Living in On-campus Student Housing: Students ... - Science Direct

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 170 (2015) 494 – 503

AcE-Bs2014Seoul Asian Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies Chung-Ang University, Seoul, S. Korea, 25-27 August 2014 "Environmental Settings in the Era of Urban Regeneration"

Living in On-campus Student Housing: Students’ behavioural intentions and students’ personal attainments Nurul ‘Ulyani Mohd Najiba,*, Nor’Aini Yusofa,b, Amin Akhavan Tabassia a

School of Housing, Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia b College for Women, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Abstract In Malaysia, scant research has been conducted in understanding how students perceived the performance of service quality of student housing; and how they translated their perceptions into behavioural intentions besides personal attainments. Studies on the aforementioned topic from the view of facilities management are also still flawed plus rare. This study aims to explore what are the elements that exist to constitute behavioural intentions and personal attainments; which based on comprehensive reviews from considerable volume of published journals. The results clarified that behavioural intentions consist of favourable and unfavourable behavioural intentions; whereas personal attainments are theorized about intellectual and self-development gains. © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Centre for Environment(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Behaviour under Studies (cE-Bs), Faculty offor Architecture, Planning &Studies Surveying, Universiti MARA, Malaysia. Peer-review responsibility of Centre Environment-Behaviour (cE-Bs), Faculty ofTeknologi Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia. Keywords: Service quality performance; student housing; behavioural intentions; personal attainments

1. Introduction Malaysia is now experiencing a well encouraging scenario where the number of people, both locally and internationally, attending in higher education institute is increasing from year to year. With that positive trend, so far, Malaysia has successfully gaining a global recognition and currently ranked at 11th worldwide by United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for her appeal to students as a preferred destination for tertiary and higher education (MOHE Promotional Information (Overview), 2014). Henceforth, to boost the current rank and to make Malaysian universities

*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +6012-413-3242. E-mail address: [email protected].

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Peer-review under responsibility of Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies (cE-Bs), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.052

Nurul ‘Ulyani Mohd Najib et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 170 (2015) 494 – 503

as always a comfortable and perfect choice of place to pursuing the study, advanced infrastructures along with sufficient facilities need to be provided and seriously taken into account (Down, 2009; Muslim et al., 2012a; Oluwunmi et al., 2012). One of the major concerns on sophisticated university’s infrastructures and facilities is the provision of on-campus student housing with the superior housing facilities and good housing services. Having an excellent educational environment on-campus, instead of engendering as much as possible tiptop students with their citizenship, intellectual, emotion, physical, and also moral aspects in an ability to present the country to the world, it is also a welcoming approach to Malaysia to be able to attract even more local students to pursue their education in the country along with international individuals who are planning to study abroad (Mansur, 2011; Khaled, 2012). In previous educational and student housing research, a large and growing body of literature has underlined that usually tertiary students possibly will perform efficiently and perfectly in their studies and be more socially adjusted given that they received proper care of their welfare together with comfortable living condition in their student housing (Rinn, 2004; Amole, 2005; Radder & Han, 2009; Mansur, 2011). Instead of helping the students to yield the intellectual achievements and social unity, the main interest in creating such an educated living-learning environment in student housing is that students are prompt to execute the propitious behavioural intentions (hereafter called BIs) towards their current residence and yield excellent personal attainments (hereafter called PAs) for their future life after perceiving satisfactory service quality performance in their on-campus houses (Zeithaml et al., 1996). Therefore, the rationale to glean both encouraging BIs and PAs of the students is to promote and/or to uphold reputable impression of the universities’ public image to the worldwide (Rinn, 2004; Nugent, 2012; Oluwunmi et al., 2012). As for the research gaps, the most common studies on student housing usually have been undertaken to debate about students’ residential satisfaction focused on the factors affecting residential satisfaction, students’ adaptability style of living in student housing, and assessment of student housing quality (e.g. Amole, 2012; Najib et al., 2012; Abdullah et al., 2013). Therefore, little can be learned from this research on the relationship between perceiving service quality performance of on-campus student housing with students’ BIs and students’ PAs. In Malaysia, there are only a little research have been conducted in understanding how students perceived the performance of service quality of student housing (e.g. Bashir et al., 2012; Zainuddin et al., 2014). Bashir et al. (2012) revealed that students perceived service quality in Malaysian student housing as slightly good quality and Zainuddin et al. (2014) found that students almost dissatisfied with the quality of their student accommodation. Nevertheless, studies on how the students translated their perceive service quality perceptions into BIs and PAs are also still rare and being neglected. Besides, another gap is the current measurement of students’ BIs and students’ PAs in Malaysia is also still flawed plus the study on this topic from the view of facilities management is still rare. Yet, this study, being a pioneer one on the study of such relationship between perceiving service quality performance of on-campus student housing with students’ BIs and students’ PAs, still has significant value in enriching the body of knowledge. Hence, the raised critical research question of the study is “What are the elements that exist to constitute students’ BIs and students’ PAs in the universities in Malaysia?”. The principal objective is to explore the way in which students’ BIs and students’ PAs in their universities can potentially be assessed in a more appropriate and even better approach. The second objective is to develop a clear framework of the measurement elements that should be used in evaluating students’ BIs and students’ PAs for future research reference. Prior to discussing the earlier model on the aforementioned topic, the existing works of Parasuraman et al. (1985), Cronin and Taylor (1992), Zeithaml et al. (1996), Cronin et al. (2000), Tam (2002), Rinn (2004), Olorunniwo et al. (2006), Radder and Han (2009), Bashir et al. (2012), and Mohammad et al. (2012) that were done in the field of service industry and post-occupancy evaluation have been critically covered. Those former researches give a clear guideline to be properly adapted in this student housing study. Therefore, the paper is organised as follows. A brief explanation on the employed

