Factors influencing international students’ perceived value and satisfaction at private universities in Malaysia

Pui-Yee Chong, Andrew Jia-Yi Kam, and Siew-Yean Tham[*]

doi: https://doi.org/10.18543/tjhe.2592

Received: 31 October 2023
Accepted: 6 February 2024
E-published: November 2024

Abstract: It is critical to investigate the major factors that influence the perceived value and satisfaction of international students in Malaysia, as the country has seen a decrease in international students since 2017 and strives to become an international education hub. This research aims to: (1) ascertain the level of satisfaction experienced by international students attending private universities (PrUs) in the Klang Valley; (2) identify factors and present a model that measures their influence on the perceived value and satisfaction of international students; and (3) propose policy recommendations to key stakeholders. An empirical study was conducted using a quantitative research methodology via physical survey using structured questionnaires. A total of 502 surveys from international students were collected from twelve private universities in the Klang Valley. The partial least squares structural equation modelling technique was employed to assess the measurement and structural model in validating the study model. Based on the empirical findings, the external environment, image, academic and non-academic constructs positively influence perceived value, which affects satisfaction. Results also confirm that the post-behavioural intentions of satisfied international students are word-of-mouth recommendations and loyalty. The results provided new perspectives on attracting and retaining international students to study in Malaysia. Theoretical, policy and practical implications are discussed.

Keywords: International education; international students; student satisfaction; perceived value; post behavioural intention; private universities.

I. Introduction

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia’s capital city, is ranked 28th globally and sixth in Asia’s most affordable study destination in the recent QS Best Student Cities Ranking 2023.[1] Besides affordability, the criteria for this ranking include university rankings, student mix, desirability, employer activity, and student voice. The indicators measuring these six criteria are comprehensive, such as the number and performance of universities ranked in the QS World University Rankings in the city, the ratio of population and students in the city, the number of international students enrolled in the city, the safety and pollution level, the number of respondents who wish to study in the city, youth employment, employers’ perceptions of graduates produced by universities in the city, tuition fees, costs of living, and ratings on the city’s friendliness, sustainability, diversity, and preference of students to continue living in the city after graduation. Malaysia’s aspiration to become an international education hub has made great strides as the country moved from the 12th to the 9th in 2014 in a list of top study destinations according to UNESCO’s International Student Mobility Survey.[2] The country has transitioned from a sending to a receiving country, as the number of inbound international students tripled from 47,928 (2007)[3] to 136,293 (2017).[4] Several policy documents highlight Malaysia’s aspirations: Ninth and Eleventh Malaysia Plan (2016-2020),[5]^,[6] National Higher Education Strategic Plan,[7] and Malaysia Education Blueprint for Higher Education 2015-2025.[8] The Ministry of Education has established dedicated departments such as Education Malaysia and Education Malaysia Global Services (EMGS) to promote and manage international students.

Countries hosting international students gain economic, social, cultural, political, and academic benefits.[9] Hence, many countries aspire to be education hubs by expanding their higher education sectors. China’s higher education sector attracted 492,185 international students in 2018, and it is now the second-largest host country after the US.[10] Japan has declared its target to host 300,000 international students by 2027.[11] South Korea hopes to enrol 200,000 international students by 2023;[12] in 2019, about 130,000 international students studied in Taiwan.[13]

The Middle East has three education hubs: Dubai International Academic City, Qatar Education City, and Bahrain Higher Education City. Newer education hubs, such as Botswana Education Hub and Medine Education Village in Mauritius,[14] have also emerged in Africa. In ASEAN alone, there are several: Singapore has twelve international branch campuses;[15] Thailand and Indonesia have invited foreign universities to open international branch campuses and conduct transnational education programmes.[16],[17]

With increasing competition, can Malaysia sustain its position in attracting international students? International enrollment has steadily increased from 27,872 in 2002 to 136,710 in 2017, marking a 390 percent increase.[18]^,[19] Before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a gradual fall in enrolment, with 131,514 and 93,569 international students enrolling in 2018[20] and 2019,[21] respectively, reflecting a 29 percent decrease. It is, therefore, vital to uncover factors influencing international students’ perceived value and satisfaction. In addition, the targets set by the Ministry of Higher Education are 100,000, 150,000, and 200,000 by 2010, 2015, and 2020, respectively, were not achieved.[22] The target to attract 250,000 by 2025 seems ambitious, given there were only 87,235 in 2021.[23] The recent policy document for private higher education in Malaysia indicated one of the challenges faced by these providers is the declining number of international students.[24] Hence, assessing the level of satisfaction of international students and uncovering factors influencing international students’ perceived value and satisfaction helps to understand the decrease in international student enrolment. In addition, the findings will greatly assist higher education policymakers and private universities (PrUs) in strategizing their marketing efforts to attract and retain international students in Malaysia. This will ultimately help improve future enrolment and growth, enabling the country to achieve its aspirations.

Despite hosting international students for nearly two decades, there are only a few studies on international student satisfaction in Malaysia. The investigation of the relationship and the concept of perceived value to satisfaction in higher education is equally scant.[25]^,[26]^,[27] Past studies on international student satisfaction used service quality as an antecedent to satisfaction without considering the contribution of perceived value.[28]^,[29] Interestingly, the study on image construct still does not confirm whether it is the antecedent[30] or outcome[31] of satisfaction. Investigating the antecedents of Word-of-Mouth (WoM) and loyalty is still unclear. Satisfaction,[32] perceived value and service quality,[33] and loyalty[34] affect WoM. Antecedents of loyalty include satisfaction,[35] service quality,[36] and image.[37] The services received by international students tested in the past examined only academic and non-academic constructs.[38]^,[39]^,[40] The academic construct includes course content, lecturer, teaching delivery, assessment, library, laboratory facilities, and others directly related to teaching and learning. While non-academic comprise student administrative services, financial assistance, accommodation, food, sports, clubs, and recreation facilities. The external living environment outside of campus was not examined. This study expands the current literature by providing a theoretical framework and empirical evidence for a more exhaustive determinant of perceived value and the interrelationship of constructs between perceived value, satisfaction, post-behavioural intention, loyalty, and WoM in a single model.

This research aims to: (1) ascertain the level of satisfaction experienced by international students attending private universities (PrUs) in the Klang Valley; (2) identify factors and present a model that measures their influence on the perceived value and satisfaction of international students; and (3) propose policy recommendations to key stakeholders.

II. Literature review and theoretical framework

Consumer and marketing theories were adopted for the study as international students are viewed as consumers of higher education services.[41]^,[42] The framework of this study was built on consumer satisfaction theory, satisfaction model,[43] equity theory, and the literature on international students’ satisfaction.

