FOREIGN TRADE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF BUSINESS ENGLISH

--------🙡🙣--------

RESEARCH REPORT

ASSESSING FOREIGN TRADE UNIVERSITY STUDENT' SATISFACTION

IN READING 2 COURSE

Supervisor: Pham Thi Hong Yen, Ph.D

Class: Writing 3.2
Group: 9
Member List:
1. Bá Thị Vân Anh (Leader) - 1817710004
2. Nguyễn Thị Hồng Hằng - 1817710054
3. Nguyễn Thị Huyền - 1817710073
4. Ka Như Quỳnh - 1817710136
5. Bùi Thị Huyền - 1717710093
6. Đỗ Thị Minh Trang - 1817710165
7. Đỗ Hải Yến - 1817710185

Ha Noi, 12 th January 2021

1
 Table of content
List of table
List of figure
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................................................................6
2.1. Definition of “Student satisfaction”...............................................................................6
2.2. Benefits of Student Satisfaction...................................................................................7
2.3. Factors contributing to Student satisfaction.................................................................7
2.3.1 Teaching quality.....................................................................................................7
2.3.2 Curriculum (Critical thinking)..................................................................................8
2.3.3 Assessment and feedback.....................................................................................8
2.3.4 Learning resources................................................................................................9
2.3.5 Facilities................................................................................................................. 9
3. METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................10
3.1. Research method......................................................................................................10
3.2. Data collection process.............................................................................................11
3.3. The reason of using these methods and techniques.................................................12
3.4. The interpretation of quantitative data.......................................................................12
4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION........................................................................................12
4.1. Questionaires about teachers/instructors..................................................................13
4.2. Questions about the curriculum (3 questions)...........................................................15
4.3. Feedback and responses during the course..............................................................16
4.4. Learning resources....................................................................................................18
4.5. Student’s satisfaction about technologies that support the learning process.............19
4.6. Questions about decisions of choosing the Reading 2 course...................................20
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.....................................................................22
5.1. Overall conclusion.....................................................................................................22
5.2. Recommendation......................................................................................................22
5.2.1. For teachers........................................................................................................22
5.2.2. For students........................................................................................................23
APPENDIX........................................................................................................................... 24
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 27

2
 List of Table
Table 3.1 Seven-Point Likert Scale
…………………………………………………….10

List of Figures
13
14
15
19

1. INTRODUCTION
To catch up with the development of society, the quality of education is
increasingly focused and concerned. People pay more attention to how good the
education service they receive and that is also what education providers want to know in
order to improve their quality to reinforce their reputation much stronger and more
stable. Higher education quality is an example. There is a lot of research on student
satisfaction at university, such as satisfaction on administrative services, on studying
facilities, … and satisfaction about the quality of each course provided is also seen as a
crucial contribution to the overall education quality.

Satisfaction is an indispensable factor to measure the success of a particular

course. It is a feeling of happiness when a person can fulfill his or her expectations or
desires during and after a course. Services are delivered to people by people, and the
moments of truth can make or break a university’s image (Banwet and Datta, 2003). We
are well aware of the fact that courses play a vital role in the reputation of the school in
3
general and of the faculty in particular, and word-of-mouth statements will affect the
decision of later generations.

The development of critical thinking skills is often listed as the most important
reason for formal education because the ability to think critically is essential for success
in the contemporary world where the rate at which new knowledge is created is rapidly
accelerating. “Critical thinking” is taught worldwide as a subject and Foreign Trade
University is not an exception. This course is first provided to the students of the faculty
of Business English and then some advanced programs.

There are two terms that sometimes people get confused - “critical thinking” and
“critical reading”. It’s the former that will be talked about in this paper so it is necessary
to distinguish between the two. In short, critical reading is a technique for discovering
information and ideas within a text. Critical thinking is a technique for evaluating
information and ideas, for deciding what to accept and believe.

Because critical thinking is taught throughout the world so the syllabus each
school and education institution teaches is different. We see that there are similarities
and differences. The biggest similarity is that the course focuses on the core, teaching
how to think and make necessary questions while reading. Talking about differences,
apart from differences in the coursebook, there are some other differences such as the
duration of the course. In the course syllabus of Reading 2, which Foreign Trade
University (FTU) teaches, students use the course book “Asking the right question” and
learn about how to identify an issue, a conclusion, value conflicts, rival causes,
fallacies,... with the duration of 15 weeks - the same amount of course time in the
syllabus of Macalester College. Compared to the syllabus of Harvard students, this
course’s syllabus contains more details and knowledge that needs to be taken in each
lesson. It is also divided into more sub topics each lesson.