495

496


desk study method is presented. Then, the theory review results on service quality performance of oncampus student housing, students’ BIs, and students’ PAs are revealed. Those previous arguments are compared and summed up, together with some propositions for deciding the better measurement elements for students’ BIs and students’ PAs. Consequently, the paper ends with a conceptualization of students’ BIs and students’ PAs. 2. Methods of Review The intention of this study is to elaborate on a desk study namely literature review research methodology in depth. The elaboration revolves around the discussions mainly on the review of service quality performance, BIs, and PAs. Thus, this section explains further on the utilization of archival research technique and content analyses research technique used for delving the needed information. 2.1. Literature search A desk study of this current research employed the methodology of archival research technique and content analyses research technique. Both utilized research techniques are appropriate method for qualitative research, which archival research technique deal with information exploration process in aligning with the study concepts as well as content analyses research technique address the research objectives (Sam et al., 2012; Muslim et al., 2012b). Henceforth, literature search was done exhaustively using that archival research technique, with hundreds of published articles related to the aforesaid research topic were searched and scanned in Elsevier, EBSCOHost, Emerald, JSTOR, SAGE Premier, ScienceDirect, and SpringerLINK databases. Either index journals or non-index journals, both which had been published for the last 29 years from 1985 until 2014 were downloaded and thoroughly been reviewed. Keywords or terms like service quality, service quality performance, SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, behavioural intentions, student attainments, and student outcome were used during the information exploration process. 2.2. Data extraction This study is based on a comprehensive and conventional reviews from a large volume of published journals in the area of student housing research principally discourses on the service quality performance of student housing, BIs of students after experiencing living in on-campus student housing, and students’ PAs at the universities. Through the content analyses research technique, from all the identified articles, the elimination of duplicate titles and those are apparently not related to the literature review was done. Only suitable and allied concepts, main findings, and research method covered in each article were extracted. All the remaining useful and relevant journal articles were traced from the Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Journal of College and University Student Housing, College Student Journal, Quality Assurance in Education, Planning for Higher Education, The Journal of Higher Education, Journal of Facilities Management, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Facilities, Journal of Architectural Engineering, Environment and Behaviour, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Services Marketing, International Journal of Business and Social Science, and others.