II.1. Satisfaction

Customer satisfaction is a term used to describe customers’ appraisal of the outcome of a purchase or service experience,[44] based on consumer satisfaction theory.[45] International students will evaluate their experience based on their entire duration of study and living experience. This includes receiving academic, non-academic services on campus, services received off-campus, expenses incurred, for example, tuition fees and other living costs. This study used the overall accumulative performance evaluation to measure satisfaction and not a transaction-specific satisfaction evaluation. This accumulated assessment or overall satisfaction evaluation is consistent with the European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI) adopted in this study.[46] There are debates on whether students should be treated as customers.[47] Due to the stiff competition in the higher education sector, the operation of universities has also evolved to be business-like, providing better services to attract students. While students pay fees, and they too demand a certain level of education quality.[48] Therefore, students can be treated as customers, and universities strive to satisfy their students by providing quality education.

Satisfaction models are embedded in systems of cause-and-effect relationships. As a result, they become the focal point in a chain of relationships that extends from the antecedents to overall customer satisfaction,[49] as found in the Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB),[50] American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI),[51] Norwegian Customer Satisfaction Barometer (NCSB)[52] and European Customer Satisfaction Index (ECSI).[53]^,[54] These models use constructs that measure: first, the drivers of satisfaction, which comprise expectation, perceived quality (product and service), perceived value, and image; second, satisfaction; and third, the outcomes being customer complaints and loyalty. Different constructs are used in these models as they have evolved and improved over time.[55] This study used the adapted version of the ECSI tested by Brown and Mazzarol[56] and Alves and Raposo[57] in their study on student satisfaction in higher education. The WoM construct is included in this study due to the nature of educational services; for instance, when obtaining a degree, the chances of re-enrolling/repurchasing for another degree or Master’s degree are lower. Hence, capturing the construct of loyalty alone is inadequate to reflect the outcome of satisfaction. This study examined perceived service quality, image, value, satisfaction, WoM, and loyalty constructs.

II.2. Perceived value

The assessment of customer satisfaction is based on their perceived value according to equity theory, where satisfaction is achieved when consumers perceive the ratio of their outcome to input as equitable.[58]^,[59] Hence, perceived value is defined as the consumers’ overall evaluation of what they receive in relation to what they pay for or value for money.[60]^,[61] Value for money is achieved when less money and/or non-monetary costs are sacrificed against the quality of services received.[62]

Perceived value can be measured by multiple antecedents based on the functional value of the products or services[63]^,[64] and tailored to industry type.[65]^,[66] The antecedent of the perceived value of this study includes perceived service quality (academic and non-academic services and external environment) and image.

II.3. Academic services, non-academic services, and external living environment

Service quality refers to the ‘what’ and ‘how’ in service delivery. The ‘what’ refers to the services being delivered, and the ‘how’ refers to the manner in which they are being delivered.[67]^,[68] Perceived service quality for this study includes academic and non-academic services delivered by the university and services received off-campus. International students receive academic services from their universities, including course content, lecturer, teaching delivery, assessment, library, and laboratory facilities. While on campus, they consume non-academic services, including administrative services, financial assistance, accommodation, food, sports, clubs, and recreation facilities. The international students’ experience may not be confined to campus but instead part of a community outside campus. They use services like transportation, healthcare, community, safety, employment, and others. These three service constructs are consistent with the extant research[69]^,[70]^,[71] Previous studies on international students’ satisfaction tested the direct relationship between service quality and satisfaction without considering perceived value.[72]^,[73]^,[74]^,[75]^,[76]^,[77] Empirical studies by Alves and Raposo[78] and Lai et al.[79] found a positive relationship between education service quality and perceived value. However, Brown & Mazzarol[80] found no relationship between a university’s service quality and perceived value. Both studies were not tested solely on international students.

This study aims to test the relationship between service quality (which includes academic services (Aca), non-academic services (NonAca), and external living environment (ExtEnv)) and perceived value (PV). The following hypotheses are formulated for testing:

•H1: There is a positive relationship between Aca and PV.

•H2: There is a positive relationship between NonAca and PV.

•H3: There is a positive relationship between ExtEnv and PV.

II.4. Image

Image is associated with the brand and reputation of an institution.[81] It likewise refers to students’ perceptions of their university in an educational context.[82]^,[83] The image of a university, which is a reflection of excellence in its quality of education, influences the evaluation of students on their overall perceived value and subsequent satisfaction level.[84]^,[85]^,[86] International students perceive that the image of a reputable brand, prestige, and recognition of qualifications will improve their marketability and future employment.[87]^,[88]^,[89] A university’s image can be enhanced by providing high-quality education and having its programmes recognised internationally.[90] This can contribute to improvements in a university’s ranking.[91] LeBlanc and Nguyen[92] and Brown and Mazzarol[93] have confirmed that image is a driver of value among tertiary students. The following hypothesis is thus proposed for testing:

•H4: There is a positive relationship between Image and PV.

II.5. Perceived value and satisfaction

Perceived value is the antecedent of satisfaction.[94] Several studies have demonstrated a correlation between perceived value and satisfaction[95]^,[96]^,[97] with similar results in the university context.[98]^,[99] The evaluation of perceived value is based on the services received compared to the expenses incurred by international students in the host country, including tuition and living costs. Those international students who believe they have gained value for their money are more satisfied than those who are not. When the perceived value of international students increases, their satisfaction level also increases, leading to the following hypothesis:

•H5: There is a positive relationship between PV and SAT.

II.6. Word-of-mouth and loyalty

Satisfaction and post-behavioral intention have a positive relationship.[100]^,[101]^,[102]^,[103] Satisfied international students will demonstrate positive post-behavioural intention, such as loyalty in choosing the same institution and country for further studies.[104] Accordingly, they will be more likely to suggest the university and host country to others through positive WoM recommendations.[105]^,[106] This is consistent with the theory of planned behavior, where consumers strongly intend to engage in future behavior, such as being loyal and willing to share experiences with others.[107] It is hypothesized:

•H6: There is a positive relationship between SAT and WoM

•H7: There is a positive relationship between SAT and Loyalty

The literature was used to identify the dimensions of each construct[108] and verified by a preliminary study based on interviews with 20 international students while including additional variables.[109] A proposed Malaysia International Students’ Satisfaction Model (MISS-Model) was developed from the extant literature based on the satisfaction model, consumer satisfaction theory, and equity theory.[110] The MISS-Model comprises four constructs as the drivers of perceived value: Internal Environment - Academic (Aca); Internal Environment - Non-Academic (NonAca); External Environment (ExtEnv); and Image. These four constructs are hypothesized to influence international students’ perceived value (PV) and satisfaction (SAT). The hypothesized model also examined the relationship of post-behavioural intentions of satisfaction being: WoM recommendation and loyalty. The framework indicates 57 dimensions (Table 1) influencing international students’ perceived value, satisfaction, and post-behavioural intentions. The seven hypotheses were tested as depicted in the conceptual framework in Figure 1.