The achievement of student satisfaction can bring numerous benefits to both

universities and their students. Firstly, satisfaction motivates students to get higher
grades (Bean and Bradley, 1986); simultaneously keeps students engaged during and
4
after their studies (The global student satisfaction report 2019). Satisfied students may
return to the university to take other courses and attract new students by engaging in
positive word-of-mouth communication to acquaintances and friends. (Wiers-Jenssen et
al., 2002; Mavondo et al., 2004). As a result, assessing student satisfaction can inform
new students and correct expectations (Thomas and Galambos, 2004); make study
choice easier and find their most fitting course of study.

In the context of the highly competitive university markets, students are

increasingly seen as consumers. Consequently, that forces universities to act as service
providers and respond to student needs so that they can gain more competitive
advantages. Measuring student satisfaction can help universities evaluate which areas
are exceeding expectations and which areas are otherwise falling behind (The global
student satisfaction report 2019), then allow them to improve the service and align the
strategy with their mission and objectives. Universities which satisfy students can
compete with each other to both keep and attract the best ones (Douglas and Douglas,
2006). In addition, student satisfaction also has a positive impact on fundraising (Elliott
and Shin, 2002).

This research is based on a quantitative survey that uses an online questionnaire

as a measurement tool developed by the authors. The survey involved students who
were studying at HaNoi Foreign Trade University. Respondents are sophomores and
older who are studying in the Faculty of Business English or a high-quality program
(CLC). In the survey, students can rate their study experience on a scale from 1 to 7 by
assessing their satisfaction in 6 items: teaching quality, curriculum, assessment and
feedback, learning resources and facilities.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Definition of “Student satisfaction”

Oliver (1980) offered an adequate definition of student satisfaction as a
combination of prior expectations and subsequent experiences. Elliott and Shin (2002)

5
also implied in their research that satisfaction took place when the perceived
performance met or exceeded expectations.

2.2. Benefits of Student Satisfaction

Firstly, raising student satisfaction could improve the university ranking, enhance
the reputation and create a competitive advantage for the institute (Wilkins &
Balakrishnan, 2013; Sharabati et al., 2019; Dill & Soo, 2005; Sutherland, Warwick, &
Anderson, 2019; Elsharnouby, 2015). Secondly, achieving student satisfaction is
beneficial to higher education institutions in terms of finance and fundraising. Satisfied
students are more willing to contribute to their universities by providing monetary
support (Yildiz, 2013). A larger number of public funds are likely to allocate these
institutions if government policymakers discern high satisfaction levels of students
(Gibson, 2010; Grace, Weaven, Bodey, Ross, & Weaven, 2012; Sutherland et al., 2019).
Consequently, researching and putting more effort into raising the satisfaction level of
students have become a necessity for all the universities (Grace et al., 2012).

2.3. Factors contributing to Student satisfaction

In order to boost student satisfaction, the authors initially need to address factors
that give rise to this satisfying evaluation. In this research’s conceptual framework,
student satisfaction will be illustrated as a dependent variable and five perceived service
quality factors will be independent variables. The independent variables consist of
teaching quality, curriculum (critical thinking), assessment and feedback, learning
resources, and facilities. This Literature Review will define these variables and explain
why they are included in this research’s survey

2.3.1 Teaching quality

In one research’s finding, Krahn and Bowlby (1997) included additional control
variables and they declared “our study demonstrates much more conclusively that the
experience of good teaching translates into greater satisfaction with the overall
university experience”.
6
 But what exactly are components that make up teaching quality? First and foremost,
teaching expertise is the most influential predictor and “tend to show the strongest
relationship with student satisfaction” (Green et al. 2015). Secondly, teaching style, or
the ability to deliver lectures and communicate with students is no less important as
confirmed in various studies (Bigne, Moliner, & Sanchez 2003; Douglas et al. 2006).
Thirdly, the amount and quality of lecturer-student interactions (Johnson, Cascio, &
Massiah 2014) is even considered the most important determinant of student satisfaction
(Sutherland et al. 2019). The fourth factor found out by a survey at both large and small
Canadian universities includes elements like enthusiasm, humor, the ability to hold the
students’ attention, the degree of encouragement, rapport, and lecturer-student
relationships in the classroom (Smimou and Dahl 2012).
Based on the literature, this study’s survey includes questions about teaching
expertise, lecture delivery, interaction, rapport, and the ability to hold the students’
attention in the category of teaching quality.

