The declaration from the consultations in the Asia and Pacific regions succinctly states that:
Quality is a multi – dimensional concept and it is not possible to arrive at one set of quality standards applicable to all countries and against which institutions can be assessed. Quality embraces all the main functions and activities of higher education: teaching and academic programmes, research and scholarship, staffing, students, infrastructure and the academic environment. It can be implemented through comparisons between observed and intended outcomes, and constant analysis of the sources of dysfunction. Both internal self evaluation and external review are vital components of any well developed quality assurance system. The concept of accountability is closely allied with quality. No system of higher education can fulfill its mission unless its demand the highest quality of itself.
The approaches to the concept of the quality in higher education have included (http://portal.unesco.org/education):
- Quality as something distinctive or exceptional;
- Quality as excellence and maintenance of high standards, which assume that there are institutions that provide bench-marking criteria against which other institutions are measured;
- Quality as an educational process producing a standardized ‘quality product’ which relies on defined minimum threshold standards; and
- Quality as transformation, referring to the enhancement of the abilities of the students.
Higher educations have experienced dramatic changes, both their funding and in student numbers, so it is important now for institutions to acknowledge they are in “market” that greater focus on the value and quality of the education received by their student (Oldfield and Baron, 2000). Relying on models from business and marketing, many academic institutions have begun to view students as customers and themselves as service providers (Browne, Kaldenberg, Browne and Brown 1998; McCollough and Gemler, 1999).
The government has a strong basis for intervention to protect students as customers; therefore the public disclosure of the results of quality assessment can be seen as a tool to provide useful information for the efficiency operation of the higher education market (EUA, 2006). Information is particularly relevant in the case of the higher education that has three simultaneous characteristic (Dill and Soo, 2004):
- It is an ‘experience good’, meaning that its relevant characteristics can only be effectively assessed by consumption. It is only after a student starts attending classes that he forms a true idea of what he has got in terms of quality, professors, and educational experience.
- It is a rare purchase as a student in principle enrols in a single degree programme throughout his professional life. Therefore he cannot derive market experience from frequent purchases, as it would be the case of buying clothes or food.
- Opting – out costs are high, as changing to a different programme or institution is difficult and in general has high associated cost (Dill and Soo, 2004).
According to the SERVQUAL model developed by Zeithaml et al. (1990), customer expectations and perceptions in educational contexts are influenced by tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. Yeo (2008) using the model that proposed by Zeithaml et al to close the gap between the learned disparity between “expectation” and “perception”. According to Yeo (2008) the several possibilities caused the gaps in educational institutions are:
- Not knowing what customer expect. Institutions fail to be prepared for the shifting needs of their customers (students) in providing courses and programs that are relevant in subject matter and teaching approaches.
- Inadequate service quality standards. Institutions fail to grapple with the shortage of teaching staff when they constantly have to face the pressure of meeting increased enrolments. As such, class sizes are enlarged, stretching the instructor-student ratio.
- Service performance inconsistencies. Institutions fail to identify appropriate specifications that would meet customer’s expectations in terms of content, delivery and application.
- When promises do not mach delivery. Institutions tent to oversell their services, leading to exaggerated promises that misrepresent their actual potential and academic readiness.
- Level of tolerance ignored. Institutions fail to diversify the expectation levels of customers in a way that the shortcomings of one service can be offset by the strengths of another.
Samuel (1995) studied the quality of teaching programmes in higher education institutions. The objective of teaching and learning plans is to design and manage teaching operations to maximize effectiveness and efficiency while maintaining quality and flexibility. In this study, service specification forms an integral part of the SERVQUAL conceptual model of service quality used to measure tangible and intangible service elements by Parasuraman et al. This model investigates discrepancies or gaps to highlight target areas where quality may be improved. The benefits of service specification are wide reaching, and of significant use to all stakeholders including students. Students as the main customer of the service receive the following benefit:
- Specification provides a detailed breakdown of the aims and objective, syllabus, reading list and assessment format of module.
- Assessment of the student performance in non – quantifiable modules has objective criteria against which to measure student performance.
- Students who obtain the plan in advance may begin reading for the modules before the module commences.
- Students know what to expect of the service and can objectively perceive whether the service has been delivered in accordance with the specification.
Hill (1995) discusses aspects of current service quality theory in the context of British Higher Education. He conducted exploratory study which has monitored a group o student’s expectations and perceptions of service quality over time. The result suggested that:
- The need for Higher Education Organizations to gather information on students’ expectations – not only during their time at university, but at the point of arrival and, if possible, beforehand;
- The need to manage students’ expectations from enrolment through to graduation, in order to align them closely as possible with what can be delivered by way of service quality;
- The need for the student evaluation process, or upward appraisal, to be dealt with in a much more detailed, comprehensive and multi – focused way than tends to be case currently at many British Universities.
