Nghiên cứu các nhân tố ảnh hưởng đến chất lượng đầu ra sinh viên các trường đại học sư phạm việt nam tt tiếng anh

INTRODUCTION

1.

Rationale of the study

There have been many studies focusing on clarifying the nature as well as proposing models for
measuring the quality of different types of services such as tourism, health care, sales, etc. ...
Contrary to other fields, measurement of service quality in the higher education sector is still
relatively new. To measure the service quality of higher education, Abdullah (2006b) created
the HEdPERF scale, comprising 41 service performance items and grouped into six dimensions.
Improving the quality of student outcomes is particularly important in determining
competitiveness, as well as the rank of the tertiary institutions. However, by using higher
education service quality scales in HEdPERF or SERVQUAL, SERVPERF models, the current
research mainly focuses on the influence of these scales on student satisfaction. Little work has
gone into depth about the impact of the factors measuring the service quality in higher education
sector regarding student outcomes. Baumert and Kunter (2013) proposed a COACTIV model
that evaluates teacher competencies that integrate the theory of professional quality with
competency studies. In the COACTIV model, employability is considered as a result of the
interaction of: (1) Professional knowledge (competency in the narrow sense: knowledge and
skills), (2) Professional values, beliefs and goals, (3) Motivational orientations, (4) Professional
self-regulation skills.

3) In which level do those factors affect the quality of student outcomes in Vietnamese
pedagogical tertiary institutions?
4) What considerations that Vietnamese pedagogical tertiary institutions should take to improve
quality of student outcomes?

3.

The subjects and scope of the study

3.1.

The subjects of the study

The study subject is the influence of factors on the quality of student outcomes in pedagogical
tertiary institutions.
3.2.

The scope of the study

The study limits the research scope as follows:
- Content: the study focuses on identifying factors affecting the quality of student outcomes in
pedagogical tertiary institutions on the basis of inheriting and adjusting the quality scale for
higher education service (HEdPERF) created by Abdullah (2006), the COACTIV on
professional competence proposed by Baumert and Kunter (2013).

From such issues, the study “A study of factors affecting student outcomes in Vietnamese
pedagogical tertiary institutions” is significantly important to promote the quality of student
outcomes in Vietnamese pedagogical tertiary institutions.

- Space: The study was conducted in Vietnam. In particular, the survey is conducted in major
pedagogical tertiary institutions, including Hanoi University of Education, Hanoi Pedagogical
University No.2, Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, Da Nang University of Education,
Hue University of Education, Thai Nguyen University of Education. In addition, the survey was
also conducted with pedagogical alumni currently working in elementary, junior and senior high
schools in some provinces and cities.

2.

- Time: The secondary data related to the quality of student outcomes in public tertiary

institutions from 2015 to 2018 has been collected and analysed.

Objectives of the study and research questions
2.1.

The objectives of the study

The objective of the study is to develop scales, models and evaluate the impact of factors
affecting the quality of student outcomes in Vietnamese pedagogical tertiary institutions. The
findings of the study will imply policies for pedagogical tertiary institutions to have approaches
in improving the quality of their student outcomes.

4.

Research methodologies

The study was conducted in two main stages: preliminary and official research stages. The
preliminary stage was conducted by preliminary qualitative research methods with in-depth
interviews and preliminary quantitative studies with questionnaires. The official stage was
conducted by quantitative methods based on large samples of questionnaires.

The study aims at:

5.
(1) developing a theoretical model for researching the factors affecting the quality of student
outcomes in pedagogical tertiary institutions.

The contributions of the study
5.1.

Theoretical contributions

(2) assessing the impact of factors on the quality of student outcomes in Vietnamese
pedagogical tertiary institutions.

(i) This study has added to the literature review with the factors affecting the quality of student
outcomes in pedagogical tertiary institutions.

(3) proposing and suggesting policies to improve the quality of student outcomes in Vietnamese
pedagogical tertiary institutions.

(ii) The study has developed a model to study the factors affecting the quality of student
outcomes based on the application and adjustment of the quality of higher education services in
HEdPERF model and COACTIV model on professional competence by Baumert and Kunter
(2013);

2.2.