2.3.2 Curriculum (Critical thinking)

In higher education institutions (HEIs), the curriculum is also known as an
academic program given to students. Browne et al. (1998) asserted that issues related to
university curriculum could affect overall student satisfaction.
It is widely accepted that students’ prime motivation to study is to pursue a
particular career and to receive personal and career benefits resulting from the course
completion. Wang (2020) stated that students undoubtedly derived greater satisfaction
from the course when its curriculum had relevance to their future career.
Critical thinking was conceived as "a dynamic activity, in which critical
perspectives on a problem develop through both individual analysis and social
interaction". Many research studies have agreed that critical thinking and problem
solving are ranked as top skills for graduates (PayScale.com, 2016; Hart Research
Associates, 2015; Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006).

7
2.3.3 Assessment and feedback
Hill et al. (2003) and Rientes, Li, Marsh (2015) mentioned that quality of feedback
given during lessons and on assignments and final assessment were among the most
important drivers of overall learning satisfaction.
However, Sutherland, Warwick, and Anderson (2019) claimed that it is still a bit
“surprising that a factor that generally has little involvement in day to day delivery of a
module should exert the impact that it does”. The underlying reason for this strong
connection between assessment/feedback and student satisfaction is in fact rather
complicated. Many students nowadays opt for higher education because they want to
achieve specific outcomes rather than learning for its own sake. Since assessment and
feedback have a direct relationship with qualification aims and the prospects of the
degree advancing students’ careers, this factor is oftentimes taken into account when
students evaluate their courses. As a result, students are likely to feel satisfied when
assessments are fair and appropriate. By contrast, if students interpret the assessment
marks as unfairly or subjectively graded, they are likely to report major dissatisfaction.

2.3.4 Learning resources

The supply of learning resources prove to be one of the factors with the highest
levels of influence on student satisfaction according to a European-based study
conducted by Garcı´a-Aracil (2009).
In this day and age when daily life is strongly shaped by Internet access, new forms
of academic materials inevitably emerge. Various forms of online materials ranging
from readings to audios, videos, games… currently have growing impacts on students'
learning process (Arbaugh 2012; Meyer 2014; Sinclaire 2011). Thus, lecturers and
higher education institutions are required to equip their students with necessary skills to
search for and filter online contents of high value if they aspire to further boost their
students’ level of satisfaction
In the context of a business school, it’s a requirement of FBE students to self study
at home besides listening to lectures directly delivered in school. For that reason, the
variable “learning resources” in the survey is accordingly divided into 2 questions.

8
2.3.5 Facilities
In a Polish study, Sojkin et al. (2012) placed educational facilities and conditions
among the key determinants of student satisfaction in higher education.
The physical environment of a HEI/ classroom which comprises buildings,
elevators, rooms, corridors, light, space, desks, boards… is a component of facilities.
Wells and Daunt (2011) examined a sample of UK students and discovered that the
physical environment of a HEI could influence student satisfaction level. Equipment
and technology within classrooms such as projectors, air-conditioners, microphones,
computers, PowerPoint slides… are the second components of educational facilities.
The effective use and accessibility of this equipment and technology are shown to play a
decisive role in determining student satisfaction in multiple past research (Garcı´a-
Aracil, 2009; Hill et al., 2003 Miliszewska & Sztendur, 2010; Tomy & Pardede, 2019)
The facilities bracket in the survey is composed of both dimensions which are
physical environment and equipment for FBE students to grade their satisfaction level.

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research method

This quantitative research exploits a questionnaire using seven-point Likert scales.
Parts of scales were taken from many previous studies on student satisfaction, such as
Douglas et al. (2006), Clemes et al. (2007) and Miliszewska and Sztendur (2010).
The instrument was designed for measuring student’s satisfaction in Reading 2
course. The questionnaire consisted of 5 quality dimensions, covering most aspects of
measuring satisfaction in a course.
For each dimension, respondents had 7 response choices from strongly
unacceptable (1) to strongly satisfying (7).

9
 Table 3.1 Seven-Point Likert Scale

Answer Rating scale

Strongly unacceptable 1

Unacceptable 2

Slightly unacceptable 3

Acceptable 4

Slightly satisfying 5

Satisfying 6

Strongly satisfying 7

3.2. Data collection process

The questionnaire includes 20 questions in which two are used to collect personal
data of respondents (their major and their school year), the remaining 18 questions are
based on 5 dimensions to measure entirely student satisfaction on the quality of Reading
2 course:
 Lecturer’s teaching quality
 Curriculum
 Assessment and feedback
 Learning Resources
 Facilities
The survey involved students who were studying at HaNoi Foreign Trade
University. Respondents are sophomores and older who are studying Faculty of
Business English or the Advanced Training Program (CLC). The author did not include
freshmen as they do not have a Reading 2 course in the curriculum.
The author posted the survey on Facebook group which comprises a large number
of targeted students and also sent the link to all of their friends majoring in Faculty of
Business English or the Advanced Training Program. The survey questionnaire was
accomplished online by students with the aim of making it more convenient and more
popular. In total, the questionnaires were handed out over four weeks on December 14th

10
that collected 77 responses in which 5 responses from CLC and 72 responses from
Faculty of Business English. More than a half of the responses (58,4%) came from
juniors; 24,7% responses from sophomores and 16,9% from seniors which resembles
the curriculum distribution in Foregn Trade University.

