https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9284-9826
Figures
Abstract
Student loyalty generally refers to the formed bond between the student and a university. This relationship between a university and its students proves essential in a university’s success in the competitive field of higher education institutions. The aim of this study was to determine the factors affecting students’ loyalty among high school students to pursue their college or higher education in their current universities by utilizing Self-Determination Theory and Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. A total of 1224 high school students voluntarily participated and answered an online questionnaire that consist of 80 questions. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) showed that competency had the highest direct significant effect on perceived behavioral control which subsequently led to student satisfaction, followed by relatedness and empathy. In addition, student satisfaction had the highest direct effect significant effect on student loyalty, followed by university image and effectiveness. Interestingly, university ranking, programs offered, and kinship patronage also had significant indirect effects on student loyalty. This new framework may be a theoretical foundation for universities to enhance student loyalty and student recruitment. Considering students as customers, the satisfaction of students would result in an increase in the application which would present an increase in population, sales, marketability, and profitability of the university.
Citation: Ong AKS, Prasetyo YT, Dangaran VCC, Gudez MAD, Juanier JIM, Paulite GAD, et al. (2023) Determination of loyalty among high school students to retain in the same university for higher education: An integration of Self-Determination Theory and Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. PLoS ONE 18(11): e0286185. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286185
Editor: Xin Shen, Shanghai Ocean University, CHINA
Received: January 8, 2022; Accepted: May 10, 2023; Published: November 8, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Ong et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The data presented in this study can be downloaded in https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Determination_of_Loyalty_among_High_School_Students_to_Retain_in_the_Same_University_for_Higher_Education_xlsx/21441711
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
Student loyalty generally refers to the formed bond between the student and an institution. This bond reflects the sense of belongingness felt by the students toward their university [1]. Due to the established relationship, student loyalty may result in various forms of support in institutional endeavors such as the intention to continue their studies. Likewise, student loyalty extends to former students of an institution and is exhibited in terms of providing financial assistance to a university. This relationship between an institution and its students proves essential to a university’s success in the competitive field of higher education institutions.
Contemporary studies demonstrate the importance of student loyalty in higher education institutions. Jones et al. [2] stated that loyal students tend to have a firm commitment to their institutions, resulting in retention despite presentable options and opportunities. Mesta [3] described student loyalty as a critical aspect in navigating competition between universities that interprets loyalty as the foundation of positive word-of-mouth that attracts prospective students. Loyalty reflected from other studies [4–7] is defined as the students’ pursuance and objective feeling when it comes to choosing their current institution for higher education, choosing the institution despite available choices, and talking to others to consider the current institution. Thus, insight into student loyalty is essential to university development and stability. This research situates itself in the increasing field of student loyalty studies, specializing in determining high school students intentions in pursuing collegiate studies at their current university.
The trends in focus on student loyalty have proven essential in various parts of the world. In Asia, higher education universities are challenged in recruiting more students amid the opportunities for senior high school students [8]. Countries in Europe also conducted studies regarding the management of student loyalty to benefit from the modern competitive market [9]. In the global field, international students choose universities by evaluating course programs and locations amplifying the competition between universities. These obstacles resulted in various efforts of universities around the world in addressing student loyalty, retention, and recruitment, such as treating students as customers of higher education universities.
The efforts conducted by universities in understanding student loyalty allow the determination of its antecedents. Chandra et al. [10] discussed that service quality, university image, and student satisfaction were used as latent variables. Likewise, Giner and Rillo [4] stated that satisfaction was used as one of the main factors of loyalty. Although several studies have demonstrated the application of student loyalty [10, 11], most were only focused on either college students or prospective students of a university. A significant gap can be drawn in the field of student loyalty among high school students, particularly their intention to stay in the same university for college or higher education. This intention of pursuing higher education in their current university can be discussed using different theories such as the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) [12–14].
Although multiple studies have incorporated SDT and TPB in the educational sector [15], there are limited discussion and identified factors affecting the intentions of high school students to continue their higher education in the same university. Al-Jubari et al. [16] conducted a study on the entrepreneurial intention of university students in Malaysia. The study confirmed the positive effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation towards intention. However, the researchers suggested that both motivations vary from person to person. This resulted in differences in intention, particularly satisfaction and frustration. Chandra et al. [10] proposed several factors in determining the student loyalty of Indonesian university students. The research considered satisfaction, service quality, and image as the primary antecedent of loyalty. Results showed a significant and direct relationship between satisfaction and image to loyalty, while service quality revealed no significant correlation with loyalty. A study of Chilean private school students by Gallegos and Vasquez [11] demonstrated the relational effect of commitment, trust, and satisfaction on student loyalty. The researchers discussed the linear formation of loyalty that develops from satisfaction, then continues to trust and commitment that culminates in loyalty. Despite the comprehensive description of loyalty formation, the study only focused on the affective factors of loyalty and did not acknowledge the implications of physical or procedural attributes of a university. Therefore, this paper argues that a complete understanding of loyalty can be formed through the lenses of satisfaction as the behavioral attribute and university image as the physical characteristics of a university, both affecting student loyalty.
