of student

satisfaction.

Student satisfaction

Satisfaction is a feeling of contentment; we feel when our need or expectation

satisfied. In education system the satisfaction play major role while defining the

correctness of the system. The student’s personality grooming, skill development

and course knowledge is related with the level of student satisfaction (spector 2006).

According to (Kotler & Clarke, 2012) satisfaction is one’s internal state of feelings

that he experience when his or her expectations are fulfilled. Satisfaction is

dependent on student’s expectations and perceives performance. It is important to

know the important issues of the students and what are their perceptions regarding

these issues before entering into university (Carey, Cambiano, & De Vore, 2002;

Palacio, Meneses, & Pérez, 2002). A proper definition of student satisfaction is not

available in the literature, so the researcher select and modify the customer

satisfaction theory to define the concept of student satisfaction (Hom, 2002). It look

very odd to use the term customers for the student but in current higher education

scenario students behave like a customer and said that they are fee payer so their

issues be heard and solved on priority basis (Williams, 2002).

Student motivation

Motivation is a passion that activates specific human behavior. Ever action of life is

caused by motivation, desire of knowledge motivate the student to enter into the

university. There are two types of motivation 1) intrinsic motivation 2) extrinsic

motivation (W. Green, 2010). Intrinsic motivation means internal happiness,

importance or feelings induce the person to do some actions while extrinsic

motivation means external services force a person to something. Both concept of

motivation are related with education sector. Teacher’s motivational techniques

increase students participate in educational activities and improve their efforts and

grades. Academic environment charged motivationally those students who have lack

of internal motivation (W. Green, 2010). Therefore, teachers motivate the student to

behave in desired manners. The higher education institutions explain the

relationship between success and motivation in more explicit way. According to

(Treasure & Robert, 2001), student perception regarding motivational climate

strongly affect the student success.

Academic & institutional services and student satisfaction

According to hill (1995), HEI, being services industry, are giving great importance to

the expectations and needs of the students because the students are the primary

customers of the universities and Moreover universities re-engineer their

organizations according to the student’s needs. Proper systems have been

developed, in order to address the student expectations and needs effectively,

(Elliott & Shin, 2002). (Mamun, 2000) identified some services (library facility,

laboratory facilities and internship assistance) that can influence the student

satisfaction. According to (Haque, Das, & Farjana, 2011) the quality of services

offered by the universities as an independent services can affect the student

satisfaction. The quality of services included quality of teaching, library book

collection and services, campus infrastructure, canteen, sports programs and ICT

facilities. Services performance and quality is the key determinant of student

satisfaction in the context of higher education institutions. Moreover quality is a

subjective term and has tangible and intangible aspects (Mont & Plepys, 2003; Oliver

& DeSarbo, 1988; Spreng, MacKenzie, & Olshavsky, 1996). The effectiveness of

administration and management facilitate, upgrade the students educational success

and personality grooming (LeBlanc & Nguyen, 1997).

As (Swan, 2001), mentioned three important services like clarity of course design,

student interaction with instructor and active discussion among course participants,

significantly affect the student satisfaction. similarly (Hines, Cruickshank, & Kennedy,

1985) stated that clarity in the behavior of teachers significantly and positively

related to student achievement and satisfaction. According to (Petruzzellis,

D'Uggento, & Romanazzi, 2006), universities should consider students as customers

and should adopt customer centric approach to satisfy them. Study analyses the

impact of some common services such as: lecture halls, laboratories, equipment,

library, dining hall, leisure activities, language course, scholarship, and contact with

teacher, administrative services, counseling etc. on student satisfaction. The

difference between expectation and reality affect student satisfaction. Perceptions

of the students related to university services play important role while determining

the student satisfaction(Sherry, Bhat, Beaver, & Ling, 2004). Theory of persistence

and retention presented by (Tinto, 1982), identify the relationship between student

and institutions. Student goal and institutional commitment, affect retention at

particular institution. Student motivation and academic ability to meet the student

expectation is important in student commitment with institution (DeShields Jr et al.,

2005). Poor class room facilities may influence the student satisfaction. so the

campus environment can influence the student happiness and that can further affect

student satisfaction (Elliott & Shin, 2002). The services which influence the student

satisfaction can be divided into two categories like personal services related to

student and institutional services related to educational experiences. Student

services include age, gender (Brokaw, Kennedy, & Merz, 2004) and institutional

services include teacher style (Dana, Brown, & Dodd, 2001), quality of instruction

(DeBourgh, 2003), feedback from teacher and interaction with class mates (Siegel et

al., 2000) and infrastructural facilities (Helgesen & Nesset, 2007). When student

perceived that their institution providing them standardized quality of learning

environment along with intellectual faculty, appropriate facilities of learning and

infrastructure, their motivation and satisfaction with the organization improved.

Administrative efficiency also play important role to retain and satisfy the students

(Aldridge & Rowley, 2001). According to (Wiers-Jenssen & Stensaker), a student

satisfaction is related with his expectation related to the quality of services provided

by the university, if the student assessment become true he will become satisfied.

Student satisfaction and achievement

There are different internal services which can influence the student achievements,

human satisfaction is one of them (Roos, 2011). Satisfaction analyzes that whether

the goods or services meet the expectation of customer or not. According to smith

2009 satisfaction is based on post experience of consumer, related with product or

service quality. Satisfaction and performance are positively related with one another.

satisfaction affect performance of individuals, motivate them to perform beyond the

limit (Ostroff, 1992). Similarly student experiences with education institution affect

his perceptions and opinions toward education services (teaching, time learning

schedule and education system). According to smith 2007 education institutions are

important organization because it provides quality of services to the student is basic

predictor of student satisfaction. In education institutions the most important thing

is quality of services which create human quality skill. For that reason the education

institutions are important organizations. This research also attempts to find out the

attitude of student satisfaction to update the current perspective situation.

Conceptual Framework

My study has designed four important academic and institutional dimensions to

assess the student satisfaction based on keaveney and young model (1997). This

theory relates the student satisfaction with student’s expectation regarding services

provided by the university. If the students have good relationship with the faculty

and administrative staff, safe and convenient campus environment and positive

interaction with the fellows, they are more satisfied as compare to those students

who have negative experiences. Therefore, Keaveney and young model establish a

relationship between student college experiences and student satisfaction. It

neglects the impact of these college experiences on the motivation level of student.

It should be incorporated in the model because motivation and satisfaction are two

different concepts. Both affect the outcome of the university. Moreover, it also

neglect that how student satisfaction further mediate the relationship between

academic and institutional services and student achievement and retention.

Therefore, keeping in view all these important relationships my study developed a

mediating model based on Keeveney and young’s model (1997).

Methodology

There are three generally acceptable paradigms in research, constructivism,

positivism and pragmatism. The selection of paradigm provides the guidance to the

researcher about philosophical assumption, selection of tools, instrument,

participant and methods to be used in the study (Cole & Denzine, 2002). The

selection of appropriate approach is based on research problem, if the research

problem is to identify the services that influenced the predictors of outcome or to

test a theory or explanation, then positivism approach is appropriate (Creswell &

Clark, 2007). The objective of my study is to propose and test a model on the

mediating mechanism of academic institutional services and student achievement

and loyalty across the wide numbers of HEIs in Lahore. Thus the quantitative

approach under positivism paradigm is appropriate for the fulfillment of my study

objectives. The Self administrative survey approach was used to collect the data

through questionnaire.