3.3. The reason of using these methods and techniques

The authors choose a quantitative research method because the topic has been little
studied so far. The authors aim to quantify the student’s satisfaction in the Reading 2
course and understand how prevalent it is by looking for results that can be projected to
a larger group of students.
Moreover, this method yields valid statistical data that help researchers to defy
cause and effect relationships such as what causes students to be dissatisfied with the
Reading 2 course and its effects?
The author utilised a seven-point scale on account of the optimized reliability with
seven response categories and the stronger correlation with test results.

3.4. The interpretation of quantitative data

The frequency table technique was selected for this study. The authors make the
table by arranging nominal responses and their corresponding frequencies and
thenceforth the frequency chart was established. Thereby, by comparing and contrasting
data, the author can evaluate whether students were satisfied or not with their
experience in Reading 2 course, simultaneously understanding the factors that make
students dissatisfied.

4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Our survey “Assessing Foreign Trade University students’ satisfaction in Reading
2 course” was conducted with Foreign Trade University students as the sample takers.

11
The survey provides approaching questions attached with 1-to-7-scale answers. Levels
from 1 to 7 are referred from Seven-Point Likert Scale (as Table 3.1 presents). These
respectively are strongly unacceptable, unacceptable, slightly unacceptable, acceptable,
slightly satisfying, satisfying and strongly satisfying. The number of responses
collected: 77 in which 5 responses are from the Advanced Training Program and 72
responses are from Business English Faculty (account for 93,5%); and 19 responses
(24,7%) from sophomores, 45 (58,4%) from juniors and 13 (16,9%) from seniors. There
are no responses choosing level 1 or 2 as the answer.
Seeing from our results, the majority of the students say they are satisfied with the
Reading 2 course from level scale from 5 to 7. However, there are a few students who
are not really satisfied and they rate with the range level from 1 to 3, in terms of some
factors like materials not meeting the expectation, teachers’ feedback not enough and on
time,..... The authors will make an analysis of the reasons for students’ dissatisfaction
on the course in sub parts.

4.1. Questionaires about teachers/instructors

The author use 5 question in this criteria to measure student satisfaction with
Reading 2’ lecturer.
In the very first question aiming to assess how much students are satisfied with
their teachers’ ability to make the course interesting, the level of satisfaction is seen to
rise gradually and highest at the peak of 24 choices (level 5) which accounts for 31,2%
of all collected responses to this question. Noticeably, most choices lie in the last three
levels, so we can infer that FTU students are quite satisfied with their teacher’s effort in
designing the course, preparing materials and having a good way of conveying the
knowledge and guiding needed skills to the students.

12
 Figure 4.1.1. FTU students’ satisfaction about their teachers’ ability to make
the course interesting
Asking FTU students about their satisfaction of their teacher’s technical course
knowledge and skills, the authors received no responses of level 1 or 2 and the same
highest number of answers on both level 6 and 7 (each accounts for 35,9%). The
satisfaction also rises gradually. So no one feels unacceptable with their teacher’s
knowledge and skills. Most students agree that they are satisfied, they feel it interesting
and helpful to them, this somehow reflects the good quality of teachers instructing on
this course at Foreign Trade University.
Most students (25 choices at level 6) agree that they are satisfied with their
teachers using language effectively to make them understand the lesson. Still no one
chooses level 1 or 2 but the level of satisfaction fluctuates from level 3 to level 7 with
the most answers lying from level 5 to level 7. This question records twice more

13
students finding this slightly unacceptable (5,1%) than acceptable (2,6%).

Figure 4.1.2. FTU students’ satisfaction about their teachers’ effectiveness in

using easy-to-understand language
In the next question, most answer that they are satisfied with the interaction
between the teachers and students during the course. 28 of them (35,9%) said the
interaction is satisfactory and 23 of them (29,5%) said they were strongly satisfied about
this. The level rises gradually.
Students' satisfaction about teachers’ way to help the students when they
encounter difficulty at studying this course (missing deadline, misunderstanding the
lesson,..), most students agree on the level 6 (24 chooses accounting for 30,8%). The
author sees that teachers tend to help their students, find solutions rather than punish
them for their mistakes.