A reoccurring theme is evident among the discussed studies involving SDT, TPB, satisfaction, and university image. It could be seen that there is limited research and understanding of factors affecting high school student retention and loyalty in pursuing higher education in the same university. This gap instigated the aim of this study in determining factors affecting students’ loyalty among high school students to pursue higher education in their current institutions. Consequently, the created framework of this study could be used in determining student loyalty to secondary and tertiary institutions. The relationships between the variables in this research may also be applied in fields beyond education, where customer loyalty is the primary focus. Considering students as customers, the satisfaction of students would result in herd application. The increase in the application would result in an increase in population, sales, marketability, and profitability for the university.
2. Theoretical research framework
Presented in Table 1 are the built hypotheses which are described in the succeeding section. There were 15 hypotheses built from the integrated framework of SDT and extended TPB to measure student loyalty with university image and satisfaction as its primary variables. SDT is a theory specializing in human motivation, intentions, and general behavior. This framework has been used in measuring students’ intrinsic motives such as autonomy, competency, and relatedness [13, 17]. Several studies have incorporated SDT in the educational field. Hobson and Maxwell [18] utilized SDT to evaluate the well-being of early secondary school teachers. The results supported the interconnectedness of the three latent variables. Moreover, Kaur et al. [19] used SDT to determine student drop-out intentions. The study found the significant effects of autonomy, perceived motivation, and perceived competency on the drop-out intention of students. Similar to the other studies, the research mentioned the importance of the three dimensions of SDT and implied that the fulfilment of the three psychological needs results in greater motivation among students. In further determining human behavioral intentions, Webb et al. [12] integrated SDT with TPB.
The TPB is a theory used to predict human behavior. TPB specializes in determining the intention to perform a specific action [14, 20, 21]. TPB describes human behavior as the outcome of a rational thought process. Under TPB, the overall intention to pursue a goal is predicted by the different latent constructs of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control [22]. Educational sector applications of TPB, such as pro-environmental behavior of high school students [23], the adaptation of mobile devices to courses [24], and mobile distance learning [25], provide insight on intentions of students. These distinct behavioral characteristics are measured primarily through perceived behavioral control, which includes both feeling and perception of controllability of an action [16]. From the description and applications of the theory, TPB proves applicable in the field of student intention of pursuing higher education in the same university [26].
Economic values, especially TF, are factors that consequently affect the overall development of UI. Similarly, admission or entry requirements affect university image formation [27, 28]. In the study of Palacio et al. [29], one of the factors that affected UI was the ease of university entrance. In addition, UI consists of the subjective viewpoints of students about the quality of the programs and the university’s social and physical environment [30]. The PO are evaluated factors of UI assessed by students, and it determines the overall value within the market [26]. Therefore, the following were hypothesized:
H1. Tuition fee has a significant direct effect on university image.
H2. The admission process has a significant direct effect on university image.
H3. The programs offered have a significant direct effect on university image.
SF and the physical environment of an institution generally affect UI [27]. According to Luque-Martinez and Del Barrio-Garcis [31], SF such as furnishing, physical space, computer equipment, and other technological facilities influence the UI. Thus, the measurement of school facilities affects student satisfaction with university’s image. Several studies also included FP as a determiner of an institution’s image, defining FP as the summation of attitudes and behavior of those in charge of the university [30, 32]. Therefore, the following were hypothesized:
H4. School facility has a significant direct effect on university image.
H5. Faculty profile has a significant direct effect on university image.
Loyal alumni can support the university through finances or recommendations to future students since any kind of positive word of mouth about a university significantly affects its general image [33]. Recommendations by the alumni of an institution impact the profitability and overall success of the university [1]. Studies showed that most students follow or consider their parental advice when choosing a university [34]. Thus, students favor their KP or their parents’ collegiate institutions when selecting a university. Aside from KP, UR positively affects the UI [28, 35]. Therefore, the following were hypothesized:
H6. Kinship patronage has a significant direct effect on university image.
H7. University ranking has a significant direct effect on university image.
According to Nguyen and LeBlanc [36], image influences customer loyalty. Applying in the context of higher education institutions, Wilkins and Huisman [37] demonstrated the influence of opinions gathered from personal relationships and media on the choice of institution and retention of students. Chandra et al. [10] determined that image positively and significantly impacts SS and SL. Therefore, this was hypothesized:
H8. University image has a significant direct effect on student loyalty.
Customer loyalty is the long-term relationship between the service provider and the service receiver. Since higher education is a form of service, its students act as the core customers [26]. Consequently, loyalty involves AF and CO traits [2]. AF traits describe emotions, whereas CO traits describe people’s judgment and thought processes [38]. Therefore, this was hypothesized:
H9. Affective has a significant direct effect on student loyalty.
The belief in carrying a behavior depends on whether people consider themselves to have sufficient resources and opportunities and when they feel liberty in making decisions to use presumed resources and opportunities [39]. Yzer [39] described perceived competency as the degree of students that enables their PBC. Sibthorp et al. [40] defined AU as a student’s belief in having control over their choices within the institution. Furthermore, both CO and AU constructs established PBC [22]. Therefore, the following were hypothesized:
H10. Autonomy has a significant direct effect on university image.
H11. Relatedness has a significant direct effect on university image.
H12. Competency has a significant direct effect on university image.
