The first question to be raised id how important is the feedback of the graduators in giving assessment to the quality of education. There is now doubt that education system is in interconnection with students’ feedbacks, since students are targeted audience there or customers in case the sector of education is seen through the prism of market relations. The quality is undoubtedly one of the most important factors to attract more students and to promote an educational establishment in higher education realm. For the purpose of estimation the SERVQUAL framework had been elaborated, which is a questionnaire used to measure students’ satisfaction in terms of five dimensions: reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy and responsiveness. The results of SERVQUAL are used to estimate impartially the impact of service quality on the level off students’ satisfaction. However, it can be stated in advance, that the higher is the service quality, the more willing are students to study.
Observations point out that nowadays the service quality draws tremendous attention of managers “due to its considerable influence on business performance, cost reduction, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty and profitability”. (Chang, T.Z., Chen, S.J., 1998) It increases the level of customers’ interest and in this very case the rating of a certain higher educational institutions on students’ choice list. The rating of a university depends on the number of variables. That is why the universities conduct researches and polls on the service quality to stay on the top list. A cluster of literature discusses the service quality. For instance, C. Gronroos stated: “service quality consists of two dimensions: technical quality and functional quality. Technical quality concerns the what the customer received from the service and can be measured similarly to the assessment of product quality. Functional quality concerns the process of evaluating the manner of delivering the service”. (Gronroos C., 2000) What influences service quality a lot is image of an institutional setting, which can make “customers” to deviate from estimating the service as favorable, neutral or unfavorable.
The actual developers of SERVQUAL – Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry – published the results of their researches in 1985. First, they identified ten dimensions that later were reduced to five. The ground for the idea was the hypothesis that “service quality results from subjective customer perceptions about the service and the actual performance of service”. (Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V.A., Berry L.L., 1985.)
Finally, five components were considered enough to estimate the quality. They are used worldwide to rate service quality and are given here according to Ç. Shpëtim:
Tangibles: physical facilities, equipment and appearance of personnel;
Reliability: ability to perform the promised service dependability and accurately;
Responsiveness: willingness to help customers and provide prompt service;
Assurance: knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire trust and confidence;
Empathy: caring, individualized attention that a firm provides to its customers. (Oeconomica.uab.ro)
When the criteria were first applied to higher education sphere, the students of US business schools unsatisfied with the quality of education took part in the research. The most important finding was students’ consideration of tangibles as the most important constituent of education. It means that students – especially foreign ones – expected not only qualified faculty, but also differentiation in approach i.e. teacher’s or mentor’s help. (Stewart K., Felicetti L., 1991)
For the stakeholders the results of the researches indicate poor segments that require improvements to make it possible to develop effective strategies with the aim to increase competitiveness of an educational setting.
Obviously, higher education is viewed as a kind of marketing relations. Higher institutional settings struggle for creating services that will meet the needs of the potential customers: students are treated as the primary consumers, since service performance and its quality strongly depends on customer satisfaction. (J. Douglas, A. Douglas & Barnes, 2006) Students’ expectations are compared with their perceptions of an institution and the feedback is collected and analyzed.
academics at my university are of professional character (Tangibility);
my university has advanced and modern facilities available for students’ use (Tangibility);
learning material in my university is interesting and easy to understand (Tangibility);
my university provides a wide range of support services to students (Assurance). (Essam, I., Lee Wei Wang, Abeer, H., 2013)
The aim was to indicate the gap between expectations and the real state of things and identify this gap as positive or negative. However, general results turned out to be unsatisfactory. According to these results, students are not satisfied staff’s responses and thus the stakeholders need to pay more attention to the issue.
This example is noteworthy for others educational settings, since the evaluation was conducted by foreign students. It has been stated by R. Mead: “cultural diversity provides several opportunities and challenges, which if they are analyzed carefully, may offer economic benefits”. (Mead, R., 2005) Higher education market elsewhere also incorporates both local and overseas students, and it is their feedback that will contribute to the international positive image of a higher educational institution.
A great the number of evidences has been already provided in favor of SERVQUAL based researchers aimed at improvement of standards of education and promotion of a higher educational setting. To acknowledge this, the statement in Cronin and Taylor’s research can be quote: “focusing on student satisfaction institutions will be able to adapt to student needs and monitor the delivery of services as a way of increasing student satisfaction”. (Cronin, J. J. Jr., & Taylor, S. A. 1992) Implementing SERVQUAL approach, stakeholders admit that educational institutions are also a kind of market where customers’ satisfaction with service quality is the most influential factor. The so-called offered product is learning resources, thus, they are the most important aspect, which influences customers’/students’ satisfaction. (Price, I., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L., & Agahi, H., 2003) In order to anticipate decrease of international status of an institutional setting, it is important for stake holders to be in touch with students’ changing opinion.
In the light of useful possibilities for improvements opened due to this approach, the degrading fact is that SERVQUAL offers only quantitative research that in practice may turn out to be slightly superficial. Since the quality of education is especially important, it seems to be irresponsible to relay only on general poll opinion. Some in-depth examinations should be launched in order to gather more consistent information.
References:
Chang T.Z., Chen S.J. (1998). Market orientation, service quality and business profitability: a conceptual model and empirical evidence, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 246-64.
Cronin, J. J. Jr., & Taylor, S. A. (1992) Measuring service quality: A re-examination and extension, Journal of Marketing, 56, 55-68.
Douglas, J., Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(3), 251–267.
Essam, I., Lee Wei Wang, Abeer, H. (2013). Expectations and Perceptions of Overseas Students towards Service Quality of Higher Education Institutions in Scotland, International Business Research Vol. 6, No. 6, 26. Retrieved from www.ccsenet.org/ibr
Gronroos C. (2000). Service Management and Marketing – A customer relationship management approach, Wiley.
Mead, R. (2005). International Management: Cross Culture Dimensions (3rd ed.) Blackwell.
Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V.A., Berry L.L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 41-50.
Price, I., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L., & Agahi, H. (2003). The impact of facilities on student choice of university. Facilities, 21(10), 212-22.
Shpëtim, Ç., (2012). Assessing the quality of higher education service using a modified SERVQUAL scale. Oeconomica.uab.ro. Retrieved from http://www.oeconomica.uab.ro/upload/lucrari/1420122/32.pdf
Stewart K., Felicetti L., 1991. Marketing a public university to international students, Journal of Professional Service Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 67-74