4.2. Questions about the curriculum (3 questions)

The author use 3 question in this criteria to measure student satisfaction with
Reading 2’ curriculum.
When asked “How practical is Reading 2 to you?”, more than half of the students
responded with 6 (practical) and above (the discrepancy between these 2 levels is just 1

14
student). However, the figure for level 5 (somewhat practical) is not too far off from 6
and 7, which means there are many slightly in doubt of this subject’s applcation in life.

Figure 4.2.1. FTU students’ satisfaction about the practical implication

of the course
Regarding the extent to which Reading 2 helps orient students’ future career, the
majority of students answered “somewhat significant” (level 5) and higher. The number
supposing that this subject does nothing at all (level 4) is quite a lot and even nearly
equals that of level 5 and 6. While many believe that this subject is applicable and
practical to their career path, more are in doubt of how this subject helps them choose
their careers. It appears that the course content does not steer and navigate students to
any specific profession that requires the use of this knowledge.
Once again Reading 2 received excellent reviews from the survey participants, but
this time is “How helpful is Reading 2 in developing your ways of thinking?”. None
found this subject useless and the majority agree that it is good for their mind. One thing
to notice is that the number of people who chose “somewhat helpful” and “extremely
helpful” is nearly the same. From here, we can see that the students either get really into
the subject and benefit from it or they just put in minimal effort and gain little. There is
20.5% in the middle, though, which means this can be just a rushed assumption.

15
 Figure 4.2.2. FTU students’ satisfaction about the course’s ability to develop
students’ way of thinking

4.3. Feedback and responses during the course

The author use 2 question in this criteria to measure student satisfaction with
lecturer’s assessment and feedback.
The result shows that 39 out of 77 students responded that their teachers’ methods
of evaluating their understanding at the end of a chapter are effective. However, 35.9%
of the students chose “slightly satisfied”. This shows that there can still be limitations to
the methods and that lecturers can step up their game with more diverse tests format and
may even change up test frequency.

16
 Figure 4.3.1. FTU students’ satisfaction about teachers’ way of assessing
their performance after every unit or chapter

Regarding student’s satisfaction with their lecturers’ feedback, most stay on the
positive side. 24 students are “slightly satisfied” with their assignment evaluation.
Meanwhile, the data for those who are “satisfied” and “extremely satisfied” are nearly
the same. Though most are content with their lecturers’ feedback, the group that is just
“slightly satisfied” is quite significant. It’s high time lecturers spent more time and
connected with their students. The reason for this is that class size can be uncontrollable
sometimes which causes lecturers’ attention to scatter unevenly. Therefore, many are
given thorough and helpful feedback while many aren’t. The fault does not lie entirely
with lecturers, however, managing to get a grip of every student possible is still
advisable.

Figure 4.3.2. FTU students’ satisfaction about lecturers’ feedback on their work

4.4. Learning resources

The author use 2 question in this criteria to measure student satisfaction with
learning resources.
When asked “How well do your materials serve your learning process?”, one group
of 13 students replied with “acceptable” while another group of the same quantity
answered “extremely well”. The highest percentage go to level 6 (well) with 37.2%,

17
which is 11.6% higher than level 5 (somewhat well) and slightly double level 4
(acceptable) and level 7 (extremely well). These data show that the choice of materials
is right as for now. However, not all choose to give the ultimate score. Therefore, there
could be defects with the currently used materials. They can be unsuitable for your
learners’ level, inadequate for their needs or maybe not diverse enough.

Figure 4.4.1. FTU students’ satisfaction about the course materials’ ability
to serve the learning and cater to their needs
With the question “how was your lecturers’ support after classes (help with work
at home or answer unclear questions and so on?”, we got some similar figures from
several levels. The number of people choosing level 4 (acceptable) is not too far off
from 13 people who chose level 7 (extremely satisfactory). This goes the same with the
number of votes for level 5 and 6. The percentage of level 6 (satisfactory) is highest
(32.1%), then comes level 5 (29,5%).