Research questions

To achieve the objectives, the study aims to answer the following questions:
1) Which model is suitable for studying the impact of factors on the quality of student outcomes
in Vietnamese tertiary institutions?

(iii) The study has tested the proposed model in the context of Vietnamese pedagogical
universities on the outcome quality of the pedagogical sector, whilst little research has been
published so far;

2) What factors affect the quality of student outcomes in Vietnamese tertiary institutions?
ii

Chapter I:

(iv) The study has assessed the quality of pedagogical student outcomes from the perspective of
Business Administration in the context of implementing the policy of tertiary institutions’
autonomy, whereby their focus is to provide student training services.
5.2.

Practical contributions

(i) The study provides education managers with the reality of the quality of student outcomes
and the influential factors.
(ii) The study helps to clarify the reality of training activities of Vietnamese tertiary institutions
in general and pedagogical tertiary institutions in particular.
(iii) The findings of the study help Vietnamese pedagogical tertiary institutions grasp the
factors as well as the level of their impact on the quality of student outcomes. Therefore, it may
help pedagogical tertiary institutions have appropriate measures to improve the quality of their
student outcomes.

LITERATURE REVIEW ON FACTORS AFFECTING QUALITY OF
STUDENT OUTCOMES

I.1. Literature reviews on factors affecting quality of student outcomes
The literature review shows that many domestic and international studies have examined the
content as well as the factors affecting the quality in the higher education sector. Factors
measuring the quality in higher education services can be divided into 5 groups: (i) Training
program; (ii) Teaching staff; (iii) Facilities; (iv) Learning support; and (v) Additional services.
I.2. Literature review on criteria of assessing quality of student outcome
Baumert and Kunter (2013) proposed a COACTIV model that evaluates professional

competencies and professional competence models with determinants of specialized knowledge
in a specific teaching context. Accordingly, employability is considered as a result of the
interaction of factors: (1) Professional knowledge (competency in the narrow sense: knowledge
and skills), (2) Professional values and beliefs and goals, (3) Motivational orientations, (4)
Professional self-regulation skills.
I.3. Literature review and the gaps
Firstly, there is little research on the factors affecting student outcomes from a business
administration perspective.
Secondly, little research has measured the impact of the service quality in the higher education
sector on student outcomes in pedagogical tertiary institutions in Vietnam.
Thirdly, no quantitative research has considered the impact of factors on the quality of student
outcomes in Vietnamese pedagogical tertiary institutions.
Fourthly, this study is conducted to assess the factors affecting the quality of student outcomes
in pedagogical tertiary institutions in the context that Vietnam is implementing a comprehensive
renovation of higher education.

iii
4


II.2.3. Theory of service quality and training quality evaluation

Chapter II:
THEORETICAL BASIS AND RESEARCH MODEL TO MEASURE
THE EFFECTS OF FACTORS ON THE QUALITY OF STUDENT OUTCOMES IN
PEDAGOGICAL TERTIARY INSTITUTIONS
II.1.

Higher education and Pedagogical Tertiary Institutions

II.1.1. Concepts and objectives of higher education
There have been a number of concepts regarding higher education. In Vietnam, although there
are no official definitions of higher education, it can be understood that higher education is a
form of educational organization for the post-secondary education level with training levels:
including college level, bachelor degree, Master's degree and Doctoral degree. Higher education
is the period of education that usually takes place at universities, scientific research institutes
within different professional fields, and colleges (Law on Education, 2013).

II.1.2.1.

Tertiary institutions play an important role in implementing higher education objectives
II.1.3. Pedagogical tertiary institutions and their activity
II.1.3.1.

Pedagogical tertiary institutions

Pedagogical tertiary institutions are places to train individuals who participate in the career of
training people, contributing to training human resources for society.
II.1.3.2.

Model of evaluating training outcomes by Kirkpatrick (1975)

COACTIV model of teacher professional competence

Quality of student outcomes in pedagogical tertiary institutions

II.3.2. Factors comprising pedagogical student outcomes

II.4.

Models and hypotheses

II.4.1. Referenced models
II.4.1.1.

