Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6, 3997-4013 2024 Publisher: Learning Gate DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2879 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate * Correspondence: tunt@vnu.edu.vn Quality culture in postgraduate education: student’s satisfaction perspectives Nguyen Thanh Tu1*, Tran Thi Thu Huong2, Nguyen Thi Nham3, Nguyen Anh Tuan4 1,2,4VNU University of Education, Hanoi, Vietnam; tunt@vnu.edu.vn (N.T.T.) huongthanhps@gmail.com (T.T.T.H.). 3The College of Social Sciences, Yangzhou University, China; nguyenthinham1310@gmail.com (N.T.N.) nguyenanhtuan.dhgd@vnu.edu.vn (N.A.T.). Abstract: Although there is growing interest in quality culture in higher education, it is still relatively new in the field of postgraduate education (PE for short), particularly when it comes to quality culture from the perspective of learners. This study seeks to identify and analyze the aspects of quality culture (QC for short) that influence the quality of PE in Vietnamese universities in terms of learner satisfaction. Our data from a survey of 256 postgraduate students on 5 factors of QC affecting the quality of PE at several Vietnamese universities was analyzed using SPSS 25.0, and the findings were obtained. The research findings reveal that all parts of quality culture have the same effect on graduate education, with academic variables having the greatest impact on the quality of graduate education from the learner's perspective. The research findings will contribute to the current literature on QC in postgraduate education, as well as provide advice for school leaders when developing a quality culture in PE. Keywords: Postgraduate education, Quality culture, Students, University, Viet Nam. 1. Introduction The quality of a higher education institution includes quality of teaching and learning, scientific research, and community service (Salha & Mohammad, 2010). Wanting to maintain and continuously improve the quality of higher education (HE for short), in addition to technical factors - quality management (mechanisms, policies, processes, and procedures to ensure and improve quality) cannot lack cultural elements related to quality, or in other words: Quality Culture (Jaakko Kujala & Paul Ullrank, 2004). Graduate education is a growth area of higher education (Ryan, Y., & Zuber-Skerritt, O., 2017), in which quality literature plays an important role in the quality of graduate education. In the context of the increasing number of postgraduate students leading to concerns about the possibility of reducing the quality of education (Cloete et al., 2016; Jansen, 2011), Quality culture (QC) is a decisive factor to university performance (Hilman. et al., 2017). Harvey& Stensaker (2008) concluded that QC strongly determines the quality of teaching in higher education institutions. Empirically, studies have demonstrated the strong influence of QC on teaching and research quality (EUA, 2006; Kowalkiewicz, 2006; Dzimińska et al, 2018). Few people dare to deny the importance of QC because of its positive meanings (Bendermacher et al., 2017). Therefore, QC has become a topic of interest for many scholars (Harvey & Stensaker, 2008). QC is characterized by two distinct elements: i) the first element is a set of values, beliefs, and expectations towards quality; ii) the second element, the management/structure element has quality assurance processes and identified collaborative efforts that result in quality for an organization's operations (EUA, 2006). Bendermacher et al., (2016) believe that two aspects affect QC: "hard" aspects such as quality management, strategy, and processes, and "soft" aspects such as values, beliefs, and commitment… QC can have a subtle impact on the thinking and behavior of those involved in the https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6366-842X https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4504-0351 https://orcid.org/0009-0006-3805-0814 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8594-9124 3998 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 3997-4013, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2879 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate quality of postgraduate education, helping to transform from "hard management" to "soft management", from "focusing on technology", "mechanism" to "focusing on culture", from overlooking the "human" factor to focusing on "people", quality values, quality ethics, and other "soft" factors. Therefore, HE institutions need to create a culture of quality for managers, staff, lecturers, students, and managers by building quality systems and managing the post-training processes of a standardized university. When a QC is formed, it reflects the development, academic traditions, and unique identity of graduate education units. For the graduate field, research focuses on quality issues in graduate education (Angell, 2008; Zuber-Skerritt, O., & Ryan, Y., 2017; Cloete, 2016). Research by Friedrich-Nel, H., & Mac Kinnon, J. (2017) on QC in doctoral training but from the perspective of establishing the role of the supervisor. Therefore, there is almost no research on QC in PE from the perspective of learners. What factors does QC in postgraduate education include? How does QC in postgraduate education manifest itself from the learner's perspective? Therefore, a study that indicates which factors of QC impact the level of satisfaction of students with the quality of graduate education at the institutions they attend is urgently needed. This study aims to identify and evaluate the elements of QC that affect the quality of PE in Vietnamese universities from the perspective of learner satisfaction, as a basis for researchers to university leaders who are interested in building a culture of quality, enhancing the position and reputation of the university. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Related Concepts The term "QC was first mentioned in North America in the early years of the twentieth century, since then many studies have been carried out in Europe, the United States, and some countries in Asia with a strong background in higher education development” (Woods, J. A., 1997; Brown, R., 2004). Most studies suggest that QC is part of organizational culture (Cameron, K., & Sine, W., 1999; Rahnuma, N., 2020). According to the value approach that QC brings to the organization. Ahmed, S. M. (2008) recognizes that QC is an organizational value system, including processes, communicate, act, and make thoughtful decisions to achieve continuous quality development for educational organizations. This perspective is similar to Cameron & Sine (1999) and Ehlers, U.