The effect of learner and customer identity on academic performance and student-lecturer relationship

Zuraidah Zainol

QR Code Link :
Type :	article
Subject :	L Education (General)
Main Author :	Zuraidah Zainol
Additional Authors :	Rusliza Yahaya Suzyanty Mohd Shokory Bahijah Abas Azita Yunos
Title :	The effect of learner and customer identity on academic performance and student-lecturer relationship

Place of Production :	Tanjong Malim
Publisher :	Fakulti Pengurusan dan Ekonomi
Year of Publication :	2019
Corporate Name :	Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

Abstract : Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

This study attempts to determine the level of learner and customer identity among Malaysian students, their impact on academic performance (AP) and student-lecturer relationship (SLR) and the differences between students at public and private higher education institutions (HEIs). Methodology: This study adopted a quantitative approach. Data collected from a sample of 400 students was analysed using structural equation modelling (SEM) in AMOS software. Main Findings: The findings reveal a high level of learner identity (LI), but a low level of customer identity (CI). LI has a significant and positive effect on AP and SLR. CI only has a significant and negative effect on AP. All the relationships do not differ significantly across public and private HEIs. Applications of this study: The findings provide useful information and insights to the HEIs on how SAL and SAC identity among students could be exploited so as to enhance educational quality and increase student retention, particularly in Malaysian HEIs, to meet the challenges of IR4. Novelty/Originality of this study: The findings provide fresh insight into the roles of LI and CI in increasing student performance and engaging the student in a stronger SLR, particularly in HEIs. However, this study is still limited by several factors that require replication in future research.

References

1. Achinewhu-Nworgu, E. (2017). Comparing Student Retention in a Public and a Private College: Implications for Tackling Inequality in Education. Bulgarian Comparative Education Society.

2. Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, And Practices (2nd edition ed.). Zurich, Switzerland: Creative Commons Attribution.

3. Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British journal of educational psychology, 71(1), 133-149.

4. Bunce, L., Baird, A., & Jones, S. E. (2017). The student-as-consumer approach in higher education and its effects on academic performance. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 1958-1978.

5. Chepchieng, M. C., Mbugua, S. N., & Kariuki, M. W. (2006). University students perception of lecturer-student relationships: a comparative study of Public and Private Universities in Kenya. Educational Research and Reviews, 1(3), 80-84.

6. Coakes, S. J., & Steed, L. G. (2003). SPSS analysis without anguish: version 11.0 for windows. Queensland: John Wiley & Sons Australia Ltd.

7. Darusalam, G., & Hussin, S. (2016). Metodologi penyelidikan dalam pendidikan. Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Malaya.

8. Everaert, P., Opdecam, E., & Maussen, S. (2017). The relationship between motivation, learning approaches, academic performance and time spent. Accounting Education, 26(1), 78-107. doi: 10.1080/09639284.2016.1274911

9. Farr-Wharton, B., Charles, M. B., Keast, R., Woolcott, G., & Chamberlain, D. (2018). Why lecturers still matter: the impact of lecturer-student exchange on student engagement and intention to leave university prematurely. Higher Education, 75(1), 167-185.

10. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.

11. Gao, S., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Johnston, R. A. (2008). Nonnormality of data in structural equation models. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2082(1), 116-124.

12. Garson, G. D. (2012a). Structural Equation Modeling. Asheboro, NC USA: Statistical Associates Publishing.

13. Garson, G. D. (2012b). Testing Statistical Assumptions. Asheboro, NC USA: Statistical Associates Publishing.

14. Garson, G. D. (2015). Structural Equation Modeling. Asheboro, NC USA: Statistical Associates Publishing.

15. Gokcen, N., Hefferon, K., & Attree, E. (2012). University students constructions offlourishingin British higher education: An inductive content analysis. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(1).

16. Guilbault, M. (2016). Students as customers in higher education: reframing the debate. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 26(2), 132-142. doi: 10.1080/08841241.2016.1245234

17. Guilbault, M. (2018). Students as customers in higher education: The (controversial) debate needs to end. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 40, 295-298.

18. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: A global perspective (7th edition ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.

19. Hasan, L. M., & Masri, R. (2015). Factors Influence the Satisfaction of International Students at Private Universities in Malaysia. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 4(8), 136-142.

20. Hasnor, H. N., Ahmad, Z., & Nordin, N. (2013). The relationship between learning approaches and academic achievement among Intec students, Uitm Shah Alam. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 178-186.

21. Herrmann, K. J., Bager-Elsborg, A., & McCune, V. (2017). Investigating the relationships between approaches to learning, learner identities and academic achievement in higher education. Higher Education, 74(3), 385-400.

22. Higher Education Sector MOE. (2016). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025 (Higher Education). Retrieved from https://www.mohe.gov.my/en/download/awam/penerbitan/pppm-2015-2025-pt/5-malaysia-education-blueprint-2015-2025-higher-education/file

23. Hill, Y., Lomas, L., & MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education. Quality assurance in education, 11(1), 15-20.

24. Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading Statistics and Research (6th edition ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc

25. Huda, M., Sabani, N., Shahrill, M., Jasmi, K. A., Basiron, B., & Mustari, M. I. (2017). Empowering Learning Culture as Student Identity Construction in Higher Education Student Culture and Identity in Higher Education (pp. 160-179): IGI Global.

26. Ibrahim, N. L. M., Arip, M. A. S. M., & Bistamam, M. N. (2015). Terjemahan, Kesahan dan Kebolehpercayan Career Thoughts Inventory. Sains Humanika, 7(1).