Le Ngoc Thang (2017) research model

Le Ngoc Thang (2017) tested the HEdPERF scale created by Abullah (2006b) in the
Vietnamese tertiary education context.
II.4.1.2.

Varana and co. Research model (2015)

Varana et al. (2015) applied and proposed a revised HEdPERF model consisting of 05 groups of
factors: (1) Academic aspects; (2) Facilities; (3) Training program; (4) Staff; and (5) Supporting
services.

II.2.2. Quality of Higher education
The International Higher Education Quality Assurance Organisation Network has defined
quality of higher education, which is: (i) complying with the prescribed standards and (ii)
achieving the set goals. The quality of higher education always changes to meet the needs of
society.

5-aspect service quality model of SEAMEO (1999)

II.2.3.5.

The study used COACTIV model developed by Baumert and Kunter (2013) to evaluate the
teacher professional competence. The model consists of four groups of factors with 14
variables. Those factors are (1) Professional knowledge (competency in the narrow sense:

knowledge and skills), (2) Professional Values and beliefs and goals, (3) Motivational
orientations, and (4) Professional self-regulation skills.

II.2.1. Concepts of quality and service quality
Quality is a very broad and complex term, reflecting a combination of economic, technical and
social issues. Parasuraman et al. (1988) states that the perceived service quality could be
measured through the differences between a service performance and a client’s expectations.

II.2.3.4.

II.3.1. Concept of Quality of student outcomes in pedagogical tertiary institutions

The activity of pedagogical tertiary institutions

Quality and Quality of Higher education

Service quality model by Cronin and Taylor (1992)

The quality of student outcomes is the overall knowledge, skills and attitudes developed in
higher education training, in accordance with the requirements of training human resources for
local and national socio-economic development and in each period of time, ensuring and
meeting the expectations of related stakeholders and the society regarding higher education
human resources’ mentality, intellect and physical strength.

The pedagogical tertiary institutions have the roles of: (i) teacher training; pedagogical training;
(iii) connecting with high schools/ pre-schools; and (iv) doing scientific research.
II.2.

Service quality model by Parasuraman et al. (1988)

II.2.3.3.

II.2.3.7.
II.3.

Concepts and categories of institutions

II.1.2.2.
The roles of institutions in completing higher education
objectives

Service quality model by Gronroos (1984)

II.2.3.2.

II.2.3.6.
Model of measuring service quality of higher education created
by Abdullah (2006)

II.1.2. Tertiary institutions and their roles in completing higher education objectives

Tertiary institutions are educational institutions belonging to the national education system,
which perform the function of training the higher education levels, acting scientific and
technological activities, and serving the community. Public institutions are owned, invested, and
developed by the government.

II.2.3.1.

II.4.1.3.

Nguyen Minh Nha and Nguyen Thi Thanh Thuy (2018) model

Nguyen Minh Nha and Nguyen Thi Thanh Thuy (2018) have developed and tested the influence
of a number of factors on the service quality of Accounting major in Tien Giang University.
II.4.1.4.

COACTIV model of teacher professional competence

Baumert and Kunter (2013) developed a model to evaluate the teacher professional competence
which are demonstrated via four groups of factors with 14 variables.

5

6


II.4.2. Suggested research model

H10

The research model is the inheritance and expansion of scales in HEdPERF model created by
Abdullah (2005) and the COACTIV model developed by Baumert and Kunter (2013).

Additional services have a positive impact on professional competence
and pedagogy
Chapter III:

III.1.

Training program

Teaching staff

Professional competence
and pedagogy

METHODOLOGY

Research design

The research process was conducted in two stages: preliminary and official stages. Preliminary
stage is conducted with qualitative (preliminary) and quantitative (preliminary) methods. Based
on the preliminary quantitative analysis, the revised preliminary questionnaire were used for
official surveys. Data collected after the official survey were aggregated, coded and then
analysed quantitatively. The steps in a linear structure model include: (i) analysis of the
reliability of the scale; (ii) analysis of discovery factors; (iii) affirmation analysis; (iv) analysis
and testing of the regression function. Next, based on the results obtained, the study proposed a
number of recommendations to improve the quality of student outcomes in Vietnamese
pedagogical tertiary institutions.
III.2.