-D., (2009) stating that QC includes not only the values, expectations, behavioral tendencies, and ideologies related to quality but also includes the tools, processes, or technical aspects of quality. "A QC is nothing if the people who live in it do not own it" (Harvey & Stensaker, 2008). QC can thus become a concept that they can all identify with, regardless of their field of study (Christine Hildesheim & Karlheinz Sonntag, 2019). There is a growing consensus that an organizational culture for quality requires a more comprehensive approach, in which quality systems and tools, individual and collective competencies, and values are incorporated into an overarching concept called QC (Ehlers U. D., 2009). “There are many definitions of QC and up to now it has been difficult to find a unified definition for this concept” (Hildesheim, C., & Sonntag, K., 2019). However, “the EUA 2006 definition of QC is still the most widely used, briefly” (Figure 1). 3999 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 3997-4013, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2879 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Figure 1. Elements of a quality culture (Adapted from EUA 2010, p. 17). Based on the QC model of EUA 2006, QC is a system of established standards, values, and beliefs, with high consensus and consensus of all members of the universities to aim for QE. 2.2. Quality of PE PE is a form of education for students to continue studying and researching further after graduating from university, including master's training and doctoral training, but it also includes certificates and degrees that are taught to more academically demanding standards than university certificates and degrees (Postgraduate education, 2020). According to the comprehensive quality perspective, the quality of postgraduate education includes not only the quality of educational products or services but also the quality of key factors affecting quality. For example: teacher quality, research quality, course quality, infrastructure quality, and academic environment. From the perspective of the training process, the quality of postgraduate training can be divided into the quality of input resources, the quality of the training process, and the quality of output results and context (Béatrice Boufoy-Bastick, 2014). According to Zhao (2003), “student satisfaction is satisfaction with course quality, instructor interaction and collaboration between colleagues as well as with support services. Student satisfaction has become a central university objective and is used to develop a culture of continuous quality improvement” (William, J., 2013). Therefore, the quality of PE from the perspective of learners in the article is satisfaction. 2.3. Studies Related to QC Harvey and Stensaker (2008) posit that “the adoption of a QC in HE environments needs to be done with caution. Their main conclusion is that QC can above all be a tool for asking questions about how organizations operate, who they involve, and how they see themselves”. Similarly, Lanarès (2008) proposes a way to track the development of QC through two levels: Perception (what people say) and Action (what people do) at the individual and collective level. Yorke (2000) notes that “a QC within an organization has been created to address the needs of all stakeholders and has clear, effective mechanisms in place to support all employees of the organization”. That organization strives to achieve commitment and continuous improvement in quality. Vettori et al. (2007) argue that “the QC promoted by EUA (EUA, 2006, 2005) is different from traditional quality assurance strategies in that it devotes more attention to development-oriented aspects development and value-based while noting that the historical, political, and social characteristics of a QC greatly influence the quality assurance system”. Unlike quality management which focuses on things or processes, QC is people-centered, focusing on instilling in people awareness and developing quality habits. Therefore, many studies have emphasized a shared attitude and personal commitment to continuous quality improvement. This is 4000 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 3997-4013, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2879 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate because QC also includes the values, beliefs, attitudes, commitments, expectations, agreements, competencies, negotiations, participation, unity, and trust of individuals, teams, and quality stakeholders (Hilman, H. et al., 2017; Tuan. et al., 2023). 2.4. Studies Related to QC Factors Affecting the Quality of PE According to Ehlers (2017) “QC includes quality management systems and tools, individual and collective competencies and values combined together”. While Ning (2008) adds components of “QC including organizational standards and goals, ethical concepts, innovation awareness, competition awareness, behavior, legal concepts, traditional concepts, organizational systems, and organizational goals”. Other studies indicate factors that “influence QC include: environmental and ethical social culture (Gao et al., 2012), strategy, policy or mission statement of the organization (Al-Otaibi, 2015), the combination of structure and management with cultural and psychological components” (Dzimińska et al., 2018). From four different QC approaches by Hofstede (1991), Schein (1992), Rüegg-Stürm (2002), Morgan (2002) and based on the European QC model (EUA, 2006), Ehlers (2009) offers a QC model consisting of four components: i) Structure (representing the organization's quality system); ii) Competency (representing individuals and groups), integrating quality mechanisms into culture); iii) QC (representing the expressions, expressions, and rituals of the organization); iv) Linking elements (linking the elements through participation, communication, and trust) and shaping some of the values of QC in the context of organizational culture. “Many factors affect the quality of postgraduate education, including finance, academics (Bayona- Oré, 2021), entertainment, specialized transfer (Angell et al., 2008), translation administrative services, student service activities (El Alfy, S., & Abukari, A., 2019), admission criteria, student characteristics, teaching quality, success, and failure, contributions of students for research and the job market (Rudd, 1984), beliefs, theories, tools, training and time” (Emilsson, U. M., & Johnsson, E. (2007). Also, Hockey (1996) found that “the successful completion of a thesis/dissertation also depends heavily on the ability of the student and supervisor: emotional and psychological problems of learners; lack of knowledge, skills or experience in research methods; lack of interaction between instructors and learners; support for administrative procedures; poor infrastructure and research environment” (Alam, F., Alam, Q., & Rasul, M. G., 2013; Bayona-Oré, 2021; Daniel, 2022). “In addition, there is a constant interaction between “people” (institutions) and “parts” (structures and cultures). These factors combine to influence not only the graduate mentoring activities of the (human) supervisor but also the quality of the PhD output” (Isike, 