Tratamiento de datos hidroquímicos

Enhancing student experience is the key to retaining them, hence the need for careful management of satisfaction within each HE institution (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; DeShields et al., 2005). Positive student experience also promotes student loyalty (Athiyaman, 1997; Schertzer & Schertzer, 2004). Several initiatives of RM were identified as determinants of student retention and positive experience. These include: provision of up-to- date technologies; up-to-date facilities; effective and efficient communication; and one-to- one marketing (Ng & Forbes, 2009; Assad, Melawar & Cohen, 2014). Provision of up-to-date communication methods, communication channels, communication technologies, accurate information, and improved facilities for students will also help enhance the student experience (Durkin, McKenna & Cummins, 2012; Peck et al., 2013; Quintall et al., 2013). Kotler and Fox (1995) state that students who get attention when required, even if it is not a favourable one as such, stay more loyal to the university than those who do not complain but who are dissatisfied. Student satisfaction has been identified as a determinant of student retention (Fontaine, 2015). Service quality in an educational context was identified by Boulding et al. (1993) as a determinant for student retention. The quality of the service provided to students is also seen as a significant factor. Other studies, for example Hennig-

53 | P a g e

Thurau et al. (2001) suggests that how students perceive the quality of teaching, as well as their emotional commitment to their institution, are key determinants of their retention. The commitment factor suggested above can be related to the commitment construct developed by Tinto (1997) argues that the students’ commitment to their own goals, the university and commitment to other activities (that has nothing to do with their university activities) are all key roles in determining their retention. Here the external commitment has the likelihood of affecting the student’s experience negatively. Social factors e.g. dress sense etc. has also been identified as a factor that can determine the level of student retention in any academic institution within the HE sector (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994; Tinto, 1997). Academic achievement was also identified as a part factor for student retention (Pantages & Creedon, 1978). Satisfaction was identified by (Dick & Basu, 1994; Strauss & Neuhaus, 1997) as one of the antecedents of a loyalty relationship.

In evaluating how behavioural concept links to loyalty, Bloemer and Kasper (1995) assert that the term loyalty is misconstrued as true loyalty instead of repeat purchasing behaviour that is basically without any commitment. The actual rebuying of a particular brand stresses that true loyalty encompasses all behavioural responses that results in commitment. Loyalty schemes which encourage repeat purchase do not mean that a customer is loyal to the brand rather that they are loyal to the scheme (Dowling & Uncles, 1997). This means that customer loyalty should be carefully studied to determine what exactly qualifies the term. Baron et al. (2010) argued that behaviour alone does not define loyalty as attitude is a part of the loyalty concept. Rowley (2003 p.250) argues that “…customers who are loyal in attitude are likely to make recommendations to someone else, and, sometimes their loyal attitude will lead to loyal behaviour in the form or repeat purchases. Loyal students, then, might not only stay themselves, but also have a role in encouraging other students to stay”. Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) stated that student loyalty is made up of both attitudinal and behavioural components that are closely related. For example class activities in the form of teaching which can be described as a service (Ganesh, Arnold & Reynolds, 2000)Dick and Basu’s (1994) model of customer loyalty is a conceptual framework showing the attitude and behaviour component. This model establishes the outcome of the interaction between a customer’s attitude and behaviour towards a particular brand. This model divides the customer into four groups as shown in Figure 3.2

54 | P a g e

Figure 3. 2 Types of Loyalty Relative attitude High Low

True Loyalty Spurious Loyalty

High

Repeat Purchase Low

Latent Loyalty No Loyalty

Source: Adapted from Dick and Basu (1994 p.1).

True loyalty is when customers repeat purchase (behavioural) and relative attitude (attitudinal) are both in the ‘high’ column of the matrix. This seems to be the place organisations seek for their customers. Baron et al. (2010) stresses that reinforcing attitude and behaviour should be the objective of the organisation at all times.