18
 Figure 4.4.2. FTU students’ satisfaction about teachers’ support after classes

4.5. Student’s satisfaction about technologies that support the learning

process
The author use 2 question in this criteria to measure FTU student satisfaction
about equipments, tools that support the learning process.
Overall, students basically were satisfied with the school's facilities and equipment
in the classroom such as air conditioner, projector, micro,.. In particular, approximately
34,6% of surveyed pupils felt an average sense of satisfaction, in contrast, only just
above 1,3% had completely unpleasant experience with classroom equipped devices
which contributed to the lowest number of survey figures. In addition, just a relatively
small number of students were extremely happy with their class devices, around 11,5%.
Otherwise, the figure for scale 6 which was students’ quite pleasant feeling was nearly
25%, 5 percent higher compared to the percentage of students with slight satisfaction.
When it comes to technology advances that lecturers used during the course, the
level of happiness went up considerably. Specifically, from scale 4 to 7 which were
arranged from acceptable to extremely pleasant experience, the figures were 21,8% to
16,7% respectively. Moreover approximately 31% of reading 2 students had a good
impression about technologies applied by their teachers, which apparently was the
highest figure in total scale. Therefore, it’s notable that the facilities and technology
19
applications used by FTU had satisfied learners demands and facilitated the learning
process as well as deeper lecture understanding.

Figure 4.5.1. FTU students’ satisfaction about teachers’ effective use of

technology in class

There was no student display that they felt completely unhappy (scale 1) with
modern applications such as Quizzes or Kahoot,... Nevertheless, around 4% of negative
feedback has been received in this matter. From that, it’s plausible that advanced
applications were helpful to faculty of business learners.

4.6. Questions about decisions of choosing the Reading 2 course

The author use 3 question in this criteria to measure FTU student satisfaction about
FTU student’ decision of choosing the Reading 2 course.
It is undoubtedly true that the reading 2 course has somehow brought practical
advantages for learners in their real lives. Since there were no students shown that they
were totally unpleasant with the applicability in practice. On the contrary, positive
answers were seen through the high percentage of pupils satisfaction. To be more
specific, nearly 35% of surveyed students said that they felt happy with the outcome and
practice of the course, however, the figure for extremely great experience steadily fell

20
by 12%. In scale from 3 to 4 which refer to an averagely pleasant level of student, our
team saw around 6,4% and 9% percent respectively.
The survey results showed that a great majority of students expressed that if there
was any chance for them to decide what courses they could take during their university
period of time, they would definitely choose to study this subject. In particular, more
than 82% of survey pupils decided to involve themselves in studying The reading 2
course, and just nearly 18% gave the no answer. Therefore, it’s undeniable that Foreign
Trade University authorities had successfully created a curriculum for its learners with
useful and practical subjects for their future careers.

Figure 4.5.2. FTU students’ decision to retake the reading 2 course

Finally, when being asked whether engaging in Reading 2 course was a wise
decision, participants apparently gave positive replies as well as a satisfied attitude.
Specifically, the percentage for scale 6 and 7 which were incredible and extremely
incredible levels of satisfaction was similar, nearly 30%. By contrast there were no
highly negative feedbacks received from surveyed pupils, while only a small number of
students expressed their dissatisfied experience when choosing to study the reading 2
course. Moreover, about 5% to 6,5% of learners supposed that engaging in this course
was not a brilliant decision. Similarly, the great number of students gave feedbacks that
they would make recommendation for their counterparts to take this course, nearly 88%
and just only 12% gave the no answer.

21
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1. Overall conclusion

Seeing from the results, the majority of the students say they are satisfied with the
Reading 2 course from level scale from 5 to 7 in terms of some factors like materials not
meeting the expectation, teachers’ feedback not enough and on time,... However, there
are a few students who are not really satisfied and they rate with the range level from 1
to 3. Therefore, the author would like to give a recommend to improve level of FTU
student satisfaction in Reading course. There are some notable implications in the
section of curriculum about critical thinking. FTU students don’t receive
communication close enough and immediate feedbacks to follow the course. This
sometime discourage. As a FTU student, the author understand that student always have
motivation to choose a course is to receive real-life benefits and help with the pursuit of
a particular career. Therefore, the author will mainly concentrate on giving
recommendation for lecturers on how to give their student most practical knowledge
and skill after finishing the course.

5.2. Recommendation

5.2.1. For teachers

In questions “How practical is the course to your life?” and “Is the course relevant
to your future career?”, the authors receive a somewhat low evaluation (more than 23%
of students opting for level 4), which is noteworthy for students and lecturers/course
developers to improve the course’s quality and outcomes in the future.
The author suggest several adjustments to the curriculum for lecturers:
- Integrate business case studies, real-life workplace situations, other career-focused
topics in students’ discussions and group work
- Organize orientation workshop within the course and invite professional guest
speakers (if possible)
- Provide online career resources for self-study

22
 Besides, it’s reasonable that teachers should give his/her student useful and
immediate feedback so that they can know what they are right or what they are
wrong for improvement next time because learning from wrong points is always
easier to go into their mind.

