The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.

htm

QAE 18,4

Determinants of learning performance of business students in a transitional market

Trang T.M. Nguyen
Vietnam National University, HCM City, Vietnam, and

304

Tho D. Nguyen
University of Economics, HCM City, Vietnam and University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the impacts of instructor capability and learning motivation on learning performance of business students in Vietnam. It also explores the moderating effect of personal development competitiveness on the roles of instructor capability in both learning motivation and learning performance. Design/methodology/approach Two phases of study were undertaken. A pilot phase was used to preliminary assess the measures and a main survey with a sample of 1,278 undergraduate business students was conducted to validate the measures and to test the models. Findings Instructor capability was found to have a positive impact on learning motivation and, subsequently, on learning performance. The results further show that the impacts of instructor capability on both learning motivation and learning performance are greater in the group of students which has a higher level of personal development competitiveness. Research limitations/implications A key limitation of this study is the examination of the roles of instructor capability and learning motivation in learning performance. There can be several other antecedents of learning performance of business students. Practical implications The results of this study suggest that university administrators should design suitable recruitment and training policies in order to have instructors with appropriate knowledge and teaching skills. Also, students personal development competitiveness in learning should be encouraged. Originality/value The ndings enhance ones understanding of key antecedents of learning performance, as well as the moderating role of personal development competitiveness in the learning of business students in a transition market, Vietnam. Keywords Higher education, Students, Instructions, Learning, Self development, Vietnam Paper type Research paper

Quality Assurance in Education Vol. 18 No. 4, 2010 pp. 304-316 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0968-4883 DOI 10.1108/09684881011079152

Introduction Research on business education has been widely undertaken around the world, especially in advanced economies. For example, LeBlanc and Nguyen (1999) explore the factors that affect the value of business education. Tang (1997) evaluates the overall effectiveness of teaching faculty. Abrantes et al. (2007) examine the relationships between pedagogical effect, student interest, and learning performance. Marks (2000) focuses on factors affecting the performance of business students. However, those studies were mainly conducted in advanced economies and little attention has been paid to transition markets like Vietnam.

The movement toward a market-oriented economy, and especially, the entry to the World Trade Organization, has created several opportunities as well as threats for Vietnam. Opportunities include new markets for exports of goods and services as well as imports of raw materials and technologies, more chances for international business co-operations, etc. However, with a more open market, competition is more severe, and business standards such as product quality, safety, etc. are more strictly controlled. Among several aws, a lack of knowledge about business management is perhaps one of the most difculties for Vietnam (Nguyen, 2009). Thus, Vietnamese universities should enhance their training capabilities in order to supply the Vietnamese labour market with qualied business managers. Consequently, exploring the factors affecting the learning performance of Vietnamese business students is a need for academics as well as university administrators. For that reason, the purpose of this study is to investigate some determinants of learning performance of Vietnamese business students. Specically, it examines the impact of instructor capability, mediated by learning motivation, on learning performance of business students. The study also explores the moderating effect of personal development competitiveness of students. The rest of the paper is organized round four key points: literature review and hypotheses; method; results; and discussion, implications, and conclusions. Literature review and hypotheses The relationship between teaching and learning methods and learning performance have attracted several researchers around the world for the past several years (Dunkin and Biddle, 1974; Biggs, 1999). There are a number of models developed to explain these relationships and perhaps, one of the most common models is Biggs 3P model (Biggs, 1999). This model includes three interrelated components: the input (presage), the learning process (process), and the outcome (product). The presage component comprises student-based and teaching context-based factors. The student-based factors include prior knowledge that students have about the topic, their interest in the topic, and their capability and commitment to learn. The teachingbased factors relate to aspects such as teaching objectives (what is intended to be taught), teaching and evaluating methods (how it will be taught and assessed), the capability of teaching staff, and the climate of the classroom and the university. The process component involves learning-focused activities or learning approaches, i.e. a deep or surface learning approach. Whereas, the deep approach to learning focuses on the understanding of the insight meanings of the problems and their applications to practice, the surface approach to learning is based on the memorization in isolation of other ideas (rote learning). The product component is the outcomes of the learning process such as the knowledge acquired by students (what they have learned in terms of quality and quantity; Biggs, 1999). The 3P model has been widely used by several researchers as a theoretical foundation for their research. For example, Duff (2004) explores the relationships among characteristics of students (presage), learning approaches (process), and learning outcomes (products). Young et al. (2003) examine the relationships between learning styles (process), teaching methods and technology (presage), and learning outcomes (products). However, little research has been conducted to explore the relationships between instructor capability, learning motivation, and learning performance.