III. Methods

III.1. Participants and procedure

The sample is based on international student enrolment in Malaysia. According to the data, 70% of international students are enrolled in private institutions of higher education (PrHEIs), with 89 percent of these students enrolled in undergraduate programmes (87 percent of which are in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur), and 44 percent studying at PrUs.[111] There are four types of PrHEI: PrUs, university colleges, international branch campuses (IBC), and colleges. A list of PrUs that offer degree programmes in the Klang Valley was sourced from the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) website. Twenty-five PrUs were invited to participate in the survey, 13 of which accepted and granted permission for surveys to be conducted within their institutions, including one institution that did not complete the survey.

Purposive sampling was used, targeting those international undergraduate students who have at least completed the first year of their respective degree programmes. This ensured that they were credible respondents with sufficient experience to give responses on learning and living in Malaysia. The total number of international students enrolled in 2016 at PrU in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur was 35,237. The estimated population, accounting for 70 percent of those enrolled in degree programmes, was 24,667. Based on this estimation, the proposed sample size, according to Krejcie and Morgan,[112] was 379 respondents. The calculation was based on a population of 30,000 with a 95 percent confidence level and a 5 percent margin of error. According to the power table (Cohen, 1992 in Hair, 2016),[113] to run the analysis of this PLS-SEM model it needs a sample size of 228 to detect R² values of approximately 0.1 with a significance level of 1% and a statistical power of 80%. There were 958 surveys distributed, and 630 were collected, leading to a 66 percent response rate from the 12 participating PrUs.

III.2. Measures

Based on the review of the literature and the information gathered from interviews in the preliminary investigation, a survey questionnaire was developed. This preliminary study involved two studies, firstly a review of primary and secondary literature on international students and students’ satisfaction. Primary literature comprises works authored by the original researchers, whereas secondary literature consists of works that have been evaluated and analysed by other authors. A total of forty two primary literature and thirty two secondary literature were reviewed. The findings of the review revealed that studies on international students can be categorised into five themes: (i) factors that influence the choice of study destination, (ii) international students’ experience and expectations, (iii) challenges, problems and adjustment faced by international students, (iv) perspective on service quality, and (v) factors that influence satisfaction. These five themes formed contributing factors to international students’ satisfaction. These overlaps of variables are subsequently categorised into five constructs that influence international students’ satisfaction. The constructs include: (1) Internal Environment-Academic, (2) Internal Environment Non-Academic, (3) External Environment, (4) Image, and (5) Perceived Value with 39 dimensions.[114]

The second study was conducted to verify the five constructs and 39 dimensions through interviews with 20 international students from 14 nationalities at 11 private universities located in the Klang Valley, Malaysia. This verification process is needed because the literature reviewed in the first study is limited in the context of Malaysia. The outcome of the study has verified and confirmed the 39 dimensions in measuring international students’ satisfaction and 18 new dimensions were suggested by interviewees (Table 1).

Subsequently, items were developed for each dimension; the survey questionnaire was pre-tested on 10 international students to test the comprehension of the items and pilot-tested on 45 international students at a private university in Malaysia. The final survey questionnaire has 48 dimensions and 186 items (Appendix 2 Survey Questionnaire) tested for validity and reliability with Cronbach’s alpha scores of 0.7 and above.[115]^,[116] The detail on scale development is reported in Chong,[117] and a summary of items for dimensions of all constructs is shown in Table 2. Respondents’ demographic information which includes age, gender, country of origin, marital status, religion, duration in Malaysia, language used in home country, institution of learning, field of study, duration in the current university, year of study, sponsorship and results in CGPA was also included in the survey questionnaire.

III.3. Statistical techniques

Data examination was conducted; cases with more than 10 percent missing values were deleted, and outliers were kept as items had passed a five percent trimmed mean score.[118] Usable surveys were thus obtained from 502 respondents, which is higher than the proposed 379, thereby increasing the sample size. SPSS version 24 was used to run a descriptive analysis, and SmartPLS version 3.0 software was used to evaluate the path modelling of the hypothesized MISS-Model. PLS-SEM was used because of the complexity of the reflective-reflective hierarchical component model. There were 186 reflective indicators as lower-order components and 48 higher-order dimensions, and four exogenous constructs, which include Aca, NonAca, ExtEnv, and Image to PV, where PV, SAT, Loyalty, and WoM are the endogenous variables.

IV. Results

IV.1. Respondents’ demographic profile

About 70 percent were males, and 30 percent were females. The profile of these respondents, with a mean age of 22.88, (SD 3.055) reflected the study population.[119]^,[120]^,[121] On average, respondents have lived and studied in their institution for more than 2 years, as the data shows: living in Malaysia (mean 2.67, SD 1.259), studying in the institution (mean 2.29, SD 1.062), and in their year of study (mean 2.63, SD 0.731). Half of those who responded were in their second year of study, and the other half were in their third and final year. Given the duration of the study, the respondents would have accumulated enough experience to offer reliable input on their study experience on campus and living in Malaysia. Respondents came from 56 countries in eight regions. The highest number of respondents were from Indonesia (13.7 percent), followed by Yemen (11.2 percent), Nigeria (7.8 percent), Sudan (7.4 percent), and Bangladesh (6.8 percent). According to the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia,[122]^,[123]^,[124] these top five nations were also among the top 10 source countries for international students in Malaysia. The majority were Muslims (71 percent), with the balance including Christians (13.4 percent), Buddhists (7 percent), and Hindus (1.6 percent).

IV.2. Level of satisfaction

The descriptive statistics indicated that 94.4 percent of respondents were at least satisfied studying and living in Malaysia, comprising: those who were Satisfied (64.15 percent); Very Satisfied (25.1 percent); and Extremely Satisfied (5.2 percent). Approximately 4.8 percent of the respondents were Dissatisfied, and less than 1 percent responded as Very Dissatisfied. The mean satisfaction score is 3.291, with a standard deviation of 0.6739, indicating that respondents are relatively satisfied, leaning more towards the “satisfied” category, and the majority of respondents had similar levels of satisfaction.

IV.3. Assessment of measurement model

Overall, the results of the six measurement models: (i) Aca, (ii) NonAca; (iii) ExtEnv; (iv) Image; (v) PV; and (vi) Post Behavioural intention (PB) passed the evaluation on the Outer Loadings, Cronbach’s Alpha (CA), Composite Reliability (CR), Average Variance Extracted (AVE), Cross-Loading, Fornell-Larcker and Heterotrait-monotrait Ratio of Correlations (HTMT). Internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity have all been sufficiently established by the tests. However, four items from each of the Aca and NonAca constructs, nine from the ExtEnv construct, and two from the Post Behavioural intention construct have outer loading below 0.70. The treatment of these items (whether to keep or remove them) was based either on statistical grounds, such as improving the CA and CR scores or using content validity as supported by the literature and empirical findings from the interviews. Accordingly, five items were deleted, and the other 14 items were kept for content validity reasons. The final number of items is 181, measuring 50 dimensions in the MISS-Model. The detailed results of the measurement model are found in Appendix 1.