Description of Sampling

In research process the sampling is very important because it select the sample from

the population for investigation (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000). Researcher generalizes

his findings about population on the basis of sample results. Generally there are two

acceptable categories of sampling: probability sampling and non-probability

sampling. In probability sampling, samples are drawn from the population and all

sample units have equal probability of being selected is less prone to biasness, it

enable the researcher to generalize his claims regarding population of their interest.

This type of sampling is appropriate for quantitative research. In non-probability

sampling the probability of a population sample being chosen is unknown. Non

probability sampling is more commonly used in qualitative research because in this

type of research the selection of sample involved the judgment of the researcher (E.

R. Babbie, 1990). This study, keeping in view the general procedure of quantitative

research, will use the probability method of sampling. Probability of sampling can be

done by using its various types. When the list of element composing population is

impossible, random sampling is best to utilize because it deal with the random

selection of individual, so keeping in view this advantage, study will utilize cluster

random sampling technique (Mouton & Babbie, 2001). In cluster random sampling,

cluster are identifies, each individual of the cluster is included in the sample. The

individual in chosen groups are not significantly different from individuals in un-

chosen group (Hultsch, MacDonald, Hunter, Maitland, & Dixon, 2002). The results on

the basis of representative sample from population has the ability to generalize

these results to that population (Cresswell, 2003). In this study the students are

randomly selected from private and public universities of Lahore (Pakistan). The unit

of analysis was that student who was enrolled at least one year ago in the

institution. This criterion of minimum one year study experience with the institution

is used to ensure that the student participating in the research has clear

understanding of the academic & institutional services and policies, implemented by

the institution. Lahore is capital city of Punjab and is called the city of knowledge.

There are 38 public and private universities in Punjab and of these 38 universities, 25

are located in Lahore. Among these 29 universities, 18 are private universities and 11

are public universities. This study has divided universities of Lahore into two clusters

on the basis of their ownership.

The sample size was 400 students randomly selected form total population that was

the 29 universities in Lahore. According to (Stevens, 2009), sample size should be

above 300 for reliable results obtained in principle component analysis.

Instrument

The best mean to collect the data from large population is questionnaires (E. Babbie,

2012). In order to satisfy the main objective of the study, data was collected on the

variables of teacher related services, student related services, administrative

services, student demographic services, student motivation, student satisfaction,

student achievement and loyalty.

The questionnaire has been divided into eight sections: A. teacher services, b.

administrative services, c. student demographic services, d. campus environment, e.

student satisfaction, f. student motivation, g. student achievement and student

loyalty or retention. In measuring teacher services variables was adapted from

(Keaveney & Young, 1997; Solinas, Masia, Maida, & Muresu, 2012). While

administrative services are adapted from (Aldridge & Rowley, 2001; LeBlanc &

Nguyen, 1997), studies. Student related services are adapted with modification from

(Ilias et al., 2009). Motivation means to exert high level of efforts in exchange of

institutional and academic efforts. The items of motivation and satisfaction has been

adapted from (Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005). Student achievements and student

loyalty was developed by using several national benchmark instruments as models

(ACT, SSI, and CSEQ). Responses of students on the hypothesized model were

obtained on a five point likert-scale (1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree).

Analysis and results:

In this section we will discuss the results and present the analysis of data.

Demographic Profile of Respondent Respondent Frequency %

Gender (N=400) Male Female

239 161

60 40

Age (N=400) 15-20 21-24 25+

111 270 19

28 68 4

CGPA (N=400) 1-2 2-3 3-4

13 199 187

3 50 47

Name of institute (N=400) Private Public

250 150

63 37

Name of program(N=400) Business sciences Social sciences Information technology missing

263 62 73 2

66 16 18 .5

Years of studying (N=400) 1-2 3-4 5-6 Above 6 year

179 205 14 2

45 51 3 1

Mother education (N=400) Less than metric Metric F.A B.A M.A

129 74 72 101 24

32 19 18 25 6

Father education (N=400) Less than metric Metric F.A B.A M.A

59 65 69 118 89

15 16 17 30 22

Number of sibling (N=400) 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 Above 8

83 189 95 22 11

21 47 25 5 3

This table.1 shows that out of 400 respondents, 239 (60%) are male and 161(40%) are

female. Out of 400 respondents 111(28%) are within 15-20years, 270(68%) are within 21-25

and 19(4%) are above 25 years. This shows that most of the respondents are in the age

range of 20-25. Results shows that out of 400, 199(50%) got CGPA in the 2.01 to 3.00 and

187(47%) got 3.01 to 4.00 CGPA while only 13(3%) are in the range of 1.00 to 2.00. out of

400 respondent 250(63%) are enrolled in private universities while 150(37%) are studying in

public sector. Out of 398, 263(66%) are studying in business sciences, 62(16%) are studying

in social sciences department while 73(18%) are studying information technology

department. 179(45%) reported that they are studying in the institute from 1-2 years,

205(51%) reported that they are in the institute from last 3-4 years, while 14(3%) have 5-6

years and only 2(1%) have above 6 years of studying. 398 respondent reported their mother

education, 129(32%) reported that their mother education is less than metric, 74(19%),s

mothers are metric, 70(17%) are F.A, 101(25%) are B.A and 24(6%) are M.A while 2

respondent did not provide information regarding their mother education. 400 respondent

reported their father education, 59(15%) reported that their father’s education is less than

metric, 65(16%), s father are metric, 69(17%) are F.A, 118(30%) are B.A and 89(22%) are

M.A. out of 397, 83(21%) have 1-2 number of brothers and sisters, 189(48%) are 3-4,

95(24%) are 5-6, 20(5%) are 7-8 and 10(3%) are above 8 number of sisters and brothers.

Table. 2 Descriptive statistics

items N mini max mean Std.