Determinants of learning performance 305

QAE 18,4

306

Conceptual model Based on the 3Ps model of teaching and learning and on theory of learning motivation, a conceptual model is shown in Figure 1. The model describes the relationship between instructor capability and learning performance, mediated by learning motivation. The model also illustrates the moderating roles on personal development competitiveness (low and high), university ownership types (public and private) and modes of study (full-time and part-time). In this study, learning is viewed as knowledge acquisition through cognitive processing of information acquired from both being part of society and from individual thought process and learning performance is dened as students self-assessment of their overall knowledge gained, their skills and abilities developed, and the effort they expanded in a particular class relative to other classes (Young et al., 2003, p. 131). Learning motivation The concept of motivation is used to explain what gets people going, keeps them going, and helps them nish tasks (Pintrich, 2003, p. 104). Motivation helps to establish and increase the quality of cognitive engagement, leading to success (Blumenfeld et al., 2006). There are several models of motivation. However, the following three components are always present in most models of motivation, i.e. expectancy, value, and affective. Expectancy refers to ones beliefs about the ability or skills to perform the task. Value is used to express ones beliefs about the importance, interest, and utility of the task. The affective component is used to describe ones feelings about the self or emotional reactions to the task (Pintrich, 2003). In business education, research has shown that the differences in ability and motivation to learn affect the learning performance of students as well as the teaching effectiveness of professors (Cole et al., 2004a; Noe, 1986). Based on Noe (1986), in this study, learning motivation is dened as the willingness to attend and learn the material presented in a university program. The construction and measurement of learning motivation are often based upon a self-efcacy approach, i.e. focusing on individuals self-perceptions of efcacy which are well suited for predicting how well individuals will perform (Cole et al., 2004a).
Learning motivation H2 Instructor capability Teaching capability Course organization Student-instructor interaction H4 H3 Learning performance H5 H1

Figure 1. Conceptual model

Personal development competitiveness

While ability to learn reects what students can do, learning motivation affects the decision-making process shaping the direction, focus and level of effort that students will apply to their learning activities (Cole et al., 2004a). Learning motivation enhances the knowledge and skills acquired by students because students with a high motivation to learn will have more effective strategies for learning and greater levels of commitment to knowledge and skill accumulation (Blumenfeld et al., 2006; Nguyen et al., 2008). Thus: H1. Learning motivation will have a positive impact on learning performance. Instructor capability Although there are several perspectives on instructor capability, researchers have agreed that instructor capability is a multidimensional concept (Marks, 2000). The difference is on the number and contents of its components. For example, Braskamp and Ory (1994) identify six components of instructor capability, including course organization and planning, clarity and communication skills, instructor-student interaction and rapport, course difculty and workload, grading and examinations, and student self-learning. Marks (2000) suggests ve components comprising course organization, course difculty and workload, expectation and fairness of grading, instructor liking and concern, and perceived learning. Abrantes et al. (2007) propose four components, including student-instructor interaction, responsiveness, course organization, and instructor likeability and concern. Ginns et al. (2007), based on students perceptions of teaching quality, propose ve components, comprising good teaching, clear goals and standards, appropriate assessment, appropriate workload, and generic skills. It is clear that there is a considerable overlap among the above-mentioned components of instructor capability. For example, instructor liking, self-learning and perceived learning can be outcomes rather than components of instructor capability. For that reason, in this study, instructor capability is proposed to comprise three main components: teaching capability, course organization, and instructor-student interaction. Teaching capability refers to the instructors knowledge and investment in the course, clarity and communication skills. Course organization relates to the structure of the course and instructor-student interaction represents students opportunities to interact with the instructor and class participation such as asking questions, expressing ideas, and open discussions in the class. Instructor capability plays an important role in teaching and learning (Biggs, 1999) because such capability will assist students in grasping the materials of the course. Instructor capability also helps students to understand the value and benets of their learning. Thus, students who highly evaluate their instructors capability will be more interested in the course, leading to a higher level of motivation to learn. They will invest more time and effort in their study. Therefore: H2. Instructor capability will have a positive impact on learning motivation. H3. Instructor capability will have a positive impact on learning performance. Moderating effect Personal development competitiveness. Social comparison is a process that occurs in all societies. Individuals generally try to nd a way of building status and prestige