Service settings, such as higher education universities provide interactions with their customers. Such interactions may depict levels of courtesy through EM that may resonate with the receiver, resulting in changes in satisfaction and consumer intentions [41]. According to Aggarwal et al. [42], staff empathy towards its customers acts as a positive trait that can build long-term trust and satisfaction, leading to loyalty. Moreover, institutional empathy also provides insight into the specific part of human emotion that leads to motivation. Therefore, this was hypothesized:
H13. Empathy has a significant effect on perceived behavioral control.
PBC influences the satisfaction process, where is the most important in predicting a student’s future options [43]. Several studies also support the positive effect of perceived control on satisfaction [44, 45]. The relationship between SS and SL was evident in multiple studies [8, 46]. Consequently, Khadka and Maharjan [47] found that satisfied students are more loyal to their universities than those who are dissatisfied. Therefore, the following were hypothesized:
H14. Perceived behavioral control has a significant effect on student satisfaction.
H15. Satisfaction has a significant effect on student loyalty.
Fig 1 represents the theoretical research framework of the study. This study considered different latent for university images such as tuition fee (TF), admission process (AP), programs offered (PO), school facility (SF), faculty profile (FP), kinship patronage, and university ranking [48]. For satisfaction, this research considered the perceived behavioral control (PBC) under the TPB as latent [44, 45]. Lastly, autonomy (AU), competency (CO), relatedness (RE), and empathy (EM) were considered antecedents for the PBC latent [16, 49].
3. Methodology
This study was approved by Mapua University Research Ethics Committee. Each respondent was instructed to fill out a consent from which followed the Data Privacy Act or Republic Act No. 10173 in the Philippines. In addition, each respondent was also informed clearly about the purpose of the study prior to the data collection and was required to sign the consent form.
3.1. Participants
The questionnaires were disseminated virtually using Google forms. The distribution of the survey forms started from March 20 to March 29, 2021, using convenience sampling methods [50]. A total of 1224 high school students from Grades 9–12, aged between 14–20 years old responded to the online questionnaire voluntarily. All of the respondents that were collected came from the capital of the country and are studying in institutions from the capital, all of which are from private institution that offers higher education. Upon checking the respondents using SPSS 25, no missing data were seen. In addition, normality test using Shapiro-Wilks presented a quotient within the range of ±1.96 which indicates that the data is normally distributed [51]. In addition, the analysis using Harman’s Single Factor Test for Common Method Bias (CMB) was conducted. With threshold of 50%, the collected data presented a result of 25.16% which indicates no CMB [52].
Table 2 represents the descriptive statistics of the demographics among the respondents. Among the 1224 respondents, 50.7% were male and 48.8% were female. Majority of them come from ages 17 and 18 years old, 44.9% and 35.7% respectively. Most of the students were in Grade 11, 49.2% and Grade 12, 46.2%. Lastly, the monthly salary of more than 75,000 PHP with 7%, 13.5% with less than 15,000 PHP, 14.6% with 15,000–45,000 PHP, 16.1% with 30,000–45,000 PHP, 16.1% with 45,000–60,000 PHP, and 34.6% with 60,000–75,000 PHP were seen. The salary of parents according to the study by Basaluddin et al. [53] affects students’ higher education institutions. It was seen that when parents’ salary is in the lower bracket, then institutions with lower tuition fees will be more favorable. In this case, it was seen that most of the parents are capable to choose whichever university in the Philippines with a higher monthly salary.
3.2. Questionnaire
Following the theoretical framework (Fig 1), constructs were adapted as seen in Table 3 to form a self-administered questionnaire to determine students’ university loyalty and its antecedents: institutional image and student satisfaction. The questionnaire consisted of eighteen sections: (1) Consent of the respondents (2) Demographic Profile of the respondents, (3) SL, (4) TF, (5) AP, (6) PO, (7) SF, (8) FP, (9) KP, (10) IR, (11) UI, (12) AF, (13) AU, (14) RE, (15) CO, (16) EM, (17) PBC, and (18) SS. A 5-point Likert scale was utilized to measure all the latent constructs measuring using the SEM. Prior to the distribution of questionnaire, a pre-test with the Ethical Committee of Mapua University assessed the questionnaire (FM-RC-21-75). In addition, a preliminary assessment for the overall acceptability of the questionnaire was administered with 100 respondents, showing a Cronbach’s alpha value greater than 0.70. Thus, the questionnaire was fully utilized and distributed.
3.3 Structural Equation Modelling
AMOS 26 and SPSS 25 were utilized in this study to calculate SEM. SEM is an advanced statistical tool that calculates the causal relationship among the different constructs in a framework [63]. SEM specializes in different disciplines such as behavioral and social sciences with its theory incorporation capability through quantitative measures [64]. Thus, this study utilized SEM in measuring high school student retention intentions in the same university for college or higher education by integrating the Extended TPB and SDT.
4. Results
Fig 2 represents the initial SEM with indicators for determining the causal relationship between the latent variables affecting high school students’ retention intentions in the same university for college. It could be seen that TF, AP, SF, FP, and AU were not significant. Following the suggestion of Hair [63], removing the non-significant latent (p-value < 0.05) and constructs (< 0.5) could be done to enhance the model fit of this study. Fig 3 represents the final SEM with the significant latent constructs affecting high school students’ retention intentions for the same university for college.
Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics of the initial and final SEM factor loading for determining the factors affecting high school students’ retention intentions in the same university for college. In addition, Table 5 presents the composite reliability, which displays the validity among the different constructs together with their latent. The values of Cronbach’s alpha and Composite Reliability were above the minimum acceptable range of 0.700 [63]. Moreover, the values of the Average Shared Variance (AVE) were lower than the accepted value of 0.500 indicating consistency among the constructs [63].
Table 6 presents the model fit of the study. Following the suggestion of Gefen et al. [65], the values for the Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), and Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) should be more than 0.80. In addition, the Root Mean Square Error (RMSEA) should be less than 0.70 [66]. This study satisfies all conditions, which indicates that all the values are acceptable and have a good fit. Finally, Table 7 represents the direct, indirect, and total effects of the latent.
5. Discussion
This study integrated the TPB and SDT to determine factors affecting student loyalty. The researchers distributed an online survey to understand the relationship of loyalty with its antecedent variables. Consequently, Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was utilized to determine the causal relationship among latent such as SL, UI, TF, AP, PO, SF, FP, KP, UR, SS, PBC, AU, RE, CO, EM, and AF. SEM indicated the formed direct and indirect relationship between the latent affecting overall student loyalty towards a university. Loyalty in this study is defined as the students’ pursuance and objective feeling when it comes to choosing their current institution for higher education, choosing the institution despite available choices, and talking to others to consider the current institution.
Presented in Table 8 are the summarized results for the different hypotheses created. It could be deduced that 10 out of 15 hypotheses were accepted. Several implications on why Hypotheses 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10 were insignificant. These were discussed in the following sections.
Results showed that CO had the highest significant direct effect on PBC (β:0.620; p = 0.003). This result may be attributed to the students’ university preferences which depend on the perceived success of the behavior. It could be interpreted that competency reflects the students’ formulated decisions in line with the future benefits of their actions. This correlation signifies that the higher the procurement of CO, the stronger the perceptions of PBC [67]. Thus, reaching a specific degree of competency will enable a student to execute behavioral control [39].
Based on the results, UR had a significant and direct effect on UI (β:0.598; p = 0.013). University performance, student-to-staff ratio, awards, citations, and general perception of the school fall under the UR indicators. In this study, students’ perception of UI is highly affected by the perceived university ranking of their school. Lukman et al. [68] mentioned that universities are extensively compared to one another based on research outputs, student-to-staff ratio, citation scores, and scientific publications. Moreover, the university’s research performance and citation scores also directly affect the UI, reflecting on the methodologies of various university-ranking publications.
The SEM indicated that SS had significant direct effects on SL (β:0.514; p = 0.009). The results showed that students’ general satisfaction with their university influences their loyalty and retention, supported by several similar studies with a positive correlation between the two variables (Amnå, 2021) [69]. Thus, this relationship implies that improving various aspects of the institution, such as facilities, equipment, and academic quality, will improve satisfaction leading to student loyalty. To further establish the result, Chandra et al. [10] stated that offering good service quality alone would not improve SL, but it should be accompanied by evaluating SS.
Moreover, PBC was seen to have a significant and direct effect on SS (β:0.447; p = 0.006). The indicators of PBC regarding the overall autonomy, control, and capability within an institution impact SS, implying that a student’s perception of how much they have control over a situation regarding their universities will directly influence their satisfaction. In addition, several studies have shown similar results, indicating that PBC has a positive correlation with satisfaction [26].
The results also indicated a significant direct influence of UI on SL (β:0.424; p = 0.007). The SEM results presented that students’ overall view of the university, the university’s level of prestige, and the recommendations of acquaintances were positively correlated with loyalty and retention towards a university. The activities accomplished by a university affect its projected image toward potential students. This relation indicates that the failure of universities to project a positive image toward students will lead to a decline in SL [70]. Furthermore, Daud et al. [71] indicated a positive influence between UI and SL, stating that activities that lead to a better impression of the university will give students higher retention levels, giving students assurance that they chose the right university.
PO and KP had significant and direct effects on UI with (β:0.265; p = 0.010) and (β:0.178; p = 0.011), respectively. The latent PO showed that students’ perceptions affected the UI as they prefer institutions with practical programs, high-quality education, and diverse opportunities. Kazoleas et al. [72] stated that institutional factors, such as the PO significantly affect UI, supporting the discussed result. Similarly, KP demonstrated the influence of alumni and parental recommendation in decision-making for institutional retention intentions, ultimately also positively affecting UI. Several studies expressed this correlation stating the parental influence in choosing universities [33].
AF had a significant and direct effect on SL (β:0.192; p = 0.008). From the results, students’ experience of belongingness to the school community contributes to the positive effect of loyalty. In addition, students who feel proud of studying at their university are likely to show loyalty by supporting the university. Therefore, students’ positive affection, such as belongingness, identification, pride, and willingness, affect loyalty towards their university. This is supported by several studies indicating that affective perceptions result in loyalty outcomes such as the recommendation to prospective students, retention intentions, and support to university endeavors [73, 74].