Quality of teaching is good 400 1.00 5.00 3.41 1.155

Teacher is very clear in his or her concept (related to

subject) 399 1.00 5.00 3.46 1.092

Teacher has the ability to attract and stimulate the

students 399 1.00 5.00 3.52 1.100

Teacher use appropriate teaching methodologies to make

his or her module interesting 400 1.00 5.00 3.38 1.142

My curriculum is according to the market needs 400 1.00 5.00 3.34 1.157

Administrative staff is friendly and helpful 400 1.00 5.00 3.07 1.297

Administrative policies are student friendly 400 1.00 5.00 3.24 1.128

Administration provides in time information 400 1.00 5.00 3.32 1.172

Access to administrative authorities is easy 400 1.00 5.00 2.99 1.299

Library facility is available to student 400 1.00 5.00 3.61 1.303

I am satisfied with overall cleanliness 400 1.00 5.00 3.68 1.184

classrooms and study rooms are comfortable 400 1.00 5.00 3.44 1.226

Computer lab and internet facility available to student 398 1.00 5.00 3.34 1.135

Seminars and conferences are held on regular basis 400 1.00 5.00 3.28 1.102

I attend the classes regularly 400 1.00 5.00 3.84 1.252

My relationship with my teacher is good 400 1.00 5.00 3.74 1.118

I come to campus for knowledge seeking 399 1.00 5.00 4.07 1.059

I always keep handbook with me in 400 1.00 5.00 3.80 1.260

I really enjoy studying in this institution 400 1.00 5.00 3.54 1.180

Overall I am satisfied with my institution 400 1.00 5.00 3.48 1.071

I am very motivated in my present institution 400 1.00 5.00 3.55 .983

My institutions reputation motivate me 400 1.00 5.00 3.47 1.108

I have got merit scholarship 400 1.00 5.00 2.94 1.366

My critical thinking and problem solving sense has been

improved 400 1.00 5.00 3.48 1.152

I will complete my degree from this institute 400 1.00 5.00 3.78 1.246

I recommend my friends to take admission in this

university 400 1.00 5.00 3.54 1.278

My institute develop my somatic and mental well being 400 1.00 5.00 3.51 1.088

Sense of belonging and being welcomed by the institution

has been improved 400 1.00 5.00 3.68 1.106

Valid N (list wise) 394

Descriptive Summary

This study was based on 25 items; responses to 25 items vary from one to five on a five

point likert scale. Mean score of the different items ranges from 2.94 to 3.78 and the value

of standard deviation ranges from .983 to 1.366 (see table 2).

Table. 3 Reliability of measurement

construct Valid number Number of items Crobach,s alpha

Academic Services 398 5 .797

Administrative Services 400 4 .784

Campus environment 398 4 .756

Student services 399 4 .769

Student satisfaction 400 2 .781 Student motivation 400 2 .665

Student achievement 400 2 .881

Student loyalty 400 4 .864

Table 3 represents the estimated value of cronbach’s alpha to examine the reliability and

internal consistency of the measure. For the present sample value of cronbach’s alpha vary

from .491 to .797 which indicate that each multi item construct possess high reliability. The

higher value of cronbach’s alpha for academic services and administrative services (.797 and

.784), campus environment (.756), and student services (.769), student satisfaction (.781),

student motivation (.665), student loyalty (.864) and student achievement (.881) shows that

each construct is internally consistent. The higher the cronbach’s alpha value of a construct,

the higher the reliability is of measuring the same construct.

Correlation

Correlation analysis has been used to confirm mutual association among the items of each

construct. The result shows that the value of correlation coefficients for all the item s of

each construct are positively significantly correlated with each other varying from .309 to

.791 for academic services and administrative services, .429 to .537, for campus

environment .334 to .580 and for student services .495 to .543, for student satisfaction .643,

for student motivation .502, for student motivation .502, for student achievement .267and

for student locality is .290 to .400.

Correlation matrix for academic services

Items 1 2 3 4 5

Quality of teaching is good 1 .719** .522** .415** .357**

Teacher is very clear in his or her concept (related to subject) 1 .481** .434** .418**

Teacher has the ability to attract and stimulate the students 1 .358** .309**

Teacher use appropriate teaching methodologies to make his

or her module interesting 1 .406**

My curriculum is according to the market needs 1

Correlation matrix for administrative services

Items 1 2 3 4

Administrative staff is friendly and helpful 1 .537** .428** .515**

Administrative policies are student friendly 1 .520** .438**

Administration provides in time information 1 .429**

Access to administrative authorities is easy 1

Correlation matrix for campus environment

Items 1 2 3 4

Library facility is available to student 1 .580** .470** .387**

I am satisfied with overall cleanliness 1 .447** .392**

classrooms and study rooms are comfortable 1 .334**

Computer lab and internet facility available to student 1

Correlation matrix for student services

Items 1 2 3 4

I attend the classes regularly 1 .543** .491** .361**

My relationship with my teacher is good 1 .479** .389**

I come to campus for knowledge seeking 1 .495**

I always keep handbook with me in 1

Correlation matrix for student satisfaction

Items 1 2

Overall I am satisfied with my institution 1 .447**

classrooms and study rooms are comfortable 1

Correlation matrix for student motivation

Items 1 2

I am very motivated in my present institution 1 .502**

My institutions reputation motivate me 1

Correlation matrix for student achievement

Items 1 2

I have got merit scholarship 1 .267**

My critical thinking and problem solving sense has been improved 1

Correlation matrix for student loyalty

Items 1 2 3

I will complete my degree from this institute 1 .295** .320**

I recommend my friends to take admission in this university 1 .400**

My institute develop my somatic and mental well being 1

Services Analysis

In order to check the validity of construct (convergent and discriminant validity), services

analysis was conducted using PCA technique with varimax rotation method. The results of

PCA are given in table4, 5 & 6 respectively.

Table. 4 KMO and Bartlett’s test

construct No. of items KMO Measurement of sample adequacy

Bartlett’s test of sphericity

Bartlett’s test of sphericity Sig.

Academic services(T.F) 5 .786 635.220 .000 Administrative services(A.F)

4 .769 437.073 .000

Campus services (C.F) 4 .759 374.983 .000

Student services(S.F) 4 .760 412.572 .000

Student satisfaction(S.S) 2 .650 212.197 .000 Student motivation(S.M) 2 .500 115.381 .000

Student achievement(S.A) 2 .800 29.350 .000

Student loyalty(S.L) 4 .713 244.186 .000

The KMO measure of sampling adequacy indicates the suitability of employing services

analysis. The value of KMO varies between 0 to 1. If the KMO value is 0 then application of

services analysis become inappropriate. If the value of KMO is 1, then services analysis

become appropriate. 0.5 value of KMO is poor, 0.6 value is acceptable and value closer to 1

is more desirable (Hinton, Brownlow, & McMurray, 2004). The results suggest (table 6) that

the value of KMO for each construct is above recommended acceptable level of 0.6. For T.F,

the value of KMO is .786, KMO=.769 for A.F and KMO=.759 for C.F, .760 for S.F, .650 for S.S,

.800 for S.A, .713 for S.L. So the results shows services analysis is appropriate in the case of

present data.

Bartlett test is used to check that the relationship between the items of a construct is

significant. Generally, p-value confirms the significance of the relationship among variables.

Table 6 reflects that the p- value of Bartlett’s test in the case of all construct is significant at

less than 0.000 which provide evidence against null hypothesis of no correlation. It means

the items in the construct are highly correlated. So we can continue with services analysis.

Table. 5 Eigenvalues and total variance explained

construct components Initial eigenvalues

Total % of variance Cumulative % of

explained variance explained

Academic services 1 2.788 70.912 70.912

Administrative services

1 2.435 69.882 69.882

Campus services 1 2.314 76.846 76.846 Student services 1 2.385 72.629 72.629

Student satisfaction 1 1.647 82.158 82.158

Student motivation 1 1.502 75.097 75.097

Student achievement 1 1.267 73.339 73.339 Student loyalty 1 2.058 61.461 61.461

That component of a construct will be considered as principle component whose eigenvalue

is greater than 1 and that will be used for further analysis. Table 7 shows that T.F consist on

5 items and explain 70.912 % variance, A.F consists on 4 items and explain 69.882 %

variance and C.F consists of 4 item and explained 76.846 % variance, S.F consist on 4 items

and explain 72.629 % variance, S.S consists on 2 items and explain 82.158 % variance and

S.M consists of 2 item and explained 75.097 % variance, S.A consist on 2 items and explain

73.339 % variance and S.L consists on 4 items and explain 61.461 % variance. The results

satisfy the criteria of construct validity including both discriminant validity (loading of at

least 0.40, no cross loading above 0.40) and convergent validity (eigenvalue of at least 1,

loading of at least 0.40for items that load on posit construct, it proof that data is reliable.

Table. 6 Component matrixes

items components

Academic services TF1 Quality of teaching is good .831

Teacher is very clear in his or her concept (related to subject) .841

Teacher has the ability to attract and stimulate the students .769

Teacher use appropriate teaching methodologies to make his or her module

interesting

.684

My curriculum is according to the market needs .684

Administrative services AF Administrative staff is friendly and helpful .799

Administrative policies are student friendly .805

Administration provides in time information .757

Access to administrative authorities is easy .759

Campus services CF

Library facility is available to student .817

I am satisfied with overall cleanliness .809

classrooms and study rooms are comfortable .737

Computer lab and internet facility available to student .669

Student services SF

I attend the classes regularly .782

My relationship with my teacher is good .785

I come to campus for knowledge seeking .804

I always keep handbook with me in .715

Student satisfaction S.S

I really enjoy studying in this institution .906

Overall I am satisfied with my institution .906

Student motivation S.M

I am very motivated in my present institution .867

My institutions reputation motivate me .867

Student achievement S.A

I have got merit scholarship .796

My critical thinking and problem solving sense has been improved .796

Student loyalty S.L

I will complete my degree from this institute .712

I recommend my friends to take admission in this university .679

My institute develop my somatic and mental well being .738

Sense of belonging and being welcomed by the institution has been improved .738

Regression Analysis

Regression analysis has been used to determine the effect of academic and institutional

services on mediating variable (S.S, S.M) and to determine the effect of mediating variables

on student achievement and loyalty. In the figure the result shows significant positive

relationship of academic and institutional services S.S (β=.508, p value< 0.000 and β=.490, p

value<.000, β= .342 p value<.000, β= .468, p value<.000). Similarly result shows significant

positive relationship of academic and institutional services S.M (β=.504, p value, 0.000 and

β= .426, p value<.000, β= .406 p value<.000, β= .485, p value<.000). While there is

significant positive relationship of mediating variable S.S on S.A and S.L (β= .424, p

value<0.00 and β= .526 p value< 0.01). Similarly there is significant positive relationship of

mediating variables S.M on S.A and S.L (β= .458, p value<0.00 and β= .552 p value< 0.00).

The results show that S.S and S.M capture maximum effect of teacher related services and

administrative services as compare to campus environment and student services. Similarly

S.L captures maximum effect of S.S and S.M. The effect of academic and institutional

services on mediating variables (student satisfaction and student motivation) and the effect

of mediating variables on student achievement and loyalty are shown in figure.

Academic factors

Administrative factors

Campus environment

Student

satisfaction

Student factors

Student

motivation

Student

achievement

Student loyalty

Mediating Analysis In Case Of Teacher Qualification and Experience

If the direct effect of independent variable on mediating variable, of mediating variable on

dependent variable and of independent variable on a dependent variable are significant

then mediation can be tested.

Table. 7 Direct effects of academic and institutional services on student achievement and loyalty

Independent variable Dependent variable Student achievement Student loyalty

T.F1 .385* (8.29)

.752* (22.72)

A.F .455* (10.18)

.545* (12.91)

C.F .326* (6.87)

.608* (15.25)

S.F .280* (5.81)

.630* (16.08)

Note. * Represent significance at less than 0.000 values in parenthesis represents t-ratios.

Table 7 shows that academic and administrative services contribute comparatively more in

student achievement while campus environment and student services contribute

comparatively more in student loyalty.

I have employed multiple regression analysis to test the mediation proposed by mediating

variables between independent variable and dependent variables. The table 8 represents

the result of multiple regression analysis where each mediating variable was entered as an

independent variable along with academic and institutional services.

Table. 8 Multiple regression analysis for mediation

Independent variable Dependent variable Dependent variable Student achievement Student loyalty

T.F .228* (4.42)

.207* (4.07)

.629* (17.7)

.616* (17.89)

Student satisfaction .308* (5.96)

.253* (7.15)

Student motivation .381* (7.78)

.288* (8.27)

Adjusted R2 .214 .230 .595 .610 F. statistics 55.528* 60.194* 292.974* 311.930*

Ad. F .325* (6.56)

.317* (6.79)

.378* (8.37)

.377* (8.83)

Student satisfaction .265* .342*

(5.36) (7.56)

Student motivation .322* (6.900)

.388* (9.039)

Adjusted R2 .256 .288 .382 .414 F. statistics 69.809* 81.727* 123.743* 141.169*

Cam.F .204* (4.32)

.168** (3.49).001

.486* (12.61)

.463* (11.64)

Student satisfaction .355* (7.47)

.357 (9.192)

Student motivation .388* (8.041)

.360* (8.980)

Adjusted R2 .213 .228 .480 .476 F. statistics 54.763 59.721 183.148 180.085

Stu. F .104* (2.04)

.077* (2.51)

.491* (11.79)

.474* (11.22)

Student satisfaction .375* (7.33)

.298* (7.15)

Student motivation .420* (8.24)

.317* (7.47)

Adjusted R2 .184 .209 .462 .468 F. statistics 46.020* 53.692* 171.164* 175.058* Note. * Represent significance at less than 0.000 values in parenthesis represents t-ratios.

Results in table 8 show that S.S and S.M partially mediates between academic services and

student achievement. Its mediating role is similar between T.F and S.A (S.S β=.308, sig,

<.000) and between T.F and S.L (S.S β=.255, sig, <.000) similarly S.M mediate between T.F

and S.A (S.M, β=.381, sig, <.000) and between T.F and S.L (S.M, β=.288, sig, <.000).

Moreover, S.S and S.M partially mediates between administrative services and student

achievement and loyalty. Its mediating role is similar between A.F and S.A (S.S β=.265, sig,

<.000) and between A.F and S.L (S.S β=.342, sig, <.000) similarly S.M mediate between A.F

and S.A (S.M, β=.322, sig, <.000) and between A.F and S.L (S.M, β=.388, sig, <.000). S.S and

S.M partially mediates between campus environment and student achievement and loyalty.

Its mediating role is similar between C.F and S.A (S.S β=.355, sig, <.000) and between C.F

and S.L (S.S β=.357, sig, <.000) similarly S.M mediate between C.F and S.A (S.M, β=.388, sig,

<.000) and between C.F and S.L (S.M, β=.360, sig, <.000). Moreover, S.S and S.M partially

mediates between student services and student achievement and loyalty. Its mediating role

is similar between S.F an0 d S.A (S.S, β=.375, sig, <.000) and between S.F and S.L (S.S β=.298,

sig, <.000) similarly S.M mediate between S.F and S.A (S.M, β=.420, sig, <.000) and between

S.F and S.L (S.M, β=.317, sig, <.000)

Table. 9 Multiple regression analysis to find effect of individual academic and institutional services

Independent variable 1 2 3 4

S.S S.M S.A S.L

Quality of teaching is good .05 (.088)

.160 (2.74)

.074 (1.22)

.330* (7.49)

Teacher is very clear in his or her concept (related

to subject)

.373* (6.26)

.221* (3.665)

.277* (4.426)

.232* (5.115)

Teacher has the ability to attract and stimulate the

students

-.010 (-.214)

.56 (1.144)

.000 (-.009)

.209* (5.694)

Teacher use appropriate teaching methodologies to

make his or her module interesting

.137* (3.13)

.147* (3.19)

.062 (1.28)

.231* (5.19)

My curriculum is according to the market needs .223* (5.169)

.205* (4.761)

.191* (4.203)

.195* (4.661)

Adjusted R2 .268 .277 .182 .316 F.statistics 33.636* 31.196* 18.781* 37.760*

Multiple regression analysis to find effect of individual Administrative services

Administrative staff is friendly and helpful .215* (5.03)

.193* (4.31)

.184* (4.21)

.298* (7.28)

Administrative policies are student friendly .040 (.801)

.052* (1.01)

-.029* (-.573)

.049 (1.035)

Administration provides in time information .246* (5.48)

.072* (1.52)

.224* (4.86)

.073* (3.69)

Access to administrative authorities is easy .014 (.341)

.117 (2.75)

.93 (2.25)

.129** (3.32)

Adjusted R2 .261 .185 .223 .323 F.statistics 26.777* 23.669* 29.687* 48.411*

Multiple regression analysis to find effect of individual Campus services

Library facility is available to student .180* (3.85)

.177* (3.89)

.129**

(2.75)

.292* (7.42)

I am satisfied with overall cleanliness .022 (.427)

.125 (2.523)

-.043

(-.847)

.123* (2.85)

classrooms and study rooms are comfortable .036 (.797)

.011 (.256)

.119**

(2.64)

.085** (2.23)

Computer lab and internet facility available to

student

.128 (2.76)

.115 (2.54)

.160

(3.44)

.135 (3.46)

Adjusted R2 .122 .169 .118 .384

F.statistics 14.805* 21.134* 14.247* 62.472*

Multiple regression analysis to find effect of individual student services

I attend the classes regularly .038* (2.86)

.046* (2.06)

.098* (2.03)

.210* (5.38)

My relationship with my teacher is good .183* (3.74)

.262* (5.41)

.167* (3.08)

.237* (5.41)

I come to campus for knowledge seeking .175* (3.32)

.143* (2.75)

-.014 (-.23)

.156* (3.33)

I always keep handbook with me in .217* (5.32)

.198* (4.915)

.055 (1.22)

.092* (2.52)

Adjusted R2 .247 .265 .081 .399

F.statistics 33.346* 36.926* 9.794* 66.705*

Table 9 shows the multiple regression analysis to find out the effect of individual academic

and institutional services, this study include 5 items in academic services, 4 item in

administrative services , 4 item in campus environment and 4 items in student services. The

first item of T.F is quality of teaching is good. The response to this item varies from 1to 5

with the mean score 3.41 and standard error is 1.155. This item is highly loaded (services

loading= .831) in principle component academic services as shown in table 6. However

when this item included in the multiple regression analysis along with other items, it

produce surprising results. Despite of high services loading and significant effect of

extracted academic services on all mediating variable, this item does not affect significantly

any mediating variable. Although it has significant affect on dependent variable the student

loyalty, (β=.330, sig, <.000).

Another item of T.F, teacher has the ability to attract and stimulate the students also gave

similar results as discussed above. The response to this item varies from 1 to 5 with the

mean score 3.52 and standard error is 1.100. This item is highly loaded (services loading=

.769) in principle component academic services as shown in table 6. However when this

item included in the multiple regression analysis along with other items, it produce

surprising results. Despite of high services loading and significant effect of extracted

academic services on all mediating variable, this item does not affect significantly any

mediating variable. Although it has significant effect on dependent variable the student

loyalty (β=.209, sig, <.000). However other item included in T.F significantly affect the

mediating variable as well as dependent variables.

Among 4 items of administrative services only one services, access to administrative

authorities is easy, do not significantly affect the mediating variable and dependent variable

except student loyalty. The response to this item varies from 1 to 5 with the mean score

2.99 and standard error is 1.299. This item is highly loaded (services loading= .759) in

principle component academic services as shown in table 6. However when this item

included in the multiple regression analysis along with other items, it produce surprising

results. Despite of high services loading and significant effect of extracted administrative

services on all mediating variable, this item does not affect significantly any mediating

variable. Although it has significant effect on dependent variable the student loyalty

(β=.129, sig, <.001). The item library facility is available to the student have more significant

effect on mediating and dependent variable as compare to the other items included in

campus environment services. Moreover, all items included in student services are

significantly affect the mediating and dependent variables

Table.10 Simple regression analysis to find effect of individual academic services

Independent variable 1 2 3 4

S.S S.M S.A S.L

Quality of teaching is good .365* (7.83)

.331* (8.26)

.260* (6.29)

.591* (18.59)

Adjusted R2 .131 .144 .088

.465

F. Statistic 61.27* 68.15* 40.53* 345.76*

Teacher is very clear in his or her concept (related

to subject)

.424* (10.44)

.361* (8.56)

.330* (7.71)

.584* (16.46)

Adjusted R2 .213 .154 .128 .405

F. Statistic 109.02* 73.29* 59.36* 270.96*

Teacher has the ability to attract and stimulate the

students

.244* (5.55)

.252* (5.78)

.176* (3.92)

.501* (13.12)

Adjusted R2 .70 .75 .035 .301

F. Statistic 30.85* 33.43* 15.43* 172.13*

Teacher use appropriate teaching methodologies to

make his or her module interesting

.337* (8.33)

.351* (8.71)

.199* (4.65)

.415* (10.72)

Adjusted R2 .146 .158 .049 .223

F. Statistic 69.35* 75.93* 21.60* 114.91*

My curriculum is according to the market needs .371* .355* .301* .372*

(9.48) (8.99) (7.40) (9.49) Adjusted R2 .182 .167 .119 .183

F. Statistic 89.78* 80.79* 54.73* 90.03*

Administrative staff is friendly and helpful .335* (9.63)

.306* (8.61)

.305* (8.59)

.415* (12.70)

Adjusted R2 .187 .155 .154 .288

F. Statistic 92.785* 74.144* 73.813* 161.361*

Administrative policies are student friendly .312* (7.50)

.269* (6.36)

.252* (5.93)

.337* (8.20)

Adjusted R2 .122 .90 .079 .143

F. Statistic 56.223* 40.443* 35.142* 67.239*

Administration provides in time information .312* (7.50)

.269* (6.36)

.252* (5.93)

.337* (8.20)