Determinants of learning performance 307

QAE 18,4

308

in society, and they compete with each other within their communities to gain prestige and success. Two types of individual competitiveness, hypercompetitiveness and personal development competitiveness, have widely been studied in the psychology literature (see Houston et al., 2002 for a review). Hypercompetitiveness refers to the characteristics of an individual who possesses a need to win at any cost (Horney, 1937). Personal development competitiveness, on the other hand, refers to the need for individual growth (Ross et al., 2003; Ryckman et al., 1997). Research has shown that hyper-competitive and personal development competitive individuals believe in working hard to achieve personal success, in striving for material success, and in living an exciting and challenging life. However, personal development competitive individuals are concerned with the feelings and welfare of others, with working cooperatively, and with treating others with respect and as equals. In contrast, hypercompetitors are not so concerned (Ryckman et al., 1997). Hypercompetitors insist on their self-worth, and in separating the self and others (Sampson, 1977). Thus, hypercompetitors and personal development competitors have different perspectives in seeking status in society (Ryckman et al., 1997). Individual competition among students at university is often in the form of personal development competition. Students in the class compete and, at the same time, cooperate with each other to achieve high-learning performance. Therefore, this study focuses on the moderating role of personal development competitiveness in the impacts of instructor capability on both learning motivation and learning performance. Students with high levels of personal development competitiveness are likely to view competition as a means for self-development of their knowledge and skills (Ross et al., 2003; Ryckman et al., 1997). These students tend to consider themselves as part of the class, i.e. they are not in isolation with other members in the class. They are more active in working with their classmates and instructor. For that reason, their learning motivation and learning performance are expected to be higher compared to other members within the class: H4. The impact of instructor capability on learning motivation will be stronger for students who have higher levels of personal development competitiveness than that of students who have lower levels of personal development competitiveness. H5. The impact of instructor capability on learning performance will be stronger for students who have higher levels personal development competitiveness than that of students who have lower levels of personal development competitiveness. Method Design and sample Two phases of study were undertaken in this study: a pilot study and a main survey. The pilot study comprised two steps: a qualitative study and a pilot quantitative survey. The qualitative study was conducted by means of in-depth interviews with 12 business students in the Faculty of Business Administration, University of Economics, HCM City. The purpose of this study was to check the contents of the measures. The pilot quantitative survey was undertaken by means of face-to-face interviews the 129 business students (also in the Faculty of Business Administration,

