Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues (Print ISSN: 1544-0036; Online ISSN: 1544-0044)

Research Article: 2021 Vol: 24 Issue: 2S

English Language Learning Quality at Tertiary Institutions from Learners' Perspective

Le Thi Ngoc Diep, Van Lang University


Learning Quality, Students’ Motivation & Attitude, Quality of Teaching Facilitators, Learning Environment, Students’ Objectives, Teaching Curriculum.


I21, I23, M00, M10


 The enhancement of learning foreign languages is indeed in all levels of education, considerably significant for tertiary education level. This study aims to discover the determinants of the English learning quality of the learners in tertiary education institutions in Ho Chi Minh City with the employment of qualitative and quantitative research methods with two types of secondary data and primary data. The former is from published journals, books, and other sources such as websites, business, and educational organizational reports, etc., and the latter is completed with interviews with seven experts, 3 group discussions and 3 three in-depth structured interviews, and 235 respondents for the questionnaire from the random sampling technique. The findings show, from the learners’ perspective, five factors affecting English language learning quality namely (1) Students’ Motivation & Attitude, (2) Quality of Teaching facilitators, (3) Learning environment, (4) Students’ Objectives, and (5) Teaching Curriculum. The author expects to learn additional perspectives on higher education quality and draw out some recommendations to the related authorities in the related issues. 


As the world has been with the Industrial Evolution 4.0, humankind has witnessed radical changes in many industries and social activities (Hariharasudan & Kot, 2018). For a deeper and wider adaptation of this disruptive change, Vietnamese authorities attempt to enhance global integration progress, cooperation capacity, and national competitiveness that higher education earns considerable stake (Tran, 2013). Regarding this effort, the expectation is to influence the educational quality and the modernization of higher education levels (Baporikar, 2021) since higher education produces skilled manpower for national growth (Machin & McNally, 2007). As the emerging international standardization, foreign language holds a crucial role. English is crucial for both native and non-native speakers (Hariharasudan & Kot, 2018; Sukarno, 2020) and used in a wide range of areas like technology, science, and business (Chang & Goswami, 2011; Hariharasudan & Kot, 2018). Thereby the enhancement of learning foreign languages is indeed in all levels of education, considerably significant for tertiary education level (Harman, Hayden & Nghi, 2009). The changing context creates a growing number of English language learning activities plugging in tertiary education curriculums (Tran, 2013). English language acquisition offers excessive opportunities in diverse economic contexts (Khuong, 2015) that students are at an advantaged edge of professional preparation and employable graduates (Machin & McNally, 2007). In the Vietnam scenario, whereas Tran (2013) exerts that plenty of detrimental evidence is unearthed such as class size, widened gaps of pre-existing linguistic competencies, limited reference, exaggerated grammatical knowledge, over-dependent upon the scoring system, and primitive pedagogic approaches. Affording these drawbacks, the quality of English learning amongst higher education students are remarkably influenced such including out-of-balance English skills comprehension, foreign language learning avoidance, and demotivated learning efforts (Sawir, 2005; Nguyen & Vu, 2016; Wearring at el., 2015; Truong, 2017). In a study of Truong and Wang (2019), Vietnamese learners like other non-English speaking peers have been with great potential; however, their insufficient self-confidence prevents foreign language acquisition and also teachers consume the underestimation of Vietnamese Students’ ability. Thus, many studies of the different scholars have used an assortment of innovative pedagogical approaches to enhance English language learning outcomes (Dinh, Hoang & Le, 2018; Nguyen & Tran, 2019; Nguyen & Duong, 2020). For higher education, learners' comprehension accommodates various determinants as pre-existing linguistic capability and learning strategies (Khuong, 2015; El-Omari, 2016). In terms of learners’ conception, foreign or second language learning attaches to the disheartened learning experience, and there are many learners gaining drawbacks of learning effectiveness (Tran, Baldauf & Moni, 2013). As known, English language acquisition requires a long and costly journey for all learners to achieve the highest learning quality and proficiency. As mentioned, learners are considered as a variable elaborating into one of the crucial domains of research in second language acquisition (Nguyen & Duong, 2019), and findings should be done on the employment of various factors, which affects the English learning process either positively or negatively (El-Omari, 2016; Muftah, 2017, Pham & Bui, 2019). Having a good understanding of affecting factors helps the related authorities determine the teaching style, the pedagogical approach, and methods (Nguyen, Warren & Fehring, 2014; Truong & Wang, 2019). At present, many recent studies on factors impacting on English language learning of the learners exist. They employ limited scope to specific groups of learners restricted to a particular institution (Dinh, Hoang & Le, 2018; Bui & Dang, 2018; Nguyen & Tran, 2019; Nguyen & Duong, 2020). Significantly, understanding those factors and its quality becomes pivotal to all relatives with the purpose of facilitating the learning process and enhancing the learning experience (Du, 2020). Thus, this paper aims to find out determinants of English learning quality of the students in 8 tertiary education institutions in Ho Chi Minh City and its angle with higher education quality on teaching. By unearthing drive factors affecting English language learning quality, the author expects to learn additional perspectives on the quality of higher education and draw out some recommendations to the related authorities in the related issues.