3. Service Quality Performance of On-campus Student Housing Oluwunmi et al. (2012) reckoned that appraising service quality performance is a kind of internal evaluation or monitoring system in order to build a feedback mechanism to present the state of facilities with services and their current performance. Furthermore, service quality performance appraisal in student housing is also a mean of maintaining the quality service and proposing the efficient design of service delivery process in supervising the good student housing (Mohammad et al., 2012). Theoretically proven that the most reliable ways to assess the service quality performance of student housing are through the uses of either Service Quality (SERVQUAL) model or Service Performance (SERVPERF) model which had been proposed by Parasuraman et al. (1985) and Cronin and Taylor (1992). In dealing with the high demanding students nowadays, Chan et al. (2011) alluded that students are expecting for a continuous improvement being made to their student housing accordingly to their customization and personalization. This is because having a supportive, modern, and cosy living condition in on-campus student housing is believed can create a healthy or educated environment for study purpose and induce social solidarity in a big and mix community. As Bean and Bradley (1986), Cleave (1996), Rinn (2004), and Nugent (2012) contended that quality student housing is very vital which will significantly stimulate student’s personal development, enhance academic achievements, and refine social dealings of the students. In general, Amole (2009) and Najib et al. (2011) alleged that ordinarily on-campus student housing is built in the campus environment, supervised and owned by the university, and grants a restricted freedom for the students. Today, the students’ demands for the on-campus student housing styles and campus life have changed and evolved. They desire for a luxurious and high standard homelike living with everything in en-suite style and private rooms (Chan et al., 2011). Thus, Fish (2010) insisted that to build an exclusive on-campus student housing, the right understanding of students different wants and needs for their house is very attentive. By creating a living-learning environment that promoted collaboration, nourished cohesion, and friendly community in the campus area, it can develop social skills to help students become the mature adults and prepare them for the future (Cleave, 1996; Fish, 2010). Likewise, Chan et al. (2011), Nugent (2012), and Muslim et al. (2013) reckoned that the focus of building oncampus student housing must be deliberately thoughtful to stimulate satisfactory living condition and positively affect people-environment congruity to grant for the academic success, students’ selfdevelopment, as well as perfect BIs. Based on the earlier arguments, some of the former studies have recognized that there are a few factors which can affect the students’ BIs and students’ PAs at the university. By using the SERVQUAL model to evaluate the student housing condition in Africa and Malaysia, basically, the common factors to affect BIs and PAs are related to the quality performance of physical aspect and management aspect of the provided on-campus student housing (Radder & Han, 2009; Mohammad et al., 2012; Bashir et al., 2012). Taking into consideration, to evaluate the factors affecting students’ BIs and students’ PAs, it not only relies upon those two aspects themselves. However, more or less, it is also be subjected to ones’ personal friendship or relationship. Wiltz (2003), Stern et al. (2007), and Muslim et al. (2012b) unanimously agreed that in evaluating students’ general living experience in on-campus student housing, it also greatly depends on roommates’ relationship. It is notable that a satisfying relationship would improve the quality of life and reduce self-stress; thereafter successful students’ PAs can be achieved alike also encouraging positive students BIs (Chan et al., 2011). Furthermore, Amole (2005), Hassanain (2008), and Radder and Han (2009) opined that the presence of repute and efficient student housing system in the campus area may help students to attain the intellectual competence along with forming personal development and character which should lead to a fulfilling of students’ on-campus living experience. Chan et al. (2011) and Mohammad et al. (2012), in