University of Economics, HCM City) to preliminarily assess the measures. In this step, Cronbachs alpha reliability and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were used to preliminarily assess the measures. The main survey was also undertaken by face-to-face interviews with a sample of 1,278 undergraduate business students in ve selected universities in HCM City. There were two public universities (University of Economics, HCM City and Vietnam National University) and three private universities (Ton Duc Thang University, Hong Bang University, and Van Hien University). The purpose of this survey was to validate the measures and to test the structural model. The sample was comprised of 936 (73.23 percent) public university students and 342 (26.76 percent) private university students. In terms of modes of study, there were 748 (58.53 percent) full-time students and 530 (41.47 percent) part-time students. Composite reliability (rc), average variance extracted (rvc), and conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to validate the measurement models and structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to test the conceptual model and hypotheses. Measurement Four constructs were examined: learning performance, learning motivation, instructor capability, and personal development competitiveness. Learning performance, learning motivation, and personal development competitiveness were rst-order constructs. Instructor capability was a second-order construct, comprising three components: teaching capability, course organization, and instructor-student interaction. Learning performance was measured by four items, based upon Young et al.s (2003) scale. Learning motivation was measured by ve items, adapted from Cole et al. (2004a, b). Personal development competitiveness was measured by four items, based upon the scale developed by Ryckman et al. (1996) and adapted by Nguyen et al. (2005) for Vietnamese. Instructor capability was measured by 12 items, adapted from Abrantes et al. (2007) and Clayson (1999). Teaching capability was measured by three items, course organization was measured by four items, and instructor-student interaction was measured by ve items. All items were measured by a seven-point Likert scale, anchored by 1 strongly disagree and 7 strongly agree. Results Measurement assessment Preliminary assessment. The measures used in this study were rst assessed using the data collected from 129 business students in the pilot quantitative study. As discussed previously, Cronbachs alpha and EFA were used in this step. The results indicate that the measures used in this study satised the requirements for Cronbachs reliability (a $ 0.84), EFA factor loadings (l $ 0.69), and variance extracted ($ 76 percent). Consequently, these measures were used in the main survey. It is noted that one-item measuring the instructor-student interaction component of the instructor capability scale was deleted due to its low item-total correlation (, 0.30). Measure validation. As mentioned, the measures used in this study were assessed using composite reliability (rc), average variance extracted (rvc), and CFA. Five CFA models were assessed: one CFA model used for the second-order construct (instructor capability); one CFA model used for the four rst-order constructs (learning performance, learning motivation, and personal development competitiveness);

Determinants of learning performance 309

QAE 18,4

310

and three CFA models used to assess the discriminant validity between the rst- and second-order constructs. The screening process shows that the data exhibited slight deviations from normality. Nonetheless, all univariate kurtoses and skewnesses were within the range of (2 1, 1). It is also noted that all the scales were reective measures. Therefore, the maximum likelihood estimation method was used to estimate the parameters in the measurement and structural models (Muthen and Kaplan, 1985). Instructor capability. The CFA model received a good t to the data (Table II). The factor loadings of all items measuring this construct were high and substantial (the lowest loading was 0.55), and all were signicant ( p , 0.001; Table I). Also, the average variances extracted of the scales measuring the components (teaching capability, course organization, and instructor-student interaction) of instructor capability were high (rvc . 0.50; Table I). These ndings indicate that these components were unidimensional and their convergent validity (within-method) was achieved. The correlations (with standard errors) between components were signicantly different from unity (Table II), thus, supporting the within-construct discriminant validity (Steenkamp and van Trijp, 1991). Further, all the three components had high-composite reliability (rc $ 0.81). Learning performance, learning motivation, and personal development competitiveness. The CFA model received a good t to the data (Table II). The factor loadings of all items measuring this construct were also high and substantial (the lowest loading was 0.66), and all were signicant ( p , 0.001; Table I). The average variances extracted of the scales measuring these constructs (learning performance, learning motivation, and personal development competitiveness) were high (rvc . 0.50; Table I). These ndings indicate that these constructs were unidimensional and their convergent validity (within-method) was achieved. The correlations (with standard errors) between constructs were signicantly different from unity (Table II), thus, supporting the across-construct discriminant validity (Steenkamp and van Trijp, 1991). Further, all these scales had acceptable composite reliability (rc $ 0.67). Discriminant validity between instructor capability and other constructs. Finally, to assess the discriminant validity between instructor capability and other rst-order constructs (learning performance, learning motivation, and personal development competitiveness), we used pairwise comparison. Three CFA models were assessed: instructor capability-learning performance, instructor capability-learning motivation, and instructor capability-personal development competitiveness. The CFA results show that these models received an acceptable t to the data (Table II). In addition, the correlations (with standard errors) between constructs were signicantly different from unity (Table II), thus, supporting the across-construct discriminant validity (Steenkamp and van Trijp, 1991). In sum, the CFA results indicate that all measures satised the requirement for reliability and validity: composite reliability, variance extracted, unidimensionality, and convergent and discriminant validity. Structural results Testing H1, H2, and H3. The SEM results show that the conceptual model received a good t to the data: x 2 1,165.50 ( p 0.000), GFI 0.905, CFI 0.935, and [146] RMSEA 0.074. In addition, all hypotheses were supported. First, learning motivation had a signicant impact on learning performance (b 0.40, p , 0.001), supporting H1. Consistent with H2 and H3, instructor capability had both direct and indirect effects