In addition, the SEM indicated that RE and EM had significant direct effects on PBC (β:0.157; p = 0.005) and (β:0.124; p = 0.012). The results showed that the influence, encouragement, and support of family, friends, classmates, and teachers on the student’s decision affect students’ PBC. The connection and sense of belongingness of the student to the institution also influence the student’s PBC. Park et al. [75] showed that relatedness positively affects the PBC as relatedness affects a person’s decision. Similarly, EM indicates the school’s concern towards students’ individual needs regarding inquiries, organization, and convenience to the welfare of students. The indicators such as influence, encouragement, and support of family, friends, classmates, and teachers signify that EM has an impact on PBC. De Leeuw et al. [23] supported this result, stating that universities with higher empathy responded positively to all TPB measures, including PBC.
Regarding the indirect correlations, CO had the highest indirect effect on SS (β:0.230; p = 0.009). Under SDT, CO is essential in forming an individual’s satisfaction [76]. Similarly, Teixeira et al. [77] incorporated SDT with TPB and found the mediating role of PBC within the relationship between CO and SS. Moreover, Sopiah et al. [78] stated that CO has a significant indirect effect on SS. Therefore, CO indirectly affects satisfaction through PBC as a mediator. Meanwhile, SEM indicated that UR had significant indirect effects on SL (β:0.204, p = 0.003). Hasan and Hosen [79] mentioned external prestige, specifically UR SL. This study shows that the student’s perception of UR influences SL through UI as the mediator.
From the results, PBC (β:0.190; p = 0.002) and CO had significant indirect effects on SL (β:0.114; p = 0.005). Nguyen and Khoa [80] support the indirect effect of perceived PBC in SL, suggesting the presence of a mediating variable. Thus, in this study, PBC and CO indirectly influence SL through satisfaction as the mediator.
5.1 Theoretical contribution
Overall, the formed framework of this study indicates a significant relationship between the latent constructs, which culminates in the formation of SL. The integration of SDT and TPB in this study revealed the influence of their various constructs on SL. As seen from the results, CO under the SDT had the highest direct relationship affecting PBC under the TPB. This indicates that students’ perception of their ability is the most significant factor that affects the intention of the behaviour among other factors. This correlation extends itself in the linear progression of competency towards SS and SL. The integration of SDT and PBC can be utilized to determine the intention of a person to perform a specific action. Thus, this integrated theoretical framework can be applied by different universities as a reference to measure SS, UI, and SL.
5.2 Practical implications
There are various ways to improve student retention within an academic institution. Considering the results, academic institutions should improve upon the three antecedents of SL, which are UI, AF, and SS. This is because the three antecedents have proven to have a high significant direct effect on student loyalty. Developing and improving these three require considering their antecedents as well. For example, UR was one of the most significant indicators of UI, meaning having a prestigious university will lead to a better external image and therefore lead to student retention. In addition, universities should also maintain their relations with alumni to project a positive perception of the university to potential students. Creating programs that fit the interests of students is also beneficial for improving UI.
Developing a welcoming atmosphere within the university will significantly impact the student belongingness, therefore improving the affective aspect. For example, teachers who deliver their lectures while consistently engaging with the students and assessing their learning will improve the affective aspect. Having approachable university members (university directors and employees) will also give students a sense of belongingness. When ensuring satisfaction, universities may consider encouraging autonomy among students and learning to connect to students through relatedness and empathy. Considering students as customers, the satisfaction of students would result in herd application. The increase in the application would result in an increase in population, sales, marketability, and profitability of the university.
5.3 Limitation
Considering the setup of the current study, several limitations were considered. First, this study focused on senior high school students going to college to pursue higher education. It is recommended to quantify the results of this study with students already in college or higher education. The reason for their choice could result in additional information to promote student retention. Second, the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the subjective measurement of the participants was based on their experiences with the online class setup [81, 82]. Considering the students’ behavior, the current situation influences students’ stress and attitudes toward the new normal education. Therefore, this study can be conducted when the education setup is normalized into face-to-face classes or blended learning. In addition, the consideration of other factors and variables may provide more insights. Since this study adopted several variables from established theories and tried the integration, factors such as motivational aspects may be considered. Finally, this study only considered the students’ perceptions and not their actual experiences in the university. Their preferences may also be considered as an extension of this study to further elaborate on what factors significantly affect the intention of students to stay in the university for their higher education and accurately measure satisfaction and loyalty.
6. Conclusion
SL generally refers to the formed bond between the student and an institution. This relationship between a university and its students proves essential in a university’s success in the competitive field of higher education institutions. The loyalty of students to their university may result in positive word-of-mouth to prospective students, an increase in student retention rates, and support in university endeavors.
The aim of this study was to determine students’ loyalty among high school students to pursue their college or higher education in their current universities by utilizing SDT and Extended TPB. The results showed that CO had the highest direct significant effect on PBC, leading to student loyalty in the same institution, followed by UR, and SS. Furthermore, mediators were identified in this study. First, PBC was found to mediate the effects of CO, RE, and EM on SS. This showed that students’ cognitive ability is the primary reason to choose a university, in line with their self-awareness. Second, UI mediates the effects of UR, PO, and KP on SL. Lastly, SS acts as a mediator between PBC and SL. This showed that having a prestigious university will lead to a better external image and therefore lead to student retention. To which, 10 out of 15 hypotheses were accepted. In addition, universities should also maintain their relations with alumni to project a positive perception of the university to potential students.