Literature Reviews

Concepts of Quality and Quality in Education

As known, businesses operate and provide a product or service to customers, and schools or institutions operate and provide education as a service to not students as key customers and their relations as parents, guardians, and families (Deshpande, 2000). Education is associated with the logic of service marketing that has received aiding by delivering quality service and sustainable competitive advantage (Irene & Jeannie, 2008; Brown, Varley & Pal, 2009; Quintal et al., 2012; Ho & Law, 2020). In higher education, students/ learners are associated with the educational product. More importantly, they are the cornerstone of quality enhancement (Carvalho Pereira &Terra Da Silva, 2003; Obermiller, Fleenor & Raven, 2005; Ho & Law, 2020). As for the economic perspectives, quality is linked to product features incorporating the customer’s subjective evaluation interpreted by the provided service (Alzhrani, Alotibie & Abdulaziz, 2016). Indeed, quality is multi-dimensional conceptualized for those involved with products, services, and processes, and quality is defined respecting its specifications (Thompson, 2019). Quality is the repetition of work, process, or actions that create the prevention and/or mitigation of deficiencies (Eldin, 2011). However, the concept of quality is misconceived, misinterpreted by many academicians and practitioners. Knowledge achievement, skills, and behavioral competency discoursing in education curriculum are perceived as drivers of learning and teaching quality assessment. And for the expectation and perception of parents and society, the attitude and behaviors of students are vital variables that influence the process of delivering a quality education (Beerkens & Udam, 2017). However, it is hard to measure. The relevance between the learning environment and activities, which is the crucial element, offers a better possibility for Students’ success and meets the universal needs of students and society. Hence, one notion of quality is accepted as the conformance to standards including process and outcomes, wherein quality for procedural assessment will assure acceptable standard met (Elassy, 2015). So forth, this ascribes the procedural concept of quality (Farooq et al. 2007). With this regard, quality is depicted under the specifications (1) an outstandingly adapts premium standard, (2) an excellence of delivering consistently to standard, (3) fulfillment of purpose that acquires assurance goals, (4) the reassurance of stakeholders’ return on investment, and (5) a transformation that students acquire through the genuine learning process (Teeroovengadum et al., 2019; Budiharso & Tarman, 2020). The practicality of procedural quality correlates with an assurance system that benchmarks multi-facets of higher education institutions curriculum, teaching and learning capability, academic-related infrastructure and facilities, financial-related issues, and administrative comprehensibility (Ulker & Bakioglu, 2019). Adding points to quality perspective, organizations strive to gain sustainable competitive advantages which differentiate the organization from the competition (Papanthymou & Darra, 2017). Organizations demand an additional perspective of quality consideration that creates increasing impacts. For instance, professional services’ quality is perceived as complexity interpretation and understanding and is because of the involvement of numerous elements. As different stakeholders or social referenced groups as financial providers and the local community, local government, etc.; receivers as students, learners, etc.; employers like business owners, managers, contractors, etc.; and delivers as a pedagogue, administrator, etc. define quality differently (Tsinidou, Gerogiannis & Fitsilis, 2010; Laura et al. 2015; Thompson, 2019). And satisfying customers' needs and requirements remain the foundation of quality (Tsinidou, Gerogiannis & Fitsilis, 2010; Budiharso & Tarman, 2020). In tertiary education, quality addresses the combination of leadership quality and culture quality, ongoing enhancement and innovative progression of education and its process, employee involvement and development, information management, customer-centric quality, and partnership establishment (Psomas & Antony, 2017). Thus, quality conceives in terms of the transformational concept (Farooq et al., 2007).

The associated terms such as efficiency, effectiveness, equity, and quality are interchangeably used (Jain & Prasad, 2017). The complexity of their assessment relies on the multi-facets of a professional service interpreting by "educational activity", "educational process" and “educational services” (Polyakova & Azizova, 2020). Quality education holistically accommodates related organizations, pedagogical environment, legal scheme, etc. As such, quality of education is confirmed as systemic objects that are determined by conglomerates of teaching and learning goals, capability, administrative process, and its results (Polyakova & Azizova, 2020). The consideration of performative systems that attached learners with quality of teaching, approaches, curriculum content, quality instructors, quality assessment (Jain & Prasad, 2017). And for the expectation and perception of parents and society, the attitude and behaviors of students are crucial variables that influence the process of delivering quality education. However, it is difficult to measure. For quality education, the relevance between learning environment and activities, which is the crucial element, offers a better possibility for students’ success and meets the universal needs of students and society. The quality also attaches to providers who are leaders and/or management, reassure adequacy of supports in learning and teaching, appropriate environment, and program, in turn, satisfying the Students’ need of learning and development. Significantly, to meet the future expectation of both learners and society, the diversification of study options, also its appropriateness and accessibility are essential for producing a workforce with not only technical but also academic proficiency. Furthermore, knowledge and skills comprehension is active in citizenship, employment, and social connectedness. As afore discussion, the enhancement of education management, infrastructure, teaching facilitator competencies, resource and curriculum development, and leaner-centric approaches in teaching and learning are drivers of the relevance and quality in education.

In addition, higher education has a range of stakeholders including learners/ students, scholars, governments, international institutions, employers, professional accrediting bodies, and other related communities (Marshall, 2018). And quality assurance is driven by a top-down (government) approach (Williams, 2016; Kaçaniku, 2020). Whilst the concept of quality enhancement is established following the bottom-up (institutional) approach (Williams, 2016; Hill & Wang, 2018; Kaçaniku, 2020). Significantly, to meet the future expectation of both learners and the society, the diversification of study options, its appropriateness and accessibility, is essential for producing a workforce with both technical and academic proficiency (Pont, Nusche & Moorman, 2008). Furthermore, knowledge and skills comprehension is essential for being active in citizenship, employment, and social connectedness. Moreover, the enhancement of education management, infrastructure, teaching facilitator competencies, resource and curriculum development, and leaner-centric approaches in teaching and learning are drivers of the relevance and quality in education (Pont, Nusche & Moorman, 2008). Therefore, learning outcomes and learning quality is the crucial variable for higher education institutions to assess the management performance (Harvey & Williams, 2010; Allaism 2014). Academic achievement, grading systems, professional academic judgments, diversification of curriculums, and infrastructures are connected to quality (Sadler, 2017). Similarly, quality is depicted as “fitness for purpose” espoused by most legislators and administrators in the tertiary education sector (Elassy, 2015). Therefore, constructed curriculum attaches expected outcomes with the assessment scheme to evaluate students’ academic performances (Doherty, 2008). To reassure the output quality, students are assessed by fundamental skills such as critical thinking, analytical thinking, problem-solving, and communicative comprehension (Aamodt, Frølich & Stensaker, 2016). This is shown in the study of Krsmanović and Petrović (2009) that foreign language achievement is driven by the evaluation of learning outcomes (Krsmanović & Petrović, 2009).