IV.4. Assessment of structural model

An assessment of the structural model showed that all four constructs that predict PV were not critically correlated because all the constructs have a variance inflation factor (VIF) below 3.3,[125] with the corresponding scores being: Aca (2.718), NonAca (2.562), ExtEnv (1.822), and Image (3.127). Thereafter, bootstrapping, with 5,000 subsamples, a 1-tailed test, and a 0.05 confidence interval, was conducted to examine the significance of the relationships.[126] The results from the path co-efficient estimates showed that all seven paths of relationship were found to have t-value ≥ 1.645, thus were significant at the 0.05 level of significance. The four constructs Aca (β = 0.162, p<0.002), NonAca (β = 0.103, p<0.024), ExtEnv (β = 0.387, p<0.000), and Image (β = 0.173, p<0.000) were positively related to PV. The path coefficient for construct PV (β = 0.207, p<0.000) was positively related to SAT. The results of the effects, or post-behavioural intention of satisfaction, SAT (β = 0.234, p<0.000; β = 0.214, p<0.000), were positively related to both WoM and Loyalty, respectively. A summary of the results is found in Table 3.

Figure 2 depicts the hypothesized MISS-Model. In the figure, the R² of PV is 0.525, indicating that the four constructs; Aca, NonAca, ExtEnv, and Image, explained 52 percent of PV. A score of 0.50 is considered a moderate level of predictive accuracy[127]. The effect size is based on Cohen’s guideline,[128] where values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 represented small, medium, and large effects, respectively. Based on the results of the analysis, ExtEnv (0.123) had close to a medium effect size in producing the R² for PV, while Image (0.035), Aca (0.020), and NonAca (0.007) had a small effect size. The results also indicated that PV (0.045) had a small effect on SAT, and SAT (0.058, 0.048) had a small effect size on WoM and Loyalty, respectively. Q² values measured the predictive relevance of the model - when the value is greater than zero,[129] a model has predictive relevance for certain endogenous constructs. The results showed that all four endogenous constructs have Q² values of greater than zero, PV (Q²=0.344), SAT (Q²=0.039), WoM (Q²=0.050), and Loyalty (Q²=0.041), PV had medium, and the others constructs have small predictive accuracy. This also indicates that the model had sufficient predictive relevance.

In summary, the above results answer the first and second objectives of the study. First, it has been identified that international students at PrUs are satisfied with their education and living experience in Klang Valley. Second, factors and dimensions influencing international students’ perceived value and satisfaction were determined. All seven hypothesized relationships are positive and significant. Therefore, the hypothesized MISS-Model has been empirically tested and confirmed as a suitable model for measuring international students’ satisfaction and their post-behavioural intention in Malaysia.

V. Discussions

Overall, the study’s findings revealed that international students were satisfied with their studies at PrUs while living in Klang Valley. Lujain & Ridzuan[130] also found that international students were moderately satisfied. In contrast, Chinese students were somewhat dissatisfied with their experience studying in Malaysia, according to Lim et al.[131] Results from this study indicated that international students were satisfied, in contrast to other studies[132]^,[133]^,[134] indicating problems, challenges, and adjustment difficulties experienced by international students in Malaysia. This is because the respondents in this study were at least second-year students and have settled in and adjusted to the culture and other changes affecting their living and studying in Malaysia. Additionally, they found social support from Malaysian and international friends of the same and different nationalities with whom they form friendships[135] through clubs and societies both inside and outside of their campus. They have also become familiar with the teaching and learning systems of their institutions, which has an influence on their level of satisfaction. Seventy percent of respondents were from Muslim countries, which aided in their adaptation to the culture of Malaysia, where Muslims make up more than sixty percent of the population. This situation has demonstrated the theory of perceived cultural proximity, in which similar religious and cultural values have facilitated their adaptation of lifestyle in Malaysia. As fee-paying students, international students viewed themselves as customers and expected to receive high-quality academic and living experience at reasonable cost that is value-for-money. The result also suggests that PrUs in the Klang Valley have provided students with the quality education they anticipated, and that Malaysia is perceived as a host country with a quality living environment. The accumulated experiences of international students indicate that Malaysia, as an affordable study destination, has provided international students with the exposure, environment, and quality of life they seek while studying abroad. This is an encouraging sign for Malaysia’s aspiration to become an international education hub. According to Tribal i-graduate’s global international student satisfaction survey, Malaysia compares favourably to other mature study destination such as the UK and the US, with 89% and 92% satisfaction levels, respectively. This research also found that Malaysia had the same satisfaction level as Singapore, at 89%. This neighbouring country, which shares social and geographical characteristics with Malaysia, is likewise a rising contender in international education.

The study indicated that the external environment was the strongest construct influencing their perceived value, which is consistent with other studies.[136]^,[137] The study found that the strongest determinants were community, language and communication, and the attractions of Malaysia. International students generally found the Malaysian community friendly, helpful, and easy to live with. Relationships with the local community were facilitated because language was not a barrier. Many locals speak English, which helped foster communication with neighbours and other service providers, including transport providers, retail assistants, and food operators, thus easing their adjustment to living in the country. As a multicultural society, Malaysia provides the environment for them to practice their religion, participate in festivities, and visit local attractions. Hence, besides studying, these external living environment attributes improved their perceived value and subsequent satisfaction levels.

Extant studies have shown the impact of image on perceived value.[138]^,[139]^,[140] This study also supports this relationship, as image is the second strongest construct to perceived value. The image of a university is informed by its brand strength, ranking, and the recognition of its degrees. International students perceived their institutions as possessing a good reputation while featuring among the best PrUs in Malaysia in delivering quality education. The results also indicated that recognition of qualifications, both locally and internationally, was an important factor in how they perceived the image of their university.

The third strongest construct is Internal Environment - Academic. The strongest contributing dimensions were lecturers, followed by course delivery, course material, assessment, and course content, which are all causally linked to teaching and instruction. International students viewed these as more important than academic facilities such as laboratories, library, internet, classroom, and other educational support services. This is consistent with extant studies conducted in Malaysia[141]^,[142] and other countries.[143]^,[144]

The weakest relationship to PV among the four constructs was: Internal Environment - Non-Academic. Extant research revealed that many international students were dissatisfied with non-academic services on their campuses, such as bureaucratic administration processes,[145] insufficient recreational facilities,[146] poor service quality, and behaviour of support staff.[147]^,[148] This study has shown that international students frequently engage with the International and Registrar’s Office, Student Affairs, and Finance Department. Students perceived and assessed the value of these departments based on their experiences of service quality, including reliability and efficiency, and their ability to solve student problems. Other services such as reliable transportation, dedicated counsellors for international students, healthcare services, financial support, active clubs, and societies also influenced their perceived value. A comprehensive orientation programme helped them to familiarize with their campus and Malaysian culture.