The results of this study could be applied in focusing university efforts on specific aspects of university image and satisfaction in targeting student loyalty. Schools may improve the competency of their students through career and college orientations. Thus, an improvement in student competency may result in the development of PBC, SS, and overall loyalty as supported by the result of this study. In addition, universities may focus on enhancing school performance and ranking in the competitive field of higher education institutions. The improvement in UR will directly affect UI and SL.
References
- 1. Nesset E, Helgesen Ø. Modelling and managing student loyalty: A study of a Norwegian university college. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2009;53(4):327–45.
- 2. Jones MA, Reynolds KE, Arnold MJ. Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value: Investigating differential effects on retail outcomes. Journal of business research. 2006;59(9):974–81.
- 3.
Mesta HA, editor The Impact of Satisfaction on Loyalty in Higher Education: The Mediating Role of University’s Brand Image. 2nd Padang International Conference on Education, Economics, Business and Accounting (PICEEBA-2 2018); 2019: Atlantis Press.
- 4. Giner GR, Rillo AP. Structural equation modeling of co-creation and its influence on the student’s satisfaction and loyalty towards university. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics. 2016;291:257–63.
- 5. Helgesen Ø, Nesset E. What accounts for students’ loyalty? Some field study evidence. International Journal of Educational Management. 2007;21(2):126–43.
- 6. Snijders I, Wijnia L, Rikers RM, Loyens SM. Building bridges in higher education: Student-faculty relationship quality, student engagement, and student loyalty. International Journal of Educational Research. 2020;100:101538.
- 7. Paul R, Pradhan S. Achieving student satisfaction and student loyalty in higher education: A focus on service value dimensions. Services Marketing Quarterly. 2019;40(3):245–68.
- 8. Chen Y-C. The Impact of Marketing Strategies and Satisfaction on Student Loyalty: A Structural Equation Model Approach. International Education Studies. 2016;9(8):94–104.
- 9. Doña Toledo L, Luque Martínez T. How loyal can a graduate ever be? The influence of motivation and employment on student loyalty. Studies in Higher Education. 2020;45(2):353–74.
- 10. Chandra T, Hafni L, Chandra S, Purwati AA, Chandra J. The influence of service quality, university image on student satisfaction and student loyalty. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 2019.
- 11. Gallegos JA, Vasquez A. Explaining university student loyalty: theory, method, and empirical research in Chile. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración. 2019;32(4):525–40.
- 12. Webb D, Soutar GN, Mazzarol T, Saldaris P. Self-determination theory and consumer behavioural change: Evidence from a household energy-saving behaviour study. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2013;35:59–66.
- 13. Gilal FG, Zhang J, Paul J, Gilal NG. The role of self-determination theory in marketing science: An integrative review and agenda for research. European Management Journal. 2019;37(1):29–44.
- 14. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies. 2020;2(4):314–24.
- 15. Feng X, Helms-Lorenz M, Maulana R, Jansen EP. Dutch beginning teachers’ intrinsic orientation for the profession: Measurement and consistency during the first year. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2021;70:101059.
- 16. Al-Jubari I, Hassan A, Liñán F. Entrepreneurial intention among University students in Malaysia: integrating self-determination theory and the theory of planned behavior. International entrepreneurship and management journal. 2019;15:1323–42.
- 17. Mills DJ, Milyavskaya M, Mettler J, Heath NL. Exploring the pull and push underlying problem video game use: A Self-Determination Theory approach. Personality and Individual Differences. 2018;135:176–81.
- 18. Hobson AJ, Maxwell B. Supporting and inhibiting the well‐being of early career secondary school teachers: Extending self‐determination theory. British Educational Research Journal. 2017;43(1):168–91.
- 19. Kaur A, Hang BTT, Nur AHB. A self-determination theory based motivational model on intentions to drop out of vocational schools in Vietnam. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction. 2017;14(1):1–21.
- 20. Hendy NT, Montargot N. Understanding Academic dishonesty among business school students in France using the theory of planned behavior. The International Journal of Management Education. 2019;17(1):85–93.
- 21. Lechuga Sancho MP, Martín-Navarro A, Ramos-Rodríguez AR. Will they end up doing what they like? the moderating role of the attitude towards entrepreneurship in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions. Studies in Higher Education. 2020;45(2):416–33.
- 22.
Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach: Taylor & Francis; 2011.
- 23. De Leeuw A, Valois P, Ajzen I, Schmidt P. Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-school students: Implications for educational interventions. Journal of environmental psychology. 2015;42:128–38.
- 24. Cheon J, Lee S, Crooks SM, Song J. An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers & education. 2012;59(3):1054–64.
- 25. Prasetyo YT, Ong AKS, Concepcion GKF, Navata FMB, Robles RAV, Tomagos IJT, et al. Determining factors Affecting acceptance of e-learning platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic: Integrating Extended technology Acceptance model and DeLone & Mclean is success model. Sustainability. 2021;13(15):8365.