Facilities

Qualitative methodology

III.2.1. Objectives
Values, beliefs and goals

The qualitative method used in this study is to adjust and supplement the impact factors and
constituents of student outcome quality which were developed based on the literature review to

fit Vietnamese context.

Learning support

Additional services

III.2.2. Content of qualitative research
Results obtained from qualitative data helped complete the scale and research model.
III.2.3. Content of qualitative research

Figure 2.10 Model of factors affecting the quality of student outcomes

Based on the feedback from the researched lecturers and literature review, the study has added
the variable "professional values, beliefs and goals" in the official research model.

II.4.3. Hypotheses
Table 2.1
Summarises the study hypotheses
Hypotheses
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
H8
H9
7

III.3.

Hypothesis expression
The training program has a positive impact on professional competence
and pedagogy
The training program has a positive impact on professional values,
beliefs and goals
Teaching staff has a positive impact on professional competence and
pedagogy
Teaching staff has a positive impact on professional values, beliefs and
goals
Facilities have a positive impact on professional competence and
pedagogy
Facilities have a positive impact on professional values, beliefs and goals
Learning support service has a positive impact on professional
competence and pedagogy
Learning support service has a positive impact on professional values,
beliefs and goals
Additional services have a positive impact on professional competence
and pedagogy

Variables and scales

Based on the inheritance of the model of HEdPERF's higher education service quality created
by Abdullah (2006b) and COACTIV model to evaluate teacher professional competence by
Baumert and Kunter (2013), the study has developed a scale of factors affecting and measuring
the quality of pedagogical student outcomes.
III.4.

Preliminary quantitative research

III.4.1. Questionnaire design
The questionnaires consist of two parts. Part 1 consists of questions regarding participants’
general profiles. Part 2 includes scales of factors affecting quality of student outcome in
Vietnamese pedagogical tertiary institutions.
III.4.2. Preliminary quantitative research results
The sample selected in the preliminary quantitative research with the convenient sampling with
the participants are lecturers teaching at Hanoi University of Education and Hanoi Pedagogical
University No.2. Sixty surveys were conducted but only 50 were collected and valid. For
preliminary quantitative research, the reliability analysis of scales using Cronbach's alpha
coefficient was conducted. The results show that the variables CSVC4 (Facilities), NH1
(Learning support), NH19-NH11 are excluded.
8


III.5.

Official qualitative research

Chapter IV:

III.5.1. Selecting and sampling
In this study, the sample was selected based on the clustering sampling method and convenient
sampling at the last sampling unit (cluster). The participants are lecturers and alumni of
pedagogical tertiary institutions who are currently working at educational institutions.
III.5.2. Collecting data
The data collection is conducted via survey questionnaires. The questionnaires are sent directly
to participants or via one lecturer who is working at the researched university. Totally, 321
surveys have been collected to analyse in the official stage.

IV.1.

IV.1.1. Training size
Statistical results of the Ministry of Education and Training show an increase in the size of
universities and colleges (public and non-public) in the period of 2010-2017. The student to
faculty ratio is relatively high. Besides, there is an imbalance between the proportion of students
studying in all majors. The number of students in Group III and IV accounts for 62.7%
compared to the rest. In addition, there is a dispersion in State management of pedagogical
tertiary institutions, which makes it difficult to manage and improve the quality of training.
IV.1.2. Training programs

III.5.3. Data analysis
The thesis used the factor analysis method, with the following steps: (i) Verifying the reliability
of the scale; (ii) Analysing discovery factors; (iii) Analysing Affirmative factors; and (iv)
Analysing Regression.

FINDINGS

The reality of training and quality in pedagogical tertiary institutions

The pedagogical tertiary institutions’ training programs set clear and specific goals, ensuring
flexibility and meeting the diverse learning needs of learners. The training programs are
designed to provide learners with knowledge, skills and essential qualities for teaching jobs.
IV.1.3. Quality of lecturers and graduates
The structure, ratio, number, and quality of lecturers in public tertiary institutions have not yet
met the current and upcoming social expectations.
IV.1.4. Status of facilities
The researched pedagogical tertiary institutions are generally rationally planned, with sufficient
quantities, necessary equipment and resources for teaching and learning.
IV.2.