Item

Mean

SD

Loading

t-value

Instructor capability: teaching capability: rc 0.85; rvc 0.67 The instructor appears to be knowledgeable about the course materials 6.00 1.28 The instructor explains the course materials clearly and understandably 5.19 1.66 The instructor carefully prepares the course materials 5.52 1.52 Instructor capability: course organization: rc 0.81; rvc 0.52 The course objectives and contents are clearly introduced 5.49 1.51 The course is systematically organized 5.22 1.56 I fully apprehend the objectives and requirements of the course 5.06 1.49 The instructor makes clear the requirements of the course 5.06 1.57 Instructor capability: instructor-student interaction: rc 0.82; rvc 0.54 The instructor stimulates class discussion 4.88 1.79 I often discuss with the instructor about the course matters 3.12 1.60 I often discuss with my classmates about the course matter deleted) The instructor encourage students to ask questions 4.87 1.73 The instructor encourage students to express new ideas, opinions 4.79 1.79 Learning motivation: rc 0.89; rvc 0.67 I spend a lot of time for my study 4.57 1.43 Investment in studying the course material is my rst priority 3.96 1.64 I try all my best to study the course materials 4.69 1.53 Overall, my learning motivation is very high 4.84 1.55 Learning performance: rc 0.91; rvc 0.83 I gain a lot of knowledge from this course 5.02 1.52 I develop a lot of skills from this course 4.56 1.51 I am able to apply the knowledge and skills gained in this course to practice 4.55 1.56 Overall, I learn a lot from this course 4.70 1.58 Personal development competitiveness: rc 0.89; rvc 0.67 I enjoy competition in the class because it gives me a chance to discover my abilities 5.28 1.28 Competition in the class is an effective means to develop my abilities 5.38 1.26 I nd competition in the class is valuable means of learning about myself and others 5.51 1.25 Competition in the class leads me to the formation of friendship with my classmates 5.05 1.46

Determinants of learning performance 311

0.75 0.82 0.87 0.83 0.73 0.69 0.64 0.76 0.55 0.79 0.81 0.78 0.79 0.85 0.86 0.84 0.83 0.85 0.89 0.81 0.91 0.88 0.66

29.13 30.61 23.40 21.27 20.41 27.29 19.10 28.28 32.94 33.15 37.35 35.72 37.51 40.24 37.66 36.41 24.94 Table I. CFA factor loadings of items

on learning performance. Specically, the impact of instructor capability on learning motivation was signicant (g 0.54, p , 0.001) and the impact of instructor capability on learning performance was also signicant (g 0.59, p , 0.001). These two factors, instructor capability and learning motivation, explain 75 percent of the variance of learning performance. Table III shows the direct, indirect, and total effects in the model.

QAE 18,4

Correlation between

SE

1 2 r t(1 2 r) 0.41 0.13 0.45 0.76 0.73 0.29 0.20 0.47 0.80 9.23 2.36 11.35 23.68 22.43 7.34 4.33 11.68 24.17