Factors Influencing Quality in Education

One of underpinned quality and management of quality are addressed as the functions of procedural control, continuous advancement, adherence, and breakthrough (Van Kemenade, Pupius & Hardjono, 2008). As quality education accommodates mainly unpredictable and dynamic processes, the extent to which involves humans with all needs, aspirations, and pre-knowledge, achieving and maintaining quality is a challenging task. This acquires a transformative quality of an educational institution (Mastoi, XinHai & Saengkrod, 2019). Additionally, quality is known as a customer focus and control concept (Al-Omoush, Alrahahleh & Alabaddi, 2015). Thus, educational quality is attached to educational service performance, the credibility of faculty/ department, physical capability, environment, international cooperation, and administrative quality, etc. (Lee & Tai, 2008; Mastoi, XinHai & Saengkrod, 2019). In line with consideration for higher education inputs including faculty resources, financial resources, teaching resources, student structure, and development target that also determines quality (Habibulah, Rouf & Rana, 2012).

As one of the key stakeholders, students are upholding the university quality. The quality of enrolled students or input students is attached with institution education in the preliminary stage (Habibulah, Rouf & Rana, 2012). Indeed, students are driven by factors including the learning environment, curriculums, future work expectation, financial supports, social factors, wellbeing factors and, etc. (Luu & Lam, 2018). As students are participating in the learning and teaching process, institution quality is attached to student satisfaction and academic performance (Van Kemenade, Pupius & Hardjono, 2008).

In line with educational outcomes and student satisfaction, teaching quality is accepted as an indicator that has defined the quality distinctiveness among institutions (Xiao & Wilkins, 2015). Lecturers/ teachers’ roles attach to controlling teaching quality resulting in the enhancement of educational quality because their qualifications, experiences, and creatively pedagogic approaches represent credentials for teaching capability (Kirmani & Siddiquah, 2008). Thus, lecturers are in relation with the assurance of university’s value commitment explicating in terms of effectively-bridging communication with students, an enhancement to Students’ academic work and performance (Cardona & Bravo, 2012). In addition, the lecturer's scholarly research work, research projects, and leading students’ research work are amended to the university's quality principle (Griffioen & De Jong, 2015)

Factors Influencing Quality in English Language Education

Language education upholds a crucial role in community life since language is essentially a communication medium of humankind. Educational research determines socio-cognitive student characteristics influencing students’ self-investment in learning and academic development (Davis, 2003). Concurrently, foreign language learning is a prolonged process where the learner’s achievement is determined by numerous factors. Despite various determinants of foreign language learning and teaching, this paper depicts significant factors affecting the quality of English learners. Moreover, many studies show these factors are whereupon relevant to the teaching and learning process in a training program (e.g. Hoang, 2008; Krsmanović & Petrović, 2009; Wright, 2011; Ngoc & Iwashita, 2012; Phakiti, Hirsh & Woodrow, 2013; Nguyen, Warren & Fehring, 2014; El-Omari, 2016; Gover, Loukkola & Peterbauer, 2019; Nguyen & Duong, 2019; Du, 2020).

Students’ Motivation and Attitude

Student-centered learning (SCL) is an approach to education (Wright, 2011; Gover, Loukkola & Peterbauer, 2019). Then, learning motivation and learning attitude are determined as one of the driving factors in the process of foreign language acquisition (Oroujlou & Vahedi, 2011). Affective learning strategies associate with main personality traits the extent to which proceed confidence and positive cognition (Du, 2020). In this perspective, Guslyakova and Guslyakova (2020) exert that the conglomerates of metacognitive, affective, and social learning strategies and emotional intelligence create influence upon English language proficiency. To a positive extent, motivated learners are attached to individual learning which affords significant influence upon outcomes (Du, 2020). Whereby Du (2020) addresses those proactive learners innovatively construct learning strategies, self-determination works, and make needed adjustments that are driving by learners’ self-awareness. Having deluded motivation and a negative cognitive state leads to degrading learners’ performance, and potential. For instance, Vietnamese students are not passive at all. Nevertheless, self-shyness and face-saving attitudes hinder individual potential (Truong & Wang, 2019). Additionally, a positive cognitive state such as high interest and enjoyment during the learning process links to high performance (Baeten, Dochy & Struyven, 2012). Thus, the concrete association is needed between the domain of students' motivation and the diversification of learning strategies (Du, 2020). Both external motives and inner motives interfere in foreign language acquisition (Nguyen & Duong, 2019).

Students' Objectives

Language learning is an active process that develops through the construction and application of a system of rules (El-Omari, 2016). And, in the long term, students' attempts to acquire acceptable comprehension, understanding, and language usage are the cornerstone to foreign language achievement (El-Omari, 2016). Similarly, comprehension helps construct knowledge and skills in a dynamic communicative context (Ngoc & Iwashita, 2012). Indeed, communicative competence is determined by linguistic rules’ acknowledgment, using language regarding situational appropriateness, the relatedness of communicative competence in a discussion, and language learning approaches (Chang & Goswami, 2011). However, in Vietnam tertiary education, most English language learners study English to cope with examination and test, or/and at least to meet the graduation requirement, leading to insufficient assessment of comprehensibility (Ngoc & Iwashita, 2012). In the study of Ngoc and Iwashita (2012), due to the negative impacts of high-stakes exams, the English language in Vietnam is consequentially more grammar-oriented than communicative competence (Ngoc & Iwashita, 2012). To explain this drawback, learners afford that establishing the concrete foundation of grammar comprehension is essential for acquiring proficiency as a native speaker (Nguyen & Duong, 2019).