497

498


other way, proclaimed that perceiving good service quality in student housing should intensify the students’ loyalty with their current housing for the next semesters. In a nutshell, factors to influence the students’ BIs and students’ PAs at the university are best be determined by the service quality of the provided on-campus student housing, and using the SERVPERF model as it avoids the biased between the expectation and current experience. Hence, what are actually those students’ BIs and students’ PAs? The next sections discourse on that BIs and PAs in greater details. 4. Exploration of Students’ Behavioural Intentions and Students’ Personal Attainments 4.1. Students’ behavioural intentions From the Ajzen & Fishbein’s theory of reasoned action, BIs are the salient information or immediate antecedent of someone for performing a certain behaviour which is under full volitional control (Madden et al., 1992). Notably that BIs in general are the signal of retention (favourable) or defection (unfavourable) expressed by the customers (Zeithaml et al., 1996). In ensuring the constant business, delivery of any service must always be off a good quality to keep the existing customers rather than to incur more money to capture new customers. In housing studies, additionally, Carpenter and Oloufa (1995) posited that BIs are the residents’ response to the environment and the facility on how well their building’s needs and goals have been supported. Thus, Zeithaml et al. (1996) and Olorunniwo et al. (2006) determined that BIs can be categorized into two types as favourable BIs which consist of loyalty thought and unfavourable BIs which lie about betrayal thought. 4.1.1. Favourable behavioural intentions Favourable BIs can be described as good behavioural beliefs about the likelihood to show positive behaviours (e.g., positive words-of-mouth, recommendation, retention, and repurchase) as well as to strengthen the relationship between someone and the service provider (Madden et al., 1992; Zeithaml et al., 1996). Usually, loyalty or re-patronization of a product or services comes from the customers or residents who are satisfied with their house or perceived service quality at a maximum level (Mohammad et al., 2012). Zeithaml et al. (1996) and Olorunniwo et al. (2006) postulated that favourable word-ofmouth is more likely being spread by the customers who remain longer with the firm and they felt happy with their received service. Specifically in student housing research, Chan et al. (2011) and Muslim et al. (2012b) emphasized that if the on-campus student housing is luxury, attractive, and has all the needed necessities and amenities, the students are prone to stay longer and be loyal to their house. 4.1.2. Unfavourable behavioural intentions On the contrary, unfavourable BIs can be defined as bad behavioural beliefs about the likelihood to perform negative behaviours (e.g., negative words-of-mouth, complaint, and migration) as well as weaken the relationship between someone and the service provider (Madden et al., 1992; Zeithaml et al., 1996). Olorunniwo et al. (2006) clarified that when the customers perceived a low service quality in their dealings, they tend to execute unfavourable BIs. Moreover, customers who encountered service problems, perceived inferior service or poor business operation are also more likely to leave, spend less or dislike the company (Zeithaml et al., 1996). Similarly to the housing study, residents who received imperfect neighbourhood in their residential area are usually forced to migrate to a better place (Sam et al., 2012).


4.2. Students’ personal attainments Talking about tertiary students’ PAs, Rinn (2004) remarked that students’ PAs are measuring the competency, integrity, self-reliantly, emotions management, identity establishment, and personal affairs development of the students. Indeed, Tam (2002) specified that they are literally converse on the aspect of someone’s intellectual gains which revolves on the academic attainment, and also touch on someone’s self-development gains which discourse on social and networking attainments while living and studying at the university. So, it is clearly mentioned that students’ PAs at the university is not only based or measured through the academic achievement but it depends on students’ involvement in the social activities as well. As such, Rinn (2004) and Fish (2010) alleged that intellectual gains usually can be achieved in the classroom, but self-development gains are emerged and evolved by mixing and engaging with others while staying and living in the on-campus student housing. Accordingly, Tam (2002: p.228) acknowledged that “Any institution is therefore considered “excellent” if it can deploy its resources wisely and effectively to facilitate the intellectual and personal development of its students”. 4.2.1. Intellectual gains Personal intellectual gains are personal growth which is more private and individually-directed attainment (Tam, 2002; Billups, 2008). Normally, students intellectual gains being identified as an academically outcome and certainly being signified with Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) (Becker et al., 2009). Thus, Rinn (2004) alleged that with a surrounding of higher educational aspirations, students who lived in the on-campus student housing are more persistence, determine to graduate, and to attain their degree. This is because, in this kind of situation, students are getting a higher chance to be more focused on their study and possibly to mingle around with the success-oriented peers. 4.2.2. Self-development gains Otherwise, personal self-development gains are social growth which is the involvement in planned group activities and public interactions (Tam, 2002; Rinn, 2004; Billups, 2008). Most of the students who choose to reside in the on-campus student housing are more often to engage well with other students from diverse background in their residential community whereby this nature upholds and teaches the esprit de corps, leadership, and independence life skills (Amole, 2007; Fish, 2010; Muslim et al., 2012b). For example, Bean and Bradley (1986) professed that the trend of freshman orientation as one of the campus housing programs which create people-environment cohesion usually should indirectly increase students’ interaction ability and being more socially adjusted. Rinn (2004) affirmed that friendships can be formed easily when the people have similar interests, live near to each other, and always doing things together. In addition, Nugent (2012) postulated that this encouraging milieu is also vitally helping to develop students as impressive individuals in the future. In contrast, Muslim et al. (2013) postulated that students who live outside the campus area usually will face social isolation problem. 5. Propositions to Conceptualization of Behavioural Intentions and Personal Attainments The main objectives of this paper are to study and to explore on how to evaluate the students’ BIs and students’ PAs in the university and to develop a clear framework of the measurement elements that should be used in evaluating students’ BIs and students’ PAs. The review results clarified that students’ BIs consist of favourable BIs and unfavourable BIs; whereas students’ PAs are theorized about intellectual gains and self-development gains. Hence, to properly measure those students’ BIs and students’ PAs, the conceptualization of students’ BIs and students’ PAs in this study are based and extracted from the former works by Zeithaml et al. (1996), Tam (2002), Rinn (2004), Olorunniwo et al.