The results of analysing the factors affecting the quality of student
outcomes in pedagogical tertiary institutions
IV.2.1.

Statistical descriptions of surveyed samples

The surveyed lecturer participants are mainly from Hanoi National University of Education and
Hanoi Pedagogical University No.2; and Ho Chi Minh City University of Education at 17.4%
and 10.6%, respectively. 170 lecturers participated in the survey, at 53%, and 151 alumni
accounting at 47%. A high percentage (82.2%) of the participants had more than 5 years
working in educational sites. Nearly 80% of the participants have postgraduate qualifications.
IV.2.2. The results of the scales’ reliability testing
The value(s) of the remaining variables in the scales is highly reliable with the correlation
coefficient of the total variable is larger than 0.3 and Cronbach's Alpha coefficient is equal or
larger than 0.8 after the removal of inappropriate variables including GV6 (Teaching staff),
GV4, CSVC9 (Facilities), CSVC5, DV9 (Services), DV2, NL_NV8 (Competence - Pedagogy),
NL_NV7.
IV.2.3. Results from the discovery factors analysis
IV.2.3.1. Analysis of discovery factors of dependent variables on the
quality of student outcomes
The EFA analysis indicates a KMO coefficient of 0.887 which is less than 1.0, demonstrating
the suitability of the EFA model; the Bartlett test value is significant for Sig. = 0.000, indicating
that the variables are correlated with respect to the total number of variables. The results of the
EFA analysis showed that two explaining factors indicated 61.921%, which is larger than 50%

9

10

of the variation of the data set. Therefore, the dependent variables in the research model achieve
the convergent and discriminant values.
IV.2.3.2.

Analysis of discovery factors of independent variables

The EFA analysis for the independent variable resulted in a KMO coefficient of 0.995 <1.0, the
Bartlett test value is significant for Sig. = 0.000 indicating that the variables are correlated with
respect to the total number of variables. The results of the EFA analysis showed that five factors
explained 55.955% > 50% of the variation of the data set.
IV.2.4. Testing the means
The study has conducted a mean testing with two groups of lecturer participants and alumni
participants variables (GV_CSV) using the two independent sample testing method (t-test). The
analytical results show that the p-value of the Levene test for the competence-pedagogy
(NL_NV) and values, beliefs and goals (NT_YT) variables are both larger than 0.05, which
makes a conclusion that the 2-sample variance for these variables are not different.
The p-value at the t-test for professional competence – pedagogy (NL_NV) and values, beliefs
and goals variables (NT_YT) is 0.158 and 0.896, respectively (which are larger than 0.05)
demonstrating that groups of lecturers and alumni do not affect the quality of pedagogical
student outcomes from the perspective of competence-pedagogy (NL_NV) and values, beliefs
and goals (NT_YT)
IV.2.5. Results of correlation and regression analysis
IV.2.5.1. The correlation analysis of dependent and independent
variables
The correlation analysis results demonstrate that there is a linear correlation between the
independent and dependent variables because the p-value is less than 5%. In addition, the
Pearson coefficient between these variables is positive, indicating a positive relationship. This
means that the value of the independent variables increases, so does the value of the dependent
variables.
IV.2.5.2. The impact of factors to student professional competence and

pedagogy
Table 4.20 shows that there are five factors affecting the dependent variable professional
competence - pedagogy including training program (CTDT) (at 1% significance level), teaching
staff (GV) (at 1% significance level), facilities (CSVC) (at 5% significance level), learning
support (NH) (at 1% significance level) and services (DV) (at 1% significance level).
Table 4.20
Estimated results of the regression coefficients with the dependent variable NL_NV

Analysing
variables

(Constant)
CTDT
GV

11

Unstandardised Standardised
coefficients
coefficients

Standard
errors
-.842
.213
B

.156
.279

.044
.049

Beta

.131
.243

t

Sig.

