Student satisfaction and intention to recommend a TESOL program in a Global South context: Evidence from Indonesian English language education students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22219/englie.v7i1.42807Keywords:
English language education, intention to recommend, service quality, student satisfaction, TESOL programAbstract
As part of the Global South, Indonesia has long integrated TESOL program into its education to prepare English language teachers that are competent. Despite the huge number of TESOL programs currently offered by Indonesian universities, research on service quality evaluation models for pre-service English teacher education in Indonesia is still quite limited. For that reason, this study examines how perceived service quality shapes student satisfaction and intention to recommend an English Language Education program within a Global South TESOL context in Indonesia. The objectives of this are: (1) to assess the validity and reliability of the student service quality assessment model; (2) to evaluate the association between service quality factors and student satisfaction; and (3) to determine the connection between satisfaction and students' intention to endorse the English teacher education program. Using an exploratory sequential mixed-method design, the research first generated qualitative insights to construct context-appropriate indicators of students’ quality perceptions and to inform survey instrument development. The validated questionnaire was distributed to 92 Indonesian undergraduate students, and data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM). The results demonstrated satisfactory validity, reliability, and model fit. Path analysis revealed significant positive effects of facility quality and interpersonal relationships on student satisfaction and their willingness to recommend the program. These findings highlight the importance of strengthening student experience in Indonesian English teacher education, offering empirical evidence relevant to quality enhancement efforts across Global South TESOL programs.
Downloads
References
Abdullah, F. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: Three instruments compared. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/01406720500537445
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x
Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology & Health, 26(9), 1113–1127. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.613995
Alam, M. M., Alauddin, M., Sharif, M. Y., Dooty, E. N., Ahsan, S. M. H., & Chowdhury, M. M. (2021). Satisfaction and university reputation through service quality in private higher educational institutions in Bangladesh. Journal of Asian Finance, 8(9). 91-100. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no9.0091
Aldhahi, M. I., Alqahtani, A. S., Baattaiah, B. A., & Al-Mohammed, H. I. (2022). Exploring the relationship between students’ learning satisfaction and self-efficacy during the emergency transition to remote learning amid the coronavirus pandemic: A cross-sectional study. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 1323–1340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10644-7
Alemu, A. (2023). Assessing service quality in tertiary education using adapted SERVQUAL scale. Cogent Education, 10(2). 2259733. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2259733
Ali, F., Zhou, Y., Hussain, K., Nair, P. K., & Ragavan, N. A. (2016). Does higher education service quality effect student satisfaction, image and loyalty? Quality Assurance in Education, 24(1), 70–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-02-2014-0008
Amoako, G. K., Ampong, G. O., Gabrah, A. Y. B., de Heer, F., & Antwi-Adjei, A. (2023). Service quality affecting student satisfaction in higher education institutions in Ghana. Cogent Education, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2238468
Annamdevula, S., & Bellamkonda, R. S. (2016). Effect of student perceived service quality on student satisfaction, loyalty and motivation in Indian universities. Journal of Modelling in Management, 11(2), 488–517. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-01-2014-0010
Aypay, A. (2010). Teacher education student’s epistemological beliefs and their conceptions about teaching and learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2599–2604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.380
Azizinezhad, M., Hashemi, M., & Darvishi, S. (2013). Relationship between EFL teachers’ attitudes, teaching techniques and classroom (large and small). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 134–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.165
Bhutto, N. A., Shah, S. A. A., & Anwar, R. S. (2024). Beyond service: commercial friendship’s impact on trust and student loyalty. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2024.2400076
Brooks, R., & Timms, J. (2025). Institutional constraints to higher education datafication: an English case study. Higher Education, 90(4), 1049–1063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01363-2
Bruster, B. G., & Peterson, B. R. (2013). Using critical incidents in teaching to promote reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 14(2), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2012.732945
Bwachele, V. W., Chong, Y.-L., & Krishnapillai, G. (2023). Perceived service quality and student satisfaction in higher learning institutions in Tanzania. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 444. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01913-6
Centoni, M., & Maruotti, A. (2021). Students’ evaluation of academic courses: An exploratory analysis to an Italian case study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 101054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101054
Coffey, M., & Gibbs, G. (2001). The evaluation of the student evaluation of educational quality questionnaire (SEEQ) in UK Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(1), 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930020022318
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research : planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods design (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
De-Juan-Vigaray, M. D., Ledesma-Chaves, P., González-Gascón, E., & Gil-Cordero, E. (2024). Student satisfaction: Examining capacity development and environmental factors in higher education institutions. Heliyon, 10(17), e36699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36699
El Alfy, S., & Abukari, A. (2020). Revisiting perceived service quality in higher education: uncovering service quality dimensions for postgraduate students. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 30(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2019.1648360
Feng, M., Wijaya, T. T., Ananda, R., & Du, W. (2025). Exploring factors influencing student satisfaction in mathematics education using PLS-SEM and fuzzy sets FsQCA. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 34055. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-14459-1
Fishbein, M. (2000). The role of theory in HIV prevention. AIDS Care, 12(3), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540120050042918