499

500


(2006), and Billups (2008). Table 1 shows the variables used to measure the students’ BIs; consist of words-of-mouth, recommendation, encouragement, duration of stay, re-apply, and contribution. Table 1. Variables to measure students’ BIs Favourable BIs

Unfavourable BIs

Say positive things (good words-of-mouth) about the house

Say negative things (bad words-of-mouth) about the house

Recommend the house to others

Complain about the house to others

Encourage friends to stay together

Discourage friends to stay together

Stay longer in the same room or same house

Contemplate of switching to other room or other house

Re-apply the house for the next semester

Move to other house for the next semester

Contribute money as an alumnus

Not contribute money as an alumnus

Whereas, Table 2 displays the variables used to evaluate students’ PAs; comprise of CGPA, analytical and problem solving skills, critical thinking, putting ideas together, self-learning, and accepting diverse views as elements for intellectual gains. For self-development gains, the elements include variables such as independence, values and ethical, self-abilities, understanding, social responsibility, and team member. Table 2. Variables to measure students’ Pas Intellectual Gains

Self-development Gains

Obtain higher exam grades or cumulative grade point average (CGPA)

Developing independence and self-reliance (confident to handle conflict, time, and emotional management)

Ability to develop the analytical and problem-solving skills

Developing values and ethical standards (knowledgeable, coaching, organizing, etc.)

Ability to think critically

Understanding self-abilities, interests, and personality (be very enthusiastic, creative, optimism)

Ability to put ideas together, to see relations, similarities, and differences

Understanding other people and ability to get along (behave like a leader)

Ability to learn on your own, pursue ideas, and find information

Gaining a strong sense of social responsibility

Ability to accept diverse views and opinions

Ability to function as a team member (be highly motivated and can motivate others also)

6. Discussion In the beginning section, the discussion is all about the limitation in the research gaps which called for this study to be further explored. The revealed gaps are limited studies in the area of evaluation of the service quality performance of on-campus student housing in Malaysia together with improper measurement elements that should be used to evaluate students’ BIs and students’ PAs. From the theory review results on the service quality performance of on-campus student housing, students’ BIs, and students’ PAs, it showed that previous studies have established some directions to propose a clear framework on how to measure the students’ BIs and students’ PAs for this study in a better way. Referring to Table 1, it was found that to evaluate students’ favourable BIs and unfavourable BIs towards their on-campus student housing, the variables comprise of positive and negative elements. Whereas, to assess students’ PAs in the universities, the variables entail of elements about intellectual gains and self-