Multi-collinearity
statistics

Analysing
variables

ZeroStandard
B
Beta VIF
order
errors

.000
3.962
3.552.000 .486 .196
5.760.000 .652 .309

.115

.186

CSVC
NH
DV

.107
.331
.336

.045
.045
.046

.093
.321
.286

2.395.017 .486 .134
7.300.000 .691 .380
7.326.000 .633 .382

.077
.236
.237

.697 1.436
.540 1.850
.685 1.460

The coefficient of determination R2 adjusted at 0.647 demonstrating that training program
(CTDT), teaching staff (GV), facilities (CSVC), learning support (NH), and services (DV)
variables at 66.5% of the variation of the dependent variable. The VIF value is less than 10 and
Durbin-Watson (1 <1.657 <3) values show that the model does not have multi-collinearity and
there is no superlative autocorrelation between the adjacent errors.
The regression model reflects the impact of the factors on professional competence and
pedagogy (NL_NV) as follows: NL_NV = -0.834 + 0.131 * CTDT + 0.243 * GV + 0.093 *
CSVC + 0.321 * NH + 0.286 * DV. According to this equation, the influence of learning
support on professional competence and pedagogy is the strongest (+0.321), followed by
services (+0.286), teaching staff (+0.243), training program (0.131), and facilities (+0.093).
IV.2.5.3. The impacts of factors to students’ professional values, beliefs
and goals
Table 4.22 shows that there are three factors affecting dependent variable professional values,
beliefs and goals (NT_YT) including teaching staff (GV) and services (DV) (at 5% significance
level) and facilities (CSVC) (at 1% significance level)
Table 4.1
Estimated results of the regression coefficients with the dependent variable NT_YT

Analysing
variables

Unstandardised Standardised
coefficients
coefficients
Standard
B
Beta
errors

t

Sig.

Multi-collinearity Analysing
statistics
variables
ZeroStandard
B
Beta VIF
order
errors

(Constant)
CTDT

.685
.081

.302
.062

.071

2.268 .024
1.310 .191 .263 .074

.062

.767 1.305

GV
CSVC

.172
.413

.069
.063

.154
.369

2.500 .013 .396 .139
6.532 .000 .484 .345

.118
.308

.588 1.700
.697 1.436

NH
DV

-.022
.164

.064
.065

-.022
.143

-.346 .730 .352 -.019
2.518 .012 .351 .140

-.016
.119

.540 1.850
.685 1.460

The coefficient of determination R2 adjusted is equal 0.49 demonstrating that variables teaching
staff, services and facilities at 49% of the variation of the dependent variable values, beliefs, and
goals. The VIF value is less than 10 and the Durbin-Watson (1 <1,895 <3) values show that the
model does not have multi-collinearity and there is no superlative autocorrelation between
adjacent errors.
The regression model reflects the impact of factors on values, beliefs and goals as follows:
NT_YT = 0.685 + 0.154 * GV + 0.369 * CSVC + 0.143 * DV. According to this equation, the
effect of facilities on values, beliefs and goals is the strongest (+0.369), followed by teaching
staff (+0.154), and services (+0.143).

.767 1.305
.588 1.700

12


IV.2.6. Linear structure model results
IV.2.6.1.

The results of the Affirmative factors analysis

The results of CFA analysis in Figure 4.3 show the following conditions: Chi-square / df =
1,349 ≤ 3 with p ≤ 0.05; GFI = 0.862> 0.8, TLI, CFI ≥ 0.9 and RMSEA = 0.033 ≤ 0.05 are all
qualified. As such, the model is considered to be good.
IV.2.6.2.

Linear structure model results

Figure 4.4 shows that the coefficients in the model satisfy the conditions. Specifically, CMIN /
df = 1,371 ≤ 2, GFI = 0.859> 0.8, TLI, CFI ≥ 0.9 and RMSEA = 0.034 ≤0.05. As such, the
model is considered to be good. Table 4.24 illustrates that there are four factors affecting the
dependent variable professional competence and pedagogy (NL_NV), including facilities
(CSVC) (at 5% significance level), teaching staff (GV) (at 1% significance level), learning
support (NH) (at 1% significance level) and services (DV) (at 1% significance level).
Table 4.25 demonstrates that the impacts of learning support on professional competence and
pedagogy is the strongest (0.366), followed by teaching staff (0.309), services (0.280) and
training program (0.1104). In the linear structure model, the impact of facilities on professional
competence and pedagogy is not statistically significant. While facilities have a statistically
significant impact on professional competence and pedagogy in the regression analysis model,
the impact level is not significant. Therefore, the analysis results from the two models are
basically similar.

(DV) (at 10% significance level). The degree of impact of facilities (CSVC) and services (DV)
on values, beliefs and goals (NT_YT) are 0.534 and 0.149, respectively (Table 4.26). The
results also show that the impact of the teaching staff (GV) on values, beliefs and goals
(NT_YT) is not statistically significant. Meanwhile, in the multivariate regression analysis
model, teaching staff (GV) is one of the factors affecting values, beliefs and goals (NT_YT).
Table 4.2

The estimated results of the relationship between the factors
Correlation
NT_YT <--NH
NT_YT <--DV
NL_NV <--NH
NT_YT <--CTDT
NT_YT <--CSVC
NT_YT <--GV
NL_NV <--CSVC
NL_NV <--CTDT
NL_NV <--DV
NL_NV <--GV

Figure 4.4. The results analysing the impact of factors on the quality of student outcomes
The analysis results indicate that there are two factors affecting the dependent variable values,
beliefs and goals (NT_YT), including facilities (CSVC) (at 1% significance level) and services
13

14

Estimation
-.160
.180
.365
.085
.663
.115
.036
.128
.339

.305

Standard deviation
.101
.095
.069
.085
.115
.093
.067
.056
.066
.063

C.R.
-1.583
1.898
5.270
1.008
5.777
1.242
.547
2.283
5.111
4.816

P
.113
.058
***

.314
***
.214
.585
.022
***
***


DISCUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVING THE
Chapter V:
QUALITY OF STUDENT OUTCOMES IN VIETNAMESE PEDAGOGICAL
TERTIARY INSTITUTIONS
V.1.

Discussions

V.1.1. Discussions of the current situation of training activities in Vietnamese
tertiary institutions
The study has investigated the current situation of Vietnamese tertiary institutions in general
and the pedagogical tertiary institutions, in particular. The statistical results show that the
structure, ratio, number, and quality of lecturers in public tertiary institutions have not yet met
the society expectations. There is a dispersion in managements within the pedagogical tertiary
institutions, which makes it difficult to manage and improve the quality of training. Most of the
pedagogical tertiary institutions only focus on short-term training and retraining tasks rather
than research.
V.1.2. Discussions of the findings on measuring factors affecting the quality of
student outcomes in Vietnamese pedagogical tertiary institutions

Recommendations based on the findings of factors affecting student

V.2.
outcomes in Vietnamese pedagogical tertiary institutions
Following are recommendations and solutions based on the results of analysing factors affecting
the quality of student outcomes in Vietnamese tertiary institutions:
Firstly, pedagogical tertiary institutions may take considerations to improve the quality of
training programs.
Secondly, pedagogical universities may take consideration to invest in facilities and learning
materials for teaching and learning.
Thirdly, pedagogical universities may take consideration to improve the quality of teaching
staff.
Fourthly, pedagogical universities may take consideration to improve the quality of learning
support and additional services.
In addition, in order to improve the quality of education services and the quality of student
outcomes, Vietnamese pedagogical tertiary institutions may consider to:

Firstly, the training program (CTDT) has a positive impact on professional competence and
pedagogy (NL_NV) in both models (multivariate regression analysis and linear structure
analysis). However, the impact of training program on student values, beliefs and goals
(NT_YT) is not statistically significant within the researched samples. These findings are
similar to those presented by Farahmandian et al. (2013), Weerasinghe and Fernando (2018).

