Janardhana Gundla Palli^*, Rajasekhar Mamilla

Show more
Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, India.
Faculty of Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, India.
Show less

Abstract: This study attempts to examine the relationship between service quality dimensions and the level of student’s satisfaction with the quality of service provided in terms of reliability, assurance, tangibility, empathy and responsiveness. In public as well as in private sector the quality of education is an important factor that is considered for attracting and retaining the students who want to get higher education. Self-administered questionnaire was used in this study to collect the related data to establish the relationship between service quality and students satisfaction in higher education institutions. The sample consisted of 65 Arts students, 20 Science students and 35 Management students. Among them 62 are male and 58, female. The results show that students are satisfied with services in terms of their reliability, assurance, tangibility, and empathy but not much satisfied with responsiveness. The study revealed that the respondents who had studied self supporting course were more satisfied than the respondents who had studied different courses. In the overall satisfaction, the female respondents were more satisfied with service quality attributes of S. V. University than male respondents. Recommendations are made and guidelines for future research are also provided.

Keywords: Higher Education; Service Quality Dimensions; Students Satisfaction; Other Stakeholders

Cite this paper: Palli, J. & Mamilla, R. (2012). Students’ Opinions of Service Quality in the Field of Higher Education. Creative Education, 3, 430-438. doi: 10.4236/ce.2012.34067.

References

[1]   Alves, H., & Raposo M. (2010). The influence of university image on students’ behavior. International Journal of Educational Management, 24, 73-85. doi:10.1108/09513541011013060

[2]   Ali, N. A., & Zairi, M. (2005). Service quality in higher education. Working Paper Series, 5, 1-21.

[3]   Alride, S., & Rowley, J. (2001). Conducts a withdrawal survey. Quality in Higher Education, 7, 55-63. doi:10.1080/13538320120045085

[4]   APQN (2003). Association of Indian Universities. Weekly Journal of Higher Education, 50.

[5]   Bryan, W. A. (1996). What is quality management? New Directions for Student Services, 76, 3-15. doi:10.1002/ss.37119967603

[6]   Crawford, L. E. D., & Shutler, P. (1999) Total quality management in education: Problems and issues for the classroom teacher. The Internal Journal of Educational Management, 13, 67-72. doi:10.1108/09513549910261122

[7]   Dolnicar, S. (2004). What makes students attend lectures? The shift towards pragmatism in undergrtaduate lecture attendance. Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand marketing Academy Conference, Wellington.

[8]   Dalton, H., & Denson, N. (2009). Student evaluation: What predicts satisfaction? Proceedings of the 32nd HERDSA Annual Conference, Daarwin, 100-110. http://www.Education.Nic.in

[9]   Edstrom, K. (2008). Was doing course evaluations as if learning matters most. Higher Education Research and Development, 27, 95-106. doi:10.1080/07294360701805234

[10]   Hom, W. (2002). Applying customer satisfaction theory to community college planning of counseling services. URL (7 January 2004). http://www.ijournal.us/issue02/ijissue02wilardHom01.htm

[11]   Hasan, H. F. A., Ilias, A., Rahman, R. A., & Razak, M. Z. A. (2008). Service quality and student satisfaction: A case study at private higher education institutions. International Business Research, 1, 163-175.

[12]   Jacob, J., & Chestnut, R. W. (1978). Brand loyalty: Measurement and management. New York: Wiley.

[13]   Mahiah, S., Suhaimi, S., & Ibrahim, A. (2006). Measuring the level of customer satisfaction among employees of human resource division. Advances in global Business Research, 3.

[14]   Mircea, M., & Andreescu, A. J. (2010). Agile system development for the management of service oriented organization. The 11th International Conference on Computer System and Technologies, Sofia, 17-18 June 2010, 341-346.

[15]   Navarro, M. M., Iglesias, M. P., & Torres, P. R. (2005). A new management element of universities: Satisfaction with the courses offered. International Journal of Education Management, 19, 505-526. doi:10.1108/09513540510617454

[16]   Palacio, A. B., Menses, G. D., & Perez, P. J. P. (2002). The configuration of the university image and its relationship with the satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational Administration, 40, 486-505. doi:10.1108/09578230210440311

[17]   Sproule, R. (2000). Student evaluations of teaching: A methodological critique of conventional practices. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 125-142.

[18]   Shevlin, M., Banyard, P., Davies, M., & Griffiths, M. (2000). The validity of student evaluation of teaching in higher education: Love me, love my lectures? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 397-405. doi:10.1080/713611436

[19]   Spooren, P., Mortelmans, D., & Denekens, J. (2007). Student evaluation of teaching quality in higher education: Development of an instrument based on 10 Likert-scales. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32, 667-679. doi:10.1080/02602930601117191

[20]   Sawyer, R. G., & Thompson, E. (2003). Knowledge and attitudes about emergency contraception in university students. College Student Journal, 37, 523-529.

[21]   Shekarchizadeh A., Rasli A., & Hon-Tat, H. (2011). SERVQUAL, in universities: Perspectives of international students. Business Process Management Journal, 17, 67-81. doi:10.1108/14637151111105580

[22]   Wachtel, H. K. (1998). Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: A brief review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23, 191-212. doi:10.1080/0260293980230207

[23]   Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2-22. doi:10.2307/1251446

[24]   Zeithaml V. A., & Binter, M. J. (2008). Service marketing integrating customer focus across the firm (4 ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 108-109.