development gains (refer to Table 2). By knowing the real students’ BIs and students’ PAs, it is helpful for the universities to make certain upgrading in an attempt to improve the world class status of the Malaysian universities. Above all, former studies have clearly proven that perceiving service quality performance of on-campus student housing can significantly influence students’ BIs and students’ PAs in the universities. 7. Conclusion In the fulfilment of becoming as one of the world regional higher education hubs, it is recognizable that one of the strategies is through the globalization of the Malaysian higher education sector (Fahey, 2006; Down, 2009; Nor, 2012). Additionally, in ensuring the students can feel a comfortable and pleasant campus and student lifestyle in their on-campus student housing, thus, the university governance besides government especially policy officials are accountable to provide high quality facilities and services to these people (Brackertz & Kenley, 2002; Brackertz, 2006; Jiboye, 2011). Hence, regular assessment of the service quality performance of the on-campus student housing is expected and very important because it can affect individual’s quality of life. The review results add to our understanding on the influence of quality services of the on-campus student housing onto students’ BIs and students’ PAs. For instance, previous studies have proven that high quality of student housing will influence positive students’ BIs plus excellent students’ PAs. The framework of this study submitted that service quality performance of on-campus student housing as the independent variable while students’ BIs and students’ PAs as dependent variables. Finally, this review will add to the body of knowledge in the area of facilities management specifically in the student housing studies. The conceptualization of students’ BIs and students’ PAs which has brought forward in this study is valuable for future research reference and imitation.

Acknowledgements The researchers wish to express their sincere gratitude to the Universiti Sains Malaysia (IPS Fund, Account Number: 308/AIPS/415401) and Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia - MyBrain15 (MyPhD) Scholarship for the financial support of this study.

References Abdullah, I. C., Muslim, M. H., & Karim, H. A. (2013). An Assessment on Variable Reliability in Investigating Students' Living Satisfaction in Private Housing Environment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 101, 354-367. Amole, D. (2005). Coping Strategies for Living in Student Residential Facilities in Nigeria. Environment and Behaviour, 37, 201219. Amole, D. (2007). A Study of the Quality of Student Residential Facilities in Nigeria. Planning for Higher Education, 35(4), 40-50. Amole, D. (2009). Residential satisfaction in students' housing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 76-85. Amole, D. (2012). Gender Differences in User Response to Students Housing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 38, 8999. Bashir, S., Sarki, I. H., & Samidi, J. (2012). Students' Perception on the Service Quality of Malaysian Universities' Hostel Accommodation. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(15), 213-222. Bean, J. P., & Bradley, R. K. (1986). Untangling the Satisfaction-Performance Relationship for College Students. The Journal of Higher Education, 57(4), 393-412. Becker, C., Cooper, N., Atkins, K., & Martin, S. (2009). What Helps Students Thrive? An Investigation of Student Engagement and Performance. Recreational Sports Journal, 33, 139-149.

501

502


Billups, F. D. (2008). Measuring College Student Satisfaction: A Multi-Year Study of the Factors Leading to Persistence. Northeastern Educational Research Association (NERA) Annual Conference, Mansfield, Connecticut, 1-17. Brackertz, N. (2006). Relating physical and service performance in local government community facilities. Facilities, 24(7/8), 280291. Brackertz, N., & Kenley, R. (2002). A service delivery approach to measuring facility performance in local government. Facilities, 20(3/4), 127-135. Carpenter, C. L., & Oloufa, A. A. (1995). Postoccupancy Evaluation of Buildings and Development of Facility Performance Criteria. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 1(2), 77-81. Chan, J., Dubois, S., Fahey, R., & Josephs, S. (2011). Evaluating Student Housing in London. MA: BSc Dissertation, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester. Cleave, S. L. (1996). Residence Retention: Reasons Student Choose to Return or Not to Return. College Student Journal, 30, 187199. Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 5568. Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. (2000). Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioural Intentions in Service Environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193-218. Down, D. (2009, September 6). Malaysia: Future hub of international education? Retrieved November 22, 2012, from University World News, The Global Window on Higher Education: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20090903203756838 Fahey, S. (2006). Attaining and maintaining world-class university standards. Kuala Lumpur: The Star - ACMS Conference 2006. Fish, C. T. (2010). The Case for Traditional On-Campus Housing. School Construction News - Design + Construction + Operations, 16(2), 12-13. Hassanain, M. A. (2008). On the performance evaluation of sustainable student housing facilities. Journal of Facilities Management, 6(3), 212-225. Jiboye, A. D. (2011). Evaluating Public Housing Performance: Providing a Basis for Residential Quality Improvement in Nigeria. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 9(2), 225-232. Khaled, M. (2012). 35 IPT diiktiraf cemerlang. (R. M. Ruzki, Interviewer). Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S., & Ajzen, I. (1992). A Comparison of the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Theory of Reasoned Action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 3-9. Mansur, K. (2011). Mapum utamakan kualiti kolej kediaman universiti. (I. A. JS, Interviewer) Kota Kinabalu: New Sabah Times. Mohammad, M. I., Gambo, Y. L., & Omirin, M. M. (2012). Assessing Facilities Management Service in Postgraduate Hostel Using Servqual Technique. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences, 3(5), 485-490. Muslim, M. H., Karim, H. A., & Abdullah, I. C. (2012a). Challenges of Off-Campus Living Environment for Non-Resident Students' Well-Being in UiTM Shah Alam. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 50, 875-883. Muslim, M. H., Karim, H. A., & Abdullah, I. c. (2012b). Satisfaction of Students' Living Environment between On-Campus and Off-Campus Settings: A conceptual overview. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 68, 601-614. Muslim, M. H., Karim, H. A., Abdullah, I. C., & Ahmad, P. (2013). Students' Perception of Residential Satisfaction in the Level of Off-Campus Environment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 105, 684-696. Najib, N. U., Yusof, N. A., & Osman, Z. (2011). Measuring Satisfaction with Student Housing Facilities. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 4(1), 52-60. Najib, N. U., Yusof, N., & Sani, N. M. (2012). The Effects of Students’ Socio-Physical Backgrounds onto Satisfaction with Student Housing Facilities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 64-74. Nor, M. J. (2012). The Malaysian experience: A new approach in managing multi-disciplinary research projects. The Academic Executive Brief: Team Science, 2(2), 10-12. Nugent, J. (2012). Solving the Puzzle of Residential Life. Retrieved December 12, 2012, from College Planning & Management: http://peterli.com/cpm/archive.php?article_id=3378 Olorunniwo, F., Hsu, M. K., & Udo, G. J. (2006). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in the service factory. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(1), 59-72. Oluwunmi, A. O., Akinjare, O. A., & Oluwatoyin, I.-M. O. (2012). User's Satisfaction with Residential Facilities in Nigerian Private Universities: A Study of Covenant University. Transnational Journal of Science and Technology, 2(11), 89-112. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50. MOHE Promotional Information (Overview). (2014, February 4). Retrieved from The Official Website of Department of Higher Education: http://jpt.mohe.gov.my/eng/menupemasaran.php Radder, L., & Han, X. (2009). Service Quality of On-Campus Student Housing: A South African Experience. The International Business & Economics Reserach Journal, 8(11), 107-119.


Rinn, A. N. (2004). Academic and Social Effects of Living in Honors Residence Halls. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 66-79. Sam, M., Zain, M. F., & Saadatian, O. (2012). Residential satisfaction and construction. Scientific Research and Essays, 7(15), 1556-1563. Stern, L. A., Powers, J., Dhaene, K., Dix, A., & Shegog, S. (2007). Liking, Cooperation, and Satisfaction between Roommates. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 34(2), 53-60. Tam, M. (2002). Measuring the effect of higher education on university students. Quality Assurance in Education, 10(4), 223-228. Wiltz, J. (2003). Measuring relationship strength in roommates with MR/DD: the development of the Roommate Friendship Scale (RFS). Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24, 359-367. Zainuddin, S., Kahmis, M., Muhamad, A., & Mamat, N. (2014). Perception and Expectation of Students Towards the Service Quality: Perspective in Malaysian Research University. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management (MOJEM), 2(2), 73-91. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality. Journal of Marketing, 60, 31-46.

503