- 26. Ong AKS, Prasetyo YT, Pinugu JNJ, Chuenyindee T, Chin J, Nadlifatin R. Determining factors influencing students’ future intentions to enroll in chemistry-related courses: Integrating self-determination theory and theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Science Education. 2022;44(4):556–78.
- 27. Alcaide-Pulido P, Alves H, Gutiérrez-Villar B. Development of a model to analyze HEI image: A case based on a private and a public university. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. 2017;27(2):162–87.
- 28. Wilkins S, Huisman J. Factors affecting university image formation among prospective higher education students: The case of international branch campuses. Studies in higher education. 2015;40(7):1256–72.
- 29. Palacio AB, Meneses GD, Pérez PJP. The configuration of the university image and its relationship with the satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational administration. 2002.
- 30. Abdul Gafoor K, Muhammed Ashraf P. Contextual influences on sources of academic self-efficacy: A validation with secondary school students of Kerala. Asia Pacific Education Review. 2012;13:607–16.
- 31. Luque-Martínez T, Barrio-García SD. Modelling university image: The teaching staff viewpoint. Public Relations Review. 2009;35:325–7.
- 32. Duarte PO, Alves HB, Raposo MB. Understanding university image: A structural equation model approach. International review on public and nonprofit marketing. 2010;7:21–36.
- 33. Dehghan A, Dugger J, Dobrzykowski D, Balazs A. The antecedents of student loyalty in online programs. International journal of educational management. 2014.
- 34. Proboyo A, Soedarsono R. Influential factors in choosing higher education institution: A case study of a private university in Surabaya. Jurnal Manajemen Pemasaran. 2015;9(1):1–7.
- 35. Sung M, Yang S-U. Toward the model of university image: The influence of brand personality, external prestige, and reputation. Journal of public relations research. 2008;20(4):357–76.
- 36. Nguyen N, LeBlanc G. Image and reputation of higher education institutions in students’ retention decisions. International journal of educational management. 2001;15(6):303–11.
- 37. Wilkins S, Huisman J. Student evaluation of university image attractiveness and its impact on student attachment to international branch campuses. Journal of studies in international education. 2013;17(5):607–23.
- 38. Martin D, O’neill M, Hubbard S, Palmer A. The role of emotion in explaining consumer satisfaction and future behavioural intention. Journal of Services Marketing. 2008;22(3):224–36.
- 39. Yzer M. Perceived behavioral control in reasoned action theory: A dual-aspect interpretation. The annals of the American academy of political and social science. 2012;640(1):101–17.
- 40. Sibthorp J, Paisley K, Gookin J, Furman N. The pedagogic value of student autonomy in adventure education. Journal of Experiential Education. 2008;31(2):136–51.
- 41. Wieseke J, Geigenmüller A, Kraus F. On the role of empathy in customer-employee interactions. Journal of service research. 2012;15(3):316–31.
- 42. Aggarwal P, Castleberry SB, Ridnour R, Shepherd CD. Salesperson empathy and listening: Impact on relationship outcomes. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 2005;13(3):16–31.
- 43. de Quadros-Wander Sd, McGillivray J, Broadbent J. The influence of perceived control on subjective wellbeing in later life. Social indicators research. 2014;115:999–1010.
- 44. Fu X, Juan Z. Understanding public transit use behavior: integration of the theory of planned behavior and the customer satisfaction theory. Transportation. 2017;44(5):1021–42.
- 45. Pacheco NA, Lunardo R, Santos CPd. A perceived-control based model to understanding the effects of co-production on satisfaction. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review. 2013;10:219–38.
- 46. Kao Y-F, Huang L-S, Wu C-H. Effects of theatrical elements on experiential quality and loyalty intentions for theme parks. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research. 2008;13(2):163–74.
- 47. Khadka K, Maharjan S. Customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. Centria University of Applied Sciences Pietarsaari. 2017;1(10):58–64.
- 48. Bringula RP, Basa RS. Institutional image indicators of three Universities: basis for attracting prospective entrants. Educational Research for Policy and Practice. 2011;10:53–72.
- 49. Itani OS, Inyang AE. The effects of empathy and listening of salespeople on relationship quality in the retail banking industry: The moderating role of felt stress. International Journal of Bank Marketing. 2015.
- 50. Chang MLD, Suki NM, Nalini A. A structural approach on students’ satisfaction level with university cafeteria. Asian Social Science. 2014;10(18):202.
- 51. Ong AKS. A machine learning ensemble approach for predicting factors affecting STEM students’ future intention to enroll in chemistry-related courses. Sustainability. 2022;14(23):16041.
- 52. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology. 2003;88(5):879. pmid:14516251
- 53. Basaluddin KA. Economic Implications of Senior High School to Parents in Southern Philippines: A Rural-Urban Perspective. Open Access Indonesia Journal of Social Sciences. 2021;4(3):309–26.
- 54. Lindheimer III JB. The College Persistence Questionnaire: Developing scales to assess student retention and institutional effectiveness. Unpublished master’s thesis Appalachian State University, Boone, NC. 2011.
- 55.
IvyWise. IvyWise Results: Congratulations to the Class of 2017!: ivywise.com; 2017. Available from: https://www.ivywise.com/ivywise-knowledgebase/resources/article/ivywise-results-congratulations-to-the-class-of-2017/.