The strongest dimensions within the perceived value construct were other value gained, cost of living, and fees payable by students. These results indicate that international students enjoyed their quality of life, gained valuable living experience, and appreciated learning about Malaysia and its people. They were happy with their interactions with the community and many tourist attractions. Students perceived the quality of education and enjoyable life, at an affordable fee and cost of living, as good value for money during their study time in Malaysia. All of these dimensions are indicative of the impact of perceived values on satisfaction, as supported by other studies.[149]^,[150]

The outcome of satisfaction was WoM and loyalty. The satisfied international students showed positive post-behavioural intention, word-of-mouth recommendations, and loyalty. This conclusion supported earlier research findings[151]^,[152]^,[153] that more satisfied students would most likely recommend and provide information about their university experience to prospective students. They tended to remain loyal and were more likely to choose the same university, and Malaysia as their destination, for future studies. However, Alves and Raposo[154] present different results, having found no relationship between satisfaction and WoM.

VI. Conclusion and implications

This study has three implications, categorised as theoretical, policy, and practical. This study contributes to the theory, adopting a cross-disciplinary approach using consumer satisfaction theory, equity theory and satisfaction model, and literature on international student satisfaction. Consequently, the constructs of perceived value, image, and post-behavioural intention, along with comprehensive dimensions, were incorporated into the model. These few constructs and dimensions were not tested in previous studies,[155]^,[156] and this study has established the relationship between them. This approach is superior to a mono-discipline approach in achieving a more holistic understanding of the issue.[157] Hence, it is recommended that cross-disciplinary approaches should be used in future studies of international students to capture multi-dimensions.

For Malaysia to remain competitive as an education hub, it needs to establish its image as a provider of quality education within a favourable living environment and not solely as an affordable destination. More efforts should be undertaken to promote Malaysia as a destination country that is politically stable, safe, and attractive within a multicultural society. Strengthening government-to-government bilateral ties and collaboration by increasing mutual recognition of qualifications would increase inbound student mobility. Many younger and smaller PrUs will need to devote time and resources to build their image and reputation. Hence, merging campuses may be beneficial as this could improve efficiency, increase resources, reduce redundancy, and accelerate image building.

PrUs should continue building their image and capacity. For newer or smaller universities, one of the strategies in building image includes forming a strategic partnership with foreign universities through the delivery of transnational programmes, such as joint or dual degree programmes. Established PrUs could continue to strengthen and expand global recognition of their degree programmes, including professional accreditations. By improving their ranking, universities will further enhance their image through increased information and awareness among students, parents, and sponsors. Additionally, establishing alumni chapters in sending countries may also promote the image of a university.

PrUs need to continuously build their administrative and academic capacity through competency development programmes for lecturers and support staff. Competencies in English, communication, and multicultural skills are essential when dealing with international students. PrUs should commit to constantly improving and upgrading their teaching facilities, including science and computer laboratories and libraries. Pastoral care is essential to guide international students in their adjustment to a new environment. Other efforts include building internationally orientated campuses accommodating diverse nationalities and ethnicities. Therefore, universities should attract and recruit international students from diverse countries by highlighting the benefits of learning in a multi-national environment. Finally, by engaging the local community, providing greater opportunities for international students would improve their total study experience abroad.

To summarize, these results show that the four constructs - academic, non-academic, external environment, and image - influenced perceived value and, thus, satisfaction. Increasing international students’ perceived value and satisfaction requires improving the supporting ecosystem. This involves the campus environment and services from institutions, together with the entire community, business, and government policy, in providing a satisfying living experience for international students, which in turn will make Malaysia an attractive international education destination.

Overall, this study found that international students were satisfied with their studies at PrUs while living in the Klang Valley. Lujain & Ridzuan[158] also found that international students were moderately satisfied. In contrast, Chinese students were somewhat dissatisfied with their experience studying in Malaysia, according to Lim et al.[159] Results from this study indicated that international students were satisfied, in contrast to other studies.[160]^,[161]^,[162]

This study only investigated respondents from the PrUs in the Klang Valley; thus, the results may only represent international students from these institutions. As such, it is recommended the study be extended to a broader sampling frame that includes all types of PrHEIs beyond Klang Valley. The model only tested the direct relationship among constructs; hence, identifying moderating factors, such as the personality of international students, may be considered for future studies. Finally, a comparative study among different regions of top-sending countries may reveal new dimensions of the relationships in each construct arising from socio-cultural differences.

Bibliography

Alavi, Masoumeh, and Syed Mohamed Shafeq Mansor. “Categories of Problems among International Students in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (2011): 1581–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.307.

Alcaide-Pulido, Purificación, Helena Alves, and Belén Gutiérrez-Villar. “Development of a Model to Analyze HEI Image: A Case Based on a Private and a Public University.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 27, no. 2 (2017): 162–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2017.1388330.

Alemu, Aye Mengistu, and Jason Cordier. “Factors Influencing International Student Satisfaction in Korean Universities.” International Journal of Educational Development 57, no. June (2017): 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.08.006.

Alfy, Shahira El, and Abdulai Abukari. “Revisiting Perceived Service Quality in Higher Education: Uncovering Service Quality Dimensions for Postgraduate Students.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 30, no. 1 (2019): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2019.1648360.

Alves, Helena. “The Measurement of Perceived Value in Higher Education: A Unidimensional Approach.” Service Industries Journal 31, no. 12 (2011): 1943–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.550042.

Alves, Helena, and Mário Raposo. “Conceptual Model of Student Satisfaction in Higher Education.” Total Quality Management and Business Excellence 18, no. 5 (2007): 571–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360601074315.

Andreassen, Tor Wallin;, and Bodil; Lindestad. “Customer Loyalty and Complex Services: The Impact of Corporate Image on Quality, Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty for Customers with Varying Degrees of Service Expertise.” International Journal of Service Industry Management 9, no. 1 (1998): 7–23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/09564239810199923.

Arambewela, Rodney; Post-Choice Satisfaction of International Postgradaute Students from Asia Studying in Victorian Universities. PhD Thesis. Victoria: Victoria University of Technology, 2003.

Arambewela, Rodney;, and John; Hall. “A Comparative Analysis of International Education Satisfaction Using SERVQUAL.” Journal of Services Research 6 (2006): 141–63. https://dro.deakin.edu.au/articles/journal_contribution/A_comparative_analysis_of_international_education_satisfaction_using_servqual/20540052.