27. Jabbar, A., Analoui, B., Kong, K., & Mirza, M. (2017). Consumerisation in UK higher education business schools: higher fees, greater stress and debatable outcomes. Higher Education, 1-16.

28. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd edition ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

29. Koris, R., Örtenblad, A., Kerem, K., & Ojala, T. (2015). Student-customer orientation at a higher education institution: the perspective of undergraduate business students. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 25(1), 29-44. doi:10.1080/08841241.2014.972486

30. Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Ang, S. H., Tan, C. T., Yau, O. H.-M., & Leong, S. M. (Eds.). (2017). Principles of Marketing: An Asian Perspective (4th ed.). UK: Pearson Education Limited.

31. Kurt, S. Ü. (2018). Assessment of Student–Lecturer Relationship in Public Relations Postgraduate Education in Turkey. Erciyes ?leti?im Dergisi, 5(4), 465-477.

32. Lesnik-Oberstein, K. (2015). Let UK universities do what they do best–teaching and research. The Guardian, Letters.

33. Luo, M. N., Stiffler, D., & Will, J. (2017). The long-term outcomes of graduates’ satisfaction: Do public and private college education make a difference? Journal of Global Education and Research, 1(1), 9-15.

34. MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Common Method Bias in Marketing: Causes, Mechanisms, and Procedural Remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88(4), 542-555. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.001

35. Maldaon, I., & Hazzi, O. (2015). A Pilot Study: Vital Methodological Issues. Verslas: teorija ir praktika(1), 53-62.

36. Malhotra, N. K. (Ed.). (2009). Basic Marketing Research: A decision making approach (3rd edition ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

37. Maxwell-Stuart, R., & Huisman, J. (2018). An exploratory study of student engagement at transnational education initiatives: Proactive or apathetic? International Journal of Educational Management, 32(2), 298-309. doi: doi:10.1108/IJEM-03-2017-0059

38. McCulloch, A. (2009). The student as co-producer: learning from public administration about the student–university relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 34(2), 171-183.

39. McMillan, J. J., & Cheney, G. (1996). The student as consumer: The implications and limitations of a metaphor. Communication Education, 45(1), 1-15.

40. Ministry of Higher Education. (2016). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015 2025 (Higher Education). Retrieved from https://www.mohe.gov.my/muatturun/awam/penerbitan/pppm-2015-2025-pt/5-malaysia-education-blueprint-2015-2025-higher-education

41. Molesworth, M., Nixon, E., & Scullion, R. (2009). Having, being and higher education: the marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in higher Education, 14(3), 277-287. doi: 10.1080/13562510902898841

42. Morais, D. B., Dorsch, M. J., & Backman, S. J. (2004). Can Tourism Providers Buy their Customers’ Loyalty? Examining the Influence of Customer-Provider Investments on Loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 42(3), 235-243. doi: 10.1177/0047287503258832

43. Nixon, E., Scullion, R., & Hearn, R. (2018). Her majesty the student: marketised higher education and the narcissistic (dis) satisfactions of the student-consumer. Studies in Higher Education, 43(6), 927-943.

44. Pa, N. A. N. (2014). Penghasilan disertasi berkualiti dalam pendidikan matematik. Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Malaya.

45. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows (3rd Edition ed.). New York: Open University Press.

46. Pathan, S. K., Mahesar, H. A., & Shah, S. (2017). The Impact Of Student Consumerism Metaphor On Higher Education Students: A Critical Review Of Literature. Grassroots, 50(3).

47. Picton, C., Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). ‘Hardworking, determined and happy’: first-year students’ understanding and experience of success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(6), 1260-1273. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2018.1478803

48. Sadiq Sohail, M., Rajadurai, J., & Azlin Abdul Rahman, N. (2003). Managing quality in higher education: a Malaysian case study. International Journal of Educational Management, 17(4), 141-146.

49. Saunders, D. B. (2014). Exploring a customer orientation: Free-market logic and college students. The Review of Higher Education, 37(2), 197-219.

50. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5th edition ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

51. Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2009). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach (5th edition ed.). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

52. Shukla, P. (2008). Essentials of Marketing Research Retrieved from www.bookboon.com

53. Somers, P., Haines, K., Keene, B., Bauer, J., Pfeiffer, M., McCluskey, J., . . . Sparks, B. (2006). Towards a theory of choice for community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 30(1), 53-67.

54. Sornsri, S., & Bing, Z. (2017). Determinants of Student-Lecturer Relationship and its Outcomes: Assumption University of Thailand.

55. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th edition ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Inc.

56. Tomlinson, M. (2017). Student perceptions of themselves as ‘consumers’ of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(4), 450-467.

57. Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Research Methods Knowledge Base. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/index.php

58. Watjatrakul, B. (2014). Factors affecting students’ intentions to study at universities adopting the “student-as-customer” concept. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(6), 676-693.

59. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). United States of America: Sage publications.

60. Zainol, Z., Yahaya, R., & Osman, J. (2018). Application of Relationship Investment Model in Predicting Student Engagement towards HEIs. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 17(1), 71-93. doi: 10.1080/15332667.2018.1440143

61. Zainol, Z., Yahaya, R., Osman, J., & Mohamed, M. (2017). Student Engagement Towards HEIs: Relationship Marketing Perspective. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(10), 543-555.

This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials.
You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research.

Back to previous page