- 56. Teeroovengadum V, Kamalanabhan T, Seebaluck AK. Measuring service quality in higher education: Development of a hierarchical model (HESQUAL). Quality Assurance in Education. 2016.
- 57. Teeroovengadum V, Nunkoo R, Gronroos C, Kamalanabhan T, Seebaluck AK. Higher education service quality, student satisfaction and loyalty: Validating the HESQUAL scale and testing an improved structural model. Quality assurance in education. 2019;27(4):427–45.
- 58. Schlesinger W, Cervera A, Pérez-Cabañero C. Sticking with your university: The importance of satisfaction, trust, image, and shared values. Studies in Higher Education. 2017;42(12):2178–94.
- 59. Encinas Orozco FC, Cavazos Arroyo J. Students’ loyalty in higher education: the roles of affective commitment, service co-creation and engagement. Cuadernos de Administración (Universidad del Valle). 2017;33(57):96–110.
- 60. Annamdevula S, Bellamkonda RS. The effects of service quality on student loyalty: the mediating role of student satisfaction. Journal of Modelling in Management. 2016;11(2):446–62.
- 61. Izogo EE, Ogba I-E. Service quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty in automobile repair services sector. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. 2015.
- 62. Shin YH, Hancer M. The role of attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and moral norm in the intention to purchase local food products. Journal of foodservice business research. 2016;19(4):338–51.
- 63. Hair JF. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective: Pearson; 2010.
- 64. Shaheen F, Ahmad N, Waqas M, Waheed A, Farooq O. Structural equation modeling (SEM) in social sciences & medical research: a guide for improved analysis. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. 2017;7(5):132–43.
- 65. Gefen D, Straub D, Boudreau M-C. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the association for information systems. 2000;4(1):7.
- 66. Steiger JH. Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual differences. 2007;42(5):893–8.
- 67. Daliman D, Sulandari S, Rosyana I. The achievement of entrepreneurship competence and entrepreneurial intentions: Gender role, attitude and perception of entrepreneurship controls mediation. Journal of Social Studies Education Research. 2019;10(4):392–426.
- 68. Lukman R, Krajnc D, Glavič P. University ranking using research, educational and environmental indicators. Journal of cleaner production. 2010;18(7):619–28.
- 69. Amnå E. (2021). The personal, the professional, and the political: An intertwined perspective on the IEA Civic Education Studies. Influences of the IEA Civic and Citizenship Education Studies, 1, 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71102-3_16
- 70.
Yusof N, Zaini BJ, Mansor R, editors. A study on factors influencing student loyalty towards higher learning institution. AIP Conference Proceedings; 2019: AIP Publishing LLC.
- 71. Daud YR, bin Mohd Amin MR, bin Abdul Karim J. Antecedents of Student Loyalty in Open and Distance Learning Institutions: An Empirical Analysis. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2020;21(3):18–40.
- 72. Kazoleas D, Kim Y, Anne Moffitt M. Institutional image: a case study. Corporate Communications: an international journal. 2001;6(4):205–16.
- 73. Bowden JL-H. Engaging the student as a customer: A relationship marketing approach. Marketing education review. 2011;21(3):211–28.
- 74. Vander Schee BA. Students as consumers: Programming for brand loyalty. Services Marketing Quarterly. 2010;32(1):32–43.
- 75. Park S-U, Lee CG, Kim D-K, Park J-H, Jang D-J. A developmental model for predicting sport participation among female Korean college students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(14):5010. pmid:32664696
- 76. Tarigan ZJH, Sutapa IN, Mochtar J, Suprapto W. Measuring teachers’ competency in determining students’ satisfaction through electronic internet survey method. International Journal of Information and Education Technology (IJIET). 2019;9(3):236–40.
- 77. Teixeira PJ, Marques MM, Silva MN, Brunet J, Duda JL, Haerens L, et al. A classification of motivation and behavior change techniques used in self-determination theory-based interventions in health contexts. Motivation science. 2020;6(4):438.
- 78.
Sopiah S, Wilujeng IP, Murdiono A, Sangadji EM, editors. The Role of Perceived Teaching Quality as Mediator Variable That Affects Student Satisfaction. International Conference on Learning Innovation 2019 (ICLI 2019); 2020: Atlantis Press.
- 79. Hasan M, Hosen MZ. University Service Quality: The Impact of Student Satisfaction and Loyalty in Public Universities of Bangladesh. International Journal of Asian Education. 2020;1(3):135–46.
- 80. NGUYEN MH, KHOA BT. Customer electronic loyalty towards online business: The role of online trust, perceived mental benefits and hedonic value. Journal of Distribution Science. 2019;17(12):81–93.
- 81. Chesniak OM, Drane D, Young C, Hokanson SC, Goldberg BB. Theory of change models deepen online learning evaluation. Evaluation and program planning. 2021;88:101945. pmid:33894476
- 82. Nuncio RV, Arcinas MM, Lucas RIG, Alontaga JVQ, Neri SGT, Carpena JM. An E-learning outreach program for public schools: Findings and lessons learned based on a pilot program in Makati City and Cabuyao City, Laguna, Philippines. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2020;82:101846. pmid:32717681