CFA model t

Course organization $ instructor-student 0.59 0.044 interaction

x 2 316.28 ( p 0.000), [41] GFI 0.956, CFI 0.960, and RMSEA 0.073

312

Course organization $ teaching 0.87 0.055 capability Teaching capability $ instructor-student 0.55 0.040 interaction Learning performance $ personal 0.24 0.032 development competitiveness Learning motivation $ personal development competitiveness Learning motivation $ learning performance Instructor capability $ learning performance Instructor capability $ learning motivation Instructor capability $ personal development competitiveness Notes: r, correlation; SE, standard error 0.27 0.032 0.71 0.040 0.80 0.047 0.53 0.040 0.20 0.033

x 2 439.68 ( p 0.000), [51] GFI 0.945, CFI 0.963, and RMSEA 0.077

Table II. Test of discriminant validity

x 2 753.03 ( p 0.000), [86] GFI 0.922, CFI 0.943, RMSEA 0.078 x 2 690.78 ( p 0.000), [86] GFI 0.928, CFI 0.942, RMSEA 0.074 x 2 451.91 ( p 0.000), [86] GFI 0.954, CFI 0.964, RMSEA 0.058

Construct Learning motivation Table III. Direct, indirect of total effects on learning performance Learning performance

Effect Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total

Instructor capability 0.54 0.00 0.54 0.59 0.21 0.80

Learning motivation

0.40 0.00 0.40

Testing the moderating effect. To test the moderating effect of personal development competitiveness on the impacts of instructor capability on both learning motivation and learning performance, the multi-group analysis in SEM was employed. There were two groups for the moderating variable (personal development competitiveness): low and high. It is noted that the scale measuring personal development competitiveness was unidimensional. Therefore, a summated scale was formed for the measure of this construct. Then, the median split was applied to divide the sample into two groups: students with a low level of personal development competitiveness (sample size n1 609) and students with a high level of personal development competitiveness (sample size n2 669). Two stages of analysis were conducted for each structural path. First, these two samples (groups) were used to estimate the paths with no structural paths constrained, i.e. the paths between instructor capability and learning motivation in the two groups

were set to be free (termed model M1). Next, a constraint was imposed for the structural paths (between instructor capability and learning motivation) in both groups, i.e. they were set to be equal in both groups (model M2). For the measurement models, constraints were only set for loadings between instructor capability and its components (teaching capability, course organization, and instructor-student interaction). No constraints were set for the loadings of items on latent variables (partial invariance). The same procedure was applied for the path between instructor capability and learning performance. Testing H4. The results of the multi-group analysis reveal that both M1 and M2 received an acceptable good t to the data: M1: x 2 1,304.58 ( p 0.000), [292] GFI 0.897, CFI 0.933, and RMSEA 0.052; and M2: x 2 1,412.79 ( p 0.000), [295] GFI 0.897, CFI 0.933, RMSEA 0.052. A x2 difference test reveals that there was a signicant difference between these two models: Dx 2 [Ddf 295 2 292 3] 1,312.79 2 1,304.58 8.21 ( p , 0.05). Therefore, model M1 was selected because it had a better t to the data. A closer inspection of the structural paths shows that the effect of instructor capability on learning motivation in the group of students with a higher level of personal development competitiveness (gunstandardized 0.85, p , 0.001) were greater than that of in the group of students with a lower level of personal development competitiveness (gunstandardized 0.70). Accordingly, H4 was supported. In other words, the impact of instructor capability on learning motivation was stronger for students who have higher personal development competitiveness than that of for students who have lower personal competitiveness. Testing H5. M1: x 2 1,304.58 ( p 0.000), GFI 0.897, CFI 0.933, and [292] RMSEA 0.052, and M2: x 2 1,413.16 ( p 0.000), GFI 0.897, CFI 0.933, and [295] RMSEA 0.052; Dx 2 [Ddf 295 2 292 3] 1,313.16 2 1,304.58 8.58 ( p , 0.05). These ndings support the choice of model M1. The effect of instructor capability on learning performance in the group of students with a higher level of personal development competitiveness (gunstandardized 0.98, p , 0.001) were greater than that of in the group of students with a lower level of personal development competitiveness (gunstandardized 0.80, p , 0.001). Accordingly, H5 (the impact of instructor capability on learning performance will be stronger for students who have higher personal development competitiveness) was also supported. Note that no improper solution was found in the saturated or any structural models: Heywood cases were absent; all error-term variances were signicant; and, all standardized residuals were less than j2.58j. Discussion, implications, and conclusions Although research has been widely conducted in advanced economies to understand the role of instructor capability in attitudes and behaviour of students, our knowledge about such role in transitional economies like Vietnam is still limited. This research aims at examining the impacts, direct and indirect (via learning motivation), of instructor capability on learning performance of business students in Vietnam. In addition, it also explores the moderating effect of personal development competitiveness of students on the impacts of instructor capability on both learning motivation and learning performance. The results of this study assist us in enhancing our understanding of the role of instructor capability in both learning motivation and learning performance of business

