Environment and Social Psychology

Teaching Quality–Driven Transformative Learning: A Narrative Review and Conceptual Framework for Enhancing Student Satisfaction in Chinese Private Universities

Xiaojun Jiang,

Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Lingkungan Ilmu, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

Muhammad Syawal Bin Amran

Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Lingkungan Ilmu, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

Faridah Binti Mydin Kutty

Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Lingkungan Ilmu, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v11i3.4631

Keywords: Teaching Quality; Student Satisfaction; Critical reflection; Chinese Private Universities; Higher Education

---

Abstract

Background: The growing emphasis on teaching quality in higher education has intensified interest in understanding its role in shaping students’ learning experiences, particularly within Chinese private universities. Alongside teaching quality, student satisfaction and critical reflection are increasingly recognized as essential indicators of effective teaching and meaningful learning. However, the relationships among these constructs remain insufficiently examined in the context of China’s private higher education sector.

Purpose and methods: This study aims to explore the relationships among teaching quality, critical reflection, and student satisfaction, identify key influencing factors, and develop a conceptual framework grounded in existing literature. This research adopted a four-step method aiming to define the research scope, synthesize relevant literature, identify core constructs, and propose a conceptual framework.

Results: The synthesis of the included studies indicates that teaching quality—including teaching content, teaching methods, teaching conditions, and teaching management—functions as a foundational determinant of student satisfaction. The findings further suggest that critical reflection operates as a central mediating mechanism through which instructional quality translates into meaningful evaluative outcomes. Additionally, gender and disciplinary major appear to condition the strength of these relationships.

Conclusion: By integrating the Teaching Quality Model with Transformative Learning Theory, the proposed framework advances understanding of student satisfaction beyond linear instructional effects and emphasizes cognitive transformation as a key explanatory process. The model provides a theoretically grounded basis for future empirical validation and offers practical guidance for private universities seeking to enhance student satisfaction through reflective, student-centered pedagogical strategies rather than solely procedural improvements.

---

References

[1]. 1.Liu, J. (2012). Examining massification policies and their consequences for equality in Chinese higher education: A cultural perspective. Higher Education, 64(5), 647-660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9517-4

[2]. 2.Levy, D. C. (2013). The decline of private higher education. Higher Education Policy, 26(1), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2012.26

[3]. 3. Teixeira, P., & Amaral, A. (2001). Private higher education and diversity: An exploratory survey. Higher Education Quarterly, 55(4), 359-395. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2273.00194

[4]. 4. Bound, J., Braga, B., Khanna, G., & Turner, S. (2021). The globalization of postsecondary education: The role of international students in the US higher education system. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 35(1), 163-184. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.35.1.163

[5]. 5. Naylor, R., & Mifsud, N. (2020). Towards a structural inequality framework for student retention and success. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(2), 259-272. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07294360.2019.1670143

[6]. 6. Wang, J., Yang, M., & Maresova, P. (2020). Sustainable development at higher education in China: A comparative study of students’ perception in public and private universities. Sustainability, 12(6), 2158. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062158

[7]. 7. Geng, Y., & Zhao, N. (2020). Measurement of sustainable higher education development: Evidence from China. Plos One, 15(6), e0233747. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233747

[8]. 8. Abbas, J., Kumari, K., & Al-Rahmi, W. M. (2024). Quality management system in higher education institutions and its impact on students' employability with the mediating effect of industry–academia collaboration. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 40(2), 325-343. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeas-07-2021-0135

[9]. 9. Mok, K. H. (2015). Higher education transformations for global competitiveness: Policy responses, social consequences and impact on the academic profession in Asia. Higher education policy, 28(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2014.27

[10]. 10.Levy, D. C. (2011). Public policy for private higher education: A global analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 13(4), 383-396. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2011.583107

[11]. 11.Razinkina, E., Pankova, L., Trostinskaya, I., Pozdeeva, E., Evseeva, L., & Tanova, A. (2018). Student satisfaction as an element of education quality monitoring in innovative higher education institution. In E3S web of conferences (Vol. 33, p. 03043). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/1353832960020306

[12]. 12.Wong, W. H., & Chapman, E. (2023). Student satisfaction and interaction in higher education. Higher education, 85(5), 957-978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00874-0

