• Abstract

    Improving the quality of student graduates is paramount for enhancing the prestige and standing of universities. This study aims to identify the factors influencing the quality of student graduates from pedagogical universities in Vietnam. A questionnaire was used to survey 318 lecturers and alumni. Structural equation modeling analysis revealed that the support team factor exerted the strongest impact on students' pedagogical competency and professional awareness, followed by the enhanced services and faculty team factors. While the training program variable had a weak effect on students' professional awareness, the infrastructure factor also had a weak influence; however, the training program did not affect pedagogical competency. Notably, students' professional awareness positively correlated with pedagogical competency. Drawing from these results, this study proposes several solutions to improve the quality of knowledge among student graduates from pedagogical universities in Vietnam.

  • References

    1. Abdullah, F. (2006). The development of HEdPERF: a new measuring instrument of service quality for the higher education sector. International journal of consumer studies, 30(6), 569-581.
    2. Alam, R., & Islam, R. (2022). Determinants of Academic Performance of the Students of Public Universities in Bangladesh. Athens Journal of Education, 9(4), 641-653.
    3. Akareem, H. S., & Hossain, S. S. (2016). Determinants of education quality: what makes students’ perception different?. Open review of educational research, 3(1), 52-67.
    4. Arnon, S., & Reichel, N. (2007). Who is the ideal teacher? Am I? Similarity and difference in perception of students of education regarding the qualities of a good teacher and of their own qualities as teachers. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 13(5), 441-464.
    5. Ali, N., Jusoff, K., Ali, S., Mokhtar, N., & Salamat, A. S. A. (2009). The factors influencing students' performance at Universiti Teknologi MARA Kedah, Malaysia. Management Science and Engineering, 3(4), 81-90.
    6. Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2013). The COACTIV model of teachers’ professional competence. In Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers: Results from the COACTIV project (pp. 25-48). Boston, MA: Springer US.
    7. Douglas, J., Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university. Quality assurance in education, 14(3), 251-267.
    8. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European business review, 31(1), 2-24.
    9. Hanssen, T. E. S., & Solvoll, G. (2015). The importance of university facilities for student satisfaction at a Norwegian University. Facilities, 33(13/14), 744-759.
    10. Hiep, H. D., Phong, N. X., & Van, V. H. (2020). Change the methods of higher education: necessity, barriers difficulties and solution. Journal of Natural Remedies, 21(8-1), 150-162.
    11. Ingvarson, L., Beavis, A., & Kleinhenz, E. (2007). Factors affecting the impact of teacher education programmes on teacher preparedness: Implications for accreditation policy. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(4), 351-381.
    12. Kassaw, C., & Demareva, V. (2023). Determinants of academic achievement among higher education student found in low resource setting, A systematic review. Plos one, 18(11), e0294585.
    13. Kärnä, S., & Julin, P. (2015). A framework for measuring student and staff satisfaction with university campus facilities. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(1), 47-66.
    14. Logan, R. M., Johnson, C. E., & Worsham, J. W. (2021). Development of an e-learning module to facilitate student learning and outcomes. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 16(2), 139-142.
    15. Mappadang, A., Khusaini, K., Sinaga, M., & Elizabeth, E. (2022). Academic interest determines the academic performance of undergraduate accounting students: Multinomial logit evidence. Cogent Business & Management, 9(1), 2101326.
    16. Martirosyan, N. (2015). An examination of factors contributing to student satisfaction in Armenian higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(2), 177-191.
    17. Mohamed, A. A., Dahie, A. M., & Warsame, A. A. (2018). Factors affecting student academic performance: Case study from University of Somalia in Mogadishu-Somalia. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 23(3), 73-80.
    18. Nadiri, H., Kandampully, J., & Hussain, K. (2009). Students' perceptions of service quality in higher education. Total Quality Management, 20(5), 523-535.
    19. Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. . (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
    20. Ozcan, M. (2021). Factors affecting students’ academic achievement according to the teachers’ opinion. Education Reform Journal, 6(1), 1-18.
    21. Shahjahan, M., Ahmed, K. R., Al Hadrami, A., Islam, M. R., Hossain, S., & Khan, M. S. (2021). Factors influencing poor academic performance among urban university students in Bangladesh. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(4), 1140-1148.
    22. Suhaily, L., & Soelasih, Y. (2015). Factors Affecting Student Achievement in Faculty of Economics" X" University. The Winners, 16(1), 25-35.
    23. Weerasinghe, I. M. S., & Fernando, R. L. S. I. (2018). Critical factors affecting students’ satisfaction with higher education in Sri Lanka. Quality Assurance in Education, 26(1), 115-130.
    24. Weerasinghe, I. M. S., & Dedunu, H. (2017). University Staff, Image and Students' Satisfaction in Selected Regional Universities in Sri Lanka. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), 19(5), 34-37.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2024 The Authors

How to cite

Quynh, V. T. N., Tuan, P. M., Van, L. H., & Nhien, N. (2024). Factors affecting the quality of graduates from pedagogical Universities in Vietnam. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 7(9), 2024215. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2024215
  • Article viewed - 225
  • PDF downloaded - 118