Spurious Loyalty is when repeat purchase (behavioural) is high and relative attitude (attitudinal) is low. Baron et al. (2010) identifies special offers, promotions, loyalty scheme and deals as that which propels this behavioural loyalty for customers in a short term that there is a concern for trying to satisfy such customers as they are predicted to switch if competitors offers similar incentives.

Latent Loyalty is when repeat purchase (behavioural) is low and relative attitude (attitudinal) is high. Baron et al. (2010) identified convenience and, opening times as barriers that will likely prevent customers who are willing to purchase from an organisation from doing so. Here they stressed that organisation should endeavour to remove such barriers.

No Loyalty is when both the repeat purchase (behavioural) and relative attitude (attitudinal) are low. Customers in this part of the matrix are identified as ‘non loyals’, whom Baron et al. (2010) described as customers who see competing offers as undifferentiated.

Authors such as Yorke and Longden (2004) put the reasons why students leave into the following four categories: flawed decision-making about entering the programme; students’ experience of the programme and the institution generally; failure to cope with the demand of the programme; and events that impact on students’ lives outside the institution. High attrition in the HE sector is linked with lower entry qualifications, students whose parents

55 | P a g e

have not had university education and those who have lower socio-economic status (HEFCE, 2000; McMillan, 2011).

Other authors stressed the importance of students’ experience stating that students engagement with their studies is an important factor in improving student retention, success and outcomes (Tinto, 2005; Horstmanshof & Zimitat, 2007) Students’ engagement was identified as a factor which improves student retention rate (Tinto, 2005). In defining student engagement, Horstmanshof and Zimitat (2007) described it as student academic commitment and application. Heaton-Strestha et al. (2009) suggests that the value of student responsive curriculum development is a means to promote student engagement. Engagement also forms retention through its effect on student social membership and the social and emotional support that builds up from such membership (Gloria & Robinson, 2001). Involvement or engagement of the student whether social or academic, influences retention in several ways (Tinto, 2010). Example of such involvement includes engaging students in development of policies. Hodgson et al. (2008) also found that social engagement and peer support were key factors towards student retention. From the above, student engagement can be seen as a significant variable towards student retention.

Other factors as proposed by Tinto (2010) towards increasing retention rate in HE is also addressed since this study is interested in evaluating factors affect students’ experience. Student expectation was identified as a factor that can also determine student retention. Examples of such are actions and statements of the institutions administrators, staff, members and faculty which are expected to be consistent and clear before the students. Some of these could be information provided to students via email. This can be reaffirmed from the findings of Seidman (1991), who found that students who received advice three times after admission on issues about course schedules, social involvement and academic persisted at a rate 20% higher than those who only attended the orientation programme. The term “student persistence” according to Tinto (2010) is the process that leads students to remain in HE and complete their certificate or degree. Also it can be seen from Metzner’s (1989) study of over one thousand freshers at a public university found that student satisfaction with the quality of the advice they received was positively related to persistence to the second year where it also affected higher grade in the first year. Heverly (1999) stressed that it is still the case where formal faculty advising is not available to all students that some students are lucky to assess advisors while others are not. The significance of advice, social and academic supports has been identified as determinants of retention (Tinto 2010; Bejou & Bejou, 2012; Moore &

56 | P a g e

Bowden-Everson, 2012). Providing such support identified above to students especially international students will enhance student retention.

It was argued by Tinto (2010) that the clarity and consistency should satisfy expectations in terms of students knowing what to do to succeed; the efforts expected of students to achieve those targets are provided academically, socially, financially and otherwise. Others stated the importance of ensuring that students understand the core disciplinary concept as the key to retention (Myer & Land, 2005). The activities that occur within the teaching and learning programme were identified by Gosling (2009) as important in determining student retention. Cases of good practice which included the provision of peer assisted learning methods and focused services for minority groups were identified as determinants of student retention (Thomas, 2002).