[13]. 13.Chahal, A., Kadian, R., Yadav, R., & Prakash, C. (2026). Self-efficacy, learning motivation and academic satisfaction of university students: mediating role of classroom engagement. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 18(1), 238-253. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-06-2024-0305/1257132

[14]. 14.Doménech-Betoret, F., Gómez-Artiga, A., & Abellán-Roselló, L. (2019). The educational situation quality model: a new tool to explain and improve academic achievement and course satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1692. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01692

[15]. 15.Ghanizadeh, A. (2017). The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self-monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education. Higher Education, 74(1), 101-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0031-y

[16]. 16.Indrašienė, V., Jegelevičienė, V., Merfeldaitė, O., Penkauskienė, D., Pivorienė, J., Railienė, A., & Sadauskas, J. (2023). Critical thinking in students’ critical thinking teaching and learning experiences. Sustainability, 15(18), 13500. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813500

[17]. 17.Jiang, J., & Ke, G. (2021). China's move to mass higher education since 1998: Analysis of higher education expansion policies. Higher Education Quarterly, 75(3), 418-437. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12313

[18]. 18.Dill, D. D. (2001). The regulation of public research universities: Changes in academic competition and implications for university autonomy and accountability. Higher Education Policy, 14(1), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0952-8733(00)00027-1

[19]. 19.Buckner, E. (2017). The worldwide growth of private higher education: Cross-national patterns of higher education institution foundings by sector. Sociology of Education, 90(4), 296-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040717739613

[20]. 20.Levy, D. C. (2006). How private higher education’s growth challenges the new institutionalism. The new institutionalism in education, 143-162. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780791481080-011

[21]. 21.Marginson, S. (2007). The public/private divide in higher education: A global revision. Higher education, 53(3), 307-333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-8230-y

[22]. 22.Tomlinson, M., & Watermeyer, R. (2022). When masses meet markets: credentialism and commodification in twenty-first century Higher Education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 43(2), 173-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2020.1814996

[23]. 23.Buckner, E., & Jafarova, Z. (2024). Explaining the Growth of Private Higher Education Cross-Nationally: A Critical Review of the Literature and Conceptual Synthesis. Comparative Education Review, 68(4), 611-631. https://doi.org/10.1086/733480

[24]. 24.Shtaltovna, Y., Rodriguez Carreon, V., Lindencrona, F., & Donald, W. E. (2024). Cognitive skills within the Inner Development Goals (IDG) framework: Empowering sustainable careers and sustainable development. Available at SSRN 5746863. https://doi.org/ 10.52398/gjsd.2024.v4.i1.pp74-94

[25]. 25.Taamneh, A. M., Taamneh, M., Alsaad, A., & Al-Okaily, M. (2022). Talent management and academic context: A comparative study of public and private universities. EuroMed Journal of Business, 17(4), 731-751. https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-08-2020-0088

[26]. 26.Bhuttah, T. M., Xusheng, Q., Abid, M. N., & Sharma, S. (2024). Enhancing student critical thinking and learning outcomes through innovative pedagogical approaches in higher education: The mediating role of inclusive leadership. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 24362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-75379-0

[27]. 27.Rodríguez, J. V., Rodado, D. N., Borrero, T. C., & Parody, A. (2022). Multidimensional indicator to measure quality in education. International Journal of Educational Development, 89, 102541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102541

[28]. 28.Xiong, X. (2025). Influence of teaching styles of higher education teachers on students ‘engagement in learning: The mediating role of learning motivation. Education for Chemical Engineers, 51, 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2025.02.005

[29]. 29.Daniel, K., Msambwa, M. M., Antony, F., & Wan, X. (2024). Motivate students for better academic achievement: A systematic review of blended innovative teaching and its impact on learning. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 32(4), e22733. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/cae.22733

[30]. 30.Qazi, Z., Qazi, W., Raza, S. A., & Yousufi, S. Q. (2022). The antecedents affecting university reputation and student satisfaction: a study in higher education context. Corporate Reputation Review, 25(4), 253-271. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299-021-00126-4

[31]. 31.Wong, W. H., & Chapman, E. (2023). Student satisfaction and interaction in higher education. Higher education, 85(5), 957-978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00874-0

[32]. 32.Pandita, A., & Kiran, R. (2023). The technology interface and student engagement are significant stimuli in sustainable student satisfaction. Sustainability, 15(10), 7923. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107923