Quality of Teaching Facilitators

Teaching facilitators are known as lecturers in higher education institutions) determine the success of English language teaching and learning (Hong, Wendy & Heather, 2024). Experienced teachers can fix the deficient points of the curriculum or the pre-existing resources (Krsmanović & Petrović, 2009). However, Hoang (2008) depicts English teaching facilitators without English teaching training are incapable of the task, which results in conflicts of knowledge and inappropriate teaching approaches. According to Krsmanović and Petrović (2009), pedagogues’ knowledge attributes in multi-aspects of content, context, pedagogy, personality, and reflection. Therefore, the student's learning process is interfered with by the teacher's personality and teacher-learner relationship (Nguyen & Duong, 2020). Besides, the workloads of lecturers are a considerable element that influences quality. In Vietnamese universities, an English teacher is assigned 500 hours of lecturing per year regardless of the scientific research, and other pedagogical administrative duties (Bui & Dang, 2018).

Teaching/ Education Curriculum

According to the Glossary of Education Reform and Null and Bohan (2005), the term curriculum that concerns the lessons and academic content in a specific course/program refers to the expected knowledge and skills a student is required to gain, including the lessons, assignments, projects, presentations, tests, assessments. There are various methods of evaluating student learning (Null & Bohan, 2005). Teaching the English language, especially to non-English speakers, requires deliberately planned programs (Kaplan, 2019). When constructing a program, it needs a systematic learning outcome, and learning quality through the controlled class sizes, teaching supports, and continuous professional development, the extent to which reassures quality outputs (Hill & Wang, 2018). Indeed, In Vietnam settings, universities employ various assessment systems to weigh student comprehensibility of foreign languages (Tam & Hung, 2019) and for the English language, populous assessment systems are identified in Vietnam’s context following IELTS, TOEFL, TOEIC, and recently PTE (Tam & Hung, 2019). Thus, those tests restricted with the program's well-defining teaching approaches, credential assessment, and international recognition qualifications are internationally accepted. English spoken universities system then employs this qualification to weigh non-speaking English students’ capability (Tam & Hung, 2019). Whilst Vietnamese higher education institutions have implanted their constructed English language teaching program for students, simultaneously accepting the international qualification as alternatives. However, each program has advantages and drawbacks which results in gaps in learners’ achievement. In addition, the program provides teachers with frameworks that encourage innovation in teaching approaches. In addition, problem-based learning stimulates students’ use of deep processing that bridged newly learned knowledge process knowledge information is learned in the contextual extent, and so forth in a realistic situation (Wijnen et al., 2017). This provides more realistic interaction that is asserted in various studies to be an effective element in English language education.

Learning Environment

According to Sağlam & Salı (2013), the learning environment is conceptualized by interpersonal relationships, attached emotion, and structure of pedagogical approaches and classroom configuration, expectations of teachers attached to students as well as students’ attitudes, class management, and disciplinary problems. In line with the inclusion of physical configurations, efforts of teaching and learning, and cultural and social drivers which are depicted as learning environments (Sabani et al., 2020). The productive learning environment encourages learning experience and achievement (Sağlam & Salı, 2013). The learning environment is perceived as the home nurturing fundamental psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Baeten, Dochy & Struyven, 2012). This accounts for the distinctiveness of the physical environment from the online environment. With the growth of technology and the Internet, the online environment creates a borderless platform for numerous students joining the class which resolves geographical barriers (Baber, 2020). Online learning offers a significant solution for higher education during a pandemic time when requiring distance learning. E-learning environment replaces face-to-face once with virtual appearance (Stephan, Markus & Gläser-Zikuda, 2019). The online learning environment then influences both languages teaching methods, learning strategy, and learning outcomes (Surjono, Muhtadi & Trilisiana, 2019; Baber, 2020).

The Suggested Research Model

The author proposes a research model comprising 5 independent factors namely (1) students' attitudes and motivation, (2) quality of teaching facilitators, (3) students' objectives, (4) students' learning environment, (5) teaching/ education curriculum, and one dependent factor as English learning quality of students. The following hypotheses are as follows: as shows in Figure 1.

H1: Students' attitudes and motivation impact on English language learning quality.

H2: Quality of teaching facilitators' effects on English language learning quality.

H3: Students' objectives influence English language learning quality.

H4: Teaching curriculum affects English language learning quality.

H5: Learning Environment effects on English language learning quality.

Figure 1: Proposed Research Model

Source: own (2021)

Research Methodology

A combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods has been employed with 2 types of secondary data and primary data.

• In terms of the secondary data, theories relating to the quality of higher education focusing on English language education and its quality in published journals, books, and other sources such as websites, business, and educational organizational reports, etc. have been searched and analyzed. As a consequence, factors affecting the English language learning quality of students have been found and confirmed.

• And regarding the primary data, techniques and tools are conducted in qualitative and quantitative modes. First, interviews have been completed with 7 experts including researchers and head of English departments/ faculties in 8 universities in Ho Chi Minh City in the field of English language education and its related quality for students to discover potential or hidden factors and measurement scales for the research. Furthermore, 3 group discussions and 3 in-depth structured interviews were conducted with 25 random students to gain a deeper understanding of the observed variables as the crosscheck to get the results better. After that, the questionnaire has been developed as the key tool for data collection. The content of the questionnaire has been adopted and adapted from the questionnaires of the previous studies (e.g. Hoang, 2008; Krsmanović & Petrović, 2009; Wright, 2011; Ngoc & Iwashita, 2012; Phakiti, Hirsh & Woodrow, 2013; Nguyen, Warren & Fehring, 2014; El-Omari, 2016; Gover, Loukkola & Peterbauer, 2019; Nguyen & Duong, 2019; Du, 2020) based on receiving experts' recommendations, students’ viewpoints from the qualitative research results, and also from the outcomes of theory meta-analysis. Before implementing the official survey, a pilot test has been conducted with 15 students to test comprehension and provide feedback to improve the clarity of the questionnaire. For the official survey, with the random sampling technique, there are 315 students sending responses for the questionnaires and after filtering, there are 235 qualified questionaries meeting the criteria for the analysis.

Findings &Discussion

Findings as shows in Table 1 and 2.