   . “A Model of Student Satisfaction : International Postgraduate Students from Asia.” European Advancces in Consumer Research 8 (2008): 129–35. https://doi.org/43008804.

   . “The Interactional Effects of the Internal and External University Environment, and the Influence of Personal Values, on Satisfaction among International Postgraduate Students.” Studies in Higher Education 38, no. 7 (2011): 972–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.615916.

Azadeh, Shafaei;, and Abd Razak; Nordin. “International Postgraduate Students’ Cross-Cultural Adaptation in Malaysia: Antecedents and Outcomes.” Research in Higher Education 57, no. 6 (2016): 739–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9404-9.

Azizah, Rajab, Hamidah Abdul Rahman, and Shaari Roziana. “The International Students’ Perception towards the Education Quality.” International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies 3, no. 2 (2011): 49–58.

Bianchi, Constanza, and Judy Drennan. “Inward Internationalization of Services: Exploring Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction of Overseas Students in Australia,” 2011. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/47711/.

Bolton, Ruth N.;, and James H.; Drew. “A Multistage Model of Customers’ Assessments of Service Quality and Value.” Journal of Consumer Research 17, no. 4 (1991): 375–84.

Brown, Robert M., and Timothy William Mazzarol. “The Importance of Institutional Image to Student Satisfaction and Loyalty within Higher Education.” Higher Education 58, no. 1 (2009): 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9183-8.

Bruce, Grady, and Rachel Edgington. “Factors Influencing Word-of-Mouth Recommendations by MBA Students: An Examination of School Quality, Educational Outcomes, and Value of the MBA.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 18, no. 1 (2008): 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841240802100303.

Cai, Yuzhuo. “China’s 2020 Target: Reshaping Global Mobility Flows.” European Association for International Education, 2020. https://www.eaie.org/blog/china-2020-target-reshaping-global-mobility-flows.html.

Chee, Chiu Mei, Muhammad Mohsin Butt, Stephen Wilkins, and Fon Sim Ong. “Country of Origin and Country of Service Delivery Effects in Transnational Higher Education: A Comparison of International Branch Campuses from Developed and Developing Nations.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 26, no. 1 (2016): 86–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2015.1103352.

Ciavolino, Enrico, and Jens J. Dahlgaard. “ECSI - Customer Satisfaction Modelling and Analysis: A Case Study.” Total Quality Management and Business Excellence 18, no. 5 (2007): 545–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360701240337.

Cohen, Jacob. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1988.

Creswell, John W. Educational Research : Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. 3rd Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2008.

Cronin, J.Joseph, Michael K Brady, and G.Tomas M Hult. “Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments.” Journal of Retailing 76, no. 2 (2000): 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00028-2.

Dacko, Scott G. The Advanced Dictionary of Marketing : Putting Theory to Use. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, and Judy A. Siguaw. “Formative versus Reflective Indicators in Organizational Measure Development: A Comparison and Empirical Illustration.” British Journal of Management 17, no. 4 (2006): 263–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00500.x.

Djafri, Fares;, Meguellati; Achour, and Kachkar; Omar. “The Impact of Service Quality, Student Satisfaction, and University Reputation on Student Loyalty: A Case Study of International Students in IIUM, Malaysia.” Edited by International Foundation for Research and Development. Information Management & Business Review 5, no. 12 (2014): 584–90.

Economic Planning Unit. Eleventh Malaysia Plan 2016-2020. Putrajaya: Prime Minister Department Malaysia, 2015. http://www.epu.gov.my.

   . Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010. Putrajaya: Prime Minister Department Malaysia, 2006. http://epu.gov.my/sites/default/files/RM9_M.pdf.

Eklöf, Jan A.;, and Anders H.; Westlund. “The Pan-European Customer Satisfaction Index Programme - Current Work and the Way Ahead.” Total Quality Management 13, no. 8 (2002): 1099–1106. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544120200000005.

Faizan, Ali;, Yuan; Zhou, Hussain; Kashif, Kumar Nair; Pradeep, and Ari Ragavan; Neethiahnathan. “Does Higher Education Service Quality Effect Student Satisfaction, Image and Loyalty?: A Study of International Students in Malaysian Public Universities.” Quality Assurance in Education 24, no. 1 (2016): 70–94. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QAE-11-2012-0046.

Fatima, Taqdees, Shahab Alam Malik, and Asma Shabbir. “Hospital Healthcare Service Quality, Patient Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Investigation in Context of Private Healthcare Systems.” International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 35, no. 6 (2018): 1195–1214. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-02-2017-0031.

Fornell, Claes. “A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience.” Journal of Marketing 56, no. 1 (1992): 6–21.

Fornell, Claes, Michael D Johnson, Eugene W Anderson, and Barbara Everitt Bryant. “The American Customer Satisfaction Index : Nature, Purpose and Findings.” Journal of Marketing 60, no. 4 (1996): 7–18. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251898.

Grönroos, Christian; “A Service Quality Model and Its Marketing Implications.” European Journal of Marketing 18, no. 4 (1984): 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004784.

Guilbault, Melodi. “Students as Customers in Higher Education: Reframing the Debate.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 26, no. 2 (2016): 132–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2016.1245234.

Hair, Joseph F;, G. Tomas M; Hult, Christian M; Ringle, and Marko; Sarstedt. A Primer On Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). California: Sage Publications Inc., 2017.

Haniya, Osama K., and Hamdan Said. “Influential Factors Contributing to the Understanding of International Students’ Choice of Malaysian Higher Education Institutions: Qualitative Study with a Focus on Expected Benefits.” Tuning Journal for Higher Education 9, no. 2 (2022): 63–97. https://doi.org/10.18543/tjhe.1966.

Hou, Angela Yung Chi;, Christopher; Hill, Karen Hui Jung; Chen, and Sandy; Tsai. “A Comparative Study of International Branch Campuses in Malaysia, Singapore, China, and South Korea: Regulation, Governance, and Quality Assurance.” Asia Pacific Education Review 19, no. 4 (2018): 543–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9550-9.

ICEF Monitor. “Malaysia Competing for a Greater Share of International Students.” ICEF Monitor, 2016. http://monitor.icef.com/2016/08/malaysia-competing-greater-share-inernational-students/.

   . “South Korea: Record Growth in International Student Enrolment,” 2018. https://monitor.icef.com/2018/02/south-korea-record-growth-international-student-enrolment/.

Ikwuagwu, Vincent O. “International Student Satisfaction Levels with Student Support Services at Delaware State University.” Wilmington University, 2010.

Iordanova, Elitza. “Tourism Destination Image as an Antecedent of Destination Loyalty : A Case of Linz, Austria.” European Journal of Tourism Research, 2017, 214–32.