[33]. 33.Lo, K. W., Ngai, G., Chan, S. C., & Kwan, K. P. (2022). How students’ motivation and learning experience affect their service-learning outcomes: A structural equation modeling analysis. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 825902. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13206

[34]. 34.Seo, Y. J., & Um, K. H. (2023). The role of service quality in fostering different types of perceived value for student blended learning satisfaction. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 35(3), 521-549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09336-z

[35]. 35.Müller, C., Mildenberger, T., & Steingruber, D. (2023). Learning effectiveness of a flexible learning study programme in a blended learning design: why are some courses more effective than others?. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00379-x

[36]. 36.Andreucci-Annunziata, P., Riedemann, A., Cortés, S., Mellado, A., del Río, M. T., & Vega-Muñoz, A. (2023). Conceptualizations and instructional strategies on critical thinking in higher education: A systematic review of systematic reviews. In Frontiers in education (Vol. 8, p. 1141686). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1141686

[37]. 37.Golden, B. (2023). Enabling critical thinking development in higher education through the use of a structured planning tool. Irish Educational Studies, 42(4), 949-969. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03323315.2023.2258497

[38]. 38.Bhardwaj, V., Zhang, S., Tan, Y. Q., & Pandey, V. (2025, February). Redefining learning: student-centered strategies for academic and personal growth. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 10, p. 1518602). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1518602

[39]. 39.Hoque, K. E., Wang, X., Qi, Y., & Norzan, N. (2023). The factors associated with teachers’ job satisfaction and their impacts on students’ achievement: a review (2010–2021). Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01645-7

[40]. 40.Jinglong, L., Me, R. C., & Ahmad, F. A. (2024). Investigating smart product design elements through a conceptual framework in healthy diet monitoring system for diabetic elderly. In Y. G. Ng, D. D. I. Daruis, & N. W. Abdul Wahat (Eds.), Human factors and ergonomics toward an inclusive and sustainable future (Vol. 46, pp. 51–61). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60863-6_5

[41]. 41.Jinglong, L., Me, R. C., Ahmad, F. A., & Qisen, Z. (2024). Enhancing diabetic elderly health diet education through mobile application: an interdisciplinary conceptual framework. Intl. J. Rel, 5, 5309-5319. https://doi.org/10.61707/ah32h289

[42]. 42.Qisen, Z., Jamaludin, K. A., Nasri, N. M., & Jinglong, L. (2024). A conceptual framework for curriculum development utilizing the FCM module in a flipped classroom for music theory. International Journal of Religion, 5(11), 5125-5135. https://doi.org/10.61707/hk54ks06

[43]. 43.Ibrahim, R. (2008). Setting up a research question for determining the research methodology. ALAM CIPTA: International Journal on Sustainable Tropical Design Research & Practice, 3(1), 99–102.

[44]. 44.Tetteh, G. A., Adaku, E., Twumasi, J., & Amoako-Gyampah, K. (2023). Higher education governance, quality assurance, learning outcomes in higher education: A developing country perspective. International Journal of Higher Education and Research, 13(1), 1–23.

[45]. 45.Anh, T. V., Linh, N. T. M., Nguyen, H. T. T., & Duan, T. C. (2021). ISO standard application in university management model: A case study. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 11(4), 194-199. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2021.11.4.1511

[46]. 46.Wang, N., & Zhang, D. (2016). Issues related to Chinese private higher education. DEStech Transactions on Social Science, Education and Human Science, SEME 2016, Article 5422. https://doi.org/10.12783/dtssehs/seme2016/5422

[47]. 47.Gao, J. (2016, April). Study on Teacher Development of Shaanxi Private Universities" Double Hit Double Role". In International Conference on Education, Management and Computing Technology (ICEMCT-16) (pp. 222-226). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/icemct-16.2016.45

[48]. 48.Pasin, D. M., & Koch Delgado, H. O. (2017). Blended learning as a modality of active interaction and critical thinking: A teaching experience report in Brazil. TEXTO LIVRE-LINGUAGEM E TECNOLOGIA, 10(2), 87-105. https://doi.org/10.17851/1983-3652.10.2.87-105

[49]. 49.Solihati, N., & Mulyono, H. (2017). A hybrid classroom instruction in second language teacher education (SLTE): a critical thinking of teacher educators. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 12(5). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v12i05.6989