Table 1
Results of Demographic Analysis
Items Amounts Ratio
Female 169 71.91%
Male 66 28.09%
Total 235 100%
Economic & Business Administration 82 34.90%
Social Sciences and Humanities 93 39.57%
Heath science 28 11.91%
Engineering and technology 32 13.62%
Total 235 100%
Students’  Results
Great 31 13.19%
Rather 106 45.11%
Medium 78 33.19%
Weak 20 8.51%
Total 235 100%
Table 2
Sample Descriptions
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Statistic Std. Error Statistic
Curriculum (Cur) 235 1.00 5.00 3.9574 .05004 .76711
Learning Invironment (LeaInv) 235 1.00 5.00 3.5940 .05585 .85623
Students’ Motivation & Attitude (StuMotAtt) 235 1.00 5.00 3.4440 .05165 .79173
Students’ Objectives (StuObj) 235 1.00 5.00 2.5319 .04456 .68306
Quality of Teaching Facilitator (QuaTea) 235 1.00 5.00 3.5489 .05351 .82025
English language learning quality (ELLQ) 235 1.00 5.00 3.5681 .04846 .74295
Valid N (listwise) 235

The results show that the highest Mean is "Curriculum" which indicates students’ attention in relating the teaching contents and student assessment approaches throughout their English learning process. This means more and more students are appreciated with the design of a rich, varied, and selective curriculum. The lowest mean is "Students' Objectives", meaning that students evaluate the quality of English language learning as impacted by their academic goals, especially students who are not majoring in languages. as shows in Table 3.

Table 3
Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients of the Scales
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted
Teaching Curriculum Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.804
Cur1 11.77 5.223 .689 .718
Cur2 11.71 5.095 .781 .672
Cur3 12.10 5.687 .598 .764
Cur4 11.91 6.565 .424 .839
Learning Environment Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.903
LeaInv1 14.32 12.150 .731 .887
LeaInv2 14.47 12.515 .709 .891
LeaInv3 14.46 11.728 .755 .882
LeaInv4 14.43 11.717 .800 .872
LeaInv5 14.20 11.967 .793 .874
Students’ Motivation & Attitude Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.805
StuMoAtt1 6.96 2.579 .629 .764
StuMoAtt2 6.88 2.832 .658 .727
StuMoAtt3 6.83 2.845 .676 .711
Students’ Object Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.704
StuObj1 7.60 4.199 .250 .781
StuObj2 8.76 3.678 .606 .586
StuObj3 8.54 2.864 .650 .526
StuObj4 8.58 3.518 .513 .626
Quality of Teaching Facititator Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.825
QuaTea1 14.20 10.765 .402 .847
QuaTea2 14.46 8.643 .746 .753
QuaTea3 14.42 7.996 .798 .733
QuaTea4 14.12 8.912 .656 .780
QuaTea5 14.19 10.332 .515 .819
English language learning quality Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.788
ELLQ1 10.51 5.841 .499 .781
ELLQ2 10.79 5.279 .618 .724
ELLQ3 10.62 5.433 .639 .716
ELLQ4 10.90 4.725 .639 .715

The results present the variable StuObj1 = 0.250 < 0.3 and it must be removed from the model. Thus, there are 24 observed variables accepted and included in the EFA factor analysis. In terms of EFA analysis, the first EFA results of 24 observed variables depict that, five (5) factors have been extracted at Eigenvalue = 1,081 of which the extracted variance is at 70.019% and KMO is at 0.820. However, the variable QuaTea1 has a loading factor coefficient under 0.5. Thus, QuaTea1 is also removed, and 23 variables will be processed with the second EFA. The following is the result of EFA: as shows in Table 4.

Table 4
Rotated Component Matrix
Item Component Factor
1 2 3 4 5
LeaInv1 .839 Learning Environment
LeaInv5 .828
LeaInv4 .819
LeaInv3 .754
LeaInv2 .748
QuaTea3 .949 Quality of Teaching Facilitator
QuaTea2 .912
QuaTea4 .732
QuaTea5 .510
Cur2 .842 Teaching Curriculum
Cur1 .817
Cur3 .623
Cur4 .589
StuObj3 .882 Students’ Objectives
StuObj2 .799
StuObj4 .769
StuMoAtt2 .836 Students’ Motivation & Attitude
StuMoAtt3 .742
StuMoAtt1 .718

The EFA results point out that the EFA factor analysis is appropriate. The EFA analysis results of the dependent variable are as follows: as shows in Table 5 and Table 6.

Table 5
Rotated Component Matrix of the Dependent Variable
Item Component
ELLQ1 .823
ELLQ2 .811
ELLQ3 .793
ELLQ4 .701
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Table 6
Pearson Correlation Coefficient
ELLQ Cur LeaInv StuMotAtt StuObj QuaTea
ELLQ Pearson Correlation 1 .466** .544** .710** .300** .494**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 235 235 235 235 235 235
Cur Pearson Correlation .466** 1 .504** .348** .300** .312**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 235 235 235 235 235 235
LeaInv Pearson Correlation .544** .504** 1 .502** .229** .218**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .001
N 235 235 235 235 235 235
StuMotAtt Pearson Correlation .710** .348** .502** 1 .175** .445**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .007 .000
N 235 235 235 235 235 235
StuObj Pearson Correlation .300** .300** .229** .175** 1 .105
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .007 .110
N 235 235 235 235 235 235
QuaTea Pearson Correlation .494** .312** .218** .445** .105 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001 .000 .110
N 235 235 235 235 235 235

This result expresses that violate multicollinearity or autocorrelation does not exist in the model. Also, regression analysis results are displayed as follows: as shows in Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9.

Table 7
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std.Error of the Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 .787a .619 .611 .46359 2.159
Table 8
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 79.945 5 15.989 74.398 .000b
Residual 49.215 229 .215
Total 129.161 234
Table 9
Regression Results of the Model
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Collinearity Statistics
ß Std. Error ß Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) .082 .201 .410 .682
Cur .109 .048 .113 2.264 .025 .671 1.491
LeaInv .156 .045 .179 3.455 .001 .617 1.621
StuMotAtt .443 .048 .472 9.170 .000 .628 1.592
StuObj .133 .047 .122 2.840 .005 .900 1.111
QuaTea .178 .042 .197 4.226 .000 .767 1.303

The result confirms that factors as Students' Motivation & Attitude, Students' Objectives, Quality of Teaching Facilitator, Learning Environment, Curriculum are statistically significant in the model and have a positive impact on the English language learning quality of students. As a consequence, the linear regression equation is as follows:

ELLQ = 0.472*StuMotAtt + 0.197*QuaTea + 0.179*LeaInv + 0.122*StuObj + 0.113*Cur

On the other hand, the variance inflation factor (VIF) is very small (less than 2) demonstrates that these independent variables are not closely related and completely, multicollinearity phenomenon does not exist.


As confirmed in the findings, the results identify 5 factors affecting English language learning quality. The β coefficient of Students' motivation and attitude is at the highest (β = 0.472) and it is concluded that students' motivation and attitude in English learning have a positive and strong impact on English learning quality and this presents the great significance and meaningfulness for educating the students’ awareness and motivating students to learn English, especially in the current trend of global citizenship training and education. In addition, according to the recent ranking released by the EF English Proficiency Index (EPI), Vietnam owns the ranking of 65th out of 100 countries and regions in terms of English proficiency, and from that data, it requires tertiary education institutions to have suitable approaches to develop and motivate right attitudes in the students’ English learning. More of that, the factors as Students' Objectives, Quality of Teaching Facilitator, Learning Environment, Teaching Curriculum achieve β coefficients range from 0.113 - 0.197 which are higher than 0, and completely, they impact positively on English language learning quality. As a result, it is concluded that all Hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4, H5 are accepted.

Recommendations to Related Authorities

As shown in the study results, most students are attached with great importance to learning English and show their high interests in how to improve their English proficiency. Therefore, tertiary education institutions should research to build a better learning environment, invest in the enhancement of the teaching facilitators’ quality, and innovate the curricula to suit each specific learning purpose for building up the competitive advantage. The recommendations are detailed as follows:

• In the context of the fast social and technological changes, tertiary education institutions and the related officers or administrators should focus on developing teaching methods and knowledge transmission approaches to create better motivation for the students in their learning process. As known, with the outbreak of IoT, many new teaching methods are available on websites, YouTube and books, etc. Thus, facilitators studying and applying teaching methods in developed countries are also for improvement of students’ learning motivation. Also, seminars are open to raise students’ awareness of the importance of self-study efforts and to guide the right attitude of students to learn English. Especially in the time of the Covid-19 epidemic worldwide, not only English but other subjects should use many methods to study in which online education is a must and popularity. Therefore, the facilities for online teaching methods are required by educational institutions to improve and apply with the significant Vietnam context.

• As for the higher education institutions, more qualified facilitators of English teaching should be recruited and remained to gradually enhance the education quality and create competitive advantages. One of those approaches is upgrading the recruitment criteria to attain qualified facilitators and lecturers. More, higher education institutions should concentrate to design training sessions and exchange teaching experiences among institutions and lecturers.

• Finally, educational institutions should have a consultatory team to provide advice to students on how to study and choose suitable courses for their learning objectives. In addition, regular evaluation surveys should be done to ensure that the training program suitability for the learning and research goals of students. Academic advisors are requested to create a feasible study plan for their students to build a learning path which is aligning with their objectives.


As the findings from the analysis of theoretical content relating to the English education quality for students with the use of qualitative and quantitative research methods, the study has identified five factors that affect English language learning quality, which is: (1) Students’ Motivation & Attitude, (2) Quality of Teaching facilitators, (3) Learning environment, (4) Students’ Objectives, and (5) Teaching Curriculum. This study result is consistent with the studies of Hoang (2008), Krsmanović and Petrović (2009); Wright, 2011; Ngoc and Iwashita (2012), Phakiti, Hirsh and Woodrow (2013), Nguyen, Warren and Fehring (2014), El-Omari (2016), Gover, Loukkola and Peterbauer (2019), Nguyen and Duong (2019), Du (2020) Therefore, some recommendations and implications for managers of educational institutions are given to improve training performance and present as a pedagogical example in classrooms. However, limitations of the study still exist. The limitation is the sample size by its completion with small sample size and definitely, results will be more accurate with larger sample sizes. Thus, further research is also implied throughout its limitation with the hope of huge contribution to management theory and practice.


Aamodt, P.O., Frølich, N., & Stensaker, B. (2016). Learning outcomes – a useful tool in quality assurance? Views from academic staff. Studies in Higher Education, 43(4), 614–624.

Allais, S. (2014). Selling out Education: National Qualification Frameworks and the Neglect of Knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Al-Omoush, M.M., Alrahahleh, A.H., & Alabaddi, Z.A. (2015). Total quality management in higher education. Information and Knowledge Management, 5(12), 49 – 59.

Alzhrani, K.M., Alotibie, B.A., & Abdulaziz, A. (2016). Total quality management in saudi higher education. International Journal of Computer Applications, 135(4), 6-12.

Baber, H. (2020). Determinants of students’ perceived learning outcome and satisfaction in online learning during the pandemic of COVID19. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research 7, 285-292.

Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2012). The effects of different learning environments on students’ motivation for learning and their achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 484–501.

Baporikar, N. (2021). Stakeholder approach for quality higher education. In Research Anthology on Preparing School Administrators to Lead Quality Education Programs (eds). IGI Global.

Beerkens, M., & Udam, M. (2017). Stakeholders in higher education quality assurance: Richness in diversity?. Higher Education Policy, 30, 341–359

Brown, C., Varley, P. & Pal, J. (2009). University course selection and services marketing. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 27(3), 310-325.

Budiharso, T., & Tarman, B. (2020). Improving quality education through better working conditions of academic institutes. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 7(1), 99-115.

Bui, T.K.P., & Dang, T.M.D. (2018). Factors affecting the quality of specialized English teaching at Foreign Trade University. Journal of Inquiry into Languages and Cultures, 2(1), 60-64.

Cardona, M.M., & Bravo, J.J. (2012). Service quality perceptions in higher education institutions: the case of a colombian university. Estudios gerenciales, 28(125), 23-29.