2018). Gardner (2010) pointed out “some factors that determine the QC of an educational institution in graduate training, including the reputation and status of that institution, available resources, student quality staff, and the quality of the supervisor”. Cloete et al. (2015) presented “a framework with seven dimensions of the quality of graduate education including i & ii) students (at entry and exit levels); iii) doctoral program; iv) instructor; v) monitoring process; vi) thesis; and vii) publications based on the thesis”. More importantly, the findings show that “these aspects are related to contributing factors to creating a QC in both the educational process and the outcomes from the perspective of the learner”. Friedrich-Nel, H., & Mac Kinnon, J. (2017) identified “the doctoral supervisor as having an important role in contributing to a QC”. Based on that finding, the need to nurture and develop students' personal and professional characteristics to prepare them to work in an academic environment, effectively manage the supervision process and resolve problems supervisory challenge, to promote a QC and subsequently student success was realized. Studies have shown that many factors affect the quality of graduate education, including factors related to facilities and finance, academic factors, and field factors in social, cultural and humanistic fields. These are also the elements of QC mentioned in this study. 2.5. Factors Related to Learner Satisfaction “When considering students as “customers,” universities will adopt a more customer-centric approach instead of relying solely on their “product” to sell” (Eagle, L., & Brennan, R., 2007; Angell et 4001 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 3997-4013, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2879 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate al., 2008; Marzo Navarro et al., 2005). “HE institutions consider student satisfaction as one of the key factors in ensuring quality assurance and improving their programs” (O'Driscoll, F., 2012; Parahoo et al., 2015). “Student satisfaction plays an important role in attracting new students and retaining current students” (Douglas et al., 2006; Thomas, E. H., & Galambos, N., 2004) and has the potential to benefit universities in terms of overall performance and earnings, increasing student employability (Jancey, J., & Burns, S.,2013), enhances school reputation (Eagle, L., & Brennan, R., 2007) and is a commonly used measure in rankings (Gibbons, S., 2015; Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J., 2011). “The quality and effectiveness of teaching and learning are key factors in postgraduate student satisfaction and retention” (NAO, 2007; Carroll et al., 2009; Poon, J. 2019; Munteanu, C., 2010; Fernandes et al., 2013). And “Universities must consider how to support graduate students for success” (Thomas, 2002), including academic, social, and financial support (Arambewela, R., & Hall, J., 2009), “especially in relation to academic factors such as degrees grant reputation; Attractive and highly skilled teachers; access to online resources; willingness to contact scholars; and a supportive application process” (Jancey, J., & Burns, S. (2013). In the same vein, Vauterin et al. (2011) argue that “the quality of education and student satisfaction both depend on core services such as teaching, research and learning and academic services Another factor that contributes to student satisfaction is facilities” (Kärnä and Julin, 2004), (Kärnä. et al., 2013; Petruzzellis et al., 2006; Hanssen, T. S., & Solvoll, G., 2015). Additionally, “the layout, lighting, classrooms, appearance of buildings and grounds, and overall cleanliness contribute significantly to students' learning attitudes” (Douglas, J., et al., 2006; Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G., 2001). And “The final factor that creates satisfaction is support, advice and access to information” (Parahoo, S. K., 2015). 2.6. Proposed Research Model In Vietnam, Le Duc Ngoc et al (2012) and Tuan et al., (2023) proposed a QC model in HE institutions that is closely linked to quality assurance activities, including 5 environmental components: natural environment, social environment, academic environment, cultural environment and humanistic environment. And Salmi's (2009) confirmed “The model is consistent view of the organizational environments that a higher education institution needs to create to facilitate the development of a QC”. This is Vietnamese research, has inherited world research on this issue, is suitable for the Vietnamese context, following the Law on HE No. 43/2018 and the practice of PE in Viet Nam. Therefore, based on the model of Le Duc Ngoc et al (2012) and Tuan et al., (2023), the following research model is proposed (Figure 2). 4002 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 3997-4013, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2879 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Figure 2. Research models. 2.7. Research Hypotheses H1. The academic field affects the quality of graduate education H2. The cultural field has an impact on the quality of graduate education H3. The social sector has an impact on the quality of graduate education H4. The humanities field influences the quality of graduate education H5. The field of facilities affects the quality of postgraduate education The independent variables identified are Academic field (HT), cultural field (VH), social field (XH), humanities field (NV), and facilities field (CSVC). The dependent variable is the quality of PE. 3. Methodology The quantitative method with convenience sampling method was used here. An online survey was designed using Google Forms and sent via email to master's and PhD students of 3 universities: Viet Nam National University, Hanoi - University of Education, Hanoi University of Pedagogy No2 and Thai Nguyen University of Education, then the data was analyzed using SPSS version 25.0. The study had two main data collection phases. To minimize possible errors in the questionnaire, a pilot survey was sent to 62 trainees and PhD students in phase one, two items (financial security and dedication of the candidate) were removed and two items were revised after examining exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and reliability (Cronbach's Alpha). All trainees/doctoral students who participated in the pilot survey did not participate in the main survey. The items in the questionnaire were attached to a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 'strongly disagree', 'disagree', ‘neutral', 'agree' and 'strongly agree'. The questionnaire has three main parts, the first part asks about the demographic characteristics of respondents, and the second part is built into 5 areas of quality culture: (1) academic field, (2) social field, (3) cultural field, (4) humanities field, (5) facilities field, the third part asks about the level of satisfaction 4003 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 3997-4013, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2879 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate with quality culture. 