Johnson, Michael D., Anders Gustafsson, Tor Wallin Andreassen, Line Lervik, and Jaesung Cha. “The Evolution and Future of National Customer Satisfaction Index Models.” Journal of Economic Psychology 22, no. 2 (2001): 217–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(01)00030-7.

Joseph F. Jr., Hair;, G. Tomas M; Hult, Christian M.; Ringle, and Sarstedt Marko. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd Editio. California: Sage Publications, 2016.

Knight, Jane; Higher Education in Turmoil. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2008.

Koe, Wei-Loon;, and Saring; Siti Noraisah. “Factors Influencing the Foreign Undergraduates’ Intention to Study at Graduate School of a Public University.” Jurnal Kemanusiaan 19 (2012): 57–68.

Koris, Riina, Anders Örtenblad, Katri Kerem, and Triinu Ojala. “Student-Customer Orientation at a Higher Education Institution: The Perspective of Undergraduate Business Students.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 25, no. 1 (2015): 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2014.972486.

Krejcie, Robert V, and Daryle W Morgan. “Determining Sample Size for Research Activities.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 38, no. 1 (1970): 607–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308.

Kristensen, Kai, Anne Martensen, and Lars Gronholdt. “Customer Satisfaction Measurement at Post Denmark: Results of Application of the European Customer Satisfaction Index Methodology.” Total Quality Management 11, no. 7 (2000): 1007–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544120050135533.

Lai, M. M., S. H. Lau, N. A. Mohamad Yusof, and K. W. Chew. “Assessing Antecedents and Consequences of Student Satisfaction in Higher Education: Evidence from Malaysia.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 25, no. 1 (2015): 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2015.1042097.

LeBlanc, Gaston, and Nha Nguyen. “Listening to the Customer’s Voice: Examining Perceived Service Value among Business College Students.” International Journal of Educational Management 13, no. 4 (1999): 187–98. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513549910278106.

Leech, Nancy L.;, Karen C.; Barrett, and George A; Morgan. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics : Use and Interpretation. 2nd Edition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005.

Lim, Ernest Kok Seng; “A Qualitative Study of Factors Contributing to International Students’ Satisfaction of Institutional Quality.” Asian Social Science 9, no. 13 (2013): 126–31. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n13p126.

Lim, Yet Mee;, Ching Seng; Yap, and Teck Heang; Lee. “Destination Choice, Service Quality, Satisfaction, and Consumerism: International Students in Malaysian Institutions of Higher Education.” African Journal of Business Management 5, no. 5 (2011): 1691–1702. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM10.610.

Lin, Ling;, Zhengwei; Huang, Bestoon; Othman, and Yin Luo. “Let’s Make It Better: An Updated Model Interpreting International Student Satisfaction in China Based on PLS-SEM Approach.” PLoS ONE 15, no. 7 (2020): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233546.

Lu, Hsiao Yun, and Wann Yih Wu. “Factors Associated with Medical Travel Behaviours: The Input–Process–Output Perspective.” Current Issues in Tourism 21, no. 3 (2015): 243–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.1072503.

Lujain, Mohammed Hasan;, and Masri; Ridzuan. “Factors Influence the Satisfaction of International Students at Private Universities in Malaysia.” International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) ISSN (Online Index Copernicus Value Impact Factor 4, no. 8 (2015): 136–42.

Mahadin, Bushra K., and Mamoun N. Akroush. “A Study of Factors Affecting Word of Mouth (WOM) towards Islamic Banking (IB) in Jordan.” International Journal of Emerging Markets 14, no. 4 (2019): 639–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-10-2017-0414.

Mahmoud, Mahmoud Abdulai, Elizabeth Oppong, Daniel Twimasie, Mohammed Muniru Husseini, Adelaide Naa Amerley Kastner, and Moses Oppong. “Culture and Country Choice of International Students: Evidence from Ghana.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 30, no. 1 (2020): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2019.1688444.

Mallika Appuhamilage, Kumudini Sriyalatha, and Hiroshi Torii. “The Impact of Loyalty on the Student Satisfaction in Higher Education.” Higher Education Evaluation and Development 13, no. 2 (2019): 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/heed-01-2019-0003.

McDougall, Gordon H.G., and Terrence Levesque. “Customer Satisfaction with Services: Putting Perceived Value into the Equation.” Journal of Services Marketing 14, no. 5 (2000): 392–410. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040010340937.

Meesala, Appalayya, and Justin Paul. “Service Quality, Consumer Satisfaction and Loyalty in Hospitals: Thinking for the Future.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 40, no. July 2016 (2018): 261–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.10.011.

Menan, Sandhya. “KL, Asia’s Most Affordable Study Hub.” The Star, 2022. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2022/06/30/kl-asias-most-affordable-study-hub.

Ministry of Education Malaysia. Higher Education Statistics 2018. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2019. https://www.mohe.gov.my/muat-turun/statistik.

   . Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025 : Higher Education. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2015. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ijis.20120206.05.

   . Way Forward for Private Higher Education Institutions: Education As an Industry 2020-2025. Vol. 1. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2020.

Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia. Higher Education Indicator 2007. Putrajaya: Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2008. https://www.mohe.gov.my/muat-turun/statistik.

   . Higher Education Statistics 2015. Putrajaya: Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2016. https://www.mohe.gov.my/muat-turun/statistik.

   . Higher Education Statistics 2016. Putrajaya: Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2017. https://www.mohe.gov.my/muat-turun/statistik.

   . Higher Education Statistics 2017. Putrajaya: Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2018. https://www.mohe.gov.my/muat-turun/statistik.

   . Higher Education Statistics 2019. Putrajaya: Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2020. https://www.mohe.gov.my/muat-turun/statistik.

   . Higher Education Statistics 2021. Putrajaya: Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2022. https://www.mohe.gov.my/muat-turun/statistik.

   . National Higher Education Stategic Plan : Laying The Foundation Beyond 2020. Putrajaya: Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2007.

Njie, Baboucarr;, Soaib; Asimiran, and Baki Roselan. “Perceptions of International Students on Service Quality Delivery in a Malaysian Public University.” Quality Assurance in Education 20, no. 2 (2012): 153–63. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QAE-11-2012-0046.

Ong, Chee Hui; “Determinants of International Student’s Satisfaction in UUM 2014.” Universiti Utara Malaysia, 2014.

Osumi, Magdalena. “Japan Aims to up Number of International Students to 300,000 by 2027.” The Japan Times, 2022. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/06/23/national/international-students-increase-plan/.

Palacio, Asuncion Beerli;, Gonzalo Diaz; Meneses, and Pedro J. Perez; Perez. “The Configuration of the University Image and Its Relationship with the Satisfaction of Students.” Journal of Educational Administration 40, no. 5 (2002): 486–505. https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090910954864.

Pallant, Julie. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS. 5 Edition. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill, 2013.

Parasuraman, Valarie A.; Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry. “SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality.” Journal of Retailing 64, no. 1 (1988): 5–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00084-3.