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research (I. Ajzen, Ed.). Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Galbraith, C. S., Merrill, G. B., & Kline, D. M. (2012). Are student evaluations of teaching effectiveness valid for measuring student learning outcomes in business related classes? A neural network and Bayesian analyses. Research in Higher Education, 53(3), 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9229-0
García-Rodríguez, F. J., & Gutiérrez-Taño, D. (2024). Loyalty to higher education institutions and the relationship with reputation: an integrated model with multi-stakeholder approach. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 34(1), 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2021.1975185
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Haverila, M., Haverila, K., McLaughlin, C., & Arora, M. (2021). Towards a comprehensive student satisfaction model. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(3), 100558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100558
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Khoiriyah, K., Sholahuddin, M. F. T., & Ananta, B. D. B. (2024). Factors contributing to students’ satisfaction in online learning: A proposed framework for CLIL classes. English Learning Innovation, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.22219/englie.v6i1.37256
Kok, G., Gottlieb, N. H., Peters, G.-J. Y., Mullen, P. D., Parcel, G. S., Ruiter, R. A. C., Fernández, M. E., Markham, C., & Bartholomew, L. K. (2016). A taxonomy of behaviour change methods: an Intervention Mapping approach. Health Psychology Review, 10(3), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2015.1077155
Li, H., & Ni, A. (2024). What contributes to student language learning satisfaction and achievement with learning management systems? Behavioral Sciences, 14(4), 271. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14040271
Lidice, A., & Saglam, G. (2013). Using students’ evaluations to measure educational quality. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1009–1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.152
Marsh, H. W. (1982). SEEQ: a reliable, valid, and useful instrument for collecting students’ evaluations of university teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1982.tb02505.x
Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students’ evaluations of University teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), 253–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(87)90001-2
Nadiri, H., Kandampully, J., & Hussain, K. (2009). Students’ perceptions of service quality in higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20(5), 523–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360902863713
Napitupulu, E. L. (2023). Private universities struggle to attract prospective new students. Kompas Online. https://www.kompas.id/baca/english/2023/10/01/en-perguruan-tinggi-swasta-berjibaku-untuk-dukung-akses-kuliah
Parasuraman, A. V. A. Z. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118785317.weom090654
Quansah, F., Cobbinah, A., Asamoah-Gyimah, K., & Hagan, J. E. (2024). Validity of student evaluation of teaching in higher education: a systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1329734
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of the literature. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 387–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500099193
Salleh, S., & Laxman, K. (2015). Examining the effect of external factors and context-dependent beliefs of teachers in the use of ICT in teaching: using an elaborated theory of planned behavior. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 43(3), 289–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239515570578
Santini, F. de O., Rocha, L. da S., Perin, M. G., Ladeira, W. J., Akhtar, S., Rasul, T., & Sampaio, C. H. (2024). Factors influencing student loyalty in higher education: a meta-analytic generalization. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2024.2393617
Sharif, K., & Lemine, M. S. (2024). Customer service quality, emotional brand attachment and customer citizenship behaviors: findings from an emerging higher education market. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 34(1), 18–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2021.1949659
Shiue, Y.-M. (2007). Investigating the sources of teachers’ instructional technology use through the decomposed theory of planned behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 425–453. https://doi.org/10.2190/A407-22RR-50X6-2830
Spencer, K. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2002). Student perspectives on teaching and its evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293022000009285
Stankovska, G., Ziberi, F., & Dimitrovski, D. (2024). Service quality and student satisfaction in higher education. In N. Popov (Ed.), BCES Conference Books: Education in Developing, Emerging, and Developed Countries: Different Worlds, Common Challenges (pp. 153–160). BCES Conference.
The Jakarta Post. (2024, June 5). Jobless Gen-Z and demographic disaster . The Jakarta Post. https://www.thejakartapost.com/opinion/2024/06/05/jobless-gen-z-and-demographic-disaster.html
Tripp, D. (1994). Teachers’ lives, critical incidents, and professional practice. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 7(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839940070105
van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Braeken, J. (2013). The construct validity and predictive validity of a self-efficacy measure for student teachers in competence-based education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(3), 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.05.001
Waliha, S. (2020). Analysis of the effect of service quality and school location on student satisfaction and its impact on student loyalty at 32 Jakarta Senior High School. Dinasti International Journal of Digital Business Management, 1(6), 1000–1011. https://doi.org/10.31933/dijdbm.v1i6.591
Westaby, J. D. (2005). Behavioral reasoning theory: Identifying new linkages underlying intentions and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.07.003
Yamin, K. (2021). Private universities in crisis as pandemic hits enrolment. University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20210407143006462
Yousapronpaiboon, K. (2014). SERVQUAL: Measuring higher education service quality in Thailand. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1088–1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.350
Yusop, F. D., Habibi, A., & Razak, R. A. (2021). Factors affecting Indonesian preservice teachers’ use of ICT during teaching practices through theory of planned behavior. Sage Open, 11(2). 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211027572
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Widiatmoko et al
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with English Learning Innovation (englie) agree to the following terms:
- For all articles published in English Learning Innovation (englie), copyright is retained by the authors. Authors give permission to the publisher to announce the work with conditions. When the manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors agree to automatic transfer of the publishing right to the publisher.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