270 students and graduate students participated in the study through a Google Form link. After cleaning the ballots, 256 ballots remained that met the requirements. The total number of votes was 8.8 times the number of items, ensuring reliability (Hair, J. F., & Hair, J. F., 2010). The detailed information is in Table 1. Table 1. Demographic information. Demographic information N = 256 % Gender Female Male 145 111 56.6 43.4 Academic year <5 years 5-10 years >10 years 116 77 63 45.3 30 24.7 Level PhD MA 35 221 13.7 86.3 Regarding the field of study: includes students and PhDs in the following fields: Educational Management, Measurement & Evaluation in education, Subject teaching theory and methods. Table 2. Reliability test of measurement scales and correlation coefficient. Corrected item-total correlation Cronbach's alpha if item deleted HT1 HT2 HT3 HT4 HT5 HT6 0.638 0.621 0.605 0.633 0.596 0.645 0.559 0.656 0.228 0.748 0.150 0.761 0.859 VH1 0.873 0.776 VH2 0.266 0.909 VH3 0.837 0.786 VH4 0.587 0.854 VH5 0.838 0.784 0.676 XH1 0.116 0.746 XH2 0.627 0.529 XH3 0.595 0.553 XH4 0.605 0.543 XH5 0.280 0.696 4004 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 3997-4013, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2879 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 0.809 NV1 0.062 0.884 NV2 0.749 0.721 NV3 0.626 0.746 NV4 0.635 0.748 NV5 0.752 0.715 NV6 0.660 0.737 0.616 CSVC1 0.397 0.545 CSVC2 0.427 0.523 CSVC3 0.471 0.487 CSVC4 0.293 0.617 0.762 HL1 0.568 0.715 HL2 0.587 0.688 HL3 0.630 0.641 3.1. Reliability Test of Measurement Scales and Correlation Coefficient The results presented in Table 2 show that: 6 variables were eliminated (HT5, HT6, VH2, XH1, NV1, CSVC4) due to having a total variable correlation coefficient less than 0.3, the remaining scales all had Cronbach's alpha coefficient ranges from over 0.6 to over 0.8 > 0.6, so it can be concluded that the scales are built quite well. These scales will bring reliability to the model and help the influence model be accurately determined. In addition, the smallest total variable correlation coefficient is 0.340 > 0.3, so it meets the requirements to perform further quantitative analysis. 3.2. EFA exploratory Factor Analysis This study uses the factor extraction method as the principal component with Varimax rotation and eliminates variables with factor loadings less than 0.5. Table 3. Rotated Component Matrixa.. Variables Component 1 2 3 4 5 NV2 0.874 NV5 0.864 NV3 0.789 NV6 0.773 NV4 0.768 VH3 0.895 VH1 0.870 VH5 0.864 VH4 0.708 HT1 0.823 HT3 0.788 HT4 0.775 HT2 0.762 XH4 0.899 4005 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 3997-4013, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2879 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate XH2 0.883 XH3 0.838 CSVC3 0.785 CSVC1 0.719 CSVC2 0.689 EFA test results show that: the KMO coefficient is 0.791 (0.5 0.5, which means that about 60.4% of the variance in learner satisfaction is explained by independent variables. F = 78.675 and Value Sig. < 0.05 shows that the multiple linear regression model is suitable for the research model, in which the variables HT, NV, society, culture, and facilities all have an impact on quality culture, no variable has a Sig coefficient. < 0.05. In addition, all variables have VIF coefficients < 2, so multicollinearity does not occur. The largest contribution is related to the Academic field (β = 0.452), followed by cultural factors (β = 0.258) and the smallest contribution is related to the CSVC field (β = 0.022). The standardized regression coefficient is as follows: Y = 0.452*HTtb + 0.258*VHtb + 0.228*NVtb + 0.189*XHtb + 0.022*CSVCtb + ε 4.3. Hypothesis Testing From the results of multivariate regression analysis, the research hypotheses are concluded as follows: Table 6. Hypothesis testing. Hypothesis β Conclude The level H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 0.452 0.189 0.228 0.258 0.96 Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept 1 4 3 2 5 4007 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 3997-4013, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2879 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Table 7. Independent samples test. Levene's test for equality of variances T-test for equality of means F Sig. t df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean difference Std. error difference 95% confidence interval of the difference Lower Upper VHCLtb (Gender) Equal variances assumed 0.977 0.324 0.656 254 0.512 0.07029 0.10710 -0.14063 0.28122 Equal variances not assumed. 0.663 244.898 0.508 0.07029 0.10602 -0.13854 0.27912 VHCLtb (Education level) Equal variances assumed 11.429 0.001 1.407 254 0.161 0.21676 0.15403 -0.08657 0.52010 Equal variances not assumed. 1.122 39.933 0.269 0.21676 0.19317 -0.17368 0.60720 4008 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 3997-4013, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2879 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 4.4. Testing Differences by Education Level, Work Experience and Gender Testing for differences in educational level (Table 7) shows: Sig. of Levene's Test is 0.001 < 0.05 so use the sig T-Test value in Equal variances not assumed. Specifically, Sig. = 0.269 > 0.05 proves that there is no difference in satisfaction in the perspective of quality culture affecting the post-training quality of trainees and graduate students. Similarly, in testing gender differences, the value Sig. of Levene’s Test is 0.324 > 0.05 and Sig. The T-test is 0.58 > 0.05, proving that there is no difference in satisfaction between genders in the perspective of quality culture affecting the graduate quality of students and graduate students. In other words, whether a learner is male or female, a master's degree student or a graduate student, they all have the same tendency to assess their level of satisfaction with the elements of QC that affect the quality of education after university. The One-way ANOVA test in Table 8 shows that the seniority variable gives the value Sig. Levene's Test is 0.171 > 0.05, proving that the variance of these groups of values is homogeneous. Sig value. in Anova is 0.004 < 0.05, showing that there is an average difference: the more senior the students are in the profession, the more satisfied they are with quality culture in university education (the corresponding Mean value is 3.52 in the lower group); 5 years, is 3.84 in the group from 5-10 years and 3.89 in the group over 10 years. Table 8. One-way Anova testing. N Mean Std. deviation Sig. (Levene) Sig. (Anova) < 5 years 116 3.5201 0.83670 0.171 0.004 5-10 years 77 3.8485 0.89760 >10 years 63 3.8942 0.74011 Total 256 3.7109 0.84829 Table 9. The level of satisfaction with QC affects the quality of PE from the learner's perspective. Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 HL1 HL2 HL3 Total 3.84 3.73 3.56 3.71 0.924 1.000 1.065 .99 0.8 0.8 1.2 0.93 9.8 13.7 19.5 14.3 17.6 21.5 22.3 20.4 48.0 40.2 35.9 41.3 23.8 23.8 21.1 22.9 4.5. Level of Satisfaction with the Impact of QC on the Quality of PE The questionnaire was used to explore the extent to which each element of QC influences the quality of graduate education from the perspective of the learner. The results of this assessment are presented in Table 9 shows that 22.9% of respondents believe that QC has a great impact on the quality of graduate education at the school they attend while 41.3% and 20.4% of them rated its impact to a large and very large extent, respectively. An average of 14.3% said that QC hardly has any impact on the quality of graduate education and 0.93% said that it has no impact at all. The average assessment of the level of impact is quite large, 3.71/5.0 points. In other words, most people are satisfied with the QC at the university they study and research. In this study, the majority of learners were satisfied with the quality of higher education. Thus, this result is similar to the research results of Alam et al (2013) However, the level of satisfaction of the observed variables in the dependent variable is different. 5. Discussion The present study investigated the elements of QC that influence the quality of graduate education from the learner's perspective. This study provides several important findings: First, this result supports the findings about elements of QC that influence graduate quality such as academic factors (Jancey, J., & Burns, S., 2013), especially the role of the instructor (Friedrich-Nel, H., & Mac Kinnon, J.,2017; Cloete et al., 2015) and socio-cultural factors (Gao et al., 2012). In addition is support, advice and access to information for learners (Thomas, 2002; Parahoo, S. K., 2015). 4009 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 3997-4013, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2879 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Second, highlight the role and position of elements of QC that affect the quality of PE. First of all, with instructors, quality standards and habits of belief towards quality. The research results show that the role of the instructor (Cloete et al., 2015), the issue of autonomy and quality accountability (Tuan, 2024), support and advice for learners in writing these, dissertations and publishing research products are very important (Cloete et al., 2015). This research also shows the need to promote the role of supportive learning environments: QC promote respectful and collaborative learning environments. Students feel valued and supported when instructors are approachable, interactive, and willing to assist them (Friedrich-Nel, H., & Mac Kinnon, J.,2017). When learners receive effective feedback from instructors, it helps them know their strengths and weaknesses, thereby creating motivation for them to actively research. Not only that, that learning environment also creates a culture of open communication, encouraging learners to be willing to cooperate and share not only with instructors but also with their peers in the same research group. Third, the research results provide insight for leaders and quality managers of graduate education about the importance of QC and its impact on the quality of graduate education (Bendermacher et al., 2017). It also provides empirical evidence for research related to the theory of satisfaction related to quality culture and establishes a feedback and smooth exchange mechanism with teachers, students, and staffs, school members, enhancing interaction and coordination between parties, and balancing administrative power and academic power in the direction of increasing the empowerment of lecturers and staff to contribute to improving the quality of the school. In addition, in strategic management, it is necessary to build a clear, specific quality culture development strategy that is consistent with the school's mission, vision and goals (Isike, 2018). This strategy should identify core values, quality goals, improvement initiatives and the resources needed to implement them. Finally, cultural management requires building and maintaining a culture of respect, cooperation, learning and innovation. This culture should encourage every member of the community to commit to quality and continuous improvement (Duarte et al., 2010). Forth, research has identified factors of quality culture in the context of university autonomy. This also shows that: This research was conducted in the context that Vietnamese universities are on the path to being granted autonomy associated with accountability to society and stakeholders. This policy implication is similar to the research of Trang (2024) when she said: Universities need to be academically autonomous and proactively build brand and reputation through improving quality. quality of teaching, scientific research and community service, investment in purchasing facilities. In addition, this policy implication is similar to the research of Tuan (2024) when he said: Universities need to proactively improve their competitiveness through developing training capacity, scientific research and community service; brand building. 6. Conclusion This study analyzes the results of a survey conducted at three Vietnamese universities to investigate the effects of QC on the quality of graduate education from the perspective of learners. The research results show that the elements of QC all impact in the same direction on graduate education, in which academic factors have the strongest impact on the quality of graduate education from the perspective of the learner. From the perspective of learners, a QC in PE will create the necessary learning and research environment, bringing success to learners. Developing a QC is a long-term process, so it is necessary to maintain implementation to achieve quality standards throughout the graduate education process. Therefore, universities need to focus on building and maintaining a culture of quality to attract students, improve the quality of education and create a strong brand for themselves. 6.1. Future Implications This study also has some limitations such as the sample size is not large and it was only surveyed at three Vietnamese universities. Future research should be conducted in many different school environments to investigate the influence of each element of QC on the quality of graduate education. Although the number of surveyed samples is large enough to ensure the reliability of the scale, it is necessary to further increase the number of surveyed universities and the sample size to be sufficiently 4010 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 3997-4013, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2879 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate representative of university groups. different, which are very specific in Vietnam (universities managed by the Military and Police; public universities; private universities; universities with foreign elements). The diversity and richness of the research sample will help the author compare and contrast the differences between groups. Funding: This research is funded by VNU-University of Education under Researcher Project number QS.23.04. Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication. We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us. We confirm that we have given due consideration to the protection of intellectual property associated with this work and that there are no impediments to publication, including the timing of publication, with respect to intellectual property. In so doing we confirm that we have followed the regulations of our institutions concerning intellectual property. Acknowledgement: This work was supported by the University of Education, Vietnam National University, Hanoi through the topic: “Research on quality culture in postgraduate education at the University of Education, Vietnam National University, Hanoi. We would like to sincerely thank the schools: Viet Nam National University, Hanoi - University of Education, Hanoi University of Pedagogy No2 and Thai Nguyen University of Education for collecting data for the research. Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). References [1] Ahmed, S. M. (2008). Quality Culture. College of Engineering and Computing, Florida International University, Miami, Florida. [2] Arambewela, R., & Hall, J. (2009). An empirical model of international student satisfaction. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21(4), 555-569. https://doi.org/10.1108/13555850910997599 [3] Bayona-Oré, S. (2021). Perceptions of postgraduate students on the relationship between thesis development and performance of a supervisor. Turkish Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.90 [4] Béatrice Boufoy-Bastick (2014) Quality Assurance in Teacher Education in Flanders, The International Handbook of Cultures of Education Policy (Volume Two), Analytrics Strasbourg, France, chapter 29, p. 760 [5] Bendermacher, G. W., Oude Egbrink, M. G., Wolfhagen, I. H., & Dolmans, D. H. (2016). Unravelling quality culture in higher education: A realist review. Higher Education, 73(1), 39-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9979-2 [6] Bendermacher, G. W., Oude Egbrink, M. G., Wolfhagen, H. A., Leppink, J., & Dolmans, D. H. (2017). Reinforcing pillars for quality culture development: A path analytic model. Studies in Higher Education, 44(4), 643- 662. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1393060 [7] Brown, R. (2004). School culture and organization: Lessons from research and experience. A background paper for the Denver Commission on Secondary School Reform. [8] Cameron, K., & Sine, W. (1999). A framework for organizational quality culture. Quality Management Journal, 6(4), 7- 25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.1999.11919208 [9] Cloete, N., Mouton, J., & Sheppard, C. (2016). Doctoral education in South Africa. https://doi.org/10.47622/9781928331001 [10] Daniel, B. (2022). The role of research methodology in enhancing postgraduate students research experience. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 20(1), pp34-48. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejbrm.20.1.2253 [11] Douglas, J., Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(3), 251-267. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880610678568 [12] Duarte, P. O., Alves, H. B., & Raposo, M. B. (2010). Understanding university image: A struc tural equation model approach, International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 7, 21–36. [13] Dzimińska, M., Fijałkowska, J., & Sułkowski, Ł. (2018). Trust-based quality culture conceptual model for higher education institutions. Sustainability, 10(8), 2599. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082599 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.1108/13555850910997599 https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.90 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9979-2 https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1393060 https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.1999.11919208 https://doi.org/10.47622/9781928331001 https://doi.org/10.34190/ejbrm.20.1.2253 https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880610678568 https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082599 4011 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 3997-4013, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2879 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [14] Ehlers, U. D. (2009). Understanding quality culture. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(4), 343- 363. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880910992322 [15] El Alfy, S., & Abukari, A. (2019). Revisiting perceived service quality in higher education: Uncovering service quality dimensions for postgraduate students. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 30(1), 1- 25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2019.1648360 [16] Emilsson, U. M., & Johnsson, E. (2007). Supervision of supervisors: On developing supervision in postgraduate education. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(2), 163-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701310797 [17] European University Association. (2006). Quality culture in European universities: A bottom-up approach: Report on the three rounds of the quality culture project 2002–2006. Brussels: European University Association. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Qual ity_Culture_2002_2003.1150459570109.pdf [18] Fernandes, C., Ross, K., & Meraj, M. (2013). Understanding student satisfaction and loyalty in the UAE HE sectors. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(6), 613-630. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-07-2012-0082 [19] Friedrich-Nel, H., & Mac Kinnon, J. (2017). The quality culture in doctoral education: Establishing the critical role of the doctoral supervisor. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(2), 140- 149. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1371059 [20] Gardner, S. K. (2010). Keeping up with the joneses: Socialization and culture in doctoral education at one striving institution. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(6), 658-679. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2010.11779076 [21] Gao, Z., Ye, J., & Huang, Y. (2012). Study on the construction of enterprise quality culture for brand strategy. iBusiness, 04(03), 260-264. https://doi.org/10.4236/ib.2012.43033 [22] [22] Gibbons, S., Neumayer, E., & Perkins, R. (2015). Student satisfaction, league tables and university applications: Evidence from Britain. Economics of Education Review, 48, 148-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.07.002 [23] Hair, J. F., & Hair, J. F. (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson, New Jersey. [24] [24] Hanssen, T. S., & Solvoll, G. (2015). The importance of university facilities for student satisfaction at a Norwegian University. Facilities, 33(13/14), 744-759. https://doi.org/10.1108/f-11-2014-0081 [25] Harvey, L., & Stensaker, B. (2008). Quality culture: Understandings, boundaries and linkages. European Journal of Education, 43(4), 427-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2008.00367.x [26] Hilman, H., Abubakar, A., & Kaliappen, N. (2017). The effect of quality culture on university performance. Journal of Business & Retail Management Research, 11(04). https://doi.org/10.24052/jbrmr/v11is04/teoqcoup [27] Hildesheim, C., & Sonntag, K. (2019). The quality culture inventory: A comprehensive approach towards measuring quality culture in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 45(4), 892- 908. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1672639 [28] Houston, D. (2015). Quality in postgraduate research. Quality in Higher Education, 21(1), 1- 6. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2015.1049440 [29] Hockey, J. (1996). Strategies and tactics in the supervision of UK social science PhD students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(4), 481-500. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839960090409 [30] Issan, S. A., & Gomaa, N. M. (2010). Post basic education reforms in Oman: A case study. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal, 1(1), 19-27. https://doi.org/10.20533/licej.2040.2589.2010.0004 [31] Isike, C. (2018). The impact of University of Zululand structural and cultural contexts on postgraduate supervision practice (2011–2016). Africa Education Review, 15(2), 112-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2017.1341292 [32] Jaakko Kujala & Paul Ullrank (2004) Total Quality Management as a Cultural Phenomenon, Quality Management Journal, 11:4, 43-55, DOI: 10.1080/10686967.2004.11919132 [33] Jancey, J., & Burns, S. (2013). Institutional factors and the postgraduate student experience. Quality Assurance in Education, 21(3), 311-322. https://doi.org/10.1108/qae-nov-2011-0069 [34] Julia Vauterin, J., Linnanen, L., & Marttila, E. (2011). Issues of delivering quality customer service in a higher education environment. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 3(2), 181- 198. https://doi.org/10.1108/17566691111146087 [35] Kärnä, S., Julin, P., & Nenonen, S. (2013). User satisfaction on a university campus by students and staff. Intelligent Buildings International, 5(2), 69-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2013.778810 [36] Kowalkiewicz, A. (2006) Quality culture and University’s success on educational market: A case of business higher education in Poland. The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture, and Change Management: Annual Review, 6(5), 9- 16. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9524/cgp/v06i05/49555 [37] Kujala, J., & Ullrank, P. (2004). Total quality management as a cultural phenomenon. Quality Management Journal, 11(4), 43-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.2004.11919132 [38] Lanarès, J. (2008): Developing a Quality Culture, in Froment, E; Kohler, J; Purser, L. and Wilson L. (eds), EUA Bologna Handbook, article C.2.1-1, Berlin, Raabe Verlag. [39] Le Duc Ngoc, Trinh Thi Vu Le, Nguyen Thi Ngoc Xuan (2012) Discuss the quality culture model of higher education institutions. Viet Nam Journal of Educational Management, (34), 13-15. [40] Marzo Navarro, M., Pedraja Iglesias, M., & Rivera Torres, P. (2005). A new management element for universities: Satisfaction with the offered courses. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(6), 505- 526. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540510617454 [41] Mosaad Saud Al-Otaibi, F. (2014). Role of exploratory factor analysis applicability of TQM practices on the items of quality culture in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Business and Management, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v10n1p136 https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880910992322 https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2019.1648360 https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701310797 https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-07-2012-0082 https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1371059 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2010.11779076 https://doi.org/10.4236/ib.2012.43033 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.07.002 https://doi.org/10.1108/f-11-2014-0081 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2008.00367.x https://doi.org/10.24052/jbrmr/v11is04/teoqcoup https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1672639 https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2015.1049440 https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839960090409 https://doi.org/10.20533/licej.2040.2589.2010.0004 https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2017.1341292 https://doi.org/10.1108/qae-nov-2011-0069 https://doi.org/10.1108/17566691111146087 https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2013.778810 https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.2004.11919132 https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540510617454 https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v10n1p136 4012 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 3997-4013, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2879 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [42] Munteanu, C., Ceobanu, C., Bobâlcă, C., & Anton, O. (2010). An analysis of customer satisfaction in a higher education context. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(2), 124- 140. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551011022483 [43] Ning, H. (2008). Discussion on enterprise quality culture significance. Journal of Science and Technology Information, 5(18), 71-76. [44] Nguyen Anh Tuan, Nguyen Ngoc Trang (2024). Assessing impacts of university autonomy policies on university’s competitiveness in Viet Nam, WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS, DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.80 [45] Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher education institutions in students’ retention decisions. International Journal of Educational Management, 15(6), 303- 311. https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000005909 [46] Nguyen Ngoc Trang (2024) Assessing Brand Equity of Affiliated Universities in Vietnam National University, Hanoi, WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS, DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.54 [47] O'Driscoll, F. (2012). What matters most. Quality Assurance in Education, 20(3), 237- 258. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881211240303 [48] Parahoo, S. K., Santally, M. I., Rajabalee, Y., & Harvey, H. L. (2015). Designing a predictive model of student satisfaction in online learning. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 26(1), 1- 19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2015.1083511 [49] Petruzzellis, L., D'Uggento, A. M., & Romanazzi, S. (2006). Student satisfaction and quality of service in Italian universities. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 16(4), 349- 364. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520610675694 [50] Poon, J. (2019). Postgraduate student satisfaction in the UK. Property Management, 37(1), 115- 135. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm-07-2017-0041 [51] Postgraduate education (UK). (2020). The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions, 2300- 2300. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8905-9_300587 [52] Rahnuma, N. (2020). Evolution of quality culture in an HEI: Critical insights from university staff in Bangladesh, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 32(1), 53-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-019- 09313-8 [53] Angell, R. J., Heffernan, T. W., & Megicks, P. (2008). Service quality in postgraduate education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3), 236-254. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880810886259 [54] Rudd, E. (1984). Research into postgraduate education. Higher Education Research & Development, 3(2), 109- 120. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436840030201 [55] Ryan, Y., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Eds.). (2017). Quality in postgraduate education. Routledge. [56] Salmi, J. (2009). The challenge of establishing world-class universities. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-7865-6 [57] Thomas, L. (2002). Student retention in higher education: The role of institutional habitus. Journal of Education Policy, 17(4), 423-442. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930210140257 [58] Thomas, E. H., & Galambos, N. (2004). What satisfies students? Mining student-opinion data with regression and decision tree analysis. Research in Higher Education, 45(3), 251- 269. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:rihe.0000019589.79439.6e [59] Tuan, N. A., Kien, N. T., Trang, N. N., Tu, N. T., & Hue, N. T. (2023). Research on factors of quality culture affecting internal education quality assurance of universities in Vietnam. WSEAS TRANSACTIONS ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, 19, 218-232. https://doi.org/10.37394/232015.2023.19.19 [60] Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2011). UK business school rankings over the last 30 years (1980–2010): Trends and explanations. Higher Education, 63(3), 367-382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9446-7 [61] William, J. (2013). Consuming Higher Education: Why Learning Can’t Be Bough. London: Bloomsbury. [62] Woods, J. A. (1997). The six values of a quality culture. National Productivity Review, 16(2), 49- 55. https://doi.org/10.1002/npr.4040160207 [63] Yorke, M. (2000). Developing a quality culture in higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 6(1), 19- 36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2000.9967008 [64] Zhao, F. (2003). Enhancing the quality of online higher education through measurement. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(4), 214-221. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880310501395 [65] Zuber-Skerritt, O., & Ryan, Y. (2017). Introduction. Quality in Postgraduate Education, 1- 2. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315799889-1 Appendix 1. Variables Construct NV2 The university exercises comprehensive democracy in management and interaction with stakeholders NV5 Support and advice for students in studying, researching, writing dissertations and publishing products are complete and timely NV3 The quality and capacity of instructors are emphasized and carefully reviewed https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551011022483 https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000005909 https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881211240303 https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2015.1083511 https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520610675694 https://doi.org/10.1108/pm-07-2017-0041 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8905-9_300587 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-019-09313-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-019-09313-8 https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436840030201 https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-7865-6 https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930210140257 https://doi.org/10.1023/b:rihe.0000019589.79439.6e https://doi.org/10.37394/232015.2023.19.19 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9446-7 https://doi.org/10.1002/npr.4040160207 https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2000.9967008 https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880310501395 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315799889-1 4013 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 3997-4013, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2879 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate NV6 Students have regular access to instructors (via email, social networks, face-to-face meetings) NV4 The dedication of members (Lecturers, learners, support staff, managers...) is respected and recognized VH3 Members have a deep and positive belief in implementing established organizational cultural values VH1 Rules of conduct and sharing are emphasized VH5 Cultural exchange, cooperation and integration activities with domestic and foreign communities VH4 Good traditions and brand of the university in postgraduate education HT1 The academic research environment at the school creates positive motivation for students HT3 The spirit of cooperation, sharing of scientific research results, guidance and teaching is encouraged. HT4 Lecturers and students are free to be creative in teaching and scientific research activities. HT2 Honesty and integrity in research, writing theses and dissertations and publishing scientific products are emphasized. XH4 The functions, tasks, responsibilities and authorities of lecturers, instructors, students and related parties are clearly defined. XH2 The university's vision, mission and core values are widely promoted and disseminated XH3 The functions, tasks, responsibilities and authorities of lecturers, instructors, students and related parties are clearly defined. CSVC3 Facilities fully meet the needs of teaching, research and publishing CSVC1 The university's landscape is guaranteed to be clean, beautiful and harmonious CSVC2 Facilities for living and entertainment are guaranteed