Determinants of learning performance 313

QAE 18,4

314

students in Vietnam. Specically, the results of this study show that instructor capability had a strong and positive impact on learning motivation and, subsequently, on learning performance of business students. Consistent with results found around the world (Cole et al., 2004a, b; Tharenou, 2001), learning motivation has a positive impact on learning performance. Moreover, instructor capability and learning motivation explain 75 percent of the variance of learning performance. Thus, the capability of instructors plays a leading role in motivating and stimulating students to learn and acquire knowledge. This nding is also consistent with those found in advanced economies where instructors are a key factor contributing to the quality of education (Byrne and Flood, 2003; Clayson, 1999; Faranda and Clarke, 2004). However, compared with the results found in developed economies, the role of instructor capability found in this study is much more important. For example, a study by Young et al. (2003) with students in the USA shows that teaching factors explain only about 18 percent of the variance of learning performance. The demand for qualied business managers in Vietnam is very high due to the transformation of the economy from a centrally planned economy to a market-oriented economy. Vietnamese universities have dramatically increased the number of business students to satisfy such a demand of the market. As a result of such an increase, Vietnamese universities are lacking capable business instructors. The capability of Vietnamese university instructors of business, compared with university instructors of business in developed economies, is of special importance to the learning performance of business students as found in this study. The results of this study assist Vietnamese university administrators and instructors in capturing the important role of instructor capability in learning motivation and learning performance. Instructors should pay attention to the organization of the course, stimulate the interaction between students and the instructor, and improve their teaching capability in order to motivate students to learn and to enhance their performance. University administrators also benet from the results of this study. University administrators should design suitable recruitment and training policies in order to have instructors with appropriate knowledge and teaching skills. In so doing, Vietnamese universities are able to gradually improve the quality of university teaching and learning. The results further show that the impacts of instructor capability on both learning motivation and learning performance are greater in the group of students who have a higher level of personal development competitiveness. Thus, university administrators and instructors should encourage students to develop their personal development competitiveness in learning in order to enhance their learning motivation and performance. This study has a number of limitations. First, the model was only tested with undergraduate business students in some universities in HCM City. The model should be tested with postgraduate business students as well as with business students at universities in other cities and provinces in Vietnam such as in Can Tho, Da Nang and Hanoi to enhance the generalizability of the results. Second, the model examined the roles of only two factors, i.e. instructor capability and learning motivation, in learning performance. Several other factors that may contribute to the learning performance of business students, such as psychological hardiness in learning, learning approaches (e.g. deep versus surface), university services, etc. should be considered in future research.