Carvalho Pereira, M.A., & Terra Da Silva, M. (2003). A key question for higher education: Who are the customers?. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society, 1-16.

Chang, M., & Goswami, J.S. (2011). Factors affecting the implementation of communicative language teaching in taiwanese college english classes. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 3-12.

Daraio, C., Simar, L., & Wilson, P.W. (2021). Quality as a latent heterogeneity factor in the efficiency of universities. Economic Modelling, 99, 1-17.

Davis, A.H. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student-teacher relationships on children's social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 207-234.

Deshpande, J. (2000). Education as business. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(28/29), 2506-2508.

Dinh, T.H., Hoang, T.N.Đ. & Le, T.K.T. (2018). Analysis of factors affecting the learning outcomes of students of economics faculty at Dong Nai University. Scientific journal of Dong Nai University 11, 18-29.

Doherty, G.D. (2008). On quality in education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3), 255–265.

Du, Y. (2020). Factors Affecting Language Learning Strategies used by a Greek Female Learner of English. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 9(8), 53-60.

Elassy, N. (2015). The concepts of quality, quality assurance and quality enhancement. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(3), 250–261.

Eldin, A.B. (2011). IA-Quality-General Concepts and Definitions. Modern Approaches to Quality Control, 1, 1-14.

El-Omari, A.H. (2016). Factors affecting students' achievement in English language learning. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 6(2), 9.

Erard, M. (2017). How the English language has evovled like a living creature.

Farooq, M.S., Akhtar, M.S., Ullah, S.Z., & Memon, R.A. (2007). Application of Total quality management in education. Online Submission, 3(2), 87-97.

Gover, A., Loukkola, T., & Peterbauer, H. (2019). Report: Student-centered learning: approaches to quality assurance. European University Association ASBL

Griffioen, D.M., & De Jong, U. (2015). Implementing research in professional higher education: Factors that influence lecturers’ perceptions. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(4), 626-645.

Guslyakova, N.I., & Guslyakova, A.V. (2020). Emotional intelligence as a driving force in the study of foreign languages in higher education. ARPHA Proceedings, 3, 781.

Habibulah, M.D., Rouf, M.A., & Rana, M. (2012). Perception of factors affecting the quality of higher education: A study on selected private universities in Bangladesh. International Journal of Information, Business and Management, 4(2), 1-12.

Hariharasudan, A., & Kot, S. (2018). A scoping review on Digital English and Education 4.0 for Industry 4.0. Social sciences, 7(11), 227.

Harman, G., Hayden, M., & Nghi, P.T. (2009). Higher education in Vietnam: Reform, challenges and priorities. Reforming Higher Education in Vietnam, 1–13. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3694-0_1

Harvey, L., & Williams, J. (2010). Fifteen years of quality in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 16(1), 3–36.

Hill, L.M., & Wang, D. (2018). Integrating sustainability learning outcomes into a university curriculum. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(4), 699–720.

Ho, G.K., & Law, R. (2020). Marketing strategies in the decision-making process for undergraduate choice in pursuit of hospitality and tourism higher education: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 1-13.

Hoang, V.V. (2008). Factors affecting the quality of specialized English teaching at Ha Noi National University. Scientific Journal of Ha Noi National University 24, 22-37

Hong, T.N, Wendy, W. & Heather, F. (2014). Factors affecting english language teaching and learning in higher education. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 94-105.

Irene, C.L.Ng., & Jeannie, F. (2008). Education as Service: The understanding of university experience through the service logic. Journal of Marketing of Higher Education, 19(1), 38-64.

Jain, C., & Prasad, N. (2017). Quality in education—concept, origin, and approaches. Quality of Secondary Education in India, 9–16.

Kaçaniku, F. (2020). Towards quality assurance and enhancement: The influence of the bologna process in kosovo’s higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 26(1), 32-47.

Kaplan, E. (2019). Six Essential Strategies for Teaching English Language Learners. Available at

Khuong, C.T.H. (2015). An evaluation of english teaching and learning in tourism training programs in Vietnam. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 8(6), 561-572.

Kirmani, N.S., & Siddiquah, A. (2008). Identification and analysis of factors affecting students achievement in higher education. Paper presented 2nd International conference on assessing quality in higher education, 1st – 3rd December 2008, Lahore, Pakistan.

Krsmanović, M.I., & Petrović, M.V. (2009). Factors affecting quality in teaching English (as a second language). 6th Research/Expert Conference with International Participations “QUALITY 2009”, Neum, B & H, June 04 – 07, 2009.

Laura, S., Sarah, P.E., Heather, W., &, Linda, C. (2015). Definitions of quality in higher education: A synthesis of the literature. Higher Learning Research Communications. 5(3), 3-13.

Le, H.T.T., Nguyen, H.T.T., La, T.P., Le, T.T.T., Nguyen, N.T., Nguyen, T.P.T., & Tran, T. (2020). Factors affecting academic performance of first-year university students: A case of a vietnamese university. International Journal of Education and Practice, 8(2), 221-232.

Lee, J.W., & Tai, S.W. (2008). Critical factors affecting customer satisfaction and higher education in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Management in Education, 2(1), 46-59.

Lưu, C.D., & Lam, N.L. (2018). Factors affecting the first-year students' choice of Van Lang University. Scientific journal of Van Lang University 12, 80-85.

Machin, S., & McNally, S. (2007). Tertiary Education Systems and Labour Markets. OECD Publisher.

Marshall, S.J. (2018). Internal and external stakeholders in higher education. In: Shaping the University of the Future. Springer, Singapore.

Mastoi, A., XinHai, L., & Saengkrod, W. (2019). Higher education service quality based on students’ satisfaction in Pakistan. European Scientific Journal ESJ, 15(11), 32-62.

Muftah, M. (2017). The factors that influence the acquistion of English language by Yemeni KG2 Students. International Journal of Research in Education Methodology, 1(8), 1402-1410.