Adjusted R2 .122 .090 .079 .143

F. Statistic 56.223* 40.443* 35.143* 57.624*

Access to administrative authorities is easy .374* (9.73)

.245* (5.97)

.340* (8.69)

.299* (7.41)

Adjusted R2 .190 .080 .157 .120

F. Statistic 94.552* 35.752* 75.428* 54.943*

Library facility is available to student .256* (7.05)

.290* (8.16)

.214* (5.79)

.441* (13.99)

Adjusted R2 .109 .141 .075 .329

F. Statistic 49.66* 57.12* 33.55* 195.93*

I am satisfied with overall cleanliness .207* (5.05)

.291* (7.32)

.156* (3.74)

.404* (10.84)

Adjusted R2 .058 .116 .032 .227

F. Statistic 25.54* 53.52* 14.01* 117.60*

classrooms and study rooms are comfortable .177* (4.44)

.192* (4.82)

.219* (5.56)

.330* (8.76)

Adjusted R2 .045 .053 .070 .160

F. Statistic 19.73* 23.27* 30.91* 76.79*

Computer lab and internet facility available to

student

.230* (5.40)

.249* (5.87)

.243* (5.73)

.345* (8.48)

Adjusted R2 .066 .078 .074 .152

F. Statistic 29.17* 34.47* 32.77* 71.83*

I attend the classes regularly .204* (5.26)

.214* (5.54)

.194* (5.00)

.423* (12.44)

Adjusted R2 .063 .069 .057 .279

F. Statistic 27.68* 30.72* 25.02* 154.72*

My relationship with my teacher is good .334* (8.03)

.386* (9.53)

.245* (5.69)

.475* (12.49)

Adjusted R2 .137 .184 .073 .281

F. Statistic 64.567 90.929 32.375 155.995

I come to campus for knowledge seeking .373* (8.56)

.365* (8.35)

.169** (3.43)

.451* (10.81)

Adjusted R2 .154 .147 .026 .226

F. Statistic 73.35 69.64 117.73 116.91

I always keep handbook with me in .339* (9.42)

.331* (9.14)

.143* (3.65)

.314* (8.58)

Adjusted R2 .182 .171 .030 .155

F. Statistic 88.81 83.53 13.29 73.69

Table 10 shows the results of simple regression analysis where mediating variables (i.e.

student satisfaction and student motivation) and dependent variable (student achievement

and student loyalty) have been regressed on each of 17 items of academic and institutional

services. The result shows that each of 17 items of academic and institutional services

significantly predict mediating and dependent variable.

Table. 11 summary of result of hypotheses

Hypotheses Results

H1 There is positive relationship between teachers’ related services and student

satisfaction.

Supported

(Figure 1)

H2 There is positive relationship between teachers’ related services and student

motivation.

Supported

(Figure 1)

H3 There is positive relationship between administrative services and student

satisfaction.

Supported

(Figure 1)

H4 There is positive relationship between administrative services and student

motivation.

Supported

(Figure 1)

H5 There is positive relationship between campus environment and student

satisfaction.

Supported

(Figure 1)

H6 There is positive relationship between campus environment and student

motivation.

Supported

(Figure 1)

H7 There is positive relationship between student services and student satisfaction. Supported

(Figure 1)

H8 There is positive relationship between student services and student motivation. Supported

(Figure 1)

H9 Student satisfaction mediates the relationship between teacher services and

student achievement.

Supported

(Table 8)

H10 Student satisfaction mediates the relationship between administrative services and

student achievement.

Supported

(Table 8)

H11 Student satisfaction mediates the relationship between campus services and

student achievement.

Supported

(Table 8)

H12 Student satisfaction mediates the relationship between student services and

student achievement.

Supported

(Table 8)

H13 Student satisfaction mediates the relationship between teacher services and

student loyalty.

Supported

(Table 8)

H14 Student satisfaction mediates the relationship between administrative services and

student loyalty.

Supported

(Table 8)

H15 Student satisfaction mediates the relationship between campus services and

student loyalty.

Supported

(Table 8)

H16 Student satisfaction mediates the relationship between student services and

student loyalty.

Supported

(Table 8)

H17 Academic and institutional services positively related with student achievement. Supported

(Table 7)

H18 Academic and institutional services positively related with student loyalty. Supported

(Table 7)

Discussion of results:

Study found that there is direct positive relationship between T.F, S.S and Student

achievement and loyalty. It has been also examined that student satisfaction partially and

significantly mediate between academic services and student achievement and loyalty.

Therefore, student satisfaction strongly mediates between T.F and Student achievement.

Similarly there is positive and significant relationship between T.F, S.M and Student

achievement and loyalty. It has been also examined that student motivation partially and

significantly mediate between academic services and student achievement and loyalty.

Student motivation strongly mediates between T.F and Student achievement as expected

(Gurpinar et al., 2010; Haque et al., 2011; Wiers-Jenssen & Stensaker) Study also examined

the effect of individual (5) items of academic services on student achievement and student

loyalty. Among these 5 items of academic services, teacher concepts clarity (β=.373, β=.221,

β=.277, β=.232, sig, <.000) and curriculum (β=.223, β=.205, β=.191, β=.195, sig , <.000) has

played significant role in determining the S.S, S.M, S.A and S.L.

Study also found that there is direct positive relationship between A.F, S.S and Student

achievement and loyalty. It examined that student satisfaction partially and significantly

mediates between administrative services and student achievement and loyalty. Student

satisfaction strongly mediates between A.F and Student loyalty (β=.373 sig<.000). Similarly

there is direct positive relationship between A.F, S.M and Student achievement and loyalty.

It has been also examined that student motivation partially and significantly mediate

between administrative services and student achievement and loyalty. Student motivation

strongly mediate between A.F and Student loyalty (β=.388 sig<.000) as expected (DeShields

Jr et al., 2005). Study also examined the effect of individual (4) items of administrative

services on student achievement and student loyalty. Among these 4 items of administrative

services, administrative staff is friendly and helpful (β=.215, β=.193, β=.184, β=.298, sig, <.000)

and administration provides in time information (β=.246, β=.072, β=.224, β=.073, sig, <.000) has

played significant role in determining the S.S, S.M, S.A and S.L.

Moreover, there is direct positive relationship between C.F, S.S and Student achievement

and loyalty. It examined that student satisfaction partially and significantly mediates

between campus environment and student achievement and loyalty. Student satisfaction

strongly mediates between C.F and Student loyalty (β=.357 sig<.000). Similarly there is

direct positive relationship between C.F, S.M and Student achievement and loyalty. It has

been also examined that student motivation partially and significantly mediate between

campus environment and student achievement and loyalty. Student motivation strongly

mediate between C.F and Student achievement (β=.388 sig<.000) as expected (Mont &

Plepys, 2003; Oliver & DeSarbo, 1988; Spreng et al., 1996). Study also examined the effect of

individual (4) items of campus environment on S.S, S.M and on student achievement and

student loyalty. Among these 4 items of campus services, Library facility is available to student

(β=.180, β=.177, β=.129, β=.292, sig, <.000 and .001) has played significant role in

determining the S.S, S.M, S.A and S.L.