5.2.2. For students

Students are advised to actively engage in the lessons and communicate with other
students and lecturers right away when having difficulties. Like other generic skills,
critical thinking skill requires a lot of practice and proactive approaches to master. For
that reason, the group of authors strongly suggest that students should strike a balance
between studying in school and self-studying at home and try to utilise this skill in daily
life as much as possible so that the Reading 2 course can be more practically effective.

Still, limitations in the data collection and interpretation process are unavoidable.
Also, the narrow scale which concerns only a small number of students and mostly
juniors is another restriction of the research that makes it difficult to be generalized to
all FBE’s students participating in the course. Therefore, further research needs to be
conducted to gain more insight into student satisfaction after completing Reading 2
course.
Several prominent areas that future studies are highly recommended to take into
account are students’ experiences of online learning due to the prevalence of this study
form during Covid 19 outbreak, and the satisfaction level of male students which is
inadequately assessed because of FBE’s major gender imbalance.

23
APPENDIX

RESEACH SURVEY QUESTIONAIRE

Description:
This research project aims to investigate the Foreign Trade University student’s
satisfaction in Reading 2 course. The research is being conducted as part of class project
in Writing 3 course. Many students in the class have been asked to fill in the survey.
The data will then be pooled and will be used to conduct.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION-IT IS HIGHLY APPRECIATED
The following questions ask you to think about your feeling towards Reading 2 course.
Please answer each of the following questions by underlining the response which best
describes how you feel about each question.

A. Lecturer
A.1. Do your lecturer make the Reading 2 course interesting?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Unacceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Satisfying Strongly
unacceptable unacceptable satisfying satisfying

A.2. Is your lecturer expert in his/her field?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24
 Strongly Unacceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Satisfying Strongly
unacceptable unacceptable satisfying satisfying

A.3. Do your lecturer use language that you understand?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Unacceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Satisfying Strongly
unacceptable unacceptable satisfying satisfying

A.4. Do you have as much contact with your lecturer as you need?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Unacceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Satisfying Strongly
unacceptable unacceptable satisfying satisfying

A.5. Is your lecturer sympathetic if you have problems that affect your work?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Unacceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Satisfying Strongly
unacceptable unacceptable satisfying satisfying

B. Curriculum
B.1. How practical is Reading 2 to you?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Unacceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Satisfying Strongly
unacceptable unacceptable satisfying satisfying

B.2. How does Reading 2 orient your choice of future career?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Unacceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Satisfying Strongly
unacceptable unacceptable satisfying satisfying

B.3. How helpful is Reading 2 in developing your ways of thinking?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Unacceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Satisfying Strongly
unacceptable unacceptable satisfying satisfying

C. Assessment and Feedback

C.1. Are you satisfied with your lecturers' methods of assessments after every unit or chapter?
(quizzes, mini-tests, etc)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Unacceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Satisfying Strongly
unacceptable unacceptable satisfying satisfying

C.2. Are you satisfied with your lecturers' feedback on your work?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Unacceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Satisfying Strongly
unacceptable unacceptable satisfying satisfying

D. Resources
D.1. How well do your materials serve your learning process and cater to your need?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Unacceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Satisfying Strongly
unacceptable unacceptable satisfying satisfying

25
 D.2. How was your lecturers’ support after classes (help with work at home or answer unclear
questions and so on)?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Unacceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Satisfying Strongly
unacceptable unacceptable satisfying satisfying

E. Facility/Technology
E.1. Do all teaching rooms have good audio/visual facilities? (e.g: desk, table, micro, air-conditioner,
projector, cleanness,...)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Unacceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Satisfying Strongly
unacceptable unacceptable satisfying satisfying

E.2. Does your lecturer use technology well in his/her teaching? (e.g: powerpoint, app Quizzes, app
Kahoot,....)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Unacceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Satisfying Strongly
unacceptable unacceptable satisfying satisfying

F. Decision of choosing the course

F.1. So far, has Reading 2 course met all of your expectation?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Unacceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Satisfying Strongly
unacceptable unacceptable satisfying satisfying

F.2. Would you definitely choose the Reading 2 again?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Unacceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Satisfying Strongly
unacceptable unacceptable satisfying satisfying

F.3. Do you think your choice of learning the Reading 2 course is a wise decision?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Unacceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Satisfying Strongly
unacceptable unacceptable satisfying satisfying

F.4. Do you recommend the Reading 2 course to your friends?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Unacceptable Slightly Acceptable Slightly Satisfying Strongly
unacceptable unacceptable satisfying satisfying

G. Demographic information
1. Which year are you a student?
a. Sophomore
b. Junior
c. Senior
2. In which major do you learn Reading 2 course?
a. The Faculty of Business English
b. The Advanced Program Training.