(i) develop a model, professional, responsible and friendly pedagogical environment which is
learner-centred,

Secondly, the findings show that the teaching staff in pedagogical tertiary institutions have a
positive impact on student professional competence and pedagogy (NL_NV) in both models;
and have a positive impact on values, beliefs and goals (NT_YT) in the multivariate regression
analysis model. These findings are similar to those of Weerasinghe and Dedunu (2017) and of
Yusoff et al. (2015).

(iv) engage with society by discovering and proposing solutions to education problems.

Thirdly, facilities (CSVC) have a positive impact on professional competence and pedagogy
(NL_NV) in the multivariate regression model and have a positive impact on values, beliefs and
goals (NT_YT) in both models. The findings show that facilities are the main factor affecting
student competence and pedagogy. Meanwhile, the impact of facilities on professional
competence and pedagogy is the lowest compared to other factors. According to Mohamed et al.
(2018), Weerasinghe and Fernando (2018) facilities have an important and positive effect on
student academic performance and their satisfaction.
Fourthly, learning support (NH) has a positive impact on professional competence and
pedagogy (NL_NV) in both models. However, the impact of learning support on student values,
beliefs and goals (NT_YT) is not statistically significant within the sample. These findings are
similar to those of Malik et al. (2010), Nadiri et al. (2009), and Elliott and Shin (2002). These
studies state that the quality of administrative and additional services has a positive impact on
the quality of higher education as well as the student satisfaction.

(ii) combine training with scientific research, theory with practice,
(iii) develop both learners’ physical and mental characteristics, and

V.3.

Secondly, the surveyed alumni are those who are teaching at high schools, which prevent the
distribution based on tertiary institutions and from being scale symmetry. Therefore, further
studies may consider the size of lecturers and alumni in pedagogical institutions to obtain more
representative samples.
Thirdly, the study approaches from the perspective of five factors affecting the student
outcomes, including training programs, teaching staff, facilities, learning support, and services.
Further studies may supplement more factors.

Fifth, additional services (DV) have a positive impact but with lower levels than some other

factors on professional competence and pedagogy and values, beliefs and goals (NT_YT) in
both models. These findings are similar to those of Abdullah (2006b) and Baumert and Kunter
(2013) studies.

15

Limitations of the study and Recommendations for further studies

Firstly, this study assessed the reality of training activities, and conducted in some major tertiary
institutions. The evaluation results would be more generalized if it were conducted in all
Vietnamese pedagogical tertiary institutions.

16


CONCLUSIONS
Improving the quality of student outcomes is particularly important to contribute to the
competitiveness, rank and reputation of the tertiary institutions. The results of multivariate
regression analysis indicate (i) five factors affecting the most to dependent variable values,
beliefs and goals (NL_NV) include training program (CTDT), teaching staff (GV), facilities
(CSVC), learning support (NH) and services (DV); in which learning support factor has the
highest impact on professional competence - pedagogy (NL_NV), followed by service, teaching
staff, training program, and facilities; (ii) three factors affecting the dependant factor values,
beliefs and goals (NT_YT), include teaching staff and services and facilities; in which facilities
has the strongest impact on values, beliefs and goals (NT_YT), followed by teaching staff (GV),
and services (DV). The analysis results of linear structure model show that: (i) four factors
affecting the professional competence - pedagogy (NL_NV) dependent variable include training
program (CTDT), teaching staff (GV), learning support (NH) and services (DV). In particular,
the learning support factor most impacted on professional competence - pedagogy (NL_NV),
followed by teaching staff, services and training program; (ii) two factors affecting the

dependent variable values, beliefs and goals (NT_YT) include facilities (CSVC) and services
(DV). The degree of impact of factors facilities (CSVC) and services (DV) on values, beliefs
and goals (NT_YT) are 0.534 and 0.149, respectively.
Based on the findings, the study has proposed a number of recommendations to contribute to
improving the quality of student outcome in Vietnamese pedagogic tertiary institutions,
including: (1) improving the quality of training programs; (2) investing facilities and learning
materials for teaching and learning; (3) improving the quality of teaching staff and (4)
improving the quality of learning support services and additional services. In addition, the
findings also recommend some areas for further research, such as the scope expansion, the study
subjects, as well as further factors in the model.

17