Paswan, Audhesh K., and Gopala Ganesh. “Higher Education Institutions: Satisfaction and Loyalty among International Students.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 19, no. 1 (2009): 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841 240902904869.

Patterson, Paul G., and Richard A. Spreng. Modelling the Relationship between Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Repurchase Intentions in a Business-to-business, Services Context: An Empirical Examination. International Journal of Service Industry Management. Vol. 8, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1108/0956 4239710189835.

Pereda, Maria, David Airey, and Marion Bennett. “Service Quality in Higher Education : The Experience of Overseas Students.” Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education 6, no. 2 (2007): 55–67. https://doi.org/10.3794/johlste.62.160.

Pui Yee, Chong; Siew Yean, Tham, and Andrew Jia Yi; Kam. “Verifying International Students’ Satisfaction Framework for the Development of MISS-Model in Malaysia.” Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 26, no. January (2018): 1–18.

Pui Yee, Chong. “Internationalisation of Higher Education : Proposed Framework on International Students’ Satisfaction.” Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 23, no. Special Issue (2015): 73–90.

   . “Measuring International Students’ Satisfaction : The Development of Survey Instrument.” In Global Conference On Business And Economics Research (GCER) 2017, 112–19. Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia, 2017. https://doi.org/ISBN978-983-2408-56-7.

Rehman, Mohsin Abdur;, Erisher; Woyo, Joy Eghonghor; Akahome, and Muhammad Danial Sohail. “The Influence of Course Experience, Satisfaction, and Loyalty on Students’ Word-of-Mouth and Re-Enrolment Intentions.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 32, no. 1 (2020): 259–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2020.1852469.

Sánchez-Fernández, Raquel, and M. Ángeles Iniesta-Bonillo. “The Concept of Perceived Value: A Systematic Review of the Research.” Marketing Theory 7, no. 4 (2007): 427–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593107083165.

Santini, Fernando de Oliveira, Wagner Junior Ladeira, Claudio Hoffmann Sampaio, and Gustavo da Silva Costa. “Student Satisfaction in Higher Education: A Meta-Analytic Study.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 27, no. 1 (2017): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2017.1311980.

Selnes, Fred; “An Examination of the Effect of Product Performance on Brand Reputation, Satisfaction and Loyalty.” European Journal of Marketing 27, no. 9 (1993): 19–35. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-2015-0216.

Shahijan, Milad Kalantari, Sajad Rezaei, and Vinitha Padmanabhan Guptan. “Marketing Public and Private Higher Education Institutions: A Total Experiential Model of International Student’s Satisfaction, Performance and Continues Intention.” International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 15, no. 2 (2018): 205–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-018-0198-2.

Sharif, Khurram, and Norizan Mohd Kassim. “Non-Academic Service Quality: Comparative Analysis of Students and Faculty as Users.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 22, no. 1 (2012): 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2012.705793.

Slethaug, Gordon, and Jesilin Manjula. “The Business of Education : Improving International Student Learning Experiences in Malaysia.” World Journal of Social Sciences 2, no. 6 (2012): 179–99.

Soleimani, Ali Gholipour, and Hannaneh Einolahzadeh. “The Influence of Service Quality on Revisit Intention: The Mediating Role of WOM and Satisfaction (Case Study: Guilan Travel Agencies).” Cogent Social Sciences 4, no. 1 (2018): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1560651.

Sultana, Seyama, and Abdul Momen. “International Student Satisfaction and Loyalty: A Comparative Study of Malaysian and Australian Higher Learning Institutions.” Journal of Intercultural Management 9, no. 1 (2017): 101–42. https://doi.org/10.1515/joim-2017-0005.

Taiwan Ministry of Education. “International Students Come Together to Taiwan, Where the One-Hundred Thirty Thousand Overseas Student Mark Has Been Passed,” 2021. https://english.moe.gov.tw/cp-117-25416-d8868-1.html.

Talebloo, Baharak;, and Roselan; Baki. “Challenges Faced by International Postgraduate Students during Their First Year of Studies.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 3, no. 13 (2013): 138–45.

The Nation. “Academics Support Plan to Allow Foreign Universities in SEZs.” The Nation, 2017. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/business/EconomyAnd
Tourism/3031610.

THE World University Rankings. “Western Universities Mull Indonesian Branch Campuses.” THE World University Rankings, January 28, 2019. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/western-universities-mull-indonesian-branch-campuses.

Thompson, Klein Julie; “Prospects for Transdisciplinarity.” Futures 36, no. 4 (2004): 515–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.007.

Trullas, Irene, Pep Simo, Oriol R. Fusalba, Angels Fito, and Jose M. Sallan. “Student-Perceived Organizational Support and Perceived Employability in the Marketing of Higher Education.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 28, no. 2 (2018): 266–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2018.1488334.

Turkyilmaz, A, and C Ozkan. “Development of a Customer Satisfaction Index Model - An Application to the Turkish Mobile Phone Sector.” Industrial Management Data Systems 107, no. 5–6 (2007): 672–87. https://doi.org/
10.1108/02635570710750426.

WES. “Established and Emerging Hubs for International Education in Africa and the Middle East.” WES Research and Advisory Services, 2015. https://wenr.wes.org/2015/06/established-emerging-hubs-international-education-africa-middle-east.

Yusliza, Mohd. Yusoff; “Self-Efficacy, Perceived Social Support, and Psychological Adjustment in International Undergraduate Students in a Public Higher Education Institution in Malaysia.” Journal of Studies in International Education 16, no. 4 (2012): 353–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315311408914.

Yusliza, Mohd.Yusoff;, and Chelliah Shankar. “Adjustment in International Students in Malaysian Public University.” International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 1, no. 3 (2010): 275–78.

Zeithaml, Valarie A. “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value : A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence.” Journal of Marketing 52, no. 3 (1988): 2–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251446.

Ethical conventions

There are no individual, institutional, or sites mentioned in the manuscript. The first author conducted this research for her Ph.D. at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). During the data collection in 2016, obtaining ethical committee approval for a study that does not involve testing or experimenting on human beings was not compulsory. However, all the necessary protocols of research ethics were observed, including:

1.Institutions’ consent was obtained prior to data collection as permission was sought from participating institutions; attached is the file.

2.Participation from respondents was voluntary; they were informed of the objectives, duration, data confidentiality, and anonymity.

3.Researcher collected the data in person at respective campuses. Some institutions managed the survey through their International Office.

4.There is no risk to the safety of respondents as surveys were conducted on campuses.

5.No monetary incentives were given to respondents. However, they were given a packet of drinks and snacks when filling out the survey.

6.A report was given to each institution after the data analysis to comply with data transparency.

---

Annexes

1) Assessment of Measurement Model

2) Survey Questionnaire