Study also found that there is direct positive relationship between S.F, S.S and Student

achievement and loyalty. It has been also examined that student satisfaction partially and

significantly mediate between student services and student achievement and loyalty.

Student satisfaction strongly mediates between S.F and Student achievement (β=.375

sig<.000). Similarly there is direct positive relationship between S.F, S.M and Student

achievement and loyalty. It has been also examined that student motivation partially and

significantly mediate between student services and student achievement and loyalty.

Student motivation strongly mediate between S.F and Student achievement ((β=.474

sig<.000) as expected (Ilias et al., 2009). Study also examined the effect of individual (4)

items of student services on S.S, S.M and on student achievement and student loyalty.

Among these 4 items of student services, my relationship with my teacher is good (β=.183,

β=.262, β=.167, β=.237, sig, <.000) has played significant role in determining the S.S, S.M,

S.A and S.L.

Conclusion:

There are several encouraging results emerged from this empirical study. First is that

student satisfaction although connected with four (T.F, A.F, C.F, S.F) important academic

and institutional services positively but academic services have strong significant and

positive relationship with student satisfaction. Along with positive word of mouth,

institutions also concerned with its outcome. Student satisfaction partially mediates the

relationship between academic& institutional services and success and retention of enrolled

students. Secondly, another important mediating variable, student motivation has been

identified. It, significantly and partially mediates between academic and institutional

services and student achievement and loyalty. Moreover, student motivation highly

significantly related with student loyalty, for which institution striving. Student motivation is

connected with four identified academic and institutional services but strongly effected by

academic and student services. Third, the results of direct relationship of academic and

institutional services on student achievement and loyalty suggest that all academic and

institutional services positively and significantly affect the student achievement and student

loyalty but academic and administrative services strongly affect the student success and

retention.

Suggestion for future research

This is the first time a research on student motivation and satisfaction has been conducted

in Lahore region, the number of respondents was approximately 400 students. A lot of

information was gathered from the respondents with respect to their opinions on services

which can affect student satisfaction and motivation. This research was more specific on

students’ satisfaction and motivation and their mediating role between academic and

institutional services and student success and loyalty. It is the first research to be conducted

in Lahore region, and in order to have more information on this topic it is best, that this

research should be continued and thus a further research should be conducted on students’

level of motivation and level of satisfaction in Pakistan.

References: Aldridge, Sue, & Rowley, Jennifer. (2001). Conducting a withdrawal survey. Quality in Higher

Education, 7(1), 55-63. Babbie, Earl. (2012). The practice of social research: CengageBrain. com. Babbie, Earl R. (1990). Survey research methods (Vol. 2): Wadsworth Publishing Company Belmont,

CA. Berry, Leonard L. (1995). Relationship marketing of services—growing interest, emerging

perspectives. Journal of the Academy of marketing science, 23(4), 236-245. Brokaw, AJ, Kennedy, WA, & Merz, TE. (2004). Explaining student satisfaction. Journal of Business

Education, 5, 10-20. Campbell, Todd, Medina-Jerez, William, Erdogan, Ibrahim, & Zhang, Danhui. (2010). Exploring

science teachers’ attitudes and knowledge about environmental education in three international teaching communities. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 5(1), 3-29.

Carey, Karen, Cambiano, Reneé L, & De Vore, Jack B. (2002). Student to faculty satisfaction at a Midwestern university in the United States. Paper presented at the The 25th HERSDA Annual Conference.

Cole, James S, & Denzine, Gypsy M. (2002). Comparing the academic engagement of American Indian and white college students. Journal of American Indian Education, 41(1), 19-34.

Cresswell, John W. (2003). Research design. Qualitative and Quantitative approaches. Creswell, John W, & Clark, Vicki L Plano. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research:

Wiley Online Library. Dana, Susan W, Brown, F William, & Dodd, Nancy G. (2001). Student perception of teaching

effectiveness: A preliminary study of the effects of professors' transformational and contingent reward leadership behaviors. Journal of Business Education, 2, 53-70.

DeBourgh, Gregory A. (2003). Predictors of student satisfaction in distance-delivered graduate nursing courses: what matters most? Journal of Professional Nursing, 19(3), 149-163.

DeShields Jr, Oscar W, Kara, Ali, & Kaynak, Erdener. (2005). Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: applying Herzberg's two-services theory. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(2), 128-139.

Dill, David D. (2007). Will market competition assure academic quality? An analysis of the UK and US experience Quality assurance in higher education (pp. 47-72): Springer.

Elliott, Kevin M, & Shin, Dooyoung. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(2), 197-209.

Fraenkel, Jack. R, & Wallen, Norman E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education: McGraw-Hill.

FRASER, SIMON. (1999). Globalization and education: a critical view of post-secondary education for the millennium. Simon Fraser University.

Gould-Williams, Julian, & Davies, Fiona. (2005). Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of HRM practice on employee outcomes: An analysis of public sector workers. Public Management Review, 7(1), 1-24.

Green, Diana, Brannigan, Chris, Mazelan, Patti, & Giles, Lesley. (1994). Measuring student satisfaction: A method of improving the quality of the student’s experience. The student experience, 100-107.

Green, Wendy. (2010). The UQ teaching fellowship scheme: supporting emerging leaders in teaching and learning. Creating Excellence in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Ezine: Our Teachers, our Stories(2).

Gurpinar, Erol, Alimoglu, Mustafa Kemal, Mamakli, Sumer, & Aktekin, Mehmet. (2010). Can learning style predict student satisfaction with different instruction methods and academic achievement in medical education? Advances in Physiology Education, 34(4), 192-196.

Haque, HMJ, Das, D, & Farjana, R. (2011). Satisfaction of Student Services in Tertiary Level: Perspective Bangladesh. European Journal of Social Science, 19(2).

Helgesen, Øyvind, & Nesset, Erik. (2007). What accounts for students' loyalty? Some field study evidence. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(2), 126-143.

Hines, Constance V, Cruickshank, Donald R, & Kennedy, John J. (1985). Teacher clarity and its relationship to student achievement and satisfaction. American educational research journal, 22(1), 87-99.

Hinton, Perry, Brownlow, Charlotte, & McMurray, Isabella. (2004). SPSS explained: Routledge. Hom, Williard. (2002). Applying customer satisfaction theory to community college planning of

student services. IJournal, Sacramento, 2. Hultsch, David F, MacDonald, Stuart WS, Hunter, Michael A, Maitland, Scott B, & Dixon, Roger A.

(2002). Sampling and generalisability in developmental research: Comparison of random and convenience samples of older adults. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(4), 345-359.

Ilias, Azleen Ilias, Hasan, Hishamuddin Fitri Abu, & Rahman, Rahida Abd. (2009). Student Satisfaction and Service Quality: Any Differences in Demographic Servicess? International Business Research, 1(4), P131.

Keaveney, Susan M, & Young, Clifford E. (1997). The student satisfaction and retention model (SSRM). University of Colorado, Denver, CO, working paper.

Kotler, Philip, & Clarke, Roberta N. (2012). Marketing for health care organizations: New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1987.