26
References
Bennett, R., 2003. Determinants of undergraduate student drop out rates in a university
business studies department. Journal of further and Higher Education, 27(2), pp.123-
141.

Bridgstock, R. (2009). The graduate attributes we’ve overlooked: Enhancing graduate

employability through career management skills. Higher Education Research &
Development, 28(1), 31-44.

Browne, B.A., Kaldenberg, D.O., Browne, W.G. and Brown, D.J., 1998. Student as
customer: Factors affecting satisfaction and assessments of institutional quality. Journal
of Marketing for Higher Education, 8(3), pp.1-14.

27
Dill, D.D. and Soo, M., 2005. Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A
cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher education, 49(4), pp.495-
533.

Douglas, J.A., Douglas, A., McClelland, R.J. and Davies, J., 2015. Understanding
student satisfaction and dissatisfaction: an interpretive study in the UK higher
education context. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), pp.329-349.

Dyer, S.L. and Hurd, F., 2016. “What’s going on?” Developing reflexivity in the
management classroom: From surface to deep learning and everything in between.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(2), pp.287-303.

Elliott, K.M. and Shin, D., 2002. Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to
assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education policy and management,
24(2), pp.197-209.

Elsharnouby, T.H., 2015. Student co-creation behavior in higher education: The role of
satisfaction with the university experience. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,
25(2), pp.238-262.

Farahmandian, S., Minavand, H., & Afshardost, M. (2013). Perceived service quality
and student satisfaction in higher education. Journal of Business and Management,
12(4), 65-74.

Gibson, A. (2010). Measuring business student satisfaction: A review and summary of

the major predictors. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(3), 251–
259.

Ginns, P., Prosser, M., & Barrie, S. (2007). Students’ perceptions of teaching quality in
higher education: The perspective of currently enrolled students. Studies in Higher
Education, 32(5), 603-615.

28
Grace, D., Weaven, S., Bodey, K., Ross, M. and Weaven, K., 2012. Putting student
evaluations into perspective: The course experience quality and satisfaction model
(CEQS). Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38(2), pp.35-43.

Griffioen, D.M.E., Doppenberg, J.J. and Oostdam, R.J., 2018. Are more able students in
higher education less easy to satisfy?. Higher Education, 75(5), pp.891-907.

Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students' perceptions of the
learning environment and academic outcomes: implications for theory and practice.
Studies in Higher education, 27(1), 27-52.

Mahajan, P. T., & Golahit, S. B. (2017). Influence of People Mix in Selecting Institute
of Technical Education: A Case Study of North Maharashtra University Region.
International Journal of Technology and Educational Marketing (IJTEM), 7(2), 45-55.

Miliszewska, I., & Sztendur, E. M. (2012). Australian transnational education

programmes in South East Asia: Student satisfaction with the learning environment.
Australian Universities' Review, The, 54(2), 12.

Nathan, S. K., & Rajamanoharane, S. (2015). A study on the various employability skills
required for different levels of employees. International Journal of Economic Research,
12(2).

Russell, Marilyn, 2005. Marketing education: a review of service quality perceptions

among international students. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 17(1), pp.65-77.

Sadler‐Smith, E., Evans, C., Diseth, Å., Pallesen, S., Hovland, A., & Larsen, S. (2006).
Course experience, approaches to learning and academic achievement. Education+
Training.

Sharabati, A.A.A., Alhileh, M.M. and Abusaimeh, H., 2019. Effect of service quality on
graduates’ satisfaction. Quality Assurance in Education.

29
Sutherland, D., Warwick, P. and Anderson, J., 2019. What factors influence student
satisfaction with module quality? A comparative analysis in a UK business school
context. The International Journal of Management Education, 17(3), p.100312.

Sweeney, L., 2016. A predictive model of student satisfaction. Irish Journal of

Academic Practice, 5(1), p.8.

Thien, L.M. and Jamil, H., 2020. Students as ‘Customers’: unmasking course
experience and satisfaction of undergraduate students at a Malaysian Research
University. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 42(5), pp.579-600.

Thomas, L., 2012. Building student engagement and belonging in Higher Education at
a time of change. Paul Hamlyn Foundation, 100, pp.1-99.

Tomy, S., & Pardede, E. (2019). Map my career: Career planning tool to improve
student satisfaction. IEEE Access, 7, 132950-132965.

Wilkins, S. and Balakrishnan, M.S., 2013. Assessing student satisfaction in

transnational higher education. International Journal of Educational Management.

Yildiz, S.M., 2014. Service quality evaluation in the school of physical education and
sports: An empirical investigation of students' perceptions. Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence, 25(1-2), pp.80-94.

30
31