Holdford (2003) described the perceptual dimensions of student assessment of the quality of their education and linked those dimensions with student satisfaction. The result indicated that students considered all 5 dimensions (tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy) were important in determining satisfaction with their education, but the faculty members’ interpersonal behavior was considered as the most important.
Sahney, Banwet and Karunes (2004) conducted a gap analysis for the determination of service quality in education and identifying the design characteristics of a system that would meet the customer requirements of the student as an external customer. They found that there is a significant level of dissatisfaction among the students. The study suggested that there is a need for greater understanding of the relationship between customer requirements and design characteristic.
The study conducted by Smith, Smith and Clarke (2007) conducted a study to examine service quality Information Technology service department in a Higher Education Institute (HEI). It was found that the service quality gaps, student expectations are high for all five dimensions of service quality and student perception scores are all lower than the expectation scores. The poorest perceptions are of service reliability, followed closely by tangibles dimensions. The perception of assurance is the highest for students. The perception scores were lower than expectations all gap scores were negative indicating a shortfall in meeting student’s expectation across all dimensions. The greatest gap score between expectation and perceived level of service is in the reliability dimension, means reliability was the most important dimension for all customers (students and staff) and the greatest improvement in service quality would be achieved through improved service reliability.
Aghamolaei and Zare (2008) conducted a study to examine service quality of educational services. Respondents of the study were students of the Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences. The questionnaire measured students’ perceptions and expectations in five dimensions of service that consists of assurance, responsiveness, empathy, reliability and tangibles. The results demonstrated that in each of the five SERVQUAL dimensions, there was a negative quality gap. The least and the most negative quality gap means were in the reliability (- 0.71) and responsiveness (-1.14) dimensions. Also, there were significant differences between perceptions and expectations of students in all of the five SERVQUAL dimensions. Negative quality gaps means students’ expectations exceed their perceptions and indicated dissatisfaction. Thus, improvements are needed across all five dimensions. This study recommended that every university carry out a similar study so that a model more conformity will be produce for planning to improve educational service quality.
References:
Aghamolaei, T and Zare, S. (2008), “Quality Gap of Educational Services in Viewpoints of Students in Hormozgen University of Medical Sciences,” BMC Medical Education, Retrieved 16 March 2009 from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/8/34
EUA – European University Association (2006), “Embedding Quality Culture in Higher Education”, A Selection of Papers from the 1st European Forum for Quality Assurance, Retrieved 16 March 2009 from http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/Publications/EUA_QA_Forum_publication.pdf.
Baty, p. and Wainwright, T (2005), “Lecture’s off? I want my bus fare refunded,” Retrieved on 22 February 2009 from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk.
Browne, B.A., Kaldenberg, D.O., Browne, W. B., and Brown, D. (1998), “Student as Customer: Factors Affecting Satisfaction and Assessments of Institutional Quality.” Journal of Marketing For Higher Education, 8 (3), 1 – 14.
Dill, D. & Soo, M.,(2004), “Transparency and Quality in Higher Education Markets”, in Teixeira, P., Jongbloed, B., Dill, D. & Amaral, A. (Eds.), Markets in Higher Education: Rhetoric or Reality? (Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers), pp. 61-85.
Hill, F.M. (1995), “Managing Service Quality in Higher Education: The Role of the Student as Primary Consumer,” Quality Assurance Education, 3(3), 10 – 21.
McGraw - Hill Companies (2007, 13 Augusts). J.D. Power and Associates and McGraw-Hill Construction Report: Trane Ranks Highest among HVAC Manufacturers in Satisfying Contractors, Retrieved 26 December 2008 from http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2007135.
Olsen, S.O. (2002), “Comparative Evaluation and the Relationship between Quality, Satisfaction and Repurchase Loyalty,” Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (3), 240 – 249.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., Berry, L.L. (1988), "SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of quality", Journal of Retailing, 64 (1), 12-40.
Porter, R, Stephen. (2004), “New Direction for Institutional Research,” Wiley periodicals Inc, 121,5-21.
Samuel K.Ho. (1995), “A TQM Model for Higher Education and Training,” Journal Training for Quality, 3 (2), 25 – 33.
Wysocki, A.F, Kepner, K.W, and Glasser, M.W.(2009), “Customer Complaints and Types of Customers,” University of Florida IFAS Extension. Retrieved on 12 March 2009 from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/HR005.
Yeo, R.K. (2008), “Servicing Service Quality in Higher Education: Quest for Excellence,” Journal on the Horizon, 16(3), 152 – 161.