Kotler, Philip, & Fox, Karen FA. (1995). Strategic marketing for educational institutions. Lazar, Mariana, Weinstein, David M, Tsuruda, Jay S, Hasan, Khader M, Arfanakis, Konstantinos,

Meyerand, M Elizabeth, . . . Field, Aaron. (2003). White matter tractography using diffusion tensor deflection. Human brain mapping, 18(4), 306-321.

LeBlanc, Gaston, & Nguyen, Nha. (1997). Searching for excellence in business education: an exploratory study of customer impressions of service quality. International Journal of Educational Management, 11(2), 72-79.

LS, Tabachnick BG Fidell. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York Harper Collins College Publishers.

Mamun, Muhammad Z. (2000). Total quality management of the non-government universities in Bangladesh. Paper presented at the Management of Innovation and Technology, 2000. ICMIT 2000. Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE International Conference on.

Mont, Oksana, & Plepys, Andrius. (2003). Customer satisfaction: review of literature and application to the product-service systems. International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund University, Lund.

Mouton, Johann, & Babbie, Earl. (2001). The practice of social research. Cape Town: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Oliver, Richard L, & DeSarbo, Wayne S. (1988). Response determinants in satisfaction judgments. Journal of consumer research, 495-507.

Ostroff, Cheri. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational level analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 77(6), 963.

Palacio, Asunción Beerli, Meneses, Gonzalo Díaz, & Pérez, Pedro J Pérez. (2002). The configuration of the university image and its relationship with the satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 486-505.

Petruzzellis, Luca, D'Uggento, Angela Maria, & Romanazzi, Salvatore. (2006). Student satisfaction and quality of service in Italian universities. Managing Service Quality, 16(4), 349-364.

Roos, Inger. (2011). The motivation and satisfaction of the students towards MBA at Karlstad University.

Sherry, Carol, Bhat, Ravi, Beaver, Bob, & Ling, Anthony. (2004). Students as customers: The expectations and perceptions of local and international students. Paper presented at the HERDSA Conference.

Siegel, Richard M, Frederiksen, John K, Zacharias, David A, Chan, Francis Ka-Ming, Johnson, Michele, Lynch, David, . . . Lenardo, Michael J. (2000). Fas preassociation required for apoptosis signaling and dominant inhibition by pathogenic mutations. Science, 288(5475), 2354-2357.

Solinas, Giuliana, Masia, Maria Dolores, Maida, Giorgio, & Muresu, Elena. (2012). What Really Affects Student Satisfaction? An Assessment of Quality through a University-Wide Student Survey. Creative Education, 3(1), 37-40.

Spreng, Richard A, MacKenzie, Scott B, & Olshavsky, Richard W. (1996). A reexamination of the determinants of consumer satisfaction. The Journal of Marketing, 15-32.

Stevens, James. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences: Taylor & Francis US. Swan, Karen. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design servicess affecting student satisfaction and

perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance education, 22(2), 306-331. Ten Eyck, Raymond P, Tews, Matthew, & Ballester, John M. (2009). Improved medical student

satisfaction and test performance with a simulation-based emergency medicine curriculum: a randomized controlled trial. Annals of emergency medicine, 54(5), 684-691.

Thomas, Emily H, & Galambos, Nora. (2004). What satisfies students? Mining student-opinion data with regression and decision tree analysis. Research in Higher Education, 45(3), 251-269.

Tinto, Vincent. (1982). Limits of theory and practice in student attrition. The journal of higher education, 687-700.

Treasure, Darren C, & Robert, Glyn C. (2001). Students' perceptions of the motivational climate, achievement beliefs, and satisfaction in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72(2), 165-175.

Wiers-Jenssen, J, & Stensaker, B Grøgaard. JB (2002). Student satisfaction towards and empirical deconstruction of the concept. Quality in Higher Education, 21(8), 183-196.

Williams, James. (2002). The student satisfaction approach: student feedback and its potential role in quality assessment and enhancement. Paper presented at the 24th EAIR Forum.

Witowski, Lisa L. (2008). The Relationship Between Instructional Delivery Methods and Student Learning Preferences: What Contributes to Student Satisfaction in an Online Learning Environment? : ProQuest.

DeShields Jr, Oscar W, Kara, Ali, & Kaynak, Erdener. (2005). Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: applying Herzberg's two-services theory. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(2), 128-139.

Gurpinar, Erol, Alimoglu, Mustafa Kemal, Mamakli, Sumer, & Aktekin, Mehmet. (2010). Can learning style predict student satisfaction with different instruction methods and academic achievement in medical education? Advances in Physiology Education, 34(4), 192-196.

Haque, HMJ, Das, D, & Farjana, R. (2011). Satisfaction of Student Services in Tertiary Level: Perspective Bangladesh. European Journal of Social Science, 19(2).

Hinton, Perry, Brownlow, Charlotte, & McMurray, Isabella. (2004). SPSS explained: Routledge. Ilias, Azleen Ilias, Hasan, Hishamuddin Fitri Abu, & Rahman, Rahida Abd. (2009). Student Satisfaction

and Service Quality: Any Differences in Demographic Servicess? International Business Research, 1(4), P131.

Mont, Oksana, & Plepys, Andrius. (2003). Customer satisfaction: review of literature and application to the product-service systems. International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund University, Lund.

Oliver, Richard L, & DeSarbo, Wayne S. (1988). Response determinants in satisfaction judgments. Journal of consumer research, 495-507.

Spreng, Richard A, MacKenzie, Scott B, & Olshavsky, Richard W. (1996). A reexamination of the determinants of consumer satisfaction. The Journal of Marketing, 15-32.

STUDENT SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE

BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR STUDENT’S SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE

Name Of The Student: (Optional )

Gender

o Male

o Female

Age

o 15-20

o 20-24

o 25+

Name of program in which you enrolled:

Semester:

GPA:

Name of institution: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At time of enrollment, I select institute by choice:-----------------------------------------------------------

Years of studying: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My previous academic percentage: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

My current grade level: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Father education: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mother education: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Father occupation: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. of sister and brother: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement using the scale

provided.

1 = strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = strongly disagree

Academic Services 1 2 3 4 5

Quality of teaching is good

Teacher is very clear in his or her concept (related to subject)

Teacher use appropriate teaching methodologies to make his or her

module interesting

My curriculum is according to the market needs

Faculty is usually available after class and during office hours.

Administrative Services

Administrative staff is friendly and helpful

Administrative policies are student friendly

Administration provides in time information

Access to administrative authorities is easy

Campus Environment Services

Library facility is available to student

I am satisfied with overall cleanliness

Computer lab and internet facility available to student

Seminars and conferences are held on regular basis

Student Related Services

I attend the classes regularly

My relationship with my teacher is good

I come to campus for knowledge seeking

I always keep handbook with me in the class

Student Satisfaction

I really enjoy studying in this institution

Overall I am satisfied with my institution

Student Motivation

I am very motivated in my present institution

My institutions reputation motivate me

Student Achievement

I have got merit scholarship

My critical thinking and problem solving sense has been improved

Student Loyalty

I will complete my degree from this institute

I recommend my friends to take admission in this university

My institute develop my somatic and mental well being

Sense of belonging and being welcomed by the institution has been

improved