Ngoc, K.M., & Iwashita, N. (2012). A comparison of learners' and teachers' attitudes toward communicative language teaching at two universities in Vietnam. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 7, 25-49

Nguyen, D.T. & Vu, T.L. (2016). Solutions to improve specialized English ability for students at Nha Trang University. Proceedings of the school-level seminar on solutions to improve the quality of specialized English training for non-English majors, Khanh Hoa, 24-26.

Nguyen, H.T., Warren, W., & Fehring, H. (2014). Factors affecting english language teaching and learning in higher education. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 94-105.

Nguyen, T.N. & Duong, D.M. (2019). Factors affecting English language learning processes at Thai Nguyen University. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 9(8), 463-469..

Nguyễn, T.T.H. & Dương, Đ.M. (2020). Factors affecting the quality of English learning from the perspective of teachers. TNU Journal of Science and Technology, 225(04), 21 – 26.

Null, J.W. & Bohan, C.H. (2005). Teacher education curriculum - What, How, and Why In J. W Null, W. and C. H. Bohan, Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 39–49.

Obermiller, C., Fleenor, P. & Raven, P. (2005). Students as customers or products: Perceptions and preferences of faculty and students. Marketing Education Review, 15(2), 27-36.

Oroujlou, N., & Vahedi, M. (2011). Motivation, attitude, and language learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29, 994-1000,

Papanthymou, A., & Darra, M. (2017). Quality management in higher education: Review and perspectives. Higher Education Studies, 7(3), 132-147.

Phakiti, A., Hirsh, D., & Woodrow, L. (2013). It’s not only English: Effects of other individual factors on English language learning and academic learning of ESL international students in Australia. Journal of Research in International Education, 12(3), 239-258.

Pham, T.N., & Bui, L.T.P. (2019). An exploration of students’ voices on the English graduation benchmark policy across Northern, Central and Southern Vietnam. Language Testing in Asia, 9(1), 1-20.

Polyakova, A., & Azizova, K. (2020). Research of the concept of quality education. Specialized And Multidisciplinary Scientific Research Conferences 4, 59-60.

Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). Improving School Leadership - Volume 1: policy and practice. OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Publisher

Psomas, E., & Antony, J. (2017). Total quality management elements and results in higher education institutions. Quality Assurance in Education, 25(2), 206–223.

Quintal, V.A., Wong, D.H., Sultan, P., & Wong, H.Y. (2012). Service quality in a higher education context: an integrated model. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24(5), 755-784.

Sabani, N., Jimmie, A., & Hasnor, H.N. (2020). English and Arabic language learning environments: Islamic universities undergraduates' experiences. In Global Perspectives on Teaching and Learning Paths in Islamic Education, 178-204.

Sadler, D.R. (2017). Academic achievement standards and quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 23(2), 81–99.

Sağlam, G., & Salı, P. (2013). The essentials of the foreign language learning environment: Through the eyes of the pre-service EFL teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1121-1125.

Sawir, E. (2005). Language difficulties of international students in Australia: The effects of prior learning experience. International Education Journal, 6(5), 567-580.

Sharma, S.K., Gupta, S.V., & Singh, R. (2014). Implementation of TQM for improving organizational effectiveness. International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management, 3(9), 105-110.

Stephan, M., Markus, S., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (October). Students' achievement emotions and online learning in teacher education. In Frontiers in Education, 4, 109.

Sukarno, S. (2020). Enhancing English language teaching and learning in Industrial Revolution 4.0 Era: Methods, Strategies and Assessments.

Surjono, H.D., Muhtadi, A., & Trilisiana, N. (2019, July). The effects of online activities on student learning outcomes in blended learning environment. In Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology, 107-110.

Tam, D., & Tung, M. (2019). Raising the output standard of English for students at universities.

Teeroovengadum, V., Nunkoo, R., Gronroos, C., Kamalanabhan, T.J., & Seebaluck, A.K. (2019). Higher education service quality, student satisfaction and loyalty. Quality Assurance in Education, 27(4), 427-445.

Thompson, M. (2019). Developing cultures of quality in higher education using information technology. Doctoral Dissertation of Deakin University.

Tran, T.T. (2013). Factors affecting teaching and learning English in Vietnamese universities. The Internet Journal Language, Culture and Society, 38(1), 138-145.

Tran, T.T.T., Baldauf Jr, R.B., & Moni, K. (2013). Foreign language anxiety: Understanding its status and insiders' awareness and attitudes. TESOL Quarterly, 47(2), 216-243.

Truong, C.B. (2017). Factors affecting Vietnamese university students’ english learning. Journal of Inquiry into Languages and Cultures, 1(2), 1-9.

Truong, T.N., & Wang, C. (2019). Understanding Vietnamese college students’ self-efficacy beliefs in learning English as a foreign language. System 84, 123-132.

Tsinidou, M., Gerogiannis, V., & Fitsilis, P. (2010). Evaluation of the factors that determine quality in higher education: An empirical study. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(3), 227-244.

Ulker, N., & Bakioglu, A. (2019). An international research on the influence of accreditation on academic quality. Studies in Higher Education, 44(9), 1507-1518.

Van Kemenade, E., Pupius, M., & Hardjono, T.W. (2008). More value to defining quality. Quality in Higher Education, 14(2), 175–185.

Wearring, A., Le, H., Wilson, R., & Arambewela, R. (2015). The international Students’ experience: An exploratory study of students from Vietnam. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 14(1), 71-89.

Wijnen, M., Loyens, Sofie M.M., Smeets, G., Kroeze, M. & Molen, H.V.D. (2017). Comparing problem-based learning students to students in a lecture-based curriculum: learning strategies and the relation with self-study time. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32, 431–447.

Williams, J. (2016). Quality assurance and quality enhancement: is there a relationship?. Quality in Higher Education, 22(2), 97–102.

Wright, G.B. (2011). Student-Centered learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 92-97. Sabani

Xiao, J., & Wilkins, S. (2015). The effects of lecturer commitment on student perceptions of teaching quality and student satisfaction in Chinese higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(1), 98-110.

Get the App