References Abrantes, J.L., Seabra, C. and Lages, L.L. (2007), Pedagogical affect, student interest, and learning performance, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60, pp. 960-4. Biggs, J. (1999), Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Open University Press, Buckingham. Blumenfeld, P.C., Kempler, T.M. and Krajcik, J.S. (2006), Chapter 28: motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environment, in Sawyer, R.K. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 475-88. Braskamp, L.A. and Ory, J.C. (1994), Assessing Faculty Work: Enhancing Individual and Institutional Performance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Byrne, M. and Flood, B. (2003), Assessing the teaching quality of accounting programmes: an evaluation of the course experience questionnaire, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 135-45. Clayson, D.E. (1999), Students evaluation of teaching effectiveness: some implications of stability, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 68-75. Cole, M.S., Field, H.S. and Harris, S.G. (2004a), Student learning motivation and psychological hardiness: interactive effects on students reactions to a management class, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 64-85. Cole, M.S., Harris, S.G. and Field, H.S. (2004b), Stages of learning motivation: development and validation of a measure, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 1421-56. Duff, A. (2004), Understanding academic performance and progression of rst-year accounting and business economics undergraduates: the role of approaches to learning and prior academic achievement, Accounting Education, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 409-30. Dunkin, M. and Biddle, B. (1974), The Study of Teaching, Holt Rinehardt & Winston, New York, NY. Faranda, W.T. and Clarke, I. III (2004), Student observations of outstanding teaching: implications for marketing educators, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 271-81. Ginns, P., Prosser, M. and Barrie, S. (2007), Students perceptions of teaching quality in higher education: the perspective of currently enrolled students, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 603-15. Horney, K. (1937), The Neurotic Personality of Our Time, Norton, New York, NY. Houston, J.M., McIntire, S.A., Kinnie, J. and Terry, C. (2002), A factorial analysis of scales measuring competitiveness, Educational Psychological Measurement, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 284-98. LeBlanc, G. and Nguyen, N. (1999), Listening to the customers voice: examining perceived service value among business college students, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 187-98. Marks, R.B. (2000), Determinants of student evaluations of global measures of instructor and course value, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 108-19. Muthen, B. and Kaplan, D. (1985), A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, Vol. 38, pp. 171-80. Nguyen, T.D. (2009), Signal quality and service quality: a study of local and international MBA programs in Vietnam, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 364-76.

Determinants of learning performance 315

QAE 18,4

316

Nguyen, T.D., Barrett, N.J. and Miller, K.E. (2005), Perceived brand globalness: antecedents and outcome the case of Vietnamese consumers, Proceeding of the 34th European Marketing Academy Conference, Milan, Italy, May 24-27. Nguyen, T.T.M., Nguyen, T.D. and Mai, V.L.T. (2008), Student Learning Motivations and Performance The Case of Business Students in HCM City, Vietnam ( in Vietnamese), Research Report, Grant No. B2006-76-02, Vietnam National University, HCM City. Noe, R.A. (1986), Trainees attributes and attitudes: neglected inuences on training effectiveness, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 736-49. Pintrich, P.R. (2003), Motivation and classroom learning, in Reynolds, W.M. and Miller, G.E. (Eds), Handbook of Psychology, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 103-22. Ross, S.R., Rausch, M.K. and Canada, K.E. (2003), Competition and cooperation in the ve-factor model: individual differences in achievement orientation, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 137 No. 4, pp. 323-37. Ryckman, R.M., Hammer, M., Kaczor, L.M. and Gold, J.A. (1996), Construction of a personal development competitive attitude scale, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 630-9. Ryckman, R.M., Libby, C., Borne, V.D.B., Gold, J.A. and Lindner, M.A. (1997), Values of hypercompetitive and personal development competitive individuals, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 271-83. Sampson, E.E. (1977), Psychology and the American ideal, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 35, pp. 767-82. Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. and van Trijp, H.C.M. (1991), The use of LISREL in validating marketing constructs, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 283-99. Tang, T.L.-P. (1997), Teaching evaluation at a public institution of higher education: factors related to the overall teaching, Public Personal Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 379-89. Tharenou, P. (2001), The relationship of training motivation to participation in training and development, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 599-621. Young, M.R., Klemz, B.R. and Murphy, J.W. (2003), Enhancing learning outcomes: the effects of instructional technology, learning styles, instructional methods, and student behaviour, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 130-42. About the authors Trang T.M. Nguyen (PhD, UTS) is a Lecturer in Marketing, Vietnam National University, HCM City, Vietnam. Her works have been published in Advances in International Marketing, Asia Pacic Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, and Journal of Customer Behaviour, among others. Tho D. Nguyen (PhD, UTS) is an Associate Professor of Marketing, University of Economics, HCM City, Vietnam, and Adjunct Professor, University of Western Sydney, Australia. His works have been published in Advances in International Marketing, International Business Review, Journal of Macromarketing, and Journal of International Marketing, among others. Tho D. Nguyen is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: ndtho@ueh.edu.vn

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints