Evaluation of Education is today a matter of great public concern. Public concern is based upon a new sense of the relationship between the quality of education and the future of any country. The debate on quality in education is not new. But the issue of quality in education implies never-ending adaptation and improvement. Berry and Rehman (1998) suggested that there is emerging evidence that schools could also benefit from the development of quality systems through their impact on a school’s capacity to provide services which support both individual and organizational learning.
Assessment of discourse of quality in educational enterprise is complex. The performance of an education system must be studied not only in the light of what it is at any given time, but also in terms of what it is becoming. And what an educational system does must be considered not only in relation to what it should be under ideal circumstances, but also in relation to what is possible in the actual circumstances.
There is no single test of quality education, and this study proposes none. This exploratory research pertinent to the existing situation, describes some of the characteristics of quality in education and to indicate certain essentials without which quality cannot be achieved. Hence, a better understanding of how customers from impressions of quality can provide valuable information to management for designing service delivery systems that enhance customer satisfaction (Seymour, 1992) and for adapting the university environment to the students’ needs (Hampton, 1993).
The Problem of the Study
The identification of the dimensions which signal quality and the achievement of excellence in education have emerged this decade as key issues confronting the academia. In fact, like many other organizations, educational institutes must be concerned now with return on investment, market share, productivity and the quality of services offered to the customers -- students and their parents.
Virtually, there is an increasing interest in the development of quality systems in all kinds of organizations by improving of key elements of the organizations. In education sector, the concept of quality service can lead to improvement and excellence in education and resultantly can have lasting effects on the institute and the students it serves. The best education, according to National Education Policy Commission (1998), is that which does most to enable each student to develop his abilities and to serve society. Education must therefore be appropriate to the needs of each pupil and to the needs of society. Glasser (1992) purports quality education is the only answer to our school problems. It is apparent, through this study, that students have thought about quality service and have a good idea of what, in their institute, is considered quality service in educational setting.
The problem of the study is, therefore, to gain information about the dimensions used by the students of graduate degree programs evaluating service quality and to identify which characteristics of the service delivering process are most significant in students’ perception.
Referring to work by Creemers, Peters and Reynolds (1989) and by Raudenbush and Willims (1991) state that recent research on the effect of schools on learning provides clear evidence that variations the characteristics of schools are associated with variations in student outcomes. Hawes and Stephens (1990) believe that quality is characterized by three inter-related and inter-dependent strands: (i) efficiency in meeting its goals, (ii) relevance to human and environmental conditions and needs, (iii) “something more”, that is the exploration of new ideas, the pursuit of excellence and encouragement of creativity.
Rust and Oliver (1994) maintain that all organizations (business, government, and education) are both product-and service-oriented, which makes the assessment of customer satisfaction difficult at best. Each of these organizational types has three measurable components. Firstly, the physical product itself, secondly, the service environment, and lastly, the service delivery system. Because education is both product and service producing, a demonstration of rating will have to focus on each of the three categories (Weller, 1996).
Babakus and Boller (1992) describe that the difficulties of defining and delimiting quality as it applies to intangibles, the measurement of service quality in specific service industries still remains a challenge. Parasuraman and his colleagues (1993) have undertaken the work to measure service quality across a broad spectrum of services. The service quality therefore is an elusive variable of education quality measurement mainly because of the unique features that differentiate services from goods. The authors (Parasuraman et al) conceptualize service quality to be a five dimensional construct consisting of tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy.
From a review of the services marketing literature, the service quality variables are identified. Gronross (1984) and Siraj (1999) point out corporate image as an important quality indicator for customers. Reputation is described as the consistency of an organization’s actions over time (Herbig et al, 1994). Hart (1988) explains that the reputation of a service firm is built, through the credible actions of management. Therefore, reputation is closely tied to image in that it affects customer expectations with regard to the quality of the service offering.
Bitner et al (1990) report that the human interaction component has an important effect on the customer’s evaluation process with regard to the service offering by any organization. The performance of contact personnel the personnel-customer interactions which take place during service delivery are important indicators of quality (Heskett, 1987). In this context, Cannon and Sheth (1994) and Shah (1996) stress the importance of building and maintaining relationship quality with the various stakeholder groups, which interact with the organization.
Ward et al (1989) explain that in the studies of faculty office designs, for example, students’ belief about the person occupy the office and their personality traits were found to be influenced by such cues as degrees or certificates on the wall, tidiness of office and desk placement. Physical layout has, therefore, a strong influence by such on employee motivations and the quality of the service encounter.
Shetty (1988) proposes management should convince faculty that concern for quality is part of their job and all contact personnel should be involved when setting goals and quality standards for the institution. Berry (1998) emphasizes that teamwork is considered the primary element of the quality management approach to quality organizations and represents the organizational structure on which the quality improvement process is based. Coate (1990) suggests for administrative personnel, management should start by setting quality standards for process-related variables such as course registration; students’ records keeping, and academic rules and regulations, which are easier to manage than the academic delivery of service.
The related literature on quality service also addresses the role of leadership in the development of quality culture, which ensure that the services provided by the organization meet or exceed the requirements of the customers of the organization. The importance of developing a shared vision in the implementation of quality management is very important and a primary responsibility of organization leaders (Quiqley, 1996; Hamid, 1999). Similarly, there is emerging evidence that leadership is a significant factor in the development of quality organizations (Blanton, 1991; Eddy et al, 1998). Meanwhile, taking interest by head of the educational institutes make sense in quality service not only in managing institutes and the classrooms but equally importantly to find out ways to facilitate learning -- core concern of any academia.
The review of the available literature provided the basis for an exploratory study of service quality in a education setting. Its purpose was to identify the significant dimensions used by students in their evaluation of the quality of education they received and to determine the importance of these dimensions in students’ evaluation process.
The review of literature pertinent to quality service of educational setting and interviews with seven focus groups were held with a total 42 students, provided the basis for developing the questionnaire used in this exploratory research. Students from graduate degree programs are the source for generating items of research instrument on how academic institutes can bring and improve the quality of their services they impart to their students. Moreover, the students as respondents of both sexes were selected through convenience sampling to survey.
The questionnaire contained 34 items corresponded different dimensions of service offering by the educational institutes. The items included in the research instrument were identified by the students. The items were measured on a 5-point, Likert-type scale that varied from 1 = much worse than expected to 5 = much better than expected. Each item of the questionnaire was assigned unit value of 1 through 5.
The students, 248 in number, from fourteen educational institutes who offer graduate and postgraduate degree programs were asked to respond the questionnaire. Students were asked to what degree the quality of the service offered by the institute corresponded to their expectations on the 34 variables concerning to service. The sampling, however, yielded 223 usable questionnaire forms.
The reliability checks of the items of questionnaire were tried out with a group of twenty-one students in a pilot run. To estimate the reliability of items by split-half procedure based on the full length responses, first Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) between the odd and even values of each item of the pilot run was computed, which correlated .91. A reliability on full test was .95 through Spearman-Brown formula. The variables therefore, retained for each dimension and calculated coefficient were considered acceptable.
Since the problem of the study was to identify the important dimensions used by students in their perception of the quality of education they received and to determine the importance of these dimensions in students’ evaluation process. Therefore, the results were generated through percentage analysis and presented in descending order.
Dimension 1 (D1), image and reputation of the institute, consists of innovation, institutional culture and institute’s contribution to the community. The image dimension gained maximum percentage value (86%). This factor relates to the institute’s capacity to position itself in the minds of its students and is closely associated with the image projected by the institute.
Reputation is related closely to the institute’s corporate image, and image is described as an significant determinant of perceived service quality by Gronroos (1984), Lethinen and Lethinen (1982) and Herbig et al (1994). The results of this study suggest a significant relationship between perceived quality and reputation, as being innovative, up to date, involved with the society and institute considers students’ needs seriously. Since image is built through the credible actions of the institute, management should therefore set quality standards for all components of the service delivery system of education to ensure that students’ expectations are met.
Creating a positive image of the institute on students, management of the institute should foster liaisons with the prospective employers, research agencies, government bodies, alumni, and dignitaries. This study recommends, since a strong image of the institute has been built, every employee of the institute should ensure that every step is taken to promote and maintain institutional standing in the community the institute serves.
Second dimension of the service quality was about the faculty. This dimension (D2) consists of items, which are related to the outlook of a professor, performance of the faculty members and their relationship with the students. In fact, contact with the faculty is perceived by the students, second most important factor to measure quality service of an academia. This dimension was valued as 83 percent. The contact of faculty with the students is proposed as an important quality indicator by Surprenant and Solomon (1985) and Crosby et al (1990).
It is evident, personal contact of the faculty members and able faculty seems important to inspire trust and confidence to students. The classroom needs to be stimulating place for children and that depends on quality teachers (Sawyerr, 1997). Moreover, caring attitude of the faculty towards their students may also influence quality service provided by the institute. Results of the study, therefore, reveal that faculty has a direct impact on perceptions of quality.
This study suggests that faculty members should feel the responsibility that concern for quality is part of their jobs. Faculty members should therefore enhance their professional qualifications, attend training courses, and learn effective teaching methodologies. Moreover, management should prepare teaching manuals, which outline quality standards to be adhered to in delivery of service to the students.
Third important factor of service quality perceived by the respondents was attitude of the administration towards the students. This dimension gained the value of 81 percent, is concerned with management’s ability to provide personal attention to students in a professional, good listening and caring manner. Parasuraman and his colleagues (1991), reported similar results to this evidence.
For administrative personnel, management should start by setting quality standards for service sector, related to processes and procedures. Students must be known to the academic rules and regulations through participants’ handbook, notifications and orientation programs. Treating students with dignity by the administrative staff gives a positive signal that students are valued. This study agrees with the research conducted by Madden (1997) that concludes students deserve to be managed through the use of strength rather than toughness. Employing not caring attitude brings out hardness in students.
Dimension 4, Curriculum, involves variables related to faculty’s capability to design scheme of study, which meet student needs. The awareness about breadth and depth of the curriculum have a direct bearing on institute’s quality service. The finding of this study support the research (Pennycuick, 1998) in the area of school effectiveness, specially, the impact of awareness about the course to be studied and student’s achievement.
The fifth dimension (D5), physical layout and access to facilities, identified as a potential determinant of service quality in a education setting. This research finds support from the research (Mwamwenda & Mwamwenda, 1987) that argues school facilities are integral to academic achievement. Dimension 5 (D5) represents with variables, which explain the tangible factors associated with the institute’s service delivery system and access to its facilities available for the students.
In addition, since students experience the services available to them at the campus and in the classroom, students therefore, can suggest improvement in the facilities. Management should realize that institutional climate has a direct influence on students’ satisfaction level. Hence, attention must be paid to appearance of the institute to ensure that students feel comfortable in the physical environments made available to them. In fact, physical environment and access to facilities speak about the institute’s intention and capacity to offer service in professional and organized manner.
Given the findings in this study, indicate that service quality is derived mainly from image, a dimension that is closely related to management’s capacity to enhance institutional climate directed at serving the needs of its students and to the reputation of the educational institute. Faculty and administrative staff, through their personal attention to students in a professional and caring manner, also influence quality. Other factors such as curriculum, physical layout and access to facilities are also significant quality factors. Accordingly, analyzing quality service perceptions for different segments can help management in the formulation of strategies, which promise to meet the specific expectations of the students of the academia.
Babakus, E. & Boller, G. (1992). An Empirical Assessment of the SERVQUAL Scale. Journal of Business Research. 24, 253-268.
Berry, G. (1998). A Quality Systems Model for the Management of Quality in NSW Schools. MCB Managing Service Quality. 8(2), 1-16.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B. & Tetreault, M.S. (1990). The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favourable and Unfavourable Incidents. Journal of Marketing. 54, 71-84.
Cannon, J.P. & Sheeth, J.N. (1994, Summer). Developing a Curriculum to Enhance Teaching of Relationship Marketing. Journal of Marketing Education. 3-14.
Coate, L.E. (1990). TQM at Oregon State University. Journal for Quality and Participation. 13, 90-101.
Creemers, B., Peters, T. & Reynolds, D. (1989). School Effectiveness and School Improvement. Rockland, Mass: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Eddy, J.P. (1998). Retaining Quality Students and Faculty: The Need for Refined Higher Education Leadership Policies and Procedures. The College Student Journal. 32(2), 222-227.
Glasser, W. (1992). The Quality Schools. NY: Harper Collins.
Gronroos, C. (1984). A Service Quality Model and its Marketing Implications. European Journal of Marketing. 18, 36-44.
Hamid, R.Q. (1999) Academic Institutes and ISO 9000 Certification. The Daily Dawn. June 18, 1999.
Hampton, G. (1993). Gap Analysis of College Student Satisfaction as a Measure of Professional Service Quality. Journal of Professional Service Marketing. 9,115-127.
Hart, C. (1998). The Power of Unconditional Service Guarantees. Harvard Business Review. 66, 54-62.
Hawes, H. & Stephens, D. (1990). Questions of Quality: Primary Education and Development. NY: Longman.
Herbig, P., Milewicz, J. & Golden, J. (1994). A Model of Reputation Building and Destruction. Journal of Business Research. 31, 23-31.
Heskett, J.L. (1987). Lessons in the Service Sector. Harvard Business Review. 87, 188-226.
Madden, L.E. (1997). A Call for Strength: How to Manage Students for a More Caring Society. Education. 118(2), 225-228 & 261.
Mwamwenda, T.S. & Mwamwenda, B.B. (1987). School Facilities and Pupil’s Academic Achievement. Comparative Education. 23(2), 225-235.
National Education Policy (1998-2010), Government of Pakistan, Islamabad: Ministry of Education.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. & Zeithaml, V. (1993). More on Improving Service Quality Measurement. Journal of Retailing. 69, 140-7.
Pennycuick, D. (1998). School Effectiveness in Developing Countries: A Summary of the Research Evidence. London: Department for International Development.
Quiqley, J.V. (1996). Vision: How Leaders Develop it, Share it, and Sustain it, in The Quality Year Book – 1996. NY: McGraw-Hill. 232-241.
Raudenbush, S.W. & Willims, J.D. (1991). Schools, Classrooms and Pupils: International Studies from a Multilevel Perspective. NY: Academic Press.
Rehman, I. (1998). Quality Education and Society. The Daily Dawn. June 30, 1998.
Rust, R.T. & Oliver, R.L. (1994). Service Quality: Insights and Managerial Implications from the Frontier, in Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice. NY: Sage.
Sawyerr, H. (1997). Quality Education: One Answer for Many Questions. The Progress of Nations – 1997. NY: UNESCO.
Seymour, D.T. (1992). On Q: Causing Quality in Higher Education. NY: Macmillan.
Shah, R.A. (1996). Total Quality Management and
the Universities. The Daily Dawn.
April 20, 1996.
Shetty, Y.K. (1988, Spring). Product Quality and
Competitive Strategy. Business Horizons.
34-38.
Siraj, A.H. (1999). The Rationale for Acquiring ISO-9001 Certification of PAF Air War College. The News. November 15, 1999.
Weller, D. Jr. (1996). Return on Quality: A New Factor in Assessing Quality Efforts. The International Journal of Educational Management. 10(1), 30-40.
* Professor, Educational Administration & Associate Dean (Academic Planning & Quality Assurance), Institute of Leadership and Management, Lahore, Pakistan, Tel: (92-42) 5882640, 5882940, Fax: (92-42 5865802, Email: [email protected], Website: www.ilm.edu. The author possesses 20 years of hands-on experience in the field of Educational Management concerning to: Teaching, Institutional Headship, Faculty Development, Administration, Consultancy and Research. And Development of Undergraduate, Graduate, Postgraduate, Executive and Doctoral Level Academic Programs. The research interests are in the areas of leadership behaviors and institutional effectiveness.