[50]. 50.Peng, M. Y. P., Wang, R. S., Liu, F. C., & Tuan, S. H. (2017). Multi-engagement, learning approach and student learning outcomes: Evidence from Taiwanese private university. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(7), https://doi.org/1137-1144. 10.13189/ujer.2017.050707

[51]. 51.Lozada, N., & Johnson, A. T. (2019). Perspective transformation in the supplemental instruction (SI) leader. Journal of Transformative Education, 17(2), 112-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344618774544

[52]. 52.Lamas, P., & Vargas-D'Uniam, J. (2016). Reflections levels in the portfolios of the Pre Professional Teaching Practice. REDU-REVISTA DE DOCENCIA UNIVERSITARIA, 14(2), 57-78. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2016.5680

[53]. 53.Jonathans, P. M., Widiati, U., & Sulistyo, T. (2025). Reflective Practice and Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Pre-Service Teachers: The Complexity of Sudden Onlineness. Mextesol Journal, 49(2), n2. https://doi.org/10.61871/mj.v49n2-12

[54]. 54.Kanduri, S., & Radha, B. (2023). Study on the impact of services offered on student satisfaction and the satisfaction led word of mouth by students pursuing management education. International Journal of Educational Management, 37(2), 526-538. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-04-2022-0158

[55]. 55.Xia, X., Feng, M., & Wang, S. (2023, March). Measuring College Students’ Satisfaction with the Teaching Effectiveness of Online English Courses Based on the IPA Model. In 2023 IEEE 12th International Conference on Educational and Information Technology (ICEIT) (pp. 238-242). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/iceit57125.2023.10107883

[56]. 56.Ikram, M., Kenayathulla, H. B., & Saleem, S. M. U. (2025). Unlocking the potential of technology usage in fostering education quality and students' satisfaction: a case of Pakistani higher education. Kybernetes, 54(3), 1938-1965. https://doi. org/10.1108/k-03-2023-0452

[57]. 57.Nhan, P. N. T., Lan, N. M., Hien, T. H., Phuong, N. T. T., & Phi, N. T. N. (2022). The Relationship between Online Learning and Student Satisfaction with Training Quality in Private Universities during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Education and e-learning Research, 9(1), 8-16. https://doi.org/10.20448/jeelr.v9i1.3660

[58]. 58.Alcalde, L. M. O., Taype, R. A., & Fuentes, M. O. P. (2025). Unlocking academic success through student satisfaction: The role of motivation, confidence, and psychological capital. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, Advance online publication. https://doi. org/10.5171.

[59]. 59.Ngoc, P. N. T., Thuy, P. N. T., Trong, N. P. N., Luan, T. D., Khuong, T. D., & Vinh, N. H. (2021). Impacts of Online Education on Teaching Quality and Satisfaction of Medical Students During COVID-19: A Case Study in a Private University in Vietnam. Education Quarterly Reviews, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.04.04.379

[60]. 60.Liang, M., Abdullah, M. K., & Wang, Q. (2025). The impact of work concerns on teaching effectiveness: a structural equation modeling and multiple regression analysis in Chinese private universities. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1661379. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1661379

[61]. 61.Hidayat, T., & Masdupi, E. (2023). The influence of transformational leadership, psychological capital and organizational support for work engagement. In P. Susanto et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the PICEEBA 2022 (Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, Vol. 250, pp. 487–502). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-158-6_44

[62]. 62.Arrona-Palacios, A., Okoye, K., Camacho-Zuñiga, C., Hammout, N., Luttmann-Nakamura, E., Hosseini, S., & Escamilla, J. (2020). Does professors' gender impact how students evaluate their teaching and the recommendations for the best professor?. Heliyon, 6(10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05313

[63]. 63.Eglantina, H., & Naqeeb, U. R. (2019). Assessing the teaching quality of economics programme: instructor course evaluations. Интеграция образования, 23(4 (97)), 556-567. DOI: 10.15507/1991-9468.097.023.201904.556-567

[64]. 64.Zaky, H. (2021). Peer Assessment for teaching quality of online writing classes in higher education: investigating learning styles’ impact. SN Social Sciences, 1(10), 251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00258-8

[65]. 65.Mezirow, J. (2015). Transformative learning. Challenging educational theories, 319.