Summary of Doctor of Business Administration thesis: A study of factors affecting student outcomes in Vietnamese pedagogical tertiary institutions

INTRODUCTION 3) In which level do those factors affect the quality of student outcomes in Vietnamese pedagogical tertiary institutions? Rationale of the study

1.

4) What considerations that Vietnamese pedagogical tertiary institutions should take to improve quality of student outcomes? The subjects and scope of the study

3.

3.1. The subjects 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.

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). 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.

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.

Objectives of the study and research questions

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. 2.1. The objectives of the study Research methodologies

4.

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. 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: The contributions of the study

5.

5.1. Theoretical contributions (1) developing a theoretical model for researching the factors affecting the quality of student outcomes in 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. (2) assessing the impact of factors on the quality of student outcomes in Vietnamese pedagogical tertiary institutions.

(3) proposing and suggesting policies to improve the quality of student outcomes in Vietnamese pedagogical tertiary institutions. 2.2. Research questions (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); To achieve the objectives, the study aims to answer the following questions:

(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; 1) Which model is suitable for studying the impact of factors on the quality of student outcomes in Vietnamese tertiary institutions? 2) What factors affect the quality of student outcomes in Vietnamese tertiary institutions?

ii

Chapter I: LITERATURE REVIEW ON FACTORS AFFECTING QUALITY OF STUDENT OUTCOMES (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. I.1. Literature reviews on factors affecting quality of student outcomes 5.2. Practical contributions

(i) The study provides education managers with the reality of the quality of student outcomes and the influential factors. 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 (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.

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.

4 iii

Chapter II: THEORETICAL BASIS AND RESEARCH MODEL TO MEASURE II.2.3. Theory of service quality and training quality evaluation II.2.3.1. Service quality model by Gronroos (1984) THE EFFECTS OF FACTORS ON THE QUALITY OF STUDENT OUTCOMES IN PEDAGOGICAL TERTIARY INSTITUTIONS II.2.3.2. Service quality model by Parasuraman et al. (1988) II.1. Higher education and Pedagogical Tertiary Institutions II.2.3.3. Service quality model by Cronin and Taylor (1992) II.1.1. Concepts and objectives of higher education II.2.3.4. 5-aspect service quality model of SEAMEO (1999) II.2.3.5. Model of evaluating training outcomes by Kirkpatrick (1975) II.2.3.6. Model of measuring service quality of higher education created by Abdullah (2006) 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.2.3.7. COACTIV model of teacher professional competence II.1.2. Tertiary institutions and their roles in completing higher education objectives II.3. Quality of student outcomes in pedagogical tertiary institutions II.1.2.1. Concepts and categories of institutions II.3.1. Concept of Quality of student outcomes in pedagogical tertiary institutions

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. 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. II.1.2.2. The roles of institutions in completing higher education objectives II.3.2. Factors comprising pedagogical student outcomes 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 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. Pedagogical tertiary institutions are places to train individuals who participate in the career of training people, contributing to training human resources for society. II.4. Models and hypotheses II.1.3.2. The activity of pedagogical tertiary institutions II.4.1. Referenced models II.4.1.1. Le Ngoc Thang (2017) research model 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. Quality and Quality of Higher education Le Ngoc Thang (2017) tested the HEdPERF scale created by Abullah (2006b) in the Vietnamese tertiary education context. II.2.1. Concepts of quality and service quality II.4.1.2. Varana and co. Research model (2015)

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. 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 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 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.

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 Additional services have a positive impact on professional competence and pedagogy 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). Chapter III: METHODOLOGY III.1. Research design

Training program

Teaching staff

Professional competence and pedagogy

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. Qualitative methodology III.2.

Facilities

III.2.1. Objectives

Values, beliefs and goals

Learning support

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.

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 II.4.3. Hypotheses 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. III.3. Variables and scales Table 2.1 Summarises the study hypotheses

Hypotheses Hypothesis expression 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. H1 Preliminary quantitative research III.4. H2 III.4.1. Questionnaire design H3

H4 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. H5 III.4.2. Preliminary quantitative research results H6 H7

H8

H9 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

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 7

Official qualitative research III.5. Chapter IV: FINDINGS The reality of training and quality in pedagogical tertiary institutions IV.1. III.5.1. Selecting and sampling IV.1.1. Training size

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

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. 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.1.2. Training programs III.5.3. Data analysis

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. 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. 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.

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

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 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 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 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). The impacts of factors to students’ professional values, beliefs IV.2.5.3. and goals

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) 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) IV.2.5. Results of correlation and regression analysis IV.2.5.1. The correlation analysis of dependent and independent Table 4.1 Estimated results of the regression coefficients with the dependent variable NT_YT variables

Unstandardised coefficients Standardised coefficients Multi-collinearity statistics Analysing variables t Sig. Analysing variables B Beta B Beta VIF Zero- order 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. (Constant) CTDT .685 .081 Standard errors .302 .062 .071 2.268 .024 1.310 .191 .263 .074 Standard errors .062 .767 1.305 IV.2.5.2. The impact of factors to student professional competence and pedagogy 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 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 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. Unstandardised coefficients Standardised coefficients Multi-collinearity statistics Analysing variables

t Sig.

Analysing variables

B

Beta

B

Beta VIF

-.842

Standard errors .213

Zero- order

Standard errors

.000

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).

(Constant)

CTDT GV

.156 .279

.044 .049

.131 .243

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

.115 .186

.767 1.305 .588 1.700

11 12

IV.2.6. Linear structure model results IV.2.6.1. The results of the Affirmative factors analysis

(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). 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. Table 4.2 The estimated results of the relationship between the factors IV.2.6.2. Linear structure model results Correlation

NH DV NH 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).

GV

NT_YT <--- NT_YT <--- NL_NV <--- NT_YT <--- CTDT NT_YT <--- CSVC NT_YT <--- NL_NV <--- CSVC NL_NV <--- CTDT NL_NV <--- NL_NV <--- DV GV 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 *** *** 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.

Figure 4.4. The results analysing the impact of factors on the quality of student outcomes

14 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

Recommendations based on the findings of factors affecting student Chapter V: DISCUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVING THE V.2. outcomes in Vietnamese pedagogical tertiary institutions QUALITY OF STUDENT OUTCOMES IN VIETNAMESE PEDAGOGICAL TERTIARY INSTITUTIONS V.1. Discussions Following are recommendations and solutions based on the results of analysing factors affecting the quality of student outcomes in Vietnamese tertiary institutions: V.1.1. Discussions of the current situation of training activities 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.

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. Fourthly, pedagogical universities may take consideration to improve the quality of learning support and additional services.

V.1.2. Discussions of the findings on measuring factors affecting the quality of student outcomes in Vietnamese pedagogical tertiary institutions In addition, in order to improve the quality of education services and the quality of student outcomes, Vietnamese pedagogical tertiary institutions may consider to:

(i) develop a model, professional, responsible and friendly pedagogical environment which is learner-centred, (ii) combine training with scientific research, theory with practice, 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). (iii) develop both learners’ physical and mental characteristics, and (iv) engage with society by discovering and proposing solutions to education problems. Limitations of the study and Recommendations for further studies V.3.

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). 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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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 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